There is no more reason in attempting to justify the sale of shoddy without making its presence known on the ground that it would soothe the pride of the purchasers than would there be to claim the right to sell second-hand clothes as new in order to save the purchaser from any sense of humiliation which may now be felt in purchasing a second-hand suit. The crux of all the labored arguments advanced by the shoddy interests and adherents against the truth-in-fabric law, making it compulsory to distinguish between shoddy and virgin wool, is just this: A plea to keep the public in ignorance of the presence of substitutes in fabrics so that fabrics can be sold which it is "alleged" people would not buy if the truth were told and the people were permitted to know what they were buying. By deception or omission, to sell a purchaser a thing that the purchaser would not buy if he knew the truth, is just plain "fraud," and yet, does it not seem that it is precisely this thing for which a plea is made? That Mr. Haskins is conscious that it is wrong to permit the people to believe they are purchasing virgin wool when they are purchasing shoddy, is evidenced by a published statement of Mr. Haskins which appeared under Mr. Haskins's name in the Daily News Record of New York of September 8. We quote from this statement as follows: * * "For years the clothing trade have, in a sense, been taking money under false pretenses, 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 * 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 only allows 14 ounces a year to each man, woman, and child living outside the Tropics.' It is the privilege of the fabric manufacturer who believes in the superiority of his fabrics that contain cotton or shoddy, first, to tell the customer to whom such fabrics are offered, that the fabrics contain cotton or shoddy, and second, to convince the customer of the "alleged" merit of the fabrics and thus to make the sale. But for fabric manufacturers to seek-over the purchaser-the advantage which the unrevealed presence of substitutes gives an advantage by which the fabric manufacturer's "will" and "desire" may be imposed upon the people without the people's knowledge or consent-amounts to an autocratic spirit and purpose that have no place in present-day human relations, and which the people will no longer tolerate when once they know of the injustice that is being imposed upon them by the unrevealed presence of substitutes. So great is the temptation to charge virgin wool prices for shoddy-which results from the unrevealed presence of substitutes in fabrics and clothes-that only those with the most vigorous integrity can resist the temptation, and the public is, as a result, completely at the mercy of the unscrupulous. The issue is not that shoddy is sold. The issue is not as to how much shoddy is sold. The issue is not as to the relative merits of shoddy as compared with virgin wool. The issue is that selling shoddy without making its presence known throttles sheep husbandry. The issue is that selling shoddy without making its presence known forces the people to wear clothes made from rags, instead of virgin wool, and forces them to pay exorbitant prices for those shoddy clothes. The issue is that selling shoddy or any other substitutes without making its presence known, abrogates the law of supply and demand by depriving the people of their rights to choose between the genuine and the substitute, violates economic law, outrages moral law, and sets at naught truth and justice, which must be established and maintained if civilization and organized society are to endure. 177735-20-37 INDEX. Page. Access to books (French)... Administration of truth-in-fabric law (see Truth-in-fabric administration): Cost of.... 27 52, 106 Contrasted with "Virgin wool". Amendments to H. R. 13136 (Rogers bill). Atkeson, T. C.: Statement of. Australian wool.. "All wool". Public understanding of. Alsberg, Dr. Carl L.: Statement of. Amendments proposed to truth-in-fabric bill (French bill). American Fair Trade League. Army: Woolen goods purchased by. 33, 36, 84, 130, 133, 206, 396, 399, 406, 428, 435, 458, 508 42, 73, 84 399 399 179 48, 504 409 37, 99, 128, 291 335 288 70, 510 419, 503 31, 504 15, 17 183 Alsberg.. Bills pending. (See Barkley, French, Rainey, Rogers, Truth-in-fabric.) Bills (misbranding): Previous Congresses. Bonynge, Hon. Robert W.: Statement of. Branding (or labeling). 205 168 212 429 501 234, 235 5 72 31, 304, 357, 383, 456, 504, 505 27, 31, 49, 50, 62, 464 27 110, 149, 211, 323, 505 318 55, 504 482 110 169 211 75 106, 110, 169, 211, 505 579 Public demand for branding legislation. (See. Public demand, etc.) Cromwell, Lincoln: Statement of. Daily News Record. Davies, Joseph E.: Statement of.. Amendments to H. R. 13136 (Rogers bill), proposed by. Davison, F. B.: Statement of.... De Berard, Frederick B.: Statement of. Dole, S. S.: Statement of.. 286, 293 237, 238 293 104, 116 292 109 224 133 191 442 409 425 339 201 318 460, 470, 505 52, 505 439 392 45 117 210, 501 410, 458, 507 412 413 414 205, 286, 303, 493, 501 520 273 300 26, 39, 424, 503 277 383 15 15 15 220 300 28, 271 25 28 295 315, 330 67 442 442 278 444 275 265, 266 445 524 514 |