The Portland daily press., 1867-02-18
The Marriage Law again.

Mr.. EDrToR,-In Thursdays Press you saw
shat the practically obsolete restriction of which
Justice writes contravenes the spirit Of the
Civil Rights law, it is impossible to doubt"
"The practically obsolete restriction" to which
you refer is evidently the first clause of the
third section of chapter SO of the Revised Stat
utes " hich is as follows:
aNo white person shall intermarry with ne
gro, indian or mulatto." anlaHI
1t is not proposed to discuss the necessity,
wisdom, or justice of this law, but to deny,
First-That it is practically obsolete" s,as
Second-That it "contravenes the spirit oftbe
Civil Rights law" " e.L.
1t is not obsolete, because it has been twice
reenacted since its original adoption in 1920.
viz, at each revision of our statutes in 1S4l and
again as late at 1867. The Legislature now in
session, after protracted de Iteration, have lust
refused to repeal it. The Revised Statutes of
1857, by reiterated enactments, exhibit the de-
termination of the Legislature that this "re-
striction" shall not be found aobsolete." By
sections 13 and IA of chapter 50, clergymen and
justices of the peace are forbidden to JON in
marriage persons thus restricted" under
penalty of 800, besides losing their right ever
to solemnize any more marriages. Chap
70, section l, expressly declares that
"al marriages prohibited by law in sec
tion 8, of chapter 49, are absolutely void;"
and section 10 of chapter GO provides that
when marriage is annulled ON account of the
consanguinity or affinity of the parties, or be-
cause it is betceen a Uhite person and negro,
malaao, or indian, the issue is iNegitimate;;"-
sct;n hatrr Al
Of incestuous and miscegenatio,s marriages.
Surely statutes Of so positive, emphatic and
varied provisions not yet ten years old which
the present Legislature distinctly refuses to
repeal cannot be termed practically obsolete" /"
Neither does it seem to me to "contravene
the spirit Of the Civil Rights law" The clause
whose spirit it is supposed to violate, is as fol-
lows; Citizens OF any race and color shall
have the same right to make and enforce
contracts, to sue, to inherit, Sc, &c."-
Now whose rights are abridged by the
law in question? The aohite mans or
the black mans? The black woman's
or the white woman's, the Indians or the mu-
latto's? Perhaps you will say everybody's. s.
Granted; but then is not the restriction" per-
| fectly equal, and if so, has not each class of
citizens the same rights, irrespective of race,
| color or sex? But if So then where is the vi
olation of the spirit of the Civil Rights act?
If there is any inequality in the operation
| of the Maine restriction" which race is the
more "restricted?" 1 take it the white woman
is thereby as effectually deprived of her RICH
to marry black husband, as the black man il
of his to marry white wife,
The writer happened to be in the Senate gal
lery at Washington last winter when Senate
Hendricks of Indiana asked Senator Trum
bull OF Illinois, if the State judges of his Stat
would not be amenable to the pains and per
alties of the First Freedmens Bureau bill thel
under discussion if they enforced their Stat
law prohibiting, like ours, miscegenation
Senator Trumbull replied with emphasis il
the negative, illustrating as above, and the
broad grin and comic expression ON the coun'
tenances Of the colorcd part of the audience
as they saw the point was quite amusing
The first section of the same chapter of oul
statutes deprives our citizens of the right t
marry their relatives up to the degree of uncl
and niece, aunt and nephew, but it would b.
difficult to show that there is any inequality i
its operation. 1t has been sensibly suggested
and think not without reason, to extend tn
prohibition to first cousins; if this should b
done, would there be inequality and where
The fact is that all law operates as restriction
on somebody's rights, unavodably, but it ney
er should do so uneQually and therefore, '''e
q,titably. Ifany of our varied restrictions @
the right to marry SO operate, fail to per
ceive it. If they do not, then they contrayen'
neither the letter nor spirit of the Civil klsh',
act, whose design is simply to secure 'equa
rights" .r. ...I -. -,
The wisdom of the act or the expediehoy VI
its repeal, as has been remarked it Is not pfo'
-'S A RADICAL.
I'm reply to this rather peculiar ,l :, Radical %
opinion "S practically oDs0leto;" because not
withstanding its reafirmation ten years ago