The record-union., 1893-08-01

even if geographical line divides the
territory, has neither moral nor legal
right to make himself a nuisance.
PROFESSOR BRUN, in the course of a
most interesting paper in the North
american ReUje1o, says:
Teach the rising generation by object les
sons at an age when impressions are deep and
iastlng, that men may, without losing caste
ulVoree at pleasure and the notion OF the
sanclty Of the family life is undermined
Let !It me newspapers dish up to the public. as
they invariably do, all the details OF divorce
proceedings and Joke about them. and the
sanctity and morality OF the family must
necessarily be sapped. We are told that
crimes are on the Increase. The student of
the relations of divorce TO crime both the
cause and the effect.
Professor Brun is right. There are those,
as he says, who hold that making divorce
easy encourages morality, but such DO
sltion cannot be maintained in the face
OF the evidence. Men OF only middle life
can remember when the divorcee was not
received save in rare cases into society,
generally not until remarriage and fire.
quently not then. This was undiscrimi-
mating prejudice; it punished without
reason as well as with; it classed guilty
and innocent together. 1t was the ex-
treme OF social fanaticism. To-day the
divorce has as easy entry as any one else
into social circles, and in the light of
broader intelligence and greater tolera-
ton we discriminate somewhat between
guilt and innocence. But may we not go
to the extreme in toleration, and is not the
divorce who is unworthy by recognition
made the means of i'll? Youth notes the
attitude of society towards divorce; it
draws its conclusions quickly and acts
upon them by hasty marriage, conscious
not only that the marital tie may be easily
severed, but that society does not regard
this sundering with seriousness.
The newspaper press, as Professor
Brun indmates, contributes to the laxity
OF sentiment regarding marriage and
divorce. 1t ought to treat divorce pro-
ceedings with gravity rather than flip
PANTY. 1t should consider divorce mat
ters as most serious concerns, affecting
society Immediately and deeply. 1t
ought by its policy to keep in public view
that the family and parental tie lie at the
root Of every social organization; that
they are the seed of the community, and
dependent upon them is the life of the
State itself and the Nation. Either abol-
ish marriage wholly, or let our treatment
Of all that relates to it be grave, at least
not fippant, in the press, if we would
have 1t maintained and the strength of
the home conserved.
"Shall not men conduct their newspa-
pers as they please? Is not the printing
Of a newspaper private business? Shall
any assume to say that it is the newspa-
per mans duty to adopt this or that
policy?' Yes, and no. No one is so
prompt as the newspaper man to defend
his course on the ground of duty to the
public" That is a sermon one reads
every day.
No, the printing of a newspaper has
such relation to the public veal, under
the privileges and guarantees of a repub-
lican form of government, that moral OBJ
legations attach which arise to the dig
nifty of duties.
Some of these are to be truthful, to con-
serve good morals, to expose corruption
in public trusts, to fairly debate, TO con-
denim error, to commend virtue, to exalt
loyalty and denounce any and all things
at enmity with human liberty, free con-
science and self-government.
So, if the press would advance its own
interests and guard with jealousy the
securities Of its own freedom, it ought to
conserve the sanctity of marriage and de-
pIore even the necessity for severing it.
Wherefore it follows that Professor Brun
is right in deprecating the general
method of treatment Of divorce by the
press of the country.