The new Northwest. [volume] (Portland, Or.) 1871-1887, 1871-09-29
NUMBER oe.

ltEES anu uiilNClcllACcf W hOtAl IL
stead of restricting these higher institu-
tiOns, as now, to young men alone. II
Michigan University, Oberlin and other
colleges in the West are free to women,
tell me why Yale and Harvard and
other colleges of the East should not be
conducted on the same humane and
catholic plan?
VIII. You have expressed an abhOr-
renee of the idea that your daughters
should become public speakers. This, l
confess, surprises me. Have / not seen
you repeatedly presiding over public
meetings addressed by women? Have
you not proclaimed, both in the Tribune
and elsewhere, the delight with which
YOU used to sit under the ministry of
Rev. AntOinette Brown Blackwell I?
Furthermore, would il grieve or delight
you if your daughters should have the
gift of song, and 20 before the public as
Jenny Lind once did, or rs Christine
! Nilsson now does? But what Is the
difference, i'm principle, between a wOm-
ans singing and wOman's speaking? T?
i TX. You say: "My conception Of
nature and scope of the marriage relation
renders my conversion to woman suf-
frage a moral impossibility." Your
implication is that woman suffrage
tends to dissolve marriage. If you
mean by this that woman suffrage will
give to women their just rights in the
marriage relation, including the right
to dissolve it for good cause, then |
should be still more eager for woman
suffrage than | now am. / quoted to
you last week the declaration of the
American Woman Suffrage Association,
"ResOlved, that woman suffrage means
the perpetuity of the marriage relatiOn.u
That resolution, | think, reflects the
sentiment of the great body of woman
sufiragists. But my own view is that
woman suffrage will neither destroy
marriage on the one hand, nor perpetu-
ate it on the other For, marriage is an
interest common to women and men,
How then will woman's vote affect it
more than mans? Men have the fran
chise, but have they used it to vote away
marriage? When women get the
franchise will they use it to vote away
marriage? No. If the marriage insti-
tuition is to be ever done away, the first
motion towards its abolition will come
from men, not from women. 1t was
Hamlet not Ophelia, who said, " will
have no more marriages" Consider one
thing, namely, the loving nature God
has given to woman. There is nothing
that n woman so much wants as a home
and to dwell in it as the happy wife of q
. noble husband, and as the loving mother
of beautiful children. This is every
+ wOnan's ideal. Now if the ballot in hel
+ hand is to have any effect at all on hel
social life, will she voluntarily Use this
ballot for the destruction of what hel
soul considers the most sacred thing Oh
earth ? How can you persuade yourself
that women would vote To abrOgate that
very marriage which men vote to main
tain? But even if woman would dc
this, would not you and other men like
you, be thereby proven tyrants over
women i'm the marriage relation, and
would not the necessity be plain that the
civil laws regulating this relation should
be reformed?
Y. Your letter pererates into a
"hearty hatred for free-lOve and its de-
lusiOnsr What do you mean by free
love- The term is not vet in the die
tionaries and has no fixed meaning.
When | say (as do that | am opposed
to free-lOve, l mean by it the promiscous
Intercourse of the sexes, in cOntradis-
tinction to the hearts ideal of mono
. gamic marriage. If this Is your mean
ing of the word, then join you in your
rebuke of the doctrine and practice.
But if by free-lOve you imply as many
so-called free-lovers do, simply more
liberal and humane treatment by the
civil law Of the whole subject of marri-
age and divOree-in other words, more
liberty to the parties concerned and less
Interference by the State-then i have
no sympathy with your accusation, and
hold you to be wrong instead of right.
Whatever may be your idea of the moral
duties of husband and wife land perhaps
L would not greatly differ with YOU here
certainly not in all you say of mutual
b patience and forgiveness), / respectfully
: ask you TO set forth how far the State
} laws-Or, in other words, how far Z
majority of citiZens-have anv mora
: right TO determine whether these twain.
shall live together or go apart. Viii
you enlighten me?
NJ. You base your notion of divorce
! on the scripture, and yet is far from
scTiptural. Your words are, s'Had moi
, the Master spoken otherwise, | would
, not have deemed adultery a sufficient
f reason dissOlving a marriage" But
what is Christ's idea of adultery? He
SAYS, "WhOsO lOOketh upon "a woman "a
, lust after her, hath already committed
= adultery with her i'm his heart.r Now
: if YOU base Your doctrine of divorce on
I Christ's definition of adultery, and if you
= press this doctrine to the full extent OF
that definition, you would divorce three
| quarters or nine-tenths of all the mari.
ages in ChristendOm. Moreover, turn
: ing from Christ to Paul, refer you L
/ the seventh chapter of First Corinthians
r and particularly to memorable passag,
G in il which COnybeare and HOwsOn hav,
!, translated as follows: 'If the unbeliev
r ing husband or wife seeks for divorce
y let it not he hindered; for in such case
e the unbelieving husband or wife is no
{ bound to remain under the yoke" ID,
e you not see that, in going to the Scrip
: ture to find therein an argument agains
: divorce, you find instead the mos
o solemn and sweeping authorization o
- divorce?
e Mi. You have the following sugges
o tive sentence "That persistent, fiagiti
n Gus adultery in husband or wife afford
g good cause for divorce, have not mean
L to deny" Well, then, would you alte
Il! our existing, law, which grants divorc'
: for adultery, into granting it only 10
e persistent, fiagitiOus adultery@ If so
: how will the law draw the line betweel
II persistent and causual, fiagitious ant
Il pardOnable? What would you think o
II proposition by moderate and occasional
V thieves to amend the law punishing thef
X so rs to make it reach only persistent
Il flagitious theft ?''
1t XIII. You have helped to make, q
a at least to keep, the divorce law of Ou
lie own State very illibeIal and unjust. I'll
= State of New York grants divorce onl
for adultery. But all the New Englan
G States grant divorce for other cause
n such as drunkenness, cruelty, desertiol
ii failure to support, and the like. Wi
re you rebuke those States for this legisl
Is ton, and call their citizens Free-LOve
~