New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-09-17
YEEpJNG A SON-IN-LAW.

The noble ambition Oh tne UHi VI AmeiICS
to go to Paris and marry viscount has been
celebrated by many a satirist, and many poor
girl has mourned in lifelong misery the silly
nride in which she sold herself for worth
less title and q booth in the Vanity Fair OF
the second empire. We are not sure' now
ever, that due regard has been given 10 the
folly Of the American father and mother,
who, being supposed by q conventional hction
TO have common sense and natural feeling
enough to save their ingenious offspring from
such particularly bad bargains are nevertheless
ant to be little better than marriage brokers,
when their eyes are once dazzled by
the glitter of a coronet be it never so little
one. 1t ia 80 pleasant for Mrs. McF'limsey 10
talk of her son-n-law, LIE Vicomte dc Boullla-
baisse. and in her annual visits to Paris to
meet Flora surrounded by the very showiest
of fine people, and chattering in the most
piauant broken English or the most infirm
French-it is so grateful even to the Less
frivolous father to be connected with fash
ionable young gentleman, who can give him
the entr6e of many mysterious doors which
never open to the ordinary stranger, and can
send him now and then across the ocean
case or 40 of wine-nO better perhaps than he
may buy of his Nev-YOrk grocer, but good
text for dinner table illusions to intimate rela-
tons with the Tueries-that the real interests
of that poor foolish young girl are too apt 10
slip out of mind and her fate to be left in her
own careless keeping. If the husband prove
spendthrift and roue, with no more heart than
purse, it is in most cases only the young wiie
who suffers and sorrows, and bears the punish
mcnt which strict human justice would rather
have laid upon the shoulders of the parents
But now and then the older fools too are
scourged for their folly. There is a case be-
fore US now, which has just become notorious
through suit in the civil court of Paris. Nj.
de B., who, if not actually viscount, has at
least pretty and arstOcratc name, married
two years ago an American young lady, and her
pleased papa promised verbally to give the
happy couple marriage portion OF $4,000 a
wear. We don't know that NJ. de B was any
wickeder than a hundred other young men OF
fashion. If he concealed some ugly debts at
the time of the marriage. and ran up
Others very industriously afterward. there
is at least no evidence that he made
Madame miserable, or was anything worse than
lazy and luxurious. A daughter came OF the
union, and then the young wife died. Her
parents refused to pay any longer for the gay
De BIS pleasures, though they would gladly
support the child. The widower was young,
and father-in-aw could not see, for the life OF
him. why he should not go to work aud earn
a living. This was American sense, but 1t
seems not to have been French law A suit
was brought to recover the full price OF the
matrimonial bargain, and the court ar
rived at these extraordinary conclusions
I. The plaintiff, NJ. de B, is without the
means of existence. @ His mother is not
| in position TO afford him the support to which
his rank entities him. 3. 1t is therefore no
more than proper that his father-in-law, being
well TODD, should take care of him for the rest
of his natural life. T. The defendant will
accordingly pay NJ. de B. an annual allow
ance of 5000 francs for himself, and $4,000
francs for his daughter. This, be il observed
appears to have no reference to the portion
promised at the marriage, but is awarded as
"aimony.n IL il an awful lesson, and we hope
Americans abroad may heed it.