St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-11-29

one. Nothing can add to the sacredness
OF this marriage, To the obligation and
duty of each TO each. There is nothing
in the ceremony except the desire on
the part of the man and woman that the
whole world should know that thev are
really married and that Their souls have
been united.
Every marriage. for thousand rea-
sons. should be public, should be re-
corded, should be known; but, above
all. to the end that the purity of the
union should appear. These cere-
monies are hot only for the gOnd and
for the protection for the married, but
ais for the protection of their children,
and of society as well. But. after all.
the marriage remains contract of the
highest possible character-a contract
in which each gives and receives a
heart. So
The question then arises. should this
marriage, under any circumstances, he
dissolved? 1t is easy to understand the
position taken by the various churches.
but back of theological opinions is the
question of contract. Ct
In this contract of marriage the man
agrees To prOtect and cherish his wife.
Suppose that he refuses to protect; that
he abuses, assaults ana tramples upon
dress? Is she under any obligation to
him? He has violated the contract. He
has failed To protect. and, in addition.
lie has assaulted her like q wild beast
Is she under any obligation tn HIM? Is
she bound by the contract he has
broken? If so, what is the cOnSidera-
ton for this obligation? Must she live
with him for his sake or. if she leaves
him TO preserve her life. must she re-
main Ills wife for his sake? No intelli-
gent man will answer these questions
in the affirmative.
If, then, she is bound to remain his
wife for the contracts sake. is she
bound 10 remain his wife because the
marriage was sacrament? Is there
any obligation on the part of the wife
to remain with the brutal husband for
the sake of Goa? Can her conduct af-
feet in any way the happiness of an in
finite being? Is it possible for a hui
man being to increase or diminish the
well-being of the infinite?
The next question is as to the right OF
society in this matter. 1t must be adj
mitted that the peace of society will be
promoted by the separation Ofsuch peO-
pie. Certainly a society cannot Insist
upon wife remaining with hus-
band who bruises and mangleS
her flesh. Even married women have
right to personal security. They do not
lose. either by contract or sacrament.
the ri ght of self-pIeservatiOn. This
they rhare i'm common. to say the least
of it, with the lowest living creatures.
This will probably be- admitted by
most of the enemies OF divorce; but
they will insist that, while the wife has
the right to flee from her husbands
roof and seek protection of kindred or
friends, the marriage-the sacrament
must remain unbrOken. Is it to the in
terest of society that those who dpspise
each other should live together? Ought
the world to be pe0pled by the children
of hatred or disgust, the chiIdren of
lust and lOathing, or by the
welcome babes of mutual love?
Is it impossible tnat an infinitely wise
and compassionate God insists that 4
helpless woman shall remain the wife
of cruel wretch? Can this add to the
joy of Paradise. or tend to keep one
harp in tune? Can anything he more
infamous than fora government to COM
pei woman to remain the wife of
man she hateS-Of one whom she Justly;
holds in adherence? Does any decent
man wish the assistance of constable,
a sheriff. judge or church to keep,
his wife in his house? is it possible to
conceive of a more contemplate
human being than a man who
would appeal to force in such caseP
1t may be said that the woman is free
TO go. and that the courts will protect
her from the brutality of the man who
promised to be her protector; but where
shall the woman UnC Che may have mn
friends; or they may be poor; her kim
dred may be dead. Has she no right to
build another home? Must this woman:
full of kindness. health, he tied and
chained to this living corpse? Is there
no future for her? Must she he an out
cast fOrever-deceived and betrayed for
her whole life? Can she never sit by
her own, hearth, with the, arms of her,
children about her neck. and with a
husband who loves and protects her?
Is she to become a social pariah. and Is
this for the benefit OF society? Or is it
for the sake of the wretch who de-
strOyed her life?
The ground has been taken that wo-
man would lose her dignity if marriage
could he annuled. Is it necessary to
lose your liberty in order to retain your
moral character in order to be pure and
huSb a noiudll vi w
retain her virtue become a slave. a serf
with beast for master.Or suciety for
master, or with phantom for master?
If an infinite being is one of the part
les to the contract, is it not the duty of
this being to see to it that the contract
is carried out? What consideration
does the infinite being give? What con-
sideratiOn does he receive? If a wife
owes no duty to her husband because
the husband has violated the contract,
an has even assaulted her life, is it
possible for her to feel toward him any
real thrill of affection? Ii she does not,
what is there left of marriage? What
part of this contract or sacrament re-
mains i'm living force? She can not sus-
tain the relation of wife, because she
abhOrS him; she can not remain under
the same roof. for fear that she may he
killed. They sustain. then. only the
relation of hunter and hunted-Of
tyrant and victim. Is it desirable that
this relation should last through life.
and that it should be rendered sacred
by the ceremony of a church?