The Press., 1885-01-22
DRUsKlxsDs' WIVES.

There never was time when sympathy, benevolence and philanthropy were SO active as now, but life is still full of situa- tions which seem incapable of alleviation. Take the case of drunkards' wives, and es- pecially the wives of those drunkards who develop ruf1ianly brutality under the in huence of liquid. It would seem surpris- ing, when one considers the suffering of these poor women, that there are not more cases of husband-murder. But in fact the victims of wife -beaters rarely seek revenge, and as Q rule they encourage their tyrants by a submissiveness which is the despair of magistrates and phllanthropists. Not day passes but score of trampled wives refuse to testify against their brutal hus- bands, and some of them will even per- jure themselves rather than assist the law in punishing the crimes committed against them. A very star, ling instance of this tendency is the case of the poor woman whose eyes were deliberately put out by her iendish husband, yet who evidently would not have informed against him but for the action of her neighbors. And what flood of light is thrown on the lives of whole class of women by the remark of one of these neighbors that she did not in- terfere before, because she thought Mo Carron "was only giving his wife an ordi- nary beating" Every policeman and jus tice knows that wife-beating is really as common in certain grade of society as this remark indicates, and probably nearly all these men of experience would say that it is hopeless to try to stop it, because the victims nearly always take the part of their oppressors, in the end.
 This fact, for 1t is fact, is really the knotty point in the problem. Nor is the explanation simple, but many sided. There is the question of love, which with woman is often very masterful. The wife beater may be 'decent man when sober" as the atrocious scoundrel, McCarron, is said to have been. Then he is usually the bread-winner. The wife, if she has chil- dren, dreads the intervention of the law, because If her husband is 'tsent up" she and her children must starve. Again, if she testifies against her brute, she knows that when he is released he will avenge himself on her. Of course the first natural question Is, why do women not secure di- vorces from such husbands? There are many reasons. A large proportion of the beaten wives belong to Q church which does not recognize divorce. Many of them, again, are so encountered with chil- dren that they would not know how to support themselves. As to inventing pen alties which will protect the women, the method is of doubtful possibility. Whip ping would clearly express the view of so- ciety, no doubt, but would it render the relations between man and wife any tend erer? If a man is brute enough to beat a woman, and the woman is so situated that she cannot or will not deliver herself from the torment, it is very difficult to effect a reform. Society might undertake to di- vorce such couples arbitrarily, as it does indirectly in many states, by making Q felon of the wife-beater, and making felony ground for divorce but then it deprives the wife of the means of support, and this tends to deter many victims from seeking redress. It is indeed very difficult prob lem, and thus far no state or nation has succeeded in solving 1t satisfactorily, tho certainly it is question which ought to be settled, since the existing state of things is disgrace to civilization.-M. Y. Tribune