moment, we could be set down in that city, and not know where we were, would any of us doubt the language of that veil over woman's face? Would anybody suppose her to be a citizen? Would anybody suppose she belonged to herself?

Leaving Constantinople, let us visit an old-time fashionable social gathering in Vienna. Women enter the ball-room. They are dressed in gauze so thin that you can see their skins all over their persons. Would any of us mistake the language of that kind of dress? Would any of us be in doubt about their relations to men?

Come to America to-day. We attend a social gathering. Women appear with their vital organs squeezed down to one-half the natural size, their arms and busts naked, while their trails are so long that, whenever they turn round, they are obliged to use their hands to push them out of the way. As we all comprehend, at a glance, the meaning of the veils in Constantinople, and the nudity of the women in Vienna, so we all infer the position of woman in America from these peculiarities of her dress.

I read thus: The compressed vital organs and the encumbered feet mean, that women are dependent and helpless. Having but little use for breath and locomotion, by a law of nature, they cramp the instruments of breath and locomotion. While the nudity of the arms and bust signifies a slavery to man's passions. No one supposes that when woman becomes a citizen, and man's equal, she will compress her lungs, fetter her legs, or appeal to his passions by any immodest exposure of her person.

LOW NECK AND SHORT SLEEVES.

As I have said but little of the "low neck and short sleeves," I want to add a word in this connection. Many a modest woman appears at a party with her arms nude, and so much of her chest exposed that you can see nearly half of the mammal gland.

Many a modest mother permits her daughters to make this model-artist exhibition of themselves.

One beautiful woman said, in answer to my complaints, "You shouldn't look."

"But," I replied, "do you not adjust your dress in this way on purpose to give us a chance to look?"

She was greatly shocked at my way of putting it.

"Well," I said, "this assurance is perfectly stunning. You strip yourselves, go to a public party, parade yourselves for hours in a glare of gas-light, saying to the crowd, 'Look here, gentlemen,' and then you are shocked because we put your unmistakable actions into words."

In discussing this subject before an audience of ladies in this city the other evening, I said:—

"Ladies, suppose I had entered this hall with my arms and bust bare, what would you have done? You would have made a rush for the door, and, as you jostled against each other in hurrying out, you would have exclaimed to each other, 'Oh! the unconscionable scalawag!' May I ask if it is not right that we should demand of you as much modesty as you demand of us?"

But you exclaim, "Custom! it is the custom, and fashion is everything!"

If you could know the history of the "low neck and short sleeves," how, and for what purpose they were introduced, you would as soon join the company of the "unfortunates," as to make this exhibition of your persons.

As much as I desire to live, so much do I long, by this book, to help my country-women to a higher and purer life. Cherishing this hope in my heart of hearts, and knowing that nothing but truth can, in the long run, prevail, I have read this discussion of dress over and over again, and asked myself, and asked my wife and my sister, if the statements I have made are quite true, and if they are made in the proper spirit.

Upon reading the preceding pages upon "The Language of Dress" with my wife and sister, they say:

"These statements are just and true, and greatly need to be uttered;" but my wife says, "I think you ought to say very plainly, that a great many pure-minded women dress with 'low neck and short sleeves,' without an impure thought, and simply because it is the fashion."

I have no doubt of it, and thought I had said as much. Indeed, have I not been careful to state that I was discussing the language of dress, and not the conscious purpose of each individual wearer. I should never forgive myself if I thoughtlessly and unnecessarily wounded the feelings of the thousands of young women who will, I trust, read this volume.

But let me add, that I could not pardon myself; and the brave, earnest women who may read these pages would not pardon me, if I discussed this vital subject in a shilly-shally, easy-going, disengenuous manner. If I can effect a sure and permanent lodgment of vital truths in your minds, and, in my manner of doing it, should, for the time being, provoke your anger, I am content.

This exposure of the naked bosom before men, in the most public places, belongs not to the highest type of Christian civilization, but to those dark ages when women sought nothing higher than the gratification of the passions of man, and were content to be mere slaves and toys.

Boston contains its proportion of the refined women of the country. We have here a few score of the old families, inheriting culture and wealth, and who can take rank with the best. A matron who knows their habits, assures me that she never saw a member of one of these families in "low neck and short sleeves."

In the future free and Christian America, the very dress of woman will proclaim a high, pure womanhood. And that dress will be an American costume. We shall then discard the costumes devised by the dissolute capitals of Europe.

What a strange spectacle we witness in America to-day. Free, bravo, American women hold out to the world the bible of social, political and religious freedom; and, anon, we see them down on their knees waiting the arrival of a steamer, from France, to learn how they may dress their bodies for the next month.

DESCRIPTIONS OF DRESS

I wonder women's cheeks do not burn at the sly contempt for themselves, displayed in this constant description of their dress. It hardly needs an illustration, though just now one comes to hand, of which a word. A beautiful, noble girl was married, last evening, in a neighboring city, and the Boston newspapers, of this morning, are full of the wedding. In the first place, we have a long description of the young woman's underclothing. Every article, worn upon every part of her person, is described in elaborate detail, with the number, style, make, trimmings, etc., etc. Running over the description of the trousseau, my eye falls upon: "French exquisitely daintily invisible finest delicate exquisite princess elegant coquettish grace jaunty lavender reliefs stylish coquettish Parisian stylish pretty striking tea-rose bouffant Cluny graceful Valenciennes jaunty nondescript becoming square broad high tiny stunning tiny China silk finest Valenciennes rose elegant beautifully lovely unique elegant heliotrope artistic perfection grace delicate rose-buds lovely exquisite finest delicate gossamer airy fairy.

LETTER FROM WASHINGTON.

Reception at the White House. From "Our Washington Correspondent."

Senator A., General B., and Vice-President C. said and did so and so. Mrs. A., Mrs. B., and Mrs. C. said nothing, did nothing; but half the letter is devoted to gorgeous descriptions of their dress- maker's spread. This silent contempt of the woman, and elaborate detail of her dress-maker's style, must cut every proud, sensitive woman to the very quick. It is another piece of what is called "ladies' man," and "ladies' small talk." It is of a piece with this taking off the hat, this