Before DUFFY, FINNEGAN and LINDLEY, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner asks us to review and set aside an order of the Federal Trade Commission issued November 9, 1949, requiring that petitioner cease and desist making certain representations as to the effectiveness of its products as waterproofing agents. Petitioner manufactured and distributed in interstate commerce products known as Comco 2, Iron Waterproofing; Comco 4, Waterproofing Paste; and Comco 6, Transparent Waterproofing. For the purpose of inducing the purchase of its products petitioner circulated advertising folders, pamphlets and circular letters through the mail. Typical of the statements contained therein are the following:
"You can now permanently stop all leaks and seepage in concrete, brick, stone and tile; also waterproof below water-level basements and pits under pressure. Comco No. 2, our own waterproofing will do the job. This is a special chemical mixture of iron and other chemicals that, when mixed with water only, and brushed into the cracks of walls and floors needing repair will permanently waterproof and stop leaks under all conditions no matter how severe.
"For after-construction waterproofing problems in foundations.Permanently waterproofs concrete, brick, stone and tile walls and floors from either inside or outside. For all classes of construction where a positive waterproof condition is necessary. Successful under all conditions no matter how severe."
"Comco 6, Comco Transparent Waterproofing. A transparent water repellant liquid that effectively seals and waterproofs concrete, brick, stone, stucco, plaster or masonry surfaces. Makes surface permanently non-absorbent."
"Comco 4, Comco waterproofing paste for new construction work. Produces a closemeshed concrete that increases strength and permanently waterproofs. Makes concrete flow easily around reinforcing."
After due notice the first hearing was had in Chicago, Illinois. The two principal officers of petitioner appeared without counsel, and one of them testified. The Commission's attorney there notified petitioner's officers that a subsequent hearing would be held in Washington, D.C. for the purpose of receiving the testimony of three technicians of the National Bureau of Standards as to certain tests which had been made on samples of petitioner's products. Prior to the hearing in Washington the Commission's trial attorney on two occasions suggested to petitioner's officers that an attorney be engaged to represent petitioner. Although timely notified of the time and place, no-one appeared for petitioner at the Washington hearing. During the course of that hearing a letter was received from petitioner requesting a postponement, but the hearing proceeded. However, a subsequent hearing was scheduled for Chicago. Petitioner appeared at the second Chicago hearing with counsel, who moved to strike certain testimony received at the Washington hearing, but did not request an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses who testified at the Washington hearing. Petitioner then submitted the testimony of its secretary-treasurer, and also that of a chemist of a testing laboratory. The latter testified as to the qualitative and quantitative analyses of petitioner's products, but did not testify as to the lasting qualities of the products when applied as directed.
The trial examiner submitted a Recommended Decision. Thereafter the Commission filed findings of fact and conclusions of law, which were in accord with the recommendations of the trial examiner, and entered the cease and desist order.
Petitioner claims that the Commission's order is not supported by substantial evidence. Its principal contention here is that the tests conducted by the Bureau of Standards were made out of the presence of and without notice to the petitioner, and that the testimony of the Bureau of Standards technicians was largely hearsay testimony. Petitioner argues that such testimony should not have been received by the trial examiner or considered by the Commission. Petitioner also contends that because the order as entered is broad in its sweep, it offers no guide for compliance.
The finding as to Comco 2, Iron Waterproofing is supported by substantial evidence. Cyrus Fishburn, a well qualified expert who has been with the Bureau of Standards since 1928, testified as to the results of experiments he conducted with Comco 2. Although he applied three applications to a specimen brick wall, each in accordance with directions, nevertheless water seeped through at several points. The permeability tests given by him simulated an exposure of the wall to wind-driven rain. Fishburn testified, "The Comco 2 cannot be considered to be a satisfactory waterproofing for permeable brick masonry walls when applied as directed to the inside, unexposed face."
The finding as to Comco 6, Transparent Waterproofing is not supported by evidence quite so unequivocal, as Comco 6 was not tested. But, relying upon a previous report prepared by him, based upon tests in 1943 of another product "containing essentially the same ingredients as Comco 6," Fishburn testified, "The material will not waterproof highly permeable masonry surfaces," but admitted that it would tend to seal the pores in those surfaces. He questioned the permanency of the effectiveness of the poresealing, stating, "It may last five or six years and be ...