WOOL FRIDAY, MAY 6, 1938 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met at 2:30 p. m., Hon. Clarence F. Lea (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The meeting will come to order. At this time I would like to offer for the record a communication from the National Cooperative Council, signed "Robin Hood, secretary-treasurer." (Said communication is as follows:) Hon. CLARENCE F. LEA, NATIONAL COOPERATIVE COUNCIL, Chairman, House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, DEAR MR. LEA: The National Cooperative Council approves H. R. 9909 and urges that the bill be reported expeditiously and favorably by your committee. We are willing, of course, that the bill be clarified or otherwise amended in any manner that will not obliterate the central objective of requiring honest labeling of fabrics. In our opinion a fabric is not honestly labeled unless proper distinction is made between virgin wool and reworked wool. The consumer is entitled to this information about the fabric she buys, and the producer is entitled to honest representation of his products by manufacturers. The National Cooperative Council, for whom I express these thoughts, is a federation of substantially all important farmers' cooperative business organizations in the United States engaged in selling farm products and purchasing farm supplies. It consists of 55 member federations which in turn consist of more than 4,000 local cooperative associations. It acts upon legislative projects relatively infrequently because nearly a unanimous agreement of the 55 federations is required for adoption of a policy. In their recent annual delegates' assembly, action in support of the type of truth-in-fabrics bill now under consideration by the committee was unanimous. Very truly yours, ROBIN HOOD, Secretary-Treasurer. The CHAIRMAN. I also submit for the record a statement by Mr. Fred Brenckman, Washington representative of the National Grange. (Said statement is as follows:) STATEMENT OF FRED BRENCKMAN, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NATIONAL GRANGE, BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE IN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, ON S. 3502 Mr. BRENCKMAN. For many years the National Grange has advocated legislation to promote truth in fabrics. We believe that the provisions of Senate bill 3502 are fair and workable, and that its enactment would prove beneficial to the consuming public and to honest manufacturers and dealers as well. The enactment of this measure would simply be extending the principles underlying the Pure Food and Drugs Act. The Grange was a pioneer in the long crusade which resulted in placing this piece of legislation on the statute books, putting an end to the intolerable conditions which existed in the country prior to that time. Placing the enforcement of S. 3502 under the Federal Trade Commission, with its well-deserved reputation for impartiality and for honest and efficient administration, is a step in the right direction and should go far toward makng a success of the plan embodied in the bill. We trust that this bill may be enacted before the close of the present session of Congress. (The following statement was also submitted for the record:) As a consumer and as a representative of women who buy for their families, I strongly believe that the consumer should be allowed to buy material or garments labeled so she may truly know the fiber content. Now, a material may be represented as 100 percent woolen and be composed of cotton, rayon, virgin wool, or reworked wool. I believe that there is a market for any material of any composition but if a mother must buy a child's coat for school, she buys first for warmth and service and she cannot intelligently, trying to buy the best at a certain price limit, select that coat unless it is labeled as to content. On the other hand, the same woman buying a coat for herself buys probably first for style and beauty and so often will buy a material which has a content of rayon or cotton or reworked wool because it looks better. In regard to virgin and reworked wool, in my mind-and I think in the minds of most women, reworked wool is comparable only to any other reconditioned or used product, and in wool, the yarn may often have been reworked and reused many times, each time shortening and thinning the fiber. It has been stated with authority, and consumers have found it to be true, that reworked wool does not have the warmth, lightness, or servicability of virgin wool. As an interested consumer-observer, I have found that virgin wool has a great deal more elasticity than reworked wool. This factor is of utmost importance to a woman when buying a skirt, for instance, which must fit tightly and not bag. In other words we have been disappointed many times in woolen fabrics which we have bought marked all woolen and which have worn poorly, looked poorly with comparatively little wear, showing probably that a large percentage of reworked wool had been used in the garment. I assert that as a consumer, I should have the privilege of choosing from knowledge of fiber content. I may want good virgin wool for a purchase which must last several years; I may like any other kind of a mixture of fibers for a purchase which has an extreme style element and so is good for only one season; but I alone know the factors of cost and usage which must affect my purchase and I alone pay by my ultimate purchase, the maker, the manufacturer, and the grower. DOROTHY KRAUS, Representing the Massachusetts State Federation of Women's Clubs. The CHAIRMAN. We will now hear Mr. Kennedy. STATEMENT OF EDWARD E. KENNEDY, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS' UNION, WASHINGTON, D. C. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is Edward E. Kennedy, and my home is Kankakee, Ill. I represent 10 Farmers' Union State organizations, including farmers and Farmers' Union members in 24 States of the Union, as their Washington legislative representative. I wish to say at the outset that the members of our organization are very much in favor of the enactment into law of H. R. 9909. For a good many years we have favored the principle of legislation providing for truth in fabrics and the proper identification of fabrics made from farm products. The farmers in every State in the Union are engaged in the production of wool, and we are interested in this type of legislation because our farmers in all of the States are not only interested in wool production, but we are also interested in it because of the fact that our farm people are purchasers of woolen clothing and other woolen products that are used in their homes. Therefore, both as producers and consumers, we are interested in this type of legislation. I should like to point out here that we consider this bill, H. R. 9909, as good and sound legislation. For the reason that its administration is placed in the Federal Trade Commission, I think there has been, perhaps, a little confusion here in some of the testimony that was given, and I think it would be in order for me to state a few points that might dispose of that. The Federal Trade Commission does not appoint agents, inspectors, etc., to go out and look over every woolen mill in the country, but it is a quasi-judicial body, wherein complaints might originate in cases where manufacturers, garment manufacturers, or retail establishments were not living up to the requirements of this act, and when complaints would be filed with the Commission. Then, on the basis of the facts that were developed in the hearings, they would determine whether the law had been complied with, or not, following essentially the same principle on which speed limits are established in Washington or in any other town. So, for that reason, we say that it is good legislation and is entirely proper. Mr. REECE. If the Federal Trade Commisison Act should give the Commission authority to deal with the questions involved here, then might it not be possible for the Federal Trade Commission to deal with them just as it does now in the controlling of trade practices? If an action should be instituted with the Federal Trade Commission, as a result of which the Federal Trade Commission should issue an order that certain products should bear certain labels, then the manufacturer who failed to comply with the order would be subject to the authority of the Federal Trade Commission. In that event, would it be necessary for the Commission to send out agents, as might be otherwise contemplated, if the manufacturer failed to comply with the order of the Commission in the matter of properly labeling his goods? Some interested party would probably call any violation to the attention of the Commission, or if the Commission should observe the fact of the violation, they could move against the manufacturer on their own initiative. Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, sir. The matter would then be set down for a hearing of the facts, which would be developed in open hearings. As I understand it, the Federal Trade Commission has very much the same practice as that followed under the Packers and Stockyards Act, the same fundamental principle of law being involved-that is, it seeks to prevent unfair trade practices, deception, and fraud. The method provides for an open hearing, and then the Commission's 68916-38--12 voice is not final in the matter, because there is an appeal of record made in those hearings to the circuit court of appeals and then to the Supreme Court of the United States. So that, in these cases the Commission does not have the last word, but the bill provides all of the remedies that are provided for under our form of Government. That is the reason I think it is good legislation. Our farmers produce about 426,000,000 to 450,000,000 pounds of wool a year, and normally we import from about 100,000,000 to 110,000,000 pounds. On the other hand, our farmers have for a great many years experienced low income, and it is very important that our farm people in making their purchases of clothing and woolen goods can do so with the knowledge of what they are buying-that is, whether they are buying virgin wool, or whether they are buying part virgin wool and part shoddy or reclaimed wool, or whether they are buying cotton or rayon. There is nothing provided in this bill to prevent or hamper the manufacture and sale of goods that are an admixture of shoddy and virgin wool, or rayon or cotton. The purpose of the bill is to give every consumer an opportunity to know what he is buying and what he is spending his money for. Therefore, it is of great importance to the farmers of the United States to know what they are getting for the farm dollar they spend in the purchase of woolen goods, clothing, or woolen goods for other uses in their homes. Now, this briefly is my statement. I think that our people believe that the enactment of this legislation will not only help in the marketing of farm products and commodities, but will likewise give our own people and consumers generally an opportunity to buy what I am sure everybody wants to buy when they go to purchase woolen goods. If this were not true, there would not be any effort on the part of manufacturers of shoddy to imitate and to leave the impression, either directly or indirectly, that it is of a better quality by simply saying that it is "all wool and a yard wide." That is a more or less standard household expression in America, denoting quality. It is an age-old axiom that the counterfeit will eventually drive out the real article. That is because the people do not know that they have been deceived, or that a fraud has been perpetrated upon them. I think it is true that counterfeit money will drive good money out of circulation, but that would not be true if the people knew the difference between good money and counterfeit money. The same rule, I am sure, applies in this instance. If the people know what they are buying, or whether they are purchasing virgin wool products, the farmers of the country will find there is a more ready market for their product among consumers both on the farms and in the cities. I wish to thank you gentlemen for giving us the opportunity to be heard here, and we assure you that we are supporting this legislation. Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Kennedy, have you given any special study to the provisions of the bill? If you have, I want to ask this question: A witness we had before this committee at the last session objected to the language on page 4, beginning in line 4 or who shall receive from or through interstate or foreign commerce and having so received shall deliver for pay or otherwise, or offer to deliver to any other person And so forth. Have you given any special thought to that provision? Mr. KENNEDY. It reads further: any such wool product or converted wool product which is misbranded within the meaning of this act. Mr. MARTIN. In other words, would that subject the manufacturer of the garment and the retailer, who sold it to the consumer, to the penalty? Mr. KENNEDY. I have read the bill several times very carefully, and having studied it as fully as one could, it seems to me that the purpose of the act is to not only provide for the labeling of woolen fabrics at the point of first manufacture, but it is intended to carry that identification of the fabric content on to the final sale of the product for garments or other uses. Now, there is to be a continuing liability following through. If the manufacturer places the label on the commodity or on the fabric, and the manufacturer of the garments using the same fabric should change the label or change the fiber content, naturally he would be the one to assume liability under the act. I think that is what this language means. At least, that is the way I understand it. That is, it provides for a continuing liability through to the consumer. Mr. MARTIN. As you understand it, would this be true: If a manufacturer sold the goods to a wholesaler, who, in turn, sold them to a retailer, the wholesaler would know just what this law is, or what it provides. He would know that it should be carried out, and would know what the label should contain. If the retailer received a consignment of goods that did not carry out the labeling provision, or did not have the label, and he should dispose of it at retail, he would know that he was violating the law. Is that your understanding of it? Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, sir; that is my understanding of the force of the act. Mr. MARTIN. I do not know all of the mechanisms of the trade, but I presume that it might be possible that a middleman might negotiate the sale of goods that he had never seen. Mr. KENNEDY. But, at least, he would know what the law was, or he would be put on notice in ordering goods that he was ordering goods that should carry a label identifying that fabric as containing a certain percentage of wool or a certain percentage of shoddy, whatever the content was, or the fiber content by weight. If that was not delivered to him, of the quality he ordered, it seems to me that his records would show that he did not get what he ordered. Now, I think that liability would follow under this language here, especially if the purchaser following the manufacturer, as, for example, the wholesaler or the garment manufacturer, changed the material in order to secure an advantage or to practice a deception. Finally, if the label did not properly identify the product as it was, I think that such a man would be liable; whereas if he carried the label through on the goods that he purchased, represented to him as containing the proper fiber content, the liability would fall back upon the man who first misbranded the product. That is the way I understand that language. It includes conditions of that kind. |