Mr. SHIPE. Are you in favor of fair, open competition in this business?

Mr. WRIGHT. I am always in favor of that.

Mr. HAVENNER. Mr. Shipe, could the present law be amended easier than we could pass a new law to effect what you have in mind?

Mr. SHIPE. There is something in that. This bill is in effect a new law in this regard for the District of Columbia. We have found the law too broad, and it apparently would be easier to eliminate the old law and enact a new one to take care of the defects that have arisen in connection with this business.

I should be glad to discuss that matter with you personally.

STATEMENT OF HENRY L. COLMAN

Dr. TENEROWICZ. Who is next to be heard?

Mr. COLMAN. My name is Henry L. Colman; and I am appearing in opposition to both H. R. 278 and H. R. 5238. I represent the citizens' association in the extreme northwest section of this city, west of Rock Creek Park.

Primarily, we are opposing the bill because, first, it smacks of monopoly in our opinion. Secondly, I think it is prejudicial to the general welfare of the public at large. Moreover, I believe it is an attempt to place the profession or the business of optometry in the category of the healing arts whereas, in my opinion, it really is more or less mechanical.

These are the main reasons why I oppose this proposal. I oppose it on general principles otherwise. I simply want to appear here on behalf of the civic organization I represent and I thank you for hearing me.

STATEMENT OF W. J. TUCKER

Dr. TENEROWICZ. Who is to be heard next?

Mr. TUCKER. My name is W. J. Tucker. I have not had the privilege of reading these bills, because they have not been brought to my attention. I saw them for the first time only yesterday.

I am speaking as a citizen in opposition to the type of bill now before the committee. I object to legislation that tends to interfere with free trade in the city where there is not adequate necessity for such interference.

I see no reason why optometrists employed by department stores should not be as capable of supplying proper glasses as any other optometrist. Those employed in this work in department stores have to pass an appropriate examination; therefore I see no reason or occasion for such legislation as is here proposed.

On the other hand, I do see a valid objection to this legislation from the standpoint of cost. My own personal opinion is that the real motive behind this proposed legislation or desire for it is one that has in mind the increase of prices.

We all know that department stores have by installing optometrical departments brought down the prices of glasses, and we know that many children are deprived of glasses that they need simply by the high cost. I hope it may not go through.

Mr. SHIPE. You are speaking of H. R. 278, are you not?

Mr. TUCKER. I have not seen these bills. I am opposed to the general principle that is no doubt involved in either bill. I am opposed, as I have said, with an interference with free trade in matters of this kind.

Mr. SHIPE. Would you be in favor of a bill that would permit these department stores that have been mentioned to have optometrical departments under the supervision and management of duly licensed and registered optometrists?

Mr. TUCKER. I do not know whether the present law provides for that or not.

Mr. SHIPE. We hope it does; but there may be some doubt about it.

Mr. TUCKER. In that case, I do not think there is any need for additional legislation. I think the ground is properly covered. I have nothing further to say.

STATEMENT OF JULIAN BRYLAWSKI

Dr. TENEROWICZ. Mr. Brylawski, do you wish to be heard at this time?

Mr. BRYLAWSKI. Yes; please.

Mr. TENREOWICZ. We shall be glad to hear you now.

Mr. BRYLAWSKI. I should like to voice objections to H. R. 278, which is a bill to regulate the practice of optometry in the District of Columbia.

This bill is intended to replace the act of 1924, "Law to regulate the practice of optometry in the District of Columbia," Public, No. 151, Sixty-eighth Congress, H. R. 32, 36.

The act of 1924 is full and complete, and has satisfactorily regulated the practice of optometry in the District of Columbia since its passage. It assures full protection to the citizen, as the purpose of such legislation is to protect the citizen and his eyesight from incompetent persons.

The proposed act is a restatement of the act of 1924, with certain amendments having nothing to do with the protection of the citizen against the incompetent practice of optometry; but on the contrary, it is that type of legislation which has been so frequently attempted of late, which seeks to create a monopoly for some of the optometrical profession against the fair, free, and full competition of others of the same profession.

[The proposed legislation, H. R. 278, seeks to set up an entirely new law for the practice of optometry in the District of Columbia, whereas it is really restating the present law, Public, 151, 68th Congress, with certain changes and additions thereto.] Unquestionably the proper course to have been pursued would be to offer these changes and additions as amendments to the present law, but this procedure would have called specific attention and scrutiny to these changes and additions, which quite evidently was not desired by the framers of the bill. That these changes and additions do set up a monopoly will be clearly shown by the following discussion of these projects.

It should be borne in mind that there is a distinction between an optician and an optometrist. The function of the optometrist is to

measure the eye for the purpose of correcting deficiency in vision. After this point is reached a prescription is usually written, which is taken to an optician, who grinds a lens to conform to the prescription and sells the patient lenses and/or frames. The function of the optician is purely commercial and the sale of eyeglasses and/or frames and appurtenances and has nothing whatever to do with the safeguarding of the life and health of the patient. It is the purpose of the sponsors of this legislation, i. e., the District of Columbia Optometric Society, to freeze out every optician in the District of Columbia and to draw all the optical business to the members of this society or those approved by the Board, comprised of members of this society. There are many optical houses in the District of Columbia that have been in existence for years, such business being handed down from generation to generation.

The proposed legislation will put these people out of business, as they will not be allowed to employ a licensed optometrist to administer to their customers. The functions of the licensed optometrist, a calling of rather recent years, were performed by opticians for centuries past and have been recognized by all the States in the Union from time to time. The fitting and sale of eyeglasses began as a trade and must remain a trade in which an unlicensed person or corporation may engage as of right provided the actual examination is done by a skilled servant duly licensed. Section 11 (b) permits persons to sell spectacles and eyeglasses if they do not attempt either directly or indirectly to adapt them to the eye. Now, if you permit the sale of spectacles and eyeglasses by an optician who is not an optometrist and deny him the right to employ an optometrist, then you permit that optician to sell spectacles and eyeglasses to any person who applies, regardless of whether or not the eyeglasses or spectacles fit his vision. Under such circumstances, great harm may be done. If you permit, such as the act of 1924 permits, the optician to employ a licensed optometrist, then there will be no danger of the person purchasing the eyeglasses or spectacles obtaining ill-fitting and injurious glasses or spectacles.

If you deny the optician the right to hire a licensed optometrist, much as a licensed druggist is now hired, then this legislation will throw out of employment numbers of licensed optometrists in the District of Columbia who are not in a position financially to engage in the business of an optician as an adjunct to the practice of optometry for themselves only. When this is accomplished, it places monopoly in a much stronger position, to gain absolute control of all of the optical business in the District of Columbia to the exploitation of the general public and to its great cost.

Not many years ago, the public had no idea of what the cost of glasses was. They were at the mercy of the optometrist or physician who charged any price that he could get. Advertising has assured many persons needing glasses, better vision, in that it created competition and reduced the price of glasses or spectacles within the reach of the average person, so that today the poorest person needing glasses is in a position to purchase them. This monopoly, by this proposed legislation, would kill all competition so that the monopoly will be in a position, having control of the situation, to charge whatever price it sees fit, and as specifically noted later on will cause great suffering and injury to those unfortunates needing glasses who

will be unable to purchase them, as the bill specifically seeks to abolish the sale of glasses at "cut prices" or on "terms," so necessary to the poor.

This is without a doubt one of the most vicious pieces of legislation proposed in this, or any other jurisdiction. It sets up an absolute dictatorship, for which the public, and the public alone will pay and pay.

Section 4 of the proposed legislation, line 20, makes it possible for any member of the Board or any committee appointed by the Board to call for the services of the corporation counsel of the District of Columbia and gives such individual member the right to issue subpenas or subpena duces tecum to compel the attendance of any practitioner and require the production of his books, records, and documents. This provision will permit this member of the Board who may have a grievance against some practitioner, or is in direct competition with him, to learn all his trade secrets and thereby ruin and destroy his business. This same section takes away from the properly constituted law officer of the Government the right to institute an action against an optometrist and confers this right directly on the Board by allowing it to institute an action in its own name to enjoin a practitioner from pursuing his calling.

By the passage of this act, Congress will sign away all rights to police the business of opticians and optometrists and place the enforcement of this legislation in the hands of a minority of optometrists engaged in establishing a dictatorship. It places the power of economic life or death of the individual optometrist or optician in the hands of a possibly prejudiced or preferred Board comprised entirely of members of nongovernmental agencies.

Section 8 (sec. 16 of present law) of the proposed legislation makes the action of the Board in revoking or refusing a license final and not subject of appeal to the courts, although an appeal may be made to the Commissioners of the District of Columbia to review the findings but pending the decision on such appeal, the applicant is denied the right to continue in business, so that even though the appeal be reversed, he may be irremediably injured and put out of business. This is more power thrust upon this monopoly. If the District of Columbia Optometric Society, acting through the Board of Optometry, its own creation, decides to curtail the practice of optometry in the District of Columbia, it may revoke or refuse a license arbitrarily and without just cause and the aggrieved person is denied his day in court. All of section 8 (except subsections a, d, and e) are new and are amendments to the present law. The essential objections of the whole bill are concentrated in subsections (f) and (i) of section 8.

Section 8 gives the Board of Optometry discretion to refuse to grant a license to any applicant and may cancel, revoke, or suspend the operation of any license granted for various reasons, among which is (a) that said licensee is guilty of gross immorality. Query: Who is to determine if the licensee is guilty of gross immorality? I take it, the Board of Optometry is the one to make such determination, because section 16 of the present act says that the Board may refuse to grant or revoke a license where the licensee has been convicted in a court of competent jurisdiction of a crime involving moral turpitude, and this is repeated in this bill (d). Gross im

morality certainly is included in the term, moral turpitude. Now, if section (d) refers to a convention in court, then section (a) must refer to a determination by the Board, of immorality on the part of the applicant or licensee. This proposed legislation makes the Board of Optometry, judge, jury, and executioner, and every licensee is at its mercy.

Section 8 (f) prohibits the employment of a licensed optometrist by any other person, firm, or corporation unless all of the members of such firm and/or corporation are themselves licensed optometrists. This would abolish all the optical departments of jewelry stores, department stores, druggists, and many similar places of business, many of these established for generations, who now employ licensed optometrists, and throwing all these men out of employment, nor can the licensed optometrists become financially interested in the profits or proceeds or have a contract, agreement, or other connection with any business in which all of the interested parties are not now licensed optometrists to the great injury of these innocent victims of monopoly.

Section (i) is purely ethical and has no proper part in any law and also denies the right of an optometrist who is engaged in the optical business, to advertise his business, his prices discounts, terms of payment, i. e. "budget" or "installment" so necessary to the purchasing power of indigent sufferers, or to proffer free examinations or other services. It's whole tenor and purpose is to monopolize and confine the entire optical business to the hands of high priced specialists and opticians who may then charge what they please for their noncompetitive services.

Section 9 (g) is most unusual in that no one may sell, dispense, furnish, or supply any spectacles, eyeglasses, or ophthalmic lenses, except on prescription from a duly licensed physician or duly licensed optometrist. This would seem in conflict with section 11 (b) which allows persons to sell spectacles and/or eyeglasses, and who do not attempt directly or indirectly to adapt them to the eye, but who do not practice or profess to practice optometry. The latter persons, according to section 11, are exempted from the operation of the act.

Section 9 (k) further restricts the advertising by the optician of terms or discounts or credit for eyeglasses, spectacles, frames, and mountings, etc., which certainly has nothing to do with the practice of optometry, whether the person selling same is an optometrist engaged in the business of an optician, or whether the person is an optician only, and not having a license to practice optometry.

This effort of the optometrists to effect legislation for their exclusive use is not confined to the District of Columbia. Similar laws have been introduced in all of the various States and in some cases, I regret to note, were passed before an aroused public opinion was organized against them, but in most instances they have failed—I note that the veto of the Governor of Oregon has already been filed with the committee. I have here a letter from S. R. Brookes, of the American Statesman, Austin, Tex., which tells what the Texas Legislature did to a similar bill, which is exactly what we advocate this committee do to the proposed measure.

I also submit many editorials from many papers on the same subject and all carrying a similar point of view. Congressman Smith, the author of the bill, states that the authority given optometrists