The daily morning Astorian. [volume] (Astoria, Oregon) 1883-1899, 1893-02-04
How About
The CrinoIine {?


line is to resume its ancient sway. and
the present graceful and statuesque Co.'S
tunes are to give way TO form OF dress
which makes woman's legs resemble
nothing so much as the clapper OF q
huge bell When we say legs in this
connection we speak, vgecesAarily. by
hearsay, for in the palmy days Of crino-
line. as some may remember, the exist
ence OF a womans lower limbs was a
matter OF pure conjecture. except under
circumstances to be alluded to hereafter.
or the rise and fall OF the hoopsldrt
volumes have been written in prose and
poetry, in pathos and In sarcasm, In
humor and in sadness. Casicaturists
have directed their newly sharpened pen
Gil against 1t, satirists have dipped their
pens In gall to seattle It. doctors have
corslemned II and moralistg preached
against It, and yet It held its own as
though 1t was the most beautiful. becom-
ing invention Of the age. 1t mattered not,
seemingly that maids and matrons, mod
est and discreet. made public exhibition
OF the tops OF their stockings when they
got into a carriage or went upstairs.
orvthat when they sat down, unless with
the most extreme care, they showed their
ankles and a good deal more, the crino-
line captured the civilized world and foi
every argument against It its deyotees
managed to ind dozen in its favor.
That the distension Of the skirt by
means of q steel coop or cage was not
modest, that 1t was not healthfui, that 1t
was not graceful, and that It was incon-
venient in hundred ways, was demon
strated again and again, as completely
as ever the binomial theorem was demon
strated, and yet what good did II d12
Ask the bellies Of twenty odd years ago
what effect the demonstration produced
on them, and they will tell you that
crinoline was the fashion. and that no
argument or demonstration could avail
against that potent fact.
But all this is twice told tale. We
should let the dead past bury its dead
and see whether we--speaking in this In
stance for the sterner sex--can devise
any means for wlthstandlng the tyranny
OF q fashion which threatens to force the
nuisance of crinoline again on the world.
Are we, the nominal lords Of creation.
so helpless, SO remediless in THIS fin de
steele age that we must allow that cpl
Gene creature. the man milliner, TO thrust
upon us an article OF feminine attire that
has absolutely nothing to recommend 1t,
ana which women, II let alone, would no
more think Of taking up than they would
OF adopting as fashionable attire the
primitive garb OF a Digger Indian squaw
Have men any rights which women are
bound TO respect, or, which is more TO
the point, IL women are bound to respect
them, is there any to enforce the obliga-
ton?
This threatened revival Of crlnoline is
no Joking matter. If the old boys Of to-
day, who were the young fellows OF
quarter OF century ago, will delve into
the recesses Of their memories, dissociat-
ing the personality OF the lovely women
of that era from the garb they wore. they
can tell us that there was no beauty or
comelness of the female dress Of that
period and that the women knew 1t as
well as tn emen. II 1t was not graceful
or becoming then 1t certainly wiuld not
be now, but will that fact prevent the use
of crinolnes again? To that the only an
swer must be, quien sabe?
They order some things better under a
despotic form of government than under
a democratic. The king Of Dahomey, no
doubt, could issue an edlct prohibiting
the use of crinoline by the Dahomiennes,
and have 1t obeyed while in this land OF
liberty asseries of acts Of congress and
acts OF the legislature as long as from
here to Cape Horn would produce no
more effect than the signing of the zeph-
yr In the tree tops. However, We may
console ourselves. temporarily, with the
reflection that sufficient unto the day is
the evil thereof. and that some specia,
providence may intervene to protect US
from the awful infiiction Of hoop skirts.