AMERICAN DIVORCES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13193, 2 June 1906, Page 2 (Supplement)

AMERICAN DIVORCES.

STARTLING DECISION OF SUPREME •COURT."

THOUSANDS OF REMARRIAGES

INVALID

20,000 CHILDREN AFFECTED. New York. April 17.—Consternation has been caused in all ranks of society In the ! final appeal decision of the United States [ Supreme Court in the divorce case of Haddock versus Haddock. This was a ease where the parties were married in the State of New York in 1868. The husband subsequently acquired a domicile in Connecticut, under the laws of which State'he obtained a divorce in 1881, remarrying there in the following year. « On the first. wife's suit the New York State Supreme Court declared the divorce invalid, pronounced her to be still Mr. Haddock's legal wife, awarded her maintenance, amd declared his second marriage to be illegal 011 the grounds that the grounds on which the Connecticut divorce was granted were insufficient cause for divorce according to the laws of New York. It was the final appeal against this judgment which the United States Supreme Court has now decided. By a majority of five judges against four the court upheld the New York judgment, on the ground that Mrs. Haddock was outside the Connecticut court's jurisdiction. The effect of this decision is far-reach-ing. It not only ends the easy divorcemill business carried on in such. States as South Dakota, but retrospectively invalidates thousands of inter-State divorce decrees, rendering subsequent remarriages illegal, and bpijtnrdising it is ..■estimated twenty thousand- children of such marriages. Besides this it creates in many cases questions of succession- to great properties and estates, the many families affected being among the richest, in the land. Hereafter a divorce decree is only obtainable under the laws of the defendant's domiciliary State. The court cannot grant the plaintiff relief unless it possesses jurisdiction over the defendant. A marriage bond' made in one State cannot be dissolved in another except for causes recognised' in both. A wife married in New York, where only infidelity is recognised as a cause for divorce, csiunot' be divorced in Rhode Island, where desertion is sufficient. The decision does not interfere with [friendly divorces where the respondents formally accept jurisdiction, but there are thousands of' cases which have awaited this decision. ENGLISH FAMILIES, AFFECTED. During fifteen years scores, of divorces have been granted under the easy laws of South Dakota) and Rhode Island' to members of the most prominent families,.' Dakota especially enjoying brilliant winter seasons while society people- .were spending six months qualifying for domicile. There is still some uncertainty regarding the validity Of decrees where the petitions were undefended, but the lawyers believe that even such decrees are invalid; unless judisdiction was formally established. Mamy interstate divorces have been followed by remarriages of European interest. For instance, Mrs. T. Suffern Tailor obtained a divorce ill Dakota, subsequently marrying the Hon. Cecil Baring. Similarly Mrs. Flora Bigelow Dodge, daughter of John Bigelow, obtained a Dakotan divorce and remarried the Hon. Lionel Guest. An enormous -list could be compiled of prominent American persons affected. Mrs. Ogilvy Haiig, Mrs. Astor's daughter, obtained a-' New Jersey .divorce" from her former husband, Mr. Drayton. Mrs. Burke Roche obtained a Delaware divorce. Mrs. Woodbury Kane divorced Mr. Duncan Elliot in Rhode* Island, and Mrs. Henry Turn bull, who remarried Judae Gray, Mrs. Fernando Yznaga, formerly Miss' Mabel Wright, who •remarried Count Zicliv, and Mrs. W. D. Scott, formerly the wife of Mr. Roland P. Molineux, are in the same case. Mrs. Speyeiy of London, formerly Mrs. Leonora von Stosch Howland, is also affected. '* ' '■ " r ' It does not necessarily follow, however, that each of these cases where inter-State divorce" has been followed by remarriage is on all fours with the Haddock case. In some jurisdiction may be established or sufficiently admitted, but much' uncertainty exists. It is suggested that to meet the difficulty special 'Acts of Legislature • will be necessary to declare the legitimacy of children unless new divorce suits are begun by consent. Then the children might be legitimatised by the remarriage of, their parents. MR. WALDORF ASTOR'S FIANCEE. The press freely discusses other wellknown divorce cases. One of the most notable cases mentioned is that of Mrs. Nannie Langhorne Shaw, who is soon to marry young Mr. Waldorf Astor, as already announced in our columns. After her marriage she went to live with her husband, Mr. Robert Shaw, in Boston,, and the State of Massachusetts became their marital demicile. When they separated she returned to her father's house in Virginia, and there obtained a divorce, Mr. Shaw being in Europe at the time. Mr. Shaw married again several years ago. Another striking case is that of Mrs. Flora Bigelow Dodge, who went to South Dakota and there obtained a decree, although that State never had 1 been the marital domicile for herself amd her husband. Since then she has married the Hon. Lionel Guest, of England. Divorce, at the present time is rather popular in the States. Indiana, for example, reports one divorce to seven marriages, Maine reports one to six, Massachusetts one to sixteen, Michigan one to eleven, and so i on Varying grounds for divorce and the j lack of uniformity in the divorce law hsrve produced the present tangle, which will probably result in a strong demand for the establishment of order and harmony in the. regulation of a most vital institution and the blotting out of ai notorious public scandal.