The new Northwest. [volume] (Portland, Or.) 1871-1887, 1872-03-01

BILE? That such men, together with an
innumerable multitude of drunken, las
civious debauchees, should venture to
take up the language of Paul, exclusive
ly designed for the admonition of the
humble followers of Jesus, and use it to
further their own selfish schemes, is
nothing less than the most outrageous
blasphemy. But if our author will
search the Scriptures with care, he will
find Paul giving utteranee to this: "He
that giveth his daughter in marriage
dOeth well, but he that giveth her not
in marriage dOeth better" all of which
I feel bound to believe, 1st, because 1
have perfect faith in the inspiration Of
Paul's teachings; and, ID, if husbands
| intend to call in the aid of the civil law
to assist them in the subjugation of
wives, daughters had much better re-
main, under God, the arbitors of their
own destinies than link themselves in
marriage with men who, having the
power, do not lack the will to compo
submission, regardless of justice. But
as last finishing, flourishing flourish
the author in No. tells us that "vOting
is nothing itself-it is only a means to
gain an end" That is the very reason
we desire the ballot, that we may assist
in gaining good end, and that we may
enjoy the freedom which men declare is
so precious to them.
Again, he asks, "Have you considered
the terrible consequences that may re-
suit to yourselves by abOlishing the
marriage relations? ?n Who desires the
abolition of the marriage relation? Ger
tainly not the majority of women, for
they entertain the highest veneratiOn
for that institution. Do the majority of
men regard the marriage institution
with reverence? If so, then there Will
be no abolition of marriage relations"
and these "terrible consequences" need
not result from the enfranchisement of
/ women.
BY reference to the quotation given in
r the first part of this article it will be
: seen that our author admits that women
t who are "free from the tutelage of the
= domestic relationn should be allowed
t the ballot. Is the author of that quota
il tion not aware that the idea thus ad-
IS vanced is only adding insult to the inju-
r ry wives are already enduring? He says
i that he is willing to grant the privi-
S leges of the ballot to ''maids and wild
e ows," but cannot consent to allow those
$ privileges to be enjoyed by wives. Is it
Y in this way that our author intends to
It perpetuate the marriage relations
n about which he seems so much exor-
t cised? Has he no fear that women, pos
5 sessed of intelligence enough to enable
: them to comprehend the disadvanta-
Y geous position in which marriage would
e place them, would not hesitate to choose
4 freedom instead of marriage?
t In paper No. 1 find the following:
e ''The marriage ceremony, as prescribed
= by the rituals of all Christian churches,
i enjoins obedience upon the wife as one
a of its covenants" again respectfully
J, inquire, are church rituals to be made a
e political test? If so, it is quite time
+ that the fact be thoroughly understood
: Our author, further on, places before us
e a gloomy picture Ofthe anarchy and de-
= moralization which he declares will in
v evitably follow the exclusion of the ''ob-
Y nOxiOus clause from the marriage GER
n emony,p but have not the least idea
n that such 4 result need attend the en-
It franchisement of wives. In speaking of
o the relations existing between husband
IS and wife, our author, in illustration of
n his argument, says: 'In case husband
e and wife differ on vital point, both be-
Is ing equal, one or the other must yield,
% or separation is inevitable Now, con-
h cerning this very point, Paul-whose
r authority believe holds good on such
- matters with our Opponents-speaks
d with distinctness. He says in such a
N case rs the one cited by our author,
" ''But if the unbelieving depart, let him
v. depart" If husbands would not persist
lg in unbelief, refusing to receive Paups
Sc admonition to $50 love their wives even
4 as Themselves" said wives would be
re much more likely to yield in matters
De relating to the control of the family.
" Now, whether the author of the pa
ht pers entitled ''What will you do with
We t." is already on the shady side of life
IN and, having a wife to whom he has
re sung, during the many years past, hi,
or mereiless song of ''wives submit" with.
1n out once mingling the harsh music will
ot the sweet refrain of ''do unto others ever
e as We would that others should do unit,
Du YOU" or is a youth not yet attained {,
.Il his majority, thus denied the deIiciou,
N. privilege of using his vote as well as hi
pen against Woman Suffrage, I will no
to here inquire but his question, being
W pertinent one, deserves an answer
les When we get the right of franchise @
ire which we have so long been uniustI
ly defrauded, we will use it in a mannp
let that will if such thing be possible
he open the eyes and ears of men Who or
he now blind and deaf to everything tina
Ter does not tend to minister to their ow
as pleasure, pride and the increase of tbei
r? own power-men who now seem pei
in ieetly unconscious of the fact that ou
,ur constitution was so framed that all ma
rly enjoy the right to life, liberty and th
The pursuit of happiness, and by the powe
len Oh the ballot we will cause tyrants I