This

ures from time to time, and have been in considerable doubt in regard to certain features of each one of them. The latest measure, however, that has come to our attention is this bill, H. R. 6582. bill has recently been in the hands of each member of the committee, and, in order to say exactly what I want to say and no more and no less, I have prepared a very brief statement, which, with your permission, I will read and turn over to the reporter:

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee I have been requested by Mr. R. A. Pearson, chairman of the executive committee of the Association of Land Grant Colleges, to represent that committee at this hearing in reference to H. R. 6582. Copies of the bill have been submitted to each member of the committee, as follows:

Dr. R. A Pearson, president Iowa State College, Ames, Iowa; Dr. A. R. Mann, dean college of agriculture, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y.; Dr. F. B. Mumford, college of agriculture, University of Missouri, Columbia, Mo.; Dr. W. B. Bizzell, Texas Agricultural and Mechanical College, College Station, Tex.

The committee has not had a formal consideration of this measure, but the following statement as prepared by Dean Mann, I think, represents the consensus of opinion of the committee:

The Dallinger bill is one which should receive our support. It provides for the enlargement of the existing Bureau of Education, making it possible for it to function in altogether worthwhile ways. Since the main purpose of the Federal bureau will be to aid education by means of survey and studies, the provision for more of this work by the bureau in this bill seems to be altogether worth while and largely to meet the situation. Furthermore, since there is such a wide diversity of opinion with regard to the place and need for a Federal department of education, we favor this more conservative movement before we plunge headlong into a full-sized department. If an enlarged and strengthened Bureau of Education succeeds by reason of its work, in demonstrating the need for a department, it will be time then to create the department.

I may say, as representing the land-grant colleges, that they do not believe in a highly centralized control of education. Probably the most successful educational measure ever passed was the so-called land-grant act of 1862, establishing the land-grant colleges, followed by subsequent acts providing for the agricultural experiment stations, and later the agricultural extension services. In all of these measures the control is left very largely to the States. The cooperation of the United States Bureau of Education and the United States Department of Agriculture has been helpful and has succeeded because it has left the States free to adjust the work to local needs. It has, therefore, accomplished the greatest good.

The land-grant colleges believe firmly in Federal cooperation in education, but they feel that the type of cooperation for the present, at least, should be that provided in this bill, H. R. 6582, now under consideration.

Mr. REED. Are the land-grant colleges opposed to Federal aid in principle?

Doctor WOODS. They are not.

Mr. BLACK. They are creatures of Federal aid?

Doctor WOODS. Yes, sir.

Mr. REED. I thought you were opposed to Federal aid here, under the Sterling bill?

Doctor WOODS. I am not sure whether the Federal aid proposed in that bill is a practicable measure. I think that some of the

representatives of the colleges favor that aid, and others do not. Therefore, I am not speaking for them as a group on that.

Mr. BLACK. The administration of the land grants has been somewhat unfortunate in this country, has it not?

Doctor Woods. I think not. I think it has been very successful. Mr. BLACK. I do not means so far as the administration of the colleges with the money received from the land grants is concerned, but in the disposition of the lands under the grants, or the returns from the grants have sometimes gone astray.

Doctor Woods. The grant was made very early. It was in 1862, I think, that this bill was passed, and the lands were disposed of under that act by the States that had script, for example. My own State of Maryland, for instance, received script, and they got 60 cents per acre for the land. It was in Michigan and the Middle West, and at that time, I suppose, they thought it was not worth anything.

Mr. REED. Cornell University did well, did it not?

Doctor WOODS. Yes, sir. Some of the States conserved these properties very well, and others did not.

The handling of the land grants or the lands by the various institutions was in some cases very decidedly open to criticism, and the lands did not return to the States anything like what should have been realized. That was true as to Maryland. Maryland sold those lands for almost nothing. I think that all of the land-grant colleges feel that any action in the nature of a subsidy should be very carefully considered, and made only when it has been determined that the expenditure of the money will bring about the real purposes sought for the promotion of education and not for the control of education.

Mr. BLACK. This bill would provide that any other lands for that purpose would be under the jurisdiction of this bureau rather than under the Interior Department, but I suppose there are no other lands.

Doctor WOOD. We feel that the bill H. R. 6582 comes as near representing the interests of the State as could be done and as near to a consolidation of the educational interests and agencies of the Government in their cooperation with the States as anything we can see or that we have seen up to date. Whether that represents the last word, we are not prepared to say, but it is certainly a step forward in the right direction, and we feel that everything proposed in this bill is sound.

Doctor MANN. The next witness will be Dr. C. H. Judd, the professor of education in the Chicago University, and the director of school education. I might say that the work in education of the University of Chicago exercises a very large influence over the entire Middle West, because of the large number of graduate students, the summer school, and the publications that they issue. They publish one journal that is devoted to high-school problems and another devoted to elementary school problems. Professor Judd is also the president of the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, and has, perhaps, had a wider personal contact with the school systems and teachers throughout the Middle West than anyone I can think of.

STATEMENT OF DR. CHARLES H. JUDD, OF THE CHICAGO UNIVERSITY, CHICAGO, ILL.

Doctor JUDD. Mr. Chairman, I should like to begin, if I may, with one or two detailed points regarding the Sterling-Reed bill. Í think it is agreed in general by students of education that this bill is brought before you with the understanding that it will undergo thorough revision. During the long history of this bill and its predecessors, the answer has commonly been made to criticisms made of the bill that the details will have to be rectified by Congress or one of its committees. I will, therefore, if I may, refer to one or two details that seem to some of us to require revision.

Turning first to the financial section of the bill, it will be noted that when funds are appropriated, they are to be distributed in various ways. For example, on page 6 of this bill, H. R. 3923, a formula is laid down for the distribution of the funds that are to be provided for the correction of illiteracy. I read from page 6 of the bill, beginning in line 6, as follows:

Said sum shall be apportioned to States which qualify under the provisions of this act, in the proportions which their respective illiterate populations fourteen years of age and over, not including foreign-born illiterates, bear to such total illiterate population of the United States, not including outlying possessions, according to the last preceding census of the United States.

In other words, this money is to go to the States in proportion to the needs of the States. That is perfectly clear and entirely defensible. If a State has a great many illiterates, then it will get a larger portion of the fund.

Identically the same formula is adopted when we come to the apportionment of the fund for training teachers. If you will turn to page 10 of the bill, you will find this language, beginning in line 12:

The said sum shall be apportioned to the States which qualify under the provisions of this act in the proportions which the number of public-school teachers employed in teaching positions in the respective States bear to the total number of public-school teachers so employed in the United States.

And so forth.

The effect of the formula in this case is that the apportionment of money for the improvement of teachers in the various States is not made in proportion to the needs of the States, but quite the opposite; it is made in proportion to the number of teachers they now have. Illiterates are to be provided for in terms of need, but the money that is to be distributed to the States for the improvement of the teaching profession is to be made in terms of the number of teachers they already have on hand.

A very simple calculation can be made, and has been made, in published criticisms of this bill which shows very clearly that the States which have the largest need for teachers would not benefit by this portion of the bill, as much as the States which have an ample supply of teachers. For example, take one of the States where the educational system is relatively new, such as one of the Southern States, where the number of teachers in proportion to the pupil population is relatively small, and contrast the amount that would be received under this bill by such a State with the amount which would be received by one of the rich Northern States, where the educational system has already gone forward and where there is a more adequate

supply of teachers; it will be found that the newer school system will not secure the amount of money which will contribute to the correction of the deficiency.

Mr. BLACK. Is there any justification for the exclusion of foreignborn illiterates from that section?

Doctor JUDD. I think that it was intended to be provided for those in the section of the bill dealing with Americanization. I think that the two portions of the bill are intended to supplement each other at this point.

There are a number of other points at which the plan of distributing the subsidies must be described as unscientific and inadequate, but I think that the one stated will suffice as an example.

The case cited illustrates what I meant when I said that if the bill is to be acted upon favorably, it is the hope and expectation of the educational people that it will receive careful and detailed consideration and revision at the hands of this committee.

This bill was drawn, as you doubtless know, as an emergency war measure. It has been radically changed in the course of its history, but it is still an emergency measure. The appropriation part of the bill was drafted at a time when it was felt by a great many educational people that it was quite impossible to maintain public schools without immediate financial relief of the sort that was asked for in many quarters for all public institutions. My own feeling is that the whole appropriations measure is of such doubtful wisdom that it ought to be lopped from the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean the entire $100,000,000 appropriation?

Doctor JUDD. I do. The recommendation has been repeatedly made that the bill be divided, and that consideration be given the first half of the bill rather than the second half.

Mr. REED. Would you tell us whether this recommendation has been publicly made and by whom?

Doctor JUDD. At the installation of President Kinley of the University of Illinois, Judge Towner said in answer to criticisms of the bill that the subsidy section could not be carried and was not at that time to be thought of as a part of the measure. The revision of the bill along lines stated is advocated by Commissioner Graves, the commissioner of education of New York City, in an editorial published in the Educational Review several months ago. That recommendation has been made repeatedly in the journals published by the University of Chicago to which Doctor Mann has referred.

Mr. BLACK. Is it the thought of the people making that recommendation that the second half of the bill could be revised and that it should be presented as a separate bill, to be passed later?

Doctor JUDD. The people who have made that recommendation represent, I should say, two shades of opinion. One shade of opinion is the one which you have just expressed. The other shade of opinion is that the whole appropriation measure had better be postponed until a careful study can be made and the scientific principles determined upon which such an appropriation ought to be made. That would require some special agency to be created antecedent to the making of any appropriation.

Mr. BLACK. That would do away with some controversial features?

Doctor JUDD. I think there is a very clearly defined opinion in many minds that there is so much controversial naterial with regard to Federal subsidies and with regard to Federal control, that it would require some Federal agency to make a very careful study before the question of an appropriation could be legitimately presented to Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. What about the States, if any, that are financially unable to educate their children?

Doctor JUDD. If I may begin by going back to certain general considerations, it is contended that certain of the newer States, or sparsely populated States, are actually expending, relative to their incomes, very much more for education than are many of the richer States. I think that the answer to your question can hardly be given in absolute terms since the quality of education is always a relative matter. The fact, is of course, that all of our States have educational systems, and the fact is that all of those States have been steadily improving their educational systems. The evidence is that since the war very large progress has been made practically by every State educational system. It is believed by many of us that even if there are inadequacies at the present time in the various State educational systems, there ought to be methods of correcting those inadequacies other than by dependence of any State upon the Federal Government In view, therefore, of the lack of an absolute definition of the full meaning of incompetency to carry on a school system, I think it would be fair to make the statement that there is no State that can not, out of its own resources, operate the educational system that it now has. There is no State that has not within the last five years made progress toward more adequate provision for its school system.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that Federal aid should be given a State for educational purposes where that State is not taxing its own citizens up to the average that other States are taxing for educational purposes?

Doctor JUDD. There are some of the States which are taxing themselves, comparatively speaking, more heavily than other States at the present time.

The CHAIRMAN. Suppose you have two States side by side, and one State is taxing its property for local purposes, including education, at the full tax rate of $30 per $1,000 or $3 per 100, but right by the side of that State is another State that is assessing its property or taxpayers, we will say, at only one-fifth of the fair market value of the property, for purposes of local taxation, most of which, or a large part of which, goes for education: Now, do you think that the people of the first State should be taxed by the Federal Government for the purpose of paying a part of the school expenses of the other State, where they are not willing to pay more than one-fifth as much as the first State pays?

Doctor JUDD. I think it is perfectly clear that it would be inequitable to levy Federal taxation or to distribute Federal funds except upon the basis of equalized property valuations or some other common basis.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you think that each State, before receiving Federal aid, should show its willingness to tax its citizens upon the average basis upon which the citizens of other States are taxed?