conventionalized to the extent of having
CLOTHES N an editorial on the subject of proper regard for the etiquette of dress in the court room, the New York Law Journal remarks:
“We believe that the wearing of robes by the judges of this state is approved by a decided preponderance of profes sional sentiment. Although lawyers are also officers of the court, some of them try cases in clothes that no judge
would have had the face to wear on the bench before the advent of the gown. While we would not advocate the adoption of robes by members of the bar, we do say that their attire
when actually engaged in their pro fessional ofi'ice should not suggest that they are devoid of respect for the institutions of justice as well as of personal dignity and seriousness.” In the United States we attach less importance to formalities of dress than people in European countries. We have evolved simple, comfortable fash ions of dress well suited to a work-a-day existence, and the frock coat is generally looked upon as a necessary evil and one to be avoided as much as possible. Our business and professional men do not dress for the drawing room, but work early and late, and make no social engagements as a rule before the hour
of the evening meal.
The Londoner's
formalities, which have doubtless grown
lost their original significance, probably had their source in a strict ofiicial etiquette and to the desire to emphasize the fact that one moved in high social circles. In time the clerk copied his employer and ceremonial degenerated into convention. In our country public officials have not been recruited from leisured classes, and social life has been relegated to a subordinate position by the intensity of the struggle for the conquest of our material resources.
Consequently it has come about that Americans seek to assert their social
position only through the dignity and taste of their dress, rather than through that scrupulous observance of formalities which distinguishes foreigners. The topic is sufliciently frivolous for this season of the year, so we may be permitted to offer some suggestions regarding the proper garb of the legal profession. There are judges who wear sack suits beneath their judicial robes ——is this right? We must decline to be drawn into the discussion of such a trivial question. We rejoice, however, in the many indications that the preju dice against robes seems to be dying out,
and doubtless the time will soon come when there is no court of high standing in any of our states dispensing with these insignia of a noble ofiice. It is also becoming in our judges to garb
themselves in sombre frock coats outside the court room, except during the inter vals between their oflicial labors.
