The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-10-16
Copyright, 1910. by
Atlantic Monthly and
The Tlmes-Dlspatch.

Copyright, 1910 by III
Atlantic Monthly and
The Times-Dspatch.
and their profound knowledge OF az.
fairs. American women, could by thu
san same means. exercise equal power
asserting that there are certain public
questions in which women have a
larger sake and have probably a bet
ter knowledge than men. One Of tllos.
1t Is not oyerstating the fact to say
that there Is q consensus OF opinion
among public men. sociologists and
the the newspaper press that divorce In
point Of a national leprosy. Perhaps
the greatest contributing cause has
been been, the extraordinary indulgence
y Whisb to Women BY the divorce laws
cheap ard easy. and forces the hus-
band to pay for 1t. There Is always
demand for a uniform divorce law
eulties In the way have SO far pre-.
vented any serious attempt to pass
such Federal law. 1t has also been
conceded for many centuries that wo.
monogamy. and the chief sufferers BY
lax marriage and divorce laws The
proposition need only be. stated to
prove itself-that the limiting. II not
greatest. question not only OF the
family. but of the state, before the
women of this country. But 1t Is
striking and vital fact that, so far as
have avoided N all their public and
printed utteranccs the slightest allu-
sion, much less condemnation OF di-
vorce.
vt.tu
And yet, their fixed contention
has ever been that woman sui.
frage represents .purifcation and re-
FORM Tor g,st 1t would s be vain for the SUI.
be checked and even abolished. In
South Carolina there is not, and never
has been, any divorce. but a husband
all the neef When is may
a legal separation. Among the 10000
900 Catholics IN the United States
there are no divorces, and very few
testant denominations there are found
numbers of earnest clergymen who de-
cline to remnrry divorced persons. In
the Episcopal Church especially.
men exist which takes the only ground
which has SO far proved tenable, that
no divorced person should remarry;
that neither the guilt nor the inno-
cenoe of the divorced persons can be
considered, and a certain percentage
of innocent persons must suffer in the
operation Of the most beneticent laws.
and the only thing to be reckoned is
the greatest good to the greatest NUM-
Der. So far. however, from the suf-
fragists showing any antagonism to
divorce, there seems TO be close
yorce. 1t would be interesting to
figure out the percentages of divorced
women among the suffragists. Some
OF their most prominent leaders are d.
States. all the causes for divorce exist
that are recognized in the non-suf-
frage States, and special causes which
are peculiar to the suffrage States.
shows that siX women in Utah were
divorced by their husbands. for nom
support. The statistics of divorce
show that divorce is practically
higher in the four suffrage States than
in any other States of the Union. There
are five States which have higher
rate of divorce than the suffrage
States; but in three of these there are
nish an enormous percentage OF d.
vorces. In Texas. for example. which
has larger percentage OF divorces
than any State in the Union. the
cent of divorces are granted to ne
groes. In the other two States In
which there are very few negroes. the
divorce statistics show that the per-
potary residents In order to obtain d.
vorce brings the divorce rate for ma
tives actually below that of the four
suffrage States u, IN which the ,,,p per,
is small. In addition to practically
leading the country in divorces. these
four States show that this abnormal
rate of divorces prevails under con-
divorce. 1t Is agreed among soclolo-
gists. and is proved by statistics. that
divorce in general follows wealth:
luxury highly o art1hclal moae 81 o.
the four suffrage States. however, the
general mode OF life Is simple and the
social conditions primitive. These cir
p epsldnes eonneet a between sutfrage
encouragement to divorce, that g
enough to condemn It in the sss.s,o OF
gists all .publicists, and all who love
honor and decorum.
A Personal Note.
I ask pardon for introducing per-
help to disprove the fallacy that II
is the woman who works that w,uld
profit by the ballot. l was but littlo
past the my ragKK II ssihaay e wasa
about. $500 by my pen. I rashly. as
family. The rashness. Ignorance and
presumption Ok ILLS cut 5oHly Dc eS
cused by the retired life had led in
the library of an old Virginia country
house, and in community where con-
ditions more nearly resembled the
eighteenth than the nineteenth CEN
tury. That l succeeded was due to
tireless effort, unbroken health.
number of fortunate circumstances.
and above all, what am neither afraid
nor ashamed to say, the kindness of
the good God. In the course of time.
Iibecame through literature alone,
householder, property owner. tax.
payer. and the regular employer OF
Ave persons. My experience, there
fore, has been more varied ohan tn,t
of most women, and know something
Of the interests. both Of the woman
who works and the property owner,
the taxpayer ana the employer can can
say with positiyeness that there
never was a moment when the pos
session of a vote would not have been
hindrance and burden to me. I
had no claim on any man whatever to
help me fight my way to the polls;
after / had voted I could not enforce
my vote. ! should have become IN
yoIved IN controversies which might
haye impaired my earning capacity;
and there would have been the ever
present temptation to the weaker In
dividual, of voting to please my em-
ployers From this was happily