An anonymous flame war got off to a good start on the opinion pages of the New York Times.

A Plea for the Birds.

To the Editor of The New York Times.

	Absolutely no birds were harmed in the uploading of this 1905 photograph of Hazel P. Patrick and her astounding headgear. (Photo courtesy mnhs.org)

Is it possible that the women of New York are going to be the last in the country to give up wearing birds on their hats? The merchants of Boston and Chicago have taken the lead in refusing to sell them. I saw in a paper recently that Marshall Field & Co. of Chicago had announced that they would no longer use in trimming hats the feathers of birds which were designated by the society organized for the protection of songbirds against the slaughter of milliners.

What a noble step! If the New York houses would do the same, what progress would be made! Women who now wear birds from thoughtlessness would no longer have the chance to purchase them. ‘Tis painful to see such pretty girls as one meets every day, and whose faces look kind as well, with dead birds of every description on their hats. If they only stopped to think of the suffering they caused, I am sure they would be the first to give them up.

Then, too, how can Sunday-school teachers, who are supposed to teach the children to be kind to God’s creatures, sit with hats ornamented in this way and expect the children to listen to their teachings? The little ones are very observing, and learn more by example than precept. Example is a great leader, and if those who have it in their power to do good would only exercise it, I am sure there would be a great stride made toward saving the birds.

Let all try, and let us hope that next season not one bird will be used for ornamentation. — A.A.C.

New York, Nov. 15, 1897.

For an Anti-Audubon Society.

To the Editor of The New York Times.

	Ruth Berkheimer Donald wears a hat made by milliner Besse Berkheimer of St. Paul in about 1890. (Photo courtesy mnhs.org)

In The Times of the 15th is a contribution headed “A Plea for the Birds,” and signed “A.A.C.” For some years I have been inclined to start an Anti-Audubon Society, and the contribution referred to is one of several recent new incentives to carry out my intent.

Fifteen years ago I refused the importunate request of a member of the Audubon Society to join its ranks, for the same reasons that are my objection to the society to-day, viz.: that it carries its good intents and work to such an extreme that many reasonable women who are inclined to aid its cause are debarred from having the privilege. Added to the extreme charter of the society, we every now and then have an appeal (like that of “A.A.C.”) which is so full of mock sentiment and absurd extreme that the cause is injured far more than aided.

Will any sensible being say why we women should not use any one of thousands of feathers and birds as adornment, just as much as to wear furs of all animals?

What is needed only is a national law, and its enforcement, protecting in each country the song birds and rare birds from wanton and ruthless slaughter, and placing the heron on a perpetually proscribed list, (with other birds as proved needful,) because she can only yield her beauty of dress up to us at a cost of not only her own life, but that of her young, the mother bird being in perfection of the fine, delicate feathering only when nesting, and the stripping her of these feathers kills the bird and also ruins the eggs, of course.

	The modest hat featured in this 1890s photograph by Floyd’s Studio of Minneapolis is nothing compared to the yeti costume worn by the model. (Photo courtesy mnhs.org)

The mock sentiment of much of this wholesale outcry against the wearing of birds is also proved by an incident. Last Winter, in calling upon a friend, I was met with the remark, “I am, indeed, astonished. I thought you – a woman so deeply engaged in Christian and philanthropic lines – regarded the poor birds! Fie upon you!”

My reply was: “I refused to join the Audubon Society years since, because I deprecated sentimentality and a lack of common sense. Now let me tell you that the birds on my hat never saw the light of day, but are manufactured birds for milliners’ supply. But, suppose they were originally barnyard fowls, or sparrows, or equally valuable and rare birds, utilized with or without dyeing for you and for me, or even had they been robins and birds of such sort, I can feel we women merit no possible ground of censure for wearing such birds and feathers. And I for one shall continue to wear all such as an added protest to my spoken one, that the Audubon Society and its ‘echoes’ are making a mistake in their extreme views and exactions.”

The lady fully admitted the truth and justice of the reasoning, and I am persuaded that an Anti-Audubon Society, with conditions above named as its by-laws, would disclose a large numerical strength. — A.B.C.

New York, Nov. 16, 1897

Minneapolis Tribune editors picked up this piece from the San Francisco Chronicle:

MAKING WOMEN SLAVES.

Polygamy as an Investment – a Talk
With a Utah Farmer with a Plu-
rality of Wives

Utah Letter in San Francisco Chronicle.

We halted at a way-station for dinner. A white-haired but not very sanctimonious saint occupied the chair next to me. “A resident of the country?” I asked. “Oh, yes: for twenty-five years.” “Married?” “Some.” “More than one wife?” “I think so. I’ve got a few scattered about here and there.” “Believe in polygamy, I presume?” “Certainly. I’d never have made a living if I hadn’t.” “How’s that?” “Well, you see, stranger, I used to think a good deal as you do. I had 160 acres of land and one wife, but didn’t make much headway. There was too much work for one man to attend to. Finally I froze to a second wife. She took her share of the burden like a perfect brick, and affairs moved on in better shape. Then I got to thinking that if two wives were better than one, three would be better than two; consequently I took a third and my affairs improved still more. I mapped out the business of the ranch, and gave No. 1 her part, and gave a part to No. 2 and part to No. 3, and took a part myself. Everything went on like clockwork. Our little community was thoroughly organized. Finally I concluded a fourth wife would be quite an advantage, and I looked around and secured her. I found that the more wives I had the more land I could work. I now operate 240 acres of one kind and another, and have six wives to assist me, and I’ve got things so systematized down that everything goes on quite lovely, and I don’t have much to do myself. Polygamy is a great institution, my friend, and you’ll never succeed in the world until you marry a few times. Sometimes one of my wives gets a little offish like, but, instead of making a great row about it and getting a divorce, as you do in California, I simply stay away from her for a day or two, and then when I do happen around she smiles all over her face and loves me in a desperate fashion. Oh, yes; I may marry several times yet before I die; and the more women I marry the richer I expect to get.” This talk was by no means sophistry, as I afterwards ascertained. A large portion of the women of Utah are slaves.

Farming has never been an easy way to make a buck, but it must have been especially daunting to carve a living out of the raw fields of western Minnesota in the decades after the Civil War. Here is the Elwood S. Corser farm, near Crookston, in about 1882. (Photo courtesy mnhs.org)

	A family-size “fruit cake” cost $1.19 at Klein’s.

Several supermarket chains came and went in my part of Richfield in the 1960s and ’70s, among them Red Owl, Piggly Wiggly and Kroger. I don’t remember Klein’s, which had at least six stores in the Minneapolis area, including one at the Hub at 66th and Nicollet, as late as 1958. Photos in the Minnesota Historical Society’s online collection suggest that Klein’s stores were clean, well-lit, spacious and organized. Which is surprising, considering the quality of the artwork and writing in a double-truck Klein’s ad that appeared in the Minneapolis Star 50 years ago. Don Draper would be appalled.

TRADITIONAL OLD-TIME PRE-THANKSGIVING SALE

REMEMBER ….

When you were a youngster (Like this young lady [below]) … you wanted the drumstick or maybe a wing or a thigh … chances were you didn’t always get your favorite piece.

TODAY ….

Klein’s makes it possible for you to serve not only the whole chicken, but you can select the extra parts that your family likes most of all. That’s what makes dinner time pleasure time. So when you shop this weekend, pick out the separate pieces that your family likes most of all … until you serve Klein’s golden fryers you’ll never know how wonderful fried chicken can be.

What is that supposed to be in this poorly drawn girl’s poorly drawn hand, a charred coelacanth?