Mr. HALE. If I go to Maine and shoot some Maine rabbits and dye the skins, and sell them as "Hale mink" in Maine you cannot reach that by any Federal statute, can you?

Mr. MILLER. If the product has never gone beyond Maine I would say "Absolutely no." But that is a very small proportion of the fur products. Pretty nearly all of it passes to the interstate or foreign commerce at some point before it flows through those channels to the ultimate consumer.

Mr. HALE. If I shoot some rabbits in Mr. Heselton's district and take them to Maine, and make them up into skins, and sell them as "Hale mink" can you not reach that under existing law? I am obviously committing a fraud.

Mr. MILLER. We have reached it, as I indicated here, in about 3,500 cases. But that requires considerable procedural matters. You realize that perhaps there are hundreds of advertisements appearing in daily newspapers all over this country, every week, and perhaps every day, and that to proceed in one instance is not sufficiently widespread to make a dent in the situation of local advertising.

When you insist upon a label being there, by and large pretty nearly everybody in the industry, every important person in the industry, will see that that label is there, and by the mere fact that the label is there you will have correction of a rather universal type, correction on sufficiently widespread scale as to meet this situation here.

There are hundreds of advertisements in local newspapers all over the country that could be questioned. Proceedings against them involve big questions of interstate jurisdiction. We have to prove not only that you falsely labeled but also that that false label or deceptive label was carried out under circumstances that produced harm to competitors or to the public and involved interstate commerce.

May I illustrate briefly this: We have traffic lights. A man drives down the street and comes to the red light and he is required to stop and wait for that red light to turn green. Suppose a man goes down there and he has a red light and stops. He looks this way and that way and forward for several blocks and nobody is coming at all. He thinks I am not going to wait for the green light and I will just drive on through. He has violated a law by driving through that light. Under the Federal Trade Act we would have to prove not only that he drove through the red light, but also that his driving through that red light endangered somebody else. In that particular case it did not endanger anyone for the reason that no one

was near.

Now, the Police Department would never be able to enforce traffic violations to any widespread degree that is necessary if in all their cases they had to prove not only that the man drove through the red light but also that by driving through the red light in that particular instance he endangered the life or property of somebody else.

Mr. HALE. Let me put this to you: I am thoroughly sympathetic with what you are trying to accomplish, which is the suppression of fraud. But it does not seem to me that Congress ought to pass a particular statute aimed at every particular fraud that the ingenuity of man can devise. You pass a statute saying that you must not pass through a red light, but if you pass a statute saying that you must not go through a red light on Pennsylvania Avenue, and another saying that you must not go through a red light on Massachussetts

Avenue, and another saying that you must not go through a red light on Connecticut avenue and so on, you get to the point of absurdity. Mr. MILLER. That is true. I do not know of anybody that advocates mandatory labeling generally, for all industry commodities. Even the groups that are generally regarded as advocating labeling, I do not think have gone that far at all. It is only in situations of special importance that mandatory labeling is required. You have it in foods and drugs.

Mr. HALE. What about the case I put this morning about jewelry? Are there not frauds perpetrated by jewelers?

Mr. MILLER. You undoubtedly have. We have had a lot of cases involving it. We have worked up, with the wholesale jewelry industry, trade practice rules and enlisted their aid and cooperative effort to stem the tide of such things. We feel we have made con

siderable headway.

A person could argue, of course, that jewelry perhaps, is of sufficient importance to take up and have specific legislation on it. To my mind it is not anywhere near as important as an item of clothing which furs are.

You have mandatory labeling in foods and drugs. Obviously that is a necessity. You have it in wool, which is proved to be most salutary, most effective. Those are products that are necessities of life, food, and clothing.

Mr. HALE. Besides food, drugs, and wool, what have you?

Mr. MILLER. There are seed labeling acts. There is, of course, the labeling of foreign merchandise under the Tariff Act; virtually all merchandise coming in from abroad must be labeled as to country of origin; there are fertilizer labeling laws showing the contents of the product. Those may, however, be State laws. I am not too familiar with it.

There are laws passed by the Congress last year revising legislation. that has long been on the books on insecticides, fungicides, and rodenticides. All of those are required to be labeled, not only from the standpoint of protecting the consumers from the possible poisonous effects of the product but also to protect consumers by affording them information as to what they are getting for their money.

So labeling legislation is quite extensively on the books already. But they are on the books in respect of special categories of merchandise that require special treatment, I would say.

Mr. HESELTON. As a representative of the Commission, in line with Mr. Hale's inquiries, do you anticipate that there will be recommendations for other similar acts of legislation in other fields?

Mr. MILLER. I do not know, except this: That there has been introduced in the Senate a bill to require the labeling of synthetic fabrics, such as fabrics made of rayon, nylon, and so forth, paralleling the Wool Products Labeling Act, to include those fabrics and textile merchandise.

Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Hale suggested taking a category and putting it into the Wool Fabrics Act. Yet you think it would be inadvisable to do a complete job, of picking off all things that need that sort of legislation.

Mr. HALE. Every kind of fabric.

Mr. MILLER. It can be done that way. There is no question but that it can be done. I do not see anything to be gained by it.

For example, you have here the requirement for establishment of an official list of names of fur-bearing animals for use in labeling this product. You will have to have special provisions in respect to dyed and processed merchandise in which the appearance is altered. You do not have that in textiles generally. But it is possible, of course, to combine the legislation.

I think that when you do combine the legislation you will have a bill just about as long, you will have just about as long an amendment, shall I say, to the Wool Products Labeling Act, as you would have in a separate bill.

Mr. HESELTON. Let me put this to you. I am not thinking so much of the length of the amendment or the number of printed words on the statute books as I am of dealing with it at one time and in one mechanism. I am just wondering-this is the first time I have heard a suggestion on it and I want to deal with it a little more fullywould not it also have the effect, if Congress is going to do this thing, of providing machinery at less cost to the public, than if you set up separate compartments here and there and elsewhere and putting up new sections to deal with furs, jewelry, nylons, and any number of categories?

Mr. MILLER. I think, Mr. Congressman, that your point would be well taken if the different acts were to be administered by different agencies. In this particular case we would immediately integrate the whole thing right into our work on labeling under the Wool Products Labeling Act. The same members of the staff who go out on a wool case would be prepared to go out on one of these cases, I mean to do it at the same time.

So that there would be uniformity and close integration of administration, even though it is in the form of a separate statute rather than in the form of an amendment to some other act.

Mr. HESELTON. That may be true in this case, but we have had some experiences for instance, in the administration of the export of petroleum, where Commerce is in it, State is in it, ODT is in it, and half a dozen other agencies are eventually in it.

It requires better administrative practice if we are going to deal with this thing as a whole, and in one place. I do not care to prolong that. But it is a suggestion worth considering.

Mr. MILLER. In the bill there is virtually copied into it certain administrative enforcing provisions that are in the Wool Products Labeling Act. That can be spelled out, as it has been in this bill, or it can be brought in by way of reference. In other words, instead of having the section set out in extenso we might put them in by reference, something to the effect that section so and so, of such and such an act, shall be available for administration and enforcement of this act. That is a technique that could be resorted to. It would have the effect of shortening the bill, that is, the length of the text. Mr. HESELTON. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions, gentlemen?

Mr. O'Hara?

Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Miller, you do feel that under the present law that you do not have the authority which is spelled out in this bill. Is that not true, in the matter of labeling of furs?

Mr. MILLER. We do not have it to the extent that it is spelled out in this bill, and to the extent that we feel is necessary to reach the principal sources of bad practices, shall we say, in relation to furs.

Mr. O'HARA. I notice that you estimate that the annual business which is done in the fur industry is in the neighborhood of $500,000,000 a year.

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. O'HARA. In connection with the advertising of these furs, you feel that that is where the appeal is made to the public, such as Siberian wolf for dog or something of that nature, which might sound very appealing to the reader of that advertisement. But if the label was on that garment, that it was dog, that that person would be somewhat disillusioned in comparing the product to the advertisement. Is that not true?

Mr. MILLER. That is true. And that is the only way, Mr. Congressman, that I can see that the Federal authority can operate effectively in that local area which is the very area that is most significant in this industry because it is the point of contact with the ultimate

consumer.

Mr. O'HARA. Do you anticipate any extensive administrative rulings in connection with this matter? I am speaking now in addition to what is spelled out in the law. You spoke of one suggested amendment. Now, in fairness to the industry that are here, Mr. Miller, I think we should have a full discussion of any proposed amendments so that the gentlemen who are here representing the industry might have an opportunity to comment on it in the bill.

Mr. MILLER. I think, Mr. Congressman, the principal points will be discussed. One will be a point raised by the industry as to the practicability of marking imported furs. I think some reasonable method must be provided for that if that provision is to be a requirement of the law. Just exactly how that can be worked out I am not in too good a position to say, offhand, because it is a matter that should take into consideration the hearings of all people that are concerned with that phase of the business, how it can be worked out practically.

I think that it would not be very practical to require, in the case of pieced plates or mats of furs, made up of small pieces of furs for the marking as to foreign origin, to go down and be so meticulous as to require each piece to be designated. I think some reasonable provision needs to be made in respect to that. That is an illustration of what I and in mind.

The CHAIRMAN. It has been the custom of this committee to look favorably upon such legislation. However, the committee recognizes that some amendments may be necessary. It is the custom of the committee to have our staff work in conjunction with the Federal departments and the representatives of the industry involved. This has worked very satisfactorily up to the present time.

Mr. MILLER. I may say that we would be happy to be of whatever assistance we can in that respect.

Another provision that I might mention that I would not be opposed to amending is this: You will notice that the label that is required to be on a fur garment shall show not only the true name of the fur but also the name of the manufacturer, or, as the language here puts it, the name of the person subject to section 3.

Sometimes retailers object to having the name of the manufacturer disclosed in their store, or have it possible for the ultimate purchaser or competitors to see where their merchandise came from. The need of having either the name or an identification on the label is important

because it fixes responsibility for the label, but I would not see any objection to providing that the label may contain either the name of the manufacturer or the name of a person subject to section 3, or a registered identification number that would be registered with the enforcing agency and could be used by the manufacturer or such person instead of his name, if he chose to use such a symbol.

Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Miller, in connection with the Wool Labeling Act do you require the garment to show the name of the manufacturer under that act?

Mr. MILLER. The provision requires the label to be identified by the name of the manufacturer or the name of a person subject to section 3, which is the name of a concern that handles the product in interstate commerce and a responsible party under the act.

I would see no objection to expanding the provision in this bill to say that those people need not put their name on the label if they put on the label a registered number or registered symbol that is registered with the administrative agency as identifying the manufacturer or person subject to section 3. In other words, it would identify the manufacturer or the responsible party without disclosing to the public who that particular manufacturer or person is. That is a feasible and practical way of meeting the objection that is at times heard by retail department stores, that they do not wish to reveal the name of the manufacturer of their products. Certain products, nationally advertised products, are practically always revealed. But, when it is not a nationally advertised trade-marked article, there is occasionally heard objection on the part of the retailer to revealing who the manufacturer was.

Mr. O'HARA. The reason I brought it out was that I appreciate that the gentlemen in the industry who are in the fur-manufacturing industry have certainly great problems of their own. But in the remarks by the Federal Trade Commission on the bill, in the report, this comment is made:

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 stimulate more desirable skins or more expensive types of furs.

What do you mean by "stimulate”?

Mr. MILLER. That is a typographical error. That should be "simulate," not "stimulate."

Mr. O'HARA. If you would care to express yourself a little further in regard to the language of the Commission, I would appreciate it.

Mr. MILLER. In my remarks I had a section on the necessity for disclosing in the label the fact that the fur has been dyed, or the natural color changed, so as to simulate some other animal or a higher grade of the same animal. That, in our opinion, is quite as important to have disclosed as to have disclosed the true name of the animal that actually produced the fur.

Unless the purchaser has the information that she is not getting nature's color, but is getting color added by man, she will be deprived of a fact that is very important toward closing the door on unscrupulous representations of the type which are not only harmful to the