Evening Star Newspaper, March 2, 1930, Page 94

1() TTII‘ QI‘ND’\Y QTAR D (" M’\P( H- 2 \’VAC\IH\G T O\' 1030 Why UNIF ORM Marr 1age and Divorce Law? - .-"-c-'-c-o-.~- ®ow ----.-.- { r.:~¢ Coitn.crn.ov o . o s~ =T ovoRCE - o-" . — - — - - - T ; [ i | - K BY ARTHUR CAPPER (U. S. Senator from Kansas). HE present divergence of the marriage and divorce laws of the 49 jurisdic- tions of the United States causes such a state of migratory elopements, " marriages and fraudulent divorces as to threaten the very foundations upon which our Republic was built—the American home. A uniform marriage and divorce law has be- come one of our greatest social and moral needs. The family and the right to hold property are two of the corner stones of the founda- tions upon which our present-day -civilization rests. Both are seriously threatened. Amer- ican evasions of divorce laws are the subject of comment and ridicule the world over. Ever since 1871 effort has been made by a few far-seeing persons to give Congress con- trol of marriage and divorce, the first pro- posed amendment to the Constitution to pro- vide for a uniform marriage and divorce law being introduced by Mr. Ray of New York on January 8, 1884. Today the women of the Nation are behind the movement to write a uniform marriage and divorce law upon our statute books, and any movement which the women are wholeheartedly supporting is more than likely to become a whirlwind of accom- plishment. I‘ WOULD put foremost among the reasons why we need such a law the absolute im- possibility of ever obtaining uniformity in State laws by State legislative action. Ever since 1879—a period of 50 years—the American Bar Association has been considering and working upon some plan for securing through State legislation uniformity in marriage and divorce laws. There seems to be even less chance of getting States to agree on these matters than there was in getting them to agree on woman suffrage. It is the great divergence in State laws, per- mitting one State to flaunt and virtually to nullity the laws of another, which has increased the appalling disrespect for law in America. Let us look at some of the things which happen under the various existing laws to peo- ple who have every desire to be law-abiding. A man and woman may be considered legally married and their children legitimate in one ecommunity. They may move only a few miles away, across a State line, and the man be- comes a bigamist, the woman is considered to be living in adultery and their children under the law have no right to bear their father's name. In case of the death of the father of such a family, think of the complications as to the property rights of his dependents! There are two Gretna Greens in Indiana near the State border which catch those citi- zens from neighboring States who wish to evade the intent of the laws of their own State. One of these is just across the river frem Louisville, and the other, at Crown Point, is just outside Chicago. A survey made by an Indianapolis newspaper of the marriages which took place at those two places showed that 75 per cent of them were illegal, the licenses be- ing illegally granted, and that 75 per cent of them had resulted in divorce. The State of Nebraska has passed a law requiring notice before the issuance of a mar- riage license. The result is that young people in- Nebraska who wish to evade the law run over the State line into Kansas or Jowa. The same thing is true in every State which has mpde some effort to tighten up its marriage pegulations. The period of residence for divorce in Rhode Island is two years, but I have been told that W——vflhou'. the knowledge of the court, of course—rent rooms or ‘an spartment, store soiiie dlothies’ there and possibly hire s ‘servart, but never live in the apartment at all. They ™ MRt st Deeaion Congress Has Enacted Uniform Laws for the States Relative to Interstate Commerce, Bankruptcy and Natural- ization—Why Not Measures That Will Safeguard the Foundation Upon Which Society Rests, the Ameri- can Home? claim residence, however, and get a divorce. Several cases of a similar kind were under in- vestigation in Alexandria County, just outside ‘Washington, D. C.,, a year or two ago. Out of 613 cases of divorce granted in Nevada in one year, only 88 involved natives of that State. Thus we have the laws of one State over- ridden by the laws of other States, and no State can be said to have entire control of its citizens. For some time our divorce statistics—192,037 divorces and nearly 5,000 annulments were granted in 1927—have been disturbing think- ing men and women. The main reason why there are so many divorces is that the unfit are allowed to marry. Marriages which never had a chance of being successful are being per- mitted to take place. Here are a few of the conditions which contribute materially to the rising tide of divorce: Thirteen thousand girls 15 years of age are legally married. Fifty thousand girls 16 years old are mnrled Sixteen hundred boys 15 years old are Three thousand boys 16 years old are married. No minority age limit for marriage is fixed by law in 17 States. The legal marriage age for girls is 12 years and for boys 14 years in nine States. There is no prohibition of marriage for eeble- This' laxness is placing an enormous burden on the Nation, for no two feeble-minded per- sons have been known to produce normal- minded children. Mental diseases in the United States are estimated by Representative L. M. Black, jr., of New York to cause an economic loss of $300,000,000 annually. The American Association of Mental Hygiene esti- mates that we spend $50,000,000 annually for the care of the mentally unfit. The grounds on which one may secure di- vorce vary from none at all in South Carolina to 14 grounds in New Hampshire. One State even permits divorce on the ground of temper. And so we, who have become a people moving about constantly over our country, are trying, to the best of our lights and our ability, to live and regulate our lives by 49 different marriage laws and 48 different divorce laws. It seems to me that the marriage of the unfit and the abuse of divorce, besides being the main causes of the increasing divorce rate— the highest in the world, with one exception— have become two of the most important rea- sons why we should have a uniform law for the Nation as a whole. UNDlRmrconlumtlonthmemomytwo ways we can get at a remedy for this intolerable situation: by striving for uniform laws on marriage and divorce among the 48 States and the District of Columbia or by amending the Constitution so that Congress can enact uniform marriage divorce laws. szncexhlvecmmumtmmchm Gl Baseiin o W Feew £ et 1 Hasty marriage and easy divorce are largely the re- sults of the 49 different codes of laws which gove ern these matters throughe out the United States, acs cording to Senator Arthur Capper of Kansas. amendment I have had thousands of letters from interested citizens in all parts of the country, and more than 350 letters reached my offices in the two or three days following a talk over the radio on the subject a short while ago. Most of these letters express approval of the amendment, which is as follows: “The Congress shall have the power to make laws which shall be uniform throughout the United States on marriage and divorce, the legitimation of children and the care and custody of children affected by annulment of marriage or by divorce.” The largest women’s organizations in the United States have for some time indorsed the amendment and a proposed bill which Cone gress would then be called upon to enact. Among these are the General Federation of Women's Clubs, whose former legislative chair- man, Mrs. Edward Franklin White, drew up the bill now before Congress; the National League of Women Voters, the National Feder- ation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, the Daughters of the American Revo- lution, the National Congress of Mothers and Parent-Teachers Associations and the Ameri- can Association of Home Economics. T}mmheommmeedt.heeommmeeo!the judiciary in the Senate has put itself on record as being in favor in principle of uni- form marriage and divorce laws. The only objections which have been raised are based on other grounds than the principle of a uniform law itself. That uniformity in our laws on marriage and divorce is desirable is universally admitted. The objections are based on the argument that States’ rights are being violated and that the centralization of such inherent rights in the hands of the Federal Government is dangerous. But I feel that the dangers to our sociml structure from the destruction of the family as one of the corner stones of the foundation of that social structure are just as real and more certain. There are people who feel that the Consti- tution is already suffering from too many amendments; that if the makers of the Con- stitution had intended that the Federal Governe ment should have the power to regulate mar- riage and divorce, that right would have been given to it in the beginning. But the makers of the Constitution were wise enough to put in a provision for such an emergency. They drafted Article VII, which defines the process of amendment. Furthermore, Congress has enacted uniform laws for the States relating to interstate come- merce, bankruptcy and naturalization, ale though nothing has been found in the Constie tution that authorizes such laws. The bill, as it is now drafted, does away with hasty marriages and the grounds for divorce are rather limited, because when only the mature and the fit- are married there will be fewer persons seeking divorce. The provisions of the bill for uniform regu- lation of marriage and divorce are briefly: 1. That after a license has been obtained the marriage is to be contracted in the presence of two competent witnesses before any person authorized by the State to solemnize mar- riages or in accordance with the customs, rules and regulations of any religious society, denom- ination or sect. 2. The license must be obtained in the coun- ty in which the woman resides. 3. No license shall be issued to one who s Continued on Thirteenth Pm