The National tribune., 1899-02-09

opposition Of the New York "Anti-suffrag
| lists" New Yorks Anti-suffragist society
composed Of many women who are as anxiou.
I, not to have the vote as Susan B. Anthony and
her followers are to have it, carry on a grim
warfare and carry it past consistency, doing
that which they would deny the Suffragists
to wit, leaving their homes to meddle with
politics, forming organizations to affect legis-
lalion, and so on. Between the trained cam
paigners of the Suffrage forces, women WHO
| go right on fighting the day after defeat
and never stop minute even for a ''good
cry" over rebuff, and the appeals of flock
OF women who are willing to overstep the
very conservatism with which they would
hedge themselves and their sisters in, the
| legislators Of New York State will have but
a sorry time OF it.
Women who discuss the question of dress
ing both well and economically, and women
who have made a study Of the art, quote
some asionishingly low figures as possible
and practical for the yearly expenditure, by
clever women Of pretty clothes. The
amounts range from 1925 to $500 year, and
many women agree that $500 lisa comfortable
| allowance. This will surprise the woman
who spends twice that amount and thinks
! hCioCiI ny TIC WI ia LhdU sic LIS ~
| few fneries, but the trouble is that most
women do not have certain amount TO
spend in year. They spend what they can
get for the prettiest frock for their most
pressing need at the time, and trust to luck
that other days will bring other moneys for
| the other needs. Dressing well is an art in
itself, requiring much study, skill and time,
and the woman who really does it on SIPS
a year can't do much of anything else; that
| is, she can't read or study or do much skill
ful housekeeping. Certainly the woman OF
books OF work, with a house to keep or
children to mother, can't accomplish it. How
| ever, it is conceded that one can dress better
and more economically having certain
fixed sum for a year or quarter or month
than by spending money hap-hazard.
| Having this most women who have studied
| the question agree that from $40 TO $50 OF
1t should be spent on good tailor frock,
buying 1t in October. having the coat made
| with an interiining that can he taken out
when the warmer days come, using it for the
Summer, and then letting it become part
| of the reserve fund with the next October.
| This frOck is the mainstay Of the outfit, be-
ing worn with shirtwaIsts in Summer and
with silk and flannel blouses in the Winter
for street, visiting, luncheon and even in
formal dinner costume. Also. the woman of
small means can't afford to lounge or work
in the frock, but must keep it fresh. BY
wearing it carefully and keeping it sponged
and in good bindings, she can make it look
well for its year, and then it will serve for
rainy days and hard wear the next season.
The economical woman must make all of
her blouses underwear, and house-frocks
herself, or, at the most, with the aid of o
seamstress in the house. Some women think
it best to spend part Of their small sum on
ole pretty fr0ck for visiting; this they have
made at the dressmaker's; others rely on their
tailor made frOck aud spend their money on
well made evening frock. AS to hats there
, Is agreement that woman must have at
least two new hats year, and that $50 is
needed for them this. with freshening up
OF old ones, gives woman a sufficient variety.
For shoes SIS is allowed, and as much for
gloves. Many women would regard this as
ample; others spend twice that much, and
| think themselves restricted. This depends
largely on whether the individual happens to
be hard " on gloves and shoes or no, and
Is personal element that will vary the neces-
sary sum; but no woman can pretend to he
we'll dressed without neat gloves and shoes.
Handkerchiefs, ribbons and laces come in as
extras too; the ribbons and laces are luxu-
ries which many well-dressed girl has to
do without The conclusion seems to be
that with Sl25 . woman ca dress well, pro-