To Wear or Not to Wear

The Robinson Argus Thu, Jun 20, 1878 ·Page 2

In an indirect way the Supreme court of Pennsylvania has been called upon to decide the important question as to whether a woman as any legal right to wear stays.  It gallantly says she has. Th matter found its way into court after this fashion:  A lady was riding in a horse car (streetcar), not crowded, perhaps, but containing ladies enough to cover all the seats with their dresses, so that the traveler had to stand up.

The car stopped suddenly, and she fell over, breaking her knee.  She sued for damages.  The company claimed contributory negligence on her part in that she did not take hold of the strap that is provided for standing passengers.  She defended herself that she could not reach or hold the strap, owing to the stays which she wore, and that with the present fashions no lady could do so, at least without inconvenience and possible injury.

The lower court decided that the lady in taking hold of a fellow passenger’s hand had done all that was necessary and that under the circumstances she was not obliged to stretch up to the strap.  It awarded her about $5000 and when the Supreme Court reviewed the case, it declined to interfere.

It is a question of some sociological importance to know how this decision would be received by the fairer sex. At first glance it looks like a declaration in favor of woman’s rights, but it will scarcely stand analysis as such.  It amounts really to the official proclamation that woman shall remain cramped, barreled up and unable to lift her arms and content only with clinging to some other person’s hand for support.  And this is what modern dress amounts to. . . Of corset is.