country through the school system if teachers from other States could be brought into each State so as to give the points of view of those brought up and educated in other surroundings, that teachers of Virginia should be sent to Utah and North Dakota, and that teachers of Utah and North Dakota should be sent to Virginia, and it would not be surprising to find that the secretary of education might believe that the most enlightened writers of schoolbooks for children could be found alone in his or her own State or section.

The power claimed to make conditions is a power to control the school system. To deny it is useless, and the practical effect of such principle is already seen in the bill for Federal aid to roads and the Federal Board for Vocational Education, which were at first as modest and considerate as are the authors of this bill; but after the operation of a few years, in the case of roads, it is seen that not a mile of road is built under the Federal-aid system except as approved first by the Federal Government; and in the case of vocational education the board controlling that system now disburses Federal money, "laying down regulations, controlling, inspecting, and dictating the manner in which vocational education shall be carried on by the States, the cities, and towns and other local educational units."

The issue is clear; the passage of the first bill that starts this iniquitous system must be fought-obsta principiis. Giving control to the States in this bill fools nobody. The next bill may take it all from the States by imposing conditions. "Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird."

This bill contains a condition that each State must have a compulsory system of education.

Gen. James A. Garfield, in the House of Representatives, June 8, 1866, on the bill to establish a bureau of education, said:

"The genius of our Government does not allow us to establish a compulsory system of education, as is done in some of the countries of Europe. There are States in this Union, however, which have adopted a compulsory system; and perhaps that is well. It is for each State to determine.'

If, as General Garfield says, the question of a compulsory system of education is for each State to determine, how can Congress in this bill propose a compulsory system in each State as one of the conditions upon which each State shall receive this appropriation? Garfield was an earnest friend of education, but he could not indorse such violation of the Constitution as this.

Fourth. This bill gives to Congress the power to appropriate money to the States for school purposes, and with such grant relinquishes any control whatsoever of the money granted and places that control in the hands of another government. This is a plain surrender of a plain trust duty residing in Congress to control the expenditure of all money appropriated by it.

The duties confided to Congress are trust duties. The great powers to lay and collect taxes and to appropriate money are the highest trust duties; to use the power to gather money from the people by taxation, and then by appropriation give that money to a State without let or hinderance by Congress is an abandonment of a trust duty which no court will sustain. Even if the money is appropriated to the State to carry out a purpose within the control of Congress, it is clearly an unauthorized abandonment of their trust duty to control the people's money, and if the money be appropriated to a State-another government to carry out a purpose denied to Congress, their guilt is only enhanced. If the Federal Government retains partial control, this is equally unconstitutional, for "Congress can not delegate the powers confided to it" at all. How can the United States Government surrender control of its own funds into the hands of another government and keep faith with the people as their chosen trustee? The people, in making our Constitution, never intended that the taxes wrung from them should be used and administered by another distinct government. No trustee, charged with a duty, and accepted by him, can escape his responsibility under the trust who abandons his trust by surrendering it to another.

Fifth. As a corollary of the last doctrine asserted, it follows that no law of Congress would be valid that takes away a duty devolving upon Congress and seeks to place it in the hands of another power or government.

Black on Constitutional Law, third edition, page 287, says: "It is clear in the first place that Congress can not pass any law altering the form or frame of the Government, curtailing the autonomy of the United States, or subjecting the Government to the influence or ascendency of any foreign power.

This principle is so clear that it hardly needs affirmation or discussion. A minute examination of this bill shows it to be clearly subject to this objection.

The theory that the secretary of education would be above political bias is simply absurd and can not be believed by any intelligent man who has an adequate conception of our form of government. His idealism and standardization would last for four years when a new appointee would come into office, and of course he would regard it as his duty to inflict his ideals and his standards upon the country. It is difficult to contemplate the political power which such an office would create in the Government, with 48 superintendents of schools in the different States all men of influence and power-with the superintendents of schools of the counties and cities of each State under them; with the teachers of each county and city of the States under these State superintendents, to the number of 600,000 in the United States, this army could and would be marshaled as a solid phalanx to carry a political election. And think of such an army of lobbyists. The hundred million dollars carried by this bill would soon be increased to billions. Consolidation and destruction of the Government would be inevitable. The history of Germany need only be referred to as an example of such a system.

Third. Should this bill become a law it would doubtlessly result either in the impairment or the destruction of the school systems of many of the States rather than the upbuilding of the same, which, of course, is the object of its proponents. It is inevitable that the power to couple appropriations with conditions can not exist without the school systems taking on the color and character of those who have the power to make the conditions. This being the case, the schools will, of course, assume that character which a majority of the States desire them to have, for the Congress can prescribe standards of education indefinitely as a condition of their appropriation of money to the States. One of them in this bill is a "local school term of at least 24 weeks" for each State that accepts this appropriation.

Now, suppose Virginia to have a school term of 20 weeks; by accepting this appropriation Virginia would agree with the Federal Government to make the term 24 weeks. Are not the four additional weeks agreed to by Virginia a control by the Federal Government of the school system of Virginia to that extent at least? So that, if the Constitution puts the control of the schools in the hands of the States, can the State, by consenting to that control being lodged in the hands of the Federal Government, change the Constitution? Article V of the Constitution, which provides for amending it, prescribes no such method. This is a new invention in constitutional development; and when it is remembered that this power in the Federal Government, it is claimed, may extend to any conditions, or any number of conditions, is it not seen that each additional condition imposed will be additional control of the systems by the Federal Government? The advocates of this bill deny any desire to give the Federal Government control of the schools in the States, and yet they openly claim the power to make conditions which will give that control to the Federal Government. Things that are equal to the same thing are equal to each other. What this proposition in the bill really means when analyzed is this, that all that is left of the school systems of the States after all has been taken from them by conditions imposed by the Federal Government is to be left to State control. But the control given to the States of the school systems by the Constitution embraces the entire organization, administration, and execution of the systems, and by just so much as that broad and inclusive control is depleted and diminished by conditions imposed by the Federal Government, by just that much is that control unconstitutional and void. If a condition imposed by the Federal Government is complied with by the State, that part of the school system represented in the condition is as completely under the control of the Federal Government as if such power were originally granted it in the Constitution itself. Then multiply these conditions as the years go by and see where the State control is left. The secretary of education is to be a member of the Cabinet. Our Government is a political government. One of the most prominent politicians of his day in Virginia declared

"that the position of superintendent of schools of the State was the most valued asset of any political party that could secure it."

With 600,000 school-teachers in the United States, with 48 State school superintendents, with thousands upon thousands of county superintendents, with the council of education provided for in this bill, all revolving in the same orbit, constituting an army "more terrible than an army with banners," to carry out the political program of the political secretary of education, what would be the result? Would the systems be improved? Such a result means the annihilation of the school systems of the country by politics. In the literature promulgated on the subject we find it argued that there would be much benefit to the

country through the school system if teachers from other States could be brought into each State so as to give the points of view of those brought up and educated in other surroundings, that teachers of Virginia should be sent to Utah and North Dakota, and that teachers of Utah and North Dakota should be sent to Virginia, and it would not be surprising to find that the secretary of education might believe that the most enlightened writers of schoolbooks for children could be found alone in his or her own State or section.

The power claimed to make conditions is a power to control the school system. To deny it is useless, and the practical effect of such principle is already seen in the bill for Federal aid to roads and the Federal Board for Vocational Education, which were at first as modest and considerate as are the authors of this bill; but after the operation of a few years, in the case of roads, it is seen that not a mile of road is built under the Federal-aid system except as approved first by the Federal Government; and in the case of vocational education the board controlling that system now disburses Federal money, “laying down regulations, controlling, inspecting, and dictating the manner in which vocational education shall be carried on by the States, the cities, and towns and other local educational units.”

The issue is clear; the passage of the first bill that starts this iniquitous system must be fought--obsta principiis, Giving control to the States in this bill fools nobody. The next bill may take it all from the States by imposing conditions. "Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird."

This bill contains a condition that each State must have a compulsory system of education.

Gen. James A. Garfield, in the House of Representatives, June 8, 1866, on the bill to establish a bureau of education, said:

The genius of our Government does not allow us to establish a compulsory system of education, as is done in some of the countries of Europe. There are States in this Union, however, which have adopted a compulsory system; and perhaps that is well. It is for each State to determine.”

If, as General Garfield says, the question of a compulsory system of education is for each State to determine, how can Congress in this bill propose a compulsory system in each State as one of the conditions upon which each State shall receive this appropriation? Garfield was an earnest friend of education, but he could not indorse such violation of the Constitution as this.

Fourth. This bill gives to Congress the power to appropriate money to the States for school purposes, and with such grant relinquishes any control whatsoever of the money granted and places that control in the hands of another government. This is a plain surrender of a plain trust duty residing in Congress to control the expenditure of all money appropriated by it.

The duties confided to Congress are trust duties. The great powers to lay and collect taxes and to appropriate money are the highest trust duties; to use the power to gather money from the people by taxation, and then by appropriation give that money to a State without let or hinderance by Congress is an abandonment of a trust duty which no court will sustain. Even if the money is appropriated to the State to carry out a purpose within the control of Congress, it is clearly an unauthorized abandonment of their trust duty to control the people's money, and if the money be appropriated to a State another government to carry out a purpose denied to Congress, their guilt is only enhanced. If the Federal Government retsins partial control, this is equally unconstitutional, for “Congress can not delegate the powers confided to it at all. can the United States Government surrender control of its own funds into the hands of another government and keep faith with the people as their chosen trustee? The people, in making our Constitution, never intended that the taxes wrung from them should be used and administered by another distinct government. No trustee, charged with a duty, and accepted by him, can escape his responsibility under the trust who abandons his trust by surrendering it to another.

How

Fifth. As a corollary of the last doctrine asserted, it follows that no law of Congress would be valid that takes away a duty devolving upon Congress and seeks to place it in the hands of another power or government.

Black on Constitutional Law, third edition, page 287, says: "It is clear in the first place that Congress can not pass any law altering the form or frame of the Government, eurtailing the autonomy of the United States, or subjecting the Government to the influence or ascendency of any foreign power.

This principle is so clear that it hardly needs affirmation or discussion. A minute examination of this bill shows it to be clearly subject to this objection.

*

Such examination will show its revolutionary character and will show with equal clearness the attempted grant of power to the one or the other which is denied to it in the Constitution, or the exclusion of the one or the other from the exercise of a power granted to it. Neither can be admitted.

Finally: Why should we by this bill increase the debt of the Government $100,000,000, or more likely by $500,000,000, in five years when every patriot in the country is striving to reduce it? Are we willing to pay such a price for the chance of mixed schools? For imported teachers, not of our own choice? Or for books selected by the Secretary of Education for the children of the schools? This bill also represents a large spoke in the lagre wheel of consolidation, which unless checked will finally place all of the interests of the people of the United States, national and local, in a consolidated empire at Washington. Time would fail me to record even a partial list of the bills that have become laws and those that are pressing for consideration involving appropriations to the States. Each is a spoke in this great wheel of consolidation. Most of them rely upon money drawn from the States by taxation and brought to Washington to be sent back to the States for the discharge of State functions. Business methods would suggest that this money should be left in the States for the discharge of State functions and not be subjected to the losses incident to its transfer to Washington and its retransfer to the States by the employment of thousands of extra employees to do this work. No business corporation would ever stand for such a system. This bill attempts to appropriate $100,000,000. In five years, should this bill go through, we may expect the appropriation to be $500,000,000.

The maternity law passed two years ago that carried an insignificant appropriation, in the budget for this year has largely increased that amount. If it should ever be uniformly adopted by the States, in a few years it will require millions of dollars annually. How can this tax-ridden people stand such burdens? This policy seems to be invoked in every description of legislation, but for fear some State power might have been omitted in its transfer to the Federal Government, we find pressing for consideration a bill to create a "General Welfare Department" to complete the concentration of all powers of the States in the Federal Government. Bureaus and commissions of every kind and description, moving in independent orbits, drain the public Treasury of taxes drawn from the people and add to the congestion of powers in Washington.

With a national debt of twenty-two billions of dollars; with an annual interest charge of about one billion dollars; with the people crying for relief from the burdens of war taxation; with this bill offering to give the States one hundred millions of dollars, an additional burden to the people, may not the question seriously be asked of the States, in Biblical language, "Is it a time to receive money, and to receive garments, and olive-yards, and vineyards, and sheep, and oxen?"

What matters it that the Treasury Department can pay off $300,000,000 of the debt if we stand here prepared to add ten times that amount by the bills that are pressing? The first duty of a legislator is to reduce this debt and thereby reduce taxation, and if this bill is passed the debt of the Government and the taxation of the people will both be largely increased. Not only that, but the bill represents a vicious principle seen in so many bills now before Congress of attempting, by indirection, to transfer powers to the Federal Government which, under the Constitution, belong to the States, until the concentration of power at Washington in this the greatest Republic of modern times will soon rival the condition which existed in Germany at the outbreak of the late war, when all power had been taken from the people in their localities and concentrated in Berlin; and this bill, and others of like character, are not only increasing the debt of the country and thereby increasing taxation, but they are concentrating in the city of Washington powers which should remain in the States.

Germany to-day is suffering from this very principle, and is a sad example of it. In the forests of Germany the Anglo-Saxon principle of local self-government was first developed. That principle was brought to England by the Saxons and nurtured in the congenial atmosphere of the mother country. Our fathers brought it to this country and first planted it on the banks of the "Noble James" at Jamestown, Va. Note the difference in the development of the two civilizations. We took the principle from the Saxons commonwealth and have faithfully developed it in this country until recent years. Local self-government has been the shibboleth of those who believe in the highest development of the individual man. It teaches the principle that where the Government touches

him closest, in his home, that there his power as a citizen should be greatest to defend and protect that home; and what, I ask, comes closer to the home than schools? And, therefore, when we are brought face to face here in Congress with the bold attempt asserted in these bills to destroy that principle of home rule and substitute in its place a consolidated Government embracing not only national but the local powers of the people at home, I find myself, in duty bound to the noble people I represent, to resist such bills to the uttermost.

I beg any man to look at the history of Germany and see how year by year and century by century the local powers which originally belonged to the people had become concentrated in Berlin in one iron hand, and its results! Concentration of power results in irritation, congestion, and inflammation in the body politic and the destruction of liberty; and, like the human body suffering with inflammation, needs a counter irritant to draw out such inflammation. A mus-tard plaster in the latter case will usually relieve the patient, and in the former the return of the local powers of which the people in their States, counties, and' districts, have been stripped will bring the desired relief. The experiment of free government in this American Republic is at stake. The fight is on.

I invoke the aid of patriotic men of every creed and party to put their armor on and resolve never to take it off until the victory is won for the integrity of our own Constitution, the only hope of this American Republic.

STATEMENT OF REV. J. FREDERIC WENCHEL, SECRETARY OF THE WASHINGTON COMMITTEE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN SYNODICAL CONFERENCE OF NORTH AMERICA, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. WENCHEL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we are here representing the Evangelical Lutheran Synodical Conference of North America, and we have also been asked to represent the joint synod of Ohio. The number of people we represent is about a million and a half.

In stating that I would also like to emphasize the fact that in the Lutheran Church which we represent there is unity, especially in doctrine. We are practically united, and opinion is very largely crystallized; so that we are not speaking at random for these people, but we are really representing the great mass of these million and a half of people in the views that we are presenting, as well as in the opposition to the bill.

Mr. TUCKER. There are no differences of modernists and fundamentalists?

Mr. WENCHEL. There are no modernists in the Lutheran Church. If they become modern, they are no longer Lutheran.

We have here as our first speaker a layman, the chairman of our school committee, Mr. C. M. Zorn, of Cleveland, Ohio.

Let me also say this: We are trying to get away from going over the beaten ground, the ground that has been beaten under the feet of others who have gone before us, and we are going to present some new things from our own viewpoint.

Mr. Zorn is the first man we would like to present as an opponent of the bill.