TO REGULATE THE PRACTICE OF OPTOMETRY IN THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 1939

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Washington, D. C. The subcommittee this day met at 10:35 a. m., Hon. Rudolph G. Tenerowicz presiding, for further consideration of H. R. 278 and

H. R. 5238.

Dr. TENEROWICZ. The committee will please be in order. Who is the first witness?

Mr. BRYLAWSKI. My name is Julian Brylawski, 702 Earle Building, Washington, D. C., and I am president of the District Council of Municipal Affairs, which is an organization of various business and professional men who take great interest in everything connected with the District of Columbia, such as taxation, appropriations, schools, and so forth. This is a nonprofit and a noncompensating organization.

Dr. TENEROWICZ. Please proceed.

Mr. BRYLAWSKI. I would like to call as the first witness this morning Dr. George C. Havenner.

STATEMENT OF DR. GEORGE C. HAVENNER

Dr. TENEROWICZ. We shall be glad to hear Mr. Havenner at this time.

Mr. HAVENNER. My name is George C. Havenner, 2912 Albemarle Street NW., Washington, D. C.

Mr. BRYLAWSKI. I may say that Mr. Havenner has for many years been president of the Federation of Citizens' Associations of the District of Columbia and he is well and favorably known as a gentleman very much interested in all public affairs in the District.

Mr. HAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, I am an active member of the Forest Hills Citizens' Association and an honorary life member of some six or seven neighborhood citizens' associations, as well as one or two city-wide organizations. I have been active in the affairs of the District of Columbia for something like 40 years. If I may say so, I have been elected to every office that the voteless Washingtonians may confer upon one.

We have in the city of Washington 58 white citizens' associations and 21 colored citizens' associations.

The white citizens' associations are affiliated with the Federation of Citizens' Associations, and in addition to these 58 white associa

37

tions that are affiliated with the federation there are 10 city-wide organizations affiliated with this body. These organizations are the American Association of Engineers, the Arts Club, the District of Columbia Congress of Parent-Teachers, the District of Columbia Federation of Women's Clubs, the Medical Society of the District of Columbia, the Pharmacists' Society of the District of Columbia, the Pharmaceutical Society of the District of Columbia, and the Society of Native Washingtonians.

The 21 colored citizens' associations are affiliated with the Federation of Civic Associations, which is their central body.

These two central bodies, with their affiliates, represent about 60,000 taxpayers in the District of Columbia, and these 60,000 taxpayers we might class as the owners of medium-priced homes. The civic organizations have not had an opportunity to study and pass upon either of the two bills now pending before the subcommittee.

Dr. TENEROWICZ. You are referring to H. R. 5238 and H. R. 278, are you not ?

Mr. HAVENNER. That is correct.

These associations usually hold their meetings between September and May or June, and many of them have adjourned for the year. Consequently we cannot get what might be called a united, city-wide, action by these various organizations.

For that reason I believe that consideration of these bills should go over to the next session of Congress, in order to give the taxpayers of voteless Washington an opportunity to study and pass intelligently upon them.

I think there are quite a few objectionable features in both bills. The main objection is that the bills prohibit corporations from employing optometrists in the first place; secondly, advertising would be prohibited. Consequently it would mean that an advertisement such as is found in one of the newspapers here, where glasses may be fitted to the eyes and purchased for $5.95 or bifocals for $7 and a little more, would not be allowed and glasses would cost more. If glasses are not allowed to be handled by optometrists employed by corporations or jewelry stores I do not believe that many of our people could take care of the eyes as they do now. Prices would probably be prohibitive. Of course, they get time payments in these stores, whereas they probably could not get time payments if they went to regular opticians.

Dr. TENEROWICZ. Do you represent these 58 white and 21 colored organizations?

Mr. HAVENNER. I will not say that I represent them now, for the reason that I am no longer president of the citizens' associations. I was president of that organization for four consecutive terms. I am the only man ever elected four consecutive terms during the whole life of the federation. I declined to permit my name to be used in connection with a fifth term.

Dr. TENEROWICZ. Did I understand you to say that the 58 and 21 organizations of which you spoke represent 60,000 taxpayers? Mr. HAVENNER. With the city-wide organizations I enumerated, those organizations represent about 60,000 city-wide taxpayers.

I believe that these organizations, through their various committees, should be given an ample opportunity to study these two bills

and then come back to your subcommittee prepared to give their views. Certainly the two main central bodies should have an opportunity to study these bills and reach an accurate and mature conclusion in connection with them. Therefore I am asking for a postponement in the consideration of these bills until the next session of Congress.

Mr. SHIPE. My name is E. K. Shipe, Transportation Building, Washington, D. C. I am an attorney and I represent those who are

interested in H. R. 5238.

Mr. Havenner, have you read these two bills?

Mr. HAVENNER. Yes; but only hurriedly. I did not get copies of them until very late; but if you want to ask me an opinion between the two of them, I will give it.

Mr. SHIPE. What is your opinion?

Mr. HAVENNER. I would prefer H. R. 5238 to the other bill; but I do not believe, as I said a moment ago, that this subcommittee should hurriedly act upon these bills without giving the citizens of Washington an ample opportunity to study and pass upon them and submit recommendations, ultimately, to the subcommittee.

Mr. SHIPE. Do you recall the act of May 1924, which is the present optometrist bill?

Mr. HAVENNER. Yes; I do.

Mr. SHIPE. I believe you were, in 1924, president of the Federation of Citizens' Associations, were you not?

Mr. HAVENNER. I was a member of the federation at that time, but I was not president, I was president during 1929, 1930, 1931, and 1932. Mr. SHIPE. Your organization favored those bills, did it not? Mr. HAVENNER. Yes.

Mr. SHIPE. Your organization, I assume, at least you are in favor of a provision in the bill which permits corporations such as Woodward & Lothrop, Hecht's, Lansburgh's, Kay's Jewelry store, and others to have optometrical departments in their stores if they are under the direct supervision and management of duly licensed and registered optometrists.

Mr. HAVENNER. Personally, I do.

Mr. SHIPE. And you are against unfair or bait advertising, are you not?

Mr. HAVENNER. Yes; by all means.

Mr. SHIPE. Do you not think that H. R. 5238 gives those concerned protection?

Mr. HAVENNER. I think it does to a certain extent; but I think it probably goes too far. I am saying that without having made a very analytical study of the bill. I have not had an opportunity to make a careful study of these bills.

Mr. SHIPE. In what respect do you think H. R. 5238 goes too far? Mr. HAVENNER. As I recall, it forbids advertising. I think that advertising should be permitted in connection with these optometrical departments conducted in connection with department stores and jewelry stores. I see no objection to that advertising.

Mr. SHIPE. H. R. 278 would stop all that, would it not?

Mr. HAVENNER. Yes.

Mr. SHIPE. It prevents these corporations from having optometrical departments, does it not?

Mr. HAVENNER. Yes.

Mr. SHIPE. It seeks to elevate the optometrical business to a profession, does it not?

Mr. HAVENNER. I do not see how it could make this work professional. I do not see how the passage of these bills could make the work professional in character.

Mr. SHIPE. That is what it seeks to do.

I have no further questions of the gentleman. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF MRS. CLARENCE WRIGHT

Dr. TENEROWICZ. Who is to be heard next?

Mrs. WRIGHT. I wish to be heard.

Dr. TENEROWICZ. Please give your name and for what organization, if any, you speak?

Mrs. WRIGHT. I am president of the Forest Hills Citizens' Association, which has not acted on this bill. I am speaking as an individual only.

Dr. TENEROWICZ. I was at the last hearing in connection with this matter and there you wanted to make a statement, as I remember. Mrs. WRIGHT. I wanted to get the citizens' associations together. I have contacted the heads of many citizens' organizations, including cne in Chevy Chase with a membership of 1,800. That organization has not made any study of these bills.

I do not think any organization has made a complete study of these bills and is in position to make an intelligent recommendation; therefore I ask that this matter be put over until the next session of the Congress.

Night before last our association was against this bill, believing that it should be put over for awhile.

At that meeting Mr. Carruthers expressed himself strongly that things like this are not needed, especially in view of the fact that the District really needs so many other things, which are left to go over. He stated that they were not holding a meeting of the Federation of Citizens' Associations in connection with this matter.

I do not see any need of this legislation. There is no showing that anybody has been injured in the District of Columbia by allowing department stores and jewelry stores to sell glasses.

My husband is employed in the Pure Food Administration in the Department of Agriculture and he has read both of these bills. He says they are vicious. One of his associates goes to a department. store to get his glasses, and he is always thoroughly satisfied with the treatment and service he gets there. That is all I know about this matter. I do not know anything about optometry, but from what I have been able to learn about this bill I am led to believe that if it is enacted into law it is going to make conditions hard on the people generally. All our citizens are taxpayers, and I do not see why this bill should be put through for a privileged group. We are talking about socialized medicine, and so forth, and then we go to work and try to put this business into the hands of an exclusive few for their own good. Legislation of this kind will not in any way benefit the District of Columbia. I could give you a list of many bills which, if enacted into law, would benefit the District immeasurably. I have for 4 years been trying to get District boys an equal chance to enter the Military Academy and the Naval Academy, but I can

not get such a bill through. Now we have a small group coming here in connection with this proposal now before you and making a great deal of noise in connection with it.

So far as Representative Smith, who introduced H. R. 278, is concerned, I do not know one piece of useful legislation that he has put through for the District of Columbia during his service in the House; and now why should he try to sponsor this effort to impose a real hardship upon certain groups in the District.

As I have said, I should like to see this matter go over in order to afford these citizens a chance to consider it maturely and thoroughly. You, Mr. Chairman, as a physician, know that this is not of vital and urgent necessity.

Mr. SHIPE. As I understand, you are opposed to H. R. 278; is that correct?

Mrs. WRIGHT. Yes.

Mr. SHIPE. Have you read H. R. 5238?

Mrs. WRIGHT. I have read some of it. My husband says that both bills are bad. I rely upon him once in a while, but he seems to do all the talking for the family. I am not, I admit, an expert in connection with optometry.

Mr. SHIPE. We are endorsing H. R. 5238.

Mrs. WRIGHT. I am not endorsing either bill. I do not know anything about either one of them. I do not think we need any more legislation in connection with the District of Columbia. Unless an urgent need is shown for this proposal, I do not see any necessity for doing anything about it, certainly not at this time.

Mr. SHIPE. There has been some litigation here in the District of Columbia about the optometry situation, which has made it necessary to have some new legislation.

Mrs. WRIGHT. Why is it necessary to have another bill that looks to new legislation? I do not think that the Congress generally pays must attention to District litigation.

Mr. SHIPE. You are probably familiar with the fact that a bill similar to H. R. 278 has been before the Congress before this.

Mrs. WRIGHT. What do we need with such a bill? We have a good law now. All kinds of bills affecting the District of Columbia are introduced in Congress. Just take a look at the calendar and see how many pending bills concerning the District of Columbia are on the calendar. One can get any Congressman to put in a bill for him. Any Congressman would rather introduce a bill than make an argument or defend against an argument of another.

Mr. SHIPE. Are you in favor of allowing Woodward & Lothrop's, Hecht's, Lansburgh's, the Palais Royal, and other such establishments to have optometrical departments?

Mrs. WRIGHT. Yes.

I had an experience in New England in connection with glasses. I needed glasses. I went into a store and got some glasses and my husband held them up and saw that the lines were all wrong. I sent them to my mother and she took them back to the store and got my money. If that had been here in Washington and I had gotten the glasses at Woodward & Lothrop and had found reason to take them back, I would have received my money back. That is not true when one goes to these regular opticians who have no other business.