Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 15.pdf/348

 Restraints on Marriage.

307

An' dem gals all in dey ruffles, as dey dance de double shuffles, Den I feels it wuss—dat fidgits in de feet. "How it happens I'se no notion, but dis coon wuz soon in motion, When de promptah, he calls out: 'Gran' right an' lef',' •I wuz in among dem niggahs, an' a-dancin' all de figgahs, (For in truff, no coon can dance 'em like myse'f); Yes, I danced de heel an' toe, double shufflin', 'cross de fio', Jig and juba, clog, an' den de highlan' fling; Den I jin'd in de cotillion—an', pahson, 'twuz 'wuth a tnifiion, Jes' to see de way I cut de pigeon-wing! "But, my bredren ob de Session, in considerin' dis confession, I des wahnts to tell you what de lawyahs say: 'Dat no man can be convicted and no punishment inflicted, Whar de irresist'ble impulse holds de sway—' Now, I hopes you ain't gwyne doubt it, when I say I'se sorry 'bout it, Yes, suhs, dreffle sorry, bredren, I repeat; But I'se not guilty I'se insisting kase no possible resistin' Can obercomc de fidgits in de feet."

RESTRAINTS ON MARRIAGE. BY W. C. SULLIVAN. PUBLIC or sound policy is a term of which no entirely satisfactory defini tion has yet been given, and no rash venture will here be made into the unex plored regions of lexicography. It will suffice to say that it is as its name implies, that policy which has for its object the promotion of the common welfare, —not, indeed, of the body politic, but of the individual members composing that body. Restraints on marriage are either general or special. General restraints are prohibited as being opposed to the policy of the law, while certain special restraints are permitted where they are not of such a nature as to fos ter those evils which are so readily engen dered by encouraging celibacy. There is some conflict and no little discordant reason

ing, however, in the application of these gen eral rules. "It is impossible to reconcile the authorities or arrange them under one sensi ble, plain, general rule," said Lord Loughborough in Stackpole v. Beaumont, 3 Ves. Jr., 96. And the reconciliation is no near er today then it was when Lord Loughborough spoke, if the language of numerous American judges and English Chancellors is to be accepted, so numerous and so sweep ing in their character have the distinctions whereby the general rule prohibiting re straints on marriage has been abolished be come. Thus, it has frequently been said that a restraint, though general in its terms, may be imposed, if properly framed. If this be true, the rule is but one of construction, how ever, and not one of policy, though to try to