Even though the fabric manufacturer can not tell to the fraction of a per cent how much virgin wool or substitutes for virgin wool a fabric contains, he can closely approximate the amount.

Therefore, it will be easy and practical for him to truthfully comply with these provisions.

VI.

CONTENTION.

"The opponents of the French-Capper truth in fabric bill contend that its enforcement depends upon being able to determine exactly how much shoddy a fabric contains and they allege that, since it is not possible by scientific tests of the fabric to tell the exact amount of shoddy a fabric contains, the bill can not be enforced."

ANSWER.

A mere misbranding law, which the opponents of the French-Capper truth in fabric bill claim can be enforced and claim would give the people the protection they seek. would, in the event that a manufacturer voluntarily stamped a shoddy fabric virgin wool, be every bit as dependent for its enforcement upon the identification of shoddy by scientific tests of the fabric as the French-Capper truth in fabric measure.

The French-Capper truth in fabric bill, if enacted, would not depend for its enforcement on whether or not the exact amount of shoddy in a fabric can be ascertained by a scientific test of the contents of the fabric.

There are several factors of undisputable effectiveness (entirely independent of whether or not the exact amount of shoddy in a fabric can be ascertained by scientific tests) which insure its enforcement, among them being the following:

The bill clothes the Government with power to require reports from the manufacturer and with authority to send a representative at any time to inspect the books, the plant, the materials, the methods, etc., of the manufacturer. The provisions of the French-Capper truth in fabric bill require that each textile manufacturer shall have a registration number filed with the Government and automatically debar from interstate commerce fabrics:

(A) That are not stamped to show contents.

(B) That do not carry the manufacturer's registration number, which identifies the maker.

Examining and auditing the manufacturer's books will disclose any false statement made in stamping. The manufacturer's books will show for any given time:

(A) The amount, of raw material (virgin wool, shoddy, or cotton) on hand, the amount purchased and the amount used.

(B) The lot, weight, and content of each fabric manufactured for any given time.

A very simple mathematical computation, based on the statement as to contents stamped on each fabric, will show the toal amount of raw material (virgin wool, shoddy, or cotton) manufactured for any given period and will show whether the amount of raw material, as computed from the statement stamped on each fabric, agrees with the statement in the manufacturer's books. (C) The registration number will identify all fabrics of any textile manufacturer in all channels of distribution, including the clothing manufacturer, the jobber, and the retailer.

(D) A Government inspector can, by means of the above elements designated (A), (B), and (C) check up with precision the manufacturer's statements as to content stamped on each fabric and detect any discrepancy or misstatement. A Government inspector can as easily and as effectively check up the manufacturer's books and detect any misstatment made in stamping fabrics, as can an official auditor check up and uncover any irergularities that may exist in a bank through its books.

Certain organizations, national, civic, etc., are interesting themselves in honest merchandising. Some of these organizations maintain vigilance committees for the specific purpose of hunting down and bringing to light and justice those who make false statement concerning their goods. Representatives of these vigilance committees could and would obtain the evidence which

would detect and convict any manufacturer who made false statements by means of elements (A), (B), (C), and (D). This would necessarily result in the Government's canceling the untruthful manufacturer's registration number. Thus the manufacturer, as a result of his own misdeed, would be prevented from sending his goods into interstate commerce and would thus be put out of business.

Honest fabric manufacturers in self-defense would track down, expose and convict the dishonest manufacturer who attempted to evade the provisions of the truth in fabric law. Not only fabric manufacturers, but honest distributors, including retailers and clothing manufacturers, would, in self-defense, invoke the aid of the vigilance committee of the Associated Advertising Clubs and other agencies to track down, expose and convict any dishonest fabric manufacturer who attempted to evade the law.

All fabric manufacturers know that the provisions of the French-Capper truth in fabric bill by means of the six factors enumerated above would surely result in:

(A) The detection and conviction of the fabric manufacturer who violated the truth in fabric law.

(B) The cancellation of the registration number of the fabric manufacturer who violated the truth in fabric law.

(C) The elimination of the dishonest fabric manufacturer from interstate commerce as a result of the cancellation of his registration number.

(D) The necessity of strict obedience to the truth in fabric law by the manufacturer, for the reason that no manufacturer could know when a Government inspector might call upon him and examine his books and detect any misstatements or evasion of the truth in fabric law.

The fear of detection with its consequences would hang like the Sword of Damocles over the head of any would-be violator of the truth in fabric law and would insure a strict enforcement of its provisions.

No law that ever was enacted has ever been fully enforced. The pure food laws can not be fully enforced, but no one would think of offering that as a reason for repealing the pure food laws. Thefts are constantly being made which are not and can not be detected, but no one would think of offering this fact as a reason for abolishing all laws against stealing. It is stated that some times as many as 70 murders in a single year are committed in New York City, the perpetrators of which are never detected or punished and, yet, to give this fact as a reason for abolishing the laws against murder would be absolutely preposterous.

Therefore, even if the truth in fabric law could not be enforced as fully as the six factors enumerated above seem to insure, there could be no possible reason for protesting against the passage of the French-Capper bill on such grounds.

It should be noted that these six factors are entirely independent of whether or not the presence or the amount of shoddy in a fabric can be detected by means of scientific tests. The protection of the public against the sale of shoddy as virgin wool does not necessitate that the exact amount of shoddy in a fabric shall be known, and the provisions of the French-Capper truth in fabric bill do not require the fabric manufacturer to state the exact amount of shoddy or other substitute that is used in a fabric. Therefore, it is not, as the opponents of the French-Capper truth in fabric bill would have it appear, necessary to be able to determine exactly how much shoddy a fabric may contain.

If a fabric manufacturer states that a fabric is made exclusively of virgin wool when it contains shoddy, the six factors enumerated above, entirely independent of the aid of any scientific test of the fabric to determine whether er not it contains shoddy, will expose the manufacturer.

However, as a matter of fact, while some scientists do not claim positively that the exact amount of shoddy in a fabric can always be determined by a scientific test, scientists do not hesitate to state that the presence of shoddy in a fabric may be detected by a microscopic examination. Chairman Esch, at the congressional hearings on truth in fabric legislation, in March, 1920, asked Dr. Alsberg, of the United States Department of Agriculture, as to the possibility of discovering the presence of shoddy in a fabric by means of scientific tests and as to the possibility of distinguishing reworked wool from virgin wool. Dr. Alsberg replied:

"We do, of course, a good deal of microscopic work on textiles in the detection of shoddy-that is to say, used wool as distinguished from virgin wool, or wool that has never before been used, is to a large extent accomplished by

the use of the microscope.

You detect the shoddy by the difference in the appearance of the fiber. There is a certain loss of scales that you see under the microscope as the result of wear that distinguishes shoddy from new wool.

Of course, it is often a relatively easy matter to detect the presence of shoddy. It is a rather difficult matter to tell quantitatively in a given fabric with exactness how much of it is shoddy and how much of it is new wool."

As has been stated, the French-Capper truth in fabric bill does not require the fabric manufacturer to state the exact amount of shoddy that a fabric contains, inasmuch as the protection of the public does not require it; therefore, a very high degree of enforcement should result.

The opponents of the French-Capper truth in fabric bill have endeavored to make it appear that the measure requires every fabric to be inspected and every fabric manufacturer's books and methods to be examined by a representative of the Government. Such claims are absolutely without foundation. The French-Capper truth in fabric bill merely clothes the Government with power to inspect fabrics and to inspect the manufacturer's premises, books, and methods; but it does not require that all fabrics shall be examined or that all fabric manufacturers' methods, premises, and books shall be inspected.

The six factors enumerated above would insure the automatic enforcement of the truth in fabric law and very rarely, if ever, would it be necessary therefore to inspect or test fabrics or to inspect the premises, books, or methods of the manufacturer.

Under the provisions of the French-Capper truth in fabric bill all fabrics not stamped would automatically be shut out of interstate commerce and would be debarred from admission to the United States. This would automatically and without any effort on the part of the United States Government insure that all fabric manufacturers would obtain their registration numbers and stamp the'r fabrics in compliance with the provisions of the law.

It is therefore perfectly obvious that the French-Capper truth in fabric bill, if enacted, would be almost entirely self-operative and self-enforcing. Further, governmental machinery already in existence could be used for whatever slight supervision the law might require. Therefore, the enforcement of the law would involve practically no additional expense whatsoever to the Government.

VII.

CONTENTION.

"That the French-Capper truth in fabric bill stigmatizes shoddy by identify ing it and that, in telling the purchaser that a fabric is virgin wool, it only tells part of the truth.

"The opponents of the French-Capper truth in fabric bill further allege that, while it may be the customer's right to know whether or not a fabric is virgin wool, it is also the customer's right to know the number of threads to the inch, the yarn specifications, and the nature of the weave or finish, any one of which items of knowledge, the opponents of the French-Capper truth in fabric bill allege, would be quite as good a measure of the quality of the fabric as the knowledge of whether a fabric is cotton, shoddy, or virgin wool."

ANSWER.

The people do prefer virgin wool to shoddy, just as they at present undeniably do prefer imported fabrics to domestic fabrics. Therefore, to identify shoddy would only stigmatize shoddy if by "stigmatizing" is meant that shoddy identified could not be sold as readily or for as high a price as when sold as virgin wool.

It is equally true that to make it compulsory to sell American fabrics only as American fabrics would stigmatize them, because they would not sell as readily nor at as high a price as when sold as imported.

It might be claimed that while it is the right of the purchaser to know whether it is an American fabric or an imported fabric he is purchasing it is also his right to know the number of threads to the inch, the yarn specifications, and the nature of the weave or finish. It might also be claimed that any one of these items of knowledge would be quite as good a measure of the quality of the fabric as the information as to whether a fabric were domestic or imported.

The fact, however, is that it is not technical knowledge of the weave or finish, or the number of threads to the inch, or the yarn specifications, or any other technical information in which the purchaser is interested. What the customer wants to know is whether the particular fabric in which he is interested is an American or an imported fabric. When the purchaser knows whether the fabric is American or imported he has the knowledge which will result in his crediting the American fabric with any merit or demerit that it possesses, just as when the purchaser knows whether a fabric is virgin wool or shoddy he will credit shoddy with any merit or demerit that it possesses.

The reasons that American fabrics are sold as imported are that they are much easier to sell as imported and a much higher price can be procured for them as imported than could be procured were the customer permitted to know the truth about where they were made.

The lie and the fraud of selling American fabrics as imported are no greater nor more unpardonable than the lie and the fraud of selling shoddy as virgin wool, as is being done under cover of the misunderstood term "all wool." It is no more preposterous to claim that to sell American fabrics for what they are would stigmatize American fabrics than it is to claim that to sell shoddy for what it is would stigmatize shoddy, and therefore that manufacturers should be allowed to continue to sell shoddy unidentified.

Any

No article that possesses merit can be stigmatized by identification. article, however great may be the unfounded prejudice it has to overcome, can speedily acquire all the prestige its merit warrants by identification. This is a fact perfectly well known to every person who has a rudimentary knowledge of business economics.

Anyone who believes in the merit of American fabrics and wants them to get credit for the merit which he believes they possess would urge that American fabrics be sold only for what they are, so that they would get credit for all merit that they possess. In like manner anyone who really believes that shoddy possesses the merit claimed for it by the opponents of the FrenchCapper truth in fabric bill would earnestly urge the passage of the measure, so that shoddy would be identified and would get credit for the merit which they allege it possesses.

Those who employ specious arguments and sophistry to protest against selling American fabrics only for what they are do so because they do not believe that American fabrics possess the merit of imported fabrics and because they desire to retain for themselves the unfair advantage and the greater price which they get from selling American fabrics as imported. Likewise those who employ specious arguments and sophistry to oppose the identifying of shoddy do so because they know that shoddy is always inferior to virgin wool and costs fabric manufacturers less than the virgin wool in place of which it is used, and because they know that it is only by continuing to sell shoddy as virgin wool that they can retain for themselves their unfair advantage and continue to procure a higher price than they could get by selling it for what it is.

CONCLUSION.

Two things are absolutely necessary in order to protect the people against the lie and fraud which result from the sale of shoddy as virgin wool under cover of the misunderstood term "all wool ".

First. The compulsory stamping of wool fabrics.

Second. The identification of shoddy.

The provisions of the French-Capper truth in fabric bill make it compulsory both to stamp wool fabrics and to identify shoddy.

No mere misbranding bill makes it compulsory to do either.

PART II.-EXHIBITS OF FIBER.

At the hearings before the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives in March, 1920, the opponents of the FrenchCapper truth in fabric bill presented exhibits of fiber and of fabric.

The selection of these exhibits and statements accompanying them evidently were calculated to extol shoddy and belittle virgin wool.

These exhibits are here enumerated and the claims made in connection with them answered.

/ I.

OPPONENTS' EXHIBIT AND STATEMENT.

"This exhibit is a high-grade, new wool, scoured and ready for manufacture. A buyer of cloth or fabric who wants goods made of such wool and is willing to pay for them should be sure of getting them, but the proposed bill gives him no such certainty. Market price, $1.95."

ANSWER.

It is unidentified shoddy that makes the purchaser uncertain whether or not he is getting the high-grade virgin wool that he wants and pays for. This is true because fabrics made from the better grade of shoddy, which is grossly inferior to virgin wool and costs the fabric manufacturer less than one-half as much as would the virgin wool in place of which it is used, can be made into a fabric which has the same appearance as a fabric made from high-grade virgin wool and, in consequence, it can be sold as a high-grade virgin wool fabric and the price of the high-grade virgin wool fabric can thus be procured for the fabric made from shoddy.

The cheap, coarse virgin wool can not be sold as the fine, high-grade virgin wool, because a novice can distinguish the difference, just as the difference can be distinguished between cheap, coarse linen and fine, high-priced linen.

Therefore, the French-Capper truth in fabric bill positively eliminates the uncertainty which makes it impossible for the purchaser to know, when he asks and pays for high-grade virgin wool, whether he is getting virgin wool or shoddy.

II.

OPPONENTS' EXHIBIT AND STATEMENT.

"1a. This sample is a fine, scoured, Australian wool, with a present market value of not less than $2.40 per pound. Obviously, this can only be used in expensive fabrics. This sample should be compared with 20 or 22 for price as well as for quality."

"20. A high-grade reworked wool or shoddy from 'all-wool' new clips or trimmings from new cloth resulting from the cutting of patterns in clothing factories; it is clean, strong fiber, clearly superior to several of the exhibits of virgin wool and yet, under the bill, it would be given the same designation as the poor grade of reworked stock-it is shoddy. Market price, $0.68."

"22. Garnetted sweater stock, made by resolving sweater yarns into the original plain fiber. This material is in every respect equal to a very high-grade virgin wool and is certainly superior to many types of new wool. Under the bill it would be classed as shoddy, and fabrics made from it would be stigmatized. Market price, $0.70.”

ANSWER.

Fabrics made from Exhibits 20 and 22 (market price, 68 cents for 20 and 70 cents for 22) present the same appearance as fabrics made from Exhibit la (virgin wool, market value, not less than $2.40) and, because the appearance of the fabric made from the shoddy would be the same, the price of a fabric made from this fine, scoured, Australian wool could be procured for the fabric made from shoddy.

It should be noted that the better grade shoddy, including Exhibits 20 and 22, is never used in place of the cheap, poor-grade virgin wool. The better grade shoddy is only used in place of the choice virgin wool, and is only used in fabrics in which the purchaser has a right to expect and does expect not only virgin wool but the choicest virgin wool. Furthermore, no person in his right mind, manufacturer or otherwise, would claim that any shoddy, however high grade, could equal the fine, scoured virgin wool, the market price of which is quoted at $2.40 per pound.

Please note the further indisputable facts:

(A) Virgin wool can not be reworked into shoddy without appreciably impairing vital factors.

(B) Shoddy is always inferior and costs the fabric manufacturer less than the virgin wool in place of which it is used.