The Portland daily press., 1898-09-02
TuoBoAT MARRIAGES INVALID.
A Decision Affecting One of the Peculiar
Institutions of California.

(From the San Francisco Examiner.
A decision of the Supreme Court was
rendered yesterday that will make many
a home full of sadness and cast cloud
upon the offspring of many marriage
that has not been solemnized by author.
lied persons. The court has decided that
'ttugboat'' marriages are not valid, and
that such contracts are not binding upon
the parties.
On August 2, 1897, Homer Norman, q
man of 81 years, and Janett EThomson, Ii
years and 10 month old, boarded fishing
schooner and put out to sea, where after
they had gone full nine miles from shore,
the Captain performed the ceremony OF
marriage. The consent Of the guardian
of the girl had not been secured. Imme-
diately after the ceremony Norman and
his young wife returned to Los Angeles,
and for eight days lived happily. The
girl then left her husband, and, upon bel
assertion that she would not consider the
marriage binding, suit was brought by
the husband to declare the marriage
valid.
The question was fought with much
stubbornness before Judge Allen Of Los
Angeles and decision was rendered de-
claring the marriage invalid. An appeal
was taken ty the husband, and the Su-
RENE Court, in affirming the judgment
of the lower court, declared invalid all
marriages except those solemnized by
persons authorized by the code to perform
the ceremonies.
The Supreme Court says that it was
admitted by the parties to the suit that
they had gone without the jurisdiction
and the laws of California in order that
they could be married, and with the in
tention of returning Immediately and as
Stunning the marriage relation. This OF
itself, says the court, would not have in
validated the marriage had there been a
law governing that particular form Of
ceremony. It continues:
"The law Of the sea, as it may relate
| to the marriage of citizens of the United
States domiciled in California, cannot
| be referred to as the common law of Eng
land anymore than it can be to the laws
of France or Spain or any other foreign
country. We can find no law of Congress,
and none has been pointed out by appel.
liant in which theGeneral Government has
undertaken or assumed to legislate gen.
erall upon the subject Of marriage on
| the sea. Nor indeed, can we fina in the
grant of powers to the General Govern
| Jnent By the several states, as expressed
| in the National Constitution, any pro-
vision by which Congress is empowered
to declare what shall constitute valid
marriage between citizens of the several
states upon the sea, either within or with
out che conventional three-mile limit of
any shore of any state; and clearly does
no such power rest in Congress to regu-
late marriages on land except in the Dis.
trict of Colum bia, and the Territories OF
the United States, or where it possesses
the power of exclusive jurisdiction.
'tThe parties did not go to any other
state or country to be married. They
went upon tie high seas, where no writ.
ten law of which We have any knowledge
existed by which marriage could be sol
emnized. The rule, therefore, that the
law of the place must govern does not
operate, because there was no law of the
place unless we may hold that the law of
dor icile applies.
'We find no case holding that parties
domioiled in state may, for the avowed
purpose of evading It's laws, go where nc
law exists and there Consummate mar
riage in violation of the laws of thei1
domicile and Immediately rsturn and
claim a valid marriage. In all the cases
where tine statutes have been thus circum.
vented it was accomplished by marriage
valid in the place where celebrated
Gin the case before US the parties nj
only went where there was 10 law author
izing the marriage, nut they went with