The Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1855-1875, 1875-02-24
From the Cincinnati Commercial.
Indiana Marriages Illegal-The Law
of 1852 UncOnstitutiOnal-N More
Divorces Neesied-Mate<l, Net Mar
F1ed.
INDIANAPOLIS, Feb. Is, 1875.

Divorces Needed-Mated, Net Mar
ried. -
INDIANAPOLIS, Feb. Is, 1875.
THE MARRIAGE LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL
81 have a sensation for you. said
a we'll known citizen, whom it is
safe to say is not married, and from
surface indications does not want
to be. Il want to tell you that
all the marriages which have been
solemnized in the State since 1852
are illegal"
But can you prove it?'' I asked.
Beyond question: was the res
ply.
"Then here's work for the
parsons and County Clerks I OBJ
served. 'sBut the proof want to
see the proof
"Coome with me into the Secre
tary of States Office and I vii
show you" ka
We accordingly bent our steps
thither, and he first got down the
Constitution of the State of Indiana,
and turning over the pages, called
my attention to the following
clause:
Section 1, Article ", of the
Constitution of 1851 distinctly
says: The style of every law shall
be: BE it enacted by the General
Assembly of the State of Indiana,
and no law shall be enacted except
by bill
| sNow to the point" he said;
getting down hinge volume of the
enrolled acts of the original laws,
he continued:
s.The Legislature of the following
year, 1852, passed Bill 136, de-
nominated San act declaratory of
the law regulating marriage, and
enforcing the provisions thereo
by proper penalties But not on
section of the act was prefaced by
the above quoted enacting clause
of the Constitution
! Looking carefully over the re
quirements of the Constitution.
The section reads as follows:
s'No marriage shall be void or
voidable for the want of any license
or other formality required by law,
if either of the parties thereto be-
ieve it to be legal marriage at the
time"
But this section can be constru-
ed to apply only to marriages con-
tracted previous to the date, which
is March 5, 1852.
It will be asked how could such
a violation of the Constitution be
overlooked. It is easily explained.
The Revised Statutes of Indiana
hade the enacting clause in them,
but the original enrolled bill, No.
236, which may be found among
the acts and joint resolutions of
1852, does not contain the necessa-
ry enacting clause, and is therefore,
unconstitutional.
Section 1 begins as follows:
Marriage is declared to be civil
contract" etc.
MATED NOT MARRIED.
The misery and relief that must
enter into the married souls of
Indiana upon this announcement
can not be reckoned. Those happy
in their choice will make what
haste they can to legalize the con-
tract, and it will be delightful
opportunity for the mismated to
swing clear of their responsibilities
What will become of the children
is too grave question to consider
| hastily.
|
There is no telling but what very
many who chafe at the bonds of
wedlock will hug them closer now
they know there is chance to
shuttle them off AS for divorce
litigation, it is at an end.
| OUR RELIEF
The 80 called marriage statute of
1852 has a section Furnishing cons
tracing parties where a white man
or white woman marries man
or woman possessed of one eighth
or more of negro blood. This is
void of course, and as our State
prisons and jails contain a score
or more of prisoners convicted of
violation of this law, its unconsti
nationality will give them their
tickets of leave. -.sss'a'sa
THE REMEDY.
A measure is already on foot to
have proper Legislative action to
correct the embarrassing oversight
Ct the Indiana Solons of twenty
three years ago. Il. Il.