Uniform Divorce Legislation—A Reply By E. DEFOREST LEACH HE desirability of uniform divorce legislation is obviously a much larger question than whether the states should adopt the uniform law proposed by the Divorce Congress, and advocated
by the
Hon. Walter George Smith
are urging only states with more lenient laws to adopt what they claim is soon going to become the prevailing style in divorce legislation. I openly made this charge on the floor of the Divorce Congress, and subsequent events have
in his article in the May number of this magazine. But owing to the limited space at my disposal, I shall confine
only confirmed what was then but a
my discussion to the proposed law and the reasons therefor as presented by Mr.
the conditions under which legislation is secured than it is to analyze the
Smith without any attempt to consider the various features of the bill or the many purely legal objections thereto which are patent to any experienced lawyer.
enactments.
There is probably but one point concerning this recommendation upon which Mr. Smith and I are agreed, i.e.,
that it is not perfect or satisfactory to any one at all interested in the subject.
suspicion.
It is always more profitable to study
Consequently
we
may
learn something worth while about the recommendations of the Divorce Con gress by glancing at the Congress itself.
The session which met in Washington is conceded to have been one of the most distinguished gatherings ever as sembled in that city. There were
learned lawyers, judges, Governors, United States Senators and Congress
According to Mr. Smith's idea, the only
men, distinguished representatives of
good divorce law is one which absolutely
various religious denominations, in cluding several varieties of bishops. The
prohibits divorce, and that is the only kind of an uniform divorce law with
most notable thing, however, about the
which he and many of those who assisted him in the Divorce Congress will ever be satisfied. Their zeal in
gathering was the absence of persons who had distinguished themselves as authorities upon the scientific questions
this behalf has exceeded their dis
involved in the solution of the problems considered by the Congress. There was but one physician, a lady, who left before the Congress closed because she became disgusted with the manner in which the discussion of the conditions well known to her profession was re ceived by some of 'the more ecclesiastic
cretion, for they now boldly announce that it is not desired that states having stricter laws than the one recommended should adopt the recommendation. It would seem that the only way to obtain
uniformity is to have all states adopt the same law. Consequently, I think I am justified in charging that these gentlemen are not sincere in their desire for uniform divorce legislation.
They are simply taking advantage of the state of the public mind, and, under the pretense of securing uniformity,
ally inclined members of the Congress. The majority of the delegates seemed
actuated by a desire to advertise their orthodoxy rather than to consider facts or do what was for the greatest good. These were the people who, having been
