education. The per capita wealth of these 10 States was $1,566. They spent about one-third as much as the other 10 States. The 10 States ranking highest in per capita income expended $18.45 per capita for education in 1922. The annual per capita income of these States was $815. The 10 States ranking lowest in per capita income expended $6.69 per capita for education in 1922. The average per capita income in these 10 States is $384. These figures are based upon the calculations given in the table headed, "Total and per capita wealth, income, and expenditures for public education by States." In short, whether a child is to have that birthright talked about in our 4th of July orations, an equal chance, is determined by the place where he happens to live. If he lives in a poor State, he is likely to reach maturity with only a meager education, or perhaps he will be wholly illiterate. There are 3,000,000 native-born Americans who now fall in that class. But if he lives in a rich State the chances are he will have splendid educational opportunities. Such a situation should not be continued in a democracy. Finally, in closing, may I say this in reference to the statement that it is not right to tax one State for the purpose of educating the children of another. It is right and right according to a principle that is the very basis of our educational system. We have already fully accepted it on a local and a State basis. We tax one man's property to educate a child who lives next door to him, and we tax the property of a whole State to educate the children in the whole State. It is not a difficult mental readjustment to accept the same principle and tax all the property in the United States to educate all the children in the United States. An irate Rhode Island farmer once threatened personal violence to Henry Bernard for advocating the doctrine that one man's land should be taxed to educate another man's child. This principle is now fully accepted in the local community and in the States. It is as sound when applied to the Nation as to the State or local com munity. The wealth of the United States is the result of the cooperation of Americans scattered from Maine to California and from Seattle to Key West. No section achieves economic prosperity independently of the rest of the Nation. The automobile industry of Detroit would be impossible without the support of the drivers of automobiles living in all sections of the Union. Wealth in modern times is not the creation of any individual or locality working independently. It is the result of the cooperation of great bodies of people spread over tremendous stretches of terri torv. It is right, therefore, to tax wealth, no matter where it happens to be situated, for a purpose that is of fundamental significance to us all. Education is such a purpose. The welfare of all of us is threatened if any of us is educationally below par. It is right to tax the Nation's wealth wherever it exists to educate the Nation's children wherever they may live. What right is more fundamental than the right of a child to a decent educational start in life? The right of an American child to receive an education should be absolute so long as there is an adequate supply of wealth in the United States to draw upon for the support of public schools. I thank you. Mr. BLACK. How much do you figure it will cost to bring these States up to $14.95 per capita expended on education now, so that they will approximate the average? There are 23 States below the average. Mr. NORTON. I could only make a rather approximate guess. You could very easily take those 23 States below par, and their known population, with what they are spending now, and then multiply that by the number of people concerned, and you could get the exact figure. Mr. BLACK. It would be a big proposition. Mr. NORTON. It would be a big proposition, but education is a big proposition. It is true we are spending nearly a billion and a half in education at the present time. But, compared with $314,000,000,000 in wealth, and compared with over $66,000,000,000 in annual income, it does not look so big. If we place education high in the scale of national values, we can not object to spending a billion and a half for education, or twice as much. The wealth is there, if we only consider education of reasonable importance. We are spending $20,000,000,000 a year for luxuries, and billions for other things, that are not as fundamentally important to national progress as is education. Miss WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I realize it is past the hour for the convening of the House, and I know that there is a great pressure of business in the House at this time. I have written out a state ment which is a brief summing up of the arguments for and against this bill which can just as well appear in the record with my reading it, where, I believe and hope some of the members of the committee will look it over before making up their minds. If the committee would like to have it, I have here a letter from Mr. Worth M. Tippy, executive secretary of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America, in support of this bill. The supporters of this bill represent a great cross section of the very best citizenry in the United States. This letter is but another indorsement to add to the many notable ones filed in this record. Mr. ROBSION. If there is no objection, that letter may go in the record. (The letter above referred to is as follows:) Miss CHARL WILLIAMS, National Education Association, Washington, D. C. MAY 6, 1924. MY DEAR MISS WILLIAMS: The commission on the church and social service at the meeting of its executive committee on May 1 and after a referendum voted favorably to support the Sterling-Reed bill. Heretofore we have had only the action by the administrative committee in 1922. Very sincerely yours, WORTH M. TIPPY, Executive Secretary Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America. Mr. TUCKER. I am sorry we will lose the pleasure of hearing Miss Williams speak in person, because that is always more effective and more influential. But since we can not do that, we will read the statement she has prepared. Miss WILLIAMS. We have had a very gallant foe in Mr. Tucker, and I am very sure we shall always remain the best of friends. I shall be very happy to have you read and criticize these remarks. (The statement above referred to is as follows:) STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MISS WILLIAMS Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, we have been listening to the arguments for and against the education bill since February 20 and a body of facts and evidence unexcelled in its scope and its analysis of the needs for a department of education will be completed to-day. The committee as a whole has been deeply interested in the arguments on both sides and have shown by their many questions their deep concern over this question, which is growing in magnitude and importance day by day. A great deal has been said and it seems worth while to me to sum up briefly the testimony which has been given in the past three and one-half months. A restatement of the principles of the bill may well be made at this time. The Sterling-Reed bill provides for a Federal department of education with a secretary in the Cabinet of the President and for a national council on education, consisting of the State superintendents or commissioners of education, in the 48 States and 25 educators representing the different interests in education and for 25 persons, not educators, interested in the results of education from the standpoint of the public. It further provides for Federal aid to encourage the States in the removal of illiteracy, the Americanization of the foreign born, the equalization of educational opportunities, the promotion of physical education, and the training of teachers. This question has been before Congress since 1918. The Commissioner of the National Education Association prepared a measure which was introduced in the Senate in October, 1918, by Senator Hoke Smith, of Georgia, and which was known as the Smith bill. This original bill followed quite closely the provisions contained in the Smith-Lever and Smith-Hughes Acts. Certain of these provisions were justly criticized as permitting too much Federal interference. These objectionable features were eliminated and the bill carefully revised and reintroduced in the Senate at the opening of the special session of the Sixtysixth Congress in May, 1918, by Senator Hoke Smith. It was introduced in the House by Representative Horace Mann Towner, of Iowa, and was known throughout the Sixty-sixth Congress as the Smith-Towner bill. It was favorably reported by both the House and Senate Committees on Education near the close of the Sixty-sixth Congress in February, 1921, but did not come to a vote in either House. The bill was again revised, and at the opening of the special session of the Sixty-seventh Congress in April, 1921, was reintroduced in the House by Congressman Towner, and in the Senate by Senator Thomas Sterling, of South Dakota. The bill was knowm in the Sixty-seventh Congress as the Towner-Sterling bill. It was not reported out of the Committee on Education of either House. The identical bill was reintroduced in the Sixty-eighth Congress and is now known as the Sterling-Reed bill (S. 1337 and H. R. 3923)—or the education bill. The Senate Committee on Education and Labor gave four days to the consideration of this bill, January 22 to January 25, 1924, and a most satisfactory hearing was held. The proponents of the measure met with the Committee for the Reorganization of the Executive Departments on January 25 and 26 and filed a clear and unmistakable protest against being incorporated in a department of education and welfare such as is proposed in H. R. 5795. A study of that hearing will well repay the members of this committee. Similar protests have likewise been filed with this committee. On February 20 the House Committee on Education began this hearing which ends to-day. Great national organizations of men and women, lay and professional, sent representatives to speak for their membership which easily represents 20,000,000 voters or filed letters or telegrams supporting a Federal department of education. These organizations with their approximate membership are: National Education Association__ American Federation of Teachers American Federation of Labor National Committee for a Department of Education. National Council of Women_.. National Congress of Parents and Teachers.. 135, 000 7, 500 3, 350, 000 101 11, 000, 000 530, 546 General Federation of Women's Clubs. Supreme Council, Scottish Rite, of Freemasonry, Southern Jurisdic tion of the United States. National Council of Jewish Women.. National Woman's Christian Temperance Union. National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs__ General Grand Chapter, Order of the Eastern Star.. National Women's Trade Union League. National Society, Daughters of the American Revolution.. National Board, Young Women's Christian Association_ National Federation of Music Clubs.. American Library Association _ - - . National Vocational Education Association.. National League of Women Voters. International Council of Religious Education. Woman's Relief Corps. Federal Council of Churches. 2, 800, 000 270, 000 48,000 500, 000 15,000 35, 000 1, 500, 000 600,000 181.963 600, 000 250,000 5, 669 1, 500 The following organizations appeared to register their opposition to such a department: United States Chamber of Commerce, 750,000 members (p. 211, Senate hearing). The Massachusetts Public Interest League. The Constitutional League of Maryland. The Sentinels of the Republic, 65,000 members (p. 380, Senate hearing). A Democratic Women's Organization of Baltimore. Individuals of Catholic faith also appeared against it. The National Catholic Welfare Council appeared before the Senate Committee but did not send a representative to this hearing. Representatives of vocational education from various parts of the country appeared recently and made a strong plea for vocational education. In the main they favored a department of education. They were unanimous in their protest to being included under the Bureau of Education as proposed in H. R. 6582. If the Federal Board for Vocational Education should be placed in a department of education they asked that the Federal Board be retained, at least, in an advisory capacity. The arguments presented in behalf of a Federal department of education were in substance as follows. The creation of a Federal department of education would provide for the coordination of the existing educational activities of the Federal Government which would eliminate waste and duplication. A great national research agency would make studies and collect facts and statistics not now being done and make available the results for the benefit of education throughout the country. Studies similar to those now being conducted in the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Labor would be carried on in a department of education with equally beneficial results. Such a department would in nowise interfere with the State and local control of the schools. The genius of the American people is their capacity for local selfgovernment. This bill neither destroys nor impairs that privilege of the peopleon the other hand, it would prepare the masses of people to more efficiently discharge their duties in that respect. The arguments against the department of education are that it would take over the control of the public schools; that the schools would be plunged into politics, and that it would be unconstitutional. All of the opponents of the bill do not agree as to the unconstitutionality of the measure. You will recall that Doctor Goodnow, president of Johns Hopkins University, declared that, in his opinion, the bill was constitutional. They do not question the constitutionality of the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Labor-yet they were created and are operating to-day under the same constitutional provision whereby it is proposed to create a department of education. These opponents claim that the Federal Constitution gave the National Government no part in education-that education was reserved to the States, which is true. The fact remains, however, that the United States Bureau of Education has actually been in operation since 1857 and that its chief, the Commissioner of Education, is appointed by the President just as the secretary of education would be appointed. The bill specifically provides against Federal control. Section 13 of the educational bill states: "That all the educational facilities encouraged by the provisions of this act and accepted by a State shall be organized, supervised, and administered exclusively by the legally constituted State and local authorities of said State, and the Secretary of Education shall exercise no authority in relation thereto; and this act shall be not construed to imply Federal control of education within the States, nor to impair the freedom of the States in the conduct and management of their respective school systems." The bill also provides that all Federal funds apportioned to a State under the act, "shall be distributed and administered in accordance with the laws of said State and the State shall determine the courses of study, plans, and methods for carrying out the purposes" for which the Federal money is provided. The bill in no way interferes with the development of private and parochial schools. The national council on education is a wise provision of the bill for it offers the opportunity to stimulate a healthy rivalry among the States and at the same time it stands as the guardian of State's rights in education. It is not likely that the 48 State superintendents of education will surrender their right of control willingly or without knowing it, which the opposition claims will follow. The following is a quotation from an address delivered at the University of Illinois on December 2, 1921, by Congressman Horace Mann Towner, of Iowa, author of the bill in the House of Representatives in the Sixty-seventh Congress: "To claim that anyone, sponsor or supporter of the pending educational bill, desires or expects national control of education to follow the enactment of the legislation under consideration is without the slightest sanction. To state that the emphatic and repeated negations expressed in the strongest language that can be used which are incorporated in the very terms of the proposed law mean nothing and will not be effective, is to say that no law can be made effective by its terms." In spite of all of this, however, the enemies of the bill insist that it means Federal control. A study of the terms of the bill do not reveal the source of this domination. It is true that the bill recognizes that the Nation has a stake in education. Nowhere, however, does it provide for administrative and supervisory control nor is there any sentiment in the country at the present time that promises a development in this direction. The educators of the Nation are united against Federal control of education, as they have repeatedly made plain, in connection with their indorsement of this very measure. No one questions the general public's desire to continue the administration and the supervision of education in the hands of local and State educational authorities. The hearings of the Committees on Education of both the Senate and the House have clearly revealed that there is no desire on the part of our Nation's Legislature to take the control of education from the hands of the local communities. Quite the opposite has been the case. From whence, then, is to come the unseen power that is to force Federal control upon the country against the will of its educators, legislators, and citizens? This question no opponent of the education bill has been able to answer with satisfaction. Therefore, all of the evils of the education bill, conjured up by its opponents and based on the assumption of Federal control, fall to the ground. The proponents of the bill have been unanimous in their support of a great national research agency-that is, a department of education-but there has been some difference of opinion as to Federal aid. For instance, the American Council on Education which is made up of representatives of the higher institutions of the country in a referendum on the subject recorded approximately seven-ninths of its membership for a department of education but they are not recorded as in favor of Federal aid. The overwhelming majority of organizations and individuals, however, who are in favor of a department of education are also in favor of Federal aid. Federal aid for education involves no new plan. Congress in 1785 set aside lot No. 16 in every township "for the maintenance of public schools" and from that day to the present time has granted millions of dollars in land and money for the encouragement of education. The opponents of Federal aid claim that the States do not need it, that it would "pauperize" the States and crush State initiative. The convincing statements made recently before this committee by vocational experts proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that their statements are not founded on facts. Gentlemen, these facts in education stare us in the face to-day and I do not believe that conditions will ever be materially remedied until the National Government does its just share in the work. We have 14,000,000 foreign-born |