The White Pine news. [volume] (Treasure City, Nev.) 1868-1906, 1882-05-13

EGAN CANYON, May 0, 1882.

EGAN CANYON. May 0, 1882.
EDITOR News l find in your issue of this
date that you have changed the nature of
your comments on the Parrott-D onohue mar
riage in San Francisco, from what you con-
sidered a marriage a la crowned heads in
Europe to "a heightened archepiscopal mar
riage, conferred on the Sharons. Donohues,
and others of the same class"
You attack the Archbishop in San Fran
cisco, and say he would not cross his TIRES
hold to ~officiate at the nuptials of hundreds
of good and faithful children of the Chruch,
because they are not Of what you are pleased
to make out, a privileged class. Is not this
all gratuitous assumption on your part ?
Can you make good your assertion ? The
only paraded reports of marriages IN San
Francisco are given of what is called the social
and fashionable world. In connection with
such marriages the Archbishop's mann often
pears. But is it to be inferred from this that
he will perform no marriage of persons in a
mere humble sphere of life-none, unless
riches have to do with it ? Ii the matrimo-
NAL register would show that the ordinary
pastor performs more of the marriage cere-
mony han the Archbishop it Is readily ac-
counted for from the fact that the application
to be married is made from choice to the
pastor, and the Archbishop Is neglected. II
a couple, however, residing in Cherry Creek
instead of being married by the pastor
should go off TO be married by the Arch
bishop, with tho conceit that there was
greater display in it, they would be certainly
accounted snobs, wishing to Haunt their i'm
portance before the world While assuming
u championship of good and faithful children
Of the Catholic Church. you have neither
evidence nor reason for impdting mercenary
motives to their beloved Arch bishop in his
p performance or non-performance of the mar
riage ceremony. BARTHOLOMEW 0'CoNSOR.
We have no desire to enter into a
lengthy controversy with our corre-
spondent on "A subject which is of lit
tie or no interest To our readers. We
cannot, however, agree with him that
the reason ''the ordinary pastor per-
forms more marrige ceremonies than
the Archbishop" is because the latter
Is neglected, and the priest preferred.
Every Catholic knows hal the rules
of his diocese do not permit of mar
rIages beng solemnized outside Of
the parish in which the parties re-
side, except by the approval Of the
bishop, and "A special license granted
for such purpose. But our cores
pondent himself admits the correc.-
ness of the position first taken by as,
when he supposes IA parallel case, in
these words
IF a couple. however, residing in Cherry
Greek, instead OF bong married oy this pas
tor there, should 60 on u be married oy the
Archbishop, with the eoheeit that there was
greater display in IT, thy would be ace0u0ted
snoos, wishing to haunt their importance be-
fore tho worid."
This il just what we thought and said
about the ParrOtt-Donohue affair, to
which our correspondent took excep-
tions. II "a Cherry Greek couple
'swould be accounted snobs'i where
does the difference come in when the
couple are San Franeiscans, and the
motive the same-vain display, and
chanting their importance before the
world ?' But a Cherry Creek couple
would not be permitted to make any
such display, unless their wealth and
social position were such as to COM
lnand the extra touches of Papal BEN
edictions and archepiscopal flour
ishes. And our correspondent knows
this as well as we do.