Evening capital journal. (Salem, Or.) 1888-1893, 1890-02-14
ON MARRIAGE VOWS.
An English View Which seems TO Refiec
Pubic Opinion.

An English View Which seems TO Reflect
Public Opinion.
1t is said by some moralists that, as mar
rage is for better or worse,n it is the duty
OF the wife to remain with her husband, no
matter how bad he may be, and that the
husband must also condone the errors OF
the most incorporate wife, says the Lon
don Standard. BY upholding this indis.
solubility Of marriage we offer, it is argued.
a great inducement to the wife to reclaim
her husband, if possible, and to the man to
attempt the reformation of the woman's
habits and life. There is something in. this
plea, but it would have more absolute force
If marriage 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 a drunken father or a
debased mother Secondly, we must re-
gard the question of heredity. Mrs. Faw-
cett has writ en- a story in which she sug-
gests, as a difficult question, the duty of a
wife who discovers only after marriage
that her husband is not only drunkard
himself, but the son and grandson of habit
ual sots. She thinks with horror that if she
continues to live with him, she may become
the mother of son who, as he grows
up to manhood, will show, to her agony, all
the symptoms of the hereditary mama. She
therefore leaves him. 1t 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
well. We do not perceive why the Legs-
lature could not devise a short act, giving
to the wife or usoand of a habitual
drunkard the right to separate under, of
course, very strict conditions The habit
ual character of the offense must be clearly
proved; the unfitness of the man or wom-
an to have the custody of the children, if
any, must be established; and every care
should be taken that the release is not a re-
lief from the expense of maintenance nor
any dissolution of the marriage itself. We
believe that it would be quite sufficient to
grant simple separation, not allowing
either party to marry again. In this way
the remedy would offer no temptation to
either side. On the contrary, the existence
of such means of redress would arm the
sober husband or sober wife with powerful
means of appeal. A woman who, in spite
of remonstrances, persisted In drink, could
be clearly told of the probable consequences
of continued indulgence, might thus be ar
rested early in the downward course. The
bill must, of course, be absolutely applicable
W VIC oCAS dilNl IhS SeilAlO ISulSuy w WOul-
en- as to men. No doubt there will be both
husbands and wives unwilling to call its
provisions into active force. There are for
bearing men and forgiving women who
would prefer to endure all wrongs rather
than tell the story in a public court. Yet
even for them it will be well to know that
redress is within their grasp. Their sut-
ferings will be all the more tolerable when
they feel they are voluntary and that the
law will assist them if they elected to ap-
peal to it. A new enactment Of the kind,
however, would bring welcome relief to
thousands of humber homes.