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 Řev. 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 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 |