Mr. Denby to Mr. Blaine.
Peking, August 16, 1890. (Received October 6.)
Sir: I deem it proper to report to you my recent action on a question of the mode of solemnizing marriages in China between Americans there resident.
In the case in hand the contracting parties were Dr. B. C. Atterbury and Miss M. T. Lowrie, both citizens of the State of New York and now residents of Peking engaged in mission work.
It was supposed by Dr. Atterbury that my presence was all that was necessary to give “legality,” as he said, to the proposed marriage. Under article 387 of the Consular Regulations, I deemed it my duty to say to him that my presence at the ceremony would have no legal effect. I showed to him that under article 389, Consular Regulations, the minister is not authorized to perform the ceremony, or to witness it officially, and under article 390 he could give no certificate whatever. I pointed out that under article 386, Consular Regulations, a consul might perform the ceremony, or it might be performed in his presence, and he could then issue the certificate that the Consular Regulations provide for.
As a result of this friendly and nonofficial interview, the wedding was postponed, and the parties journeyed to Tien-Tsin, to be there married by or before the consul.
My action provoked some comment. Several cases have occurred in China wherein the parties were married by a clergyman with no Government official present. Other cases were cited in which one of my predecessors attended marriages that were thus solemnized. It is on this account, and because marriage questions are of the highest importance, that I bring the matter to your consideration. It seems plain to me that as a wise precaution, and in order to avoid any possible future trouble, marriages between Americans in China should be performed in the presence of the nearest consul.
While entertaining this view, I do not pretend to say that the courts might not hold a marriage valid when the ceremony had been performed by a clergyman, or even in cases where there was no ceremony at all, if cohabitation and public recognition of the conjugal status existed; nor do I pretend that I have any official right to dictate to parties how they shall be married; but the minister must be careful that parties are not misled by his silence or his presence at the ceremony of marriage.
I have, etc.,