group I rules (5) by providing that in all cases a guaranteed minimum percentage of wool must be given. This represents a considerable advance over the first proposal, but it is believed that not only is it desirable but legally practicable inasmuch as presumably the merchandise is sold on the basis of the desirability of its wool content and hence there may be held to be deception if the percentage of wool content is not disclosed.

The other most important change is in the suggested limitation on the use of the terms "virgin wool" and "new wool." Most of the difference of opinion over the use of these terms arises out of their use as applied to fiber blends. If applied to blends they lose any possible value they may have either to an advertiser or to a consumer-and they pose unanswerable questions as to testing, policing, and enforcement. Therefore, we propose that "virgin wool" and "new wool" be applied only to products composed exclusively of such fibers. This simplifies the legal problem of enforcement and makes the keeping of records of importance only for those who confine their use of wool to new fiber exclusively. The public will know that a product labeled "virgin wool" or "new wool" contains no reclaimed material whatever. A product labeled "wool" or "75-percent wool" will, in most cases, consist in part of reclaimed material. The actual percentage of such reclaimed material is not a matter of importance to the customer. She will, however, know that some reclaimed material is present, of an amount and quality best calculated to produce the best results for the price paid.

The limitation of the 50 percent on wool products is deleted, since it is our belief that all textile products containing wool in any degree should be properly labeled. We suggest, however, the limitation of the use of coined names or pictorial representations to products composed of one-third of wool or more. In such cases (and, indeed, in all cases) the percentage of wool present must be stated.

STATEMENT OF MRS. EDNA WOLMAN CHASE, EDITOR, VOGUE, NEW YORK, N. Y.

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Chase.

Mrs. CHASE. My name is Edna Wolman Chase. I am editor of Vogue, in New York.

I have come down here to say that as a professional woman and as the editor of a fashion magazine of class, that I am naturally interested in giving my readers, when I present models to them, accurate and full information as to the kind of not only the style and cut of the garments, but really as to its inherent qualities, and altogether I have been tremendously interested in listening to all of these arguments about the chemical analyses, and so forth, and what it does or does not show.

I think that to women and men all over the world that slogan "that it is all wool and a yard wide" has a real quality meaning.

Now, when we say "all wool", ever since I was a little girl, I have supposed, of course, that "all wool" really meant wool from the sheep or from the animal. I did not understand all about this reconstruction of wool, and I feel that if the consuming public could have listened to these statements this morning and your arguments, I think that if a million women or men could have listened in, I think that 99 percent of them certainly would say, "I would like to have a label to show me what I am buying."

I really feel there is a very strong feeling on that subject, and I do not know what hardship it is going to work to one industry or another, but I sincerely believe that in America we should try to get our standards up. I think that so far as the fabrics are concerned in America and in other countries using our things, we need some improving, and apparently it is true in this industry.

If there is nothing to conceal, why try to conceal it? Why are we here and why all these arguments?

I should very much like to know-when I am buying a dress or a blanket or a coat-I would like to know whether that is not only pure wool, but whether it is fresh wool. There is something to me extremely distasteful in the idea of wearing a garment made from the sweaty old rags of perhaps a diseased person; I do not care what kind of a person. I should not like to do it. Nor do I think you would.

So, I should be all in favor of really making a definite statement as to what kind of a fabric was being sold and what its contents are. I can see no reason, no sound reason, why that should not be done. The CHAIRMAN. We thank you, Mrs. Chase.

Did we not promise someone we would hear them because they wanted to get away this morning?

The CLERK. Mrs. Snow.

The CHAIRMAN. Then, we will call Mrs. Snow.

Congressman Seger is present. Would you like to be heard?

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE N. SEGER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. SEGER. Yes, Mr. Chairman; but I can wait until the lady has finished.

The CHAIRMAN. She says she is willing for you to go ahead.

Mr. SEGER. My name is George N. Seger, representing the Eighth Congressional District of New Jersey.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committe, my district is largely industrial, silk, rayon, and wool.

This morning I am here interested particularly in H. R. 9909 and the wool industry.

We have, in my own city of Passaic, N. J., some of the largest woolen mills in the East, and I might incidentally say which pay, perhaps, the best wages in the textile industry in the East.

I know many of them. I do not know whether many of the mills are represented here this morning, but two of them, Botany Worsted Mills and Forstmann Woolen Co., are represented here. Botany, I think, is going to submit a brief, similar to the one they submitted in the Senate; and Mr. Forstmann, the executive vice president of the Forstmann Co., is going to represent that company with a technical description of the industry, and also with a very interesting exhibit which he wants this committee to see.

The Forstmann Co. employs about 3,500, between 3,500 and 4,000 men, and the Botany Worsted Mills, I think, employ about the same number of men and women in their industry, and from information I have from the Department of the value of the woolens, particularly in New Jersey alone, it exceeds $52,000,000 annually.

Mr. Forstmann's family has been in the wool industry for seven generations, and I may be making a strong statement when I say that I believe they know wool from the day that Noah drove the first sheep out of the Ark. They have made and studied wool and woolen fabrics. I feel the time is here, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, when men and women who buy textiles, and woolens especially, should know what they are buying, or what they are paying

for when they buy them. This I think can only be done by the proper stamping or marking or labeling of these fabrics which is provided for in the Martin bill.

I have no technical knowledge of the industry, but I know after you see this exhibit you will be impressed. It is impressive, most impressive. I have seen it.

I ask for your favorable consideration of the Martin bill after these hearings are over.

I thank you very much for the opportunity of coming here before you this morning.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Seger.

We will hear Mrs. Snow.

STATEMENT OF MRS. CARMEL SNOW, EDITOR, HARPER'S BAZAAR, NEW YORK, N. Y.

Mrs. SNOW. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I come down here w say a few words about this bill because, as editor of a fashion magazine, I think it would help us very much in one of our great responsibilities to our readers; that is, telling them truthfully what the quality of the merchandise is we are showing in the magazines.

This job is getting daily much more difficult, because a decade ago, of course, we just dealt with wool, silk, cotton, or linen, whereas today, with the introduction of synthetic fabrics in the weaving, and particularly in the case of wool, the introduction of so much worn wool, it makes the job for the editors of judging the quality of wool almost an impossibility.

If one of our editors goes down now to the dress manufacturers it is a comparatively easy job for her to judge the type of the model that is attractive. That is an easy job. But if she asks the manufacturer, "Is this wool?" or "Is this all wool?" or "Is this virgin wool, or a mixture?" almost invariably his answer is: "What does that matter to you? I am selling it to everybody. Don't you think it ís a very smart-looking fabric?"

Well, we feel a greater responsibility than that, because we want to know, particularly in the case of wool, if it is going to wear; if it has got the right amount of warmth in it. We therefore often call up the fabric manufacturer, who makes a spiel-not always, but in 9 cases out of 10-that we are officious, we are irritating him, by asking these questions; and his answer often is: "Why, no. You are only going to confuse your readers if you insist on going back of this and publishing all of this to them.”

I do not think the truth ever confused anything, and I think that the woman has a right to know if what she is getting is according to the money she is paying and meets the conditions she wants the fabric for.

We are continually writing editorials begging women to buy one good wool suit rather than two cheap ones, and we are being defeated in this purpose because we do not feel that it is possible for us to find out what really is the quality of the wool that we are showing in the magazine. We cannot tell it by feeling. None of us are experts. We cannot get a chemical analysis of all of the fabrics we are showing. Therefore, our work would be made 100 percent fruitful and easier for us if we can have some sort of a label that

will tell us what is in the wool fabric that we are showing in the magazine.

Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Boren.

Mr. BOREN. I would like to ask one question if I may.

Mrs. SNOW. Yes.

Mr. BOREN. I would like to ask if the quality of the wool in the fabric, in your opinion, makes any essential difference in the purchase price of the garment in relation to the woman's opinion of its value, the amount that she is willing to pay for the article. Can you tell us about that?

Mrs. SNOW. I think in wool, yes; because she is looking, usually she is looking, probably, for two qualities, durability and warmth; and she cannot get them, if at all a fashion educated woman, in wool fabrics that has a great deal of shoddy woven in.

Mr. BOREN. It would interest me very much if it would be possible to have some insertion in our record in addition to your statement indicating some variation of the prices of woolen goods; or, do women buy in relation to price? That is, taking into consideration the inherent value actually in relation to the price they pay for it.

Mrs. SNOW. For instance, if I am buying a very thin woolen dress, I can see that rayon woven with wool makes that serviceable and very smart. I am perfectly willing to have a mixture of weave for that type of dress, where I am not willing to have it for a suit I want to wear in cold weather; I want to wear it in the country where it may rain, and I do not want it going in at the wrong place and out at the wrong place. I want a dress which will really have wearability and still be smart. Is that the question you were asking? Mr. BOREN. I think that partly answers the question. I am quite frank about it. I would like to have my theory proven or disproven. It is my own theory that the lone purchaser really gives little consideration to the inherent value of the material or the purchase price in relation to the value of the fabric.

Mrs. SNOW. I think if she is at all a fashion educated woman she will buy a good woolen fabric. She may buy a chiffon scarf or something that has beautiful figures in it and does not expect probably the same wear out of it. But any woman who knows anything about fabrics will always pay for one good piece of wool rather than two cheap, what seem to be stylish looking fabrics.

Mr. BOREN. And you really intend to leave with us the impression then that the general buying public among women buy for value? Mrs. SNOW. When they buy wool; yes.

Mr. BOREN. And that the price is related directly to the intrinsic value of the article.

Mrs. SNOW. Yes; I hope our readers do, because we are always insisting upon quality in wool, because there is no substitute for it. The CHAIRMAN. We thank you, Mrs. Snow.

We will hear Mrs. Lowe.

Mrs. Lowe, would you mind withholding your statement in order that we might hear Mr. Bell at this time?

Mrs. Lowe. No, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bell has to get away.
We will hear you, Mr. Bell.

STATEMENT OF LUTHER K. BELL, TRADE RELATIONS CONSULTANT, NEW YORK, N. Y.

Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: My name is Luther K. Bell. I am a trade-relations consultant, 342 Madison Avenue, New York City.

My interest in H. R. 9909 is that of trade-relations consultant. As an employed official, and as a specialist operating my own office, I have had considerable contact with basic problems of fair competition, including those dealt with in Mr. Martin's bill. I have been the general manager of the Aeronautical Chamber of Commerce, treasurer of the Silk and Rayon Code Authority and the National Federation of Textiles, and president of Laundry Institute. I have had the privilege of being associated for a short time with the Better Business Bureau movement. My special studies have carried me into the credit practices of various branches of the textile industry, including wool, into general advertising practices, particularly by retailers, and into differences causing friction between manufacturers and retailers of furniture. The comments I have to offer are personal. Last year I appeared in opposition to the bill which Mr. Martin then sponsored, H. R. 6917. I now appear in support of Mr. Martin's new bill, H. R. 9909, for certain specific reasons.

Whereas H. R. 6917 defined only "wool" and "woolen goods," the new bill, in addition, defines "virgin wool" and "reclaimed wool." The old required simply that the different kinds of fibers be revealed. The new one does this also, but with the further requirements that a clear differentiation be drawn between "virgin" and "reclaimed" wool. The old bill would have permitted the labeling of a fabric as "wool" even thought it contained as little as 25 percent of either new or reclaimed wool; the new one raises this percentage to at least 51 percent, and further differentiates between virgin and reclaimed wool. The old one turned back for relief to the discredited N. R. A. theory of registration or licensing; the new one places primary responsibility for identification on the manufacturer--which is precisely where it belongs but extends auxiliary responsibility to the converter, the coat, suit, and dress maker and the retailer. Enforcement under the old bill involved complicated policing by the Government; the new bill, while properly outlining procedure and specifying penalties, is apparently drawn on the assumption that most manufacturers want to take the consumers completely into their confidence. It properly places administration of this act with the Federal Trade Commission, which is the agency established by Congress for the protection of the consumer and the support of honest business.

Perhaps part of the dissatisfaction with last year's bill was due to the possibility that it would favor the wool grower most, certain types of manufacturers considerably and the consumer very little, if at all. The growers wished to expand their market; so did the manufacturers. That was quite proper. But, although they demanded protection for themselves from unfair competition due to the mistaking by the consumer of mixed fiber fabrics-that is, those containing rayon or cotton-for all wool fabrics, both wool grower and manufacturer apparently forgot that the consumers have a right to know whether they are buying virgin wool, with its original and unique qualities of warmth, wear, beauty, and so forth, or reclaimed wool, which, although