Alexandria gazette & advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1822-1824, 1824-12-11

boston Fdb.
LEGISLATURE OF VIRGINIA.
DECEMBER 6.
Mr.. Upshur, according to order, pre-
ssnted a bill to alter and amend the
sot, regulating the colonization OF
marriages, prohibiting such as are in-
cestuous or otherwise unlawful; to prs
vent forcible and stolen marriages, and
for the punishment Of the crime OF big
amy.-Rsad the first, and ordered to DO
read the second time.
On this bill the editor of tho Consta-
sutional Wig makes the following jul
dicious remarks:
Mr. UPsHUR's BILL.
Mr.. Upshur has asked and obtained
leave to bring in & bill to amend tho
laws for the regulation of marriages,
Sc. repeating SO much as prohibits q
husband from marrying the sister of
his deceased wife, or nephew the wi.
dow Of his uncle Efforts have been
made at different shines, bot always
with the same bad success, in che LIE.
gislaturs of Virgins, to repeal those
prohibitions. As the diffusion Of moro
liberal ideas. and the increase of the
oumber Of persons who have rendered
themselves obnoxious to the severe Pc.
nalties Of these statutes, opposition to
them increases, and will no doubt, O.
ventually prove triumphant. Individ-
aals, eminent for learning and piety,
religious societies. have pronounced
them, uncalled for, either by the requi-
sitions Of the gospel, or the safety of
morality. Ii certainly is ridiculous in
the laws, 60 exact a moro scrupulous
observance Of morality, than the scrip.
lures themselves, and to excommupi,
cate that sc fragrant crime, which the
word of God himself, considered un.
deserving of censurs, or expressly sane.
toned by its silence.
The true test Of the propristy Of such
a law, is to be found in the feelings of
society. Why have We no statute for.
bidding the marriage of brothers & Sis
ters, or sons & mothers? Simply becsuse
none was required, because the opinions
and feelings of society in all it's parts,
recoil at the idea of such connection,
and supsrsede the need Of such law TO
protect its morals. But is similar re-
pugnance felt at the marriage of hus,
band with his wife's sister, 30 far
from 1t, such events are by no means
uncommon, and in no instance lessen
the responsibility Of the parties. There
is nothing in the proposition, to make
our gorge riss.' Natuse feels no shud.
derlDg at the violation of her hottest
feelings. Il may be safely laid down
as maxim, that on all such sub
individual feeling 10 the best dsclarsto-
ry statute, and public opinion the best
guarantee for its observance. fthese
two concur, no law 10 nee essary; if they
do not, no law can be either right or
effeclual.
The only argument in favor of the
law prohibiting the marriage of sIsters,
is that by creating perpetual barrier
between parties so situated. they may
be led never TO think atall Of IA coDnex.
ion, which otherwise frequent and init.
mate association, might induce them
both to wish, and to consider as practi~
cal; and which might consequently lead
to the preparation of crime. The
whole argument is false.--lt is this ye-
ry barrier, which inducing the parties
to look on one another IS brother and
sister, is productive of familiarity even
,ual marriages, or a darker shade Of
guilt. If 3 husband survey his wifs's
sister, as any other woman, as one
whom by possibility he might marry
ifthe slater look on the husband Of her
sister, ss dis,an. relation, az . man
whom she might not at come time, be
prohibited from marrying, this mutual
regard would preserve that respectful
carriage Or the one part, and modest
reserve on the other, which would more
effsctually protect morals, than all the
laws 10 the world