e right and privilege of inspecting the record of
the case, in the court archives, and of examining the evidence upon
which the decree adverse to them was granted. These are what is termed
"dangerous States," in the parlance of the specialists; for there is
always a chance of the disbanded mate feeling aggrieved and pugnacious,
and of the cat coming with portly stare from the bag with a lively
prospect of the perjured witnesses and the specialist having to "scoot"
for parts unknown, or run the risk of dignifying the inside of the State
prison. Many readers of this page will no doubt remember with what
precipitation the notorious Monro Adams made himself "scarce" in
January, 1882, upon the discovery of the irregular Chase divorce, and
others of the same kind fraudulently procured in Brooklyn.

In the Western and Southwestern States, on the other hand, where the
population is sparser, and where no such press of business is before the
courts, divorce proceedings are mostly under the immediate control of
the court itself. The presiding judge hears the testimony as it is
presented, and decides the case on its merits, there and then. There is
no necessity for employing a referee, and there are no written records
of the case. The decision, the date, and the abstract records appear on
the court books, and that is all. And yet, by the section of the
Constitution, already quoted, this decree is regarded,--by the court
that grants it, at least,--as perfectly legal and operative all over the
Union. Although this is not the case, there are almost insuperable
obstacles to such a divorce being set aside. For there are no names of
witnesses and no records. There is the name of the lawyer; but if a
"muss is raised." he is either _non est inventus_, or his memory is
paralyzed. He has no recollection of the names of the witnesses, of the
date of the hearing, or indeed of the case. No matter what evidence the
injured party might be able to produce, he cannot get an iota of
satisfaction nor make the least progress until he knows what evidence
was presented against him when the decree was granted. Daniel McFarland
found this in Indiana, and so have scores of others. These Western and
Southwestern States are therefore not unadvisedly deemed "safe," and
hence they are very largely patronized.

In Iowa, Indiana, and Rhode Island, again, the court possesses what is
termed "discretionary power" in divorce cases. The State Constitution,
after spe