WOOL

FRIDAY, JULY 9, 1937

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met at 10 a. m., Hon. Clarence F. Lea (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order.

Mr. Bell, we shall be glad to hear you at this time.

STATEMENT OF LUTHER K. BELL, NEW YORK CITY

The CHAIRMAN. Will you state your name and whom you represent, Mr. Bell?

Mr. BELL. My name is Luther K. Bell, 342 Madison Avenue, New York.

Mr. Chairman, I have already submitted to the clerk a brief memorandum which I prepared, purely as an individual, representing only myself, with the thought that possibly it might be helpful to you; and with your permission I will simply scan this memorandum.

In preface I might say that my personal interest in the general subject of fabric identification goes back some years, but more specifically to experiences, when I had the privilege of being a voluntary executive under the President's Emergency Reemployment Agreement, and later as treasurer of the Silk and Rayon Code Authority and treasurer of the National Federation of Textiles; and more recently through very intimate contact with elements in most of the principal fabric lines, both producing and in the retail field.

I am very much in favor of some form of fabric identification, but by instinct and because of long connection with trade-association work, and being a firm believer in the privilege and responsibility of business to govern itself, I believe that fabric identification by legislation at least as proposed by these two bills, would warrant the most careful further scrutiny of the committee.

That is so from the standpoint of the consumer--you know, this mythical consumer. So many people have already said that we are all consumers-and we are.

The interests in fabric identification, so far as the manufacturer and the consumer are concerned, in my opinion, are and must always be identical.

Now, specifically with regard to these two bills: I am not a lawyer; I am not an economist; but I do think I know something of the thought of some of the businessmen, at least, with whom I have come in contact.

43

I do not favor either one of these two bills. In my opinion, Mr. Peyser's bill, H. R. 5128, is undesirable for two reasons:

First, it places too great regulatory power in the National Bureau of Standards.

Second, it fails to differentiate between manufacturer and retailer. This bill would appear to open the way for an unlimited expansion of bureaucratic control over industry-a control entirely unwarranted by any existing or even threatened condition. Should it become desirable to classify textile fabrics and to devise rules and regulations for the proper identification of such classifications, the Bureau could give constructive assistance to the several trade associations interested, on whom the responsibility of self-regulation by industry properly rests. The Bureau has a long and praiseworthy record in supplying such assistance to organized business.

There is a distinction between retailer and manufacturer. Section 3, as I read it, is so comprehensive that restrictions thereunder might be applied to both divisions of the industry, yet fall most heavily and unfairly on the retailer. Primary responsibility for accurate identification properly rests with the manufacturer of the yarn, the weaver, and the knitter.

Enforcement is left with the Federal Trade Commission. I am under the impression that the Commission is already functioning effectively in matters of false or misleading description.

Mr. Martin's bill, H. R. 6917, is undesirable for a number of reasons, the principal ones, in my opinion, being:

First, it requires that every manufacturer, wholesaler, jobber, dealer, or retailer of wool be registered with the Federal Trade Commission before he may "lawfully" conduct his business.

Second, it prohibits any reference to wool in a fabric unless "the fabric contains 25 percent or more of wool by weight.'

Third, where a fabric contains the minimum percentage of wool, "the actual percentage content by weight of each fiber contained" shall be specified.

Taking up the second point first, it would appear that were this bill enacted into law one effect would be to force the use of more wool. Doubtless, from one point of view, that would be desirable. From other viewpoints-the customer's as well as the weaver's, knitter's, and retailer's-it might actually be contrary to public interest.

As to the third point-the specification of each fiber content by weight-this might also defeat the end aimed at by this type of bill, because of the burden that would be imposed upon the processors, and for which the consumer would have to pay. Of course, if the consumer wants detailed identification, instead of, say, only the major fibers-and is willing to pay for it-this bill would meet his desire. I seriously question, however, whether there is a widespread demand for such microscopic reports.

The first point is the most important. It would appear to reincarnate the licensing feature of Ñ. R. A. It would appear to regiment a considerable portion of the textile industry with a thoroughness that N. R. A. never could have achieved. As I read it, each business would be given a number, and the Commission would "get" that business's number if it disobeyed the rules. It strikes me that such a plan is most unsound. The principle it involves is basic. Should it be applied to wool only at first, it would inevitably be

extended-would have to be extended-to all other textiles. And if to textiles, why not to furniture and floor coverings and to bird cages and bathtubs?

I recall something of the futile policing that was attempted in code days. The policing job confronting the Federal Trade Commission under this bill-in one branch of the textile industry alonewould seem to me to be incredibly difficult. Of course, it would be costly, and the consumer would have to pay the cost-or go without the fabric. Licensing and its attendant policing strikes me as unAmerican and disturbingly significant in their implication.

I believe that the trade associations, with the assistance of the Federal Trade Commission and the Bureau of Standards, should be the means of arriving at a far more workable system of fabric identification than any that, at present, might be imposed by law. The reason for any business to be in existence is to sell its goods-at a profit, if possible-which means that it must give the consumer what it wants. I may be wrong, but I am under the impression that the textile consumer today is interested, first, in style; second, in price; third, in durability; fourth, how the fabric can be best cared for; and finally, what is in it.

So far as I am aware, the yarn producers, the principal mills and the more responsible sections of the cutting-up trades-those that, perhaps, do the largest volume-are all in favor of fabric identification. Those whom I know of personally in rayon, silk, cotton, and wool, I have reason to believe, base their entire merchandising policy on accurate identification.

Among the retailers of my acquaintance, too, accurate identification is the No. 1 rule. If they have reason to believe their customers desire detailed information, they supply fact tags and keep their sales people informed. It is hardly necessary to add that, even were they not disposed to be overly careful about their advertising statements, they have to account to the better business bureaus and to the Federal Trade Commission.

Instead of more and more regimentation, what should be done, in my opinion, is to pay increasing attention to the correction of offenses on a basis of fact. Fabric identification is positive and is properly the responsibility of the industry, through its several trade associations. Fabric identification, which occurs in a very small section of the industry, should be more vigorously attacked by the Federal Trade Commission. The industry itself can aid in this correction, both through cooperation with the Commission, and through the various Better Business Bureaus.

My recommendation would be that such legislation as is here proposed be held in abeyance. Perhaps if the Federal Trade Commission put the problem squarely up to the trade associations to see that textiles are adequately tagged or labeled, we would avoid further regimentation and the consumer would be spared a needless expense. That is all, sir.

Mr. MARTIN. May I ask a question or two? I ask these questions only as a layman, with only a very slight technical knowledge.

Is is not a fact that the adulteration of fabrics in clothing, and so forth, is an increasing factor in the fabrication of clothing? Mr. BELL. I cannot answer that question..

68916-38-4

and when you get into the so-called worsted suits there is every opportunity for the merchant. And the labeling there is going to be used; the manufacturer is going to have his own label. And I think that the Federal Trade Commission can be very helpful and would be from what they have done in the past.

There would be no difficulty about labeling and the average man or woman when he makes a purchase of a suit of clothes is prefectly happy and very glad to get all the information that the seller can give him concerning the quality of the material of which the goods

are made.

The CHAIRMAN. To what extent can rayon be used in men's suits? Mr. JOHNSON. They can be used to the extent of 40 or 50 percent. The CHAIRMAN. Can the average person detect such a garment? Mr. JOHNSON. Not the average person; no. As a matter of fact, we have made combination wool and rayon material and not only could not the average person, but put right along together some of experts had difficulty in telling which was the wool and which was the rayon combination."

Mr. MARTIN. How much of it was rayon?

Mr. JOHNSON. About 40 percent.

Mr. MARTIN. What is rayon primarily made of; wood pulp, wool scourings?

Mr. JOHNSON. Not wool scourings; it is made of cotton and various other things. I am not in that field and I can not talk very strongly about it, Mr. Martin.

The CHAIRMAN. What would be the objection from the standpoint of the manufacturer of their being so much rayon in cloth?

Mr. JOHNSON. The objection would be this, that there are a large number of them who have certain standards of what will be paid for the cloth for suits. Today a large part of merchandising of men's clothing-and I am talking about men's clothing now-a large part of merchandising of men's clothing goes on through the chain stores that sell Hart Schaffner & Marx, Kuppenheimer, Bond, and a number of such firms. Of course, there are the brands which are carried by the retailers which have their own brands made up for them and they have certain price standards. Now the price of wool goes up. For instance the price of wool in 1932 to 1933 up to the present date, there has been a rise of somewhere between 30 and 35 cents a pound, for clean wool, to around a dollar, somewhere in that neighborhood. It is about 90 cents now at the moment. That rise goes into the cloth.

The CHAIRMAN. The cost is the principal factor. How does it affect the garment, the use and wear of the garment?

Mr. JOHNSON. That is primarily from the standpoint of the use of wool, health, and comfort. From the standpoint of strength rayon and wool cloth would have equal strength, in my judgment, if not more so. From the standpoint of the properties that you have from wool you would not have those same properties; they would not be so equal.

The CHAIRMAN. The rayon cloth would not be so warm?

Mr. JOHNSON. No: wool has a faculty of being both cool and warm. The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. If you were to take a trip to the northern coast of Africa today you would find the Arab using a garment made entirely of wool. And you will find that suits, clothing made of wool will