New-York tribune., 1886-03-10
CHANGES IN THE MARRIAGE La "
VIEWS OF NINE NEW-YORK JUDGES.
AyARIETY OF OPINIONS EXPRESSED TO TIE MEM
BERs OF THF BAR ASSOCIATION.

.v.ptFTY OF oPINIoNs EXPRESSED TO TIE MEM
BERs OF THF BAR ASSOCIATION.
At the January annual meeting OF the Bar
Association there referred to the Committee Oh inc
Amendment OF the Law the question whether Anew
York law should be enacted similar TO the General Mar
riage License Law of Pennsylvania This act requires
the obtaining OF a license as condition necessary 10
valid marriage and orbids the marriage Of minors with
out the OF parents TO the Issuing Of tue hcehe
The committee reported last evening that they approved
legislation looking TO "judicious license Ia" III 'hs
State particularly as to minors and to prevent raudu
lent marriages, but the committee disdppfoFeu
anv law declaring marriages without license lhNaHu'
Joseph C. Levi who introduced the original resouon'
read to the association letters from nine Nc"- l"ih
Judges written in to inquiries upon 'he su1ee
He put two questions to them ul "helher an ohAot
nent of this character would be desirable ana t2 IL II
onld whether marriages performed contrary to ana ID
violation Of the act should be declared lhvaIiu.
presidpg Justice Davis wrote: Il thlk must
answer both OF your questions IN inc hesdtNe oo-
believe that true public policy requires that marriage
should be made easy and divorce next to lmposspie'
Justice Barretts opinion was: 81 am eDtlrely ID
favor OF some General Marriage License Law with
due record the application therefor and, III the case
OF minors the filing OF the consent OF parents or guard
ians) as pre- requisite to the civil or religious cereo
NAL | would also require distinct ceremonial, civil
or religions All marriages entered INFO otherwise than
in strict conformity to the act shOuld be utterly Vod
and treated by the law a mere concubiuage."
Justice Brady wrote that judicious license law
might be productive of much good
with dan ger OF ev but he was decidedly OF the
opinion that marriage without license should not be de-
clared invalid "uness the provision Is surrounded Dy
saving clauses that bad results may not follow lie
added that he would approve law providing that two
years Wiiu dcsertiOn and four year, abandonment
should eutitle the parties to a divorce.
Justice Daniels did not think the production OF H.
cense shond be made requisite to establish the legt
macy OF children.
Judge Beach approved a license law which should
not provide for the inyalidiy OF a noicense
msrriac" hat should provide for the imposition Of
penalties for failure to comply with tue law
Judge Van Worst approved the Pennsy yvdnia statute
and Wroe ~ see no reason why snch law shonlu ho'
judge Friedman apparently was feeling particularly
disgusted with the law on the subject OF maIrage ana
pedency OF passing such Ia" at the present iiine e;
State, divorced for adultery and iorhIdcn 10 marry
again, can 20 into neighUoring state with intent TO
evade the prohibition referred to- take new partner
there and Immediately back here TO live, and az
terward compel the courts OF inns state to g m
him divorce in case the new partner should prove IN
faithful IS hardly worth while to make 1t more DIM
cult Tor honest people 10 marcy, o. - ,,.
ChIef Justice McAdam, OF the Clty Court IHUusht
ii much better TO leave the law as 1T L. Bli
If the proposed to be submitted to the Legsi"
ure he suggested that penalty Oi 500 be pOseu on
those violating It's terms with provision against M
validating those marriages contracted without lceh@r
"Ths,' wrote the witty Chief Justice. 10 the great
amusement of the lawyers who listened 10 the ieadu uc
NAV save innocent Oi>pr ng from being declared lie
citiIate for want OF C0gnty Clerks certificate In the
form OF a license attached to the marriage ceremony
pIeim nary 10 their BIRTH -, ,
Judee Nan Hoesen was the most radica! OF all me
Judges. Ie would make marriage without license ~
terly VOID would puush resident OI TINS state WHO
went The state limits TO eYa'e Its marriage IL -
and would declare the mar IaCe invalid would abolish
common law marriage, and would permit woman who
had lived his wife Tor three years "tO
bill IN ca Ilty compel hin TO marry her He would
also require the officer per Jrmlng the ceremony to pub
lish il to the community.
Mr. Lev stated thaI he had written to Henry Ward
Beecner, DI. Timage ana other distinguished ceT-y
men, but had only received replies from Ncarb rLeIa
Quinn and the Rev r. Heher Newton. The Nlcr-'eucTa
thought the law stands quite sufficient lie wrO:c;
The consent parents could not he easily obtained and
the parties would be exposed To great danger o
Illicit cOncuuiuage A vast number OF girls wojli
consider aud justly, such exposure q burden ana
an outrage. They not in condition
to their places and their departure woul be
serious Inconvenience to the families they serve
Mr. Newton approved OF the proposed legislation " u
seems to me- he wrote, "a scandal that any Two CHI.
drun almost, any parson aud be tied Together
for better or for without societys hand being
reached ont to challenge their right 10 do so"
The committee directed TO report bill emhOdy-
ing their ideas the subject expressed IN the report
The meeting Of the association Will be held on
April g. for thc special purpose or cOnsdrrGG the real
estate reform bills now before the legislature