Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-02-21
MARRIAGE LICENSES.
Changes That Have Taken Place Un.
: der the New Code.

One provision of the amendments to the
code Of law for the District of Columbia
enacted June so last is causing q great
deal Of Inconvenience to many applicants
for licenses to wed" remarked an assistant
clerk of the Supreme Court Of the District.
1.-The clause to which refer is that stipu-
lating that each applicant for license
shall designate by name the minister, JUS
tice Of the peace other person authorized
by law to celebrate the marriage rites, who
Is to perform the ceremony in that par
ticular case.
The number Of persons who apply for
marriage licenses before giving SO much as
single thought as to who Is to oficiate at
the wedding is surprisingly large" the as
sistant clerk went on to say. Then, many
couples from out Of town, notably from
points in Maryland and Virginia, come here
to wed and, being strangers, they, of course,
do not know any local clergymen. Under
the law we are compelled to refuse licenses
to all applicants who fail to designate by
name, as indicated. some person shown by
our records to be duly authorized to cele-
brate the rites Of marriage in the District.
THE reason for the requirement In ques-
ton is easily made clear" the assistant
clerk added. Until a few years ago those
officiating at weddings were not compelled
to submit returns, and, therefore, the court
records were practically worthless, so far
as marriages were concerned. Our books
would show that a license had been issued,
Out IneT0 was no way OIL learning III d large
number Of instances whether or not the
marriage authorized by such license had
taken place. To correct that situation a
law was enacted requiring all persons per-
forming marriages in the District to make
a return of the fact to the clerk Of the
court within ten days after the wedding A
penalty was provided for failure to comply
wth The requirement.
soon realized that there was no way of
reaching negligent clergymen. For in
stance, minister who married John Smith
and Mary Brown failed to report the fact
to the clerk. The latter official, of course,
knew that license authorizing the mar
riage had been issued. but he was no wiser
than he had been-before the law was
passed-as to whether or not the wedding
had occurred, and If so, who performed the
ceremony. A marriage license, you know, is
good until used.
Finally a provision was inserted in the
amendments to the code making 1t neces-
sary for each applicant to designate by
name the person selected to perform the
ceremony. The name Of such person is in
serted in the license. No person other than
the one designated Is authorized to oficiate.
Now, If after lapse Of reasonable time
from the date of the issuance Of license
authorizing the Rev. Mr.. Jones Of Such and
Such Church to marry John Smith and
Mary Brown, no return reaches the city
hall, the clerk may call on the Rev. Mr..
Jones for Information. If the wedding has
not taken place. well and good. If it has
occurred. then the clergyman must show
| cause why he should not pay fine of $50
for failure to obey the law. zs
From the foregoing it may readily be
seen that 1t is now possible to keep an ac-
curate record of marriages in the District
of Notwithstanding that could not be
done prior to last July" concluded the as
sistant clerk. while the new law causes
inconvenience to some applicants for IL
censes we think the community at large Is
to be congratulated on at last having a
long felt want completely satisfied"