be protected in his right to choose the article he prefers and will be further protected against those who now have the opportunity and the temptation to charge for the substitute the price of the genuine. And now, gentlemen, drawing to a conclusion, I would like to bring to your attention the names of the organization and groups that have either passed definite resolutions, or have taken definite action through officials recommending the enactment of truth in fabric legislation.

They are as follows [reading]:

Washington and Rensselaer Counties, N. Y., Wool Growers' Association; Upper Michigan Development Bureau (representing entire northern peninsula of Michigan); American Farm Bureau Federation, Chicago; Fleece Wool States Growers' Association, Chicago; the National Union of the American Society of Equity, Madison, Wis.; the Tri-State Sheep and Wool Growers' Association, Wheeling, W. Va.; the National Wool Growers' Association, Salt Lake City, Utah; the New Jersey Retail Clothiers' Association; the Washington State Wool Growers' Association, Walla Walla, Wash.; the Wyoming Wool Growers' Association, Cheyenne, Wyo.; the American National Livestock Association, Spokane, Wash.; the Utah Wool Growers' Association, Salt Lake City, Utah; the Missouri Retail Clothiers' Association; Champaign County Farm Bureau, Illinois; Iowa Fleece Growers' Association, Marshalltown, Iowa; American Cheviot Sheep Society, Cooperstown, N. Y.; Onondaga, N. Y., Sheep Growers' Association, Syracuse, N. Y.; American Hampshire Sheep Association; the agricultural commission, Michigan State Bankers' Association; the Chicago Livestock Exchange; New York State Federation of County Sheep Growers' Cooperative Associations (Inc.), Cooperstown, N. Y.; Big Horn Basin Wool Growers' Association, Basin, Wyo.; Republican State convention of Minnesota; National Consumers' League; National Grange; National Farmers' Council; New Mexico Wool Growers' Association, Albuquerque, N. Mex.; West Virginia Federation of Farm Bureaus, Philippi, W. Va.; National Board of Farm Organizations; National Housewives' League; Cotton States Marketing Board; Consumers' League.

I have not read these various resolutions, as Mr. French, I believe, will present them to you later.

I would also like to have the privilege of calling to your attention the numerous editorials printed in various parts of the country, evidencing a widespread public demand for the enactment of the legislation that I am advocating. All of these are editorials, gentlemen. They include such representative publications as the Chicago Daily Tribune, the Christian Science Monitor, the Rotarian, the New York Evening World, the New York Evening Journal, the Pennsylvania Farmer, the Albany Knickerbocker Press, Successful Farming (the Hon. E. T. Meredith's paper, our Secretary of Agriculture), the Cloverland Magazine, the Despatch, of Moline, Ill., the Daily Leader, of Staunton, Va., the Telegraph, of Portland, Oreg., the New York Evening Post, and, in fact, practically all the leading newspapers throughout the United States.

I have prepared, and ask to have printed as part of the record, the editorial comments from the papers mentioned.

(The extracts referred to are here printed in the record as follows:)

IMPORTANT QUOTATIONS FROM THE PRESS.

[Editorial from Chicago Daily Tribune, Saturday, Feb. 21, 1920.]

CLOTHES, WOOL AND SHODDY.

An appeal of the National Sheep and Wool Bureau of America ought to receive an interested hearing. It is for stamped and branded fabrics. If a garment is made of fresh "virgin wool" it should be known. If it is of "shoddy" that, too, should be known.

There has been a lack of sincerity thrust into the time honored phrase "all wool." "All wool" once meant clean, new carded and spun wool. It has come to mean any kind of cloth made of any kind of wool. By "any kind of wool" is meant madeover rags. Worn out and castoff clothing is run through the mill and made into cloth again. Garment buyers are paying top prices for shoddy.

Clothing manufacturers are at the mercy of the insincere fabric makers. They have no means of knowing that the cloth they buy in good faith as all wool is only all shoddy or at least 80 per cent shoddy. The purchaser of a suit can not know that he is wearing cloth that has been worn many times before.

The wool raisers ask the right to use a label or hallmark that shall distinguish virgin wool from the shoddy. They ask that the marking be of such a character that the virgin wool may be known in every stage of the manufacturing process. Thus the manufacturer may know what he is buying and offering the retailer, the retailer may be able to guarantee his wares, and the consumer can be assured of the character of his purchase.

There is no assault upon the manufacturers of shoddy. Purchasers who want shoddy may have it. If virgin wool is branded the shoddy can be known because it is unstamped. Shoddy nowadays is fetching all wool prices. It should fetch shoddy prices.

We have pure-food regulations. Why not pure fabrics laws?

[Editorial from the Christian Science Monitor, Boston, Mass., Feb. 25, 1920.]
"TRUTH IN FABRIC."

Now that food laws, both Federal and State, in the United States require the marking of exact weights and ingredients on many kinds of products, such a bill as that introduced by Senator Capper, of Kansas, for the proper marking of fabrics, deserves careful consideration. No product of any sort should pretend to be what it is not. Hence, even though it is legitimate to use shoddy in some kinds of goods, such fabrics should be marked and not allowed to pass as "all wool," if by that phrase the public generally understands virgin wool, or that which has not been used before, instead of what has been reclaimed.

This bill will naturally receive the support of the woolgrowers and of those manufacturers who are accustomed to using only the virgin wool. It should be intelligently understood and welcomed also by those who wish to make use of shoddy, or even cotton, in their products.

Sir Ernest Shackleton records in his new book, "South," that when some suit cases marked "solid leather" came to be cut up in the Antarctic regions to be fashioned into boots, it was found that they contained a large percentage of cardboard. All such dishonesty of marking and of advertising, whether in connection with leather goods, woolen goods, or anything else should not be condoned for an instant by any manufac turers or dealers. Whatever anything is designated as being, that it should actually be. The foreseen difficulties in the way of the proper marking of food products have met with a considerable degree of success. There is no reason why apparent difficulties in the way of this further reform should loom so large as to prevent the passing of an intelligently framed bill. There is sure to be no loss, but a gain to all concerned, through complete and open honesty, for the public appreciates, and can be further educated to appreciate knowing just what it is getting.

[Editorial from the Rotarian, Chicago, February, 1920.]

"WHY WOOLEN CLOTHING IS HIGH."

If every ounce of wool in the world were made into 16-ounce cloth (comparatively light weight) there would be but 3 yards for each inhabitant of the United States and Europe; not enough to make a suit of clothes; nor would there be any left over for the people of Canada and the rest of the world. There would be no wool left for blankets, overcoats, carpets, automobile robes, felts for boots, and a hundred other articles in which wool is used. People are said to be paying big prices for wool suits that are not pure virgin wool, but that in many instances contain shoddy." This is old wool that has been worked over. It is said there are no scientific tests that will reveal the presence of "all wool shoddy" in garments. This is the reason why the National Sheep and Wool Bureau of America advocates the passage of a national "truth in fabric" law, making it impossible for anyone from the first factor of distribution to the retailer to sell shoddy" clothes for pure virgin wool.

[Quoted from the New York Evening World, Friday, Jan. 23, 1920.]

A PURE FABRIC LAW.

Advocacy of a national pure fabric law comparable to the national pure food law seems to be a worthwhile suggestion.

Is there any reason why fabrics should not be tagged to insure the purchaser against adulterations? Is there any reasonable objection to such a course from reputable dealers or manufacturers who are themselves the victims of less scrupulous competitors?

There will be opposition. Tricksters will have specious objections. Not all of our "all-wool" fabrics come from the back of the sheep. This accounts, in a large measure, for the favor bestowed on English woven suitings. It also accounts for some of the reluctance with which foreign buyers purchase American fabrics. The honest manufacturer suffers for the sins of the dishonest.

This is not to say that only "all wool" goods should be manufactured. There is a place for shoddy, for mixed goods, for artificial silk, and treated cotton fabrics, but the public has as good a right to know what it is getting to put on its back as to put in its stomach. When it is buying adulterated or mixed goods it should not be required to pay for the real article.

A pure fabric law is in line with modern theories of business which frown on the old maxim of "caveat emptor."

A pure fabric law would be a tremendous asset in making the "Made in the U. S. A." mark popular, both at home and abroad.

[Quoted from the San Antonio Express-News Retailer, issue of January, 1920.]

MANY ABUSES OF ALL-WOOL TERM.

This adulterated fabric-this fabric containing dead, second-hand wool-this shoddy fabric is sold to the trade and to the public under the term "all wool."

The term "all wool" deprives the public, the retailer, and the sheep industry of protection that can only be given by distinguishing between shoddy and virgin wool. The term "all wool" places the public and the retailer at the mercy of the profiteer and the unscrupulous.

The term "all wool" compels the sheepman to compete with the ragman.

Even the most inferior shoddy may be "all wool," but virgin wool can be only the genuine wool-right from the sheep's back that has never previously been spun and

woven.

While the term "all wool" deprives the public, the retailer, and the sheep husbandry of protection, it affords opportunity to sell shoddy as virgin wool.

Fullest advantage has been taken of this opportunity, and so it is that many, even of the highest priced fabrics, in even the most exclusive shops, contain shoddy.

[Quoted from the Essex County Farm Bureau News, issue of Jan. 10, 1920.)

Ask our retailers for a virgin wool sweater, suit, socks, overcoat, underwear. It may sound queer to us and the merchant may "snicker," but he won't "snicker" very long. Virgin wool labels are coming and the honest, progressive merchant and manufacturer will welcome it. Essex County Sheep Breeders' Association, we believe, was the first association to propose a pure fabric law. It took time to soak in and get under the skin of our leaders in the sheep world, but they are converted now and are going after it in earnest.

Mr. Sheepman, the sooner a virgin wool label appears on woolen goods, the sooner your wool will sell on its own merits.

Mr. Consumer, a virgin wool label will reduce your clothing costs, because you will get what you pay for.

[Quoted from the New York Evening Journal, Nov. 20, 1919.)

The sheep industry in the United States has dwindled, partly because individuals are allowed to amuse themselves raising dogs that kill and worry the sheep, partly because swindlers that make dishonest cloth keep using the same old rags over and over in their manufactures, and discourage shepherds that raise sheep and produce pure wool.

The law should compel every manufacturer of cloth to say, on the cloth, exactly what it is, and to leave on the label until it is taken off by the individual that buys the finished suit of clothes.

This would protect the public, protect the sheep men, and protect honest manufacturers, of whom there are many, men that sell what they pretend to sell and do not swindle the public.

[Quoted from the Pennsylvania Farmer.]

MORE SHEEP AND LESS SHODDY.

There never was a time when both producers of wool and purchasers of wearing apparel realized the value of a pure fabric law more than they do to-day, and now is the time for Congress to free the public from clothing profiteers, and wool growers from unfair competition.

The menace to wool growers from the general use of shoddy in clothing is greater than is the dumping of wool into America from foreign countires, and yet for years politicians have been pleading for protection of the American sheep industry.

What the public and the sheep industry need is protection from shoddy manufacturers and rag men. When it was necessary to protect the public from adulterated goods, Congress passed the pure food law. Now the public needs pure-clothes law. The wool growers are only asking the same kind of protection that Congress gave the dairy farmers. Will Congress see that they have it?

[Quoted from the Albany Knickerbocker Press, Albany, N. Y., Dec. 20, 1919.]

AN HONEST FABRIC LAW.

It is hard to see how any manufacturer of clothing, any tailor or any retailer could have an interest in preventing a customer from knowing what he is buying. The advantage of virgin wool textiles for the consumer lies in the assurance of service, wear and appearance. These are qualities in which clothing has deteriorated to a shameful extent in the last few years. Why not have an honest fabric law, so that those who are able and willing to pay for the real goods will know that they are getting what they pay for, and so that those who are contented with the less warm and lasting goods will know what they are getting? This is a matter of much importance to consumers-of more importance to them than to the sheepbreeders, for the latter will always sell their wool. It has to do with better dressed and more economically dressed Americans, and so it deserves attention.

[Quoted from Successful Farming, Des Moines, Iowa, issue of January, 1920.]

A LAW THAT COMPELS TRUTH IN FABRICS.

Substitution is the thing in which the exorbitant prices of clothes and cloth, and clothes and cloth profiteering, have their roots. The people pay for virgin wool and get shoddy. In these days of skyrocket prices the consumer is entitled to know what he is getting for his money. If he goes into a reputable shop and buys a ready-to-wear suit for $75 he is entitled to know the real makeup of the suit. There is little likelihood of its being any great percentage virgin wool, but if the buyer knew the suit was shoddy in most cases he would not pay the $75 for it. In reducing clothing costs and preventing profiteering in clothing as in many other things, the simplest measure is the most effective. In the case of clothing it is the high cost of substitutes which is at the bottom of all the trouble and is the key problem in getting prices to a safe and reasonable basis.

The preservation of the sheep industry necessitates freeing woolgrowers from the existing unfair competition with shoddy. Without question the supply of wool is far below the demand; little progress has been made in increasing production because sheep husbandry is made risky and unprofitable by compelling the grower to compete unfairly with the ragman.

*

*

*

A few years ago the pure food law was enacted. People said it couldn't be done; it wouldn't work. But it was done and every honest food producer as well as consumers have been benefited.

A truth in fabric law will be to the sheep industry what the pure food law has been to dairying. It will bring down the price of substitutes and make the price of the genuine articles such that farmers can afford to produce it. There will be a demand for both both people will know exactly what they are getting and price paid will be in proportion to value received.

[Quoted from the Cloverland Magazine, November, 1919.]

THE "TRUTH IN FABRIC LAW" WILL DO JUSTICE TO THE SHEEP INDUSTRY.

There was a time when "all wool" meant that any fabric so designated was honest cloth made from pure virgin wool, and was synonymous with wearing quality. There was a time when the purchase of an "all wool" garment was a good investment for rich or poor, because it was an exchange of honest wool for honest money, a 100 per cent return for the dollar. Modern machinery and processes of renovating rag piles, reworking clippings from tailor shops and garment factories, have produced a fine "all wool" shoddy that has robbed the old "all wool" trade-mark of its honest heritage and to-day the slogan "all wool" may mean anything from a revamped heap in a junk yard to fabric made direct from the wool on a sheep's back.

Nothing "ails the sheep industry" more than this unfair and too often downright dishonest competition. The honest merchant suffers with the buying public and the wool grower, for he, too, is at the mercy of the fabric manufacturer and is forced to accept clothing made from the "all wool and a yard wide" stuff which may be really all wool but a reworked fiber that has served mankind even unto the third and fourth generation reworked until there is no tensile strength, no wearing quality, nothing but a distorted pattern after the first exposure on a damp day.

The purpose of the "truth in fabric law," is to protect sheep husbandry from unfair competition with shoddy and to protect the public from deceit and profiteering that result from the unrevealed presence of shoddy in woolen fabrics and clothes, by making it compulsory to make known the presence of shoddy and cotton in woven fabrics and clothes made from such fabrics.

[Quoted from the Moline, Ill., Dispatch of Oct. 25, 1919.]

When a fabric or garment is guaranteed to be "all wool" the public understands it to be virgin wool, which it is not. The public does not know that the "all wool" guarantee has lost its meaning. Even inferior shoddy may be truthfully described as "all wool."

There is coming to be large demand for a "truth in fabric" law for the protection of your sheep and wool growing industry, as well as for protection of the public.

[Quoted from the Staunton, Va., Daily Leader of Oct. 17, 1919.]

If the term (virgin wool) can be brought into general use for such wool, it will tend to protect the buying public from a manifest and serious fraud. The expression is being used by manufacturers.

The term (virgin wool) ought to be generally adopted, and there ought to be a law requiring "all wool" goods to be labeled either as shoddy, mixed or "virgin wool." Then deception would be impossible unless the buyer were too stupid to do anything for his own protection.

[Quoted from the Portland, Oreg., Telegraph of Oct. 9, 1919.])

ONE RIGHTEOUS MEASURE.

The bill (the truth in fabric law) is proposed to compel labeling of wool fabrics and clothing to show the presence of shoddy and cotton.

Obviously, this is a righteous measure. The wonder is that it has been delayed so long. The principle of it is that of common honesty.

The truth in fabric" idea is but another way of expressing the square deal in American trade. Ethically and practically it is an idea that deserves to be legalized.