[Omaha (Nebr.) Bee, Wednesday, April 26, 1922] DECEPTION IN TRADE-MARKS The Supreme Court of the United States has laid down a rule for the guidance of manufacturers and merchants, the close observance of which will be of great benefit to the public. It simply amounts to requiring that the articles sold under a specific trade-mark must approach the quality and texture the purchaser is led to expect by the trade-mark or other advertisement. That is, if it is sold as all wool, it must be so near all wool that no objection can lie against it on the ground that it is not what it is represented to be. For many years complaint has been made that deception in varying degree has been practiced by manufacturers, whose wares have not measured up to the standard or met the claims made by the announcement. It is not enough to set up in this regard that the purchaser is given a substantial bargain, that the article he has received will prove as serviceable as if it were exactly as it is represented. The underlying element of deception is fatal to the claim of honesty. The principle enunciated by the court is that contained in the Capper pure fabric bill, which requires that manufacturers label their wares according to their contents. Long ago pure food laws were enacted to protect against substitution in food products; contents of container laws were found necessary to protect against short weight packages or other containers, and there is no better reason for allowing fraud in the matter of fabrics than there was in regard to food. It is not a pleasant thought that the public must be protected by law against dishonesty on part of great concerns, but if the fact exists, the protection ought to be had without delay. [Tulare (Calif.) Register, June 6, 1923] The Federal Trade Commission has recently developed facts which illustrate the basis for the demand for a "truth in fabric" law. A firm of wholesale hosiery dealers in New York City has been ordered to cease advertising "ladies' art silk hose" in which there is no true silk. Such a practice is not merely an "unfair competition," which the Federal Trade Commission was created to suppress, but is a bare-faced fraud upon the public. The Federal Trade Commission, of course, has no power to impose fines or imprisonment. It can merely tell the crooks to cease, whereupon they can change the name of their firm and go ahead until told to cease again. In the meantime the public is bilked. A "truth in fabric" law, with teeth in it, would provide a jail sentence for men who deliberately attempt to defraud, and there would soon be an end to the attempts. [Post Express, Rochester, N. Y., March 19, 1923] THE TWO FABRIC BILLS The Capper-French truth in fabrics bill deals with wool alone, whereas the Lodge-Rogers bill is advocated as superior because it covers all textiles in general use. It is desirable that a law should be of general application; and as far as possible prevent and penalize frauds in fabrics of every sort. But the weakness of the broader measure appears to be that it does not provide for the compulsory branding of fabrics. Where manufacturers stood to make more by putting out unmarked fabrics they would do so. They could not be prosecuted for misbranding; and the buyer of unmarked fabrics would take them at his own risk. It is pointed out also that under the Lodge-Rogers measure fabrics of the kind that are classified as shoddy could be truthfully marked as "all, pure wool." This would certainly deceive many buyers into believing that they were getting virgin wool which had never before been woven into cloth, whereas they would be getting a fabric made of old clothes and odds and ends of woolen rags. Very much so-called shoddy is made and sold, and it has its value. But it is never sold for what it is, but always passed off on the unwary for something else; and there is nothing but the lesser price sometimes-though not always-asked for it to put the buyer on his guard. All the shoddy manufacturers are fighting desperately against the compulsory identification of their goods. But it would appear that manufacturers of the best possible woolen fabrics would make common cause with wool growers for a law under which no buyer can be deceived. It is evident on a moment's thought that scraps of old clothes torn to pieces, fluffed into a wooly mass, re-twisted into threads and re-woven would give a fabric composed of shorter, broken fibres which would not have the tensile strength and the wearing qualities of a cloth made of long-fibre virgin wool which had never been woven into cloth before. The inferior fabric has its uses. It would be a hardship on the people to prohibit its manufacture; and the better grades of cloth might be forced up so high in price as to put them almost out of reach. But it stands to reason that a law under which unbranded fabrics can be sold for what they are not, would not protect buyers like a law decreeing the compulsory branding of fabrics for what they are. There are several reasons why people who can afford them prefer imported woolen fabrics. Many of these are of exceeding beauty, but more important still is the fact that they are made on honor, are what they pretend to be, are sold for what they are, and buyers paying for the best have assurance that they are getting what they want. [St. Paul (Minn.) Herald, April 18, 1922] MAKE THEM LABEL SECOND-HAND WOOL Truth in fabric is just as logical and necessary as truth in butter, truth in business dealings, or truth in court. In other words there can be no valid reason why the uninformed public should be duped into buying "woolen" goods that are largely cotton or shoddy (shoddy is merely old, second-hand wool that has been torn up and rewoven into cloth). If it was proper to force manufacturers to label a mixture of cow tallow and butter as "oleomargarine" and not let them sell it as butter, it is also proper to force manufacturers to label cloth so as to show clearly whether it is made of virgin wool, second-hand wool, or part wool and cotton. The truth in fabric bill, now in Congress aims to force this honest practice upon the clothing manufacturers who are reluctant to surrender their fat chance of duping the public and who refuse to label their inferior goods for just what they are. There was a time when a terrific storm of protest went all over the country because the Federal Government forced food manufacturers to state whether they were using benzoate of soda and coal-tar dye to make their food products look attractive. Bleached flour, which looked wholesome and white to the housewife, but lacked the element of gluten, one of its chief baking and food elements, was also palmed off on the public until the bleached flour laws made this no longer possible. There should be no let-up until the exact constituents of food, clothing, and other products are clearly indicated. Wool will bring more to the producer when it, instead of old woolen or wool-and-cotton rags, must be put into cloth labeled "wool." The public will be better clothed and business will be rid of just one more barnacle whose only function is to yield undue profits under a false name. Our opponents have laid considerable stress upon the fact that this country is a worsted-wearing nation and that the larger part of the suiting fabrics produced are worsteds, and that worsteds are made entirely of virgin wool. In this connection we desire to call the committee's attention to the fact that there is a fabric known as wool and worsted, being a worsted warp with a wool filling, and in this fabric shoddy may be and often is used. This wool and worsted fabric has the appearance of a pure worsted fabric and when sold to the consumer is usually sold not as a wool and worsted fabric but as a worsted. We wish briefly to state our objection to the Rogers bill as a substitute for the French truth in fabric bill. The Rogers bill is a mere misbranding measure; it does not provide for the compulsory identification of substitutes in wool cloth, and if enacted it will cause the people to believe that they are protected against unidentified substitutes, when as a matter of fact they are not, and the people will unsuspectingly and confidently purchase the substitute as the genuine. It is our opinion that the passage of the Rogers bill as a substitute for the French truth in fabric bill would be a deception and a menace that would do the people of the United States a great deal of harm. So far as wool woven fabrics are concerned, any protection that might be given by the passage of the Rogers bill we already have. The Rogers bill would in no way change the present practice of selling unidentified shoddy as "wool," "pure wool," "all wool," etc. If the Rogers bill were amended as the Lodge bill was amended in the Sente, it would be even more objectionable, because it would legalize and aprrove the use of the terms "wool," "pure wool,' ," "all wool," etc., even though this description would apply to cloth or garmants made entirely of shoddy. We wish to strongly urge that a favorable report be made upon the French truth in fabric bill. The bill is thoroughly sound in every way and will be of great benefit to the consumers of the Nation. Respectfully submitted. Mr. GRAY SILVER, J. B. WILSON, Secretary. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, April 14, 1924. American Farm Bureau Federation, Washington, D. C.: Have asked Wilson, of Wyoming, to represent National Wool Growers at House hearings on fabric bills. In event he should not attend, authorize you to say for this association we oppose present form of Lodge bill and favor French-Capper. Advise placing emphasis on consumers' interest in this matter, and suggest if necessary some modification in section 9 to avoid necessity of tests for accurate determination of exact amount of shoddy content. F. R. MARSHALL. National Wool Growers' Association. Mr. GRAY SILVER, WYOMING WOOL GROWERS' ASSOCIATION, American Farm Bureau Federation, Washington, D. C.: DEAR MR. SILVER: I am inclosing herewith a statement on the French-Capper truth in fabric bill, which you may file in our behalf with the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee. I received a telegram from Mr. Marshall yesterday advising the hearing would be held on the 15th instant, so this statement is very hastily prepared and probably contains a great deal of repetition and is more voluminous than may be necessary, but it is the best I can do in the short time that I have. If there is anything in this statement that should be eliminated or added, please feel free to make any changes that you think best. I am inclosing a partial list of the organizations that have indorsed the truth in fabric bill. This is more complete than the list read in the records of the Senate hearings, and it is possible that you or Mr. French may desire to read it into the records. Of course, this only represents a small proportion of the resolutions, as practically every county farm and grange association has passed similar resolutions, and undoubtedly a great many other organizations have passed resolutions of which we have no record. Am also inclosing two copies of Editorial Light, which contains editorials from various papers. This was read into the Senate hearings, 1921, in the testimony of Mr. Alex Walker. Also inclosing objections answered, Series AA. These have not been read into the records. There may be some portion of this which you might want to use. This was put out by the National Sheep and Wool Bureau when I was acting as vice president and secretary, and the views therein expressed are my views to-day. I regret that it is impossible for me to attend these hearings, but know that you will do far better than I could do if I were there and know that some progress will be made. As I wrote you a day or so ago, if the hearings are unduly delayed and if I can be of any assistance by being in Washington, after the 20th, I will be there, although I am very busy and it is very difficult to get away at this time. Thanking you for your continued help and cooperation in this matter and with kindest regards, I am, Very truly yours, J. B. WILSON, Secretary. Mr. MAPES. Let me elaborate a little on what I have in mind. As I understand it, everybody admits that there may be better clothes made out of reworked wool than can be made or at least are made out of certain grades of virgin wool. Mr. SILVER. I wish I knew just how to Mr. MAPES (interposing). Isn't that true? You admit that there may be suits of clothes made that are more serviceable, better in every way, out of reworked wool than can be made out of certain grades of virgin wool? Mr. SILVER. You are taking, Mr. Mapes, more territory than I ever admitted, saying that certain grades of shoddy were superior to certain grades of wool. But the way you ask the question Mr. MAPES (interposing). Don't you admit that? Mr. SILVER. I do, certain grades; but the way you state the question it carries with it the implication that the buyer can not tell the difference between the fabric or the garment. Mr. MAPES. Let me finish, if you will, so that you can understand what I am getting at. Mr. Cooper, for example, gave the illustration of going into the tailor's shop and having the tailor pick out different pieces of cloth. One was all wool, all virgin wool; and another piece that was part virgin wool and part shoddy, and another that is all shoddy, we will say. As I understand it, we all concede that there might be a piece of cloth made of all shoddy that would be better than a piece of cloth that was made of all wool. If that is so, are we not reduced as consumers to the reputation and standing of the tailor who says, "It is true that this piece of cloth here is all wool, all virgin wool, this piece over here is partly wool and partly shoddy, or it is all shoddy, but I recommend the latter." I confess that few consumers know as little about clothing as I do. I am entirely at the mercy of the retailer, but to me the man who said this piece of cloth is all virgin wool would mean that it was a very desirable suit of clothes until these hearings; and that this piece of cloth made up of shoddy was not as good. So are not we reduced to the fact that we have got to depend upon the honesty and the standing and the reputation of the retailer after all? Mr. SILVER: There retailer can be imposed upon just as easy as the consumer, and unless the retailer has some protection from the manufacturer, whether it be fabrics or garments Mr. MAPES. We will go back of the retailer and say the seller. Mr. MAPES. Anywhere along the line. Mr. SILVER. The original seller knows when he is substituting and knows his reason for substituting. Mr. MAPES. But there may not be any substitution. may not be any sustitution; that is my point. There Mr. SILVER. If he has a better article by an admixture, he is entitled to the reward for having it and will get the reward for saying so. But do not ever miss the point that the person who makes an admixture and sells it as such is doing legitimate business. But in the woolen business the admixture is sold as all wool and it may in some instances be all wool, but low-grade wool. It is fraud, because he has sold it as all virgin wool, whereas as a matter of fact it does not. have the wearing qualities of virgin wool. Mr. MAPES. One witness here testified that he had an order for a suit made up of all virgin wool, loosely woven, and he expressed the opinion that it would not wear, would not be of any particular value except just to meet the buyer's whim, and would not be of any particular use to the consumer. After all, is it any use to the consumer to say that a piece of cloth is virgin wool unless one knows the goods? Mr. SILVER. Beyond any doubt, just as much as to tell him, if he is buying something else, "This is all hay and not straw," or "This is a cow," instead of a calf. In other words, you are selling him something different from what he believes he is buying. I am inclined to think that in anything and I am thinking of this kind of legislation-that takes away the opportunity of inflicting a fraud on the consumer tends to take away the harm; and the dissertation of the seller will be very much reduced, because the consumer will approach him with a different frame of mind. As it is today, he is busy convincing him that a shoddy piece of goods is all wool and all wool is the best that can be bought. Mr. MAPES. You are assuming that this misbranding bill will tend to take away deception from the consumer. Some argue that instead of being truth in fabrics, it is falsity in fabrics, as far as conveying information to the consumer is concerned. That is the question on which we have got to arrive at some conclusion. Mr. SILVER. The part that I have not been able to get across to this committee is that the grade of reworked wool that may be comparable to or better, as we gauge by cost prices in fabric or garment, makes a different grade of cloth, fabric, or garment from what the low-grade wool does, and the buyer is protected in that way, in the quality of the cloth that is made. Mr. MAPES. You have got that across, so far as I am individually concerned. I understand your position to be that a good piece of wool after it is reworked is not quite as good as it was when it was new. Mr. SILVER. Right. Mr. MAPES. I understand your contention on that and I do not myself recall the testimony, as Mr. Huddleston says, that the chairman referred to. But I do recall testimony to the effect that it would be an unnecessary expense, and perhaps an unnecessary waste, to require people to make an all virgin wool piece of cloth. The testimony before us is to the effect that they might just as well be allowed to put in a certain per cent of shoddy and reworked wool and thereby really get a more valuable piece of cloth than if they had put in 100 per cent virgin wool. I understand your position on that; but the testimony before us is that wool, for instance, varies in value from 5 cents a pound to $1.85, as I have it in my mind now. Mr. SILVER. That is not far off. Mr. MAPES. If there is such a variation in value of virgin wool, what information does the consuming public get out of marking a suit of clothes "All virgin wool?" Mr. SILVER. They get the information that when they buy a certain grade of wool, it may be a $20 suit, it may be a $40 suit, it may be a $100 suit, that they know the content of that suit. They know when they are buying all wool and half cotton or all wool and shoddy. |