The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-05-28
NO MORE SHODDY
ALL WOOL" TO MEAN THREE
 PARTS SHoDDY. a
Judge Springer Says Label Will Pass-Simply Bill to En-
 force Fair Dealing.

New York Journal.
 I do not see what objections can he
 made to the present bill. Congress has
 just passed the oleomargarine blll. Its advocates oontended that the people. the
 protected against what would be gra ud-
 ulent imitation of butter. the imitation
 being so perfect that the consumer could
 not tell whether he was purchasing the
 real article or the imitation.
 This bill is the outgrowth of belief
 that the consumers of woollen goods and
 the growers of wool have a right to know
 tLat the products are manufactured and sold to the people for what they really dealing as it affects the producer of the principal product of woollen goods.-Ex Congressman Springer on the Anti-Shod- dy Bill.
 From Washington.-It Is now impossi- ble to sidetrack the anti-shoddy bill,
 which requires that goods made wholly or in part of shoddy shall be labeled. The
 American and Journal has secured an official copy of the proceedings last Wed
 nesday before the House Ways and Means Committee which was on that day compelled to give a hearing to Judge
 William M Springer and Senator War ren Here is an extract from MT. Sprin-
 gers argument. which will astonish those
 who believe that the manufacture of
 shoddy Is an unimportant matter:
 The shoddy used amounted to 1000, 900 pounds, In round numbers. during the cen-
 sus year 1900. The secured wool. exclud- ing pulled wool produced in the United States during the census year 1900 amounted to 1o1, 100000 pounds. Thus the shoddy used in one year amounted to
 nearly 75 per cent of the secured wool AS forty million sheep produced only io1 00o. 900 pounds of secured wool, the cloth producing power of the shoddy used was equal to the ieeces of 3o,00o, GOO sheep.
 The farmers had only 4o.00o,000 sheep in
 the United States during the census year 1890 ain iHfi "In other words. the cloth in the United
 States that is represented as woolen goods contained 75 per cent of another product of vastly inferior value. Tho products of the shoddy mills were S7 00o. = GOO pounds In 1900 and represented $5.0OO 00O'
 Some opponents of the Grosvenor bill are trying to prove that such legislation SIS the Merchandise Marks act of Great Britain would be sufficient. On this topic Judge Springer said:
 "I find that the Merchandise Marks act of Great Britain, passed in 1887. provided severe penalties for forging trademarks, for applying any false trade description l to goods or anything which was the sub | ject of manufacture or merchandise or goods of any kind. The act prohibits the application of any named trademark or otherwise, which Is calculated to lead persons to believe that the goods are
 manufactured by some person other than
 the person whose manufacture or mer- chandise they really are; and it also pro- hibits the use of any trade description | or any description, statement or other in- dication. direct or indirect.
 This is q very comprehensive act for
 the reason that it applies to all products
 manufactured and sold in the United Kingdom In this country it would be regarded as very sweeping measure; and if it were properly enforced U would have very beneficial effect, because it simply punjshes people for making any statement at the time of a sale which is inconsistent with the facts St requires | them 10 state nothing but what Is the truth But the seller is not required to put any mark upon his goods.
 "I have statements here from British | journals showing that the Merchandise