The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1898-08-13
MARRIAGES AT SEA
us -tse Spg pa ~,
49, sF7 % n va
VIQLATE BOTH THE SPIRIT AND
THE LETTER OF THE LAW
ARE BLoTs ON CIVILIZATION
Supreme Court Knocks Them Out IL
Deciding the Case Of Norman
Against Thomson

There win probably be another scramble
to straighten up matters in many familie:
of Southern California as a result Of thu
announcement that the supreme court has
declared sea marriages to be invalid unless
they are solemnized with due regard to th'
marriage laws of the state. The decision
Is IN a Los Angeles case, wherein Judg,
Alien rendered an opinion which the highel
court has now affirmed. The lower court
judgment of the matter created consterna'
tioY, among those who have for years beer
;nefu,l endowment of all the bliss OF married
life on the strength of ceremony per
formed on the high seas, and in many suct
cases there were remarriages, or, rather
legal ceremonies performed.
The case in question was that of Homer
Norman, who, on August 2, 1897. having
barely come of age, took 15-year-old Jean
nette Thomson, without consent of her pa
rents, on board schooner at Long Beach
where they were married by the captain on
the high seas.
After living together eight days, the girl
returned to her home at Downey, and the
husband sued out writ of habeas corpus
to- regain possession of her, at the same
time commencing action in the superior
court to have the marriage declared valid
The matter was warmly contested, the girl
appearing as defendant through her father
and Judge Allen declared the marriage in
valid.
The case was appealed by Norman, and
the following is the meat of the supreme
courts decision, as written by Commits
sioner Chapman and concurred in by JUS
tees Mcfarland, Temple and Henshaw:
"Plaintiff contends that the marriage is
valid because performed on the high seas,
and that it would have been valid If per-
formed in this state, because there is no law
expressly declaring it to be void. Defend
ant claims that no valid marriage can be
contracted in this state except in compli-
ance with the prescribed forms of the law
Of this state, and that citizens and residents
cannot go upon the high seas for the
svowed purpose Of evading the Law Of this
state and contract valid marriage. The
common law as to marriage is quoted by
the plaintiff as being in force on the high
seas on board American vessels
1.-THE law of the sea, as 1t may relate
to the marriage of citizens Of the United
States domiciled in California. cannot be
referred to the common law of England.
We can find no law of congress, and none
has been pointed out by plaintiff in which
the general government has undertaken or
assumed to legislate generally upon the
subject Of marriages at sea. Nor, indeed
can we find in the grant of powers to the
general government by the several states
as expressed in the national constitution
any provision by which the congress is en-
powered to declare what shaM constitute a
valid marriage between citizens of the sew
eral states upon the sea, either within or
without the conventional three-mile limit
Of the shore of any state, and clearly does
no such power rest In congress to regulate
marriages on land. except in the District
OF Columbia and the territories. We must
look elsewhere than to the acts of congress
for the law governing the case in hand.
Section 60 of the civil code provides that All
marriages without this state which could
be valid by the laws of the country in which
the same were contracted, are valid in this
state The parties in the present case were
residents of this state and went upon the
high seas to be married, with the avowed
purpose of evading our marriage laws.
They did not go 10 any other state or coun-
try to be married. They went upon the
high seas, where no written law of which
we have any knowledge existed by which
marriage could be soemnized. The rule,
therefore, that the law Of the place must
govern does not operate, because there was
no law of the place.
1--WE find no case holding that
parties domiciled in state may, for the
avowed purpose Of evading its laws, go
where no law exists and there consum-
mate marriage In violation of the laws of
their domdcile, and Immediately return and
claim a valid marriage. In all cases where
the statutes have been thus circumvented,
1t was accomplished by a marriage valid
In the place where celebrated. The Gretna
Green marriages of Scotland between citi-
gems of England, are notable examples and
they were upheld by ecclesiastical courts.
But these marriages were solemnized in
accordance with the laws of Scotland and
therefore had legal sanction; and so also
marriages in this country of citizens of
one state going into another to avoid some
disqualification prescribed in the law of
their domdcile.
1T has been properly held that as mar
riage Is a natural right of which no gov
eminent will allow Its subjects, wherever
abiding, to be deprived, II the parties hap
pen to be sojourntng in a foreign country
and under the local law there is no way by
which they can enter into valid marriage
they can marry in their own forms and it
will be recognized at home as good But
In the case before us the parties not only
went where there was no law authorizing
the marriage, but they went with the in
tention of Immediately returning to their
domicile where they supposed the law