Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-11-02

person shall be either contracted or joyned
i'll marriage before the intention of the par
ties proceeding therein hath been three
times published at some time of public
lecture or town meeting in the town or
towns where the parties or either of them
dwell, or do ordinarily reside, or be set up
in writing upon some post of the nesting
house door by the space of fourteen days"
Many similar quotations might be given.
We produce but one more, that from a
Southern colony:
y Virginia law of 1851 provided that ''no
minister shall celebrate matrimony between
any persons without facultie or LICENSE
granted by the governor, except the haynes
of matrimony be first published three sew
eral Sundays or holy days in the time of de-
vine service, in the parish churches where
the said persons dwell, according to the
book of common prayer, neither at any un-
reasonable ,ymes, but only between the
hours of and II in the forenoon, nor when
bans are thrice asked, before the parents
or guardians of the parties to be married
being under the age of twenty and one
years, shall either personally or by suffi-
cient testimony signife unto him their con-
sents given to said marriage
All this care as to giving publicity to the
fact of the marriage, as to securing the
consent of parents or guardians and as to
having the ceremony performed at a sea
sOnable tyne" between the hours of s and
Il in the forenoon, is in striking contrast
with our loose customs whereby 4 license
is frequently granted 10 the parties without
satisfactory proof as to the consent of the
parents, and perhaps, in some instances. in
the face of their opposition, while the Off
Ger issuing the license sometimes becomes q
party to the fraud by agreeing to withhold
the license from record, thereby keeping its
issuance from the public; while to complete
the whole, some preacher or justice of the
peace is found who will marry the couple
ciandestinely and keep the marriage a Sc
cree. On what perilous times have we
fallen! Better thousandfold that we have
the strictness of colonial law rather than
the looSeness that obtains under statehood.
But our forefatherS We're not only strict
in the matters mentioned, they held like
wise a tight rein over the clergyman who
performed the ceremony. A Virginia law
of 1884 SAYS: at shall be lawful for any
ordained minister of the gospel to celebrate
the rites of matrimony according to the
forms and customs of the church to which
he belongs, providing such minister pro-
duceS credentials of ordination, and of
his being IN regular communion with the
Christian society of which he is reputed a
member, TO the county court or borough
where he resides, shall take the oath of al
legiance to this commonwealth, and give
bond with two or more sureitieS in the sum
of $500, for the true and legal performance
of his trust.' Who can say that this was
not a good law for the timesl
And if good law then, why would It not
be good now2 What right has the state to
delegate the privilege of celebrating mar
riage 20 ANY ordained minister of the
gospel and yet not require him to give
proof of such ordinations Is not such a
course the extreme of looseness, and may
not the state and the public be imposed on
by such looseness2
BY careful consideration of the forego-
ing it will be seen that the colonial laws re-
speeding marriage gave prominence to the
following particulars: l. They regarded
marriage as civil contract. .. 1t was to
be celebrated by civil officer or a
minister at the option of the parties.
3. l. must be preceded by the publication
of banns or the procuring of license. T.
To be valid, the consent of the parents or
guardians had to be secured. s. 1t must
be celebrated in the presence of witnesses.
These are all points of the highest import
ance, and will be referred TO again when
we discuss the needed improvements in our
laws concerning marriage.
Fort Worth, Tex. ". F. LLOYD.