Incidentally, this draft which I am now submitting is largely in accordance with certain suggestions that Senator Schwartz has already made, and if it may be incorporated in the record I think it would be of material assistance when the time comes to bring your draft and your suggestions into conformity with those of the Senate committee on S. 2190.

(The suggested substitute for H. R. 6917 embodying the suggestions made by Mr. Besse will be found at the conclusion of Mr. Besse's statement in the record.)

The CHAIRMAN. Have you seen the criticisms made by the Federal Trade Commission of this bill and their suggested amendments? Mr. BESSE. NO; I have not.

The CHAIRMAN. I shall be very glad to furnish you a copy so that in revising your remarks, which you have the privilege of doing, you may make any suggestions that you see fit in view of the suggestions made by the Federal Trade Commission. If, in meeting their criticisms, you should want to present a revised draft of your proposed bill, you will be at liberty to do so in the event that their criticisms should lead you to change your mind about any of your proposals. We shall be glad to have you make such suggestions. In other words, we want your best judgment as to what should be done.

Mr. BESSE. I appreciate that very much, Mr. Chairman. We are not here with the purpose of criticizing or suggesting changes in the draftsmanship, but merely to indicate the practical effect of the provisions of the bill upon the industry.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to ask another question or two. I take it the question involved here affects the manufacturers in competition with other manufacturers; it affects the consumers and, of course, it affects the wool grower.

Now, from the standpoint of the manufacturer, what would you say is the need of this legislation or legislation of this kind?

Mr. BESSE. It is needed because of the fact that somewhere along the line certain people, either by intent or because of lack of information, do mislead the public and misbrand their products. I would prefer not to be asked to place the blame, because it is often difficult. I do not know any of our wool-textile material that is misbranded by the mills. But a great deal of it is not branded at all, primarily because there is no demand from our customers for information as to those fabrics.

If the garment manufacturer and the retailer, or both, or the consumer, demand information from our industry, they will get correct information. But if they do not demand it, they may not get any and dealers or manufacturers may adopt an attitude that can be described as "high, wide, and handsome" in themselves designating the component parts of that particular product.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it not rather difficult for a manufacturer to preserve his standards, if he desires to preserve a high standard, in view of competition?

Mr. BESSE. It is quite difficult.

Thee CHAIRMAN. There is a practical temptation to do what the other fellow does, in order to meet him on his cheaper basis.

Mr. BESSE. Of course, it goes even further than that. There is a big temptation to use cheaper substitutes. It is quite common to bring out a certain fabric that may be all wool only to have it dupli

cated by another manufacturer with something that perhaps is all wool but an inferior, cheaper fabric. Then someone wants to take the same fabric and make it with 25 percent rayon or 50 percent cotton, which, of course, practically kills the business of the original manufacturer who is putting out a high-grade all-wool fabric, if the manipulated fabric is sold on the basis of being a comparable product. But if the manipulated fabric is sold on the basis of what it is, it will be a certain protection to the manufacturer who wants to make a high-grade all-wool product.

It does not entirely solve the problem. There is, of course, a place for cheaper manipulated fabrics, and there is a demand for them, and you cannot by labeling alone protect the quality manufacturer. You give him a certain degree of protection but not perhaps the degree that some people suggest he might expect to get from a bill of this kind.

The CHAIRMAN. So far as you protect the legitimate manufacturer, do you not at the same time protect the consumer for the same reason? Mr. BESSE. Oh, yes; providing you do not get to a point which some of our well-intentioned consumer groups have reached of trying to suggest a label which connotes quality. I think that is almost impossible. There are too many elements involved to provide, by any legal means, for establishing labels which will connote quality and tell the customer that this particular fabric or garment or article, because of this label, is worth 50 cents more than a comparable or similar article that has another label.

Or, to go in another direction, to have labels which are informative to the extent of telling a customer exactly how to handle a product, in connection with dry cleaning or washing or some treatment that might be given the product after it leaves the retail store. I think that is a field that is important and a field on which a good deal of work could be done, but not a field that should come within the purview of Federal regulation because it is too complicated.

The CHAIRMAN. And from the standpoint of the wool grower-I assume you are not a wool grower?

Mr. BESSE. I am not.

The CHAIRMAN. What does this legislation mean to him, as you view it?

Mr. BESSE. From his standpoint it should result in an increased use of wool as against substitutes on the theory that if a customer is told that a fabric is 75 percent wool, he or she would perhaps want an all-wool fabric and say, "Well, how much have I got to pay for one that is all wool?" If the spread in price is not extreme, she will probably buy the all-wool product. I think that has a basis in fact.

Substitutes will continue to be used and will be used at a reduction in price. But beyond a certain degree of reduction, the public would normally prefer an all-wool fabric, or an all-wool product.

Mr. MARTIN. It just occurred to me that I cannot remember ever asking, when I bought a suit of clothes, what was in it.

Mr. BESSE. You assumed that it was an all-wool suit and it probably was. Last year I bought the particular suit that I have on. It is a very inexpensive suit. I bought it in a store on Fifth Avenue in New York. I bought two of them. I bought them in a hurry. They are extremely lightweight suits. This has nothing in it, and is very

comfortable in hot weather. The other suit wrinkled very badly. I had them both analyzed and found that the other suit contained 20 percent of cotton. I went to the store and said that I was surprised that they handled manipulated fabrics in tropical worsteds, and felt that if they did handle those fabrics that they ought to label them as manipulated fabrics. They said that they were certain that they had no such fabrics. I gave them the numbers, and asked them to look it up. They went back to the manufacturer, who told them, "You did not ask us whether this was all wool or not."

Now, that suit was sold under a trade name to the retailer who bought it thinking that it was all wool, not having asked the question of the manufacturer.

I said to him that I did not care about recovering my $25, but if he wanted to pose as a store selling all-wool merchandise, he would ask the manufacturer what he was buying and not assume that it was all wool, as you unquestionably did in buying your clothes from some high-grade merchant tailor or some high-grade retail store.

As you come down in price from the high-grade retailer, you get to a point where there may be in the fabric elements other than wool, and if you do not ask, or do not provide a means whereby it is necessary to put labels into those garments, you may get something other than what you think you are buying.

The CHAIRMAN. A while ago you mentioned the impracticability of the Federal Government enforcing a standard of identity based on quality. Would you mind expanding that idea a little further or illustrating what you mean?

Mr. BESSE. Speaking from the standpoint of the wool-textile industry, there are innumerable kinds of wool. We have a number of different identifiable grades of wool in this country. We import wool from Australia, New Zealand, and South America and other places, and the characteristics of the raw material vary very largely, and the treatment of that raw material varies in almost the same degree. In other words, in the spinning operation and in the weaving operation and in the finishing and dyeing and all the many other operations through which the wool fabric goes, there are innumerable gradations and variations, and there is no possible way in way in which you can suggest the quality of goods on a basis that is mathematically exact or could be applied by any agency or bureau or board. It is just impossible. The only way that a manufacturer of clothing can determine the suitability of a fabric for a certain purpose is either by test or by his experience in handling goods of similar grades and qualities. The CHAIRMAN. It would involve a question of opinion, to a very large extent, would it not?

Mr. BESSE. Very largely, when you got to the finished product. The CHAIRMAN. And you have so many grades that shade into each other that it would take a very careful scientific check to draw the line?

Mr. BESSE. It would be very difficult. That really is not strong enough, Mr. Lea. It is impossible; not difficult. And for certain purposes a particular fabric may be entirely adequate and satisfactory for the manufacture of a cap, for example; a fabric may be ideal, whereas if you take that same fabric and use it in a woman's coat, it may be entirely unsatisfactory. It may have qualities of

stretching, or may bag, or something else, so that it would not be suitable for that purpose, but perfectly suitable for the other purpose. You certainly could not go into that. A fabric that may be suitable for a man's suit, might perhaps be entirely impracticable for some other purpose.

The CHAIRMAN. I presume there are many cases where the cheaper product is more durable, is not that true?

Mr. BESSE. That is quite often so, for certain purposes, such as a workingman's pair of trousers. The appearance there is unimportant, but the wear is important. There are, of course, some kinds of cotton that would be much more durable than certain types of wool. The wool product is a better product and is more expensive and of course is decidedly superior in appearance and could be made superior in wear. But there are certain kinds of wool if used for that purpose which would not give the service that a mixture of cotton and wool or even all cotton might give.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any substitutes for wool that are difficult to tell by examination?

Mr. BESSE. It depends on the type of examination. The old caustic soda boiling-out test is no longer suitable for determining the presence of substitutes, because of certain synthetic products that are now used. There are a good many products that it is quite impossible to identify by visual examination. I could not tell or a millman could not tell by a casual examination of those products. They can, however, be detected by sufficiently detailed laboratory analysis. That is not true as respects what is called new wool or what is sometimes called virgin wool, and wool that may have been used for some purpose and reclaimed. A laboratory analysis, by and large, would not indicate whether wool has been used in a fabric for the first or for the second time. But the actual content can be determined within very close limits by laboratory analysis, so that there would be no difficulty in determining whether or not a fabric had been labeled in accordance with this bill.

Mr. MARTIN. In your opinion, is there any likelihood of synthetic products eventually driving out wool and cotton?

Mr. BESSE. By advice of counsel, I must refuse to answer, Mr. Martin. [Laughter.] I sincerely hope not. We are giving that question some thought.

Mr. MARTIN. Are there any material differences or issues between the manufacturers and the retailers over this bill?

Mr. BESSE. I suspect the general attitude of the retailers, speaking by and large-and I have only talked to one of them-is this: They would probably on the whole prefer that there be no bill, because it introduces one more element and gives them a little more responsibility as respects the merchandising of their products than they now have. It is one more thing to watch, one more possible difficulty with which they may be faced, if they make any statement on a label or in advertising or even in the selling of the product. I think the statement made by a salesman on a store floor, if it can be proved, makes the store liable, under this bill.

Mr. MARTIN. Where does the principal demand for the legislation come from?

Mr. BESSE. I think the real demand comes from the wool growers in the West. We have always opposed it until this year. We feel

that the proposals now before the Congress are reasonable and should not be opposed.

Mr. MARTIN. I think I will rest, too, on the advice of counsel on that proposition. [Laughter.]

Mr. BESSE. I think the wool growers are amply well represented and will probably answer that question for you.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be the practical thing to limit the operation of this bill to wool products, but what would be the answer to those who insisted that it should cover a broader field?

Mr. BESSE. I have no objection to it covering a broader field, but I do not know the implications of such a bill in some other products, particularly cotton and silk. I do not feel qualified to express an opinion because I do not know how difficult it would be for those industries, if the provisions of this bill were extended to cover those other fibers.

The CHAIRMAN. I suppose administration becomes more complicated if we apply it to a wider field of commerce. Would that be your thought?

Mr. BESSE. I do not think the administration is so complicated as the provisions making it applicable to those other industries. Those provisions would have to be worked out very carefully. The provisions of this bill have been worked out in such a way as not to make them burdensome on the wool textile industry. If you simply took similar provisions and put in the word "silk" instead of "wool," it might not apply at all to the silk industry. I am inclined to think that it would not, and the provisions would have to be rewritten as regards the other branches of the textile industry.

I think personally it would be better to rewrite them and take the time necessary to rewrite them rather than to give the responsibility to a commission, as proposed in the Peyser bill. I think those industries are entitled to know what kind of regulation they are assenting to beforehand rather than afterwards.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any material substitution of cotton on the market?

Mr. BESSE. For wool?

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any common substitute for cotton? Is there any inferior product riding on cotton in the market, in other words?

Mr. BESSE. There probably is in certain fields, I imagine jute competes with cotton. It depends, of course, very much on the relative price of the different fibers. But there is jute, there is linen, there are synthetic fibers, rayon, and different types of cellulose products that do compete with cotton, perhaps not always on the basis of price, but at least on the basis of utility.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think it is common for consumers to be deceived as to whether or not an article is cotton?

Mr. BESSE. Probably not. From that standpoint, the nearest fiber akin to wool would be silk. There is a good deal of misrepresentation, I think, in connection with silk fabrics. There are a good many synthetic products sold, perhaps not actually mislabeled, but sold to the public under the impression that they are silk, silk being in the main a more expensive product than the synthetic substitutes.

The CHAIRMAN. So there would not be any crying need so far as cotton substitutes are concerned?

Mr. BESSE. Probably not.