"Therefore, after proper invocation of the Lord, the Director-General and Council of _New Netherland_, in the name and behalf of their Noble High: Might: the Lords-States-General of the _United Netherlands_ and of the Noble Lords-Directors of the Privileged West India Company administering justice at the requisition of the Fiscal, declare, that the Fiscal's charges are true and founded in law and therefore the marriage of _Johannis van Beecq_ and _Maria Verleth_, solemnized at _Greenwich_ and confirmed by an unauthorized person contrary to the laudable laws and customs [Footnote 820: See the reference to power of attorney in Stuyvesant's letter, p. 269, above.] [Footnote 821: FERNOW, _Doc. Rel. to Col. Hist. of N. Y._, XIV, 291.] From the evidence already presented it is perhaps not rash to infer that marriage by mere private consent, in words of the present tense, was not valid in New Netherland. Publication of banns and celebration before an authorized person were essential. The principle, therefore, of the English common-law marriage did not obtain. It had been superseded by statute. These records afford other evidence to sustain this conclusion. Thus in February, 1662, William Beeckman, of "Fort Altena on the South-River," writes to Stuyvesant and the council, complaining that one Laers, a Finnish priest, who was granted a divorce from his wife two months before, has "married himself again last Sunday"--an act "which in my opinion (under currection) he has no right to do. I expect your Honors' orders, how to conduct myself in regard to it."[822] As a result the marriage was declared to be "null, void, illegal;" seemingly on the ground that self-marriage was not tolerated by the usages of the Reformed church. Clearly in the opinion of the court the performance of the ceremony by a person legally competent was necessary to a valid contract. It is possible, however, that the decree was unjust because of unfair representation of the facts by Beeckman, who is accused of being a tyrant. In a letter to Stuyvesant, remonstrating against his treatment, Laers says: "I cannot discover anything illegal in it [his conduct]. I acted just in the same manner as I had done before in respect to others; exactly as others do who are not prosecuted for it, and I can conscientiously assure you that it was done without any evil intentions. Had I known that my marrying myself in this manner should have been so unfavorably interpreted, I should have submitted to the usage of the Reformed Church. But I did not know it. Wherefore I pray once more the honorable general that he will vouchsafe me his aid."[823] [Footnote 822: _Ibid._, XII, 359, 360. The case is also discussed by GERARD, _The Old Stadt Huys of New Amsterdam_, 390, 391.]