New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-11-08

a. FIRE. Lore IS the most IetTlui ana latS eprCua
tive error current in our age the calculated to
produce and in fact already producing, the most
mischieyous and desolating consequences, we have
differed. as we still differ, very widely from the
great mass of our cotemporaries as to the proper
and most effective manner of opposing IT. They
seem TO rest in naked and vehement remuneration
OF the heresy aud its advocates, treating the latter
As social outlaws and the former as unworthy oil
courtesy, consideration, or countervauing argu-
nent One inevitable result OF this style oil oPPo-
sition is general and strengthening conviction on
the mar, of the Free Lovers that their logic Is un-
answerable-that their doctrine be successfully
controyerted only by the bowling Of the mob ana
the thumb.screws OF the inqusitor. That they are
rapidly gaining currency, countenance and conn
dence is papabe, and we believe this Is largely que
TO the amplitude of denunciation and pancity oil
argument with which they have generally been
combated.
Our view is that Truth and Reason are the
proper antidotes to all speculative error; ths'
mistaken and pernicious theory can always be c4-
possd and refuted BY sound argument, and IN no
other way. A doctrine which cannot thus be
proved erroneous ought no: TO be opposed az ALL
whether ge regard the matter in the light OF exPe-
dience or in that of essential right We reahEe
that. if the advocacy of Free Love were made
felony By statute tomorrow, the number oil us ad'
beren.s would not be thereby diminished, but rap
idly increased and the is not materially al
tered BY making the penalty social rather than
civil one So believing, We have always trea'ed
the Free Lovers exactly Like the advocates oil
other haerantly erroneous and pernicious deu-
sions-opposiug reasons to their sophistries aud
refuting their arguments, instead OF suppres'ing
them and denouncing their authors. That this has
enabled the viler portion Of our enemies to belle
us a. ourselves favorable to doctrine which We
hold in utter adherence, is plain enough; but the
injuries thus done lis could not have been avoided
without n6delity to our convictions and recre-
ancy to obvious duty
Among the advocates OF Free Love, we have
long regarded Mr.. Stephen Pearl Andrews with
most respect. He eminently combines acuteness
with frankness-ability as an advocate with entire
unreserve in setting forth his position. 1t seems
TO US that men and women Of auy toerable
acumen and moral sanity have but to read Mr.
Andrewss writings on this subject in order that
they may fully realize how diabollcal and pestilent
dogma Free Love is. We are not afraid that
one in hundred Of all who earnestly and candidly
investigate the subject will adopt the views of the
Free Lovers; we fear only for those whose reason
is never really exercised in the premises, while
their passions are enlisted in the cause which
,IoI aftn
And we may say to those honest but timid souls
who deprecate the agitation of this topic, " You
and we cannot control the matter: Free Love mH
ssbe discussed on the wrong side: shall it be con.
"sidered and argued on that side only" Shall lib
ertine songs and yellOw.cOvered novels, and lust
melting pictures or engravings, and Free Love
essays or addresses, and newspaper or pulpit de-
nuncatiOns-Often more replete with heat than
with light with right feeling than with convincing
logic-make up the sum total of the controversy
between what we and most cOnsiderate people re-
gard as Sexual Purity on the one hand and that
which names itself Free Love on the Otber' If
such are to be the respective weapons Of conflict it
is not difficult to predict the result Of the battle.
Mr.. S. 2. Andrews appears in our columns to-
day in defense of his cherished doctrine: here
follows our reply:
I. Mr.. Andrews writes as if he had never
hitherto been hesrdas if his side of the question
were yet strange to our readers. II that be the
fact, the blame is his own. He certainly has said
what he chose to say on the subject through these
columns-nOt once only, but repeatedly. He was 80
well satisfied with certsin of these utterances
that be reprinted them in pamphlet, with our
structures thereon fenced in on every side by
preface, appendix, &c. That he should now talk
if this his first opportunity to set forth and
defend bis views is at least singular Is he ignor.
ant that are knavishly represented, and by many
foolishy believed, 70 be favorable to Free Love,
mainly because of the hearing accorded to him
in these cOlumns'
III. Mr.. A. wishes TO know if there ia anything
terrible in the idea of Freedom. We answer-NOt
in that of freedom to do right; but it is otherwise
with regard TO freedom TO do wrong. Freedom to
contract debts and repudate all obligation to pay
them and freedom TO bring children into the world
and east upon others the labor and care of rear
ing, subsisting and educating them, seem to US at
war with the common veal and the laws of eternal
justice, therefore to he eschewed and reprobated.
We do not care whether Mr.. Andrews's doctrine
is called Free Love" or "The Freedom of the
" AfFections"-we are Indifferent to the name,
while We detest the thing. The man who has won
the love of woman by professions of admiration
and affection, and has made her the mother Of his
child or children, present prospective, actual or
possible, has no moral right to desert her for