Mr. BRIGGS. Judge Sims, if it was necessary for the protection of the people, and if they were demanding not merely that we give them the primary facts in the case but that we should go ahead and establish gradations, that could be done, if necessary. When the people speak loud enough, and they are speaking pretty loudly to-day, we would do it. They told us when we entered the war, the pessimists said that it would take 10 years to get 5,000,000 men in the field, that it could not be done in less time, and yet we got them in 18 months; we had 5,000,000 men in the field in 18 months. It is always being said that things can not be done.

Within a year prior to the time that the flying machine was demonstrated by Wilbur Wright and his brother, one of our greatest mathematicians, Prof. Newcomb, wrote a book, in which Lord Kelvin, the great English scientist, concurred, in which he said that it was physically impossible to fly. It is the same old story. Why, during the war, when it became necessary to increase the revenues and pass a luxury tax, you remember how every merchant in the country said it could not be done, it could not be collected, that it would be impossible with the great details and intricacies, but it is working-just like a clock to-day. I went in a drug store the other day to buy some small article, I forget what it was, and the luxury tax was added to it, and it was no trouble at all to do it. They have not had to increase their force. They said in the beginning that it would take three times the number of clerks, but they have not put in any more clerks. They said it would double the price of the commodity, but the country to-day is carrying out the provisions of that

law.

Mr. SIMS. Well, in other words, where there is a will there is a way? Mr. BRIGGS. Yes, sir; there is a way. It does not require a great intellect to find excuses for things that we do not want to do. It is the simplest thing in the world. So far as this bill is concerned, it has been testified by eminent witnesses, competent witnesses, that so far as the stamping is concerned, it can be done very easily. I was in a store here the other day and I looked at a silk fabric. The selvage was only one-eighth of an inch, and there was more data on every yard of that selvage than is required by his bill. The stamping is as easy as an ordinary trade-mark, and trade-marks are now being stamped. If it involves any serious difficulty, do you suppose the manufacturers would voluntarily mark their goods with a trade-mark? There is an association of British manufacturers, numbering about 30, who are stamping every yard of their goods. Now, I want to bring out one point that has not been mentioned, so far as I know. It has been repeatedly brought out, by questions and otherwise, that the manufacturer is a big factor in this matter, and how can you ascertain the quality, and that it would not be fair to attempt to give the public the information if you did not take into account the different degrees of skill in manufacture. Why, gentlemen, poor manufacture is just as detrimental to shoddy as to virgin wool, but it is a distinct factor and must be considered so. That has nothing to do with this issue, it does not lessen the importance of raw materials, because there are different degrees of skill in manufacture. We are not helped one iota by confusing the issues.

Now, that concludes my statement, unless there are any other questions that you would like to ask, or if the opponents here, with the chairman's permission, would like to ask any questions.

Mr. MERRITT. Mr. Briggs, you differ with all the Government experts who have been here who say that the information provided for in the French bill would not give the public any substantial useful information?

you

Mr. BRIGGS. Mr. Merritt, what I have stated and what I repeat is that that is not what the people are asking for. They are not asking in this case any more than they asked in the pure-food laws; that shall certify quality and that you have a precedent to go by in the pure-food laws. Now, the pure-food laws do not certify quality. They simply tell you that you are buying squash and not turnips, but they do not tell you the degree or quality of squash that you are buying. That informs the public, and now they want the same principle applied to fabrics. They do not ask you to go ahead and put on a million experts and increase the Department of Agriculture or the Bureau of Standards, or anything of that sort. That is the function of the individual manufacturer. Mr. Goodall yesterday told you that the trade-mark is put on his palm beach fabrics. That is the function of the individual manufacturer to establish the different grades of cloth, the different grades of quality in the goods that he sells. Now, the different grades of oleomargarine have been established and trade-marked. That is the function of the manufacturer. The United States Government did not undertake to assume that responsibility. The people never asked them to do it. They simply said, "You tell us this much, and then we will know; if it tastes good we will give credit to the oleomargarine." They have different grades of oleomargarine established by individual manufacturers.

Mr. MERRITT. The testimony has been that a large per cent, assuming it is 60 per cent, of all the woolen goods are now made of pure virgin wool.

Mr. BRIGGS. Congressman, I invite your attention

Mr. MERRITT (interposing). Just wait until I get through my question.

Mr. BRIGGS. Pardon me.

Mr. MERRITT. You seem to be occupying the floor, and I thought I would like to take just a moment.

Mr. BRIGGS. Excuse me; I did not understand that you had asked a question.

Mr. MERRITT. I had not finished. The testimony thus far has shown that a large part of the wool, possibly 50 or 60 per cent, is made of pure virgin wool. Now, my question is, if that is so, and if the public cry for this information so much, why has it not been to the advantage of more manufacturers to so stamp their goods as virgin wool?

Mr. BRIGGS. I would ask that question of the fabric manufacturers. Mr. MERRITT. But you are telling what the public wants?

Mr. BRIGGS. It is a mystery to the people why that is not done. Mr. MERRITT. Well, that is an answer.

Mr. BRIGGS. But I want to say, Congressman Merritt, in answer to the first part of your question-you say that it has been stated that 60 per cent of goods is all virgin wool. That has been alleged, but it has not been substantiated by any figures. I submit to you figures

which are basic facts. We only have basic figures. We will have next year, when the census report is compiled, more accurate figures; but we now have only basic figures, and we do have basic facts. For instance, that there is only 3 pounds of scoured wool apiece for us. Now, you can see how far that will go in clothing the people of this country, to say nothing of carpets and upholstering. It is only a simple problem in mathematics.

Mr. CLARK. The gentleman is not correct in stating that the figures have not been given to show that 60 per cent of the yardage of the country, based upon the last census, was all virgin wool. The actual yardage was given.

Mr. BRIGGS. The figures have been given to show the yardage, but no figures have been given to show that it was all virgin wool, nor has it been shown what they were made of.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee is obliged to you for the time and information you have given in the presentation of your testimony. We will now hear from Mr. Joseph E. Davies. Mr. Davies, will you state your name, address, and whom you represent?

STATEMENT OF MR. JOSEPH E. DAVIES, SOUTHERN BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D. C., REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN FAIR TRADE LEAGUE.

Mr. DAVIES. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is Joseph E. Davies. I appear here in a dual capacity. I represent the American Fair Trade League, and I also appear here in a personal capacity. The reason for the latter appearance is found in the fact that in public service for the last several years I have acquired considerable information with reference to this problem of misbranding and mislabeling, which I think might be of value to you and which I feel it incumbent upon me to state to you.

The American Fair Trade League, gentlemen, I take it, you are familiar with. It has, among other objects, to promote honesty in manufacturing, advertising, and merchandising for the mutual interest of the consumer, the middle man, and the manufacturer; to bring to the public information of existing evils in merchandising methods which operate to the injury of society; to aid in securing the enactment and enforcement of laws, State and National, that will prohibit and penalize unfair competition, prohibit and penalize dishonest advertising, and prevent the elimination of the smaller business man by unfair business methods. This organization is composed of some of the most responsible and largest business organizations of the country. It has an interest in this legislation which you are considering, and that is a public interest, to prevent the deception of the public by mislabeling or misbranding. It is in favor of the principle of Congressman Barkley's bill.

Mr. SANDERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if at this point we could have the membership of this Fair Trade League, and about what size it is?

The CHAIRMAN. If it is available, it will be inserted in the record. Mr. SANDERS of Indiana. It would be of assistance to us.

Mr. DAVIES. I will give you the names of the officers and the names of some of the representative concerns, which I think will give you the information you desire.

Mr. SANDERS of Indiana. I do not care to have them enumerated, but in a general way I want to know what class they are and how many they are.

Mr. DAVIES. Mr. Whittier is here and can give you that information. He is secretary and treasurer of the league.

Mr. WHITTIER. I might answer that question in a general way. There are approximately 160 manufacturers. There are about the same number of jobbers, jobbing organizations.

Mr. SANDERS of Indiana. Textile manufacturers?
Mr. WHITTIER. No: not textiles.

Mr. SANDERS of Indiana. Are there any textile manufacturers? Mr. WHITTIER. Oh, yes; there are some. Cheney Bros., of South Manchester, Conn., for instance. There are about 1,000 retailers, and those retailers are neither of the largest class, as a rule, of the department-store class, nor of the smaller class. They are the great middle class of retailers who suffer from certain forms of unfair competition on the part of the large dealers and suffer equally from the auction dealers, the fake merchants that are found everywhere. Approximately the membership of the league is between 1,200 and 1,500. It varies from year to year, and affiliated with it are some 600 jobbing and retailing organizations, organizations of jobbers and retailers and manufacturers.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you proceed, Mr. Davies?

Mr. DAVIES. Mr. Ingersoll, of the Ingersoll Watch Co., is president; Dr. Galloway, of New York University, is vice president; Mr. Whittier is secretary. Other typical organizations are the American Chain Co., and organizations of that character in the manufacturing world. It also includes in its membership State associations of retailers and wholesale jobbers, etc. It is an organization that is devoted to the protection and promotion of fair trade.

Mr. JONES. Are you interested in the French bill or in the misbranding bill?

Mr. DAVIES. The misbranding bills.

Mr. JONES. You are not going to talk on the question of compulsory branding?

Mr. DAVIES. Not at all, except that I might suggest that there is considerable information available on that subject in the files of the Federal Trade Commission which might be of value to your committee.

Mr. JONES. You can put that in as a part of your remarks.

Mr. DAVIES. I can do it now. It is very brief. I am not at all familiar with the French bill. I am not interested in it particularly, but while listening to the testimony here this morning my attention was recalled to the fact that the Federal Trade Commission had recently issued complaints in connection with woolen underwear and alleged misbranding. One complaint, I believe, was issued in November, 1918.

Mr. JONES. I did not intend to break in on your logical order of procedure.

Mr. DAVIES. It will not interrupt me at all. The cause alleged in the complaint was the stifling and suppression of competition in the manufacture, and sale of underwear by labeling and advertising certain lines of underwear composed of a small amount of wool, as "Men's matural merino shirts," "Men's part wool shirts," "Men's

natural wool shirts," "Men's natural worsted shirts," "Australian wool shirts," such labels and advertisements being false and misleading and designed to deceive the trade and the general public into the belief that such underwear was composed wholly of wool in violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. There were, I believe, some other 30-odd complaints, of a similar character filed, where the allegations were that there was a mislabeling of wool shirts to deceive the public. I understand that the result of that proceeding was that practically all of these manufacturers came before the commission and consented to certain facts being stipulated as facts of record, and upon that stipulation a consent decree and an order was issued prohibiting the continuance of that practice and ordering all the respondents to cease and desist" under the Federal Trade Commission act. Now, that is a concrete situation that might contain suggestions germane to your thought in connection with this matter and might be helpful to you.

66

Mr. WINSLOW. Mr. Davies, is it not one of the functions of the Federal Trade Commission to handle just such matters as that?

Mr. DAVIES. Yes, with certain limitations. Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act provides that the Federal Trade Commission shall prevent unfair methods of competition. There has been a good deal of discussion both before the commission when I was a member of it and in the courts as to what the words "unfair methods of competition" mean. The question is whether unfair trade practices, where the element of competition is not directly concerned, is included within the term "unfair competition." There are those who believe that unfair methods of competition include all unfair practices in trade. Among those has always been myself. I have always believed in the broad construction of the term and under that construction there is no question but what there is a remedy for many of these abuses under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.

I must say, however, that there is room for a contrary opinion, and very good reason might be advanced to support it. So there might be some question as to the jurisdiction of the commission to attack these evils under section 5, and no one can foresee what the circuit court of appeals or the Supreme Court might hold. In these particular cases which I referred to the question of jurisdiction was not fought out to its conclusion. The manufacturers came in and recognized that the commission had the facts, that their investigators could prove just exactly what they alleged, and they then consented to the entry of certain facts as of record and upon that stipulation, they consented as a matter of decent citizenship, to discontinue the practices.

Mr. WINSLOW. Are there any cases in which the recommendations of the commission to ma ufacturers to desist have ever been rescinded and not recognized?

Mr. DAVIES. I was amazed to hear that in a situation of this kind where certain manufacturers had stipulated the truth of the allegations and had then consented to an order, that subsequently they had switched their position and had rather violently assailed the commission, although by their conduct they had conclusively established that they could not withstand public opinion and the proper enforcement of the law by the commission. Of course, men