« ForrigeFortsett »
V. But here you try to transfer by mutual agreement between certain bureaus and commissions in the States and certain bureaus here in Washington, powers which are reserved to the States, and which it was argued by Monroe the States had no right to give up. Monroe was one of the men who had the liberal idea on the general welfare clause. But he maintained in his famous decision on internal improvements, which I think was about May 4, 1822, in his veto, that the States could not surrender their rights except by due process of amending the Constitution.
The attempt is now made to get around that, to beat around article 10 of the Bill of Rights, without going through article 5, by means of this subsidy. This bill is called an education bull. Its original purpose, as I want to show, was a salary bill, pure and simple. The vice president of the American Federation of Teachers testified before the joint committees on Education and Labor in 1920; that is, from July 10 to July 22, 1920, at page 115
The CHAIRMAN. You had better describe the pamphlet you are going to read from.
Mr. EICHELBERGER. It is the hearing on the education bill before the Joint Committee on Education and Labor of both houses in 1920, page 115. He says
The CHAIRMAN. What is his name?
Mr. EICHELBERGER. L. V. Lampson, vice president of the American Federation of Teachers. [Reading:]
The facts relating to the inception and history of this bill should appear in the report of these proceedings for the information of the country. They are in substance as follows:
The CHAIRMAN. Just a minute. Will you tell us what bill was being referred to there?
Mr. EICHELBERGER. The Smith-Towner bill, which was the earlier form of this bill. He says:
At a convention held in St. Paul in June, 1918, upon a resolution introduced by Delegate Stillman, representing the organized teachers, the American Federation of Labor went on record in favor of the creation of a department of education and the annual appropriation of $100,000,000 by the Federal Government in aid of teachers' salaries.
There was not any pretense of anything but teachers' salaries at that time. You find that confirmed by another report made to the convention of the American Federation of Labor. That report, which I will not read, may be found at page 34 of the same hearing.
Again, Dr. George D. Strayer, of teachers' college, Columbia University, a former president of the National Educational Association, and who, I believe, was a member of the commission appointed originally do draw up this bill, says, in this same hearing, at page 51:
Half of the $100,000,000 appropriated shall be devoted solely to paying the salaries of the teachers on the condition that the State shall pay as much more. That is a very good beginning.
In this other report to which I have referred, the report made to the American Federation of Labor on this bill, at page 35 in the hearing, it says this:
The appropriations are alloted to the States on condition that the States or local authority, or both, shall furnish an equal amount for each specified purpose, in addition to the amount heretofore expended by the State for such purpose.
There has been some doubt as to whether the amount these States are at present spending on education would be counted in as part of the match; but the intention of these proponents, as I have just read, is to make this in addition. In other words, instead of considering a hundred million dollar bill, we are really considering a two hundred million dollar bill.
The bill is subject, of course, to that interpretation, and that was the interpretation put upon it by these proponents.
In section 12, at page 12, line 18, we read:
And provided further, That the sum or sums provided by the State and local authorities for the equalization of educational opportunities, for the promotion of physical education, and for the preparation of teachers shall not be less any year than the amount provided for the same purpose for the fiscal year next preceding acceptance of the provisions of this act by such State.
That means definitely that the States, as Doctor O'Donovan says, can not reduce their expenditures. If they build a great many school buildings this year, they have to spend as much money next year. The hearings on that point are very specific. In the old Smith-Towner bill the old clause read
Mr. ROBSION (interposing). Do you find anywhere where that would include building houses? That refers to the payment of teachers to match this money.
Mr. EICHELBERGER. That refers to the payment of teachers. But it is the amount spent by the State the year before. The gentleman will notice that it alludes to the amount spent the year before. Consequently it could not mean the amount of money spent under this bill.
Mr. ROBsion. No; but it says for the promotion of physical education and the preparation of teachers.
Mr. EICHELBERGER. But it says "for the equalization of educational opportunities” and all that sort of thing.
Mr. Robson. It does not include any buildings the year before ?
Mr. EICHELBERGER. I would like to read what one of the proponents said about that particular point at the original hearing.
Mr. TUCKER. Was that in 1920?
Mr. EICHELBERGER. Yes; in 1920 Dr. J. A. C. Chandler, president of William and Mary College, Richmond, Va., testified before the committee. This was before Mr. Chandler's amendment was addedMr. Chandler put this amendment in or it was his suggestion:
Provided that the sum or sums provided by the State for the equalization of educational opportunitiesand so on.
He proposed this amendment; he said:
I suggest that for this reason: I want to be sure that no locality could by any slip in this bill reduce its present appropriation to education. Now, if those words “and local authority are not in there they will do the same thing that we have had done in the State of Virginia. When the Legislature of Virginia two years ago doubled its appropriations—from $2,000,000 to $4,000,000—for the common schools we found in certain localities where the State was supposed to pay 50 per cent for the salaries of teachers they actually paid 80 per cent. The locality had reduced its local taxation and produced that effect. If you put those words in there you will safeguard that so that you will positively compel the local authorities to continue their appropriations.
Mr. TUCKER. Is that statement in the original hearing of 1920?
Mr. EICHELBERGER. Yes, at page 87, at the original joint hearing. Mr. TUCKER. The hearing on the Smith-Towner bill?
Mr. EICHELBERGER. Yes, sir. At page 12 of the bill that was put in. The original bill merely prohibited the States but Doctor Chandler wanted it to include local authorities, which it does at present. We note immediately following the words which I have just read:
And provided further, That no money apportioned to a State under any of the provisions of this act shall be used by any State or local authority, directly or indirectly, for the purchase, rental, erection, preservation, or repair of any building or equipment, or for the purchase or rental of lands, or for the payment of debts or the interest thereon.
In other words, this bill prohibits the buying of any school books, or equipment whatever; it prohibits the use of any part of this $100,000,000 taken from the Federal Treasury for the purchase or erection of any school buildings; they can not buy an ink well out of this Federal fund. The only thing really that they can use it for is salaries. It is a salary bill now, the same as it was å salary bill when it was originally submitted.
Mr. REED. In order to get the record clear, what organization do you represent?
Mr. EICHELBERGER. I do not represent any organization, sir; I represent the Woman Patriot Publishing Co., which is an incorporated company publishing a semimonthly publication.
Mr. REED. What other work are you engaged in?
Mr. EICHELBERGER. We are taking up general constitutional questions at present.
Mr. REED. Were not you the man who appeared against the child labor amendment?
Mr. EICHELBERGER. I did not appear against the child labor amendment, although our company was represented by our president, Miss Kilbreth.
Mr. REED. Who finances this company that you speak of?
Mr. EICHELBERGER. This company is financed by its subscribers and by its contributors. There are a few contributors. A paper without advertising, as a rule, does not pay expenses.
There is a small deficit, and that is the way it is financed.
Mr. REED. What is the policy of the organization; what is its real purpose?
Mr. EICHELBERGER. The real purpose is to defend constitutional rights.
Mr. REED. The constitutional rights of what class of folks? Who are behind this company ? Come out and tell us.
Mr. EICHELBERGER. All classes. We do not represent any one particular class of people; we are defending the constituional rights of the poor as well as the rich.
Mr. REED. Are you opposed to all constitutional amendments ? Is that the idea ?
Mr. EICHELBERGER. We are opposed to the present 87 constitutional amendments pending with one exception, which is the amendment proposed by Mr. Garrett in the House and by Senator Wadsworth in the Senate, allowing the people to pass on further amendments to their Constitution.
Mr. REED. Was your organization in existence at the time the prohibition amendment was up?
Mr. EICHELBERGER. Our organization at that time was engaged in a campaign to prevent the ratification of the nineteenth amendment. We took no stand on prohibition.
Mr. REED. Are you engaged in any way in trying to defeat the prohibition amendment now?
Mr. EICHELBERGER. I think that would be ridiculous and impossible.
Mr. REED. Well, there are people who are working with the idea of that being submitted again, and I wanted to know whether your organization was engaged in that.
Mr. EICHELBERGER. No, we are not engaged in the resubmission of any amendment, but the amending process is a thing that would require a great deal of time to discuss and
Mr. REED (interposing). What other activities is your organization engaged in except so-called defending the Constitution?
Mr. EICHELBERGER. Well, that has been a pretty big job for the last two or three years.
Mr. REED. I know that may be; but, I say, what else are you engaged in—what are your other activities?
Mr. EICHELBERGER. Our activities are getting out a semimonthly paper in defense of the Constitution as we see it. In the charter which our company has from the State of Delaware-and it is only about three or four lines; that is the substance of what it is—that we are to defend the Constitution and to put out publications deemed by the directors to be of a patriotic nature, and we have been operating under that charter.
Mr. ROBISON. Would it be with any particular sect or church? Mr. EICHELBERGER. No; we have Democrats and Republicans
Mr. Robison. I didn't ask you about politics; I asked you about the religious attitude of it, if it has any.
Mr. EICHELBERGER. It has no more religious attitude than the Constitution itself. We don't represent any particular religious organization. Mr. BLACK. Is it something like the National Security League ?
Mr. EICHELBERGER. Yes; similar to that. The National Security League, of course, is a wonderful organization which is concentrating more on the education of the people at large, to have the Constitution taught in the schools, and that sort of thing, and also for preparedness, while we, on the contrary, feel that the greatest attack on our institutions comes through bad and ill-considered legislation, and that it is at the legislative posts that
Mr. ROBSION (interposing). How many subscribers do you have to this woman's paper?
Mr. EICHELBERGER. Our circulation
Mr. BLACK (interposing). As a matter of fact, I think we ought to have a list of subscribers not only as to this company that this gentleman represents but as to others.
Mr. EICHELBERGER. Well, Mr. Chairman, does the committee rule that the subscribers of all of these organizations
Mr. ROBSION (interposing). I just asked you how many you had ? Mr. EICHELBERGER. Our circulation varies from 2,500 to 7,500.
Mr. REED. Is that mostly in your State? Is it a sort of State organization?
Mr. EICHELBERGER. Of course, the gentleman is asking me more questions than even the Post Office Department requires, but I have
Mr. ROBsion. You are telling us more than the post office tells us, too.
Mr. EICHELBERGER. The post office does not require a statement of circulation from any but daily newspapers; but nevertheless
Mr. ROBSION (interposing). You said you were representing the Woman Patriot, and we have a right to know how large it is and what it stands for.
Mr. EICHELBERGER. Yes sir. The circulation is divided, as I recall it, about one-third in the East, and one-third in the South, and one-third in the West; that is about it. It goes into 47 States, and we have these scattered subscribers all over.
Mr. REED. Just one more question
Mr. EICHELBERGER. I am merely the editor of the paper; I have no official position; that is, I have no office with the publishing company whatever.
Mr. REED. As a corporation
Mr. EICHELBERGER. It is a corporation chartered under the laws of Delaware
Mr. REED (interposing). I understand that, but I do not know what your law there requires. You have a board of directors of what size?
Mr. EICHELBERGER. A board of directors consisting of five women. That board of directors, I believe, has been given at every hearing at which we have appeared.
Mr. BLACK. It is a matter of public record.
I would like to discuss this bill if I may be permitted to do so.
This proposition, this $50,000,000 of salaries supplied by the Federal Government--that is what it is--as Doctor Strayer says, matched by the $50,000,000 from the States, amounts to about $140 a year for every one of the 700,000 school-teachers.
The proponents of this bill have several excellent sentences in this bill, in which they say they do not want national control, and yet here is this subsidy. "If the State complies with the Federal condition, every one of its teachers gets $140 more than if it rejects them.
That money control, that subsidy which the teachers will get, I say that that is overwhelming; that if the Federal Government has a right to subsidize these officials of the several States that you can not have any freedom or liberty so far as that is concerned. We remember that the Supreme Court in the old cases, the various tax cases, McCulloch v. Maryland, Lane v. Oregon, Collector v. Day, and the recent Evans v. Gore, the court ruled that the Federal Government could not tax the instrumentalities of the States, that it could not tax the salary of a state judge or any other officer of the State.
Now, this bill is to beat around that bush. We are not going to tax the officers of the States, we are going to pay them to do what the Federal Government wants done. I say that that is just as unconstitutional
Mr. BLACK. If your theory is correct—this carries with it control of the Federal Government--then you are taxing a State for a contribution to a Federal fund on a 50-50 basis. Your contention is