OCR Text |
Show UNIFORMITY DESIRED. A.eeidii.g to n recent, decision of the Wi-"on-in supremo court, parfi'"' i, ,o ".ere divorce, I under lite dp. i" j.,.., of I'"'!' '""I who '"re inairicd n'-ain after a .-ear had expired, but before be-fore final divorce decree was eulered, are nol legally joined together. Tlio'l--amis of persons are mid to be ( feeled, and a nl II to Ho: marriage I, ,.,.,,,,. , mean is nalurallv evpeted, li in ' "I"" in lam es, v. here I II" .,.,,,,,, r.,-,ri lag" pi'OM'd rjo liappior I I, ,-,,, i ,,. 1'ir I . manv roupb s will doubt I, . , i,e ,iicii,o! to pepaiale and :. t,o at. Ilia!. All of which en, ,.1,,'iMei the I '1 of a utiifoliu mar- nas-c t.'i'l divorce lw '" 1 s, ' tat- la-" upon the nubiect are constantly being changed and they vary widely. A man may be a legal husband in one state and subject sub-ject to arrest if he crosses the I'lle with the woman whom lie fondly 1 imagines to be liis wife ami who is his wife undci the statutes of the state in which the marriage ceremony was performed. per-formed. There i no chance of uniformity uni-formity in marriage and divorce laws so long as the states have Hie say iu the matter, and as it is a question in which all have an equal interest, the federal government should seek the remedy for ilie existing deplorable sit-I nation. i |