but, speaking practically, if that is true, and that is the organization in the State, I do not see any way of getting around it.

Mr. DONOVAN. It would be regrettable if that policy would interfere with the workings of the bill.

Mr. CARY. It would be regrettable; and I know from my own experience if that board is appointed it is under the control of the governor.

Mr. DONOVAN. Is it not true that the men on those boards are not always educators but are business men?

Mr. CARY. It is rarely the case that they are educators. They are most always lawyers or doctors or others in this or the other sort of education

Senator SMITH. Take, for instance, a State that has a university and certain branches throughout the States, and you have the trustees of that university.

Mr. CARY. Yes, sir.

Senator SMITH. And you have a board of education entirely satisfactory from that community of the State

Mr. CARY (interrupting). Sometimes we do and sometimes we do

not.

Senator SMITH. That is the situation in my State. If I had my say, I would like to make the board the chancellor of the university, the superintendent of education, the president of the agricultural department, and create a board to administer the fund in our State. I would prefer that the supervising should be done by the chancellor of the university; the State superintendent, whoever he may be; the president of the agricultural college, whoever he may be; and the president of the Georgia Technical Institute, whoever he might be. Mr. CARY. That would take it out of politics.

Senator SMITH. And there is no State organization now known as the national board or educational authority in the States?

Mr. CARY. Possibly in few of the States; I do not know.

Senator SMITH. I would like my State to create these ex-officio officers to take charge of this fund.

Mr. CARY. Yes.

I wish to state one other thing as fundamental. It was intimated by the chairman of this committee that you had heard possibly enough about the low salaries paid teachers, but I want to say to you there is no more fundamental question in the United States than the question of the salaries of teachers. It will matter very little what provision you make for the training of teachers if you give them no salaries after they are trained. It is a very serious condition that is confronting us in the United States, as was pointed out by Dr. Bagley. We have young men who know nothing about our Government, or very little, excepting from a little book, and know very little about the ideals of this country, who are teaching the rising generation. They are ill-trained and uninformed, and the result we must feel in the course of a generation or two in this country in a very disastrous sort of way, and all the time we are sifting out the abler men of the country through our industrial organizations, and taking the abler people into the industries and other occupations than that of teaching, and leaving those of little ambition, and the young, and the inexperienced to do the training

of the next generation. If the Congress can recognize that fact in some substantial way so as to increase the pay of the teachers it will be a great thing, but that can not be done without ample provision made for the pay of teachers, because if they do not have that pay they will go into other business. Not so much perhaps, or to the extent that it is now going, but it will go..

Mr. DONOVAN. I would like to ask Dr. Bagley a question. Do you know how President Butler feels about this proposed legislation?

Dr. BAGLEY. My understanding was that at the outset he was not strongly for it.

Mr. DONOVAN. I have a letter from President Hadley, of Yale, in which he states that he does not believe there is a demand for this legislation, and I offer in the record a letter from Gov. Smith, of New York.

STATE OF NEW YORK, EXECUTIVE CHAMBER,
Albany, July 21, 1919.

Hon. JEROME F. DONOVAN, M. C.,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN: I am in receipt of a letter signed by the acting commissioner of education of our State in opposition to the bill now pending to create an executive department to be known as the department of education. I am sending it herewith in order that you may bring it to the attention of the committee having the bill in charge, to the end that they may know the attitude of the department of education in this State. With kind regards and best wishes, I am,

Sincerely, yours,

ALFRED E. SMITH.

Mr. DONOVAN. I also offer in the record a letter from Augustus S. Downing, the assistant commissioner and director of education. of New York, dated July 19.

THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND
STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,

To Gov. ALFRED E. SMITH,

Executive Chamber, Albany, N. Y.

Albany, July 19, 1919.

DEAR SIR: After conference with President John H. Finley I forward to you the following memorandum on House Representative bill No. 7, introduced May 19, 1919, by Mr. Towner, and referred to the Committee on Education and ordered printed:

MEMORANDUM.

The bill has three distinct purposes:

(1) To create a department of education.

(2) To authorize appropriations for the conduct of said department.

(3) To authorize appropriation of money to encourage the States in the promotion and support of education, and for other purposes.

This memorandum will discuss each of these purposes separately:

(1 and 2) To create a department of education and to authorize appropriations for the conduct of said department.

It is proposed by section 1 to create an executive department known as the Department of Education, with a secretary of education to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, at a salary of $12,000 a year, with a tenure of office the same as that of the heads of other executive departments; in brief it creates a new Cabinet officer, to be known as the Secretary of Education.

Both educators and those who are making a constant study of Government questions are divided as to the wisdom of the creation of such a Cabinet position. The determination of the matter hinges upon the question, "Is education a department of Government coordinate with the Departments of State, War,

Navy, Post Office, and other departments, the heads of which constitute the President's Cabinet?"

In the final analysis of the provisions of the United States Constitution and the constitutions of the several States the answer to this question must be in the negative, and the only justification or argument in favor of it is the necessity for and importance of the education of all the people in a democratic republican form of government, such as that of the United States.

Section 5 specifies the duty of the department of education, which is, namely, research in the fields of (a) illiteracy; (b) immigrant education; (c) public school education, and especially rural education; (d) physical education, including health education, recreation, and sanitation; (e) preparation and supply of competent teachers for the public schools; (f) in such other fields as in the judgment of the secretary of education may require attention and study. It can clearly be shown that the United States Commissioner of Education, who presides over the Bureau of Education in the Department of the Interior, has been performing all of these duties for a considerable number of years, and the bill, therefore, adds no new duties to this particular officer, but in the second paragraph confers upon him the authority to make appointments, or recommendations of appointments, of educational attachés to foreign embassies and of investigators and representatives of his department as may be needed, and section 6 provides an annual appropriation of $500,000 to the Department of Education for the purpose of paying salaries, conducting investigations, paying incidental and traveling expenses and rent, where necessary, in order to enable the department to carry out the provisions of the act. These provisions of the bill simply are enacted to give to the secretary of education the same authority and dignity that attach to the Secretary of State and other members of the Cabinet, and it can readily be understood why serious objection is easily maintained to this proposition.

But the bill goes further and takes on the attitude of a further extension of paternalism of the National Government. Section 7 provides that in order to encourage the States in the promotion and support of education there is to be appropriated for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1921, and annually thereafter, an appropriation of $100,000,000, to be apportioned, disbursed, and expended as afterwards provided for. The day is far past when the States need encouragement for the promotion and support of education. There may be yet States that do need such support and do need such encouragement, but they are few and far between, for every State in the Union recognizes the absolute necessity for an educated citizenship.

If the Government had at this time a superabundance of money in the Treasury and it wanted to distribute $100,000,000 of such surplus money among the States in which it could be shown that there was necessity for aid in the encouragement and support of education, such an appropriation of moneys, regardless of whether there be a separate executive department of education or not, might clearly be made and the distribution accomplished through the machinery of government already existing, as are the appropriations of money made under the provisions of the Smith-Hughes law, but at this time this money will have to be raised by tax, either indirect or by some other means, such as the income tax, upon the taxpayers of the country, and its distribution in any State for any of the purposes specified in section 8; removal of illiteracy, 9; Americanization of immigrants, 10; the equalizing of educational opportunities, for the partial payment of teachers' salaries, providing better instruction, extending school terms, etc., 11; the promotion of physical education, 12; preparation of school-teachers for public service is determined by section 13.

This section provides that in order to secure the benefits of the appropriation the State shall by legislative enactment accept the provisions of this act, but one of the provisions is that no money shall be apportioned to any State for any part of the funds, as provided for in sections 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the act, unless a sum equally as large shall be provided by said State, or by local authorities, or by both, for the same purpose.

So far as New York State is concerned, if the bill should be enacted into law and the legislature of the State should accept its provisions, it would simply add one more serious burden of taxation to the inhabitants of the State without just

reason.

It will be argued by those in favor of the bill that the individual tax resulting from the acceptance of the provision of this act would be measureably small, but in a State where there are annually appropriated by the legislature, with executive approval, large sums of money, running into the

millions, for the support of the State department of education and the support and encouragement of localities in promoting education, and in addition to such State appropriations every locality is making large appropriations and placing upon itself a heavy burden of taxation for the support and encouragement and promotion of education in the locality (notably New York City, which makes an appropriation of upward of $40,000,000 annually for its local educational purposes), it would seem that the acceptance of the provisions of this bill by the Legislature of the State of New York would be clearly unjust to the taxpayers of the State.

This State has taken the lead in all of those fields encouraged by sections 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, and already, by the initiative of the State department and boards of education in municipalities and the larger community centers, has engaged in a war on illiteracy, in the work of Americanization of immigrants, both adult and juvenile, in a movement to equalize educational opportunities for all portions of the State, in an increased quota for the payment of teachers' salaries, for the extension and adaptation of public libraries for educational purposes, so that, so far as the State of New York is concerned, the provisions of the bill are not needed.

Finally, if it should be pointed out that the acceptance of the provisions of the bill relating to the sharing in the appropriations provided therein is left optional with any State, the answer is that if the bill is just and proper as a Government measure every State should be required to fully meet the provisions of the bill, and even a State not accepting the provisions of the bill relating to the apportionment would still have to pay its pro rata part of the $100,000,000 carried in the bill.

It may reasonably be pointed out that such appropriation is only a very small minimum, but as soon as the bill is enacted into law such an appropriation would be necessarily increased to several hundred millions. This conclusion is based upon the experience of our own State, for now this State is expending in round numbers $80,000,000 annually for the support of public education in all its various activities, and it is only a comparatively few years within which for this State alone the increase has been 333 per cent. It may readily be believed, therefore, that $100,000,000 for the entire country would prove to be only a pittance of the amount that would actually be required and demanded by the States that would take advantage of the paternalism thus offered them.

From the foregoing, therefore, it would seem, so far as New York State is concerned, that the introduction of the bill at this time is inopportune and its passage is clearly not desirable.

Very respectfully, yours,

AUGUSTUS S. DOWNING.

Mr. DONOVAN. I also wish to place in the record a letter from John Grier Hibben, president of Princeton University, which reads:

JULY 24, 1919.

MY DEAR MR. DONOVAN: Your letter of July 15 has been forwarded to me here. I am in entire agreement with President Hadley that there is no need for the proposed legislation submitted in the Towner educational bill. A secretary of education seems to me wholly unnecessary and undesirable.

Sincerely, yours,

JOHN GRIER HIBBEN.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any parties who desire to be heard further, or are there any new parties, or is there anyone who desires to be heard in opposition to this bill. We would like to close this hearing.

Mr. SMITH. I present a statement from a committee representing college presidents indorsing the general proposition of a national department of education, which was handed me last year.

The CHAIRMAN. It may appear in the record.

(The statement referred to is printed in the record in full as follows:)

The undersigned, a committee of representatives of various national education associations, very respectfully submit the following considerations bearing

on the questions involved in the bill at present before your committee authorizing the creation of a department of education, under the direction of a secretary who shall become a member of the Cabinet.

It seems clear that the complete and efficient mobilization for purposes of the war of all the educational resources of the country-amounting to a billion dollars in capitalization, thousands of trained experts and instructors, and hundreds of thousands of students-calls for some great central organizing agency to serve both as a clearing house for plans and a source of effective practical leadership and of inspiration. It is believed that many of the governmental organizations already at work in the field of education might profitably continue their operations undisturbed, at least, for the period of the war; but it is also apparent that a great part of the field of useful activity has not yet been touched, and can best be reached through a large and comprehensive national agency.

Following the usual history in the development of large undertakings, many independent organizations have sprung up, actuated by patriotic motives, and many of these are either wasting energy through overlap of endeavor or are actually hindering one another by working at cross purposes. The time has come for coordination and direction through a national agency which can both unify and stimulate effort.

It also seems clear that since the Nation is forced into a position of leadership in the conflict for world-wide democracy it will be forced to help make democracy safe for the world as well as the world safe for democracy. This means great international relationships to be established between the educational system of the United States and those of Europe, South America, and the Orien. These relationships will need to be established and directed by national educational ministries in the various countries involved, just as education is already directed by well-organized ministries in some of the most important European countries. In dealing with France or England, a State department of education would be at a great advantage over lesser governmental agencies or purely voluntary organizations.

The opportunity is before us of cooperating in large educational undertak ings with France, England, and Italy, and of helping in the educational reorganization of Russia and the educational awakening of China. Our educational relationships with the South American Republics also are sure to grow rapidly in extent and in importance. We must act in all these matters as a Nation, and not as separate and individual States. While leaving to the States all the old measure of autonomy in their own educational systems, it will be necessary to provide some central and general agency through which they may all express themselves in policies which are either national or international in scope.

Since education is universally recognized as the first corollary of democracy, it seems incongruous that it should not be recognized as of equal rank in the councils of the Nation with that accorded commerce, labor, and agriculture, all of which have representatives in the President's Cabinet.

Under the new conditions which the war has produced, the supreme importance of education to the country stands out more clearly than ever before. The great ideals which have always been in the minds of the people more or less in solution, need to be crystallized into definite form, and to become well defined directing motives in the national consciousness. In the absence of a State religion, the educational organization of the country must be the means of placing emphasis on the great moral and spiritual values which are ultimately the determining factors in a nation's history. By the enlightenment which it spreads and the emphasis which it places on the great moral laws, it can prove a large measure of salvation in the shifting social and economic order which we are inevitably facing at the close of the war. What use will be made of the new measure of leisure which seems to be coming to the workman and what application he will make of the enlarged power which is already his, will largely be determined by the place which is accorded education in the national life. The enlargement of the suffrage also brings weighty additional responsibilities to the schools.

The Nation's ideals, consciously expressed in the lives of its people, determine its destiny. As Humboldt has said, "What we desire in the government, we must first put into the minds of the people through the schools."

These are some of the considerations which seem to demand the recognition of education in the largest and most dignified way by the Government. The creation of a department of education would in our judgment unify, direct,