1

The first one marked sample "A" has an actual content of 100 per cent wool, both warp and weft, that means filling. College A reported that 5.4 per cent was new wool and 94.6 per cent was reworked wool. College B reported that 100 per cent was new wool. There was a difference in their estimates of between 100 per cent and 5.4 per cent. College A reported the weft contained 4.5 per cent new wool and 95.5 per cent reworked wool. College B which was correct with regard to the warp, was 100 per cent wrong on the weft and reported that 100 per cent of the weft was reworked wool.

The next one is sample "B," the actual components of which are 10 per cent new wool and 90 per cent reworked wool warp. College A reported 50 per cent new wool instead of 10 per cent; and it reported 49 per cent reworked wool instead of 90 per cent. College B reported 100 per cent new wool while actually there was only 10 per cent new wool in the sample. That is the warp. Now, the weft in that sample actually had a content of 10 per cent new wool and 90 per cent reworked wool. College A reported the new wool content of the weft to be 31.5 per cent and the reworked content to be 68.5 per cent, while College B reported 100 per cent reworked wool in the weft.

Sample C had an actual content of 100 per cent new wool in the warp. College A reported 42.5 per cent new wool and 57.5 per cent reworked wool in the warp, while College B reported that there was possibly some reworked wool in the warp. The weft content, the actual content, of sample C was 100 per cent new wool and no reworked wool at all. College A reported 46.3 per cent new wool and 53.7 per cent reworked wool, while B reported that there was possibly some reworked wool, although it gave as a figure 100 per cent new wool.

Sample D had an actual content in warp of new wool 75 per cent and reworked wool 25 per cent. College A reported 50 per cent new wool and 50 per cent reworked wool, while College B reported 20 per cent or less of new wool and 80 per cent or more of reworked wool; on the weft, the actual content of sample D was 75 per cent new wool and 25 per cent reworked wool; while College A reported 17 per cent new wool and $3 per cent reworked wool, and College B reported 20 per cent or less new wool and 80 per cent or more reworked wool.

Sample E had an actual content in the warp of 100 per cent new 'wool. College B reported 25 per cent of one half of the fabric as new wool and 75 per cent as reworked wool. It was all new wool. Of the other half it reports, "it is largely reworked." It did not venture to give any percentage. College A said it was impossible to give an analysis, that the sample was so well felted that it was not practical to try to pull it apart. The same report is made as to weft on sample E.

On sample F the actual content in the warp of new wool was 87 per cent and the reworked wool 12 per cent. College A reports 57 per cent new wool and 42 per cent reworked wool, while College B reports on two different pieces, both exactly alike-they report 100 per cent new wool on the one piece, and 100 per cent reworked wool on the other. They are both identical. The only difference was in the dye. So they were 100 per cent wrong and 100 per cent

89040-24- 4

right. On the weft the actual content was 87 per cent new wool and 12 per cent reworked wool, and the College A reported 57 per cent new wool and 43 per cent reworked wool, while College B made the same report with regard to the weft as it did with regard to the warp.

The December, 1922, issue of the Scientific American contained an article by Dr. L. A. Hausman, of Rutgers College, on the subject of the microscopic examination of the fibers of woolen fabrics. As this article seems to indicate the practicability of such a determination as would be necessary to enforce the provisions of this bill under consideration now, inquiry was made of the author as to whether the percentages of virgin and reworked wool could be determined with approximate accuracy, and whether he would examine and report upon the specimens. Upon receipt of his affirmative reply a set of samples, identical with those supplied to the Kansas College, were forwarded to him. The reports which I have just read, and the sheets to which I have just made reference give the results of the examination as contained in the reports from the Kansas College and Rutgers College. You will note that in no single instance is either analysis even approximately correct. All are so inaccurate as to be entirely useless for any practical purpose; they could, of course, be very easily and quickly discredited as evidence. Some of the results are exactly 100 per cent wrong, and others are from 50 to 75 per cent wrong.

The first proposal for a law of this kind was the Grosvenor bill, introduced in the House in 1920. At that time information similar to that now presented was given to the representatives of the woolgrowers, and they were so convinced of the impracticability of the measure that it was dropped from further consideration.

For several years after that nothing more was heard of the subject in Congress. But about 10 years later it was revived, and numerous bills were introduced in the House. By 1915 not less than 10 bills had been referred to committees. Some of these (like the Capper bill) covered only manufactures of wool, some were applicable to all textile products, and in others the provisions extended to leather and rubber goods, jewelry, and possibly some other classes of articles.

Extensive hearings were held at that time by the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. So convincing was the testimony to the unwisdom of enacting that kind of law that the chairman of the subcommittee to which the subject had been referred abandoned a bill he had introduced, for compulsory labeling, and substituted one having the same general purposes as the Lodge bill. That was Representative Barkley.

None of the bills were reported to the House; and war activities diverted attention from such legislation until subsequent to the war, when Mr. French introduced his bill in the House, and Senator Capper introduced its counterpart in the Senate.

During the discussions of the various bills for compulsory labeling, many writers and speakers upon the subject referred to a British law known as the merchandise marks act, and advocated a law of that kind as more effective and enforceable than one based upon compulsory labeling. The purpose of that act is to prevent misbranding or misrepresentation in description. It has been in force

for more than 30 years and has been successfully invoked in cases concerning woolen textiles.

A bill modeled after the British act, but considerably broadened in scope, and translated into American legislative phraseology, was introduced in the Senate of the last Congress by Senator Lodge (S. 1882, Sixty-seventh Congress, first session) and in the House by Representative Rogers (H. R. 16, of the same session).

Subsequent to the adjournment of the last Congress some of the formerly most active advocates of the French-Capper measure, at their own instance, arrived at the same conclusion which many of their predecessors came to, namely, that the compulsory branding idea was impracticable, unenforceable, would afford no benefit to either the wool grower or the consumer of woolen goods, and would needlessly increase the cost of such goods to the consumer. Realizing the merits of the Lodge bill, to which no objection had ever been made, they sought some method by which its applicability to the prevention of misrepresentation of woolen goods could be emphasized. It was finally decided that this purpose could be accomplished by incorporating in the Lodge bill definitions of new wool and reworked wool. Such definitions were drafted and embodied in the new Lodge bill, which is now before you, which differs from the one before the last Congress only in respect to these definitions and their application, and to some changes in phraseology, which latter were made upon the advice of one of the legislative experts to conform to approved legislative language, and in no way affecting the principles of the bill.

Representative French, at one of the former hearings, stated that the Lodge-Rogers bill was an excellent one; an opinion in which I am confident Senator Capper concurs. We advocate it as a practicable, workable means of affording the public the largest measure of protection against misrepresentation of the goods they buy that can be given by a law, and that without imposing upon the Government vast administrative expenses, to no purpose other than that of greatly increasing the number of public employees for the enforcement of an entirely futile and useless law.

Reference has been made in previous hearings to one aspect of this subject, which, while not itself important, is made significant because of the exaggerated statements made by some of the proponents of the French-Capper measure.

The very best qualities of virgin wool are cast-off clothing that has been worn by the original owner for a year, night and day without change; and when first sold is impregnated with the accumulated sweat, dirt, and filth of a year's constant use. The sheep, by which the wool was first worn, in immediate contact with the body, does not bathe; and the very density of this thick covering makes it peculiarly subject to parasitical diseases. Virgin wool is a carrier to the human body of one of the most dreaded and fatal diseasesanthrax. And the risk to those who handle wool in its natural state has been so serious that within the past year, at a meeting in England of handlers and users of wool, a resolution was adopted urging support of the efforts of the British Government to secure an international convention on the disinfection of wool and hair.

It is only by the cleansing processes that are applied to the wool in the course of its manufacture that it is made safe for human use. By average more than 50 per cent of the weight of new-shorn wool consists of dirt, grease and filth; and of most of our domestic wools the proportion is between 60 and 65 per cent, only about onethird of the weight of the fleece being clean wool.

Most of the reworked wool used in the manufacture of fabrics is made from tailor's clips of new cloth and other wastes of manufacture which have never been used, and are as clean as newly woven cloth. Such as is derived from old garments will compare advantageously, as to sanitary condition, with the best of new raw wool and is subjected to as thorough cleansing and sterilizing as new wool must receive.

The inferior grades of reworked wool fiber are not employed in the manufacture of yarns and fabrics, such materials being used in the production of building felts, linings, and coverings for mechanical work, fillers, and many other purposes which absorb large quantities of fibre recovered from inferior material.

I believe there are two objectors to the Lodge bill now before you, and they very heartily approved the original Lodge bill. Now the essential difference between its present and original form consists in the addition of two definitions. Section 2, subdivisions (e) and (f) and of the new or virgin and the other of reworked wool; and the application of the definitions in subdivisions (b), (c), (d) of the fourth paragraph of section 5. Here are the definitions:

66

66

(e) The terms virgin wool" and new wool" mean sheep's wool, lamb's wool, and hair of the Angora and Cashmere goat that has never previously been spun into yarn, woven into cloth, or felted, and is without admixture of cotton, jute, hemp, silk, reworked wool, or any other fiber than new wool; (f) The term "all wool" means sheep's wool, lamb's wool, and hair of the Angora and Cashmere goat that has no admixture of cotton, jute, hemp, silk, or any other fiber.

Can there be any question about the accuracy of these definitions? Bear in mind that at the present time, in the absence of a law like the Lodge bill, any one can brand the goods he sells as virgin wool, or new wool, or all wool; but in the absence of official definitions of these terms, the goods so labeled, need only conform to the seller's own idea of what the words mean.

If this bill is enacted the seller is not required to label his goods; but if he does, the terms used on the label must be in conformity with the definitions, as must also be any representations concerning the goods which the seller makes.

The only ground for objection to the present Lodge bill which these objectors can have must be that they want to be able to represent their goods to be either of new wool or virgin wool when in fact the goods contain fiber that has previously been spun or woven; or that they wish to represent as all wool goods which contain other fibers than wool, such as cotton.

Objections which arise from such a motive need no further consideration.

There are a few minor amendments which I have been instructed to ask you to make to the Lodge bill, none of which affect the purposes of the measure.

In many fabrics some fine silk is incorporated as part of the design or pattern. The silk is much more costly than wool, and en

hances the value of the goods without in any way impairing their merits. It is desired that the presence of this silk shall not invalidate the terms “new wool," "virgin wool," and "all wool" and for that reason it is requested that the following mentioned changes in the text be made: On page 2, line 8; page 2, line 12; page 6, line 1; page 6, line 2, change "silk" to "silk waste "; on page 6, line 2, and page 6, line 10, add at end "except silk yarns used solely for decorative purposes."

New camel's hair is in the same class with new wool and new mohair, and its omission from the definitions must have been merely inadvertent. We therefore request that the words "camel's hair" be inserted after the word "goat" on page 2, line 6; page 2, line 11; page 5, line 24; page 6, line 10.

That is about all I have to say to the committee, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Very well, General Wood.

Senator PEPPER. May I ask one question?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, certainly.

Senator PEPPER. If I correctly understand your contention it comes down to these two points: First, that the original bill selects a factor which you regard as of minor importance and seeks to make it decisive in the estimation of the customer who is to purchase the material, and second, that if the bill were to become law there are insuperable administrative difficulties in the way of determining whether the law in a given case is complied with?

General WOOD. That is correct, Senator, with this modification: The first inference I would say is not merely a minor factor.

Senator PEPPER. But, after all, it is the selection of a single factor? General WOOD. That is true.

Senator PEPPER. And the giving to that factor of an appearance of decisiveness which may either be, according to your contention, erroneous and negligible or erroneous and seriously misleading? General WoOD. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Capper would like to ask you a question. Senator CAPPER. General, you have stressed here at great length a difficulty in testing the quality of these various fabrics and you have produced some reports made by several colleges. Now, I think we will all admit that it is a good deal of a problem at this time to determine the percentage of wool, shoddy, etc., in a given piece of goods. But, is it not true that the manufacturer is the one who does know exactly what percentage of wool and what percentage of reworked wool and what percentage of shoddy is in that fabric? General WOOD. That is unquestionably true.

Senator CAPPER. That being true, and he being the one man who has this information, and the dealer and the consumer both should know what the contents of that fabric are, what objection is there and why should there be any real objection to having the manufacturer give to the customer, the dealer, and the purchaser, information which he has on that very important thing, so that the ultimate buyer may know what he is paying for?

General WOOD. The answer to that involves pretty nearly all my statement. I may try to briefly repeat it. The manufacturer has no objection to telling the buyer. The manufacturer has a plant, real estate, and machinery. It is absolutely immaterial to him what he uses. He can buy new wool as well as he can buy reworked wool