The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1891-04-01
Highest Of al in Leavening Powell. S Govt Rcror. Aug. u, 1852
R9!EA a! BssiRs
ABSOLUTELY PURE

and sometimes heavily voices
and Is more successful as leader, sain {
and martyr than i'm the commonplace
avocation Of a wife.
As we read, we ask two questions:
First, does the novel of today fairly
represent the great number OF loyal,
happy wives, who thank Heaven,
fasting, for a good mans love-" and
are not afraid of wasted affection, real
iziug no n can attain to anything
greater than love. We wonder, too,
how much literature of a certain class
is resonsible for the very evils il now,
in some instances. lnshes so vigorously
Charles Lamb says that ''the next
thing to making a child an infidel is
letting him know that there are in
fidels at ALL
Is not much domestic unh appiness
the result of suggestion on tn e part of
some writer's of ictiong The passion
ate love story; the dedication of sud
den romantic attachment; the advo-
eating of UNEQUAL, improvident mar
riages; the bringing forward of the
historical selfish Oma as an attrac-
tive type of character, and the insidi-
Gus justification of the wrong doer, be
it husband or wife-may not these
have formed part of the first cause,
the effect OF which is the danger which
threatens the homer
Jules Simon in the RecUe de FdmfHe
makes a strong appeal to dram atists
and novelists to assist in promoting
sound and sensible ideas regarding
the relations of the sexes. He would
have them turn from the psychology
OF the passions to the study Of moral
obligation.
An appeal might also be made to
women, the readers of the world. to
suffer no book to cross the threshold
OF the home which is not clean and
wholesome in its teaching.-HekeR jay
IN HarPer'S BazaT.
Dida't want the Divorce, After All.
A well-known st. Louis lawyer was
called on n day during the past
week by q lady, whose name is not
unfamiliar to the readers of the socie-
ty columns of the newspapers, and
consulted on the subject of divorce,
says the 50. Louis Republic. She was
not quite clear in her own mind
as to whether she wanted a di-
vorce or not, and after she had been
told just what steps were necessary
in the ordinary case, she seemed
to be in a puzzled frame of mind.
With a delicacy characteristic of limbs
of the law whose practice takes them
into the divorce court the legal light
undertook to find out what it was she
was holding back, and finally said to
her: You will have to tell me all the
facts if you want me take your case. |
cannot proceed in the dark, and | q
plainly see something is on your mind
that that you have not yet told me.p
Yes, there is" she said, land, in
fact, l am not sure that | want
you to take my case. or, in
fact, that | will have a case.
You see, my case, il / apply
for a divorce, will be just twice as bad
as the ordinary case, for the simple
reason that Harry and | were married
twice-once privately and with only
the necessary witnesses, and the
second time four months afterward in
a church and with a big reception,
and of course there will have to be
two divorces in order to set me IN
tirely free" The lawyer laughed.
In fact he laughed so long and so
heartily that the lady got mad and
flounced ouJ of the Office, vowing she
would not have a divorce; that she
had rather fight it out with her twice
married husband than be laughed at
by a lawyer.