The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1900-05-16

suggestion from correspondent that
the ladies Of Atlanta remove their
hats in church as they do in the thea
tres. This idea has been very gcncr
ally approved, and we shall not be
surprised to see an anti-church hat
movement inaugurated in this city.
Atlanta was the second city in this
country to require the hats Of ladies,
as well as those of men, should be re-
moved at performances in theatres.
New Orleans led in this great reform
and Atlanta was quick to follow.
How immensely has the pleasure Of
all the patrons Of the theatres Of this
city been increased by this simple
concession to common sense!
If the question were put to popu-
lar vote, great majority of women,
as we'll as men, would now declare in
favor of the disappearance of hats at
theatres.
Are not the reasons for taking them
off at church quiteoas strong as those
which have effected their removal at
operas and plays? The attendant Of
church services should have as many
conditions Of comfort as the attend
ant of the theatres. 1t is quite as de-
sirablc to see preacher while he is
speaking as to see an actor while he
or she is performing, prancing or sing
ing. We never really know what
speaker, especially if he be an orator,
really means unless we can look into
his face, catch its every expression,
watch the fash Of his eye, see the
play of emotion on his features and
discern that indefinite and unde6nablc
something which betokcns sincerity
and carnestncss of pretensc and hypo-
crisy.
And yet many Of us now often sit in
church and hear voice, but cannot
perceive whence or from whom it
comes. The awful spread eagle hat is
in the way. A man outside the door,
with his back turned to the preacher,
would have as much chance of benefit
or entertainment from the sermon as
do you when you sit and suffer in this
total eclipse.
There is great moral principle as
we'll as serious question of ethics in
volved in this matter.
The big church hat is deterrent of
religion, an obstacle to righteous con-
viction, q feathered and ribboned
stumbling block in the way eof the
pilgrim who is trying to walk the
straight and narrow path.
There may be men in this land Of
light who are still in darkness because
the church hat has intervened be-
tween them and the full effulgence of
the truth.
For all we know there may be men
now leading wicked and hopeless lives
only because the preachers have never
had q fair shot at them-men who
have not skulkcd and hid from the
batteries of the truth, but have been
involunterily concealed during all
their church going behind varied
but unbroken array Of femme head
gear. Those who favor this proposed
reform do not advocate the enactment
of law which will compel women to
take off their hats in houses of wor-
ship. They will depend upon the
power of moral suasion. They ap-
peal to that sense of justice and mercy
which is strong in the hearts of all
good women. The appeal also to that
honest and laudable desire Of every
woman to look her best at all times.
The milliner is benefaotor Of man
kind. She works wonders for the
adornment of women, and men are
struck delightcdly dumb as they gaze
on her creations. But all things have
their place, and the place for wo-
mans hat in church is her lap or her
pew, not her head.
And, after all, what art or achieve
meut of millinery has ever equaled
the beauty of 9 woman's uncovered
head? Is there anything in this world
more beautiful than the eilken tresses
which cover and crown woman's
head, cluster over her sweet temples
and sweep above her beauteous brow?
The more we sec of these things the
better, and how can we get full view
Of then when women persist in wear
ing their hats? The church is, of all
places, the one where the hats cf wo-
men should come off.
Not only are the comfort and the
moral welfare Of men involved, we may
ask ifwomen are following strictly the
way Of the righteous when they awear