Show DECiSION KNOCKS DIVORCE DECREES State Cannot Dissolve Marriage Marriage Marriage Mar Mar- Unless Both Parties Are Residents SUPREME COURT RULING May e Many Children ChIldren- hu opinion I I WIdo Sweeping i Washington April Apri A A decision was handed own In the United States which In Its us Supreme court today Is bearing hearing upon Ulion divorce laws law and relations is the most arost sweeping and Important ever enunciated As AH Justice Holmes Holmeli says rays s 's In a ells dis dissenting Renting opinion it will wi le legitimatize many children and set se aside many existing conditions In Its Is scope and Importance too much weight can not be he attached to lo the decision The decision Is Is briefly this Xo No o state slate can dissolve a marriage unless s both parties to the divorce suit are arc residents of or the state stul and any airy marriage mar mar- niage e subsequent to a divorce granted grant grant- runt runt- ed upon an application of this kind kindIs Is Illegal In i Invalidate Dakota lakota UI 1 This Inval ate the divorces of or the South Dakota tp type and makes marriage marriage marriage mar mar- entered Into to such sucha a divorce illegal In tin Us Its ramifications and widespread Interest IR It I l the most important decision de de- de- de ever e cr rendered t by the Supreme CouL COUt court t of or the United States upon this subject So tar far a as the tire palte parties to the divorce case cuse In this iris matter are concerned there is hi no great SI ul public ImbUe Interest Int rest buthe but bu butti ti the thc rolling Is b o I th tire the n Ith CD p IS o U C CS J t I writ wI-i I l- l uI e cit s S Opinion In III Cn 1 W. W Haddock lEad Had Ha that of or John Is I The Tho case Johr dock against Harriet Haddock a 0 divorce di- di Instituted III In the proceeding vorce of New ew York Tho h decision courts COUts JH is In favor avor avol of or the woman The Haddocks haddocks Haddocks Had Had- docks were married In 1868 and aud the husband claimed to have been an un unwilling un un- willing participant In iii the ceremony to lie iho womans woman's In his answer lie says tH Ie u s complaint that thai he Ire left ler her Immediately Immediate immediate- rites were performed per per- 1 I ly iy after the marriage ries all tire the time lime that and during luring formed ormed nn her only three 1 has Intervened has seen I times In 1881 h he lie secured a divorce In the tire I state stale of Connecticut where he then their resided and In 1882 was married there thereto York to 0 another woman Tire The New Supreme court held the second marriage mar mar- ringI ceremony to b be he Hegal Illegal decreed the wife to lo be lie be still sUI the le legal al wife and directed Haddock to pay her an annuity of oC iSO That finding was annul sustained b by today's decision which winch held that thai Mrs airs Haddock was without of the Connecticut the jurisdiction court State StaW 11 lias Ju No u Il Right ht Justice White hie In deciding tho the case down Iowa the tire general principle that hat thata hata lal laid E a state stale In which only one party part to a divorce proceeding resides has no right to dissolve a marriage lage tie which all mu other states slates must respect Justices Jus Jus- tices s Hurlan Harlan Brewer and ani Brown Drown tc united in iii a n dissenting opinion which was wm h by JustIce Brown They The took the tine position that the tho Connecticut divorce proceeding was regular and anti andis is entitled to due credence in other states states Justice Brown Drown declared in his opInIon opinion ion iou that the tire court lund had hal taken a u backward back back- ward step tep in this Ibis decision Justice Holmes also dissented from the decision of oC the tine court but delivered an Independent opinion He Ho said the the result of or tho the decision would be to 11 II- 1 p legitimatize many children but added l that he lie would woul not go so o far as ns to predict pre pro diet dict that civilization would come to toan toan an end whatever the conclusion In iii tire the t case caNe |