Arizona republican., 1921-11-04
The sartorial Rights of Women

The Sartorai Rights of Women
 The shall that which per- taineth unto a man. neither shall man put on womans garment; for all that do abomi- nation to the Lord.-Deut- xxii:5.
 This brethren, is the subject of our remarks this morning. undertaken in response telephone request, without instructions the side should in the issue which has been created by mod woman. By modern. in this connection in those who broke away from convention to adopt "bloomer" of early period we'll those stln modern who have appropriated the riding brooches of their brothers. the coveralls of the automobile mechanic.
 In the absence of instructions. we think we shall take the side of the women. though may appear to be in revolt against the plain language of the Holy Scriptures. which. however. had already been severely mutilated by higher criticism.
 But we shall inquire what in the mind of the writer. It is said that he inspired For that matter. all writers inspired. We. for in stance, inspired by the telephone We conceive that his inspiration whose architectural proportions were unsuited male apparel in which she clothed herself and thus natu- rally became "abomnation unto" him. It easy for him to believe that the Lord would have been similarly affected at sight of the appariton.
 So many of us are that way-we think that things that displeasing to must be displeas- ing the Almighty This tendency of human nature the groundwork "blue laws" We condemn many things which have not under Divine prescription, thinking that they would been prohibited if they brought the attention of the Lord.
 A humorous poet has illustrated this human ten- dency in the Lament" of the Swede a grouchy individual who took offense at the evidences of joy about him and promised himself gloomier surround ings in Heaven:
 Sing on you birds und lowing herds.
 Sing til your troats be dry.
 You bet your boots you quit your toots
 On ranch up in der sky
 We advert to the foregoing in extenuation of an apparent disregard of plain scriptural injunction.
 Again, the injunction could not be made to apply to the adoption by of the masculine garments of today since there was nothing like them when the Pentateuch penned-the trousers. knicker- booker. waistcoats. We informed what was the vogue at that time. There were. we know. robes of various kinds imagine the differ ences between masculine and feminine apparel minute. Both simple.
 Originally there single garment robe. It was only differently by men and women. Among the Greeks there the chlamys and the Romans, the toga- Increasing attention to hygiene developed undergarments the nteria or ntima As civilization progressed, clothing became varied and intricate. and at length it became volurninous to women's garments that hygiene was in danger of being showed back. Then came the relieving simplicity of the abbreviated skirt
 We are speaking only of outer garments. Of the 'fntmae" know nothing except by hearsay, but we informed that to them Deut. xx:5 has not been affronted They purely feminine.
 There some who hold the modern gown to be "abominaton." but that related theme since it does not under any prohibition that may be found in text.
 And as the riding brooches. the llnickerbock- CTS the coveraI have shown, they were non existent In biblical times and could not therefore have been prohibited women. It is true that man "seen them first" but he neglected to patent his discoveries.
 It is true that have had some foolish laws against the of trousers by They used to arrest Dr. Mary Walker for wearing them An other prohibition against their use by women was police precaution against impersonators But these laws their original application now dead let ters. And think have clearly shown that Deut. x2lii:5 is not applicable.