A friend of mine once remarked to me that the rich never legislate for
the poor but always for the rich, to which I retorted that the poor
never legislate for the poor but always for the rich. The Labour Party
is ready enough to attack any wealth which no longer exists, such as
the so-called wealth of rural land-owners, but will never attack a
really bloated Trust such as an international industrial company; nor
are they ever likely to make such an attack. (I took care to satisfy
myself on this point before buying shares in one such company.) It is
therefore improbable that even should the Labour Party obtain permanent
power it will ever try to make law cheap for the poor; and the only men
and women who have ever taken any steps in this direction are the few
who realize that the pillars of society repose upon a belief in equal
justice for all.
I fear that I can see no prospect for at least fifty years of law costs
being reduced either for the rich or for the poor. So far as the rich
are concerned, one might suppose that they would insist upon the law
being codified into some degree of simplicity so that two citizens
might be able to arrive at their legal rights by successive postcards
referring to different sections of the code. That is the Utopian
ideal once expounded to me by Mr. H. G. Wells; but as years go on it
becomes more and more remote. Popular government leads to the endless
complication of statutes; and even if these statutes were intelligible,
the increasing power of bureaucrats to make rules for themselves
becomes more and more profitable for the lawyers.
I presume that one day the poor man will be allowed to obtain justice
within reasonable distance of his home. It is remarkable that a large
number of muddle-headed persons who wish to subsidize not only the poor
man but also his childless widow and any number of children whom he may
wish to procreate, have never understood that he might like also to
obtain justice, especially in the matter of domestic relations. Poor
persons ought certainly to have as good a chance of obtaining a divorce
as they have of being married, and also to have a chance of defending
vexatious proceedings on the part of either spouse. It is monstrous
that husbands should be treated as they are now in the police courts,
and arrested for arrears of maintenance as soon as they have finished a
term of imprisonment which in most cases they would never have incurred
but for a deep conviction of injustice.
If the community ever becomes sufficiently enlightened to provide
justice for the poor, I think that they will probably adopt the
American example of what are called Courts of Domestic Relations.
The Secretary of the Divorce Law Reform Union has received some
interesting communications on these courts from Judge Lindsey in Denver
and Judge Hoffman in Cincinnati. Judge Lindsey’s testimony is as
follows:
“I am confident, after twenty-three years as a Judge of a
Domestic Relations Court in America――where I granted thousands
of divorces and heard other thousands of separation and
non-support cases and controversies between parents over their
children――that a liberal divorce law contributes to morality,
decency, and, in the end, the strength of the home; but I shall
probably have to write a book, based on my experiences, to
prove it. A short article or interview is capable of so many
misunderstandings and misinterpretations, even though it be not
wilfully done.
“The fact that in some western cities we have a great many
divorces does not mean an increase in immorality, or even an
increase in the breaking up of homes. It is often the very best
thing that could happen. Of course, it is our policy in this
Court to get discordant couples together where we can; but
there are some cases where we would consider it nothing short
of a crime to try to get them together, and on the contrary
try to get them apart, but all in the interest of morality and
decency.
“I am judge at this time of what is known as a separate,
special Court, in a city of nearly 300,000 people in one of our
western cities (Denver, Colorado). The State has a population
of about a million people; but my jurisdiction is limited to
its capital city, which has nearly one-third of the population
of the entire State. The western part of the State is very
mountainous and sparsely settled; the eastern part is mostly
arid country and at present without irrigation, being also
sparsely settled; but there are certain sections of the State
which are very good for agriculture and others rich in mineral
resources; and as a commercial centre, Denver is a delightful
and beautiful city, made up of the best people in the world.
“Last year we had in this city about 3,000 marriage licenses,
and about 1,500 applications for divorce, with perhaps not
over 1,000 of them granted. We have a city of excellent homes
and exceptional laws for the protection of children, and the
morality of our people is equal to that of the very best.
“I am sorry that we have not as yet completed the contemplated
report of this Court, which we expect to have printed. I am
hoping to have it ready in about six or eight months, and I
think it will be a volume that will greatly interest your
readers.
“This Court has jurisdiction over all children’s cases, and all
youths under twenty-one, all cases of non-support or desertion
of wives or children, and of controversies of parents over
their children, and practically all criminal cases where the
accused has committed an offense against a child. Thus, it
is a special tribunal for the _correction_ and _protection_
of children and some cases of domestic relations. We do not
now have the divorce cases proper, although I tried them for
seven or eight years exclusively. The reason for this is that
happily most of those cases are between couples who have no
children, and the divorce cases take up too much time from the
more important work dealing with children’s cases. However, in
a divorce case where there is a controversy between husband
and wife over the custody of a child, it may be heard, and
frequently is heard, in this Court. A Bill is now before the
Legislature which will practically require the hearing of most
of these cases in this Court.
“We have visitation and probation officers, medical clinics,
physical and psychological, which aid and assist us. The work
of this Court, in a word, is more that of a place of human
adjustment――adjustment of human difficulties growing out of the
relation of the sexes, married or unmarried. To my mind this is
the most important kind of a tribunal and ought to exist in,
say, ten or fifteen districts in London instead of the system
you have of dividing the work into many courts where none of
them are equipped as experts. An address which I delivered
nearly ten years ago still covers a great deal of my ideas on
the ideal tribunal of this kind.
“The budget of this Court for all its work in its various
divisions, last year, was about $30,000. I believe with
you that would be about £5,000 or £6,000. This includes
the salaries of the judge, the clerks, probation officers,
stenographers, visitation agents, specialists, etc. We heard
and disposed of about 3,000 cases last year at an expense
of about $10.00 per case (about £2). Perhaps in half of the
cases of domestic difficulties we were able to bring about an
amicable settlement and restore the relations in the home. In
perhaps twenty-five per cent. of them we were quite agreed that
no effort should be made to restore such relations unless we
wished to contribute to crime and immorality. Of course, in
most of such cases the old church view would be to persuade the
people to live together in a state of what to us is sin and
crime, but with the church is considered perfectly proper.
“When we have to send a youth to the State prison, jail or
reformatory, we send him by himself on trust and honour,
without an officer and without official restraint. Out of some
eight hundred thus committed in the last twenty years, we have
never lost a prisoner.
“We very seldom swear a witness in the Court, and seldom
take testimony. The cases are tried by what we call the
administrative method. For example, the wife will consult with
me one day, the husband the next, and then both together. I
could see a witness for either side at any time. We listen to
anyone who wants to talk, so long as they do not all talk at
once. We have no rules of evidence and no Court costs, and, as
a rule, no lawyers’ or counsel or solicitors’ fees. The judge
of this Court is a human adjuster of human difficulties without
cost or expense to the parties involved.
“Most of the people involved in sex cases come here voluntarily,
even though the cases may involve criminal offences. People
never lie to us, although it is very rare that they are ever
sworn to tell the truth. In most cases their own papers are
prepared by the clerks of the Court for both sides, without the
need or aid of lawyers or solicitors. I should say that in not
over one case in fifty does any lawyer ever appear. Of course,
if they wish to appear they have a right to, but, as a rule,
litigants do not want them because they do not need them. In the
saving of counsel, solicitors’, and Court fees for litigants,
many thousands of dollars have been saved, and other financial
savings during my administration have amounted to millions of
dollars, as can be shown by the records. There is, perhaps, not
an “exception” or an appeal――though that right is allowed――in
one case out of five thousand in this Court. In other words, it
is a Court of justice without any of the hampering hobbles that
make for perjury and crime in other courts, as we have found
from actual experience.”