BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
3 9999 06542 012 5
OFFICE OF NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION
DIVISION OF REVIEW
WALKER M. DUVALL
WORK MATERIALS NO. TWENTY-TWO
> > > .
, , > >
.i ► > > i >
> > > > .
' • > . . ' ,
> , > > >
> } > .
> j > * , i
-. j > > »
. » j > » i
> , > '
i » » j > » '
. j , j
NRA ORGANIZATION STUDIES SECTION
. • ••
•• • •
• • • • • .
OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION
DIVISION OF REVIEW
WALKER M. DUVALL
NRA ORGANIZATION STUDIES SECTION
F R E W C R D
This study of NRA Insignia was prepared by Mr. Walker M.
Duvall of the NRA Organization Studies Section, Mr. ffillaim W.
Bardsley in charge.
The National Industrial Recovery Act made no mention of
the use of insignia, such as the Blue Eagle emblem so widely
distributed in the course of the administration of the Act.
This emblem was designed for use by employers to signify their
compliance with the President's Reemployment Agreement which
'as promulgated under the authority of Section 4(a) of the Act.
The Blue Eagle, later extended as it was to signify compliance
with provisions of codes of fair competition, both through the
use of display cards and of various types of labels attached to
merchandise, might be described as the NRA' s advertisement.
It was a constant reminder to the people of the country of the
existence of the National Recovery Administration, Moreover,
the Blue Eagle became administratively an important weapon for
the securing of comoliance with provisions of the President's
Reemployment Agreement and of codes.
This study deals with the origin and development of the
Blue Eagle and the ways in which it was used by the Recovery
Administration, A summary of the report is to be found im-
mediately following the table of contents. Of course, opin-
ions and recommendations are those of the author and are not
to be regarded as official utterances.
At the back'' of this report a brief statement of the
studies undertaken by the Division 01 Review will be found.
L. C. Marshall
Director, Division of Rpview
February 28, 1936
r l 9 to ?* 9
13 A^y cog
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Inception and Original T..ieory 1
II. Development "under the President's Reemployment
A ,r cement 4
I. General Availability and Display <L-
II. Explanations, Interpretations, Exemptions
and their Effect 5
III. Origin and Development of Code Insignia 8
j . Retail Trade Regulations and Code Autnority
II. Desires and Aims of Code Authorities 10
III. Desire of the Administration for Immediate
and Widespread Display 11
A. Limited Revival of Local NRA Committees 11
B. Initial Distribution by NRA . 11
C. NRA Publicity 12
IV. Pressure by Code Authorities 12
V. Code Authority Distribution 14
VI. Blue Eagle Manual for Code Authorities 15
VII. Code Authority Use, per se 16
IV. Rights in the Insignia 17
I. Delegation of Authority 17
II. The Design Patent 19
III. Right to Remove 20
IV. Reproduction Rights 20
V. Restrictions on and Regulations Regarding Insignia 21
I. Use and Display 21
TABLE OF CONTENTS - continued
II. Reproduction 21
VI. NRA Labels Bearing Insignia 24
I. The Label Idea in the Garment Codes 24
II. Blue Eagle Labelling under P.R.A. 24
III. Conflicting Jurisdiction over Insignia 25
IY. No Model Label Provisions 25
V. Types of Code Provisions regarding NRA Labels 26
VI. Code Authority Administration of Label
VII. Restrictions en Code Authorities 34
VIII. Administrative Orders 36
IX. Value of Label Provisions 37
VII. Use of Blue Eagle as Cooperative Symbol 38
VIII. Use as an Educating Force 39
IX. Use as an Enforcement Weapon 41
X. Reaction to the Blue Eagle 45
XI. Advertising Value 48
XII. NRA Administration Re Insignia 49
I. Insignia Section 49
II. Policy Development and Decisions 49
III. Public Relations Division 51
IV. Compliance and Enforcement 51
XIII. Government Contracts and the Blue Eagle 53
XIV. The Blue Eagle in the Territories 54
XV. Foreign Use of the Blue Eagle 56
TABLE OF CONTENTS - continued
I. Imports 56
II. Exports and American Firms Abroad 56
XVI. Service Trades and Insignia 57
XVII. Employers in Towns of Less Than 2500 Population 60
XVIII. Insignia Provisions in other Executive and Administrative
I. P.H.A. Extensions 61
II. Collection of Expenses of Code Administration 61
III. Sheltered Workshop Insignia 62
IV. Regulations re Removal of Code Authority
V. Prison Labor Compact Insignia 63
VI. Registration Insignia for the Trucking and
Household Goods Codes 64
XIX. Attitude of the Courts 65
XX. Cancellation of Blue Eagle Reproduction Authorization 67
XXI. Conclusions 68
I. Broad Objectives in Administration Use of
II. Insignia and Labels as Aids to Code Adminis-
III. Code Authority Control of Distribution versus
full Control by Administration 68
IV. Desirability of one Single Emblem 69
V. Recommendations 69
A. New Legislation 69
q„ _ B. Administration under new Legislation 69
A. NHA Circular No. 1
Regulations Governing Use of NEA. Emblem 71
B. Interpretation of NRA Circular No. 1 72
September 27, 1935
G. Letter of April 19, 1934 from Administrator
to the Head of every Business Establishment 74
D. Blue Eagle Reproduction Requirements 75
April 23, 1934
E. Blue Eagle Manual for Code Authorities 77
P. Amendment of Blue Eagle uanual for Code
October 1, 1934 80
G. Codes Containing Mandatory Insignia Provisions
Including NRA Labels 81
H. Letter of March 4, 1935 to Code Authorities of
Codes Having Mandatory Label Provisions from
Compliance and Enforcement Director, Subject:
Administrative Order X-135 82
I. Administrative Order No. X-144
September 4, 1935
Cancellation of Blue Eagle Reproduction Authorizations 84
A record of MA administrative experience with codes and agreements
which were promulgated under the provisions of the National Industrial
Recovery Act would hardly be complete without recording the development
and history of the Blue Eagle.
This report traces the origin and use of Insignia under the President *'s
Reemployment Agreement which preceded administration under the codes and
emphasizes the cooperative purpose of the Blu Eagle. It shows that early
in 1934 the problem of code administration became acute as numerous code
authorities bi gan functioning under recently approved codes* In review-
ing the creation and distribution of a new Blue Eagle to symbolize code
compliance, the conflict between hastily developed HRA policy and the
aims of many code authorities reveals certain dangers of industry admin-
istration as exercised by former trade associations..
The right of the government to control the Insigni and the delegation
of that power, is treat-d immediately after describing the development of
individual industry code Insignia. The protection afforded NRA by the
Design Patent is also discussed.
A separate chapter on MA labels, which also carried the Blue Eagle
Insignia, follows next in order. These labels were authorized by specific
provisions in certain of the codes of fair competition. Code authority
administration of the label provisions, in relation to code coirroliance
and revenue raising, is given detailed treatment in this chapter. It
also summarizes the value of the label provisions with special reference
to the apparel industries, in which labels were widely used,.
The effectiveness of the Blue Eagle as a cooperative symbol and as
an educating influence under the President's Agreement and also under the
codes is taken up. It is shown that the Insignia probably could have
been made a more vital force in educating the public as to what the codes
required and aimed to do, if one single emblem of code compliance had
been issued in place of the hundreds of different industry emblems.
The important use of the Blue Eagle as an instrument to aid com-
pliance and enforcement of MA codes and agreements is then given separate
treatment in the study, together with the number of cases in which NRA . v
removed the Insignia and also the number of NRA restorations.
The original public response to the Blue Eagle and the change in
public attitude which later developed were symptomatic of the Dublic
attitude toward MA in general. Reaction to the Blue Eagle and appraisal
of its advertising value are therefore given in the Report.
The government's management of the Insignia through the National Re-
covery Administration's own organization is also described in the chapter
under NRA Administration,
Succeeding chapters treat other important aspects and uses of the
9828 - y i ~
lap ■. : ■
• . i • - \
. ■. r
■ :'\ ;
r -■. i
» <*« . •
Insignia inappropriate to detail in the preceding portion of the study.
The conclusions stated in the final chapter of the Report would seem to
deserve a summarization in this General Review, together with page
references to the entire text. They are as follows:
The maix; "broad objective of the Administration's use of NRA In-
signia was to further cooperation by industry and by the public.
The secondary broad ojbective was the use of the Blue Eagle as a
direct aid to compliance and enforcement.
Insignia and labels were an aid to code administration. Labels were
particularly effective in raising revenue under the apparel industries'
Code Authorities were not sufficiently organized and free enough from
criticism to have been entrusted with pcver over a federal government In-
signia, or label bearing such Insignia, even that of distribution.
One single emblem could have avoided confusion.
Specific Insignia provisions should be incorporated in any future
legislation wherein the subject matter indicates that the use of In-
signia or labels may be found necessary in administration.
Adequate Insignia regulations should be prepared in advance of
issuance, which was not done under NRA,
A single simple emblem, different from the Blue Eagle should be
adopted and patented, if any Insignia is to be used in future administra-
Regulations should vest all control, including distribution, in the
government alone, with enforcement control in the enforcement branch of
Any regulations should contain a proscription against Insignia
uses associated with raising revenue by industry agencies, in order to
preserve the broader symbolism of government Insignia,
ii t cs?t::p: a:~d cri gieal teeory
It is evident in r:; ■' i . the provisions of the national Industrial
Recovery Act that government Insignia such as the Blue Eagle was not
mentioned or referred to in the legislation. Despite this, within
seven ^eeks after the Act became eihh.ctive the Hue Eagle had become a
moving force in administration to an even greater decree than the
Liberty Loan Posters of the Uorld Uar.
On Hay 17, 1933, the President in his Special Message to Congress,
urged immediate passage of recovery legislation to initiate a reemploy-
nent compe.ign. Upon enactnent of the legislation the new National
Recovery Administration prepared itself for receipt of prowosed codes
and the holding of code hearings. It pas soon apparent that delay in
the code making process would prevent immediate reemployment on the
broad scale desired n oi T the President.
The decision of the President to put through a plan for the imne-
dia/fce relief of unemployment resulted in the President's Reemployment
Program, outlined in iTRA Bulletin ITo. 3 of July 20, 1933. Paragraphs S
and 3 of this Bulletin indicate the pumose of the 1TRA Insignia. Some
few days prior to the issuance of Bulletin ho. 3 the Administration's
idea of an employer 1 s badge of cooperation took the form of the nor?
familiar Elue Eagle, designed by the artist, Charles Coiner and accept-
ed after numerous drawings had been submitted.
The pertinent paragraphs of Bulletin Ho. 3 read, as follows:
"6. Employers' ba.dge of cooiDeration.
For the public to do its part, it must know which
employers .have done their part to put people back to "or!:
by mailing these AGREEEEETS with the President and by codes.
Every industry and every employer who has agreed with the
President on this plan, or who has had approved. a code
covering the vital subject of reemployment, will be en-
rolled as a member of E.R.A. and given a certificate and
a Government badge showing the seal of E.R.A. and the
words: 'member E.R.A. We do our part'. It will be auth-
orised to show this badge on all its equipment, goods,
ccmrmnications, and premises. Lists of all employers
authorised to use this, "badge will be on file at all post
offices so that any misrepresentation by unauthorized
use of E.R.A. badges can be -prevented. '•
"8. Cor,sur.iers' badge of cooperation.
Every consumer in the United States who wishes to
cooperate in the President's reemployment drive and be
considered as a member in IT.R.A. may at airy time after
August 1, 1933, go to the authorized establishment in
his locality (to "be announced later) and sign a state-
ment of cooperation as follows: ■■■
'I will cooperate in reemployment "by sup-
porting and patronizing employers and workers
v:ho are members of 1T.R.A.S
Any such signer will then be given and-' may thereafter
use the insignia of consumer membership in N.R.A."
It may be said that the Blue Eagle uas conceived in haste and de-
veloped in haste. Between July 15 and August 1 it was designed, print-
ed and made available to employers in every local post office through-
out the United States. Over two million complete employer sets, each
including various impressions on posters, cards and stickers, together
with twenty-two million consumer Insignia stickers and pledge cards(*)
nere thus made available. In the same period were printed some si::
million copies each of the Agreement, Certificate of Compliance"' and the return
addressed envelope in which to mail, the signea Agreement to tne appro-
priate Commerce District Office. Local letter carriers distributed
this material during the last few days of July to more than three mil-
lion business establishments. The presentation of the signed Certifi-
cate of Compliance at the post office after August 1, entitled the
employer to display the Blue Eagle as a badge of honor and membership
More employer Blue Eagles were printed in August and, along with
them, many million more consumer stickers carrying the same slogan,
"We do our Part", with the word "Consumer" across the Blue Eagle's
breast. These latter were hurriedly distributed by the newly formed
local ITPA committees under the direction of the Public Relations Divi-
sion of ITPA.
In General Johnson's book, "The Blue Eagle from Egg to Earth",
considerable space is devoted to the inception of the Blue Eagle idea.
He refers the system of pledges required of manufacturers, jobbers,
and retailers by the War Industries Board and the display of an ex-
hibit c^rd by retailers during "war days, and he quotes a portion of the
Liay 20, 1933 speech to the Brookings Institution a* Bernard f.I. Baruch,
former head of the War Industries Board, as follows:
"mobilization of public opinion becomes important. If
it is commonly understood that those who are cooperating
are soldiers against the enemy within and those who omit
to act are on the other side, there will be little hanging
(*) History of Insignia Section, August 28,1935, filed with
ITPA Record Section, for printing and distribution of infor-
mation relative to Insignia material and agreement farms
for employers operating under the President's Reemployment
back. The Insignia of government... approval on doorways,
letterheads and invoices '"Trill become a necessity' - in
"business. This method was a success in 1918. It is a
short cut to action and to public support without which
no such plan can succeed. By this .method a large part
of the emergency job can he accomplished in short order".
» .. Wcien the . President ' s Reemployment Agreement was on its way to
employers the President said: .
"In war, in the gloom of night attack, soldiers near a
. bright badge- on their shoulders to be sure that comrades
do not fire on comrades. On that principle, those who
cooperate in this program must know each other at a
glance. That is why we have provided a badge of honor
for this purpose, a simple, design with the legend 'We
do our j) art. ' , and I ask- that, all who join with me shall
display that badge prominently. It is essential to our
purpose". (President's Hadio Address July 24, 1933)
These early .statements seem to indicate that the Blue Eagle as
conceived had no relationship to devices., such as white lists, black
lists, or labels similar to the Union Label, which have at times been
used coercively. Had. the boycott idea been present at the- start of the
program it could best have been expressed officially*" by imposing on' the
signer of the PEA. the obligation to refrain from dealing T ; f ith non-
signers, or with those who did not live up to the spirit of the PEA.
Such negative obligation was not imposed. The signer was merely asked,
in paragraph 10, "to support and patronize establishments which also .
have signed this agreement and are listed, as members of LIRA". .
The "Honor .Roll" of employer signers of the Agreement which was
maintained at" -each -post office helped, fulfil the primary purpose of
the Blue Eagle, to promote cooperative action. The name "Insignia",
soon used officially to describe the emblem, laid emphasis on the use
of the Blue Eagle as a mark of honor.-.
T^o other statements from General Johnson' s book can well be
quoted to add emphasis to the original theory of the Blue Eagle.
"The greatest service ERA could- do was to restore hope
and confidence. ■ Through the Blue Eagle it tried to
give'-mebple something' definite that they could do and
hope for, and instead -of leaving them helpless under the
bludgeoning of a great disaster, to show them how they
could act together to fight it."
"To make it possible for such a public opinion to support
those who were cooperating to create employment and pur-
chasing power and to withhold support from those who were
not, there had to be a symbol easily recognizable, striking
and effective. VJe designed the Blue Eagle for this
DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE PRESIDENT'S REEMPLOYMENT
I. GENERAL AVAILABILITY AND DISPLAY(*)
During- the month of August 1933, nearly one and one-half million
employers presented signed Certificates of Compliance tc loial post offices
and received their Insignia. A variety of display nieces in each employer ' ss?t
permitted him to inform the public that he had pledged himself to the
President's program. The public in turn was quick to respond by signing
the consumer's nledge of cooperation and by displaying the consumer sticker.
To supplement the twenty-two million consumer stickers already mentioned,
hurried contracts were let under which lithographers rushed additional
quantities of the stickers to clamoring local NRA committees. Altogether
nearly sever ty— two million consumer stickers were printed, cf which a
large proportion found their way to private automobile windshields and
the windows of private homes during the August and September, 1933, "Con-
Adequate stocks uf employer 3lue Eagles were on hand at most of the
43,000 post offices and a speedy system of replenishment had been opera-
ting since August 1. In consequence, and spurred by the avalanche of
press notices, radio appeals and active cooperation of local committeemen,
the American public was soon experiencing an almost universal display of
Some two million employers displayed the official Insignia furnished
by post offices during the progrees of the campaign - not far short of
the 2,317,838 employers actually reported to have signed the Agreement,
as of Aoril 28, 1934. In addition, many branch stores and offices of
firms, whose main offices only had signed the Agreement 5 •, ere priviledged
to display reproductions. The Commerce District Officer Lad, however,
been advised that an employer with national representation signing the
Agreement should notify his branches to sign the Agreement and obtain the
Insignia from local postmasters.
Private manufacture of Insignia had much to do with the general dis-
play. Under date of July 23, 1933, the Administrator had approved NRA
Circular No. 1, entitled "Regulations Governing Use of Insignia by Em-
ployers Who Have signed The President's Reemployment Agreement", which
was widely distributed during the early display period (Exhibit A, Ap-
pendix). Insignia mats and cuts had been furnished numerous newspapers
at the stsrt of the campaign so that these, together with thousands cf
cuts made by job printers for their customers, soon flooded the country
with Blue Eagles. They confronted the consumer on windows, merchandise
and printed matter.
(*) See also History of Insignia Section, August 28, 1935, filed with
NRA Record Section, for printing and distribution information relative
to Insignia material and agreement forms for employers operating under
the President's Reemployment Agreement.
Employers operating under approved codes were -oriviledged to obtain
the same Insignia issued under the President's Agreement by presenting
tne Certificate of Compliance at the post office with additional wording
of code compliance added to the form. In consequence, there was nothing
to prevent, and everytning to further, the widest possible display by
emoloyers and by the consuming public .
The life of the NTLA was t- ice extended by the President, once from
the original expiration date to May 1.1934 * and again indefinitely from
that date. (**) The same NRA Blue Eagle continued to be available at post
offices until after the Supreme Court decision of May 27, 1935. Stocks
of the Insignia material oreviosly furnished post offices proved more
than amole in most cases for the extended period of tne NRA. In fact, as
early as February 6, 1934, the Administration by Press Release Ho. 3154,
announced that arrangements had been made through every important post
office to distribute additional sets of Insignia to employers still under
the NEA who might desire replacements.
The lack of any Blue Eagle publicity campaign in January 1934, had
much to do with a decreasing display on tne part of employers, which be-
came evident oefore the appearance of the so-called "Code Eagle." During
1933, however, the official Insignia and reproductions of it secured a
wider display throughout the United States than any one symbol in the
history of the country.
II. EXPLANATIONS, INTERPRETATIONS, EXEMPTIONS AND THE IF EFFECT
In addition to the newspaper and radio instructions to every employer
as to how ne could obtain the Insignia after sighing the Agreement and
presenting the signed Certificate of Compliance to his postmaster, the
Administration issued instructions on August 7,(**) 1933 entitled "How
Do You Obtain The Blue Eagle," covering ca.es of 10CK-. compliance, or where
l. Code had been submitted, or through a petition for relief. On August
24(***) » these instructions were amplified and amended by a release entitled
"How To Get The Blue Eagle," its main purpose being to get the Agreement
sighed and the Insignia displayed by every possible employer.
Substantially the same instructions, plus additional NRA interpret-
ations, were contained in NRA Bulletin No. 4, entitled "What The Blue
Eagle Means To You and How You Can Get It" , which was given wide distri-
bution at tne end of August. Without reciting the various phrases required
to be added by the employer to the printed Certificate, of Compliance in
cases where a code had been submitted, where a code had been approved,
or in cases of individual hardship ccvered in this Bulletin, it may be
noted tnat an employer in each instance could readily secure the Insignia
by means of the Certificate of Compliance.
(*) Ex. 0. 6515, December 19, 1933, Vol. XV, Codes of Fair Competition,
as approved: G-overnment Printing Office.
(**) Ex. 0* No. 6678-A, April 14, 1934, vol. IX, Codes of Fair Competi-
tion, as approved: Government Printing Office.
(***)History of Insignia Section, August 28, 1935, Exhibits L and' M^ filed
with NRA Record Section.
The Bulletin did, however, under the section on Cas<=s of Individual
Hardship, issue the mandate that before displaying the Blue "Eagle the
enrol oyer "must out a white bar across its breast with the word' provisional 1
on it". As there were practically no requests received aC NRA headquarters
for this "wound stripe", described in Press Release No. 495, it is reason-
able to assume that few employers took the pains to so advertise their
deviation from complete comoliance with the NRA.
Other NRA interpretations and explanations included in 3ulletin No.
4, such as those allowing owners of stores without employees, employers
of labor outside of trades and industries, orofessional men, farmers and
non-profit organizations to obtain th° Blue Eagle after signing the Agree-
ment, did not cause any particular como I i cations.
Press releases were used to explain Blue. Eagle proceedure. Release
No. 443, of August 22, quoted the Director of the 31ue Eagle Division to
the effect that NRA had not delegated any authority to local Recovery
Boards to remove or restore the Blue Eagle. Reports of usurpation of this
power by local authorities appear to have antedated any contemolated Blue
Eagle removals by the Administration. Rackets to obtain money from em-
ployers and the public in connection with the Blue Eagle were numerous
and several NRA press releases were, used to counteract them. Commercial
reproductions of the Blue Eagle frequently bordered on racketeering. To
control this in some degree, n ress Release No. 605 re-emohasized the re-
quirement that reproductions wer° not to be made without soecific author-
ization from the Insignia Section of the Administration.
Press R -leases were not always infallible. A bombshell was thrown
into the ranks of food manufacturers, oackers and their trade associations
by Release No. <±59 wnich stated that packers would not be expected to
label individual packages "....but in lieu thereof must stamp or brand the
NRA insignia on the outside container " The release should, of course,
have used the word "may", instead of "must", since the government had.no
authority to demand reproduction of the Blue Eagle.
The Administration was directly quoted, in Release No. 1171, to check
a wave of so-called voluntary surrenders of the Blue Eagle; in part: "There
is no such thing as a voluntary surrender of the ^lue Eagle. In the event
of a member failing to comply with the obligations he assumed when he
signed, the NRa may deprive him of the insignia. When a raemoer accepted
the President's Agreement he pledged himself until December 31, 1933, to
do everything in his power to cooperate with the President in his great
recovery program. The local Comoliance Beards will deal with ruch c^ses."
These words were effective at a time when patriotism was with the NRA.
Voluntary surrenders increased again in 1934, when codes became numerous.
Another troublesome situatuion with the -^lue Eagle was its use to
further oolitical -propaganda. Many com laints of this nature reached the
.administration and were handled by correspondence. The Administrator
found it necessary to wire a candidate in a. mayoralty campaign, that the
use of NRA Insignia, or letters, on a oolitical poster, in such manner as
to tend to identify it with a particular politic -1 faction, was unauthor-
ized and contrary to NRA regulation.
Later, the Administrator received conplaint from another city, that
a candidate was tjosing in moving pictures with the NBA Insignia in the
background. Ke drew a rather fine distinction "between this and the -pre-
vious use of the NBA poster by referring to the custom of using the Amer-
ican flag at political gatherings, alt hough., his statement was further
qualified by an openly expressed doubt that the Administration had any
authority to prohibit its use. He also stated that the Blue Eagle was
not in -politics.
as may already have been inferred , it was not the application of the
terms of the President's Agreement, out adaption and use of the Blue
Eagle itself, which required so much Insignia explanation and interpreta-
tion, without specif ic statutory provision for its use, and without time
in which to draft regulations to cover the many situations which were to
arise under the NBA, it was but natural that a multitude of Blue Eagle
Insignia questions flooded Washington. Most of them were answered by in-
terpretations of the Insignia Section, which frequently assumed the status
The Insignia Section issued an interpret- tion on September 27, 1933,
in which it was asserted that the Government had a property right in the
Insignia in the whole ana in its several comoonant parts and that repro-
duction was unauthorized, for purposes of copyright, or registration as a
trade mark or as a trad° name, for decoration, and for private "barter
sale (*). The governments property right in the Insignia, which had not
yet oeen protected by a. design patent, had to be invoked to discourage
hundreds of oeoole who were making private capital out of reproductions
on every conceivable kind of gadget.
There was also much commercial exploitation of the letters "NBa" and
the name "Blue Eagle". For some time this was discouraged as far as poss-
ible without resort to formal regulations. In September 1933, however,
the Insignia Section issued what it termed an administrative interpreta-
tion to the effect that the letters "NIBA" constituted a pronounceable
word relating to a function of the ""ederal Government" which could not be
appropriated, for private purposes (**) .
So long as the Blue Eagle stood for a united public opinion it was
a very much desired syibol and there were bound to be frequent difficulties
in the way of regulating its use. A particularly pertinent instance of
this is recited in NBA Release No. 1344, of October 17, 1933, which warned
the public that the "National Recovery "Publications", a -private enterprise,
had no federal affiliation.
(*) Appendix, Exhibit 3.
(**) NBA Liaison Circular No. 40, September 9, 1933, to District Offices;
in NBA Compliance Division Files.
ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF CODE INSIGNIA
Although Bulletin No. 3, the first administration official state-
ment concerning the Blue Eagle, described it as a government badge
for those subject to approved codes as veil as for those making
agreements with the President, the full possibilities of its use as a
symbol of code compliance ^*ere not generally realized by the public.
Many employers, Hhose Presidential Agreements had been superseded by
approved codes, also lost track of its significance. Others, still
operating under the FRA, expected it to expire automatically on '
December 31 and as early as November of 1933 had ceased to display
any Blue Eagle. There were cogent reasons why the status of the
B n ue Eagle and the advisability of its use after December 31 needed
some study within the Administration. On November 6., 1934, at the
suggestion of the Aide to the Administrator (*), the National Compli-
ance Board recommended appointment of a committee to make this study
and also to make a report not later than November lb, 1933, on "Code
Eagles" and new certificptes of compliance to embrace rage and hour
and other provisions of approved codes. The Committee consisting of
the Associate Counsel as acting chairman, the Chief of the 31ue Eagle
branch of the Compliance Division, the Counsel for the National
Compliance 3oard, and the Chief of the Insignia Section, rendered its
report to the National Compliance Boprd on November 16.
The first recommendation of the report called for a code insignia
as a great aid to NRA in obtaining actual consent to Codes and
securing participation in expenses of Code administration. A
certificate of code adherence recuiring signature before obtaining the
Insignia was also recommended. The Blue Eagle in the combination pre-
viously used was urged as a future identii ication of FRA or approved
substitution, provided a PRA adherence certificate was signed. It was
further recommended, that after January 1, no member of industry subject
to a code be permitted to display the old Blue Eagle unless a portion of
his business was still not subject to code &nc that portion adhered to
the extended FRA. The report cplled for the same Blue Eagle with the
letters "NRA" and the substitution of the ^ord "code" for the TO-rds
"we do our part", the design encompassed -cerhaps by an outline in
the shape of a United States Shield. It also suggested that the name of
the particular trade Or industry be included on the certificate. The
code authority in each instance ^as to grant the right to begin display
of the Code Eagle and issue the certificate upon receipt of the signed
certificate of adherence. The report also outlinea a number of problems
of multi-code coverage which would arise from the plan and which patently
needed to be covered by detailed administrative regulations.
On December 6, the Compliance Board (**) approved the first four
(*) Lieut. K. Jonnston
(**) Minutes of National Compliance Board, December 6, 1933, in NRA
Compliance Division Files.
paragraphs of the Committee report and also approved proposed Retail,
Trade regulations for assessment oi expenses and award of NBA Retail
Code Insignia which had been prepared, by the Counsel on the Retail Code,
It might be well to note that at the time the report was rendered
an extension of the FSA "as being contemplated. The shield idea as well
as that of a certificate in script outlining the meaning of the Insignia
were later discareded by NrA. Other than the approval already mentioned,
the National Compliance Board took no further action on the pr'ooosal of
the Committee. In consequence, the calendar year closed without definite
action by NRA.
During January, 193<±, the Administrator looked favorably on
proceeding with a simpliiied form of code Insignia, and upon approval
of the now familar design by the Executive Officer, the Director or
Public Relations, and the Committee, represented, by the Assistant General
Counsel and the Chief of the Insignia Section, this Section arranged
for printing the supply. "Competitive bids were secured and a contract
for printing one million Code' Insignia cards, covering several hundred
different industry titles, was awarded, a Net* York printer. This total
was raised to t^o million cards, under the terms of the same contract,
as soon as the needs of the various code* authorities were more fully
deter lined. (*)
Meanvr.ile the Counsel for the National Compliance Board had
drafted proposed TLue Eagle Regulations intended to cover conditions of
displav, distribution by code authorities, reproduction by printers
end others, and withdrawal by NRA of both the Code Blue Eagle and the
FRA Blue Eagle. Although these regulations represented the view of the
Compliance Division and the Insignia Section of NRA and a need existed
for comprehensive Insignia regulations, the Administrator postponed
approval to a later date.
Press Release No. 3074, of February 1, 1934, proved to be a
premature announcement of the forthcoming appearance of the code
Blue Eagle because no instruction for its iscuance followed from the
Administrator. The release was ircorrect in stating that the regula-
tions had been approv c. It die, however, describe the new emblems
than in course of production as showing the letters "NRA", in blue
between the outstretched "ings of the Code Ragle,, and under its talons
the words "CODE, — (Trade or Industry) Registration number, 1934."
In smaller tvpe was the patent design number and also the words
"Property of the United States Government — Not for Sale". Under date
of January 16, the Assistant Administrator had suggested these words "bo
meet a situation created by paragraph 9 of the regulations of the
Retail Code Authority, which prescribed a' charge for retailers' insignia,
illeanwhile NRA had decioed to furnish the original Insignia free.
(*) History of Insignia Section, Au ust c6, 1935, filed with NRA
I. RETAIL TRAII REGULATIONS AND COTE AUTHORITY ASSESSMENTS
As already mentioned, the regulations submitted by the NRA
Ceunsel on the Retail Code had been recommenced for approval by the
National Compliance Board on Pec ember 6, 1933. Under date of December 9,
Administrative Order Fo. 60-9, in the form of a letter to the National
Retail Code Authority from the Administrator, approved them. The
regulations made payment of the Retail Trade Code Authority assessment
a condition precedent to award of any NKA Retail Code Insignia to a
retail establishment. Fortunately they did ' " expressly state that
in case of violation of the code the Insignia might be withdrawn by
NRA. Otherwise many local Retail Code Authorities might have attempt-
ed withdrawals on their own responsibility.
The fact that the approved regulations prescribed that the Insignia
carry a registry number for a fiscal year ending October 29, 1934 made
it necessary in the interests of uniformity, that the official NRA code
Insignia for each individual trade anc industrv vhen issued, carry a
registration number space and the year "IS 54. " It would probably have
been preferable to have cancelled or amended the Retail Trade Regulations
▼'hen the new Blue Eagle appeared. The registration numbering was a
nuisance to most code authorities and the date on each Blue Eagle tended
to create confusion by January, 1935.
The fact that the Retail regulations had met with approval so colored
the actions of most Retail Code authorities and the members of the
National Retail Code Authority on Insirnia matters which arose there-
after that l=ter NRA regulations for code authority collection of code
expenses were frecuently misconstrued by them. By the summer of 1934 the
Retail Code authorities were clamoring for a 1935 detail Insignia when
NRA was still trying to get them to complete their distri-dtion of the
1934 code Eagle.
II. DESIRES AND Al B OF CODE AUTHORITIES
Between the time of approval of the Retail regulations and the
policy decision regarding NRA distribution of the Code Blue Eagle in
April 1934, code authority members of many other industries who had read
these regulations formed the conclusion that a code Insignia would be of
more importance in raising code authority revenue than for any other purpose.
In addition to the Retail Trace, nine other national code author-
ities had secured NRA apnroval of tneir budgets and had commenced to
levy assessments before April 1, 1934. This progress in code admini-
stration revenue raising was in advance of the Executive Order making
provision for a clause in codes relating to collection of expenses as
well as of Administrative Order No. X-20 on that subject.
Before the distribution of code Insignia began code authorities
also received printed co-oies of suggestions for code autnority by-laws
from NRA, which contained a compliance certificate form requiring agree-
ment to payment of code assessments in applying for the code Insignia
of tne Industry. Also pa^e 8 oj a I ; gested Outline for Use in Code
Drafting, dated April C, 1934, carried ^ suggested provision that only
members of the industry, co- ::!•■' i~ ■- ith the code and making e.uitable
contrioution to code authority uiairtenance, be entitled to make use
of my NBA Insignia. x i-on was not amended to eliminate the
suggested provision until May '. ' .
In consequence anc cue to the urgent need for funds experienced
"bv recently appointed code aut torities, i strong demand arose for
individual code Insignia on be alf o; those agencies*
III. DESIHJ II THE AI iriSTitATIQN FOB IdriEI-lATK ANI IDESFKJEAD
A. Limited .■.-.t-viv'l oi Lccal KrA Committees
On March 1, 1934, a Special Assistant to the Administrator was
appointed to lay the groundwork for a code educational campaign. The
local NBA committees had largely ceased to junction after the FBA
Blue Eagle drives, anr tne enthusiasm oi the sumuiercf 1933 had died
down. The newly appointed assistant to the Administrator (*) found it
necessary to write a series of personal letters to selected community
leaders in order to /uilc up the committees again. By confining the
committees' mem; er shins to those genuinely interested in NBA success in
representative communities, it was felt that more lasting results
' 7t ou16 be attained with the code educational program than ^as the case
in the 1933 campaigns.
3, Initial Pistrib u tion by NFA
At the beginning of April the Administrator desired that the new
code Eagle should publicly appear on a widespread front within a short
time interval, in order to attract public attention to what had
already oeen achieved under the codes, and to emphasize it as the
symbol of code compliance. He alsc decided that NBA should handle
the distribution. Not n nly r- ere many code authorities without or-
ganization or funds to make rapid distribution, out in many cases
they had no mailing lists of their member snips. It was also feared
that code authorities, "hose budgets were still unapproved by NBA,
would withhold the Insignia irom those who nad not yet paia assess-
uie nt s .
Ha?/ 1 vas set as the appearance date for the ne"" symbol. The
individual trade or industry name, already on each official copy,
comnlicated the distribution, to say the least. Several meetings of
NBA officials were held, at Hiich it was decided to distribute ap-
plication blanks and instructions through post offices to every bus-
iness establishment, the application to be returnable under govern-
ment frank to the NBA State Director in each particular state. To
(*) Charles F. Horner, formerly Chief, NBA Bureau of Fuolic Belations;
reappointed Special Assistant to Ac dnistrator.
induce employer: under code to make application, the form was '-orded
so that it r, ould have no effect as a certificate 01 compliance but
would merely be an ppplicption for the Code Slue Eagle, Each appli-
cant '-as to indicate his cede, or the trade or industry in which he
was engaged. To handle ppolications more quickly it vas decided
to allot supplies of code Eagles for six of the large industries
to each State Pirector's office, from which point an individually
registered Insignia would be mailed to the applicant. Applications
for all other industries were to be routed for handling to the In-
signia Section at Washington, this office having re^-ponsioility for
the complete distribution.
To placate those code authorities whose budgets had been approved
and assessment levied before April 1, 1934, the Administration agreed
to withhold the Insignia, in the case of delinquents in such industries,
if the code authority furnished ERA, before -lay 1, with an assessment
delinquent list. In addition, ERA undertook to withhold the Insignia
irom those under any code '-ho hpc. been certified for code violation
to either the Compliance Division in Washington or to Federal District
Attorneys in the several states.
Presumably every business establishment in the country was
furnished the application by the oost offices before May 1. All
Insignia material was ready to be distributed on that date. The
application card returns, however, were disappoint ing. Only some
three hundred thousand applications were made in all (*).
C . NBA Public ity
There was nothing wrong with ERA publicity efforts in announcing
the availability of the new code Insignia. Press releases were plentiful.
A special letter from the Administrator dated April 19, 1C34, (Exhibit
C, Appendix), had been enclosed with the application sent to each
business establishment, urging the employer to display the Blue Eagle
as evidence that he was united with the other members of his trade or
industry to complete the work of recovery. The local committees
cooperated in uiging employers to apply. The newspapers, however, did
not give the releases much prominence. Also there was evidently consider-
able apathy on the part of most employers toward subscribing enthusiastically
to an emblem of code compliance when compliance had not been achieved
in numerous industries.
IV. PRESSURE BY CODE AUTHORITIES
The distribution by ERA had hardly begun before a chorus of
objection was raised by code autnorities, which was replied to by the
Administrator. His announcement of May 2 in Release No. 4823 emphasized
that the Insignia would not be issued to those certified to the issuing
agency as code violators. He stated that non-pavment of code administra-
(*) Historv of Insignia Section, August 28, 1935: filed with ERA
tion expense only became a code violation when the code itself, or an
amendment to the code, required such payment and then only after an
itemized budget and basis of contribution had been approved by NBA.
He also explained, that provisions o_ the so-called Model Code and of the
suggested By-Laws for Code Authorities, requiring payment of assessments
and the signing of a certificate of consent to the code as conditions
precedent to the display of the Blue Eagle, were merely makeshift
proposals without approval of the Administration,
These pronouncements were obviously at variance with the desires
of the code authorities to control the right to use the Blue Sagle.
On May 9, 1934, a meeting of eome thirty national code authori-
ties in New York unanimously voted for code authority distribution
of the Insignia. T ty memorandum (*) of May 10, the Administrator was
advised of this action and that the code authorities wanted the
Insignia to go only to those on their trade association lists who had
consented to the core and had paid their assessments. The memorandum
recommended turning over of distribution to some of the well organized
code authorities and eventually to all of them, if the volume of
applications received uy NBA continued to abate. It also reported, in
the opinion of those at the meeting, that the display of the old PEA
Blue Eagle bv employers under codes caused lack of interest, and
suggested action by the Ad mini strati on to forbid its further display
by those under codes.
Some positive action, to discourage display of the old Pr.A Blue
Eagle seemed desirable but the Administrator evidently did not believe
in issuing too many "don'.ts" regarding the Insignia. He had refused to
approve the Blue Eagle Regulations drawn up by the Counsel for the
Compliance Board which, contained restrictions of this nature. He did
decide, however, to turn over the : distribution responsibility to the
code authorities after this Was further recommended by a meeting of
various NBA officials. Certain conditions under which a code author-
ity could withhold distribution were outlined rather loosely at this
meeting, and the writer was verbally instructed to prepare an announce-
ment letter to the code authorities covering the new policy, which was
released on May 19, 1.934,' with the. approval of the Administrator. (**)
It may be oi interest to note that NBA. policy regarding conditions
necessary to justify withholding oi' the Insignia, which continued to
cause differences of opinion with code authorities, later required
more detailed restatement in the Blue Eagle Manual for Code Authorities,
end was even covered in an amendment to the Manual (Exhibits E and
(*) History of Insignia Section, August £8, 1935, page 8, Exhibit
Al, ' thereof.
(**) History oi Insignia Section, August 28, 1935, page 9, Exhibit
V. CODE AUTHORITY DISTRIBUTION
Shipment of Insignia, mailing envelopes, and application cards
against which code Insignia had already been issued by NRA, to those
code authorites able and willing tc assume responsibility for dis-
tribution was began as soon as possible. Swapping horses midstream
" r as considerable of a problem, and difficulties in the way of prompt
completion of the distribution by the code authorities "'ere soon
evident. Many were still without funds to hire clerks or prepay
mailing charges, and. the Insignia Section hadto»handle distribution
for them. Others had very loosely kn^t organizations without a clearly
defined relationship between the national code authority and the regional
code authority agencies. A large number of code authorities were
prone to consider any one who had not complied with their requests of any
nature, a code violator. Obviously, the Administration's policy of
immediate and widespread display ran counter to code authority aims in
Widespread reproduction of code Insignia was as necessary to
popularize ,he new Blue Eagle and to make it desired by employers as
it had been with the PEA Blue Eagle. To simplify reproduction, NRA
allowed printers, who had received authorization to reproduce, to omit
all words and figures below the word "Code" under the Blue Eagle in
reproductions on advertising and merchandise,
NRA had furnisned reproduction information to thousands of news-
papers, magazines, and- job printers just before the appearance of
the Code Eagle. In the letter to all code authorities of l-fey 26 (*),
over the Administrator's name, provision was made for cooe authorities
to furnish reprints or reproductions to their members. This provision
was not generally understood and a letter of June 6 (**) -attempted to
clarify it and obtain more cooperative action by pode authorities.
Their lack of funds in many instances prevented them from pushing
the sale of reproductions to their members. On May 25 (.**) in order to
secure uniformity of reproduction, additional reproduction information
and forms in correct style and lettering of the name of every codified
industry were furnished all autnorized reproducers. The name of each
industry and the individual registration number on each employer's Blue
Eagle discouraged easy and widespread reproduction.
The first anniversy of NRA, June 16, was set as a deadline and all
code authorities were urged to make efforts to place the Blue Eagle
in the hands of their members by that date. This appeal, together with
efforts of local NRA committees and interested business organizations
probablv helped distribution to retail merchants, but when June 16
arrived many code authorities had not even made arrangements to begin
(*) History of Insignia' Section, August 28, 1935; Exhibit D 1,
H 2, E 2, thereof.
(**) See History of Insignia Section, August 28, 1935: Exhibit d 1,
h 2, F 2, thereof.
The dangers oi possible code authority misuse of the government
fr^nk, as "-ell ps tne strict intern etation oi the Postal Regulations
bv the r ost Office Department, impelled, the Administration to deny
code authority issuing a -encies any r.se of the frank in distributing
Slue Kagles. It wps soon necerrary foi NBA to take back from many code
authorites the envelouer- containing the registered. 31ue Eagles which
these authorities had addressee to their industry m* Tiber s and to mail
them under the franking privilege, li this service had not been ex-
tended, many industry me ibers 'Ould never nave received their Insignia.
luring the summer of 1934, it wf s fourd desirable to stimulate the
vork of the local I -A Coianittees by supplying them a ne"-ly designed Blue
Eagle poster for displa'' b" retail establishments. The posters were
effective in design and undoubtedly accelerated recuests for official
copies of the regalar code Insignia oy employers.
Although every effort r v?s made '"jj the Aoministration to complete
distribution through co--"e authorities,- or 'oy NLA where there ^9s no code
authority under an approved cooe, the final report of the Insignia Section
estimated that, of approximately three million firms entitled to display
the Blue Eagle only 1,856,000 received the official code Insignia. More
than three arc one half million of the cards had been -printed. Distri-
bution through code author ies was therefore not a com-clete success.
The preceding figures included Insignia i or tnose codes and agree-
ments which had NIIA. labor provisions, regardless of whether the trade
practice provisions were under some otner agency, sucn as tne Federal
Alcohol Control Administration. Distribution vas effected as far as
possible through the co.de authority concerned with the NBA Labor
provisions. The figures die not accuunt ior 500,000 Petroleum Code
Blue Eagles, however, ^hich NUA printed and supplied, witnout charge,
to the Planning and Coordination Committee for tne. Petroleum Industry.
No report on this distribution was <. ver requested or received h< r the
National recovery Administration.
VI. BLUE EA r 'LE A' "UAL FOR COPE AUT-Or.ITIES
(EXHIBITS E A TT D F, APPE1TIX)
The Blue Eagle Manual of August, 1934, was written to obviate dif-
ficulties with cooe authorities concerning ihemanner in which they
were to distrioute and. withhold the Insignia;' The only earlier written
1 T .A instructions on this matter which carried, the Administrator ' s
si 'nature ~-ere contained in lettei s of iay 19, May 25 and i 'ay 2c, 1934,
addressed to all code authorities. The code authorities frequently
claimed they had not received conies.
In addition, Office Memorandum Ho, c c 9, dated June 9, 1934, had
stated that the policy oi the Administration '-?s to encourage display
of code Blue Eagle Insignia uv tnose compl r ing with codes, the
Insignia to be withdrawn only oy '.'...'■ foi violation. cever, a number
oi codes had been approved which cor: <• ined provisions limiting the
right to share in or receive the benefits oi co< e Insignia to those
assenting to the code. The Builders Supplies Code, for instance, con-
tained a provision that those agreeing in writing to comply with the
code and to pay their reasonable share of the expense should he entitled
to make use of code insignia. The Women's Belt Industry Cede, f approved
October 3, 193? , the same day as the last mentioned code imposed" on ' the
code authority the duty "to cooperate with the Administrator in regu-
lating the use of the NRA Insignia solely by those employers who have
assented to this code Office Memorandum No« <329 of Juno 9, 1934, sta.ted
that thereafter, Administrative approval would not be given to any code
provision or code authority by-laws or regulation which sought to impose
such a condition.
The Blue Sagle Mannual by embodying Administration policy in one
up-to-date set cf instructions for code authorities proved very helpful
to the Insignia Section which had prepared it for the purpose. It was
amended but once, on October 1, 1934. The Amendment as drafted by the
Legal Division re-defined the conditions under which a Blue Eagle could
bevitheld by each code authority, the same issue which had continually
caused friction in distribution by code authorities. Along with the
Amendment a letter of the same date over the signature of the Adminis-
trative Officer was sent code authorities attempting to secure more
cooperatim in completing distribution and reporting its status to the
Insignia Section (*).
VII. CODE AUTHORITY USE
In the early period of NRA, trade associations , .as such were able
to secure and display the Blue Eagle issued under the President's
Reemployment Agreement by presenting a signed P.H.A. Certificate of
Compliance at the Post Office, After many of these trade association
officials became involved in code authority, activities, the propriety
of code authority use of the Blue Eagle was raised. The Business ac-
tivities of the code authority were in no sense the same z .. those of
individual members of the industry under the code, but on the other
hand, as soon as an individual industry Insignia was forthcoming, ohe
Blue Eagle identified with P.H.A. became inappropriate.
Of lice Memorandum of March 3, 1934," entitled "Use of. Blue 3agle
by Code Authorities" followed by letter o'l March 5, from the National
Compliance Director to all code authorities, nrovided for NRA author-
ization to s code authority to use the Blue Eagle on its letter paper
upon its assurance that hours and wages of its employees were within
the requirements of the code for like workers. When the Code Insignia
was announced, those code authorities which had already received such
authorization, were assigned Registration Ho. 1 with an official copy
of the new emblem. Reproduction of the industry Insignia on code authority
stationery was rather general thereafter.
(*) History of Insignia Section, August 28, 1935, Exhibit V 2.
right s i:t tie: iesigii ia
i. delegation op aede ity
In Executive Order Eo. 6337 (*) of October 14, 1933, the
President, "by virtue of the authority vested in hin by Section (10) (a)
of the iTational Industrial Recovery Act, prescribed that "no one shall
display" or use any reproduction of any emblem or insignia of the nation-
al Recovery Administration contrary to any rules or regulations pre-
scribed hereunder ^oy the Adninist rat or for Industrial Recovery." In
the sane order and by virtue of Section 2 (b) of the Act, and in sup-
plement to Executive Orders 6173 and 6205-A, the President authorized
the Administrator to prescribe rules and regulations necessary to sup-
plement, amplify and carry out the purposes of the order.
The national Industrial Recovery Board, upon its creation by
the Executive Order of September 27, 1934 (**), succeeded to the powers
previously conferred upon the Adninist rator, including authority to
control the use and reproduction of NBA Insignia.
Executive Order llo. 6337 prescribed a penalty of a fine not .
to exceed $500, or imprisonment not to exceed six months, or both, for
violation of the Regulations, and so did several Administrative Orders
issued pursuant to the Executive Order. The prescription of penalties
rras based on Section 10 (a) of the Act and not on any presumption of
poorer to impose such penalties indulged in 'by the President or his
This same Executive Order authorized the Administrator "to
appoint personnel and delegate thereto such powers as may be deemed
necessary to accomplish the purposes of this order". Several Adminis-
trative Orders issued thereafter cited the authority of Executive
Order Eo. 6337, particularly Administrative Order Uo. X-135 (***)
in connection with ERA labels. Since all delegations of authority in
respect to labels resulted from approval of codes containing mandatory
label provisions and did not concern other codes and agreements not
containing such provisions, the writer is treating the label delega-
tions separately under VI ERA Labels Bearing Insignia sub VI,
(*) Vol. V I, page 646, Codes of Eair Competition, as approved:
Government Printing Office.
(**) Vol. XVII, page 463, Codes of Pair Competition, as approved:
Government Printing Office.
(***) vol. XXI, page 626, Codes of Pair Competition, as approved:
Government Printing Office.
The most important delegation of power over the Blue Eagle
by the Admi: istrator, however, was that to the national Compliance
B oar:"- at the time of its establishment. Ofiice Order No. 40 of
October 26, 1933, created this Board and further stated: "It trill be
the duty of the National Compliance Board, upon reference of complaints
fro: 1 , the National Compliance Director, to undertake further attempts
at adjustment, recommend exceptions, remove the Blue Eagle, or recom-
mend reference tc the Federal Trade Commission or The Attorney General
for appropriate action." Bulletin No. 7, issued January 22, 1934, over
the Administrator' s name also stated that upon reference of a complaint,
srith reports and recommendations to the National Compliance Board, that
Board could decide to remove the Blue Eagle of the respondent and give
publicity to this fact. Decisions other than removal of the Insignia
were also open .tc the Board as outlined in the Bulletin.
The National Compliance Board was also delegated authority
to make final decisions on the issue of the right to display the Blue
Eagle. Confirmation of this authority was contained in Office Order
No. 79. This order had reference to cases involving restoration of the
right to display the Blue Eagle once it had been removed or the right
to display it had been denied oy the B oard.
After the National Compliance Board was abolished and its
functions transferred to the Compliance Division, the authority over
the Blue Eagle, which ,:had been conferred on the Board, was presumably
lodged in the Compliance Council of the Compliance Division.
Another delegation of power by the Administrator was accom-
plished in Office Order "o. 97, of June 28, 1934; State Compliance
Directors were empowered to effect removal of NBA Insignia for viola-
tions of the labor provisions of service trade local codes, subject to
appeal to t] e NBA Compliance Division. The same order indicated that
Insignia previously removed for trade practice violations under these
codes should be restored.
Under date of November 19, 1934, by direction of the National
Industrial Recovery Board (Office Lemorandum No. 308 ) the State Com-
pliance Directors were also authorized to remove or restore NBA Insignia
in cases of violation of any provisions of the Restaurant Industry
'.Upon establishment of Regional Compliance Councils and
Regional Compliance Directors, the Councils were delegated authority
to recommend to the Regional Directors both the withdrawal and the
restoration of the right to display the Blue Eagle. The Directors
were delegated the authority to take the necessary action, through signed
memorandums to and from the Director of Compliance and Enforcement, and
the Chief of the Compliance Division.
Code Authorities, under the terms of many codes, had been
granted the right to issue NRA labels bearing the Insignia. This right
was recognized in Administrative Order No. X-3, (*) which also required
(*) Vol. V, page 778, Codes of Eair Competition, as approved:
Government Printing Office.
any code authority refusing the issuance" of labels to certify immedi-
ately to the Administration the complete grounds for the refusal. All
Administrative Orders regarding labels are discussed in the succeeding
chapter, entitled NRA Labels Bearing' Insignia.
As to ERA Insignia generally, it was not until Hay 19, 1934,
that code authorities rere delegated any authority over the Insignia.
Alon ; with the responsibility for distribution of the Code Blue Eagle,
they '-ere granted authority to withhold its distribution in certain in-
stances, these being more exactly defined in the October 1, 1954,
Amend lent to the Blue Eagle Laniial for Code Authorities (Exhibit F,
Administrative Order ITo. X-28 (*) named the members of the
National Sheltered TJorhshops Committee and described the appropriate
Insignia of Sheltered Workshops. Administrative Order ITo. X-Sl, (**)
vested the Committee thus recognized with exclusive power to issue la-
bels bearing this I T BA Insignia as well as to suspend issuance of the
labels, subject to the usual powers of the Compliance Division as pro-
vided for cases of label suspensions "oy code authorities.
The right to display NBA Insignia was given every employer
agreeing to the President's Reemployment Agreement, oy the terms of NBA
Bullatin ITo. 3. -This should be mentioned in connection with the various
delegations of authority in the Insignia. The right of use and display
was later defined more exactly in the Administrative Regulations of
October 17, 1933, as follows: "Any person who has obtained the said
emblem by signing a certificate of compliance with the President's
Reemployment Agreement or with an approved code of fair competition for
his trade or industry, may display or use said emblem as long as such
person continues to comply therewith, unless otherwise provided by
rules or regulations prescribed by the Administrator for Industrial
II. THE DESIGN PATE17T
Prior to October 14, 1933, and until September 26, 1933, the
date of the design patent, the Blue Eagle Insignia, and its reproduc-
tions were presumably subject to the government right of ownership
(*) Vol. X, page 951, Codes of Pair Competition, as ap}D roved:
Government Printing Office.
(**) Vol. XVI, page 564, Codes of Fair Competition, as approved:
Government Printing Of-, ice.
(***) Vol. XXII, page 555, Codes of Pair Competition, as approved:
Government Printing Office.
officially pronounced in NRA Circular No. 1 and its Interpretation of
September 27, 1933 (Exhibits A and B, Appendix). In view of the wide-
spread grant extended to industry to display and use the Blue Eagle as
a symbol of compliance with codes and agreements it was imperative
that the government take legal means to protect its interest. Upon
contact with the United States Patent Office it was thought preferable
to issue a design patent instead of a trade mark. Accordingly on
September 26, 1933, Design Patent Ho. 9^793lg- ras issued for a term of
14 years to the Government of the United States, as represented lay the
National Recovery Administration.
In addition, after issuance of the patent, the Copyright
Office of the Library of Congress refused copyright registration to
prints containing reproductions of the 31ue Eagle.
In Canada, further protection was afforded the Blue Eagle by
Canadian Trademark Registration llo. 2760, issued November 5, 1934, to
the National Recovery Administration.
III. RIGHT TO RSLOVE
A', early as August 5, 1933, the Administrator, in a public
letter to Trade Associations, stated that those who had obtained the
Blue Eagle under misrepresentation or evasion would have the Insignia
withdrawn. Later telegrams were dispatched to violators, demanding
that they cease their display of the Insignia and that it be turned
over to the local postmaster?. Although these cases were commonly
termed "Blue Eagle removals," no attempt was ever made by the govern-
ment to physically remove the Insignia. Later the procedure was more
properly termed a "denial of the right to use" and the telegrams to
violators were worded in accordance with that idea.
The power to remove the Insignia was affirmed i^ the Adminis-
trative Regulations of October 17, 1933, in the paragraph which read:
"When, in the judgment of the said Administrator of his duly authorized
representatives, any person has failed to comply with said agreement or
code, or when any person has improperly obtained said emblem, such
person shs.ll surrender said emblem on demand of the said Administrator
or his duly authorized representative, and shall not thereafter dis-
play or use the same without the written permission of the said
IV. REPRODUCTION RIGHTS
Even before securing a design patent, or the issuance of
Executive Order No. 6337 of October 14, 1933, the NRA had affirmed its
ownership in the emblem and had required application for authority to
reproduce from manufacturers offering it for sale, The right of the
government to restrict and regulate reproduction was given a much
more solid foundation as soon as the design patent was issued.
Throughout \ he life of the NRA the Administration reserved the right
to regulate re-production.
(*) Vol. 3L-1II, page 555, Codes of Pair Competition, as approved:
Government Printing Office.
RESTRICTIONS ON AND REGULATIONS REGARDING INSIGNIA
. I. USE AND DISPLAY
In practice the right to use the Blue ingle involved the right to
display it, and vice versa. This right was restricted to those c otto lying
with the President's Reemployment Agreement and with codes by Administra-
tive Order Wo. X-Al. (*) Administrative Order No. X-19 (**) of April 12,
1934, creating the Code Blue Eagle, and Administrative Order No. X-22
(***) of April 19, 1934, which by inference redesignated the •Code Blue
Eagle' as the 'Blue Eagle,' reaffirmed the restriction.
The 'Blue £agle Insignia of Consumer Membership in NRA' did not re-
quire much regulation or restriction on use and display. The use of In-
signia, in designated Service Trades as well as on code labels for
Sheltered v/ork shops, for the Prison Labor Comoact, and as registration
Insignia in the Trucking Industry and Household Goods Codes, was regulated
in Administrative Orders discussed under a later chapter of this study.
Restriction was needed on reproduction of the Insignia throughout
its existence in order to preserve its symbolism. When originally issued
under the PRA, it stood for voluntary cooperation and often sacrifice
on the part of the employer, who had agreed with the President's Re-
employment Program. It later represented continuing compliance by those
subject to approved codes as well as by those still accepting extension
of the PRA, if they had not been covered by aporoved codo.
NRA Circular No. 1 of July 23, 1933, already mentioned, provided
the first restriction on reproduction by requiring application to NRA.
The authorization to reproduce was issued on the conditions that the
applicant agree to conform to regulations to prevent the emblem falling
into hands unauthorized to use it; that the applicant had himself signed
the President's Agreement and was authorised to use it, and that he
would sell at a reasonable price.
It was soon apparent, as reproduction of the Blue Eagle gained great
headway, that this circular required additional rulings and interpretations,
Although thousands of authorizations, to reproduce were issued by NRA,
many were withheld at least temporarily because samples submitted for
approval by applicants indicated abuse cf the design in its indication
of aTRA membership rr an undue commercialization en articles for sale to
the consuming public.
The Insignia Section, therefore, prepared proposed formal regula-
tions to govern the reproduction of the Blue Eagle and curb abuses in-
cident thereto, but the press of business which was on the General
(*) Vol, XXII. Page 555 'Codes of Fair Competition, as approved:
(**) Vol. IX. Page 914 Government Printing Office)
(***) Vol. Page 922
Counsel's office at the time prevented that office from giving the matter
attention. It was therefore necessary to issue another circular dated September
27, 1935, entitled "Interpretation of ERA Circular No. 1," This was given v/idc
distribution among printers and others engaged in reproduction (Exhibit B,
The September 27 circular also attempted to curb misleading adoptions by
outsidc persons of official designations such as "NBA", "NIEA", and "Blue Eagle".
An administrative regulation with a penalty clause was very much needed, Many
people were being mislead and mulcted by so-called ERA directories, official
NIBA publications, and Blue Eagle Who's Who lists, which were inaccurate and, in
many-cases, tended to create unjustified boycotts against 'firms -who had signed
the PEA but had not paid money to be placed on the lists. Finally, on November
4, 1933, "Rules and Bcgulations Concerning Use of NBA 'Emblems and Insignia and
NBA, NIBA, and BLUE EAGLE, " was issued. (*)
This Regulation, later known as Administrative Order No. X-A2, forbade xisc
of any of there designations as a trade mark or trade name and carried the
penalty clause It was brought to the attention of each of the states -by the
NBA Legal Division during the latter part of December in order to secure state
government coopcrafc ion in refusing these corporate name registrations.
Administrative «rdcr No. X-A2 was in no sense a complote Regulation, cut
it did include a further provision forbidding anyone using NBA Insignia on
merchandise where such Insignia nearly resembled a known trade mark previously
used to describe the merchandise. The Counsel for the Compliance Division con-
sidered this necessary because of complaints already received by prior holders of
trade marks. • One of these was the well known Eagle brand on lead pencils. The
National Rifle Association, however, appeared to be unduly alarmed over the
Administration's own appropriation of the letters "NBA."
Comprehensive rulc£ for reproduction oi the old and the new Blue Eagle were
issued, however, with administration sanction, known as "Blue Eagle "Reproduction
Requirements - April 23, 1934 - Insignia Section, NBA" (Exhibit D, Appendix).
These superseded NBA Circular No. 1 and the September 27, 1933, Interpretation
National Becovcry Administration authorization to reproduce any Blue Eagle
was still required, but previous issued authorisations remained effective. The
rules also continued blanket authorization for printers and publishers of books
and of newspapers and magazine periodicals to reproduce the Blue Eagle in any
article about the NBA or in the advertisements of those entitled to display it.
In August, 1934, the code authority for the Commercial Belief Printing Industry
tried to have the ruling amended to restrict this type of reproduction to
establishments complying with the Graphic Arts Code. NBA did not consider this
advisable as it might unnecessarily raise an issue over rights of advertisers
who had paid for advertising space in publications. (**)
(*; Vol. XXII, page 556, Coc.es of Pair Competition as approved:
Government- Printing Office.
(**) NBA Insignia Section Insignia Piles.
Almost a year after issuance of "Blue Eagle Reproduction Requirements"
a few co.se s of the printers and others, v/ho had violated codes, and who continued
to reproduce the Blue Eagle without 1IRA aut orization, came to the attcntion
of the Administration. Finally, as a result of continued reproduction yj an
adjudged viol, tor of the Corrugated and Solid Eibr- Shipping Container Industry
Code, Administrative Order No. X-138 v.t.:, recommended and approved on March 30,
1935. (*) This order denied anyone th. right to reproduce any Blue Eagle In-
signia cither for his own use or for the use of another, without written
authorization from ERA, although continuing in force those authorizations al-
ready issued. It also stated that any aut orizp.tion might be cancelled upon
finding of code or other NRA violation. Code Authorities under the Graphic
Arts Cjde ionc diatcly beg-r. to inquire whether certain Graphic Arts Code
violators had been given authorization to reproduce* Evidently there had been
considerable coirplaint among printers on this score. The decision of the
Supreme Court in the Schcchtcr case was handed down before these cases were
(*) Vol. XXII, page 619, Cocll s of Fair Competition, as amended:
Government Printing Office.
ilEA LABELS BEARIBG- IbSIGEIA _
I. THE LABEL IDEA III TIC GARi-TEHT CODES
In the opening chapter of this study the writer stated that there
appeared to be no relationship between the Blue Eagle in its inception
and the use of label devices. Although as result of union label use,
^nd the recommendations of the Battle Conmissio n, the Hew' York State
government provided for the Pro-Sanis label to indicrte higher wages and
working conditions' that existed in factories not using label, this reg-
ulation was discarded in 1926. The idea persisted in certain garment
industry associations, however, and with the advent of the ITational In-
dustrial Recovery Act the Coat and Suit Industry seized the label idea,
which had been used to symbolize ethical labor conditions, to include it
in the code as a compliance device as well as a revenue raiser. The
first scheduled hearing on the code was July 20, 1933, after the origin-
si Blue Sagle desi n had been approved rnd Bulletin Ho. 3 had been draft-
ed. It is doubtful if the Administrr tor at that time even knew of the
proposed code label provision.
After approval of the Coat and Suit Industry Code with its label
provisions, on August 4, 1933, the Corset rnd brassiere Industry Code
approved August 14, 1933, and the gen's Clothing Industry Code approved
August 2S V 1933, followed the lead with somewhat similar provisions to
the end of making "an 1TRA label" mandatory • The words blue Eagle, In-
signia, or emblem were not used in the origin 1 provisions of these
Most of the mandatory label codes approved theafter did not smecify
that the ICtA label referred to was to carry the Insignia. !7hen the early
label code authorities began functioning they seemin-rly appropriated the
Blue Eagle to their labels without inquiring into the already existing
Administration nolicy of encouraging display of Blue Sagle reproductions
by all who were complying ir ith the President's ile employment Agreement.
II. BLUE EAGLE LABELLIBC- UIDER ERA
Early provision for and furtherance of Blue Eagle reproduction was
entirely based on promoting the President's Reemployment Agreement and
was considered to have little connection with the comparatively few codes
then aomroved. A distinct factor in modularizing the Insignia was the
widespread use of the Blue Eagle on stationery, labels, goods, products,
packages and containers of ISA memers. Blue Eagle labelling on goods
of every description, by means of pin tickets and cloth labels, - ? as com-
monly regarded by 1TRA as a legitimate form of Insi giir reproduction omen
to anyone who had received authorization to reproduce.
III. COlTFLtCTIlt'G JTniSDICTIO:T OVER IITSIOITIA 0:: LABELS
Until n Cole 'Hue Pagle was ere- tet". in 1934, the .Hue Eagle and its
reproeoiction was primarily associated with ?.H* A. In specifically men-
tioning manufacturers of labels, I'iRA Circular ITo»-l had intended that
they could secure authorization to reproduce for IIRA members provided
they theraselves had signed the President's Agreement. Hrny of these
label manufacturers secured II3A authorization and produced a variety
of labels carrying the Blue Eagle* At the sane tins, the code labels
m to appear with the sane Dlue Eagle, issued by certain code author-
ities. Confusion naturally resulted*
The code authorities frequently compi ined that labels, similar
to those issued under mandator* label provisions, rrere jein ; sold mem-
bers of their industries by outside Tiiufactuross* In most cases these
manufacturers nad obtained ISA permission to reproduce, and their labels
were net intended to be deceptive. The code authorities proceeded on
the assumption that trie'' had a monopoly on I'SHA labels although the codes
did not specifically confer any such monopoly* To ease the situation,
the Insignia Section, in Ocr.o >er, 1933, wrote to all authorised re-
producers, who were believed to be cloth label manufacturers, narrow-
ing the authorization already extended them so that it did not include
permission to reproduce Insignia on labels in any way indicating that
the Insignia or label had been manufactured under code authority or
carried a code authority registration serial number. e 1 inall~ r , in "ay ■
1934. Administrative order ITo. X-38*-. formally forbade such manufacture
and, in effect, created p monopoly in. favor of each code authority ad-
ministering approved code label provisions, Ilucii closer -IRA supervision
of the power given code authorities over labels was still needed, how-
Another conflict of jurisdiction over labels occurred between
several of the apparel code authorities, This, in some instances, re-
sulted from overlapping code definitions and could have been remedied
only by code amendments involving new definitions and better code class-
ifications of membership* In other cases the code authority was at fault
in unreasonable seeking the label revenue which belonged to another
industry* In others the enpl03 r er deliberately used the label of a dif-
ferent industry in order to obtain easier labor or trade practice pro-
visions than those provided by the code to which he was actually subject*
IV. 170 ilODEL LA3ZL 720VISI01TS
ITo model mandatory label provisions were ever formulated by h?Ji*
One of the few general policy decisions on labels was reported in the
confidential policy memorandum of October 25,1933, embodying the Polic}"
board's conclusion that- code:-] mi^ht properly >ermit the use of an iCA
la eel by those complying with the code and might forbid such use by
those who did not comply*
(*) Vol. 2, page 757, Codes of Pair Competition, as approved: Govern-
ment Printing Office.
A aumber of approved codes contained a provision to the effect that
the charge for labels should, at all tines, be subject to the approval
of the Administrator and should not be nore than an amount necessary to
coyer the cost of the labels, including printing, distribution and the
actual reasonable cost of* administration and supervision of the use
thereof* "Substantially this same provision appeared in ITRA Administra-
tive Order Ho. X-38**' This was interpreted by some code authorities to
cover all code authority administration expense because the labels in
several instances provided their solo source of revenue. The 1IHA Legal
Division suyoorted this viewpoint* Once a code became approved with
label provisions, however, the Administration's policy was adequa.teljr
reflected in its Administrative Orders on labels.
V; TYPES OF CODE PROVISIONS REGARDING ITRA LA3ELS
As late as March 12, 1S35, the LRA Research and Planning Division
issued a report listing all codes containing mandatory label or Insignia
provisions, as well as code provisions similar in form but oermissive in
specific wording, and also provisions requiring cooperation of code
members in maintaining the Insignia requirements of other codes* Since
then but' one code, that for the Nottingham La.ce Curtain Industry '(Amend-
ment of Hay 11, 1935), contained a label provision. For convenience
these provisions can be classified as Mandatory, permissive and coopera-
Of the 557 approved codes and the various cuxjlements, containing
56 such provisions, 44 were mandatory, 4 permissive, and 8 cooperative,"
in accordance with tne preceding .classification of the Research and
As to the mandatory provisions, a favorite phrasing was that all
articles made in the industry "shall jear an ITRA label to symbolize the
conditions under which they were manufactured;" that "each label should
bear a registration number especially assignee to each member of the in-
dustry by the Code .authority and remain attached to such garment when
sold;" and that "the Code Authority shall establish rules and regulations
and appropriate machinery for the issuance of labels and the inspection,
examination and supervision of the practices of members of the industry. r
A list of the mandatory Insignia Provision Codes is included in the Ap-
pendix,-' Exhibit G.
The four permissive provisions were .in the Underwear, Academic
Costume, Handkerchief a.nd Commercial Aviation Industry Codes (**), the
lrst named being a general Insignia provision rather that a label one.
The first three codes followed the usual mandatory label wording as to
symbolization, registration number, compliance supervision and administra-
tion by the code authority and charges for labels. Use "oy a member of
the industry was optional., however.
The eight cooperative provisions were in the codes (**) for the
(**) For code an'd code amendment provisions the reader is referred to
Codes of Fair Competition ; as nproved: Government Printing Office.
Retail Trade, Retail Custom Fur, Retail Jewelry, Retail Food end Groce
Fur TThole saline, EHir Dealing! Fur Manufacturing, and Retail Trade for
Hawaii. Ih Retail Trade provision was the most important in its effect.
It provided that no retailer cc lid purchase, sell or exchange any mer-
chandise manufactured under a mandatory label code unless the merchandise
bore such label, Uherever a retailer complied with his code he' greatly
assisted in maintaining compliance with the label requirements of the
vi. code authority ad i histratiof; OF LAJFL PROVISIONS
Under this heading the conclusions stated are partly based on the
report of the FRA Label Agent* and on recent written memoranda to the
writer from the HRA Industry Division Deputy or representative connected
with the code concerned.
The Coat and Suit Industry Code Authority uerived its sole revenue
from administering the label provisions in Article IV of its amended code,
there being no* assessment provision in the code. The charge for labels
was 2<b each in the Eastern Are,-, and Z<b each in the Western Area. Although
the Code Authority was often accused of bias in handling label suspension
cases, its method of delivering its labels direct to its designated con-
tractors as well as to manufacturers resulted in close supervision of
most activities in the industry*
The Corset and Frassiere Industry Code contained no assessment pro-
vision and the sole source of revenue was uerived from labels. The charge
for Labels varied from V3<p to $4.00, >er thousand, and they i jere issued
to all members of the industry. The label provision made it possible for
the code authority to secure practically complete code compliance 'by im-
partial administration. Amended label regulations of the Code Authority
in form acceptable to the Administration were about to be approved during
Fay 1935. These -would have corrected the situation regaxding contractors
which had not been entire^ satisfactory.
Section 1, Article XVIII, Legitimate Full Length Dra.ma.tic and
Theatrical Industry Code, approved August 13, 1933, provided that all
advertisement of all mroduotions should display the FFA label to assure
patrons of compliance -dth FRA standa.rds. The entire code wa.s rewitten
and ape-roved on October 22, 1934. This label provision ras eliminated
because its observance had been eornletely ignored by the Industry.
The Fen's Clothing Industry Code contained no assessment mrovision,
ana. the sale of labels at graduated charges determined "by the Code Au-
thority was the sole source of revenue. Administration of code label
provisions was handled in a way that very little information reached
LIRA, either of complaint or praise-. The Code Authority did not recog-
nize the contractor and relied umoil deliver of his labels by his jobber.
If it suspended any labels of a contractor, the suspension '^ould prob-
ably have been -difficult to enforce.
(*) ..s to whom, sbeinFF' m
The Artificial Plover and leather Industry Code • Amendment fo. 2
•provided for an IIKA label on all invoices as a mandatory requirement
T r ith an optional provision for its use on containers* The code also con-
tained an assessment provision, in addition to the labels, mhich sold at
75< A , per thousand. The label re rulations aid not become effective until
January 1, 1935, and their administration covered too short n period to
The Luggage and Fancy Leather C-oods Industry Code contained a man-
datory Insignia provision for stamping and labelling all merchandise
manufactured. TThen the code mas reproved, the code authority laoel reg-
ulrtions mere undergoing revision. At the suggestion of the Legal adviser
on the code the provision uas not made effective, pending approval of nem
regulations. These mere not issued until March, 1935, rnd the Code
Authority had not morked out its procedure by May 27, 1935.
The Umbrella Manufacturing Industry Code contained no label m re-
vision, until Section 5 of Article VII "as added as rn amendment, Febru-
ary 2, 1934 8 After adoption of the Amendment, the price of $3.00, per
thousand, for cotton labels rnd, S5.00 per thousand,, for silk labels in-
cluded the cost of the labels and the . operating erroense of the Code
Authority. Labels mere required to be semn into the umbrella gore.- The
1-TRA Label Agency had no record of effectiveness of the code mrovisions,
although one case of violation came to th/eir attention. ITo suspension
cases --ere brought to the Agency's attention.
The Retail Custom "iillinery Trade Coue in Article VI, Section 1,
contained a* mandatory label provision. The sale of labels mas not started
until Aoril 6, 1935. Administration by the Code Authority had hardly
commenced by may 27. Its effectiveness can scarcely be evaluated.
The Dress manufacturing Industry Code Authority received its sole
revenue from mandatory label sales, the price charged being 34.00, per
thousand to 518.00,- per thousand, depending on price range classification
and Hie the r used inside or outside of ITem fork. The code authority label
regulations did not reco nize the contractor to the extent of directly
supplying him the labels, relying on the jobber to do so. The ability
to control the contractor's use of the label mas questionable.
by Amendment ifo. 3 of October 19, 1934, the optional label pro-
vision of the Hovel ty Curtains, Draperies, bedspreads and Hovel ty Pilloms
Industry Code mas made mandatory. The Assistrnt Deputy has stated that
the mandatory provision mas not of much benefit because of failure of th
Code Authority to employ competent investig: tors, decentralizing of
authority in so far as labels mere concerned., and continual disagreement
mi thin the Code Authority as to policies and procedure.
■ The Tool and Implement ha.mfac taring Industry Code originally em-
po^ered the Code Authority to require that any article manufactured by
complying industry members berr the I73A, Insi ;nia. Amendment ITo. 1, of
September 19, 1934, deleted the provision rnd it mas never operative.
The Non-Perrous Hot hater, Tank manufacturing Industry Coue contain-
ed a similar provision 'out it was evidently interpreted by the Code Author-
ity as only requiring us s of I'iTiA Insignia re >roduced by the individual
•■ The lien's Garter, Suspender and .eit Manufacturing Industry Code,
■tjaendment IIo. 2, Article V, required all products made in the industry
to oerr an IT3A label or other designation, with the Code Authority hav-
ing the exclusive right to issue and furnish it "and/ or to authorize the
reproduction thereof". This provision required that the -application to
the Code Authority for permission to use and re Trocuee the label be ac-
companied by a' certificate 01 ccnliance ™%th the code, including an
a. ■■;reement by the member to *\y his reasonable share of code administration.
The form of label customarily issued by ap >arel code authorities was evi-
dently not manufactured for the members, .nit they were allowed to use re-
productions, neither the.IHL'-. Label Agency nor the Demtuy Administrator ' s
office had any particular information to furnish on the adninistration
of the provision.
The Cotton Garment Industry Code amendment ho. 2, .of 'arch 10, 1934- ,
made an hllA label mandatory on all garments made in the industry after
"'arch 30, 193 -1-. The sale of labels then orovidecl the sole source of rev-
enue to the Code Authority, there being no other assessment provision*
"ith exception of higher charges for work shirts, sheen lined and leather
garments and house dresses, the charge for labels "as $1*50 per thousand*
The provision whereby contractors, on application, could be furnished with
labels direct from the Code Authority, instead of through the jobber helm-
ed the Code Authority in its administration*
The h'illinery Industry Code, and its Amend :ent ho. 2, mrovided for
a mandatory hrlA label which irovided the Code Authority its sole source
of revenue, there being no code .assessment Provisions. Prices charged
for labels varied from $2.00 >er thousand, to $20.00 per thousand record-
ing to millinery price range.
The Rainwear Division of the Rubber "anufacturing Industry, Code.
ho. 155, in its Amendment "ho. 1, approved April 30, 1934, adopted a .man-
datory label provision which too 1 : effect June 26, 1934. I'rom that date
the total revenue of the Code Authority was obtained from labels "which
were sold at $10.00 per thousand. The Divisional Code Authority attempt-
ed to exercise label provision control over articles which in many cases
were in no sense covered by this code, but were subject to such codes as
the Cotton G-arment and "en's Cloth in .
The Pur Dressing and Pur Dyeing Industry Code, and its Amendment oi
July 13, 1934, did not require a label to be attached but made mandatory
m 1UIA. Insignia to be stamped on fur skins crossed, dyed or otherwise
processed. The Amendment deprived my mem >er of the industry from con-
ducting these service operations on fur skins for anyone subject to my
other code containing mandator" la >el provisions, who was not in com-
pliance with'that code. A stamping device, taring hRA Insignia, and in-
dividual registration number, r ?as sola each industry member for $50.00,
creited against his assessment* The Code Authority operated unaer a bud-
get and basis of assessment* As far as known the Code Authority adminis-
tered the Ihsimnia. provisions Impartially*
The Knitted Outer err" Industry Code, Article TCI, mde an.lTRA label
mandatory* Labels at ;rices r-n;/in; from 80(5, oer thousand to §12.50,
per thousand, provided the Code Authority its sole source of revenue,
.'■"any manufacturers, actually ma kin - Hutted outer-err, '--ere not tech-
nically subject to the bode* This vras a handicao to equitable adninis-
tration' of label provisions. :
Article VI, of the House and Skirt ' amif acturiny Industry Code,
c- lied for issuance of mandatory labels nhich became the sole source of
revenue of the Code Authority. Labels sold for $3.50, per thousand,
and $6.00,', per thousand. The Code Authority Label he dilations- -"provided
that labels be furnished contractors by their jobbers and this rrould
leave neatened code enforcement if the Code Authority had suspended use
of labels \>y any contractor violet in • the code.
The Picture ''ouldiny and Picture I'rrme Industry amended Section
VI of its code to make an 113A label mandatory;. This Amendment, ho. 2,
provided for attachment of the label to each product manufactured or
distributed, and in the case of products of the industry not completely
fabricated in form for the ultimate consumer, the label rras to be attach-
ed 'to the outside Trrappin^r. Pursuant to the' provisions of Administra-
tive Order X-135, the Code Authority submitted revised label regulations
'on harch 30, 193c, Thich" h"HA decided should be modified. The hodified
regulations i?ere about to be an .roved" by r.n Administrative Order at the
time of the Supreme Court decision. Dunn; the period of code adminis-
tration the Code Authority ttas unable to secure kroner compliance ^ith
the provision of the amendment.
The Robe and Allied Products Industry Code, in Article VII, con-
tained a mandatory provision for labels. They mere sold at rates of
$3.50, $4.00 and $5.50,' -oer thousand, to any mr-nufacturers in the in-
dustry; in addition the members vrere subject to the yer.eral membership
assessment on net sales, ho direct delivery of labels to contractors
r.vas in ; eff ect and if r contractor violated the code, the Code Autnority
•'-■as obliged to direct the nanufacturer jobber :.ot to su oplj' him his
The Nottingham Lace Curtain Industry Amendment ho. 2 of "ay 11,
1935, contained a mrn.atory label mrovision as result of the Assistant
De )uty Administrator's request. It ^as intended to solve a nroblem of
overlaoniny code definitions to 1he extent o£ reouiriny LIRA labels on all
decorative linens and Tras neither for compliance nor, for revenue pur-
poses. Administration by the 0o£e Authority rras interrupted on hay 27,
?y Amendment "o. 2 of the Code for Li ;ht Semin;; Industry^ except
Garments, mandatory labels pear in : the hiln Insi- :nia trere required in
three divisions of the industry. Hattross .cover labels sold for $15.00
rrei thousand, Coinf ort-ble Division labels at 70a mer thousand and
Quilting Division labels were supplied free. The Mattress Cover Division
was the only one dependent solely on label revenue. Compliance was not
secured by the Divisions due to num. rous difficulties.
Article VII, of the Merchandise Warehousing Trade Code, provided
for a mandatory Certificate of Participation from the Code Authority,
serially numbered, shoeing that the member was a subscriber to the code.
In addition, every warehouse receipt issued by each member was required
to bear notation reading "Subscribed to Merchandise Warehousing Trade
Code. (Certificate No. )." Each certificate issued by the Code Author-
ity carried the Blue Eagle. The ERA Code History of this industry states
that the idea was taken from the regulation of the American "Jarehouse-
men's Association. It does not go into any discussion of the administra-
tion of the provision other than a generalization as to its effective-
ness as a medium of income.
Article VI, of the Porcelain Breakfast Furniture Manufacturing Ind-
ustry Code, contained a mandatory label provision intended to identify
the products made by those complying with the code but not to finance
code administration. Only $850,00 worth of la. els were ever printed, and
due to industry dissension the Code Authority never functioned properly.
The Hat Manufacturing Industry Cod.e in Article VII required an
ERA label. The sale of labels at A6 and 6^ per dozen and at lower prices
for felt bod.ies and hats, defined a s harvest hats, provided \he Code
Author ity with its sole source of revenue. The ERA represent. at ives appar-
ently learned little regarding the administration of this label provi-
sion by the Code Authority,
By Amendment No. 2 to the code for the Pleating, Stiching, and
Bonnaz and Hand Embroidery Industry an ERA label was made mandatory on
all handles of garments on which an operation of the industry was per-
Amendment No. 1 had. provided, the standard budget clause. After the
la.bel regulations became effective on February 15, 1935, labels were
sold at $1,00 per thousand. The short period of label administration did
not 2^ ro vide opportunity for these activities to be appraised.
The original code for the Ready*- Made Furniture Slip Covers Manu-
facturing Industry, in Article VII, Section 6, carried a provision that
the Code Authority should cooperate with the Administrator in regulating
use of ERA Insignia ~by members assenting to the code. Amendment No. 2
made mandatory the presence of vn official label of the Code Authority
bearing the EPA Insignia on all products. In addition to an assessment
against sales volume, members were required to pay 75rf per thousand, for
labels, ITo cases were submitted to the NEA Label Agency and no conclu-
sion can be drawn as to the Cod.e Authority administration.
The Ladies Handbag Industry Code contained a mandatory label pro-
vision in Article VII, In,.^addition to being subject to code assessments
labels were sold to the members at $2.50, per thousand. Although a num-
ber of the apparel codes, in which labels were not the sole source of
revenue and which did not recognize the contractor have been reported as
poorly administered, the Ladies Handbag Code Authority's administration
was regarded as impartial" ■and effective despite these handicaps. The
Director of ITRA Industry Section 3 regarded label provision compliance
"by this industry as most effective.
Amendment No. 2, of the Art needlework Industry Code made it man-
datory for members to stamp or stencil all producrs with ITRA Insignia
labels* This provision was never used because Administrative Order No.
335-16 stayed it until June 16, 1935.
The Photographic and Photo jpinishing Industry Code contained a
provision, in Article VIII, mailing it unfair competition to f il to af-
fix the ITRA Insignia on ->roducts, . when entitled to do so. The Code Au-
thority was never recognized so that no administration of this provision
o ecu red.
The LIen ! s Neckwear Industry, Amendment No, 1, provided that all
products made in the industry must bear an ITRA label. Labels ranging
in price from -|$ per dozen to 8^ per do?en in accordance with value of
the product furnished the sole source of revenue for the- Code Authority,
Information as to the effectiveness of label administration is not avail-
Article VIII, of the Infants and Children's Wear Industry Code,
carried a mandators'- label requirement in addition to the assessment
provision in Article VII. Labels at $2.00 per thous nd provided Code
Authority revenue in addition to the general code asses sment of 0.25$ of
net sales dollar volume. Credit of $1.60 per thousand on labels pur-
chased was allowed against member assessments. Administration of label
provisions by the Code -Authority was not particularly effective largely
because the contractor was not made subject to the code label regulations,
Section 10, of Article VI, of the Umbrella Frame and Hardware
hanufacturing Industry Code, gave the Code Authority the exclusive right
to issue a mandatory ITRA Insignia to members of the industry. This fac-
tion was stayed in the Executive Order approving the code until a study
of this Insignia provision was completed. Because 'of the nature of the
industry products, the Code Authority determined that labelling '- r ould be
unatisfactory, and it was the intention to petition for an Amendment to
delete the i^rovision. On this account the Code Authority never put it into
The -Household Goods, Storage and hoving Tr a de Code made a regis-
tration insignia mandatory, but did not specify the NRA Insignia. Al-
though the Blue Eagle was actually reproduced and used, it was so simi-
lar to the Registration Insignia used by the ".'rucking Industry that it
is discussed later, in Chapter XVIII of this study, in connection with
As part of and in connection with the Executive Order approving the
code of the Copper Industry, requirement was made that 'all copper sold
pursuant to the marketing provisions of the code should be called "Blue
Eagle Copper". Since it was also provided that all 'such copper either
be stamped with the replica of the ITRA Insignia when it passed through
the smelter or be accompanied "oy a certification that the product was
"Blue Eagle Copper," the provision became, in effect, a mandatory one
for this industry. The NRA Code History of the Copper Industry sheds
little light on the effectiveness of code authority administration of
this provisi on,
In the Undergarment and negligee Industry Code, Article VI was the
standard budget clause and Article VII provided for a mandatory NBA la-
bel. Labels sold for $2.00 per thousand. These sales were adjusted month-
ly so that contributions of nenbers of the industry would amount to
0.25^ of their net proceeds. Although distribution of the labels to con-
tractors was not controlled by the Code Authority, it apparently admin-
istered the label requirements effectively.
Article VII, of the Par Manufacturing Industry Code, required an
NRA label on all fur articles produced under the code. Manufacturing and
Stock on Hand labels sold at a rate of six for 1^; Repair and Remodel
labels at three for 1^. Under the code budget .and assessment there was
also revenue at the rate of one third of one percent of net sales volume.
With the exception ! bf a report on obstacles to code administration by
the NBA Label Agency, there is no information available concerning the
effectiveness 'of the Code Authority in securing compliance with the la-
The Cap and Cloth Hat .Industry Code, contained a mandatory ITRA la-
bel requirement in Article VII arid a budget and basis of contribution in
Article VI. Labels at the rate of $3.00 per thousand. provided the Code
Authority with revenue in addition to the assessment* Early code author-
ity label regulations, as s; .omitted to NRA, were never approved. The Code
Authority failed' to re-submit regulations in accordance with Administrative
Qfder Ho X-135, No information is. available regarding this agency's ad-
ministration of label provisions.
Amendment No. 1, of the Cigar Manufacturing Industry Code, provided
that "all cigars manufactured or distributed subject to. the provisions
of this code shall have an NRA label in the form of a stamp to be affix-
ed to the outside of the container thereof — " . Thereafter the sale of
labels provided the sole source of revenue to the Code Authority. Labels
sold at varying prices of 2^, per thousand, to 40^, per thousand* The
Code Authority and the NRA Industry Division representatives regarded the
use of those labels as c.c great assistance in obtaining code compliance.
One report of the Compliance Division during the last si:: months of code
administration shows only eitht cp r ; laints of failure to purchase labels.
The already existing requirements of the Internal Revenue Department, in
taxing cigars with the aid of Revenue labels, 'undoubtedly ma.de it easier
to secure compliance with the code labelling requirement. Even if the
Blue Eagle had not appeared on the code label it probably., would not have
affectec the raising of code revenues in this industry. .Another reason
for this observation is that the Retail Code cooperative label provision
was legally construed as not requiring. retailers to insist on labels not
made mandatory on the merchandise itself. As already stated, the cigar
labels were required on the outside container only.
Article VIII, of the Code for the Needlework Industry in Puerto
Rico, required an NRA label, or en authorized substitute therefore if the
Code Authority should so determine. The label regulations made
pursuant to this provision did not take effect March 25, 1935, so
their value cannot "be determined.
The Merchant and Custom Tailoring Industry Code contained the
standard buoget clause, in Article VI, and mandatory label provision,
in Article VII. Labels at prices of 5<£ and 7^ each, according to
garment value, provided the sole source of revenue for the Code
Authority. Little information is available regarding code authority
administration of the label -provision. It may have been hampered
somewhat by objections which ™ere raised by smaller establishments to
the $5.00 minimum contribution requirement in the Code Authority
Article VII, of the Assembled atch Industry Code, required each
member to apply to the Code Authority for "a mark, insignia, trademark
or number", Hiich, when issued, must appear on stationery, watches and
watch movements, as the Code authority might prescribe. The main
purpose of the provision was to prevent smuggling, rather than to
» provide revenue. Little is known of the Code Authority's administration
of this mandatory provision, except th^t internal dissension existing
in the Cor e Authority probably hampered its effectiveness.
The '.'.omen's Neckwear and Scarf Manufacturing Incustry Code, in
Article VI, set up what at the time of its approval was probably
regarded as amodel label provision. The same Article, however, stated
that it would not become efiective until such time as the Code Authority
should by resolution so declare an effective date. The Supreme Court
decision in the Schechter case was handed, down before any code
administration of label provisions developed.
VII. RESTRICTIONS ON COTE AUTHORITIES
During the fevered period of code making in 1933, codes containing
mandator/ label provisions had been rushed to approval. Code Author-
ities, entrusted with the po^er to issue and withdraw the labels by
the terms of these provisions, had refused to issue lables to numerous
persons subject to the codes. The Code Authority involved had its own
conception of what constituted a code violation, Hiich may or may not
have been in accordance with the Administration's viewpoint.
The danger of unjust suspension of labels ^as recognized, by NRA
in January, 1934, by issuance of Administration Order No. X-3 (*). By
the terms of this order every refusal of label issuance recuired
certification to NRA of a complete file shoeing the grounds for refusal.
No code authority was to refuse issuance of labels bearing NRA emblems
or Insignia, unless the Code Authority wps then prepared to certify to
NRA a prima facie case of non-compliance with the code, or with valid
rules and regulations of the Code 'Authority. This order iv as only a
first step toward necessary supervision over and restriction on Code
(*) Vol V, page 778 Code oi Fair Competition, as approved, Government
On "sy 18, 1934, Administrative Order No. X-38 (*') was approved.
Although this order vested* the code authorities, in the mandatory
label industries, w ith the exclusive power to issue labels "bearing
NRA Insignia and protected these labels from counterfeits, it restricted
the Code Authorities more definitely than the X-3 order had. The power
to withdraw or withhold labels was for the first time reserved to the
Administrator or his designated agencies. The code authorities were
empowered to issue, subject to the disapproval of the Administrator,
rules, regulations and f orms\necessary in label administration. Label
suspension action by a code authority .could be taken only after careful
investigation and after ample opportunity tobe heard was given. After
suspension the code authority was to file a record of the hearing with
recommendations, to the Compliance Division, for such final action as
NRA deemed proper. Other detailed restrictions and regulations were
included wherebv code authorities were to submit their label charge'
plans, budgets of estimated expenses and operating reports to the
The X-36 order was the result of some NRA study and discussion
of the label problems with the code authorities of the garment industires.
Within six months after its approval it became apparent that further
changes in procedure were necessary. Closer NRA supervision of code
authority administration was desirable. The numerous complaints from
members of industry about label suspensions gave vise to some feeling
of lack of confidence in code authority impartiality. To provide a check,
a Label Review Officer in New York. and a Label Officer for the Pacific
Coast had been appointed to hear cases involving wi thholding of labels.
These NRA officials were to review the, action of • the code authorities
with power to stay suspension of labels pending administrative determina-
tion in Washington. The procedure set up for their action was eventually
embodied in Administrative Order No. X-135 (**),
t ' t
This- last named order was approved February 25, 1935, after trial
operation of some of its provisions had proven desirable. The Textile
Division Administrator recommended approval of the order by the National
Industrial Recovery Board in a letter of January 29 to the Board, in
which he reviewed the general problems connected with label enforcement.
His letter also contained certain findings concerning NRA labels, which
are enumerated in the concluding portion of this label study.
In a. letter (dated 'larch 4, 1935), to the code authorities of
codes having mancatory label provisions, the Compliance and Enforcement
Director called attention to the code authorities to the NRA Label
Agency set up under Administrative Order Ko* X-1935 and outlined certain
procedure to be followed in withdrawing or restoring i'he right to obtain
labels or to use labels which an industry member might have on hand
(*) Vol. X, p r ge 767, Code of Fair Competition, as approved, Government
(**) Vol. XXI, page 626, Codes of Fair Competition, as approved,
Government Printing Office.
(Exhibit H, Appendix). In the opinion of the writer, code authority
label administration required even closer supervision than was set
up under the order (*).
VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
There were numerous Administrative Orders issued in addition
to X-3 (**), X-3S (**) and X-135 (**). Administrative Order 5-4, 15-6
and 64-6, prescribed label rules and regulations for the Dress Manu-
iacturing Industry, Coat and Suit Industry and Men's Clothing Industry.
Orders X-135-1 to X-135-7 inclusive concerned appointments in furtherance
Order No. X-60 (***) gave person in puerto Rico and Hawaii applying
for execration from codes in accordance with the order, the right to
obtain labels from the code authority concerned or from the Territorial
Deputy Administrator if no code applied. Such labels issued by the
Deputy in Hawaii were to bear the letter "H" and in Puerto Rico, the
Order X-Sl, in amending the supplementing X-59 relative to
Sheltered Workshop Insigria, vested the National Sheltered Y.ork shops
Committee with exclusive power to issue labels to Sheltered Workshops.
Order X-36-2 interpreted the exemption conferred in paragraph III
of ' Administrative Order No. X-36 as not extending to the purchase of
labels where the charge for such labels was or had not been subject
to Orders No.'X -38 or X-135. All members of the industry were there-
fore obligated to pay for labels at the rates approved by NRA for the
Incidentally, Administrative Order No. X-135 previouslv mentioned,
in referring* to mandatory labels, decreed for the first time that
labels must bear the Blue Eagle.
Order No. X-143 (****) recognized the apparel Codes Label. Council
and defined its powers and duties. Code Authorities of several apparel
codes had applied to NRA for recognition of this agency to assist them
in administration of mandatory label provisions. The Order set up the
(*) NRA Files, report to the Code Administration Director June 19,
1935, from NRA Label Agent entitled "Review of NRA Label
(***) Vol. XXII, page 630, Codes of Eair Competition, as apuroved;
Government Printing Of i ice.
(****) Vol. XXIII, page 358, Codes of Eair Competition, as approved;
Government Frinting Office.
Council with authority to maintain a central bureau of shoppers to in-
spect merchandise in retail stores to see whether they carried these code
labels and also to obtain consumer label cooperation by educating the
consumer to insist on labels. The Supreme Court decision interrupted the
operation of the order.
IX. VALUE OF LABEL PROVISIONS
On April 29, 1935, the NRA Advisory Council, in recommending recog-
nition of the Apparel Codes Label Council as later provided for in Admin-
istrative Order No. X-14-3, admitted that the Council had not considered
the basic problem of enforcement by means of labels. The Council analyzed
label enforcement as an established part of compliance machinerv, however,
and not essential to the issue raised by the Administrative Order itself.
In recommending the approval of the order, the Advisory Council stated
that it made no commitment toward other or more ambitious proposals for
code authority propaganda, and more or less questioned the wisdom of auth-
orizing and budgeting general propaganda activities by code authorities.
On the other hand, the Division Administrator of the Textile Division
as result of committee study of labels and new reflations to supersede
those in Administrative Order No. X-38 (*) on January 29, 1935, reported
the following findings to the National Industrial recovery Board:
"1. That the label is one of the most effective and
practical instruments for securing compliance with codes.
"2. That the label is the most effective method of
raising revenue for code administration purposes.
"3. That the label provides an accurate measure of
volume of production and sales. -
• That "the i a >) e i i s a practical and d esirable
safeguard for the consumer,
"5i That'; therefore, the use of the label tends to remove
obstructions to the free flow of interstate commerce, to promote
the organization of industrv, the elimination oi unfair competitive
practices, the increase of purchasing po^er, the reduction of unem-
ployment and the improvement of the standards of labcr.
"6. That the label, if improperly administered can result
in oppression to members of industry. " (**)
The National Industrial Recovery Board may or may not have subscribed
to all of these. For the purposes of this study these findings appear to
adequately reflect the value of the NRA label.
Certain qualifications should be added to these findings, however,
They should, not be taken to literally in connection with the industries
which we e not apparel or garment industries, because very fe 1 " mandatory
label provisions w ere administered in other industries. The wisdom of
allowing code authorities to use the Blue Eagle Insignia on labels to
further the activities of a particular code authority was also question-
(*) Vol. X. page 767, Codes of Fair Competition, as approved; Government
(**) See National Industrial Recoverv Board. Piles, Miscellaneous Reports
CHAPTER VII .
USE OF BLUE EAGLE AS A COOPERATIVE SYMBOL .
A well known dictionary edited ten years before the Recovery Act
emphasized the meaning of the word "cooperative, " as "operating together
industrially." It also gave preference to the work 'emblem 1 as a syno-
nym for 'symbol. 1 Under the President's Reemployment Agreement the Blue
Eagle was primarily an emblem of industrial cooperation. No more effec-
tive aid to quick mobilization of public opinion could have been devised.
In like manner the emblem of cmsumer cooperation in Blue Eagle form
was mainly instrumental in securing pledges of support from -lore than
fifty million people.
Even if the President's Reemployment Agreement had not been found
necessary to precede complete edification of industry and the Administra-
tion had relied entirely on the code making process, a symbol of coopera-
tion under the codes would have been almost as essential as it was under
PRA. A consumer campaign gaining momentum from display of a consumer
Blue Eagle could have had for its object, support of and cooperation with
those industries which had already submitted proposed codes. Employers
displaying the Insignia would thereby evidence their willingness to com-
ply with the code when approved. Employers assenting to proposed or
approved codes could also have been asked to sign a consumer pledge.
Instead of this, because of the reliance pteed on the PRA to speed
the recovery program the Blue Eagle was primarily symbolic of cooperation
with voluntary agreements. It never lost its cooperative significance
even when recreated as a Code Blue Eagle. •
As p code emblem its use by employers continued to be voluntary,
not mandatory. The Administration's support of code authorities' use of
the Blue Eagle on mandatory NRA labels was an important exception to its
policy of voluntary use of the Insignia by employers complying with 1JRA
U S? AS aN EDUCATIVE FORCE .
The Blue Eagle was undoubtedly an educational influence in connect-
ion with the RRAF. Its universal display was convincing evidence to
many employers who were inclined to be dubious of their own ability to
maintain the Agreement requirements that the great majority of their
competitors must be able and willing to do so.
The consumer drives and other work of the local N3A committees
continually emphasized the meaning of the Blue Eagle. It is doubtful
that these volunteer organizations would have had the necessary enthus-
iam if they had not been enlisted under a patriotic symbol of this
The influence of the committees in educating employers as well as
consumers to their responsibilities under the Blue Eagle can not be
overlooked. The biggest Blue Eagle drive which started August 28, 1933,
was participated in by a million and one half volunteer workers, each
identified by a Blue Eagle badge supplied by MRA. Tone of educational
literature went with this army in its efforts to put a Blue Eagle in
every shop and a consumer's card in every home (*).
A. less SDectacular campaign, which was destined to be terminated
before its scheduled closing date, got under way in October, 1933,
under direction of the Director of Public delations. It had for its
slogan "Wow Is The Time To Buy". In the letter sent NRA Committees
the government's effort in the campaign was described as largely
directional and educational, with a view of correlating American In-
dustry's merchandising eaoacity in a mass movement to stimulate trade.
NRA undertook to create a national psychology to aid the local
communities' own responsibilities in stimulating trade in each area.
The Blue Ea^le was used as a companion niece on numerous posters suoplied
the local committees as approved samples from which merchants might make
reproductions at their own e:rpense. "Now Is The Time To Buy" appeared
on various red, white and blue oosters, showing such scenes as the dome
of the capitol, Paul Revere on his steed with the Title "Wake up
Americans," or Uncle Sam in various striking poses.
A typical suggestion, in one of the letters NRA broadcast to manu-
facturers, called attention to the idea of a netional cigar manufacturer
in distributing a displav card to his retailers bearing the Blue Eagle
and the caption: "When you buy cigars you help orovide living incomes
for farmers, labor, salesmen, dealers, and yourself. Buy now."
Although this drive tapered off before January, 1934, the use of
propaganda showing real facts and figures, based on current conditions
("O See NRA Bureau of Public Relations Piles: also History of Insignia
Section, page 4, August 28, 1935, filed with NRA Record Section.
under code operation, was very graphic. Similar information could be
used most effectively along with the code Insignia, if N1A codes were
As brought out earlier in this study, code authoritv distribution
of the Code Blue Eagle was slow and ineffective. A code Insignia,
which did not carry the individual name of each -oarticular industry,
could have been put out ouickly by the Administration, and public ed-
ucational work as to what code comoliance really signified would have
been made much easier. In getting an individual industrv Insignia to
some one and three quarter million estaDlishments, however, a vast
number of employers became awrre for the first time, of the code under
which they were to operate. ITRA Insignia Section files bear evidence of
this in the hundreds of letters answering employers concerning their
code classifies. tion oerplexities.
USE AS AN ENFORCEMENT WEAPON
The first phase of the President's Reemployment Program was largely
concerned with inducing all eligible people to sign the President's
Agreement or the consumer's pledge card. This campaign continued without
abatement until Labor Day of 1933.
Letters of the Blue Eagle Division of NRA to District and State
Recovery Boards, and to local NRA Committees, next stressed the second
phase of the program, that of obtaining compliance with the Agreement.
Education, mediation and conciliation work were the main assignments of
the local volunteer Compliance Boards set up in September, 1933. These
Boards and their predecessors, the NRA Committees, were instructed that
they had no powers of enforcement, such as authority to remove the Blue
Eagle, which had been suggested by many of them.
Meanwhile, reports of violation were being forwarded to Washington
by Compliance Boards. Many of these reports recommended that the Blue
Eagle be removed. This procedure had been outlined in the Administrator's
letter of September 11, 1933, to Local NRA Committee Chairmen, in connec-
tion with creation of the Compliance Boards.
It was not until October 10, however, that -the Administrator .
first made use of the Blue Eagle as a weapon of enforcement. The case
was that of a Gary, Indiana, restaurant employer.- The telegram dis-
patched to him was similar in substance to many others which were used in
later cases and read as follows:
"Gary Compliance Board reports that you are violating the
minimum wage and maximum hours provisions of the President's
Agreement as to your employees and that you refuse to make any
explanation of statement of your case to the Compliance Board.
If complaint is true you have grossly violated the President's
Agreement. Even if it is not true your refusal to come forward
with some explanation when respectfully asked to do so by your
local board indicates that you are not willing to cooperate with
the President in his recovery program. Therefore you will imme-
diately case displaying the Blue Eagle and will surrender any
NRA insignia in your possession to the Postmaster Gary, Indiana.
You will refrain from using the Blue Eagle in advertising or
Numerous Blue Eagle removals or withdrawals of the right to display
the Insignia followed in rapid succession. The removals for non-compli-
ance with the terms "■of the President's Reemployment Agreement never
reached the volume of those for code violations. The records of the NRA
Field Division indicate that removals occurred in 184 PRA. cases with 32
restorations, as compared with a total of 2914 removals and 156 restora-
tions for all classes of cases.
(*) NRA Release No. 1134, October 10, 1933.
In the opinion of the writer, there was no idea in the early days of
NRA to regularly make use of the Slue Eagle as an enforcement device.
No one could have accurately predicted the degree of future compliance
with PEA or with codes.
The effectiveness of Blue Eagle removal was dependent upon support
of the Blue Eagle by employers, labor and the consuming public. The
mainspring of the Blue Eagle support was the public, and due to a
variety of causes, the public became apathetic in its attitude as the
codes superceded the PRA. In consequence, the removal of the Blue Eagle,
in the majority of such cases, did not of itself secure compliance and
adjustment from the offender. If it had, the records would show a far
larger percentage of Blue Eagle restorations.
Even with the Blue -Eagle no longer an essential requisite with the
buying public, its removal continued to be looked on as a dangerous thing
to the large corporations and national advertisers, who depended on public
good will over a wide geographic area. Although the small merchant in
many' cases knew that customers locally had become indifferent to NRA, the
business with many units in different localities seldom could risk public
disapproval which might attend loss of its Insignia.
The firm that was dependent on government' business, Federal and, in
some states, state business, was also more inclined to respect the privi-
lege of'using the Blue Eagle.
The Blue Eagle removal case, which involved more interesting angles
to the use of the Insignia as an enforcement weapon than any other, was
that of the Karriman Hosiery Mills, Harriiiian, Tennessee. In the first
Place; the National Labor Board, in the latter part of 1933, had made
vigorous efforts, without success, to settle a strike of hosiery workers
in the mills. When the company remained adamant in refusing to guarantee
the time and conditions of reinstatement of the strikers, v.ich they in-
sisted on as necessary to agreement, the Labor Board recommended with-
drawal of the company's Blue Eagle by NRA.
This was in March, 1934, by which time Blue Eagle removals of them-
selves were becoming more and more ineffective. The National Labor Board,
however, was forced to continue to rely on recommending Insignia removals
where it was unable to secure redress from employers against whom it had
issued finding of 7(a) violation. No other avenue of quick enforcement
appeared as feasible. Judicial procedure in such cases probabl y appeared
as cumbersome to the Board as it frequently did to NRA. The National
Labor Board could not, of course, deny the right to use the Blue Eagle,
Since the Blue Eagle w a s created by NRA as the NRA Insignia, and the
Administrator had not delegated -authority over it to any other agency,
the power to- control it remained in" NRA. Incidentally, after the
National Labor Relations Board succeeded the National Labor Board, the
procedure of removal and restoration of the Blue Eagle'by NRA, in cases
submitted by the National Labor Relations Board, was set out in Office'
Memorandums 312 and 313- A. The last named memorandum was issued April 29,
1935, which showed that the removal of the Blue Eagle was . still an expe-
dient in use within one month. of the Schechter Case decision. *'.
To go "back to the Harriman Mills case, the Administrator on April 20,
19 34, ordered the removal of the company's Blue Eagle, after the NRA
National Compliance Director had concurred in the final recommendation of
the National Labor Board, The Harriman Company had formally protested
to NBA, against removal of the Insignia before the Administrator took this
Blue Eagle removal really meant something in this case. Executive
Order, No. 6646, had become effective to require certification of code,
compliance in contracts involving government funds, with severe penalty
for false certification. In the Harriman Mill's case, a finding of 7(a)
violation involved a violation of the Hosiery Code, to which they were
subject. The company was very dependent on hosiery contracts involving
government funds. The merchants and citizens of the town of Harriman
were considerably dependent on operation of the mills for their liveli-
hood. Protests from those vitally interested in restoration of the Blue
Eagle arose on every hand and much newspaper publicity was given them.
Throughout this long drawn out controversy the newspapers made
great capital of the refusal of the Attorney General to prosecute the
Harriman Company on the ground that available evidence was insufficient
to warrant criminal prosecution for code violation. This aggravated the
feeling, which already existed in some quarters, that NRA should not
remove a Blue Eagle without concurrence in such action by the Department
of Justice. The criticism appeared justifiable.
On June 28, 1934, the Administrator asked the Attorney General wheth-
er, in view of his attitude on not prosecuting, the Blue Eagle should be
restored. The Department of Justice reply, of June 3C, stated that it
saw no reason for changing its view, but that this conclusion need not
have necessary relationship to any administrative action the NRA Adminis-
trator might take. The Attorney General also advised that no provision
with respect to the National Industrial Recovery Act, so far as he was
aware. In consequence NRA continued to withhold the Insignia, because
of the Harriman Company's persistent refusal to accept two administration
points in a proposed agreement.
Finally, on July 17, the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
negotiated an agreement with the Harriman Company and ordered restoration
of its Blue Eagle. The last article of the agreement stipulated that,
upon signature oy an authorized officer of the Harriman Hosiery Mills,
"the Blue Eagle and all its uses are restored to the company and the Code
Eagle will be issued therefor". Although considerable criticism of this
action occurred, the Administrator allowed the agreement to stand. The
Code Insignia of the Hosiery Industry was presumably supplied the company
by the Code Authority.
From this case, and others, we can summarize the use of the Blue
Eagle in enforcement. The power to control! the Insignia, to the
extent of denying and restoring the right to its use, was reserved at
all times by NRA.
After Blue Eagle removals were undertaken as a regular enforcement
measure in October, 1933, those deprived of the use, in many cases, did
not make a strong appeal to secure restoration. The growing lack of
regard for the Blue Eagle "by the consuming public had much to do with
Available records, already referred to in this chapter, indicate
that the Blue Eagle was removed in approximately twenty-nine hundred,
cases and was restored in only one hundred and fifty-six cases. The
great majority of these cases involved code violations as distinguished
from violations of the President's Reemployment Agreement.
Where government contracts and government funds were involved, or
where large corporations dependent on widespread public support were
concerned, the Blue Eagle continued to be a powerful weapon of enforcement,
REACTION TO THE BLUE EAGLE
The public response to the original aopearance of the Blue Eagle
was spontaneous ana patriotic. The first Blue Eagle consumer drives,
during the time of the signing of the President's Agreement by two
million employers, made the work of local NRA Committees, in securing
consumer pledges of cooperation, comparatively easy. The urge to dis-
play the consumer Insignia by those signing the pledge required print-
ing of some seventy million of these stickers, probably fifty million
consumer Slue Eagles were displayed by the public.
There is little to discuss concerning reaction oy labor to the
Blue Eagle as such. Throughout the life of NRA as an active adminis-
tration, labor organisations had no ground for objection to the pur-
poses to which the Insignia was dedicated. The laboring man was of
course, a large part of the consuming public. His attitude toward the
Blue Eagle merged it self into the larger public attitude, influencing
the general consumer greatly in some localities and but slightly in
Until the end of 1933, the vast majority of employers, remained
sympathetic to the purposes cf NRA, and despite some prominent instances
of indifference to the display of the Insignia, they could hardly have
been said to have lost respect for it. Those who had signed the PRA,
but who were not living up to their agreements, probably were about
epually divided in this regard for the svmbol. Many employers who paid
but lip service to the agreement requirements, feared to advertise that
they were enlisted under the Blue Eagle banner. Others were confident of the
abf-rnce of P.R.A. enforcement and in many instances flaunted their mark
of NRA membership in a more aggressive manner than many employers who
were complying in both letter and spirit.
Adjudged violators in most cases had their Blue Eagles removed.
The small number of Insignia restorations already mentioned in the en-
forcement portion of this study, as compared with the removals, was in
part the result of a growing lack of regard for and need of display of
Insignia. Approximately one-sixth of the Blue Eagle removals were in
the local and service trades. These cases were outstandingly hard to
adjust and service trade lack of compliance was a matter of common
In industry there was also the commercializer of the Blue Eagle,
one who used it, or attempted to do so, to an extent beyond its legiti-
mate purpose of indicating cooperation ana compliance with NRA. The
files of the NRA Insignia Section are replete with correspondence with
persons who seemingly had signed the P.R.A. and were endeavoring to se-
cure reproduction approval on many weird schemes, which depended on
prominent use of the Blue Eagle.
The reaction to the Blue Eagle by most of the trade associations
and local chambers of commerce was most favorable.
No better mirror of the change in attitude generally to the Blue
"Eagle is available than in the collated reports from the NRA Field
Offices in the January to July period of 1934 (*).
In January, 1934, the Albany, Hew York, office reported a tendency
on the part of consumers to disregard the Blue Eagle in their buying.
This report referred to it as a natural reaction from the whole-hearted
support of earlier campaign days. The Vermont office at the same time
reported indifference and disregard of obligations by employers as being
possible because of employees' complaisance. It felt that employees
did not appreciate the benefits to which they were entitled. Massachusetts
reported almost universal compliance with the reouest to emplovers to
continue to display the Insignia if under code or if willing to accept
extension of PRA.
Cleveland, Ohio, reported that almost the only criticism of NRA
came from the "chiselers" themselves. "Then the Insignia was removed
from firms which had violated the PRA., the reaction of the press and
of the public was very satisfactorv.
In February western Sew York again reported a change in public
attitude toward the use of the Blue Eagle. The report claimed the con-
sumer was more prone to disregard it because of decrease of publicity
respecting its significance. "Early distribution of special insignia for
retail and service trades was urged to revive interest. Local code
authorities were becoming impatient at the delay in distributing insignia.
The delav of national code authorities in organizing for field work was
creating an unfavorable impression. Indianapolis, Indiana, reported
that a dyeing and cleaning establishment, which had been a persistent
code violator, had had its Blue Eagle removed, sjid despite local press
publicity, gained more business because of lowered prices. On the other
hand a large chain restaurant manager in Los Angeles, who had returned
his Blue Eagl 3 because of delay in approval of the Restaurant Code, was
now petitioning to get it back because of the business drop caused bv its
absence. Vermont reported almost universal desertion of the Blue Eagle
by restaurants, barber shops and others not under approved codes. Gen-
eral public sympathy seemed to be behind those who gave competition as
an excuse for not displaying the Blue Eagle and who had discontinued
whatever compliance effort they had previously made.
In March, the NRA Field Inspector reported Blue Eagles little in
evidence in Vermont; only two were seen in Rutland and one in Burlington.
Wilmington, Delaware, newspapers had carried notices that firms entitled
to the Blue Eagle could obtain new Insignia by applying to NRA State
Director's office. The response was negligible. St. Louis, ilissouri, re-
ported the public attitude toward Blue Eagle still favorable, however.
North Carolina stated that compliance was indifferently observed, with
the Blue Eagle not as prominent as before. The Field Office observed
that the consumer seemed to have forgotten the pledge to trade under the
Blue Eagle .
(•O ft[3A Files "Public Attitude toward the N. R. A. Program" as reported
weekly by Stat- Directors of the National "Emergencv Council — mimeo-
Tennessee reported an excellent attitude toward P ?,.A., except in Nash-
ville where drastic action was needed. The cleaners and dvers there
had ceased to display their Blue Eagles L .nd were openly violating the
code. Q-ther service trades were violating. Philadelphia reported in-
creasing public apathy toward the Blue Eagle and the N3A program, ap-
parently due in part to growing feeling that enforcement was slow and
inadequate. Maine suggested that the Blue Eagle needed re-selling.
Texas reported increasing indifference toward the Blue Eagle as a buy-
ing guide; in fact, to further discrimination against those not dis-
playing it was observed. Los Angeles stated that the. belief that Insignia
meant nothing was spreading.
In April some state offices were evidently anxious to see the code
Insignia appear and suggested it. The Topeka, Kansas, office stated that
the public did not give preference to Blue Eagle business, but was in
favor of a Code Blue Eagle with real talons. Buffalo, New York, reported
along the same line. Publicizing of significance of a code Insignia was
An April summary made by N1A in Washington from state office re-
ports, stated that the Blue Eagle was fading cut of the picture nation-
ally as far as the consumer was concerned; that in the central states
the emblem was no longer used extensively in advertising and that manv
establishments had ceased to display it.
In May the summary stated that all sections of the country mani-
fested a keen interest in' the Code Blue Eagle, although there was a
widespread misunderstanding of purposes and procedure. The reports
stressed the vita.1 need for a vigorous consumers 1 campaign. The buy-
ing public" had almost forgotten the Blue Eagle, which had resulted in
multiplying the difficulties experienced by compliance offices.
Later, during the same month, the summary reported a cool reception
to the new 31ue Eagle, with many cf the emblems withheld for non-payment
of assessment, and the general public somewhat confused as to its signifi-
cance. Applications for Code Insignia were reported as unsatisfactory.
In June the summary doubted the efficacy of the Blue Eagle as a
stimulator of code observance. This statement was in addition to other
comment in the summaries for that month, which had to do with the at-
titude of a hostile press, an increase in labor troubles, continuing
problems in the service trades, and even the drought.
The usual advertising in the business. world follows one, or both,
of two schools of thought. One is that of novel appeal, in the use of
words and illustrations, to create in the mind of the reader the urge to
buy. The novel appeal may be used to stir up latent dissatisfaction with
what has been made use of by the reader previously, or to create a pleas-
ant urge alone. There may be other artifices employed in furthering the
idea of novel appeal.
The other school of advertising is that of constant hammering into
the consumer mind the gilt-edged safety of the name of the firm, or of
the product or service offered. This is the oldest and probably the most
effective advertising in the end. If it fails to create a consumer urge
to buy without suing the novel method of appeal, it usually can, at least,
be depended upon to maintain consumer acceptance of the product or service.
Prom the time the Blue Eagle appeared with the PRA and the President
asked for united action in "a nation-wide plan to raise wages, increase
purchasing power and restore business", to the day of the decision on the
Schechter case, there continued to be value to the Insignia in advertising.
The gradual decrease in the public's urge to buy solely under the Blue
Eagle because of its novel appeal did not eradicate general consumer
acceptance of services and products which carried the emblem. In fact, it
is doubtful if any trade mark or business symbol other than the Blue Eagle
has ever had even comparative advertising value.
The display of the official Blue Eagle poster card at the point of
sale lost its prominence at the end of the original PRA period. It never
regained its prominent position, even with the distribution of the new code
Insignia. Advertising reproductions did not suffer quite the same loss in
prestige. Although newspaper and magazine space advert" s.ng carrying Blue
Eagle reproduction, suffered a tremendous curtailment an enormous volume
of merchandise continued to carry the emblem which had been stamped upon
it. In January, 1935, many manufacturers still were using wrappers and
labels which included their mark of NRA membership.
The use of mandatory code labels on merchandise, particularly on
garments, was on the increase. at the time of the Supreme Court decision.
This was due to the increased number of codes containing label provisions
and to the cooperative label requirement in the Retail Code rather than to
any increasing demand for NRA labelled goods.
" ' CHAFT5H XII
nra ad;.: i in strati or re ihsigiiia
I. INSIGNIA-" SECTION
This administrative Section was the outgrowth of an organization set
up to print and distribute the President's Agreement forms and the Blue
Eagle posters and cards for employers and consumers (*).
The Insignia Section continued to he responsible for the printing
and distribution of all forms of Blue Eagle Insignia. Although The
Government Printing Office did a great deal of the Insignia printing for
the Section, considerable printing was handled by outside firms. All
matters in connection with Insignia reproduction rules and regulations
were handled by the Section. It also issued all Insignia approvals and
In. the early days of PRA the Insignia Section was given a more or
less. formal status as part of the Public Relations Division, although
originally part of the Blue Eagle Division. It actually operated under
general supervision of the Executive Office and later the Administrative
Office until it finally became part of the Communications Division in
. During the various stages of NEA organization the Insignia Section
undertook most of the printing and distribution of Insignia posters and
all the PRA consumer emblems for the Public Relations Division. The
chief of the Section assisted the heads of the Public Relations Bureaus
in numerous matters involving Blue Eagle publicity.
The Compliance Division as successor to the old Blue Eagle Division
was vitally interested in the Insignia from the enforcement standpoint.
The Insignia Section endeavored to cooperate fully with this Division in
all matters of mutual interest. The Compliance Division was most co-
operative in this regard. The Counsel for the Compliance Division acted
as legal adviser on Insignia matters.
II. POLICY DEVELOPMENT AHD DECISIONS
The early policy regarding the Blue Eagle emanated from the Adminis-
trator or was interpreted through his Executive Officer. The less
important policy problems within the purview of Insignia rulings, repro-
duction, distribution and printing were settled by the Insignia Section
with the approval of the Executive Officer. This held true to a consider-
able degree after the Administrative officer was appointed. Tilth appoint-
ment of an Assistant Administrator for Policy.' - he was naturally consulted
on matters involving any material change in policy.
The committee appointed, by the National Compliance Board at the
suggestion of the Aide to the Administrator mentioned earlier in this
study submitted recommendations for a new 1934 Code Insignia policy. The
decision was finally made by the Administrator.'
(*) History of Insignia Section, August 28, 1935, filed with NRA Record
All policy decisions, covered "by Administrative Orders as Insignia
Regulations, received the actual approval of the Administrator or the
National Industrial Recovery Board. The Blue Eagle ilanual for Code
Authorities, already referred to, was approved "by the Assistant Adminis-
trator for Field Administration. All Insignia decisions involving
compliance were settled "by the titular head of the Compliance and Enforce-
ment Division, when not submitted to the Administrator or the National
Industrial Recovery Board.
After establishment of a Communications Division, "by an Office
Memorandum which charged it with distribution of Insignia among other
responsibilities, the chief of this division became the responsible
official through whom any material problems of Insignia policy were
submitted for consideration by the National Industrial Recovery Board,
or by the Advisory Council.
In October, 1934, the Chief of the Communications Division submitted
to the Board the question as to the 1935 policy regarding the Blue Eagle.
Early in October a committee of those interested in the Insignia problem
informally representing the Legal and Litigation Divisions, Compliance
Division, Public Relations Division, Code Administration Division, Labor
and Industrial Advisory Boards and Insignia Section as part of the Com-
munications 1'ivision, had gone on record as recommending continuance of
the Blue Eagle in 1935. By memorandum of October 13, 1934, the Chief of
the Communications Division reported the committee findings in detail.
In advocating readoption of an official Blue Eagle it stated that it was
still of great value, not only in promoting public consciousness of NRA,
but also as an effective compliance device. The reasons for code author-
ity failure to distribute the 1934 code Insignia were enumerated, and
complete distribution through the post offices of a new emblem not carry-
ing any date was urged.
Advisory Council Decision No. 77, of November 5, 1934, treated the
problem by recommending that the National Industrial Recovery Board hold
its future Blue Eagle policy in abeyance on the ground that Insignia
distribution, or a Blue Eagle drive, was connected with only a small part
of NRA future policy problems. The Council emphasized the danger of such
a campaign without effective compliance machinery.
On November 22, 1934, the Advisory Council recommended, in Decision
No. 119, that no attempt be made to resell the Blue Eagle at that time as
a symbol of compliance with only the labor provisions of codes. The idea
was to be postponed for consideration until general policy had crystallized
and effective enforcement machinery was in operation.
In consequence no decision was forthcoming from the National Indus-
trial Recovery Board. In order to print additional Insignia for code
authorities and to continue the Code Insignia, the Board was quoted in a
Press Release, on January 4, 1935, to the effect that "Blue Bagles for
particular trades and industries marked "1934" as well as those originally
issued under the President's Reemployment Agreement, may be used in 1935".
The only other Insignia policy determination by the Board was its
more or less routine approval of Administrative Order No. X-136. This
order has already been discussed under Reproduction of Insignia.
The final determination as to Insignia policy occurred on September
4, 1935, long after the Supreme Court decision. Administrative Order
No. X-144, approved by the Acting Administrator, stated the. t further
reproduction of any Blue Eagle Insignia would "be contrary to the policy
of the National Recovery Administration. All reproduction authorizations
were thereby cancelled and all reproduction was forbidden (Exhibit I,
III. PUBLIC RELATIONS DIVISION
The routine functions of this Division did not deal with the Insig-
nia. During the neriod of the various drives or campaigns the Director
of Public Relations depended on the Insignia Section to function along
with the campaign organization of his Division.
IV. COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
The old Blue Eagle Division had little to do with compliance and
enforcement, as it was succeeded by the Compliance Division in September,
1933, before NRA made a single Blue Eagle removal.
The Compliance Division's Compliance Council, which succeeded the
National Compliance Board, acted, by designation of the Chief of the
Compliance Division, under authority given him and confirmed in Special
Memorandum of November 16, 1934, from the Administratove Officer (*).
The Council heard and considered evidence, in cases in which the
Compliance Division or an Industry Division recommended removal of
Insignia or the withholding of labels, and made recommendations to the
Chief of the Compliance Division. Upon finding of cause by him, he was
authorized to notify the respondent that he had been deprived of the
right to display any Blue Eagle or other NBA. Insignia or to obtain or
use NRA labels. He could also notify the appropriate Code Authority to
withhold the issuance of labels to such persons. Thereafter the Chief
of the Compliance Division could give notice of the restoration of any such
right to such person and could give notice to the appropriate Code
Authority to resume the issuance of labels, whenever he decided such
action was in the interest of sound administration.
The previous authority of the National Compliance Board, and of the
State Directors and Regional Compliance Directors regarding Blue Eagle
removals, has already been covered in Delegation of Authority over Insig-
nia. In connection with compliance and enforcement, however, it should
be mentioned that the Chief of the Compliance Division was also authorized
to remove the Blue Eagle after finding of the Contributions Section that
any person was in default of his obligation, as defined in Executive Order
No. 6678 and Administrative Order No. X-36.
The Assistant Administrator for Field Administration, and the Com-
pliance and Enforcement Director who succeeded him, had general authority
and supervision of compliance and Blue Eagle enforcement.
(*) NRA Administrative Office Files; W. A. Harriman, Administrative
Officer to L. J. Martin, Chief of Compliance Division, November
Blue Eagle enforcement power respecting labels was largely vested
in the NRA Label Agency as confirmed by Administrative Order Ho. X-135,
already referred to. The Chief of the Compliance Division and the NBA
Regional Compliance Directors retained power to withdraw or restore
. labels in certain cases, however. For a detailed statement of the dis-
tribution of powers to withdraw and restore the right to labels, the
reader is referred to the letter of March 4, 1935, from the Compliance
and Enforcement Director to Code Authorities of codes having Mandatory
Label provisions (Exhibit H).
GOVERM.iEITT CONTRACTS AiTO THE BLUE EAGLE
The display of the Blue Eagle was never made a prerequisite
for "bidding on government contracts or on contracts invovling
use of government funds. Instead, Executive Order No. 6646(*)
required e, certificate from the "bidder stating that he was comply-
ing, and v/ould continue to comply with any code to which he was sub-
ject. If no applicable code had "been approved, he had to certify
that he had, and would continue to comply with the President's Re-
It is true that the Home Owners Loan Corporation field offices
for some time demanded certificates of compliance, showing the
registration number of the Construction Industry Code Insignia of
"bidders. This was not required "by Executive Orders, however, and
was discontinued on request of ERA.
The significance of the Blue Eagle in connection with code,
compliance had "become, so well established among government "bidders,
under Executive Order No. 6646, (*) that its possession was commonly
recognized "by them as necessary evidence of their compliance, how-
(*) Vol. 1, Page 729, Codes of Pair Competition, as approved:
Government Printing Office
THE BLUE EAGLE IN THE TERRI TORIES
The National Industrial Recovery Act in connection with violation
of code provisions referred to transactions in interstate commerce and
enumerated trade or commerce within any insular possession or other place
under the jurisdiction of the United States as part of its definition of
interstate and foreign commerce. Section I- of the Act declared it the
policy of Congress to remove obstructions to the free flow of interstate
and foreign commerce.
In 1933 the Philippine Islands appeared to he headed toward indepen-
dence rather than to assume status as a United- States territory. Further-
more, Title 48, Section 1003 of the U. S. Code had provided that the
statutory laws of the United States thereafter enacted should not apply
to the Philippine Islands, except when they specifically so provided, or
it was so provided in the Act of 1916. Consequently the Blue Eagle was
not distributed in the Philippines.
When the PRA was formulated, the Blue Eagle was supplied to post-
masters in Alaska and Hawaii, along with the President's Agreement forms
and certificates of compliance. Eo other territories or insular possess-
ions were provided with this Blue Eagle material.
The lack of any Compliance Division machinery in Alaska, at least
up until the time of assignment of a resident Deputy Administrator for
the territory just prior to January, 1934, apparently raised few if any
complications concerning Blue Eagle display and P.R.A. observance. A
fair proportion of Alaskan merchants signed the Agreement and received
the Blue Eagle. Their certificates of compliance were forwarded to the
Seattle district office of the Department of Commerce.
The PRA Blue Eagle was widely displayed in Hawaii. From reports of
Hawaiian officials as well as from the reports of Deputy Administrator
appointed in December, 1933, it is apparent that non-observance of PRA
was also widespread in the territory, due to lack of any effective com-
pliance machinery. In consequence, the PRA Blue Eagle had fallen into
considerable disrepute before machinery was developed to approve terri-
torial codes and make them effective.
The Blue Eagle was never distributed in the Panama Canal Zone. ERA
Legal Research memorandums have stated the opinion that the Act applied to
Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico, and to no other United States possessions.
The Blue Eagle was not recognized officially in the Philippine Islands
at any time. Release No. 2340 of December 18, 1933, gives the text of
the Attornejr General's ruling that the Philippines were not within the
scope of the Act, in so faraslt prescribed the formulation of codes.
After ERA determination that territorial codes from Puerto Rico could
be submitted and approved a resident Deputy Administrator was appointed
in December, 1933. The Blue Eagle, symbolizing approved code compli-
ance, was available to a limited extent in Puerto Rico thereafter.
After offices of resident Deputy Administrators were set up in
Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico, these officials were furnished various
Code Slue Eagles for approved codes applicable to their jurisdictions.
Administrative Order No. X-60, previously mentioned in this study, and
Office Order Fo. 103 had reference to issuance of FRA labels in the terr-
itories of Hawaii and Puerto Rico.
FOREIGN USE OF THE BLUE EAGLE
The only known complications respecting foreigners' use of Blue
Eagle arose in connection with imports of merchandise carrying repro-
ductions of the emblem. The first case of the kind "brought to the
Administration's attention covered a shipment of Japanese canned tuna
fish in cartons hearing the NRA Insignia, unloaded from a Japanese ship
at Terminal Island, San Pedro, Claifornia, and described in NRA Release
No. 2716 of January 12, 1934. The Chicago firm which was' the consignee
wired the Administrator disclaiming intention of purchasing Japanese
fish, stating that their contract called for California packed tuna fish.
They refused to accept the consignment.
Press Release No. 2691 covering the same case is also of interest
because it reported the Administrator* s request to the Treasury Depart-
ment to instruct customs officials to refuse entry to any foreign im-
portations bearing NRA Insignia, until NRA could make necessary investi-
gation. The Administrator was also quoted as writing the Secretary of
State to the effect that the situation "raises the question of the use
by aliens of NRA Insignia 1 ' and that "the use of NRA Insignia by citizens
and residents of foreign countries is not contemplated by the National
Probably half a dozen cases involving importations bearing the
Blue Eagle arose thereafter. The Bureau of Customs had meanwhile
issued a circular letter of January 12, 1934, to all customs collectors
to refuse entry to all imported merchandise bearing the NRA Insignia
pending investigations. These cases were reported to the Insignia
Section and in most instances the Administrator approved instructions
to release the shipments after inquiries. In a memorandum of July 12,
1934, to the Insignia Section, the Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Policy stated that he did not consider it advisable to issue any adminis-
trative order prohibiting reproduction of Insignia on imported merchan-
dise. T he only limitation by NRA was therefore based on its "Rules
and Regulations Concerning Display of NRA Emblem" issued October 17,
II. EXPORTS AND AMERICAN FIRMS ABROAD
No information is available as to complications arising from use of
the Blue Eagle on export merchandise.
As a result of a Bureau of Customs inquiry concerning an American
periodical printed in Canada which carried the Blue Eagle, the publishing
company was requested to discontinue Canadian reproduction. Obviously,
the* company's Canadian employees were not subject to hour and wage require-'
ments of any code.
(*) Vol. XXII, page 555, Codes of Fair Competition, as approved:
Government Printing Office.
SERVICE TRADES MP INSIGNIA
The exemption of em-plovers in towns of less than 2,5^0 population
from the provisions cf the PRA and from approved codes, by the Executive
Order of October 23, 1933, is covered in the next succeeding chapter. It
is mentioned here, however, because it appears to have been the first of-
ficial recognition of a different status given local service trades. For
a considerable time therec.fter, however, employers in service trades
everywhere continued to fly the Blue Eagle as evidence that they had sign-
ed the PRA or that they were operating under an approved code, such as
the national code for the cleaning and dyeing industry.
Controversies over minimum price differentials for cleaners reached
such sn acute stage in December, 1933, that the Administrator, in announc-
ing new low-price schedules for so-called quality cleaning,' stated that
cleaners desiring to maintain the highest standards and. prices higher than
the new schedule could agree with the President to continue the minimum
prices previously approved. The Administrator announced that NRA would
issue to each person entering into this Presidential Agreement, "a Blue
Eagle with a service quality insignia of aporopriate design to indicate
to the public that those who display this insignia have agreed to maint-
ain and are maintaining higher qualitv and higher prices". Without re-
citing the various complications which arose thereafter in this industry,
it should be recorded that these Presidential Agreements were not im-
mediately forthcoming and no special NRA Insignia was provided.
The reader is referred to HRA Press Release No. 3265 of February 13,
1934, for the next step in policy development concerning local trade and
service enterprises. The Administrator in this Release announced that
purely local enterprises, such as barber shoos, laundries, building manage-
ment, restaurants and local transportation agencies would be encouraged to
organize themselves for regional self-government and to adopt regional
codes or agreements with the President. Yilhen ap-oroved by the President,
those signing and complying would be entitled to the Blue Eagle. To those
not complying, the Blue Eagle would be denied. Service trades employers
in towns of less than 2,5' v ' population were further exempted from PRA
and from definite provisions of approved codes by the Executive Order of
May 15, 1934. This Order amended Executive Order No. 6345 of October 23,
The members of the so-called service trades codes had meanwhile
received the Code Insignia apolication form along with all other employers
and in numerous cases had received their individual Code Blue Eagle. A
large proportion of service trade employers had not applied, however, and
it was apparent that there was but limited desire for it.
On May 26, 1934, by Executive Order Mo. 6723 (*)•, the Administrator
suspended fair trade practice sections of service trade codes. By
Administrative Order of Hay 28 No. X37 (**), the Administrator named the
(*) Vol. X, Page 954 : codes of Fair Competition, as amended:
(**) Vol. XI, Page 197 : Government Printing Office.
Motor Vehicle Storage and Parking Trade, Bowling and Billiard Trade,
Barber Shop Traae, Cleaning and Dyeing Trade, Shoe Rebuilding Trade,
Advertising Display Installation Trade and Advertising Distributing
Trade as suspended codes. On June 13, by Administrative Order No. X50 (*)
the Laundry Industry Code and, on June 28, the Hotel Industry code were
added to the list to make nine so affected. Under the Executive Order,
the members of these service trades were to continue to be bound by the
provisions of their codes as to maximum hours, minimum wages, collective
bargaining rights, and child labor. Thus indicated that members comply-
ing'with these provisions would be entitled to displav the appropriate
Bv Executive Order of June 28, 1934, No. 6756-A (**) the President
offered to enter into an agreement with the members cf service trades
not previously codified, to be thereafter designated by the administrator,
the display by any such member of the atyoropriate NRA insignia to be
constued as acceptance of the agreement to conroly with approved standards
of labor. The further condition was added, that, after aporoval of a
local code, no member of such industry in the locality would be entitled
to display this NRA Insignia, unless in addition to complying with the
approved standards cf labor, he comply with all terms of the local code.
The Beauty Shop Trade, Linen Supply Trade, Automobile Laundry Trade,
Retail Automotive Maintenance Gar- ge Trade, Apartment House Industrv,
Tourist Lodge and Motor Court Trade, Rug Cleaning Trade, Tourist and Tra-
vel Agencv Trrde and Drive-It-Yourself Industry were affected by this orderj
Administrative Order No. X-53, of June 28, 1934, had reference to
the already codified service trades. It prescribed that every member of
any service trade as designated by the Administrator by displaying the
appropriate code Insignia, would be deemed to agree with the President
to comply with the hours of labor, rates of nay and other conditions of
employment under that code. After aporoval of a local code, fair nractices
would be included in his agreement. Code Insignia was to be issued to
those members certifying labor provision compliance through any author-
ized local code committees, otherwise through NRA.
The lack of compliance in most of tnese service trades, and the
confusion and misunderstandings occasioned by issuance of so many "Executive
and Administrative Orders concerning them, impelled NRA to make a new
service trade Code Blue Eagle application available to them. Since all
national code authorities in these trades had been abolished, there was
no possibility of the members of these trades receiving code Insignia
The Insignia Section undertook to handle distribution of the applic-
ations for individual service trades Insignia together with aonlications
for official cocies of labor provisions, the posting o$ which was roauiref
by the Executive Order No. 654')-Bl, of February 8, 1934.
(O Vol. XII, page 631
(**) Vol. XII, page 615
Codes of 7air Competition, as amanded:
Government Printing Office.
Order No. 6590-B1. of February 8, 1934. .On August 15, 1934, letters
of explanation signed by the Administrator, along with the applications,
were delivered tnrough the post offices to some 400,000 establish-
ments. Each Code Insignia furnished these applicants was over-printed
with additional wording to the effect that labor provisions of the code
were being observed by the displayer. Less than 30,000 Blue Eagle
applications were received by 1TEA. This was striking evidence of the
breakdown of interest in and observance of these codes. The general
lack of enforcement of labor provisions in Service Trade codes there-
after meant that continued display of the Blue Eagle by such establisn-
ments tended to decrease public respect for the Insignia generally.
No reliable estimate is obtainable as to the number of service
trade employers, in addition to these 30,000 Code .Eagle applicants,
who were still displaying the Insignia originally issued under the
President's Re-emoloyment Agreement.
CHAPTER XV II
EMPLOYERS III TORTUS OF LESS THAI! 2500 POPULATION
The Executive Orders exempting employers in towns under 2500 pop-
ulation were accompanied by various Administrative Orders and interpre-
tations of I7RA. ilo distinction as to the sizo of the employer's town
ha.d been made in making the original Blue Eagle available to every em-
ployer signing the PRA and a certificate of compliance. Under the ex-
emptions allowed by the orders, it is probable that a large proportion
of the Blue Eagles which had been received in these towns were taken
In formal language Administrative Order No. X-72 (*) of August 6,
1934, prescribed among other things that "employers subject to codes,
who comply therewith to the extent to which they are not exempted there-
from under such Order shall be entitled to display an appropriate IIRA
Undoubtedly the majority of the employers in these small towns fell
within the classes exempted by the orders. Even if they had not been
exempted, it is doubtful if there would have been an extensive continuing
display of the Insignia. The influence of IIRA and code administration
was not strongly felt in the average small town, unless that particular
town boasted the presence of a factory or enterprise employing several
(*) Vol. XVI, page 631, Codes of Fair Competition, as approved:
Government Printing Office.
CtiAPTER XVII I
INSIGNIA PRO VI SIONS IN OTHER EXECUTIVE
AND ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
This chapter is merely intended to touch upon those other orders
not previously discussed which carried Insignia provisions along with
other provisions. The label orders, service trade orders and orders
affecting small towns of less than 2500 population have been discussed.
I. P.R.A. EXTENSION
The 1JRA Insignia provisions in extensions of the President's
Reemployment Agreement were vital provisions. Executive Order No. 6515
of December 19, 1933, (*) ordered to enter into the P.R.A. with every em*
ployer, to the extent to which he was not covered by an approved code,
for the period from January 1, 1934, to April 30, 1934, provided a
code to which he would "become subject was not earlier approved. Em-
ployers who had signed the PRA prior to January 1, 1934, could "accept
this, offer of extension by display of the Blue Eagle on or after
January 1, 1934". Those who had not signed the Agrement were privileg-
ed to accept the offer by signing the PRA. The contract was therefore
extended by the act of displaying the Blue Eagle itself.
On April 14, 1934, Executive Order No. 6678-A (**) offered ex-
tension of the PRA for a further period, beginning May 1, 1934, and
ending when that part of an employer's business not then subject to
a code became subject to Code. Again the acceptance of the offer was
to be inferred from display of the Blue Eagle on or after the
II. COLLECTION OF EXPENSES OF CODS ADMINISTRATION
Orders affecting collection of expenses of code administration
also carried Insignia provisions. The (much debated) point with code
authorities as to their right to withhold the Insignia in certa.in in-
stances has been discussed*. Executive Order No. 6678 (***), of April
14, 1934, "orovided a brief for the code authority viewpoint, when it
suggested the following part of a clause to be included in codes:
"Only members of the Industry complying with .the Code
and contributing to the expenses of its administration
as provided in Section 1 hereof shall be entitled to
participate in the selection of the members of the code
authority or to receive the benefit of its voluntary
activities or to make use of any emblem or insignia of
the National Recovery Administration."
(*) Vol. IX, 'pe.ge 881. Codes of Fair Competition, approved: Govern-
ment Printing Office.
(**) Vol. XV, page 263, Codes of Fair Competition, approved; Govern-
ment Printing Office.
(***) Vol. IX, page 879. Codes of Fair Competition, approved: Govern-
ment Printing Office.
Administrative Order No. X-20, which was issued under this Executive
Order, carried no mention of Blue Eagle Insignia. Administrative Order
No. X-36 (*) which superseded No. -X-20 on May. 26, 1934, showed that NBA had
some difficulty with code authorities regarding the Blue Eagle. This
order included a provision to the effect that no member of an industry
would be deprived of the right to display a Blue Eagle because of non-
payment of his equitable contribution to code administration expense,
unless other requirements of the order had been met, and unless NBA
had determined that the procedure under the order had been sufficiently
Administrative Order No. X-36-2 was an interpretation, in reply
to an inquiry of the NBA Code Authorities Accounts Section, as to
whether the exemption from obligation to contribute to code administra-
tion expense beyond the principal line code also extended to labels.
Since Administrative Order No. X-135 had previously decreed that all
labels should bear the Blue Eagle, the writer feels that Order X-36-2
should at least be included in this chapter. The interpretation of
this order was that the exemption did not apply to labels and all
members of industries under mandatory label codes were obligated to
pay for such labels.
III. SHELTEBSD WORKSHOP INSIGNIA
Sheltered Workshop Administrative Orders X-9 ,("•*); X-28, (***);
X-59, (****} X-81, (*****); X-lll, (******) and X-lll-1 were all issued
persuantito authority conferred specifically by Executive Order No.
6543-A (*******) arL cL generally by other Executive Orders.
Order No. X-9 in granting sheltered workshops conditional exemp-
tion from approved, codes on condition that the pledge described in
the order was signed and complied with, stated that the workshop so
doing would be entitled to use any appropriate Insignia of NBA. In
case of pledge violation the National Committee could certify the full
record in the case to NBA for revocation of the right to use the Insignia.
(*) . Vol. X, page 987. Codes of Fair Competition, as approved:
Government Printing Office.
(**) Vol. VII, page 727. Codes of Fair Competition, as approved:
Government Printing Office.
(***) Vol. X, page 961. Codes of Fair Competition, as approved:
Government Printing Office.
(****) Vol. XII, page 690. Codes of Fair Competition, as approved:
Government Printing Office.
(*****) Vol. XVI, page 548. Codes of Fair Competition, as approved:
Government Printing Office.
(******) Vol. XIX, page 557. Codes of Fair Competition, as approved:
Government Printing Office.
(*******) Vol. IV, page 689. Codes of Fair Competition, as approved:
Government Printing Office.
Order ! T o. X-28 appointed the members of the Sheltered workshop
Committee and decided upon an appropriate Insignia. This was to consist
of the existing Blue Eagle without the word "member", but with the phrase
"S. W t Permit No. " following the words "We do our part." The
presence of the insignia on all products made "by sheltered workshops
was required where similar goods privately manufactured were required
by the applicable code to display the Blue Eagle. If the goods wor©
sold by a sheltered workshop, they were not required to bear this
Insignia. Presumably, such selling referred to direct sales to con-
Order Ho. X-59, and Order No. X-81 amending and supplementing
it, provided machinery for iss-uance of labels bearing the Sheltered
Workshop Insignia and made use of labels mandatory on sheltered work-
shop products, where, if it were not for the code exemption granted by
Administrative Order No. X-9, such products would have been subject
to 'Certain mandatory code label provisions.
Order No. X-lll appointing members of the National Sheltered
Workshops Committee was followed three months later by Order No.X-III~l
amending the procedure in withdrawing the right to use labels and to
exhibit the Insignia.
IV. REGULATIONS HE REMOVAL OF CODE AUTHORITY MEMBERS
Administrative Order No. X-132, (*) cited the deprivation of NRA
Insignia, or the right thereto, and denial, or withdrawal of the right
to use labels bearing the NRA Insignia by (code authority members, or
agents, attorneys or employees of a code authority) as being among the
causes for summary suspension of those officers from office.
V. PRISON LABOR COMPACT INSIC-NIA
Administrative Orders Nos. V-2 and V-3 of May 3, 1934, covered re-
gulations for issuance of NRA identification symbols on merchandise made
in penal or correctional institutions. The symbol was declared to be
the NRA Insignia previously issued to employers under the President's
Reemployment Agreement, except that the word "member" was to be
omitted and the printed letters "Ident. No. "-placed below the
words "We do our ;oart.» Issuance of the symbol with separate registra-
tion number by the Prison Labor Authority after the filing of
application therefor, Certificate of Compliance with the compact
by the institution or the state, was made mandatory whenever similar
goods in other industries were required to bear an NRA label. The
procedure set up by V-3 was somewhat similar to that for code authori-
ties administering codes with mandatory label provisions.
(*) Vol. XX, page 456. Codes of Fair Comoetition, as approved:
Government Printing Office.
VI. REGISTRATION IiiSIGNIA 70R THE TRUCKING
INDUSTRY AND HOUSEHOLD GOODS MOVING AND STORAGE GOODS CODES
In both of these industries the codes provided for registration
plates or- markers for use on such vehicles after payment of registra-
tion fees. The HRA Insignia Was used on these workers along with
wording to indicate registration under the particular code. In the
Trucking Industry a number of Administrative Orders in the series
subordinate to No. 278 were issued and in the Household Goods Storage
and Moving Trade several orders subordinate to No, 399 were issued.
The Code Histories for these industries refer to them and : to "the
registration process, which does not seem of great interest in this
HRA Insignia study.
Attitude of the Courts
So far as the writer is aware, the validity of Presidential Agree-
ments authorized "by the National Industrial Recovery Act was never ques-
tioned by any court. In consequence, there was little P. R. A. litiga-
tion concerning the Blue Eagle which reached courts of record.
In its "Resume of N.R.A. Cases" NBA Legal Research Bulletin No. 27
digested several municipal court cases in which employers were held to
have received ample consideration in the right to display the Blue Eagle,
which was' accompanied by the enjoyment of the public's good will, govern-
ment support and the cooperation of competitive employers wno had also
signed the president's Agreement.
The earliest known court dictum, respecting the NRA Insignia was oc-
casioned by the denial of an application to use the name "Blue Eagle" as
part of the corporate name of a mutual benefit society. New York Supreme
Court Justice Dunne on September 15, 1933, held that these words had
been adopted by the National Recovery Administration as its badge of
honor for those cooperating with the President's program, and its use
should be restricted for that purpose (*).
In Irma Hat Co . v. Local Retail Code Authority for Chicago, Inc ., 7
Fed. Supp. 687, the court issued a preliminary injunction against the
code authority from making public announcement of withdrawal of the
plaintiff's Blue Eagle among other things. Judge Barnes upheld the con-
tention of the millinery firm to the effect that the provisions of the
Millinery and Retail Codes and the NRA rules and regulations relating to
NRA labels including NRA provisions relating to the "public" withdrawal
of the NRA Insignia were intended to operate as a threat of a boycott,
and if enforced, would operate as a boycott. He further held that cer-
tain of these provisions in the Retail Code were not limited in their
operation to those matters to vhich the federal government may regulate.
For this reason he ruled that they were unconstitutional and void, to
the extent that they exceeded the power of the federal government in
In L. Grief & Bros. , Inc . v. Cummings, .Attorney General of the
United States et al . . D. C. Md. , July IS, 1934 (reported in Commerce
Clearing House 7191 Court Decision Supp.) a temporary restraining order
from attempting to force the complainant to pay the wages prescribed by
the Men's Clothing Code, was issued. Defendants were also restrained
from issuing an order depriving the company of its Blue Eagle. The real
attitude of the Court was not fully determined here, however, because
the court action was later withdrawn by Grief Brothers.
On the other hand in William F. Chinicy Co . v. Budwig et al . , D. C.
S. D. N. Y. April, 1934, (unreported) Judge Caffey held that a millin-
ery manufacturer was not entitled to an injunction restraining the
(*) See Work Materials Folder, NRA Insignia, Division of Review —
letter of September 21, 1933, from James A. Dunne, Justice.
Millinery Industry Code Authority from issuing labels to manufacturers
under the conditions prescribed by the Code. He based his decision on
the constitutionality of the Act and of the Code.
In Laux v. Smith et al . , Mun. Ct., Marion Co., Ind. , No. 51647,
June 6, 1934, (unreported) Judge Bradshaw held that a filling station
operator who refused to sign the Petroleum Code, but who displayed the
Blue Eagle and accepted whatever benefits that brought, was bound by the
terms of the code and estopped to deny liability from it. This holding
made him liable in a civil action for back wages.
In People v. Capitol Cleaners and Dyers , Sup. Ct. , Los Angeles, Co.,
Cal., Feb. 27, 1934, (reported in Commerce Clearing House 7133 Court
Decisions Supp. ) the California Recovery Act was held invalid in so far
as it purported to adopt as State laws those NEA codes which were adopted
after the passage of the State Act. A bill to restrain unfair adver-
tising under a state statute were the alleged offense was the wrongful
use of the Blue Eagle was dismissed for indef initeness because the alleg-
ations did not set forth the specific violations of the national code.
In William A. Stevens, Attorney G-eneral of the State of Hew Jersey
v. Busch Cleaners and Dyers Service, Inc . , 171 Atlantic 821, part of the
court's dictum was to effect that the defendants had received trade ben-
efit from display of the NEA Insignia. It stated that they were adver-
tising to the general public that they were obeying the NBA. By posting
the Blue Eagle the public was held to have the rignt to assume that they
were obeying the code provisions. They were therefore regarded as not
having the right to modify any of those provisions on their own responsi-
Hone of these cases have been cited by the writer to the end of at-
tempting to prove any legal theories respecting the NRA Insignia. Such
theories as may have existed with respect to codes were certainly ex-
ploded by the effect of the Schechter case decision.
During the life of NEA there was very little legal theory respecting
the Blue Eagle Insignia which was reduced to writing within the Adminis-
tration. Although several memorandums were written by the NBA Legal
Eesearch Division touching on Insignia and labels their contents do not
deal explicity with the legal concept of NEA Insignia. Without having
representative material sources available, it is felt tnat further dis-
cussion of such legal aspects would not be relevant to this study.
CANCELLATION OF SLUE EAGLE REPRODUCTION
The only NRA administrative action concerning Insignia since the
decision was the issuance of Administrative Order No. X-144 on September
4, 1935, forbidding further reproduction. (Exhibit I, Appendix),
. ...I. BROAD OBJECTIVES IN ADMINISTRATION USE OF INSIGNIA
Furtherance of public and industry cooperation with NRA standards
is submitted as the primary purpose of the Administration's use of
Insignia. The inception and original theory of the Blue Eagle, and its
development under the President's Reemployment Agreement as brought out
in this study, confirm this viewpoint. The Administration's desire for
immediate and widespread display of the code Insignia when it appeared
in 1934 ran hand in hand with a code educational campaign. This educa-
tional campaign should have started in January, 1934, at the latest, and
would thus have had better opportunity to combat the public indifference
to the symbolism of the Blue Eagle which was then beginning.
The second use of the Blue Eagle was as a direct aid to compliance
and enforcement. With an exception as to code labels, the apathy of the
public was also a distinct handicap to its effectiveness in this respect.
The lack of efficient compliance and enforcement organization and pro-
cedure was an equal handicap. The use of Insignia as an enforcement
weapon should proceed on the theory that it can, at best, be only an aid
II. INSIGNIA AND LABELS AS AIDS TO CODE ADMINISTRATION
The original Blue Eagle issued under the President's Reemployment
Agreement was followed by an individual Code Blue Eagle to symbolize
compliance with approved codes. Many code authorities were aided by the
Code Blue Eagle in their efforts to secure compliance and collection of
expenses of code administration. At the same time, witholding the code
Insignia by code authorities to induce payment of code assessments was
open to abuse and contrary to NRA policy as involved.
In a different manner mandatory NRA labels bearing the Blue Eagle
were very effective in securing compliance and raising revenue for code
administration expenses, especially in the apparel industries. However,
closer supervision than was exercised by NRA over code authority adminis-
tration of these mandatory label and Insignia provisions would seem to
have been desirable.
III. CODE AUTHORITY CONTROL OF DISTRIBUTION
VERSUS FULL CONTROL BY ADMINISTRATION.
In the author's opinion, many of the code authorities were not well
enough organized to have been entrusted with any power over a Federal
Government Insignia or label bearing such Insignia. Even in the matter
of distribution, a simplified Code Blue Eagle could have been distributed
through the post offices to better effect than through code authorities.
IV. DESIRABILITY OF ONE. SINGLE EMBLEM
The symbolism of. one single emblem could have been broadened by-
government educational efforts to promote and maintain all the standards
of fair competition, whether those of special agreements or of codes.
Confusion would have been avoided in the interest of simplicity.
A. New Legislation • -
If any type of insignia is to be used in connection with the
administration of any New Act specific insignia provisions should be
incorporated into that legislation.
The provisions included in S. 2445 - 74th Congress, 1st Session,
page 17(b), appear satisfactory to the writer, if codes as well as agree-
ments are to be covered, except that the addition of the word "reproduc-
tion" would seem desirable. With this addition, and disregarding the
reference to government contracts in the text, the following wording
could be used:
"The President is further authorized to make
reasonable provision for the promotion and main-
tenance of codes and agreements under this title
by means of distinctive insignia or labels. The
President may regulate the distribution, use, re-
production and display of such insignia or labels,
in order that purchasers and consumers of goods and
services may be assisted in supporting the standards
of fair competition provided for in this title."
A strong ground for criticism of the use of the Blue Eagle was the
lack of definite statutory provisions relative to its uses.
B. Administration Under New Legislation
If determination is made that insignia will assist in the adminis-
tration of any new act, adequate and comprehensive regulations should be
prepared in advance of its issuance which would cover distribution, use,
reproduction and display. This was not done under NRA.
To emphasize the purposes of a new act as well as a new administra-
tion of it, any insignia should be sufficiently distinctive to avoid con-
fusion with the previous Blue Eagle. It should be one single emblem,
simple and striking in design, without the complication of trade and in-
dustry titles such as were used on the code Insignia cards. The design
should be further protected by United States Patent. '
Regulations should be framed in such manner as to vest all powers
over insignia in the government administration. It can be efficiently
distributed and controlled by the government alone. Enforcement control
should be vested in the enforcement branch of the executive government.
Code authorities appropriated the Insignia without express consent
of NRA in the case of NRA labels provided for in the early approved
apparel codes. After use of the Blue Eagle had become universal on
mandatory code labels, NRA made the Blue Eagle mandatory on all labels
provided for by codes. Even if code label administration provided the
best method of securing' compliance in the apparel industries, the labels
did not necessarily have to carry the NRA Insignia. If- Codes and code
authorities -were ever to again function it is suggested that a govern-
ment insignia be not dedicated to similar restrictive label use. There
can be a broader symbolism of an emblem than that primarily associated
with payment of revenue to a single code authority.
71 Exhibit A
NATIONAL BE CO VERY ADMINISTRATION
N.R. A. Circular No.l. July 23, 1933.
REGULATION GOVERNING USE OF INSIGNIA BY EilPLOYERS
¥HO HAVE SIGNED THE PRESIDENT'S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
The N.R.A. official emblem is the property of the United States
Government, It may not "be used or reproduced without authority of the
Regulations permit the use of this emblem "by all enroloyers who sign
the President's Reemployment Agreement, and (in the form authorized for
consumers, hut only in such form) "by consumers who sign a statement of
By application to the N.R.A. any responsible manufacturer will "be
authorized to make and offer for sale hangers, cards, and stickers provid-
ed (a) he agrees to conform to regulations to prevent the emblem coming
into hands of employers not authorized to use it; (b) he himself has
signed the President's agreement and is authorized to use the emblem; and
(c) lie will sell at a reasonable price. Information regarding manufactur-
ers authorized to supply the emblem will be issued by the N.R.A. from
time to time, Eor purposes of reproduction, the N.R.A. will be glad to
furnish original drawings to such manufacturers to the extent they are
available but cannot undertake to do so if the demand should prove large.
Every such manufacturer shall reouire of every employer ordering
such emblems that he affix to his order one of the 1-h- inch stickers.
Any newspaper, magazine, or other publication is authorized to repro-
duce the emblem in the advertisement of any employer, provided such em-
ployer files with the newspaper, magazine, or other publication a written
statement that he ha.s signed the President's Agreement and affixes the
Any manufacturer of stationery or advertising literature, including
labels, is authorized to reproduce the emblem on behalf of any employer
who files with such manufacturers a written statement that he has signed
the President's Reemployment Agreement and affixes the sticker thereto.
Employers desiring to make other uses of the emblem may consult the
NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION
September 27, 1933
INTERPRETATION 0? NBA CIRCULAR NO. 1
(ISSUED BY INSIGNIA SECTION NBA)
The words "Blue Eagle " have been adopted by the National Recovery
Administration as an official designation of both the ITRA member Insig-
nia and the NBA consumer Insignia. The letters "NBA", meaning National
Recovery Administration, are in themselves an official Government, desig-
nation of the Administration itself. Similarly, the letters, "ITIRA",
are an official designation of the National Industrial Recovery Act.
The vzords, "77 e Do Our Part", are an integral protion of the official In-
The Insignia is the property of the United States Government,, and
cannot be appropriated, in whole or in part, for private purposes. This
office does not authorize the use by private persons or firms of any of
the above designations, except insofar as the uords "NBA" and "We Do Our
Part" are properly used in the Blue Eagle Insignia..
Reproduction of the Insignia is not authorized for purposes of
copyright or registration as a trade mark or trade name, for decoration,
or for private barter and sale.
Any change or alteration of the wording or its position, form, pro-
portion, or color combination, of the official Insignia is unauthorized,
excepting that it may be reproduced in any solid color employed in the
printing of a container or package. For rubber stamps, any solid color
Day be used. The lettering and Eagle must be plain without feathering
rr other bas-relief identification. Nothing may be superimposed over the
Insignia or delineated on the blank background.
Reproduction of the official Blue Eagle Insignia for NRA members
is authorized by this office to denote NRA membership only, or an asso-
ciation with membership. The Insignia, bearing the word "Member", may
be placed upon such member' s equipment, communications, premises, and
goods. Member Insignia reproductions on stationery, labels, goods, pro-
ducts, packages, or containers must be placed close enough to the imprint
of the member's trade name or brand name to clearly indicate to the gen-
eral public that the person or firm using the Insignia is a member of NRA.
All ITRA members are entitled to use the NRA Insignia on their let-
terheads, bills, invoices, products, etc., to denote their membership in
NRA. TThere firms have printing facilities, they may reproduce the NRA
Insignia upon receipt of specific authorization from this office. If,
however, they do not have printing facilities, any printer or engraver
authorized by us miy print the Insignia for members or sell members the
Insignia in sticker form.
An agent of an NRA employer member, who has been authorized by this
office to reproduce the official Insignia needs no direct authorization
to sell the Insignia. If he desires to buy and sell the NBA Insignia on
his o"'n account for resale to USA members, he must also be a member.
All forms of the I"HA Insignia may be purchased by employer members
of NBA. Indiscriminate sale of consumer Insignia to consumers is unauth-
orized. iHA employer members and their agents may distribute free to con-
sumers and employees, articles bearing the Insignia and carrying the words
"consumer" or "employee".
All Insignia reproducers are reouested to submit immediately samples
or drawings (color drav T ings where colors are used) of Insignia reproduc-
tions, directing these to the Insignia Section, FEA, for examination, with
a letter describing such reproductions.
NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION
To the Head of every Business Establishment;
If you are engaged in a trade or industry for which a
Code of Fair Competition has "been approved, a special Blue
Eagle has "been prepared for your particular business. Its
display by you will inform the public that you are coopera**
ting with the vast majority in stamping out unfair practices
and methods of competition and that you are giving your em-
ployees a square deal by paying code wages and adhering to
Last year you were asked to display the Blue Eagle as
evidence of your promise to do your part and as a symbol of
your faith in the ability of American trade and industry to
defeat depression by united effort. Tnis year you are asked
to display this distinctive Blue Eagle as a . symbol that you,
together with the other members of your particular trade or
industry, have united to complete the work of recovery.
Hugh S. Johnson
April 19, 1934
NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION
BLUE EAGLE REPRODUCTION REQUIREMENT
April 23, 1934 - Insignia Section, NRA.
1. The new Blue Eagle for members of trade and industry operating
under codes as well as the Blue Eagle for those operating under the
President's Reemployment Agreement are Insignia of NRA protected by U.S.
Design Patent No. 90793-j-, and may not be reproduced without prior writ-
ten authorization from the National Recovery Administration.
2. Reproduction authorizations previously issued by the Insignia
Section of NRA are extended to apply to Blue Eagles for trades and in-
3. The following requirements apply to all reproductions of Blue
4. No delivery of any Blue Eagle reproduction may be made for use
of another person without a prior written statement to the authorized
reproducer from such other person that he is complying with the code
for the trade or industry to which the reproduction relates or (in the
case of the President's Reemployment Agreement Blue Eagle) that such
other person is complying with the President's Reemployment Agreement
as extended by Executive Order dated April 14, 1934.
5. Each reproduction in an advertisement or on stationery, goods,
containers, wrappers, lables and the like (other than NRA labels spe-
cifically provided for in any Code) must be accompanied by the name
of the person displaying the reproduction or by a brand name or trade
mark owned by him and must be so placed by the reproducer as to indi-
cate clearly that the display is by the person named or by the owner
of the brand name or trade mark.
6. For the purpose of reproducing the Blue Eagle for any trade
or industry, all the words and figures below the word "CODE" may be
deleted but in no case may this deletion occur except in advertisements
or on stationery, goods, containers, wrappers, and labels, including
NRA labels specifically provided for in any Code.
7. No Blue Eagle reproduction shall bear the words "Property of
the United States Government - Not for Sale." With this exception
and the specific deletion authorized in paragraph 6 of these Require-
ments, no Blue Eagle reproduction may vary from the patented design,
date, registration number, wording or color combination of the offi-
cial Blue Eagle excepting that it may be reproduced in any one solid
color employed in the other printing or material used therein.
8. No Blue Eagle shall be reproduced merely as a decoration.
9. The printer and publisher of any book or of any newspaper, ma-
gazine or other periodical published at regular intervals is authorized
f\ /"N —. /->
to reproduce the Blue Eagle in any article about NRA or in the adverti-
sement of any person who has filed with such publication a written
statement indicating compliance with MA as described in. paragraph 4 of
10. Any reproduction authorization issued may be withdrawn for
11. Written authorization to reproduce the Blue Eagle will be issued
by the Insignia' Section, NRA, Washington, D. C. , to any person certifying
as follows: : .
(a) His compliance with the Code for his trade, or industry and
the registration number of his Blue E a gle for his trade or. industry.
(b) His compliance with the President's Reemployment Agreement
as extended by Executive Order of April 14, 1934 (if there is no
approved Code applicable to him in making the reproduction).'
(c) His agreement to abide by Regulations of the HRA and these
Requirements. The application must be accompanied by a specimen
of the intended reproduction.
12. These Requirements supersede "KRA Circular No. 1" issued' July
23, 1933, and the "Interpretation of ERA Circular No. 1" dated September
BLUE EAGLE MA1TUAL
August 1, 1934 i
Effective imnediately, all Code Authorities are to govern their
' distribution and handling of the Blue Eagle for members of trade and
industry in the following manner:
1. Responsibility for prompt distribution of one Blue Eagle
to each known member of trade or industry operating under an approved
code rests with the National Code Authority or similarly constituted
central authority set up under each code.
2. Each National Code Authority will expedite distribution,
coordinate instructions, and keep currently informed of the progress of
distribution in all cases where divisional, subdi visional, or local code
authorities are delegated as issuing agencies for the Blue Eagle.
3. Each trade or industry member operating under an approved
code is entitled to a Blue Eagle from each Code Authority having juris-
diction, unless he has been reported to the Compliance Division in
Washington for non-payment of contribution in accordance with paragraph
4 of this Manual, or to the Compliance Division in Washington by a na-
tional Code Authority for any other code violation, or to a Federal
District Attorney by a State NRA Compliance Director.
4. The Blue Eagle may be wit held for non-payment of con-
a. The requirements outlined in Administrative
Order No. X-36 have been met.
b. A report of non-payment of contribution has
been made to the Compliance Division in Washington.
5. Pursuant to Executive Orders which have vested the Ad-
ministrator with power to control the use of the Blue Eagle, Office
Memorandum No. 229, dated June 9, 1934, was issued to Code Authorities
which stated in part that "No limitation such as assent to the code
should be ii.Tposed upon the right of employers operating in conformity
with the provisions of approved codes to receive and display Blue Eagle
Insignia". Where codes contain provisions limiting the right to dis-
play the Blue Eagle Insignia to members of the industry who have signed
an assent to the code, the cooperation of such Code Authorities is
requested in distributing the Blue Eagle in accordance with the. Ad-
ministrator l s policy.
6. Multiple unit firms are entitled to one Blue Eagle for
eacii "branch unit with a separate registration number for each unit, if
the national Code Authority involved considers that the interests of its
membership under the code are best served by such distribution.
7. Previous distribution of the Blue Eagle by 1TRA was made to
applicants who indicated on the government postcard application their
approved code or their principal line of business. Branch stores or
plants were entitled to apply. Where the National Code Authority now
considers any of these branch units as not properly being within the scope
of membership of the industry, the Code Authority shall proceed as follows;
Return the completed application card (or cards) to the
Insignia Section of JTRA. with a letter of transmittal suggesting that 1TRA
request such firm to return the Blue Eagle for the reasons stated in the
letter of transmittal. Under no circumstances shall any Code Authority
request the return of the Blue Eagle from establishments in c-^ses of this
nature or request them to refrain from use or display of the Blue Eagle.
8. Reproductions or duplicate copies of the registered
Official Insignia are to be made available to your members in accordance
with the Administrator's letter to all Code Authorities, dated Hay 26,
1934, and Insignia Section letter of June 6, 1934 to all Code Authorities,
9. Additional printing orders for Blue Eagles will be -olaced
promptly, upon, receipt of letters from Code Authorities addressed to the
Insignia Section. Each such letter must report the number of Blue Eagles
already distributed, the number on hand with the Code Authority, and the
necessity existing for the additional quantity requested.
10. In order to complete distribution of the Blue Eagle
promptly, Code Authorities may take advantage of the following arrange-
ment until August 20:
Blue Eagles upon which individual registration numbers
have been inscribed by the Code Authority may be delivered by the Code
Authority to the Insignia Section of NRA at Washington in the case of
Code Authorities whose offices are in Washington or to the State NRA Com-
pliance Director for the State in which the Code Authority's office is
Accompanying the Blue Eagles in correct sequence must be a
list of names, correct post office addresses, and registration numbers
which have been assigned members of the industry by the Code Authority.
The HRA office indicated will thereupon mail out each Blue Eagle so
delivered in a National Recovery Administration envelope under government
frank. A letter of transmittal from the Code Authority must accompany
each list with a definite request for NRA to do this mailing. Duplicate
copies of these lists should be retained by the Code Authority in order
to obviate any necessity of returning the original list to the Code Au-
thority. No enclosed material bearing the letterhead or the signature
of the Code Authority can be franked.
11. Government application postcards which may continue to
reach the Insignia Section of NRA from applicants will he routed cur-
rently to the National Code Authority involved for checking and handling
in accordance with this Manual.
12. The Ins*ignia. Section and State Directors will -make &is~ *
tribution to members of trade and industry only where National or Local
Code Authorities are non-existent or unable to function, except as
provided in paragraph 10.
13. A report of progress as of August 10 is exoected from
every National Code Authority. TThere necessarv, immediate steps should
be taken hy the National Code Authority to secure the information
promptly from local or divisional code authorities concerned. This
report should be mailed to the Insignia Section on August 10 and in-
clude the following information:
a. Total number of Blue Eagles already distributed
by Code Authority and N HA combined.
b. Number of Blue Eagl.es undistributed in hands of
c. Number of members of the industry to whom Blue
Eagles have not \>een distributed.
d. Estimate of total membership.
e. "When will distribution be completed?
f . What has been accomplished regarding avail-
ability of duolicate copies of the Blue Eagle in accordance
with paragraph 8 of this Manual?
g. Code Authorities not now organized will
suppl~y the information contained in Paragraph 13 as soon as
possible after organization.
By direction of the Administrator:
g. a. men,
Ad-mini st rat ive Officer.
A. R. Glancy ,
for Field Administration.
AMENDMENT- OF BLUE EAGLE i.iANUAL
October 1, 1934,
Paragraph III of the Blue Eagle Manual for Code Authorities is
hereby amended to read as follows :
"3. Each trade or industry member operating under an ap-
proved Code is entitled to a Blue Eagle from each Code Authority
hrving jurisdiction unless:
a. The Compliance Division has found that such member
has not paid a contribution required to be paid by a code or has
violated: any. provision of Title I of the National Industrial Re-
covery Act, or of the Code, approved for said trade or industry
pursuant thereto, and such member has not been revested with the
right to display the Blue. Eagle. ••
b. Such member has been convicted of a violation of any
provision of Title I of said Act, or of the Code .approved for said
trade or industry pursuant thereto,, by any Federal or State Court
or by a Governmental Agency charged with the enforcement of Title
I of the Act and such member has not been revested with the right
to display the Blue Eagle.
c. There is pending before any Federal or State Court,
or before any Governmental Agency charged with the; enforcement of
the provisions of Title I' of the Act, any action, suit or pro-
ceeding whereby such member is' charged with' a violation of any
provision of the Act or of the Code approved for said trade or in-
dustry pursuant.' thereto. "
Paragraph IV of the Blue Eagle Manual for. Ccd-e Authorities is here-
By direction of the National Industrial Recovery Board:
G. A. Lynch,
Administrative Officer ,
*Note — The substance of the Blue Eagle Manual will be incorporated in
the NRA Office Manual under "Code Administration — Enforcement —
Insignia — Part 111-4300" when released in Office Manual form.
CODES CONTAINING MANDATORY INSIGNIA PROVISIONS INCLUDING NRA LABELS
5. Coat and Suit, Amd. 1
7. Corset & Brassiere
Light Sewing Except Garments-,,
Amd. 6 (Division)
Me rchandi se Warehousing
8. Legitimate Theatre
15. Men's Clothing
29. Artificial Flower, Amd. 2
239. Porcelain Breakfast Furniture Mfg.
259. Hat Mfg.
276. Pleating, Stitching and Bonnaz
and Hand Embroidery.
42. Luggage &■ Fancy -Leather, Amd.l 283. Heady— Made Furniture Slip Covers,
51. Umbrella Mfg., Amd.. 1 ■ 332. Ladies Handbag
60-C.Reta.il Custom Millinery
64. Dress Mfg.
335... Art Needlework, Amd. 2
362. Photographic & Photo Finishing
78. Nottingham Lace Curtain Ind- 363. Men's Neckwear, Amd. 1
79.. Novelty Curtain, Amd. 3 373. Infants 1 and Children's Wear
84-G.Tool & Implement
84-N. Non-Ferrous Hot Water Tank
94. Men's Garter, Amd. 2
118. Cotton Garment,- Amd. 2, 8
151. Millinery, Amd. 2
156. Rubber Mfg, Amd. 1
161. Fur Dressing
164. Knitted Outerwear
194. 31ouse and Skirt
208. Picture Moulding & Frame
211. Robe and Allied Products
386. Umbrella Frame and Hardware
399, Household- Goods Storage
401. C o-o-o er
408. Undergarment and Negligee
436. Fur Mfg.
457. Cap and Cloth Hat.
467. Cigar Mfg. , Amd.; 1
474. Needlework in Puerto Rico
494. Merchant & Custom T ailo ring
510. Assembled Watch
538. Women's Neckwear & Scarf
March 4, 1935
TO:, Code Authorities of .Codes Having Mandatory Label Provisions
FROM: Sol A. Rosenblatt, Compliance and Enforcement Director
SUBJECT: Administrative Order X-135
For your information and guidance, the following administra-
tive action has, "been taken pursuant to Administrative Order X-135 in
regard to the procedure to "be followed in withdrawing or restoring the
right to obtain labels or to use labels which a respondent has on hand:
1. Dean G-. Edwards, 45 Broadway, New York City, has been
designated by the Compliance and Enforcement Director as an NBA. Label
Agency. Mr. Edwards is the only Agency so designated and he is the NBA
Label Agency for all Code Authorities wherever located. In any case in
which the establishment alleged to be in violation is located, in Arizona,
California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington,
or Wyoming, Mr ? Edwards cannot authorize a denial of the initial issue
of labels or a suspension of the issue of labels or take any other final
action within his power until he has first received the recommendation
of the NBA Label Officer for the Test Coast approving or recommending
the action Mr. Edwards intends to take. Mr. Edward L. Pries, Humboldt
Bank Building, 785 Market Street, San Francisco, California, has been
designated NBA Label Officer for the West Coast. Mr. Fries is authorized
to make recommendations to the NBA Label Agency in New York in regard to
action involving labels, but he cannot take final action.
2. The Compliance and Enforcement Director has, pursuant to
the authority granted by Paragraph 21 of the Order and otherwise, au-
thorized the continuance of the present procedure whereby NBA Regional
Compliance Directors have final power to withdraw or restore the right
to obtain labels or to use labels which a respondent has on hand. This
procedure was described in the letter of February 9, 1935 of the Com-
pliance and Enforcement Director. Hence, in cases in which the issue of
labels has been suspended, Code Authorities will mail the record to the
appropriate NBA Regional Compliance Office, rather than to the Compli-
ance and Enforcement Director as stated in Paragraph 14 of the Order.
The Code Authority shall simultaneously notify the respondent and the
NRA Label Agency that it has so nailed the record, stating the location
of the Regional Office to which it has been sent. The "appropriate NRA
Regional Compliance Office", as the term is used herein, is the Regional
Office for the Region in which is located the respondent's establishment
where the alleged violation occurred. The record should be sent to such
Regional Office even though the respondent operates other establishments
outside of the Region or its head office is located outside of the
3. The Compliance and Enforcement Director has delegated to
Regional Directors the power to hear appeals by respondents, such ap-
peals being authorized by Paragraph 14 of the Order.
4» If a Code Authority, pursuant to Paragraph 13 of the Order
desires to appeal in a case where the MRA Label Agency has disapproved
its recommendation or has failed to act within five days, it should
address its appeal to the Chief of the Compliance Division in Washington.
5. Paragraph 14 of Administrative Order X-135 states that a
respondent may at all times prior to final determination of his case
apply to the Compliance and Enforcement Director for an order directing
the Code Authority to issue labels in such quantities as may be proper
pending such final determination. The Compliance and Enforcement Direc-
tor has not delegated any power under this provision to Regional Direc-
tors. An application by the respondent for such an order should be
addressed to the Chief of the Compliance Division in Washington.
SOL A. ROSENBLATT
Conroliance and Enforcement Director
March 2, 1935.
CANCELLATION OF BLUE EAGLE REPRODUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
Determination has been made bv the National Re-
covery Administration that further, reoro auction of any-
Blue Eagle Insignia or emblem would be contrarv to the
policy of the National Recovery Administration.
Accordingly, all reproduction authorizations
heretofore issued by the National Recovery Administration
are hereby cancelled. Hereafter, no one shell reproduce
either for his own use or for the use of another any
Blue Eagle Insignia or emblem issued, f.dooted, or aporoved
by the National Recovery Administration or any label bear-
ing any such Blue- Eagle Insignia or emblem. All such
Insignia or emblems are the property of the Government
of the United States and are protected by United States
Design Patent Number 9'1793-t.
L. J. I 'art in,
National Recovery Administration,
September .4th, 1935
OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION
THE DIVISION OF REVIEW
THE WORK OF THE DIVISION OF REVIEW
Executive Order No. 7075, dated June 15, 1935, established the Division of Review of + he
National Recovery Administration. The pertinent part of the Executive Order reads thus:
The Division of Review shall assemble, analyze, and report upon the statistical
information and records of experience of the operations of the various trades and
industries heretofore subject to codes of fair competition, shall study the ef-
fects of such codes upon trade, industrial and labor conditions in general, and
other related matters, shall make available for the protection and promotion of
the public interest an adequate review of the effects of the Administration of
Title I of the National Industrial Recovery Act, and the principles and policies
put into effect thereunder, and shall otherwise aid the President in carrying out
his functions under the said Title. I hereby appoint Leon C. Marshall, Director of
the Division of Review.
The study sections set up in the Division of Review covered these areas: industry
studies, foreign trade studies, labor studies, trade practice studies, statistical studies,
legal studies, administration studies, miscellaneous studies, and the writing of code his-
tories. The materials which were produced by these sections are indicated below.
Except for the Code Histories, all items mentioned below are scheduled to be in mimeo-
graphed form by April 1, 1936.
THE CODE HISTORIES
The Code Histories are documented accounts of the formation and administration of the
codes. They contain the definition of the industry and the principal products thereof; the
classes of members in the industry; the history of code formation including an account of the
sponsoring organizations, the conferences, negotiations and hearings which were held, and
the activities in connection with obtaining approval of the code; the history of the ad-
ministration of the code, covering the organization and operation of the code authority,
the difficulties encountered in administration, the extent of compliance or non-compliance,
and the general success or lack of success of the code, and an analysis of the operation of
code provisions dealing with wages, hours, trade practices, and other provisions. These
and other matters are canvassed not only in terms of the materials to be found in the files,
dux also in terms of the experiences of the deputies and others concerned with code formation
The Code Histories, (including histories of certain NRA units or agencies) are not
mimeographed. They are to be turned over to the Department of Commerce in typewritten form.
All told, approximately eight hundred and fifty (850) histories will be completed. This
number includes all of the approved codes and some of the unapproved codes. (In Work
Materials No_ 18, Contents of Code Histries, will be found the outline which governed
the preparation of Code Histories.)
(In the case of all approved codes and also in the case of some codes not carried to
final approval, there are in NRA files further materials on industries. Particularly worthy
of mention are the Volumes I, II and III which constitute the material officially submitted
to the President in support of the recommendation for approval of each code. These volumes
set forth the origination of the code, the sponsoring group, the evidence advanced to sup-
port the proposal, the report of the Division of Research and Planning on the industry, the
recommendations of the various Advisory Boards, certain types of official correspondence,
the transcript of the formal hearing, and other pertinent matter. There is also much offi-
cial information relating to amendments, interpretations, exemptions, and other rulings. The
materials mentioned in this paragraph were of course not a part of the work of the Division
of Review. )
THE WORK MATERIALS SERIES
In the work of the Division of Review a considerable number of studies and compilations
of data (other than those noted below in the Evidence Studies Series and the Statistical
Material Series) have been made. These are listed below, grouped according to the char-
acter of the material. (In Work Materials No. 17 . Tentative Outlines and S ummaries of
Studies in Process , these materials are fully described).
I ndustry Studies
Automobile Industry, An Economic Survey of
Bituminous Coal Industry under Free Competition and Code Regulation, Economic Survey of
Electrical Manufacturing Industry, The
Fertilizer Industry, The
Fishery Industry and the Fishery Codes
Fishermen and Fishing Craft, Earnings of
Foreign Trade under the National Industrial Recovery Act
Part A - Competitive Position of the United States in International Trade 1927-29 through
Part B - Section 3 (e) of NIRA and its administration.
Part C - Imports and Importing under NRA Codes.
Part D - Exports and Exporting under NRA Codes.
Forest Products Industries, Foreign Trade Study of the
Iron and Steel Industry, The
Knitting Industries, The
Leather and Shoe Industries, The
number and Timber Products Industry, Economic Problems of the
Men's Clothing Industry, The
Millinery Industry, The
Motion Picture Industry, The
Migration of Industry, The: The Shift of Twenty-Five Needle Trades From New York State,
1926 to 1934
National Labor Income by Months, 1929-35
Paper Industry, The
Production, Prices, Employment and Payrolls in Industry, Agriculture and Railway Trans-
portation, January 1923, to date
Retail Trades Study, The
Rubber Industry Study, The
Textile Industry in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan
Textile Yarns and Fabrics
Tobacco Industry, The
Wholesale Trades Study, The
Women's Neckwear and Scarf Industry, Financial and Labor Data on
- Ill -
Women's Apparel Industry, Some Aspects of the
Trade P rac tice Stu dies
Commodities, Information Concerning: A Study of NRA and Related Experiences in Control
Distribution, Manufacturers' Control of: Trade Practice Provisions in Selected NRA Codes
Distributive Relations in the Asbestos Industry
Design Piracy: The Problem and Its Treatment Under NRA Codes
Electrical Mfg. Industry: Price Filing Study
Fertilizer Industry: Price Filing Study
Geographical Price Relations Under Codes of Fair Competition, Control of
Minimum Price Regulation Under Codes of Fair Competition
Multiple Basing Point System in the Lime Industry: Operation of the
Price Control in the Coffee Industry
Price Filing Under NRA Codes
Production Control in the Ice Industry
Production Control, Case Studies in
Resale Price Maintenance Legislation in the United States
Retail Price Cutting, Restriction of, with special Emphasis on The Drug Industry.
Trade Practice Rules of The Federal Trade Commission (1914-1936): A classification for
comparison with Trade Practice Provisions of NRA Codes.
Cap and Cloth Hat Industry, Commission Report on Wage Differentials in
Earnings in Selected Manufacturing Industries, by States, 1933-35
Employment, Payrolls, Hours, and Wages in 115 Selected Code Industries 1933-35
Fur Manufacturing, Commission Report on Wages and Hours in
Hours and Wages in American Industry
Labor Program Under the National Industrial Recovery Act, The
Part A. Introduction
Part B. Control of Hours and Reemployment
Part C. Control of Wages
Part D. Control of Other Conditions of Employment
Part E. Section 7(a) of the Recovery Act
Materials in the Field of Industrial Relations
PRA Census of Employment, June, October, 1933
Puerto Rico Needlework, Horaeworkers Survey
Administrative and Legal Aspects of Stays, Exemptions and Exceptions, Code Amendments, Con-
ditional Orders of Approval
Administrative Interpretations of NRA Codes
Administrative Law and Procedure under the NIRA
Agreements Under Sections 4(a) and 7(b) of the NIRA
Approve Codes in Industry Groups, Classification of
Basic Code, the — (Administrative Order X-61)
Code Authorities and Their Part in the Administration of the NIRA
Part A. Introduction
Part B. Nature, Composition and Organization of Code Authorities
- V -
THE EVIDENCE STUDIES SERIES
The Evidence Studies were originally undertaken to gather material for pending court
cases. After the Schechter decision the project was continued in order to assemble data for
use in connection with the studies of the Division of Review. The data are particularly
concerned with the nature, size and operations of the industry; and with the relation of the
industry to interstate commerce. The industries covered by the Evidence Studies account for
more than one-half of the total number of workers under codes. The list of those studies
Automobile Manufacturing Industry
Automotive Parts and Equipment Industry
Soot and Shoe Manufacturing Industry
Bottled Soft Drink Industry
Builders' Supplies Industry
Chemical Manufacturing Industry
Cigar Manufacturing Industry
Coat cind Suit Industry
Cotton Garment Industry
Dress Manufacturing Industry
Electrical Contracting Industry
Electrical Manufacturing Industry
Fabricated Metal Products Mfg. and Metal Fin-
ishing and Metal Coating Industry
Furniture Manufacturing Industry
General Contractors Industry
Graphic Arts Industry
Gray Iron Foundry Industry
Infant's and Children's Wear Industry
Iron and Steel Industry
Lumber and Timber Products Industry
Mason Contractors Industry
Men's Clothing Industry
Motion Picture Industry
Motor Vehicle Retailing Trade
Needlework Industry of Puerto Rico
Painting and Paperhanging Industry
Photo Engraving Industry
Plumbing Contracting Industry
Retail Lumber Industry
Retail Trade Industry
Retail Tire and Battery Trade Industry
Rubber Manufacturing Industry
Rubber Tire Manufacturing Industry
Silk Textile Industry
Structural Clay Products Industry
Waste Materials Industry
Wholesale and Retail Food Industry
Wholesale Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Indus-
Wool Textile Industry
THE STATISTICAL MATERIALS SERIES
This series is supplementary to the Evidence Studies Series. The reports include data
on establishments, firms, employment. Payrolls, wages, hours, production capacities, ship-
ments, sales, consumption, stocks, prices, material costs, failures, exports and imports.
They also include notes on the principal qualifications that should be observed in using the
data, the technical methods employed, and the applicability of the material to the study of
the industries concerned. The following numbers appear in the series:
- vi -
Asphalt Shingle and Roofing Industry
Candy Manufacturing Industry
Carpet and Rug Industry
Cleaning and Dyeing Trade
Copper and Brass Mill Products Industry
Cotton Textile Industry
Electrical Manufacturing Industry
Funeral Supply Industry
Glass Container Industry
Ice Manufacturing Industry
Knitted Outerwear Industry
Paint, Varnish, and Lacquer, Mfg. Industry
Plumbing Fixtures Industry
Rayon and Synthetic Yarn Producing Industry
Salt Producing Industry
The original, and approved, plan of the Division of Review contemplated resources suf-
ficient (a) to prepare some 1200 histories of codes and NRA units or agencies, (b) to con-
solidate and index the NRA files containing some 40,000,000 pieces, (c) to engage in ex-
tensive field work, (d) to secure much aid from established statistical agencies of govern-
ment, (e) to assemble a considerable number of experts in various fields, (f) to conduct
approximately 25% more studies than are listed above, and (g) to prepare a comprehensive
Because of reductions made in personnel and in use of outside experts, limitation of
access to field work and research agencies, and lack of jurisdiction over files, the pro-
jected plan was necessarily curtailed. The most serious curtailments were the omission of
the comprehensive summary report; the dropping of certain studies and the reduction in the
coverage of other studies; and the abandonment of the consolidation and indexing of the
files. Fortunately, there is reason to hope that the files may yet be cared for under other
Notwithstanding these limitations, if the files are ultimately consolidated and in-
dexed the exploration of the NRA materials will have been sufficient to make them accessible
and highly useful. They constitute the largest and richest single body of information
concerning the problems and operations of industry ever assembled in any nation.
L. C. Marshall,
Director, Division of Review,
» ; —