Mr. REYNOLDS. I suppose it could be graded in three grades. I suppose three grades would cover it mostly. You can not get it. down fine, to every possible grade.

Mr. FRENCH. I do not want to interrupt Mr. Reynolds, but there are several persons here who are working against time. I do not want to interrupt Mr. Reynolds if he is about through, but if Mr. Reynolds is not nearly through now I wonder if we could wedge some one in, as there are several here who want to take the afternoon trains.

The CHAIRMAN. I was going to suggest that there are some witnesses here who desire to get through by noon to-morrow. We have not put a limit on any witnesses so far, and it is not our desire to put a limit on any witness. We want to get all the information that we can, but we have got to realize that we must conserve our time.

Mr. REYNOLDS. I think I can get through in a few minutes, unless you want to cross examine me.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well, then, just proceed.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Now, then, I wish to call attention of the committee to some ads that I saw in the paper last night, The Star, showing how the dealers, the retailers, play on this "all wool." "These $15 all wool blue serge suits $12.85." Wool, virgin wool, has to come in competition with all that stuff! Now, I wish to show you the amount of virgin wool that you use, according to this book here. "Arguments Against the Truth in Fabric' Bills," which shows that · of virgin wool, the scoured virgin wool, and that is the only basis on which we can compare it with shoddy, there were 257,400,000 pounds used in 1914; and of shoddy, 85,600,000. That was 25 per cent for shoddy and 75 per cent for virgin wool. Of course, since then the number of sheep has decreased and the amount of shoddy has increased. It shows this competition, and Mr. French pointed out the increase, the steady increase in the amount used for shoddy and the decrease in the amount of wool. Dr. Alsberg brought up the question of beans yesterday, and referred to the $12 beans in this country, the red kidney beans, and stated that they were importing beans from Manchuria for $7 a bushel and were selling them as red kidney beans on the market in competition with the $12 beans, and he said that if this competition kept up it would ruin the red kidney bean industry in this country. That is just what the competition of shoddy is doing with the wool industry in this country. It is ruining the wool industry. I will read you some figures that I have here showing the number of sheep in the United States and their rapid decrease also. This is not a United States problem but a world problem. Here in the United States in 1903 there were 63,965,000 head, in 1919, there were 49,863,000, and in 1920, 48,615,000. Since 1903 the loss has averaged 1,000,000 a year.

Mr. WINSLOW. Is that up to date; up to 1919?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Up to 1920.

Mr. WINSLOW. If that is so, how do you account for the increase in wool?

Mr. REYNOLDS. The increase?

Mr. WINSLOW. In the product of wool; yes.

Mr. REYNOLDS. I do not account for an increase in wool.

Mr. WINSLOW. You had better get advised then. The Agricultural Department shows an increase of 14,000,000 pounds, plus, a year.

Mr. REYNOLDS. That is, in this country?

Mr. WINSLOW. Yes.

Mr. REYNOLDS. The number of sheep has decreased according to their figures. Now, here are some sheep figures-I can not answer for the wool

Number of sheep in leading wool-producing countries: United States-1903, 63,965,000 head; 1919, 48,868,000 head; 1920, 48,615,000 head (since 1903 loss has averaged 1,000,000 head a year). Argentina-1895, 74,380,000; 1914, 43,225,000. Australia-1890, 97,881,000; 1916, 76,669,000. Hungary-1884, 10,595,000; 1913, 6,560,000. Brazil-1912, 10,658,000; 1916, 6,920,000. Russian Empire, 1900, 47,628,000; 1914, 37,240,000. Union of South Africa, 1913, 35,711,000; 1915, 31,434,000. New England (once had 4,500,000 sheep)-1891, 1,240,000; 1919, 378,000. New York (once had 5,118,777 sheep)—1910, 930,000; 1919, 840,000.

So you can see that there is unfair competition of shoddy with wool, the same as there is in the competition of the $7 Manchuria bean with our home product, and this unfair competition of shoddy with wool will ruin the wool industry; it can not stand up under it. And if this decrease of a million sheep a year keeps up as it has for the last 17 years it is a matter of only about 48 years when the sheep will be gone; that is, if the decrease keeps up at the same rate.

The CHAIRMAN. In that connection, Mr. Reynolds, we will give you the privilege of extending your remarks in the Record by adding any data you see fit that is pertinent to the question.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Very well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will say that the States are taking up this question and the movement is growing. There is a bill before the New York State Legislature and other States are taking up the question and, undoubtedly, some of them will enact laws embodying the principles of the French bill for grading according to contents and quality. The agitation is growing and I do not believe it can be stopped, but I do believe that it would be better for Congress to pass effective legislation along these lines than to have the States pass varying laws on the subject. I thank you.

(Witness excused.)

STATEMENT OF MR. CHARLES A. LYMAN, SECRETARY OF THE NATIONAL BOARD OF FARMING ORGANIZATIONS.

The CHAIRMAN. Is Mr. Lyman here?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You may appear, Mr. Lyman.

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

Mr. LYMAN. Charles A. Lyman, secretary of the National Board of Farming Organizations, owning headquarters in this city at 1731 I Street NW., Washington, D. Č.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the National Board is doing and planning to do for the member organizations and farmers throughout the country what the Chamber of Commerce of the United States is doing and attempting to do for the commercial interests.

I think no one here on the committee will question that the French bill is a serious and honest attempt to give the people of this country a better knowledge of what they are buying. I want to say that the people generally throughout the country wish to know nowadays what they are getting. This feeling, which is deep-seated, applies to fertilizers; it applies to feeds; it applies to seeds; and it applies to men in political life.

To the argument which may be advanced that this bill is not perfect I will reply that the people of this country have confidence in the ability of this committee to perfect the bill. I do not believe that anyone here who is for this bill will argue that it is the final word. If you gentlemen in your wisdom want to go ahead and elaborate and specify the length of the staple of virgin wool and the quality of the shoddy I will not object, and I do not believe that the people who have drawn up this bill will object. One thing is certain: The people of this country do want to know what they are getting.

In two other bills which are also before this committee for consideration with reference to labeling of fabrics there is a feature which I am confident will be very objectionable to the farmers of the country. I do not think that it was put into this bill with any intent to head off legislation to control the interstate shipments of agricultural seeds; but I submit to you members of the committee that if, for instance, the Rogers bill or the Barclay bill were adopted by this committee and the farmers should come to you soon (as they plan to do) asking for effective Federal seed legislation to control interstate shipments of seeds so as to prevent the introduction of noxious seed weeds, and to correct other evils, that you might reply that the matter had been taken care of, when such would not be the case. For example, I find on the first page of the Rogers bill reference to the false description of any goods, wares, merchandise, or things "things" would cover seeds, would it not? And then, later, I find a paragraph—and I think it is in both of these bills-which says:

Provided further, That seeds, roots, bulbs, or nursery stock unintentionally misbranded because of indistinguishability by their appearance shall not be deemed misbranded, misrepresented, or falsely described within the meaning of this act.

That is the point I would like you to take into consideration with reference to the necessity for having effective Federal seed legislation. The board which I represent is active in this seed matter, and the French bill is so much in line with the demands of the farm organizations throughout the country for the proper branding and labeling of seeds, feeds, and fertilizers that I am here to-day to give the French bill, or the principles in this bill, my hearty indorsement.

Mr. BARKLEY. I will say that the bill which I introduced first in 1914, I think, did not contain that provision with reference to seeds. It was represented to us that there were certain small seeds of various types that were indistinguishable by their appearance, and it might. be that somebody might accidentally label one of them "mustard" when it was, in fact, something else. I took that matter up with the Department of Agriculture here and they confirmed that statement, and it was on that suggestion that this provision was put in.

Mr. LYMAN. Well, I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we will have opportunity later at the seed hearings to discuss this matter fully.

The CHAIRMAN. This committee on two prior occasions considered very extensively pure-seed legislation separate and apart from any misbranding bill, and it occurs to me that the matter is of such large importance that it will deserve separate consideration.

Mr. LYMAN. I think that is true.

The CHAIRMAN. I doubt whether the mere language in either of these bills with reference to indistinguishability would really reach the difficulty.

Mr. LYMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have finished my statement, except. to say that I am not here to-day as an expert on wools or textiles.

I have been a farmer all my life and i have had sheep and sold wool, and I have bought suits of clothes that were supposed to be woolen clothes, but perhaps sometimes they were not. There is a man here to-day who represents a farm organization just as I do, who has expert knowledge, I think, of this question of grades. He is not only a farmer, but he has been a shipper of live stock, and he has been in woolen mills and knows the situation pretty thoroughly, so I hope you will direct your questions to Mr. Silver, to whom I refer, rather than to me at this time, because I want to give opportunity for the other witnesses to be heard.

STATEMENT OF MR. DWIGHT LINCOLN.

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

Mr. LINCOLN. Dwight Lincoln, Marysville, Ohio; secretary American Rambouillet Sheep Breeders' Association.

Mr. Chairman, the objects of our association are to collect and publish in suitable form the history of Rambouillet sheep in America, preserve their purity, provide for their registration, to promote the interests of the breed in every legitimate way that we can, and further the improvement of the breed. Our association represents eight or nine hundred members, scattered from Maine to California and from Wisconsin to Texas. At a recent meeting our organization went on record as favoring the bill for the "Truth in Fabric" law. Some of the gentlemen who have preceded me have gone more into detail than I will attempt, as will some of those who are yet to follow. I am just simply going to tell you that we come here as an organization to further the interests of pure-bred sheep, simply asking for a square deal, and not ask any special favors, but asking only that a chance be given us that we may stand on our merits, which is all I believe that anybody should ask, whether he has shoddy, cotton, wool, or anything else, and I am sure that we sheepmen will stand by whatever may work out of that chance that is given us to stand upon our own merits. Mr. Winslow asked a few moments ago how the fact could be accounted for that there had been a decrease of a million sheep each year and yet an increase in wool. It is such organizations as I represent that has been instrumental in bringing about just such condition as that-improving the live stock and adding more pounds of wool yearly to each sheep in the country. If it were not for the things done to improve live stock the sheepmen of this country would long ago have been out of business, had they continued with old scrub sheep. There is no question about it. When you look around the country and find the things that a flock of sheep works on on the farms, not only in the production of wool but in maintaining fertility, restoring lost fertility, and converting grains and grasses into merchantable marke tableproducts, there is more to be considered in the sheep industry than in the mere production of wool. Now, this French bill, as I understand it, does not compel a man to make virgin wool cloth, it does not compel him to make shoddy cloth, or anything of that sort, but it just simply leaves it up to the manufacturer to use his best judgment in making the article and to brand what he puts into it. And as American people we are used to having a voice and choice in matters; which is right, I believe.

I do not think that I would exactly be in favor of grades, as somebody suggested here yesterday, standardizing it and putting it in

grades 1, 2, 3, and so on, and putting in 80 per cent virgin wool, or all shoddy, and so on, and letting the American people take its choice of the outfit, and if they get beaten it is their own fault. I do not believe that we can establish grades whereby the consuming public will have absolute guarantee as to what they are buying, but if we can throw around them some little safeguards I do not believe they are going to ask for any more. During this period of reorganization it impresses me that now would be a splendid time to encourage a reform of this sort. Now, gentlemen of the committee, that is all I have to say, except that we be given an opportunity to stand upon our own merits.

Mr. WINSLOW. Just to enlighten the committee, have you any figures to show that the development of the breeding of such high grade sheep as you are breeding is accountable for the increase in wool the last few years?

Mr. LINCOLN. Well, not reduced just exactly to figures, but my experience and observation, gathered from one end of this country to the other, tells me that that is so. I have been identified with the sheep industry since I was 10 years old, and the old sheep that I knew at that time would be no more like the present-day Rambouillet sheep that is developed in this country than day is like night.

Mr. WINSLOW. How do you account for the increase in Ohio in 1918 of 21,000 sheep? Were they the better grade of sheep?

Mr. LINCOLN. No; Ohio-at that particular time that increase may have been represented by feeding stuff. Ohio is an agricultural State, but that will be explained by the gentleman following me.

Mr. WINSLOW. How do you account for the increase of 377,000 in Texas?

Mr. LINCOLN. Well, sir, there has been more feed down there in the last two years than they have ever before had in their life. I have had letters from gentlemen who have been there for 40 years saying that they never have seen such an amount of feed. Many sheep from Montana were shipped into Texas for feed.

Mr. WINSLOW. How about Wyoming the last two years?

Mr. LINCOLN. Last year there was a shortage of feed in Wyoming. Mr. WINSLOW. And the year before?

Mr. LINCOLN. The year before it was pretty good.

Mr. WINSLOW. They increased 32,000.

Mr. LINCOLN. Yes.

Mr. WINSLOW. It seems to me that in certain sections they have increased and in other sections they have decreased.

Mr. LINCOLN. Yes.

Mr. WINSLOw. I wanted to know the reason for that.

Mr. LINCOLN. You take the northwestern section last year; they had a continued drought.

Mr. WINSLOW. The figures of the Department of Agriculture covers the matter pretty well, and their returns for last year show that Montana had a drought last year.

Mr. LINCOLN. And the year before, but last year they had a still greater drought in Montana. The gentleman who spoke here yesterday talked about the increase of sheep where they have to compete with the production of cattle and hogs, or corn. The conditions as he related them are right. You cannot expect a man in an agricultural territory to drop the production of hogs and corn. There is no line of live stock that needs closer attention than sheep and the