Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. Your statement would imply that it costs more to sew the label than it does to make the pants?

Mr. CRANE. It would cost very close to it. It would the consumer, not the manufacturer, in the retail price. These pants sell to the retail-I have taken the very best quality for the lowest price, I think, made in the country, being the most popular because there are millions of them sold-and they sell to the retailer about from $7 to $7.50 a dozen pairs.

He sells them at 98 cents. There is very little profit in it. We insist that if Mrs. Jones finds out the label is costing as much as one leg, she is not going to be so grateful for the protection of the label. It is very easy to compute it. You may not arrive at 30 cents, but you will arrive at some very substantial sum.

There is another thing; under the law, a suit of clothes must carry three labels, because a coat is one garment, a vest is a garment, and a pair of trousers is a garment. So, to comply with the law, as I see it, three labels would be necessary.

Mr. MAPES. Assuming that the law is passed, I would like to ask you this question. How long a time should be given before it goes into operation, to allow the retailers to adjust their business to it, and to get rid of the stock which they have on hand?

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Mapes, I can see where it would be a great many years before a prosecution could not be successfully met by a defense such as, "We bought this merchandise before this law went into effect."

I believe that a clever "con" man could convince the jury that he had the merchandise for four or five years on his shelf, or some place. Mr. MAPES. Let us eliminate, for the purposes of the question, the fellow who wants to evade the law, and consider only the honest retailer who wants to comply with it.

Mr. CRANE. That I can not answer, Mr. Mapes. I suppose some industries would find it a great deal harder to adjust themselves to it than others. The retailer himself, of course, would not have a great deal of difficulty, because he would be buying and the articles would be handed to him labeled. They should be. The manufacturer is the man who is going to be hit, in the keeping of the records, which is going to be a tremendous expense.

Mr. MAPES. It would be quite unfair to pass a law that would arbitrarily say, "From this day forth no one can sell a suit of clothes that is not labeled" without giving any time to dispose of stocks now on hand.

Mr. CRANE. That is true.

Mr. MAPES. We ought to give the retailer a proper length of time to dispose of his stock on hand, at least.

Mr. CRANE. The honest retailer could prove by bills the date of his purchases, no matter what the effect of the law would be. But it would mean, as I see it, a great many very drastic changes in method of operations. The keeping of records is something that is worrying people a great deal. Under this law they would have to know how it could be done and how you could keep clean on the thing.

Mr. Chairman, I have received some telegrams and letters from different associations, some of which I should like to read into the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Mr. CRANE. This is from the clothing manufacturers of Philadelphia and they send a telegram as follows:

(The telegram referred to is as follows:)

Mr. IRVING L. CRANE,

Lee House, Washington, D. C.:

PHILADELPHIA, PA., April 17, 1924.

Speaking for the Philadelphia Clothing Manufacturers' Exchange, which includes 14 of the most representative manufacturing concerns of this city, whose total volume runs heavily into the millions, and as testified before the subcommittee of the Interstate Commerce Commission of the Senate some weeks ago, we are opposed to the French-Capper bill, because it is impracticable of enforcement and would entail an unnecessary, heavy burden upon an industry already confronted with many difficult problems in our effort to meet the viewpoint and requirements of the American public. We are decidedly in favor of the fullest possible protection for the consumer, and therefore strongly indorse the LodgeRodgers bill patterned after British Marks Act, which we are informed has proven workable and entirely satisfactory, and would give buying public the protection they are entitled to.

DAVID KIRSCHBAUM, President Philadelphia Clothing Manufacturers' Exchange. Mr. CRANE. I want to read a telegram from the industry in Boston. This man's viewpoint is especially valuable, because he is both a great manufacturer and a great retailer.

(The telegram referred to is as follows:)

IRVING CRANE,

Hotel Washington, Washington, D. C.:

BOSTON, MASS., April 17, 1924.

While appreciating views of proponents for French-Capper bill, would like to have you state that the leading clothing manufacturers of this country practically guarantee every garment they sell or give new ones in exchange. Six thousand retailers, members national association, sell everything with a money-back guarantee, thus protecting consumer 100 per cent. In no trade does the consumer make purchases with as broad guarantee as in clothing business.

LEOPOLD MORSE Co.,

JULIUS C. MORSE, President,

Vice President National Retail Clothiers' Association.

Mr. CRANE. This telegram is from Baltimore and they wire as follows:

IRVING CRANE,

BALTIMORE, MD., April 17, 1924.

Hotel Washington, Washington, D. C.: We, the undersigned wholesale clothing manufacturers of Baltimore, Md., representing an aggregate production of over $30,000,000 annually in men's clothing vehemently protest against the passage of the French-Capper bill. We consider it absolutely unnecessary, burdensome without merit, and know that it will add greatly to the cost of men's clothing without any benefit to the consumer. It will cause additional harassment to all clothing manufacturers who are already bearing more than their share. We ask you to present our protest in the strongest possible manner.

L. GREIF & BRO. (Inc.),

ENGLISH AMERICAN TAILORS CORPORATION (Ltd.),
STROUSE & Co.,

HENRY SONNEBORN & Co. (Inc.),

J. SCHOENEMAN (Inc.),

SCHLOSS BROS. & Co.,

M. STEIN & Co.,

PHILIP KAHN & Co.

There is also a telegram from Rochester which states as follows: ROCHESTER, N. Y., April 17, 1924.

IRVING CRANE,

Hotel Washington, Washington, D. C.:

The Clothiers' Exchange of Rochester, an organization composed of 17 manufacturers of high-grade clothing in Rochester, N. Y., with an annual_output of over $60,000,000, strongly protest against the enactment of the FrenchCapper bill as needless legislation that will mean additional cost of clothing to the consumer. Rochester manufacturers assume responsibility to the consumer on the clothing they sell and no new legislation can do more to protect the consumer except the added burden of the cost of any such new legislation. THE CLOTHIERS' EXCHANGE OF ROCHEster, MAX L. HOLTZ, President.

Gentlemen, in referring to the immensity of the industry in New York, I would like with your permission to quote from a letter I received two weeks ago from Governor Smith and one from the mayor. These letters were written as a message to this dinner I mentioned at which we had Senator Capper, and coming from men who know what their people are doing, it somewhat corroborates what I said.

The CHAIRMAN. As long as these repeat testimony, can not you file it for publication?

Mr. CRANE. Very well; then, Mr. Chairman, I have finished. (The letters referred to are as follows:)

Mr. IRVING CRANE,

ALBANY, April 7, 1924.

Executive Secretary Associated Clothing Manufacturers

of New York (Inc.), New York City.

MY DEAR MR. CRANE: The great pressure of work incident to the close of the legislative session prevents me from accepting your cordial invitation to attend the dinner of the Associated Clothing Manufacturers of New York (Inc.) on April 13.

I regret this all the more because I would like to congratulate your members in person upon the progress of their industry in recent years.

My knowledge of that progress goes back to the days when the manufacture of clothing took place largely in sweatshops where the workers suffered in body and soul from disease-breeding sanitary conditions, economic exploitation, and from unenlightened manufacturing processes.

To-day the shops of your members are ranked as modern and sanitary-your production processes are scientific and enlightening-and the workers of the clothing industry enjoy a more just measure of the fruits of their labor.

You are now proud to hand over your business to your sons, to whom, with a love of education characteristic of your race, you gave the best education our American colleges and technical schools can provide. Thus equipped, they carry on and improve the production processes along scientific lines and at the same time appreciate the importance of recognizing the human equation in industry which means justice and fair dealing to the workers, without which no industry can enjoy a sound prosperity.

With every good wish for the future success of your organization, I am
Sincerely yours,

ALFRED E. SMITH.

APRIL 7, 1924.

Mr. IRVING CRANE,

Executive Secretary Associated Clothing Manufacturers

of New York (Inc.), New York City.

DEAR MR. CRANE: I accept with pleasure the opportunity to send a word of good will to the Associated Clothing Manufacturers of New York on the occasion of the dinner of the association Sunday next.

When New York City points with pride to its preeminent position as an industrial center, it can not forget the inestimable contribution to ward that distinc

tion of the clothing manufacturers. The manufacture of wearing apparel is without question our leading industry, with an annual production of 75 per cent of the women's clothing and over 40 per cent of the men's clothing of the United States; affording employment for an army of workers equal to the population of the great State of Wyoming; and with a value of manufactured products exceeding that of any one of 40 States in the Union.

The spirit of enterprise of the clothing manufacturers, which has done so much to make the city of New York the leading commercial metropolis of the continent, and the broad humanitarian outlook which has effected clean, wholesome, and sanitary working conditions for operatives, are tangible results of an initiative and a vision well worthy of unstinted praise.

On behalf of the city of New York, which has benefited immeasurably from a civic as well as a humane standpoint by the presence here of the great apparel industries, may I extend my heartiest appreciation for past contributions and my very best wishes not only for the success of the event Sunday evening but for the success of the great institution which is part of the very life blood of our city. Sincerely yours,

JOHN F. HYLAN, Mayor.

The CHAIRMAN. There is no original idea in the letter?
Mr. CRANE. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that all?

Mr. CRANE. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions to be asked of Mr. Crane? Mr. SHALLENBERGER. The telegrams and your general statement show you favor the Rogers bill, which is a bill for voluntary branding? Mr. CRANE. Yes, sir.

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. Do you think there would be any more branding than we have now if we pass that bill? Would that increase branding?

Mr. CRANE. I do not know.

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. Isn't it reasonable to presume that everyone now who thinks that branding is of advantage brands? Voluntary branding is determined by what the manufacturer or dealer thinks is to his advantage, and if he thinks it is to his advantage he would brand now, and if he did not think it was to his advantage he would not brand under the bill.

Mr. CRANE. It would be true with me, if I were a manufacturer. Mr. SHALLENBERGER. Then you think there would be more honest branding under this bill than there is now?

Mr. CRANE. Absolutely.

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. That would be the reason for the passage of the bill?

Mr. CRANE. Positively.

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. Do you think there is much false branding in the clothing business now?

Mr. CRANE. There is no branding that I know of in the clothing business. There are a few lines, but I do not believe there is anything wrong.

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. For instance, I have a label in the back of my coat which says that the fabric is imported. That is a thing that might be misrepresented.

Mr. CRANE. I do not think there is any misrepresentation.
Mr. SHALLENBERGER. You do not think that is done?

Mr. CRANE. No, sir.

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. Another thing I wanted to ask you is this. From your experience, do you think the manufacturer who buys wool and the material that goes into his manufacture is deceived?

Mr. CRANE. I asked that question in a room containing 75 manufacturers last night, and asked them what they relied on in their pur

chase of cloth.

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. I do not mean the cloth. I mean the man who weaves the cloth, if he is a manufacturer, whether he is deceived by the amount of new wool when really he is sold reworked wool, or does he generally know what goes into his goods; that is, the manufacturer of the cloth?

Mr. CRANE. I am not at all familiar with that part of the industry. Mr. SHALLENBERGER. You think it possible that the manufacturer is deceived by the man who sells him the raw material? He can not brand it as being pure wool, because he does not know it is pure wool.

Mr. CRANE. I understood from what I heard here of General Wood's testimony and from other gentlemen, that wool in that condition could be detected as to whether it was good or not.

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. Then we can presume that the manufacturer of the fabric knows what he is putting into it.

Mr. CRANE. Certainly.

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. Then when the manufacturer of the clothing comes to buy those goods, don't you think, as a general rule, he knows what is in the cloth, and, because of his experience and knowledge, he is not deceived?

Mr. CRANE. Not at all, but he relies more entirely on the experience of the people with whom he has been dealing.

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. And your experience leads you to believe that the manufacturer is not deceived? As he makes these different grades of clothing, he does it intelligently?

Mr. CRANE. Absolutely.

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. He charges more for the better goods, and he pays more for the better goods?

Mr. CRANE. Yes, sir.

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. And so does the retailer who sells that grade of clothing? It is not the policy or the custom of the manufacturer to deceive the retailer in the sale of goods?

Mr. CRANE. Not at all.

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. So that really the one to be protected by this legislation and the one to be considered, would be the consumer. If this bill is to result in benefit to the public he would probably be the one to be benefited.

Mr. CRANE. He would be the only one.

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. The others would take care of themselves? Mr. CRANE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Crane.

Mr. CRANE. I thank you, gentlemen.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Todd, if you are ready, we shall be glad to hear you.

« ForrigeFortsett »