Now, it seems to me that under the traditional legal rule that the specific statutory reference supersedes the general one, isn't it really pretty clear that it is the third paragraph rather than the first that applies to shipment of furs?

Mr. SHARP. Mr. Classen said before that this section has been on the books for a long time. We all know that. Yes, there is such a principle of law such as you mention. On the other hand, there has been no court decision that holds as to this section of the law that the first paragraph does not apply to an importation of furs; and secondly, I do not see the reason for the duplication.

Mr. MESERVE. Because paragraph 1 requires an accurate statement of the contents on the outside of the container and paragraph 3 only requires the name of the shipper and consignee, it may be that this third paragraph represents an attempt to be responsive to the particular problem raised by the fur industry, namely, that by marking the outside of the container as to contents, it might be stolen. In fact it has not worked, but it seems to me that that is a reasonable interpretation of the differences between the two paragraphs. Mr. SHARP. We lawyers know about this principle that if the legislature has something more specific in mind it is mentioned. But to the fur merchants in one place, the words "dead bodies of parts thereof," are mentioned, as far as he is concerned that is what it means and he believes he may be violating the law. I know of no court decision that says as to section 44 that if you are bringing in a fur which is subject to the third paragraph that it is not subject to the first simply because it is referred to more specifically in the third paragraph. In other words, why cannot the section be clarified for the understanding of men in the trade who, as my client said, do not have highpowered counsel?

Mr. MESERVE. Which paragraph does the trade comply with now? Mr. SHARP. In the first place, I have said that the first should be changed in order to eliminate this tagging and labeling in foreign

commerce.

Mr. MESERVE. Do you think some language in the report, when this bill comes out of committee, which says: "In amending section 44, the committee's attention was drawn to this apparent inconsistency between paragraphs 1 and 3, but in light of general principles of law, that the specific statutory reference supersedes the general one, it is the committee's understanding, in not changing the existing language of paragraphs 1 or 3 of section 44, that paragraph 3 would apply to the fur industry" would help? The committee could then include the amendment that is in the present bill which permits additional changes in the labeling requirements if there is a showing that these requirements would raise a risk of theft.

Mr. SHARP. Since the Department proposes to amend the first paragraph, anyhow, if it is reenacted with some legislative history that says the third paragraph is not intended to cover the things covered by the third paragraph, I will be satisfied and I will see to it these gentlemen are.

Mr. MESERVE. It is an amendment to the section. It would be added to the end of section 44, so it would apply to both paragraphs 1 and 3. What I am saying is that the committee report could make pretty clear that this amendment applies to both sections 1 and 3, but with

out amending this section 44 further, the understanding of the committee is that paragraph 3 is the one that applies to furs.

Mr. SHARP. All right. But I would not want you to forget my other problem as to requiring the names and addresses-if it is the "XYZ Mink Company" to the "ABC Fur Company" everybody knows what is in the package.

Mr. MESERVE. This might be covered by additional regulations which the Secretary of Interior could develop. You would not have to disclose it in a manner which might lead to loss.

Mr. DREISIN. I am not a lawyer and the fine points of law, I must confess, confuse me in this case. Why is it not possible, since everybody seems to be agreed on this particular problem, including the Department of Interior, to use whatever language would come up, and simply add "except fur?" This will take care of the whole matter.

Mr. SHARP. I would agree with that suggestion as to the movement in foreign commerce, because I think both export and import are taken care of by the documents. On the interstate shipments we should not leave it like that.

Mr. DREISIN. I agree that we have been talking about this problem. We seem to be able to find a way in foreign commerce because of the marking of the documents. We have not been able to come up with any solution on interstate commerce, that is quite true. So I would go along with that.

Mr. MESERVE. One final question on the civil penalties problem that you raised. I think some of your points there are well taken. Were you at all satisfied by the Interior Department's position yesterday that if the Secretary assesses the civil penalty, as presumably he would do only after a hearing, the entire penalty proceeding would still be reviewable de novo in a subsequent suit in court to collect on the penalty? Does that calm some of your fears that the Secretary might act arbitrarily?

Mr. SHARP. Who said that?

Mr. MESERVE. Mr. Finnegan said that yesterday. He said that his understanding was that after the penalty was assessed by the Secretary-and there is specific language in the statute which says that a suit to collect the penalty may be brought in the district court by the attorney general-that the district court would have the authority to review the entire penalty proceeding de novo.

Mr. SHARP. Where does that understanding come from?
Mr. MESERVE. This is his reading of the statute.

Mr. SHARP. I do not read it that way. If it is a suit for collection, how would the court have the right to determine the issue de novo? As you know, the general principles on an appeal are that the court does not go into the factual issues anymore. It reviews only the questions of law. I have some question whether the court could review the determination of the penalty. I do not know if the court has anything to do with it except to help enforce the penalty by way of collecting it. I do not read it that way.

I do not think anything should be left uncertain in statutes. Mr. MESERVE. This was the question I raised, and his understanding was that the court could review the entire penalty proceeding.

Mr. SHARP. I do not know where he gets that. As a lawyer, I would not agree with that. If he can show me I would be glad to agree. I do not see that.

A collection proceeding does not permit a review de novo of the facts leading up to the penalty.

Mr. MESERVE. Since apparently you both agree on what the statute should do, it should be a fairly easy job to get you to sit down with Mr. Finnegan and work out some language which would make this

clear.

STATEMENT OF HERMAN RINGELHEIM, REPRESENTING

NEW YORK FUR DRESSERS

My name is Herman Ringelheim. I am executive vice president of Brooklyn Better Bleach, a fur dressing and dyeing firm located in Jersey City, N.J., and operated in the New York fur market. I appear here as the representative of the New York fur dressers.

Our presence at these hearings is prompted at the fact that we were among those sections of the fur industry that were stirred into action late last summer by the news that the House of Representatives had passed H.R. 11618 aimed at protecting animal species threatened with extinction. That bill, we felt, could have done serious harm to our industry.

I was a member of a delegation from the industry that visited the representatives of the Department of the Interior shortly after we became aware of this proposed legislation, to make our views and our fears known. It is a source of great satisfaction to us to realize that our representations to the Department were taken very seriously, and that substantial progress has been made in meeting many of the major objections we raised.

I sincerely hope that by the time these hearings are concluded, neither Congress, nor the Department of the Interior, nor the conservationist organizations will any longer be of the belief that we in the fur industry are opposed to the protection of animals that are threatened with extinction. On the contrary, we recognize clearly that it is only by such protection that we can continue to have available to us, and to the consuming public, the fur skins that provide us with a source of livelihood and the American woman with a number of beautiful and warm fur garments.

Having said this, I must indicate to you gentlemen at least one respect in which none of the proposed bills comes to adequate grips with what we consider a key aspect of this problem-the question of international control, as opposed to unilateral action by our Govern

ment.

Unfortunately, we in the American fur dressing industry can speak from some bitter experience on this score. We have seen other instances where legislation has been passed aimed at achieving one purpose and has accomplished another-and what it has accomplished has been an injury to our industry and to the workers we employ.

Let me be specific. Over 15 years ago, our Government placed an embargo on the shipment into our country of seven Russian fursfurs that formerly provided work for the fur dressing and dyeing and

manufacturing sections of our industry. The stated purpose of this embargo was to weaken the Russian Government and economy during a period when relations bebtween our two countries were at a low point. We now have the benefit of hindsight, and every competent observer has come to the conclusion that the embargo has not hurt the Russians at all, but has hurt us considerably. For the truth is that the Russians still sell these proscribed furs to every other country in the world—including Canada-where they are processed and made into fur garments. What is injuring us is that these skins are processed and manufactured by industries, employers, and workers other than our own.

What is the parallel to the legislation at hand? Simply this: that here, too, we have a case of a measure aimed at accomplishing one thing the protection of endangered species. But unless it is accompanied by some form of joint international action, it would have the effect of simply diverting these skins from our country to some other, while not one single endangered specie would be benefitted. We in the fur industry would have no objection to making a sacrifice for this worthy purpose-but we do object to making sacrifices that simply serve to enrich dealers, processors, labor and manufacturers in other countries where the governments are less squeamish about importing skins of species that are threatened with extinction.

That is why we fur dressers join our other industry colleagues in urging you to amend S. 1280 so as to require positive action by our State Department to insure that other countries which are involved in the trade of these fur skins will pass similar laws. What we are urging is some form of international convention that will be subscribed to by all countries which have the consuming potential for these furs. Then, perhaps, we could make a real contribution toward the protection of endangered species and then, perhaps, whatever sacrifice we might be called upon to make would not be in vain.

We urge you to give considerable thought to this problem, and we stand ready to be of whatever assistance we can to facilitate this multilateral and more effective approach to the conservation of species. Otherwise, we fear, you will not save any animals threatened by extinction, but you will have hastened the extinction of and old and valued industry-the American fur industry.

STATEMENT OF J. GEORGE GREENBERG, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, THE ASSOCIATED FUR MANUFACTURERS, INC.

My name is J. George Greenberg, executive vice president of the Associated Fur Manufacturers, Inc.

My association, together with the United Fur Manufacturers Association of New York represent over 750 firms, employing approximately 7,000 union workers. In addition to which there are probably another 2,500 people employed by these firms.

I would like to make clear to you at the outset that we support and welcome any laws which sensibly promote conservation of animals. However, let me make it equally clear that any restrictions on imports, for whatever reason, will definitely shrink our operations and for that reason must receive very careful consideration.

Restrictions on imports of raw materials curtail our manufacture of finished garments. We have experienced this in the last few years

in connection with the law passed in 1951 restricting the importation of seven Russian furs. That legislation has done a lot of harm to us. Due in large part to that measure, the United States is slowly, but surely losing its position as the world center of furs.

Nothing has indicated this more clearly than the recent Fur Fair in Frankfort, Germany. It was attended by over 50 American business men interested in importing finished garments made of furs not available to the manufacturers in this country due to the embargo. Several million dollars worth of garments of both Chinese and Russian furs made in Europe and in Canada have been purchased by American businesses and are being sold in this country at present, due to the fact that American manufacturers cannot bring the raw materials from which these garments are made into this country for production. The American fur manufacturing industry is therefore already operating under a great disadvantage because of this restricted fur supply. The legislation being considered here today will undoubtedly further reduce our fur supply. In this case, unlike the case of the embargo, we understand the need for the legislation and are prepared to support its aims. But the committee should understand that prohibiting the importation of furs and skins of endangered species without comparable restrictions in other countries will only harm American labor, American industry, and American businesses engaged in the fur trade.

This may be an opportune time therefore to reexamine the matter of the embargo, for its elimination would repair some of the damage that will result from the endangered species legislation. There seems to be a desire to slightly open the door to east-west trade in nonstrategic items. Why not start with furs?

We would greatly appreciate any aid and assistance the members of this committee can provide along these lines.

Senator HART. Gentlemen, thank you very much.

Our next witness is the past president and counsel to the National Association of Importers & Exporters of Hides and Skins, Mr. Bernard Rosston.

STATEMENT OF BERNARD ROSSTON, ESQ., COUNSEL, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF IMPORTERS & EXPORTERS OF HIDES AND SKINS, NEW YORK, N.Y.

Mr. ROSSTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Bernard Rosston. I am past president of the National Association of Importers & Exporters of Hides and Skins, on whose behalf I appear today.

Our association, by its president, has submitted to this committee 2 statement of our position. I would ask that it be put into the record without the necessity of me reading it.

Senator HART. It will be printed in full as though given in full. Mr. ROSSTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Our association, unfortunately, has not seen noted the various amended copies of the bills presently before this committee, and of course, I refer specifically to S. 1280. Our association has taken the position that the bill which was orginally presented to us must be opposed by us.