Morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven [Conn.]) 1848-1894, 1892-10-12
Discretion in IIarryfny.

lriOHi LOUIS blOOS-DemOcrat
1t cannot be doubted that the popularity
of mstrimony has materially declined in
recent years, and that kind of general
hssitancy seems to prevail respecting
the negotiation of such alliances. There
was time when the young people of the
country hsstened to pair Themselves with
bird like esgerness sud delight as soou as
they were out of school; and society not
only encouraged them, but practically
commanded them to take that course.
They were considered superfuous and
burdensome until they got married. The
true work of life could not begin with
them, they were taught, so long as they
remained single; it was their duty to be-
come yoked without unnecessary delay,
and it was disgrace to miss reasonable
opportunities in that relation. But 1t Ia
decidedly different at the present day.
The practice of wedlook Is no longer i'm
perstive, nor does discredit attend the un-
mated state. even when prolonged into the
thirties. There is much advice given
against marriage as in favor of IL by the
vice and experienced of both sexes, and
the result 10 q steady decrease In the pro-
portion of actual weddings to possible
ones.
The causes which have produced this
marked change are not sufficiently definite
for satisfactory analysis. It is probably
true that our extravagant style of living
as compared with that of former times is
one of the effective influences. The cost
| of supporting q wife and raising q family
Is much larger than It used to be, and this
| feature of the matter often gives pause on
both sides. We have come TO measure 80
many other things by money that mstri-
mony has not escaped the rule. The
| young people are disinclined to start in an
humble way and gradually improve their
situation; they want all that their parents
have without waiting and striving for it.
Many proposals are unquestionsbly de
layed or rejected on this account. Then
it is we'll known that the new avenues of
| employment open to women have made
them more independent, and probably also
more exacting as to the qualifications of
husbands. 1t is not nearly so common as
1t once was for girls to marry simply in or
| der to secure a home and q living; they
are now able to earn good wages and to
take their time about assuming the duties
| of wives and mothers. We may safely be-
lieve, moreover, that the progress of wo-
men in education and in social power has
led them to look less favorsbly upon the
connubisl condition by subordinsting their
hearts to their heads, 80 TO speak. And
| finally, it cannot but be that the abun-
| dance of criticism to which the marriage
| system has been subjected by writers of
pronounced Sigor aud skill has served to
weaken it in the popular estimation, and
to disparsge the quality of .acredness
that Is its highest claim to respect and
honor.
There is no reason as yet, however, to
lament the prevailing tendency as a ma
tional misfortune. The amount of mar
r?ing is still large enough for all ordi-
nary purposes; and it may be that lees
rather than more of it would best pro-
mote the interests of society. Such un-
ions should be formed with some other
object than that of merely propsgstiDg
the species. They involve the most seri-
GUS obligation and responsibilities of hu-
man life, and If people are learning to be
slow and careful about making contracts
of 80 much Importance it is hardly a
sign of decay or q threat of calamity.
Whenever any two persons care 80 much
for each other that they cannot happily
live apart they will be welded, in spits
of all opposing influences; and perhaps
those are the only circumstances under
which a wedding ought ever TO take
place. It would not do to say with Ham
let "thst we will have no more mar
risges," and that all who are now single
"shali keep as they are" but we are
justified in thinking that the ratio OF
matrimonial happiness is likely to be in.
creased according TO the measure of mar
risges that are brought about by refiec
tive instead of emotional means. Tn,
system with which the critics ind ..
much fault Is not perfect, but IL is mucl
better than they represent 1t to be, or .