The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1895-11-06
THE EX-MRs. YzNAGA.
EccIesiasticaI- Bars TO Her Marriage
to Count BeIa Itchy.
From the New York sun.


With the granting of an absolute di-
vorce to Mrs Fernando Yznaga from her
former husband. all legal obstacles to her
union with Count Itchy have apparently
been removed Recently, however, the
friends of both have been discussing the
obstacles of an ecclesiastical nature which
have arisen to perplex the prospective
bride and groom. Count Itchy is Ro-
man Catholic and a member of a Roman
Catholic court, namely that of Austro-
Hungary. 1t is generally understood that
he and the new Countess Itchy would
not be received at court If the marriage
were not a valid one in the eyes OF the
Catholic church.
Wright as at her request the court d1-
rected she should now be called, is Sun
living in YanktOn, 5. D., and ACCORDING
to reports received from theret Is now
studying the Catholic faith, with view
to entering the church. 1t Is EVIDENT,
therefore, that both she and Count Zlcny
desire TO be married by Roman CaJh-
Ollie priest The wedding would naturally
take place at St Patrick Cathedral
in this city, but as yet, owing to the
difficulties in the way, no application mas
been made to have the ceremony per
formed there. Regarding these dlincul-
ties a well-known ecclesiastc, who IS
thoroughly .conVersant with the laws or
the church. said to the renorter;
"Under the canon law there is absolute
ly no departure from the rule OF the
church that no marriage can dissolve or
render null. unless IL be shown 10 nave
been invalid from the beginning. Inc
pope himself is without power to afford
relief through a dispensation except on
that specific condition. In order Tor Mrs.
Wright to marry Count Zlchy, therefore,
it must be shown that the previous mar,
riage with Fernando Aznaga was Invalid
from its inceDtion. The fact that Mr..
Yznaga had been married before, and
that his former wife was still living when
ha urYf p6 Wright
for that matter, is presumptiVe evidence
that the Wright-Yznaga marriage was
be shown that Mr.. Yznagas first mar
riage was not valid In the eyes OF the
church. That woud+tend, just as much
to Drove the validity of the Wright
Yznaga marriage and the consequent inn
| possibility of Wrielst-Ziehy lupion.
Now either of these Yznaga marriages
| may be technically invalid for number
| of reasons other thantthe interposition of
! divorces. In general, 1t may be said That
a marriage between two persons, neither
of whom has been baptized in any church,
| is presumably valid A marriage between
persons both Of whom have been bap-
tized one or both in either the Catholic
or Protestant faith, is presumably valid.
But a union between two persons, one OF
whom is baptized and the other bap-
tized in the Catholic church Is clearly
invalid. The same would probably be held
of union between an unbaptized person
and one who had been baptized in the
Protestant faith, although that question
a Catholic tribunal. OF course, there are
many other impediments to valid mar
riage. SUCH for instance, as kinship or
affinity. Some of these may be removed
by dispensation and some cannot. Prob
! ably none of them IS concerned in either
of the Yznaga maria yes.
How would such questions OF validity
| be decided?"
before a priest it would probably be de-
cided by him, if it was quite clear But in
a complicated case, such as that under
| discussion, the priest would undoubteG-
| ~ refer it to his bishop. In this city it
| gan formal trial Of the validity of the
| Wright-Yznaga marriage would ensue.
| The testimony would be taken by the
| bishop or by some one appointed by MIN,
and If the marriage were found invalid
| the decision would be confirmation of
| Mrs. Wright's civil divorce. Archbishop
| Corrigan usually appoints DIR. Ferrant or
| St. Patrcks Cathedral to act as judge in
| such cases. and DR.. McQurk of St. Paul s
! church to act as defender of the marriage.
| A secretary, who takes stenograhpic notes
| of the testimony, completes the ecclesl-
astical court The decision may be LETT
with the appointed Judge, or that func-
| ton may be reserved to himself by the
| bishop, who bases his decision upon the
official report of the testimony taken.
I'm all such cases the presumption is in
favor of the validity Of the marriage ana
it is the duty of the defender of the mar
riage to submit all possible proofs and
arguments tending to establish 1t. The
difficulty of proving a marriage invalid
is shown by the process of appeal. II
in the first trial the marriage is sus-
tanned as valid. the defender of the mar
riage does not appeal. But If the contrary
happens, he is bound to appeal, even
though the party against whom the judg-
ment was found does not wish to ap-
peal. If the court Of the
second instance, like that of the
first also pronounces the marriage inva-
| lid he need not appeal again unless he
thinks proper. If he believes, however,
that he cannot conscientiously acquiescs
in the sentence of nullity pronounced by
the court of the second instance either
because the sentence seems to him mani
testify unjust or invalid, he should again
appeal this time to the holy see, whose
decision is, of course, final
1.-The husband and wife i'm the case arc
forbidden, on pain of severe penalties,
to consider their marriage as dissolved,
and contract new marriages. pending any
of these appeals. only after their mar
riage has been declared invalid twice. if
there is appeal, can either of them marry
again, according to the laws OF the Cath
ole church,
Count Itchy, who is in New York, de-
clined TO discuss the difficulties in the
way of his marriage with Mrs. Wright
CHAT WITH ROUGH RIDERS.