and a hatpin in Mrs. Pickford's hat caught her in the nostril.
His daughter gradually got worse and died on Saturday last. Mrs. Pickford,

wife of a paper merchant, said that some minutes after the deceased
had picked up the child she said, "Do you know, I scratched my nose

on your hatpin?" Mrs. Pickford was wearing the hatpin in court.
It projected two inches from the hat and was about twelve inches in length.

Dr. Howie Smith said that septic inflammation was set up
as a result of the wound, and travelling to the brain caused meningitis.

The coroner said that not many cases came before coroners
in which death was directly traceable to the hatpin but there must be

a very large number of cases in which the hatpin caused injury,
in some cases loss of sight. It was no uncommon sight to see

these deadly weapons protruding three or four inches from the hat.
In Hamburg women were compelled by statute to put shields or protectors

on the points of hatpins. In England nothing had been done,
but this case showed that it was high time something was done.

If women insisted on wearing hatpins they should take precaution
of wearing also a shield or protector which would prevent them

inflicting injury on other people. The jury returned a verdict
of accidental death, and expressed their opinion that long hatpins

ought to be done away with or their points protected."
To wear jewels, necklaces of brilliants, precious stones and pearls,

or ribbons with brilliants round the hair is a pleasing custom and
a pretty sight. But to see a lady wearing a long gown trailing on the ground

does not impress me as being elegant, though I understand the ladies
in Europe and America think otherwise. It would almost seem

as if their conceptions of beauty depended on the length of their skirts.
In a ballroom one sometimes finds it very difficult not to tread

on the ladies' skirts, and on ceremonial occasions each lady has two page boys
to hold up the train of her dress. It is impossible to teach an Oriental

to appreciate this sort of thing. Certainly skirts which are not made
either for utility or comfort, and which fashion changes,

add nothing to the wearer's beauty; especially does this remark apply
to the "hobble skirt", with its impediment to free movement of the legs.

The ungainly "hobble skirt" compels the wearer to walk carefully
and with short steps, and when she dances she has to lift up her dress.

Now the latest fashion seems to be the "slashed skirt" which, however,
has the advantage of keeping the lower hem of the skirt clean.

Doubtless this, in turn, will give place to other novelties.
A Chinese lady, Doctor Ya Mei-kin, who has been educated in America,

adopted while there the American attire, but as soon as she returned to China
she resumed her own native dress. Let us hear what she has to say

on this subject. Speaking of Western civilization she said:
"If we keep our own mode of life it is not for the sake of blind conservatism.

We are more logical in our ways than the average European imagines.
I wear for instance this `ao' dress as you see, cut in one piece

and allowing the limbs free play -- because it is manifestly
a more rational and comfortable attire than your fashionable skirt from Paris.

On the other hand we are ready to assimilate such notions from the West
as will really prove beneficial to us." Beauty is a matter of education:

when you have become accustomed to anything, however quaint or queer,
you will not think it so after a while. When I first went abroad

and saw young girls going about in the streets with their hair falling loose
over their shoulders, I was a little shocked. I thought how careless

their parents must be to allow their girls to go out in that untidy state.
Later, finding that it was the fashion, I changed my mind,

until by degrees I came to think that it looked quite nice;
thus do conventionality and custom change one's opinions.

But it should be remembered that no custom or conventionality
which sanctions the distorting of nature, or which interferes with

the free exercise of any member of the body, can ever be called beautiful.
It has always been a great wonder to me that American and European ladies

who are by no means slow to help forward any movement for reform,
have taken no active steps to improve the uncouth and injurious style

of their own clothes. How can they expect to be granted the privileges of men
until they show their superiority by freeing themselves from

the enthrallment of the conventionalities of fashion?
Men's dress is by no means superior to the women's. It is so tight

that it causes the wearer to suffer from the heat much more than is necessary,
and I am certain that many cases of sunstroke have been chiefly due

to tight clothing. I must admire the courage of Dr. Mary Walker,
an American lady, who has adopted man's costume, but I wonder that,

with her singularindependence and ingenuity she has not introduced
a better form of dress, instead of slavishly adopting the garb of the men.

I speak from experience. When I was a law student in England,
in deference to the opinion of my English friends, I discarded Chinese clothes

in favor of the European dress, but I soon found it very uncomfortable.
In the winter it was not warm enough, but in summer it was too warm

because it was so tight. Then I had trouble with the shoes.
They gave me the most distressing corns. When, on returning to China,

I resumed my own national costume my corns disappeared,
and I had no more colds. I do not contend that the Chinese dress is perfect,

but I have no hesitation in affirming that it is more comfortable and,
according to my views, very much prettier than the American fashions.

It is superior to any other kind of dress that I have known.
To appreciate the benefits to be derived from comfortable clothing,

you have to wear it for a while. Dress should not restrain
the free movement of every part of the body, neither should it be so tight

as to hinder in any way the free circulation of the blood,
or to interfere with the process of evaporation through the skin.

I cannot understand why Americans, who are correct and cautious
about most things, are so very careless of their own personal comfort

in the matter of clothing. Is anything more important than that
which concerns their health and comfort? Why should they continue wearing

clothes which retard their movements, and which are so inconvenient
that they expose the wearers to constant risk and danger?

How can they consistently call themselves independent
while they servilely follow the mandates of the dressmakers

who periodically make money by inventing new fashions
necessitating new clothes? Brave Americans, wake up! Assert your freedom!

It would be very bold, and indeed impertinent, on my part
to suggest to my American friends that they should adopt the Chinese costume.

It has much to recommend it, but I must candidly confess
that it might be improved. Why not convene an international congress

to decide as to the best form of dress for men and women?
Male and female delegates from all over the world might be invited,

and samples of all kinds of costumes exhibited. Out of them all
let those which are considered the best for men and most suitable for women

be recommended, with such improvements as the congress may deem necessary.
The advantages of a universaluniformity of costumes would be far-reaching.

There would be no further occasion for any one to look askance at another,
as has frequently happened when some stranger has been seen

wearing what was considered an uncomely or unsuitable garb;
universaluniformity of costume would also tend to draw people

closer together, and to make them more friendly. Uniforms and badges
promote brotherhood. I have enough faith in the American people to believe

that my humblesuggestion will receive their favorable consideration
and that in due time it will be carried into effect.

Chapter 11. American versus Chinese Civilization
This is a big subject. Its exhaustive treatment would require a large volume.

In a little chapter such as this I have no intention of doing more
than to cast a glance at its cuff buttons and some of the frills on its shirt.

Those who want a thesis must look elsewhere.
Now what is Civilization? According to Webster it is "the act of civilizing

or the state of being civilized; national culture; refinement."
"Civilization began with the domestication of animals,"

says Alfred Russell Wallace, but whether for the animal that was domesticated
or for the man domesticating it is not clear. In a way the remark

probably applies to both, for the commencement" target="_blank" title="n.开始；毕业典礼(日)">commencement of culture,
or the beginning of civilization, was our reclamation from a savage state.

Burke says: "Our manners, our civilization, and all the good things
connected with manners and civilization have in this European world of ours

depended for ages upon two principles -- the spirit of a gentleman,
and the spirit of religion." We often hear people, especially Westerners,

calling themselves "highly civilized", and to some extent
they have good grounds for their claim, but do they really manifest

the qualifications mentioned by Burke? Are they indeed
so "highly civilized" as to be in all respects worthy paragons

to the so-called semi-civilized nations? Have not some of their policies
been such as can be characterized only as crooked and selfish actions