The age-herald., 1902-02-11

It seems to be the tendency of many writers to point out the evils that will result from the present extravaganza on the wealthy classes who dominate society.
 Those who are making serious study of this phase of social life, and who rec ognize that the demands of society fall heavily upon a large class are suggest ing that simplicity rather than extrava- gance, shall characterize social life; that the ostentation, the artificiality that has gradually crept in to it's own lines tends to destroy the real foundation of the so- cial life of the republic
 This desire for show" however 1t seems is not confined exclusively to this country, for in English society there is a strong influence being directed against the present extravagant demands of smart society. This movement reached a climax recently when certain members of London society made a public protest against the custom of making costly wedding gifts.
 The occasion of Lord Stavordars mar riage was made the case in point the gifts aggregating $1,75O,O0O.
 While America can not furnish a paral- Tel case, still perusal of the American press reveals many instances of an ex- travagant outlay for wedding gifts, and American brides are not far behind their English sisters when it comes to the elegance and costliness of their wedding presents.
 Few London brides of the winter could probably boast of more superb jewels than Mrs Payne Whitney, the most nota- ble American bride of the re-Lenton season. But leaving out less distinguish I ed brides, the question of giving costly presents is to be considered more serious l ly in those instances when society feels l the burden of giving. It would seem that l good taste would settle this question, that ] persons of moderate means would reeog- nize the bad form of attempting any os- tentation as displayed in the matter of wedding gifts. And yet this desire to send gift beyond ones means is not | always an unhappy one, or based wholly upon an ambition to outshine some one else. Nor should a protest from any quarter place an obligation upon society in general in this matter of giving su- perb presents. Neither should it follow that because a person well able to buy a princely gift should be criticised or made to feel responsible because other people overdraw their bank account.
 But this protest against people of mod crate means giving wedding presents en- tirely beyond their purse will no doubt hp " in, al the protest bring about any reform as long as people of wealth continue to put small fortunes in wedding gifts?
 All this discussion. however, about peo- pie not living beyond their means and this plea for moderation and simplicity was never more timely, and the protest against the heavy tax that society has been forced to tolerate will be commend ed in many quarters.
 The English view of the matter as given in the New York Herald is as fol- lows:
 Some people in society estimate their annual expenditure on wedding presents at not less than $5000. The habit of giv- ing wedding presents has apparently grown beyond all bounds. Every one is l expected to give. While there are many who would be happy to do so in modera- tion. they feel that unless they go far be- yond their means their little token will l be merely brushed away as unworthy to 1 be placed side by side with the gorgeous l things that are showered down in every l direction.
 Tt is all due to the fact" said one lady that we are living in an artificial, un- | real and unhealthy age. We are eaten up with love of ostentation We want to 1 show and be shown. We are lot of sheep, we English. because we fail to | see that we are going the inevitable pace l to ruin. Stop it? How I wish I could!" Another lady, a marchioness, said: T do hope you will be able to show people that they are unllind in giving such lav- ish presents to comparative strangers. You do not know what suffering it causes among people who are necessarily obliged to follow suit
 "Of course there are many people who