submitted either orally or in writing at the direction of said Commissioners, and said Commissioners shall not be required to take evidence, either oral, written, or documentary. The decision of said Commissioners on any question of fact involved in such appeal shall be final and conclusive; but no such appeal or other action as may be taken by any such licensee or applicant shall stay, enjoin, or suspend any such order of revocation, suspension, or refusal pending any such appeal.

"Upon application, the board may reissue a license to practice optometry that has been revoked but such application shall not be made prior to 1 year after the revocation and shall be made in such manner and form as the Board may require."

Section 11: There is no section 11 in this bill. The omission may be due to a typographical error.

Section 13: With the recommendation and support of the District of Columbia Medical Society, we suggest that line 1, page 18 be changed to read as follows: "That all of the other provisions of this act with the exception of sections 8 and 9, which sections shall remain applicable, shall not apply to."

The members of the District of Columbia Medical Society and the District of Columbia Optometric Society concur in the opinion that, for the protection of the citizens of the District of Columbia, these prohibitions should apply to all persons rendering aid to the human eye.

Section 15: This section is contradictory to the preceding sections of this bill. It would permit a lay company or corporations to do indirectly what it is prohibited from doing directly. A company or corporation cannot be educated so as to meet the highly specialized educational requirements as set forth in our present law and in this bill; it can neither take a licensing examination nor be licensed to practice; it cannot render to others the services, guidance, and advice which is derived from a specialized education or knowledge; it cannot maintain the personal relationship that must exist between the individual seeking advice and the adviser; its environment is contrary to that as outlined by the courts in the ruling that a profession cannot be practiced in the market place. We are opposed to this section and urgently request that it be stricken from the bill.

162220-39--9

TO REGULATE THE PRACTICE OF OPTOMETRY IN THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FRIDAY, MAY 19, 1939

COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC HEALTH, HOSPITALS, AND CHARITIES,

Washington, D. C. The Subcommittee on Public Health, Hospitals, and Charities of the Committee on the District of Columbia met in the committee room, Old House Office Building, at 10:30 a. m., the Honorable Rudolph G. Tenerowicz, acting chairman of the subcommittee presiding. Mr. TENEROWICZ. The committee will please come to order.

The hearing will be resumed this morning on H. R. 278, the bill introduced by Mr. Smith, of Virginia, "To regulate the practice of optometry in the District of Columbia"; and

A bill introduced by Mr. Nichols, of Oklahoma, H. R. 5238, also "To regulate the practice of optometry in the District of Columbia." I will ask Mr. Kaufman, who previously has testified, to take the stand.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF CECIL D. KAUFMAN

Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. Chairman, yesterday many things were said, and as a result of the things said you made a specific request relative to the substantiation of the information which I gave you.

I have all that information, and I have a complete substantiation of everything I stated here yesterday. There is only one request here that I am going to make, and that is in effect as to the procedure thus far, and, of course, it rests entirely in your own hands.

I recall that other witnesses here have made statements and have quoted a lot of people. Then, when they were specifically asked who made those statements, they answered you by saying that they preferred not to disclose those names, because it might prove embarrassing. Do you recall that part of the testimony?

Mr. TENEROWICZ. I recall that testimony.

Mr. KAUFMAN. I have everything you asked for, and if I may, sir, I would rather present the facts in bulk without naming the individuals involved on the same ground that it might prove embarassing to them because, after all, I have more or less carried the brunt of this thing, you see, and you know who I am, and my name is a matter of record. So, if I may, I would like to give you the information minus the names. Would that be fair?

Mr. TENEROWICZ. Is the committee to understand that you are willing to give this information for the information of the Committee? Mr. KAUFMAN. I will give you any information you ask for.

Mr. TENEROWICZ. In other words, what I want to say is this: Do you want to make a statement for the Committee?

Mr. KAUFMAN. Yes; sure.

Mr. TENEROWICZ. A written statement to be a part of the record? Mr. KAUFFMAN. Yes; the only thing that you asked me for, you asked me for the contribution; do you remember that?

Mr. TENEROWICZ. Yes, Mr. Kauffman; but you also recall that was quite a serious charge.

Mr. KAUFFMAN. I have that information, Judge. Let me impart it to you, and then I will ask you again at the close.

It was approximately April 5, 1938, as close as I can remember that our group first met. At that meeting after much collaborating and discussion and in view of the past history of the optical situation, we felt naturally that it would require money.

In the past 10 or 12 years whenever litigation had arisen throughout the country somebody had to pay for attorneys and pay for the men's time that fought the situation or created it. I think that was brought out here yesterday in the testimony that the optometrists themselves had attorneys' fees to pay and need money to support litigation in having their various cases adjudicated and likewise we found ourselves in the same boat.

Here is an exact record of that fund [indicating] taken from my own ledger-not my ledger, but one of our office ledgers.

I also have here the canceled checks of the amounts and the only amounts that were paid out of this fund. The gentleman wanted to know yesterday why this money was in Mrs. Hutton's hands. You will remember Mrs. Hutton. She happens to be here this morning, and I did not want to have anything left undone, and I prefer to have her speak and I will call her now with your permission.

STATEMENT OF MRS. EMMA HUTTON

Mr. KAUFFMAN. This is your ledger sheet [indicating]?
Mrs. HUTTON. Yes.

Mr. KAUFFMAN. Mrs. Hutton has been with us 15 years or more. I want you to tell these gentlemen if there was anything unusual in your having received this money and put it in your own money ? Mrs. HUTTON. No, sir. This account I have had for years. I have looked after the records and books of Mr. Kauffman and practically the whole family in my time, and I kept the account open over a period of years for different funds they collected. That is what they call the "Spring Time Frolic." It is a party given for the creation of good fellowship and they do not put it in their bank account. I collect all the funds for that and pay all the bills and I have done it since 1925, and if some men went out of town there would be bills; they turned money over to me and I would pay out bills and there was a special account that I used.

Mr. TENEROWICZ. Mrs. Hutton, during the testimony it was testified that this money was left in your name, was that correct?

Mrs. HUTTON. Yes, sir; it was kept in that special account. Mr. TENEROWICZ. How many of these funds or what different departments is it that are kept in your name? Is it just the one or more than one?

Mr. KAUFFMAN. May I explain? We have corporate money, of course; we have probably 5 or 10 accounts.

Mrs. HUTTON. At least 10 or more.

Mr. KAUFMAN. Mrs. Hutton is the custodian of those funds and as she has pointed out to you, there are many interests thrown in here where we do have money such as the Spring Time Frolic, which is a social thing that nobody wants the fund confused with their own funds, and since Mrs. Hutton has been with us so long and we trust her implicitly, it is not unusual for us to pay her for this purpose or that purpose, to take care of that bill, because we are very often out of town when something comes up.

She takes care of printing and puchasing and nobody wants to be bothered with signing a lot of checks.

This money, sir, that we are talking about now was treated in the same manner and it was put in the same account. The Spring Time Frolic account for no other reason-of course, it was held very queer that it was done that way, but for no other reason than that it simplifies matters.

Mrs. Hutton, do you remember what I said to you when I came out of that meeting that day about these funds that would come in? Mrs. HUTTON. You said you would get in checks from different concerns for legal fees for the optical department, "Just hold it until I call for it."

Mr. KAUFMAN. What did you do with the moneys that came in? Mrs. HUTTON. I deposited them in the special account that I had, "Emma Hutton, Special."

Mr. KAUFMAN. What have you drawn?

Mrs. HUTTON. I have only drawn two checks which came back, and I have the canceled checks and brought them to you.

Mr. KAUFMAN. Do you remember what those checks are for?

Not who they were to, but what they were for?

Mrs. HUTTON. They were both for attorneys' fees.

Mr. KAUFMAN. Do you want to ask any questions?

Mr. TENEROWICZ. No.

Do any members of the committee wish to ask any questions? Mr. BATES. Did I understand you to say, Mr. Kaufman, she keeps various accounts in her own name?

Mrs. HUTTON. I keep one account.

Mr. KAUFMAN. She keeps the books; we have a number of accounts in which money is credited for many expenses in the conduct of our business, and Mrs. Hutton keeps those books and is charged with those books, those 10 accounts may be in various names, maybe 12 Kay-store accounts, one plant, another advertising, and so on so that the accounts are kept straight and orderly; those accounts are in the company's name which Mrs. Hutton has charge of.

This account which she is speaking of is a sort of sundry account where is set up a fund known as the Spring Time Frolic fund, or money which we do not want mixed up with our business.

Mr. BATES. The point I was trying to get at is this Spring Time Frolic fund; this particular account is the same account?

Mrs. HUTTON. It is all the same account.

Mr. KAUFMAN. I did not mean it was the same account, when I came back yesterday I said, "Mrs. Hutton, get me the ledger sheet