« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
Senator Walsh. Have you got it for New Jersey ?
Mr. Googe. New Jersey, white, 8.4 per 1,000; and Negroes, 45.3 per 1,000.
Senator WALSH. And Massachusetts?
Mr. Googe. North Carolina, white, 36 per 1,000, and 258.7 per 1,000 Negroes.
Senator Chavez. May I ask this witness one question? I believe you mentioned the situation that arose in the States you have cited, that went to the Suprem Court. Was that the Oregon case ?
Mr. GOOGE. Yes. I just mention the fact that it was a southern justice of the Supreme Court that wrote and rendered that opinion.
Senator CHAVEZ. There was another case that went to the Supreme Court on a similar issue.
Mr. GOOGE. The Louisiana free textbooks.
Miss BORCHARDT. I should like, Mr. Chairman, to insert not only the citations, if I may, but an excerpt from the opinion of the Supreme Court, Mr. Justice McReynolds' opinion in rendering the decision.
Senator Walsh. That may go in the record.
Miss BORCHARDT. And Mr. Justice Hughes' opinion in rendering the decision in the Louisiana case.
Senator Walsh. That may go in the record. (The opinions referred to are as follows:)
Pierce v. Society of Sisters (268 U. S. 510)
Under the doctrine of Meyer v. Nebraska (262 U. S. 300), we think it entirely plain that the act of 1922 unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control. As often heretofore pointed out, rights guaranteed by the Constitution may not be abridged by legislation which has no reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the State. The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all government in this Union reposes includes any general power of the State, to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creation of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.
Cochran V. Louisiana State Board of Education (281 U. S. 370)
Mr. Justice Hughes in his opinion (pp. 371-375) states:
“The intention of the appellant under the fourteenth amendment is that taxation for the purchase of schoolbooks constituted a taking of private property for a private purpose (Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655). The purpose is said to be private, religious, sectarian, and other schools not embraced in the public educational system of the State by furnishing textbooks free to the children attending such private schools. The operation and effect of the legislation in question were described by the Supreme Court of the State as follows (168 La., p. 1020) :
“ 'One may scan the acts in vain to ascertain where any money is appropriated for the purchase of school books for the use of any church, private, sectarian, or even public school. The appropriations were made for the specific purpose of purchasing schoolbooks for the use of the children of the State, free of cost to them. It was for their benefit and the resulting benefit to the State that the appropriations were made. True, these children attend some school, public or private, the latter, sectarian or nonsectarian, and that the books are to be furnished them for their use, free of cost, whichever they attend. The schools, however, are not the beneficiaries of this appropriation. They obtain nothing from them, nor are they relieved of a single obligation, because of them. The school children not the State alone are the beneficiaries. It is clear then that the sectarian schools, which some of the children attend, instruct their pupils in religion, and books are used for that purpose, but one may search diligently the acts, though without result, in an effort to find anything to the effect that it is the purpose of the State to furnish religious books for the use of such children
What the States contemplate is that the same books that are furnished children attending public schools shall be furnished children attending private schools. This is the only practical way of interpreting and executing the statutes, and this is what the State board of education is doing. Among these books, naturally, none is to be expected, adopted to religious instruction.'"
Viewing the statute as having the effect thus attributed to it, we cannot doubt that the taxing power of the States is exerted for a public purpose. The legislation does not segregate private schools, or their pupils, as its beneficiaries or attempt to interfere with any matters of exclusive private concern. Its interest is education, broadly ; its method comprehensive. Individual interests are aided only as the common interest is safeguarded.
Senator Walsh. Did you notice the corresponding increase in educational facilities in recent years?
Mr. Googe. Oh, yes.
Mr. GCOGE. They are steadily improving all the time particularly for the Negroes. We find in our union the American Federation of Labor has over 100,000 members who are Negroes under closed-shop contracts in the South today.
Senator CHAVEZ. Are these confined to the ones who get the minimum wages, such as the hod carriers and workers of that kind, or do they go into the trades that pay a low wage?
a Mr. GCOGE. Senator, we have to organize them on a job or their own. For your information, for instance, the shipyard in Brunswick, Ga., they have hundreds of skilled mechanics that are Negroes getting the maximum scale.
Senator DONNELL. Mr. Googe, I did want to ask some questions. As I understand it, this bill, S. 717, is a bill that is offered by the American Federation of Labor and its affiliate, the American Federation of Teachers; is that correct?
Mr. Googe. The bill was offered as the result of the standing.committee of the American Federation of Labor on education and it reported to the AFL executive council. The AFL executive council | in turn made a report and recommendation to the 1944 convention of the American Federation of Labor, and the convention in turn adopted that recommendation, which instructed the American Federation of Labor to have this bilí drafted and introduced.
That is strictly the American Federation of Labor bill. An officer of the Teachers Union is here. I am not intimately familiar with what their proceedings were in their conventions, but I understand their conventions did adopt the report of the Permanent Committee on Education of the American Federation of Labor.
I think they adopted it in toto. If they did not, I am sure they adopted the general principles outlined there.
Senator DONNELL. Now, is the American Federation of Teachers an integral part of the American Federation of Labor?
Mr. GOOGE. It is an affiliated national union and it is an organization of teachers. It is an affiliated and chartered national union of the American Federation of Labor.
Senator DONNELL. How large an organization is the American Federation of Teachers, the membership?
Mr. Googe. I am not positive at the moment. The last report I saw, they had approximately 40,000 members, Senator. Their officers can
. give you the exact figures.
Senator DONNELL. Now, the 1944 convention of the American Federation of Labor to which you referred was the one held in New Orleans in November; is that right?
Mr. Googe. Yes; 2 weeks in November.
Senator DONNELL. That is the one concerning which Mr. Woll testified yesterday?
Mr. GOOGE. Yes.
Senator DONNELL. That is the one which, in substance, adopted the statement of principles to the effect that in its opinion funds for purpose such as those embraced in this bill should be allocated on the basis of relative need; is that right?
Mr. GOOGE. Yes, sir.
Senator DONNELL. Now, the amount of money that is provided to be disposed of by this bill each year is $550,000,000; is that correct? Mr. GOOGE. In the three sections of the four titles of the bill. Senator DONNELL. $550,000,000? Mr. GOOGE. Yes.
Senator DONNELL. Now, of that amount some $200,000,000 is not allocated on the basis of relative need but rather on the basis of population, is it not?
Mr. Googe. Senator, let me say this-
Mr. Googe. I am not an expert in the technicalities and I would much prefer Dr. Reeves, who is our technical expert, to go into the technicalities. I am just a working labor representative; I am not an expert on legislation.
Senator DONNELL. I will ask him about that then, Mr. Googe.
Senator DONNELL. Did I understand you to testify this morning that you were on the commission which framed this bill, or prepared it?
Mr. Googe. No, sir. I served on a special committee. The Presi- . dent of the United States appointed a number of us. They furnished us with a staff of about 300 research people, and I represented the American Federation of Labor on that committee that Dr. Reeves was the chairman of, and it was known as the President's Advisory Committee on Education.
Senator DONNELL. What committee was it then, or commission, that prepared the contents of S. 717?
Mr. GOOGE. I was not there, but it is my general understanding the teachers union had a special commission created who consulted with the permanent committee on education of the American Federation of Labor.
It is my further understanding that this committee acted as advisory or close consultant with our educational committee, and our permanent educational committee made their recommendations and report to the executive council of the AFL.
But this is the executive council of the AFL bill more so than the teachers' union bill. The teachers national officers can declare as to their particular part in it. But I know this bill is backed and has been adopted of the unanimous convention action in New Orleans and has the approval and backing of the executive council of the American Federation of Labor.
Senator DONNELL. Well, now, I understood you indicated that one of the principles laid down by the American Federation of Labor meeting in New Orleans was that the funds are to be allocated on the basis of relative need. I understood that to be Mr. Woll's testimony yesterday.
Mr. GOOGE. Yes, sir.
Senator DONNELL. Now, in referring to the bill itself, S. 717, I observe that the $100,000,000 which is referred to in sections 301 and 302 is to be divided into two parts:
Fifty percentum of such funds shall be allocated among the States on the basis of total population of each State as estimated by the Bureau of the Census, and 50 percentum of such funds shall be allocated by the methods of allocaton provided, and in accordance with the policy expressed under section 202 of this act.
The policy expressed in section 202, which I quote from, is one which is based on the relative need."
Now, as I see it, there is a very great divergence between the statement of the American Federation of Labor at the New Orleans convention that funds should be allocated on the basis of relative need and its action in section 302 which takes $50,000,000 out of it and allocates it on the basis of population.
Were you present at the meeting of any committee when this, as I see it, departure occurred, or when this action was taken determining that 50 percent of the $100,000,000 should be allocated on the basis of population rather than need?
Mr. Googe. Senator, I was present at the convention when the committee's report was adopted. I am sure Dr. Reeves can explain that to you. I do want to say, in conferences we had, and when I was on the President's Advisory Committee on Education, I want to say it is based on our convention action. Our convention actions are always intended to be the most ideal solutions of a problem.
Senator DONNELL. In other words, Mr. Googe, as you understand it—and you say Dr. Reeves can give us more accurate information on it-your thought is, I take it, that the change from the plan by which all of this $100,000,000 will be allocated on the basis of need to an undertaking by which $50,000,000 will be so allocated and the other $50,000,000 on the basis of population, was in order to secure the support of members of the congressional delegations from the States of the larger population to which you refer; is that your thought?
Mr. GOOGE. Let me say this-
Senator DONNELL. May I ask you, first, is that, generally speaking, your thought?
Mr. GOOGE. I might add this: The American Federation of Labor did approve in toto, by convention action, the report to the President and to the Congress of the President's Advisory Committee on Education, and the theories in this bill were part of that report.
Senator DONNELL. Had this bill been prepared at that time?
Mr. Googe. No; but it is based entirely on the general principles enunciated in that report.
Now, let me go a step further and say—although I do not know of my own personal knowledge--I can readily assume and believe that in some localities in Massachusetts, or in New York State there may be individual children that do need assistance the same as in the rural sections of Mississippi, and I do not think we should deny the individual child his pro rata share of the funds available for his assistance.
Senator DONNELL. But the fact is, Mr. Googe, that this bill, when you get right down to it, distinguishes between two different media of determination of how much money goes to each subject. Certain moneys go on the basis of relative need as determined by the National Board, and certain moneys go on the basis of population. That is correct, is it not?
Mr. Googe. I should say, Senator-
Senator DONNELL. You have examined the bill and read it from cover to cover, haven't you?
Mr. Googe. Yes; certainly. Senator DONNELL. Many times, haven't you? Mr. GOOGE. Not too many. Senator DONNELL. At any rate, you know that 50 percent of this $100,000,000 is allocated on the basis of population; you know that to be true as provided in section 302, do you not; page 16 of the bill?
Mr. Googe. I am not questioning that that is in there deliberately, Senator, to help the needy child.
Senator DONNELL. It is in here right in so many words. Then if you turn to the next page, page 17, $150,000,000 of this $550,000,000 is allocation on the basis of the total number of persons in each of the States between the ages of 14 and 20, inclusive, as estimated by the Bureau of the Census; that is correct, is it not?
Mr. Googe. Yes, how else do you know the number of children?
Senator DONNELL. So of the $550,000,000 covered by this bill, $200,000,000 is allocated on the basis of population, either the total population of the State or the population of children, as I have indicated; that is correct, is it not?
Mr. GOOGE. I am not sure whether that is correct or not. I know there is a $150,000,000 provision under title III.
Senator DONNELL. The sections, of course, speak for themselves. Section 302 and sections 401 and 402 are the ones to which I refer.
Now, you consider that the ideal plan would be one, as I gather from your testimony, such as the American Federation of Labor at its New Orleans convention described, namely, one in which the allocation would be made on the basis of relative need. That is your personal view, as I gather it.
Mr. GOOGE. Not to the children but to the child who needs it.
Senator DONNELL. All right. On the basis of relative need, however, is that right, as expressed by the American Federation of Labor ?
Mr. Googe. That is correct.