within the sphere of the national councils as far as regards an application of money, the only qualification of the generality of the phrase in question which seems to be admissible is this: That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made must be general and not local, its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union and not being confined to any particular spot."

President Monroe in an elaborate and cogent paper entitled, "Views of the President of the United States on the subject of material improvements," submitted with his veto in 1822 of the Cumberland road bill, took the same view. His attitude is expressed in the following sentence:

"My idea is that Congress have an unlimited power to raise money, and that in its appropriation they have a discretionary power, restricted only by the duty to appropriate it to the purposes of common defense and of general, not local, national, not State, benefit. "

Since the Civil War there has been no President who denied the right of Congress to raise and appropriate money for purposes of general welfare because such purposes were not within the fields in which Congress is, by other provisions of the Constitution, empowered to legislate.

The appropriations made annually since 1862 for the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Labor, the Bureau of Mines, and the Bureau of Fisheries can find no justification except under a power to raise and spend money for "the general welfare."

It will be noted, too, that by the Adams Act, the Smith-Lever Act, the SmithHughes Act, Congress has made appropriations of large sums of money raised by general taxation for the advancement of education throughout the country.

QUESTION OF FEDERAL AID NOT INVOLVED

At this hearing much of the opposition to H. R. 7 has been directed against Federal aid to education, in spite of the fact that no Federal aid is provided for in this bill. The creation of a department of education in no way involves the question of Federal aid for education. The Federal aid which the Government has extended to education in the past has been authorized without any reference whatever to a department of education. In the future Congress could either increase or decrease the amounts granted for Federal aid to education, but such increases or decreases are in no way connected with the proposal for the creation of a department of education.

SAVINGS TO TAXPAYERS FORESEEN

It has been stated over and over at this hearing that money could be saved for the taxpayers through the elimination of duplication and waste which is to be found not only in the unrelated and uncoordinated educational activities of the Federal Government, but in the needless waste and duplication which is to be found in education in all the States. That being true, it seems to me that Congress would be wise in passing this bill at an early date, thus securing to education the advantages which have been outlined by the proponents of this bill.

STATE CONTROL OF EDUCATION NOT ENDANGERED

Opponents of the present bill have very generally agreed that there is no provision in it that would result in infringement upon the rights of the States. Their chief fear seems to be that subsequent legislation might be passed that would curtail State rights. In this connection I wish to remind the committee that the tenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States reserves to the States the

right to control and administer education. At the same time, the principle of State and local direction of the schools is so thoroughly entrenched in American thought as to provide another guaranty of the continuance of local control of schools. It is noteworthy that every person who has appeared in favor of this bill is opposed to national control of education. To my mind it is clear that a department of education can perform the large and important function for which it is to be created without in the least hindering local and State initiative. On the other hand, I firmly believe, as do many educators who have appeared here, that State and local initiative will be greatly stimulated by making available to all the facts and information which would be collected by the new department.

ALL SCHOOLS TO BENEFIT FROM WORK OF DEPARTMENT

Private and sectarian schools will benefit alike with public schools. from the scientific research which is to be made by the department of education. That they have benefited by the work of the Bureau of Education was cheerfully admitted by a number of opponents of this bill. Several representatives of privately endowed colleges and universities appeared in support of the bill because they believe their institutions would greatly benefit through the work of the depart

ment.

SUPPORT FOR DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION NATION-WIDE

Friends of the bill have brought to our attention the fact that 31 great national organizations support the movement for a department of education, and more than a score of these have filed statements, or resolutions, or both, at this hearing. In addition, statements have been filed showing that at least three-fourths of the State superintendents or commissioners of education have gone on record as favoring a Federal department of education and have made it plain that they are not afraid of its interfering with the rights of the States to control and administer their schools in their own way. On the other hand, opposition to the bill has been voiced by representatives of 10 national organizations, 7 of which seem to fear some infringement upon the freedom and initiative of private and sectarian schools. Three local organizations, with a membership largely in Massachusetts and Maryland, appeared in opposition to the bill.

QUESTION WIDELY STUDIED IN LOCAL GROUPS

The need for a department of education has been presented in hearings to the Committee on Education at every Congress since 1918. The reports of these hearings have been widely distributed, and debates have been conducted in high schools, colleges, women's clubs and men's organizations in practically every State of the Union. There is no question before the country to-day in which more people are interested than the one which this committee has been considering for the past week. Education is a huge enterprise in this Republic. We have more than 27,000,000 school children and nearly a million teachers. School property is valued at more than $4,500,000,000, and the annual expenditure for public education is approximately

$2,000,000,000. Because the country is growing by leaps and bounds, the task of educating these children and directing the expenditure of these huge sums will be magnified with each succeeding year. It is my personal opinion that no other enterprise of comparable import would be conducted without more adeauqte facilities for determining methods and procedure than are now available in the field of education.

EDUCATION ENTITLED TO SPOKESMAN IN CABINET

The Federal Government, with profit to all concerned, has promoted the three great national interests of agriculture, commerce, and labor, and has provided representation for each of them in the President's Cabinet. Education, on the other hand, is represented only by a commissioner at the head of a small bureau in one of the large executive departments. Surely the large number of people supporting this bill are justified in their contention that education, which concerns so many individuals, which involves so much expenditure, and which is the very foundation of our Republic, is entitled to a spokesman in the councils of our Nation.

EARLY PASSAGE OF BILL DESIRABLE

It seems to me that we now have before us all the facts that can be presented both for and against the enactment of H. R. 7. It is my hope that during the recess of Congress the members of the committee will find time to study the record of the hearing which will be printed in the shortest possible time, and that we may be able to report this bill out favorably when Congress meets again in December. During the years that this proposal has been before Congress, the people of the country, and Members of Congress as well, have had ample time to study the question. Requests that the bill be reported out of the committee, in order that it may be considered on the floor of the House, have been received from all parts of the country, and from Members of Congress. I do not believe that in fairness and justice to all concerned we can longer delay.

(Thereupon, the committee adjourned at 12.05 o'clock p. m., to meet again at the call of the Chairman).