Every evening, Wilmington daily commercial., 1920-02-26
SILK HOSIERY SAFE
AGAINST LEGISLATION
No Man Would Vote to Ban it,
Short Skirts or Thin Waists,
Woman Says.
From The Baltimore sun.

From The Baltimore sun.
Is there man so courageous as Il
undertake tn legislate "the iow-necket
dress and the iilny waist out OF eN
istenceP
This is the question that is suggested
by the action of the women constituents
if Representtive Langley. from Ken
tucky. who has been chosen by them tc
introduce a law regulating women's
dress.
II never can go to church without
seeing some Young miss cross her knees
and show her silk hosiery and all the
Young men around wont listen to the
sermon from that time on, writes one
of Congressman Langley's constituents.
Several explanations may be offered
for the experience OF the constituent,
who went to church doubtless to watch
and pray" but who was more Jealous IN
the former than in the latter.
1t is quite possible that silk hosiery
Is a novelty in old kentucky, where sur
plls cash, before prohibition went into
effect. was usually applied to whisky
straight. suh." instead of handed over
for the adornment of the family OF the
Kentucky gentleman.
In the Judgment of Miss Marie W.
Presstman, of the Board OF Moving Pic
ttlre Censors, men like silk hosiery and
low-necked gowns and lilmy waists, and
will not try to legisiate them out OF eX-
istence any more than they will ban
their favorite weed or breakfast bacon or
safety razor.
Not only that; Miss Freshman insists
that man has the courage to face 2
desperate in dark lane or liquor burg
lsr in q gloomy cellar after midnight
Al ,sA s.,ra ltyap no fsnn
through shot and shell without fiinching
and with a smile on his face; but man
Is too much of an angel to step in where
fools fear to treadl No man, she AYERS,
who has regard for life, limb and politl-
cal future would undertake TO dictate TO
women as a class what she shall wear
and when she shall wear it.
Miss Freshman admits that "abbrevl-
ated costumes are on the increase
'T do not think, she states, however,
that laws made by man will remedy
the situation. In my judgment, there
are two classes of women upon whom the
responsibility rests, and who can bring
about a reform In woman'S dress. tirst,
there are the actresses on the stage.
Then there are the society women. Re
form in dress is entirely up TO these two
classes, and not to men.
The film actress follows the actress
on the stage. The society woman does
the same, and sometimes goes her one
better. The stenographer, the shop girl
and the general run of women who pat
ronize the movies follow the film
actress.
Il think it is a mistaken idea. how
ever, that men like these extreme styles
which so many women have adopted At
the present time
Judging by the men on the Censor
Board, that is far from the truth. Many
q time the board Is about 10 censure n
gown, q skirt, or bathing suit, when
remind them that the styles shown
are actually worn III the drawing room,
on the street or on the beach and have
already become the custom.
Comedies in underwear are frequently
eliminated by the board We also climi-
nate frequently the short skirt, the
cw-back gown and the one-piecc bath
ing suit, but when We do eliminate them
Il Is not because the members OF the
board feel themselves equal TO the task
OF passing on womens styles. II Is due
TO suggestiveness IN the COS
tune or the movement Of the actress or
actor, an element from which we ann 20
keep all pictures free.
In my judgement. man-made laws on
she subject OF woman's dress are foolish
end simply add a few more useless
statute to a statute book already heavily
Reform In woman's dress Is entirely
IN the hands of society leaders and ac-
tresses-the movies and the whole
world OF women follow where they
lee1f'