Skip to main content

Full text of "Work materials ..."

See other formats



3 9999 06542 012 5 







> > > . 

, , > > 
.i ► > > i > 

> > > > . 

' • > . . ' , 

> , > > > 

> } > . 

> j > * , i 
-. j > > » 
. » j > » i 

> , > ' 
i » » j > » ' 

. j , j 


February, 1936 

••• * 
. • •• 
•• • • 

• • • • • . 





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 


l - 

13 A^y cog 




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 

Assessments 10 

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 

Provisions 27 

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 

Orders 61 

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 

Members 63 

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 

Insignia 68 

II. Insignia and Labels as Aids to Code Adminis- 
tration 68 

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 • - \ 
V > 

. ■. r 

■ :'\ ; 



: '".••: 

1 <•■■• 

r -• 

t :; 

! • 

r -■. i 

. j.-> 

» <*« . • 

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 
the government. 

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, 


-vi x- 


chapter i 
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. 
They are: 

"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 
purpose, " 







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- 
sumer Drive." 

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 
employers' emblems. 

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. 


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 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 
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 
of rulings. 

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. 

o ooo 



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 
Record Section. 




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. 


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* 


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. 


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 
Record Section. 



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 
F, Appendix). 

(*) History of Insignia Section, August £8, 1935, page 8, Exhibit 
Al, ' thereof. 

(**) History oi Insignia Section, August 28, 1935, page 9, Exhibit 
CI, thereof. 




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 
many instances. 

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 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 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. 


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 (*). 


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. 



chapter iv 
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, 
Administrative Orders. 

(*) 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, 
Appendix) . 

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 
Recovery." (***) 


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. 


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 
Administrator. (*) 


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. 






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, 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 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 
properly investiga.tec. 

(*) Vol. XXII, page 619, Cocll s of Fair Competition, as amended: 

Government Printing Office. 





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 
three codes. 

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. 


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. 




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. 


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 
Planning Division. 

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 

(*) Supra 

(**) 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 
manufacturing codes. 


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 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 
"be evaluated* 

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 
members, , 

•■ 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 
Administrative Orders. 

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- 
bel provision. 

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 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 
label regulations. 

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. 


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 

Authority administration. 

(*) Vol V, page 778 Code oi Fair Competition, as approved, Government 

Frinting Office. 


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 
Printing Office. 

(**) 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 (*). 


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 
of X-1935. 

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 
letters "P.R." 

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 
.industry concerned. 

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 
Agency Activities." 

.(**) Supra 

(***) 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. 


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 
Printing Office. 

(**) See National Industrial Recoverv Board. Piles, Miscellaneous Reports 





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 




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 
functioning today. 

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. 




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 
otherwise. (*) 

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, 




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- 
graphed copies. 



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" 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. 




nra ad;.: i in strati or re ihsigiiia 


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 
reproduction authorizations. 

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 
July, 1934. 

. 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. 


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, 
Appendix) . 


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. 


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 
16, 1934. 



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). 





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- 
employment Agreement. 

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 


5 U 



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. 






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 
Recovery Administration". 

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, 
1933. (*) 


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. 





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 
NRA Insignia. 

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 
promptly otherwise. 

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. 

9 828 




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 
insignia. " 

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 
hundred "oeople. 

(*) Vol. XVI, page 631, Codes of Fair Competition, as approved: 
Government Printing Office. 





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. 


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 
effective date. 


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 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, ' 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 
complied with. 

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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 




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 
that regard. 

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. 




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), 





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 
to enforcement, 


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. 


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. 




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 

N.R. A. Circular No.l. July 23, 1933. 


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 
sticker thereto. 

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 



Exhibit B 


September 27, 1933 


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. 



Exhibit C 


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 
code hours. 

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 


Exhibit D 


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 
these Requirements. 

10. Any reproduction authorization issued may be withdrawn for 
cause . 

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 
27, 1933. 



Exhibit E. 



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- 
tribution provided: 

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. 

x 9828 


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 undistributed in hands of 
Code Authority. 

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. 

Approval Recommended: 

A. R. Glancy , 

Assistant Administrator, 

for Field Administration. 






' ■: 

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 rescinded. 

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. 





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, 

Amd. 2 

51. Umbrella Mfg., Amd.. 1 ■ 332. Ladies Handbag 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 

us try 
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 

(Rainwear Division) 
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 



Exhibit H 

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. 

Conroliance and Enforcement Director 

March 2, 1935. 




NO. X-144. 


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, 

Acting Administrator. 

National Recovery Administration, 

September .4th, 1935 




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 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 
and administration. 

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 
9768—1 . 


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. ) 


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. 

Labor Studies 

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 Studies 

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 

9768—2 . 

- V - 


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 
Baking Industry 

Soot and Shoe Manufacturing Industry 
Bottled Soft Drink Industry 
Builders' Supplies Industry 
Canning Industry 
Chemical Manufacturing Industry 
Cigar Manufacturing Industry 
Coat cind Suit Industry 
Construction 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 
Fishery Industry 

Furniture Manufacturing Industry 
General Contractors Industry 
Graphic Arts Industry 
Gray Iron Foundry Industry 
Hosiery Industry 

Infant's and Children's Wear Industry 
Iron and Steel Industry 

Leather 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 
Shipbuilding Industry 
Silk Textile Industry 
Structural Clay Products Industry 
Throwing Industry 
Trucking Industry 
Waste Materials Industry 
Wholesale and Retail Food Industry 
Wholesale Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Indus- 
Wool Textile Industry 


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: 
9768—5 . 

- vi - 

Asphalt Shingle and Roofing Industry 

Business Furniture 

Candy Manufacturing Industry 

Carpet and Rug Industry 

Cement Industry 

Cleaning and Dyeing Trade 

Coffee Industry 

Copper and Brass Mill Products Industry 

Cotton Textile Industry 

Electrical Manufacturing Industry 

Fertilizer 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 
summary report. 

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, 

9768—6 . 


» ; —