ther than the State of Washington, and the delivery of degrees and diplomas to such purchasers at the conclusion of said courses. Said respondent also furnished degrees to purchasers thereof whose names bad been given her by respondent J. O. Kinnaman in the manner hereinafter more fully set out. Said purchasers pursued no courses of tudy, and while some of them sent in a thesis, a substantial number received doctor's degrees solely upon payment of a monetary considration. In truth and in fact, said Temple Bar Extension College, nc., was not an institution of learning, or a college as the term is understood in the educational world and more fully described in paraṛraph 6 hereof, but on the contrary, was a business operated by repondent L. B. Renewanz from an office in Seattle, Wash., in which she had rented a desk space; and said respondent constituted the entire personnel of said college. There was neither a faculty, nor any equipment or facilities for the conduct of an educational institution. While said respondent was designated educational director, she was not by training or experience qualified to teach or correct papers in the several subjects offered by said Temple Bar Extension College, Inc.

PAR. 9. Respondent J. O. Kinnaman is a traveling lecturer on religious subjects who was listed in the catalog of Temple Bar Extersion College, Inc., as director of the divinity department and an advisory member. In truth and in fact said respondent performed no duties of function at the office of Temple Bar Extension College, Inc., but devoted substantially all of his time to the conduct of his own business as a traveling lecturer. During the existence of said last named school, respondent Kinnaman furnished the names of numerous individuals, residing in various States of the United States as proper candidates for the degrees of doctor of divinity, doctor of philosophy and doctor of laws, in many instances recommending such ndividuals as qualified or worthy to receive said degrees without any requirement as to previous study with said Temple Bar Extension College, Inc., or any other proof of educational attainments other than the assurance by said respondent Kinnaman that the persons suggested or recommended by him are so qualified. In some instances said respondent insisted on degrees being given on diplomas printed for the then dissolved Temple Bar College which had had its offices in Missoula, Mont., in order to avoid the appearance of the words "Extension" and "Inc." on said diplomas and thereby furthering the impression that the degrees so conferred were granted by a resident institution of learning. Said respondent Kinnaman obtained his degree of doctor of philosophy from said Temple Bar Extension College, Inc. In truth and in fact, none of the degrees so

obtained and conferred are recognized as valid degrees by any rep table accredited college or university for the reasons set forth paragraph 6 hereof.

PAR. 10. The false, misleading and deceptive practices of respon ents Temple Bar College and Hilmer B. Sandine, as hereinabov described, in using the term "college" in the trade name and adverti ing literature of said Temple Bar College as representing and imply ing that it is an institution of higher learning, equipped to teach th arts, sciences and theological subjects, with power and authority t confer degrees in said subjects which are recognized and accredite in the educational world and by other recognized colleges and uni versities; in representing and implying to students and prospectiv purchasers of respondent Temple Bar College's correspondenc courses of study or resident students that the degrees offered in sai subjects of higher learning are valid degrees and so recognized; in rep resenting that respondent Temple Bar College is a resident institutio of higher learning, properly equipped and with a faculty of competen teachers, qualified to teach the theological subjects offered by it; and the false, misleading and deceptive practices of respondents L. B Rennewanz, J. O. Kinnaman, and Hilmer B. Sandine in representing and implying that degrees in various learned subjects may be obtained on payment of a purchase price or without the necessity of pursuing such learned subjects through a regular course of resident study at: duly accredited and recognized institution of learning-all have a tendency to and do induce prospective students and purchasers of re spondents' courses of study and instruction to subscribe to and enrol for said courses in the erroneous and mistaken belief that said rep resentations and statements of respondents as herein set forth ar true.

PAR. 11. There are among competitors of respondents, individuals corporations, schools, universities and colleges who sell and distribut courses of study and instruction in the arts, sciences and theology to purchasers thereof who truthfully represent their said courses of study and instruction.

PAR. 12. Each and all of the false and misleading statements and representations made by the respondents as herein above set out are calculated to and do have a tendency and capacity to lead a substan tial portion of the purchasing public into the erroneous and mistaken belief that said misrepresentations are true; further, as a direct consequence of such erroneous and mistaken belief induced by the aforesaid acts and representations of the respondents, a substantial number of the consuming public has purchased respondents'

courses of

study and instruction. As a result of said acts and practices, substantial trade in commerce has been unfairly diverted to the respondents from respondents' competitors in said commerce who do not misrepresent their courses of study and instruction to the injury of said competitors.

PAR. 13. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents as herein alleged are all to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respondents' competitors and constitute unfair methods of competition in commerce and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

REPORT, FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS, AND ORDER

Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Federal Trade Commission, on April 15 1944, issued and subsequently served its complaint in this proceeding upon the respondents Temple Bar College a corporation, Hilmer B. Sandine, individually and as vice president of Temple Bar College, L. B. Rennewanz and J. O. Kinnaman, charging them with unfair methods of competition in commerce and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce in violation of the provisions of said act. After the issuance of said complaint and the filing of the answers of the respondents thereto, testimony and other evidence in support of and in opposition to the allegations of the complaint were taken before Andrew B. Duvall and Miles J. Furnas, trial examiners of the Commission theretofore duly designated by it, and said testimony and other evidence were duly recorded and filed in the office of the Commission. Thereafter, this proceeding regularly came on for final hearing before the Commission upon said complaint, answers thereto, testimony and other evidence, report of trial examiner Andrew B. Duvall upon the evidence and exceptions filed thereto, and briefs filed in support of the complaint and brief and supplementary brief filed by respondents Temple Bar College, a corporation, and Hilmer B. Sandine, and oral argument of counsel, and the Commission, having duly considered the matter and being now fully advised in the premises, finds that this proceeding is in the interest of the public and makes this its findings as to the facts and its conclusion drawn therefrom:

FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Temple Bar College is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota, with

its principal office and place of business located at 4717 Pillsbu Avenue, Minneapolis, Minn.

Respondent Hilmer B. Sandine is an individual and the vice pre dent of Temple Bar College, residing at 4717 Pillsbury Aven Minneapolis, Minn.

Respondent L. B. Rennewanz is an individual whose address is 68 Oswego Place, Seattle, Wash.

Respondent J. O. Kinnaman is an individual who resides at Oce View Hotel, Long Beach, Calif.

PAR. 2. The original Temple Bar College was organized as a Mo tana corporation with its principal office at Missoula, Mont. In 19 the principal place of business of said Temple Bar College was mov to 1620 Thirteenth Avenue, Seattle, Wash., and said college was i corporated under the laws of the State of Washington. In 19 the name was changed to Temple Bar Extension College, Inc.

During the period from 1939 to 1943, the respondent L. B. Renn wanz, with the active cooperation of respondent J. O. Kinnama transacted all of the affairs of said college. The business of said co lege was conducted by the respondent L. B. Rennewanz from an offi in Seattle, Wash., in which she rented desk space. Said responder variously designated herself as educational director and as chairma board of trustees.

During the period herein mentioned, said respondents L. B. Renn wanz and J. O. Kinnaman were engaged in the sale and distributio of courses of home study and instruction in various subjects. Sai respondents caused said courses of home study, when sold, to be trans ported from their place of business in the State of Montana to pur chasers thereof located in the various States of the United States In addition to the sale of said courses of home study, said respondent were actively engaged in the issuance and sale of various college de grees to purchasers thereof, without the requirement of such pur chasers completing courses of study necessary to the issuance of suc degrees.

PAR. 3. Respondent J. O. Kinnaman, who was also a traveling lecturer on religious subjects, was listed in the original catalog of the Temple Bar College as a member of the faculty and in the catalog of its successor, Temple Bar Extension College, Inc., as director divinity department and as an advisory member of said college. Said respond ent J. O. Kinnaman prepared some courses of study in Biblical archeology and corrected and graded papers submitted by corre spondence students taking this particular course.

PAR. 4. Under the plan of procedure devised and developed by said spondents, the respondent J. O. Kinnaman from time to time coneted prospects for various degrees and in such instances he recomended the issuance of the degrees to the various individuals so ontacted, collected the cost of such degrees from the purchaser, reitted same to the respondent L. B. Rennewanz at Seattle, Wash., nd when the degrees were issued, in many instances personally and ublicly conferred said degrees upon the purchasers thereof. During he early operation of said business, and prior to 1941, such degrees 'ere issued without any requirement whatsoever other than the payent of the fee for issuance thereof. After 1941, it was required that he candidate for a degree write and submit a thesis upon some subect agreeable to the candidate and said respondent J. O. Kinnaman. The Commission finds that the preparation and submission of a hesis in connection with the obtaining of a degree was a subterfuge, sthere was no one connected with the respondents or the Temple Bar Extension College, Inc., who was qualified to give consideration to ach theses and there is no evidence that any thesis submitted was ever ead or considered in connection with the issuance of any degree. The respondent J. O. Kinnaman from time to time made suggesions in connection with the kind of a degree which should be issued and also with reference to the form or nature of the thesis which might be required. In several instances he objected to the use of the word "extension" in the name of the college, which appeared on the degree, and in one instance he requested that an old form of degree, carrying the name Temple Bar College be issued although such issuance was subsequent to the change of name of the corporation to Temple Bar Extension College, Inc. Pursuant to this request, the respondent L B. Rennewanz advised said respondent J. O. Kinnaman that she had reserved an old Temple Bar College degree for issuance to the candidate and in addition supplied J. O. Kinnaman with an application for degree which was formerly used by the Temple Bar College. Although the Temple Bar College and its successor, Temple Bar Extension College, Inc., were corporate entities organized under the laws of the State of Washington, the only person who had an active interst in said coroprations was L. B. Rnnewanz, who, with the cooperation of respondent J.). Kinnaman, conducted the affairs of said corporations for their own personal advancement and gain as though no corporate entity existed. The business so conducted was not that of an institution of higher learning as there was no faculty connected with said school and no degrees issued under the name of Temple Bar