PART 6

NEVADA DIVORCE LAWS

"The History of Nevada," published in 1913, Sam P. Davis writes as follows:

"The unenviable reputation, throughout the length and breadth of the land, in regard to the divorce law, has heaped ignominy on the State of Nevada. A few unscrupulous members of the legal fraternity, little better than outcasts at home, have come to Reno and besmirched the good name of a great State by their activity in converting into pernicious channels a law originally intended to give relief to mismated couples who could not travel the matrimonial highway in peace and harmony.

"The divorce law of Nevada was enacted by the first territorial legislative assembly in 1861. The law was good enough for Nevada and gave general satisfaction until its exploitation for purely mercenary motives began.

"Twenty-two States have practically the same divorce laws in force on their statute books, with the exception of the provision regarding residence. Until this year, Nevada required only six months' residence, but that had to be clearly established before action for dissolution of marriage could have any standing in the courts of the state. The residence had to be absolute, without the lapse of a single day except where good and sufficient reason could be shown, and to the entire satisfaction of the trial court.

"Six months' residence was also necessary for citizenship in Nevada and enabled a man to exercise all the rights of a citizen. Therefore, it naturally follows, that he could prosecute a divorce, or any other kind of a suit, in the State of which he was a citizen.

"In order that the reader may reach an intelligent understanding of this much mooted question, the statute on divorce is quoted in full:

"Divorce from the bonds of matrimony may be obtained * * * for the following causes:

"First—Impotency at the time of marriage, continuing to the time of divorce.

"Second—Adultery, since marriage, remaining unforgiven.

"Third—Wilful desertion at any time; of either party by the other, for a period of one year.

"Fourth—Conviction of a felony or infamous crime.

"Fifth—Habitual gross drunkenness since marriage, of either party, which shall incapacitate him from contributing his or her share to the support of the family.

"Sixth—Extreme cruelty in either of the parties.

"Seventh—Neglect of the husband for the period of one year, to provide the common necessaries of life, when such neglect is not the result of poverty on the part of the husband, which he could have avoided in ordinary industry."

"As the law governing the term of residence, to acquire citizenship, which obtained in Nevada for half a century without causing even passing comment, has been taken advantage of for mere mercenary motives, the unanimous verdict of a righteously indignant people went forth that the law should be amended, in some way, to correct the evil. Thus at the last session of the Legislature the time required to obtain a residence before obtaining a divorce was changed from six months to one year.

"If some sister States are stricken with remorse or find themselves in a sudden paroxysm of virtuous indignation, let them pass a law and enforce it, correcting the evils complained of at home, which will keep their divorces from coming to Reno-Nevada does not want them. If they persist in coming, let their home State enact a law which will make a divorce decree obtained in Nevada, void and of no effect whenever and wherever said divorcee sets foot within the borders of the home State. When other States enact and rigidly enforce some such drastic measure, the West will begin to have some regard for their particular brand of virtue. Until then, the West may be pardoned for believing that cant and hypocrisy often join hands with the lawless element and make a grandstand play for political effect.

"Economic conditions in the West are vastly different from those in the East. Nevada is a sparsely populated country, and it is not considered to the interest of the State to hedge about too closely the road which leads to citizenship. Anything which may have a tendency to obstruct immigration or turn it in another direction, is conceded, in this neck of the woods, to be unwise statesmanship. The State has a vital interest in securing and holding as large a population as is consistent with her rapidly increasing resources; always keeping steadily in view the fact that none but desirable citizens are wanted. If, however, the other kind come, as they sometime do, Nevada is ready to cope with the situation, as many of that class can testify from personal experience.

"Nevada is a veteran of the Civil War, having been organized as a territory in 1861, and admitted as a State of this glorious Union in 1864. No soldier on the field of battle ever made a more gallant defense of his country than did this "Battle Born" State during the trying times of the war. What she lacked in men was made up in money. Nevada was baptised in the blood of the nation and paid for her baptismal rite in a flood of gold and silver. With this flood of gold and silver, she saved the commercial honor of the country. This gold and silver paid the armies of the Civil War, averted national bankruptcy, and enabled the Government to resume specie payment in 1873.

"Those were dark days in the financial and political history of the United States, and Nevada, maligned and despised as she is today in some quarters, was the savior of her country in that most critical period of her history. The State that furnished the sinews of war should have some standing in the hearts and minds of the American people, even if Republics are ungrateful.

"From the best information at hand, it would appear that the mines of Nevada have yielded the enormous sum of two billion dollars during the past fifty years. Of this amount it is conceded that the Comstock alone produced fully one-half. The figures are given in round numbers, but are considered by mining men who are posted in such matters to be conservative. Thousands of discoveries, many of them marvelously rich, are still being made all over the state, in hitherto unknown and undeveloped territory. Besides gold, silver and copper, immense deposits of salt, borax, lime, platinum, sulphur, soda, potash-salts, cinnabar, arsenical ores, zinc, coal, antimony, cobalt, nickel, nitre, isinglass, manganese, alum, kaolin, iron, gypsum, mica and graphite exist in large quantities.

"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.

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.

"At the afternoon session of the Senate, Senator Ducey rose to ask a question of privilege, and proceeded to explain his vote by stating that he had failed to get the gist of the amendment. He thereupon requested that the Senate grant him the courtesy of a reconsideration of the vote taken at the morning session. Under the unanimous consent rule, a motion for reconsideration carried, after which the bill was passed with sixteen senators voting in its favor."

[Illustration: Picture of Sir H. Walter Huskey] Following is a letter from H. Walter Huskey, one of Reno's prominent lawyers, in which at my request he answers some very important questions. Much of the information I have already given you in the foregoing pages, but I think it a good idea to give you the questions exactly as answered by him. This information really consists of most valuable legal advice to anyone anticipating a visit to Reno.

Twenty-second October,1920.

"Dear Mrs. Stratton:

"I am very happy to have your letter of the 11th instant, and to note that you are making such splendid progress with your book.

"My time and services are always at your command, even though you have asked me some questions that are not strictly in the horizon of a lawyer's work.

"The advantages of Nevada's divorce laws are as follows:

"The residence is only six months, but requires actual presence in the county where the action is to be filed. We have six causes of action for the husband, and—by adding neglect of the husband to provide the plaintiff with the common necessities of life—seven for the wife.

"In most states corroborative evidence is required, that is, testimony of evidence tending to corroborate the allegation and testimony of the plaintiff. In Nevada no corroborative evidence is required in the absence of a contest, that is, testimony of the plaintiff alone in a non-contested case is sufficient.

"In most or many of the states, the decree of divorce when granted is not final and absolute, that is, in some states it is interlocutory, requiring another appearance in court at the end of six months or a year. In other states, either one or both parties are forbidden the right to marry for six months or one year or longer, or the defendant is given six months in which to appeal, or one or both parties are placed under disabilities preventing immediate marriage. In Nevada the decree is absolute the moment granted and the minister, if desired, may be waiting at the court house door to perform the new marriage ceremony…..

"With these few remarks I shall take up your questions by number:

"1. Where to go upon arrival?

"There are three good hotels in Reno; the Riverside Hotel, Hotel Golden and the Overland Hotel. Besides the hotels we have two or three good apartment houses. Many people go directly to the private boarding houses where room and board can be had at more reasonable figures.

"2. What attitude to take up with the local people: what to do: what to avoid?

"In the great West strangers are taken to be alright, until they prove themselves otherwise. It is unlike the East or South, where one must prove oneself as to character and standing, before one can hope to be admitted into the better circles of society. Fully ninety per cent, of the people who come to Nevada to become bona fide residents with the expectation of taking advantage of Nevada's lenient divorce laws, are people of high character and standing. It is naturally well to mix with Reno's people, to keep oneself as straight and restricted as one would do at home, and to avoid the tendency to throw off all restraint when one passes west of the Rocky Mountains.

"3. Are there any crook lawyers?

"There are crook lawyers, but not in Reno. There were one or two who have been indicted and disbarred. Sometimes it is possible-when the address can be found-to communicate with the defendant spouse and stir up trouble by offering to defend him or her free of charge, hoping by such action to be placed in position to squeeze a few hundred dollars out of the plaintiff. The best way to avoid this is to go to Reno and look over the field before selecting an attorney.

"4. The possibility of blackmail?

"The only possibility in the nature of blackmail comes from unprofessional practitioners like those mentioned in the preceding paragraph, who, in some way having the address of the defendant, communicate with him or her in the hope of stirring up trouble and representing the defendant in the contest. When relations are thus taken up with the proposed defendant, these lawyers usually notify the plaintiff that if the plaintiff will come to him or to a lawyer of his selection—someone closely associated with him—the matters can be adjusted and the divorce granted. The position taken by our County Clerk, under our law, in refusing absolutely to allow anyone, other than the parties and attorneys for the parties in a divorce suit, to have access to the papers greatly reduces the field of this blackmail and protects many innocent people.

"5. How do you proceed with the case?

"Upon arrival in Reno a new resident ought to find a reputable lawyer, consult him, retain him by paying him possibly one-third of the fee, and state to him the entire cause of action. The lawyer will take down the facts, given a receipt or contract showing the total fee to be paid; will make a record of the beginning of the residence period and will talk to the client generally about his or her cause of action, and the steps necessary to be taken toward establishing a bona fide residence that will hold water against all attack. Many persons have failed in contested cases, because of statements they have placed in letters to friends and relatives. These statements often show that the plaintiff is only serving time in Nevada, and, if brought to the attention of the court, will defeat one's allegation of residence upon which the jurisdiction of the court depends. Without jurisdiction no divorce can be granted.

"6. What is the first step?

"7. What if you cannot serve?

"After the six months' residence period is completed, the first step is to prepare, verify and file the complaint. This complaint is a clear statement of the plaintiff's cause or causes of action. At the time of filing this complaint the summons is issued and handed to the attorney for the plaintiff. Where the defendant is not willing to file an answer or demurrer, and thus submit to the jurisdiction of the court, an "Affidavit for Publication" is sworn to by the plaintiff, and an "Order for Publication" is prepared for the signature of the judge, and being signed by him, is filed with the Clerk of the Court. After publication is ordered service may be made by publication once a week for six weeks in a Reno paper and by mailing a copy of the complaint attached to a copy of the summons to the defendant at his or her last known residence.

"After publishing for six weeks, it is necessary to wait for a period of forty days during which time the defendant may answer. Service is complete only at the end of publication, and a defendant living outside of Nevada is entitled to the full period of forty days after service.

"Below is a facsimile of different forms of 'Service by Publication':

SUMMONS

No. 16447 Dept. No. 2.

IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND
FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE. L.M.M., plaintiff vs. A.M.M., defendant.

The state of Nevada sends greeting to said defendant:

Dated this 15th day of December, A. D., 1920 E.H.BEEMER,

Clerk of the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, in and for the County of Washoe.

By G. R. ELLITHORPE,
Leroy F. Pike, Deputy.
Attorney for Plaintiff.

SUMMONS IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND
FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE. I.M.G., plaintiff, vs. S.L.G., defendant.

The State of Nevada sends greeting to said defendant:

You are hereby summoned to appear within ten days after the service upon you of this summons if served in said county, or within twenty days if served out of said county but within said judicial district and in all other cases within forty days (exclusive of the day of service), and defend the above-entitled action. This action is brought to recover and decree dissolving the bonds of matrimony existing between you and said plaintiff, upon the ground that you wilfully failed, neglected and refused to provide for said plaintiff the common necessaries of life for a period of more than two years next preceding the commencement of this action, although having the ability so to do; awarding to said plaintiff the care, custody and control of the two minor children, the issue of the marriage between you and said plaintiff, to wit: G.L.G. and R.O.G.; and for general relief, as alleged and described in the complaint of said plaintiff now on file in said action in the office of the Clerk of the above named court, and to which said complaint reference is thereby made and said complaint made a part hereof.

Dated this 8th day of January, A. D., 1921.

E. H. BEEMER,

Clerk of the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, in and for the County of Washoe.

A. A. SMITH, Attorney for Plaintiff,

312 Clay Peters Bldg., Reno, Nevada. Jl5-22-29;F5-l2-l9-2e

"8. What if you can serve?

"Six weeks of time may be saved if the defendant can be served with complaint and summons. This personal service outside the state of Nevada is equivalent to completed service by publication, and the defendant has forty days in which to answer.

"9. What if the defendant does not fight?

"In cases where the defendant is willing that a decree should be granted, much time and some expense may be saved by defendant signing and filing a short formal answer, admitting plaintiff's allegations of residence, marriage, children, etc., but denying the causes of action. By filing this answer personally, or by retaining a Reno lawyer to accept services and file it for the defendant, the defendant need not visit Nevada at all. The case can then be closed up, and the decree granted within ten days after the expiration of the six months. By the filing of this short answer the defendant submits to the jurisdiction of the court, and any decree of divorce granted is valid and effective for plaintiff and defendant alike beyond any question, the world over.

"10. What if the defendant fights?

"If the defendant fights the case, evidence and testimony must be introduced and the case tried as other contested causes in other states. If the defendant be the wife, she can by filing affidavits showing her position financially compel the plaintiff husband, before proceeding with his case, to advance such sums of money as may be necessary to cover costs, attorney's fees, alimony pending the suit and traveling expenses to and from Reno.

"11. What about the chances for losing?

"In the absence of a contest, if a divorce case in Nevada be prepared by a lawyer who knows his business, there is no real reason for losing. If the cause be contested, then it all depends upon the allegations and proofs of the plaintiff as compared with the allegations and proofs of the defendant. Probably three cases out of four (contested cases) are won by the plaintiff.

"12. How is the case called?

"When the case has been filed and the time during which the defendant is permitted to answer has passed, a default is prepared by the attorney for the plaintiff, and signed and filed by the county clerk. In cases where the defendant has appeared personally or by counsel and an answer has been filed, they are ready for trial. On calendar day,— which comes each Monday—either the default case or the case in which an answer has been filed is called to the attention of the court by the plaintiff's counsel and is set down for trial by the court— usually some day that week.

"13. Procedure of an actual case? Witnesses: Questions?

"The trial of undefended divorce suits usually takes about fifteen or twenty minutes. The only witnesses necessary are those to Prove "residence in Reno" for the period of six months. Room rent receipts are not sufficient. Usually it is necessary to call the landlady of the rooming house, or the clerk of the hotel where the plaintiff has resided to show a continued residence in the County of Washoe. Where the plaintiff moves about frequently from one rooming house to another, it is more difficult to prove continuous residence. A residence in the county is all that is needed and all that has to be proved, however, and often plaintiffs in the summer time spend a month or two on that portion of Lake Tahoe which is in Washoe County.

"14. Is this case treated publicly or privately?

"All cases are tried in a court room which is open to the general public, unless the allegations are of such immorality in the complaint that the proof should not be heard by the general public. Divorce cases are so common in Reno, however, that the public rarely attend.

"15 Does the decree allow you to take back your own name?

"If the plaintiff be a woman and if there be no children the issue of the marriage, she will be allowed, if requested in the complaint, to take back her maiden name. The decree signed by the court simply orders that the plaintiff's maiden name be restored to her. If there be children the issue of the marriage, the maiden name of the mother will not be restored to her for the reason that it is thought that the mother should retain the name of her children.

"16. What is the entire cost?

"The entire cost of a non-contested case ranges from $22 to $30. If the case be contested there is no telling how high the cost may run. The cost of taking numerous depositions might amount to $50 or $100 or more. If the question is intended to cover the fees for lawyers' services, I would say that they run from nothing up to several thousand dollars. The usual fee for a person of ordinary means is about $250, which is probably the average fee in such cases in Reno, but persons of wealth often pay from $1,000 to $5,000.

"17. In what sense are witnesses used, and how do they strengthen the case; is it the same as in the East?

"In all non-contested cases, either where they go by default or where the defendant voluntarily files his answer after the residence for six months is proved, the plaintiff's testimony is sufficient to prove his or her cause of action, that is, no testimony beyond that of the plaintiff is needed where the case is not contested. In the event of a contest, the more witnesses and depositions one can procure the more likely they are to win.

"18. Can the divorce be obtained at once if the defendant can be served in the state?

"The statutes of Nevada expressly provide that, if the cause of action occurred in Nevada, that is, if the last acts of the defendant took place in Nevada, or if the plaintiff and defendant last cohabited in Nevada, or if the defendant without collusion can be served with papers in Nevada, the plaintiff need not reside there six months or for any other definite period. In line with this express provision of Nevada's laws, if a plaintiff comes to Nevada to begin a residence, and if the defendant comes here for any other purpose than to submit to service of the papers, which would be collusion, but bona-fide to secure the custody of children, to procure a settlement of property matters and alimony, to bring about a reconciliation, etc., service of the summons and complaint may forthwith be made upon him in Reno, and the case may proceed to trial at the end of ten days without the six months' residence period by either party.

"19. How is the fee paid, and when?

"As to fees for legal services, some attorneys require the entire fee in advance; some allow the fee to wait until some adjustment or settlement is made, or until the case is ready for trial, but the better method for both client and attorney is for the client to pay down one-third of the fee as a retainer, one-third at the time of filing the complaint, and the balance of one-third on the day set for the final trial of the case.

"20. Please state the effect the Nevada divorce has in different states. For instance, I know a woman who got her divorce in Nevada and married again in New York; her first husband sued her for divorce in New York and accused her of adultery and got a divorce. Please state if the divorce is absolutely legal when the defendant is not represented, because I am very anxious that my book shall state only facts. I don't want to lead anyone astray on that subject. I am quite sure the divorce is not legal if it is simply obtained by advertising, as I myself was about to be handed back my divorce papers, and refused a marriage license in New York, when I explained that my husband had been personally represented. If that had not been the case I would not be the happy lady I am today.

"Nevada divorces, exactly like the divorces granted in other states, are valid as follows: if the defendant be served in Nevada, in the event he appears in the cause either for contest or voluntarily, for the purpose of submitting to the jurisdiction of the court, the decree is absolute and valid the world over, freeing both parties from the moment it is granted.

"If the defendant be served outside of the state of Nevada, either personally or by publication and mailing, and should not make an appearance in the case, the case goes by default and the decree, which is held valid in most cases as a matter of comity, is seriously questioned in the states of New York, Massachusetts and Illinois. Its validity is questioned, however, only in favor of a defendant who is a resident and citizen of the state where its validity is brought into court, that is, a resident of Illinois obtaining a divorce in Nevada by default against a defendant who resides in Illinois, will find that his decree of divorce is valid beyond a question in New York and Massachusetts and all other states except Illinois. Likewise, a resident of New York may depart from his home, take up his abode in Nevada, obtain a default decree against a spouse domiciled in New York and may marry again and live in any other state, except in the state of New York. It might be noted here, however, that many hundreds of plaintiffs have obtained default decrees under such circumstances and have married again, returned to New York state and have lived there without difficulty. Most foreign countries give validity to a Nevada decree.

"Respectfully submitted,

"H. WALTER HUSKEY."

In considering a divorce in Nevada, the traveling expenses are quite an item; therefore I have written to the Traffic Department of the Pennsylvania Railroad System, and in a letter under date of February 6th, 1921, from the Traffic Manager of that company, I am indebted for the following information:

"Regarding tickets, etc., to Reno, Nevada; round-trip tickets are not sold to Reno, but it is possible to purchase a round-trip ticket from New York to San Francisco or Los Angeles, and use it only as far as Reno. (I found that the greatest advantage of this ticket was that one could have a peep at San Francisco and Southern California without any extra cost, as one returns to the East.—Author). This ticket has no validation feature.

"The round-trip ticket bears a limit of nine months and it costs $201.06, plus tax of $16.08, to either San Francisco or Los Angeles. The one-way fare from New York to Reno is $111.63, plus tax of $8.98."

The roads used in the trip are The Pennsylvania Railroad, Chicago and
Northwestern, Union Pacific and Southern Pacific.

Below are suggestions for the best through trains quoted from 1921 time tables:

Daily Service.

Leave New York (Pennsylvania Station)
6:05 P. M., Saturday

Arrive Chicago
3:00 P. M., Sunday

Leave Chicago (Union Pacific)
7:10 P. M. Sunday, Overland Express.

Arrive Omaha
9:00 A. M. Monday

Arrive Ogden
1:00 P. M. Tuesday

Leave Ogden (Southern Pacific)
12:30 P. M., Pacific time, Tuesday.

Arrive Reno
3:25 A. M. Wednesday

In conclusion I would desire to express the sincerest heart-felt hope that none of my readers be placed in a position where the only road to follow is: "the Great Divide." However, when there is no way out, no means of reconciliation, no tangible reason for submission to penal servitude for life, the only solution left is to face the truth; to turn one's back upon the past, and face the future!

We revere our ancestors, but the inheritance handed down to us dissolves itself into obligations to the present: our principal obligation to the World today is our duty to the World tomorrow! To posterity: to those to whom "from failing hands we throw the torch…."

As Virgil said: "Nati natorum et qui nascentur ab illis:" our children's children and those who will be born from them.

And in assuming our duty to the World tomorrow, we must start by doing our duty to the World today: ourselves; by righting what is wrong; by blasting the trail through life's mountainous obstacles; and purifying the atmosphere around us and leading the World on to the light that beacons us from beyond.

[Illustration: Renoites as seen by a Reno Cartoonist]
[ Reprint from Reno Freming Gazzette ]
[ Aug. 7 1917 ]