an interest in their work will not improve the line in which they are engaged.

Mr. SHIPE. Is there anything in H. R. 278 that will allow anybody to practice if he is not duly qualified?

Dr. KANSTOROOM. The subterfuge is there. Under H. R. 5238 anybody can come here and go into the optometry business. All he has to do is to go out and find somebody who has not had his license revoked and then go to work.

Mr. SHIPE. That is not true as to H. R. 5238.

Dr. KANSTOROOM. Under that anybody can go into the optometrical business.

Mr. SHIPE. No; that is not true. You know it is not true. The bill speaks for itself and members of the committee can read it. If there is any such provision in it as that, I do not know anything about it; yet I have read the bill as often or more often than has the witness. Anyway, I do not see any necessity for prosecuting that argument further.

Dr. TENEROWICZ. Do you withdraw your request to strike out that statement, Mr. Rosenberg?

Mr. ROSENBERG. No; I do not. My request is that it be stricken. Dr. TENEROWICZ. The Chair rules that the committee is very much interested in that matter, and it will therefore deny the motion to strike. In other words, the statement will remain in the record.

Mr. KAUFMANN. Dr. Kanstoroom, would you be satisfied, starting as of today, not to advertise in your department at Goldenbergs?

Dr. KANSTOROOM. If conditions were equal. That is what I am interested in-equality.

Mr. KAUFMANN. Do you think that your business would be better if you did not advertise?

Dr. KANSTOROOM. It is not a question of doing that way. It is a question of custom. I think the relationship between myself and the public would be better if I did not advertise. There would be a mutual benefit if I did not advertise.

Mr. KAUFMANN. Did you attend a meeting in my office?

Dr. KANSTOROOM. I attended two of them there.

Mr. KAUFMANN. Did you call up my secretary about a man in the Palais Royal?

Dr. KANSTOROOM. I did.

Mr. KAUFMANN. What did you tell her?

Dr. KANSTOROOM. I told her that it would not be necessary to call that man for the simple reason that on account of the position he was in there he would not be able to act favorably.

Mr. KAUFMANN. Why did you say that?

Dr. KANSTOROOм. He would not be in position to oppose anything without being dictated to.

Mr. KAUFMANN. Did you say to me that you felt that the man from the Palais Royal would reconvey everything said to the society? Dr. KANSTOROOM. Yes; I told you he would not be any benefit

to you.

Mr. KAUFFMAN. And you acknowledge that you attended two meetings at my office, do you?

Dr. KANSTOROOM. Yes.

Mr. KAUFMANN. Were you asked for a contribution?

Dr. KANSTOROOM. Yes.

Mr. KAUFMANN. Do you recall that I asked you specifically if I could count on you to support H. R. 5238?

Dr. KANSTOROOM. Yes.

Mr. KAUFMANN. Do you remember your answer?

You asked me for

Dr. KANSTOROOM. Yes. I did not say that I would support it. I do not remember exactly what my answer was. money and, tentatively, it was to be given.

Mr. KAUFMANN. Do you remember my saying that the purpose of this fund was to aid in the adjustment in the court of the District of Columbia in a certain case in which we were interested? I asked you to contribute your share; and do you recall what you said to me in my office in the presence of two or three persons?

Dr. KANSTOROOM. I objected to any contribution to help that cause. Mr. KAUFMANN. Before you left my office did you not agree to send $200 to me very soon?

Dr. KANSTOROOM. That was for the purpose of drafting a new bill and to promote other work that you wanted done here on the Hill.

Mr. KAUFMANN. As chairman of that meeting, of which there is a record, I can say that the purpose of the meeting was to decide what we would do or try to do in regard to the case being adjusted in the court and in connection with any contingency following from it. You were asked about a donation. I asked you if we could count on you for a donation, and you told me that your check would be forthcoming the next day. I told you to whom the check should be drawn. Is that right?

Dr. KANSTOROOM. You are right in regard to the request for money. You stated that you did not want to have your name on the check. You knew at that time because I mentioned it specifically that I was not interested in paying any amount of money in connection with that court case.

Mr. KAUFMANN. Why did you attend the meetings when you knew they had to do with corporate practice, as you term it?

Dr. KANSTOROOM. I attended by invitation because I was an advertiser. I had some thought about my particular position. You called similar meetings several years before.

Mr. SHIPE. You are a member of the Optometrical Society, are you not?

Dr. KANSTOROOM. No.

Mr. SHIPE. Have you been a member of it?

Dr. KANSTOROOM. No; never.

STATEMENT OF HON. CLARENCE J. MCLEOD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Dr. TENEROWICZ. Our colleague, Mr. McLeod, wishes to make a statement, and we will hear him at this time.

Mr. MCLEOD. I want to appear in opposition to the proposed legislation, including any and all legislation on this particular subject, for the primary reason that any legislation that may be enacted by the Congress for the sole benefit of the District of Columbia as local legislation ultimately assumes a national cast. Local legislation enacted here solely for the benefit of the District has been and will be construed and used as a national pattern.

This has been the case, and in this instance my particular objection is that I have already heard from several jewelry stores-owners of them—two in Highland Park, Mich., and about seven in Detroit, parts of which communities are included in my district.

My correspondents feel that the optometrical departments in those jewelry stores and department stores are a great contributing factor to their getting along better during times of distress.

I believe I am correct in stating that conditions in Detroit, for instance, are much more unfavorable than they are in the District of Columbia. No doubt some of the witnesses present cannot appreciate the fact that I am trying to bring out. Regardless of that evidence, it does interfere with private business. If this would work a hardship upon certain small establishments in jewelry stores and department stores, and make it impossible for them to function in a proper fashion like they are functioning now, I believe this matter should be put over in order to permit further study to be made to learn whether legislation of this sort is beneficial.

I want to say that if it is a fact that conditions I have cited in a certain section of Michigan are accurate, it would be most difficult in changing legislation of this nature during the present session of Congress for the reason that it must be similar throughout the country or in many sections of the country.

I wonder why this bill has become so well advertised. It must be on account of the original bill that was introduced in January. Word about this has spread throughout the country, and I got my first information about it 2 months ago.

STATEMENT OF CULVER B. CHAMBERLAIN

Dr. TENEROWICZ. Who wishes to be heard next?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I desire to be heard. My name is Culver B. Chamberlain, attorney and counsellor at law, Washington, D. C. I am president of the Cathedral Heights-Cleveland Park Citizens' Association, and I live at 2737 Cathedral Avenue NW., this city.

The position of my organization has been well stated by Mr. McLeod, who has just spoken. I associate my remarks generally with his.

My organization feels that the present regulations governing optometry are reasonably satisfactory, and we would like to have a postponement of consideration of this or any similar measure until such time as a thorough study may be made to make sure that any changes would really be in the public interest.

Dr. TENEROWICZ. You are opposed to both bills, are you?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Yes; at this time. I am opposed to them until more mature consideration may be given them by citizens of the District.

Mr. SHIPE. How long have you had these bills in your possession ? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I have had a copy of H. R. 278 for about a week.

Mr. SHIPE. When was that bill introduced?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. It was introduced on last January 3, by Mr. Smith of Virginia.

Mr. SHIPE. Do you keep up with legislation?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I endeavor to, but, as you are aware, it is a little difficult to keep up with all these things, because there are so many of them.

Mr. SHIPE. When do you think you could read those two bills and come before the committee and give it your opinion of them?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I would not be in a position, probably, to come before the committee until my association reconvenes in regular session in the fall. There might be a special meeting called, but I doubt it. That is the reason our organization would like to suggest that action on these bills be deferred until more time shall have been given to a consideration of them.

Mr. SHIPE. Do you think it is in the interest of the public simply to wait until next fall to consider these pending bills?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Inasmuch as they would affect the public interest, I think it would be wise to go slow, especially in view of the fact that the present regulations seem to be reasonably satisfactory. I do not think it would be adverse to public interest to postpone consideration of these bills.

Mr. SHIPE. Assuming they are in the public interest, do you think it would be wise to wait until next fall to consider them?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I do not think it would be adverse to public interest to postpone consideration of them, as I have stated.

Mr. SHIPE. Could you effect a special meeting of your association? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I presume that would be possible.

Mr. SHIPE. Would you call a special meeting of your association? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I will see if I can have my executive commitee agree to that. I am here speaking solely as an individual. I cannot speak for my organization until such a time as it acts on these bills one way or the other. This matter was brought up at our last meeting and the consensus was that the matter should receive more thorough study before any action should be taken on it, either adversely or favorably.

Mr. SHIPE. I belong to a citizens' association, and I know that they take a lot of time to consider anything because of the complexity of their organizations. I am thoroughly convinced as to what these citizens' associations would do with H. R. 5238 after they have studied and analyzed it. I do not think it is fair to wait until next fall to take action in connection with this bill. Those associations could get together reasonably quick.

I with my family belong to the West Cleveland Park Citizens' Association.

Dr. TENEROWICZ. If there is nothing further this morning, the subcommittee will adjourn, to meet at 10:30 tomorrow morning.

(Thereupon, at 12: 10 p. m., Wednesday, May 17, 1939, the subcommittee adjourned, to meet at 10:30 a. m., tomorrow, Thursday, May 18, 1939.)

TO REGULATE THE PRACTICE OF OPTOMETRY IN THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

THURSDAY, MAY 18, 1939

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee this day met at 10:40 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 wishes to speak first this morning?

STATEMENT OF RICHARD K. LYON

Mr. LYON. My name is Richard K. Lyon, and I should like to ask a few questions. At the close of the meeting yesterday Dr. Kanstoroom was on the stand and I should like, with the committee's permission, to ask him a few questions.

Dr. TENEROWICZ. You may do so.

Mr. LYON. Dr. Kanstoroom, according to your testimony of yesterday you are opposed to what you call corporate practice, or the employment of licensed optometrists by corporations. Is that correct? Dr. KANSTOROOM. Yes.

Mr. LYON. And you are opposed to advertising, I believe.

Dr. KANSTOROOM. Yes.

Mr. LYON. I want to call your attention to a newspaper article of Sunday, February 5 last. It appeared in the Washington TimesHerald, and I should like to read that article to you, Dr. Kanstoroom, and ask whether the contents of it are true or not true.

Dr. KANSTOROOM. Very well.

Mr. LYON. It says.

OPTOMETRISTS TO BATTLE BAN ON ADVERTISING BILL TO REVISE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PRACTICE ASSAILED AS DICTATORIAL HEARING WILL BE REQUESTED

Free trade would be "seriously jeopardized" should Congress enact a pending bill to revise laws regulating the practice of optometry here. Dr. Bernard Kanstoroom, registered optometrist at the Goldenberg Co., declared Saturday. Dr. Kanstoroom declared that one provision of the measure introduced in Congress by Representative Howard W. Smith (D) of Virginia would prohibit optometrists from advertising prices.

TRADE RESTRAINT

"This provision," he added, "would be terribly unfair to both businessman and to the public because it would prevent us from advertising ourselves to the public as optometrists at popular prices.