The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1897-08-05
WHAT MAY BE.
BeIInmy on Dress in the Twentieth
Century.


& Co., Edward Bellamy takes the fol-
lowing glimpse into the future as re-
lating to the question of dress:
The extremely delicate tints of
Edith's costume led me to remark that
| the color effects of the modern dress
seemed to be in general very light as
| compared with those which prevailed
in my day.
The result" said, SIS extremely
| pleasing, but if you will excuse a rather
prosaic suggestion, it occurs to me that
with the whole nation given over to
wearing these delicate schemes of col
or, the accounts for washing must be
pretty large. 1 should suppose they
would swamp the national treasury if
laundry bills are anything like what
| they used to be-"
Doubtless we could not do much
else if we washed our Clothes" she
said; but you see we do not wash
| them"
Not wash them! Why not?"
Because we don't think it nice to
wear clothes again after they have
been so much soiled as to need wash
ing"
''Well, won't say that I am sur
prised" 1 replied; "in fact, 1 think l
am no longer capable of being sur
prised at anything; but perhaps you
will kindly tell me what you do with
dress when it becomes soiled."
1--WE throw it away-that is, it goes
back to the mills to be made into some
thing else"
Indeed! To my nineteenth-century
intellect, throwing away clothes would
seem even more expensive than wash
ing it."
"Oh, no, much less so. What do you
suppose, now, this costume of mine
| cost?"
81 don't know, I'm sure. Inever had
wife to pay dressmakers' bills for,
but L should say certainly it cost a
great deal of money"
Such costumes cost from ten to
twenty cents" said Edith. What do
you suppose it is made OFF,"
l took the edge of her mantle be-
tween my fingers,
81 thought it was silk or fine linen"
l replied, but I see it is not. Doubt
less it is some new fiber"
Owe have discovered many new
fibers, but it is rather question of
| process than material that l had in
mind. This is not a textile fabric at
all, but paper. That is the most com
mon material for garments nova
days"
"But-but," 1 exclaimed, what if it
| should come on to rain on these paper
clothes? Would they not melt, and at
a little strain would they not part?"
"a costume such as this" said Edith,
sis not meant for stormy weather, and
yet it would by no means melt in a rain
storm, however severe. For storm
garments we have paper that is alb
solutely impervious to moisture on the
outer surface. As to toughness, 1
think you would find it as hard to tear
this paper as any ordinary cloth. The
| fabric is so strengthened with fiber as
to hold together very stoutly."
But in winter, at least, when you
need warmth, you must have to fall
back on your old friend the sheep"
You mean garments made of sleeps
hair? Oh, no; there is no modern use
for them. Porous paper makes gar
ment quite as warm as wooden could.
and vastly lighter than the clothes you
had. Nothing but eider-dOwn could
have been at once so warm and light as
our winter coats of paper"
And cotton!-linen! Don't tell me
that they have been given up, like
wool?"
ooh, no; we weave fabrics of these
and other vegetable products, and they
are nearly as cheap as paper, but paper
is so much lighter and more easily
fashioned into all shapes that it is gen
orally preferred for garments. But at
any rate, we should consider no ma
| terial fit for garments which could not
| be thrown away after being soiled.
The idea of washing and cleaning
articles of bodily use and using them
over again would be quite intolerable.
For this reason, while we want beau
| tiful garments, we distinctly do not
want durable ones. In your day, it
seems, even worse than the practice of
washing garments to be used again,
| you were in the habit of keeping your
| outer garments without washing at
| all, not only day after day, but week
| after week, year after year, sometimes
whole lifetTmes, when they were spe-
cially valuable, and finally, perhaps,
giving them away to others. 1t seems
that women sometimes kept their we'd
ding dresses long enough for their
| daughters to wear at their weddings.
That would seem shocking to us, and
yet, even your fine ladies did such
things. AS for what the poor had to
do in the way of keeping and wearing
their old clothes till they went to rags,
that is something won't bear thinking
| Of"
at is rather startling" I said, "to
find the problem of clean clothes
solved by the abolition of the washtub,
although 1 perceive that that was the
only radical solution"
Galen Clark, who has just resigned
the post of guardian of the Yosemite
valley, went there about 40 years ago,
- 7 - :, Z