under this bill would be no greater than the "monopoly" exercised by the medical profession today-a monopoly which the Government is fighting even now, but even this monopoly does not insist on filling its own prescriptions. You may take it to any drug store you choose. These drug stores employ licensed pharmacists and many of them advertise cut prices and save their customers thousands. Why then should purveyors of less-exact scientific products be refused this same privilege, or if this restraint be enacted, why not the shoemaker, corsetier, artificial-limb manufacturer, or any other maker of products used by the human body.

Optometrists are not doctors, no matter what title their colleges may confer. They are not so recognized by the medical profession or the law (see recent decision of Justice Luhring, District Supreme Court). They are tradesmen, skilled and licensed, but tradesmen just the same, and as such should be entitled to advertise their wares and give the public the benefit of the savings made possible by the large volume of business so induced.

Congressman Nichols' bill, H. R. 5238, removes many of the foregoing objections to H. R. 278, but still prohibits advertising, cut prices, and so forth, and so to those clauses, paragraph G of section 8, page 10, and paragraph I of section 9, page 12, all of our objections still remain.

If either H. R. 278 or H. R. 5238 strengthened the powers of the examining board or further protected the public in any way by all means let us incorporate those changes in the present law, but a comparison of these bills and the present law show that the proposed changes on this point are insignificant and are merely changes of language and but little changes in effect.

For all of these reasons, it is respectfully submitted, that the proposed legislation is not intended to safeguard and protect the life and health of the person requiring eyeglasses or spectacles, but on the contrary, is an attempt by a favored few to create a monopoly to freeze out competition, limit and curtail the practice of optometry, and assure the favored few, increased revenues from the additional clients and higher prices for their wares.

I think it is significant that most of the opposition to these measures comes from the public, from men who have spent very much time in the service of the citizens' associations of the District of Columbia. It is significant that they feel that the passage of these bills or the passage of Mr. Nichols' bill, with the advertising clause intact, would unquestionably increase the cost of glasses to the con

sumers.

I was very much interested in the statement of Dr. Kraskin, the first witness here, that if H. R. 278 should be enacted into law there would not be any increase in the cost of glasses. We were very curious about that. Without taking up your time unnecessarily, I will say that we sent a trained investigator to Dr. Kraskin to have his eyes examined, and the prescription he wrote was taken to 25 different opticians in the District, divided into three classes. We found that 6 optometrists in business for themselves, not operating in jewelry or department stores, and not advertising, gave us an average price for Kryptok bifocal lenses of $15.20 and for the complete glasses with gold-filled frame an average price of $22.50.

162220-394

We took that same prescription to 6 of the places that have optometrical departments in jewelry and department stores and the average price quoted was $11.65 for the lenses and $19 for the complete glasses.

Then we went to six of the advertising opticians, the men who try to do much business and pass their savings to the consumers, and we received an average price of $6.65 for the lenses and an average price of $9.95 for the complete glasses.

It really would not make much difference if they continued the present prices, which are sufficient.

I would like to submit for inclusion in the record advertisements and quotations, but I would not want them to be made public. I do not think anything would be gained by giving these names and their prices. I have the advertisements and the quotations of the various people, and those advertisements and quotations are written on their own cards and stationery. I would rather that these quotations and advertisements be not published, unless it is thought to be necessary. Mr. KANSTOROOM. Where did you get the average price of $6.65 for Kryptok bifocal lenses and the average price of $9.95 for the completed glasses?

Mr. BRYLAWSKI. I am not here to advertise anybody.

Mr. KANSTOROOM. How did you strike an average?

Mr. BRYLAWSKI. I took the prices quoted by six dealers and averaged them.

Mr. KANSTOROOM. In what stores were those establishments?
Mr. BRYLAWSKI. They are the advertisers.

Mr. KANSTOROOM. Where did you get the quotations of $6.65 for the lenses?

Mr. BRYLAWSKI. From the advertising opticians. The average price for the lenses was $6.65 and the average price for the completed glasses was $9.95. Those are actual figures quoted by the advertising opticians. The actual quotations are on the back of the business cards of those who made the quotations.

Mr. SHIPE. As between H. R. 5238 and H. R. 278 which do you favor?

Mr. BRYLAWSKI. As stated in my brief, H. R. 5238 relieves many of the objections to H. R. 278, but still prohibits advertising, cut prices, and so forth. I believe in advertising, which has been the life of American business. It has set up competition, which has a favorable influence upon prices to the public. When we eliminate advertising and competition, there can be only one result.

I have no brief for any of these people. I am interested purely in the application of this proposal to the general citizenry of the District of Columbia. It is true that a friend of mine brought my attention to this bill, but my interest in it goes far beyond simply that.

STATEMENT OF MISS ALICE TUCKFERBER

Dr. TENEROWICZ. Who desires to be heard now?

Miss TUCKFERBER. My name is Miss Alice Tuck ferber, 5115 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, D. C., and I represent Dr. Hollander, of Chicago. I have charge of the optometrical department of Hecht Co.

We are opposed to H. R. 278. We feel that this legislation, coming up every year, has been very detrimental; and we think that H. R. 5238 has in it what we think will be necessary to perfect an arrangement for price advertising, which we would like to keep if practicable.

Mr. SHIPE. I do not know how these names of prospective witnesses got before the committee. I had presumed that they wanted to testify. It seems to me that if we are going to do anything with these bills, we should go ahead and get rid of them. If these people want to testify they should come in and do so. Some of them are sitting in the room, have expressed themselves as wanting to testify, yet they do not do so. I suppose they want to sit here and see what develops before they are to testify.

STATEMENT OF DR. BERNARD KANSTOROOM

Dr. TENEROWICZ. Do you, Dr. Kanstoroom, wish to testify now? Dr. KANSTOROOM. Mr. Chairman, I have conducted an optometrical department in a department store for about 10 years. I am at Goldenberg's.

The department I now conduct is in leased space, and it is one of the first that was opened during the last 15 years.

This question of opposition to H. R. 5238 is a matter of whether lay interests should interest themselves in optometry, and so control the optometrical department.

In the statement by Mr. Brylawski he said that if legislation such as is embodied in H. R. 278 is enacted into law department stores and jewelry stores will not be able to maintain optometrical departments. There is nothing in that proposed law to stop the practice of leasing space to optometrical activities.

When the State of Pennsylvania enacted a law antagonistic to corporate practice they found a way to engage in the optometrical business by leasing space in stores.

I feel that the opinion of Dr. Havenner that the citizens of Washington will not be able, if this proposal should be adopted, to purchase glasses at reasonable cost is rather biased. He has been given just one or two viewpoints in connection with H. R. 278.

There is, necessarily, a terrific expense in conducting one of these optometrical departments. They are very expensive. It is not a matter of rent that one pays that amounts to so much. of advertising amounts to a great deal.

The factor

I do not believe that the board in asking for improved legislation wishes to completely shut off a man in practice from announcing to the public that he is an optometrist. Advertising would not be stopped completely by this proposal. The cost of that advertising could be taken from the charges for glasses if that cost was not dumped into the cost, and we could keep up a strong pace.

I spend considerable in newspaper and radio advertising. I feel, after 10 years' operation, that I could improve my own business by not advertising, and I would not have to ask any more for my product. I could probably get along on cheaper prices.

When one finds that he has to spend anywhere from $3,000 to $6,000 a year just in newspaper advertising alone, and there is only

one man to do the refracting, there is a lot of work to tear up to overcome that.

There is a lot of work at the present time. I had a peculiar experience in the last 2 years. I give this experience to demonstrate that corporate practice is bad. When an optometrist hires another man to operate a place away from his own actual supervision, that is almost as bad. I leased the space in the Palais Royal and kept it 2 years. I placed there a man that worked directly under me for 7 years, but when I placed him in the Palais Royal his attitude changed. He did not want the responsibility; he did not want to be held to the point of production necessary; he felt that we would rather be in another position where he could take rather than give orders. He remained with me quite some time and when it came to a showdown I had to dismiss him.

I hired another man and kept him longer than I kept the first man. After watching that man perform for more than a year 1 decided I would have to burn the place or sell it. It was impossible to run it that way. The dissatisfaction incident to the operation of a place away from me, when I was responsible, seemed impossible. You can readily understand how hard it is to control the feelings and emotions of another man. If one is a layman, he knows nothing about a technical position; he does not know how hard it is to try to get a man to perform satisfactory service for the public. It is well-nigh impossible to effect such a condition.

Of course, the chairman, being a professional man, he knows what it means to medicine to have the many legislative improvements that have come within the last 30 years. When I was a youngster in Chicago my father started to practice medicine there in those days on State Street. There were about 15 or 20 advertising medical offices there. These institutions would spend, I would venture to say, $2,000 or $3,000 a month just for advertising.

Dr. TENEROWICZ. That was the outfit that the Chicago Tribune drove out of town, I believe.

Mr. KANSTOROOM. That is right.

I want to tell you that out of curiosity I have visited several of those places just to see how they operate. I could not even see the physician in charge. He was in the back room. He was a dummy. He had no authority to face a prospective patient. When one went in there he met a smart, glib attendant, who passed a superficial diagnosis and said how much in money it would take to get a particular job taken care of. Then one was shunted on back and everything else was problematical. They were not interested in anything but the money they took from the patient.

I find that after all, if one cannot conscientiously face his patients with a feeling that he has to satisfy the wants of those patients, that he has to assume that responsibility, he will not do much good. H. R. 278 does not prevent department stores or jewely stores from leasing space and enjoying the revenue from that rental. Those stores could still lease to licensed optometrists, who could really run those departments in their own names and conduct their own business. They would not have to take any dictation from any other source, and they could do a satisfactory service. Moreover, the cost of that service to the public would not be any higher than it is today. If one does not have to pour, say, $1,000 into newspapers he does not have

to take that amount from the public. It is reasonable to suppose that every expense attaching to a business must be assessed against the

customers.

I am opposing H. R. 5238. I feel, after my long experience, that optometry will render a better service to the public if it is conducted along the lines suggested in H. R. 278.

Dr. TENEROWICZ. Do I understand that you are opposing H. R. 5238?

Dr. KANSTOROOM. I think that H. R. 278 gives optometrists every opportunity they need to practice satisfactorily, profitably for themselves and fairly to the public.

Dr. TENEROWICZ. You are opposing H. R. 5238, as I understand. Mr. KANSTOROOM. Yes.

Mr. ROSENBERG. You have described a condition in the practice of medicine on State Street in Chicago that is very deplorable; and the reason you are for H. R. 278 and against H. R. 5238 is because of the fact that you fear that a similar situation would exist in the District of Columbia as that you have described on State Street in Chicago. Is that right? Answer so that the stenographer may get

your answer.

Dr. KANSTOROOM. Yes; that is right.

Mr. ROSENBERG. Will you state, Dr. Kanstoroom, that the condition which you have described exists at Kann's, Hecht's, Woodward and Lothrop's, Kay's, or that such a condition has ever existed at those places or any of them?

Dr. KANSTOROOM. I have reason to believe, from hearsay, from contact with men who have been employed in these places, and the experience I have had, that such a situation is tantamount to the medical racket in Chicago.

Mr. ROSENBERG. But you, Dr. Kanstoroom, of your own knowledge do not know of such conditions existing in these department stores and jewelry stores I have mentioned?

Dr. KANSTOROOM. Before I sold my place in the Palais Royal that condition existed there.

Mr. ROSENBERG. I am not talking about the Palais Royal.

Dr. KANSTOROOM. I owned a place there, but I had to sell it. Mr. ROSENBERG. Do you know that any such condition exists or has existed in the department stores or the jewelry store I have mentioned?

Dr. KANSTOROOM. I have no prima facie evidence of that; but I do have it by hearsay from men who were employed in those places that such a condition existed.

Mr. ROSENBERG. Will you please name the men who have told you that?

Dr. KANSTOROOM. I do not believe that I should divulge those names, because that would tend to embarrass them. I would rather not disclose that information publicly.

Mr. ROSENBERG. In view of the fact that Dr. Kanstoroom testifies that he does not know of his own knowledge of these conditions, that all he knows is hearsay, and he refuses to divulge the names of his informants, I feel that his statement with respect to the matter should be stricken from the record.

Dr. KANSTOROOM. I feel that perhaps Mr. Rosenberg is within his rights in making such a request, but I think it is asinine to ask it.