HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.beal/bnra0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
68TH CONGRESS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Emme
Ed Session I t4 lS2
THE MISBRANDING BILL, 1923
JANUARY 22, 1925.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. MERRIrr, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H. R. 11723]
The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to which
was referred the bill (H. R. 11723) to protect the public against fraud
by prohibiting the sale or shipment in interstate or foreign commerce
of misbranded articles, and for other purposes, having had the same
under consideration, reports it back to the House without amend-
ment and recommends that the bill do pass.
The bill reported by the committee has resulted from the following
bills: H. R. 16, introduced by Mr. Rogers, which is a general bill to
protect against fraud by misbranding; the Barkley bill (H. R. 3225)
similar to the Rogers bill; the French bill (H. R. 739) relating only
to fabrics and especially to woolens, which is a compulsory branding
bill; the Raker bill (H. R. 732) similar to the French bill; the Reece
bill (H. R. 4141) which is a compulsory branding bill relating to
specific articles; the Johnson bill (H. R. 65), also the Johnson bill
(H. R. 742); the French bill (H. R. 738); the Haugen bill (H. R. 7758);
the Greist bill (H. R. 7822); the Burtness bill (H. R. 7965); the
Kindred bill (H. R. 7997), all of these latter bills relating to branding
of some specific article or articles.
The fundamental contention by witnesses before the committee
and by those sponsoring the bills has been as to the advisability of a
compulsory branding of all or certain articles specified by the bills,
such brands to specify with more or less accuracy the material of
which the fabric is made and the proportion of each ingredient; and,
on the other hand, a bill which would not make branding compulsory
but which would prohibit any misrepresentation in any brand or label.
The general subject matter covered by these bills has been before
Congress for more than 20 years, but no legislation has resulted from
the various bills proposed, although they have several times been
actively supported by important interests.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.beal/bnra0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)