LETTER FROM THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WASTE MATERIAL DEALERS (INC.). NEW YORK, March 19, 1920.

Hon. JOHN J. ESCH,

Chairman Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Your letter of March 13 received and I beg to thank you for your courtesy in advising me in reference to when this organization could appear before your committee.

Since writing you I have had an opportunity to place the matter before the woolen rag division of this association and after careful and thorough discussion, we have decided to simply write you this letter formally protesting against the proposed legislation. We believe, however, that Congress might well determine its course of action by the information it will undoubtedly receive from manufacturers whose interests would be so materially affected by any such legislation.

Were woolen rag graders to actively work against the legislation proposed, we feel that they might be misunderstood by the general public. Notwithstanding all the false statements which have appeared in the press in reference to the deception practiced by rag dealers, it is hardly possible that any man with ordinary intelligence would believe that there was any possible chance for deception so far as the rag man is concerned. Certainly the consumers of rags will tell your committee that they never are deceived as to what kind of rags they are using; therefore if there is any deception the rag man must be left out of it.

I inclose a number of articles on this subject which may be of interest to your committee, as they have a bearing on the view which this association holds in reference to the matter. This organization has but one request to make in reference to this entire proposition, namely, that if your committee and if Congress comes to the conclusion that such legislation is necessary, that you see that the word "shoddy" is eliminated from any bill and the words "reworked wool" substituted, otherwise you will do an injustice to the rag and reworked wool dealer, as well as to the general public. Shoddy, as it is understood by the general public, no more conveys the real truth as to what 90 per cent of the fabric made out of woolen rags is than would any other word which might be haphazardly picked out of the dictionary. Thanking you for the attention and consideration which I know your committee will give this communication, I am,

Cordially, yours,

CHAS. M. HASKINS, Secretary.

Following is an editorial which appeared in the New York Journal of November 20, together with a reply to same by the secretary of this association. This is sent you for your information. The picture referred to was the cartoon showing the alleged distribution of the money spent by the public for clothing, with which you are probably familiar.

CHARLES M. HASKINS, Secretary.

[Editorial.]

TOO LITTLE FOR THE SHEEP MEN, TOO MUCH FOR THE SHEARERS THE "SHEARERS" ARE THE CUNNING GENTLEMEN THAT SELL SHODDY AND OLD RAGS UNDER THE NAME OF "CLOTH."

This picture comes from Alexander Walker, intelligently interested in the National Sheep and Wool Bureau of America.

At the top of the picture you see the money that the public spends for pure wool, the money that ought to go to the men that raise sheep, and the honest manufacturers that sell good cloth.

Below, at the right-hand corner, you see the little driblets of money coming through to the sheep men. At the left-hand corner you see the large stream of cash flowing down to the gentlemen that manufacture "shoddy."

This picture tells its own story plainly enough and emphasizes once more the fact that it is necessary for the people, through their national and local governments, to protect themselves and interfere with the public plunderers.

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, or the dress. 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.

The picture illustrates one of a thousand schemes for robbing the public. The law protects the shoddy men in the possession of their property, it ought to protect the public in the spending of its money.

But unfortunately, when laws are made and rules are enforced, the public is away somewhere busy. As Roosevelt said, "The public does not take its own part, and nobody else bothers to take it."

EDITOR NEW YORK JOURNAL,

New York City.

NOVEMBER 22, 1919.

DEAR SIR: On the editorial page of your issue of November 20 you had an editorial entitled "Too little for the sheep men, too much for the shearers," and as a subheading, the following: "The shearers are the cunning gentlemen that sell shoddy and old rags under the name 'Cloth.'"

I desire to take exception, on behalf of this association, to your reference to the rag dealers and shoddy manufacturers as "cunning gentlemen." Every shoddy manufacturer who buys rags knows exactly what he is buying. There is absolutely no chance for the rag dealer to deceive him. The very processes through which rags go to become shoddy or reworked wool absolutely forbid of any deception, and the writer, who has been familiar with the rag and shoddy trade for many years, never heard of a shoddy manufacturer who would admit that he could be deceived in reference to the class of material he was purchasing from the rag man. The same thing is absolutely true in the relations between the shoddy manufacturer and the cloth manufacturer. The cloth manufacturer, through the very process of turning the shoddy into cloth, is in a position to know exactly what class and grade of material he is buying from the shoddy manufacturer. It is very unlikely that the woolen manufacturer is going to try and deceive the jobber, the commission merchant, or the clothing manufacturer. Now, if I am right, what opportunity does either the rag dealer or the shoddy manufacturer have to "cunningly deceive" the ultimate consumer?

A fair investigation would convince anyone with an open mind that the deception, if any, is with the clothing manufacturer or the retail dealer and not with the shoddy manufacturer or the rag dealer who, through their industry, are making it possible for millions of our people to clothe themselves with material obtainable at anything like reasonable prices.

In view of the very large circulation which your paper has, particularly among a class of people, many of whom are in no position to buy all virgin wool goods, it seems to me that if you are going to take up editorially the comparative values of virgin woolen cloth and cloth made of reworked wool which, in your editorial, you refer to as "Shoddy and old rags," you should go farther and advocate that a manufacturer of paper should be compelled to state just what proportion of the manufactured product is woodpulp and what proportion is rags, and that the manufacturer of automobile tires should stamp on the tire what proportion of the rubber used was scrap rubber and what proportion was crude rubber, and that the foundrymen should designate on each casting made how much new metal and how much scrap metal had been used. In fact, there are any number of lines of manufacturing where a substantial percentage of the raw material is waste material. Why pick on the shoddy manufacturer and the rag dealer and refer to him as a "cunning individual" when every department of the Government during the recent war welcomed his efforts and devoted more time to the conservation of waste materials than to any other single project connected with the winning of the war?

Are you aware that just as cotton rags will make a better grade of paper than the natural raw material, wood pulp, so will many grades of woolen rags make a better piece of goods, both in looks and in wearing qualities, than if made of a low grade of virgin wool.

In view of the tremendous possibilities of a paper like yours to promote anything of an educational nature, I would like very much to have you take the inclosed photograph, which shows a man dressed in 14 ounces of cloth, which is the estimated amount that each person would receive each year if all the wool produced throughout the world were manufactured into cloth without admixture of wool waste or shoddy and distributed equally among the people living outside of the Tropics, and write an

editorial around it which would point out and explain to the general public that the term "all wool" means simply and solely that the article contains nothing but wool fiber and not necessarily all virgin wool. A piece of goods may be accurately described as "all wool" and still contain 90 per cent of rag stock; all that is necessary is that the rag stock be wool.

In your editorial you refer to the "intelligently interested Mr. Walker." It is true that Mr. Walker is giving wide publicity to a campaign in favor of virgin wool goods, but so far, Mr. Walker, in the opinion of the writer, has simply preached a doctrine which will create discontent in the mind of the average purchaser of clothing, without giving such a person any intelligent explanation as to what he must be satisfied with should he find it beyond his means to buy virgin wool cloth. Manufacturers claiming to manufacture only virgin wool fabrics advocate a compulsory distinction between shoddy, now known as reworked wool, and virgin wool fabrics, claiming that it would prevent deception and profiteering. Such compulsion would mean that 90 per cent of the men, women, and children living outside of the tropics would be compelled to go about advertising the fact that they could not afford to wear what the other 10 per cent were wearing.

Your editorial referred to above is going to leave a "bad taste" in the mouth of people of moderate means, many of whom would be no better off were they able to distinguish between a piece of goods made of virgin wool and one made of virgin wool and reworked wool combined.

Yours, very truly,

CHAS. H. HASKINS, Secretary.

[From the Daily News Record, New York.]

REWORKED WOOL AND THE RETAIL CLOTHING DEALER.

[By Charles M. Haskins, secretary of the National Association of Waste Material Dealers (Inc.).]

What should be the attitude of the retail clothing trade in reference to reworked wool? Is it to their own interest or the interest of their customers that they continue to fight shy of the term shoddy or reworked wool and use these terms only when desiring to indicate to their customers a comparison between the class of goods they handle and those handled by their competitors, or would it be far better both for themselves and the public which they serve to face the facts, acknowledge that a large proportion of all clothing made contains a substantial percentage of reworked wool and do their share in educating the public both to the necessity of such a substitute for virgin wool and the value of it?

The story used to be told of the clerk in a large department store who, when asked by a lady as to the origin of mohair, replied, "It comes from a little animal called the mohair," but those kind of clerks, if they ever existed, have disappeared, and the average clothing-house salesman of to-day has the ability and intelligence to thoroughly explain to his customers that shoddy is not synonymous with trash, which is the false opinion held by many to-day.

For years the clothing trade have, in a sense, been taking money under false pretense 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 such goods with the belief that all wool meant virgin wool. Now, along comes an advertising campaign for virgin woolen goods, and the cat is out of the bag. Certainly all the clothing manufacturers can not claim they are making nothing but virgin-wool fabrics, because careful students of the subject have developed the fact that all the virgin wool in the world would only allow 14 ounces a year to each man, woman, and child living outside of the Tropics.

It is useless to claim that any large proportion of the people of the world can use entirely virgin-wool fabrics, even if they could afford to pay the price. You can not get blood out of a rock, and you can only get wool from a sheep's back.

In the summer of 1918, when this country had only about 4,000,000 men under arms, Gen. March, Chief of Staff, testifying before the Senate Committee on Military Affairs, made the following statement: "We must commandeer and we have done so-all of the wool in the United States, and we have also taken the wool of Argentina. We are going to put the whole civilian population on shoddy for the next year."

If all the available wool in this country was needed to give our soldier boys virginwool uniforms (their overcoats and blankets contained a large percentage of reworked wool), how can 110,000,000 people expect to wear virgin-wool fabrics?

A campaign in favor of all virgin-wool fabrics may appeal to the very wealthy, but what is needed for the public generally is a campaign of education to enlighten it as to the real value of reworked wool, which it has known in the past as shoddy. In the opinion of the writer the best interests of the clothing trade demand that they share in this educational work.

LETTER FROM JOHN C. COTTRELL.

Hon. JOHN J. ESCH,

EAGLE BRIDGE, N. Y., March 22, 1920.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: At the spring meeting of the Washington and Rensselaer Counties (N. Y.) Wool Growers' Association held at Eagle Bridge, Saturday March 20, the inclosed resolution was adopted. I also inclose you some extracts from the Soil Survey of Washington County and Bulletin 89 of the New York State Department of Agriculture showing the decline in the sheep industry in this section.

Washington County is admirably adapted for the raising of sheep but has dropped out owing to the unprofitable nature of the business in the past. At the present time notwithstanding the good prices wool and mutton are bringing there us practically no market for store sheep owing no doubt to the uncertainty of the future of the wool industry.

I believe that the passage of the truth-in-fabric bill will do much to stabilize the industry and make it possible to get back some of the ground we have lost as a wool producing county. I am

Very truly, yours,

JOHN C. COTTRELL.

RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE WASHINGTON AND RENSSELAER COUNTIES (N. Y.) WOOL GROWERS' ASSOCIATION AT THEIR SPRING MEETING MARCH 20, 1920.

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; and Whereas the public does not even suspect that the term "all wool" may mean wool that has previously been used in cloth; and

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

Whereas the term "all wool," because it fails to distinguish between the 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 wool growers to the shoddy manufacturers; and

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 the right to choose between shoddy and virgin wool; deprives the people of the knowledge of whether they are purchasing shoddy or virgin wool-the knowledge that is the people's sole protection against those who would charge virgin wool prices for shoddy; and thus rob the public; and

Whereas the unrevealed presence of substitutes, especially shoddy in fabrics and clothes, 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 this Washington and Rensselaer Counties (N. Y.) Wool Growers' Association earnestly urge in the interests 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 the people, we request the earnest cooperation of all who desire to see right prevail and honest practice established in all branches of business.

EXTRACTS FROM THE SOIL SURVEY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, N. Y., PUBLISHED BY THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE IN 1910.

Early in the past century the sheep industry had assumed a position of prime importance. In 1825 the number within the county was considerably greater than 100,000, and 10 years later, in 1835, there were 206,157 head of sheep on the farms of

the county,

The height of the industry was reached in 1845, when the total number of sheep within the county was 254,866, and the wool clip amounted to 579,056 pounds. At this time there were 64 sheep to every 100 acres of cleared land in the county.

The importance of keeping sheep on the farms of Washington County to utilize the rugged hill pastures with thin soils was long ago recognized, for "flock of sheep, requiring as it does but little time and attention during the busy period of the year, will occupy that portion of the farm which is least convenient for tillage, and thus add an important item to the proprietor's income. Without increasing in any sensible degree its expenses, and without interfering with and hindering other operations, a limited number of sheep can be supported, mainly upon such portions of the farm as would otherwise be neglected and for the time valueless.”

*

*

*

This statement is just as true to-day as it was 60 years ago, when it was written by Dr. Fitch, and can not be too strongly brought to the attention of the Washington County farmers.

Bulletin 89, published by the New York State Department of Agriculture, gives the number of sheep in Washington County, N. Y., as 17,305, January 1, 1916.

It is probable that the number given above has not been increased at the present time. It is quite possible there are less sheep now than in 1916.

At the present time there is practically no market for store sheep, owing probably to the uncertainty of the future of the wool industry.

LETTER FROM THE COMMERCIAL CLUB OF BELLE FOURCHE.

BELLE FOURCHE, S. DAK., March 30, 1920.

Hon. JOHN J. ESCH,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

HONORABLE SIR: I wish to call your attention to the inclosed resolution on the truth-in-fabric bill and would sincerely appreciate any effort that you might put forth in its behalf.

Very respectfully, yours,

JAMES E. STEWART, Secretary.

RESOLUTIONS PASSED BY COMMERCIAL CLUB OF BELLE FOURCHE, S. DAK.

Whereas at present the buyers of woolen garments are being misled into believing that they are getting pure wool garments, while in most cases the garments contain a large percentage of shoddy material and in many cases cotton; and Whereas they have a right to know what they are buying in order that they may buy intelligently and buy the quality of goods that they want; and

Whereas the men now raising wool are selling at a disadvantage and are putting their wool up against shoddy material, which is being sold as wool, and therefore getting less than they are entitled to for their wool: Now therefore be it

Resolved, That the Commercial Club of Bell Fouche indorse the truth-in-fabric bill now before Congress and urge its immediate passage in order that the wool interests of the country be protected against misrepresentation as to quality and against having to throw their wool on the market in competition with shoddy material and that the purchasers of the finished goods may know what they are buying and the value of it as compared to the virgin wool.