Chapter XXVII

_A Word on Marriage and Divorce.--Scenes for an
Opera-Bouffe.--An Amateur Dentist._

As I have said elsewhere, each State of the Union makes its own laws. The result is, that a thing which is legal in one State is not necessarily legal in the others.

The most curious, and those which differ most, are the laws upon marriage and divorce.

If it is easy to get married in the United States, it is still more easy to get unmarried.

In the State of New York, for instance, if you go to a hotel with a woman, and inscribe _Mr. and Mrs. so and so_ on the register, the Law looks upon you as legally married to that woman, but the marriage is not recognised as valid in some other States. To obtain a divorce in the State of New York, you must prove infidelity on the part of your wife; but just across the Hudson, in the State of New Jersey, it is to be obtained on a proof of cruelty or incompatibility of character. If this is not easy enough for you, take the train to Chicago, where divorce is to be had for the asking almost.

The Court of Divorce in Chicago, called by the Americans the "divorce mill," decided 681 cases during the year 1887.

This institution is just as flourishing in the State of Indiana as in Illinois. The Easterners jokingly pretend that, as the train rolls into the capital of Indiana, the porters cry out: "Indianopolis--twenty minutes for divorce!" so that couples who may have fallen out on the journey can part company for good.

Does the husband snore, or chew; has he disagreeable breath, or a clumsy manner of kissing his wife? does that lady wear false hair, give her tongue too free play, or habitually take up the newspaper as soon as her husband shows signs of dropping into sentiment? all these offences are serious ones before the aforesaid tribunals.

Without troubling to go and settle in Utah, an American may set up a seraglio of legitimate wives. Each lawful spouse might be a concubine outside the State she was married in; but by carefully studying the laws of the different States, Jonathan could, if he pleased, indulge in polygamy without fear of being prosecuted for it.

* * * * *

I have read in American papers divorce cases that were really very comic.

When a will has to be administered, matters often become very mixed up, as you may easily imagine. Who are the legitimate children? which are the bastards?

Of course all these confusions make work for the men of law, who naturally think American legislation the finest in the world.

The city of Chicago alone possesses seventeen hundred and sixty-eight lawyers, all thriving.

What a capital subject for an opera-bouffe might be got from some of those Chicago divorce cases! What merry _quid pro quos_! What amusing scenes! Choruses of lawyers; choruses of lawful wives, with the refrain:

"We are Mrs. Jonathan, tra la!"

The facility of marriage and divorce is comic, but it has its tragic side too.

There exist scoundrels, in America, who make a speculation of marriage.

One constantly hears of some poor girl having been persuaded into marrying an individual, who deserted her a few days after the ceremony. Her trinkets and little savings go with the absconding husband, needless to say.

Why seduce? says the scamp; it is much easier to marry the girl.

The forsaken one may console herself with the reflection that all is lost save honour.

It is certainly a consolation.

While I was in Michigan, the Detroit detectives were in search of a man who was claimed by seventeen wives, all _lawful_, robbed, and abandoned.

* * * * *

I extract from a Chicago paper the following evidence, full of originality and humour. The plaintiff is at the bar, being examined:

"What is your husband's occupation?" asked counsel.

"Habitual drunkenness, sir."

"I refer to your husband's profession."

"He made cigars."

"Good cigars?"

"Occasionally."

"Had not your husband any other profession? Did he not practise as a dentist?"

"Not professionally."

"Now, did not your husband extract six of your teeth?"

The plaintiff glanced timidly round to see if her husband was within hearing, and timidly said:

"He did."

"Did he administer gas, or ether, or any anaesthetics?"

"No, sir."

"Did he extract the teeth one after the other?"

"No, all together."

"Had your husband a license to practise as a dentist?"

"Not that I know of. One day he said to me: 'I will allow you a dollar a day. Bring me the accounts every week; and if ever I find a cent missing, I will knock your teeth out.'"

"Did he find any deficit in your accounts?"

"One Saturday night I could not balance the books. I was thirteen cents short. Without a word, my husband struck me in the mouth. Six of my teeth were knocked out; I swallowed two."

"Have you the other four in court?"

"Yes, sir."

And so forth.

The divorce was granted.