TRUTH IN FABRIC

FRIDAY, APRIL 1, 1938

UNITED STATES SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m., in committee room 249 in the Senate Office Building, Senator H. H. Schwartz (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senator Schwartz.

Senator SCHWARTZ. The subcommittee will come to order.
First we shall hear from Mr. Marshall.

STATEMENT OF F. R. MARSHALL, SECRETARY, NATIONAL WOOLGROWERS ASSOCIATION, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Chairman, my name is F. R. Marshall, secretary of the National Woolgrowers Association, Salt Lake City.

My testimony this morning will be rather brief-that is, for me. Mr. Wilson represented the National Woolgrowers Association in his testimony yesterday morning. Of course I fully subscribe to all he said, and I am trying to supplement his statement only by a few points.

I also find that on June 9, in appearing before your committee, I filled up your record to the extent of seven or eight pages. I have glanced at the testimony I gave at that time, and I have no corrections or alterations to make in my meaning; however, there is one important typographical error which can be corrected at this time. On page 42 of the hearing on Senate bill 2190, on June 9, 1937, before this committee, the following change should be made: Page 42, paragraph 3, line 2, the word "bill" should be "mill." At that time, Senator, I was referring to a statement I attributed to a manufacturer who had told us about his extensive use of rayon in men's worsted suitings, in order to cheapen the fabric. And he explained to us, as I attempted to say in the record at that time, that he preferred not to have rayon in his mill. The transcript had me say that he preferred not to have it in his bill.

I am just going to touch on a few things which I think the record should indicate a little more clearly, Senator. Although other witnesses have referred to it, I think it is worth while, in closing this record for your committee, to refer to this matter of imported and exported wastes. Some of our opponents yesterday testified that the inferior woolen-mill wastes of this country were exported. I do not recall that they were so emphatic on the idea that we imported considerable amounts of waste, in this country.

59043-38-3

29

I have in my folio, over there and I shall not detain you, to get it the statement of the rag imports and other waste imports which came into this country in 1937. In that year, Senator, the records of the Department of Commerce show that we imported from Europe rags to the extent of over 6,000,000 pounds. It may be, as our opponents stated yesterday morning, that those are the superior shoddies that we import; but I submit, Senator, that even though they may be the best European rags, or perhaps they would have us believe they are rags from the cast-off clothing of the better classes of people, nevertheless I think they would have to admit in fairness that even though those European rags are better than our rags or come off better people, still, if we are going to wear them in our clothing, we should at least know that they are European rags.

And that is one of the objects of this bill, as applying to European, domestic, or any other rags or similar shoddy materials.

Also I do not feel such that the record is quite clear enough on the point that we proponents of this bill are not putting anything in the way of a legitimate and honest use of these wastes. One witness yesterday morning had a good deal to say about the insufficiency of virgin wool to meet all our textile woolen requirements, and about the necessity for the poor man's clothing, and all that sort of stuff which we have heard so many times. But I hope your committee will not be in any danger of being confused, as some of our opponents seem to be, on this important point: That all we are asking, here, is to tell the buyer the truth.

Mr. Hewat just referred to the Supreme Court decisions in the Algona Lumber case and the Winstead Hosiery case; and I think your committee will remember that the rules laid down in those decisions are completely applicable and fitting in this case you now have before

you.

My friend Mr. Besse yesterday morning was very much concerned over the grievous error that we spokesmen for the growers were making here. He felt that if we succeed in getting this bill enacted into law soon, then in his opinion the provisions of this bill will operate to injure the American wool growers. I am not going to take much of your time regarding that point. Senator, but shall just make a comment or two upon it. If Mr. Besse is correct and if we do not know our own business, and if it turns out as he fears, why, you will never hear from us again, at all, and we shall never come back here to ask you to work with us and to believe what we say. But in saying to you, now, that we believe the enactment of this bill desirable, we are very confident that it is going to work in the interests of the wool growers. We are not advocating this bill altogether selfishly or solely for our own profit. We shall abide by such results as come through legislation for labeling to enable the buyers of American goods to know what they are getting.

Mr. Besse named three points in regard to the effect upon the producers of virgin wool in this country, of this plan of labeling. As to those points he mentioned, I regard one of them of consequence, and I should like to refer to it briefly. He referred to the fact that the enactment of this bill would result in increased imports of goods. Of course, as you are very well aware, Senator, in recent days we have been doing our best, before the Reciprocity Committee on Importation, to help out the woon manufacturers and ourselves, by seeking

to prevent an undue lowering of duties on foreign goods, on the basis that increased imports of British or Japanese or Czechoslovakian fabrics would lessen the American mills' consumption of virgin wool and possibly would lessen it to the point below our production, in which case we should have a condition under which the tariff that might be in effect would have no value to us at all; that is to say, if the American mills were not using up as much wool as we grew, we would be on an export basis, and all that goes with it.

Of course, we are very much concerned, and necessarily so, with increased imports of goods. But we are not concerned, Senator, with the danger of increasing imports through the operation of the labeling machinery which the Federal Trade Commission will employ when this bill becomes law.

They have expressed their fears, and possibly there is some ground for their fears since they are opposed to the bill, anyway, and of course they were right and proper in offering that, to get it before your committee if they can-and they expressed their solicitude on our behalf, on the basis that in the cases of imported materials it would not be possible properly to enforce the law, because the makeup and mixture and content of reclaimed wool could not be determined. They may be correct, Senator, in assuming that, under the enforcement provisions of this bill, the fabrics could not be followed or traced to foreign factories, as they can and will be followed in this country to our domestic factories. There may be something in that. I understand that other witnesses have presented or will present to you some ideas on perfecting the machinery of this bill with respect to those imported fabrics. But I would ask you to remember that, even though the Federal Trade Commission, under this proposed law, does not have full access to the records of foreign mills exporting cloths to this country, even if that be a fact, it still does not permit the foreign exporter to violate our rights with impunity, in putting his goods on our marts.

We have made a great deal of progress since this committee took this up, Senator; I think we have made more than in the 35 years up to now; and I feel we are getting some place now. We have progressed to the point where all sides agree that accurate description of new and reworked wool is now possible. And we certainly may feel assured of having made definite progress when we recall that Mr. Besse informed the committee that the consumer had a right to know when he was buying shoddy.

The apparent difficulties seem to be only with respect to the difficulty of accurate quantitative determination. I would call your attention to the use of the term "accurate." While both sides agreeand I assume your committee may be of the same opinion-that the accurate determination is not always, or generally, possible, on the other hand we do not have to have an exact determination of the reclaimed wool content even for these imported goods.

I assume that Dr. Von Bergen, who is an expert along this line, can tell you more regarding that than I can. But I have talked with the Doctor and with many other scientific workers-both those employed by the Government, and those employed and working in other places-and they tell me that while in most cases they would not care to commit themselves to a positive statement of 5 percent or possibly a little more, for the reclaimed wool content in any fabric,

yet on the other hand if a fabric were labeled to contain 15 or 20 percent of foreign fabric, if such should happen, and it should in fact contain 40 or 50 percent, then the factor of "exact determination" would not apply, with any such wide discrepancy as that. So, Senator, I think your committee can readily realize and can safely proceed on the understanding that the section of the bill with reference to mislabeling and misrepresentation would be quite sufficient and ample for the enforcement purposes of the Federal Trade Commission.

I did not clearly understand Mr. Besse's other two points with reference to how this bill would hurt the wool growers. As my notes show, the two points to which Mr. Besse referred, seemed to me to be but one point; and that is, that owing to the difficulty and possibly some little fuss at the beginning of labeling, it might take a little while for some of the big stores to get their salespeople educated. Perhaps some of the managers would need a little education-which has long been neglected-as to the significance of these labels and what they mean, and perhaps there would be a little difficulty there. But as I understood it, the fear was expressed that because of some difficulties which he fancied might arise through the use of these labels in the stores, there would be the disposition to go to other fabrics-not being labeled-such as rayons and other fabrics that he mentioned.

We are not at all alarmed on that score, Senator. In fact, we do not yet believe we would lose the sale of a single pound of wool owing to the retailers' shifting to pushing other fabrics which, as yet, may not be labeled as the wool fabrics will be labeled soon, when this bill becomes law.

I was going to make a comment about the mill records being made available to the Federal Trade Commission. However, I think I shall skip that, just with having referred to it as being as in the case of the imported goods.

I should like to proceed just a little further, from the grower's standpoint, with respect to the idea that some shoddy is better than some virgin wool. Of course that is probably true. But before your committee disposes of this question, Senator, I hope you will have an opportunity to act on the suggestion Mr. Wilson made to you yesterday morning, in testifying for our association: That you obtain from such people who may be able to furnish it, the information of how much American-grown virgin wool is defective. My own guess at that would be that the outside figure, for Americangrown virgin wool that could be said to be defective, as such, in any sense, would be not to exceed 5 percent.

Then, along with that investigation on your part, you would be very much facilitated in your handling of that phase of the matter— and, Senator, I think that is the strongest point they have-if you could know the percentage of the reclaimed or reworked material which is superior to that designated percentage of the inferior virgin wool. I think that would be very enlightening. And I do not have the slightest fear regarding the effect upon our position with regard to this bill, of your finding the facts on that-if, indeed, our opponents are in a position or are willing to furnish them to you.

I think our opponents and possibly, Senator, some of our own people, perhaps overestimate a little bit the effect that this bill, when enacted into law, is going to have upon the buying habits and customs of the consumers. I am sure our opponents overestimate that. I am sure also that they are sincere when they ask you to consider the fact that the mere labeling of virgin wool-say, an allvirgin-wool fabric-is not a guarantee of construction or of serviceability. Of course we all know that, Senator. This is only an attempt to give the fabric content. It is no guarantee of construction. But knowing, as I do, the goods that Mr. Hewat's factories makeMr. Hewat, who sat in this chair just before me-I am sure you will find that these users of virgin wool also produce fabrics of sufficient construction, strength, and serviceabilty.

After all, again it is only a matter of being fair and open with the consumer, in telling what he is buying. I feel very sure, Senator, that if you will let the consumers have a chance to know when they are buying reclaimed wool and a chance to know how much reclaimed wool they are buying, they will still buy if they want to or if the price or other considerations suggest their purchasing that article. But the whole matter rests on the oft-repeated basis of their right to know the contents of what they are buying.

I have not been present at all the hearing this morning, Senator. It may be that former witnesses have referred to other standards. There is a good deal of merit in the idea of letting the consumer know other facts pertaining to the serviceability and value of woolen fabrics. Personally I hope the day may come when some manufacturers, or manufacturers generally, will attach to their products a statement of the results of rubbing tests or of tests of tensile strength, and that sort of thing. All that would be very helpful. I think perhaps this labeling of content is but a beginning. But it is to be remembered that a few mills already are labeling their goods to show their tensile strength and their thermal qualities, and so on; and there is nothing to prevent these manufacturers of goods containing reclaimed wool. from going further, on the labeling, and showing the tensile strength or thermal qualities of the fabrics made from reclaimed wool. So I think they have no need to fear injury on that score at all.

It does seem to me that after 35 years, the air has been very largely cleared. It seems that we are sufficiently near together so that your committee is fully in the clear, now, to go ahead and make law out of this bill.

And on behalf of the growers and others, I wish to convey to you our very great appreciation of the most courteous and considerate hearing you have given us, and to express the hope that now we are so near together, then in the very near future we may have this bill translated into law.

Thank you.

Senator SCHWARTZ. Thank you, Mr. Marshall.

Are there others to be heard?

Mr. CURT E. FORSTMANN. I should like to make a statement, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SCHWARTZ. Very well; please proceed, Mr. Forstmann.