public any harm, and I think it frequently does the public a great deal of good. Therefore, I do not believe we ought to legislate against it; I think it would be a great hardship to honest dealers.

This bill, in the definitions in section 5, section 6, and elsewhere, is not intended to comprehend such cases. If it is thought that under the language of the bill it does cover that kind of a case I say this simply that it may be realized that it was not the intent of the author. of the bill.

In conclusion, gentlemen, this bill simply extends to all commodities the protection for the public held out by the pure food and drug act, and by the insecticide act of 1910. It follows closely in principle the British merchandise marks act. I do not believe it imposes any hardship upon legitimate business. I think its only effect will be to drive the shyster out of the misbranding game and thereby to protect the public.

Mr. MONTAGUE. I did not have the pleasure of hearing the first part of your statement, and you may have covered the point which I have in mind. How far do you follow the British merchandise marks act, or the act relating to misrepresentation, in the text itself.

Mr. ROGERS. The spirit of my proposition is identical with that of the British merchandise marks act and much of the language is identical, although wherever I could I preferred to follow the analogy of the pure food and drug act, because that has been tested in our courts and has worked well.

Mr. MONTAGUE. Wherever you have adopted anything like the language of the British merchandise marks act, of course, there are perhaps adjudications that can be referred to for construction.

Mr. ROGERS. Of course, that is true also of our statutes of 1906 and 1910.

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, for allowing me to present my views this morning, and I am very much obliged to my friend, Mr. French, for giving way to me.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. French, you have a bill before the committee, H. R. 11641, and we will be glad to hear you in regard to that bill. STATEMENT OF HON. BURTON L. FRENCH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO.

Mr. FRENCH. Mr. Chairman, I wish to give an outline analysis of my bill before I shall conclude, but I prefer this morning to confine my remarks largely to the general principles involved in the proposed bill and not go into detail touching the administrative features, as I think that is a matter that will logically follow the presentation of the general subject.

I appear here this morning, Mr. Chairman, in behalf of H. R. 11611, which has been designated as the "Truth in fabric law."

There are several other bills pending before the committee. You have heard in regard to one of them, the Rogers bill, originally introduced as H. R. 13037 and later as H. R. 13136. Two other bills have been introduced in Congress bearing upon the subject from the angle approached by Mr. Rogers, the Barkley bill, H. R. 2855, referred to this committee, and the Kreider bill, H. R. 9283, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. All of these bills have one common line of thought. They all seem to be based upon the theory of the British

merchandise marks act. Those bills are not at all in conflict with the truth in fabric bill that I am asking you to consider. If anything, they could be said merely to supplement it. They are not essential to the enforcement of the truth in fabric measure, nor is the truth in fabric measure premised at all upon the passage of either of those bills.

I would say that in a general way I am in favor of the principle outlined in those several bills, the Barkley and Rogers bills being more elaborate as to detail, the Kreider bill being a shorter bill outlining the same subject.

Two other bills have been introduced that approach the subject that is considered by H. R. 11641 from the same point of view, the Rainey bill, H. R. 11891, which has been superseded by H. R. 13111. I would say this second bill of Mr. Rainey is identical with the first, with the exception of about half a dozen words, as I have discovered from running over the two bills together. The bill of Mr. Rainey seeks to enforce the branding of woolen fabrics or fabrics made in part from wool and other materials, if the same shall be offered for sale in a Territory or the District of Columbia or entered into interstate commerce. The bill I have introduced seeks to do the same thing. The bill I have introduced, however, is, I think, quite comprehensive in defining the terms used and in providing for administration. The first bill of Mr. Rainey groups the ingredients of a wool or part wool fabric under the heads "All wool, shoddy, cotton, and silk." The second bill of Mr. Rainey eliminates the words "all wool" and substitutes therefor the words "virgin wool" and "reworked wool." The bill I have introduced, "truth in fabric," provides "That every manufacturer of woven fabrics purporting to contain wool, and of garments or articles of apparel made therefrom, within any Territory of the United States or the District of Columbia, shall, before offering such fabric or garment or article of apparel for sale" in interstate commerce come under the law, and in offering the articles for sale that are made of wool or part of wool shall distinctly have the same branded to show approximately the content of virgin wool, of shoddy, of cotton, of silk, or of combinations of those ingredients.

The bill provides that those engaged in this business shall have registration numbers under the Government. It provides further that the Government in enforcing or administering the law shall have access to the establishments of these concerns, to their books, to their manufacturing plants, to everything that would be helpful to the Government in knowing whether or not the law is being carried into effect. It provides suitable penalties for violation of the law, including imprisonment and fine, and provides for the withdrawal of the registration number from the person engaged in business under the law who may violate the same. It provides also for the time when the law shall go into effect.

Mr. Rogers presented to you this thought in opening his statement, "A man has the right to buy what he wants to buy. I am glad to take that as my text in urging the bill I am presenting to you. "A man has the right to buy what he wants to buy."

The object of the "Truth in fabric" bill may in a general way be said to be two-fold; first, to curb profiteering, and second, to aid production. The latter subdivision may be divided into (a) production of wool, and (b) production of flesh.

The bill has been introduced in response to a public sentiment that has, you might say, four different groups of people back of it. The first concrete bill presented in an American Congress covering somewhat the thought in this bill is the one presented by Congressman Grosvenor in, I think, the Fifty-seventh Congress; but it was phrased so that it rested upon a license or taxation feature, and was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.

The CHAIRMAN. That was in 1902.

Mr. FRENCH. Gen. Grosvenor introduced the bill in the Fiftyseventh Congress and later in the Fifty-eighth Congress, and since that time the idea in one way or another has been presented by numerous Members of Congress. During the last four or five years the war has oveshadowed public sentiment on this subject. Those who have felt the necessity of the measure have willingly and gladly given way to the more important problems that confronted our country in the winning of the war.

Now, however, the subject is being urged upon the Congress. Those who are pressing the passage of this measure are:

First. The woolgrowers throughout the country.

They are urging the passage of this measure, in brief, for the reason that one of the commodities they produce, wool, is being competed with by the rag pickers and the shoddy dealers throughout the United States, and necessarily to the disadvantage of the wool

growers.

Second. It is being urged by retail merchants throughout the United States. I have a copy here of resolutions passed by the Retail Merchants' Association of the State of New Jersey. A similar set of resolutions has been adopted by the Retail Merchants' Association of the State of Missouri.

Mr. JONES. Is there any burden placed upon the retail dealer in your bill?

Mr. FRENCH. I would say this, there is a burden placed on the retail dealer, and the law looks to him to see to it that he has a guaranty from the concern from which he makes purchases, touching the contents of the article, and if he does that that is all the burden placed upon him.

Numerous other merchants throughout the country have also expressed their ideas along the same line.

Third. The measure is being urged by certain woolen manufacturers in the United States who themselves are engaged, or who desire to engage, in the production of virgin-wool fabrics, but who are to-day under a handicap by reason of the fact that other manufacturers are producing what are called all-wool goods, which in common parlance means about the same thing as virgin-wool fabrics, and are competing with them and consequently to the disadvantage of those who are manufacturing virgin-wool fabrics and selling them to the people of the country.

Fourth, and largest of all, the bill is being urged by an exceedingly large number of people and an increasingly large number of people throughout the United States typified by the cartoonists as the innocent bystander, or the common people, the great body of men and women who are the purchasers of all kinds of wool and modified wool fabrics throughout the United States.

These people are urging the passage of this bill for the reason that they should not be humbugged when they purchase an article, for the reason that they should know the contents of an article when they purchase it, for the reason that they are being charged exorbitant prices for articles masquerading under the guise of wool, and probably all wool, in fact, but, which as a matter of fact are articles that have been reworked and made of materials worked over and over again and that compete with virgin-wool articles that are upon the same shelves of the same merchants who charge prices not materially different in many cases.

Mr. COOPER. A few moments ago I understood you to make the statement that they are making cloth out of rags that rag pickers are gathering up all over the country.

Mr. FRENCH. Let me come to that in a little bit.

Mr. COOPER. If they are doing that, I believe that accounts for some of the clothes of the quality we are getting these days.

Mr. FRENCH. I would say to the gentleman that that is lamentably

true.

Mr. MONTAGUE. They have been doing it for a good many years. Mr. FRENCH. They have been doing it for a good many years, especially since along about the middle of the last century. It has developed now into a great business. That is one of the things I want to come to and develop in my statement to the committee. Mr. COOPER. I am interested in that.

Mr. FRENCH. Now, Mr. Chairman, let me present some reasons why this bill should pass. It is is estimated that in the world there are approximately 626,759,000 head of sheep. I would like to ask permission to insert in my printed statement tables and figures touching upon what I wish to present to the committee. I am sure it will be helpful to the committee if I present an outline of the figures and omit at this time the detail figures, which I would like to insert in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, permission is granted.

1

THE DECLINE.

[From the Wool Industry, by Dr. P. T. Cherrington, 1916.]

The decline since 1910 is made clear when these figures are compared with the following table which shows the computed world's wool production (including carpet wools) for the year 1914, the last computed figures not materially affected by the great war:

Wool in million pounds.

309

290

455

264

143

799

United Kingdom..

125

These figures represent a net decrease of about 8,000,000 pounds from the computed world's production of the year 1913. The principal decline appeared in the following countries:

In million pounds.

1 Condensed from table in Bulletin of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers, January, 1915, p. 59.