OCR Interpretation


New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, February 07, 1894, Image 1

Image and text provided by Minnesota Historical Society; Saint Paul, MN

Persistent link: http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn89081128/1894-02-07/ed-1/seq-1/

What is OCR?


Thumbnail for

CRIME AND ITS REMEDY.
An Original Article for the Review by
Lady Cook, nee Tennessee Olaflin.
Ciime lias been loosely defined as an
offense punishable by law, but there may
be crimen of which the law has no
cogni/.ance. Laws are of many kinds,
natuial, political, civil, domestic, and so
on. As Montesqieu says. '-The sublim
ity of human reason consists in perfectly
knowing to which of those orders the
things that are to be determined ought
to have a piincipal lelation and not to
throw into confusion those principles
•which should gov in mankind For
instance, we ought not to decide by di
\m laws what should be decided by
human laws, nor deteimine by human
•what should be determined by divine
Jaws. These t.vo sorts of laws differ in
their origin, in theii object and in their
nature." All laws should be protective,
even when punitive, and all just law has
one of two designs—the protection of
the community or the protection of the
individual. Yet these foim but one
ultimate object—the protection of all.
So that it would be a paralogism to as
set that the good of the
individual ought to give way to that of
the public, for "the public good consists
in every one having that pioperty which
was given him by tho civil laws, invari
ably pre^eived." Also the duty to one's
selt is stiongei than the duty to the com
munity. And as the law of nature is
supenor to all human laws, so "self-de
fence is duty supenor to eveiy precept."
If we vvuie to puisue the objects, we
should line1 that laws have been some
times more ciiminal than the offences
against which they were directed that
they have been fiequently used man
ufactuie enme in those who have neither
mjuied the individual nor the commuity,
that even benefh ent actions have b-en
tieated as public offences and that
public offences and piivate injuries of
thcgiavcst ehaiactei have been complete
ly overlooked. The field, howevei, is so
wide that wo can only glance at it as we
pass on.
Imaginary offences, as sorcery and
witchciaft, have been treated a« dimes,
scientific discoveries and mechanical aits
liav met with the same fate, the opinioss
of the minonty have always been heteio
do\, and heteiodoxy has invariably been
punished in some loim or another. Men
and women were burnt alive for theii
hfii mle^s theological beliefs, when thieves
and muideieis were only branded. So
that we cannot always judge of the good
or evil of a thing, or even of its magni
tude, by calling it crime 01 no crime. It
is ue that we do not burn a man now
foi Ins belief. We only ostiacise him
If the process should min him, so much
the woise for the man, but why could he
not am to believe like ouiselves?
In the limited space of this paper, my
lerlections must be nairowed to a point
or two. I shall bnefly call attention to
conduct that? constitutes a ciime against
society and against individuals, although
it ii not to be found in our Statutes.
If to poison one person be an infamous
ciime—and no one questions it—what
shall be said of him who poisons a mult
itude, who entails untold suffeiings upon
innocent and defenceless generations
who for his own wanton gratification
gives life to another whom he knows
will be cuised with hereditaiy disease
and piemature death? If we were not so
blinded as we aie by customs and self
ishness, we should legaid such an one as
a monstei of dejiiavitj. Daily we see
those in whose blood some honible dis
sease links, many and multiply with
light heaits and eas} consciences. Friends
and relations look on ?ppiovingly,
lievuends and Iiight Reveiends give
then I cnedictions Remonstiate, and
thej answei, they leave it all to Piovid
ence, as though blasphemy could excuse
pitmeiliiatcd guilt. Do they expect to
gathei giapes fiom thoins and figs fiom
thistles1' Weie society wise, it would
minimize ciime of this natuie.
Foi what .peril to posterity can be
gieattr than thus to poison the river of
life at its source? What other crime can
equal this wholesale dissemination of
well-nigh ineradicable disease among the
countless sufferers who follow after, to
whom the gift of life comes as a curse
doweied with evil. Minds and bodies
that should have been radiant with joy
and beauty are befouled, deformed blast
ed, dragged down to unutterable depths
of misery and agony. Existence, which
comes to each but once, for these had
better never come at all. We picture
them, like one of old, loathsome, ulcerat-
ed without and within, sitting in the
ashes of all their spiritual asphations
and human hopes, and we, too, are al
most tempted to exclaim, "It is better to
curse God and die."
In the presence of such a crime, so
common and widespread how can we be
silent? The lawrs are silent. Our moral
and religious teachers are dumb "dogs."
Society, with its cant and hypocrisy,
turns up its eyes in pious terror at the
mere mention of the subject. As though
it could bp indelicate to diagnose any
form of disease, or one more than enoth
er or as if no depravity should be rem
edially discussed*if it happen to be sex
ual. But if we remember that the sect
of the Pharisee is not extinct, we also
bear in mind that in all ages there have
been fearless teachers who refused to
hide the truth, and humbly following
in their steps we have dared to "cry
'aloud and spare not."
An excellent writer long ago said,
"Truth is, in everything, not only the
shortest, but the only road to excellence
—the only foundation on which every
thing permanent can ever be raised, and
all ways of evading, slighting, or oppos
ing it are, in fact, only loss of time and
hindrance of business in the affairs of
men.
The marriages of the physically unfit
foim only a part of the wedded evil.
Loveless mamages are answerable for
much. It is vvirh us now as it was in
France before the Revolution. "Persons
of the an of nobles were found vile
enough to accept in mairiage, and to
bestow the name of wife on those whose
conduct as well as bhth, would other
wise have denied them an entrance into
Society. Sometimes the same disgrace
ful bargain was made with those of their
own rank, who found a more honorable
establishment difficult. The husband
saciificiug at one his honour and his
rights at the church door, was sent to
eat the wages of his base compliance in
a distant provincial town. Here his title
and his money soon procured him the
good gi aces of some provincial beauty,
who consoled him for the contempt with
which he had been treated elsewhere and
whose husband imitated his own exam
ple of forbeaiance and submission. The
sacrifice of youth and beauty was often
made, and made without remonstrance
to deformity, to age, and, even to im
becihty. among peisons equal in birth
when one of the parties had lo offer
the wealth or brilliant existence in soci
ety which was wanting to the other."
We aie cheated by words, for these
unnatuial unions are not "The Editor of
Madame du Deffaud's Letters."
mairiages. True mariiage is a spiritual
and mental exosmose and endosmose,
each gives of its own to each until both
are alike. It is a natural and spontan
eou& union of ideas, aims, and sympath
les. And where these exist, lites and
ceremonies are superfluous, Tbey can
neither give nor take away. For the
marriage ceremony is not marriage, but
it is meiely the public profession of an
accomplished fact, otherwise it is moral
ly fraudulent. And if marriage does
not precede the ceremony, no real mar
iiage exists.
It is because we attach to the word
what rightly belongs to the things, that
an act of nature is stigmatized as a
crime.
When women prompted by their own
affectionate and generous instincts and
regardless of ceremonies have become
mothers, our social Juggernaut crushes
them lemorsefully. It brands them as
outcasts, and thus they hang, drown or
piostitute themselves. Holocausts of
little ones,innocent as those of Bethlehem
aie annually sacrificed to the feai of the
wooden God. What, say you, would
you peimit "natural" childien among
us? Most ceitainly. All childien aie
natuial except the offspring of enforced
and unnatural mairiages.
It is evident to all observers that the
piudent and wise are cautious in the ex
elcise of their creative powers, whereas
the least fit are the most reckless of con
sequences. Their criminal folly is thus
perpetuated as well as its evils. Who
then, it may be asked shall judge as to
fitness? We reply that a jury composed
of doctors of both sexes could on con
sultation easily decide as to a man's
general capacity for marriage. If it be
said that the unrestricted association of
the sexes would increase immorality, we
deny it and affirm the contrary. Doctors
for instance, are not more immoral than
others, yet they are brought into much
closer intimacy with their female patients
These things are regulated by habit and
self-respect.
Mature sterilizes women of immoral
lives. Immoral men should be sterilized
also, but this can only be done by artifi
cial means. Jesus said, "Some are born
punuchs, some are made eunuchs, and
others have become eunuchs for the king
dom of Heaven's sake." The saintly
Origen emasculated himself. What has
been done from religion, luxury, or
choice, may be done again from necessi
ty. It might easily be made a physical
impossibility for criminals, hereditary
paupers, profligates, and others suffering
from gross bodily or mental defects to
propagate their failings and their vices.
The scientific improvement of our race
is one of the gj eat measures of the future,
and will be taken in hand as soon as the
nation is sufficiently enlightened as to its
necessity We cannot go on for ever
permitting swarms of weak and depraved
creatures to flood society with lunatics,
idiots, criminals, and other defective off
spring. Their maintenance and control
alone constitute a serious menace to the
welfare of the industrious and deserving
pool. Their contagious and vicious ex
ample outweighs the efforts of mission
aiies and reformers, who aie, as it were,
for ever rolling a Si&yphean stone. We
banish or isolate physical leprosy, which
once abounded in this island, and thus
extirpete it. Moral leprosy may have to
be subjected to similar treatment.
The Spartans afforded a remarkable
instance of what could be done by selec
tion, careful breeding, and systematic
education. A little State of a few thou
sand citizens overawed Greece and de
fied the countless hosts of Persia. Mar
athon, Salamis, and Plataea ring out clear
and spirit stirring after the lapse of twen
ty-four centuries.
The early Romans retained much of
the Lacedaemonians' spirit. They took
especial pains to preserve purity of blood.
When Cato lent his wife toHortensius, it
was from no immoral motive, but from
a high sense of public duty. Hortensius
was a "goodly man," his physical anc
mental excellencies were appreciated by
his friend, and therefore he selected him
as his deputy to raise up children to the
State. And Cato is esteemed a model
citizen and atriot. One of the greatest
punishments inflicted on the Romans
was the withdrawal of the privilege of
lending their wives.
Spartan and Roman requirements dif
fered from ours, and thus our methods
must differ also from theirs. We should,
howevei, pursue the same object the
mental and physical perfection of our
race by means suitable to our time
and place. Marriage should be resolute
ly discouraged where the parties are un
fit through any disqualification. Where
a community has taken upon itself the
burden of the support of all, it should
have the power of regulating the action
of individuals in so far as they create the
difficulty. We prevent the inmates of
oui prisons, woikhouses, and asylums
from sexual intercourse. We even sep
erate the married. What should hinder
us from carrying out the pnnciple far
ther, and to its full logical extent.
A man imbued with these ideas would
no more think of marrying a woman of
defective physique or one possessing
hereditary taint, than he would of pur
chasing a broken-winded racer to run in
the Derby. However fair she might be.
he would institute a careful inquiiy into
her family history before proposing.
And a woman would do the same. She
would decline to become the mother of
a line of puny and dyspeptic weaklings.
Fathers would mate their daughters at
least as caief ully as they mate their dogs
andhoises. And the State would make
it a serious crime for an unhealthy par
ent to produce a child. A license to
marry should be given by a Medical
Board, and not by a priest. Marriage
then would be a sacred privilege it
would be highly valued, and so held in
much honor it would be a mark of the
worthiest, and would conduce t© gener
al emulation in worth. In a word, it
•vould be a reign of the fit, instead, as
now, of the unfit. Society would stamp
out disease and crime, as it has stamped
out the rinderpest. Under such condi
tions what a glorious country would this
old England of ours be? Modesty and
manhood would stand foremost. Wealth
would give place to worth. Beauty and
vigour would be everywhere visible. The
dream of the Psalmist would be real
ized. Our sons would grow up "as the
young palm trees, and our daughters like
the polished corners of the Temple."
"To thine own selt be true,
And it most follow, as the night the "day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man."
^0^600^
VOLUME XVI. XO 7. NEW ULM, BROWN COUNTY, MINN., WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1894. WHOLE NUMBER 838
It is sheer childishness to shut our
eyes to facts or to ignore the brutal prof
ligacy in our midst. Mirandas encoun
ter Calibans at every street corner. Nor
is it as in the classic woods of Greece,
where impure Satyrs watched furtively
from behind their leafy coverts for a
rarely passing nymph. Our modern
Satyrs are elegantly dressed, and leer
openly at every pretty woman in our
public places.
TOM BEED ON THE TABIFF.
The Ex-Speaker Makes a Speech on the
Wilson Bill.
Just before the passage of the Wilson
bill on Friday T. B. Reed summed up
from the Republicans. A portion of his
speech follows
In this debate which has extended over
many weeks, one remarkable result has
already been reached, a result of the
deepest importance to this country.
That result is that the bill before us is
odious to both sides of the house. It
meets with favor nowhere, and com
mands the respect of neither party. On
this side we believe that, while it pre
tends to be for protection, it does not
afford it, and on the other side, they be
lieve that while it looks towards free
trade, it does not accomplish it.
Those who will vote against this bill
will do s© because it opens our markets
to the destructive competition of for
eigners, and those who vote for it do it
with a reservation that they will instant
ly devote themselves to a new crusade
against whatever barriers are left.
Whatever speeches are made in defense
of the bill on the other side, whereby
gentlemen who are responible only to
their constituencies, or by the gentlemen
by their sense ot responsibility to the
whole country, have, one and all, with
but rare exceptions, placed their authors
uncompromisingly, except for temporary
purposes, on the side of unrestiicted
free trade.
It is evident that there is no ground
for that hope entertained by so many
moderate men that this bill, bad as it
is, could be a resting place wThere ou
manufacturing and productive industrieSj
such as may survive, can re-establish
themselves, and have a sure foundation
for the future, free from party bickering
and party strife. Hence, also there can
be no foundation for that cry so insidu
ously raised that this bill should be
passed at once, because uncertainty is
woise than any bill can possibly
Were this bill to pass both branches to
day uncertainty would reign just the
same. So utterly undisputed and so
distinctly visible to every human being
in this audience^has been our growth and
progress, that whatever the future of the
industrial system of this country may be,
the past system is a splendid monument
to that series of successful statesmen
who found the country bankrupt and
distracted and left it first on the list of
nations.
Is there any example of any nation of
the world, situated as ours, who has ta
ken the steps to which we are invited?
Some gentlemen,perhaps are hastening to
say that England affords us the needed
example, that we have but to turn to her
history and find all we need as example
Just as if in the statement of her political
economists we shall find all that is nee
essary for guidance and instruction. Mr.
Speaker, I have looked there and I am
amazed to find how little the example of
England can teach.
After quoting statistics to show the
great rise in wages since 1860 Mr. Reed
continued:
The truth is that this very question of
raising wages is what makes a good
many men free traders. People with
fixed incomes think that anything that
raises wages is inimical to them, and
manufacturers who are in foreign mar
kets are naturally anxious to have wag
es on the foreign standard. I confess to
you that this question of wages is to me
the vital question, To insure our growth
our growth in civilization and wealth we
must not only have wages as high as
they are now but constantly and steadi
ly inci easing. This constantly increasing
wages does not have its origin in love foi
the individual, but in love for the na^
tion.
Mr. Reed eulogized the Ameiican mar
ket as being the best in the world, owing
to the high wages paid here, enabling
working men to purchase largely of« the
comforts of life. Instead of increasing
this market, he said, by leaving it to the
bteady increase of wages that the figures
of the Aldrich report show so conclusive
ly and which have not only received the
sanction of the members from New York
and the secretary of the treasury, but the
democratic bureau ..of statistics. Our
committee propose to lower wages and
so lessen the [market and then divide
that market with somebody else, and all
for the chance of "getting the markets
of the world."
To add to the existing possibilities of
this contention, the orators on the other
aide say they are going to maintain wag-
es. How can that be possible? All
things sell at the cost of production.
If the difference between the cost of pro
duction hero and the cost of production
in England be not equalized by the duty,
then our cost of product must go down,
or he must go out. Our laws have in
vited money and inen,and we have grown
great and rich thereby. The gentleman
from Illinois {Mr. Black) has noticed
that men come here and he does not
want them to come, hence he is willing
that our wages shall be lowered to keep
people away. Well this is not the time
to discuss immigration but while people
arc coming, I am glad they have not yet
imbibed the gentleman's ideas and have
not yet begun to clamor for lower wages.
To sum it up, if this protection gives
us money and men, and our vast coun
try needs both, it may show why we have
so, wonderfully prospered. If it does, I
am inclined to think that the way to have
two jobs hunting one man is to keep on
making new mills, and to try to prevent
the committee on ways and means from
pulling down old ones.
But what do you say about the farm
er? Well, on that subject I do not pro
fess any special learning, but there is
one simple statement I wish to make,
and leave the question there. If, with
cities growing up like mat«?ic, manufac
turing villages dotting everyeligiblesite,
each and all swarming with mouths to
be filled, the producers of food are worse
off than when half this countiy was a
desert. I abandon sense in favor of po
litical economy. One other thing I have
noticed in this debate, when the gentle
man from Kansas (Mr. Simpson) gets a
little money ahead, he does not put it
into stocks in these immensely profit
able manufactories he has too much
sense. He adds to his farm, and has
others add. Example is richer than pre
cept.
If the hope of agriculturists is in Eng
lish fiee trade, they had better ponder
on the fact that while the wages of arti
sans have increased in England $2.43 per
week since 1850, the wages of the agri
cultuial laborers have only increased 72
cents, and while the Landcaslnre opera
tives in the factories live as well as any
body except Americans, the agricultural
laborers are no bcttei than the continen
tal peasantry.
England's example wilj not do for
agriculture. Here let me meetonp other
question, and let me meet it fairly. We
are charged with having claimed that
the tariff alone will raise wages. We
have never made such aclaimin anysuch
form. Free traders have set up that
claim for us in order to triumphantly
knock it over. What we do say is that
where two nations have jequal skill and
mechanical appliances, and market equal
ly so, and one can get hqr labor at one
half less, nothing but a tariff could main
tain the higher wages, and that we can
piove. We are the only rival that Eng
land fears, for we alone have within our
borders the population and wages, the
raw material, and within ourselves the
great market which assures to us the
most improved machinery. Our con
stant power to increase our wages ass*Jres
us also continued progress. If you wish
us to follow the example of England. I
say yes, with all my heart, but her real
example and nothing else. Let us keep
protection, as she did, until no rival dares
to invade our territory,and then we may
take our chances for a future which by
that time will not be unknown.
Nobody knows so well as I do how
much I have failed to present even my
Own comprehension of the great argu
ment which should control this vote. I
have said not a word of great fall of
prices wrhich has come from the compe
tition of the whole woild lendered pos
sible by protection and substituted for
the competition ol a single island. I have
said not a word of the great difference
between the attitude of employers who
find their own workmen their best cus
tomers in their own land, and who are,
therefore, moved by their own best in
terests to give their workmen fair wages,
and thosfc who sell abroad and are there
fore anxious for low wages at home, and
on whom works unrestrictedly that per
nicious doctrine, "as wages fall profits
rise." These and much more have I
omitted, for there is a limit to all speak
ings
We say, my friends, that before this
tribunal we all plead in vain. Why we
fail let those answer who read the touch
ing words of Abraham Lincoln's first in
augural, and remember that he pleaded
in vain with those same men, and their
predecessors. Where he failed, we cannot
expect to succeed. But though we ft
here today, like our great leader of
other days, in the larger field before the
mightier tribunal, which will finally and
forever settle this question, we shall be
more than conquerers, for this great na
tion, shaking off as it has once lefore,
the influence of a lower civilization, will
go on to fulfill its high destiny, till over
the South as well as over the North, shall
be spread the full measure of that amaz
ing prosperity which is the wonder of the
world.
Throughout Mr. Reed's speech he was
frequently interrupted with applause,
and at times the democrats joined in the
general laughter at his witticisms.
As his speech closed there was a burst
of applause, which swelled into a great
demonstration as the enthusiastic gal
leries gave shouts, hurrahs and sharp
whistles which are often heard in thea
ters, but seldom in the halls of congress.
The Wilson Bill and Minnesota.
Congressman McCleary, of the Second
Minnesota district, spoke in the house
last night against the Wilson bill. Mr.
McCleary's strong point was that the bill
would deprive the people of his district
and the agricultural classes in general of
the opportunity afforded by the Repub
lican tariff of diversification of their in
dustry.
Mr. McCleary made a good point. The
success of diveisification in farming de
pends on a large and growing urban pop
ulation near by. Successful diversified
farming depends upon the market for
dairy products, vegetables and fruits, as
well as pork, beet, poultry, eggs, etc.
but in order to have such a market it is
necessary to have an industrial popula
tion, and unless the manufacturing in
terests of the country are to be encour
aged and developed near home, the pro
fit and success of diversified farming
would be impaired, if not destroyed, and
the farmer thrown back upon the neces
sity of producing only those things
which can be shipped cheaply in bulk
long distances to foreign or remote pop
ulations engaged in the business of man
ufacturing the supplies which he con
sumes. The best thing that could hap
pen to the farmer of Minnesota would be
special encouragement toward manufac
turing and such industrial development
as would make his neighboring town a
manufacturing center and a local mar
ket for the produce of his flocks and dai
ry and poultry yards.—Minneapolis Jour
nal.
Needed, a Moral Beoreanization of Edu
cation.
Now it may as well be said once for
all that the teaching of either religion or
ethics, both in the public schools and
the colleges, has no tendency whatever
to improve the molality of any one.
This may seem to be paradoxical, but it
can be demonstrated.
Moral education is not accomplished by
any form of doctrinal teaching. The
memory and reasoning powers may be
thus developed, but the conscience never
Moral education can be effected only in
three ways, which I may brieflv express
in three terms—example, humanity, and
discipline. More fully expressed, these
forces are the personal character and
habits of the teacher, personal affection
for students, and the disciplinary influen
ces of life, organized on a rational basis.
It we are to have an educational sys
tem which shall boast of its moral char
acter and inflaence, it must be organized
on a basis qualified to produce that re
sult. Men must be employed who, like
Dr. Thomas Arnold of Rugby, can give
themselves up^ to moulding the character
of students, and not to mere personal
aggrandizement in science, literature, art
and philosophy. But not even in our
religious institutions is such a policy
thought of, much less in the public
schools. They are all organized upon a
mercantile and economic bas is. Appoint
ments, promotions and salaries are all
regulated by a policy that confers prem
iums either upon purely intellectual
capacities or upon all those questionable
resources of power and influence which
a tender conscience despises. No attempt
is made to discover his devotion to the
development of men, and then to place
him where he need have no concern re
garding his position and lesponsibilities.
The moralization of the student must
begin by the moralization of the system
of instruction, and this can be accomp
lished only by abandoning the mercantile
and economic method for a moral one.
The competition in education should not
be for numbers of students, as now, nor
for merely great scholars as teachers, but
also for those who know how to win the
affections of students and to command*
their reverence for moral qualities.—
Prof. J. H, Hyalop in the February
Forum, &
~"H
*rf

xml | txt