4. Lack of sound financial policy (1) in estimating the amounts required for the various purposes, and (2) in disbursing the funds appropriated, opens the way for political corruption and waste of our national resources.

5. Vast as are the present financial provisions of the bill, it seems highly probable that, from year to year, Congress will undoubtedly be pressed to increase its appropriations for this or that specified or general purpose. This, in turn,

will necessitate a corresponding increase in State appropriations, which will be virtually controlled by the Federal department. Under such circumstances, the recurrent opportunities for "lobbying" and "political bargaining" are beyond measure.

6. This $100,000,000 plus, raised by Federal taxation, is to be spent either under the direction, supervision, and control of Federal authorities, who are responsible to the people for such expenditure, or, there is to be no such control. Whichever horn of the dilema you choose, there danger lies.

7. In spirit and practice, if not in the letter, this bill would tend to undermine one of the foundation rocks of our National Government. We refer, of course, to State sovereignty. Furthermore, it will actually involve taxation without representation, as well as an invasion of individual property rights by the Federal Government.

8. Instead of "equalizing educational opportunity", the bill would actually tend to increase the present discrepancies between the several States in the matter of funds expended for educational purposes.

9. In any case, the advisability of "equalizing educational opportunity" is open to serious question from the point of view of national welfare.

10. Finally, the bill, if enacted, would be the entering wedge of paternalistic socialism in educational affairs, which is directly contrary to the political philosophy of the founders of the Republic and antagonistic to our tradition of individual independence and local self-government.

SWEET BRIAR COLLEGE, Virginia.

LUCY SHEPARD CRAWFORD, Ph. D.

The CHAIRMAN. I have a letter here which was written by Congressman Andrew, of Massachusetts, in reply to a letter addressed to him, which I think it would be well to put into the record, if there is no objection.

Mr. TUCKER. I have seen that letter.

(The matter referred to is as follows:)

(The following letter was addressed on May 24, 1922, by Congressman A. Piatt Andrew, to Mrs. F. P. Bagley, a member of the national committee for a department of education, in reply to an inquiry from that committee as to whether he would aid in securing the passage of the Towner-Sterling bill. letter was published in several newspapers in Massachusetts and is here reprinted by kind permission of Colonel Andrew.)

The

MY DEAR MRS. BAGLEY: I have your letter asking my "frank opinion" of the Towner-Sterling bill, and inclosing a circular containing arguments in defense of that measure. I have read this circular, as I have many other documents for and against the bill, and am bound to say that I am more than ever convinced of the validity of the position which I took in our discussion at Salem Willows last summer.

Subsequent reading and correspondence has confirmed my belief that the most distinguished educators of the country are most unanimously opposed to the Towner-Sterling bill, even in its revised form. I refer to such recognized leaders as President Emeritus Eliot, President Lowell, and Dean Briggs, of Harvard, as well as Dr. Alexander Inglis, director of the Harvard Graduate School of Education; President Hibben and Dean West, of Princeton; President Butler, of Columbia; President Goodnow, of Johns Hopkins; former President Hadley, of Yale; President Sills, of Bowdoin; as well as such distinguished heads of State universities as President Kinley of the University of Illinois; President Jessup, of the University of Iowa; Dean Sutton, of the University of Texas-all of whom, with many others whom I might name, seriously disapprove of the bill. I should be inclined to consult with an oculist before having an operation performed on my eyes, and I should certainly consult with an experienced farmer, if I had in mind to invest money in farming. Similarly, before espousing a plan to invest a vast amount of Government money in an experiment in education, it would seem wise to weigh carefully the opinions of educational experts; and the

fact that such experts in this case are substantially agreed in opposing the Towner-Sterling bill would seem of itself a powerful argument against it.

You state in your circular that the Towner-Sterling bill has two essentials: First, a department of education with a secretary in the President's Cabinet. Second, it provides Federal aid in education.

As a general proposition, the multiplication of Cabinet officers is open to question. An essential, if not the main purpose of the Cabinet is to serve as an advisory council to the President in framing the broad lines of policy of his administration. In order to function helpfully and efficiently in this capacity, the Cabinet should be small in number and composed only of men of the first rank in ability and experience. The creation of new departments in the past has not only made the Cabinet somewhat unwieldy in proportions, but it has distinctly lowered the caliber of Cabinet membership. Since men of the first rank can seldom be found for other than departments of the first rank, on this account, if on no other, I should hesitate to indorse any proposal to increase the number of minor Cabinet officials.

A secretary of education would be appointed for only four years. He would have to be of the political party of the President then in power. If we are to believe the advocates of the Towner-Sterling bill, and if we are to accept the revised text of section 13 as literally meaning what it states, the secretary of education would "exercise no authority" over "education within the States," which means that he would have neither power of supervision over, nor authority to raise and enforce standards of education anywhere in the United States. Certainly such a position would not appeal to any of the great educational leaders of the country. The creation of the position would mean one more Cabinet officer of secondary capacity, who probably would be appointed as the result of political or geographical pressure.

Moreover, if this were the case, if the man appointed was "in politics" and was a politician of the second or third rank, would not the inevitable result, as our Government actually works, be to put education into politics? Would it not open another field, added to the post offices, internal revenue, and prohibition enforcement services, in which Congressmen and Senators alike would seek to find opportunities to reward those who had helped them in their campaigns? Would it not also be natural to expect that books, pamphlets, posters, and circular letters containing information and suggestions with a party bias would be regularly distributed by the department to every public school and State institution of learning in the country? It is because of such deplorable possibilities, bordering, in my opinion, upon probabilities, that I am seriously distrustful of any and every plan to establish a department of education with a secretary in the Cabinet.

You name as a second essential feature of the Towner-Sterling bill, Federal aid in education. Every good American believes it is as much a government's duty to provide schools and to encourage education as it is to provide a police force and to discourage crime; but it is quite another question as to the agency of government which is to perform these duties. Our American tradition is based upon a fairly clear delimitation of the respective functions of the Federal, State, and municipal Governments. The Federal Government is charged with matters that are essentially national and which can not be well looked after by the States, such as the Army and Navy, the monetary system, post offices, the regulation of foreign and domestic trade. The State governments look after activities that are not of an interstate character, on the one hand, and that can not be properly handled by counties or towns or municipalities, on the other. The smaller governmental units look after local matters. school system seems to me essentially a matter to be handled by the localities, with such cooperation from the States as will provide higher and technical education not possible to small communities. It is in this way that our publicschool system has developed. It is through such agencies that it can develop still further in the future, with a flexible and free adaptation to local needs.

The

Our system of government is very fortunately differentiated from that of European countries with monarchial and military traditions, in that it is not highly centralized, but is a Federal or federated Government based essentially upon the principle of home rule. In that fact lies the source and the assurance of the freedom that we cherish, of which we are justly proud, and which we are bound to safeguard and transmit to the future. I can see, therefore, no force in the argument that our Federal Government ought to assume such functions as the supervision of education because the central governments of other nations have done so. Our form of government, our traditions, our political theories are essentially different from theirs.

We are, in fact, the more bound to pay attention to these differences to-day because under stress of war our National Government has assumed many powers and activities that rightfully belong to the States, and even to private organizations. If the spirit of American institutions and the American principle of home rule in government are to survive, our primary duty to-day is to see that the National Government not only trespasses no further upon the provinces of the States and the rights of individuals, but that it actually returns to the States and to private initiative many of those activities which it was forced in war time to assume.

If I have in this very brief statement made myself clear, you will understand why I believe that the whole principle underlying the Towner-Sterling and other similar bills for Federal intervention and aid in State matters, is wrong. It seems to me to be based on the war-time theory that the National Government should do those things which it was not originally intended to do. It is based on the confused notion that our American Government should abandon the heritage which has come down to us from the earliest days of our history, and that we should adopt the highly centralized methods of the Old World countries with their military and monarchial traditions.

There are many other reasons, general and particular, why I am opposed to the Towner-Sterling bill; for example, the extravagance involved in the duplication of agencies which it provides, the inequitable burden of taxation which it imposes upon efficient States for the benefit of those which are remiss. But this will perhaps sufficiently answer your question as to whether or not I can be counted upon to aid in the passage of the bill. I trust that it will also convey to you the sincerity of my conviction that the bill is essentially and fundamentally wrong.

Very truly yours,

A. PIATT ANDREW.

P. S.-I notice on page 2 of your circular that you quote President Harding as apparently favoring the bill because he stated that "from every corner of the land, from county, town, and city, comes the same report, that the housing capacity of our public schools is inadequate, that tens of thousands of pupils have no place for their studies." But surely this passage in no way can be construed to argue the adoption of a bill which in section 12 provides, "that no money apportioned to a State in 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 land."

The CHAIRMAN. I have here a letter from a State senator in Colorado addressed to Senator Borah, and he requests that it go into the record of these hearings.

(The matter referred to is as follows:)

Senator BORAH,

DEL NORTE, COLO., April 25, 1924.

Chairman Education Committee, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR SENATOR: I understand you are being bombarded at this time by education enthusiasts, specialists, fraternal organizations, and many others, demanding the creation of a department of education in the President's Cabinet. I have been asked to join. After some deliberation, I have decided to trouble you with my views.

In our State we seem to have gone education crazy. I am not a believer in education at any price." Nor do I believe it is a panacea for our present ills. I fear the growing tendency to beaureaucratic government and the insatiable grasping for more power, more influence, and expanded field of operation, on the part of many of the bureaus in Washington. I am not sure that centralized authority over education in Washington would be an improvement over the independence, variety, initiative of the several States as we now have it.

I have gotten to be an opponent of Federal aid for anything. I know of nothing that invites to extravagance, and practically forces local authorities and State legislatures into undesirable and undesired programs, to compare with the 50-50 Federal aid baits. And the Smith-Hughes and Smith-Lever Acts, in educational and health matters, are no exceptions to the rule.

You are being importuned by all sorts of persons, claiming to speak for and in behalf of memberships running into the hundreds of thousands. I know you are sufficiently familiar with State and national legislation to assess these claims at

94041-24-38

their real value. Probably 95 per cent of these members never heard of the bills being furthered, and 99 per cent have never read them, or devoted any time to the study of them.

I also trust you will not be stampeded by the formidable array of professional educationists who are making demands of you. I know of no quicker way of sending our States and Nation to the bow-wows than giving full rope to professionals, specialists, and cranks in any line.

I am well pleased, my dear Senator, with the stand you have taken on many great questions in recent years, and am perfectly content to trust in these matters, to your sound, mature, and experienced judgment.

Yours very truly,

The CHAIRMAN. Doctor Mann, you may proceed.

J. MCFADZEAN.

STATEMENT OF DR. C. R. MANN, DIRECTOR OF THE AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION

Doctor MANN. Mr. Dallinger asked me to arrange for the presentation of a few witnesses on this subject. I simply want to say that these witnesses I shall introduce are not appearing as ardent proponents of the bill nor as wild opponents of the bill, but as friendly critics of the bill. They are men who have had wide experience in the educational work of the country, and who have given a great deal of study to this whole question of Federal organization of education.

The first gentleman I wish to introduce is Dr. S. P. Capen, who is at present chancellor of the University of Buffalo. Doctor Capen was for some 10 years a specialist on higher education in the Bureau of Education, and, as such, he had an intimate knowledge of the workings of the Bureau of Education. He took part in some five or six or eight surveys that were made by the Bureau of Education at the request of various State governors. Doctor Capen was then my predecessor as director of the American Council on Education, which deals entirly with the problems of higher education. Nevertheless, Doctor Capen knows more school districts and more States by personal visits, and knows the educational systems of more States from personal study, than almost any man in the country.

STATEMENT OF DR. S. P. CAPEN, CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF BUFFALO, BUFFALO, N. Y.

Doctor CAPEN. Mr. Chairman, I should like to have the committee consider for a moment some of the things which those of us who have studied this question for a number of years desire to see achieved by Government action. I think the most important thing that could be done by means of any measure that Congress may pass now is to consolidate the educational interests of the Government itself so that when the people who are dealing with education in different parts of the country have relations with Washington and with the Federal educational machinery, they may be able to deal with one authority. As it is now, there is a Bureau of Education, a Federal Board for Vocational Education, and some 12 or 15 other offices that are more or less prominent and influential in this field. They are not in contact with one another's activities. Indeed, the machinery of the Federal Government does not promote that kind of contact. Therefore, there is a great deal of conflict which is evident. to those who deal with those agencies from the outside. I think that

one of the most serious mistakes that has been made through Federal legislation was the separation in the beginning of the Federal Board for Vocational Education from the other educational enterprises that were well started in the Bureau of Education.

The divorce of vocational education from the other offices of education, which the organization in Washington indorsed and promoted, has had an unfortunate effect throughout the States. Many of the States, as you know, following the Federal example, have separate machinery for dealing with vocational education. Thus there has come about this split between these two types of training, which has been, on the whole, very regrettable. Among the States themselves, there is now a reaction toward consolidating those functions. This of course, can go on in any State without reference to any action taken by the Federal Government, but I think it is of very great importance to have these two educational activities of the Government put together at once. There should also be such other coordination of Government educational enterprises as would tend to unify them.

Now, I doubt if there is any disagreement among educational people as to the importance of that accomplishment. You gentlemen have had before you various propositions which bear upon it to some extent, and you have had arguments, I suppose, in favor of it before. To my mind that is about the most important thing that the Government could do for education at the present moment.

Another important thing that those of us who are connected with the educational work of the country need from the Government is the kind of leadership that comes from information and from facts derived through comprehensive investigations. There is now no agency anywhere in the United States that is prepared to examine in a large way some of the most important educational problems. Perhaps the need for such investigations is not apparent to everyone, but it is certainly very apparent to all of us who are engaged in educational work. The Bureau of Education is by its charter and the statutes governing it required to collect information and statistics bearing on the condition and the development of education in the United States. These groups of facts are, of course, immensely valuable. Without them, we could hardly get along. But the bureau has never been equipped to make large studies of some of the greatest problems. I might give you an example to show what I mean by that statement: When we got out of the war, and prices began to go up, every school system in the country and almost every institution in the country faced serious financial difficulties. The States were forced to make through their legislatures very much larger appropriations than they had made before, and cities. and districts were urged, and, in the end, were forced to do the same. Now, what was really needed in the way of financial support of education to keep it from deteriorating? Nobody knew. There were no sources to which we could go to find out. There was no agency equipped to discover the facts. Everyone will admit that here was a question of great national importance.

I happened to be partly instrumental in inaugurating a study of school finances in the United States. It was started about three years ago with private assistance, four of the educational foundations contributing $200,000 to the undertaking. It is only a partial survey, but it is a very admirable study and the best thing we have