The legislation would be known as the Fur Products Labeling Act of 1947 and would require the marking or labeling of fur products with the true English name of the animal furnishing the fur, as well as the prevention of fictitious or deceptive names for furs in all advertising and invoicing through the required use of such true English name. The bill provides for the administration of the act by the Federal Trade Commission in accordance with administrative procedure long operative in Federal Trade Commission work under comparable statutes, namely, the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Wool Products Labeling Act. In addition, it provides for temporary injunctive relief as well as for actions in rem for seizure of misbranded furs or fur products. It further provides for the issuance of separate or continuing guaranties where desired, for the protection of subsequent resellers. The section of the bill relating to guaranties also makes unlawful the use of false guaranties. Together with the provisions for administrative enforcement by the Commission, the bill also provides for misdemeanor proceedings in district courts on behalf of the United States against willful violations of the statute. The administrative enforcement provisions incorporated in this legislation are of the type customarily found advisable and appropriate in legislation of this character, and experience has proven such procedure most effective and of the type least burdensome. The primary purposes of the act would be achieved through the establishment and maintenance by the Commission of a Fur Products Name Guide as provided for under section 9 of the act. Subsection (a) thereof would require the Commission within 1 year from the date of the enactment of the law to issue a regulation, after due public hearing, setting forth the names of all fur-bearing animals to be known as the Fur Products Name Guide. The names to be included therein shall be the true English names, and after the effective date of this act such names shall be used in stamping, tagging, labeling, advertising, and invoicing fur and fur products. Subsection (b) gives the Commission the authority to issue supplement lists containing additional names of fur-bearing animals that may come into being and use or to remove from the existing list the names of any such animals that may become extinct. Subsection (c) of this section requires the Secretary of Agriculture within 9 months after the date of the enactment of this law to provide the Commission with an official list of the true English names of the fur-bearing animals which are deemed domestic animals under the act entitled "An act relating to the domestic raising of fur-bearing animals," approved April 30, 1946 (Public Law 369, 79th Cong.). Such names are to be included in the Fur Products Name Guide to be issued by the Commission, and the names of such domestic furbearing animals are to be classified and listed separately in such guide under the heading of "Domestic fur products name guide." It is also provided in this subsection that prior to adding or removing any names from the domestic fur products name guide the Commission shall receive approval from the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Commission upon the official request of the Secretary of Agriculture shall add to or remove from the domestic fur products name guide such names as the Secretary shall request. In view of existing conditions in the fur industry, legislation of the type proposed would be undoubtedly beneficial to the public as well as the trade. The bill goes considerably further in providing public protection in connection with this industry than appears possible under existing law and the Commission's trade practice rules for the fur industry, two copies of which are enclosed herewith. The operation of these trade-practice rules has afforded the public and business a material measure of protection but the bill would make it possible to effect a wider and more thorough and complete protection. Thus, the objectives of the proposed bill enacted in appropriate form, we believe, would provide a valuable supplement to existing authority. As a result of hearings and study of the bill, certain constructive as well as clarifying amendments will doubtless prove desirable, as for example, section 3 of the proposed legislation should be broadened to embrace domestic skins or peltries as well as fur merchandise and imported peltries. Consideration should likewise be given to amending the bill to cover more adequately the question of dyeing, blending, or processing inexpensive fur skins so as to simulate more desirable skins or more expensive types of furs. Affirmative disclosure should also be required in the labeling and advertising of fur products manufactured from used, worn, or second-hand skins, as well as garments made from small pieces, tails, paws, etc. In connection with the above, the Commission wishes to advise that members of its staff who have studied the bill under consideration will be available for any services they may be able to render the committee. By direction of the Commission. Very sincerely yours, GARLAND S. FERGUSON, Chairman. N. b. Pursuant to regulations, this report was submitted to the Bureau of the Budget on October 29, 1947, and in a letter of November 28, 1947, the Commission was informed that there would be no objection to the submission of the report to the committee, subject to the incorporation in the report of an estimate of the cost of administering this legislation in the event of its enactment. In accordance therewith the following is presented: The administration of the proposed statute lends itself to be readily integrated with the Commission's duties under comparable labeling legislation and regulations. With this proper integration administration and enforcement of such Fur Labeling Act would be considerably more economical than otherwise possible. Under such condition it is estimated that the cost of administering the act on a fiscal year basis would be approximately $75,000. GARLAND S. FERGUSON, Chairman. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Hon. C. A. WOLVERTON, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, July 25, 1947. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Further reference is made to your letter of June 7, 1947, enclosing a copy of bill H. R. 3734, to protect consumers, retailers, distributors, manufacturers, dealers, and producers from misnaming, misbranding, improper identification, and deceptive or misleading advertising of fur products and articles made in part or in whole from fur, and for other purposes, and asking for a statement of this Department's views on this proposed legislation. It is noted that the bill is similar in its provisions to the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 (15 U. S. C. 60-55j), although the proposed legislation is more specific in regard to importations. It appears that the enforcement of the provisions of the bill as they would apply to imported fur articles and fur would present probems similar to those resulting from the enactment of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, and in the light of the experience of this Department in the enforcement of that act, and the regulations thereunder, as they apply to imported wool products, the proposed legislation suggests no difficulties of administration which would warrant this Department in objecting to its becoming law. However, the following observations are made with the thought that they may be of assistance to your committee in its consideration of the proposed legislation as it would apply to importations. In regard to the question of the marking of imported fur products to show the country of origin, the bill distinguishes between a "fur article" and "imported fur,' paragraph (g) of section 2 defining a "fur article" as "any article or any portion of an article, which contains, purports to contain, or in any way is represented as containing virgin fur or reused fur," and paragraph (j) of that section defining "imported fur" as "fur that has been imported into the United States other than fur contained in fur articles." The bill specifies that "imported fur" shall be marked with the name of the country from which such fur originated, prior to release from customs custody (section 7 (a) and (b) (1) (B) (ii)), whereas the bill indicates that it was felt that all "fur articles" would necessarily be so marked before release from customs custody. Under the provisions of section 304, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U. S. C. 1304), articles imported into the United States are required to be marked to indicate the name of the country of their origin, unless they come within one of the exceptions from marking provided for in that section of law. It is noted that section 14 of the proposed legislation provides that "The provisions of this act shall be held to be in addition to, and not in substitution for or limitation of, the provisions of any other act of Congress." Raw fur skins, and dressed or dyed fur skins, are excepted from the requirements of individual marking under the provisions of section 304 (a) (3) (J), supra (Treasury Decisions 49690 and 49896). No doubt the writers of the bill had this in mind when they specified that "imported fur" is required to be marked to show the country of origin. In this connection, section 304 (d), supra, provides, in part, that "Nothing in this section shall be construed as excepting any article (or its container) from the particular requirements of marking provided for in any other provision of law." Therefore, there would be no exceptions from marking of imported fur under the provisions of the proposed legislation. However, "fur articles" might come within one of the exeeptions from marking provided for in section 304 (a) (3) (A) to (I), inclusive, supra. Further, this Department desires to point out that, if fur contained in the article was produced in a country other than the country of manufacture of the finished article, it is not necessary to show the country of origin of the fur itself, the country of manufacture of the completed article being considered the country of origin as contemplated by section 304 (a), supra. For example, England would be considered the country of origin of an article of clothing manufactured in that country of English_woolens and of fur which had been produced in some other country. The Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the submission of this report to your committee. Very truly yours, A. L. M. WIGGINS, Acting Secretary of the Treasury. Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. WOLVERTON: This is in reply to your request of June 7, 1947, for a report on H. R. 3734, a bill to protect consumers, retailers, distributors, manufacturers, dealers, and producers from misnaming, misbranding, improper identification, and deceptive or misleading advertising of fur products and articles made in part or in whole from fur, and for other purposes. The general intent of the bill is to guarantee the ultimate consumer and the handlers of furs and fur articles the kind of merchandise they are paying for. The stipulations are believed to be plausible and generally workable. Specific reference is made in the bill to fur articles and to imported furs. However, raw furs produced in the United States are not included. In this country there are two general sources of furs. The Department is concerned with domestic-raised fur and the Department of the Interior with wild fur. The bill, for the most part, deals with the latter class. The participation of this Department would be limited to providing the Federal Trade Commission with an official list of true English names of the fur-bearing animals which are deemed domestic animals, and to keeping such list current. It will be necessary to confer with various governmental agencies, and possibly in some cases with the fur trade, in establishing the true English name of domestic fur-bearing animals. There would be no additional cost to the Department if the bill should be enacted. Our present force is sufficient for preparation of the Domestic Fur Products Name Guide provided under section 9 (c). Passage of the bill is recommended. The Bureau of the Budget advises that it has no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely, CHARLES F. BRANNAN, Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D. C., December 4, 1947. Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for the views of the Department of Justice relative to a bill (H. R. 3734) to protect consumers, retailers, distributors, manufacturers, dealers, and producers from misnaming, misbranding, improper identification, and deceptive or misleading advertising of fur products and articles made in part or in whole from fur, and for other purposes. The bill is modeled after the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 (Oct. 14, 1940, ch. 871, 54 Stat. 1128; 15 U. S. C. 68) and would require that the Federal Trade Commission issue a regulation to be known as the Fur Products Name Guide setting forth the true English names of all fur-bearing animals, the names as set forth in such guide to be used in stamping, tagging, labeling, etc., of all fur and fur articles as well as the advertising and invoicing thereof. Such regulation would be supplemented and revised from time to time (sec. 9). Definitions are provided for the terms "fur," "raw fur,' "processed fur," "virgin fur," "reused fur" and "fur article" and "imported fur" (sec. 2) It would make unlawful, as an unfair method of competition and an unfair or deceptive act or practice in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act, the introduction, or manufacture for introduction, into commerce, or the sale, advertising for sale, transportation, or distribution in commerce, of any fur article or any imported fur which is misbranded or falsely or deceptively advertised or invoiced within the meaning of the act (sec. 3 (a)). A fur article would be considered misbranded if falsely or deceptively stamped, tagged, or labeled, or if a stamp, tag, or label is not affixed to the fur article or does not show the true English name or names, as set forth in the Fur Products Name Guide, of the animal or animals that produced the fur, or in the case of a fur article containing reused fur the fact that it contains reused fur, the name of the manufacturer of the fur article and/or the name of the person who introduced it into commerce and the name of the country from which imported if an imported fur article (sec. 4 (a)). A fur article would be considered to be falsely or deceptively advertised or invoiced if any other name than the name required by the act to appear on the stamp, tag, or label were used in any form of advertisement, invoice, etc. (sec. 6). Imported fur would be considered misbranded if the stamp, tag, or label did not show the true English name as set forth in the Fur Products Name Guide of the animal producing the fur and the name of the country from which such fur originated (sec. 7). Invoices would be required to contain such information as the Federal Trade Commission might require to carry out the purposes of the act (sec. 8). All rules, regulations, and procedure provided for in the Federal Trade Commission Act would be applicable (sec. 10). Proceedings by process of libel for condemnation and injunction proceedings would be provided for (sec. 11), and the act would make it a misdemeanor willfully to violate any section of the act punishable by a fine of not more than $5,000 or imprisonment for not more than 1 year or both. The bill would appear to provide an efficient method of preventing deception of purchasers of fur and fur products, and this Department would have no objection to its enactment. The Director of the Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely yours, PEYTON FORD, Acting the Assistant to the Attorney General. JUNE 16, 1947. Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR CHAIRMAN WOLVERTON: Your letter of June 7, 1947, addressed to the Chairman of the Commission and requesting a report and comment on H. R. 3734, introduced by Congressman O'Hara, to protect consumers, retailers, distributors, manufacturers, dealers, and producers from misnaming, misbranding, improper identification, and deceptive or misleadng advertising of fur products and articles made in part or in whole from fur, and for other purposes, has been referred to our legislative committee. After careful consideration by that committee, I am authorized to submit the following comments in its behalf: H. R. 3734 in its general aspects does not relate to transportation, and for that reason we are not in a position to express a helpful opinion with respect to its desirability. The only provision which is of interest to us is subsection (b) of section 3, as follows: "(b) Subsection (a) of this section shall not apply-(1) to any common carrier or contract carrier in respect of a fur article or fur shipped or delivered for shipment in commerce in the ordinary course of its business." We suggest that it would be well to add after the words "contract carrier" the words "or freight forwarder," in order that freight forwarders may come within the exemption proposed to be accorded to carriers. Respectfully submitted. WALTER M. W. SPLAWN, GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House Office Building, Washington, D. Č. MY DEAR MR. WOLVERTON: The Commissioners have for report H. R. 3734, Eightieth Congress, a bill to protect consumers, retailers, distributors, manufacturers, dealers, and producers from misnaming, misbranding, improper identification, and deceptive or misleading advertising of fur products and articles made in part or in whole from fur, and for other purposes. There is no objection to this bill with respect to the proposed application of it to the District of Columbia. At present no agency or department of the District of Columbia Government possesses authority to regulate fur products and articles made in part or in whole from fur. Offenses for fraudulent advertising, in general, may be prosecuted in the District of Columbia upon information filed by the United States district attorney for the District of Columbia under the act of May 29, 1916, to prevent fraudulent advertising in the District of Columbia (32 Stat. 165). The Commissioners have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection on the part of that office to the submission of this report to Congress. Respectfully, GUY MASON, Acting President, Board of Commissioners, District of Columbia. Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign_Commerce, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your letter of June 7, 1947, in which you request the views of the Department with regard to H. R. 3734, a bill to protect consumers, retailers, distributors, manufacturers, dealers, and producers from misnaming, misbranding, improper identification, and deceptive or misleading advertising of fur products and articles made in part or in whole from fur, and for other purposes. This bill would make it unlawful to manufacture, advertise, or sell furs which are misbranded, mislabeled, or falsely or deceptively advertised. It provides for the labeling and stamping of fur articles, whole skins, or pieces consisting of more than one skin so that manufacturers, dealers, and consumers will be properly informed as to the nature of the fur used. The Federal Trade Commission would be required to issue a regulation within 1 year after the date of enactment of the act, setting forth the names of all furbearing animals in a Fur Products Name Guide. The names set forth in this guide would be used in stamping, tagging, labeling, or other means of identifying fur and fur articles as well as in the advertising and invoicing of furs and fur articles. In June 1938 the Federal Trade Commission promulgated trade-practice rules which in effect prohibited the sale of domestic fur as being imported, the misrepresentation of the geographic origin of furs, and other unfair trade practices in the fur industry. This bill would go a step further and strengthen the Federal Trade Commission's activities in this area by making it mandatory that all furs and fur articles be correctly labeled as to type and origin of the fur. A counterpart to this proposal may be found in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 (54 Stat. 1128, 15 U. S. C. 68), the administration of which would seem to provide some yardstick for consideration of the potential effectiveness |