Cincinnati daily press. [volume] (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1860-1862, 1861-12-04
[From the Boston Courier.l
of Promise of Marriage:

Last week ono Of the Courts in this county
was engaged in trying case in which damages
were claimed for breach Of promise Of marriage.
The parties were both young, and the lady
the plaintif-was attractive in person aud
manner. The course Of the trial, as we are
informed, revealed not the slightest moral
bltmish or impropriety on either side. The
lover--the defepdsnt-found that the intimacy
which the relation between them justified grad
ually decreased the affection with which they
started, and ut last he was constrained to tell
tho plaintiff that he no longer loved her, aud
that he could not marry q woman whom
be did not love. This, we are perfectly
aware, was no legal justification for his breach
Of promise. The law has no diamond scales
for weighing such delicate and imponderable
essences as these. A promise is promise, and
must be kept, no matter at what cost. In de-
fault, the tickle lover must pay damages, If his
mistress exacts them.
But try this question in the forum Of con-
science. A young man is attracted to young
woman by those external graces which make
nearly every young woman attractive to nearly
every young man. He wins her heart, prom
ises to marry her, and she reposes upon that
promise. By aud by the truth, often rejected
and lonRstruggled against, at last breaks in
upon and takes possession Of him, that he has
made mistake. His affection gradually cools,
abd at last turns into indifference and even dis
taste. What is he to do2 Shall he redeem his
trotb, and make himself miserable for life, ard
her hardly less so2 or shall he frankly make
confession of his altered Affection and refuse to
give the hand where the heart will not 60?
The world in such cases is apt to make q dis
tinction not founded Cd any sound principle.
| It generally approves the woman's course,
when she breaks the engagement, and gem
orally condemns the mans. The woman is
beld to act from sense Of duty, but the man is
charged with heartless caprice and lightnes s
Of miAd. The only ground for this differences
is the fact that an unhappy marriage is a
heavier burden for the wife than the husband.
What conscientious and unselfsh man should
90 in such an event can not be laid down with
the rigor of an unbending rule. Do what he
may, his case u hard one.
But when an engagement is broken of by
reason of estraDgement on the lovers part, the
wOman's duty is plain; and that is to espouse
her doom silently and meekly. 1t is one Of
those wounds for which there is no balm on
earth. Nothing can be more unwomanly-
nothing can be more unlovely-than the state
of mind which Graves any thing like veng ngeance
for such misfortune as this. Especially re.
pulsive is that mood which courts the publicity
Of trial of law, paradeS the wounds of {
bleeding heart, and solicits the wretched salts
faction which pecunisTy damages can beste "
So strong is our feeling on this subject, Vi
hold that the bare fact Of o woman's appearing
as a plaintiff in a suit fer breach of promise o
marriage is nearly a complete justification t
} the defendant for refusing to marry her; 70
she could not put herself in that attitude with
out showing herself wanting in that purity o
/ soul, delicacy Of sentiment, and refinement Q
feeling, without which no woman can retain
mans affection aud respect in married life
. We heartily wish that the common law had re
fused to acknowledge breaches of promise @
3 marriage as subjects of pecuniary damages
5 and we as heartily hope that the advancin
D moral civilization Of the age may ere Ion
A make such suits as obsolete as the wager {
q battle.