Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 06.pdf/615

 574

RUSSIAN PROCEDURE IN DIVORCE. A RECENT De Bene Esse commission issued from Russia to an arch-priest of the Greek Church in New York City, for the examination of witnesses in behalf of a Russian husband residing at Moscow, who seeks divorce from his unfaithful wife, who had fled to New York with the co-res pondent, has brought to its bar and its jurisprudence experience as to the Russian procedures in divorce. It seems that ec clesiastical authorities in the empire of the Czar are exclusively charged with the trial of divorce cases; civil marriages being therein unrecognized. Two jurisdictions make up this authority — one called the Consistory and the other the Holy Synod. The first — a preliminary tribunal — is a court of inquiry and investigation; while the second jurisdiction is a permanent grand council invested with every author ity in religious matters and composed of metropolitans, archbishops, secretaries and a procurator general. From its central seat at St. Petersburg it governs the spirit ual affairs of the empire and the financial business of the church, with authority over all consistories and prelates; exercising cen sorship over religious books, newspapers and publications, while enjoying a widereaching power in civil matters and espe cially in matrimonial cases. Its head procurator, who governs it, rep resents the Czar, and in religious matters subjects even him to ecclesiastical author ity. Wherefore, the Russian autocrat is not pope in his vast kingdom, if despotic Emperor. It is sometimes erroneously averred that this Holy Synod obeys the orders of the Czar. In the New York case alluded to, the injured husband — a Russian merchant — had addressed a complaint to the Con sistory, which had first examined the al legations in order to determine, like a

grand jury, if these constituted a prima facie case for divorce if true. Its first duty was then to try and reconcile the petitioner and respondent; having power to summon both parties before it, in seeking to per suade the one to condone and the other to return to duty. In the case aforesaid Mr. Petitioner had declined pardon, having appeared personally; wherefore it was un necessary to summon the absent wife to duty. The attempt at reconciliation hav ing been duly certified as a failure, the Consistory made out to the Holy Synod the petition for divorce, and a narrative of the attempt at reconciliation, with statement of its failure. Whereupon, the last named tribunal had assumed jurisdiction and issued a commission and citation to take proofs; and to take these although there was default in appearance of the erring wife. Usually after a decree of divorce against the party guilty of infidelity, the latter is condemned to penance and celibacy. The penance to a woman commonly is confinement for a period in a convent. But that enforced retirement may be commuted on petition by the payment of a sum of money discretionally fixed by the Head Procurator. If the decree of celibacy goes against a husband, it can only be set aside by im perial rescript after recommendation of the Holy Synod, based upon his subsequent virtuous life. This feature was some years ago borrowed into the statutes of New York, that allow the decreed celibate to be restored to marital rights by the Su preme Court after due inquiry through a referee. The New York procedure, how ever, equally applies to the wife; but in Russia this grace is withheld from her always if she has been perjurious to her marital vow. Incompatibility of temper in a maximum degree is, however, a cause of Russian divorce, wherein the punishment of