INFORMATION WHICH FABRIC LABELING WOULD GIVE PUBLIC IS VALUELESS. ALFRED A. WHITMAN POINTS OUT THAT THIS IS APTLY SHOWN BY REPRESENTATIVE FRENCH IN HIS ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF BILL USING B. V. D.'S AS AN ILLUSTRATION. Alfred A. Whitman, of the William Whitman Co. (Inc.), New York, chairman of the fabric labeling committee of the American Association of Wool and Worsted Manufacturers, and who played a conspicuous part at the pure fabric hearings in Washington recently, yesterday issued the following statement: In the Washington dispatch apparently in to-day's Daily Trade Record, Congressman French is reported to have offered some amendments to his bill and has undertaken to discuss the contention that the information which labeling would give the public is not worth while because it does not provide a quality test. Mr. French's suggestions as to amendments to his bill are interesting and as far as they go they indicate an improvement over the original draft. None of them, however, touch in the slightest degree the real objection to the French bill which is that no information of the slightest value to the purchaser as a consumer can be obtained from the proposed stamp indicating the kind of fiber used in the manufacture. This is excellently shown by Mr. French's own argument using B. V. D.'s as an illustration. Accepting Mr. French's statement at its full value, it can not be denied that if a man buys a suit of B. V. D.'s and finds them of good cut and excellent wearing qualities, he would certainly be inclined to order B. V. D.'s again and continue to order them so long as they gave good service, being certain that he would always get the same quality under the label B. V. D. Just compare that situation, however, with a suit market 60 per cent virgin wool and 40 per cent shoddy. A man may buy a suit with this label and get most excellent wear out of it, besides finding it satisfactory in point of appearance, style, and warmth. If he placed the same dependence upon this label that he does upon the B. V. D. label, he would again order a suit marked 60 per cent virgin wool and 40 per cent shoddy but would not have the slighest possible guaranty that he would get anything like the same wear out of it or that the cloth would compare in any degree in appearance or warmth to the first suit purchased. B. V. D. is a label that means a certain definite thing with regard to wearing quality, cut, etc., while the label 60 per cent virgin wool and 40 per cent shoddy means absolutely nothing more than a bare statement that 40 per cent of the fiber used in the cloth has been previously spun or woven. It does not indicate whether the 60 per cent of virgin wool is high grade or low grade; whether part of it is noils, shop sweepings, dung locks, or any other of the inferior grades which are classed as virgin wool, nor whether the 40 per cent of shoddy is fine long staple strong fiber, or is the meanest and lowest grades classed under that name. The label gives no information as to the strength of the cloth, whether it is closely woven, well fulled and consequently strong and warm or is loose and open in its texture and without strength and durability. In other words, Mr. French in his arguments has clearly indicated by comparison the main objection to his bill in a few clear sentences. The folly of forcing such an added expense upon the manufacturers for the purpose of giving the public such completely misleading and at the very least entirely useless information is quite evident from his statement. If in addition to this the sheep growers were correct in their arguments before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, the passage of the French bill may be expected to cause such a rise in the cost of new wool as to enable them to increase their industry to many times its present volume. As such an increase has not been possible so far even with the constant and extreme support of legislation it is evident that the advance in price anticipated by sheep growers is not a small one. It can scarcely be argued that consumers are so anxious to have the useless information referred to that they are willing to see such a rise in a commodity of such wide use as wool. LETTERS SUBMITTED BY MR. FRENCH. To Hon. BURTON L. FRENCH, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MARCH 29, 1920. You are in receipt of letter from Mrs. Mattie Douglass, chairman of our legislative committee, inclosing resolutions passed by the national executive committee of this organization. To this official communication I wish to add a special plea for the passage of the truth-in-fabric bill. The National Housewives' League has members in nearly every State of the Union and represents a body of women well trained in economics. The league represent the organized industry of homemaking and we believe the truth-, in-fabric measure to be not only a protection to our industry, but to the industries contributing to the production and merchandizing of fabrics. We recognize the need of educational work as to the value of virgin wool and socalled "shoddy," and are planning for such educational work. In this respect it would be beneficial in the attempt to eliminate the prejudice against the so-called "shoddy" if another term could be used to cover the product. This does not mean that the consumer can not be educated to the value of shoddy as they have been educated to the term oleomargarine, but an inconvenient handicap against such education will be the existing prejudice against the term. Mrs. JULIAN HEATH, President National Housewives' League, 327 West One hundred and first Street, New York City, N. Y. MARCH 13, 1920. To Hon. BURTON L. FRENCH, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. I want to assure you that you have the backing of this association, and I believe the backing of every sheep raiser in the United States; and no doubt you will have the backing of every honest man or woman in the country when they know about the bill that is trying to be put through. A. J. TEMPLE, Secretary American Leicester Breeders' Association, To Hon. BURTON L. FRENCH, Cameron, Ill. MARCH 12, 1920. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. We wish to assure you that the Ohio farmers and sheepmen are unanimously in favor of the truth-in-fabric bill (H. R. 11641). When we buy a suit of clothes or a wool carpet we want to be sure we get wool instead of shoddy. FRANK STURGEON, To Hon. BURTON L. FRENCH, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. I believe the entire delegation from Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota will join with you in protecting this much-needed legislation and aid in promoting the passage of the bill at the earliest date possible. Under separate cover I take pleasure in mailing you six marked copies of the November Cloverland Magazine. You will find on page 6 a splendid article supporting this law written by Mr. Roger M. Andrews, president of the Cloverland Magazine, and you will find on the editorial page the unqualified support of the measure. Hoping that the magazine and the personal request made to the entire delegation from these three States will be of material assistance to you in piloting the truth-infabric law through the committee and on to the Federal statute books, assuring you the whole hearted support of the magazine and its entire organization and wishing you the fullest success in this laudable work and for the bill which you had the honor of introducing, I am Sincerely, yours, HENRY A. PERRY, Assistant to President and Managing Editor, Cloverland Magazine, Menominee, Mich. JANUARY 27, 1920. To Hon. ARTHUR CAPPER, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. I note in a recent trade publication that you are behind the truth-in-fabric law. Go to it, and I hope the bill becomes a law. A. CAMPBELL, President The Smart Co., Wausau, Wis. To Mr. L. F. MALANY, Chicago, Ill. While I am heartily in favor of the passage of this bill, it will be impossible for me to appear at the committee hearings. Trusting you will be successful in your efforts, I am, To Hon. BURTON L. FRENCH, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. WILLIAM A. MATHER, General Farmer, Adams, N. Y. MARCH 5, 1920. Being interested in the enactment of H. R. 11641, truth-in-fabric law, at an early date, so that it will become effective before this year's wool and cotton are manufac tured, I write to assure you Ohio wool growers expect you to call Mr. Esch's attention to this important measure. J. W. R. SMITH, Adena, Ohio. MARCH 18, 1920. TO NATIONAL SHEEP AND WOOL BUREAU, 29 S. La Salle Street, Chicago, Ill. I believe there is no legislation more needed in this present time of prevailing high costs of everything than the law which you are advocating. C. A. TYLER, Commonwealth Savings Bank, Detroit, Mich. MARCH 23, 1920. To Hon. BURTON L. FRENCH, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. The truth-in-fabric bill which you introduced is of vital importance to every fairminded man and woman. DAISY L. LEUBUSCHER, 2688 Broadway, New York City. JANUARY 21, 1920. To Mr. L. F. MALANY, National Sheep and Wool Bureau, The of wool. Chicago, Ill. passage of this law is of wide importance to both the consumers and producers ARTHUR SAMPSON, Secretary-Treasurer National Union American Society of Equity, Madison, Wis. JANUARY 26, 1920. To Mr. L. F. MALANY, National Sheep and Wool Bureau, Chicago, Ill. Your cause is a just one, and action at the present time is both timely and wise, and the national wool growers should push their case with the utmost vigor, for there is undoubtedly all sorts of profiteering going on in the cloth trade. To Hon. BURTON L. FRENCH, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Speaking of the truth-in-fabric bill, we have been educating and looking forward for fabric regulation, and have been planning to remove the national disgrace of a wool shortage. We are already increasing the flocks, as well as improving the indi viduals. We intend to grow virgin wool for every American who wants it, and do not intend to compete with the ragman's hook and the moldy shed and plug horse of the junkman. W. W. REYNOLDS, Treasurer the Ohio Sheep & Wool Growers' Association, To Hon. BURTON L. FRENCH, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Utica, Ohio. MARCH 20, 1920. I am very anxious to have this bill become a law, as we have just as much right to know what we are buying in the clothing line as in food. EDITH CHIDESTER, Mechanicsburg, Ohio. MARCH 17, 1920. To Mr. L. F. MALANY, National Sheep and Wool Bureau, Chicago, Ill. Of course, we are in favor of the truth-in-fabric bill. It is plainly an injustice to both the producer of wool, and the buyer of clothing, that "shoddy" should be sold as virgin wool. To the plea that "shoddy" may be as good as virgin wool there need be but one answer: If it were, there would be no desire to have the purchaser of it think he is getting virgin wool. E. E. MILLER, Editor Southern Agriculturist, Nashville, Tenn. FEBRUARY 26, 1920. To Hon. BURTON L. FRENCH, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. The New Hampshire Sheep Breeders' Association heartily indorses the bill which has just been introduced in Congress, known as the truth-in-fabric bill. It believes that the passing of this bill will immeasurably help the sheep industry of this country, and that it will equally help the consumer. Its success will be parallel with that of the pure food and drugs act. We earnestly urge you to use your great influence in securing the passage of this bill. EDGAR A. PERRY, Meredith, N. H. MARCH 23, 1920. NATIONAL SHEEP AND WOOL BUREAU, 29 South La Salle Street, Chicago, Ill. GENTLEMEN. I am very much pleased to note that the National Sheep and Wool Bureau are putting forth such excellent efforts in the interests of H. R. 11641 introduced by the Hon. Mr. French in the House of Representatives, and S. 3686 introduced in the Senate by Senator Capper, of Kansas. As I understand it, the fundamental feature of this bill is to provide that manufacturers of woolen fabrics be made to label their products with the actual contents of material from which they are made up, thereby making it possible for the purchaser to know what he is buying, and not having to rely upon the doubtful say-so of the retail dealer, who may or may not be truthfully informed by the manufacturer. It provides that the same frankness be used in fabrics that is now lawfully required in the sale of food stuffs and drugs. From the point of welfare for the general public, there can be no doubt as to the necessity of this bill, and the fact that every man or woman who purchases cloth will know, in case the bill passes, what they are buying, and what they are paying for, should be sufficient reason for every Senator and Congressman to stand behind it. I earnestly believe that the high cost of cloth at this time is a serious menace to the welfare of our general public, and to the Nation. The more so as the prices demanded are out of all proportion to the actual value of warmth giving material put into the goods. This is being brought about by the shoddy manufacturer, and the manufac turer of woolen textiles, adulterated with shoddy, masquerading behind the term "all wool." The argument put forth by the opponents of the bill, that shortage of virgin wool demands the use of shoddy, will in nowise hold water. The public has a right to demand to know what it is buying even though this curtails the enormous profits which are now being reaped by those who are selling shoddy cloth, and are misleading the people with the term "all wool. There can be no doubt that the passing of this bill will bring about not only impetus to the wool growing industries, but the raiser of sheep will take new hope in receiving a favorable return for his wool and thereby automatically increase the supply of mutton and lamb, bringing this commodity within reach of the masses. In the hope that your earnest attempt to bring about this piece of legislation will be crowned with success, I am, Very respectfully, yours, GUSTAVUS R. WAEBER. MARCH 18, 1920. To Hon. BURTON L. FRENCH, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Resolved by the board of directors of the Michigan Wool Growers' Association that we, the wool growers of Michigan, support the truth-in-fabric bill, known in the House of Representatives as H. R. 11641 and in the Senate as S. 3686, and urge the enactment into law of this meritorious bill. THE MICHIGAN WOOL GROWERS' ASSOCIATION. Per D. WILLIAMS, Secretary, East Lansing, Mich. MARCH 18, 1920. To Hon. BURTON L. FRENCH, PRAGER MILLER, President New Mexico Wool Growers' Association, To Hon. BURTON L. FRENCH, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Albuquerque, N. Mex. MARCH 22, 1920. I am in favor of that bill being passed compelling manufacturers to state the amount of wool their goods contain. A. J. BRAIDWOOD, Hunters Creek, Mich. MARCH 22, 1920. To Hon. BURTON L. FRENCH, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Cody Business Men's Association by resolution to-day indorsed House bill 11641, and urged favorable action by Congress. CODY BUSINESS MEN'S ASSOCIATION. By O. K. KOENIG, Cody, Wyo. MARCH 20, 1920. To Hon. BURTON L. FRENCH, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. We are very much interested in the bill now before Congress known as the truth-infabric, and we would appreciate whatever you would give us in putting this bill through, as we certainly need this bill for the protection of the people who are interested in this great industry of raising sheep. CHAS. WERTHEIMER, President Maryland Sheep Growers' Association, 177735-20—36 |