Wife Ownership & Wife Murder – Moses Harman, 5/18/1901

The “Chicago American” of April 21 contained a sensational account of a domestic tragedy which, from their
frequency, seems to make but a passing impression on the public mind. “Wife Murder and Suicide” is a news
-paper heading that is decidedly stale and commonplace. Briefly stated, the case is thus summed up: John J.
Gillen, a “rising young lawyer” of Chicago, met and married Celia McGuire less than a year ago. The “American”
says, “The woman was pretty and quite young and the husband had given indications of a brilliant future.” In
less than six months Gillen left his wife, and about the same time caused the arrest of his sister-in-law, “charging
her with committing a criminal operation,” presumably upon the person of the wife. Then the wife “entered suit
for divorce, charging cruelty.” Meeting her by accident or appointment in a hallway on Lake Street, April 20,
Gillen shot his wife dead; then turned his pistol upon himself and fired the shot that terminated his own existence
an hour or two later. Following this condensed statement in the “American” is a column article by one of the
prominent contributors to that paper, Thomas B. Gregory, who holds the position of pastor to the “Chicago
Liberal Society.” Instead of my own comments upon the Gregory article, I prefer to insert here the reply of
one of this “reverend” gentleman’s parishioners and former regular attendant at his church, Mrs. Harriet M.
Closcz, now of Webster City, Iowa. Her reply was written for the “American,” but having been declined by
that journal, was sent to us for publication: “I have read with interest the comments in the ‘Chicago American’
on the John J. Gillen tragedy of the 20th of April, by Rev. T. B. Gregory. In a pathetic manner he described
the life of the young couple from their marriage to their death; tells of the husband striking the wife; of their
estrangement through outside influence, and closes with a peroration on love being stronger than death;
then gives a terrible warning to the intruder.

Yet Rev. Gregory says: ‘There are times when we are religiously bound to be silent and this is one of them.’
But he does not take his own advice and keep silent, for he proceeds to give an entirely prejudiced account,
if we are to accept other reports of the tragedy. He admits that the husband struck the wife and excuses it by
saying, ‘but not in a way greatly to hurt or bruise.’ Such extenuation reminds one of the Blue Laws which
permitted a man to beat his wife providing the stick was not bigger than his finger. John Gillen was a lawyer,
and doubtless knew his ground. The Rev. Gregory describes a meeting between the couple and says:
‘There she stands—his, yet not his.’ We naturally suppose when women surrender themselves to the
domination of the husband, that they are to be loved, honored and cherished instead of abused, beaten
and murdered. ‘His, yet not his.’ Yes, his according to antiquated laws, yet thanks to the humanized code,
not his; and realizing that public sentiment would not permit him to hold her by brute force, to compel her
to submit to his indignities, he did the things always to be expected of a selfish nature—committed murder.
Again the doctor says: ‘Do you not know that love will be left alone, that it will have its way?’ No, we do not
know that love will be left alone, for it is never done. Love is circumscribed, hedged in on all sides. It is not
permitted to blossom and beautify the world with its beneficent life. We are told that we may love one man or
one woman and no more, that we must give up home and friends and aspirations, yea, even our life that we
may be permitted to shed our light on the pathway of one—too often selfish—individual, and yet these
Reverend gentlemen prate about love regenerating the world while they are the first ones to decry the
attribute when put into practice, or an escape is sought from a union wherein love is impossible.

Rev. Gregory is mistaken in assuming, as many do, that interference by the family of Mrs. Gillen was the
cause of this deplorable tragedy. Family interference did not prevent the marriage, neither would it have
parted them if the amenities of courtship had continued. It was the discovery by the couple that the
attributes supposed to be possessed by either were lacking, and that discovery should have been a
signal for sensible adjustment or separation. Dr. Gregory is right in saying: ‘We do not know what has
been resisted,’ and for that very reason we should look below the surface for causes. The outward
exposure furnishes but superficial expression of the deeper working of nature, but as long as our laws
make women the property of men, and as long as we are educated in the idea of ownership for the
female sex, just so long will these tragedies continue. I will add to this sensible and just arraignment
of our popular ethical code, that while it may be ‘religious,’ as stated by Mr. Gregory, to keep silent in
the presence of tragedies such as that of Gillen and his wife, it is eminently rational and humane to
SPEAK OUT, in no uncertain tones, in condemnation of a marital code that produces such deplorable
results. That the clergy should try hard to shift the blame of such catastrophes from institutional marriage
where it belongs, and fasten it elsewhere, is to be expected. One of the chief sources of power and
pecuniary income of these clerical gentlemen is this same marriage institution; hence the persistence
with which they inculcate the doctrine that priest-made and priest-controlled marriage is the basis of
all purity, of all morality in the relations of women and men.