Rehearing of the Philippine Mahogany Case Begins at Los Angeles

D.

Hearings in the Philippine Mahogany case instituted by the Federal Trade Commission against the Gillespie Furniture Company began at Los Angeles on June 2. This is a reopening of the case which was tried several years ago when seven Respondents were ordered to discontinue the use of the name "Philippine Mahogany" as applied to certain rvoods imported from the Philippines. As a result of this decision many concerns and users of wood, of which the Gillespie Furniture Company is one, requested the Federal Trade Commission to institute new proceedings.

Williarn C. Reeves is presiding at the hearing. Edward L. Smith and C. D. Sadler are the attorneys for the Commission, while the Respondent is represented by W. D. Martin. At the conclusion of the hearing in Los Angeles, hearings will be held at San Francisco and Seattle.

D. J. Cahill, president of the Western Hardwood Lumber Co., Los Angeles, when interviewed by a representative of this paper in connection with the case, stated:

"The present Philippine Mahogany case is, in effect, a re-hearing of the old case which was tried by the Federal Trade Commission several years ago. In the old case, seven respondents were ordered to cease and desist from using the term 'Philippine Mahogany' as applied to the well-known lumber imported from the Philippine Islands. The decision was based on findings of fact, some of which disparaged Philippine Mahogany as a cabinet wood and also attempted to establish the botanical classification for lumber. On appeal the Circuit Court of Appeals in New York affirmed the decision on the ground that the court could not go behind the findings of fact where there was any evidence whatever to support such findings, and this decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals rvas left unchanged when a petition for a writ of certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court. The old decision is binding on no one except the respondents in that case and such others who have since then voluntarily agreed .to a stipu- lation with the Federal Trade Commission.

"One Circuit Court judge stated that the findings were contrary to the weight of the evidence. Numerous dealers felt that the old decision was an injustice to a very large industry of an insular possession of the United States, which has been built up over the course of the past twentyfive years. They knew that Philippine Mahogany was an excellent lumber available in large quantities and fine qual- ity, and that the finding of non-suitability for cabinet purposes by the Commission was erroneous in every sense of the word.

"They r,r'ere also convinced that the old case has been brought at the instigation of other mahogany interests, im- porting their lumber from foreign countries, due to the fact that the Philippine Mahogany lumber industry was making heavy inroads on their business.

"Because of this situation, certain Philippine Mahogany dealers and users, of which my company was one, requested the Federal Trade Commission to bring new complaints against them so that a re-hearing could be had, at which these dealers would have the opportunity to develop the fact that Philippine Mahogany, while not in all cases as fine a cabinet wood as the older mahoganies, nevertheless bore a close resemblance in appearance and characteristics to the other mahoganies, was suitable for the same purposes, and was therefore entitled to the name 'Philippine Mahogany'. Emphasis was placed on the fact that Philippine Mahogany is widely used, especially on the West Coast, as a first class furniture and cabinet wood, and for house trim.

"As a result of these requests, the Federal Trade Commission filed a number of complaints against dealers in and users of Philippine Mahogany, including my company, and by agreement, the Gillespie Furniture Company was selected as the respondent in the case first to be tried.

"The Federal Trade Commision has also filed a complaint against an Eastern concern for the use of the term 'African Mahogany' as applied to the lumber generally sold under that name, to determine whether the word 'Mahogany' should be restricted solely to those mahoganies which fall within the botanical classification 'Sweitenia'. Neither African Mahogany nor Philippine Mahogany is Sweitenia.

"Friends of Philippine Mahogany are determined that the facts with reference to the fine qualities of this lumber shall be brought out in the hearings now being held. They feel that the question in this proceeding is not whether all Philippine Mahogany lumber will make as fine furniture as some of the better grades of the older mahoganies, but rather rvhether Philippine Mahogany is, in itself, a firstclass cabinet wood and whether it will make first-class furniture and other cabinet work. In the old case coniiderable testimony was taken in the attempt to show that it was necessary to treat Philippine Mahogany in some cases slightly difierent from Sweitenia mahoganies in order to secure an equally acceptable finish. The wide and growing use of Philippine Mahogany by furniture manufacturers, however, shows that this condition, if it does exist, is causing no concern to the manufacturers of today. In some of the antique finishes Philippine Mahogany is conceded to take a better finish than the Sweitenia mahoganies. Philippine Mahogany is making a name for itself as cabinet wood."