Body of Liberties (1641).  The first interference of statute was the prohibition of the marriage of first cousins.  This seems to be increasing.  The prohibition of marriage between different races we have mentioned in another chapter.  To-day we witness the startling tendency for the States to prescribe whom a person shall not marry, even if it do not prescribe whom they shall.  The science of eugenics, new-fangled as the word itself, will place upon the statute-book matters and considerations which our forefathers left to the Lord.  Considerable progress has already been made in this country.  The marriage of insane persons, persons absolutely non compos, was, of course, always void at the common law, and the church law as well.  They are incapable of contract.  The marriage of impotent persons was void also, but by recent laws the marriage of epileptics is forbidden and made void, the marriage of persons addicted to intoxicating liquors or drugs, the marriage of persons who have been infected by certain diseases; and finally, most startling of all, the proposal looms in the future to make every man contemplating a marriage submit himself to an examination, both moral and physical, by the State or city officials as to his health and habits, and even that of his ancestry, as bearing upon his posterity.  Novels have been written about men who avoided marriage by reason of a taint of insanity in the family; this modern science of eugenics would propose to make such conduct compulsory by law.

[Footnote 1:  Mr. Flinders Petrie, in his late book, “Janus in Modern Life,” tells us that at least ten varieties of marriage and marriage law have prevailed in history, and that all save marriage by capture perdure in the civilized world to-day, most of them, in actuality, even in England.]

We have now said enough on the abstract questions to close with some of the concrete examples.  Some States forbid the marriage of a person who has tuberculosis; some require him to submit to an examination.  In 1907 a bill was introduced in Michigan, which provided that no person should be permitted to marry who had ever led an unchaste life.  This bill did not, however, become a law.

In divorce matters New York, in 1890, adopted the very intelligent statute requiring courts to allow a person charged as corespondent in a divorce case to make defence.  Six States raised the age of consent in criminal matters, and four in marriage; one required a marriage ceremony.  In 1891 one State added crime, or conviction for crime, as a cause of divorce, one insanity.  Two regulated the procedure in the direction recommended by the Uniformity Commissioners.  One made it criminal to advertise the securing of divorces in the newspapers.  Two States made simple sexual connection a crime (which was not a crime at the common law).  One Southern State enacted a special law against slander of women,—­another instance of the tendency to their special protection.  Several States adopted newer laws giving complete control of their separate property to women, and allowing them to do business as sole traders, without responsibility for the husband’s debts.  Two more States passed statutes allowing women to practise law.  In 1890 one other State forbids drinks to be served by either women or children under eighteen.