« 이전계속 »
And then follow the very simple remedy. In the third and in the following section it is required that the manufacturer of woven fabrics, or of yarn, or of articles of apparel made from either, shall stamp these fabrics-not in the elaborate ways provided in the other bills, which are exceedingly complex, and which may prove not to be possible when the experts get to working on the proposition; but my bill provides that these fabrics shall be stamped in such a method as the Secretary of Commerce shall provide, by regulations; and of course, those fabrics which have a selvage edge, you will have to stamp in one way, and those which have not a selvage edge you will have to stamp in another way; the Secretary of Commerce will decide as to that. And that is all there is to that.
And in the next section my bill provides that the manufacturer of the garment shall be protected, if he stamps his goods, under such directions as the Secretary of Commerce may give him, in accordance with the stamp which is on the raw material when it reaches him. He ought not to be held responsible. These manufacturers of garments are sometines very small business men; they can not employ chemists and experts to work for them; sometimes the manufacturer of the garment has only himself and one or two other people working for him. And if they stamp every garment as the fabric was stamped, then they ought to be exempt from prosecution, of course, and ought to be subjected to no penalty. The offenders are those who make the goods and who stamp them improperly.
Now, that is all there is to this bill. In the last section, a penalty is provided, which is substantially the same as the penalties provided in the other bills.
This is a bill that will enforce itself. I know it will enforce itself. because the manufacturers of this country are honest; they are business men who come up to the very highest standards. They are not going to misrepresent their goods. Most of them are important business men, and they are going to be particularly anxious to see that their goods are stamped correctly under the regulations that the Secretary of Commerce may prescribe. I do not think that you will find one man in a thousand, among the manufacturers of the United States, who would misrepresent in his stamps the contents of his goods.
But if he does, then he has competitors who are going to find it out; all of his competitors, as well as himself, are supplied with chemists; that is now an important department of every wellregulated factory.
I remember something that was brought out in drafting the last tariff bill which will illustrate what I mean: I found out that in the spring of the year, in the early spring, they bring over here from England (or they did before the war) what they call"novelty goods.” Novelty goods are goods which present a certain rough appearance; they are made out of threads of different sizes and slightly different shades. Now, that is all there is to them. But they come over here every year early in the spring, with an absolutely new kind of novelty goods, that do not look like anything that was ever made before. And these rich dudes in New York and Chicago go after those goods, and they pay fabulous prices-$200 or $300-for a suit made out of them.
Our manufacturers watch for the arrival of the first piece of novelty goods; and as soon as the first piece of novelty goods gets here they grab it up and divide it among themselves; they take it into their laboratories; and in two weeks time they know just how heavy those threads are, and how big they are, and how many there are to an inch, and what the shades are, and what the percentage of cotton is, or the percentage of silk or wool is in those particular novelty goods.
And in the fall every year before the war, after the manufacturers in New York have made those analyses and discovered what those novelty goods are made out of-in the fall of that same year, you can buy those novelty goods in ready-made suits made out of American goods, which are just as good as those brought in here from abroad, but which sold before the war for $30 a suit, manufactured and made up.
That indicates what the laboratories of our factories can do; they are supplied with experts; and our colleges are turning out those experts every year, dozens and dozens of them, qualified for working in these factories.
Now, let this law enforce itself. Suppose A, in Massachusetts, is manufacturing goods which he says contains 90 per cent of wool and 10 per cent of cotton or shoddy, or whatever else it is; and if he is competing with goods manufactured by B, who makes a goods that looks just like his, but which contains more of wool, or more of shoddy, than his if they are competing on the market, A is going to find it out, and he is going to test his rival's goods and he is going to furnish, as a matter of self-protection, the Department of Justice with the evidence which shows that B is improperly stamping his goods.
That is the way laws ought to enforce themselves. These laws that are mala prohibita-and this law largely is-ought to enforce themselves, on account of the self-interest and the rivalries of the men who are benefited by the law. And this law properly drawn will do that. All that you need is a simple bill, something like my bill. I have no pride of authorship at all.
I hope the committee will report out a simple bill, that will provide a logical, simple, and easy method of accomplishing what these gentlemen want to accomplish, without increasing the ponderous machinery of this Government in the manner that would be required by these other bills.
That is all I desire to say Mr. Chairman, unless the committee wants to ask some questions.
The CHAIRMAN. I notice, Mr. Rainey, that in your bill you provide that the several contents of the article are to be represented in percentages by weight. Is that a suitable standard, or do they use quantity as the standard at times?
Mr. RAINEY. I am not expert enough to know about that, Mr. Chairman. I thought that was a suitable standard; but I do not pretend to be an expert about fabrics at all. But I have no doubt whatever that before you gentlemen get through with hearing these experts who will come before you, you will all be expert enough to determine whether that or something else should be the standard.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that 60 days is a sufficient time after the passage of the act for it to go into effect?
Mr. RAINEY. No; I think it ought to be longer.
Mr. JONES. Do you not believe that in your bill you ought to define "person" as given in section 5, so as to include corporations and partnerships?
Mr. RAINEY. Yes, you are right; I think that ought to be done. Mr. MERRITT. Does your bill follow the English act?
Mr. RAINEY. I do not know whether it does or not. I am not familiar with the English act.
The CHAIRMAN. We will have that inserted in the record.
Mr. RAINEY. I just drafted this bill as a suggestion to the committee to show them that it might be possible without ponderous machinery adding to the tremendous expense to Government, to accomplish what these gentlemen want to accomplish and what everybody wants to accomplish, including the consumer, and, after all, it is the consumer who is entitled to the first consideration, and the people who pay taxes.
The CHAIRMAN. We are much obliged to you for your statement. Mr. FRENCH. The next speaker will be Mr. McDowell, from Pennsylvania. The CHAIRMAN. Give us your name and whom you represent, Mr. McDowell.
STATEMENT OF MR. J. N. McDOWELL, WASHINGTON, WASHINGTON COUNTY, PA., REPRESENTING THE WOOLGROWERS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, THE PATRONS OF HUSBANDRY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, THE STATE GRANGE OF THE PATRONS OF HUSBANDRY, THE WASHINGTON COUNTY FARM BUREAU, AND THE TRI-STATE ASSOCIATION OF WOOLGROWERS.
Mr. MCDOWELL. J. M. McDowell, Washington, Washington County, Pa. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I come from my end of the State as a delegate to advocate the approval of this bill, H. R. 11641, or whatever the number is. We know it as the truth-in-fabric law. I am a delegate representing the woolgrowers of Washington County. I am also a delegate representing the Patrons of Husbandry, the Grangers of the same county, and also indirectly the State Grange, if the State Grange does not get their delegate here to speak for them. I represent the Washington County Farm Bureau as its chairman or president. I am also a representative of the Tri-State Association of Wool Growers, which holds its meetings annually at Wheeling, W. Va.
The question has been taken up and this bill has been read and discussed among these different associations, and we believe and they believe that it will help not only our part of the country but everybody else in every part of the country, just as much probably, or almost as much, as it would us. Myself and another gentleman who came with me are being paid by the woolgrowers; our expenses are being paid down here to represent them, and then we have the honor of representing these other organizations mentioned. Contrary to the honorable gentleman who just spoke, Congressman Rainey, they believe that it will increase the wool production. We believe it
will stabilize the prices of good wool, such as we have in that part of the country, which is the best that grows in the United States.
The peculiarity about that wool, I will just say indirectly, is that there is 2,100 square miles of territory there, in a circle, something in that shape, taking in western Pennsylvania and the Panhandle section of West Virginia and eastern Ohio, that produces the best fiber of wool that is grown in the United States. Even the sheep taken away from that part of the country, and there are some from our own flock that were sent to Texas and other parts of the country, have not continued the same textile quality; it is not the same crimp and fiber; it is changed, showing that climatic conditions there favor our industry.
As a member of the Wool Growers' Association, I being its secretary, we have gone to quite considerable expense in Pennsylvania to have a dog law passed, and we get behind it and see that it is enforced. I cut out of a paper that I found as I came down on the train from Pittsburgh last night, a clipping, and I did not know the dog question would be discussed here, and how those dog laws worked out, or I would have brought it with me, but I left it at the hotel. I can say that there were more than 70,000 dogs killed in Pennsylvania last year as being delinquent, not having paid their license. The dog law has been in force and it has been helping our industry, so that we feel that we are in shape to increase the number of sheep. We think that stabilizing the price, under the present bill under discussion, while we know that the reworking of wool will continue, will stimulate the production of wool, for we think there will be more sheep raised. Because of this law, with other things, we think that we will raise more sheep and we do not think it will be a burden upon
We feel that the marking of goods would not be a burdensome cost on the Government for inspection, nor would it be burdensome on the manufacturer. These things can be done very cheaply and without much of a burden to the mills or garment makers. We think, as individuals, as grangers, and others that we represent who are not woolgrowers, that it would be a direct benefit in dollars every year to every purchaser of clothing; and further, we believe that we have a right to know how much of our wool we are going to wear; when we are buying it or producing it we feel we have a right to know how much of that wool is our own fresh or virgin wool and how much of it may be some other product, whether cotton or reworked wool. We think the time has come in this country when every man should know what he is buying, just as well with the food as with our fertilizers, just as well as with our clothing. We think this is a question that must come up to the people, and we are demanding things that we have never before demanded. We think we are entitled to know what we are paying our money for. So, as individuals in that section, whether woolgrowers or whatever business we may be engaged in, we feel that we are coming to you to ask something that will be to our individual good, and that will reach and help every family in our part of the country.
Now, I think that just covers the testimony I wish to give. We represent in the county of Washington, Pa., about 2,700 or 2,800
grangers. We represent the farm bureau which represents the whole farm or agricultural population of the county. We represent an organization of 500 or more of the largest woolgrowers, which really represents all the woolgrowers of the whole section, and as far as our influence and help is concerned, we ask your favorable consideration of this bill. Thank you.
Mr. JONES. Primarily your interest in this proposition is in the hope that it will add an impetus to the raising of sheep?
Mr. MCDOWELL. That is one of the reasons.
Mr. JONES. You think that by compelling the manufacturers to tag the percentage of content on this fabric that will have that effect? Mr. McDOWELL. We think that will give every man an opportunity of knowing what he is going to buy.
Mr. JONES. Well, that is the other side of it.
Mr. McDOWELL. And we think further that it will stabilize our prices and we will not be thrown into competition so much with the rag man. We will get more what our price should be and the rag man may get what he is entitled to.
Mr. JONES. Your interest primarily is the same as the manufacturer of the fabric, marking the goods to show the content of the fabric?
Mr. McDOWELL. Yes, sir.
Mr. JONES. You are not interested in the machinery that is to carry that into effect?
Mr. McDOWELL. Well, we are interested because we will be individually benefitted in the way that we think we can produce more wool and raise more sheep if we keep up the price.
Mr. JONES. If a law is passed that will require the manufacturer to tag his fabric, showing the percentage of content in it, that fills your mission, does it not?
Mr. MCDOWELL. Yes, sir; that will cover it, and we will be satisfied. If you tag it and show the content that is all we will be asking. Mr. MERRITT. Is the raising of sheep the principal industry in the region or district that you represent?
Mr. MCDOWELL. It is largely changed in the last few years. It has been opened up and developed into an oil country. It was the greatest sheep-growing country in Pennsylvania-Washington and Greene Counties are the largest producers of sheep and wool. There is a great demand for this wool because of its good quality, being of fine fiber and working into the finest broadcloth and fine wool hats. There have been a great many sheep raised in our section of the country. We have fallen off until recently, but we have been holding our own somewhat better because we have succeeded in having a dog law passed, which has been reducing our losses to a considerable extent. We have other things to deal with. We are opening up coal mines and foreigners are bringing in dogs. We do not allow foreigners to have a dog at all now in Pennsylvania, and the sheep industry is looking better.
Mr. MERRITT. How does the price of wool to-day compare with what it was in 1914?
Mr. MCDOWELL. Well, it is about three times as much. The price at that time was 25 or 28 or 30 cents. The clips last year sold for from 75 to 80 cents, while a few clips which were held to the first of the year brought close to $1.
Mr. MERRITT. Is that a profitable price, the present price?