-45-


it necessary to write one that in his judgment would meet
the needs of the case. However, it is evident fearing it
might later be found in a disclosure of further data that
his conclusions were not 1011o correct the provision stated
above was written in the order. I think this was wise for
it later proved of value in the first steus taken toward
re-uniting this industry, .

 Volunes A and B and General Files are filled with
petitions P&airlqst and protests from Ilembers of Industry,
Chambers of Corn erce, L.bor Unions, Retail Stores and Trade
Associations, not to forget lawyers tih-t "ere sent in dur-
ing the months of October, Hovember and December, 19 5 and
January and February, 1954.

 The protests f,.ll into four n-jor groups, objections
to Discounts Lrbor Classification, lack of wage dif-
ferentials, representation.

 Anpprently almost every one wvs exhausted ,by the
anoroval date f)r Out eight protestnts came forward under
Executive Order 620F. B, and these were heard in public
hearing May 7, 1934. The follo-ring Pre the names:

 Hudson Leather Goods Inc., 11yack, ITew York
 G. R. Godfrey Company, Gardner, IHassacnusetts
 Paragon Irovelty Bag Comnany, Inc., Tlewburgh, flew York
 Uneeda 2elt Comuany, lie-burgh, Hfew York
 flewburgh Handbag Comuany, lewburgh, flew York
 Licht & Kaiplan Inc., Ne'.vburgh, flew York
 Strand Leather Goods Company, Inc., I'ew York City
 Virginia Art Goods Studios Inc., Lynchburg, Virginia

 There was doubt ss to the validity of the last named
protest, Virginia Art, but Division Administrator Rosenblatt
allowed them to be included in the public herring held May 7,
1934 before Assistant Deputy Worthy,-. (See Transcript Public
Hearing and vrith reference to action upon Virginia Art see
page 85 of same. Also see Appendir IA for digest of Protests.)

 These .'rotc-:ts were CA st llo'.'ed in 0-( er. ITc. .32 -
 5- 6 7 vith thie ex-cL,,tion of Vii iiila Art "'hich wa', n paDD'-
 -*clA left in r-beyancc -1c. l thiii I 3holl trcat later.


9811