New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-10-16

columns to dsy. II is mainly given in the language
nj our informants, who are necessarily sympa-
tbizers in greater or less degree with the move
ment since we could honestly obtain information
only of those who were honestly in possession Of
il. We believe the candid adherents OF the doc
trne will admit that our narrative and oorrob-
Grating testimony to-day given are more than
fair-they are positively kiod-toward the " Free
Love" movement and its champions. In the
main. these are permitted to speak for themselves
with very little correction or toning down from
any quarter. If their system we're not very bad
one, it might seem too attractive In the account
we publish of it this morning
But it is bad-dabolically, horribly bad-and 30
it only makes the worse appearance BY being per-
mitted to array itself in it's brightest coors. Hav
ing discussed it and exposed ts errors repeatedly
during the last half dozen years, we propose now
only to indicate few of its radical vices namely
/. Its basis is unalloyed se!fshness. 1t appeals
directly to the love Of personal enjoyment. 1t ig-
nores God, defes Revelation, scouts the expert
ence of the Race, and tends directly-no matter
how earnestly its apostles may labor to gild and re-
fine ito universal lechery and sensuality.
=.
union Children. Free-Loyers seldom have chill
drep, and still more rarely desire to have them.
The woman who has changed her paramOur re-
peatedy, and is likely to change again and again. is
neither fit to be mother nor likely to desire it.
Happy the child of such mother who is called in
mercy to an early grave.
8. The universal consciousness of all men who
have ever pretended to such thing as conscience
recognizes Incest as foul, revolving, hldeous
crime. "Free.LOye" would necessarily brand
this an idle prejudice or weak superstition.
a. It has never yet been our fortune to NEE!
Free Lover willing to avow that his practice con-
| formed to his theory. On the contrary, nearly
| every one has wished it understood that he was
satisfied and happy in entire fidelity to his legal
relation, though he would insist that most other
marriages were but legalized adultery. In the
eyes even of each other-stin more, of the general
public-most Free.Lovers prefer to be accounted
remarkably chsste and continent. Hypocrisy"
SAYS the French sage, "is the homage which Vice
"pays to Virtue"
5. We do not perceive that our Free-Love are
one whit less selfrghteous than the rest of US.
Thus our (femae) correspondent, "a Me mber Of
tbe Club" in her letter herewith published, says:
"Sbould any of these persons assumed to be seq
suasts make any overures TO the ladies unwarranted
| by 'passional attraction they generally receive
seve rebuke from the ladies themselves, who inform
them that they have mistaken the character OF the
Now how do these "lades' knop that the
oyertures they thus repel are unwarranted by
"passional attractions I" 1t certainly is not i'm
possible that there should be a genuine passion
unreciprocated To be plain, how should these
ladies Judge their too eager suitors to be liber
tines, yet demur to our adjudgiDg them-what we
would rather not call them
| 6. We have not felt at liberty to alter the let
tiers of our correspondents, even where we knew
their statements to be incorrect; but the asser-
ton of "a Member that Catholics Evangelical
Protestants, and great numbers of Unitarians and
| Universalists are members of this Free Love-
Club, is outrageousy incorrect. Most may possibly
call themselves by one or another Of these names ;
but they are no more members of any Christian
sect than the devil is an archangel. There is not
Christian church of any name or nature in this
| city which would not expel any mcmbcr who was
known to belong to this Club and we are sure
| there are not twenty persons in New-YOrk who
even pretend to believe in the Christian Religion
who give any sort of countenance to " Free-Love'
in any shape
7. We will thank those who have just now 80
much to say against Compulsory Morality" to
tell us Just what they would have done with these
Free-Lovers. We believe that the deliberate vio
lation of marriage vows is heinous crime-that
Seduction is another-that simple Lewdness is a
grave msdemeanOr, and should be dealt with by
law accordingly. What say those who abhOr the
idea Of "making men moral by statute!" The
case comes clearly under their rule-how do they
propose to deal with it