is at once a proof of the necessity or the inclination to grant to women what belongs to them.
The consciousness of the wrong due towards women is moreover expressed in American legislation. It is indeed much that the men have conceded to women the right to put them out of conceit with their own want of principle by allowing the women to claim a mere promise of marriage as a binding contract. But, on the other hand, this legal precaution shows that the least conception of the true essence of marriage is wanting, for a relationship which is brought about only through the intervention of the police is no marriage from the start, but an institution of force which can only breed disaster. And such regulations generally accrue only to the benefit of unworthy women who either disclaim all feeling of self-respect and honor to such a degree that they will allow a man to be bound to them by force who is not drawn to them by any inclination, or who are low enough to actually speculate on promises of marriage in order to get themselves provided for. Whether, moreover, the right to establish a promise of marriage by a mere oath is not most dangerous in a moral respect is a question which experience is not slow to answer.[1]
- ↑ The following interesting case of perjury is said to have happened in Philadelphia several years ago. A handsome young man is summoned before the judge to give an explanation of himself concerning a promise of marriage. He does not remem-
