Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

In the French-Capper bill there is a definite statement of the penalties that will be incurred if the provisions of the bill are not complied with.

So far as the Lodge bill is concerned, and it is no doubt intended well, it sets out "to protect the public against fraud by prohibiting the manufacture, sale, or transportation in interstate commerce of misbranded, misrepresented, or falsely described articles," and to regulate the traffic therein and for other purposes. It aims, chiefly, to the requirement of a correct labeling.

Here is the difference between the two, to our minds: The truth in fabric bill, in our belief, if it is passed and enforced as it will be means an item of millions of dollars annually in the clothing bill of the United States; it is the difference between wool from the sheep, fleece wool, cleaned and brought to a fair American basis, and the cheap inferior shoddy, with rags, either tailors' trimmings, or reclaimed rags from the battle field, which are woven into cloth, and which is now sold as "all wool" goods, carrying with it the thought in the mind of the buyer that "all wool means "virgin wool." As a matter of fact, the farmers in the Nation are somewhat more concerned with this measure than are other people. The farmers are buying the less expensive goods, which is shoddy, and the farmer is trading off fleece wool for this shoddy, because he is unable to determine the difference between wool and shoddy wool, after it is in the cloth, and the only way to tell the difference between the fleece wool and the shoddy wool is to tell that difference before it is woven. The farmer, like other consumers, would like to buy virgin wool clothing if he could be assured that he is getting what he pays for. The difference between virgin wool and some grades of shoddy can not be shown in the woven fabric. But, if an inventory is taken in the factory and it shows what the manufacturer is buying, it will be very easy to tell what is being put into the yardage; and in that way the Capper-French bill requires the manufacturer to label it and the Government to check it.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to know whether that is the practice. Mr. SILVER. There is an abundance of evidence in the testimony already given. However, I can give you a personal experience. In endeavoring to buy a couple of years or so ago

Senator COUZENS (interposing). You stated awhile ago that the farmer sold his fleece or virgin wool at a basis of "all wool" and that he bought in return his clothing cheaper, although you say he paid high enough prices to have gotten all wool. You still admit in your testimony that he got it cheaper, at a lower price than if he had gotten "all wool"?"

Mr. SILVER. The term still is confusing.

Senator COUZENS. I am not geting at an analysis of "all wool," but what I am trying to determine is whether the buyers do get a reduction in the purchase of the goods because they are not "all wool"? That is what I want to determine, that they do do that, and you say they do. Then I want to find out, if I can, just how the public is cheated, and whether the relationship between the "all wool” and what the farmer bought is a proper relationship.

Mr. SILVER. The shoddy you buy may be "all wool," but it is rags from the rag bag. It may well be all wool, but it is not what the buyer thinks he is buying when he buys a suit of clothes recommended

to him as being "all wool." He thinks when he buys such a suit of clothes that he is buying "all wool."

The CHAIRMAN. The Senator wants to know if he (that is, the farmer) is being cheated, whether he thinks he is getting all wool, this virgin wool that you speak of?

Mr. SILVER. I feel quite sure that there is fraud in the analysis of it when you use the term "all wool" for that low-grade wool. The low-grade wool does not have the wearing power, and it does not hold the dye, etc. Now, when it comes to the price, the goods are sold, whether they are made from wool or shoddy, at whatever the seller thinks he can get for them. There is a difference in the highest grade of wool and the shoddy, but there is not a difference commensurate with the wearing qualities of the goods. If the buyer of shoddy, which will be just the same as if it were labeled, knows it is shoddy, knows it has been reworked, he has an opportunity to determine whether he wants to buy the low grade of cloth or whether he wants to pay a different price for all wool, new wool, a piece of cloth made out of what is marked definitely as virgin wool. As it is now it is a fraud. He does not know what he is buying. If the material is labeled distinctly and he buys knowingly, it is not fraud. He will buy the goods at its worth, and the responsibility is fixed. The retailer can not tell now any more than I can tell what is shoddy and all wool. It is hopeless. The natural protest goes to the retailer, but if the manufacturer is required to label his goods, and the Federal representatives carry out their responsibility to the trade, then there will be a means of fixing whatever punishment may be required for a violation of the act.

Senator COUZENS. Is this going to add any expense to the cost of production? Manufacturing production?

Mr. SILVER. I do not see how it would; even if the inspecting and the invoicing were charged to manufacture it would be so slight it would not be noticeable. It is not a daily job. It is simply a case of checking the invoices at stated intervals. There is nothing to it that would add to the general cost.

Senator COUZENS. Does this bill provide that the cost of enforcing this provision should be borne by the manufacturer?

Senator CAPPER. The bill provides that the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Secretary of Commerce shall make uniform rules and regulations for carrying out the provisions of this act, including the collection and examination of specimens of woolen fabrics and garments or articles of apparel manufactured therefrom, offered for sale in any State or Territory or in the District of Columbia, or which shall be offered for sale in unbroken packages in any State or Territory or in the District of Columbia other than that in which they shall have been respectively produced or manufactured, or which shall be offered for shipment or tendered for shipment in interstate or foreign commerce, or which shall be received from any other State or Territory or the District of Columbia other than that in which they have been respectively produced or manufactured, or which shall be received from any foreign country or intended for shipment to any foreign country, and shall have power to inspect the plants, raw material, methods and the books of all manufacturers of such goods who have secured a registration number as hereinafter provided, and to require reports in

such form from such manufacturers from time to time as they may deem necessary, under such rules and regulations as they may prescribe.

Senator MAYFIELD. The cost of enforcing this law will be borne by the consumer and added on to the price of the goods. The consumer, in my judgment, would offset that increase in price by the increase in quality.

Mr. SILVER. Under the bill, as it was formerly drawn, the Government bears the expense. The point that I make is that if it were added to the manufacturer and borne by him the increase is insignificant.

Senator MAYFIELD. And that would be offset by the better quality of the goods?

Senator COUZENS. There is no guaranty of that by any means. Senator MAYFIELD. That is the inference.

Senator COUZENS. We pass a good many bills by inference.

Senator CAPPER. No doubt shoddy goods would be sold, but not at the prices that all-wool goods bring.

The CHAIRMAN. Whom would you like to have heard now?

Senator CAPPER. I would like to have Mr. McSparran make his statement now.

STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN A. McSPARRAN, MEMBER EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE NATIONAL BOARD OF FARM ORGANIZATIONS AND MASTER OF THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE GRANGE.

Mr. McSPARRAN. We wanted to just hurriedly present one or two points connected with the Capper bill and to make the comparison between the Capper and Lodge bills.

Senator Couzens raised the point a moment ago as to whether our people are being imposed upon. I do not think it is true that the shoddy is all going into the cheaper grade of goods. It is, as a matter of fact, going into the more costly grades of goods. When you come to the fine summer wearing apparel, I doubt if shoddy would be woven into that, and at the same time make the goods hold up. But when you come to the overcoat goods, the consumer is absolutely helpless. I bought an overcoat a few years ago, and I have it now, and I paid a good price for it. I paid either $30 or $35 for the overcoat, and it looked good and has a fine finish. But I snagged it, and to my great surprise, tore it. There was no strength in the goods at all, and I said to myself, "There is shoddy in that all right.' It was just as short as it could be. There was no length to it at all. Then, later on, that same overcoat, where the coat ought to wear leaving the underlying threads, it broke out in chunks. I do not think that that coat was worth $10.

[ocr errors]

Senator COUZENS. You are not a good buyer.

Mr. McSPARRAN. I did not pretend and do not pretend to know the difference. A man who buys one overcoat every two years can not pick out shoddy.

Senator CAPPER. That is the purpose of the bill, to protect the buyer who is not in a position to know the difference.

Mr. MCSPARRAN. The point I make is that I do not think the market could make the difference that it now makes if it had to put the name "shoddy "shoddy" on the clothes. I do not think folks would buy it.

Senator COUZENS. If the buyer got a sufficient difference in price he would?

Mr. McSPARRAN. You do not get sufficient difference, because that stuff won't stand up. It is too short in the grain. It falls apart, snags, and tears.

Senator COUZENS. It has already been stated here that there is a difference in the price, and Senator Capper says that reworked goods will still be sold. Is it your contention that there will be a proper relation between the virgin wool and the reworked goods, a different relation because it is already admitted there is a relation between the two, but not a sufficient difference to justify the price of reworked goods. Is it my understanding that you contend that this bill will meet that situation?

Mr. McSPARRAN. Yes, I think it will. It is just the same thing as if the farmer sells you a barrel of potatoes and puts thirds in the middle. When you take the good potatoes off the top and find the bad ones in the middle, then you take them back to the farmer and he has no comeback. That is the situation on the cloth. There would be a comeback on the cloth just as there is a comeback on the barrel of potatoes today.

Senator CoUZENS. How?

Mr. McSPARRAN. You would simply have to take the goods back and correct the error, just as you would have to take the potatoes. Senator COUZENS. How would you identify the potatoes, if I sold them to you, and put thirds in the middle of the barrel? Mr. MCSPARRAN. How would I identify them?

Senator CoUZENS. Yes.

Mr. McSPARRAN. Why, the potatoes would be there.

Senator COUZENS. Yes; but would not the farmer perhaps get away with it?

Mr. McSPARRAN. But he would have to take the potatoes back. Senator COUZENS. If I was a farmer, and I am a farmer, he would have to prove to me that I sold him the apples or the potatoes in the middle of the barrel that were not up to the standard.

Mr. McSPARRAN. I have seen that done on the market.

Senator COUZENS. The farmer wants to be protected on the buying of the clothes, but you can not catch him on the potatoes and apples in the middle of the barrel.

Mr. McSPARRAN. Of course there is a very great difficulty in catching him. This bill does not ask anybody to take a lower price for his product, nor does it ask that there be a control of prices. It simply provides that an article be sold for what it is. That is simply an honest proposition.

Senator CoUZENS. I do not want to be misunderstood as not favoring the bill. What I do not want to be a party to is the building up of more laws and the creating of more enforcement officers, and the providing for more expense, if these things do not bring commensurate results. We are too prone, at times, to pass bills that, on the surface, seem to be good, but that bring great organizations of inspectors etc., into existence, that do not bring about any substantial or material results to the community. I want to be sure that we are not setting up here a great machinery that will not, in the end, result in good to the public.

89040-24- -2

[ocr errors]

Senator CAPPER. You will find that covered in the report as it appears on pages 37, 38, and 39 of the previous hearings.

Mr. MCSPARRAN. There are some very definite distinctions between the Capper bill and the Lodge bill. One of those distinctions Mr. Goss pointed out, that being the description of virgin wool and new wool. It all means the same to the consumer. The consumer will

make mighty little difference or distinction between the two.
Senator CouZENS. What is the difference?

Mr. MCSPARRAN. One contains shoddy and the other new wool.
Senator COUZENS. Virgin contains shoddy?

Mr. McSPARRAN. No.

Senator COUZENS. How can 66

new wool" contain shoddy?

Mr. McSPARRAN. I beg your pardon, I mean all wool.

The CHAIRMAN. And all wool would be the reworked wool, too? Senator COUZENS. Is there any difference between "virgin" and and " new " wool?

Mr. MCSPARRAN. Fleece wool and all wool are both the same. The Lodge bill speaks of "all wool."

The CHAIRMAN. Would not the fleece wool be clean wool?
Senator COUZENS. Is there any difference between the two?

Mr. McSPARRAN. Fleece wool, as I understand the term, it ceases to be fleece wool after it goes through certain processes. However, it is still new wool. I do not think they speak of it as fleece wool when it has been cleaned up. I am not a manufacturer, and I do not know about the technicalities. I think the branding is worked out in the Capper bill, and as it is worked out there it is very explicit. Branding in the other bill, the Lodge bill, is I think contradictory. There is a definition given on page 2 of that bill, and then on page 4, section 1, it says, "If it be offered for sale under the name of another article or with a name or brand so nearly like it as to deceive purchasers as to its origin or character." Now, I think the term "virgin wool and "all wool" would deceive the purchaser as to its origin, and the description on page 4 is contradictory of the description on page 2. That same situation exists as to the term "shoddy," and you have it appearing again on page 6, where the one is called "all wool" and the other is called "virgin wool." There is nothing to protect the consuming public and nothing to tell the consuming public whether there is or not any shoddy in the garment. It might be all shoddy and not have anything else in it, and still be all wool. I think there is another very objectionable clause over on page 10 of the Lodge bill, where the manufacturer is protected from prosecution. It says there on page 10, that the Secretary of Commerce may, in his discretion, refrain from certifying to a United States district attorney the facts of violation in a case of a first offense, and in case the offender shall enter into faithfully observe a stipulation forever to cease and desist from further violation of the act. That is mighty handy for a manufacturer. He will go to the limit and say he will never do it again. He may go for years until he is tripped up, and he won't be prosecuted because he promises to be good. I do not understand a bill intended to protect the public, why it should have a clause of that kind in it.

Senator LODGE. That is not mandatory, is it?
Mr. MCSPARRAN. No: it is not mandatory.

« AnteriorContinuar »