New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1854-07-28

NJ the man /, changed Can the wife who lowell 10 hm
the embodiment Of all high and manly qualities which h.
once was stil love the who IN all respects, tss 10
meet the ideal who fret her maiden heNl nc hA1
che loved IL changed he - no more nc, '1s % 40.
changed hut the man TO whom she gave herself as wife
has ceased to embody that ideal. Reason ana >atrre
an.wer At once and ay she cannot love him as sh4 ~
I'm, without This love is she before God bis wife u A.!
tbat /, sacred she is not The man in whom her soul
found embodied her ideal Of purity, no0ene.s AMI man
hood, has become a loathsome stbsual,st Nature "n'
t;od have divorced her soul from him. Love csnaN At
tract her h. art what is lovely, and be Is % longer
that Now what shS he do l. her body to belong T.
the WHO has 70 power 10 retain her affection 10
f one rome1 She IS his wife and the surrender OF
her person H. but legazed prostitution, trowned upon ny
s'u-t and holy God. Come what may when 1--we cease
between those who have been pronounced husband and
VIE let tho outward expression cease Let every WON N
no fxed As God H. never 10 live with "a A vic
whom she does love. Let every be equally true
TO the voices Of bis nature and untold amount OF mis-
erv would be saved to both.
IUnap laws come 10 and dictate the grounds odvorco
What have they TO 10 with the question just as much -
the have to DO With marriage ana no more-oIy TO
sanction what nature and natures God have already eS-
tabsbed But they ought never to c those 10 Keep To-
petL who rquire such bonds to unite them for these are
BY the laws Of God, divorced Love Is departed, sad
one There Is tram tia leads 10 oneness by liked law
of human exsence--the law of harmony, Of marriage.
If human eEactments attempt too muOh and seek 70 Join
together and blend in loving harmony what God hath pat
as1nder men aud must set them all g. noughi, and
obey tie higher law written on their souls.
Human legislation may forbid them marry again. bl.
yhel ce did men get the right control the heart deep
est and purcst wants for, being divorced each has tn
same and attributes as before The fact that they
have been bewdered aud mistaken, canuot destroy
this want of their being. They will atrac; ard De at
racttd nvolunarily and otcntmes the true marrisse
the suit of such attraction.
HUMAN laws enter TO say You shall not give your
heart to this You shall give to the first yol shall not
give to the man You love and honor aud trust ABOVE
all Others but YOU shall give il 10 him whom You lOatAe
aud deSpiso at least, TO him toward whom you are
utterly Indifferent How does such assumption on
the port OF human law appear in the light of ruth AMI
Justice IL usqps yranlcAl power against when every
pulse Of true manhood and womauhooi reyolts.
Here it is distinctly asserted, not merely that an
i'll assorted pair may separate and hencetorth live
blameless in celibacy nor even that these who never
loved were not truly married and may repudiate their
legal union and form associations according TO the
dictates of their hearts but that husband aud wife
who have been truly and spiritually well legally
one, may rightfuy at any time divorce themselves aad
marry others upon the assumption that change in the
character of one or both of them has rendered trlo
copuga love between them heuceforth impossible
Let us consider:
/ The primary defect in Mr. Wrght's view of the
question pheres in ts entire negaton and ccton OF
the just claims of Society. He regards Marriage as
a purely personal matter, affecting only the iadi-
yduas who enter into the relati,n-o at most them
and their children-when in fact Marriage is social
as well as a personal compact--a pillar of the State
AZ well as the corners stone of the Family. On this
ground for this reason clone does the State right
fully interfere with it, honor it. prescribe regulations
and conditions for it. Nay, if Marriage were not
Political IS well as personal matter-the assumption
of new responsibility to the State as well as OF Pc
culiar and endesrng relations to the chosen one-lt
would be hard to say why there should DO any formal
and public marriage at all. Other engagements
neither so important so delicate are every day
made and acted on without allowing any knowledge Of
their existence beyond the narrow circle Of those
specially interested and so would and should this if
recognized Social Necessity did not urgen,y require
for it formality and publicity
Now the State constrsns none, urges none, to
marry but allows all to remain single till death if
they see ft All it requires is, first, that to their
union there shall exist 10 rightul impeachment (such
as subsistng ,arrisge of one or both of the cand
dates or so close a relationship between them as
would be likely to impair the constitutions Of their
children; secondly, that they shall be truly and essen
tally one fl, sh.' But the State is not Omniscient:
il must be guided by faible testimony; and it says to
the candidates for its sanction to their marriage In
1.-The absence of conflicting ayerment your simple I
and solemn assurance that there exists no legal inn
"sive on that point; while, az to the other the only
test of your sincerity and affection which can be iu
posed is this: DO you feel yourselves truly and
'surely one that you can safely promise, fOrsakng all
others live cOnsecrate wholly and purely to each
other to the end Of your mortal existence Your
response shall be conclusive here: but ii is given at
your peril IfyOu say you are firmly blended by con-
'uga affection when you are not yours is the wrong.
and on your heads be the penalty-the penalty OF
dragging heavy and hateful chain to the end Of your
days" And this, we believe, is exactly what the /
State should say and though individual cases OF hard
ship and abuse arise under it, under other necessary
ordinances, yet We believe it morally impossible to
constitutes community moral yirtuous, so happy,
under any coufctDgrule under that Of Indis
Marriage.
but are ;here not cases in which marriage once
true and ennobling may, through a radical change
ain the character Of husband wife, Cor both, haye
become loathsOme and hated bondage MIR. |
Wright broadly asserts that there such, aud we
will not contradict him; though We believe they
not in millions. In nearly every case we ever
heard or read Of wherein the intemperance other
vice of one Of the parties currently said to have
produced alienation and disgust, searching inyes
cation would show that the alienation was the cause
Of the vice rather than its consequence. Who be-
lieyes that husband who truly loved his wife
subjected her to humiliation wretchedness poverty
and despair BY lapsing into habits Of drunkenness
The naked fact that he could for selfish and sensual
qualification, subject her 10 such untold mser;es,
proves that he did NOT raav love her if indaed a..