old type of fabric, would probably run 50 percent of the reprocessed wool manufactured in this country.

Mr. WITHROW. Did I get you correctly, 50 percent of what?

Mr. LOCKWOOD. 50 percent of the reprocessed wool manufactured in the country.

Mr. WITHROW. Reprocessed?

Mr. LOCKWOOD. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any difficulty about knowing the amount of reworked wool you put into a product?

Mr. LOCKWOOD. We do not manufacture any finished cloth of any kind. We just manufacture the reprocessed wool and no finished products.

We are purely manufacturers of reprocessed wool which is manufactured under the specifications of the woolen manufacturer, as to the shade and grade of the material which the woolen manufacturer desires to purchase from us for the fabrics which he wishes to make.

We manufacture a variety of shades and grades, just the same as wool is grown in various grades. We grade our materials from the finest type of reprocessed wool to naturally coarser wool, of the reprocessed wools.

The CHAIRMAN. And you mix it with virgin wool to some extent? Mr. LOCKWOOD. No; the woolen mills do their own mixing themselves.

The CHAIRMAN. I see.

Mr. LOCKWOOD. We merely manufacture reprocessed wool.

The CHAIRMAN. And when you sell your product to the manufacturers, they understand, of course, exactly what they are buying? Mr. LOCKWOOD. They do, absolutely. There is no question about it. Very nearly all of the material that we sell is sold as wool, because in our process and practice, we eliminate the cotton, rayon, and other synthetic fibers which might be raw material again.

Mr. MARTIN. About how many grades of reprocessed wool do you make?

Mr. LOCKWOOD. We manufacture somewhere between 30 and 35 grades. Sometime, in some particular seasons it runs as high as 75 different grades.

Mr. MARTIN. Is that grading based on the quality of the original fiber that goes into the reprocessed wool?

Mr. LOCKWOOD. The grading is based on the grade of the material which is in the material which we manufacture our product from.

In other words, it is graded according to fineness and coarseness. It is graded on down in a variety of different grades, according to the finest. In other words, the finer grades command always the higher price than the coarser grade materials.

Mr. WITHROW. How long have you been using this reclaiming process?

Mr. LOCKWOOD. Well, the reclaiming process is a very old process. That is, years ago, it was very crude, naturally; but I presume that reclaimed wool has been manufactured in some form or other in this country for at least 50 or 60 years, anyway, possibly longer. But, it is like all other types of industry. We have improved greatly in the product which we manufacture.

fact that the bottle only contains 134 ounces, and it is labeled 2 ounces. You are permitted to relabel the merchandise 134 ounces and then sell it as long as that 134-ounce label remains on the container. With the exception heretofore noted as to the differentiation between virgin and reclaimed wool and with the amendments herein noted, we urge the speedy enactment of this bill.

Mr. MARTIN. Will you just boil down your objections to section 5 to a sentence or two?

Mr. WOLF. Section 5?

Mr. MARTIN. Yes.

Mr. WOLF. The suggestion is as to the tags, permitting the next in line of the chain of manufacturers to tag the merchandise. For instance here is a wool manufacturer. He puts the wool label on at the mill, we will say, in the case of Mr. Forstmann. He sells that to a dress manufacturer. Permitting the dress manufacturer as long as he puts the essential material on the tag to put his own tag on the garments, so that the tag does not follow through from the original manufacturer of the woolen goods to the end, you see.

Mr. MARTIN. You do not want the manufacturer's tag to follow on down to your store?

Mr. WOLF. No; we want the man who sells us to put the proper tag on. We do not want to have to go back in the chain to the fellow who made the goods three or four hands ago.

Mr. MARTIN. That brings back the argument on the bill last year that I mentioned this morning. That was on H. R. 6917. We had the same argument about the original bill last year, but you are the first witness who has brought it up here.

Mr. WOLF. I want to quote you-and I did not get a chance to make a copy of this, sir-a little line that Gray Schaeffer, head of public relations of Marshall Field & Co. in Chicago, tremendous textile manufacturers and retailers, wrote, who says:

There are many other elements besides technical descriptions of products which can be carried on the label which determine the consumer's final choice. No consumer can be an expert in all of the numerous products which are required for the home. It is ridiculous to suppose that the average housewife can read the specifications for any two products, and from those descriptions alone determine which is best suited for her needs.

Thus the name of the producer and the merchant who supply the product take on major significance. The grand which represents a satisfactory quality, as shown by experience in use, means more than all the descriptions which can ever be printed on labels. The consumer who knows what she wants, because she is familiar with the name of the product, and has already experienced the satisfaction which comes from use of a good product, doesn't need the detailed data supplied by informative labeling.

STATEMENT OF MRS. HERMAN H. LOWE, PRESIDENT, WOMEN'S AUXILIARY, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF POST OFFICE CLERKS

The CHAIRMAN. We will hear Mrs. Lowe.

Mrs. Lowe. My name is Mrs. Herman Lowe. I am president, Women's Auxiliary, National Federation of Post Office Clerks.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am here to urge the passage of the Martin bill for wool labeling because the presidents of women's auxiliaries of unions affiliated with the American

Federation of Labor in 28 States have asked me to call upon their Senators and Representatives and tell them that they would like to have fabrics and clothes labeled so they may know what they are getting for their money when they buy woolen products.

That is a big order and I cannot possibly undertake to fill it. But by holding this hearing you have given me an opportunity to discharge a major part of my responsibility.

I want to assure you that the women of the country are genuinely interested in the prospect of having labels on clothes that will honestly disclose the materials out of which they are made.

Mr. BOREN. Mrs. Lowe, how did the women arrive at this instruction to you?

Mrs. Lowe. I am going to take care of that a little later, if I may, and then after I am through, if I have not, I would be glad to have you ask me any questions, if that is all right.

Mr. BOREN. Yes.

Mrs. Lowe. In buying woolen fabrics today they have no way of knowing how much cotton, rayon, or reclaimed wool has been substituted for the virgin wool they naturally suppose they are getting.

Many of the women do not know that clothes sold as 100 percent wool may contain mostly shoddy, or reclaimed wool. Some of them do not know the difference between virgin wool and reclaimed wool. Now, Mr. Congressman, this answers your question.

I sent a few letters to the heads of locals in different States explaining the difference and outlining the purpose of the bill now before you. I have been amazed at the interest displayed. It is a subject that hits them in the pocketbook. Special meetings have been held to discuss the subject. Resolutions have been passed. Some women have even sat down to write to their Representatives in Congress. You may hear from more of them later, particularly if I tell them I have been unable to call on their Representatives in person. For make no mistake about it, here is a piece of legislation that women of the country understand. They are more interested in the wool standard than in the gold standard. They rub elbows with it everyday, or perhaps it would be more exact if I said that their husbands rubbed their elbows through shoddy clothing often enough to wear out their patience.

Others will discuss the technicalities of this bill. I am here only because the wives of workingmen in 28 States want you to know of their interest in the passage of this bill. Those States are Illinois, California, Ohio, Texas, New York, Mississippi, Iowa, South Carolina, Missouri, Idaho, South Dakota, Minnesota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Indiana, New Jersey, Connecticut, Montana, Washington, Alabama, New Mexico, Massachusetts, Michigan, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Utah.

Are there any questions?

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you, Mrs. Lowe.

The committee has been in session a good while today. It would like to adjourn at this time, and we probably will not be able to meet before Friday afternoon.

If there are any witnesses who want to return to their homes they have the privilege of inserting their statements in the record.

STATEMENT OF MRS. JULIA K. JAFFRAY, CHAIRMAN, DIVISION OF ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENTS, NEW YORK CITY FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS, INC., NEW YORK, N. Y.

Mrs. JAFFRAY. Mr. Chairman, I have to return home. If I might make my statement, I will be brief.

The CHAIRMAN. We will hear you, Mrs. Jaffray.

Mrs. JAFFRAY. My name is Julia K. Jaffray, chairman, division of economic adjustment, New York City Federation of Women's Clubs. which is an organization with its affiliated groups of over 200,000

women.

We have been working on this problem, holding meetings and studying it from every angle for over 2 years, and I was instructed to come down and urge the passage of the bill.

.

There are two points which I would like to raise and then file my testimony. The first is that in all of the years when clothes were made just of wool, that is up until about 20 years ago when reclaimed wool came into very general use, we did not hear so much about the very inferior wool, and we would like to know, and for the committee to consider whether there is a very large proportion of this inferior wool.

From the Department of Agriculture statistics that we have been studying we find that there is only 2, 3, or 4 percent, a small part— that is argued so much as being inferior to high-grade or reclaimed wool.

I have had some experience with this reclaimed wool situation ever since the war. We had a part in the investigation. I was in the first investigation of the shoddy scandal and we knew then that the uniforms which were being worn by our soldiers in France did not hold up very well and they had to demand much better material. The large percentage of shoddy in them was discontinued. I think probably many of you remember that episode.

The other point which I would like to raise is why the manufacturer cannot give the information. We raised that issue because we said that we knew what we put in a cake and he knows what he puts in a piece of material, and in asking about it at the Federal Trade Commission I found that certain other things, such as various types of tobacco in cigars which are difficult to find out after they have been once manufactured, that they found the invoices very satisfactory as a basis for enforcement of the ruling.

Therefore, I think the same thing would hold, and I did not find, in talking around the Federal Trade Commission, that there was any worry about whether they could enforce the law or not.

I think they felt they could.

The other point that I would like to make is the great divergence of opinion in the National Association of Wool Manufacturers. I give here a report of the survey we took. We wrote letters to every one, I think 350, members of the association and we heard from over 125, and we had 29 who said that reclaimed wool was not as serviceable as virgin wool.

Now, we are asking this, and working for it very much for the benefit of the public or the people who buy the cheaper grades of goods and we do not see why they should not have the privilege of

choosing for themselves whether they want to buy a coat or a suit and wear it for 3 or 4 years and pay a higher price for it, why they cannot do it.

This does not prohibit the use of reclaimed wool. It only gives the consumers the right to find out what they are buying and, we have that right from the Supreme Court of the United States in that decision which says that the customers have the right, even if their requests are based on facetious or misunderstanding, or ignorance, or caprice, we still have the right to know, and that is what we are asking. It does not hinder them from making reclaimed-wool producti, but gives us the right to choose. I am filing these studies. The CHAIRMAN. We thank you, Mrs. Jaffray.

Mrs. JAFFRAY. Thank you.

(The matter referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF NEW YORK CITY FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS

The New York City Federation of Women's Clubs includes in its member clubs and affiliated groups over 200,000 women, the majority of whom are responsible for purchasing supplies for their families. To make possible the wise buying of textiles, which are a large item on the family clothing budget, the members of the federation found that it was necessary that fibers should be identified. Great confustion was found to prevail between the natural fibers-cotton, linen, silk, wool-and the man-made fiber rayon; and this confusion was found to lead to serious losses as the natural and man-made fibers require different care and treatment especially in laundering and dry-cleaning.

For the past 19 months the federation has been working closely with the Federal Trade Commission to secure proper fiber identification.

Our studies have disclosed the fact that three substitutes are used for virgin wool in fabrics which are sold as woolen goods-cotton, rayon, and reclaimed wool; and that reclaimed wool is widely used, for the purpose of reducing costs in wool products, while its presence is practically impossible for the purchaser to detect.

The federation women also know that the Supreme Court of the United States has held that the public has the right "to get what it chooses, though the choice may be dictated by caprice or by fashion or perhaps by ignorance"; and, therefore, have reached the conclusion that virgin and reclaimed wool must be identified in order that the purchaser may choose which she prefers to buy.

Another conclusion reached as the result of our work is that it is imperative that the Federal Trade Commission should have the power to require the labeling of all textile products, by the manufacturers of such products in order that the retail merchants can secure accurate information as to the fiber content of those products; while in turn the retail merchants must be held responsible for passing on to their customers the information which they have secured from their source of supply.

We have studied the bill under consideration by this committee (H. R. 9909) and find that it is an agreement with the principles which we are advocating, viz, the identification of virgin and reclaimed wool and the assuring to the Federal Trade Commission of power to require the proper labeling of wool products with responsibility fixed on the manufacturer to make available the information and on the retail merchant to transmit this information to his customers.

We, therefore, earnestly request this committee to report favorably upon this bill in the hope that it may receive favorable consideration by the present session of Congress.

We are in a position to add that a substantial number of the members of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers join us in recognizing the desirability of the proper labeling of wool products, with differentiation between virgin and reclaimed wool. On March 13, we wrote to all the manufacturers, whose names were listed in the Year Book of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers. To date, we have received 124 answers to our letter. Thirty-eight of these answers state that the writers approve labeling