Boston, Mass.: J. H. Alkon, Inc., 15 Keenland Street. Bernard Appel, Inc., 35 Keenland Street. Binder Bros. & Olans, Inc., 15 Kneeland Street. Goldstein & Entin, Inc., 35 Kneeland Street. Hub Cloak & Suit Co., 15 Kneeland Street. International Cloak & Suit Co., 15 Kneeland Street. Rivitz Bros., 15 Kneeland Street. Saxcraft, Inc., 35 Kneeland Street. Slater & Weisman, Inc., 15 Kneeland Street. Los Angeles, Calif.: Paramount Dress Co., 719 South Los Angeles Street. Angelus Cloak Co., 217 East Eighth Street. Katz & Grossman, 127 East Ninth Street. Madoff Garment Co., 217 East Eighth Street. M. Michaelson & Co., 705-709 Textile Center Building, 315 East Eighth Phiffer's Inc., 850 South Broadway. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DIETSCH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have permission to make one statement. Mr. CROSSER. Just one statement. Mr. DIETSCH. Yes. I wore the uniform of the United States Government for 2 years and I am here to testify it was very bad, and very scratchy. I can testify to that from wearing that uniform. I would hate to have my child wear a garment made from the same specifications. Many of us were rubbed plenty with that type of wool. Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, may I make just a statement, take just a moment to reply to that? Prior to the war reworked material had never been used either by the Army or the Navy, in uniforms. During the war, and I presume that is the time the gentleman refers to. Mr. DIETSCH. That is correct. Mr. WILSON. Reworked wool was used in Army uniforms, but never in Navy uniforms, for the first time in history. That may be the reason. Mr. WOLFENDEN. May I interrupt? They also changed the specifications so that they might use much rougher and coarser wool. Mr. WILSON. They used much coarser wool, Mr. Chairman. STATEMENT OF GLEN T. STEBBINS, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES LIVE STOCK ASSOCIATION, KANSAS CITY, MO. Mr. STEBBINS. My name is Glen T. Stebbins. I am executive secretary of the United States Live Stock Association, with offices located at Kansas City, Mo. The membership of the association comprises approximately 85,000 livestock producers, the major portion of whom reside within the Corn Belt territory and the several States immediately adjacent thereto. This statement is offered in support of H. R. 9909, now before the committee for consideration and in this connection I quote a resolution adopted by the association at its last annual meeting held at Kansas City, Mo., February 17-18, 1938. The resolution reads as follows: This association favors enactment of legislation designed to bring about truthful labeling and advertisement as to the wool content of goods and fabrics for the protection both of consumers and of wool producers. The membership of our association, especially those engaged in the production of wool, are particularly anxious that the bill before the committee be acted on favorably at the earliest moment and that this legislation be enacted at this session of Congress. They believe this type of legislation will redound to the benefit of all phases of the industry as well as promote the interest of wool producers. In order not to burden the record I am authorized to adopt and take as our own the testimony offered in support of the proposed measure on behalf of the National Wool Growers Association. It is hoped the committee will act without delay. Mr. CROSSER. Mr. Lockwood, Mr. L. B. Lockwood has addressed a letter to the chairman, which may be made a part of the record. (The letter referred to is as follows:) Hon. CLARENCE F. LEA, THE L. B. LOCKWOOD CO., Cleveland, Ohio, May 10, 1938. Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Last week when I attended the subcommittee hearings covering bill H. R. 9909 as a representative of the National Association of Wool Fibre Manufacturers I asked at that time to be allowed the privilege of submitting to you at a later date samples of a variety of reprocessed wool fibers which would represent wool fibers as manufactured in this country by various companies, such as ourselves. At that time you stated as chairman of the committee that this would be agreeable to you. I would like if possible to make arrangements to submit a considerable amount of data to you and as many members of the committee as possible, sometime the early part of this coming week. I would appreciate very much a telegram stating as to when this would be convenient and I assure you I will be only too pleased to arrange my time to suit yours in this connection. I surely feel as though we should have the opportunity of defending ourselves in regards to certain statements which were made by the proponents of this bill, principally by the wool growers and Mr. Forstman. There were many statements made which were far from actual facts and it is rather hard for me to understand how people could really make some of the statements which were made there last week as they were either made through ignorance or else through some selfish motive. Unfortunately I was not aware that this hearing was going to be held until the day previous to the beginning of the hearing and, therefore, did not have the time to prepare the proper data covering this hearing; although I realize it was no fault of yours that I was not aware of the hearing. At the same time in view of the importance of our industry in connection with bill H. R. 9909, I sincerely hope that you will not make any report on this bill until we have had the privilege of submitting the facts pertaining to our industry in reference to this bill to you. Some of the misstatements which were submitted last week are as follows: 1. Mr. Forstman said there was 100,000,000 pounds of reprocessed wool manufactured. According to United States Department of Commerce census for the year 1935 covering waste and related products, which is the last report we have received, table 4, page 26, shows a report of 57,201,100 pounds of reprocessed wool fibers. Also his figures on virgin wool were quite incorrect. We are giving you below official figures for the year 1937 which we know are very accurate. 1937: Pounds 183, 000, 000 Domestic fleece, 366,000,000 pounds (50 percent). Total Foreign wools imported, 150,000,000 pounds (50 percent)_. 66, 200, 000 249, 200, 000 75, 000, 000 324, 200, 000 Total clean, domestic, and imported wools for 1937---I believe Mr. Forstmann made the statement that there was about 180,000,000 pounds of clean wool. You will note that this checks within 3,000,000 pounds of the figures I am furnishing you on domestic fleece wool which in my statement reads, "183,000,000 pounds." However, the facts are Mr. Forstmann included only part of the virgin wool because he failed to include 66,200,000 pounds of pulled wools and also 75,000,000 pounds of clean content imported wools; making a total of 324,200,000 pounds for the year 1937 against Mr. Forstmann's 180,000,000 pounds. The figures I am giving you represent the true picture as far as virgin wool is concerned in this country. We call your attention to the fact that 23.13 percent of all wool used in this country in the year 1937 were imported wools. These importations were necessary in order to take care of the requirements of the domestic manufacturers in view of the fact that the wool growers in this country, in spite of the high protective tariff which they have, do not produce enough wool when conditions are normal in order to take care of the requirements of the domestic woolen manufacturers. If 2. Certain samples of reprocessed wool fibers were submitted by the wool growers as being representative of the products which are sold as reprocessed wool. These samples did not represent reprocessed wool in any manner. opportunity is given to us we will prove conclusively the above statement. Samples we will submit to you represent reprocessed wool manufactured anywhere from 15 cents a pound to 70 cents a pound, which will be representative products of the actual materials which are sold to the woolen industry to be manufactured into fabrics in any way or manner they may choose. This is very important as far as our industry is concerned. 3. Listening to Mr. Forstman one would judge he had become quite an expert on reprocessed wool fibers, whereas he does not use a pound of reprocessed wool fiber in the manufacturing of the products which he makes. The equipment of the machinery which he has in his plant is not such as to utilize reprocessed wool fibers to the best advantage. He manufactures the highest grade women's wear fabrics that are made in the United States. In fact his merchandise is purchased only by people who have plenty of money; or, in other words, an expression was made at the hearing that "his fabrics were sold only to the exclusive 400." How can he be considered a judge as to whether reprocessed wool fiber is a good product or not when he knows absolutely nothing about the use of same? 4. Certain charts were filed with you by Mr. Forstman in regards to certain fabrics which he had made in order to show the inferiority of reprocessed wool. We will prove to you conclusively, if given the opportunity, that these charts as filed with you are not representative in any manner as to the quality of fabrics which are manufactured and sold regularly to the American public which contain reprocessed wool. They were special charts which were compiled by Mr. Forstman and are not representative in any manner and we shall prove to you that these are the facts in the case. 5. There are probably in this country in the neighborhood of 350 woolen manufacturers of some type or kind. Doesn't it seem rather strange to you that Mr. Forstman was the only manufacturer who has appeared as a proponent of the present proposed laws? The largest producers of fabrics in this country are the worsted manufacturers and in their process of manufacturing they cannot use any reprocessed wool. In fact, they use no reprocessed wool of any kind. Or another sense of the word, reprocessed wool is a competitor of the worsted branch of the industry, but at the same time you will notice they have not appeared at any hearing as a proponent of these bills in spite of the fact that they produce fabrics of excellent quality. The worsted manufacturers realize that there are certain types of fabrics where reprocessed wool is an advantage in using because they know that it is the quality of the fibers that count and not the length of the fiber. 6. Reprocessed wool is used mostly in the manufacture of outer wear garments such as men's and children's overcoatings, mackinaw, and ski fabrics. I believe that by far the largest total poundage of reprocessed wool manu factured in the year goes into these types of fabrics. It is an economic neces sity that these fabrics produced be kept within the range of price of the aver age American purchaser. By the mixture of a certain percentage of reprocessed wool into these fabrics it makes it possible for a purchaser of moderate means to buy clothing at a price they can afford to pay. These garments will wear longer in many cases than fabrics which would be produced out of certain grades and certain types of finishes of virgin wool fabrics. It is an erroneous statement for anyone to make that because a fabric contains reprocessed wool that it will not wear; because the contrary is quite the case. 7. Certain statements were made there last week to the effect that the machinery which was used in the manufacture of reprocessed wool was very damaging to the fiber. This certainly is far from the truth. Manufacturers of reprocessed wool fibers, such as ourselves, have machinery which has been developed especially for the purpose of preserving the staple and the quality of these fibers. In fact, these fibers are handled in the most gentle manner in order to preserve all of the quality and at the same time in the process of manufacturing the material into fibrous form again, the fibers are laid straight by certain machinery and all of the short stock drops out of this machine so that your finished product is practically all of uniform length and not a mixture of short and long such as you find in virgin wool. Certain statements were also made that the chemicals used in manufacturing reprocessed wool must be very damaging to the wool fibers. This also is not the case because the chemicals used are not injurious to the wool fiber at all. The above statement by the proponents of this bill was surely very badly implied because, for instance, in the rayon industry in the manufacture of rayon, chemicals are the means of producing the fiber. We only mention this because certain implications were made that chemicals were a disastrous thing to use. 8. We object very strenuously to the definition as worded covering the term "virgin wool." The proponents of this bill probably do not appreciate that worded as it is at the present time it will be possible for a manufacturer who makes virgin wool worsted or virgin woolen fabrics to reuse or sell his mill waste or byproducts which could be sold or used as card waste, burr waste, soft waste, hard waste, noils, and a number of other types of wastes. By far the majority of wastes mentioned above are very much inferior to most reprocessed wools. If the law was passed with your present interpretation of virgin wool it would mean that these inferior types of wastes would be sold in fabrics over the counter as being virgin wool fabrics which would certainly be deception in its grossest form, very much more serious than anything that is practiced at the present time. 9. We offer the following proposal as our interpretation of what the term "virgin wool" actually should mean and we offer it in the belief that it would be a fair and just regulation covering the various branches of industry. Our proposal is as follows: "The term 'virgin wool' means wool that has never previously been processed. All byproducts or waste produced in any and all of the various processes used in the manufacture of textile merchandise, except all worsted roving, ring, and lap waste are not to be considered as virgin wool. The last three items so specified are to be classed as virgin wool." 10. We also submit what we believe should be the correct definition of reprocessed wools or reclaimed wools as it is sometimes termed : "The term 'reprocessed wool' means wool which has been reconverted into a loose fiber state, having been spun, woven, knitted, felted, or otherwise made into yarn, cloth, or fabric; also includes all byproducts which are produced in any and all processes which are used in the manufacture of textile merchandise, with the exception of all worsted, ring, lap, and roving waste. All wool fibers not classified as virgin wool shall come under the heading of reprocessed wool." Our contention is that if certain manufacturers are going to use virgin wool labeling let us not use anything in these fabrics except fiber which is actually of a virgin nature. I am very sorry to find it necessary to burden you with such a long letter but at the same time I felt as though certain things had been said at the hearing that were quite necessary for us to bring to your attention and as stated above I hope to have the privilege of submitting to you very shortly various types of samples which will prove conclusively some of the statements which I have referred to. Yours cordially, Mr. CROSSER. That closes the hearings. (Thereupon, at 12:50 p. m., the hearings were concluded.) (The following matter was submitted for the record:) THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF TEXTILES, INC., Mr. E. J. LAYTON, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. LAYTON: There is enclosed a statement that we would appreciate very much being filed as part of the comments in the hearings on H. R. 9909. I know that this has been delayed beyond the time I mentioned, when I spoke to you, but an unfortunate spell of illness has interfered. I hope it is not too late, however. If it is not asking too much, would you please send me two additional copies of the bill? One of the British textile associations is very much interested in it and has asked for a copy. With many thanks for your kindnesses, I am, I. L. BLUNT, Secretary. Hon. CLARENCE LEA, Washington, D. C. SIR: Manufacturers of silk and rayon fabrics, as represented in the membership of the National Federation of Textiles, Inc., formerly the Silk Association of America, Inc., are deeply interested in the type of legislation exemplified in H. R. 9999, introduced by Mr. Martin of Colorado. The general policy of the bill is most commendable, but we believe that in its present narrow application it has strong possibilities of causing confusion in the already confused state of mind of many textile manufacturers who utilize more than one fiber in their products. We recommend, therefore, that if any legislation of this type is to be enacted, it should not be for one class of textiles, but to be really productive of the public interest and to be more capable of enforcement should apply to all fibers. In securing understanding and compliance with labeling regulations that are new and unfamiliar, it is evident from comments in the trade and from the handling of merchandise that one standard for all textiles would be extremely helpful. This was brought out at the conferences before the Federal Trade Commission on identifying rules for wool, silk, and rayon, and we sincerely believe that to avoid confusion on the part of either the producers, wholesale distributors, garment manufacturers, retailers, or consumers the rules should be identical. Furthermore, insistence upon specific percentages of fiber content is conducive only to difficulties in enforcement. Approximately 80 percent of our dress fabrics are made into garments before reaching the consumer, a fact which complicates the problem of branding of the merchandise so that the wearer will get the information that the manufacturer originally gave his customer. It is, therefore, highly important that the provisions be as simple as possible In addition to the difficulties in enforcement there is also a very practical reason for not requiring a statement of percentage. This type of information, when applied to dress fabrics, is frequently assumed to be a gage of wearing quality. It has been conclusively proved, on frequent occasions, that this is not true and would be more misleading than informative if taken in such a way. We, therefore, recommend that, if enacted, the bill should apply to all fibers and that it be so worded as to require only identification of the fiber or fibers in the fabric; that is, a statement that it is composed of wool, silk, linen, or wool and rayon, wool and silk, etc. Respectfully submitted. I. L. BLUNT, Secretary. |