The Law of the Land. contrary to the code could not be upheld. So the parties had all their fun and madness with a lawsuit in the bargain for nothing, which makes rather a good story for the seacaptain to tell to the marines. Let some supposes be supposed, for cir cumstances alter cases and may make all the difference in the world as to the ability of a sea-captain to run a Gretna Green on the high seas. Suppose, instead of beating his way back to the port from which he had started, the captain, after the ceremony, had given the couple a wedding tour, by taking them to another State recognizing commonlaw marriages, marriages which mutual con sent and cohabitation make just as good as any according to a code. Suppose after the tour of a week and a day the parties returned home, what then? Surely the common-law marriage life in the port into which they had gone would be recognized in the port from which they had sailed. There might be present the intention to evade the law of the domicile, but their act would also show an intention to reach a shore where the high-sea marriage would be recognized as a commonlaw marriage, and there be ratified by co habitation for a week and a day. A ratifi cation in a State recognizing common-law marriages would certainly be such a mar riage as the courts of the first domicile would uphold. Suppose the sea-captain of a tramp schooner fall in love with a passenger and be married on the high seas by his cook, and the couple, mutually consenting, cohabited for a year and a day while they roved the ocean blue, from port to port, where would the couple be at when they finally came to a shore where all marriages must be accord ing habitation, to a code? in thatThere year would and. a day, be proof within of cothe three-mile- limit of the shores of many a king and potentate recognizing common-law marriages, and there was no intention to evade any code, what then? Surely it would be more than an idiosyncracy of a sea-
137
captain, who are supposed to do odd and unusual things. Surely no court would hold there was no ground of expediency, sound policy or good morals upon which the transaction could be given legal sanction. Surely the ratification by cohabitation with in the three-mile limit of shores recognizing common-law marriages would be recognized and upheld, for if otherwise, surely such marriages would be scandalous in the eyes of all sea- cooks. Suppose the marriage ceremony per formed by the sea-captain should have been on the high seas, on an ocean greyhound fly ing the flag of some country recognizing common-law marriages. Suppose while at anchor in the port ofsome country, other than the one from which he had sailed, or the one the ship flew the flag of, the newly-married couple disembarked, for permanent purposes, to discover that all marriages in such foreign land must be according to a code, where would the parties be at? What then? Would the affair be a common-law marriage, to be legally upheld because taking place on a bottom under the jurisdiction of a maritime power, where on dry land such marriages are good? Or would the affair be all wrong because the couple never reached shores or three-mile limits, native or foreign, where common-law marriages are recognized? This is a riddle? Give it up? So do we, not caring to detract from the credit due the court solving the question by giving the answer in advance. All this mad marrying means so much trouble and business for lawyers and courts. The law makes no allowance for the madness. The follies of humanity in the matter of marriage become a stock in trade to the legal profession. The one consolation re maining to the victims is that the lawyers must live like the rest of humanity. Any disordered mind ought to be able to appreciate the common-sense of the law that holds that persons about to marry occupy a position requiring the greatest good faith.
