Sidebilder
PDF
ePub
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Mr. BARKLEY. Before we adjourn I would like to ask this question: Is there any one here from out of town who is here to testify on any phase of the so-called misbranding bills? (There was no response.) The CHAIRMAN. We will adjourn now until 10.30 o'clock to-morrow morning, and we will hear as many witnesses as we can to-morrow. (Whereupon, at 4.45 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until 10.30 o'clock a. m., Friday, March 26, 1920.)

COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Friday, March 26, 1920. The committee on this day met, Mr. John J. Esch (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Mr. French, you desire to have some out-of-town witnesses heard this morning, do you not, witnesses that have come a great distance and desire to leave town this afternoon?

Mr. FRENCH. Yes, Mr. Chairman; there are some witnesses here who desire to leave as early as possible, but if the committee has no objection I should like to have Mr. Reynolds heard first. The CHAIRMAN. Yes; very well.

STATEMENT OF MR. E. E. REYNOLDS.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Reynolds, will you state your name, address, and whom you represent?

Mr. REYNOLDS. E. E. Reynolds, 217 Park Avenue, Takoma Park, Washington, D. C. I am the editor of Rural Life, of Rochester, N. Y., and the Washington representative of the Michigan Farmer, Detroit, The Ohio Farmer, of Cleveland, and the Pennsylvania Farmer, of Philadelphia. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I will say that my personal interest in this matter is the interest of every citizen who desires to know the contents of the fabrics that he buys. My interest for the public is the interest of many thousands of people who have desired to know the contents of the fabrics that they buy. Now, in my position I am able to keep in touch with the sentiment of a large number of farmers throughout Michigan, Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania, and I find that there is no question in their minds to-day that is occupying any greater attention than this question of pure fabrics, and it is also reaching the consumers. The New York State Federation of Sheep Breeders Associations on the 28th day of February passed resolutions declaring in favor of a bill similar to the French bill, embodying its essential provisions.

They have been agitating this question among the sheep breeders and farmers for quite a long time, and I can assure you, gentlemen, that this agitation has not come as the result of propaganda of any large organization, but has developed from the people themselves, and I find that men in other occupations are taking up the question and discussing it, and they feel that there is need for legislation on this subject. The Agricultural Commission of the Michigan State Bankers Association a short time ago investigated this problem, and passed resolutions favoring a pure fabric law. There are many other organizations of farmers and bankers that are considering this question. I am interested in it from the producer's standpoint to the

extent that I am editor of an agricultural paper, and represent farm papers that voice the sentiments of the farmers and that stand for the interests of the farmers and of the producers; and as a citizen I am interested in this subject for the future of the country. When this war with Germany began, I wonder what would have been the condition of this country if the United States had been fighting against the British Empire instead of being an ally of the British Empire. The latest statistics that I have show that one-third of all the wool used in textile manufacture of woven goods purporting to contain wool manufactured in the United States is largely imported from the British Empire.

I am afraid that if we had been fighting the British Empire our soldiers would have had to go without woolen clothing, and for the country's protection I maintain that the public at large has some interest in this question beyond the interest of the consumer or the interest of the producer. Our friends have in a measure attempted to show that shoddy is a material that has a place in textile manufactures, but I think that their comparisons have been misleading, that they have misrepresented the subject in their comperisons, because they say that certain grades of shoddy are just as good as certain other grades of wool; but they do not attempt to show, I do not believe they could show, that the best grades of shoddy are as good as the best grades of wool. If we are going to make any comparison we should compare the better grades of shoddy with the better grades of wool, and the poorer grades of shoddy with the poorer grades of wool, in order to get a fair comparison.

A question similar to this came up a number of years ago about the manufacture of oleomargerine. Perhaps you remember the agitation that sprang up against allowing manufacturers of oleomargarine to sell their product as an imitation of cow butter. It came up in every legislature and in Congress. They came before Congress and they came before the State legislatures with claims just as we have heard at these hearings, that to be compelled to sell oleomargarine as oleomargerine would ruin the industry. It was unfair to the product. They had samples and they showed a fine quality of their product, and protested against any legislation that would prevent the selling of that product as cow butter because it would injure their trade and would injure the people by denying them a wholesome food product that had a place in the world's trade. They said that the people had a prejudice against the name "oleomargarine" the same as these men say the people have a prejudice against the name "shoddy," but I think in both instances the ones that are to blame for this prejudice are the manufacturers themselves. If you have a product that you are putting on the market that you are afraid of having the people know its true character, you create a suspicion and a prejudice. That was the case with the oleomargarine manufacturers and is the case with shoddy. The oleomargarine manufacturers said if the people knew their product was oleomargarine when put on the market, they would not buy it, but they were wrong-the people did buy it. The manufacturers said they could not market it because it would be so expensive to put it up with all these markings on it that it would be an extra cost to the public. But that was overcome, just as this can be overcome, this stamping of woolen fabrics. At the time when that agitation was on I believed that if those manufacturers would put their oleomargarine on the market as oleomargarine and sell it as oleomar

gerine they would not ruin the industry. The people would find out about its quality and buy it on its merits. It is now sold in every grocery store. You can see packages with oleomargerine printed across them, and the people are buying it on its merits. It is not selling for creamery butter, and it is not selling at the price of creamery butter, but it is selling at a fair price, so that the manufacturers are willing to manufacture it, and I have not heard any complaints from the manufacturers that they are not making a profit out of it. There is nothing against oleomargerine, only that it should be sold on its own merits as oleomargerine. The same way with shoddy. Shoddy, these gentlemen say, is a good article. If it is a good article, and is put on the market as shoddy, I believe the people will soon come to know that it is a good article, and if they want shoddy they will buy shoddy, but they will not pay the price that they will pay for wool, all wool, genuine virgin-wool goods.

Mr. BARKLEY. Is there some way to change the name of shoddy to something like "experienced wool" so that it will not be as odious to the mind of the buyer?

Mr. REYNOLDS. The oleomargerine manufacturers have tried to change the label, to get around the name oleomargerine, but they find that oleomargerine sells just as well as all these other fancy names; and I do not see why shoddy would not sell if the people found that it was a good article. I believe that it would. It never has been put on the market. How do these men know that it will not sell as shoddy? You go into a clothing store and undertake to buy a suit of clothes. No one tells you that it is made of shoddy. How do they know that it will not sell as shoddy?

Mr. MERRITT. May I interrupt you, sir, to ask a question?
Mr. REYNOLDS. Certainly.

Mr. MERRITT. You said a moment ago that it was contended that certain grades of shoddy were better for making cloth than certain grades of wool. Do you deny that?

Mr. REYNOLDS. How is that?

Mr. MERRITT. It has been contended here that certain grades of new wool are not equal in the manufacture of cloth of certain grades as shoddy.

Mr. REYNOLDS. That is true, but I maintain

Mr. MERRITT (interposing). I only want you to answer that question. That is true that it may be so?

Mr. REYNOLDS. It may be that certain grades of shoddy may be even better than certain grades of wool.

Mr. MERRITT. Well, now, then, you want to protect the public? Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. MERRITT. Yes, that is your fundamental idea. Now, that being so, would it not be true that a cloth which was marked truly "all new wool" and therefore would sell at a higher price, in your judgment, than a cloth that was marked "all shoddy," might act as deception instead of information?

Mr. REYNOLDS. It is hard to make any law to cover all those points, but I maintain that the better grades of wool are better than the better grades of shoddy.

Mr. MERRITT. Does not that come down to the contention of the gentleman from the Bureau of Standards that if you are going to

177735-20-16

« ForrigeFortsett »