« AnteriorContinuar »
Sister M. Bertilde, representing the alumnæ, faculty, and students of St. Marys College and Academy, Salt Lake City.
Emma W. Bird, president Salt Lake Diocesan Council of the National Council of Catholic Women, Salt Lake City.
Cleone Downey, Catholic Women's League, Eureka.
William M. Boland, president Seattle College, Seattle.
Mrs. Mary T. Burke, president, and other officers of the Catholic Women's League, Tacoma.
Mrs. A. C. Goerig, president Seattle Council of Catholic Women, Seattle.
Ethel Hannan, chairman legislative committee, Catholic Daughters of America, Court No. 820, Seattle.
Kathryn LaBerge, president the Diocesan Conference of Catholic Women of the Diocese of Seattle.
Stephen B. L. Penrose, president Whitman College, Walla Walla.
Mrs. J. B. Brady, president Parent-Teacher Association of Holy Assumption School, West Allis.
Anna Ray B. Cadigan, chairman advisory board of National Council of Catholic Women, Superior.
M. Frances Cashel, secretary Parent-Teachers' Association of Blessed Sacrament School, Madison.
Mary E. Costello, secretary Irish-history class, Fond du Lac.
Mary E. Costello, chairman of legislative committee, Fond du Lac Council of Catholic Women, Fond du Lac.
Mrs. John F. Doherty, president Wisconsin State Council of Catholic Women's Organizations, La Crosse.
Mrs. F. J. Eller, secretary Married Ladies Sodality of St. Mary's Church, Janesville.
Mrs. Catherine Felsecker, president Catholic Women's League of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.
Mrs. Thomas J. Fleming, president Christian Mothers' Society of Holy Assumption, Roman Catholic Church, West Allis.
Mrs. Henry Gramling, president Mercy High School Parent-Teachers' Association, Milwaukee.
Mrs. F. H. Grisen, president St. Joseph Orphan Club, Superior.
Maude Fowler Higgins, chairman Superior Parent-Teacher Association, Superior.
Mrs. G. N. Glennon, president Marquette Women's League, Milwaukee.
Mrs. John Liege and Mrs. Robert Bonack, officers of the Society of Christian Mothers, LeRoy.
Mrs. J. T. Murphy, Superior branch of the National Council of Catholic Women Superior.
Mary Petitt, vice president and other officers of Gesu Parent-Teacher Association, Milwaukee.
Edmire E. Quinlan, Stambrose Council of Catholic Women, Green Bay.
Mrs. Margaret Weldon, recording secretary Christian Mothers' Society of St.
Catholic Woman's Club, Watertown.
The following communications bear no address: Johanna Grattan; Mrs. J. J.
Petitions opposing the creation of a department of education were received from the following:
M. S. Larsen and 13 citizens of Lancaster, Calif.
The Mercy Guild of the Blessed Sacrament Church, with 317 signatures, Providence, Ř. I.
Sarah E. Leach and 42 citizens of Providence, R. I.
NATIONAL CIRCLE, DAUGHTERS OF ISABELLA
Santa Maria Circle, No. 27; with 46 signatures, Waterbury, Conn. Sarah A. Flynn and 27 members of a circle. (No name or address given.) St. Teresa's Circle, No. 331; with 21 signatures, Cairo, Ill. Cardinal Gibbons Circle, No. 193; with 41 signatures, Collinsville, Ill. Doluata Circle, No. 437; with 24 signatures, Harvard, Ill. Our Lady of Victory Circle, No. 228; with 13 signatures, Henry, Ill. Sacred Heart Circle, No. 237; with 37 signatures, Highland, Ill. Fort Dearborn Circle, No. 52; with 11 signatures, Chicago, Ill. Althoff Circle, No. 271; with 53 signatures, East St. Louis, Ill. Columbus Circle, No. 221; with 36 signatures, Chicago, Ill. Our Lady of Mount Carmel Circle, No. 167; with 44 signatures, Mount Carmel, Ill.
Our Lady of Victory Circle, No. 246; with 11 signatures of officers protesting for whole organization, Fort Wayne, Ind.
Columbian Circle, No. 274; with 1 signature, Mishawaka, Ind.
St. Anthony's Circle, No. 352; with 21 signatures, Union City, Ind.
Joan of Arc Circle, No. 160; with 29 signatures, Atchison, Kans.
St. Fidelis Circle, No. 364; with 14 signatures, Victoria, Kans. Michelina Circle, No. 298; with 6 signatures, Olpe, Kans. St. Bernards Circle, No. 299; with 46 signatures, Parsons, Kans. Bardstown Circle, No. 242; with 48 signatures, Bardstown, Ky. Little Flower Circle, No. 368; with 46 signatures, Ludlow, Ky. St. Jeromes Circle, No. 351; with 19 signatures, Fancy Farm, Ky. Immaculate Conception Circle, No. 175; with 25 signatures, West Louisville, Ky. Little Flower Circle, No. 392; with 51 signatures, Millinocket, Me. Mater Circle, No. 389; with 47 signatures, Sanford, Me.
Easthampton Circle, No. 312; with 69 signatures, Easthampton, Mass. · Isabella Circle, No. 286; with 46 signatures, Greenfield, Mass.
North Brookfield Circle, No. 354; with 46 signatures, North Brookfield, Mass.
Little Flower Circle, No. 327; with 34 signatures, Monroe, Mich.
Kansas City Circle, No. 54; with 49 signatures.
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL A. REED, CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE
ON EDUCATION, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. REED. We have been listening, for the better part of five days, to the arguments advanced for and against enactment of H. R. 7, a bill which provides for the creation of the department of education, with a secretary in the President's Cabinet. Valuable information has been brought out about every point which I set up in my statement at the beginning of the hearing. After listening to the testimony it seems to me that a number of conclusions may be drawn.
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS ALWAYS PROMOTED EDUCATION
It is not my purpose to review here the significant part which the Federal Government has taken from the very beginning in the promotion of education. I do want to urge the members of the committee, however, to read, in this connection, the testimony of Dr. John A. H. Keith, commissioner of education in the State of Pennsylvania, in which he outlined the history of Federal participation in education. I think it has been definitely demonstrated at this hearing that the present bill does not mean in any sense a departure from the established policy of the Federal Government.
BUREAU OF EDUCATION INADEQUATE FOR PRESENT NEEDS
The present Bureau
of Education, created in 1867, is inadequate to meet the needs of a Federal agency in this day and time. It was declared, by one witness who was opposed to a department of education, to be hopelessly inadequate. There was general agreement among the proponents of the bill that the Bureau of Education, under present conditions, can not do the research work that it is hoped and expected a department of education will do. Convincing arguments in support of this point of view have been brought out at the hearing.
RESEARCH NOW APPLIED IN MANY FIELDS
No one could have listened to these arguments or could read this record without marveling at the gigantic strides that have been made in the whole field of scientific investigation in recent years. Impressive evidence has been given concerning scientific research which is going on in almost every branch of human endeavor. When one contrasts the investigations that are being made in the field of business, agriculture, manufacturing, and distribution with the comparatively small effort which the Federal Government is putting forth in scientific research in education, one can not help being impressed with the need for similar research in education such as would be possible only under a Federal department of education.
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF BILL UPHELD
The question of the constitutionality of H. R. 7 has been raised during this hearing. The opponents of a department of education very generally agree that the work which the Bureau of Education is doing deserves support and ought to be continued, thereby admitting the right of the Federal Government to promote education. Because I have made a study of this question I should like to add further emphasis to the arguments that have been given to the committee regarding the constitutionality of the bill, which provides for a fourth "welfare” department.
Authorization for creation of the Department of Agriculture and later of the Departments of Commerce and Labor was found in Article I, section 8, of the Constitution, which provides that the Federal Government may levy taxes for the general welfare, as follows:
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
This clause has given rise to much controversy, but the interpretation given to it by Story in his great work on the Constitution has been followed by Congress in practice since the Government went into operation. As Story observes the clause should be read as follows:
Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, in order to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare, of the United States; the common defense and general welfare and the payment of the public debts, being the ends for which the power is conferred, and taxation a means for their attainment.
This is the interpretation placed on this clause by Hamilton in 1791, in his Report on Manufactures, who stated it as his clear opinion that the phrase “general welfare is as comprehensive as any that could have been used” and that "there seems no reason to doubt that whatever concerns the general interests of learning, of agriculture, of manufacturers, and of commerce, are