« ForrigeFortsett »
Hickory, Chamber of Commerce
Raleigh, Raleigh Chamber of Commerce
Fargo, North Dakota Retail Merchants Associa
tion Grand Forks, Commercial Club.
Jamestown, Chamber of Commerce (19)
Akron, Chamber of Commerce
Carriage Builders National Association of the
National Machine Tool Builders Association.
American Drop Forging Institute
Chamber of Commerce (20)
Ohio Valley Retail Shoe Dealers Association.
Chamber of Commerce
United States Potters Association.
Youngstown, Chamber of Commerce.
El Reno, Chamber of Commerce
Sapulpa, Chamber of Commerce
Chamber of Commerce..
Western Pine Manufacturers Association
of Commerce Pennsylvania:
Allentown, Chamber of Commerce..
Chamber of Commerce
Tile Manufacturers Credit Association.
Board of Commerce..
National Wood Chemical Association Carnegie, Chamber of Commerce Chambersburg, Chamber of Commerce Conshohocken, Chamber of Commerce. East Stroudsburg, Board of Trade
Aberdeen, Commercial Club
Mitchell, Chamber of Commerce.
Johnson City, Chamber of Commerce.
Chamber of Commerce (24).
Lumbermen's Club of Memphis. Nashville -
Nashville Chamber of Commerce
Tennessee Manufacturers' Association.
Austin, Chamber of Commerce
Wichita Falls, Chamber of Commerce.
Logan, Chamber of Commerce.
Utah Manufacturers' Association.
Board of Trade
Granite Manufacturers' Association. Burlington, Burlington Chamber of Commerce
Montpelier, Chamber of Commerce...
Fredericksburg, Chamber of Commerce.
Chamber of Commerce-Board of Trade.
North Carolina Pine Association..
Association of Commerce.
Virginia Ice Manufacturers Association
Hoquiam, Commercial Club
Spokane, Chamber of Commerce (26).
Bluefield, Bluefield Chamber of Commerce.
Wheeling, Chamber of Commerce..
Appleton, Chamber of Commerce.
(1) The San Francisco Chamber of Commerce explained its failure to vote on the second proposition on the ground that the Federal department of education, if created, would take the place of the present Federal bureau.
(2) The Greenwich Chamber of Commerce filed with its ballot a statement setting forth its opposition to the creation of a Federal department of education as tending toward bureaucratic centralization of educational interests, its approval of the proposition for extending the operations of the present Federal bureau, and its disapproval of the general proposition of Federal appropriations for State aid.
(3) The Connecticut Chamber of Commerce stated that it was unprepared to vote upon the second proposition as it was believed to be too indefinite; that, while not opposed to the principle of Federal aid to education, it cast no votes on the third proposition with the explanation that, in its estimation, any appropriations of this character should be carefully safeguarded as provided in the final paragraph of the majority report.
(4) The Honolulu Chamber of Commerce qualified its affirmative votes on the third proposition by the proviso that the Territories and the District of Columbia be made beneficiaries under the appropriations.
(5) The Champaign Chamber of Commerce supplemented its votes in the affirmative on the second proposition by a recommendation in favor of a more complete organization of education for Federal purposes and of enlarging the Federal bureau temporarily, and as the needs require, pending the accomplishment of the more complete Federal organization.
(6) The Chicago Association of Commerce qualified its affirmative votes on the second proposition by specifying that it favored enlarging the present Federal bureau as a department of research.
(7) The National School Supply Association refrained from voting on the second proposition in the belief that a vote in favor of this proposal would be inconsistent with an affirmative vote on the first proposition.
(8) The Wholesale Sash and Door Association qualified its affirmative vote on the third proposition upon the condition that the final aid proposed comes under the Smith-Hughes Act for vocational training; it said that, otherwise, it would vote in opposition to this proposition.
(9) The Ottawa Chamber of Commerce supplemented its votes in opposition to the three propositions on the ballot by the statement that it believed in the exercise of State rights.
(10) The Vermilion Chamber of Commerce (La.) appended to its affirmative votes on the third proposition a suggestion for the creation of a Federal educational board to cooperate with State authorities in a manner similar to that in use by the Federal Government in highway matters.
(11) The Boston Chamber of Commerce, in voting affirmatively on the second proposition, appended to the ballot a qualification that the increases from the present appropriation be gradual and that they be based upon the definite proposals for the expenditure of money.
(12) The New Bedford Board of Commerce, although voting in the negative on the second proposition, indicated that it was in accord with the opinion of the majority report as to the value of the work of the Bureau of Education; that it was unable to vote on this proposition as the term "enlarging" there used was deemed to be ambiguous in its meaning.
(13) The St. Louis Chamber of Commerce, in voting in opposition to the third proposition, stated that it was opposed to the principle of the States appropriating sums equal to those given by the Federal Government.
(14) The Lewistown Chamber of Commerce qualified its affirmative vote in favor of the creation of a Federal department of education by thep roviso that this would not result in increasing taxation by the appropriation of $100,000,000 and that control of school systems remain with the States.
(15) The Crawford Chamber of Commerce, in voting in opposition to the third proposition, indicated its belief that Government in education was not to be distinguished from Government in business and that the incentive and initiative in educational matters should remain with the people.
(16) The Camden Chamber of Commerce indicated that it voted in the negative on the first proposition as a protest against any movement that would bring the subject of education into partisan politics.
(17) The Jamestown (N. Y.) Chamber of Commerce supplemented its negative vote on the second proposition by the suggestion that the Federal Bureau of Education, in addition to its present functions, should serve as a clearing house of the best educational methods and that sufficient funds for that purpose should be appropriated.
(18) The Owego Chamber of Commerce, in voting as opposed to the second proposition, stated its belief that the present work of the Federal Bureau of Education might be extended in conducting investigations and making recommendations.
(19) The Jamestown (N. Dak.) Chamber of Commerce explained its negative votes on the second proposition on the ground that the creation of a Federal department of education was deemed to be preferable.
(20) The Columbus Chamber of Commerce refrained from voting on the second proposition on the ground that the statement of the proposition was not sufficiently explicit.
(21) The Kent Chamber of Commerce supplemented its action on the ballot by the statement that while it indorsed the work of the school authorities and the adequate training and payment of teachers, it viewed with concern the increasing cost of Federal administration and the burden of Federal taxation.
Ballots received too late
(22) The Salem Chamber of Commerce indicated that it voted in favor of the second proposition provided a Federal department of education was not created.
(23) The Muskogee Chamber of Commerce conditioned its negative votes on the second proposition upon the creation of a Federal department of education; otherwise it would vote in favor of this proposition.
(24) The Memphis Chambe Commerce, in voting as opposed to the second proposition, stated that it favored enlarging the present Federal bureau in the event that a department of education was not created.
(25) The Sherman Chamber of Commerce explained its failure to vote on the second proposition on the ground that the statement of this proposition was not sufficiently definite.
(26) The Spokane Chamber of Commerce, in casting its votes as opposed to the third proposition, stated that this action should not be considered as disapproving the present work of the Department of Agriculture in its cooperative efforts with State agricultural colleges.
ORGANIZATIONS NOT VOTING, BUT FILING OPINIONS
The Omaha Chamber of Commerce declined to vote in the belief that the subject of the referendum did not come within the scope of the purposes of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States.
The Passaic Chamber of Commerce indicated that, because of the complicated nature of the questions submitted, there was insufficient time within which to make the comprehensive study necessary as a basis for an intelligent expression of opinion.
The Lockport Board of Commerce refrained from voting because of the pendency of local questions making such action inadvisable.