The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1860-06-22

There are, however, other provisions of the law
which, if complied with, would, in the opinion of
the Archbishop, "involve all clergymen in po-
''stion of odium and insolence degrading to them
'tselves and offensive and intoerable to the free
''people of the city of New York" They must
ascertain the name and surname, the residence,
age, and condition of the parties married. T." as
certain the name and surname he consid@is mat
ter of course. Residence, he Claims ooeS not De-
long to the rite of matrir,~ny, but 10 the depart
ment of the Census Now follows an exceedingly
characteristic passage:
question to be asked under this precious law
age OF the parties respectivey-Pray sir what is
your ageT i came to be married not to tell nv age
AND now, young lady, pray how old may you be The
moment to lady about to be married. would incur and
JUSTLY the indignation every relative and every friend
OF hers who would come to witness the ceremonial He
ght push and bow his head, and that acted
der the requirements of of the Legislature and of
pelavan; City Inspector But if the whole company
hurried thelr bouquets or something harder
OF the clergyman who should have the indelcacy
whether IN obedience disobedence the law to ask
such question, at such moment, one could blame
Them ~ ~ ~ i
As to the 'condtion'' of the parties, he asserts
that they might, with perfect proprety, answer to
an interrogatory of that sort
Our condition is own; we are not bound to say
Wether our parents were oystermen baronets
what we are we came here to be married. and not to be
inqusitionized"
The conclusion of the Archbishop is that ''the
"whole thing''-meaning the law-''is stupid, alb
''surd, and, as to its execution entirely impos-
'slble. In response TO those who have cited the
fact, that in France, and in other Catholic couG-
tries, the civil law takes cognizance of mar
| rage, he points to the number of illegitmate
| hrth in Dnri. Il
impediments which that country has placed
in the way of marriage, so that large classes es-
peciay of the poor, " having fallen into sin,
''are willing to persevere in it rather than 90
Through the ordeal for marriage which the State
''has prescribed" He does not deny that mar
rage is an object for State solictude-but he con-
| tends that its requirements can be met by local
regisries, such the Catholic Church always pre-
serves. He objects to paying a perqusite of ten
cents to the City Inspector for each marriage per-
formed and, finally, winds up by declaring that
no clergyman should be required 'to find out the
''age and condition in life of a young lady and
| gentleman about to be married, or any Other
knowledge that might be intrusive on the domes
"tic privileges of American families These are
his reasons for opposing law which he emphat
cally describes as contemptuous and oppressive
"towards the clergy, insolent and offensive tc
''the laity," ant with which, he declares, he vii
have nothing to do except under physical coercion
Some few of the objections that have been urged by
the Archbishop may bewel founded; but all the res
are untenabe. An accurate official record ofmar
riages is of the highest importance, and the wan
of it in many Of our States, where no register o
births, marriages and deaths has been kept ha
often led to interminable lawsuits, and to the per
petration of wrongs for which, in the absence o
the proper kind of evidence, the victims could fine
no remedy. Whether a law, less inquisitorial thai
that of New York, and yet equally efficacious
might not be framed, is another matter.