I was distinctly under the impression that these witnesses repreented the desires of the States. It is not likely that a Governor could go around to a meeting such as this. It seems to me the witesses from some of the States were substantial witnesses, elected officials, those that represent the educational department of the States. They are not teachers. They represent the States. The departments of education have brought evidence in here as to some need, and cerainly there is need in some of the States, don't you think that is true? Mr. ROBNETT. No; I am not at all sure that it is. I would not say t is not, but I am not at all sure that it is; I would think a comnissioner of education or superintendent of schools, or anyone coming in here representing a body, perhaps, would have had a great deal more contact with the teachers and the educational bodies in that State than he would with the people as a whole, the taxpayers and the os people in general, who would also have some interest in this bill. I think that that follows.

Senator FULBRIGHT. How about the land-grant colleges; you said it was a single act granting land. Isn't it true that for many years there have been continuous appropriations by the Congress to the land-grant colleges?

Mr. ROBNETT. When a grant is made, as I understand it, that finishes the matter.

Senator FULBRIGHT. There was certainly an original grant; that is true, but for many years since that time annual appropriations have been made and are being made now, isn't that true?

Mr. ROBNETT, Yes; maybe it is possible.

Senator FULBRIGHT. I do not know what you mean by "It is possible." It is a fact, is it not?

Mr. ROBNETT. I say it may be possible that it is true. I don't know. Senator FULBRIGHT. I thought you came here as an authority on this subject.

Mr. ROBNETT. I do not know all the answers, sir. Some of these people do, but I do not.

Senator FULBRIGHT. You made the statement as a positive statement that that is all there was to it.

Mr. ROBNETT. I spoke of those early land grants, and I used the word "early." I do not see, Senator Fulbright, any relationship between the land-grant situation for colleges and this bill that we are dealing with, which applies to the public schools. Do any of these land-grants affect the rest of the public-school system in the same way that this appropriation is going to affect them?

Senator FULBRIGHT. You are citing an example as evidence that there has been no Federal control, and it has not been offensive, certainly, to anyone. It is a fact, I can tell you, that there have been and there are very similar annual appropriations to these land-grant colleges. This is simply money that goes to certain institutions in the States.

Mr. ROBNETT. I understand that.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Do you set that as an example? I mean, you seem to destroy the evidence that there has been no offensive Federal control in connection with those grants. If there have been those grants every year, appropriations, and no offensive control by the Federal Government, that is evidence if the appropriation is made in this other field there still will not be such control.

Mr. ROBNETT. I present the suggestion to the committee and to the Congress for the purpose of having them consider it. This land grant business has been repeatedly and repeatedly cited as similar or comparative with this bill, that there is a great similarity betwee the two.

Senator FULBRIGHT. There is; yes.

Mr. ROBNETT. You think there is?
Senator FULBRIGHT. Yes.

Mr. ROBNETT. I do not.

Senator TAFT. What is the condition that attaches to the appropri ation? Is there any condition attached to the appropriation to landgrant colleges?

Senator FULBRIGHT. The conditions are very similar to the ones i this bill, such as this audit. I think it is perfectly proper to provid that the money be accounted for. That is about the state of the conditions. It is allocated to certain things, for instance, agriculture and engineering, and not much, if any, just to general liberal arts The money is granted every year to these colleges in these State and they have to account for it. The Federal Government has never attempted to control the personnel of the teaching staff in a certain manner in a certain school, it is simply an accounting arrangement which, it seems to me, is proper, and is followed in all similar acts. Senator ELLENDER. Under the original act of Congress that provided funds for the maintenance of these colleges it was specifically stated that the legislatures in the States shall pass laws creating these colleges, and they shall have the right to administer them.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Very similar to this.

Senator ELLENDER. Then in addition to this we have vocational training, that goes nearer our elementary school system than the landgrant colleges, and yet you find that there has not been any interference of any kind by the Federal authorities in that respect.

Mr. ROBNETT. The point I was going to make is this, that this system of land grants applies only slightly to the public school systen... It is a college and university proposition largely.

Senator FULBRIGHT. It is used for education, without interference and without control by the Federal Government.

Mr. ROBNETT. That is in incidental instances located here and there, scattered widely. You are talking here about a bill that is going to affect the public-school system throughout all the districts in thes United States. It is a unified system with possibilities of control because there is money involved.

In the other system there is land involved.

Senator FULBRIGHT. We have settled that. There is no question but that for many, many years there has been no land involved. However, annual grants have been made.

Senator JoHNSTON. Here is the way it is in my State. We have colleges in my State known as land-grant colleges. Every year the Federal Government appropriates hundreds of thousands of dollars and it is allocated by the State legislature. They set up an act in South Carolina that states how the college shall be run, and it selects all the teachers. Nobody ever complained down there about the Federal Government trying to run the college.

The Federal Government does not grant any land to us at all, but it does make equivalent grants of money to us annually.

Mr. ROBNETT. We are talking about two entirely different systems, Senator Johnston. I am talking about the public-school system and you are talking about a college system.

Senator TAFT. May I make a statement, please? The Federal Bureau of Education has pursued a policy, in my experience, of working entirely through the State on all matters and not interfering in any way. I think I see the thing that is largely in your mind. That policy is not pursued, for instance, by the Federal Security Administration, by an act that is similar to the Federal Education Act.

I do not think you can show any interference in education. The question is when assistance becomes large and becomes absolutely essential for the continuation of the State system, whether that power is not at least granted by a bill of this kind. We have been very fortunate that our Federal Bureau of Education has worked through the State departments, and up to this time there has been no interference. I do not believe that $100,000,000 would make it, but I think if you get it up to a billion, as represented here the other day, it would be hard to prevent control developing.

Senator JOHNSTON. I believe you stated that no State had requested some Governor's help to endorse this bill, to ask that it be passed. I hold in my hand a letter from Gov. Ellis Arnall, and I was Governor of South Carolina up until a few weeks ago, and we have asked for it. Mr. ROBNETT. Senator Johnston, I was quoting from the minority report on the last bill. If you people have decided you want this recently, since that report was made, apparently Senators Taft and Ball and Wherry did not know that at the time they made the report. Senator TAFT. Here is the point about the State matter: The State director of education may go to his legislature, and the legislature in a southern and even in a northern State may decide that they would like to have this money for education, and they would be willing to appeal to the Federal Government, or the officials of the Government may have decided that that is what they want.

I do not know of any State legislature that has ever requested the aid, although I have no doubt that some of them will if they are asked to. I think you will find, while they have not requested it, that a certain number of the States would request it.

Mr. ROBNETT. I am quite sure that the inspiration for the bill did not come officially out of the States.

Senator FULBRIGHT. There is nothing compulsory about the bill. No State has to accept any of this controlled money.

Mr. ROBNETT. That is true, but if you go through the experience of the years you will not find when any money is given out, there are not many that would not apply for it. For instance, the WPA and NYA, I think it was quite general, every district that wanted a new courthouse, or a new city hall, came down here to Washington to try to get some money, because they saw it was available and they said, “Why not? We might as well have our share of it."

Senator FULBRIGHT. Nobody was so prosperous, according to you, that they would not have any need for this. You would not think that they would come and ask for it when they did not need it?

Mr. ROBNETT. I don't know. Human nature has changed very much during the last few years, and I have my opinions in connection wit human nature. I have seen it in operation, and you have, too, Senate Fulbright.

Senator TAFT. The answer that someone might want to make is that when you tax the people high in order to supply them with money for education, they would say, "If we are going to be taxed, we want our

share of it."

Mr. ROBNETT. You answered it better than I did.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Would you be more specific about the peopl from Arkansas that you mentioned who are opposing this? Mr. ROBNETT. Well, I would say George Benson, for one. Senator FULBRIGHT. Is that the only one?

Mr. ROBNETT. I might cite several others. They are in Little Rock. I talked before a group of men there, and I am going back there, by the way, to speak before one of your organizations in Little Rock nex month. I do not think it is necessary to give you the names of these I gave you one, George Benson.

men.

Senator FULBRIGHT. President of a private college, isn't he?
Mr. ROBNETT. That is a college.

Senator FULBRIGHT. It was never a national college?

Mr. ROBNETT. I don't know. You ought to know. You are from Arkansas.

Senator FULBRIGHT. I am not the witness.

Mr. ROBNETT. I see.

Senator JOHNSTON. Do you have anything else?

Mr. ROBNETT. No. Thank you, sir.

Senator JOHNSTON. We will meet again at 2: 30 this afternoon. (Whereupon, at 12: 20 p. m., the committee recessed until 2: 30 p. r of the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

(The committee reconvened at 2:30 p. m., pursuant to recess.) Senator ELLENDER. The committee will be in order.

Mr. Rogers, step forward, please.

Mr. Rogers, will you give your name in full for the record, and your principal occupation?

STATEMENT OF ELMER E. ROGERS, ASSISTANT TO COL. JOHN H COWLES, AND STATEMENT OF COL. JOHN H. COWLES, SOVEREIGN GRAND COMMANDER OF THE SUPREME COUNCIL, THIRTYTHIRD DEGREE, ANCIENT AND ACCEPTED SCOTTISH RITE OF FREEMASONRY, SOUTHERN JURISDICTION, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Both statements presented by Mr. Rogers.)

Mr. ROGERS. My name is Elmer E. Rogers. I am the assistant Col. John H. Cowles, sovereign grand commander of the Supren.. Council, Thirty-third Degree, Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, Southern Jurisdiction, U. S. A. As such, my appearanc here is to read his statement on the pending bill, S. 181, and my own o the same measure. I will first present the statement of Colonel Cowles

STATEMENT OF COL. JOHN H. COWLES

Our Nation includes 50 or more nationalities and races, and some 250 religious sects and cults. The only common melting pot, the only means of making all of these elements homogeneous and our people culturally united is the tax-supported free public schools. They have been well named the bulwark of our free institutions. As such, our tax-supported free public schools should ever be superior to any and all other schools throughout the country. They should be highly efficient in at least two respects:

1. They should impress upon the minds of the pupils the ideals and traditions of our country.

2. They should prepare our children in the basic subjects of learning so that they may be able not only to earn their livings, but to have an appreciation of the moral, political, economic, and other social questions in relation to themselves, their community and the Nation in its relation to other nations.

While I am thus impressed with the great importance of adequate support of our tax-supported free public schools, it is my opinion that they should be maintained at the sole expense of the several States. I favor such maintenance for three reasons:

First. There is no State in the Union which at this time is not better able, financially, to support its schools than the Federal Government is to contribute to that support. This is at once perceived when it is considered (1) that there are a few States that are free from debt, and (2) that the total bonded debt of other States is less than $2,500,000,000; whereas, the bonded obligations of the National Government are skyrocketing toward $300,000,000,000 and will probably reach much more than 100 times the total indebtedness of the States before the war is over.

Second. The incomes of nearly all the States for 1943 exceeded their expenditures.

Third. Federal aid tends to place the control of the public schools under the Federal Government.

However, if it be the sense of the committee that S. 181 be reported favorably, I suggest that it be so amended as to make the appropriations available only to tax-supported free public schools. The present wording of the bill does not give that assurance, although the descriptive term "public school" is used in the bill. I urge this for the reason that all private schools, even those that are sectarian, are regarded as public schools by their owners, largely for a money consideration. Therefore, if, as emphasized in S. 181, the proposed financial aid is left to the authorities of the several States and Territories to use as they choose, certain private and sectarian school interests will demand what they are now asking in many areas as their "just proportion" of school tax funds based on pupil population. They will argue that since the bill left the funds appropriated thereunder to the States to allocate as they please, the Congress intended that their schools were to share in the funds.

Senator ELLENDER. Would you mind a question?

Mr. ROGERS. Not at all.

Senator ELLENDER. You know, of course, under the bill it is up to the States to pass laws as to how the fund can be distributed?