Evening star., 1949-08-05
0ptometry Bill
Debated 3Hours
In Senate Unit
Notionol Groups Give
Views on Measure
Boring Advertising

Spokesman for Washington and
national groups today staged a
battle of nearly three hours before
a Senate District subcommittee
over the House passed bill to
strengthen District regulation OF
optometry.
Arguments centered especially
on provisions of the House bill de-
claring optometry to be a pro
fession" and which would outlaw
advertising prices for optometrio
services and supplies including
lenses and frames for glasses.
The hearing, held by the Health
Subcommittee of the Senate Dis
trict Committee headed by Sen
ator Margaret Chase Smith, Re-
publican, of Maine, was recessed
to future date which was not set.
Opponents of the measure
claimed the bill was designed to
give monopoly to licensed op-
tometrists and to permit an in
crease in price for their services
and glasses.
Sponsors of the bill insisted the
purpose was the protection Of the
public and they struck at price
advertising as bait" of a kind
denounced by the Supreme Court.
Press Represented.
Among those attacking the bill
were Peyton r. Evans, speaking
for the Washington Publishers
Association; Don Reid of the Iowa
Press Association, representing
|about 400 weekly papers; William
II. Daley. Washington representa-
tive of the National Editorial AS
|sociation; Mrs. Sally Muchmore.
assistant manager of the WASH
ington Better Business Bureau.
and R. E. Hegel, speaking for the
jewelers. division of the Merchants
& Manufacturers Association.
The measure was indorsed by
Corporation Counsel Vernon e.
West, speaking for the Commits
sioners; DR.. Joseph M. Babcock
of Portsmouth, Ohio, vice presi-
dent of the American Optometric
Association; Harold Kohn of the
American Optometric Association
|and DR.. Evart Warren, president.
land William P. McCracken, coun-
|sel of the District Optometric AS
|sociation.
For the Washington Publishers
Association, Mr.. Evans said the
effect of the bill would be "to
promote only the personal inter-
ests of small group interested
in the sale of glasses" and there
fore was decidedly not in the
public interest"
! He charged that an effect Of
the legislation would be to permit
the censoring of advertising copy
submitted to press, radio and
other media.
Court Decision Cited.
On the other side. DR.. Babcock
told the subcommittee that %
States now have laws similar to
the one now proposed for the
District and in each of these there
are bans on price advertising. He
called this bait" advertising.
In support of the plan to OUT
law price advertising for op-
tometric services. DR.. Babcock
quoted from decision by the Su-
preme Court sustaining advertis-
ing restrictions in an Oregon
dental law.
The witness said the Supreme
Court decision quoted lower
court ruling to the effect that in
ducing patronage by representa-
tions of painless dentistry, pro-
fesslonal superiority" free exam
nations" and guaranteed dental
work" was, as general rule, "the
quack to entice the public"
Speaking for the M. & M. jew
elers' division, Mr.. Hegel con-
tended that present District op-
tometry and advertising laws were
adequate for public protection.
Mr.. Kohn denied the charge Of
some opponents that the bill
would prohibit the sale of sun
glasses by anyone except a Ii
censed optometrist. He contended
also that the ban on advertising
would hit only the bait" adver-
tising of price, but would not re-
strict either educational or in
stitutional advertising of optome-
| trio ServjcoS