TABLE 1.-Furs (except silver or black fox), undressed: United States imports, by principal sources, 1920, 1921, 1923, and 1925–46

1 Before 1928 may include some imports from British South Africa.

2 Less than 500.

3 Preliminary.

TABLE 6.-Undressed furs (except silver or black fox): United States imports for consumption, by kinds, 1946

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U. S. Department of Commerce.

Mr. BECKWORTH. You mentioned that you compete with the Russian Government. When the Russian Government sells $70,000,000 worth of furs in a given year, how many buyers actually obtain in the first purchase, those furs? In other words, I would assume large department stores probably buy some of those furs. Is that true? Mr. FRANCIS. No. It usually comes through the brokers.

Mr. BECKWORTH. How many brokers-it is an estimate, doubtless, that you would have to make-but how many brokers actually get hold of those furs when the original deal is made in bringing them into this country?

Mr. FRANCIS. I could not answer that question. I could give you some enlightenment to this effect: You know there have been certain restrictions about brokers going into Russia and buying furs. But I think it should be applicable to this committee and of interest to you to know that at the time that Congressmen of the United States were prohibited from going into Russia, Russia solicited fur buyers from this country to come in there and buy their furs. I do not know the number, Congressman.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Would it be a hundred or a thousand or five thousand?

Mr. FRANCIS. I do not know. I think other witnesses here in the trade could give you more accurate information on that.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Doubtless that is a very lucrative business, would you not think, if a person could get enough of them?

You

But I would

Mr. FRANCIS. Every other person's business looks lucrative. should ask those that are in it. I do not know for sure. assume that maybe it would be.

Mr. BECKWORTH. You represent, percentagewise, what percentage of those people who produce furs, you and your organization?

Mr. FRANCIS. Of the fur farmers in the United States we represent 90 percent active membership of all fur farmers in the United States. That does not include rabbits, but silver fox and mink producers.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Are there many fur farmers who are not in your organization?

Mr. FRANCIS. Only one organization, which represents perhaps outside of about 10 percent.

Mr. BECKWORTH. In no sense do you feel that this legislation would injure a person who does not belong to a fur-farmers organization, such as the group Mr. Priest referred to, as those who go out and trap for furs?

Mr. FRANCIS. No. I have not heard from, nor have I discussed this legislation with many leading members and officers of their organization. They are not opposed to it. In fact, they are in favor of it, though perhaps they have not signified it to the committee.

Mr. BECKWORTH. With reference to the trappers who trap for furs, do they have an organization?

Mr. FRANCIS. They have a resemblance, but I have never found what I call a real trappers' organization. You must get this connection, that they go out only in certain seasons limited at most to a couple of months. Mostly, trappers do not rely on that for a livelihood. It is merely a part-time, after-school job, and therefore an organization—the cost of maintaining, and so on, prohibits them from having one.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hale?

Mr. HALE. Mr. Francis, is jungle raccoon raised on farms?

Mr. FRANCIS. Not to my knowledge; no, sir. I do not know what jungle raccoon is, or jungle mink.

Mr. HALE. You do not know what jungles they come from, do you? Mr. FRANCIs. I do not.

Mr. HALE. We have raccoons in Maine, but they are not in jungles. Mr. FRANCIS. I think the word "jungle" there is used perhaps for color. Jungle does denote a color. They have also the same denotation, arctic mink, denoting color. We have some names developed in our own industry, gentlemen, to describe color that really are not descriptive. But I want to say this for the benefit of the committee: This applies to fur farmers, in selling breeding stock and in furs. I have seen new names, marten mink. Now, if a farmer is going to buy a live animal that is marten mink he does not know what he is going to get. So it applies to our own trade in our own business and for our own welfare in our own business.

Mr. HALE. Do you think a raccoon acquires any merit by living in a jungle?

Mr. FRANCIS. I do not know. I have never seen one from a jungle, so I could not make an expression.

Mr. HALE. I noticed on page 6 of your statement that you criticize the use of the term "jungle mink raccoon" but apparently approve the term of "jungle raccoon.

Mr. FRANCIS. Mr. Congressman, "jungle" does not signify any species or fur, whereas mink does. The law does not prohibit a man from wanting to call a fur emerald blue, honeyed blond, pastel, white, black, or any color, or jungle, or any descriptive word for color, but not to use mink in relation to raccoon, which implies that there is a species of fur of mink in there. That is the reason that it was set up that way.

Mr. HALE. I am curious to know the ground on which you approve the use of the expression "jungle raccoon." Is that applicable to color? Mr. FRANCIS. It may be to a man in his own business or profession. And it could be, say, used generally in the trade to describe or identify. Mr. HALE. What I want to know is, What does "jungle raccoon' mean to you?

Mr. FRANCIS. Nothing, only that it is raccoon, until I see the article, until I see it used, until it has been set up and established in the trade as "jungle." Then we will maybe be able to identify it as a color. But right now it does not mean anything to me.

And, in fact, it did not mean anything to the trade because the explanation, as I pointed out the manufacturer or the processor had to explain as to what jungle color was.

Mr. HALE. You say it can be used under this bill.

Mr. FRANCIS. That is true, sir. We do not prohibit the use under the bill of any adjective that anyone was to use, except that they do not use another species, the name of another species of fur, to describe the color. That is the point. That is confusing.

The lady who goes to buy jungle raccoon will know that there is not any species of fur known as jungle, but she knows she is going to get a species of fur known as raccoon, with a specific characteristic, wearing qualities, durability, and so on and so forth. The jungle part she will have to find out for herself, what color or blend that is.

Mr. HALE. What concerns you principally is that the animals be called by their right names and that their correct origins be given. Mr. FRANCIS. That is correct.

Mr. HALE. So in that respect it is something like the pure food and drug law.

Mr. FRANCIS. It is.

Mr. HALE. If your principal object is to prevent deception, the Federal Trade Commission can do that now, can it not?

Mr. FRANCIS. No; they are not doing it. Let them speak for themselves.

Mr. HALE. Regardless of whether or not they are doing it, they can do it, can they not?

Mr. FRANCIS. No, sir; they cannot. They are limited under their provisions so that they cannot prohibit the use of the name "jungle mink-raccoon."

Mr. HALE. You say they can or can not?

Mr. FRANCIS. They cannot. Because of the label on the coat they have the name "raccoon" on the coat, which signifies that that is

what the fur is made of. But they do allow the use of "mink" and the use of different types, species of fur, to describe that.

I brought along one particular issue of trade paper. These various names are all used. As presented and pointed out here, Congressman, they cannot set up a provision or a regulation in the fair trade practice that would accomplish what this law accomplishes here.

Mr. HALE. If a furrier sells an article known as jungle mink-raccoon, it would suggest to me that at some point a mink had gone into it. Mr. FRANCIS. That is what it suggests to us, too, Congressman. Mr. HALE. If a mink never entered a jungle mink-raccoon, cannot the Federal Trade Commission do something with a man who sells a coat as a jungle mink-raccoon coat?

Mr. FRANCIS. No. They cannot prohibit the use of that name "mink" because it belongs to the public to identify a product of nature today. And therefore everybody may use it. What we are trying to do is to set up here as perhaps how it should be used and applied.

Mr. HALE. Surely under existing law you cannot sell a rabbit coat as mink.

Mr. FRANCIS. You can infer and deceive the public and use phraseology to the point that is deceptive and misleading. And that is what is going on today. We say that we cannot sell or advertise. You say the Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction over that. I presented here a statement by one of the finest processors in our business and one of the most reliable concerns. That he is advertising, that they are being labeled, that we are producing the names, and we can produce the papers from which these names were taken, and we can produce the labels from which the names were taken. So they are.

And the Federal Trade Commission will have to answer, if they can, why they are not, and I studied their provisions, and in the interpretations of the regulations they cannot go this far as to give the protection that is desired.

Mr. HALE. Is there any similar law applicable to jewelry?
Mr. FRANCIS. I would not know. I do not know.

Mr. HALE. Do you not think the Federal Trade Commission could do something if I sold a glass ring as a "jungle diamond emerald"? Mr. FRANCIS. Congressman, I hope so. But I do not know of any.

I am not qualified to answer your question.
Mr. HALE. I am inclined to think they could.

That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions, gentlemen?
Mr. CROSSER. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Crosser.

Mr. CROSSER. There can be no valid objection to the principle of truth-in-fabric legislation. I gather from you, however, you think there should be additional requirements included in the legislation.

Mr. FRANCIS. No, sir. We are not opposed to the principle of truth-in-fabric legislation.

Mr. CROSSER. I do not think a man should be allowed to sell something as mink that is rabbit. Everybody would agree on that. As we did in the wool law, we should require vendors to tell the facts.

I happened to have been the chairman of the subcommittee that handled the wool-labeling bill. I think that law does a good job.