through the 50-50 Federal aid proviso of coercing the States to accept educational standards set up by a Cabinet secretary of education. Hope and expectation of ultimately securing Federal aid is thus expressed (id. p. 10): "If the people of the United States become convinced of the desir ability of a larger degree of national support for education, they will secure appropriate legislation.' A similar expression showing anticipation of future Federal aid is cautiously worded by Dr. Payson Smith, commissioner of educa tion for Massachusetts. And yet the National Education Association does not hesitate to say in its journal for April, 1926, "The National Education Association, with a membership of 150,000, stands solidly against Federal control of education." I will not, however, enlarge upon this aspect of the question. I am sure that others will be able, better than I, to present evidence that those back of this bill are not sincere in disclaiming Federal aid, but are merely deferring the demand for it until the nose of the camel is under the canvas. Nor will I take more of your time to show the grounds on which rest the fear of an ultimate Federal dictatorship in education. The grounds are in the combination of the Revised Statutes with the provisions of 11.8 and 9 on page 6 of House Resolution 7, as conveyed in the words: 16* * * and (11) such other fields as in the judgment of the secretary of education may require attention and study. The entire purport of the bill is to "vitally influence educational development" (The case for etc., p. 15), and, as Mr. Cadwalader (joint hearings, February, 26, p. 264) pointed out, the arguments in favor of changing the bureau into a depart ment all boil down to these two things: "One is that a department is more likely to get money from Congress and the other is it is likely to have a greater power and influence-not legal power but influence. In other words, you want to spend a lot of money gathering facts, and you are going out into the public schools of the whole country to get those facts and you are going to send out a horde of Federal inspectors to go into those schools and camp on the heels of the teachers and children and to say that they come directly from the secretary of education in the city of Washington with their credentials to investigate how the school affairs of Pop Squash Center are being carried on, so that they may bring back that information to Washington where it will be duly tabulated. Do you think that that will not have any influ ence, any effect, on the conduct of the schools? Do you think that that will not give the Federal Government control over education to a great extent? Do you think that the recommendations of the department of education, or the findings of fact that it may make with regard to schools and the school system of any State, will not be such that it will give a very strong measure of coercion to the Federal department of education in the conduct of those schools? Coordination' is the word that we have heard ever since this hearing begancoordination of activities. What does 'cordination' mean, if it does not mean control? It is one of those vague phrases that may mean little or may mean much; but a close analysis of the evidence in favor of this bill shows that it is used to conceal the real purpose of the advocates of the bill, which is to control the edu cational systems of the United States; and, as has been much more ably said by Judge Sutherland than I can say it, the control of education by the Federal Government is contrary to the Constitution of the United States.' I wish, in closing, to reiterate and emphasize the fundamental distinction, already pointed out to your committee, between the departments now in existence. especially those last established-Agriculture, Commerce, and Labor-and the proposed department of education. In the former the field involved is essentially objective, material, external, tangible; in the last, it is essentially subjective, in the realms of mind and character, intangible (apart from schoolhouses and supplies). The arguments advanced for a department of education would apply with much greater force if advanced for a department of morals, a department of ethics, a department of religion. Mr. ROBSION. Who is the next witness, Mr. Peckham? Mr. PECKHAM. The next witness is Miss Agnes G. Regan, executive secretary, National Council of Catholic Women. STATEMENT OF MISS AGNES G. REGAN, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CATHOLIC WOMEN Miss REGAN. I represent the National Council of Catholic Women, an affiliation of 14 national, 9 State, and 1,500 local organizations, including approximately 75,000 women. The object of this organization is to affiliate all existing organizations of Catholic women to the end that they may actively cooperate in every movement that tends to the welfare of our country and oppose, when necessary, movements which tend to undermine those principles of morality and those institutions upon which that welfare depends. I would say that our basis of estimating the opinion of these various groups is as a result of an annual convention at which problems of local and national interest are discussed, information as to the questions that are coming before the convention having been sent out during the preceding year.. The action of that convention is then taken as expressing the will of the particular group, and we say here, as I would say about the N. E. A., that it does not represent, of course, at any time, the unanimous opinion of any organization, because in questions of this sort people have different opinions. But the representative body of the organization is definitely opposed to this measure, and has been opposed to it during all of the years that it has been before Congress. Education is undoubtedly one of the greatest problems of any nation. The church, the home, the school-these are the three great influences in national life. In the United States all have prospered because of that freedom which has permitted unhampered development to go hand in hand with protection of individual and group rights. It is only natural that in a country like ours groups with common interests and common aims would seek to impose their ideas on the people as a whole. In many cases thay have, from their point of view, the best interests of their fellow citizens at heart. But those fellow citizens are not willing at all times to accept that point of view, and they are in duty bound to protest against such imposition. We face such a condition in the present demand for a department of education with a secretary in the President's Cabinet. As a former teacher, principal, and member of the board of education in one of our large American cities, I have been familiar with this movement for many years. For a time, too, I was misled with the specious argument of "dignifying education," but personal experience with the building up of State bureaus gradually assuming power over local educational activities, the increase in State budgets for education, the enlargement of State bureaus, the growing influence of politics in the whole question, have brought a sense of real danger to education in the establishment of a Federal department which would in time control education throughout the country. We can not close our eyes to the fact that the proponents of the measure have modified it in order that having secured its passage without Federal subsidy for the States they may later include this feature. I make these statements advisedly, because I have discussed the matter personally with proponents of the measure who frankly say that they reluctantly agreed to withdraw a Federal subsidy from the bill so long as they could retain the department of education 105682-28-29 with a secretary in the President's Cabinet, for "given that we will get those things which we can not get through a bureau of education with simply a commissioner of education.' If the proponents of the measure, many of them, were asked to come up here and state whether or not they did not have still in the background the fact that ultimately Federal subsidy would result, I am sure they would all agree to it. The lady who made the argument this morning enumerated all the things that were enumerated in the Smith-Towner bill, reduction of illiteracy, higher wages for teachers, training for teachers. How are they going to do any more under this department of education than they can do under the Bureau of Education without Federal aid? We are not protesting either as individuals or as groups without study of the problem and all its implications. Were there time I would like to review the arguments presented in favor of this bill: it seems hardly possible that any one of them can stand in the face of the growing recognition of the danger of Federal control over so vital an institution as public education. All of the necessary work outlined for a department of education can be just as effectively carried on by the Bureau of Education provided its appropriation be increased and its powers enlarged. We beg that this committee do not report favorably on H. R. 7. and that the protest of the National Council of Catholic Women be included in the congressional report of this hearing. I wish to make just one point that I have not heard yet referred to in any way. There has been reference to the Department of Agriculture and its power. There is no department which would have under its control an organized department consisting of millions of people subject to authority. Farmers are independent individuals. Teachers are not. Just last week I was interested in the discussion between school teachers in a certain midwest city, and they were talking about membership in the N. E. A., and one lady said: "Well, I have at last declared my independence, and I refused to join." The other lady. a personal friend of mine, who is a member, said: "I demand 100 per cent membership from my teachers." Now, given in this country a department of education, with a secretary in the President's Cabinet and an advisory council consisting of the State superintendents of every State in the United States, the teachers in every State under the control of the State superintendent, you are building up a political machine the effect of which you can not to-day measure; and I do not think there is any question about that proposition. There is no comparison between the relationship existing between the farmer and the Department of Agriculture. I belonged for many years to the N. E. A., and was glad to belong to it; and I think every teacher should; and I advise every teacher to-day that they should belong to it. The physician has the American Medical Association, lawyers have the American Bar Association. but they are not tied up in any political way as teachers would be with a State or the Federal department of education; and I think that is the most serious danger there is in the whole proposition. Mr. ROBSION. I notice that practically every organization of the Catholic Church that appears here appears in opposition to this bil and expresses very great fears about what is going to happen. My question is not in any sense offensive, but just go get their slant, may be, and viewpoint. Has it not been the policy of your church through the years back to look with somewhat of distrust upon the public schools of this country? Miss REGAN. No; I want emphatically to deny that. I want to say to-day that the Catholic people of the United States are just as much interested in the public schools as are any of the other people. We have 2,000,000 children in our Catholic schools, and we have approximately 6,000,000 children in the public schools. We are willingly paying our taxes to the support of the public schools, and at the same time are expending $70,000,000, exclusive of cost of buildings, because of the fact that we believe religion is an essential part of education. We never can expect to take care of all our children in parochial schools. We are speaking as American citizens, and I believe in this bill there is absolutely nothing antagonistic to the Catholic schools. I am opposing it from a point of view of a citizen and a former public-school teacher and member of the board of education Mr ROBSION. In reading from the church authorities of your church, they take just the opposite view. For instance, here is one work, "A manual of moral theology," by Rev. Thomas S. J. Slater, with notes on American legislation by Rev. Michael Martin, S. J., professor of moral theology, St. Louis University, in which this language is used: "The church," referring to the Catholic Church, "has received a divine commission to teach, and those who by baptism have become subject to her authority are obliged to be guided by her directions in this all-important matter," speaking of education. "The church condemns all non-Catholic schools, whether they be heretical and schismatical or secularist, and she declares that as a general rule no Catholic parent can send his young children to such schools for educational purposes without exposing their faith and morals to serious risk, and thereby committing a grave sin. A Catholic child, if educated away from home, should be placed in a Catholic school under Catholic masters or mistresses. Sad experience in many different countries has shown how necessary this is for the preservation of the Catholic faith. "If, however, there is no suitable Catholic school to which children can be sent, they may be sent to a non-Catholic school, provided the proximate danger can be made remote by using the proper means, and provided that the parents see to the religious instruction of their children. In many countries, as in England, the bishops have reserved to themselves the decision as to whether in any particular case these conditions are fulfilled. The priest, therefore, should not take it upon himself to deny the sacraments to parents who send their children to a non-Catholic school; the case should be sent to the bishop. Now, I have a great many authorities. Miss REGAN. Mr. Chairman, may I say that I think this Mr. ROBSION. A great many authorities here Miss REGAN. That this is not Mr. ROBSION. Amounting practically Miss REGAN. I protest against this discussion and take exception to your position. Mr. ROBSION. Wait a minute, that I may state my position. Miss REGAN. I am discussing this matter as a citizen, and I stand on my rights as an American citizen. If a Catholic priest or bishop should protest to me if I stood in favor of this bill, I would have the same right as any American citizen to say that I was in favor of it. Mr. Chairman, there is no religious question involved. It is not a question of the attitude of the Catholic church toward education, nor its claim that religious teaching is essential for the lives of the children, which claim is becoming recognized more and more by people throughout the country daily. Mr. KVALE. Also by the National Education Association. Mr. ROBSION. Wait a minute. Miss REGAN. Pardon me, sir. I have the right to reply, and I am not going to wait just a minute, because I want to state my point. This same line of tactics was consistently tried during the last hearing. Some one tried to bring out the fact that if a person appeared representing a Catholic organization that person was opposing the bill because it involved a religious question, and we have emphatically said that it does not involve a religious question and that the question of the position of the Catholic Church on education is not involved. Mr. ROBSION. But the leaders of the Catholic Church, as a church, strenuously opposed the establishment of public schools in this country and a Bureau of Education. Mr. DOUGLASS. No; they did not oppose public schools. You are entirely wrong. The Catholic Church in this country has never taken any stand on public schools as such. Mr. MONAST. I think, Mr. Chairman, we misunderstand this situation. Mr. DOUGLASS. I want to challenge Mr. Robsion's statement that the Catholic Church is opposed to the public schools, because it is not so. Mr. ROBSION. No; I said when the public schools were established the authorities of the Catholic Church opposed it. Mr. KVALE. There were those Mr. ROBSION. Wait a minute. Mr. DOUGLASS. That is not true. Mr. ROBSION. And they opposed the Bureau of Education. Mr. ROBSION. I will submit authorities. Mr. DOUGLASS. I respectfully disagree with you. Mr. ROBSION. Wait a minute. Mr. DOUGLASs. If that question is to be gone into, I will be heard on it later. Mr. ROBSION. The point I was trying to make is this: That I think that later on they found that their fears were ungrounded and unfounded, both as to the public schools and as to the bureau of education, and I think in this proposition, likewise, their fears are still ungrounded. Miss REGAN. I want again to protest, Mr. Chairman, and object to the injection of this religious issue into the hearing coming from a person who is not a member of this committee. I resent it as an American citizen, and I think it is dragging in religious prejudice where it does not belong. There is no question of bias toward the |