New-York tribune., 1879-12-13
ccNI1Icr or THE MARRIlGELlwS

CcNjLI(T or THE AiRhIiGE 4 LIUS.
One can easily see that great prudence and
sagacity sre reqrired from the courts in admins
;erinu the conflicting marriage laws of the States.
For the States have differed widely Some com
mand ceremony by minister magistrate;
others allow the parties to make the contract ir
any way they please. When Mrs Bissell
sued Mr b. for diyorce. about ten years ago. in
Ncw-York state he declared that TO had never
been married to her. " Yes he has," said she. We
were riding Ia carriage one day. We had been
engaged 10 be married on that very day. He gave
me "A ring and said: This is your wedding ring;
we are married viii live with you and take care
OF Won all my life ~ INV WIFE took it for a we'd
ding ring. anG went to live with him ms his wife"
And she proved that at the boarding-house where
they lived ne introduced her aud paid her board as
his WIFE, The Court held this Ia he a valid marriage.
In another instance man deluded n Brooklyn
seryan;-sirl by n mock wedding bringing a crony
TO personste a priest who read a marriage
scryice. When prosecuted for bgamy he
uleaded : No priest therefore marriage Bnt
the iudc,s said that If there was an actual
agreement there was a real marriage;
Clergyman vas needless: and thar the law
of this State is ~ liberal that men
of that stamp have need 10 be careful they may
-. blunder into bigsmy." And in Missouri in a law
anti by grandchildren to recover property belong
irr 10 the grandfather, he story Of his marriage
was that no Clergyman or Justice vas called, but
tb. bappy pair stood mp in The boaidirg-hou.c par
Ior one evening, and told the ladys relatives and
lie baardeis tiat ;hey had decided to be- married
after which they behaved sncb. The Court said
t,.t was enough, 50 far 80 the gra1dchilGrcn's
fipnts were concerned.
Quite the contrary decided IN Maryland,
where one cf these marriages without . ceremony
and osly by words Of present contract was qnes-
timed The Court SAID IL was void that by
;he law Of Maryland some official ceremony
must be superadded TO the parties contract.
An Oregon lady once claimed share of
a deceascd mans estate as his widow
She could not show that he had ever taken out
marriage License. so she declared they were married
~, uriyate contrac. one time s. ben they were tak-
,,, = sea voysgs and while they wcre. where there
was no law commanding license. The Court.
without protesting TO doubt the lady's word. said
that the story wa, not sufi crr, II true that by
the law Of California ard Oregon parties cannot
necone married except by consent avowed before
an authorized officer and in the presence Of two
Witnesses
A strong argument can bc made in favor of each
~ these conflicting views. But what COZ uision
may arlsc wbrp persons married in State OF lib
eral laws remove into strict one. II these New
York or Missouri couples 60 TO hye IN Maryland OF
California are they respectable married persons or
not? Quite lately the Supreme Court ~ Washington
was called upon to decide This question. man OF
Pennsyly aus. where, apparently. the law does not
reaui an official wedding travelled into Michigan
where the statute preseribes ceremony by a jus
tice or minister, and was there married. But tine
lady was an Indian girl. ana the statute was disre-
garded. Indian forms wep followed. or
perhaps, none at oil. He carried his dnsky
bride back to Pennsylvania they lived and
acquired property in Pittsburg; died and
when their heirs claimed their estate the answer
was made that the father and mother never
lawfully welded. The Supreme Court administered
Justice Tins instance by saying tnat. as the MIchi
gan law did not say IN so many words marriages
shall be void unless celebrated by an officer, 1t
oagit to be enforced in other way
than by adiudging them void and puniah