F By Walter George Smith ROM the advent of Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire, during the centuries of political destruction and reconstruction until the modern nations of Europe took form, there was practically, no absolute divorce recognized in their polity, either of the Empire or of the nations into which its territory was divided. The European world accepted, without qualification, the rule of Scripture as interpreted by the Church, until the religious division of the sixteenth century. By this rule, divorce with right to remarriage was forbidden. The only relief to an innocent and injured spouse under intolerable conditions was separation without sundering the matrimonial bond. When Divorce was Unknown The teaching of a new doctrine, taking from matrimony its sacramental dignity and placing it among merely human institutions, was one of the first consequences that followed the rejection of ecclesiastical authority. But, except in a few sporadic cases that have attained notoriety by reason of the prominence of the parties involved, it may be said that, until very recent times, divorce was unknown among the masses of the people in any nation whose civilization was based on Christian principles. In America, even in Colonial days, and especially in New England, legislative divorces were occasionally granted, and in all of the states, with the exception of South Carolina, divorce laws were enacted from an early day after the Revolution, and a certain percentage of people took advantage of them; but it was so small a proportion as to be insignificant. In social life among all classes of people, the practice was held in aversion so marked that even the innocent party who had remained unmarried was hardly tolerated. United States Leads The last two generations have brought about a change so portentous in its actual and possible consequences that it has arrested world-wide attention. In all countries where absolute divorce is permitted the cases have shown extraordinary increase and the United States leads the Constant familiarity has lessened, to a record, exceeding all others save Japan. great degree, popular antipathy; for, except in very flagrant cases, social caste is not materially affected by the known fact that one has been even the guilty party in that class of cases which is euphemistically called "statutory," in contra-distinction to those that do not imply gross infidelity to the marriage vow. Evidently a social revolution threatening the destruction of monogamous marriage is going on, and achieving results with incredible speed. The tendency is accelerated by the teaching of professors from the lecture chair, and by writers of books. The natural sympathy to ward women, which has nowhere been more marked than in America, welcomes any teaching which professes to ameliorate the burdens nature has designed her to bear, and the individualistic theories, which put her intellectually upon the same plane with man, tend to the general acceptance of conclusions. that, in other and comparatively recent times, would have been rejected with indignation. The attitude of Socialism towards monogamic marriage and the institution of the family is shown by extracts from the writings of founders and protagonists of that body of doctrine in the first issue of this magazine.* The effort to weaken respect for the institutions of marriage and the family is one of the most marked signs of the social revolutionist, whether his propaganda be advanced from the rostrum or from the professor's chair. Power of Popular Sentiment. It is obvious that the statutes of a State, whose basis is democracy, must in the long run be responsive to prevailing. popular sentiment. Constitutional limitations wisely protect the majority as well as the minority from passionate and ill-considered laws, allowing time to cool excitement and a better perspective to permit a more adequate appreciation of ultimate consequences. It must be conceded, therefore, that the vastly preponderating majority of the American people favor absolute divorce, where circumstances have arisen or developed subsequent to the marriage, which defeat the purpose for which ostensibly it was entered upon. The four centuries that *Would Socialism Destroy the Family? have elapsed since the rude blow was given to the belief in a supernatural sanction of marriage, have been slow in producing their logical consequences; but at last they have come. Modern conditions, which have taken an ever-increasing number of women from domestic life and have forced them to compete with men for a livlihood, have given greater acceptance to the new contention. This consists in the falsity of the biblical and Christian belief that the man is the head of the woman and that her sphere is essentially domestic. Ignoring the lessons of history and experience, the new idea would lower the spiritual and emotional element of human nature by forcing upon woman a position in the struggle for existence for which she is not endowed, either physically or intellectually. Yet the eager longing of the American heart to put woman in a place where, at least to some extent, what seems to men an injustice of nature, may be lessened if not eliminated, has given force to the public sentiment that is responsible for the divorce statutes; and, until bitter experience shows that injury to her is certain to follow, they are likely to remain. Is Success Impossible? Is the situation, then, one which should make those who believe in the ancient ideals of the indissolubility of marriage and the sanctity of the family hopeless of success in securing reform. of the divorce laws? By no means. Let it be shown that, even upon the theory. on which they are based, the divorce laws are productive of results which are illogical and confusing, perhaps even those who believe in absolute divorce under certain conditions will be content to have the anomalies removed. This will not reach the root of the evil, but it will at least mitigate some of its worst features, and lead to consideration that may restrict the cases. This has been the plan adopted by those who are seeking to reform the divorce laws-composed, for the most part, of men who believe absolute divorce to be a necessary remedy for the evils of ill-assorted marriage, but including others who are opposed on religious, as well as social or sociological, grounds to any absolute divorce. Efforts have been directed towards the formulation of a law so fair and reasonable in its jurisdictional and procedural features that it is hoped it will eventually be accepted in all of the States. At present, with each State of the Union a sovereignty so far as this. question is concerned, we find the jurisdictional laws so divergent that it may, and often does, happen that a divorce, in all respects legal and regular in the State where granted, is null in another State the unhappy result being that one may be a legitimate wife or husband in one State and not so in another; it can be readily seen what misfortune to children and perplexing complications of property rights are likely to follow such an anomalous condition. tially the same; and there need be no confusion or injustice arising from diversity of causes, so long as the courts are restricted, in taking jurisdiction, to those who are clearly bona fide citizens of the State in which the suit is brought. Where the laws make it possible to extend the jurisdiction over a husband or wife, who is not and most often never has been a resident either really or technically of the State of the court, they need revision. However much the citizen of South Carolina, where no divorce is permitted, or of New York where for one cause alone, may regret what he considers the decadence of a community like Washington, where there are ten or more causes, he has no right to complain so long as his status in his own State is unaffected; but, if the laws of Washington or Nevada permit jurisdiction over him and serve him by publication, he may find his status very seriously affected when he goes beyond the borders of his own State. Uniform Divorce Congress. In 1906, on the invitation of the Governor of Pennsylvania, issued under the authority of an Act of Legislature of that State, a congress composed of delegates from all but two of the States and from the District of Columbia and the territory of New Mexico, assembled in Washington and adopted certain principles, embodied at a subsequent meeting held during the same year at Philadelphia, in a form of bill since known as the Uniform Divorce Bill. This bill, composed of provisions taken from existing statutes of various States, has so far been accepted in its entirety only in Delaware, New Jersey and Wisconsin. A study of its provisions will show it to be admirably designed to eradicate the evils of migratory divorces and to make the divorce, when granted, a judicial act that will carry with it recognition wherever it may be pleaded. This act has been approved by the Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State laws, and has met with favorable criticism from those competent to form an intelligent opinion on the subject with which it deals. Its slow progress is accounted for, partially by the opposition of certain elements of the legal profession who find their profit in existing conditions, and partly by the popular apathy on the general subject, however intense the interest in a specific case. What the Act Will Do. But, even when adopted, the Uniform Act will not materially abate the number of divorces. While the atmosphere of the divorce court is surcharged with suspicion of collusion and other fraud, a study of statistics shows that, in an overwhelming majority of cases, the court has regularly obtained jurisdiction by reason of the matrimonial residence, and the regularity of the proceedings is not open to question. The judges do their best to protect the interest of the "third party" to the proceedings-the community at large-as well as those of the parties litigant. While the Uniform Act seeks, by stringent provisions, to give a better opportunity for the prevention of fraud, especially by the requirement that a year shall elapse between a decree on the merits and the final decree of absolute divorce, it is obvious that, so long as any laws permit divorce with the right of remarriage, means will be found to meet their most severe requirements. It would seem, then, that nothing but the moral education of the community will preserve the family. At present there is a widespread belief that the stamp of legislative authority is all that is needed to differentiate the moral from the immoral; but the principles of justice are anterior to all human legislation and do not change with the shifting currents of popular belief. It is undoubtedly true, as has been more than once stated by competent students, that divorce is a symptom rather than a disIt shows, in good truth, a retrogression from the lofty ideal of the family, based on monogamic marriage, towards the promiscuity or, at best, polygamy from which society has painfully emerged. Until Until the world can be brought back to its old time Christian. attitude towards marriage we must endure the divorce evil, but we may palliate its consequences by adopting the legislation embodied in the Uniform ease. Law. Practical Knowledge Shown. There is a mistaken impression, in some quarters, that the provisions of this law are the emanation of academic thought not based on practical knowledge and experience; but, in point of fact, those who are responsible for it included some of the ablest judges upon the bench, as well as lawyers of experience and good judgment. All of its provisions are drawn from existing statutes, the value of which have been tested in the States where they are in force. Divorce cases were originally only of ecclesiastical jurisdiction under the common law of England. At first, the legislative assemblies of some of the colonies, notably in New England, assumed the right exercised by the Parliament of Great Britain to pass special divorce bills. After the Revolution, general statutes were adopted. All of these statutes are based upon the assumption that the status of marriage is one of public concern. Therefore it can neither be entered into nor dissolved without the sanction of the community as shown. by legislative enactment. The Contract to Marry. Divorce cases differ from all other suits, either at law or in equity, for they are not founded upon breach of contract in any of its forms. The contract to marry is merged in the marriage. Thereafter the status of the parties is fixed and they cannot change that status without the consent of the State, based upon grave public reasons, and specifically enumerated in the statutes. Each State, however, has the exclusive power of determining the status of its own citizens. each being a sovereignty in the matter of divorce. It is evident that the scandals of migratory divorces, to which reference has already been made, are the inevitable consequence of differing jurisdictional and procedural laws. Everyone may be supposed to have an opinion more or less defined upon the subject of divorce. The more radical opponents of the heretofore accepted principles of civilization take the view. that marriage differs, or should differ, in no respect from any civil contract; that it may be entered into at the will and be dissolved at the will of the parties. If such people be asked what is to become of the children of dissolved marriages, they are apt to reply that all children should be wards of the State and, in an ideal condition of society, when the family has been broken up, the State will care for them. It is not thought that theories so extreme are held by any significant body of intelligent people. The great mass who favor divorce regard it as surgery for the ills of marriage, as has been said by a recent writer, and to be resorted to only in desperate cases. It is to be regretted that, as a first step towards reform, the Uniform Act has not received such study from the public at large as its merits demand. Indeed the fact of its existence and of the Congress which drafted it have so far been overlooked or forgotten that, during the last session of Congress, various bills were introduced for the calling of a new congress on divorce to do over again the work they had completed in 1906. These bills were the outcome of a feeling of indignation because of the marriage of a divorced citizen of a State. where the sole ground is adultery in the face of a decree forbidding remarriage. This decree was of no effect, since he had only to cross the borders of the State of his residence, be married, and return without being subject to any penalty or question as to the validity of his new marriage. Obviously, some amendment of the laws of the State of residence, to enforce a sanction for their violation, is called for. Marriage Annulment The Uniform Divorce Law deals with annulment of marriage, with absolute and with limited divorce. It provides a rule governing jurisdiction and the subject of full faith and credit to be given decrees when granted. Annulment of marriage must be distinguished from divorce. Such a decree establishes the fact that, from its inception, the mar |