TIIE SUNDAY OREGONIAN, PORTLAND, JANUARY 21, 1917.
I
Is the Perilous Waist less
Gown a Question of
the "Right Woman" or
One of Soda I Propriety?
An Evening
Gown of Black
Jet That Seems
to Begin at the
Waist, Which
Could ot Be
Worn Without
Tempting
Criticism of the
v Shoulders.
. - :::V1 - .-; A . .
i , ? . r 1 f ' ,' Kitty Gordon - , , - ' '
; , i r " i .'I ; 'f f Has Often Been ' ('J "
-' J -sv ' I V. ; t Called "The Girl ."Hsv
t.' 5 1 , i ' with the t - . A
' - J Beautiful.. I C -) .)
' " . ,v , ' . ' 1 - v Shoulders. V . I i) i
I -.t ..wy . 1 k " : -v-"
v, m,x.., po.lrf ou. o. A' .vf
of the Beauties Whose Shoulders ftfr v i ' a 1 I
J, j." . ' s
?c A a .
.
i-e 5 ' :
I .1 t ' . ' fc - '1
h .'..-. .-, . "j. Jr - - -. v.J? ;y-v3
-' .- s. . ( ...... .V .r-' f , "-' v.- 1
.' 7: - "-...... r. . JU'-:-- .! : . - 7-r .,:. ?
I, r - r
- j -My' V - Vv:v
i i if ( - -
f- 1 I t-t 51 f '
teg 4t ' ; i i V' :r.x
t 1 .-H-Jf x - l " '
r'.v: Lt-, .' yw ,w; i v--,
TV . I f ,J .. i $?--. 1 : v'.'r-
- J-w-l r.-T.. v.-:.. 3
. I f!J- - m vr,
r - V '. -. s v j- '' ;
c,f '' . ' n1
h i : VI ? -V 4
r Z"- . 1
I -: .w T--i - i'- . . - ' .".. .r,
v tv- .T-jr.- .. - .... ... v .
S:.v '. 'r''i v; i - - .'.-'. 'sXv - 5
- - i - 1
A Favorite Type of Evening Gown, Demonstrating the Indispensability of Good Shoulders to Success in Wearing
Fashionable Dress.
BT ELEANOR CARRINGTOX.
YOU may tell me that there always
Is some sort of fashion quarrel.
And you would be speaking the
exact truth.
Dressing Is an art. And art Is a mat
ter of opinion.
Heintf a matter of opinion, it ia a
matter of quarrelinsr. So there you are.
Just now. the uhouiUer Question Is
Another Illustration of the Gown That Seems to Begin at the
Waist. The Low V Back Is One of the Most Criticised of
Gown Effects.
ber of years ago when a daring stage
person paraded one uncovered ehuolder?
The escapade was considered very
shocking. Nowadays a gown from which
both uncovered arms and shoulders pro
trude. without even a shoulder strap,
is no very remarkable matter.
And yet these two uncovered shoul
ders were a matter of gripping two
narrow bands that performed merely
a decorative function.
Queen Victoria's edict was for a
corsage cut straight across and expos
ing both shoulders above the small
arm straps. The Queen was extremely
strict as to clothes, very much for the
proprieties, and her dress corsage was
eminently proper ia thai day. You
becoming acute. Not that people can do
without shoulders, or that anyone has
suggested doing without them. The
question is, should they be shown so
much? Should beautiful dress effects
become a shoulder question altogether?
Queen Victoria's Rule.
Do you remember of course you
don't if you are very young what a
sensation waa created a certain num.-
could not attend her functions wearing
any other form of gown, no matter
how bitterly the sharpness of your
shoulders. The prominence of your
clavicle or your shoulder blades might
resent the publication.
What was easier than to . snip the
two arm bands?
Yet this was a long time in happen
ing. First one free arm and the re
sulting shock. Then the two free
arms.
Within the past two seasons bared
shoulders in a corsage that rises but.
few inches above the waist has be
come a commonplace. Corsets had to
be revised. All of our notions of dress
had to be revised. Skirts really come
to begin at the top of the girdle re
gion. For the rest, for shoulder bands
or arm bands, these became a matter
merely of decorative fluff.
One result of the new fashion is the
same art question raised in Queen Vic
toria's time should the shoulders be
paraded when they are not beautiful?
We can't ail have shoulders like Kitty
Gordon or Vera Maxwell. Yet such is
the spell of fashion that pitifully spare
shoulders are placed, as it were, in the
spotlight quite as if they were an en
hancement of the owners' beauty.
Dresses cut far below the arm pit
are indeed a severe test of taste, for
few women are so built as to make
the effect seem attractive, even if we
leave out of consideration all other
questions of propriety.
Of course the artists say these ef
fects are beautiful when they are beau
tiful, and that they are ugly when they
are not beautiful. In other words, they
hold that the effects are right for the
right woman.
No wonder there is confusion in the
present discussion. Shall wearing cov
ered shoulders be a confession of phys
ical inferiority? Then her ladyship
will wear bare shoulders. This is
equivalent to saying that she would
rather produce an ugly effect than ap
pear to decry her own charm.
Meanwhile, gowns are not changing
in any way to relieve the situation.
There seems to be fewer and fewer al
ternatives. A vast number of designs
continue to give the impression of a
gown beginning at the waist where
once they began at the shoulders. All
this Is quite according to certain orien
tal, barbaric or theatrical design, but
scarcely a social or domestic answer
to the gown problem. Back "V's" now
literally run to the waist line, and It
would seem to be inevitable that - if
there is to be any change it will be a
change that once more recognises the
shoulders as having the right to be
draped in some fashion.
The Masdarts Gm,
Paradoxically, the era that recog
nizes these forma as the height (or
depth) of correctness in a party frock
has welcomed the Mandarin gown, one
of the most enveloping and concealing
devices since the Introduction of the
Japanese kimono, it is, indeed, mrucb
more concealing than the kimono, for
it has no V at the throat. So much for
the contradictions of fashions. I have
no doubt that we are approaching a
time when the body from chin to toe
will be covered, even for dress occa
sions, as never before. Fashion loves
i
not merely change but reversals. It
loves novelty best when the novelty
turns most abruptly from the past.
One of the startling changes had the
time of the immortal shoulder puffs,
the most hideous fashion that any one
may prove by turning to- the family
photograph album. Doubtless, too. the
crinoline shoulders were the result of
rebellion against the skin-tight Jer
seys. Very likely the Grecian bend and
the "pull back" skirts were having a
fling at hoopsklrts. Fashion Is very
contemptuous of the past until it is
Just ready to go back and give a re
incarnation to some particular exploit
of an earlier era.
The longest skirts that ever were
worn you had to gather them up when
you crossed a room have been fol
lowed by the shortest skirts that ever
were worn. The highest ruffs that
ever happened since Queen Elizabeth's
day have been followed by the lowest
corsage known to the history or fasn
ion. In all of these forms, the artists and
dressmaking connoisseurs will tell you,
there were elements of eternal beauty.
So was the extreme of the case" that
offended, and the undebatable misfor
tune of the right gown on the wrong
woman. So that we are again back at
the age-old problem of Tightness, which
every woman must decide for herself.
After she has decided on the ethical
propriety of a gown, if she goes so far,
she must decide whether she is the
woman to wear it. She must not, if
she is wise, take the abstract ditum
of fashion, or the ruthless pronounce,
ment of the dressmaker. She must,
by whatever course, decide for her
self whether gown and woman prop
erly belong together. When the ques
tion Is rightly answered beauty is ap
peased, and in no other way ciin it be
appeased.
LEGAL SIDELIGHTS FOR
LAWYERS AND" LAYMEN
BY RETXELLE G. K. CORNISH. OF PORTLA.VI) BAR.
QJOCIAL clubs. Many people who are terms of the by-law creating the priv
ilege, i ne Dyiaws constituted. In ef
fect, a contract between the different
kJ most careful In their businesadeal-
Ings are apt to regard membership in a
social club as a matter of small im
portance, and to hold the rules and
regulations by which they are bound,
and the obligations which they agree
to assume on joining, as more or less
a matter of form and of slight conse
quence. The case of Boston Club vs. Potter, 98
N. E. 614, will serve to impress upon
such people the fact that the Joining
of a social organization may cause a
contractual relation to arise between
the different members and the club,
and that this contract will be as seri
ously regarded and as strictly enforced
by the courts as if It were a contract
involving purely business instead of
social obligations.
In the case above cited, the defend
ant claimed to have handed in bis res
ignation on January 8, 1907. His letter
of resignation, however, was not re
ceived by the club's secretary or passed
upon by Its executive committee. The
dues for the succeeding year became
payable on December 1. 1907. On De
cember 9, 1907, the defendant repeated
bis resignation, and soon after the club
went into the hands of a receiver and
the clubhouse closed. .
The receiver attempted to collect the
dues which had become payable De
cember 1. 1907, on the ground that the
defendant was at that time a member
In good standing and therefore liable.
The defendant objected, claiming that
his resignation of January 8 was valid.
and also that the closing of the club
house deprived him of some of the
benefits of membership and thus can
celled his obligation to pay dues.
The court, however, regarded the de
fendant's obligation as a legally en
forceabie debt, and held him reapons
lble therefor, saying. In part: "Resig
nation, with a cessation of further lia
bility for membership dues, was a priv
ilege of the member, and to avail him
self of it ha must comply with, the
members and the corporation
The defendants resignation of De
cember 9. 1907, cannot avail him be
cause he then owed the club for the
dues which had accrued on December
first of the year. It was only a mem
ber not then indebted to the club who
could send to the secretary a written
resignation. . . The appointment of
the receiver and the closing of the club
house, depriving the defendant of some
of the benefits of membership, furnish
no deiense to the action. His liability
or the annual dues was fixed on De
cember 1; it was a liability for the
whole amount thereof, though he could
liquidate It in quarterly payments.
"Nor did his membership cease Ipso
facto on February 1. 190S, under the
last clause of article iv section S. of
the bylaws because of his failure to
pay the dues within two months from
December 1. 1907, so as to relieve him
from further liability for those dues.
He could not by his own failure term
inate the responsibility which he had
assumed, though the club might have
done so."
Injury without redress. Not all
damages are legally collectible, even
when the person responsible is a long
suffering railroad corporation, as wit
ness the case of Carney vs. Boston Ele
vated R. R. Company, 98 M. E. 605.
The plaintiff in this case had been
injured while riding In an open surface
car feeneath the defendant railroad's
elevated structure. "She heard the
rumble of an elevated train over her
car, 'saw the sparks flying,' looked up
and was struck In the eye by a spark,
which could be found to have been a
minute piece or hot iron, about as large
as the point of a pin, coming from the
elevated road, and, as we assume, from
the contact shoe of the train which
was passing thereon.
"The structure waa properly in the
street and the defendant was author
ized to operate its road by electricity.
There was no 'evidence that it was a
frequent occurrence for sparks to fall
from its passing into the street, or in
deed that this had ever before hap
pened. There was nothing to indicate
that the defendant ought to have fore
seen this danger and to have guarded
against it or given warning of its
existence. There was no evidence that
there was any practicable method or
device for checking the emission of
sparks from its trains or its electrical
apparatus, or preventing their fall to
the street, which the defendant had
failed to adopt. There was nothing to
show any lack of proper care on the
part of the defendant in the operation
of its trains or cars."
Under this evidence the court refused
to hold the defendant liable, saying, in
part: "It is true, no doubt, that the
cause of her (the plaintiff's) injury
could be found to have come from the
operation of apparatus which had been
furnished and applied by the defendant
and was wholly under its management
and control. . , . but this single
circumstance is not always enough.
"Where, as here, the cause of the
accident has come from the lawful
operation by lawful means of an au
thorized instrumentality, and where
any damage or injury that has resulted
may have come without any negligence
of the defendant, but may have arisen
merely as an unavoidable accident from
the careful and skillful exercise of its
lawful rights in spite of the observance
of all proper precautions, there no lia
bility can arise without some affirma
tive evidence of negligence.
"In such a case, the happening of
the accident with the resulting injury
is as likely to have come without the
fault of the defendant as to .have been
due to its negligence. ... The in
ference of negligence cannot be drawn
without some evidence to support it."
THH DIXIE GIRL.
Fair little rebel across the line
Or was It your mother? Oh. memory
mine, ,
How swiftly the rivers run.
Tell me why roses and lilacs grow.
Tell me the riddle why breezes blow
So sweet from your land of sun.
Rom to the purple and horse and drum.
Waiting the Prince who is sure to como
To kiss and to claim your hand;
Foolish you are. I have heard It said.
Clinging to theories long since dead.
And loyal to fairyland.
Scorning the hatchet and brick and
bomb.
Loving your home and the "Junior
prom."
And holding traditions dear:
Ruling your place, or cot, at rest.
Looking to men for their noblest, best.
And trusting your cavalier.
Victor somehow, though the flag be
furled.
Mistress somehow In a changing world.
And every man at jour feet.
Men are but fools? Well, it may be
true.
But ready to live or to die for you.
A woman, and always sweet.
Charles I. Junkin in People's Homo
Journal.
A