Show t MARRIAGE WHOLESALE I How a Man May Marry Several Women Wom-en Without Breaking the Law Law Notes A correspondent has requested Law Notes to advise him how many women a man may marry at once without violating any law This bRiTiir n mivprl nnpRtinn nf Tniv and love and our specialty being law we feel some hesitation in expressing our opinion There seems to be no reason rea-son why he may not marry as many as will have him provided the ceremony cere-mony be not performed in a territory or other place over which the United States has exclusive jurisdiction The earliest statute on the subject of polygamy poly-gamy or bigamy 1 Jac 1 c 1 enacted en-acted that if any person or persons within England and Wales being married mar-ried or who hereafter shall marry do marry any person or persons the former for-mer husband or wife being alive each offense shall be a felony The statutes 35 Geo Ill c 67 and 4 Geo I c 1 have merely changed the punishment 1 East P C 464 The statutes of the I I several states go no further in terms I than to provide that no person who has a former husband or wife living I shall marry another Under these I statutes it would seem that it is Hot unlawful for a single man to marry as many single women simultaneously as can place themselves within the reach of his voice and the voice of the preacher or officer who is performing the ccemony I may be that a court to whom this question were presented would by some refinements and subtleties and by considering the intent 0 the legislature legis-lature and construing the statute according to its spirit etc devise some means by which to interrupt the wild career of conjugal felicity which our correspondent proposes and send him to jail Law Notes construing the statutes as all penal statutes should be construed strictly sees no offense in the multifarious marriage which he ha in mind We feel to indisposed extend ex-tend the language of the legislature so as to make it include cases not embraced em-braced in its terms I is not unreasonable unrea-sonable to presume that the legislature intended merely to protect innocent and unwary persons from marrying others already married in ignorance of the previous mairing and to prevent wives I and husbands from deserting their consorts con-sorts for others We do not know that the legislature intended to prevent a I man from marrying more than one woman simultaneously when it could Iso I-so easily and in surh a few words j have said so his position finds j I strength in the fact that the Edmunds act Act Cong March 22 1882 declares expressly in addition to the usual provision that any man who hereratter simultaneously or on the same day marries more than one woman wom-an ir i a territory other place over I which the United States has exclusive jurisdiction is guilty of polygamy I thereby recognizing that the usual provision pro-vision does not meet the case in question ques-tion I |