Mrs. MCGOLDRICK. I do not know where we would stop; we are getting so top-heavy in Washington. Mr. BLACK of New York. Why should there be a department established just as a research and fact-finding proposition? Mrs. McGOLDRICK. Under the same argument we really should have a department for religion. Mr. PECKHAM. Mr. Chairman, the witness who was scheduled to appear next is Mrs. Jennie Bartley Green, chairman of the committee on legislation, Catholic Daughters of America. She had to catch the 5 o'clock train; consequently had to leave. She waited here in all good faith and she has left a brief written statement. The CHAIRMAN. You may file that for the record. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF MRS. JENNIE BARTLEY GREEN, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION, CATHOLIC DAughters of America, Baltimore, Md. Gentlemen of the Committee: As chairman of the committee on legislation, I have been regularly delegated to represent at this hearing the organization of the Catholic Daughters of America. This is a national body of 200,000 American Catholic women, consisting of 1,200 individual units, existing in 45 States and also in the possessions of Panama, Porto Rico, and Cuba. I am instructed to register the unanimous disapproval of House Bill 7 now in consideration before this committee, the purpose of which is to create a Federal department of education. We oppose this bill as un-American in spirit and purpose; as opening the way to the standardization of curricula and methods, the value and expediency of which are questioned; as unnecessary and superfluous since we have already established, and in good service, the Bureau of Education which, with reasonable expansion and development, can offer all the advantages pledged by this proposed bill without its undesirable and dangerous provisions; as vesting in the Federal Government another of the powers essentially belonging to the sovereign States, thereby contributing in an immeasurable degree to the pernicious centralization of power so objectionable to the true American mind; as introducing into a field as yet fairly free from the obnoxious influence of national politics the trafficking of dubious politicians. Therefore, we deem this bill in its present form as detrimental to the best interests of American education. Mr. PECKHAM. Mr. Thomas F. Cadwalader, of Baltimore, is here and wants to go back to-night. The CHAIRMAN. We will hear Mr. Cadwalader. STATEMENT OF THOMAS F. CADWALADER, BALTIMORE, MD., CHAIRMAN, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, SENTINELS OF THE REPUBLIC I am Mr. CADWALADER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, in view of the lateness of the hour I will be as brief as I can. chairman of the executive committee of the Sentinels of the Republic, an organization that has been mentioned here this morning. Mr. Warren, the first speaker at to-day's session, was one of our former presidents, and I think many of the members of the committee know what that organization is. It is an organization of public-spirited citizens all over the United States to support and maintain to the best of their ability by all legitimate means the fundamental American principles under which our Government was founded, to oppose undue centralization of power in Washington at the expense of local self-government and the rights of the States, which members of our organizations believe essential to the preservation of ordered liberty. I had the honor of appearing before the joint committee of the Senate and House two years ago on a bill that was very similar to this, almost identical, on behalf of the same organization, and at that time I presented letters and communications from various men high placed in the educational world. I have letters from some of the same persons today. I want to say that then and now the educational leaders of this country who are not on the public pay roll-that is, who are not in the public-school system of any of the States-appear to have been almost a unit and to be still practically a unit in opposition to this or any similar measure. The educators that you have had before you, both two years ago and originally at the time of the SmithTowner bill, and to-day, are mostly, if not all, members of the National Education Association and drawing salaries from the taxpayers of the different States; whereas, the educational experts who have testified on our side against this bill are not beholden to the taxpayers of the country. 1 There are very The first letter I would like to read is a very brief one from the headmaster of Phillips Academy, Andover, Mass. The CHAIRMAN. Pardon me just a moment. few of the members of the committee here and I do not want to foreclose you at all, I want you to take all the time you want, but if you want to put those into the record and save the time of reading them it will be all right. Mr. CADWALADER. I will just run through them very briefly and then put them into the record. The CHAIRMAN. Just as you feel about it. Mr. CADWALADER. This is from Alfred E. Stearns: Mr. THOMAS F. CADWALADER, MARYLAND TRUST Co., Baltimore, Md. PHILLIPS ACADEMY, Andorer, Mass., April 19, 1928. MY DEAR SIR: Will you permit me to register my vigorous opposition to the bills now pending before the House of Representatives and the United States Senate and by which it is aimed to create a department of education in our National Government. Several years ago I was disposed to favor the establishment of such a department, but the more carefully I studied the problem, the more, and definitely, I became convinced that the step proposed would prove not only dangerous but distinctly detrimental to the cause of education in general throughout the United States. I most sincerely hope that these measures will not go through. Faithfully yours, AES/G ALFRED E. STEARNS, Headmaster. Phillips Academy, Andover, Mass., as the members of the committee no doubt know, is one of the oldest and most famous of the private schools in New England. Phillips Andover and Phillips Exeter have had a national reputation for a great many years. Now I have here a copy of a letter that no doubt, Mr. Chairman, you have in your files from President Stephen L. Penrose of Pitman College, Walla Walla, Wash., because he wrote to you and sent me a copy of the letter. So it is no doubt already in the file. The CHAIRMAN. Whatever letters come in, either for or against the bill, I expect either to insert the names under those for and those against, or if it is a real article I will try and include it in the record. Mr. CADWALADER. Here is another letter that came to me addressed to you, sir, and I opened it by error. It is very brief. I should not have opened it at all. I understand it is in opposition to the bill. [Handing the letter to the chairman.] The CHAIRMAN. This is from Boston University Law School, from Homer Albers, dean of the law school, opposing the bill. Iwill file it. (The letter referred to follows:) BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL, Ashburton Place, Boston, Mass., April 20, 1928. DANIEL A. REED, Chairman, c/o T. F. Cadwalader, Esq., Maryland Trust Bldg., Baltimore, Md. SIR: No doubt you and your committee are familiar with the arguments against the so-called Curtis-Reed bill (the Federal Department of Education bill). Ás a citizen and as an educator, and as a student and admirer of the Constitution of the United States, I earnestly protest against such legislation. Very truly yours, HOMER ALBERS, Dean. Mr. CADWALADER. He also opposed the bill two years ago. President Frank J. Goodnow, of Johns Hopkins University, testified two years ago and expected to come to-day, but he has been detained by a meeting of his board this afternoon, and he expects to go to Europe very soon. He has resigned the presidency of Johns Hopkins. I can quote him, however, as being very earnestly in opposition to this bill. Mr. DOUGLASS. Have you a letter from him there? Mr. CADWALADER. I have a letter stating why he can not be here, but not expressing any view on the bill, but I am perfectly certain of what his views are. I also regret to say that Mr. William L. Rawls, president of the school board of Baltimore City, who has testified before this committee on previous bills, also expected to be here and was unavoidably detained. Now I have a letter from the provost of the University of Pennsylvania, Doctor Penniman, which I would like to read. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, MY DEAR MR. CADWALADER: I am sorry to learn that the bill calling for the establishment of a Federal department of education with a seat in the Cabinet is again being considered by Congress. Two years ago I went on record as opposed to the bill and stated my reasons for so doing. The facts have not changed in the meantime and the same objections to such legislation are now pertinent that were when the bill was first proposed. Education is a matter for the States to control and not for the Federal Government, except so far as the Government may maintain properly a fact-finding department to gather and present statistics concerning education in the United States. It is not desirable that education should be uniform throughout the country. On the other hand, variety in different parts of the country is, I believe, highly desirable. The large budget which would necessarily be needed to carry out any plans, such as is contemplated in the bill now pending, would not be justified because there is no evidence whatever that the country needs the Federal department of education, or that if such a department were organized there would be any resulting improvement in educational conditions throughout the Nation. The fact that European countries have cabinet officers of education is no argument that the United States should have one. This bill is simply another attempt to put on the Federal Government duties which it was never intended to perform and which it is doubtful whether it could perform satisfactorily. The State governments, on the contrary, were intended to care for the educational and other needs of their inhabitants, and so far as I am aware they are doing this for the most part exceedingly well, and where improvement is needed it is already being undertaken. I earnestly hope that the committee will not recommend the bill. Sincerely yours, THOMAS F. CADWALADER, Esq., 701 Maryland Trust Building, Baltimore, Md. JOSIAH H. PENNIMAN. I would like to add to that-I happen to be a trustee of the University of Pennsylvania; I have known Doctor Penniman for a great many years, and I know the work that the University of Pennsylvania has done in cooperation with the public-school system, not only of the State of Pennsylvania but of neighboring States. I think any person interested in public education will agree with me that the school men's week, which takes place annually at the University of Pennsylvania, where educators in the public-school systems of all the adjoining States, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland, and I believe New York, annually foregather, is one of the most helpful and important gatherings of public educators in the country. The provost of the university, I understand, presides at those gatherings ordinarily, is certainly familiar with what goes on there, and is in very close touch, although the University of Pennsylvania is not a State institution in the ordinary sense, he is in very close touch, and the university is in very close touch, with public free education. It provides a great number of free scholarships for the graduates of the schools of the city of Philadelphia and the State of Pennsylvania, and some I think from outside the State. It is one of the most important institutions, and although a private institution it is practically the capstone of the educational system of the great State of Pennsylvania, and I do not know anybody who is more competent to express an opinion on the need or the desirability of such legislation than Provost Penniman, who has occupied that position for a number of years and prior to that has been all his life in the business of education. I would like also to file a letter dated two years ago in reference to the bill then pending, the Curtis-Reed bill, I think it was called, which, as I say, was practically the same or very similar to this bill, from Bishop Warren A. Candler, bishop since 1898 of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, chancellor of Emory University since 1914, former editor of the Christian Advocate and several other religious publications. This letter is addressed to a Washington lady, Miss Mary G. Kilbreth, reading as follows: MISS MARY G. KILBRETH, Washington, D. C. ATLANTA, GA., February 17, 1926. DEAR MISS KILBRETH: Your letter with interesting inclosures has been received. I am quite as much opposed to the Curtis-Reed bill as I was to the SmithTowner bill; but I am so situated at this time that I can not go to Washington as you request, nor am I able to prepare an article upon the subject. I hope the bill will not pass and certainly the able argument of Dr. J. Gresham Machen ought to be sufficient to defeat it. Yours very truly, NOTE. The inclosures referred to above were copies of the Curtis-Reed bill, and of the address by Prof. J. Gresham Machen, of Princeton Theological Seminary, before the annual meeting of the Sentinels of the Republic, at Washington, January 12, 1926. Attached to this is an article written by Bishop Candler, published in the Western Recorder, May 10, 1923, at the time the SmithTowner bill was up, and which expresses more fully opposition to that measure. With the chairman's permission I will file that paper. (The paper referred to follows:) AN UTTERLY UNWISE AND INDEFENSIBLE MEASURE [Extracts from an article in The Western Recorder, May 10, 1923, by Bishop Warren A. Candler, bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and chancellor of Emory University, Atlanta, Ga.] Many good people become so eager for the attainment of a worthy object that they will attempt to reach it by the most unwise, not to say mischievous means. Thus in seeking to correct one evil they create another. Very often the ill they create is worse than that which they seek to cure. Another case in point is that of the Towner-Sterling educational bill, which is an utterly unwise and indefensible measure. This measure seeks to establish an executive department of education, similar to that of the Department of the Interior or the Department of Justice, with a secretary in the President's Cabinet to administer it. It would receive large annual appropriations for distribution among the States, and the secretary by disbursing these large sums upon certain conditions could, and would, color and control the education of the youth of the Nation. It is far worse in all its features than the vicious "Blair bill" which the people opposed vigorously and defeated overwhelmingly about 30 years ago. It proposes for the United States a thoroughly Prussianized system of education. The creation of a department of religion with a secretary in the President's Cabinet would be scarcely more injurious or more un-American. But some good people clamor for its adoption because they wish to extirpate ignorance and promote education in the land. Certain educational associations, in which a group of officials propose all sorts of resolutions and secure their adoption by a body of unthinking delegates, have indorsed this dangerous bill. They claim the teachers of America are favorable to it. As a matter of fact an overwhelming majority of the teachers of the United States have never given it a thought. If they had, they would oppose it as an unwarranted and hurtful interference by the Federal Government with the work of their noble profession. All the people will unite against it as they did against the "Blair bill" about 30 years ago, once they understand it. But at present the people of the country are asleep on the subject, and they need to be aroused. They do not perceive the purpose of the bill nor apprehend the wretched consequences of the measure if it were adopted. It is encouraging, however, to see that some wise men are awake to the peril with which it threatens the Nation, and are recording in the most emphatic manner their opposition to it. Recently the Board of Trade of Vicksburg, Miss., perceiving the evils inherent in the bill, sent, through its secretary, Mr. Frank H. Andrews, to the United States Senators from Mississippi a communication expressing strongly the condemnation of the measure by the board. To this communication of the Vicksburg Board of Trade Senator John Sharp Williams sent the following emphatic and unequivocal reply: Mr. FRANK H. ANDREWS, SECRETARY BOARD OF TRADE, Vicksburg, Miss. WASHINGTON, February 5, 1923. My DEAR MR. ANDREWS: I am absolutely opposed to adding another Cabinet officer to the President's political family under the guise of a secretary of educa |