The herald., 1897-04-08

of amusement as a spectator shall re-
move headwear tending to obstruct the
view of any other person.
Section .. Any person violating any
of the provisions of this act shall be SUBJ
ject to a fine of not less than 81 nor
more than $40 for each offense, upon
conviction thereof.
Section s. This act shall take effect
upon its approval.
That is the law as it appears on Utah's
statutes. This is the way Mrs. La
Barthe wanted the law to read, 1t being
the bill as originally introduced:
A bill to compel the removal of high
hats and headgear at theaters, opera
houses and indoor places of amusement.
BE it enacted by the legislature of the
state of Utah:
Section l. That all parties attending
theaters, opera houses and indoor places
of amusement shall be required to re-
move all kinds of headgear that tends TO
obstruct the view of others
Section 2. That managers of theaters,
opera houses and places of amusement
shall provide suitable rooms for the plac-
ing of such wearing apparel.
Section g. That managers of theaters,
opera houses and places of amusement
shall be responsible for the enforcement
of this law, and in case of failure to do
so, they shall be subjec. to a fine of not
less than $40 nor more than 800 for each
offense
Mrs. La Barthe explains in the follow
ing statement written by her exactly
why she brought about the theater hat
legislation, and why it is that the
amended bill, instead of the original,
was passed. Here is what she says:
ITO the EGitor-It was my fortune 10
secure the passage by the Utah legisla-
ture of the anti-high hat bill 1t m et
with little or no opposition. for every
man who has attended a theatrical per-
formanca and sat in the rear of one OF
those giant head coverings that my sex
is given to wearing, saw the wisdom of it
and required little or no inducement to
vote for the same. The law is law both
in the spirit and the letter of enforce
nent and the theater managers are
complying with it in every town in the
state that boasts of a place of amuse-
ment.
The adoption Of the law and the car
rying out of it's principles is proving
/ very satisfactory to the general public.
My object in introducing this bill was
! simply to protect the right of theater
goers, many of whom are poor people
|
/ to attend a theatrical entertainment on =
ly once in a great while. The seats they
secure are. as a rule in the cheaper por-
| tions of the theater-in the rear of the
| orchestra or balcony. Now place hist
hat in front of them. when seated far
| back and what could they see? Nothing
at all. They pay dollar or more for
seat oftentmes, and are certainly en-
! titled to receive the full pleasure the en-
| tertainment offers.
THE present style of hat and head
gear, as you we'll know, is extreme as to
| height and width. While admitting that
ladies ought to have proper respec'
for the rights of others, it isa deplorable
fact that this feeling does not exist with
them as often as it ought to. In fact
| in nine cases out of ten, they have
every advantage when they do not OBJ
serve the dictates of these feelings, be-
cause the eclipsed auditor will suffer In
silence rather than take the risk of Of
Tending lady by asking her to remove
her hat.
II recall an instance when was not sc
timid and when the lady (?) to whom
made protest and polite request, dis
dainfully turned, gave me witherine
look, and kept her hat on without ever
doing me the courtesy to reply. 1t set
tied the matter as far as was concerned