Morning journal and courier., 1886-07-28

l these laws, traditions and ceremonial VOWS rest upon a divine sanction, and who are consequently solicitous to wear the yoke of unquestionable subjugation, not of choice, but as religious duty, need bend no longer
 for that reason. If they prefer to obey in deed they are not restrained by any religious obligation, nor if they prefer to command. But, ," interposes at this point the youthful casuist of the other sex, sEsurely exigencies of difference arise when there must be de- cisiye will, and of course that will must be the man's." Yes; so men have generally said and their views have generally prevailed. But the general prevalence of ignorance was not sound argument against the introduc- tion of general education, and in the Iepub- lie of reason and matrimony the general as- sent of husbands cannot conclude the rights of wives.
 decide. Granted; and what should deter.
 mine the deeisions Plainly the right of the
 case. Now wife is quite as ikely-upon the whole indeed more ikely-to be right upon family question than the husband.
 Still, says the casuist, he must decide be- cause he is the bread-winner, and because he IS the stronger and can enforce his will. Very
 well; then the reason disappears when the
 woman is the bread-winner, and in that case 1t is plainly not as a man that the husband must decide, which ends the merely mascu- line pretension. The other reason, that he can enforce his will, is applicable to the con- trol of brute or of slave, but is it appli- cable to that of wifea Moreover when we speak of right we do not mean brute force.
 That one man may be able to knock another man down, or to beat woman, establishes no right to do so. The casuist must look further if he would justify himself
 In the matrimonial republic, indeed as in all III, other communities, undoubtedly force will decide many difference It is notori- ous that the English law-nade by men and interpreted by nen-authorized the husband to correct the wife with stick of reasonable thickness, and upon appeal the judge, who was presumably husband, decided that req sonable thickness was about the thickness of thumb. The British usage also permitted the sale of the wife by the husband, logi- cal deduction from the theory of the right of the husband as founded in strength of mus cle. If the wife be bound to obey the hus- band certainly the husband is authorized to enforce obedience, and if the contumacy of the wife compels resort to the stick of a thumbs thickness, it may be very painful to Romeo to adjust his relations with Juliet in that emphatic manner, but who can deny the right of the husband to compel the obedi- ence which he has the right to demand?
 Does Romeo suppose perhaps that if his bride promises to obey her promise will make the stick unnecessarys The answer to his supposition is printed every day in the police reports. Romeo, if he be a sensible man and for such men only is this debate opened will see that all differences between Juliet and himself will be determined, not by her VOW of obedience or submission to his will
 however unwise, dangerous or criminal his will may be, but by their common good sense. In the happy realm of conjugal af lection the stronger nature will rule, how ever mild and feminine it's expression may be, as the moon, "sweet regent of the sky" sways the ocean tides. However that gentle regent may have vowed to follow the whims of the restless sea, and however the raging sea may toss and roar, her VOWS will be re sistlessly forsworn and all his fury vain as she moves softly on, and he up every cove and bay runs obediently after.
 As the eternal and divine laws assert them selves in the happy realm, Romeo, the hus- band, will perceive that marriage VOWS are not promises to be enforced. but lovers pro testations to be fulfilled. They are very sol emn and of mighty import. They unite two lives for better or worse. But the VOW to love, the VOW to honor, how shall they be enforced when love has fled and honor is no longer possible? A VOW is form of words a heartfelt purpose. But has it "a charm to stay the morning starr" Has it the power to hold heart to it's betrayer or honor to the dishonored? The downy bearded casuist therefore need not insist ardently that there shall be VOW of obedience binding his whether he commands it or not. But on the other hand the sweet regent "that shall be" need not hesitate to promise to obey, since she gladly promises to love and honor. Obe- dience is of the will, but love is beyond it. She may obey when she can no longer love, and if she hesitates at all it should be at the promise which eludes her power to fulfill.