is increased, than is it to seek to persuade the people that virgin wool may be improved by being reworked into shoddy.

In answering the second point of those who object to the truth in fabric bill, namely, that shoddy is necessary in connection with the manufacture of certain fabrics, I wish to state the two following facts:

1. There is no fabric but that can be made exclusively of virgin wool and but what would be infinitely better because of its being made of virgin wool.

2. When the nature of the fabric is such as to require the short wool fibres, the short fibers of virgin wool, because they have never been impared by being reworked, are infinitely better than the short fibers of shoddy which necessarily have lost a very appreciable part of their worth as the result of having been reworked.

In addition to these two facts just stated, the further fact should be noted, namely, that it is not in place of the cheapest grades of virgin wool that the better grades of shoddy are used. The better grades of shoddy are frequently used in fabrics in which the purchaser has the right to expect, not only virgin wool but choice virgin wool.

Furthermore, it is a fact that the better grades of shoddy can be made into fabrics that have the same appearance and handle, as fabrics made from the choicest virgin wool. It is this fact that affords the temptation to procure for shoddy a higher price than could be procured if the purchaser were permitted to know that the fabrics contained shoddy.

In answering the third alleged point of the opponents to the truth in fabric bill, namely, that only a comparatively small percentage of the raw material used in apparel fabrics is shoddy, the following statement by the Hon. Wm. C. Redfield, made in May, 1919, in a published statement, is very significant. Mr. Redfield in this statement said:

"The world's annual clip (wool clip) is sufficient to supply but approximately one-third of the annual production of cloth, the deficiency must be supplied by having recourse to new wool clips-that is to say, clips from cloth--and worn cloth."

In corroboration of Mr. Redfield's statement, the further fact should be noted, that the United States, with only approximately one-sixteenth of the world's population, uses more than one-fifth of the world's total annual production of virgin wool; and that this total consumption of virgin wool by the United States is approximately 3 pounds of scoured wool per inhabitant. This 3 pounds per inhabitant of virgin wool is not enough to make one man's winterweight suit of 16-ounce cloth; and would leave no virgin wool at all for the other many necessary articles of apparel made from wool.

Gentlemen, here is a basic fact from which a simple computation will clearly indicate what a large amount of substitutes for virgin wool must be used to provide for the apparel needs of the people, to say nothing of the wool needed for producing carpets, upholstery, blankets, felt for manufacturing purposes, bed blankets, carriage robes, automobile robes, etc.

The opponents of the truth in fabric bill also contend:

That the mere fact of a fabric being virgin wool would cause the people to purchase virgin wool fabrics however inferior or unattractive they may be.

This contention of the opponents of the truth-in-fabric bill is in direct conflict with the statement that has been made by the opponents of the truth-in-fabric bill, that the coarser, cheaper grades of virgin wool are hard to sell. The Daily News Record of December 29, 1919, quoted William M. Wood, president of the American Woolen Co. From this alleged statement of Mr. Wood I quote in part as follows:

11* * * The people demand cloth of fine wools and will buy no others. They will not take fabrics containing the coarser wools, although much cheaper in price."

This statement of Mr. Wood's and the statement of the opponents of the truth-in-fabric bill, that "the cheaper, coarser virgin wools are difficult to sell," completely refutes the contention of the opponents of the truth-in-fabric bill that "the mere fact of a fabric being virgin wool insures its sale."

The danger, if any, to the people from deception and overcharging that may result from the sale of virgin wool, as virgin wool, is as compared to the danger of deception and overcharging that may result to the people from the unrevealed presence of substitutes for virgin wool, especially shoddy; as the dangers of a child amongst a flock of lambs in comparison to the child's danger in the midst of a den of ferocious lions.

The people, as has already been shown, can readily tell by the appearance of the cloth whether it is a cheap coarse and inferior grade of virgin wool; but the people can not tell when fabrics contain shoddy; nor can they tell the difference between the grades of shoddy that have been used or whether the fabric is made from the better grade shoddy or choice virgin wool.

It has been shown that the total amount of the short, inferior virgin wool. in comparison to the aggregate amount of virgin wool, is so small as to be a negligible quantity.

Furthermore, that much of this short fibre in inferior virgin wool, is never used in apparel fabrics.

It has not been shown, however, that the amount of inferior shoddy, which is unfit for use in apparel fabrics is a small amount in comparison to the total amount of better grade shoddy; nor has it been shown that this inferior shoddy which is unfit for use in apparel fabrics is not being used.

We are all familiar with the fact that during the war the people were encouraged to save all the rags, just as they were encouraged to save even peach pits, tin cans and other items. The fact that the people throughout the length and breadth of the land were taught to save the rags and were provided with a market for all rags and worn and cast off cloth and clothes made available tremendously increased amounts of the cheaper and poorer grades of shoddy.

It should be observed in this connection, that although according to Mr. Redfield's statement only one-third enough wool is produced in any one year for the cloth requirements of that year; yet more than 18 months after the signing of the armistice, with the whole world in need of clothes, we find tremendous stocks of virgin wool piled up unmanufactured. If tremendous amounts of shoddy are not being used, how is it that these reserve stocks of virgin wool are not converted into cloth?

The coarser, cheaper grades of virgin wool may be made into fabrics that are more servicable even than some of the finer wools. And fabrics made from these cheaper, coarser grades of virgin wool, of which there is an abundance, are infinitely better from the standpoint of service, than are fabrics made from the better grades of shoddy. But so far as can be ascertained, there is no complaint of difficulty in selling fabrics made from the better grades of shoddy: nor has there, so far as I have been able to learn, been complaint that these fabrics made from the better grades of shoddy can not be sold at a good price. These facts emphasize again the fallacy of the contention of the opponents of the truth in fabric bill, that the mere fact of a fabric being known to be virgin wool, could in any appreciable manner place the people in danger of being overcharged for virgin wool fabrics.

The attention of the committee is also invited to the fact that a large part of the evidence as to the comparative merit of fabric made from shoddy versus virgin wool is wholly irrelevant, inasmuch as the issue is not as to the comparative merits of shoddy and virgin wool; nor is the issue as to how much shoddy is used; nor is it as to the quality of shoddy that is used. The issue and the purpose of the truth in fabric bill is:

a. To protect the people against those who would deprive them of their right to know and choose between substitutes-especially shoddy and virgin wool.

b. To protect the people against those who would force them to buy substitutes-especially shoddy-against their will.

c. To protect the people against those who would procure for substitutes for virgin wool-especially shoddy-a higher price than could be procured if the people knew that fabrics contained substi tutes.

It is the privilege of fabric manufacturers who believe in the alleged merit of fabrics containing substitutes for virgin wool

First. To tell the purchaser that the fabric contains substitutes. Second. To convince the purchaser of the fabric's alleged merit, and thus to make the sale. But for fabric manufacturers or for anyone to seek the advantage over the people which the unrevealed presence of substitutes gives, an advantage whereby the purchaser may be forced to purchase substitutes against his will and whereby a higher price may be procured for fabrics containing substitutes than could be procured if the presence of the substitutes were known, manifests an unfair spirit that has no place in present-day human relations, and which, judging from the spirit of the people that is being clearly indicated, will not much longer be tolerated.

If the truth in fabric bill is enacted into law, the people will be protected in their inalienable right to know and choose between the genuine and the substitutes. And it will be the people, and not a group of interested parties, who will decide whether the genuine or the substitute will be used, and how much will be used.

The opponents of the truth in fabric bill would have it appear that it is a certification of quality that the people want. In this connection it may be remarked that a tensile-strength test is one of the scientific methods by which some distributors seek to ascertain the comparative wear-resisting qualities of fabrics.

I ask the members of this committee if they can recall ever having seen an advertisement of a clothing manufacturer or a retailer in which it was stated that the cloths listed for sale were of a certain tensile strength. For years I have closely scrutinized the advertisements of both clothing manufacturers and retailers, but I do not recall ever having seen an advertisement when it was stated that the clothes or the cloth were of a certain tensile strength.

We are all familiar with the fact, however, that even high-class clothing manufacturers and retailers again and again state in their advertisements that the cloth and the clothes are all wool.

The question that customers ask first and last and all the time is, Is the fabric all wool? And it must be remembered in this connection that the term all wool to the public has up to the present time meant wool that has never been previously used in cloth.. It must be remembered that the people have not even suspicioned that the term all wool might include wool that had previously been used. Whenever the people have asked to have a product stamped or marked so that the purchaser can know whether it is the genuine or the substitute, and whenever such marking has been considered by the lawmakers, those who use substitutes have always urged that the thing which was necessary for the people's protection was not a distinction and identification of the genuine and the substitute, but a marking that would certify the quality.

It may be recalled that the oleomargarine manufacturers insisted that instead of identifying oleomargarine, that inasmuch as good oleomargarine was vastly superior to poor butter, therefore, the thing that would give the people the information they desired and the information which would protect the people would be to certify the food value of the various grades of oleomargarine and of butter, instead of identifying oleomargarine so that the purchaser could distinguish it from butter.

It may be noted in this connection that the pure-food laws do not attempt to certify quality, but merely protect the purchaser in his right to know that he is purchasing the thing that he desires to purchase.

The pure-food laws merely make it compulsory for the manufacturer to state what he is selling. To certify the quality of foods, of fabrics, or of anything else would be a gigantic undertaking and would devolve tremendous responsibilities on the Government, necessitating a great army of scientists and inspectors. And after products had been certified, for instance, if fabrics were certified and stamped with specific quality designations, the purchaser would, notwithstanding, insist on an answer to the question: "Is the product the genuine or the substitute?" But if this one question is answered, namely, "Is the fabric the genuine or the substitute?"-the question which will always have to be answered, notwithstanding how many quality designations the garment or fabric may contain. It is not once out of a million times that any quality certification would be asked or expected.

The millions of people throughout the United States who are requesting Congress to pass the truth in fabric bill have not asked for certification of the varying degrees of quality. In connection with the pure-food laws the people did not ask for a certification of

quality. The people have never asked, nor are they now asking, for a quality certification. The people are merely asking that they be protected in their right to know and choose between the genuine and the substitute. And while in the case of food and drugs, to give the people this knowledge did involve a considerable trouble and expense, in the case of fabrics, as has already been shown, the trouble and expense of informing the people whether the fabric contains virgin wool or substitutes for virgin wool would be very light, indeed.

The question has been asked several times during these hearings if there is greater need, in the case of woolen fabrics, of giving the people knowledge of whether fabrics contain virgin wool or substitutes for virgin wool than is there need for giving the people knowledge of the presence of the genuine and the substitute in other branches of the textile industry or in other industries.

There is no industry and there is no branch of the textile industry where it is so important to identify the genuine and the substitute as it is in connection with woolen fabrics. This is true because of the people's misunderstanding of the term "all wool." The term "all wool" is an alias under which shoddy passes as virgin wool. And this misunderstanding of the people concerning the meaning of the term "all wool" inflicts great wrong upon the people and deprives them of their right to choose between virgin wool and shoddy.

When a person goes into a store and asks for a cotton garment and gets a cotton garment he gets precisely what he designated and what he meant. But when a person goes into a store and asks for an "all-wool" suit or overcoat, and gets a suit or an overcoat made from shoddy, he gets precisely what he designated, but he does not get what he meant.

It has been alleged by the opponents of the truth in fabric bill that to identify shoddy and virgin wool would greatly increase the demand for virgin wool. This is not true, for the reason that the demand of the people is now for virgin wool when they ask for all wool. And the demand, therefore, would not be increased, but the truth in fabric bill, if enacted into law, would permit the purchasers to know when they were getting virgin wool and to know that they would be getting what they pay for.

There is undoubtedly need in other branches of the textile industry of giving the people this same protection that has been afforded by the pure-food laws, and which would be afforded in connection with woven fabrics by the truth in fabric bill. However, because of the difference in manufacture and distribution, knitted fabrics and other characters of textiles, such as linen, cotton, and silk, would require a different act of regulations, and therefore can be most effectively handled by a separate act.

A mere misbranding bill can be made broad and general enough in its requirements to include, not only all branches of the textile industry, but all branches of industry and all the varying products. However, a compulsory branding, or labelling act, which identifies the genuine and the substitute, because it requires more specific treatment, might, if the scope of the one act were extended necessarily so greatly weaken the requirement that the act would be invalidated on some essential point.

I have before me a copy of an act-I will not take the trouble to read it, but you are doubtless familiar with it-which was passed in