The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1869-12-04

for woman susceptible to such ad-
vances, the sameis true of her as we have
asserted of the man. We care not to
balance blame in this business. The
parties both did monstrous wrong, both
knew they were doing monstrous wrong,
so does everybody else know it, among
whom are HENRY WARD BEEcHER and
o. B. FRoTBINGHAM, who outraged
their functions and outraged the Church
of COP by carrying this monstrous
wrong last night to its monstrous apo.
theosis. e7e-s- fEf III
I The subsequent facts in this affair are
we'll known. March 18th, 1867 while
the latter was in company with Mrs.
MCFARLAND, Mr.. MCFARLAND shot Al
BERT d. RICHARDSON. Rightly or
wrongly, hastily or reasonably, the hus-
bandwas provoked to this step by the
conceded attentions passing between
his wife and another man. Since then,
Mrs. MCFARLAND, not returning to her
husband and her duty, has been assisted
by persons whom it is ntF necessary to
name, SO easy are they of inference, to
carpet-bag to Indiana, where she OBJ
tanned a divorce, good for that State
alone, from her husband, on allegations
of cruelty. We all know how much or
how little such allegation means. We
all know that the allegation was not
even pretended until RICHARDSON came
across the peace aud the purity of this
family. We all know that it is as easy
to get a divorce as it is a cup of cold
water in the State of Indiana. We all
know that the husband, MCFARLAND,
knew nothing of this divorce, so called,
until it was fraud accomplished. We
all know that divorce under Indiana
laws doesn't count for so much in the
sentiment of our people as a deed of
Parliament House executed by GUY
FAwEs would amount to-. We know
that the laws of the State of New York
recognize no divorce as total, and as
emitting the party plaintiff to marry
again, unless ~lultery, or imbecility, or
bigamy be clearly proved. We all know
that this so called, wildcat, straw di.
vorce in indiana was expressly procured
so as to let one man have another mau's
wife. II was not a divorce for cause
1t was divorce for remdrriage. 1t
was not divorce from a man. 1t was
divorce for mar.
We protest in the name of Christian
morality against any more journalistic
condonenent of this iufamy upon the
marriage relation, upon the laws OF
GoD, the laws Of the State, the rights of
the real husband, and the moral sense
and social security of our people. We
solicit from all horror at the hummer
les aud monstrOsities last night perpe-
trated in the name and by the priests of
religion. We desire to see how HENRY
WARD BEECHER will answer at the bar,
of public opinion for his part in this
foul deed. The whole business is base
and barblrous beyond definition. The
popular sentiment that can applaud il
is rotten to the core. The jourualistic
charity which can let it pass, covers, in
the other sense Of the term, multitude
Of sins.
"Oh deeper sin than b)tt t'miSss couceit
Can comprehend in foul Imagination" :"
Comment is invited by the heroic
style in which the deed is thrust forward
in papers. IL is time for the recOil to
be felt. The lowest possibilities of on
d,rauce have been sounded in the
effcontery and success of this conspiracy
against true aud legal marriage. By
the side of the crimes against him aud
against social morality, the deed Of
MCFARLAND becomes venial. Him, We
do not endorse in his conduct. He took
the law in ais own hands, and is not
fully justified because fortified by Gus.
tom and the consen: Of mankind. But
lool at the other side! Rather do not
LOOK at il. Draw back from the horri-
bly, rcai.drama, in which the priests
declare the union which is no union,
receive the VOWS of those held by other
vows, aad bind the bigamy with ben.
edictlon