GOVERNMENT / o / 7

Storage IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS

y (I den tifica tion of Cou nt ry W her e W ov en )

. In s/4

89'6

5V*< 5

H E A R I N G

BEFORE THE

SUB CO MM ITT EE ON COMMERCE AND FI N AN CE

9 b ;

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

INT ERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESE NTATIVE S

EIGH TY -N IN TH CONGRESS

FIRS T SESSION

ON

H.R. 7043

A BILL TO AMEND TH E TEXT ILE FIBE R PRODUCTS ID EN TIFICATION ACT AND TH E WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACT OF 

1939 IN ORDER TO REQUIRE THAT IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS 

MUST HAVE WOVEN INTO THEM T HE NAME OF THE COUNTRY 

WH ERE WOVEN

> -------

J1 AP RIL 27, 1965

j -------------

J]

□ Printed fo r the use of the 

Committee on In terstate and Foreign Commerce

□ -------------

Serial No. 89-6

.47-904

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 1965
COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE ANI) FOREIGN COMMERCE

OKEN HA RR IS,

H A R L E Y O. ST A G G ER S, W es t Virgi nia

W A L T E R RO GE RS , Te xa s

SA M U E L N. F R IE D E L, M arylan d

T O R B E R T II. MAC DON AL D, M as sa ch us etts

JO HN JA RM AN , Ok lah om a

LE O W. O’ BRIE N , New Yo rk

JO HN E. MO SS , Cal ifor nia

JO HN D. D IN G ELL , Mich iga n

P A U L G. RO GE RS , Fl or id a

HORAC E It. KO RN EG AY, Nor th Ca ro lin a

LIO N E L VA N D EER LIN , Cal if or nia

J. J. F IC K L E , Te xa s

F R E D B. RO ON EY , Pen ns yl va ni a

JO HN M. M URP HY, New Yo rk

D A VID E. S A T T E R F IE L D II I, Vir gi nia

D A N IE L J . RO NA N, Il lin oi s

J. O LIV A IIU OT , Ne w Ha mpshire

JA M ES A. M ACKAY, Ge or gia

JO HN J. G IL LIG AN , Ohio

C H A R LE S P . F A R N SL E Y , Ke n tuc k y

JO HN B E L L W IL LIA M S, M ississ ip pi

Ark an sa s, Chairman

W IL LIA M L. SPR IN G ER , Ill in oi s 

J. A R TH U R YO UNGE R, Cal if or nia 

SAM U EL L. D EVIN E, Oh io 

A N CH ER N ELSEN , Minn esota 

H A ST IN G S K E IT H , M as sa ch us etts 

W IL LA R D S. CU RTI N , Pen ns yl va ni a 

GLE NN CU NNIN GH AM , Ne br aska 

JA M ES T. B R O Y II IL L , Nor th Ca ro lin a 

JA M ES H A R V E Y, M ichiga n 

TI M L E E CA R TE R , Ken tu ck y 

HOW AR D H. C A LL A W A Y , Ge orgia

W . E. W il lia m so n, Cle rk

K en n eth J. P ain ter, A ss is ta nt Cle rk

Pr of es sion al St aff

A nd rew Ste ven so n Jam e s M. Mbn ge r. Jr.

K dr t B or ch ar dt Wil l ia m J. Dixon

S u b c o m m it te e on C om m er ce a n d F in a n c e

T O R B E R T H. M AC DON AL D, M as sa ch us etts, Cha irm an

JO HN D. D IN G ELL, Michiga n H AST IN GS K E IT H , M as sa ch us etts

J. O LIV A HUO T, Ne w Ham ps hi re W IL LA R D S. CU R TIN , Pe nnsy lv an ia

C H A R LE S P. F A R N SL E Y , K en tu ck y

II
C O N T E N T S

Page

T ext of IL K . 7043_____________________________________________________ 1

R ep ort of—

Com merce D ep art m en t____________________________________________ 3

S ta te D ep art m en t_________________________________________________ I

Tre as ury D ep art m en t______________________________________________ 3

S ta te m ent of—

Cha nd ler, Lo uis , on be ha lf of W ov en La be l M an uf ac tu re rs of the

U ni te d S ta te s of Amer ica___________ _____________________________ 19 Clays on , M on ro e C., H arv ard La bels, In c _________________________ 43

Da nie ls, Mich ael P. , legi slativ e counsel , U ni ted S ta te s- Ja pan Tra de

Cou nc il_________________________________________________________ 72

De Bolt, Don J. , dir ec to r of G ov er nm en t affairs , M en sw ea r Retailers

of America______________________________________________________ 74

Ja co bs on , Hon . Je ro m e, D ep uty A ss ista nt Sec re ta ry fo r Ec on om ic

Affairs, D epart m ent of S ta te _____________________________________ 6

Jo hn so n, Alex an de r, ch ai rm an , ex ec ut iv e co m m itte e, A rti stic W ea ving

C o____ _________________________________________________________ 38 Kah n, Max L., Alkah n Silk Lab el C o_ . ______________________ ____ 38

Kessle r, Al, La be ls Unlim ite d, In c__________________________________ 76

M as ao ka , Mike M ., W as hi ng to n re pr es en ta tive , Associat ion on

Ja pan es e Tex til e Im por ts , In c__________________ 43

Sh ur , Harold, C av alie r La bel C o___________________________________ 43

Van K irk , H ar ry , pr es id en t, Wov en La bel M an ufa ct ure rs of the

U ni te d Sta te s of America________________________________________ 38

Add iti on al in fo rm at io n su bm itte d fo r th e re co rd by—

Aragon Wov en La be l Co., In c., le tt er from S idne y Fr ee dl ine, p re si den t- 63 

Assoc iatio n on Ja pan es e Tex tile Im ports, In c. , le tt er from M ike M.

M as ao ka , W as hi ng to n re p re se n ta ti v e____________________________ 67

A ub ur n Im portin g Cor p. , le tt er from Alan M . Ad es, pre si dent______ 62

C av al ie r La be l Co ., In c., le tt er fr om H ar ol d Shu r, p re sid en t________ 72

Cha rles of Miami, le tt er fro m W illiam Fried ho fe r, pre si dent_________ 77

C om m itte e fo r a N at io nal T ra de Po lic y, le tt er from Jo hn W. H ig ht ,

ex ec ut iv e dir ecto r_______________________________________________ 83

C urt is Colem an Co ., le tt er fro m M . C ole m an _______________________ 63

Fa wn Fa sh io ns , le tt er fro m L. T. M ic ha lo ve ________________________ 84

H arv ard La be ls, In c., le tt er fro m M on ro e C. Clays on , vic e pre si den t- 71

Kessle r, Al, pe tition of m anufa ctu re rs ______________________________ 78

Kin g Ko le, In c. , le tt er fro m L ar ry M izra ch , pu rc has in g ag en t_______ 77

M ac do na ld , li o n . T orb er t IL , st ate m en t on II .R . 4994, 88t h Co ng ress,

N ov em be r 6, 1963_______________________________________________ 5

Mich ele of M iami, In c. , le tt er from Jo hn Car os el li__________________ 77

N ar ro w Fab rics In sti tu te , In c., st ate m en t of________________________ 85

N at io nal Co un cil of American Im porter s, Inc., le tt er from G er al d 1L

O’B rie n, ex ec ut ive vic e pre si dent_________________________________ 84

N at io nal R et ai l M er ch an ts Assoc iatio n, le tt er from Jo hn C. Il az en ,

vice pr es id en t, gov er nm en t______________________________________ 82

Playb oy of Miami, le tt er fro m Hal 11. Glis t, pre si den t______________ 77

S ta ndard Em br oi de ry , In c., le tt er from W in. M. C an to r, p re sid e n t- .. 85

S ta te D epart m ent: S ta te m ent co nc erni ng ce rt ai n ta ri ff re ducti ons__ 15 Su nt og s of M iami, In c., le tt er from E dw ar d Fri ed la nd ___________ 78

W hi te st ag M an uf ac tu ri ng Co ., te le gr am from L. L. R e n n e tt ________ 85

W ov en La be l M an uf ac tu re rs of th e United S ta te s of America, su pp le ­

m en ta l st ate m ent of Louis C h a n d le r_____________________________ 36

h i

IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS 

(Id en tif ication of Country Wh ere Woven)

TU ESDA Y, APR IL 27, 1965

H ouse of R ep re se nt at iv es ,

S ub co mmit te e on C om me rc e an d F in a n c e of t h e

Com m it tee on I nt er stat e an d F or eig n Com mer ce ,

Washing ton, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11 a.m., in room 2218, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Torbert H. Macdonald (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. M acd ona ld. The subcommittee will please come to order. This 

is a hearing on H.R. 7043. The bill was introduced by me and the pu rpose of the bill is to amend the Textile F iber Identification Act and the 

Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939.

(H.R, 7043 and reports thereon follo w:)

[H.R. 7043, 89th Cong., 1st sess.j

A BILL To amend the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Wool Products

Labeling Act of 1939 in order to require that imported woven labels must have woven 

into them the name of the c ountry where woven

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States

of America in Congress assembled, That section 4 of the Textile Fiber Products 

Identification Act (15 U.S.O. 70b) is amended by adding at the end thereof the 

following new subsection:

“ (i) For the purposes of this Act, any woven label which is an imported textile 

fiber product shall be misbranded unless the name of the country where such 

label was woven is woven into such label before importation.”

Sec. 2. Section 4 of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 (15 U.S.C. 6Sb) is 

amended by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph :

“ (e) For the purposes of this Act, any woven label which is an imported wool 

product shall be misbranded unless the name of the country where such label was 

woven is woven into such label before importation.”

Sec. 3. The amendments made by th is Act shall apply with respect to articles 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption afte r the sixtieth day 

after the date of enactment of this Act.

Department of State, 

Washington, April 28,1965.

Hon. Oren Harris,

Chairman, Committee on In terstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives.

Dear Mr. Chairman : This report on H.R. 7943, a bill to amend the Textile 

Fiber Products Identification Act and the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 

in order to require that imported woven labels must have woven into them the 

name of the country where woven is submitted in response to your letter of 

April 2. 1965.

The purpose of H.R. 7043 is to require th at every woven label of wool or other 

textile fiber imported into the United States to be affixed to a garment or other 

article be individually marked with the name of the country in which manufactured. A label not so marked would be considered as misbranded under the
2 IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS

Wo ol Pro du ct s La be lin g Act and th e T ex tile F ib er Pro du ct s Id en tifica tion Act.

Und er ex is ting law , woven labe ls im po rted by a m anufa ct ure r, proc es so r, or 

deal er in th is co un try to be affixed to art ic le s by him are ex em pt from re quir em en ts as to in di vi du al m ar ks of origin. Alth ou gh th e Tex tile F ib er Pro duct s

Id en tifica tion Ac t co nt ai ns a m ar ks -o f-or ig in re qu irem en t (15 U.S.C. 70 b), 

art ic le s to Ixj sol d to th e ult im ate co ns um er in pa ck ag es are ex em pt ed prov ided 

th e jMickage be ar s th e na me of th e co untr y of origin. A si m il ar ru le is ap plied 

un de r se ct ion 304 of th e T ar if f Ac t of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1304) as in te rp re te d by 

th e co ur ts.

Th e Wool Pro du ct s La be lin g Ac t (15 U .S.C. 68b ) does not re quir e th a t pr od uc ts 

be iden tif ied as to co un try of origin. How ev er, th e Fed er al T ra de Co mm ission 

by vi rt ue of its ad m in is tr ati ve au th o ri ty will re qu ire be ginn ing in Ma y 1965 

th a t whe n an y re pre se nta tion is m ad e th a t th e fa bri c in a wool pr od uc t is im ­

po rte d, th e na me of th e co un tr y w he re th e fa bri c was wo ven m ust be se t fo rt h.

It is th e view of the D ep ar tm en t of S ta te th a t th e pr ov isio ns of ex is ting law 

as pr es en tly in te rp re te d w ith re sp ec t to th e m ar ki ng of wov en labe ls are re as on ­

able an d shou ld be all ow ed to s ta nd . T he g ar m en t m anufa ctu re r or oth er m an ufa ctu re r or proc essor wou ld appear to be th e la st pe rs on in th e se ries of com ­

mercial us er s wh o wo uld be in a po sition to ex er ci se an in de pe nd en t per so na l 

ju dg m en t as to th e ac ce pt ab ility o f th e im po rted lab el and is, co ns eq ue ntly, 

pr op er ly to be re ga rd ed as th e “u lt im ate purc has er .” If su ch purc has er sho uld 

co ns ider th e plac e of or ig in of his la bel s a m att er of im po rtan ce , he can re ad ily 

requ ire, thro ug h th e te rm s of th e sa le s co nt ra ct , th a t his su pplier fu rn is h labe ls 

of th e de sire d origin.

A pr in cipa l ob jection to a re qui re m en t th a t fo re ign- na m e la be ls be in di vi du al ly 

m ar ke d is th at if such a la be l sh ou ld be affixed to a U.S. pr od uc t, th e pr od uct 

itse lf wo uld ve ry lik ely be re gar ded by pr os pe ctive bu ye rs as of fo re ign origin. 

Th e eff ect of th e prop osed am en dm en t, if en ac te d in to law , wou ld, th er ef ore , be 

to def ea t th e pu rp os e of nor m al m ar kin g regu la tio ns , whi ch is to pr ev en t de ­

ce ption of th e pu rc ha se r. Eve n if th e hill ov erca me th e po ss ib ility of de ce ption 

by prov id ing th a t th e m ar ks of origi n mig ht be tu ck ed under or ot he rw ise co nce aled from th e purc has er of th e art ic le to whi ch th e labe l w er e to be affixed, 

th e m ar ki ng re qu irem en t wou ld st il l place un ne ce ss ar y re st ri cti ons in th e w ay 

of tr ad e an d ad d co sts w ithout ad di ng va lue. In cert ain in st an ce s th e labe ls to 

he m ar ke d a re so sm all th a t sp ac e an d co st wo uld m ak e su ch m ar kin g in fe as ib le . 

More over, th e sing lin g out of a sm al l cl as s of par ts , su ch as labe ls, fo r ex ce ption 

from th e g en er al ru le s im po sed under th e la w s wo uld not see m to be a des irab le 

adm in is trat iv e pr ac tice . E nac tm en t of th e bill could se t a pr ec ed en t fo r im po sin g marks -of-origin re qu ir em en ts on im po rte d min or p art s us ed in U.S. m an ufa ct ure s, th us cr ea ting a se riou s bur de n fo r Amer ican pr od uc er s.

Th e ap pl ic at io n of m ar ki ng re qu irem en ts to im po rted wo ven labe ls wou ld be 

in te rp re te d ab ro ad as th e im po sition of a new tr ad e re st ri cti on by th e U nite d 

St at es . Such an im pr es sion w ill tie u nh elpf ul t o ou r neg ot ia tion s und er th e T ra de 

Exp an sion Act, an d will ge ne ra lly im pa ir ou r ef fo rts to se cu re rem ov al of fo reig n re st ri ct io ns affectin g our ex po rts. Jap an is th e pri nci pal su pp lier of labe ls 

wo ven from sy nt het ic fib ers , an d th e N et he rlan ds of co tto n labe ls, but labe ls 

fro m a nu mbe r of o th er c ountr ie s are also impo rte d. The Gov ernm en ts of Jap an 

an d th e N et he rlan ds h av e s ub m itte d no tes to th e D ep ar tm en t re gar di ng a pr ev io us 

ve rsion of th is bill an d po in ting out th e in ju ry to th eir ex po rts th a t wou ld re ­

su lt fro m its en ac tm en t.

F or th e re as on s se t fo rt h above, th e D ep ar tm en t of S ta te is oppo sed to th e 

en ac tm en t of H .R. 7943.

The B ur ea u of th e Bud ge t ad vise s th a t from th e st an dpoin t of th e ad m in is ­

tr ati o n ’s pr og ram, th ere is no ob jection to th e su bm iss ion of th is re po rt. 

Sinc erely yo urs,

Dovolas MacArt hu r II .

A ss is ta nt Se cr et ar y fo r Co ng ression al Rel ations

(F or th e Sec re ta ry of S ta te ).
IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS 3

T he G enera l Cou ns el of tii e T rea sur y.

W as hi ng to n, D .C., Apr il 26, J965.

Hon . Oren H arris,

C om m itte e on In te rs ta te a nd F or eg in Co mm erce ,

H ou se o f R ep re se n tative s, W ash in gt on, D .C.

Dear Mr. Cha ir man : R ef er en ce is m ad e to your re quest f or th e view s of th is 

D ep art m ent on II.R . 7043. to am en d th e T ex ti le Filx ir Pro ducts Id en tifica tion 

Ac t and th e Wool Pro duct s Lab el in g Act of 1939 in o rd er to r equir e t h a t im port ed 

wo ven labe ls m us t ha ve wov en in to th em th e na m e of th e countr y w her e 

wo ven.

The prop os ed le gi sl at io n wou ld pr ov id e th a t im po rted woven labe ls sh al l be 

mislabe led fo r th e pu rp os es of th e T exti le F ib er P ro ducts Id en tifica tion Ac t and 

th e Wool Pro ducts Lab elin g Act unl es s th e na m e of th e co unt ry w her e su ch 

la be l w as wov en in to th e la be l be fo re im port at io n. W hi le th e F ed er al T ra de 

Co mmiss ion is re sp on sibl e fo r en fo rc in g th e T exti le F ib er P ro ducts Id en tifi ca ­

tion Act an d th e Wo ol P ro ducts Lab el in g Act, th e bill wou ld seem to pr ov id e 

th a t th e Cus tom s Se rvice has th e re sp onsi bility to se e th a t im por te d wov en 

la be ls a re m ar ke d as r eq ui re d.

The B ure au of Cus tom s of th is D epart m ent has ru le d th a t th e m anufa ctu re r 

in th e U ni te d S ta te s of a rt ic le s to w hi ch wo ven la bel s a re affix ed i s th e “ ult im ate 

purc hase r” of th e im po rted art ic le w ithin th e m ea ni ng of se ction 304(a ) of th e 

T ari ff Act of 1930. as am en de d, in ac co rd an ce w it h th e pr in ci ple of th e de cision 

in th e ca se of U ni te d S ta te s v. G ib so n- Tho mse n Co., In c., (19 40) 27 CC PA 207. 

W ov en la be ls a re ex em pt fr om in div id ual m ark in g to in dic ate th e co untr y of 

ori gin unde r se ction 3 0 4 (a ) (3 )(D ) of th e T ari ff Act if th ey a re im po rted in 

co nta in ers leg ibly and co ns pi cu ou sly m ar ked to in dic ate th e co un try of or ig in 

of th e co nte nt s and th e co llec to r of cu stom s a t th e p o rt of en tr y is sa tisf ie d th a t 

th e la be ls will re ac h th e “u lt im ate p u rc h aser” in su ch un op en ed co nt ai ner .

No ev iden ce ha s be en su bm itte d to th e T re asu ry D epar tm en t th a t th e ex ce ption fr om m ar kin g of wo ven la bel s under se ct io n 3 0 4 (a )(3 )(D ) of th e T ari ff 

Ac t is no t appro pri ate or has re su lt ed in m is le ad in g th e U.S. “u lt im ate p u rchase r” as de fin ed above. If a va lid ca se is to be mad e, it shou ld be mad e, in th e 

fi rs t in st an ce , to th e T re asu ry D ep ar tm en t.

As th e P re si dent sa id a t th e tim e of th e sign in g of th e T ra de Exp an sion Ac t 

on Octob er 11, 1962, th e bes t pro te ct io n po ss ible fo r our econom y is a m utu al 

low er in g of ta ri ff b arr ie rs am on g fr ie ndly nati ons so th a t al l may be ne fit fr om 

a fr ee flow of goo ds. T his pur po se wo uld be co mpr om ised if th e U ni ted Sta te s 

w er e to re so rt to in dir ect metho ds (s uch as unn ec es sa ry m ar kin g re quir em en ts ) 

fo r re str ic ti o n of im po rts. Th e T re asu ry D ep ar tm en t, th er ef ore , do es not fa vor 

th e enac tm en t of H .R . 7043.

The D epart m ent ha s be en ad vi se d by th e B ur ea u of th e Bud ge t th a t th ere is 

no ob ject io n fr om th e st andpoin t of th e ad m in is tr ati o n ’s pr ogra m to th e su bm ission of t h is rep o rt to yo ur c om mitt ee .

Sin ce re ly yo urs,

F red B. S m it h.

Act in g Gen eral Co unsel.

Genera l Cou ns el of th e Depa rtme nt of Commerce,

W as hi ng to n, D.C., A pri l 29, 1965.

Hon . Oren H ar ris .

Cha irman , Com m itte e on In te rs ta te an d Fo re ign Co mm erc e,

Hou se o f R ep re se nta tive s, W as hi ng to n, D.C.

D ear Mr. Ch a ir m a n : T his is in fu rth e r resp on se to you r re ques t fo r th e 

view s of th is D epart m ent w ith re gard to H.R . 7043, a bill to am en d th e 

T ex ti le F ib er Pro ducts Id en tifi ca tion A ct an d th e Wo ol P ro ducts Lab elin g Ac t 

of 1939 in ord er to re quir e th a t im port ed wo ven labe ls m us t ha ve wo ven in to 

th em th e na m e of th e co un tr y whe re wo ven.
4 IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS

If enacted, H.R. 7043 would require tha t the name of the country whereimported labels are woven be woven into the label before importation. Any 

woven label which is an imported textile fiber product would be misbranded 

unless the mark of origin is so applied.

The Department of Commerce supports the long-established requirement now 

embodied in section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, tha t recognizing certain 

exceptions, each imported article produced abroad must be legibly marked 

with the name of the country of origin in English so as to indicate to the 

ultimate purchaser in the United States where the artic le was originally 

produced or manufactured. The Department supports equally the principle 

embodied in the several exemptions from marking requirements authorized or 

required by tha t section, tha t the requirement should not be so applied as to 

impose an undue burden on foreign commerce.

Under present customs practice individual woven labels are exempted from 

the general marking requirement under section 304 provided tha t the “marking 

of a container of such article will reasonably indicate the origin of such 

artic le” (section 3 0 4 (a )( 3 )( D )) . The Department understands tha t under 

this exemption the container which is required to be marked must reach the 

ultimate purchaser unopened. Generally, the ultimate purchaser of imported 

woven labels is considered to be the person who sews such labels on garments 

or textile fabrics. The Department of Commerce believes tha t present practice with respect to the marking of containers of imported woven labels is 

consistent with the principle of informing ultimate purchasers of the country 

of origin of imported articles.

To go furth er than the present law appears to be an unnecessary change 

in the existing interpretation of an “ultimate purchaser” as the term applies 

to users of labels. Labels have been, and should continue to be, regarded as 

a component in the overall manufacturing process, the country of origin 

having little or no significance to the retail consumer. It is, therefore, sufficient tha t only the outer container of the labels be marked so as to reasonably 

indicate the country of origin to the manufacturer or processor.

Customs regulations prescribe t hat where an imported label on an article with 

which it is combined shows the country of origin of th e label and the country name 

is visible, the country of origin of the label shall be prefixed by the word “label,” 

as “Label made in Holland.” Many artic les do not lend themselves to marking 

and the label is the only feasible place to show the country of origin of t he product 

being marketed. In such instances, retai l consumers w-ould be likely to interp ret 

the origin information regarding the label a s pertaining to the entire product as 

well as to the label. Consequently, the proposed origin requirement on imported 

labels that are to be used by a manu facturer would in many cases be misleading 

to the buying public.

For these reasons, the Department of Commerce is opposed to the enactment 

of II.R. 7043.

We have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget tha t there would be no 

objection to the submission of this report from the standpoin t of the administrati on’s program.

Sincerely,

Robert E. Gil es ,

General Counsel.

Mr. Macdonald. This bill would require that imported woven labels 

must have woven into them the name of the country where woven.

I introduced a bill for the same purpose during the last Congress. 

Hearings on this bill, H.R. 4994, were held by this subcommittee on 

November 6, 1963, and reported favorably on May 19, 1964, House 

Report 1417. However, no further action was taken on this legislation either in the House of Representatives or in the other body.

I believe this is meritorious legislation and I trust t ha t since during 

this Congress consideration is being given to this legislation at an 

early date, action will be taken on it not only by our committee, but 

that the legislation will be considered and enacted into law by the 

Congress.
IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS O

I would ask consent of the committee at. this point to introduce into 

the record the statement 1 gave before this distinguished subcommittee before I was a member of it last year.

There being no objection, it will be placed into the record at this 

point.

(The statement referred to follows:)

Statement of Hon. Torbert II. Macdonald, a Representative in Congress

From the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (N ov. 0, 1963)

Mr. Macdonald. Thank you very much, Mr. Cha irm an. I app reciate the oppor tun ity of app earing h ere this afternoo n in sup por t of my bill, H.R. 4994, which 

would amend the Tex tile Fiber Pro ducts Iden tific atio n Act and the Wool 

Prod ucts L abeling Act of 1939 in orde r to req uire tha t impo rted woven labels must 

have woven into th em the name of the country w here woven.

As a Rep resentativ e from the Common wealth of Massac huse tts, I am deeply 

concerned about the serio us economic plig ht face d by the American textile 

ind ustry today. High wage-paying ma nu fac tur ers in New England, as well as 

oth er section s of the Unite d States, are being menace d daily by the impo rtation 

of cheap tex tile products. The woven label ind ust ry is an imp ort ant segment 

of our tex tile industr y. The legislation which I have introduced seeks to accord 

no special adv antage to ma nuf act ure rs of woven labels bu t ra th er seeks to 

accord the woven label ind ustry the same markin g regulation s as that required 

of other finished tex tile prod ucts imported into the Unite d State s.

When Congress enacted the Tex tile Pro duc ts Iden tific atio n Act in 1958, the 

woven label ind ustry viewed the provision in the a ct rel ati ng to the requi reme nts 

for marking tex tile prod ucts as callin g for the tre atm en t of woven labels equal 

to that, accorded oth er finished tex tile products. However, the Fed eral Trade 

Commission prom ulgated a regulation excl uding woven labels from the require ­

ments of the Textile Pro duc ts Identification Act. The regulat ion was based on a 

mis understanding by both retail ers and the Fed era l Trade Commission th at the 

mar king of country of origin on individual woven labels would confuse the 

buying public as to the origin of the whole garmen t. It was assumed th at the 

country of orig in would be woven into th e portion th at neces sarily would be 

shown to the retailing public. However, a ma nu fac tur er migh t weave the name 

of country of orig in into the tu m un de r port ion of th e label where it would be 

hidden.

I intro duce d H.R. 4994 to clea r up thi s mis und ers tan din g caused by the belief 

th at marking requ irem ents for woven labels would confuse retail customers. 

Thi s legis lation will serve to pu t on notic e th e ult im ate consumer of woven 

la be ls; namely, the ma nu fac tur er whose prod uct will be promote d and identified 

by such labels.

Und er pre sen t law, impo rted woven labe ls need only car ry the country of 

origin on the box or con tain er in which they ar e bro ugh t into this country. I 

have been inform ed by rep resent ativ es of the woven label industr y th at this 

requ irem ent has given rise to deceptive pr ac tic es ; such as, the repackagin g of 

foreign woven labels so th at they app ear to be of American origin to manuf actur ers .

H.R. 4994 seeks to ma int ain the longsta ndin g congressional policy th at the 

ulti ma te consumer of an imported pro duc t be infor med by its mark ing of the 

country from which it was imported. A reg ulation of the Fede ral Tra de Commission has placed the woven label ind ust ry in an anom alous and un fai r position 

which sets labels ap ar t from all oth er finished tex tile produc ts. H.R. 4994 in 

no way calls for a reduction of the imp orta tion of woven labels from othe r 

countries. It does seek to bring about open and fa ir competi tion between foreig n 

and domestic woven labels by req uir ing th at the final buyers of woven labels 

be given the same info rma tion on cou ntry of origin as is given the ulti mate 

consum ers of othe r finished products.

I wa nt to tha nk you again , Mr. Chairma n, for allowing me the opportunity 

and the privilege to tes tify her e before thi s committ ee. I would be very happ y 

to an swer any questio ns i f th ere ar e any.

Mr. Macdonald. The first witness that we will hear on II.R. 7043 

is Mr. Jerome Jacobson, who is Deputy Assistant Secretary of State 

for Economic Affairs, Department of State, Washington, D.C.
6 IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS

STATEMENT OF HON. JEROME JACOBSON. DEPUT Y ASSISTA NT

SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC AF FA IRS. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Mr. J acobson. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 

committee. My testimony today adds to the written views of the 

Department already in the hands of the committee.

Mr. Macdonald. Yes, we have received a letter from the Department 

of State.

Mr. Jacobson. Thank yon, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Macdonald. That letter was signed by Douglas MacArthur II, 

Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations.

Mr. J acobson. That is right.

Mr. Ch airman, we believe that the provisions of existing law as 

presently interpreted with respect to the marking of woven labels 

are reasonable and should be allowed to stand. The Textile Fiber 

Products Identification Act contains a general marks of original requirement, but articles, such as labels, to be sold to the ultimate consumer in packages are exempted therefrom provided the package bears 

the name of the country of origin. Tha t seems reasonable to us. The 

garment manufacturer or other manufacturer or processor would appear to be the last person in the series of commercial users in a position 

to exercise an independent personal judgment as to the acceptability 

of the imported label.

Consequently, he properly should be regarded as the ultimate consumer. If such a consumer considers the place of origin of his labels 

a m atter of importance, he can readily require, throu gh the terms of 

the sales contract, that his supplier furnish labels of the desired origin.

Marks of origin requirements are usually defended on the ground 

tha t they are needed to prevent the deception of consumers. We certainly do not favor deception of consumers. The real purpose of this 

legislation is, however, as we see it, to place an obstacle in the way of 

trade and to add costs for the foreign producer without adding value 

to the product itself.

There are many objections to the enactment of this legislation. One 

of the principal ones is tha t it would tend to deceive possibly rath er 

than inform. The purchaser of a domestically produced article having an imported label marked in accordance with this bill would tend 

to believe the article itself was imported. The proponents hold that 

the country of origin could be woven into the back of the label or 

tucked under in such a manner t hat it would not be discernible to and 

so would not deceive the purchaser of the labeled product.

Even i f the bill provided for this, it would still be objectionable for 

a number of reasons which I would like to list.

This bill singles out a small class of parts, labels, for exception from 

our general rules on marks of origin and so institutes an undesirable 

administrative practice.

This bill would set a precedent for imposing marks of origin requirements on minor parts of foreign origin used in U.S. manufactures. 

It would thus open the door to a long list of exceptions tha t would 

place serious administrative and financial burdens on domestic users 

of imported parts.
IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS i

I f th e lab eli ng of labe ls sho uld become a general req uir em ent here 

and abroa d fo r im po rts of a ll sorts, as it m ight pur su an t to t his prec edent, th e bu rden upo n Am erican expo rts could be significant. If 

mark s o f origi n can lie justified on labels t hat we i m po rt to be attac hed 

to s uit s and sh irt s, they c an be justifi ed with equal ease by othe r c oun ­

tri es f or labels affixed to the tr ac tors, farm ma chine ry, electric motors, 

and a ir conditio ners that we export.

Pr op on en ts of this bill have argu ed th at th e cost of ad ding such 

marks o f origin is slight. However, ma ny of the w oven labels a re so 

small as to make woven marking close to imp ossible or at lea st pro ­

hibit ive ly expensive.

Mr. Ch airm an , here I would lik e to de pa rt f rom m y pr ep ar ed s tate ­

me nt to note pe rhap s in a bit of u ntim ely fas hio n th at I have h ad an 

adv anc e gla nce at testim ony to be delivered by others today. They, 

being kno wle dge able i n t he trad e, ap pa re ntly a re going to develop th e 

po in t th at th is pa rtic ul ar req uir em ent fo r lab eli ng of lab els will, in 

fac t, rep resent a s ub sta ntial a dde d bu rden o f cost a nd othe rwise to th e 

foreig n m an uf ac tu re r of labe ls and pe rhap s to the use rs of labels 

themse lves in t he Un ite d Sta tes.

Th e actua l value o f th is legis lation wou ld not l)e in the inf orma tio n 

it would convey to t he ga rm en t m an uf ac tu rer or processor. Rathe r, 

the domestic prod uc er of labe ls would be benefited throug h th e nu isances and costs w hich w ould be imposed on t he fore ign p rodu ce r and 

domestic user of foreig n-m ade labels. Th is bill is intended to h inde r 

im po rts of woven lab els and to add costs to forei gn prod uc ers; it 

wou ld, indeed, accomplish these ends. Thi s w’ould lie an abuse of the 

pur pose of text ile prod uct lab eling wh ich is to pro vid e esse ntia l inform ation fo r consumers. I t would be view ed abroa d as a protectionist mea sure , as a new no ntariff barr ie r to trad e.

As you can well un de rstand , Mr. Ch air man, it is this matter which 

is o f g rea t concern to us because we are about to e mb ark on trad e nego ­

tia tio ns , the Ke nnedy round, loo kin g fo r a great advanta ge to the 

Uni ted States th ro ug h an exp ans ion of trade op po rtu nitie s abro ad and 

we sho uld not like to en ter into such negotia tio ns ha ving just passed 

a mea sure whi ch wou ld be viewed abroad as prote ctionist measure in 

natur e.

Mr. Macdonald. Could I in te rr upt von at th at point? When did 

th is Kennedy rou nd st ar t ?

Mr. J acobson. Th e bill was p asse d in 1962. The Tr ad e Ex pansion 

Ac t was passed in 1962. Eve r since, we hav e been est ablishin g the 

grou nd rules fo r the world wdde nego tiation s. We now have our te am 

ove r in Geneva as do all th e othe r cou ntries and, in fac t, w’e are righ t 

now’ ne go tia tin g to develop t he groun d rules fu rther to establish wha t 

concessions other countries are prep ared to mak e to us and wh at we 

are pr ep ared to m ake to them.

Mr. Macdonald. T o n egoti ate , as we ha ve been read ing about Vietnam , tak es two person s of equal good faith . Are you suggesting that 

the othe r cou ntries do not hav e tarif f prote ction fo r th ei r own in ­

du str ies ?

Mr. J acobson. Oh, no ; not at all. We h ave tariff p rotec tio n, and I 

th in k we sho uld fo r certa in i nd ustries, and they h ave t ar iff pro tection 

and th ey are quite en titled t o ha ve it.
8 IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS

My point only was that the general objective of the tariff negotiation 

of the Kennedy round is to bring about a general worldwide lowering 

of tariff barriers.

Mr. Macdonald. Has this happened ?

Mr. J acobson. We are right in the midst of the negotiation right 

now.

Mr. Macdonald. By “midst” do you mean the middle? It started 

quite some time ago.

Mr. J acobson. No ; the actual hard bargaining, I would say, roughly 

speaking, started 2 or 3 months ago. I can go into that i f you like, but 

let me put it this way. It was roughly 2 or 3 months ago tha t the contrac ting parties to the GATT laid on the table in the industrial field 

the offers tha t they are prepared to make, or rath er the exceptions 

tha t they are taking to a general offer with respect to a 50-percent, 

across-the-board cut in tariffs. Now we are engaged in seeing how 

far, in fact, they are prepared to go in that respect.

Mr. Macdonald. Well, my only point is that how much in dollar's 

and cents would this mean to the countries of the world ? It is my understanding tha t this would effect perhaps only one o r two countries. 

You say that all of the countries of the world are sittin g there at the 

Kennedy round.

Mr. J acobson. Mr. Chairman, there are two aspects to this. One, of 

course, is that certain countries would be affected.

Mr. Macdonald. And which countries would those be ?

Mr. J acobson. As I understand it, the principal suppliers are Japan, 

the Netherlands, and Hong Kong.

Mr. Macdonald. Just to correct you, I think H ong Kong is the first 

and foremost. The State Department would have the figures, but that 

is my belief in any event and the last time I looked at the figures of 

their booming economy, I hardly could shed any tears about Hong 

Kong where they are paying people starvation wages and dumping 

goods all over the world, not just wool labels, but all sorts of goods. 

Hong Kong is a place where the rich are very, very rich and the poor 

are very, very, very poor and the poor are the workers who are receiving approximately 8 cents an hour for this sort of work.

Mr. J acobson. Mr. Chairm an, obviously in our national policy we 

are concerned with the welfare of others abroad, but the basic purpose 

of the Trade Expansion Act is to improve the welfare of. the economy 

of the United States.

We have determined as a matte r of national policy th at we do want 

to go forward in a substantial, worldwide round of tariff negotiations 

because we believe that, on balance, if we can bring down world trade 

barriers, our industrv will prosper and we are concerned with this 

only.

Mr. Macdonald. I did not interrupt you to prolong this aspect, but 

I have heard the routine of the Kennedy round of negotiations for so 

long tha t I am rather tired of it for this bill would be a drop in the 

bucket compared to the subjects tha t are being discussed, at least I 

hope are being discussed, at this negotiation.

Mr. J acobson. I quite agree that this is one of the smallest products 

traded internationally but, as an index of what the TT.S. intentions are, 

whether to go forward and press hard for liberalization or not, this bill 

may, itself, be significant.
IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS 9

Mr. Keith. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?

Mr. Macdonald. Of course.

Mr. Keith. As an index of your responsiveness to the situation as 

outlined in the bill before the Congress last year to which you objected, 

what action has been taken by our representatives at GATT, the conferences in Geneva on this specific item ?

Mr. J acobson. I do not understand. You mean on this question of 

language ?

Mr. Keith. Yes; on the question of accomplishing the purposes of 

this bill to which you objected last year I believe your objection was 

partially based on the ground tha t it was subject to negotiation.

What are you doing to defend the point of view of this committee 

and the Congress with reference to this item? How are you proceeding ? Will you give us a status report ?

Mr. J acobson. I am sorry, Mr. Keith. I read the record of last 

year and I do not recall tha t we said tha t we were tryin g to achieve 

the purposes of this bill through our negotiations in Geneva.

Mr. Keith. I believe that what you have said here indicates that 

you are defending the m anufacturers of this country in your negotiations. You are representing us in Geneva in the Kennedy round?

Mr. J acobson. That is right.

Mr. Keith. And I am asking you on behalf of this committee and 

the proponents of the legislation, to give us a repo rt as to what you 

have found thus far in these negotiations with reference to this 

product.

Mr. J acobson. Well, first of all, Mr. Chairman—Mr. Keith—we are 

only righ t now in the midst, right in the middle of negotiations. It 

will take a considerable period of time before we know where we will 

come out on the full negotiations.

Mr. Keith. But you have come here to speak on this bill. Before 

you did that, did you make inquiry of our negotiators as to what the 

status was of th is pa rtic ula r product? As you know, the act calls for 

congressional liaison with Mr. Herter or his representative, Ambassador Blumenthal; I believe they are having lunch tomorrow on just 

this kind of thin g to find out where these matters now stand. Congress has delegated this authority to the State Department. We 

would like to know, or at least I would like to know, did you make 

inquiry of the U.S. representative there as to the progress they were 

making with reference to this particular problem ?

Mr. J acobson. I thin k I can answer tha t question only by saying 

that our interests to date have not been with respect to each and every 

product th at is traded internationally.

We have tried to establish ground rules for negotiations to cover 

the vast gamut of products of interest to the United States and we 

are now trying to see what exceptions are going to be taken by those 

rules so that we will know w’hat concessions other countries are not 

prepared to give us and therefore, what, in turn, we should lie hesitant 

about granting to others.

We have not gotten down, as I call it, to the jots and tittles of each 

and every product, thousands of which we trade internationally. I 

would say some months hence when the negotiations are far more advanced and we, therefore, in effect have every nation’s offer on the 

table with respect to each and every product—then I would say Gov-
10 IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS

ernor Herter who has the negotiating responsibility and Ambassador 

Blumenthal too, as his deputy, would be in a fa r better position to come 

to you and describe to you, perhaps off the record as they might have to 

do in the light of negotiations, just where we stand on products th at 

might be of particular interest to you. But my general answer is 

tha t it is premature at this stage to state specifically where each and 

every product in the negotiation stands. 1 am not trying to be 

evasive, but I am stating candidly just where I think the m atter rests 

at the moment.

Mr. Macdonald. How many countries are represented in this GATT 

negotiation ?

Mr. J acobson. Roughly 60 countries.

Mr. Macdonald. Sixty ?

Mr. J acobson. Tha t is right.

Mr. Macdonald. And according to your information, 3 countries 

out of this 60 would be affected by this bill; is that correct?

Mr. J acobson. Well, three at the moment as I understand are our 

principal suppliers. I have the figures here for 1964, Mr. Chairman, 

if you would like me to introduce them into the record.

The imports by country, for 1964 totaled $1,436,000 of which 

$1,365,000 came from Japan; $34,000 from the Netherlands, and 

$21,000 from Ilon g Kong. These are the imports for 1964.

Mr. Macdonald. If those figures are correct, and I am sure they 

are, I retract my earlier statement about Hong Kong as the leading 

exporter.

Mr. J acobson. I could have just as easily been confused.

Mr. Keith. Mr. Chairman, this is, of course, the title of our committee—Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Our responsibilities in 

tha t area are not as great as they might appear from the title, but I 

would like to feel that even such a small item as this would have someone within the organization that is conducting these negotiations who 

would have specific, responsibility for making certain tha t they had 

the facts and that they knew what the chances were of making a little 

progress in this partic ular area.

I am primarily concerned with shoes and we have delegated tremendous responsibility in this area. In last Frida y’s paper, the 

Brockton Enterprise in my district announced that a second shoe company was closing in the town of Middleboro which is only a oneindustry town. There is only one shoe factory left out of the dozen 

that, were there. The article said tha t 2 years ago, Mr. Alberts, the 

president of the firm which has closed its doors, and I am now quoting:

Wrote to Senator * * * and got a response indicating tha t it would receive his 

attention and since that time no furth er action has been taken insofar as the 

firm knows.

The Senator obviously referred it to your organization. I would 

like to have you comment on this more broad aspect.

Mr. J acobson. I would be glad to do so. You understand t ha t the 

actual negotiating responsibility rests in Governor Ile rte r’s office.

Mr. Keith. I understand that.

Mr. J acobson. Now, I can tell you of two things.

Mr. Keitii. Governor Herter has been in the hospital for the last 

2 months. So it rests with your organization, Ambassador Blumenthal and his stateside associates.
IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS 11

Mr. J acobson. Yes, the Ambassador is resident in Geneva and, if 

you know Ambassador Blumenthal, he is duly protective of our interest. lie is quite a competent and efficient gentleman. There are two 

things I can say in this respect, on the question generally of inform ation and liaison with industry. Before we, so to speak, tabled offers, 

considered tabling offers, throu gh what is our Trade Information 

Committee we held an extensive series of hearings in Washington 

lasting 3 to 6 months, as I recall. Every single product imported by 

the United States and exported by the United States came under intense 

scrutiny with the views of the industry itself being received. So our 

negotiators would be fully apprised of the status of each and every 

industry.

In addition, the negotiators at Geneva have a series of industry 

advisers to help them with information with respect to the status of 

each and every product. Now, I can only say that I am fully aware 

tha t Governor H erter’s office intends to maintain liaison with industry. 

Beyond that, I cannot comment fu rther to you.

Mr. Macdonald. If, Mr. Jacobson, you say this is true, this is an 

unimportant measure in the overall: or, as they like to say in the State 

Department, in the broad picture is is a fairly insignificant item. So 

therefore, I would take it that your objection is not to the bill, per se, 

but merely that somehow if even an insignificant item gets protected 

and this is not protection, really, this is merely a carrying out of what 

the State D epartment insists in some areas such as imports from Red 

China, a country of origin, the State Department is very vehement 

about having the country of origin stamped on everything that comes 

out of China or anything around or near China, if you would object 

to such a minute segment of our economy seeking relief that they have 

not been able to obtain from the Federal Trade Commission, then I 

take it that the official position is tha t you are going to oppose all types 

of economic protection in the broad picture. Am I correct ?

Mr. J acobson. No, Mr. Chairman. I hope I did not convey that. 

I would like to rephrase my position on this. First, in and of itself 

we think the bill is unnecessary. We think the purposes of the Textile 

Products Identification Act-----

Mr. Macdonald. Let us stick to the GATT argument, please.

Mr. J acobson. We specifically provide within the Trade Expansion 

Act tha t industries which suffer undue competition from imports and 

which may be injured thereby have a specific avenue for relief afforded 

them within the Trade Expansion Act.

Mr. Macdonald. First of all, you did not put that in. The Congress put it in.

Mr. J acobson. Yes, si r; I am saying we have it within the Trade 

Expansion Act. I certainly would not claim credit for that, myself.

Mr. Macdonald. Do you know how successful industries have 

ever been in getting relief under th at language?

Mr. J acobson. As I recall, there have been 13 or 14 applications 

for relief and in no case has the Tariff Commission established that 

the criteria laid down by the Congress have been fulfilled.

Mr. Macdonald. Would you not say that is fairly empty language 

tha t the State Department is ignoring because they are opposing 

any type of protection to our very hard hit industries?
12 IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS

Mr. J acobson. Mr. Chairman, the request for relief has to be 

made, of course, to the Tariff Commission. It is for the Tariff 

Commission to make the finding of fact as to whether or not imports 

generated by tariff concessions do, in fact, represent the major cause 

of the injury suffered by an industry. It is not fo r the S tate D epartment to decide that.

Mr. Macdonald. Is it not also true tha t the State Department will 

get hold of the Tariff Commission and says if you do give relief such 

as in the fishing industry in New England which has been murdered 

by imports, for a concrete example, they are being murdered by 

imports from Newfoundland and Canada and are practically out of 

business to my own personal knowledge, and the State Department 

gets hold of the Tariff Commission and says if you gra nt any relief 

here, why our relationships with Iceland are going to be really 

difficult and our job of keeping those bases up there and our job of 

getting along with the Ambassador is going to be difficult, as he is 

going to be mad at us, and so we, the State Department, cannot 

possibly go along with giving this industry any relief.

Mr. J acobson. Mr. Chairman, I am in the State Department and 

have been fo r 2 years. I can say tha t of my own knowledge I know 

of no single case in which the S tate Department has ever approached 

the Tariff Commission itself tr ying to influence a decision.

Mr. Macdonald. Either you do not work on that level or you are 

very naive, I really don’t know which.

Mr. J acobson. You may be r igh t in both respects. I cannot say 

any more than that.

Mr. Macdonald. I did not mean to inte rrup t you and time is ru nning on.

Air. J acobson. Imports of woven labels are small in comparison 

with domestic consumption. Because of the small values involved 

one mig ht judge them to be of little interest to exporting countries. 

However, the imposition of new, restrictive measures of this sort will 

be damaging to our position in the trade negotiations now in progress 

in Geneva.

New trade restrictions imposed in this country are likely to stimulate imposition of restrictions in foreign countries against our exports. If tha t happens, we will suffer the greater harm because of 

the greater volume of our exports. We have the largest stake in 

keeping the channels of trade open and uncluttered with restrictive 

devices of this nature.

The Department of State is opposed to the enactment of this bill 

because it would create an unnecessary restriction to international 

trade, would create burdens for domestic label users, and be a 

dangerous precedent from the point of view of the interests of U.S . 

manufacturers who use minor parts of foreign origin.

That completes my statement.

Mr. Macdonald. Because we did have some interruptions, I do 

not intend to go through your statement line by line but some of it 

I certainly cannot agree with or, obviously, I would not have introduced the bill.

One thing I wanted to find out is i f the State Department knew 

about the rules under which these imports come in. You say that a 

package bears the country of origin. Do you know how th at operates
IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS 13

in practic ality? They come in off a ship obviously and the carton 

itself is marked, “Made in the Netherlands,” or made some place 

else, H ong Kong, or Japan. Then the person who has gotten them 

in here—not the ultimate consumer, but the middleman—just unpacks 

them from that carton and there is not a sign anywhere on the box in 

which they are contained, on the labels or any place else. There is 

no sign where these came from. For all intents and purposes to the 

ultimate consumer, who is the manufacturer of say a suit or clothing, 

he has no idea where it came from. He has no idea where those 

labels were manufactured, because it has lieen interpreted that the 

word “package” goes to the crates in which they enter the country. It 

is true that the crates are marked but, as soon as the crates are broken 

open, they are sold in the garment districts and the person who buys 

it has no way of knowing where the material came from. He buys it 

from an intermediary.

Hid you know that, or does the State Department know it?

Mr. J acobson. I read this in the record last year and it is interesting to me to note that one of the witnesses scheduled here today apparently has established to his satisfaction that this practice of which 

you speak in many cases is a minor rather than a major practice. 

But speaking of this now at the governmental level, this accusation 

has been made.

Mr. Macdonald. It is not an accusation. It is a statement of fact.

Mr. J acobson. I am saying it has been said this practice occurs and 

if that did occur, in fact, the purposes of the Labeling Act would be 

frustrated . Yet the Department of the Treasury, working through 

the Bureau of Customs, has written to this committee and has stated 

tha t, if this practice occurs, it would like to know about it and tha t no 

credible evidence has been put forward upon the basis of which it 

could act.

To put it bluntly, I am simply confused. On the one hand you say 

it is a fact and, on the other hand, the Department of the Treasury, 

having the responsibility for the administration of the customs regulations has no such evidence.

Mr. Macdonald. Do you know how many employees or people are 

in the Treasury Department who do this sort of work, to follow up 

claims? They are probably the most understaffed Government organization that we have. I happen to know, also not for the purposes of this hearing, but T happen to know tha t over the last 30 years 

they have increased the ir staff by only 39 people. I think the number 

of employees now is 4,063 and subtract 39 from that and that is how 

many employees they had 30 years ago while the amount of jobs 

tha t they are called upon to do has gone up 420 percent.

Mr. J acobson. They are virtuous in that a major Government 

agency has kept down the size of their staff.

Mr. Macdonald. Any questions?

Mr. Keith. No questions.

Mr. Macdonald. Mr. Huot?

Mr. Huot. Do we have the figures on how many labels are 

exported ?

Mr. J acobson. I have a note prepared here for me, a footnote, which 

says exports of woven labels are very small. The export statistics

4 7 -9 0 4— 61 3
14 IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS

pub lish ed by the Burea u of the Cen sus do not provide a bre akd ow n 

th at pe rm its the ide ntif ication of e xp orts of woven labels.

Mr. Macdonald. Mr. Cu rti n ?

Mr. Cur tin . Th an k you, Mr. Ch air man . Mr. Jac obson , the pu rpose of th is legislation, as I see it, is pr im ar ily for inform ati on . Do 

you agree with th at ?

Mr. J acobson. As I un de rst an d the mo tiv ati on of those sponsoring 

the bi ll, it is for in for ma tio n.

Mr. Macdonald. That is righ t.

Mr. J acobson. I was ad dressin g my self to the im pa ct an d the consequences of that.

Mr. Cur tin . So t hat it in no way pr oh ibits the Am erican customer 

fro m use of these labels.

Mr. J acobson. Oh, no ; it ju st p lac es a bu rden on those who enga ge 

in the traffic in these lab els; t hat is all.

Mr. Cur tin. You sa y the p rim ar y purpo se of th e St ate De partm ent 

is to br ing about redu ctio n in wo rld tariffs. IIo w fa r is the State 

De pa rtm en t going to go in t ha t ? Is it going to ta ke the pos itio n th at 

it will object whenever a piece of leg islation is pro posed to pro vide 

inf orma tio n to the Ame rican u ser as to a source of orig in ?

Air. J acobson. Pa rd on me, Mr. Cu rti n. We do not do ctr inarily 

tak e the position th at our in terest in trad e o verrides any o ther inter est 

th at we hav e as a gov ernme nt. Tha t has not been the th ru st of my 

statem ent . I have tri ed to avoid th at . I trie d to make two po ints: 

one, t hat in this pa rtic ul ar case we d o not see t ha t the purpo ses established here are, in fac t, at all being fr us trat ed un de r ex isting reg ulations o r law and th at , being so, we a re not desirous of se eing a cer tain 

bu rden add ed to internationa l commerce. These are the two points 

I have tri ed to make.

Mr. Curtin . La st year, I intro du ced a bill th at req uir ed th at steel 

br ou gh t in from forei gn co un tries which was processed, in this country, into steel con tainer s, mus t have marke d on the proce ssed conta in er the country of origi n. Thi s was also purel y an inf orma tio n 

type of legisla tion . Th e St ate De pa rtm en t objecte d to th at legislat ion last year as an obsta cle to tar iff reductio ns.

A simila r bill, in tro duced by C ong ressman Ro berts, passed the Ho use 

and wen t no fu rth er. Tomo rro w we are going to beg in heari ng s on 

the same type of leg islation. I assume you will be here tom orrow 

and T also presume you are going to object to th e bill .

Mr. J acobson. Tha t is ri gh t, Mr. C urtin .

Mr. Curtin. So th at ag ain you are go ing to object to this pu rel y 

inf orm ational type of leg isl ation—s im ila r to the bill tod ay—which 

does not prevent anyone f rom u sin g the prod uct t hey desire, b ut merely 

lets them know fro m where it is coming. You object to it and one of 

the gro unds fo r yo ur o bjectio n is t ha t you say it will be an obsta cle to 

tra de . Is th at correc t ?

Mr. J acobson. Well, T do n ot seem to be able t o make my case with 

the full effect th at T was ho pi ng for. T was sayin g in this case, we 

believe that the inform ation which is necessa ry and which the law 

int ends shall be conveyed is, in fac t, being conveyed. Now, there may 

be a difference of opinion on that because the D ep artm en t o f the T re as ­

ur y believes this inform ation is, in fac t, being conveyed and it is y our 

belief, based on yo ur know ledge fro m the indu str y, th at it is not, and 

I am n ot in a position to judg e th at one, obviously.
IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS 15

Tha t is a dispute between the Treasury and the trade and not between myself and you; but I am saying, if it is a fact tha t the necessary information is being conveyed to the industry so tha t there is 

no deception, then we would not look favorably upon an unnecessary 

burden upon international commerce. I think that is where I come 

out. I prefer that formulation of my position.

Mr. Curtin. We will go into the steel container question a little 

more fully tomorrow. However, you say tha t you people have been 

negotiating—or a t least setting the ground rules fo r negotiation—for 

the last 3 years on tariffs. Have there been any tariff's reduced on 

American products during the last 5 years?

Mr. J acobson. Oh, yes.

Mr. Curtin. What ?

Mr. J acobson. I would like to provide this for the record so I can 

be sure to have it correctly, but the Eurpean Economic Community, 

the EEC, granted to the United States some time ago—and, in fact, 

most of the GAT T countries provided to the United States approximately 5 years ago a substantial reduction across the board in exchange 

for reductions that we granted.

(The following statement was subsequently submitted by the Departm ent of Stat e:)

The negotiations at Geneva with the European Economic Community and 24 

other countries were concluded March 7, 1962. The new tariff reductions obtained from the EEC included items of major importance to U.S. export trade 

to the Common Market area. Most of these concessions were reductions of 20 

percent. There were, however, a number of reductions of more than 20 percent, 

the most important being reductions of 24 and 26 percent, respectively, in the 

common tariff on automobiles and parts. Other categories of particular importance to the United States on which reductions were obtainecl were chemicals 

and pharmaceuticals,, industrial and electrical machinery, textiles, canned and 

preserved fruits, and fats and oils. Certain of the reductions became effective 

at various times throughout 1962, and all were in effect by January 1, 1963.

Mr. Curtin. That is right.

Mr. J acobson. In other words, the effect of the Dillon round of 

tariff reductions has been felt in the most recent few years.

Mr. Curtin. But the reductions tha t were granted to us were not 

comparable to those that we granted to the countries abroad, were 

they? In other words, we will come out with about the same general 

percentages as between export and import rates as before this round of 

reductions?

Mr. J acobson. I am not sure that I quite follow that, Mr. Curtin. 

Let me pu t it this way. Our negotiators came back from the Dillon 

round and said they had a good bargain for us.

Mr. Curtin. I am a little pessimistic about it. I am reminded of 

the old expression that when the American eagle gets into these negotiations it always loses some tail feathers.

Mr. J acobson. That is, of course, frequently said and I guess all 

we can say in our defense is t hat as we look at the yearly trade figures 

and our yearly balance in world trade, we find tha t we seem to be 

doing as well, if not better, than the others. Our net trade balance 

favors us increasingly, year by year. Obviously, the framework of 

world trade and regulation is apparently advantageous to us.

Mr. Curtin. Well, my colleagues on this committee have indicated 

that, their districts have suffered. I certainly do not want to be classified as a high-tariff protectionist, but nevertheless, in my district
16 IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS

there are firms going out of business as a result of foreig n competition as, fo r example, the m an uf ac tu rers in the tile ind ustry . I hav e 

several tile com panies in my district th at are about rea dy to fold up , 

and they do not seem to feel that, in these negotiations, the Am eric an 

tile producer has been ade quately pro tec ted . W he the r th ei r ass um ptions are correct or not is som eth ing th at you peop le wou ld arg ue, 

hu t nevertheless, the y do know t hey are b ein g put out of busin ess and 

the re are people becoming unemployed, about which T am very much 

concerned.

Mr. J acobson. There are two que stio ns here. It seems to me one is 

whether, ta ki ng any given indu str y, its difficulties arise pu rel y and 

solely from im po rts which may have been generated by ta riff concessions or w hethe r its difficulties ari se from a v ariety o f o th er f act ors 

of which i mp orts are only one— I am no t addres sin g myself specifically 

to tile or any other industry. Sec ond ly, fo r the record , I would like 

to in troduce jus t a few figures i f I may, to demo nstrate the p oin t I ha d 

mad e which is t hat in th e last 4 years, our comm ercial exports, leavin g 

aside th at which is financed by Pu blic Law 480 and forei gn aid programs, ou r commercial exports rose fro m $17.5 to $22.3 billion, an 

increase o f 27 perc ent and our trad e bal anc e las t ye ar was $3.7 billion 

again st som eth ing like $2.5 billio n in the p rior year. So, obviously we 

are doing very well inter na tio na lly . Our indu str ies are benefiting, 

very clearly.

Mr. Macdonald. Wou ld t he gentlema n yield?

Mr. C ur tin . I am hap py to yield.

Mr. Macdonald. For your b asic i nforma tio n, I t hi nk th e main difficulty th at all the ind ustries, inclu ding steel, inclu din g wool tex tile 

labels, et cetera, rub ber , foo twear , shoes, et cetera , t he b ig d iffere ntial 

is the wage scale. I do not th in k th at comes as any bombshell to the 

St ate De partm ent. Th e d ifference between ou r s tand ar d of li ving an d 

the pow er th at our unions h ave in dema nding and ge ttin g and righ tfully so, since ou r economy keep s goin g up, increased wages as opposed 

to the type of coolie lab or th at prev ails in Hon g Kon g to my own 

know ledge, and I th in k to a less er exten t, bu t also to a som ewhat 

sim ila r degree in Ja pan , is th e big dif ferential. These people are no t 

any more efficient th an our fac tor ies , if, indeed, as efficient, bu t when 

you are payin g 8 cents an ho ur and ou r indu str y is pa ying s ay $2.08, 

obviously the re is a trem endously wide wage -scale s pre ad. Th is nev er 

seems to daw n on anyone down at the St ate De partm ent. I do not 

un de rst an d why not.

Mr. J acobson. Mr. Ch air man , obviously wages are only one fac tor 

in th e cost of prod uction.

Mr. Macdonald. A m ajor facto r.

Mr. J acobson. I t is not a que stion of how muc h a man is paid, b ut 

wh at he prod uces fo r wh at he is pa id and the simple fa ct is th at 

across the bro ad spe ctrum of Am erican indu str y we, with ou r high 

wages, are nonetheless more pro ductive, tu rn out more pe r do lla r of 

wages spent than do ind ustries abroa d.

Take th e case in point of J ap an . In 1963 we exp orted to Ja pan $1.7 

billion worth of good s and we im ported $1.5 billion wo rth of goods.

Mr. M acdonald. Excuse me. Does tha t figure include o ur so-called 

defe nse ex pendit ures ?
IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS 17

Mr. J acobson. No. These are just commercial exports. In other 

words, our high-paid farmers and our high-paid industrial workers 

are so efficient, as our own farm surplus tells us.

Mr. Macdonald. And so well subsidized.

Mr. J acobson. However, it is the United States that finds itself the 

world’s most, competitive trading nation. This is why we have this 

huge trade surplus. This is why we have a surplus on commercial 

accounts alone, leaving aside aid and Public Law 480, close to $4 billion 

last year. We exported to the world nearly $4 billion more than we 

imported, even with our high-paid industry.

Mr. M acdonald. Excuse me. Mr. Curtin, anything further?

Mr. Cvrtin. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 1 will, I hope, have an 

opportunity to ask further questions of this gentleman tomorrow.

Mr. Macdonald. It is now 10 minutes before 12. It is my intention, 

if the committee will go along with it, to ask unanimous consent th at 

we be permitted to sit during general debate and we would be 

be returning here around 2 o’clock. Since there is only 10 minutes 

left I have a few questions left.

Why does the State Department feel tha t it’s protectionist for someone to put on a label that says made in another country rather than 

the United States? There is no tariff involved. There are no quotas 

involved. It would be merely stating this label is made in Hong Kong 

or Japa n or the Netherlands.

Mr. J acobson. I think I can answer in three different ways.

Mr. Macdonald. I am sure you have known of this, but 1 am not 

quite sure what your position is, although I do believe it is a negative 

one.

Mr. J acobson. Well, firstly, there is no doubt that, requiring the 

foreign manufacturer to identify the source, to weave in the source 

of the country of origin in itself represents an added cost. An added 

cost is the same thing as a higher tariff. That is point No. 1.

My point No. 2 is by putting down, by indicating the source of origin 

in the case of certain countries, we would l>e pandering to, let us face it, 

a prejudice against foreign goods. We do not believe i t is good to 

have a prejudice against foreign goods because, afte r all, our goods 

are foreign, too, when they arrive in some other country.

Mr. Macdonald. Which brings me to another point. I do not want 

to interrupt you, but you said it would perhaps result in U.S. companies forced to label their products, “Made in the U.S.A.” In the 

places th at I have been to throu ghou t the world, that would bring a 

higher price to the retailer, say in southeast Asia, or p arts of Europe, 

for they have grea t confidence in our products and the fact tha t the 

Americans are efficient and that, this thing is really going to work.

Mr. J acobson. Where our manufacturers believe that to be the case, 

I can assure you they will voluntarily slap the label on it.

Mr. Macdonald. Tractors, electric motors—I think you will find 

where it carries a label—“Made in the U.S.A.”—they do it because it 

adds to the prestige of the product.

Mr. J acobson. I am not sure tha t our manufacturers would be entirely delighted in having to have on their label which might be 

stamped “Moline, U.S.A.,” the additional words, “ Label Made in the 

I .S.A." and that, in effect, would be the counterpart.
18 IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS

Mr. Macdonald. You must misunderstand the entire bill. This is 

not the case here, either. It does not say this label must say “Made 

in Japa n.’’ Underneath, and which cannot be seen by the consumer, 

will be on the underpart th at is sewn on, and it cannot be seen by someone. It will merely state the country of origin.

Mr. J acobson. The bill as 1 read it, Mr. Chairman, merely says that 

the label itself must carry the country or origin so if the label is made 

in Japan the label must read “Made in Japan."

All righ t; it is true that you might overcome the distinct advantage— 

the distinct possibility of misassociation between the country of origin 

of the label and the country of origin of the product. For example, 

a sweater made in the United States carrying a label “Made in Ja pa n” 

which might be thought of as being a sweater from Japa n.

Mr. Macdonald. Sir, that is why I insist you do not understand the 

bill. It will not do that. It is not a matter of dispute. It is a matter 

of fact. The label will never show once it is sewn into the garment; 

it will never show the country of origin. I merely say it shows it to 

the consumer, the ultimate consumer which is the manufacturer who attaches these labels, tha t he is purchasing material tha t comes from outside the United States. The consumer cannot be confused and as a 

matter of fact I just do not understand what your objections are.

Mr. J acobson. Well, I want to say that the bill, as I have it before 

me, states simply tha t the label must have woven into it the country 

of origin. You may say the country of origin can be hidden when the 

label is sewed on under the back side, or could be hidden. If the country of origin is labeled along the periphery, then when the garment 

manufacturer sews it into the garment he can bend the periphery under 

so he masks the information which you are providing in the bill. But 

the bill does not say you will fold i t under. The question is whether it 

is practical, how much the cost will be, et cetera, of doing these things 

to mask the information which this bill is intended to convey, and as 

for that, I am not a member of the trade and I hope other witnesses 

can discuss it better than I.

Mr. Macdonald. If you will return at 2 o'clock I think you will 

hear them testify as to just how they intend to do it and why they 

intend to do it, and why such a bill as this needs to be passed or else 

there is not going to be a label industry left in the United States. I 

am sure they can quote you figures on the number of factories that have 

closed down, have half shifts, et cetera.

If you are really interested, 1 am sure you will hear much more expert testimony than my remarks. I hope you do come back.

Mr. J acobson. Mr. Chairman, I hope you will not believe I am uninterested. 1 have other engagements this afternoon, but my assistants 

will report this back to me and 1 will read the record.

Mr. K eith. Wha t did you do before you went with the State Department?

Mr. J acobson. I was in business as a consultant to business, Mr. 

Keith.

Mr. Keith. Was it an international business ?

Mr. J acobson. Both domestic and international clients.

Mr. Keith. What proportion of your business had its origin overseas?
IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS 19

Mr. J acobson. It was several years ago, and I will have to think 

back. Taking the long and short of it, I would say probably 50-50, 

give or take a bit.

Mr. Keith. You had both foreign and domestic clients ?

Mr. J acobson. Th at is right.

Mr. Macdonald. Thank you. The hearing will now recess until 2 

o’clock.

(Thereupon, at 12 noon, a recess was taken until 2 p.m. of the same 

day.)

AFT ER NOON SE SS IO N

Mr. Macdonald. The hearing will come to order.

We will resume the hearing of testimony given on H.R. 7043 and the 

first witness this afternoon will be Mr. Louis Chandler.

STATEMENT OF LOUIS CHANDLER, ATTORNEY, ON BEHALF OF

WOVEN LABEL MANUFACTURERS OF THE UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA

Mr. Chandler. My name is Louis Chandler. I am from Boston, 

Mass., and I appear on behalf of the Woven Label Manufacturers of 

the United States which represents most of the 40 to 50 companies who 

are engaged in the manufacture of woven labels in this country.

We greatly appreciate the opportunity tha t has been given to us to 

appear before this august committee, and we are particularly happy 

to be here at this first meeting of the committee in this new building.

And 1 might add we are also p artic ularly pleased tha t the members 

of the committee apparently have an understanding of the kind of 

problems with which the American public is confronted, particularly 

those who are to be included in that group known fo r purposes of this 

bill as the ultimate consumers; that is, the manufacturing group who 

would buy labels.

In the hearing on 806 just prior to the hearing on this bill, there was 

an exhibit tha t someone just indicated might involve stretching the 

law in some respect. I do want to say that, as far as we are concerned, 

what we are seeking and what we believe this legislation seeks to implement is to make effective legislation that presently is pa rt of the 

law of this land, the textile identification bill.

Now, the congressional intent, we feel, and I don't think there is 

any question about this, as indicated in that bill is that there lie mark ­

ing, tha t there be fai r competition. The purpose and intent of the 

act. is specific. I don't thing anybody in this room quarrels with that 

intent. Despite the kind of discussions we have heard, despite the 

kinds of arguments that we heard, there isn’t any doubt that there is 

marking legislation presently in effect. There is no doubt that there 

are differences of opinion as to the efficacy of this kind of legislation 

but the place to seek repeal of that legislation, i t would appear, would 

be in the Halls of Congress, the lawmakers for this country.

To attempt to repeal acts of Congress in any other way, whether it 

be with all due respect at the administrative or executive level or for 

those who serve particularly special or specialized interests, would 

be liegging the basic question.
20 IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS

Is there a marking law? Is it the intent of Congress that there l>e 

a marking law and tha t it be effective ?

Without getting into the discussion of our reasons for supporting the 

bill, I should like to address myself to the arguments and discussions 

tha t have ensued with reference to the prior testimony and through 

the exchange of the written statements which have been submitted to 

the committee. Aft er a perusal of some of those statements I would 

like to address myself to those as well. I have perusd them and I am 

prepared to discuss them. I think in the interests of time I should like 

very much to have the permission of the Chair and committee-----

Mr. Macdonald. Off the record.

(Off the record.)

Mr. Macdonald. Back on the recort.

Mr. Chandler. I should like therefore as a proponent of the legislation to have the permission of the Chair and the committee to have 

my statement which has been submitted for the manufacturers association made a part of the record.

Mr. Macdonald. With out objection, your statement which has been 

submitted to the committee will be included in the record as part 

of the permanent record.

Mr. Chandler. Now, if this can be done, and I appreciate very much 

your having accepted it as such, I will not read from that statement, 

nor will I read excerpts from it. I think the time element is such that 

those who can peruse this on the record can understand our position 

when the committee gets into executive session as I understand it 

does on mat ters of this kind.

I think it is important, however, unlike the representative of the 

State Department who indicated that he is not concerned with the— 

the term he used was “jots and tittles”—which may affect a small in ­

dustry, we are concerned, and perhaps it is because of this past relationship involving a broader range or gamut of industry that this lack 

of concern for the so-called jots and tittles was manifested.

However, I think tha t even tha t is begging the question because the 

State Department, this country, in fact, subscribes to the General 

Agreement on Tariffs and Trade which sets forth certain principles 

governing the marks of origin, and the other member nations of GA TT 

have also subscribed to this.

And article IX , paragraph 2, reads, and this comes from a statement 

made by Mr. Daniels, who was legislative counsel for the United 

States-Japan Trade Council at the hearings last year.

Mr. Curtin. Excuse me. Tha t is.

Mr. Chandler. Article IX , paragraph 2.

Mr. Curtin. Of what ?

Mr. Chandler. Of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. 

And it is on page 41 of the transcript of the hearing which was held 

last year involving steel container labeling and woven label identification. And th at re ads:

Contracting partie s recognize that in adopting laws and enforcing regulations 

rela ting to marks of origin, the difficulties and inconveniences which such measures may cause to the commerce and industry of exporting countries should 

be reduced to a minimum—

And I want to emphasize the next phrase—

due regard being h ad to the necessity of protecting consumers a gainst frau dulen t 

or misleading indications.
IM PO RTE D WOV EN LA BE LS 21

So that there is no doubt that the State Department, United StatesJap an Trade Council, all of us subscribe to this basic principle, that 

due regard must be had for the—for protecting the consumers against 

fraudulent or misleading indications.

Now, this doesn’t mean that any negative impact should result from 

a failure to mark properly. We know that there are many areas of 

marking and that as the distinguished chairman has indicated, 

whether it is a woman who is buying a dress or whether it is any of 

us looking for other products that are exchanged in commerce, and 

they can be binoculars from Germany, they can be cameras from 

Japan, they can be radio and television sets from Jap an, there is no 

unique qualification today in this world for production of quality 

items.

Today with the space difficulties that we had maybe 50 years ago 

overcome, with transp ortation facilities so rapid, with the interchange 

of information on a technical basis so frequent and rapid, our competitive operation through out the world are based on very few factors 

as compared to what they were many years ago. The efficiency of a 

country, and I am mentioning Ja pan because we have some representatives here who are to be heard, is based upon the quality of its labor. 

It is based upon the techniques and its technological improvements: 

its ability to buy machinery and equipment on the open market, and 

all of this is today available throughout the world. So that the only 

reason for marking legislation is not to impose undue burdens on 

trade. It is merely informational and the bill’s opponents are nitpicking, if I may use tha t term, in some of the statements that are 

made—one statement that the crease made when a label is folded may 

cause the label to wear out—when in fact there are creases in labels 

today. That is the way it is sewed on to your garment.

Here is a label in my suit. If each one of us will turn to the labels 

that, we have now on our clothing in many ways, whether it is from 

underwear through to shirt and clothing, suits, we will find tha t these 

labels are sewn in by a turn under, but this is the kind of argument 

that appears in one of the documents that will be presented to you, 

that the crease will mean that the label will wear out and it might 

come off in the cleaning, and so forth.

An interesting comment is made that there would be an increased 

cost in the production of a label which would require the addition of 

words indicating the country of origin, and a representative of the industry will present information on that issue to this committee. The 

increase in cost is so negligible that it shouldn’t be mentioned and the 

fact tha t these increased costs as indicated in one of the statements 

would be or might be reflected in increased cost to the American purchaser at the manufacturer of the garment level leaves me somewhat 

nonplussed because within the past several months as a result of an 

interpretation with reference to labels that was made in litigation 

that involved Bureau of Customs, there was a reduction from 30 percent on ad valorem ta riff to 19 percent, so that there was over a thir d 

reduction in duty, and we found no similar reduction in the cost of 

labels to the purchaser in this country. So as one of our fictional or 

quasi-fictional foreign friends in “The King and I ” said, “It is somewhat of a puzzlement.”

47—904— 65- 4
22 IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS

Actually if we wanted to think in terms of added cost, very briefly, 

we know tha t labels—and there was a comment in one of the briefs or 

statements that will In* presented, that they run around $3 a thousand— 

if we used the same kind of reasoning that prevails from a practical 

point of view in this country, you say that roughly labor and materials 

and overhead run one-third for each of these factors going into the 

ultimate product. The labor is one-third, which means that if it is 

$1 per thousand labels, and if this is the case, and if there are, as we 

know in the industry, on the average better than 500 cards—it takes a 

number of cards and you will see some exhibits shortly to make a label 

on the loom, to add the kind of identification that would be necessary 

would take no more than an additional 5 cards, possibly 1 percent more. 

Well, if we take it in terms of 1 percent of $1 for labor, we find that 

a thousand labels will cost an addit ional 1 cent for the extra few cards 

tha t are necessary, which means a cost of 1 cent per thousand labels, 

and is this what the—those who oppose the bill, is this the kind of 

thing that warrants their threat tha t this will result in substantial 

increased costs to the American purchaser ?

Mr. Macdonald. Excuse me, Mr. Chandler. Do T take it that what 

you have just said is that if a manufacturer of labels in a foreign country had to identify the country of origin, that the cost to put on the 

country of origin would be 1 cent per thousand labels?

Mr. Chandler. This is if we use the factors that I have cited. Onethird labor, one-third material, one-third overhead. Actually the cost 

of labor, I think we all can take this almost for granted, is less than the 

normal equation that we would use. So that I have taken the maximum which would be one-thousandth of 1 cent per label based upon 

our cost figures.

Mr. Macdonald. Thank you.

Mr. Chandler. The representative from the State Department 

talked about productivity and he used the term our workers are so 

“darned efficient.”

Now, I don't think tha t inherent in his comment was the thought 

tha t it is unfortunate tha t we are so darned efficient and therefore 

there should be restrictions against this kind of efficiency, and the 

only restrictions tha t can be imposed are to permit of competition that 

the Congress of the United States has said would be unfair, that is, 

without marking.

1 don’t know how the two tie together but it appeared on the questioning by the members of the committee that the witness was attem pting to reach for arguments th at were not valid. I am not going to try 

to categorize them but I looked at the digest of the State Department with reference to imports and he discussed the number of imports, th at it increased from 189,000 pounds in 1958 valued at $593,000 

which was 8 percent of the country’s consumption, to 447,000 pounds 

at $1.3 million in 1962, or 17 percent of this country’s consumption.

I don't know that this was put in the record. I think that he pe rmitted me to examine his digest but he didn’t put all of this in the 

record.

One of the comments made on that digest incidentally, and I am sure 

that he will make it available through those of his representatives 

who are still in the room, carried a note which said this is partially 

estimated. Even on the basis of this estimate, and we do have a state-
IMPORTED WOVEN LAB ELS 23

ment in one of the briefs that have been submitted that yon will read 

from one of those opposing the bill, that in 1964 the dollar figure had 

gone up to $1,436,000 or almost a million and a half dollars.

Or about triple in 8 years. And this is only where records are kept, 

bear in mind. I am a little concerned actually about this whole discussion by those who oppose the bill as to statistical data because if we 

look at last year’s hearing on this bill, and we look at the State Department’s statement which was submitted in writing, we find on page 

5 the statemen t:

In 1961—

And I am quot ing—

less th an 6,000 po un ds o f co tton la be ls va lu ed a t les s th an $30,000 wer e im po rted . 

The N eth er la nds w as th e pri nci pal su pp lier . Th e pu bl ishe d im port st ati st ic s 

fo r th a t yea r do n ot s epara te ly lis t im po rts of w oven lab els.

Now, it is difficult for me to understand why the State Department 

last year talked about the imports from the Netherlands of some 

$50,0*00 worth of labels without reference to the hundreds of pounds 

that came in the form of rayon woven labels, with the over $1 million 

worth of labels that came in if we want to use dollar volume based 

upon the Department of Commerce statistical data that is published 

monthly, and it would seem to me that even though its own sphere of 

activity may be narrowed in the minds of the State Department representatives, to that point where their purpose is to block the effect of 

congressional requirements, that they should omit the opportunity for 

examining all of the statistical data that are available to them as well 

as to the members of the public at large.

We must also bear in mind that these data are in reference only to 

such imports where records are kept. When we have in mind that 

labels sell as set forth in one of the opponents’ statements at $3, $4, and 

$5 a thousand, and when we bear in mind tha t imports of cases that 

have a value of less than $250 per case are not part of the statistical 

data that is kept by Commerce, then we can only con jecture as to how 

wide this range of imports really is.

If we were to examine some of the statements that have been made 

by knowledgeable employees of the Government and others, we find 

tha t at a hearing on problems of the domestic textile industry which 

were held on February 6 and 7, 1961, before a subcommittee of the 

Committee on Inte rstate and Foreign Commerce of the Senate, on 

page 575, there was the statement as follows:

Acc ording to im po rt st ati sti cs pu bl ishe d in th e Jo u rn al of Co mm erc e Im port 

B ul le tin, im po rts of ra yo n la be ls from one co un tr y in cr ea se d in th e fi rs t 10 

m on th s of 1958 ab ou t 100 per ce nt ov er si m il ar im po rts duri ng th e en ti re year 

of 1957—

And the pertinent excerpt from th at statement reads as follows:

To th is fi gu re sh ou ld be add ed 20 per ce nt—

And the figure tha t is mentioned is the value of imports in 1958 

being $857,000 from just one country—

to th is fig ure shou ld be ad de d 20 per ce nt to co ve r m ai l sh ip m en ts of $250 or 

un de r, m ak in g a to ta l of $1,040,850 of su ch im port s in th e fir st 10 mon th s of 1958 

as co mpa re d w ith $498,80 0 in t he y ear 1957.

And this is a significant statement, too.
24 IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS

Based on the price at which competitive domestic labels are customarily sold 

in the United States, the foregoing imports displaced domestic sales of a value 

of approximate ly $2,250,000.

So th at even tho ugh we hav e a sta tem ent from Commerce an d from 

St ate and in some of thes e statem ent s th at opponen ts have subm itte d, 

th at po int in 1964 to ap prox im ate ly a million and a h alf do lla rs w ort h 

of imports, we real ize tha t that figure wo uld hav e to be at leas t doubled 

and possibly tri pled to yield a figure of, in the are a of $5 million at 

domestic values.

At a m eeting th at was held w ith a number of mem bers o f the T ariff 

Comm ission ; th at is, the Secre tary, the C hie f Econo mist, the D ire ctor 

of In vesti ga tio n, the Chie f of the Texti le Div isio n, an d sev eral oth ers, 

in Ma y o f 1961, the economist state d that his c alc ula tions indic ate d th at 

the ray on labels amo unted to $2 million in foreig n value.

He had in mind those tha t had no need fo r being rep orted as well as 

the actual im ports th at were pa rt of the Commerce sta tistic s. And 

he agreed gen era lly that the assumptio n that this rep res ents abo ut 

$5 million in Am erican sales value is correct.

We hav e for the period from Ja nuar y 1960 throug h Fe br ua ry 24, 

1961, a lis t of every c omp any tha t imported labels fro m one pa rticul ar 

coun try , and heading the list is one th at app aren tly is going to app ea r 

as a witness tod ay, Caval ier Lab el Co. From Ja nuar y 1960 to Fe bru ar y 1961, that company imported 2,448 cases ru nn ing int o many, 

many hund red s of tho usands , actua lly million s of labels. I don’t 

know wh at the figures are as of tod ay. I t wou ld he interesting to 

determ ine tha t if the witness is here in the room later on. Bu t in that 

period of time, and we have all of I he companies by addre ss and numb er 

of cases, of those th at were rep orted , there were some 6,507 cases re ­

po rte d th roug h the Depar tment of Commerce—th is is no t th at group 

which came in valu ed at un de r $250—which wou ld make a tot al of 

$3,203,500. Th is is in a 14-m onth period and it is easy eno ugh to 

det erm ine th at in the 12-m onth year of 1960, the refore, the actua l 

value was in th e rang e of $2 millio n.

Gettin g into more of thes e sta tistic al da ta can cl ut ter the record. 

Bas ical ly we do no t w ant to get involved in sc atterin g a lo t o f buckshot 

and ge tti ng into perip heral areas which are rel ati ve ly uuim po rta nL 

W hat we are saying here is if th ere is a m arking law t hen why sh ou ldn't 

it be observed and why sho uld the re be these crie s of outrage. Th e 

problem s that we th in k are str aw issues in a sense, are being raised 

because no real issue can be m ade ag ains t passi ng this ki nd o f legisla ­

tion .

Th e oppo nents arg ue “d on ’t pass it because the crease will wear o ut ’’ 

or “don’t pass it because it will cost us so much money to pu t an ­

othe r little ma rk on it ” or “don’t pass it ” for so many, man y oth er 

reasons. Wh y should the ultim ate consumer, the man uf ac turer, he 

deprived of inf orma tio n with refe renc e to this product if oth er man ufactu rer s, if other ultim ate consumers, un de r the law of this land are 

not bein g dep rived of the righ t to determine where the pro duct 

that th ey are buyin g is coming from?

Now, thi s last bit of inf orma tio n with refere nce to the im po rts in 

1960 deals with the kind of allegation th at we find in St ate Departm ent testimo ny, in some of the sta tem ents th at are being sub ­

mitted .
IMPORTED WOVEN LAB ELS 25

The opponents of this bill argue, “Why not go to Commerce and why 

not go to Treasury Department ?” Or, “Why not go to Bureau of 

Customs and why not go to the Tariff Commission ? These agencies 

are set up to help you.” Well, there is a law on the books and these 

agencies have done th eir best to vitiate it for reasons which we can’t 

fathom.

And we have gone to these agencies. This information with reference to the statistical data in ILKiO was prepared in order to go to the 

Bureau of Customs and the industry went to Mr. Howard, the Legal 

Assistant on Label Marking, at the Bureau of Customs, working with 

the Deputy Commissioner, and he pointed out the exception which 

stated tha t the marking of a container of such articles will reasonably 

indicate the origin of such article, and this he explained did not authorize customs men to pursue the article to the ultimate purchaser, 

whether it be the manufacturer or anybody else.

For example, a case arrives marked with the country of origin. 

The inside cartons hold either the cut labels or the rolls. These are 

the inside cartons. They would be marked. The customs men must 

release the shipment to the consignee. Wh at the jobber does, and 

if the jobber is a consignee as is true in many cases, is of no immediate 

concern.

Our files are rife with factual data of or approaches to so many 

Government agencies who say: “Yes, you have a problem but there 

is not much we can do about it." We find the kind of information 

from companies that write to us. Fold-Master, Inc., a woven laliels 

service, writing to the president of our association saying:

R efe rr in g to ou r co nve rs at io n th e oth er day I wou ld sa y th a t un les s an 

im ported lab el ha d some dis ti nguis hin g m ark on i t ; su ch as, m ad e in It aly , 

an d so fo rt h, it wou ld be im po ss ib le to dis tinguis h be tw ee n an im po rted labe l 

and a d om es tic la bel.

The re fo re , be ca us e th e la be l m ill or jo bber did not in fo rm us th a t th es e labe ls 

w er e im po rted , it is ve ry i>ossible th a t we co uld hav e un kn ow ingly cu t an d 

fo ld ed a nd s ta ck ed the se la be ls in o ur st an d ard bo xes.

I wou ld lik e to he lp al l I ca n to see th a t pro per in fo rm at io n w as su bm itte d 

to th e bu yer but th is ca n on ly be ac co m plishe d by putt in g di stin gu is hin g m ark ­

in gs on e ac h lab el.

And there are several such letters. There is another from E. H. 

Machine Works, Inc., who engages in label processing in New Jersey, 

all to the same effect.

In 19G1 we thought tha t the right approach might be to have an 

amendment to the Tariff Act of 1930 and a bill was tiled proposing 

to amend section 304 of that act and, because of the way the bill was 

phrased at tha t time, it was within the jurisdiction apparently of 

the House Committee on Ways and Means and, for the reason tha t 

there was some very important legislation pending before the Congress 

of the United States at that time, tha t bill never came up for subcommittee hearing. But I have a letter from Mr. Harold Cooley— 

Congressman Cooley—who is chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, addressed to the Honorable Wilbur I). Mills who is chairman 

of the Committee on Ways and Means, which indicated how Mr. 

Cooley felt about this kind of legislation, and he writes:

I am ta kin g th is occasio n to bri ng to you r att enti on an am en dm en t I am pr opo sing t o se ct ion 304 of tl ie T ari ff Act o f 1930, as am en de d.

The pu rp os e of my am en dm en t is to cl ari fy th e ta ri ff law in re gar d to the 

m ar kin g of im po rted wo ven labe ls, as to co un tr y of or ig in. T his am en dm en t 

wou ld re quir e th a t ea ch wov en labe l im po rted fro m fo re ig n co un tr ie s be m ar ke d 

w ith a d es cr ip tion sho wing th e c ountr y w he re it was m an ufa ct ure d.
26 IMPORTED WOV EN LABELS

Thi s m ar ki ng wo uld be ac co m plishe d in th e ba sic proc es s of labe l wea ving 

a t pra ct ic al ly no cos t. Furt herm ore , it wou ld be plac ed in a port io n of th e 

labe l which is folded under whe n th e labe l is sewn in to th e garm en t so th a t 

it is no long er v isib le.

I wou ld lik e to em ph as ize a t th is po in t th a t th is am en dm en t sh ou ld no t be 

co nf us ed w ith p ast pr op os al s ca llin g fo r des ig na tion of co untr y of or ig in on 

th e fa ce of th e lab el. The se past pr op os als, as 1 am su re you a re aw ar e, ha ve 

dr aw n co nc er ted op po sitio n from th e S ta te D epar tm en t an d fr om oth er Gover nm en t ag en cies on th e gr ou nd s th a t su ch a re quir em en t wou ld dis cr im in at e 

again st an d re du ce im po rts fr om fo re ig n co un trie s. The la ng ua ge of m y am en dm en t w as pre par ed by th e U.S. T re asu ry D ep ar tm en t a t my re quest an d from 

a tech ni ca l st an dpoin t I anti cip ate no ob jec tio n. I am su re th a t yo ur co mm itt ee 

will ag re e th a t from a po licy st andpoin t th e S ta te D epart m ent’s pr ev io us op ­

po sitio n to th e ot he r pr op os als is not ger m an e to th e am en dm en t. Sta te d qu ite 

sim ply my am en dm en t will re quir e on ly w h at th e in te n t of th e la w now is, an d 

w hat wou ld be disc lo su re of co untr y of or ig in on ea ch labe l on ly up to th e 

tim e of it s use , aft e r which th e countr y of origi n wou ld no lo ng er be vis ible. 

Und er my am en dm en t, labe ls co ming fr om fo re ig n countr ie s will no t be in 

co nflic t w ith th e ru le la id d ow n in th e c as e of United S ta te s v. Gibso n- Th om ps on

Com pa ny —

And he cites the case reference—

be ca us e th e co unt ry of or ig in n ot ed on th e l ab el will not be visibl e on th e pr od uc t 

to w hich th e la bel is at ta ch ed .

O ur do mes tic wo ven labe l in dust ry is a sm all , high ly sk ill ed in du st ry , w ith 

to ta l sa le s of ap pro xim at el y $25 mill ion an nu al ly , and pla nts a re loca ted in 15 

S ta te s w ith a c on ce ntr at io n in N ort h C ar ol in a.

And incidentally, the States tha t do have substantial numbers of 

these plants rank from California through Nebraska, North Carolina, 

up throu gh the east coast, Pennsylvania, and up into Massachusetts, 

Maine, and I believe there are five plants in New Hampshire, in the 

Manchester and Claremont areas.

I wou ld offer fo r fu rt h e r cl ar if ic at io n an d co ns id er at io n by yo ur co mm itt ee 

th a t addit io nal la ng ua ge be in cl ud ed in th e am en dm en t or in yo ur co mm itt ee re ­

p o rt to m ak e it cry st al cl ea r th a t th e m ar kin g on th e labe l as prop os ed w ill no t 

be vi sibl e whe n th e labe l is att ach ed to th e garm ent or oth er en d prod uc t. 

In oth er words , th e m ar kin g of ea ch labe l will di sc lose th e co untr y of or ig in 

to th e buye r of th e labe l an d no t to th e purc hase r of th e garm ent or oth er 

pro duct to which the la be l is a tt ached.

And he goes on to say that he is enclosing samples and urging the 

committee to take prompt and expeditious action on this matter and 

tha t he would be most anxious to appear before the committee at the 

earliest convenience to explain the merits of the amendment.

In the preparation for this case, and having in mind the kinds of 

objections which were raised last year with reference to the turnunder 

portion and the question of whether or not the bill as phrased would 

accomplish what was desirable to implement the intent of Congress 

and at the same time not create the kind of problems which are being 

presented by opponents, I took it upon myself to check with the 

Parliame ntarian that serves Congress and found tha t the bill as 

phrased does take care of precisely the kind of problems that are 

being raised here because the bill merely provides that there be 

marking.

I think tha t describing this bill as a labeling of label law is unfortunate because it is not required that there lie a label on a label. 

This is a marking law and all tha t we are seeking in proposing th at this 

bill be adopted and recommended favorably is th at the marking law 

be implemented. The provision for marking the label doesn't indi-
IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS 27

cate that it need be on the face or any other specific part of the label and 

I am sure that those label manufacturers who wish the public to know 

tha t there is a price in the country of origin of this particular product, 

just as they do in Jap an, for example, of so many television sets or 

just as they do with Leica cameras in Germany, possibly here, too, 

if they wish, they can place the marking identification right on the 

front of the label indicating the country of origin of the label itself.

The bill does not require it. The bill merely says that there be identification and t ha t can be on the turnunder. We are taking the position tha t maybe for reasons of their own they would prefer to have 

no indication on the fron t of the label possibly so that it won't confuse 

some purchaser of the garment.

Well, if that is the case and they don't want to say this label is made 

by some people who are proud of the ir craftsmanship, if they don't 

want to have any confusion of any kind, they do have the opportunity 

for placing this identification on any part of the label. That is all 

the bill requires.

Mr. Macdonald. Mr. Chandler, on that point-----

Off the record.

(Discussion oft* the record.)

Mr. Macdonald. My question was going to be this. I can see objections to this bill if the label itself put on the front of th e labeling 

“Made in Switzerland,” “Made in Scotland,” “Made in Jap an,’’ because I th ink, and I am the author of the bill and this is why I want to 

have it clear, I can see where if you put on a label, the label itself, on 

the front side “Made in Scotland,” for concrete example, the purchaser 

would think he was getting an argyle sweater made in Scotland.

This was also raised earlier by the gentleman from the State 

Department.

Is it the intention o f the industry tha t these labels be labeled on the 

back or the front?

Mr. Chandler. Tha t is be labeled on the turnun der actually.

Mr. Macdonald. On the turnunder.

Mr. Chandler. As a matter of fact, if I may refer to the statement, 

briefly to the statement made by the Menswear Retailers of America, 

a copy of which is on yo ur desk, their suggestion is that—they agree 

with the labeling or the marking requirement. They suggest that the 

committee in its deliberations recognize the possibility of having specific language indicating the country of origin and the disclosure be 

made on the turnunder or the sewing areas of imported labels. There 

is no problem here. We think the bill already provides for this. If 

there is any need for making cert ain of this and if this eliminates the 

reams of opposition that is based solely on this question, then we can 

avoid the need for further hearing and say by all means let’s make 

it crystal clear, as Mr. Cooley also has said, that it be on the turnunder portion or th at it be on a portion where it will not l>e seen by the 

purchaser of the garment, so tha t there can be no possible confusion.

Mr. Macdonald. The committee will stand in adjournment. We will 

retu rn as soon as we are able to, which will be a fter the call of the 

House.

(Sh ort recess.)

Mr. Macdonald. The committee will l>e in order.

The witness, Mr. Chandler, will resume.
28 IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS

Mr. Chandler. The concern as to the effect on the retail customer 

who buys a garment with the label already sewn in it was probably best 

presented by the statement submitted to this committee by the Menswear Retailers of America, and this organization in the statement made on the third page of its submission states tha t it recommends to this 

committee th at specific language be included in II.R. 7043 allowing 

the country of origin disclosure to be made on the reverse side of the 

label, that is the side not showing after it has been sewn into a garment.

It would seem to me that if the retailers represented by a board of 

directors that range throughout the country and have 3 thousand 

retailer members, if they state tha t they have no objection to the 

proper marking of a label, it ill behooves those who otherwise come in 

here to use the objection that the ultimate purchaser of a garment 

could be confused.

I would like, in the interest of time, to refer the committee to the 

hearing transc ript which was printed last year which will give a history of the kind of approaches, the many types of procedures that were 

undertaken by the woven label manufacturers and those who propose 

that this bill be enacted which involved Bureau of Customs, Federal 

Trade Commission, and all of the other sundry agencies of the Government that are tied to the enforcement of tbe law or its administration.

In an inquiry that I made to a number of companies, one reply is 

interesting, and this involved a statement from the Warner Woven 

Label Co. that—

The in fr in ge m en t of th e W arn er tr ad em ark in th e ea se of th e labe l samples 

which I re ce nt ly se nt to y ou w as firs t det ec te d by us som e tim e la st su m mer. At 

th a t tim e th e S ta ndard Co mm od ities Co rp, of C al ifor ni a, an im port er o f Ja panese 

woven labe ls, ap pr oa ch ed a cu st om er of min e w ith a book fu ll of labe l sam ples.. 

Con tain ed in th e book was a sa m ple of on e of our ow n labe ls ac tu ally m an uf ac ­

tu re d in ou r mill w hich bore o ur t ra dem ark .

Our cu stom er to re th e labe l out of th e sa le sm an ’s book an d ga ve it to u s. We 

tu rn ed th e enti re m att er ov er to th e F ed era l T ra de Co mm iss ion . The ca se is in 

file No. 6023399.

Our cu st om er ga ve Mr. E arl Rob er ts , th e in vest ig ato r of th e Fed era l T ra d e 

Co mm ission , a dei>osition in which he uph el d our ass er tion. U nfo rt unat el y eve n 

th ou gh Mr. R ob er ts mad e an ex te ns iv e in ves tigat io n of ab us es by im port er s an d 

rece ived te stim on y fro m a nu m be r of our co m pe tito rs, th e FT C di d no t ac t on 

our co mplaint.

i To goes on to state that in some cases it lias been known tha t the 

manufacturers in foreign countries have duplicated weaving mistakes 

as well as trademarks in copying labels made in this country originallyr

and he states:

It is my be lie f th a t th es e in fr in gem en ts go on al m ost dai ly be ca us e of th e fo re ­

go ing reas on s. At pr es en t I am en ga ge d in i nvest ig ati ng a si m il ar co mplaint.

A letter from the Federal Trade Commission to the president of the 

Woven Label Manufacturers of the United States states in part—

when th e ru le s an d re gula tions under th e act w er e under co ns id er at io n, th e 

Co mm iss ion g av e th e m att er care fu l att enti on. It w as of t he o pinion th a t th e consu m er was no t in te re st ed in w he re a labe l att ached to a garm en t w as ma de. T he 

co ns um er bu ys a sw ea te r or blou se b ec au se of t he sw eate r o r blou se a nd c ert ain ly 

wo uld no t be influ enced one way or anoth er by th e or ig in of th e lab el us ed in 

th e ga rm en t.

I want, to interrupt my reading of this letter to state that this has 

been the problem. There has been confusion in the minds of those 

even in the agencies, in the administration of the regulations as to
IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS 29

what the marking requirement would be. But in fact there would 

be no confusion.

In fact, as the retail federation witness has stated in his presentation, 

it could be done without any problem whatsoever and the marking 

law could be complied with.

And he goes on to st ate:

Frankly,, we are sympathetic with your position but we do not believe that 

Textile Fiber Products Identification Act is the vehicle for the relief of your 

problems. Rather, it should be with tariffs, quotas, or with the Bureau of 

Customs in respect to the marking of origin on individual labels.

And that is the end of the quote.

These things have been checked with customs and with all of these 

agencies and one refei'S us to the other and these efforts by the label 

manufacturers have been during the past 3 to 5 years even more 

aggressively pursued than at any other time in the history of this 

industry. The FTC issued this regulation because of the GibsonThomp son case which states that a toothbrush wooden handle was 

properly marked if the portion of the handle where the bristles were 

inserted, and the bristles were inserted in this country, was marked 

with country of origin by the manufacturer, even though it disappeared when the bristles were placed in the wooden handle, and 

the court case held tha t this was perfectly appropriate.

Unfo rtunately, the Federal Trad e Commission misapplied the 

Gibson case. This is treated with at length in our statement and I 

am not going to develop it any more.

Mr. Macdonald. I was going to say, Mr. Chandler, there are seven 

other witnesses scheduled to be heard. We were hopeful tha t we 

would be able to conclude the hearin g today and therefore I don’t see 

much point in going into material tha t you have already submitted.

So if you have some new material, I would be happy to-----

Mr. Chandler. There are two comments I would like to make. 

One is as to new m aterial and the second is as to an attem pt to save 

some time. I should like very much to have the permission of the 

committee to file an answer to the statements that have been submitted 

by opponents rath er than meeting them orally at this time, and if I 

can have a reasonable period of time to do so, t think we can save considerable time.

Mr. Macdonald. I thin k that can easily be granted. Wh at do 

you call a reasonable time ?

Mr. Chandler. When is it anticipated tha t the committee will go 

into executive session ?

Mr. Macdonald. Well, the committee will have to go into executive 

session about this bill and other similar bills, then issue its report.

Air. Chandler. If I may have a week to 10 days-----

Mr. Macdonald. I thin k that would be perfectly acceptable.

Air. Chandler. Thank you very much.

Now, with reference to new material, therefore, and I think much 

of this, too, can be submitted in a written statement.

I do wish to present a comment with reference to a letter received 

dated April 14, 1965, from the Tsukasa Trading Co. of Tokyo. Without reading the letter itself which in substance states tha t there are 

samples of labels which are enclosed with quoted prices, there are 

two labels enclosed and the dimensions are given and the price f.o.b.
30 IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS

Yokohama on one label is 79 cents fo r a thousand pieces, made—that 

means manufactured—cut and center folded in Japan.

Certainly the machinery and equipment it indicates is available 

and is being used for the manufacturer of this product and they are 

cutting and folding with the turn under section in Japan.

It would cost the manufacturer in this country to cut and fold 

a label, just to cut and fold, a dollar and a quarter a thousand. 

There is a second piece which is quoted a dollar and 20 cents per 

thousand pieces for manufacturing, cutting, and folding.

Just the cuttin g and folding in this country is a dollar and a 

quarter.

So that the costs certainly tha t are alluded to in these opponents’ 

statements which are on file seem to have been magnified at great 

length. And I would prefer tha t the statement by a member of 

the industry who is going to be our next witness present that kind 

of information.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate the opportunity tha t has been given me to appear before this committee.

Mr. Curtin. Could I ask one question ?

Mr. Chandler, you just brought up the question as to additional 

cost to use these labels. Are you in any position to say what the 

additional cost per thousand to the ultimate user of labels would 

be if the label was marked as indicated by this bill.

Mr. Chandler. I would prefer to have a member of the industry 

answer that. I am in a position to say something about it because 

I have it by hearsay from the industry but he will be able to indicate to you tha t actually the cost is less than negligible.

Mr. Curtin. Then I will withdraw my question at this time, Mr. 

Chairman.

Mr. Macdonald. I will pursue it. I thought that the question 

had been answered. Before recess didn’t you say th at for each thousand it cost 1 penny or 1 cent a thousand ?

Mr. Chandler. Yes. 1 said assuming the $3 figure.

Mr. Macdonald. So tha t would be one-thousandth of a penny for 

the manufacture. I suppose to the ultimate consumer, the cost would 

be microscopic.

Mr. Chandler. I said less than negligible, and this was based 

upon assumptions tha t we took from the statements made by witnesses opposing the legislation, tha t the cost of labels would run 

in the area of $3 a thousand or thereabouts, and breaking it down on 

that supposition.

Mr. Huot. Did I understand correctly you didn’t seem to attach 

any importance as to whether the label showed or did not show 

where it was made and I think this would be important. I think 

other people feel the same way, tha t if this label showed made in 

Jap an or wherever it might be, tha t you would assume tha t the 

product, the whole product, the suit, say, in a label, would indicate tha t the whole suit was made in Jap an and not just the label.

Mr. Chandler. I would agree, in order not to confuse the customer, 

I would agree with the Menswear Retailers of America, and with some 

of the comments made by those who have presented statements in 

opposition, tha t the turned under section or the sew-under section
IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS 31

which disappears after it is in the label should contain the country 

of origin statement. So there can be no confusion of any kind.

Mr. Huot. Do all labels have underfold?

Mr. Chandler. According to the statements made by those opposing the bill, more than 80 percent of all such labels contain the sew-in 

section.

Mr. Huot. The people using these labels, would you call them the 

public and the consumer?

Mr. Chandler. No. The people using the labels would be the 

manufacturers. This I thin k we are unaminous in stating because 

the statements made by Commerce, the statements made by the State 

Department, the statements made by Mr. Daniels for the Japa nUnited States Trade Council, all address themselves, as do the court 

cases, to the basic approach that the manufacturer is the ultimate 

user of the label.

Mr. Huot. So that labels would not be sold in quantities of one, let 

us say, that they would be used by someone who uses a bulk of these, 

and it has been found that the outer marking is not sufficient.

Mr. Chandler. The box has been removed and the labels have been 

reboxed with no identification on the boxes.

Mr. H uot. Did I understand someone to say tha t when the bundle 

is opened, that the bundles on the inside were also marked?

Mr. Chandler. Yes, T said so. The boxes on the inside are also 

marked. The jobber than takes these boxes of labels and repacks 

them in his own box because he is the seller to the manufacturer. 

He is acting as a middle man. He will come in to you, you are a 

manufacturer, and he will take an order for labels and he won’t tell 

you where he is buying them. And when he gets them in, whether 

it be from a domestic weaver or whether it be from a foreign weaver, 

he will then box them in his own boxes and there is nothing tha t can 

be done by FTC or Customs about it because they just haven’t got 

the policing equipment. And to say tha t the industry itself should 

chase these things down and be the policeman would be a travesty 

on try ing to enforce the law.

As a matter of fact, several years ago there was an attem pt made 

to have a requirement enacted tha t repackaging of labels or the repackaging of anything imported would require t ha t th e new package 

contain the country of origin. FTC and Treasury appeared at those 

hearings and said “we just can’t police this kind of thing. It is 

impossible for us to try to follow these boxes through into the hands 

of the ultimate purchaser,”—meaning the manufacturer—“ to find out 

just what the jobber has done.” So the simplest th ing is to have it 

on the turnu nder section of the label or on those few that, may have 

no turnu nder, to put it on the reverse side.

Mr. H uot. What agency do you think is going to tear off labels to 

look on the back of them, out of anything? How will they police 

that?

Mr. Chandler. Ju st as they police the present products that come 

in under the marking requirements. I f it has to be marked, this now 

is part of the du ty of the Bureau of Customs of the Treasury D epartment.
32 IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS

Mr. Huot. Do you know how many labels—somebody, I forget 

who it was, said there are very few labels exported. Would you say 

this is true !

Mr. Chandler. Yes, based upon what the industry tells me, there 

are very, very few exported, less than 1 percent of the total production, and these are mostly in the realm of seconds and those that 

have to be discarded for one reason or another.

Mr. Huot. Thank you. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Macdonald. You are excused.

Mr. Chandler. Thank you.

(The statement of Mr. Chandler follows:)

Sta teme nt of L ouis Chandl er on Beh al f of th e W oven Label M anufacturers of th e United S tates of Ame ric a in Suppor t of H.R. 7043

I. INTRODUCTORY STA TEME NT

The Woven Label Manufactu rers of the United States of America representing 

a majority of the 45 companies in the industry app reciate s the opportunity to 

present its views in supp ort of H.R. 7043.

The proposed legislation would req uire th at woven labels be marked with the 

country of origin, in the same way th at virtually all other finished textile fiber 

products imported into the United States m ust be marked. The bill is in accordance with the longstanding congressional policy tha t th e u ltim ate consumer of any 

marketa ble product imported from ano ther country should be informed, by its 

marking, of the country from which the prod uct was imported. Our high-wagepaying in dustry is not seeking any special consideration, but only the same trea tment as to unmarked foreign goods th at other American manufacturers have 

been accorded.

A wide spread presently exis ts between the prices of domestic and imported 

woven labels. The proposed legislation does not in any way atte mpt to lessen 

th at disp arity. It is inten ded merely to require th at the competition between 

domestic and foreign products, entirely ap art from price, shall be fa ir.

At the time of the enac tment of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act 

(72 Sta t. 1717,15 U.S.C. 70, Public Law 85-897, 85th Cong., 2d sess .), woven label 

manufacturers assumed th at finished woven labels would be marked individually 

with the country of origin ju st as would all other finished textile products imported into the United States. Unfortunately , and largely through a misunderstan ding th at will be described more fully below, rule 45, of those promulgated 

und er the act by th e Fed eral Trade Commission, excluded woven labels from its 

requirements. The rule grouped woven labels improperly with certain tex tile 

prod uct components which could not practicably be marked in accordance with 

the act. As will be shown below, i t is practic al and not at all expensive to mark 

each label with country of origin. This can be done at infinitely small cost. 

Each woven label is a finished tex tile product which never loses its individual identity.

Support is urged for H.R. 7043 in order to b ring about f ai r competition between 

American-made and foreign-woven labels. Marking legislation will not in any 

way inte rfere with competition based on price, n or on quality, or delivery time. It 

does not run counter to national policy in favor of expanding world trade. It is 

not the kind of practice which the United States has urged oth er natio ns to give 

up in favor of a less res trictive world economy. It only requires that foreignmade labels may not then masquerad e as a domestic product.

II . HIST OR Y OF REQU IRE ME NT S TO MARK WOVEN LABELS

Woven labels were require d to be individually marked by foreign country of 

origin under the T ariff Act existing prior to 1930. The Court of Customs Appeals 

in Artistic Weaving Co. v. Maguire (U.S. Impleaded, 13 Ct. Cust. App. 140, T.D. 40904 (1925)) had decided th at individual labels and not merely rolls of labels 

were required to be marked with the cou ntry of origin. The individual label and 

not the continuous roll of labels is the item imported and requ iring marking. 

The court had held th at fabric labels a re a finished fiber product which does not 

lose its identity when later sewn to a garment. Weaving the name of the 

country into the label at the time of production was held to be perfectly practical.
IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS 33

The Tariff Act of 1930 did not effect any chan ge in the requ irem ent th at individual labels he so mark ed. The requ irem ent continued in effect thro ugh out 

the 193O's and 1940’s an d was changed by in ter pre tat ion of the B urea u o f Customs 

only af ter the decision in U.S. v. Gibson-Thompson Co., Inc. (C.A.D. 98. 27 Ct 

Cust. Pa t. App. 267, in 1954 ).

Th at (lecision concer ned toot hbrush handles to be made into toothbrushes in 

the United States. The Bur eau decided, we believe erroneously, th at woven 

labels ar e a compone nt of gar me nts in the same way as handles are of too thbrushes.

No cons ideration was apparen tly given to the fac t th at hand les lose the ir 

ide ntity in a toot hbru sh. Provisio n for wordi ng on a toot hbrush handle would 

presu mabl y involve add itio nal oper ation s or a different process of man ufac ture. 

Such wording would inev itab ly confus e the retail public as to the origin of the 

completed toot hbru sh. The purp ose of labels on the oth er han d is to carry wording. Labels could easil y be woven to show one or two add itional words on the 

tur nu nd er portio n. Labels imp orted into the Unite d Sta tes are finished artic les, 

not to be involve d in any ma nuf act uri ng by Ame rican firms.

The change in int erp ret ati on as to woven labels following the Gibson-Thompson case was app arently a rou tine act par alle ling except ions made as to a long 

list of oth er produ cts. Label ma nufac tur ers had had, of course, no oppo rtunity 

to tes tify in th at case nor were they given a hea rin g when the rule in th at case 

was to be ext ended to cover woven labels.

About the only oth er tex tile prod ucts the n sim ilar ly exclud ed from indiv idual 

mar king requ irem ents were ha t bodies; sh irt bodies, sleeves, and colla rs; unfinished br as sie res; and piece goods in sca rf designs. None of these othe rs could 

possibly be called finished tex tile products. The re is no indicatio n th at ther e was 

any finding th at indi vidual ma rking of labels was at all burdensome or th at the 

pa rti cu lar fac tors bea ring on the individ ual ma rki ng of labels were seriously 

considered.

Words appeari ng on a label ar e the reason for the label and addi ng one o r two 

more words for country of origin would involve only a n aut om atic process done a t 

the tim e o f weaving.

How diffe rent from fiberboard to go into shoes, or eyeglass fram es, or hourglasses for egg time rs, or blad es for scre wdrivers, to give examples of several 

oth er prod ucts which were exclud ed from individu al markin g requ irem ents under 

the same int erp retation by the Bureau. From the changed int erp retation by t he 

Customs Bureau and the la te r exem ption of woven labels by the Fed eral 'Trade 

Commission from the coverag e of the act stems the anom alou s situat ion which 

the proposed legislation is inten ded to co rrect.

As has been stated above, woven label ma nufac tur ers looked to the enac tmen t 

of the Tex tile Prod ucts Iden tification Act of 1958 as a re tu rn to tre atm ent of 

labels equal to th at accorded most o the r i mported goods. The lan gua ge of th e ac t, 

specially dire cted to the require men ts for marking tex tile prod ucts, seemed to 

promise su ch equal tr eatme nt.

Section 12( b ) of the act, however, permitted some exemptions, as determined 

by the Fed era l Tra de Commission. Unf ortu nate ly, at the time the rule s were 

form ulat ed, the re was a misun derstan ding th at markin g of cou ntry of origin on 

indi vidual woven lab els w ould confu se th e buying public.

Retailers fel t th at “label made in [co unt ry of or ig in ]” would lead many poten tia l buyers to think th at the entire garmen t was of foreign origin . It was 

then assum ed th at the cou ntry of origin, if indic ated at all, would n eces saril y be 

woven into the label. Actually, it is p erfe ctly prac tica l to weave th e n ame of tha t 

country into the tur nu nd er port ion of the label, where it would be hidden . This 

is wh at H.R. 7043 proposes. A retail custo mer could not be confu sed by any 

reference to the foreig n origin of the label. The cou ntry of origin of the label 

would app ear only on the tur nu nd er port ion of the label which would not be 

visible.

The rules prom ulgated und er the ac t became effective March 3, 1960. The 

45t h and las t of those rules exclude d a sho rt lis t of tex tile products, including 

labels. On th at lis t were item s such as shoelaces which would not be at all 

feasible to mark.

Woven labels would proba bly not hav e been excluded from the coverage of 

the act by rul e 45, if it had not then seemed th at ma rki ng of the individu al 

woven labe l would confuse re tai l cust omers as to the origin of the wh ole garme nt. 

The present leg islation would correct the e rro r t ha t wa s th en made.
34 IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS

Section 12(b), permitting such rules, provides th at:

“The Commission may exclude from the provisions of this Act other textile 

fiber products (1) which have an insignificant or inconsequential textile fiber 

content, or (2) with respect to which the disclosure of textile fiber content is not 

necessary for the protection of the ultimate consumer.”

Each woven label is in itself a complete textile fiber product. It is not a 

product as to which the disclosure of textile fiber content is unnecessary. If the 

manufa cturer intends that the label will remain attached and attractive for the 

life of the garment, then the fiber content is relevant in the same way as it is 

to the buyers of other finished textile products. The proposed legislation is 

aimed to require the weaving in of the country of origin but not of the textile 

fiber content.

The proposed amendment is limited in scope because unf air competition in 

the woven label field has taken the form of concealment of the country of origin 

and not of the fiber used in weaving the labels.

As discussed above the ultimate consumer of woven labels is the manufacturer 

whose product will be promoted and identified by such labels. Notice of country 

of origin to such manufacturer is the notice which is required, to carry out the 

general intent of the act.

It would appear that the exclusion of woven labels under rule 45 was based 

neither on a low textile fiber content in labels or on any finding that the disclosure of the textile fibers used is unimportant to the buyers of labels. The 

regulation was based, rather, on the misunderstanding tha t then existed as to 

how the individual labels would be marked and on the confusion that any m arking on the face of labels might cause to retail customers. Now tha t such misunderstanding no longer exists i t would appear that the only logical reason for 

excluding woven labels from the coverage of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act has been removed.

III . IN DU ST RY EFFORTS TO REM EDY THE EX CL US IO N OF WO VEN LABELS FROM TH E

COVERAGE OF THE ACT

Since the requirement of individual marking of labels by country of origin 

ceased to be required, in the middle 1950’s, by interpretation of the Bureau of 

Customs, the industry lias sought to correct the confusion which has followed 

as to which labels are of domestic and which of foreign origin.

The marking of that country on packages of labels has proved entirely inadequate in disclosing to the ultimate buyer of labels, the garmentmaker, that 

country of origin.

Labels are woven in continuous fabric strips, packaged in rolls of 500 or 1,000 

per roll. And importer of labels resells and ships them to the garmentmaker. 

their ultimate consumer, in any of the following ways:

1. In the original package received from the country of origin ;

2. Repackaged and under the importer’s own brand name, with the labels 

then losing their identity as the product of another cou ntry;

3. After cutting the individual labels from the roll and placing them in 

unmarked containers, the labels again losing identification of their country 

of origin.

Most labels are delivered in this cut and folded form and not in rolls.

The purpose of marking legislation is not achieved where the final buyers of

labels within the United States frequently receive labels whose country of origin 

is not identified.

Prior to passage of the act, woven label manufacturers, along with others in 

the textile industry, had sought its enactment.

The woven label industry believed that, with the enactment of that legislation, 

its requirement of fair competition, and proper marking would cover labels along 

with finished textile products generally. With the promulgation early in 1960 

of the rules as determined by the Federal Trade Commission, it became clear 

tha t equal treatment was to be denied the woven label industry. Virtually 

all other finished textile products would have to be marked with country of 

origin, but not woven labels.

Both prior to, and since the issuance of the rules, the woven label industry 

has presented to each of the Federal agencies involved its position tha t treatment 

of the industry is anomalous and unfair.
IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS 35

In December of 1958 the ind ustry atte mpted to secure from the Bureau of 

Customs an interp retation that woven labels would have td be individually 

marked w ith the c ountry of origin.

On Febru ary 16, 1959, a formal statem ent by the industry was subm itted to 

the Division of Classification, Entry, and Value of the Bureau of Customs. This 

statment argued in detail th at the 1925 decision of the Court of Customs Appeals 

in the Ar tistic Weaving case, supra, should still govern the Bu rea u’s practices. 

This case had dealt directly with woven labels and determined th at individual 

marking was both practical and required. No later determination by Congress 

or any decision by the courts furnished any basis for a change. The unrelated 

decision in the Gibson Thompson case, sup ra, relied on by the B ureau was th ere 

distinguished.

Also in 1959, a brief was subm itted to the Fed era l Tra de Commission in opposition to the proposed exclusion of woven labels under its rule 45 from the 

coverage of the Tex tile Fib er Produc ts Identific ation Act. Th at brief pointed 

out that the Commission was planning to exclude woven labels from the normal 

coverage of the act witho ut any affirm ative case as to why it should create such 

an exception. Congress having set a general policy, no item should be trea ted 

con trary to th at policy witho ut a compelling case as to why an exception should 

be made. Apparently, the only argument in favor of the exception th at was 

made to the Commission was the point about confusion to the retail public

arising from “made in_________(country of or igin)” appearing on the face of

the label. Th at argument was based on the misunderstan ding discussed above. 

Apart from th at misunderstanding, the re was no valid reason why woven labels 

were not to be tre ate d in accordance with congressional policy. Mr. Joseph 

Krause, int ern ational vice president of the United Tex tile Workers of America, 

AFL-CIO, representing many woven label workers, also appeared in opposition 

to th e exception.

In September of 1960, a complaint again st deceptive prac tices by a major 

imp orter of foreign woven labels was presente d to Mr. Ea rl Rob erts of the 

staff of the Fed era l Trade Commission. In th at pa rticu lar instance, the imr 

porter had misrepresen ted cer tain American made labels offered by anoth er firm 

as being of foreign origin. Far more common, of course, is the practic e of repackaging foreign labels so th at the y will a ppear to be of American manufacture.

The association has m ade numerous o ther attem pts to preven t deceptive pra ctices in connection with the imp orta tion of foreign labels. No practical way of 

preventing such concealment, ap art from legislation, has been found during more 

tha n 3 years of effort. The proposed legislation requiring the individual marking of all foreign made labels would effectively and simply preve nt any confusion 

of foreig n made labels with American made labels.

IV . TH E PROPOSED LEGISLAT ION

The proposed legislation will simply provide th at woven labels not individually 

marked will be considered m isbrande d u nder th e te rms of the act. It provides for 

parallel tre atm ent under the Wool P roducts Labeling Act of 1939 for any labels 

which come within the terms of th at act.

The purpose of the a ct requiring the m arking of tex tile pro duc ts with country 

of origin is to p ut before the “ultim ate consumer” the fact of foreign origin for 

whateve r effect this fac t may have on his decision to buy or not to buy. The ultimate consumer is entitle d to weigh the fac t of foreign origin along with price 

and appearance an d representatio ns as to the quality o f the product. The buyer 

may feel th at in his experience the particu lar cou ntry of manuf acture may be 

either encouraging or a discouraging fac tor in assessing the probable qua lity of 

the product.

Buyers of vir tua lly all finished tex tile prod ucts from abroad are at present 

given the as sistanc e of the act.

It. should be stre ssed th at II.R. 7943 merely require s th at congressional policy 

as to tex tile products generally sha ll apply to woven labels. Currently, only the 

boxes containing foreign made laliels needs b ear the c ountry of origin. Such minimal markin g requ irem ents seem merely an invitat ion to deceptive practices'. 

Numerous insta nces in w hich foreign origin was concealed have been investigated. 

Whatev er steps were take n, witho ut the benefit of the proposed legislation, 

however, have proved ineffective. Numerous letters from firms cuttin g and folding labels in the United S tat es hav e pointed out to o ur association th at under the 

present requ irem ent it is easy enough for th e cutte r and folder as well as for t he 

garm entm aker to be un aware of the foreign origin.
36 IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS

Clearly, the present re quireme nts as to the m arki ng of boxes a lone a re entir ely 

ina deq uate to carry out general congressional policy and to give notice of the 

coun try of origin.

The object of the proposed legislation is to give th e final buye rs of woven labels 

in the United States the same info rmation on country of origin as is given the 

ultimate consumers of oth er finished tex tile products. Th at legislation is intended to bring abou t fair and open competition, ent irel y ap ar t from price, between foreig n and domestic woven labels.

The pres ent exemption from the markin g require men ts of the Tex tile Fiber 

Prod ucts Identificat ion Act is anomalous and wit hou t any logica l basis. The 

tre atm ent of woven labels under the proposed legislation would only be th at required now as to all o ther finished tex tile products.

(Mr. Chandler later submitted the following supplemental statement :)

Supplemental Statement oe Louis Chandler on Behalf of Woven L abel

Manufacturers of United States of America in Support of H.R. 7043

Opponents of H.R. 7043 attem pt to make fou r specific poin ts again st the 

proposed legislation.

(1 ) They indi cate th at legislation requ iring the mar king of cou ntry of origin 

on tex tile imports including woven la bels, can be a deter ren t to tra de. (2 ) They 

claim th at mar king the cart ons gives the required notice to the “ultimate customer,” whom they say is the m anufa ctu rer of the gar ment to which the label is 

affixed and contend th at labels are only “pa rts ” of finished prod ucts anyway. 

(3 ) They declare th at the retail custo mer could be confused by marking the 

country of origin on the label. (4 ) Fina lly, they asse rt th at ma rking of labels 

would be costly or impractica l.

Mr. Masaoka of the Associatio n of Jap ane se Tex tile Imp orts , Inc., suggests 

in addition tha t, ap ar t from the me rits of the proposed legis lation, the domestic 

manuf act ure rs should, inste ad, try again to seek relie f from adm inistrative 

agencies. The Woven Label Ma nuf acture rs sta tem ent summ arizes briefly the ir 

long, futi le efforts to at trac t atte ntion to the ir problem. The domestic man ufac tur ers only seek to have their prod uct tre ate d like oth er finished textile 

products. It is the intent of the Textile Fib er Prod ucts Iden tific atio n Act th at 

the ulti ma te users of each such prod uct shal l be apprised of the coun try of its 

origin.

i . marking is not a trade deterrent

Clearly, to atta ck the proposed legislation, as an obstacle to trade, is to att ac k 

the mark ing legislation as to tex tile fiber prod ucts generally. The differ ent 

tre atm ent of woven labels during the last 10 years has been an anom alous exceptio n to the general legisla tion. The exception was cre ate d at th at time by 

an adm inistrativ e misre ading of the Gibson-Thompson case. Woven labels were 

equated by the Bureau of Customs with impor ted wooden handles to be made 

into tooth brushes. The opponents themselv es as se rt th at a label is a sep ara te 

prod uct for the use of the ma nuf acture r or the dis tribu tor of the garm ent, and 

not a pa rt of the garm ent for the use of the retai l buyer of the garm ent. Woven 

label ma nuf acture rs are not seeking special tre atm ent. They are seeking the 

same tre atm ent as oth er tex tile ma nuf acturers receive, the tre atm ent they 

themselv es received up to th e adm inistrative ruling of 10 yea rs ago. Surely, our 

nationa l purpose of seeking lower tariffs does not con template th at Congress be 

bar red from modifying exis ting legisla tion to remove a mean ingless administra tiv e exception and thus in fact im plementing a congressio nal edict.

II. MARKING TI IE CARTONS IN W H IC H TH E LABELS ARE IMPORTED GIVES NO ASSURANCE TH AT TH E USER OF LABELS, LIK E THE USER OF AN IMPORTED GARMENT. WILL

BE INFORMED OF TH E COUNTRY OF ORIGIN

Mr. Daniels of the United Stat es-Jap an Tra de Council on pages 2 and 3 of 

his te stimony ass erts th at the re is no reason for fore ign labels, usua lly imported 

in rolls, to be cut and folded and thu s leave the marked cart on, prior to delivery 

to the garm ent ma nuf acturer. My Masaoka ass erts on page 11 of his testimo ny 

th at more than 95 percent of Jap anese labels are impo rted alread y cut, and thus 

ar e in easy form for repa ckag ing and shipmen t in odd lots. The twin team of 

imp orte rs testified th at they ought to be tru ste d no t to repackage labels from
IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS 37

marked cartons to unmarke d cartons and th at in fac t deliveries were made to 

their customers withou t any change in carto n. But ano ther importer testified 

lie removed labels from cartons and inspected them before delivering them to the 

manufac turer custom er. The testim ony of these men is the best argu men t for 

the passage of the legislation because they agree th at the ultimate consumer, 

the manufacturer, should be notified. And the best kind of notification, that 

offering the least tem ptation to misrepresent, is to mark the label itself. One 

wonders what prom pted these importer^ so to belabor the honesty of the breed. 

Complaints have been made to adm inistrative agencies as to the repackaging of 

labels and other deceptive practices aimed at concealing the country of origin 

from the user of labels. No actio n has resulted from those complaints. 

Clearly, any expe ctation th at customs agents can police the flow of labels from 

importer, to jobber, to merc hand ising concern, to garment manufacturer, and 

make sur e th at the labels stay in their cartons until used and th at the ultimate 

user of the labels will have notice of the country of origin, is completely unrealistic and out of accord with administrative agency practice or authority.

Labels, clearly, are not pa rts of garm ents like cloth or thread . Labels are 

prod ucts which are sold finally to garmen t manufacturers, and concern only the 

manuf acturer. The opponents themselves make a clea r distinction between the 

garm ent, including its cloth and thre ad, which is to he used by the retail public, 

and the label, which serves a sep ara te purpose of being used by the store or 

ma nufac tur er to intro duce the g arm ent to the public, or to identify the garment.

II I. TH E RET AIL PUB LIC W IL L NOT BE CONF USED

Mr. Alex Johnson in his sep ara te statem ent has clearly demonstrated, with 

three types of sewn-in labels, th at there is no reason whateve r for the retail 

public to be confused. The country of origin can be woven into each of those 

common types of labels, in such a way t ha t it will not be at all visible to th e buyer 

of the finished garm ent. While the proposed legislation properly does not fore ­

close foreign ma nufac turers from using other means of weaving in the country 

of origin, the turned under portions of some labels, and the portions of other 

labels to be sewn into seams of garm ents, would seem to offer the app ropriate 

means of complying with the requ irem ent that finished textile products, including woven labels, be marke d w ith the coun try of origin.

IV. TH E MA RK ING OF LABELS WOULD BE NE IT HE R COSTLY NOR IMP RACTICAL

Mr. Johnson, by a clear description of the process involved, and of the precise changes needed to add the country of origin to an ordinary label, has demonstrate d how simple the requ ired changes would lie and how minimal would be 

their cost. It is simple for any nonman ufacturing imp orte r or any adverse 

witness who utiliz es a nonfactual, nonspecific, nonsequitor argu men t to ass ert 

glibly th at any change of wording on a label is costly and difficult. But the fac ts 

apparent, even to the laym an, belie the insinuation of such a gross misrepresentation. And any added cost would be even more miniscule, had costs been 

based on an elaborate, multicolored, brand name label ra th er than a simple 

“wash and we ar” label. The opponents lay stress on a small size “hang er” labels. 

The back of such labels would be the app ropriate place to add the country of 

origin. On this ma tter, too, th e opponents claims are contradicted by the figures 

presente d by their fellow witness, Mr. Masaoka. He disclosed th at more tha n 

80 percent of the Jap ane se labels are the more elaborate, brand name labels.

Mr. Johnson testified th at Sears, Roebuck, and presumably other large users 

of labels, have identification numbers for different types of labels it uses, which 

are for its own convenience and are so applied as not to be visible to the buyer 

of the garm ent. It is important to note th at a large user of labels finds that 

markin g of the c artons containing labels does not give adequate assurance that 

the identification number will sta y with the label until it is atta che d to the garment. How the n can there be any assurance th at the country of origin identificatio n will stay with the label until it is in the hands of the manuf acturers who 

will a tta ch it to th e ga rment?

CON CLUSION

A close examination of the arguments of those opposed to the proposed legislation reveals th at they have failed to indicate why woven labels should continu e to be excepted from the full requ irem ents of the Tex tile Fib er Products 

Identification Act. Marking on the tur ned und er portions of labels is perfectly
38 IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS

practic al. A slight change in the w ording of a style of labels would not be at all 

expensive, as shown by Mr. Johnson. The Woven Label Manufacturers Association, it should l>e emphasized, is not seeking special assistance. The proposed 

legislation would merely accord them the same tre atm ent as they received prior 

to 1955, and the same treatm ent which tex tile m anu facture rs, generally, continue 

to receive. We therefore urge favora ble considera tion of II.R. 7043.

Mr. Macdonald. Mr. Alexander Johnson.

STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN, EXECUTIVE

COMMITTEE, ARTISTIC WEA VING CO., P0M PT0N LAKES, N.J.;

ACCOMPANIED BY HARRY VAN KIRK , PRESIDENT, WOVEN LABEL

MANUFACTURERS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; AND

MAX L. KAHN, ALKAHN SILK LABEL CO.

Mr. J ohnson. I thought you m ight have some pretty page girls to 

assist me in showing the exhibits, but since you don’t will it please the 

Chair if Mr. Harry Van Kirk here were to help with the exhibits ?

Air. Macdonald. Yes.

Mr. J ohnson. Thank you.

I am Alex Johnson, chairman, executive committee, Artistic Weaving Co., Pompton Lakes, N.J., a domestic woven label manufacturer, 

with plants also in Pittsboro, N.C., and Holdrege, Nebr. I appreciate 

this opportunity of appearing before your committee in behalf of H.R. 

7043.

Country of origin marking requirements, whether stipulated under 

the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act or under the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, or any exclusion from a requirement of 

marking, in either case revolve around the basic marking law which is 

contained in the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. In substance the act 

provides that every imported article be legibly and permanently 

marked as the nature of the article will permit. The act necessarily 

also provides an alternative of marking just the container of an article under certain circumstances. Fundamentally tha t would be 

where the article itself could not physically be marked, such as yam 

put up in a bundle. You cannot mark yarn so you mark its wrapping 

or its container. Some articles would be marred or damaged by marking, so you mark the container. Some other articles could be too costly 

and burdensome to mark individually, so there again you are perm itted to mark just the container.

If no such governing circumstances prevail—if marking the article 

can be done at practically no cost, no separate operation and no impairm ent whatsoever to the use or appearance of the article and where 

in fact the marking is visible to the buyer only up to time of use and 

then completely disappears from view once the article is put to use, in 

such a situation there are no valid grounds to dismiss the basic marking 

requirements of the law, and to do so in the face of these facts would 

be in contravention of the law’s intent.

Distressing is the misunderstanding which unjustifiably persists in 

some quarters as to possible confusion to a retail garment customer 

from label marking. This comes from confusion with past, long since 

defunct proposals of marking a label on its final readable surface. 

Nothing of the kind is involved in the present marking proposal as will 

be developed as we go along.
IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS 39

Incidentally last year a corresponding previous label marking bill, 

H.R. 4994 was accompanied by House Report No. 1417 and that report 

bore the title “Labeling of Im ported Woven Labels.”

We respectfully suggest tha t a more appropria te title would have 

read, “Marking of Imported Woven Labels,” rath er than “labeling,” 

because nowhere in the bill was it proposed that another label be 

affixed to the imported woven label. We are dealing with a matter of 

“marking” requirements on qualifying articles.

In any such matter as the one presently under review, there is always 

reason to expect that State or Treasury or Federal Trade or Commerce, 

one or all, will en ter the proceedings automatically, being properly on 

the alert as to whether some undue curb on imports and trade is being 

attempted.

We flatly disclaim anything of tha t nature. We strongly endorse 

the principle of fai r trade between nations who enjoy friendly relations. We recognize where economic relief is indicated the appropriate 

avenues, are tariffs, antidumping, or quotas. We are entirely outside 

of those realms in this present matter and completely disassociate the 

present marking request from any such question or issue. If, on the 

other hand, any other party at interest, either commercial or governmental, seeks to intrude with an allegation that insistence on proper 

marking of a qualifying article is in some strange way an attem pt to 

curb imports, any such allegation should be given no consideration and 

should be rejected.

Any representation that proper marking might operate as a curb 

on trade is an attack on the marketing law itself. If marking is u ndesirable, then scrap the law. However, as long as the marking law is 

on the books it must be administered without discrimination to cover 

all qualifying articles.

Now as to the request for individual marking of woven labels, each 

woven label is a unit and is used singly. They are woven on Jacquard 

process looms which are the same the world over. The Jacquard m achine is mounted above the loom and by guidance of perforated cards 

laced together to resemble a piano roll, controls the rise and fall of 

what you might compare to puppet strings.

These suspended strings in turn guide the interweaving of the label 

warp in relation to the cross weaving by shuttles of separate yarns 

which combine to form the ground fabric and the wording interwoven 

in it, the wording being referred to as figure. The controlling cards 

were machine perforated by guidance from a hand painted design done 

on graph paper which delienated the respective warp and figure yarns 

which would create the finished label.

Exhibit I herewith is a Jacquard design as last referred to and was 

the guide for cutting the perforated cards to control the weaving of 

label herewith showing featured wording “Wash and Wear” and 

marked exhibit A. This label is without country of origin marking. 

It can be seen, the vast amount of brush strokes that went into the job 

of painting this design. Now in order to provide country of origin 

marking you do not do a thing with the original design, exhibit I, you 

simply combine with it the very small supplementary design piece 

which reads “J ap an ” just for the purpose of this illustration, the same 

being marked exhibit II . By comparison with exhibit I you can 

readily see the very negligible amount of brush work involved in creat-
40 IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS

ing t his c ou ntr y of ori gin ma rking . Exh ib it II -A shows the label so 

marked.

It would be im pra ctical to b rin g h ere the complete card pa tter n used 

to weave the “W ash and W ea r” label. Suffice it to say ex hibit I-A , 

wi tho ut mark ing, repres ent s 788 cards laced toge ther an d these cards 

hav e 56,737 perfo rat ion s. We do show here the cards involved in 

weaving the m arking of label exhib it I I-A . They are 6 in n um ber and 

conta in 185 pe rfo ratio ns and are ma rked e xhibi t II -B ; a nd the weaving op eration by this very insign ific ant c ard chan ge au tom ati cally includes th e m arking wordi ng in th e com pleted label.

Now as to m ate ria ls u se d: 1,758 inches of yarn w ent in to t he weavin g 

of the label I-A w ithout th e m arking an d 3 inches of y ar n were ad ded 

to includ e the m ark ing . Tha t is w hy we say t hat th e m arki ng of each 

woven label ca n be done at p rac tic all y n o cost a nd in volves no s epara te 

opera tion but instead is accomplished in one an d the same basic w eaving process by which the completed laliel is produced.

Next, on the matter of m arki ng as rel ate d to th e use of the woven 

label, it is recognized th at th e origin o f a woven labe l is of no significance to th e r eta il customer o f a n a rti cle to be lab eled a nd at t h at point 

the label should show no ma rking . He re again th is pr od uc t fully 

qualifies f or mark ing .

Exh ib it I I I shows—

A. A labe l of conve ntio nal f orm fea tu rin g “ W ash an d W ea r” wo rding as it comes off a loom in s tri p form —no mark ing .

B. Th e same unma rked la bel, end fold ed or tur ne d un der, rea dv to 

sew in.

C. Th e same unma rked label as sewed in to t he pr od uc t to be lab eled.

AA . Th e same label in strip for m—c ontai nin g co un try of origi n

marking “Ja pan” in the tum under or sew-in area.

BB . Th e same label, with th e sew-in are a tu rn ed under, in whi ch 

ma nner only, can the labe l be used. Mark sti ll show s label no t ye t 

used.

CC. Th e same label sewed into a pro duct. Th e co un try of origin 

marking h as disappeare d. Th e marking complied with th e law u p to 

th e po int of the im po rte d label use, then ceased to be seen, in effect 

ceased to exist. A t this po in t af te r use there is no final visible d ifference whatsoever between labe l C with no marking and label CC wi th 

country o f o rig in m arking . Th ey bo th look an d are exactly th e same. 

Th e only difference is lab el CC with mark ing , th ou gh now hid den, 

com plied with the law ’s inten t. Label C, if im po rte d wi thou t m ar king, fa ile d to do so with ou t supp ortin g reason.

Exh ib it I I I includes lab els subject to other sew-in methods.

D. Show s a labe l in strip for m fe atur in g “cu stom tailo re d”—no 

ma rki ng.

E. Show s the sam e unm ark ed label, bias folde d wi th th e fo lde d ends 

in stickup pos itio n fo r ins ertion un der a seam of a ga rm en t, usu ally 

at th e inside of a colla r line.

F. Shows the same un ma rked label now sewed into the g arm ent.

DD. Th e same labe l in strip for m with co un try of or igin m ar king t his tim e by way o f i llu str ation “ Ge rm any” in tu m un de r in sew-in 

area.

E E . Th e same labe l cut and bia s fold ed, rea dy to sew into a g arment. seam, sti ll ma rke d.
IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS 41

FF . The same label now sewed in. The marking was in the sew-in 

area of the label and has disappeared.

G. Label reading “Pants Land” illustrates another method of sewing a label—here now in strip form, no marking.

H. The same unmarked label pinked-cut to retard fraying and providing sewing margin at the top for insertion under a garment seam.

I. The same unmarked label, now sewed in.

GG. The same label in a strip form, now marked in the sew-in 

margin and for illustration showing “Sweden” as country of origin 

only up to time of use.

HH. The same marked label, individually cut and ready for use.

II . The same label sewed into the garment, the marking gone and 

the label originally foreign marked, now no different from the unmarked label I, still complying with the law’s intent up to time of use.

Nearly all imported woven labels are bought by domestic importing 

jobbers who then resell to the label customer. The labels enter, 

packed in multiple-case lots in which the different customer labels are 

combined and then removed for delivery to each customer. Some of 

these labels come in, put up in continuous strips wound on rolls like 

exhibit IV reading “Jon atha n Logan” which roll of labels is in fact 

a foreign import.

Before delivery to th e customer the labels are cut apart and folded 

and packaged as in exhibit V and it would be routine to ship to the 

customer in domestic boxes. Again this label was taken at random 

for illustration. Some imported labels are stocked in bulk for stores 

along w ith domestic labels, and sold piecemeal to the stores’ garment 

makers with no practical manner of isolating and maintaining foreign 

source identity. In short, even at best, any adequacy of label marking 

via the container is a chaotic thin g to control and impossible to assure 

maintenance of marking, up to the time of delivery to the user.

The proposed marking of a woven label to identify the country of 

origin is no different from the present widespread practice of many 

buyers of labels who use several or many different styles of labels for 

different articles of merchandise, and identify each label by a style 

number woven into the hidden tum und er or sew-in area. When this 

label is put to use the style number disappears from view. Weaving 

in the style number is not any inconvenience, neither is it any cost or 

pricing factor, and as stated is standard practice in the industry. 

Exhibit 6 shows a group of such marked labels in use by Sears, Roebuck. They encounter no difficulties with their private identification 

marking and equally there will be no difficulties with similar countryof-origin-marking identification.

All the foregoing are fully supported facts. In the face of these 

facts, what can the importer say m opposition to the present marking 

proposal ? He can say we do not want to mark the face of the label 

where the marking would be visible after the label is put to use and 

we are 100 percent with him on tha t request and nothing of the sort is 

contained in the present bill.

He cannot say that marking will inflict any inconvenience or hard ­

ship or expense or damage or impose any handicap in use of the labels. 

What does that leave him to say—obviously just one thing; namely, he 

would rather continue not having to m ark if he can get away with it, 

basic marking law notwithstanding.
42 IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS

We say the re is nothi ng whats oever in th e pic tur e to e nti tle the label 

im po rte r to any such special d ispe nsation.

Based on all the foregoing, favorable c onsideration of II.R. 7043 is 

res pectfully requested.

Th an k you.

Mr. Macdonald. Any questions of the witness?

Mr. Curtin. No questions.

Mr. Macdonald. I would like to compliment you, s ir. The one thing 

th at isn 't clear in my min d, and perha ps should be, is what remedy do 

you now have ?

Mr. J ohnson. We have no pres ent remedy.

M r. Macdonald. U nd er th e law.

Mr. .Johnson. None wha tsoever under the law except to reso rt to 

the origin al ma rking law which I feel we are en titled to. Bu t hig h 

pow ers refuse us th at.

Mr. Macdonald. An d you hav e com plained to the FTC ?

Mr. J OHNSO N. We have com plained all along t he line o ver the years.

Mr. Macdonald. T o whom hav e you comp lained ?

Mr. J ohnson. Oh, to C ongressm en, if I may say so, to Tr easu ry----- Mr. Macdonald. I am talking now abou t th e------

Mr. J ohnson. To t he Commerce De partm ent, Federal Tr ad e, Customs.

Mr. Macdonald. An d each burea u ref ers you to anoth er burea u?

Mr. J ohnson. We get alw ays an evasive—th at the reg ula tions are 

set up and that is it.

Mr. Macdonald. I d on't q uite follow you.

Mr. Jo n nson. Re gulat ion s are sel up exe mp ting woven labels and 

that is it.

Mr. Macdonald. Ex em pting woven labels from wha t ?

Mr. J ohnson. Ex em pting them from mark ing—now—and claiming that marking packages will serve, which we know it does not.

I want to say this, th at in sin gling out labels fo r exemption from 

ma rking , I am sure—1 thi nk thi s is Tr easu ry's dom ain—I am sure that Treasury did not go down the list of tho usa nds and tho usa nds of 

items a nd analyze and say, “ Th is should l>e m arked, th is should not be 

marked, this should be marke d, this should not be ma rke d.”

W ha t hap pen ed, some im po rte r sought to evade ma rking and made 

a request and there was no he ari ng o f which ou r indu str y or o ur compan y was ever notified, and it just came to pass and all of a sudden it 

is s ome thin g we had to live with, and now we are seeking a remedy.

Mr. Macdonald. Right. Do you have any questions?

Mr. H uot. No.

Mr. Curt in. Excuse me, Mr. ( ’hairm an. One question does occur 

to me as th e result of yo ur question .

Mr. Joh nso n, wha t is the differential in cost between a domestic label 

and a foreign laliel fro m, say, H on g Kong?

Mr. J ohnson. I wou ld say a domestic laliel—a foreign lal>el—let me pu t it thi s way, sells at 20 to 33 percen t, with some var iation s, as 

aga inst com petitive domestic prices.

Mr. Macdonald. Tw ent y to thi rty -th re e p erce nt ?

Mr. J ohnson. Of the domestic-----

Mr. Macdonald. Less then?
IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS 43

Mr. J ohnson. No; of the value. I will say if it is a $10 label, it 

might—the imported label might sell for from $2 to $3.50, something 

like that. There is a wide spread.

Mr. Curtin. Do you mean a label that would cost in quantity, say, 

$10 for domestic production, will cost $2 to $3 for the same quantity 

if it is foreign made ?

Mr. J ohnson. In tha t area, something like th at. This very thing 

tha t Mr. Chandler brought up here shows a label here selling for $6.45.

Mr. J ohnson. Cut and folded, which would sell at possibly $20. 

Cutting and folding alone here for th at would be $2.75.

Mr. Curtin. That is all.

Mr. Macdonald. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. J ohnson. Thank you.

Mr. Macdonald. Mr. Ha rry Van Kirk, who is president of the 

Woven Label Manufacturers of th e Un ited States. Do you have any 

testimony ?

Mr. Van Kirk. No; I believe everything, in order to save time, that 

we care to say a t th is time has been said. Thank you very much.

Mr. Macdonald. And Mr. Max Kah n ?

Mr. Kaiin. No remarks, sir.

NIr. Macdonald. You have nothing f urt her to add. All right.

The next witness will be Mr. Mike Masaoka, who is the Washington 

representative of the Association on Japanese Textile Imports, Inc.

STATEMENTS 0E MIKE M. MASAOKA, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE , ASSOCIATION ON JAPA NESE TEXTILE IMPORTS, INC.;

MONROE C. CLAYSON, HARVA RD LABELS, INC., NEW YORK, N. Y. ;

AND HAROLD SHUR, CAVALIER LABEL CO.

Mr. Masaoka. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, inasmuch 

as I think the committee can be best informed with technical information regarding imported and domestic labels, I think we are very 

fortunate in having with us two major importers, Mr. Monroe Clayson 

of Harvard Label Co. and Mr. Harold Shu r of Cavalier Label Co.

I would like them first to comment on the testimony they have heard, 

to answer the questions, and then with your permission I would simply 

like to summarize.

Mr. Macdonald. You may proceed, Mr. Clayson.

Mr. Clayson. Mr. Chairman, my name is Monroe C. Clayson, 

Harvard Labels, Inc., of New York City. I have been in the textile 

business with a large firm of textile brokers and consultants for the 

past 22 years. For almost 6 years now I have been, in addition, run ­

ning Harvard Labels Co., which is one of the largest of the importers 

of woven labels. Our labels are principally woven in Japa n.

During the short time th at I have been in charge of H arvard Labels 

this is the fo urth effort I think to disrupt our imports within 5 years.

Let me tell you, sir, what happens when I take an order. If the 

label is one that I have previously woven, I cable to Japan the previous 

order and a repeat of so many labels, however it may be. I send a 

contract to the buyer which tells him tha t I will deliver those labels 

in approximately 4 months.
44 IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS

A domestic weaver, parenthetically, will deliver in a matter of 2 to 

3 weeks.

The labels are woven in Jap an, and then, having been woven, are 

sent out for hand folding. You have been told that there are machines 

in Jap an for machine folding. It is true tha t there are machines in 

Japa n but they cannot be used because the Japanese looms are a type 

which cannot weave a steady succession of the same length of labels. 

Those labels continually vary in length, and I have had the misfortune of having to pay several thousand dollars for having learned 

that.

We tried to make a label over there which was woven on a roll and 

had a certain amount of weaving of lettering with a blank space, and 

it was going into a machine which was going to print on the blank 

space. The companies that make foundation garments for ladies 

have to have a great many different kinds of fiber identification, so 

they were put on the name of the company and say th e fiber identification is on the reverse side of the label and then they will p rint all the 

different kinds of things they want.

We had a lot of labels brought in and when the manufacturer tried 

to print on our labels, he found tha t after a little while he was printin g 

on his own lettering, and he had to have people stand there and control 

the prin ting constantly, and much of it he couldn't control because 

they varied from label to label in length.

Tha t is why although they have machines in J apa n to cut and fold, 

they can’t use them. The work in Jap an is done by hand.

It may startle you to know tha t the people in Japan who are the 

beneficiaries of the work tha t I supply to them amount to about 650 

people earning something from the work that we send out.

All right. The labels are woven. They are then cut and folded 

by hand and they are put into cartons marked in first little boxes of 

500 or 1,000, each of which says “Made in J apan.” These are packed 

into another box which says “Made in Jap an,” which identifies the 

order number, has a carton number, and these are collected to a point 

where there are at least 40 cubic feet involved so th at we get the minimum shipping prices, and they come across and it takes 35 days for 

those labels to be shipped, to come into port and be cleared. Mind 

you, 35 days just for shipment, and when the domestic weaver can 

deliver the order within 3 to 4 weeks.

All right. Wh at do we do then? I get an invoice tha t tells me 

what is being shipped. I mark it off on my records and I send th at 

copy of tha t invoice or two copies of that invoice to the Customs 

broker. In addition to that I give him a list of every customer by 

carton number who is going to get those labels.

There is no mystery about it. Everyone is identified who is going 

to get it. In most cases it has a name th at is applicable to th at particular customer. He is the manufacturer of garments. But Customs 

knows who it is going to. My Customs broker knows who it is going 

to. And contrary to what you have heard here, I will say th at perhaps 

between 80 and 90 percent of all the cartons which come in are shipped 

direct from the port to the customer. None of this repackaging. They

g

o direct to him. What doesn’t go to them comes into my warehouse, 

eing held for later delivery.
IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS 45

I have to supply to Customs an affidavit of who these customers are 

and tha t they are going to get the labels in those cartons marked.

Now, the proponents say tha t they want the manufacturers informed tha t they are buying imported labels. You have said it, Mr. 

Chairman. This is a law for information. Well, who is to be informed? Is it the manufacturer of garments? He knows about it 

already. He knew about it when he bought the labels. Within 2 minutes after we s tart to negotiate with the domestic manu facturer we 

tell him t ha t we are importers. The labels will come from Japan or 

some other country as we tell him. And they won’t be here for 4 

months or more. He says, but I need them fast. We say, fine, we will 

fly in some, and the only difference is th at when the labels are ready 

to be shipped in, instead of coming by boat, ta king 35 days, they will 

come in by plane within 4 or 5 days, but you have got to pay an in ternational air shipping charge. It amounts to approximately $2 per 

pound just, the way a parcel post package would come by the gross 

weight. It is not only the net weight, of course, in a parcel post 

package and it is not the net weight in an air shipment.

He knows he is going to wait 3 months for those labels and he is 

going to have to pay fo r an air shipping charge.

Does he know he is paying for imported labels ? Of course he knows. 

How could it l>e otherwise! We deliver the cartons to him marked. 

The inner packages are marked with the country. They are told we 

are importing. They are told if they want them faster they have got 

to pay international freig ht charges.

Do customs know we are importing? Certainly they do. Can 

customs check on it? Yes, sir, they can and they try to.

Mr. Macdonald. Could I ask a question ?

Mr. Clayson. Certainly.

Mr. Macdonald. On that very point, do you ever import labels and 

t hen thereafter sell them, or do you place the order ?

Mr. Clayson. We sell—we place orders against orders which we 

have taken.

Mr. Macdonald. Right. But you don’t-----

Mr. Clayson. We will do this, sir, to be complete. We will talk to 

an account and say how many labels are you going to be needing? 

The problem is for you that your business may pick up and while you 

make an estimate of how many you are going to use, you may want 

50,000 labels a month and tha t is not a huge amount. But suppose 

your business jumps up to 100,000 ? It is going to take us 4 months to 

bring those labels in. Do you want us to bring in an extra quantity 

so tha t we will bring in, let us say—you want 100,000 a month; we 

will bring in 200,000 the first month, 200,000 the second month against 

your order and hold them to the end of the order, or sometimes we 

will say, and he will agree, you make up some extras and we will 

take them.

Now, customs checks. I have had customers call me and say, what 

is the matter? Are you being investigated? Someone was here and 

said, do I buy foreign imported labels ? I said I didn’t know what it 

was about but I told him I did. He said, well, where is the carton? I 

showed him the carton.

Now, it has been said tha t labels are brought in on rolls and then 

cut and folded over here. No such thing. For the same reason that
46 IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS

the Ja pa ne se c an’t use their cu tti ng and folding label equ ipm ent, the 

Americ ans can't. The equipm ent is set to cut a ce rta in len gth . The 

varia tio n in Jap anese labels is en tir ely too gre at. An d these thing s 

when they are—sometimes the y are pinked. Pin ki ng is a zig-zag cut 

with scissors inte nde d to stop rav eli ng. Wh en th at has to be done f or 

us, it was done for me once. It had t o be don e by hand b y the workers 

in th eir sp are time.

It has been presented to you th at we br ing in huge qu antities of 

labels on rolls and repack age them here. Rem ember, I said th at vi rtually all the labels th at we br in g in are. sent directl y fro m the pie r 

to the customer. Why not ? Th e custom er wanted them at a cer tain 

time. We brought th em in a t a certai n time. We don ’t wa nt to br ing 

them into our warehouse, pay one shipping c har ge the re and anoth er 

late r on. AA e want to br ing them in and give them to him when we 

agreed to give them to him.

AA hat abou t the labels on rolls whe re it has been said are repack aged 

very easily and so forth ? I say to vou gen tlem en th at not 2 percent 

of the labels I hav e sold are on rolls—not 2 percen t. Ninety-eig ht 

percent and more in my exp erie nce are cut and folded or they are 

pin ked o r thev are loop label or m iter-fold . These are all special types 

of cu tti ng of labels. Bu t on rolls, not even 2 percen t. An d of the 

labels which come in, the 2 perce nt, in only one instan ce have I failed 

to send out the labels on roll s, and why did they orde r them on rolls? 

Because th e cu stom er w ant ed them on rolls.

Th ere are custome rs who make ties and the y like to have a hand 

sew n-in label, so they do n't want the label cut and folded. They 

wa nt it on a roll. It is classy, looks rich . He saves a lot of money 

by ha ving the label cut and folded in advance. AATiv should he do it 

oth erw ise? AAdiy sho uld he want it on rolls? AVhy in the world 

would I want to bring it in on rolls and not be able to find any body 

able to cut a nd fold th em ?

Aon were given th at imp ression here in the las t hearing. The 

kind of l ang uag e th at was give n to you is very clever.

Lab els are woven in co nt in uo us fa bri c st rips.

I am rea din g from Mr. Ch an dler's sta tem ent on page 7.

Lab els are wo ven in co nt in uo us fa bri c st rips, pa ck ag ed in ro lls of 500 or 

1.000 per roll an d th e im port er lab els , re se lls an d sh ip s th em to th e ga rm en tm ak er , th eir ult im ate co ns um er, in an y of th e follo wing w ays:

1. In th e or ig in al pa ck ag e rece ived from th e co untr y of ori gin ;

2. Rep ac ka ge d an d unde r th e im po rt er ’s ow n bra nd na me, w ith th e labe ls then 

losing th eir id enti ty as th e pr odu ct of anoth er countr y; an d

3. A ft er cu ttin g th e in di vi dua l labe ls from th e ro ll an d pl ac in g them in 

unm ar ke d co nt ai ne rs , th e la be ls ag ai n losing id en tifica tion of th eir co unt ry of or ig in .

I rea d this thing and I ga ther it means to say tha t most labels 

come in on rolls. Th at is ju st impossible. An d you can very rea dily 

check it with custom s. There is no questio n about th is at all. Six 

yea rs, 2 percent, pro bably o nly 1 percent of my labels. And as I say, 

99 perc ent of my labe ls that came in on rolls went out on rolls.

One case was different and why was it different? My customer 

wanted some kin d of a gu tta percha backi ng pu t on and that could 

not be done in a foreig n cou ntry. It was done by a com pany out in 

New Jerse y. J & II La beling Pro ces sing Co. Thev attached the
IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS 47

gutta percha. The purpose of the gutta percha is tha t when you 

put an iron on it, it will adhere to a garment.

This man I believe made scarves and they wanted something tha t 

would go on—not necessarily to be completely permanent, but it had 

to go on and then perhaps be flaked off.

When J & H Processing got th rough with my labels, putting on the 

rolls these gutta percha, they called me up and said, we can’t cut these 

labels on our machinery. We can’t—they had to be pinked. We 

can’t pink them because it is too irregular. So I sent them to a company on 23d Street, De Luxe Label Co., and they said, we have got 

to give these to our workers and they will do it at home. They 

can’t do it my machine either.

Tha t is the only case in which labels that I brought in on rolls were 

sent out not on rolls.

Now, you could ask me were they p ut into a carton that said “Made 

in Japa n” ? I don't know. It was an oversight. If I ever have 

to do it again, and God forbid, I will see that the label company down 

on 23d Street puts it in a carton saying “Made in Japan.”

My customer knows about it.

All right. Now, there is no assurance tha t the country of origin 

of a label will not be visible to the retail customer. You have been 

told tha t this can be done, can be done easily, and the testimony was 

excellent. I admire Mr. Johnson. He is a very capable textile 

manufacturer. He made a good presentation. But I am wearing a 

label right here. You have been in stores. You have seen labels on 

the jackets. This is a sleeve label. What is it there for? This one 

says “Impo rted Wools, Finest Tailoring.” This is intended to be 

taken off. I buy the packet. I am not going to walk around wearing 

this thing.

Fine. I take it off. “Jap an,” “Made in Jap an.” Why did they 

do this to me? Why didn’t they tell me the garment came from 

Jap an?

This label is made to be taken off. You only heard about labels 

which are meant to stay on. This is meant to be taken off. When it 

is taken off, it shows Jap an under what they want.

Is it the only label tha t is taken off? No, sir. It it true tha t a 

label because it is cut and folded, when it is applied to a garment, 

hides the country of origin ? No, sir. Not true either.

I have a garment here that I would like to show you. Remember, 

they said sew them in under the seam. That hides it. Here is a 

garment. That poor manufacturer would go crazy trying to find a 

seam. There is no seam in that garment. Therefore he sews it right 

on top. That is exactly what a customer could do, see underneath, see 

“Japa n” underneath. Precisely so.

There is no assurance th at the retail customer will not see that the 

label—that something was made in Japan, whatever it was. Well, 

is that the only kind of label like that? Did I happen to find some 

freak label? No, sir. As you see, the garment had no seam. Therefore it had to be sewn on top.

What else could he do ?

I show you some additional labels here. I think you can see this 

label which says “Fi fth Avenue Robes,” has a big space at the top. 

Why? it is intended to be sewn there only. If it isn’t sewn there, 

then the whole design is wrong.
48 IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS

Ilei •e is a McDonald label, very similar. This Scotch-English 

label is again made to be sewn on the top only. You see the arrangement of the lettering, the design, leaves a space at the top. This is a 

sweater manufacturer. The sweater manufacturer hates, like the 

devil, to have to sew a label in all around because there is no give. 

When he sews it and the garment gives, the garment stretches and 

sometimes labels shrink and you have a nice little puckering in that. 

So he will sew it at the top only.

But you are not told these things.

How about this one? This is no turnunder portion. It is pinked 

at the sides and again you have that space up at the top where they 

are going to sew it in.

Now, where are we going to put “Made in Japa n'’ or “Ja pa n' 5

 or 

whatever you want? Up at the very top? Wha t assurance is there 

tha t girls working in the factory on piecework are going to be able 

to hide that thing? There are customers of mine who want a full 

half-inch of space at the top. There are other customers who say 

a quarter of an inch would do it.

Mr. Macdonald. If I could just interject, the other labels tha t I 

saw, none of them—and perhaps they are unusual, perhaps they were 

just shown to us for purposes of this hearing—but none of them, the 

proposed labels, said “Made in Jap an.” They merely said “Jap an. ”

Mr. Clayson. It makes no difference.

Mr. Macdonald. Or Germany.

Air. Clayson. This will be seen by the retail customer. Everybody 

agrees the retail customer is not to see this.

Now, I went into Arnold Constable a few days ago. I wanted to 

buy a sports jacket. I needed it. So I saw one that said—let me see 

what it said. I jotted it down. “Tailored by McGregor-Doniger,” 

one of our leading sportswear houses in this country. It was a sleeve 

label. It happened the sports jacket didn’t fit me. Not too many do. 

So I was thinking, though, th at if I had bought it I -would take it off 

and there it says Jap an on the back, and Mr. Doniger would certainly 

split a gut over that.

Well, all right. What is the real aim of the bill? Not to tell a 

manu facturer that he bought imported labels. li e knows it. He is 

very sure of it. The slow delivery alone is the clincher.

Not to prevent importers from repacking in the new cartons. That is 

a violation of law. They don’t say tha t anybody really does it. They 

don’t point to an instance of anybody doing it. They say so and they 

keep on saying so and they say so until finally you get to believe it. 

Nobody else was around to tell you differently.

Now, notice, since the trouble supposedly starts with imported rolls 

of labels, and these are only a tiny part of all of th e imports, so spotchecking by customs inspectors could turn up the culprits very quickly. 

We are dealing with perhaps 2 percent of all the labels coming in and 

customs knows who is gettin g those rolls of labels.

So, fine. They go over to them. Are you buying from Harvard 

Labels? Did you buy the label on rolls? No. We bought them cut 

and folded. How did tha t happen ?

I am the one that is going to be on the spot on tha t and Customs can 

find it out very simply. They don’t need a load of investigators. In ­

vestigate the thing where so-called crookedness occurs. It doesn’t 

occur and that is the reason.
IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS 49

The real aim of this law is to arouse prejudice of the employees of 

the manufacturer, not the manufacturer—the employees of the manufacturer in the hope th at they will compel their employer to refuse to 

buy imported labels. And the real aim of this thing shows up, too. 

in a peculiar provision in that law as you have it proposed, that the 

law becomes effective in 60 days afte r it becomes a law, so tha t when 

we bring in labels, we can’t bring them in. I buy my labels on an 

irrevocable letter of credit. My contracts can inn for months. I 

don’t know when they weave them in Japan. There is a long gap 

between the weaving and cutting and folding. They could have woven 

those labels and had them in stock and they have an irrevocable letter 

of credit of mine.

In order to bring them in within 60 days after this law becomes 

effective, they have to ship them out in about 25 days afte r the law 

becomes effective because it is going to take 35 days touch and go. I 

got the last day. What do I do with the ones after that? I can’t 

bring them into the country. Throw them into the river. Wh at do 

the domestic weavers care about tha t ?

A minimum of a year's delay should be given, although I say th at 

this law should not be passed. It does not inform. The person who 

needs the information has it. No question about it—the bill should 

not be enacted.

I should like to submit in opposition to this bill a written statement 

in rebuttal of some of the w ritten statements th at are filed by the proponents of the bill. I would like tha t permission, within 10 days.

Mr. Macdonald. Without objection it is so granted.

Mr. Clayson. I would like to raise one particular point. It is not 

terribly important, but a lot of what Mr. Chandler said had to do with 

economic factors and not the informational part of tha t law, but he 

did say at one point tha t the duty is now 19 perce nt, not "><).

This is wrong. I paid this week 30 percent ad valorem plus 25 cents 

a pound of the weight of the labels—not 19 percent. It used to be 19 

percent. It went to 30 percent. It is 30 percent today.

Mr. Macdonald. I have one question, sir. Would it satisfy you or 

would you feel any differently about it if the labels said on the back of 

the label instead of just saying “Jap an ” or “Made in Japan," if the 

label bore the; inscription-----

Mr. Clayson. In reverse?

Mr. Macdonald. In reverse, label made in Japan.

Mr. Clayton. No, sir. Let me show you why. This is what the 

back of a label looks like [indicating]. You are going to deface the 

face of it if i t has the words—if you are putting the words—here, I in 

effect have woven this in reverse. This is w hat the back is going to 

look like. Tha t will be the face as you suggest. It is ugly. Somebody has a nice design. lie doesn’t want to ruin it with this sort of 

thing. Nobody. I would be thoroughly against it.

Mr. Macdonald. Have you concluded your remarks?

Mr. Clayson. Unless you have some questions.

Mr. Macdonald. I have no further questions.

Mr. Clayson. Very good.

Mr. Siiur. I believe my name had been brought up before. My 

name is Harold Shur. I am the owner of the Cavalier Label Co.
50 IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS

I hav e been listen ing to the testim ony now fo r about 5 o r 6 hou rs, 

some of it no t all tru e, either by design o r by a cciden t, some give n out 

of context, and certa inl y me ant no t to illum ina te the com mittee, b ut I 

fe ar to deceive the committee.

'Phe initial th ing th at we he ard was th e rem ark about du ty, th at it 

ha d been reversed fro m 30 percen t du ty plu s we igh t cha rges down

Th e fact o f the m at te r is th at the du ty was i ncreased fro m 19 to 30 

perce nt in 1959 and th at is w here it sits a t the prese nt mom ent.

Curiously enough, one of t he exhib its t hat w as handed up fo r your 

edificatio n and e nli gh ten ment was a roll of Jo na th an L ogan labels and 

the curiosity is that it is my ac coun t..

Now, it w as also sta ted in th e presen tat ion th at th is p ar ticu la r label 

can be br ou gh t in by roll s, on rolls, and the n cu t and folded. Well, 

insofar as it is I who sell h im and have been doing this fo r a long time, 

as f ar as I know, I hav e ne ver cha nged or altered or in any way defaced 

or misshaped a labe l othe r th an the roll s, the very roll th at has been 

pres ented.

Fi na lly , only 1 m onth ago an insp ector fr om th e Bu rea u of Customs 

wen t up to Mr. W illiam Go ldstein, who buy s the labels of Jo na than 

Logan, and a sked him point edly, “W ho do you buy you r labels from ?” 

An d he identif ied my com pan y, and the n he. was asked if he knew 

where the labels came from. He said , “O f cou rse I know where the 

labels come from . Mr. Shu r se lls th em to me out of Ja pan.”

So t here never is an atte m pt to deceive or cover up. As a m atter of 

fac t, it happens to be my opening sales pitch, th at I am a label impo rte r. I find it a dvantag eous to advertise th is f act , no t to conceal it.

Fi na lly , we s ubm it affid avits to Customs, an affidavit, a legal document, attesti ng to the fact t hat th e custome rs know th at the labels are 

com ing fro m Ja pa n.

It is a peculiar i nstanc e, b ut there a re domestic m an ufac turers today 

wi th mills who are also in th e labe l im po rti ng business. Physi cal ly, 

it wou ld be impossible fo r me to rep ack age the labels. I would need 

boxes. I wou ld need help. I wou ld need all sorts o f employees.

We work out o f a sales office hav ing no more th an th ree o r fou r desks. 

Th ere isn ’t the phy sical capacity.

Possibly tho se who could rep ackage would be those who have plan ts 

ou t of wh ich the y work wi th the necessary help. So i t could be maybe 

th at some of the domestic people who have sou ght to joi n us ra th er 

th an fight us in im po rti ng are the ones th at are the cu lprit s an d are 

alluded to fro m tim e to tim e as the jit terb ug s who are tryi ng to fool 

the public,

Incid ental ly, Mr. C lav son makes a v ery good p oin t. Nin ety percent, 

of the goods I sell in Am erica I nev er see except fo r a sample. I t 

lan ds in New Yo rk Har bo r, it is shipp ed dir ectly to the acco unt, I 

never see it asid e fro m the rec eip ts and ma rking s which, in tu rn , are 

reg istere d at Customs and perio dic all y checked.

Now they ask, also, I suppose, for relief, and th at is a curious th in g 

because I was listen ing to some of the figures being thr ow n aro und 

here and th at, too, doesn 't jibe with the facts.

No. 1, the rate o f increase has been presented to this committee, the 

difference between label impo rti ng in 1958 a nd label im po rting in 1965 

has risen to some astrono mic al figure. I would suggest th at to make
IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS 51

the picture even blacker for us, why not compare 1965 importations 

with 1922 importations. It would be an even greater dramatic 

difference.

The fact is, I would submit to you, th at from 1962 to 1965, which 

is current, and 3 years current right up to now, there has been no 

appreciable difference. As a matter of fact, to my regret the limits 

of the Japanese production for oversea selling to us have just about 

been raised. We can’t buy any more. We have just about had it. 

So if we maintain our figures, this is as good as we can go as far as 

the label business is concerned.

Mr. Macdonald. Could I ask you why ?

Mr. Shur. Because there are only so many looms in Japan at the 

present time. Many of these looms take care of the Japanese home 

consumption. The balance of the looms have been bought, and the 

usage, the end product therefrom, has been taken by Monroe or myself 

or other importers. There just aren’t many looms left.

Mr. Macdonald. You mean business is so good in Japa n?

Mr. S hur. There are times-----

Mr. Macdonald. They have run out of operating looms.

Mr. Siiur. Yes. The Government does not permit them to add new 

machinery to this industry on the theory that if it is a sewed-up in ­

dustry now, they don’t want to go into a depression type of economy 

by having an overabundance of looms, by having added to them, an 

underabundance of orders.

Mr. Clayson. I made a trip to Jap ap and I have discussed this p articular thing. Couldn’t we arra nge to have new looms pu t in? The 

answer was MITT, which is the Government agency, has refused to do 

it because some years back th e weavers in Jap an went to MITI and 

said, don’t allow any more looms in because we are being pressured for 

lower and lower prices and there is too much competition in the production. There is too much available idle capacity. So don't allow 

any more looms. MITI said, all right, we won’t allow any more looms.

Then came the terrific pressure in Jap an when the Olympics came 

along and huge amounts of labels were being made for visitors. A 

special type of little emblem was set up for the different airlines and 

packaged in candy boxes, using the same looms, by the way, and so the 

label weavers went to MITI and said, allow us to put in some more 

looms. MITI said, remember, you came to us and said no more looms. 

We won’t let you do it. The only th ing we will allow, if a loom is in 

such bad condition, our inspector says it can't be used any more, then 

we will allow you to junk tha t and replace it. But no others.

Jap an is a growing economy with tremendous amounts of business 

being done all over the world. There is a limit to how much we can 

bring in. The value will remain pretty static.

Mr. Macdonald. Have you dealt with the Netherlands? I heard 

testimony today-----

Mr. Clayson. No, sir, I haven’t.

Mr. Macdonald (continu ing). That surprised me tha t it was in these 

figures tha t the Commerce-----

Mr. Clayson. Mr. Macdonald, it said cotton labels. Now, cotton 

label means that the label is made of a warp of—are you familiar with 

the term “warp” ?

Mr. Macdonald. Yes.
5 2 IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS

Mr. Clayson. The warp is all cotton, 102 ply, combed, peeled, gassed, 

and mercerized, which is a very expensive yarn and we get virtually no 

call for tha t in Japan.

Mr. Shur. It is a quota item and the Japanese will not waste cotton 

on labels. They save it for garments.

Furthermore, I have noted myself tha t the Japanese on the one 

hand have wisely limited their production of labels by not permitting 

additional looms to be installed anywhere in Jap an and it has forced 

me, incidentally, to cut back on the amount of volume I could possibly 

do because there were no facilities left f or making the labels.

Finally, they asked for relief and I can understand this. I am not 

totally unaware of the problems th at this kind of importation could 

develop in the American industry, but are we talking about a country, 

for example, Japan, tha t usurps from the American worker 40, 50, or 

60 percent of its production ? Not even close. The last figures we have, 

the testimony given by the domestic industry, their total volume runs to 

somewhere between $25 and $27 million. Combined, all of us do no 

more than 2 million, 214 million. Possibly less than 10 percent of the 

entire market is taken by us for importing of labels. And I don’t think 

tha t is attrition in any kind of form, especially since we can go no 

further as far as buying is concerned.

I get wound up on the points I want to make.

Finally, Mr. Chandler got up and addressed to the possible cost 

of cutting and folding the additional marking of the word Jap an 

and presented a very handsome array of labels, how it is easily done 

with Jacquards and paint brushes and all the rest.

There happen to be a number of labels brought in by my company 

which are not folded and cut underneath. The face of the label 

is the entire label. It is pinked along the edges but that is it.

Now, in order to put the mark “Jap an ” on it, I would then have 

to add a quarter of an inch on either side and on one of the sides 

put in the word “Japan, so the cost is not a penny a thousand. I would 

have to increase the overall size of the label, quite an addition, and 

then have to cut and fold which is a more expensive proposition, and 

finally I would be producing an item which I could not sell.

Now, I don’t believe that this bill has as its-----

Mr. Curtin. Excuse me. Could I interrupt for a question at tha t 

point, Mr. Chairman ?

Do you mean to say that many of the labels tha t you import are not 

folded at all? They are just sewed into a garm ent with the raw 

edges showing ?

Mr. Shur. Yes, sir. With the pinked edges showing.

Air. Curtin. And what would be the additional cost if they were 

made a quarter of an inch wider to permit the folding under and 

sewing.

Mr. Siiur. I don't want to mislead and I don’t wan’t to come off the 

cuff with an answer th at may not be relevant, but I believe with the 

additional yarns, a quarter of an inch on either side of a 2-inch label, 

I am adding a half-inch to it and the cutting and folding which is a 

hand process, i t might increase—plus the duty on the increased cost 

to me—might well drive the cost per thousand up by so much as 25 

to 30 percent on the same label, and I know whereof I speak because I 

have done precisely this in the past and just did not weave the word
IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS 5 3

“Japa n” which was not necessary. These gentlemen who presumably 

have never bought a label in Japa n should not and cannot be the 

authority on what it would cost, Mr. Chandler notwithstanding. I 

deal with this business every day.

Mr. Curtin. Would the cost of weaving the word “Japan” or 

“Hong Kong” or “Netherlands” on the side of the label substantially 

increase the cost ?

Mr. Shur. Provided I have already got a cut and fold label with 

the additional label to it, the insertion of this word “Jap an ” would not 

make a dramatic difference. But I wouldn’t say a penny a thousand. 

I don’t know. Presumably he is in the importing business. Maybe 

he knows. I don’t know.

Mr. Curtin. Do you know, Mr. Clayson ?

Mr. Clayson. The question is not the kind of thing tha t you can 

answer so flatly. Our costs vary according to the width. A wider 

label costs so much to weave such and such a length and a narrower 

label less.

Mr. Siiur. I would like to make one other point which might be— 

I don’t know if I do it to illuminate or what, but I have an account 

who has a vast manufacturin g complex in Jamaica, the West Indies, 

and on his label he wants the name of his shirt, the size, and the words 

“Made in Jam aica ” on it. And on this label is included just that 

legend, “Made in Jamaica.” And I can just see myself selling him a 

label tha t says “Made in Jamaica,” “Made in Jap an.” It would be 

enough to confuse anybody, I think.

In addition to that, I have-----

Mr. Curtin. If I could i nterrup t again, I don’t think there is any 

proposed requirement that this mark on the label should say “made” 

m any country. I believe just the name of the country is what is being 

suggested.

Mr. Shur. Sir, may I suggest tha t a label tha t says made in Ja ­

maica-Japan would be confusing. And finally I have many accounts 

who on their label-----

Mr. Macdonald. On tha t very point I dont think you are correct. 

If I thought you were correct, I think I might change the bill because 

I introduced the bill.

We are talking about the bill tha t I introduced. And certainly I 

think it would be confusing if on the surface of the label it said made 

in Jam aica and then on the side of it i t said Ja pan , but tha t isn’t what 

is going to happen.

Mr. Siiur. But this very label-----

Mr. Macdonald. According to this bill.

Mr. Siiur. But, sir, this very label to which I allude-----

Mr. Macdonald. It says made in Jamaica on the front side and 

then it is the back pa rt th at has got the Jap an on it.

Mr. Shur. Mr. Chairman, respectfully I will tell you that this p articular label made in Japa n is not a cut and folded label. It is a 

pinked label. The label tha t says “Made in Jamaica” is not a cut 

and folded label. Now, I would have to rearrange his buying and 

thinking.

Mr. Macdonald. If it wouldn’t go on the side it could go in the 

back no matter what kind of label it was.

Mr. Siiur. There is no back.
54 IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS

Mr. Macdonald. There is no back to a label ?

Mr. S iiur. There is no back on which you could print or weave the 

word “Jap an” without defacing the front.

Air. Macdonald. You stagger my knowledge. If there is a front 

to something, there has to be a back to it.

Air. Siiur. Well, perhaps I am not clear on the point. This is 

precisely the kind of a label th at I refer to and on the face of i t it says 

“Made in Jamaica” or “Alade in the USA.” Now, where would I put 

the word “Jap an?”

Air. Macdonald. On the back.

Mr. Shur. Where ?

Air. AIacdonald. Well, I suppose right along here (indicating).

Air. Siiur. But that would deface the front.

Air. AIacdonald. Well, this would be folded over, I take it.

Air. Siiur. But that would be-----

Air. Macdonald. This isn’t folded over. Pu t it on here.

Air. Siiur. But then this is exposed, sir, and sewn in this fashion 

where the word “Japan” is easily seen.

Air. Curtin. Alay I interrup t ? Wh at would be wrong with using 

the word “Japa n,” or whatever the country is, on this attached edge, 

because when you sew it, even if you don’t fold it under, it would still 

be on the back of the label.

Air. Clayson. This garment shows it. The garment doesn’t have a 

place to sew it in.

Air. AIacdonald. I would hardly say, in all fairness, I don’t think 

that is perhaps a typical garment.

Mr. Ci jAyson. It is a very common procedure.

Air. Siiur. And probably a very big volume user of ours in the bargain. It is quite typical. You won’t be told this and there will be 

a lot of laughter, but we do sell a lot of labels for th at particular kind 

of garment.

Air. Clayson. Air. Chairman, we will make the statement under oath.

Air. Macdonald. Is this a lady’s garment ?

Air. Siiur. This is a lady’s garment.

Mr. AIacdonald. I have heard of the no-top new styles.

Air. Clayson. Like a slip-on. Like a vest.

Mr. Shur. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to point out tha t the 

“Alade in Jamaica” legend on the particular label to which I refe r is not 

unique because about 10 to 15 percent of my people in and around 

New York City use a label which gives th eir trade name and “Alade 

intheU .S.A .”

Now, the reason “Alade in the U.S.A.” was originally included into 

the label design was so that the customer will know that the garment 

was made in the U.S.A. Hence, it becomes an integral p art of the g arment. If it were under the flap or on the side or above or beyond or any 

place, if I would somehow tr y to get the word “J apan” in there, this 

would be subverting the intention of the garmentmaker to prove his 

garments are made in America.

Air. Macdonald. Does that about conclude your statement, sir?

Air. Siiur. I understand it is getting a little late. I stand alongside 

of Air. Clayson and I would like to say-----

Air. AIacdonald. You associate yourself with the remarks made by 

your colleague.
IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS 55

Mr. S iiur. Well, we are colleagues here at the moment, but as soon 

as we get back to New York, the gloves will go on.

Mr. Macdonald. Than k you both very much.

Mr. Siiur. Thank you.

Mr. Masaoka. Since Mr. Clayson and Mr. Shur have covered most 

of the material which I would have covered in a rather lengthy statement, with your permission I would like to have the statement incorporated as a part of the record.

Air. Macdonald. Without objection it will be made a part of the 

permanent record.

Air. Masaoka. I have three letters from three companies that use 

labels, Auburn Imp orting Corp., Aragon Woven Label Co., and Curtis 

Coleman Co., which I would like to submit for the record, all indicating that if the bill unde r consideration should be enacted into law, 

they will no longer buy labels from Japan.

Mr. Macdonald. AVithout objection they are received.

(The statement of Mr. Alasaoka together with the three letters 

referred to, follow :)

Statement of Association on Japanese Textile Imports, Inc., Opposing H.R. 7043 (Country of Origin Identification of I mported Woven Labels)

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Mike M. Masaoka, 

Washington representative for the Association on Japanese Textile Imports, 

Inc., a New York trad e association whose members are responsible for more 

than 70 i>ereent of all textiles imported from Japan by the United States.

We appear in opposition to H.R. 7043. a bill “To amend th e Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 in order to 

require tha t imported labels must have woven into them the name of the 

country where woven.”

By way of explaining our testimony this year, although we were very much 

opi»osed to similar legislation in the last Congress, we did not appear to testify 

against tha t measure because, with every Government department and agency 

involved expressing official objection to the bill, we erroneously concluded tha t 

it would not be necessary to make an appea’ance.

This year, however, we requested this opportunity to submit facts and arguments which we tru st will persuade this subcommittee to determine that this 

legislation is neither necessary nor justified. Indeed, we believe that its enactment would only create problems and would violate the spirit and the principle 

of our Nation’s Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and jeopardize current American 

efforts at Geneva, during the so-called Kennedy round of GATT negotiations, 

to secure the elimination of nontariff barriers to world trade, for without question in our minds the consequences of this proposed legislation would be to 

impose import restrictions of the type th at we deplore.

Since we are not technicians or experts in the field of textiles generally and 

of woven labels particularly, we are pleased that two major importers of woven 

labels, Monroe Clayson of Harvard Labels, Inc., and Harold Schur of Cavalier 

Label Co., Inc., both of New York, are present to testify and to answer questions from their experience and knowledge regarding the implications involved 

in H.R. 7943 and similar legislation.

From our discussions with them, and with other importers, we are convinced 

tha t this bill is not as simple as it may appear on its face and that its actual 

and practical effect will be to drastically reduce and curtail the importation 

of Japanese woven labels into the United States. Indeed, we have been informed 

by some importers that their customers have told them quite emphatically tha t 

enactment of H.R. 7943, or similar legislation, would cause them to refuse to 

use Japanese woven labels.

Thus, in spite of what may be advanced to justify this legislation, H.R. 7943 

is in fact a bill to restric t the importation of Japanese woven labels.

We regret to confess what domestic weavers of woven labels are most conscious of, that—unfortunately for the Japanese manufacturers and exporters—• 

because of misunderstandings of what actually took place, of pas t trade practices
56 IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS

and experiences th at ar e no lo nger valid, and of lat en t and even active prej udice 

again st the Japane se and “thin gs” Japa nese , the “Made in Ja pa n” identificati on 

is too often with too many Americans an appeal to emotional resen tmen t, sales 

resis tanc e, and even i mport discrimina tion.

And these unf ort unate reac tions contin ue despite th e gene rally outstan ding 

barga ins of supe rior work manship th at mar k most Jap ane se imports at this 

time and the genuinely mutual ly advantag eous aspe cts and rela tion ships in 

United Sta tes- Jap an trade.

In the las t Congress, an iden tica l bill H.R. 4994 was subm itted to the Fed era l 

Tr ade Commission, the Dep artm ent of State, the Dep artm ent of Commerce, the 

Departme nt of the Tre asury, and the Bureau of the Bud get for comments and 

recommendations.

According to Rep ort No. 1417 of the House of Represe ntat ives , 88th Congress, 

2d session, May 19G4, all of the Government dep artm ents and agencies to which 

an identi cal bill was referred recommended again st ena ctm ent of the legislation.

The Fede ral Tra de Commission wrote the cha irm an of this committee in pa rt 

as follows: “The Commission is of the opinion that it would be very difficult, 

adm inis trativel y, to police thi s matt er of labels in add itio n to the labeling of 

prod ucts to which the labels ar e atta che d, and, furth er, th at this is n ot necessary

fo r the pro tection of the ultim ate consumer.

“It is our opinion that the enactm ent of the s ubject 6IZZ would cause confusion

wher e a prospective pur cha ser of a tex tile p roduct, woven in one country, noted

th at there was atta che d thereto a label which disclosed th at the labels were

woven in an other co untry.

“The Commission opposes enac tme nt of H.R. 4994.” [Em pha sis supp lied. ]

The Sta te Dep artm ent also wrote the cha irm an of thi s committee, sta tin g th at 

“It is the view of the Dep artm ent of Sta te th at the provision s of exis ting law as 

prese ntly interp rete d with resp ect to the markin g of woven labe ls are reaso nable 

and should be allowed to stan d. The garm ent ma nu fac tur er or proces sor would 

app ear to be the last person in the series of comme rcial users who would be in 

a position to exercise an indep endent personal judgm ent as to the accepta bility 

of the importe d label and is, consequently, prop erly to be rega rded as the ‘ultimate pur chaser’.

“A princ ipal objecti on to a requ irem ent th at foreig n-mad e labels be ind ividu ally marked is th at if such a label should be affixed to a U.S. produ ct, the 

prod uct itse lf would very likely be regarded by prosp ective buyer s as of foreign 

origin. The effect of the proposed amendment, if enacted into law, would, therefore, be to defe at the purpo se of norm al markin g regulat ions, which is to prevent deception of the purchas er. Moreover, the singling out of a small class of 

par ts, such as labels, for exception from the general rule s imposed und er the 

laws would not seem to be de sirab le adm inistrative pract ice.

“The applicati on of marking requ irem ents to imp orted woven labels would

doubtless be inte rpr eted abro ad as the impo sition of a new trade res tric tio n by

the United States. Such an impre ssion will not be help ful to our neg otiat ions

under the Trad e Exp ansi on Act, n or will it aid us in securing remov al of foreign

rest rictions affecting o ur expo rts * * *.

“Fo r the reaso ns set for th above, the De partm ent of Sta te is opposed to the 

enactmen t of H.R. 4 904.” [Em pha sis supplied.]

The Commerce Departme nt rep ort to the cha irm an of thi s committee emph asized th at “The Departme nt of Commerce sup ports the long-e stablis hed req uirement now embodied in section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 tha t, recognizing 

certain exceptions, e ach imported article p roduced a bro ad mus t be legibly marked 

with the name of the country of origin in English so as to indic ate to the ul timate purchaser in the United Sta tes where the art icl e was originall y produced 

or man ufac tured . The Dep artm ent sup ports equally the principle embodied in 

the several exemptions from markin g require men ts auth oriz ed or requ ired by 

th at section, th at the r equ irem ent should no t be so a pplied as to impose an undu e

burden on for eign commerce.

“In the past, ma nufac tur ers and processors have been rega rded as the ul timate purc hase rs of labels. On t his b asis, subsec tion 3 (H ) of section 304 requ ires 

no country of origin identificati on for labels used by these busine ss groups. 

The D epartment of Commerce favors the re tention of thi s principle.

“To go fu rth er tha n the pres ent law app ears to be an unne cessary change in 

the ex isting int erp retation of an ‘ulti ma te purch ase r’ as the term applies to users 

of labels. Labels have been, and should continue to be, rega rded as a component in the overall manuf acturin g process, the country of origin having litt le
IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS 5 7

or no sig nific an ce to th e re ta il co ns um er. I t is, th er ef or e, su ffi cien t th at on ly

th e ou te r co nt ai ne r of th e lab els be m ar ke d so as to re as on ab ly in dic ate th e

co un tr y of o rigi n to th e m anufa ctu re r or p rocessor.

“C us toms re gula tions pr es cr ib e th a t w her e an im po rted labe l on an art ic le 

w ith which it is co mbine d show s th e co untr y of or ig in of th e labe l an d th e 

co un tr y na me is vis ibl e, th e c ou nt ry of or ig in of t h e l ab el sh al l be prefixed by th e 

word ‘lab el ’, as ‘label mad e in H ol la nd ’. As a p ra cti cal co ns id er at io n, ho wev er, 

m an y do m es tica lly pr od uc ed art ic le s do no t len d th em se lv es to m ark in g an d th e

lab el is th e on ly f ea si ble plac e to sh ow th e co untr y o f or ig in of th e pr od uc t being

m ar ke te d. In su ch in stan ce s, re ta il co ns um er s w ou ld in a ll pro ba bi lity in te rp re t

th e or igin in fo rm ati on as per ta in in g to th e pr od uc t as w el l as th e label. Co nsequ en tly , th e prop osed or ig in re qu ir em en t on art ic le s th at are to be used by a

m anufa ctu re r wou ld in m any cases be m isle ad in g to th e bu ying pu bli c.

“F or th es e re as on s, th e D ep ar tm en t of Co mm erc e is op po sed to th e en ac tm en t 

of H.R. 4994 .”

Si gn ifi ca ntly , th e Co mm erc e D ep ar tm en t ad ds th e post sc ri pt th a t “Th e Depart m en t under st ands th a t th e do mes tic w ove n labe l in dust ry ha s be en sub je ct ed

to co ns ider ab le pr es su re s fr o m co mpe tin g im po rt ed pr od uc ts. How ev er, it is no t 

be lie ve d th a t a di sc us si on of th is prob lem is re le vant to th e issu es ra is ed by 

H.R . 4994.” [ Em pha si s su pp lie d. 1

The D ep art m ent of th e T re as ury , in it s re co m m en da tion s to th e ch air m an of 

th is c om m itt ee , re ve al s th a t “W hi le th e F edera l T ra d e Co mmiss ion is re sp on sibl e 

fo r en fo rc in g th e T exti le F ib er Pro duct s Id en tifi ca tion Act and th e Wool P ro duct s Lab el in g Act, th e bi ll wou ld see m to pr ov id e th a t th e cu stom s se rv ic e ha ve 

th e re sp on si bi lity to see th a t im po rted wo ven la bel s are m ar ke d as re qu ired .

“T he B ure au of Cus to m s of th is D ep ar tm en t has ru le d th a t th e m anufa ctu re r 

in th e U nited S ta te s of art ic le s to which wo ven la be ls are affixed is th e ‘ult im ate 

p u rc h ase r’ of th e im po rted art ic le w ith in th e m ea ni ng of se ction 304(a ) of th e 

T ari ff Act of 1930, as am en de d, in ac co rd an ce w ith th e pri nci ple of th e de cision 

in th e ca se of U ni ted S ta te s v. Gibso n- Th om se n Co., In c. (191)0) 27 CC PA 267. 

W ov en labe ls are ex em pt fr om in di vid ual m ar kin g to in dic ate th e countr y of 

or ig in under se ct ion 3 0 4 (a )(3 )(D ) of th e T ari ff Act if th ey are im po rted in 

conta in ers legible an d co ns pi cu ou sly m ar ked to in dic at e th e co untr y of or ig in 

of th e co nte nts an d th e co llec to r of cu stom s a t th e po rt of en tr y is sa tisf ied th a t 

th e labe ls will re ac h th e ‘ul ti m ate p u rc h ase r’ in su ch un op en ed co nt ai ne r.

“No ev iden ce ha s been su bm it te d to th e T re asu ry D ep art m en t th a t th e ex ­

ce pt io n fr om m ark in g o f wov en labe ls under se ction 304(a ) (3 ) (D ) of th e Tar if f 

A ct is no t ap pr op ri at e or ha s re su lted i n m isle ad in g th e U.S. ‘ulti m ate purc haser *

a s defin ed above. I f a vali d case is to be mad e, it sh ou ld be mad e, in th e firs t

in stan ce , to th e T re asu ry D ep ar tm en t.

“A s th e P re si dent sa id a t th e tim e of th e sign in g of th e T ra d e Exp an sion Act 

on Octob er 11, 1962, th e bes t pr ote ct io n po ssible fo r our econom y is a m utu al 

lo w er in g of ta ri ff b a rr ie rs am on g fr ie ndly nati ons so th a t all m ay be ne fit from 

a fr ee flow of goo ds. This pu rp os e w ou ld be com pro mised , i f th e U nited Sta te s

wer e to re so rt to in dir ec t m et hod s (s uc h as un ne ce ss ar y m ar ki ng re qui re m en ts )

fo r re st ri ct io n o f im po rt s. T he T re asu ry D ep ar tm en t, th er ef ore , do es not fa vor 

th e ena ct m en t o f H.R . 49 94.” f Em ph as is sup plied . 1

T he A ss is ta nt D ir ecto r fo r Leg is la tive Referen ce , of t h e B ure au o f th e B ud ge t, 

of th e Exe cu tive Office of th e P re si den t, in a le tt e r to th e ch ai rm an of th is comm it te e no te d th a t th e D ep ar tm ents of Sta te , T re asu ry , an d Co mm erc e, an d th e 

Fed er al T ra de Co mmiss ion “h av e al l opposed H.R. 4994 in th eir re port s to you r 

co mm itt ee . T he B ure au of th e Bud ge t co nc ur s in th e co mm en ts m ad e by th e 

ab ov e ag en cies, and ac co rd in gl y reco mmen ds again st en ac tm en t of th e bill.”

The W as hi ng to n Post ne w sp ap er fo r Aug us t 21, 1964, fe atu re d an edit ori al 

entitled “L ab elin g Lab el s,” in which it was st at ed th a t “T he 8 8th Co ng res s, ju stl y 

pra is ed by th e P re si dent fo r it s ac co mplishm en ts, seem s to be ben t on su llyin g 

a m ag ni fic en t re co rd w ith a se ri es of kn ow -nothing pro te ct io nis t mea su re s. I ts 

mo st lu di cr ou s bra in ch ild is a bil l re qu ir in g th a t labe ls wo ven in a fo re ig n 

co untr y ha ve in se rted in th e w ea ve th e na m e of th e co untr y in which it w as 

wo ven. Thi s re qu ir em en t, de sign ed to hara ss im po rter s, mig ht also wor k to 

th e be w ild er m en t of co ns um er s. The lab el on an ex pe ns iv e sw ea te r knit te d in 

E ng la nd m ig ht r ea d ‘Made in H on g Kon g.’ ”

In th e la st Co ng ress, th is co m m itt ee ap par en tly de cid ed to dis re gard th e re com m en da tio ns of th e adm in is tr ati on be cause, ac co rd in g to th e co mm itt ee re port 

No. 141 7: “D ur in g th e hear in gs on th is legi slatio n, w itn es se s testified th a t th e 

pra ct ic e of re pa ck ag in g of wo ven labe ls, pri or to th e sa le to th e gar m en t m an u-
58 IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS

fa ctu re r, de ce ives th e m anufa ctu re r into be lie ving th e labe ls are of American 

or ig in an d co ns eq ue nt ly re su lts in th w art in g of th e cu stom s laws ap plica bl e to 

all finish ed pr od uc ts im po rted in to th e U ni te d Sta te s. ”

Thi s al le ga tion is di re ct ly co ntr ary to th e st ate m ent of th e T re asu ry De ­

pa rt m en t. in it s le tt er to th e chai rm an of th is co mm itt ee dat ed No ve mbe r 4, 1963, 

an d pr ev io us ly r efe rr ed to ear lier .

At th a t tim e, it w as cl ea rly em ph as ized th a t “ATo ev iden ce lias been su bm it te d

to the Tre as ur y D ep ar tm en t th at th e ex ce pt ion fr om m ar ki ng o f w ov en labe ls * * *

is no t appro pri ate or ha s re su lted in m isle ad in g the U.8 . 'u lt im ate pu rc ha se r'

(w hi ch th e Cus tom s B ure au has ru le d is th e m anufa ctu re r of art ic le s to wh ich 

wo ven labe ls a re af fixe d) .” [ Em ph as is su pp lie d.]

Be yo nd th is , th a t le tt er sp ec ifi ca lly su gg es ted th a t “If a va lid ca se is to be 

mad e, it sh ou ld be made, in th e first in st an ce , to th e T re asu ry D ep ar tm en t.”

If th e de ce pt ive an d m isle ad in g pra ct ic e al le ge d by th e do mes tic wo ven lab el 

m anufa ctu re rs is so pre val en t or co mmon place, wh y do not th es e sa m e m an ufa ctu re rs t ak e a nd p ro ve the se ch ar ge s to th e Cu sto ms B ure au an d not th e T re as ­

ury D ep ar tm en t?

Ac co rding to an in fo rm al an d uno fficia l ch eck w ith th e Cus toms B ur ea u, no 

official co m pl ai nt s ha ve bee n lod ge d again st im po rter s in “rec en t yea rs ,” th a t 

is, pe rh ap s in th e la st 5 yea rs , char gin g th es e im port er s w ith rem ov ing ro lls 

of im po rted wo ven labe ls fr om th eir or ig in al co nta in er s an d th en sh ipping 

them to A m er ic an a pp ar el m ak er s as U.S. wo ven lab els .

We unders ta nd th a t th e Cus tom s B ure au has spe cific re gula tions co verin g 

su ch m er ch an di se as wo ven labe ls, in ord er th a t th e cu tt ers or m anufa ctu re rs 

of ga rm en ts, am on g ot he rs , w ill no t be m isled or def ra ude d, and th a t it police s 

im po rter s to a ss ure complian ce .

Moreover, as fa r as we ha ve bee n ab le to asc er ta in , th e F edera l T ra de Com ­

mission has no t issu ed ce as e- an d- de sist ord er s again st an y im port ers of woven 

labe ls fo r th e u n fa ir tr ad e pra ct ic es alle ge d by th e do mes tic m an ufa ct ure rs .

We re sp ec tfully ur ge th a t th is su bc om m itte e requ es t th e B ure au of Cu sto ms 

an d th e F edera l T ra d e Co mm iss ion to re port co nc er ni ng th es e ve ry se riou s 

ch ar ge s m ad e by th e d om es tic wo ven la bel in du st ry , fo r th ey su gg es t th a t America n im port er s are vi ol at in g th e law an d re gu la tions on a w id es pr ea d ba sis 

an d th a t th e appro pri ate G ov er nm en t ag en cies a re la x in en fo rc in g th es e laws 

an d re gul at io ns th a t w er e pro m ul ga te d to sa fe guar d th e people, in cl ud in g th e 

“ult im at e co ns um er s,” from unfa ir , de ce ptive, an d fr audule nt pr ac tice s.

F urt her m ore , we su bm it th a t th e do m es tic wo ven labe l m anufa ctu re rs exhaust 

th e adm in is tr ati v e re m ed ies avai la ble to them be fo re comi ng to th e Con gress 

fo r le gi sl at iv e re li ef if, in fa ct , th eir pri m ary re as on fo r se ek ing th is re st ri cti ve 

legi slat io n is to pre ven t th e ki nd of u n fa ir an d m isle ad in g pra ct ic es of wh ich 

they co mplain .

Tf. on th e oth er ha nd , th e do mes tic wo ven lab el in dust ry seek s to redu ce th e 

quanti ty of wo ven lab el im po rts en te re d in to th is co un try, th en we re sp ec tful ly 

su gg es t th a t th eir re co ur se , ac co rd in g to th e laws an d pr oc ed ur es es ta bl is he d by 

th e Co ng res s, is to ap pe al to th e T ari ff Co mm iss ion fo r su ch re li ef as they ma y 

de sire in th e way of eit h er or bo th in cr ea se d ta ri ff s or spec ial re st ri ct io ns su ch 

as a q uo ta, or o th er a d ju stm en t as si st an ce .

Bec au se of th e trem en do us ly fie rce and no to riou sly c u tt h ro a t co mpe tit ion 

w ithin th e tr ad es that, us e wo ven labe ls, such as th e garm en t in du st ry , an d 

be ca us e of th e econo mic re ali ti es of in te rn ati onal comm erc e, it is dif ficult fo r 

us to conceiv e th a t Amer ican u se rs of w oven lab els, in cl ud in g th e so -called c utt ers 

an d m anufa ctu re rs of api>arel w ea r, fo r in stan ce , are no t ve ry mu ch aw ar e 

of w he th er th ey are purc has in g do m es tic or im po rted wo ven lab els .

Ther e is th e m att er of price. Im ported labe ls ha ve to sell fo r less th an th e 

do mestic item . If th is d ifferenc e be tw ee n th e im po rted a nd dom estic m er ch an di se 

is re du ce d to th e level th a t it is no lo ng er w or th w hi le fo r th e us er s of woven 

labe ls to u se i m po rted labe ls, st ri ctl y as a m att er of b us in es s prof it an d los s th ey 

will st op u sing i m po rte d wo ven labe ls.

Th en , th ere is th e m att er of del iv er y tim e. Delivery tim e fo r im po rted ite ms 

fro m Ja pan, fo r ex am ple, is ap pro xim at el y 4 mon ths, co mpa re d to a ppro xi m at el y 

3 to 4 weeks fo r do mestic wo ven labe ls. Ev en if in sp ec ia l si tu ati ons Ja panese 

labe ls are jet-fl ow n in. a t g re atl y in cr ea se d cost, on ly about a mon th in tim e is 

saved.

Ther e is al so th e m att er of c on st ru ct io n, in cl ud in g size and fib er of ya rn s, th e 

w ea ving pro cess, th e cutt in g pr oc ed ur es , etc . W e hav e been in fo rm ed th a t 

American wo ven la be l looms ge ne ra lly are fa ste r and mor e efficient th an th e
IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS 59

Ja panese looms. W e hav e be en give n to unders ta nd th a t som e American loo ms 

pr od uc e as m an y as 72 sep ara te labe ls a t one tim e, as again st on ly 17 to 19 on 

Ja panese looms, and th a t th es e American looms wea ve a t a mu ch fa ste r speed 

th an do th eir Ja panese counte rp art s. We ha ve also been to ld th at th e wea ving 

of labe ls in Jap an is no t a s p re ci se a s it is in th e U nited Sta te s, which m ea ns th a t 

th e labe ls m ay vary sl ig htl y w ithin th e ro lls . T his is wh y so man y Ja panese 

wo ven labe ls a re cu t and fo ld ed by han d and are a i>art of th e co ttag e in dust ry 

pr og ra m in Ja p an , w her ea s m os t U.S. wo ven labe ls are cu t an d folded qu ickl y 

an d efficiently by auto m ati c mac hine s.

T he sp ec ia l pr ob lems in vo lv ed in Ja panese wo ven labe ls ac co un t fo r th e fa ct 

th at, ac co rd in g to th e “e duc at ed gu es s” of t he Jap an T ex tile P ro duct s E xport ers ' 

A ss oc ia tio n sinc e spe cific br ea kd ow ns are no t av ai la bl e, ex por ts of Ja pan es e 

wo ven labe ls in th e c ut fo rm const it ute 95 pe rc en t or mo re, an d in roll fo rm only 

5 pe rc en t or les s. Moreover-, also a cc or di ng to the “ejlu ca ted gu es s” of t he Ja pan es e T ex tile P ro duc ts E xport ers ’ Assoc iatio n, so-call ed bra nd na me, or sp ec ially de sig ne d, labe ls 

m ak e up abou t 80 per ce nt or m or e of Ja panese labe ls ex po rted to th e United 

Sta te s, while so -call ed s to ck labe ls, su ch a s t ho se in di ca ting th e size, as L, M, an d 

S. and A. B, etc ., m ak e up about 20 perc ent or le ss of th e shipmen ts.

Acc or ding to a n um ber o f i m po rt er s, t he se J apanese e xport fig ures a re m uc h too 

conse rv at iv e; th a t is, th a t th e quanti ti es of cu t labe ls an d bra nd na m e labe ls 

im po rted in to th e U nited S ta te s const it ute a hig her per ce nt ag e th an thos e est im at ed by th e Ja pa nes e.

Of in te re st may be d a ta of th e U.S . D ep art m ent of Co mm erc e, sh ow ing th a t 

A m er ic an im po rts of wo ven la be ls in 1962 am ou nte d to 433,735 po un ds, va lu ed 

a t $1,1 53,288 ; in 1963, 369,489 po un ds , va lu ed a t $1,013 ,004; and in 1964, 420,221 

po un ds , va lu ed a t $1,392,873.

Acc or ding to th e te st im on y of a do mes tic in dust ry w itn es s, a t hea ri ngs he ld 

on No ve mbe r 6, 1963, a t th a t tim e it w as as su m ed th a t Am er ic an co ns um ptio n 

of all wo ven labe ls w as ab out $25 mill ion in doll ar volum e. Ac ce pting th a t 

to ta l fig ure, im po rts di d not const it ute th e su b sta n ti al portio n of co ns um ption, 

whi ch w as est im at ed a t about 25 pe rc en t, which th e in dust ry w itn es s also 

as su m ed . In 1962, th e d o ll ar vo lume of wo ven labe l im po rts w er e on ly 

$1,153 ,288, and in 1963, on ly $1,013,004, ac co rd in g to our D epar tm en t of Co mmerce st ati st ic s, ra th e r t h an th e $6% mill ion su gg es ted a t th a t tim e.

Also of in te re st m ay be Co mmerce D ep ar tm en t in fo rm at io n th a t confirm s th a t 

Ja p a n is now, an d h as been fo r a t le ast th e p ast 3 ye ar s, th e m aj or su pplier 

of im po rted wo ven labe ls. In 1964, Ja p an was re sp on sibl e fo r 411,444 po un ds 

of wo ven labe ls, va lu ed a t $1,364,459.

Ja p an ese w ea vi ng and ex port in g of wo ven la be ls are p a rt of th e ef fo rt of 

th e Ja panese te xti le in dust ry to div er sify th eir te x ti le ex por ts to th e U ni ted 

S ta te s, a pr og ra m en co ur ag ed and en do rs ed by bo th th e U.S. Gov ernm en t an d 

th e A m er ic an texti le indust ry .

May we ad d from our ow n ex pe rien ce par en th et ic al ly , th a t th e Ja panese te x ­

ti le in dust ry is be comi ng in cr ea si ng ly di sc ou ra ge d about it s ef fo rts to di ve rs if y 

ex port s to th e U ni te d Sta te s, fo r it see ms th a t w he ne ve r th e Ja panese do be gin 

to export in an y ap pr ec ia bl e quanti ti es an y ne w pr od uc t, some se gm en t of th e 

Amer ican te xti le in dust ry im m ed ia te ly att em pts to re str ic t th e entr y of th a t 

ne w m er ch an di se . So -ca lle d co nc en tr at io n of th e Ja panese in a select, fe w item s w ill ne ve r be 

av oide d if th e U.S . in dust ri es co nc erne d do not en co ur ag e an d pr om ote th e 

di ve rs if ic at io n of exp or ts. Dom estic in dust ry spok esmen in dic at e th a t a pri nci pal re as on fo r th e op po sition ex pr es se d by var io us G ov er nm en t ag en cies to th e prop os ed le gi sl at io n is 

du e to th e m is under st an din g th a t th e co un try of or ig in m ar kin g wo uld be 

visible, and th er ef ore co nf us ing, to th e re ta il co ns um er of th e fin ish ed pr od uc t 

to w hi ch th e wov en labe l wou ld be affixed. Dom es tic in d u st ry spok esmen in sis t th a t th is co untr y of or ig in iden tifica tion 

co uld be wo ven on th e tu rn over section of th e wo ven lab el, an d ac co rd in gly, 

wou ld be he lp fu l to th e m anufa ctu re r or pr oc es so r wh o us es su ch wo ven labe ls 

on th e ir f inishe d ar ticl e, w hi le b ein g co nc ea led from th e fin al co ns um er.

W e a re ho pe fu l th a t our im port er w itn es se s will be ab le to cla ri fy th is pr ob ­

lem an d to dem onst ra te th a t in man y, if no t in mos t ca ses, th e su gg es tio n of 

th e d om es tic in dust ry is not pra cti cal an d re al is tic. Fro m w h at we ha ve be en to ld by im po rter s, th er e are man y ty pe s of wo ven 

labe ls th a t a re no t appro pri ate fo r tu rn over po rtions .
60 IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS

These include such labels as are on the outside sleeves of men's coats and 

other apparel which are intended to be cut off and removed by the eventual 

wearer. If a “Made in Japa n’’ mark ing was woven on the turn ove r section, the 

retail customer would see and thin k th at it was delib erately concealed in order 

to overcome wha teve r his prejudic es mig ht be to the “Made in Ja pa n” 

identification.

There are other labels on which the coun try of man ufactur e of the finished 

product, such as "Made in U.S.A.,” or on which the name of the ma nuf act ure r 

and often the city or community where located, such as II. Freem an of Phi lade lphia, or the name of the retailer and place of business, as Raleigh Hab erdasher 

of Washington, might be designated. To add a “Made in Ja pa n” marking might 

make it most confusing if, as in so many cases, the woven label is stitc hed in 

such a loose m anner tha t it may be ea sily removed, or even come off on its own 

with a li ttle wear.

Moreover, many garments, for example, have so many labels on them, such 

as the b rand name of th e maker, the fiber content, the size, wash ing instr uctio ns, 

etc., th at the possibilities of a label becoming loose and coming off have been 

grea tly increased. If a “Made in Ja pa n” mark ing is woven in the turnov er section, the person who eventually sees th at identific ation is misled into believing 

that e ithe r the Japa nese or the ma nufac tur er delibe rately tried to hide th at country-of-orig in mark ing from his knowledge at the time of his pu rchase.

Furth ermore, with such new innovation s as “wash and wea r,” more wea ring apparel are being hand washed, or washed in machine s at home, or at public 

laund roma ts, than ever before. Even home and self-dr yclean ing machine s are 

more popu lar now. All these tren ds cause more and more housewives, among 

others, to become aware of loose labels and to cut them off in many instan ces 

right after purchase. Thus, country of origin m arkin gs on the r everse and hidden 

side of labels when first seen on article s of appar el, etc., add to the impression 

of delib erate concealment.

Then, too, there are many woven labels th at are stitch ed to an arti cle on one 

side only, such as those denotin g the size of a shirt, or blouse. These labels 

flap from side to side, and might be sewn on one side over ano ther label, and a 

"Made in Japa n” marking on the so-called underside of the label could only create 

the notion th at the en tire produ ct w as mad e in J apan.

Also, there are many small labels, such as those referr ed to above desi gnat ­

ing general or specific sizes. To requ ire that country-of-origin markings be 

woven into such small labels would force the labels themselves to be increase d 

to more cumbersome sizes.

We thin k that the short summ ary of some of the problems in connection with 

the proposed legislation expla ins why Jap ane se expo rts of woven labels consist 

of 70 percent or more in the pinked and looped miter hold type s and less tha n 

30 percent in the cut hold types, according to the educa ted guess of the Jap an 

Textile Products E xpo rter s’ Association.

The pinked and loo[>er m iter hold tyi»es cannot have turn ed over sections added 

with out considerable trou ble and expense. And, the cut hold tyi>es th at are 

more susceptible to country of origin mark ings on the ir turnover sides would, 

because of thei r flap cha racteristic s, add confusion of the even tual wea rer or 

user of the finished product on w hich the label is used.

Our information, con trar y to th at of spokesmen for the domestic woven label 

industry, is tha t the requ irem ents of the proposed bill for country-of-origin 

markings would add s ubs tantially to th e cost of imported labels.

In dolla r terms, the increased costs may not seem sub stantial because woven 

labels are sold in mass volume members, in lots of hundred s and thousands.

To t he Japanese weaver of woven labels, however, infor mation from the Jap an 

Textile Produc ts Exp orte rs’ Association suggests tha t, rela tively speakin g and 

percentagewise, this increa sed cost can be most significant in wheth er Americans 

will continue to p urcha se J apa nes e woven labels or not.

In most instances, slightly more cloth will have to be used, not only to perm it 

the country-of-origin marking to be woven in but also to enable tlie turnov er 

section to be t urne d over withou t seriously harm ing the front, side of the label. 

And, as with most brand-nam e labels, the cut ting and folding opera tion will be 

slowed as more care will have to be tak en in th is process.

Rough estimates of the increa sed cost supplied us suggests tha t the added 

expenses of weaving, cuttin g, and folding Japane se labels would vary from about 

6 to 77 percent of c urr ent costs.
IMPORTED WOVEN LAB ELS 61

Th e Amer ican ta il o r or m an u fa ctu re r of gar m en ts, on th e oth er ha nd , wou ld 

hav e to m ak e cert ain th a t th e ir la be ls a re more ca re fu lly st itch ed on , m ak in g 

su re th a t th e co un try- of -o rigi n m ark in g is hi dd en . T his not on ly slow s up th e 

pro du ct iv ity of th e in div id ual w ork er s invo lved but al so may re quir e a st ro nger 

an d more ex pe ns iv e th re ad fo r th e st itch in g. It is se lf- ev id en t th a t th e co sts 

of ju st th is sing le opera ti on will in cre ase th e co sts of us in g Jap an ese la be ls 

su bst an ti al ly , perh ap s en ou gh to m ak e it unp ro fita bl e fo r th em to c ontinue to us e 

Ja panese w ov en la be ls.

An d, th e cr ea se cr eate d by th e tu rn edover se ction co nta in in g th e co un try- of - 

or ig in m ar ki ng pr od uc es th e ro ugher ed ge th a t will ca us e th e labe ls to w ear off 

more qu ickly th an a t pre se nt under fr equent han dl in g an d was hing , etc., th er eb y 

on ly ad di ng to th e co nf us io n of th e even tu al w eare r an d use r as to w heth er 

on ly th e labe l or th e en ti re pro duct w as m ad e in Jap an o r some o th er fo re ig n 

co un try.

In su m m ar y and co nc lusion , on behalf of th e Assoc iatio n on Ja panese T ex ti le 

Im po rts, Inc., an d esi»ec ially ou r im port ers of wov en labe ls, we re sp ec tfully ur ge 

th at II. R. 7043 no t be e na ct ed in to la w.

1. We be lie ve th a t th e pr op os ed co un try- of -o rigi n iden tifica tion fo r al l wo ven 

labe ls is neit her nec es sa ry nor ju st if ie d in fa ct fo r th e pro te ct io n of m an ufa ctu re rs , pr oc es so rs, and o th ers who us e wov en la bel s on th eir fin ish ed pr od uc ts . 

As th e D epar tm en ts of Sta te , Co mm erc e, an d th e T re asu ry an d th e Fed er al 

T ra de Co mmiss ion ha ve re port ed to th e chair m an of th is co mmitt ee , th e pre se nt 

lega l re quir em en ts a re sufficie nt.

2. We be lie ve th a t if th e in q o rte rs an d oth er s a re re pa ck in g an d rebo xi ng 

im po rted wo ven labe ls and m is le ad in g m anufa ctu re rs , proc es so rs, and oth er 

use rs co nc er ni ng th e fo re ig n or ig in of th e ir labe ls, th e pro per re co ur se is to th e 

B ure au of th e Cus tom s and th e F edera l T ra d e Co mm iss ion, bo th of which ha ve 

lega l re sp on si bilitie s to pre ven t de ce ptive, fr audule nt, and u n fa ir tr a d e p ra ct ic es . 

I f th e al le ga tion s of th e do mes tic wo ven labe l in d u str y a re tr ue, th e la w is 

be ing vi ol at ed an d th e qu es tion is one of la w en fo rc em en t, no t new le gi slat io n.

3. We be lie ve th a t th e pr op os ed co un try- of -o rigi n m ar kin gs fo r wov en la be ls 

will , as re por te d by th e Sta te , Co mm erc e, and T re asu ry D ep ar tm en ts and th e 

F edera l T ra d e Co mm iss ion, only se rv e to co nf us e and co nfou nd , an d po ss ibly 

to mislead , th e re ta il purc hase r as to th e co untr y of or ig in of th e fin ishe d 

pro ducts to which th e wo ven labe ls a re affixed. The qu es tion wou ld be w heth er 

th e co untr y of or ig in re fe rr ed on ly to th e labe l or also to th e fin ish ed ite m .

4. W e believe th a t th e pr op os al of th e do m es tic in dust ry spok esmen th a t 

th e co un try- of -o rigi n m ar kin g be wo ven on th e tu rn over section of th e la be ls 

an d th en st itch ed on in su ch a m an ne r as to co nc ea l co un try- of -o rig in id en tifica ­

ti on fr om th e re ta il co ns um er is im pra ct ic al , unre ali st ic , ex pe ns ive, and ev en 

more confusing.

T he do mes tic in dust ry su gg es tio n, de ve lope d to ov erco me th e ob je ct io ns of th e 

ad m in is tr ati on th a t co un try- of -o rigi n m ar kin gs on wov en labe ls wou ld be co nfu si ng to th e re ta il cu stom er , is im pra ct ic al be ca us e it is ba sed on tw o fa ls e assu m pt io ns . On e is th a t all wov en labe ls are c om pletely st it ched aro und whe n a ffix ed to th e fin ish ed appar el or oth er pr od uc t. The oth er is th a t th es e wo ven 

la bel s will ne ve r be rem ov ed , or come off. and th er eb y re ve al th e co nc ea led co un ­

try- of -o rigi n iden tifica tion of th e labe l only. Both of th es e as su m pt io ns, as we 

ha ve co mm en ted earl ie r, simply are not tr u e re flec tion s of tr ad e and in d u st ry 

pr ac tice .

It is no t re ali st ic be ca us e th ere are so m an y dif fe re nt kin ds and sh ap es of 

wo ven labe ls, so m an y diffe re nt us es fo r them , and so m an y dif fe re nt w ay s in 

whi ch t he y may b e a tt ached t o t he f inish ed a rt ic le of m anufa ctu re .

It is ex pe ns iv e be ca use, in mos t ca ses, some addit io nal clot h wou ld be ne ed ed 

to pro vi de th e ex tr a sp ac e fo r th e co un try- of -o rig in id en tifi ca tion an d th e tu rn ­

ov er se ction, mor e care wou ld be ne ed ed to cut and fo ld th e wov en lab els, and 

ev en m or e care an d tr ouble wou ld be ne ed ed on th e p a rt of th e pr oc es so r to 

m ak e cert ain th a t th e co un try- of -o rig in m ar kin gs wou ld be co mpletely conc ea led 

to th e pr os pe ct iv e cu st om er an d th a t th e la be l is se w n on in su ch a m anner an d 

pl ac e th a t it w ill not. re ad il y become det ac he d or some st it chin g come loose.

It is ev en mor e co nf us in g th an th e pla in ly visibl e a t fi rs t gl an ce co un try- of - 

or ig in m ark in g on wo ven la be ls be ca us e, on ce d et ac hed fo r an y re as on , th e re ta il 

co ns um er may be giv en th e im pr es sion th a t th e co un try- of -o rigi n iden tifica tion 

w as deli ber at el y co nc ea led in ord er th a t w hate ver pre ju dic es he m ig ht ha ve 

again st th e pro du ct of a cert ain co untr y co uld no t be ex er ci se d. W ov en la be ls in 

too m an y ca se s becom e loo se an d de ta ch ed , th er eb y cre ati n g th e prob lem ind i-
62 IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS

ca te d above. If woven labe ls are to be sewn on comp let ely an d in su ch a m an ner 

that, they ca nn ot lie de ta ch ed ex ce pt by de lil»e rate cu ttin g o f t h e s titc hes , th en the 

who le co nc ep t of att achin g wo ven la be ls to ce rt ai n gar m en ts and oth er goo ds 

will be dra st ic ally al te re d, an d perh aps fe w er woven labe ls will l>e used, to the 

det ri m ent of th e dom estic i ndust ry .

5. We be lie ve that, th is prop os ed legi slat io n vi ol ates th e princ ip le s an d obje ct iv es of ou r na tion al tr ad e policy an d is ag ain st th e g re ate r nat io nal an d 

pu blic in te re st . The S ta te D epar tm en t conc lude d th a t it “w ill no t be he lpfu l to 

ou r ne go tiat io ns un de r th e T ra de Exp an sion Act, no r will it ai d us in se cu ring 

rem ov al of fo re ig n re st ri ct io ns affe ctin g our ex po rts.” The Co mm erc e D epart ­

men t view s it as “a n un du e bu rd en on fo re ig n comm erc e.” An d th e T re as ury 

D ep ar tm en t co ns id er s it an “ind irec t m et ho d” fo r im po rt re st ri ct io ns.

(5. We be lie ve th at th e ac tu al pu rp os e an d eff ect of th e pr op os ed le gi slat io n are 

to di sc ou ra ge th e tr ade in woven lab els, espe cially th os e from Ja p an . By re quir ­

ing th e “M ade in Ja p a n ” id en tif ication, th os e w ith pre ju dic es again st Jap an an d 

Ja panese m er ch an di se wi ll be en co ur ag ed to re fu se to bu y and us e Ja pan es e 

wo ven labe ls, an d als o, th ro ugh co nfus ion, po ssibly th e fin al pro duct s to wh ich 

th es e labe ls m ay be att ac hed as we ll. By in cr ea si ng th e co sts of Ja pan es e 

wo ven labe ls to th e m anufa ctu re rs an d oth er use rs of wov en labe ls, Ja pan es e 

wo ven la be ls ma y be pr iced out of th e American m ark et fo r wo ven lab els .

W hile it wo uld be an ea sy and we lco me m att er fo r us to ex po un d on th e 

advan ta ges of co ntin ue d good tr ad e re la tions w ith Ja pan, we do no t be lie ve th a t 

su ch an ex po sitio n is ne ce ss ar y a t th is tim e, fo r we are co nf id en t th a t th is s ubco m m ittee an d th e Co mmitt ee on In te rs ta te an d For ei gn Co mm erc e a re we ll 

aw are of th es e benefic ial co nseq ue nc es of U ni ted S ta te s- Ja pan tr ad e to ev ery 

S ta te and se ction of o ur cou ntry .

Suffice it to say, th at, sec on d on ly to ne ighb or Can ad a, Ja p a n is A m er ic a’s 

bigg es t an d be st cu stom er fo r all ou r exp ort, good s an d th e fi rs t fo r ou r agri cultu ra l pro ducts ; fo r th e 2 de ca de s sinc e th e end of host ilitie s, th e bal an ce o f

tr ad e ha s bee n su bst anti all y in our fa vor ex ce pt fo r a sing le y e a r; an d th at 

Jap an ne ed s to e xp or t to th e U ni te d S ta te s to e arn t he doll ar s w ith which to co nti nue to lmy United S ta te s ex p o rt s; an d Ja p a n ’s re la tionsh ip s w ith th e U ni ted 

S ta te s ex te nd beyo nd th a t of tr a d e its el f, to be ing our w es te rn m ost out po st in 

th e F a r E as t and an al ly in wh om we plac e g re at tr u st an d re lian ce in an y 

gr av e em er ge ncy ; as well as be ing our sh ow ca se of de moc racy an d fr ee e n te rpri se in A sia, e tc.

W hile th is legi slat io n in and of it se lf will no t de stro y th e f ri en dly an d he lp fu l 

re la tionsh ip s w ith Jap an th a t ha ve been ca re fu lly deve lope d ov er re ce nt yea rs , 

ne ve rthe le ss it will no t be we lcome d by the Ja pan es e and may we ll prov e an o th er 

ir rit a n t to im prov ing re la tionsh ip s in bil ate ra l co mm erc e an d m utu al se cu rity .

We do no t b eli eve th a t th is tr ad e r es tr ic ti on o n woven la be ls i s w orth th e p os sible consequences, bo th in te rn all y and ex te rn al ly . The re fo re , we ag ai n urg e th e 

defe at of II .R . 7043.

Auburn I mpo rting Corp.,

April 23,1963.

H on . Oren Har ris,

Chairman, Committee on Inter sta te and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Congressman H ar ris ; The en actm ent, of II.R . 7043 wo uld be ru in ous to 

ou r bu sine ss and wo uld ca us e los s of incom e not o nly to o ur in dust ry but to m an y 

of o ur c us to m er s in th e ap par el m an ufa ctu ri ng trades.

O ur cu stom er s will no t bu y wo ven labe ls w ith th e word “J a p a n ” on them . 

Ev en if th is w er e to he hid den under a fol d, th e po ss ib ility th at th e labe l m ig ht 

com e loose from th e garm ent wou ld d ete r mo st appare i m anufa ctu re rs from 

bu ying thes e lab els . Furt her m ore , man y la be ls de live re d by us a re sewn on to 

garm en ts in such a w ay th at th ere is no hid den portio n a t all. The co untr y of 

or ig in wo uld pl ai nl y show on th e fa ce of th e labe l which wou ld m ak e th e labe l 

un us ab le.

In ou r op ini on , th e re al and ac tu al pu rp os e of II.R . 7043 is to elim in at e im ­

po rted labe ls as a co m pe tit ive fa ct or , th er eb y en ri ch in g do mes tic lab el m anufa ct ure rs . Ho we ver, it m us t la* po inted out th a t a side eff ect of th is el im in at io n 

m ig ht possi bly be th e el im in at io n of cert ain m arg in al pr od uc er s fr om th e g a rm en t m an ufa ct uri ng bu sine ss. It is we ll kn ow n th a t man y gar m ent m an ufa ctu re rs are m ar gi na l pr od uc er s. U nder ca pital iz at io n and re lian ce o n fin an cing 

oth er th an b an k fin an cing w hich is n ot av ai la ble to t he m mak e it e xt re m el y ne ce ssa ry to cu t co sts w her ev er po ssibl e. Im por te d wov en la be ls co st ap pro xim at el y
IMPORTED WOVEN LAB ELS 63

one h alf th e pr ic e of do m es tic labe ls. It is en tire ly po ssible, moreo ve r, th a t 

w er e im po rt ed labe ls to be el im in at ed fro m th e m ar ket , do m es tic pr ic es wo uld 

ri se im m ed ia te ly an d it is en ti re ly po ss ible th at cert ain m ar gin al garm ent m an ufa ctu re rs w ith in cr ea si ng co sts m ig ht be forced ou t of bu sine ss w ith fu rt h e r 

loss of jo bs t o th eir em ploy ees.

T he do m es tic wo ven labe l m anufa ctu re rs ha ve ch ar ged th a t m an y ap pa re l 

m anufa ctu re rs do no t kn ow th a t th ey are get ting im po rted wo ven lab els . How ­

ev er, U.S . cu stom s re gula ti ons an d in sjiectio ns are so st ri ngent th a t it is im ­

po ss ible fo r th is to be so. Al l of our ord ers carr y th e nbta ti on “L ab el s M ad e in 

J a p a n ” an d th is is fu rth e r re pea te d on th e in ner an d oute r cart ons in whi ch th e 

labe ls are de liv er ed . F urt herm ore , U.S . cu stom s is no tif ied of th e na m e an d 

ad dre ss of ev er y sing le m an u fa ctu re r fo r wh om labe ls are im po rted . Cus toms 

in sp ec to rs re gula rl y ch eck th es e m an ufa ctu re rs to see th a t th e labe ls a re be ing 

de live re d in c art ons sh ow ing th e c oun tr y of o rig in an d th a t th e m an u fa ctu re rs a re 

aw are of th e co unt ry of or ig in. The re is no ev iden ce in dic at in g oth er w is e in 

our op ini on .

W e re sp ec tfully re quest th e co m m itte e to co ns id er al l th e ra m ific at io ns of 

II.R . 7043 and we ur ge th e co m m ittee to vo te again st en ac tm en t.

Very truly yours,

Alan M. Ades, Pre side nt .

Aragon W oven L abel Co., I nc..

New York, April 23, 1965.

Mr . Oren H ar ris,

Chairman, Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

Dear M r. C ha ir m an : W e w ish to go on re co rd a s be ing oppo sed to th e m ar ki ng 

of in div id ual l ab el s w ith c oun tr y of orig in.

W e a re do m es tic w ea ve rs of labe ls, hav in g our pla nt in Bro ok lyn, X.Y.

If we a re re quir ed to w ea ve co untr y of or ig in in to labe ls them selves, we belie ve th a t m an y of our cu stom er s will re fu se to ac ce pt them . As a re su lt we 

will lose th e ir bu sine ss , not on ly fo r la be ls we im po rt in tot o, as th ey wi ll tu rn 

to th e la rg est A m er ic an w ea ve rs for th eir d om es tic lab els .

Al l ord er s of wov en labe ls from Ja p a n are ac co mpa nied by affid av its from th e 

bu ye rs as well as th e im po rt er s. The se affid av its st ate th a t th e labe ls are mad e 

in J a p a n to b e u se d on Am er ic an -m ad e m er ch an dise .

As a sm al l do m es tic m anufa ctu re r, we do no t pr od uc e a full vari ety of wo ven 

labe ls, th ere fo re it is ne ce ss ar y to ob ta in th es e la be ls else whe re in ord er to fill 

th e c om plete ne ed s of a cu stom er . The se l ab el s which in co rp ora te thr ee - or fo ur - 

co lo r le tt eri n g a n d /o r a re of unusu al w id th s are not mad e av ai la bl e to th e sm all 

do mes tic m an u fa ctu re r by th e one or tw o la rg e wo ven lab el m anufa ctu re rs wh o 

pr od uc e them . It th en become s ne ce ss ar y to o bt ai n th em els ew he re.

T he ap pro xim ate vo lume of wo ven labe ls wo ven yea rly in th e U ni ted S ta te s 

is $30 mill ion. The f.o.b. val ue of al l wo ven labe ls im po rted from w hat ev er 

so ur ce into th e U ni te d S ta te s in 1963 w as on ly $1,013,004 ac co rd in g to th e B ure au 

of C en su s o f im port s ta ti st ic s.

Al l th e ab ov e m en tio ne d a re op en to verifi ca tio n.

W e tr u s t th a t you will give th is m att er you r ut m os t co ns id er at io n.

Very tr u ly you rs,

Sidn ey F reedl ine, Pre side nt .

Cur tis Coleman Co.,

Andover Label Co.,

New Y or k, N .Y., A pri l 2 3,1 965.

Hon . Oren H ar ris ,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Ch a ir m a n : W e are w ri ti ng to you be ca us e we are co nc erne d ab ou t 

th e pr op os ed bill H.R . 7043, nota bly it s prop osed se ction 3. T his section conta in s a cl au se th a t th e law wou ld ta k e effect 60 da ys a ft e r th e bi ll’s pa ss ag e. 

We co ns id er th is tim e lim it to be un re as ona ble an d punitiv e fo r th e fo llo w in g 

re a so n s:

1. T he m anufa ctu ri ng of labe ls in Ja p an is a tw o- stag e op er at io n. F ir st , th e 

la bel s a re wo ven. The n th ey are pr oc es se d by ha nd . I t is th is han d pr oc es sing 

th a t co ns um es m os t of th e pr od uc tion tim e. It al w ay s ta kes a t le ast 8 wee ks
64 IMPORTED WO VEN LABELS

be fo re th e la be ls are re ad y to be sh ip pe d fr om Ja p an . Lar ge ord ers of te n ta ke

4 to 6 m on th s unti l th ey are c om plete d.

2. Se a fr eig h t fr om Jap an ta kes 35 day s to a rr iv e in New Yo rk, and it th en 

ta kes 10 da ys to 2 weeks fo r th e m er ch an dis e to pas s th ro ugh cu st om s an d to be 

rece ived by u s.

If pa ss ed as w ri tt en, th e prop os ed bill wou ld re su lt in a co ns id er ab le los s to 

us, in as m uc h as we ha ve issu ed an ir re voca bl e le tt er of cre dit an d th us wo uld 

be ob lig ed to pa y fo r al l m er ch an di se u nder contr ac t.

All ou r purc has in g contr ac ts w ith Ja p a n are en te re d in to under ex is ting law s. 

It see ms to us th a t if th e pr op os ed bi ll sh ou ld be en ac te d, a tim e lim it of 1 yea r 

shou ld be pr ov id ed to allow fo r th e liquid at io n of all contr acts en te re d in to 

pr ev io us ly and in go od fa it h.

Ve ry tr u ly yo urs,

M. Cole m an.

Mr. Masaoka. I would like to just give one or two statist ical m atter s re latin g to some of the q uestion s which hav e been rai sed, specificall y in connection with the Ja pa ne se labels, because ap prox im ate ly 

95 perce nt of all the labe ls im po rte d into th e Uni ted St ates do come 

fro m Ja pa n.

On page 11 of our testim ony we p oint out th at we un de rst an d th at 

Am erican looms are m uch more efficient th an the Ja pa ne se looms and 

th at some A me rican looms c an weave as m any as 72 labels at one time. 

Th e best the Ja pa ne se can do is on ly 17 to 19 label s a t a tim e.

Th e Japanese, as point ed out by pre vio us witn esse s, cannot weave 

as precise as Am erican s an d therefore autom ati c ma chi nes cannot be 

used. Al l of this is demo nstra ted by the fact th at according to the 

Japan. Texti le Pr od uc ts Ex po rte rs Assoc iation, 95 perce nt of all 

Ja pa ne se imports into the Un ite d State s are in the cut form an d only

5 pe rce nt or less are in th e ro ll form .

Fu rth ermor e, 80 perce nt of all Japa ne se im po rte d labels are espec ially designe d br an d nam es, woven only to order. Tw en ty per ­

cent are the sma ll stock labels whi ch you have seen—L -M -S —or 

som eth ing desig na tin g size.

On p age 12 we poi nt out t hat imports from all countries to Am erica 

of woven labels in 1962 amounted to 333,735 pounds, value d at 

$1,153,288.

In 1963 thi s d ropped to 369,489, valued a t $1,103,004.

In 1964 th is increased sli gh tly to 420,221 pounds, val ued at 

$1,392,873.

I was curious here to note th at in 1964 the im po rts were 13,514 

pounds less th an in 1962, yet the y were valued a t $239,585 more, which 

sug ges ts th at the Japa ne se are up gr ad in g the qu ality of th ei r labels.

Ja pa n, as I have said, is a ma jor source prod uc ing pe rhap s 95 p er ­

cent of ou r imports. We have he ard a lot about costs if th is sho uld 

be on the reverse side or some thing. These are educa ted guesses su pplied us by the Japane se man ufac turers an d they say th at the cost 

would be between 6 to 77 pe rce nt more d ependin g on the ty pe o f label 

th at would be used.

Now, they di dn 't pro vid e any specific backgrou nd bu t I do believe 

th at th at suggests th at t his question of price is a very difficult one.

Now, if 1 may sum ma rize v ery quickly, M r. Ch air man, the dom estic 

indu stry prese nte d a lot of economic facts about the increase in im ­

po rts and all of th at , and the low wages in Ja pan . We do n't th in k 

this is p ar ticu la rly releva nt. I f it is, th en i t is an escape clause m atter 

th at ou gh t to be tak en up with eit he r th e Tariff Com mission or a
IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS 65

matter for the House Ways and Means Committee. This is a problem 

of marketing and in this connection a label may be technically as they 

point out, a separate textile item, but it is an unusually special kind of 

textile item because it has no value in and of itself. It has to be 

affixed to a particu lar garment or some other product before it has 

any value. You just can't go out and sell one label each. It is like a 

button on a suit or something else. It is an integral pa rt of a garment,, 

and until it is affixed, it has no great value.

Mr. Curtin. Could I interrupt you there and off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. Masaoka. If you see “Ja pa n” on the underside you th ink deliberately the manufacturer concealed this identity and the confusion 

is compounded.

Be that as it may, if there is this kind of widespread deception which 

has been alleged by the domestic industry, I think this is a serious 

thing and this subcommittee ought to ask the Customs Bureau of the 

Treasury Department and the Federal Trad e Commission to come 

forward and provide the actual facts on this situation because the allegations not only impugn deceit to our importers who are also Americans but also laxity in the enforcement of laws which Congress passed. 

I think this is a very serious matter, Air. Chairman, and I would certainly recommend that.

This may seem a little im pertinent, a little impertinent way in which 

to end, but if I may in kind of a summary, let me say this, Mr. C hairman. If this information is so important, this matter of country 

origin, and if it costs so little to put on and if it doesn’t impair the 

labels at all, why then does not the American industry put “Made in 

U.S.” on the reverse of their labels? The very fact tha t they want 

country of origin and a foreign country indicates that the facts as 

presented by us would suggest th at there is something more than simple information which the domestic industry wants.

Mr. Chairman, in order to expedite this may I also have permission 

to file a statement which will cut down this statement to this point 

within the next 10 days ?

Air. AIacdonald. Permission is granted.

Mr. AIasaoka. Thank you very much. Any questions ?

Air. Macdonald. I have no questions.

Mr. Curtin. No questions.

Air. Clayson. Air. AIacdonald, there is one fact tha t the domestic 

weavers know about tha t the gentlemen of the subcommittee don’t 

know about. It is very easy to distinguish a Japanese label from a 

domestic label. The Japanese label is very stiff and harsh. The reason is tha t their equipment is not the best and it is necessary to size all 

the warps with a kind of starch and they don’t finish the labels after 

they take them off the loom. They are cut and folded just as they are. 

There is no finishing, no calendaring or anything, just as they come 

off, and as a result they are rathe r harsh, particularly on labels like the 

one on the garment in fron t of you, t hat fiat loose. These things become quite unpleasant to somebody who may be allergic, who doesn’t 

like something scratching the back of their necks unless they have 

asked for it. So they take the label off, and then they see “Ja pan" 

on it.
66 IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS

Mr. C urtin. Could I ask one question? You speak continually of 

Japanese labels. 1 understood that Hong Kong is quite a supplier of 

these foreign labels, is that correct ?

Mr. Clayson. Hong Kong is a small supplier and one that I would 

rather keep away from. Their paperwork is so abominable th at I get 

sick every time I try to do a little business with them. We just don’t 

know what is coming in, when it is coming in, and we run into more 

trouble with their marking. They don’t number the cartons so we 

know what the devil is in there. Their numbers are small. It is a 

nuisance to deal with them. I don’t intend to do much business with 

them.

Mr. Masaoka. Mr. Chairman, may I give you the statistics for the 

record from the Department of Commerce ?

In 1964 the total imports of all woven labels into the United States 

were valued at $1,392,873. Of this amount $1,364,459 worth came 

from J apan. Hong Kong is next and their imports into the United 

State totaled only $19,310. France and all the other countries are 

much smaller. So this is really a kind of Japanese product.

Mr. Macdonald. Then you disagree with the testimony tha t was 

given here earlier today by Mr. Jacobson, that the Netherlands was 

.the biggest producer of these labels ?

Mr. Siiur. He never said that, sir.

Mr. Masaoka. I think there is some confusion on that. I believe 

he said Japa n.

Mr. Macdonald. Well, the record will reflect it and there is no 

'point in our disputing it, but as a matter of fact, I said th at Japan was 

first, Hong Kong also was a large supplier, and he advised me by 

reading from a paper on which the Netherlands was the leading exporter of labels into the United States.

Mr. Masaoka. I think those were cotton labels only and we are 

talking of all labels here. The statistics I have are from the Bureau 

of Census, Department of Commerce, for fiscal 1964 which are the 

latest figures.

Mr. Macdonald. I am glad I asked you the question because you are 

referring to woolen-----

Mr. Masaoka. All kinds of labels.

Mr. Macdonald. Except cotton.

Mr. Masaoka. No. Cotton and all are included in this amount.

Mr. Curtin. Mr. Chairman, could I ask one more question ? Do 

you have the figures on the total of the imports from the Netherlands 

for that same year ?

Mr. M acdonald. Why don’t you supply that fo r the record ?

Mr. Masaoka. Yes, I will be very happy to.

Mr. Siiur. May I make a closing comment ? It is truly a Japanese 

item. The amounts brought in from any other countries are so negligible and so as not to bore you having "to take the time to even consider them, they will be documented and brought forth. But the 

intent of this bill as I see it is definitely not to give information. It 

is an insidious attempt I think to throttle our industry. Simply put, 

they just want us out of business and this is the first step.

Mr. Macdonald. Thank you very much.
IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS 67

(The following letters were later received from Mr. Masaoka, Mr. 

Clayson, and Mr. S hu r:)

Association on J ap an ese T ex til e I mpo rts, I nc.,

Washington, D.C. May 7 ,1965.

li on. Torbert H . Macdonald.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce and Finance, Committee on Interstate

and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Cha ir m an : A t th e pu blic heari ngs be fo re yo ur Su bc om m itt ee on

■Commerce a nd Fin an ce on A pr il 27, c on ce rn in g II.R . 7043, a bill to re quir e co un try 

of or ig in id en tifica tion of im po rted wo ven labe ls, you re qu es te d th a t we pr ov id e 

you r su bc om m itte e w ith th e im po rt sta ti st ic s fo r wov en labe ls fo r th e yea r 1964, 

th e la te st av ai la bl e.

W e a re pleas ed to do so.

As a pre lim in ar y, ho wev er, we m ust co nfes s th a t by in ad ver te nce th e im po rt 

to ta ls to which we testified, an d includ ed in our pre par ed st at em en t, w er e fo r 

wov en labe ls of m an m ad e fib ers only, an d uo t fo r im po rted wo ven labe ls of all 

fib ers . Thi s e rr o r on o u r p a rt m ay be ex pl ai ne d a t le as t in p a rt by th e fa ct 

th a t, bo th in te rm s of vo lum e (p ou nd ag e) an d of dollar s (v alu e), alm os t al l im ­

por te d w’oven labe ls a re of m an m ad e fibers, ac co un ting f or 420,221 po un ds , va lued 

a t $1,392,873, to on ly 6,078 po un ds , va lued a t $45,732, fo r th e oth er fibers, of th e 

to ta l im por ts o f 426,299 p ou nd s, va lu ed a t $1,438,(505.

The 1964 d ata is ta b u la te d fr om re port s of th e B ure au of th e Ce nsus, U.S. 

D ep art m ent of Co mm erc e, des ig na te d as FT-1 10 an d IM -146 pu blicatio ns . In ­

clud ed are wo ven la be ls of m an m ad e fibers , co tto n, sil k, and ot he rs . “O th er s. ” 

we unders ta nd, in cl ud e mix es of va riou s fib ers and po ssibly a li tt le wool.

U.S. imports of woven labels

Total, all imports

Japan________ ___

Netherlands..............

Hong Ko ng........ ......

France___________

Belgium______ ___

Taiwan (Free China)

Ital y....... ...................

United Kingdom___

Mexico___________

Unknown_________

Country of origin Pounds

42 6,29 9

41 1,46 8 

3,0 19 

7,01 8 

1, 706 

357 

727 

104 

22 

455 

1, 42 3

Dollars

$1,4 38 ,6 05

1,3 64 ,6 97 

29 ,011 

25 ,8 22 

3,7 59 

3,5 60 

1,94 8 

1,01 3 

152 

136 

8,5 07

B as ed on th es e st ati st ic s, wo ven la be ls are not a m ajo r im po rt item as fa r as 

th e U ni te d S ta te s is co nc erne d. B u t th ey co mpr ise sign ifi ca nt ex port item s fo r 

a t le ast su ch co unt ri es as Ja pan, th e N et he rlan ds , and Hon g Kong.

d e a rly , Ja p a n is by fa r th e m ajo r su pp lier of th e U.S . m ark et fo r im po rted 

wov en labe ls, bo th in vo lume an d in va lue. Thu s, an y le gi sl at io n af fe ct in g im ­

po rt ed wov en labe ls in actu al fa ct w ill be di re ct ed again st Ja panese im po rts.

All Ja panese wo ven la be l im port s a re of m an m ad e fib ers (411 ,444 po un ds, 

val ue d a t $1,3 64,459) and of silk (24 po un ds , va lued a t $238).

All N et herl ands wo ven la be l im po rt s a re of cotto n.

Hon g Ko ng im port s in cl ud e th os e of m an m ad e fib ers , co tto n, an d ot he rs .

F re nch an d T aiw an im po rt s a re of m an m ad e fibers, Be lgium of co tto n, an d 

It a ly of bo th m an m ad e fib ers a nd co tto n.

Can ad a, W es t German y, an d A ust ri a, which had m in or e xport s of w oven labe ls 

to t he U ni ted S ta te s in 1963 had no s ig ni fica nt reco rd ed im port s la st year (19(54). 

I t is pr es um ed th a t an y im po rts, if an y, from th es e an d oth er co untr ie s w er e 

li st ed in t he “U nk no wn” c ateg or y.

D uring th e te st im on y of th e do m es tic wo ven la be l in dust ry spok esme n, it was 

allege d th a t sinc e th e B ure au of Cus tom s di d no t re quir e fo rm al entr y of sh ip ­

m en ts va lu ed a t $250 an d les s, and sinc e man y, if no t mos t, im port s of wo ven 

la be ls are va lu ed a t les s th an $250 per s hi pm en t, th ere w er e no im port sta ti st ic s 

to in dic at e th e actu al quanti ty of wo ven la be ls en te re d in to th is co un try.

The fa ct is, as th is su bc om m itte e is aw ar e, th a t even under th e in fo rm al 

en tr y pr oc ed ur es fo r sh ip m en ts va lu ed a t $250 an d les s, th e Cus tom s B ure au
68 IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS

requires import inform ation. Thus, the FT-110 and IM-146 reports do accurately reflect the actual quantity of imjiorted labels entered in 1!H54. It is 

noted, for example, that imports of only $152 from the United Kingdom and only 

$136 from Mexico were recorded by the Census Bureau from the da ta supplied by 

the Customs Bureau.

Since were are discussing statistic s, we wish to point out to the subcommittee 

that nowhere did the domestic industry provide any a ctual figures a s to domestic 

production of woven labels. Since the Woven Label Manufactu rers of the 

U.S.A. claim to represent “a majo rity of the 45 companies in the industry,” it 

would apitear that the subcommittee and the public would be entitled to at leas t 

the information regarding the production of the members of the complaining 

association, as well as their financial statem ents.

We suspect tha t domestic production dwa rfs the q uan tity of imports, and that 

most, if not all, domestic producers are sharing in the general unprecedented 

prosperity of the U.S. textile industry.

Incidentally, notw ithstanding the claim of the domestic industry that the 

tariff rates on woven labels have been reduced recently to 19 percent, there has 

not been any reduction recently in the tar iff rates; it has been, and remains, 

at 39 percent ad valorem, plus 25 cents per pound. The las t shi ft was an increase, not a decrease, from 19 to 30 perce nt, so increased protection, not a 

decrease, was provided domestic woven labels.

Pursuant to the permission granted us to submit a reb uttal stateme nt, we have 

reexamined the transcri pt of the hearings.

While we confirmed that there is much to be refu ted in the submitted sta tements and testimonies of th e domestic woven label industry witnesses, we believe 

it sufficient to comment on only a few.

The main thrust of the arguments for the enactment of this legislation was 

that under current practices, the m anufa cturers and processors who affix woven 

labels on finished merchandise, mostly appa rel, are deceived as to the country 

of origin of th eir woven labels.

Indeed, althou gh only one letter was refe rred to in passing, the domestic 

industry charged widespread deception and fraud on the pa rt of importers 

who repackage and rebox woven labels in order to mislead the “ultimate 

consumer” of these labels, the manufac turers and processors of garm ents and 

other items, into believing that, these labels are of domestic origin.

We submit tha t a rereadin g of the testimony of the witnesses for the importers. i>articularly Messrs. Monroe Clayson, of Harvard babels, and Harold 

Shur, of Cavalier Label Co., both major importers, will dem onstrate that this 

charge is far from what actually takes place. They describe step by step how 

and what happens after woven labels are ordered from Japan, emphasizing that 

more than 95 percent of all imported woven labels a re “made to o rde r” and that 

to repackage and to rebox these labels after arriva l would be too costly. They 

also explained that Ja pan ese woven labels seldom ar e entered on the roll because 

they are not woven precisely enough to allow cutting and folding by automatic 

machines. Moreover, they detailed customs regulations and procedures to indicate that the alleged practices could not be widespread and commonplace.

As we emphasized in our prepared statement, which was submitte d and accepted 

for the record, the lette r of the Department of the Treasury to the chairman of 

the committee, date d November 4, 1963, and signed by its General Counsel, 

comments specifically on this alleg ation as follows: “No evidence has been 

submitted to the Treasury Department that the exception from marking of 

woven labels under section 30 4( a) (3 )( D ) of the Tariff Act. is not. appropriate 

or has resulted in misleading the U.S. ‘ultimate consumer’ as defined above. 

If a valid case is to be made, it should be made, in the first, instance, to the 

Tre asury Department.”

No evidence was produced at the hearings to indicate that the domestic 

industry has accepted this specific invitation on the pa rt of the Tre asury 

Deimrtm ent and subm itted proof that there is widespread deception in the sale 

of imported woven labels.

In the absence of such a complaint, properly documented, we can draw 

no other conclusion but the obvious from their failure to accept, the preferred 

invitation of the Tre asu ry Depa rtment.

As a matter of fact, as our prep ared statement points out, we checked 

informally and unofficially with the Customs Bureau and the Treasury Department regarding any complaints similar to those made before your subcommittee 

that might have been filed w ith eith er of these agencies by the domestic Indus-
IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS 69

tr y. W e w er e in fo rm ed th a t in re ce nt yea rs th ey hav e rece iv ed no su ch 

co m pl ai nt s.

F urt herm ore , reco gn izing th a t th e F edera l T ra de Co mmiss ion is ch ar ge d 

w it h th e re sp onsi bility of pre ven ting u n fa ir tr ad e pr ac tice s, in cl ud in g su ch 

a s th os e ch ar ged be fo re you r su bc om m itte e, we mad e an in fo rm al in quir y an d 

le arn ed th a t th ere hav e be en no re ce nt co m pl ai nt s by th e do m es tic in dust ry 

a g a in st im im rted w ov en labe ls.

In care fu ll y re re adin g th e st ate m en t su bm itte d by th e att o rn ey fo r th e 

do m es tic m anufa ctu re rs , we no te d w ith in te re st th a t th e do m es tic in dust ry has 

ap pea le d to vari ous G ov er nm en t ag en ci es re gar din g co un try- of -o rigi n m ar ki ng s 

on im port ed wov en labe ls.

W ith but on e ex ce pt ion, th e do mes tic in d u str y did no t co mpl ain of de ce pt ive 

a n d u n fa ir p ra cti ces a s ch ar ge d bef or e your su bc om mitt ee .

In Dec em be r 1958, th e in dust ry att em pte d w ithout su cc es s to se cu re an 

in te rp re ta ti o n th a t wov en labe ls wou ld ha ve to be in div id ual ly m ar ked w ith 

th e ir countr y of or ig in. In F ebru ary 1959, a fo rm al ap pea l w as su bm itte d to 

th e Division of Class ific atio n. En tr.vs, and V al ue of th e B ure au of Cu sto ms, 

arg uin g ag ain st th e ru li ng court , ca se on w hi ch th e B ure au re lie d. A lso in 

1959. a bri ef w as til ed w ith th e F edera l T ra d e Co mm iss ion ag ain st a ru le 

pro m ulg at in g th e cu rr en t re gula ti ons re la ti n g to im po rted wov en labe ls. Th is, 

too. w as u ns uc ce ss fu l.

B ut all of th e ab ov e had to do w ith att em p ts to se cu re th e re quir em ent fo r 

co un try- of -o rigi n id en tifi ca tion on im po rted wov en lab els , not w ith co m pl ai nt s 

as to f ra u d a nd d ec eit.

The on ly co m pla in t c harg in g u n fa ir t ra d e p ra cti ces w as filed in Sep te m be r 1960 

w ith a st af f m em be r of th e Federa l T ra de Co mm iss ion. T h a t no fo rm al comp la in t w as lod ged, and no c ea se -a nd -d es ist ord er w as iss ue d by th e F edera l T ra d e 

Com miss ion wou ld su gg es t th a t ev en th e in fo rm al co m pl ai nt w as re je cte d fo r in ­

su fficient e vid en ce .

Now, if th e a lleg ia nc e of w id es pre ad d ec ep tio n and fr au d a re a c u rr e n t pra ct ic e, 

why has no t th e do m es tic wo ven labe l in dust ry file d co m pl ai nt s w it hin th e p ast 

5 years w ith th e ap p ro p ri ate G ov er nm en t age nc ie s fo r r el ie f?

Mr. C ha irm an , as we em ph as ized a t th e hea ri ngs , we be lie ve th a t th e ch ar ges 

of th e do mes tic in d u str y a re so se riou s th a t bo th th e Cus tom s B ure au an d th e 

F edera l T ra d e Co mmiss ion sh ou ld lie ca lled bef or e your su bc om m itte e to exp la in 

w heth er th ere is su ch w id es pr ea d v io la tions o f our fa ir tra d e l aw s by w ov en labe l 

im po rter s.

E it h er ou r im port er s a re fl agra nt la w bre akers an d our G ov er nm en t ag en ci es 

char ged w ith en fo rc in g fa ir tr ad e pra ct ic es a re cr im in all y la x in th e ir en fo rc emen t, or our fello w ci tize n im port ers an d our ad m in is tr ati v e depart m ents are 

be ing viciou sly m al ig ne d and sl an der ed fo r th e p urp ose of m is in fo rm in g th e Co ngr es s in to p os sibly en acti ng u n w arr an te d le gi slat io n.

W e re sp ec tfully su bm it th a t th e pu blic in te re st re quir es a fu ll and co mpl ete 

in ves tigat io n of th es e char ges be fo re your su bc om m itte e is in a po sition to give 

co ns id er at io n t o th e m er its of th is bill.

In ord er to answ er cri tici sm s th a t a co un try- of -o rigi n m ark in g on th e fa ce or 

fr o n t of a wo ven la be l wou ld co nf us e th e re ta il co ns um er , th e do mes tic in d u st ry 

su gg es ted th a t th e co un try- of -o rigi n m ar kin g m ig ht be wov en on th e tu rn u n d er 

port io n or ba ck si de o f th e labe l. T h e o bj ec tive i s to tr y to c on ce al th is in fo rm ation from th e re ta il e r purc hase r in th e h op e th a t co nf us io n as t o w heth er on ly th e 

la bel o r th e enti re art ic le or pro duct is a fo re ig n im po rt may be av oide d.

In our pre par ed st ate m en t and th ro ugh im port er w itne ss es , it w as de mon ­

str a te d th a t th is su gg es tio n to tu rn u n d er or ig in m ar kin gs w as unre ali st ic , impra cti cal, an d co stl y, th a t it w as ba se d on a nu m ber of fa ls e as su m pt io ns .

One su ch fa ls e ass um ption is th a t wov en la be ls a re m or e or less un iform as to 

siz e, sh ap e, use, and plac em en t. As our witn es se s, w ho a re kn ow ledg ea ble im ­

p o rt ers ac tu ally en ga ge d in th e tr ade, ex pl ai ne d, th is i s sim pl y no t tr ue, fo r th ere 

are li te ra ll y hundre ds of dif fe re nt sh ap es , siz es, us es , and pla ce m en ts fo r wov en 

labe ls.

Ther e are some wov en la be ls th a t are in te nd ed to fla p and flop. A co un try- of - 

or ig in id en tifica tion on th e ba ck o r re ver se side wou ld on ly se rv e to co nf us e th e 

re ta il co ns um er as to th e labe l and as to th e m er ch an dis e itse lf.

T her e are oth er labe ls, su ch as th ose on th e slee ve s of co at s an d ja ck ets , etc ., 

which are st itch ed in su ch a w ay as to be cu t or to rn off bef ore be ing wor n. A 

co un try- of -o rigi n m ar kin g on th e ba ck si de or on th e tu rn u n d e r po rt io n wou ld be 

re ve al ed a fte r th e labe l has be en remov ed , th er eb y su gg es ting to th e su sp icio us
70 IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS

bu ye r th a t a d el ib er at e ef fo rt had been m ad e to de ce iv e him , or he r, as to th e 

co un tr y o r or ig in of th e a rt ic le in q ue sti on .

T her e are st il l o th er wov en lab els, su ch a s th os e sp ec ia lly wo ven fo r ce rt ain 

ty pe s of sw ea te rs an d k n it goo ds, wh ich are st it ch ed on on e si de on ly w ith no 

pl ac e fo r an y co un try- of -o rigi n m ar ki ng s, fo r th er e a re no tu m u n d e r se ct io ns .

If th e co un try- of -o rigi n id en tif ic at io n is wo ven in to th e re ve rs e or ba ck sid e, as 

m us t be do ne fo r m os t b ra nd na m e wo ven labe ls, th e fa ce si de will be m ar re d by 

th e th re a d s by w hi ch th e or ig in m ar ki ng is wo ven un le ss th e size o f th e tu rn - 

u nder po rt io n is in cr ea se d.

A no th er fa ls e as su m pt io n is t h a t lab els, onc e st it ch ed on to th e g ar m en t or o th er 

fin ish ed pr od uc t, w ill ne ve r come off, th er eb y ke ep in g th e co nc ea led in fo rm at io n 

conc ea led .

Ma ny la be ls w as h off. Ma ny o th ers w ea r off. O th er s a re cu t or to m off. In 

all in st an ce s, th e re ta il e r co ns um er, onc e he or sh e see s th e de libe ra te ly hi dd en 

co un try -o f-o rig in id en tif ic at io n, wi ll pr ob ab ly co nc lu de th a t th e pr od uc t, an d not 

th e lab el, is of fo re ig n or ig in , th er eb y co m po un di ng th e th re ate n ed co nf us io n to 

th e actu al final use r of th e art ic le to w hich a wo ven lab el is affixed a s to th e 

co un tr y of o rig in.

St ill anoth er fa ls e as su m pt io n is th a t th e co un try- of -o rigi n id en tifi ca tion s 

ca n be wo ven a t in fini te ly s m al l cos t.

In m an y eases, ex tr a clo th is ne ed ed fo r th e co un try- of -o rigi n m ar kin g fo r an 

en la rg ed tu m u n d e r secti on . G re at er ca re w ill hav e to be ta k e n in cu tt in g an d 

fo ld in g woven lab els . And, th e m an u fa ctu re rs an d pr oc es so rs w ill ha ve to be 

mor e ca re fu l in pl ac in g an d st it ch in g th os e wo ven la be ls in ord er th a t th e la be l 

it se lf wi ll st ay st it ch ed lo ng er an d th a t th e or ig in m ar ki ng w ill be ca re fu ll y 

conc ea led . Most of th e ex tr a wor k invo lv ed w ill ha ve to be do ne by ha nd , 

whi ch i s an e xp en sive proc ess , es pe ci al ly i n th e U ni te d St at es .

Ik nn es tic in d u st ry spo ke sm en es ti m at ed th a t, on th e av er ag e, th is co un try -o for ig in id en tif ic at io n could be wo ven on th e re ver se side fo r ab out a ce nt a 

th ou sa nd .

We re sp ec tful ly su gg es t th a t th e est im at e is co mpl ete ly unre ali st ic . Th e 

Ja p an T ex ti le Pro duc ts E xpo rt ers ’ Assoc ia tio n, fo r in st an ce , h as es ti m at ed fo r 

us th a t th e ex tr a co st of w ea vi ng th e co un try- of -o rigi n id en tifi ca tion on to th e 

wo ven la be ls an d th e cu tt in g an d th e fo ld in g of su ch wo ven la be ls w ou ld be 

fro m 6 to 77 pe rc en t mor e th an th e pre se nt wo ven la be ls w it h o u t th e co un try- of - 

or ig in m ar ki ng s, d ep en di ng on t h e ty pe of la bel a nd it s size .

An d th is ex tr a co st of w ea vi ng does n ot ta ke in to ac co un t th e g re a te r ad de d 

co st to th e A m er ic an m an u fa ctu re r or pr oc es so r who us es wo ve n labe ls, fo r 

he m us t no w be mo re ca re fu l in st itch in g, etc., in ord er to m ak e m or e cert ain 

th a t th e la be l ca nn ot be de ta ch ed too ea si ly an d th a t th e co un try- of -o rigi n of th e 

labe l it se lf w ill b e ca re fu ll y co ncealed .

May we su m m ar iz e ou r th ou gh ts on th is le gi sl at io n by en la rg in g on ou r 

co nc lu di ng r em ar ks a t th e hea ri ngs o n A pr il 27?

If th is co un try -o f-o rig in m ar ki ng is so im port an t, a s th e do m es tic in dust ry 

cla im s, an d if th e co un try -o f-o rig in id en tifi ca tion ca n be ad de d a t pra ct ic al ly 

no co st w ha tsoe ve r, w itho ut im pai ri ng th e la be l o r le ss en in g it s ap pe ar an ce , 

an d if th is re qu es te d or ig in sig n is no t in te nd ed as a m ea ns to cu rb an d re st ri ct 

th e im po rt at io n of wo ven lab els , wh y. th en , do es no t th e do m es tic wo ven lab el 

in dust ry it se lf ad d “M ade in U.S .A.” id en tifi ca tion to all A m er ic an -m an uf ac tu re d 

wo ven lab els .

T h a t th e do m es tic in d u st ry re fu se d to ta ke th is si m pl e ac ti on su gg es ts th a t 

it s m ot iv es m ay w ell b e oth er t h an a ck no wled ge d.

An d, sinc e it s ac kn ow led ge d m ot iv e is to pre ven t th e de ce pt io n of m an uf ac ­

tu re rs an d pr oc es so rs in th e us e of wo ven la be ls as to th e ir actu a l co un tr y of 

or ig in , we re ne w ou r pl ea th a t th e in te re st s of ju st ic e, fa ir p la y , an d eq ui ty 

de m an d th a t th e Cu sto m s B ur ea u an d th e F ed era l T ra d e Com m iss ion be ca lle d 

up on t o ex pl ai n w he th er th er e is, as c ha rg ed b ef or e th is s ub co m m itt ee , w id es pr ea d 

de ce pt ion an d u n fa ir tr a d e pr ac ti ce s by im port er s re g ard in g th e co un try -o for ig in of wo ven lab els . T he U.S . Co ng res s, th e G ov er nm en t, an d th e peo ple— 

al l ha ve a ri g h t to kn ow th e an sw er to th is ch ar ge be fo re th e bil l, II.R. 7043,. 

ca n be c on sid ered , le t al on e en ac te d.

Res pe ct fu lly su bm itt ed .

M ik e M. Maraoka,

Il’rt.'diinffton Representative.
IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS 71

H arvard L abels, I nc.,

New York, N.Y.

Ho n. T orbert H. Macdonald,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Cha ir man : D uring th e hea ri ng on H.R. 7043, th e poin t w as const an tl y st re ss ed by co m m itt ee mem be rs an d in dust ry pr op on en ts th a t th e sole 

puri>ose of th e la w wou ld be in fo rm at io nal to bu ye rs of im po rted labe ls. On 

th e re co rd of H.R. 4904 (N ov em be r 6, 19 63 ), it w as logica l fo r th e Com mittee 

R eport 1417 to s a y : “D uri ng th e hea ri ngs on th is legi slatio n, w itn es se s testifi ed 

th a t th e pra ct ic e of re pa ck ag in g of wo ven lab els, p ri o r to th e sa le to th e g a rm en t m anufa ctu re r, de ce ives th e m anufa ctu re r in to be lie ving th e la be ls a re of 

Am er ic an or ig in an d co ns eq ue nt ly re su lts in th w art in g of th e cu stom s laws 

ap pl ic ab le to all fin ish ed pro duc ts im po rted in to th e U ni ted Sta te s. ”

On th e re co rd of th e hea ri ng April 27, 1965, su ch a st at em en t is no lon ger 

po ssible. The co m m ittee w as pre se nt ed w ith do mes tic in dust ry ch ar ges which 

w er e no t st ate m ents of fa ct, but m er e conje ctu ra l st at em en ts , ne ve r ba ck ed 

by pr ov ab le e xa m pl es of de ce ption.

On th e contr ary , abu n d an t fa ctu al pr oo f was pre se nt ed again st th e bi ll by 

th e de sc ri pt io n of th e his to ry of actu al or de rs . I t w as show n th a t pote ntial 

buyer s a re im m ed ia te ly to ld th ey are offered im po rted la bel s; th a t 4 m on th s 

will elap se be fo re de live ry as co ntr ast ed w ith 3 wee ks from do mestic w eavers ; 

th a t SO to ’.10 per ce nt of th e cart ons of im po rted labe ls are sh ip pe d dir ect 

fr om th e pie r to th e garm ent m anufa ctu re r, th e bal an ce be ing wareh ou se d 

su bje ct to ca ll again st confirm ed o rd ers ; th a t th e m ajo ri ty of th e labe ls ha ve 

spe cific w or di ng d es ir ab le a nd confi ned to in div id ual m an ufa ctu re rs .

The re pre se nta ti ves of th e do mes tic in dust ry us ed la ng ua ge ca lc ula te d (d elibera te ly or ca re le ss ly ) to m isle ad th e co m m itt ee in to be lie ving th a t mos t 

im po rted labe ls arr iv ed her e in ro lls of 50 0 or 1.000 pie ce s an d were tl en reI>acked in to or ig in-con ce aling ca rt ons , or in m os t ca se s wer e c u t an d fo lded 

her e an d pa ck ag ed to co nc ea l c ountr y of origin.

I testified, an d my st ate m ents are ve rif iable by cu stom s, th a t on ly ab ou t 2 

per ce nt of my labe ls a rr iv e on rolls , and th en on ly be ca us e my cu stom er s w an t 

th em on rolls . I sa id th a t in on ly one in st an ce w er e th e ro lls cu t up, but th a t 

w as a fte r a th er m op la st ic ba ck in g w as put on th e ro lls in New Je rs ey . M ec ha nic al cutt in g w as im po ssible be ca us e Jai>a nese labe ls var y too m uc h in leng th , 

so it w as cut by han d in New Yo rk. In ev ery oth er in st an ce , ro ll labe ls were 

shipi»ed as ro ll iabe ls in th e or ig in al co nt ai ne rs .

A wor d sh ou ld be sa id of Mr. C han dle r’s odd te ch ni qu e of sa yi ng th er e are 

no re co rd s kep t of cert ain labe l im po rts an d th eir vo lume is un kn ow ab le an d 

th en ca lm ly pr ov id in g a to ta l of th e nu m be r an d even of th e va lue. Tru ly 

m ar ve ls w ill ne ve r ce as e while om niscienc e ex is ts ca pa bl e of un sc re w in g th e 

in sc ru ta bl e. Pro po nen ts ha ve ci te d allege d ap pl ic at io ns to m an y dep art m ents of th e 

Gov ernm en t, al l of which were tu rn ed down . Th ey off er th is as som eho w 

pr oo f th a t th e ir po in t is va lid . The no rm al re ac tion wo uld be th a t if no 

ag en cy agre es w ith them , th ey are like th e m ot he r wh ose son is th e on ly one in 

st ep i n th e p ar ad e. The pro po ne nt s’ un su ppor te d ch ar ge s of gros s vio la tion s of la w by im po rter s 

go ing un pu ni sh ed a re re ck lessly ass ert ed. If th eir ch ar ges ha ve an y ve rif iable 

fa cts to ba ck them (w hich th ey do n’t) , they shou ld be pre se nt ed to th e D epart ­

m en t of Ju sti ce and to Cu sto ms. Rem ed ies wi ll ce rt ain ly be fo rthc om in g, al l 

wi ll be lie ve wh o ha ve fa it h in ou r co un try.

We ha ve ju s t ta ke n an ord er fo r an im po rte d lab el, a sa m pl e of which is a ttach ed , which on it s fa ce give s th e m an u fa ctu re r’s tr adem ark an d adds “M ade in 

It aly .” You will ob se rv e th a t th is labe l is pink ed on th e en ds. It is intend ed to 

be sewn in to la die s’ h ats w ith ou t an y p a rt being fol ded un de r. It is u tt erl y 

ridi cu lo us to re quir e th a t we wea ve “J a p a n ” in to th is lab el, eit her on th e face 

which will ca use co mpo un d co nfus ion, or in to th e re ve rs e side which will ca us e 

an ug ly blob of yarn to a ppear on th e face . Ple as e do n’t all ow th is kind of thin g 

to beco me a law h ere.

T hi s law , in te nd ed to in fo rm only, is not ne ed ed to info rm th e m anufa ctu re rs . 

I t is su pp ort ed by th e Am er ic an w ea ve rs in th e hope th a t em ploy ees of th e 

m anufa ctu re rs will ha ve sufficie nt pre ju dic e to re fu se to sew th e labe ls an d th us 

comp el th eir e m pl oy er s to r efu se to bu y i m po rted lab els .

We r es pe ct fu lly ur ge t h a t H .R . 7043 b e d en ie d fa vo ra bl e co ns id er at io n.

Monroe C. Clayson, Vice President.
72 IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS

Caval ier L abel Co., I nc.,

A'cw Yorfc, N.Y.. Man ),1965. Hon. Oren H arr is,

Chairman, Inters tate and Foreign Commerce Committee,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Si r : I wish to thank you for the opportunity you presented to this company to testify in the recent hea ring s rega rding II.It. 7043. This extrem ely important ma tter was the first opportunity extended to importers, such as ourselves, 

to make known our views to you and the committee.

The arguments advanced for country of origin labeling of woven labels were, 

we believe, misleading, misrepresentative and tota lly without substantiation, as 

we hope our testimony pointed out.

The record of our performances will hold up under the closest scrutiny and 

show itself to be completely in order, following every aspe ct of the law as it is

written.

1 he ultimate consumer is, and always has been, completely aware of the 

country of origin of the labels p urchased from us. Moreover, the numerous controls, provided by the law, have given all parties concerned complete enlig htenment as to the country of origin.

It do not think it necessary to repeat the oral testim ony given at the hearing. 

However, it is my belief th at all th e testimony given will refute, point by point, the 

allegations made by the representatives of the domestic label industry. A careful 

study of the record will support this.

On behalf of my company may I once again say, “Thank you.”

Yours very truly,

H arold Shur, P re s id e n t.

Mr. M acdonald. Is Mr. M ichael D aniels here?

Mr. Daniels. Yes, I am.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL P. DANIELS, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, 

UNITED STATES-JAPAN TRADE COUNCIL

Mr. Daniels. Mr. Ch air ma n, in view of the late ness of the hour 

and the fac t th at pre vio us witnesses oppo sin g this bill hav e covered 

most of th e p oin ts th at I inte nde d to mak e, I will con ten t myself with 

ask ing permission to insert my sta tem ent in th e record.

I represe nt the Un ite d States -Jap an T rade Co uncil. Th e statem ent 

covers general economic da ta on trad e betw een th e two cou ntries and 

our views th at this bill, th is kind of bill, will dis ru pt th at trade .

Mr. Macdonald. W ith ou t objection your state me nt will be received.

M r. I )aniels. Th an k you.

May I also assoc iate myself with th e rem ark s of Mr. Masaoka. 1 

think there are two abs ent pa rti es to th is he ari ng. I refer to the 

Federal Tr ad e Commission and the Burea u of Customs. There hav e 

been serious allega tions made as to the pra ctices of both of the se 

agencies. I th in k th at the com mittee’s inv estiga tion would be in ­

comp lete unless you heard fro m them and asked the m very direc tly 

to comment upon the allegations made by th e pro ponents of the bill. 

I thi nk these are very , very serious charg es.

I have reason to believe th at the y have mis represented t he a tti tu de of 

these Gov ernment agen cies which is a serious accu sation on my pa rt, 

and I wish, since my rem ark s will be in the record, that th e com mittee 

very seriously un derta ke t hi s kin d of inq uir y of the Government de ­

partm ents concerned.

We think t ha t it is quite obvious th at clothing m an ufacturers k now 

where these labels are co ming from . If th e costs are 20 t o 30 p erc ent 

of the domestic prod uct and clo thing man ufacturers are among ou r 

lietter businessmen, I am sure the y know where they come from .
IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS 73

We don’t feel that this is informational legislation. We believe it is 

protectionist. And 1 thank yon for your kind attention.

M r. Macdonald. Thank you.

(The statement of Mr. Daniels follows:)

T estim o n y of Mic h a e l P. D a n ie ls on B e h a l f of t h e U nit ed Sta tes-J a pa n

T kade Co un cil

My name is Michael Daniels. I am legislative counsel of the United States- Jap an Trade Council, an organization composed of over 700 firms engaged in trad e between the United States and Japan in both directions. Our interest lies 

in the expansion of a healthy trad e between these two nations. I appear before this committee in opposition to the woven label identification bill, II.It. 7043, which requires tha t imported woven labels must have woven 

into them the name of the country where woven. We are opi>osed to this bill because it represents an unwa rranted departu re from U.S. law and internationally accepted stan dard s regardin g marking. If enacted, this bill would prove costly to U.S. manufa cturer s and importers. Under the guise of eliminating a deceptive practice, the bill could, in some cases, resul t in misleading the public. The ultim ate consequence would be a hindrance to the free flow of trade and an invitation, albeit unintentioned, to our tradin g part ners 

to similar ly complicate thei r own marking requirements. The question of identifyin g woven labels with the country of origin has been before the Congress and Government agencies for a number of years. In our opinion, the record does not indicate any need for a depa rture from existing law and practice. Packages of labels are now identified with the country of origin, 

but the individual labels are excluded from marking. The industry proponents of the bill have argued th at this exclusion is based on 

the Federa l Trade Commission’s misinterpretation of the Gibson-Thompson case 

(27 C.C.P.A. 267, 1954) and misunderstanding of the effect on the public of individual markings and on the Bureau of Customs’ haste in applying the 

Gibson case. In fact, however, the Federal Trade Commission found the exclu­ sion to be app ropriate only a fte r receiving testimony from all interested parties, including the proponents of this bill. The Commission, in opposing the enact­ ment of a similar bill in 1963, reaffirmed its earlier reasoning, apparen tly still of the opinion tha t the indu stry’s position was withou t foundation. Likewise, the Bureau of Customs, afte r years of practice under the exclusion, said in 1963 tha t no evidence had been presented to show t hat the exclusion was ina ppropr iate 

or had misled the public. Supporters of thi s bill asse rt tha t imported labels are being sold in the United States witho ut any indication tha t they are of foreign origin. Yet individual imported labels are excluded from marking requirements only if the collector of customs is satisfied tha t the labels will reach the ultimat e pu rchaser—in this case the clothing manu factu rer—in an unopened package clearly marked with the country of origin. To the best of our knowledge, the domestic label manufac­ ture rs have yet to demonstrate to the Bureau of Customs the violation of this 

requirement. The whole reason for marking with country of origin is murky and appeals to unsta ted prejudices or supposed prejudices on the par t of consumers. Neverthe­ less, we are in complete agreement with the supporters of this bill tha t it would be fraud ulent if an article ma nufactu red abroad were marked in such a way as to convey the impression to the purchaser tha t it was manufa ctured in the United 

States. The domestic label manufacture rs assert tha t importers resell labels in repackaged or individual form. Our industr y source is unaware of any such practice and, furthermore, indicates th at it is highly improbable. With a roll of 1,000 labels selling for only $3 to $5, it would be too costly to repackage or break down the roll. Nor is there any rhyme or reason for breaking up a package with a specific clothing manu factu rer’s name on the lab els; and labels 

of this na ture constitute the bulk of imports. In short, we believe tha t the ultimate purchaser is apprised of the source of the labels. If, however, despite the seeming economic irration ality of it, there are some few importers who are engaging in deceptive marketing prac­ tices, this should be brought to the atten tion of the approp riate agencies. The Federal Trade Commission and the Bureau of Customs are fully empowered under existing law to eliminate any such practices. This would be a much more equitable solution, we believe, than imposing a costly burden on the whole 

import sector.
74 IMPORTED WOVEN LABEL S

We qu es tio n th e do m es tic in d u st ry ’s as se rt io n th a t m ar kin g of la be ls ca n be 

don e a t pr ac ti ca ll y no co st an d w it h no im pa ir m en t of th eir us e or ap pe ar an ce 

on th e tu rn u n d er po rtio n of th e la be l. Th e Ja pan es e, wh o su pp ly ov er 90 per ­

ce nt of im po rte d lab els , ha ve sa id th e ad dit io nal co st of th is pr oc es s wo uld 

ne ce ss ita te ra is in g th eir pr ic es to U.S . im po rt er s an d cl ot hi ng m an ufa ct ure rs . 

Mo reo ver, th e Ja pan es e pr od uc er s la ck suf fic ien t pr ec is io n in th e ir lab el- we av ing 

pro ce sse s to gu ar an te e th a t th e co untr y ca n be p ut on th e tu rn u n d er po rti on 

of t lie la be l wh ich is only on e- eigh th or th re e- si xt ee nth s of an inch wide. T he re ­

for e, th e m ar ki ng of te n m ay be who lly or p art ia ll y vi sibl e an d th us be u n a ttr ac ti ve or m isl ea ding . Some la be ls, ca lle d siz e han ger s a re sim pl y too sm al l 

fo r th e Ja pa nes e to be ab le to w ea ve th e co un tr y m ar kin g on th e labe l in a pl ac e 

wh ich c an be t ur ne d un de r.

In thos e in st an ce s w he re th e co untr y id en tifi ca tion w as visib le, co ns id er ab le 

co nfus ion co uld en su e in th a t th er e m ig ht be di ff er en t co un tr ie s of or ig in fo r 

th e lab el an d th e ite m to w hich it is affi xed . T hi s m ig ht ev en re su lt in a hi ndr an ce to th e sa le o f go ods m an ufa ctu re d in th e U ni te d Sta te s. Supp ose , fo r in ­

st an ce , a su it we re m an ufa ct ure d in th e U ni te d S ta te s an d a lab el m an uf ac tu re d 

ab ro ad we re affix ed to it ; th e pr os pe ct iv e su it bu ye r co ul d ve ry we ll co nf us e 

th e or ig in o f th e lab el fo r th e or ig in o f th e su it.

Thu s it is ev id en t th a t th is bi ll do es not sto p a t ac ce pt ed pr in ci pl es re ga rd in g 

de ce pt ion an d m is re pr es en ta tio n b ut ex te nd s in to th e are a of pr ot ec tio ni sm . 

We a re su re th a t th e su bc om m itt ee is aw ar e of th e pu rp os es of th e T ra de E xpa ns io n Ac t of 19 62 an d of th e se ri ou sn es s th e U ni te d S ta te s at ta ch es to a fa v ­

or ab le ou tco me of th e Ken ne dy ro un d of GA TT neg ot ia tion s now be ing co ndu ct ed i n Genev a.

M ar ki ng re qu irem en ts , if ab us ed , co n st it u te s a n onta ri ff b arr ie r. Th e U ni te d 

S ta te s is mak in g st re nu ou s ef fo rts to ha ve our tr a d in g p a rt n e rs rem ov e su ch 

b arr ie rs w hi ch im pede U.S. ex p o rt tr ad e. Th e mo st fr u s tr a ti n g im pe di m en ts to 

tr ad e ar e no t ta riff s. Th ey a re o th er m ea su re s, such as in te rn al di sc ri m in ato ry ta xa ti on , va riou s qu ot a de vic es , nat io nal pr ef er en ce pra ct ic es , an d m ar ki ng 

re qu ir em en ts goi ng bey on d id en tifi ca tion pu rp os es . The en ac tm en t of a wo ven 

lab el m ar ki ng bil l wo uld un do ub te dl y cr ea te pr ob le m s fo r ou r neg ot ia to rs in 

th ei r e ffor ts t o el im in at e fo re ig n no nt ar if f b arr ie rs .

W ith ou r ba la nc e- of -p ay m en ts dif fic ult ies , th e U ni te d S ta te s ca nn ot af fo rd to 

ha m pe r th e co nt in ue d ex pa ns io n of it s ex po rts. In 1964, U.S . ex po rt s am ou nt ed 

to $2 5.3 bil lio n, w he re as im po rt s w er e $1 8.6 bi lli on . T hi s $6 .7 bi lli on su rp lu s 

w as one of th e few b ri g h t sp ot s in our ba la nc e- of -p ay m en ts si tu at io n an d a 

he al th y pl us fa cto r fo r do m es tic em pl oy men t. E xport s to Ja p an , our be st 

ov er se a cu sto me r, re ac he d a re co rd hi gh of $1 .9 bi lli on in 19 64 , w he re as im po rts 

fro m th a t co un try w er e $1 .8 bil lio n. T hi s $1 30 m ill io n ex port su rp lu s pu sh ed 

o u r 10 -y ea r cu m ul at iv e ex por t su rp lu s in tr ad e w ith Ja p a n to ov er $2.5 billi on .

Mo reo ver , th e do m es tic wo ven la be l in dust ry doe s no t see m to be in ne ed of 

any pr ot ec tio n. A sp ok es m an fo r th e do mes tic in d u st ry es ti m at ed a t th e 19 63 

he ar in gs on th is su bj ec t th a t do mes tic co ns um pt io n am ou nt ed to ab ou t $25 

mi lli on . We unde rs ta nd th a t th is m ay be a bit hi gh b u t we ca n us e it as a ro ug h 

m ea su re of an nua l co ns um pt io n. T ota l im po rt s of wo ven labe ls in 19 64 

am ou nt ed to $1 .4 mi lli on . Im por ts , th er ef or e, a re co ns id er ab ly les s th a n 10 

pe rc en t of do me sti c co ns um pt io n. A no th er in di ca tion of th e co m pe tit iv en es s of 

th e do me sti c in dust ry is th a t it is ex po rt in g la be ls 'th ro ug ho ut th e fr ee wor ld, 

an d a sign ifi ca nt po rtio n of th es e la be ls a re g oin g to Ja p an .

We are con fid ent th a t th e G ov er nm en t ag en cies re sp on sibl e fo r ad m in is te ri ng 

ou r la be lin g law s wi ll agai n ta ke th e po sitio n th a t pre se n t law s ar e fu lly ad equ at e to car ry out th e po lic y pu rp os es und er ly in g la be lin g re qu irem en ts . 

T he re fo re we re sp ec tful ly urg e th a t th is le gi sl at io n not be en ac ted.

Mr. Macdonald. Mr. Don De Bolt ?

Mr. I)e Bolt. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF DON J. De BOLT, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT 

AFFAIRS, MENSWEAR RETAILERS OF AMERICA

Mr. De Bolt. Mr. Chairman, I am Don De Bolt, director of Government relations, Menswear Retailers of America.

The hour is getting very, very late. If you would prefer, I will be 

glad to ask for permission to introduce the statement into the record 

and I have just a couple of comments which I think are pertinent.
IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS 75

Mr. Macdonald. Without objection your statement will be inserted

in the record as if read. - i n •

Mr. De Bolt. I very much appreciate Mr. Chandler’s kind allusion 

to our statement. Our statement does specifically state, however, that 

we do not have a position on the intent of the proposed legislation. 

We are neither for the bill nor are we against the bill. We merely 

affirm quite strongly that the language of the bill we feel would lie 

improved if it is favorably considered by this subcommittee and enacted into law if the language specifically states that the country-oforigin disclosure be made someplace on the label where it is not appar ­

ent to the retail purchaser in one of our retail stores.

Beyond that, Mr. Chairman, we thank you very much for the opportun ity to present our views on this subject.

Mr. Macdonald. Right. Thank you. Any questions?

Mr. Curtin. No questions.

Mr. Macdonald. Tha nk you very much.

(The prepared statement of Mr. De Bolt fol low s:)

Sta tem en t of D on J. UeB ol t, Men sw ea r R et ail er s of A me rica

Mr . C hai rm an and m em be rs of th e su bc om m itte e, M en sw ea r R et ail ers of 

A m er ic a which u n ti l th is y ear w as kn ow n as th e N at io nal Assoc iatio n of R eta il 

•C lothier s & F urn is hers , has fo r 50 years been th e nati o n al tr ad e as so ci at io n 

se rv in g in de pe nd en t re ta il ers of m en 's and bo ys ’ ap pa re l. O ur mem be rshi p no w 

nu m be rs 3,000 fine st ore s in all 50 S ta te s. F ir m s of th e ty pe re pre se nte d b y our 

as so ci at io n to da y ac co un t fo r nearl y $3 billio n in sa le s of th e $13 billi on A m er ican co ns um er s will sp en d th is y ear on m en ’s and b oy s’ a ppare l ite ms.

O ur or ga ni za tion de ep ly appre cia te s th e t im e gra nte d us duri ng thes e hea ri ngs 

to ex pre ss a few b ri ef co m m en ts on behalf o f th e re ta il m en 's w ea r in dust ry .

The bu lk of th e m er ch an di se sold in th es e st ore s may be af fe cted by pr ov isio ns 

of H.R . 7043 as wov en la be ls a re aff ixe d to th es e pro duct s fo r id en tifica tion p u rpo ses. Man y stor es , in fa ct, ov er th e years hav e de ve lope d w hat is kn ow n as 

p ri v ate bra nds which id en tify th e m er ch an dis e th ey se ll w ith th e ir p art ic u la r 

st or e. The st ore ’s p ri v ate labe l is us ed in plac e of w hat m ig ht no rm al ly be th e 

m an u fa ctu re r’s ow n bra n d or id en tifi ca tion on labe ls affixed to th e m er ch an di se .

M en sw ea r R eta il ers of A m er ic a has no po sition on th e in te n t of th e prop os ed 

le gis la tion which wou ld re quir e a countr y of origi n di sc lo su re on wo ven la be ls 

im po rt ed in to th is co un try. W e a re n eit h er fo r th e bil l, nor a re we again st it.

W e ar e, ho wev er, co nc er ne d w ith th e mec ha nics of H.R . 7043 in th e ev en t it 

sh ou ld be fa vor ab ly re port ed by th is s ub co m m itte e an d su bs eq ue nt ly become law.

I t wou ld appear th a t th e in te n t of th is le gis la tion is to cre ate aw ar en es s on 

th e p a rt of firm s wh o m anufa ctu re pro ducts fo r which th ey purc has e id en tify in g 

wov en labe ls. An ex am pl e wou ld be th e pro du ce r of m en ’s ta ilore d cl ot hi ng 

su ch as su its, sp ort s co at s, and ove rc oa ts. A co un try- of -o rig in dis cl osu re wou ld 

in fo rm a m an u fa ctu re r as to w heth er la bel s he is usi ng a re m ad e in th e U ni te d 

S ta te s or in anoth er co un tr y. Pre su m ab ly , th is wo uld influ en ce his bu yi ng 

de cision s w he n purc has in g l ab el s f o r his g ar m en ts.

T her e appare ntl y is no des ir e to in fo rm th e u lt im ate u se r of th e garm ent in 

w hi ch t his lab el is u se d as t o th e origi n of th e labe l i tsel f.

The so ur ce of th e la be l wou ld not in flue nc e th e bu yi ng de cision of a cu st om er 

in a r eta il s to re—b u t it co uld se rv e t o con fu se such a cus to mer.

Q ui te fr eq uentl y appare l item s m anufa ctu re d in th is co unt ry a re m ad e from 

fa bri cs im por te d fr om an o th er co untr y. T he F edera l T ra d e Com miss ion has re ­

centl y dec la re d th a t a ft e r Nov em be r 20, 1905, whe n a m an u fa ctu re r of an art ic le 

w ishe s to in dic at e to co ns um er s th a t th e fa bri c us ed in th e garm ent is im ­

port ed—he m us t disclose o n th e l ab el th e n am e of th e co untr y in whi ch th e fabri c 

is mad e.

The re port issu ed by th e In te rs ta te and For ei gn Co mmerce Com m itt ee of th e 

88t h Con gr es s on id en tica l le gi sl at io n did spec ifi ca lly n ot e th a t a co un try- of -o rigi n 

di sc lo su re on wov en la be ls im po rted in to th is co un try, co uld be m ad e on th e 

unders id e of th e lab el. W he n th e labe l is aff ixe d to an appare l ite m , th is dis ­

cl osu re w ou ld n ot be a p pare nt to the p urc hase r i n a r e ta il st or e.
76 IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS

If, however, a country-of-origin disclosure on imported woven labels is made out 

the face of the label—visible to purchasers of products in a retail store—substa ntial confusion arises.

A custom er considering the purchase of a suit would note one label th at might 

say “Made in Britain.” This would perh aps refer to the fabric. Another label, 

or conceivably even the same label might read, “Made in the Netherlands.” Obviously at this point the customer is torn between whether the garmen t under 

consideration was made in eit he r of these two countries, whether the fabric only 

came from one of these two countries, or whether th ere is j us t a grand conspiracy 

afoot to hopelessly confuse the unsuspecting American consumers.

The possibility of this happening prom pts us to recommend to this subcomittee 

th at specific language be included in H.R. 7043 allowing the country-of-origin 

disclosure to be made on th e r everse side of the label—th e side not showing after 

it has been sewrn into a garmen t. It is our hope inclusion of this language in 

the bill itself will elim inate much of the possible mis interpretation and ensuing 

confusion th at could arise. This recommendation, w’e believe, is in accord with 

the congressional intent as expressed by the prior rep ort on sim ilar legislation 

which we have previously mentioned.

Retaile rs are continually aw are th at meaningful and acc ura te information is 

imp ortant to the consumers as they make their buying decisions. It is the goal 

of our industry to m ake available the best possible inform atio n through labeling 

and other means to keep our custom ers well inform ed.

We urge th at this subcommittee in its delibera tions on H.R. 7043 recognize 

a possible flaw in the bill as presently writte n and move to correct this thro ugh 

the inclusion of specific lan guage indicating country-of-origin disclosures may be 

on the underside of imported woven labels.

Thank you very much.

Mt. M acdonald. Mr. A1 Kessler.

STATEMENT OF AL KESSLER, LABELS UNLIMITED, INC.

Mr. Kessler. Mr. Chairman, my name is A1 Kessler. I am from 

Labels Unlimited. I am an importer.

I have here several letters which I received from my manufacturers 

who are vitally interested in this bill. We have heard from the importers of woven labels and we have heard from the domestic weavers 

of woven labels, but strangely enough we haven’t heard from the people 

who are directly involved in this bill.

And as a result, I took the time to contact several of them to tell them 

of this particu lar bill that was under advisement to this committee, 

and I wanted to get their feelings. I shall respectfully submit these 

five letters here, if I may.

Mr. Macdonald. Well, who are the letters from? I didn’t quite 

follow you.

Mr. Kessler. From manufacturers to this committee.

Mr. Macdonald. Manufacturers of what?

Mr. Kessler. Of garments.

Mr. Macdonald. Of garments?

Mr. Kessler. Yes. And the y are the ultim ate users of labels 

an d------

Mr. Macdonald. Just for purposes of the record why don’t you— 

and they will be received—why don’t you state from 'whom each one of 

the five letters is for purposes of identification.

Mr. Kessler. There is a letter from Michele of Miami, a letter from 

King Kole, Inc., a letter from Playboy-----

Mr. Macdonald. Is that the magazine or the-----

Mr. K essler. No. He would like to be associated wfith it, though.

And Charles of Miami, and a letter from Suntogs.
IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS 77

•(The letters referred to follow :)

Mic h ele of Mia m i, I n c.,

Miami. Fla., April 2.

S ubcom m it te e on Comm er ce an d F in a n c e, Co m m it tee on I nte rst ate an d

F or eig n Comm er ce ,

■House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Gen tlem en : We are opposed to the bill that is coming up on the floor putting

“made in Ja pa n” on our labels, for the reason we thin k the custom er will misund erstand an d thin k the garm ent is made in Japa n.

If thi s bill should go th rough, we will be unab le to purchase Jap ane se labels 

in the future.

Sincerely,

J o h n Cabo se ll i.

K in g K ol e, I nc., 

Miami, Fla., April 28,1965.

'C h a ir m a n , S ubcom m it te e on Commer ce an d F in a n c e, C om m it tee on I nte rst ate an d F or eig n Com m er ce,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

D ea r C h a ir m a n : It has come to ou r attention that your subcomm ittee is 

•considering a bill th at will req uire placing “Made in Ja pa n” on all labels manufac tur ed in Jap an.

We feel this act to be highly discrim inatory again st an item th at is insignificant in cost in relatio n to producing a total articl e of clothing, but, an item 

th at is bought in large volume by manufacturers, that will cost 200 or 300 

perc ent more if produced by an American firm. American firms ar e several 

weeks behind in production now.

The placing of “Made in Ja pa n” on every label will give the appearance that 

the whole garment is made in Japan, not jus t the label. When an item is made 

by American ma nufac tur ers th at compares closely in cost with Jap ane se manufacturers, our firm has a policy of buying only American-made merchandise. 

However, for some reason, desp ite high duty on Jap ane se labels, American 

labels are very excessive in cost in rela tion to the Japanese-made labels.

Your cooperation in not releasing this bill from committee will be greatly 

app rec iated by o ur firm.

Yours truly,

Larry Mizrach, Purchasing Agent.

P layb oy op Mia m i,

Miami, Flu.. April 22,1965.

S ubcom m it te e op Commer ce an d F in a n c e.

■Com m it tee on I nte rst ate an d F or eig n Commer ce ,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

(Attention of th e Chairm an)

D ea r Si r : It has been called to my attention tha t you have under consideration, House bill 7043, whereby it will be mandatory that all imported labels 

from Japa n must have the words “Made in Japa n” woven on each and every 

label.

I feel th at th is is a n un fair bill a nd will cause undue hard ship a nd unnecessary 

expense in my business. I cannot purchase these labels as it would give the 

erroneous impression to the public, th at my garm ent is an imported one.

I urge you to defeat th is bill.

Yours very truly,

H al H. Gl is t, P re si d en t.

C h arles of Mia m i, 

Miami, Fla., April 23, 1965.

Ch a ir m a n , S ubcom m it te e of Comm er ce an d F in a n c e.

Co m m it tee on I nte rst ate an d F or eig n Commer ce ,

House of Representatives, Washington. D.C.

D ear C h a ir m a n : We lea rn that you have under consideration bill, H.R. 7045, 

regarding the addition of the country of origin to impo rted labels.

Cost of labels from domestic sources is considerably h igher th an those woven in 

Ja pa n and since the ind ustry in this country is alre ady fully employed it would 

•create a delay in delivery. There is also the aspect of misund erstanding since
78 IMPORTED WOV EN LABELS

if th e w or ds “M ade in Ja p a n ” w er e wo ven on th e fa ce o f th e lab el th e i m pr es sion 

wou ld b e th a t th e garm en t w as m ad e in th a t co untr y a nd no t in t he U ni ted S ta te s.

T he pa ss ag e of th is bi ll wou ld, we feel ce rt ai n, cre at e co ns id er ab le har dsh ip 

on th e appar el in d u st ry and we st ro ng ly urg e yo u to in su re th a t th is bill is no t 

pa ss ed . We are al w ay s fu lly co gn izan t th a t th e labe ls a re m ad e in Ja p an an d 

su gg es t th a t th e m ar kin g on th e bo xe s is suffi cie nt id en tifica tion of th e co unt ry 

of origin.

T hankin g you fo r your co ns id er at io n of th e vi ew po int of a cl ot hing m an ufa ctu re r.

Ve ry tr uly yo urs,

W il l ia m F rie dhofe r, Pre si de nt .

Sun to gs of Mia m i, I nc.,

M iami, Fla., A pr il 22,1965.

Mr. A n Kes sler.

La be ls Unlim ite d, M ia m i, F la.

D ear Mr. Ke s s l e r : W e unders ta nd th ere is a bil l pe nd ing in th e Hou se of 

R ep re se nt at iv es , H.R. 7043, co nc er ni ng labe ls im po rted from Ja pan. We wish 

to go on reco rd as sta ti n g th a t if th is bill is pa ss ed an d th e labe ls are m ar ke d 

“M ad e in Ja p a n ” we ca n no lo ng er us e th es e labe ls. We wou ld no t p u t a lab el 

such a s th is on o ur m er ch an di se .

Ve ry tr u ly you rs,

E dward F riedl an d.

Mr. Kessler. And at the same time 1 would like to read a petition 

which I have drawn up and which I contacted these different manufacturers to get their feeling on it, and it reads as follows. It is dated 

April 23.

C h a ir m a n , S ubcom m it tee of Comm er ce an d F in a n c e,

Com m it tee on I n ter st ate an d F or eig n C omm er ce,

Hou se of R ep re se nta tive s, W as hi ng to n, D.C .

D ea r C h a ir m a n : I t has come to o u r att en ti o n th a t yo u ha ve unde r co nsi der ation bill nu m be r H.R. 7043 pert ain in g to addin g co untr y of or ig in to ea ch lab el.

We, th e un de rs ig ne d, a re m anufa ctu re rs o f c hildre n’s, lad ie s, an d men ’s a ppar el 

in Miam i an d fee l th is b il l is u n fa ir a nd u nw arr an te d an d ca n on ly ca us e un ne ce ssa ry ad ditio na l co sts to an al re ady ov er bu rd en ed in dust ry . Pas sa ge of th is bill 

wo uld m ak e it im po ssib le fo r us to purc has e an y im po rted labe ls in th e fu tu re 

as it wou ld cre ate an er ro ne ou s im pr es sion . By wea vi ng “M ade in Ja p a n ” on 

the face of th e lab el it wou ld appear as tho ug h' th e gar m ent it se lf w as m ad e in 

th a t co un tr y i nst ea d o f t h e U ni ted Sta te s.

T hi s act ca n on ly be ne fit th e do mes tic la be l w ea ver who is not in te re st ed in 

es ta blish in g th e co untr y of or ig in on labe ls but pure ly in seeing th a t th is so ur ce 

dri es up. The co st of do m es tic labe ls is a t tim es mor e th an tw ic e as m uc h as 

im po rt a nd m os t im port ant, if th ey succeed in fo rc in g us to b uy th e ir labe ls th ey 

do no t ha ve th e pro du ct io n fa cil it ie s to ac co m m od ate all th e la be ls bu si ne ss as 

th ey ar e no w on a 7- to 8 -week de live ry sc he du le on cert ain w id th labe ls.

We, th e un de rs ig ned , urg e yo u to co ns id er our po sitio n an d be g yo u to see 

th a t th is bil l is no t in tr oduc ed as it is u n fa ir an d dis cr im in at in g again st th e 

ap pa re l in dust ry w hi ch is one of t he m ajo r m ark ets in ou r co un try.

We are aw are th a t we are pur ch as in g Ja panese labe ls as ea ch in div id ual 

box is stam pi 'd “M ad e in Ja p a n ” an d no att em p t is being m ad e to ke ep th is 

in fo rm at io n fr om us. I f it is th e pu rp os e of th is bill to ad vi se th a t th es e labe ls 

are i m po rted an d not m ad e in th e U ni te d Sta te s, th en m ak e it m an dat ory th a t all 

inv oic es are du ly m ar ke d so an d no t th a t ea ch lab el shou ld so be m ar ke d. By 

th is mor e ex pe di en t m an ner it wo uld mak e it fr audule nt an d pu ni sh ab le by 

law to f ail to m en tio n co un try of or ig in.

I have here a list of 27 names ami if 1 had a little more time I 

probably could get maybe a thousand people who would sign this 

because this bill does affect tha t many people. It is not localized to 

maybe 10 importers or 39 weavers. 'Phis involves—this encompasses 

a lot larger area.

I would like to correct another impression.
IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS 79

Mr. AIacdonaijl Are you asking to have that inserted in the record ?

Mr. Kessler. Yes. May I ? Can I submit tha t—can J submit this?

Air. Macdonald. Yes. From what you have received concerning 

yourself, but do I take it you represent-----

Mr. Kessler. No.

Mr. Macdonald. Those 27 signatures i

Mr. Kessler. 1 had this letter drawn up and it was signed by 27 

manufacturers. This is a petition which they signed.

Air. Macdonald. My only point is that I am sure they are manufacturers but as I see the petition there would be nothing to indicate 

that they are manufacturers except your say-so.

Air. Kessler. Well, they have the names. The first one is Playmates 

of Miami signed by Harold Goreskin.

Another is Howard Horowitz of Miami Casuals, Inc. Kendall of 

Miami, signed by II. Wall.

These are their signatures. I have the original in my file. If you 

care to, I can submit the original.

I have here Cappelli, Inc., signed by Mendlo. Air. Martin signed 

by Mr. Miller.

Air. Macdonald. Let me just ask you this question so you won’t have 

to read the whole thin g into the record. Each one of those people 

that you indicated have signed ?

Mr. Kessler. Yes, sir.

Air. Macdonald. You testified they did sign ?

Air. Kessler. Yes, sir.

Mr. Macdonald. And that they all represent bona fide manufacturers in the Miami area?

Air. Kessler. Yes. I testified to that. I swear to that.

Mr. Macdonald. I think without objection it can be received.

(The petition referred to, with the signatures, has been placed in 

the committee files.)

Mr. Kessler. A very important factor, a great deal of importancewas laid to the fact that the label and the word J apa n can be woven 

somewhere on the label. Unfortunately these labels are sewn on and 

sometimes they do fall off. I venture to say that you gentlemen and 

this young lady here at one time or another have had a label in your 

garment and it fell off.

1 mean, these labels are sewn on but during the normal course of 

laundering they do come off.

Now, if they do come off and the retail consumer sees the word 

Jap an on the back of that label, he is not going to think very highly 

of the store which has sold him that garment.

As for weaving the words “Made in Jap an” or even just the one word 

“Ja pa n” on the back of the label without an ything appearing on the 

face of the label, it would be an impossibility. I am sure the domestic 

weavers are well aware of this inasmuch as we are speaking of a 

woven label and not a printed label. In the manufacturing of a woven 

label threads are used to create the actual lettering. You have only to 

examine the face of a label, then look at the back of it and you will see 

the loose threads, all of which create the lettering on the face. By 

weaving “Ja pa n” on the back of the label, these loose threads would 

have to appear on the fact of th e label, thereby actually marring the 

face of the label and would look as though the label were damaged..
80 IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS

As fa r as weaving it on the turnback of the label, not every manufacturer, even though they may buy a cut and folded label, will sew 

the label at both ends of the fold because there are times that they may 

elect to sew the label across the top, instead, thereby saving themselves 

about 12 cents a dozen by eliminating the need to stitch down the label 

at each fold.

Now, if they do that, the turned back end is exposed. It is true 

that Mr. Clayson from Harvard brought a garment in, a sweater which 

you have at your desk. There are a great many of those garments 

made but there are also a great deal of other garments made, particularly dresses, where the people purchase a cut and folded label and 

stitch across the top and the flaps are open at both ends.

As far as placing the word “J ap an ” on a pinked label, first please let 

me define what a pinked label is. A pinked label has a zig-zag cut at 

each end with no turnback whatever and enables the manufacturer to 

stitch the label either across the top or to sandwich it in between two 

seams at the top or sometimes at the zig-zag end, thereby making it 

impossible for us to know where to place “Made in Japa n” so th at it 

will be concealed from the public to avoid any confusion. Different 

styles of garments dictate the placement of the label and method of 

stitching. You can readily see in this type of label it would again be 

impossible to comply with this stipulation without confusing the public. I would safely say t hat about 8 percent to 10 percent of woven 

labels are being used with the pinked finish.

Another point brought out by Mr. Johnson and Mr. Chandler was 

that when a shipment arrives from Japan, the importer opens the 

cartons and removes the contents, thereby removing the identity of 

the country of origin. They also state that the inner boxes are not 

marked with the origin of the labels, making it a simple process to 

keep this information from their customers who are the manufacturers. This is ridiculous, as each inner box is clearly marked by 

either a stamp o r a sticker marked “Made in Jap an.” In the interest 

of further clarification, I am enclosing herewith the various boxes 

in which we receive our labels from Japan. These boxes are in turn 

packed into large containers. You can readily see that each and 

every box has either a stamp or a sticker plainly marked “Made in 

Jap an.” You will also note that these boxes vary in size and shape 

and the reason for this is tha t we employ various weavers in Jap an 

who each use their own method of packing. However, in each case, 

the country of origin is clearly marked. I am also submitting as 

evidence a package which we received, untampered, and you will note 

that it is wrapped in cellophane with the country of origin clearly 

visible.

We receive an average of roughly 5 million labels a month from our 

various weavers. Is i t conceivable that we would disturb such a beautiful package and go to the unnecessary expense of purchasing boxes 

and employ at least three additional in help to repack the labels, just 

to omit the country of origin? Can you also conceive the amount of 

space required to do this? My office has a total square footage of 

400 square feet which includes five desks, filing cabinets, and three 

shipping tables. I stress this {joint because this appears to be a m ajor 

argument by the domestic weavers. You can see how impractical it
IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS 81

would be for us to do these things and sell labels at the prices Mr. 

Johnson of Artistic Weaving Co. claims that we do.

Mr. Macdonald. Who is the “they” you refer to ?

Mr. Kessler. Cavalier and-----

Mr. Macdonald. You are talking about importers of foreignlabels ?

Mr. K essler. Tha t is right. I am an importer. Every label-----

Mr. Macdonald. Incidentally, where do you import from ?

Mr. Kessler. I import from Jap an but our office is in Miami.

Mr. Macdonald. From Hong Kong?

Mr. Kessler. No. I don’t import. I imported one order from 

Hong Kong, 25,000 labels which didn’t represent one-thousandth of 

my business.

Mr. Macdonald. And do you import any from the Netherlands ?

Mr. Kessler. No.

Mr. Macdonald. Strictly Japan .

Mr. Kessler. Stric tly Jap an because th at is the prime No. 1 market. 

I bring every label into my office.

A recent shipment just about 10 days’ ago came in from Jap an 

and they neglected to put “Made in Jap an" labels on the inside boxes. 

Customs opened the outside container, saw tha t the inside boxes failed 

to have the sticker “Made in J apa n.” They impounded this shipment 

and advised th at they could not release the shipment. This was right 

afte r the strike. I appealed to these people-----

Mr. Macdonald. Wh at strike ?

Mr. Kessler. The dock strike. I appealed to customs, and believe 

me, they are not very easy people to get along with because they 

live by the letter of the law. Unless the domestic weavers know 

customs men that we don’t, we don’t get an inch. We don’t get this 

much from them.

I asked them if they would permit us to receive that shipment, I 

would sign any affidavit th at they would require just, to let me get 

the shipment in and ship the goods to my customers. At first the 

customs agent on the dock refused to release th e shipment to me.

I am just trying to show how impossible it is for a shipment to 

come into this country without the inside boxes being marked “Made 

in Jap an.”

Finally, and I will submit to this committee, a- statement which I 

had to sign and submit to Mr. Betts who is a customs inspector of 

Miami wherein I stated that these labels were intended for customers 

who are aware that they are Japanese imports. I had to sign a statement tha t our invoices would be marked “Made in Jap an.” I had 

to submit my orders to Mr. Betts, to show him that my customers 

were aware tha t these labels were made in Jap an.

Now, one thin g I fail to see. Mr. Chandler started off telling us 

how many millions of labels come in from Jap an. And then he goes 

on to say that the purpose of this law is strictly and only a marking 

law. If the purpose of this law is a m arkin g law, pure and simple, 

what difference does i t make whether $1 worth of labels is brought 

in or $50 million ? None. So you can evidently see th at the purpose 

of this law is again an obstacle for the importer and we have had 

many of them.
82 IMPORTED WOVEN LABE LS

Mr. Chandler goes on to say tha t the duty is now 19 percent and 

25 cents a pound. I wish it were. It was 19 percent. It was as low 

as 12% percent. Under pressure it was brought up to 30 percent ad 

valorem plus 25 cents per pound and it is still this rate. So there 

again we have had our problems.

One other point I would like to make. A statement was made that 

a grea t deal of labels on the roll come into this country. It would 

be ridiculous to bring a great amount of these labels into this country 

because we pay 30 cents per thousand to cut and fold in Japan. If we 

brought this label into this country for the purpose of cutting and 

folding it, by their own admission it would cost $1.25 per thousand to 

cut and fold these labels.

Another thing, it is impractical to bring labels into this country 

on rolls because, as one of our previous speakers mentioned, J apa n 

cannot weave a label to exact measurements in a static length. A 

processor like J & II requires a tolerance of only 3 millimeters either 

way. Otherwise he will not cut and fold the label.

I have attempted once to send some labels to a domestic weaver to 

please cut them because they came in on rolls in error, and he sent 

the label back to me—a friend of mine, and said they can’t cut and fold 

these.

So who is going to cut and fold these labels once they come in from 

Jap an? I don’t know of any domestic weaver who would do it. 

Mr. Johnson attempts to give you a figure of w hat it would cost them 

to place the word J apa n on either end. In one breath they tell you 

that their labels cost $10 and our comparable labels cost $2 and in 

the next breath they tell you by their own costs it would cost 1 penny 

extra a thousand. So if it would only cost 1 penny extra a thousand, 

why are their labels so expensive? It doesn’t jibe. I mean the whole 

thing doesn’t make sense.

I respectfully submit, in the interests of the public, that you kindly 

reconsider this bill and see that it doesn’t pass as it would pose a great 

hardship and would tend to discourage any further importation of labels.

Mr. Macdonald. Thank you very much.

With that, all the witnesses having been called and heard, I now 

declare the hearing closed.

(The following material was submitted fo r inclusion in the re cord :)

Nati onal R et ail Mer ch a nts Asso cia ti on,

Washington, D.C., May S, 1665. Representative Torbert II. Macdonald.

Chairman, Commerce and Finance Subcommitte, House Committee on Interstate

and Foreign Commerce, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : I wish to convey to you the views of the National 

Reta il Merchants Association on H.R. 7043 now being considered by your subcommittee.

This association numbers in its membership some 14,700 retai l stores, employing more th an 800,000 people.

In order to prop erly present our views to you and to the other members of 

the subcommittee, I think it important to distinguish or separate the avowed 

purpose of this proposal from the impact it would have upon retai ler s and their 

customers.

First, we believe the re is adeq uate machinery within the confines of our 

Government to cope with any situ atio n where a domestic industry feels it is 

being damaged by imports.
IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS 83

It seem s iron ic th at a t a tim e whe n th e adm in is tr ati on an d in div id ual Me mbe rs of Con gress are de vo tin g so muc h att enti on to th e co ns um er, th ro ugh th e 

est ab lish m en t of a sp ec ia l co un sel a t th e W hite Hou se an d th e in tr oduct io n 

of le gi sl at io n urg in g th a t th e co ns um er be giv en mor e in fo rm at io n, th a t a 

m ea su re suc h as t h is h as been in trod uc ed .

L is te ni ng to your op en ing re m ark s a t th e be ginn in g of th e hea ri ngs, I re al iz e 

th a t your in te re st in th e su bj ec t of wov en labe ls is confi ned to pr ob le m s ari si ng 

out of th e ir im por ta tion. O ur co nc er n is pri m ari ly w ith th e pr ob le m s th a t 

wou ld ari se fr om re ta il ers and th eir re la tions w ith th eir cu stom er s.

R eta il ers ha ve in it ia te d labe lin g le gi sl at io n whe n th ey fe lt th e co ns um er 

re quir ed m or e in fo rm at io n. As an ex am ple, th e N at io nal R eta il M er ch an ts 

A ssoc iatio n pl ay ed an im port ant p art in th e cr ea tion an d pas sa ge of bo th th e 

Fla m m ab le F ab ri cs Act and th e Fib er P ro duct s Id en tifica tion Act. In bo th 

in st an ce s we f elt t h ere w as a n ee d f or th es e m ea su re s.

I mak e th es e ob se rv at io ns to ass ure you th a t re ta il ers are ded ic at ed to th e 

w el fa re of th e co ns um er , he nc e we m ust op po se II .I t. 7043. If th is le gi sl at io n 

wer e to be ap pr ov ed , bot h th e re ta il er an d th e co ns um er wo uld be face d w ith a 

co nf us io n of lab el s on ga rm en ts .

At th e pre se nt tim e garm ents po ss es s a maz e of labe ls an d tick et s. F or in ­

st an ce , if th e fa bri c fr om whi ch th e garm ent is m ad e is im po rte d, a la be l sh ow ­

ing th e co untr y of ori gin of th e fa bri c appears on th e sle eve of th e ga rm en t. 

The n th ere is th e m an u fa ctu re r’s la b el; th e re ta il e r’s na me appears on st il l 

anoth er lab el. Tag s re vea l th e fib er co nte nt of th e fa bri c in co mpl ianc e w ith 

F edera l T ra d e Co mmiss ion re gu la tion s, th en th ere is th e siz e ta g and al so th e 

un io n tag. No w if we add to th e wo ven labe l th e co untr y of origin, th a t is, of 

th e label, th e c on su m er w ill be h op ele ssly c on fused.

The co ns um er wou ld as su m e firs t th a t th e fa bri c w as im po rte d, sa y from 

Eng la nd . In th is co nc lusion our cu stom er wou ld be co rr ec t. Assum ing ag ai n 

th a t th e garm ent w as pro per ly id en tif ied as to th e m ak er , th e dis tr ib uto r, it s 

fib er co nt en t, siz e, etc ., th e cu st om er a t th e po in t of sa le wou ld th en ob serve 

th a t th e la bel bo re th e lege nd “Made in Belgi um .” At th is po int, his o r her 

m in d wou ld be co mpletely co nf us ed a nd u nder st andably so.

As we st ate d earl ie r, th ere are adeq uat e fa cil it ie s av ai la bl e to cope w ith pr ob ­

lem s gr ow in g out of im port ed goods, w ithout re so rt in g to th e proc ess th a t wo uld 

be cr eate d by th e ad op tion of H.R . 7043. Moreover, th e bi ll wo uld es ta blish 

an al ar m in g pr ec ed en t. O th er co mpo ne nt s of a gar m en t th a t ha pp en ed to be 

im por te d co uld be so tr eate d . W hat ab ou t im port ed b ut to ns , lin ing m ate ri al an d 

•other co mpo ne nt s?

We sinc er el y ho pe th a t in th e in te re st of th e re ta il er an d his cu stom er s, th a t 

th e C on gress w ill n ot ap pro ve H.R . 7043.

W e wou ld appre cia te th is sta te m en t be ing includ ed in th e pr in te d hea ri ngs on 

H .R . 7043.

Res pe ct fu lly su bm itte d.

.Joh n C. H az en,

Vice President. Government.

Co m m it tee fob a N at io n ai. T rade P olicy ,

Washin gto n. D.C., Ap ril SO, f965.

H on. Ore n H arris,

Ghairman, Committee on Intersta te and Foreign Commerce,

V.8. House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C. • •

Dear Mr. Ch a ir m a n : We w ish to re gis te r w ith yo ur co mmitt ee ou r op po ­

si ti o n to H.R. 7043, w hi ch wou ld re quir e th a t im po rted wo ven labe ls m us t ha ve 

wov en in to the m t he n am e o f the countr y w he re the lab el was w ove n.

Su ch a re quir em en t wou ld in our view im po se a dis cr im in at ory co st up on 

bu si ne ss op er at io ns of fo re ig n pro duce rs of su ch la be ls an d co ns eq ue nt ly on 

th e im port at io n of su ch labe ls in to th e Am er ic an m ar ket . T his wo uld oc cu r, 

not on ly w ith re sp ec t to su ch sh ip m en ts as may be mad e aft e r th e prom ise d 

le gis la tion is pa ss ed , but also w ith re sp ec t to w h at m us t am ou nt to a la rg e 

su pp ly of labe ls which ha ve alr ead y ente re d th e U ni te d S ta te s an d ar e now 

p a rt of o u r m ark et s ys tem.

W e fe el th a t th e pu rp os e of su ch a re quir em en t is cl ea rly to impo se an additi onal co st on th e im po rted pro duct in an att enip t to pr ov id e som e as si st an ce to 

do m es tic pr od uce rs of wov en la be ls wh o co nt en d th a t im po rts are ca us in g con -
84 IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS

siderable difficulty. If. as they claim, tlie ir rea l purpose is “info rm ation” to* 

pro tect the cloth ing ma nuf acturer (who is the ulti mate pur cha ser of the label 

as a pro duc t) aga inst deceptive info rma tion th at may identif y labels as 

domestic when in fac t they have been impor ted, the re are provision s in the 

Fed eral Tra de Commission Act to deal with alleg ation s of thi s type. Moreover, 

if the prod ucer s believe they are seriou sly injure d or thre ate ned wit h seriou s 

inj ury by im ports, they have recourse to the Tar iff Commission under the Tra de 

Expa nsion Act.

In any event, problems of thi s industr y, or of any oth er industry, should be 

dea lt with in a constructive way—th at is, in ways th at would improv e the longterm competitive position of those prod ucer s who need help, or which would 

bring about their successful shi ft to oth er lines of production. Res triction of 

competition, eit her direc tly or indirectly , is not consistent with the free en ter ­

prise system or the imperatives of U.S. foreign tra de policy in general and our 

leverag e in the cu rre nt tra de neg otiat ions in pa rticu lar ; nor does it serve the 

basic intere sts of those whose livelihoods are now based on the ma rke t success 

of t hei r part icu lar companies.

Our committee, which is a busine ss-su pported organization established in 1953 

to develop increasing supp ort for a policy of fre er int ern ation al trad e, does not 

repr esen t any inte rests concerned with the manufactu re, marketi ng, or any 

other aspect of the woven label business. Our concern is only wit h the need 

for U.S. policies which adequately adva nce the Nat ion’s int ere st in expan ding 

int ern ationa l trad e. It is within the terms of th at objec tive th at we oppose H.R. 

7043.

Sincere ly yours,

J oh n W. H ig h t, Execu tive Director.

F aw n F ashio n s, 

Atla nta, Go., April 23, 1965. Re H.R. 7043.

Subcomm ittee on Commerce and F in ance ,

Com mittee on I nte rstate and F oreign Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington. D.C.

Gentlemen : We would like to go on record as being in opposition to this bill. 

We feel th at if adopted it would be grossly misle ading to the public and

would resu lt in high er prices to the consumer. If the provisions were followed 

th at woven labels made in Japan must be mark ed “Made in Ja pa n” then it is 

obvious th at the consum er would then thin k th at the garment was made in 

Jap an. We do not thin k th at it is the inte ntion of the Congress to mislead 

the American consumer. If thi s type thin kin g were car ried thro ugh out the 

gar ment field the nex t step would be th at any gar me nt trimm ed with lace 

impo rted from France should carry a label sta ting this. From the re we would 

logically go a provision th at would cover buttons, embr oideries and all the othe r 

trim item s th at migh t be used. The expense of adding all thes e unnecessary 

tag s mu st inevitably res ult in th e consum er payi ng more fo r garm ents fo r nopurpose .

We definitely feel t ha t pa ssage of th is bill would be a d isserv ice to the American, 

consumer and are opposed to it.

Sincer ely yours,

L. T. Miciialove.

Nation al Cou nc il of Ame ric an I mporters, I nc.,

Hew York, N.Y., April 23, 1965.

H on. T orbert H . Macdonald,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce ami Finance, Comm ittee on Inte rstateand Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Macdonald: Our orga nization wishes to be recorded in opposition 

to H.R. 7043 on which your subcom mittee is scheduled to hold a public hea ring 

on April 27, 1965; and we respectfu lly request th at this let ter be incorpora ted 

in th e record of the hearin g on this bill.

H.R. 7043, which you intro duce d in the House on April 1, 1965, proposes to 

amend the Tex tile Fiber Pro duc ts Iden tification Act and the Wool Pro duc ts 

Labeling Act of 1939 to requ ire th at imported woven labels mus t have woven, 

into them the name of the coun try wher e the label was woven.
IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS 85

On November 4, 1963, we wrote to your comm ittee objec ting to H.R. 4994, 

which cont ained provis ions iden tical to the pre sen t H.R. 7043. Accordingly, 

•we resp ectf ully rep eat the objection we rais ed with respe ct to the 1963 bill, 

and th at is th at a consumer could be misled into thin king th at the name of the 

co un try woven on the label is the country of origin of the gar ment to which the 

label is atta che d. Thus, altho ugh a gar ment migh t have been made in the 

United States, a buye r mig ht thin k th at it was made in Jap an, for example, if 

“Ja pa n” was woven in the gar ment’s label. It is conceivable th at the mar king 

require ments in this bill may be of some help to domestic ma nufac tur ers of woven 

la be ls; bu t they are ju st as likely to inj ure ma nu fac tur ers of domestic garm ents 

‘by causing confusion abo ut the origin of such garm ents.

We resp ectf ully sub mit that, on balance, the re is very litt le to be gained by 

the enactm ent of thi s bill into law. For thi s reason, we urge your committee 

to disap prove it.

Resp ectfu lly subm itted .

Gerald H. O'Brien, Exec utive Vice Preside nt.

Standard E mbroidery I nc.,

New York, N.Y., April 23, 1965.

Hon. J ohn V. Lind say.

House of R epresen tatives,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Si r : We respectful ly requ est you to convey our reasons for opposing 

H.R. 806 the lab eling bill.

Prima rily , inclu sion of country of origin may imply th at the gar ment is of 

fore ign impor tation and man ufactur e, when act ual ly it is made by Americ an 

labor with Am erican mate rial.

Our labels ar e small enough to be uno bstrusiv e and merely indi cate name and 

size. The add itio n of the foreig n coun try name would be u ndes irable prac tica lly, 

economically, and ar tistically.

The ma nu fac tur er is now awa re of the source of the labels by clear marking 

on every litt le package of 500 labels. No deception occurs.

The Bureau of the Budget, the Federal Tra de Commission, the Dep artm ents 

of State, Commerce, and Tre asu ry all have gone on record th at this bill is 

unne cessary and undesirab le.

In conside ratio n of these and many more reaso ns sta ted previously at heari ngs, 

we hope thi s bill will not be enac ted into law.

Resp ectfu lly yours,

Wm. M. Cantor, Pres iden t.

Portland, Oreo., April 27, 1965.

C ha irm an, Subcommittee, of Commerce and F ina nce,

House Committee on I nt er stat e and For eign Commerce, House of Representati ves,

Washington, D.C.:

Prop osal to am end Textil e F iber P roducts Id entification Act and Wool Products 

Labeling Act o f 1939 to req uire t ha t impo rted woven labels m ust have woven into 

the m the name of the coun try of origin. Objecting to this measure because it 

might be interp reted th at g arm ent is made outside the Unite d Sta tes and not the 

label. Label ma nuf act ure rs in United Sta tes are not compe titive to manufactu re rs in Japa n and Hong Kong. Urging you strongly to supp ort our sta nd and 

not change req uire men ts of woven labels.

L. L. Rennett, Whitestag Man ufac turing Co.

Statement of Narrow Fabrics Institute, I nc.

The Narro w Fab rics In sti tu te is a tra de association repr esen ting le ading m anu ­

fac turers of woven none lastic n arro w fabrics used in a w ide r ang e of app licat ions, 

inclu ding military, commerical, and consumer products. As such, we wish to 

go on record in supp ort of H.R. 7043 which would req uire th at impor ted woven 

labels of tex tile or wool have woven into them the name of the country in which 

the y were manufact ured .
86 IMPORTED WOVEN LABELS

In ad di tion , we stro ng ly r ec om men d th a t II .R . 7043 be ex pa nd ed t o re quir e t h a t 

al l im po rted te xti le nar ro w fa bri c pr od uc ts , in cl ud in g tai>es, bind ings , rib bo ns, 

etc ., be m ar ke d in som e ad eq ua te m an ne r to in dic at e th e co un try in whi ch th ey 

were m an uf ac tu re d.

The re is in cr ea si ng ev iden ce th a t im po rted ta pe is be ing offered as Amer ican 

goo ds, an d fu rt her, th a t such tai)e is be ing of fered a t from $1 to $2 b elo w th e cost 

a t which it can be ma de in th e U ni ted Sta te s, ev en a ft e r pa ym en t of th e im po rt 

dut y an d a ft e r pa ss in g from th e im port er th ro ugh se ve ra l jo bber lev els . As yo u 

ca n ap pr ec ia te , th is ki nd of fo re ig n co m pe tition is ca usi ng in ju ry to m an y p la nts 

an d is co nt ri bu ting t o th e u ne mpl oy men t pr ob lem i n th is c ou nt ry .

You r co ns id er at io n of th e ne ed s of Amer ican m anufa ctu re rs of wov en labe ls 

an d ot her nar ro w fa bri c pr od uct s w ill be ve ry m uc h ap pr ec ia te d.

(Whereupon, at 5:25 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.)

o