FASHION'S CLAMOR. 



E. K. M. 



JUDGING from late millinery cre 

 ations, and the appearance of 

 windows and showcases, women, 

 in spite of the efforts of the 

 Audubon societies, still elect to adorn 

 themselves with the stuffed remains of 

 rare or common birds. 



A live bird is a beautiful and grace 

 ful object, but a dead duck, pigeon, or 

 gull peering with glassy eyes over the 

 brim of a woman's hat is, to the think 

 ing mind, both unbecoming and repul 

 sive. In deference to ." sentimental" 

 bird lovers and at the same time the 

 behest of Dame Fashion, wings and 

 breasts are said to be manufactured 

 out of bits of feathers and quills which 

 have all the appearance of the original. 

 Wings and breasts, yes, but never the 

 entire creature, which the bird lover 

 in a millinery sense chooses above all 

 other adornments for her headgear. 

 Apart from the humanitarian side of 

 the subject, one cannot but marvel 

 that such women cannot be brought 

 to regard the matter from the esthetic 

 point of view. 



" Esthetic," repeats my lady, glanc 

 ing admiringly in the mirror at the 

 death's head above her brow, "esthetic 

 point of view, indeed ! Why, the point 

 of view with most women is to wear 

 whatever they consider becoming, 

 striking, or outre. Now I flatter myself 

 in selecting this large gull with spread 

 ing wings for my hat, that I attained 

 .all three of these effects, don't you?" 



" Especially the outre" muttered one 

 of her listeners, at which my lady 

 laughed, evidently well pleased. 



Five women out of every ten who 

 walk the streets of Chicago and other 

 Illinois cities, says a prominent journal, 

 by wearing dead birds upon their hats 

 proclaim themselves as lawbreakers. 

 For the first time in the history of 

 Illinois laws it has been made an 

 offense punishable by fine and im 

 prisonment, or both, to have in posses 

 sion any dead, harmless bird except 



game birds, which may be " possessed 

 in their proper season." The wearing 

 of a tern, or a gull, a woodpecker, or a 

 jay is an offense against the law's 

 majesty, and any policeman with a 

 mind rigidly bent upon enforcing the 

 law could round up, without a written 

 warrant, a wagon load of the offenders 

 any hour in the day, and carry them 

 off to the lockup. What moral suasion 

 cannot do, a crusade of this sort un 

 doubtedly would. 



Thanks to the personal influence of 

 the Princess of Wales, the osprey 

 plume, so long a feature of the uni 

 forms of a number of the cavalry 

 regiments of the British army, has 

 been abolished. After Dec. 31, 1899, 

 the osprey plume, by order of Field 

 Marshal Lord Wolseley, is to be re 

 placed by one of ostrich feathers. It 

 was the wearing of these plumes by 

 the officers of all the hussar and rifle 

 regiments, as well as of the Royal 

 Horse Artillery, which so sadly inter 

 fered with the crusade inaugurated by 

 the Princess against the use of osprey 

 plumes. The fact that these plumes, 

 to be of any marketable value, have to 

 be torn from the living bird during the 

 nesting season induced the Queen, the 

 Princess of Wales, and other ladies of 

 the royal family to set their faces 

 against the use of .both the osprey 

 plume and the aigrette as articles 

 of fashionable wear. 



If this can be done in the interest of 

 the white heron and osprey, on the 

 other side of the water, why cannot the 

 autocrats of style in this country pro 

 nounce against the barbarous practice 

 of bird adornrpent entirely, by stead 

 fastly refusing to wear them them 

 selves? The tireless energy of all so 

 cieties for the protection of birds will 

 not begin to do the cause among the 

 masses so much good as would the 

 total abandonment of them for milli 

 nery purposes by what is termed so 

 ciety's 400. 



200 



