agency serving 25 separate State wool-marketing associations. The State organizations we serve have a total membership of about 35,000 wool growers. In addition to serving as sales agent we represent our membership in matters pertaining to the welfare of the wool-growing industry at large. We feel that we would fall far short of our duty to our wool growers if we did not register our protest and raise our voice in opposition to certain provisions contained in section 27 of House bill no. 6738 which you are now considering, which stands as a proposed amendment to paragraph 1101 of the Tariff Act of 1930,. commonly known as the carpet wool schedule.

Without needlessly going into a scientific differentiation between clothing and carpet wools, suffice it to say that the purpose of the original act was to provide protection for our domestic-grown wools, of which a very large proportion falls into the clothing division. It was also the purpose of the act to admit certain foreign wools commonly known as carpet wool free of duty, if used on floor coverings, and certain other products carefully enumerated in the first paragraph of the act. This amendment, if it should become a law, would, in our opinion, destroy a portion of the protection for our domestic wool that was clearly provided by the framers of the Tariff Act of 1930.

Upon the first reading of the proposed amendment, it might appear to be only in the interest of clarification and simplification of the original act, but a careful analysis, in addition to some knowledge as to the operation and application of the act now in force, leads to the firm conviction that the proposed amendment is far-reaching in its effect and application. It would, in our opinion, permit the use for clothing purposes, upon the payment of a small duty or no duty at all, of certain by-products from carpet wools in direct competition with certain types and grades of domestic clothing wool which the original act sought to protect and for which the original act now provides protection.

With your permission, I would like to introduce exhibit 1, and pass it up to you gentlemen, members of the committee, to show what this bill does to we wool growers.

This exhibit 1 consists of a B A or Montevideo no. 5.

This type of wool, since the act of 1930, comes in as carpet wool.
I also have some noils from that wool of comparable grade.
I want to ask you if you can tell them apart.

Exhibit A is a manufactured noil made from Iceland wool, which is a type of carpet wool. This noil, if imported and used for clothing purposes under the present act, would carry a 23-cent per pound duty, as provided in paragraph 1105 of the act of 1930. Under the provision of the proposed amendment, line 19 on page 32, this duty would be reduced to 14 cents, if the article is made from the same wool by domestic manufacturing processes or manipulation.

This proposed amendment permits the use of all the other byproducts named in paragraph 1105 of the original act to be used for clothing purposes without any duty at all.

This wool that I now show you comes in direct competition with our popular grades that are so popular all over the Corn Belt and in the territory of the States from which we expect our wool to come. Mr. CROWTHER. How much carpet wool is raised in the United States?

Mr. FAWCETT. About 3,000,000 pounds.

Mr. CROWTHER. In what part of the country?

Mr. FAWCETT. Principally in Arizona, among the Navajo Indians. Mr. CROWTHER. Three million out of four hundred million pounds? Mr. FAWCETT. Three million out of three hundred and fifty million pounds.

Mr. CROWTHER. That is not a sufficient supply for the carpet manufacturers?

Mr. FAWCETT. We are not objecting to the importation of wool for that purpose.

Here is a sample of Montevideo 5, which, ever since 1932, has been permitted to be used as carpet wool, free of duty, and here is a noil made therefrom [indicating].

Here is a sample of domestic 40, and the noil made therefrom [indicating]. Can you tell them apart? I am frank to say it would be difficult for me to tell them apart.

As I said, these noils, when they are imported and used for clothing purposes, carry a duty of 23 cents a pound, and this manufactured noil, which is a type of carpet wool, is made from Iceland wool. If this proposed amendment is adopted, the duty on this wool would be reduced to 14 cents. This wool comes from several popular breeds of sheep.

Mr. CROWTHER. They are about the same type of fiber? Mr. FAWCETT. They are similar, and of similar value. "made noils" is a product of the combs.

The term

I want to present you another sample as exhibit B. This is a manufactured noil made from domestic wool of 44's grade. The wool in this exhibit B is made from pure carpet wool from Icelandic wool, and it carries a duty under the proposed amendment of 14 cents. The two articles in exhibit A and exhibit B are very similar in type, structure and value, with the exception that exhibit A contains a percentage of kemp not found in the domestic-made noil. Both of these articles are particularly adapted to the manufacture of coarse, heavy overcoatings that are now so popular, as well as imitation Scotch tweeds and sportswear. It will thus be seen that the proposed amendment in effect reduces the protection on the made noil from domestic wool to the extent of 9 cents per pound.

The exhibit A noil, made from carpet wool, is simply one particular type that could evidently be duplicated in the manufacture of a large number of different kinds of foreign carpet wool admitted free under the original act of 1930, if used for floor coverings.

Exhibit B is a type of noil that is made by the combing process of domestic wools that are produced by such domestic breeds of sheep as Oxford down, Lincoln, Cotswold, Columbia, Romeny, all of which are popular breeds with our Western wool growers and particularly adapted to certain portions of that section of our country.

This proposal to take away a portion of our protection comes at a time when the sheep and wool-growing industry of the United States, particularly in the territory section of the country, is struggling hard to again get on its feet financially. The severe drought, coupled with the grasshopper plague that has prevailed in a large area of the woolgrowing section of the United States, has_all but wiped out a very substantial portion of our wool growers. I refuse to believe it to be the wish of this legislative body to take away any portion of the protection now afforded the domestic wool grower.

Thus it will be seen that if such wool as I now produce as exhibit C, called White Joria, an east Indian carpet wool, which, in its unman

ufactured state, would call for a duty of 24 cents if used for clothing purposes, was processed in a way to make the products impractical for use in the manufacture of floor coverings, the noils from such process would carry a duty of 14 cents instead of 23 cents, as the act intended, and the other products no tariff at all: In this case destroying a portion of the protection now enjoyed by growers producing wool from the down breeds in the Mississippi Valley, such as Shropsshire and Hampshire.

Our reason for submitting this type of carpet wool as exhibit C is that in its original form, as well as in its processed form, it is also particularly adapted to the use of heavy, coarse overcoatings, imitation Scotch tweeds, and low-grade blankets and yarns, all of which come in more or less direct and indirect competition with our domestic wools of the medium grade, and, again, this proposed amendment would have the effect of destroying a portion of the protection of our medium domestic wools, which I am sure is not the wish of this legislative body.

The balance of page 32 after the semicolon in line 9 provides that all byproducts from the use of this wool, other than noils, that can not be used advantageously in the manufacture of floor coverings shall carry no duty at all, in this manner giving to the carpet manufacturer the distinct advantage of marketing other byproducts to the woolen trade without paying duty.

I submit as exhibit D a type of Montevideos 5's, a South American clothing wool, which can be used advantageously for the use of floor coverings and articles enumerated. I submit accompanying this exhibit, as exhibit E, a sample of manufactured noils extracted from the combing process of this type of wool, which, according to the provision of this amendment, would carry 14 cents duty and come in direct competition with the noils from our domestic quarterblood and common grades, which are represented by exhibit E. This type of South American wool comes in direct competition with the wool from our domestic breeds of Oxford Down, Lincoln and Cotswold.

The sentence beginning on line 8 page 33 reads as follows:

Every manufacturer, processor, or dealer who has given a bond pursuant to the provisions of this subparagraph shall report any use or transfer of merchandise in violation of the terms of his bond, within thirty days after such use or transfer, to the collector of customs in whose district the bond is filed.

It appears to us that the collector of customs should be notified in advance of the transfer or sale or use of carpet wools in violation of the bond so that an examination and check would be possible, if so desired. There would appear to be no use in locking the barn after the horse is stolen. We present as a substitute the following:

Every manufacturer, processor, or dealer who has given a bond pursuant to the provisions of this subparagraph shall notify the collector of customs in whose district the bond is filed of his intention to use or transfer merchandise in violation of the terms of his bond, specifying the kind and amount of merchandise involved before use or transfer takes place.

It is not our desire nor purpose to obstruct the wheels of progress nor interfere in any way with the manufacture of floor coverings. We believe some such simplification of the act would be desirable, but we are here to staunchly oppose, on behalf of the wool-growing industry of the United States, the provisions of this amendment that destroy a portion of the protection originally intended by the framers of the Tariff Act of 1930.

It is our contention that if carpet wools, in any state of processing, should be used or sold for the manufacture of clothing in any form, duties would apply to such merchandise, if imported in its condition at the time of sale, use, or transfer, should be collected, and that nothing short of this will afford our wool growers the protection intended by the act of 1930. To insure this we move to make the semicolon appearing after the word "transfer" in line 9, page 32, a period and strike out the balance of the sentence to the period after the word "articles" in line 21.

Mr. COOPER. We thank you for your appearance and the statement you have given to the committee.

That completes the list of witnesses we have on the calendar.

STATEMENT OF MITCHELL SALEM FISHER, NEW YORK, N. Y., REPRESENTING NON-SECTARIAN ANTI-NAZI LEAGUE TO CHAMPION HUMAN RIGHTS

ΤΟ

Mr. FISHER. Mr. Chairman, I applied for permission to appear as a witness before the committee on yesterday, and if possible I would appreciate being heard by the committee today with respect to the bill you have before you.

Mr. COOPER. Your name does not appear on the calendar, but we will recognize you for 5 minutes.

Will you give your name to the reporter and state in what capacity you appear?

Mr. FISHER. My name is Mitchell Salem Fisher, of the firm of Guggenheimer & Untermyer, 30 Pine Street, New York.

I appear as chairman of the legal committee of the Non-Sectarian Anti-Nazi League, of which Mr. Samuel Untermyer is president. I appear also at the express direction and request of Mr. Untermyer, with whom I am associated as an attorney.

The Non-Sectarian Anti-Nazi League is the leading organization which has been supporting what is rather popularly known as the boycott upon German goods and upon German services in this country. It has been waging that effort for the last 3 or 4 years, and in the course of its activity it has had repeated experiences with the present marking provisions of the tariff act of 1930, an experience I believe which is somewhat unique in character.

Originally, the mark "Made in Germany" was considered an honored mark. Nobody obliterated it; nobody erased it.

As our committee and our organization started on this work we were faced with gross violations of the Federal Act. The marking was obliterated.

I have here all kinds of physical exhibits of obliterations.

Here is a clock [indicating]. Formerly this clock was imported with the face marked "Made in Germany" and with the back marked "Made in Germany."

After the boycott started these people established branches in Switzerland. They have bought a Swiss face and a Swiss back, and it is now marked "Swiss" here, and in the back [indicating]. But if you will open it up you will see that it is marked "Germany" on the works.

All kinds of schemes were indulged in by importers and manufacturers.

Here is a looking glass [indicating]. On the back you will see it is marked "Germany. That has been marked on the back. It is sold to the American public with that part completely hidden, so there is no disclosure of the fact either that the article is imported or that it comes from the German country.

As the result of that work, we found that there were, I should judge, at least four major deficiencies in our present law.

First, there was a complete administrative lack of enforcement of the provisions of the act that the marking should be conspicuous. The marking was not conspicuous in all of those cases. There was, and there is still, I am afraid to say, existing in the Treasury Department a wide apathy to the growing violations of the law with respect to marks of origin.

Secondly, this is what occurs. The German manufacturers and importers, finding that they were faced with this situation and that the mark "Made in Germany" was not a good mark, commercially, began to send their articles to Holland, Czechoslovakia, and Belgium, in which they would subject the articles to some minor form of processing and send them out.

I have here a copy of a letter sent out by a German firm in Stuttgart, Germany. The letter deals with the question of exports between the United States and Germany, and it tells them how these articles are going to be refinished in Belgium so that they will come to this country with the mark "Made in Belgium."

I would like to introduce a copy of that letter or circular.
Mr. COOPER. How long is it?

Mr. FISHER. A couple of typewritten pages.

Mr. COOPER. Do you not think your statement will suffice? Mr. FISHER. Yes. There was that danger and that situation. Secondly, we have a situation which is shown by the repacked condition. An article that will come marked "Made in Germany", even if it was eligible, would be combined with another article so that it would be completely removed from sight.

We found when we came to the enforcement of the provisions of the act concerning obliterations that we could not prove them, and could not get hold of the persons who did the obliterating.

Our department stores in New York, Detroit, in Philadelphia, and throughout the country would be flooded with merchandise with the marks of origin obliterated.

We would go to the store and say, "You know these articles are falsely marked." They would say, "We are innocent; we do not know who did the marking."

Somewhere between the customs house and the time the article came to the ultimate purchaser there had been that removal, but we could not get the person responsible for it.

When we have gone to these places and have called attention to the requirement of showing that the obliteration must be with intent to conceal the information, they said the erasure was an accident, although there was no doubt that there was an intention to deceive.

In 1934, realizing the deficiencies of the Federal Act, I prepared and drafted for the New York Legislature an amendment to the penal law with respect to marks of origin. That bill was subsequently unanimously enacted by the New York Legislature and upon its being