The Washington herald., 1920-04-28

but the manufactured product goes
for all wool just the same. The
argument used by the wool pro-
ducers is that the consumer is CON-
PEELED to buy this "shoddy" cloth,
paying virgin wool prices for IL,
and that is the reason that hand
me-downs" in retail stores are
priced at from SIS to slo0 a suit
None but an expert can tell the diff
ference between virgin wool cloth
and that mixed with shoddy. Con-
sequently it is maintained that the
sheep growers have on their side
not alone the consumers but prac-
i,ticalfx every retail and wholesale
lInerchsnt insthe country, who are
now at the mercy OF the iprofiteer-
ing manufacturers.
The manufacturers, making no
distinction in price between the
shoddy material and the virgin wool
fabric, according to the arguments
presented to the Congressional COM
mittee, the consumer actually pays
$3.50 in excess profits for a suit
of clothes. These figures were pre-
sented to the committee: Basing the
price of a piece of cloth. containing
shoddy at $40. II was figured that
the wholesaler added 50 per cent to
this as his profit. makink the piece
cost s16. The retailer added another
co per cent to the SIS making a total
Of $3.50 to the public.
Charge for Virgin Wool.
The manufacturer, according to
the claim made, charged SIS in
stead of the $40, the former figure
representing the value of virgin
wool cloth. Adding so per cent to
the SIS and a like percentage to
the S24, the total is $3.50 instead
OF the legitimate $3.50. This is
where the consumer pays exactly
as much for shoddy as for virgin
wool. ---r
According to the arguments of
Mr.. Malaney, the effect would be
more striking were the French bill
TO pass. A consumer. he argues,
would under no circumstances pay
an exhorbitant price for shoddy
material when he had the stamped
goods in front of him. He would
pay the real value of virgin wool
cloth IL he could afford it. The effect
would be, he claims. that the price
on what is now known as "all WOOL
goods would be reduced SO per cent.
He makes. a positive statement that
manufacturers do not dlfferentiate
between. shoddy goods and virgin
wool goods but charge virgin wool
prices for all, which he contends is
Iprofiteering with a vengeance.
NO one who examines the French
BILL" said Mr.. Malaney, "can con-
scientiously oppose IL. II will pro-
tect honest manufactures and con-
sumers as well. 1t will tremendous
ly increase production of wool. Pos
sibiy the wool-grower will get more
for his wool in that case. but this
Will have the effect to lower the
price Of the sheep. and lamb and
mutton viii consequently be cheap
'er and part of the food problem is
solved. Naturally the consumer
will get his clothes cheaper. Com
petficn and the very fact that the
manufacturer will be compelled to
sell shoddy material at its value
will tend to enormously lower the
cost of clothing. None but a sucker
will pay virgin wool prices for
shoddy." =
.Rag Picking MiiIiouaires.,
Mr. Malaney pointed out tie
scarcity of wool by showing that
the annual consumption of secured
wool in the United States is 3oo,-
100000 pounds. This is just enough
to give each inhabitant in the coun-
try two and one-half pounds of
wool cloth apiece. with this con-
ditior prevailing there were on
hand 729,000.s7s pounds of wool in
the, United States last September,
showing to what enormous extent
shoddy enters into '.all wool cloth.
The enormous profits of the
manufactures are shown" said Mr..
Malaney. when 1t is taken into
consideration that .shoddy WOOL
costs from 20 to SO cents a pound
and virgin wool from 70 cents to 50
a pound. There are more .rag-pick-
fng millieraires In this country to-
day than any other class. The con-
sumer is squeezed between, the man.
ufactnrer and the. ag-pieker Tho
wool-prodrcer Is making a fair
profit now. but there is no stabilized
market. He Is at the mercy of the
wooden manufacturer. Thus the
does not increare his
flock because the manufactuser
might decree that he does not need
the wool. This creates q greater
or.A <rroo So zoe >r<-f&<<s -