I am anxious for your own sake and for the sake of “our good cause,” that you should manage wisely your very difficult task.  There is a widespread combination undermining the family state, and we need to protect all the customs as well as the laws that tend to sustain it.  In doing this, we need to discriminate between what is in bad taste and evil in its tendencies, and what is in direct violation of a moral law.  The custom that requires a man to wait a year after the death of one wife before he takes another, it is usually in bad taste and inexpedient to violate, but there are cases in which such violation is demanded and is lawful.

But the law of marriage demanding that in no case a man shall seek another wife while his first one lives is always imperative.  Then the question of divorce arises, and here the Lord of morality and religion, who sees the end from the beginning, has decided that only one crime can justify it.  A woman may separate from her husband for abuse or drunkenness and not violate this law, but neither party can marry again without practically saying, “I do not recognize Jesus Christ as the true teacher of morals and religion.”  If Mrs. McFarland were sure she could prove adultery, she was morally free to marry again; but could she be justified on any other ground without denying the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ?  Is not here a point where you need to be very cautious and guarded?

    I hope to have the pleasure of meeting you on Tuesday at Apollo
    Hall.  Very truly and affectionately your friend.

The following account is taken from The Revolution: 

On May 17, long before the hour appointed, Apollo Hall was filled.  Ministers had preached and editors written their ambiguous views on the justice of the McFarland verdict.  Reporters had interviewed the murderer and described (probably from imagination) the conduct and statements of Mrs. Richardson.  John Graham had informed a gaping public what should be and what was the opinion of every decent woman in New York in regard to the guilt of this heart-broken widow, thus making it extremely difficult to feel the actual state of the public pulse on this all-important subject.  Mrs. Stanton’s lecture clearly expressed the convictions of the intelligent and right-minded.  Never before in the annals of metropolitan history had there been such an assemblage of women, and it was an equally noticeable fact that they were the earnest, deep-thinking women of the times.[54]

Miss Anthony and Mrs. Stanton were greeted with the heartiest applause, and as soon as silence was obtained, the former said it was the first time in her life that she had addressed a public audience composed exclusively of women, and it was natural that she should feel somewhat embarrassed under circumstances so peculiar.  This quaint observation brought down the house.  After a few more of her downright