The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1875-02-18
,~nx.y, MARRIAGES ILLEGAL
The Law OF 1852 unconstitutional
No More Divorces Needed-nate"'
not Married.
correspondence Cincinnati Commercial
INnIANApnIIS. FebrurY Is. 1870.

correspondence Cincinnati Commercial.
INDIANAPOLIS, Februry Is, 1879.
IL have sensation for you, said
we'll known citizen. whom it Is safe to
say is not married, and from surface IN
dications does not want to be. 81 want
10 tell YOU that all the marriages which
have been solemnized in the State since
1852 are Illegal
But can you prove it?' | asked.
Beyond question" was the reply.
Thea here's work for the parsons and
County Clerks | observed. But the
proof want to see the proof
Come with me into the Secretary of
States Office and | will show you"
We accordingly bent our steps thither,
and he first got down the Constitution of
the State of Indiana and turning over
the pages, calling my attention to the
following clause:
Section l. Article ". Of the Consti-
tuition of 1851 distinctly says: BE it en-
acted by the General Assembly of the
State of Indiana, and no law shall be en-
acted except by bill "
Now to the point he said; getting
down huge volume of the enrolled acts
of the original laws, he continued:
The Legislature of the following year,
1852, passed bill l66, denominated AN
act dcclaratory of the law regulating
marriage, and enforcing the provisions
thereof by proper penalties. But not
one section of the act was pretaced by the
above quoted enacting clause of the Con-
stitution.'
Looking carefully over the bill, it was
question if Section did not cover the
requirements of the Constitution, The
section reads as follows:
NO marriage shall be void or voida-
/ BILE for the want of any license or other
Formally required by law, if either of
( the parties thereto believe it to be legal
marriage at the time.
But this section can be construed to
/ apply only to marriages contracted
prcviou; to tho date, which is March 3,
/ 1852.
1t will be asked how could such vi
olution of the Constitution be overlooked
/ 1t is easily explained The Revised
| Statutes of Indiana have the cnactlng
! clause in them, but the original enrolled
/ bill. No. 1876, which may be found
among the acts and joint resolutions of
. 1852. does not contain the necessary en-
/ acting clause, and is, therefore, uncon-
/ stitutlonql.
! Section begins as follows: Marriage
j. declared to be II civil contract DC.
MATED NOT MARRIED.
The misery and relief that must enter
/ into the married souls of Indiana upon
this announcement cannot be rcckoned.
Those happy in their choice will make
what haste they can to lcgalize the con-
tract. and it will be delightful opportu-
I nilv for the mismatcd to SWING clear of
their responsibilities. What will become
| of the children Is too grave Il question to
/ consider hastily.
There Is no telling but what very many
who chafc at the bonds of wedlock will
hug them closes now they know there Is
chance to shuttle them off. As for d.
vorre litigation, it is at an end.
OTHER RELIEF.
The so-callcd marriage statute of 1852
has a section furnishing contracting par
/ ties where white man or a
white woman marrics man or woman
possessed of onc-eighth or more Of negro
blood This is void of course, and as
our State prisons and jails contain score
or more of prisoners convicted OF viola
ton of this law, It's unconstutioniality
/ will give them their tickets Of leave.
\ measure is already on foot to have
( the proper legislative action to correct
tlr embarrassing oversight of the India
/ an Scion, of twcuty-three years ago.
L. K.