[Footnote 764: Paragraphs 45 and 84 of the Fundamental Constitutions (1669) provide for matrimonial jurisdiction and for registration. Paragraph 87 declares that "no marriage shall be lawful, whatever contract and ceremony they have used, till both parties mutually own it before the register of the place where they were married, and he register it, with the names of the father and mother of each party."--POORE, _Charters_, II, 1402, 1406. Compare HEWITT, _An Hist. Account of the Rise and Progress of South Carolina and Georgia_ (London, 1779), 321-47.]
[Footnote 765: _N. C. Col. Rec._, I, 184; also in HAWKS, _Hist. of N. C._, II, 152, 153; and CARROLL, _Hist. Coll. of S. C._, II.]
This timely act was ratified by the Proprietors, January 20, 1669/70; and there can be no doubt of its validity. It is a straightforward and sensible measure, such as the pioneer, forced to resort to self-help, has so often shown himself capable of throughout the history of the Anglo-Saxon race. Its clear expression, good English, and respectable spelling speak well for the training and intelligence of the first settlers of Carolina; although the act has been sneered at and ridiculed by some people who ought to know better.[766]
[Footnote 766: Thus DOYLE, _Eng. Colonies_, I, 453, says the acts of the assembly of 1669/70, of which the marriage act is one, tended to make North Carolina "an Alsatia for ready and profligate adventurers." So also GEORGE CHALMERS, _Political Annals of the United Provinces_: in CARROLL, _Hist. Coll. of S. C._, II, 291, concludes, "From this remarkable law we may judge of their state of religion and morals." On the other hand, HAWKS, _Hist. of N. C._, II, 152, 153, says of this statute: "It has given rise to some abortive efforts at wit, which, if genuine, would, we think, be sadly misplaced; and has, besides, sorely troubled the over-sensitive and camel-swallowers who thank God they are 'not as other men are;'" justly adding: "It is difficult to conjecture any other course, which under the circumstances, they could reasonably have adopted. The very fact that any plan was devised to afford a legal and decent mode of entering into the marriage contract, certainly implies that the moral sense of the community revolted at general concubinage." _Cf._ also WEEKS, _Church and State in N. C._: in _J. H. U. S._, XI, 244.]