The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-02-02


Myra was his legitimate daughter. Mrs. Smyth, for
merry Mrs. Harper, who nursed her, does the
same. Each OF them also speak with positive
nese concerning the will of 1913. With three
Mesdames Despair and Caillavet have spoken
the truth concerning Clark's marriage with Zulime
II they did not, the testimony OF Bellechasse, Bots
fontaine, and Mrs. Smyth, Is the most remarkable
coincidence Of truth with falsehood that has ever
happened, and it only be resisted by imputng to
all Of them combination to pcrjure themselves for
the same purpose. That, no one has said or can
into this case as witnesses, with characters of their
own to command belief and respect. Neither Of
them can be doubted for the defendants witnesses
who were brought to assail them, could only answer
mat poth mad always been honorable men. Mrs.
smyths veracity has not been questioned in any
way Iconnot then, but belieUe that the paternity and
'ffgllmacy Of Mro Clark Gdines has been fully
ESTABLISHED, as the Iaw requires it to be DONE There
and s se e M G S.a, aon "9
- ITS relation 70 the extraordinary realities Of hfe
Ihe history Of Mrs. Gaines rs one Of them. IL has
oeen made more so by the result IF her case M this
covr1.
1t now only remains for me to notice the other OBJ
lection against the right Of the complainant to re-
cover. II is that as the marriage Of Clark with her
mother wins clandestne, that it illegtnates her for
the purposes Of Inheritance. shall not speak of the
general q particular consequences Of clandestne
marriages under the Spanish law the facts of the
seem I
that may have been said upon this point as to the
effect OF such marriage In Louisiana, upon the
parties and upon Children can have no influence upon
the children Of marriages valdly contracted in ano-
ther political sovereignty.
The objection assumes that the marriage Of Clark
and Zulime in Philadelphia, in some way or other,
but not definitely stated, subject on account Of
the domicl OF the parties in Louisiana, to its laws
that secret marriage lawfully contracted by persons
- tr0nssfM in sovereignty in which such mar
iinge Is not prohibited will not give legitimacy to
the offspring within the jurisdiction of the domic of
the parents If it be kept secret there.
The right Of persons TO marry in every country
where they may happen to be, is not Denied if there
be no impeachment there or in the condition of the
parties in respect to the law of their domicl to pre-
vent them from contracting marriage Before, then,
the validity Of the marriage Of the complainants fa-
ther with her mother in Philadelphia, can be denied,
1t must be shown that they could not contract it
account of legal disability either there or in Lou
isiana. The first is not pretended. The only Objec
ton to it is that she previously married to Des-
grange That cannot prevail, for think it has been
shown that Znlme's marriage was void on account
OF his bgamy in marrying her, and that she had the
right without any sentence Of its nulity, to marry
another either in Louisiana elsewhere 1t is Ger
tain that in such case Of bigamy she could marry
again in Pennsylvania. Their offspring there would
be legitimate 1t cannot be made otherwise because
their child happened to be born in Louisiana. Lee
gitimacy is the lawful consequence of lawful mar.
rage, and it cannot be taken away by any subsc-
quent misconduct parents in respect to the mar
rage itself. Heirship, or the right OF legitimate
children to inherit from deceased parents, depends
upon the law Of the place where the property may
be- Parents cannot change it except as they may do
so according to law This being So their misconduct
cannot affect the right Of child to inherit, or its e
particulars affect their own rights as to each other
and as to their property Concealment, in Louisiana,
OF q marriage elsewhere by persons domiciled there,
might very well affect such rights or the parties to it,
rtnAx
they mutually concealed their marriage. But il
would not do 80 because there was no marriage be.
tween them, but from their not holding themselves out
10 the community as man and wife. 1t is their duty
to do that by the ordinary idcia of the relation If
they do not they must bear the consequences in re-
spect to property and other matters which may con-
cern them, from their misconduct. But as regards
their children they legitimate according to the
herit that portion which the law gives them Of the
estate of deceased parents, they cannot be affected
in any way BY their parents concealment OF their
marriage, If It shall be proved to have been valid
that where the marriage is valid by the ler loci it
will generally be held mot universally valid every
where for the purposes Of Inheritance. II invalid
there, it will generally lnot universally be held u-
valid everywhere. But lin either the exceptions
grow out of law. They must be shown to exist as
such, before the right OF heirship can be excluded
The case Of lie Breton vs.. Nouges, Mart GO, cited
for contrary purpose is absolutely decisive of the
right OF the inheritance of children under valid
marriage contracted out of louisiana and directly
the right of the husband to marital portion though
he violated the laws of Louisiana in running away
with an hciress in her infancy to marry her in an
other sovereignty. The mother, too, of his wife wa
declared to he her forced heir after the daughter
death, only because the latter left no child Of her
own. That case only decides this, that cOnjugal
rights of property in cases Of marriages out of the
State of Louisiana, the parties being domiced there
depend upon the laws Of the domici. That is strict
ly the case everywhere. But the flia right is not
the conjugal The law gives both, and both are pro-
iected and measured according to law.
Until it can be shown that there is q law Of Loui.
Siana excepting the child Of lawful marriage in
Pennsylvania from the rights Of hership in the first
account Of the domie Of the parents at the time
Of such marriage, the child's right Of Inheritance
cannot be denied.
have searched in vain all the codes OF Spain and
of Louisiana for sucha law. have earnestly sought
in judgments Of the courts both Of Spain and Lou
siana for such onc Nothing can be found in either
concerning such proposition. think, then, that
run no judicial risk in saying that there is nothing in
the way of law to be found interfering with the right
Of Myra Clark Gaines to the hership of such portion
of her fathers estate the law Of Louisiana gives to
an only legitimate child.
Something was said that her right to recover was
barred by the statutes Of prescription Of Louisiana
If her right under them shall be measured by the
proofs of the time of her birth, she is not barred il
from the time of the illegal disposition or sale Of
her fathers estate by his executors, she is not So IL
from the character in which she sues to establish
right Of inheritance there is no statute OF prescription
TO bar her rights.
Those Of us who have borne our part in the case
will pass away. The case riR ice Years hence, as
well now, the profession will look to it for what
has been ruled upon its merits and also for the kind
of testimony upon which these merits were decided
The majority 0fmy brothers mho gire the judgment
stond as MeyuM moy do, upon their o'cn responsible
Gty. have placed myself alongside Of them, humby
submitting to have any error into which may have
E,1 .tah bxrr
professional poster,y
The case Itself presents thought for philosophy
in its contemplation Of all the business and domestic
relations of life.
II shows the holowness Of those friendships form
ed between persons in the greediness Of gain, seek
ing its qualification in disregard of all those laws by
which commerce can only be honestly and respecta
bly, pursued.
II shows how carelessness in business and secret
partnerships to conduct it with others who are will
ing 10 run the risk ofunlawiul adventures, may give