The San Francisco call., 1899-07-02


charms which made him tired Of his
wife, and thereupon he transferred to
the charmer not only his affections,
which were not worth much, but GER
tain property worth q good deal, which
his wife had helped him to earn. The
wife coming home from visit TO the
far off East, and finding that her hus-
band had taken advantage of her ab-
sence TO deprive her and her child of
home and of the means Of obtaining
new one, proceeded to blow a hole
through the head of him and made him
a good husband by making him dead.
A Coroner's jury sitting upon the
corpse and the problem returned a yer
dict of justifiable homicide.
Upon this showing my contemporary
moraists gibe at the jury and main
tain that such a verdict tends to
cheap human life and encourage muir
der. Such critics are too capttous for
anything. It may. be conceded that love
is the supreme thing in human life;
that man ought in obedience to di-
vine law leave a woman whom he does
not love for one whom he does love;
but there remains the fact that man
who gives. UP his wife for love ought
munity property included. When
husband robs sick wife for the pur-
pose of enriching his love, he merits
just as much of this earth as is re-
quired to bury him.
The verdict of the Coroner's jury is
approved.
The high contracting parties to the
Belmont-Sloane divorce and marriage
affair have gone into the retirement
of a honeymoon hedged around with
many millions, but they have left be-
hind them as pretty q kettle of fish as
ever enuced every cook in the country
to take a hand in the frying. The is
sue is one to which the original parties
in the case may be and probably are
Indifferent. The creature in the frying
pan is the preacher who married them.
That reverend gentleman, w. NJ. Bar
rows of Greenwich, Conn, was. taken
TO task a short time ago by the:General
Association Of Congregational Minis
listers for marrying the couple,> but he
succeeded in making such a defense
that no condemnation was pronounced
upon him, Notwithstanding the reports
to the contrary. In fact, so far from
denouncing him the resolutions adopted
by the association We're drawn IN such
a way as to enable Mr.. BarrOws to vote
for them and thus put himself in line
with his fellow clergymen on the sub
ject Of the duty Of ministers when
asked to marry divorced people.
So far all. appears right and good,
but it seems that in defending himself
Mr.. Barrows claimed he had been de-
ceived by the parties to the marriage.
1t is stated that in the course. of the
discussion the Rev. Washington Choate
Of Greenwich, a personal friend OF Mr..
BarToWs, said that Mrs. Sloane had
given Mr. Barrows to understand that
she had secured a divorce from her
husband on the ground of infidelity
year previously, and that the minister
had married her under the impression
that she was the innocent party and
was entitled to remarry according to
the rules of the church. When he dis
covered the facts he returned to Mr..
Belmont the fee which had been paid
to him.
Thus Mr.. Barrows obtained acquittal
at the hands of his brethren by accus-
ing the contracting parties of cheating
him, but in doing so he Topped himself
out of the theological stew only to fall
into the public frying pan.
A certain Mr.. Hubbard, an attorney
Of Greenwich. acted as agent in ar
ranging for the marriage, and when he
heard the accusation of cheating
brought against his clients he rose in
their defense. He is reported to have
ga id in a recent interview:
Il called DR.. Barrows out from a
committee meeting on the Thursday
night preceding the wedding and told
him I would give him $3.50 to perform
a wedding ceremony on Saturday morn
ing. The only question he asked me
was If it would be proper to marry
them, and told him that I knew OF no
objections. I also said to. him that the
bride would be a divorce when she ar
rived at the. parsonage. and that the
only bad thing connected with the af-
fair would be the notoriety, which
would extend from Dan to Beersheba."
Continuing his statement, the attor-
ney went on to say:
That Friday afternoon after the di-
vorce had been granted, Mr.. Sullivan,
from De Lancey Nicoll's office in New
York. came to Greenwich, unknown at
the time TO me, and called on DIR. Bar
rows. He told DR.. BarroWs that he un-
derstood arrangements had been made
through me to marry the couple on Sat
urday morning. Mr. Sullivan says, and
/ have no reason to doubt his word,
that Dr.. Barrows said he had agreed,
but had since made UP his mind not to
do so.
'Mr. Sullivan says he asked Mr.. Bar
rows to perform the ceremony that
night, and when he hesitated he told
him that the fee I offered should be
doubled making $500. After Mr.. Bel
mont was married he gave the minister
ten $50 bills inclosed in an envelope.
This, I understand, DR.. Barrows has
since returned to Mr. Belmont"
Such is the situation. DIR. Barrows
has a record he is not proud of. He
declined to marry couple for $3.50, but
consented for $500, and then returned
the money. The only point in the evi-
dence that does him credit is that he
was ignorant Of the Sloane scandal, and
ala l-pO-y ba ciTc1IY11 St a r,pac- 11p1e,,