No. 466.
Mr. Bayard
to Mr. Pendleton.
Department
of State,
Washington, July 7,
1888.
No. 333.]
Sir: I inclose herewith, for your information,
copies of correspondence with the Hon. J. H. Ketch am, of the House of
Representatives, relative to the question whether American citizens can be
validly married in foreign countries, and whether validity would attach to
such marriages if solemnized at the house of the American legation at Berlin
or Brussels, “according to home form.”
I am, etc.,
[Inclosure 1 in No. 333.]
Mr. Wheeler to Mr.
Ketcham.
Poughkeepsie, N. Y., June 25, 1888.
My Dear Sir: Will you kindly ascertain for me
this, at the quarters of Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State?
Can American citizens traveling in foreign countries be married in
American forms and by an American clergyman? The case is this: Two
Poughkeepsians wish to be married at Antwerp or Berlin by their own
pastor. Please do me the favor to make
[Page 646]
this inquiry of Mr. Bayard, whether such marriage
can he consummated at the house of the American legation, according to
home forms. An early answer is requested, if consistent with your
engagements.
Very truly, yours,
[Inclosure 2 in No. 333.]
Mr. Bayard to Mr.
Ketcham.
Department of State,
Washington, July 2,
1888.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the
receipt of your communication and the letter of F. B. Wheeler, D. D., of
Poughkeepsie, inclosed therewith, inquiring whether American citizens
can he validly married in foreign countries and whether validity would
attach to such marriages if solemnized at the house of the American
legation at Antwerp or Berlin “according to home form.” In reply I have
to say that it is a settled rule of international law that the
solemnization of marriages, to have ubiquitous validity, must be in
conformity with the law of the place of celebration, if such place be in
a, civilized land, and unless the law of such place prescribes
conditions repugnant to conscience.
It is also, I apprehend, settled law that a marriage not solemnized in
conformity with the law of the place of celebration is not validated, so
far as concerns its effect in places where there is not a statute
validating it by the mere fact of its having been solemnized at the
legation of the country to which the parties belong and in conformity
with the form held valid in such latter country.
Whether a marriage solemnized abroad in the presence of a consular
officer of the United States is validated so far as concerns this
country, under the act of Congress of June 22, 1860, by the fact of the
presence of the consul depends upon whether the is parties are domiciled
in the District of Columbia or in one of the Territories of the United
States. If they are not, but are domiciled in one of the States of the
Union, then the question, so far as concerns such State, would depend
upon the law of that State. So far, however, as concerns foreign
countries, e. g., Belgium or Germany, the
question of the validity of the solemnization would depend upon their
own law; and that law is understood to incorporate the general principle
above stated, that a solemnization of marriage to be valid must be in
conformity with the law of the place of celebration. I have, however,
now to add that the question you propose is one ultimately to be
determined by courts of justice under the circumstances of each
particular case; and that my duty is not to predict what would be the
action of such courts, but to give in response to inquiries such
cautions as may induce American citizens proposing to be married abroad
to take every step which may be necessary to give validity to an act
whose invalidity would be fraught with consequences serious both to
themselves and to the community.
I have the honor, etc.,
