The CHAIRMAN. Well, as a general rule, do you criticize generally the Federal Government and its method of building its buildings? Have they generally been corrupt?

Mr. ROBNETT. You are talking now about the buildings in Washington, or are you talking about buildings in the local communities? The CHAIRMAN. The buildings everywhere.

Mr. ROBNETT. The buildings that have been erected now, let us say under the pump-priming program

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). The W. P. A., for instance; yes.

Mr. ROBNETT. I think we would confuse the issue if we got off on to that subject, because it is a tremendous subject. I will again say I do.

The CHAIRMAN. You think there has been corruption?

Mr. ROBNETT. Yes; I think there has been tremendous corruption, and I am prepared to support that claim, which I shall be very happy to do if you would like to have me. Personally I would be very glad to support that with a great deal of documentation.

The CHAIRMAN. I think Mr. Ickes would like to hear about it.
Mr. ROBNETT. I do not think he would.

The CHAIRMAN. He is a Chicago man.

Mr. ROBNETT. Yes; I know he is. Yes; I know the gentleman's history in Chicago very well. We will not get into that very far. Incidentally-well, we better leave Mr. Ickes out, I guess. I would like to tell you about something of the P. W. A. work where Mr. Ickes owned some land, where the Č. C. C. boys have been working now for 5 years in the Skokie swamps.

Clause (c) of section 13 shows that the Government might eventually own and control a large number of our public-school buildings.

Under section 8 we find that funds appropriated under this act "shall be expended only for public purposes through public agencies and under public control."

During the last 8 years the word "public" has become highly elastic. Who can say just what it means? Without any intention to reflect upon any organization or any group the fact remains that certain church schools have attempted to have their educational systems defined as "public."

I read an editorial not very long ago in a church publication published at Huntington, Ind. I believe it is called the Sunday Visitor. It is a very large Catholic publication, in which the whole editorial was devoted to that one purpose, of having it publicly declared that church schools are public schools where they handle so large a load of the local community. That is said without any reflection upon the Catholic organization at all, because if I were a Catholic, which I am not, I would not want to see this bill passed, for the reason that if I were and our school system participated in the appropriations it would bring us under what I feel absolutely is certain political control. I do not see how it could be avoided. That is, if a bill like this passes the strings are here. I think a bill that would do something on the order suggested by General Fries this morning, where appropriations are made for specific instances, like the Congressman here mentioned, that you perhaps could handle a thing of that kind, like the rivers and harbors bill for specific instances, but if you are going to make this an all-coverage you are going to be so confused, so politically harassed-I can see just from the testimony here that there is going

to be all kinds of people bringing all kinds of political pressure to get this money. You are going to be unable to avoid the political strings. I call attention also to clause (a) of section 13 which is just to mention another line of political control where the bill provides— The Commissioner * * * is authorized to make such rules and regulations * * * as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this act. This bill, in my opinion and that of many educators and citizens with whom I have talked, should not become law.

We are, in this country, now tremendously concerned and overwhelmed with a national defense program that is entitled to our complete efforts. No one knows how much money this national defense program will require. During the last several years we have engaged upon a Federal spending spree that has brought our national debt to its legal limit at the very time when we need to spend billions more to protect our national security.

Certainly this is no time to enter into further radical experiments that call for huge sums of money and which adventure would be so fraught with perils to our traditional American system. That this experiment as organized under S. 1313 would be dangerous I have attempted here to show.

There was one thing that was called to my attention here a moment before, I mean by some of the testimony that went in before here, and that is that this bill is apparently going to be used as much for the benefit of the teachers as it is for the benefit of the pupils. I understood it was for school children, but one of the men who preceded me here testified almost entirely how it was going to raise the teachers' salaries. I was tremendously impressed with that testimony.

I had intended to read to you a whole group of letters from a number of prominent educators like Dr. Cowling, and others, but I have here in my pocket two or three of the letters, and I will read them to you. This one is from Dr. J. Harry 'Cotton, president of the Presbyterian Theological Seminary, formerly the McCormick Theological Seminary, one of the largest in the country. It is dated April 26, 1941.

I understand that Senate bill S. 1313 is now before the committee for consideration. Let me say that I am very earnestly opposed to the passage of all such legislation. Under the guise of Federal aid there is very serious danger that our public education pass under the control of the Federal Government. There is no such thing as financial aid without control.

This is a most serious business. While I recognize the financial urgency of certain backward regions, it is still too big a price to pay to take any steps looking toward Federal control of our educational process. It is too much like tampering with your own yardstick.

Local and State responsibility is one of the guarantees of freedom. Even there, the State-supported schools need constantly the competition of private schools and colleges. If all education were to come under the State, then we have a perfect arrangement for the dictatorial control of the educational process. I earnestly hope that this bill will be defeated.

Next is a statement from Mr. J. Roy Skiles, superintendent of district No. 75, Evanston, Ill., the largest school district in that

section.

The great danger of Federal aid for education is that sooner or later the Federal Government will gain control over educational policies and administration, and for that reason I am opposed to this bill-S. 1313.

I have a letter from Dwight S. Bobb, chairman of the committee on subversive activities of the Illinois Society of Sons of American Revolution. He says:

From what I know of S. 1313, I regard it as a bill that should not be passed at the present time or as it is now written. It has all the earmarks of a law that would further Federal control or our local school system and this is a trend that would be dangerous and highly objectionable to a large number of our citizens. am opposed to any legislation that will extend Federal control into our local public schools.

I

Then there is just one further reference I want to make and that is in connection with the Chicago Journal of Commerce, which ran an editorial as to a meeting in Chicago, I think it was about 3 weeks ago, in which this bill was discussed at a luncheon.

The Chicago Journal of Commerce had a reporter there and he wrote a story about it. That was followed a few days later by this editorial. The editor, Mr. Phil S. Hanna, says:

Few subjects discussed here have elicited more uniform comment from readers than the one in which we treated upon H. R. 1074 and its legislative twin, S. 1313both so constructed that they would set up Nazi methods of education in the United States.

Without exception, the readers who were moved to comment upon this discussion have voiced their opposition to the essence of the proposal which, as we pointed out, is "chain-store" education directed by a central supermind in sympathy with the ruling political powers.

He quotes from, for instance, a man in Davenport, Burdick N. Richardson. He says:

Having just read your column (re H. R. 1074 and S. 1313), I feel I should immediately write our representatives, which I have done, to register my opinion against both bills.

He goes on and quotes a number of other people, but I want to quote just one, and that is from Maj. John L. Griffith, whose letter I have and it is in this other bunch. Major Griffith is the Commissioner of the Big Ten Athletic Association and one of the leading citizens of Chicago. Maj. Griffith says:

May I tell you how much I enjoyed your column this morning (Saturday, April 19) dealing with educational questions. I am convinced that the planners have it in mind to regiment not only agriculture, banking, industry, and the utilities, but education and life insurance as well.

There are other quotations from other people which I shall not read.
I think that concludes my testimony, Senator Thomas.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you know of a companion bill to S. 1313?

Mr. ROBNETT. You mean a House bill?

The CHAIRMAN. Is there a House bill?

Mr. ROBNETT. I do not know.

The CHAIRMAN. It was mentioned there.

Mr. ROBNETT. Yes. I was quoting when I mentioned it. I have not read the House bill. If there is a House bill I have not read it. I read the House bill before, the one introduced by Congressman Larrabee. The difference between that and S. 1305, the distinctive differences are that the House bill called for active participation of the church schools.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not know where the writer of the column got his information; but I do not know of a companion bill to S. 1313 in the House of Representatives. Of course, I may be wrong.

Mr. ROBNETT. He gave the number. It could be traced, if it exists. I do not know, Senator, I am sure.

The CHAIRMAN. It is merely that type of thing that I have been talking about right from the beginning. I think that hearsay and prejudice of various kinds, and the ease with which we run into print and write about things that we do not know anything about is very universally indulged in, but I do not think it should be indulged in, in a Senate committee where we are seeking information.

Now, back to the question on Federal aid, I haven't any more to say about it, but I think it might be well for you to study, for instance, President Buchanan's veto of the first land grant act, and study the message of President Lincoln and the reason why he continued that policy which President Buchanan stood against. I think it would be well to jump down probably to the 1880's and study the Blair bill and the Federal-aid-to-education bill there, and go into those types of things before we pass judgment and before we condemn.

Then, too, I think that anyone who comes here and imagines the Federal-aid-to-education bill is connected with the spending program, when the spending program money was appropriated, when the money was put forth and the Federal-aid-to-education bill had been stopped, is using the kind of logic which I cannot follow. If the Federal-aid-toeducation bill had been attached to a spending program, justified on the basis of spending which no one who sponsored those bills ever thought of doing, which no one wanted to do-probably there would have been a lot to it, because the spending bills were passed.

Now, of course, I just say that in passing, but I do not think it is right to try to tell the sponsor of a bill-I use the word "sponsor" because I do not want to offend you by calling myself an author, but I think you ought to grant to the sponsor of the bill at least some judgment about the fact that he may have made a study in regard to the bill, that he may have known something about it. That is the only point.

How many

Now, this bill is not a Nazi bill. times have you been in Germany? May I ask you that question? How many times have you been in Germany?

Mr. ROBNETT. I have never been in Germany.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you ever studied nazi-ism?

Mr. ROBNETT. I did not use the word "Nazi." I quoted that from the editorial. I was merely quoting.

The CHAIRMAN. Why did you quote it?

Mr. ROBNETT. Why did I quote it? I was quoting the editorial. I could have omitted the word if you wish, but I did not know you would take offense. I was merely reading.

The CHAIRMAN. If I called you a Nazi, would you take offense? Mr. ROBNETT. I am not telling you that you are a Nazi; I am merely reading the editorial.

The CHAIRMAN. An editorial which calls the sponsor of this bill a Nazi, and you brought it into the testimony

Mr. ROBNETT (interposing). May I comment, Senator, on your suggestion there? You have instructed me as to what I should have done in coming here. Did you wish me to come here and entirely agree to this bill and not find any fault with it, or of those who sponsored it? You have just indicated to me that I should have considered that those who sponsored it were right.

The CHAIRMAN. I think when a witness comes and accuses a Senator like Senator Harrison and a Senator like Senator Thomas, or any Senator who has come into the Senate of the United States, of sponsoring a Nazi bill, that it is hardly right and hardly proper.

Mr. ROBNETT. I shall then say to you, if this is permissible, that from the standpoint of using the word "Nazi," I had not known that the word "Nazi" was in there, or had forgotten about it, at least until I read it. There is no intention of accusing or implying any Nazi methods from the standpoint of that word "Nazi," and I shall be very happy to withdraw it. I think that you are undertaking to make a point of that and you are dismissing all the rest of my testimony, and the points which I have made, which seem to me are very much to the point-that you dismiss those, and have seized upon the one point which might be appealed to from the standpoint of emotionalism. I am sorry that I used the word "Nazi" there. There was no offense intended, Senator. That is a very incidental part of the testimony, it seems to me.

I

May I make this further comment? In connection with your instructing me to investigate these other bills, I have read most of those bills-I mean I have examined that historical angle of the subject, and I shall be very happy, if it pleases you, to extend my testimony by correspondence here and give you my version on those. disagree with your point of view that those were Federal-aid-to-education movements, through the land-grant action and others, and I shall give you my reasons for it, if I may extend my testimony by correspondence and have it included in the record. I do not want to go to the work of preparing it and have it come down here and thrown into the wastebasket. If I can have it included in the record, I shall be very glad to extent my testimony.

The CHAIRMAN. I think, for your own good, you ought to make a study of those bills and explain that those bills are not Federal-aidto-education bills and that you did not intend to imply that Federal aid to education had its origin in 1932. That is my only point.

Mr. ROBNETT. I could not do that. The genesis of this bill was in the tempo of the times that followed the 1933 development.

The CHAIRMAN. If that is the way you want your testimony to stand, that is perfectly all right to me.

I tried to be helpful. I think when a man comes and says something that is white is black, that it should be the person's right who is presiding to say he thinks you have made a mistake. You are certainly entitled to that. I did not correct you on any other mistakes. For instance, you called it the Thomas-Harrison-Fletcher bill, which, of course, is wrong.

Mr. ROBNETT. Was not that first bill generally known as the Thomas-Harrison-Fletcher bill?

The CHAIRMAN. No, it was not.

Mr. ROBNETT. All through the years we knew it that way.
The CHAIRMAN. No, no; you did not know it that way.

Mr. ROBNETT. Yes, I did.

The CHAIRMAN. You did not know it that way, because Thomas had not come into the picture. You knew it as the Harrison-Black

Fletcher bill. Now, those are the type of corrections I want to make. I do not like your testimony to be full of thoughtless errors, that is all.