New-York daily tribune., 1858-07-09


Of the Conservative. the Religious aud the Satanic
Press TO magnify the numbers AMI the consequence
Of the spostes ard disciples of whist calls itself
Free Love" Thus, the Rutland Convention n
currently treated BY the Press in such manner 40 10
induce the belief that Free Love was In the as
cerdsnt there, when in fact it was pointedly, en-
phaticslly repudisted aud condemned by the re-
solves Of the regular Platform Committee, and was
in no manner counteusnced By even considerable
minority of the sssemblsge. Yes in cony0csGoa
of all the fanatics the ultrasts the chroni, "ism-
ites' Of New-EpglAnd and this State, there not
even strong minority though there was minority,
of ayowed Free Lovers. We are justified, there
foIe. in presuung, from this and the notorious fact
that the enemies of any reform, real or imasaed,
seek to connect it somehow with " Free Love, that
this roton has not twenty. five thousand advocass
among our twenty-five millions of psople-thst
there are in fact fewer believers in Free Love"
as rshtul canon of social order than believers
III the non-exstence Of God.
Of practca! Free Lovers however, as OF pract
cal Atheists, there is a deplorsble abundance; but
neither of these classes is caught foamiug out its
own shame in Free Conventions" The practi-
for Marriage, Family and Property; the practical
Atheists too often make broad their phylacteries,
pray with sonoious persisteucy, and fill the highest
seats in the synagogue, even such as cost Sl,OOO
each. But as Hypocrisy is the homage paid by
"Vice to Virtue the testimony borne BY these
mems professions to the virtue of Sexual Purity
ard Constancy is no wise weakened by the icen-
tousness of their llves-their faith in God 10 con-
tadicted, but not proved false, by their ungodly
deeds. The wretched tenants OF the more especial
hsunts of sin aud shame, with their less wrotched
but not less guilty parsmoGrs, know that their daily
lives are guilty and abhorrent, and are as far from
"Free Love- in conviction as thoy are from virtue
in their daily walk AID example.
1t is impossible not to accord to the ayowed FREQ
Lovers the credit of sincerity; since they could
have adequate motive for rendering themselves
infamous if they did not believe what they proclaim.
IL sensual qualification were their aim, they would
profess the common creed and live in daily violation
of its iDjunctions, as so many do. They cannot be
so shallow as not to know that their opportunities
for unobseryed and unrebuked liceDtiousness are d.
minished by their ayowal of 50 Free Love" scn..
ments. But it is impossible TO accredit their hon.
we cannot believe that one of them not absolutely
diotic or demented ever undertook to run out his
theory into all its possible even probable conse
quences. For, whatever Man may believe or az
irm it is very certain that Nature tessies in EN-.
pbatic opposition TO the "Free Love" theory. She
does this through the frequent natural infrmty or
imbecility of the children of married cousins whose
affection, it cannot reasonably DO doubled, is as
pure and intense as that of other married couples.
Can any rational being doubt that the Children re-
sutng from the union of still nearer blood relations
would be yet more defective in senses aud organ.
izaton Yet if mutual affection were the sole
basis and sufficient justification Of marital union,
then not only are first cousins justified 10 marrying
but brother might espouse sister, and even parent
might marry his own child, without reprOach or
shame. 1t were easy to multiply illustrations and
drive home arguments but tho subject is too pain
fully revolving. "Free Love- is a mOnstrous fa-
tuity-sn amazing delasioD. Even the widest rad
icaism ever yet reduced to syitcm condemns aud
refutes it. "The Sovereignty Of the Individual
"tO be e1trcised at his cost is the fundamental
axiom Of the Andrews-and- Warren Socialists, who
are understood IN the main to be Free Lovers; yet
Free Love asserts the absolute right Of womm TO
become a mother under any circumstances thst
msy be agreeable to berselfan her paramOur. But
how are their co-sovereigns, at whose "cOst" the
Young responsibility must be fed cared for and Cd
ucated, to be secured in thar equal right 10 say
whether such responsibility shall be deyOyed upon
them or Lot! Is there TO be liberty for none bo-
eide Free LOversl oerty in nothing else but ma
ternity Ii Mrs. Julia Branch has an indefeasble
right to bear chldfen when she pea,es and by
whom she chooses regardless Of any presumed
ability and preparation Of the parents to subsst,
guard aud train them Alright, what becomes of tho
right Of Hobbs and Dobbs and Noggs TO work aud
save for their own children, who do not happen to
be Mrs. Branch's! In fact, you cannot run out
the Free Love theory into any conceivable practi-
cal result without producing iaextricable mud
die and cOnfuuOn-a SOdom built on the run)us
foundations Of Babel
Al to the alleged chickering's aud hstreds of mar
ried couples, originating in incompaslSility Of tenn
per- want of affection, &C., there is doubtless q
great deal Of them-a deporable supersbundsnce.
But would authorized Free Love" mend tho
matter Facts give ready and conclusive answer
10 this question. There are thousands of married
couples all around w. with hundreds who havs
united in the easily repudsted bonds Of "Fres
Love-" Among these hundreds our police and
criminal statistics show ths. deadly qusrres, vio-
lence, combats, and even murders, are quite fre-
nuent smono fka ods up;tad IN iodi ssOld-