Mr. FRIEDMAN. Yes, sir. But they do not unbale them until the buyers are ready to process them. When they bring them in and they have the buyer, they open a few sample bales; the buyer takes the baled skins and does not open them until they are ready to be dyed and dressed. Mr. O'HARA. What is to prevent them from being stamped under this proposed bill then? Mr. FRIEDMAN. They have to be stamped before they leave the customs, under the bill, as it now reads. They have to be stamped before they leave customs, so they would have to be stamped right on the dock, as soon as they arrive. Mr. O'HARA. When do they lose this value-when they are opened? Mr. FRIEDMAN. When the skins come here they come sometimes in bales numbering 2,000, 3,000, 4,000, or 5,000. They may stay in the United States for 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 months before they are sold or processed. Mr. O'HARA. How big a bale is that? Mr. FRIEDMAN. Two hundred skins to a bale. In the meantime, if they are permitted to remain unbaled during all that period, their value would rapidly depreciate. What is done now is, that as soon as the skins are unpacked from the original bales, the buyer takes them and immediately sends them on to processor so that they do not lose that value. Mr. O'HARA. How fast is the deterioration after they are opened? Mr. FRIEDMAN. I cannot specify the exact time. But the fact is that they do remain here for some time before being processed, and based upon the length of time which it has been customary to retain them after they arrive in the United States, there will be depreciation to the extent of some 30 percent. Mr. O'HARA. Why? I should think they would deteriorate anyway, when they are opened for processing? Mr. FRIEDMAN. When they come here, and before they are sold by the Afghan Co., they are in the raw state. It is the period between the time that they arrive and the time when the skins are processed, that the deterioration would be liable to arise, either from moths, loss of luster, or change in the curl. Mr. O'HARA. Would that be a matter of days or months? Mr. FRIEDMAN. It would be months; there is that lapse of time. If the Afghan Co. imports $20,000,000 or $30,000,000 worth of skins a year, $5,000,000 or $10,000,000 worth may arrive at one time, and they cannot be sold until some period elapses. Mr. O'HARA. If they are opened at the docks by the customs, and stamped there and rebaled, would they still lose value? Mr. FRIEDMAN. Yes, sir; because the people cannot repack and rebale them as they do in Afghanistan. They are packed in Afghanistan in a certain manner which they say cannot be done here. If they are repacked here they would be twice the size that they were when they were packed over there, as was brought out earlier in testimony. We cannot pack them as tightly or treat them as they were in Afghanistan before they arrived with the result that substantial deterioration takes place with consequent loss. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions? Mr. Hale? Mr. HALE. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate, as chairman, the willingness of my colleagues to sit here until this late hour, and take this testimony. We have done it to accommodate some who found it necessary to leave, and also to make certain that the hearings will be closed tomorrow. I think we can accomplish that purpose by having sat here as late as we have this evening. I appreciate your willingness, Mr. Hale and Mr. O'Hara. We will adjourn until tomorrow at 10 o'clock. (Thereupon, at 6:05 p. m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a. m., Wednesday, April 7, 1948.) FUR LABELING ACT WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7, 1948 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, Washington, D. C. The committee met at 10 a. m., in room 1334, New House Office Building, pursuant to adjournment, Hon. Charles A. Wolverton (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order. I have received communications from the Associated Fur Industries of Chicago, Inc., dated March 30, 1948, which is in opposition to the bill, which will be made a part of the record; also a communication from the Iowa and Nebraska Furriers Association dated March 30, 1948, which will be made a part of the record; and from the United Fur Manufacturers Association, Inc., New York City, which will be made a part of the record. Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Chairman, at that point, I think that a letter that I spoke of yesterday from the Minnesota Raw Fur Association should be made a part of the record. It is in opposition to the bill. The CHAIRMAN. It will be made a part of the record together with the others. (The letters above referred to are as follows:) ASSOCIATED FUR INDUSTRIES OF CHICAGO, INC., Representative CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, Chairman, Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, House Office Building, Washington 25, D. C. HONORABLE SIR: I am submitting this letter in the hope that it may prove to be of some help in arriving at an appraisal of the Fur Label Act (H. R. 3734). My objections to the bill are as follows: (1) The bill has been introduced to "protect consumers, retailers, distributors, manufacturers, dealers, and producers from misnaming, misbranding, improper identification * * * of fur products As a trade association of furriers in the city of Chicago, we cooperate with the Chicago Better Business Bureau in the handling of fur complaints by consumers. No complaints have been received in this office pertaining to the misnaming, misbranding, or improper identification of fur or fur garments. The complaints received by this association and by the Chicago Better Business Bureau arise out of exaggerated claims and false comparative prices in newspaper and radio advertising and out of misunderstandings on credit terms. The misnaming, misbranding, or improper identification of fur products and articles as is mentioned in the bill does not present a problem to the retailer, distributor, manufacturer, dealer, and producer, because fur is their business and identity presents no problem to them. The retail consumer is adequately protected by the Federal Trade Commission rules which are specific on these matters. (2) The bill throws a particularly heavy burden on the importer of fur (sec. 7a) and, in my opinion, is an attempt to legislate a tariff barrier against foreign furs under the guise of this bill. 74903-48 -7 93 (3) The bill by requiring the English names of furs (sec. 4 (a) (2) (A)) tends to discriminate in favor of the domestic raiser of mink and fox and upsets customary wording used in this business over a period of many years. (4) The bill would tend to equalize the quality of all fur articles by a label. In other words, the bill does not label the grade of the fur article. This means that the "sharpie" who sells a low grade of mink coat would have the same protection and prestige as the dealer who sells a good grade of fur article, It would automatically raise the low grade to the standard of the high grade through the medium of a label. (5) The bill tends to increase the price of fur articles as a result of the conditions specified within the act. This adds another burden to the harassed retailer who is already overburdened by the discriminatory 20 percent retailers' excise tax. (6) The bill emphasizes domestic furs with the apparent hope of making them desirable to the consumer. Fashion determines this, and not law. Conclusion: The fur industry and the consuming public are not confronted with any problem arising out of misnaming, misbranding, or improper identification of fur products and articles. The subject matter of H. R. 3734 is well covered by trade practice rules for the ASSOCIATED FUR INDUSTRIES OF CHICAGO, INC., CENTRAL STATES FURRIERS ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSORS TO IOWA AND NEBRASKA FURRIERS ASSOCIATION, Representative CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, Chairman, Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, House Office Building, Washington 25, D. C. HONORABLE SIR: I am submitting this letter for the express purpose of giving you the unanimous opinion of the 32 retail furriers comprising our present membership concerning the Fur Label Act (S. 1388). (1.) The stated purpose of the bill is to protect consumers, retailers, 'distributors, manufacturers, dealers, and producers from misnaming, misbranding, or improper identification of fur products etc. The members of our furriers association in the Midwest area have had no occasion of consumer complaint regarding misnaming of furs. We are in consultation with our respective better business bureaus and they state that there is no need for additional legislation on this matter; as the present Federal Trade Commission rules adequately protect the consumer. The misnaming, misbranding or improper identification of fur products is not a problem to the retailer, distributor, manufacturer, dealer, and producer, as fur is their business and identification of furs is of second nature to them. (2.) A retail furrier who has spent years building goodwill toward his name and label does not feel that he should be required to sell furs with the label of another manufacturer attached to, or a part of the finished product, particularly as this will support a trend toward the promotion of national brands which will be against the best interests of the consumer as to quality, workmanship, and price. The fur industry is one of the few industries today where the store name means more than a national brand. It should be evident that in a highly competitive era, this situation would not exist were it not the most successful and desirable way of manufacturing and selling fur garments. (3.) The bill requires English names and this subject is well covered by existing Federal Trade Commission rules. It also discriminates in favor of domestic raisers of fur-bearing animals and is against prevailing descriptions now well known to the consumer and the fur trade. (4.) The provision requiring tagging or stamping of all skins and pieces will cause additional expense to the industry and the Federal Government and resultant higher costs to the consumer. It will be impractical in the case of small piece plates. (5.) The bill would cause great confusion in the mind of the consumer as there would be no discrimination of quality under the bill and would result in the unscrupulous dealer using the Federal Trade Commission label to represent the quality of one article as being the same as a better quality and construction of the same article offered by another dealer. (6.) The bill definitely favors domestic fur raisers with every intention of increasing the sales of such articles as they produce. Such sales are determined by fashion alone and a bill for this purpose has no place in Congress. |