[Quoted from the New York Times.]

VIRGIN WOOL GROWS POPULAR.

A good deal of satisfaction is taken in the woolen trade in the acquisition of the term "virgin wool" in place of "all wool." The latter phrase was the cause of unending controversy between those who believed in the merit of reworked wool and included that article within the strict meaning of the term "all wool" without any twisting of the truth, but the consumer's interpretation scarcely jibed with that of the technical manufacturer's.

[Quoted from a speech by Mr. B. F. Harris, banker of Champaign, Ill., at the advertising convention held in Chicago, Oct. 27 to 29, 1919.]

A man who sells something and does not give 100 per cent of what he advertises, must beware, because there won't be room for him in this line of business or in this country.

When we talk about "all wool" as we used to, we mean just that. Now some of them get around it by saying “all wool" and we have had to invent the term “virgin wool."

[Quoted from an article in the Clothier and Furnisher of October, 1919.]

Memories of "The Jungle" of Theodore Roosevelt; of Dr. Wylie, of the national pure food law have been stirred by the proposal, now brought forward, that Congress enact a pure fabric law, which shall require manufacturers to properly brand all fabrics, especially to designate fabrics which are virgin wool, and those which are not.

Their requirement that all fabrics be properly branded would render it impossible for anyone to sell shoddy as virgin wool from the first factor of distribution to the retailer, and would therefore reach the disease right at its source, which is the only effective remedy.

[Quoted from an article credited by the Daily News Record in which it appeared Sept. 8, 1919, to Charles M. Haskins, secretary of the National Association of Waste Material Dealers.]

For years, the clothing trade have in a sense been taking money under false pretences, in that they have emphasized the fact by advertising and other methods, that their goods were all wool. Their statements were true enough, even though 50 per cent of their goods might have been wool shoddy. But the average person has bought much goods with the belief that all wool meant virgin wool. Now, * * the cat

*

is out of the bag. Certainly, all the clothing manufacturers can not claim they are making but virgin wool fabrics, because careful students of the subject have developed the fact that all the virgin wool in the world only allows 14 ounces a year to each man, woman and child outside of the tropics.

[Quoted from the New York Post, Jan. 13, 1920.]

PURE FABRIC LAW.

It is expected that the present session of Congress will pass adequate legislation to control the labelling of fabrics. It is expected to be made a misdemeanor in future to brand any fabric untruthfully and punishment, probably by fine and imprisonment, will follow violation of the law. It is considered essential to progress that the exact truth be told by such labels.

[Hyman H. Cohen in the Oregon Sunday Journal, Portland.]

LIVE-STOCK INDUSTRY IS FACING A VERY SERIOUS SITUATION.

Conditions existing to-day in the live-stock trade call for much thought. There are decreased supplies of both hogs and cattle available in the country, while sheep holdings have been increased as a result of the extreme values that have rules for meat as well as for fleece during recent years.

It would be idle for sheep men to expect a continuation of the prevailing high prices for fleece, unless there is a very radical change in the situation which confronts them. During the war and just previous to it, there was a growing consumption of shoddy or worked-over wool utilized in the manufacture of clothing. There being an absence of legislation in this regard, woolen mill interests could put as much shoddy in their cloth and clothing as they sought and still sell the product as "all wool" and in favorable competition with those millmen who were playing fair with the public and were using virgin wool in manufacture.

MAKES UNFAIR COMPETITION PROFITABLE.

Absence of proper legislation to safeguard the manufacturers, as well as the public, against the use of dirty old rags in the making of cloth and clothing has been highly profitable to the mills that have utilized this cast off material. It has placed a premium against the use of virgin wool-the stock as it comes from the sheep's back-and has made fortunes for those who have hoodwinked the public by the use of the dirty raw materials that come from the gutters and the alleys.

Congress has been asked to pass the truth in fabrics bill, which is otherwise known as the pure fabric measure. Such a measure would mean proper protection to the honest manufacturers against the dishonest ones and it would likewise protect the consumer-you and I-against the buying of inferior cloth when payment is made on the basis of first-class materials. Naturally those who utilize a very large per cent of shoddy are very unwilling to give up such a profitable business and compete for trade only upon the merit of their manufacture.

MEANS PROTECTION TO ALL.

Passage of the pure fabric bill, as it is commonly known, would quickly put the wool market on a basis where it belongs. It would eliminate from unfair competition the rag picker and the product he gathers from the gutters and the alleys, which is later turned into so-called "all-wool" clothing.

Passage of such a bill would mean that the sheep grower would receive a larger demand for his virgin fleece and, therefore, would be able to command a better price than would be the case if manufacturers were allowed to compete unfairly by the use of dirty rags in the making of cloth and clothing. The public would be benefited directly by being able to secure exactly what it is willing to pay for, such as is to-day shown in the foodstuff market because of the operation of the pure-food law.

SHODDY WOULD SELL LOWER.

Those who wanted to could secure cloth or clothing manufactured from shoddy or dirty rags, but they would secure it at its proper worth, and not be forced to pay a price that should call for stock manufactured from virgin wool. This would dispose of the argument made by some of these users of shoddy that the proposed law would prohibit the manufacture and sale of cloth that does not contain the virgin material. The law especially provides for the use of any materials that the manufacturer cares to utilize, but it also provides that the cloth must bear a label and this label must tell the truth. Only users of pure virgin wool would thereby be able to call their stock "all wool."

WOULD SAVE THE SHEEP INDUSTRY.

The passage of such a law would save the sheep industry from ruin. It would save the public from paying a big price for virgin wool while obtaining only the worked-over product, otherwise known as shoddy.

Leading manufacturers, dealers, and the public generally are rallying to the support of the truth-in-fabrics bill, but thus far Oregon woolgrowers have ignored the

matter.

The following resolution recently passed by the New Jersey State Retail Clothiers' Association shows how even the men in the trade realize the necessity of the proposed law:

"Whereas a large part of the raw material used in manufacturing woolen fabrics and apparel sold as 'all-wool' is shoddy, and not virgin wool as the public believes; "Whereas the public does not even suspect that the term 'all-wool' may mean wool that has previously been used in cloth:

"Whereas the term 'all-wool' is a mere general term that may include shoddy; "Whereas even the most inferior shoddy may be 'all-wool';

"Whereas the term 'all-wool,' because it fails to distinguish between shoddy and virgin wool, permits fabric manufacturers to secure virgin-wool prices for shoddy fabrics, and thus places tremendous premiums on the use of shoddy by fabric manufacturers, discourages the use of virgin wool by fabric manufacturers, and causes the fabric manufacturers to divert the public's demand for virgin wool from the woolgrowers to the shoddy manufacturers;

PUBLIC AT MERCY OF MANUFACTURERS.

"Whereas the term 'all wool,' because it fails to distinguish between shoddy and virgin wool, places the public at the mercy of fabric manufacturers; deprives the people of their right to choose between shoddy and 'virgin wool'; deprives the people of the knowledge of whether they are purchasing shoddy or virgin woolthe knowledge that is the people's sole protection against those who would charge virgin wool prices for shoddy, and thus robs the public; "Whereas the unrevealed presence of substitutes, especially in shoddy fabrics and cloths, abrogates the law of supply and demand, places a premium on deceit and profiteering, and violates economic law and outrages moral law: Therefore be it: "Resolved, That the New Jersey Retail Clothiers' Association earnestly urges in the interest of truth and justice, and for the protection of the public, that the United States at the earliest possible moment enact legislation making it compulsory to make known the presence of substitutes for virgin wool, especially shoddy, in fabrics purporting to contain wool and apparel made from such fabrics; and in order that this worthy object may be speedily accomplished in the interests of all people, we request the earnest cooperation of all who desire to see right prevail and honest practice established in all branches of business."

HOG SUPPLIES DWINDLING.

Hog supplies are dwindling, for the very good reason that compared with the producing price, values are down too far. There has been practically no incentive for farmers to purchase stocks, and the feeders have been unwilling to take chances on more than a nominal supply.

Such a condition is due principally to the lack of export demand for supplies. Pork products were in such strong demand abroad that this enabled packers to pay extreme values, but even these were not unduly high, considering the cost of feeding. With lard an extreme drug on the market, killers are disposed to pack as little stock as possible, and this, therefore, throws the bulk of the demand into the block stock; a demand that is not sufficient to take care of the business.

CATTLE RANGE GOING FAST.

So little range remains for cattle feeding in the West that this has had a very serious effect upon the volume of holdings in the Pacific Northwest. Because of the extreme cost of hay and feeds and the lower price for cattle in the various stockyards, leading producers have been cutting down their herds to such an extent that soon the shortage of supplies will be keenly felt not only in this country, but in other parts of the world. The decrease in cattle holdings in the Pacific Northwest has been marked during the last two years.

[Portland (Oreg.) Journal, Mar. 15, 1920.]

SHODDY DENOUNCED.

PORTLAND, March 9.

To the EDITOR OF THE JOURNAL:

How much longer are the people of this country going to submit to the use of shoddy in clothing? Its use is dishonest, and it is put into clothing for a fraudulent purpose. It has little intrinsic value, because it is "dead" wool, and will not wear. The powerful chemicals used to reclaim it from wool and cotton rags destroy the natural oil necessary to live wool and render the fiber weak and brittle. A few years ago, when I was a traveling man, I went through a shoddy mill in Pike County, Mo. The manager was not proud of his business, and frankly said he would not care to use any clothes made from shoddy. I remember the shoddy at that time cost the woolen mills 8 to 10 cents a pound, which, of course, accounted for its extensive use.

Does its use make clothing cheaper? Not at all. The man who makes the shoddy knows it is practically worthless, and the mills that use it know it has little wearing value. The Government could easily stamp out the shoddy mills, and woolen mills could be restrained from using it. The sheepman would fight it. It displaces millions of pounds of new wool annually, thereby cheapening the honest product. The consumer should fight it because of the fraud practiced upon him. Rags that make shoddy are gathered from filthy sources and are often not only filthy but contaminated with disease.

Oregon, which has always been a leader in progressive legislation, should be first to outlaw shoddy, in the name of cleanliness, decency, and honest business.

DOUGLAS HEWITT.

[Portland Journal, Mar. 19, 1920.]

WOOLGROWERS GET APPEAL TO HELP OWN BUSINESS.

Frantic messages are coming here from the East appealing to Oregon sheep and wool men to give some financial support to the movement to secure the passage of the purefabric bill, officially known as the truth-in-fabric measure, which is about to come before a congressional committee for investigation. All efforts to interest Oregon growers in this measure appear to have been futile, sheepmen here preferring to allow sheep growers of other States to bear the burden. Some of the latter have already assessed themselves for this purpose.

[Editorial from the Adrian (Mich.) Telegram, Thursday, Mar. 18, 1920.]

HONEST CLOTH.

Probably it will be news to most people to learn that there is a bill pending in Congress known as the truth in fabric law, and they may have to be still further informed as to what its purpose is. But even if people know about it, every last one of us are interested in it; for its purpose is nothing more nor less than to give us honest woolen cloth.

That does not mean all-wool, virgin wool, nor any other particular sort. It simply means that the makeup of the cloth shall be stamped upon it, or otherwise made known to the purchaser, so he will know what he is getting. It will not forbid shoddy, or cotton-wool mixtures; it merely aims to protect the retail dealer and his customers against the sharp practices of manufacturers and jobbers.

The worst trouble centers around the use of shoddy. That term in the popular mind means something cheap, poor, and inferior; but in the wool trade it designates material, not quality. Shoddy is worked over wool, as distinguished from fresh or virgin wool. It is made by picking to pieces woolen rags and respinning and reweaving the material. It is still wool, as much as it ever was; but it has shorter fiber, and has lost some of its strength and wearing qualities.

Now, shoddy is all right in its way-a very useful material, satisfactory for many uses, and well worth its price when that price is an honest one. Some very fine and very expensive articles are made of shoddy. They may look so much like virgin wool that nobody could tell the difference, and if they are not intended to stand much wear they may serve just as well as virgin wool.

Shoddy costs the manufacturer from 20 to 50 cents a pound. Virgin wool costs him from 70 cents to $2 a pound. Naturally if the first can be made to look like the second, there is a temptation to sell it at the higher price. This is easily done, because few can tell the difference. The bill is not aimed at the retail merchant, who is often a victim of the deception. It is aimed to correct a mischievous practice that has grown up in the woolen manufacturing business, to the detriment of both the retailer and his customer.

The customer does not always suffer, as far as the quality of the article is concerned, because shoddy in some cases is perfectly satisfactory. So is brass perfectly satisfactory. Shoddy ought to be made, sold, and used. It absolutely must be, because there is not enough virgin wool to supply the demand. It would be a wicked waste to destroy woolen rags when they can be reworked into useful fabrics. But while shoddy may look just as well as virgin wool, and be just as warm, it is worth less, and should be sold for less.

This substitution is not only costly to the consumer, but very detrimental to the wool raiser. It tends to pull down the market price of virgin wool, and to raise the

price of the inferior shoddy. That takes money out of the pocket of the farmer and sheep raiser, and hands it to the rag man and the shoddy manufacturers. It discourages the man who should be encouraged-the producer and takes from him profits which ought to be his, not only for his own good, but for the public good. Herbert Hoover recently stated in an address that "the American farmer receives a less proportion of the consumer's purchase price for his product than the farmer of most civilized countries," and this statement is perhaps more true of virgin wool than of any other ordnary farm product. There is every reason why the wool producer should be protected against substitution, the same as the butter maker is protected against the dishonest sale of oleomargarine. When the producer is thus protected the consumer is also protected, and no honest interest can possibly be injured thereby.

The so-called truth in fabric bill has been introduced in both Houses. In the lower House it is known as No. 11641, introduced by Representative Burton L. French, of Idaho, while the Senate bill, No. 3686, is sponsored by Senator Arthur Capper. The principle involved in these measures should receive the support of not only farmers, but of the general public.

Mr. WALKER. Finally, I would very much appreciate it, gentlemen, if you will have printed as part of the hearings, an analysis, prepared by the association of which I am president, of a few of the objections to the truth-in-fabric act, and the answers to those objections.

The CHAIRMAN. Are those several parts of the one argument? Mr. WALKER. They are on both sides of the argument, Mr. Chairman. [Handing documents to the chairman.]

(The material submitted by Mr. Walker is as follows:)

SERIES 1.

OBJECTIONS TO TRUTH-IN-FABRIC LAW ENUMERATED, ANALYZED, AND ANSWERed. [National Sheep and Wool Bureau of America, Chicago.]

OBJECTION.

Labeling would place the stigma of inferiority upon many superior kinds of goods, while many inferior and almost worthless kinds would be given a certificate of character by the same requirement.

ANSWER.

A truth-in-fabric law is the quickest and surest means of disarming any unwarranted prejudice that may exist against shoddy or cotton, because the truth-infabric law will give shoddy and cotton full credit for all merit possessed.

If shoddy possesses even one-tenth of the merit claimed for it by those who extol its use, no prejudice, however great, against the word "shoddy" could survive with a truth-in-fabric law.

A truth-in-fabric law would also deprive virgin wool of any undeserved confidence it may "now" enjoy.

With a truth-in-fabric law shoddy, cotton, and virgin wool would each have to stand on its own merits.

The provisions of the truth-in-fabric law in no sense certify concerning quality of fabrics or in any way whatsoever indicate an opinion concerning comparative merits of the fabrics' ingredients.

A truth-in-fabric law gives the manufacturer fullest scope in the choice and use of materials, and expresses no opinion whatsover, or gives no assurance whatsoever, concerning the comparative merits of either the materials used in manufacturing the fabric or in the fabric itself.

A truth-in-fabric law merely requires a truthful statement of the fabric's contents,