Waterbury Democrat., 1901-02-14
THE TRUDFAU CASE.
Religious Differences Said to Be at the
 Bottom of the Trouble.

Religious Differences Said to Be at the
 Bottom of the Trouble.
 Religious differences are a prolific source of disturbance in many homes about town, and why this should be so is mystery to Christian men, no matter what particular creed they pro- fess. 1t is said that during the past few years considerable missionary work has been done among non-Eng- fish speaking people in Waterbury , with the result that the peace of more than one home has been destroyed for ever. Husbands and wives, blessed with promising children, who formerly lived in peace and contentment have been set against each other and exist in constant state of warfare, or have separated altogether, leaving the chll- dren objects of charity to the neigh bors, or charges upon the town. It is no guess work to state that there Is no denomination in Waterbury or any place else that sanctions this method of seeking converts. no organized body that counsels the wrecking Of homes and making paupers of innocent children, with a view to adding to US membership On the contrary, every 1 man who breaches, the gospel in this ! town, so far as anybody knows, at least, would scorn to knowingly do anything in direct opposition to the admonition. whom God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. It ! is but fair to assume that all are not working according to the light they have. for the salvation of souls and the uplifting of mankind in general.
 This admitted, primarily because We ! believe it to be, and secondly, to dis abuse anyone that possibly might mis- understand us, of the notion that we want to sit in judgment upon the good or bad points of any mans religious belief. the question might be asked with the fullest assurance that it can not provoke religious controversy in the community, where rests the blame for the shattered hopes of the man who looked to q happy future with his Wife and children. when he finds these hopes dashed to pieces through the efforts of some one who secured hear ing with his heIpmeet at her own fire 1 side and without his knowledge or con- sent? Hasn't q man d right to object l to any evangelist, priest or minister entering his home for the purpose Of l exercising an influence over his fam | ily which. in his opinion, is not for | their spiritual or temporal welfare: l If the reviValS or missions are conduct | ed ill the meeting houses or at the 1 quite a different thing. But even then it seems to Us that prudent preacher would not feel justified ill advising q woman to change her religion without | consulting her husband before taking l such an important step. He would be l within his lines, We think. in counsel | ing his convert to perSevere in her good resolutions, to do some mission | ary work with her husband and, if possible. win him over to her way of thinking, and then let both make the change. and in the event of failure ill | this respect satisfy herself that the course she had decided upon would not | endanger the welfare of her children | or tempt her husband to break the solemn promise he made to her before | God, when he and she worShipped at the same altar. All men of ordinary ! intelligence, no matter what their call | ing may be, believe it to be the part | of wisdom for people to select wives | and husbands among those who be- long to their own religious faith. And l experience, the best test of any maxim. proves that those who so counsel are | right. Men who possess even but a superficial knowledge of the married state know that enough trials of one kind and another that cannot well be avoided beSet those who enter it with out having to do with religious differ enceS.
 The other day II. C. Atwood who does little Investigating for the se- lectmen regarding the cause of want in families that apply for town aid. told Democrat reporter that it was not uncommon to hear that men had left town. leaving their families ill want. Sometimes these cases at tract public notice. but as a rule noth- ing is heard about them outside the police court. the Selectmen'S office and the charitable institutions connected with the churches. The -Irudeau case is a fair sample of what religious con- tentions between man and wife lead to. They got along all right until T prea cher met Mrs Trudeau and sue ceeded in leading her to believe that life would be easier for her in some other church than the one she be- lOnged to. The woman and her huS- band were Catholics and when the lat ter heard that his wife was about to abandon her faith there was a row
 She applied to a few prominent Prot eStantS about town for counsel and was advised by them not to do any thing that would put barrier between herself and husband. But this did not deter Mrs Trudeau from carving out her threat and from that time on the home was little short of a hell on earth. Still it was not quite so bad until Mrs Trudeau and her husband commenced to quarrel about what church and school the children should attend, That was the last straw. This was followed by scene in the city court. The next number on the pro
 gram showed Trudeau's back turned towards his family and his wife peep. ing through the little window at the selectmen's office. Prior to the differ. euces about religion. the Trudeaus con
 ducted their own affairs and appeared to be doing well, but once the demon of religious discord got q foothold :. among them, their neighbors were called in to adjust matters and as usually happens in such cases. they made nice mess of them. TrudeaU worked for years at the barberine business at Dresher'S. on Grand street
 He was q steady man and thought the world of his wife and children. He is eStranped from them now forever