AMERICAN DIVORCES.

Marlborough Express, Volume XXXIX, Issue 134, 9 June 1906, Page 4

AMERICAN DIVORCES.

STARTLING DECISION OF '; SUPREME COURT. THOUSANDS OF REMARRIAGES' INVALID. NEW YORK, April 17. ' The United States Supreme Court has rendered a decision which not only makes "easy" divorce impossible in the future, but invalidates thousands of remarriages. The court decrees that a resident m one State cannot secure divorce from a resident in another State. Consequently, the "popular" system whereby a wife could obtain a decree in South Dakota, after living in that State for a specified number of days, is shattered, and hundreds ot "divorce" lawyers are deprived ot large incomes. Divorces have been granted in increasing numbers every year. ' In New York they increased from 202 in 1895 to 843 in 1904; in Chicago,! from 1145 in 1895, to 2350 in 1904; in Philadelphia/from 364 in 1895, to 614 in 1904; while other cities show a pi^iportionate . increase during the past ten years. Every State has divorce laws of more or less elasticity. Those of South Dakota are so generous that the majority of aggrieved husbands and wives who could afford the railway fare and hotel expenses have journeyed there from all parts of the Union in order to acquire a divorce by legal residence. EASY TERMS. j South Dakota allows a divorce after six months' residence for cruelty, one year's desertion, one year's neglect, one year's habitual drunkenness, physical incapacity, or for felony. Scores "of South Dakota lawyers have devoted themselves exclusively to divorce cases. They have advertised in newspapers all over the country offering special "cut rates" to clients. In some cases they have even combined with hotel proprietors, and offered a divorce for an "inclusive" fee, which covered hotel accommodation for the requisite period, railAvay fare, and all legal expenses. South Dakota towns have consequently accommodated hundreds of prospective "divorcees" every year. There is a club at Pierre, the capital of the State, composed exclusively of Avives from other States, who are completing their six months' residence before obtaining a divorce. "Have you got your decree?" has long been a recognised form of salutation in the best divorce circleu of South Dakota. There have been numerous instances of husbands "acquiring residence" for divorce falling in love with wives who wore in South Dakota for the same purpose, the sequel to the two"decrees being another marriage ceremony. But- under the new ruling of the Supreme Court these marriages are not only invalidated, but in future petitioners for divorce will be forced to abide by the laws of the State in which they are domiciled with their wives.

DISTINCTIONS. For exapmle, a wife living with her husband in Wilmington, Delaware, where desertion for three years is essential before a divorce can be granted on grounds of desertion, can no longer go to South Dakota, where desertion for one year is sufficient, and secure a divorce. In the vast majority of cases, where there are no great fortunes or social considerations involved, it i« probable that the divorces already granted will be allowed to stand until sufficient time has lapsed to make them legal accord ing to the statutes of the State h which the parties are domiciled. Nevertheless, many wealthy American families arc to-day facing a serious situation, since the children of the first marriage are already resenting the re-marriage of their parents, and the consequent wider distribution of family property. It seems unlikely that they will resist the temptation to illegitimates and disinherit their half brothers and sisters born since the second marriage. The families thus affected include some of the best known people in New York, Boston, and the West, as well as several prominent British families. In these instances, the husband or the wife has been divorced after domicile "artificially" acquired in another State, and has since re-mar-ned. A total of 20,000 children are said to be involved in this decision.