THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
the temporal lawmaker in this field. As a result, in the tfnited States, not less clearly than elsewhere in countries of Western civilization, marriat^c, divorce, and all the institutions of the family are emerging as purely social institutions, to be dealt with according to human needs. Definitively the State seems to have gained control of matrimonial administration. Yet it must be conceded that the influence of legislation in curing social disease is veiy restricted. Apparently if there is to be salvation, it must come through the vitalizing, regenerative power of a more efficient moral, physical, and social training of the young. The fundamental causes of divorce lie far beyond the reach of the statute-maker. They are rooted deeply in the imperfections of human nature and the social system, particularly in false sentiments regarding marriage and the family. Beyond question, the chief cause of divorce is bad marriage laws and bad marriages. The conviction is deepening that for the wise reformer, who would elevate and protect the family, the center of the problem is marriage and not divorce.
The remedial influence of good statutes may be relatively small, still the legislator has a very important task to perform. In particular it seems worth while to strive for more uniform laws in the States. Ideally a common code embracing the entire body of matrimonial laws is desirable, if it may be gained without too great a sacrifice of local control; for it would conduce in many ways to social order. The earlier movement to secure a Federal statute under an amendment to the national const it ution has been abandoned by practical reformers. Instead, it has been thought best to strive for the adoption of a model statute by the separate States. Such a statute, relating mainly to procedure, with a view to checking clandestine divorce, was adopted in 1899-1900 by the Conference of State Commissions on Uniform Legislation. But a more comprehensive effort than that was started by the " National Congress on Uniform Divorce Laws." At its Washington session, Feb. 19-22, 190(3, after an enlightening discussion, this body, composed of delegates from forty States, adopted a series of seventeen resolutions upon which is based " an act regulating annulment of marriage and di\'orce " agreed upon by the Congress at its Philadelphia session in November of the same year. The act contains careful provisions for residence and notice. The decree nisi is provided for. Both partial divorce and absolute divorce are sanctioned. Divorce a vinculo is permitted, on the suit of the aggrieved spouse, for (1) adultery; (2) bigamy; (3) conviction and sentence for crime, " followed by a continuous imprisonment for at least two years or, in the case of indeterminate sentence, for at least one year "; (4) extreme cruelty; (5) wilful desertion for two years; (6) habitual drunkenness for two years. Divorce from bed and board is authorized for the same six causes and also for " hopeless insanity of the husband." Draft-acts providing respectively for the " return of statistics relating to divorce proceedings " and for the " return of marriage statistics " were also submitted by the Congress. In its first resolution the Con-
gress declares that " no federal divorce law is feasible." Moreover, it is significant of its right understanding of the problem that the body urges a like effort to secure a uniform marriage law. See Marriage.
BiBLioaRAPHY: For the history of divorce among backward peoples consult: A. H. Post, Afrikanische Jurisprudenz, Oldenburg, 1887; idem, Entwicklungsgeachichte des Familienrechts, ib. 1890; T. Araki, Japanisches Eheschliessungsrecht, Gottingen, 1893; E. Westermarck, Hist, of Human Marriage, London, 1894; P. G. von iMollendorfF, Das chinesische Familienrecht, Shanghai, 1895; E. Alabaster, Notes and Commentaries on Chinese Criminal Law, London, 1899; G. E. Howard, Hist, of Matrimonial Institutions, vol. i., chap, v., Chicago, 1904 (where the authorities are cited in full).
On divorce under the canon law consult: H. Geffoken, Ehescheidung vor Gratian, Leipsic, 1894; A. Esmein, Le Mariage en droit canonique, 2 vols., Paris, 1891; J. Freisen, Geschichte des canonischen Eherechts, Paderborn, 1893; Howard, ut sup., vol. ii., chap. xi. (where the authorities are cited). Compare H. Benecke, Die etrafrechtliche Lehre vom Ehebruch, Marburg, 1884; the standard Catholic treatises of A. Cigoi, Die Unaufldsbarkeit der christlichen Ehe, Paderborn, 1895; and especially J. Peronne, De matrimonio, Paris, 1861. For England consult: F. Pollock and F. W. Maitland, History of English Law, vol. ii., Cambridge, 1895.
For the Reformation period consult: A. L. Richter, Beitrage zur Geschichte des Ehescheidungarechts in der evangelischen Kirche, Berlin, 1858; and Richter's edition of the Kirchenordnungen des sechszehnten Jahrhunderta, 2 vols., Weimar, 1846 (the legislation of the evangelical churches on marriage and divorce). These ordinances are analyzed by O. Goeschen, Doctrina de matrimonio, Halle, 1848; and by H. C. Dietrich, Evangelisches Ehescheidungsrecht, 1892. Luther's utterances are compiled by H. L. von Strampff, Dr. Martin Luther: Veber die Ehe, Berlin, 1857.
For England, very convenient handbooks are: W. Ernst, Treatise on Marriage and Divorce, London, 1880; N. Geary, Law of Marriage and Family Relations, ib. 1892. The modern French law is treated by E. Kelly, The French Law of Marriage, Marriage Contracts, and Divorce, ib. 1895.
For the United States and for divorce problems in general consult: C. D. Wright, Report on Marriage and Divorce in the United States, 1867-86, Washington, 1889, reprinted, 1897; idem, in The Christian Register, Ixx (1891), 655-658; S. W. Dike, Reports of the National Divorce Reform League, and Reports of the National League for the Protection of the Family, 1886-1906; idem, in Political Science Quarterly, iv (1889), 206-214; idem, in Century Magazine, xxxix (1890), 385-395; idem, in Publications of the American Statistical Association, i (1889), 206-214; idem, in Andover Review, Dec, 1893; idem, in Congress of Arts and Science, vii. 707-720; T. D. Woolsey, Divorce and Divorce Legislation, New York, 1881; J. Bertillon, tltude dfmographique, Paris, 1883; idem, in Journal of the Statistical Society, xlvii (1884), 519-526; A. P. Lloyd, Jmw of Divorce, Baltimore, 1887; D. Convers, Marriage and Divorce in the United States, Philadelphia, 1889; W. L. Snyder, Geography of Marriage, New York, 1889; F. Adler, in The Ethical Record, ii (1889), 200-209, iii (1890), 1-7; J. P. Bishop, New Commentaries on Marriage, Divorce and Separation, 2 vols., Chicago, 1891; E. Janes, in New Englander and Yale Review, 1891, pp. 395-402; C. H. Pearson, National Life and Character, chap, v.. New York, 1894, answered by J. H. Muirhead, in International Journal of Ethics, vii (1896), 33-35; H. C. Whitney, Marriage and Divorce, Boston, 1894; J. C. Richberg, in Publications of the Michigan Political Science Association, 1., no. 4, 1895; W. F. Willcox, in Political Science Quarterly, viii (1893), 69-96; idem, The Divorce Problem, New York, 1897; J. Bryce, Studies in Hist, and Jurisprudence, London, 1901; H. Hirsh, Tabulated Digest of Divorce Laws, New York, 1901; W. B. Bailey, Modern Social Conditions, ib. 1906; and especially Proceedings of the National Congress on Uniform Divorce Laws, Harrinburg, 1906, and the pamphlet containing the moddl statutes since published by the Congress.
In this article, through the generous permission of the