The Middlebury register. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1850-1882, 1877-03-10
CORNWALL,

MEssRs. EDTroRs:-I notice ia your
last issue a communication from Town
Clerk wherein he very pointcdly denies
the truth of the statement l made In
your previous issue that he sought 10
shirk the responsibility of an error made
in his Office upon an innocent man.
Now, gentlemen, / should shrink from
and scorn to make such a statement rs
l did, unless | honestly believed il to be
true and could be verified by unimpeach-
able testimony, and as Town Clerk has
so positively denied its truth, il seems
proper that 1 should state the grounds
upon which | based my belief in its
truth, in order that the case may be fully
understood.
Soon after the marriage in question
took place, the father of the bride called
upon me to ascertain upon whom the
blame rested under the law. / told him
it rested upon the town clerk, for he had
no right TO issue a certificate TO a minor,
without the consent in writing of the
parent or guardian. lie said the town
clerk laid the blame upon the minister.
and says he, 81 told the town clerk |
did not sec any use in having any Ger
t~ificate, if that was so.' Soon after this
| mel a sister and brothcr-in-law of the
bride. They told the same story the
father had, with the addition that when
the town clerk came TO see them about
the matter, he brought n big pile of law
books and read in II of them where il
says n minister shall not marry a minor
unless the parent or guardian of such
minor is present and gives his consent
OF sends his consent in writing Gan old
law which has not been in force since
1869, and also that he wanted tho father
to go right up and make Mr.. Magill SET
tie it, and further that he told the father
who the town grand jurors were to
whom lie could make his complaint if
Mr.. Magill did not settle it. This is the
testimony upon which was founded the
charge l made, which testimony has
since been corroborated by other mem
beers ofthe brides family, and yet Town
Clerk pronounces the charge false. Is
it to be supposed that, if Town Clerk
went there solely for the purpose of ac-
knowledging his mistake and taking all
the blame TO himself, he needed any law
books along with him? Is it to be sup
posed that the sister, who probably
never opened a law book, could quote
the law as she did unless she had heard
it read? And what object could Town
Clerk have in reading that law unless il
was TO throw the blame upon the min
lister? We have here a direct contra
diction as to facts, and the ease must
turn upon the balance of testimony and
the credibility of witnesses. On the
one hand we have the evidence of this
family, examined separately, yet cor
roborating each others statements in
the essential particulars, q family sus-
tanning an excellent reputation for in
tegrity and honesty, both here and in
Canada, from. whence they came, and
who could not, as l can conceive, have
any possible object in disappearing
the matter. On the other hand we have
only the unsupported word of one man,
who has in this case pursued a course
in perfect accord with his antecedents.
In view of the testimony and of the cir
cumstanccs surrounding the case, | do
not feel ut liberty to withdraw the
charge, and in this position / feel that
have the support of a large majority
of the better portion of the citizens of
the town of Cornwall. And now,
Messrs. Editors, thanking you for YOU
kindness and assistance in maintaining
the right. ] close, trusting that / may
hot be again called upon to expose
such transaction. n. b. DOUGIAs.
Cornwall, March 7, 1877.