The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1886-01-28
MISS MILLER.
A POETS DAUGHTER GETS
RID OF ONE HUSBAND
TO MARRY ANOTHER.
A PRIEST. WHO SPLICED THE
COUPLE, GETS HIS FOOT
INTO IT.

CHICAGO, January "a Regarding the statement
made In the New York Telegram to the effect tha'
the daughter of joaquin Miller was married mere
to Theatrical Manager j. l.. Mccormick, an inter
view ia published here to-day with Rev. r. }. cog
land The reverend gentleman said that, on the
nth met, Miss Miller, accompanies by Mr. hcCOr-
nj H. came to the house and asked TO be married IN
accordance with the rites of the Catholic church.
She volunteered the statement that she had preVl-
ously gone through the form of marriage with a
man named Mackay, but that she had since ascer-
tanned that she had never been really married 10
him, and, 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
COIand, had previously obtained license to marry,
which he exhibited to the reporter and which Il
in the usual form, as follows:
"The people of the state Of Illinois. to any per
son legally authorized to solemnize, greetings
marriage may be celebrated between Mr.. Joseph
Loudon Mccormick, of New York, in the state OF
New York, at the age of 30 years, and Miss Maud
Marie Miller, of New York. in the state of New
York, af the age of 81 years.
The marriage license was signed by Mr.. NJ. w.
Ryan, clerk of the county court.
~ do not desire, said Father Cogand, "tO add
anything TO the report of the matter which ap-
peared in the New York Sun. That report is sub
stantialy correct, but deny having said that MISS
Miller and Mr. Mackay were not 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 di,
vOrce was or was not, obtained. IL | had reflected
before the ceremony that divorce had not been
obtained, ] would have declined to perform it.
NV view of the first marriage comedies with that
expressed by Manager Preston, which, according
to the Sun, il as follows
manager Preston did not tell Miss Miller that
the marriage was void in law, because the priest
had been deceived about the bridegroom baptism,
but he told her that the church did not recognize OF
bless such marriage
"BCth Miss Miller and her companion appeared
to be in state of absolute poverty" continued
Eathpr (nUluuU rPnrpspQtpu
that their being married would lead to
greater economy, and urged to have the ceremony
performed immediately, IA they expected to leave
for Detroit that morning. They were actually
stranded and what trunks and goods they had were
detained at their hotel Their appearance Ger.
tainly seemed to bear out their statement, rs they
were most poorly and lightly clad for the winter
season. She appeared to be acting from strictly
conscientious motives, and said she had been I'M
posed upon by Mackay.
''Woud the fact of tis not having been baptized
make any material difference in the eyes OF the
church,
"Certanly. Dispensation is necessary in such g
case before the marriage ceremony can be per
| formed. | saw no written opinion from DR.
| IIOughen, but the statement WAS made tC
me by Miller, to the effect that DR.
Houghten had denied that Mackay was eyel
baptised. If he had been baptised in auy church
the ceremony of marriage would be valid in the
| eyes of the Catholic church.
now SIZE SHOOK HM
New York January 23.--Miss Miller was frs
married about year ago, in the Catholic church a
| the Holy Cross, in this city When she thought o.
getting married to Mccormick, she wrote lette
| to Father Preston, rector of st. Annes church
| asking him about the validity of a marriage con
tract with man not baptised. Father Preston sait
to day, that he wrote an answer to Miss Miller, IL
which he gave no opinion on the nudity OF thu
marriage. He simply said thata marriage canno
he Valid according to the laws of the church, will
a person not baptised, without dis
pensatiOn, and added that TN
| question was one for discussion by tn,
| local ecclesiastical authorities where Miss Mile
resided Father Preston said that even thongl
| Miss Millcr's marriage with Mr.. Mackay was in
valid in the eyes of the church, she could not hav
| the marriage CEREMONY performed again by Cath
Ole priest until she got divorce. The Catholi
church does not recognize divorces, but it recOg
nizes the laws of any state in relation to marriage
and in the present case Miss Miller, being married
to Mackay according to law, could not be marrie
again in the Catholic church until That marrlag
was legally annulled.
At the lodgings of Miss Miller and Mccormick
at 80 Sixth avenue, it was said to-day that they ha
moved. Arthur Loving Mackay, Miss Mackay'
first husband, declined to say whether or not h
would apply for divorce.
Miss Miller was seen to-day by reporter Will
admitting the marriage cermony with Mr.. Mackay
she denies that the marriage was ever cOnsulnma
ed and asserts that her conscience was clear. Sh
| furnished the following, which is the test of tn
letter sent her by Monsignor Preston, who
chancellor and vicar general of the arch diocese o
"Miss Maud Mier--Madam Your lette
of the 2Sth inst is received. A dispen
sation from the impeachment of nike
marriage was obtained by Rev W. f. Brady iron
this office, on February 4, 1885, for yourself an
Arthur Mackay, a baptized protestant. If it is All
solutely certain and can be proved that Arthu
Mackay was never baptized then, so far as tn
church is concerned, your marriage with him /
nounce as to the nulliy of your marriage, and thi
should be done by the ecclesiastical authority t
which you are now directly subjected. Yours,
THOMAS $. PREsToN, Vicar General