Gambar halaman





Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to the recess, at 10:30 a. m. in room 357, Senate Office Building, Senator J. W. Fulbright, presiding.

Present: Senators Fulbright, Pepper, Smith, Donnell, Morse, Aiken, Johnston, and Ellender.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Is Mr. Russell Smith here? I notice he is not here, so we will proceed to the next witness.

Mrs. Worrell, will you please come forward?



Mrs. WORRELL. I am Mrs. Garet Hopkins Worrell, of 515 East Clifton Terrace, Washington, D. C., president-general of the Wheel of Progress, an organization dedicated to the progress of mankind in the pursuit of happiness and prosperity and to insure the safety and stability of our governmental institutions and defend the Constitution of the United States.

For 7 years I was national legislative chairman of the Ladies of the Grand Army of the Republic and I now also represent as legislative chairman, the Society for Constitutional Security, and Spengler Unit of the American Legion Auxiliary, and as a member of the staff of the Nineteenth Woman's Patriotic Conference on Defense, which consists of 36 national organizations with millions of women voters throughout the United States which has just concluded its annual conference with 521 delegates present which unanimously passed the following resolution after due consideration:

Whereas on several occasions it has been attempted to secure the passage of Federal legislation appropriating to a National Educational Department, or Bureau, sums of money to be in turn disbursed to the educational departments of the several sovereign States; and

Whereas Federal financial assistance would increase the tendency toward vesting in the Federal Government control which should be retained in the sovereign States; therefore be it

Resolved, That the Nineteenth Women's Patriotic Conference oppose all such appropriations; and be it further

Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to every Member of the Congress of the United States.

All of the above-named organizations heretofore mentioned have consistently opposed this legislation now under consideration for the reason that it is unnecessary and will, in spite of words and arguments to the contrary, lead to Federal control; in fact, in itself it. constitutes Federal control.

The figures. relative to the financial standing of the States is shown to be sufficient to take care of their educational needs, therefore Federal financing is unnecessary.

This bill, in part, is designated an emergency bill to increase teachers' salaries. It would appear, however, that the war has given the States vastly increased incomes-enough to increase the salaries of teachers about $200, which is all this bill calls for.

The so-called poorer States, those in the South, all have surpluses in their treasuries, with one exception, I believe-surpluses sufficient to finance this educational program in their individual States out of their own money.

Last year the State surpluses amounted to $700,000,000 and their State debts only $1,000,000,000. The United States today has a debt of $230,630,000,000.

The aforesaid poorer States have very little debt-in fact, Florida has had no State debt for many years, and if these States are really interested in their educational problems and use their surplus for that purpose they still have borrowing capacity to put it on a level high enough to maintain the average educational schooling, which is 8.4 years in school according to the reports of the last census. The amount of teachers' salaries is not the measure for adequate education, it is the teaching of the fundamentals-fundamentals are the life-blood of education. New York with its high salaries and its high. income has only the average education of 8.4 school years.

In this bill the third highest amount paid, $17,036,200, goes to New York which has by far the highest income of the States. Certain proponents of this bill claim that the wealth of the oil States of the South is owned by New York or the Northeast and any tax there gives them a tremendous income. If that is a fact, why should they desire to add $17,036,200 to New York's school income, while States with the lowest income get a very meager amount in comparison?

Pennsylvania stands third in income in the United States, but she is to receive the largest amount out of this bill. Texas, whose income is seventh, notwithstanding the oil wells that are reputedly owned in New York, gets $18,135,254.

We fail to see how this could equalize educational opportunities even though it was measured by the salaries of the teachers. The average salary of teachers in New York would be $2,618 plus $200, the increase provided in this bill, totaling $2,818, while the average salary of teachers in Alabama, now $787, would be $987, and what it may receive from the $100,000,000 therefore, if opportunities are measured by the teachers' salaries, Alabama would not be greatly benefited. However, Alabama in point of income in the United States, is 21 according to the latest Department of Commerce findings, her income is $94.891,000 and she spends a little more than onefifth or 20 percent for her schools.

New York, whose income is $735,307,000, spends $299,913,322, or over 41 percent for her schools and yet her school attainment is only 8.4 school years, clearly showing that salary is no measure of school attainment or adequate education.

Utah, with the highest educational attainment, with teachers' salaries a little over one-half that of New York, spends only 25 percent of her finances on education in contrast to the 41 percent New York spends, and yet Utah has a school attainment of 10.2 years, more than 2 years in high school. The amount she spends per pupil is less than one-half what New York spends.

The functions of teachers cannot be too highly praised and they should be well paid, but the States should manage that for themselves. It is said in this bill that there shall be no Federal control, but those very good words are refuted on pages 8 and 10.

We find further that the State must not reducethe proportion of State and local moneys expended for educational purposes during the fiscal year ended in 1944, for public schools for minority races. Is that regulation or is it freedom from control? If the amount appropriated by the States for the Negroes is a quarter of what they were for the whites, this would not change that proportion very much, therefore it does not equalize educational opportunities.

On page 10, section 6 (c) these funds can only be allotted by the State to jurisdictions that pay average annual salaries to their teachers not less than the average annual salaries paid as of February 1, 1915. Is that not telling the States what they can do and what they cannot do?

Let us get back to base, and drop this “progressive education” which is no education at all. Ground the children in the fundamentals and there will be no such illiteracy as is now complained of.

The thousands of our people whom I am here to represent are absolutely against Federal control of schools and against placing the education of the children of the United States in the hands of a Washington bureau or of any one person instead of in the States where it has always been and where it belongs.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Any questions?
Thank you, Mrs. Worreil.
I understand Mr. Charles J. Hendley wishes to make a statement.


Mr. HENDLEY. Yes; I would like to make a supplementary statement to the statement I made yesterday.

Today I would like to confine my remarks to the one topic of the relation of Federal aid to the rights of the Americans who support private schools.

The bill which we are considering does not in any way infringe upon the rights of persons who maintain and patronize private schools, secular or sectarian. Both our Federal and our State constitutions give the most solid guaranties that can be written into law for the freedom of policy and operation of private schools whether they be secular or religious. The principle of freedom of enterprise applies to them as to private undertakings of citizens generally. Moreover, the religious schools have double guaranties in the constitutional clauses on freedom of religion.

Every one of the State constitutions, as well as the Federal Constitution, of course, contains a bill of rights and every bill of rights contains a clause on religious freedom. The following from the Con

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

stitution of Rhode Island is typical. I read only two clauses from a a long section on the subject, but they state the clear import of the whole section:

CONSTITUTION OF RHODE ISLAND, ARTICLE 1, SECTION 3 We, therefore, declare that no man shall be compelled to frequent or to support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatever, except in fulfillment of his own voluntary contract

and that every man shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and to profess and by argument to maintain his opinion in matters of religion

It is very impressive to read the provisions in the 48 State constitutions and in the Federal Constitution on religious freedom. These constitutions were adopted over a period of more than a hundred years from the time of the founding of the oldest States like Massachusetts and Virginia to the youngest States like New Mexico and Nevada.

They show plainly that the idea of religious freedom had become deeply fixed in the hearts and minds of Americans. They are documentary evidences of the experience of our forefathers with religious persecution and of their deep gratitude for their newly acquired freedom from those prosecutions.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Pardon me a moment, but I do not see the connection there. What has religious freedom to do with this bill? What is the point, so that I may follow you?

Mr. HENDLEY. There is the argument advanced by certain interests that it is unfair for the Federal Government to appropriate funds for public schools, that it is unfair to the people who support private schools. That argument has been advanced by interests here in America, and I am trying to reply to that argument.

Senator FULBRIGHT. All right, will you please go ahead.

Mr. HENDLEY. Religious freedom means not only the right to worship as one pleases and to propagate one's faith; it means also that the authority of government shall not be used to impose any form of worship upon any citizen or to force upon him any creed or to compel him to contribute to the propagation of any religious creed or dogma.

Nearly all of the States have specific provisions in their constitutions forbidding the appropriation of public funds for the support of any sectarian school or college. The following clause in the constitution of Missouri is typical:



Neither the general assembly nor any county, city, township, school district, or other municipal corporation, shall ever make an appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever, anything in aid of any religious creed, church, or sectarian purpose, or to support or sustain any public or private school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other institution of learning controlled by any religious creed, church, or sectarian denomination whatever

The tone of this clause indicates that was deeply implanted in the hearts of the people who wrote it.

Certain interests in this country have advanced the argument that it is unfair to citizens who maintain and patronize religious schools for the Federal funds to be appropriated for the public schools. The argument is groundless. The maintenance of a free public-school system is absolutely essential to our American democratic system.

It is contrary to reason and a contradiction of our democracy to hold back or to curtail the support of these public schools because certain citizens want to send their children to private schools.

History has vindicated the policy of our Government in its policy of the development of TVA in spite of the opposition of the private power companies. The policy redounds to the advantage of even these private companies. TVA is promoting the prosperity of the South and the more prosperity there, the more power will the Commonwealth Southern and the other companies sell.

I contend this analogy is sound. In this rich, powerful Nation we do not have to curtail our public schools to permit private schools to flourish. In no other Nation in the world have private schools flourished better nor freer from interference than here in America. There is no competition between the public and the private schools within the bounds of our democratic system.

To amend this bill, as has been suggested, though I have not heard it suggested here, but it has been suggested throughout the country, to give Federal subsidies to private schools would not only violate the first amendment of the Federal Constitution; it would violate by circumvention the specific constitutional provisions that nearly all the States have against appropriation of funds for sectarian schools.

We cannot at this late date reverse American policy which is so positively vindicated by history as our policy of freedom of religion, which in America means complete separation of church and state. No other principle of democracy is more firmly grounded in the lives of our people.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Thank you, sir.
Will Dr. Frank Graham please step forward.



Dr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I wish to submit four propositions in support of this bill; first, that this bill is in line with the structure of this Republic. It has been suggested that it is not in line with our truest Americanism; second, that it is in response to a national emergency; and, third, that this emergency is intensified in the rural and southern areas; and, fourth, that while we are fighting a war for democracy we should certainly not fall back in our democracy here at home, rather we should go forward to those things for which the war is being fought. With regard to proposition number one, it may take 2 or 3 minutes

back to the foundation of this dual structure that we call the United States of America. To see that in its simplest form, we go back to the Philadelphia Convention and find the hottest struggle in that Convention is over the structure of this new Nation that was being born.

There were those who said that this Republic should be based entirely on the people. There were those who said that this Republic should be based on the States. That issue got so hot that the Philadelphia Convention almost disrupted when the large States were pushing strongly for basing the United States of America on popu

to go

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »