signed the petition approving this approval of the passage of H. R. 5238, thereby jeopardizing his

Mr. LYON. Mr. Chairman, let the petition speak for themselves. Dr. KRASKIN. I want to familiarize the witness with Dr. Burkhead's attitude in his present position with the Kay establishment. Dr. SHELEY. That may be, Doctor. I have no reason to seek it of my own knowledge.

Mr. KAUFMAN. I think that beautifully substantiates the statement I previously made that the employer does not influence an optometrist-employee. Dr. Kraskin, thank you. Dr. KRASKIN. May I refute that?

Mr. KAUFMAN. He signed H. R. 278, didn't he?
Dr. KRASKIN. That's right.

Mr. KAUFMAN. Well, obviously, if we wanted to bring pressure to bear, as this gentleman over in the corner has believed that we might, we certainly would not have instructed him to sign H. R. 278. And I assure you I do not know what Dr. Moore signed or the other doctors engaged there.

Dr. KRASKIN. May I ask you a question, Mr. Kaufman?

Mr. KAUFMAN. Yes.

Dr. KRASKIN. Mr. Chairman, may I ask Mr. Kaufman a question? Did you ask Dr. Burkhead or Mr. Moore or any of the other employees if they signed the petitions or did not?

Mr. KAUFMAN. Yes. As a matter for the record I was told that Dr. Marshall, I believe that is the name, was taking around a petition for signature, of one bill or the other. So I did call up Dr. Burkhead. I asked if there was such a petition. He said, "Yes." I asked him were both bills on that petition. He said, "Well, there was a petition for each." Is that correct? And I said to him, "Have you read both bills?" He said, "I, personally, have not read both bills but both bills were read to us." And I said, "Okay." And that is all that there was to the conversation other than some things that are irrelevant to this subject. I in no manner suggested-suggested which he should sign at all because I felt that was entirely in his province. I did not talk to any other of our other optometrists, Dr. Moore, whom I have known for 10 years or Dr.

Dr. KRASKIN. Dr. Campbell.

Mr. KAUFMAN. Or Dr. Spritz. I had no conversation at all.

Dr. KRASKIN. Are you familiar with the fact that all three signed this petition?

Mr. KAUFMAN. I do not care. That is entirely up to them. It is further evidence, Dr. Kraskin, that we have not ever tried to bring any undue influence on an employee of mine on what we think he should do relative to the employment of his profession. Thanks for bringing it up.

Mr. SHIPE. Doctor, do you think that if H. R. 5238 is not enacted into law and that H. R. 278 is enacted into law, which is the bill you are supporting, that your business will increase substantially; is that correct?

Dr. SHELEY. I do not know why it should, sir.

Mr. SHIPE. How is that?

Dr. SHELEY. I do not know that my business would increase substantially. I do not know that it would, sir.

Mr. SHIPE. You do not?

Dr. SHELEY. No, sir.

Mr. SHIPE. What do you think about it?

Dr. SHELEY. Well, basing it on the experience of my father in Ohio I would say it would not make a great deal of difference. Mr. SHIPE. It would not make a particle of difference?

Dr. SHELEY. I did not say a particle. I said, “a great deal” of difference.

Mr. SHIPE. It would not make any difference to your business if the optometrical departments were eliminated from the Kay stores, the stores of Woodward & Lothrop and Hechts?

Dr. SHELEY. That is another story, sir.

Mr. SHIPE. Well, I am asking you: Would that increase your business?

Dr. SHELEY. If they were eliminated there is no question about it, it would. My judgment is it would not be eliminated, the individual optometrist would rent the space from the store directly. That is my impression of the thing, sir.

Mr. SHIPE. Let us assume for a minute that did not happen.

Dr. SHELEY. Then I think business would increase.

Mr. SHIPE. What do you think would happen to all the optometrists employed in those places?

Dr. SHELEY. As I told you a minute ago, I think they would endeavor to sublet these spaces from those companies or go in private practice.

Mr. SHIPE. Let us assume they did not do that thing.

Dr. SHELEY. Then I think they would go into private practice. Mr. SHIPE. And you think they would make a living in practice, private practice?

Dr. SHELEY. That is pretty hard to say. I can only say I do not know why they should not.

Mr. SHIPE. With probably very little difficulty?

Dr. SHELEY. I do not know why they should not.

Mr. SHIPE. What is that?

Dr. SHELEY. I do not know why they should not in private practice. There is no reason why they should not practice. Might IMr. SHIPE. Exactly.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you want to make a statement?

Dr. SHELEY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask Mr. Kaufmann if he would. not consider the very fact that he asked Dr. Burkhead as to what he might have done in this was not showing you rather refuted your subsequent statement, if you did not care what he did?

Mr. KAUFMAN. Except that you did not understand that. I did not ask him what he did.

Dr. SHELEY. You asked him about a petition.

Mr. KAUFMAN. I was told a petition was going around.

Dr. SHELEY. At any rate you discussed with him about a petition. Mr. KAUFMAN. Do not change my statement, please. I asked him if there was a petition going around. He said, "Yes." I said, naturally, I was interested in knowing whether both bills were being given a fair break.

Dr. SHELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. KAUFMAN. The thing I wanted to determine was were both. bills in that petition. He said, "No. There are separate petitions

to both bills being taken around." I said, "Okay." That is all I wanted to know. I did not ask him what he did relative to them. I just wanted to find out whether both bills were being given an equal break. That is the only thing, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you advertise?

Dr. SHELEY. No, sir. Just what-may I say we do not advertise in the newspapers. We do not advertise in the telephone book. We sent out notices every 2 years to our patients suggesting that he return for examination.

Mr. SHIPE. You are with Rae Fulkerson? When did you stop advertising?

Dr. SHELEY. I do not think we have had a newspaper ad for 10 years, sir. I would not want to give you the exact date. I think it was certainly far subsequent to any action such as this. I do not think I do not remember having one for 10 years. I am willing to be corrected on that. We have had the advertisement stopped in the telephone book, which we discontinued, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What did you advertise in the telephone book? Dr. SHELEY. We had just a simple advertisement as we could. Fulkerson, Keely & Sheley. Eye examinations. 1342 F Street, and the phone number. Just a little embellishment.

Mr. KAUFMAN. What are you in the Press Building on the ground floor in preference to being where Dr. Marshall is located, in a residential district?

Dr. SHELEY. Well, I think that Dr. Marshall and myself have an entirely different type of practice.

Mr. KAUFMAN. I am not making a comparison, but why are you where you are in preference to medical district or on a side street or on I, K, L, M, or N, and so forth? Why are you on the 100percent block of F Street?

Dr. SHELEY. Because I believe that is the best block to contact patients. I believe that is the most accessible block. I believe I keep a larger percentage of our patients being on that block. If I were further away, I believe I might refract them but when it came to return for repair work and one thing and another, I believe there is less tendency for them to return.

Mr. KAUFMAN. In other words, you believe you have access to a greater number of people where you are?

Dr. SHELEY. I do. I do. Yes, sir.

Mr. KAUFMAN. And you are willing to pay the differential in rent in lieu of advertising to bring in that larger number of people? Is that right or wrong?

Dr. SHELEY. Yes, sir. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any idea, Doctor, how many optometrists you have in the city of Washington?

Dr. SHELEY. Well, to be perfectly frank with you, I have not. I am sorry. I think Dr. Marshall could tell you better than I. The CHAIRMAN. Do you know how many optometrists in the city advertise?

Dr. SHELEY. Well, I would say possibly 12 or 15. That would be my guess; that is a guess. It seems to me that would be about right. The CHAIRMAN. Are you speaking of men connected with department stores and jewelry stores?

Dr. SHELEY. Yes, sir. That is it, sir. I do not think there are more than three or four who advertise who are in independent practice. Yes, sir; I do not believe I am very far off on that.

The CHAIRMAN. Ethically, you are not allowed to advertise; is that right?

Dr. SHELEY. Well, sir, I am not a member of the society. There is nothing to prevent me from advertising. But my thought on advertising has been that it should be educational rather than as to price. In other words, I have not felt, I have not had the disposition to conduct my business on a price basis. Now, I think my prices are right, but I do not think anybody comes in my place on the supposition that he is going to get a $15 article for $10. I do not think so, sir.

Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has agreed that the reason he does not feel it necessary to advertise is because of the tremendous flow of traffic in that particular block, which happens to be from a realty value probably the second best block in Washington as to pedestrian traffic. Therefore, advertising would be superfluous in his particular business. He pays the difference in rent due to that mass of flow of traffic, which is quite logical. And as a result he does not need to advertise because he has that tremendous traffic there in the Mills Building with a large display, an interesting display, and he does attract people as a result, more than the department stores can, which are isolated on the second floor, that is, they have an isolated optometrical department on the second floor, and they have to advertise to keep up the consciousness and bring the people in. I think there is a little difference there.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions?

Dr. MARSHALL. Doctor, how long did you say you had been in that location?

Dr. SHELEY. We went in that location 10 years ago last October. Dr. MARSHALL. Isn't it true there is directly across the street from you what is known as the Ross Co., which I think is

Dr. SHELEY (interposing). That is correct.

Dr. MARSHALL (continuing). One of your companies? How long have you had an optical department in there Mr. Kaufman?

Mr. KAUFMAN. I believe approximately a year and a half-something like that.

Dr. MARSHALL. Does that department have advertisements in the newspapers?

Mr. KAUFMAN. Yes.

Dr. MARSHALL. Yes. That is all.

Mr. KAUFMAN. It does not. Incidentally, we would have had a department in there long before that but we were not able to get an optometrist to qualify, otherwise there would have been one in there for a long time previous to that. I think that statement can be substantiated by members of the society.

Dr. MARSHALL. By qualified you mean that there were no available men in sight? Or you mean none that had passed the Board?

Mr. KAUFMAN. No, I don't mean that. I mean just what I said, "qualified." There were several available men. We would not employ them.

Dr. SHELEY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask Mr. Kaufman, following what he says. Frankly, on that, I knew the men around town pretty well. I do not think you had very much choice at that time, did you, of men? Whom might you have put in there?

Mr. KAUFMAN. I say that for 10 years we did not have one in the Ross, Seventh Street store-no-I'll change that to about 8-I have got to look at you, Dr. Kraskin, to verify these things-I think that is approximately right. And for about 5 years we did not have one at the F Street store. Is that right, Doctor?

Dr. KRASKIN. Right.

Mr. KAUFMAN. In the interim we did have some, not numerous, but we did have some application from men very anxious to receive employment. We did not accept them because they did not qualify. When I say they did not qualify, they may have passed their board. I was not sure about that because we did not go into it that deeply. But they did not impress us as being the type of men we want handling the public, to be very frank. I think it is best not to enumerate who they were but we are very meticulous on whom we do employ. I think that answers the question.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other question?

Mr. SHIPE. In the spring, in the winter and spring telephone book or directory of 1938-39, you do have an advertisement?

Dr. SHELEY. Yes, sir. I said that we had discontinued it, sir.

Dr. MARSHALL. There is a new edition coming out.

Dr. SHELEY. I think that can be verified. I think it was discontinued possibly three months ago but I would not want to be exact on that.

Mr. SHIPE. You discontinued it at whose request?

Dr. SHELEY. Well, the consensus of opinion seems to be that any advertisement or the display of an advertisement in thereMr. SHIPE. I do not want that.

Dr. SHELEY (continuing). Was unethical.

Mr. SHIPE. Who told you that?

Dr. SHELEY. We discussed it with different people around. Baker, Rauer; I think I discussed it with Etz.

Mr. SHIPE. Well, did the board of optometry discuss it with you at all?

Dr. SHELEY. Well, after we had discussed it, and after we had withdrawn our advertisements we had some letter. Of course, in the discussion with the Board, I cannot name any particular extract, but we did get a form letter inasmuch as they had decided in their decision of theirs-I do not know just the legal phraseology of itbut to the effect it was not-they did not believe we should advertise or were entitled to advertise in the telephone book.

Mr. SHIPE. Do you have that letter with you?

Dr. SHELEY. No, sir; I do not.

Mr. SHIPE. Can you get it?

Dr. SHELEY. I do not believe I can. I would say I received that letter I think it is 6 weeks ago. Am I wrong about that? When was it?

Dr. KRASKIN. It is a couple of months-2 or 3 months.
Dr. SHELEY. Well, I said-2 or 3 months ago.

162220-39--13