Books: Reno
L >>
Lilyan Stratton >> Reno
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 | 8 |
9 |
10 |
11
"Proudly conscious of her strength and probity of character, great
big-hearted Nevada looks down from her lofty pedestal and freely
pardons all who may have misjudged her. This is Nevada's record. Match
it, if you can.
"The impulse which inspires a desire for a dissolution of an
intolerable matrimonial alliance, is as fundamental to human nature as
the one which inspires a desire for marriage, and is oft times far
more moral. Therefore, to require the commission of immoral and
degrading acts on the part of one of the parties to a marriage before
a divorce can be granted, regardless of why it is desired, places an
unwarranted premium upon immorality, and degrades society equally as
much as it does the one committing the offense.
Not only does this policy of the law foster immorality, but immorality
increases in proportion as the law becomes more drastic. Surely, the
Nevada law is more moral than that of New York, which permits divorce
for adultery only. New York has the most drastic law of any of the
States; as a consequence it has in proportion to the population, about
seven times as many proven cases of adultery as any other State. There
are nearly four times as many such cases there, as in the neighboring
State of Pennsylvania. This is not because the good people of New York
are so much worse than their neighbors, but because the law requires
that residents of the former State, who desire divorce, commit
adultery; unless they have the time, money and inclination to go to
Reno.
The effort to compel men and women to live together against their own
free will, which is the purpose of stringent divorce laws, has caused
even more immorality inside of marriage than it has outside. Immoral
conditions are never so dangerous as when they exist in marriage. And
besides, the fundamental policy of our laws which not only permits,
but requires an investigation of divorce causes, is highly productive
of evil. Many of the divorce cases in New York are simply food for a
set of morbidly curious scandal-mongers. Even the Mohammedans consider
our practice in this respect extremely vulgar: there is no more reason
why a court should know why a husband and wife wish to separate than
why they wish to marry.
Nevada most certainly has the most sane and moral divorce laws of any
of the States. More than half a century ago, in 1861, Nevada enacted
its divorce laws in their present form. It then, as now, provided for
only six months residence before filing suit. This was in line with
its other liberal legislation and with legislation in other Western
States. This divorce statute included, and still includes, seven
causes of action: impotency, adultery, desertion for one year,
conviction of a felony, gross drunkenness, cruelty and failure of the
husband for a period of one year to provide the common necessities of
life.
In addition to this there is another splendid feature of the Nevada
divorce law. It is not necessary to have witnesses, except to prove
the fact that one is a resident in Nevada. The plaintiff's testimony
is sufficient, unless the case is contested.
This law eliminates the despicable bribing of witnesses which so often
happens in other states. It also eliminates the obscene, immoral and
vulgar courtroom discussions which are often the result of calling
witnesses in divorce cases.
The wisdom of this early legislation in Nevada is shown by the fact
that more than fifty years afterwards the United States Commission of
Uniform Legislation, in preparing a law on divorce to be offered for
adoption by all states, has recommended Nevada's statute almost word
for word. It should be remembered that this Commission is made up of
the greatest thinkers of modern times: lawyers, jurists, professors,
moralists and statesmen.
No one criticises Nevada's causes for action. It is admitted that
divorce, when it results from any one of these causes, is the only
remedy for unfortunate relations, which, without such remedy, would
injure society. A great majority of the leading thinkers and writers
in our churches today admit that these causes of action are not too
broad.
I believe that Maryland has one of the most lenient divorce laws of
any of the Southern States. A divorce is granted to residents after
three years' separation. The decree is granted to the one deserted.
Some of the Eastern and Southern States, in this respect, are still in
the throes of the dark ages.
The Western States, practically all of them west of the Mississippi
River, have seen the perfidy and injustice resulting from such narrow
exactions. These modern, progressive ideas have crystallized into the
form of wise legislation, the statutes of many of the States being
almost identical with that of the State of Nevada.
In South Carolina no divorce is permitted on any ground. New York is
but little better since the only cause recognized is adultery.
New York's rigidity in this respect has annually led thousands of
people to resort to revolting and immoral acts and join in collusion,
in order to obtain relief from wretched and unbearable marriage bonds.
Such laws are unjust. Such laws wreck valuable lives. With strong
characters they lead only to unhappiness; with the weak, they result
in immoral living.
The question then: "Is divorce ever right?" must be answered in the
affirmative.
Why should two persons, who find after reasonable trial that they have
made a mistake, and that they are wholly unsuited for each other,
physically, morally and intellectually, be compelled to live together?
What is at first mutual indifference, ripens gradually into loathing
and hatred. Such conditions bring into the world innocent children,
begotten not of love, as marriage presupposes, but of disgust, hatred,
lust and incompatibility. Is it not a fact, established by the most
reliable medical authorities and celebrated criminologists, that crime
is fostered in the minds of children begotten of inharmonious
relationship?
We can never fathom the depth of untold sorrow brought about by
unfortunate marriages, where there is no way to annul them. This
burden upon mankind has resulted in countless desertions, felonies,
drunkenness, murders and suicides.
"In the daytime when she moved about me,
In the night, when she was sleeping at my side,--
I was wearied, I was wearied of her presence.
Day by day and night by night I grew to hate her--
Would God that she or I had died!"
--Kipling.
There is no stronger plea for divorce than hatred; all things
mentally, morally and physically bad originate from hatred.
I clipped the following from the Pall Mall Gazette of London, England,
of May 2oth, 1920:
EASY DIVORCE
Opinions of the Typical Englishman To the Editor of the Pall Mall
Gazette,
"Sir:-If it is not too late to answer some of the arguments brought to
bear on 'Easy Divorce,' as Lady Beecham calls it, or, as I prefer to
call it, the proposed equalisation of the Divorce Laws on which she
wrote recently, I would like to know how far the sentiments of the
'Typical Englishman' mentioned in the article are known to Lady
Beecham.
"Among many great men she mentions Gladstone. Now, his opinion on the
subject is surely well known, as in 1857 he supported an amendment
moved by Mr. H. Drummond that infidelity alone on the part of a
husband should entitle the wife to the dissolution of the marriage.
Gladstone's speech was, I believe, an earnest attack upon the
injustice of the Divorce Bill to women.
"An able advocate, Sir Charles Russell, once described the action of a
man whose wife was seeking a divorce from him in the following strong
terms: 'This was not a case of mere vulgar acts of infidelity, but it
was that of a man whose continued course of conduct, consistent only
in its profligacy and heartlessness, had brought the wife into a
condition by which the marriage tie had become a galling chain.'
"If the conduct of the respondent did not amount to legal cruelty, the
law was in an anomalous state, and did emphasize in a marked manner
the inequality which existed in the laws relating to these matters
between men and women.
"George Eliot once wrote: 'These things are often unknown to the
world; for there is much pain that is quite noiseless, and vibrations
that make human agonies are often a mere whisper in the roar of
hurrying existence."
"Thackeray in 'The Newcomes' speaks of 'matrimonial crimes where the
woman is not felled by the actual fist, though she staggers and sinks
under the blows quite as cruel and effectual, where with old wounds
still unhealed, she strives to hide under a smiling face to the
world.'
"How anyone can find it in their heart to state that incurable
insanity should not be ground for divorce is inexplicable to me; but
as it is well known that partial insanity even is not, and I know of
an instance of a man who went twice into an asylum and came back twice
to his wife, the poor woman bearing him on each occasion another
child. Even this is not a ground for divorce. The Cruelty in refusing
the injured person her freedom seems almost incredible."
The first wrong step between young people is impossible to avoid,
since during courtship both wear masks, each trying to impress the
other that he or she is a paragon of all virtues. The net result is,
that the truth often becomes a horrible revelation immediately after
the wedding ceremony. Unhappy and mismated marriages, without means of
rectification, are the curse of civilization, the living, gnawing
cancer of society.
In 1913, Nevada, under the lash of exaggerated newspaper notoriety,
enacted a law changing the period of residence for the plaintiff in
divorce actions from six months to one year. From Nevada's territorial
existence down to that time it had been six months.
It is a matter of history that Nevada extended to the world
inducements to go to her sparsely settled lands, in the way of liberal
legislation and short periods of residence to acquire rights of full
citizenship-franchise included. A man becomes, under Nevada laws, a
full fledged citizen and voter at the end of six months. To him is
extended every privilege of government and from him is exacted every
obligation of government, and the fact that at the end of six months
he can bring an action for divorce is a consequence of these laws, and
not--as is often thought--their purpose.
Consequently, changing the law on the point of one of its principles
instead of equally on all was irrational and illogical. Small wonder,
therefore, that in 1915 the people, acting through their legislators
and Governor, restored the period of residence in action for divorce
to six months. It is now in strict conformity with their other laws,
and with the same rights prescribed by them. Nevada's inhabitants have
rescinded their act of 1914, by which they allowed immigrants and
citizens to be robbed of a valuable right. The overwhelming vote of
the legislature and approval of the bill by the Governor clearly shows
the public opinion upon the subject. If it be right to commence action
for divorce in one year, then it is right in six months. Length of
period of residence is not a moral question. In this act the people of
Nevada believe that they are morally and legally right, and that they
are materially helping the progress of humanity.
It is often supposed that one can secure a divorce in Reno without
having to present grounds or causes for it. Let me hasten to
disillusion such "idealists." As mentioned above, there are seven
causes for divorce in this State, any one of which in the eyes of the
liberal Nevada law, is sufficient justification for a dissolution of
marriage.
A fact which perhaps is not generally known is that one may leave the
state temporarily any time after establishing a residence, provided,
however, that the time during which one has been absent, is eventually
"made up," that is; the actual presence in the state and county must
amount to six months.
In one divorce case at which I was present,--Mrs. Jones versus Mr.
Jones--, the questions to a six months' resident were as follows:
Q. Are you the plaintiff in this action?
Q. What relation does Mr. Jones bear to you?
Q. When were you married?
Q. Where were you married? Q. Are there any children of this marriage?
Q. It is stated in the complaint that since your marriage to Mr. Jones
he has been guilty of habitual gross drunkenness, which he has
contracted since the marriage. Will you please state to the court the
circumstances in regard to his acts of habitual drunkenness?
Q. Have his acts of habitual gross drunkenness incapacitated him from
contributing his support to the family?
Q. What effect have his habits of gross habitual drunkenness had upon
his performing his part of the marital relations?
Q. Please refer to page 5 paragraph--of your complaint and read it as
to your reasons for coming to Reno, Nevada.
Q. When did you come to the Count; of Washoe, State of Nevada?
Q. Where have you been residing since you came to Reno, Nevada?
Q. Have you been engaged in any occupation or profession during your
residence in Reno, Nevada?
Q. What is your intention in regard to your continuing your residence
in the State of Nevada?
Q. What was your former name?
Q. Do you desire to be restored to your former name for business and
property reasons?
Q. It is stated in the complaint as a second cause of action that Mr.
Jones for more than one year last past has failed, neglected and
refused to provide you with the common necessities of life. Please
state, if any, what provisions he has made for your support and how he
has supported you, if at all. Q. It is stated in the complaint that he
has been during all the said time and is now an able-bodied, talented
man, and has been and is now in receipt of liberal salaries for his
services. Please state to the court what the facts are in regard to
this.
Q. Has his failure to provide you with the common necessities of life
been the result of poverty or sickness and could he have avoided such
failure by ordinary industry?
Q. Please state how you have supported yourself.
Q. It is stated in the complaint as a third cause of action that Mr.
Jones has been guilty of extreme cruelty to you in the State of Texas
and in the State of New York. Please state to the court what his
treatment has been to you in the way of using vulgar language to you
and calling you vile names.
Q. What occurred at New York City on or about May, 1919, in regard to
the conduct of the defendant, in regard to his father and his coming
to the hotel in a condition of intoxication.
Q. It is stated that at Waco, Texas, the defendant would drink and
keep you awake until a late hour in the morning. Please state to the
court the circumstances of his conduct.
Q. What occurred during the winter of 1919 at New York City in regard
to Mr. Jones flourishing a loaded revolver and threatening to kill
you?
Q. What effect did his treatment of you have upon your being compelled
to leave him?
Q. What have you done in regard to endeavoring to persuade Mr. Jones
to cease his excessive use of intoxicating liquors, his exhibition of
ugly conduct, his vile language, to induce him to resume a normal
condition of conduct and treat you with kindness?
Q. What effect, if any, has his habitual gross drunkenness and extreme
cruelty--to you had upon your happiness and health, and how has it
affected you mentally and physically?
Q. What effect has it had upon the intent and purposes of
intermarriage and rendering your life with your husband unendurable,
miserable and unbearable?
In this case the charges were non-support and drunkenness and extreme
cruelty.
The plaintiff in a divorce case need not become seriously concerned
because a defendant has refused to sign papers at the time he or she
has been served. Personal service upon the defendant--the mere fact
that the papers are handed to the defendant is sufficient, whether he has
accepted them or not--or service by publication and mailing in Nevada will
accomplish the same purpose; except that there will be a delay of forty days
in the first case and eighty-two in the latter; however, if the defendant is
not represented, or does not appear, there may arise the question as to
the legality of the divorce in some States, especially in New York State.
It will obviate considerable delay and inconvenience, if the defendant
will sign and file his personal answer, admitting the plaintiff's
allegations of residence, marriage, children, etc., but denying the
cause of action. This answer should also contain an express waiver of
notice of all proceedings. An answer cannot be signed, however, until
the complaint is filed: the complaint cannot be--filed until six
months have elapsed: therefore the divorce is not granted in six
months, as is the impression which so many have, but the suit may be
started at the termination of the six months' period.
An expeditious and simple method of facilitating proceedings is to
have the defendant appoint a lawyer in Nevada, granting him the power
of attorney to accept service of the complaint. Since this can be
provided for in advance the delay after the case has been filed can be
reduced to a minimum.
Below is the form of the Power of Attorney:
"KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That I, John Jones, of the Town of
Waco, County of....... State of Texas, hereby constitute and
appoint........ of the city of Reno, County of Washoe, State of
Nevada, as my true and lawful attorney, in fact and at law for me and
in my name to act for me and appear for me as my attorney in any
action that may or shall be instituted by Mary Jones, my wife, against
me for the dissolution of the bonds of matrimony existing between us,
in the second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, in and
for the County of Washoe; and in any such action to accept service of
summons thereon and to plead to or demur to, or to answer any verified
complaint or other pleading that may or shall be filed by said Mary
Jones in any action in said court; and to do and perform any other act
or acts or to take any other proceeding or proceedings he shall deem
proper in said action.
"GIVING AND GRANTING unto my said attorney or his substitute full
power and authority to do and perform all and every act and thing
whatsoever requisite and necessary to be done in and out of said
action, as fully and to all intents and purposes as I might or could
do if personally present with full power of substitution, hereby
ratifying and confirming all that my said attorney or his substitute
may do or shall cause to be done by virtue of these presents.
"IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this......
day of July A. D., 1917.
"STATE OF TEXAS, COUNTY OF....... ss.:
"On this.... day of July, A. D., 1917, personally appeared before me, a
Notary Public, in and for the County of......... State of Texas, John
Jones, known to me to be the person described in and who executed the
foregoing instrument and who acknowledged to me that he executed the
same freely and voluntarily and for the uses and purposes therein
mentioned.
"IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my
official seal the day and year in this certificate first above
written.
"Notary Public in and for the County of ......... State of Texas.
Many people are under the impression that it is absolutely essential
to engage a lawyer before reaching Reno, or immediately upon arrival.
Both of these conceptions are erroneous. It is considerably wiser to
make one's selection after taking up a residence, when one has had an
opportunity to discuss the matter with the local people who "know the
ropes," and who are thus in a position to advise one right. No legal
action is necessary until some months have elapsed, unless of course
the case be exceptional, as the one below for instance.
The Nevada law provides that a suit for divorce may be immediately
commenced in the county "where the defendant may be found." From this
it will be seen that a plaintiff who has been a resident of Nevada for
ten days or even one day, may sue at once if the defendant can be
found in Nevada for service. That is, no six months period of
residence is necessary at all, if the defendant happens to be there,
or comes there for a reconciliation, to regain custody of children, to
obtain a satisfactory property settlement, or for any other legitimate
purpose, free from collusion.
A celebrated case of this kind was tried at Minden, Nevada, in 1920.
Below is a list of questions asked the plaintiff by the lawyer:
Q. When did you first come here?
A. The 15th day of February.
Q. Have you any other residence?
A. No, sir.
Q. Is it your intention to make Nevada your residence?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you by any means know of the coming of your husband into this
state?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you make any arrangements whereby he was to come into this
state?
A. No, sir.
Q. When did you first learn that he was in this State?
A. A friend told me he was coming to Nevada on business to look for a
coal mine.
Q. Did he mention any place your husband might be going to?
A. Yes, he said something about Gold Hill.
Question by the Judge:
Answer by Plaintiff:
Q. Do you know where there are coal mines in Gold Hills? You mean gold
mines.
A. Yes, gold mines.
Questions by lawyer:
Answers by Plaintiff:
Q. What if anything did you do on hearing that he might come into this
state?
A. Why, I telephoned you and informed you.
Q. Did you see your husband?
A. No, sir.
Questions by Judge:
Answers by Plaintiff:
Q. Did you have anything to do with the appearance of your husband in
this vicinity?
A. No, sir.
Q. I want to have you very clear on this. No arrangements were made
between yourself and your husband whereby he was to come into this
state?
A. No, sir.
Q. When was it that you determined to stay in Nevada?
A. When the doctor told me I needed a change.
Q. And when was that?
A. That was at Christmas, about two weeks after.
Q. Have you ever, directly or indirectly, had any understanding with
your husband that you should come into the State of Nevada and later--
being here--that he should come into this state, that you should
institute divorce proceedings and have him served with papers?
A. No, sir.
Q. Is it your purpose and intention to [remainder of question and
answer missing in original]
Q. Did you have anything to do with the appearance of your husband in
this vicinity?
A. No, sir.
Q. I want to have you very clear on this. No arrangements were made
between yourself and your husband whereby he was to come into this
state?
A. No, sir.
Q. When was it that you determined to stay in Nevada?
A. When the doctor told me I needed a change.
Q. And when was that?
A. That was at Christmas, about two weeks after.
Q. Have you ever, directly or indirectly, had any understanding with
your husband that you should come into the State of Nevada and later--
being here--that he should come into this state, that you should
institute divorce proceedings and have him served with papers?
A. No, sir.
Q. Is it your purpose and intention to remain in the State of Nevada
as a resident and particularly in the County of Douglas?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is it your purpose to build here?
A. Well, if I can find a place to suit me I will.
Q. And have you given up Los Angeles as your residence, and your
permanent residence is Genoa, Douglas County, Nevada?
A. Until I regain my health, but this will be my home.
Q. Do I understand that you have come into this state in good faith,
seeking health and nothing else?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That you have not come into the State of Nevada for the purpose of
instituting divorce proceedings?
A. No, sir.
Q. That is absolutely so?
A. Absolutely.
By the Judge:
"I think I have gone into this question pretty thoroughly. I feel that
I should do so in all these matters in view of the fact that our
statute requires a six months' residence. Therefore we should look
into these matters thoroughly. That is all."
Because of various newspaper items recently published the public has
got the idea that the Reno divorce law has been changed. The following
article, clipped from the Nevada State Journal of February 2nd, 1921,
will explain the change in the laws as amended on that date:
SCOTT DIVORCE BILL PASSES UNAN-
IMOUSLY-SENATE BILL PROVIDES
THAT PARTY MUST HAVE LIVED
IN STATE SIX MONTHS.
"Carson City, Feb. 1.--The Senate today passed the measure introduced
by Senator Scott to amend the present divorce law. The bill as drawn
re-enacts the law now in force, with the added provision, that at
least one of the parties to an action for divorce must have resided in
the State of Nevada not less than six months prior to commencement of
the suit.
"On recommendation of the judiciary committee, the bill was amended,
to make the beginning of a suit possible in cases where "the cause of
action shall have occurred within the county while plaintiff and
defendant were actually 'domiciled' therein." In a talk urging passage
of the bill as amended, Senator Scott declared that at least 90 per
cent, of the odium attached to Nevada because of its divorce law was
due to the fact that a few unscrupulous persons and attorneys-by means
of collusion-so arrange matters as to take advantage of the "Where the
defendant may be found" clause. He stated that he feared that unless
some change as he proposed was made that people might soon go to that
extreme and demand an enactment of legislation much more severe in its
requirements. He presented the bill, "not as an attorney, but as a
citizen of Nevada to cure what as a citizen he believed to be an
evil." The amendments were adopted, and the bill passed, Senator Ducey
answering "No," on roll call.
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 | 8 |
9 |
10 |
11