Joseph M. Tally, president National Council of Catholic Men, Diocese of Providence, R. I.; Rev. Bishop William A. Hickey, D. D. I.

Branch 42, Knights of St. George; Edward P. Flederbach, 283 Terrace Street, Honesdale, Pa.

Knights of Columbus, Toledo Council No. 386, Fred D. Sulier, financial secretary, 1605 Jefferson Avenue, Toledo, Ohio.

Henry P. Sullivan, ex-commander, Drapeau-McPheters Post No. 180, American Legion.

St. George's Court, Catholic Order of Foresters, Mr. Peter Zubolizky, C., R. Lansing, Iowa.

The First Brigade of Ohio, Knights of St. John, E. G. Wolters, assistant adjutant general, 1890 West Fifth-seventh Street, Cleveland, Ohio.

Holy Name Society, Ervin Stein, secretary, Spearville, Kans.

Knights of St. George, branch 30, St. Alphonsus Parish, Leo J. Bischof, secretary, 1842 Eighteenth Street, Wheeling, W. Va.

Kentucky State Council, Knights of Columbus. George A. Burkley, secretary, 305 Columbia Building, Louisville, Ky.

Fourth Degree Assembly, Knights of Columbus, La Rabida Assembly, George Ciciva, 178 Yonkers Avenue, Yonkers, N. Y.

St. Peter's Benevolent Society, John Neuner, secretary, 273 Lily Avenue, San Francisco, Calif.

Catholic Order of Foresters, St. Rose of Lima Court 526, Henri Houle, recording secretary, Littleton, N. H.

Knights of Columbus, Lake County Council No. 2417, Ernest A. Fetsch, Lakeview, Oreg.

Mr. DOLLE. I would like now to read into the record a telegram from the Right Rev. Bishop Vincent Wehrle, O. S. B., D. D., the Catholic bishop of Bismarck, N. Dak. He wires as follows:

Bismarck diocese Catholics and their societies strongly object Curtis-Reed educational bills. Reasons: Office of sceretary of education is something abnormal among other secretaries of Cabinet, weakens State rights, favors educational bureaucracy, is strictly unnecessary, needlessly increases army of United States officials, and consequently higher taxation.

Here is another one from the Right Rev. John J. Mitty, D. D., bishop of Salt Lake City, Utah, who wires as follows:

In the name of the Catholic men of Utah and Nevada I authorize you to oppose the Curtis-Reed educational bill because of the eight objections stated in your letter of April 19.

I will later state these objections to you as what we regard as the outstanding reasons for our opposition to this bill.

Also I have the following letter from the bishop of Wheeling, W. Va., Rev. John J. Swint, dated April 24, 1928:

DEAR MR. DOLLE. We have now had, it seems to me, ample time to consider maturely and from every angle the question of a Federal department of education. I am more convinced than ever that such a department is not necessary and that it is fraught with very serious dangers. As an American citizen I most strongly protest against its establishment.

Many reasons might be given. I confine myself to two.

1. Everyone, friend or foe of the bill proposing the department, knows perfectly well that such a department will never stop at being merely an agency for educational studies and surveys, but that in course of time it will mean Federal domination and control of public education.

2. No one who knows the workings of a Federal department will think that the small appropriation now asked for will not increase immensely as the years go on, thus adding very materially to the already heavy school taxes.

I might add that the only real argument in favor of the department, i. e., giving prestige to education, is answered by saying that education is too important a matter to commit to the policies or dictation of a Federal department.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mr. DOLLE. I will try to state as briefly as I can what we regard as the serious objections to this legislation. The proponents of this bill

on other occasions have stated with considerable emphasis that there has been a failure of education in this country. Such a statement would not seem to be supported by the Federal Bureau of Education. Two years ago Mr. John J. Tigert, United States Commissioner of Education, presented an article in the American Review of Reviews, in the nature of a statistical review covering the advance of education in the first 20 years of the present century. I will insert that in the record, and you will notice he shows education is amply provided for, giving the number employed in it, and the amount of money spent upon it. It seems to us that this completely refutes any statements regarding illiteracy in this country due to lack of educational facilities, and that in that respect the statements of the proponents of the bill that additional stimulation would be necessary are not justified.

(The article referred to is as follows):

TWENTY-FIVE MILLION YOUNG AMERICANS GO TO SCHOOL

(By John J. Tigert, United States Commissioner of Education)

The great advance along all lines of human endeavor in the United States, at the close of the first quarter of the twentieth century, is particularly reflected in the progress made in education.

A statistical comparison between the educational situation at the end of the nineteenth century and the educational status at the present time reveals the following significant facts: The total population of the United States in 1900 was 75,602,515, with an estimated school population of 21,404,422. In 1924 the total population amounted to 112,078,611, with an estimated school population of 29,345,911. The percentage of the total population enrolled in public schools in 1900 was 20.5. In 1924 it was 21.7. In 1900 the percentage of school population enrolled in public schools was 72.4; in 1924 it was 82.8.

In the year 1900 the United States had enrolled in its public schools 15,503,110 children, of whom 14,983,859 were in the elementary schools, and 519,251 in high schools. We were expending for public education at that period the sum of $214,964,618 divided as follows: For capital outlay, $35,450,820; salaries of school employees, $137,687,746; other purposes, $41,826,052.

In 1924 the number of pupils enrolled in the public schools of the country reached 24,288,808, of whom 20,898,930 were in the elementary schools and 3,389,878 in secondary schools. We were expending for public education in the United States in 1924 the sum of $1,820,743,936, divided as follows: For capital outlay, $388,469,143; salaries of school employees, $978,064,705; other purposes, $454,210,088.

The average annual salary of all teachers in 1900 was $3.5; in 1924 it was $1,227. To accommodate the great army of school children, 263,280 schoolhouses were required in 1924.

The total number of teachers employed in public schools, elementary and secondary, in 1920 was 423,062; in 1924 the number was 761,308. The value of all school property amounted to $550,069,217 in 1900, and $3,744,780,000 in 1924. In 1900 the percentage of pupils in high schools was 3.3; in 1924 the percentage was 14.

The universities, colleges, and professional schools present the following interesting statistics: The total number of teachers in 1900 was 22,134; in 1924 it was 56,279. In 1900 the number of male students was 162,899; female, 61,385; making a total of 224,423. In 1924 the number of male students was 457,701; female students 268,423; total 726,124.

In 1900, 1 out of every 186 persons in the United States was a college graduate. In 1925, 1 out of every 89 is a college graduate.

The foregoing statistics show that educational progress compared with the growth of population is keeping abreast of the times, and that the rising genera→ tion of citizens is being generously cared for.

I present these statistics to you in order to show that the condition of public education in this country, while it may not be as satisfactory as it is hoped it will ultimately become, is by no means in such a con

dition of inefficiency or stagnation as to require the stimulus which the advocates of this bill say that it needs.

On behalf of the groups which I represent I wish the committee to know that our objections to this legislation may be shown upon the following grounds:

First. There is no public demand for this legislation. Favorable sentiment is due almost entirely to propaganda put out by those who have so persistently advocated the creation of a department of education. The present Bureau of Education can perform all of the functions of the proposed department.

Nothing has been shown to indicate that the efficiency of the work now conducted by the Bureau of Education will be increased by this legislation or that the new department will be able to do more or better work than the bureau now does or can do and it has not been shown that vocational and other special education would be benefited by abolishing the Federal Board of Vocational Education and other educational boards and transferring their duties to a new department.

The proposed measure, if enacted, would place education into the field of politics with all of its attendant evils.

Supporters of this bill say that education will be dignified by the department of education. It is more likely that the effect of the creation of this new department and the new place in the Cabinet of the President would expose education to the dangers of political interference of a great number of inspectors, research workers holding office in the department as a matter of political favor. This would tend to detract from the efficiency of the department and would lead to a waste of public money. Politics, we think, would necessarily influence the choice of the secretary of education and would also influence the appointment of his subordinates.

Third. This bill, if it does not expressly provide for the standardization of education, at least leads that way by indirection. The groundwork has been laid for it. It remains only to offer inducement to the States to accept the curricula and standards presented by the new department. The bill provides in section 8 as follows:

SEC. 8. (a) The Department of Education shall collect such statistics and facts as shall show the condition and progress of education in the several States and in foreign countries. In order to aid the people of the several States in estab lishing and maintaining more efficient schools and school systems, in devising better methods of organization, administration and financing of education, in developing better types of school buildings and in providing for their use, in improving methods of teaching, and in developing more adequate curricula and courses of study, research shall be undertaken in (1) rural education; (2) elementary education; (3) secondary education; (4) higher education; (5) professional education; (6) physical educa tion, including health education and recreation; (7) special education for the mentally and physically handicapped; (8) the training of teachers; (9) immigrant education; (10) adult education; and (11) such other fields as in the judgment of the Secretary of Education may require attention and study.

"Improving methods of teaching, and in developing more adequate curricula and courses of study," emphasizing that as one of the reasons why research shall be undertaken in rural education in elementary education, or any field covered by education, that is what we regard as an indication in the bill that would justify the fear that later it would lead to standardization. We think that the section referred to, which prescribes the duties of the department and provides among other things that it shall aid the people "in improving methods of

teaching and in developing more adequate curricula and courses of study," carries that danger.

We think there would be no object in conducting research into methods of teaching and developing more adequate curricula except to determine a standard of these which the department would fix as the best. This standard would, of course, be "recommended" to the States. In other bills offered to Congress by the backers of this measure the "recommendations" of the department were to be offered with Federal aid as an additional inducement for their acceptance. This bill does not contain appropriations for that purpose, but we think it has been adroitly drawn so that Federal support may be accomplished by future legislation if the bill creating a new department of education is enacted. Appropriations for this purpose undoubtedly will be asked at a later date.

When I say adroitly drawn, I do not mean the author of the bill drew it adroitly, for the reasons that the antecedents of this bill have also had behind them the support of a great educational body in the Ivowed purpose of seeking aid. When I use the word "adroitly," a mean that this bill when considered in its relation to previous bills offered to Congress, justifies the inference that efforts will be made later to get Federal aid which its backers do not now ask for.

Mr. FLETCHER. You do not mean adroitly in the sense that a lady yesterday referred to as camouflage?

Mr. DOLLE. I mean adroitly in the sense that there is a basis for Federal aid in the bill. I am assuming this bill, like its antecedents originated from the great educational association which has been its main supporter.

Mr. FLETCHER. Do you find anything specific in this bill to which you object? If so, I should like to know. Do you see any danger to those you are representing?

Mr. DOLLE. Yes, I do. At a hearing before another Congress on a similar measure the Secretary of the National Education Association, in charge of propaganda for the bill, is reported to have said at a meeting of the association that "it is inconceivable that the N. E. A. will ever give up the idea of the extension of Federal aid to education." We think that in the provision authorizing the department to determine standards of curricula and imposing methods of teaching the foundation has been laid for demanding later additional legislation which would enable a new department to impose these standards upon State education. No suggestion of standardization of curricula was contained in the Sterling-Reed bill which was before the Sixty-eighth Congress.

Mr. SEARS. If they found that public sentiment was against the old provision of Federal aid, and that Congress and the public would not stand for it, I suppose they would then have given that up and drawn the bill as it is now.

Mr. DOLLE. That is my impression, in the form that the legislation has taken, that it probably has been so regarded. Indeed, I have a quotation which I can read from the report of the Houston meeting of the National Education Association last year, that such is the fact that public sentiment no longer supports a bill which provides for creation of a department of education and at the same time carries appropriations to aid the States.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. You think people would kind of bow down to them?

Mr. CADWALADER. I think that is true.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. You have never been a Congressman. [Laughter.]

Mr. DOUGLASS. It says in section 2:

There shall be in the department of education an assistant secretary of educa tion, to be appointed by the President and to receive a salary of $7,500 per

annum.

And

There shall also be a solicitor, a chief clerk, and a dis ursing clerk, nd such chief of bureaus and such scientific, technical, and clerical assistants as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this act.

Mr. CADWALADER. Yes, sir; I think it would be a provision for the creating of a new contingent of what we call in Maryland "job holders."

Mr. DOUGLASS. Snoopers?

Mr. CADWALADER. Snoopers, maybe, to go around and with authority that is not legal but is all the more objectionable because it is not legal, backed by legal power, undertake to exert authority without responsibility.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I want to ask you one or two questions. I understood you in the course of your remarks to make some criticism of members of the National Education Association who have appeared here in favor of this bill, and you used an expression that they were on the pay roll, while you were going to call attention to certain other persons who had favored us with their opinions and who were not on the pay roll.

Mr. CADWALADER. I do not think that was a criticism. I think it was a mere statement of fact.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Well, I assume that is probably a criticism. Mr. CADWALADER. I do not criticize the educators for being on the pay roll, of course. That is their business. They are employed by the States. That is perfectly all right. But I merely say that those people who are favoring the educational people who are favoring this bill-are on the public pay roll.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I was trying to deduce what might be in your mind or what you wanted us to get from that statement. I inferred that you meant that because they were on the pay roll and favored this bill naturally if that was the question they would not be favoring anything in this that would increase the burdens on the taxpayer would they?

Mr. CADWALADER. Well, I do not know. While I have not had the honor of being a Congressman, I do not know that it follows at all that because a man is on the pay roll he does not want to increase the tax bill.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I want to call your attention to that statement a moment ago, in a very kindly spirit, to challenge your attention to the fact that people do not always bow down to men whe happen to be even in Federal positions. But I am very much interested in this question. You laid some stress upon the fact that you had called attention to certain persons here who were opposed to this legislation, and you also emphasized the fact that they came from certain institutions.