The CHAIRMAN. This telegram has just arrived, and I have read it into the record.

Mr. ALEXANDER WALKER. The Winchester Co. manufactures reworked shoddy.

The CHAIRMAN. They spell that name "Newwool."

Mr. ALEXANDER WALKER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you ready to proceed?

Mr. ALEXANDER WALKER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. How long will you take? There are others here who want to catch that historic 4 o'clock train. Please be as brief as possible.

STATEMENT OF MR. ALEXANDER WALKER, PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL SHEEP AND WOOL BUREAU OF AMERICA.

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I did not have an opportunity of going over Mr. Briggs's statement until last evening, and I found, after going through it, that the statement that I had prepared covered many of the statements made by Mr. Briggs, and in order to conserve your time I am going to request that the original statement that I prepared be printed as a part of the records, and I will confine my time to points not covered by Mr. Briggs.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

(The statement submitted by Mr. Walker is here printed in full in the record as follows:)

My name is Alexander Walker, of New York City. I am president of the National Sheep and Wool Bureau, which is an organization made up of representatives of the sheep, wool, and allied industries. Its objects are to foster and encourage the development of those industries and to afford an opportunity to those engaged in them to discuss matters of common interest. I appear to-day as the president of that bureau. I am also the vice president of a corporation known as Strong, Hewat & Co. (Inc.), New York City, engaged in the business of woolen fabric manufacture. The company has been in existence for 22 years. It manufactures exclusively virgin woolen fabrics, and so advertises. The trade-mark of the corporation does not cover the words "virgin wool" and could no more cover those words than it could the term all wool, pure wool, or any similar words. These words are used in the trade to distinguish shoddy or reworked wool from wool that has never before been woven or spun. There are several other firms that use the same term. There is no monopoly on the use of the words "virgin wool." It is open to general use by those engaged in the business and by the public who desire a precise term that can not be misunderstood. The corporation, Strong, Hewat & Co. (Inc.), has no special interest in this legislation and any attempt to make it appear that that company has a special interest in the legislation is not only wholly unjustified by any fact, but is a deliberate attempt to cloud the real issues that are involved in the truth in fabric bill.

Under section 8994 of the United States Statutes: No words or devices which are descriptive of the goods with which they are used, or of the character or quality of such goods can be registered as a trade-mark.

This must satisfy the members of this committee that on this matter I am not actuated by the expectation that the company of which I am vice president will obtain any special benefit by the legislation. All I expect is that my company will share with all honest fabric manufacturers in the benefits to be derived from the legislation. If this legislation is enacted then all manufacturers who manufacture all virgin wool fabrics, not only can, but will be required to brand their product virgin wool 100 per

cent.

I do not propose voluntarily to be drawn into a discussion of questions that do not involve the merits of the bill, being considered by this committee. It will be my aim and my purpose to discuss the French bill upon its merits and to answer, as far as I am able, the objections that have been urged to its passage.

In making this statement. I am speaking as the president of the National Sheep and Wool Bureau, and representing that organization.

There has been filed with your committee a brief prepared by the National Association of Wool Manufacturers, containing the arguments presented by that association in opposition to the truth in fabric bill, and I desire to consider seriatim each one of the objections therein raised to its passage.

The first objection is:

1. The proposed bill sets up false standards for judging qualities of fabrics. The proposed truth-in-fabric bill in no sense attempts to set up standards for judging or certifying the quality of fabrics. The purpose of the truth-in-fabric act is solely to protect the purchaser in his right to choose between virgin wool and substitures for virgin wool. It is with fabrics precisely the same as with other commodities. The first thing that a purchaser wants to know is whether an article is new or secondhand; whether it is the genuine or substitute. The secondhand clothing business, the secondhand automobile business, or any other secondhand business is perfectly legitimate so long as the article is sold as secondhand.

Most genuine articles have a substitute and that part of industry which has to do with substitutes is also perfectly legitimate, so long as the substitutes are sold as such and not as the genuine.

A secondhand suit of clothes might be better than many new suits. But this does not justify the selling of the secondhand suit as new. A secondhand automobile is in many cases better than some other new car, but this fact does not warrant the sale of that secondhand automobile as a new machine. The same is true of every other commodity.

Shoddy or reworked wool is both secondhand wool and a substitute for virgin wool. In the case of the sale of most secondhand articles, the purchaser is able, without any distinguishing marks thereon, to know that it is secondhand. He needs, therefore, no protection by way of branding to advise him of that fact. A personal inspection of the article itself is sufficient. In the case of the sale of woven fabrics, however, there is no way by which the purchaser can by a personal inspection of the article determine whether it is virgin wool or shoddy, which is both secondhand and a substitute for the virgin wool. He, therefore, needs the protection afforded him by the terms of the French truth-in-fabric bill to give him that information to which he is entitled in making his choice. The ordinary purchaser can readily distinguish by an examination of the fabric the difference between the ccarse virgin-wool fiber and the fine virgin-wool fiber, as is demonstrated by the fact that there is no demand, as testified to by the witnesses who appeared in opposition to this bill, for lower-grade fabrics. The public to-day understands the term "all wool" to mean virgin wool. As stated, our opponents admit that to-day the people are reluctant to purchase the cheaper grades of all-wool fabrics. This statement conclusively proves that the public can distinguish by the appearance between the cheaper and higher grade fabrics. Therefore, no standard for judging fabrics is needed, and the French bill does not attempt to set up one.

The opponents of the truth-in-fabric bill make the claim that in the case of textiles the situation is very different from the situation in connection with the branding of food, and they seek to establish their point by urging the contention that this misbranded food is worth nothing, is wholly reprehensible and must be taken out of the reach of the public, but that a fabric has value almost regardless of what it is made of and is, therefore, not a public menace. I will put this theory to the test by reciting an important article of food, oleomargarine. High-class oleomargarine, regardless of whether it is branded or even misbranded, may be very nourishing and valuable as an article of food that is not in any sense a menace to the people's health.

With oleomargarine, as with shoddy, the menace is that when oleomargarine is unbranded or misbranded the purchaser may be forced to purchase oleomargarine against his will and may be forced to pay the price of not only butter but the highest class butter for oleomargarine.

Even the best oleomargarine, even oleomargarine that contains 40 to 50 per cent of cream, can be profitably sold at 20 cents per pound less than can good butter.

But by flavoring and coloring this high-class oleomargarine in imitation of highclass butter a tremendous temptation is provided to sellers to make an exorbitant profit by permitting the purchaser to believe he is purchasing high-class butter and procuring from the purchaser the price of high-class butter for oleomargarine.

Making it compulsory to stamp oleomargarine as such has protected those who want and can afford to pay for the best butter against those who would force them to buy oleomargarine and pay the price of the best butter for it.

Making it compulsory to stamp oleomargarine as such has also brought high-class oleomargarine within the reach of the poorer people and has enabled them to secure at a moderate price a nourishing article of food.

Making it compulsory to identify oleomargarine has resulted in the quality of oleomargarine being greatly improved, and has enabled the poorer people to secure the best oleomargarine at a price 15 cents to 20 cents less than the price of good butter. The case of shoddy parallels that of oleomargarine, and precisely the same advantages would result from making it compulsory to identify shoddy as have resulted from the identification of oleomargarine.

Answering the opponents' argument that the branding of the ingredients of woven fabrics would place a premium on fabrics of virgin wool, no matter how inferior they might be, and put an unfair stigma on fabrics containing any appreciable quantity of other materials, no matter how desirable those fabrics might be, I will state that the provisions of the truth-in-fabrics bill are the quickest and surest means of disarming any unwarranted prejudice that may exist against shoddy or cotton, because the truth-in-fabrics bill will give shoddy and cotton full credit for all merit possessed. If shoddy possesses anything like the merit claimed for it by those who extol its use, no prejudice, however great, against the word "shoddy" could survive were the truthin-fabrics bill in effect. The provisions of this bill would also deprive virgin wool of any undeserved confidence it may now enjoy. The result would be that were the French bill in effect, snoddy, cotton, and virgin wool would each have to stand on its own merits.

The second objection stated in the brief referred to is as follows:

2. The proponents of this marking system ignore certain facts of great importance.-The plea is made that the world's production of wool is 2,800,000,000 pounds of wool each year, and if all of this wool was made into clothing it would fall far short of providing for the normal requirements of wool fabrics for clothing the 800,000,000 inhabitants of the Temperate Zone. The proponents of the truth-in-fabrics bill concede all of these statements and contend that these facts demonstrate conclusively that there must be a very large percentage of shoddy used in the clothing that is sold to the public. The opponents of the measure, in appendix 3, page 23, of their brief, state that in the woolen industry in 1914 the amount of scoured equivalent of wool purchased for the wool industry in that year totaled 58,700,000 pounds, and they further state in that same appendix that the amount of reworked materials used in woolen goods in that same year totaled 85,000,000 pounds.

These figures are at direct variance with the evidence that the opponents submitted to you that of the total production of woolens and worsteds in the United States, 60 per cent were worsteds, and of the remaining 40 per cent one-half were goods manufactured exclusively of virgin wool.

It is established that the world's production of wool is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the people. The figures given by the opponents show that fact and we have demonstrated that shoddy is used to a greater extent than the opponents of the bill admit. There is, therefore, a well-recognized place for shoddy. It is an essential product to meet the requirements of the people under existing conditions, and while the truth in fabric bill may to some extent encourage and develop the sheep industry, it does not in any way restrict the use or limit the use of shoddy for legitimate purposes when sold as shoddy. There will continue to be a demand for shoddy if the truth in fabric bill is enacted into law. The only difference will be that the purchaser will know whether he is buying the shoddy or the virgin wool.

Neither is there anything in the provisions of the truth in fabric bill that places any stigma upon any product or lessens in any way the production of any product, as sufficient wool is not produced to meet the requirements of the people, shoddy will have to be sold, and when sold it will have to be sold simply for what it is. The third objection urged in the brief referred to is:

3. The proposed bill will add to the difficulties and the cost of manufacturing woolen fabrics.—I think the testimony presented by Mr. Brown and Mr. Marston sufficiently and completely answers this contention. That testimony, it seems to me, has clearly demonstrated that there will be no difficulty in supplying the machines within such reasonable time as the committee may fix in the bill for the taking effect of the bill as a law, and that the increased cost of manufacturing will not be more than nominal. The fourth objection urged by the opponents of the bill is:

4. The proposed bill can not give to the public any protection against fraud, not normally afforded by the operation of competition. A law preventing misbranding is preferable to the law proposed. The opponents of the truth in fabric bill urge that a law similar to the British marks-merchandising act, or similar to the bill that is known as the Barkley bill, that is now before Congress, both of which have for their aim the prevention of misbranding, is the kind of a law which should be passed. It seems clear that what the opponents of the truth in fabric bill want is merely a misbranding bill, not a bill that makes it compulsory to make known the presence of substitutes. Many States have already passed bills calculated to make it possible to detect and punish those who nisbrand their goods.

The British merchandise-marks act, the Barkley bill, are both national measures having this same purpose, and are highly commendable and desirable, but neither of these bills could protect the people against those who colored and flavored the best oleomargarine to look like the best and highest class butter, and who, without putting any brand on the oleomargarine, or without making any misstatements concerning it, but simply by permitting the purchaser to believe he was purchasing high-class butter, were able to procure for the oleomargarine the price of the best butter.

In order to protect the people against oleomargarine profiteering, it was necessary first to have a law making it compulsory for the manufacturer to stamp all oleomargarine as such.

It was only after such a law had been passed that these other laws, such as the British merchandise marks act or the Barkley bill could perform their function of detecting and punishing those who misbranded.

Precisely the same thing is true in connection with the use of shoddy in cloth and clothes.

Fabrics with but few exceptions are not branded at all. Therefore the British merchandise marks act or the Barkley bill, or any similar act, can not perform its essential function until fabrics are branded.

First of all, there must be a truth in fabric act which makes it compulsory for fabric manufacturers, in precise terms that can not be misunderstood, to brand fabrics. When this is done these misbranding acts will compel truthful labeling and the people will be protected, as they are protected in the case of oleomargarine, by the pure-food law, which compels oleomargarine to be stamped; by these misbranding acts which prevent false labeling.

It is very significant that the very people who are urging the passage of a misbranding bill as the only legislation to be enacted upon this subject, also contend that it is impossible and impracticable to brand woven fabrics. In one breath they contend that branding fabrics would, as stated in their third objection to the passage of the truth in fabric bill, add to the difficulties of the cost of manufacturing and distributing woolen fabrics; and in the next breath urge the passage of a misbranding bill which leaves it optional with the manufacturer whether he will brand or not. Neces sarily this means that there would be no branding.

Even if a misbranding bill were passed and the manufacturer of woolen fabrics were to brand the fabrics, it would be entirely possible to brand an all-wool shoddy fabric as "all wool" without violating any provisions of the misbranding bill. The result, therefore, would be that instead of protecting the public, it would open the door to a continuance of the practice whereby the public is now deceived into believing that "all wool" means "virgin wool." It would, in effect, legalize and perpetuate the wrong that is now being practiced upon the people, and instead of correcting the evil that the people are clamoring to have corrected, it would simply magnify and legalize the deception.

The opponents of the truth in fabric bill insist that the branding of the contents of the fabric would not give to the purchaser any information of value to him, but on the contrary, would be misleading, and they contend that an act similar to the British merchandise marks act would give to the purchaser the information necessary for his protection. How utterly fallacious this argument is can readily be demonstrated, and I invite your particular attention to the following points:

Any bill framed in the lines of the British merchandise marks act would wholly fail to give the purchaser any information as to the quality of the goods.

(a) The dishonest manufacturer who desired to keep from the purchaser knowledge of the quality of the goods would not mark them at all, and thus would not violate the law.

(b) The most scrupulously honest wool shoddy manufacturer would naturally mark his goods "all wool," and would thereby fully comply with the provisions of the law.

Now, I ask in all fairness, what information that would convey to the purchaser regarding the quality or durability of the fabric?

It is admitted by every one that there are various grades of all wool, which may either be all virgin wool or all wool shoddy.

The marking of the goods "all wool" would not in any way indicate to the purchaser whether he was obtaining all wool, whether virgin or shoddy, of a fine character. It might be either all virgin or all shoddy wool of the finest fiber and greatest durability, or it might be all virgin wool or all shoddy wool of the coarsest fiber and cheapest character, or of any degree of fineness between the two extremes, and yet all of these goods would be covered by the simple designation "all wool."

How can it seriously be urged by any one that such marking would give to the purchaser any information as to the character or durability of the fabric? Of what

value would such marking to the purchaser be? Is it not perfectly plain that instead of giving to the purchaser information to protect him, it would open wide the door to a full exploitation of the purchaser by a dishonest fabric manufacturer?

I am not saying that any of the gentlemen who have appeared here would resort to such practices, but I do say most emphatically that there is nothing these gentlemen could do that would so injure the business of honest fabric manufacturing as the advocacy by fabric manufacturers and the passage of an act that would make possible such fraud and deception upon the public.

I most earnestly ask you, gentlemen, before you think of reporting a misbranding bill, without accompanying it with a bill that requires the branding of woolen fabrics as to their contents, seriously and carefully to consider the possibilities that such legislation may result in untold damage and injury to the general purchasing public, as well as to the wool growers and honest fabric manufacturers.

The bill I am advocating does not purport to give information as to the quality of the fabric, but does require the giving of truthful information to the public of the contents of the fabric so that the public may then, from its own investigation of the article and from its own experience make its choice of the material it desires, and of its quality. Who will say that such information is not infinitely of more value to a purchaser, and less likely to deceive him than a blind designation of a fabric as "all wool" that may include anything from the rottenest all wool shoddy to the highest and finest grade of all virgin wool?

It is plainly inconsistent for the opponents of the truth in fabric law to contend: 1. That fabrics can not be branded or stamped without imposing prohibitive costs on the manufacturer and at the same time to contend that a misbranding bill is allsufficient.

2. That legislation that would permit the vilest kind of all-wool shoddy to be branded the same as the finest all virgin wool would fully protect the purchaser and give him all the information he requires while at the same time, to contend that the truthful labeling of the contents of the fabric, would give the purchaser no information of value to him.

These are considerations that can not be overlooked and no amount of specious arguments, or of attacks upon the proponents of this measure will conceal or hide from the committee or from the public the real issues that are involved in the consideration of the measure now before this committee. I have every faith to believe that this committee will fully and fairly consider these matters, and with the knowledge of the needs of the public and of the legislation that is required for their protection will see to it that in enacting legislation the rights and interests of the woolgrowers, the fabric manufacturers, and the great purchasing public will be adequately safeguarded. It is for this and nothing else that I am contending.

I have reviewed consecutively each objection raised by the opponents of the measure. It has been shown, I think, beyond contradiction that the truth-in-fabric bill does not give to any of the ingredients used in woven fabrics any premium or advantage. It simply gives to the public the right of choice between the genuine and the substitute. It places no stigma upon any substitute, but only provides that the substitute shall be sold for what it is instead of for the genuine, and shall have credit for any merit it may possess.

It has been shown beyond question that the British marks-merchandising act, or the Barkley bill, while they are necessary in order to prevent misbranding, do not meet the situation in the woolen trade, which requires special treatment because of the fact that unless the goods are branded there is no protection to the public against purchasing a substitute for the genuine.

Having reviewed the objections made to the passage of the bill in the brief filed by the National Association of Wool Manufacturers, I now desire to consider some of the other objections urged to the bill. Mr. Clark made the statement that: "There is only one woolen manufacturing concern that I know of that is advertising its fabrics as made with 100 per cent virgin wool." In this connection, gentlemen, I would state that during the past selling season there was not only to my own knowledge one other concern advertising virgin wool fabrics, but there were many concerns in the market offering their virgin wool fabric, to the trade as virgin wool fabrics-in fact, some of our competitors in the trade not only used the term "virgin wool" in effecting sale of their fabrics, but they had printed on the tickets of the samples they submitted to their customers the term "virgin wool." I offer you in evidence the advertisement that appeared in one of our American papers, Men's Wear. This advertisement of one of the most representative English concerns distinctly calls the attention of the trade to their "virgin wool fabrics." Further, to my personal knowledge, the salesmen of the largest woolen manufacturing concern in the United States, the American Woolen Co., in the selling season just passed, were advising their trade which fabrics