Foreign divorces raise the question not only of jurisdiction but of recognition by treaty of a judgment of the particular foreign country. For instance, judgments of French courts are not absolutely binding upon the courts of this country, as are the judgments of sister-States. In the case of Russia, where any two parties by agreement or a single person by request may become divorced, there is no treaty whatever. Occasionally, cases arise where persons abroad have obtained a decree for a rabbinical divorce. Under the old Jewish custom a rabbi could pronounce a divorce and the law of the state permitted a decree to be entered upon his pronouncement. Some states and countries make bids for the divorce business; not long ago an advertisement appeared announcing that a divorce might be had in Yucatan for $25, not, of course, including the expense of travel. Questions of the effect of interlocutory and final judgments, of the provisions of a divorce decree forbidding remarriage within a certain period, of the _bona fides_ of residence, of the jurisdiction of the court, of treaties with foreign countries may make it difficult to answer the question whether or not two people are legally married. All this confusion represents a beating of wings against a cage--an endeavor to obtain a legal paper with a red seal which will avoid a situation which two people find intolerable. We are tending toward a new moral conception of the marriage relationship, well expressed by Premier Zahle of Denmark when submitting a new liberal divorce law: “It is based on the fundamental conception that it is morally indefensible to maintain a marriage relation by legal statute where all the real bonds between the parties are broken. This is a measure which certainly means a great step forward in the recognition of marriage as a moral relation.”