Why and What is Phitippine Mahogany

By Walter G. Scrim, United States Representative for the Kolambugan Lumber & Development Co., Manila, P. I.

Early in 1925 the Mahogany Association, dealers in African, Central American and Mexican Mahogany, filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commis,sion against certain importers and dealers in Philippine Mahogany, charging said importers and dealers with unfair trade_ practice in selling certiin Philippine woods as "Philippine Mahogany" when-they were not true botanical mahoganies. The case was defended by the Philippine Mahogany Association through their attorney, Mr. Daniel Forbes of Washington, and by the Philippine Government, through the War Department of the United States Government, whose attorney is Major F. G. Munson.

Heirings started in New York City in October, 1925 and for seven-long weary months the Federal Trade Commission wended iis way all over the United States, accumulating evidence, mostly from the man on the street, who had nJ definite knowledge of mahogany or, for that matter, of any other kind of wood. Over 3,C100 pages of evidence was talien by the Commission and the Respondents and over 150 exhibits were submitted and accepted into the record. Enormous expense accrued, not only to the Federal Government but also to the Respondents in the case.

On June l4th arguments in the case were submitted but at the time of going to press no decision has been rendered'

It is a noticeable fact that the manufacturers and dealers in Philippine Mahogany at no time claimed it a true botanical mahogany, as the "swietenia Mahogani" is recognized as the only true botanical mahogany. It was claimed, however, that Philippine Mahogany is a commercial mahogany and is as much entitled to be so classed as African Mahogany and several species of the Central American and Mexican varieties which are being marketed by the members of the Mahogany Association as "Mahogany." It is also noticeable that the dealers in Philippine Mahogany do not want to sell their product without the prefix "Philippine," contending that the wood has sufficient merits of its own to make it popular amongst the wbod users without having it confused with the botanical family "Swietenia Mahogani."

Ths Commission failed to prove by its witnesses that any person had been "deceived" in purchasing Philippine Mahogany, or that there had ever existed any intent on the pait of the manufacturers or dealers in Philippine Mahogany to deceive the public-their wood having been offered and sold on its own merits,

We submit that Philippine Mahogany should not be sold without the qualifying adjective "Philippine," nor should fuiniture made from this wood be sold without tlre qualifying adjective, but, by the same token, African, Columbian, Brazilian and many other commercial mahoganies should not be allowed to be sold without the proper qualifying adjective. General and widespread usage of the commercial term "mahogany'' as applied to different woods in commerce has, without question, informed the buying public that there are several kinds of mahoganies and it seems to us that it would be a reflection on the intelligence of the wood-using public to claim that they would be deceived or expect to receive "Swietenia Mahogani" when they had made a purchase of Philippine or any of the other varieties of commercial mahoganies.

The evidence brought out that practically every department of the United States Federal Government has for years been using the term "Philippine Mahogany" in making up their requisitions and the different branches of the departments of Agriculture and Forestry have used the term consistently in their publications, particularly when describing the products of the Philippine Islands.

It is to be hoped that the Federal Trade Commission will recognize that there does not exist aqd never has existed any intent on the part of the manufacturers and dealers in Philippine Mahogany to deceive the public. It is also to be hoped that the Commission will realize that no ugeful purpose will be served by their interference with the nomenclature of woods which have been in common usage foi years the merits of which have been fully understood by the public.

The dealers on the Pacific Coast will be particularly interested in the decision of this case as Philippine Mahogany has an extensive demand here-particularly for interior trim. Many of the largest buildings in all of the coast cities have been trimmed in this wood with verv satisfactorY re-

Sults.