OCR Text |
Show THE VANDERBILT DIVORCE. An Example of the Most Pernicious Character Char-acter Imaginable. The method by which the Yanderbilfc divorce was arranged is a scandal to our jurisprudence. Worse than that, it ia an influence for the degradation of public morals and the breaking down of the popular sense of right and wrong. Practically Mr. and Mrs. Vanderbilt divorced themselves. There was no hearing before a court. The parties did not appear before the tribunal. There was no public proof of infidelity on either side to serve as a punishment to the guilty party or as a deterrent influence in-fluence in the case of others. The whole matter was arranged by dicker. The only function of the court was to give legal effect to the terms of the bargain.. Is it, then, the privilege of the rich to annul their marriages at pleasure by mutual agreement? The law, rigidly enforced en-forced against all ordinary citizens, prescribes pre-scribes that collusion between husband and wife shall be an effeccual and peremptory per-emptory bar to divorce. Yet this rich man and woman havo sent their lawyers law-yers into court with a collusive agreement agree-ment already made; the- court has suppressed sup-pressed the evidence agreed to bo presented pre-sented by sending the caso to a referee instead of hearing it in open session; the referee has made a report in accordance accord-ance with the terms of the dicker; the court has affirmed it, ordering the papers pa-pers sealed so that there may bo no scandal which means simply that the guilty party shall bo spared all sooial shame and inconvenience and the terms of the collusive agreoment have been embodied in a decree which authorizes au-thorizes one party to marry again at pleasure and imposes upon the other a prohibition of marriage which is as ineffectual in-effectual as a bull against a comet. In saying this we do not mean to reflect re-flect upon Justico Barrett. He is a judge whoso eminent learning and conspicuous conspicu-ous service aro properly appreciated by the community. But in this matter he is the instrument of a vicious system which prevails, we believe, only in New York and which certainly does not obtain ob-tain in most of the other states. Unless we accept the unclean doctrine of free love, marriage and divorce are not in any sense private matters. The family relation lies at the very founda tion of sooiety. Divorce equally with marriage is a matter of public concern and should be decreed only after a public pub-lic hearing and public proof of statutory cause. A case of this kind sets an example of the most pernicious character imagina- ble. It means to the majority that there is one law for the rich and another for the rest of i us. It means that if you have money enough your marriage vows may count for nothing. It means that your misconduct will be carefully guarded guard-ed against exposure by all the authority the courts possess. It means that while collusive divorce proceedings are peremptorily per-emptorily thrown out of court in the case of ordinary persons a multimillionaire multimil-lionaire and his wife may arrange such a proceeding in full assurance that it will bo ratified by the courts, and that all the scandalous details will be securely secure-ly hidden beneath the sacred seal of the tribunal. New York World. |