rights of the minority races. Later the bills provided vague terms, such as "the allocation shall be made in keeping with the decisions of the Supreme Court" without mentioning which decisions, thereby making it possible to have the law construed in such a way that the funds could be used with legal nicety, actually, to discriminate further against the minority races. We are happy to note that at this time, both bills before the committee on this subject protect the interests of the minority groups. However, S. 717, in requiring a report which would show exactly how these funds are used "to more nearly equalize educational opportunities" does through that report have an additional moral effect. And, indeed, we are very happy to note that within the Southern States themselves, there is a very strong movement to have the States themselves move to use State money on a basis of equitable distribution among all persons without discrimination as to color race. We know full well that since the decision in the case of Gaines v. Canada, Registrar of the University of Missouri, et al. (305 U. S. 337), has been rendered, that the States are earnestly trying to effect a fair and equitable distribution of State money without racial discrimination.

In this case the court ruled there must be an equal educational opportunity afforded in every State to Negroes as well as whites. Later decisions have recognized the right of the Negro teacher to a salary paid by the State for similar work to similarly qualified white teachers. But discrimination is not limited to racial issues. Religious prejudice also gives rise to discrimination. We wish also to cite the case of Cochran v. Louisiana State Board of Education (281 U. S. 370). This decision rendered by Mr. Justice Hughes when Louisiana made. free textbooks available for children in the parochial schools, held that the taxing power of the State was exercised for a good public purpose when public funds made free textbooks available for use in the nonpublic school. All children, it held, should be helped to get an education.

III. We believe that emergency educational aid should be provided in a separate bill for that purpose; that nothing is gained by combining a program for permanent aid and one for emergency aid in the same bill; that the administrative policies and practices regarding a permanent and an emergency fund would necessarily differ.

IV. We believe that aid should be allocated among the States on a basis of relative need; the relative need of those who are to be served. If it is aid to the States then, on a basis of relative need of the States (the relative need would be measured by the relation that the income of the State had to its population, that is, of those to be served) if the aid is to be given directly to individuals, then in terms of the relative need of the persons who require such aid.

V. We believe that Federal funds given for educational aid should be used for two purposes:

1. To aid the States who need such aid, in building up their respective public school systems so that children being educated in the public schools in one State will not be denied the opportunities afforded the children being educated in another State. We believe also that it is sound public practice to make sure that the funds given to any State should be made available to every part of the State in need thereof..

73384-45-pt. 2-2

We believe that it is sound public practice to safeguard this principle by requiring that plans for allocation and disbursement shall be made public both before they are used and after they are used. Provision for the publication of such plans is made in S. 717.

2. We believe that education means far more than formal schooling. The entire training of the child, the making of a person fit to assume his full responsibilities of citizenship, requires that each person be afforded the opportunity for personal growth and development which is afforded to all others regardless of where any person may live Health services are today regarded as an integral part of a school program; so are recreational facilities; so are library facilities. Labor has long fought for a recognition of the principle that free textbooks should be made available for every child in school. Labor has fought to eliminate loopholes in school attendance laws; for example, the loophole which exempts a child from attendance who lives too far away from a school. To close up this loophole, labor asks that transportation services be made available for every child in need thereof. Services such as these are made possible under the provisions asked for in this bill. We ask that these services be made available to every child in the United States without discrimination because of race or creed. This is a fundamental principle which must be recognized in every sound public act, we hold.

VI. Labor believes that in our complex society it is essential that a means be provided as an integral part of an educational structure through which youth is kept in school.

It is true that today, millions of our young people who should be in school are in the factories and, indeed, on the battlefields. We hope that the time is not far off when these young people will again be where they belong, in schools and in training centers. At the present time, we realize there is little need for financial aid to the individual student to enable him to remain in school. We are, however, not unmindful of the fact that during the period of reconversion and reconstruction, and in the years that follow, there will be a need to assist many a young person who wishes to continue his studies and his training. We believe that any sound educational bill must recognize this principle and provide the machinery through which the principle may be implemented when the need for such aid arises. We would point out to you that in this bill, labor has set forth two very important principles in regard to administering such a program. After objective standards for determining need for such aid are clearly enunciated, the young person availing himself of the fund then provided, is limited to a period of 8 hours a day in the combined period of work and study, in which he may engage. This is a social principle which we believe to be of far-reaching importance.

Secondly, we have recognized in this bill that education and training are not limited to the restricted academic curriculum; we have expressly recognized the Federal apprenticeship training program as an educational program.

VII. We believe that a Federal aid bill must expressly safeguard the teachers who are among the most exploited workers in any community.

Labor contends that no community has the moral right to ask a profesional worker to accept a position paying him less than $2,000

a year.

I say that despite the fact that the federation has asked for the minimum of $1,500.

In fact, this minimum is a very small minimum when we realize the very great financial investment that the worker must make in his training and the very great social investment which the community makes in the product of his work. We know that unless statutory provisions are made to protect the interests of the teachers themselves, that funds appropriated for educational purposes are not allocated for teachers' salaries. A great deal of testimony has been produced during all the years that Federal aid for education has been sought, to show how desperately money is needed to pay the underpaid teachers. Yet, until labor wrote into S. 717 the express stipulation requiring 75 percent of the funds allocated under title II for the maintenance of schools, must be used for the salaries of public school teachers, no bill has sought to protect the teachers themselves, for whom allegedly these salary funds are sought.

Senator WALSH. Mr. Woll, would you condition the giving of Federal aid on the requirement on the part of the State to fix a minimum wage at $1,500 per year?

Mr. WOLL. No; we would not exactly predicate the enactment of this legislation on that basis at all. We do urge, however, that that might be done. We do not insist that that be made a condition of getting the money. However, we do say this, that 75 percent of the fund should be used for salary purposes.

There may be some who claim that any provision which tells a State that it must use 75 percent of the funds given to it to pay teachers' salaries is a violation of the principle of State's rights. Our answer is very simple. The Federal Government offers the State money with which to keep schools open, with which to raise substandard salaries, with which to lengthen the school term. The Federal Government which offers, and I repeat, offers these funds to the States for this purpose has a right to require of the States that 75 percent of the funds offered for this purpose be expressly used for the main purpose for which they are offered.

We realize, of course, that wages vary and salaries vary in the various communities of the State and therefore we would not contemplate placing a restriction at this time on that part of it.

In this connection we would further point out that the language of the bill must very tightly limit the State to maintain its current salary schedules so that it cannot use Federal money to supplant the present salary schedule, but must use Federal money to supplement the current salaries. I think, Senator, that answers your question and fortifies the answer again.

VIII. We believe that Federal money which is to be used under the Federal Works Program for construction purposes should be expended within any State only after the State itself has made plans for the use of such funds. Under the present law, the Federal Government may step into any State and place a school or any other public building where the Federal Government, as a matter of political expediency, may wish to place the building. Furthermore, the Federal Government does not, at present, require any State coordinated program of planning in terms of social use. This bill, for the first time, without expending one cent of money, does require the Federal Government to work through the proper State authorities and does require that

the Federal Government honor the plans which a State is required to make.

One further point which must be stated very frankly at this time. This bill does make funds available for use for services of persons not in the public schools. This we consider to be a sound democratic practice, well established in our Government.

We submit for the record at this time a number of examples of this practice. Now, in explanation of the theory:

It is the duty of the State to establish educational standards and to maintain schools through which to implement and enforce them. It is the right of every parent to determine how his child shall be edu cated, provided that he gives the child an education that meets the minimum educational standards of the State

What, then, is the place of the sectarian school in relation to these precepts which are a part of our political and social structure?

There is no question of the right of any religious sect to maintain its schools. That right is implicit under our Constitution, and it has been frequently confirmed by our courts.

I will cite, in this connection, two cases. The first is Pierce v. Society of Sisters (268 U. S. 510), known as the Oregon school case, brought when Oregon passed a law to wipe out parochial schools and the Supreme Court declared that law to be unconstitutional.

Such schools function today in every State. They are supported by American citizens of every creed. There is a question of whether they should be supported in part by public funds, and I give you the citation of Cochran v. Louisiana State Board of Education, with Mr. Justice Hughes rendering the decision. Louisiana had made free textbooks available for children in the parochial schools, and Mr. Justice Hughes held that the taxing power of the State was exercised for a good public purpose in so doing.

There are those who contend that the granting of public funds for use by sectarian institutions will establish a union of church and State in this country. No American citizen of any creed advocates that. least of all the American Federation of Labor. But we contend that the distribution of public funds through private sectarian agencies not of one but of all creeds, which use it for the general public welfare does not in any way violate the principle of separation of church and state. Actually public funds are now being used by sectarian institutions to promote the general welfare. A very large number of hospitals have for many years received public funds from Federal, State, and local agencies. Furthermore, during the last decade, the Federal Government made public funds available through Public Works, Federal Works, National Youth Administration, Agriculture, the Office_of Education, the Coordinator of Latin-American Affairs, the State Department, and a number of other agencies, for use in and through sectarian schools. The law has been sustained.

The question of whether public funds for general education should be available to sectarian schools is, so far as the Federal Government is concerned, therefore, a question of public policy rather than a question of law.

Senator MORSE. Mr. Woll, would you say also to the extent that the Federal Government permits tax exemption and to the extent that States permit tax exemption, indirectly the funds are used for pare chial school support?

Mr. WOLL. Yes; you are absolutely correct in that.

A consideration of this policy involves a number of principles: 1. Will the further development of sectarian schools create a more divisive community?

2. Has a special group of citizens, concerned with the common good of such special group, the right to a special share of public funds to protect and promote its special interests?

3. What factors are involved in the right of a parent or a group to establish and maintain a form of training through which to preserve scruples of conscience?

4. What is the scope of authority of the State on this question?

5. Upon what basis must the question of public-private secretarian activities be approached?

It has already been pointed out that these questions, insofar as they affect the Federal Government, are primarily questions of policy and not of law. It is, therefore, in the light of public policy that the federation will approach the question.

The first question to be explored: Will the further development of secretarian schools create a more divisive society? If so, they may well be held to do more harm than good. We are one Nation, and we wish our people to be united. But this unity must not be such as to destroy the rights of minorities. We all desire unity but not uniformity. Cohesion is essential, but regimentation is devastating. We cannot and we would not choose to, as a nation, compel all persons to act in keeping with a single pattern. Ours is a cohesive functional society, but a society in which the point of view of all minorities should be respected and afforded full opporutnity of expression.

There is a minority group today that holds that in conformity with the religious concepts of their faith that a form of secretarian instruction must be given with other educational training as an integral part of the education of children. The right of this minority group to its convictions must be zealously safeguarded. Not only to protect the rights of the minority but actually to promote the unity of a functional democracy, must we preserve the means through which minority viewpoints are expressed. A people are not more closely united if they are compelled through legal or economic pressures to accept a pattern of conduct if such acceptance would violate the tenets of conscience of the group. On the other hand, there can be no justification in law or in policy for subsidizing a purely private project simply because it serves to promote the good and worthy religious devotion of a particular group. To pay public funds to a religious organization for its maintenance would violate the fundamental principles and practices to which we as a nation are committed.

In view of the fact that a large portion of the instructors in the secretarian schools have taken a vow of poverty and that, therefore, what they are paid belongs not to them but to the religious organization to which they adhere, a direct payment to them for their services would, in effect, therefore, be a direct payment to a religious organization. Such a practice cannot be condoned.

On the other hand, the child in these schools has the right to attend them. And that right, as has already been pointed out, involves not only a legal permission but a legal assurance that the right shall be enjoyed. The enjoyment of the right implies a degree of economic support. To assure each child's right to an education the Federal Gov