Mr. MARTIN. Of course, you have the contention on the part of some in the industry that if a bill were enacted that required the retailer to put on a label it would be very burdensome. Miss BLUNT. Would be very burdensome? Mr. MARTIN. Yes. Miss BLUNT. I will put it this way: In our own industry-and I can speak naturally only for our own particular branch, when we sell fabrics, it does not go further than the retailer in 85 percent of the cases; if we mark the fabric it just stops right there. Now if this information is to be utilized by the consumer, of course, we should ask the retailer to do it. Mr. MARTIN. But the question occurred to me that if I went down to Woodward & Lothrop, for instance, here in Washington, or any other big establishment in town, just how would they handle it if they had to label everything that they sell? Miss BLUNT. All they would have to do would be to furnish the information just as it comes from the supplier, just as the supplier furnishes the size of the garments which they sell. They get that information from the manufacturer. They could put that on the garment, in the various departments. When we buy a dress, wẹ know the number, the size, and the price which is put on it; and that has to be put on by the retailer. Mr. MARTIN. I agree fully that the labeling system ought to be just as simple as possible and if it is not it would not likely be effec tice or suitable for the retail trade. Miss BLUNT. That is right. Mr. MARTIN. And it would appear to me that the simplest way to handle it would be to have the manufacturer do it. Miss BLUNT. I think the answer to that is this: We have been marking silk, for instance, as I say, the last 8 years, as to whether or not the contents are pure dye silk or weighted silk but unfortunately that does not go to the consumer of the dress. The manufacturer does not know when he sells a piece of goods to the retailer that the information will always reach the consumer. We have very little complaint about misrepresentation so far as piece goods are concerned, but as I indicated, that is only a minor part of the fabric business. But when it comes to manufacturing the garments we have had serious complaints about the consumers not being told whether or not the fabric was weighted silk or pure dye silk, and we do not have any way of controlling that. That is why we feel if the retailer is required to put that information on it would be the more effective means of reaching the consumer. The retailer of the garment should be able to secure that information from the supplier of the garment just as he gets the information as to size. Mr. MARTIN. Apparently it is not as simple or as easy to label clothing as it is food products. When you go to a store to get food products, canned or packaged goods, you have a label on the container put there by the manufacturer or processor. Miss BLUNT. That is right. Mr. MARTIN. Whatever its contents are. Miss BLUNT. And you get that direct from the manufacturer. Mr. MARTIN. And that comes down to the consumer just as it left the manufacturer or processor. Miss BLUNT. That is quite true, but in garment distribution it is more difficult. Mr. MARTIN. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. In the normal course of trade about how many times is the material handled before it reaches the consumer? Miss BLUNT. Practically only twise; once, the manufacturer who sells to the dressmaker, and then he to the retailer. The CHAIRMAN. That is, he sells the original material out of which the garment is made? Miss BLUNT. What we call in the trade to the retailer. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Now does he sell the dresses through the retailer? Miss BLUNT. In the great majority of cases. The CHAIRMAN. And if the label gives the information required then it would be for the maker, who fabricates the material, to require that information be furnished with the garment? Miss BLUNT. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. And the retailer would be provided with that information? Miss BLUNT. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. Are you aware of how many States have requirements as to the branding of materials used in garments? I Miss BLUNT. I do not know how many such States there are. know some of them do but we have not found State laws very effectively enforced. We have such a law in New York, I believe, but we have not been able to enforce it through the courts. The CHAIRMAN. Who composes the membership of your organization? Miss BLUNT. The manufacturers of silk fabrics, primarily; but now silks and rayon fabrics are used both interchangeably. The CHAIRMAN. And to what extent does your organization represent the industry? Miss BLUNT. At the present time we represent about 35 percent of the actual producers of silk and rayon fabrics; that is, in the dress-goods division. The CHAIRMAN. Of any particular group or classification? Miss BLUNT. Yes; what we call the old silk manufacturers, such as Skinner and a group of names that are well known for silk; and now for rayon manufacture. The CHAIRMAN. Is there any particular difficulty from the manufacturer's standpoint as between silk and rayon? Miss BLUNT. You mean in the manufacture or the distribution? The CHAIRMAN. In competition and the public being misled as to what is silk or rayon? Miss BLUNT. Well, I will put it this way, Mr. Chairman: The fact that they are using both indicates there is not as much difficulty as there was a few years ago. However, our manufacturers do feel and have felt for a long time that they would rather sell merchandise with the proper marking, silk and rayon, cotton and silk, or rayon and silk, and by the trade name only. Now we have had quite a bit of trouble, for instance, in the use of the term "taffeta," which is a well-known term used in the trade, applying to silk. A firm in New York advertised a taffeta petticoat for $1.95 and that a silk manufacturer was selling him the taffeta, but, on the other hand, the manufacturer of taffeta knows that he could not sell a silk petticoat, which would retail for not less than $2.95, at the advertised price of this firm of $1.95 for a taffeta petticoat. Now we went to this firm and asked them about their representation that they were selling a taffeta petticoat, indicating that it was silk, but in answer they told us who the manufacturer was, and he said, of course, that he knew it was rayon but they did not ask for the information and he did not say anything about it. Now, of course, there we have competition within our own industry. That might even happen where the consumer is not aware of whether it is silk or rayon. We feel, however, that taffeta is the usual name applied where silk is used, and that it means a silk fabric and should not be qualified by the use of the word "rayon." That is where the difficulty comes in. The CHAIRMAN. You would feel that your products should be marked so as to disclose their content? Miss BLUNT. We do. The CHAIRMAN. I understood you to say that you are not in favor of requiring a statement of the percentage of fiber thread or yarn used? Miss BLUNT. Not the theory. We support the theory of making it just as simple as possible. As a matter of fact, one of our well-known manufacturers of silk, Mr. Skinner, whose name has been known for generations, said they felt that the word "silk" should not be applied to any fabric unless at least 20 percent of it was silk fiber. On the percentage question, I believe, that was the reason for putting in the Peyser bill the clause that you mentioned, Mr. Martin, with the idea we could at least get a favorable percentage of fiber and in that way at least give the information to the consuming public. The CHAIRMAN. Suppose you had two garments which looked very much alike and one contained 75 percent of rayon and 20 percent of silk and the other one had 75 percent silk and 20 percent of rayon; just how would that be handled? Miss BLUNT. In our work with the Federal Trade Commission and with the Better Business Bureau we have a recommendation that is not altogether unlike this; that is, if you take the case of silk, 75-percent silk and 20- or 25-percent rayon, it would be indicated as silk with rayon; and vice versa if it were 75-percent rayon with 20-percent silk, it would be rayon with silk. And apparently that seems to be understood. That is, it means the preponderance of fiber used is the one first indicated and that the other is used in smaller proportion. The CHAIRMAN. I suppose there is great difference in the cost of rayon fiber and silk fiber, is there not? Miss BLUNT. Not as much as there used to be. The CHAIRMAN. But there is a substantial difference in the cost, is there not? Miss BLUNT. There is still some difference in the cost of silk and rayon. Of course, the real difference, from the standpoint of results in wearing, is not always the best. As a matter of fact, the customer may get more satisfaction out of rayon than from some of the cheaper silks, and may receive greater wearing satisfaction, and sometimes it sells at a higher price. The CHAIRMAN. Would it not be advisable, if you had a very large proportion of the cheaper material to give the customer some idea of what that proportion was instead of simply using a label that mentioned the fact that two fibers were used? Miss BLUNT. I think it is desirable, but my own personal thought, after working for some 20 years with misbrandings, is that when you get too exacting as to what you are going to put on the label you do not always get a conformance with the label. We found out, for example, when it was not made so exacting they were ready to go along, but when it got down to the question of determining the actual percentage for marking the percentage the retailer would bring a great many objections as to complications that were involved in marking the merchandise, and the fact that clerks would make mistakes and that they would be criticized for that sort of thing. Mr. MARTIN. In the trade would 20-percent silk content be considered a silk garment? Miss BLUNT. I have not determined that, Mr. Martin. Mr. MARTIN. You mentioned that one silk manufacturer referred to that. Miss BLUNT. I know the man I mentioned, Mr. Skinner, has always been a very strong advocate of the silk end of the business; they make much more silk fabric than rayon. Mr. MARTIN. That is that the label ought to be 100 percent only where it is all silk? Miss BLUNT. All silk? Mr. MARTIN. Yes; that it would not be considered silk unless it was 100-percent silk? Miss BLUNT. I think unless there is a qualifying term it should be 100-percent silk and if there is any other fiber it should be mentioned. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think the manufacturing branch generally would concur in the viewpoint you have expressed? Miss BLUNT. The ones that I have asked about it, and they have been considerable, have said they would be willing to give any information that was necessary if they found that the retailers and the dress people would carry it on; but they set out that they have been working on this for a long time without getting anywhere and they rather resent the accusation by consumer organizations to the effect that the manufacturers do not want to give this information to the consumers. They would like to give this information, but they do not like to have it stop with the dress-goods people. The information is contained on the material, so far as the piece-goods department is concerned. The CHAIRMAN. I think we readily appreciate the necessity of having simplicity if the regulations are going to be practical and feasible. Miss BLUNT. I am sure you will. The CHAIRMAN. And no doubt the manufacturers and the trade will want to contribute to that very practical end. Miss BLUNT. Yes. And as I said, the basis of the statement I have made here is the result of some 20 years of actual follow-up of the retail and manufacturing end of mislabeling and misbranding. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. May I say that each of the witnesses will have opportunity to correct and extend their remarks. Miss BLUNT. Thank you. STATEMENT OF CHARLES F. H. JOHNSON, PRESIDENT, BOTANY WORSTED MILLS, PASSAIC, N. J. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Johnson. Mr. JOHNSON. My name is Charles F. H. Johnson. I am president of the Botany Worsted Mills, Passaic, N. J. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee; my remarks will be rather brief. They are based on facts that we have been examining as processors of wool for a great many years. We process from 25 to 30 million pounds, and we have been extremely interested in working with the American wool growers in the improvement in the type of wool grown. And we realize that the word "wool" as we call it, when called by any other name is not wool. We advocate as far as we can the use of nothing but what we call virgin wool. We are primarily interested in wool and naturally we are very much opposed to anything that calls itself wool that is made of anything other than wool. We are constantly carrying on advertising programs concerning a lot of things that are made of a lot of abortions. Our association has gone on record in favor of this bill and we are, of course, in favor of this bill, and we are in favor of it from the standpoint that it is a step forward. We do not believe that it contains all the things that we would like to really have done, but we realize that it is perhaps as far as we can go now. What we would really like to see is a bill that would carry all the way through and require that things be called by their right names. I think this group that we have got here has been appearing before your committee for some twenty-odd years and we had rather take what we can get than nothing. But I think that many of the questions that have been asked by Mr. Martin, as I have listened here this morning, can be easily answered. The retailer, as the merchandiser, in the event he merchandises the cloth that he manufactures, the yarn or in the original form, whatever it may be, never has hesitated to put forward the quality and qualifications of any goods that he sells. It helps him if he can furnish that to the consumer and give the consumer as much information as possible. Naturally if a retailer is furnished by the manufacturer the quality of the garment, the quality of the wool, he assumes that to be true. We have tried to overcome that by a certain amount of national advertising and labeling and we use the label very much indeed. We have had very little difficulty in getting retailers to use labels, and whatever is on that label is printed by the manufacturer. The label is created, made up, printed, and distributed by the manufac turer. Mr. MARTIN. In your opinion there is practically no other way that could be done? Mr. JOHNSON. I do not think so. I think it should come from the manufacturer in the first place and that he can pass it right down |