New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1871-11-10
THE SOCIAL EVIL AGAIN.
To me Edftor Of The Tribune.

| To me Edftor OF the TrIbune.
SIR: In your editorial note at the termina-
ton of my letter. entitled by "a Young Lady ON the
Social EVIL" and published in your issue OF Oct II,
| say am uncandd and disingenuous when I assume
that you discriminate in favor Of the who oends
against chastity NV conclusions were the outgrowth OF
the opinions expressed in your editorial headed Help
Fallen Women" which appeared in THE TRIBUNE Of
Sept. The impression left by careful reading OF
that article that THE TRIBUNE holds the worlds
severity to the and leniency to the man, when
the us against chastity cGua to be- perhaps very
sal. but certainly unalterabe and righteous law Re-
belhng against this implication with brain and heart;
holding that just Judgment In this OF the
vital needs Of the times and that upon entire change
OF public sentiment in reference TO 1t rests
the salvation ruin Of thousands OF
American every year; esteeming THE
TRIBUNE a power that can, when it will, educate
beyond all computation the minds Of people Alright
and feeling that the article under discussion in
eviaby-if an inference may be drawn from language
guide In wrong direction believing that the question
requiring settlement is simply whether, the guilt being
equal and equally known, the social ostracsm now
visited upon the alone should not light equally
upon BOTH and II whether every newspaper in1u-
in the country is not morally bound in behalf of
humanity, declare in plain unhesitating, unmis-
taxable terms-feellng that in the aboyenamed article
you bad failed to do this, protest entered Now,
If 1 wrong-f have misnterpreted the article in
question: II THE TRIBUNE meant to denounce well as
10 deplore" the existing condition Of society, which
ignores the sin OF the man, while knows
pardon for the woman who Is snner-then owe TIE
TRIBUNE apology, which here most heartily tender.
Allow also to correct your mistake in suppOsing
myse "Aiice putton because that is nav name
and because failed to that letter such mine
must needs subject the writer whether young or od to
IN various parts Of the country The statements made
In that letter based upon knowe6 gained during
among and for benefit Of the poorer class working
women And In showing, as did, the results OF unjust
sapient declaration OF c. L. b." whose statement by
the way would not bear the test OF logic for half
minute have encroaohed long upon your time that
dare only add that, however the genteman-a man. of
course that lettehas failed TO convince In other
not confne Itself to the rural districts" Respectfully,
Casaeton, w., Nov. !, 1871 ALICE DUTToS
IA man. did not Of "course write that letter"
This style of argument has become so common with
ladies of Mrs. Dutton's views that 1t seems worth
while to meet it. The author of the letter in ques-
ton was q womanly woman.
What THE TRIBUNE said was:
"There are many reasons why 1t is not possible that
against chastity. Nature itself has provided that the
fault Of the shall not be susceptible Of proof as
t9a that Of the woman the man whose gn sgscl and
nature denOunces to the scorn OF the world and
the seyerest physical anguish he woman who has been
Ing entirely this apparent inequality"
Mrs. Dutton interpreted this as discrimination
not by God, but by THE TRIBUNE, in favor Of the
man who offends against chastity We said her con-
Struetion Of it was uncandid and disingenuous. We
think so still and we gladly accept her apology
therefor And we hasten to tender our own apology
for failure to give Mrs Dutton the title indicating
her marriage, which we regret all the more deeply II
II has been the cause Of unknd references to her in
other journals.-Edl