The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1900-02-24
~Common.Law Marriage.

To THE EDITOR OF The SUN-Sir: Your edi.
torial on 'Common-Law Marriage is timely.
since whatever legislation Is adopted on the
subject should be well matured and be thor
oughly understood by the public. The substi.
tute for the Weekes bill. suggested by your cd.
itorial. seems. however. inadequate. While. a.
you correctly say, the chief evil OF the present
system IL the opportunity afforded for the pres.
~entation OF fraudulent claims for dover. equal
opportunity Is given by existing law for
fraudulent claims OF alleged issue OF such mar
riages.
The records Of our courts show also numers
Gus suits for separation or divorce, or police
court proceedings to compel support. based
upon alleged common-law marriages.. where
tho circumstances are such as to create Q
strong likelihood that the relation OF the par.
ties was wholly meretricious. The tendency
Of juries upon a conflict Of evidence is to be.
lieve the STATEMENTS of a woman. rather than
cast upon her the stigma OF unchastity. and the
result IA that q man may find himself bound
for life upon the verdict Of a Jury based upon
evi !ence which to another jury would appear
wholly insufficient. and which Is in fact un.
true. The law itself recognizes y presumption
that. the relations between the parties are
legal rather than Illegal. and we thus may be
said TO have, at present, a form OF marriage by
presumption OF law"
1t has been the law for over two centuries
that contracts which are not to DO performed
within a year must be evidenced by q writing.
The reason for this Is that where the right OF
action will not accrue until n con siderable time
after the alleged contract. an opportunity for
successful fraud IL given. IL oral evidence IL ad.
mltted. The same reason exists In greater
force. In the case OF marriage, where the clnim
NAV he presented at any time during the life.
time OF the parties, or not until years after the
death Of one Of them.
1t IL not only the man who has become en-
tangled with o designing woman who is to 10
protected. His lawful wife AMI her children
may be required upon very doubtful proof,
aided by a presumption Of law. to share with .
former mistress and her chlldren the property
and right Of suTpo which lclOng. properly,
exclusively to them. and to bear the stigma in
the public eye OF bigamy and il~legitimary.
tn.er our existing laws, COMPROMISE OF
fraudulent claims Of this character Is almost
shat blnckmaIl by adyenturesses IL sanctioned
by law.
Tie evil Of the proposed Legislation Is clearly
pointed IN the last sentence OF your tditorlaL
To prohibit nO"n-ccrcmOnial marriages Alto
grther might leave many honest women Ia
unpleasant positions" This. however, Is true
OF the existing law. The experience OF Penn
s%ylyauia, where u public license is essential TO
q marriage. has not indicated that this evil
IL that which allow any uncertainty as TO the
eXlstencc o. "A marriage contract.
The Ncrkrs law. II enacted. should, how.
ever. be accom- panied with such AN amend.
mcnt ~ the criminal law H. Will MAKE seduc-
ton under any form or prat"ncr OF marriage
not valid at law. equally criminal with scluc.
ton under promise Of marriage. IL anything.
New YORK. Feb. -. WooLsEY CARMALr.