Mr. SANDERS. Your idea is that if this French bill were to pass and the goods were labeled as the bill would require them to be labeled that the ultimate purchaser would assume that that was a standard by which he could test whether those goods were of excellent value or of poor value, and that that not being the full standard, but merely being one element of the standard, he would hence govern his action by a false standard?

Mr. WHITMAN. Precisely.

Mr. SANDERS. In that case a little information might be worse than if he had known.

Mr. WHITMAN. A very dangerous thing.

Mr. SANDERS. What is the total yardage of American-made woolen goods?

Mr. WHITMAN. Altogether, wool and worsted?
Mr. SANDERS. Yes.

Mr. WHITMAN. About 620,000,000 yards.

Mr. SANDERS. How much of it is consumed?

Mr. WHITMAN. I presume all of it is consumed.

Mr. SANDERS. Not that. I mean the total consumption of woolen goods, whether they come from abroad or whether they are made here. Mr. WHITMAN. Oh, I have not the figures covering the importation. Mr. SANDERS. Have you roughly a knowledge of what the quantity of imported goods is?

Mr. WHITMAN. No; I have not, but not over 5 per cent of the domestic manufacture, the quantity manufactured here.

Mr. SANDERS. So that the quantity of consumption of foreign products is not very great?

Mr. WHITMAN. Foreign manufacture?

Mr. SANDERS. Of foreign manufacture.

Mr. WHITMAN. Not according to that statement.

Mr. SANDERS. As a rule, is the foreign manufactured product of a. fine character?

Mr. WHITMAN. I think in a general way it might be stated that the imported goods are all high-grade goods.

Mr. SANDERS. Take the best high-grade English goods, do we make in this country goods as good?

Mr. WHITMAN. I think we do.

Mr. SANDERS. Are they so generally recognized by the best American tailors when they recommend goods to their customers?

Mr. WHITMAN. They are bought on their merits; although there a certain prejudice may also be used, when he offers you a suit of imported clothes which perhaps are not as good, the cloth is not as good, but he will get his high price because of ignorance on the part of the purchaser.

Mr. SANDERS. Then, we have no way of telling in competing with foreign manufacturers, but you can say, "Your goods shall not be admitted unless you mark them so and so."

Mr. WHITMAN. The difficulty there is, while we may impose that upon all imported goods-the burden being laid on shoddy, of course, because the other you can easily enough distinguish there is no way of telling by chemical analysis or otherwise whether there is wool in that that has been used before or not. There is no miscroscopic way of telling it. So that you may get into this country goods marked "virgin wool" which are really very low-grade shoddy.

In this country we can it by inspections of the raw materials at the factory.

Mr. SANDERS. Would that not apply to goods of American manufacture?

Mr. WHITMAN. Well, here we have the advantage of knowing exactly what they are putting into it.

Mr. SANDERS. Presumably there is no way of telling by looking at it. Mr. JONES. You have here six or seven exhibits of various grades of virgin wool running in value from 5 cents a pound to $2.40 a pound. Now, there are two pieces of fabric, one containing 80 per cent wool, one containing 5 per cent, and another fabric 80 per cent, and some percentage of the highest grade virgin wool. Under the French bill it can be marked the same, so far as the content of the virgin wool is concerned?

Mr. WHITMAN. Exactly.

Mr. JONES. Now, if a purchaser should buy a garment containing 5 per cent of virgin wool he would be deceived by the marking? Mr. WHITMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JONES. And it would cause deception rather than knowledge? It would be a misbranding as to him?

Mr. WHITMAN. Precisely. That is my contention.

Mr. MONTAGUE. You were asked the question whether we could not make as good goods here as they do abroad, and you said that we could. Now, I want to ask you why we can not raise in this country this wool that would bring $2.80 a pound, like they do in Australia?

Mr. WHITMAN. I am afraid you will have to ask the sheep men. Mr. MONTAGUE. The manufacturers are quite well aware that there is no wool grown in this country of the grade of Australian wool that you exhibited here this morning. I asked this morning if that exhibit was Australian wool?

Mr. WHITMAN. Yes; that is Australian wool.

Mr. MONTAGUE. Is that grade of wool grown in America?

Mr. WHITMAN. It may be. The woolgrowers would have to answer that question.

The CHAIRMAN. You stated that there was no way of distinguishing between fabrics by chemical or microscopic analyses; that is, distinguishing reworked wool fiber from the virgin wool fiber; is that right?

Mr. WHITMAN. That is it.

The CHAIRMAN. Have wool fibers scales and rescales, varying with the breed of sheep?

Mr. WHITMAN. Yes, I understand the breed of sheep has something to do with it, and the part of the sheep from which it is taken. It varies in various ways.

The CHAIRMAN. It is reasonable to suppose, therefore, that the fibers of reworked wool might show a less number of scales than the fibers of virgin wool?

Mr. WHITMAN. I suppose in a general way reworked wool might be said to show less scales because many of them might be knocked off. That is only a very general statement, though, because I am not taking the grade of virgin wool that has not been through any stress. The rougher parts of the wool from the buttock of the sheep, and so on, would have to be worked in very much the same way and

144

144

MERCHANDISE MISBRANDING BILLS.

the scales might be knocked off. Just because there are no scales on it, or fewer scales on it, would not of itself show it was virgin wool. (Witness excused.)

STATEMENT OF MR. FREDERIC K. NIXON, MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF WOOLEN MANUFACTURERS.

The CHAIRMAN. Please state your name, whom you represent and your address.

Mr. NIXON. Frederic K. Nixon, member of the American Association of Woolen Manufacturers, 45 East Seventeenth Street, New York City. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: It is recognized by all good merchants that the needs of the ultimate consumer must be considered, and it is from this point of view that we believe the stamping of woolen goods with the percentages of raw materials entering into their manufacture would not only be of no value but actually misleading to the buying public. If the importation of foreign woolens could be entirely shut out of the United States of America, it would no doubt be possible for the American manufacturers who blend shoddy and wool in the making of their goods to adapt themselves to the requirements of the French bill without serious injury to their own business, providing the necessary machinery for marking can be developed. It is doubtful, however, if a manufacturer of a superior article would continue to make a product which would be stamped part shoddy, and which would convey to the mind of the public inferiority, when he could make what in reality would be a much inferior fabric, but which, by being stamped 100 per cent virgin wool, would convey the idea of superiority.

As there is no known test which will detect the presence of good shoddy mixed with wool, and as no supervision could be exercised over foreign makers, it would, of course, be very easy for merchandise to be shipped here from abroad stamped 100 per cent virgin wool, which contained shoddy and no one could prove otherwise. In a consideration of this problem, two points should be clearly borne in mind: First, the presence of cotton in a woolen fabric can be proven by the simplest possible test, which does not require any special apparatus, and is made with chemicals that cost only a few cents. Second, compared with the total amount of woolen goods made in the United States of America, the percentage containing shoddy is very small. The misleading ideas which would be conveyed to the public by the marking of the percentages of unscientifically classified fibers, as required by the proposed bill, are better understood by a comparison of some of the fabrics recently sold.

Now, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have a number of samples taken from merchandise offered by American mills during the last season. I have only one set of samples with What would be your suggestion? Shall I pass them around? The CHAIRMAN. You have only one sample which you can pass

me.

around?

Mr. NIXON. I have only this one set of samples, which I will hand

to you.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well, you may pass it to the members of the

committee.

Mr. NIXON. Samples A-1, A-2, and A-3 are all 100 per cent virgin wool, but so great is the difference in the price of the wool

used and the cost of manufacture, that the cost of making A-3 is more than double that of A-1, but they would all be marked the same. Samples B-1, B-2, and B-3, in like manner, are all fabrics containing shoddy. B-1 contains less shoddy than either of the other two fabrics, and under the provisions of the French bill, would be stamped in such a way as to appear that, owing to the percentage of virgin wool being higher, the fabric would be of greater value than the other two. It is self-evident that in warmth, wearing qualities, and appearance, samples B-2 and B-3 are in every respect better, are more costly to manufacture and rightly sell on a higher basis. Samples C-1 and C-2. A very interesting illustration is shown in samples C-1 and C-2, both of which have been sold for men's suitings in the last few weeks. Sample C-1 is 100 per cent virgin wool. Sample C-2 contains shoddy. C-1 can be made and is actually sold at less money than C-2, but no judge of merchandise would hesitate one moment between the warmth and wearing qualities of the two fabrics, as C-2 is far superior, but, under the provisions of the proposed bill, would be stamped in such a way as to make it appear inferior in the eyes of the public, and would unquestionably deceive them as to the relative value of the merchandise. It has also been claimed by the supporters of the proposed bill that the use of shoddy has enabled manufacturers to get a higher profit on the merchandise than if the presence of shoddy were known. Values in woolens are judged by the keen buyers of cloths for ready-made garments by methods of comparison between the different fabrics shown. The samples used for illustration, which are taken from the present season's market, show how competition makes prices according to the cost of the fabrics, and how impossible it is to deceive the buyers on the relative value of fabrics.

Samples D-1, D-2, D-3, and D-4. Samples D-1 and D-2 are of the same general character and appearance; D-1 is made of virgin wool and sold recently at $3.50 per yard, whereas D-2 was sold at $2.65 per yard, thus enabling the consumer to obtain a lower-priced garment. Unquestionably if the manufacturer of D-2 had to stamp his fabric with the per cent of shoddy used he would make the goods of all virgin wool and obtain the higher price, which would be just as profitable as the merchandise he is now making; and the same way Sample D-3, advertised as virgin wool, is sold at $4.75, and Sample D-4 was sold at $3.25. There can be no question but that the man who buys the cheaper of these two fabrics is getting equally as good, if not better value for the amount of money spent. Shoddy is, however, used chiefly in the way that it is of the greatest economic value to the community at large, namely, in cloths for outer garments, overcoatings, heavy cloakings, and mackinaws, where warmth and protection are essential without too great a cost.

Samples O-1 and O-2. Sample Ŏ-1 shows a Kersey which has been made for many years by the same manufacturer, has an enviable reputation among the users, and gives excellent service to the wearer, providing, at the same time, a warm, sightly, and durable garment. Sample O-2 is a virgin-wool fabric which has been sold for the present season for more money than O-1. It is apparent that to prejudice the mind of the buying public by stamping O-1 in such a way as to lead them to suppose it is inferior to O-2 would be a distinct

177735-20- -10

misstatement of facts. It would be impossible even for a man of long experience in the business to give any guide to the buying public of the value of cloths by a general classification of the fabrics used. This can be very readily understood by the examination of the sample of card waste which, while it is one of the poorest fabrics known in the woolen trade, would be classified virgin wool, and comparing it with the sample of garnetted worsted, which would be classed as shoddy although it is sold at four times as much as the card waste and more than twice as much as the coarse wool. While exhibits can be multiplied ad lib., we believe that the samples of cloths shown, all of which are actual fabrics sold and are not made for exhibition purposes, will convince you of the futility of attempting to gauge the value by stamping it with the percentages of raw materials used. I thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness.

STATEMENT OF MR. GEORGE B. SANFORD, PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF WOOLEN AND WORSTED MANUFACTURERS.

The CHAIRMAN. Please state your name, whom you represent, and your address.

Mr. SANFORD. George B. Sanford, president of the American Association of Woolen and Worsted Manufacturers; 45 East Seventeenth Street, New York City. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: During the course of these hearings you have had presented to you, or will have, briefs on the general subject of labeling legislation prepared by committees of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers of Boston, and the American Association of Woolen and Worsted Manufacturers of New York, of which I have the honor to be president. I should like the privilege of presenting a set of resolutions passed by the board of directors of the American Association of Woolen and Worsted Manufacturers at a meeting held on the 17th of March. In doing so I would like to state that, as we see it, the question precipitated is as to whether the Congress shall enact general legislation designed to protect the public in its purchases of commodities of all kinds, or special legislation designed to protect the public in its specific purchases of a product of a particular industry. The Rogers bill introduced a few days ago, is intended to accomplish the former, while the French bill introduced some weeks ago, is aimed at the woolen and worsted industry specifically. We favor the Rogers bill because we believe that it will protect the public from fraud and misrepresentation in its general purchases, and we oppose the French bill, first, because in our opinion it will

Mr. SANDERS (interposing). Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt to ask the gentleman a question right here?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. SANDERS of Indiana. You say you are in favor of the Rogers bill. Do you really think we ought to have legislation of this character?

Mr. SANFORD. As president of the American Association of Woolen and Worsted Manufacturers, I am very glad to say that one of the principal objects of the association is the improvement of industrial