The New Orleans daily Democrat., 1880-02-29
THE NEW ORLEANS DEMOCRAT SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 49, 1880

tears OF her child, she threatened and insist-
ed that the marriage should take place. Vain
ly did the young girl endeav0r Ia every way
to eecape; her health failed. and che loet ail
her beauty and freshness. The mother, either
| unable to conquer her fear OF the Emperor Or
trusting that time would change her dau0h-
| ter's idras, was unalterahle In her determtna-
tion. Maria Hamilton approached Che altar,
hours before the ceremony she protested to
her mother, with sobs and tears, that be-
tween the Prince and herself was an impass-
able abyss, and that sne could never learn
after the nuptial rite had been performed.
The sunny ekles Of Monaco had no charm for
her, and the palace was to her prison,
whence she would etcape whenever practi-
cable, even climbing the walls for that pur-
pose. Her mother lived at Nice. Every two
or three days the Princess would find her
way thither, and when the Prince would come
to fetch her she would 20 to ask asylum with
some friend to avoid being obliged to accom-
pany him. When forcibly taken back to Mo-
eicians, fearing for her life. we're frequently
forced to recommend that no violence should
be used, and that the Prince should not ap-
pear before her.
ary, 1870. when she, being enceinte quilted
the palace Of the Prince, never to return re-
sisting all the entreaties OF Plus TX OF glori-
GUS memory, OF Napoleon III and Of other IL
lustriOus soverei9ns, who endeavored to re-
unite two persons separated by an invincible
they clearly result from the process actually
conducted by the Bishop OF StrasbourK. July
II. 1870, the Princess gave birth to q son,
Louis Honoroe-C Charles Antonio; she claimed
care and control, contrary to the desire Of his
father, Prince Albert, who. some years later,
endeavored to kidnap the child
In consequence Of this attempt Princess
Maria Hamilton. In 1873, laid before the
Sacred Congregation OF the Council petition
for the annulment OF her marriage, based
upon the fear and pressure brought to bear
by her mother. and the lack OF her own 0On-
sent TO said nupttals. The question being q
grave one In view OF the contamination OF
son from that union, the Holy Father de-
ctded that the case should not proceed In the
ordinary way, but named special committee
OF cardinals, consisting OF their eminences
lint and sparrett,. who, after hearing both
parties. pronounced, In May. 1870, sentence
In favor Of the aunuilation OF said mar
riage. This Judgment the Pope declined
to ratify, the reasons which u mill
tated against Prince Albert OF Monaco
not being sufficiently established. There
fore, In accordance with the provisions OF
the Bull Die Miseratione, he appointed aecond
commission, composed of Cardinals Dl P!etrO
Dean. OF the Sacred College, Simeoni, Ledo-
Ing been Apostolic Nuncio at Paris at the
time Of the celebration of the unhappy mar
riage, through motives OF delicacy begged to
decline the mandate, and was replaced by
Cardinal Randi. This second commission
was charged to carry through, for the second
time, the canOnicAl trial rs to tho validity OF
the marriage. After carefully examining
into the facts, and hearing the testimony OF
numerous witnesses, well worthy of credence,
all Of whom were unanimous In their de-
positions, the commission confirmed the
Judgment OF the former commission as to the
nullity OF the marriage, and furthermore de-
cided as to the Legitimacy OF the son born
therefrom, recognizlng, unreservedly, the
rights OF the father, and providing for the
sons education In conformity with the re-
quest OF the Prince; saving In this manner In
view Of the good faith Of one OF the parties,
the honor and good name OF tho child, and
suffering both parties to enjoy that liberty
which had been but apparently sacrificed.
From the facts, fully demonstrated before
the two Commissions OF Cardinals named by
the Holy Father, 1t clearly results that no
marriage existed, through defect OF free con-
sent, which alone forms the substance there
or; hence the declaration Of nullity. which all
can see to be most reasonable and to rebound
to the glory and honor Of the Holy See, which
thus resolved the first question In favor OF
the Princess, the other two In favor OF the
Prince, since 1t was he who appealed from the
former decision OF May, 1879.