The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-01-28


In the apparently fruitless effort to Sc
cure some substantial amendment Of our
Infamous divorce legislation, 1t is worthy
of note that the state Of New York,
whose record in this direction Is compar-
atively clean and wholesome. Is now pro-
ceeding to wipe out the only stain which
has rested on its good name growing
out of the existing provisions Of It's mar
riage laws.
A measure is now pending before the
legislature Of New York, and Is certain
of adoption, putting an end to the So
called common law marriages. These
marriages. which, paradoxically enough,
are not common law marriages at all,
are created by mutual consent and CO.
habitation. Any two people agreeing TO
live and be recognized as husband and
wife are legally married in New York.
This Is not a rule Of the common law,
but is the result Of an adjudication Of
the famous Chancellor Kent. whose de-
cision that no ceremony was essential to
the formation of a lawful marriage has
remained for many years embodied in the
law and public policy of the state.
Everybody who knows anything at all
on the subject knows how so-called COM
mon law marriages have come to be re-
garded But only those who have had ex-
perience or have studied the subject to
some extent understand the public and
private wrong which is involved in the
recognition of such relationships. The poll
CIV of the law is to facilitate marriage In
every way and not to insist upon rigid
relation unless the question Of marriage
is directly at issue. But the operation of
this condition Of the law of marriage in
New York has wrought untold mischief,
public and private, and has acted as
mask for open depravity.
| Cases have time and again appeared In
court, where 1t has been shown that wom-
en- have lived for numbers of years with
and borne children to men whom they
have always believed their husbands and
who have held them out as such, only to
! of the supposed husbands to repudiate the
| relationship, that they could be cast dis
| honored and unprotected upon the world.
| On the other hand, the so-called common
| law marriage has operated very profita-
bly, to women of the adventures type,
who have the faculty of turning up after
| the death of prominent persons In the
| character Of sorrowing widows.
There are three or four other states In
| the Union in which the common law mar
riage is recognized. 1t has brought dis
! credit on every commonwealth in which it
| prevails. 1t is the complement of a vi
cious divorce system When marriage
may be entered upon lightly and without
any Formally whatever, and the law Of
| divorce is equally lax, as Is the case IN
| South Dakota, for instance, the result
| inevitably sets a premium on public and
private immortality. While this condition
! has prevailed with reference to the law of
marriage in New York, the law Of di
vorce has happily represented the other
extreme Of public policy, there being
but one ground Of absolute divorce rec
| ognized in that state. With common law
| marriage done away with in New York,
| the state will take its place as the one
American commonwealth outside the
South in which marriage In Its creation
and dissolution is treated with the sa-
credness which becomes society that is
something more than Christian merely in
name.