you gauge it? I introduced this bill on January 7-less than three months ago. I have received many letters upon the subject and I want to insert in the hearings an assortment of excerpts from letters from all parts of the country and from people in various walks of life, urging the passage of this measure.

Is there public sentiment? I have nere in my hands a pack of editorials from leading newspapers of the country from the Atlantic to the Pacific urging either this specific bill or a bill that will do precisely what it is expected this bill will accomplish. To the extent that these editorials have not already been submitted in hearing, I desire to place them in the records of these proceedings that you may know what is in the minds of many editors of the country.

Is there public sentiment? I ask you again to remember the testimony of Mr. Goss, of Successful Farming, of Des Moines, Iowa. Mr. Goss told you that the paper that he represents is read by some 5,000,000 people. He told you that when different measures are before the country the contributors to the paper are free to express their opinion. He said that when the League of Nations is uppermost the patrons of the paper write on that subject; when prohibition is considered they write on that subject; and when woman suffrage is in the fore they discuss woman's suffrage. And you will remember that he told you that not one of these subjects had drawn the same amount of correspondence as has this truth-in-fabric measure. Furthermore, I am told that practically every farm paper in the country is urging relief.

Is there public sentiment? I have here in my hand a list of between 30 and 40 different organizations, farmers' granges, retail merchants' associations, housewives' organizations, consumers' leagues, stock men's groups, who have passed resolutions or who have sent representatives to you, actively advocating the passage of a measure along

this line.

Is there public sentiment? I hold in my hand an advertisement that appears in one of the papers in my home State, the Idaho Republican, published in Blackfoot, Idaho, under date of March 13, 1920. The advertisement is offered by the Rowles-Mack Co. of Blackfoot and calls especial attention to the pending bill and says that its passage "will bring daylight into the business of buying and selling cloth and clothing.' I want to publish elsewhere the advertisement of this company to show you that not only is the public asking for this legislation, but that merchants themselves are asking for it. Numerous merchants all over the country have urged the passage of the bill. One of your witnesses from West Virginia told you that his merchant whom he has traded with for many years told him as he left for Washington to be heard on this bill to do everything that he could to pass it. And further than that, since the bill was introduced the retail clothiers' associations of New Jersey and Missouri have passed resolutions urging relief from the conditions that exist to-day by the passage of a truth-in-fabric measure.

I believe that what I have just said indicates that there is public sentiment back of this measure. I believe the public expects the Congress to enact a law embracing the essential ideas of the measure that I have introduced. This sentiment is not new. I told the committee in my opening statement 10 days ago that the first bill embodying the essential principles of the bill I introduced was pre

sented by Gen. Grosvenor nearly 20 years ago. Since that time numerous bills have been offered involving the question in one way or other. Public sentiment was being aroused; the people knew that something was wrong in the clothing business. During the war there occurred a lull in their demands, for they recognized that everything must be subservient to the winning of the war. But with the war concluded the people have again turned their interest to matters of local concern, and one of the matters of local concern and of deep concern is the passage of a measure that will give information to the public touching truth in fabric.

In introducing H. R. 11641, truth in fabric, I have hoped that the friends of the measure have been able to work out something that will meet the situation. I believe that we have. Dr. Stratton, of the Bureau of Standards, when he appeared before you, was not enthusiastic touching the measure. He felt that a quality test should probably be provided, but he admitted that this measure would be the "first step." Gentlemen, I submit that it is the first step; that in the language of Judge Simms, "We can not take the second step until we have taken the first"; that the quality test does not exist in the pure food and drug act; that it is not furnished under the oleomargarine law; that it is no part of the insecticide measure, and that it has nothing to do with the affairs that come under the Federal Trade Commission. The question touching it is raised for the most part by the opponents of this bill and not by its friends, and not by those who are seeking for relief legislation. This bill, at least, will be the first step and if we shall then need further relief we can then consider just how that relief can be best afforded.

The opponents of the truth-in-fabric measure urge that wrongs could be perpetrated upon the American people even should the truth-in-fabric measure pass.

I grant that this is true and that under any law that could be passed wrongs might be perpetrated, but I submit that every wrong is vastly more possible to be perpetrated in the absence of such a law; not only so, but wrongs vastly more cruel are being practiced daily in the absence of such a law.

Now, gentlemen of the committee, in offering the summary that I have, I have needed to rely for the most part on my memory of the hearings or notes that I have made, for the hearings themselves have not as yet been printed. I have tried to outline again in brief the salient reasons why the truth-in-fabric measure should be enacted. I have tried to meet the essential points in opposition, or rather in both instances to indicate to you the arguments that have been advanced for the measure and the arguments that have been advanced against it, and to consider the soundness of the same in the light of the evidence that has been offered.

Our country came into being that the rights of the people might be protected. Its existence for more than 100 years has been for the purpose of safeguarding those rights. That country is greatest and best under which to the utmost extent even-handed justice is administered. The proponents of the truth-in-fabric measure have brought to your committee a situation that has become exasperating and deeply annoying to the people of the country. The people are being imposed upon in most grievous and outrageous manner through the sale to them of fabrics purporting to be that which they are not.

The people are being charged exceedingly high prices for these fabrics. The merchants with whom the people come into immediate contact are themselves unable to afford relief, for as they can not know definitely the character of the goods that they buy, so they can not give satisfactory assurance touching the goods to their customers.

Numerous manufacturers are asking that this measure be passed, so that all manufacturers will be required to do that which certain of them wish to do. Retail merchants themselves are asking that the measure be enacted. The growers of sheep are asking for the law that their industry may not be imposed upon through dishonest competition, and the consuming public is asking for this measure that their rights may be safeguarded and in the interest of common honesty and fair dealing.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I could not conclude my statement without telling the committee on behalf of myself and the proponents of the truth-in-fabric measure how deeply we appreciate the generous time that you have given during these hearings, your obvious patience, and the very earnest effort you are putting forth looking to the obtaining of information that will be helpful in shaping up legislation calculated to meet the ills to which we have tried to direct attention.

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY FREDERICKS. CLARK, 'PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WOOL MANUFACTURERS.

I have been very glad to meet these men from the wool-growing sections of the country and to learn more about their problems than I knew before. We have a common interest which should make us warm friends. I believe just as thoroughly as they do that it is essential for the best interests of this country, both from the standpoint of clothing and of food, that the raising of sheep should be encouraged and very much extended, and that this can only be accomplished if the woolgrower finds it a reasonably profitable business. To what extent profits can be established and secured by legislation is, of course, a question; but it is clear to my mind that it should be attempted by a more direct method than is represented by the French bill. I believe the enactment of this bill would cause a greater demand for virgin wool, but I agree with the many manufacturers with whom I have discussed the question that this additional demand would be met to the greater extent by importations of inferior foreign wools, grades which are not and can not be grown profitably in this country, than by an increase in domestic production.

One would not suppose from reading the various sections of the French bill that it had any other purpose than to benefit the consumer by enabling him to judge of the quality and value of fabrics.

We have shown as to that that the method provided would involve a considerable expense to the manufacturer which, of course, would be passed on to the consumer, a very large expense to the Government for inspectors at the mills, which would be necessary for the proper enforcement of the law; that the mills of the country could not be equipped to comply with the stamping provision inside of several years; that the opportunity for profiteering would be greater, and that, after all, the consumer will be given no information of value, but that he will be confused and misled to a greater extent than under existing conditions.

We believe that the experience of Great Britain for the past 30 years is of value, and that the committee can not do better than to draft a bill along the lines of the Rogers and Barkley bills, which are patterned after the British merchandise marks act.

TELEGRAMS.

TELEGRAM FROM THE ILLINOIS FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS.

EVANSTON, ILL., March 10, 1920.

The CHAIRMAN OF HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE,

House Office Building, Washington, D . C'.

The Illinois Federation of Women's Clubs, with a membership of 67,000, approve the Barkley bill and hope for its passage. We consider this the best bill yet presented and would like to suggest that section 4 be amended to provide for administration by a board of three instead of any bureau chief. Suggest administration organization similar to Federal Trade Commission.

Mrs. D. W. REDFIELD, Chairman Home Economics, Illinois Federation of Women's Clubs.

TELEGRAM FROM THE FREMONT COUNTY WOOL GROWERS' ASSOCIATION.

LANDER, WYo., March 16, 1920.

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,

Washington, D. C.

Would ask that you render favorable report on House bill No. 11641.

FREMONT COUNTY WOOL GROWERS' ASSOCIATION.
FRED. A. EARL, Secretary.

TELEGRAM FROM THE PATTON PAINT CO.

NEWARK, N. J., March 18, 1920.

Mr. J. ESCH,
Chairman Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

Washington, D. C.

We very much favor the general principles of legislation as represented by the Barkley misbranding bill and H. R. 13073, introduced by Hon. John J. Rogers, of Massachusetts.

PATTON PAINT CO.

TELEGRAM FROM RUTH O'BRIEN.

AMES, IOWA, March 19, 1920.

CHAIRMAN INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMITTEE,

As textile chemist and consumer I would appreciate your influence toward a favorable report and ultimate passage of the Barkley bill.

House Office Building, Washington.

RUTH O'BRIEN.

TELEGRAM FROM UPPER MICHIGAN PENINSULA BUREAU.

MENOMINEE, MICH., March 19, 1920.

JOHN J. ESCH,
Chairman Committee of Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

Washington.

The Upper Peninsula Development Bureau in annual convention adopted resolution to-day urging unanimously on Congress the passage of H. R. 11641, known as the "Truth-in-fabric" law. This bureau represents the 15 counties of upper Michigan and is supported by appropriations from county boards of supervisors.

JOHN A. DOELLE, Secretary- Manager.

TELEGRAM FROM THE WASHINGTON WOOL GROWERS' ASSOCIATION.

Hon. JOHN F. MILLER,

Representative, Washington, D. C.:

PROSSER, WASH., March 20, 1920.

The Washington Wool Growers' Association, representing the ownership of 600,000 sheep, operating in the State of Washington, urge you to make every possible effort to encourage the passing of Congressman French's bill entitled "Truth in Fabric bill." All the sheepmen ask is something that will stabilize the market of their products. At present the law of supply and demand does not rule, but we are thrown in direct competition with old rags and everything that is shoddy. Your most earnest efforts in this direction will be most highly appreciated.

T. J. DRUMHELLER, President.
J. F. SEARS, Secretary.

TELEGRAM FROM THE MINNESOTA HOME ECONOMICS ASSOCIATION.

ST. PAUL, MINN., March 24, 1920.

Chairman EsCH,

Interstate Commerce Committee, Washington, D. C.:
Strongly indorse the Barkley bill. Hope for favorable action.

MINNESOTA HOME ECONOMICS ASSOCIATION.

TELEGRAM FROM R. N. STANFIELD.

NORTH PORTLAND, OREG., March 24, 1920.

Representative W. C. HAWLEY,

Capitol Building, Washington, D. C.:

On behalf of myself and other sheep and wool men of eastern Oregon would ask for your favorable support of the Truth in Fabric bill now before Congress for consideration. This bill, if it becomes a law, will result in good to the sheep and wool industries throughout the Northwest.

R. N. STANFIELD.

TELEGRAM FROM THE COLUMBIA BASIN WOOL WAREHOUSE CO.

Representative W. C. HAWLEY,

NORTH PORTLAND, OREG., March 24, 1920.

Capitol Building, Washington, D. C.:

The Truth in Fabric bill now before Congress is unanimously indorsed by all the sheepmen and woolgrowers of this country, as well as the principal commercial organizations throughout the State, and we trust that you will use your best efforts to see that this bill becomes a law.

COLUMBIA BASIN WOOL WAREHOUSE Co.

TELEGRAM FROM THE OREGON STATE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.

Hon. W. C. HAWLEY,

Portland, Oreg., March 24, 1920.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

We strongly urge your support of the truth-in-fabric bill now in committees, on which we understand action will be taken to-day or to-morrow. This bill has the unanimous support of all the sheep and wool interests in the Northwest, and is strongly supported by the commercial organizations throughout the State.

OREGON STATE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.