Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-11-19
DECLINES TO SPEAK.
Mrs. Parsons Has Nothing to
Say About Her Book.
HER HUSBAND ALSO SILENT
Proponent Of Marriage on Trial.
Theory in This City.
OTHERS NOT so RETICENT
Two Of the District Commissioners
Briefly Express Their Views
Opinions Of clsrgymen.
HER HUSBAND, ALSO SILENT
OTHERS NOT SO RET1cENT

Mrs. Parsons has nothing to say, and
will have nothing to say. Neither has Mr..
Parsons"
With the foregoing declaration Represen-
tative Herbert Parsons Of New York today
diverted all efforts to induce comment by
himself or his wife upon the latter's new
novel THE Family" The New York rep
resentative was standing on the front steps
at his Washington home. 1929 10th street
this morning receiving a steady stream OF
newspaper men. but he would vouchsafe no
reply except Nothing to say" whenever
the suggestion Of marriage on trial." as
advocated In Mrs. Parsons book. happened
to be mentioned. 1t was pointed out that
the voice OF the pulpit was raised unani-
mously In denunciation Of the book. but
MT Parsons only answer was Nothing to
say" accompanied by a smile. Suggestion
was made that the marriage on trial.
theory might be only part OF the story,
and that It was not intended 20 be applied
IN actual life. but the husband OF Mrs Elsie
Clews Parsons could not be led to speak
OF her novel either In whole or in part
While the author of The Family and
members OF her family maintained abso-
lute reticence on the subject an exactly
expressions Of opinion were sought from
ministers and other local men.
District Commissioner View.
Commissioner Macfariand said. REGARDING
the tentative marriage plan suggested by
Mrs. Parsons in her book:
Il have not seen the book and therefore
hesitate to criticise it. but II the newspaper
accounts of 1t are correct It seems to con-
tain theories which are so fantastic as to
be outside the pale Of serious considera-
tion.'
When asked for his views upon the pub
West said:
Being somewhat conservative in my ma
ture. am not inclined to look with favor
ON what seems to be a radical departure
from established custom"
Statements By Others.
Right Rev. Henry Y. Satterlee. bishop Of
Washington, said: II have not yet read
the book. but from what have read in the
papers such an arrangement would mean
the end of marriage and would result In
the degradation of women"
Rev. Frank M. Bristol of Metropolitan
M. e. Church. John Marshall place, said
The idea Is absolutely rotten. 1t would
upset the whole country. No one with
any sense would consider the idea for a mo-
ment. 1t would destroy the family tie ut
terly and lead to free love-
Rev. 1gnatius Fealy. st. Joseph's Roman
Catholic Church, said: Every one knows
the position Of the Catholic Church on the
subject of marriage and divorce. The POSI-
ton taken by Mrs. Parsons is not worthy
OF discussion"
Rev. DR.. Harding OF St. Pauls P. z.
Church said: There can be only one
opinion on that subject among Christian
people. Such a proposition as advanced
by Mrs. Parsons Is utterly out Of the ques-
ton"
Rev. C. c. Morhart OF Christ Lutheran
church, New Jersey avenue and Morgan
street. said: 1.-THE idea is outrageous. It
should not be tolerated by any self respect
ing people in a Christian country. The
foundation Of all government is the fam
lily. and this would eradicate the family"
Rev. DR.. Abram Simon of the Washing
ton Hebrew congregation said: TT seems
to me. from what l have read in the
papers. that the book breaches the same
anarchy and nihilism In domestic life that
the anarchists are working out In European
any trial marriage as ungodly and in
iQuitous. and ruinous Of the best principles
OF human society,"
Additional Opinions.
Rev. John A. Van schaick. 1r.. Church of
Our Father. Universalist 18th and L
streets. said: Il have not read the book.
but intend to do 80 at the first opportun-
ity. I look upon the author as a cultured,
refined. lovely woman. but I have not the
slightest sympathy with the view she has
expressed. SO far as I understand II.
Il believe In marriage in the old-fashioned
sense. ! think everything should be done
to prevent divorce but I am not one Of
those who believe that divorce should not
be granted under any circumstances"
Rev.-Donald c. Mcleod Of the First Pres
byterian Church. John Marshall place,
said: II think the ideas advanced by Mrs.
Parsons are silly and that the press and
public are giving too much dignity to some-
thing utterly devoid of sense"
Rev. c. A. Brown of the Pro-Cathedral
Church of the Ascension. said THE idea
advanced u against all form Of society, and
as such Is not worth considering"
Rev. John Chester, 1928 o street. said:
az regard the proposition as simply a prac-
teal license for adultery. In the past TWEEN
ty years a half million divorces have been
granted in the United States. while In the
whole Of Europe less than 10000 have been
granted In the same time. This is a sign
of the times"
Rev. Father Paul GrifYlth Of st. Angus
tines Catholic Church said:
1.-The Catholic Church teaches but one
opinion regarding marriage and divorce. 1t
ts against divorce at all times"
Rev. w. H. Ballenger of Calvary M. e.
Church South. Q street between both and
91st streets northwest said: Il believe
that II proper time were taken by people
entering the marriage state there would be
no neceastty for divorce. and the Idea OF
by trial would not be advanced.
believe that marriage Is q sacred vow,
that cannot be broken except for the scrip
tural violation