COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN Commerce,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Wednesday, March 24, 1920.

The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. John J. Esch (chairman), presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Clark, are you ready to proceed?

Mr. CLARK. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Give your name and address and whom you represent.

STATEMENT OF MR. FREDERICK S. CLARK, PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WOOL MANUFACTUR

ERS-Continued.

Mr. CLARK. Frederick S. Clark, president of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I shall have to beg the indulgence of the committee for the condition of my voice. Your Washington weather of last week gave me a cold which I have found difficulty in getting rid of. First, I want to allude briefly and in outline to the attitude of our association on the various phases of this French bill; then I should like to show you some types of virgin wool, shoddy, and cotton, in order that you may better understand the points which are made in a brief which a committee of our association has prepared and which I will then ask the secretary of our association, Mr. Cherington, to read to you. After the reading of that brief I would like to have the opportunity to show you samples of fabrics which will illustrate the points which we have made in the brief.

I noticed on Friday and Saturday that a great many questions were asked by the committee which are answered in our brief, and for that reason I want to suggest, if it is agreeable, that questions be deferred until I am showing you the samples of fabrics. On the other hand, if questions occur to you while I am showing you the samples of fibers it may be well to ask them in regard to fibers at that time.

Now, gentlemen, beginning with the Grosvenor bill of 1902, there have been a dozen or more of textile fabric labeling bills similar in character to the French bill which have been presented to Congress and they have all failed of enactment because it has not been difficult to show that they were impracticable of execution and that they would not accomplish the purpose which their framers had in mind, and I think this French bill will prove no exception to the others in these respects.

I want to say that after attending the hearing on Friday and Saturday I was impressed with the sincerity of all of those who talked in favor of the French bill. I am sure that Mr. French himself was very earnest and sincere in his belief that there was a bad condition of things in the woolen industry which ought to be remedied and for which he earnestly believed that his bill was the remedy, but I think the trouble with him and with the others is that they are not familiar with the technical side of the question, not familiar either with the merchandizing features of the proposition.

177735-20-7

Now, the National Association of Wool Manufacturers has always been, and is now, in sympathy with any practical bill which will prevent misbranding of woolen textile fabrics, or their misrepresentation by advertising or otherwise to the public, and for that reason we are in favor of a bill similar to the Rogers bill. We are also in favor of that bill, or one of similar character, because it applies to all commodities and does not single out the woolen industry alone. There is only one woolen manufacturing concern that I know of that is advertising its fabrics as made with 100 per cent virgin wool. They have been carrying on quite an extensive advertising campaign on that side of the question for a long time. There are a great many other woolen manufacturing concerns in the country that make 100 per cent virgin-wool fabrics, but they have not thought it desirable or necessary to proclaim that fact. It is perhaps rather a singular circumstance that one of the officers of this woolen manufacturing concern is also the president of the National Wool and Sheep Bureau of Chicago, the organization which originated the French bill and has been carrying on quite an agitation in its favor for a long time. Now, judging by the public statements of this gentleman, the printed publications of the wool bureau, by resolutions which at their suggestion have been adopted by various woolgrowers associations, and also by the testimony which was given here on Friday and Saturday by those in favor of the bill, the prime objects which they expect to accomplish by the passage of this bill are five in number:

1. That it will increase the production of wool in this country, which they claim has been retarded by the use of shoddy without making its presence known in the goods.

Two. That it will increase the price of wool to the woolgrower. Three. That it will give the public better fabrics and at materially reduced prices.

Four. That it will give information to the buyer of goods that will enable him to know what the goods are made of and thereby judge of its quality and value.

Five. To curb profiteering on the part of woolen manufacturers. In regard to the first proposition, gentlemen, woolen manufacturers would very gladly welcome such an increase in the wool production of this country as to render them independent of foreign supply. They have contributed money to organizations which have been operating to that end for some time past. But it is a fact that in a period of 50 years, during the most of which time there has been a high duty on imported wool, we have been obliged to look for quite a large percentage of our supply to the foreign markets, showing that the domestic product is very short of the requirements, and also showing that there was an ample opportunity for increasing the product of wool in this country, regardless of the use of shoddy fabrics. To my mind, that fact disposes of the argument that the production of wool in the country has been retarded by the use of shoddy in woolen fabrics.

In regard to an increase in the price of wool, we thoroughly agree with these gentlemen that it would increase the price of virgin wool because there would be a greater demand for it, but it is quite a question, I think, whether that additional demand would not be

met by a much larger importation from abroad and not by a material increase in the domestic production.

Mr. French was very frank in stating that he believed that it would increase the cost of woolen garments, but on the other hand, in the agitation which has been carried on by these gentlemen to whom I have referred, they have given the sop to the woolgrower that he was to get a higher price for his wool, and the sop to the consumer that he was going to get better fabrics in his garments and at a materially lower price, an attitude which certainly seems hardly consistent.

Now, we take most decided issue with these gentlemen on the proposition that the stamping of fabrics in this way will give any information to the consumer that will enable him to judge of the quality and value of fabrics. We believe that the contrary would be the case; that is, that he would be misled and confused by this stamping and that he would receive no valuable information from it it at all.

In regard to curbing of profiteering on the part of woolen manufacturers, again we claim that it would give woolen manufacturers a better opportunity for higher profits than exist at the present time. That is taken up in our brief, and I will simply say now that it would make a greater demand, we think, for virgin wool fabrics and very poor virgin wool would be used to a much larger extent, and the fact that the fabric with that kind of wool in it could be stamped 100 per cent virgin wool would enable the manufacturer to get a higher price for it than he would otherwise be able to get, through the idea on the part of the public that virgin wool was so much better than anything else.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Clark, a few moments ago you stated that you fully agreed with the woolgrowers that this measure would increase the price of wool.

Mr. CLARK. Yes, sir.

Mr. COOPER. What effect would that have upon the price of shoddy, if the price of wool went up?

Mr. CLARK. I think it would depress the price of shoddy.

Mr. COOPER. It was stated here before the committee that under the present production of wool there was not more than enough wool to make every person in the world one suit of clothes of about 4 pounds. What do you think would be the effect?

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Cooper, we discuss that very thoroughly in the brief that is going to be read a little later. Of course, I can answer it now, but it is discussed pretty thoroughly.

Mr. COOPER. It is merely information I am seeking.

Mr. CLARK. Very well, sir; you will get it in the brief. I think it was Mr. French who said on Friday that the Government insisted on knowing when there was any shoddy in the Army goods, so why should not the public know whether there is any shoddy in the fabrics they are buying? The two cases, I think I can show you, are not parallel. During the war I was chairman of the committee which was appointed by Gen. Goethals, then Acting Quartermaster General, to consider and revise, if necessary, the specifications for the Army uniforms, the shirtings, and overcoatings, and blankets. We performed that duty and our specifications were adopted, so that I have some knowledge of them. Now, the Government did not allow a manufacturer to

make these fabrics of whatever material he chose and then tell the Government what the materials were, but the contracts had to be accepted by the various mills in exact accordance with the specifications. These were very elaborate, and they provided for such items as these: The wool that was used in the construction of the fabric must be of a stated grade, and that is a very important point when you institute a comparison. They specified the grade of the wool which was to go into those fabrics; they specified the number of threads to the inch of the warp and the filling, the weight per yard, the width of the goods, the tensile strength, the various chemical tests, and a great many other things. Now, you will see that that is a very different proposition from simply stamping on the back of the goods that are going to the public the percentage of this, that, or the other material that is in them without designating the first word in regard to the quality of those materials, or anything else in regard to the construction of the fabric. By the Government method the Government secured just what it contracted for, but the buyer would get no information of any value whatever by this stamping which is required on the back of the goods by the French bill.

I might say here in regard to the Government fabrics, simply as a matter of possible interest to you, that in the Government Army uniform cloths there was no shoddy: they were made of 100 per cent virgin wool. The shirtings were made with a cotton warp and 100 per cent virgin wool filling. Both the overcoatings and the blankets had certain percentages of shoddy in them, and shoddy was used in those two fabrics because, first, there was not a sufficient supply of the grade of wool which was specified; second, for the sake of economy; and third, because the grade of shoddy that was used with the grade of wool required, absolutely made a better fabric, a more compact, firm, warm fabric than would have been the case if those two fabrics had been made entirely of 100 per cent virgin wool of the grade specified.

Now, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, we expect to show you that the general prejudice in favor of virgin wool and against shoddy has no adequate sanction in fact. There is a general prejudice in favor of virgin wool, no matter how poor it may be, and a general prejudice against shoddy, no matter how good it may be. These prejudices would not persist in this undiscriminating form if the public really knew how bad virgin wool can be and how good shoddy can be. These prejudices are the bases of the feeling on the part of a great many people that if the percentages of the fibers were stamped on the back of the fabric that they would be able to judge of the quality, but that is a false idea. I had an interesting conversation here last Friday noon, after the hearing, with a very charming young lady who announced that she was very strongly in favor of the French bill because she wanted to know what was in the cloth that she bought and she did not want to have any shoddy in it. I asked her if she had ever been shown any types of virgin wool or of shoddy, and she said no. I said, "Well, do you not think your attitude is the result of prejudice?" She strenuously objected to my use of that term, because she had always been told that shoddy was an objectionable thing and that it had become really a part of her education, and that she should not change her mind about it until she had been educated the other way. Well, two of my friends and myself undertook to

play the rôle of educators, but the time was not sufficient to change the mind of the young lady on a matter which she had so firmly instilled in her.

So, I think my use of the term prejudice was correct, because the Century Dictionary defines prejudice as "an opinion or decision formed without due examination of the facts or arguments which are necessary to a just and impartial determination."

Now, gentlemen, I want to show you some types of virgin wool and shoddy and cotton. They are piled up before you there and I will tell you just how I would like to have you look at them. It is not the fabrics that I am going to talk to you about now, it is the fibers. The conception of virgin wool in the public mind is that it is a long, fine, silky fiber, but I think I shall show you that it may be nothing of the kind. These little samples with the red labels on them are all virgin wool under the terms of this bill. If you will look at No. 1-A in the corner, you can pull a little of it out of the hole in the box to see just what it is. Now, that is a very fine specimen of virgin wool. It is very fine, and it is long staple, and it is otherwise first rate in every respect. That is a fine scoured Australian wool and its value on the market to-day is $2.40 a pound.

Mr. MONTAGUE. Is that imported wool?

Mr. CLARK. Yes, sir. Sample No. 1, red label, is a fine, good staple domestic scoured wool, all ready for the woolen manufacturer. That is not as good as the other, but still a very fine type of virgin wool. The value of that on the market to-day is $1.95 per pound. Those two samples indicate really what people generally have in mind when you talk about virgin wool. I venture to say that if you gentlemen have thought anything about it, what you have had in your mind when virgin wool was talked about was wool something of that character.

Now, I want to show you a lot of other samples which are very different in character. Sample No. 2 is what we call a shearling. That is taken from the pelts of sheep sheared not a very long time before they were slaughtered. Consequently the wool on the skin had not had an opportunity to grow very long and the staple you will observe of the wool is very, very short. I say that that is really a particularly good sample of shearling wool.

Mr. JONES. What do you mean by the staple?

Mr. CLARK. The staple is the length of the fiber. That is a very important thing in woolen manufacture. The length of the staple is a very important thing in worsted manufacture, but not of so much importance in woolen. This particular sample is a good sample. There is a good deal of shearling wool that is not as good as this sample. The value to-day is 80 cents a pound.

Mr. SIMS. May I ask what is the normal length of the staple?

Mr. CLARK. There is no normal length. You take wool of different character or growth, whether it is a year's growth, the spring growth, or fall growth, they vary because of that fact. A sheep that is sheared once a year gives a year's staple growth, and a sheep that is sheared twice a year gives both a spring staple growth, which is seven or eight months, and a fall staple growth for the balance of the year.

Mr. SIMS. Well, I am used to grading cotton, and an inch and a quarter or an inch and one-eighth is considered long staple. I did