d was strongly recommended in the "water
cure" journals. When women began to go into public work, they could not
fail to recognize the disadvantages of the unyielding corsets, heavy,
quilted and stiffly-starched petticoats, five or six worn at one time
to hold out the long, voluminous dress skirts; and to feel that to be
consistent they must give freedom to the body. The proprietors of the
"water cures" were, for the most part, in touch with all reform
movements and their hospitality was freely extended to those engaged in
them. In this way the women had an opportunity to see the comfort which
the patients enjoyed in their loose, short garments, and began to ask
why they also should not adopt what seemed to them a rational dress.

Hon. Gerrit Smith, of Peterboro, N.Y., the wealthy and influential
reformer and philanthropist, became an earnest advocate of this
costume, and his daughter, Elizabeth Smith Miller, a beautiful and
fashionable woman, was the first to put it on. In Washington she wore
it, made of the most elegant materials, during all her father's term in
Congress. She was soon followed by his cousin, Elizabeth Cady Stanton,
and with this social sanction it was adopted in 1851 and '52 by a small
number, including Lucy Stone, Amelia Bloomer, Dr. Harriet Austin, Celia
Burleigh, Charlotte Wilbour, the Grimke sisters, probably less than one
hundred in the whole country. In order to be entirely relieved from the
care of personal adornment, they also cut off their hair. Miss Anthony
was the very last to adopt the style. In May, 1852, she wrote Lucy
Stone that Mrs. Stanton had offered to make her a present of the
costume, but she would not wear it. In December she wrote again, dating
her letter from Mrs. Stanton's nursery, "Well, at last I am in short
skirt and trousers!" At this time she also sacrificed her abundant
brown tresses.

The world was not ready for this innovation. There were no gymnasiums
or bicycles to plead for the appropriateness of the costume and it was
worn chiefly by women who preached doctrines for which the public was
no better prepared than for dress reform. The outcry against it
extended from one end of the country to the other; the press howled in
derision, the pulpit hurled its anathemas and the rabble took up the
refrain. On the streets of the larger cities the women were followed by
mobs of men and boys, who jeered and yelled and did not hesitate to
express their disapproval by throwing st