The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1896-02-07

/ Puot W. II ubtO w NooAt th0
OF this registration business. It appears
certain persons including, Of couiso. min
listers, have always, as is Iopularly unde :
stood, been authorized Go erform mar
riage, but the requirement as TO registra-
that OF 1857, when it is provided Section
~ OF Chapter 76) that sin order that it
may be more Surely sscertained that no
clergyman, physician, coroner, undertaken
or clerk OF the Society OF Friends, neglects
to make the returns Specified in this
chapter, each one shall cause his name
and residence TO he recorded in the clerks
Office of the town where he resides" This
was adopted some Tins between the MAX
ing Of the digest OF 1874 and thst OF 1857,
just when is of nc moment 1t does not
appe,r in the former revision.
1t viii be seen that the object of that
enactment is stated in the section itself;
which WAS to secure the required return
of marriage to lie made. A penalty was
imposed for its violation, but it's violation
did in no wise affect the validity of the
: marriage.
gest of 1892 Chapter n, Section 12), but
in the digest Of 1882, while (Chapter So,
Section II, } the provision requiring minis
tiers and others to register, is repeated,
the section omits the reason given in the
former digests for the enactment. A gen.
atty was imposed for its violation, but
the validity of the marriage was not, OF
course, at all affected by such violation.
Through all the years even down to the
operation of our new revision the duty
of registration on the part Of clergymen,
had no possible relation to their author
ity to such performance. Clergymen were
directed to register but whether they
registered or not they had authority to
join folk in wedlock. Under the new
statute, however, the registration is maze
necessary to the securing of the au-
thority to marry that is custom arily
enjoyed by ministers OF the gospel al
though even here, by reason OF another
section, If they are unlicensed no honest
folk can be made to suffer from this
neglect to register.
The purpo'e of the commission that re-
vised the statutes was, we have under
stood. to make of this registration and
licensing something more important and
more closely related to the validity of
marriage than lad ever been contem-
plated. 1t was their idea, we are inform
ed. to guard the recurring of marriages
entered into in good faith, to protect
the innocent from a we'd
lock of irani and to have a
law that should provide a complete re-
cord of every marriage ceremony per-
formed in this State. This law, we te-
lieve, received a good deal OF o~verhauling
in the Assembly and this may explain
why it appears to be so mixed-indeea Is
mixed, for there should evidently be no
confusion or doubt about the construc-
tion OF statutes relating to the important
obligation OF marriage. Even regarding
Section %, as above, as the saving grace
of the whole statute, and especially Of the
alarming and apparently most pernicious
Section 6, OF its face this former section
may be held as mischievous since 1t makes
valid every marriage entered into in good
faith, by "either one" of the parties,
which is performed by ''any person.'
''proiesses" to be licensed, aud though
he has no authority whatever to perform
the marriage. Now, suppose the minister
does not profess to have a license; that
nothing whatever is said about license,
and he has none, what becomes Of the
marriage? And does the section require
parties going before ordained clergymen
to be married, to inquire of him IL he is
licensed I'm order to entitle them to the
benefit Of this section?
Doubtless many other similar questions
might be asked. We guess the sooner
the law is dressed over the better 1t will
be for the law. But any idea that even in
its present shape 1t threatens the valid
ity Of the marriage is, OF course, absurd.