New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-10-15

by the same-probably half ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
tiop ~ family life and we trace it also in Mrs. But
ler's Introduction even when she argues that home
life will be elevated and beautfed by granting Wo-
man all her present demands including the right TO
vote and hold Office. And yet Mrs. Butler speaks OF
home and its influences with grace, enthusiasm,
and true womanly appreciation, all the more de-
lightful because among the advocates OF TINS cause
they are unfortunately so rare. Webeneve with her
that the multiplication of employments Tor women
would lead Immediately to the multiplication of
happy homes. We believe that women are unjustly
excluded from many callings 10 which they are
specially adapted that they fairly entitled to do
any work they feel capable of doing, and have Alright
to better education and more complete control of
their property than now generally allowed them.
But we do not believe that their introduction into
political life is consistent with the preservation of
domestic happiness public virtue, or calculated to
promote their welfare, add to their dignity, or
work anything but evil TO the commonwealth. And,
finally, we hold that in discussing this question we
are bound to bear in mind that man and his wife
are not two but one.
The cardinal principle of Mr.. Mills essay is that
nature has created the two sexes absolutely equal
and the subordnaton of the one to the other either
in the family relation OF in the government OF So
cety is downright slavery last relic of the bar
barous rule of the stronger SO far as his argument
touches the right of Woman, married or SINGLE 10
control her own property, and to pursue any studies
and practice any profession for which she has ca
pacity-she herself being the judge of her own fitness
most people in the United States will heartily agree
with him. Public opinion is more advanced mere
than in England on all these points except possibly
education. and on that it will not long remain be-
hind Mr. Mill reasons that custom and public senti
ment cannot be alleged as arguments In support OF
mans rightfu authority over woman because tlaC
custom and sentiment were not the result OF aeon
scientious comparison between different modes Oh
constituting the government of society," but arose
out of the fact that, from the very earnest twi-
light of human society, every woman owing 10 Inc
value attached to her by men and her inferority i'll
muscular strength was found in state OF bond
age to some man. Woman was originally slave;
and her bondage has outlasted all other forms Of
slavery because power over her is something iii
which every man is personally interested, and
because man has greater facilities TO prevent an
uprising against this than any other form OF subec-
ton 1t cannot be urged that this subsection Is
natural: all forms of domination seem natural TO
those who possess il. Nor can we object that IL Is
voluntary for some women do not consent TO IL, ana
the majority of women would not II they were en-
couraged to demand their rights. We are entitled
to require therefore that the question shall not be
preiudged but decided on itsmerits as question OF
Justice and expediency. If this sort of reasoning
however is to be of general application, we may as
well nnsettle everything at once. and try to make
the world all over again The argument upon which
Mr.. Mill attempts to reduce Womans rightful inde-
pendepce of her husband to an open question-to
eliminate from the discussion all the weight to be
derived from precedent and tradtion-might just as
well be applied to the mutual relations of father and
son. Is the custom which gives parent authority
over his child the result of conscientious compar-
son between different modes Of constituting the gov
eminent of soeetyT Did we ever try "a different
rule to see how it wOud work. Is the slavery" OF
children any more voluntary than the slavery" OF
womenf How do you know that the young-we Will
not say children but lads. for instance, of 10 or11
ought tO be subject to their parents Because IT is
Scriptural commando SO is the obedience OF wo-
man to her husband. Because it is general rule OF
naturef So is the subsection of the female to the
male. Because the common consent OF mankind IN
all countries and all ages has established it'll SO has
il established that man shall rule his wife,
But however just and well founded may be the
principle which underles this doctrine of subsection
or perhaps we might better say subordination-it
has been III practice Overgrown with abuses
and injustice. Thus far we certainly agree
most heartily with Mr.. Mills party. He
draws striking picture of the Injustice of the
marriagelaws. The wife is the actual bond
servant of her husband; she lifelong obedi-
ence at the altar and is held TO it by the law if she
acquire any property it instantly becomes hiss even
the law of settlements does not give her absolute con-
troll of her own money. She has no legal right over
her own children except through her husband She
has not even the privilege of choosing a MASTER
once married, she is bound TO the same master for
life aud nothing but the most aggravated forms of
il-treatment will enable her 10 obtain release.
This statement of the applies, of course only
partially TO the United States Here the laws Of
property have been in many of the States so re-
formed that women have little OF nothing to com
plain Of, and soon, we trust, the reform will
be general and complete throughout the country.
And whatever may be the faults of our laws of
divorce it is not often pretended that they are too
stringent. These laws, however of property and
divorce are not the only evils of which Woman is
the victim. The obligation of obedience to her hus
band according to Mr.. Mill. is her grayest wrong.
Why must she Obey7 The obligation is not founded
upon any natural inferority of sex for the radical
mental differences between the sexes are not
fully understood, and cannot be until
the laws of the formation of human
character are more thoroughly investigated Neither
is there necessity that IN the family, in the
State. some one person shall be the ultimate ruler
ut is not true that in all voluntary association be-
tween two people one of them must be absolute
MASTER still less that the law must determine which
of them it shall be" There are some points which
have to be decided every day and cannot adjust
themselves gradually or wait for compromise.
Of these, Mr., Mil says, one person ought
to have the sole connOl; but il need
not always be the same person There might be a
division of powers, the wife being absolute in one
department and the husband in another and as this
division could not and ought not to be preGstab-