The Republican journal., 1873-05-22
For the Republican journal.
The Call Divorce Case Auain,

trial and must stand corrected by his dictum.
it seems to me proper that should ''rise to eX-
plain"
In all public ials of this nature, where the
cases which bring the parties into court have
been long discussed in the community, 3 deep
interest is felt by the friends of the parties on
| both sides, and desire created to know what
may be developed upon the trial, which from
various causes they are unable to attend. And
the newspaper that publishes fair account of
the leading points in the case (of nine days
trial it cannot give space for minor points, is
but satisfying the public demands. And ''your
correspondent is not conscious of any other
motion than to give fair account.
l do not understand that 'E" charges upon
me any attempt to detract from the religious
character of Mrs. Call, but rather complains
that could not have discovered more of the
satanic character of the doctor, and could not
see that this "dev is an ass" The letter writ
ten by Mrs. Call was given in full without COM
ments, which are unnecessary in plain state
ment of facts; but | will now adopt the COM
ments of my corrector and say that it ''breathes
most Christian spirit / do not. however, un-
| derstand upon what authority he asserts in the
|
the satisfaction of the court that she was in no
respect responsible for the separation
So far as their religious characters entered in
to the case, the general opinion must be that she
| stands superior to the Dr.: tho il is hardly
true that he admitted belief in no higher des-
tiny than the ''beasts of the field" He stated he
believed in God, and that He is "A never end
ing God, and that there never was a time when
there was not a God. And that His laws are
fixed and cannot be changed. He explained
what he meant by the ''sensoral faculties, y and
the sense in which he used the term halucina-
tons. The sensolium is the brain, the sensorial
faculties or powers is the mind and he believed
that the sensoria faculties would be dissolved
with the body. And that the state of existence
after death, as generally understood. was an
haucination. He also stated that his belief had
never been disguised from his wife.
The first allegation" says F., was that DR..
| Call greatly deceived, &C., and 'to prove this
charge the iibellant produced the record OF the
/ Supreme Court in Lincoln Co.. showing that
| DR.. Call had been convicted of State Prison
otfense, &c." unknown to his wife before mar
riage.
The proof shown by the records was that
in the Court of Common Pleas, December Term
| 1887. when Mrs. Call was about one year old,
| the DR.. was convicted of procuring an abortion
upon one Deborah Chapman then pregnant
with child. and during the same term pardon
bearing date Dec 22d, 1887, was granted which
coming so speedily upon conviction. with the
reasons set forth upon the record, was consid-
cred, believe, complete justification of the
DIR. Be that as it may, very few of the age of
Mrs. Call would have known anything about it,
but for this trial.
| Again. | think it appears from the reading #
| my correctors letter that the DR.. was acclls-
toned to hunt up his wife's religious books and
to take every opportunity to deface them with
''coarse. vulgar and insulting pencllling." But
was not this the fact that when Mrs. Call found
| a passage in any of her books that she thought
pointed at the Dr.. she put it in position to be
fired off at him? For instance, did she not open
the book at the very passage which You quote,
Words tell what you Sh0u1d be; leeds tell
what yoa are, &c.,' and place it upon the table
in his office pointing to him? Without express
ing any opinion of my own, l simply remark
; that heard il expressed by more than one who
! knew the Dr. better than did. that if she had
l
me a sinner" the Dr. would have written I'M
der it, amen
In regard to the ..rctirca sl.ipma7ter'' who
was admitted to membership in the church,
does not she admit that she held the same
opinion that the DR.. did, till after her interview
with the minister? 1t must be remembered that
the DR.. did not interview the minister, and
therefore could not change his opinion.
The ''error in the paragraph of your CORES
pondent which states that the harmony of their
union was disturbed before the second day of
their marriage" cannot be corrected until a
satisfactory explanation is given why the DR..
left her bed at midnight and wandered about
the streets of Lowell and "among the tombs, "
and finding more comfort in watching the Stay
ing of bullocks in slaughter house than in bed
| with the woman he had married not forty eight
hours before.
The next paragraph in Els" letter he will
find by a careful reading of mine is not much at
variance. He quotes, "on the next day she went
TO Boston &c' evidently understanding that
wished to convey the idea that she went on the
day following the eventfuI night .'among the
tombs.'
In the paragraph in which my corrector
wishes to substitute for my ''recital of his
grievances the words "a series of false
cusations &C. ! cannot take issue with him,
for In that letter is is the gist of the case and
am not the tribunal to decide; neither is he. |
will compromise and say to him it was ''re
cital Of grieyia and without any expressed
opinion my part let ''E" say that to her it
. was "a series OF false accusations of grossly
insulting character But it must be admitted
that there was testimony sustaining both asser-
tons. Had been speaking of the operations
of her mind | might have nsed other terms, but
speaking of the document AS emanating from
his mind, 'greviances'' is the word to express
it; the DR.. did not say in the other paragraph
in the letter that she had had no other inter-
course with her for five years than that of the
passions" He says sour commerce has been
of the passion, and not of the Affections
Your correspondent is charged with "labor-
ing under gross misrepresentation in supposing
that divorce was decreed upon the consent of
the Deft." And why so charged? Your cor
respondent knows that divorces cannot be de-
creed by consent of parties, and upon what
/ clause in his letter is this 'smsapprehension'
| based. He gave the remarks of the counsel for
the defendant after the evidence was concluded,
or something corresponding" to the remarks
hear enough to satisfy the deft and sufficient
for the purpose OF the other side-and then
added "whereupon the court ordered a decree
of divorce 10 be entered by the Clerk" And
this acdS the fact He did not add, but will
| here, that the counsel for the libelant arose
and addressed the court-not my corrector
has it; s'that the Defts. counsel had wisely
abandoned the Defence" &C., but charging that
the termination of the trial in this manner
| would be looked upon as occupying the court
and jury for nine days for the purpose Of giving
the Deft. an opportunity to blacken the char
acter Of the lbellant, and proceeding in this
manner till the court refused to hear him farther.
And this is show your correspondent reached
the conclusion that this termination of the suit
was unsatisfactory to the ibellant." S.
During one of the recent exhibitions of