a law." Now, people will get that idea, and will pass those resolutions without having any definite information on the point and thinking that it is going to do them a lot of good, when in reality it will not do them a particle of good.

Mr. SIMS. Inasmuch as you admit that it will not hurt the manufacturer, why is it that the manufacturer is the only champion of the opposition to this bill, when it will not hurt him if the bill is passed?

Mr. CLARK. No; I say it is going to cause a good deal of trouble to the manufacturers; that it is going to increase to a certain extent the cost of the goods, which will of course be passed on to the

consumer.

Mr. SIMS. That will not hurt the manufacturers any.

Mr. CLARK. I am willing to make the statement and stand by it from my experience as a manufacturer for the last 30 years, that it will be impossible to equip all the mills of this country-and they have got to be all equipped-to stamp the goods as this bill requires under three years' time; and you could not put the law into effect until every mill is equipped for the stamping of those goods.

Mr. SIMS. Now, the stamping is only to furnish evidence of what is in the fabric?

Mr. CLARK. Yes.

Mr. SIMS. If you prevent the use of shoddy by any means, in the place of virgin wool, you have already accomplished the purpose. Now, it certainly would not be a great deal of trouble or a very great cost to require the manufacturer to sell nothing as all-wool except that which is composed of all virgin wool; and it is left to him, entirely to his own choice, how to get rid of his shoddy or his reworked wool. Then the purchaser could get all wool and know that it was virgin wool.

The CHAIRMAN. How much more time do you want to take?

Mr. SIMS. Well, I do not like that. If any one is against this bill, you seem to be willing to give him all the time he wants, but if anybody tries to say anything in favor of the bill, you seem to think he is taking too much time.

The CHAIRMAN. That remark is entirely unjustified.

Mr. SIMS. I am one of a very few exceptions among those here who have asked a single solitary question in favor of this bill, therefore I think that I ought to have as much time in favor of it as others have to oppose it.

The CHAIRMAN. And you have had. How much more time do you want?

Mr. WALKER. I just want to offer some evidence. Mr. Clark made a statement as to what people want. I want to offer some evidence from retail clothing merchants. I offer the following quotations from letters received from clothing merchants from various parts of the United States.

(The quotations submitted by Mr. Walker are as follows:)

QUOTATIONS FROM LETTERS RECEIVED FROM CLOTHING MERCHANTS FROM VARIOUS PARTS OF THE UNITED STATES.

1. The mere wool label means nothing. Our experience during the past season has taught us that cotton clothing is preferable to some wool clothing. 2. We do not object to cotton goods as cotton, but we do object to shoddy being sold as all wool. Lately we have had goods sold to us that

* *

*

while it was all

*

wool it was all shoddy wool. * * The "woods" are full of just such stuff. The shoddy materials that are now being sold us are a disgrace to our civilization. It sure is the "day" of the shoddy man, and he is taking advantage of it. 3. If cloth has reworked wool or cotton in it, it should be so marked.

4. Unless the fabric manufacturer gives more attention to the materials he puts in the cloth, the time is not far distant when the retailer will find himself against a stone wall, because the cloth nowadays is so poor that he will not be able to face customers with truth as to wear durabilities. * * * Nothing is so unfortunate as not being able to speak the truth. The retailer will be out of business if conditions do not soon remedy.

5. Price being the great factor, we believe a fabric law the one solution.

6. There should be a law compelling fabric manufacturers to label their fabrics and to state what they contain, whether pure virgin wool, or percentage of substitute, shoddy, or cotton, so that the public would be protected ~* public buying fabrics would know what they get.

* *

so that the 7. We should work for the passage of law to control the woolen manufacturers, similar to our pure food laws.

8. We favor the adoption of the law that will require a label on all garments giving the percentage of wool, reworked wool, and cotton contained in such garment.

9. We believe fabric manufacturers should take steps to have law enacted to prevent labeling cloth containing shoddy as "all wool"-it is a menace to the clothing business and will eventually undermine the public's confidence. 10. *

* *

Pass a law requiring manufacturers and importers of woolens to label every yard of cloth made or imported, either "Virgin wool" or "Reworked wool," as the case may be, also their name.

11. To insist on legislation that will prevent clothes being sold as all wool that contains shoddy or cotton.

12. Appeal to our law makers for definite fabric standards, and that each garment bear a label that will identify the cloth in the garment, so that the retailer and consumer will know exactly what he is buying.

13. It is my opinion that by law every manufacturer of cloth should be compelled to label clothes with a label giving the weight of cloth and per cent of wool. This label should be attached to each size ticket by the manufacturer of clothing. Also label the finished garment with fabric manufactuer's name.

14. The consumer is the last word, and if you do not give him value, the retailer suffers the most. If a law could be made and enforced against calling a thing "all wool" when it is not, you could protect the honest man in the clothing business. 15. By proper legislation, Government inspection and labeling of fabrics.

16. We believe the fabric manufacturer should have his label on the product he makes. We would favor a law compelling manufacturers to state on label what the product contains.

17. Yes; we favor a pure-wool law.

18. Put an exact label on the cloth showing the exact materials used and guaranteed in accordance. By telling the exact truth and back it, it always prevails. Tell the truth, the whole, and nothing but the truth all the time from the cloth manufacturer to the retailer and we will have the consumer boosting for you 365 days a year. To label his cloth "Wool" or "Part wool" and sell it accordingly.

19. It seems to us that if the mills were to give absolute information to the wholesaler, who, in turn, would convey it to the merchant, so that the latter would actually know what he is talking about, would seem to us a great advantage. Under present conditions he really does not know if this cloth is made of virgin wool, reworked wool, or cotton mixed and he is mighty apt to go on the plan of "hitting if its a bear, missing if its a calf," that is, if the customer comes back showing the cloth to have been poor wearing and not all wool; then he sidesteps it in some way the best he can. This is, of course, the result of ignorance in really not knowing what is in the fabric he is selling and we would most certainly welcome some method that would acquaint us of the makers name of the fabric and what the fabric is made of. Naturally, the little circle that we trot round in would preclude us from offering any advice as to how the thing can be worked out, but there is one thing sure, it would be a wonderful selling help to know just what there is in the fabric a fellow is trying to sell. 20. * We believe the best results could be obtained

* *

*

*

* by getting the various merchants to know the difference between clothes made from shoddy and virgin wool.

In conclusion, if the British marks merchandising act is so efficient on the other side, I would like to read you a letter that we received from London.

The impotency of the British marks merchandising act to protect the purchaser against shoddy profiteering which the unrevealed presence of substitutes for virgin wool permits, is illustrated by the following letter, received by a virgin wool fabric manufacturer in the United States from a man in England:

67 HAVERSTOCK HILL, London, N. W. Want cloth for three suits and want to avoid shoddy by getting virgin wool. May I have a few samples of quiet color gray and brown for lounge suit, and price per yard? I have three sons in the United States who will do the rest when required. Faithfully, yours,

ED CLULOW.

I want to call attention to a telegram handed to me at the Washington Hotel last night. It reads as follows:

ALEXANDER WALKER,

Washington Hotel, Washington, D. C.

NEW YORK, N. Y., March 30, 1920.

J. Coryell wires from Ithaca, N. Y., if you are attending hearing on pure-fabric bill, Albany, Wednesday, would like to meet you Teneyck Hotel Wednesday morning. State sheep breeders and federation of farm bureaus will support bill at hearing.

D. L. WEHLE.

I did not know that this bill was coming up. I had nothing to do with it.

STATEMENT OF MR. ALFRED A. WHITMAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE FABRIC LABELING COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF WOOL AND WORSTED MANUFACTURERS. Mr. WHITMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like for a moment to look back over the evidence presented to see what has been brought out which will justify the claim that the French bill will prevent swindling and profiteering by declaring the contents of textiles, as to new wool or shoddy. The claim that the bill will raise the price of wool and so benefit the wool-growing industry is evidently debatable, and even the sheep growers are willing to have the bill considered on its merits, as stated in the bill itself.

Repeated very general statements have been made that there has been a great deal of profiteering in clothing, but not a single bit of evidence has been brought out to indicate that manufacturers of cloth have in any single instance used shoddy in their clothes in order to deceive their customers nor that they have sold a yard of cloth containing shoddy at a price in excess of what that cloth was intrinsically worth. On the other hand, numerous instances have been cited of cases where clothing has been purchased from retailers, which clothes proved to be of poor wearing quality, and though in most cases where it has been possible to learn the price paid it has been shown that such prices were certainly not high compared with present price for good grade of clothing, the articles referred to have not worn well. In not one of these instances, however, has it been shown or even claimed with any evidence of proof that the garments in question contained any shoddy at all. In fact, in every instance where the suits in question were shown and examined they proved to be worsted and therefore could not contain shoddy, the fact that they wore badly being evidently on account of poor virgin fiber and poor construction. They were cheap goods. If these suits can be sold to-day at excessive prices to the harm of the purchaser how much easier would it be for the profiteering retailer to charge exorbitant prices for poor goods if they bore the label 100 per cent virgin wool.

The claim that shoddy is sold at virgin-wool prices is entirely unsupported by evidence, while it has been abundantly shown that shoddy is used in cloth for the purpose of producing whatever result in the finished cloth the particular kind of shoddy lends itself to in combination with various kinds of new wool. Not the least of these results is to produce cloths, chiefly overcoating and heavy goods, of low cost, which are actually sold by the manufacturers at low prices commensurate with their actual worth. Any excessive prices which are obtained by the retailer from the consumer are just as easy for him to obtain to-day for goods made of new wool as for goods containing shoddy, and if the unwarranted prejudice against shoddy is once established, as it would be by the French bill, goods marked 100 per cent virgin wool would unquestionably be seized upon by such unscrupulous retailers for such profiteering practices.

This answers Judge Sims's question as to why cloth manufacturers do not approve this plan. They know the facts which it is quite evident that the general consuming public does not, and in their ignorance they would grasp for the elusive straw labeled Truth in Fabrics, which will prove worse than useless.

What the buyer wants to know, and should know, is whether the cloth he buys is worth the price asked, whether he wants it for strength, wearing quality, warmth, or perhaps for the sole consideration of beauty or a passing fashion, and if it is possible to work out any plan of grading or markings upon a set of standards which will give this information the manufacturers will give it their hearty support and will join sincerely with the Bureau of Standards or any other body to bring about such a result which would be clearly in their own interest.

The evidence offered by the Bureau of Standards shows clearly that there is no test that they know of at present which will furnish such positive proof of the proportion of shoddy or even of the presence of shoddy as would be necessary for conviction, without which the French bill would soon become a farce.

The CHAIRMAN. I have invited Mr. Macdonald to make an analysis of the corresponding laws of other countries in these matters.

STATEMENT OF MR. M. Q. MACDONALD.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Macdonald, will you state your name and residence?

Mr. MACDONALD. M. Q. Macdonald, lawyer, 910 McLachlen Building, Washington.

Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, I also appear in a dual capacity. I appear as a representative of the paint and the varnish industries, merely to state their general position on the subject of misbranding. Like all progressive trade organizations, they have attempted to be ahead of legislation instead of behind it, and in 1913 the Paint Manufacturers' Association of the United States adopted a resolution reading as follows:

Resolved, That this association strongly deprecates any form of mislabeling.

Resolved, That the terms "lead" or "white lead" will be used by its members exclusively to designate the pure basic carbonate or basic sulphate of lead, or the two in combination; the terms "zinc," "zinc oxide," "oxide of zine" or "zinc white"

only to designate pure zinc oxide; and the term "linseed oil" only to designate pure linseed oil.

Resolved also, That the members of this association will print upon the labels of their products the net weight or measure of the contents of the package.

Explanation: The terms defining zinc oxide are to be used only on oxides containing 99 per cent or more pure zinc oxide. Where a zinc oxide is reduced by the addition of inert reinforcing pigments, if the term "zinc," "zinc white, "etc., is used, it shall be followed by the word "compound" in type of the same size.

Inasmuch as the Oil, Paint and Drug Reporter reflects the sentiment of the trade-I think in this matter it does pretty generally—I would like to call the attention of the committee to a short editorial appearing in the issue of March 29, 1920, received yesterday. In an editorial entitled "Philistines of commerce," it has this to say:

Self-preservation and the desire for possession are the most dominant characteristics of the human race. They are instincts as old as humanity itself. As man came down through the ages, he found through competition the expression of his desire for possession. It was then that deception entered, and from it has been evolved the long list of dishonest commercial practices that plague business to-day-practices that the Government, through the passage of laws and the functioning of the Federal Trade Commission, is seeking to eradicate from American business. Four bills, introduced respectively by Representatives Barkley, Rogers, French and Rainey, came in for extended hearings by the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce during the past week. All four involve the question of misbranding. The measures suggested by Congressmen Barkley and Rogers are general in their nature, proposing the prohibition of misbranding all classes of articles made or produced in the United States. Those introduced by Congressmen French and Rainey are the same in principle, but are not so broad in scope, being confined to wool and woolen goods. Legislation of the nature proposed in these bills has long been a necessity. We have long needed a law that would assist the Federal Trade Commission in its mission of purging American business of all unfair and dishonest practices. The sale or transportation of articles that have been misrepresented, misbranded or falsely described should be stopped. Regulation will seem unjust only to those who have occasion to feel the effects of such regulation. Honest business has nothing to fear.

A buyer has a right to know what he is buying. "Caveat emptor" should be banished forever from the vocabulary of commerce. Deceptive and misleading branding is not only unfair to the consumer, but it also wreaks havoc with the sale of products made by honest manufacturers. It casts its shadow upon the entire trade affected.

There are Philistines in every industry. Brothers all are the monopolists, the bribers, and the misbranders. Their tribe is legion. Of all commercial tricksters, none is so despicable as he who lies about the goods he sells. He would banish the spirit of fair play from American business. Selling materials that are inferior to samples, falsifying labels, making valueless an established trade-mark-these are acts that do not serve the best traditions of American manufacture.

Through fair dealing alone is one brought to a high and honorable position in the world of commerce. Any bill that has for its object the separation of the sheep from the goats in the business pasture will always find an adherent in the Reporter and the industries it represents. We are for the "square deal" in commerce, whether it be at home or abroad.

That very generally reflects the sentiment of the paint and varnish manufacturers.

I would like to attempt to answer some of the questions that have been raised during the hearing with reference to the misbranding laws in this country and abroad. I believe that it has been statedand I do not wish to misquote anyone-that there are no compulsory branding laws in Great Britain. So far as that statement relates to wool, I believe that is true. So far as it relates to some other textiles, it is a little too broad. Among English statutes requiring the marking of particular articles are those relating to anchors and chains, food stuff's such as bread, margarine, coffee and chicory, small arms, gunpowder, hops, Irish and Scotch linen, gold and silver plate, watch cases, and imitation silver.