can just as well put a label on that garment and call it leopard as he would to give this woman a garment and bill her for a leopard garment. Now, that is one that requires one answer.

Mr. O'HARA. Let us just analyze the case of muskrat coat that is represented to be mink.

Mr. STEIN. A muskrat could not be made to represent mink.
Mr. O'HARA. What do they do then?

Mr. STEIN. Muskrats are merely dyed or shaded or blended the color of mink, but they do not represent mink. There is only mink, and that is mink.

Mr. O'HARA. Now, there is a difference in the wearing quality of mink and anything which is dyed such as muskrat to represent mink, is that not true? I am speaking now

Mr. STEIN (interposing). There are certain furriers who could take issue with you on that question as to the different wearing qualities; but let us assume for the sake of argument that it is. The woman who buys a mink blended muskrat knows what she is buying.

I have never heard of one being represented as a mink coat. I have never heard of it and I do not think anyone could ever get away with representing it as such. Even in the case of the let out muskrat coat, where the muskrat is made into long strips in the same manner as mink would be and dyed in the same color as mink would be, there has never been one single instance even in the most unscrupulous situation of a misrepresentation of muskrat as a mink. It just cannot be done. It is not done and I do not think we need to be fearful of a situation which never happens and has never happened in the history of the fur industry, which is as old as the United States.

Mr. O'HARA. Well, my attention has been called to the report of the Chicago Better Business Bureau-you recognize that bureau? Mr. STEIN. Yes, I do.

Mr. O'HARA. It is a bureau for the protection of the consuming public organized in Chicago, is it not?

Mr. STEIN. Yes, I have heard of it and know of it.

Mr. O'HARA. Well they have in their report of March 19, 1948, under the heading "Triple-Beauty Illustrations Make For Confusion, advertising China mink. This all happened, as I understand it, in one store in Chicago in January. I am not going to read the whole article, but under this heading: "The Rise and Fall of Canadian Minks:"

In January a Chicago furrier illustrated a "China Mink" coat at $550. On February 13, this same illustration was used to offer a "Natural Canadian Mink,' priced at $2,000. Seven days later, readers again saw the same illustration labeled "Mink Blended Northern Back Muskrat" at $266.

This same company, on February 8, illustrated a garment described in the copy as "Russian Marmot," which it featured at $200. On February 13, the same illustration appeared over the fur name "Dyed China Mink," and priced at $599. The identical cut was again used February 20 in an advertisement of "Let-Out Mink Dyed Russian Marmot coats"-"Sale Price $266."

Further reading from this:

This may be one answer to the question as to what is wrong with fur advertising in Chicago.

Now, I am willing to make that a part of the record at this point, this copy of the Chicago Better Business Bureau report of March 19. (The pamphlet referred to is as follows:)

[The Report, Chicago Better Business Bureau, Chicago 3, Ill., March 19, 1948]

BUREAU ACTS ON INACCURATE CLAIMS IN FUR ADVERTISING

In a memorandum to local advertising media, the Chicago Better Business Bureau on February 25, reported its conclusions that certain superlatives and comparative price claims as then being used by Chicago furriers would, in future, be viewed by the Bureau as not in the public interest. The action was taken after Bureau investigation disclosed the extent to which such claims were being used inaccurately. The memorandum follows:

"Most of the following statements and practices have appeared in local fur advertisements at one time or another. Due to their deceptive and misleading nature, they are viewed as not in the public interest by the Chicago Better Business Bureau.

Claims which are not in public interest

"1. Underselling claims: Paragraph 17 of the Guide for Retail Advertising and. Selling condemns the use of general underselling claims in the following language: 'Underselling claims are usually inaccurate because they are impossible of fulfillment and should not be used.'

"The following statements are typical and fall within this category: "Better Merchandise Always Costs Less Here

"Our Prices are Guaranteed Lower than Elsewhere

"We Will Not be Undersold

"No One Can Sell for Less

"Your Money Back If You Can Buy For Less Elsewhere

"Prices Always Lower at

"The reason for objecting to such claims is obvious. It is impossible for any advertiser to have complete and accurate knowledge of all competing prices in all stores at all times.

Who and what is "biggest," "greatest?"

"2. Slightly different, but related to underselling claims, are exaggerated superlatives, such as:

'Chicago's Greatest Fur Values

"Most Sensational Sale of the Year

"Never Before Values Like These

"Most Sensational Savings in Fur History

"Only

Could Offer Such Savings

"Biggest Fur Values in Town

Comparatives seldom provable

"3. Exaggerated and ridiculous comparative prices are misleading, deceptive, and destructive to reader confidence. They are seldom provable by the advertiser, as they are usually based on fictitious mark-ups before mark-downs, previously inflated wholesale prices no longer prevailing in the current market or other equally absurd reasons. Typical of some of the ridiculous price claims are: "Values to $300-While They Last-$40.00

"Less Than Today's Wholesale Cost

"Continuous Offers $2,000 Mink Coats for $1,000

"Save to $200 on These Coats-Your Choice $100

"To justify the latter claim, for example, an advertiser should be able to show that the same coats are selling in competitive stores at $300, while his price is only $100."

ECONOMIC COMMENTATOR PRAISES BUREAUS' WORK

In commending H. J. Kenner, former manager of the New York City Better Business Bureau, who resigned recently, after a third of a century "of distinguished service to American business," columnist M. S. Rukeyser said of the Better Business Bureaus that "They have strengthened the survival expectancy of the American way in competition with totalitarian systems."

Mr. Rukeyser went on to say, "If we are to avert the slavery and degradation of police state methods, then voluntary self-purging and self-criticism by business in the interest of the customer become increasingly urgent. The sneaky and the shady not only belong to the economic suicide squad, but they hurt all their fellow citizens by impairing confidence in the validity of a free economic society.'

HERE AND THERE WITH THE BUREAUS

Los Angeles.-Time magazine reported an exposé by Los Angeles Bureau of "kickbacks" on laboratory fees to 70 percent of the doctors in Los Angeles County, Calif. Some laboratories gave the doctors 50 percent and more of the amount which the patient paid for laboratory charges.

Cleveland-Dallas.-Calling themselves veterans, two men recently earned the anger of many Cleveland housewives after making the rounds of the neighborhoods leaving "resurrection" plants which look like dried up apples, at the door. The next day they came to collect 35 cents Neither of the men, according to the report, is a veteran. The resurrection plant, which is supposed to burst into a fern, refuses to resurrect. It shrivels, it dies, it smells-badly! The Dallas Bureau reported that these same men later showed up there, offering the same type plant "guaranteed" to burst into a beautiful fern in 2 weeks.

Montreal. The Better Business Bureau of Montreal recently reported that a Toronto mining promoter was offering shares in a mining company at 35 cents per share whereas investigation revealed these shares were being sold on an "overthe-counter-market" at 3 to 6 cents per share"Before You Invest-Investigate. New York City.-Hilaire J. Holder, Newark, N. J., was arrested recently on a mail-fraud charge in connection with food and clothing shipments to Hungary. Holder was appointed early in 1946 as agent for a New York company which served as a national clearing house for foreign shipments. He is charged with accepting orders for food and clothing packages and keeping the money.

"Because advertisers should make no statement that cannot be supported with facts, the Bureau will look to the advertiser himself to prove future comparative price claims that are in excess of the selling price."

HOW CAN THESE THINGS BE?

Illustrated on these pages are portions of advertisements clipped from local papers during January and February. How can these claims all be true? Can intelligent customers be expected to believe that each advertiser had the “greatest bargains," the "biggest sale event,' or the "most for the money"?

Many objectionable practices

Current complaints allege furriers have used untruthful and grossly exaggerated comparative price claims, sweeping superlatives, inaccurate illustrations, and that slogans making general underselling claims are misleading. The volume of complaints indicates a general disbelief on the part of the public in local fur advertising as a whole.

What is the public expected to believe of a furrier who in January advertised "Sable-dyed Russian weasel coats at $199" and then in February offered "Sabledyed Russian weasel coats at $199" under the heading "Close-out of luxurious furs left over from our January clearance-save 50 percent or more"? How many customers believe they could save 50 percent or more?

No sales in January?

Another furrier, during his "greatest January sales" stated his $75,000 stock must go." One month later, during his "fur-coat close-out," he still had his "$75,000 stock" for sale.

Comparatives exaggerated

Over 100 fur advertisements were examined by the Chicago Better Business Bureau during January and February. Each, with but few exceptions, claimed garments were being sold at half their actual value. In some instances furs offered at $250 were alleged to be $795 values. In others, coats offered at $125 were alleged to be worth $399. One advertisement offered eight garments at $266 each, describing them as "were $699."

Advertising has been replete with claims such as "save 50 percent or more, "buy now and save 40 to 60 percent,' ," "less than this year's wholesale costs,' "save about one-half," and other similar phrases.

Values overrated

In a number of instances advertised garments were purchased by the Chicago Better Business Bureau and submitted-minus identification to other furriers for examination and an estimate of worth. The appraisals usually placed the value at approximately the selling price. Rarely did it approach the comparative price used.

Bureau acts

As outlined elsewhere in this issue of the Report, the Chicago Better Business Bureau has reported its findings to local furriers and advertising media, with the recommendation that certain claims, clearly beyond the realm of provability, be regarded as not in the public interest.

THE RISE AND FALL OF CANADIAN MINKS

In January a Chicago furrier illustrated a "China mink" coat at $550. On February 13, this same illustration was used to offer a "natural Canadian mink,' priced at $2,000. Seven days later, readers again saw the same illustration labeled "mink blended northern back muskrat" at $266.

This same company, on February 8, illustrated a garment described in the copy as "Russian marmot, which it featured at $200. On February 13, the same illustration appeared over the fur name "dyed China mink," and priced at $599. The identical cut was again used February 20 in an advertisement of "Let-out mink-dyed Russian marmot coats, sale price, $266."

This may be one answer to the question as to what is wrong with fur advertising in Chicago.

Contrary to fur advertising standards

The standards of practice adopted by the fur industry in Chicago provide that an illustration "shall not, under any circumstances, be a photograph or drawing of a higher-priced garment or of any fur other than the one advertised."

As requested by the Chicago Better Business Bureau, the advertiser has published a "correction" covering the errors.

COMPLAINTS RECEIVED ON CREDIT FUR ADVERTISERS

The Chicago Better Business Bureau has received many complaints in recent months from members of the public who allege deposits placed with certain furriers advertising "liberal credit terms" have not been returned, despite the advertisers' decision to reject the customer's application for credit.

One company has been the subject of nine such complaints during the past 3 months. Seven similar complaints have been registered against another. Other companies have been the subject of complaints of like nature.

Complainants state that upon responding to advertising offering credit termssome even specify "no money down"-they selected a fur garment with the distinct understanding they were to receive extended credit. They allege they then either made a down payment or left their old coat as a trade-in and were told to return in a few days. Upon returning, it is charged, they were told their credit references were not satisfactory and that they would either have to furnish a satisfactory cosigner or pay cash for the garment selected. Refund of deposits and return of their trade-in garments was refused, complainants stated, when they were unwilling or unable to furnish cosigners.

It has long been recognized in credit operations that the privilege of accepting or rejecting credit lies with the store. However, if for any reason the store does not wish to extend credit, it is essential that deposit moneys be refunded.

In most instances, as requested by the Chicago Better Business Bureau, refunds have been made to the customers complaining. Other complaints are pending.

Mr. STEIN. Well, now; in reply to that, may I point out to the chairman that, let us assume, that Rogers-Peat carried a line of men's wear ranging from $22.50 to, say, $200, and a cut was made of a model wearing a suit, presumably looking like the man in the Calvert ads, and today Rogers-Peat is running a sale for $22.50 suits and using that cut. Tomorrow they are going to run a sale on $50 suits and use that cut. The following day they run a sale on $100 suits and use that same cut.

What is represented in that cut and by that figure on it other than illustrating the fact that it is a fur garment? It is the descriptive material underneath that cut which becomes important.

Now, this label law nor any label law would not prevent the use of the same cut for one very simple reason. The same man who

styled the mink coat, who manufactured the mink coat, can manufacture a rabbit coat in the same identical style, and in a black-andwhite print they will all look alike. You cannot make them look different. It they have balloon puffed sleeves, turned-up sleeves, it looks the same whether you black-label them or burn them or whatever else you do with them. It still looks the same when you put them in a black-and-white cut.

It is the material, the words under the cut, that becomes important. Now, the woman does not buy the coat from the picture, because many coats look alike. Sheared beaver in styling can look just like mouton lamb. You look at it and you can see the difference.

Now, when the cut is made up, if the man happens to be running a series of different priced coats and that brings me back to my original argument-if a man feels that if this coat is styled nicely enough to sell at $7,000 as a fine mink coat, would not Miss or Mrs. America be highly pleased to buy that same styling for $200 in a muskrat coat blended to have the same type of appearance, and so he makes up the same style.

Now, what is he to do-change the cut, which is black and white, as a rule? They are both of the same identical style. Both lines look identical. So he uses the same cut, but if you will notice this advertising matter underneath, in no instance misrepresents the fur from which the garment was made.

Now, any woman knows that the rabbit-that is, coney being the French name for rabbit-she knows that she is paying $200 for that coat and that she is not buying a mink coat. They know that they are buying muskrat coats. A woman knows that she is buying a muskrat and not buying a sable coat. Yes; she knows that she is buying one that is sable blended; that is, blended to look, to simulate, to give the appearance of sable, but she is still buying a muskrat coat, gentlemen. She wants the air of sable. That is the coat she is going to wear for dress. That is the coat which is going to beautify her. Take that sable coloring away and give her that coat in its natural color and she would not buy the coat at all. She wants the sable color. She feels that the color will conceal the quality of the garment. She will look good even if the quality is not of the best. That enables one tailor to sell one garment for $30 and a fine tailor to sell a garment for $175. Both of them may use even similar cloth. The difference in the price of the cloth in the two garments may only be a dollar a yard or two dollars a yard; yet, when it comes to the advertisement, he uses the same cut in one that he uses in the other. It is in the tailoring. Here it would be in the quality of the skins. Once you set that forth, the woman has all of the information she can go by. We come then, of course, to a particularly difficult section of the fur industry to apply these labeling processes to, and that is plates, mats, and the like. Let us use as an example in the present system, the Persian lamb. Persian lambskins are valuable, and, being a valuable item, every piece has value.

The Committee knows, for example, that when you cut a bolt of cloth, even the little pieces can subsequently be reprocessed and be reprocessed well, but, of course, leather cannot be taken apart, and therefore it has to be used as pieces.

Now, what do we do? When the paws, the necks, the tails, and the bellies are cut away from that imported and important skin, again in each individual piece must be labeled under this bill.