Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-07-21
MARRIAGE CERTIFICATES.

The new internal-revenue law. with Its
| far-rcach!ng provisions, has proved Itself
10 Tespecter OF persons and nearly all
classes have already paid tribute 20 It.
| Quite recently the world experienced a
shock, when It was limited that even
prospective bridegrooms were within its
purview. and that they we're required TO
pay an assessment Of 10 cents on their
marriaGe-licenses.
II looks, however, as n the bridegroom
can escape the impending evil, and that
the burden Of meeting the war expenses
in this instance. at least. would fall on
the minister. The trouble has arisen from
that provision Of the bill requiring tax
Of 10 cents on a certificate of any kind re-
CURED by law. Now. any person who has
been through the ordeal Of getting mar
ried knows that the first thing TO do
after getting the girl, of course-is to
get the license This gracious permit
specifies ages, colors, conditions. ETC., and
at the bottom of the document Is blank
certificate, which has 20 be filed in by the
officiating clergyman and returned 10 the
Clerk of the Court The Virginia statute
provides that sit shall be the duty Of
every minister or other person cele-
brating such marriage, within two
months after the same has been cele-
brated. TO return such license and GER
tiGcate of the Clerk. together with his
own certificate OF the time and place at
which the said marriage was celebrated
to the clerk who issued the license"
And so IL appears that as the preacher
IS the person who makes the certificate,
he is also 10 be the one to pay the tax
The question arose out West, and thu
clerks Of various courts took different
views Of the matter. In Milwaukee, In
dianapols. ard many other places the
prospective bridegroom was assessed
when he made application for permission
TO wed. But in Cook county, wherein tho
busting city of Chicago is located. The
County Attorney took a stand in favor
Of matrimony, and ruled against tha
preachers. "As read the law" said he, |
at is the return upon the marriage Ii
cense, and not the license itself. which is
taxed. The lawmakers at Washington |
must, I'm the main, be married men. from |
the way that section of the war-tax bill |
was framed. They certainly showed that |
they believed the poor groom was sad |
died with sufficient expense without
making him bear the burden Of an addi-
tional war levy. and so placed It upon
the shoulders of the officiating clergy
man."
And this ruling, If sustained by the
Revenue Collector Of that district (as we
think 1t should be-, will mean a contrihu-
tion of about 81 500 per annum from tho
pockets of the Cook county clergy.
The Clerk of the Hastings Court Of this
city was himself puzzled about the matter
at first, but after making inquiries OF
the proper persons, he came to the con-
clusion that legally the minister is the
person who should pay the tax. He Is
not so certain, however, that the bride
groom is not morally bound to reimburse
the parson. He is irresistibly led TO this
conclusion by his own daily experience
as Clerk, which requires him almost hour
~ to issue certificates of one sort or an
other. For instance, a notary may de-
sire TO have the validity of his commits
sion, bond. ETC., attested, and to do this
he must ask a certificate from the Clerk.
The former is, Of course, the beneficiary,
and for that reason, pays 10 cents in adj
ltfon TO his other costs. as the Clerk Is
required TO afiix the stamp.
TIE Attorney for Cock county, when he
made the ruling we have referrad IN |
ocularly remarked that after all the
,lergy would not suffer so much, as 1t
vas everywhere the custom for preachers
% turn wedding fees over TO their wives,
md that the latter were the individuals
who would really pay the tax! And it
'ather looks that way, though who would
,egrudge a Bridegroom a dime!