CLOTHES AND MORALS

New York, like Boston, has taken thought for its soul, Evidently believing with Carlyle that the social hierarchy is based on clothes, the Assembly last week declared that "to expose the person or the private parts thereof" in the presence of two or more persons of the opposite sex who are similarly unclothed shall be a misdemeanor." The proponents of the bill carefully explain that it does not prohibit nudity in the theater, since audiences are decently attired. Perhaps the law was suggested by Actors' Equity as protection from non-professional competition.

Majority Leader Killgrew appealed to the higher emotions (not to say intellect) of his colleagues, remarking in scholarly fashion: "Why, even go back to Adam and Eve, and you find they even were a fig leaf," Fortunately no fellow-legislator cared to delve into the pre-fig leaf period and quote the twenty-fifth verse of Chapter two of Genesis: "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."--but there was no second "person of the opposite sex" present, so that our first parents need not add a misdemeanor to their already heavy burden of responsibility.

It is comforting to feel that the future of the country is in the hands of such eminently sound men as the gentlemen of the New York Assembly. After all, nothing can be radically wrong in a world from which nudism has been banished. Assemblyman Heck, however, who said in reference to the Tennessee evolution law: "As a result of that, Tennessee earned the name of 'monkey state.' New York is liable to get a beautiful name of the same nature if we enact this bill into law," exaggerates, moved by pardonable pride in his own commonwealth. Many other legislatures will pass bills of equal pertinacy in the days to come; many other states will compete with New York for any "beautiful name of the same nature that may be awarded. The world, after all, is good.