Skip to main content

Full text of "Work materials ..."

See other formats



3 9999 06317 518 4 


9 E C [? I .7 


A. Herbert Barenboim 


March, 1936 



A. HerlDert BrrcnlDoim 




SUliiARY 1 



1. Conf lictin.:; Jurii";diction Over use of 

Blui= Eagle InGignia on Code Lctels 8 

2. Industries Adopting Label Provisions 10 

3. Ind-ustries Hot Adapted to the Use 
of Labels and. Desiring the Use 

Thereof 14 

4. The Prison Later Compact Insignia 15 

5. Sheltered T7orhshc-p Insip-nia 15 


1. Ccnsuraer Donrjid for Pre ducts 

Bearin- Latels 17 

2. ~:esi strati on ITunoers 18 

0. Suspension of the Issuance of 

Labe Is 19 

4. The Label A^'oncy 21 

5. Comparison of Conpliaiice Between 
a Label Using and a Eon-Label 

Using Ind-ustry 26 


1. Assessment Problems , 51 

2. Adjiird strcative Problems 33 

3. Effect of Label Costs on Consumer 35 



1. Uethod Used, in Purclia.sing 

Labels 36 





2. Storaf:e of L.^."bels 36 

c. Use of Compliance Certificates 36 

4. Inspections nnd Examinations 

of Plants 37 


1. The Pouers Conferred on the 

President "by NIRA. 38 

2. Legality of the Charge for 

Lahels 43 

3. The Sight to Suspend the 

I s&ur.nce of Laliel s 45 

4. The Validity of the Laoel 

Provisions in the Retail C^'de 46 

5. The First Label C-^.se 47 




1. Desiraoility of One Insignia 54 

2. Desirability of i,;ore General Use 

of Latels 54 


Adaptability of Label to General 

Use 54 

4. Desirability of La,bel Distribution 

By Incustry or 3y Government 55 

5. Bases of Assessment 56 



Appendices marked * are net here reproduced. They are in ITRA 
files -under the caption "iSA Studies Special Exhibits - Work Materials 
Ko. 84. 

A. Cor)y of Certificate of Assii.~nment of "design letters 
patent Ho. 9079S^»(The Blue Eagle) from Charles T. 
Coiner to the Governinent of the United States 57 

3. Insignia section release "Blue Eagle Reproduction 

requirements. " 58 

C. Copies of code la,t)els 59 

*D. Ad::iinistration Letter to Code Authorities Dated 

March 12, 1935, Explaining Application "f Adminis- 
trative Order X135. 

Copies of Rales and Regula-ticns for the Use and Dis- 
trihution of Lahels Adopted by the Code Authorities 

*E. The Garter, Suspencer and Belt l/airafac taring Industry. 

*F. The Corset and Brassiere Industry. 

*G- The Fur i.iajiuf acturin^:^ Inc^ustry. 

*H. The ICnitted Guteruear Ino.ustry. 

*I. The Ladies Handbag Industry. 

*J. The llovelty Curtp,ins, Draperies, Bedspreads and 
ITovelty Pillons Industry. 

*IZ. The Pleating, Stitcning and Bonnaz pjid Kandembroidery 

*L. The Umbrella Industry. 

*LI. The Artificial Flovxer ajid Peather Industry. 

17. Form used by label afi'ency to order suspension of use of 

labels 60 

0. Form used bj"- label agency to deny the right to suspend 

issuance of labels. 61 

P. Fern used by label agency in ordering code authorities 

to resune issxiajice of labels 62 

Copies of jipplications pjid Certificates of Compliance 
adopted liy the Coc'e Aathorities for: 

3859 _i^_ 

*Q,. The Garter, Susi^ender and Belt Manufacturing Industry. 

*?.. The Unbtclla llanuf acturin;;- Indue tr}'. 

The Ladies HandlJag Incustry. 

*S. For Contrrctors 

*T. Tor Lanufricturers 

*U. The ICnitted Gutervrear Industry. 

*V, The Infants and Childrens Uear Industry. 

*I7, The Fur Dressins^; ^md T^xr Dj^eing- Industry. 

*X. The Cotton Garnent Industry. 

**Y. The Blouse and Skirt Industry. 

Copies of Perms used for Listing Contractors 
adopted by the Code A'lthorities for: 

*2. The Blouse and Shirt Inciistrj'-. 

*iA. The Pur Lamof actiuin:^, Ind'ustry. 

*BB. Ai". analj-sis of contested I'I'.Pl.A. Cases: 

CC . Text cf Adnini sti-ative Order Z-l"5 63 





The use of la^oels to si&iif/ the qufilit/ or ctandards of a ilven 
product, or its method of manufacture, have been know n to the American 
public since 1870. From the d-te of the use of the first label to sisi^ify 
working conditions in industry, dowTi to the i^eriod of the adorition of the 
first label provision in the code of fair conroetition in the coat and 
suit industry, the A^nerican public had been educated to recognize the 
iniportance of such labeling of T^roducts in the proce-js of raising stan-- 
dards of living. 

The provision in the code of fair competition for the coat and suit 
industry, mfiking the use of labels msjidatory, vas in the first instance 
solely for the purpose of so identifying the product made, that the con~ 
suming -miblic might be able to choose between products made under fair 
competitive standards and those made under standards not in accordance 
with code provisions. The use of the label as a means of effecting code 
comDlia:ice ras first suggested by Professor 'iJ. F. Ogburn who on July 20, 
1933, at the public hearing of the code fair comoctition of the coat and 
suit industry stated that, "the fact that a product is foimd r.-ithout this 
label shall be considered primri f?cie evidence of its manufacture a^^d 
sale contrary to the provisions of this code." 

The use of code labels as a means of raising revenue resulted from 
a suggestion by Mr. K. A. Blaustein to the effect that the persons v/ho 
were chosen to administer the label provisions of codes should receive 
their salary from monies raised from the s'-'les of such labels and not 
from trade associations or other outside interests which might as a re- 
sult of such payments of salary exercise a degree of control over th.e 
actions of such code officials. 

The use of code labels v/as chiefly used in the ap':>arel pud. other 
needle works industries. A more general use of labels, tho"i\^h desirable, 
was not acconiplished cMefly as a result of the inability to fully de- 
velop administrative procedure end -oolicy to effectuate the different 
t^-pes of labels which v/ould have been necessary. Unforcement of code 
provisions was facilitated and materially aided fnrough the use of labels. 
Liuch of the effectiveness of fair competition for the "retail trade" 
which prohibited members of the trade from :^urchasing, or selling pro- 
ducts of industries made under codes requiring the use of labels unless 
the products had affixed thereto such labels. 

The administration of code label provisions by the iJational Recovery 
Administration was greatly haiiipered by the fact that the use of labels 
had not been contemolated and it was nececsary to develop new policy as 
each nev/ -oroblem arose. The establishment of a label agency and the 
appointment of a label agezit to act imnediately upon label suspension 
cases had the effect of correcting (to a marked degree) possible abuse 
under any label system. Thus a-pproxiraately nine months before the 
Supreme Court decision in the Schecter case the administration had created 
a procedure which tended to eliminate all possible abuse of label regula- 
tions by code authorities, and afforded members of industries manufactur- 
ing products under provisions of codes containing label provisions, 
immediate relief and the right of appeal. 


Raising of revenue in industries operating under codes containing 
latel provisions was from 27 to 42Jo more effective than in industries 
operating imder codes not containing label provisions. 

An analysis of hundreds of court decisions, pertaining to cases 
involving the right of an executive to establish "rules and regulations" 
and to provide for a "license" to carry out the provisions of an act of 
legislature, end. the right of the executive to provide for the v/ithdrawal 
or suspension of such "license" for the violation of the rules and regu- 
lations established, indicate definitely that (the act of legislation be- 
ing legal) the adoption of code labels, and suspension of use for non- 
comoliance and the raising of revenue through sales was legal. 






In accordance with the -Drovinions of the National Industrial Re- 
covery Act the National Recovery Administration vz-s created to receive 
proposed codes of fair comnetition and to hold public hearings thereon. 
During the first month of operation there were delays in code suhmission 
and the reaching of agreement upon drafts submitted which prevented im- 
mediate reeiiiploytfient on the broad scale desired by all concerned. Tlie 
decision of the President to initiate a plfm for the more rapid negotia- 
tion of agreements in addition to codes of fair competition resulted in 
the Presidj:,nt' s Reemployment program, outlined in NRA Bulletin #3** of 
December 20, 1953. This bulletin contained a description*** of the pur- 
pose of the 'i^^}. insignia. A few days earlier the Administration's idea 
of an employer's badge of cooperation had already/ taken the form of the 
now familiar design, the "Blue Eagle", submitted by Cnarles T. Coiner**** 
which was chosen from numerous drawings submitted. 

The President in his radio address of July 24, 1933 said: 

"In war, in the gloom of night attacks, soldiers Vv'ore a bright 
badge on their shoulders to be sure that comrades did not fire 
on comrades. On that principle, those V/ho cooperate in this 
program imist know each other at a glance. That is why we have 
provided a badge for this ptorpose. A small design with the 
insignia 'we do our part', and I ask that all who join with 
me shall display that badge prominently. It is essential to 
our purpose." 

The "badge" referred to v;as the "Blue Eagle". Ever^/- one was asked 
to join in displaying this insignia to indicate cooperation with this 
gigantic effort to overcome the do\7nward economic trend. General Hugh 
S. Johnson, then Administrator of the National Recovery Administration, 
best describes the purpose of the Blue Eagle as follows: 

(*) This report considers only the code label. Eor a general treat- 
ment of the IIRA. Insignia consult report by Wm. Duvall on "IIRA 
Insignia" (in the series of work material .reports issued by the 
IIRA Division of Review.) 

(**) The President's Re-employraenf Program (Washington: Government 
Printing Office, 1933.) 

(***) Id., pp. 2,3. 

(****) See a-OToendix (A) for certification of original patent. 


"The :§reatest service NRA could do was to 
restore hope pnd confidence. Through the 
Blue Eagle it tried to give people some- 
thing definite that they could do find hope 
for, and instead of leaving them helpless 
under, the burden of a great disaster, to 
shov; them how they could act together to 
fight it." (*) 

To make it i:)0ssible for puolic opinion to su-oport those who were 
cooperating to create employment and purchasing power, there had to "be 
a symbol easily recojniizable , striking and effective. The Blue Eagle 
was desijgned for that pui'pose. The Blue Eagle at the time of its in- 
ception stood for united Puolic support and opinion behind the Presi- 
dent's Reem-iloj^nent Agreement. (**) Public r^-:sponse to the PRA Blue 
Eagle insignia was so vvidespread that it was felt advisable to continue 
its use oy employers operating under codes of fair comTetition. The 
use of the Blue Eagle as PRA or code insignia v/as optional, its method 
of use was optional, and there were no ci^arges mr-.c^e for its use. 

The Code of Fair Competioion for tu. Coat ?.nd .Suit Industry was the 
fifth code ..vpproved by the ilacional Recovery Adiiiinistration. This in- 
dustry, as early as 1910, recognized tne value of affixing some form of 
insignia to its ^aiiTients to inform the consumer of the conditions under 
which they were made. The industry, however, did not actually adopt the 
use of any label at thao early date' but efforts nlong tnese lines led to 
the adoption of a garment label ''oy the dress -nd waist industry in 1913. 
1'he latter industry, in adopting the label, issu-a the following state- 

"To make more effective the maintenance of 
Sanitary conditions tnrou.liout the industry, 
to insure equali ly of mi.iirram standards 
■ ' throughout Ghe industry -uad to ga-a'cmtee to 

the puolic, g;ir>,'ic;nts made in sho'is certifi- 
cated by tn'i Boa-d of S^aiitary Control, ciie 
Board agrees that tnere shall be instituted 
in the indp.stry a system of certificating 
garments by a 1-^bel affixed to t,he garment ."( ***) 

(*) "The Blue Eagle from Egg to Earth" Doubl;,d-'y Doran - 1935 

(**) "h'.H.A. Bulletin #o pp 2,3. This bulletin and all material 
of a similar type referred to in tn- follovifing' pages may be 
found in the 51. P.. A. archives, unless reference bo other sources 
are made. 

(***) From Julius Henry Cohen's "Law and Order in Industry." 


In 191 J the Board of Arbitration for the coat and suit industry 
stated that some method oi;ght to be d-.;vised of enlisting the cooperation 
of the coranianity in the great and difficult task of controlling con- 
ditions of employment. It was suggested that a "protocol" label be used 
as a means of accomplishing such community or consumer cooperation. No 
action, however, was taken by this industry until 1925 when, as a result 
of the recouuTiendations of the "Battle Commission", appointed by the 
Governor of the State of Hew York, the industry ado-oted the "pro-sanis' 
label to certify to the existence in tne shops wherein the labelled 
garments were of certain standard conditions of wages '-and employment. 
When the -ouolic hearing on the code for the coat- and suit industry was 
held, on July 20, 1933, the leaders of the industry, having exDerienced 
the benefits that could be derived through reliance u-oon community 
cooperation v/ith fair-dealing members of industry, sticceeded in having 
written into their code a provision for a label similar in type and 
purpose to the "pro-sanis" label. They believed that such a label 
would serve to symboliae ethical labor conditions, act as a comDliance 
device, and facilitate the raising of revenue. At the time of this 
hearing, the Administration had given no consideration to a code label 
nor to the use of the blue eagle insugnia on such laDels. 

The -ourpose of this study is to relate the facts leading to the 
adoTDtion of code labels, to indicate the effect of such 'use on industry 
comT)liance, code administration, raising of revenue »jid consumer 





The coat and suit industry submitted a iDro-oosed code of fair competi- 
tion to the Rational Recovers'- Administration on July 13, 1933, The seventh 
article of that •nro-oosed code contr-ined ? clause riroviding for an illRA 

The fact that this oro-DOsed lahel provision had no definite limita- 
tions written into it occasioned the filing of several r>rotests, one of', 
which vras suhmitted "by Earl A. Blaustein, an attorney, reiDresenting^the 
Brooklyn Ladies Garment iie„nufacturers Association, Inc., an association 
of ap-oro::inately 109 coat s.nd suit contractors. The part of his state:ient 
which is r.ost relevent falloxvs: 

"Under Article 7th it is proposed tiiat all garments manufactured shall 
her.r p.n IIIRA laoel with a registration number, 

"TTith this -Drovision we agree, although the -oast history •f the _. . 
industry warns ag-^inst the abuses which may result from the method to 
be em-oloyed in the distrubution of such labels. It is not the 
label' itself - the em-oloyer should be nroud to show his compliance 
with the -Durposes of the Recovery- Act by the use of this label - 
but the nature of the control of the issuance of these labels is all 
iiToortant. • ' 

I'Article 7th designates a comnittee and Article 8th discloses the 
nea::.s of the three associations to obtain control when it provides 
that this committee shall consist of t-.'o re-oresentatives from each 
of the three associations, together with two representatives of the 
International Ladies' Garment L'orkers' Union. Thus the all inroortaiit 
governing committee consists of six members reiDresenting the framers 
of this code " 

"A short examination will auickly disclose the ultimate function of 
a biased committee. Refusal to grant the use of the NIRA label to 
a non-affiliated -oroducer means his extinction. Recognized members 
of the three associations are bound to be favored, for the iDro-oosed 
code nowhere provides for the method of financing:; the salaries of 
the P.embers of the committee «r -orovides for the cost of its 
functioning," (**) 

(*) To eliminate sub-standard and sweat shoio conditions in the Coat and 
Suit Industr-' and to assure the manufacture of all garments under standards and conditions, it is proposed thpt all garments 
manufactured shall bear an 'KIRA' label; such label must be attached 
to ever'-^ garment. It shall bear a registration number especially 
assigned to each member in the industry aoid remain attached to such 
garment when placed on sale by the retail distributor. The Cominituee 
hereinafter mentioned, together with the Administrator, shall establish 
the a-ooropriate machinery for the issuance of the label, inspection, 
examination and supervis ion of persons engaged in the industry and 
retailers distributing such garments, and to carry into effect tne pur- 
pose and intent of this provision and to see to it that it is fully ana 
com-oletely complied with, 

(**) Proposed code of fair competition for the coat and suit industry, 

9859 ¥aGhington, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1933. 


--r, Blaustein suggested a ch,?.ng-e in the seventh rrticle which, in his 
o--iinion, ^rould cure most of its dofeots. He ■oro^DOsed thr,.t NBA latels "be 
sold to the uenbers of the industry at rates to he determined by the code 
cora-nittee. (*) The motive of this iroiDOsa,! v.'as to eliminate the possihility 
of the code committee o\7in3 allegiance to any particular trade associr. bion 
because of the financial sun'ort rendered by such associption. I.Ir, 
Blaustein's proposal vas favoraol';'- acted u^on and Drovisiou was m?,de for 
the con-oensation for officials of tne eode authority frorr: revenue to be 
raised thi-oui,h the sale of labels. Thus v!e find a code submitted to the 
adjnini strati on containing a label provision r;ith the su£:.:estion that such 
labels be utilized as a means -of obtaining revenue. 

At the -ouolic hearing on the n^roiDOsed coat and si^'it code held on Jul;'" 
2^^, 19o5, Professor W. F. Ogburn, reoresentin^ the Cons\L'iers' Advisory 
Board, s^ig^'osted that the oro-oosed label -orovision be changed to provide 
that "the f act . that a -oroduct is found without this laoel shall be consi- 
dered prina facie evidence of its manufacture snd sale contrary to the orovi- 
sions (jf this code, (**) Professor W. F. Ogburn' s ide^, v;as incorporated 
in the -orovisions of the ap'TOved code. The suggestion ras designed to 
add the third' link in the chain of -n effective code label. This proposal 
was calculated to change the -oermissive character which marked the earlier 
use of labels in the industry rjrior to i>ffiA (and even the use of the Blue 
Eagle under the PHA) to mandatory use. The very fact that a garment r/as 
sold without a label would, ipso facto, be a code violation. 

I:i the interim between the time of filing of the orotest by lir, 
Elaustei:^ sua. the next -oublic hearing, the oarties representing the several 
factions in the industry had met informally and agreed uioon the final forn 
in •-'hich article 7 should a^o'ear in the Code. This is evidenced from the 
re-nprlcs (***) made by 'Lir. BlauStein at the oublic hearing: 

"This Article as it stands is agreed upon. This is the article that 
speal:s- about the HIPA label. We agree that the '"IRA label, ,?nd we 
sa3'- this — that the NIEA label is to be something more, something 
in addition to a birth certificate on a garment; we say that the 
con;:ittee, of which I shall hereafter speak, shell be in a position 
to sell these NIRA labels to ?11 those who subscribe to end are part 
of the code, for the purisose of raising the funds necessary for the 
administration of the code so that the committee which will serve 
this industry she.ll not only be a loaid committee, devoting all of 
its tir-ie and attention to it, but the burden can best be borne in 
the way of supoorting .the comm.ittee through the utilization of the 
1TI3A label," 

The code for the industry, when apToroved on Augiist 4, 1933, contained 

(*) See Volume A - -oro-DOsed code of fair competition for the coat ai.d suit "- 

industry, ] 
(**) See Trrnscri-Dt of Public Hearing - Page 287 

(***) See Transcri-Dt of Hearing - coat and suit industry. Page 462 • 


a Ir.jel provision in substariti'dl;/ the sane form as ori5':inally -oro-oosed.C*) 

It is interesting to note that- this industry vrhich 7/as the first to 
'■-Topose a code lahel, made no •?rovision ■oertainin-:^ to a method of distri^ou- 
tion or cc.atrol of such laDel other than a general statement that, the control 
should rest vith the code authority -md the Administrator. 

At the time of the adootion of the coat and suit code, the Administra- 
tion had formulated no policy to cover the distritution and sale of laljels, 
likerrise, no provision or "oolicy had heen. established for the withdra.Tzal 
or suspension of the use of the code label. On January 17, 1934, Adminis- 
trative Order X-3 (**) was ap"oroved establishing for the first time inles 
ajid .re£,r.lations governing the iss^oance and suspension of the use of label. 
The order provided :hat code authorities V7hen prorierly constituted shall 
have the ri'jht and authority to: 

"prepare, issue or furnish or cause to be i-jreoared, issued, or 
furnished to members of res-oective industries, labels bearing 
emblems or insignia, of the ■■•ia.tional Hecovery Ad::iinistration. 
code authority shall not refuse the issuance of labels to an appli- 
cant on the "rounds of non-comoliance unless said code authoritj'' a,t 
the time of refusal is orepared to certify to the National Recovery 
Adrainistration in prima facie case of non-ccm"oliance with the code 
or '-'ith valid rules or regulation of the code authority by the 
applicant. " 

1. Conflictin.-; Jurisdiction over Use of Slue Ea<le Insignia on Code 

Until a, code blue eagle was created, in 1924, the blue eagle and its 
reproduction ¥/ere primarily associated with the President's Reemploy 
Agreement, imA Circular tl (***) specifically mentioned that manuf ~cturers 
of la.bels coi-'.ld secure authorization to reproduce such, labels for PHA 
members, provided they themselves had sij^ned the President's Reemploy.ent 
Agreement, ilanj of these label manufacturers secured authorization from 
the iJational Recovery Administration to produce a. variety of labels embody- 
ing the blue eagle. At the same time, the cede labels began to appear vdth 
the sarae blue eagle. Confusion naturally resulted. 

(*) 7u.rther to effectuate the provisions of this code arLd to elimina.te 

stibstandard and s:"eatshop conditions in the coat and suit industry, all 
garments manufactured or distribut.ed shall bear an FIRA label, ifhich 
shall be attached to every garment. It shall bear a registra,tion 
nu;?.ber especially assigned to each employer in the industry and remain 
attached to such ;p?,rment i^'hen placed on sale by the retail distributor. 
All employoroj as herein defined, whether or not members of the 
a.ssociatiois Herein mentioned, ma,y apply to the coa.t and suit code 
a;c.thority for a. permit to use the UIPJl la„bel which permit to use the 
label shall be .';:ranted to them but only if they comply with the 
standards set forth in this code. The coat and suit code authority 
hereinafter mentioned shall establish the appropriate machinery for 
the issuajice of la~bels, inspection, examina.tion and supervision of 
employers engaged in the industry of such garments," 
Codes of fair competition, Volume I, Page 56, 

(**) l^or the text of this order, see Voltirae 5, codes of fair competition, 
Page 778, 

(***) (V/ashir.gton) Government Printi;ig Office for complete text, 



Tl^.e code authorities com-olained to the Administration that labels 
similrr to those issued i\hder the mandatory latel provisions were tieinfj 
sold to their members lay outside man\ifacturers» In most esses these 
manufacturers had obtained permission from the Admi:vi strati on to repro- 
duce the blue eagle and their labels were not intended to be dece-otive. 
The code authorities proceeded on the .cssuin-otion that they had a mono- 
poly on ITJl labels, althou,-,'h the codes did not specifically confer ?ny 
such monopoly. To ease the. situation, the Insignia Section of ITOA wrote to 
to all a-uthorised reurodxicers (*), narrc^ing the authorization xjreviously 
extended them so that it did not include oermission to reiDroduce insignia 
on labels in any way indicating thc^t the insi~nia or laDel had been manu- 
factured under a code authority-' or to re-oroduce code authority serial 
registi~a,tion niwibers unon their insignia. Finallj'-, in i>'iay, 1934, Adjiiinis- 
trative Order X-38 (**) formally forbade such manufacture and, in effect, 
created an exclusive right -in favor of each code authority administering 
apnroved label Drovisicns. Prior to the above order, Administrative Order 
X-3, heretofore mentioned, had granted to the code authorities the exclu- 
sive right to issue labels to industry niembers. 

(*) See Appendix (b) for cox>y of instructions, 

(**) Tor the text of this Order see Volume 11, Codes of Comnetition, 
page 792. 


2. Industries Ado-pting Label Provisio ns 

In the Parly days of cpde-nal^ing, it rras generally the practice 
of groups pro"TOsing codes to provisions desired with provisions 
subra-ittfid in proposed or previously aporoved codes for other industries. 
In maxii'- cases, codes subnitted by sm?„ll industry groups were made up of 
clippings of provisions from proposed codes for several other indus- 
tries. Thus it was that code #5 for the coat and suit industry estab- 
lished a precedent much relied upon by other needle-work industries in 
the formulation of tiieir code provisions for the mandatory use of code 

Code #7, approved August 14,' 1933 for the corset and brassiere 
industry, was the second cocie to contain a label provision. This was 
follovred b3'- code #15 for the men's clothing industry, approved August 25, 
1933 £>iid code #64 for the dress manufacturing industry, approved 
October 51, 1933. 

On October 21, 1933, the most potent device of an effective code 
label v,'a.s introduced. It was on that date that code #60 for the retail 
trades wa,s approved. Article IX, section 2 of that code contained the 
follo'/ing provision: 

"ilo retailer shall purchase, sell or exchange any merchajidise 
manufactured under a code of fair competition, vmich requires 
such merchandise to bear an l-IEA label, unless such merchan- 
dise bears such label." (*) 

The fei,7 words contained in the above provision had a more far- 
reaching effect than anyone could possibly have errpected. (**) 

(*) See Volujne II, Codes of Pair Competition, Page 38. 

(**) Subsequently the follo'.'ing codes containing mandatory labor 
provisions were approved: 

Co6.e #151, for the nillinery industr;,?-, approved December 15,1933; 
Code #154, approved Decenber 13, 1933, for the Knitted Outer- 
wear Industry; 
Code #194, approved December Sn, 1933, for the 

Blouse and Skirt lianufac taring Industry; 
Code #211, approved Janu.ary 15, 1934 for the Robe and 

Allied Products Ir^dustry; 
Cede #259, for the Hat I isnuf Picturing Industry, approved 

Pebruary 15, 1934; 
Code #332, approved Larch 14, 1334, for the Ladies' 

Haiidbag Industry- ; 
Code #375, apiDroved llarch 27, li-34 for the Infants' and 

Children's Wear Industry; 
Code #408, approved April 27,1934 for the Undergarment 

and Negligee Industry; 
Code #436, approved Hay 19, 1934 for the Fur Manufacturing Industrj'-; 
Code #457, approved Juiie 5, 1934 for the Cap and Cloth Hat 

llajiufacturing Industry; and 
Code #494, approved July 31, 1934 for tlie Merchant and 

Custom Tailoring Industry. 

-11- ■ ■ 

The codes listed in the margin all contained mandatory latel provi- 
sions in the form in which they were originally aDoroved. Many other 
industries submitted proposed codes which contained oermissive label pro- 
visions. Other contained provisions permitting the code authority, at 
a later date, '.-to emoloy the use of labels in the industry subject to 
the approval of the Administrator. Of this latter grout) of codes, code 
#23 for the underwear and allied products industry aporoved on Septem- 
ber IS, 1953 was the, first. At the time of the submission of the code 
for this industry, there was much opposition to the control of industry 
standards by any group or groups. Thus, even in the matter of contri- 
butions other than by moans of labels, the several associations with- 
in the industry attempted to finance the code authority through asso- 
ciation funds rather than through. general industry contributions. (*). 

On July 13, 1934, amendment #4 was approved for this industry. 
The amendment contained tae following provision: 

"All products exceoting knitted anderwear manuf ■■■ctured or distri- 
butc3d under the provisions of this code may bear an N.^.A. label, ...(**) . 

It is interesting to note tnat the above provision is in no wise 
mandatory, and denies even the permissive use of .labels to those mem- 
bers of the industry manufacturing knitted uniervvear. Many pages could 
be written about the why's and wherefore's of this particular provi- 
sion. It is also interesting to note that in this industry the control- 
ling factors in the industry and those persons having the preponde- 
rance of the voting power in the code authority were the manufacturers 
of knitted underwear. 

Code #29, approved September '7, 1933 for the artificial flower and 
feather industry was amended on August 14, 1934 by adding to it a pro- 
vision making it mandatory that "all invoices and copies thereof cover- 
ing prod-ucts manufacturing or distributed subject to the provisions of 
this code, shall bear an MA label. (***). It is interesting to note 
tha.t in this industry the term "label" is used when, in fact, what is 
meant is a printed insignia on invoices. The use of the word label, 
however, was intentional. During the first month's operation, the code 
authority found that it was impossible to obtaii; revenue through the 
regular assessment provisions. 

(*) "Any eraoloyer may participate in any activities of the underwear 
institute and in the preparation of any revision of, or additions 
or supplements, to this code by assuming the proper prorata share 
of the cost and responsibility of creating and administering it. 
Even by becoming a member of the underwear institute or by pay- 
ing to it an amount equal to the dues from time to time provided 
to be paid by a-mc:j^er in like situation of the underwear insti- 
tute." See Volum.e I of Fair Competition. Page 320. 

(**) The text of the amendment is published in volume 13, codes of 
fair competition, , page 310. 

(***) Gee Volume XV, codes of fair competition, page 293. 



An attemot was made by the code authority 'nembers to have provisions 
added to the code making it mandatory that labels be affixed to all pro- 
ducts of the industry. This proposal, however, was strenuously objeoted 
to "oy members of the industry and the objection was sustained by the Ad- 
ministration. (*). When one considers that this industry's produots va- 
ry in price from a fraction of a cent to $1,00 and more, that the cost 
of affixing a label to these very low cost flowers wo-ald, in many mstaji- 
ces, be as great as the cost of the flower itself and that, further, when 
one considers that the cost of administering the very use of the label it- 
self, because of the extremely great volume of low--oriced flowers, it be- 
comes more apparent why the Administration found it necessary to deny 
the industry's petition to permit it to have a mandatory label provision. 
The use of the mandatory insignia on invoices, though not an absolute 
cure for the difficulties of collection of assessments, nevertheless was 
of some assistance. 

Code No. 51, approved October 9, 1933, for the umbrella manufactu- 
ring industry was amended on February 2, 1934, providing for the man- 
datory iisc of the code label. (**). 

Code #156 for tne rainwear division of ti.e ruboer manijfactaring 
industry, approved December 15, 1933, w«s amended on April 30, 1934, 
providing that no orodacts of the division shall be sold or shipned by 
any member of the division lanless said product bears an TTRA label. (***). 

Code #161 for tne far dressing and fur dyeing ind^jstry, approved 
December 18, 1933 provided that an "KRA Insignia" be stamped on fur 
skins dressed, dyed or otherwise processed. Article X of the code also 
provided that each member of the ir.rhis try should have a registration num- 
ber which was to be stamped on the fars. (****). 

Code #226 for the light sewing industries except garments, aiooroved 
January 23, 1934 was amended on iNfovember 14, 1934 to orovided that all 
members of the mattress cover, comfortable and quilting divisions of the 
industry shall affix to all thei:f prodilcts official labels issued by the 
respective divisional committees, bearing thereon the IffiA insignia. (*****) . 

Code #276 for the oleating, stitching and bonnaz and hand embroi- 
dery industry, ap-oroved February 10, 1934 was amended on January 14, 
1935 to provide that: 

"All bundles of garments on which an operation coming within the 
definition of the term 'indostry' in this code has been performed 
shall bear the NP.A label to symbolize the conditions under which 
such operations were performed. "(******) . 

(*) Information obtained from former Ass't D'eputy Adm. James G, 
Worthy and deoutics files of Feb. and 'iter., 1934. 

(**) See Volume VI, codes of fair competition, page 60S, 

(*♦*) The text of this amendment ap'oears in volume IX, ^ codes of fair 
competition, page 113. . ■. .. : 

(****) Volume IV, codes of fair comootition, page 17S. 

(*****)Yolume XIX, codes of fair competition, page 184. 

(^** **) Volume XX, codes of fair comoetition, page 219. 



Code :,-l'.3.3 for the reaciy i:\sC.e furniture slip covers manufacturing 
incxiotr;^, a- iroved February 16, 1934, was amended on Hovember 30, 1934 
to provide that: 

"All membern of ty.e in^u try shall affix tc all 
products, official labels issued by the code auth- 
'^rity bearin;-; thereon .the 1^5A insignia. " (*) 

Cede Tf363 for the nien'rr; neclovear incuiitry, approved March 24, 1934, 
WES a-iended on June 13, 1934, to jrovide tha.t: 

"All products made in the inc.ustry shall bear the IIRA label. "(•■''^) 

Code 7r467 for the ci/i:ar raraiuf a.cturin;j industry, ap'.^roved June 19, 
1934 v/r.T. ainended on September, 21, 1934 to provide that: 

"All cij:;ars raan'O-fa.ctured or cdstributed subiect to the 
provisions of this code shall have an l^EA label in the 
forr,: of a stamp to be affixed to the outside of the con- 
tainer thereof." (*=^*) 

Due to the fact tl:at cijars have been taxed for many years by the 
Internal Eeven\ie department of the -Government, the cigar manufactiu-ing 
industry code authority did not much difficulty of locp^tin.s and 
keeping-; trad: of the various members of the industry* The principal 
dra'.vbac"; to the use of labels by this intxistry was that the retailers 
were not required to insist upon the atta:,climent of the label. The retail 
code provided that v'here labels are recxiired to be affixed to "merchan- 
dise" the retailer would be in violation of his code if such la.bel were 
.not so affi::ad. Legal advice vip:- tha.t this could not be construed to 
include placin-j labels on containers. The ox^eration of this code and 
the effect of the ^ise ?f la.bels in it tend tc sli^v; very clearly the po- 
tent effect of retailer coo icrrtion on the effective use of code labels. 

Code ^60 supplement f^S, for the retail custom millinery trade, 
■approved Jajiuary 25, -1935, contained the provision that: 

".411 custom made millinery ma.6.e anc- sold subject to the provi- 
sions of this Supplementary Code shall bear an IIRA label. "(*'*'^*) 

The sale of la.bels by the Retail Customs, hillinery Code Authority 
did not commence until April 6, 1935 and there is, no information in the 
files e-z to the prices cha.r:_-';ed for them nor did the code authority si^.bmit 
any cases of violation. There were s,ome' complaints that this c4de auth- 
ority" v,'as attemj^ting to encroa^ch upon the territory of the millinery in- 
dustry in furthering the sales of labels bu.t there was insufficient time 
before the temiina,tion of t-ie coc-es to f'.etermine the truth of these 
charges. The writer, in the ca:oacity of general couiisel to the millinery 
code authority received from small custom milliners nui'aerous complaints of 
the activities of the castom millinery code authority. These c om plaint s 
(*) Vplviae XIX, codes of fair competition, page 399. 

(**) Vol'ome XII, codes of fair coropetition, page 229. 

(***) Volirje X\r[l, codes of fair competi-tion, page 158. 
(^***) j-or the text of this ajnencment, see Volume XXI, codes cf 
fair competition, page 493. 


were chiefly that Dolicitors from the code authority's office insisted 
upon the purchase of labels by the small shops in a ininimuin amount of 
$15.00 and since a goodly portion of the above industry is comioosed of 
women who make custom millinery in their own homes, oftentimes wholly 
deDendont upon this income for their livelihood, a request for even the 
small sum of $15.00 seemed to thom unfair and oppressive. The code 
authority actually had no opportunity to attempt enforcement of the code 
provisions. Their administrative organization had not begun to func- 
tion fully at the time of the Supreme Court decision in the Schechter 

Code #118 for the cotton garment industry, approved November 17, 
1933, was amended March 10, 1934 to Drovide that; "nil garments made 
in the industry shall bear an MA label. "(*). 

A complete study of this industry, with its many different products, 
with factories in all parts of the forty-eight states, would clearly 
show the wholesome effect of the power of the NRA label in effecting 
code compliance. 

3, Industries not Ada p ted to the Use of Labels and Desiring the Use 

Many industries, recognizing the difficulty of raising revenue and en- 
forcing compliance, believed that an amendment to their codes providing 
for the mandatory use of labels, would be a cure-all. Some of these 
industries are found in the group which amended their codes to provide 
for such mandatory use of labels. There were, however, many others 
which unsuccessfully petitioned the Administration for such amendments 
to their codes. The code authority for the handkerchief industry made 
several attempts to amend their code to provide for snrie form of label. 
Their first suggestion oroposed a sticker-label on handkerchiefs. This 
was objected to by the vast majority of the members of the industry, 
who claimed that to affix a sticker-label to a fine handkerchief would 
tend to diminish its value. It then was suggested that labels be af- 
fixed to packaged, handkerchiefs. Again a difficulty arose because of 
the fact that handkerchiefs boxes vary widely in the nxomber of handker- 
chiefs they contain, their capacity ranging from one, three, six, twelve 
to as many as 144 handkerc;hief s. The third plan suggested by the code 
authority was to affix a number of labels to a package, depending upon 
the number of handkerchiefs in each package. This was objected to by 
both the Administration and members of the industry because of the du- 
plication of expense. 

The 'covered button industry, through its code authority, also at- 
tempted to have its code amended to provide for the mandatory use of 
labels. Here again the difficulty of affixing the label to supplemen- 
tal parts of a garment or to a bundle of several supplemental parts or 
to police the activities of small one-man shops to enforce the us e of 
labels, definitely indicated insurmountable difficulties. 

(*) Volujne VII, codes of fair competition, page 658, 



4, The Prison Labor Compact Insignia 

Immediately after the approval of the amendment to the cotton gar- 
ment code, adopting rales and regulations for the use of code labels, (*). 
com'olaints were received by the Administration from manxifacturers and 
jobbers dealing in prison-made goods alleging that the code authority 
for the cotton garment industry and code authorities for ^ther in- 
dustry and code authorities for other industries making products si- 
milar to those made by prison labor, refused to issue code labels to 
be affixed to prison-made goods. The code authority officials claimed 
that such prison-made goods were not made in conformnnce with code 
orovisions and, therefore, could not bear the code label, This refusal 
on the part of code authorities to supply distributors of prison-made 
goods with labels acted as an effective bar to the sale of such goods 
to retail stores. Conferences were called by the Administration bet- 
ween persons dealing in prison-made goods and the several code autho- 
rities. As a result of these conferences, the Prison Labor Compact 
(**) was agreed upon. This compact provided that prison-made goods 
would be sold at prices on a par with competitive items made under code 
.pTOvisions. To carry out the purposes of, this coraoact, on May 3, 1934 
Administrative -Orders Nos. ''-S andV-2 were issued establishing an WA 
Identification Symbol to be used on merchandise made in noenal or cor- 
rectional institutions. (***) . The symbol was sim.ilar to the NRA in- 
signia previously issued to employers ijnder the PRA excer)t that the 

•^ord "member" was to be omitted and t|}e printed letters "Ident. Wo. " 

to be placed below the words "We To Our Part. " The issuance of the 
symbol with separate registration numbers assigned by the Prison La- 
bel Authority (which was established to carry out the -purposes of the 
compact;) was made mandatory, whenever similar goods in aoolicable in- 
dustries were required to bear an ^TOA label. The /Drocedurc set up by 
Administrative Order V-3 was somewhat similar to that for code authori- 
ties administering codes with mandatory label orovisions. 

5. Sheltered Workshop Insignia 

Sheltered workshoos or charitable institutions met with similar 
difficulties in trying to sell their merchandise to retail outlets. In 
order to correct this situation. Administrative Orders X-9, X-28, X-59, 
X-81, X-111 and X-111-1 were issued, citing Administrati '^''^ authority 
conferred by Executive Order 6543-A(****) and other Executive Orders. 

(*) Volume VII, codes of fair competition, page 658. 

(**) Where any penal reformatory or correctional institution, either 
by subscribing to the code, or contact, herein above referred 
to, or by binding agreement of any other nature, satisfies 
the administrator that merchandise .produced in such institution, 
or by the inmates tiiereof, will not be sold exceiot upon a fair 
competition basis, with similar merchandise not sold produced 

For full text, sec Vol. 9, Codes of Fair Comoetition, p. 734. 
(****^ ^a.shington G-overnment Printing Office. 
(****) Vol'jme 4, codes of fair competition, 'oage 689, 



Order X-9'(*), in eranting slielterecl workslio-ns conr'itional exemri-' 
tion f rom aiToroved corles on, condition that tlie Tileoge descriopd in that 
order was sifrned and co/mlied Trith, stote'i that the "'orlcsho-n so -oing 
wouXd be entitled to the use of any a.-nnro-iriate. insignifi of the '"HA. In 
case of -nledge violation, the i'Tational Co.nrnittee ^73,5 to certify the full 
record, in tie case to "--rJA for revocation of tJve right to use the insig- 
nia. . ■, ....,, 

Ori^er 7-^.3 (**) a-n'oointed the ne.nhers of the Sheltered .'Vorlcsho--) 
Committee a;id established an a-onrorjriate insignia. . This insignia was 
to consist of the existing blue eagle without the word "meinber", but 

with the -nhrase "S.'". Permit " - . ". f oil owing . tlae ^"ords "'"'e Do Our 

Part". The insignia, "'ith its assigned number, was reauired by the or- 
der to a-n-oear on all nroducts made by sheltered worksho-:is, where similar 
goods -orivatelj/ manufactur.ed were reauire''^ to bear a label. If the 
goods were solf^^ by a shelte'^ed i='orkshor), they i^'e'-e not reouired to bear 
this insignia. Presumably such selling referred to direct sa.les to con- 

Order a-59 and Order X-81 (***) amending and su-nnlemention it, vro- 
vided the machinery for the issuance of labels bearing the sheltered 
workshor) insignia and made the use of labels mandatory on sheltered 
workghoi-) prod,ucts where, if it were not for the code exemption granted 
by the Administrative Order, X-Q such'-nroducts wonld have been subject 
to certain mandatoi;y code label -orovisions. . . ,, ,. 

Order ■X-111 aTD-Qolnted members of the "Jational Sheltered ^Torkshor) 
Committee .anfT was followed three months later by Ordpr, X-111-1 amending 
the -nrocedure incident ^ to withdra^^'al of . the right to use labels and to 
exhibit insignia. ' ..- ... .. 

(*) VoluiTie 7, codes of . fair coimoetition.,, nage 7P7. 

(**) ".... I hereby ar)iolnt as members of the ""'a.tional Sheltered '^ork- 
shoT) Com^iittee" for the term of six months from t]iis date: 

r. Osfj^r "'. Sullivan ^ — - 

"r. Oliver 'A. Friedman .. 

">. ■^et^tr J. Salmon — ^-- — 

For full test see VoliiiTie X codes of fair co;:iDeti tion -nage 961 

(***) Volune X''''! , codes of fair ccToetition, r)age 5'-:B. 


Crl-irTZa III 

ZFFilCT .1" 0OD3 El'fFORCErLffiJT 

At the tiir.e of its inception, there vas no idea to re.^larly malce 
use of tile c • ".e laliel as' an enforcenent tlevide. Its ;orincipal purpose 
v;as to si-55nif7 to all, the products of manufacturers made under fair 
comr)etitive conditions and those of manufacturers made under conditions 
other than those proviced in the codes. The provision pertaining to 
labels in the retail trade code was . the first step in raalcin^ the code 
label an instrunentality of code enforcement. It was this latter code 
provision which, in part, provided that it was a viol.ntion of the retail 
code for a n-ojnber to purchase products from a raemoer of another industry 
unless such proouct hore a lahel wjien the code ;:overnin^' the mokin;?; of 
such procluct required the use of Inoels. 

Eie effectiveness of code labels was largely dependent upon support 
by employers, labor and the consu-mn,^ public. The provision of the re- 
tail trade code was most hel'oful in bringing about effective label use. 
This fact became evident shortl:/ after industries began to adopt the use 
of labels. The attitude of tne public cnncerning the use or non-use of 
blue eagles had caanged from a stron,;;; resentment a';rinst non-users to one 
of passive acceptance of products with: or without insignia. 

hembers of industry, manufacturiiij their products under codes con- 
taining mandatory label provisions, Avere not benefited by t.iis change of 
attitude. There vfere tv/o obstacles to .code non-compliance confronting 
them constajitly: one, the retail store v;ould refuse to pui'chase unlabeled 
prod.ucts because such a purchase v/ould be a violation of the retail code, 
and, two, the retail store might return merchandise' purchased on threat 
of prosecution by the retail trades code . authority. 

1 . Consumer Demand for Products Be aring Labels 

The public's response to the original use of blue eagles was spon- 
taneous and patriotic. Tiie first blue eagle Consumer Drives, during the 
signing of the P3A by tY;o million employers, made the work of -local NHa 
Committees in securing consumer pledg-es-of coopera:tion comparatively ea^". 
The urge to display the consumer insignia by those signing the pledge re- 
quired the manufacture 'of some seventy mdllion of these stickers. Labor. 
and labor organizations were highly in favor of the- purposes to v;hich the 
insignia was dedicated and lent their hearty support to help carry out 
the purposes. 

The consumer demand for blue ea.le sticliers or consumer insignia 
made the use of code labels, at least during the early days, an absolute 
necessity. "JTaning of public interest in the use of code labels was never 
definitely ascertained. Attempts -Tere m.ade in different parts of the 
country by employers of labor to discontinue the use of the blue eagle 
insignia and. not infrequently, after such attempts, the emijloyer sub- 
mitted reouests to the Ac^^nini strati on for the reissuance of and the rijiit 
to use the blue eagle once m;Ore. 



2. ?veg:istration !Ium"ber s 

Under the use of code labels a system of resistration or identifica- 
tion numlDers {^re^i up. It was the practice of almost every industry to 
assign to each manufacturer a special re;3istration or serial numterC*) or, 
in a few instances, merely to have each lahel numbered, serially, and to 
record these numhers assigned to a {.iven manufacturer at a given time. 
Through this method it was possible for code authorities to identify each 
item manufactured hy the memhers of their industry and, in certain in- 
stances, v/here products were found ''being sold at prices either helow the 
normal cost of such product, it vms possihle for the code authority to 
make a thorou<R;h investigation and to check the compliance or non-compli-* 
ance of the individual number. Many code authorities used this registr.':'- 
tion system as a check on the truth or untruth of payroll reports submit- 
ted. In one instance in the coat and. suit industry, payroll records in- 
dicated that employees ¥;ere working 24 and 25 hours a v/eek; their earnings 
were fullj- in accordance with the provisions of the code for such hours, 
yqt it was found by a check on the nuiTiber of labels used that the employ- 
ee's could not possibly have produced as raafiy items in the space of time 
alloted as had, been produced by this company. An investigation into the 
facts in the case disclosed the violation, and brought about the restitu- 
tion of a large sum of money to the employees. 

In Aut^ust of 1933, a report was submitted by the 6oat .and Suit Code 
Authority that certain members of that industry v/ere violating provisions 
of the code and, in some cases, selling goods without labels. Tne code 
authority, after malcing several attempts to secure compliance, organized 
the women of Tulsa, Oklahoma, into a Shopping Committee to ascertain, 
whether or not, members of the industry'' had labels attached to their mer- 
chandise. The purpose pf the label was explained to the women and soon 
such pressure was brought to bear on the merchants who did not have labels 
on their goods that they complied with the code in order to be able to 
use the label. This effort proved so successful in bringing about com- 
pliance that the Coat and Suit Code Authority proceeded to make every 
effort to organize consumer groups throughout the country. The method 
proved to be the cheapest and most effective means of code enforcement. 
Mr. Alger, the director of the Code Authority, stated that if the codes 
were to be enforced, the public must want them enforced. (**) The label 
is the greatest safeguard to both consumer and labor. Some time after the 
successful compliance campaign in Tulsa, Miss Bessie Betty, former editor 
of McCall's was selected by the Coat and Suit Code Authority to carrjr on 
the campaign on a larger scale. Other code authorities, realizing the 
value of such a campaign, offered their cooperation. The campaign direct- 
ed by Miss Betty was called the "Uational Garment Campaign". 

In Febi'uary of 1934, a group of label code authorities met and dis- 
cussed v/sys and means to perfect and extend the use of the label. It was 
from this meeting that the label council idea developed. The original 

(*) See appendix (C) for copies of labels showing serial numbers used. 
(**) See Volume (C) Report of label project committee page 613. 


purpose of t. is oi-g,nni;':r'tion as follovirs: 

1. To :et jetter retail buyers' acceptance of code labels; 

2, To provide for the cooperrition necessary between tjie 
label code authorities and to keep down many of the 
multiplicities of inspection of the retailers which 
■seemed to irritate them and cause stron.^' protests; and 

5. To Iceep const,ant the consirner interest in label-bear- 
in^i; products. 

3 4 Suspension of tlie I s suanc e of Lab els 

Shortly after the approval of codes ccntainin^^- mandatory label pro- 
visions complaints bei^-an to reach the Administration allegintri; that code 
authorities \"ere refusing to issue or vera suspending the issuance of 
labels V Yjithout just cause. As early as January 17, 1934, Administra- 
tive Order Ko. X-3 -••as issue"', ^^rovidin;." in part that - ■ 

" such code authority shall not refuse the issuaaice of 

labels to an applicant on the .rounds of non-compliance unless 
said code authority is, at the time of the refusal i prepared 
to certify to the riational P.ecovery Ad.ministration a prima 
facie case of non-ccmpliai:ce vv'ith the code or with valiri rules 
and re_^laticns of the code authority by the applicant. 

"In the event said code authority refused the issuance of said 
labels, a complete file showin.; the alle-;'ed non-compliance by 
the ap; licant shall be certifier- not la.ter than the day fol- 
lowing said refusal to the llrtional Heco'Ve'ry 'Admrntstrgti-on 
for action by the ilational Comoliaiice Director. 

"All other refusals of issuance of labels shall immediately 
be certified to the ITational Recovery A±Tiinistration with a 
complete file showing the grounds for said refusal." (*) 

Immediately after the issuajice of Administrative Order No. X-3 a 
slight let-down in the number of complaints regarding suspension of the 
issuance of labels was felt in ll?Jl. The let-down, however, was short- 
lived. Code authorities once more. began the practice of suspending the 
issuance of labels on slight provocation, often making excessive de- 
mands for restitx-i.tion or costs prior to returning the right to use the 
label. Com.plaints were received that code authorities were refusing to 
issue labels unless mem-bers of the industry paid registration fees of 
varying sums of money; in one instance, as much as $50.00 v/as demanded 
(**) of each member of the industry before he was entitled to the use 
of the code label. Other complaints alleged' that fines were imposed by 
code authority officials varying from $50 to $500 and, in a few rare 

(*) TJa.shin .-ton C-overn.'ent Printing Office. 19"^5. 

(**) See re;oort on rillinery industry deputy files of Feb. 1934. 



cases, as high as $1160. The large miinber of these complaints hrought 
ahout an investigation by the legal division of the Administration in 
Pehruary of 1934. At that time, Mr. Chas. G-. .'Raphael, Assistant Coiinsel 
in the Legal Division, was sent to rlew York to make an investigation of 
all lahel-using code authorities to ascertain the truth of the complaints 
relative to assessing fines, demanding registration fees, and the holding 
of arbitrary compliance hearings. The report of Mr. Raphael, a copy of 
which cpn he found in the files of Blaclvwell Smith, formerly Associate 
General Co-unsel, was instrumental in bringing about a revision of adminis- 
tration policy on the use and suspension of the use of labels. The plan 
briefly provided for submission of budgets by code authorities, showing 
the reasonableness of the charges made for labels, reo^uired the keeping 
of funds in trust accounts, the creation of impartial agencies to adjudi- 
cate compliance matters and the submission of a file on every case to the 

Administrative Order No. X-38 was the outgrowth of the above recom- 
mendations. This Order attempted to embrace all of the beneficial pro- 
visions of the previous orders and to more clearly establish an eqiiitable 
procedure for the regulation of mandatory label provisions. Among other 
things, it provided that the exclusive power to issue labels should be 
vested in the code authority, that contracts for the purchase of labels 
should be made through competitive bids, that no member of an industry 
should use or deal in any label bearing the I'jSA emblem, other than that 
issued by the code authority. It provided that every member of an indus- 
try should have labels issued to him so long as he v/as in compliance with 
code provisions, that the Administration reserved the power to withdraw 
or withhold labels, except that - 

"(d) Whenever the code authority shall have cause to believe 
that anyone subject to the code has violated any provision of 
the code or of the act or of any rule or regulation duly adopt- 
ed, pursuant thereto,, it shall give due notice of the charge 
against him and shall afford adequate opportunity to be heard. 
A substantial record of all such hearings shall be made. If, 
after such hearings, in the judgment of the code authority, 
there is sufficient evidence of violation to justify such 
action, the code authority may suspend the issuance of labels 
to such person or firm; immediately and in no case later than 
the day following the suspension of the issuance of labels, the 
code authority shall file a summary of the record of the hear- 
ing with such recommendations as it. may deem proper, with the 
ICIA Com-oliance Division or such branch thereof as it may desig- 
nate. The sPtA Compliance Division or designated branch there- 
of shall have power, upon the record or after further hearing, 
to withhold the issuance of labels, to withdraw the right to 
use labels, to affirm, suspend or mortify the action of the 
code authority or to take such other appropriate action as it 
may deem necessary.- Any such conferences or hearings as may 
be held by the IMHA Compliance Division or designated branch 
thereof, the code authority shall be given an opportunity to 



"!rnat code nutharities shall •;•,:! ve no publicity in cases of al- 
leged violations until an adjustment iins "been effected. That 
:io person shall, for tiie ymnVose of .obtainin.'^ labels, repre- 
sent he is complyin^'; ^^vith the code if, 'in fact, he is not so 
complyir ;. Tliat the char^^e for Labels by code authorities 
shall, r./ all tines, bs subject to the provision and orders 
of the .A Irninistrator . That on or before Hoveniber 1 of each 
year, every code authority shall submit to the Ad'iiinistrator 
plans for fixing the charj^e for labels. To submit a bud^jet 
for the disbursement of adr.uni strati ve >e:x:};>enses, listing sala- 
ries and dutias of all officers. To submit monthly financial 
■ a»id operating statements. To deposit all monies collected in 
•a properly designated bank, subject to vathdrawol by a bonded 
■,'■ official. That officials of code authorities violating this 
■order -vere subject to the penalties of the NIHA."(*) 

Ac'.mini strati ve Order No. X-38 filled a gap in the rules and regula- 
tions and developed a definite procedure for the proper administration of 
•label- provisions. Among other changes provided for by the Order was the 
creation of -an ygency within IIllA. for .making a final adjudication upon the 
reasonableness or lack of reasonableness of the basis of the' suspension 
of the use of labels by code authorities. This shifting of responsibil- 
ity to the Ac'irdnistration created such a trem.endous flood of new work 
'that, in many instances, files submitted by code authorities were not 
acted upon for periods of tv/o or three weeks. Tlius it was possible for 
a code authority to suspend the issuance of labels, submit a file on the 
case to the Aininistration within 24 hours; the Administration would not 
act for some two or three weeks and, in the .meantime, the industry mem- 
ber would be faced v.'ith the difficulty of producing merchandise for which 
he had no labels. This latter situation resulted in many complaints 
from members of industry. ( **) The suspension of tlj,e issuance 'Of labels, 
they contended, was the equivalent of withdrawal if suspension occurred 
during the peak seasons or, if the case v,'as not speedily disposed of. 
Unjust and irmrojjer suspension- for questionable motives may or may not 
have occ"'arrec. The point is that such improper suspensions were possible 
and there seemed to be a mj/riad of possible motives. The legality of the 
delegation of such power of "suspension" and its possible effect as a 
"withdrawal" was brought into question. The result was an amended pro- 

4. ■ The .' Label Ar.:ency 

On Aug,ust 25, 1934, Mr. Edward L. Fries, formerly of the Industrial 
Advisor^; 3oard, -was transferred to the regional office at 45 Broadway, 
ITew York City and appointed' Label Review Gfficei". It was his duty to re- 
view immediately all cases of suspension of the use of Labels that vi^ere 
brought to his attention. Knowledge of the existence of this office 
gradually permeated in-'^ustry and the vol-ame of cas&s referred to it steadi- 
ly increased. At the time of the inception' of this new Label Review 

(*) '.Tashin ;ton, Government Printing Office. 1934. 

(**) Preliminary Report of D. G-.. 3dwards "Review of '.'..R.A. Label Agency 
.^.ctivities" IT.R.A. .Archives. 


Cfficer. Likevidse, the creation of this new office in no way limited the 
powers of suspension of the issuance of lahels "by code authorities. The 
purpose of the office was definite, hovever, that is, to act with speed 
and dispatch in ordering code authorities to issue lahels in all cases 
where the files suhmitted to Mr. Fries indicated a doubt as to the reason- 
ableness of the basis for suspension. Shortly after the creation of this 
new office, complaints of unjust suspension of issuance of labels fell off 
with remarkable precipitancy. In October of 1934 a conference with repre- 
sentatives of code authorities of industries having mandatory label pro- 
visions was caJled in i^ew York City and there resulted therefrom an ad in- 
terim letter, signed by Prentiss L; Coonley, Division Administrator, whi±L 
limited tlae suspension of the issuance of labels by code authorities by 
requiring the express approval of the Label Heview Officer. 

On November 12, 1934, Mr. Fries vas transfer^-ad to the Pacific Coast 
with headquarters at Los Angeles, to take over the label review work for 
the ten states of California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Idaiio, Montana, 
Wyomintj, Colorado, Utah and Arizona. Simultaneously, Dean G-. Edwards, 
Deputy Administrator, Apparel Section, was transferred to New York and as- 
sumed the duties relinquished by Mr. Fries. 

0?he New York office became Imown as the ICIA Label Agency with Dean G-i 
Edwards as N?J. Label Agent. (*) Mr. Fries was appointed Label Officer for 
the ten western states, reporting to the Label Agent in New York but, for 
practical purposes, autonomous as far as jurisdiction within his ten 
western states was concerned. 

The general procedure which was developed in the fall of 1934 was 
embellished by the provisions of Mr. Coonley' s letter. The newly-develop- 
ed procedure required that no suspension of the issuance of labels could 
become effective except upon approval of the label agent and an alleged 
violator of code provisions was usually granted a hec-jring by the code 
authority or its duly authorized committe.e. If the hearing did not re- 
sult in an adjustment, the case was referred to the label agent with the 
recommendation for the issuance of labels to be suspended. A full his- 
tory of the case, a stenographic or stenot^^-pe report of the hetiring and 
the charges against the respondent as submitted prior to the hearing of 
the code authority and other pertinent data vras required by the label 
agency. Fnere the case was flagrant and the evidence of violation un- 
mistalvable, the cod.e authority was directed, in vnriting, to 'suspend the 
issuance of labels to the respondent and to refer the case to the Region- 
al Director, (**) having jurisdiction, within 24 hours. In cases where 
the file submitted contained insufficient data or was defective because 
of the lack of proper notice to the respondent, no action was taken by 
the label agency ancf the file was referred back to the code authority 
for correction. In cases where the evidence was insufficient or the 
basis for the contention of violation wag weak, the label agent returned 

(*) For a more complete report of the activities of the NEA Label Agency 
see Preliminary report by Dean G-. Edwards entitled "Heview of HRA 
'Label Agency Activities". N.R.A. Archives. 

(**) See appendix (N) for copy of order used by label agency. 

tb3 c".se uo the co'.e aiithority, ccclivin; to autno-.-izc the buspcnsion 
of tl.o is'-A'^ncc of la'bels ant", informor'. the code e.uthority of its 
ritjlit to ?.-■ jee.l to the Cor.rpliance Division in ■Jasliin^-to:!. (*) There 
vas still a. tliirc". type of case rhich ir.volvcd minor tj'pes of viola- 
tions 01- small axiO'ontE of rastitvtio.^. or v:hero it scomed possible 
to i:;'jMc-t v;ithot\t the Eus;^enrion of the issxia.ncc of la.lDels. In 
cases of tl'.xs latter t"oe, the labnl r^ent sent a letler to the 
reF^onc".c:it to iiiforni hi;.i th=^.t the lir.d -oeeix referred', for siispen- 
sio"-' of the of laoels and th'-t vuless ?a adjv.stncnt, in 
accordance with the fiv.c"inrs of the cot'c authority, v.'as bj'- 
a fixed da.te - xisu^-lly ten days after roticc; - the; isc>\iance of 
labels v^or4.d le sv.spem'ed. The creatior. of th:.s label a^;cncy v/as 
ore of the nost pra.isev/orthy .acts of the Administration to safe^/jiird 
the interests., of all narties imdcr th... nxe of the rna^ida.tory la.bel 
provision ar.d to retain the. benefits dcriveu thro"U£"h such ase. Ir.r^icd- 
iato hea.rin s v;eve nia.i\e; p.ftssible; res'ionc'ents i/cre permitted to 
apnoar v.'ith their re-;reser.ta.tivcs; co-'c authority i-e-oroscntativos 
v.'cre a-lv-fa-ys ; resent a.nd a raerbor of the il?A Le^al Livision lihcv,dsc 
attended, so that a.11 pa.rtics -at i-nternst h-ad a fair op;"^ortijjiity to 
present tlio&e rna.t tors- pertinent to the ca.use. The establishment of 
the office of the la-bel. a{;:ency rcsvdted an; correctiii;-; possible abuse 
of the po".7er of code authorities to suspend the iss'oa.nce of labels. 
The code authorities did lao t, in ever; case, avail themselves of 
their rijh-t to isttiance of labels after review by the 
label a^cnt bx.t. preferred to refer t.ieir cases directly to the region- 
al Director for hearing bjr-the coiTpliar.ce coxmcils in the first in- 
stance. Thj-s latter procedure r.T.E adoote.". in almost every ca.r,c by 
the hen's Clothiix-v Code Ar.thority. In srach ca.scs labels rere consta-nt- 
ly issued -^endin^ final decisioy. by the depion-" 1 Director, 

The a.dQpticn of a hninis tractive orders dcalin^, v.-ith the regu- 
lation of the issus.nce and suspensio:"!, of issuance of labels and the 
creation of the label a..i:ency still, left some avenues open for possible 
abuses of power by code authorities, Lany conferences i.Tere ca.lled, 
both in ho'.T York and in liva shin;,' ton, between reyiresentatives of code 
authorities in inJ.ustries hs-ving rnanda,tory label "Trovisions and 
representatives of the Administration, to atterrrot an amicable adjustment 
and solution of these fev;,-; abuses or possible a.biises. These 
conferences finally; resu.ltod in the a-doi^tion of Administrative Order 
:~1oCj, a-r7rovcd lebroary ?5, 19r5. The im'iortant clirnges contained 
in Aexiiv.isti-a.tive Or'er X-ir^:; (**) were: 

(*) See A en:"i:: (G) for copy of order used by label agency, 

(**) See Ap-endix (D) for copy of letter to Code Au.thorities relating 
to applica.tion of order X-135. In hJA Special D:chibits V/ork 
iiate rials ho. 84. 

See also appendix CG for copy of A.h.i. Order X-lo5 (V;'ashington) 
C-ovei'iment rrinting Office for fv.ll te;:t. 




ClaxisG Z, vhich required, cpcii co-".e ev.thcrity, \7ithin 30 days 
after tlie effective date of t'-e Or^ei', ii^ submit ner niles and 
re^jalati ng for tlie sale, issua.nce and a.,daiMist ration of the 
use of lalTels as ai^ht be necossar;' to cai-r;- or-t the nroviaioriS 
of the Order.(*) These i-u-l.-^s v.'or? neccs&aiy 'because ma/ny existinj; 
code a-athorit;- iTiles a-nd regulations -'entrinini, to the use and 
issuance of labels v.'ei-e i-estrictive in their nature a.nd contained 
provisions v.-hicl; tenfef to an-;end the ro '.e. 

Claiise d", which -provided tl;at contracts for the of 
labels be by cor.Toetitivc biduini"; ^•-'--- copies of svich contracts 
shall be i:c--.'t on file and submitted to 7?A if IT~A so req_uired. This 
v,'a>.s nocessar;; beca.use many cof:rjlaints hi^d been received, alief^ing 
tlaat code authorities liad enterc." into contracts for the 
of labels at excessive rates, tc the ."etrir.ier't of the members of 
the industry in general. 

Clause 5 provided tlja.t labels shall bear the blue eai^le; th^t 
labels issued for one price class shn.ll be u.sed on only tliat -^rice 
class; that the contents of labels sh-rli be subject to the disap- 
proval of id.'A. This latter cla-use v.^as necessary, first to estab- 
lish one ^;enera] recoj'jnized insignia for all la.bcls and it is in- 
t'erestinj, to note that it v^ s not r.:"itil this order v.'as si:_ned, in 
F^bi-ua.ry of ir,35, that tiie blue ■:;a,jle '"S.s mentioned in connection 
with the co,"c label. This cla.usc also :^^^::-.e it a violation of the 
Act for a member of indiistry to -lurclia-se labels for use on one nrice 
class then tc it on another, tims -".efeatinf.; the revenue purposes 
of label sales. This cla.use al?.o established the right in the 
Administra.tion to disapprove the contents., of ladoels since so many 
code authorities ha.d be;'-;u>i a practice of a.-d'Mn^,' to tr.e label extraneous 
matter \7hicl1 occasioned coi.Tplaints. 3jE.;:Tples of this latter type of 
abuse vrere tl:c a,dding of size tichets, trade-names, material contents, 

Claxises 10 and 11 established a difference betveen the initia.l issue 
of labels and srJb sequent ro-iseaies. This '.istinction v-a~s made necessary 
because many complaints ha.d been receivet' tlia.t code ai^tliorities were 
dilatory in extin^: uoon initia.l Irbol a.nplications on the claim tl^at 
they v/ere rnakin;!. investiijations to deteiTnine the truth or untruth of 
the claim b;;- the applicant th^-t he was in comoliance v.'ith code provi- 

Cla.use 12 definitely established the rvile which had heretofore 
been in pra.ctice throu£,'h verba.l itnc'crst-rndin,;, '^ivint to the label ai^jcnt 
the sole ri^,ht to order suspension of the iss\i.a.nce of labels, upon 
recommendation by the code authorities. This clause lihcv.dse estab- 
lished the procedure for the holding of hejirings by code authorities, estab- 

(*) Sen ap->endiccs (d-i,;) In 117A Studies s-Tocial Exhibits - ./orh l.Ia.terials 
Ho. 84 ior copies of inj.les and re£,rdations a.doTted by code aiithor- 
See also appendix CC for copy of A~0 X-135. 


lisheJ. rsrui sites fcr ■"xlo notice, nctao^s of con-;.uctin^ hcarines anc". 
tliG "le.rtics v;lio coulf. "bo present ?.nC. pri'Si'^e. 

ClrLus^c 13 r.ciinitcl;- cstajlislie.'. tno pov/ers en.", f.utics of the 
label a^-ent, setting, forth tho ty;)cs of fin':in;_,s tfe-t he coulc. ne.kc. 
It also province, for a ri£;ht of appeal oy tho code av.thorit^'- from 
the acts of the label a^-ent or from his failure to act within a 
reasoi-^bls Ir-Tijjth of tiuo. 

Clause 14 further c■'.cscri'bcc^ tl..e principles cst-ahlishec in 
clause 17> a:", in addition, provided for the ri;,ht of e-p"^^eal oy the 
respondent to the Coy.TOliance and Znforccnont Director, 

Qaisel^ r'^q'oii.'ed cone authorities to act in accordrncc \7ith tiic 
.'.irection of the Oo!.T!:>lianco and iifor cement Liroctor or the 1T?lA 
label a:;enc:" in matters pcrtainini:, to suspending the issuance of, 
vdthdra\7ini' the- ri£;ht to the use of, or rcsrjuing the issus.nce of labels 
(*) to a £^ivon res^onder.t. 

Clause IS established a ■Drinci':)lc Ion . assuxricd to h^.vc been in 
effect - thj?.t of •"'.cnyinp the rij^^ht of code authorities to impose, de- 
mand or accc--'t fines or to deman'. or accept tne payment of the costs 
of invest ipations v.-itho-at the express a.p-;,iroval of the V.TA label a£;ency. 

Clause 17 reaffiiTued the necessity of code s,uthoritics obtaining 
I'THA approval for label cl-s.-ri-cs. It also provided th-a.t there sliall be 
no difference in charejes for labels to be placed upon the same or dif- 
ferent articles to different members of the same in~ustrjs "v;ithout the 
ar)proval of TdJl. This latter oart of this clause was necessary becaijse, 
in a fev; ii^ttances, a -practice hr-.d ^rovrn u. of clia.rj^'int'j more for Ip.bels 
in certair. sections of the couT-try than in otlier sections. ' 13 reaffii'mcd the necessity of submittin, bud^'ets for 
IT?A approval. 

Clause 19 prohibited co.'.e authorities froui,_ fujids derived 
from the sale of labels for the pur^.ose of mrd.iny contributions to 
ti-^de associations. 

Clause P2 provided ths.t "any person violating sections C^-6-7 
or 9 of these regulations or usinp labels after the richt to use 
such labels h^.s been vrithdravm, is subject to the penalties provided 
in Sectio "- 10(a) of the I'ationai Industrial ?:e cover;' Act." TMs 

latter clause vas necessai^" becaxise there lie.d bee;i no pi-ior rule 
niakin;: it a violation of the Act for "crsons to continue to use 
labels -Tj.rcl.a.sed prior to a detected viol- tion i.r.l man;' cases had 
arisen vdiere persons, anticipating^ an adverse decision, purcl'ia.sed 
excessive amovjits of labels to tide them over a Ion-: Toriod, 

(*) See a-rpen;.ix (j:') for copy of form used by label a^;ency. 


-26- .- 

5. Com'oai-ircii of Cor.Tolig.nce Between ^_ Lg."bel Usin;: and a 
ITon - la^ocl Usi:: In^ust-y (*) 

In rn3.':in a conparison of the effectiveness of compliance in 
label an', non-label usin^ infustries, i-nr.nv things, other tlia.n just 
the use of lahels iimst he taken into consiJ.eration. For example, 
the hosier" inf.xistry - one of the tvo inc.ustries chosen for r)v.r~ 
poses of this co"M?arison - .'ocs not er.ioloy the use of labels and 
is a hijhlj" vjiionizeC. indixstry. In this industry, the executive 
chosen to afjninister the code v;as jointly selected by representatives 
of industiy and labor. Iho of foctivenesr of the af-rninistra.tion of 
this code and the execiitive chosen to^r oxit its provisions v/ere 
constantly under the scrutiny of leaders of indtistr;,'' a.nC labor. As 
a resiilt of this dua.l chock, this indiistry attained, possibly the 
highest degree of corajTlianco to be fouji'". in the non-label xising in- 
dustries. A much lesser degree of effective compliance is evidenced, 
in most of the otlier non-label usin^ industries v.'hich vrcre not as 
completely raiionized. Indeed, in many in histriss where labels were 
used and the in<"ustrj'' was not highly rjiionized, the extent of com- 
pliance effectiveness V73.s not as evident aj, it was in this non- 
label usin^- indr.stry. The men's clothiiig industry, chosen as the 
industry employing the use of labels, is a highly luiionized industry 
and its execr.tives, likewise, were jointly selected by leaders of 
industry and labor. Upon examination of the compliance records 
of the men's clothing indxistry a.nd the hosiery industry, we find 
that the men's clotlaing indi\sti-y employed far more inspectors thp.n 
did the hosiery industry and a more constant check on the activi- 
ties of indxi.strj'- members and their employees. This was made possible 
by the greater ease of obtaining the necessary fluids to ac'jiiinister the 
code through the sale of labels. 

The men's clothing industry, an industry of more tlia.n 2,000 
members enploying 150,000 worliers, is a widely scattered industry 
with \mits in almost every state in the Union. The dollar volume 
of tne in.'.-o.str: aporoximated 0500,000,000. During the entire period 
of code cper3.tion, there were some 2119 cases of non-compliance of 
the labor provisions of the code, reported to the IIPA, Of these, 
258 were fofj.r to be unsustained; 1222 were adjf.sted by the code 
aiithority withou.t the necessity- of hearin;:s or coi\rt action; 411 
were adjusted by the co.."e authority after hearings and 238 cases 
were on hand and not acted uocn at the tiine of the Supreme Court 
decision in the Schochter case. In all a-opror.ima.tely dO cases were 
submitted by this code a-o.thcrity to the a'.'ninistration for the pur- 
pose of effecting adjustments, Buring the same perio'd there were 
343 cases of non-conrpliancc of trade -oractice -orovisions of the code. 

(*) All de.ta and information used in this conraarison was obtained 
from an a.nalysis of code compliance con^:)ilcd by the com;^liance 
division of xT?A, 


Of these C-: ,cg 2 vcrc fovui.". to Lo vaisustainod; ?,42 v/crc adjxisted 
by the co'.'c authoi-ity v.dthout the necessity of hoariu';;; 17 v.'oi-» 
adjusted. Id- the coCe authority aftci- hearing-; 1 v/as siilimittcc. to tiio 
1I?A for tl:o nu'-jccc of efioctinfj an adjustment and 81 v.'erc on hand 
and vjaadjtirter. at the end of tho pei-iod. 

Th:^ hosiery industry is ro:-.noGcd of 853 inanufactii:.'crs employing 
ap^roxiirip.tely ll?ii,000 \.-orkcrs. The majority of the industry ir> 
located ii Pc'-T-i-fylvania vdth tho fe\- remaining lar^je units in llorth 
Carolin'^, "Jev Yorlc, xTgv Jersey and the Middle V/ost. The .ollar 
volune of tho prcc'ucts raanxifa-ctured ty the industr;.- approxinia.tes 
$320,000, OCO. I'X'-riiii.-, the entire pcriou of code operation the code 
authorit?' re-sorted 1-^73 cases of non-cor:pliance of the labor provi- 
sion?.. C- these, 14 were rejected bocri\sc thc^- verc ^insustaincd hy 
the facts; 15-' were adjusted by tho cov'.e a\-!.thority vithoiit hearing;; 
47 were adjusted b:/ the code axrthority after hoarin;; and 52 vere 
on hand an.d unadji\sted at the end of t'vo -■cried. During the sane 
period 13 cases of non-ro;:r[:iliance of the trade pra.ctice provisions 
of the code v/ero reported., Id v.'ere adjv.sted by the co "e av.thority 
v.-ithout t^-.e neccGsity dI hnarinr an-J. 1 adjusted after hearing,. 

On tl"-'. basis of the fi,_,r.rcs suhr.iitted by tViO above two code 
authorities,, it is evident th^t in tho raon's clothir:,., industry - 
a.n indvLstr: a; proxirratoly "0,.. la.r^er thi^.n the hosiery indiistry <^ 
approxir:e.tely 7 tiaes as iiany labor violatior.s v:orc discovered and 
a-fjustod and 20 tiaes as inany trade piT.ctivo violations verc lihc- 
vise discovered and a'.juste;' over the v.criod of time, 

Zxarni: ' tioi'! of reports oi the effectiveness of connliance 
in other lajcl and non-label usin:_; in.h-.s tries shows that by far the 
nost helpful aspect cf the use of labels was the i'!:ininizin£^- of tho 
need for ccart and aihaiviistra-tive actio:- in adjusting; nnn-coriipliancc 
cases. 'in a report sv.baittcd by Dean G. E'tv.-ardp, label a:;ent, it 
v:as stated; 

"..,. Cur experience shov;ed tlx'.t many of these 
rrses cculd be cleared v:o oy a letter to tnc 
respondent informing him tlna.t the code author- 
ity hs.C- referred the ca.ce to us and thiet unless 
an adjustment, in accordance with, the fin'Mn{,;s 
of the co-\e authority, was irede by a fi:;ed 
d?-ta (usually a v;eei- or ton I'ayc later) the 
issua.nco of labels wo\\l:'. be suspended "(*) 

Further proof of the effoctiveneso of the iisc of labels in reaching 
speedy adjust ents a.n.d correction of ir..'.ustry violations is evidenced 
by the f"act tliat certain industries v/hich rttenrpted to employ the use 
of labels but v-hoso pro-'ucts were not a/apted to such use hx.d difficulty 

(*) 5"or tlie f-oll text of this report see work report by i'ean G, 
Edwards entitled "Review of H?A label Ayency Activities," 



in ac' Justin , cf.sqz tJii'ov^.'ii cqC.o authority iie?rin^;s anf. hP.>'. to 
submit the rarjority oi' nori-coniplian e cases to the axinini s t ra-- 
tion for ^oi-osecution. In'ustri^Ts o:^' tliis latter type inclxxJ'.ed 
the artificial flower". feather in-'ur-try, the fur '".ressirie 
and dyciny in'/'ustry, tiiS i'iP.ndi.:er chief industry and slit fahrics 





Code Authority control over the issuance of an idRntifying label 
was started in order to furnish a more effective method of enforcing 
code compliance. The use of a label as a means of raising revenue was 
first suggested by a group of manufacturers in the coat and siiit ind- 
ustry who objected to the original plan for a code label in that industry, 
The basis for the original objection v/as that the label, being potenti- 
ally a pov/erful weapon in the hands of those persons entrusted with the 
enforcement of the code, it was necessary to see that those persons were 
not obligated to anyone because of salary pa:/ments. Thus, in the very 
first inst.-^nce of the approval of a code label provision, the need for 
using such label provision to raise funds was evidenced. From the very 
outset, two distinctive methods for raising revenue by. means of the code 
label v/ere deY.eloy.ed. In the first method, the price of the label pro- 
duced all the funds necessary to administer the code. In the second 
method, labels y/tere sold at a stated price - usually cost - and the funds 
necessary to adininister the code were latef collected by means of an as- 
sessment. In some cases, the la.bel vras sold at a very low price and the 
assessment ws corresoondingly high, in. other cases, the. label price was 
calculated to prcduce sufficient revenue to finance the operations of 
the code authority and, the assessment represented an adjustment between 
the price paid for the label and the amount of the assessment equitably 
prorated between all members of the industry. 

In either of the above cases the individual industry member was 
required to pay the full assessment in order to have the lorivilege «f the 
use of the label. 

Of the 29 larger industries using code labels, 17 obtained all of 
their funds from "the sale of labels and 12 used a combination cf sale of 
labels and some other basis of assessment. Of the 17 code authorities 
•btaining all funds from the sale of labels, 5 sold labels at a single 
price while the balance sold them at a sliding scale tf -orices according 
to the value of the article to which the label V7as to be affixed. 

In a stud^r** of the effect of the mandatory assessment clause in 
c^des, other then those containing label provisions it was estimated .that 
the average effectiveness of collections was about 75fJ. This estimate vi^as 
based on a comparison of actual income received v?ith previously estimated 
potential income, v/ith an adjustment based on 'statements made by codp. 
authority representatives that the cash collection of SO'a of potential. 

\. ■ -•— — ' ' ' i" I ' ■ ■ " ■ ■ ' \ 

Per a more detailed report on the raising of Revenue through saj.e of 

labels, see report •f Daniel House and J.D, Kershner entitled "Study 

of Labels as a Means of Raising Revenues", 

(C«de Administration Studies Section finance Unit,) 


See Study xT, Ctde Administration Studies Section, Finance Report, 



revenue would re-present 100';b effectiveness. Thus v;e find that in the 
aggregate codes other than those containing label provisions were suc- 
cessful in collection of only 60^^ of the amount estimated and 75',b of the 
estimates on an adjusted "basis. Using the same comparison and making the 
same adjustments, it v:e.s found that collections in codes containing the 
label' provisions were about 102'Jj effective in collecting assessments. It, 
therefore, appears that the only feasible conclusion would be that code 
authorities administering codes containing a label provision had less 
difficulty in supplying tiiBmselves with funds than code authorities 
obtaining funds in -any other manner. The examination of the budgets and 
bases of contribution and proposed charges for labels were rendered dif- 
ficult by the very fact that fuiads v;ere easy to collect and code auth- 
orities were reluctant to refrain 'from collecting funds from the sale of 
labels until such time -as budgets were approved by the Administration. 
Practically all of the codes under which labels were sold, in addition to 
a statement setting forth the right to issue labels, contained, in sub- 
stance, the following provision; 

"The charge made for such labels shall at all times 
be subject to the suoervisicn and orders of the Ad- 
ministrator and shall be not more than an amount 
necessary to cover the actual reasonable cost there- 
of, including the actual printing, distribution, ad- 
ministration and supervision of the use thereof, as 
hereinabove set forth." * 

lUhen the early budgets were sxibmitted, the tendency was to ,^ 
give wide latitude in determining the lengths to v/hich funds could be 
collected for' the purpose of enforcing the label ^^rovision. Inspection, 
examination and sw^ervision exte'Med from a simple investigation of the 
books and records of an industry member after a complaint, to a regu.lar 
thorough examination of the books and records of each industry member 
by trained investigators who might even go so frr as to interview emp- 

Proposed budgets submitted by code Authorities obtaining funds 
through the sale of Ip.bels virere more carefully scrutinized than other 
budgets. The cost for proposed compliance activities vjere isolated from 
other costs and compared v/itli the pro"oosed costs of compliance activi- 
ties of other code authorities. The oroponents of a budget were required 

to defend the .ty]2.e. of supervision aaid.. inspection that they planned--to ■• 

follow. All budgets' of this type were submitted to the Compliance Div- 
ision of IffiA for its com'iients as -to the reasonableness 6f the methods 
proposed in assuring that the "sjiinbolism of the label will be maintained." 

■ As early as February of 1934, much discussion ha^. arisen as to 
the extent to which f-uiids obtained through the sale of labels could be 

* General provision contained in majority of codes having label provisions^ 



used for general code administration purposes. There developed within the 
Administration, two distinctive schools -of thowht — one holc'.in^^ that 
the words contained in the label provision settiiv: forth the right to 
collect fundu for the pu:.T>030 of inspectin,i; to inp.ure that the "y^.iubolism 
of the label will be maintained" did not entitle code autnorities to 
chai-fie prices for labels vhich would result in a sufficient income to meet 
all code ad.aini strati on expenses. The second school beiievec that it was 
im-ocssible to seiiarate .those e^:pense3 of code administration which were 
directly connected v/ith the ad:;iini strati on of tlio label provisions and 
those v.'hich pertained to the administration of ot. Lor aspects of the code. 
Thus, accordi.'3 to the second school, all e::penses of code aojainistration 
should and. coulc' be derived from funds obtained tiirough the sale of labels. 
This divided o union beti^-een officials of the Auaini strati on v;as the chief 
reason for the two methods of obtaining revenue incicated in the examina- 
tion of the 29 larger industries usinj; code labels. 

At the industry hearings on March 4, 1934, representatives of 
several code authorities entered into hea.ted arguments with administra- 
tion representatives, claiming that one policy should be established as 
to the extent to which label fund ■ could be usee to pay code administra- . 
tion exoense?, the general opinion of tne code authority representatives 
being that the method of selling labels r-t actual cost, then later obtainr- 
ing equitable prorata assessments from members of t;ie industry was nec- 
essarily costly, accomplished no worthwhile pur.iofse and did not strengthen 
the legality of label charges. Tliere can be no ("oubt that the use of a 
code label as a means of obtainin ■ revenue to defray code administrrition 
expenses was a most effective method; however, the administrative policy 
should have been outlined in sijfficient detail to enable the groups to 
know the definite limits of authority and resoonsibility in incui^ring 
obligations and the extent to v.-nich label fraid:; "should have been used in 
defraying such obligations. 

determining the "point of dirainishiny retiu"ns"» Aoinitting that the label- 
using industries have a more effective enforcement and com"ili:nce activity, 
it is obvious that at some jjoint a code authority could be over-zealous 
and not only waste f'ondG but aJitagoniEe industry members by virtue of 
over-supervision. The prrblem of any supervisory agency over the activi- 
ties of code authorities s.iould be to ascertain that sufficient fuaids are 
spent for pro ;er comoliance aativities without waii'te or antagonism. 

1. Assessment Problems 

All of the orders issued b;- IIKA on the subject rf levying as- 
sessments required that the basis for any asGessme:it levied should be 
"equitable". The measures for determining v;hether ar not a proposed basis 
of contribution was equitable would be the same w'.iether labels were sold, 
or not. Labels \.'ere construed to be a device ratlier than a method and the 
charge for labels was scrutinized in the same maJiner as any other basis 
of assessment. 5'ive code authorities employed a method of charging one 
fixed price for labels. This "orice was computed, to be sufficient to cover 


— '^'^— 


both the physical cost of the Inhels and an asrescment tov/ard the ex- 
penses of administering .the code. This method, }icv;ever, could only he 
deemed equitable iai indv>.stries \vhere the ^irice of the product .lanufact- 
ured were confined to an exceedingly nnrrov'/ ranf^e. If this method of 
pricing labels vi/ere ap■'^lied to an industry in which the price of industry 
products had a v;ide range, inequities '..'ould become apparent, for example; 
if a charge of $20.00 per thousand were placed on labels and one manu- 
facturer mad.c products to sell at $l'').'iO ;)er unit, his label cost virould 
approximate l/S nf I'^a, whereas if, in the srjae industry, another manu- 
facturer made products sellin.';: at $100,0.) per unit, his label cost would 
only be l/50 of 1^. Thus, as betv/een the two manufacturers, one is bearing 
ten times the greater burden of. code ar.sessment than the other. Several 
code authorities employed a method of charging a fixed price for labels 
plus assessment on percentage of sale.T, Under this plan, each industry 
member was required to purchr.".e labels at actual cost and later was as- 
sessed by the code authority to cover the cost of administration. This plan 
was \inquestionably t?ie most eaui table but many industry members considered 
the payment for labels, as one assessment and the actual assessment as 
a second and protested the payment of "double taxation". A relatively 
small group of code authorities emplryed a method of selling labels at 
a fixed price, which included, the cost of the labels plus an ajnourit de- 
termined by the code autliority to be sufficient to administer the code, 
v/ith a periodic adjustment based upon the amotoit of money received, from 
the manufacturer as a result of the purchase rf la.bels and the prorata 
assessment that should be paid ^oy the manufacturer, based upon his per- 
centage of. sales. This plan, epparentljr, was the most id.eal in that it 
provided a fair and equitable method of assessment. It often resulted in 
a rebate to the manufacturer and there was no dual taxation. The majority 
of the code authorities used a method, of,;c scale pricis for labels. 
Under this method., the products of the industry were divided into a nimiber 
of price classes and. distinctive labels were designed to be placed on 
the products of eacn price class. The charges for the labels were com- 
puted in such a manner a.s to scale the cost of labels to a direct and 
equitable percentage of sales. This method represented a slight variation 
from the straight percentage of sales method and had as its virtue the 
fa.ctor that it simplified accounting methods and was less bothersome to 
the individual izidustry member. Under this method, the sale of labels was 
Equivalent ot assessments on a flat rate, based xxpon percentage of sales. 
The difficulty of this particular method i.7as chiefly evidenced in the 
early days of code administration and resulted from the inability on the 
part of the c^de authority officials to properly determine the quantities 
of products sold- within each price range so as to enable them to fix 
a price, which, in every instance, would work out an equitable assessment. 
The best exajn;ole of this difficulty is evidenced by a study of the use 
of labels in the knitted 'outerwear industry,* In that industry, the per- 
centage of the physical c^st of the label itself represented a tremend- 
ously high percentage of the gross income thus representing waste and 
an excessive burden on knitted outerv/ear manufacturer's ma]<:ing lor/er priced 
goods, HDVi/ever, within six months from the effective date ef that code, 

* See Chapter IV of part 4 "A Study of the Knit Goods Industry." 



more complete knowledge of tlie vol'orae within price ranges made it pos- 
sible for tlie code autiiority to readjust its label orices and scale down 
the physical cost of the label to such a point that iiembers of the in- 
dustry making hijher and lower priced ^oods paid equitable assessments. 

The coat and suit industry recoraiiiended a regional differential in 
the price of labels. It appea-red that members of the industry in the 
western area, tirough their association representatives, desired to have 
all members of the industry m that area pay a slis^htly higlier price for 
labels than was being paid in the east. It was proposed that the addi- 
tional income would be turned over to representatives of the western 
manufacturers for the purpose of industry betterment vjitl^in region. 
Thsre may be good reason for t'lc adoption of such regional differentials, 
but the abuses that could be practiced malce such a plan dangerous. 

In tae case of the custom millinery trade, it was proposed that the 
labels be sold at a rate cf ih-^ each, with the, proviso that members of the 
trade who, during the cuds^etary period, paid a total ;jmount for labels in 
excess of -^ of 1% of gross sales, would receive a rebate equal to the ajn- 
ount of tJie excess payment 

A comparison of the total amoi-Uit of the budget for the industry to 
the total amount of sales for t:ie industry indicated that the rate of as- 
sessment amounted to approxima.tely ^ of ifo of gross sales. Absolute equity, 
■therefore, would require an adjustment on the basis of the payment of -^ 
of 1% of gross sales instead of -h of 1% as proposed. The adjustment was ad- 
mittedly crude and was developed as a compromise between the code authority 
and the Administration since tixe code authority insisted that no adjustment 
was required and the administration insisted tha.t the payment for labels 
should be adjusted to the basis of one-quarter of one per cent of gross 
sales. Two ether code autnorities submitted plans similar to the one here- 
inabove mentioned; the atiministration, however, refused to accept the plan 
and advised the adoption of a plan embodying the flat cliarge for labels, 
with an equitable adjustiaent ba,?ed upcn actual percentage of sales. 

2. Ad-mini strativ e Problems 

A difficult problem arose through the opera,tion of Paragraph III of 
Administrative Order X—36. (*) This paragraph provided, in substance, that 
"every member of a. trade or industry is hereby exempted from any obligation 
to contribute to the expenses of the administration of any code or codes 
other than the code for the trade or industry wnich embraces his principal 
line of business." The standard code provision authorizing tae sale of 
labels provided that all of t^e products of tiie industry nad to bear the 
label. Since, in many cares, the charge for labels included the cost of 
code administration, persons who had tlieir minor line of business in in- 
dustries requiring the use of labels foiond themselves in tlie paradoxical 
position of being -required to pay something under sn order cf a code which 
was specifically exempted under an Aiinini strative Crder. The problem was 

(*) Adinini strative Order X-38 ( .Vas.iin.^'ton) Government Printing Office. 



much more complex tian appears on the surface. If an alternative were 
granted the industry memtier of not purchasing labels in order to give 
to him the benefits created under Administrative Order X-36 , the possibility 
of the sale jf his products would be diminished since retailers woald re- 
fuse to purcliase unlabeled products. On the other hand, if labels were 
given to him without c'large, he would be receiving a preference as against 
all other members of the same industry. 'This problem arose originally in 
the comfortable division of the ligiit. sewing industry except garments code. 
Many members of the comfortable division oT this industry ..lad tlieir major 
line of business in one of the apparel industries and under the terms of 
Paragraph III of Administrative Order X-36 they should not be required to 
malce any payment to support the administration of the minor line code. 

Mr. D. M. Nelson, former Code Airainistration Director, wrote tie fol- 
lowing as his comment on this problem: 

"It is my understanding that X-36 does not apply to 
label industries .... if it does apply to label 
industries, I think it should be corrected irainediately. " 

The issuance of Adrainistrative Order X-36-2 on March 30," 1935 officially 
promulgated the above policy. 

The second problem was that of coordination of the control over tae 
financial activities of the code authorities obtaining funds by means of 
the sale of labels. The difficulty of obtaining the submission of fair ajid 
reasonably budgets by code authorities wns a continuing source of trouble , 
to effectuating NEA superivision of code activities. Hepeatedl/, code 
authorities submitted budgets which contained either excessive items of ex- 
penditure or items of expense which could not properly be construed within 
the purposes of tue code. The submission of tnese unapprovable budgets 
made it necessary for the A'iministration to aporove budgets in part in 
order not to deprive the code authority of its riglit to continue to sell 
labels which were reputed to be the compliance weapon. 

A third difficutly arose as a result of^the practice within the Ad- 
ministration of naving each deputy administrator and his advisors within 
each of the several divisions approve rules and regulations pertaining to 
the issuance of labels and compliance activities, budgets and proposed 
charges for labels submitted by the code authorities of codes witliin their 
divisions. It is not surprising that, under this system, rules and re- 
gulations under different codes in the different division varied consider- 
ably and that compliance activites conducted under tiiese rules were subject 
to even wider variance. Tliis difficulty was in part corrected by tiie crea- 
tion of a central agency - known as the Code Authorities Accounts Section - 
which was responsible for the review of budgets and bases of contribution 
but even under this central tigency the prior approval given by deputy 
administrators within the several divisions tended to make impossible the 
creation of a uniform standard of regulations. A simple cure for this dif- 
ficulty could aave been effected by establishing one single agency .iiaving 
the sole and exclusive power to supervise and approve all rules and re- 
gulations, budgets and charges for tne sales of labels submitted by code 
authorities without regard to the division to which the code was subject. 


5. Effect of Lab el Costs on Consumer 

In most instajices the erst :>f code administration in label-using 
industries ranii;ed from l/lO to s/lO of 1/j, tuid usually those industries 
using labels were of the apparol trades, vvhich industries have established 
price ranges for all products. For example - in the dress industry, the 
price ranges are $5.75, $6.75, $10.75, etc. In the millinery industry 
prices are $7.50 a dozen, $12.00 a dozen, $18.00 a dozen, :?24.00 a dozen, 
$3.00 each, $4.00 each, etc. Bearing in mind that most of the industries 
using lables have these established price ra-nges, and that the manufacturer 
of a given product must add to his cost the s^'jun equal to approximately 2/10 
of 1,0, it is evident that no increase in price V70uld result from the label 
charges. Thus, the conclusion must be drawn that the cost of code adrnin- 
istraticn - at least in those industries using labels - was not imposed 
upon the ccnsu-ner. 




1. I\:ethod Used in p-archasina; Labels 

In the first instance code authorities after a very slight search, 
placed orders with those manufacturers of labels whom they believed to 
be the lo^-'est bidders. No true test of what constituted the lowest bid- 
der was possible, however, because there was no competitive bidding. At 
the time of the original i^lacing of orders for labels most code authori- 
ties had not been able to determine in complete detail the different 
types of labels necessary, nor the amo-onts of each type of label. It 
was this factor which brought about such a high cost of labels. In Feb- 
ruary of 1934, officials of the Administration, recognizing, that the 
hap-hazardous methods employed by code authorities in purchasing labels 
was exacting an unnecessary charge upon members of the industry, and al- 
so was subject to abuse by code authority members, formulated rules and 
regulations requiring code authorities to place all orders for labels 
after competitive bids. In accordance with administrative policy, code 
authorities then requested submission of bids from all known and recog- 
nized manufacturers of labels, and placed orders for periods generally of 
about six months. The tendency apparently had been to continue placing 
orders with the successful bidder, 'oartly based upon the fact that cuts 
axid prints having once been mace bjr the successful bidder, he was in a 
better position to underbid all other maxiufacturers. 

2. Storage of Labels 

The large number of labels used by the code authorities and the use 
of various tyjaes and serial numbers, required a great amount of storage 
space. Likewise, the value of the labels, made it necessary to establish 
safe-guards against theft. Ma.ny of the smaller code authorities depended 
upon the manufactueer of labels to store all labels manufactured. In 
those cases, the label manufacturer, upon the direction of the code au- 
thority, would select the proper number and wrap and address the label 
package which then would be sent to the code authority to be checked, 
recorded and mailed. Most code authorities preferred to receive mail 
orders for labels and dispatch these orders within twenty-four hours^ 
after receiving them. Personal orders were 'not refused though, and it 
was felt that they tended to break up the regular label procedure and 
minimize the possibility of the proper checking and recording. In the 
case of the Millinery Code Authority, a preference for personal orders 
was evidenced. It was felt that through the receiving of personal or- 
ders it was possible to obtain closer contact with the member of the 
industry and bring more forceably to him an appreciation of code regu- 
lations. In no case were labels handed to any person calling at the code 
authority offices, but instead, employees of the code authority would 
bring the labels to the member of industry and receive a receipt from 
him on his premises. 

3. Use of Compliance Certificates 

All code authorities required signed statements of compliance* with 

* See Appendix Q-Y in NRA Studies, Special exiiibits, ^ork Materials No. 84 

for example of types of compliance certificate used. 

the very first label order. In fact, in iiisny code authorities the order 
blank was in nnd of itself a co-npliance certificate. Thiis with each or- 
der of labels a nember of industry reaffirmed his agreement to remain in 
f^lll and keen compliance v/ith the code provisions. Aside from the state- 
ment of compliance, code axithorities would keep a thorough and complete 
check of each applicant. In cases in rhich the coce provisions required 
registration of contractors,* the checking of label applications required 
several days in order to ascertain whether or not the contractor as well 
as the manufacturer was in strict compliance. The most efficient type 
of procedure relating to checking in evidenced by those code authorities 
which issued labels immediately upon receipt of apjilication, and checked 
for compliance after the order was filled, thus malcing it possible for 
the code authority to refuse to re-issue labels, if the applicant was 
found to have been in non-compliance. 

With increased knowledge of its membership,- a code authority, through 
one or more of its officials, could approve at a glance a label order as 
a result of personal knowledge as to the compliance or non-compliance of 
a given applicant. This procedure was being followed in a number of 
cases, resulting from a practice of requiring all label orders to be 
coimtersigned by one official- on a code authority. 

4. Inspections and Examinations of Plants ■ ■ ■ 

Inspections of members' plants were made to determine compliance 
with hour, wage, and trade nractice provisions. Usually the same in- 
spector investigated for compliance all types of provisions. However, 
in a few of the large code authorities, compliance groups were divided 
into fair practice inspectors, and wage and hour inspectors. The number 
of inspectors varied with each code authority. In a few instances, in- 
spections were made once every two or three months, and in such codes as 
the millinery and coat and suit inspections averaged from one to three 
per day. In some cases, all the employers' books were examined, and the- 
employees themselves were interrogated to ascertain the truth of the 
statements found in the books. Interrogations of employees generally 
were based upon question of classification. This type of investigation 
was chiefly important in those industries having codes containing clas- 
sified crafts and varying wages for each craft. L'any code authorities 
regarded their inspections as an educational nature, and intended only 
to instruct employers of the right and wrong in conducting their shop. 
In other cases, all alleged viqL^ions were reported to the code author- 
ity which notified the member that violations had been found, and in- 
forming his of the steps' necessary to correct his non-compliance. 

See Appendix . , AA in KPA Studies cpecial exhibits, work Materials No, 
34 for contractor registration forms. 




1. The Fo?/er p Co nferred on the president Dy rllPJL . 

Section 10, Suh-s^ction (a) of Title I of tho Act stc.ted tliat: 

"The President is authroized to prescrihe such rules and regulations 
as rnaj'" he necespary to carry out the iDurposes ofl^this Title andfees 
and licenses and for filin;3 codes of fair competition and agreements 
and -ariy violation of any s-uch rule or rec-ilation shall he punisiirhlc 
by fine of not to exceed $500. ''o or iniprisoniT.cnt for not to exceed 
six months, or hoth." 

Moreover, hn,d not the Act .exorcssly given this power to the President, 
he vifould nevertheless h.ave iiad the right to .ra,al:e such rules snd rngu- 
la-tions a.s were reasonably adaptr^d to the enforcement of the sa-id Act, 
The President is the Administr-tive Officer who is charge'' with the duty of 
carrying out the policy enuiiciated in Title I of the Hational Industrial 
Recovery Act; (15 U.S.C.A. 741) to the end tl^at these ;ouiiooscs might he 
accom-Tlished the President v/as vested v/ith broad o,nd comprehensive povrers 
(U.S. V. Spotless Dollar Cleaners, 6 F. Suop. 725, 739.) 

In M aryla nd Casualty Coifl]:>any v. United States (251 U.S. 542; 40 Sup. 
Ct. Hep. 15^57'64 L. Ed. 397) the Coirrt srid-— at page 349 - 

"It is settled by rany recent decisions of this court th^t a 
regulation by a department 'of governinent. a^ dressed to an reasoimbly 
ada-otcd to the enforcement ■ of an act of Congress or which is defined to 
such dcpartivont has the force and effect of- law if :.t be not in conflict 
with the express statutory provision," 

The President' has promulgated various rules- and regulations creating 
and authorizing the use of the label as a means of ef f cct-ua,ting the 
policies ol the National Industrial Recovery Act. , In no less than 50 
industries he ord.ered the use of an NiiA label. These constitute the 
only industries of those '-cooified whose prodxicts admit of the use of 
such a label, ■ ' "" ' 

The President ha.viiig adopted the label as a ;neans of effecting the 
policies of the IIIRA did so in conrplirnco with the necessity of making 
his broad and coj prehensive grant of power more specific. Having thus 
acted, the courts in accordance wi :h their consistf nt previous opinions 
and decisions; must indulge in the riresuraption tna'c his act .-as within 
the' scope o his o.uthority. In the cases of C-idley v. P-\lmerston, 7 More 

111; Vandcrnayden v. Youiig, 11 Johns 150; o.nd Mott v. liott, 12 Fnc i.ton 31, 
it was held that "the acts of a ;mblic of •icer on public : atters within his 
jurisdiction and where he had a discretion are to be presumed to be legal 
until shown by others to be -unjustifiable," 

The Constitution of the United States vests in the President certain 
important political powers in the exercise of which he. is accoui-itable only 



to his country, his political character and to his own consciencei To 
aid him in the performance of tucse duties he is authorised to appoint 
certain officers who act by his authority and in conformity with his 
orders. Acts by such officers are his acts and whatever opinion may 
be entertained in the natter in vvnich executive discretion may be used; 
still -there exists tnd can exist no ooA'^er to control that discretion. 

See Marbviry v. i..adison, 1 Cranch 137; 2 L. ed. 60 p. 70. 

Thus the President or his duly authorized officers had available 
the choice of manifold merns of accomplishing the purposes of the 
National Industrial Recovery Act. In his discretion he chose the label. 
This choice being a discretionary act of the President (reasonably 
adapted to the enforcement of the act) is binding on the court and may 
neither be reviev;ed nor questioned. The use of the label as ordered by 
the President shows a regulc tion reasonably' adopted to effectuate the 
policies of the National Industrial Recovery Act, because: 

(a) The label provided gn efficient device for checking on 
code compliance in industr-/ in that it gave an infallible 
index of production. 

(b) The label constituted notice to the world at large that a 
given product had ^oeen produced by a manufacturer who was 
in compliance "'ith the code of fair competition for his 

(c) The label, inasmuch as it '.vas 'vithdrawn upon proof of 
violation of code provision served as a deterrent to 
such violation, thereby hoping to effectuate the pur- 
poses of tne act. ■ ' 

(d) The use of a label as a means of accoEiplishing coopera- 
tive action has proven its value through many years of 
use. ■ , 

(e) The courts in Penns/lvania, llev/ York, Massachusetts, 
Connecticut, Indiana, have all recognized the ef- 
fectiveness of the use of labels. See: 

Comn. V. Norton (1901) 
16 Pa.. Sup. Ct. 423 
9 Pa. Dist. 132 

Perkins v. Heert 

158 N. Y. 306 

33, N. E. 18 

70 Am. St, Rep. 483 

43 X. R. A. 858 

Tracy v. Banker 
170 Mass. 266 
49 IJ. E. 308 
39 L. H. A. 308 

(f) 44 states recognized the validity of the use of union labels and 


■preserved its effectiveness by appropriate legislation. (*) 

The President; .having been charged T^iith the duty of enforcing the 
National Industrial ..Recovery Act, could prescribe a type of license which 
would permit hiin to effectively supervise, control a.nd regulate compliance. 
The adoption of the label in codes fell vithin tne class of license here- 
inabove mentioned. There are many instances in our systera of jurispru- 
dence in which e.dministrative bodies have been given the power to re- 
gulate an occupation or a business v/ithout having been expressly given 
any licensing powers. The body vested with this general regulatory 
po\?er has often employed a license as a means to effectively control the 
subject matter .involved, despite the fact that there was no express 
grant of the right to employ the use of such a license. This right to 
license: has been challenged not only in the federal but in the state 
courts and has been uniformly upheld. 

In the case of in re 'Tan Yin (Laundry License Case, 22 Fed. 701) an 
act of th.e legislature of the state of Oregon incorporating the city of 
Portland, vested the City Council with the power and authority to control 
and regulate slaughter houses, wash houses and public laundries. "Pursuant 
to this statute the City Council passed an ordinance 'to license and re- 
gulate wash houses and public laundries'." A quarterly license fee of 
$5.00 was imposed. 7an Yin refusing to pay the said license fee was im- 
prisoned in lieu 6f a fine for operating a laundry v/ithout a license, 
and sued out a writ of habeus corpus. The petition continued that: 

"The power to regulei,te did not regulate the power to license. " 

The cou.rt .said at page 702-703: 

' ' The vfords 'to contr o l' and 'to regulate' imply to restrain, to 
' check, to rule ond direct and in my judgment the oower to do 
either of these implie s the right to license , as a convenient 
and proper means to that end. A license is merely a permission 
to do what is unlawful at common law, or is made so by some 
statute or ordinance, including the one authorizing or requiring 
the license. Btit this means the -persons or occupations to be 
regulated are located and identified, and brought within the ob- 
servation of the' municipal authorities, so that whatever re- 
gulctions ere made concerning thera may be- the more easily and 
certainly enforced, including the giving of security for their 
observance, before even the, license is issued. The Authority 
of the National g;overnment, like that of a municipal corpora- 
tion is limited to the pov;ers expressly granted in the consti- 
tution and such implied powers as may be necessary and convenient 
to the due execution of the former. And yet under the power 'to 
regulate' commerce. Congress may and does provide for licensing 
the instrumentalities thereof, as vessels, pilots, (License T x 
Cases, 5 "all.) (p. 703.) 

In Chicago Packing and provision Co. Vs. City of Chicago (88 111. 221) 
The highest appellate court of Illinois has recognized that the right to 
regulate carries with it the right to license. An Illinois statute gave 
the city of Chicago the power "to direct the location and regulate the 
management of packing houses." The city adopted an ordinance which among 
other things provided for the licensing, of packing houses as well as a 
license fee of $100,00 per annum.' The court in holding this ordinance to a valid 

(*) See ivionthly Labor Heview, U.S. Department of Labor, April, 1933, 

9859PP. 832 - 834 


one ^.-.ic: 

"The j;erierr-l asr-embl/ no uoulDt in gT-Tinti-iii'; this pov/er to cities and 
vil ages dcened it v;ise to jalio it more applicable by not specifying 
meuis thej* should crrrDloy to accompliDh the puri^ose. Have no doubt 
intended to laa.lrc the povfer coinplete (page 2.35.) 

"I-Iad the mode acconplishing the end been specific. lly prescribed in 
manj' of these bodies, it ini{^;:ht have prbvcc^ iip.-.->rpcti cable and in many 
purposes been defeated," 

In ~eal Silk Hosier y I .Iills . Inc . , v. C ity of P ortland (297 Pcd. 897) 
the validity of a city ordinance vas before the court. This ordinace 
provided th-.t all persons v.'ho solicited orders and received a payment on 
account in advance of the delivery of goods must procure a license. The 
prdinr.ncc further in-nosed a fee therefor. In addition to procuring this 
license, the solicitor was coi.ipelled to post a bond in the sum of $500.00 
to insure delivery of the uerchandise sold. The city had no authority to pass 
this licensing ordinance except that which could be inferred from its right 
to pass ordinance concerning health, morals and protection of its citizens. 
The plaintiff, a foreign corporation, emjoloyed solicitors in the city, 'Ihe 
Circuit Court cf Ap" eals held that uxider the reserve police pov/ers of the 
city generally granted, the city iiad the ri-'-fnt to pass the ordina.nce in ques- 
tion. The case was appealed to the United States Suoreme Court which - 
268 U, S. 325; 45 Sup. Ct. 2ep. 525; 59 L. ed. 982, - reversed the decree 
of the Circuit Court of A;, ".peals, holding tha.t the ordinance wa.s unconsti- 
tutional a s to this plainti ff on the ground tria.t as to it, the ordin'-nce v/as 
a burcen on interst-^te co;iir.;erce . 

It should be pointed out th t gro .t difference lies betv/een the facts 
in the above case and one.-. hich would have arisen under the National In- 
dustrial Recovery Act, since the act is based on the coiii'ierce clause of 
the constitution, under '-^hiiih clause Congrcs<? has the co^.plete and unquali- 
fied right to ref:ulate interstate commerce (U. S. et al. v, Shissler et 
al., 7 ?ed. Sup:o. 125,) 

Such cases as Huban v. city of Chicago, 161 H. E. 133; Prudential 
Realty Goimoany, Inc., v. City of Youngs town, 160 IT.H, 695; Ealdydn v. State, 
141 H.E. 343; City of Portland v. Western Union Telegraph Company et al., 
146 Pacific 148; Plumas County v. TiTlieeler et al., 37 Pacific 909; Conley 
y. City of Buffalo, 119 IT.Y.S. 87, niake manifest the proposition tlia.t the 
President h^.s the pov;er and. the right to prescribe a license to aid in 
regulating the industries of the United States to the end that an a,ct ma^"- 
be enforced. His promvilgrtion, setting up the label as a license, had the 
effect of le:a: 

"Such regulations being reasonable and ap-iropriate 'for the enforcement 
of the provisions of the taxing act, are binding and'Qiave the effect 
of law." 

U. S. V. norehead, 243 U. S. 607. 

The pov/er to license as contcined in Section 4, Sub-section (b) of the 
Act was a drastic measure ,, giving the President under certain specific 
conditions the right to license business enterprises, "Tliis is a vigorous 




emer^^ency po^'Tert, " (*) vfhich •■•e.s only intended to be used sparingly aud thon 
only when it w:,s loimd t'i;;,t 

"Destructiv.- wrge and price- cuttin;"; so denor.lized 
an industry t[¥:.,t it' could not "be reli'^,"bilitated by 
ordin£,rjr r-,nd usu'nl .'.ic 'ns;" 

In Section 10 '(a) of the Act: 

"The preciaeni: is authorized to prercrihe such rules and re:TLlations 
as :.ia.y "be necessary to ca-ry out the parposes of the title," 

This latter section Gnroowercd tne President to promulgate such reasonable 
rules and reii^-uJat i ons as ?/ene advisable i'or the efi. cctuation of the 
purposes of the Act. A? "ias previously been den-'.onstr t^-d, the power 
to regulate iirrixios the povrer to ere ite -such a license which is reasonably 
necesTr- ry -to enable the officer vmo is cha.ri'^-ed with the duty to ca.r-y out the 
Act, to perfor-i such duty. 

Distinction must be ; ;ade between the powers conferred u-?on the 
president in Section -l-(b) and l')(a) of the Act. Under 4(b) Congress 
recognizes tn-. t the exigencies of rn -Lmrecedented depression might require 
the exercise of a sr,all unlimited, unusM I , drastic and imnediate power 
to force industry to reh.-^bilitate itself . Under lC(a) of the Act, Congress ' 
contemplated ti-r,t the President 'oilld ria:e such rulesand rc'g-ulati ;ns vdifch 
could be successfully em-tlo^fe-f;'" andreliecupon for the effectuation of the 
purposes of the Act. The -po'vor to licc-ise, "'hicn necessarily v/as coupled 
with pov/crs conferred in Section 10(a), was confi'ned to a limited scope, 
na.aely, the enforces ■■cnt of rul"s ;nid regulo.tions adopted anc prescribed in to the pou'poses of national recovery. 

It night be argued th t the existence of licensing poT/er in Section 
4(b) of theAct would exclude tlie inference cf any pj'-er to license under 
any other provison of the Act. 'Thrs doctrine, cor.smonly ^.movni as f*e:q3ressdo 
uniuG est exclusio alteriiis" , has no application in the present sitija^tion. 

Ac v/assaid by Mr. Justice' vn-iting for the Supreme Court of 
the United St'ates: ... 

"Aiid it is said th_ t the effect cf this is 'to confine the Governor- 
General's "ov/crs of, a ipointment v/ithin the limit's 'of this administration. 
The gcncr;l rule that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of 
others is subject to exce'.jtions . Lihe other canons of unstatutory 
constructi'on it is only an aid in the ascert-ining of the meaning of the 
la<,w and m;ust yield whenever a contrary/ intent im on the pa.rt of the 
lawi.i£:d\:c"is apparent, TTher p. strtute cont -.ins a. grant of povrer en- 
umerating certain thin, s which '■lay be done .and also a general grant of 
power v/Mch st^jiding alone v/otild in'clude these things anam.ore, the general 

grant may be given ful .. efiect if 'chc context shows that the cnumer- 
ati:^n was not intended to be exclusive. 

(*) See re-'-^ort ofH^use Comiiiftrc on "'Jays and lieans, Ho. 159, May 23, 1933. 



"See for exanplc, 
Sprinrer etal vs Govcrnmsnt of Philippine I elands (277 U.S. 189) 
Pord V. United States, 1373 U.S. 593, 511, 71 L. od. 793 
801, 47 S\:?3. Ct, Rep. 531; Portland v. Hew England T'cleph. & Teleg. 
Co. 195, lir, 340, 24, 68 Atl. 1040; CriiblDc v. Cnih'-e, 26 Or. 363, 
370. 38, Pac. 162; Swicl: v. Coleman, 218 111. Conmercial Banl", 130 
Mo. App. 687, 692, 1C8 S. 1095; ; cF.irland v. Uissouxi K. & T.B. Cu. , 
84 !-;o. App. 336, 342, 68 S. W, 105," 

There is further evidence from the langriago of the Aot tliat Section 
4 (b) was not intended to "be exclusive. The temporary nature of the 
restriction of the provisions clearly indicates the soundnsss of this 
theory. The 'broader grant of pov;er to regulate given the President in 
Section 10(a) of the Act should 'be given full effect hccause it i s 
Tiiider that provision tlis.t the success in accomplishing the purposes 
given in Section 1 of the Act must Oepond. 

The President had the right to make valid delegation of his right 
to issue la,oels to the respective code authorities. 

"The President may deiJegate any of his f-uiictions and povrers 
under this title to such officers, agents and employees as 
he may designate or ap;ooint and may cstgohlish an industrial 
planning and research agency to aid in carrying out his 
fimctions under this title," 

(KIEA, Section 2, Sub-section (b); 15 U.S.C.A., 702b.) 

This delegation is not in contravention of that rule which pro- 
hibits a re-delegation by a member of the governm.ent to a private in- of those of his j: Vficrs v/hich require exercise of judgment and 

The fionction of the code authorities as to the isstiance of labels 
was purely .ministerial in nature. This fact is evident from the language 
used in all label provisions, 

"Any and all members of the industry may a-ply to the code 
authority for o. permit to use such l^TRA label, which permit 
to use the label shall be granted to them but only if and 
so long as as they comply vith the code." 

Code authorities therefore were properly, entrusted with the exer- 
cise of such a purely ministerial fionction. 

2. Legality of the Cliarge for Labels . 

Zxejnination of the i-^rovisions of the National Industrial Recovery 
Act and the various committee reports and debates in Congress prior to 
its enactment all disclose that t>.e scheme of our recovery administration 
is that industry should,, throiogh its Jv/n efforts, subject to the super- 
vision of the government, . lift itself out of the depression and free 
itself from the c:iaotic conditions which then existed. In other words, 
it was intended that in'.ustry by self-goverrjnent under Federal super- 
vision was to put its ov/n house in order. 

9859 . 


(See Title iH - ITIRil; Spcccli of Senator Uagiier at the 
hearing before Senate Con^lttec on rinancc. i'ay 22nd to 
June Istjp.l. ■■■■ 

(Bullctini: #1, Statement of the PreGident, June IG, 1933. 

(Address hy Donald R. Richberg, July 5, 1933 

(Report of House Committee on Ways and i'eans, if 159, 
May 23, 1933.) 

The duty imposed upon industry to govern itself carried vdth it the 
ohligation of suixporting the agency whicn \.'as set uo to accomplish that 
end. The a; ency v/hich was the code authority in order to raise funds 
to administer codes had to look to industry for the necessary monies. 
In other words, tuc obligation of the indListry to govern itself carried 
with it "both the right of the code authority to distrihuto this hurden 
among the nemhers of the industry by some equitable sort of assessment 
and the obliga.tion of those assessed to pay. 

In making the assessments the President could have used any means 
which would have distributed the burden of supiDorting codes in an equit- 
able manner and could used any agency wnich in his discretion would 
best serve the purpose. The label was extremely well adapted to serve 
.tliat purpose. But the manufacturer doing the biggest business, having 
the largest production and deriving the most benefit from the code paid 
as his siiarca greater amoimt of money tlian the manufacturer who did a 
smaller voluiie of business. Lloreover the label was an efficient and 
effective means of collecting this assessvaent because through the pur- 
cliase of labels manufacturers paid their assessments through small ex- 
penditures of money in a more or less painless fashion. 

The label being a type of license, there was an inherent power in 
the proper administrative officer, the President, to charge a^ fee which 
was necessary and -oroper to cover the ex;3ense of issuing a label and^ 
inspecting and regulating the respective industry to determine the right 
to the use. Many of the cases heretofore cited held tliat the right to 
impose a license carries with it a correlative right to impose a fee 
VYhich shall be for an amount necessary to cover the actus.l reasonable 
cost thereof including the distribution, administration and supervision 
of the use thereof. 

Chicago Packing and Provision Comppany v. City of Chicago (88 Illinois 
221). The highest court of Illinois held that the city of ChicEgo having 
the right to impo'se the license had the right to imi^ose a license fee of 
a hundred dollars per annum. Other cases holding that the to 
license carries with it the ri: ht to charge a fee for the liceiise are: 

Dugan Bros, of i^'ew Jersey v. Dunncry, 269 N.Y.S 645; City of 

Cincinnati v. Criterion Advertising Company, 168 iI.E. 227 (Ohio); 

Kirby et al. v. City of Para-ould, 251 S.W. 374 (Arkansas.) 

It is apparent from the reading of the opinions in the above cases 
and m.any other cases in point tliat the President having determined 
upon a label vdiich is similar in effect to a license for. the purpose 
of supervising and regulating industries under codes, had the inherent 



riifiht to impose a rcasona'blu cliargc or fee for such lalDclc in an amoi^nt 
sufficient to cover the cost thereof, tof.cther vdth its dictrihution 
and ac'-ministration. 

It mij^ht b(. ar;,ucd tliat the cliar(;:;ing of a fee for the use of code 
lahels placed a financial h-urd^n on the mcmhors of industry in such a 
manner as to constitute a ■ telcii^gof property Y/ithout <iuo process of law 
in contravention of the fifth 3..'.Gndvncnt to t/.e constitution. The con- 
tention is met, hovvever, by numerous cases, many of v;hich liave "been 
previously cited, such as the Laundry Case, Chica^^o Packing and Pro- 
vision Company, etc. Indeed the co^arts have ^onc far "beyond the point 
of sustaining the !ra,tter of cli£irging a fee for the use of a license and 
in Union Bridfic Company v. U. S. (204 U.S. 5G4) the court held that the 
Secretary cf War could ve^lidly order tiie ovmers of a bridge to alter 
the same if the said bridge constituted an obstruction to interstate 
commerce. In altering the bridge the ovmer thereof was compelled to 
spend considerable money. This did not constitute the taking of prop- 
erty because the order to alter v/as within the pov/er of the Secretary 
of War, the court in its opinion stating that: 

"'The damage tiiat will accrue io the bridge company as 
the result of compliance with the Secretary's order 
must in such case, be deemed incidental to the c>:<ir- 
cise by the goverrLinent of its power to regulate com- 
merce eriong the states." 

3» The_Righb to Suspend the Iss ti anco of Labels.. 

It is quite clear from the points heretof-re sot forth that the 
President had the right to .• ssue and compel the use of labels and charge 
a reasonable fee therefor. It likewise follows that in issuing labels 
he may impose such conditions uuon the use thereof as in his discretion 
he deems necessary and advises for the effcctxiation of the policies of 
the Act, Having the right to impose such conditions he may upon refusal 
to perform these conditions witlihold the use of the labels. The con- 
tinued privilege to be supplied v/ith code labels depended upon the con- 
tinued cOnrpliance with the provisions of the code. The forfeiture of 
the right to use txie label is brought about by the failure or the neglect 
on the part of a rnanufactiorer to observe "j) revisions." Thus the sus- 
pension of the right to use or the issuance of labels is merely the 
operation of a reasonable rule and regulation lawfully promulgated by . 
the President to effcct-uate the purposes of the Act, The courts have 
uniforralj'- upheld tlie right cf an executive beard to m.ake such reasonable 
rules and reg-'olations as are necessary to carry out the purposes of an 
act. If, incidentally the operation of tnese rules casts a burden upon 
those 7/ho ftre affected, they cannot be heard to complain and siirely they 
cannot be heard to complain vrien the burden is only imposed on and after 
failure by the complaining person to carry out or observe reasonable rules 
and regulations established to govern his condust. It lias often been 
argued that the right to suspend the issija.nce on the use of labels con- 
stituted a boycott in restraint of trade in th^at it restricted the free 
flow of interstate comr.ierce. This arg^jment was met, however, very easily 
by the fact that in congress resides the power to rcg-ulate the flov/ of 
interstate commerce and tnercfore hpA the power to permit and provide for 


a regulation such as v/as establislied through the use of code la.bels. 

4, The Validity of the La.hcl Provisions in the i^ctail Codc « 

The la/bcl provision in the retail code states that no retailer 
shall deal in merchandise manufactured under a- code vfhich req.uires 
such racrch3,ndisc to ocar an ilRA label, unless such merchandise bears 
such label. The retail code provision can be considered as equivalent 
to a j^rovision v/hich sirnply states that retailers may deal only in the 
goods of complying concerns. It can bo argued that a provision such 
as the above merely tends to -irotcct against unfair comjDctition on the 
part of retailers by dealing vdth non-complying concerns. Generally 
spealiing, it can be presuiied tlmt goods' of a non-complying concern are 
produced at a lower cost and if a retailer were permitted to deal in 
such goods, he would bo enabled to undor-sell other retailers buying 
from complying concerns Y/hosc cost hn:^ general been increased by 
virtue of cod.e compliance. It is no ansv;er to state that since all 
retailers may resort to the .practice of b-u^-ing from non-complying firms 
it is, therefore, not unfair com^^etition for one retailer to buy from 
such firms. The Supreme Court held to the contrary in the Federal 
Trade Commission v. R, P. Keppel and Bros. Inc., 291 U. S. 304, (*) 

(*) "The coxirt below held, as the respondent argues 
nere, that respondent's practice docs not hinder 
competition or injure its competitors, since they 
are free to resort to the same sales method; that 
tae ;oractice does not tend to create a mo ■'.opoly or 
involve any deception to consuners or the public, 
and hence is not an unfair method of competition 
vdthin the r.iea.ning of the statute 

"Althou^;h the raethod of competition adopted by 
respondent induces cnildrcn, too "ovizg to be 
capable of exercising an intelligent jud.graent 
of the transaction, to purchase an article 
less desirable in point of q-jality'or quantity 
tiia,n that offered at a comparable price in the 
straight good paclcage , v,'0 may take it. that it 
does not involve any fraud or deception. It 
would seem also that competing manufacturers can 
adopt the break and take device at any time and 
thus maintain their competitive position, From 
these promises' respondent argues timt the jDractice 
is beyond, the reach of the Commission because it 
does not fall within any .of the classes which 
this Court has held subject to the Commission's 
"prohibition. . . .' 




?rom the vievrooint of the inanu-facturing firm, t/ic retail code pro- 
vision occo:ics in a-.'clition to a prohi"bition of unfair corapctition aniong 
retailers, a device for i.-;r'I:ing effective tne mandatory provisions of tlie 
■manafacturers. It is c. ictuod of enforcing the license system of the 
nanvJ'acturin,; code, 'out since (as lis,s heretofore "boon indicated) c^^ch a 
license system is valid, the provision designed to make it effective is 
likewise v.olid. A non-coinplyinn jnavnafactrjrcr v/ho is not lc£:;ally entitled 
to sell his goods hecai^.se ho is ■unahle to obtain i^TRA code labels cannot 
ar^Me that f.-^.e fact he is -unable to sell his goods is because no one will 
buy t"-icm. The obvious answer is t'-ia.t hv is not Ifpilly entitled to sell 

jroin the viewj^ioint of the retail code, the mandatory mabol pro- 
visions in the nantifacturin,v;. codes arc a device for making effective t'no 
provision of the retail code prohibiting retailers from enii'aging in \m- 
fair c:inpo tition by dealing v/ith non-complying concerns since it pro- 
hibits the market in.:- of siAch goods by the manufactnjircr. 

The . " ■ 
in the retail code must be fo-uuid in S^.ction 10 (a) of the Act, The basis 
for such a. finding ccn'ccrs itself about a question of whether or not the 
retail code provision tends to ins^JLrs the effective administra.tion of 
the Act the code created it. 

The retail code •orovision considered by itself as a provision pro- 
hibiting;, retailers from dealing in t..c goods of non-complying maniifactur- 
ers find its soatxitory justification in Section 3 (a,) in view of 
the s-rgumeni; it is a provision r.rohibiting luifair competition. If the 
provision can be rested on that statutory authorization, it v/ould be sus" 
tained in the Act specifically providing for elimination of methods of 
unf-iir eoLToctition and the mere fact tha.t coui^led with elimination of 
unfair competition the provision incidentally assisted in securing com- 
pliance of t.'x r-uaniuacturing codes. 

5, The Jirst Label Case 

The first court action - -vrtainini': to the ^.se of the label vhe tlis.t 
of th? Qhiniouy Gom-^any of Chicago v. tno liillinery Code Authority, This 

(*) (Continued) 

"The argijnent tiiot a method used by one eoiTipetitor is 
not unfair if others may adopt it without any r;:striction 
of competition between them v/as rejected by this Court in 
Federal Trade Coi.-mission v._J[instead. PTosiery Co., au ora! 
conroare Federal Trad-^ Cor/jnission v, Algoma L-umber ^pt_, 
ante, p. 67, There ifc v;as specifically held that a trader 
may not, by purrsuing a dishonest practice force his com- 
petitors to choose bet'.Tcen its adoption of the loss of 
their trade. A method of corai^etition which casts upon 
one's competitors the burden of the loss of business un- 
less they will descent to a ^jracticc which the?" are \mdcr 
a powerful moral compulsion not to adopt, even though it 
is not criminal, v/as tho-ught to involve the kind of un- 
fairness at v'hich the statute v:as aimedL," 



case was 'brought i.; tlic Fedcnal co-uxt of the southern ilev; Yorlc District 
to restrain the niillincry coc'.e Authority froo issuing labels or to 
charge therefor. The tasis of the suit was tiia.t there ".fas no labeling, 
provision in the 'ilational Inc.ustria,! liecovcry Act anC, t.iat therefore 
the labeling provisions of the milliner;/ code did not cone within the 
terns of the statute. Judge Caffej'' in dismissing the pLaintiff's ap- 
plication said: 

"These regulations were '■rescyihcd hy the President, 
They a,re pursuant to statutory authority. The 3'- are 
v;ithin the principles prescrihed "by congress in lay- 
ing down the rul« for action hy the President in 
erecting these code autilbrities, ^ 

t' seems to me ths-t a lahel would he vforthless if 
every man might prescribe his ovvii label. Whether 
tiiT't 'be true or not it is not xmree.sona"ble to in- 
clude in the rcguLation a. limitation upon anybody 
u.sing the label except one v^ho has been ascertained 
by the proper a\ithorities through examination to 
have lived u;o to the regulations of the code," 

This case was ap^'Oaled and discontinu.ed by the plaintiff pending 
the appeal. 

An analysis of court decisions loiider the ilRA uo to ' 9, 1935 (*) 
shov/E tliat the ITRA hat" "been successful in 60 out of 91 a,ctuD.lly 
contested in the district , courts. 

(*) See Apncndix I B IIEA Studies Special Exhibits - Worl: liaterial: 
Ho, 64 





Lany tj^pes of lal)el have, at one time or another, been used and, of 
the nanj- purposes for which they have been desit^^ied, none ^-'as so uoef-al 
as the Union label. The Union label is a distinctive development of 
American trade unionism. Its first apipearance was apparently in Cali- 
fornia where it '-as utilized as part of an attempt to secure greater 
employment for white cigar makers who had s-offered severely from the 
influx of Chinese workers.* This initial use of the label was evident- 
ly most satisfactory because not long after its original use, the de- 
mand for white cigar makers was substantially in excess of the supply.** 
Again, in 1379, the label was suc,tessfully used by cigar mal-cers in St. 
'Louis in furthering the purposes of a strike, and then in 1880 the Cigar 
Makers International Union of America fomally adopted an official -anion 
label. The "ourpose of this label was to combat "inferior, ratshop, coolie, 
prison or filthy tenement house worlonanship. " 

Between 1880 and 1890 the Hatters and Can Makers adopted union labels, 
the nurpose of which was to assist those unions in meeting particular 
forms of competition to which they '^ere subject. Outstanding among those 
form of competition were those arising from immigraJlt, tenement house 
and prison labor. Up to 1890 only a small group of unions had used the 
label and then only as an appeal to popular sympathy. After that date, 
unions began generally to adopt the label and practice was be.gun of ap- 
pealing to trade unionists as such rather than to the general imblic. 

':i/hen it is remembered that by 1908, 47 per cent of the total member- 
ship of the Arae-ican Federation of Labor, which approximated 1,586,000 
belonged to unions which had adopted some form of a label,*** the ef- 
fectiveness of this particularized appeal can be appreciated. Union la- 
bels were_ of three general classifications - 1 - a label to mark a prod- 
uct; 2 - a shop card for display in a particular kind of business; 3 - a 
button for the eniDloyees' personal use. In addition to the general ap- 
peal created for the use of products bearing union labels, label leagues 
were organized in various states of the coimtry to more widely spread 
the consumer ap'oeal. One of the first of these was the Chicago Trade 
Union Label Leag'J.e, organized in 1:?,,:5. In 1905 the Women's International 
Label League was formed and in 1909 the AiJerican Federation of Labor or- 
ganized a -L^iion label department. The function of this department was 
to induce -uinions to place labels on their products and to persuade un- 
ion members to purchase goods bearing a xinion label. By 1915, 39 nation- 
al and international unions affiliated ?.rith the American Federation of 
Labor had adopted some form of label. Under the auspice of the several 
label leagues, label meetings were held at which wives and the heads of 
families were exhorted to purchase only labeled nerchandise and these 
leagues '-■ere instrumental in many instances in establishing stores which 
sold nothing but goods bearing the union label. 

* From the statement by Ernest Sisedden "The Trade Union Label". 
** From statement in U. S. Department of Labor, Monthly Labor Review 
April 1932, page 831. 
*** Spedden - "The Trade Union Label," page 22. 



At the 1925 convention of the American Federation of Lator it was 
decided tnat certain trades should be singled out in a campaign to 
popularize the label. These trades were the wall paper crafts, window 
glass making and headwear industries, the campaign to last 40 weeks and 
the country was divided into districts, 4 agents being assigned to each. 
Advance agents were sent to secure the cooperation of tne State Federa- 
tions of Labor, City central bodies. Chambers of Commerce, Kiwanis and 
Rotary Clubs, etc. Meetings v»ere arranged at which illustrated lectures 
were given, explaining the purposes and benefits of the label. It is 
significant to note that one of the greatest difficulties experienced in 
the furtherance of the label union program was the apathy and, in many 
cases, the vigorous opposition of retail stores. Im comparing the 
similarity of the xCiA label with the Union label, it v/ill be found that ■ 
much of the effectiveness th&,t was experienced by the use of KRA labels 
was due to the cooperation of the retail stores through inclusion of 
their label provisions in the code for that trade. 

The report of the Executive Council of the American Federation of 
Labor to the 54th Annual Convention, October 1, 1934, states: 

"The Union label has a high and honorable record. 
The importance of increasing its use and emphasizing 
its prestige is doubly significant now that the 
national Recovery Act has developed the Blue Eagle 
and the NRA label." 

There are even certain physical resemblances as the following: 
In the Jcnuary 1909 edition of the Union Labor Advocate a facsimile 
of the Journeymen Sarbers' Union Shop card appears. There are two eagles 
which may be said to be the parents of the present Blue Eagle. 

In a resolution adopted by the American Federation of Labor in 
1933, (*) further evidence of a link between the union label and the 
symbolic device of the Ke.tional Recovery Administration is found. 
The resolution reads as follows: 

"WHEREAS, the interest of the entire labor movement 

is centered at this time upon the National Recovery Act, 

its operation and administration; and 

"T/HEREAS, the display of the N.R.A. insignia by an em- 
ployer is a dcclara^tion of his covenant with the 
Government to observe all provisions of the Code regu- 
lating the operation of the industry in which he is 
engaged; and 

"Ti'HIZREAS, all codes for the retail trade provide that the 
employees shall have the right to organize and bargain 
collectively through representatives of their ov;n choosing, 
and shall be free from interference, restraint, or coercion 
in the exercise of that right; and 

(*) Proceedings of American Federation of Labor, 1933 - page 277. 



"V/T j;i'^ AS , tiiere c-.i-e r.;i,]..\ioa!3 of ret: il store eiu-jloyee.B, 
who rre still ■. norg- niTii^c. sT.d who have no voice in the 
re,ul;ti:.n of tl.eir ''Or dn;? conditions; f-nd 

"i<Tl-I-vLA3, the Union Store Crrc of the Retril Clerks' 
Interr.ptionrl "Protective Associption, otfers concrete 
eviuence to the oublic thct ixaion cler'cs only are em- 
ployee in the 'l.^.ce of buslne-js v/here disjlayed, and 
'thct Gaia c^-rd has been'.e^ upon the ^-ji ';nin.~ of ,?. 
collective uar.'"''eininFT a.^^reeiaentf rnd* * " 

"V/IUHl.AS, th.e --resence if both the y.'Rrir. insi-'nia and 
the Union Store Card is proof thrt the' emplc^'er is com- 
plyin-j," ?.lth all the provisions of the retail co;"e; there- 
fore, be it 

"HZS0LV3D, that the Ajaerican Federation of Labor rec- 
omnend that its membership patronize those retai es- 
tablishiaents showin.:, the jliie Ea.:-le and also the Union 
Shop card di« clayed as a!--'ntee of fair wa;<es and 
working conditions; end be it farther 


The American Federation of Labor Ht'^ort 9:0 es on to say: 

"The Union Label I)e,.iart;:!ent has entered into the soirit 
of the IT. E. A. ano rill a.o its part 'to interpret the 
ineanin'^ thereof to the toilin:; in-; pses. " 

The A-nerican Fe6.eration of Labor seei:i<^. to have been particular- 
ly av/are of the extent to wliicji the 1".H. A- label is bound to the 
union label. 

In 1908 the Bo^it and. Shoe 'Workers Union advertised that shoes 
bearing their label were made by union laoor anu fair employers who 
ha.d a^;,reed to arbitrate all differences. Believers in industrial 
peace were VLr;;-^ed to ask for shoeo pea.rin •; the^union stamp, 

• « t -■ 

The Bu-sh c Gerts Piano Company advertised?: 

"Everyone of thes^ celebrated danos is manufactured by 
Union Labor anu nov? bears the ^xithorized "tanp of that 
organization - the Union label. " 

Several other lirmc in CMca.-o al;";o acvertised con'^picuously 
that they sold unif^n label goods. Union compiled directorier, of 
dealers selling ijjiion la.bel goods. These chrectories became quite 

' Jor the full text nf above resolution see "Proceedin.";s of American 
Feaeration of Labor," 1933 - pp.'^e 277. 


■ -52- 
Another stsLeiaent indicetiii" tie cooier?tion betv;een, capital and 

"Ar union men we o'.'.'e to tnese i.ierch.-.nts or e.aplo;yers of 
lajor who fpir to l.-scor, all the ssLiistf^nce we cm 
in aavertiiin,'?,' ane. iii incrjnsing their br.sineBS. It is 
the duty of labor to 'boost oar friends' r.-^thor thnn 
'knock our enemieB'"; 

A pamphlet of the Social Hefor!.; Club contained the statement 
thpt while the strike is -'ii a3j_ject of the union at war the la.bel does 
away with the need for strike. . ■■ 

In another 'r.'.blicrtion the lc?bel is -^CJlpii-ied r-s the medium 

through which the public mry enforce it-.- vi -;htful ooY/er of arbitrament 

between emoloyer pnd employee. In an essaj- on the tmion label one 

writer* has said: 

"It n;ekes t'le ctrilie -annecesfary by .'n.-kin,':: corapli-nce 

with union conditions an a'.v?-ntaj;e iu bu-ciness It 

is a weaoon that -jrofits the e>i doyer equ.rdly vith the 

employe , but only ^'o Ion:, as uotn aim rt the s-'me 

object. " . . ,.,.'■ 

This vjriter 'oes on to s-'\:, th'-.t it i3- a :j,o^C inea.i-i.ijn of advertisin..^ 
for t}'.e employer since he cs.a erili'.t the members of the umon and their 
famlies r-nc- frienc.s in hia favor. Tne Anericaii Pec'erationist strtes 
that ..'lobilization of wp!;,e earners in t-.":e conG\"Uiier f ie]."d. v/puld make 
unnecessary ■.■\st,-j stn.^'';-;les in the jrouuction end. 

Spec.den eIso conteni.s th= t the .'ianufactarer of Irbel goox.s is 
aic.ed in;; .'.is .voods by tht. union. In an eerly issue of the 
Union Labor Acvocate, we find the union label uoheld as a nieans of 
accompli shin,j; much for laoor without the necessity for strike. It 
is the consumer to whiom all lauel cai.rjai;:in3, be they American 
Federation of Labor, or '>Tational Pecovery AtL'dnistrrtion, are addressed. 
Walter UacArthur saw the 'uiion label's uses to the public, and held 
that it directed and concentrated public sentiment against the evils 
peculiar to certain industries anc a;i;ainwt evils coirunon to many in- 
dustries, that it or-'^anic-ied purcha,sin3 po?/er alon-^; the lines of fair 
conditions of labor a.s aj^^ainst these conditions ths.t c'.estroy the 
health and morality of the producer. 

As the Social Heforra Clu.b ooihted out in a leaflet it tised,**the 
consUiuer does not /.now oncer wl^at conditions the ^cods that he purchases 
are made. Therefore, one f'anction of tiie -..Lnibn label is to indicate 

"* Walter Ha.cArthur - Union Label its Hiatory an^" Aims. 

** Taken from "Union Lybel Leaflet '5o. 1." Published by A. F. of L. 



tlist the v;orV done v.'cs -oiider v;l;olesouie conditions, ressonaolo 
wages, and reesoupble hours of vfork v'ere I'^rsnted end the contention 
is further made that the lublic is in syrapet'.-iy with these oojects. 
In another jarn,.>hlet put out by the seme or.ijjanizRtion it ip, rightfully 
asserted thf - the union lobel csn only be useful if the public shuns 
goods that d.. not carry a Ifibel. 

Fmivi the above discussion one nii;5,ht oerhap.s ■ the impression 
that the consujuer was completely disinterested and had no strJces in 
the game. However, as some have taken pains to show the consumer 
is a. very much interested party. As an early exhortation to con- 
STUTiers ran: 

"Demand the label's ■■iresence on honest-iaade goods of any 
and all cl^.M^es• liolc it up and it vill hold yovi up in 
return. "* 

It is inters;: tin,'; to note here that I'TRA advertisements in the ■ 
subways bore a simi!' ar le^-end. It \ixi?.st also be recognized that the 
consTnier is not r-ne abstract entity bat is often an industrial wage 
v/orker who lias rn^'Ach to p;ain if "jijiion demands are granted. The various 
trade uiiion journals which a jjeal to trade \uiiojiists, their families, 
and friends, are apoealing to a vast -rovip of consigners whic]i has often 
demonstrated its efiectivenes:. when it ic-lt that a certain end was 

It v/ovdd a \-)ear that t'.ie national P.ecovery Adninistration in 
adopting a label as a means of achievin.;; certain of the ends v/hich 
are described in Section 1, Title 1 of the ILational Industrial 
Recovery Act, was ■.-.erelj' develo jin .: further an American Institxition 
which had its ori :in in a. desire to acco :;plish r.imilar purposes. 

* See "Union Labor Advocate" January, 1908. Pab. by A. ?. of L. 



1. l)J:.Si:-J^3ILITY OF Cl'TE I'^SiariA. - In a report by the Label Project 
Com.iittee, the Coii-iittee* - after 8 complete stu^y of the nse of code 
labels, expressed es its o:inion that 

"There should be a ai:v~le np.tional label rether than many in- 
dividual industry labels. Of coiirse, the' netionsl l.?bel should bear 
the name of the individual industriei' uainj it. "** 

The use of one single emblem 'would luake easier the task of 
goveruinent educational efforts to .;r6:note and raaintcin all the 
standards oi fair couioetition '"hether tliose of s.jecial c./j;reements or 
of codes. '-i-'ne use of a r.-ingle einbleru, likewise, FoLild tend to avoid 
the confusion \7hich voulc re-salt iro;ii the use of va.rious tj'pes of 
inni;nia to si^^nify the s--me or si ilar purposes. 

2. DESIHABILIT'I OE kiOxlb "rlvJEPJi-L '35 OP LA3ILS. All records of the 
adiainistrr tion clecrly inticrte thrt cor;; rlij-nce and. th.e raisin*; of 
revenue v/as luuch uore effective in t}:;o3e industries wf-;ich used l^'bels. *''* 
It, therefore, iollo'."s that labels, if i.iore -:enerplly used or if used by 
all incur.tries, would make the ro:.iini strati on of code enforcer-ient and 
code finaiiCirif; a. :ii:noler ta;^:;. Tlie fact t?ia,t industry is cooperating; 
Vi'ith -pverninent or tliat ineLibers of inda'Ury are cooperatin-: ainon;; 
theiP.selves lor tiie ourpose of creatln;; better st'^ndards of industry 
conduct would be a. sufficient uasi;" for such industi^y jaeinbers havinr 

a .general icentifiable bad^^e or label to display to the consuining 

3. ADAPTABILITY OP LA3EL TO aZ'^^PAL USE. D-.xrin.: the .criod of 
code operation, ina.ny ind'^strie'; were informed by the actainistration 
that the proo-ucts laanufactured by them v/ere not adep)table to the use 
of labels. However, the lace of ada jtability resulted, not so much 
from the nature of the iroduct as from the natiire of the law under 
which the codes were formula.ted and the provisions contained in codes 
approved. With properly prepared codes of fair competition, the 
effectiveness of the code label in one form cr : nother could be 
generally adaptable, thu;5 in the case of the covered button industry - 

* See "Pt Mort of ^TtA Label Project Committee - Voluine A. I'RA Arc'iiives. 

'* See Voluiiie A, pa:"ie 5, Hecom.aendation l>To. o. Ibid p. 5. 

*** See Prelinin- ry Report of House am' Kers]nier, "Stuo.y of Labels 
as a Means of raising; P^venue," - (Pinrnce Uiit) NSA Archives. 


a.n industry ■'-•hich merely renc.ers a service to the dreEs inclustr" - the 
effectiveness of the use of laoels cotilo. have ")een erected had there 
teen a provision in the dress code prohititiiv; neuters of that industry 
from eng.c^^'^nc. the services of nentcrs of the covered button industry, 
unless such coverec" "button namifacturer uas in full and complete com- 
pliance nith the code provisions for this ihcustr;.', as evidenced hy an 
insignia sinil?.r to tlie la.bel on his invoices or letter-heads. Indeed, 
the only reo-son that sta;.ipin:; or printinf of laoel insi,';nia on invoices 
was ineffective \tp.s because there i-'as no provision in any code prohihi- 
tinf; persons fron purchasin;; prodxicts :.iade ty manufacturers, rrhcre subh 
insignia '.7as not displayed, 


The Lahel Project Coniittee xrv.s, divided in its opinion on the question 
of nhether or not laoels should "be distri'outed "b-'- the ;'^overnnent or "by 
code authorities. lir. Oppemieiu, the chairnan of the, mo.s of 
the opinion t"nat "la"oels s'nould oe sold at cost 'jy the govermient to 
the associations of industries or to the acjninistrative a{;;encies esta- 
"blished h;.- inc'ustries. " (*), Ed-7ards and I.iiss Harron uere of the 
opinion that (**) "government should iSsue la"bels directly'' to industry 
raen"'oers if it is to handle la-oels at all; this system has the advantage 
of stressing the la'oel as a govermient la"'Del and of keeping entirely 
TTithin the hands of the governient all natters relating to adiainistra- 
tion and regulation of the use of la"bels and T/ill permit the government 
to assure itself that la''oels are 'oeing used only hy mem'^^ers of industry 
who are in compliance ^7ith their agreements," 

There is much tha.t can "be said for "ijoth plans. The first vould 
tend to reduce la"bel costs and likewise keep vithin the ac'jainistration 
some degree of control, while the second would tend to give a more 
complete control to the administration and avoid the "basis for many 
complaints registered under the for.ier system, resulting from so-called 
code authority oppression. It would appear from all reports that some 
correction was necessary from conditions ercisting under the former 
nethod of la"bel control ^oy industriefj. The const?Jit need for nevr and 
more stringent administrative regulation, as evidenced ^oy the many 
administrative orders issued concerning the distri'bution and suspension 
of the use of la'oels, is so^e evidence of tlie fact that the methods 
used were not ideal. The combination of the two plans would a^Dpear to 
"be a workaole solution, that is, the goverr_,ient s"nall sell all la"bels 
to industry - at cost - permit indxistr;.'' to resell the la"bels to indxistr;/' 
mem"bers at e. reasona"'ole price a"bove cost in order to o'otain the neces- 
sary funds for ad' lini strati ve purposes; that the government retain com- 
plete control and power over the suspension of the use of la"bels and 
tlso the po':er to deterrjine whether or not nerfoers of industry are en- 
titled to such use in the first instance. 

i*) See "Report of La'oel Project Corviittee," Volirne A - Page 5. 
(**) See "Report of La"oel Project Com;iittee" Volume A, Page 5. 


:-" ^J.:iJ,S OT kSSZTSiLllTS . ~ There -'ere sir different and distinctive 
bases for assessnent eiToloyed iDy tlie code authorities adj.iinisterinr; 
codes containing label -provisions. (*) Plans varied fron one fixed 
chrr -e lov Ir.jelc to r.ian:- char-e? for various t-^pes and variously 
■oriced P.rticlec. Of al]. the plai-.s e, rJ.O'.-ed h"; the code authorities, 
honever, the nost eouitahle appears to he the s-steu of having one flat 
charfje for lahels rrith acccints aCJusted periodicall:/ to percentage of 
sales. This plan too;: all the '.uosc; ■rorh out of the ratio of pa^^nent 
toi-ard code e:n3enses oet-Tonn irhustry ie::oe.:;r. It had a further achranr- 
tage of r.ialrinc"pa;,^nent o" code easier for the industr;^ raen- 
her in that /"^ each da}^, veeh or r.iont.i "rlien lahels rrere purchased, sone 
-oart o" tiie total cost of code administration tos heing paic. for, thus 
'avoidin.-: the necessity of industry nenhers nahing large luup suin pay- 
ments vrhich, of ten-tines, uere difficult to ueet and occasioned many 
industry co-'rolaints. The value o" the nethod could he increased hy 
having v?ried charges for lahels depending upon the price range of pro- 
coicts 'to T/hic-i they -.'ere to oe affi-ed, nith a periodical adjustment 
hased ucon rjercentP^^e of sale-j, thus tending to nake the charge for 
lahels more' nearly approximate the full assessment and thereby reducing 
the amounts of aoney' to he paic 'oi' menhers of the industry at the end 
of each rdji^st'ient period. 

(*) See Report of House and IZershner, "Study of Lahels as a Means of 
Haisin.'' Zevenue" Finance Unit Report. 


- 57 - 





To all persons to whom these presents shall come, Greeting: 

St;ia is to rertifg. That the annexed is a true copy from the Digest of this 
Office of all Assignments, Agreements, Licenses, Powers of Attorney, and other 
instruments of writing, found of record up to and including April 16, 1935 

that may affect DESIGTI LSTTEKS PATKMT prantor' to 

Chnrle? T'oiiney Coiner, I'Rchanicsville, Pa., assif^nor to 
"he Oovern'^ent of the TTnlte'^ States, as represented by 
'.'ational Recovery A'^rilnlstration. 

Deslpn Patent No. 90,'793f riateri September 26, 19'd'6. 

"a placer'' or Similar Article". 

Searche'' frorr' Septen^er 21, 1935. 

Instrur.ent '^ater' Sept. 21, 1935. (AftknowlerlKed) . 
Recor'^e'^ Sept. 22, 1933. Liber 0-15'7 Pafte 230. 

Charier; Toucey Coiner, Charles T. Coiner, Inventor. 

to Design for a plaoajri or 

The Oovern'-ent of the Similar Article. 

Uniter" states as represented petition riatert Sept. 20, 1933. 

by TIational Recovery Des. QO.^gqi: Sept. 26, 1933. 


Assigns entire rlffht, title an*^ interest, for the U. S., in 
sai'l invention as ''esi^ribed in the specification. 

h% testimony uitierrof, I have hereunto set my hand and 

,r.'f.-T7^/ caused the seal of the Patent Ofifice to be affixed, at 

/''\AiivrT^-.>j ^/is\ the City of Washington, this twenty- seventh 

; <S '■-■■■''■•'' '-iJ^ \ v 

.• ,7> 1?"*^v^r.": ■; = ^ -iC "; day of April , in the year of our Lord one 

LJ"^i^>.''',.fu. A^C^-O-^' - thousand nine hundred and thirty- five and of 

\ •'•'7'''\?^^^Si!f''c^" • the Independence of the United States of America the 

"■-..-;V;:~^, ■ one hundred and fifty- ninl 

Chkf of Dwiium. J Commisaioner of Paients. 


- 58 - 


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 In- 
signia of NRA protected by U.S. Design Patent No. 90793^, and may not be reproduced without 
prior written 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 industries 

3. The following requirements apply to all reproductions of Blue Eagles: 

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, 
labels and the like (other than NRA labels specifically 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 indicate 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 Requirements, no Blue Eagle reproduction may vary from the patented 
design, date, registration number, wording or color combination of the official 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, magazine or other peri- 
odical published at regular intervals is authorized to reproduce the Blue Eagle in any 
article about NRA or in the advertisement of any person who has filed with such publication 
a written statement indicating compliance with NRA as described in paragraph 4 of these 

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 Eagle 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 NRA and these Requirements. The 
application must be accompanied by a specimen of the intended reproduction. 

12. These Requirements supersede "NRA Circular No. 1" issued July 23, 1933, and the 
"Interpretation of NRA Circular No. 1" dated September 27, 1933. 

- 59 - 

( C ) 






Made Under 

mFA^jTS & 




M'fr.V Under 



■RA, Manufactured Under 
C REG. NO. 5000 



A 272 y.ri. 

ladies Handbaj t-i 
GoileAiilhonts ^ 


- 60- 


( H ) 



45 Broadvmy 
»*'°"""*" Now York, N. Y. 


After consideration of findings of fact and cvidenon of 
violation embodied in the summary submitted to me by you on 
1935, said findings of fact buing based upon a hearing held by 
you pursuant to Administrativo Order X-155, and after due consid- 
eration of the contentions of the respondent, J hereby direct you 
to suspend the issuance of labels to 

for violation of Article . I further direct that you dispatch 
immediately to the respondent by registered mail a copy of the 
above summary of this case and a copy of this order. 

You are also directed to mail to 

(Appropriate Regional Ccanplianoe Director) 

a oomplote record of this case, as prescribed by Paragraph 14 of 

Administrativo Order No. X-135, on or before 

and to notify both the respondent and myself that you have done so. 

Deem G. Edwards,' 
USA Label Agent* 


- 61- 


■*'^*'' ( ) 


45 BroadiVay 
wTdo OUR PART New York, N.Y. 

Gent 1 omens 

After consideration of findings of fact and evidcnco of 
violation embodied in the r.ummary submitted to me by you on 

1935, said findings of fact being based upon a hearing held 
by you pursuant to Administrative Order No. X-135, and after due 
consideration of the contentions of the respondent, I hereby dis- 
approve your re commendation for the suspension of issuance of 
labels to 

You may appeal from ray decision to 

Mr, L. J. Martin, Chief, 
Compliance Division, NRA, 
Lenox Building, 
Washington, D,C, 

Deo.n G. EdwardsT" 
NRA Label iVgontt 




- 62 - 




45 Broadway 

New Ynrlc. IJ.Y, 


The violationn of the provisions of your Code by the 
respondent having been adjustedj you arc hereby directed to 
resume the issuance of labels to 

upon application therefor and signing of Statcmenb of Complior.coj 

You are also directed to inform this office, and the 
respondent, that this order has been complied witli, and further 
to notify this office when labels are next issued. 

Dean G. Edwards, 
NBA Latnl ft^a-ent. 



i:o. ;:-135. (C0?>2ECTSD COPY) 

rjiGULiiTiors cov^siz'G TIE usn or ]i-.3z:.s uhdhh codss o]:^ 7AI2 con- 



The Division Acj:iini<^.trrtor i'oi- the Te::tilc Division having rendered, 
a report dr^ted Janiiar^' 29, 1935, in respect of this order and duly filed 
of record, r/hid.-: report contains findings that a revision of the rii].es 
and regulations for the administration of provisions in approved 
of Fair Competition providing for the mandator^'- use of labels is necessor;'- 
and uill tend to offsctunte the policies and •niimoses of Title I of the 
rational Indiistrial Hecover-,^ Act, 

rOT7, TH23EF0IG, The National Industrial Hecovery Board pursiiant to 
the a\\thorit7 vested in it by S^ecutive Order ITo. 6859, dated September 
27, 1934, and Executive Order I'o. 6337, dated October 14, 1935, end. 
othenrise, does hereby ap^^rove said report, adopt the findings contained 
therein and does find that the said ruile s and regulations as set forth in 
this Order TTill promote the policies and purposes of Title I of the 
national Industrial Recovery Act, ejid does hereby xirescribe the follo'.'ing 
rules and regiilations for the administrr.tion of provisions in ap-oroved 
Codes of Fair Competition which provide for the mandator;'' tise of labels: 

1. On and after the effective date of this order, Administrative 
Order l"o. X~33 shall cease to be in effect except that: (a) it shall 
govern any cases v/here a Code AuthoritjT has suspended the issue of 
la.bels p^^rs^^ant to its provisions prior to the effective da.te of this 
Order; (b) the rights and obligations of an;' merabt^r of inc'ustr^^ in 
respect to Irbels vrhich have heretofore been issued, shall not be in 
anv v.s.-f affected, provided, thr.t all the terms of Administrative Order 
17o. X~38 have been or are com-iliei, u'ith; and (c) an;"- penalty or liabil- 
ity'' -jjider or arising out of Adj.rinistrrtive Order To. X-38 shall not be 
e?:tingui shed. 

2. Subject to the provisions of this Order and such other rales 
and regulations as may be promulgated by 1T2A the po^7er to issue ajid. 
administer the use of labels whose use is nand.a.toi^;'" is delegated to 
the respective Code Authorities for the industries concerned. 

3. Each such Code Authority slis.ll, vrithin thirty da'/s after the 
effective date of this Order, submit to the national Recover^'' Admin- 
istration, such rules and. regulations for the sale issue and adininis- 
tration of the use of the label as ma;'' be necessar;'' to car:';'' out the 
provisions of this Order. Such rules and regulations shall not be in 
conflict rdth this and with paragraphs 1 and 2 of Administr-tive 
Order i'o. X-36, and sliall be siabject to any amendatory of supplementary^ 
Order issued by IHA. S"ach rules and regulations and any rules a-nd. regu- 
lations which ma;'' be submitted by way of amendment or addition thereto 
shall be deemed a,-3proved and shall become effective fourteen (14) daj^s 
after the*' been submitted ■unless disapproved or amended bj'' the nation- 
al Recover'' Adrainistra,tion within such period. The national Recover;'- Ad.min- 
istration, after giving interested "oarties such notice and o-oport-unity to 
9859 ' 


further re-oresents tlirt he v.-ill ur-e laoels issued to him only on 
r.rticles 'jhich rre man-ufactiired and sold in compliance \7ith the 
provisions of the Code and of the Act and \;ith the nxles and 
regulations duly adopted purcojant thereto and only an long as he 
continues to comply uith said provisions, ru.les and re,jialations." 

9. Ho person shall, for the puroose of ohtaining Ir.bels issued 
by an;::' Code Authoi-ity of any industry falsely represent to such Code 
Authorit3'- that he is in coupliance v/ith the Code for -uch industry 
or T.'ith the national Industrial Hecoveiy Act or nith the rules or 
regulations du].y adopted pursua.nt to such Code or Act. 

10. \rneii an apr'licaiit shall have signed ffich a statement, the 
Code Authorit"- shall, within three (3) business days after the receipt 
of the application and statement, isjsue tiie required latels to the 
applicant ercept as hereinafter jrovided. 

11. Upon application for the initial ir-sue of labels, the l^RA 
Label Agenc;- designated by the Compliance and Enforcement Dire.ctor of 
the i^3A, may upon a shorring by the Code Authorit^^ of reasonable cause, 
extend such three day period to permit such Code Authority to determine 
the trath of the statements contained in such a"oplication and statement. 
If, after investigation, the Code Authority has reason to believe that 
there have been violations of the provisions of the Code, or of the Act, 
or of an;- rule or regulation duly adopted pursuajit thereto by ree^son of 
\7hich the applicant should be denied the issue of Irbels, such Code 
Authorit"' may, after following the procedure hereinafter provided for the 
s^ASoension of the issue of labels, recommend to the ITRA Label Agency that 
the initial issue of lo.bels to s^^ch applicant be denied. The filing of . 
such recommendation sliall automatically e::tend the time for the initial 
issue of labels until the determination of such recommendation 'by such 
agency. Tlie ITSA Label Agenc" shall have the poi.rer to approve or. disapprove 
such recommendation in accordance nith the procedure hereinafter provided 
for the suspension of labels. 

12. TThenever a Code Authority shall have reason to believe that 
anyone subject to its Code has violated an;' provision thereof or any rule 
or regulation duly adopted pursuant thereto or pursuant to the national 
Industrial Hecovery Act, it may recommend to the IIRL Label Agency, after 
a hearing conducted in accordance \.'ith the follorjing procedure, that the 
issue of labels be su.spended. 

(a.) notice of her.ring shall be dispatched to respondent 
by registered raa,il at least three (.3) business da3'-s prior to the 
de,te of the hearing ^rhen the hearing is held at a place not more 
than ten (lO) hours railroad traveling distance from the tovm 
TThere the violation is alleged to have occurred, and at least 
ten (lO) days "orior to the tete of the hearing in all other 
cases. Written T7aiver b;^ the respondent of such notice siiall 
constitute sufficient compliance vith this provision. The 
notice shall indica.te the nature and the principal elements of 
the violation of the code provisions ■'."ith nhich the respondent is 
charged. It sha.ll further state that as a result of the hearing, 
the Code Authority may recommend the sus-oension of the issue of 



labels to the respondent. The notice shall be accom-;ianied by a 
copj'- of this Order. 

(b) The hearing mav be held b3'- the Code Authority or by anjr 
agency authorized by it. Complainants or persons v/ho have pa.rtici- 
pated in the investigation v/hich preceded the hearing shall not act 
as members of the tribunal before ■(Thich the hearing is conducted, nor 
shall anjT- member of such tribunal participate in the presentation of 
the complaint or testii3r at the hearing. Tlie presiding officer of 
such tribunal shall not be a member of the industrj^-. . 

13. If, after such hearing, the Code Authority or its agent for 
this purpose believes that there is sufficient evidence of violation 
to Justify such action, the Code Authority or its agent may recommend 
to the ITIA Label Agency that the issue of labels to such member of 
industry be suspended. Such recommendations shall be accompanied by 
findings of fact a.nd by prima facie evidence of the violation embodied 

in a si^Jiimary including the essential facts of the case and the contentions 
of the respondent. Upon receipt and considerp.tion of such summar^r and such 
other material as it may deem necessar-/, the i3lA Label Agency'- may direct the 
Code Authority to suspend the issue of labels pending further action as 
hereinafter provided. In the event that such iJHA Label Agency directs the 
suspension of the issue of labels, the Code Authority shall immediately 
dispatch to respondent by registered mail a copj'' of the summary and of the 
order of the KRA Label Agency. If the ITRA Label Agenc;' disapproves the 
recommendation of the Code Authority of fails to act v/ithin five (5) days, 
the Code Authority may appeal to the Compliance and Enforcement Director. 

14. If the ITBA Label Agency approves such recommendation the Code 
Authorit;- shall, within five (5) business days of such approval mail a 
com'olete record of the case including the notice of hearing (or \7aiver 

of such notice), the record of the hearing and all pertinent correspondence' 
between the Code Authority and respondent v;ith reference to the alleged 
violation to the Compliance and Enforcement Director and shall simultaneouslj'' 
notify the ITA. Label Agency and the respondent that it has done so. The re~ 
spondent shall have the right to appeal to the Compliance and Enforcement 
Director from an adverse decision of the HRA Label Agenc]' and shall be given 
a hearing if he so requests. In the event that the respondent does not e::— 
ercise such right of appea-1 tlie Compliance and. Enforcement Director shall, 
upon the record, or after further hearing of rrhich the Code Authorit^'^ E-nd 
the respondent involved shall have notice and opportunity to be heard, 
approve, disapprove or modify the action of the I3IIA Label Agency and. viith— 
draw the right to use labels or take siich other action as he maj'' deem nec- 
essary''. Tlie respondent may at all times prior to the final determination 
of the matter by the Compliance and Enforcement Director apply to said 
Compliance and Enforcement Director for an order directing the Code Au- 
thority to issue labels in such quantities as may be proper pending such 
final d.e termination. ITothing herein contained shall limit the power of 
the Compliance and Enforcem.ent Director after a hearing and finding of 
violation to deny the initial issue of labels, to suspend the issue of 
labels or to \7ithdraw the right to use labels in any case in which the 
Code ArLthorit:* and the ITRA. Label Agency or either oX. them have failed to Act. 
The Compliance and Enforcement Director is directed «.nd authorized to order 
the initial issue of labels or the resumption of the issue of labels or to 
restore the right to use labels if he shall determine such action to be in 
the interests of compliance with a code. 



15. ITo Coc.e Authority shell tah'e the final r.ction of denying the in- 
itial issue of Ir.oels, -^r of sus-oendin;5 the issue of Inhelc, or of with- 
drc.T7in^ the ri^ht to use latels, or of resiuaing the isr.ue of labels or of 
restoring- th.e --'iGlit to use ].al)-."ls \uiless the Com-oliaucv; and Ei^forcement 
Director or the ":A Label Ae;ency shall prior to the ta'dn-s of s\ich action 
issue an order a.p-^rovinp; and directing, such action. If the respondent 
shall have sttisfied the Co-roliance and Enforcemert Director that he is 

in full conpliance vith the Code and the national Inc'ustrial Recovery Act 
and ar^y rulo ar.d regulation duJ.y adopted oursuant to said act, the Com- 
TDliance ard S-.iforcernent Director shai.l forthvrith is^uo and order direct- 
ing the Co'."-e Authority to resitne the isnue of labels to the respondent 
and restore tr. the respondent the right to use such labels. The Code Au- 
thoritjT- shrJ.l ditnly nith orders of the WJi. Label Agency or of the Com- 
pliance a,nd nnforcenont Director. The Code Authority shall not give or 
authorize ar^r -?ublicity in case of alleged violation until adjustment has 
been eff octed or vjitil the IIIIA Label Agency ha.s directed the suspension 
■or denial of tho issue of labels and shall, in ar.y event, v.'ithhold -oubli- 
city if so ordered by the lElA. Label Agency or the C 'nroliance and Enforce- 
ment Director. 

16. l-eithcr the Code Authority nor any officer nor any em-oloyc;e 
thereof shr.ll irroose, demand or accept a.ny fine or mahe the payment of a 
fine a condition -irecedent to not recomuending the denial or suspension 
of the isGue of labels, nor shall it or they demajid Qr accept the i^ay- 
ment of the costs of investigation 'Tithout the e::q)ress ap or oval of the 
NHA Label Ai'ency. 

17. ITo Ghar;-:e for labels shall talce effect imtil aiD-oroved by liRA, 
and such charge shr.ll be subject to the suToervision, modification and dis- 
approval 01 the national Reco'^'-ery Administration. Thsre shall be no dif- 
ference in the charge for labels to be placed upon the same. or similar 
articles to different members of the sane industry i-'ithout the a-oproval 

of the 1I?JI. 

18. (a) ITo Code Authority shall spend funds derived from the sale 
of labels e:-;cept imder the provisions of a budget sub.viitted to and duly 
approved b;"" iHA, in complia.nce v^ith the -orovisions of its Code, nara- 
graphs 1 a,nd 2 of Administrative Order ITo. X-36, and any order amendatory 
or su-DTDlenenta.r;"- thereto. Sucl: f\mds na.j'- be eroended by the Code Author- 
ity only dvjring the -oeriod covered by such ap-oroved budget e^icept a.s -IRA 
may otherTrise authorize. 

(b) Code Authorities operating under the provisions of an r,p- 
proved budget sha.ll submit a budget covering the -ioeriod immedia.tely sub- 
sequent, not la.ter than forty-five (45) 6.ays -rrior to the e::n?iration of 
the period covered by the a.poroved budget. 

19. 1.' -10 case shall the fronds derived from the sal ■ of labels be 
used to naj:e cor.tributions to trac^e association e^rpenses or to the er.- 
penses of other organizations, eiiceT^t that such fun''''.s ma.y be used to de- 
fray the errpenses of a regularly constituted Coc.s Authority or of such 
agencies of such Coo.e Authority as it nay deen advisa.ble to employ in 
administering its Code to the e::tent iDemiitted by its budget and its Code. 

20. The Code Authority shall such renorts concerning the sale, 
charges, issua-nce, distribution, suspension, '-dthdrawal, investigation 



and adraisistration of the use of labels 'beering tlie VM. insignia as the 
MA may froin time to time require. 

21. The Cora-Dliance anc Enforcement Director may delegate any iDOwers 
conferred uiDon him hy this Order. 

22. Any person violating sections 5, 6, 7, or 9 of these regula- 
tions or using labels after the right to use such latels has been with- 
drawn is subject to the oenalties provided in section 10(a) of the Na- 
tional Industrial Recovery Act. 

23. This Order shall become effective five days from the date of 
its approval, except that paragraphs 17- and 18 shall become effective 
thirty (30 ) days after said '^jffective date. 

l^Tational Industrial Recovery Board, 

W, A. Harriman 
Administrative Officer 

Order Recommended: 

Prentiss L. Coonley, 
Division Administrator. 

Washington, D. 0. 
February 25, 1935, 





Executive Order No. 7075, dated June 15, 1935, established the Division of RevieA' of the 
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 Revie w. 

The study sections set up in t he Division of Review covered these areas: industry 
studies, foreign trade studies, labor studies, trade practice studies, statistical studies, 
legal studies, administration studies, misce llaneous 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 >.istory 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, 
but 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 M ate - 
rials No^ Ig, Contents of Code His to ries , 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 . . , 



-ii - 

set forth the origination of the codes, 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, Tentativ e Ou tlines and Summaries of 
Studies in Process , the materials are fully described). 

I ndustry Studies 

Automobile Industry, An Economic Survey of 

Situminous Coal Industry under Free Competition and Code Regulation, Ecnomic 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 

Lumber 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 


!V omen's Apparel Industry, Some Aspects of the 

T rade P ractic e Studies 

Conmodities, 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. 

Trada Practice Rules of The Federal Trade Commission (1914-1936): A classification for 

comparision with Trade Practice Provisions of NRA Codes. 

Labo r 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 Industris.1 Relations 
PRA Census of Employment, June, October, 1933 
Puerto Rico Needlework, Homeworkers 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 

Approved 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 — 3. 


- iv - 

Part C. Activities of the Code Authorities 

Part D. Code Authority Finances 

Part E. Summary and Evaluation 
Cade Compliance Activities of the NRA 
Code Making Program of the NRA in the Territories, The 
Code Provisions and Related Subjects, Policy Statements Concerning 
Content of HIRA Administrative Legislation 

Part A. Executive and Administrative Orders 

Part B. Labor Provisions in the Codes 

Part C. Trade Practice Provisions in the Codes 

Part D. Administrative Provisions in the Codes 

Part E. Agreements under Sections 4(a) and 7{b) 

Part F. A Type Case: The Cotton Textile Code 
Labels Under NRA, A Study of 

Model Code and Model Provisions for Codes, Development of 

National Recovery Administration, The: A Review of its Organization and Activities 
NRA Insignia 

President's Reemployment Agreement, The 

President's Reemployment Agreement, Substitutions in Connection with the 
Prison Labor Problem under NRA and the Prison Compact, The 
Problems of Administration in the Overlapping of Code Definitions of Industries and Trades, 

Multiple Code Coverage. Classifying Individual Members of Industries and Trades 
Relationship of NRA to Government Contracts and Contracts Involving the Use of Government 

Relationship of NRA with States and Municipalities 
Sheltered Workshops Under NRA 
Uncodified Industries: A Study of Factors Limiting the Code Making Program 

Legal Studies 

Anti-Trust Laws and Unfair Competition 

Collect ive Bargaining Agreements, the Right of Individual Employees to Enforce 

Commerce Clause, Federal Regulation of the Employer-Employee Relationship Under the 

Delegation of Power, Certain Phases of the Principle of, with Reference to Federal Industrial 
Regulatory Legislation 

Enforcement, Extra-Judicial Methods of 

Federal Regulation through the Joint Employment of the Power of Taxation and the Spending 

Government Contract Provisions as a Means of Establishing Proper Economic Standards, Legal 
Memorandum on Possibility of 

Industrial Relations in Australia, Regulation of 

Intrastate Activities Which so Affect Interstate Commerce as to Bring them Under the Com- 
merce Clause, Cases on 

Legislative Possibilities of the State Constitutions 

Post Office aad Post Road Power — Can it be Used as a Means of Federal Industrial Regula- 

State Recovery Legislation in Aid of Federal Recovery Legislation History and Analysis 

Tariff Rates to Secure Proper Standards of Wages and Hours, the Possibility of Variation in 

Trade Practices and the Anti-Trust Laws 

Treaty Making Power of the United States 

War Power, Can it be Used as a Means of Federal Regulation of Child Labor? 

9768 — 4. 


- V - 


The Evidence Studies were originally undertaken to gather material for pending court 
cases. After the Sohechter 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 

Boot and Shoe Manufacturing Industry 
Bottled Soft Drink Industry 
Builders' Supplies Industry 
Canning Industry 
Chemical Manufacturing Industry 
Cigar Manufacturing Industry 
Coat and 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. 

Asphalt Shingle and Roofing Industry Fertilizer Industry 

Business Furniture Funeral Supply Industry 

Candy Manufacturing Industry Glass Container Industry 

Carpet and Rug Industry Ice Manufacturing- Industry 

Cement Industry Knitted Outerwear Industry 

Cleaning and Dyeing Trade Paint, Varnish, ana Lacquer, Mfg. Industry 

Coffee Industry Plumbing Fixtures Industry 

Copper and Brass Mill Products Industry Rayon and Synthetic Yarn Producing Industry 

Cotton Textile Industry Salt Producing Industry 

Electrical Manufacturing 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 carec 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.