The first 2 years are devoted entirely to the course as given in the regular college course-history, mathematics, English, and German, or whatever language-so that the first 2 years in the optometry course in Columbia University are purely scholastic and academic, and only the third and fourth years are devoted to optometry.

Do you know what degree is given to one who graduates from their optometry course? Do you know what course is given to those who graduate from the optometry course at Columbia University?

He gets a degree of bachelor of science, or bachelor of arts, depending entirely, I think, as to the languages which you take in the first and second years.

Are we to have to say, Mr. Chairman, that one who gets a bachelor degree is comparable insofar as professionalism is concerned to one who has his bachelor degree and then gets his degree of doctor of medicine or doctor of law?

Now, let us take Ohio State University. I agree with Mr. Kohn that it is a very fine school; and do you know in what school of Ohio University optometry is. taught? It is taught in the school of engineering under the department of physics, and a graduateDr. Kraskin may shake his head-but if you produce a catalog, and had I known that they would be mentioned I would have had the catalog here, and I offered them in evidence in the Buhl case-you get a degree in engineering. That is the degree you get from Ohio State University by taking the optometry course.

Now, then, Mr. Chairman, with these backgrounds, how, by what method of reasoning or logic can we compare optometry with thẹ learned professions and how can we say that optometry is a learned profession?

Now, with respect to the professional character of optometry, do you know, Mr. Chairman, of any legislation in the State of Michigan, from which you come, reflecting the kind of advertising, or the kind of advertising a physician dare not engage in?

We have no such thing in Pennsylvania enacted with respect to medicine nor with regard to law. The very thought, the very mention of advertising, the carrying of advertising by the medical profession or by the legal profession, would be repugnant to the standards or canons of ethics of those professions, and the fact that in the legislation which is now on the statute books and in the contemplated legislation dealing with advertising in itself is indicative of the fact that there was contemplated a commercial angle and a commercial atmosphere with respect to optometry. That is what the framers of the bills of the different States, when they were introduced and finally enacted, had in mind.

They had in mind the examination of the eyes, and they had in mind the selling of the glasses, and I venture to say that if the average optometrist, not only in the District of Columbia but throughout the United States, were to depend entirely upon profession fees received by him in the refraction of the eyes, he would starve to death, or, in other words, an optometrist, in order to earn a livelihood, and he is entitled to it, besides the refraction of the eyes, must sell the glasses and make a profit on those glasses, otherwise he cannot exist. In the District of Columbia I do not remember any more what the testimony was but there were very, very few who depended entirely upon the fees which they received in the examination of eyes.

The other side had on the witness stand Dr. Kraskin, and I think Dr. Kraskin is one of the few who does not depend upon the selling of glasses, but Dr. Silver, who is one of the defendants, Dr. Titus, who is a member of the Board, I don't remember any more, I believe Dr. Marshall, I do not know whether she sells glasses or not-I do not think you do.

Dr. FRANCES P. MARSHALL. Not entirely.

Mr. ROSENBERG. But nearly all of them depend upon the sale of glasses for their livelihood or for whatever you may choose to call it. Therefore, there is that commercial angle, that commercial atmosphere which exists.

Now, then, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kohn mentioned a few opticians, Edmunds and a few others that I presume are of a very high grade. There are also optometrists who fill prescriptions written by oculists, mostly by oculists because the rule is that the optometrist fills his own prescriptions, sells his own glasses.

If this bill be enacted, with all of the restrictions placed, the advertising restrictions, it will be unfair to the optometrists because the optometrist, as I pointed out to you, depends upon his livelihood for the sale of glasses; he could not advertise terms, he could not advertise by having a Neon sign or having a picture of an eye so as to attract possible purchasers of glasses. But Edmunds would have the right to do that very thing which the optometrist would be deprived from doing. Now, let me say this for commercial optometry, than I will stick upon that usage instead of corporate practice.

Before I forget I intended to state at the beginning of my remarks that I was impressed with a particular phase of these hearings, Mr. Chairman, that was when Mrs. Wright appeared here at the first hearing voicing, she and her associates voicing, sentiment of their groups even thought Mr. Kohn said she voiced her own sentiments, but generally speaking the head of the organization knows the pulse of the constituency of that organization, and when she and the other gentleman, Dr. Havenner, a physician, and one or two others came here and spoke as they did, that really was refreshing, because here we had the voice of populace itself. Here we had the voice of membership of 60,000 and not the voice of one group opposed to another group.

After all, the original optometry bill was passed for the public welfare and was not passed for the benefit of any particular group, and it is the citizenry of the District of Columbia that must be considered.

Commercial optometry has done a good job, Mr. Chairman. Commercial optometry has made the public eye conscious irrespective of the views which Mr. Kohn expressed as to the value of eye consciousness. You bring before the public a fact that eyes need attention once or twice and the third time, and a fourth time. They are made eye conscious and especially after a message is delivered to the populace, to the average person who has one, two, or three children, who may be a wage earner and whose wages may be limited and when a message is delivered to him that he can get glasses for his little Mary, little Johnnie, or his wife, or for himself, and he does not make $25 or $30 which may at times be more than his entire week's salary, that he may go into any of these commercial establishments and get them on the installment plan. That has been a

Godsend, Mr. Chairman, to the average American citizen of this country with respect to eyeglasses.

I did have the figures, but I have forgotten, I am sorry to say, Mr. Chairman, but it showed the condition of the eyesight of the child needs improvement. A great deal of the backwardness in school is due to the fact that children do not have proper eye wear and if they can get proper eyewear a reasonable terms, at low prices, why it would be criminal to deprive them of that right.

Mr. Chairman, there are a few other vicious things in this bill. Let me say that there was a bill before the committee several years ago, introduced in Congress, and there were several public hearings. I think that Mr. O'Brien, of Chicago, at that time was chairman of the committee. I do not even know if he is a Member of Congress now. I think Mr. Dirksen, of Chicago, was also a member of that committee. I think he is a Member of Congress, and there was several hearings held. A bill was introduced through the sponsorship of the Board. All that they wanted was to amend the bill by giving them the right to define what would constitute "unprofessional conduct," and, of course, the committee saw fit not to report that bill out. The committee saw the viciousness of this and even if it had passed, I want to say that in my humble opinion that would have been unconstitutional.

Congress cannot, as I say in my humble opinion, delegate to an administrative body the right to determine what shall constitute "unprofessional conduct." The Board may use one yardstick in one instance and may use another yardstick in another instance.

Another very vicious feature of this bill which was commented upon by Mr. Brylawski was, I think, on page 14 with respect to the revocation of the license, which provides that the decision of said Commissioners on any question of fact involved in such appeal shall be final. It specifically provided—

The decision of said Commissioners in any question of fact involved that such appeal shall be final and conclusive; but no such appeal or other action as may be taken by any such licensee or applicant shall stay, enjoin, or suspend ́any such order of revocation, suspension, or refusal pending any such appeal.

To my mind that is depriving one of his property rights and we further feel that it is not American and it is not justice and in my humble opinion it is even unconstitutional. If it could develop after an appeal is taken by the optometry that he was not guilty and the revocation will be set aside, where would the poor optometrist's business be? He not only would have lost his practice, but where would he be? I mention this thought. I am not so much interested in this phase, but I am interested in this phase of the question because it shows the general tenor of the whole bill. It is not fair; it is not proper for the reasons that I have given you, Mr. Chairman, I think that H. R. 278 should not be reported out.

Now, with respect to prices there is no question but that the prices that are charged in the commercial establishments are far less than the prices charged by the optometrist practicing in an office building. Their purchasing power, and I want to say that the kind and quality of merchandise of lenses that are bought-and I am glad that I have thought of this-are of the highest kind. There is a concern, and this was recorded at a hearing before a committee several months

It

ago, and it was a committee on health of the Ohio State Senate. was reported that a concern buying the seconds of one of the large optical houses in this country, a Chicago concern, and they sell them-do you know to whom these second-grade lenses are sold? They are not sold to Kann's, they are not sold to Kay's, but they are sold to the individual optometrist because that, I don't say all, but the tendency is to sell them to the little fellow. He gets them at a price.

Now, why don't these establishments buy those kind of merchandise? Reputation established and a reputation to be maintained is such that they could not afford and would not stand for anything but of the highest type, leaving that establishment and that is why. Take Marshall Field in Chicago and take some of your large department stores. Take any high-priced store whether in Michigan or any place and it has an eye department. You can take Woodward & Lothrop and these other stores. Do you for a moment imagine that those establishments would permit anything but the highest type of lenses to leave their establishments?

If you wanted to buy an expensive fur and you did not know anything about furs you would be satisfied to go to any of these large concerns; the same way when you are getting your glasses. You would have no hesitancy in going to any of these established concerns and you know you would be given the very best.

Let me say something else. I thought I would have the original exhibit. Mr. Lyon thought I would have it, and it appears in the Blue Book of which Mr. Kohn has a copy. After the name of Dr. Dicus appears "o. e. p." Is that what it is?

Dr. KRASKIN. "o. e. p."

Mr. ROSENBERG. The Blue Book is a recognized book by all optometrists, which contains a list of all the optometrists in the United States and their degrees and their honors, and after the names of some of these-here I happened to pick out Dr. Dicus and I asked what the "o. e. p." meant. It was explained to me that it was an inner group of the American Optometric Society, that is the national organization which Mr. Kohn represents, and it is devoted to the interests of the furthering of optometry and it serves a useful purpose; there is no question about that. But I particularly asked about "o. e. p." and it was explained that it was an inner group of the American Optometric Society which gives a certain service to the members of this inner group.

I happened to have one of the publications of the o. e. p., and I showed it to Dr. Dicus and asked him if he ever received it, and he said, "Yes; I am very familiar with it," and I told him to read portions from the book and he read some very high articles extolling the virtues and place of optometry, what it does. There is no question about that. Later on I turned to some pages which were devoted to instructing the members of that service-mind you this is the inner group of the A. O. A. on high-pressure salesmanship and how to get high prices for glasses. That is a matter of record in this Lansburgh case.

Mr. TENEROWICZ. Let me interrupt you at that point, Mr. Rosenberg. For the record, will you tell the committee what you mean by "second" as far as glasses are concerned?

Mr. ROSENBERG. By a second, my interpretation as a layman as to a second, not first class, some flaws of some kind, but the flaw in itself might be insignificant, or might not.

Mr. TENEROWICZ. Would it show in the glasses?
Mr. ROSENBERG. I beg pardon.

Mr. TENEROWICZ. Would it show in the glasses?

Mr. ROSENBERG. I possibly might not recognize it. The expert might. The fact is that high-class manufacturing establishments would not sell it; there are some seconds.

Mr. KAUFMAN. Pardon me. In the spirit of enlightenment, Mr. Rosenberg, the manufacturer's conception of seconds necessarily to determine seconds, for example, let me give an example of the American Optical Co., which has three classifications of lenses. The first classification is so-called best "tillyer," the second classification is "centex," and the third one "ophthalmic." Now, they do not term them first, second, and third; they are all supposed to be first, but as a real comparison they are somewhat like kiln-dried pottery. Some pottery comes out perfect. Then other pottery comes out with what is known as the run of the mill and it has slight bubbles in it or diptric variations. These three classes of lenses of the American Optical Co. are all considered first class. The first two are of the finest quality. The ophthalmic, however, is not supposed to be as good in quality as the two former ones. A second-quality lens is one whose surface grinding or surface finishing is not clear or perfect, or is a lens that will vary more than one sixty-fourth of a diptric in its tolerance, deem it to be a second or of inferior quality. That inferior quality is used in many instances because it does not injure the person's view at all except that it will not produce on face of the lens or its grinding during surfacing, so to speak, as precise a prescription. It will not follow the prescription as closely. That is the difference basically between the lenses of the various classes.

Incidentally, as a matter of record, I do believe that you will find that most advertising optometrists in stores that I am familiar with, I cannot speak for those that I do not know, but I know our stores and others that I know of are because if they do not I think they would be open to too much criticism and their work would not be as reliable if they did not use that grade. I do not know what others use but I know what we use.

Mr. ROSENBERG. I have a few more thoughts. It will not take more than a few minutes.

I mentioned that when an optometrist finds that the patient requires care of a physician he is referred to a physician. In the Lansburgh case we offered in evidence testimony to show numbers and numbers of cases where people came to have their eyes refracted, and upon the use of the ophthalmoscope and retinoscope it was found that no glasses were needed and the patient was told that no glasses were needed, and not even an examination fee is charged.

Department stores do not charge an examination fee. I mention this fact to refute the inference that a commercial establishment primarily is bent upon sales promotion. That is not so. If glasses are needed, the optometrist will say so, and if glasses are not needed, the optometrist will say so just as well.