Queer Weddings

Very reeeixl volumes ol eourt repons bring new and cijrious illüstrations of the want ol some uniform rule 1 out the States M to wliat shall be a , valid marriage cereïnony. In , ter, Mass., aeouple assumed to marry , themselves after the fash'ion of ( "Friends.'1 The ceremony oecurred al . the close of a public religioTis meeting. The preacher came down (mm the pulpil and tookhis stand in front of the. bewa. The lady came forward from her scat and stood by his aide. They oined hands and deelwfed tha they ook each other for wife and for busand, respectively. The bride-gfoom hen offered prayer. Bot ratended a awful wedding. Muoh less than this ias been, in New York. declared a perfect marriage. But when this eouple vfere proscuted for living tofether without having Been married, tiic Supreme Court said tliat, though they might be exctwed for the past in view ofthi'ir ignorance and good intention, vet they weve mistaken in snpposing that tliéir ceremony liad anj yaiidity. There is a special exeeption in case of persoas consoientioualy belonging t the Society of Frtends; but all other persons must, in Masaachustto, bc married by a nmtwter or a magistrate. A story i'rom West Virginia, shows justice burlesqued; vet the decisión was probably unayoidable under the confused laws of the time. A scamp was placed upon trial for having married Clara in West Virginia, while Fannie, whom he had not tong before married in Wisconsin, was still living, and undivorced. The two marriagea were proved eaaily enough, but defendanta counsel then" offered to show that about a year and a half before the man's marriage to Fannie he had, in ühio, married Sarah, who was still living when he afterward married Fannie, but who, as soon as she hëard of this marriage, procured a divorce. The lawyer argued that his cliënt was never lawfully married to Fannie, on account of the previous marriage with Sarah, and thai Sarah'a divorce set him at liberty to marry Clara, as far as Sarah was concerned. And the court decided that the defense was good. Truc, the marriao-e with Fannie was a bigamy; but the court of West Virginia could not take any notice of that, because il had occurred in Wiscönsta. Besides, (was not the offense charged in the indictment and the statute of limitations had run, and the like. Upon technicalitiea like these Lothario was set free. Tennessee supplies a new instance of the diffiuulty respecting "mixed marriages." Every one knows that several of The States have explicitly forbidden these; in a few othcrs they are distinctly permitted. There is no great difficulty in applying either law when only one State is involved. But in the Tennessee case- and the same thing has oocurred in one or two previous instan ccs_-a white person and a negro were wedded in a State where sneh intermarriage was allowed, but afterwaro removed to ïennessee, where the law sternly forbids it. The eourts have maxim that a marriage valid in the State where it is made must be sustained everywhere. I5ut the Tennessee court reiused to follow this rule. Tt said it applies only when the question is upon the regularity of the ceremony. It does not oblige one State to tolérale marriages between pei-sons whom its laws forbid to espouse each ol!. an manner. Thi}_ Snnrcmc (■■'-m Washington is uncierstood to hae a cause oii its dooket involving mnch the same question. And ft very vexatious and perplexing question it is.- Nsio York Times. , J_.