and fined would not necessarily prevent the textile manufacturer from repeating his violation, but having his registration number and license cancelled by the United States Government would automatically shut all goods of such fabric manufacturer out of the Interstate Commerce of the United States, and this would not only prevent a recurrence of the violation, but would also prevent the goods of such manufacturer from entering Interstate Commerce in the United States and would in consequence put the manufacturer out of business. Under the provisions of the Capper-French truth in fabric bill both the American and the foreign manufacturer would have to come to the United States Government and secure a license and registration number before their goods could enter interstate commerce in the United States. Inspection of the fabric manufacturers' books would disclose whether or not the fabric manufacturer was complying with the law, and unless the fabric manufacturer, the American as well as the foreign manufacturer, voluntarily permits the inspection of this books (just as the British subject who desires to cross from Canada to the United States must voluntarily permit the inspection of his baggage), the fabric manufacturer's license and registration number, the American's as well as the foreign manufacturer's may be cancelled by the United States Government, thereby automatically shutting out of Interstate Commerce of the United States all goods made by such manufacturer.

Further, in the case of the foreign manufacturer, goods made by him would not only be shut out of Interstate Commerce of the United States, but they would not be permitted to enter the United States at all.

These facts absolutely refute Senator Watson's alleged objection. Further, these facts prove conclusively that the licensing feature of the truth in fabric bill will insure the bill's enforcement with both foreign and American manufacturer without detecting the presence of shoddy in cloth.

Senator Watson states:

*

CONTENTION

"Another and a very grave reason why I am not for this bill at this time is that there is not wool enough produced in the United States to clothe one-third of the people * *thus the well-to-do in the country would naturally buy all of the one-third and force the other two-thirds to wear clothes made of either shoddy or cotton or a mixture of the two. * *

*

"Two-thirds of the people would be compelled to wear clothing made of shoddy while only one-third would be able to wear clothing made of virgin wool."

ANSWER

Senator Watson duri ngthe hearings on the truth in fabric bill made a remark to the effect that as a result of an old economic law it inevitably results that the cheaper product drives out the dearer product in those cases where the two products are sold under the same name and are believed by the purchaser to be the same.

Shoddy and virgin wool are both sold under the same names of "wool,” “pure wool," "all wool," and areb elieved by the purchaser to be the same.

Therefore, because of the economic law to which Senator Watson called attention there can be no hope of an adequate supply of virgin wool until shoddy is identified and prevented from selling under the same names as virgin wool.

Further, this economic law, to which Senator Watson directed attention, should make it clear and conclusive to every reasonable mind that this alleged reason given by Senator Watson for opposing the truth in fabric bill, viz, that only one-third enough virgin wool is produced, is the strongest kind of a reason for supporting the bill.

Even if the premises, which Senator Watson states, namely, "that the well-todo would buy all the virgin wool and force the other two-thirds to wear shoddy," were sound (which they are not), these alleged objections nor any other alleged objection that could possibly be advanced could justify the fraud that now results from permitting the purchaser to believe that shoddy is virgin wool in order to procure a higher price for cloth and clothes containing shoddy than, could be procured if the truth were known.

Further, the provisions of the Capper-French truth in fabric bill do not prevent or even restrict the use of substitutes, and with the Capper-French truth in fabric bill on the statute books there would be the same amount of raw materials, both virgin wool and substitutes, as prior to its enactment, and if two-thirds of the people would be compelled to wear clothing made of shoddy, then certainly twothirds of the people are compelled to wear clothing made of shoddy now.

There would, however, be this vital difference. With the Capper-French truth in fabric bill on the statute books, the people would know that they were buying and wearing shoddy, and they would know exactly what they were paying for, whereas now, while they wear shoddy, they do not know it, and when they get shoddy, they do not get what they believe they are getting and what they believe they are paying for.

CONTENTION

Senator Watson gives as another alleged objection the following statement: "Third. If you will read the testimony, you will see that the men who make the Hart, Schaffner & Marx clothing, the Style-plus, and the Stein-Bloch, the three largest manufacturers of clothing in America, all testified that they bought their cloth from certain factories; that they never inquired whether they were wool or not and did not care.

*

* *

"The buyer does not know whether he is buying wool or shoddy, but he does know whether or not he is satisfied, and that is all there is to it."

ANSWER

There were three men's clothing manufacturers who testified at the hearings on the truth in fabric bill before the Senate subcommittee of which Senator Watson was chairman. One was William Goldman, of New York City; another was Meyer Lang, who stated that he was vice president of Fashion Park, a manufacturer of clothing at Rochester, N. Y.; the third was Sigmund E. Sonneborn, of Henry Sonneborn Co., Baltimore, Md., manufacturer of Style-plus clothes. We quote from Mr. Sonneborn the following statement: "In Style-plus clothes we use only all-wool goods."

Here is a direct statement that the manufacturer making Style-plus clothes not only does care whether the fabric is wool, but according to his own statement, as recorded in record of the hearings, he says that they use only all-wool goods. Meyer Lang, vice president of Fashion Park, a clothing manufacturer, in his testimony at the Senate hearings, as recorded in Part I of the hearings before the Senate subcommittee, said:

The question that we asked was, 'Is this merchandise wool or will it boil

out?"""

Senator WATSON. What do you mean by that?

Mr. LANG. We mean by that "Are there any ingredients of cotton in the cloth?"

The testimony of Mr. Lang here quoted, on page 327, Part I, of the published report of the hearings on the truth in fabric bill before the Senate subcommittee, is that Mr. Lang also is interested in knowing whether or not the fabric is wool and that he does care.

Mr. Goldman, the other one of the three manufacturers who testified, in his statement to the Senate committee on truth in fabric bill said:

"But if we have reason to believe that there is some cotton put into cloth that there ought not to be any cotton in, then we test the fabric to determine whether there is cotton in it."

This is direct and conclusive evidence that Mr. Goldman also, as well as the other two men's clothing manufacturers who testified at the truth in fabric hearings, does care whether or not the fabric is "wool."

Hart, Schaffner & Marx are one of the largest clothing manufacturers, but your attention is called to the fact that Hart, Schaffner & Marx did not testify at the truth in fabric hearings as stated by Senator Watson.

Your attention is also invited to the further important fact that Hart, Schaffner & Marx have an "all-wool" policy and feature the term "all wool," thus proving that Hart, Schaffner & Marx do care whether or not the fabric is wool.

Your attention is also called to the fact that the Stein-Bloch Co. did not testify at the truth in fabric hearings as stated by Senator Watson, and you are also asked to note the fact that the Stein-Bloch Co. also has an "all-wool" policy and it features the term "all wool," thus proving that the Stein-Bloch Co. does care whether the fabric is "wool."

Replying to that part of Senator Watson's alleged objection in which he would have it appear that the buyer does not know or care whether he is buying wool or shoddy, your attention is called to the following indisputable facts:

1. Every person is interested in knowing whether or not it is the genuine or a substitute he is purchasing.

2. The reason that every person is interested in knowing whether it is the genuine or a substitute that he is purchasing is because this knowledge is the purchaser's only protection against those who would permit him to believe that the substitute is the genuine in order to procure from him a higher price than would be paid if the truth were known.

3. A fabric can be made that contains cotton which will give excellent service and from the standpoint of strength and wear be even better than some of the costly types of "all-wool" fabrics. This fact, however, does not lessen the purchaser's desire to know when the fabric contains cotton, and the reason for this desire is in order that the purchaser may protect himself against being charged a higher price for cloth containing cotton than would be paid if the truth were known.

Precisely the same reason exists for the purchaser's desire to know when the fabric contains shoddy, and where purchasers have failed to inquire whether fabrics described as "all-wool" contained shoddy, it was because purchasers heretofore have not even suspected that cloth described as "all-wool" could contain shoddy.

All of these facts provide the proof that the alleged objection of Senator Watson is based on premises that are in direct conflict with the known facts in the case. Further, these facts provide the strongest kind of reasons why the truth in fabric bill should be enacted.

Senator Watson states:

CONTENTION

"We have just written a tariff bill imposing very high duties on wool, and my judgment is that it will not be possible to import much wool or many woolens under this schedule. It will be many years before the sheep industry can be so developed in the United States that we can adequately supply the demand for wool for home consumption. In the meantime the great part of the people will be forced to wear goods made of shoddy or part shoddy and part cotton, and there is no escape from this inevitable conclusion."

ANSWER

Senator Watson alleges that the greater part of the people in the United States will be forced to wear goods made of shoddy or part shoddy for many years. This being true, it is of the utmost importance that the Capper-French truth in fabric bill be enacted in order to protect the purchaser of these goods made of substitutes from being permitted to believe the substitutes are the genuine in order to procure a higher price from the purchaser for the substitutes than the purchaser would pay if he knew the truth.

There is but one reason why the purchaser is permitted to believe a substitute is the genuine and that reason is in order to procure a higher price from the purchaser than he would pay if he knew the truth.

Therefore, in the light of reason and logic this alleged reason for Senator Watson for opposing the truth in fabric bill becomes a powerful reason why the truth in fabric bill should be enacted at once, as it is the only means of protecting the public against the fraud that now results from being permitted to believe shoddy is virgin wool.

Senator Watson states:

CONTENTION

66* * * It can not be told whether or not it (the fabric) is part shoddy and part wool because shoddy is wool. We had displays made before us made from all shoddy or noils, which are classed as shoddy because they are the result of the first process in the manufacture of woolens, * * *

66* * * and yet those fabrics showed stronger and better and were certified to give longer service than some made of mostly wool and part shoddy."

ANSWER

Under the terms of the Capper-French truth in fabric bill noils are not classed as shoddy, but as virgin wool. The following is quoted from the provisions of

the bill:

"That the term 'virgin wool' as used in this act shall mean wool that has never previously been spun or woven into cloth;

*

Noils have never previously been spun or woven into cloth and are, therefore, classified as virgin wool.

In answering that part of Senator Watson's contention in which he would have it appear that shoddy is better than virgin wool (even if this were true, [which of course it is not] it is wholly irrelevant) the following indisputable facts are brought to your attention:

1. No merit that a substitute may possess can justify or in any sense excuse the fraud of permitting the purchaser to believe the substitute is the genuine and thereby procuring a higher price than would be paid if the truth were known. 2. Many American fabrics are better than imported fabrics, but this fact can not justify or in any sense excuse the fraud of permitting the purchaser to believe American fabrics are imported in order to procure a higher price for American fabrics than would be paid if the truth were known.

The only cure for this fraud is legislation making it compulsory for the fabric manufacturer (the only one who knows) to stamp cloth and state contents designating both the genuine and the substitute in precise and unmistakable terms. Furthermore, the Capper-French truth in fabric bill by its licensing and registration provisions will also put a stop to the fraud that now results from selling American fabrics as imported.

Senator Watson states:

CONTENTION

"Bills have been introduced in Congress for this proposition occasionally for the last thirty years, and no committee has yet been found to report favorably after full investigation. The same condition presents itself to the Committee on Interstate Commerce of the House at this time.

"When Senator Cummins appointed me to succeed Senator Frelinghuysen as chairman of the subcommittee having charge of this investigation, he said to me that he thought this would be a good bill if it was found to be workable, but it was not and could not be made so. He said that he had studied the subject at some length and was satisfied that this was the situation."

ANSWER

While it is true that various truth in fabric bills have been introduced in Congress during the last thirty years, this is the first truth in fabric bill that has been introduced with a licensing and a registration provision. The licensing and the registration principle has been thoroughly tested in other legislation, and has proven an effective means of control and enforcement.

Various pure food laws were introduced in Congress over a period of more than thirty years and during all that time no committee was found to report favorably after full investigation. In every instance the committee or the leaders in Congress expressed the belief that the pure food laws were unworkable. Further, the claim was made by the opponents of the pure food laws-a claim which was concurred in by the various committees to which the pure food laws were submitted-that the pure food laws could not be enforced because there were many sophistications of food which could not be detected by any method, either microscopic or chemical, then known to science.

This condition continued until the late Theodore Roosevelt became the leader of the majority party in Congress and the occupant of the White House. These alleged objections of the opponents of the pure food laws and the fact that many sophistications of food could not be detected, did not convince the late Theodore Roosevelt as they had convinced previous party and congressional leaders and the committees to whom appeal had previously been made for pure food legislation and although the pure food laws did not, as does the CapperFrench truth in fabric bill, have as part of their provisions a tried and proven licensing and registration principle, yet the late Theodore Roosevelt, then President of the United States, insisted that the pure food laws should be enacted, and they were put on the statute books with the result that there is probably no man in Congress to-day, either in the Senate or in the House of Representatives, who would for a moment defy public sentiment by suggesting the repeal of the pure food laws, although it was not until the destinies of the Nation were in the hands of a man with the late Theodore Roosevelt's courage, vision, and determination that it was possible to surmount the lack of vision, the prejudice, and the scepticism of the various party leaders who for thirty years had turned down the proposed pure food legislation.

CONTENTION

Seantor Watson states:

"At the conclusion of the hearings on the truth in fabric bill the other two Senators who sat with me, Fernald of Maine and Smith of South Carolina were to go on and complete the hearings by having the tests that we agreed on to be made at the conclusion of the hearings (the test to determine whether or not shoddy can be detected). These tests have not been made, though Senator Fernald told me last week that he was now going forward with the arrangements."

ANSWER

Senator Watson in his letter of April 13, 1922, to Mr. Crane states:

"There is no way known to science by which shoddy can be told from virgin wool."

That being the case, why has conclusion of the hearings been delayed to await these tests to determine whether or not the presence of shoddy in cloth can be detected? It is known and conceded by everyone that the presence of shoddy in cloth cannot be detected.

Therefore, why delay this important legislation for an alleged attempt to find out what is already known?

The licensing and registration feature of the truth in fabric bill will positively insure the bill's enforcement without the ability to detect the presence of shoddy in cloth. This fact can not be successfully disputed.

As already stated, when the pure food and drug act was placed on the statute books, there were many sophistications of food that could not be detected by any means then known to science, and if the enactment of the pure food laws had been deferred awaiting the discovery of tests whereby these various sophistications of food could be detected, the probabilities are that the pure food laws would never have been enacted.

They were, however, enacted in spite of the fact that these various sophistications of food could not be detected and notwithstanding that this apparently left the bill without any effective means of enforcement.

After the bill was enacted, however, the scientists had an incentive for discovering means whereby these various sophistications of food could be detected, and they went ahead and discovered the means.

The same thing would result in the case of the Capper-French truth in fabric bill, were it necessary to detect the presence of shoddy, as it was in the case of the pure food laws. The licensing and registration provision, however, as has already been shown, makes it wholly unnecessary in the case of the Capper-French truth in fabric bill to detect the presence of shoddy in cloth.

The utter inconsistency of the contentions of opponents of the truth in fabric bill that they are against the bill because they fear it could not be completely enforced, is shown by the fact that no bill ever proposed or enacted was ever completely enforced.

It is, therefore, as absurd for one to say that he is against the enactment of the truth in fabric bill because he fears that it would not be fully enforced as to propose that the laws against murder and stealing be repealed because they are not and never can be fully enforced. The income tax is evaded by many, and it is a notorious fact that even personal property taxes have to a condiserable extent been evaded, and yet no one has ever yet made the preposterous suggestion that because tax laws are not fully enforced, they should, therefore, be repealed, but such a suggestion would be no more preposterous than to say that one is opposed to the enactment of the Capper-French truth in fabric bill because of a fear that it could not be fully enforced.

The fact of the matter is, however, as has been shown conclusively, that there are few, if any laws on the statute books that are as fully enforced as would be the Capper-French truth in fabric bill as the result of the registration and licensing provision.

This provision, as has been shown, would result in the almost automatic enforcement of the bill. For example, every manufacturer who comes within the provisions of the bill, both foreign and domestic, would have to come to the United States Government and procure a license and a registration number, for if he did not, his goods would automatically be shut out of interstate commerce in the United States, and in the case of the foreigner, they could not enter the United States at all.

Therefore, manufacturers, both foreign and domestic, would have to take the initiative and would have to come to the United States Government and comply