Perhaps of all qualities that most stressed in the life of the greatest Teacher of all time is responsibility toward others. Christ says we are our "brother's keeper".

Taking then the three reasons for the increase of divorces in the United States (I read the other day that in Chicago the average number of divorces was twenty-three a day!), let us see how this tendency can be combatted, and also if it seems best to combat it.

As far as perpetual motion goes, I think the motor has been a source of great pleasure and, of itself, has been a most desirable adjunct to family life. On the other hand, the possibility of always rushing somewhere brings with it its corresponding danger.

In Alice in Wonderland the famous Red Queen announced to Alice that one had "to run as fast as one could, to keep in the same place"! Given the motor, the proposition takes on another angle. One can be, through it, in so many different places in quick succession, that the temptation to run even faster than one can run becomes irresistible.

The telephone makes it possible to make the sudden engagement, the motor makes it possible to fulfil the sudden engagement, and in a brief moment the whole plan of a quiet day is turned into an orgy of restless unfocussed energy; and "home life"-where is it?

As a second cause for divorce, I suggested the larger means of a greater number of young couples. It is so much easier to be independent if one has money in one's pocket. The husband and wife who have to work out their budget together, who have to think pretty carefully before they take this step or that, are of necessity more dependent upon each other.

66

Not long ago, I heard of a charming young couple in whom I took interest as being at a certain dinner. After dinner, the pretty young married woman turned to her husband and said, Are you going to Mrs. Clark's dance tonight?" "No," he replied, "I am going to Mrs. Jones's dance." "Well, I am going to Mrs. Clark's. Shall I send my motor back for you?" "No, thank you, I have mine here, so do not trouble."

I remember that, on being told of this conversation, a little sadness crept into my heart and a prophetic instinct made me see

these two young people going such different ways that there could be only one end-the end which came within a very few years. Everything that tends to a lack of interdependence, tends toward loosening the ties which go to form a stable family life. As the third reason for more frequent divorces, I mentioned "Individualism". Individualism is not the same thing as a lack of interdependence. One is positive; the other is negative. The wife who says, "I must express myself," has frequently a perfect right to express herself as long as she does not do so by sacrificing something more important, such as her relationship with her children and her husband.

Talents should not be hidden under a bushel, but even the development of talent should be weighed against the great fundamental values, should the one clash with the others.

The best attitude to be taken in married life is that it is a partnership, and that each partner has to make a success of it. No two men going into partnership fail, each to take into consideration the qualities of the other. The object of the partnership is success. The success of the venture is too little considered in married life. Nothing in the world is worth having that is not worth working for, and no success is achieved without sacrifice.

A beloved relative of mine impressed me deeply in my youth, by telling me many times that Love was a talent.

"If you have a gift for music," she used to say, "can you expect to keep that gift, if you never use your voice in singing, or your fingers on the piano? Love is the same. You must use it to keep it perfect. You must use it in daily life. You must practise it all the time."

Many divorces come about from the fact that it never enters the brain of either of the people concerned to practise love. They seem to feel that love is a curious condition that just "happens". You fall in love, you marry, and that is all there is to it. If love does not stay, it has nothing to do with you. Love never will stay unless a good deal of effort, a great deal of intelligence, much sympathy, and an even greater amount of sacrifice, are put into the desire to make it lasting.

I would say, therefore, that to prevent divorce, one must make life as interesting and as stable as possible. The two things

sound contradictory, but they need not be so. Realize that you have entered into a partnership and that you naturally should take pride in the success of that partnership; and realize, also, that the fundamental beauty of a lasting relationship between husband and wife, and parents and children, which relationship is the foundation of the nation, should be worked over, to the exclusion even, of complete "self expression".

All this does not mean that divorces should never take place, but that divorce should not take place in a thoughtless, selfish, irresponsible way. Divorce, itself, is at times a necessary thing.

First, let us take the case where there have been no children. Childless couples, who find that certain qualities or circumstances make mutual life most trying and distasteful, have, it seems to me, a right to part, and to rebuild their lives in other ways.

The case is very different where children have been brought into the world. The other day a little child said, "It is very sad for a little girl when her Mummy and Daddy do not live together." It is very sad, and often entirely unnecessary. Divorces are much like wars. They come about from such little things, sometimes, and if, as with wars, the "Powers" concerned could sit down around a table and discuss the question in point, many wars and many divorces would be averted. So often the effort is not made to keep together. Nothing is sadder than children who have no home life, and next to the children who have no home life are to be commiserated those children who are passed from one parent to another. Can the children of "part time" be potentially as good citizens as those who are the children of "whole time"?

Whether marriage need be regarded as a sacrament or not, it seems to me that it should be approached with reverence and dignity, and time and serious consideration should always be factors in divorce.

There are only a few great fundamental values. Love and honor and unselfishness and patience are some of them. If in debating the possibility of separation the couple concerned could carry into those differences the realization of these values, many probable divorces might be avoided.

It is often said that children are better off if the parents are

separated than if they have to be subjected to seeing the irritable and loveless relationship between their parents. If, for the good of the children, the parents have decided to try to retain an unbroken home life, they could and should exercise a certain amount of self control, courtesy and friendliness in the home.

Divorce should be the last resort. I cannot lay too much stress on the steps that should be taken to avoid that last resort. One of those steps should be compromise; not the compromise of principles, but the compromise of methods and manners. Another step for prevention of divorce should be willingness to accept responsibility. Happiness, valuable as it is, cannot be the goal in itself. Joy and pleasure are the handmaidens of duty and responsibility rather than the ultimate aim of life.

In married life, each member of the partnership must avoid the desire to exercise possessive love, although individualism may, equally, be carried too far. The right of individuality is sacred to the human heart. Too great possessiveness may irk a man or woman into revolt, just as too great personal independence may break the habit of interdependence, without which no union can endure.

Kahlil Gibran, the Syrian poet, in The Prophet, says of marriage:

You shall be together when the white wings of death scatter your days; Aye, you shall be together in the silent memory of God.

But let there be spaces in your together-ness,

And let the winds of the Heavens dance between you.

Love one another, but make not a bond of love:

Let it rather be a moving sea between the shores of your souls.

My brother, the late Theodore Roosevelt, has been called the "typical American". If that be true, let the youth of this day and generation ponder on what it means to be typical of our great country.

It meant, in the case of Theodore Roosevelt, to make a strong body out of one that was frail; to glory in hard work and the joy of achievement; to share all that he had and all that he was, with others, with a view towards making his beloved country a better place for all to live in; and beyond and above all else, it meant, with him, to hold in deep reverence the ties and duties and de

lights of family life, for he believed that family life, and family life only, was the foundation and safety of our nation.

As a delicate and ailing boy of ten, homesick beyond measure in the midst of travels in Europe, he writes in his journal: "I thought of each happy home time, counting nuts by the kitchen fire, picking the nuts in the morning wind." And again: "I was very sick last night and mamma was so kind, telling me stories and rubbing me with her delicate fingers." And then: "I had a sociable time with Mamma and Papa."

Suppose that same "Mamma" and that "Papa" had decided to indulge in "individualism" or "self expression" to the exclusion of their little sick boy, had given him no "sociable times together", would not something have been lost out of the character of the man who later tried to do for his children what his parents had done for him, and who in the Letters to His Children penned perhaps one of the most exquisite idylls of family life?

May the youth of America not only feel that Theodore Roosevelt is the typical American, but may they be inspired through his example to lead the type of life he led! Would there not then be fewer divorces, even in Chicago?