buying and that no profits should be made by trading on the ignorance of the purchaser. The unfortunate protest opens up melancholy perspectives on the devious ways of modern business methods. An honest business has nothing to fear from the truth. Honest merchandise will sell on its own merits and bring the merchant fair and profitable returns. A business man who seeks undue profits and higher gains by imposing on the confidence of the public by misstating the nature and character of his goods, occupies a low level of morality. But one who openly opposes a law that would make such dishonest practices impossible seems entirely lost to every sense of honesty and decency. Much crooked dealing must have entirely blunted and completely obliterated his sense of justice. Business life must, indeed, have sunk to low depths is such things are possible. Here again we have an instance of what greed will accomplish for man and how the insatiable love of profit will outweigh every other consideration. "For the sake of the public which enjoys very little protection against exploitation, and which is at the mercy of every unscrupulous tradesman, we sincerely hope that the bill will pass in spite of the protest of the retailers who see their business threatened by honesty and truth. A business that rests on dishonesty and that can not flourish except through misrepresentation of its wares has no legitimate right to exist. The public will be benefited if such dealers are pushed to the wall and if their business is wiped out. It is time that the public be protected against trickery by which it is fleeced and robbed of its honestly earned dollars. But the men who try to defeat a measure that demands nothing more than mere honesty in business transactions stand self-condemned by their action." Mr. L. W. LAWSON, McPherson, Kans. APRIL 22, 1922. DEAR Mr. LAWSON: You are one of the directors of the National Retail Clothing Association, which I understand has gone on record against the truth in fabric bill. Will you please write me what advantage retail clothiers can have in selling goods that they, themselves, can not guarantee to be virgin wool. It seems to me that the only man who could be interested in refusing to honestly label his goods would be the manufacturer, who might be able to use reworked wool in "all-wool" fabrics. This practice is making you dissatisfied customers, who are continually disappointed in the wearing qualities and appearance of "all-wool" clothing and it is destroying the wool industry of the Nation. This and other injustices as practiced upon the farmers is reducing their purchasing power. We will be mighty glad to hear from you and hope you can use your influence to get your organization to indorse this bill, which simply asks that goods be properly labeled. I am inclosing on separate sheet copy of a few editorials that have come to my attention recently. I want to assure you that the State and American Farm Bureau is a constructive and conservative movement among farmers that believe in justice and equal opportunity to all classes of industry and asks for no special privileges that are not of benefit to other groups as well. Very truly yours, You speak of the discussion having become complicated, and you also speak of a fundamental misunderstanding of the points at issue as well as the object sought to be obtained by the proponents of the truth in fabric bill. The issue and the purpose of the bill are perfectly clear and conclusive and are easily understood notwithstanding the opponents have made fullest use of their skill to complicate the discussion, and to hide the issue and the purpose of the bill by introducing irrelevant points, and attempting to set up such points as the issue. In the early part of your letter you quoted me as saying that “it is an inherent and flagrant wrong that should be righted to permit the purchaser to believe that a substitute is better than the genuine, What I stated was: That "it was an inherent and flagrant wrong to permit the purchaser to believe a substitute is the genuine," not "is better than the genuine." As I have already reminded you the question of whether shoddy or virgin wool is the better is not the issue and to determine this is not the purpose of the truth in fabric bill, and I repeat that the purpose of the Capper-French truth in fabric bill is to prevent the fraud that now results from permitting the purchaser to believe that the substitute is the genuine, in order to procure for the substitute a higher price than would be paid if the purchaser knew he was purchasing the substitute. The sale of both the substitute and the genuine under the same name, thereby forcing the purchaser to buy a substitute against his will and to pay a higher price for the substitute than would be paid if the truth were known, is a fraud that outrages both moral and economic law. The sentiment of the people of the United States, the interests of the Nation, and the protection of the principles upon which our institutions are founded, demand that a stop shall be put to this fraud and that the public shall be protected in the case of cloth and clothes as they are now protected by the pure food laws in the case of food, and that is the reason that I am supporting the bill and this is the answer to your statement, namely: "It is, however, necessary to inquire into the reason why this legislation has your support, and what benefit is expected to come from it, and to whom?" It is apparent that you and the shoddy interests for whom you speak are determined that shoddy in cloth and clothes shall not be identified. Substitutes and adulterants have been identified in food, and because it is right and because the people desire that substitutes shall be identified in wool cloth, the proponents of the truth in fabric bill will continue to support this cause until legislation making it compulsory to identify substitutes in cloth and clothes is placed upon the statute books. It is my purpose to give full and sympathetic attention to both sides of every question and to frankly and freely discuss important questions. Your letter, however, presents no new arguments or aspects of the case. The points you raise are the same old irrelevant points that were raised by the opponents of the pure food laws and that have been presented over and over again by the opponents of the truth in fabric bill. Therefore, it appears to me that further correspondence on this subject with you, or with the shoddy interests, for whom you speak, is unwarranted. PART II NATIONAL SHEEP AND WOOL BUREAU OF AMERICA ANSWERS THE CONTENTIONS In a letter under date of April 13, 1922, addressed to Mr. P. H. Crane, secretary of the Indiana Federation of Farmers' Associations, Indianapolis, Ind., Senator Watson attempted to justify his attitude toward the Capper-French truth in fabric bill. The contentions of Senator Watson, which are enumerated on the following pages, are based on Senator Watson's views as expressed in this letter of Senator Watson to Mr. Crane. The answer to each of these contentions appears immediately following the contention. CONTENTION Senator Watson concedes that the truth in fabric bill can be enforced with American fabric manufacturers by means of inspections and because of fear of prosecution, but alleges that we have no way of reaching foreign fabric manufacturers and gives as his opinion that the bill could not be enforced with foreign fabric manufacturers unless the presence of shoddy can be detected in cloth. Senator Watson further contends that there is no way known to science by which shoddy can be told from virgin wool and he contends that because of inability to detect the presence of shoddy in cloth the truth in fabric bill could not be enforced with foreign fabric manufacturers. ANSWER Senator Watson is correct in his statement that the truth in fabric bill can be enforced with American fabric manufacturers, but in attempting to explain why the bill can be enforced with American fabric manufacturers he is wrong in that part of his statement which says that "it would be because of fear of prosecution." The fact is that the would-be violator would have far less fear of prosecution than he would of having his registration number and his license cancelled by the United States Government. Being prosecuted and even being convicted 99564-24-23 1 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; * * |