If you will pardon a personal illustration, I bought in January a pair of shoes for which I paid $16.50, manufactured by a very highgrade manufacturer of shoes. I have bought them for several years and found them very satisfactory. After I had worn them about six weeks I noticed that they did not look very well, and after I had worn them two months I discovered that there was a slit in the leather on both shoes, and also a hole worn in the back, in the cloth top. So I took them down to the first-class shoe place where I had bought them, where they should sell reliable goods-and always have, so far as I know-and they told me that they could not do anything about it except to repair the shoes. I said: "Do you mean to tell me that the manufacturer of those shoes will not stand back of them?" He said: "Madam, as soon as we buy the shoes from the manufacturer it is up to us. The manufacturer has no responsibility in regard to those shoes." "Well," I said, "how am I to know when I buy shoes of that manufacturer whether they are any good or not? If you were a shoe manufacturer wouldn't you want to know whether your shoes were satisfactory or not? Wouldn't you want me to come back?" "Well," he said, "yes; to be frank with you, ethically you are right; I would. But they don't do it, and the grade of shoes that is made by this firm is supposed to be all right, but we can't guarantee that it is."

Now, that shows you that price is no indication, because a pair of shoes that you pay $16.50 for ought to last more than two months. Price, at the present time, so far as I have been able to observe in the last six or eight months, is really no indication-retail prices are really no indication of the value of the fabric.

Now, to my mind, there is only one way that we can accomplish anything in knowing what we are getting when we buy fabrics-and we can't do it with many fabrics, but if we had a law which prevented the misbranding of fabrics, the misrepresentation of fabrics, people such as Mr. Cheney, such as any of the manufacturers of silks or woolens, could manufacture certain standard silks which they put out under a certain name, and the experience of the buyer after they had had those silks or those woolens or those linens a few times would be that those materials were satisfactory, that they were made to certain specifications, that they were represented as such-and-such materials with such-and-such a content, such-and-such a durability, and that they would stand up to the test, and the purchaser would know then that if she wanted to buy serge for her little girl's dress, that there was a grade of serge by a trade name on the market that was understood to be made exactly to such-and-such specifications, just the same as the Government requires certain specifications in their woolens.

For years Skinner's satin-all-silk satin-has been thoroughly reliable as to wearing qualities. There are many other silks that are also, but I speak of that because that has always been put out under the trade name, and if we could have a few materials, a few fabrics, that we could put our finger on and say: "We know that if we buy those fabrics, from our experience they will give a certain grade of wear that is represented as such," and the law would prevent those fabrics from being misrepresented-in other words, if the manufacturers had to stand up to their representations of those fabrics, it would give a basis for the standardization of fabrics, and make it possible for us to know something about what we are buying. It is not

possible for the consumer to test fabrics, except in a very simple way, and that does not tell very much, but it is possible to develop a certain minimum standard of fabric that would be protected by such a law as the Rogers bill or as the Barkley bill will make possible.

At the present time we are up against an absolutely uncertain market, more uncertain because of war conditions than ever before, as the result of war conditions, and labor troubles, and so forth.

in time it seems to me that a bill of this sort would make it possible to more or less standardize fabrics, so that the consumer would know a little bit about what she is buying, and in time would know more and more, perhaps.

Mr. BARKLEY. May I ask you a question right there? Is it not true that in a large measure those who are more greatly imposed on in the purchase of these spurious fabrics are those who can least afford to pay the prices for what they get?

Miss PITNEY. I think it is generally so. And moreover, those people go to the stores where things are sold more cheaply, and at those stores one is not so sure of the goods being backed by the establishment as one is at the store where one pays a better price for the fabrics. It may be that the store, in any particular case, will stand back of its fabrics, but generally it is the people who can not afford to lose who are the losers.

Mr. BARKLEY. Are you able to compare, we will say, the wool and silk and cotton fabric industries, as to the amount of misrepresentation that goes on? In other words, is there or not a greater demand for legislation providing for compulsory labeling in any particular industry than others?

Miss PITNEY. Well, it seems to me that is a very difficult thing to but it doesn't seem to me there is as much misrepresentation in the cotton trade as there is in the other three-linen, woolen, and silk. Silk is so heavily weighted sometimes that it is very difficult to tell how much weight there is in it, and whether the weighting is of such a character that it will rot the fabric very quickly or not. There are so many different ways of weighting silk.

Mr. BARKLEY. Is it true that there is practically no such thing as pure silk?

Miss PITNEY. No; it is not true. Mr. Cheney can tell you very much better than I can how much pure silk there is. I know that there is silk that is called the pure dye silk, and I think-Mr. Cheney, is there any weighting in pure dye silks at all?

Mr. CHENEY. It is safe to say that all materials that are piece dyed and printed have no foreign material in them. It is only in the yarn-dyed materials where a portion of the product is weighted.

Mr. BARKLEY. I got the impression that a fabric made of nothing but silk itself was not durable or desirable because of the lack of weighting or shape and all those things that might result after it is made up in a garment.

Mr. CHENEY. It is true that in France when they make the very finest patterns that they can make, for wedding dresses, that they put a little bit of weighting into the material and claim it gives it additional strength. We don't do that very much.

Mr. BARKLEY. They don't do that in this country, except in more heavily weighted materials?

Miss PITNER. I have a sample, a piece of silk exhibited by a friend of mine who has lectured a great deal on textile fabrics, and has written a book on the subject, and this sample was part of the trousseau that belonged to her great-grandmother. It is still in perfect condition. It was a perfectly pure silk, and perfectly pure silk will pretty nearly wear forever, other things being equal. It is very indestructible. But the more silk is weighted the more likely it is to be destroyed by the weighting.

Mr. BARKLEY. The material used for weighting is not so permanent in its durability as the silk?

Miss PITNER. It is destructive of the silk.

Mr. BARKLEY. It not only destroys itself but it destroys the silk? Miss PITNER. It destroys the silk; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. We are very much obliged to you, Miss Pitner. It is now 20 minutes of 5, and the committee has been sitting over five hours. How much time will you require, Mr. De Berard?

Mr. FREDERICK DE BERARD (of New York). I shall try to be as brief as possible. I will not take many minutes, but Mr. Cromwell also wishes a few minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. I doubt very much whether we can conclude, then. You represent whom?

Mr. DE BERARD. The Merchants' Association of New York.

Mr. BARKLEY. Before he asks, may I ask whether Mrs. Norton is here?

The CHAIRMAN. I was not advised that she wanted to appear. Mr. BARKLEY. I understood she and Mrs. Sisson were to appear. Miss PITNER. Mrs. Norton was going to be here, but she is not here. The CHAIRMAN. I think then that we had better recess until tomorrow morning at half past 10.

(Whereupon, at 4.45 o'clock p. m., the committee recessed until 10.30 o'clock a. m.)

COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Thursday, March 25, 1920.

The committee on this day met, Hon. John J. Esch (chairman), presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Is Mr. Walter W. Brown in the audience?

Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You may appear.

STATEMENT OF MR. WALTER W. BROWN, REPRESENTING PARKS & WOOLSON MACHINE CO., SPRINGFIELD, VT.

The CHAIRMAN. Give your name, address, and state whom you represent.

Mr. BROWN. Walter W. Brown, representing the Parks & Woolson Machine Co., of Springfield, Vt.

The CHAIRMAN. You may testify. You may give what information you can upon the pending measures. I judge, as a manufacturer of machinery, your testimony will be directed to the matter of stamping textiles and the possibility of so doing. Is that right?

Mr. BROWN. That is correct. I wish to state that, as manufacturers of long standing, we have friends on both sides of this question, and that the only interest we have here at this hearing is to give information regarding the machinery which we make for stamping textiles. The Parks & Woolson Machine Co., of Springfield, Vt., could furnish four styles of machines to cover what would seem to be every reasonable requirement, namely:

First. A Model AR, as shown in circular 227, to trade-mark only and leave in a roll or loose fold, ready for further handling.

Second. An A W C measurer, as shown in circular 227, to trademark and measure. Cloth could be left in roll or loose fold, ready for packaging.

Third. Springfield doubling winder, to trade-mark, measure, double, and wind, leaving in package of doubled goods. See circular 225. Fourth. Lancashire winder, to trade-mark, measure, and wind, leaving in package of single-width goods. For narrow cloths. circular 223.

See

Any of the three methods for trade-marking could be applied to these four machines and each one of them, however fitted, a one-man machine.

We believe that we could be in a position to supply the demand within six months after we received notice that the proposed legislation had become law. We should plan to standardize three machines and should expect to make a reduction from our present prices.

We have three different processes for marking fabrics, all of which are illustrated in circulars attached herewith.

1. The Kaumagraph process, using the transfer stamps manufacured by the Kaumagraph Co., of New York, which is the most effitient and satisfactory in every way and which is the only process by chich certain rough fabrics can be successfully marked.

2. The Baird process, which uses ink applied through a stencil belt and which is suitable for delicate fabrics and which may be marked on the selvage or near the edge if without selvage.

3. The ink printing process using metal dies and applying the ink direct to the fabric, which is the cheapest and which is suitable for smooth-faced fabrics and cheap goods, and especially cottons.

Any one of these three processes can be applied to any of the four machines referred to.

For quantity production, it might be best to make a separate trademarking machine, consisting of a unit which would carry the cloth through the machine and apply the trade-marks. This unit could be used alone or in conjunction with some other process, preferably, measuring the goods for market.

I have the circulars here and will leave them with the chairman. I might add that we have figured on this matter of meeting the requirements and we do feel that there is no doubt of our ability to produce the necessary number of machines in the required time. We should undoubtedly build one machine which we could manufacture; that is, quantity production, which would enable us to make a reasonable price, and to turn the machines out sufficiently fast to meet the requirements.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you a patent?

Mr. BROWN. On two of these processes, the Kaumagraph process and the Baird process.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you stamp only on the selvage?

Mr. BROWN. The Kaumagraph prints anywhere on the face and on the back of the goods. Either on selvage or any other location. The CHAIRMAN. What would you say about such stenciling rendering certain goods unuseable because of such stenciling?

Mr. BROWN. I can think of no stenciling on the back of the goods rendering them unuseable except when the stenciling would show through.

The CHAIRMAN. Woolen goods, as a rule, have selvage?

Mr. BROWN. They do.

The CHAIRMAN. There are goods that do not have selvage, are

there not?

Mr. BROWN. I can not recall any goods but what have some selvage. Sometimes it is very narrow, perhaps an eighth of an inch in width. The CHAIRMAN. You are perhaps familiar with the French bill? Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir. Now, Mr. Chairman, I might say that with the Baird process it would be necessary to print it all on one line. With the Kaumagraph or ink process it may be printed in the form of a sign or block.

The CHAIRMAN. You say on thin textiles it might show through? Mr. BROWN. I say that a stamp on the back of a thin textile, some thin textiles, might be objectionable, but such textiles would have to be marked on the selvage.

The CHAIRMAN. Is indelible ink used?

Mr. BROWN. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Could it be rubbed off, or must it be washed off? Mr. BROWN. Kaumagraph marks can be removed by gasoline. Am I not right, Mr. Marsten?

Mr. MARSTEN. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Can it be removed by gasoline?

Mr. BROWN. It can be removed by gasoline, or benzine, or anything of that nature.

The CHAIRMAN. And that would not destroy or injure the fabric? Mr. BROWN. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Women often times turn garments. Would your plan interfere with that or render that impossible?

Mr. BROWN. I should say not.

The CHAIRMAN. Your machines are operated separate and distinct from the machinery that is used in weaving the fabric?

Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Can it readily be attached to such machinery? Mr. BROWN. It would not naturally be attached to the weaving machinery, but to the finishing machinery. The machines that I have specified are finishing and packaging machines, machines which measure and double the cloth together and wind it up into a bolt, such as you see in tailor shops.

Mr. BARKLEY. This label that you spoke of being stenciled in on the back of the goods, could it not be put there in such a way that it could not be removed?

Mr. BROWN. I do not understand that at present there is any indelible process.

Mr. BARKLEY. You say the stamp may be removed from the cloth by certain acids or liquids?

Mr. BROWN. It may be removed, Mr. Barkley, by benzine or naphtha, or anything of that nature.