Mr. ROBSION. Why not turn it around and say that the success of hundreds of others indicates that this tremendous voting power did protect them?

Miss KILBRETH. Those men were particularly associated with these bills, and were closely allied with the child labor amendment.

Mr. ROBSION. You said that Senator Fess was one of the strongest proponents of one of these measures, and yet, while his party lost in the election, he won. Why not say that his advocacy of that measure had something to do with his success?

Miss KILBRETH. Of course, that was not quite so recent, and these bills were not so much debated then.

Mr. ROBSION. I am sure of that as to one of them, at least. I do not think that was responsible for their losing at all.

Miss KILBRETH. I do not care to go into the political background of Mr. Fess's campaign, but I have heard stated what defeated Senator Pomerene.

Mr. ROBSION. Senator Fess defeated him.

Miss KILBRETH. The cases I have referred to are more recent. These bills have been more under discussion recently than before, and the men I hve referred to were particularly associated with them.

Now, the physical education section of this bill is section 10. We do not like the substitution of physical culture for the real physical training of boys. This section is closely allied with the so-called Fess-Capper bill, which was a substitute bill to do away with any effort to train boys in a military way at school, or in the way of drills. It was a physical culture provision, to be practically the same for boys and girls, which, of course, does away with any utility that could possibly come from training boys physically for military purposes. We consider that an absolutely pacifist proposition.

The CHAIRMAN. Miss Kilbreth, I will ask you to be as brief as possible. You stated that you wanted only 10 minutes, and there are others who wish to be heard this morning.

Miss KILBRETH. I want to speak of the pacifist propaganda that it is proposed to wage under this bill. I will quote from a statement issued by the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. They say that this is internationalism. I will read this quotation from their general statement:

A strong international educational program was drawn up at this time for the purpose of establishing a basis for a new human civilization; everything to be excluded from textbooks that could arouse hate and scorn for foreign peoples; physical culture, not military drill, to be used as a means of physical development and an acquaintance with the literary masterpieces of other countries to be used as a means of arousing admiration for other nations. This educational program resolves itself into a great campaign against military training in the schools. Articles were written by leading educators and circulated by the thousands.

Now, Mr. Libby, who is the head of the National Council for Prevention of War and whose activities have been very much criticized, wants a revision of the history textbooks. I think the name of the organization now is National Council for Prevention of War. He wants a revision of the history textbooks. This is chiefly what I wanted to bring out in that connection: There was a world-wide educational conference held in San Francisco from June 28 to July 5, 1923. It was held under the auspices of the National Educational Association, and in the official report of the convention, which was

published in the Bulletin of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, which is a very internationalistic outfit, this statement was made:

The most important result of this conference seems to be a claim for the "disarmament of textbooks"; this deserves the cooperation of all pacifistic organizations. It was considered the basis of all other pedagogical reforms.

I understand that there are some people who want this sort of thing, but I only mean by this that we do not want it. I read this further statement from the report:

Miss Williams, former president of the N. E. A. and member of its present board, proclaimed a kind of intellectual strike against the patriotic methods which are bringing about an increasing roughness among young people. "We know that the children of one nation do not hate those of another unless they are taught to. We, the teachers of the world, have decided to refuse to teach on such lines."

I read further:

The World Conference was firmly decided to lead on mankind to its greatest victory, still to be won: That over its own bad race-killing instinct. A stormy, passionate applause followed the final words of Miss Williams: "If we are not allowed to educate the children for peace, it is not worth while to educate them at all."

This bill, as you probably know, was one of the political demands of the Socialists for a great while. It was political demand No. 15 in the Socialist platform for 1908, as follows:

SEC. 15. The enactment of further measures for general legislation and for the conservation of health; the Bureau of Education to be made a department; the creation of a department of public health.

That is shown by the published proceedings of the national convention of the Socialist Party in 1908.

In the same convention it was stated that the two major parties by constant concession to these strongly centralized measures were digging their own graves. This statement was made:

The capitalists themselves are digging their own graves, and when we see a little bourgeois shouting for Government ownership of gas, or telephone or telegraph you simply see him digging shovelful after shovelful out of the hole in which we later will bury the whole capitalist system.

When we consider that every one of the great governments of the world now is under the control of socialist minorities or socialistic majorities, I think it is dangerous business to make any concession at all to what they want. In the hearings before the Committee on Education of the House of Representatives, in the Sixty-sixth Congress, third session, Mr. Bolt, who was one of the chief proponents of the measure for the promotion of physical education, was quoted as saying:

The very fact that the schools are public and that the child must go to school and must conform to certain rules and regulations and laws that compel the proper treatment of the child, all show that the child is not private property to be controlled and treated at the will of the parents, but public, belonging to the public, and must be brought up for the good of society.

Now, the child is public property, according to Mr. Bolt, who is one of the chief proponents of this bill. There is no question but what there is an enormous effort to more and more take over the control of the youth in this country by the Federal Government.

Senator King, in the debate on the child labor amendment in the Senate, on May 31, interrupted Senator Bayard, of Delaware, and

called attention to the bolshevistic origin of the measure in these words:

If the Senator from Delaware will pardon me, every Bolshevik, every extreme Communist and Socialist in the United States, is back of the measure. The Bolsheviks of Russia were familiar with the scheme that was about to be launched to amend our Constitution. In conversation with one of the leading Bolsheviks in the city of Moscow, one of the educators, when I was there last September | and October, I was remonstrating with him about the scheme of the Bolsheviks to have the State take charge of the children. "Why," he said, "You are coming to that," and he called my attention to the practice, in many of the States, in regard to compulsory education. Then he said, "A number of Socialists in the United States," and he mentioned a number of names, but I shall not mention them here, are back of the movement to amend your Constitution in the United States, and it will be amended, and you will transfer to the Federal Government the power which the Bolshevik Government is asserting now over the young people of the State."

Of course, this is a communistic, bolshevistic scheme, and a lot of good people, misled, are accepting it, not knowing the evil consequences which will result and the sinister purposes back of the measure.

That is a very startling statement.

Just one moment, and I will have finished. I will not say that these measures, the child labor amendment and this bill are absolutely a part and parcel of the socialist program, but in the Fourth Congress of the Communist International assembled in Moscow, from November 7 to December 3, 1922, general instructions were given to the Young Communist International. I have it here in full, but I do not think it worth while quoting. The Young Communist International that is referred to here called its convention, and at that convention they first of all announced their absolute adherence to the parent body, or to the adult Communist International. Then they go on to say:

The basis and aim of our program is the socialist reorganization of juvenile labor. This means: Abolition of wage slavery for all young workers up to 18 years, who must be cared for by the State and treated from an educational point of view until they have attained this age.

That shows absolutely the relationship between this program and these measures. Now, these were the instructions sent out from the central executive committee of the Young Communist International to all the different countries, and in about two months the United States section of the Young Communist International, the Young Workers' League of America, which is the communist organization here, at their convention, called in response to the program, adopted some resolutions. Their first demand is for the abolition of child labor, and then they demand

The complete transformation of the conditions of juvenile labor and its socialist reorganization. This means: Abolition of all wage slavery for all young workers up to 18 years of age. The young workers must be cared for by the State and treated from an educational point of view until they have attained this age.

Mr. HOLADAY. Mr. Chairman, before Miss Kilbreth's time expires, I would like to ask her a question or two.

Mr. ROBSION. The chairman stated that Miss Williams was to be heard this morning, and that Miss Kilbreth was to have 10 minutes. She has already used 20 minutes.

Mr. HOLADAY. Miss Kilbreth, what organization do you represent?

Miss KILBRETH. I represent the Woman Patriot Publishing Co. We publish a little paper, a political paper or constitutional paper,

which is issued twice a month.

Mr. HOLADAY. How large an organization do you have?

Miss KILBRETH. There is no organization at all. It is just a company of women. We have a board of directors which controls the policy of the paper.

Mr. HOLADAY. What is that paper?

Miss KILBRETH. It is called the Woman Patriot, and it is published by the Woman Patriot Publishing Co.

Mr. HOLADAY. It is simply a private institution?

Miss KILBRETH. Absolutely. There is no organization. It is political in its constitutional aspect. We take up constitutional questions, and so far as we are able, we carry them to the Supreme Court.

Mr. HOLADAY. Does the paper receive any outside support, or is it supported on a business basis?

Miss KILBRETH. It is supported on a business basis, so far as that goes, or from subscriptions. If there is a deficit, we send out an appeal to our subscribers, and if they do not furnish enough, we put our hands in our own pockets and make up the deficit. Do you want to know who constitute the board of directors?

Mr. HOLADAY. Yes, madam.

Miss KILBRETH. I am the president of the company, Mrs. B. L.
Robinson, of Cambridge, Mass., is the vice president, and Mrs.
Randolph Frothingham, of Boston, is the secretary and treasurer.
The two other members of the board that are not officers are Mrs.
John Balch, of Milton, Mass., and Mrs. Rufus M. Gibbs.

Mr. HOLADAY. How large a circulation does the paper have?
Miss KILBRETH. About 3,000.

Mr. HOLADAY. You spoke of some other measures that you have opposed in addition to this educational bill and the child labor amendment. What other legislative measures have you opposed?

Miss KILBRETH. We opposed the maternity bill, and through our efforts it was carried to the Supreme Court. There were two cases decided, one brought by the State of Massachusetts and one by a private taxpayer.

Mr. ROBSION. Did your organization oppose the women's suffrage amendment?

Miss KILBRETH. We opposed it; yes, sir.

Mr. ROBSION. And the eighteenth amendment?

Miss KILBRETH. No, sir; we took no action whatever on the eighteenth amendment.

Mr. ROBSION. Were you in favor of it?

Miss KILBRETH. It did not concern us at that time. At the time the eighteenth amendment was pending, we were an organization and at that time this paper was the official organ of the National Association opposed to Woman Suffrage; so we were actively engaged n opposing the woman suffrage amendment to the Constitution. When the nineteenth amendment was proposed, we were not working politically at all. We simply held our organization together until the Supreme Court handed down its decision. When the Supreme Court handed down its decision upholding the nineteenth amend

94041-24- -48

ment, the organization disbanded entirely, but this group of women decided that they would continue the publication of this little paper. Mr. ROBSION. You have been trying to prevent Congress from submitting a child-labor amendment, have you not?

Miss KILBRETH. Yes, sir; we have opposed it. May I finish what I was saying?

Mr. ROBSION. Certainly.

Miss KILBRETH. We are now simply in the political field to the extent of working against measures that we consider unconstitutional.

Mr. ROBSION. Do you make any fights for or against persons who are running for office?

Miss KILBRETH. Do you mean our paper?

Mr. ROBSION. Does your paper do that?

Miss KILBRETH. Yes, sir; we oppose measures.

Mr. ROBSION. I am not talking about measures, but you oppose men, do you not, who are running for office? You oppose people who oppose your policies, do you not?

Miss KILBRETH. We have not yet done anything in connection with opposing men further than publishing their votes on these measures. That is the extent to which we have gone. We have not gone out and worked against men in the political field.

Mr. ROBSION. You publish their votes?

Miss KILBRETH. We publish their votes.

Mr. ROBSION. Why do you do that?

Miss KILBRETH. To keep the people who take the paper informed. Surely you do not object to having any votes you cast published? Mr. ROBSION. Not at all. I was asking whether you did that or

not.

Miss KILBRETH. Really, I do not understand the question. We have not gone out and campaigned against men.

Mr. BLACK. What constitutional amendments did you say were submitted to the courts?

Miss KILBRETH. The nineteenth amendment. The maternity act also went to the Supreme Court.

Mr. HOLADAY. Do you support any legislative measures?

Miss KILBRETH. Yes, sir; we are supporting as strongly as we can the Wadsworth-Garrett amendment for having constitutional amendments submitted either to the people or to conventions.

STATEMENT OF MISS CHARL O. WILLIAMS, OF THE NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Miss WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I had thought the hearing this morning was on the educational bill, and not on war, pacifism, politics, or prohibition. Therefore, we will come to the point of our statement and make it as brief as possible, because we know that the time of the committee is limited, and your patience has been unlimited.

Several members of the committee during this hearing have asked specific questions which we believed were entitled to specific answers before the record was closed. A question particularly that has been asked is whether there were some States that could not afford to do the thing in education which we believed should be done. There