Mr. CLARK. He has figured on the total yardage of the country and on that basis the number of machines that would be required to stamp all of the goods that were turned out. I want to suggest that that is a very improper method of figuring, because every mill that turns out woolen goods has got to have the apparatus that is necessary for doing this stamping, and instead of 300 or even 500 covering it there are from 1,200 to 1,300 mills that would have to be fitted out with the apparatus for doing this stamping. Why, if you remember, we in our testimony did not deny that it was practicable to do the stamping, but in our judgment the Kaumagraph process was the most desirable, at least the least expensive and the best in every way; but there were so few mills, being only eight mills that had that Kaumagraph attachment, and only 150 or 200 mills that have these A. W. C. machines to which the Kaumagraph attachment can be applied. To fit out 1,200 or 1,300 mills and install the apparatus for this stamping would take a very long time. I understand that it would take from seven to eight months to fill the orders you have for textile machinery which you have at the present time, and I take it that you could not go on new orders until after your present orders are completed or substantially completed; and to fit out all the mills of the country, 1,200 to 1,300 mills, with additional apparatus for doing this stamping, why, I think it is fairly clear that it would take a long period of time, even after your present orders are completed.

Mr. WINSLOW. Mr. Clark, do you understand that under the provisions of this bill it would be quite impossible to have the bill go into effect until every yard of cloth could, by virtue of the Kaumagraph equipment, be marked?

Mr. CLARK. I think it would be utterly impossible.

Mr. SIMS. How long in your judgment would it take to make a sufficient number of the machines and install them, to accomplish the purpose which is intended?

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Brown can answer that question better than I. I have given you some of the factors entering into the cost. It is my opinion that it would take two or three years before all the mills of the country could be equipped with the necessary machinery. But it might be done in two or three years.

Mr. SIMS. It might be done in two or three years?

Mr. CLARK. I should think so.

Mr. BROWN. In our first figures we took 1,500 machines, and we figured that we could turn out 1,500 machines in six months, and that would certainly be a very generous estimate, I should say. Mr. Clark says that we have only eight Kaumagraph machines in operation at the present time. Mr. Sturdevant, how many machines have we in operation? Have you got a list of them?

Mr. STURDEVANT. We have about 25 Kaumagraph machines in operation at the present time.

Mr. CLARK. My statement applied to the machines in use in the woolen mills of the country, not what you have in other finishing establishments or anything of that kind, but to the number in woolen. mills in the country. That statement was made by, I think, Mr. Sturdevant, to me. Did you not give me the number, Mr. Sturdevant?

177735-20 -12

Mr. STURDEVANT. I did not give the number in woolen mills. Mr. CLARK. It came in a letter that I had from you yourself. Mr. STURDEVANT. I was speaking of all the branches, I was not speaking of only one.

Mr. DEWALT. In your calculation of 1,500 did you take into consideration the silk mills of the country?

Mr. BROWN. We figured on the basis of a billion yards of goods annually. Mr. Marsten, who made the estimate, can answer that. Mr. MARSTEN. I believe I got that estimate from Mr. Hance. Mr. DEWALT. Did that billion yards include the yards of silk, or only woolen?

Mr. BROWN. That included the yardage of goods that contained wool, anything of that kind, that contained wool in any quantity. Mr. DEWALT. That contained wool in any quantity?

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

Mr. DEWALT. Then it would not apply to the manufacture of silk goods, as I understand it.

Mr. BROWN. No, but I understand that all silk goods are to be marked, too.

Mr. DEWALT. These bills do not require that, according to the testimony of Mr. Channing, who manufactures silk.

Mr. BROWN. I would like to say one word regarding Mr. Clark's statement as to the amount of business we have on hand and the time it would take to get that out. That is quite true, but we had planned if this thing went through to take a certain storehouse which we have and make them into a factory and start intensive production. It would be up to us to produce the machines.

Mr. WINSLOW. How many employees do you have in that department of your work?

Mr. BROWN. We have not a separate department. That machinery is built in conjunction with our other textile machinery.

Mr. WINSLOW. Could you give me an estimate of the number of men employed in the production of those machines now?

Mr. BROWN. Oh, I should say, not over 10 men.

Mr. WINSLOW. And you build your own machines for constructing these?

Mr. BROWN. No.

Mr. WINSLOW. Where would you expect to get them in six months?
Mr. BROWN. I think we have ample machinery.

Mr. WINSLOW. How many men do you think you would have to employ so as to increase that output to 1,500 in six months? Mr. BROWN. We planned on putting on a night force. We are now running somewhere around 125 men, and we would put on a night force, and do whatever was necessary.

Mr. WINSLOw. Then the cost of labor would increase?

Mr. BROWN. It would increase the cost of labor, but that would not be a factor if we could build these machines all of one type and turn them out in large lots. That is the way that machinery can be built cheaply.

Mr. WINSLOW. You think by the average of multiplication of product it would more than offset the increased cost of labor?

Mr. BROWN. It would more than offset the increased cost of labor. Mr. WINSLOW. Do you think with five additional men you could build 1,500 of these machines in six months?

Mr. BROWN. No; I should say it would take from 40 to 50. We are in a manufacturing town and can get the additional men needed Mr. WINSLOW. My experience has been that in manufacturing towns there is less chance of getting them.

The CHAIRMAN. What would be the average cost per yard for marking?

Mr. BROWN. Why, so far as the Parks & Woolson Machine Co. is concerned, it would be first the cost of the machine, and then a very small cost of maintenance, which would not amount to anything. For maintenance it takes a little electricity to heat the iron, and it takes the usual lubricants, and the only expense is the Kaumagraph expense. Mr. Marsten can tell you about that.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Dr. Alsberg, Chief of the Bureau of Chemistry, of the Department of Agriculture, is here, and we will hear him now as he is leaving for Chicago on the afternoon train.

STATEMENT OF DR. CARL L. ALSBERG.

The CHAIRMAN. Doctor, state your name, occupation, and address Jor the record.

Dr. ALSBERG. Carl L. Alsberg, Chief of the Bureau of Chemistry, Department of Agriculture; 216 Thirteenth Street SW., Washington, D. C. Mr. Chairman, I received a telephone request to come here this morning. I do not quite know what you gentlemen wish of me, and perhaps, if you will ask me some questions, that will be the best way of getting at what you desire.

The CHAIRMAN. Doctor, you are familiar in a general way with the bills pending?

Dr. ALSBERG. I have just read them this morning, that is, the French bill and the Rogers bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, and we have also the Barkley bill, which is based on the pure food and drugs act.

Dr. ALSBERG. I do not think that I have read that.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the misbranding bill.

Dr. ALSBERG. It applies to all commodities?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. The French bill applies almost entirely to woolens.

Dr. ALSBERG. Almost entirely to woolens?

The CHAIRMAN. The question the committee would be interested in would be along the line of your work, seeking to ascertain through chemical analysis or such other processes as are employed by you the character of the woolen fibers or staples that are used in woolen clothes, and the ability to detect reworked wool from virgin wool. Any testimony along that line would be valuable to the committee. Dr. ALSBERG. Perhaps I have come up here under a misapprehension. Our bureau has not during the last few years done a great deal of work on the chemistry textiles. We do a great deal of work on leather and paper and other agricultural products. We do, of course, a good deal of microscopic work on textiles and the detection of shoddy-that is to say, used wool as distinguished from virgin wool or wool that has never before been used-is to a large extent accomplished by the use of the microscope. You detect the shoddy by the difference in the appearance of the fiber. There is a certain loss of scales that you see under the microscope as the

result of wear that distinguishes shoddy from new wool. Of course, it is often a relatively easy matter to detect the presence of shoddy. It is a rather difficult matter to tell quantitatively in a given fabric with exactness how much of it is shoddy and how much of it is new wool. It is hard to give figures in a general way because they will vary somewhat with the material, the cloth, and the conditions under which you work. In that connection, Mr. Chairman, would it be out of place for me to indicate some personal views with reference to dealing with this matter of fabrics based on my experience in the enforcement of the food and drugs act?

The CHAIRMAN. We should be glad to hear your views.

Dr. ALSBERG. It may be presenting a view which may have been presented here before; as to that I do not know, but it has an essential bearing on the principle on which this bill H. R. 13136, the Rogers bill, is based. I can possibly explain what I mean by going back to my personal experience in the enforcement of the food and drugs act, and taking a specific example, that of flour. Flour is an article which is now generally made by what is known as the roller process. That is where the name "Patent Flour" for the better grades of flour comes from. Now, there are a great many variations in the details of the manufacture of flour and, technically, any flour made by the roller process might be regarded as patent flour. The trade, however, has established certain usages which restrict the term patent flour to the best of the flour that can be gotten out of a given kind of grain. Now, as grain varies a great deal and as the methods of milling vary a great deal the term "patent flour" will have a different significance according to the kind of grain that is used and according to the skill of the miller and the excellence of his equipment. One mill which is equipped in the best manner and has skillful operators can obtain more flour from the same kind of wheat that would be of patent quality than another mill which is old-fashioned or unskillfully run. Hence, inasmuch as the designations of the grades of the flour is based on the process rather than the kind of flour a man gets out of the wheat, the term "patent flour" may vary to a very considerable range in its application, and you may have flours of very considerably different quality; yet they ceah are called and are entitled to be called "patent flour." The patent flour of one mill may be of a different grade from the patent flour of another mill, owing to the difference in wheat and the difference in the skill of the milling.

Now, it all comes back to this, that the grading of flour, being based on the materials and the process of manufacture, is in a very unsatisfactory condition. It is not based on the inherent intrinsic qualities of the flour that is produced. The consumer is interested not in what kind of wheat the flour is produced from, he is interested not in the process by which the flour is produced, he is interested solely in what kind of a loaf of bread that particular sample of flour will bake, and that is all he is interested in. Inasmuch as the food value of the average run of flour and of various wheats is about the same nutritional value is not a factor. Now, if we had a grading system of flour which was based on the performance of that flour in baking, we would have a rational basis which would put all manufacturers on the same basis and which would enable the skillful miller to capitalize his skill to greater advantage than he is in position to do at

present. With this thought, I think that one of the difficulties in the plans that are proposed in this textile bill here becomes clear. It is that it is based on considerations of the raw materials out of which the cloth is made, on considerations of the history of those raw materials, and on the consideration of the process of manufacture. Now, in these things the consumer is not really fundamentally interested. I think the interests of the consumer in a cloth, or a garment made from the cloth, or a blanket, can be classified under three general heads-one is an aesthetic consideration, the appearance, which is not covered in this bill, and which is not a fit subject for consideration in the bill; it is a matter of taste, whether a man likes the appearance or not. The other two considerations are, the service which the cloth or garment will give, how it will wear; and the protection that it will afford from the weather. Those are the two things in which the consumer is interested, how it will wear and the protection it will afford from the weather. The two things, of course, are closely interrelated. He is not so much interested in knowing how the manufacturer achieves a certain result in producing a cloth that will have a certain wearing quality; he is not interested in knowing how the manufacturer achieves a result in producing a cloth that will give him protection against cold. What he is after is a certain wearing quality, and the power to protect him from cold in the garment or the blanket, as the case may be. Now, whether that end is achieved by the manufacturer through one process or another, by the use of one material or another, is a thing that the consumer is really not specially interested in. I am again basing it on my experiences with reference to foods, for which we have legislation similar to that here proposed. Now, it seems to me that the great difficulties that arise in the administration of an act like this textile act are due to the fact that you are trying to reconcile the processes of manufacture, which are fundamentally technical and which very few people know anything about, with giving the consumer information that will protect him.

Now, if you tell the average consumer all about a given cloth, how it is made and what it is made from, it will mean very little to him. He does not understand it, he is not a textile expert. It may even be misleading, because it may be possible to make a superior cloth from materials which, according to the common notions of the consumer, are inferior materials. It also puts a handicap on the stimulus for the manufacturer to improve his methods to require a system of branding or labeling which will give the public all the details of information, because everything new is looked at askance, at least according to my experience with foods and drugs. The thought that I have is this, that it might be far better to establish a series of absolutely arbitrary grades of cloths-say United States Standard Grade A, United States Standard Grade B, or whatever name you wish to give them, and fix absolutely and arbitrarily that grade A cloth must have a certain wearing quality as determined by a rubbing test, we will say, and a folding test, which can be determined absolutely arbitrarily in consultation with the representatives of the manufacturers and consumers, and that it must have a certain arbitrary power to prevent the passage of heat or cold. You then have done the two things the consumer is interested in. When you have told him that a given garment is made of grade A cloth you have given