as an industry is paying a greater percentage of its income for taxes than any other group in America except public utilities and, of course, they pass their taxes on to the consumers. I quote the following excerpt from this study:

"Already agriculture as an industry pays 24 percent of the income it produces as business (mostly property taxes) taxes according to Tarasov and Colm in Temporary National Economic Committee Monograph No. 3. This is more than the amount paid by any other industry except public utilities." The cost of education is a large item in local taxes paid by farmers.

In order to correct this situation the American Farm Bureau Federation, for a decade, has been advocating Federal grants-in-aid to the States for the support of elementary and secondary education.

At the last annual meeting of the federation, held in Baltimore, Md., last December, an earlier resolution of the federation on this subject was reaffirmed, which was as follows:

"We advocate the policy of Federal financial participation in the cost of rural education to the extent only that such financial support on the part of the National Government will tend to effect an equalization of educational opportunity."

On behalf of the federation, which represents approximately 11⁄2 million farm people in its membership in 39 States and Puerto Rico, I wish to endorse the objective of S. 1313 to provide Federal grants-in-aid to the States, provided such aid is extended on the basis that it will equalize educational opportunities among the States.

We believe an equitable formula should be devised to carry out this objective. Such a formula should provide that the States which have the least financial resources to support education and have the greatest educational load will receive the largest share of the funds that are made available. The States which have the greater financial resources and less educational load should share proportionately less in these funds.

If the committee should find it impracticable to include such a formula in this legislation, we insist that the apportionment of these funds to the States by safeguarded by:

(1) Providing a mandate in clearest terms to the proposed board of apportionment which will require it to develop such a formula so as to provide for the apportionment of funds to the States on a basis that will most effectively equalize educational opportunity among the States; and

(2) That agriculture be properly represented on such board of apportionment inasmuch as the main inequalities in educational opportunities exist in rural areas. Such legislation should be devoted primarily to equalizing educational opportunity in elementary and secondary education. The education of children on Federal reservations and children of migratory workers constitutes only a very small portion of the total problem. Funds allocated for such purposes should be kept in proper proportion. The educational problems connected with the nationaldefense program are only temporary in character. This should be kept in mind in such legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Margaret Worrell.

STATEMENT OF MRS. MARGARET H. WORRELL, COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITIZENS ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mrs. WORRELL. My name is Mrs. Margaret Hopkins Worrell, and I represent the Columbia Heights Citizens' Association, the oldest and one of the largest citizens' associations in the District of Columbia; and I am also national legislative chairman of the Ladies of the G. A. R., numbering, together with our allies, about 400,000 members throughout the United States.

Our organizations have given considerable study to educational bills that have been introduced in Congress from time to time along this same line, and have gone on record against the same. This bill, S. 1313, insofar as section 1, Findings of Facts, and section 2, Statement of Policy, are concerned, would be approved; but when we turn to section 3, Appropriation Authorized, in which it is provided that any State in need of funds for the education of its children as set forth in

sections 1 and 2 must "have accepted the provisions of this act and have complied therewith," and we study the provisions of the act, we object to the bill.

While this act seems to give local and State jurisdiction, it appears to be so written as to give control of education to the Federal Government. On page 15, section 13, clause (c), under the title "Miscellaneous," the United States Commissioner of Education is given absolute powers, and in clause (b) teachers and administrators are protected in their efforts to bring about a "new social order." This clause states:

No political or civil rights or activities of any teacher or school administrator shall be restricted or affected in any way because of any financial benefit accruing to such teacher or administrator from funds appropriated pursuant to this act.

Civil and political rights are not ordinarily denied any person except criminals. Then why was this clause necessary except to cover up the word "activities" and give teachers and administrators a free course of action?

The bill does not specify what kind of activities-it may be subversive activities or activities looking toward a change in our Government, and should this become a law any State that accepts the provisions of this bill would not be able to investigate the subversive activities of teachers, such as is now being done in the State of New York, and which will probably be followed by several other States.

In order to show our realization of the meaning of this protection of the "activities of teachers and school administrators" I quote the statement made in 1911 of Katherine Blake, in an address before the National Board of Education, in declaring that a unified plan could get whatever they wanted "because whatever the National Education Association wants it can have. We teachers have the children, so we may say we have the game in our hands, if we will only put our minds to it."

The CHAIRMAN. She turned out to be a rather bad prophet, didn't she?

Mrs. WORRELL. Yes; up to the present, but they "have the game in their hands."

The program and experiments of the planners moved fast after the war. By 1928 their strength was sufficiently unified so that the leaders of Progressive Education made a public declaration to take patriotism out of the schools, and in 1933 they issued a proclamation that “if the teachers are to play a positive and creative role in building a new social order they will have to emancipate themselves from the business interests of the Nation," to put it plainly, they were to usurp the right as to what should be taught the child, so the complaint of parents to local school boards would be of no avail. This emancipation has been so complete that few people, even today, realize who have been the promoters of our economic and political fallacies.

The experimentation of the social sciences has proven so successful in the special experimentation schools and radical labor colleges that it is now proposed that the public schools revamp their entire curriculum so as to emphasize the social ends. Old loyalties and historical facts must be relegated to the ash pile.

The originator of the radical Des Moines forums, and those in Washington is the Commissioner of Education of the United States

who is to be the head of this system of education under this bill. Provided your committee decides to report this bill, we believe that section 13 should be stricken out, and control should be given into the hands of a board appointed by the Senate for a term limited to 3 years or during the present emergency.

However, in view of the fact that this bill is proposed

to strengthen national defense and promote the general welfare through the appropriation of funds to assist the States and Territories in meeting financial emergencies in education

we recommend that the bill be rewritten and restricted to this national emergency, and that the necessary funds to provide educational facilities for children in the areas affected by the shifting of population because of the exigencies of national defense, children of migratory workers and children without school facilities in rural areas, should be provided by the Federal Government upon investigation and report by States so affected, and it is so recommended.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mrs. Worrell.

Mrs. WORRELL. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any others who wish to file reports or statements? (No response.) Are there any other witnesses who wish to be heard?

Dr. DAWSON. I want to make a request. There were some statements made by some people who appeared in opposition to this bill that were, to say the least, extremely misleading, and I would like the privilege of answering them and filing my answer for the record. I haven't such a statement written but I will have it ready for the record. I am asking for the privilege of giving an answer to some of the points of opposition included in the record of these hearings.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I have no objection to the filing of a statement if it is informational and statistical, but if we have a running debate we are never going to get these hearings in print.

Dr. DAWSON. Well, I will say this, that it has to do with certain statements made about the interpretation of the provisions of the bill, that I want to straighten out.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, that will be all right, and will you get that in just as soon as possible?

Dr. DAWSON. Yes, sir. Thank you.

(The statement referred to follows:)

A STATEMENT IN ANSWER TO OBJECTIONS TO S. 1313

(By Howard A. Dawson, director of rural service, National Education Association)

The primary objection to S. 1313, or in fact to any bill to provide Federal aid for education, offered by its opponents is that it will result in undesirable control of the public schools. This is an ancient and outworn argument. Those who make it choose to ignore years of experience in Federal and State relationships in the support of public education. Since 1802 the Federal Government has made contributions to the States for public education, in the early days through grants of public lands. No one has ever argued that Federal control resulted from these grants. It is sometimes charged that because of lack of Federal control much of the public lands and the proceeds from their sale were wasted or lost. That is true, but three things should be remembered in this connection: (1) Most of the losses occurred in connection with the War between the States and in the period of reconstruction following the war; (2) the sale of public lands at low prices was a part of a national policy and public practice to get settlers on the land and to develop the country; and (3) the matter of accounting for money

grants for a specific purpose is a much simpler problem than accounting for land grants that were to be converted into money.

Since 1862 the land-grant colleges have received Federal grants. There are now 69 of these institutions, and about 20 percent of their total income is from appropriations by the Federal Government. Here is a perfect demonstration that the Federal Government can aid education without controlling the curriculum, methods of teaching, or the personnel of the institutions aided.

Since 1917 the Federal Government has granted money to the States for vocational education. No serious charge of Federal domination has ever been sustained in the administration of the vocational-education programs. The fact that the Congress has frequently, with but very ineffective opposition, from time to time increased the appropriations for this purpose is evidence that there is general popular approval of the grants and no feeling of Federal domination of which the opponents of the pending bill seem to be so greatly afraid.

The control of education is a matter of policy. It does not, as it has not in the past, necessarily follow that control must follow the dollar. Those who say that it does, overlook the influence of things much deeper in American life than the mere appropriation of money or the setting up of administrative machinery. Local control and local initiative are a part of the spirit of the American people. If economic and social pressures in the Nation become such that substantial numbers of person are willing to surrender freedom and local initiative in order to gain security and what they believe to be opportunity for economic and social improvement it won't make any difference whether the Federal Government is spending money for education or not. If national control of education should seem to be a means of obtaining the objectives of social and economic justice, education would become subject to Federal domination regardless of who would be paying the bills. If millions of persons continue to be denied educational opportunity the result is much more likely to be destruction of the very system of local initiative and responsibility that has resulted in the denial of opportunity than would the furnishing of financial resources from the central government necessary to the maintenance of freedom and local autonomy. The real advocates of Federal control of education are those who are unwilling to see the financial resources made available necessary to the establishment and maintenance of strong local units with resources necessary to the maintenance of freedom and opportunity. Those who attack S. 1313 on the ground of Federal control of education fail to comprehend the full import of section 2 of the bill. Could language more clearly set forth the express requirement of preserving State and local control of education? "The provisions of this act shall be so construed as to maintain local and State initiative and responsibility in the conduct of education and to reserve explicitly to the States and their local subdivisions the organization and administration of schools, the control over the processes of education, the control and determination of curricula of the schools, the methods of instruction to be employed in them, and the selection of personnel employed by the State and its agency and local school jurisdictions."

The provision of section 13 (b) has been objected to by opponents of S. 1313. This provision is as follows:

"No political or civil rights or activities of any teacher or school administrator shall be restricted or affected in any way because of any financial benefit accruing to such teacher or administrator from funds appropriated pursuant to this act." The real purpose of this provision is to avoid Federal control of teaching personnel and school administrators who may be the beneficiaries of Federal appropriations under this bill.

The opponents of S. 1313 ought to get on one side of the argument or the other. They can't object to Federal control and advocate it at the same time.

Mr. Hart, one of the opponents of S. 1313, objected to this provision on the ground that it would take control of teachers out of the hands of local boards of education. He said, for example, that the local boards of education could not, under the provisions of section 13 (b), discipline a teacher who advocates communism. That contention is the height of absurdity. The requirement of section 13 (b) is that the political or civil rights or activities of teachers shall not be restricted or affected because of any funds received through this act. The States and local boards of education will have the same control over teachers and school administrators they now have, not one whit less, should S. 1313 become law.

It is charged by some of the opponents of S. 1313 that the bill will result in Federal aid for private schools. On the other hand the Administrative Committee of Bishops of the National Catholic Welfare Conference objects to S. 1313 on the ground that it does not make it possible for private schools to benefit from

funds that would be appropriated under its authorization. Certainly both of these opponents can't be right.

As a matter of fact, in the bill the words "school" is always accompanied by the word "public.' "Public" when used in connection with "school" has frequently been interpreted to mean schools that are free, open equally to all, and under complete public control. (Auditor v. The University of Michigan, 83 Mich. 467; also 47 N. W. 440 and 1 L. R. D. 376; and St. Joseph's Church v. Providence Tax Association, 12 R. I. Rept. 19; and 34 Am. Repts. 597.)

The term "public school" as generally used is not limited to schools of the lowest grades but may include high schools as well, and normal schools also in a large sense are public schools. The fact that a tuition fee is charged will not, ipso facto, take a school out of the class of a public school, but a school controlled by an incorporated board of trustees is not a public school, nor is a school kept by a society or open only to poor or orphaned children, although controlled by a city. People v. Christy, 45 Hun, N. Y. 19; Blake v. Mayer, 19 Q. B. D. 79; LeConteulz v. Buffalo, 33 N. Y. 333; Richter v. Cordes, 100 Mich. 278, 58 N. W. 1110; Merrick v. Amherst, 12 Allen 508; Collins v. Henderson, 11 Bush, Ky. 74.)

(See

The subject of Federal aid for private or parochial schools is not involved in S. 1313 and has no place in it. The Congress, under the tenth amendment to the Constitution, has no right to deal specifically with local schools, public or private. It can deal only with the States. It can appropriate money to the States to promote the general welfare. The administration of education, an agency essential to the general welfare, is a State function. It is highly doubtful under the prohibition of the first amendment to the Constitution ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion") that the Congress has any right to undertake to make Federal moneys available for the support of church-controlled schools. Any attempt to authorize a State to do so would be a clear attempt to do by indirection what cannot be done by direct appropriation which is clearly forbidden by the Constitution.

The Congress has no constitutional right to comply with the request of the National Catholic Welfare Conference to make funds available for the support of parochial schools. On the other hand Maj. Gen. Amos A. Fries and his so-called Friends of the Public Schools have no grounds whatever for attempting to use the Senate Committee on Education and Labor as a forum for raising an emotional disturbance over the long-settled issue of the separation of Church and State. The issue of public money for privately controlled schools has arisen because some States furnish the use of State-owned textbooks to children attending parochial schools and because in some States school boards are permitted to transport in publicly owned vehicles children attending parochial schools. The textbook matter was settled by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Cochran v. Louisiana State Board of Education (281 U. S. 370, 74 L. Ed. 913), in which it was held by a unanimous opinion that the distribution of free textbooks to children attending private or sectarian schools was constitutional since the child and not the school was the beneficiary.

Recently the people of New York amended their State constitution to permit local boards of education to transport children attending private schools (N. Y. Constitution, article XI, sec. 4, Approved, Nov. 8, 1938). A Maryland statute to permit county boards of education to transport children to private schools has been upheld by the Maryland State Court of Appeals (May 20, 1938).

These are clearly matters within the prerogatives of the States and are not subject to regulation by the Congress. If the States want to spend their own funds for such purposes that is their own business.

Furthermore, let it be said there is a vast amount of difference between lending a textbook to a child attending a parochial school, or permitting him to ride in a publicly owned or publicly operated school bus and in granting funds to a church or to a board of a private school for buildings or teachers' salaries.

The charge has been made by one of the opponents of S. 1313 (Mr. Robenett) that this is a New Deal spending bill. Perhaps the simplest answer to that charge is that if it, or a similar bill, had been a New Deal measure it would long ago have been enacted into law. As a matter of fact no Federal-aid-for-education measure has, since 1933, had the active support of the President or any member of his cabinet. The proponents of the measure could well wish that the charge of this gentleman were true.

The gentleman insisted under questioning by the chairman that the proposal for Federal aid for education had its inception since 1933. Just how far wrong he is can be seen from the following recital of historical facts quoted from Federal Support for Education, a research bulletin of the National Education Association, September 1937: