23 2 THE POPULAM SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



the plaintiff, being within the jurisdiction of the court, why is it neces- 

 sary to bring the non-resident party into court even by constructive 

 service ? Divorce in either case will not change the relation of the 

 non-resident party to the laws of the State in which he or she resides ; 

 it might, if it were the woman who obtained the divorce, leave the hus- 

 band a married man without a wife, or, if it were he who obtained the 

 divorce, leave her a married woman without a husband ; and if the 

 one thus left should marry again, though the marriage should be held 

 legal, he or she might be punished under the laws of the State for 

 bigamy or adultery. Such is the right of sovereignty each State has 

 over its own subjects. But no State should take jurisdiction to dis- 

 solve a marriage contract between parties not situated in a way to ren- 

 der the sentence of dissolution binding, on general principles of law, 

 upon every other State. Yet it is so often done that the cases in one 

 State to set aside divorces obtained in another State are notoriously 

 frequent. There is no subject so intermixed with so much legal rub- 

 bish and confusion, none in relation to which there is so much diver- 

 sity of law and judicial conflict and uncertainty, as tbat relating to 

 marriage, whether considered as a contract or a status, and none to 

 which the statesman should more earnestly address himself to relieve 

 it of these absurd legal perplexities. But how can uniformity be at- 

 tained after so many long years of confusion ? 



Congress should pass a law establishing uniform rules of marriage 

 and divorce throughout the United States. It should declare that the 

 marriage contract is of that kind within the meaning of the Constitu- 

 tion which declares that "no State shall pass any law impairing the 

 obligation of contracts." Where both the parties are domiciled in the 

 same State, it should leave them subject to the laws of the State in 

 which they reside ; but, when they become " citizens of different 

 States " for the purpose of divorce, it should require the suit to be 

 brought in the United States courts ; and perhaps when woman, as a 

 citizen, becomes co-equal with man before the law, it will in such 

 cases be obliged to do so. This would give the courts jurisdiction of 

 both parties, or the status of both parties, without resorting to legal 

 subterfuge or fiction ; and would, where the suit was between " citi- 

 zens of different States," preserve the individual sovereignty and dig- 

 nity of the two States. It would also harmonize the foregoing pro- 

 vision of the Constitution which declares that "no State shall pass 

 any law impairing the obligation of contracts," with the provision 

 which also declares that " full faith and credit shall be given in each 

 State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every 

 other State" a harmony that has never heretofore existed. The 

 obligation to give " full faith and credit " to the " public acts " and 

 "judicial proceedings" of a State is reciprocal between States ; how 

 then, when the "public acts" of two States are in conflict on the sub- 

 ject of divorce, can one State, in a judicial proceeding by a resident of 



