Page images
PDF
EPUB

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

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.'

[ocr errors]

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.

[ocr errors]

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

signed by the Governor it became a part of the penal law of the State of New York.

I think, before you finish your consideration of the marking act, you may wish to give close attention to this part of the penal law of the sovereign State of New York with regards to marks of origin, which law has worked very successfully in New York State. I refer to section 435 (c) of the New York penal law, which law goes further than the Federal act and gives much greater protection to the American purchaser.

Mr. REED. That is not a very long act, is it?

Mr. FISHER. No; it is not.

Mr. REED. Should we not have that in the record?

Mr. McCORMACK. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the New York law be incorporated in the record at this point.

Mr. COOPER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

(The law referred to is as follows:)

Section 435-c Obliteration of Marks of Origin.

(1) Definitions.

As used in this section,

(a) "Person" shall be deemed to include firm, partnership, association or corporation.

(b) "Sell" shall be deemed to include offer to sell, expose for sale, and possess with intent to dispose of or to sell.

(c) "Article of merchandise" shall be deemed to include a cask, bottle stopper, vessel, case, cover, wrapper, package, bottle, ticket, label, or other thing containing or covering an article of merchandise, or with which an article of merchandise is intended to be sold, or is sold.

(d) "Mark of origin" shall be deemed to mean and include any name, mark, or indication of the place or country from which an article of merchandise was imported into the United States of America, or its insular possessions, or the name, mark, or indication of the place or country in which an article of merchandise was manufactured, packed, assembled, grown, or produced.

(e) "Remove" shall be deemed to include deface, alter, and obliterate.

(f) "Conceal" shall be deemed to include the original placing of a mark of origin upon an article of merchandise in any manner whatsoever, or the arrangeing or combining of two or more articles of merchandise into a single unit, whereby the mark of origin is removed from open view, or is rendered illegible or inconspicuous.

(g) The terms "remove" and "conceal" are not to be deemed mutually exclusive. (2) Any person who wholly or in part removes or conceals or who shall cause to be, wholly or in part, removed or concealed from or upon an article of merchandise the mark of origin; or who sells or causes to be sold an article of merchandise from or upon which to his or its knowledge, or to the knowledge of his or its agents, servants, or employees there has been, in whole or in part, removed or concealed the mark of origin, or who sells or causes to be sold an article of merchandise from the inspection of which such knowledge could have been obtained, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor: Provided, That it shall not be deemed a violation of this section if at the time of sale, said article of merchandise and the immediate and outer container or containers thereof shall be marked, stamped, tagged, branded, or labeled in legible and conspicuous English words with said mark of origin or the concealment thereof shall have completely ceased.

(3) The sale of an article of merchandise from which there has been in whole or in part removed or concealed a mark of origin shall be presumptive evidence of the violation of this section.

SEC. 2. This act shall take effect immediately.

Mr. KNUTSON. Mr. Chairman, may I ask, who does this gentleman represent?

Mr. FISHER. I represent the Non-Sectarian Anti-Nazi League, of which Mr. Samuel Untermyer is president, and we have done a great deal of work in connection with evasions of the Marking Act.

Mr. KNUTSON. Who finances your organization?

Mr. FISHER. Our organization is a voluntary organization. It is financed by many of the leading Jews, Protestants, and Catholics of the country, and it has on its board of directors many of the leading personalities in this country.

Mr. KNUTSON. Your first purpose is directed against the present German Government?

Mr. FISHER. My purpose in appearing before the committee is to get protection for the American consumer.

We have a research division, and when consumers have been buying German goods we urge them to patronize American producers and American manufacturers.

Mr. KNUTSON. You were organized for that specific purpose?

Mr. FISHER. We are organized, of course, with the specific purpose to combat Hitlerism; there is no doubt of that. In the course of our work, in promoting our work, we promote it by promoting the consumption of American goods, and we have constantly aided manufacturers here to establish lines of industry and produce goods which were formerly made in Germany so as to lessen the demand in this country for foreign goods.

Mr. KNUTSON. Does your organization concern itself with communism?

Mr. FISHER. No; not at all; of course not.

Mr. McCORMACK. You are opposed to any movement which is inconsistent with democratic processes of Government?

Mr. FISHER. We certainly are. Our organization is the organization of which Mr. Samuel Untermyer is president, and you may rest assured that we have no sympathy with communism or any subversive movement of any kind.

Mr. DINGELL. Just a day or two ago I believe I heard the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Knutson) pursuing very diligently the question of marking lumber.

Now the gentleman presents a problem here as to the obliteration of marks of origin on articles coming in from foreign countries. I am not interested whether it comes from Germany or Poland or anywhere else.

Mr. KNUTSON. I am not either.

Mr. DINGELL. I think this gentleman ought to be heard. I do not think it makes a particle of difference whether it affects Germany or any other country, whether it applies to lumber or manufactured products.

Mr. KNUTSON. I am perfectly qualified to take care of myself, and I do not need any tutoring by the gentleman from Michigan. I have been on the committee longer than he has.

Mr. DINGELL. That may be true but in itself means nothing.

I do not think it makes a particle of difference whether it affects Germany or anyone else.

Mr. KNUTSON. I think I am perfectly well qualified to take care of myself in this. I have been a member of the committee for several years.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Fisher, you have already consumed the time you requested. How much more time do you desire?

Mr. FISHER. I can finish in about 2 minutes.

I have come here because I am an American citizen, and we feel that however sympathetic you gentlemen may or may not be with

« PreviousContinue »