National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1874-02-14

WONDERS or VEDLOCR.

WONDERS OF WEDLOCK.
The philosophy of domestic history involves
many problem in real Life that would b
secuted - extravagantly impraeticable in ac.
Hon, and the peculiarly facile genius of social
md legal institutions in the United States
seems notably favorable to the development OF
such euriosities. Thus . jury in Port and, Me-,
has recently disagreed, snd thereby necesd-
tated new trial, In . sseof alleged mistaken
identity, the parties to which are gentleman
VINO claims another persons wife - his own,
and the lady who, firmly and Indignantly denies
that she ever even saw. IL claimant before.
MS. aite, wife Of . highly respectable citi-
the claimant Of her marital allegiance, who n
from another part Of the country. persfsts thsk
he once married and was deserted by her. and
brings letters and witnesses in proof thereof.
She, on the contrary, is sustained by husband.
children, old friends and acquaintances, in ut
terly denying all knowledge Of the man: and.
- the disagreement Of the jury shows, the eys.
dence on both sides Is % strong as to battle the
average Of human sagacity to decide the a.
problem.
But vet more surprising are the anomalous
legal complications Of . case in San Bec-
nardfno, California, Of which the following arc
the chief facts: In 1871 an Engiishman named
chased farm In Temesca1 township, repre-
senting that he had experienced bitter domestic
bereavement and pecuniary loss In the Land
whence he came, and exhibiting great de-
spondency Of spirit In consequence. In jan
uary OF the following year he wo0cd and won
. comely and highly respectable widow Of San
Bernardino named ForelaDd, but not without
having given her the tragic history Of his past
errors. About six years before he had been
thrifty farmer I'm Wellington county, New
Zealand, on the frontiers of the seditious
Maori country. During his absence from home
one day, on . short journey Of business, while
bis wife and several children were alone in the
house, band Of savage Maoris devastated the
place, and left the buildings in smoking ruins.
smoldering embers and ashes In the place
where the Homestead had stood; and charred
human fragments In the dreadful wreck
left him no hope but that his whole
family hal been Lltchered by the
pitiless destroyers. It seemed, indeed, barely
possible at first that some of the victims
had been carried of captive; but weeks
months, and even years Of pitiful waiting and
tnqutring never sustained the possibility. At
last the inconsolable man had gathered to-
gether what little worldly substance was left
to him and emigrated to California, and now
told the story Of his calamities to her whom
he besought to be his second wife. Thus Mrs.
Foreland knew what Oades had suffered be-
fore she gave him her hand in wedlock, and
needed no further Information from him when,
In year after the marriage-or only . few
weeks ago-the first Mrs. Oades and her three
children arrived at the farm in search of hus-
band and parent. The woman and the little
ones had been made prisoners, instead of
killed, by the Maoris; the human remains
found in the smoking ruips were those of saw
ages who were slain b. each other in fight
for the spoils; and after captivity Of years,
the haPless Mr.. 0ades and her children had
RAJ protector to California.
rpon hearing the piteous tale from the poor
, wanderers, Oades and his second wife were Of
| one mind about what to do in the matter.
They would not relinquish their own union, for
| It had been entered into in perfect good faith
| on both sides, and was justified by the mutual
devotion It had developed; but the desolate
newcomers must be received into the house a.
legitimate members of the family, and receive
their anomalous condition.
Not 80, though, decided the good people of
San BernardfnO, who, on being frankly told of
the domestic situation, insisted that there must
be divorce to accommodate affairs to civilized
form. As neither Oades nor either of the Mr..
Oades would move in the matter, the public
prosecuting attorney was constrained to insti-
tute legal proceedings. And then began the
judicial perplexities Of the problem. Accord
ing to the Los Angeles Express, the husband
| was first sued for retaining the woman from
Australia under his roof. He proved that
she was his lawful wife, and the suit was
abandoned. A suit was then brought against
him for unlawfully living with wife number
two. He was acquitted under the law,
| which declares that "the marriage of q
person having husband or wife living is
void, unless such former husband or wife
living was absent and not known to such
person to be living for five years Immediately
proceeding such subsequent marriage-in which
case the subsequent marriage is void only from
| the time its nullity is adjudged by q proper
| tribunal" Hewas then prosecuted for bigamy,
but the law provides that ''no person shall be
held guilty Of bigamy whose husband or wife
| has been absent for five successive years with
| out being known to such person as being liv-
ing" 80 he again escaped. A fourth suit
| was finally brought to dissolve the second mar
rage. That failed because not brought by ono
| of the interested parties. They were appealed
| to, but refused to take action. At public
meeting of the now fairly frantic citizens 1t was
proposed to petition the Legislature to pass q
special act dissolving Oades' last marriage.
But Oades, who was present, Immediately
arose to address the meeting, and told them
that that was no 60, for by the twentieth Sec
ton Of the fourth article of the constitution of
California It Is expressly provided that 'sno
divorces shall be granted by the Legislature"
As Oades produced the book itself this argu-
ment was unanswerable. It was then proposed
that the. Legislature should be petitioned to
call q constitutional convention for the purpose
of annulling one or the other of Oades' mar
nages; but Oades produced the Constitution of
the United States, and read the tenth section
Of the first article, which expressly provides
that &C. No State . = shall pa any law
impairing the obligation of con-
tracts" "and marriage" he said, twas well
settled TO be q contract, and therefore no
earthly power could deprive him Of his vested
right 10 his two wives" And thus the case
stands at present-one of the most remarkable