Evening star., 1898-07-16
49,: ~ Et'FS T HtEy5T2o
aV V:'ytsa1tu "S0E "S0EEh'

the Union cause lost many a thousand men
who would not have been lost had the
uniform been less decided in color. The
dark blue uniforms worn by officers, the
first two years of the war, were specially
fatal, as they gave sharpshooters an easy
way to di~' 'nguish officers. 1t Is needless
to say that the dark blue was very gen.
orally discarded by officers before the war
was over, especially for real engagement
uniform. Any color will do for parades,
practice and the like, but when 1t comes
to fighting that which makes the soldier
less conspicuous is the least fatal for war.
The new canvas uniform affords less oppor-
tunities to an enemy than any which has
ever been designed, and from distance an
approaching army can hardly be distin-
guished by the naked eye, because the
color is so allied to that Of the dried grass
over which the army is marching
r X
There Is a conflict among the standard
writers on the subject as to the derivation
of the dollar mark sign, 81 explained a
treasury official to a Star reporter, land
they seem to be getting farther apart all
the time instead of approaching each
other. The popular theory among the
older authorities was that the dollar sign
was made out of the letters q S, which
were prefixed to the currency of the coun-
try after the adoption of the Constitution.
These letters were written hurriedly, and
the theory grew that they eventually ran
into one conglomerate letter or sign, and
that the 5 was the result. This was the
generally accepted explanation until about
fifty years ago, when a prominent financial
authority advanced the proposition that
the dollar mark grew out of the figure 8,
denotfng a piece of eight reals, the dollar
being originally called a piece Of eight.
But there is no certainty about IT., and as
the dollar Is clearly an American coin
designation 1t seems strange that there
never has been an official or authorized
statement as to the origin or derivation Of
the mark
"ihe law is very blank on the question
W n occasionally comes up, as to the
legal right of a clergyman to marry HIM
SELF observed a well-known lawyer to a
Star reporter. "Of course there are not
many clergymen who have ever contended
that they had the legal as well as the &C.
ciesiastical right to perform marriages,
when they Were personally parties to 1t, and
there never will be- from the peculiar cir
cumstances of the case. As far as the
laws of this District are concerned
however, a clergyman Is just as competent
to marry himself as he Is to marry others,
for the reacon that the laws do not say
anything to the contrary, and the clergy
been performed Is all that Is needed to
make 1t lawful. I am not up In ecclesias-
tical law to any great extent and / am not
able to explain the church ordinances. but
as 1ar as can learn a clergyman of any
of the leading denomina tions has all the
church right to marry himself that he has
10 marry others The court of queens
bench In Dublin. On November I6 1855,
had case of this kind under considera-
tion, the only point in issue being whether
clergyman could marry himself The
case was very fully argued, and Is reported
IN the reports of that court and quoted by
many English law writers. The decision
was in the affirmative. and that Is tbe low
OF England today. Some of the state laws
may nave thought it necessary to express
an opinion in the matter, but l have never
seen any. The case that refer to is cited
in the books as that of Ream,sh aa,
beamish 1t was q proceeding for a di-
Vorce, In which the question was raised
tnat there never had been a marriage