State and they do it very well. Our schools turn out young people who compare most favorably with the product of the public schools and are really performing a tremendous service to the country which at some times and places is not adequately appreciated. Mr. FLETCHER. It is largely without salary, too? Mr. DOLLE. Yes. Mr. FLETCHER. When you say you come here as citizens I believe that, and that your view, and it coincides with my view, is that the best citizenship is for aiding all the work the church organizations are doing. Mr. DOLLE. I think the country generally knows that in spite of the fact that some misrepresent them. I do not think we will ever disturb ourselves about that. The mass of opinion in the country realizes that, and you are one, apparently, who does. The CHAIRMAN. You do not find anything in this bill or suspect anything in this bill that aims to destroy or interfere with the program of the parochial school? Mr. DOLLE. No, there is nothing in this bill that goes to it directly. As a matter of fact, there is nothing in this bill except an attempt to create a Federal department of education with a secretary in the President's Cabinet, and then assign to him such duties as the Bureau of Education is now performing. The CHAIRMAN. You nor the organizations which you represent have not the slightest feeling of suspicion toward the Federal Government? Mr. DOLLE. No. The CHAIRMAN. Not a bit? Mr. DOLLE. No. The CHAIRMAN. You look to it for protection the same as anybody? Mr. DOLLE. And we offer the Federal Government the best help we can to arrive at a solution of the problem. The CHAIRMAN. When you were in trouble in Oregon, which is one of the 48 States, when it came down to the final bulwark to protect the rights which you had under the Constitution, where did you find your defense? You found it in one of the three coordinate branches of the Government, and that is the support for every American citizen in the end, and if our State goes wrong we appeal to the Federal Government for protection. We have no suspicion. Why should you have any suspicion that a bill in this legislative body would interfere with your group? Mr. DOLLE. You must not attribute to me suspicion. We have no suspicion of the motives of this legislation if it is clearly stated. The CHAIRMAN. You do not question the motives of the great mass of people who believe it would be a good thing for the Government? Mr. DOLLE. You are right about that. I will send you opinions of leading newspapers of the country which reflect public opinion. The CHAIRMAN. We are looking for the opinion of the people. Do you think this great mass of educators who have come here and argued for this bill have any other than the highest motives? Mr. DOLLE. You are asking me specifically, and while I do not impugn their motives, I think they favored the bill carrying Federal aid, and I do not see how you can distinguish this bill from its antecedents. Mr. BLACK. You realize there is a great conflict about the discussion of religion in the schools in having control of the child, and you fear that, too. Mr. DOLLE. There is very little. The spiritual side of education is disappearing, and the fact that there is plenty of agitation for teaching religion in the schools justifies the Catholic school system in having in its curriculum part of the time devoted to religion. Mr. BLACK. You would not like to see a secretary of education who was a believer in the theory of evolution forcing evolution on the country? Mr. DOLLE. I was about to say, that in the effort to find a way that all children could have the benefit of some religious training, religious teaching our church can not support its own system on any other theory than that it believes it to be necessary-we would gladly take part in helping find some way by which religious instruction could be had by all children. That can not be done in the schools as it would be difficult to find a system satisfactory to 200 different protestant sects. Mr. FLETCHER. You do not favor that? Mr. DOLLE. It has not been put up to us to take final action, but before the legislature of Ohio-my home is in Cincinnati-we have discussed the question on behalf of the diocese of Cincinnati, to sit with any group and help devise a way by which children in the public schools could receive religious instruction. It does not follow that it would be in the schoolhouses because the laws of the State prohibit the teaching of religion in the schools, but any way it can be done so that children can not only have training in morality but in religion. Mr. FLETCHER. Is the Gary system a solution of the problem? Mr. DOLLE. It is helpful. It teaches morality, not religion. Mr. FLETCHER. Under the Gary system, under the laws in several States it gives the churches opportunity to take the children out of school and instruct them. Mr. DOLLE. That may be so. You will never find the Catholic church lacking in any honest effort to do that for the benefit of all children. Mr. FLETCHER. Are you at all unanimous against this type of legislation? Mr. DOLLE. No. I would say that would be impossible. I do not think we can say we are unanimous for or against anything. Mr. ROBSION. Did you ever hear of any Čatholic that was not against it? Mr. SEARS. I know of one. I have taken quite a lot of active interest here because I was urged to by one of the best Catholic ladies of the United States to favor this legislation. Mr. ROBSION. I have asked this man who is in charge here for the Knights of Columbus if he knows of any Catholic that is favorable to this legislation. Mr. DOLLE. If you ask me to give the name of one, I could not do it, but I am quite certain that there would be Catholics among the citizens of the country who would favor this legislation. Mr. ROBSION. I must take issue with the gentleman. Your predecessor testified on this bill here, the head of the Knights of Columbus. Mr. DOLLE. You are thinking of two years ago. Mr. ROBSION. He stated that there were 800,000 members and he could testify that every man of them was against it. Mr. DOLLE. I heard him say it. Mr. ROBSION. A little later in the same hearing-I believe he was present yesterday-he stated that the hierarchy, the leaders of the Catholic church, could say that they represented 24,000,000 Catholics and that they were all against it. Mr. DOLLE. Nobody represents 24,000,000 Catholics on any public question and nobody can. There will be just as much division among Catholics as any other group. Mr. ROBSION. You heard that? Mr. DOLLE. No, I read it. I was not present at that hearing. Mr. ROBSION. It is a fact that the representatives of your church or the leaders of your church opposed the establishment of the Bureau of Education, and if I read history aright, most of the great leaders of your church have found themselves in opposition to the public schools, and as far as I know of any leading Catholic he is opposed to this bill for a department of education. I think my friend from Minnesota in giving your eight reasons omitted what has been constantly put forth as the main reason, that it would impinge upon private schools and the Catholic church ideas of education of children. I am not entering into the question of the propriety or the right or wrong of it, but my judgment is from all I have heard of it in 10 years, that the underlying thing is what my friend from Minnesota put his finger on. Mr. KVALE. And I think they are justified in their opposition on that ground as citizens of the United States. Mr. ROBSION. If I thought that this bill or any other bill would interfere with the freedom of thought of the schools of the country, I would certainly have the same opposition to it, but I do not believe and never have thought that this bill contains one word to that effect, or that Congress ever will amend the law so that it will. Mr. KVALE. The fear is that it will ultimately lead to that. Mr. DOUGLASS. Did I understand you to say that the Catholic hierarchy was opposed to the public schools? Mr. ROBSION. Back many years ago, if you will read the right authorities of your church, they were not in accord with the establishment of public schools in this country. Mr. DOUGLASS. They are not opposed to public schools. Mr. ROBSION. I do not know how it is now. That was their attitude and that was their attitude about this Bureau of Education. Mr. DOUGLASS. They are not opposed to public schools but they are looking out for their own schools. Mr. ROBSION. Most of them were opposed to the present Bureau of Education. We have had that testified to. Mr. BLACK. The Catholic organizations opposing this bill come here to oppose it at the hearing. There are other organizations that do not appear at this hearing that favor it for the very reasons stated by this gentleman and Mr. Kvale. Mr. ROBSION. I am not finding fault with anybody that comes here. I think Congress should welcome suggestions from any citizen of this couutry. Mr. BLACK. It has been said that one of the main arguments against the bill is that it will come in conflict with parochial schools. The CHAIRMAN. As chairman of the committee and with a personal interest in the bill, introducing it, I feel that every person who comes here should come with the idea of giving us information so that when legislation is finally prepared, drafted, and submitted, that just as few objections as possible may be in the measure, so that it will work out for the general good of the country. Mr. ROBSION. If there are dangers lurking in this bill, Congress ought to know it. Mr. DOLLE. In answer to Mr. Robsion, there is no more danger in this bill to the parochial system of the Catholic Church than to the public schools of any State. The objection to the bill is that in our opinion it would lead subsequently to the control of education by the Federal Government. Do not attribute to me any other motive than that we come here to point out to you and offer to you our sincere belief regarding the measure, and we bring you what we regard as a cross-section of the Catholic public opinion in this country for your guidance, that you may attach to it what merit in your judgment you may think it warrants. There is no more danger to the parochial schools of the church than to the public-school system of the State. Mr. FLETCHER. That expresses the opinion of your group, too? Mr. DOLLE. Yes. Mr. FLETCHER. Every member of this committee would bitterly oppose any type of legislation that would impinge upon the rights of the parochial schools. Did you ever know of a Congressman or Senator that would vote any other way than to sustain our present condition in relation to the parochial schools? Mr. DOLLE. The danger is to local control of schools in federalization. The principle of this bill is to center in the Government, if not immediately, at some future time, control of education. The CHAIRMAN. You absolutely can not under the Constitution. Mr. DOLLE. If it can not be done? The CHAIRMAN. You have the same old Uncle Sam to protect you against that. Mr. DOLLE. Some of these things that can not be done have been done. There are many things not in accordance with the Constitution as it was for a long time interpreted. Mr. BLACK. A great many people fear national education, national schools. Mr. DOLLE. Go slow in the creation of a Federal department of education, and when men speak openly, plainly, their opinions about it, you will find that the leading men, the leaders of the country in political affairs and in the educational field do not want this measure, and I do not see any good that would come to the country from it. Mr. SEARS. In your opinion the educational department of the Government could be more efficiently carried on by a bureau than by a department? I could myself make up a pretty good argument by using the words "as a bureau," instead of the word "more." Mr. DOLLE. As a bureau. Mr. SEARS. How do you deduce that a bureau is more efficient for a given line of work that is desired to be followed than a department? Mr. DOLLE. You are extremely literal. If I would substitute 'as" for "more," it would answer your question. Mr. SEARS. I can see how one can make an argument on the word "as." Mr. DOLLE. I think that possibly I would get into difficulties with you and with the committee if I attempted to show how it would be more efficient, and I could more appropriately use the words, "as efficiently," if you will allow me to insert that correction I will do so. Mr. LowREY. I will make a statement to the committee as I will have to leave now. I have heard the bulk of the arguments of the proponents of this bill in the testimony, and I wanted to hear what I could of the opponents, but there are matters of special business right now that require my attending to them, and this week they absolutely demand my attention, not that I do not consider this very important also, but at the present time it seems to be my duty to give attention to these. Mr. DOUGLASS. At this point may I ask the members of the committee, as a favor of the committee if they will break into the established program, on behalf of Mrs. Bagley, of Boston, Mass., so that she may appear at this time as a proponent of the bill. She represents the national committee for a department of education and is in favor of this educational bill. STATEMENT OF MRS. FREDERICK P. BAGLEY, ACTING CHAIRMAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR A DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, BOSTON, MASS. Mrs. BAGLEY. I represent, in fact I am acting chairman for, the national committee for the department of education, an organization of the laity. There are one or two little things I wanted to clear up this morning before I really begin. One is in regard to the statement of Mr. Warren yesterday. I spoke, as he did, before the Civic Federation in Boston. That organization gives about three or four hours to its entire legislative program, and for the education bill I was given 10 minutes to present arguments in favor of it. He was given 10 minutes on the other side. When he spoke he based his entire argument on the former bill with an appropriation of $100,000,000. He made that his strong point, and I had no opportunity to speak even for a moment afterward to inform those present that that was not the bill under discussion. That had, I believe, a great deal to do with the vote that was taken, since that Federal-aid feature, which he mentioned, was included. Mr. FLETCHER. Did Mr. Warren explain that there was another bill that he was talking of, not the one up for consideration? Mrs. BAGLEY. No; he did not explain it. Mr. SEARS. Maybe he did not know. Mrs. BAGLEY. It may have been he might not have known about it. The other thing is that I want to say a word in regard to correcting the impression that the college people are against this bill. That is not the case. On my committee I have two Harvard men, Doctor Holmes and Mr. Holcomb, who are both in favor of the bill, and I think you will find that, where a college man has to do with education as a science, he is for this bill. I wish to call attention to the fact that prominent educators from some of the privately endowed institutions mentioned by Mr. Thomas F. Cadwalader have appeared at this hearing and have |