The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-04-22

laxity of the Scotch law of marriage, under |
which Arnold Brinkworth and Anne Sylves- |
ter, neither wishing nor intending to marry |
the other, we're innocently placed in such |
circumstances that Scotch lawyers could not |
agree as to whether the law would regard |
them as man and wife.
The civilized world owes the distinguished
author debt of gratitude for dragging out
of darkness into the light of day the hateful
and iniqutous Irish anomaly which still
disgraces the British statute book He has
rendered a substantial service in the interest
of justice, morality and religion.
But the case he makes against the Scotch
| law is not by any means so clear and strong
| Under the law of Scotland marriage is "a civil
| contract merely, without legal restrictions of
any character. Consensus fdctt 1aatrjnl0Bjune.
| Consent makes marriage. The parties must
| be able to contract-that is to say, must be
| free from personal disabilities, such as idiocy
lunacy, childhood, or actual existing mar
riage They must be willing to marry each
| other and must intend to marry. The pur-
! pose to marry each other must be carried
into effect-they must actually marry. No
! form of words is necessary. The contract
need not he in writing The presence of
PRIEST or-preacher, of judge ormagistrate, is
| not Indispensable. Banns need not be pub
ished; no license is wanted no record need
he made Marriage has no sacred nor even
| solemn legal character in Scotland 1t is
civil contract merely and simply, differing
in no material respect from other civil con-
tracts, except that it is indissoluble by the
act of the parties. Such is, too, the law of
Pennsylvania to-day; such has always been
the law of Pennsylvania. The various de-
nominations of Christians have their own
regulations governing the subject. One
| branch of the Church declares marriage to be
q sacrament; others, perhaps all, surround it
with solemn observances. The law permits
and respects these regulations and the prac-
tce of these ceremonies, but does not recog-
nize them as having any binding force
| Neither Scotch nor Pennsylvania law will
infer marriage from mere cohabtation, be-
cause actual, executed consent constitutes the
relation. But actual, executed intention
however proven, makes marriage both in
Scotland and Pennsylvania.
Now, MIR. Wilkie Collins labors to show
that the Scotch law of marriage (Which is
identical with the Pennsylvania law sets
traps for innocent persons who do not intend
to marry. But the case he puts does not
prove it. lady went to the Craig Fernie
Inn, declaring herself to be married woman,
and expecting her husband to meet her there.
A man came to the inn on the evening of the
same day, represented himself to be the hus-
band of the lady, addressed her as his wife in
the presence of the landlady and servants,
supped with her privately, and remained over
y
and communicating apartments. They were
not man and wife, and did not mean to
become such. They were persons Of respecta-
ble character, and their intentions as re-
spected each other were pure and honest.
But the gentleman, to serve a friend
and protect the lady, assumed false
remained silent when truth required
her to speak. This was no marriage under
the Scotch law; but the parties, by the false
declaration of both, and by the deception
praoticed by one, and the asserting silence of
the other, had made evidence of marriage
against themselves This evidence might or
might not be regarded by Scotch lawyers, and
Pennsylvania lawyers too, as establishing a
pT'50aG Jdcie case of marriage. In the strongest
view of it as against the parties the burden
was on them to show that they we're not mar
ried The question which the case presents
is not one of the law of marriage-it is a
question of the weight of evidence merely,
in reference to which lawyers as we'll as
jurors might differ. The laws of all civil
lized countries presume that sane per-
sons contemplate the consequences
: of their own acts, and that their declarations
| against their own interests are presumptively
true. The Scotch law of marriage set no
trap for the parties who met at the Craig
Fernie Inn; but their own imprudence, the
Misrepresentation of both as to their true
/ positions, and the double treachery of third
I person who was the pretended friend of one
. and the affianced husband of the other, led
3 them into labyrinth of troubles. This is
t the whole case, and the author might, with
t the same reason, declaim against the general
q law of contracts, because it does not insure
Q against the consequences of ones own impru-
/, 6ence, deception, or folly, or the dishonesty
n or treachery of others.
: If Wilkie Collins would direct his attention
to the operations of the English laws regu
lating marriage and inquire how many limo
= cent women have been betrayed into mock
marriages., under forged licenses, with cere.
q monies performed by villains who personated
d priests; how many persons in England are
: living in a state of legal concubinage fol
C want of compliance with the onerous and ex
y peDsive restrictions which English laws i'm
% pose, he might possibly be induced to lool
- with more charity upon the marriage laws o.
d country where mock marriages are impossi
% BILE ana concubinage is almost unknown. H,
,. might find crimes to expose and dreadful
IL social evils, traceable, in part, to unnecessar,
10 and unwise restriction of the right to MARI.
IL "a work for which he has both the heart anC
q genius.
w A TILT AT TILTON.
# From the Cincinnati Commercial
It Theodore Titon is the editor of the New
4 York Il1e0en1eDt n moral drV goods ad va