court of any county or corporation in this state, produce proof of his ordination, and of his being in regular communion with the religious society of which he is reputed a member, and give bond in the penalty of five hundred dollars, such court may make an order authorizing him to celebrate the rites of marriage." No ceremony is prescribed; but each religious body, though having no minister, may use its own forms.'

2

West Virginia, made a separate state in 1863 by dismemberment of the Old Dominion, has taken a much more conservative course. In 1868 "any minister of the gospel," on presenting the credentials of his ordination and of being in regular communion, according to the plan of the mothercommonwealth, is authorized to "celebrate the rites of marriage in all the counties of the state;" and no person other than a minister who has thus "complied" with the law shall hereafter be permitted to perform the ceremony. No provision whatever is made for the lay celebration. This reactionary policy was, however, temporarily abandoned in 1873. By a statute of that year the minister, otherwise to be qualified as under the act of 1868, is required in addition to give bond in the sum of fifteen hundred dollars; and each county court, as in Virginia, is authorized to appoint one or more laymen with power to solemnize wedlock. For four years the lawmaker staid his hand; but in 1877 the illiberal principle of the act of 1868 was again enforced.' So to the present hour only the religious celebration, either by a clergyman or by the usages of a society having no officiating minister, is legal in West Virginia. The lay ceremony is not recognized there by statute."

1 Code of Va. (1878), 555.

3 Ibid. (1872-73), 501.

3

2 Acts of the Legislature of W. Va. (1868), 29.

4 Acts of the Legislature of W. Va. (1877), 135.

5 See the act of March 18, 1882: Acts of the Leg. (1882), 312, 313; which is retained

in Code of W. Va. (1897), 654, 655; and there has been no later legislation.

In Mary and no progress has been made regaring the marrage celebration since the Bertition Masters and priesta mil. have a monopoly of the matrimonial business. 13 under the liber, act of 1777, whose provisions have already veen emmanzen Quakers are still allowed their own rita; bra, sa in West Virginia, the lay celebration is not

& Kentucky Mat. 196, 94, 95; agreeing in essential provisions with the act of M**** 74 1851. taxing effect da.y 11, 52: in Acts 150-51), 213-16. Cf. Kentucky Stat.

authorized by the statute.' Until 1896, with slight modification, the marriage law of Maryland was in force in the District of Columbia. By a statute of that year the ceremony may be performed in the District by any justice of the peace; any judge of a court of record; or by any ordained or appointed minister residing anywhere in the United States, if authorized by a justice of the Supreme Court.2

Elsewhere the history of the matrimonial legislation of North Carolina has been traced to the act of 1766, the last statute adopted before the Revolution. The Quakers had practiced their own rites throughout the colonial era. By the act just mentioned the Presbyterians had been granted the same privilege, but on humiliating terms. With these exceptions, the clergy of the English church enjoyed a monopoly of the marriage celebration; for no other dissenting body save the Presbyterians was recognized by the law. All this was changed in 1778, after the establishment had been swept away. The "regular ministers of every denomination, having the cure of souls," and all justices of the peace in the state, are authorized to solemnize marriages; while the Quakers are to enjoy their ancient privileges. So the law remains at the present time."

3

Throughout the century the statutes of Tennessee governing the celebration of wedlock have been practically the same as those of North Carolina, the parent commonwealth, to whose jurisdiction the territory belonged until 1796. At present "all regular ministers of the gospel of every denomination, and Jewish rabbis, having the cure of souls, and all

5

1 POE, Code of Md. (1888), 975. Compare KILTY, Laws, 1777, chap. 12, sec. 3; and Laws of Md. (1787), 1777, chap. 12, sec. iii.

2 Act of May 13: U. S. Stat. at Large, XXIX, 118-20; MOORE, Code (1902), 266.

3 IREDELL-MARTIN, Acts of the Gen. Assem., 1715–1803, I, 253.

4 North Carolina Code, I, 689, retaining the act in Laws (1871-72), chap. 193, sec. 3.

5 For the early years see SCOTT, Laws of the State of Tenn. (1821), Index at "marriage;" Statute Laws (1831), 219, 220; Caruthers and NICHOLSON, Compilation (1836), 449-52.

Trung the game Som Cantiza like Zemegrana has made a reste rasa ior the marThe same tage perks sure the Revomus vir set to the rumak period usage preThiri a 50 of the suites Turbed sed in 1814 Isasmey a tus sue." be declares, “to

putras ir polisi de manera rozat by or before a minister of the g-f set and without regard to Ej pennis fm z semny—or by or before a justice ff the peace. I ne vil or mes

The comme pas retranca before a minisHOT TUSCAN existing by rustum in Georgia from the framdamin of the city, was recognized by the act of ITS—Deis Pgsinn a the subject of matrimony after ne copinatia of the state. A few changes in details Lave brought the living banny with the prevailing practive of the roty. At present mariages may be solemLed by my julge, justure of the peace, minister of the

- Sau Jasia the 1.3 Môrence to the parties by whom marriages may > shemaad s kuni a setia 234 General Stammes 3 wich provides a jeua'y kr de senzaun di naman! beopen vie and colored persons by SU JUODAA Baster if he pose Burst, or other person authorized by • 3 meiken JE BATAN NOences -LGHT Report, X. L

1Jussi d' the Lures of Fourpa Philadechia, 1811, 314 Contracts previously ondedes 92. belt, 29 kar pastare of the peace, master, or preacher of the gospel are Lad the sine persons, if properly qualified or ordained, are in future sasaur med so pecivem the ceremony, in each case after de notice or license.

«Judges and justices of above courts are mentioned as having power to join persvus in marriage in the set of 173. Typest of the Laws of Ga., 133.