The Washington herald., 1911-12-30

corporated by that name. 1t was a
very loose organization, without any
well-defined form or character.
The so-called Peoples Non-sec-
tartan Church had no organization
that authorized it to ordain or ap-
point a minister of the Gospel and
give him the usual authority which
organized church societies give to
their ministers: and If these facts had
been known at the time he was IL
censed by the court to perform the
marriage ceremony. he would not
have received such authority as a
minister of the Gospel duly ordained
1T is the opinion of the court,
however. that the marriages which
he has performed are valid and legal,
notwithstanding his improper au-
thorization.
Couples Were Deceived.
The manner in which he has con-
Quoted his business has been decep-
tive, some were deceived as to his
connection with the Methodist
Church. and some by his using the
Methodist ritual; and in one or two
instances, at least, according to the
testimony, persons who wished to be
married by Methodist minister were
directed to him as such and were not
undeceived by him in that belief. He
seems to have made q commercial
matter of performing the marriage
ceremony, and had 'cappers' or
agents, Systematically employed to
direct people to his room, 316 Indiana
avenue, which he had engaged for the
purpose of being near the courthouse,
and in which he kept a clerk and
fal he
riage fees with parties who influ-
enced couples to come to him to be
married.
This was carried on to such an ex-
tent that it became a scandal and
disgrace, throwing discredit on and
degrading the ceremony itself, as we'll
as scandaliZing the court and its off,
GERS. Such a course was calculated
to encourage hasty, thoughtless, and
ill-considered marriages; and this con-
duct. together with the deception ap-
parently practiced in obtaining the
license to celebrate marriages, leads
the court to conclude that the whole
purpose of the respondent in seeking
the so-called ordination and license
was to make money out of the unsus-
pecting strangers who were inter-
cepted by his agents at the door of
the courthouse.
According to the testimony of
many of those married by him, he
had a fixed scale of fees and charges,
and seemed to carry on the business
much as a commercial bureau is car
ried on.
Conduct Not Proper.
While there is no statutory law
prohibiting a minister or other party
authorized to perform the marriage
ceremony from having agents or
'cappers' to influence couples to come
to him, and while there is no law
prohibiting him from asking compen-
sation for the performance of such
services at fixed rates, there is a
feeling in society which is entitled
to respect that such conduct is not
proper and should not be encouraged,
and it is against public policy that
the marriage contract should be so
celebrated.
THE court has no difficulty In con-
cluding that the authorization granted
to the respondent to perform the mar
riage ceremony as a minister of the
Gospel confers no vested right on him
to continue % have that license, in
case facts subsequently arise which
should forfeit his right thereto.
IF a duly ordained minister should,
after such authorization, commit some
offense that would render him subject
to punishment and Imprisonment as
a felon, there Is no reason why the
court should not take from him the
license that was granted in such case;
and there seems to be no reason why,
II license was granted under mis-
apprehension, and through ignorance,
caused by an apparent deception, that
the court should not act, and revoke
the license so granted, when the facts
are proven.
THE attorney who prepared the said
certificate, signed by the clerk Of the
said Peoples Nonsectarian Church. no
doubt acted in good faith; he probably
did not know that the facts were in
correctly represented in the certih-
cate: but his acting in good faith does
not excuse the court from acting upon
the evidence now shown, and revoking
the license. when the true facts have
been discovered.
Must BE Appointed.
1T was argued by counsel at the
hearing that the amendment OF April
q, 1904, might authorize Mr.. Hunnicutt
to be licensed TO perform marriages,
but that cannot be a valid argument.
because he was licensed as q minister,
and not as a person appointed by the
society, to whom a license to marry
could be issued, and who was therby
required 70 make q return as required
by the said statute. That amendment
was made in the interest OF the society
called Friends or Quakers, and when
marriage occurs. some one is then to
be appointed. to whom the license may
be issued. and who Is required to make
the proper return.
'ConslderinEs the whole case. the
court has no doubt thats the license
n nerforrn raarrfassu s,.t =. !. s-,.,,