home and brought misery and shame upon the heads of helpless children. What the individual should not do in this regard, the state should not do. The relation is a sacred one and should not be trifled with. The parties to it and the children born of it are of the highest consideration. With non-interference, the parties directly interested are more capable and more likely to settle misunderstandings and differences, if left to themselves, than if publicity is given to their troubles by airing them in our courts. Courts should never be called upon, unless for the purpose of absolutely dissolving the bonds of matrimony. Let men and women be free from each other or free with each other. Limited divorce or divorce a mensa at thora, commonly called divorce from bed and board, is provided for in a few of our states. By it the married couple are made strangers in everything except the legal tie that binds, and some property considerations. In this we have the anomalous relation of a wife without a husband and a husband without a wife, the law interposes a barrier between them and between each of them and the balance of the world in the way of lawful union. It is a creed in some religions and has been enacted into statute law in some states that when divorces have been granted on certain statutory grounds, as adultery, the offending party is inhibited from again marrying. This may be a just punishment for the offending party, but what is the effect on society? When men and women are prohibited by the laws of a state from entering into lawful sexual union, it but encourages unlawful and illicit intercourse. Society in general is interested in such an important question, and its interest is even paramount to the individual in framing laws on such a subject. If a man has been guilty of adul tery, he should not be turned loose upon society and by a prohibition of the law encouraged to further sin and corrupt the innocent. But this need concern us in the state of Washington only as we are compelled to recognize such decrees made in other states. For our laws recognize but one form of divorce and that is absolute, with permission to both parties to re-marry after a time limited.

Two causes for divorce were imported by our forefathers from England and incorporated into the unwritten law of the land; these were adultery and extreme cruelty. While the divorce statutes of the several states have much that is in common, they are not at all

uniform, being almost as varied in their provisions as are the opinions of the people on the subject. Washington is generally considered as having a very liberal divorce statute, and there is a growing opinion that divorces are too easily obtained here. That there is room for some criticism, both as to the statutory grounds and the procedure, is apparent I think to a careful observer.

The first cause of divorce mentioned in our statute, "when the consent to the marriage of the party applying for divorce was obtained by force or fraud, and there has been no subsequent voluntary cohabitation," is unquestionably right.

The second ground-adultery-is universally recognized as the most serious breach of marriage faith known to the law, and is considered a sufficient ground wherever divorce is at all recognized.

Impotence, the third ground mentioned in our state, was held by the ecclesiastical law to be, where the defect existed at the time of the marriage and was incurable, cause for declaring the marriage void ab initio. It is a ground seldom invoked, and does not seem to be abused.

The fourth ground, abandonment, is a proper one, but the time should be increased, I believe, and made two years instead of one. This is by odds the favorite ground in undefended cases.

The fifth ground, cruel treatment of either party by the other, or personal indignities rendering life burdensome, might better read extreme cruelty, but with the construction placed upon it by our Supreme Court, it practically means that.

The sixth ground — habitual drunkenness of either party, or the neglect or refusal of the husband to make suitable provision for his family, appeals to us a salutory regulation. I would only add a time requirement, that it should be continuous for a period of say, two years.

The first part of the seventh- the imprisonment of either party in the penitentiary, if complaint is filed during the term of such imprisonment, I believe is good and should remain; but the balance of the paragraph allowing a divorce to be granted for any cause deemed by the court sufficient, and the court shall be satisfied that the parties can no longer live together, simply invokes judicial discretion in granting a divorce, and is of extremely doubtful propriety. This ground is usually resorted to, when the evidence.

will not warrant the granting of a divorce on a specific statutory ground, although of a character usually given in support of such grounds. It serves no good purpose and should be repealed.

The eighth ground, providing in case of incurable chronic mania or dementia of either party having existed for ten years or more, the court in its discretion, may grant a divorce, is reasonable, though unusual care should be exercised in such cases by the court.

Our statute further provides that a party must have resided one year in the state before making application for divorce. My experience has been that when cases are contested in our courts, it is not an easy matter to secure a divorce. But a vast majority of the cases that come up for hearing are undefended, and if the testimony is plain, direct and corroborated, the court usually feels bound to grant the decree, though feeling that there might be another side to the story if the bottom facts were disclosed. It is difficult to correct this evil, though it may be done in a degree by somewhat changing our method of procedure, and at the same time discourage parties from other states from invoking the aid of our courts in their marital troubles.

I find some most excellent recommendations in the report of a commission organized to promote uniform laws, which held a meeting at Buffalo last year, contemporaneous with the meeting of the American Bar Association, and I should recommend some of them to be enacted into the laws of Washington relating to the subject of divorce. I submit the following:

First. No divorce shall be granted for any cause arising prior to the residence of the petitioner or defendant in this state which was not a ground for divorce in the state where the case arose.

Second. No person shall be entitled 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.

Third. No person shall be entitled to a divorce for any cause arising out of this state, unless the petitioner 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.

Fourth. No person shall be entitled to a divorce, unless the defendant shall have been personally served with process, if within this state, or with personal notice duly authenticated, if out of the state, or unless the defendant shall have entered an appearance in the case; but if it shall appear to the satisfaction of the court that the petitioner does not know the address nor the residence of the defendant, and has not been able to ascertain either, after reasonable and due enquiry and search continued for one year, the court or judge in vacation may authorize notice by publication of the pendency of the petition for divorce to be given in manner provided by law.

Fifth.

session.

That all trials should be had before the court in open

Sixth. 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 for divorce shall become final or operative until six months after trial and decision.

With these provisions and restrictions enacted into the laws of Washington, we would have, not a perfect law, but a liberal divorce law, that would, with conscientious and conservative interpretation and administration by the courts, grant all necessary relief, and in a measure prevent some of the frauds that have been perpetrated in our courts, and also create a more wholesome respect for the institution of marriage.

HOW SHOULD UNITED STATES SENATORS BE

ELECTED?

BY THOMAS B. HARDIN, OF SEATTLE.

How should Senators of the United States be chosen? Is it wise to change the manner of their election, and to select them by direct vote of the people?

A recurrence to the origin of the present method of election would seem a requisite for any intelligent consideration of this question. How, by what manner of men, and upon what study and experience was this method adopted? Doubtless we are supposed to be familiar with these particulars, yet I shall take the liberty of recalling some of the details.

Of the fifty-five in the convention, nine were graduates of Princeton, four of Yale, three of Harvard, two of Columbia, one of Pennsylvania; five, six, or seven had been connected with William and Mary's; Scotland sent one of her sons, a jurist, who had been taught at three of her universities, and Glasgow had assisted to train another; one had been a student in Christ Church, Oxford, and he and three others had been students of law in the Temple. To many in the assembly the work of the great French magistrate on the "Spirit of Laws," of which Washington with his own hand had copied an abstract by Madison, was the favorite manual; some of them had made an analysis of all federal governments in ancient and modern times, and a few were well versed in the best English, Swiss, and Dutch writers on government. They had immediately before them the example of Great Britain; and they had a still better school of political wisdom in the republican constitutions of their several states, which many of them had assisted to frame. Altogether they formed "the goodliest fellowship of" law-givers "whereof this world holds record." In their standing rules they