public school; and I want to say to you that the Catholic Church stands where it stood in the beginning, that for the full development, the all-round development of an American child, and particularly a Catholic religion is essential; and the Catholic Church has been willing to pay the cost, and it has in addition Mr. ROBSION. In some other denominations they feel that their children ought to go to private schools. Now, I am not Miss REGAN. I think Mr. ROBSION. Criticizing Miss REGAN. I think a very unfair advantage is being taken, an absolutely unfair advantage. Mr. ROBSION. Well, if you will take that position, you will just have to take it, but we have a right- Miss REGAN. I object, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ROBSION. To question whoever appears upon the proposition. We have a right to find out their bent of mind and their viewpoint. Miss REGAN. You can only take my statement as an American citizen, and I am arguing this from the standpoint Mr. ROBSION. I am willing to accept it as an American citizen. Miss REGAN. And my position as a Catholic does not enter into any statement that I made in connection with this bill, and I do not think it ought to be injected into it. Mr. MONAST. I think you misunderstand the Catholic question. The Catholics as a whole are in favor of educating their own children when they can, but they do not oppose the public-school system. They are e tirely in favor of it and do really contribute through their taxes in the same way as all other citizens. Mr. ROBSION. The only poi t I was making- Mr. ROBSION. Was that probably these fears they are now expressing that something is going to happen Mr. MONAST. No; we had the same thing this morning. Mr. ROBSION. That their fears will not be realized. Miss REGAN. May I say that through 30 years I have served in the school department of San Francisco. I am sorry Mrs. Kahn is not here to testify to my professional attitude. I am speaking of this as an experienced teacher, speaking as a teacher familiar with the bureaucratic form of government in the States as well as in the Federal Government; and it is solely and simply on that basis that our opposition is based. The religious element does not enter into it at all, and I want to reiterate here Mr. ROBSION. I would not favor any legislation Miss REGAN. That there is no fear Mr. ROBSION. I would not favor any legislation that would interfere with people in any denomination sending their children to their own schools, or that would interfere and displace the States or the community in the management or control of their schools. Miss REGAN. I want to reiterate that I object to its being injected into this hearing that it is in the background of my mind or of the gentleman who appeared here this morning that there is any question of this fear on the part of the Catholic Church of anything in this bill which is going to affect the parochial schools. Mr. ROBSION. I am glad to hear you say that. Mr. PECKHAM. The next witness will be Mrs Rufus W. Gibbs, of Baltimore, Md. STATEMENT OF MRS. RUFUS W. GIBBS, REPRESENTING THE WOMEN'S CONSTITUTIONAL LEAGUE OF MARYLAND, BALTIMORE, MD. Mrs. GIBBS. I represent the Women's Constitutional League of Maryland. We have gone on record ever since we were formed, some 12 years ago, opposing all Federal encroachments in those matters that should be left to the States; and we join this organization on the basis of opposing all measures tending to centralize power in the Federal Government which is now exercised, or can be exercised, by the several States, or by their city, town, or county governments; and we feel that, as John Fiske, the historian, said, if the time ever comes when the people of this country allow their local affairs to be directed from Washington, on that day the progressive political career of the American people will be at an end, and the hopes which have been built upon it for the happiness and prosperity of mankind will be wrecked forever. We think that though this may appear as a very inocuous bill, and it may have nothing in it that these gentlemen claim can do any of the things that we fear, still we can only judge the future by the past. We have seen the Federal power growing by leaps and bounds, and even some of these innocent bureaus usurping authority that we feel is far too great. The Bureau of Education, which has entered into the discussion a great deal, was criticized this morning by a proponent of this measure, for she said that they could not put everything under one head, and that it was duplicating. It seems to me that if Congress is doing its full duty it will fix that bureau so that it does not do these things that are complained of. I think if they conducted that bureau, and made it quite perfect, that then perhaps we might listen to them about the department. But it also seems to me that there have been various questions about the halo with which all the Federal administration is surrounded, and the Department of Agriculture seems to be regarded so sacrosanct that nothing should be said in criticism of it. One of the gentlemen asked a witness yesterday whether he thought it was good to have an appropriation for the corn borer. I would just like to say what one of our papers said about the corn borer in an editorial two days ago. It said, "Good bye, twelve million dollars. Last year Congress appropriated $10,000,000 to the Department of Agriculture to clean up the corn borer. The corn borer is still here. It is the ten millions that was cleaned up." I would like to say in regard to the testimony about the corn borer, because I think perhaps these gentlemen in this committee had better study some of these other hearings that some of them may not know a great deal about. One man, a man named Charles L. Knight, of Ohio, who appeared at this hearing, said, "There was more borer-fighting equipment on a 10-acre lot in Toledo last summer than Grant had when he advanced on Richmond. There were 800 sedans, 400 ten-ton trucks, 600 one-ton trucks, besides feeders, choppers, and gang plows. I suppose the 10-ton trucks were to carry off the large borers and 'the 1-ton trucks for the small borers. The fighting equipment is still there, but every sedan which could carry away a Federal papsucker is gone." [Laughter.] If you gentlemen have any illusions about the way the mass of the American people feel regarding these people that interfere and eat up their taxes, perhaps if you read a few of these editorials in some of the Maryland papers you would have more adequate ideas about it. I should also like to say that the lady who spoke this morning and told about the illiteracy, and she told about children who were deficient and could not get advanced in school, and the voters who did not know how to sign their names, that if her testimony implied that she wished to have a Federal job holder at the side of every voter who has not the high standard of literacy that this committee would like, and at the side of every deficient child that does not pass from one class to another, the hundred million that was asked for before would look like 30 cents if this committee starts Congress off providing the funds to do all these things these proponents want; and when you speak about no Federal aid, immediately this becomes a very nice safe thing, a nice pleasant little bill, that will not do anything for anybody. I do not know why they want it, because it will do so little. But if it is just as innocent, and just as cheap as they say, it seems to me that it is a very remarkable situation, because I can not see just what they are asking for, and it seems to me that Federal aid has a special stigma attached to it. We do not like it in our State, and we have a governor elected for the third term because he took a very firm view against Federal bureauracy, and especially against this education bill. He never fails to mention that in form or in kind. Not only Federal aid, but any other sort; and I should say that Federal aid comes from the States; and any money that you spend here comes from the same source and the same poor old taxpayers get soaked. I should like also to say that it seems to me that it is very unfair to interpolate any religious prejudices at all. I am not a Catholic, but I have the greatest admiration for the way they have maintained their schools, and have insisted upon religious instruction. I think we are all coming to the point where we feel that without a background of religion and morals education is worse than useless, and I revere them for the sacrifices they make in supporting tax-supported schools, paying their taxes, and then having their own schools to inculcate those splendid ideals that I think every nation needs. You can go back to the time of Plato. He says that the right education should inculcate soberness and righteousness and judgment, and, as Mathew Arnold said in using that quotation, "It is a splendid qualification for a man, whether he goes into the House of Lords or whether he goes into the pork trade in Chicago"; and it seems to me that unless you can combine those things you are not going very far; and, also, anyone who has had anything to do with education, or anything to do with children, knows that a thousand experts can not do what one right kind of home can do; and any teacher who is sincere and earnest will tell you that when she gets cooperation from the right kind of a home that child can go farther than any number of experts can ever make it go. This idea that all you need is thousands of dollars to lift these people up is all wrong. There are any number of young people, and older people, too, that have been shown to have arrested mental develop ment, people that can not be educated beyond the age of 12 or 14. That was well demonstrated in the Army tests during the World War. What would you do if you had all these experts and all these statistics that you want? I say that that bureau should not spend 1 cent except what is actually needed for the demands that the States ask of that bureau. I feel that for any Federal organization to be aggressively going out and telling the people of the State and county what they ought to do is absolutely un-American. If this State or the other State wants to go to that bureau and ask for statistics on illiteracy, or how it could meet a certain problem, or how another State has met that problem, all well and good; but I think it is the business of this committee to put that whole bureau on an efficient basis, and to put them in a position where they can answer questions that are asked of them, but where they do not do any compelling of any kind. Mr. ROBSION. Would you favor the department of education having such funds and such authority as would enable it to do the things named in this bill? Mrs. GIBBS. I am not in favor of any department of education, or anything named in this bill. Mr. ROBSION. I say would you be in favor of the Bureau of Education? Mrs. GIBBS. No. I would be in favor only of what is demanded of that bureau. Should the States call on that bureau it should be in a position to furnish the information. I think you should give your attention to the statements of the superintendents as to what they should like to have that bureau to do. They have not had enough money to do much of anything. If the consensus of opinion of the State educators is such that they feel that bureau needs more funds, I should say that possibly they should have more funds. Mr. ROBSION. You expressed the opinion that Federal encroachment was growing by leaps and bounds. In what way has that occurred to you? What do you refer to? Mrs. GIBBS. I see it in the Children's Bureau, referred to yesterday, and right in the maternity act, and in all kinds of things. Mr. ROBSION. You worked for the maternity act? Mrs. GIBBS. No; not at all. Mr. ROBSION. Or the Children's Bureau? Mrs. GIBBS. No; I think it is duplicating. In the first place, they have a perfectly good Public Health Department that can take care of everything of that sort, and why we should want a bureau in the Department of Labor duplicating what the public health is doing I can not see. Mr. ROBSION. You spoke of Maryland's attitude toward Federal aid. They believe in Federal aid for their roads over there, do they not? Mrs. GIBBS. But the time is coming when I think we will not even favor it for that. Mr. ROBSION. There are several bills before Congress where they want Federal aid that is not now provided. But they want aid for certain roads in Maryland. Mrs. GIBBS. Yes. Mr. ROBSION. Would you oppose that or favor it? Mrs. GIBBS. We suffer by being so close to Washington with so many people motoring from the District, so perhaps we have to have some help. I heard Senator Caraway speak about the roads of his State, and his State is one that gets more than it gives, and his attitude was that it was just about bankrupt trying to match these appropriations. To my mind, Federal aid is a very vicious principle. That is my personal opinion, and there are a great many who agree with me who have a better grasp of the subject than I have. Mr. FLETCHER. You spoke of mothers a while ago and made a good point there. I wonder if you think the mothers of the country would be opposed to this. Mrs. GIBBS. I should think they would be opposed to anything that would interfere with their own methods of having their children educated. I was president of the Bryn Mawr School Association when my children were in school. I have four children of my own, and several others that I have helped to educate, one of whom I struggled with for 10 years. He is now a boy of 18, and, unfortunately, he is the kind that, as was said by a freshman at college when asked if he had taken French, "Well, I was exposed to it, but it didn't take"; and he has never "taken" education. He is 18 now, and he does not write a bit better than a boy of 14 ought to, and I have given him advantage of very fine schools in Baltimore; and to have these socalled experts say that by getting a Federal bureau you are going to change inherent characteristics with a wave of the wand is quite beyond my comprehension; and it is equally beyond my comprehension that it should be taken seriously by this committee or by anybody else in Congress. Mr. ROBSION. Is there anyone else to be heard this afternoon? Mr. PECKHAM. Yes. The next speaker is Judge Iredell Meares, formerly of Wilmington, N. C. STATEMENT OF IREDELL MEARES, ATTORNEY AT LAW, WASHINGTON, D. C., COUNSEL OF THE SENTINELS OF THE REPUBLIC Mr. MEARES. Mr. Chairman, I wish to read first, and then file for the record a letter I received from Mr. Henry S. Pritchett. He sent this to me, but it is addressed to the Committee on Education. as follows: It is THE CARNEGIE FOUNDATION, FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF TEACHING, 522 Fifth Avenue, New York, April 25, 1928. CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, one. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SIR: I venture to call your attention, in connection with the bill now before Congress for the creation of a department of education, to an argument which I made against a similar measure in 1924, a copy of which is inclosed. The present bill is shorn of some of the objectionable features, but the principle of the bill is, in the judgment of most sober students of education, an unsound Our country does not need a direction of education by a department in Washington. It will be far more wholesome to leave education, as it has been left hitherto, under the Constitution, to the States themselves. The important duty of collecting statistics touching the condition and progress of education in the United States and in foreign countries, which is really the most vital part of the proposed bill, is already being performed by the Commissioner of Education, and if further studies are desired they can be as well carried out by a Commis |