Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1826-06-02

changcabe laws by which they shall be governed fore
and forever; who made the distinctions between
right and wrong, and To whom alone every question of
that sort must he REFEREED be predcaed of such
being that he could not regulate the intercourse be-
tween the sexes by laws which should know neither
change nor exception lie who reasons upon such n
superstition must not complain if Inc be thought TO nos.
scsS hut an imperfect perception Of the subject
After all, however, the gentleman from Goocland is
of opinion that the Jews not to be much relied on in
tins matter aud he reminds me, with significant cnpha-
sis, that they blin lenders of the blind" The gen
uenan hnsclfhas certainly found them but was his
own ndscretion to trust himself a guide whose mo-
tons I've did not understand. IT, however he the
remark argument, IL is enough remind him that
the Lcvitical law Itself JEWISH every law which
all his reasoning has been intended to support. The
samu "bind leaders" who made the law have interpret
cd the law. and leave 1t to linn determine how he
may receive their authority the and reject
II IN another.
which as never occurred any othormiud entitled
10 respect for its novelty lie thinks that the true
reason ut the scripture pohibton founded in the ali
'Htyof the parties. This conclusion presume, that
wherever particular degree of relationship Jlood is
pSolbed the correspondent relationship by affinity
also prohibited WHAT'S affinity, and whence does it de-
rIvclts ofgin 1t does not exist nature grows excu-
sIveiy out of state of society, and results from
nectIons formed under the sanction OF human laws If
man live with woman IN state Of adultery, her sis
ter not considered his sister; but if he be married ac
cording TO the prescribed forms of law then and then
only, the relationship By aiuity commences. 1t is diff
hcut TO conceive that law which said TO be divine;
tohaYc been made i'll the beginning of the world and to
apply TO all countries and 10 all times, be consider
ed as contemplating arbitrary state things depend-
ing strictly upon the discordan empers of thousand
various forms Of society But let what con-
cuslons this doctrine of affinity will lead The sis
ter Of the wife is the sister of the husband of course
the husbands of the sisters brothers; let of the
sisters die, and her husband marry different con-
necton he is, by this doctrine of affinity brother 10
the first mentioned husband, his wife sister to
that husband; let of the husbands and the wife of
the other die; may not the survivors nternarry? Take
Il n n
woman having brother; the brother of the wife is by
affinity brother of the husband, and of course of the
husbands sister, and yet il is doubted that they NAV
lawfully marry. Nothing is frequent than for
two brothers to marry two sisters and yet their relation
ship after the first marriage, is that of brothers and
sisters by affinity In the same manner this doctrine of
afnTty may DC construed 10 embrace thousand cases
which the most rigorous opinions upon this subject have
never considered within any prohibition. Many plau-
sibie opinion carries authority with II until IL is brour
10 the test of examination.
My historical knowledge, which the gentleman from
Charles City thinks has reached the rare and re
conde pages of Hume is still farther attacked by the
gentleman from Goochand. Ii matter of surprise TO
him that never should have discovered this prohibition
ut any time prior to Henry the 9th. and he tells me with
The air OF triumphant scholar, hat something of the
sort may he found lin Corpus Juris Ciyils This is
quite likely and for aught know the same thing NAV
he found IN the code of Japan but should have
thought OF looking for it i'll any such place. We arc
now IN Christian country and deba ing Chris |
tran Institution The gentleman himself has informed
us-and II he be wrong unable TO correct him.
that tue law Of which he speaks was established he
fore Christianity became the religion at Rome and of
course il has 10 do with this subject than the
institutions Of Maomet Nance Capac. BY tic by !
1t IS somewhat strange that he who rejects the authority
OF jewish iiabbs IN the Interpretation Of Jewish laws
should icei himself safe under the guidance of Pagaps
and ldoiaors But if this Roman law is govern us
permit inc TO ask the gentleman if that law did not al
one time, prohibit, or at least stigmatisc all second
marriages, under whatever circumstances? .lLe inn,
SecnldS nupiis fitneStatG words which nv menorv
retains and which believe extracted from The Ro
man law although scarcely tell by what process
i got hold OF them. However, sir, have but little
learning, and hope shall be excused for making the
most OF it.
Tie gentleman from Goochand, after rerlarkine that
my argument goes only prove that these marriages
are not p'bJjfed, asks with triumphant emphasis where
find the law which 0iio1Cs them. Can such question
be seriously propounded? Who is there that consts
statute book before he goes wooing; In all cases the
liberty OF nature exists until it is restrained by the DO
sitive institutions of society The free intercourse be-
tween the sexes and the unlimited range of selection
except where nearness of blood ntcrposes-are hber-
ties of this sort All marriages allowed EXCEPT those
which are expressly prohibited. II you put man upon
hls trial for any supposed crme is it sufficient de-
fence for him to thatno law human divine orbids
the act for which you aTraign him? We are free to
marry whom we will, If law Of religion society
forbids the bans.
The gentleman, imagining that he had found me in
a dilemma, has endcavourcd to me from horn to
horn OF It, with the most cruel display Of strength
have said that the penalties of the existing law were
dispropOrtiOned and harsh and have also said that tcv
could not be enforced. Strange, says the gentleman
that should complain of the harshness of penalties
which cannot be enforced! Instead of the "unfeeJinr
tyranny"h he thinks that should have commented ON the
''unfel" tyranny of the existing law, Ills conclusion
Is that the law, according my doctrine cannot he
executed, no one suffer from its severity
and therefore, ought not to be repealed This is the
1st time that have ever heard il advanced as sound
rule OF legislation that law which cannot be enforced
and whose sanctions utilities, NAV vet be
wholesome law This may indeed, be true in countries
where the people are profoundly ignorant and where
the ruler governs by terror. But free people who
knon their rights and who for that very reason are most
ooedIent To all lawful authority, insutcd by enact
Inenswhich can have oherobjcct bit to alarm them
"A lew indeed the POOR the helpless and the unfrened
may fall victims to the fury the atencd lion bu he
viii never be reused except TO crafty and hostile
passions to crush feeble prey which will disIo
nour LIS powers But there another reason for the re-
peal Of this law, although cannot be executed
The codes Of nations often fair indexes Of their cha