Audubon County Republican. [volume] (Audubon, Audubon Co., Iowa) 1885-1894, 1888-11-22
HUSBAND AND WIFE.
Inc Reason why Marriage 10 OFTEN
n Failure.


Many letters wo have read with sad.
ness lately. prove that tho majority o,
unhappy homes have resulted froiI too
slight acquaintance previous to mar
riage. A handsome face, n pretty fig.
ure the step that suits in a waltz. the
chatter that amuses for an hour. are
in too many cases all 1t Is deemed nee
essary for life long companion.hip'
Others have failed because each have
started with tho idea that marriage
means getting. not giving; the man In.
tent only on the comfort he can obtain
from an unpaid housokeeper the
woman on the attention and adulatlor
Of an eyor-present lover. No allora
tons in marriage laws or civil con,
tracts can mako such unions happy OF
successful.
Lot mon learn to DO patient aud
sympathetic, to pause sometimes In
their fuller, more varied lives 10
brighton with little thought and love
tho duller. more monotonous oues OF
their womon.folk; aud let women
realize that tho lives OF true men and
cit IONS cannot ALWAYS DO cramped in
their narrower home circle. and
strive to take an unsellish pleasure 10
and to show ready sympathy with
those wider outside interests
aud ambitions Just imagine
tho kind OF thing which
u Froncnman who In theory held tho
legality Of marriage to 10 unlmportan,
to morals. would have written, aud
contrast IL with letter. and its note
Of intense though conventional domes.
tic piotv. There arc scores OF letter.
br oalhing that spirit, though usually
expressed with much more clumsiness.
and. to use tho word VIII oh bost OK.
presses the fact. "humdruminess." II
is that quality which Is to Us tho salts
factory feature OF tho letters.
Tho humdrums are In England the
immense mnjorit /. and to judge from
these letters, they have no moro inton
ton Of attacking the marriage laws. 81
far rs their main principle Is concern
cd. than they have Of agitating against
tho principle Of cayeat emptor. or the
rule that n jury should consist o.
twelve. They have. In fact never
considered marriage as an institution
like any other. but ms human condt
ton. tho very hoalthiest state Of mIns
community could enjoy. IL Is only
when community feels that marriag,
needs 10 DO sustained by argument
that IL begins TO DO in danger Ever
the fow who would abolish marriage
have never really cons dcred their pro
posal. for they neither suggest II sub
slltuto, nor apparently. have though
for an instant what the soc al conso
quences would be. to what utter slav,
cry II would reduce women--to whom,
after forty, n threat OF divorce woult
DO like sentence Of slow death-ol
what the ruin II would work or
tho next generation. They propose
the change to got rid Of discomfort
just ms they propose federation to b.
rid OF the Irish difficulty. or socialism
to DO rid Of occas lonal cases OF suffer
ing from want. Their lghtnoss o
thought Is bad; but, like the DENSITY o
their opponents. thought,it proves thai
there is no real question in the pubin
mind.
1t Is, perhaps, only another instance
of the general absence of any serious
consideration given by the writer's tt
the subject. but, we have been little
surprised ut tho general consensus tina,
divorce ought 10 be granted for adul
terry on either side. That Is perfectly
sound from the moralst's point O
view, though many Christians will
pause to reflect that divorce is only
permitted by Christ. aud that permits
sion to divorce the husband was moi
included N his deliverance on tho mat
ter; but no statesman in tho existing
state OF opinion would propose AM
such law. II would DO simply per
mission to all profigate men to divorce
omseIves ut will Opinion Mt present
sentences the adulteress to lie o!
intolerable hum liation. and even suf
fering; but II does not sentence the
adulterer. and TIL II has been improv.
ed. TO grant divorce for mans adultery
would be simply to give privilege to
the bad. Any corrupt man tired Of
his wife would force her to divorce
him The woman would speedily be
forced by the opinion of hcr sex ia
demand her right and the number OF
divorces, which are nothing but un
avoidable evils Of a grave kind. would
DO multiplied hundredfod. The
writers seem to think the change OF
law would act as check on men; but
they either have given no thought to
the matter; or they do not know the
world. - London Times.