Mr. KAUFMAN. That they will have to answer as well, because they did that.

Mr. BATES. I wonder if one of your attorneys could answer that? Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. Shipe could answer it.

Mr. RICHARD K. LYON. Mr. Chairman, may I make a statement? Dr. TENEROWICZ. Who are you?

Mr. LYON. My name is Richard K. Lyon, an attorney. I know that this bill, that we took H. R. 278, and from that we drafted H. R. 5238 in tentative form.

Mr. Hirschman, Mr. Shipe, and myself, and after the bill was drafted in what we thought was the form to submit to the group, we went over it carefully in a period of 6, 8, or 10 hours with the group interested, that is, went over H. R. 5238.

It was not H. R. 5238 at that time, and we discussed it paragraph by paragraph.

Mr. BATES. My motive in asking that question was that it is customary for members of this committee to refer all bills to the Corporation Counsel.

Mr. LYON. Yes, sir.

Mr. BATES. It has been intimated here that perhaps the Corporation Counsel was in collusion in the construction of this bill.

Mr. LYON. What apparently happened to the bill after I had worked on the drafting thereof, I do not know; it was in Mr. Shipe's hands, and I am sure he will be glad to tell you about it.

Mr. BATES. I want the record to show just what I think it will show, that there is no reflection on the Corporation Counsel. That is the point I am trying to make.

Mr. LYON. Absolutely not.

Mr. KAUFMAN. Absolutely nothing.

Mr. BATES. He was not paid anything?

Mr. LYON. Absolutely nothing.

Mr. BATES. I want to clear up a false impression.

Mr. KAUFMAN. This is getting deeper and deeper. There is absolutely nothing to that.

Mr. Shipe more or less took the lead on this thing when it came to the bill itself and whether or not he saw Elwood Seal-that is who you are referring to?

Mr. BATES. Yes.

Mr. KAUFMAN. Whether he saw him or not I cannot say. I cannot say relative to this bill because I do not know. I was not with him. Mr. BATES. He probably did as a matter of sound procedure.

Mr. LYON. I would say that he did, but I do not know of my own personal knowledge. I think he did, but I think he is the man to testify as to what actually occurred.

Mr. KAUFMAN. These three men wrote the bill and brought it back to us. We deleted some and made some additions to it and they put it in legal phraseology and classified it, and it was then left with them and what Mr. Shipe did after that I do not know except later I was glad to hear that Representative Nichols had introduced the bill as the Nichols bill.

Mr. BATES. I did not want a false impression to be created about any individual who was a public officer.

Mr. KAUFMAN. I assure you it was not, and that is why I am glad to have the privilege of addressing the Chair so that he can permit me to show these things here, because we certainly have no mysteries about the whole thing. I have told you all I can tell about it without any elaboration.

Mr. BATES. I think it is unfair to any public officer to let the impression get out that he is alining himself with a certain group when he is not.

Mr. KAUFMAN. Is that how it is. I thought they were just personal aspersions. I told you what I can tell you about it.

Mr. LYON. May I make a statement?

Mr. SMITH. I was not here yesterday. Who started all this? Who is the man who made these insinuations?

Mr. KAUFMAN. Dr. Kanstoroom.

Mr. SMITH. And which side of the controversy is he connected with?

Mr. KAUFMAN. Shall I answer as I think?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. KAUFMAN. I do not know.

Mr. SMITH. Is he for H. R. 278 or H. R. 5238?

Mr. KAUFMAN. He is now appearing for H. R. 278, I believe.

Mr. SMITH. Is he an optometrist?

Dr. TENEROWICZ. Dr. Kanstoroom is here if you want to bring him back on the stand.

Mr. LYON. May I make a statement?

Dr. TENEROWICZ. Yes.

Mr. LYON. Mr. Kauffmann has submitted to the committee a check in the amount of $227.30 out of this E. R. Hutton fund payable to Lyon & Lyon. It is endorsed on the back "For deposit, account of Lyon & Lyon."

I wish to explain clearly and corroborate what Mr. Kaufman said in regard to the check, and I can prove it.

A bill was submitted. In the first place this transcript of testimony was done by two reporters, Middlemiss and the National Shorthand Reporting Co. At the time of the trial we called the National Shorthand Reporting Co. and the man through Mr. Swingle, who was the plaintiff in this case, called Middlemiss, who was a reporter over to the District court. They split the fee rendered in reporting and writing up the transcript and the total amount of the entire transcript was-I have the bill, and so forth, which I can verify$909.20, and it was understood that one-half of that would be borne by the plaintiff and one-half by the defendants.

The one-half to be borne by the defendants was $454.60, and we were billed by the National Shorthand Reporting Co. in that amount. When this agreement was entered into by Dr. Stapsy, who stood for the Buhl Optical Co., the defendant in this case, according to that agreement Dr. Stapsy paid $227.30 or his one-half of the defendants bill, and the group by this check paid the other half of $227.30.

I immediately upon receipt of both checks deposited them in the account of Lyon & Lyon and wrote a Lyon & Lyon check in the amount of $454.60, or twice this amount which I turned over to the National Shorthand Reporting Co., and we have a receipt therefor,

paid in full, so that I merely want to clarify that this check was not for compensation for legal services rendered, but was for the payment of the transcript of testimony and stands for the half of the defendants share of cost of the transcript borne by the group. I just wanted to get that clear on the record.

Dr. TENEROWICZ. Does anyone else wish to ask Dr. Kaufmann a question?

Mr. BATES. I do not.

Dr. KANSTOROOM. Mr. Chairman, I have a question which I would like to bring back to the committee which was brought up yesterday, the question of how this money was brought into the question.

Dr. TENEROWICZ. Was that one of the same questions that you asked! yesterday?

Dr. KANSTOROOM. I wish to explain to you, Mr. Chairman, and to Mr. Smith, just how this $200 item and just what was implied.

Dr. TENEROWICZ. Do you want to ask Mr. Kaufman a question? Dr. KANSTOROOM. I will wait until later.

Dr. TENEROWICZ. Have you any questions to ask Mr. Kaufman? Dr. KANSTOROOM. No, sir.

Dr. TENEROWICZ. Mr. Kaufman, have you anything further to say? Mr. KAUFMAN. I am not trying to take advantage, but in view of what has happened and in view that it was necessary for me to undress to prove to people that I am honest, I understand that a newspaper article that appeared in the paper Sunday, February 5, in the Times-Herald was brought out here as evidence yesterday; is that right?

Dr. TENEROWICZ. Right.

Mr. KAUFMAN. And that this article, this very one which was introduced in the record yesterday, this Dr. Kanstoroom was asked a question relative to it. He made a statement, I believe, that the article was not written by him, but, I think he said, in conference with the advertising manager and executive of Goldenberg's, plus the attendance of a reporter.

He further said, I believe, and it is a matter of your record that the bulk, 80 to 90 percent, of this article was dictated or more or less influenced by the advertising manager of Goldenberg's. This article, you will recall, has to do with Dr. Kanstoroom's viewpoint relative to H. R. 278, in which he quite clearly states that trade restraint and dictatorial power, etc., and so on, was absolutely averse to H. R. 278, and he went on record as saying so.

Subsequently being on the other side of the fence, having made these intimations yesterday and also denying the article on the grounds I have just told you, I find that that is not precisely how this article came about at all.

I find that at the conference this article was not born and it was not written at Goldenberg's, and 90 percent had nothing to do with the advertising manager at all.

The reporter it seems will explain I should say that it seems that somebody from Goldenberg's introduced Dr. Kanstoroom to the newspaper, and he went down to the newspaper himself and went to the city editor's desk of that newspaper and said he wanted an article. written or published. They referred him to a reporter. That reporter is Mr. Warrenfeld, sitting at this table, and it was not the

newspaper's imagination, and it was not written by the dictate of an advertising manager, but it was written, I believe, as a result of the request of a specific dictator, of Dr. Kanstoroom.

I would like to have Mr. Warrenfeld answer a few questions.

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS WARRENFELD, REPORTER,
TIMES-HERALD NEWSPAPER

Mr. KAUFMAN. Is this your article [indicating]?

Mr. WARRENFELD. Yes, sir.

Mr. LYON. What is your position?

Mr. WARRENFELD. Reporter, Times-Herald.

Mr. KAUFMAN. Tell me, Mr. Warrenfeld, do you remember that article [indicating]?

Mr. WARRENFELD. Yes, sir.

Mr. KAUFMAN. Do you remember when you wrote it?

Mr. WARRENFELD. Yes, sir.

Mr. KAUFMAN. At whose behest did you write it?

Mr. WARRENFELD. At that gentleman's over there [indicating Dr. Kanstoroom]. It was written in the Times-Herald office. He came into the office and said he would like to be interviewed about this pending legislation, and I was assigned to talk to him and took down what he said and wrote a story about it. That is, as I recall, substantially what he said.

Mr. KAUFMAN. Do you recall, Mr. Warrenfeld, from your conversation with Dr. Kanstoroom whether he was for H. R. 278 or against it?

Mr. WARRENFELD. To be perfectly frank I am not familiar with the two bills.

Mr. KAUFMAN. Do you remember that he spoke about a Smith bill that would eliminate advertising?

Mr. WARRENFELD. Frankly, I am uncertain on that.

Mr. KAUFMAN. You better look at your article.

Mr. WARRENFELD. I would say everything in that article is as he told me.

Mr. KAUFMAN. It is not your imagination and the advertising manager did not write it?

Mr. WARRENFELD. No, sir.

Mr. KAUFMAN. And you did not write it up at Goldenberg's?
Mr. WARRENFELD. No, sir.

Mr. KAUFMAN. Pardon me, Judge Smith, that article tells you what Dr. Kanstoroom thought of your bill at that time, and afterwards it was quite to the contrary. I just want to inroduce that. May I be excused or is there any other question?

Mr. TENEROWICZ. Do you wish to ask any questions of Mr. Kaufmann?

Dr. KANSTOROOM. I wish to question the reporter.

Mr. TENEROWICZ. That is all, Mr. Kaufman; thank you.

Dr. KANSTOROOM. May I ask a few questions of the reporter?

Mr. TENEROWICZ. Yes.

Mr. WARRENFELD. Dr. Kanstroroom wants to ask you a few questions.

Dr. KANSTOROOM. You remember that I came to see you at the Times-Herald Building?

Mr. WARRENFELD. Yes, sir.

Dr. KANSTOROOM. Was I the first man who ever approached you with reference to taking or getting information regarding a newspaper article? Was I the first man who approached you or were you called by another reporter?

Mr. WARRENFELD. By another reporter. Wait a minute. I am asking you was I called?

Dr. KANSTOROOM. Did another employee in that office call you, not a reporter, but an employee in a higher position than yourself?

Mr. WARRENFELD. I was instructed by the city editor to talk to you. Dr. KANSTOROOM. That is right, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TENEROWICZ. Ask the witness questions.

Dr. KANSTOROOM. Mr. Warrenfeld, is it true or not that at the time I saw you you complained of feeling not quite so well that night; it was quite late at night.

Mr. WARRENFELD. I don't remember any such statement as that; no. Dr. KANSTOROOM. Is it also true that I did not see a finished copy of what you had written in our discussion?

Mr. WARRENFELD. That is true.

Dr. KANSTOROOM. Did I call you on the telephone?

Mr. WARRENFELD. May I ask you a question?

Dr. KANSTOROOM. Yes, sir.

Mr. WARRENFELD. Did you at any time ever complain about that story after it appeared in print?

Dr. KANSTOROOM. I spoke to Walter Barkdell.

Mr. WARRENFELD. Do you mean that you complained about the story?

Dr. KANSTOROOM. I expressed my opinion to him after it was written.

Mr. WARRENFELD. He is the advertising manager.

Dr. KANSTOROOM. That is true; it was at his order that this story would be picked up and written.

Mr. WARRENFELD. I would like to say to the committee that it is rather unusual that if you made any complaint to the advertising manager that that complaint was not reported to the city editor and to me, because the advertising manager is the responsible executive of the paper; and if he received a complaint, it would be made known to the city editor and the reporter.

(Witness excused.)

Mr. TENEROWICZ. Do you want to testify again?

Dr. KANSTOROOM. I just want to testify to one remark made. When I used the word advertising manager of Goldenberg's I was incorrectly informed. As I spoke yesterday I mentioned that this was a three-four discussion at Goldenberg's between the newspaper official, one of our merchandizing men, and myself; and after I saw this H. R. 278, and not being able to give a full interpretation of what it would really mean, this extemporaneous discussion came up and he said, "You go down to the newspaper and tell them what you told me, and you see the city editor, and he will tell somebody to take the story." It was the advertising manager at Goldenberg's; I had