expense. A sample of cloth is shown taken from this season's line, manufactured by the Pontoosuc Woolen Manufacturing Co., of Pittsfield, Mass., made of virgin wool and shoddy, the shoddy costing considerably more than the new wool. If it were possible to produce this cloth at the present price, which is one of the popular numbers shown by this mill, by using all new wool it would undoubtedly be done and at a considerable saving to the mill. Mr. Francis, the president of this mill, is here and can vouch for this

statement.

In the report of the Tariff Board of 1912, page 69, they say, "Shoddy is not necessarily the cheap undesirable material which many take it to be. It is not customary to use shoddy alone, but blended with wool, wastes, or noils it makes a fabric which is both serviceable and cheap." And on page 72: "The mills of the United States used in 1909, 64,561,713 pounds of rags and tailors' clippings and produced 48,375,724 pounds of shoddy valued at $5,699,260. In addition to the shoddy made in shoddy mills, the carded woolen mills in 1909 made 31,021,323 pounds of shoddy for their own use. It appears from this that shoddy, or, more properly, reclaimed wool, is a very important material in cloth production in the United States."

If the French bill prevails and the unwarranted stigma is placed on shoddy the purchaser will, by his ignorant prejudice, be led to pay a higher price for a cloth not so good, or to choose a cloth of less worth for the same price. It is no argument to say that the consumer will become educated to the value of shoddy and will learn to select it with proper regard for its value. In spite of the widespread knowledge we have to-day as to the merits of oleomargarine, it is doubtful whether a rush of guests could be secured by a hotel advertising that oleomargarine is used in its kitchen. It would probably not prove good advertising for a restaurant to announce that it serves only beet sugar to its patrons, even though they may know that sugar from the beet and sugar from the cane are identical in every respect.

There is one phase of the carrying out of this law that seems to us to present very great difficulties, and that is the enforcement of the proper stamping of foreign goods. While it is a very simple matter to determine the percentage of cotton or silk in a given fabric, it is not possible to determine by analysis or otherwise the presence of shoddy. As there can be no way of inspecting the processes used in the production of these foreign goods, there is a possibility of the actual contents of the fabric differing very materially from the marking attached, and even in a case where obviously the goods are not as marked, still the deception could not be proven. It is significant that this bill makes its appeal for support on the presumption that it will prevent deceit, profiteering, and so on, no mention being made in the preamble or in the bill itself of the intention and expectation of its authors and chief backers, the National Sheep and Wool Bureau of Chicago, as admitted by the president of the organization, Mr. Alexander Walker, that the legislation will benefit the sheep-raising industry by raising the price of wool. The desirability of any legislation particularly at this time which is deliberately intended to raise the price of such a commodity as wool may well be debated.

We have discussed chiefly the utter futility of attempting to protect the buyer in his judgment of the value of cloth by disclosing the presence or not of shoddy. That the bill was drawn by the National Sheep and Wool Bureau of Chicago in the hope and expectation that it would benefit the sheep growers by raising the price of wool has also been pointed out.

In conclusion, we wish to point out that this whole subject is one in which the consumer is more vitally interested than the manufacturer can possibly be. Worsted cloth, which comprises about 60 per cent of the square yardage of the United States, can not possibly contain shoddy. There is thus only 40 per cent of the wool cloth made that can contain shoddy, including cotton warp goods and unions which are not sold as all wool, and of this a very considerable percentage is made exclusively of new wool. This would leave a very small proportion of the entire production which would be directly affected, and the manufacturers of these goods would quickly turn their machinery onto new wool, if it should be found to pay them better. They can thus be considered as practically uninterested. My own firm makes nothing but worsted goods in any of its mills, and does not buy a pound of shoddy. We will, of course, be put to the expense of marking, which will, no doubt, be considerable, but as the means of doing it on the scale required have not yet been devised, it is impossible to estimate what that cost will be. It will, however, naturally be added to the cost of the goods and passed on to the consumer in the selling price. The entire burden will fall upon the ultimate consumer, and in exchange he will get a misleading, and, in any event, a perfectly useless piece of information. The label 'shoddy" will certainly induce buyers to give preference to virgin wool, which will open the door wide to fraud in offering low-grade virgin wool at excessive prices. We are not opposed to labeling legislation in principle, but the labels must be made to tell the truth in fabrics, or they are worse than useless.

Mr. DEWALT. These are your samples?

Mr. WHITMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. DEWALT. You do not claim that 60 per cent of the wool that is manufactured in the United States goes to worsteds?

Mr. WHITMAN. Sixty per cent of the yardage that is manufactured in the United States goes to worsteds.

Mr. DEWALT. What percentage of that wool is used for all purposes, all fabric purposes?

Mr. WHITMAN. I have not worked that out. It is found in the census. You have a copy of it here.

Mr. DEWALT. That statement that 60 per cent of the yardage goes to worsteds would indicate that 60 per cent of the wool used for fabric purposes in this country was used for worsteds, when I supposed that the percentage was really very small.

Mr. WHITMAN. Shoddy is used, a very great proportion of it, in the heavier weight goods, such as meltons, and things of that

sort.

Mr. DEWALT. You say that 60 per cent of the actually manufactured products are worsteds?

Mr. WHITMAN. Yes, sir; of the square yardage.

Mr. DEWALT. And that there is no shoddy in that at all?

Mr. WHITMAN. There is no shoddy in that at all. Worsteds contain nothing but virgin wool. Worsteds are known everywhere to be that particular class of textiles and can not contain anything but virgin wool.

Mr. BARKLEY. What percentage of the other 40 per cent is all virgin wool?

Mr. WHITMAN. It is difficult to state just exactly. I have looked into it and the best conclusion I have been able to arrive at is that at least 50 per cent of that woolen yardage is virgin wool.

Mr. SIMS. So that would be 80 per cent of the total?

Mr. WHITMAN. Yes.

Mr. SIMS. Virgin wool?

Mr. WHITMAN. Yes. That means that the 85,000,000 pounds of shoddy would be used in the other 20 per cent.

Mr. SIMS. Your industry is altogether worsted?

Mr. WHITMAN. Altogether a worsted firm; yes, sir.

Mr. SIMS. And worsted is made altogether from virgin wool?
Mr. WHITMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. SIMS. Therefore, your firm has no interest whatever in what shoddy may go into?

Mr. WHITMAN. No, only what affects the market as a whole.

Mr. SIMS. Would not the passage of the French bill, according to the arguments that have been made here, increase the price of worsteds?

Mr. WHITMAN. I do not think it would affect us one way or another. Everyone knows to-day our goods are virgin wool.

Mr. SIMS. Then 60 per cent of the yardage of woolen goods would not be affected, that is, either by increasing or decreasing the price, if the French bill were to pass?

Mr. WHITMAN. Well, you take the general demand for virgin wool made for the manufacturers, the sellers would add something to their price.

Mr. SIMS. In other words, the more popular virgin wool becomes the more your manufacturers would be benefited, is not that correct? Mr. WHITMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. SIMS. You are here, of course, in the interest of your particular line of business?

Mr. WHITMAN. I am here as an American citizen.

Mr. WINSLOW. You are here in connection with this matter of marking the cloth, marking every yard of cloth?

Mr. WHITMAN. That, as I have tried to point out, is not of any direct interest to us. That would be a part of the manufacture of our goods; it would be a part of the cost and our profit would be added to it, and the consumer would pay it. Every one knows we sell worsted goods. Every one in the trade with whom we are interested knows that worsted goods are virgin wool.

Mr. WINSLOW. In the interest of the public, under this bill, you would have to mark every yard of cloth?

Mr. WHITMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. WINSLOW. The public will not save any money in buying your cloth if you have to mark every yard of cloth?

Mr. WHITMAN. Not if the retailer sees some way of getting some higher prices.

Mr. WINSLOW. The more you put into your cloth the more you hope to get out of it in the way of expense?

Mr. WHITMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. WINSLOW. So that the public would not be the beneficiary of any reduction in the cost of your goods, but, on the other hand, they would be expected to pay more

Mr. WHITMAN (interposing). Yes; certainly.

Mr. SIMS. Would the labeling of a fabric "all wool," if made entirely of all-wool shoddy, be misbranding, as you understand it, under the Rogers or the Barkley bills?

Mr. WHITMAN. No, sir: "all wool" means exactly what it says. Mr. SIMS. Regardless of the kind of wool?

Mr. WHITMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. SIMS. Now, then, your whole interest is to see that the people who are getting shoddy may continue to get it just as they do now? Mr. WHITMAN. Certainly.

Mr. SIMS. Without knowing what is in it.

Mr. WHITMAN. My contention is that the contents of a piece of cloth, shoddy or not, has no direct result in the final quality of the cloth. The mere fact that it is shoddy or virgin wool is not the point, as you can make a high grade or a low grade of either. I believe that without marking the purchaser would be able to judge the value of the cloth, and he would be able to judge whether he is getting a dollar's worth for a dollar.

Mr. WINSLOW. Does the word "shoddy" or "reworked wool," as it is called, mean a bad or inferior quality?

Mr. WHITMAN. The word "shoddy," as I understand it, came originally from the word "shed"-to shed off-and meant the small fibers, dust, and all that sort of thing. Later on the short fibers and low-grade wool recovered from the woven textiles took the same name. The waste from the mill and the short fibers were recovered wool. My understanding is that that was a trade name before the Civil War, but during the Civil War the palming off of those goods on the Army here led to the present designation of that word "shoddy," meaning worthless, or whatever it may be.

Mr. WINSLOW. It was a term denoting bad reputation?
Mr. WHITMAN. That is it.

Mr. WINSLOW. The word "shoddy" would never be put in the brand at all. In these samples this morning it was stated there was 10 per cent cotton, or whatever percentage it was; 40 per cent new wool, or whatever it might be, and so on, simply showing what they were made of. You do not give it a bad name unless the fact itself is liable to make the impression that it is not as good as it otherwise might be thought to be.

Mr. WHITMAN. My impression is that the words "reworked wool" might better be used than the word "shoddy." It would be a considerable improvement right there. But it nevertheless does not change the fact, because these reworked woolens, or all virgin wool, are no better or no worse from that fact. You have to know a hundred other things about it. You have to know the construction of the cloth, whether it is fine or coarse, whether it has strength or no strength. It can be fine either in virgin wool or shoddy. In addition to that you have to know whether the cloth is made of one construction, whether loosely woven or finely woven.

Mr. WINSLOW. Why should not the people be entitled to know the facts in the simplest way? If I am buying half cotton for wool, why not know it? And if I am buying virgin wool for reworked wool, why not know the facts?

Mr. WHITMAN. For myself, I see no reason why you should not know it, if you want to know it, but I maintain that if you know it you have not learned anything. Of course, you will agree with me that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

see.

Mr. SIMS. And none are so blind as those who can see and will not

Mr. WHITMAN. Then they judge on the merits of the cloth itself, is not that what they want?

Mr. SIMS. They want to know what it is made of.

Mr. WHITMAN. The name of the fiber, or whether it has been used before, is something that has no bearing on the quality of the cloth. You can make it into high-grade or low-grade cloth.

Mr. COOPER. I want to ask a question. I am not speaking for the rest of the committee, but this hearing is very interesting to me. I do not know anything about fabrics, but the hearing is very interesting to me nevertheless. There has been presented to this committee this morning a piece of fabric that contained shoddy and another exhibit of a fabric that contained all virgin wool, and it has been stated that the piece of fabric that contained shoddy was far better material than that made out of virgin wool. Now, I do not know whether the opponents of the French bill will refute that or not. They will have their day in court a little later on, but, so far, I am ready to accept the statement of the gentleman who presented that exhibit. Now, then, if a customer goes into a store to buy a suit of clothes, and is shown a suit that is marked virgin wool, and another suit that is marked shoddy, and the customer buys the suit that is marked virgin wool, I take it that he is going to be the loser. He has not bought the best suit. I do not know what the other side may say when they come to present their case.

Mr. WHITMAN. I will leave it to you.

Mr. COOPER. If the statement made by the gentleman who presented these exhibits is correct I think the man buying the virginwool suit is the loser.

Mr. DEWALT. Let me ask you this question merely to determine in my own mind if I correctly understand your argument: I understand you to say that by reason of the fact that there are so many grades of virgin wool differing in character and in kind, and so many different grades of wool, reworked wool and these other kinds, and so many different processes of manufacture, each different in skill, and so on, these different elements being in the proposition, the French bill would not do any good?

Mr. WHITMAN. I think that is correctly stated. It would do no good in informing the public of the value of the cloth.

Mr. DEWALT. None of these matters that I have mentioned, to-wit, the difference in the grades of the virgin wool, the difference in the grades of the wool that is made over, and the difference in the processes of manufacture, are covered in the provisions of the French bill?

Mr. WHITMAN. They are not.