The Editor’s Bag
SECRET DIVORCES
law of divorce procedure (see 13 Law Notes 128).
HERE has lately been some con troversy in New York State about the propriety of secret proceed ings in suits for divorce. Such discus sion would have been less likely to occur if there were less confusion in the law of divorce, as it exists in the United States,
and the people of this country could
The Uniform Divorce Law has a pro vision relating to that point of proce dure which is involved in secret divorces. Section 12 reads :— All hearings and trials shall be had before the court, and not before a master, referee,
or other delegated representative, and shall in all cases be public.
come to some sort of a common agree
Section 15 is as follows:
ment with regard to the provisions of an ideal divorce law. It is exceedingly doubtful whether a uniform divorce law will ever be adopted
No record or evidence in any case shall be
by all the states.
When we consider
what a gulf separates New York, North and South Carolina, and the District of Columbia from the other states, it determining what grounds for divorce shall be recognized, it does not look as if sectional traditions and prejudices could ever be completely overcome. We are pleased to find, however, that
the uniform Divorce Law drafted by the national Commissioners has been enacted in New Jersey, Delaware and Wisconsin,
and possibly elsewhere.
It is not vain
to expect that it may be adopted by a large number of states, and that the
remainder may be favorably influenced by the movement to abolish, at least,
some of the more objectionable pro visions of the older laws. And as former Justice Henry B. Brown has said, while
uniformity in the substantive law is not attainable, it may be secured in the
impounded, or access thereto refused.
The law of New York is completely at variance with the two foregoing pro visions. It allows the referring of con tested divorce cases, and the referee
may in his discretion exclude the public from the hearing, while the judge is understood to have power, under a rule
of practice, to direct the sealing of papers. We may accept as sound the opinion of the New York Law journal that this custom of referring contested cases has resulted in sham and subterfuge,
owing to the effect of the provision that the answer in a divorce case need not be verified. This rule has made possible
the trying of cases which are really un contested before referees, and in a de feat of the law that all such cases shall
be heard in open court. Probably not enough defenders of the propriety of secret proceedings in uncontested cases could be found to create an issue on that score; the question to be considered is, should all contested cases have a
