Part 3 — CHAPTER XVII A CENTURY AND A QUARTER OF DIVORCE LEGISLATION IN THE UNITED STATES, 1776-1903 (continued 2)

The history of divorce in Georgia has already been brought down to 1849, when resort to the assembly was finally forbidden. By the act of the next year specific causes for either kind of divorce are for the first time enumerated. After obtaining the concurrent verdict of two juries a total divorce may be decreed for (1) intermarriage within the Levitical degrees of consanguinity; (2) mental incapacity or (3) impotency at the time of the marriage; (4) force, menace, or duress in obtaining the marriage; (5) pregnancy of the woman at the time of the marriage by another man without the husband's knowledge; (6) adultery in either of the persons after marriage; (7) wilful and continued desertion for the term of three years; (8) conviction of either spouse of an offense involving moral turpitude, under which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for two years or longer. Besides these, certain "discretionary" grounds are approved. In case of cruel treatment or habitual drunkenness on the part of either, the jury in its discretion may determine whether the divorce shall be absolute or limited. A general clause declares that all grounds other than those named in the act shall "only be cause for divorce from bed and board." In case of adultery, desertion, cruel treatment, or intoxication, a decree may not be granted when there is collusion or both parties are guilty of the same offense.[209] At the beginning of the century, the law of 1850, so far as the causes of full divorce and the discretionary grounds are concerned,[210] is still in force; while, in addition, the present statute simply authorizes a separation from bed and board on "any ground which was held sufficient in the English courts prior to the fourth of May, 1784."[211] By the existing constitution the superior court still has jurisdiction; and for total dissolution of wedlock the concurrent verdicts of two juries at different terms of the court are essential to a decree.[212]

The grounds on which marriage may be annulled or dissolved were in 1803 first defined for the region of Alabama by the territorial assembly. The courts having equity jurisdiction were then authorized to grant total divorce for (1) intermarriage within the forbidden degrees; (2) natural impotency of body; (3) adultery; (4) "wilful, continued, and obstinate desertion, for the term of five years." Bigamous marriages were, of course, void from the beginning. Separation from bed and board was allowed on the sole ground of extreme cruelty in either of the parties; but in neither kind of divorce was a decree permitted where there was proof of collusion.[213] In 1820, the year after the admission of the state to the Union, the circuit courts gained jurisdiction and were given power to render decrees of total divorce, subject to legislative appeal, on the following grounds: I. In favor of the husband: when the wife (1) is "taken in adultery;" (2) has voluntarily left his bed and board for the space of two years with the intention of abandonment; (3) has deserted him and lived in adultery with another man. II. In favor of the wife: when the husband (1) has left her during the space of two years with the intention of desertion; (2) has abandoned her to live in adultery with another woman; (3) when his treatment of her is "so cruel, barbarous, and inhuman as actually to endanger her life."[214] The provisions of this act were considerably modified in 1824;[215] but in 1832 they were restored, except that the period of abandonment for either partner was then fixed at three years.[216] A new cause was sanctioned in 1843, a total divorce being then allowed for pregnancy of the wife by another man at the time of the marriage, if without the husband's knowledge or consent;[217] and habitual drunkenness on the part of either was added to the list in 1870.[218]

The basis of the existing law of Alabama was laid in the act of 1852, although important additions to the causes were subsequently made. The court of chancery now has power to grant a divorce from the bond of wedlock according to the following complex scheme: I. In favor of either spouse: (1) when at the time of the contract the other is "physically and incurably incapacitated from entering into the marriage state;" (2) for adultery; (3) for voluntary abandonment for two years; (4) for imprisonment in any state penitentiary for two years, the sentence being for seven years or longer; (5) for a crime against nature; (6) for "becoming addicted after marriage to habitual drunkenness."[219] II. In favor of the husband: for pregnancy of the wife, as provided in 1843. III. In favor of the wife: "when the husband has committed actual violence on her person, attended with danger to life or health, or when from his conduct there is reasonable apprehension of such violence." The chancellor is further authorized to decree a separation from bed and board for cruelty[220] in either of the consorts, or for any cause which will justify a decree from the bonds of matrimony, if the person applying therefor desires only a partial divorce.[221]

The law of March 10, 1803, beginning the history of divorce legislation for Alabama, applies also to Mississippi during the territorial stage; and, five years after the state was erected, its provisions, so far as they relate to the causes and kinds of divorce, were re-enacted in 1822.[222] In 1840 the time of desertion to warrant a total divorce was shortened from five to three years.[223] Ten years thereafter it was provided that any person already having a separation from bed and board may, by application to the chancery court of the district or the circuit court of the county where he resides, and producing a transcript of the decree, be divorced from the bond of matrimony. For the future the same privilege is extended to each of the parties to a partial divorce when they "have lived separate and apart from each other for the term of four years."[224] By a statute of 1858 this term is reduced to three years; and only those who have thus lived apart after partial separation are now allowed to petition for the entire dissolution of the marriage bond.[225] But in 1860, apparently to meet special cases, a law provides simply for a divorce a vinculo where the persons, prior to the act, have lived apart in the state four years without collusion.[226] A peculiar cause, a product of the Civil War, appears in 1862. The wife is then allowed a complete divorce when her husband is in the army or navy of the United States or resides in one of the United States in preference to one of the states of the Confederacy.[227] By a statute of 1863 a second marriage is valid when the first spouse has been five years absent; and such spouse is to be presumed dead in any question of alimony arising under the second marriage.[228] In 1867 any citizen marrying out of the state, whose spouse commits adultery before his return to the state, may after such return apply for a total divorce, provided he has not cohabited after discovery of the offense.[229] The causes of separation from bed and board, which had remained unaltered since 1803, were extended in 1857. A partial divorce is then allowed for habitual drunkenness, as well as for extreme cruelty in either person; while the wife is granted the same relief whenever the husband, being of sufficient ability, wantonly and cruelly fails to provide for her support; but a decree for partial separation shall in no case bar the right to full divorce from the bond of wedlock.[230] A very important relaxation in the law takes place in 1871. The two causes of partial divorce just mentioned—habitual drunkenness and cruel treatment—become grounds for total divorce; and the term of desertion is shortened from three to two years.[231]

By the present code of Mississippi, therefore, limited divorce is not authorized. But courts having chancery jurisdiction may decree entire release from the marriage bond to the injured person (1) for natural impotency; (2) adultery, except by collusion or where there is cohabitation after knowledge of the offense; (3) sentence to the penitentiary when there is no pardon before imprisonment begins; (4) wilful continued, and obstinate desertion for two years; (5) habitual drunkenness; (6) "habitual and excessive use of opium, morphine, or other like drug;" (7) habitual cruel and inhuman treatment;[232] (8) insanity or idiocy at the time of the marriage, if the party complaining did not then know of the infirmity; (9) previous marriage with some other person; (10) pregnancy of the wife by another man at the time of the marriage, the husband being ignorant of the fact; (11) intermarriage within the degrees of kindred prohibited by law.[233]

The first statute defining the grounds of divorce for Missouri was approved in 1807 by the legislature of Louisiana Territory. Either a full or a partial divorce was then authorized when either person (1) is naturally impotent; (2) has entered into the marriage in violation of a "previous vow;" (3) has committed adultery; or (4) has been guilty of wilful and malicious desertion, without a reasonable cause, for four years. The general court may likewise grant the wife a separation from bed and board when the husband shall either abandon his family or turn her "out of doors, or by cruel and barbarous treatment endanger her life, or offer such indignities to her person as to render her condition intolerable and thereby force her to withdraw from his house or family."[234] This law remained in force until 1833, when "extreme cruelty" and conviction of an "infamous crime" were added as causes warranting either the husband or wife to petition for absolute divorce.[235] The number is raised to seven by the revision of 1835, which is silent as to partial divorce; for "indignities" to the person of either such as already described are now made a legal ground for entire dissolution of marriage.[236] Vagrancy[237] of the husband and habitual drunkenness of either for the space of two years came next in 1845; and four years thereafter the introduction of two more causes completed the full quota of eleven grounds on which total divorce is still allowed by Missouri law. The act of 1849 authorizes a divorce to the man when the woman at the time of the marriage, or when it was solemnized, was pregnant by another person without the intended husband's knowledge; and to the wife, when the man prior to the marriage or its solemnization had been convicted of a felony or infamous crime without the woman's knowing it when the marriage took place. The benefits of this cause may now accrue to both persons; otherwise no essential change in the statute has been made for half a century.[238]

In Florida, since 1828, divorce may be sought only by bill in chancery; and, since 1885, the equity courts have had exclusive jurisdiction, granting only complete dissolution of the marriage bond,[239] although in that state separate maintenance is equivalent to separation from bed and board. The causes now sanctioned are: (1) intermarriage within the forbidden degrees; (2) natural impotence of the defendant; (3) adultery in either party; (4) excessive cruelty; (5) habitual indulgence in violent and ungovernable temper;[240] (6) habitual intemperance; (7) wilful, obstinate, and continued desertion for one year; (8) a divorce obtained by the defendant in any other state or country; (9) having a husband band or wife living at the time of the marriage; (10) incurable insanity.

The Louisiana code of 1808 provides for the annulment of marriage on legal grounds; and allows separation from bed and board (1) for adultery of the wife; or (2) for that of the husband "when he has kept his concubine in their common dwelling;" (3) when either has been guilty of excesses, cruel treatment, or outrages toward the other, if the ill-treatment is of such a nature as to render their living together insupportable; (4) on account of a public defamation by one of the married persons toward the other; (5) for abandonment; or (6) an attempt upon the life of the other by either spouse.[241]

In 1827 the "district courts throughout the state and the parish court of New Orleans" were given "exclusive original jurisdiction in cases of divorce," with appeal to the supreme court. They were authorized to grant total divorce (1) for adultery of the wife; or (2) for that of the husband "when he has kept his concubine in the common dwelling, or openly and publicly in any other;" (3) for excesses, cruel treatment, or outrages, as conditioned for separation in 1808; (4) condemnation of either married person to an "ignominious punishment;" (5) abandonment for five years when the offender has "been summoned to return to the common dwelling," as is provided for in cases of separation from bed and board. It is, however, especially declared that, except when the cause is adultery or ignominious punishment, no full divorce shall be granted "unless a judgment of separation from bed and board shall have been previously rendered," and unless two years shall have thereafter expired without reconciliation. But in the two cases excepted above a "judgment of divorce may be granted in the same decree which pronounced the separation from bed and board."[242] The fifth cause approved in 1827 was supplemented by a new ground in 1832. Whenever either spouse is charged with an infamous crime and is a fugitive from justice beyond the state, a total divorce may be claimed by the other, without need of a previous decree of separation, on producing evidence of the actual guilt and flight of the accused.[243] "Habitual intemperance" on the part of either husband or wife was added to the list in 1855;[244] and in 1857 the time which must elapse between the decrees for partial and full divorce was reduced to one year.[245] An "omnibus" clause comes next in 1870, complete dissolution of wedlock being then permitted "for any such misconduct repugnant to the marriage covenant as permanently destroys the happiness of the petitioner;" but it was repealed in 1877.[246]

For the sake of convenience, the present law of Louisiana covering the grounds of divorce—whose evolution was thus completed in 1870—may now be summarized. Absolute divorce, without need of a previous decree of separation, is permitted where the husband or wife may have (1) been sentenced to an infamous punishment; or (2) been guilty of adultery.[247] A limited divorce, which may be followed in each case by a total divorce after one year, is authorized (1) for adultery on the part of either spouse; (2) when the other party has been condemned to an infamous punishment; (3) on account of the habitual intemperance of one of the married persons; (4) excesses, cruel treatment, or outrages of one of them toward the other; (5) for public defamation; (6) for abandonment on the part of one of the married persons; (7) for an attempt of one of them against the life of the other; (8) when the husband or wife has been charged with an infamous offense and shall have fled from justice, on producing proof of the actual guilt or flight.[248] An important modification was made in 1898. The person in whose favor a limited divorce has been rendered may apply and get a full divorce in one year, while the adverse party must wait two years before fore he can secure a similar decree, in the meantime the wife's right to alimony remaining unimpaired.[249]

The divorce legislation of the "Republic of Texas" has remained in force with little modification to the present hour. The district courts still have jurisdiction. By the act of January 6, 1841, a marriage may be declared null and void for impotency; and absolute divorce may be granted as follows: I. In favor of the husband: (1) when the wife is guilty of adultery; or (2) has left his bed and board for three years with the intention of abandonment. II. In favor of the wife: (1) when the husband has left her for three years with like intention; or (2) has abandoned her and lived in adultery with another woman. III. In favor of either spouse for excesses, cruel treatment, or outrages toward the other, if the ill-treatment is of such a nature as to render their living together insupportable.[250] These three groups appear unaltered in the present code; and there is added the following: IV. In favor of either husband or wife, "when the other shall have been convicted, after marriage, of a felony and imprisoned in the state prison; provided, that no suit for divorce shall be sustained" because of such conviction "until twelve months after final judgment," nor "then if the governor shall have pardoned the convict;" and provided also that the conviction has not been obtained on the testimony of either spouse.[251]

The grounds of divorce recognized in the statutes of Arkansas have been in force since 1838. The circuit courts may now grant total or limited divorce for the following causes: (1) when either spouse was at the time of the marriage and still is impotent of body; (2) when either deserts the other and remains absent one year without reasonable cause; (3) when a former spouse was living at the time of the marriage; (4) when either is convicted of felony or other infamous crime; or (5) shall be addicted to habitual drunkenness for the space of one year; or (6) shall be guilty of such cruel and barbarous treatment as to endanger the life of the other; or (7) shall offer such indignities to the person of the other as shall render his or her condition intolerable; (8) when subsequent to the marriage either person has committed adultery.[252]

By act of Congress,[253] certain general laws of Arkansas, including those of divorce, are extended to the Indian Territory; so the causes just enumerated are there in force.[254] Limited divorce does not exist in Oklahoma; but in that territory the district court may grant full dissolution of wedlock (1) when either person had a spouse living at the time of the marriage; (2) for abandonment during one year; (3) for adultery; (4) for impotency; (5) "when the wife at the time of the marriage was pregnant by another than her husband;" (6) for extreme cruelty; (7) for fraudulent contract; (8) for habitual drunkenness; (9) for gross neglect of duty; (10) for conviction and imprisonment in the penitentiary for a felony after marriage.[255]

"Arizona, from 1871-77, in addition to six ample reasons for divorce, had an 'omnibus clause' in operation which is a marvelous piece of legislation." "Whereas," we are told, "in the developments of future events, cases may be presented before the courts falling substantially within the limits of the law, as hereinbefore stated, yet not within its terms, it is enacted, that whenever the judge who hears a cause for divorce deems the case to be within the reason of the law, within the general mischief the law is intended to remedy, or within what it may be presumed would have been provided against, by the legislature establishing the foregoing causes of divorce had it foreseen the specific case and found language to meet it without including cases not within the same reason, he shall grant the divorce." Well was this called, continues Richberg, "the 'seventh wonder' of Arizona's divorce code."[256]

A later statute, somewhat more cautiously, allows the district court to decree a total divorce (1) when the husband or wife is guilty of excesses, cruel treatment, or outrage toward the other, whether by the use of personal violence or any other means; (2) in favor of the husband when his wife shall have been taken in adultery; or (3) when she has voluntarily left his bed and board for the space of six months with the intention of abandonment; (4) in favor of the wife when the husband has left her for the same time with a like motive; (5) for his habitual intemperance; (6) for his wilful neglect to provide the necessaries or comforts of life during the same period, having sufficient ability, or failing to do so by reason of his idleness, profligacy, or dissipation; or (7) when he shall be taken in adultery; (8) in favor of either spouse when the other has been convicted after marriage of a felony and confined in any prison. Suit on the last-named ground cannot be sustained until six months after final judgment, nor when the husband or wife was convicted on the testimony of the other.[257] This law is superseded by the act of 1903. Absolute divorce may now be granted on complaint of the aggrieved for (1) adultery; (2) physical incapacity; (3) conviction and imprisonment for felony, provided that suit may not be sustained until one year after judgment and that conviction has not been had on the testimony of either spouse; (4) wilful desertion for one year, or for habitual intemperance; (5) excesses, cruel treatment, or outrages, whether by the use of personal violence or any other means; (6) to the wife for the husband's neglect for one year to provide her with common necessaries of life, having the ability, or his failure to do so because of idleness, profligacy, or dissipation; (7) to either for the other's conviction of felony before marriage without the innocent person's knowledge; (8) to the husband when without his knowledge the wife was pregnant by another man at the time of the marriage.[258]

In New Mexico the district courts may grant absolute divorce for (1) abandonment; (2) adultery; (3) impotency; (4) when without the husband's knowledge the wife at the time of the marriage was pregnant by another man; (5) cruel and inhuman treatment; (6) to the wife for the husband's neglect to support; (7) habitual drunkenness; (8) conviction and imprisonment for felony subsequent to the marriage.[259] Separation a mensa et thoro does not exist; but in the laws of 1884 there is a curious provision, which seems designed, in a truly patriarchal spirit, to soothe domestic ills and check matrimonial transgressions through intervention of the local magistrate. One is left in little doubt as to the right ideal of family life, being assured that "the duties and relations that should exist between married persons are the following, to wit: The husband is the head of the family; he, nevertheless, owes fidelity, favor, support, and protection to the wife; he should make her a participant in all the conveniences he enjoys; he should show her the utmost and every attention in cases of sickness, misfortune or accident, and provide for her the necessaries of life according to his condition and ability; and the wife owes fidelity and obedience to the husband; she is obliged to live with him and accompany him to such place as he may deem proper and advantageous to make his residence." So when any difficulty arises on account of failure in any of these things, the injured person may go before the justice of the peace in his "precinct and make complaint demanding judicial action." Then the magistrate "shall forthwith dispatch his compulsory writ directing the party defendant immediately to appear to such complaint; both parties being present, it shall be the duty of the justice to endeavor to effect a reconciliation, the first of which endeavors he shall enter on record upon his docket, affording the parties a reasonable opportunity; but if after having so done, the person making the complaint does not agree, the justice shall then proceed to try the matter in a summary manner, provided always, that the reasons for disagreement are simple, such as non-fulfillment" of the duties above set forth. In "case of conviction he shall cause the delinquent to act as required by the laws of the conjugal relation;" and when there is resistance he "may order that such person be confined in the county jail, there to remain until he comply with those duties by which both the husband and wife were mutually bound." Furthermore, it is especially provided, that when any persons are thus put in jail "for an infraction of duty" and fail to "furnish their own provision," the sheriff may "dispose of their services for their maintenance." Should, however, the trouble "arise from adultery, or cruelty, or ill temper, rendering the life of the consort insecure, the justice ... shall, after due investigation send the case up to the district court which shall take cognizance of and try the same;" and "whenever a temporary separation occurs between husband and wife in order to bring suit before the district court, the justice of the peace will provide how the family shall be cared for, and will immediately report to the probate judge of the county, so that the latter may provide for the care of the minors, their support and education, as also for the wife, in case she be the injured party, during the controversy or until otherwise provided for by the district court."[260] It is not, perhaps, surprising that this whole subject is omitted from the compilation of 1897.

By the code of Porto Rico the district court has jurisdiction. Partial divorce is not recognized; but marriage may be dissolved, on the petition of the aggrieved, for (1) adultery; (2) conviction of felony, which may involve the loss of civil rights; (3) "habitual drunkenness or the continued and excessive use of opium, morphine, or any other narcotic;" (4) cruel treatment or gross injury; (5) abandonment for one year; (6) "absolute, perpetual, and incurable impotence" occurring after marriage; (7) the "attempt of the husband or wife to corrupt their sons or to prostitute their daughters," or connivance of either in the same; (8) the proposal of the husband to prostitute the wife.[261]

The experience of South Carolina is peculiar. After abstaining from any legislation on the subject for two hundred years, that state indulged in a conservative divorce statute in 1872. Hitherto the courts were competent only to grant separation from bed and board under the common law. By the act in question they were empowered to pronounce decrees of absolute divorce in favor of either spouse (1) for adultery and (2) for abandonment[262] during the space of two years.[263] But this law was of short duration, being repealed in 1878.[264] South Carolina legal sentiment on the divorce problem is fairly revealed in connection with two important decisions during the century. Commenting on the case of Vaigneur et al. v. Kirk, decided in 1808, Editor Desaussure contrasts the laxity of the marriage laws with the stringency of the rule relating to divorce. "The subject of marriage, and consequently the legitimacy of children, is on the same loose footing in this state that it was in England before" 1753[265] and as "it now is in Scotland. We have no statute regulating marriages, or providing any form for the celebration of them, or for recording them. And they are usually celebrated in any form the parties please, before a clergyman or magistrate." This "remarkable facility of contracting matrimony ... is strongly contrasted with the impracticability of dissolving the contract. No divorce has ever taken place within the state. The legislature has uniformly refused to grant divorces, on the ground that it was improper for the legislative body to exercise judicial powers. And it has as steadily refused to enact any law to authorize the courts of justice to grant divorces a vinculo matrimonii, on the broad principle that it was a wise policy to shut the door to domestic discord, and to gross immorality in the community."[266]

With this view harmonizes the opinion of Justice Pope in McCreery v. Davis rendered in 1894. While separation from bed and board—the only form of divorce obtainable in the state—"is a judicial barrier to any attempt to exercise the rights or enforce the duties of the parties affected by the judgment, yet the courts are only too willing to have the parties restored to their original status quo, upon good cause shown. While the remedy is a hard one, and to a certain extent interferes with the operation of the laws of nature, still woman must be protected! After all, an unbending adhesion to the laws of right living has a healthy effect upon the lives of others. If self-denial is thus necessitated, it should not be forgotten that many natures are perfected through its beneficent influence. True philosophy would extract good from every condition.... By art. IV, sec. 15, of our constitution, the courts of common pleas have exclusive jurisdiction in all cases of divorce, and by art. XIV, sec. 5, divorces from the bonds of matrimony shall not be allowed but by the judgment of a court as shall be prescribed by law. Thus the general assembly is denied the power to grant divorces directly, but is permitted to clothe the courts of common pleas with that power. This last they have refused to do by repealing the act of 1872;" and thus "we have the common law restored to us on this subject."[267]

Finally it may be noted that the supreme court of the District of Columbia has exclusive jurisdiction in all applications for either full or partial separation. Until recently a divorce from the bond of wedlock might be granted (1) when either spouse had a husband or wife living at the time of the contract, "unless the former marriage had been lawfully dissolved and no restraint imposed" on further marriage; (2) when the marriage was contracted during the lunacy of either party; (3) when either was matrimonially incapacitated at the time of the marriage; or (4) has since committed adultery; (5) for habitual drunkenness for a period of three years; (6) for cruel treatment endangering the life or health of the complainant; or (7) for wilful desertion and abandonment for two years. A divorce from bed and board was allowed (1) for cruel treatment endangering life or health; or (2) "reasonable apprehension, to the satisfaction of the court, of bodily harm."[268] A new and drastic law was passed in 1901. Hereafter absolute divorce will be granted only for adultery, the guilty person not being allowed to remarry. Legal separation from bed and board may be obtained for (1) drunkenness, (2) cruelty, or (3) desertion. Only residents may bring suit for divorce; and unless the applicant has for three years been a bona fide resident, no decree will be granted for a cause occurring outside the District before such residence began.[269]

c) Remarriage, residence, notice, and miscellaneous provisions.—Throughout the century, and especially during the first half, many of the southern states have been conservative, even severe, regarding the liberty of the person offending to remarry after full separation; but in very few cases is any restraint put upon the further marriage of the person in whose favor the decree is granted. The divorce acts passed by the assembly of Virginia sometimes expressly forbid the guilty person to contract further wedlock during the lifetime of the former spouse.[270] The law of 1848, when the marriage bond is dissolved on account of infidelity, authorizes the court in its discretion to allow both parties to remarry or only the injured person, as may seem just.[271] Such substantially is the present law. "In granting a divorce for adultery, the court may decree that the guilty party shall not marry again; in which case the bond of matrimony shall be deemed not to be dissolved as to any future marriage of such party, or in any prosecution on account thereof. But for good cause shown, so much of any decree as prohibits the guilty party from marrying again, may be revoked and annulled at any time after such decree, by the same court by which it was pronounced."[272] No restraint appears to be put upon the immediate remarriage of persons separated for other causes.

The early statutes and the decrees for full divorce in individual cases passed by the assembly of Maryland, by their silence on the subject, appear to contemplate the further marriage of the persons at pleasure. The law of 1872, however, is somewhat conservative. "In all cases where a divorce a vinculo matrimonii is decreed for adultery or abandonment, the court may, in its discretion," forbid the guilty party to "contract marriage with any other person during the lifetime" of the injured spouse, the bond of marriage not being dissolved, but remaining in full force with respect to such offender.[273] This restriction is now omitted from the code.[274] In the District of Columbia the guilty person may not remarry except with the former spouse.[275]

Formerly the law of North Carolina was stringent in this regard. The act of 1814 permits the "complainant or innocent person" to "marry again as if he or she had never been married;" leaving us to infer, perhaps, that the defendant was not allowed such liberty.[276] In 1828 it is squarely enacted that "no defendant or party offending, who shall be divorced from the bonds of matrimony ... shall ever be permitted to marry again."[277] This rule stands in sharp contrast with the policy of the later law. First the prohibition was restricted to the lifetime of the aggrieved.[278] Next, in 1869, the term was reduced to two years.[279] From 1871 to 1895 no check whatever was put upon the further marriage of either spouse, whether guilty or innocent;[280] but now in case of wilful desertion the guilty defendant may not rewed in five years, or during the lifetime of the plaintiff, if divorced for the eighth cause above considered.

The Georgia statute approved in 1806 allows remarriage when a contract is nullified under the principles of ecclesiastical law; but denies the privilege to the person whose "improper or criminal conduct" is the cause of an absolute divorce, so long as the innocent consort lives.[281] This rule long remained in force;[282] but under the existing code a rather peculiar procedure is adopted. The jury according to whose final verdict a decree of absolute divorce is granted determines the rights and disabilities of the parties, including the question of remarriage, subject to the revision of the court; but provision is made for subsequent removal of the disabilities thus imposed. On proper application, notice of which must be published in a newspaper for sixty days, with twenty days' personal notification to the other divorced person if still living and residing in the county, the question of granting relief is submitted to a new jury, "who shall hear all the facts, and if, in their judgment, the interest of the applicant or of society demands the removal of such disabilities," shall so find; and the person relieved shall then be allowed to form a second marriage as if no former contract had ever existed. At the trial the divorced person or any citizen of the county may resist the application; but should no person appear for this purpose, then "the solicitor-general shall represent the state, with full power to resist the same, as in ordinary divorce cases."[283]

By the Tennessee statute of 1799 no restraint is put upon immediate remarriage in any case of divorce, except where the cause is infidelity, when the guilty defendant may not marry the person with whom the crime was committed during the lifetime of the former spouse.[284] This provision still appears unchanged in the code.[285] The offender is dealt with in precisely the same way by the Kentucky law of 1809; and by it also the injured spouse is permitted to marry again only after two years.[286] In 1820 the innocent person is relieved from all restraint;[287] both parties are treated as "single" persons in 1843;[288] and likewise by the present statute, in all cases of divorce, no matter what the cause, guilty and innocent alike are absolutely free to form new marriages whenever it shall please them so to do.[289] The same freedom exists in Arizona, New Mexico, Arkansas, Indian Territory, Texas, West Virginia, and Missouri; although in the last-named state until 1885 the guilty defendant was not permitted to remarry for five years, "unless otherwise expressed in the decree of the court."[290] Since 1857, in Mississippi, by a more stringent clause "the decree may provide, in the discretion of the court, that a party against whom a divorce is granted because of adultery shall not be at liberty to marry again;" but the freedom of the successful plaintiff is unrestrained.[291] In 1824 the Alabama assembly in all cases forbade the guilty person to remarry; but this prohibition was removed by an act of February, 1870, which, however, lasted only until April, 1873, when it in turn was repealed. By the existing code the chancellor in making his decree may, according to the evidence and nature of the case, direct whether the party, against whom the decree is rendered, shall be permitted to marry again; and in decrees now or hereafter rendered, when no order is made allowing or disallowing the divorced person to remarry, he may on petition and proper proof allow or disallow the petitioner to form a new marriage.[292] It is constituted bigamy in Oklahoma for either divorced person to remarry within six months after the divorce, or until thirty days after final judgment, if appeal be taken. Every decree of divorce shall recite that it "does not become absolute and take effect until the expiration of six months" from the day when it was rendered.[293] According to the Louisiana law, since 1808—at least until 1888—the wife cannot remarry until ten months after dissolution of the contract, whether by death, divorce, or decree of nullity.[294] In case of divorce for infidelity the offender may not marry his or her accomplice; and this last provision has been in force since 1827.[295] Under the same conditions as in Louisiana, the woman in Porto Rico may not marry during a period of three hundred and one days after dissolution of the marriage, or until a child is born if she be pregnant at the time of the husband's death.[296] By the criminal code of Florida, apparently, the guilty party may not rewed.[297]

In all of the southern and southwestern states, except Louisiana and, of course, South Carolina, a short term of residence is required to qualify the plaintiff to bring suit. Virginia began with a fairly cautious act in 1848. A definite term is not fixed; but a petition for divorce must be brought in the court of the county, city, or town where one of the parties lives, and when the plaintiff has left the county or other place where the married persons dwelt together, the "suit shall be instituted and heard in the court" held for that same county, if the defendant lives there still. The benefits of the act do not extend to any save bona fide citizens at the time of petition; nor to any case where the parties have never lived together as citizens and as married persons in the commonwealth; nor to any cause of adultery which shall have occurred in any other state or country, unless the parties at the time of such cause or before it took place were citizens of the state and lived there together as husband and wife.[298] By the present law no suit can be sustained unless one of the persons has been domiciled in the state for at least one year before; and it must be brought either in the county or corporation where the parties last cohabited, or, at the option of the plaintiff, in that of the defendant, if still a resident of the state; otherwise in the place where the plaintiff dwells.[299]

The same rule as that of the parent state has existed in West Virginia since 1882, when a year's residence of one of the persons instead of mere residence at the time of the filing of the suit was introduced.[300] In Georgia twelve months in the state and six in the county for a divorce of either kind are required.[301] By the laws of Kentucky and Arkansas the term of previous residence for the plaintiff is also one year; and if the cause for divorce arose or existed without the state, he must have been a resident of the state at the time, unless it was also a ground of divorce where it existed or arose. In each of these states "an action for divorce must be brought within five years next after the doing of the act complained of."[302] In Alabama, when the defendant lives outside the state, the plaintiff must have been a bona fide resident for one year before bringing the action; or for three years when abandonment is the cause alleged.[303] Since 1822 in Mississippi the term of residence in the state for the applicant has been one year;[304] although, in 1857, a divorce shall be denied when the parties have never lived together as husband and wife in the state; as also for a cause occurring elsewhere, unless prior to its occurrence they have so dwelt together in the commonwealth. This last restriction does not apply to a bona fide citizen who marries abroad and does not discover the cause of divorce until after return to the state; but in case of desertion the term of bona fide residence must be three years.[305] An important change was introduced in 1863. It is then sufficient to be a citizen of the state or a resident of it for one year; but the applicant must make affidavit that he has not taken up residence to obtain a divorce.[306] By the existing code the courts of chancery may exercise jurisdiction only (1) when both persons are domiciled in the state when suit is commenced; or (2) when the complainant is so domiciled and the defendant is personally served with process in the state; or (3) when one of the consorts is thus domiciled and one or the other of them an actual resident for one year before action began.[307]

The time of residence for the petitioner is three years in the District of Columbia; and two years in Florida.[308] It is also two years in Tennessee, although the acts complained of were committed out of the state, or the petitioner lived out of the state at the time, and no matter where the defendant resides. A decree of divorce in a foreign state granted to a citizen of Tennessee who has merely temporarily transferred his residence there is void and will not be recognized.[309] In Maryland, since 1842, a divorce will not be granted when the cause occurs outside of the state, unless either the plaintiff or the defendant has resided in the state for the two preceding years.[310] By the North Carolina act of 1814 a stringent rule was adopted, only a citizen resident in the state for three years being allowed to sue.[311] At present the plaintiff must show that the facts constituting the ground for divorce have existed for at least six months prior to filing the complaint, and that he has been a resident of the state for the preceding two years; and if the wife be plaintiff, she may set forth "that the husband is removing or about to remove his property and effects from the state, whereby she may be disappointed in her alimony."[312] But in case of desertion the term of previous residence is five years. The period of previous residence for the plaintiff is six months in the state and county in Texas;[313] one year within the territory in New Mexico, Arizona, and Oklahoma;[314] while in Missouri it is one year, unless the offense or injury complained of was committed within the state, or when one or both of the persons resided there. In all cases when the proceedings are ex parte, the court "shall, before granting the divorce, require proof of the good conduct of the petitioner and be satisfied that he or she is an innocent or injured" person.[315] In Arkansas and Indian Territory the plaintiff must "allege and prove" (1) "residence in the state for one year next before the commencement of the action:" (2) that the cause of divorce occurred or existed in the state, or, if out of the state, either that it was a legal cause there or that the applicant's residence was then in the state; (3) that the cause of divorce occurred or existed within five years before the suit began.[316] One year's residence is likewise required in Porto Rico, unless the act complained of was committed in the island or while one of the consorts resided there.[317]

A few of the states under consideration have adopted special provisions governing notice to the defendant. Thus in Louisiana, "when the defendant is absent, or incapable of acting for any cause, an attorney shall be appointed to represent him, against whom, contradictorily, the suit shall be prosecuted."[318] In North Carolina, if personal service cannot be made, the court may order service by publication, as in any other actions.[319] By the law of Tennessee, process is authorized as in chancery cases. If the wife is the petitioner, the suit may be heard and decided without service, either personal or by publication, if the bill was filed and the subpoena placed in the hands of the sheriff of the county in which the suit is instituted three months before the time when the subpœna is returnable; but the officer having the subpœna shall execute it if he can.[320] In New Mexico service of process can be made by publication after obtaining an order from a judge of the supreme court, based on an affidavit showing the present residence of the defendant, if known, or last known place of residence, and efforts made to ascertain the present residence. The order for publication shall direct that a copy of the summons be mailed to the present or last known residence of the defendant, and may direct such other means of bringing the action to the knowledge of the defendant as the judge shall deem proper.[321] Until recently Florida had a still different law. If the defendant is absent from the state, so that ordinary process cannot be served, or, if served, he cannot be compelled to appear and answer or plead, the court may order a hearing on the bill, a copy of such order to be published in some public newspaper of the state, for the space of three months at least, or for a longer time, if the court shall so direct, or a copy of the bill and order for the hearing, certified by the clerk of the court, shall be actually served upon or delivered to the defendant at least three months before the day fixed for the hearing, or for a longer time, as the court may determine. The present statute, however, directs simply that process be served as in other chancery suits.[322] This is the rule also in Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Indian Territory; likewise in Georgia when the defendant is a non-resident; and in Alabama, where, if the defendant is a non-resident, publication is essential.[323] In the District of Columbia process is according to the usual course of equity and the rules adopted by the court. Missouri requires process as in other civil actions; and this is the law in the remaining states and territories of the group.[324]

The miscellaneous provisions are much the same as in the other parts of the United States. Usually, in case of divorce, the legitimacy of the children is expressly acknowledged.[325] Sometimes provision is made for trial by jury, as in Georgia, Texas, and North Carolina;[326] or it is carefully forbidden, as in Kentucky;[327] and the law may permit the woman to resume her maiden name, as in Arkansas, Kentucky, Indian Territory, Oklahoma, Mississippi, and the District of Columbia.[328] Furthermore, in the District of Columbia, a disinterested attorney must be assigned to resist the decree in uncontested cases, or in any suit when the court sees fit;[329] and similar laws exist in Louisiana and Kentucky. Arbitration in place of judicial divorce is prohibited in Louisiana;[330] the married persons are allowed to be witnesses in Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina,[331] and formerly in Florida; and occasionally provision is made for the annulment of the decree by further process before the courts.[332]

d) Alimony, property, and custody of children.—The statutes of these states contain the usual provisions for the protection and support of the wife and children during the suit for divorce; and sometimes the husband is required to furnish money to defray the wife's expenses in the same. The Virginia law authorizes the court in term or the judge in vacation to make an order compelling the "man to pay any sums necessary for the maintenance of the woman and to enable her to carry on the suit, or to prevent him from imposing any restraint on her personal liberty, or to provide for the custody and maintenance of the minor children" during the litigation. In the same way steps may be taken to preserve the estate of the husband, "so that it may be forthcoming to meet any decree," even compelling him to give security to abide by the decision.[333] North Carolina also grants the wife alimony pendente lite; but an order allowing it shall not be made "unless the husband shall have had five days' notice;" and in all cases of application for alimony it is admissible for him to be heard by affidavit in answer to the allegations made by the complainant. If he has abandoned his wife and left the state, or is in parts unknown, or is about to remove or dispose of his property for the purpose of defeating her claims, a notice is not required.[334] Arkansas and Indian Territory allow similar support during the suit, including attorney's fees.[335] By the Louisiana statute, "if the wife who sues for a separation" from bed and board, or for a divorce, "has left or declared her intention to leave the dwelling of her husband, the judge shall assign the house wherein she shall be obliged to dwell until the determination of the suit." She "shall be subject to prove her said residence as often as she may be required to do so, and in case she fails so to do, every proceeding on the separation shall be suspended." She is entitled to alimony pendente lite, if she constantly resides in the house assigned; and during the action, for the preservation of her rights, she may require an inventory and appraisement to be made of the property in the husband's possession and demand an injunction restraining him from disposing of any part thereof. After the commencement of the suit the husband may not contract a debt on account of the community, nor sell the immovables belonging to the same; such alienation being void, if made "with the fraudulent view of injuring the rights of the wife." Custody of the children of the marriage, "whose provisional keeping is claimed by both husband and wife," belongs to the husband, whether plaintiff or defendant, "unless there shall be strong reasons to deprive him of it;" but when a separation from bed and board has been decreed, the "children shall be placed under the care of the party who shall have obtained the separation, unless the judge shall, for the greater advantage of the children and with the advice of the family meeting, order that some or all" of them be intrusted to the other spouse. In all cases of full divorce "the minor children shall be placed under the tutorship of the party who shall have obtained" the decree.[336]

Permanent alimony and the custody of the children after dissolution of marriage are generally provided for. Sometimes the wife is granted separate alimony without a decree of divorce, as in Virginia, Florida, Georgia, and Oklahoma.[337] From an early period the North Carolina statutes have been conspicuous for the relief granted to the wife after divorce, or, under certain circumstances, without formal separation. Thus by the act of 1814 the court may grant a woman having a limited divorce for cruelty or abandonment such alimony as the husband's means will admit, not exceeding either one-third of his real or personal estate or a like share of the annual profits of his estate, occupation, or labor.[338] The deserted wife gains still further protection in 1816. "Whereas," declares an act of that year, "cases of great hardship often occur, the husband being at liberty to return and squander away the estate of the wife, subsequently obtained;" to remedy the evil it is therefore enacted that in future the decree of separation from bed and board shall have the effect of securing to the wife "any property which she may subsequently obtain, either by her own labor, gift, devise, or operation of law, unless the court shall in their judgment otherwise order."[339] Furthermore, in 1828-29 the courts were authorized to grant the wife separate alimony without divorce "whenever a man shall become an habitual drunkard or spendthrift, wasting his substance to the impoverishment of his family."[340] The present law is conceived in the spirit of these early enactments. In case of separation from bed and board, the amount of alimony is the same as in 1814. Separate maintenance without a divorce is still allowed. "When any husband shall separate himself from his wife and fail to provide her with the necessary subsistence according to his means and condition in life, or if he shall be a drunkard or spendthrift, the wife may apply for a special proceeding to the judge of the superior court for the county in which he resides, to have a reasonable subsistence secured to her and to the children of the marriage." Finally it may be noted that alimony may be decreed to the husband as well as the wife in Virginia and West Virginia.

Measures are taken in nearly every state for the division or other disposal of property after separation or divorce. The North Carolina law is very elaborate. "Every woman who shall be living separate from her husband, either upon a judgment of divorce ... or under a deed of separation, executed by said husband and wife, and registered in the county in which she resides, or whose husband shall have been declared an idiot or a lunatic, shall be deemed and held ... a free trader, and shall have power to convey her personal estate and her real estate without the assent of the husband." So also "every woman whose husband shall abandon her, or shall maliciously turn her out of doors, shall be deemed a free trader, so far as to be competent to contract and be contracted with, and to bind her separate property, but the liability of the husband for her reasonable support shall not thereby be impaired, and she shall have power to convey" her real and personal estate without her husband's assent. When a marriage is dissolved a vinculo, each of the parties loses all right to any estate by courtesy or dower, and all right to a year's provision or a distributive share in the personal property of the other, or to administer on the other's estate, and all rights whatsoever in the other's estate gained by settlement in consideration of the marriage. But if a "married woman shall elope with an adulterer, or shall wilfully and without just cause abandon her husband and refuse to live with him, and shall not be living with" him at his death; or if a limited divorce be granted on the husband's petition, "she shall thereby lose all right to dower in the lands and tenements of her husband, and also all right to a year's provision." In such cases the husband may convey his real estate as if he were unmarried, and the wife is thereafter barred of all claims to dower. When the husband is guilty of a similar offense, and his conduct is not condoned by the wife, or in case a partial divorce has been granted on her application, he shall suffer the like penalties.[341]

In Missouri a divorce obtained by the wife is considered in law as the death of the husband, and she is looked upon as his widow; but when at fault she is barred of dower.[342] The guilty wife loses her right of dower also in Tennessee; and there she cannot claim permanent alimony. In the same state, when divorce is for the wife's infidelity, and the woman afterwards cohabits with her paramour, she is made "incapable of alienating, directly or indirectly, any of her lands;" and after her death these are to be distributed according to the rules of intestate inheritance.[343] Dower is barred by grant of permanent alimony in Georgia;[344] and in Louisiana, in case of separation from bed and board, the defendant loses "all the advantages or donations" which the plaintiff "may have conferred by the marriage contract or since," while the latter preserves all those to which he or she would otherwise have been entitled; and these dispositions are to take place even when the advantages and donations were "reciprocally made."[345]

Finally it must be noted as a matter of regret that in no instance in these states has any provision been made for the registration of divorces or the return and publication of divorce statistics.

III. THE MIDDLE AND WESTERN STATES[346]

a) Legislative divorce.—An examination of the session laws reveals the fact that legislative divorce has at some time existed in many western commonwealths. During the territorial stage, in particular, and in some cases for a considerable period thereafter, the assemblies at each meeting were called upon to hear and determine petitions for dissolution of marriage which ought to have been relegated to the courts. Such, for example, was the practice in Michigan until 1837, when it was forbidden by the first constitution of the state;[347] and in Illinois until a later time. At the session of 1817-18 the assembly of Illinois Territory granted relief to Elizabeth Spriggs because she had been "shamefully abandoned" by her husband, who, it is alleged, is still guilty of "shameful" misconduct, and because she must be "considerably injured if she cannot obtain a divorce sooner than in the ordinary way."[348] Other cases occurred from time to time;[349] and in 1831 the marital bonds of twenty couples were dissolved by one act of a few lines.[350] Indiana appears to have been nearly as indiscreet. For instance, in 1838 the marriage of John Duvall and Nancy Duvall, alias Nancy Stack, was declared null and void.[351] Two years later occurred a divorce from the bond of wedlock, the wife being permitted to resume her maiden name. Thereafter it became the practice in this state for the assembly to grant persons leave to file bills in the courts in cases where the prescribed causes for divorce by judicial process did not exist. Thus in 1842 Mary Ann Bruner was allowed to file a petition because of "her disability by reason of her husband not having absented himself from her for two years," the full term necessary to constitute a valid ground according to the statute.[352] Until 1851, when the constitution put a stop to this evil custom, many such applications were referred to the circuit courts, the full legal requirement being similarly waived.[353] The early Minnesota lawmakers found plenty of business of the same kind. "Be it enacted," runs a decree of the assembly in 1849, "that the marriage heretofore existing between Catherine Hathaway and her husband, Isaac Hathaway, ... is hereby dissolved; and the said parties are restored to all the rights and privileges of unmarried persons."[354] Another example seems to show that a "pale-face" cannot always live happily with a "dusky mate." It is solemnly declared "that Louis Laramie is hereby divorced from Wa-kan-ye-ke-win, his wife, as fully and effectually, as if the legal ceremony of marriage and its rites had never been solemnized."[355] Similar decrees appear in the statute-book until in 1856 constitutional authority finally put a stop to legislative interference.[356]

During the first six years of territorial life many special divorce decrees may be found in the Nebraska laws; and they are invariably expressed in the curt and summary style peculiar to such legislation throughout the country, no reference usually being made to causes or to alimony.[357] At the same time Kansas was having a similar experience. One divorce petition was granted by the assembly in 1857, three in 1858, eight in 1859, while in 1860 the number suddenly rose to forty-three; for this was the "last chance" before the constitutional prohibition of 1859 went into effect.[358] Previous to 1847 Iowa was still more indulgent. Year after year appeals were made to the assembly for relief. Sometimes the intention appears to be to deny the defendant the privilege of further wedlock; as in 1840, when a decree was granted to dissolve the marriage contract, "so far as relates to the said Harriet Williams," who is allowed to change her name. Sometimes a partial divorce is sanctioned, as when the marital bond between John Philips and Nancy his wife was "so far dissolved as to permit the said parties to live separate and apart from each other." In this case the woman was given power to sue and be sued, and was allowed to retain the children. In 1841-42 eleven more legislative decrees were granted. The next year saw nineteen petitions combined in one bill, which was passed over the governor's veto by a two-thirds vote. The last examples occur in 1846, the year when Iowa was admitted to the Union as a state, and when the usual constitutional interdict appears.[359]

The practice existed also in Idaho,[360] Montana,[361] and Oregon.[362] On the Pacific coast, however, Washington is the chief offender. Beginning with three cases in 1858 and one in 1859, the number mounts to fifteen in 1860, seventeen in 1861, fifteen in 1862, and sixteen in 1863; while after this date the session laws are silent on the subject.[363]

In some of the old middle states the custom was particularly tenacious. Of it the New York laws show scarcely a trace;[364] and in those of New Jersey no evidence at all has been discovered. The case is very different in Pennsylvania. Although in 1785 the courts were empowered to grant full or partial divorce for the causes specified, the habit of resorting to the assembly, especially when the offense complained of was not a cause recognized by the statute, survived from the provincial era. Thus in 1805 Rebecca Adkinson was released from her spouse Thomas, who for crimes committed had been sentenced to five years' imprisonment. "Whereas it appears that the conduct of the said Thomas, from the month of May, 1803, to the present time, has been one continued scene of vice, evincing a total dereliction of morality, and an entire neglect of his wife and tender infant," therefore, since the law has not provided for such emergency, the assembly sets Rebecca absolutely free from the wedding bond.[365] During the next year a case of somewhat unusual character arose. From the preamble to the bill it appears that as early as 1777 Jacob Sell and Eve, his wife, had divorced themselves by mutual consent, the woman by a written instrument relinquishing all her rights under the marriage. Thereafter, the man considering himself entirely free from former obligations, took unto himself another wife, "by whom he now has living six children." Through "hard labor and honest industry" a considerable property was in due course acquired, some of which Sell had transferred. To this under the existing laws he could not give perfect title because of a claim to dower which "the aforesaid Eve may be supposed to possess." For this reason, and because he had grown old and was in a "delicate state of health," the assembly granted his petition for an absolute dissolution of the first marriage.[366] From this time onward many divorce decrees may be found in the session laws; and not until the adoption of the constitution of 1874 was the practice entirely abandoned.[367]

It was in Delaware, however, that legislative divorce died the hardest death. By the act of 1832 the superior court was given "sole cognizance of granting divorces" for cruelty, abandonment, and some other causes; and in 1852 it was enacted that no "petition for a divorce shall be received or acted on by the general assembly for any cause cognizable" by that court, "nor without proof of one month's public notice of the intention to prefer such petition, by advertisements in a newspaper published within the county of the petitioner's residence, if there be one," or, if not, then in some other newspaper in the state.[368] Although this declaration of the assembly restricting its jurisdiction to cases not provided for by law was subsequently more than once repeated,[369] there was still a wide range for interference, even if the will of one legislature could bind that of another. The number of petitions granted waxed apace. In 1887 it was forty-two; in 1889, sixty-three; and two years later, forty-eight.[370] In the meantime a remedy was sought through appeal to constitutional interdict. Once the effort was almost successful. By an act of April 20, 1893, the assembly proposed an amendment to the constitution giving the supreme court exclusive jurisdiction in divorce suits, but only "for the causes and upon the conditions prescribed by the legislature.[371] This amendment failed of adoption; but its purpose was soon secured in the new constitution of 1897, which declares that "no divorce shall be granted, nor alimony allowed, except by the judgment of a court, as shall be prescribed by general and uniform law."[372]

b) Judicial divorce: jurisdiction, kinds, and causes.—Regarding the causes of divorce the history of the middle and western states reveals little that is peculiar as compared with that of the southern or eastern group. On the whole, a medial course has been pursued. There is nothing very radical or very conservative. The statutes of these commonwealths are entitled to be looked upon as constituting the average American type.

The policy of New York has, indeed, seemed to be exceptional. Throughout the century absolute divorce has been allowed only on the scriptural ground. In 1787—for the first time since New Netherland came under English rule—a general divorce law was enacted. The preamble hints at the recent practice of special legislation. "Whereas," we are told, "the Laws at present in being within this state, respecting Adultery, are very defective, and Applications have, in Consequence, been made to the Legislature, praying their Interposition;" and since "it is thought more advisable ... to make some general Provision in such Cases, than to afford relief to Individuals, upon their partial representations, without a just and Constitutional Trial of the Facts;" therefore for the offense named, when the persons are inhabitants of the state, a "Petition or Bill" may be presented to the chancellor. The latter is empowered to direct the trial of the case by a "special or common jury" before either the supreme or any circuit court; and in case of conviction may "pronounce the marriage between the said parties to be dissolved, and both of them freed" from its obligations. The guilty defendant is forbidden to "remarry any person whatsoever;" while the innocent plaintiff is fully authorized to "make and complete another marriage, in like manner as if the party convicted was actually dead." The divorce is not to affect the legitimacy of the children, and the chancellor is required to make proper orders for their care and maintenance and for the wife's alimony.[373]

No further legislation on the subject appears until 1813, when some important changes in the law were made. Now a petition for divorce, on the same grounds, may be brought only when the persons concerned were inhabitants of the state at the time the offense was committed; or when the marriage was solemnized or took place in the state, and the person injured was an actual resident of the state at the time of the offense and at the time of exhibiting the bill. The facts are to be tried by a "special or foreign" jury at some circuit court or sittings, to be held by a justice of the supreme court; and the person convicted is prohibited from further marriage only during the lifetime of the other spouse. But the most important innovation made by this act is the provision for partial divorce in favor of the wife. Under the same conditions as to residence, the court of chancery is empowered to grant a feme covert a decree of "separation from bed and board forever thereafter, or for a limited time, as shall seem just and reasonable," when the husband has been guilty (1) of cruel and inhuman treatment; or (2) of such conduct "as may render it unsafe and improper for her to cohabit with him, and be under his dominion and control;" or (3) when he has abandoned her and neglected or refused to provide for her support. In all such cases, if the defendant prove the ill conduct of the complainant as a justification, he may be "dismissed with or without costs in the discretion of the court." On the other hand, whether a separation be decreed or not, the court is authorized "to make such orders and decree for the suitable support and maintenance" of the wife and children by the husband or out of his property, as the chancellor shall deem just.[374]

The Revised Statutes of 1827-28 make careful provision for the annulment of voidable marriages; and by the same enactment the divorce law is recast. Through sentence of nullity the chancellor may declare void a marriage for the following causes existing at the time of the contract: when (1) either husband or wife was below the age of consent; or (2) had a spouse living under a marriage still in force; or (3) was an idiot or lunatic; or (4) when consent of either was obtained by force or fraud; or (5) when either was physically incompetent to enter the matrimonial state. All these grounds of nullity, with one slight change and some modification of the conditions on which suit may be brought, are sanctioned by the present code.[375] Divorce from the bond of wedlock according to the revision of 1827-28 may be granted on the same conditions regarding residence as those prescribed in 1813, except that it allows the injured person, if an actual inhabitant at the time of exhibiting the bill, to bring suit whenever the offense complained of has been committed in the state. As in 1803, the guilty defendant is forbidden to remarry until after the death of the complainant. The three grounds of separation from bed and board in favor of the wife allowed in that year remain unaltered, save that under the second head the phrase referring to her being under the husband's "dominion and control" is omitted; and now, when the marriage takes place out of the state, the parties must have "become and remained inhabitants" of it for at least one year, and in order to warrant a decree the woman must be an actual resident thereof at the time of bringing complaint.[376]

Under the existing law of New York, for adultery, absolute divorce may be granted to either the husband or wife (1) when both were residents of the state at the time of the offense; (2) when the marriage took place within the state; (3) when the plaintiff was a resident of the state when the offense was committed, and so remains at the commencement of the suit; (4) where the offense was committed in the state and the person injured is a resident thereof when the action is brought. In the first instance the judgment is "interlocutory;" and three months must elapse before it can be made final.[377] Remarriage is allowed only under the same conditions as in 1813 and 1827, except that now the law does not "prevent the remarriage of the parties to the action." At present suit for partial divorce may be brought by either spouse, and not by the wife only, as under the earlier laws. The grounds allowed are (1) cruel and inhuman treatment; (2) conduct rendering it unsafe and improper for the plaintiff to cohabit with the defendant; (3) abandonment; (4) where the wife is plaintiff, the neglect or refusal of the husband to provide for her.[378] When the marriage takes place out of the state the provision of 1827-28 requiring one year's previous residence of the parties and actual residence of the plaintiff at the commencement of the action is still maintained.[379]

New Jersey, whose early history ran so closely parallel to that of New York, has during the century pursued a policy regarding divorce more liberal than that of the neighboring commonwealth. As so often happens, the act of 1794 confuses the grounds of annulment with those of divorce proper. The court of chancery is authorized to decree "divorces from the bond of matrimony" (1) when the husband and wife are within the prohibited degrees of kinship; (2) for adultery; (3) for "wilful, continued, and obstinate desertion for the term of seven years;" or (4) when either person had a lawful spouse living at the time of the later marriage, although the statute inconsistently declares such unions "invalid from the beginning" and "absolutely void." This last-named provision is still in force.[380] By the law of 1794, moreover, separation from bed and board is sanctioned for "extreme cruelty" in either spouse.[381]

A new statute appears in 1820. The conditions as to residence are now defined; the court of chancery may grant absolute dissolution of wedlock for the same causes as in 1794; and separation from bed and board is still permitted for extreme cruelty, but now it may be decreed, "forever, or for a limited time."[382] In the revision of the divorce laws approved April 15, 1846, the term of wilful and continued desertion is reduced to five years;[383] in 1857 two years more are lopped off;[384] and finally a statute of 1890 declares a period of two years' such desertion sufficient to constitute a ground of full divorce.[385]

Accordingly, by the present law of New Jersey dissolution of wedlock may be decreed by the court of chancery (1) when the marriage is bigamous; (2) when it is within the forbidden degrees of kinship;[386] (3) for adultery; (4) for "wilful, continued, and obstinate desertion during the term of two years;" and (5) when at the time of the marriage either spouse was "physically and incurably impotent," in which case the contract is declared "invalid from the beginning and absolutely void."[387] But it is important to observe that in certain cases the term of desertion is subject to a peculiar statutory definition. It is declared that "wilful and obstinate desertion shall be ... construed as 'continued' ... notwithstanding that after such desertion has ... begun, the deserting party has ... been imprisoned in this or any other state or country upon conviction by due process of law for a crime, misdemeanor or offence, not political," anywhere committed; provided, however, that such desertion has continued without interruption a sufficient length of time after discharge from prison to make up when added to the term of desertion prior to the confinement the full term of three [two] years.[388] Since 1891 three causes of separation from bed and board have been allowed. For desertion, adultery, or extreme cruelty, in either spouse, the court of chancery may now decree such partial divorce "forever thereafter, or in the case of extreme cruelty, for a limited time, as shall seem just and reasonable;" but in every case except for extreme cruelty the petitioner "shall prove that he or she has conscientious scruples against applying for a divorce from the bond of matrimony."[389]

The framers of the Pennsylvania statute of 1785 saw fit to indulge in an apologetic preamble. "Whereas," we are assured, "it is the design of marriage, and the wish of the parties entering into that state, that it should continue during their joint lives, yet where the one party is under natural or legal incapacities of faithfully discharging the matrimonial vow, or is guilty of acts and deeds inconsistent with the nature thereof, the laws of every well-regulated society ought to give relief to the innocent and injured person;" therefore it is enacted that the justices of the supreme court may grant divorce, "not only from bed and board, but also from matrimony,"(1) when either person at the time of the contract was and still is physically incompetent; (2) has knowingly entered into a bigamous marriage; (3) has committed adultery; or (4) has been guilty of "wilful and malicious desertion, without a reasonable cause," for the space of four years. The court is empowered to grant a divorce from bed and board, but not from the bond of wedlock, "if any husband shall, maliciously, either (1) abandon his family, or (2) turn his wife out of doors, or (3) by cruel and barbarous treatment endanger her life, or (4) offer such indignities to her person, as to render her condition intolerable, or life burdensome, and thereby force her to withdraw from his house and family." In these cases the wife is allowed "such alimony as her husband's circumstances will admit of so as the same do not exceed the third part of the annual profits or income of his estate, or of his occupation or labour," or the court may decree "but one of them" as justice may require. She shall continue to enjoy this alimony "until a reconciliation shall take place, or until the husband shall by his petition or libel, offer to receive or cohabit with her again, and to use her as a good husband ought to do." Then the court is authorized either to suspend the decree; or, if the wife refuse "to return and cohabit under the protection of the court," it may discharge and annul the same. But if he fail to make good his offers and engagement, the "former sentence and decree may be revived and enforced;" and the arrears of alimony may be ordered paid.[390]

By the first statute of the period, it thus appears, a liberal divorce policy was adopted by Pennsylvania, and besides, it should be remembered, the courts were not the only source of relief. For many years, as already seen, the assembly exercised jurisdiction in divorce matters. After 1785 the first step in the practical relaxation of the law was taken in 1804, when jurisdiction, hitherto vested exclusively in the supreme court, was extended to the county courts of common pleas, where it still remains.[391] Since that date the progress of legislation has been rapid enough. Under the existing law, as the result of a century's growth, not less than eleven grounds of complete divorce are recognized. By the statute of 1815, repealing the law of 1785, the four causes sanctioned by the latter are re-enacted, the term of "malicious desertion and absence from the habitation of the other"—as the clause is now phrased—being reduced to two years; and it is further provided that full dissolution of marriage may be decreed (5) when any husband, by cruel and barbarous treatment, shall have endangered the life of his wife; or (6) offered such indignities to her person as to render her condition intolerable and life burdensome, thereby forcing her to withdraw from his house and family.[392] Marriage within the forbidden degrees of affinity or consanguinity (7) was made a ground in the same year;[393] lunacy of the wife (8) came next in 1843;[394] and in 1854 divorce was sanctioned (9) when the alleged marriage was procured by fraud, force, or coercion, and has not been later confirmed by the acts of the person injured; (10) when the wife, by cruel and barbarous treatment, has rendered the condition of her husband intolerable or life burdensome; or (11) when either spouse has been convicted for felony with imprisonment for more than two years.[395] These eleven causes are still in force, although in 1903 a new law regarding the crimes of either spouse to constitute a cause was adopted.[396]

On the other hand, the century has produced but one change in the special grounds of partial divorce. Petitions for separation from bed and board are still allowed only in favor of the wife. The four causes sanctioned in 1785, re-enacted in 1815 and 1817, are yet in force;[397] while, since 1862, adultery on the part of the husband is admitted as a fifth ground of complaint.[398]

An important innovation appears in 1893. A new group of discretionary causes is then created. The courts are empowered to grant the wife a divorce, either from bed and board or from the bond of wedlock, on four several grounds. Three of these are identical with the third, fourth, and fifth causes of partial divorce just enumerated. In addition, two years' "wilful and malicious desertion" by the husband is admitted. These same four causes are declared valid "where it shall be shown to the court by any wife that she was formerly a citizen of this commonwealth, and that having intermarried with a citizen of any other state or any foreign country, she has been compelled to abandon the habitation and domicile of her husband" in such place, thereby being "forced to return to this commonwealth in which she had her former domicile." In any such case, if personal service by subpœna cannot be made upon the husband by reason of his non-residence, the court before entering a decree shall require proof that, in addition to the publication required by law, actual or constructive notice of the proceedings has been given him, either "by personal service or by registered letter to his last known place of residence, and that a reasonable time has thereby been afforded to him to appear" and make defense. The wife, however, is only entitled to the benefits of this act when she has been a citizen and resident of the state for one year previous to bringing suit.[399]

It must further be observed, in connection with the present laws of Pennsylvania regarding absolute divorce, that the principle of the colonial statute touching cases of long absence has unfortunately been perpetuated. The snare is still set for the feet of the unwary. "If any husband or wife, upon false rumor, in appearance well founded, of the death of the other (when such other has been absent for the space of two whole years), hath married ... again, he or she shall not be liable to the pains of adultery;" but on return the person remaining unmarried may elect either to have the former spouse restored or to have the former contract dissolved, leaving the second marriage undisturbed.[400]

By the Delaware statute of February 3, 1832, the superior court is authorized to grant absolute divorce, or, in its discretion, partial divorce or merely alimony, where either spouse (1) had a lawful husband or wife living at the time of the marriage; (2) has been wilfully absent from the other for three years with the intention of abandonment; (3) has committed adultery; or (4) extreme cruelty; or (5) where the male was actually impotent when the marriage took place.[401] Just twenty years later an entirely new grouping of causes and kinds of separation was introduced. The superior court is empowered to grant a full divorce (1) for adultery of the wife; and (2) for impotency of either person at the time of marriage; while separation from bed and board is allowed (1) for adultery of the husband; (2) for extreme cruelty; or (3) for wilful absence of either for three years with intent to abandon. At the same time a distinction was made between divorce and annulment. The court is authorized to declare null and void a marriage (1) within the prohibited degrees of affinity or consanguinity; (2) between a white person and a negro or mulatto; (3) where either person was insane; or (4) had a spouse living at the time of the contract.[402] At present the annulment of voidable contracts is still governed by the enactment of 1852.[403]

In 1859 a revised scheme was substituted. Absolute divorce is authorized on the same two grounds as in 1852, the unjust discrimination regarding the husband's infidelity being still maintained. On the other hand, "a divorce from the bond of matrimony, or from bed and board, at the discretion of the court," may now be decreed for (1) adultery of the husband; (2) extreme cruelty; (3) procurement of the marriage by force or fraud; (4) want of legal age—sixteen for males and fourteen for females—if after that age the marriage has not been voluntarily ratified; (5) wilful abandonment for three years; (6) conviction in any place, before or after marriage, of a crime deemed felony by the laws of the state; (7) habitual gross drunkenness for three years, contracted after marriage; or (8) three years' wilful neglect by the husband to provide his wife with the common necessaries of life.[404]

By the present law of Delaware, which has existed since 1873, the superior court may decree absolute divorce for (1) adultery in either spouse; (2) desertion for three years; (3) habitual drunkenness; (4) impotency at the time of marriage; (5) extreme cruelty; or (6) conviction of felony, as in 1859. The discretionary grounds on which the court may grant either full or limited divorce are now reduced to two, these in substance being nearly identical with the fourth and eighth causes sanctioned by the statute of 1859.[405]

The history of judicial divorce in the West begins with the statute adopted for the Northwest Territory in 1795. Jurisdiction is vested in the general court and the circuit courts, which are empowered to grant absolute divorce (1) for adultery; (2) impotency; (3) where either person had a husband or wife alive at the time of the second marriage; or to grant partial divorce for extreme cruelty in either spouse.[406] This law was repealed in 1804 by an act of the legislature of Ohio—that portion of the Northwest Territory having been made a state in 1802—giving the supreme court sole cognizance of divorce suits. By it no provision for partial divorce is made; but full dissolution of marriage is sanctioned (1) for bigamy, as in 1795; (2) for wilful absence for five years; (3) for adultery; and (4) for extreme cruelty.[407] After eighteen years' trial, the plan of 1804 was in its turn superseded. Six grounds of absolute divorce were then provided. Of these four are identical with those just mentioned, except that the term of wilful absence is reduced to three years. In addition there are recognized (5) physical incompetence at the time of the marriage; and (6) sentence with actual imprisonment for violation of the criminal laws of the state, provided application be made during the term of confinement.[408] Two years later a new plan was adopted. Absolute divorce was permitted for the six causes allowed in 1822; and partial divorce, which had not existed by statute for twenty years, was revived; the courts, on the same six grounds, being authorized, instead of full dissolution of wedlock, to decree separation from bed and board, or merely alimony, according to justice and the circumstances in each case.[409] This provision, however, was short-lived; for in 1833 partial divorce was a second time abolished.[410]

Thus matters stood until 1853, when a measure appeared by which the law was much relaxed in several important respects. Jurisdiction, which since 1804 had remained solely in the supreme tribunal of the state, was now vested in the several courts of common pleas. In addition to the six grounds for full divorce already created, four new causes were recognized. These were (7) fraudulent contract; (8) gross neglect of duty; (9) habitual drunkenness for three years; and (10) a decree of divorce in another state "by virtue of which the party who shall have obtained such decree shall have been released from the obligations of the marriage contract, while the same remains binding upon the other."[411]

These ten causes of absolute divorce are still sanctioned by Ohio law. No provision is made for limited divorce; but there is an "action for alimony, which is in effect a limited divorce, and which may be brought by the wife for any of the following causes," also sanctioned by the act of 1853: (1) adultery; (2) any gross neglect of duty; (3) abandonment without good cause; (4) separation in consequence of the husband's ill-treatment, whether the wife is maintained by him or not; (5) habitual drunkenness; and (6) sentence to imprisonment in a penitentiary, if application be made while the husband is so confined.[412]

Indiana, in 1816, is the next portion of the Northwest Territory to be admitted to the Union. Two years after the attainment of statehood her legislature passed the first divorce statute, granting jurisdiction to the circuit courts. By the enactment full divorce in favor of either spouse when aggrieved is allowed for (1) adultery; (2) matrimonial incapacity; (3) bigamous contract; (4) two years' absence with intent to abandon; (5) desertion and living in adultery; (6) conviction for felony; and (7) in favor of the wife when the husband's treatment of her is extremely barbarous and inhuman.[413] In 1824 an "omnibus" clause was introduced, a full divorce being then allowed on petition of the injured person (8) "in all cases where the court in its discretion" shall deem the same "just and reasonable."[414] These grounds are all sanctioned by the act of 1831.[415] Still another cause was admitted in 1836. The circuit courts are empowered to grant the wife absolute divorce (9) when the husband for two years has been a habitual drunkard, and has failed for "any unreasonable length of time to make provision for his family." By the same act, moreover, a marriage may be dissolved "in all cases where the parties have been guilty of murder, manslaughter, burglary, robbery, grand or petty larceny, forgery, counterfeiting, arson, bribery, perjury, or any other crime" the penalty for which on conviction is "imprisonment at hard labor in the penitentiary."[416] But, apparently, this is meant to be a restatement of the sixth cause above given.[417]

Only two years elapsed before a new general statute was adopted, authorizing full divorce on eight grounds. Six of these correspond to the first, second, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth causes already sanctioned. Bigamous marriage and desertion with adultery no longer appear as causes; while the fourth ground, as above enumerated, is so modified as to require a separate statement for the husband and wife respectively. The husband (7) is allowed a full divorce for two years' absence of the wife with intent to abandon; and the wife is granted the same relief (8) for like absence of the husband, "and also for any other cause or causes"—a most singular legislative freak.[418] In 1843 this vicious clause was dropped. Abandonment for two years is now made a cause of divorce in favor of either person, thus reducing the number of legal grounds to seven. At the same time, in modification of a cause already existing, the wife is allowed a petition on account of "cruel and inhuman treatment" by the husband, "or when his conduct towards her has been such as may render it unsafe and improper for her to live with him." The other five causes sanctioned by the statute of 1838 are re-enacted without change.[419] A relaxation of the law takes place in 1849. One year's abandonment is declared sufficient to constitute a cause; but in such case the court is especially empowered, in its discretion, to grant a divorce, waiving all objections in regard to time of separation, if it deems a reconciliation "hopeless."[420]

A pause of three years next ensues before the lawmaker resumes his tinkering with the causes of divorce. The act of 1852 admits the seven general grounds, as these had existed since the change in 1849; but with two important modifications. For now "habitual drunkenness," without reference to the term during which it has existed, and cruel treatment, each on the part of either husband or wife, are constituted reasons for dissolving the marriage bond. By the same law a divorce for adultery is denied when there has been (1) connivance; (2) voluntary cohabitation after knowledge of the offense; (3) neglect to petition within two years; or (4) when the petitioner is guilty of the same crime.[421] Seven years later the time of abandonment, to constitute a cause, was reduced to one year, the court being thus deprived of its discretionary power to grant a divorce for desertion during a shorter period.[422]

Finally the long series of enactments defining the grounds of absolute divorces came to a halt in 1873, when the law of Indiana in this regard took its present form. The superior and circuit courts, on petition of either spouse, are granted jurisdiction. Three very important and beneficial amendments, producing a marked decrease in the number of divorces annually granted, are now made. The term of abandonment is increased from one year to two years; "failure of the husband to make reasonable provision for his family" is changed to such failure for a "period of two years;" and, most significant of all, the omnibus clause, existing since 1824 and rephrased in 1838, providing that divorces may be granted "for any other cause" which the court shall deem "reasonable and proper," is stricken out.[423] As a result, the marriage tie may now be dissolved for (1) adultery; (2) impotence existing at the time of the marriage; (3) abandonment for two years; (4) cruel and inhuman treatment; (5) habitual drunkenness; (6) failure of the husband to make reasonable provision for his family for two years; (7) the conviction of either person, in any country, subsequent to the marriage, of an infamous crime. Until very recently limited divorce was not recognized in Indiana; but a married woman might bring action for the support of herself and infant children in the following cases, being analogous to those sanctioned by the Ohio law: (1) when the husband shall have deserted his wife, or wife and children, without leaving sufficient provision for support; (2) when he shall have been convicted of felony and imprisoned in the state prison, not leaving his wife, or wife and children, the same provision; (3) when he is a habitual drunkard and by reason thereof becomes incapacitated or neglects to provide for his family; or (4) when he renounces the marriage covenant, or refuses to live with his wife in the conjugal relation, by joining himself to a sect or denomination the rules and doctrines of which require such renunciation or forbid a man and woman to dwell and cohabit together in the conjugal relation according to the true intent and meaning of the institution of marriage.[424] A statute of 1903 authorizes separation from bed and board "for a limited time" in case of (1) adultery; (2) "desertion, or where the wife is plaintiff, neglect or refusal to suitably provide for her, covering a period of six months;" (3) habitual cruelty of one party, "or such constant strifes of both parties as render their living together intolerable;" (4) habitual drunkenness, "or the confirmed and excessive use of morphine, cocaine, or any other drug;" (5) gross and wanton neglect of conjugal duty for six months.[425]

In 1818, closely following Indiana, Illinois was carved from the bountiful region northwest of the Ohio River. After a year's delay, a divorce law was enacted in 1819; and this, as amended in 1825, authorizes both kinds of separation. Full dissolution of wedlock may be granted for (1) physical incapacity at the time of solemnization; (2) adultery; (3) two years' voluntary and continued absence. Partial divorce is likewise sanctioned for (1) extreme and repeated cruelty in either spouse: or (2) constant and habitual intemperance in either for two years. "But in the latter case it shall be incumbent on the complaining party to show that he or she had performed all the duties of a faithful and affectionate husband or wife."[426]