, 1907-09-13
JUSTIFICATION FOR THEIR BE.
LIEF.

Inc Earle divorce case has stirred uT
considerable fuss among the social
lists and others. Earle found a new
love and influenced his old wife to
leave him and make application for a
divorce. She is now on her way to
Europe to get the divorce-if she can
while the wife-to-be is waiting. 1t will
be recalled that Earle returned to his
home town after bidding his wife fare,
we'll and that he was handled rather
roughly by his fellow townsmen. In
all tn eastern papers it a been stat
ed that Earle is a socialist. Taking
up the charge, Judge Groesbeck of
this city has handed The Republican
the following comment made by the
Daily Socialist, a paper published In
the city of Chicago:
For several days the capitalist
press has been commenting on the de,
tails Of the prospective Earle divorce
suit
Now it has taken a new tack. II
states that Earle is a socialist and &C.
counts for the affinity and divorce
through his being a socialist.
Both the Lawson and Hearst pa.
pers print this falsehood INT send ii
broadcast to influence the minds of
people and lead them to believe that
socialists are believers in the destruc'
ton Of the family.
1T has always been true that when
any g or class was itself decadent
and rotten to the core, it attempted to
impnfo tic avn, rlr,a aud xytan, 81,
those opposing it
This is true of the capitalist class.
With its own corrupt morals, 1t at
tempts to throw imputations on the
socialists.
Earle Is not a socialist, was never
a socialist, and Is In no way connect
ed with that movement. He is a mem.
Der of the same wealthy lass which
the Lawson and Hearst papers repre-.
sent.
when a Stanford White or a Thaw
are charged with crimes, is it stated
that they were members of the repub'
lican party?
when members Of the New York
four hundred enter n re-ente the
divorce court. are they classified by
the capitalist press as democrats or
republicansI
Socialism Is a political party. Its
program deals with economic and DO,
uticA issues.
When the real Indictment for the
destruction of homes n the degrade.
ton Of womanhood is placed. however,
it will be against capitalism.
Socialists believe the industrial So
ciety they stand for will mean the per
manency and sanctity of the home and
OF the family relation"
Th1 Dn-,;,n lI.. 49, l.
justification for the belief of the secu,
lar press that socialism is opposed to
the marriage tie-the one man and
one m idea To- held to by all
civilized nations. For the doctrines OF
socialism to whom can we turn but
the leaders of socialism, and who is
higher in the councils of socialism
. than Herr Bebel of Germany, or vii,
liam Morris, E. B., Bax, Karl Pierson
or Edward Carpenter? Is it not a fact
that several people left a local hall
some months ago because a socialist
lecturer n~auseated them by her expires,
sions in relation to the marriage state +!
We must take the doctrines of social,
ism from tho people who lay down the
doctrines of socialism. One of the
greatest socialists North America ever
knew was the founder of the Oneida
community in New York, Moves. He
dispensed with the marriage tie and
the family entirely. Herr Bebel is
perhaps the most active socialist in the
world today. He is still in the prime
OF life n makes stirring comment
upon all current matters. He took
great interest in the Haywood trial
and sheralded the verdict of the jury
with great satisfaction. 1t will be in.
teresting to the readers of The Re.
publican to know just what view he
takes of the family and the marriage
tie. In his work on Woman in the
Future" pages 229. $50, he says: "Hu.
man beings must be in a position to
act as freely, where their strongest i'm.
pulse is concerned, as in the case OF
any other natural instinct. The graf,
~iication of the sexual impulse is as
strictly the personal affair of the in.
dividual as the qualification of any
other natural instinct. No one has to
give an account of him or herself, and
no third person has the slightest RICH,
of Intervention. All these checks, al
these contradictions to nature, in the
present position of women have lee
ever persons who are not disposed tc
accept the further consequences o.
change in our present social state te
recognize the j~ustiiability Of a per
fectly free choice in love, and if neet
be, Of an equally free dissolution o.
the relationship, without any externa
hindrance."
To the candid man, is not the forego
ing sufficient justification for the be
lief that leading socialists teach the
doctrine Of free love? Every reader
of The Republican recalls the lows
episode. wherein a college professor
put away his wife and babies and mar
ried a rich young heiress. His wifi
was a beautiful and accomplished wo
His family was a charming one