RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION, Hon. ELBERT D. THOMAS, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR THOMAS: The Railway Labor Executives' Association herewith informs you that our association endorses Senate bill 637, to authorize the appropriation of funds to assist the States and Territories in more adequately financing their systems of public education during emergency, and in reducing the inequalities of educational opportunities through public elementary and secondary schools. Our association has on previous occasions endorsed similar legislation and it is our firm conviction that the more we improve our educational system the more such added intelligence will aid to a better citizenship and enhance the general welfare of our Nation. We hope that favorable consideration will be given to this all-important legislation. Very sincerely yours, J. G. LUHRSEN, Executive Secretary. Senator JOHNSTON. Is there anyone who has any paper or statement that he would like to present here at this time and file for the record? If so, we would be glad to have it. We do not want to cut you off. We will be glad to put it in the record. We have here a letter from the National Council, Junior Order United American Mechanics, dated May 3, 1945, which we will be glad to insert in the record. (The letter referred to is as follows:) NATIONAL COUNCIL, JUNIOR ORDER UNITED AMERICAN MECHANICS, Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: Your committee has before it for consideration S. 717 and S. 181. The preamble to S. 717 states its objects and purposes to be: "To authorize the appropriation of funds to assist the States in more adequately financing education and in removing substandard conditions in education; to aid in establishing and maintaining education services; to eradicate illiteracy; to preserve and promote the national security in peace and in war; to raise the educational level of the Nation; and to promote the general welfare.” This brief or statement is submitted by authority of the National Board of the Junior Order United American Mechanics of the United States of North America, an old, patriotic fraternity organized in 1853, and with a continuous existence, now with 2,000 councils or lodges which have been established in the various States of the Nation. The original charter of the National Council Junior Order United American Mechanics sets forth certain objects of the order, No. 5 of which is as follows: "To maintain the public-school system of the United States of America, and to prevent sectarian interferences therewith, and to uphold the reading of the Holy Bible therein." What we shall have to say herein is not only authorized by our board of officers of the National Council, and the State boards of officers of 26 States in the Union, but by the 2,000 councils which are pledged and dedicated to the enforcement and perpetuation of the above cardinal principle of our fraternity. For a period of 92 years our old, patriotic fraternity has observed, practiced, followed, and supported the principle of education of the American youth in the public free schools of our various States. The outline of the purposes of this legislation as set forth above meets with our approval. We object to the inclusion of any nonpublic schools and submit that taxpayers' money should not be applied under this bill, or any other system of Federal support of education, to any but the American public free schools. We note many references in this bill to nonpublic schools. This is rather an allembracing phrase and under the terms of the bill any school which meets the regulations of the various States as to schools, could qualify for assistance. We FEDERAL AID FOR EDUCATION submit that sectarian and private schools should be supported by the people Such sectarian and private schools have no who establish and sponsor them. place in free school economy of this Nation and, therefore, should not come in for financial support. We doubt the soundness and workability of the administrative organization proposed in this measure such as a National Board of Apportionment to be appointed by the President. It is our view that a minimum of regulation and control through an administrative board or the Bureau of Education in Washington, would be the best plan. We are in favor of the States being given the fullest power and control consistent with the proper apportionment and allocation of the funds proposed to be appropriated for school purposes. You will find that if you confine this appropriation to the use of public free schools only it will minimize much of the trouble which would arise if sectarian and private schools, designated as nonpublic schools, are permitted any participation whatever for the support of their schools. It will simplify the matter and will require less in the way of regulation. We note that the Commissioner of Education in Washington, under the terms of this bill, will serve as Secretary of the proposed National Board and be its administrative officer, and through the Office of Education shall administer the programs authorized in the bill. We seriously object to the power delegated to the National Board to appoint a trustee to receive and disburse funds allocable to States which have laws prohibiting the use of tax money for sectarian and private schools. This power is entirely too broad and the section, in our judgment, should be eliminated. This trustee would thus have power to override the laws of the State so far as the distribution of funds to nonpublic schools are concerned. It would create interminable trouble and, in our opinion, would be unpopular and unworkable. We recommend that this bill be changed to eliminate the delegation of any such power if a National Board is to administer the provisions of the act. We reiterate our statement that support for nonpublic schools should be completely stricken from the bill, and the reasons for our statement are: 1. That sponsors of nonpublic schools should pay for them. 2. That the tax money of citizens should not be diverted for the use and support of nonpublic schools. 3. It will follow that many of these nonpublic schools will disappear and the children and youth will be sent to public schools when it is ascertained that they are not permitted to share in Government appropriation. It goes without saying that one general nonsectarian free school system would be manifestly better and in the interest of education generally than to have our school system split up into sectarian, private (nonpublic schools), and public, schools. We cannot too strongly urge this point. We are opposed to that portion of section 5 of the bill which would authorize the Commissioner of Education with certain information in hand from the various States to compile educational data and to prepare plans for the location and construction of school buildings. We submit that this is a State matter and that it could be better administered by the various States under a system of general information furnished by the Commissioner of Education than to permit the actual preparation of plans, location, and construction of buildings. The executive departments of the Government furnish precise and definite information on many subjects essential to the work of farmers and other lines of work and industry without actually going in and telling the farmer where he shall clear his land or plant his field and what he shall put in them. To go beyond the pale of sound advice by the Department of Education would lead to confusion and frustration. We submit that under "Section 6. Buildings for educational purposes," the reference under (2) nonpublic educational agency be stricken from the bill. Under "Definitions," section 7 (d), we respectfully submit that the reference to "nonpublic school" be eliminated for reasons hereinbefore stated. Section 203. Availability of appropriations: Eliminate all reference to "trustee" and "nonpublic schools." Under section 303 of the bill we recommend the elimination of all reference to "trustee" and "nonpublic schools." Section 403: Eliminate authority of the trustee to disburse any part of the appropriation. We note that under the availability of appropriations as set forth in the bill it is provided that none of the funds to be paid by a trustee to nonpublic schools 73384-45-pt. 2—34 shall be used for payment of salaries of teachers. As we understand it, this bars the payment for teachers in sectarian or private schools. We have no objection to this feature of the bill. We sincerely hope that it will be the action of your honorable committee to confine the appropriations which are proposed to be made under S. 717 to the support of the American public free schools. If this is done your action will go a long way toward the accomplishment of the noble objects and purposes set forth in the preamble to this bill as recited at the beginning of this letter. By direction and authority of the national board of officers this letter is respectfully submitted. Your obedient servant, National Secretary. Senator JOHNSON. If there is nothing further, the hearings are closed. (Whereupon, at 12: 10 p. m., the hearings were closed.) Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, Chairman, Senate Committee on Education, TEACHERS UNION, New York, N. Y., May 6, 1945. United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: The press has reported some of the arguments that the proponents of the Mead-Aiken bill (S. 717) have advanced before your committee. I anticipated some of these arguments when I appeared before your committee on February 2, 1945, in behalf of the Hill-Thomas bill (S. 181). I now submit an additional brief which I hope your committee will consider and add to the record of its hearings. To grant public funds for the support of parochial schools would be a definite, radical violation of the various State and the Federal constitutions, and a reversal of American policy on religious freedom which has been thoroughly vindicated by 300 years of our history. Every one of the State constitutions contains a bill of rights, and every one of these bills contains a clause guaranteeing religious freedom. All the constitutions are very definite and eloquent on that subject. The proponents of the bill S. 717 ignore the fundamental fact that the freedom of religion not only means the right to worship as one's faith directs, but also means that the authority of government shall not be used to impose any particular religious creed upon citizens. It means that no tax or tithe shall be collected for the purpose of propagating any denomination's doctrines. That is just what the appropriation of public funds to help maintain parochial schools means. For the prime reason for the existence of the parochial schools is the propagation of certain creeds and dogmas of one faith or another. Nearly all the State constitutions contain specific provisions forbidding the appropriation of State or local funds for the support of sectarian institutions. Bill S. 717 was deliberately designed to circumvent these State constitutions. What a flagrant misuse of Federal power is here proposed. What a glaring contradiction there is in the arguments of the proponents of this measure who have heretofore appeared at congressional hearings to oppose Federal aid for schools because Federal aid would inevitably, they said, lead to Federal control of the State's schools. They are now saying, in effect, "We do not mind Federal control, if we can have a goodly share of Federal funds." They are saying, too, "We will oppose Federal aid for public schools if we cannot have a proportionate share of the funds for our schools." This calls to mind the fable of the dog in the manger. The argument has been advanced that to grant Federal aid for public schools without a corresponding subsidy to private schools would be unfair to citizens who support and patronize parochial schools containing over 2,000,000 children. This argument is intenable. It opposes the public school against the parochial school as if they were in competition with each other. In our democratic system public and private schools are not in competitive conflict but complementary to one another. The people of the whole Nation have conceived of free public education as an absolutely necessary foundation of our democratic system. It is a contradiction of our democracy to curtail the maintenance of public education because many citizens prefer to send their children to private schools. The public schools are in dire need of greater support. It is a national need, and only the National Government has the authority and the resources for equalizing the educational opportunity of the children of the various parts of the Nation. Free public schools, freedom of religion, separation of church and state, are all fundamental in our democratic system. The tithe is illegal. It is the use of governmental power of taxation for the establishment of religion, a contradiction of a most vital part of our bill of rights. At least one proponent of this bill has advanced the argument to you that the denial of public funds to parochial schools is based on the concepts that the state should monopolize all educational endeavor and that governmental agencies alone can develop worthy citizens. That is not the American concept of education. All our States allow perfect freedom of choice of attendance at public or private schools, provided the private schools maintain certain minimum standards of academic instruction. In no other country have private schools, religious and secular, prospered more and been freer from interference with their policies and methods than in America. That fact apparently is not properly appreciated by those who claim that Federal aid for schools is unfair if it does not include a subsidy for private schools. The patrons and supporters of parochial schools should more fully appreciate the fact that guarantys of their freedom are written into both our Federal and our State constitutions. The interests that are asking you to divert public funds to the support of parochial schools are asking you to revive ancient contentions, quarrels, and strife that we experienced in the earlier history of our country, and which we settled in one State after another by adopting religious freedom as a fundamental right and by a complete separation of church and state. They would have us bring on the dissensions, division, and disruptions that we have witnessed in France, in Mexico, and in other countries in recent years when those countries undertook to effect a separation of church and state. Happily Americans of our generation know little of the bitterness of the old religious quarrels. Perhaps those who seek to reestablish tax support for religious institutions hope that present-day Americans are unaware of their own history and that we will inadvertently undo the work of our forefathers. But I think they will be disappointed. I think Americans will not at this late date attempt to reverse the course of history and reestablish state authority in matters of conscience. A compilation of the clauses in the constitutions of the 48 States and of the Federal Government bearing on the subject of religious freedom would make a very impressive historical document. Utah's entrance into the Union was challenged on the ground that the major religious institution within its borders was incompatible with American institutions generally. So in writing the constitution for the proposed new State the authors of the document had to set forth clearly the principles of religious freedom. In one section of their constitution they wrote a very good epitome of the principles of religious freedom which the older States had already adopted. Section IV of Utah's bill of rights reads as follows: "The rights of conscience shall never be infringed. The State shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof; no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office of public trust or for any vote at any election; nor shall any person be incompetent as a witness or juror on account of religious belief or the absence thereof. There shall be no union of church and State, nor shall any church dominate the State or interfere with its functions. No public money or property shall be appropriated to any religious worship, exercise, or instruction, or for the support of any ecclesiastical establishment." (Constitution of Utah, Declaration of Rights, sec. IV.) In the same constitution the article on the free public-school system contains a section for bidding the State or any subdivision of it from appropriating any public funds for the support of sectarian schools or other sectarian institutions. Nearly 40 of the State constitutions contain very specific provisions against the expenditure of any public funds for the support of religious schools and other religious institutions. It is not necessary to quote all of them here. The following are typical: New York: "Neither the State nor any subdivision thereof, shall use its property or credit or any public money, or authorize or permit either to be used, directly or indirectly, in aid or maintenance, other than for examination or inspection, of any school or institution of learning wholly or in part under control or direction of any religious denomination, or in which any denominational tenet or doctrine is taught." (Constitution of New York, Art. LX, Sec. 4.) This has been modified by constitutional amendment to permit the publicschool busses to carry children to parochial schools. Massachusetts: no grant, appropriation, or use of public money or property or loan of public credit shall be made or authorized by the Commonwealth or any political division thereof for the purpose of founding, maintaining, or aiding any school or institution of learning, whether under public control or otherwise, wherein any denominational doctrine is inculcated, ." (Constitution of Massa chusetts, amendment XLVI, sec. 2.) In the beginning of its history, Massachusetts undertook to make Puritans out of all of its inhabitants, but by experience it learned that State authority should not be employed to inculcate denominational doctrines. The Constitution of Montana is very specific on this subject: "Neither the legislative assembly, nor any county, city, town, or school district, or other public corporations, shall ever make directly, or indirectly, any appropriation, or pay from any public fund or moneys whatever or mak any grant of lands or other property in aid of any church, or for any sectarian purpose, or to aid in the support of any school, academy, or seminary, college, university, or other literary, scientific institution, controlled in whole or in part by any church, sect, or denomination whatever," (Constitution of Montana, Art. XI, sec. 8.) The authors of that section seemed determined not to leave any loophole whatsoever for granting aid to sectarian institutions. Thirty-nine of the State constitutions contain specific provisions against the use of public funds for sectarian schools. The following States do not have such express provisions but their sections on religious freedom would preclude the use of taxes for the propagation of any particular faith: Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont. The constitutional provisions of the 48 States, plainly expressed deep convictions and the strong determinations of the American people on religious freedom. They are not to be ignored or circumvented by Congress. Yours truly, CHARLES J. HENDLEY, President, Teachers Union, Local 555 State, County, and Municipal Workers of America. NATIONAL LAYMEN'S COUNCIL, Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, Chairman, Senate Committee on Education and Labor, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: I am enclosing testimony I wish to file into the record as relating to Senate bill 717. I appeared before your committee and testified on Senate bill 181-and will appreciate it if you will place this material in the record for me. Thank you. Yours truly, GEO. W. ROBNETT, Executive Secretary. TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION TO S. 717, TENDERED FOR THE RECORD BY GEORGE W. ROBNETT, CHICAGO, ILL., REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL LAYMEN'S COUNCIL AND THE CHURCH LEAGUE OF AMERICA, OF THE SAME ADDRESS The Church League of America is a national organization serving in the capacity of better understanding between clergy and laymen in matters of common interest. Our committee of clergy consists of nearly 1,000 clergymen of essentially all denominations and widely scattered throughout the United States. The National Laymen's Council is essentially the laymen's committee of the Church League of America and is sponsored by hundreds of leading businessmen who are in the main active churchmen. Our work also embraces education as a closely related field. There are many reasons why S. 717 is an objectionable bill which are of such interwoven character as to make the bill objectionable as a whole. 1. The bill is full of political-control potentials. |