It would utterly fail to accomplish the intended purpose of protecting the public against imposition. This is demonstrated by referring to a sample made entirely of new wool, qualified to be labeled as such, and yet so wretchedly constructed as to be almost worthless for clothing. On the other hand, consider the sample-all shoddy, and yet a warm and durable fabric. comprising the classifications of the primary ingredients used in the manufacture of woolen fabrics. Therefore, if those who sincerly believe that substitutes for virgin wool possess the merit alleged, they should favor a truthin-fabric law, because a truth-in-fabric law would give the substitute full credit for all merit that it possesses. The imposition that a truth-in-fabric law protects the purchaser against is the imposition of being charged the price of the genuine for a substitute. Knowledge of when fabrics contain shoddy is the purchaser's only protection against those who would charge virgin wool prices for shoddy. The term "all wool" is an "alias" under which shoddy passes as virgin wool. This practice of permitting the people to believe shoddy to be virgin wool places a huge premium on the use of shoddy by fabric manufacturers, and correspondingly discourages the use of virgin wool, and provides a tremendous temptation to fabric manufacturers to charge virgin wool prices for shoddy. So great is this temptation, that only those fabric manufacturers with the most vigorous integrity can resist it, and the people are, because of it, placed completely at the mercy of the unscrupulous. Poor fabric construction and shoddy invariably go together, because both result from the same motive with the fabric manufacturer, namely, "low-production cost." The fabric manufacturer whose fabric construction is poor is holding down production costs, and he will use shoddy because it costs less than virgin wool. The better grade shoddy is not used in place of the poorer grade of virgin wool. The better grade shoddy is used only in fabrics in which the purchaser expects not only virgin, wool, but the choicest virgin wool. But instead of virgin wool the purchaser gets shoddy and is charged virgin wool prices for it. Note the following quoted from a Boston publication known as Fiber and Fabrics. 64* * * In some of the most fashionable imported goods that our so-called exclusive dressers must have the shoddy content is greater than virgin wool. Some of the best American made goods offered the public are made up of scientific mixtures of virgin wool and shoddy. * * * Please note that these are fabrics in which the purchaser has a right to expect not only virgin wool, but the choicest virgin wool, and yet he gets instead a large percentage of shoddy, for which he is charged virgin wool prices. Virgin wool always costs the fabric manufacturer more than shoddy, which would be used as a substitute. The motive that causes the fabric manufacturer to use virgin wool also forces the fabric manufacturer to employ only the best construction and craftsmanship. Good construction and craftsmanship and virgin wool invariably go together, and it is equally invariable that it is with shoddy that poor construction and poor craftsmanship will be found. Shoddy can never equal in worthiness the virgin wool from which it is reworked, and shoddy always costs less than the virgin wool from which it is reworked. TRUTH IN FABRIC LAW. However, the issue is not as to the comparative merit of the substitute and the genuine, or the new and the secondhand. Shoddy is both a substitute and a secondhand article, or worse. (Shoddy is frequently reworked several times, losing strength and worth with each successive reworking.) The issue is that it is the purchaser's right to know when he is being sold a substitute or a secondhand article. A slightly used secondhand suit made from materials of a superior quality and finely tailored may be infinitely better than a new suit made from inferior materials and poorly tailored, yet, the fact of the secondhand suit being superior, can in no sense justify the sale as new of a suit that is secondhand. Failure to make known to the purchaser that the thing purchased is a substitute or secondhand, places the purchaser completely at the mercy of the seller, and permits the seller to charge for a substitute or a secondhand article a price much higher than the cost of the substitute or the secondhand article to the seller would warrant. Then again, there are those who, for reasons which to them are sufficient, do not care to purchase a substitute or a secondhand article, however meritorious such an article may be. Failure to make known to the purchaser that an article is a substitute or secondhand permits the seller to sell such persons an article which they do not want, and which they would not knowingly purchase. There are many people, who for reasons satisfactory to themselves, will not knowingly purchase a suit containing cotton, and it is manifestly unjust to permit a condition to exist whereby the fabric manufacturer can thus, against the will of the purchaser, force the sale of an article which is not desired or would not know. 177735-20-29 ingly be purchased, simply because the fabric manufacturer desires to sell fabrics containing cotton and professes to believe they are best for the purchaser. Precisely the same thing obtains in connection with shoddy. No matter how great may be the merit of shoddy, there are those, who for reasons of their own-reasons by which it is their right to be actuated-do not want secondhand wool, and would not knowingly purchase it. It is the privilege of the fabric manufacturer who believes in the merit of fabrics made from shoddy to endeavor to convince the purchaser of the merit he alleges the fabrics to possess, and to seek to sell fabrics containing shoddy for what they are, but, by deception or omission to permit the purchaser to believe that such fabrics are made of virgin wool and by taking advantage of this belief, to sell the purchaser something that he would not knowingly purchase, and to secure from the purchaser a price that he would not pay if the purchaser knew that the fabrics contain cotton or shoddy-is to say the least-manifestly unfair, if not actually, fraudulent. Precisely these same arguments, and all of the arguments that are advanced by fabric manufacturers who do not want the presence of substitutes and secondhand materials in fabrics made known to the purchaser, were advanced against the proposal to make it compulsory to identify oleomargerine. It was claimed by the oleomargarine adherents that good oleomargarine was infinitely better than poor butter, and that to identify oleomargarine would prevent its sale, because of what was termed "the unwarranted and unreasonable prejudice of the public against oleomargarine." The same absurd argument that is now being employed by the opponents of the truth-in-fabric law, was also employed in connection with the proposal to identify oleomargarine, namely, that such an identification would be worse than useless, for it would perpetrate fraud upon the public, inducing unskilled purchasers to accept an utterly worthless article, such as rancid butter, because of the labeling, while it would condemn and cause to be rejected the good quality oleomargarine. Therefore, identification would, because of public misconception, cause the public to refuse to purchase oleomargarine, and to purchase in its stead, merely because it is labeled "butter," a poor quality of butter, not nearly as desirable and as beneficial as oleomargarine, which the label caused to be rejected. Thus the opponents of the legislation Objection is that it would not tend to improve the quality of fabrics, but would tend greatly to increase the cost to the purchaser. making it compulsory to identify oleomargarine, claimed the purpose of such legislation, namely to protect the public, would be defeated and would prove harmful to those whom it was intended to serve. That these claims are as false as they are absurd has been proven by the law which made it compulsory to identify oleomargarine. Making it compulsory to identify oleomargarine resulted in a better quality of oleomargarine being sold at a much lower price. Making it compulsory to identify oleomargarine permitted the people to exercise their right to choose between oleomargarine and butter, and prevented the purchaser from being imposed upon or from being charged for oleomargarine the price of butter. Furthermore, the law making it compulsory to identify oleomargarine has given oleomargarine credit for all merit that it possessed, and thus disarmed the prejudice of many against oleomargarine. Truth and square dealing demand that the purchaser shall know when he is purchasing a substitute or a secondhand article. Furthermore, a truth-in-fabric law inconveniences no one except those who wish to gain and hold an unfair advantage over the purchaser by keeping the purchaser in ignorance of when fabrics contain substitutes or secondhand materials. Truth and square dealing demand that the purchaser shall know when the purchase contains a substitute or a secondhand article, and every person who is in favor of a square deal will heartily approve a truth-in-fabric law. The price at which fabrics and clothes containing shoddy are now sold can be obtained only because the purchaser believes he is purchasing the genuine. Permitting the purchaser to choose between the genuine and the substitute will make it impossible for the seller to secure for a secondhand article or substitute, the price of the genuine. Substitutes and secondhand materials, such as shoddy, will have to be sold on their merits, and in order to insure their sale, their quality will be improved. Consequently, as was the case with oleomargarine, the truth-in-fabric law will therefore, in the case of fabrics containing substitutes, greatly improve the quality and decrease the price. Depriving the purchaser of knowledge of whether it is the genuine or the substitute that is being purchased, because it permits the seller to secure the price of the genuine for the substitute, especially shoddy, and correspondingly decreases the use of virgin wool by fabric While a protest is made against a law that makes known the presence of substitutes to the purchaser, the opponents of a truth-in-fabric law urge in its stead the British merchandise-marks act. manufacturers, wrongs and imposes great hardship upon the woolgrower. Therefore, the truth-in-fabric law will protect the public against deceit and profiteering in selling a substitute when the public pays for and demands the genuine, and it will also protect and stimulate sheep husbandry, thus making available an increased supply of virgin wool from which to make virgin wool clothes for those who desire them. Therefore, the truth-in-fabric law will inevitably result in better clothes at lower prices. In this connection, it must also be realized that giving the purchaser the knowledge of what he is purchasing, will permit the purchaser to choose between the genuine and the substitute. If too great a price is charged for the substitute, he will purchase the genuine, and if too high a price is charged for the genuine, he will purchase the substitute. Therefore, the one will be pitted against the other, and will inevitably and automatically prevent an excess charge for either. This British merchandise-marks act, or any other similar law, would fail utterly to protect the people against deceit or profiteering in fabrics, because in the first instance fabrics with few exceptions are not labeled, and therefore there is no evidence of misrepresentation. It is the public's misunderstanding of the term "all wool" that makes it possible for the seller to secure virgin wool prices for shoddy fabrics. While not reailzed by the public, the term "all wool" is no longer adequate as a mere description, as it has become a general term that includes shoddy. Even the most inferior shoddy may be truthfully described as "all wool." Therefore this British act which is proposed would afford absolutely no protection. Existing conditions make it absolutely necessary to employ, instead of the general term "all wool," the precise term "virgin wool," which can mean only wool that has never previously been used. Therefore fabric manufacturers would not be amenable to this British law unless they stamp fabrics containing shoddy “virgin wool.” Consequently this law or any similar law would, in existing circumstances, be a dead letter. Therefore it is easily understood why fabric manufacturers who desire to keep the public at their mercy by keeping the people in ignorance of when fabrics contain substitutes should recommend the marks act or any other law equally impotent. |