The legislation of Utah begins in 1852 with an act so faulty that its consequences have become notorious in the divorce annals of the United States. A vicious residence clause, coupled with a loose requirement regarding notice and an "omnibus" provision among the enumerated grounds of complaint, became in effect a standing temptation to clandestine divorce seekers from outside the territory. It is formally declared that the court of probate of the county of the plaintiff shall have jurisdiction in all petitions, and these are to be made in writing upon oath or affirmation setting forth the grounds of action. "If the court is satisfied," continues the statute, "that the person so applying is a resident of the Territory, or wishes to become one; and that the application is made in sincerity and of" the plaintiff's "own free will and choice, and for the purpose set forth in the petition; then the court may decree a divorce from the bonds of matrimony" against the defendant "for any of the following causes, to wit": (1) impotence at the time of the marriage; (2) adultery; (3) wilful desertion or absence without reasonable cause for more than one year; (4) habitual drunkenness subsequent to the marriage; (5) inhuman treatment endangering life; (6) "when it shall be made to appear to the satisfaction and conviction of the court, that the parties cannot live in peace and union together, and that their welfare requires a separation." Nevertheless, the courts are encouraged to adopt a cautious and conservative policy. They are allowed to defer "their decree of divorce, when the same is applied for, to any specified time, not exceeding one year, when it appears" that a compromise may be made; and "during the time of such deference ... , the bonds and engagements of matrimony may not be violated by the parties." Furthermore, the court is empowered to punish by fine or imprisonment or both any person "who shall stir up unwarrantable litigation between husband and wife, or seek to bring about a separation between them."
This statute was doubtless made in good faith. For, although it remained in force without change for a quarter of a century, it does not appear that the Latter Day Saints showed any strong tendency to take advantage of its glaring defects. But it is not surprising that evil should come of it. The petitioner in a divorce suit need not be a "bona fide resident of the territory. The formal expression of an intention to become a resident was all that was required. The plea of a citizen of any part of the United States that he intended to become a citizen of Utah was entertained equally with that of a regularly domiciled resident."[471] Besides, under the "blanket" provision anything might be alleged in the petition as a ground for action. The natural result was that certain sharp lawyers in eastern cities seized the opportunity to promote clandestine divorce on a large scale. Through their skilful plans and the connivance of local judges, the courts of several counties were converted into veritable "divorce bureaus," so that between 1875 and 1877 there was a surprising increase in the annual crop of divorce decrees. Accordingly, in 1878 the assembly passed a statute which effectually put an end to this anomalous state of affairs. One year's bona fide residence was now required; a decree was forbidden in case of default of the defendant except on legal testimony; better provisions for notice were made; and the "omnibus" clause was abandoned. By this act, separation from bed and board is not provided for; but an absolute divorce, in favor of the aggrieved, may be granted for (1) impotence at the time of marriage; (2) adultery; (3) wilful desertion for more than one year; (4) wilful neglect of the husband to provide for the wife the common necessaries of life; (5) habitual drunkenness; (6) conviction of felony; (7) cruel treatment, to the extent of causing great bodily injury or great mental distress.[472] To these grounds in 1903 was added (8) permanent insanity, when the defendant has been duly declared insane five years before.[473] Furthermore, by an act of 1896 separate maintenance without a decree of divorce is allowed the wife for desertion by the husband or when, without her fault, she is living separate from him.[474]
By an act of 1853 the legislature of Oregon Territory allows divorce petitions presented under oath to be determined by the district court of the county in which the cause occurs, or in which the defendant resides or is found, or in which the plaintiff resides, if in this last case it be either the county in which the parties last cohabited or that in which the plaintiff has resided for six months next preceding the action. Absolute divorce in favor of the aggrieved is permitted on ten grounds. These are (1) impotence continuing since marriage; (2) adultery committed since marriage and remaining unforgiven; (3) bigamous contract; (4) compulsion or gross fraud in procuring the marriage, if a rescission be sought in a reasonable time after removal of the restraint or discovery of the fraud; (5) wilful desertion for two years without reasonable cause; (6) conviction of felony or infamous crime; (7) habitual gross drunkenness contracted since marriage; (8) harsh and cruel treatment; (9) personal indignities rendering life burdensome; (10) six months' voluntary neglect of the husband to provide the wife with a home and the common necessaries of life.[475] This statute was, however, of short duration. In 1854 the third and fourth causes were dropped; bigamous contracts and those entered into through compulsion or fraud being now properly treated as grounds for annulment of void or voidable marriages. The remaining eight causes recognized in 1853 were retained, except that the term of wilful desertion was reduced to one year; and a period of one year was likewise fixed in case of voluntary neglect to provide.[476] Eight years later neglect to provide ceased to be a legal ground of complaint. At the same time it was enacted that "habitual gross drunkenness" to constitute a cause must exist for two years immediately before the commencement of the suit; and the period of wilful desertion was extended to three years.[477]
The law governing the grounds of action, as it still exists in Oregon, took its present form in 1887; and, with the exception of the one clause omitted in 1862, it is practically the same as it was established in 1854. Separation from bed and board is not recognized. The circuit courts, sitting at least twice a year in each county, have jurisdiction. A full divorce may be obtained on petition of the aggrieved for (1) impotence; (2) adultery; (3) conviction of felony; (4) habitual gross drunkenness contracted since marriage and continuing for one year prior to the commencement of the suit; (5) wilful desertion for the period of one year; (6) cruel and inhuman treatment or personal indignities rendering life burdensome.[478]
The divorce laws of Washington have been remarkably free from violent changes. The current of legislation has run smoothly along. Separation from bed and board has never been provided for; but eight causes of absolute divorce were recognized by the first territorial act on the subject in 1854. These are (1) force or fraud in procuring the marriage, provided there be no subsequent voluntary cohabitation; (2) adultery unforgiven, if application be made within one year after knowledge of the offense; (3) impotence; (4) abandonment for one year; (5) cruel treatment; (6) habitual drunkenness; (7) neglect or refusal of the husband to make suitable provision for his family; (8) imprisonment in the penitentiary, if complaint be filed during the term of such confinement.[479] In 1860 was added a new ground in the form of an "omnibus" provision. A divorce was then permitted on application of either spouse (9) "for any other cause deemed by the court sufficient, or when the court shall be satisfied that the parties can no longer live together."[480] Thus the law remained without change for twenty-five years; but in 1885 it was provided (10) that in "case of incurable, chronic mania or dementia of either party, having existed for ten years or more, the court may in its discretion grant a divorce."[481] Finally in 1891 the list of grounds for full dissolution of wedlock sanctioned by the present code of Washington was completed. A full divorce is now allowed, in modification of the fifth cause above enumerated, (11) for "personal indignities rendering life burdensome."[482] Originally the district courts were vested with jurisdiction, but since 1889 the superior courts in the separate counties have had authority in all cases of divorce, alimony, and annulment.[483]
In 1851, at the second session of the state legislature, California granted the district courts "within their respective districts" jurisdiction in divorce questions. Nine causes of "divorces from bed and board, or from the bonds of matrimony," were then recognized. But in 1874 three of these—natural impotence, force or fraud, and the marriage of a female under the age of fourteen years without consent of parent or guardian or without ratification by her after reaching that age—were dropped, and thereafter they were rightly treated as grounds for annulment of voidable contracts. The remaining six causes were then re-enacted, with some changes in the prescribed conditions, but only as grounds of absolute divorce. The statute of 1874 is still in force, full dissolution of wedlock, but not separation from bed and board, being sanctioned for (1) adultery; (2) extreme cruelty; (3) wilful desertion; (4) wilful neglect; (5) habitual intemperance; (6) conviction of felony.
After this formal enumeration of the grounds of petition, the first code of California carefully defines the terms employed and prescribes the conditions under which the law shall take effect. Thus "wilful desertion, wilful neglect, or habitual intemperance must continue for one year before either is a ground for divorce." By the original act of 1851, it may be noted, a period of three years was prescribed for both wilful desertion and wilful neglect to provide. In 1853, however, the term of wilful desertion was reduced to two years; and the same time was fixed for wilful neglect in 1870. A period during which habitual intemperance must exist to constitute a cause of divorce was not mentioned until the statute of 1874, by which, in this case as well as in the two others above named, the one-year term was required. By the existing code extreme cruelty is defined as the "infliction of grievous bodily injury or grievous mental suffering."[484] "Wilful desertion is the voluntary separation of one of the married parties from the other with the intent to desert." But when one person is induced by the stratagem or fraud of the other "to leave the family dwelling-place, or to be absent, and during such absence the offending party departs with intent to desert the other, it is desertion by the party committing the stratagem or fraud, and not by the other." In like manner "departure or absence of one party from the dwelling-place, caused by cruelty or by threats of bodily harm from which danger would be reasonably apprehended from the other, is not desertion by the absent party but it is desertion by the other." Separation by consent, with or without the understanding that one of the married persons will apply for a divorce, is not desertion. Moreover, "absence or separation, proper in itself, becomes desertion whenever the intent to desert is fixed during such absence or separation."[485] Wilful neglect is defined as the neglect of the husband to provide for his wife the common necessaries of life, he having the ability to do so; or his failure to provide as the result of "idleness, profligacy, or dissipation."[486] Finally, habitual intemperance is described as "that degree of intemperance from the use of intoxicating drinks which disqualifies the person a great portion of the time from properly attending to business, or which would reasonably inflict a cause of great mental anguish" upon the innocent person.[487] In like spirit the reasons for denying a decree are minutely specified by the law. Original jurisdiction in all questions of divorce and annulment of marriage is now vested in the superior courts in their respective counties or other districts.[488]
The California codes and decisions, as is well understood, have been freely adopted or followed by a number of western states. This is especially true regarding divorce legislation. The causes and conditions of action recognized by California law have often been accepted outright.[489] Such, for example, is the case in Montana. By the code of 1895 the same six causes sanctioned by the law of California since 1874 are recognized; while the prescribed definitions, already in part summarized from that law, are almost exactly reproduced. The grounds for dissolution of wedlock are identical, except in their phraseology, with those authorized by the original Montana act of 1865, save that in addition impotence and bigamous contract were then enumerated among the legal causes of divorce. There is no separation from bed and board in Montana; but the wife may be allowed separate maintenance, although a decree of divorce is denied. Since 1865 the respective district courts, on the chancery side, have had jurisdiction in absolute divorce and in all questions of alimony and annulment of voidable contracts.[490]
What has just been said of Montana may be repeated for Idaho, where the California system was adopted in 1887.[491] By an act of 1895, however, incurable insanity was admitted as a seventh cause of full divorce.[492] In this case, as in all the others since 1864, the district court in the county of the plaintiff has jurisdiction. Earlier the laws relating to the causes were somewhat less closely patterned upon the California statutes. The act of 1864 allows a full divorce for (1) impotence at the time of the marriage; (2) adultery committed since marriage and remaining unforgiven; (3) wilful desertion for two years; (4) conviction of felony or infamous crime; (5) habitual gross drunkenness, contracted since marriage, incapacitating the offender from contributing his or her share to the support of the family; (6) extreme cruelty; (7) neglect of the husband for two years to provide the common necessaries of life, unless such neglect is the result of poverty which could not be avoided by ordinary industry.[493] Three years later the California law, as it then stood, allowing nine causes of full divorce, was adopted, except that the terms of habitual intemperance and wilful neglect were each fixed at two years, and a period of one year was made sufficient for wilful desertion. It should also be noted that this Idaho statute, unlike the contemporary law of California, made no provision for partial divorce.[494] It was superseded in 1875 by a new act[495] which is identical in its provision regarding the grounds of action with that of 1867; and no further change was made until the present California plan was sanctioned in 1887.
The experience of the Dakotas has been very similar to that of Idaho and Montana, so far as the final results are concerned; but the early territorial legislation was often clumsy in form, vicious in character, and subject to frequent and violent changes. The original act of 1864 grants the several district courts jurisdiction in petitions for absolute dissolution of marriage on suit brought in the county where the persons or one of them resides, for (1) adultery; (2) impotence; (3) imprisonment in a penitentiary subsequently to the marriage, no pardon effecting a restoration of conjugal rights; (4) cruel and inhuman treatment, "whether practised by using personal violence, or by any other means"; (5) habitual drunkenness for one year next before filing the complaint; (6) "when it shall be made fully to appear that from any other reason or cause existing, the parties cannot live in peace and happiness together, and that their welfare requires a separation."[496] Separation from bed and board is not contemplated by the law of 1864; but in 1866 a new statute appears by which both kinds of divorce are provided for. A full divorce is permitted only on the scriptural ground; but a partial divorce "for life or for a limited time" may be decreed in favor of the aggrieved for (1) cruel treatment; (2) conduct rendering cohabitation unsafe or improper; (3) abandonment, accompanied by refusal to fulfil the matrimonial obligations sanctioned by the statute. If in any case a decree of separation be denied, the court may provide for the separate maintenance of the wife and children by the husband or out of his property.[497] The very next year this act was replaced by another which allows the aggrieved spouse absolute divorce for (1) bigamous contract; (2) wilful absence for five years; (3) adultery; (4) impotency; (5) pregnancy of the wife at the time of the marriage by a man other than the husband without the latter's knowledge; (6) extreme cruelty; (7) habitual drunkenness; (8) imprisonment in a penitentiary anywhere in the United States for violation of the criminal laws;[498] (9) whenever it shall be made to appear that the husband or wife of the applicant "has obtained a decree of divorce in any of the courts of any other territory or state, by virtue of which the party who shall have obtained such decree shall have been released from the obligation of the marriage contract, while the same remains binding upon the other party." Limited divorce is not mentioned by this statute; but, in place of it, a wife may obtain separate alimony for (1) the husband's adultery; (2) his gross neglect of duty; (3) abandonment by him without good cause; (4) where there is a separation in consequence of his ill-treatment; (5) his habitual drunkenness; or (6) his confinement in any prison in the country, or for any crime warranting such punishment in the territory.[499]