The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-03-01
MORAL RIGHTS.
Should Men Engage in Business Which They
Would Hide From heir Wives.

To the Editor: We have it in our
opinion that no man has anv moral right
! to engage in any business i'm which his
bosom companion might not assist him
! side by side and not defiie her moral
character.
farmer, a groceryman, oonfectiCn-
eryman, a clother a fancy goodsman a
carpenter, a mason, Il smith, a factory
man, yes, and many other honorable Iur-
suits of life in which man is engaged
that his wife and his daughter of the
highest refinement may go with him
side by side and yet her moral character
is unblemished, but is there a man of
character in all this broad land of ours
who would be willing for his wife or his
tender daughter TO stand with him be-
hind the liquor counter and distribute
his goods to his customers? Is there
one who would be willing to meet his
wife or his daughter in the rabies of
the bucket shops? If not, why not
Shall / answer? Simply because the an
has no moral right to be engaged in such
business.
Is there a man who would be willing
for his wife or his daughter 10 go with
him side by side to the liquor counter
aid when he called for his drinks Tor her
to call for hers and the two to drink
each others health in such a place?
If not, why not? Simply because he
has no moral right to visit such It lace
But some one may say that custt III has
made it creditable for a man to 10 those
things and for no woman but these OF
very low character to do them. That is
true in the eyes of those who wish to
excuse themselves in Their morality,
but will that same man feel willing for
us to say that his character must be
measured up by that very low class of
womn whose social equals he has made
himself by his own visits to their social
resorts? Think of it, gentlemen. and il
you wish to answer the editor will doubt
less give you space to reply.
Can a young man feel that he has any
moral right to visit place and engage
in a practice where he would not feel
justifable in publicly taking his best
girl or his own dear sister, and in visit
ing her to partake with him We say
that it IS a violation of every principle
of real manhood to do such things. and
yet if young men in our day were 10
see their best girls visiting places which
they frequent and engaging in practices
countenance them forever.
Why should the character of woman
be more tender and pure than the char
acter of man? Is there woman who
stands on the dignity of a good moral
character who would be willing to enter
into covenant for life with a man
whose character is -degraded so low as tc
make him the common associate of drunk
ards and harlots? If so, let that lady
answer through the columns of this pa
per.
PHASE NO. 2.
Has any man a moral right to buy
goods which Injuries him in using them
and impoverishes his family taking from
them that which they have every reason
to expect at his hands If not, has any
man a moral right to sell any such
goods to the man whose physical health
is thus injured and whose family is thus
impoverished? Think of it, gentlemen.
and answer.
PHASE NO. 8.
Has the government in which we live
a moral right to legalize any kind OF
business by which its own citizens arc
injured and impoverished?
The above questions are all open and
subject to the strictest criticism. Con-
slider them woll aEG answer who will.
L. H. HARDY.
Reidsville, ~ c. Feb %, 1908.