The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1869-08-13

- All eommuaiestions. whsthst on busipess |
or for publication. should be addresssd TO We. J.
hvnrAau, Proprietor NATIONAL RsrusLIoAy. |
WashinGton. d. O. |
- We cannot undertake 10 rstura rejected con- |
muniestons. Contributor will tAsrsfors preserve
copies
AS-PEHsoss BEAvIsa rHR oIrr for the country |
or the watering places eas have the DAILY Ma. |
rtosAL REruBLIcAE mailed regularly 10 them by |
leaving their names and addrsss a. this oaee, |
Term. alL cent. Per month:
TIE LAW OF MARRIAGg IN THIS
DISTRICT.
We are moving from the tlme-honorcd |
moorings that held the marriage relation
frm amid the tides and eddlcs Of change
that everywhere surround us. Uutil lately we
had Scarcely veered hairsbreadth from the
common law by which the legal existence Of
woman Ii incorporated into that Of her
husband during marriage. Until lately our
body polite had been considered not as a
union Of individuals, but rather as an aggrc-
CATION Of families of each Of which the hus-
band and father was held to be the repre-.
sentative. It was, however, a remarkable
fact that notwithstanding the Important
position occupied Ny marriage among the
fundamental elements Of society the grave
question Il what constitutes valid. marriage
remains In state Of singular uSncertainty
both in this country and In England. All
admit that ceremonial marriage performed
by an authorized minister Is a valid compile
tion Of the matrimonial contract; but whether
the mere consent Of the parties, INSANE
toned by any religious or civil ceremonial can
make q valid marriage is still " billed. In
n case involving that questioh iarrled by
appeal to the supreme tribunal England,
the House of Lords, the six law Peers were
equally divided-Brougham, Dsumau, and
Campbell in favor Of the validity of such o
marriage, and Lindhurst, Cottenham, and
Abinger against 1t.
Almost at the same time, by an odd coin
cidence, the same question came before the
Supreme Court of the United States, and
Chief Justice fancy, in deciding tho case,
Con other grounds said: "Upon this point
the court is equally divided, and no opinion
can be given" and Chancellor Kent has,
since his fourth edition, altered tho wording
OF his commentaries In consequence.
Nor is this the only case In which uncer-
talnty may exist as TO whether persons are
married or single. A husband or wife leaves
the District for the purpose of dwelling sufl.
ciently long within another Jurisdiction TO
obtain divorce for causes not recognized as
sufficient for divorce by the laws Of the Dis
trict, and upon obtaining the divorce returns
Immediately to Washington. In such case
II Is by no means fixed fact that the Dis
trict courts would recognize the foreign
divorce; and II parties married under cir
cumstances of this character, the new mar
riage would most probably be compelled to
give way to the old one, and the penalties OF
bigamy come In to add to the plquancy OF
the occasion.
Another case Of not unfrequent occurrence
here Is where the chancellor dectecs d.
vorce, and Immediately thereupon one of the
divorced parties marrles again. As no de-
cree is final until the rising OF the court, the
chancellor may, in the interval, review his
Judgment, or the decree be carried up by
appeal, and afterwards reversed by the ap.
pcllate tribunal. In this way both parties
to the second marriage might find them
selves in an Interesting situation.
Even outside OF the exceptional class Of
cases to which We have just referred, tn,
changed standpoint at which the law Is be
ginning to view matrimony produces some
anomalies. Thus, until lately In this Dis.
trict, married woman could have no prop
orty separate from her husband, except by
tho intervention Of trustees. But the new
law has placed married women, In this re
spect, In the position Of single ones; for b,
the act, approved April 10, 1869, the right O
q married woman to any property belongin
to her at the time of her marriage, or az
qulrcd during marriage in any other wa
than by gin or conveyance from her hus
band, Is made as absolute as If she were a.
unmarried woman; and she Is allowed Il
contract debts, and to sue and be SUED In he
own name, in all matters relating to hci
sole and separate property, In the same man,
ner as If she were unmarried.
More than one indictment for larceny
failed at the last term Of the Criminal Cour,
-4S1 reason Of the property In the goods stoler
being laid In the one party to the matrimo
NAL contract, when under the new law II
belonged TO the other.
A case growing out OF a similar law and
involving a new phase of married life was
decided, not long since, by the United State,
District Court for the State Of Michigan. A
wife, who, under Michigan law, may holt
property In her own name, carried on a
Iron foundry and hired her husband, win
was o bankrupt, at monthly compensa
tlon. The assignee of the husband applet
to have the property held by the wlfeapplle
for the benefit of the husbands creditors
In deciding the case the court said
"Mrs. Russell (the wife) began withou
meaus-her husband was bankrupt-with
out credit-hopelessly insolvcnt. Her credi
was better than his, because she was not ir
volved In debt, and he was.
'But Russell did work q portion Of I'll
time for his wife, and received from her
monthly compensation. How does this fa
affect the right of property Not In Il
slightest, II q married woman may carry Q
business on her own account and for her ow
interest. II she may do this she may en-
ploy all needed labor, workmen and agent
II she may hire the services OF any one at a.
she may employ her husband and pay him
"That the husband Is primarily bound
support his family may be conceded, b
she may do so. But there Is nothing In Il
case to show that Russell did not, throng
his own earnings, support his family. II
should be established that his earnings wer
into her property, then he would own an IL
terest in the property. But this fact doe
not appear"
This opinion seems logical conclusio
from the law, and 1t will doubtless DO decide
here, as there, that n woman may carry @
business on her own account, and may hir
her own husband.
CeIibaey and Divorce.
The questions OF marriage, divorce, an
celibacy affect such delicate and lmportal
social Interests that even the simplest ALI
sion to them cxcites attention and proyok,
inquiry. Our esteemed "subscrber," WI
In yesterdays issue excerpts, perhaps justl
to a ocular illustration In recent artic