AUG .. 3 19lS NEWSLETTER OF THE INDIANA Utl!VERSITV (7000 Chippewa Volume 7 ,OPTOMETRIC HISTORICAL SOCIETY Street, Saint Louis, Missouri, U.S.A. July 1976 .£!!.!. for nominations: 63119) Number 3 Our by-laws state, "Election to membership on the Executive Board shall be preceded by the nomination of each candidate by at least three members and the willingness of each nominee to have his name placed on the ballot." The board member whose term will expire this year, December 31, 1976, is James R. Gregg, O.D. Nominations for his continuation or replacement for a five year term are hereby requested for placement on the ballot in October. By all means do not hesitate to nominate yourself as a candidate if such responsibility challenges you. Remember, self-nominated volunteers founded the O.H.S., and unpaid volunteers kept it going. Nominations should be submitted to Mrs. Maria Dablemont, Secretary­ Treasurer. Index to Prentice book: The book entitled "Legalized Optometry and Memoirs" by Charles F. Prentice, Casperin Fletcher Press, Seattle, Washington, 1926, was .about people, namely and mainly personalities involved with optometry's history in the first quarter of this century. Though Prentice was formally educated as a Mechanical Engineer, this book includes virtually none of his many scientific and technological contributions. It really is two monographs with separate tables of contents, one on "Legalized Optometry" and the other on ''Memoirs," but with continuous pagination. The latter table of contents is rather inconspicuously placed near the center of the book so that the ''Memoirs" portion might well be overlooked if one merely scans the first table of contents and does not read through the book. The book does not include an index. Obviously Prentice did not intend it to be used as a reference source or text; rather he wrote it to be read like a novel or autobiography, and his expressive style invites this. Today, however, the book has taken on substantial historical significance if only because Prentice expressed his views about his wide circle of contemporary colleagues, friends, and enemies. Therefore -28- Dr. Henry A. Knoll, O.H.S. Vice-President, decided to index all the names of persons mentioned by Prentice. He retained the original separation of "Legalized Optometry" and ''Memoirs" by preparing two indices. Librarians and owners of the very few extant copies of the book are invited to copy these indices and insert them in their Prentice volumes. Here they are: "Legalized Optometry" Amici 49 Anderson, Mrs. 23 Appleton, Harry W. 98, 163 Appleton, A.E. 93 40, 42, 96, Arrington, Edward E. 169, 174, 175 Bausch, George R. 40, 41, 140, 163 Bendel!, H. 151, 153 Bissell, W.W. 40, 41, 42, 140, 163 Boger, Frederick 38, 40, 86, 96 Born 71 Boynton 71 Brown, Edward J. Burnett, Swan M. Caruss, J.H. 93 Chamblant 43 32, 33, 34, 37, 78 15, 31, 162 Clairmont, J.J. 67 Clark, B.B. 41, 49, 163 Cooke 49 Cross, Andrew Jay 33, 34, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 63, 72, 93, 133, 140, 141, 163 DeZeng, H.L., Jr. 72 Dol land 49, 85 Derby 94, 179 Donders 43 Ferguson, L.L. 72, 163 Fitz 49 Fraunhofer 49, 85 Frost, Mrs. 23 GaNun 36 Gauss 51 Goldbacher, Ernest 93 Goode 43 Gould, George M. 178, 183, 185 Guinnand 49 Guy, W.B. 40 Hahn, Geo. H. 93 Hahn, J.W. 93 Hays 43 Helmholtz 15, 51 Hodge, J. Aspinwall, Jr. 41 Hopkins, E.H. 41 Horton, G.S. 146 -cont'd- -29- Hughes, Charles E. 167 Hunter, H.W. 93 Jackson, Ed. 122 Kenney, M.E. 40, 41, 140, 141 King, Julius 72 Knapp, Hermann 15, 51 Knowles, R.H. 41, 72, 78 Landolt 178 Lembke, Charles 36, 44 Lerebours 49 Lewis, F. Park 94 MacKeown 33, 36, 40, 93, 140, 163 Mahler 49 Mason, E.R. 40, 140 Merz 49 Meyrowitz, E.B. 36, 37, 38, 63, 65, 66, 93 McAllister, John 43, 44, 49 McCabe 82 McKinney 63 Mundorf, J. 36 Newing, Judson s. 40 Norton 71 Norris 179 Noyes, Henry D. 14, 15, 19, 20, Oertel, William D. 163 Odell, Benjamin B., Jr. 165 Oliver 179 Palmer, Briggs s. 41 Pilger, Charles L. 93 Prentice, Charles F. 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 72, 73, 84, 94, 96, 113, 117, 123, 127, 135, 140, 141, 145, 163, 164, 165, 167, 14, 18, 19, 25, 31, 32, 33, 34, 42, 43, 62, 63, 102, 111, 112, 128, 133, 134, 151, 152, 162, 168, 169, 175 Prentice, James 14, 15, 44 Prentiss, Chalmer 78 Press, T. Channon 36, 37, 39, 41, 63, 86 Queen, J.W. 44 Ramage 49 Ramsden 49 Reichenbach 49 Reilly, Charles 18 Robbins, F.E. 40, 72, 163 von Rohr 42 Roosa, D.B. St. John 16, 17, 19, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 38, 59, 71, 94, 98, 154, 178 Shaw, Alexander 93 Sheard, Charles 179 Short 49 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 38, 59, 71, Spencer, Charles A. 49 94, 179 -cont' d- -30- Stevens 51, 59 Webster 71 Swart, Frederick Leland 163 Widdefield 44 Tolles 49, 85 Wilcox, Benjamin 146 Tscherning, M. 180 Wood, Casey A. 15 Watt 49 Zentmeyer 49 ''Memoirs" Aeby, A.E. 370 Ailman, John 242 Appleton 376 Arrington, Edward E. 258, 259, 268, 270, 302, 303, 304, 305, 318, 325, 333, 334, 348, 349, 350, 351, Barnum, P.T. 380 226, 256, 275, 286, 301, 306, 307, 314, 345, 346, 347, 353, 376. Bausch, George R. 268, 334, 376 Benedict, A.L. 314, 338 Benedict, E.J. 268, 334 Bestor, H.M. 268, 318, 334, 376 Billings, Josh 226 Bissel, W.W. 258, 268, 274, 286, 287, 314, 318, 334, 347, 348, 376 Blyth, Alexander P. 369 Brown 303 Bryan, William Jennings 202, 203, 204, 213, 214, 388, 390 Buckle, Henry Thomas 309 Burbank, Luther 221 Burnett, Swan M. 242, 244, 245, 266, 295, 414 Butler, Nicholas Murray 264, 275 Chambers, D. 369 Clark, B.B. 334, 376 255, 268, 318, Coolidge, Calvin 220 Coudert, Frederick R. 378 Crane, Frank 316 Cross, Andrew J. 226, 254, 257, 258, 265, 268, 269, 270, 277' 285, 286, 295, 308, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 370, 371, 375. Davis, E.L. 354 Dennett 245, 246 Downing, Augustus S. 260, 263, 264, 275, 277, 284, 294, 314, 315, 316, 364, 365 Eberhardt, John C. 320 Edser, Edwin 276 226, 270, -cont'd- Egbert, J.C. 264, 265, 266, 267, 275, 284, 293 Ellis, William T. 225 Emtage, W.T.A. 276 Endriss, R.C. 369 Ferguson 376 Fielder, James F. 372 Flexner, Abraham 290 Foss 324 Fox, George R. 314, 337 258, 274, Freeman, J.G. 365 George, David Lloyd 214 Glazebrook, R.T. 276 Grant, Ulysses 218 Hallock, William 264, 275 Hanauer, Perry 263, 264, 365 Heard, C.H. 369 Henry, George 357 Hill, David B. 384 Hoover, Herbert 220 Hughes, Charles E. 255, 260, 274, 310, 322, 328, 351 Ingersoll, Robert G. 242 Jackson 245, 303 Jessup, Alonzo D. 369 Kenney 376 -31- Ketchum, M. B. 369 Knapp, Hermann 242, 245, 246 Knowles 376 Kuttner, Louis 369 Landolt 266 Lennox, Richmond 244 Lewis, F. Park 314, 337, 338, 339, 340 Lockwood, R.M. 317 Marchant, F.B. 258, 274, 314 Marschutz, Henrietta 198, 229, 230, 234, 251, 370 Marshutz, S.G. 367, 369 Mason 376 McAdoo, William 220 Mittendorf, William F. 243 Morris, Leonard 269 Mundorf, J. 369 Newing, Egbert A. 314, 376 Noyes, Henry D. 245, 246 Optiz 293 Poffenberger, A.T., Jr. 363 358, 360, Prentice, Henrietta - see Henrietta Marschutz Prentice, James 197, 198, 199, 213, 219, 226, 227, 234, 236, 238, 385, 409 Prentice, Mrs. 238, 246 -cont'd- Roach, John 235 Robbins 286 Roosa, D.B. St. John 252, 345, 377, 379 Schneider, G.L. 369 212, 228, Shaw, George Bernard 217 Sheard, Charles 357 Simpson, Russell 369 -32- Towle, John 235 Tscherning, M. 266 Van Fleet, Frank 377, 380 Watts, H.W. 258, 314, 347 Wells, David W. 244 Welzmiller, Louis R. 293 Wilson, Woodrow 217 Wise, Stephen S. 309 Woll, Frederick A. 265, 276 Smith, W. Lawrence 369 Southall, James P.C. 393 Stanley, Thomas 366 Stevens 266 292, 341, Wood, Casey A. 314, 342, 343, 344, 356, Woodworth, Fred 311, X, Dr. 333, 347, 372 339, 341, 358, 382 312 Terrell, R.A. 312, 325 Y, Dr. 270, 285, 294, 332, Thompson, W.O. 314, 363, 364 372, 373 Topaz, Lionel 323 Z, Mr. 332 Zeiss-Werkzeitung: This is the title of an in-house serial published by the Carl Zeiss firm of Jena. The copies which came to my attention included 17 issues between March 1929, Vol. 4, No. 1, and August 1934, Vol. 9, No. 3. It was apparently published a bit irregularly, with four to five issues per year, and several issues were obviously missing from the collection I saw. Where did these come from? We are not sure. They were on our temporary storage shelves at the Indiana University School of Opto­ metry library awaiting processing and cataloguing or otherwise deter­ mining their disposition. They were undoubtedly part of a donation received before we had permanent quarters for the library. Slowly, but methodically and surely, all of these early contributions are being processed for permanent filing here or elsewhere as may be appropriate. In this instance, the decision has been made to forward these copies to the International Library, Archives, and Museum of Optometry (ILAMO) because they are primarily of historical and archival value rather than of academic or scientific importance. -33- Having just returned a few months ago from a visit to Jena, East Germany, I could not resist leafing through these issues, especially because they included many fine photographs of pre-war Jena and of personalities identified with the famous old Zeiss firm, names like Otto Schott, Ernst Abbe, and Pulfrich. But my perusal, initially promising to elicit a trace of historical nostalgia, for my memory includes those years, suddenly prompted memories of a grim and decadent era. One of the 1934 issues featured Adolf Hitler's January 30 Reichstag speech, plus speeches by Drs. Frick and Ley, all in full. Photographs included Hitler, Frick, Ley, Goring, and other Fascist principals, and numerous swastikas and crowds responding with the "Heil, Hitler!" salute. A disturbing photograph was of several young Zeiss workers or boys identi­ fied proudly as the "Ernst Abbe" chapter or contingent of the Hitler Youth movement (Abbe died in 1905!) The August 1934 issue was devoted almost entirely to mourning the death of General Field Marshall von Hindenburg. More swastikas than flowers. New O.H.S. members: The latest list of eight new members represents seven countries, as follows: Abegglen, Th., Principal Schweizerische Hoehere Fach- schule fuer Augenoptik Frohheimschulhaus 4600 Olten CH-Switzerland Boggs, Warrens., O.D. Box 53 Walter Reed Army Medical Center Washington, DC 20012 U.S .A. Ecole Superieur d'Optometrie 134 Route de Chartres 92440 Bures Sur Yvette FRANCE Fcyer, Colin B. 11, Queenscourt Road West Derby Liverpool Ll2 8RH Merseyside, ENGLAND Hudson, Loy L., O.D. 98 N. Washington Street Hagerstown, Indiana 47346 u.s.A. Serials Librarian "G" Block Queensland Institute of Technology George Street Brisbane, Queensland AUSTRALIA 4000 Shirayama, Sekiya, Mr. 5-6-8 Wakabayashi Setagaya-Ku, Tokyo JAPAN Williams, T. David, O.D., Ph.D. 269 Union Boulevard Kitchener, Ontario N2M 2S9 CANADA -34- Earliest news item on contact lenses? According to John C. Neill, O.D., of Philadelphia, a column en­ titled "Contact Glasses" in the August 18, 1930, issue of TIME, Vol. 16, No. 7, page 52 was "about the earliest news item ~ontact lenses" in a popular national publication. He recently sent his copy of the magazine to the Pennsylvania College of Optometry library. In turn, Mrs. Dolores H. Taylor, Librarian, sent me a photocopy of the article, which follows: "Members of the Optometrical Society of the City of New York peered inquisitively last week at Grace Robin, 22, near-sighted Brooklyn stenographer. Pleasantly but glassily Grace Robin peered back. She did not appear to be wearing eyeglasses, yet she was, right against her eyeballs -- con­ tact glasses, such as had never been seen by the New York Society. "For years ophthalmologists have been placing glass shields on eyeballs to brace bulging corneas though not to correct vision. In 1889 Dr. A. Mueller of Kiel, Germany, succeeded in grinding a pair of shields to the curves needed to correct his own near-sightedness. Lack of money made him drop further experiments. "Last September Dr. Leopold Heine of Kiel reported to the International Congress at Amsterdam that for three years he had been prescribing contact glasses to correct sight defects. His report stimulated the New York demonstration last week. "Dr. Heine emphasized that contact glasses must be fitted only by highly experienced ophthalmologists, for the danger of an ill-trained man injuring his patient's eyes is great. For fitting such glasses 39 lenses are necessary. The only firm which grinds these highly exact lenses is the Zeiss Works at Jena. The lenses must be curved on their inner (concave) side almost but not exactly to match the curve of the eyeballs. Nor may their optical curve be exactly that of ordinary eyeglasses. Contact lenses are held against the eyeballs by the capillary suction of tear water. Thin though the layer of tears is it has an optical effect which the ophthalmologist must allow for in writing his prescription. "When correctly fitted, contact glasses are almost invi­ sible. Because they follow every movement of the eyeball, they furnish a wider field of vision and a clearer image than do ordinary eyeglasses. "There are U.S. ophthalmologists sufficiently skilled to write such prescriptions. But none, so far as could be learned last week, owns a complete set of 39 test lenses (cost -35- $25 a lens); and most consider contact glasses foolish, unnecessary. Dr. Heine's customers have been people with athletic or cosmetic reasons. Miss Robin's reason for wearing the lenses last week was to accommodate the New York opto~ etrists. She was in constant fear that the glasses might break on her eyes." Obrig and contact lenses: Following are a few paragraphs from a May 11 letter from O.H.S. Vice-president Henry A. Knoll: "Herewith is a copy of Theo. E. Obrig's obituary which appeared in the Thursday, February 23, 1967 issue of the Sarasota Herald Tribune. Theo. E. Obrig, William Feinbloom, and John E. Mullen would appear to have been the fathers of plastic contact lenses. Notice that Ernest Mullen is mentioned in the obituary. I can only guess Ernest is what the E. stands for. "This obituary was sent to me by Mr. Philip Salvatori, co­ founder of Obrig Laboratories, Inc. Mr. Salvatori, at age 75, is still active in the contact lens field. I can say this, since I visited with him on April 28, 1976. "Note that Theo. E. Obrig was originally associated with Gall and Lembke in New York City. See Guildcraft (March-April-May 1942) for 'A Century of Optical Service,' a thumb-nail history of Gall and Lembke written by Philip Salvatori. "Charles Lembke was, as you know, the first president of the AOA. In 1901, two years before he died, he sold his share of Gall and Lembke to J.A. Theodore Obrig, Theo's father. 'Young' Obrig came by his talents through his father's genes. "The obituary is wrong on one count -- he is not listed in Who's Who (or Who Was Who), but rather in the National Cyclo­ pedia of American Biography, Volume 54, page 220, 1973. A fine photo is included. There is also a photo of Theo. E. Obrig in the October 1944 issue of Optical World. "If the readers of the Newsletter have any information con­ cerning the life of Theo. E. Obrig, I would appreciate hearing from them." The following is the above-mentioned obituary from the Thursday February 23, 1967, issue of the Sarasota (Florida) Herald Tribune: "Theo E. Obrig, 72, of Sarasota, recognized as a pioneer and dean of the contact lens field and co-founder of Obrig Lab­ oratories, Inc., died Wednesday at Sarasota Memorial Hospital. -36- "Obrig entered the optical profession in 1914 with the firm of Gall and Lembke in New York City, but left shortly after to study medicine. At the outbreak of World War I, he left college to serve with the French Army Ambulance Corps and later joined the medical department of the u.s. Army as a bacteriologist and physiological chemist, returning once more to France. "In 1919, Obrig re-joined the firm of Gall and Lembke. He patented the myodisc bifocal and the Obrig wax polishing pad. His textbook, 'Modern Ophthalmic Lenses and Optical Glass' was accepted by many of the leading universities in the United States and Canada. "He was also the author of a book titled 'Contact Lenses.' "About 1929 he started his experiments and research in the contact lens field. "In 1939 Obrig and Ernest Mullen designed and introduced to America the first successful all-plastic contact lens. In that same year, he and Philip L. Salvatori founded Obrig Laboratories and together developed the first successful method for taking molds of the human eye. "They were the first to discover the Cobalt Blue Light and Fluorescein method of observing the fit of a contact lens. The discovery brought the possibility of use of contact lenses to approximately 85 per cent of persons wearing spectacles. "Obrig retired as president of Obrig Laboratories in 1952 and became a consultant. "A long-time resident of Sarasota, he is survived by his widow, Brigit Costello Obrig, 5311 Winchester Drive, and a brother, Raymond, of Summit, N.J., and a daughter, Elizabeth Davison, living in Germany. "Obrig was a licensed ham radio operator for more than 55 years. He was a graduate of Columbia University and was listed in Who's Who. "Funeral services will be held Friday at 3 p.m. at Shannon's Whitfield Chapel. Burial will be at Sarasota Memorial Park." The period after "Theo" was consistently omitted three times in the obituary, once in the headline, once in the lead sentence, and again in the picture. Dr. Knoll faithfully included the period, as it is also included in at least three books authored or co-authored by Obrig. The printed library cards for these books show his full name to be Theodore Ernst Obrig. -- -37- Casually reviewed: Law, Frank W., "Sir William Bowman," Survey of Ophthalmology, Vol. 19, No. 5, March/April 1975, pp. 302-307. Bowman (1816-1892) was, among other things, an ophthalmic surgeon and a fine citizen. He, von Graefe, and Donders became acquainted early in their careers and maintained life-long close friendships. Yes, you know him via his namesakes, Bowman's membrane and Bowman's muscle. Law, Frank W., "Moorfields Eye Hospital, 1925-1940," Survey of Ophthalmology, Vol. 20, No. 1, July/August 1975, pp. 59-69. Writes Dr. Law, " ••• , the period between the two world wars has been ref~rred to as the 'doldrums of ophthalmology' in the United Kingdom. Although ungenerous, the statement has some truth. Perhaps this article will do something to explain or, at least in part, refute it." His account is fascinating and pleasant reading. Vos, T.A., "Cataract Surgery in the Course of the Centuries," Ophthalmologica, Vol. 171, No. 1, 1975, pp. 79-81. This is presented as a "bird's eye view of cataract surgery from earliest times." Cataracts were known "before knowledge of the existence of the lens." The name cataracta stems from the 11th century, when Constantinus Africanus translated many Arabic manuscripts into Latin. A bit w~dly written, with a stated cryptic message which eluded me. Biologist collects eyeglasses: Mr. Jerry Irwin, a young staff member in the Biology Department of Battelle's Pacific Northwest Division in Seattle, Washington, started his hobby of collecting antique eyeglasses in 1963 when he discovered a dusty old cigar box with a dozen pair of old glasses in an optometrist's office. For the next 13 or more years he added to his collection by hunting through pawn and antique shops and Goodwill and Salvation Army stores. He now has more than 200 carefully selected pair of antique glasses dating back to the seventeenth century. Recently, in the April 9 or 16, 1976, issue of the greenie, an in-house publication for Battelle staff members, Mr. Irwin and his col­ lection were given a full page write-up, sent to me by O.H.S. member J.R. Hale, O.D. -38- The Leeds book collection: Almost 25 years ago O.H.S. member James P. Leeds, O.D., decided somewhat casually, not as a bibliophile, nor as a presumed scholar, to accumulate out-of-print books related to optometry. Mostly he wanders into used-book stores and whenever he finds an old book related to optometry which he has not seen before, and which is nominally priced, he buys it and shelves it. He lets friends and colleagues know what he is doing, and encourages their cooperation. He does not compete with those who play the more expensive game of acquiring books classified as rare or as collector's items, though he con­ tinuously stays alert to such books which are being overlooked in ordinary second-hand book stores. Today he has in his optometry office two complete walls of shelves, floor to ceil~ng, almost filled with books, approximately 1800, and not a single duplicate. When he finds a duplicate at a bargain he often buys it to give to a library or friend, or to exchange with another collector. He has a mental catalogue of virtually every item on the shelves, so he can tell you instantly whether or not he already has any boo~ he sees or which you may name. Much to his own surprise, he has read many of the books, or at least perused them page by page to find interesting illustrations or passages not seen else­ where. He laughs when I tell him he has become a scholar in spite of himself, but he really is. His collection contains no incunabula, but a few were published in the late 18th century. An occasional early pamphlet or intriguing piece of apparatus has caught his fancy. He has few serials except as obtained in complete volumes. He has the collection modestly insured, realizing that this is merely to cover his investment and maintenance costs, for no insurance can replace the collection itself. Dr. C.H. Brown's scrapbook: Approximately 30 x 22 x 4 em (1211 x 9" x 1 1/2") in size, this stiff­ cover bound album provides a meticulously kept record of advertisements by C.H. Brown, M.D., in behalf of the Philadelphia Optical College and the Philadelphia Optical Parlors. The album includes 492 separately clipped advertisements, usually dated, and pasted on the pages, often from edge to edge. Also indicated in most instances are the publications in which they occurred. The album includes 18 clipped advertisements notpasted in or otherwise identified, 15 advertisement galley proofs, 11 miscellaneous clippings, apparently for ideas, two small note sheets, a Philadelphia Optical College form letter to solicit correspondence course prospects, and a Columbia University reply card, an honest-to­ goodness "penny postcard." Perhaps most remarkable is the fact that no two advertisements are identical, or at least I did not detect a completely identical pair. They range from full-page formats to two line classifieds. They typically -39- contain much legend, some artwork, occasional pictures of alumni or instruments, and a sort of caption or headline. A few examples: To the Ambitious Optician Are you a Clam? To Wide-Awake Opticians Only Instituted, 1889. Incorporated, 1892. Charter Perpetual Optical Education by Mail A Square Fact A Progressive School With Progressive Methods for Progressive Men If Wills Hospital is crowded, come to our dispensary at 1 P.M. The advertisements for the Philadelphia Optical College are identi­ fied as appearing in Druggist's Circular, American Druggist, National Retail Jeweler, Keystone Circular, Items of Interest (a dental publication), Optical Journal, Dental Brief, Western Druggist, Dental Digest, Dental Hints, and Optometric Weekly, between 1890 and 1934. Advertisements for the "Philadelphia Optical Parlors" seem to have been run only during 1899 in the Germantown Telegraph, Commercial List, Catholic Standard Times, Item, Press, and Times. These advertisements, segregated from the others, are inserted on the last few pages of the album, numbered in pencil as pages 152-165. The "College" advertisements are on penciled pages 1-79. Pages marked 80 to 151 are empty. The "Parlors" advertisements identify C.H. Brown, M.D., as "Oculist and Optician, Examination free." The "College" advertisements identify C.H. Brown, M.D., variously as being "in charge" or "Chief Instructor." The addresses of both are chronologically identical, all in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as follows: August 1890: 2012 Norris Street January 1891: 1820 Diamond Street May 1894: 1824 Diamond Street September 1898: 1435 Chestnut Street June 1899: 1022 Walnut Street May 1905: 400-402 Perry Building, 16th & Chestnut Street April 1934: Colonial Building -40- Some of the "College" advertisements include pictures and testi­ monials of successful alumni, occasional reference to an alumni association, the offering of such degrees as Graduate and Master Optician and Doctor of Refraction, attendant courses ranging in length from one week to six months, and many paragraphs to extol the impor­ tance of education and learning to success and happiness in business and professional work. This truly unique collector's and museum item was acquired by James Leeds, O.D., as mentioned in our April issue, and has since been donated and forwarded to the International Library, Archives, and Museum of Optometry, Inc. First installment of another scrapbook: Richard M. Hall, O.D., 666 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44114, sent me a part of his scrap-book collection "of optometric and medi- cal memorabilia" last December, a total of 25 photocopies of miscellane­ ous items. The theme of his collection is not yet obvious to me, but the present items are interesting. Perhaps most interesting is a copy of a letter of employment agreement dated "Oct. 1901," in long- hand, on letterhead of "The CLEVELAND OPTICAL CO., Manufacturing Opticians, Importers and Wholesalers, 404, 405, & 406 New England Bldg., 129 & 131 Euclid Avenue." Also printed on the letterhead are the words, "SPECTACLES, EYE GLASSES, OPERA GLASSES, FIELD GLASSES, TELESCOPES, ARTIFICIAL EYES, THERMOMETERS, HYPODERMIC SYRINGES, CASES, ETC." The legend, in longhand: "This will Certify that Theo Miller of Cleveland Ohio has Engaged to work for The Cleveland Optical Co. in the Capacity of an all around shop man beginning Monday October 14th 1901 and continuing his services until June 30th 1902 for a salary of Eleven dollars ($11.00) a week, and it is~urther agreed by and between The Cleveland Optical Co. of the first part and Theo Miller of the second part that the said Theo Miller shall receive a salary of Twelve dollars ($12.00) a week for one year beginning July 1st 1902 and Continuing until June 30th 1903. If the said Theo Miller is unable to perform his duties as an all around shop man from sickness or other causes the Salary of the said Theo Miller shall be discon­ tinued until Such time as he may be able to perform the duties for which he is hired." Following this is the rubber stamp notation "The Cleveland Optical Co., Per •••••• 1'with the signature (not very legible): "H A Cambis Presid" (?). Then follows in what must be Miller's handwriting, "Approved by Theo. Miller," and "Witnesses," "John A. Becker" and "Edwin R(?) White." Also included in the collection is an undated advertisement of a "CORNEA RESTORER" by "Dr. J. Stephens & Co., Oculists," and an 1855 advertisement of "A. GEDEON, the celebrated Optician, from the Improved ---- -41- Spectacle Manufactory and Berlin Optical Establishment, No. 107, Frederick William Street, Berlin, established more than a century ago." "Prof. Gedeon, ••• , is now on a professional visit ••• and may be consulted at his office, No. 52 Market street, 2d door from the square, Nashville, Tenn." Included in this advertisement is a supporting testimonial by A.s. Todd, M.D. A handwritten order for "curled Hair enough to make a full leth of back curls of 28 inch or 30 inch hair" (plus other details) on letterhead of the "KANSAS CITY Medical and Surgical Institute, No. 804 MAIN STREET, Kansas City, Mo •••••• 187 " At the upper left corner of the letterhead are illustrated an eye and an ear with the legend, "AT THIS INSTITUTE ALL DISEASES OF THE EYE AND EAR AND ALL CHRONIC DISEASES of whatever kind or nature, both males and and (sic) females, successfully treated. ARTIFICIAL EYES constantly on hand." A receipt dated 3/10 1903 from the JULIUS KING OPTICAL CO., New York, to Joseph Schuster, Cleveland, Ohio, shows $60.00 paid for 1 1900 Refractometer. More than odds & ends: --------- About a year ago O.H.S. member D.R. Reed, O.D., sent me a small packet of "odds & ends" which he found in the process of moving his library for office redecoration purposes. Included were items which most people, in fact almost all people, would ordinarily toss into the waste-basket, but history-conscious "Russ" could not be so thought­ less. These are now being forwarded to the International Library, Archives, and Museum of Optometry, Inc., to be sorted out carefully for archival value by Mrs. Maria Dablemont and her well-trained staff. Lest you are curious as to what these are, here is a list: 1. PROPOSED A.O.A. STANDARDS FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF VISUAL ACUITY WITH THE BEST RX, Submitted by the 1948-49 Committee on Standards, Glenn A. Fry, Ph.D., Chairman, Carl F. Shepard, O.D., and Meredith w. Morgan, Jr., Ph.D. This is a three-page legal size (34.6 x 21.6 em) mimeographed document which spells out the specifications, materials, and procedures in as practical detail as any of the many acuity standards proposed since then. 2. The program of the October 19, 1949 CONFERENCE ON READING, reported by Dr. Reed to be the first seminar sponsored by the Indiana Academy of Optometrists. The four educational speakers on the program were the Director of a Child Clinic, her Assistant Child Psychologist, an Associate Professor of Psychology, and a staff member of a Psychological-Reading Clinic. Stapled to the program sheet are five full-page tables of statistically analyzed reading test scores from the Butler University Reading Clinic. -42- 3. A PLAY BILL: THE STORY OF VISION, or From Darkness to Light with the Scientists, by Florence H. Stone and J. Robert Shreve, O.D., Hotel Severin, Indianapolis, January 19, 1947, 7:30 P.M~, Presented by CENTRAL INDIANA OPTOMETRIC ASSOCIATION, Celebrating the Golden Jubilee of the Indiana Association of Optometrists. Seven Episodes dating to Greece and China in 1000 B.C., Nero at the Race Track in 55 A.D., Italy in 1285 A.D., The Spec­ tacle Peddler in America in 1880, the Farmer and the Opto­ metrist in 1896, and the Present, included numerous opto­ metrists and their spouses and public relations officer Florence Stone. Variously portrayed were Cho Tso, Nero, Mrs. Nero, Salvina d'Armato, Pietro Bonaparte, Allesendro del Spina, and others. Musical accompaniment by THE GAY TIME DUO. 4. A nine-page mimeographed collection of reports, minutes, research plans, and reviews assembled during 1949 and 1950 by the Society for Strabismus Research and the Chicago College of Optometry. Interspersed in the text are many familiar optometric names such as Thaddeus Murroughs, Z.B. Schoen, Lord Charnwood, Joseph Shepherd, Newton Wesley, William Smith, Jens Jensen, Paul Boeder, et al, et al, et al. 5. Three leaves torn from The Bausch ! Lomb Magazine, probably a winter or December issue, inasmuch as a Santa Claus is shown in one of the advertisements. The pages, probably pages 16, 17, and 22, consist of an article entitled OVER THERE IN 1918 WITH AMERICA'S FIRST MOBILE OPTICAL UNIT, by E.F. Wildermuth. Because the article starts out "Twenty-one years ago, ••• " this issue should be for 1939. The late Mr. Wildermuth included 12 photographs of more than 50 military persons associated with the unit, and identified each one. He also gave the then current addresses of almost all of them. 6. OPTOMETRY, LAW AND INFORMATION, STATE OF INDIANA, January 1, 1938, a 28 page pamphlet including the optometry law, state board membership and regulations, a list of accredited colleges of optometry, The AOA Code of Ethics, and an outline of a four-year course of study. The outlined curriculum is star­ tlingly modern! From about 1907: WilliamS. Palmer, O.D., of Fort Worth, Texas, an optometrist now 81 years old, was prevailed upon by O.H.S. member Chester Pheiffer to write an account of his widely varied experiences in optometry and optics beginning more than 65 years ago. Shortly after Dr. Palmer submitted the lengthy account in rough draft form for Dean Pheiffer to -43- look over, Mrs. Palmer died suddenly "after fifty-two years of com­ panionship." Thus, he did not have an opportunity to edit or revise the material, but gave us permission to do so. Because there is something about Dr. Palmer's intimate and rambling style which might well be lost by major editing, we deleted not a word. We merely inserted punctuation marks here and there, but cautiously. He wrote this in two parts, the first being entirely autobiographical, and the second a few observations and thoughts he wished to emphasize. By request my effort is to acquaint those interested with historical facts as they pertain to all phases of Optics as I participated in by experience and observation, so the best place to start is at the beginning. I saw my first light of day in Tyler, Texas in the year 1895. My parents were descendants of middle class pioneer farmers. My father's parents were from England, and my mother's parents were born in the United States. My maternal grandfather came from Rome, Georgia, and my maternal grandmother came from Florida. They were not share croppers but middle class citizens, and had to work for a livelihood. At about my age of five or six we moved to Houston, Texas, where my father and his two brothers worked for the Houston Post, and all three worked at the newspaper business until their timely demise. At the time we moved to Houston I was too young to enter public school and I was enrolled in a Catholic School near the St. Joseph Hospital. I was not a good student and, because of some mischief I got into, a Nun slapped me on my hand with a ruler. This incident perplexed my two older sisters and, consequently, with my Buster Brown suit and wicker lunch basket, I was removed from the Catholic School to await the time of my entrance in what was then known as Longfellow Elementary School, and there I remained until about the fifth grade. I did not like school, and until I was about twelve years of age I worked after school delivering groceries. I also worked at a butcher shop and at a drug store jerking sodas and making deliveries on a bicycle. I had many part-time jobs. One was collecting for a hardware company, I think it was the F.W. Heitman Co., and I also worked part-time collecting for the Houston Post. That was when my father decided that I was not interested in public school, and I entered a business college to study Book­ keeping, but that did not last long as I became more fascinated with the dot-dash system of the Morse Code than that of book­ keeping, so my father decided I should learn a trade. At that time there was an optical company in Houston owned by J.G. Eganhouse and the following proposition was made to me: that I would work to learn the art of grinding lenses, as we now -44- know as surface grinding, for the sum of $2.00 per week. I thought I would like to learn the trade, but for $2.00 per week I declined, so my father made me a proposition that he would add each week an additional one half of my salary and I would be making $3.00 per week. I accepted this. I was so short of stature, and the single spindle A.O. Co. or Shuron surface machine was so high, that I had to stand on a box to feed the emery and rouge to grind and polish spherical lenses. My father continued his agreement until I was making the grand sum of six dollars per week and he decided that was enough for me, and so my supplemental in­ come came to a fast halt. I quit school and began to work full time in optical shops. I worked for the Houston Optical Co. owned by Willis Chamberlain, and the Optical Company owned by, I believe, a man by the name of Harry Cohen. When I worked there J. Howard Clark also worked for him making eye examinations. Lester Cheatham and Walter Olin also worked for Willis Chamberlain at the same time I did. Walter Olin was a well experienced Swede from Minnesota and taught me a lot about shop work. However there was very little to learn because of the limited processes available. All lenses had to be cut and edged by hand and the only popular bifocals were the cement bifocal and the Benjamin Franklin two piece bifocal. There was no such thing as spherical meniscus or toric cylinder lenses. Everything was P.C.X., periscopic convex, or P.C.C., periscopic concave, and flat sphero-cylinder, factory made, to be cut and edged. The flat spherical lenses had a standard base curve of -1.25, or concave lenses flat combined with 1.25 base curve. All lenses had to be cut with a hand-held diamond, and edged by hand, no automation machine, everything hand made. Factories would supply ready ground uncut lens of about 44 mm square in size and bifocal segments of about 28 nnn in diameter with a base curve of 1.25. To make a pair of cement bifocals you would split the segment in half and use one half on each lens, place a drop of Balsam on the lens, clean the segment thoroughly, and place it in the proper place on the carrier lens and heat both over an alcohol lamp. In another method we'would use a round piece of asbestos on a hot plate where we would do ten or more pair at one time. When the Balsam was hot enough you would press with a match stick until all the bubbles were removed and let the lens cool, cut off the bottom edge of the segment, put a bevel on by hand, and then it was ready to be mounted in a frame. Now in those days frame styles were limited to the what we know now as Grandma specs made in about four sizes: 0 eye, 00 eye and then they came out with 000 1/2, and later 0000 eye with varied lengths of comfort cable temples, occasionally a -45- straight temple. Bridge sizes were in categories of M and N, now known as saddle bridge. Sizes in M and N varied in depths of 1/2 - 1 1/2 - 2, the M being narrow and the N wide. In those days all optical companies shared their stores with either Kodak or other camera supplies or with jeweler/ watchmakers, so with some spare time I learned something about Kodak film finishing, which will come in handy later in my story. I do not remember exactly when the diamond drill was perfected, but at about the same time the rimless spectacle, consisting of saddle bridge and end pieces with temples,was placed on the market, along with the pince-nez glasses. The pince-nez was made with and without rims. Shuron made one with celluloid rims that clamped to the nose piece, and also in spectacles, so improvements, and inventions were changing the procedure in shops. Instead of having only one shape of lens, the oval, along came the round, and the octagonal, all edged by hand. The octagonal was not exactly octagonal, the sides would be a little off, maybe one side shorter than the other. Then came the hair pin chain and ear chain. Some who wanted rimless also wanted a hole drilled for the chain, which all added up to make a pair of glasses cost to the buyer, the customer, a tidy sum of from $10.00 to $15.00 including a fogging system eye examination. J. Howard Clark and Lester Cheatham were two who learned the skills of eye examination for glasses. In those days Eganhouse made his own examination. Those were the three major retail operations in Houston at that time. The equipment consisted of a trial case with trial frames, card-board wall chart, a light with iris diaphram, and an indirect retinoscope. For an ophthalmoscope you would use a strong plus lens from the trial case to magnify the interior of the eye, for about the only thing diagnosed was cataract. And of course we also had a millimeter rule. I think most prescriptions were made from the spherical equivalent and the bifocal add according to age. We had a rule to go by, starting at age of 40 years and up to 60 years from plus 1.00 to plus 3.00 add. About 1912 the few factories supplying lenses came up with the 6 D. base curve meniscus spherical lenses and 6 D. base curve toric or sphere-cylinder lenses, also known as compound lenses. This change caused a change in the curves of our grinding laps as the curves had to be extended to laps or tools that would grind up to 20.00 diopter curves, both plus and minus. After grinding the surface of lenses with three grades of emery, #1 Rough, #2 Second, and #3 Fine, emery, the surface was ready to polish. The polishing was accomplished by cementing heavy felt, or felt about the weight of pool table felt cemented to the surface of the lap or tool and apply red rouge and water until the surface contained no visible blemishes when looked at with an electric light reflecting upon the surface of the glass. To get the lens ready to surface we would mount it on an iron block with hot pitch. The block had a countersunk hole in -46- the center where the pointed pin would hold the block and lens. To use the handle of the surface machine you would move it back and forward across the tool or lap until you had a finished lens. There were several types of calipers you would use to measure the four sides of the lens to keep from grinding prism on the lens. If you had one side thicker than the other you would have to equalize by grinding by hand to make the edges of equal thickness. The same process was used to make cement bifocals. Then came the cylinder laps or tools so we could grind cylinder lens on the same machine. The block made of iron you would mount the lens on with hot pitch which had two pins that extended upward from the block. The pins would fit into a curved spring to keep the lens from revolving or spinning, except with the revolution of the lap. The pin through and secured to the handle with set screw would hold the spring to the iron block and the lens and lap would spin together and cause a cylinder to be formed and would run at high speed. You would have to be careful that the arms attached to the iron block did not slip loose at the high speed because you could be injured if the lens would fly off the grinding apparatus. I have seen them make a hole in a cement wall, but that was at the beginning of the surface grinding of cylinder lenses. Along about this time came the fused bifocal known as the Kryptok to revolutionize the bifocal business. The Kryptok was a patented process and a copyrighted name and was made as follows: The carrier lens was of crown glass with refractive index of 1.57 or there about. The segment, or button as we called it, was of flint glass with refractive index of 1.62 approximately. To make a Kryptok lens you would take a moulded blank and grind a concave curve at the edge of the blank for the curvature power desired, and then grind the flint button with convex curvature of the same curvature as the concave surface on the carrier blank. You would grind about four of these carrier blanks at one time by mounting them at an angle on the iron blocks, and the same way for the flint buttons. After grinding and polishing was completed it was necessary for an electric oven to be placed in a room free from dust. Surfaces of both the carrier lens and seg or button had to be absolutely free from particles of dust. The carrier blank was placed on a car­ borundum smooth block made on the basis of a prism lens so that the countersunk portion of the carrier lens would sit flat on the carborundum block. A piece of zinc metal, very small, was placed at the lower edge of the carrier blank and the flint button was placed upon that section and then placed in the oven at about 1,700 degrees of heat, or maybe more. The reason for the metal piece of zinc was so that the flint button being an index of 1.62 would melt before the carrier blank of 1.57 index and as the top edge made the first contact with the carrier blank and the heat began to melt the flint glass it would -- -47- gradually adhere from top of seg to the piece of zinc, and remove automatically all air bubbles, in most cases. If not, you had a defective lens. I remember well the first factory-made Kryptok blank given to me to surface, grind, and make into an Rx. Remember if you will, that the rough Kryptok blank was not a smooth surface on the convex side, as the segment was elevated above the carrier blank, so, you would have to grind off the raised segment part first. I mounted the blank on the iron surfacing block, waited for the black pitch to harden, placed the whole thing with the surface handle pin inserted in the countersunk part of the block and, using rough emery, I started grinding like I would grind a convex surface on any other lens. Remember, this grinding lap was spinning at the rate of about four or five hundred revolutions per minute and I started feeding the rough emery and I kept grinding until I thought the surface was ready to proceed in the regular way with a finer emery stick, but, you know to my surprise, when I looked at the blank the segment was completely missing and all I had left was a moulded blank with a rough surface on the convex side. We all learn from experience, and in order to grind the convex side of a Kryptok, it was necessary to rough in the convex surface by hand until it was the approximate curve as the carrier lens. Then a slight bit of rough grinding, after which you would change pans from rough to a fine grade of emery and use a second emery until you got the seg the approximate size desired, say approximately 22 mm. Now the more you would grind this surface the smaller the seg would become, so, some cleanliness was required so that you did not get a deep scratch in the surface through neglect. If you would get rough emery on your hand while using the finer grade of emery, then, to remove the scratched surface you would automatically reduce the size of the segment. Next the surface was ready to polish with red rouge. After this precedure you would remove the lens from the iron block and mount the lens on a concave iron block and start grinding the concave side of the lens, to make your distance Rx. For instance, the base curve of Kryptok would be made in 6, 8, and 10.00 diopter convex side, so, if the blank had a convex base curve of 6.00 diopter and you wanted a plus 1.00 sphere for distance your concave or inside curve would be -5.00 diopter. Later the factories made semi-finished blanks with 6, 8, and 10 base curve convex, and all the surface grinder had to do was grind the concave side to whatever Rx desired. Walter Olin, as I mentioned previously, was a good all­ around optical mechanic and, like most of them, had a habit of chewing tobacco. The hand edging stone was about 2 or 3 feet -48- in diameter and water would drip on the stone as it does today, but he found another use for it. Instead of spitting in a cuspidor he would let his saliva shoot right on the edging stone. Some surface grinders would use his procedure when they needed more moisture on the grinding lap. Saturday was pay day and Saturday night was the night to celebrate. A peculiar thing about shop men, in those days they had the idea they were all in voice, and after a few beers and the closing of saloons it was a stop at the street corner for quartet singing with harmony still unexplainable, but it was fun. G. Henry Aronsfeld was the educated genius in those days. His office was the Galveston Optical Co. located, of course, on the Galveston Island. Through his efforts a group got tegether and met at an Oyster and Beer garden just over the causeway. To the best of my memory, this was the first meeting of a group of men interested in optics, food, and beer, and probably the beginning of an association. Topics of discussion I do not remember, but I do remember the beer and food was good. To the best of my memory those in attendance were Aronsfeld, Eganhouse, Chamberlain, Cohen, Friedner, Kruger, Cohen, Olin, Cheatham, and others I do not recall. Aronsfeld was a natural leader and he later sold his office in Galveston to Sol Friedner and moved to Houston, upstairs in an office building. He was the first optician to correct vertical diplopia with cement segs base up on one lens and base down on the other. After serving my apprentice time at the art of grinding and assembling lenses to frames I advanced to neutralization and transposing formula for base of prism at oblique degrees. I had the feeling that shop work was not my future and with the aid of my father and uncle we decided that I should make further advancement. In the year 1914 I entered the Northern Illinois College of Ophthalmology and Otology, a long name for such a short course. My experience in mechanical work did help me in the one year college course and my diploma says I graduated June 15, 1915. Dr. J.J. Lewis was our educator and very humorous along with his intelligence. One of his favorite remarks was to tell the class if they were in doubt if the patient has a glass eye was to keep a small hammer near and tap on each eye and you could tell which was glass. Dr. Lewis compiled the Lewis Dictionary and I suppose one of the most comprehensive dictionaries at that time. The college was located on two floors of the Masonic Temple Bldg. in Chicago. -49- Dissecting bulls' eyes was interesting, but not very beneficial, but was a part of the course. Indirect retinoscopy and the indirect method using the retinoscope, minus and strong plus lens, was the method taught for ophthalmoscopy, very crude by today's standards, but you could learn to see opacities and the veins and arteries of the fundus. About the only pathology you could be certain of was cataracts. As I recall, we had three books, Diseases of the Eye, by May; Refraction; and the Lewis Dictionary. When I finished I had a diploma and that's about all. The fogging system was still with us, that is, what we call the subjective now. We used the clock dial for determining astigmatism. To prove overcorrection or undercorrection we would put the 20/200 Eon the chart, and with a plus·l.SO it was supposed to blur out the E. If it did and your correction was in hyperopia you would reduce by 1/4 diopter until the E was fairly blurred, and just the opposite if you prescription was myopia. After college I returned to Houston and went to work again for Eganhouse. Some smart fellow came around and charged Eganhouse $150.00 to teach him to use the same method to prove his under- or overcorrection. I tould have told him for nothing, but I was a smart aleck kid fresh from college. I did not like the confinement so decided to go into the mili­ tary. I enlisted at Ellington Field as a buck private. It was a disgrace to be conscripted. Now we call it the draft. Because of my limited experience in photography, I was, after serving about three months at Ellington, transferred to Eastman School in Rochester, New York to learn about aerial photography. This consumed about three months more, and with twenty-two men we were assigned to Dorr Field, Arcadia, Florida. I remained there for several months and made appli­ cation to Central Officers Training Camp at Camp Gordon, Atlanta, Georgia where I completed my tour of duty and received a commission as Second Lieutenant in Infantry. This was about the first of November and the armistice was declared on November 11th and I was discharged. After my discharge from the military I returned to Houston with the expectation of returning to my old job with.Eganhouse doing eye fits. To my surprise, my job was filled by Walter Olin, who, as I told you in the beginning was a good mechanic, and that is about all you had to be in those days to fit specs. No state law and no educational requirements necessary, just trial and error until you found a lens from the trial case that would help the customer see. I was somewhat disillusioned to learn upon my return from the military that my job with Eganhouse was not open to me, as promised, and there were not many jobs open for spec -so- fitters, even with a diploma, so I decided to go on my own. I purchased a trial case, chart, and a few other items, enough to partially fit a pair of specs and decided to work some small towns on the I & G.N. Railroad on my way to Tyler, Texas. There I rented an office on the north side of the square upstairs. That was another mistake. Who could find me isolated from the traffic, upstairs. It did give me much time to think, and I decided that it was too slow for me. I also decided there must be more in the future for this art than at that time met the eye, so I gave up, returned to Houston and, lo and behold, I had a job waiting for me. Not to fit glasses but to travel selling Kryptok bifocals. Let me tell you that story. It seems that Eganhouse and Olin had obtained the formula for making Kryptok bifocals, known then as bootleg Kryptoks, so a grinding plant was set up in Houston and I was the manager to oversee the grinding and do the selling. The traveling I liked and the selling I liked, but the quality was the downfall. Less than 50% of the bifocals made by this method were passable, so the outfit went broke and I decided to enter the wholesale field. I would rather do it by the gross than be in an office upstairs wearing out the seat of my britches waiting for the buyer of one pair. I might say here, that for the graduate of today, the time has not yet arrived for you to start your practice hidden from the public in a high rise office building going through the starvation period. You differ from ophthalmologists in this respect. You will have very few referrals to start, whereas the ophthalmologists have the support of the medical practitioners and the optometrists. Optometry has started many new ophthalmologists on the road to success. Unfortunately, that is not the case for optometrists. Even though it is more expensive to be on.the ground floor in a shopping center, the potential is much greater and the starvation period shorter I think. I decided to return to Houston and get a job traveling for a wholesale optical supply house. My first contact was in Dallas with F.A. Hardy and Company. A Mr. Rhodes was the General Manager and he put me to work immediately. This was the year about 1920. My job was to solicit Rx work from everyone that sold glasses, along with the limited supply of ophthalmic equip­ ment and surgical instruments to Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat M.D.'s. This was a fascinating and educational experience for me as new items were continually being placed on the market, and experience broadened by knowledge of the use of the more modern equipment. I had to acquaint myself with the product before becoming efficient in selling. -51- This was the days before Texas had an optometry law, but there did exist, and very little heard of, the Texas Optical Association. The only convention was the Jewelers Optical Convention, and you would have to be careful with matches as most of those present wore celluloid collars. The conventions were of very little educational value, mostly drinking, dining, and dancing and the by­ products thereof. The trade was still selling specs, one pair at a time; and me on my merry way a dozen or gross at one sale. The wholesaler then, as well as now, controlled the retail price of a pair of glasses. No one ever heard of a fee for professional service. It was just so much for a pair of glasses and that was it, and, believe it or not, some are still in the rut of fifty years ago, but not for long in this modern age as the time is slowly, but surely, coming when all in the profession of optometry will have to render an excellent visual service and receive a substantial fee in order to make a decent livelihood and build prestige in his or her community. A plus fifty sphere is the same today as it was from the beginning of lenses, but your edu­ cational skills have changed and a better visual service is rendered that same patient'whether the ultimate visual Rx calls for lenses or no lens. Now doesn't it make sense that a professional fee should be separated from the charge based on your cost for glasses? A spectacle Rx has and is fast becoming a commercial item along with frames and the price of glasses, so flagrantly abused by commercial opticians that a small operator on a professional basis cannot compete, except that if you desire to dispense your own Rx, then the fee for service should be fine and the price of material readjusted to allow cost plus some overhead, but don't try to kid the public and abuse your profession by having a one price deal that indicates to the public that your professional services have been discounted. Tell them the truth and if you do, you will not have to remember what you say. Now back to my experiences. I am still in the whole­ sale industry and had customers more varied in their methods than they are today -- exclusive opticians in ground floor and in office building locations, jeweler opticians on the ground floor, house to house peddlers, persons with offices in several towns, mostly at hotels who would make the circuit once each three months, and then the master of all, the unscrupulous person who would do fake cataract operations. The procedure was simple; look in the eye and say the customer had a cataract. He had already found the power of lenses needed and would have in his pocket a small pebble about the size of the crystalline lens in the eye. With some slight of hand magic he would fumble around the eye and show the customer the rock and claim that was the cataract. Before the fake operation he would put glasses on the person, but before doing so he would put his finger in his ear and get some ear wax -52- and put it on the lens that covered the eye he was using for the fake removal, and, of course, the customer could not see through the lens. After the glasses had been cleaned the poor sucker could see. This group was finally rounded up and prosecuted. That is one reason for your optometry law carrying many sections that prohibit this conduct in the future and is a blessing to the public and the pro­ fession of optometry. The same year that the first optometry law was passed in Texas I had the privilege of attending the first American Optometric Association to be held in New York City. Dr. Augustine was then the President and there was printed in the program remarks in quotation by Dr. Augustine as follows: "Let's now raise the sum of $50,000.00 and help Texas obtain a law equal to the model law of the State of Kansas." The American Optometric Association Convention was held at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, June 1921. Prior to that meeting I could not care less about a Texas license, but to witness and experience the attitude of the leaders at that time, which was so different from the mass of spectacle fitters in Texas, I honestly believe it was a turning point in my life, as far as the profession of optics was concerned. So I returned to Texas, but remained with my employer in the wholesale industrry. After a hard battle Texas did obtain an optometry law on the books in 1921, but it carried a grandfather clause. You had two years to prepare yourself for the State Board Examination which consisted of two types of examination, one the limited one, for those who had several years experience and were almost total exemptions, and another called the standard for those who had no experi­ ence in spec fitting. The grandfather clause expired in the end of 1923 but there remained on the books the apprentice clause, so after the law was passed in 1921 several tutoring schools started in Texas. The men and boys with the celluloid collars and education that coincided really had their work cut out for them. Dr. W.B. Needles operated a School of Optics in Kansas City and he saw the lucrative possibilities in Texas and, I am sure with some encouragement from the wholesalers, started a series of practical lectures on instrumentation and the use thereof. So the ophthalmic instruments could not be made fast enough to supply the demand. As I remember, the old time ophthalmometer was a must, and we sales repre­ sentatives never had it so good, but that was the beginning of what you have today to represent optometry. Upon receiving a license to practice optometry in Texas we were entitled to be called optometrists, but if you would tell a lay person you were an optometrist you would invariably get a reply "A WHO?" But if you would say you were an optician they immediately associated you as a person that sold glasses. -53- Some of you are still selling glasses, but let me tell you now, and now for sure as this is being written in 1975, that if you expect to receive a livelihood from your pro­ fessional connection you had better emphasize a fee for service far in excess of the charge for a pair of specs. You may use whatever subterfuge you desire, but unless you let your patient know that the fee for service is the most important part and make it the most important part you will be caught in the middle of a competitive squeeze and, after too little too late, you will find your livelihood will be so dramatically affected that the fellow optometrist who has seen the handwriting on the wall will be so far out in front in our profession I doubt if time will allow you to catch up. A new start will be mandatory, so start today to rebuild your practice around a fee for service. You have been told this by educators, economists, and leaders of our profession, so why don't you listen? Do you want to go back to the early days of the optician or optometrist? To me education and fee for service are not something to be taken lightly. Do your thing and charge a fee commensurate for service rendered. It may be a little difficult for you to change, but the person that accepts this graciously is your patient and I know from experience. Make your living out of fee-for-service-rendered and let the others fight over a fee for glasses. I hope you will change today, tomorrow may be too late. I have been rambling all over outfield, but let's get down to the knitty-gritty of it all. What is all this about? First let's consider economics, a simple case of management. How much do you have left in the bank when all bills are paid for the previous month? Is it sufficient to satisfy your needs or desires or should there be some change in your mode of practice? You yourself should be the best judge of this. If not refer to some written articles by economists, who should know. The next is education, I purposely put economics first, not that it is primary to education, but it is a question of which comes first, the chicken or the egg. Education is the basic structure of all success in any endeavor and can breed success or failure depending on how it is used by each individual. Some follow the leader, others try it alone and learn the sad way in a profession from experience even after all educational requirements are met. Education breeds ethics in any profession. Now, what is ethics or ethical? Do you remember when you were kids and you had a playmate who would not play with you except on -54- his own terms? That would be his code or rules of ethics. But ethics in a profession is represented in a person who practices his or her profession to the best of his ability with close scrutiny to integrity and honesty, and respect for all professional members of his pro­ fession. When you divorce yourself from the better­ than-thou attitude you have made a step in the right dir­ ection to obey the code of practice or code of ethics relating to any profession. Professional jealousy will deter progress, whereas an open mind will induce higher types of education and ethics the same for all participants who are members of any profession. You know you can be so inhibited in what you think is ethical that sometimes you do not see the forest for the trees. Let's look at some concrete examples within and without the profession of optometry. I remember back in the 1920's there was in Austin, Texas, an oculist I called on to solicit his Rx business. He told me emphatically that he would no more consider delivering or buying a pair of glasses on Rx from the wholesaler than he would mix a medical Rx, and all of his patients took their Rx's to an optician to be filled. All oculists used the same policy with the exception of those in very small towns with their office in drug stores or one flight upstairs. They would mail the Rx orders to supply houses in the city in which I live. I think it was about the year 1928 when my employment as a traveling salesman ended and I was promoted to manage a Branch Office for the American Optical Co. At that time the supply houses were doing dispensing for the Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat M.D.'s, and they had a good thing going for them. The M.D.'s would write an Rx for a patient and send the patient to the supply house, either the main office or a branch dispensing office in a medical building. The policy then was for the supply house to collect the regular retail fee for glasses, charge the M.D. the whole­ sale price plus $1.00 for frame fitting and delivering, and upon delivery collect the total retail fee from the patient, bill the M.D. the wholesale cost and credit his account with the collection. At the end of the month the wholesale supply house would send with a statement to the M.D. a check for the difference, this was considered a rebate and was frowned upon by the Government, so in the early 1940's, about the time of World War II, the Govern­ ment decided this rebate practice had to be stopped. It was, as far as the supply houses were concerned, but what happened? The branch dispensing offices were sold -55- to individuals, and as the M.D. was already charging a fee for service, the man in the retail dispensing office started making a lot of money. I know of one instance here in which the dispenser now has six offices located in the same building or adjacent thereto. As fast as a new building would be con­ structed for Medicals you will find a dispensing optician and drug store somewhere in the building, mostly on the ground floor, and we holler because optometrists now are adjacent to or in close proximity to a dispensing optician. Who is looking out for whom? Don't hand me that hog wash about ethics. Show me a better way to make a livelihood with more prestige by doing examinations with the skills required and charge a fee for service in accordance with services rendered. Remember it makes no difference where you practice the learned skills with a God given right to use them, and advance with education. To me that is as ethical as you can be. I can go back to the time here in this city when a person with a license working for an optical company could earn as little as $30.00 per week and hardly more than $50.00 per week, and their income did not increase until in the 1930's when here in this city individual opticians with licenses to practice in Texas opened individual offices and started advertising glasses for $9.90 per pair and the price for a man with a license advanced to a much higher degree financially. In 1948 came the chain price advertising, and the demand for a person with a license increased along with advances in salary. For example, from 30 to 50 per week to $10,000.00 yearly and in some instances extra commissions. But what happened to education? Not much. All you needed was a quick retinoscopy or a quickie subjective, for a total of about five minutes. I know some who are still practicing that now, writing from 40 to 70 Rx's per day. About 1929 another person and I formed a partnership and opened the Texas Optical Co. We were both employees of American Optical Co., being in the wholesale for quite a period of time. From my past experience I thought we would do well in the wholesale Rx supply business. Little did we know that around the corner was the 1930 years of economic depression, but we did accomplish one thing. E.B. Alexander took the Oklahoma State Board during that time and opened an office in Duncan, Oklahoma. With his skilled brain for recognizing the demand he could create for Education, he got together with Skeffington and Sol Lesser and put together the Optometric Extension Program, a correspondence course it was, and, as I recall, the fee was about #36.00 per year. It was decided to give it a try in Texas and my partner and I got in our cars and sold the first application for membership because no other wholesaler at that time would touch the deal. I was aware of the tremendous need for education in Texas, and to me it was a natural, and it turned out to be that for a -56- few years and still continues on a more limited basis of membership in Texas, but old Alec was and is still a smart cookie. But let's get back to the sad experience my partner and I had in the wholesale business. To be perfectly frank in 1932 we were going broke, and Tom Mitchell, who was at that time zone manager for Riggs Optical, now Bausch and Lomb, was a good friend and together we worked out a deal where Riggs would take us over and pay our debts and allow us a job·and some small amount of money. This was in 1933. Now getting back to the Optometric Extension Program -- it was arranged to have an Educational Seminar at the Blackstone Hotel here in 1934. It was a huge success. About 1,500 attended from several States and they bought equipment. I think I sold about fifteen complete refracting units besides much diagnostic equipment. It was a very successful meeting for Riggs Optical and a real educational start for optometry in Texas. From this there started group study classes. Unfortunately for some with limited education to start with, they almost went nuts trying to figure, out of the 21 points, Highs and Lows. You may call it what you want, but it was the first organized educational program for optometrists in Texas, and the basic competence of our present law is a part of the Extension Program, especially the most practical part. The Optometric Extension Program held yearly meetings here and I think they still do. The Chairman of the yearly seminar was J. Ralph Ewing who started here with the Optical Department in the Shaw Jewelry Co. The Jewelry Co. at one time gave a set of dishes with a pair of glasses, but later, with the law in hot pursuit, the optometrists had to give up their optical departments in commercial establishments. So J. Herman Thomas, who had his office in Striplings Department store, and Ewing opened an office on Camp Bowie Boulevard. Thomas died of a heart attack and Ewing is now retired. Coming out of a commercial environment, they did not do too bad financially for themselves. I do not report this with any malace, for they were both fine gentlemen, but only to prove what a little education can do for those that desire the opportunity. I hope there are many more such examples in Texas, and I feel sure.there were and are. In all of my sixty years I never aligned myself with any mercantile establishment except exclusive optical, my inherent right under the law. In 1943 I resigned from Riggs or Bausch and Lomb and bought the practice of Amos R. Wood in Big Springs who wanted to move to California. There was a clause in our contract that if he decided to come back to Big Springs at the end of a two-year period he, under certain conditions, could do so, and he did. We worked out the financial arrangements, and I looked around for another location and decided to move back -57- to Ft. Worth. By buying out an old retired jeweler optometrist I opened my office after making extensive repairs. It was a narrow office, but later I got the building next door and made my office twice the size. I had my own shop, and a man by the name of Hotchkiss worked for me doing shop work and attended school so he could meet the requirements of optometry school. He was successful and ent~red optometry school. After graduation he returned to Ft. Worth and decided to travel to several small towns and fit specs. He had very little equipment so I loaned him what I had that he needed, and I am glad to say that as far as I know he has done well with his practice. Over a period of time I employed several optometrists as they came out of college. Most of them attended under the G.I. Bill. I opened branch offices, one in Decatur for Dr. Williamson, one in Ft. Worth for Dr. Dixon, one in Arlington for Dr. Sander. The venture did not make me any money, but it did give these men an opportunity to be in for ·themselves. You know it is most peculiar that as long as I owned the branch offices they made no money, but after I sold them to the individuals, their practice seemed to increase. It is funny what you can accomplish on your own. The office I opened in Arlington for Dr. Sanders is now the office of Dr. Spain, as Dr. Sanders became ill and had to retire and sold the office to Spain. I am proud of each one of these men who worked with me, but like a lot of you they have their own biases and forget easily. In 1953 I developed a health problem and the doctor required that I take off from work for a period of time. Working for me at the time was Dr. Vlasman, who is now practicing in Durango, Colorado. I did no active work for some time but with my health improved I finally went back to my office and Dr. Vlasman returned to Colorado. Sometime later I was on the lookout for an optometrist and Dave Anderson of the American Optical Co. recommended Dr. Bill Mikesell, who had recently been discharged from the military. We made a deal and he was an excellent associate. He nor I · were members of any optometry association. I do not know if he ever was a member. I had been until about 1945, but the Association and Kangroo Court tactics made up my mind and I have gotten along very well without being affiliated. After Dr. Mikesell had been with me a year or so I decided to sell my office. Dr. Mikesell and I talked about it for some time, and one day I made him a proposition and he bought the practice; He was still attending classes for the military and it seems the military was his bag. He paid for the practice in accordance with the terms over a five year period and I retired for a few months, but I was not ready for retirement. I worked here and there for about one and a half years doing relief work, mostly with T.s.o. Then in 1959 I accepted a -58- practice with Lee Optical, a contract with Dr. Ellis Carp. I remained in that capacity until the law of 1969. Shortly thereafter; in compliance with the law, the Dr.'s office was separated from the optical part by a partition and separate entrance. I was totally on my own, obligated only to Dr. C.T. Shropshire by a mutually agreed contract. My experience in the past five years doing refraction only, and charging a fee for service performed, taught me, I think, the beginning of future optometry. I know there are some of you who are doubting Thomases, but I only suggest that before you make up your feeble mind, try it for yourself, you might like it, if you have the guts. The few that now operate on the same basis I do throughout Texas are paving the way for you doubtful ones that I know will pro­ duce a better optometry for the future. No use waiting for the magic year of 1979 as suggested by the President of T.O.A. I say every year is a magic year for optometrists, so why not now. Don't you as an optometrist realize that your profession is head and shoulders above any other profession as far as rendering a better visual analysis for the public. The ophthalmologist never did have to advertise because the whole medical profession was on his referral list along with the optician downstairs and the optometrist referring many cases of pathology. I wish I had a hundred opticians on my referring list. The old days are gone, a new light is over the horizon, so get yourself ready today, tomorrow may be too late. I think I know from past experience what I am saying to you, but of course it is your prerogative to believe or disbelieve. · I had the good fortune to talk to an old friend a few months ago and the subject of the 1934 Extension Program Educational Convention in Ft. Worth was discussed. This man is a past president of this or that, very dedicated to optometry and character flawless, semi-retired in a beautiful office with two or three associates in the same building. I asked him why the educational process of the study groups had so materially diminished. His simple answer, "Lack of education." He meant sufficient preparation in education to understand the correspondence course on paper. If you cannot pronounce the word it is more difficult to understand the meaning. In 1934 the educational interest was phenomenal, but by the years from 1945 to 1950 the drop-out rate was tremendous and consequently most parts of the program lost its interest to the average optometrist along with certain other indirect political involvements. Then from 1946 to about 1950 after a lot of hard work on the part of a few, and financial pledges from many, a chair of optometry was accepted by the University of Houston, which is now -59- known as the University of Houston, College of Optometry, with the services of a great man, Dean, Dr. Chester H. Pheiffer. This to me is a great optometry college and has a record of outstanding educators. Many students have graduated, but unfortunately not all from Texas, but wherever they are, with some intern work for experience, they will be, and are now, leaders in their chosen profession. Education is as old as the ages. It started when "God said, let there be light, and there was light." So much for the students who graduated and went on their merry in the past twenty years, how about those who graduated and had no opportunity to attend continuous education events for one reason or the other. This situation can and must be changed. Optometrists need the advice and counsel of the educators of the University of Houston College of Optometry, and the College needs the financial assistance of the Texas optometrists, and both should be granted without hesitation. Learning is, or at least should be, a lifelong pursuit. Everyday is a new day, with new requirements. Therefore, every day calls for new qualifications, for that one reason all of us need continuing education. Education in school provides tools of thought and guides of action. But there must be continuing study if one is to be the kind of optom­ etrist he should be. Today we are surrounded with a succession of decisions, events, and changes. The fact remains, however, that the collection of facts is just one aspect of continuing education. Some aspects of education are correctness and precision in the use of one's mother tongue, refined and gentle manners, the power and habit of reflection, the power of growth and efficiency and the power to do. Other aspects have been added, such as a set of values and the courage to defend them, an understanding of society, and the ability to look squarely at the world and its problems. A long time ago a Latin scholar said, "As long as you live, keep learning how to live." He spoke wisely. If you are a recent graduate of a College of Optometry, with a pencil and paper, stop for a few moments and jot down the many valuable procedures that have come to the surface through research since you graduated and started to practice your chosen profession. You probably will find a few of interest. Now compare your findings with the optometrists that have been in practice ten, twenty or thirty years and have not attended continual education seminars. Aren't you really ashamed of your colleagues who have gone along ignoring the opportunity to better prepare themselves for the -60- future? As sure as spec selling is a thing of the past, so will the practice of optometry go the same way for those who ignore the opportunity to progress. From the standpoint of progress with optometric education we should look at each other as licensed optometrists and work together for a wonderful unified profession. No holier-than-thou attitude, but an attitude of equality brought about by brotherly interest in all aspects of Optometry. For those of you who know, work with those who do not and our profession will advance tremendously. If you are one of those like me, be big enough to admit your shortcomings. Don't hide behind false pretenses. Tell the truth and enhance your knowledge and you will receive great dividends in many ways. By the same token, there are many optometrists with years of experience who can be of great assistance to you young graduates for the reason they learned the hard and expensive way from a practical standpoint and can save you, with their practical advice, many dollars that you would have to learn from trial and error. Yesterday I attended the funeral service of an optometrist whom I have known for many years, a fine religious man with many redeeming qualities. Dr. T.S. Higginbotham died at the the age of ninety-five and continued to practice on a part time basis past his ninetieth birthday, except for an automobile accident that injured one leg. Up until that time, which was only a few years ago, he walked with authority, straight as a pin and a smile for every occasion. I first got acquainted with the good Doctor when he had an office in Abilene, Texas. His specialty was the correction of strabismus with lenses. He also was a photographer and he has many pictures among his personal items showing a close view of the patients' eyes before and after. I have been promised some of his possessions which I want to present to the College of Optometry, University of Houston. If and when the promise is fulfilled I feel sure that historically they will be very interesting. I recall years ago there was an optometrist in Ft. Worth who was a McCormick student, the theory being to alleviate muscle disorders, such as crossed eyes with the use of lenses. I hope I may succeed in obtaining some of this information. I remember one other optometrist from the old theory that would have patients sit in his room for hours with a pair of strong plus lenses on, so that when he was ready to fit the specs their eyes would be in a state of rest. Maybe there is something to an old saying, "It is better to look back before you move ahead." Could be. -61- "Could be" reminds me of a physician whom I once knew. He was not a talkative soul. You could talk to him forever and about the only reply you would get would be, "Could be." Not very affirmative, but at least he would give the other fellow openly the benefit of doubt, and, you know some­ thing, that is what we need today, more benefit of doubt and follow-up with research, particularly to prove or disprove a point. I feel sure that I could have learned a lot from Dr. Higginbotham about straightening crossed eyes and from the other old Doctor who used plus lens on his patient for hours to relax their accommodation or what have you. Don't ask me why I do not know. About the only thing I know is that at the time I thought they were some kind of nut, just like I feel about some of us today, but I have come to the con­ clusion that you have to be some kind of nut to learn ideas of practical value. Maybe fifty years ago if I had been some kind of a practical nut and put more effort into photography I might be a leader in visual training without a lot of gadgets, who knows? If you have had the patience to read this far take a few more minutes to read what I have composed in ten paragraphs, the title of which is, "Over Fifty Years of Observation and Participation." I admit this is no masterpiece but it is food for thought today. Maybe tomorrow the change will take place. Let's all try and hope and pray. ~ Fifty Years of Observations and Participation: 1. As far back as I can remember the public bought a pair of "specs" from whomever. This was the supplier's source of income along with watch repair and jewelry. 2. In the early 1920's Texas obtained an Optometry Law causing a hurried attempt to educate persons so they could qualify for a license to practice. The law was indeed a start and fortunately eliminated a lot of undesireables, but the word "Optometrist" or its meaning was very slow to be understood by the public and more or less ignored by the licensed optometrists. Consequently flagrant price advertising of glasses prevailed, and the person with a license found himself at the mercy of the optician, and the public was still buying "specs" and the licensed person was receiving no remuneration for professional services rendered by him, but a salary or commission for the use of his or her license that the law may be complied with. ---------- -62- 3. Fortunately in the 1930's there appeared on the surface an opportunity for the person with a license to enhance his or her education for the purpose of making and determining a better visual analysis for the public. This opportunity was offered by Doctor Alexander's Optometric Extension Program. Unfortunately the optometrist did not recognize the opportunity for him or her to become more professional and charge for services performed because they were still selling "specs." Their manner had not changed and they continued to operate as merchants. 4. In the 1950's amendments were added to the 1921 State Law and the burden was placed on the shoulders of the only Optometric Association in the state, which in their sincere effort said to the person with a license, if you do not divorce your activity with the druggist, jeweler, department store, or what have you, we will not have you as a member of our Association. For the lack of proper education that would and could cause motivation, and proper leadership being at a premium, the membership of the one-state Association started to decline to the point that no interest prevailed and the commercial interests still prevailed. 5. Now let's turn to the 1960's, 1969 to be exact when the old Optometry Law became for the most part null and void and the State Legislature, along with representatives of the State Association, Opticians, Dispensers, Medics and others, arrived at a decision to propose the present law and forced almost all to change their mode of practice, but I saw it was only the beginning for Optometry. 6. For over twenty years I have predicted that the time will come when an optometrist will no longer receive sufficient income from the sale of a pair of glasses, and now the time is here, where his fees shall be only for professional service rendered, and this creates the necessity for increasing education and a more expanded visual analysis which consequently will auto­ matically give the public a more deserved service, and professional fees will increase commensurate to the professional services rendered, but I must add that time must be spent for additional education that these increased services may be rendered. 7. The quickie eye examination is now a thing of the past because the public is demanding more and should have it. It is ridiculous that a professional person should be required by law to render a patient a complete visual analysis with complete instrumentation when it is to his advantage, financially and morally to do so. 8. The University of Houston, College of Optometry has a moral obligation to the optometrists of Texas and to their students to motivate the practicing optometrist through education, the value of learning and delivering all phases of a visual analysis. The expertise of their educators are invaluable to all members -63- of the profession and if carried out will pay great dividends over a period of time for all concerned. Although it is my feeling that the College of Optometry is morally obligated, I also feel that every member of the optometry profession in Texas is morally and financially obligated to our College of Optometry. I hope it will be do~e now, before optometry in Texas goes back to the days of long ago. 9. I would be the first to admit my optometric education is limited and I will not be here long enough to catch up, but my younger colleagues will, and for them I write this opinion. 10. We need educational seminars to include this proper procedure from case history to the final analysis for all optometrists, and, if and when, compulsory education becomes law in Texas every optometrist should be prepared to accept the change Education Contributes to Ethics. Ettles Memorial Lecture: About a year ago our Secretary-Treasurer Maria Dablemont asked Mr. Eric J. Crundall, the editor of the Optician, the Optical Year ~' and Manufacturing Optics International, London, for some details on the Ettles Memorial Lecture. His thorough response follows: "William Ettles, M.D., M.S., F.R.c.s., who died in 1918 at the age of 49, was elected Vice-President of the Institute of Ophthalmic Opticians in 1910. His chosen profession was that of ophthalmic surgeon but his interests extended into many other fields. In his obituary the writer stated: 'It is very much to be doubted whether any ophthalmic surgeon was held in such high esteem by the opticians of this country • • • • No man more than himself foresaw that it was to the combined interest of the patient, the surgeon and the optician that the ophthalmic surgeon and optician should work together in friendly harmony.' 11Ettles took a great interest in the work of the Institute, lecturing to the members, contributing to the journal, and was always ready to pu~ his knowledge and experience at the disposal of the Council. "He had many irons in the fire -- he was President of the Optical Society, Lecturer on the Physiology of Vision at the Northampton Institute (now The City University), and a member of the Society of Illuminating Engineers. He was also a Liveryman of the Worshipful Company of Spectacle Makers. -64- "After his death the I.O.O. Council decided to com­ memorate the name of a surgeon who, like Dr. James Forrest, had done so much to further what he described as 'the legiti­ mate aims of the sight-testing optician,' by instituting an annual lecture to be given by someone prominent in the fields of ophthalmology, ophthalmic optics, or the physiology of vision. "The first of these lectures was given in 1919 by Lionel Laurance on 'The True Action of Lenses in Ametropia,' to be followed annually by lectures delivered by such authorities as H.G. Critchley, W.D. Wright, A.E. Turville, E.F. Fincham, H. Hartridge, and H.H. Emsley. "When the A.O.P. took over the functions of the Institute and the J.C.Q.O. in 1946 they became responsible for organ­ izing the Ettles lectures, which were generally given at a Northern or Southern Congress by men such as H.J.A. Dartnall or R.J. Smeed, though not at yearly intervals. Some of the lectures have been published in the B.J.P.O." The abbreviations? F.R.C.S. = Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons I.O.O. = Institute of Ophthalmic Opticians A.O.P. = Association of Optical Practitioners J.C.Q.O. = Joint Council of Qualified Opticians B.J.P.O. = British Journal of Physiological Optics More optometrists memorialized: The Knight-Henry Memorial Award (Optometric Extension Program Foundation, Inc., Duncan, Oklahoma 73533, U.S.A.). R. Wayne Knight, O.D., and W. Robert Henry, O.D. both were very actively involved in Optometric Extension Program activities. The Jack Raphael Memorial Library at the Israel Optometric Center in Tel Aviv (Israel Optometric Association). Raphael was the first president and founder member of the Israel Optometric Association. The Albert Fitch Memorial Alumnus-of-the-Year Award (Pennsyl­ vania College of Optometry, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania). Dr. Fitch was the founder and first president of the Pennsylvania College of Optometry. The Julius Neumeuller Award in Optics (American Academy of Optometry). Dr. Neumueller was a prominent Professor of Optometry long active in the American Academy of Optometry. The Frederick W. Brock Memorial Awards (American Optometric Foundation, 1730 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036). Dr. Brock was a prominent New York optometrist, researcher, and writer. -65- The John ~ Davey Memorial Award (the Indiana Chapter of the American Academy of Optometry). The Roy ~ Denny Memorial Award (the Indiana Chapter of the American Academy of Optometry). Drs. Davey and Denny were prominent Indianapolis, Indiana optometrists. Friend of optometry memorialized: The Harold Kohn Award (American Optometric Foundation). Mr. Harold Kohn, Esq., served many years as legal counsel for the American Optometric Association and the New York State Optometric Association. He also donated his legal services to incorporate the American Optometric Foundation and as the Foundation's legal advisor for many years until his death. A quadruple "boner": My Webster dictionary defines a boner as "a stupid, often ridi­ culous, mistake or blunder." Well, on pages 4-5 of the January 1975 issue of this Newsletter, Vol. 6, No. 1, I reviewed the third edition of an early book by William Bohne and four times (!) misspelled his name with an "m" instead of an "n". The name is Bohne, not Bohme. Recently O.H.S. Vice-president Henry Knoll wrote to inform me that the Bausch & Lomb Scientific Library has a copy of the second edition, autographed by Bohne, so that he is double sure of the spelling. The copy I had received is now back in St. Louis at the I.L.A.M.O., so I really cannot argue or explain my error. My stubborn­ ness prevailed nevertheless right through my rechecking of Mr. Bohne's obituary in The Optical Journal. There, too, it is spelled Bohne! Woops, again! O.H.S. member James Leeds did not mean to say that German author K. Wick was the grandfather of Ralph Wick, O.D., as I reported on page 23 of the April issue (Vol. 7, No. 2) of this Newsletter. Half jokingly he meant it as a speculative question, exploring a bit casually the possible linking of two prominent persons with each other. TAL Om OPTIKEN: This is the title of a 34 page pamphlet, 18.5 x 11 em, by Carl Lehnberg, an optician member of the Royal Academy of Science of Sweden, printed in Stockholm in 1756. It appears to be a paper read before the Academy on August 28, 1756, or at least a thesis. Lacking ability to -66- read Swedish, and especially old Swedish, I can only guess that the title translates into "Speaking of Optics" or something similar. The booklet is reviewed by Magnus Buve, a prominent Swedish optometrist, in NORDISK TIDSSKRIFT FOR OPTIKERE, No. 1, February 1976, pp. 9-10, also in Swedish. A very frail copy of the booklet, perhaps one of only two or three known copies in existence, was presented to me by Mr. Robert v. Sandor of Stockholm, who is in charge of the public relations for the optometrists/opticians of Sweden. This copy has been forwarded to the International Library, Archives, and Museum of Optometry, Inc. A few of the names mentioned by Lehmberg include Ar.chimedes, De la Hire, Vitellio, Alexander de Spina, Roger Bacon, Molyneux, Smith, Alhazen, Porta, Kepler, Aristotle, Snellius, Newton, et al, et al, et al. Also detected in the text were the words "Dioptriken" and "Dioptrik." Moorfields Eye Hospital history: Two volumes about this world famous institution have now been published under the title of "The History and Traditions of the Moorfields Eye Hospital." The first, dated 1929, was authored by Edward Treacher Collins and covers "one hundred years of ophthalmic discovery and development." The second, dated 1975, is a continuation authored by Frank W. Law. The publisher of both is H.K. Lewis & Co., London. The two volumes are highly documentary in style, replete with tables, photographs, staff lists, minutes, fiscal data, and the like. Ophthalmic opticianry (optometry) was, and apparently continues to be, of very minor consideration in the total hospital program, but it is mentioned. Kind words! O.H.S. member H.C. Armstrong, O.D., of Champaign, Illinois, boldly wrote the following comment at the bottom of his 1976 notice of payable membership dues: "I send this with more of a feeling that I am privileged to send it, than it is a bill I owe. I really enjoy it. ---H.C.A." H.W. Hofstetter, Editor 1976-07-03-001 1976-07-03-002 1976-07-03-003 1976-07-03-004 1976-07-03-005 1976-07-03-006 1976-07-03-007 1976-07-03-008 1976-07-03-009 1976-07-03-010 1976-07-03-011 1976-07-03-012 1976-07-03-013 1976-07-03-014 1976-07-03-015 1976-07-03-016 1976-07-03-017 1976-07-03-018 1976-07-03-019 1976-07-03-020 1976-07-03-021 1976-07-03-022 1976-07-03-023 1976-07-03-024 1976-07-03-025 1976-07-03-026 1976-07-03-027 1976-07-03-028 1976-07-03-029 1976-07-03-030 1976-07-03-031 1976-07-03-032 1976-07-03-033 1976-07-03-034 1976-07-03-035 1976-07-03-036 1976-07-03-037 1976-07-03-038 1976-07-03-039 1976-07-03-040