San Antonio light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1911-1993, 1923-02-18
SOMETHING QUEER ABOUT IT

If it performed no other service the
"pure-fabrics" law proposed in Congress
would at least furnish medium OF
public instruction in a subject concern
ing which the American people are said
to be extremely ignorant. Who. says
that they are? Clothing manufacturers,
it seems. Perhaps not all of the cloth
ing manufacturers are opposed to the
enactment OF such law. But those who
are must be very solicitous of the public
welfare.
For they are reported to have ex-
planned their motive in opposing the
bill by saying that all-wool clothing is
not the most durable, despite the popu-
lar notion that it is. And the popular
notion that all-wool clothing is superior,
so far as wearing qualities are con-
cerned, to clothing made partly of vir-
gin wool and partly of shoddy, would
cause the public to practice false econ
omy if the pending bill should become
a law, these manufacturers are repre-
scented as saying.
Without going into the merits OF the
question whether all-wool clothing is
inferior, in wearing qualities, to the
cheaper grade of garments, one might
wonder why the manufacturers should
undertake to protect the public's inter
csts at their own expense 1t is obvious
that If only all-wool suits were bought by
a given consumer, and if they were less
durable than part shoddy, cheaper suits,
that consumer would have to spend more
foON - ia 1. III Al.
would be necessary were he to act upon
the present advice Of the manufacturers
and buy part-shoddy suits. Not only
would he require greater number of
suits but each suit would cost more.
Thus the volume of the manufacture
ers' business would be maximum; and,
assuming that their rate of profit was
the same on all-wool as on part-shoddy
goods, their total net profit, too, would
be maximum. The consumer may not
be able to figure out Just why the manu-
facturers would prefer smaller profit
to larger one.
But the "pure-fabrics" bill is mis-
named. 1t does not provide that cloth
ing manufacturers shall limit their out
put to all-wocl goods; it requires mere
ly that all-wool and part-shoddy goods,
respectively, shall be marked as such,
SO that the consumer may make an in
telligent choice between the two kinds
So, if it be true, as some of the manu-
facturerS claim, that part-shoddy suits
will outWear all-wool suits, and if these
manufacturers are determined to pro-
tect the interests of the public, there
would be nothing to prevent them from
"educating' the consumers after the bill
had become a law.
Probably the entire truth of the mat
ter is that the. Directing manufacturers
fear that the branding of part-shoddy
clothing as such would so decrease the
demand therefor as to force the price
down to unproductive levels, and that
the marking of all-wool goods as such
would SO increase the demand therefor
as to exhaust the supply before the
publlc'S needs had been satisfied. Prices.
too, might rise to such heights, in the
latter case, as to result in charges of
protlteering against the manufacturers.
But it would be easy for the manu-
tacturers to prove that part-shoddv suits
possess wearing qualities superior to
those of all-wool suits-if their claim to
that effect be true. Then the manufac-
turers might find themselves tip against
another tough proposition: People might
cease buying all-wool clothes, conse-
quently the price Of raw wool might
drop "out of sight" and the wool grow
ers might let out howl that would be
heard around the world.