The Two Mrs. Van Valkenburghs

The complications arising from the elopement of Frank S. Van Valkenburgh, formerly proprietor of the New York Kitchen, with Miss Mattie Trowbridge, of Napa, Cal., are not so great as the story of Mrs. Van Valkenburgh No. 1, of 1828 Dolores street, San Francisco, would have it appear.

Mrs. Van Valkenburgh No. 1 claims that she was married to Van December 30, 1870, by Rev. Henry Cox, pastor of the First Methodist Episcopal church at San Francisco. Shortly afterwards they moved to Gold Hill, Nev., where Van Valkenburgh obtained his first start in life. For a while he worked as a telegraph operator, then entered a broker's office, and finally went into the brokerage business for himself. Four years later Van Valkenburgh went to San Francisco on important business, as he said, and never came back again. It would appear from an interview with Mrs. Van Valkenburgh No. 1 printed in a San Francisco paper that she has two sons now living, both of whom are children of Van Valkenburgh. In this matter, however, there is probably a mistake, as Van Valkenburgh understood one of his sons died several years ago. Mrs. Van Valkenburgh No. 1 says that she received word from Utah several years ago, after being deserted, that her husband had obtained a divorce, and she was at liberty to marry. No notice was served on her, and from that she concludes the divorce was obtained fraudulently and cannot stand. She heard indirectly from her husband now and then, but never got track of him definitely until he eloped with Mattie Trowbridge. She concludes that she and her sons have been treated shamefully, and that she will have her former spouse arrested for bigamy if she can locate him. She also claims that Mrs. Van Valkenburgh No. 2 knew of Mrs. Van Valkenburgh No. 1.

In that particular Mrs. Van Valkenburgh No. 1 is right, but she might have added that Mrs. Van Valkenburgh No. 2 knew that Mr. Van Valkenburgh sent money to support his child. Mr. Van Valkenburgh married Mrs. Van Valkenburgh No. 2 openly and after he had convinced her that he was divorced legally from his former wife. The attorneys for Mrs. Van Valkenburgh No. 2 are satisfied that the divorce was legal and stand ready to prove it if necessary. Attorney F. B. Tipton, who has charge of the affairs of Mrs. Van Valkenburgh No. 2, was interviewed by a Post-Intelligencer reporter yesterday. He made the following statement to dispel a few of the clouds that have been caused by Mrs. Van Valkenburgh No. 1:

'It is probable that the woman in San Francisco who claims to be Van Valkenburgh's legal wife was married to him at the time she says, but I think she will find that he obtained a divorce from her in a legal manner. Mr. Van Valkenburgh is too shrewd a man to commit bigamy when divorces are so easy to obtain. Mrs. Van Valkenburgh No. 2 married Van Valkenburgh with full knowledge that he had been previously married, presumably to the woman who is now in San Francisco. Mr. Van Valkenburgh, however, acted honorably and convinced Mrs. Van Valkenburgh No. 2 that he had been divorced from his former wife and gave reasons why he could not live with Mrs. Van Valkenburgh No. 1. It was not anything that reflected on her morally. The statement that Mr. Van Valkenburgh's divorce is not legal because Mrs. Van Valkenburgh No. 1 did not receive notification is of no account. The notification was by publication. Mr. Van Valkenburgh contributed to the support of his child for some time. He had two by his first wife, but one died. Since I have learned that the letter written by Mrs. Van Valkenburgh No. 1 concerning her former husband was addressed to the county auditor and inquired particularly as to Mr. Van Valkenburgh's property, it is presumable that she has other objects than revenge in looking up her former husband. As a matter of fact, Mr. Van Valkenburgh has no real estate or personal property in King county.'