NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION
CODE OF FAIR COMPETITION
COTTON GARMENT INDUSTRY
AS APPROVED ON SEPTEMBER 27, 1934
WE DO OUR PART
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
Farsolby tbe Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D.C - Price cents
Approved Code No. 118-Amendment No. 8
Registry No. 217-1-06
This publication is for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C., and by district offices of the Bureau of Foreign
and Domestic Commerce.
DISTRICT OFFICES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Atlanta, Ga.: 504 Post Office Building.
Birmingham, Ala.: 257 Federal Building.
Boston, Mass.: 1801 Customhouse.
Buffalo, N.Y.: Chamber of Commerce Building.
Charleston, S.C.: Chamber of Commerce Building.
Chicago. Ill.: Suite 1706, 201 North Wells Street.
Cleveland, Ohio: Chamber of Commerce.
Dallas, Tex.: Chamber of Commerce Building.
Dttroit, Mich.: S01 First National Bank Building.
Houston, Tes.: Chamber of Commerce Building.
Indianapolis, Ind.: Chamber of Commerce Building.
Jacksonville, Fla.: Chamber of Commerce Building.
Kansas City, Mo.: 1028 Baltimore Avenue.
Los Angeles, Calif.: 1163 South Broadway.
Luuisville,-Ky.: 40S Federal Building.
Memphis, Tenn.: 229 Federal Building.
Minneapolis, Minn.: 213 Federal Building.
New Orleans, La.: Room 225-A, Customhouse.
New York, N.Y.: 734 Customhouse.
Norfolk, Va.: 406 East Plume Street.
Philadelphia, Pa.: 422 Commercial Trust Building.
Pittsburgh, Pa.: Chamber of Commerce Building.
Portland, Oreg.: 215 New Post Office Building.
St. Louis, Mo.: 506 Olive Street.
San Francisco, Calif.: 310 Customhouse.
Seattle, Wash.: S09 Federal Office Building.
Approved Code No. 118-Amendment No. 8
AMENDMENT TO CODE OF FAIR COMPETITION
COTTON GARMENT INDUSTRY
As Approved on September 27, 1934
APPROVING AMENDMENT TO THE CODE OF FAIR COMPETITION FOR THE
COTTON GARMENT INDUSTRY
Hearings having been duly held in full compliance with the pro-
visions of Title I of the National Industrial Recovery Act, approved
June 16, 1933, in connection with amendments to the Code of Fair
Competition for the Cotton Garment Industry and the annexed re-
port on said amendments containing findings with respect thereto
having been made and directed to the President,
NOW, THEREFORE, on behalf of the President of the United
States, I, Hugh S. Johnson, Administrator for Industrial Recovery,
pursuant to authority vested in me by the Code of Fair Competition
for the Cotton Garment Industry, by Executive Orders of the Presi-
dent, including Executive Order No. 6543-A, dated December 30,
1933, and otherwise; do hereby incorporate, by reference, said an-
nexed report and do find that said amendments and the Code as con-
stituted after being amended comply in all respects with the per-
tinent provisions and will promote the policy and purposes of said
Title of said Act, and do hereby order that said amendments be and
they are hereby approved, and that the previous approval of said
Code is hereby modified to include an approval of said Code in its
entirety as amended; such approval to take effect fourteen (14)
days from the date hereof unless some good cause to the contrary is
shown to the Administrator prior to that time and the Administrator
issues a subsequent order to that effect.
The Administrator may on the first Monday of December 1934, or
thereafter, hold such hearing as he may specify to determine the
effect of the operation of these amendments and whether they should
be continued or modified.
HUGH S. JOHNSON,
Administrator for Industrial Recovery.
SOL A. ROSENBLATT,
REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT
The lWhite House.
SIR: On June 18, 1934, a Public Hearing was called to consider
amendments to the Code of Fair Competition for the Dress Manu-
facturing Industry, the Code of Fair Competition for the Men's
Clothing Industry, and the Code of Fair Competition for the Cotton
Garment Industries. Matters of various subjects were heard, among
which was the problem of placing manufacturers of cotton house
dresses under the provisions of the Dress Manufacturing Industry
Code or the Cotton Garment Code, whichever Code would be most
applicable to such manufacturers. These amendments are part of
the results of this hearing. Every person who requested was fairly
heard in accordance with the rules of the National Recovery
When the Code of Fair Competition for the Dress Manufacturing
Industry and of the Cotton Garment Industry were approved on
October 31, 1933, and November 17, 1933, respectively, there were
contained in the definitions of each of these Codes general and vague
references to a type of product, and neither code contained defini-
tions evenly remotely satisfactory or practical as a means of limiting
the coverage or scope of either code on this product. As a conse-
quence, much serious overlapping and unfair competition has re-
sulted, primarily because of very marked differences in the wage
provisions of the Codes. The one provided for a minimum of $12
and $13 for a forty (40) hour work week and the other for minimum
rates for operators of from $15.50 to $26.25 for a thirty-five (35) hour
At the time of the adoption by the Cotton Garment Industry of its
Code of Fair Competition, this possible controversy was foreseen and
the Code as approved contained a provision an excerpt from which
is as follows:
The products covered by Section A, paragraphs 8 (cotton wash
dresses) are included in this Code pending the prompt
holding of such further hearing on such notice as the Administrator
in his discretion may fix, and the final determination of whether the
definitions of any of them shall be modified or eliminated or whether
any of the subdivisions shall continue to be included in this Code."
A further provision was contained in the Code, namely Section D
of Article 2, which provided in part as follows:
If there arises any dispute as to whether such product
is covered by the provisions of this or another code the
Administrator may, after notice and hearing, decide under which
code the product or subdivisional industry manufacturing the same
Anticipated disputes did arise and hearings were held, as a result
of which, there was appointed, by Order of December 14, a Special
Administrator for the purpose of classifying dress manufacturers
as between the two codes, and of making a study and report or
recommendations with respect to amendments to the Dress Manu-
facturing Code and of the Cotton Garment Code concerning defini-
tions and wage rates and/or hours of manufacture of such dresses ".
This Order, by its own terms, was to expire on July 1, 1934, and
further provided that the Special Administrator appointed under
it should on or before that date make a report with recommenda-
tions. It was intended that on the basis of this report and other
proceedings, the Administrator would take further steps to arrive
at a permanent solution of the matter by proper amendments to the
Codes. The Special Administrator who was appointed under this
Order did, during his incumbency as Special Administrator, classify
on the basis of reports, information and hearings a large number of
manufacturers, to-wit, something over 500 in number. Notwithstand-
ing the provisions of this Order, the Cotton Garment Code Author-
ity issued labels for the manufacture of house dresses to a substantial
number of firms who had not been classified by the Special Adminis-
trator as being entitled to operate under the Cotton Garment Code,
so that in total approximately 700 firms made dresses to which they
attached cotton garment labels during this period. In general, a
very chaotic condition resulted which was most unsatisfactory to
all elements-the so-called legitimate house dress manufacturers
fully as much as the dress industry. As a result of this chaos, the
Dress Code Authority filed an application for an amendment for the
Cotton Garment Code, and on the basis of this application, public
hearing was held. After this public hearing and the report of the
Special Administrator, conferences and discussions were held by the
Administration with the various groups involved, separately and
Following is a summary of what appear to be the salient facts of
There is a group of manufacturers to whom undue hardship might
result from the application to them of all provisions of the Dress
Code. However, the problem of delimiting this group and ascertain-
ing just exactly what degree of relief would remedy the alleged
hardship, without at the same time creating new conditions of unfair
competition, was and is an extremely difficult one. Further, the
product which this group makes, while clearly distinguishable in its
very lowest price ranges from the products made by the Dress Code
manufacturers, reaches a point which the Special Administrator
referred to above "Where the two lines of manufacture overlap they
can hardly be distinguished by fibre, price or styling."
The great difference between the wage and hour provisions of the
two Codes creates such a labor cost differential that large numbers
of manufacturers, who never were house dress manufacturers within
the knowledge or memory of anybody in the Industry, clamor to be
given the right to operate under any conditions and terms designed
to afford relief to the so-called legitimate house dress manufacturers,
which, if permitted, would give these groups very large and utterly
unjustifiable competitive advantages over both dress manufacturers
under the Dress Code and such legitimate house dress manufacturers
as might conceivably be entitled to some measure of relief. Such
manufacturers merely want to pay wages as low as possible.
Throughout this entire discussion the Dress Code Authority has
consistently maintained that the manufacture of dresses is one indus-
try, and, until it is all included in one code, the problem cannot be
From this welter of fact, conjecture and opinion, the following
recommendations are made in order to effect a sound solution of the
(1) That the definition of cotton wash dresses in the Cotton Gar-
ment Code be amended to include only dresses of linen or of chief
content of cotton selling at wholesale to retailer up to and including
$22.50 per dozen.
(2) That all dresses selling at wholesale to retailer at over $22.50
per dozen come under the Dress Code.
Under this arrangement a very definite line is drawn between the
dresses which may be manufactured under the Cotton Garment Code
and those that must be manufactured only under the Dress Code.
This solution of the problem does not estop the manufacturers of
dresses of the price range above $22.50 per dozen from requesting
and obtaining such relief as circumstances justify if unfair competi-
tion or undue hardship is shown.
It has been shown that a comparatively small volume of dresses
of linen or of chief content of cotton wholesaling at below $22.51
per dozen have been manufactured heretofore by members of the
Dress Manufacturing Industry operating under the Dress Code;
also that a comparatively small volume of cotton dresses whole-
saling at over $22.50 per dozen have been manufactured by the
so-called legitimate house dress manufacturers. No real hardship
will be imposed upon anyone by the limits defined. If a house dress
manufacturer wishes to manufacture dresses wholesaling at $22.50
per dozen he may do so under the terms of the Dress Code and, if
circumstances justify, the Administrator may make exemptions in
individual cases in order to prevent undue hardship. Enforcement
by the Code Authorities can only be accomplished by a clear cut
decision with a minimum of overlapping.
The amendments are in four (4) parts as follows:
Part 1. Amends-Definitions, Article II, Section A of the Code by
striking out the words "cotton wash dresses" and inserting,
"dresses of linen or of chief content of cotton selling at wholesale
to retailer up to and including $22.50 per dozen "
Part 2. Further amends-Definitions, Article II, by deleting Sec-
tion B, which defines cotton wash dresses" for the purpose of the
provisions of the Code as originally approved.
Part 3. Amends-Administration, Article IX, Section B, by re-
moving the name "The National Association of Cotton Dress Manu-
facturers" appearing in Item 10 of said Section B, and inserting in
place thereof "The National Association of House Dress Manufac-
Part 4. Amends-Unfair Trade Practices, Article XI, by adding
as Section D, a provision making it an unfair trade practice and a
violation of the Code to attach labels issued under the Code to any
garment not specifically included within the Code.
The Deputy Administrator in his final report to me on said amend-
ments to said Code having found as herein set forth and on the basis
of all the proceedings in this matter:
I find that:
(a) The amendments to said Code and the Code as amended are
well designed to promote the policies and purposes of Title I of the
National Industrial Recovery Act including the removal of obstruc-
tions to the free flow of interstate and foreign commerce which tend
to diminish the amount thereof, and will provide for the general
welfare by promoting the organization of industry for the purpose
of cooperative action of labor and management under adequate gov-
ernmental sanction and supervision, by eliminating unfair competi-
tive practices, by promoting the fullest possible utilization of the
present productive capacity of industries, by avoiding undue restric-
tion of production (except as may be temporarily required), by
increasing the consumption of industrial and agricultural products
through increasing purchasing power, by reducing and relieving
unemployment, by improving standards of labor, and by otherwise
(b) The Code as amended complies in all respects with the perti-
nent provisions of said Title of said Act, including without limita-
tion sub-section (a) of Section 3, sub-section (a) of Section 7 and
sub-section (b) of Section 10 thereof.
(c) The amendments and the Code as amended are not designed
to and will not permit monopolies or monopolistic practices.
(d) The amendments and the Code as amended are not designed
to and will not eliminate or oppress small enterprises and will not
operate to discriminate against them.
(e) Those engaged in other steps of the economic process have not
been deprived of the right to be heard prior to approval of said
(f) The Code empowers the Administrator to take the within
For these reasons these amendments have been approved.
HUGH S. JOHNSON,
SEPTEMBER 27, 1934.
AMENDMENT TO CODE OF FAIR COMPETITION FOR
THE COTTON GARMENT INDUSTRY
The Code of Fair Competition for the Cotton Garment Indu1tq,;
approved November 17, 1933, and subsequently amended, is her1. :
amended as follows: t,'::
1. In Article II, Section A of said Code, item (8), the words:';,
"cotton wash dresses" are stricken out and the words "dresses of:i:
linen or of chief content of cotton selling at wholesale to the retail :!.
up to and including $22.50 per dozen are inserted.
2. Section B of Article II is deleted.
3. Section B of Article IX is amended by striking out the words
"The National Association of Cotton Dress Manufacturers" -ap-
pearing in item (10) of the official copy of the Code and insertig
in place thereof The National Association of House Dress Mann-
4. Article XI is amended by adding Section D as follows:
"D. It shall be an unfair trade practice and a violation of this
Code to attach N. R. A. labels issued hereunder to any garment not
specifically included within this Code." j
Approved Code No. 118-Amendment No. 8.
Registry No. 217-1-06." ;:
3 1262 986