Five years ago there was no laboratory way that you could do it after the salmon had been canned. But the laboratory specialist, through his microscopical and chemical tests, even five years ago could obtain evidence that was strongly suggestive, though not final. The finger pointed to the violator of the law and by other evidence obtained as a result of leads furnished by the laboratory, cases were made out and convictions had.

To-day, as the result of the experience gained through repeated tests and analyses made in the laboratory, the scientist is able to go before the jury and to produce evidence obtained by means of his ocular examination of the salmon, by means of microscopical and chemical examination, to show that the salmon was not prime at the time it was canned. No longer is it necessary to trace the fish to the cannery and there ascertain its quality when canned.

In other words, responsibility was placed upon a department and under responsibility those charged with it made good.

So, summing up in a hurry, I doubt if at this time the laboratory test, chemically or microscopically, would be conclusive as to virgin wool or shoddy. But, on the other hand, it would be persuasive, it would indicate strongly the character of the fabric, and there is no question in my mind that it would be an exceedingly risky business for a retail merchant to attempt to avoid the law.

I have here two pictures I have obtained through the kindness of Doctor Skinner of the Agriculture Department. These two pictures are taken of wool. One of them shows the virgin wool fiber and the other the wool fiber after it has been reworked.

Here is virgin wool [indicating picture]. You notice the epithelial cells, I believe they are called. Here is the other picture.

The fibers then are reworked or are shoddy. They are stripped of the scales you noticed in the other picture. The fiber is nearly smooth.

I submit that we have here as strong a case as we have to-day in many matters with which the Agriculture Department has to do in enforcing the pure food and drugs act or the insecticide act, or many matters that come before the Federal Trade Commission.

Mr. GRAHAM. Isn't it exactly on a parity with the enforcement of the pure food and drugs act? Is there any more difficulty, Mr. French, in enforcing this kind of an act than there would be in enforcing the pure food and drugs act?

Mr. FRENCH. I can not see that there is.

Mr. GRAHAM. For instance, you can have always available, in case of suspicion, from a laboratory test, some wool. You can go right to the factory where it is made, and you can bring the employees who worked in the factory into court and have them testify. I can see no difficulty in enforcement, so far as the practical enforcement is concerned, on that line. It is exactly the same as the pure food

and drugs act, is it not?

Mr. FRENCH. It rests on that principle; yes.

Just as a matter of interest, I would call the attention of the committee to a piece of a blanket I have here. It is 36 per cent wool and 64 per cent cotton.

Here in this corner [indicating] is the blanket itself. Here is the blanket that has been carbonized for cotton. The wool has been burned out, absorbed out. Here it is carbonized for wool. In other

words, this is all the wool that is in it. It is 36 per cent and the cotton is out.

This top piece is carbonized so as to leave the wool fibers but the ash has not been pounded out. In other words, the rot is still here. It can be pounded out and then it would appear like a wool mesh.

Here then is the fiber that is ready to be reworked. You can see its appearance. It has been combed out and is in the process of being made ready to be woven again into yarn.

Mr. BURTNESs. I have one question I would like to ask Mr. French. As I read your bill, it is intended to cover in particular those materials which contain wool?

Mr. FRENCH. Yes.

Mr. BURTNESs. It regards the word "wool" as being the most material factor in the garment. You want the label in such a way that the garment will not be represented as containing more virgin wool than it actually does contain. There is also, of course, the shoddy feature.

Mr. FRENCH. And cotton and silk.

Mr. BURTNESS. In so far as the labeling that will be required, in reference to other materials, such as shoddy, cotton, and silk, a label to the effect that it does not contain more than a certain percentage complies with the bill. I was wondering then how that would apply, whether it really has no application whatever to the manufacture of silks, such as are manufactured by Mr. Cheney, for instance.

Mr. FRENCH. No, it has no application to silk goods, other than a general phrase is used with respect to cotton, to shoddy, and to silk when a part of wool fabrics.

Mr. BURTNESS. I thought such a label has reference only to wool. The contents of virgin wool must be stated not less than a certain percentage but with reference to substituted materials, as they would be regarded in the wool fabric, the statement must be "not more than"?

Mr. FRENCH. That is right.

Mr. BURTNESS. I could not just see the application of Mr. Cheney's argument to this bill in so far as his goods are concerned. Is it intended that this bill should cover the manufacture of silks at all? Mr. FRENCH. No. I think Mr. Cheney was speaking directly to other bills rather than to this one.

Mr. BURTNESS. I just wanted to get that plainly in my mind one way or the other. As I see your bill, it would have no effect whatsoever upon the manufacture of silks.

Mr. FRENCH. No, excepting as silk goods might contain wool. But that would not be silk.

Mr. BURTNESS. But still you would be regardeing wool as the primary ingredient and silk as the secondary ingredient, if this bill was adopted.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Burtness, let me refer you to page 7, line 25, and see if silk is not tied in there.

Mr. BURTNESS. Silk is regarded as a substitute in woolens under this bill. That is the theory of it, just as shoddy would be regarded as a sort of substitute for wool, or cotton as a substitute for wool. As I read this bill, it certainly would not apply in any shape, manner, or form to the manufacture of what we ordinarily call silk.

The CHAIRMAN. Suppose it had 75 per cent silk and 25 per cent wool, do you think then it would have anything to do with silk? It could under this bill.

Mr. BURTNESS. Yes, of course, if it purports to contain wool.
The CHAIRMAN. I think it would be pretty nearly silk.

Mr. BURTNESS. It might not be claimed that it was purported to contain wool, then this bill would not apply.

The CHAIRMAN. Suppose there were 5 per cent of wool and 95 per cent of silk?

Mr. BURTNESS. In that case I do not know whether the manufacturer would be trying to emphasize the fact that it contained wool at all.

The CHAIRMAN. No; but it is provided for in the legislation. That is what we are talking about.

Mr. BURTNESS. I do not know that it does. The beginning of every section, as I recall it, provides that every manufacturer of goods, whatever they may be, purporting to contain wool, etc. A silk manufacturer might be putting out a silk not purporting to contain wool, although it might in reality contain some wool. I do not know whether there is such a fabric or not.

Mr. GRAHAM. That is what I was going to ask Mr. French. Commercially speaking, are some cloths made of part wool and part silk? Mr. FRENCH. They are; yes. It is a very common thing in clothing. For instance, the bright fiber you notice in clothes may be the silk. It is a very common thing.

Mr. BURTNESS. In any event, this bill is intended primarily to reach what we consider or the public considers as woolen goods of various kinds.

Mr. FRENCH. Yes; of the woven fabric and yarns.

Mr. BURTNESS. It is not intended to reach what would ordinarily be regarded as silk goods.

Mr. FRENCH. No.

Mr. MERRITT. I think when you got the new bureau started under this bill they would want to go into every mill, whether it manufactured silk, wool, cotton, or anything else.

Mr. FRENCH. I do not think so. Let us take for instance, the subject of narcotics. There are over 200,000 people in the United States eligible, by reason of their license, their occupation, to deal in them, and yet you have only perhaps 160 inspectors to look after the work.

Mr. MERRITT. Narcotics is hardly on a par with textiles in volume. Mr. FRENCH. No; but I think the inducement to fraud would be much greater.

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. I would like to ask you if in the interpretation of the pure food and drug act it is a defense on the part of the merchant who sells the product, if it turns out to be an adulterated product, that he did not know it was adulterated?

Mr. FRENCH. That is not as I understand it.

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. Isn't that same principle applicable to this bill that it would be no defense to say that the man who sold him the goods deceived him?

Mr. FRENCH. Yes; but Mr. Mapes also tried to raise the point that we could not even prove that it was not.

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. It gets to the same idea, does it not?
Mr. FRENCH. Yes.

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. So the interpretation or application of the law can be applied in this case as it is in the pure food and drug act by requiring the merchant who sells it to know what he is selling?

Mr. LEA. As I understood you yesterday, you said that an inspection of foreign factories would be necessary to the administration of this law as to imported goods?

Mr. FRENCH. It might be that a foreign manufacturer would not be able to sell his goods if his products were challenged and he might be very anxious to have his factory inspected and would invite it. We certainly could not require it and might not even do it upon invitation.

The theory is that goods manufactured abroad should not be in a more favored status under the law than those manufactured at home. As long as the foreign manufacturer complied with the law, I can not see that there would be a question raised against him. On the other hand, every manufacturer in this country, every business man in this country, would naturally watch the foreigner to see that he was not shipping in goods that were adulterated. The foreigner wants to do business. The guaranty that he may do business is his serial number with the Department of Commerce, and if it is challenged he is very anxious that his factory shall be shown to be clean and his processes right under the law. It might be that he would invite inspection.

Mr. LEA. That would require American inspection of foreign factories?

Mr. FRENCH. If inspected at all. We might prefer to say that your business must be entirely above suspicion.

Mr. GRAHAM. If the provision applied to the retailer and if the retailer were required to sell stuff that was plainly marked with what it was, then the burden would be put upon the retailer, wouldn't it? Mr. FRENCH. Yes.

Mr. GRAHAM. Is that any different burden than is now put upon the retailer of food and drugs?

Mr. FRENCH. I do not understand that it is; no.

Mr. GRAHAM. And if that burden were placed upon a retailer, would not he assure himself that the stuff he was selling was as represented? Mr. FRENCH. I have no doubt of it; yes.

Mr. GRAHAM. In that case, if the penalty were placed upon the retailer for an inspection, it would not be necessary, would it?

Mr. FRENCH. Under the pure food and drug law we have sent inspectors to foreign countries in a very limited way. The burden of proof is on the foreign producers. They want to protect their business.

The CHAIRMAN. Would the retailer have to prove his innocence or would the other man have to be proven guilty?

Mr. FRENCH. Oh, no; in our country we would have to assume that a man is innocent until proven guilty.

Mr. LEA. Isn't the question of misrepresentation by the retailer a question for the State law? When an article goes into the possession of the retailer from a producer entirely within the boundaries of the State, can we by Federal law punish him for misrepresentation?

Mr. FRENCH. You must differentiate between the article that is brought in by the retailer from another State and articles that are produced within a State.

You will notice in the language of the bill, we have not attempted to regulate affairs within the State, as to manufactures produced within a State and sold within the same State. We have followed the pure food and drug act in this regard.

Mr. LEA. And if production is entirely a local matter, a State matter, the question of misrepresentation is a matter for the State law, is it not?

Mr. FRENCH. Yes; I so understand the law.

The CHAIRMAN. The hour for adjournment has arrived and we will adjourn until 10.30 to-morrow morning.

(Thereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, the committee adjourned to meet again on Thursday, April 17, 1924, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.)

COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Thursday, April 17, 1924.

The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Samuel E. Winslow (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. If the committee will come to order, we will proceed with the further consideration of H. R. 739, and ask Mr. French if he will kindly appear. Have you any statement that you want to add of your own, Mr. French?

STATEMENT OF HON. BURTON L. FRENCH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO Resumed

Mr. FRENCH. I have nothing further, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. French is here to answer any questions which the members of the committee may see fit to put to him.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. Mr. French, your bill is criticized as providing methods of stamping and tagging which are not applicable as applied to some articles and some goods, and I am wondering why it would not be best to leave the method of indicating the composition of the textiles to regulations to be adopted by the three secretaries that you have mentioned in the fourth paragraph of your bill. Do you not think that instead of carrying in the law a specific provision as to how the tagging and stamping should be done, you could better leave that to this board of secretaries, who can adapt the regulations to the quality and the nature of the goods?

Mr. FRENCH. I would say to the committee that that question was raised four years ago. The subcommittee recommended modification of the language to more nearly meet the point that Mr. Huddleston suggests. Section 9 of the present bill indicates how the fabric shall be stamped or marked, and omitting the preliminary sentences, or lines, it says: "Shall stamp or cause to be stamped upon the back or upon the selvage of every yard of such woven fabric, in a manner that shall be legible, and in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Secretary of Commerce, the following information, etc." Now, that is as regards the fabric, as regards the yarn

Mr. HUDDLESTON (interrupting). Now, you heard what Mr. Cheney said about sheer materials.