, 1876-04-02

lS76-SIXYEEW PAGES.
raugement of the category Of offenses AM
placed low in the scale those which mel
regard as among the most heinous. The con
verso Of the proposition is equally true, ant
if soma other phase OF immortality were IL
question it might be the male sex which
would give evidence Of moral obliquity.
Mr. H1aa1NsoN Is IN advocate Of woman
suffrage, and this experience Of his shou1c
lead him to doubt whether it is wise to bring
women into voting politics. He endeavors
to head off this view of the matter by at
tributing their loose views in regard to brib-
| cry and kindred ofEenses against the public
welfare to their remoteness from public af-
| fairs aud their lack Of familiarity with them
But the Nation, in commenting upon his in
terviow with these ladies, comes to differ
| ent and wiser conclusion. It goes back to
the primitive doctrine, long since set forth
by moralists, that chastity in woman takes
| precedence Of I'll other virtues, because there
| On depends the integrity Of the family, which,
in other words, rests upon the husbands cer-
tainty about the paternity Of his wifes chill
dren. Though this opens up question that
cannot we'll be discussed in public prints, the
correctness of the principle, as underlying
the super1ative abhorrence to unchastity felt
by all good women, can scarcely bo denied.
It is no longer discussed, because society is
advanced beyond the necessity for such discus
sion, and the first rank Of purity in woman's
code OF morals is too clearly established to
inquire as to the reason they give it prece-
dence. But it the family is tbs first, and
shall continue to be the first, consideration
of woman, then it will BE- visa to keep her
aloof from public life, sven at the risk Of her
comparative indifference to oFenses which
men regard as infamous; for, If womeu adopt
the scala as men have established it for them
selves, their abhorrence for bribery may bo
increased, but their reverence for chastity
may be diminished. Tho world would be the
loser by the change.
There is no doubt that womanb dependent
condition has much to do with her failure to
perceive, in tho case under discussion, the
real importance of BE1Np's crime and his |
wife's share therein. In other cases her lack
Of moral perception might be explained by |
other pecuiarities Of her condition But !
women are accustomed. to receive in the way I
Of gifts very large part Of tleir most cher
ished possessions. 4 husband 9iDes his wife |
her homestead, gioes her her dresses and her |
jewelry. It is likely that, in her domestic
economy, she has earned thin even mora
than be has earned those things he claims
a8 his OWL Yet ahe il accustomed to |
sccept them as gifts. She is also more used
to presents than maa =. Sic accepts them
freely from her relatives and friends. With
her husbands or fathers c,nsent, she sees
nothing wrong in receiving presents from
gentlemen # her husband or father gives
another man business advantage, the wife
Or daughter feels no compunion in accepting
4 gift in return for it. She makes no nice
distinction between the Guernment service
and ordinary business reltiona. She also f
Fatea famil- *ealty so much higher that she
always c1in.~ to her hus1hnd and children
ong after men have desered, and refuses to
wrong doing in behalf Of the
Eamily long after I: IN vit less acuta moral
perceptions in other mattrs have been forced
o admit it. The study It comparative mo- {
:ality is an interesting onl It is the basis Of +
LEca1E's most entertainin, and valuable book.
Ind no phase OF it is uore important than /
he varions standards 1t up by men and | I
7omen. As long ns thre sra these radical ,,
differences between then, it will be wise to :,
sonfne the good offices q women to the family =
athsr thaa risk their st ndards in public LIE. b