The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-12-08
WILL KEEP HIS MONEY
HOWARD GOULD's MARRIAGE WILL
NOT COST HIM $4,000, 900.
His brothers and sisters Decline TO
Profit by the Young Mans Marriage
to Katherine CIemmOnS.

NEW YORK, Dee. lit is now definitely
established that Howard Gould will not be
called upon to sacrifice any part of his for
tune as the result of his recently marrying
Miss Katherine Clemmons This has just
bee,} determined at a family council. at
which it was agreed that Howard should be
left in undisturbed possession of his fortune
of SIC 100000, one-half OF which he would
have been called upon to forfeit under the
enforceMent of clause in his fathers will.
This clause expressly declared that any one
of Mr.. Goulds children who should marry
without the consent of the others should
forfeit one-half of his or her fortune which
would be equally divided among the other
children.
There was the strongest opposition in the
family from the first to Towards attentions
to Miss Clemmons, and it was unquestion-
ably due to this opposition, which was
backed by the forceful argument of the en-
tailed sacrifice of s., 900, that so long de-
layed Mr.. Goulds marriage When at last
his long courtship was brought to a close
by quiet wedding in the brides apartments
in the Holland House no member of the
bridegrooms family was present This was
generally accepted as an indication that the
other heirs were irreconciably opposed to
the match. and the prediction was freely
made that the punitive condition of the will
would be enforced. Whatever opinions
Howard Gould may have had on the sub
ject he kept to himself. After exhausting
all arguments to obtain the consent of his
brothers and sisters to his marriage he sim
ply welded the woman of his choice and
stood ready TO accept the consequences.
1t Is probable the attitude of the heirs
would have been defined at an earlier date
"a n fnH he for f hot at
OF the marriage there were lacking only a
few weeks before the coming of age OF jay
Gould's Youngest child. Frank, whose TWEEN
ty-flrSt birthday was celebrated yesterday
when he came into possession of his So 000-
600 share of the estate and was entitled to a
voice i'm the decision affecting the fortune
of his brother. He then fully concurred in
the decision of the other heirs that no
penalty should attach to his brothers mar
riage no matter how much the family might
deplOre the alliance.
There are two reasons why this action was
taken. The first and probably the most CO.
gent is that not one of the heirs would for
an instant consider the proposition that they
should benefit by the enforcement of the
penalty against their brother. There was no
relaxation of their disapproVal of his course,
put they declined to profit by it. Assuming,
however that it had been decided to at
tempt to enforce the terms of the will. it
is very doubtful whether the effort would
have been successful. 1t was the opinion
OF the counsel for the estate that the courts
would be opposed to the enforcement of the
penalty on the ground that it would have
been opposed to public policy to permit such
an arbitrary, obstacle to be placed in the
way of marriage.
1t was pointed out that it was manifestly
improper that the marriage of any person
should be contingent on the unanimous con-
sent of several other persons and that under
such conditions 1t was conceivable that mar
rage might be rendered absolutely impossi-
Bile by unreasonable opposition. 1t was adj
nltted that the courts would sustain the
rights of father to impose a penalty on
the marriage of an heir with any particular
person. but the contention that any mar
riage might entail penalty if contracted
without the consent of the coheirs was felt
to be inadmissible The matter has been
adjusted to the satisfaction of all concerned
and the trustees of the estate have been in
structed to confirm Howard Gould in the
control of his full patrimony.