Evening star., 1947-08-23

terablv cut-of- date creation" But what Of
Mr.. Browns secretary in Chicago's merchan-
disc mart-the IS and TO- clerk who doesn't
shop Except window shop> on Fifth Avenue?
Is this world run for the millionaires daugh-
ters?
There's no flattery in the "style" for the
y matron either. Moreover, she doesn't want
to clip hubby for a complete new wardrobe
and make the kids go back to school with
patches in their pants. And grandma, I'm
sure, detests the hobbies she discarded 80
years ago.
Then there are the men. I think 90 out
of 100 would rather go back to the high stin
collar than have women start wearing these
tents.
And the whole trouble is, the girl who goes
in the shop to buy is helpless-utterly The
answer? Organize, join "the LBK club" Yes.
let's keep them just little below the knee,
please! JOHN II. kEAN.
To the Editor of The STAR
A problem now puzzling many OF our modern
girls is whether to wear their dresses long
or short There are good reasons behind
either of the answers you choose.
One setback in wearing your dresses long
is the waste of many of the perfectly good
dresses in your present wardrobe. Don't try
to be in fashion right away. There's plenty OF
time With thousands of people in war-torn
countries who will be cold this winter, we
can't afford to throw away good dresses. AS
YOU wear out a dress, replace 1t with more
fashionable one.
If you think it over, I'm sure you'll agree it's
the sensible thing to do. PAT ENGLERT
TO the Editor Of The Star:
thn Arcf n
Mrs. Warren j. Woodard of Dallas, Tex, for
organizing the Little Below the Knee Club?
AS housewife, a member Of the feminine
contingent which is to be on the receiving
end of this ingenious plan to frame the public,
I protest.! Why must I part with my last
dollar for new wardrobe that has little
more charm than gunny sack?
The czars of WPB may not have been fash
ion experts, but their restrictions created bet
ter fashions than the current crop OF dress
designers Must we drop the hem 8 inches
just because the war is over?
I should like to see these new" fashions.
remnants of bygone era relegated to motn
balls, where they belong. I wonder how many
others share the same opinion.
MRS RUTH NJ KEAN.
Alleees Errors in Articles on China
To the Editor of The Star:
The recent series of articles on China by
Robert S. Allen, appearing IN your columns,
illustrate once more the now-too-fashlonable
sport of making sweeping charges against the
Chinese government based on a smatterlng OF
unsupported rumors. l believe, however, your
readers are entitled to know how many salt
tablets they should swallow when they are
served such fanciful fare
Typical of the way such writers operate is
the manner in which Col. Allen, in the first
article Of his SERIES blandly asserts "the cor
ruption, incompetence and lack of control of
the Nationalist government" To substantiate
his assertion he repeats "a series OF charges
against T. v. Soong brother of Mime. Chang
Kai-shek, and other relatives OF the General
issimo."
One of these charges cited by Col. Allen is to
the effect that Chang Kai-shek's in-laws OBJ
tanned 100000 in foreign currency to buy cos
metics, whose importation is strictly prohibited
under an emergency economic decree. (The
same charge had appeared earlier in another
Washington paper where the amount was given
as s25,0O0 Apparently to heighten the effect,
Col Allen upped the figure four times. while
otherwise repeating almost verbatim his brother
craftsmans wordsJ
Presumably Col Allen was referring to the
Yangtze Development Corporation in this con-
nection. The original story reported that 128
cases of cosmetics belonging to the corporation
were turned back by the Customs. This story
was denied as pure fabrication" by the
Yangtze Development Corporation in their re-
cent announcements In all Shanghai news