and I will leave it with the committee. Some of the matter diverges from the matter taken up here, and that will save time. The CHAIRMAN. It may be incorporated in the hearing. The letter follows:

Mr. E. S. HILL, Freeville, N. Y.

WESTPORT, N. Y., March 22, 1920.

MY DEAR MR. HILL: From the standpoint of an honest retail merchant, the opposition to the pure fabric law is ridiculous. I was in the retail clothing business 15 years, beginning in a small town, Prattsburgh, Steuben County, N. Y.; have worked for R. H. Macy Co., New York, and for Browning King & Co., at the Omaha store, and afterwards operated a ready-made and merchant tailoring business at Bath, N. Y. I well remember buying in 1916 about five 15 to 20-yard lengths of woolens for our merchant tailoring department at what was claimed by salesmen, and appeared to be, quality considered, about 50 cents under the market. Salesmen stated that they were remnants of those patterns. Hence, the special price to close.

My judgment after 15 years' experience and the judgment of my associates, a cutter of equal or more experience, based on appearance and feel of the goods, was that the material was high class, but the first suit sold proved our judgment had deceived us and, had the firm we bought the goods of refused to take the goods back, our loss would have been heavy. Had our trade been transient and our conscience dull, we could have made a fine profit selling the suits for what they appeared to be, but were not.

I am wearing a suit made in 1916. Goods cost at the time $3.62 per yard less 7 per cent discount. The trousers have worn through at the bottom and the edge of the sleeves have worn through. Both have been shortened and the goods look bright and shape as good after the severe wear given. I am out in all kinds of weather in this work and many times has the suit been soaking wet and covered with clay mud from putting chains on my jitney in the ditch, out on a hill or in a mud hole. At that time, 1916-17, cloth made from shoddy and inferior material sold for from $1.50 to $2.50 per yard or say approximately one half the cost of the high quality cloth. Cutting, making, trimming a suit is the same, no matter what the quality of wool the cloth is made from (however, the better grades of cloth work easier than the poorer grades). The small custom tailor usually buys in suit pattern lengths of 3 to 3 yards. Ready made clothiers, through an efficient system of laying patterns and allowing small outlets, get an average suit from 3 to 34 yards. It is obvious, then, the difference between the real cost of a good suit and a miserable sloppy substitute should be the difference in the cost of raw material to make the cloth (assuming, of course, the cost of working shoddy is the same as the cost of working virgin wool). Assuming the price of high-class scoured virgin wool to be $2 per pound, and high class shoddy to be 50 cents per pound, and that it takes 4 pounds of the material to make cloth enough for a man's suit (most finished suitings weigh from 11 to 16 ounces to the yard and it takes say 34 yards) if the material were all virgin wool, the cost would be $8. If half shoddy, it would be $5. Each dealer that handles the goods has a right to his per cent of profit on the $3 which would perhaps legitimately double the $3, making the virgin wool suit cost $6 more than the suit that is half shoddy.

Mr. HILL. There is a little question as it affects the State of New York. In the first place we wool growers of the State have not the investment that the great States of the West have. Our flocks run smaller. Perhaps in my own section 30 sheep to the flock would represent an average. But Mr. Mooney, the president, thinks that considering the number of sheep in his section, 60 would be nearer right. Now, we are confronted as farmers to-day with the shortage of 17 per cent in farm labor of every kind.

Mr. BARKLEY. Seventeen of seventy?

Mr. HILL. Seventeen. We have thousands of acres. We had a great many acres before the war that would raise sheep, and we have thousands more now because we are not able to till them. Now, if the wool situation-if wool manufacturing was stabilized-it would make a situation much better for the raising of sheep.

Now, if we raise wool we have sheep for mutton. There is the double deal. The farmers are feeling to-day, and this I have from personal conversation, which I could verify by letters if required by the committee, on reaching home, that unless the prospect is that they will have a fair deal, they do not care to take the matter up. Mr. SANDERS of Indiana. I want to interrupt the witness and ask a question.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Mr. SANDERS of Indiana. What do you mean by the price of wool stabilizing the industry?

Mr. HILL. We know that if other ingredients are put into wool which are cheaper, that the business of growing wool will be hurt, that is, we are brought into competition with cheaper goods which under the present law can compete with us without infringing the law, that is as the law stands to-day they are within the law in claiming garments as all wool, containing any amount of woolen shoddy, and are selling at a price equal to that which ought to buy virgin wool clothing.

Mr. SANDERS of Indiana. You do not quite answer my question. I see what you are driving at, but what I want to know is, you say you would not have to compete with these goods if this bill were passed? What effect would that have on peices?

Mr. HILL. It would stabilize them. Wools would be governed in price by the supply and demand, not by the amount of substitutes used.

Mr. SANDERS of Indiana. What do you mean by stabilizing them? Mr. HILL. We would know where we are at after a short time. Mr. SANDERS of Indiana. Do you mean it would increase the price! Mr. HILL. I think it would, but I think the increase in production would counteract that.

Mr. SANDERS of Indiana. It may be that the price ought to be increased. I am not raising that question. But what I was getting at is, would it affect the price?

Mr. HILL. I think it would on account of the demand. I also think the woolgrowers of New York could benefit more through the better clothes that they would be able to buy than they would from the increased price per pound of the wool.

Mr. WINSLOW. If wool raising should go by the board it would not be possible to get wool shoddy would it?

Mr. HILL. I do not quite understand.

Mr. WINSLOW. Do you not have to have original wool in order to get wool shoddy later on?

Mr. HILL. I do not know whether it ever wears out or not. [Laughter.]

The CHAIRMAN. Who is your next witness, Mr. French?
Mr. FRENCH. Miss Haver.

STATEMENT OF MISS JESSIE R. HAVER, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NATIONAL CONSUMERS' LEAGUE.

Miss HAVER. Mr. Chairman, the National Consumers' League has been in existence for the past 20 years. Our president is Secretary of War Baker and Justice Brandeis was our counsel for many years until he became a justice of the Supreme Court. Since then Mr. Felix Frankfurter has acted as our counsel.

Last November at the annual meeting of the National Consumers' League the following resolution was passed:

We believe that statutory honesty, such as is now enforced by the Federal pure-food law upon druggists, candy manufacturers, and that part of the packers' products which goes into interstate commerce, will be equally useful when applied to cloth; therefore, we promote a Federal honest cloth bill, and in the interest of honesty and of the public health we ask our State and local leagues in the centers of the rag and shoddy industry to promote city sorting plants, clean and thoroughly equipped.

This resolution was embodied in the program for our next 10 years of work. It is going to be one of the principal things for which we shall work during the next 10 years.

We stand for the right of the purchasers and the consumers to know what they are buying. It seems only fair and proper that they should have the opportunity of making that decision just as we stood for the principle of the pure food law.

We believe that the French bill is constitutional and would be upheld by the courts.

On March 8 Mrs. Florence Kelley, who is our general secretary, wrote to the leaders of the political parties and made the following suggestion to be embodied in their political platforms:

67

We stand for the application to the textile industries of the same principle of compulsory correct branding and labeling already established in relation to food and drugs. Mr. Chairman, I am appearing to put our organization on record behind this proposition. It seems to us entirely fair. It could not work any hardship, from our point of view, on either the shoddy people or the woolen people. A great deal has been said about the prejudice which might be created against the shoddy industry. Our members think that can be easily overcome when the goods are finally advertised for sale. If advertisements describe the goods, the composition of the goods, and then the point is made that of course, This is reworked goods, or reworked wool, but it is more durable than certain grades of virgin wool," and the point is further made that the goods are cheaper, it ought to, and we think it will, overcome any prejudice that may exist, and the consumers, on the other hand, will feel much more at ease than they do now because they will be in a position to do intelligent buying. They know that clothes do not last, and they do not know why it is. They do not know on what basis they can make better purchases in the future, and we believe such legislation as this will remove that doubt and tend to make purchasers more intelligent in buying for their needs. The CHAIRMAN. Is there a feeling among the members of your organization, the Consumers' League, that the word "shoddy" implies of necessity inferiority?

Miss HAVER. Well, I think there has been created a certain amount of prejudice in that. But during the last few years, with the improved manufacture of reworked wool, I think that can easily be overcome when the goods are advertised for sale. It is a comparatively easy matter to remove such a prejudice.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions?

Mr. JONES. You have been very patient in listening to this testi

mony.

Miss HAVER. Yes, I have been very much interested.

Mr. JONES. I do not review any of the testimony, but from what you have heard do you believe that stamping of the goods provided for by this bill will give any definite information to the purchaser? Miss HAVER. We think he has a right to know whether he is purchasing a garment of virgin wool or shoddy.

Mr. JONES. I agree with you on that, but kindly answer my question. Will the tag give him that information? Will it give any information?

Miss HAVER. In my statement about the bill I said that we consider the French bill constitutional.

Mr. JONES. I do not argue that phase of it, either. I presume if Judge Brandeis has given that opinion, I would not take a contrary view.

Miss HAVER. He is no longer our counsel, Congressman.

Mr. JONES. Still you do not answer my question. You have heard the testimony that has been produced here. Will the tagging that is outlined in the French bill give the information that he ought to have?

Miss HAVER. I have made just the statement that I was instructed to make. It seems to us that purchasers should know when they are buying shoddy or virgin wool, and that is the statement I wish to stand on.

There was one question, however, which you have asked several witnesses, and which I should like to answer. I hoped that you would ask me.

Mr. JONES. I will ask you.

Miss HAVER. The question was this: If you have a piece marked 80 per cent wool

Mr. JONES. Virgin wool?

Miss HAVER. Yes. One piece of fine fiber and another piece of cheaper fiber, both marked 80 per cent virgin wool; supposing the housewife makes a mistake and buys the cheaper fiber, do you not think competition will take care of that, because she will soon learn from experience the stores which carry the better grade of virgin wool goods?

Mr. JONES. No; I think I would condemn the fellow that sold it, and though it was marked according to law, she was deceived. Miss HAVER. Don't you think she would have some standard, at least, upon which to base her buying?

Mr. MERRITT. The question is whether the label gives the infor

mation.

Miss HAVER. I think it might. We have a right to know whether it is new all-wool goods or not.

Mr. WINSLOW. How far do you want to go with that? To illustrate, do you want to have textiles, to have a little silk, a little cotton tie marked also? Carried to its conclusion, socks and every article of clothing would have to be marked.

Miss HAVER. As I have told you we have been studying this only since last November.

Mr. JONES. You have nine years to go yet?

Miss HAVER. Yes; to decide on just what kind of a bill will answer the needs adequately.

Mr. WINSLOW. What is your personal opinion about extending the scope of the legislation?

Miss HAVER. I would not care to give my personal opinion. It would not be worth anything. I am just representing my organization.

The CHAIRMAN. You have been before us before and have addressed the committee. With the knowledge you have of the subject, Miss Haver, do you think that there should be protection to the buying public-that buying public being largely composed of womenand is your reason for urging this bill that this bill will give that protection to the major part of the buying public?

Miss HAVER. Congressman, I do not urge this bill. I will read again just what I said. I said that we stand for the right of the purchasers to know what they are buying, that we consider the French bill constitutional, and we believe it would be upheld by the courts. The CHAIRMAN. You do not want to go further than that statement? Miss HAVER. That is as far as I care to go.

Mr. WINSLOW. You do not want to say anything as to the merits of the bill from the standpoint of the Consumers' League, as to the merits of the bill for legislative purposes?

Miss HAVER. I believe this bill was calculated to let us know when we are buying shoddy or virgin wool. Whether it will do this or not, our league is not entirely convinced.

Mr. WINSLOW. Is that a personal opinion or the opinion of the league?

Miss HAVER. I believe it is the opinion of the league, so far as I know.

The CHAIRMAN. Who is the next witness?

Mr. FRENCH. Mr. Moody.

STATEMENT OF E. L. MOODY, RUSHVILLE, N. Y.

Mr. MOODY. I am president of the New York Federation of Sheep Growers' Associations. This is a federation that embraces 31 counties of the State of New York that have organizations of county and local units. We have a membership in round numbers of 4,000 members in the different organizations. In the State we have something like 840,000 sheep, as near as we can determine by anywhere near reliable statistics. In Ontario County the last statistics that were anywise authentic were around 40,000. At the present time, or during the war, we took a census under the auspices of the commissioner of agriculture and the educational department in Albany and we had about 35,000, a decline of about 12 per cent. Mr. WINSLOW. Are you willing to be interrupted?

Mr. MOODY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WINSLOW. The Department of Agriculture on the first of January, 1919, reports an increase for the preceding year in New York State of 28,000 sheep.

Mr. MOODY. When was that?

Mr. WINSLOW. The first of January, 1919. The preceding year increased 28,000 in New York State.

Mr. MOODY. Well, I do not have those figures available. About 840,000 were the last available figures I had at home.

Mr. WINSLOW. This covers the whole of the State, you know. You may have been referring to part of it.