The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-02-10
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.

arrangement of the marriage and divorce laws
of the several States. OF course there must
be some minor differences, but in the essen
tial points, Affecting the validity of each GER
emony, there should be common ground. AS
it now is, with each State operating solely
for itself, it is not infrequent that the GUS
toms of adjoining States annul each other,
and thus defeat the objects of these ordi-
nances. 1t may not be denied that each
State has the right to prescribe the law gov
erning its bona fide citizens in these matters,
but there is manifest injustice done where
the statutes of one State enable those OF
another to be defied and violated. A
glance at some of the conflicting statutes is
enough to prove the necessity of co-opera-
ton in the interest of justice alike to the
State and to individuals.
In California and Iowa the statutes provide
that the parties may marry themselves by
expressing in words of the present tense their
agreement to be husband and wife. In direct
conflict with this, Connecticut, Delaware and
Kansas statutes expressly nullify any mar
riage not solemnized in one of the modes pre-
scrbed by the statute. Suppose that man
or woman, married according to the laws of
Iowa, should remove to Kansas, and either
one should marry again, without having
procured divorce from the per
son married in the former State,
would he or she be bigamis2
Or would the Kansas statute, by pro-
nouncing the first marriage invalid, justify
the party? Clearly reciprocal law is
needed, by which all parties may be held
properly accountable and, at the same time,
be shielded from injustice.
In New York, and in ten or twelve other
States where the statutes contain no words of
nullity as to marriages by the mere ex-
pressed agreement of the parties, the courts
the common law; and the view adopted by
the Supreme Court of the United States is
that the parties may marry themselves
by expressed present consent. In Massachu-
sets and in four or five other States, whose
statutes are likewise without words of
nullity on the subject, the courts hold that
such marriages are not valid Here is con-
tradiction in the Interpretation of laws
exactly alike the ''unwritten law" of the
several communities determining the legal
status of marriages. 1t is plain to be seen
hat ha oOnnlltpn Of NJ MI
in States where no form is prescribed, may
work great hardship to the parties concerned,
and it is not apparent that such decisions are
not in direct conflict with the best inter-
ests of society. Where no certain form
islaid down any marriage ceremony is prefer
able to no marriage at all, and if it be deemed
best to require some peculiar formula it
ought to be incorporated specifically into the
statute books. The Indiana statute on this
point is commended to the consideration of
the Legislatures of other States, While it re-
quires that marriages shall be solemnized by
certain religious and civil officers, il provides
that no marriage, legal in other respects,
shall be void on account of the incapacity of
the person soemnzing the same And
while license is required in order to legally
consummate a marriage, no marriage shall be
void or voidable for the want of license or
other formality required by law, if either of
the pal ties thereto believed it to be legal
marriage at the time it was entered into.
In South Carolina, where there is no
law of divorce, and in New York,
where adultery constitutes the only
ground for legal separation, the mar
riage relation may be entered into without a
license or any previous public notice what
ever; while on the other hand, in several of
the States where divorces are most easily OBJ
tanned there are strict and minute statutory
requirements as to license or previous public
notice of marriage.
1t is everywhere required that each OF the
parties to the marriage shall have attained
certain age, known in the law as the age of
consent, and that they be not connected by
certain ties of consanguinity and affinity
But their ages vary considerably in different
States; in Indiana the male must not be
under eighteen and the female not under
sixteen years of age; while, as to the prohi-
bition of relationship the condition of the
law throughout is what might be expected
from the fact that marriage between uncle
and niece was valid in Maryland before 1873;
i'll Pennsylvania such marriage is vodable
only, and in Connecticut it is absolutely
void. In Indiana marriages are voidable
when the parties thereto are more nearly re-
lated than second cousins. =.
The laws thus give varied and vague an
swers to obvious questions that present
themselves on the very threshold of the sub