ble desires, and the most legitimate hopes. Such, too, are the terrible chastisements reserved for the thoughtlessness or foolish pride of these dissolute gray-beards, who prodigalize the last breath of their life in search of depraved voluptuousness."

The parents, the perpetrators of such an outrage against nature, are not the only sufferers. Look at the children which they bring into the world! Let Dr. Gardner speak again:—

"Children, the issue of old men, are habitually marked by a serious and sad air spread over their countenances, which is manifestly very opposite to the infantile expression which so delights one in the little children of the same age engendered under other conditions. As they grow up, their features take on more and more the senile character; so much so that every one remarks it, and the world regards it as a natural thing. The old mothers pretend that it is an old head on young shoulders. They predict an early death to these children, and the event frequently justifies the horoscope. Our attention has for many years been fixed upon this point, and we can affirm that the greater part of the offspring of these connections are weak, torpid, lymphatic, if not scrofulous, and do not promise a long career."

In old age the seminal fluid becomes greatly deteriorated. Even at the best, its component elements could only represent decrepitude and infirmity, degeneration and senility. In view of such facts, says Dr. Acton,—

"We are, therefore, forced to the conclusion that the children of old men have an inferior chance of life; and facts daily observed confirm our deductions. Look but at the progeny of such marriages; what is its value? As far as I have seen, it is the worst kind—spoilt childhood, feeble and precocious youth, extravagant manhood, early and premature death."

Unions of an opposite character to those just considered, wherein a young man marries a woman much older than himself, are more rare than those of the other class. They are, perhaps, less deplorable in their physical effects, but still highly reprehensible. They are seldom prompted by pure motives, and can be productive of no good. Children resulting from such unions are notably weak, unbalanced, and sorry specimens of humanity.

We have scarcely referred to the domestic misery which may result from these disgraceful unions. If a young girl is brought home by a widower to preside over his grown-up daughters, perhaps old enough to be her mother, all the elements are provided for such a domestic hell as could only be equaled by circumstances precisely similar. If children are born, neither father nor mother is fit to act the part of a parent to them. The father, by reason of his age, is fitful, uncertain, and childish; to-day too lenient, to-morrow too exacting. The mother is pettish, childish, indulgent, impatient, and as unskilled in government as unfit for motherhood. In the midst of all this misrule, the child grows up undisciplined, uncultivated, unsubdued; a misery to his parents, a disgrace to his friends, a dishonor to himself.

"What shall I do with him? and what will he do with me?" was the question asked by a girl of eighteen whose parents were urging her to marry an old man; and every young woman would do well to propound it under similar circumstances.

Were we disposed to define more specifically the conditions necessary to secure the most harmonious matrimonial unions, it would be useless to do so; for unions of this sort never have been, and never will be—with rare exceptions—formed in accordance with a prescribed method independent of any emotional bias. Nor is it probable that such a plan would result in remedying, in any appreciable degree, existing evils. It is a fact too patent to be ignored that a very large share of the unhappiness in the world arises from ill-mated marriages; but it is also true that nearly the whole of this unhappiness might be averted if the parties themselves would endeavor to lessen the differences between them by mutual approximation.

Courtship.—We cannot well avoid devoting a few paragraphs to a part of the subject so important as this, especially as it affords an opportunity for pointing out some evils too patent and too perilous to be ignored.

Courting, in the sense in which we use the word, is distinctly an American custom. The social laws of other civilized countries are such as to preclude the possibility of the almost unrestrained association of the sexes in youth which we see in this country. We do not offer this fact as an argument in favor of foreign social customs, by any means, although in this one particular they often present great advantages, since in the majority of instances other evils as great or even greater are encouraged. We mention the fact simply for the purpose of bringing into bold relief the evils of the characteristic American looseness in this particular.

A French matron would be horrified at the idea of a young man asking her daughter to accompany him alone on an evening ride, to a lecture, concert, or other place of amusement, and much more should he ask the privilege of sitting up all night in the parlor with the light turned down, after the rest of the family had retired. Among respectable people in France such liberties are not tolerated; and a young man who should propose such things would be dismissed from the house instantly, and would be regarded as unfit for association with virtuous people. If a young man calls upon a young lady for the purpose of making her acquaintance, he sees both her and her mother, or an aunt or older sister. He never sees her alone. If he invites her to ride, or to accompany him to an entertainment of any sort, he must always invite her lady friend also; she goes along at any rate. There is afforded no chance for solitary moonlight strolls or rides, nor any other of the similar opportunities made so common by American courting customs. We are no advocates of the formal modes of contracting matrimonial alliances common among many nations, and illustrations of which we find at all ages of the world. For example, among the ancient Assyrians it was a custom to sell wives to the highest bidder, at auction, the sums received for the handsomer one being given to the less favored ones as a dowry, to secure a husband for every woman. The same custom prevailed in Babylon in ancient times, and has been practiced in modern times in Russia. At St. Petersburg, not many years ago, an annual sale of wives was held on Whit Sunday, after the same plan followed by the Assyrians.

Among the early Jews it seems to have been the custom for parents to select wives for their sons. In the case of Isaac, this important matter was intrusted to an old and experienced servant, who was undoubtedly considered much more competent to select a wife for the young man than he was himself. The same custom has been handed down even to the present time among some oriental nations. In many cases the parties are not allowed to see each other until after the wedding ceremony is completed. The Hungarians often betroth their children while they are yet in their cradles, as did the Mexicans and Brazilians of the last century. In some countries it has even been customary to betroth girls conditionally before they were born. The primitive Moravians seem to have adhered to the ancient Jewish custom in some degree, though making the selection of a wife a matter of chance. The old people did all the courting there was done, which was not much. When a young man desired a wife, a helpmeet was selected for him by casting lots among the marriageable young ladies of the community, and the young man was obliged to abide by the decision, it being supposed that Providence controlled the selection. We are not prepared to say that the young man ran any greater risk of getting an uncongenial or undesirable life companion by this mode of selection than by the more modern modes in vogue among us.

As before remarked, we do not present these customs as illustrations of what might be considered a proper mode of conducting the preliminary steps of matrimonial alliances. On the contrary, we unhesitatingly pronounce them decidedly objectionable on moral grounds if not on others, and we can readily see that such unions must have been in many cases exceedingly unsatisfactory.

In various other countries, marriage customs quite the opposite from those described have been in vogue. In Irving's "Knickerbocker's History of New York," a somewhat humorous account is given of a custom which has prevailed in some parts of this country as well as others, even within the memory of persons living at the present day, and is, indeed, said to be not yet altogether obsolete in Finland. The author, in dwelling upon the social customs of the early Dutch settlers of New York, describes "a singular custom prevalent among them, commonly known by the name of bundling,—a superstitious rite observed by the young people of both sexes, with which they usually terminated their festivities, and which was kept up with religious strictness by the more bigoted part of the community. This ceremony was likewise, in those primitive times, considered as an indispensable preliminary to matrimony, their courtships commencing where ours usually finish,—by which means they acquired that intimate acquaintance with each other's good qualities before marriage, which has been pronounced by philosophers the sure basis of a happy union. Thus early did this cunning and ingenious people display a shrewdness of making a bargain, which has ever since distinguished them."

"To this sagacious custom, therefore, do I chiefly attribute the unparalleled increase of the Yanokie or Yankee race; for it is a certain fact, well authenticated by court records and parish registers, that, wherever the practice of bundling prevailed, there was an amazing number of sturdy brats annually born into the State, without the license of the law, or the benefit of clergy."

Long Courtships.—Chiefly for the reasons presented in the preceding paragraphs, we are opposed to long courtships and long engagements. They are productive of no good, and are not infrequently the occasion of much evil. There may be circumstances which render a prolonged engagement necessary and advisable; but, in general, they are to be avoided.

On the other hand, hasty marriages are still more to be deprecated, especially when, as is too commonly the case, the probability is so great that passion is the actuating motive far more than true love. Marriage is a matter of most serious consequences, and deserving of the most careful deliberation. Too often matrimony is entered upon without any more substantial assurance of happiness as the result than the individual has of securing a valuable prize who buys a ticket in a lottery scheme. In the majority of cases, young people learn more of each other's real character within six weeks after marriage than they discovered during as many months of courting. To every young man and woman we say, Look well before you leap; consider well, carefully, and prayerfully. A leap in the dark is a fearful risk, and will be far more likely to land you in a domestic purgatory than anywhere else. Do not be dazzled by a handsome face, an agreeable address, a brilliant or piquant manner. Choose, rather, modesty, simplicity, sincerity, morality, qualities of heart and mind, rather than exterior embellishments.

"It is folly," suggests a friend, "to give advice on these subjects, for no one will follow advice on this point, no matter how sensible and reasonable he may be on all other subjects. The emotions carry the individual away, and the reason loses control." This is all too true, in nearly all cases. We believe in affection. The emotions have their part to act. We have no sympathy with the theories of those who will have all marriages made by rule. But reason must be allowed a voice in the matter; and although there may be a time when the overwhelming force of the emotions may force the reason and judgment into the background, there has been a time previous when the judgment might have held control. Let every young man and woman be most scrupulously careful how he allows emotional excitement to gain the ascendency. When once reason is stifled, the individual is in a most precarious situation. It is far better and easier to prevent the danger than to escape from it.

Flirtation.—We cannot find language sufficiently emphatic to express proper condemnation of one of the most popular forms of amusement indulged in at the present day in this country, under the guise of innocent association of the sexes. By the majority of people, flirtation is looked upon as harmless, if not useful, as some even consider, claiming that the experience gained by such associations is valuable to young persons, by making them familiar with the customs of society and the ways of the world. We have not the slightest hesitation in pronouncing flirtation as pernicious in the extreme. It exerts a malign influence alike upon the mental, the moral, and the physical constitution of those who indulge it. The young lady who has become infatuated with a passion for flirting, courting the society of young men simply for the pleasure derived from their attentions, is educating herself in a school which will totally unfit her for the enjoyment of domestic peace and happiness should she have all the conditions necessary for such enjoyment other than those which she herself must furnish. More than this, she is very likely laying the foundation for lifelong disease by the dissipation, late hours, late suppers, evening exposures, fashionable dressing, etc., the almost certain accompaniments of the vice we are considering. She is surely sacrificing a life of real true happiness for the transient fascinations of unreal enjoyment, pernicious excitement.

It may be true, and undoubtedly is the case, that the greater share of the guilt of flirtation lies at the door of the female sex; but there do exist such detestable creatures as male flirts. In general, the male flirt is a much less worthy character than the young lady who makes a pastime of flirtation. He is something more than a flirt. In nine cases out of ten, he is a rake as well. His object in flirting is to gratify a mean propensity at the expense of those who are pure and unsophisticated. He is skilled in the arts of fascination and intrigue. Slowly he winds his coils about his victim, and before she is aware of his real character, she has lost her own.

Such wretches ought to be punished in a purgatory by themselves, made seven times hotter than for ordinary criminals. Society is full of these lecherous villains. They insinuate themselves into the drawing-rooms of the most respectable families; they are always on hand at social gatherings of every sort. They haunt the ball-room, the theater, and the church, when they can forward their infamous plans by seeming to be pious. Not infrequently they are well supplied with a stock of pious cant, which they employ on occasion to make an impression. They are the sharks of society, and often seize in their voracious maws the fairest and brightest ornaments of a community. The male flirt is a monster. Every man ought to despise him; and every woman ought to spurn him as a loathsome social leper.

Youthful Flirtations.—Flirting is not confined to young men and women. The contagion extends to little boys and girls, whose heads ought to be as empty of all thoughts of sexual relations as the vacuum of an air-pump of air. The intimate association of young boys and girls in our common schools, and, indeed, in the majority of educational institutions, gives abundant opportunity for the fostering of this kind of a spirit, so prejudicial to healthful mental and moral development. Every educator who is alive to the objects and interests of his profession knows too well the baneful influence of these premature and pernicious tendencies. Many times has the teacher watched with a sad heart the withering of all his hopes for the intellectual progress of a naturally gifted scholar by this blighting influence. The most dangerous period for boys and girls exposed to temptations of this sort is that just following puberty, or between the ages of twelve and eighteen or twenty. This period, a prominent educator in one of our Western States once denominated, not inappropriately, "the agonizing period of human puppyhood." If this critical period is once safely passed, the individual is comparatively safe; but how many fail to pass through the ordeal unseared!

The most painful phase of this subject is the tacit—even, in many cases, active—encouragement which too many parents give their children in this very direction, seemingly in utter ignorance of the enormity of the evil which they are winking at or fostering. Parents need enlightenment on this subject, and need to be aroused to the fact that it is one of the most momentous questions that can arise in the rearing and training of children.

Polygamy.—One hundred years ago the discussion of the public propriety or impropriety of a plurality of wives would have been impossible. Polygamy had not obtained a foothold as an institution in any civilized land. Being well known as not uncommon among certain heathenish and barbarous tribes, it was looked upon as a heathenish and debasing institution, the outgrowth of ignorance and gross sensuality, and a relic of a sensual age. Now, this is no longer true. Even in this, the most enlightened of all lands, where there are most ample facilities for culture, for moral and mental development, polygamy holds up its hideous head in defiance of all the laws of God and man. It is true that the perpetrators of this foul crime against humanity and Heaven have been driven by the indignation of outraged decency to seek a lurking place in the far-off wilderness of the Western territories; yet the foul odors from this festering sore are daily becoming more and more putrescent, and in spite of the distance, are contaminating the already not overstrict morals of the nation.

No better evidence of the blighting, searing effect of this gross social crime could be found than the fact that not only is polygamy coming to be winked at as something not so very bad after all, but men from whom we have a right to expect something better are coming forward in its defense.

We have just been perusing a work written for the express purpose of justifying and advocating polygamy, which was written by an evangelical clergyman. He was evidently not willing to own his work, however, since his name is carefully excluded from the title-page, and his publisher put under an oath of secrecy. The arguments which he makes in favor of polygamy are chiefly the following:—

1. That it is approved by the Bible.

2. That a robust man requires more than one woman to satisfy his sexual demands.

3. That there are more women than men; and since every woman has a right to have a husband, the only way all can be supplied is to allow several women, two or more, according to the capacity of the man, or as they can agree, to form a marriage partnership with one man.

4. That the great men of all ages have been polygamists in fact, if not by open profession.

5. That monogamy is a relic of the paganism of the ancient Greeks and Romans, with whom it originated.

6. That it is the only proper and effective cure for the "social evil," and all its attendant vices and dire diseases.

As this work has had quite a circulation, bearing the imprint of a well-known Boston publisher, and has not received any answer that we are aware of, we deem it worth while to give these arguments, which are very strongly presented, at least a brief passing notice. We will consider them in the order in which we have stated them.

1. We deny most emphatically the assertion that polygamy is either taught or approved by the Bible. It was tolerated in a people who had long been in the darkness of Egyptian bondage, but never approved. Indeed, the inspired writers have evidently taken pains to give numerous examples of the evils growing out of that violation of the law of God and Nature.

2. The second argument is based upon the asserted fact that man naturally possesses stronger sexual demands than woman; that these demands are imperative; and that it is not only impossible, but in the highest degree injurious, to restrain them.

While it is true as a fact affirmed by constant observation that men have stronger passions than women, in general, and that many men demand of their wives a degree of sexual indulgence which is the cause of serious injury to them, and even impossible for them to grant without doing themselves the greatest wrong, it is by no means proven either that these demands are imperative, that they are natural, or that they are not injurious to the man as well as the woman, much less beneficial to either. On the contrary, there is as great a weight of evidence as could be required that restraint, self-control, and moderation in the exercise of the sexual instinct is in the highest degree beneficial to man, as well as to woman, and necessary for his highest development.

3. While it is true that there are a few more adult women than men, the difference is not sufficiently great to require the introduction of polygamy as a remedy for enforced celibacy. At any rate this would be unnecessary until all bachelors had been provided with wives, when there would be found no necessity for further provision, since there are large numbers of women who are utterly unfit to marry, who would be injured by so doing, and would only serve to degenerate the race, besides making themselves more wretched than they already are.

Again, it is a well-known fact that more males than females are born, the preponderance of adult females being caused by a greater mortality among male children, together with the losses from accidents and war. By a correct observance of the laws of health, together with the abolition of wars, the disparity in relative numbers of the sexes would disappear. Indeed, it might happen that men would be in the preponderance.

Still again, it is only in a few very populous and long-settled communities that there are more women than men, as in the States of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and a few others of the Eastern States, and a few countries of Europe. In all newly settled countries the reverse is true. The inquiry naturally arises, What shall be done under these circumstances? Shall a woman be allowed more than one husband, as is actually the case in some countries? "Oh! no;" our polygamist replies, "A woman is not capable of loving more than one man, and is not even able to satisfy the sexual demands of a single husband; so, of course, a plurality of husbands is out of the question. A man is capable of loving any number of women, being differently constituted from a woman; and so the same rule does not apply."

The writer evidently confounds love with lust. He will grant unstinted reign to the lusts of man, but requires woman to be restrained, offering as an apology for such a manifest unfair and unphilosophical discrimination that "man is differently constituted from a woman, sexually, requiring more active exercise of the sexual functions," a conclusion which could be warranted only by the selection, as a typical specimen of the male part of humanity, of a man with an abnormal development of the animal propensities.

A correct understanding and application of the laws of sexual hygiene would effectually sweep away every vestige of argument based on this foundation.

4. In proof of the propriety of polygamy, as well as of its necessity, the author referred to cites the well-known fact that Plato, Aristotle, Bacon, Alexander, CÆsar, Napoleon, Burns, Byron, Augustus, Webster, and numerous others of the noted men of all ages have been incontinent men. The fact that these men were guilty of crime does not in the least degree detract from the enormity of the sin. It is equally true that many great men have been addicted to intemperance and other crimes. Alexander was a Sodomite as well as a lecherous rake. Does this fact afford any proof that those crimes are virtues instead of vices? Such argument is hardly worthy of serious refutal, since it stultifies itself.

5. The fact that monogamy was practiced among the ancient Greeks and Romans is in no way derogatory of it as an institution. Even if it could be shown that it originated with those nations, still this would in no way detract from its value or respectability. Do not we owe much to those grand old pagans who laid the foundation for nearly all the modern sciences, and established better systems of political economy, and better schools for uniform culture of the whole individual, than any the world has seen since? But monogamy did not originate with the Greeks, neither was it invented by the Romans, nor by any other nation. It originated with the great Originator of the human race. It is an institution which has come down to us, not from Greece or Rome, but from Paradise.

If it was so important that man should have more than one woman to supply his sexual demands, why was the Creator so short-sighted as to make but one Eve? It would have been as easy to remove two or three or half a dozen ribs from Adam's side as one; and as the whole world had yet to be populated, a plurality of wives would certainly have accelerated the process. Surely, if polygamy was ever required or excusable, it ought to have been allowed at the start.

Again, when Noah went into the ark, taking with him an assortment of all species of animals, he took some kinds by pairs and some by sevens, from which we might suspect, at least, that he observed the laws of nature respecting polygamous and monogamous animals. But he took only one wife for himself, and only one for each of his sons. Why not two or half a dozen instead? Polygamy would certainly have accelerated the repopulation of the earth most wonderfully; but Noah was monogamous. To say, in view of such facts, that monogamy originated with the paganism of ancient Greece and Rome, is blasphemy.

6. The argument that polygamy will cure the "social evil" is exactly equivalent to the argument that the removal of all restraint from the sale and manufacture of intoxicating drinks, thus making them cheap and common, is the best remedy for intemperance. An equally good argument might be made for the cure of theft, murder, and every other vice and crime, by a similar plan. Such reasoning is the veriest sophistry. None but a biased mind could produce such flimsy arguments.

But we forbear. We have already given this subject more attention than it is worthy of, though we have failed to characterize the vice of polygamy as it deserves. We leave this for the reader.

Polyandry.—Perhaps we should add a word or two respecting this custom, which seems to be a still greater outrage against nature than that of polygamy, being the possession of a plurality of husbands by one woman. This practice is in vogue in several countries at the present time, being very common in Thibet, where it is not an unusual thing for a woman in marrying the eldest of a family of brothers to include in the contract all of the other brothers as well. Polyandry was also common among the ancient Medes. Indeed, the Medes practiced both polygamy and polyandry. A man was not considered respectable unless he had at least seven wives; neither were women considered worthy of general esteem unless they had as many as five husbands. In that country, the fact that a woman was already married was in no degree a barrier to subsequent marriages, even while the husband was living, and without the trouble of a divorce. Those who maintain the propriety of polygamy would do well to consider the historic facts respecting the opposite practice. There appear to be as good grounds for believing one to have a basis in the human constitution as the other.

Divorce.—Another of the crying evils of the day, and one which menaces in a most alarming manner the most sacred interests of society, is the facility with which divorces may be obtained. In some States the laws regulating divorce are so notoriously loose that scores and even hundreds of people visit the States referred to every year with no other object than to obtain a dissolution of the bonds of matrimony. The effect of this looseness in the laws is to encourage hasty, inconsiderate marriages, and to make escape from an uncongenial partner so easy that the obligation to cultivate forbearance and to acquire mutual adaptation which may not at first exist, is wholly overlooked.

The Bible rule for divorce, laid down by the Great Teacher, is little regarded in these degenerate days. He made adultery the only legitimate cause for divorce; yet we now see married people breaking asunder their solemn marriage ties on the occurrence of the most trivial difficulties. If a couple become tired of each other and desire a change, all they have to do is to forward the fee to a New York or Chicago lawyer, and they will receive back in a short time the legal papers duly signed, granting them the desired annulment of their vows.

Although countenanced by human laws, there can be no doubt that this shameless trifling with a divine institution is regarded by High Heaven as the vilest abomination. In no direction is there greater need of reformatory legislation than in this. The marriage contract should be recognized in our laws as one which cannot be made and broken so lightly as it now is. It should be annulled only for the most serious offenses. The contrary course now pursued so frequently is most detrimental to morals. Our divorce laws virtually offer a premium for unchastity.

Not infrequently we see among the advertisements in the newspapers notices like the following: "The undersigned is prepared to furnish divorces to parties desiring the same at moderate rates, in short time, and without publicity. —— ——."

The animus of these advertisements is fraud. The parties so engaged are the vilest scoundrels; and that they are allowed to continue to ply their nefarious vocation is a foul blot upon the enlightened civilization of a so-called Christian country. A publisher who will insert such a notice in his journal, would advertise a brothel if he dared. While there is so much interest in the suppression of obscene literature, we would suggest that the proper authorities should direct their attention to the suppression of unlawful divorces, and the proper punishment of the villains engaged in forwarding this nefarious business.

Who May not Marry.—Many writers devote much space in laying down rules which are to be implicitly followed by those seeking life partners. We have attempted nothing of the sort, both from its impracticability, and from the fact that such rules are never followed; and if the attempt should be made to follow the prescribed rules, we are not sure that more good than harm would be the result. Hence, we shall content ourselves with calling attention to a few facts of great importance respecting the conditions which imperatively forbid marriage, and which cannot be violated without the certain entailment of great suffering.

1. Persons suffering with serious disease of a character communicable to others by contagion or by hereditary transmission.

Many people wonder why it is that diseases are so much more numerous and varied in modern times than in the earlier ages of the race. There has been an evident increase within a few centuries. While there are, undoubtedly, numerous influencing causes, one which cannot be overlooked is the hereditary transmission of disease, which preserves those disorders which already exist, and adds new ones which originate from new exciting causes. By this means, the human race is undoubtedly being weakened, human life shortened, and diseases multiplied. Compare the average age of human beings of the present day, less than forty years, with the longevity of the early members of the race, who lived more than as many score of years. Some mighty deteriorating influence has been at work; and we hazard nothing in the assertion that the marriage of diseased persons and kindred violations of the laws of human hygiene have been not unimportant factors in producing this most appalling diminution in the length of human life.

Among the diseases which are most certain to be transmitted are pulmonary tuberculosis, or consumption, syphilis, cancer, leprosy, epilepsy, and some other nervous disorders, some forms of skin disease, and insanity. The list might be extended; but these are the more common. Persons suffering with these disorders have no right to marry, for at least four reasons:—

(1) It is a sin against the offspring of such unions, who have a right to be born well, but are forced to come into the world with weakly constitutions, diseased frames, and the certainty of premature death. The children of consumptive and syphilitic parents rarely survive infancy. If they do, it is only to suffer later on, as they surely will, and, perhaps, to communicate the same destructive diseases to other human beings; but these diseases rarely extend beyond the third generation, the line becoming extinct. The most heart-rending spectacles we have ever met have been the children of parents suffering with the diseases mentioned. Their appearance is characteristic; no physician of experience can fail to detect the sins of a profligate parent in a syphilitic child. Every feature indicates the presence of a blighting curse.

There are those who assert that a man who has suffered with disease of the character last mentioned may marry after the lapse of two or three years from the disappearance of the active symptoms of the malady. Such assertions we consider as most dangerous and pernicious. The individuals who make them are well acquainted with the fact that of all diseases this is the most difficult to eradicate when once the system has become thoroughly infected by it. Not only three years but thirty years may elapse after active symptoms disappear, yet the disease may break out again in a new and still more serious and complicated form. It may even lie entirely dormant or latent in the system of the parent during his lifetime, but break out in all its terrible destructiveness in his children. A man or woman who has once suffered with this fell disease is contaminated for life; and it is a crime for such an one to entail upon innocent, unoffending human beings such a terrible legacy. Such a person has no right to marry; or if married, has no right to perpetuate the results of his sins in offspring. It is never safe to say to a man who has once been infected that he is cured. If a cure ever takes place, it is exceedingly rare.

(2) It is a crime against the race. One of the primary objects of marriage is reproduction. As members of the human race, it is the duty of parents to produce a high type of human beings, at least to do all in their power to produce healthy offspring. If they cannot do this, and are aware of the fact, they are guilty of abuse of the reproductive function in bringing sickly offspring into the world to suffer.

(3) It is injurious to the contracting parties themselves. If a person has a communicable disease, as syphilis, leprosy, and some bad forms of skin disease, the disease will certainly be communicated to the wife or husband, and so a double amount of suffering will be entailed. The dread disease, consumption, rightly called the scourge of civilization, is now well known to be communicable. A few years ago we were consulted by an old gentleman, a native of Canada, who was suffering with pulmonary disease. We inquired respecting the history of the malady. Said he, "Doctor, it may seem strange, but I believe I inherited consumption from my wife, who died of consumption a few years ago." Excepting the wrong use of the term inherit, we were not prepared to dispute the old gentleman's ideas respecting the origin of his disease. Living in close association for years with his wife, who was slowly dying with disease of the lungs, it was quite possible for him to have received the disease from her. So many cases of this kind have been reported that it is now generally believed by medical men that consumption is communicable from one person to another by the reception into the system of the well person of the exhalations from the lungs of the person affected.

Another point worthy of mention here is the well-known fact that the intimate association of married people modifies even the physical form of both. Almost every one has noticed how much alike in appearance married people who have lived many years together come to be. This physical change undoubtedly extends further than to the features only. The whole constitution is modified.

A remarkable illustration of this fact is found in the frequent observation that the children of a woman by a second husband often resemble in appearance the first husband much more than their own father. It has been observed that the children of negro women, even by husbands of pure negro blood, are much lighter in color than usual if she has had a child by a white man previously.

The same fact is observed in lower animals. In England, some years ago, a cross was effected between a male zebra and several young mares. Not only the hybrid colts resulting from this union, but all the colts afterward foaled by the same mares, from other horses, were striped like the zebra.

In view of these facts, it is evident that the system of the woman, at least, may be profoundly affected in a similar manner by constitutional weaknesses, as well as by other individual peculiarities possessed by her husband.

No person suffering with a contagious or infectious disease has any right to communicate the same to another. Indeed, it is the moral duty of every person so affected to do all in his power for the protection of others from the same cause of suffering.

2. Persons having a marked hereditary tendency to disease must not marry those having a similar tendency.

Every physician knows only too well the powerful influence of hereditary causes in determining the length of human life. Persons, one or both of whose parents have died of consumption, are very likely to die of the same disease, and frequently at about the same age. The children of such parents are commonly feeble and puny, and die early if they survive infancy. When both parents possess the consumptive tendency, the chance for life in the offspring is very poor indeed. The same may be said of those suffering with cancer, epilepsy, insanity, etc. Persons with a strong tendency to any one of the diseases mentioned should in no case marry. If there is but a slight morbid tendency, marriage may be admissible, but only with a partner possessing robust health.

3. Should cousins marry?

Writers have devoted a good deal of attention to this subject, and we have been shown statistics, reports of imbecile asylums, etc., for the purpose of proving that the marriage of cousins results in the production of idiots, and other defectives; but the results of more careful examinations of the subject invalidate the views heretofore held, and it must be acknowledged that when both parties are healthy there is no more liability of mental incompetency in the children of cousins, than in the offspring of persons more remotely related. It must be added, however, that there are other reasons why the marriage of cousins is not to be generally recommended. Besides the fact that the feeling existing between cousins is often only that which is felt by brothers and sisters for each other, there is the still more important fact that on account of the blood relation, unions of this kind are more apt than others to bring together persons having similar morbid tendencies.

4. Persons having serious congenital deformities should not marry.

The reason for this rule is obvious. Persons suffering with serious congenital defects, as natural blindness, deafness, deformity of the limbs, or defective development of any part, will be more or less likely to transmit the same deformities or deficiencies to their children. There are, of course, cases of natural blindness, as well as of disability in other respects, to which this rule does not apply, the natural process of development not being seriously defective. It has even been observed that there is a slight tendency to the reproduction in the offspring, of deformity which has been artificially produced in the parents, and has existed for a long time.

Many ancient nations observed this rule. Infants born cripples were strangled at birth or left to die. A Spartan king was once required by his people to pay a heavy fine for taking a wife who was inferior in size.

5. Criminals should not marry.

It has been satisfactorily shown by thorough and scientific investigation that criminals often receive their evil proclivities from their parents. What are known as the criminal classes, which are responsible for the greater part of the crime committed, are constantly and greatly on the increase. There is no doubt but that inheritance is largely responsible for the continued increase of crime and criminals. A drunkard begets in his child a thirst for liquor, which is augmented by the mother's use of ale or lager during gestation and nursing, and the child enters the world with a natural taste for intoxicants. A thief transmits to his offspring a secretive, dishonest, sneaking disposition; and the child comes into the world ticketed for the State prison by the nearest route. So with other evil tendencies. By legislation or by some other means, measures should be speedily adopted for the prevention of this rapid increase of criminals, if there is any feasible plan which can be adopted. We offer no suggestion on this point, but it is one well worthy of the consideration of philanthropic statesmen.

6. Persons who are greatly disproportionate in size should not marry.

While good taste would suggest the propriety of this rule, there are important physiological reasons for its observance. While the lack of physical adaptitude may be the occasion of much suffering and unhappiness in such unions, especially on the part of the wife, being even productive of most serious local disease, and sometimes of sterility, it is in childbirth that the greatest risk and suffering is incurred. More might be said on this point, but this is sufficient for those who are willing to profit by a useful hint.

7. Persons between whom there is great disparity of age should not marry.

The reasons for this have already been given at length, and we will not repeat. In general, the husband should be older than the wife, from two to five years. The husband may often be ten or twelve years the senior of the wife; but when more than that, the union is not likely to be a profitable or happy one, if it is not absolutely productive of suffering and unhappiness. The ancient Greeks required that the husband should be twenty years older than the wife; but this custom was no more reasonable than that of another nation which required that only old and young should marry, so that the sobriety of the old might restrain the frivolity of the young.

8. Persons who are extremely unlike in temperament should not marry.

Persons who are so unlike in temperament and tastes as to have no mutual enjoyments, no congeniality of feeling, will be incompatible as husband and wife, and the union of such persons will be anything but felicitous. No definite rule can be laid down; but those seeking a companion for life would do well to bear this caution in mind, at the same time remembering that too great similarity of character, especially when there are prominent defects, is equally undesirable.

9. Marriage between widely different races is unadvisable.

While there is no moral precept directly involved in marriage between widely different nations, as between whites and blacks or Indians, experience shows that such marriages are not only not conducive to happiness, but are detrimental to the offspring. It has been proven beyond room for question that mulattoes are not so long-lived as either blacks or whites.

10. Persons who are unable to sustain themselves or a family should not marry.

Both moral and social obligations—if the two obligations may exist independently—forbid marriage to a young man who is scarcely able to provide for himself, much less to support a wife and a family. The theory advocated by some that two can live almost as cheaply as one, so that a saving will be made by a union of two in marriage, is a most fallacious one. There may be occasional exceptions, but in general, young people who marry with this idea in their heads find that they have reasoned not wisely. It will not be disputed that a married couple may live upon what is often spent foolishly by a young man; but a young man can be economical if he will; and if he does not learn economy before marriage, it is likely that he never will learn it.

The marriage of paupers, to beget pauper children and foist them upon the community for support, is an outrage against society. We believe it is not improper to speak out plainly upon this subject, and in no uncertain tone, notwithstanding the popular prejudice which cries, "Hush, be quiet; don't interfere with individual rights, don't disturb the peace of society," whenever anything is said which has a bearing on a regard for propriety in matters relating to one of the most ancient, the most sacred, and the most abused of all divinely appointed human institutions. We have never been able to account for this strange averseness to the consideration of this phase of the matrimonial question, and the determined effort often made to ignore it whenever it is broached. We purpose to speak out, notwithstanding the feeling referred to, since we believe this to be a crying evil; and we have no fears but that we shall have the hearty indorsement of every individual who can so far lay aside his prejudices as to allow his native common sense a fair chance to influence his judgment.

In the country of Iceland, a land which is scarcely more than semi-civilized, if a young man wishes to marry, the first thing to be considered is his pecuniary situation. Before he can take to himself a wife, he must appear before the proper authority and present evidence that he is able to support a wife and family in addition to providing for himself. Even the barbarous natives of Patagonia show an equal degree of good sense, the chief of each tribe requiring that every young man who wishes to marry shall first prove himself competent to provide for a family, having attained the requisite degree of proficiency in hunting and fishing, and having possessed himself of at least two horses and the necessary equipments.

In this country,—a civilized, so-called Christian country, blessed with all the enlightenment of the nineteenth century, what do we see? Instead of any regulation of the sort, the utmost indifference to such clearly important considerations. If young people profess to love each other and wish to marry, no one of their friends thinks of asking, "How are they going to live after they are married? Has the young man a trade? Has the young lady been so educated as to be self-sustaining if necessary? Has the young man a home or the wherewithal to obtain one? Has he a good situation, with prospects of being able to support his wife comfortably and provide for a family?" These, or similar questions are sometimes asked, but little respect is paid to them by any one, least of all by the young people themselves, who ought to be most interested. The minister never inquires respecting the propriety of the wedding at which he is to officiate, and invokes the blessings of Heaven upon a union which, for aught he knows, may be the grossest violation of immutable laws, Heaven-implanted in the constitution of the human race. The friends tender their congratulations and wishes of "much joy," when in three cases out of four the conditions are such that a preponderance of grief is an inevitable certainty, and "much joy" an utter impossibility.

There are exceptions to all general rules; but it is a fact of which almost any one may convince himself that a man or a woman seldom rises much higher than the level reached at marriage. If a young man has no trade then, it is more than probable that he will never be master of one. If he has not fitted himself for a profession, he will most likely never attain to such a rank in society. He will, in all probability, be a common laborer, living "from hand to mouth," with nothing laid by for a rainy day.

A wag says that a young couple just married, and for the first time awakened to the full consciousness of the fact that they must provide for themselves or starve, held the following dialogue: Husband. "Well, wife, what are we going to do? How shall we live?" Wife. "Oh, my dear, we shall get along very well, I am sure; you love me, don't you?" H. "Certainly, dear, but we cannot live on love." W. "We can live on bread and water; so long as we have each other, it doesn't matter much what we have to eat." "That's so, my dear; well, you furnish the bread, and I will skirmish around after the water." This exact dialogue may never have taken place; but the circumstances which might have called it out have occurred thousands of times. How many times has a dependent woman who had hastily married an improvident husband awakened at the end of a short honeymoon to find that she had only a limber stick or a broken reed to lean upon, instead of a self-reliant, independent, self-sustaining man, able to provide for her the comforts of a home and to protect her from the rudeness and suffering of privation and want.

In our estimation it is as much a sin for a man to assume the obligation of caring for a wife and family when he has no reasonable grounds for believing himself able to do so, as for a man to go in debt a few hundreds or thousands of dollars, and agree to pay the same when required, though perfectly well aware that he will probably be unable to do so. Hence we say again, with emphasis, the improvident should not marry; and we shall insist upon urging this truth, notwithstanding the fact that the very class of persons referred to are usually of all classes the most anxious to enter the matrimonial state at the earliest possible moment, and the most certain to bring into the world large families of children still more improvident than themselves.

11. Do not marry a person whose moral character will not bear the closest scrutiny.

By this we do not mean that absolute perfection should be required, as this would interdict marriage altogether; but we wish to warn every young man against marrying a young woman who treats lightly or contemptuously matters which should be treated with profound respect; who uses the name of Deity flippantly or rudely; who treats her parents disrespectfully; who never cares to talk of subjects of a spiritual nature; who is giddy, gay, dressy, thoughtless, fickle. Such a young woman will never make a loving, patient, faithful, helpful wife.

We wish also to warn every young woman against choosing for a husband a man who has a strong leaning toward infidelity; who does not believe in human responsibility; who makes a mock of religion; who is addicted to profanity; who is either grossly intemperate or given to moderate tippling, be it ever so little, so long as he does not believe in and practice total abstinence; who uses tobacco; who is a jockey, a fop, a loafer, a scheming dreamer, or a speculator; who is known to be unchaste, or who has led a licentious life.

The man who has no love for his Maker will be likely to have little for his wife and children. He who does not acknowledge his responsibility to a higher power will soon forget his obligations to the wife he has promised to love and cherish. The man who is not willing to sacrifice the gratification afforded by such pernicious habits as dram-drinking and tobacco-using to insure the comfort and happiness of his wife and children, is too selfish to make any woman a kind husband.

There is no greater error abroad than that held by not a few that "a reformed rake makes the best husband." The man whose affections have been consumed in the fires of unhallowed lust is incapable of giving to a pure-minded woman the love that she expects and deserves. A person cannot pass through the fire unscathed. The scars burned into the character by the flames of concupiscence are as deep and lasting as those inflicted upon the body, and even more so. Only "in the regeneration" will the marks and scars of the reformed reprobate be wholly effaced.

We willingly grant that there have been numerous instances in which noble women have by years of patient effort reformed their erring husbands, restoring them to the paths of virtue and sobriety from which they had wandered. We do not deny that it can be done again; but we do not hesitate to say that the experiment is a most perilous one for any woman to undertake, and one which not more than one woman in a hundred can bring to a successful termination. The hazard is terrible. Perhaps it is on this very account that many young women run the risk; but they rarely understand what they are doing. The woman who marries a drunkard will, ten chances to one, die a heart-broken drunkard's wife, or follow her husband to a drunkard's grave. It is never safe for a woman to marry a man who has been for years an habitual drunkard, since he may relapse at any time; and the man who has only indulged moderately should be thoroughly reformed and tested before the chances are taken "for better or worse." Let him prove himself well first. A proposition to reform on condition of marriage should be dismissed with disdain. If a young man will not determine to do right because it is right, his motives are sordid; and the probability is very great that so soon as some stronger incentive appeals to his selfishness, he will forget his vows and promises and relapse into his former vices.

Do Not Be in a Hurry.—In conclusion, perhaps we could give no more important advice than this: Do not be in a hurry to marry. There is little danger that this advice will do harm, for ten illustrations of the evil results of hasty marriage are seen to one in which the opposite mistake is made. It rarely happens that a marriage made without consideration and due deliberation on the part of both parties is a happy one in its results. There are exceptional cases in which this kind of matrimonial alliances result very satisfactorily; but these cases are quite exceptional. The business of selecting a partner for life, one who is expected to sustain the closest relation possible between human beings, who must be prepared to share in another's sorrows as well as joys, to sympathize with another's aspirations and appreciate another's motives and sentiments,—such a task is certainly one of the most serious of an individual's life and ought to be entered upon with calmness, deliberation, and unbiased judgment and entire self-control. When making a decision which must affect seriously an individual's whole life-time, passion, caprice, and all motives calculated to bias the judgment, should be laid aside. The happiness and usefulness of a whole life-time may be marred by a word. There is too much pending to be in a hurry.

A certain philosopher once "compared a man about to marry to one who was about to put his hand into a sack in which were ninety-nine serpents and one eel; the moral of which is that there are ninety-nine chances to one against a fortunate selection." If this is true of a man about to marry, it is probably equally true that a woman under the same circumstances has nine hundred and ninety-nine chances against, for one in favor of, a fortunate selection.