The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-01-24
MORE ABOUT MAUD MILLER
Statement of the Priest Who Married the
Poets Daughter to Her Theatrical Manager.

CHICAGO, Jan. 23.-Regarding a statement
made in New York telegram, to the effect that
the daughter of Joaquin Miller was married here
to- the theatrical manager. J. u. Mccormick.
ap interview is published here to day with Rev.
F. ]. Cogiand. The reverend gentleman said
that on the 9th inst Miss Miller, accompanied
by Mr.. Mccormick, came to the house and asked
to be married in accordance. with the rites
of the Catholic Church. She volunteered
a statement that she had previously gone through
the form of marriage with a man named Mac
kaye, but that she had since ascertained that she
had never been really married to him. aad, as a
consequence, had never lived with him, nor did
he seem to be anxious to live with her as her
husband. Miss Miller, who was total stranger
to Father Cogland had previously obtained a
license to marry, which she exhibited to the re-
porter. and which is in the usual form, as fol-
lows:
The People Of the State of Illinois. To any
person legally authorized to solemnize mar.
riages, greeting; Marriage may be celebrated
between Mr.. Joseph Loudon Mccormick, of New
York, In the State of New York, at the age of
thirty five years, and Miss Maud Murray Miller.
of New York. in the State of New York, at the
age OF twenty -one years.
The marriage license was signed by Mr.. M.
W. Ryan, clerk of the county court
Il do not DESIRE" said Father Cogland, "to
add anything to the report of the matter which
appeared in the New York Sun. That report ia
substantially correct, but deny having said
that Miss Miller and Mr. Mccormick were mot
legally married, or that the marriage was void
In law. as the license from the State attends
to the legal part of the matter. never reflected
whether the divorce was or was not obtained If
II had reflected, before the ceremony; that di-
yorce had not been. obtained, would
have declined to perform it. My view of the first
marriage comedies with that expressed by Mgr.
Preston which, according to the Sun, is as fol-
lows: Mgr Preston did not tell Miss Miller that
marriage was void in law because the priest
had been deceived about the bridegroom's bap-
tism, but he told her that the church did not
recognize or bless such marriage Both Miss
Miller and her companion appeared to be in
state; of absolute poverty" continued
Father Cogland, ''and Miss Miller repre-
sented that their being married would
lead to greater economy, and urged to have the
ceremony performed immediately, as they ex-
pected toleayefor Detroit this morning. They
were actually stranded, and what trunks and
goods they had remaining were detained at their
hotel Their appearance certainly seemed. to
bear out their statement. as they were most
poorly and lightly clad for the winter season.
She appeared to be acting from strictly con-
scientious motives, and stated that she had been
imposed upon by Mackaye."
Would the fact of his not having been
eyes of the churchq"
Certainly. A dispensation, is necessary in
such a case beforethe marriage ceremony can be
performed. saw written opinion from Dr.
Haughton, but a statement was made to me by
Miss Miller, to the effect that DR.. Haughton had
denied that Mackaye was ever baptized. IL he
had been baptized in any church. the ceremony
of marriage would be valid in the eyes of the
Catholic Church"
A New York telegram says: "Miss Miller was
re m Ypla 0 a hny in hoG Cat nffo
Church of the Holy Cross. in this CITY, When
she thought Of getting married to Mccormick
she wrote a letter to Father Preston, rector of
st. AIMS Church, asking him about the validity
of marriage contracted with a. man not bap-
tized. Father Preston said to-day that he wrote
an answer to Miss Miller, in which he gave no
opinion on the nullity Of her marriage. He
simply said that q marriage could not be had
according to the laws of the church. with per-
son not baptized, without dspensation, and ad-
ded that the question was one for decision
by the local ecclesiastical authorities
where Miss Miller resided. Father Pres
ton said that even though Miss Miller's
marriages with Mr.. Mackaye was invalid in the
eyes of the church, she could not have the mar
riage ceremony performed again by Catholic
priest until she got a divorce The Catholic
Church does not recognize divorce but it recog
nizes the laws OF any State in relation to mar
riage, and in the present case, Miss Miller being
married to Mr. Mackaye according to law. she
could not be married again in the Catholic Church
until that marriage was legally annulled.
cat the lodgings Of Miss Miller and McCor-
mick. at No. SO Sixth avenue, it was said to-day
that they had moved. Arthur Loring Mackaye,
Miss Millers first husband declined to say
whether or not he would apply for divorce"
Miss Miller was seen to-day by reporter.
While admitting the marriage ceremony with
Mr.. Mackaye, she denied that the marriage was
ever consummated, and asserted that her con-
science was clear. She furnished the following,
which is the text of the letter sent her by Mgr
Preston, who is chancellor and vicar general of
the archdiocese of New York:
Miss Maud Miller: Madame-Your letter Of the
18th inst is received A dspensation from the i'm.
pediment of mixed marriage was obtained by Rev w.
r. Brady from this office, Feb. a. 1885 for your
self and, Arthur Mackeye, baptized Protestant. If
it is abso fsteiy certain, and be proved, that
Arthur Mackaye was never baptized, then as far as
the church is concerned, your marriage with him
null 1t is not. however, in my province to pronounce
done by the ecclesiastical authority to which you
now directly subjected.
TtYoc D. VT