Mr. TUCKER. Doctor, let me see if I got your idea. What I got from your remarks at one point was this: That if the Federal Government, by taking charge of the schools, or by giving bonuses to them-not having heretofore assumed any partisanship about it, took hold of a certain ideal and built it up, that the tendency would be that the Lutheran schools, the Baptist schools, the Methodist schools, and those good old Presbyterian schools, of which we know something, would naturally be affected by that, and that their ideals might be absorbed or might be taken away from them.

Mr. BAUR. Might I put it this way, with your permission: That the enmity and opposition which unfortunately exist in a number of States would gradually extend to the Federal Government, and that we would experience the same opposition to all, as I call them, legitimate and reasonable experiments at private education in Federal circles that we now experience in many State circles.

I would also like to add to what I was saying to you, Mr. Allen, that when I said that the interests of education would be best served in the long run if it were left to the States and the local units-and, of course, to private interests, but that does not enter into my point now-I meant to say this: That I believe that what we ought to aim at in America is the training of a self-reliant, independent and self-helping people. I personally believe that anything that the Federal Government does, particularly in the line of education, that tends to destroy the self-reliance and the spirit on the part of our people, which ought to be that they should help themselves as much as possible, will eventually destroy one of the things that we ought to build up in this country. I am one of those -perhaps a little old-fashioned--who are absolutely opposed to looking upon the Federal Government as a Jersey cow for the people to come and milk any time they need a little pap.

Mr. ALLEN. Just one other question, Doctor. This may not be pertinent; if it is not, you need not answer it. Would you consider this bill, if passed, involving Federal interference or Federal aid in education, as being a detriment or as retarding the development of Christianity in your denomination or any other denomination?

Mr. BAUR. I would not put it that way. I think I put it this way before: I think this measure, instead of increasing the interest of the Federal Government in education, would severely restrict it. It would restrict the Federal Government's interest in education generally to education merely in public institutions, and education in public institutions covers only one portion-a very large proportion, of course-of the general field of education. I believe—and I think I am speaking for my people—I know I am speaking for them—when I say that ultimately this will operate to the detriment of all private education throughout the Nation.

Mr. TUCKER. Let me call your attention to this, Doctor, just to see if I am correct about it. Look at the Carnegie Foundation. I am not questioning that they have done great work. But does not that foundation practically control the educational systems of this country to-day by its money! It lays down certain standards. It does not compel anybody to adopt them; but it goes to a college and says, "If you do these certain things according to what we believe is a proper standard of education, when your professors get to be 65 or 70 we will let them in on the Carnegie Foundation." And that

say to

old man, with his money-I am not criticizing him; I am not saying whether he has done a good work or not—but he has practically controlled the whole educational system of this country. I know in my own State that the University of Virginia and the Washington and Lee University, that were founded on a very peculiar foundation, which I will not go into, have abolished it in order to get in under the Carnegie Foundation. It is the power of money that works.

Mr. BAUR. Mr. Chairman, of course I believe, too-I think the next speaker will bring that point out—that the Federal appropriations will ultimately spell control of even public education in the States. That has been denied, of course. It has been said that the Federal Government can safely appropriate millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars, without exerting control. that, if that were true, then every good citizen ought to be opposed to the spending of hundreds of millions of dollars if you can not, through the expenditure of that great sum of money, also supervise the things for which it is expended;

and, on the other hand, if you want to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and actually supervise, that, I think, would bring about the very objections that the proponents of this bill deny that the bill will create.

Mr. HOLADAY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the doctor this question. You are from Indiana, I believe?

Mr. BAUR. Yes, sir.

Mr. HOLADAY. Do you feel that the public school system of Indiana has ever been detrimental to the private school in Indiana ?

Mr. BAUR. I am happy to say that in the State of Indiana the State authorities have not generally made the road difficult for us. But that is not the case in other States.

Mr. HOLADAY. Now let me ask a second question. point out where there would be a greater danger to the private school from a national bureau than there would be from the State bureau of education?

Mr. BAUR. Have I not pointed that out when I pointed to the fact that the Federal Government would no longer be neutral on matters pertaining to education when once it supports one system of education as against others? I think that for the sake of this great educational controversy that is going on throughout the Nation,

there ought to be remaining one governmental unit-and that, of course, ought to be the Central Government—that remains out of all controversies as to education by remaining out of the business of education itself.

Mr. WENCHEL. May I just answer your question to this extent? We can reach the local governments much easier than we can the National Government, when they infringe on personal rights. We can get hold of the State governments much more readily than we can get hold of the National Government.

Mr. HOLADAY. I may say this, to show that there was no malice in my question

Mr. WENCHEL. Certainly not.

Mr. HOLADAY. While I live just across the line from Indiana, I was schooled in a church school that established high schools in Indiana before there were any public schools; and the church that I belong to has many schools in Indiana now. I would like, as a matter of personal interest, on account of my schools, to have pointed out where they would be interfered with in any way by this bill; and, of course, if they would be, the Lutheran schools would be.

Mr. WENCHEL. Certainly. The next speaker will enter on that in more detail.

Our next speaker is the Rev. F. J. Lankenau, of Napoleon, Ohio, vice president of the central district of our body and editor of the Lutheran Pioneer.



Mr. LANKENAU. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the question of illiteracy vitally concerns us all and fully deserves the attention which it has been receiving during past years. The fact that we have about 5,000,000 illiterates in our country surely ought to bring that home to all of us. The draft during the late Great War awakened most of us to the fact that there were too many American young men who had not received a sufficient education; that too many communities, and even entire States, did not fully evaluate the necessity and the importance of universal education, though we will have to concede the fact that during the past few years there has been an awakening on the part of some of these backward communities and these backward States. For

years it seemed as if the earnest endeavors and unselfish labors of broad and liberal-minded men to arouse the public from its apathy and its indifference in matters of education were to be in vain. As I said, there was a strange artificiality to be noticed in many communities and States—a devitalized interest, if any interest at all—and this we know is exceedingly dangerous. The appropriations continued to remain very small and niggardly, notwithstanding the endeavors of these men to arouse interest in education, and despite many words and even pious promises and vociferous protestations, the appropriations, which were so very niggardly, were a practical demonstration of the fact that the interest in education was not as it should be.

Now, however, the State is a body politic, and everybody exerts an influence upon the other body. When one member suffers, they all suffer; when one member prospers, they all prosper. Therefore we must, as it were, be interested in every community, and it can not be a matter of indifference to us even if that community be very remote and very small. Ignorance is a voracious cancer which has a way of eating at the very vitals of democratic government. An ignorant citizen is a dangerous citizen, because he is swayed by his emotions and passions. A citizen, to be a good citizen, should, as it were, answer to an appeal made to the high ideals and principles of real American citizenship.

Now, I am sure that it is circumstances and conditions such as I have briefly alluded to that have caused the proponents of this bill to present it at this session of Congress. I am sure that the very highest motives have actuated the proponents of the bill and are actuating the supporters of this bill at the present time. Nevertheless we see certain dangers lurking in this bill, and, if you will permit me, I will just call your attention to a few dangers that I see, as an America citizen.

For one thing, we all admit that it is a constitutional principle of our country that education is a peculiarly local problem, and that therefore it should rest with the States and the local communities. This bill, however, it seems to me, very plainly has a tendency to put the control of education into the hands of the General Government. If I may be permitted, I will call your attention to a few sections of this bill which seem to me to be particularly dangerous in this respect.

In section 9, lines 20 to 25 on page 8, and lines 1 to 4 on page 9, we read:

Provided, however, That the apportionments authorized by this section shall be made only to such states as by law provide: (a) A legal school term of at least twenty-four weeks in each year for the benefit of all children of school age in such State; (b) a compulsory school attendance law requiring all children between the ages of seven and fourteen years to attend some school for at least twenty-four weeks in each year; (c) that the English language shall be the basic language of instruction in the common school branches in all schools, public and private.

Mr. REED. Pardon me right there, Doctor. In your Lutheran private schools in your State, what is the length of the school term; do you

recall ? Mr. LANKENAU. Generally from 8 to 10 months; the same as in the public schools.

Mr. REED. You have a compulsory school attendance law there, have you?

; Mr. REED. And is the English language the basic language in Mr. LANKENAU. Yes, sir; it is. Mr. REED. All right; thank you very much.

Mr. LANKENAU. Then permít me to call attention to section 14, lines 7 to 18 on page 14:

If the secretary of education shall determine that the apportionment or apportionments made to a State for the current fiscal year are not being expended in accordance with the provisions of this act, he shall give notice in writing to the educational authority designated to represent said State and the governor of said State, in duplicate, stating specifically wherein said State fails to comply with the provisions of this act. If after being so notified a State fails to comply with the provisions of this act, the secretary of education shall report thereon to Congress not later than in his next annual report.

Mr. REED. May I interrupt you right there?
Mr. LANKENAU. Certainly.

Mr. REED. In this other section there is no danger to your private school there, because you are now complying with those provisions ?

Mr. REED. So there is no dauyer there?

Mr. REED. Now, over here, how does this section you have just read affect the private school i

Mr. LANKENAU. I shall go on and summarize the whole matter, and you will then see.

Then section 16, on page 15:

That the chief educational authority designated to represent a State receiving any of the apportionments made under the provisions of this act, shall, not later than September 1 of each year, make a report to the secretary of education showing the work done in said State in carrying out the provisions of this act during

your schools?

the next preceding fiscal year, and the receipts and expenditures of money apportioned to said State under the provisions of this act. If the chief educational authority designated to represent a State shall fail to report as herein provided, the secretary of education may discontinue all apportionments to said State until such report shall have been made.

I for my part, see nothing else in these various sections that I have just now referred to, than Federal control of education, in its final analysis. The Federal Government and its officials set up a certain standard. Now, whether that standard is good and reasonable or not I do not think is the point at issue, it has not really anything to do with the real question, it does not enter into the question, because these provisions are good and reasonable, that the standard is reasonable, because we admit that. But the point at issue is this: That this bill makes provision that the Federal Government and its agents, its officials ahall set up this standard, and then authorize the secretary of education to either grant or withhold an apportionment according to whether in his estimation this standard is being lived up to or is being violated by the States in question.

Now, if the Government has the right and privilege to set up this standard, why should not the Government have a right to set up a standard in some other matters? We, it seems to me, have to do here with a vital principle of government. It seems to me that we must withstand the very beginning, which it seems to me is a very dangerous start. If the Government can set up a standard in this case, and if the Government can then judge as to whether that standard has been lived up to or not, why can not the Government do so in other matters with regard to other points ?

It seems to me that if the constitutional rights of the various States are really to be preserved the States asking for the appropriation, or else contending for their rights under this act, should be the judges. Now, of course, that is out of the question, because that would put the Federal Government in the absurd position of appropriating the immense sum of a hundred million dollars without preserving the right of regulating and controlling disbursement of such a vast sum.

The Government simply could not do such a thing. Therefore we contend that it remains true that control of education in the various States and in the local communities is by the provisions of this act reserved by the Federal Government. The Federal Government controls the education of these States that accept the appropriation and would virtually own them eventually.

Mr. REED. I do not want to interrupt you but what I had in mind is this; that there is no provision in this bill that you feel is directed at all against the private school?

Mr. LANKENAU. Not directly, only in an indirect way, as the former speaker has brought out.

Mr. REED. Well, is not that a remarkable proposition, that the Congress of the United States Government will not act in good faith?

Mr. LANKENAU. The thing that I am contending for is this: That the provisions of this bill, these three sections or parts of section that I have read, places the control of setting up a standard and judging as to whether that standard is being lived up to in the hands of the Federal Government and in so far they have deprived the State of that constitutional right which is reserved to the various States.



« ForrigeFortsett »