St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1886-05-16
NIOTRRERS.IN.LAW.
Reflections on the Reasons for the
World Opposing Them.

World Opposing Them.
To support the idea that mothers-in-law
have never been favorably regarded, eth
biologists tell us that singular custom,
which enactS that a man shall never
look upon the face of his mother-in-law
after he is once married, prevails among
numerous savage peoples apparently widely
sundered by geographical distribution and
| differences of race The custom obtains
among the Caffres of South America,
among several of the Australian tribes, and
among many POlynesians, fact which
some people assume TO point to common
origin OF these races, but which others look
on as testimony of the existence of a natu-
raj law, as piece of wisdom indigenous to
each of these countries. and the direct growth
of individual experience. The custom, being
found in such widely separated continents
as Africa and Australia, is considered as
proving that it must have been suggested
by some common necessity of human ma
ture, and reasons are not wanting to show
why savageS discovered it was better for a
man not to look upon his mother in-law.
Primarily. say the supporters of this theory.
because his mother-in-laW was picture in
anticipation of what his wife was likely to
be. Before marriage mans mind may
not be open to the cold processes of COM
parlson. but afterwards he begins to con-
slider what kind of bargain he has made,
and if his mother-in-law has not improved
with age, the CHASTITY possibility of his wife
becoming like her rises before him. Hence
these savage tribes prescribed the
rule that never after marriage should man
see his mother-in-law, and this in time be-
came social law or custom.
1t has been more than once fiippantIy
suggested that this lesson of a venerable ex-
per!ence might be accepted and the custom
adopted here, whilst others, equally regard
less of social and other consequences have
advocated the institution of kind of suffice
arrangement, which should bind the British
matron by social propriety to close her
mortal career upon her daughters marriage.
Apart from the suggestion only being avail
able in cases where one daughter alone
blessed marriage. there is the more i'm
portant consideration that to eliminate
motherS-in-law altogether from society.
even if it were possible, would be most
disastrous i'll its effects. Is her presence
really always so disagreeable, SO baneful to
enjoyment? Is her advice never needed?
The world has always sided against her;
it does not stop to consider the double char
acteristics of legal maternity which are in
volved when both sons and daughters
marry; it still persists in viewing her only
in her character of wife and mother, and
repeats and revivifies from time to time all
the malicious denunciations of witty cpl
grams that have become associated with her
name. Thackeray, even, who, with his
large knowledge of the world and of the
human heart, might have been expected to
be more lenient to the unfortunate race of
mothers-in-law, goes out of his way to draw
the horrible Mrs. Mackenzie. plying his
sweet, silly little Rosie and the much u-
jured wives of her acquaintances,
without rejecting that they might,
in their turn, become mothers
in-law. Does this fact suggest food for
reflection to the young husbands of to-day.
who quarter of a century hence may find
their loving wives unavoidably drifting into
mother in-lawhood? And, again, is it not
rather unreasonable in a young man to OBJ
ject to her who has had the greatest share
i'll moulding the character and training the
habits of the one woman he has chosen
from all others to be his companion for life?
How strange it is, when one looks the ques-
ton in the face. that lady who is con-
sidered harmless enough until her children
marry should. after that happiesI of family
events be elevated to such painful pedes-
tai of eeableness.-CasSeli's Maya
zine.