The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1888-08-21
AND DIVORCE.
1NGERsoLL ON THE RIGHTS AND
WRONGS OF Welded WOMEN.


Privileges lie Would Give Them-They
should Be Allowed Legal Separation
for the Asking-Ihs Argument by
Which the Reformer Justifles Such
a Change of Law.
Flor, the PHILADELPHIA Press
NEW York, Aug. 1l.-Col. Ingersoll was
asked yesterday If he had soon the news
paper account of man down at Rockaway
tearing out his wife's eyes. Hs replied:
II read the account, and don't renem-
her of over having read anything more per-
fectly horrible aui cruel. 1t is impossible
for me to imagine such a monster, or to ac-
count for such an inhuman human being.
How a man could deprive a human being
Of sight, except where some religious ques-
ton is involved, is beyond my comprehen-
sion. We know that for many centuries
frjghtful punishments were inflicted, and
inflicted by the pious. by the theologians,
bv the spiritual minded, and by those who
loved their neighbors as themselves We
read the accounts Of how the lids of mems
ewes we're cut off and then the poor victims
tied where the sun would shine upon their
lllless orbs. OF Others who were buried
alive. OF others staked out Oh the sands of
the sea to be drowned by the rising tide.
OF others put il sacks 1llled with snakes
Yet these things appeared far away, and
we tiattered ourselves that, to great de
gree. the world had outgrcwn these
acrocitcs; and now, here, near the close
Of the Nineteenth century, we find man
husband-cruel enough to put out the eyes
II the woman he swore to love, protect and
cherish. This man has probably been
taught that there is forgiveness for every
crime, and now imagines that when he re-
penis there will be more joy in heaven over
him than over ninety and nine good and
loving husbands who have treated their
wives in the best possible manner, and who,
instead of tearing out their eyes, have filed
their lives with content and covered their
faces with kisses"
THE RIGHT OF DIVORCE.
''You told me last week, in general way,
what society should do with the husband in
such a case as that. | would like to ask
you to-day what you think society ought to
do with the wife in such caSes or what
ought the wife to be permitted to do for
herself 2"
''When we take into consideration the
crime of the man who blinded his wife, it
is impossible not to think of the right of
divorce. Many people insist that marriage
is an indissoluble tie that nothing can
break it, and that nothing can release either
party from the bond. Now, take this case
AZ Far Rockaway One year ago the
husband tore out one of his wifes eyes. Had
she then good cause for divorced Is it posi-
bic that an infinitely wise and good God
would insist on this poor, helpless woman
remaining with the wild beast, her hus-
band? Can any one imagine that such
course would add to the Joy of paradisel
Can the good of society require the woman
to remaina She did remain, and the result
is that the other eye has been torn from its
socket by the hands of the husband Is she
entitled to q divorce nows And if she is
granted one is virtue in danger, and shall
we lose the high ideal of home life9
"Can anything be more Infamous than to
endeavor to make a woman, under such
circumstances, remain with such man? 1t
may De said that she should leave him-that
they should live separate and apart. That
is to say, that this woman should be de-
prived of a home; that she should not be
entitled TO the love of man; that she should
remain, for the rest of her days, worse than
widow, That Is to say, a wife,
hiding, keeping out of the wav, secreting
herself, from the hyena to whom she was
married. Nothing, in my judgment, can
exceed the heartlessness of law or of a
creed that would compel this woman to re-
main the wife of this monster. And it is
not only cruel, but it is immoral, low, vul-
gar. Has not the married woman the right
of self-defense? Is it not the duty of society
TO protect her from her husbandl If she
owes no duty to her husband; If it is impos-
Sible for her to feel towards HIM any thrill
of affection, what is there of marriage lefts
What part of the contract remains in force
She is not to live with him, because she alb
hors him. She is not to remain in the
same house with him, for fear he may
kill her. What, then, are their rela-
tions9 Do they sustain any relation ex-
cept that of hunter and hunted-that is, of
tyrant and victim? And is it desirable that
this relation should be rendered sacred by
a churcha Is it desirable to have families
raised under such circumstances Are we
really in need of the children born of such
parentsl II the woman is not in fault,
does society insist that her life should o
wrecked! Can the virtue of others be
preserved only by the destruction of her
happiness and by what might be called her
perpetual imprisonment / hope the clergy
who believe in the sacredness of marriage
in the indssclubility of the marriage tie
will give their opinions on this case.
MARRIAGE WITHOUT LOVE.
81 believe that marriage is the most i'm
portant contract that human beings can
make. / always believe that a man will
keep his contract; that a woman in the
highest sense, will keep hers. But suppose
the man does not. Is the woman still
bound! Is there no mutualityl What is a
contract 1t is where one party promises to
do something in consideration that the other
party will do something. That is to
say, there is a consideration on both sides,
moving from one to the other A contract
without consideration is null and void; and
contract duly entered into, where the con-
sideration of one party is withheld, is void
able, and can be avoided by the party who
has kept, or who is willing to keep, the
contract. A marriage without love is bad
enough. But what can we say of a mar
rage where the parties hate each others Is
there any morality in this-any virtues
VIII any decent person say that woman
true, good and loving. should be compelled
10 live with n man she detests, compelled to
be the mother of his childrenf Is there a
woman in the world who would not shrink
from this herselfl And is there a woman SO
leartless and SO immoral that she would
force another to bear what she would shud-
deringly avoid2
Let us bring these questions home. In
other words, let us have some sense, some
IIeehng, some heart--and just a little brain.
Marriages are made by men and women.
They are not made by the state and they
are not made by the gods. By this time
people should learn that usefulness to
human happiness is the foundation of virtue
the foundation of morality. Nothing is
moral that does not tend to the wel-being