Evening star., 1900-07-25
The Neglige Shirt Reform Seems to
Have Lost Opponents.
INTERVIEWS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Replies to Recent Letters From
Several Writers.
SOME TERSE COMMENTS

be q subject almost as generally discussed
in Washington as the situation in China
The moderation in the temperature has IN
no way affected the warmth Of the argu-
ments, and while those in favor of man
making himself comfortable in hot weather
by divesting himself of the conventional
coat and displaying himself in a neat
neglge are largely in a majority. there is
good minority who affect to be horror
stricken at the simple idea.
Il have been listening to the prevailing
talk over the coat-off question: said a
well-known observer this morning, land
have been especially edited up at my
boarding house, where every living issue is
promptly taken up and discussed. We have,
you know, the bold young man, the secre-
tary of the Antttellyourage Maidens Asso-
citation, the hen-pecked rooster the icono-
clast from 1ronvile. and other prominent
lights in our midst, and it has been inter-
esting to hear them chew the rag over the
present crisis. Sitting it down. l find that
the sole objection to the neglige shirt
minus the coat Is that its wearer must lose
his respect for woman. Now, my respect
for woman is great when she minds her
own business that l want to increase 1t, If
possible, and therefore 1 would like The
Star to get some scientific duck to let me
know what number of coats is required to
enable a man to hoist the ratio of his re-
spect for the fair sex"
Another. a well-known club man and
lawyer, who was on a street car minus
his coat and was congratulated on his good
sense. remarked:
Now, what has struck me during the
pending controversy is what the dickens the
our coats, anyhow? We have as much
right to inaugurate a fashion as they have.
I'll bet that If the critical women who de-
clare negitges are unseemly and all that
peared riding in public clad in a decollete
gown every last one of 'em would be show
ing their shoulders in less than a month";
The recent communications to The Even
ing Star. all of which are given below
show very decided-as 1t is unanimous
championship of the affrmat tive side of the
take-off-your-coat proposition.
No Valid Argument Against 1t.
To the Editor of The Evening Star:
What fools these mortals be-" l am led
to the quotation of the above trite and sage
observation of the immortal little philoso-
pher. whose attire is universally depicted as
consisting of a "conventional'' silk hat. a
"conventional' long-tailed coat and con-
ventional" sash. some of the convention
aities insisted on with such fearful elo-
quence by some of your correspondents on
the "coats-off question. l have read with
pleasure and approval the sensible things
The Star has had to say on the "coats-off
question, and l have read with equal pleas
ure the level-headed views of most of your
correspondents on the subject. The tommy
rot written by few in objection to enc of
the most sensible innovations in mems
summer apparel that has been advocated
for many year is enough to make one as
| tired as sweltering all day in a hot coat
and vest with the thermometer chasing it
self up past the century mark in effort
to follow the suggestions of one of your
correspondents In regard to keeping up the
grand conventionalities Our conventional
friend should remember that we are not
living in the Chinese empire, where 1t is
conventional only to do as ones ancestors
have done and where progress is almost an
unknown quantity. A few years ago it was
not conventional to ride electric cars
nor on bicycles, nor on automobiles, but |
presume our conventional friend would not
object to either of these means of Focomo-
tton per Sc.
And why should he or any one else object
to men being nearly comfortable on n
hot day possible, to their taking off
coat and vest to add to their comfort? The
vest is no longer considered Indispensable
to the business man on hot summer day
By discarding it, half of the shirt and sus-
peEders are exposed. Isn't 1t splitting hairs
to object to the other half or wherefore
should the back of man be treated diff
feIently than the front of him as regards
the amount of covering required? And.
after ALL what is there inherently wrong
or immodest about a mans shirt or sus-
penders, that they should be so scrupulous-
ly covered? Who ever thinks of objecting
to a laboring man working in his shirt
sleeves for his greater comfort? And who
will say that the vast majority Of working
men are not just as true gentlemen at
heart as though they were clothed in pur-
pie and fine linen and Jared sumptuously
every day? The point is we'll taken too.
that the person of a man in his shirt sleeves
is much more completely covered than is
that Of the lady in diaphanous shirt waist,
decollete costume or other styles of dress
that are universally considered proper. One
more point in favor of the coats-off idea.
and that one Is the comfort of the person
concerned. There may be those men who
are SO cold-blooded and batrachian-like that
they can wear the same suit in summer
as in winter, and work all day in hun
dred-degree temperature with coat and
vest on without suffering serious incon-
venience, but must confess that l am not
one of those favored mortals. and for me to
undertake such feat would be to find my
self ere half the day was spent in such an
excess of perspiration that garments would
be saturated with it and every thread of
starched goods l wore hopelessly wilted
and my body SO overheated that throb-
binE headache would be the certain result
and this even if but walked the streets
or did any ordinary office work or indoor
work Of that nature. And. there are others.
One Of your correspondents thinks there
need be no objections to the coats-off idea
If all men dressed as daintily as certain
bank clerks referred to. Isn't that toady-
ing little strongly? And wherefore should
it be proper for a banker or bank employe
to do that which it is improper for others
to do, wherefore is 1t more permissible
for man to go in his shirt sleeves if his
visible apparel costs 800 than If it costs but
IS? I may be obtuse, but fail to see the
difference. even if your correspondent does
make the distinction. In referring to the
permissible things in ladies' attire, let me
say 1 am no prude. and raise no objections
to what woman collectively may deem
proper in regard to her own apparel, but
doesn't 1t look little prudish in those
women who object to mans following the
plain dictates of comfort and health in his
attire when so much latitude has been SO
literally granted them, and when man does
not core anything like so near violating
any of the proprieties in his shirt-sleeve
costume does woman in some of her
modes of attire? In conclusion let me say
that 1 do not object to a man dressing as
heavily he may desire, and If he can be
comfortable with a coat and vest on in
midsummer, all well and good, but as for
me, give me liberty or give me DEATH
and for mankind in general. the day Of
coats-on is her, for five out Of ten Of
him. and will soon be here for the other
four, and 1t will be here to stay for the
idea is founded on reason, good sense COM
for! and health. and there is no valid argu-
ment against 1t. B. w. NJ
This approver of the idea drops into
rhyme: