philosophy underlying the Constitution is the concept of human liberty as the inalienable rights of the individual as a responsible moral being.

"The closing words of article VI declare that 'no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification for any office or public trust.' Under this no man legally chosen could be deprived of serving his country on account of either his religion or his lack of religion. Justice Joseph Story commenting on this clause said that it had a higher object; to cut off forever any pretense of any alliance between church and state in the National Government. This, however, was not the interpretation placed upon article VI when the document was presented to the several States for ratification. Throughout the country the fight raged and the proposed Constitution in general, in particular, and in detail was strongly assailed and stoutly defended. The point at which it was most strongly criticized was its lack of a bill of rights. The charge was made that the framers of the Constitution had provided no adequate guaranties for the preservation of the human rights for which the glorious revolution had been undertaken and for which the Revolutionary War had been fought. The American Bill of Rights must be rightly interpreted as a reaffirmation of those immemorial rights of free men sacred against all government, whether local or general.

"Thomas Jefferson wrote from Paris in 1788 that "were I in America, I would advocate it (the Constitution) warmly till nine (States) should have adopted, and then just as warmly take the other side till the declaration of rights is annexed to it.'"

The State conventions of New York, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, and Rhode Island expressed anxiety because civil and religious liberty had not been fully safeguarded. Several of these States previously had enacted a State declaration or bill of rights. Virginia hung in the balance. Patrick Henry, George Mason, James Monroe, Benjamin Harrison, John Tyler, William Grayson, and other leaders opposed the adoption of the Constitution. James Madison returned late to enter the State campaign. The Baptists, now grown to be the most numerous religious body in the State, were the protagonists of complete religious freedom. For 2 hours Madison addressed the crowd, made up largely of Baptists that had assembled at Orange Court House, and when he finished Elder John Leland, the foremost Baptist minister of that day, urged everyone to vote for James Madison as their representative to the State convention called to ratify the Constitution. He was elected. In the meeting of that body Madison, through argument, persuasion, and promises, won the vote for adoption.

Between 1766 and 1778, 42 Baptist ministers had been arrested and imprisoned by the Colonial authorities of Virginia, acting in accordance with existing laws, and the charge against each of them was preaching the Gospel contrary to the canons of the established church. Patrick Henry pleaded in their defense. Thomas Jefferson sought to protect them through the introduction of a bill known as "An act for establishing religious freedom," which became law in 1786. But the man to whom all lovers of religious liberty in this country owe the greatest debt is James Madison, who richly deserves the title which bistory has bestowed upon him, namely, "The Father of the Constitution." This man appeared repeatedly in the court of his own country to defend Baptist nonconformists. In 1774 he denounced that diabolical hell-conceived principle of persecution that had thrust many Baptist ministers into jail. In 1776 he supported Jefferson's measure for religious freedom, and in 1786 successfully carried through its enactment by the Virginia Assembly. In 1788, he pledged his efforts to secure amendments to the new Constitution, that would be incorporated as a bill of rights, and when the new Congress met, he fulfilled his pladge, and on December 15, 1791, he witnessed a great scene, the incorporation of the first 10 amendments, our Bill of Rights, which became thereby a part of the fundamental law of the land. The first of these amendments to the Constitution is the foundation of complete freedom of religion in the United States: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The first declaration in support of religious liberty ever uttered in the English language was made by the General Baptists in 1611, who had fled from England to Holland, in order to escape persecution. A portion of this group returned to their native land. One pastor after another was imprisoned in Newgate jail. The faithful congregation continued to meet somewhere in Old London, and from this dingy meetinghouse "there flashed out, first in England, the absolute doctrine of religious liberty." In 1614, Leonard Busher, a Bantist layman, addressed to James I "A Plea for Liberty of Conscience." In 1620, a group of Baptists made a most humble supplication to the King's Majesty for religious freedom. In 1636, Roger Williams and his fellow believers in religious liberty formed a

compact made by the new settlers of Providence Plantations, by which they were to be governed. In the interest of freedom of conscience they limited the power of this Government to "only in civil matters.' This was the first community in Christian history from A. D. 320 to A. D. 1636 in which religious freedom was fully assured. In 1663, Dr. John Clarke, pastor of the Newport Baptist Church, Rhode Island, secured from Charles II, a royal charter which set up the first government under the English Crown which guaranteed "full liberty in religious concernments." In 1774, Isaac Backus, representing the Warren and other Baptist associations, made the first plea to the Continental Congress that religious as well as political freedom should be sought for in the conflict upon which this country was about to enter. In 1774 the Baptists of Virginia were the first religious body to declare their support of the American Revolution. In 1788, the Baptists of the United States stood unitedly for the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution that would provide religious freedom.

John Locke, the eighteenth century philosopher, declared that "the Baptists were the first and only propounders of absolute liberty, just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty," and George Bancroft, statesman and historian, asserted that "freedom of conscience, unlimited freedom of mind was first a trophy of the Baptists."

In 1788, 13 small colonies separated by distance, cultural background, and religious beliefs were seeking to form a single national organization. Today a world, brought through the radio and the airplane into relations closer than our colonial fathers ever dreamed to be possible, is trying to form a single world organization. For its full realization the United Nations need to agree upon common aims, and these should be set forth in an international preamble, a world constitution, erecting the machinery for a working cooperation of the United Nations, and an international bill of rights in which the basic, inalienable rights of mankind shall be declared and means provided for their protection.

The United Nations stand today where our forefathers stood more than a century and a half ago. The wisdom of the decisions they made in 1788 and in 1791 are evidenced in the freedom our citizens enjoy and in the progress our Nation has made. Because of this America has an unescapable obligation to lead the United Nations into a world organization, embodying the principles and safeguarding the freedoms that have made the United States the freest, the greatest, and the most prosperous nation on earth. Freedom of religion is vital and essential to any world organization that shall endure and prosper.

Twenty-six years ago Woodrow Wilson, in whom centered the hopes of millions eager for the freedoms we enjoyed in America, presented a plan for a league of nations to secure peace and democracy for all. The World War had ended. The peace delegations of the nations were gathered in Paris. President Wilson presented to the commission on the drafting of the covenant for the League of Nations a proposed covenant that embodied the ideals and principles that have made our Nation free. Article VII of Mr. Wilson's covenant dealt with the freedom of religion and read as follows:

"Realizing religious persecution and intolerance as fertile sources of war, the powers signatory hereby agree, and the League of Nations shall exact from all states seeking admission to it, the promise that they will make no law prohibiting or interfering with the free exercise of religion, and that they will in no way discriminate, either in law or in fact, against those who practice any particular creed, religion, or belief, whose practices are not inconsistent with public order or public peace."

From February 3 to February 13, 1919, the Commission on the Drafting of the Covenant of the League considered this proposal, which was, in effect, the international proscription of religious persecution. On February 13, in the absence of President Wilson, the other members took final action. On that fatal day the Commission decided that, “in view of the complications of this question, it would be preferable to omit the article altogether," and perhaps in so doing the seed of World War II were sown. Had President Wilson's proposal been adopted and properly implemented by the nations composing the League of Nations, the whole course of recent history would have been radically changed. The persecution of the Jews and other religious minorities would have been prevented and the whole world would have known a new birth of freedom.

The Baptists played an important part in the securing for this Nation the benefits of religious liberty. They face today a far greater opportunity than that which confronted our spiritual forefathers. They are called to bring to bear their influence upon those who shall participate in the conference of the United Nations when they meet together to create a world organization having for its object the maintenance of a just and durable peace. The Baptists of America cannot do

better than to endorse in principle the proposal made by President Wilson and secure the signatures, not only of the Baptists of this Nation, now more than 11,000,000 in number, but also the signatures of other millions of Americans of other congregations who share with them a like devotion to freedom of religion. Senator JOHNSTON. The next witness is Mr. Elmer E. Rogers.

STATEMENT OF ELMER E. ROGERS, AIDE TO THE GRAND COMMANDER OF THE SUPREME COUNCIL, THIRTY-THIRD DEGREE, ANCIENT AND ACCEPTED SCOTTISH RITE OF FREEMASONRY, SOUTHERN JURISDICTION, AND ASSOCIATE EDITOR OF THE PUBLICATIONS OF SUCH COUNCIL

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to introduce a statement by Dr. Charles Fama, of New York, an eminent physician there, who is chairman of the personnel retirement board of that city, and then the statement of Col. John H. Cowles, grand commander of the Supreme Council, Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemansonry, southern jurisdiction.

Senator JOHNSTON. They may be inserted in the record. (The statements referred to are as follows:)

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

APRIL 17, 1945.

GENTLEMEN: We have read with apprehension and dismay of the pending bill presented by Senator Mead, of New York, and Senator Aiken, of Vermont, intended to give Federal aid to private schools.

It is our firm conviction that the passing of such a bill would undermine and eventually destroy State control of education, and with it, our democratic system of free public schools.

As citizens of the United States, we are deeply interested in the maintenance of free public schools and advocate the spending of all necessary amounts of money for their maintenance and equipment. But, we are against the spending of even a farthing for the support of private sectarian schools.

We are fully in agreement that under our democratic system, every citizen should enjoy the privilege of having private tuition if he so desires, but the division between church and State should be always kept alive and any attempt to link church and State must be opposed if we want to keep intact the structure of our democratic institutions.

Our school system, even making allowances for its deficiencies, ranks among the best in the world. Perhaps it is the best. Therefore, let those who wish to attend a private school pay their own way and not be a burden to the State. It is with the foregoing in view that our committee wishes to register its determined opposition to the passing of the Mead-Aiken bill and urges Members of the Senate to vote against it as contrary to all principles of our democratic system of public schools and Government.

Respectfully yours,

CHARLES FAMA, M. D. President, Lay Committee. FRANCIS J. PANETTA.

Secretary.

STATEMENT OF JOHN H. COWLES, GRAND COMMANDER OF THE SUPREME COUNCIL, 33D DEGREE, ANCIENT AND ACCEPTED SCOTTISH RITE OF FREEMASONRY, SOUTHERN JURISDICTION, AND NATIVE SON, CITIZEN OF KENTUCKY

Mr. CHAIRMAN, I am John H. Cowles, grand commander of the Supreme Council, 33d degree, Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, southern jurisdiction, and a native-born citizen, State of Kentucky.

While I am opnosed to Federal aid to education for the reasons stated in the hearings on S. 181, I am even more strongly opposed to S.717 because of its

proposal to aid nonpublic schools, which is a radical departure from our established principle of prohibiting aid to nonpublic schools of a sectarian character. Briefly the bill is badly drawn. It is

1. Vague and uncertain in some of its provisions governing the allocation of Federal funds to the States.

2. By indirection, through its broad discretionary powers in allocating funds to the States, the National Board of Apportionment is in position to exercise à real measure of Federal control over State and local school systems.

3. The proposal to establish private elementary and secondary schools on a permanent basis as recipients of Federal aid is contrary to long-standing American policy and practice which in the first instance sprang from an unsuccessfu effort on this continent to make private and denominational education a charge against public revenues.

4. The break-down of Federal funds allocated the States as between public and nonpublic education has in it the possibility of permanent, unhappy competition between these two types of schools for such funds.

5. The creation of an additional Federal agency-the National Board of Apportionment-is unnecessary, undesirable, and a threat to the efficient administration of public education on both Federal and State levels.

Amplifying on the above statements, let me say that S. 717 authorizes appropriations amounting in the aggregate to $550,000,000 per annum. Of this amount $200,000,000 is to be allocated to the States on objective bases which permit of definite and precise computations. Anyone can compute the distribution of this $200,000,000 sum.

On the other hand, the provisions of the bill which relate to the distribution of the remainder, or $350,000,000, are vague and uncertain, so much so that there is no person or agency anywhere who can say how much of this $350,000,000 sum would go from year to year to any State in the Nation. The statement that the bill conforms to the President's declaration that Federal aid should be alloIcated where it is needed-and only where it is needed-is a statement that is purely opportunistic and entirely speculative. There is no fact or facts in the bill that supports this declaration-none whatever. As a matter of fact the discretionary power of the National Board of Apportionment is sufficiently broad to permit it to make almost any kind of allocation it might wish to make. The law does say that the board shall take into consideration "the findings and recommendations of the Secretary of the Treasury-the nature and extent of educational inequalities and relative substandard conditions--and the findings of the Director of the Census." But the act has nothing whatever to say about the relative importance of these "findings and recommendations." It gives them no relative weighting. It does not show how these "findings and recommendations" shall be compounded to produce a method for distributing available funds to the extent of $350,030,000. Neither does the bill exclude other "findings and recommendations" of other agencies than those enumerated in section 202 and section 302 which relate to the distribution of the $350,000 000 in question.

To the extent of $350,000,000 (of the total of $550,000,000) the bill sets up a temptation to manipulate Federal funds in relation to school support which would almost certainly eventuate in great misfortune.

By indirection the National Board of Apportionment created by S. 717 can, if it wishes, bring a great deal of Federal control to bear upon State and local school programs through its power to exercise broad discretionary authority in allocating funds to the States. There are innumerable combinations of factors that can be found by any individual or board to allocate Federal assistance to the States. Some combinations will favor the neediest States, other combinations will favor the richest States, or the average-in-ability States. Certain combinations will better serve political motives, religious motives, or other motives. As the bill stands, the Board is in position to exercise a dominant influence upon the character of education through its extensive discretionary ability to determine which States shall get the biggest "take" on the $350,000,000 temptation set up in the act. Because the provisions of the bill are vague and uncertain in respect to the way the funds authorized will be shared between public and nonpublic education, it is certain that the Board will be subjected to very great pressures by these two groups, each attempting to safeguard its own maximum interest in the distribution of Federal funds to the States.

This competition will inevitably strike at the basic freedom of religion in American democracy. From it will spring intolerance and prejudices harmful to the general welfare. The fact is clearly in view that for the most part the chief purpose of nonprofit, nonpublic elementary and secondary schools throughout

the United States is that of maintaining and extending specific types of religious instruction for youth. Take this motive away and most institutions-nonprofit in character-would immediately disappear.

The principle of supporting such schools from public revenues was for many years a source of controversy in the development of American life. Experience proved the principle was not workable, hence it was discontinued. This lesson in self-government needs to be remembered. Denominational instruction is a private matter as well as a personal privilege which can be enjoyed in democratic America. It is, however, a conspicuous anachronism to suggest that our country forget what it has learned in this matter and that it return to a practice which, after long and patient trial, was found to be wanting in democratic American life. This is all the more true in point of the fact that the American public school system, without being denominational in its instruction, is yet one of the primary Christian institutions existing in the world today.

The bill under consideration attempts to recognize the foregoing viewpoint but without genuine success in doing so. For example, it provides that none of the money can be used for instructional salaries in nonpublic institutions. On the other hand, it appropriates money that can be used for all kinds of instructional materials and for other purposes related to instruction in specific, denominational doctrines. In this matter the bill is "everything to everybody" without being decidedly and frankly American on the issue at stake.

The erection of a new Federal agency to complete for functions and controls in the field of education is unnecessary, undesirable, and a threat to the efficient administration of public education in this country. We now have one or more boards in the Federal Security Agency that relate to educational administration. There have been numerous Federal agencies with like functions and purposes outside the Federal Security Agency from time to time. The effect of numerous agencies, administrative in nature, is to dissipate controls and responsibilities, to draw them into conflicts that cannot be smoothed over, and generally to make for inefficiency in administration. The National Board of Apportionment is just one more agency to help create confusion and inefficiency in education.

The excuse for creating the National Board of Apportionment is the absence of an objective formula for allocating to the States the funds provided in S. 717. While there is no such thing known to man as a "perfect" formula for distributing funds, it is nevertheless true, on the basis of experience in distributing State equalization funds, that a formula is preferable to a board or to an individual having broad discretionary power to allocate on a “judgment" basis.

Let the public schools alone. The business of the United States Government has grown so much that it has become unwieldly.

THE SUPREME COUNCIL FAVORS

1. The American public school, nonpartisan, nonsectarian, efficient, democratic, for all of the children of all the people.

2. The inculcation of patriotism, respect for law and order, and undying loyalty to the Constitution of the United States of America.

3. The compulsory use of English as the language of instruction in the grammar grades of our public schools.

4. Adequate provision in the American public schools for the education of the alien populations in the principles of American institutions and ideals of citizenship.

5. The entire separation of church and State, and opposition to every attempt to appropriate public moneys-Federal, State, or local-directly or indirectly, for the support of sectarian or private institutions.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I am Elmer E. Rogers, aide to the grand commander of the supreme council, thirty-third degree, Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, southern jurisdiction, and associate editor of the publications of that council. I testify here, however, on my own responsibility.

I have been appearing before the committees of the House and Senate on education bills for nearly 20 years. In my judgment, of all the bills that have ever rated a congressional hearing on Federal