New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1905-05-02
MIR. ATKINSON REPLIES.
In Spite of Feminine Scorn, He Insists Won
en- Can Dress on $65 Year

The walls of feminine wrath which were poured
out upon the devoted head of Edward Atkinson
when he was lately rash to assert that
might dress satisfactorily from S65 to
SIS a year appear to have daunted his spirit or
shaken his faith in the soundness of his conclu-
sons for in the current number of The Indepen-
dent he boldly restates his opinion. without modi-
fication apology,
The figures not based on mere hypothesis.
he says. They were proved by evidence and could
be proved by reference to persons if it were fit to
give their names without subjecting them to an
noyance from constant inquiry.
He explains, however. that the figures are not
intended TO apply to all women, but only to those
who obliged to practise strict economy. Those
who have more may spend more. but even they
should not spend more than they need to-
The condition of the poor may be considerably
ameliorated Mr. Atkinson thinks by ameliorating
the condition Of the rich. which he considers
much harder job. Both classes, he says, need in
struction in spending money more than in saving it,
Mr.. Atkinson's suggestions as to the expenditure
of from $50 to $50 are embodied in the following
list, which covers a period Of four years;
Eight hats. two outer garments (wnter) two
ditto (summer). four shirtwaiss (woollen), sixteen
S b 5oes "xford tIyPfn S p S0ss
Twelve corset covers, eight corsets sixteen draw
ers COTTON, six undervests (winter) six ditto
pairs gloves (d) eight ditto (cotton} four dozen
handkerchiefs, eight pairs rubbers. two kimonos
accessories, one mU1f, two umbrellas.
The subject is discussed in The independent
under the heading "E1travagance in women's
Dress but the writer is careful to state that he
does not consider women to be by nature any more
extravagant in their dress than The only
reason why men spend less than dress
Is he says, because it is not good form for man
to become conspicuous in his dress while in some
classes of society the more conspicuous a woman
becomes by the of color and texture the
well dressed she is assumed to be.
This limitation Of male extravaganza Mr.. Atkin-
son is inclined to regret In this, as in many
other things, he believes that the time has come
organize mems clubs for the discussion of mems
rights and equal opportunities.
LAS the outward mark Of a gentleman what
could be more suitable than the dress of only one
with gold plated buttons, the buff waistcOat, the
rufed shirt. the black tights with the conspicuous
bunch Of seals attached to the watch carried in
the fob, the silk stockings, the shoes with shining
buckles? What man row forced 70 dress for din
ner or for evening entertainment in sOmbre black
butler the waiter, does not long for a to
the fashion that I have described, even to the
earlier fashions and the days of the cavaliers and
their successors? What man has not craving for
coor2 What better evidence Of this desire deco
themselves in colors than is found in the pro-
cessious of the Masons, the odd Fellows. the
Knights of Pythias and other such bodies? men
were not shackled by conventional rules in dress
does any doubt that they would be as extrava-
CANT as women? Diamond shirt studs. scarfpins
and finger rings vulgar in men, admired often
when by won1en-why this discrimination?
What dress Of great distinction than the type
worn by Washington? Can any imagine him
the modern so-called full dress OF society?'