TRUTH IN FABRIC. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 1, 1921. UNITED STATES SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met pursuant to call at 2.30 o'clock p. m. in room 410 Senate Office Building, Senator James E. Watson presiding. Present: Senators Watson (chairman of subcommittee) and Fernald. The subcommittee thereupon proceeded to the consideration of the bill (S. 799) to prevent deceit and unfair prices that result from the unrevealed presence of substitutes for virgin wool in woven fabrics purporting to contain wool and in garments or articles of apparel made therefrom, manufactured in any territory of the United States or the District of Columbia or transported or intended to be transported in interstate or foreign commerce, and providing penalties. for the violation of the provisions of this act, and for other purposes. Senator WATSON (chairman of subcommittee). The subcommittee: of the Committee on Interstate Commerce appointed to conduct hearings on Senate bill 799 is now in session for that purpose. Senator Capper, the author of the bill, desires to make the first statement. STATEMENT OF SENATOR ARTHUR CAPPER, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS. Senator CAPPER. Mr. Chairman, I appear before this committee to present bill 799, introduced by me and known as the truth-infabric bill. This is the same bill introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman French. Hearings were held on the truth-in-fabric bill in the House of Representatives before the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee in March, 1920, at which time Congressman French in his statement at the beginning of the hearings and again at the close took up in detail the technical features of the bill and the related facts and problems pertaining to the bill. I will therefore conserve the time of the committee by not going over again at this time the ground covered by Congressman French, but I invite the attention of the committee to the two statements presented by Congressman French, the one at the opening and the other at the close of the hearings. These two statements are found in the published report of the hearings before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the House of Representatives, March 19-31, 1920. Congressman French's first statement is found beginning on page 26 of this published report, continuing up to and including the first three paragraphs on page 57. Congressman French's second statement begins on page 503 and continues up to and including the first three paragraphs on page 523. In the statement which I wish to make at this time I desire to state and emphasize the purpose of the bill. First, I desire to bring to the attention of the committee that virgin wool is now counterfeited by substitutes, especially shoddy. I desire to bring to the attention of the committee that this counterfeiting of virgin wool by substitutes, especially shoddy, deprives the people of their right to know and choose between virgin wool, the genuine, and shoddy, one of the chief substitutes for virgin wool. I wish to bring to the attention of the committee that this counterfeiting of virgin wool by shoddy not only deprives the people of their right to know and choose between the genuine and the substitute, but it places the people completely at the mercy of the unscrupulous who would force the people to buy shoddy, a substitute, against their will, and to pay for shoddy, a substitute for virgin wool, a higher price than they would pay if they knew it was shoddy they were purchasing. I desire to call the committee's attention to the fact that not only is great wrong thus imposed upon the people by shoddy's counterfeiting virgin wool under the misunderstood terms of "all wool" and pure wool," which the people understand to mean virgin, unused wool, but which includes all grades of shoddy, even the most inferior, but this counterfeiting of virgin wool by shoddy results in greater injustice to the woolgrower and will, if continued, inevitably eventually destroy sheep husbandry, an essential industry. 66 To put a stop to the counterfeiting of virgin wool by shoddy, the practice that imposes great injustice and grievous wrong upon both the people and the woolgrower, three things are absolutely imperative. First. The compulsory stamping of wool cloth. Second. The compulsory identification of shoddy. Third. The compulsory designation in prices and unmistakable terms of both shoddy and virgin wool. The purpose of the French-Capper truth in fabric bill, known in the Senate as S. 799 and in the House as H. R. 64, is to put a stop to the counterfeiting of virgin wool by substitutes. This bill makes it compulsory to stamp wool cloth and to identify substitutes for virgin wool in precise and unmistakable terms, and would protect both the people and the woolgrowers by putting a stop to the counterfeiting of virgin wool by substitutes. Every principle upon which the provisions of the French-Capper truth in fabric bill is based has been tried and proved practical. Among these provisions and principles are the following: First. The principle of stamping wool cloth. That this principle is not only possible but practical is proved by the fact that now and for some time past certain concerns have stamped their trademark on wool fabrics. There is no evidence to show that such stamping has increased the cost of the wool cloth appreciably to the consumer or that such stamping has entailed any serious expense or difficulty to the manufacturer. Further corroborative proof that that provision of the truth in fabric bill which makes it compulsory to stamp wool woven fabrics is eminently practical is furnished by the testimony of the representatives of the Kaumagraph Co., of New York, and the Parks & Woolson Machine Co., of Springfield, Vt. This testimony of the Kaumagraph Co. is found on page 211 of the same published report of the congressional hearings on the truth in fabric bill before the House committee held March, 1920, copy of which I have already presented each member of the committee. The testimony of the representative of the Parks & Woolson Machine Co. is found on page 169 of this same congressional report of truth in fabric hearings held in March. The attention of all members of the committee is invited to the testimony of the representatives of these two concerns above mentioned. Second. The principle and provision which I enumerate as second has to do with stating the amount of virgin wool or substitute for virgin wool the fabric contains. In this connection I wish to call the attention af the committee to the alleged objection that some of the opponents have previously raised to this provision. In this alleged objection the opponents have claimed that they could not in all instances know exactly the amount of substitutes for virgin wool that was used in a fabric. Even if true that the fabric manufacturer can not tell exactly the amount of substitutes for virgin wool a fabric contains, this fact is irrelevant and unimportant, for the reason that the provisions of the truth in fabric bill do not require the fabric manufacturer to state the exact amount of virgin wool or substitutes for virgin wool that the fabric contains, as you will note on page 8, item 5, beginning with the word "Provided," and which you will note reads as follows: Provided, That in stating the contents of virgin wool it shall be sufficient to recite "not less than a stated percentage of such ingredient, and in stating the contents of shoddy, cotton, or silk, it shall be sufficient to recite "not more than "a stated percentage of such ingredient or ingredients. I have never learned of satisfactory proof that the fabric manufacturer is unable to know exactly the percentage of virgin wool, or substitutes for virgin wool, that any given fabric contains, and even if the provisions of the truth in fabric bill required that the fabric manufacturer should state the exact percentage, it is my belief, based on the best information that has come to my attention, that the fabric manufacturer should state the exact percentage of both virgin wool and substitutes for virgin wool. However, inasmuch as the provisions do not require that the exact percentage of virgin wool or substitutes for virgin wool shall be stated, but only the approximate amount, there is no longer the slightest legitimate reason for objection on this point. Third. The provision and principle of registering or licensing manufacturers which the bill includes has been proved practical and effective in a number of specific and well-known instances, notably in the licensing of automobile drivers. Fourth. The principle and provision of this bill which clothes the Government with authority to inspect the books, premises, raw material, and finished product of manufacturers is also a principle and provision which is already in practice and which has proved entirely practical, and from which no serious or reasonable objection has ever been established. The members of the committee, however, are asked to note in this connection that the provisions of the truth in fabric bill does not require, as some of the opponents of the bill have sought to make it appear, that every fabric manufacturer's premises, books, raw material, and finished product shall be regularly inspected and that all fabrics must be inspected. The provisions of the truth in fabric bill do not require that the Government shall make these various inspections just enumerated. It merely clothes the Government with authority to do so in the event that it is expedient or necessary. There is nothing in the bill that requires that the Government shall ever make such inspection of the books. the premises, the raw material, and the finished product of the manufacturer, or shall ever make inspection of the fabric, unless there is ground for the suspicion that the provisions of the truth in fabric bill are being violated. If there are no such suspicions, there is nothing in the bill which would cause the Government ever to inspect the books, premises, the raw material, or the finished product of manufacturers. Fifth. Enforcement. This principle and provision which I designate as enforcement is based on concrete and self-evident facts which include the following: The registration or licensing provision and principle of the truth in fabric bill would automatically shut out of interstate commerce and prevent the importation into the United States of fabrics not bearing the registration number of the manufacturer as stipulated in the provisions of the truth in fabric bill. Therefore, the enforcement of this provision would be automatic and with no trouble or expense to the Government save the recording of the registration numbers of the manufacturers who came within the scope of the provisions of this bill. Inasmuch as the aggregate number of such manufacturers, both in the United States and abroad, is only a few thousand, therefore the trouble or the expense to the Government would be merely the clerical work of one or at most two individuals to record these registration numbers. Inasmuch as fabrics not stamped would also be automatically shut out of interstate commerce and would be debarred from entering the United States, the compulsory stamping of fabrics, both foreign and American, would also be enforced automatically without any effort or expense whatsoever on the part of the Government. The self-interest and protection of the honest manufacturers will bring to book any manufacturer so unscrupulous, if there be such, as to deliberately falsify his statement in stamping a fabric. Organizations in the various branches of industry are seeing to it that abuses detrimental to the interest and the protection of honest manufacturers in those industries are eliminated, just as better business clubs, following the enactment of truth and advertising legislation by the various States, coupled with the efforts of the vigilance committee of the Associated Advertising Clubs, are seeing to it that the truth and advertising laws are complied with. Therefore, I submit to you that it is reasonable to suppose that without any effort on the part of the Government, other than to prosecute such cases as may be brought to the attention of the Government, that part of the enforcement of the truth in fabric bill, which has to do with the truthful statement of a fabric's contents, will automatically be taken care of by the honest manufacturers who in self-protection will bring to book any unscrupulous manufacturer who shall attempt to evade the provisions of the truth in fabric bill. It is obvious from the facts and considerations just enumerated that the provisions of the truth in fabric bill are necessary, practical, and eminently fair, and that there is not a single alleged objection that opponents have raised against the provisions of the truth in fabric bill that are supported by any legitimate reason. I wish also at this time to call the committee's attention to the fact that the opponents of the truth in fabric bill have sought to raise false issues, among which are: First. The comparative merits of shoddy and virgin wool. Third. That shoddy might be stigmatized by identification and by making it compulsory to sell shoddy only for what it is. Taking up these false issues in the order just named: First. I submit to the committee that even if shoddy were as good as virgin wool that could in no sense justify shoddy's counterfeiting virgin wool. Brass may be and is for some purposes better than gold, but this fact can not in any sense or under any circumstances justify counterfeiting of gold by brass. Some American fabrics are better than some imported fabrics, but this fact can not justify the sale of American fabrics as imported. In the nature of the case, shoddy can not be as good as the virgin wool from which it is reworked any more than milk that has been skimmed can contain as much butter fat as before skimming. Furthermore, even in the best shoddy, the process of reworking has resulted in the following definite things, all of them very appreciably impairing the worth of the fiber: First, destroyed or injured the serrations of the fabric; second, torn and broken the fibers; third, torn the ends of the fibers; fourth, decreased the life and resiliency of the fiber; fifth, decreased the felting properties of the fiber. All of these qualities essential to highest worth of wool fiber are impaired in even the best shoddy, whereas even the shortest virginwool fibers may possess all of these essential qualities characteristic of virgin wool but deficient in even the best quality of shoddy. Furthermore, the best shoddy is never used in place of the poorest virgin wool. The best shoddy is used in place of the better grades of virgin wool. It is therefore perfectly obvious, when the facts are known, that shoddy is always inferior to and costs the fabric manufacturer less than the virgin wool, in place of which it is used. Consequently, the idea that shoddy may be better than the virgin wool in place of which it is used is fallacious, but, as already stated, even if shoddy were as good as virgin wool, it could in no sense justify the counterfeiting of virgin wool by shoddy. Second. The opponents of the truth in fabric bill have repeatedly referred to the alleged amount of shoddy used, as if the amount of shoddy used were the issue. I submit that, even though the amount of shoddy used were less than the amount which the opponents of the truth in fabric bill admit is used, this could not be a legitimate reason for not urging the speedy enactment of the truth in fabric bill any more than the fact that there is comparatively a small amount of counterfeit money in existence in the United States would be a reason for abolishing the laws against counterfeiting or would be a reason for the United States Government relinquishing its effort to detect counterfeiters. However, the known facts in the case |