The Washington times., 1901-12-29
Broke PRECEDENT FOR DEPBW
Consular Tradition Done Away with
10 Facilitate Marriage. =

NEW YORK. Dec. 2S.--The sun" to-
morrow. under the caption An American
Marriage in France" makes the follow
ing editorial comment on Senator De-
pew's marriage:
Much more important than smoothing
the way for the marriage Of Senator De-
pew to an American woman residing
abroad is the fact that to enable this
marriage to be performed in colorable
compliance with the French laws all
precedents and regulations governing the
conduct OF our Consular officers have been
broken.
'.Whelever the question has come up
heretofore, the instructions of the Sec
retary Of State have always been to the
same effect as those given by Secretary
Frelinghuysen twenty years ago:
"'A United States Consul has no authori-
ty. under the laws OF the United States. to
solemnize marriages, and even il he had
such authority 1t would have to be eNer-
cised in obedience to the laws of the eoun-
try in which he is a resident as such Con-
sui ConsuIs do not possess any eNtra-ter-
ritorial privileges in regard to private mat
tiers between individuals The law pro-
vides that United States Consul may be
present and witness the ceremony and may
give to the parties a certificate of the fact
under the consular seal and make a record
OF it in the archives OF the consulate
Secretary Bayard repeated these in
structions in spirit; Caleb Gushing, when
Attorney General. rendered an opinion de-
cIaring that a Consul cannot, as Consul.
solemnize marriage.
There yet remains the question of stat
ute and international law. The act ri June
90. 1860 permits marriages to be SOL
emnized in presence OF any consular OFF,
Ger, who is required to issue certificates Of
such marriages; but il does not authorize
him to sOlemnize them.
international law. as is well known
does not extend The privileges OF extra
territoriality TO consuls or consulates in
civilized countries. Ministers and lega-
tions are covered by IT, but not consul
ates. Therefore. the American Consulate
in Nice was French soil. and We have the
anomalous spectacle Of an American. sub
iect to French law. performing. by
American warrant. a ceremony not au-
thorized by American law. Emile Stoc
quart. in his Studies in Private Interna-
tioual Law SAYS:
D." In order TO secure validity Of mar
riage for foreigners in France every form
of French law must be complied with;
l. e., no marriage Shail 39 Ndlid unless
celebrated at the marie. with, the requi-
site fOrmalities
" Exceptions should be made in cases
OF parties marrying at the British En-
bassy. Paris since the mansion of an
Ambassador Is treated as part OF the
country which he represents, and mar
riage there between two British subjects
is legal il celebrated according to the
ferns held valid by British law. but we
must insist that both parties be British
otherwise such marriage is null aud void
10. he French judge.
THE same rules hold as TO other le-
cations than the British. Stocquart say
ing further:
- 'rhe Court OF Cessation has made this
well-estabIished rule. In re Sommaripa,
10 August. 1919. and since then the prin-
ciple has not been seriously questioned
In any French court.
"It would seem that though our State
Department probably had the right TO
authorize a Consul TO perform marriage
ceremony. his Consulate is still French
territory. and that without Frances con
sent his action in marrying Mr.. Depew
and Miss Palmer in his Consulate was an
infringement of French sovereignty