The San Francisco call., 1897-04-02

The everyday Anglo Saxon of the fore
going law, so far as it affects people about
TO be divorced, is that they may n OF marry
IN this State again for one year alter dl-
vorce. When it is considered that divorces
have heretofore often been followed by
second marriage within few days, or
even hours, and that hereafter 365 days
must intervene before a second marriage
may be validly cele brated it viii be seen
that the law has solemnly declared that
people must be off with the Old love be-
tore on with the new"
Similar prohibitions against the mar
riage of divorced persons have been made
in many States, notably IN New Y ork and
Massachusetts,, but the divorced inhabi-
tants OF each of these States fee to an
American Gretna Green, New Workers
evading the in hi ibitions oftheir law by re-
m marrying in New Jersey, and Massachu-
settes divorces fleeing to Connecticut
and marrying there with impunity.
"ln both States it has been uniformly
ridge, General W. II. L. Barnes and other
prominent attorneys yesterday, that the
marriages contracted in adjoining States
are good even when the parties return to
make their homes in the State whose laws
they have evaded."
The two great legal works on marriage
are .tBishop on Marriage. and. Divorce"
7
are full of cases upholding the validity
of marriages contracted in adjoining
States where there are no in hi ibitions.
|. Stewarts work, section 432, says: "a
New orSer prohibited by New YORK
law from marrying within year has but
+ to step into New Jersey TO be married, and
the New York courts hold the marriage
valid. See Van Voorhis VS.. Brintnell, Sc
l. New York
Bishops great book on marriage says,
section 867: marriages valid by the inter-
national law of marriage and by the law
of the State where celebrated are valid by
our State laws"
In section 500 the same author says:
"The prohibitions of marriage after di-
vorce are not extraterritcrial, but are lim-
tied in their effects to the State creating
them. To illustrate: A statute in Massa-
chusetts disqualified the guilty party after
a divorce to contract a second marriage I;
thereafter man and woman, both domi-
ci.ed in Massachusetts, went to Connecti-
cut for the purpose OF evading the pro-
hlbitory law, and we're there married,
Immediately returning. and their marriage
was held by the Massachusetts courts to
be good. Putnam VS.. Putnam, Sth Picl-.,
433"
According 10 local attorneys and an IN
broken line of decisions and principles
laid down in legal textbooks. people di.
NOTCeQ LII uldf RO i8ilO OlueT
States and marry legally in spite of the
new law here.
As section SO of the Civil Code, relating g
to the issuing of marriage licenses, has
not been amended, it is likely that per-
sons ignorant of the new law may obtain
licenses and be married. They will learn
too late that their marriages are illegal.
The refuge of persons prohibited. by the
new law here is likely to be the sister
States OF Oregon, Nevada, Arizona and
Washington, where there are no laws for
bidding marriages after divorce. In
Washington the law is am biguous and it
may be that divorced persons must wait
six months. Another refuge is likely to
be the hie seas. Persons divorced here
may be legally married beyond three
miles from shore, but not on California
vessel, because the law of the State fol-
lows the vessels of the State beyond the
marine league. Altogether many queer
ompiications are likely to arise over the
new law, but there is hope for those who
go beyond the State into other States
where such laws do not obtain.