The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-11-26


invading o. taking possession Of foreign country
(Ruding We. Smitn, II. Hsg. O. R., 37l-Huosc. |
PIsec j. G. de con. leg LII, tit. 5, 10; ]. VoeI In
Dig XII ill., ~ and ps.s.ps q an csy q
p. 1907 and Of foreign ship Of war in the ports Of
the nation. (The Exchange vii. Crsnch, .. l36)
It follows by necessary consequence, save in tie
excepted cases oesu nac. as a "a 0s
cording 70 the law Of the place. and by person
whom those laws designate, unless the person By
whom, or the premises n which, y - celebrated,
possess the privileges Of exterritorallty.
Therefore IL may be, according TO the op'n.on OF
Lord Stowell, that the presence OF foreign sove.
reign scjounng in friendly country. or that OF his
minister 3ss sns the sc q
bassador, may give legality to marriage between
subjects Of his or members Of his suite (Rudcg
Smith, ii Haggards c. r., 81; Prentiss va Tudor
But even such right Of . foreign sovereign o. his
ambassador to celebrate q marriage, Mit exist, ap
pies only to his subjects, countryu1en OF suite.
Such persons would be married according to the law
OF their domici, that of the soverei gn or anba+
sador in whose service they are, the assum ption
that for all the purposes Of Legal right their dOmiil
gots with them, and that they are still at home and
in point of law not in the foreign country where
the marriage is in fact celebrated. A marriage
celebrated By such sovereign or his smbas sad Or in
foreign country, between citizens OF that country,
or foreigners residing there or sojourning there,
would derive 10 force from him: 1T would be null
place.
Consuls, it is still more evidsnt, have no sla-
dow Of power 10 celebrate marriage between
foreigners Nor can they between their oyr coon.
uynen, less expressly su.Ro. ICED by the laF Of
their own country; because, according TO the law o,
nations. they hsye LOT the privileges OF eyse-rto
riaiity, like an ambassador.
That American consuis have TO such power is
clear, because 1t is not given to the n by any
set OF Congress, nor by the common Law OF mar
rage as understood in the several States. (-ee
Kent vs. Burgess, XII. Simons. 36l) And marriage
IN the United States il not federal question, bat
enc Of the resort of The indviual St at.s (Bishop
On Marriage, PASSING Hence, it is impossible for
ME to doubt:
First, ,ha. marriages. celebrated by consul of
the United States IL any foreign country or Cnist-
endon, between citizens of the United States, would
have no legal effect here save In one of the excep-
tons above stated Of its being impossible for
the parties to marry by tee ier loci
And, Sc ,Ondy that m arrlages celebrated by con-
sui of the United States in foreign country, b.
tween parties not citizens Of the United States,
would have no legal effect here, uosss in case they
be recognized expressly as valid by the law of the
place Of contract
In countries where the mere consent Of the par.
ties, followed by copula, constitutes msTiage, as
In Scotland, (Mc Adam vs. Walker,i. Dow's r., las;
Dalrympe w. DalrympIe, ii. Hsgg. q. r., 81 and
where The presence and testimony Of any person
whatever suffice to prove the consent, there mar
rage COL tracted before foreign consul mtgls be
valid, not because ne Is consul, but because tns
But, in most countries of Europe, specific forms
of Ia are TO be followed without which there can
be no valid marriage; aud as it appear that the
marriages which the consuls Of the United States
have celebrated abroad, have in most places been
cele byated between persons collected at some se3
por. for the purpose of emigration, and wn1 are
not only foreigners as regards the United States,
but foreigners also as regards the place in which
the marriage is celebrated, 1t becomes matesia. to
consider the question In the sense of this impedi.
men. of double alenags, IN its reat on to the iav
matrimonial Of the United States.
The gener Il rule of orr Law is 70 as,rtbs validity
to marriages when they are valid at the place OF
celebration.
II the parties to the marriage are at the time ac-
tualy in their proper donlic, as in the case If
Spaniar5s domiciled in Barcelona, and married
there, IL ia clear that the local jurisdiction is
absolute and complete, and that consul Of the
United State has no more right to celebrate mar
rsge between such parties there than he has to u-
Suppose however, that the parties are foreis ners
to the foreign place. and at the Same time not citi
zens Of the United States?
The other governments Of Christsnd,m, and es
peciay these of Europe, are it IS notorious, m loh
more exactjng and purctilisus than the Quit d
States 10 the application Of their own lays Of per-
sonal stotus TO their Own subjects when absent from
We may not regard this here, but they Go among
the mseves and therefore 1t Is important ID Look
at the legal bearings OF marriage celebrated Il
one European county between the subjects If some
ether governments OF Europe.
The general rule these is, that thu civil obi a.
tiops Of person follow him into q foreign country,
save that in come countries forms are prescribed ac
coiding to which a subject may relieve hsmsaH
of bis alegisn,e to his natural sovereign and the
CONSEQUENT civil oblig ltMons. It is believed that
many of the persons who emigrate from Europe to
the United States, have not taken these preliminary
steps; and, therefore, ua they shall have acquired
new domi ii in the United States, sni while
they are sojournirg in some other foreign county
on their way II, and precious to, their embarka-
tion they must of necessity be still suHsct to the
law oftcer domci il 50 far 50 this law is respected
BY the country Of their tJansit Of their temp orary
s0joura; and TIE question of the validity of their
marriage there by foreign consul II lst depend on
this legal condition Of tie parties in the countries
of Europe.
In order to appreciate tie legal relations in En-
rope ef q marriage between parties foreign to the
place Of marriage, we may take, ss q convenient ex
ample, the stats Of the las il France.
In France, OF course, al Fren chmen must conform
to TIE precise prosi.iong e their own law; nay, as
a general rule, Il they marry abroad still they must
observe certain OF the conditions Of the Code CIVIL
in order 10 give effect 10 the marriage in France,
(Code Civil 10. no; Felix, ubi supra no. SS.)
In regard 10 sucn f,reigl marriages Of French
mel it has been a5rdged by the coutts Of that c1uu.
try thai. Fsenclmen long established in foreign
country, and who have reserved no habtation and
who have domicil there are not held TO the forms
of public notice in France required by the Code
(Dalloz. Dict. Ju-, Marriage, No. 37t.)
2 Generally all acs apper5aining TO the civil con-
dition of Ftncbmen sb Dad may be proved by the
modes of proof practsed in the foreign country;
and therefore a marriage may be proved by wit
nesses, or by the certificate Of oioc sao, when
celebrated in foreign count where no registers
of civil condition exist comfortable to the Code
(Dalloz, ubi supra Nos. 946--356)
3. There are no differences of opinion as to the
point thai Frenchmsn, who marry abroad, must
CONFORM TO the provisions Of the Code TO capacity
age, consent. and other conditions Of substance ou.
there are contradictory decisions ant opinions
the point whether II be not essential 20 the va
lditY Of such marriage that there shoult have been
previous publ aton Of baDs in France; and whether
If this be radical defect, IL j. cCrabe or nos (Da
lOz, nbi SUPRA Nos $751; 375) because ne article Of
TIE Coee, mo. 1903 uh ch legelizss marriage CON-
tIacted betsten Fren hmen abroad according t,
the fo ms used ia the foreign country, adds provt
ded (p,uTou) the marriage be preceded by the pup
lica.iou OF bans, and do not c,u.ravene tha other
conditions OF law, az prescribed By the lst I'd I'd
chapters of the 9Th title of the Code. Csc Toulier,
Dro.t Civil. tom. !, No. $40, 579)