The new Northwest. [volume] (Portland, Or.) 1871-1887, 1876-08-25
FALSE IN EVERY PARTICULAR
August s, 1876.


lished in Chicago, we find this para
graph, which, but for the standing of
the journal in which it appears, we
should not notice in any particular, as
the accusations which it makes have
been so frequently refuted-nay, indeed,
are so palpably at variance with we'll
known facts-that it would seem a su-
perfluity to waste time or devote space
to their further denial. Speaking of
"free love" and its fancied connection
with the Woman Suffrage movement,
the journal above named says:
To say that the new theory concerning mar
riage is an outgrowth and corolary Of the so
called woman movement" would be simply
to recognize an obvious, if not an admitted
fact. The marriage relation, as it was insti-
tuted by the Creator, and has existed TO the
present time, stands squarely across the path
ofthose who seek to make woman independ-
ent of man, and to clothe her with more than
masculine prerogatives. Instead of inferTing
from this that their movement is a mistaken
oneSthey, with an utter absence of egOtism,
assume that the marriage tie is but a part
of that colossal and venerable tyranny which
has enslaved the feminine sex, and hence that
marriage must be mOdified-refOrmed out Of
existence. They are inexorably logical. From
ruinous premises they unfiinchingly proceed
TO fatal conclusions.
That the statement which opens the
above paragraph, so far from being an
"obvious if not an admitted fact" is at
variance in every respect with truth,
any one who has attempted to keep
pace with the progress of the move
ment, and investigate the claims of
woman for the ballot, will admit.
Blind assertion is not proof, as oppo-
nents of Woman Suffrage should know
by this time, and, in the face of this as
sertion, we utterly deny that there is
any connection, logical or otherwise,
between the two, and ask for the proof.
Among all the great leaders in the
movement, we know of not one who is
an advocate of this doctrine named
"free love-" doctrine as pernicious in
its teachings as repugnant to every
sense of morality in its practice. More
llieAh IhAS1 WIN NNAg 4CN CASN BbAOAlof bIN
chief leaders are women who have
mounted the second score of their years,
honored wives, faithful, exemplary
mothers, and loyal, virtuous women.
True, we know that in this, as in all
other focks, there are wolves in sleeps
clothing, who seek to advance an odious
dogma by uniting it with a just and
glorious issue; but the great mass of
Woman Suffragists not only refuse to
affiliate with them, but denounce them
utterly and openly. True, also, there
may be, and doubtless are, persons who
believe in woman's right to the ballot
and in "free love-" but, on this account
TO connect the two, is as unjust as un-
generous. Among those who practice
what even in theory is odious in every
sense-the prostitutes of both sexes
not one in hundred believe in WON.
ans political equality, and we chal.
lenge any one to successfully deny this
assertion. Find a man who believes
and acts upon the belief that "womau
was made for man." and woman who
degrades herself and her sex by prosti.
tuition, and, ninety-nine times out o.
one hundred, both will express oppo
sition to the enlargement of woman'i
sphere of industry and action, which
will be an outgrowth of the franchise.
The advocates of Woman Suffrage d.
not, by giving women equal politica
rights, seek to make her antagonistit
to, or independent of men, any NOR
than allowing man to vote makes hin
independent of woman. Each are, t.
some extent, dependent upon the other
always have been, and always will be
As human beings, each should be indie
pendent of the other, but as husband
and wife, parents and children, the,
neither are, nor can be. Certain obliga
tions in this connection rest upon all
making them dependent on each othe
to the extent of fulfilling those obliga
tions. A man has political rights
whether married or unmarried. Hi
domestic relations interfere in no wa,
with these, and his obligations to hi
wife no political privileges can cancel
The wife should occupy precisely tn
same position. Political rights will no
make her independent of family rela
tions, but will make her an Independent
citizen, as she has right to be.
Woman Suffragists do not believ
that marriage should be reformed ou
of existence" as this editor alleges, bu
they do believe that many of the law
which give woman, body, mind an
soul, all that she has, is, or hopes to b,
to her husband, without regard to th
character or needs of either, should b
reformed ont of existence" and ths
right speedily.
The adherents of the woman move
ment merely demand that the wife b
recognized as the equal of her husban
nothing more, nothing less-and upo
this simple and just demand alarmisl
try, but try in vain, to tack the sire
love" cry, shamefulIy reiterating whs
they cannot prove either by preceden
fact, or common sense,