New Ulm weekly review. [volume] (New Ulm, Minn.) 1878-1892, 1886-05-26
New Ulm. Mimi, Nav "a. 1888

New Vim, Mlnn., MAY "a, 1886.
Editor Review:-Mr.R Randall has not,
JEFF Davis like, donned the peticoats for
protection, but he has attempted to
hide behind them. When he was at
my house last, he told Mrs. Ross to
throw all the blame on him, but he
seems to have changed his mind-prob-
ably finds the load too heavy-for he
now undertakes to throw it all on her
shoulders. As to the arrangements
that a priest was to assist at the first
ceremony, will say the first sugges-
ton by us was that the priest should be
second, then Mr.. Randall saw that the
ceremony by the priest mast be first
and could not be second; that is, he gave
US to understand that the rules of his
church required it, that he would be &C.
communicated if the ceremony by the
priest was not first. We have ascer-
tanned since. that this is not fact. We
have also ascertained that it is a
gery rare exception, when the ceremo-
ny by the priest is first in cases of ''mix-
cd marriage" 1t makes but very little
difference what was not said. The
question is ''what was understood. -
He says he made certain arrangements
in Difference to desires of Mrs. Ross
and Winnie. Now they (Mrs. Ross
and WinDie) did no want any legal Ger.
emory except the Protestant, if there
was to be Protestant ceremony.
Mr.. Randall knoavs this and it is useless
for him to deny 1t. There could DE but
one legal ceremony; this of course
would be the first, hence the second
would be simply matter of form, we
overlooked this fact. He admits he did
not. He says, II know it would,' (re-
ferring to the first ceremony being le-
gaD. In this he admits he deceived
us, for he certainly cannot think we
would be foolish enough to invite friends
to be present at a marriage that was
not marriage, if we knew it. AS he
knew the first ceremony would be le-
gal, he certainly was doing a great
wrong in not saying anything about it
and permitting US to send out invita-
tons. What nonsense for him to say
that as a second ceremony was desired,
he supposed record of it was also de.
sired. Anyone with a particle of sense
knows it is not necessary to have re-
cord of mere matter of form; that is,
legal record. A church record might
be required. He says, l seem to have
the same opinion as Mrs. Ross; that he
is at loss to know where the opinion
was had. How innocent. might have
got the impression from some Ute Indi
an, but did not. Anyone with fail
amount of intelligence knows that h
could not make the arrangements an6
Ecarry them out without first having
them submitted to us, at least tina
part at our house. suppose in defer
ence to the wishes of Mrs. Ross ant
Winnie he permitted me to remain il
the house during the evening nonsense
He knows every proposition. ever mad
by him to Winnie was submitted to us
His statement that in regard to thei
being married by the priest he sen
countered serious opposition is not
fact. There was no opposition what
ever to its being done as a matter Q
form. The question of the legality 9
the first ceremony was never mention
ed perhaps. as he states, but it was al
ways talked of as the ceremony sim
ply as a matter of form,'' and he doe
not deny that this is the way it was al
ranged and understood. Certainly
was not necessary to say anythin
about the legality of it. However,
can assure him that had the fact of 1t
being legal, not been overlooked by u
there would certainly have been ''ser
Gus opposition to the Catholic ceremc
ny being first. The Protestant cere
mony would have been first or not a
| all c. II Ross