The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1899-01-05

A very grave injustice may be done
and much wrong result from s fnisas-
pref.sns.nn an to what constitutes a
| marriage In this state. A contemporary
| has the following:
Suppose s. woman lives Win a man as
| his sife without the Formally Of marriage
/ and the man dies and she siali retains aaa
| name and IL married 20 another aaaa ua-
| der ttas uarls--ss tie marriage I@ea4 and
| are the efi.4ren OF that UNION legitimate"
| In reply Ii 10 stated that the marriage
! FIRST above mentioned is what the
| courts recognize as "a common law
| marriage, end Is just as legal and bind
| ing upon both parties as II the same had
been performed publicly and made a
| matter OF record
| This Is positively not the case In the
| state OF Washington This was settled
| beyond any question In the case Of the
estate Of Hiram c. Mclaughlin. in 1892
and has since been affirmed BY the su-
preme court The conclusion is that un-
| der the statutes OF this state regulating
| marriage. an agreement between parties
| to live together as husband and wife Is
| ineffective to establish that relation.
Many states recognize the validity Of
| the common law marriage. but for rea-
| sons given. the supreme court Of this
state holds that it is not valid. That Is
beyond all question. SO that the answer
| given 10 the correspondent as quoted is
entirely misleading.
| The poiicy-for ii is no nore--of rec
| oanizing the common law marriage has
been prexanted To almost every court in
| the United States. There has been a
| wide difference Of opinion on the subject.
| but the decisions when read. without
| any knowledge OF the parties. look too
much like decisions kindly intended 10
| afford q remedy for a wrong. which had
not been provided for In the statutes
| The great objection to a recognition Of
| such a marriage Is that 1t leads to such
marriage contract. The mischief and
| misery occasioned by q recognition of
the contract without ceremony is best
| shown In California, where every man
| OF great wealth who has died within
| the last twenty years has left behind
| him a common law wife, who waited
until after his death to put in a public
| claim for her alleged rights.
| Even in California. the fact that a
| man and woman cohabited together in
the state Of California, without assum-
ing the marriage relation. does not con-
stitute common law marriage. In Scot
land. where the common law marriage
Is most generally recognized. cohabita-
ton an man and wife IL sufficient, on
the theory that this implies in the
| strongest sense "a contract in praeseuti
10 be husband and wife.
| famous Texan Judge. commenting
upon the marriage state. said The
| relation Itself Is natural, the prescribed
impediments and the forms OF laws for
| Its legal contamination are artificial. be
Ing the work OF government. our laws
relieve against the impeachment and the
want of legal forms. but did not make
| an attempt To make coneublnage mar
| r.age." To show briefly what conuiica-
items would arise under a loose system.
1t Is interesting 10 refer to Lawson, wha
| says. In his Rights, Remedies and
| Practice: 'isetrothaI alone. followed
| by cohahitation. but without "a present
| agreement 20 become husband and wife
| does not constitute valid marriage
| The fact that a man and woman live
! together IA husband and wife would
not De admitted In proof of marriage
The cohahitation must have been In full
tIiment 81 the agreement 10 marry. IS
commencement must net nave been IL
hcit Bishop does not take the same
view altogether. and even goes So FAR
as ;o say that II there was such a re-
istson between PARTIES os whom 0re vas
under "a iisablilts as when there was
prios marriage umdtsso}ved- their co
habisatlon fundamentally meant would
makA them husband and wife frnga the
moment when the disability was re-
/ moved ard It would be tu,tnaterisi
he'hsr they knew or not x SIS exist
| enee.
our own court n deciding that ths
chapter on marriage mus; De taken "a
whole. said taas shc most important Of
all human contracts should rot bs lst,
wltsoat foTrnais;ies requisite for It's
realization, II r na@rv contract between
! the parties 80 whlch tsere wrre ro wit-
neSses Is 10 b recognized as valid. 4, Is
evident thas a contract thss lightly
made might as easily be rera8iA,af.
What ~eald - easier. the eourt asSs
;han feg parties - agree eyfyatelv -
tsasoene husband An3 wife. ama affcy co