The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1869-06-24
Democratic Wisdom.


The last Democratic Legislature was die.
grace to the State of Ohio Always protesting
great love for constitutions, they went dellber-
ately 10 work to violate the constitution of the
State, which constitution they themselves had
made. Their Visible Admixture Law was SO
palpably unconstitutional that no attempt was
made any place to enforce II, and II was aban-
doned. Then they attempted to pass bill to
provide for the payment of the Morgan Raid
claims, and II Is so plalnlya violation of the
constitution that school boy could not be de-
esived BY It,
But the crowning act OF folly was the marriage
law. II provides that no woman can get
license 10 marry until she arrives at the age of
twenty-one years. without the consent Of her
parents or guardian. A woman arrives at ma
Jority at eighteen, so that after that age she can
not have guardian appointed and If her par
ents are dead, no woman in Ohio between the
age Of eighteen and twenty-one can be legally
married. II the fool killer had come to Colum-
bus last winter, what duty he would have had
toperform.
II 10 claimed that an error was committed by
clerk, and that the law is really not so silly
as that officially published. Upon this point the
Cincinnati CArOHicis saysi
ONO MARRIAGE LAW.
The editor OF tho Columbus Statesman, who Is
also chief clerk OF the Ohio Senate, has publish
ed Q statement Of the Wherefore" of the change
made by the Legislature In tho law to regulate
marriages. He says:
The law Of the last Legislature, ITO amond
section one OF the act regulating marriages, " as
printed, makes II obligatory on females us we'll
a. males, under tho age of ttDenty-One years, to
obtain the consent Of the father or guardian be-
tore license can be obtained.
An examination OF the Legislative Journals en-
ables ua 10 say that the law as passed fixes the
age Of marriageable females at eighteen years
tnat OF males at twenty-one. The mistake in
the law was an error Of the Enrolling Clerk OF
the House Of Representatives, who IN copying
y tof the signatures OF the Speaker of the House
OF Representatives and President of tho Senate,
substituted the words "twenty.one" for that OF
.eighteen. The error was not noticed by the
Enrolling Committee of the two Houses whose
dufy u was to carefully compare the bill after
i was enrolled, and hence II was, IN an incorrect
form, signed by the presiding officers and
published by The Secretary OF State as law,
that ofneer having no right TO go behind th 9
a--.- - FAN f'NoAulhb SiASCIb ubtCbtluk lbb
Judge Pugh the Probate Judge of this conn.
y, satisfied by an examination OF tho Journals
that the words "twenty.one years, as applied
20 the marrlageablc ages Of females, was q cler.
lcA error, and knowing that II the natter was
brought before any court Of competent jurlsdlc.
uon-the journals being tho only evidence 10
prove The passage OF q disputed law-thc court
would 20 hold, has decided to so act In the Issu.
"a "a In
sent Of either father or guard Ian 10 The marrl-
upwsrds," ~ N'N
Now, q the law governing the mode of keen
in9 NE legislative Journals, and prescribing the
subject matter OF such Journals provides that
bille shall not be placed upon them, we fall 10
see how ian examination Of the Legislative lour.
nAls can throw much light on this question
nor 40 We believe there Is any authority com.
pseent % 40 behind the officially authenticated
coploe OF the laws 10 ascertain the subject mat
ter Of those laws. To permit such a conrse
Uonld result In inextrica confusion Tbose
familiar with the course OF legislation will re.
cell numerous instances 10 which, by some over.
sight, the Official copies of laws have been made
70 say what the Legislature did not intend and
ne remedy has always been applied in The form
OF supplementary Legislation, never, 90 far as
we ere Informed, by judicial interpretation in the
manner attributed 10 Judge Pugh.
There can be no doubt that the Probate
Judges and citiEens Of the State generally will
b held 70 . compliance with the law as officially
publiahed. The case is entirely different from
that OF 40 Aet about which dlsagreemenls have
aFlasa - 70 The validity Of It's passage In the
later eAse the courts win inspect the journals,
upon proper showing 10 Determine whether
eueh an act received the requisite number of
sotea 20 give It validity, Upon All the different
steps taken In carrying measure through the
tive Houeee, the records are requ lred 10 be full
and complete, and II the constitutional require
menla Tor the passage of o law have been com.
pied Wllh--sueh as reading on three different
days IN each House, or In constitutional man
ne! foipensIng with the rule" calling the yeas
ana nays upon the passage and giving The re.
qulslts majority to pass the bill. these facts viii
aRPear from the Journals, b ut the subject matter
ot olls aoes not 80 upon The jOu rnals except ~
meltefs o. amendment, and the only authority
known 70 the courts, upon which 10 rely for tue
terms of an act "a the official copy duly altested
BY the presiding officers Of the two lloueee.
The only practical remedy for The laundering
Of which the article above quoted ADVISES us, Is
fer young ladies' who are In too much haste 10
await The action Of future Legislature, TO take
; "Trip ont OF the State, aad avail themselves Of
the more lenient laws Of neighborlng common-
wealthe--that is, II they are unable 70 gain the
consent Of papa, and are determined 70 marry
without II. Cousins who have concluded 70 de-
~ weilallssled natural laws and intermarry,
will doublleas pursue like course 70 avoid the
pennltiea Of the law which was amended especl-
ally for their benefit,