The CHAIRMAN. You could turn it around the other way, and make it "coney dyed sable."

Mr. GOLD. We would be glad to do that, sir.

Mr. ALBACH. It is against the regulations. You could not.

Mr. GOLD. I do not say we can. I say we would be glad to do it if the Federal Trade Commission would say we should do that. We would be pleased to do it. We would be glad to do it.

The CHAIRMAN. Then you do have a purpose in putting one name ahead of the other?

Mr. GOLD. Well, it is done, sir, in keeping with the present requirements which say that you must give the name of the simulated fur first, and then the true name of the animal second.

That is in the rules now, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. So that if I bought a Hudson seal dyed muskrat, I would get a muskrat coat?

Mr. GOLD. Exactly. And that is done because we are required to do it.

The CHAIRMAN. What kind of a coat would I get if I bought a sable muskrat?

Mr. GOLD. You would get muskrat. A coat made of muskrat skin, dressed and dyed and processed in a very elaborate fashion giving it the fine handsome appearance of sable, as nearly as they can make it appear like sable. But no attempt is made to convince anyone that she is getting a sable coat, sir. No woman with even 5 days' tenure in the United States out of Africa would think she is getting it.

The CHAIRMAN. Then if there is no intention to deceive, what harm would there be to putting on a tag "muskrat"? A person could see for themselves it is dyed sable. They do not need that on a tag. Suppose you put "muskrat" on the tag. What harm would it do? Mr. GOLD. Just the word "muskrat"?

The Chairman. Yes.

Mr. GOLD. Then you would leave it to the salesman to do the rest of the glamorizing? Is that your point?

The CHAIRMAN. He could say, "You can see this is dyed sable, or this is dyed mink" or whatever else it may have been dyed. I am talking about a basic skin. What harm would there be to putting on it "muskrat" if it were muskrat?

Mr. GOLD. As a matter of fact, sir, we give our customers-I only pointed out two examples-we give your customers almost in every instance, except that you may find a few unscrupulous storekeepers we give our customers an invoice or a bill which tells her that. The CHAIRMAN. I am not talking about that.

Mr. GOLD. You want it on the label?

The CHAIRMAN. I am asking you a very simple direct question: What harm would be done to put on a label on that garment, "muskrat?"

Mr. GOLD. The word, "muskrat" alone?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. GOLD. I do not see any harm, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what we are trying to do under this bill. Mr. GOLD. I do not see any harm. I do see great harm in getting around to the business of country of origin.

The CHAIRMAN. Now take the country of origin as long as you have brought that up. You took time to explain to us that there was a great difference in value between a Russian Persian lamb and an Afghanistan Persian lamb. Now, if you put on it "Russian" then you know it is a Russian Persian lamb. If you put on it "Afghanistan" then you know it is that. And one has greater value than the other, according to what you have said.

Mr. GOLD. Sir, do you not see a possibility of an unscrupulous merchant using that marking?

The CHAIRMAN. I can see a lot of unscrupulousness in advertising, not only with reference to furs, but maybe with reference to face powders, shoes, or other articles to which you have referred. But the bill we have before us today deals with furs.

When I see an ad here that tells you that you are getting fur coats of a value to $300 for $40, I say that must be deceptive. I cannot conceive of it in any other way.

Mr. GOLD. I say that is a false statement, in my opinion.
The CHAIRMAN. It would indicate to me that it was.

Mr. GOLD. I am testifying, and I think I have some immunity in making that statement. In my opinion it is very likely a false statement. But I respectfully submit that it is the kind of statement that exposes the advertiser to the Federal Trade Commission's action under the current rules.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Now, with the good opinion that you have of the Federal Trade Commission, it is important when you realize that what we are seeking to do is to hold up their hands and give them more strength.

Mr. GOLD. We are in agreement to give them more strength, but we would like to do it as part of the trade rules. As I indicated before, if, after study, it appears that it has to be done by legislation, we will be the last one to withhold our consent. We will then want of course to have the bill, in such a contingency, written in a fashion that it will exculpate us if we use on our labels the description given to us by our respective sources.

We do not have that protection now, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Just so you do not go away with the idea that this is only furs that we are interested in, if you will come in another day you can sit out there in the audience and hear the same kind of an inquiry being made by this committee with respect to the proper labeling of food and drugs. This committee is here for the purpose of protecting the public. We try to do it wherever we can. If we fail to do it, we fail in our obligation to the people whom we represent. Mr. GOLD. I recognize that this committee has taken its obligation quite seriously.

The CHAIRMAN. It takes all of it seriously, not only in this matter, but in every matter.

Mr. GOLD. I join you in that statement. It is my own personal experience with Members of Congress. I should like however to leave this final word with the members of the committee: The retail branch of the industry subscribes to the plan to go into immediate conference with the Federal Trade Commission to see whether a program cannot be enuncinated and adopted which will obviate any of this legislation, and which will make it possible to put an end to all deceptive and misleading advertising.

If it cannot be done by changing the rules, we will go along with fair legislation to cover the situation.

Mr. O'HARA. Thank you, Mr. Gold.

Mr. GOLD. Thank you, sir. I appreciate the opportunity afforded me to appear.

The CHAIRMAN. May I, at this point, Mr. O'Hara, state that I have received from Charles Bohlen, Counselor of the Department of State, a letter under date of April 7, conveying to this committee the views of the Minister of Afghanistan with respect to this legislation. I ask that it be made a part of the record.

Mr. O'HARA. It may be made a part of the record at this point. (The letter dated April 7, 1948, from Mr. Bohlen, together with a note from the Minister of Afghanistan, above referred to, is as follows.) DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, April 7, 1948.

Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives.

MY DEAR MR. WOLVERTON: The Department has received a note dated April 5, 1948, from the Afghan Legation relative to H. R. 3734, which would require the marking of imported furs. In accordance with the request of the legation a copy of the note is transmitted herewith for the information of your Committee. Your request of April 6 for a report on H. R. 3734 has also been received and comments will be submitted as soon as possible.

Sincerely yours,

The minister of Afghanistan presents his compliments to His Excellency the Acting Secretary of State and has the honor to quote below for the information of His Excellency self-explanatory excerpts from a letter dated March 30, 1948, to the Afghanistan Legation from the Afghan American Trading Co., Inc., 122 West 30th Street, New York 1, N. Y.:

We

"There is pending in the United States Congress a bill which if passed and approved by the President will work a considerable hardship on us and our Afghan consignors, as well as other persons dealing in imported fur skins. are calling your attention to the matter because we feel that the bill unjustly and unfairly discriminates against foreign goods, namely, furs, brought into the United States.

"The bill is H. R. 3734, known as the Johnson-McCarthy fur-labeling bill, As we understand it, the bill requires in substance that every skin imported into the United States be labelled before leaving Customs with its correct English name, the country of origin, and the firm or person handling the skins. The Bill would not apply to domestic skins.

"Applied to the lambskins imported by us from Afghanistan the bill would result, as pointed out above, in considerable hardship. We would be forced when the skins arrive to open each bale at the dock, assort the skins, classify them according to quality and grade, stamp each one as required, and repack them in bales. The cost and delay of merely going through the physical activity would obviously be tremendous. And since we import from Afghanistan over 2,000,000 raw skins each year, it is apparent that gigantic expense would be involved.

"In addition to the labor required to handle the job, other serious consequences would ensue. The value of the goods themselves would greatly depreciate. This arises from the fact that after the arrival of the furs in the United States we often store them for periods of time. And once the bales in which they are originally wrapped in Afghanistan are opened as they must be when we mark the skinsthe skins lose while they remain standing the two qualities which distinguish the

more expensive from the cheaper grade of skin; namely, their luster and the size of their curl. A loss of luster and a change in the size of the curl may in themselves account for a drop in the value of the skins.

"Besides the labor cost and the considerable depreciation in the value of the skins we will be confronted under the bill, if it becomes law, with the problem of correctly identifying the skins. As you may know, there are numerous grades or qualities of Afghan lambskins, such as Parni, Nazukparni, etc.. Often there is a real difference of opinion, even among experts, as to whether a skin belongs in one category or another. This is understandable since no two skins are alike and their classification is, therefore, a pure matter of opinion. And if by chance, we should label a group of skins as one type, when others might call them properly another type, it is obvious that we would run the risk of being charged with misbranding. Furthermore, although we might honestly stamp a raw skin-raw skins being the only kind we handle as being of one kind, and all experts agree that in the raw state it is properly stamped, we might still be charged with misbranding, since after lambskins are dressed and dyed they often change their nature and are properly classified in another quality group, different from that stamped by us on the skin in the raw state. In consequence, however careful we may be we would constantly run the risk of being in violation of the law.

66* * * The matter is extremely urgent since hearings on the bill by the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee will be held on April 6 and 7, and by the Senate committee on April 12 * * ""

*

Although the Legation has not had an opportunity yet to study H. R. 3734 or the Senate version, S. 1388, it would appear that enactment of legislation, if as outlined in the above-quoted letter, would work a very great and serious hardship on Afghanistan, since the export of raw furs is one of the most important and main sources of its national income. In view of the hearings scheduled on April 6 and 7 by the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, and by the Senatecommittee on April 12, and, as the State Department knows, the very serious and great hardship which Afghanistan would suffer if the legislation should beenacted, the Minister of Afghanistan will be very greatful if, through the good offices of the Department of State, it will lend its sympathetic assistance to the end that the attention of the proper officials be invited to the serious affect and great hardship on Afghanistan's export of fur and consequently national income, such legislation would have, if enacted.

(In reply please refer to 1 T 3/NO 225.)

Mr. O'HARA. Congressman Murray? You have been listed as the first witness. In view of the fact that you advised me that you were suddenly engaged in something which prevented you from giving testimony here, we will be glad to hear you at this time. STATEMENT OF THE HON. REID F. MURRAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I will not take much of your time.. The only reason I asked to appear here is so that it will appear in the records of these hearings that I want to ask every member of this committee to read the hearings that were held a year ago in connection with the fur industry.

If those hearings were not held fairly then I do not know what fairness means, and I do not like any insinuation, and I have read them in some of those New York pamphlets, that there was anything ulterior or anything else in connection with the hearings of which I happened to be chosen by the chairman of our committee to conduct. Wisconsin is one of the leading fur States of the Nation. As has been said by a great statesman, I did not come down here to help liquidate the fur industry, and I did not come down here to help liquidate the dairy industry either.

These hearings brought out certain facts. They brought out the fact that moutons are paying 20 percent tax right now, as if they were fur, when they are nothing but a sheepskin. These hearings brought

out the fact that a manufacturer has got the protection of 50 percent. ad valorem on every coat imported into this country, but the man that produces the raw material does not have any protection what

soever.

Now, so far as this labeling is concerned, I was under the impression from those hearings that the trade surely did not have any opposition to them. I am not familiar enough with the fur industry, and I am not going to impose upon your time because I want to admit frankly that I do not know too much about the fur industry, so I am not going to try to testify so far as this particular piece of legislation is concerned. But I do say this, that our testimony showed that there was not any opposition, at least, I got that impression, and second, that if the fur farmer himself is doing something he should not be doing, if he is falsely advertising his animals, I hope that if your committee brings out a bill, that they see to it that the fur farmer himself, the man that. produces the raw material is accorded the same treatment as is everyone else who handles furs along the line.

The begin with, what got us partly into this trouble was when Mr. Wallace was Secretary of Agriculture, he sent a delegation abroad. I am not against foreign trade. But Mr. Wallace sent a delegation on the second mission to Moscow, he sent them over there and asked them to send all the furs they possibly could to us in this country.

That does not make sense in any of the languages. And what the result of that has been, of course, is that it did upset the fur industry in this country a good deal more than it ever needed to be upset.

Another distressing thing is that when a Member of the Congress or the Senate cannot get into Russia, we find that 40 fur men can get visas and they can go into Russia and do business, and that was. something that was not even accorded the representatives of the people in the Senate or in the House of Representatives during the past year.

I say to you here today that the time has come when I realize the position in New York. I have been pushed around a little before, and probably will be again. My only interest is to see that a fair deal is set up for everybody in the fur business, the fur industry, and it begins with the breeder, and it goes right along through to the

consumer.

I thank you very much for this opportunity.
Mr. O'HARA. Thank you, Mr. Murray.

FURTHER STATEMENT OF HENRY MILLER, DIRECTOR, TRADE
PRACTICE CONFERENCES AND WOOL ACT ADMINISTRATION,
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Miller, will you step up please? I have a few questions to ask you.

Mr. Miller, particularly with reference to the matter, as was indicated by this bill, the matter of labeling or registering the fur, I wonder if you have had any experience in observing the way these foreign furs come in and are identified on the docks and where they go, so that you can add to the testimony anything with reference to that question which is troubling the Committee.

Mr. MILLER. I think I can add something. When that question came up I got in touch with a man in the Customs Bureau that handles