The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1880-11-12
OUR WEDDINGS.
New York Tribune.

Very recent volumes of court reports
bring new and curious illustrations of
the want of some uniform rule through
out the states as to what shall be a valid
marriage ceremony. In Worcester,
Mass, a couple assumed to marry them
selves after the fashion of Friends ,,
The ceremony occurred at the close of
a public religious meeting. The preach
er came down from the pulpit and took
his stand in front of the pews. The lady
| came forward from her seat and stood by
his side They Joined hands and declared
that they took each other for wife, and
for husband respectively. The Bridegroom
then offered prayers. Both intended a
| lawful wedding Much less than this
has been, in New York, declored per
feet marriage. But, when this couple
were prosecuted for living together with
out having been married, the supreme
court said that, though they might be
excused for the past, in view of their Ig-
noTance and good intention, yet they
were mistaken in suppOsing that their
ceremony had any validity. There is a
special exception in case of persons con-
scientiously belonging to the Society OF
| friends; but all other persons must, in
Massachusetts, be married by minister
or magistrate.
A story from West Virginia shows jus
tIce burlesqued; yet the decision was
| probably unavoidable under the con-
fused laws of the time. A scalp was
| placed upon trial fur having married
Clara in West Virginia, while Fannie,
whom he had long before married in
| Wisconsin, was still living and undi-
vorced. The two marriages were proved
easily enough, but defendants counsel
then offered TO show that about a year
|
| Fannie, he had, in Ohio married Sarah
who was still living when he afterward
married Fannie, but who, as soon, as she
heard of this marriage, procured di
vorce. The lawyer argued that his
client was never lawfully married &c
Fannie, on account of he previous mar
rage with Sarah, and that Sarah's di-
vorce set him at liberty to marry Clara
as far as Sarah was concerned. And the
court decided that the defense was good
True, the marriage with Fannie was q
bigamy; but the court of West Virgins
could not take any notice of that, be
cause il had occurred in Wisconsin
Because, it was not the offense charged
! in the Indictment, and the statute oil
Limitations had run, and the like Up
on technicalities like these Lothario was
set free.
Tennessee supplies a new instance OF
the difficulty respecting mixed mar
riages." Everyone knows that some Of
the states have explicitly forbidden
these: in few others they are distinctly
permitted. There is no great difficulty
in applying either law when only one
Estate Is involved. But in the Tennessee
case-and the same thing has occurred
in one or two previous instances-a white
person and u negro were welded in 8
state where such intermarriage was al
lowed. but afterward removed 10 Tenne
see. where the law sternly forbids il
The courts have a maxim that MARI
age valid in the state where it is made
must be sustained everywhere. But the
Tennessee court refused TO follow this
rule. 1t Is said il applies odly when the
question is upon the regularity of the
ceremony. 1t does nol oblige one state
10 tolerate marriages between persons
whom its laws forbid - espouse each
other in any manner. The supreme
court at Washington is understood &c
have cause on its docket Involving
much the same question. And very
vexatious and perpIexing question il is