The Birmingham age-herald., 1914-09-23

As the swift seasons ehance-more rad ically every year in regard to dress-it is borne more forcibly than ever upon those who think of the matter at all that the matter of fashionable attire has its ethical side. Clubwomen in certain sections, and men of some of the more austere pro fessions, have contended that the morals of a people are directly affected by the cut of the gowns it wears
 To be sure. dressing has always been rather a serious business. Even to the cave man and his wife the question or whatever they should wear cannot have been invariably a light one Convenience rather than fashion may, it IS true' nave dictated the styles of that early uihe' but fashion must have become an nm portant element in the problem long pe- fore historians began to record the dolnss of their day for the benefit of future gem erations. Somebody would hit upon new way of wearing a familiar garment, UT perhaps by accident alter the shape Of IL, For instance, if he left part or It In the grasp of a too hotly pursuing animal. The new mode, appealing by its oddity, over
 
 tribesmen, and in the regular cource or events assumed the sacred character or an old tradition, to be handed down to pos terity as part of the common possessiohs of the race. Was such fashion as thls ever accused of corrupting the morals or the race? Or was this reserved for more enlightened periods? In our own. preach- CTS and college professors, writers oi letters to newspapers and private depaters all have raised their voices In solmn' not to say raucous warning of the fate that would befall civilization arraying itseir in sheath gowns and slit skirts.
 such a garb. they have assured us, was A direct cause of the loose morals Tor which our age is supposed to be espeelahy noteworthy, and its wearers, accordinely' have a responsibility that few of them would welcome.
 It cannot be said that these criticisms seem to have made much of an impress sion upon those to whom they nave been applied, but this, in the judgement or those making them, IS the nnal prooi oi the guilt of the accused!
 Somehow the logic of this sort ot reas- oning is not convincing. In Spur thlseWeek the point is taken, in discussing the mat ter, that it fails to convince because we do not associate moral perfection Witn cartorial stagnation; that the virtues III the lands where no lady would be seen on the street without veil that conceals all of her features except the pupils oi her eyes. are in no more hourishing state than in our own, for the reason that vlr- tue and vice rest on more solid founda- tions than a face veil. To the Puritan many of the worlds noblest paintings ana .staines were the creation of the Prince ot r1vil, but mankind has .not accepted this view.
 Truly the weak point in some of the ul- iva fashionable designs of the day is not their ethics, but their esthetics! They of- fend taste rather than conscience. For 1t is too often true that there Is no closer relation between style and beauty than there is between style and morality. It Is doubly foolish, therefore, to direct an at tack upon the supposed moral influence oi certain fashions in dress. This is to as- sail an enemy that does not exist While a real foe ranges unchecked.