New-York tribune., 1908-11-02
DLSCRETION IN MARRYING.

Some interesting suggestions concerning dis
cretion in marrying if not in marriage have re-
Gently been made in the reported utteTances OF
q preacher in Boston and a professor at Har-
ward. The latter declared it to be q sin against
| the country for a to marry whose earnings
We're less than $500 q year, for the reason that
it was not possible to bring up children properly
on smaller income, and to attempt TO do so
| would add to the already overcrowded class of
| the poor and ignorant and thus lower the stand
ard of American citizenship. The preacher
went still further with declaration that he
would refuse to perform the marriage ceremony
| for any man whose income was less than SO
week or for any person who was suffering from
tuberculOss-the former because he considered
it wrong to encourage the increase Of poverty,
and the latter because it a sin to propa-
gate through matrimony the ravages of the
great white plague"
In theory and principle many VIII approve
these utterances, though to a part OF them some
exceptions may be taken, and it is obvious that
many difficulties would beset the way Of put
ting them into, execution The evils Of improvi
dent marriages, which practically populate the
world with pauper children, are obvious. Yet it
would not be Just to draw a strict pGcuniary
rule in the matter. Some parents are better fit
ted to care for children $500 q year than
others twice that sum. Moreover, marriage
and its responsibilities are often incentives to
thrift and t0 ambition which otherwise might
be lacking Also, in some communities or cir
cumstances marriage might be judiciOus on
much smaller income than in others. The ques-
ton of health is more easily determined and, on
the whole, much more pertinent. There can be
no question of the great physical and moral
wrong which is involved in the marriage and
parentage of persons suffering from various dis
eases which are either directly communicable
or at least in predisposition hereditary. 1t has
more than once been suggested that license TO
marry should be refused to persons suffering
from such maladies and the arguments in favor
of such a course many and strong
But perhaps the most noteworthy and most
COmmendable feature of the utterances IN ques-
ton is the recognition Of the right and, indeed,
the duty of the minister or other officer to ex-
ercise certain degree of discretion in accepting
candidates for marriage Too often they have
acted as though they had no discretion IN the
matter but were under compulsiOn to perform
the marriage sefvce for all who might desire it,
In this way many deplorable marriages have
been contracted. In some cases it has required
violent stretching of charity to accept the
plea subsequently made, that the minister did
not recognize the impropriety Of the match. 1t
is difficult TO understand how any minister can
appreciatively read the words of the marriage
service and then perform that service hastily,
thoughtlessly, or for persons of whose fitness for
it he is not reasonably assured. The plea that
in any case it is best to marry couple lest
other evil befall them is, of course, hopelessly
specious. Nor is it unhestatingly to be granted
that all persons have natural and unalienabe
right to marry and propagate the race. The gen
eral tendency of the civil law is to increase dis
elimination and to require proofs of fitness, at
least in certain respects, before granting
licenses, and the very fact that licenses are re-
quired implies the power OF government TO i'm
pose certain conditions under which alone mar
riage is permissible. If such principles prevail
for the welfare of the state, they may well pre-
vail also on grounds of pure morality, making