ported by cotton, rayon and wool interests. All of these groups have worked diligently to solve the problem of flammable fabrics. The Canfield bill is the answer." Now, here is a letter from George S. Buck, Jr., technical director, National Cotton Council of America, addressed to me under date of March 24, 1953 [reading]: The Hon. GORDON CANFIELD, NATIONAL COTTON COUNCIL OF AMERICA, The House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CANFIELD: Mr. John Hazen of the National Retail Dry Goods Association has asked me to state to you our position on H. R. 3851, which you introduced on March 10, 1953. We believe that H. R. 3851 represents the best possible approach to the control of dangerously flammable textiles. As you know, we have steadfastly maintained that reputable manufacturers will and can eliminate such fabrics from commerce by voluntary means, rather than by legislative controls. However, we concede that the control of fly-by-night operators might still be difficult. Because of this factor, and because a number of States have made it evident that they will adopt their regulations in the absence of Federal flammability controls on this subject, we are giving our support to Federal legislation as the most suitable and workable means for assuring the public that no dangerously flammable textile material will be sold as clothing. The industry has given very careful study to H. R. 3851 and has reached the conclusion that the bill in its present form is reasonable, workable and effective. We urge that hearings be scheduled at an early date, and that the bill be passed in its present form and enacted into law. You are to be congratulated on having reached a formula on this delicate subject which satisfies all branches of the industry, from manufacturers to retailers, and which at the same time provides the public with the reasonable safeguards which should accompany the purchase of any clothing article. You can count on our support of H. R. 3851. Very truly yours, GEORGE S. BUCK, Jr., Technical Director. I have another letter from the Society of the Plastics Industry, dated March 24. Hon. GORDON CANFIELD, THE SOCIETY OF THE PLASTICS INDUSTRY, INC., House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Several years ago when bills were first introduced in Congress intended to regulate traffic in "flammable fabrics" we took an interest in them. By invitation we have had representatives appear before congressional committees to give information on plastics as they may be affected by these measures and to supply other data. We are therefore very much interested in H. R. 3851. We hope that during the current session the Congress will take favorable action on this bill. If hearings are held on the measure we would like to have an opportunity to be heard. Very truly yours, WILLIAM T. CRUSE, Executive Vice President. I have another letter by Mr. Paul H. Nystrom, president, Limited Price Variety Stores Association, Inc., New York. Hon. GORDON CANFIELD, LIMITED PRICE VARIETY STORES ASSOCIATION, INC., House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN CANFIELD: The association that I represent is very much interested in having competent, fair legislation that will regulate the manufacture and sale of inflammable clothing and fabrics. I have not seen your bill, but understand from Mr. Philip Schindel of the New Jersey Retail Merchants Association that you are proposing a measure that will properly meet these requirements. We would like to be recorded as in favor. The Limited Price Variety Stores Association represents 7,400 variety stores, both chain and individually owned throughout the entire United States. Articles of clothing and textiles are sold in large quantities throughout these stores. Best wishes. Sincerely yours, PAUL H. NYSTROM, President. Here is a letter from Dr. F. Bonnet (retired) adviser to the president, American Viscose Corp. It is a rather lengthy letter and I will read a portion thereof. It reads: DEAR CONGRESSMAN: In writing to you and expressing my hearty approval and support of your bill, H. R. 3851, I am representing the American Viscose Corp., the largest producer of rayon and also the American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists (AATCC). The American Viscose Corp. has been much interested in having Federal legislation to prevent the use of flammable fabrics in wearing apparel so as to minimize as far as possible the often pathetic disfigurement and sometimes fatal injuries which result from the accidental ignition of flammable wearing apparel. Details of a few of the hundreds of such injuries were cited in my statement at the hearings before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives 80th Congress, 1st session, March 4 and 5, 1947, page 81 of the printed record in connection with H. R. 505 (Canfield) H. R. 601 (Johnson) H. R. 1111 (Arnold) bills. The American Viscose Corp. quite sometime before the cowboy suits' accidents in Washington, D. C., was interested in preventing the use of rayon in flammable fabrics for wearing apparel. Although it did not manufacture fabrics it did have a quality control plan, and copyright registered tags, which were never issued for brushed or similar flammable fabrics even though made of its rayon, when it considered them dangerously flammable. When burning accidents did occur, attention was usually directed to the synthetic fibers, although many of the accidents were due to fabrics made of the natural cellulosic fiber cotton. In fact, the original California bill was directed against synthetics for it made it "unlawful to manufacture, sell *** any article of wearing apparel *** more highly flammable than cotton cloth in its natural state." This was subsequently amended to read "any article made from or containing natural or synthetic fibers determined by the fire marshall to be so highly flammable as to constitute a dangerous risk of fire and hazard of injury to persons" after a public hearing in Sacramento attended by an American Viscose Corp. representative. Thus, briefly you will understand the position which has been taken by the American Viscose Corp. in the public interest so as to include all dangerously flammable fabrics in any legislation and why it wishes me, as its representative to express to you its approval of H. R. 3851. Then, several other paragraphs and the closing one reads: As the representative of the American Viscose Corp. and of AATCC, may I again express not only approval of H. R. 3851 but the sincere hope that it will soon be enacted into law by the present Congress. I have another letter, an interesting letter which comes from Macy's, signed by Mr. Ephraim Freedman, director, Macy's bureau of standards, addressed to me. Hon. GORDON CANFIELD, MACY'S, New York, March 26, 1953. Congressman, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN CANFIELD: This morning's mail brought to me a copy of H. R. 3851, the flammability bill which you introduced in the House of Representatives on March 10, 1953. As one who has long sought the elimination in commerce of highly flammable articles of wearing apparel in fabrics intended for use in garments, I take this opportunity to extend to you this letter of appreciation for the introduction of this bill. I know that should it be enacted into law, it will do much toward giving the public a good measure of protection to which it is justly entitled. Should any opposition to the passage of this worthwhile measure develop, you may feel free to call upon me to do all in my power to assist in either removing, or in counteracting such opposition. Sincerely yours, EPHRAIM FREEDMAN, Director, Macy's Bureau of Standards. Now, reference has been made, Mr. Chairman, to the flammable fabric standard formula developed by the Secretary of Commerce and the Bureau of Standards. It is my hope that during these proceedings you will call to the witness stand representatives of the Bureau of Standards who were instrumental in connection with industry in developing this formula. It is my understanding that this agency of our Federal Government believes it has worked out-industry concurring-the best possible formula, and it has been working on this for years. It is my understanding that the representatives of the agency of our Federal Government, the Bureau of Standards, are prepared to defend that formula and when reference is made to the industry having so much to say in changing it, I think it ought to be emphasized right here that if the formula is a good one, it should be noted in H. R. 3851, that any change suggested by industry can be vetoed by the Secretary of Commerce. So, there is still Federal control, full control, over the formula pattern. Now, I note from the chairman's reading of the letters from the executive department that the Assistant Secretary of Commerce, Mr. Sheaffer, expressed some concern over the matter of the guaranty as developed, in State approaches, and he pointed out that under State and local statutes, the innocent retailer was often victimized, Now, the purpose of my change in the guaranty provisions is to protect that innocent retailer and if he receives a guaranty from the manufacturer, in good faith, he cannot be held liable for selling an article that is highly flammable. Mr. Chairman, with permission to revise and extend my remarks, I believe that that is all I have to present at the present time. The CHAIRMAN. You have that permission. Mr. DOLLIVER. Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dolliver, Mr. DOLLIVER. Mr. Canfield, I would like to call your attention to the fact, if someone has not already done so, that in one of the current women's magazines-I believe it is the Woman's Home Companion, just on the newstands yesterday, my wife called my attention to the fact that there is an article in there concerning this bill, and you are named as sponsor of this legislation. Have you seen that? Mr. CANFIELD. I was unaware of that, may I say, Mr. Dolliver, but I hope that the article is favorable. Mr. DOLLIVER. It is favorable; very favorable to your bill. Mr. CANFIELD. I am going to get extra copies of that magazine. Perhaps I will want to appear before your committee again. Mr. DOLLIVER. Now, I would like to make this inquiry. This is not the first time that you have had this legislation before us? Mr. CANFIELD. NO. Mr. DOLLIVER. In order that the record may be clear, I wish that you would indicate how far, in previous sessions, in previous Congresses, your legislation has progressed along this line. Mr. CANFIELD. As the chairman pointed out earlier in these proceedings today, Mr. Dolliver, the Senate in the last Congress, in the closing days, passed a bill. I believe it was known as the Johnson bill. The House in the closing days of the last session of the 82d Congress reported out a bill somewhat similar to the Johnson bill. That was 2 or 3 days before adjournment and we could not get unanimous agreement on the floor of the House. I believe that is the furtherest we have gotten toward enactment of a law. Mr. DOLLIVER. My recollection is that you have always had a very friendly and favorable reception from this committee on this legislation. Mr. CANFIELD. That is indeed true. Mr. CARLYLE. Mr. Chairman The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Carlyle. Mr. CARLYLE. Congressman, I just want to say that you have made a very fine statement and a very helpful statement. Mr. CANFIELD. I appreciate that very much. Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Heselton. Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Canfield, do you have any comments to make on the point of the constitutionality raised by the Assistant Secretary of Commerce? Mr. CANFIELD. No; in all frankness, Mr. Heselton, I am not a constitutional lawyer and I am not prepared to elaborate on that challenge. I am mindful of the fact that you are and perhaps some time during the proceedings you might be helpful in that respect. Mr. HESELTON. I appreciate that you might not want to comment on that particular aspect of it, but I thought some comments may have come to you or probably you might have something you could tell us about the interest among the industry as to that particular feature. Mr. CANFIELD. I cannot repeat too often, Mr. Heselton, my firm conviction, and I believe it is the conviction of the members of this committee who are aware of the history of this legislative effort, we are not going to get a law unless the majority segments of the industry are going to go along with it. Up until this last year we have been beaten down. We never got anywhere, because we did not get the rayon, the cotton, and the woolen people, the retailers, all of these people together. We have gotten them together now, and I would hate to think, because of this challenge, which is new to me, that there would be no legislation in the 83d Congress. Mr. HESELTON. Do you think that industry regards that particular provision as so important, that they would not go along in any change in the formula? Mr. CANFIELD. Well, as the bill points out, and as I pointed out, the bill gives the Secretary of Commerce a veto power, and I hope that this committee will call Dr. Appel, and other Bureau experts who, over a period of years, have been working on this formula, to ascertain just what they think about it, and how, and how long it will stand up as a good formula. Mr. HESELTON. That is all, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Priest. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions, but having been interested in this subject for quite a long while myself, along with Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Canfield, I simply want to commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr Canfield) for his continuing interest and very fine statement. Mr. CANFIELD. That is just like you, Mr. Priest, and I appreciate that very much. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the gentleman also, and I would like to ask the gentleman whether he has given any thought to the cost of the administration of this bill. Mr. CANFIELD. The administration would be under the Federal Trade Commission, of course, and undoubtedly new funds would have to be appropriated. Now, how much, I do not know. Mr. ROGERS. You do not know how much would have to be appropriated? Mr. CANFIELD. I do not know. Mr. SPRINGER. I think, Mr. Canfield, before I ask any questions that I have notes on here, I want to say that you have made an excellent statement here of your position and I certainly wish to commend you on it; and this legislation, I will say, has my support. Now, I have looked with some qualms upon these two sections of this bill having to do with injunction and condemnation proceedingsthe injunction, primarily, is the first one, and the other one having to do with the guarantee. Now, it is my understanding from the way I read these two sections, put together, that I am a retailer, we will say, in Camden, N. J., or Champaign, Ill., that if I am selling goods which are, we will say, flammable, according to these standards, they may come into my store and find them and they may get an injunction against me to keep me from selling them. That is one point I raise. That is right? Mr. CANFIELD. That is right. Mr. SPRINGER. That is, resale at the retail level. Mr. CANFIELD. That is right. Mr. SPRINGER. Now, secondly, in addition to that, it is not possible however for them to prosecute this man for selling-that is, the retailer-under the guaranty provisions. Am I right on that? Mr. CANFIELD. That is true. It is my understanding if he had the guaranty Mr. SPRINGER. If he has the guaranty? Mr. CANFIELD. From the manufacturer. Mr. SPRINGER. He cannot be prosecuted. You see the spot that the retailer would be in. I mean, he does not have the machinery for testing all of the garments that he sells and I do not see how, if he has a guaranty from the manufacturer, how we can hold him. It seems to me that would be impeding the flow of goods. As to that, I think you are perfectly reasonable in that first step. I want to go to the second step. This is the one that bothers me. Suppose that he, in good faith, under a guaranty, buys, we will say, $25,000 |