"Some of the best American-made goods offered the public are made up of scientific mixtures of virgin wool and shoddy * * Please note that these are fabrics in which the purchaser has a right to expect not only virgin wool but the choicest virgin wool, and yet he gets instead a large percentage of shoddy, for which he is charged virgin wool prices. Those who seek to establish the "alleged" point that the best quality of shoddy may be better than the poorest quality of virgin wool also fail to state the fact that in the cheapest fabrics made by fabric manufacturers who use shoddy, it is not the best quality of shoddy that is used, but the poorer quality of shoddy. They fail to state the further fact that in these cheapest fabrics the cheaper and poorer quality of shoddy is used, not because this cheap grade of shoddy can equal even the poorest quality of virgin wool, but because even the poorest quality of virgin wool costs more than the manufacturer of those low-grade shoddy fabrics is willing to pay for his raw material. They also carefully avoid reference to the fact that while the manufacturer of these low-grade shoddy fabrics uses a low-grade shoddy that can not equal in worth even the poorest grade of virgin wool, and while such fabric manufacturers use this low order of shoddy because it costs so much less than would even the cheapest grade of virgin wool, adapted to apparel fabrics, yet the great mass of the poor people are charged for these shoddy fabrics the price of virgin wool. We quote the following from a letter received from a prominent retail clothing merchant. What we quote is typical of what we are hearing from leading retailers from all parts of the United States: "The shoddy materials that are now being sold as 'all wool' are a disgrace to our civilization. "It sure is the 'day' of the shoddy man, and he is taking advantage of it." Mr. Haskins also states that compulsory distinction between shoddy and virgin wool in fabrics would mean 90 per cent of the men, women, and children living outside of the Tropics would be compelled to go about advertising the fact that they could not afford to wear what the other 10 per cent were wearing, and that many people in moderate means would be no better off whether they were able to distinguish between a piece of goods made of virgin wool and one containing shoddy. Every person, whether rich or poor, would be benefited by knowing when fabrics and clothes contain shoddy, because this knowledge is the purchaser's only protection against those who would charge him virgin-wool prices for shoddy. Furthermore, it is every person's right to choose between shoddy and virgin wool, and failure to distinguish between shoddy and virgin wool, deprives the purchaser of his inalienable right of choice. Mr. Haskins complains that the purchaser has not been given an explanation of what he must be satisfied with, should he find it beyond his means to buy virgin wool cloth. When the people are permitted to exercise their right to choose between virgin wool and shoddy the exercise of this right is the only thing the people or anyone else asks. When the people are permitted to exercise this right, they will, if too great a price is charged for virgin wool, purchase shoddy, and if an unreasonable price is charged for shoddy, the people will purchase virgin wool. Furthermore, if shoddy possesses even one-tenth the merit claimed for it by those who extol its use, shoddy would, if identified, in spite of any prejudice, however great, that may now exist against the word "shoddy," soon become popular. Furthermore, permitting the people to exercise their right to choose between shoddy and virgin wool would pit one against the other and would prevent an excessive price being charged for either. It is the failure to make known the presence of shoddy that confers autocratic powers upon the fabric manufacturer; powers that enable the fabric manufacturer to force the sale of shoddy, whether the people want it or not; powers that make it pos sible to force the people to pay virgin wool prices for shoddy. Those who extol the use of shoddy repeatedly state that cloth and clothes made from shoddy can be sold much cheaper than can those made from virgin wool; but they do not state the fact that it is only when it is made compulsory to reveal the presence of shoddy that these fabrics and clothes containing shoddy will be sold at a just price, and it is only then that the people will enjoy this advantage. It is the truth-in-fabric law that will give the people this advantage. There are many people to-day, both men and women, who wear second-hand clothes, but they do not go about advertising the fact, and it would be no more necessary for those who purchase shoddy to advertise the fact, inasmuch as the labels designating contents of fabrics would be taken off, the same as the size tickets are taken off before the clothes are worn, and in the event that the stamp on the fabric is not covered by lining, the stamp can be obliterated. There is no more reason in attempting to justify the sale of shoddy without making its presence known on the ground that it would soothe the pride of the purchasers than would there be to claim the right to sell second-hand clothes as new in order to save the purchaser from any sense of humiliation which may now be felt in purchasing a second-hand suit. The crux of all the labored arguments advanced by the shoddy interests and adherents against the truth-in-fabric law, making it compulsory to distinguish between shoddy and virgin wool, is just this: A plea to keep the public in ignorance of the presence of substitutes in fabrics so that fabrics can be sold which it is "alleged" people would not buy if the truth were told and the people were permitted to know what they were buying. By deception or omission, to sell a purchaser a thing that the purchaser would not buy if he knew the truth, is just plain "fraud," and yet, does it not seem that it is precisely this thing for which a plea is made? That Mr. Haskins is conscious that it is wrong to permit the people to believe they are purchasing virgin wool when they are purchasing shoddy, is evidenced by a published statement of Mr. Haskins which appeared under Mr. Haskins's name in the Daily News Record of New York of September 8. We quote from this statement as follows: * * "For years the clothing trade have, in a sense, been taking money under false pretenses, in that they have emphasized the fact by advertising and other methods, that their goods were all wool. Their statements were true enough, even though 50 per cent of their goods might have been wool shoddy. But the average person has bought such goods with the belief that all wool meant virgin wool. Now * the cat is out of the bag. Certainly, all the clothing manufacturers can not claim they are making nothing but virgin-wool fabrics, because careful students of the subject have developed the fact that all the virgin wool in the world only allows 14 ounces a year to each man, woman, and child living outside the Tropics." It is the privilege of the fabric manufacturer who believes in the superiority of his fabrics that contain cotton or shoddy, first, to tell the customer to whom such fabrics are offered, that the fabrics contain cotton or shoddy, and second, to convince the customer of the "alleged" merit of the fabrics and thus to make the sale. But for fabric manufacturers to seek over the purchaser-the advantage which the unrevealed presence of substitutes gives an advantage by which the fabric manufacturer's "will" and "desire" may be imposed upon the people without the people's knowledge or consent-amounts to an autocratic spirit and purpose that have no place in present-day human relations, and which the people will no longer tolerate when once they know of the injustice that is being imposed upon them by the unrevealed presence of substitutes. So great is the temptation to charge virgin wool prices for shoddy-which results from the unrevealed presence of substitutes in fabrics and clothes-that only those with the most vigorous integrity can resist the temptation, and the public is, as a result, completely at the mercy of the unscrupulous. The issue is not that shoddy is sold. The issue is not as to how much shoddy is sold. The issue is not as to the relative merits of shoddy as compared with virgin wool. The issue is that selling shoddy without making its presence known throttles sheep husbandry. The issue is that selling shoddy without making its presence known forces the people to wear clothes made from rags, instead of virgin wool, and forces them to pay exorbitant prices for those shoddy clothes. The issue is that selling shoddy or any other substitutes without making its presence known, abrogates the law of supply and demand by depriving the people of their rights to choose between the genuine and the substitute, violates economic law, outrages moral law, and sets at naught truth and justice, which must be established and maintained if civilization and organized society are to endure. 177735-20-37 INDEX. Page. Access to books (French)... Administration of truth-in-fabric law (see Truth-in-fabric administration): Cost of.. 27 52, 106 Objections to (Rainey). Rainey bill (administration of). 60 62 Amendments to H. R. 13136 (Rogers bill). Atkeson, T. C.: Statement of. Australian wool.. Adrian telegram. Advertising. Agricultural products.. Public understanding of. Alsberg, Dr. Carl L.: Statement of. Amendments proposed to truth-in-fabric bill (French bill). American Fair Trade League. Army: Woolen goods purchased by. 445 33, 205, 213, 397, 409, 501 25, 493 288 440 33, 36, 84, 130, 133, 206, 396, 399, 406, 428, 435, 458, 508 42, 73, 84 399 399 179 48, 504 409 37, 99, 128, 291 335 288 70, 510 419, 503 31, 504 15, 17 Bonynge. Briggs. Cheney. Cromwell. Davies.. De Berard. French.. 183 73 397 150, 162 409, 491 201 31, 504 Bills pending. (See Barkley, French, Rainey, Rogers, Truth-in-fabric.) Bills (misbranding): Previous Congresses. Bonynge, Hon. Robert W.: Statement of. Branding (or labeling). Compulsory under Rainey bill.. Not compulsory under British merchandise marks act. Not compulsory under Rogers bill... 212 429 501 234, 235 5 72 31, 304, 357, 383, 456, 504, 505 27, 31, 49, 50, 62, 464 27 67,507 110, 149, 211, 323, 505 318 55, 504 482 110 169 211 75 106, 110, 169, 211, 505 Public demand for branding legislation. (See Public demand, etc.) 579 www. |