claimed wool, then if the label stated the garment was pure virgin wool, might that give an advantage or open a way by which the garments made of the inferior virgin wool would be given an advantage?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. The answer to that is yes, Mr. Congressman.

Mr. REECE. In connection with all of this labeling legislation, I think there comes up for consideration the extent to which we can go in requiring labeling, unless we are going to set up a system of grade labeling by which we undertake to inform the purchasing public through the label the quality of the product, which is being purchased.

We had this same question up in connection with the pure food and drugs legislation.

One group wanted legislation to set up standards of quality with reference to foods. Take for instance canned goods: It was their idea that grade A peaches should denote a certain quality, grade B canned peaches should denote a certain quality, and grade C should denote a certain quality. Another group thought that the purchaser ought to be given some discretion with reference to what constituted quality; that it was impracticable for the Government to set up a standard of quality that would adequately in the first place protect the consuming public, and I think to some extent that same question arises in all of this legislation which undertakes to set up any kind of a system of labeling.

It is particularly true I think when we go to denote the different qualities of certain material-wool, for instance-by requiring the label to state whether it is virgin wool or reclaimed wool, it is wool. According to the testimony before this committee, as I stated a while ago, some reclaimed wool is superior to some virgin wool and labeling in that instance might convey to the purchaser the wrong impression and give an advantage to the manufacturer who is using in a large measure inferior virgin wool and at the same time might possibly raise the price of the product to the consuming public and prevent, as I stated in a previous question, a person who is not in a position to buy a high-priced garment of high quality pure virgin wool from securing a garment of reasonable quality at a lower price.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. I think the gentleman who will follow me will relate to the committee some of the manufacturing difficulties and merchandising difficulties with which they are familiar, which that involves.

Mr. MARTIN. Thank you very much.

STATEMENT OF MORRIS W. HAFT, REPRESENTING MORRIS W. HAFT & BROS., INC., NEW YORK, N. Y.

Mr. MARTIN. We will hear Mr. Morris Haft. Just give your full name, your connection, and your address to the reporter.

Mr. HAFT. Morris W. Haft, of Morris W. Haft & Bros., Inc., 500 Seventh Avenue, New York, N. Y.

Mr. MARTIN. Will you state your business?

Mr. HAFT. Cloak and suit manufacturers.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, all my business life, extending over a period of 34 years, has been spent in the manufacture of women's cloaks and suits. For the past 23 years I have

been the head of the firm of Morris W. Haft & Bros., of New York City, which employs some 2,000 workers. I take considerable pride in the fact that we are the largest manufacturers of women's coats and suits in the country.

Our production is not limited to any single type of garment. We manufacture a wide range of products, priced at wholesale from as little as $10 to as much as $125. In the more familiar retail prices this means that my garments are sold to consumers from as low as $16.50 to as high as $200. This means, in turn, that my garments are purchased by the very poor and the very rich.

I think that my firm would not have grown to its present size were it not for the fact that we are intimately acquainted with the problems of the industry. I think that I can say that we know the cloak and suit business.

Now, I should like to discuss with the committee what I think are certain of the defects of the bill, from the viewpoint of the practical cloak man who is faced with the necessity of accommodating his business to its requirements.

But, first of all, I should like to say a few words concerning certain inferences which have been made in the course of these hearings by those among the woolen people who have appeared in favor of the bill.

The attempt has been made to place all opposition to the bill in the category of the dishonest objector. A cloak of righteousness has been flung around the supporters of the measure and all others have been, at least inferentially, characterized as obstructionists whose purpose is inimical to the best interests of the consumers.

I must resent that implication on my own behalf and on behalf of the industry for which I speak.

We who are engaged in the production and merchandising of a product manufactured for the women consumers of the country have a deep interest in all matters concerning those consumers. From the beginning, the industry has directed its energies toward manufacturing a product that will permanently please and satisfy the women who buy it. Year after year it has been our constant endeavor to manufacture garments which give the consumer the greatest value in terms of quality, serviceability, durability, workmanship, beauty, and style.

It is our constant purpose to make an honest product. We stand behind every garment which we sell, and unless a garment meets the high standards which we set for it, we are responsible for it to the consumer. For this we seek no acclaim; we are but following the dictates of an enlightened selfishness.

In the light of all of this, it is hard for me to understand precisely what the bill is calculated to achieve. If it is consumer satisfaction, I and every other manufacturer desiring to stay in business must pledge and always have pledged the responsibility of our respective houses to achieve it. But, unless my entire experience has led me to a wrong conclusion, no such easy path as labeling the fiber content of a garment will achieve that proper and desirable result. I think that any other conclusion is too careless with the economic laws, with which every businessman struggles each day of his life. I mean, of course, fundamentals like supply and demand, consumer satisfaction,

firm responsibility for the product sold, quality merchandise which is suitable for the purpose sold, and the like.

But I think I do know what position I should take with respect to this bill were I a woolen manufacturer. I should support the bill not on the grounds that it is a consumer bill, but because I might think that it would enable me to sell more woolen goods. At the same time, if I were an intellectually honest woolen manufacturer, I think I should admit that that position is contrary to the best interests of the garment manufacturer to whom the cloth is sold. without, at the same time, benefiting the consumer to any appreciable or practical extent.

After all, I am in the business of selling a garment. I am not a piece-goods salesman. My merchandising technique, my sales promotions, my consumer's satisfaction purposes are all built around that inescapable fact.

Obviously, to the extent that I should be required to emphasize the existence of wool in the garment which I make, I should be in the position of promoting not the garment as a whole, but that portion of it which is wool. This has its apparent advantages for the woolen man. To me, it approaches merchandising suicide. After all, wool is only the shell of the garment; what of labor, fur, lining, styling, trimmings, embroidery? Shall I label all these factors? And what kind of a label could be devised? Surely, the result would confuse and not inform. And, remember, I am only talking of ladies' garments. I am not discussing men's clothing as I heard the chairman ask the question.

There are many factors which determine the price of my garments, and for more than any single factor is the element of the proportion or the combination in which these factors are balanced against each other.

First of all there is style.

Then we have the labor or workmanship that is put into the garment.

We have all the materials which include the wool cloth, the linings, the interlining, if it is a winter garment, the fur trimmings, if any, and the miscellaneous findings which include both those required for the technical construction and those such as belts, buttons, and the like which may be largely decorative.

Lastly there is my own cost of doing business.

As a merchandiser of coats and suits, I know that all of these factors are important in determining the quality of finished garments. I think that the success of any cloak-and-suit business is measured by the ability of the executives properly to relate, reconcile, and combine the factors which we have just mentioned. A proper combination results in a successful line. Of course, a successful line neces

sarily involves consumer satisfaction.

One of my colleagues will discuss the importance of the style factor. For myself, I can only state, quite simply to this committee, that this element cannot be overemphasized, whatever price category is involved.

In evaluating the remaining factors, which result in the quality which the consumer is entitled to have and which we as manufacturers are obligated to give, I stress workmanship. And to the extent that workmanship is emphasized the worker benefits. In our

234

been: City.

in t and

ma

lit

a

avs been and is of first importance.

e to a large degree for the high stry enjoys. The ceiling for hours in wages are high. Any bill which avorably must be deplored.

vho knows a garment, I certainly am ⚫mmittee that wool is a better place for deed, in all good faith, I must defend the

endeavoring to establish fiber identificafor garments, know as well as I do, that ay connotation for garments. repared to state whether an all-wool cloth as an a part-wool cloth as such, or as the asked whether the reclaimed wool would ter or feel better, I am not prepared to say ter. After all, I am not a woolen manufacsomething about the wearing quality of the And I do know something about putting together such a fashion as to produce the best coat for of money. Any innovation of law which will resy the exercise of that ingenuity which it has years of close study and experience cannot be good or for the consumer. No law should impose upon gation to emphasize one ingredient of a garment rtainly as important elements.

was to belabor the point further. I do, however, desire es committee that I do not make and consumers do not Kas of cloth, plus buttons, plus workmanship, plus linings, and We make and they wear the finished garment.

sen, gentlemen, I should like to state, in no uncertain is my considered judgment as a practical cloak man that At the same time it For labeling has no real value to the consumer. Poss upon the cloak industry a regulation and restriction which ses its efficiency, which blithely disregards the fact that a fibercontent label affixed to a garment is unsound merchandising. Far from closing the door to misinformation, in my judgment it promotes that misinformation because it described only one of numerous ingredients which go to make a garment and therefore, has no quality meaning as applied to the finished product. Certainly the cloak and suit industry has a right to do business free of fanciful restriction, and, gentlemen, where will it all end? Is the silk label next? Then buttons Why not linings? How about furs? And so on, almost indefinitely,

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Haft, I would like to ask a question.

Ve Hart, I would be glad to answer it if I can.

Mr. MARTIN. You mentioned in your opening the various grades. indicated by prices of your garments ranging from $10 or $16.50 up to $123

Now, I want to ask you if you know when you get a fabric from the manufacturer, the fiber content of the various grades of garments yon manufacture, fiber content and percentage of the fiber? Mr. Hare. No, sir, we do not; the exact percentages. Mr. MARTIN, Do you know approximately?

Mr. HAFT. We know that they are approximately all wool and we help design fabrics, and at times expect the stylist in the mill to use his ingenuity in putting as decorations in the fabrics things that may have to be other than wool fibers, such as silk or rayon or whatever it may be.

Mr. MARTIN. What is your idea about the label, that it should just carry your trade name? You are not in favor of a label such as designed in the bill?

Mr. HAFT. I am in favor of a trade name, because that is what we believe we have been doing in our industry and it is true in every city in the country. If the chairman there bought his suit of clothes and he says he would like to know whether he is buying a linen suit or a woolen suit when he buys his clothes-I do not know where he lives. Let us say that he lives in Chicago and he buys his clothes and has for many years at Marshall Field's. He knows when he goes into Marshall Field's he can rely on the garment that he buys as being a good garment, serviceable, and he will have no fault to find with it.

Should he have any fault at any time they are there to make good. Mr. MARTIN. Your idea is that you have built up a good name which has gained recognition and standing and is an assurance to the purchaser that he is getting a good quality of article for the price he pays.

Mr. HAFT. That is correct.

Mr. MARTIN. Now, here is a little homely illustration: There is nothing can be done about it, perhaps. Maybe there is nothing which can be done about the situation we are trying to deal with here.

Now, there is a 10-cent cigar-I will not give the name of it-which I have smoked for years. It was very satisfactory to my taste, and I smoke no other brand if I can get it.

In the last few months that cigar has deteriorated. It tastes bitter. As a layman I can see a change in the wrapper. They tell me that a good deal of the cigar is in the quality of the wrapper and I can see the color of the wrapper has changed a little, and I think the texture has changed a little, and I complained to the dealer. So he said the next time a representative of the maker came in he would tell him about it, and I went in there yesterday. He had a box, a special box of these cigars which had been delivered to him by this representative, who said that he thought would be all right, but they are not all right.

Now, I am smoking a cigar that I do not like, which has deteriorated, but which has been made by the same manufacturer and has the same label on it. Something has happened to it. If anything could be done about that, it ought to be done. That is not the first experience of that kind I have had. I could name several brands of cigars which sold for years at the original price after they have cut the cigar very badly in some way, and after a while they cut the price and made them 5-cent cigars.

Mr. REECE. Would the passage of a bill requiring the cigar manufacturers to state that the cigars are all tobacco improve the quality? Mr. MARTIN. I will tell you, I do not think that they are all tobacco.

We just seem to be up against this thing in every line. I do not consider it any special reflection on the wool industry that a situa

68916-38-16