one of our merchandising 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 nothing to do with it, and this man I discussed it with and I said "Will you let me see it." He said, "I think so."

I called him up at approximately 11 o'clock. He said it was impossible to see it; you must take it the way it comes. Thank you. Mr. SMITH. I want to ask a few questions.

What is your occupation?

Dr. KANSTOROOM. Optometrist at Goldenberg's.

Mr. SMITH. You are employed by a chain store or a store? Dr. KANSTOROOM. I am an independent operator leasing space. Mr. SMITH. I did not hear your testimony yesterday, but it has been indicated this morning that you testified in a way that intimated that there were some improper motives on the part of some connected with this bill.

Dr. KANSTOROOM. Yes, sir.

Mr. SMITH. Is that the idea you wish to convey?

Dr. KANSTOROOM. I wish to claim that, Mr. Smith. I was asked point-blank, eye-to-eye, to support H. R. 278.

Mr. SMITH. I don't care whether you support H. R. 278 or not. Do you here and now charge or intimate that anybody connected with any one of these bills has done moral wrong?

Dr. KANSTOROOM. I have no evidence of it other than open discussion and inferred demands.

Mr. SMITH. Why did you infer it?

Dr. KANSTOROOM. Why, when I sat at the meeting they asked me to pay these lawyers' expenses in the Lansburgh case, and I knew we had also to have funds to kill the new bill.

Mr. SMITH. Who said it?

Dr. KANSTOROOM. Mr. Chairman, I think it was explained that Cecil Kaufmann was chairman at the meeting. Mr. Kaufmann was chairman at that time.

Mr. SMITH. When you intimate or undertake to charge people with improper motives you should be specific about it. All I want you to do is to be specific. If you know anything, say it; if you don't, say so. If you have made improper charges against those people yesterday, if you are a man you will apologize to them this morning.

Dr. KANSTOROOM. Mr. Smith, when I said yesterday what I was asked for money for a purpose, I have no evidence what it was for because I did not attend further meetings. I was only given a general idea that money would have to be had for legislation and for producing a new bill.

I did not tell the chair who had intimated.

Mr. SMITH. Are you charging anybody with improper motives? Dr. KANSTOROOM. No, sir.

Mr. SMITH. Are you charging them indirectly with improper motives?

Dr KANSTOROOM. No, sir; not directly or indirectly.

Mr. SMITH. That is all I care to ask.

Dr. TENEROWICZ. That is all, doctor.

I understand we have two or three representatives who have come from out of the city and who wish to leave the city tonight.

Now, I think at our hearing the first day these gentlemen wanted to wait until the end of the hearing to testify.

Mr. SMITH. May I make a 2-minute statement before he goes on with this?

Dr. TENEROWICZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. SMITH. I introduced H. R. 278 at the request of certain optometrists who are patrons of mine.

I have been requested on behalf of the optometrists to say that they do not charge anybody with improper motives and never intended to, and that they have no intimation that anybody has done anything other than fight a fair fight in this controversy which, of course, ranges around different views of the professional optometrists and those who practice in stores, as I understand it.

Dr. TENEROWICZ. We will now hear Mr. Kohn.

STATEMENT OF HAROLD KOHN, ESQ., COUNSEL FOR THE AMERICAN OPTOMETRIC ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK CITY

Dr. TENEROWICZ. Do you wish to make a statement?
Mr. KоHN. Yes, sir.

Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, I appear here as the record indicated yesterday as counsel for the National Association, which as such is interested in all legislation and litigation relating to optometry. In a matter of this sort I appear personally.

Where it is a matter of State or a district matter, the local or State association retains its own counsel, and I have nothing whatsoever to do with it except insofar as they may request decision or some information which may be available in my office and not in theirs.

Now, I wish also to reiterate what Congressman Smith said: Insofar as the local society is concerned or the American Optometric Association is concerned, we know nothing about any slush funds or anything of that nature.

We have no charges or accusations to make. We do not desire it directly or indirectly, and I think Dr. Kanstoroom, himself, stated on the stand that he was not and never was a member of the local organization, so that I would like to get that on the record in order to get all of these extraneous matters off and get to the merits of the bill.

The merits of the bill may perhaps not be as dramatic.

Dr. TENEROWICZz. What bill are you talking about, H. R. 278 or H. R. 5238?

Mr. KOHN. I will refer to them directly; to both bills.

First of all there seems to be a difference in concept between the proposals of H. R. 278 and H. R. 5238, and stripping all of the smoke screen and all of the extraneous matters aside, I should say from listening to the testimony that there is only one issue and that is whether it is for the public welfare to have the corporate practice. of optometry, or of any profession for that matter, and by that term I mean the employment of a professional man or of a licensed optometrist to be specific by a lay person or by a lay corporation to render a professional service for the public, and I would like to have that borne in mind as that being the issue.

Now, there was a lot of discussion about monopoly. I will touch upon that in a moment, but I want to get to the things outside about dictatorial powers, about restricting rights of appeal, about enjoining men and taking their licenses away before they could be heard.

I want to say here and now that if any of the provisions of H. R. 5238 afford any better protection to the optometrist who is under charges, or court charges for that matter, I am sure that the local association of optometrists will accept all of those charges.

So let us get all of these extraneous matters out of the way and come back to the most important point.

One point that has seemingly befuddled everybody here, including myself, and which I shall try to get clear is this: That while optometry, that while it has relation to the furnishing of glasses is not concerned entirely with the dispensing of glasses.

There are three types of people who have to do with perfect eyes. The first, of course, is the oculist, or ophthalmologist, and he is the medical doctor who has complete control over the eyes. He can do everything from examining the eyes for glasses as well as to examine the eyes and treat either medically or surgically if a pathological situation arises.

The next is the optometrist who likewise examines the eyes and who examines the eyes with the same instruments and with the same technique as does the physician, with one exception, that he does not instill drugs in the eye, and I may say parenthetically, although a layman and not a physician, that a large number of eye physicians today will examine eyes and do it without the use of drugs unless a clear pathological case appears so that the technique of both practitioners is the same insofar as the examination is concerned.

Then comes the third class, which is the optician. The optician is a mechanic. He is the man either in the retail shop or in the wholesale or supply house who actually and physically grinds the lenses, puts them in the frames, and delivers it complete either to the optometrist or to the oculist, and in turn this pair of glasses is delivered to the ultimate patient.

May I also say in that respect that especially in the more rural communities of physicians, there are physicians that are dispensing their own glasses.

That has grown within the last 10 years, because there are no opticians or optometrists around to supply the glasses, and they send their prescription by mail to the nearest wholesale house, have them return the lenses, and in turn they are put in glasses and then they are delivered to the patient, and incidentally that practice is increasing throughout cities and in the nearby areas because the physician in the last analysis wants the responsibility of giving the complete

service.

Now, this bill is not particularly concerned with the sale of glasses, but the bills H. R. 278 and H. R. 5238 relate to the practice of optometry, a profession if you please.

The one definition that I can say is, that throughout the testimony of both the sponsors of H. R. 5238 and opposing H. R. 278, it is that the examination of the eyes is simply an incident for the sale of glasses; that they have these glasses, this merchandise, to purvey, to sell, and that therefore, incidentally, it it perfectly all right for them

to have some fellow around who will examine the public and say "Oh, yes."

And now comes the big job, namely, "We will sell you the glasses." We optometrists believe and we know that the examination of the eyes is the important thing and the furnishing of glasses is purely incidental, particularly so, because there are a number of cases where glasses are not indicated and where they can be corrected by muscular treatment or orthroptic exercise.

Now, the best witness that we had for H. R. 278 in my opinion was Mr. Kaufman who so vigorously opposed it. Mr. Kaufman's attitude with respect to optometry was definitely stated:

He said, I think, in substance that it is a mechanical trade, a licensed mechanical trade, and I will stand by it. Well, I don't think that despite his knowledge of the subject of optometry that he can qualify as an expert as to what he believes optometry is.

At this point I think it would be smart to go into the history of optometry a little bit.

It originated years ago in several types of establishments, jewelry stores, in optician's establishments, in chemists stores where they made glasses and frames.

As a matter of fact one of the physicists who discovered the instrument that is used or was used for the examination of his eyes is dead, and originated in a gunsmith's establishment, and true enough that was the origin of optometry.

Prior to 1900 there became two clases of opticians here. Every.. body in those days was known as an optician. One class simply dis. pensed glasses at the prescription of the physician, or his neighborhood optician who called himself a refracting optician. He examined the eyes, refracted the lenses and prescribed them, and either prepared them or sent them to somebody else to be made, and those groups or this group of refracting opticians subsequently became regulated, became licensed or became known as optometrists and in the last 35 years this profession of optometry has grown with the same leaps and bounds as the profession of dentistry, and for that matter the current profession of medicine.

Certainly mechanical procedure, technique, and discovery cannot be compared today with what existed in 1900 and likewise in optometry and certainly as one of the witnesses, Mrs. Wright, testified, dentistry originated in barber shops and originally the barbers used to pull teeth. For that matter, the barber used to let blood; but the fact that there are opticians and the fact that there are dentists and the fact that optometry arose from jewelry shops and gunsmith establishments, nonetheless it does not detract from the fact that optometry is a profession, or that dentistry is a profession, or that medicine is a profession.

Now, another thing I think Mr. Kaufmann's method, and to give his attitude toward the social aspect of the situation, because it is a social aspect with which the optometrists and our organization is interested, the aspect of the relationship with the public, because if the public did not need us, and if the public did not want us, and if the public did not patronize us, we would die and the profession would wither and the profession, as a matter of fact, is growing.

162220-39-7

He said, Mr. Kaufmann did, and in response, may I say to a question that was pressed by I think Congressman Smith, that if his merchandise board believed that the offering of the practice of medicine by physicians was lucrative, honest, and efficient, he would consider it, or that they might consider it.

Now, I particularly call your attention to the term "lucrative." In other words, he stated-that is, Mr. Kaufmann stated his attitude on behalf of the chain of stores, 60 stores that he represents that from the point of view of making money for those stores-I don't blame him for it-he is advocating their rights, but I say that point of view is socially wrong.

I don't blame Mr. Kaufmann for any of the statements he made on behalf of his clients or on behalf of the interests whom he represents. I believe he is an attorney, and I believe he indicated yesterday in referring to Mr. Rosenberg, in speaking of attorneys, by saying Mr. Rosenberg represents vested interests and the record will show the term "vested interests."

In other words, what I am trying to point out to the opposition, and I point to Mr. Kaufmann particularly, because I believe he made the best witness thus far for bill H. R. 5238 against H. R. 278.

I believe he has expressed the attitude of all of the witnesses, namely, that they are merchants first and last, that they operate vested interests and groups of stores, that they buy eyeglasses as merchandise, and that they sell eye glasses as merchandise, and that therefore they want to make a profit on them, and if they do that, in order to do that they should have an optometrist present.

Now, I say in order to sell glasses you do not have to have an optometrist present, and the mere fact that H. R. 278 does away with corporate practice does not in any way do away with the right of these corporations to sell glasses. They can sell them as merchandise the same as they want, but it does take away from them the right to have control of them and have supervision over the examination of eyes by employing professional men to do it.

I here and now that there is no reason why these same corporasay tions if they wish, and they do, can engage physicians to examine eyes, and if they do that certainly I believe that they would be practicing medicine as a corporation, and, as a matter of fact, in numerous States physicians have been employed and in a certain number of States laws have been passed by the medical associations to prevent physicians from being employed either for the examination of eyes or for the conduct of any part of their practice with respect to corporations for the public.

By the same token here in the District I understand some decisions have been rendered to prevent banks and trust companies who have their own attorneys have them act as attorneys for clients.

Now, that we have stated the facts, why? And this is the reason: The relationship between a patient or a client and the practitioner, be he lawyer, dentist, physician, optometrist, or dietician, or what not is the relationship of trust and confidence, and every profession will contend that that relationship must be one relationship, not a dual relationship.

It seems to me that the duty which the practitioner owes his patient should be supreme.