The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1879-05-15

positive laws declaring such marria2es
Illegal at will; for I think do not
go too far when assert it as prin-
jciple now well settled that Is State may
follow It's citizens abroad and attach to acts
done there the same consequences "a il
done at home on the return of The paritcl-
pants bone; and TINT Though the law OF the
pace OF marriage may determine lis forms
and reg u!arity, yet the law OF the aomicie
OF the PARTIES must decide whether the con-
trace ~ one which might be lawfully
made; - -; and this uuqueStionarlYi ths rule
IN regard to marriages poIygamnus, inces.
tuous, and contrary to public policy. Onr
own Court OF Appeals has 50 decided in
hinney Us. Commonwealth, 2 Virginia Law
journal, 632; following
THE ENGLISH HOUSE OF LORDS
in the case OF Brook Us. Brook, 0 House OF
Lords Cases, 1913. So, also, have the Su-
preBe Courts Of North Carolina, South Ca
rolina, and Louisiana, in Williams Us.
Oates, D Iredell. 53S; State Us. Kennedy,
10 NO. Car, 251; State Us. Ross, II Ibid.
and Central Law Journal for Dril, 1877,
ana Dupre U.s. Bonead, 10 La Ann, All.
But the Supreme Court OF Massachusetts in
Midway Us. Needham, 1G Mass, 157, and
that OF Kentucky in Stevenson Us. Grey, II
b. Monroe, 1872, have decided contrariwise.
The question can no longer he treated as
open. however, in Virginia, whose Lcgisla-
fure has recently, in the criminal reviSal OF
March IA, 1878, chapter I, section 3, declared
that " Ii any person, resident in this State
and within the degrees OF relationship men
toned in the ninth and tenth sections of
Chapter 1O4 OF the Code, or any white per-
son and negro, shall 60 out Of the State for
the purpose OF being married, and with the
intention OF returning, and be married out
OF il, and afterwards return to and reside
IN 1t, cohabitng az man and wife, they shall
be rs guilty, and be punished, as il the mar
rsge had been in this State" Now, there
are many illegal marriages other than those
named in the foregoing penal section OF
which, though Illegal here, Virginia takes
no notice il contracted without her iurisdic-
ton. The ordinary
RUNAWAY MATCHES"
so frequent in this country, and those
known rs Gretna-Green marriages in Eng
land, are not placed in either country under
the ban OF annullng or penal statutes; but
on the principle OF Interstate comfy are
allowed to stand good. 1t is only marriages
which are poIYgamouS, inccstuOus, or con-
trary 10 public policy, which are made the
subject OF penal enactments such as That OF
the third section OF chapter vii. OF our
criminal revision just given.
This petitioner is here, not as citizen OF
the District OF Columbia, to which be went
to be married in evasion Of the laws OF Fir-
giDia, but as citizen Of Virginia, amenable
to her laws. He is here in that character
only. and has brought back no other right
in regard to the marriage which he made
abroad than he took away. He cannot bring
TIE marriage privileges OF citizen OF the Dis
trict OF Columbia any more than he could
those Of a citizen Of Utah into Virginia in
violation OF her laws. 1t was competent for
the State OF Virginia, so far as there is any
thing in the Constitution and laws of the
United States to prevent, to enact the law
just quoted, under which the petitioner was
convicted, and therefore his case is beyond
relief from Federal court.
know it IS claimed that the provision OF
the fourth article OF the national Constitu-
tion. which requires each State ':to give
full faith and credit to the public acts, re-
cords, and judicial proceedings Of the other
States," has
AN IMPORTANT BEARING
upon the present case. / have already
abundantIy shown that it canpot have the
effect of making the laws OF one State the
laws of another. 1t is doubtful whether
the marriage certificate Of q clergyman or
magistrate is "pu6Hc" record in the
meaning OF this provision Of the Constitu-
tion. The one exhibited with this petition
is nothing but private paper, having no
certification, the names OF the minister and
OF attesting witnesses all written III the
same hand-a very crude document. But
whether it be or not, the clause in ques-
ton could only go to the extent OF
indisputabe the fact OF the
marriage and its legality in the place
OF contract. To give 10 public records
"full faith and credit is to attribute
to them positive and absolute verify, so that
they clnnot be contradicted or the truth OF
them denied any more than in the State
where they origiuatcd."-Story on the
Constitution, section 1910. "A court is
bound to take judicial notice OF the public
records OF another Statc."- OWiDgs rs.
Hull, 0 Pet, s27. a judgment in one
State is Il judgment il another, only so far
as to preclude inquiry as to the merits olthe
subject matter OF the original Judgment. y
McEImoole Us. Cohen, 13 Pet, 3l2. So
that u money Judgment OF court in an
other State is not a Judgment here, but only
4 chose liz action requiring to be specially
sued upon in this State. \ public record
certifying 4 marriage to have been legally
contracted and valid there, though lndiSpu-
table proof here CT those two facts, yet does
not convert the fact of validity there into
validity here, contrary to the express local
law.
IT HAS NEVER BEEN PRETENDED
that laws Of n State can, BY the acts OF in
diyiduals, be subordinated within its own
jurisdiction to the laws established by au-
other State. A citizen OF Virginia may 90
to the Federal District OF Coumbia, or to
the Federal Territory OF Utah, aud be mar
ried there in conformity to local laws, and
may remain there as 4 resident and citizen
with impunity. But if his object in going
was to eyade the laws OF Virginia, and II
after marriage he return here and remain
in condition of matImony forbidden by
our laws, the certificate OF bis marriage IN
the District or Territory in conformity to
its laws will have no other value here than
as indiSputable proof OF the violation ol
our laws.
On the whole, am Of opinion that the
law OF Virginia under which the petitioner
is detained in prison by the State does MOI
violate the Constitution or any law OF The
United States, and that have consequent!
- NO JURISDICTION ...-
to grant the relief for which the petitioner
prays. The writ OF habeaS corpus is de-
MED. '"t
1t may be that it would not have beer
technically improper to have awarded the
writ before the hearing, and to nave had
the petitioners produced in court, with The
mittipaus showing for the State the cause OF
bis detention. But it seemed to me from
the beginning that his petition did not it.