As to property matters it may be broadly stated that they have in general precisely the same rights that men have, and in several States more; that is to say, a woman frequently has a larger interest in the property of a man at his death, than the man has in hers, should she predecease him; and universally she is given a share of the husband"s property in case of divorce, either outright or by way of alimony, which, so far as I know, is never awarded to the man even if he be the innocent party. In New Jersey and some other States, a married woman is not permitted to guarantee or endorse the notes or debts of her husband. Many of the Southwestern States, from Louisiana to California, recognize or adopt the French idea of community property.
By the Mississippi const.i.tution "the legislature shall never create by law any distinction between the rights of men and women to acquire, own, enjoy, and dispose of property of all kinds, or other power of contract in reference thereto." But this does not prevent laws regulating contracts between husband and wife.
In matters of divorce and personal relation, such as the guardianship of children, the tendency has also been to put women on an equality with men and more so. That is to say, divorces are awarded women which for similar reasons would not be awarded men, both by statute and by usual court decision, and although a very few States, such as recently developed in the conservative State of South Carolina, retain the common-law idea that the father must be the head of the family, many States provide that the rights of the parents to the custody and education of their children shall be equal. In other words they are to be brought up by a committee of two. Nevertheless, in California and other code States of the West it is still declared that the husband is the head of the family and may fix the place of abode, and the wife must follow him under penalty of desertion. Such matters are more often determined by custom or by court decision on the common law than by written statute; and it is apprehended that the judges will usually follow the more conservative rule of giving the custody of infant children to the mother, and of more mature children, particularly the boys, to the father.
Divorce statistics on the subject are extremely misleading for two great reasons: First, because in the nature of the case, and perhaps of the American character, in two cases out of three a divorce is granted for fault of the husband.[1] And in the second place, because a false cause is given in a great majority of cases. In England until recently the rule was absolute that a woman could not get a divorce for adultery alone, but there had to be cruelty besides; while the man could be divorced for the first-named cause. No such rule has ever prevailed in any State of this country. Desertion and failure to support, on the other hand, are much more easily proved by the wife.
In short, it is not too much to say that in all matters of divorce she stands in a position of advantage.
[Footnote 1: _U.S. Labor Bulletin_, Special Reports on Divorce, 1860, 1908.]
The same thing is in practice true as to marriage. Under liberal notions, prevailing until recently in all our States, certainly in all where the so-called common-law marriage prevails, it is extremely easy for a woman to prove herself the lawful wife of any man she could prove herself to have known, and sometimes even without proving the acquaintance. The "common-law" marriage, by the way, is not, so far as I can determine, the English common law, nor ever was. If any common law at all, it is the Scotch common law, the English law always having required a ceremony by some priest or at least some magistrate, as does still the law of New England. Under the influence of the State Commissioners for Uniformity of Law this matter has been amended in the State of New York, so that if there be no ceremony there must at least be some written evidence of contract, as in the case of a sale of goods and chattels under the statute of frauds; the contract of marriage being thus, for the first time in New York, made of equal importance with that of the sale of goods to the value of one hundred dollars. Much difference of opinion exists between the South and the North upon this point, the Southern view being more remarkable for chivalry, and the Northern for good sense. Southern members of the National Conference of Commissioners claimed that any such law would result in disaster to many young girls; that if they had to travel ten, twenty, or thirty miles to find a minister or justice of the peace they would in many cases dispense with the formality or be impatient of the delay; and that anyhow on general principles any unmarried man who had seen an unmarried young woman two or three times ought to be engaged to her if he was not. The Northern Commissioners, on the other hand, were desirous of protecting the man, and especially his legitimate widow and children, from the female adventuress, which view the South again characterized as cynical. There is probably something to be said for both sides.
Coming finally to political rights, the subject of women"s suffrage alone might well be reserved for a separate chapter, if, indeed, it is to be disposed of by any one mind; but at least the actual occurrences may be stated. As mentioned above in our chapter on political rights, it now exists, by the const.i.tutions of four States; and has been submitted by const.i.tutional amendment in several others and refused.
No actual progress, therefore, has been made in fifteen years. As to office-holding, the const.i.tutions of Missouri and Oklahoma--one most conservative, the other most radical--both specify that the governor and members of the legislature must be male. In South Dakota women may hold any office except as otherwise provided by the const.i.tution. In Virginia, by the const.i.tution, they may be notaries public. In all other States, save the four women"s-suffrage States, the common law prevails, and they may not hold political office. The first entirely female jury was empanelled in Colorado this year (1910). In some States, however, statutes have been pa.s.sed opening certain offices, such as notaries public, and, of course, the school commission. Such statutes are, in the writer"s opinion, illogical; if women, under a silent const.i.tution, can hold office by statute, they can do it without. It is or is not a const.i.tutional right which the legislature, at least, has no power to give or withhold.
Generally in matters of education they have the same rights both to teach and be taught as males. Indeed, Idaho, Washington, and Wyoming declare that the people have a right to education "without distinction of race, color, caste, or s.e.x," and that is practically the case by the common law of all States, though there is nothing to prevent either coeducation or segregation in schools. The recent tendency of custom is certainly in the latter direction, Tufts, Wesleyan, and other Eastern colleges having given up coeducation after trial, and the principle having been attacked in Chicago, Michigan, and other universities, and by many writers both of fact and fiction.
These are the abstract statements, but one or two matters deserve more particular treatment. First of all, divorce legislation. Many years ago the State Commissioners for Uniformity of Law voted to adhere to the policy of reforming divorce procedure while not attacking the causes. This, again, is too vast a subject to more than summarize here. The causes of divorce vary and have varied all the way from no divorce for any cause in South Carolina, for only one cause in New York and other States, up to twenty or thirty causes, with that indefinite or "omnibus" clause of "mutual incompatibility," or allowing the courts to grant divorces in the interest of the general peace. Since the efforts of reformers have wiped out the express-omnibus clause from the legislation of all States, the same abuse has crept in under the guise of "cruelty"; the national divorce report before referred to showing that the courts of this broad land have held sufficient cruelty to justify divorce (to the wife at least) to exist in tens of thousands of different incidents or causes, ranging all the way from attempts to murder ("breaking plaintiff"s nose, fingers, two of her ribs, cut her face and lip, chewed and bitten her ears and face, and wounded her generally from head to foot") to not cutting his toenails [1] or refusing to take the wife to drive in a buggy; indeed, one young North Carolina woman got a divorce from a man she had recently married, on the ground that he was possessed of great wealth, but she had been a.s.sured that he was an invalid, and had married him in the hope and belief of his speedy decease, instead of which he proceeded to get cured, which caused her great mental anguish; while one husband at least got a divorce for a missing vest b.u.t.ton.[2] But, independent of the vagaries of courts and judges, and perhaps, most of all, of juries in such matters, it has been found that the numbers of divorces bear no particular relation to the number of causes. In fact, many clergymen argue that to have only one cause, adultery, is the worst law of all, as it drives the parties to commit this sin when otherwise they might attain the desired divorce by simple desertion. Moreover, the difference in condition, education, religion, race, and climate is so great throughout the Union that it is unwise, as well as impossible, to get all of our forty-eight States to take the same view on this subject, the Spanish Catholic as the Maine free-thinker, the settler in wild and lonely regions as the inhabitant of the old New England town over-populated by spinsters. It was, therefore, the opinion of the State Commissioners that the matter of causes was best determined by States, according to their local conditions, and that it would be unwise to attempt, even by amendment to the Const.i.tution, to enforce a national uniformity. All the abuses, substantially, in divorce matters come from procedure, from the carelessness of judges and juries, or, most of all, by laws permitting divorce without proper term of residence, without proper notice to the other side, or by collusion, without proper defence, or for no reason but the obvious intention of contracting other marriages. The recommendations of the Commissioners on Uniformity will, therefore, be found summarized below,[3] and there is beginning to be legislation in the direction of adopting these, or similar statutes. The Supreme Court has vindicated, however, the right of the State not to be compelled under the full faith and credit clause to give effect to divorces improperly obtained in other States by its own citizens or against a defendant who is a citizen. In other words, a marriage, lawful where made, is good everywhere; not so of a divorce. The fact that this ruling, wise and proper, necessarily results in the possibility that a person may be married in one State, divorced in another, and a bachelor in a third, and bigamous in a fourth, lends but an added variety to American life. If the people wish to give the Federal government power to make nationwide marriage and divorce laws, they must do so by const.i.tutional amendment.
[Footnote 1: _Sic_: "U.S. Labor Commissioners" Report on Marriage and Divorce," Revised Edition, 1889, pp. 174, 175, 176.]
[Footnote 2: _Ibid_., p. 177.]
[Footnote 3: AN ACT TO ESTABLISH A LAW UNIFORM WITH THE LAW OF OTHER STATES RELATIVE TO MIGRATORY DIVORCE
Section 1. No divorce shall be granted for any cause arising prior to the residence of the complainant or defendant in this State, which was not ground for divorce in the State where the cause arose.
Sec. 2. The word "divorce" in this act shall be deemed to mean divorce from the bond of marriage.
Sec. 3. All acts and parts of acts inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed.
AN ACT TO ESTABLISH A LAW UNIFORM WITH THE LAWS OF OTHER STATES RELATIVE TO DIVORCE PROCEDURE AND DIVORCE FROM THE BONDS OF MARRIAGE
Section 1. No person shall be ent.i.tled to a divorce for any cause arising in this State who has not had actual residence in this State for at least one year next before bringing suit for divorce, with a _bona-fide_ intention of making this State his or her permanent home.
Sec. 2. No person shall be ent.i.tled to a divorce for any cause arising out of this State unless the complainant or defendant shall have resided within this State for at least two years next before bringing suit for divorce, with a _bona-fide_ intention of making this State his or her permanent home.
Sec. 3. No person shall be ent.i.tled to a divorce unless the defendant shall have been personally served with process if within the State, or if without the State, shall have had personal notice, duly proved and appearing of record, or shall have entered an appearance in the case; but if it shall appear to the satisfaction of the court that the complainant does not know the address nor the residence of the defendant and has not been able to ascertain either, after reasonable and due inquiry and search, continued for six months after suit brought, the court or judge in vacation may authorize notice by publication of the pendency of the suit for divorce, to be given in manner provided by law.
Sec. 4. No divorce shall be granted solely upon default nor solely upon admissions by the pleadings, nor except upon hearing before the court in open session.
Sec. 5. After divorce either party may marry again, but in cases where notice has been given by publication only, and the defendant has not appeared, no decree or judgment for divorce shall become final or operative until six months after hearing and decision.
Sec. 6. Wherever the word "divorce" occurs in this act, it shall be deemed to mean divorce from the bond of marriage.
Sec, 7. All acts and parts of acts inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed.]
It is always to be remembered that the law of marriage, and divorce as well, was originally administered by the church. Marriage was a _sacrament_; it brought about a _status_; it was not a mere secular contract, as is growing to be more and more the modern view. Indeed, the whole matter of s.e.xual relations was left to the church, and was consequently matter of sin and virtue, not of crime and innocence.
Modern legislation has, perhaps, too far departed from this distinction. Unquestionably, many matters of which the State now takes jurisdiction were better left to the conscience and to the church, so long as they offend no third party nor the public. Very few lawyers doubt that most of the causes of action based on them, such as the familiar one for alienation of the affections, are only of use to the blackmailer and the adventurer. They are very seldom availed of by honest women.
Nevertheless, it is not questionable that modern American legislation, particularly in the code States, in California, New York, and the West generally, is based upon the view that marriage is a simple contract, whence results the obvious corollary that it may be dissolved at any time by mutual consent. No State has thus far followed the decision to this logical end, on the pretended a.s.sumption that the rights of children are concerned; but the rights of children might as well be conserved upon a voluntary divorce as after a scandalous court proceeding. One possible view is that the church should set its own standard, and the state its own standard, even to the extreme of not regulating the matter at all except by ordinary laws of contract and laws for the record of marriages and divorces and for the custody, guardianship, support, and education of children, which would include the presumption of paternity pending an undissolved marriage, but all divorces to be by mutual consent. It is evident to any careful student of our legislation that we would be rapidly approaching this view but for the conservative influence of Ma.s.sachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and the South, and but for the efforts of most of the churches and the divorce reform societies. Which influence will prove more powerful in the end it is not possible to predict.
Socialists urge that the inst.i.tution of marriage is bound up with that of private property. There is little doubt that the women"s suffrage movement tends to socialism, and, also, paradoxical as it may at first seem, to lax marriage laws and easy divorces. "The single standard of morality" offered by all advanced women"s-rights advocates will necessarily be a levelling down, not a levelling up; and in a society where the life of the ordinary young woman _is_ that which at least _was_ that of the ordinary young man about town, it is hardly likely that there will be any stricter legislation. Where a majority of young women live alone and earn their living, the old order must change.
Divorce, it should be known, is a modern inst.i.tution; that is, divorce by the secular courts. Such divorce as the Roman Church recognized, or was granted by act of Parliament, was the only divorce existing down to the year 1642, when one Hannah Huish was divorced in Connecticut by the General Court, "with liberty to marry again as G.o.d may grant her opportunity," and about that time the Colony of Ma.s.sachusetts Bay enacted the first law (with the possible exception of one in Geneva) permitting divorces by ordinary courts of law.
The age of consent means two things, or even three, which leads to much confusion. It has a definite meaning in the criminal law, to be discussed later; and then it has a double meaning in the marriage law.
First, the age under which the marriage of a girl or boy is absolutely void; second, the age at which it is lawful without the consent of the parents. The tendency of our legislation is to raise the latter age and possibly the former. At least, marriages of very young persons may be absolutely cancelled as if they had never taken place. According to all precedents, human and divine, from the Garden of Eden to Romeo and Juliet, "the age of consent" would by common sense appear to be the age at which the woman did in fact consent; such is the common law, but such is not usually law by our statutes.
But perhaps the legislation of the future is best represented by the extraordinary effort, whose beginning we now see, to prevent freedom of marriage Itself. There is probably no human liberty, no const.i.tutional right to property, or hardly, even, to one"s personal freedom, which has been more ardently a.s.serted by all persons not actually slaves (and even, indeed, by them) than the right to love and marry. In the rare instances where even priests have interfered, it has usually led to resentment or resistance. The common law has never dared to.[1] Marriages between near relations, prohibited by the Mosaic law, were invalid by the church law, and became invalid by the secular law at the very late period when it began to have any jurisdiction over the matter, hardly in England half a century ago; in the United States, where we have never had canon law or church courts, the secular law took the Mosaic law from the time of the Ma.s.sachusetts Body of Liberties (1641). The first interference of statute was the prohibition of the marriage of first cousins. This seems to be increasing. The prohibition of marriage between different races we have mentioned in another chapter. To-day we witness the startling tendency for the States to prescribe whom a person shall _not_ marry, even if it do not prescribe whom they shall. The science of eugenics, new-fangled as the word itself, will place upon the statute-book matters and considerations which our forefathers left to the Lord.
Considerable progress has already been made in this country. The marriage of insane persons, persons absolutely _non compos_, was, of course, always void at the common law, and the church law as well.
They are incapable of contract. The marriage of impotent persons was void also, but by recent laws the marriage of epileptics is forbidden and made void, the marriage of persons addicted to intoxicating liquors or drugs, the marriage of persons who have been infected by certain diseases; and finally, most startling of all, the proposal looms in the future to make every man contemplating a marriage submit himself to an examination, both moral and physical, by the State or city officials as to his health and habits, and even that of his ancestry, as bearing upon his posterity. Novels have been written about men who avoided marriage by reason of a taint of insanity in the family; this modern science of eugenics would propose to make such conduct compulsory by law.
[Footnote 1: Mr. Flinders Petrie, in his late book, "Ja.n.u.s in Modern Life," tells us that at least ten varieties of marriage and marriage law have prevailed in history, and that all save marriage by capture perdure in the civilized world to-day, most of them, in actuality, even in England.]
We have now said enough on the abstract questions to close with some of the concrete examples. Some States forbid the marriage of a person who has tuberculosis; some require him to submit to an examination. In 1907 a bill was introduced in Michigan, which provided that no person should be permitted to marry who had ever led an unchaste life. This bill did not, however, become a law.
In divorce matters New York, in 1890, adopted the very intelligent statute requiring courts to allow a person charged as corespondent in a divorce case to make defence. Six States raised the age of consent in criminal matters, and four in marriage; one required a marriage ceremony. In 1891 one State added crime, or conviction for crime, as a cause of divorce, one insanity. Two regulated the procedure in the direction recommended by the Uniformity Commissioners. One made it criminal to advertise the securing of divorces in the newspapers. Two States made simple s.e.xual connection a crime (which was not a crime at the common law). One Southern State enacted a special law against slander of women,--another instance of the tendency to their special protection. Several States adopted newer laws giving complete control of their separate property to women, and allowing them to do business as sole traders, without responsibility for the husband"s debts. Two more States pa.s.sed statutes allowing women to practise law. In 1890 one other State forbids drinks to be served by either women or children under eighteen.
In 1893 there was much legislation concerning the powers of the mother over the children, and the liability of the husband to support both wife and children under penalty as for the crime of desertion. This legislation has now become pretty general throughout the country; that is, it is made a criminal offence for a man to desert his wife or children, or, being able, to fail to support them. One State declared the husband and wife joint guardians of the children. In 1894 one State prohibited marriage between first cousins, and one between uncle and niece. One declared that marriage removed nonage. One made it a misdemeanor for a married man to make an offer of marriage. The laws for support of wife and children continue, and there were laws pa.s.sed giving alimony to the wife, even in case the divorce were for her fault. One State made both husband and wife competent witnesses against each other in either civil or criminal cases. One found it necessary to declare that a woman might practise medicine, and another that she might be a guardian; the statute in both cases would seem to have been unnecessary. Two States provided that she might not serve liquor in saloons or restaurants, the statute already referred to. Louisiana adopted the intelligent statute, already mentioned, permitting the right of suffrage to women in cases of votes on loans or taxes by cities, counties, or towns; and Utah first enacted the much-mooted statute that female school-teachers should be paid like wages as males for the same services. It would be most interesting to hear how this statute, which was pa.s.sed in 1896, turned out to work.[1] One State provided that women might be masters in chancery, and another carried out the idea of equality by enacting that women should no longer be excepted in the laws against tramps and vagrants.
Const.i.tutional amendments proposing women"s suffrage were defeated this year (1895) in no less than nine States. Connecticut pa.s.sed a law that no man or woman should marry who was epileptic or imbecile, if the wife be under forty-five, and another State for the first time awards divorce to the husband for cruelty or indignities suffered at the hands of the wife, while another State still repeals altogether its law permitting divorces for cruelty or intoxication. One other makes insanity a cause of divorce. One other, non-support. Two or three adopt the notion of joint guardianship of children.
[Footnote 1: A State official informs me that the law is evaded, see above, p. 212.]
In 1897 one State prohibits the remarriage of divorced parties during the life of the innocent plaintiff; the Uniformity of Law Commissioners came to the conclusion that any limitation upon remarriage was unwise and led both to immorality and to wrong against innocent third persons. Divorces should either not be granted at all, or be granted absolutely. This is the better opinion; though, of course, it does not apply to mere orders of separation. Much confusion of thought has arisen upon this subject, the upholders of lax divorces always a.s.suming that the opponents mean to compel persons to live together in misery or incompatibility, which, of course, is far from the case. A legal separation has always been permitted, except, indeed, where that doctrine is interfered with by modern statute; any wife can be freed of a vicious or cruel husband and even compel him to support her while living away from him, but "platform women" are apt to forget this fact. In the same year one Southern State has the chivalry to provide that no women should be worked as convicts on the road; one is not aware but for this that it ever happened. We see more humane legislation about this time for the protection and proper treatment of women in jails or houses of detention, for the services of matrons and the careful separation of the s.e.xes, and by now seats for women in stores or factories are almost universally required. The sale of liquor to women is in one State specially forbidden, Louisiana follows the Texas law giving women tax-payers a vote on appropriations for permanent improvements.
In 1899 comes the law of Michigan, already referred to, forbidding persons with contagious diseases to marry, and compelling physicians to testify. The Ma.s.sachusetts Medical a.s.sociation has gone on record as urging that there should be a privilege to physicians in all cases, as there is to lawyers. Many people believe that to be the common law; such is not the case, even as to priests.
One more State this year awards divorce for insanity, and one more for intoxication. Several States permit women to get damages from liquor-sellers selling intoxicating drink to their husbands; I know of no corresponding statute permitting the husband to get damages for drinks sold the wife. A wife may testify against the husband in certain cases, as actions for alienating of affection, or criminal conversation; not so the husband. Texas and other Southwestern States adopt the statute that an action for seduction shall be suspended on the defendant"s marriage with the plaintiff, otherwise it is a felony, and it is again a felony should he after such marriage desert her--the Fourteenth Amendment to the contrary notwithstanding (which reminds one of the colonial Ma.s.sachusetts statute, that the punishment for that offence may either be imprisonment in the state-prison, or marriage!).
The laws aimed at mere sin increase in number. One State makes improper relations, even by mutual consent, punishable with four years in the state-prison, if the girl be under eighteen. North Dakota introduces a bill to require medical examination in all cases as a prerequisite to marriage; it failed in North Dakota that year, but was promptly introduced in other States. In Oregon all widows and fathers may vote, without regard to property qualification, in school district elections; and this State joins the number of those which forbid the marriage of first cousins.
In 1901 came the great New York statute abolishing the common-law marriage, which we have discussed above. Some States pa.s.s laws punishing wife-beating by either imprisonment or a whipping. In 1902 perhaps the most interesting thing is that there is no legislation whatever of any kind on the subject of women"s suffrage--showing distinctly the refluent wave. In 1903 New Hampshire rejects a const.i.tutional amendment for women"s suffrage. Kansas restricts the marriage of epileptic and weak-minded persons. Several States reform their divorce laws, and Pennsylvania adopts Southern ideas giving divorce for a previous unchast.i.ty discovered after marriage. This matter has so far been covered by no Northern State, though it had been law from all time in Virginia.
In 1904 women"s suffrage was proposed in Oregon, and in 1905 rejected.
Illinois follows New York in abolishing the common-law marriage, and raises the age to eighteen in a woman and twenty-one in a man. As is often the case, it does not appear from the ambiguous wording of the statute whether this invalidates the marriage or merely subjects the offenders, or the minister or the magistrate, to a penalty; probably the latter. Minnesota forbids the marriage of imbecile or epileptic persons; Nebraska that of first cousins, and Pennsylvania adopts the uniform divorce law recommended by the commissioners. Five other States reform their divorce laws, and four their laws concerning married women"s property, and seventeen adopt new laws for compulsory support of the woman and children by the husband.
In 1906 one more State adopts the idea of giving a vote to female property-owners in money elections. One puts the age of consent up to sixteen. In a good many States it is already eighteen. Women"s suffrage is again rejected in Oregon; and finally even South Dakota reforms her divorce laws.
Perhaps a word should be given to other laws relating to minors as well as to young women. There is very general legislation throughout the country forbidding the sale of intoxicating liquor to persons under twenty-one, and in the great majority of the States the sale of cigarettes, narcotics or other drugs, or even tobacco, to persons under twenty-one, eighteen, or fifteen, respectively. In some States it is forbidden, or made a misdemeanor, to insure the lives of children--very important legislation, if necessary. In 1904 Virginia pa.s.sed a statute punishing kidnapping with death, which is followed in 1905 by heavy penalties for abduction in three other States; fourteen States establish juvenile courts. Seven States make voluntary cohabitation a crime, and six pa.s.s what are known as curfew laws.
Indeed, it may be generally said that the tendency is, either by State statute or munic.i.p.al ordinance, to forbid children, or at least girls under sixteen, from being unattended on the streets of a city after a certain hour in the evening.
In 1907 Mississippi makes the age of consent twelve, and the penalty for rape death, which, indeed, is the common law, but which law has extraordinary consequences when the age is raised, as it is in many States, to eighteen. Two more States adopt the laws against abduction and one a statute against blackmail.
Sufficient has, perhaps, been said to give the reader a general view of contemporary law-making on this most important matter of personal relations. Most of the matters mentioned in this chapter are cohered by various learned societies in annual reports, or even by the government, in cases of marriage and divorce, and to such special treatises the reader may be referred for more precise information. The Special Report of the United States Census Office, 1909, published early in 1910, makes a careful and elaborate study of the whole question from the years 1867 to 1906. Such statistics are necessarily uncertain for reasons already indicated. Court judgments do not indicate the true cause of divorce, nor is the complainant necessarily the innocent party, nor are the numbers of divorces granted, as for instance in Nevada, any fair indication of the normal divorce rate of the people really living in that State. With this caution we will note that the number of divorces varied from about five hundred in each hundred thousand of married population every year in Washington, Montana, Colorado, Arkansas, Texas, Oregon, Wyoming, Indiana, Idaho, and Oklahoma, down to less than fifty, or about one-tenth as many, in New Jersey, New York, and Delaware. Certain significant observations may certainly be made upon this table. In the first place, the older States, the old thirteen, have, from the point of view of the conservative or divorce reformer, the best record. At the head stand the three States just named, then North Carolina, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, Ma.s.sachusetts, Louisiana (largely French and Roman Catholic), and Connecticut--ten of the original thirteen States. Only New Hampshire and Rhode Island, the latter for obvious reasons, stand low down in the column; the last State having about three hundred divorces as against Montana"s five hundred. South Carolina, having no divorces at all, does not appear.
The next observation one is compelled to make is that divorces are most numerous in the women"s suffrage States, or in the States neighboring, where "women"s rights" notions are most prevalent.
Montana, Colorado, Wyoming, and Idaho stand second, third, sixth, and eighth, respectively, among the fifty States and Territories comprised in the table.[1] On succeeding pages are graphic maps showing the conditions which in this particular prevail for a number of years.
There is little change of these in the thirty years from 1870 to 1900.
The Atlantic seaboard and Southern States in 1870 are left white, with the exception of New England, which is slightly shaded; that is, they have less than twenty-five divorces per hundred thousand of inhabitants. In 1880 the black belt States and Territories--having one hundred and over--extends from Wyoming over Montana, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada. In 1900 it covers the entire far West and Southwest, with the exception of New Mexico (Roman Catholic) and Utah (Mormon). The chart showing the relation of divorces to number of married population does not materially differ. Now these figures, ranging from five hundred divorces per hundred thousand married population per year, or three hundred in the more lax States, down to less than fifty in the stricter States, compare with other countries as follows: