Morning journal and courier., 1889-05-28
MARRIAGE vows.
Should They Be IndIssolub blea-Wed-
 ding a DrEnkard.


 ding DrGnkard.
 It is said by some moralists that, as mar risge is flor better or worse" it is the duty of the wife to remain with her husband, no matter how bad he may be, and that the hus- band must also condone the errors of his most incorporate wife, says the London Standard. By upholding this indissolubi- lity of marriage, we offer, it is argued, a great inducement to the wife to reclaim her husband, if possible, and to the man to at- tempt the reformation of the womans habits and life. There is something in this plea, but it would have more absolute force if mar riage concerned only the husband and wife. We have, however, to take the children into consideration. in the first place, they have before their eyes the dreadful example of 8 drunken father or @ debased mother. Second ly, we must regard the question of heredity. Mrs. Fawcett has written story in which she suggests, as a difficult question, the duty of wife who discovers only after marriage that her husband is not only a drunkard himself, but the son and grandson of habi- tusl sots. She thinks with horror that if she continues to live with him, she may be- come the mother of a son who, as he grows up to manhood, will show, to her agony, all the symtoms of the hereditary mania. She therefore leaves him. It will thus be seen that the question is not settled even if the partner of the offender resolves to endure personally all the consequences of the choice. He or she has to consider others as we'll. We do not perceive why the Legislature could not devise short act. giving to the wife or husband of habitual drunkard the right to seperate under, of course, very strict condi- tions. The habitual charater of the offence must be clearly proved the unftness of the man or woman to have the custordy of the children, if any, must be established; and every care should be taken that the release is not relief from the expense of mainten- ance nor any dissolution of the marriage it. self We believe that it would be quite suffi- cient to grant a simple separation, not allow ing either party to marry again. In this way the remedy would offer no temptation to either side. On the contrary the existance of such means of redress would arm the so Der husband or the sober wife with power ful means to appeal A woman who, in spite of remonstrances, persisted in drink, could be clearly told of the probable consequences of continued indulgence, and might thus be arrested in the downward course. The bill must, of course, be absolutely applicable to both sexes, and the same remedy to wom- en as to men. No doubt there will be both husbands and wives unwilling to call it's pro- visions into active force. There are forbear- ing men and forgiving women who would prefer to endure all wrongs rather than tell their story in public court. Yet even for them it will be we'll to know that redress is within their grasp. Their sufferings will be more tolerable when they feel that they are voluntary, sGd that the law would assist them if they elected to appeal to it. A new enactment of the Bind, however, would bring welcome relief to thousands of middle class and humber homes.