Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1885-08-14


fully welded wife, to love and TO
cherish until the coming of our Lord
Jesus Christ, or until death US dc
sever"
The parties were Second Adyentists,
and these were the mans words. The
woman's response was: And | now
take this man to be my lawfully
welded husband, to love, reverence
/ and obey him until the Lord Himself
shall descend from heaven with q
shout and the voice of the Archangel
and with the trumpet of God, or until
death shall us sever"
In addition TO this ceremony, the
parties had previously entered the no
tees required by law with the town
clerk, and afterward returned to him
the certificate duly signed.
Dramatically opposed to this case is
the opinion of the New York Court OF
Appeals in a case before it little
while later. Chief Justice Folger pro-
nounced the judgment Of a unanl-
nous court. The question was wheth'
er an oral contract in words OF The
present tense, entered into before
witnesses, first in London, again in q
ship crossing the channel, and third
| tsme in Paris, made valid marriage
Though it would be SO regarded neither
by the law of France nor England,
yet, "by the law of this State" runs
the decision sustaining the contract as
| to New York, "a man and q woman
who are competent to marry each
other, without going before minister
or a magistrate, without the presence
of any person as witness, with nc
previous public notice given, with nc
form or ceremony, evil or religious
and with no record or written evl'
dence of the act kept, and merely by
words of the present contract between
them, may take upon themselves the
relation of husband and wife, and be
bound to themselves, TO the state, and
to society as such" The comparative
lv numerous decisions on tins subjec
in New York are, with one unimport
and exception to the same purpose anC
effect.
THE LAW In OTHER STATES.
North Carolina and Tennessee are
two states where, it is thought, cele
bration is required. The statute il
former enacts that consent before {
magistrate or minister. and declara
ton by him that the parties are hus
band and wife, constitutes marriage,
and such formality was early decided
! by the courts to be essential, and ye
the law can not be said to be finally
settled, for in 1870 the court would
xpresS 40 opinion" as to the validity
= a marriage per rerbd dc prHesenti
In Tennessee, where the statute o
North Carolina was in force, it Wa
held that marriages not after The
by justice of the peace outside Of hi!
district. Still the authority of these
decisions has been questioned notice
ably in 1871, when they wsre quite
severely criticised.
Whether the clause that ''only
marriages solemnized by AUTHORIZE
persons shall be good" found IN thu
general statutes of Connecticut, woull
be deemed to nuIlify those not so SOL
emnlzed, is matter for conjecture
! There appears to have been no case il
this state involving the precise poin
in question, and it is simply undecid
ed
The same remark holds good as tc
| Delaware, where the statute provides
that marriage solemnized before s
person not authorized is void, unless
otherwise lawful and followed by co
habtatiou in belief in its validity
| In one instance III Delaware an action
by widow TO recover her interest in
her deceased husbands personally was
defeated because she could not prove
that the person by whom tho marriage
was performed was a minister, but
only that he was reputed to be one.
The statutes of Maine and Texas are
of the directory character, neverthe
less it is held that compliance there,
with is necessary to make perfect
marriage.
Upon the cases it seems that in In,
diana, Nevada, New Jersey, Rhode
Island, and Vermont a celebration is
| probably unnecessary, still these states
should be put in the doubtful" col
umn. A marriage by s justice of the
peace outside of his district was not
void in New Jersey, nor, thought
the court. any other informed mar
riage when the statute added no words
of nudity, but later. in that state, in
the absence of all proof Of marriage
ceremony, cohabitation as man and
wife was not allowed to establish S
marriage.
In Vermont. there are two decisions
directly contradictory Of each other
the one to the effect that a marriage
per Cerbd de present. was ito bt
deemed as valid to every intent as
though made before the altar" the
other, where the court could not sc
regard such marriage, without vir
tually repeating the statute"
In an Oregon case, the United States
Court held that the laws of that state
and California, requiring marriages &c
be celebrated by some authorized per-
son and in the presence of no less
than two witnesses. were mandatory
in their character, and without the
observance of these specified formah-
ties a valid marriage could not be
created. But this was not considered
la " for California, and it is doubtful
If it would be for Oregon. The statute
IN California apparently now pro,
vides for just such marriages; so alse
in Dakota, where marriage is to be
solepnized, authenticated and record
ed, as the code prescribes, "bdt non
compliance with its provisions does
not invsfdate any lawful marriage.
Perhaps, too, in Kansas, where II is
enacted that the marriage ceremony
may be regarded either as civil cere
mony or as q religious sacrament,
but the marriage relation shall only
be entered into, maintained or abro-
gated as provided by law"
Likewise in Louisiana, where the
law recognizes only such marrisge,
as are contracted and solemnized &C.
cording to the rules which it pre-
scribes. Here, in 1876, all private and
religious marriages previously con-
tracted were declared valid If recorded
within two years, and the court, as q
rule, consider informal marriages
illegal merely rather than invalid.
Whatever construction may be
given to the several statutes just men
| toned, no doubt can exist as to the