buyer but also harmful to the many merchants and manufacturers who do a good job in telling the public what they are getting, and seeing to it that the public does get a fair break for the money.

In a product of nature of this sort, natural color is quite an important thing. It is somewhat as important as when you are buying a team of horses. You would want to know the fact that the horses are matched color or of a certain color. That is very important to It would also be quite important to you if that was not the natural color of the horse.

you.

Here is a very similar situation. It is important in buying, it is important in closing the door to the unscrupulous, to have the purchasers know that they are getting an artificially produced color as distinguished from a natural color which is often highly prized.

You mentioned about some of the things that the amendments would cover. One of my sections was on this matter of trying to reach the difficulty of proving a case of violation where a person. voluntarily represents that he has got Labrador mink. It is easy to determine by an expert that he has mink. But it is practically impossible for the enforcing agency, from the article itself, to determine that it came from Labrador, and in that part of the case the only way that I know of reaching it satisfactorily is to say that if you choose to make such a representation voluntarily, as you are not required to make it, then you should have the burden of proof to show, in the case of an alleged violation, that you actually had what you represented you have.

Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Heselton.

Mr. HESELTON. You do have now, as I understand it, an affirmative requirement that geographical origin of fur must be disclosed. Is that right?

Mr. MILLER. In this bill?

Mr. HESELTON. No; in your rules.

Mr. MILLER. In the trade-practice rules?

Mr. HESELTON. Yes.

Mr. MILLER. That is enforceable where you can prove that the lack of disclosure was deceptive to the public.

Mr. HESELTON. In this list you have given us we have the Baltic leopard. I understand that is an Australian rabbit, dyed, and so forth, to resemble a leopard. My point is that if you cannot get at a situation where an Australian rabbit is passed off as Baltic leopard, I do not know how you are going to improve it by passing some legislation. That leaves me rather in doubt on that point.

Mr. MILLER. Let me illustrate that. Suppose a local intrastate advertiser says he has Baltic seal in his advertisement.

Mr. HESELTON. Will you stay on the leopard?

Mr. MILLER. I beg your pardon. Baltic leopard. And in fact it is rabbit dyed with spots, and so forth, to look like leopard.

Mr. HESELTON. You describe it as Australian rabbit, not just rabbit. I am talking about it as Australian rabbit, passed off to the public as Baltic leopard. That is deception.

Mr. MILLER. On the part of the Baltic it is deceptive, but the situation is worse than that in that situation, because it is not leopard at all.

Mr. HESELTON. I am trying to get just one thing from the Commission, and I do not want to prolong this. You have a rule, an enforceable rule, requring the affirmative disclosure of the origin, as I take it.

Mr. MILLER. In interstate commerce.

Mr. HESELTON. Let us assume that it is in interstate commerce. Certainly it would deceive any reasonable person if she was told that the skin in front of her was a Baltic leopard when in fact and in truth it was an Australian rabbit.

Now, if you cannot prohibit that type of deception, how can you hope to reach it through the act we have before us?

Mr. MILLER. We can prohibit the situation you mentioned under present law because you assumed it was interstate commerce; you assumed that that was affirmative misbranding, and it is affirmative misbranding; but the situation that is hard to reach is where that is not directly in interstate commerce, and where the deception is not due to affirmative misbranding but due to lack of disclosure or concealment of the fact that that thing is not leopard, as it appears to be leopard.

Mr. HESELTON. It is your opinion that the law would close the loophole on that?

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir. That advertisement that this is Baltic seal would lose its effect if the customer who saw that advertisement went down to the store and saw this label on the thing that says, "this is rabbit." She would say, "Good night, what is that fellow advertising?" That fellow would know that he cannot afford to use misrepresentations to his customers when his customers can find out that it is false. The reaction would be terrible on his business.

Mr. HESELTON. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Miller.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you.

STATEMENT BY HARVEY MANN, OF MEADOW, MANN & CLYNE, NEW YORK CITY, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN FUR MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION, INC.; AMERICAN RABBIT DEALERS ASSOCIATION, INC.; AND FUR DRESSERS GUILD, INC.

Mr. MANN. Mr. Chairman, with the consent of the committee, may I have the president of the American Fur Merchants Association sit here beside me, in case there are some questions of technical nature for which I may not be equipped?

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Mr. MANN. This is Mr. George Adelstein, the president of the association.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the fur industry has a great many branches. It is a very complicated industry. In presenting the opinion of the members of the industry with reference to the proposed legislation, we felt that it could best be done by dividing it into its natural segments, especially since this proposed bill is also divided into natural segments. We thought it would be helpful to the committee if we could take some raw furs from the point where they are first introduced into commerce, and show what actually happens to the raw furs, what procedures they undergo in dressing, drying,

74903-48- -5

manufacture, and then trace the manufactured article through the retailer and jobber to the consumer.

Now, this particular bill requires labeling of two kinds of fur commodities: one, imported furs; and, two, fur articles, which are articles manufactured into fur garments for the most part; also fur-trimmed articles, and so on.

And the type of labeling that is required for the imported fur is different from the type of labeling that is required when the manufacturer completes the garment and enters it into a channel when it would go ultimately to the consumer.

The group for which I appear falls in the first category; that is, up to the point where the manufacturer must put on his label. As I will show you, the original label that the importer is required to put on disappears, and the fur loses all identity with the original label. From the point on when the manufacturer affixes a new label, which remains affixed until it is sold to the consumer, there is no further way of identifying the furs in that garment with any particular furs whatsoever, whether they be domestic or foreign.

Just for the sake of saving time, and in order to be sure that I don't omit any important point, with the permission of the committee I will follow my brief at certain points, and I think that the above point will become evident. I think it will become evident to the committee, and even to the proponents of this bill, that everything with respect to labeling furs up to the point where the manufacturer makes the garment is futile, would accomplish nothing, would protect nothing, would simply burden the whole process with a lot of expense, mutilation of skins, loss of time, increase the price to the consumer, do no good at all to the consumer, and so far as that part of the bill is concerned to which I will address myself, I am going to try to show you what actually would happen.

From that point on the manufacturers and jobbers and retailers will show what they feel about the bill. But bear in mind that from that point on they are talking about a very different labeling than I am talking about.

The raw furs sold and purchased in this country are, of course, either imported or domestic.

Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt at that point? While the gentleman was outlining his general statement I took the liberty of glancing at the prepared statement. I can assure you there are some very strong statements as to the purposes and intentions of this bill. I do think the first two pages should be called to the attention of the committee before we enter into the third page. The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.

Mr. MANN. As to that, Mr. Congressman, I will say this: I heard the statement this morning made by Mr. Francis that if the committee feels that it is necessary to have the same provisions applied to domestic furs that are applied to imported furs, he would be willing to have the bill amended. Mr. Miller, the last witness, said that he would recommend such amendment. I wrote this statement as the bill was drawn. I had no gift of prophecy as to what might be in the draftsman's mind. But, as he drew it, a dealer in domestic furs was exempt, but the dealers in imported furs were affected. And, as the bill is drawn, I don't think there is anything unfair in the first two

pages of the brief. However, I had not even referred to the first two pages, and I was beginning from the point of where the committee had arrived now.

The CHAIRMAN. May I say to the witness, it is true that you do not know what was in the mind of Mr. Francis, nor do you know what is in the mind of the committee.

Mr. MANN. Certainly not.

The CHAIRMAN. Therefore, I think you should cover the bill as it is, and not take for granted, because Mr. Francis has made a suggestion, that that necessarily will meet the approval of the committee.

Mr. MANN. Well, sir, I shall do that, then. Because, if the bill is voted out without any amendment, so far as the dealers in imported furs are concerned, we feel that it would be a terrific discrimination against them, that it would virtually put them out of business and leave the field to the domestic fur farmers or trappers, and would deprive the public of a tremendous source of fur garments; it would result in raising prices; and would do everything that the bill is designed not to do.

Although the proposed bill is labeled "A bill to protect consumers, retailers, distributors, manufacturers, dealers, and producers from misnaming, misbranding, and so forth," a careful reading of its provisions shows that its true purpose is to subject imported furs to such impossible burdens as to prevent the importation of most raw furs into the country and grant a monopoly to domestic fur farmers..

Far from protecting consumers, retailers, distributors, manufacturers, dealers, and producers, the bill would destroy the bulk of the fur industry and would leave the remnants thereof and the consumers to the mercy of producers of domestic raw furs.

The true intent of the bill is cleverly concealed so that unless one is familiar with the actual steps and processes by which raw furs are brought to the market, dressed, dyed, and manufactured into fur garments, its real purpose and effect are not immediately apparent. The great bulk of raw fur skins which are processed and manufactured into fur articles in this country consists of imported raw skins. The report of the Department of Commerce covering importations for the calendar year 1946 shows that upward of 195,000,000 raw fur skins were imported into the United States, principally from Argentina, Canada, Australia, U. S. S. R., China, Belgium, Netherlands, France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Turkey, Chile, the United Kingdom, Italy, Japan, Afghanistan, with lesser amounts from many other countries all over the world.

It is a world-wide industry, and this country is the center of that industry.

So that it is quite obvious that to a large extent the fur industry in this country depends on imported skins.

Mr. O'HARA. During what time are you speaking of now, that we depend upon imported skins? Over what period of years?

Mr. MANN. I should say for a long time. I wouldn't try to limit myself because the volume of imports has always been at least equal, if not greater to domestic production. I think the witness said this morning 60-40-60 percent imported and 40 percent domestic. Whether it is exactly 60-40, I don't know. But it is a very large segment, and as you can appreciate, 195,000,000 skins is a large amount of skins.

The CHAIRMAN. When you refer to "skins," you are speaking now only of fur skins?

Mr. MANN. Yes, sir. I am not talking about hides or anything of that kind.

The domestic output does not equal this vast amount. Consequently if a bill could be drawn which would, in effect, exclude imported furs under the guise of protecting American consumers, retailers, manufacturers, dealers, and so forth, the American fur producers would have the entire field to themselves. They could raise prices, and the public far from being protected would be mulcted. The entire fur industry would shrink to a fraction of its present size and the output of fur garments would shrink correspondingly. Of course, none of these dire results are apparent from reading of the bill. But that is precisely what its effect would be, as will be demonstrated. It will be shown that all of the provisions relating to imported raw furs do not apply to domestic raw furs. It will be shown that all of the special provisions relating to imported furs are perfectly futile and unnecessary. They accomplish no useful purpose whatsoever. If they accomplish any desirable purpose, such provisions would be equally desirable in the case of domestic raw furs.

cursory

It will be shown that the provisions of the bill relating to imported furs would require such staggering expenditures of time, money, and labor and would result in such damage and mutilation of the skins, without accomplishing any benefit to the public or the trade, that compliance with the act would be wholly impracticable and in most cases impossible.

It will be shown that the provisions of the act are so unreasonable and arbitrary and bear no reasonable relationship to any valid public purpose as to render the bill unconstitutional as discriminatory, arbitrary, unreasonable, unnecessary, and depriving persons of their business and property without due process of law.

Finally, it will be shown that adequate remedies already exist for the protection of the consumer, that this bill would afford no protection of the consumer, that this bill would afford no protection against dishonest retailers, that importers, dealers, manufacturers, and wholesalers require no protection and that the bill would require such an army of bureaucrats and inspectors for its enforcement that it would fail to accomplish any valid purpose even if one existed.

The proposed bill places an impossible burden on imported raw furs but leaves domestic raw furs unaffected.

Before setting forth an analysis of the proposed bill, we desire to set forth in outline form, the course of procedure by which raw furs are brought to market, the various steps in processing such raw furs prior to their manufacture in "fur articles," the general name used in the bill to cover fur coats, fur-trimmed or -lined coats and garments, and manufactured articles and items containing fur, the process of manufacturing dressed and dyed furs into "fur articles" and the channels by which these fur articles are sold to retailers and by retailers to the general public.

Only if we have a clear idea of these various steps and what is involved in each of them can we understand the vices and defects of the proposed bill. These steps are as follows: