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


We protest sgaiust being taxed to erect aui ana
port State Prisons II there be not cells in them g.
this class Of supereunent scoandrels.
III. Mr.. Andrews wastes entir,,ly too MAJ.
words in telling his readers that Free Love |. :.
snti-Christian doctrine-that il rejects and a.s..
the Bible, and scout, the idea of that book r..
or containing revelation of the will of God ~
course, that is as plain as apike-sta. Thou sL,h
a" not kill-Thou shalt not steal-Thou shalt A.,
commit adultery'-is summary Of our ,po,I
duties which Free Lover must regard a, g,
more terse than agreeable. Ii is not. asNr,
would intimate, " some Of the words Of Christ.
merely, but the whole Bible and Christian sy,t.r
which stand in deadly implacabe opposition 20 IA.
doctrine of Free Love. We lie. this undergraduates
stand without csnment The reader will give il sud-
weight IS be sees fit. Mr.. Andrews str;c,,r., a.
this part of the subject do not seem 70 reou;rs a.,
further remark. Doubtless, Jit were proved thu,
Nature and Science stand in deadly opposition "a
the Bible with respect to Marriage, the fact woau
shake the authority Of the Bible; but xn,l that !,
proved, no argument on our side ia needed w.
hold the teachings Of Science on this sbec, 10 1.
identical with the admitted doctrines of Chris ana
of the whole Bible.
". Mr. Andrews brings forward the dosms 81
Individual Sovereignty as the pillar aud ground.
work of his faith in Free Love- As We 40 NOT a..
cept that dogma we need not say tina, i, il no ar,
thority forus But Mr.. A. has found il uece..,r,
TO his argument to cut the said dogma in two ANA
bury the better half ont of sight Az h,Asr,s
propounded by himself and his fellow apostles, i.
reads" The Sovereignty Of the Indvidual-,ok
" e1ercised a, his o,en cost" That portion which
he suppressed upsetshis entire case. If A. and B.
choose to become co-pareuts, or to maintain meh
relations as to render that result probable, Ind.
yidual Sovereignty requires that they should do -
at their own cost, and not at that Of their neigh.
bors. Civilized Society long ago decided thai
Thrift Propriety, Morality, Can only be secured
to feasible extent against the necessity Of feeding
clothing rearing and teaching the offspring of the
loose, indolent and prodigal by the law Of mo-
noQamic, Indssoluble Marriage. Four Thousand
years experience and the general voice Of tho
civilized world unite in ratfyipg that decision.
V. Mr.. Andrews urges that " the parties imme-
diately concerned" should rightfully determine
the nature and duration of sexual union. Since
il is manifest that all who may be required "
subsist and rear the children resulting from thai
union are par ties concerned we do not see that hs
takes any thing by this motion. If he rests his
case on the word " Immediately" then we tell him
II Will not bear the weight. Society has an OBJ
vious right to protect and secure itself against re-
mote and eoatingent as well as against instant and
certain wrong.
vi. That there are individuals whom speculative
Free Love would not seduce into practical lceu-
tousness, Is very likely. II the laws against theft
were abolished, all men would not steal. Butb
there any doubt that legal IMMUNITY to theft would
tend to largely and rapidly increase the nuu,bn Of
thieves
VII. We shall not be driven by Mr.. A. into the
discussion OF any theological dogma. No such dis
cussion is necessary to our view of the subject
Yet Mr.. ssAndrews provokes tho observation, u
the dogma of Total Depravity ever needs demon
tration we think the deliberate advocacy Of Free
Love must supply it. If it does not the general 70
ducton of that dogma to practice soon would.
VIII. Mr.. Andrews admits very cautiously and
vsguey, but still Enthusiastically, that the first re-
suit of tho legal establishment and social tolerance
of Free Love would be general RIGHTEOUSNESS and
decentralization. So far, we are entirely agreed.
And when be endeayOrs to look beyond that to
cOmpensating social and moral elevation far above
our present condition, he is forced to admit that,
without an entire Social Revolution such improve
ment is impossible. He thus puts himself com.
pletely out Of court. Free Love, by his own con-
fession, is utterly unsuited to our present social
state which, bad as this is, it is certain still fur
ther to debauch and disorgsnize. We must have
an entirely new Social Order to render Free Love
tolerable aud safe. In the name Of common sense,
then, we say, First, create your new Social Order
to which end at least all the virtue and purity
We now have are indispensable-and then we shall
see what notifications of our code of social ethic1
will be- required to adapt it to our changed cond'
ton. Do not tear down our old house because
you intend to build better, but first construct
the new edfce and let US scrutinize it. After We
shall have approved and moved into it, will be am
pie time to tear down the old one. We have 10
faith that any possible Social renovation will enable
Society to waive tho requisition that every bus
band shall have one wife and no more, and thai
these shall remain faithful till parted by death.
TX. Whoever is familiar with the arguments o.
the Free Lovers must have already noted how
tardily and reluctantly they approach the coz
sderaton Of the necessary influences of their doc'
trine upon the nurture and development Of CAbd'
rem. While, in the divine plan, children are 10
chief end OF sexual union, in theirs they ares
Il l.. rAlnll