OCR Text |
Show ECCLESIASTICAL AND COMMON COM-MON LAW. In our efforts to belp Judge McKean to arrive at sound conclusions on points ill' law, we proceed with our comments on his last published "Opinion." The learned Judge has been an ac tive servant of his country in various capacities, and it may be has grown a little rusty in matters of law. We be- 'Hove he was a member of the Thirty-seventh Thirty-seventh Congress; that he commanded a. regiment in the war of rebellion; that he has devoted .some portion of his t ime and talents to politics; and if fame does not do him injustice he has even directed his abilities. at times to the service of the miuistry and exhorted sinners seriously' to dread the. fiery gulf. In these multifarious' duties it would "not be any wonder if points of law' had " occasionally got mixed up with military tactics, parliamentary rules, political problems and things ec cleiasucal. Hence we surmise that he has come to the conclusion of course honestly that the ecclesiastical law of England was a portion of the eom-niou eom-niou law" -of that country, and was transported to this country with a number num-ber of other'barbarous rules and conceits con-ceits supposed to have been received hereditarily by the colonies. He apparently ap-parently must have some such idea when he talks of polygamy being a crime by the common law of England, evidently confounding the common and the ecclesiastical law. Bigamy and polygamy were interdicted by the latter; lat-ter; would Judge McKean please state when either was made or considered a crime by common law? Is he not aware that as late as I860 marriage was not a civil contract in England; and that a man might have married fifty wives without being amendable to any law of Great Britain, unless any two of the marriages had been celebra:ed hy a duly licensed minister of the gospel in a duly licensed and registered place of worship, or by license obtained at Doctors' Doc-tors' Commons? Really our Chief Justice must have become exceedingly rusty in law while attending to his other numerous duties, or he wonld never have so written himself down as he has done. We offer the following points for the consideration of the Judge: Up to 1S60 marriage was not recognized by law at all, in England, unless celebrated celebra-ted as laid down above. Polygamy was never pronounced a crime in England until so declared by ecclesiasticnl law, and subsequently by statutory enactment as a result of that declaration. It coul'Knot be a crime by the criminal crimi-nal common law of the United States, tor the simple rea-on tnat there is no .such thing in the United States as "criminal common law." . Hence, it could not be recognized as an alleged criminal offence in this Territory Ter-ritory up tilt 1SG2, and Congress, consequently, con-sequently, did not attempt such a nuperarogatory work as the learned Judge would make appear. From the points above laid down, it follows that Judge McKean started on an incorrect assumption. nis premises pre-mises were incorrect; and, logically logic-ally speakintr, what must the results be . |