Philippine Mahogany Association Makes Statement of Facts

'We are informed that the customers of some of our members are being told that the United States Courts have forbidden the-use of the term "Philippine Mahogany" and the sale of Philippine l\fahogany, under that name' Those making this slitement are misinformed, and, in order to make this matter clear to the lumber trade, may we ask you to print the following facts of the case:

The Federal Trade Commission (which is not a United States Court) acting on a complaint instigated by manufacturers of certain -ompeting woods, have issued a "cease and desist" order to several of our members against the advertising and sale of Philippine Mahogany, under that name.

This "order" is entirely without force unless approved by a Federal Court, to which we shall appeal and where we have every expectation of a reversal of this order.

The testimony showed clearly that Philippine Mahogany rvas not botanically Mahogany and had never been sold as such.

That a large percentage of the other Mahoganies now marketed in the United States are not botanicallv Mahogany.

That P-hilippine Mahogany is a well recognized commercial Mahogany with the characteristic grain, figure, and other qualities of Mahogany.

That West Indian ("True" Mahogany) is practically extinct.

That there is a shortage of Meicican.

That "African" and "Philippine" are both good substitutes for "True" Mahogany (Swietenia) and are much alike.

The prominent technical authorities, in addition to many large users, who testified on behalf of Philippine Mahogany, included such well known names as:

C. D. Mell-Author of most of the Government Bulletins on Mahogany and tropical woods. Co-author with S. J. Record of "Tropical Woods of America."

Prof. Harry P. BrownWood Technologist, Syracuse University.

Hon. Arthur F.-Fischer-Head of the Forestry Bureau of the Philippines.

Dr. Funk-Director "fnternational Dictionary" which lists Philippine Mahogany.

Dr. Rusby-Dean of School of Pharmacy, Columbia University, etc., etc.

Frank

There has been an endiavor, on the part of the Federal Trade Commission, and certain competitors, to inject an atmosphere of "fraud" into this controversy

A sufficient answer to this cry of "Fraud" is a list of the many hundred prominent lumber dealers who have handled the wood for vears.

Would the Philippine Government have intervened on our behalf if there was a taint of fraud on our side of the case ? Is it likely that General Wood, whose last words to the President of this Association, four days before his death, were "Keep up this fight; we have justice on our side and I'll back you to the limit," would approve of a "fraud" ?

As a matter of fact, there has never been a new wood introduced that grew so steadily in favor on its actual merits. This is proved by the fact that the sales in the United States have risen from a few hundred thousand feet per year fifteen years ago, to twenty-eight million feet last year.

The case is being fought as much for the dealers, manufacturers and consumers directly concerned, as for the Philippine Mahogany Association.

We are fighting for several things:

To prevent the destruction of the business of our members.

To prevent illegitimate departmental interference with legitimate business.

To break what practically amounts to a monopoly controlled by the foreign wood importers.

To give the .consumer of cabinet woods a better value for his money.

In this fight, we feel we represent not only our own members, but the lumber trade at large, as well as the great body of consumers.

Judging by the comments of the lumber press, we believe we have the support of most of the hardwood lumber trade in our battle which we intend to prosecute with all the vigor at our command.

'We are just advised by our attorneys that Judge McCullouch of the Federal Trade Commission has ioined with Judge Humphreys in his dissenting opinion.

Signed: H. L. BLAKE, Secy., Philippine Mahogany Assn., 221 East Avenue, Long Island City, N. Y.