The herald., 1897-08-06
points and allowed the question of ju
isdiction to slide.
PROPOSITIONS Law

F1rSt-Whether or not the place where
! the ceremony was perform ed was or not
on the high seas.
Second-Whether the master of 'any"
vessel has the right to perform the GER
| emony.
Third-Whether the master of a coast
| ing vessel had the right to take his boat
outside of his district without master
mariners license.
| But Mr.. Haas did not show any incli-
| nation to confine himself to any such
! three propositions, for he argued that
il the skipper of the j. Wiley had only
been witness still the marriage itself
| would have been legal. Before resumin g
argument, however, he again raised the
point that the burden OF proof was not
| upon him.
! "You admit that the child Is at your
| home as your wife, and if she is not mar
ried she is restrained of her liberty, is
| she not?" queried the court.
| Counsel urged that she was not re-
| strained; that she was fre to act as she
saw fit.
Have you any objection, then" asked
Judge Allen, "to the court making an
| order that her father take her into his
custody?"
| No; counsel would not consent to this
Then III that case" said the court,
| ''you are OBTAINING her."
Mr.. Haas then accepted the situation
and proceeded to cite authorities to sup
port his view of the case. He stated that
he could find no authorities bearing act
ually upon the powers of a master, saw
ing by inference. The ceremony itself
however, if voidable for lack of capacity
to consent on the part of the bride, she
being under age, counsel urged could be
voided by a nullity suit, and not on
habeas corpus. Mr.. Haas harked back to
his first contention that on the high seas
the common law must prevail in the alb
sence of any national jurisdiction, and
under those circumstances the ceremony
would constitute valid marriage,
though whether a legal one would be an
entirely different matter.
He contended that no law has been
laid down to regulate life on the high
seas, and certain rights had been given
to master mariners for that reason. If
| this young couple had remained en- the
high seas all their lives they certainly
would have been husband and wife.
LEGAL CONUMDRUM
Suppose" interjected the court, "a
| business contract is entered into aboard
| a ship-on American bottom-on the
Atlantic, between the United States and
England, and an enforcement was
sought, which country's laws would
govern?"
Mr.. Haas evaded the question by say
| ing that the contract could be construed
II 1a OF I,;- taaon
parties submitted themselves.
| rs it not a fact" again queried the
court, that the law on the high seas
refers to the bottom upon which the act
was done. and that the United States
has jurisdiction upon an act committed
in an American bottom?"
Counsel contended that in cases of
| murder and some other crimes interna
tional law provided for such contingen-
cies
That's it," rejoined Judge Allen. rs
any other law other than International
law in force upon the high seas?"
Mr.. Haas argued that there is. That
| in civil affairs one can. assume those
| national rights which inhere in person
| there being Ito specific prohibition.
Counsels contention partook somewhat
of the nature of the appeal not unfre-
quently made to jury, when the higher
| law" superior to all laws of courts, is
| invoked as an excuse for a man blow
| ing somebody's brains out.
| The court wanted light as to whether
any law regulated these high sea mar
riages other than law of the country
owing to bottom, and which stretched
out to protect it's people. The common
law marriages that had disgraced this
state had been rendered impossible, an5
he contended the law must be construed
bearing that fact in mind. In conclud
| ing his remarks the court said:
Your stand, 1 take it, is this. The
parties having agreed to marry on the
high seas the presumption is that they
had the right, and that when they re-
turned to California the marriage is
valid here because valid there"
FRAUDULENT MARRIAGE
Attorney LIE Compe Davis in arguing
on the other side and against the validity
of the ceremony as marriage, stated
that since the adoption of the code the
common law marriage had not obtained
| in California. THE code,' said he, "in-
stead of saying that the common law
| marriage is valid said the marriage must
| be solemnized or by the mutual assump-
| ton of marital rights. When the Sharon
and other cases arose the legislature
| seeing the amount of litigation as
| result Of the contract marriages wiped
out the assumption of marital rights
and from that time every marriage must
under the law be solemnized. Section 55
| of the civil code says consent alone will
not suffice but must be followed by a
| solemnization in accordance with the
law, and by special wording the impli-
cation is plain that if any requisite for
mality is not complied with that of itself
invalidates the marriage The sea mar
riage, therefore, is by the wording of the
code, null from the beginning.
THE states of Washington, Oregon and
California by their geographical posi-
ton are so situated that for the court
to hold that infants can go three miles
out to sea and get married, would be
to abrogate the whole law Of the state.
In the United States reports the Oregon
case of Holmes VS.. Holmes is given at
| length. In that case it was undeter-
mined whether the marriage had been in
Oregon. California or on the high seas.
| but the contention was raised that it was
on the high seas. The court then held