This statement is really completely incorrect because the processing methods of this country are what make this country the great garmentproducing country of the world. I think Mr. Francis-is he in the room? He is not. I have checked that statement with all kinds of sources. Everybody agrees that it is completely incorrect. Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Edelman, going back to the fact that here we have a bale of furs that came in from Russia, that is tagged at customs, is it not, as coming from Russia? Mr. EDELMAN. That is on the outside of the bale. And the consular invoice, which, of course, is there. Mr. O'HARA. From that step on, at least so far as identity of ownership is concerned, in the processing procedure of marking, the owner has to identify, or the processor has to protect, the owner of those bales, does he not? I mean for identification of ownership, if for no other purpose. Mr. EDELMAN. The bales are put in cold storage, usually in a room, for that account. They mark the bale in some way with the actual name of the owner of the goods. But that does not touch the inside of the bale in any way. In fact, Mr. O'Hara, in the trade, I am very reliably informed, people want intact bales. They do not want even the sample bale, except at a lower price, because that is the whole theory of it, of getting these intact bales, and not having anybody touch them. I have also been advised that if you every try to open these bales up at customs, in many instances there are two grades in a bale, separated by a layer. Once that is separated, you can never put it together again. Mr. O'HARA. What I was getting at, and my question is obvious, that there is an identity on the bale itself. Mr. EDELMAN. That is correct. Mr. O'HARA. And then the owners and the processors, of course, are charged, and must be, with some form of identification on top of it. Then you have the experts who know generally whether that is a foreign fur or not, who deal with it until it gets down to at least the manufacturer. Is that not true? Mr. EDELMAN. That the experts know the fur from just looking at it? Mr. O'HARA. Yes. Mr. EDELMAN. Yes; I agree with that. I think that is all I want to add in addition to the statement I have prepared. The CHAIRMAN. I assume that as an auctioneer you would be able to give me some information that I do not have. Mr. EDELMAN. I will try. The CHAIRMAN. I notice there is a long list here. Could you tell me what sable-dyed coney is? Mr. EDELMAN. Mr. Chairman, I do not know much about the actual furs under the various names and labels. The CHAIRMAN. What I want to know is whether that garment is sable or coney? Mr. EDELMAN. I do not know anything about the garments. All we sell are raw furs. The CHAIRMAN. Have you ever sold sable dyed coney? Mr. EDELMAN. They do not sell dyed goods, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Just the raw goods? Mr. EDELMAN. Just the raw goods. They never sell dress goods. The CHAIRMAN. Then your experience has not been along the line that you could give me that information. Mr. EDELMAN. I am sorry it has not. The CHAIRMAN. I am sure there is somebody in the room who will probably testify later on. Mr. EDELMAN. Yes. Mr. O'HARA. Thank you very much. Mr. EDELMAN. Thank you. Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Charles Gold. STATEMENT OF CHARLES GOLD, GENERAL COUNSEL, RETAIL MANUFACTURING FURRIERS OF AMERICA, INC., NEW YORK, N. Y. Mr. GOLD. Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, I appear here in behalf of the Retail Manufacturing Furriers of America, Inc., which is a national association of retail fur organizations and retail furriers. I have a prepared statement that I would like to submit for the record. Mr. O'HARA. It may be filed. Mr. GOLD. Thank you. (The prepared statement of Mr. Gold is as follows:) BRIEF OF THE RETAIL MANUFACTURING FURRIERS OF AMERICA, INC., IN OPPOSITION TO SENATE AND CONGRESSIONAL BILLS REQUIRING THE LABELING OF FUR PRODUCTS (S. 1388 AND H. R. 3734) The Retail Manufacturing Furriers of America, Inc. is a National Association which has affiliated with it 25 city and State retail furrier associations situated in various parts of the United States and approximately 800 individual retail furriers who have direct membership with the national body. It is the only national association of retail furriers in the United States. The following are the city and State associations which hold membership in this national body: Fur Guild of Baltimore. Fur Merchants Association of Buffalo. Furriers Guild of Boston, Inc. Greater New York Retail Furriers Association, Inc. Chicago Retail Furriers Association. Greater Cincinnati Retail Furriers Association. Cleveland Fur Institute. Colorado Springs Retail Fur Association. Furriers' Guild of Hartford. Associated Furriers Guild of Indiana. Kansas City Retail Furriers Association. Retail Furriers Guild of Southern California. Associated Fur Industries of Milwaukee. Associated Fur Industries of Minneapolis. Furriers Guild of New Jersey. New Haven Retail Fur Merchants Association. Retail Merchants Counsel of the Binghamton Chamber of Commerce. Central States Furriers Association, successors to Iowa-Nebraska Furriers Association. Fur Institute of Philadelphia. Pittsburgh Furriers Association. Portland Retail Furriers Association. Seattle Retail Furriers Association. Spokane Fur Merchants Association. Retail Furriers Association of Memphis, Tenn. The opposition of this association to these bills is based on the following grounds: 1. (a) The trade-practice rules for the fur industry, promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission, are sufficiently clear and comprehensive to afford adequate protection to all branches of the trade and to the consumer. (b) As no salutary purpose would be served thereby there is nothing to recommend the enactment of the proposed legislation. 2. Even were some benefits to flow from the proposed law they would be of small significance. Conversely, the problems of complying would be disproportionately burdensome. 3. The proposed law would create false values. It would upset the present plan of merchandising fur articles and thus deprive the consumer of her greatest safeguard. 4. One of the greatest evils to be found in the fur industry-the sale by manufacturers directly to the consumer-would be stimulated by the proposed law. 5. A considerable increase in the cost of fur articles would result from the proposed legislation. 6. Though sponsored by some domestic fur-breeding interests in the hope that such a law would increase the sale of domestic furs, it is more likely that the proposed law would benefit the foreign product. This association was one of the trade groups which urged the Federal Trade Commission to promulgate the rules which presently constitute the criteria of fair trade practice in the fur industry. Since their adoption this association and its various affiliates and officers have worked ceaselessly, and with great success, in all parts of the country to gain compliance therewith. For many years this association and its affiliates have scanned every newspaper and have examined and studied every other advertising medium, for questionable advertising practices and on discovery of any have taken the steps deemed advisable in some instances filing complaints with the Federal Trade Commission. In many cities of the United States affiliates and members of this association have cooperated with their local Better Business Bureau. The results of all of these efforts, extending over some 20 years, have resulted in very substantial advances in the trade's business standards. Thus, the interest of this association in ethical business methods must be apparent. We approach the consideration of the proposed legislation solely from the viewpoint of the retailer of fur articles. These articles may be (a) those he purchased ready-made and (b) those he manufactured. POINT I (a) The trade-practice rules for the fur industry are sufficiently clear and comprehensive to afford adequate protection to all branches of the trade and to the consumer (b) As no salutary purpose would be served thereby there is nothing to recommend the enactment of the proposed legislation Each branch of the trade, as will be made quite clear by the briefs and arguments of the respective branches, agrees that it needs no additional protection to that which is afforded by the trade-practice rules for the fur industry promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission (June 17, 1938). Surely, if any division of the industry felt it was being overreached by any other group in a manner which could be obviated by a law such as the one currently under consideration, that division of the trade would long since have urged and it would be here today urging the enactment of measures to afford protection against the evil. * * * The bill states at the outset that it is intended to "protect consumers and the various trade divisions from misnaming, misbranding, of fur products and articles made * * * from fur, * * * "" As the various proposed beneficiaries within the trade are not seeking the rewards alleged to be proffered by the bill we are left then with the question as to whether or not the proposed law would afford protection to the consumer which she does not now have. The answer is definitely "No." There is practically nothing that a label1 on a fur article would state, under the proposed law, which the trade-practice rules of the industry do not presently require. A comparison of the requirements under the proposed law and the current trade-practice rules should be helpful at this time. The proposed law requires that a label on a fur article should state I. The true English names of the animal or animals that produced the fur (sec. 4 (a) (2) (A) (B)). II. That the article contains reused fur, when that is the fact (sec. 4 (a) (2) (C)). III. The name of the manufacturer or jobber from whom the storekeeper purchased the garment. (The latter by the writer's interpretation) (sec. 4 (a) (2) (C)). IV. If the article contains imported fur, the name of the country which appeared on the label when the skins were released from the custody of the Bureau of Customs. The trade-practice rules of the industry make it an unfair trade practice to see I. Make or publish any false statements concerning the name or zoological origin of any furs or fur products (rule 1-A). (Also rule 1-B and rule 2.) Make or publish any false statements concerning the name or geographical origin of the animal from which the peltry has been obtained (rule 5). II. To sell or offer for sale used fur garments, including those rebuilt, unless the fact is clearly indicated in advertising labels, etc. (rule 8). III. There is nothing in the present trade rules which requires the giving of the name of the manufacturer or other source of the fur articles. (See discussion on this point which immediately follows the enumeration of these trade rules). IV. Selling or offering for sale, labeling, etc., as an imported fur, a fur which is not in fact imported (see rule 6). (Detailed discussion as to this item appears hereinafter). How would the name or numbers of a manufacturer or jobber of fur articles aid a prospective consumer? It would not give her any added sense of security. Would it give her added protection in fact. A manufacturer-one of some 4,000 or more engaged in the wholesale production of fur articles-would not be persuaded by a labeling law to produce an article of higher quality or greater value than he manufactures now in his effort to please skilled storekeepers. It is almost impossible in the nature of the industry to build a consumer following for a trade-marked fur article. The only reputation for reliability and value which can be created for fur articles is that which is predicated upon a store's trustworthiness. Furs do not lend themselves to standardization in appearance or quality as do dresses, men's clothing, shoes, household products, and thousands of other items. No need is shown for the proposed legislation. Moreover, the law itself would remedy no evil. This association is confident that neither the files of the Better Business Bureau nor the Federal Trade Commission will disclose any appreciable number of consumer complaints regarding furs which might have been avoided by the labeling of fur articles with 1. The true English name of the animal that produced the fur. facturer. The name of the manu It must be clear from the foregoing that no advantages would accrue, under the proposed law to the trade branches or the consumer. 1 The word "label" is used throughout this brief as an all-embracing term to include stamps, tags, labels, and other means of identification. POINT II Even were some benefits to flow from the proposed law they would be of small significance. Conversely, the problems of complying would be disproportionately burdensome Retailers purchase much of their merchandise requirements ready made. However, they also manufacture considerable quantities of fur articles from domestic furs and imported furs which they may have purchased here or abroad. As to garments made in their own establishments, retailers would be in the same predicament as wholesale manufacturers under this bill. Therefore every argument urged by wholesale manufacturers' spokesmen, all of which are known to us, would apply to fur retailers. The exposure under this bill in the event labels are lost or interchanged with other labels, while furs are being dressed, dyed, or manufactured into garments would cause retailers grave concern. These are many other problems which appear absolutely insoluble which arise due to the many different treatments and handling of fur skins between their purchase and incorporation into a finished garment. The use of pieces of fur in the matching process entails great artistic skill which should not be handicapped by questions as to whether the pieces come from the same country as the bulk of the skins being used in the garment. Clearly the gain to the consumer under the proposed law would be infinitesimal and the burdens to retailers unbearable. POINT III The proposed law would create false values. It would upset the present plan of merchandising for articles and thus deprive the consumer of her greatest safeguard. The large bulk of the sales of furs at retail is based upon consumer confidence built over a period of many years of careful dealing by the furrier with the customer. In a great many instances the relationship was first created by one or more previous generations of both the furrier and his customers. The lists of retail fur stores in all parts of the country are virtually studded with the names of second- and third-generation establishments. An overwhelming majority of the balance of these establishments are stores which have been functioning for 20, 25 years and more. The new stores in the fur industry constitute a very small percentage of the whole. However, whether new or old, practically all these merchants have come to recognize that they cannot build or retain a profitable volume of business unless their transactions are kept on a high, ethical level. There are many reasons for this. Primarily, however, it is because a fur coat purchase represents a substantial financial outlay and the purchaser wishes to be quite sure of the reliability of the store before making the expenditure. Furthermore, a satisfied customer can be the source of the very recommendations so greatly needed to estalbish the fact of a store's reliability. Conversely, a dissatisfied customer can do much to injure a store's reputation. Many storekeepers, having built a fine reputation for their store name, cannot take warmly to a plan which would tend to place less highly regarded stores on an equal footing with theirs. The proposed law would in fact tend to give the appearance of an equal degree of reliability to all stores when in fact some of the stores are deserving of a higher degree of respect and confidence. The explanation of this is quite simple. The presence of a label on a fur coat would give the appearance of standardization of the quality and value of fur garments which because of the nature of the product would not in truth and in fact be possible except in rare items. Psychologically, the consumer might come to believe that a fur coat labeled in exactly the same language as fur coats she had seen elsewhere were of equal quality to the other coats though this might not be the fact. A somewhat related development might likewise follow from the passage of the proposed bill. Manufacturers might attempt to build prestige and consumer acceptance for garments of their manufacture not alone by labeling them but perhaps by the use of other advertising media. This too, would be a departure from the customary methods of the industry and would in effect be impairing a very valuable asset which many storekeepers through years of dedication to fine business principles have created for themselves, to wit, their fine names and reputations. |