Table showing marriages between persons where there is a great disparity in ages; also, marriages between those of immature years.

Male 31 years, married to female 59 years.

Seventy-nine per cent. of the males married females younger than themselves; 13 per cent. married females older, and 7 per cent married those of the same age. The following table exhibits the record of marriages of persons of the same age; of males who married females younger than thenselves; of males who married females older than themselves, giving the number at each period of disparity from one year to fifty.

The following table shows the number of marriages between persons of same age; also, between persons of different ages, where difference is one year or more, together with the number of marriages to which the year or years of differences applies, viz: Number of marriages between persons of same age, 1,097.

Total number of marriages reported where ages of parties are given, 14,726.

Of the 15,222 marriages solemnized in this State, there were 14,213 in which both parties were residents of Pennsylvania, 482 in which the male was a resident of another State, 115 in which the female was a resident of another State, 101 in which both parties were residents of other States. This last number would no doubt exhibit a marked contrast to the number of marriages of the residents of other States solemnized in the State of New Jersey, where there is no license law, and where, according to the best information that can be obtained, there are upwards of 6,000 marriages between Pennsylvanians in Camden alone. Three males residing in foreign countries have married residents of Pennsylvania, but the records do not show that any females of Pennsylvania have inter-married with residents of other countries. Ninety American born males are reported as having married foreign born females, 288 American born females as having mar

ried foreign born males, and 557 marriages are reported in which both parties were foreign born, and 6,435 in which both parties where American born. A very large percentage of the marriages reported fail to give the birth place of the parties. One hundred and six marriages are reported between persons of color, and two between colored men and white women. There were eighty-three marriages in which one of the parties had previously been divorced. Of the causes of divorce given, forty-four were for desertion, eleven for adultery, four for cruel treatment, one non-support, and twenty three no cause given. Work of this Bureau.

During the past year the work of the Bureau of Vital Statistics has engaged the almost constant attention of two employés whose services should have been devoted to other work in the department. At the session of the Legislature of 1887, the Hon. J. Simpson Africa, then Secretary of Internal Affairs, appeared before a committee of the House of Representatives and advised the creation of another clerkship for the department, which, in his judgment, was made necessary on account of the additional duties imposed upon the department by the creation of the Bureau of Vital Statistics. On his recommendation a bill passed the House, but was buried in the deluge of legislation pending in the Senate at its close. Should the Legislature at this session determine to perfect the existing laws so that a complete record of births, marriages and deaths, with the registration of physicians, will be provided for, it will require at least three additional clerks to execute the work properly. In considering the advisability of amending the present law, the question of the clerical force for doing the work should also receive the attention of the Legislature. The register of physicians and surgeons, so far as completed, will be found in the Appendix.

BENJAMIN LEF, M. D.,

Chairman.

The following opinion of Judge Elwell is the first case of the kind decided in the State:

In Common Pleas of Columbia county.

In the matter of the registration of Joseph L. Bauer as a physician and surgeon.

Rule to show cause why the registration shall not be stricken from the record.

Opinion of the Court.

This rule was granted upon the petition of the prothonotary alleg ing that the registration was erroneously made without the production of the evidence required by law to entitle the respondent to be regis

tered as a physician and surgeon. Whether the prothonotary had authority to register the respondent is the question which we have to decide.

It appears by the statement of the respondent entered upon the record, that he claimed to be a graduate of the Medical College of Missouri, and to have a diploma issued to him by that institution, dated the 11th of March, 1874, conferring upon him the degree of doctor of medicine, a copy of which he filed with the prothonotary at the time of his application to be registered.

This copy has no endorsement upon it, nor does it appear upon the record, nor upon any paper filed in the case, that either the original diploma or the copy was ever exhibited to the faculty of any medical college of this Commonwealth. In his answer to this rule the respondent alleges that he did exhibit his diploma to the medical faculty of the University of Pennsylvania, and that they were satisfied with his qualification to practice, and that the secretary of that faculty gave to him a certification which he produced to the prothonotary at the time of his application for registration.

The duty of that officer in the business of registration is merely clerical. His authority in this regard is derived from or rather is conferred by the statute. He can dispense with nothing that the law requires. When an applicant presents himself with a diploma from another State, but without the endorsements required by the act, he has no authority to inquire into the validity of the reasons of any medical institution for refusing to endorse the diploma. It is enough for him to justify a refusal to register if no endorsement appears.

The second section of the act which provides particularly as to what the register shall contain, provides that the copy of a diploma shall be filed, and that it shall include the endorsements on the diploma. The fourth section allows registration in a proper case as required by the second section. It follows that the endorsements must appear on the diploma-according to the usual meaning of the term, the writing constituting the endorsement should appear on the back of the instrument.

It appears that the institution to which Dr. Bauer applied for examination of his diploma, and by resolution expressed a doubt as to the construction and constitutionality of the act of June 8, 1881. It is not my purpose to criticise the action of that learned and able body. We are considering only the action of our officer, and conclude that if the act of Assembly is unconstitutional it confers no authority upon him to register an applicant having a foreign diploma. And if the law is not unconstitutional he has no authority to register one who does not bring himself within its provisions.

If any medical institution has doubts in respect to the validity of the statute it should refuse to act under it-to comply with its require

ments in part, omitting that which is most essential, is misleading and ought not to be done.

It is not to be doubted that the secretary of a medical faculty may be authorized to act as dean, but when he acts in that capacity in carrying out the provisions of the fourth section above quoted it ought to appear that the endorsement upon a diploma is the act of the faculty or is done by their direction.

The faculty cannot delegate their authority under the act to any other person.

The State in the enactment of its laws may exercise its judgment concerning what acts tend to corrupt the public morals, impoverish the community, disturb the public repose, affect the public health, or impair the comfort or health of individual members, over whom its protecting watch and care are required.

When, therefore, the Legislature with this exclusive authority ha exercised its right of judging concerning these matters, all other departments of the government are bound by their decisions, and no court has a right to review it. It is by virtue of this police power that every State has the right to pass laws in restraint of crime and for the preservation of the public peace, health and morals of the citizens. A government that did not possess the power to protect itself against evils like these would scarcely be worth preserving. Bishop on Statutory Crimes, sec. 999; Jones v. People, 14 Ill, 196; Ansline v. State, 10 Missouri, 591; License Cases, 5 Howard U. S. Report, 504; Cooly on Constitutional Limitations, 742.

It is urged upon our consideration that the respondent, having a regular diploma from a respectable institution of another State and being well qualified to practice, has done all that he could do to comply with the law, and it is contended that therefore he was entitled to be registered. The answer to this contention is that the law has not been complied with. If it was the duty of the University of Pennsylvania to examine the applicant and his diploma, and make or cause to be made endorsements as specified in the act of Assembly, and the faculty refused to perform that duty, the remedy was by mandamus to proceed and discharge the duty implied or expressed by law. If they are under no obligation to do so, and refuse for that reason to make endorsements, neither the prothonotary or any medical institution has the power to devise some other matter or thing as a substitute for what the law in positive terms requires.

In this case the printed form of affidavit contained in the book provided by the prothonotary for the registration of doctors of medicine, states that the endorsements on the diplomas presented are genuine. This goes for nothing, inasmuch as it appears affirmatively that there are no endorsements of any kind upon the copy filed, and in the answer of the respondent and in the deposition taken by him that endorsements were refused to be made, not because of his want of