Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1884-10-04


had been married the next ther
might have been some excuse fo
his youthful ardor and ignorance
bat, under the facts, that he himse
!. states, there can be no doubt tha
the mock marriage, which he pre-
tends to give an account OF, q
Georgetown, KY, In 1850, II 1t eve
occurred at all, was deliberatel,
planned to betray his victim. III
: must have known that such a cere
+ mOny was wholly void and illegal
] and its only purpose was to deceiv
the lady whom he pretended Il
/ have espOused. No minister q
magistrate or other officer In George
town. KY. would have dared to of
ficiate on such an occasion withOu
|, y license issued according to law
Il And the absence Of such license o
OF any such officer or clergyman
would have thrown not only suspi
ciOn but utter lawlessness upon such
proceeding the minds of any
i one except the lady, unacquainted
with legal and necessary forms
far away from her friends and pro.
tectOrs.
/ II is certain that there was nc
clergyman, magistrate, or other OFF,
Ger at such marriage. Mr.. Blaine
used in his letter to Mr.. Phelps the
stereotyped pnraze, married In the
sight of God," terms which have
been used by every seducer In civil
lized life, and which are said to be
kept standing i'm type by the pub
fishers of obscene literature as an
/ excuse for adultery. We have only
pity for the victim. No words OF
! reprOach for her. She was not
sThe daughter OF hundred Earis,
The noble Clare We're de Vere."
She was not even a daughter of Ken
! tucky; between the seducer and
such spoil stood the avenger, and
death would have been the penalty
for the Offense. She was poor,
fatherless, far from home and kin
dred, a stranger in a strange land,
the easy prey OF one who had gain
ed her wOmanly confidence, fit OBJ
iect for his purpose, deceived by q
false marriage and placed in dis
hOnOred position.
We repeat that the most charita-
BILE view of this Kentucky marriage
story is to hold that Blaine has only
Invented it for his present political
purposes. But whether we would so
or not, we are compelled to the con-
clusiOn that no such marriage ever
occurred,
In the first place, under the laws
OF that Commonwealth, there could
have been none such. The statutes
OF Kentucky provided in 1850 and
have provided ever since against it.
We quote from the laws upon mar
riages:
Section l. Marriage is prohibited
and declared void when not solemn
iZed or contracted in the presence of
an authorized person or society.
See. 13. Marriages shall be SOL
emnized by the following persons
only.
/. Ministers OF the gospel or
priests of any denomination in regu-
lar communion with any religious
society.
2. Judges OF the County Court and
such Justices OF the Peace as the
County Court may authorize.
Sec. 8. No minister or priest shall
solennize marriage until he has
obtained license therefor from the
County Court of the county where
he resides, upon satisfying the Court
that he Is man Of good moral
character and in regular cOmmun-
ion with his religious society, and
upon gIying covenant TO the Com
monwealth with good surety not TO
violate the law of the State cOncern-
ing marriage. The parties to such
covenant may for q breach theve0f
be fined. on presentment ofa grand
jury, not exceeding $1,000.
Sec. 10. No marriage shall be
s0lemnized without license there
for, issued by the Clerk of the
County Court. II shall only issue
from the Clerk of the county where
the female usually resides.
Sec. IA. II any person shall sols
emnize marriage without such Ii
cenSe or without being authorized
thereto by County Court, he shall |
be imprisoned not less than one or |
more than twelve months, aud fined
not more than 81 600.
Sec. 10. Ii any person not author
lied shall solemnize a marriage un-
der pretense Of having authority, he |
shall be confined in the penitentiary |
not exceeding three years.
Such were the laws of Kentucky |
when, in June 1850, Mr.. Blaine says
he had "what / know WAS in my
native State of Pennsylvania a per.
fectly legal form of marriage" Does
Mr.. Blaine mean to say that in
Pennsylvania no minister, priest, or
officer of law il requisite to the per-
OF marriage! Who was
the minister, priest or Justice OF
Peace at Georgetown to subject
to fine, imprisonment or
by, without u license,
the ceremony for
him /? Was there any person aui
thorized to sOlelnnize marriage who
would not have told Mr.. Blaine
the brilliant Major and
learned Professor to have been ig-
1orant of it, that marriage without
4 license was alb initi0, void? But
IS it not doing violence To Mr..
Blaine's acknowledged intelligence
even from boyhood. to suppose that
ne was uniformed OH SO simple
that either licence, a
minister or an officer was essential
20 legal natrimony? A well-bred
nan, a college graduate, the guest of
he home of the head Of the insti-
ute ia which he himself WAS tutor,
with lawyers and court
a reader of books and news.
papers, and ACKNOWLEDGED authority
IN affairs OF general intelligence, for
more than two years a. resident
If Kentucky, is it not asking good
leal of creduiIity itself to believe
hat James G. Blaine did no. know
hat without n license, minister or
,fficer there could be no marriage ?"
In his letter to Phelps Mr.. Blaine
ays:
During the ensuing winter, induc-
ID by mi~givings which were in-
creased by legal consultations, ]
Iecame alarmed lest doubt
night be thrown on the validity OF
Dur marriage, by reason Of nom
:ai. |