The Marietta journal. [volume] (Marietta, Ga.) 1866-1909, 1896-02-20
ARE NEW YORK WOMEN "sINFUL pr
Wise Britisher Considers Their Dress
and Answers yes"

Wise Brit!sher Considers Their Drens
and Answers "Yes."
We so often find ourselves on the
side of the rich and opposed to those
who rate them for existing that we
are little pleased to discover a sub
ject upon which we can join in the
chorus of reprobation for what may
fairly be denominated sinful ex-
travagance.
1t is stated on fair authority that
one firm of diapers in New York
has on its books the names of 40 Ia
dies whose accounts for dress mate
rails exceed, on an average, SO, 900,
or e., 600, a year. Their bills are
presented semiannually and are
paid, say the happy diapers, by their
husbands without murmur. It is
expressly added that this expendi-
ture does not include jewels, which
are, of course, to the extent of two
thirds of their shop value, perma-
nent investments; or laces, which
are nearly as durable as jewels, but
is confined to perishable articles
silks, satinS, embroideries and the
things usually included when wom-
en- speak of dress" We have little
doubt that the figures are correct,
for they are far below those which
were published when, after the fall
of the second empire, Partisan firms
like N. Worth s were compelled to
sue their best customers, and we
find it impossible to discover for
such OUTLAWS reasonable excuse.
The usual One-that it is all CUES
ton of proportion and that it is no
moro reprehensible for q woman
whose husband earns 500, 900 year
to spend f2, 600 on dressing herself
than for q woman whose husband
earns $500 to spend &5O-is palpably
unsound.
The defense for any expenditure
not absolutely necessary is it's result.
The result sought in expenditure on
a woman's dress is that woman's
attractiveness, and it is simply i'm
possible that attractiveness can be
greatly increased by incessant varia-
ton of costume. The idea of the
perfect dress must at last be reach
ed, o. |, after that, every other
must involve a certain deterioration
in good looks; yet without almost
incossant change or robbery the
sums quoted could not be expended.
They amount to nearly 9170 q
month, or &3S a week, and cannot
be explained by any richness of ma
torial-for furs arc nearly as dura-
bic as laces-nor by any other quail
ity in the dresses themselves. Style
costs much, but not all that. The
only conceivable explanation is ra-
pidity of change, and in that rapid
ty is waste of the senseless kind
which is not unfairly described by
the old epithet now so rarely applied
to extravaganza, namely, sinful. "
Money is, IN fact, destroyed with no
object except a meaningless compe-
tition or positively evil ostentation;
that is to say, power is wasted or
misused as much as if its possessor
applied strength encourage or beau
ty or the gift of expression to evil
or to useless ends. Tho standard of
living is vitiatod, for all women are
more or less initiative, and true per-
speotivo in expenditure, which is as
essential to the sound management
of life as true perspective is to draw
ing, is hopelessly disregarded in or
der to secure an impression of blaz-
ing color, in fact, striking visible
ness.-London Spectator.