philosophy or the American concept of public education, and the educational leaders in the several States would accept it as a basis for action. There is not a man who has had the responsibility of administering a State school system who does not feel to-day that one of the great needs of public education is a clearing house at Washington which can assemble here information relative to all phases of public education and which can suggest specific programs of work in every field of educational activity. Under present conditions each State department of education is compelled without adequate equipment to do this research work for itself. Necessarily there is great inefficiency and useless duplication. A Federal department organized on this basis would influence public school administration in all parts of the country. If there were a Federal department of education with an adequate staff of experts to render the service which States need, I would be entirely willing to take my chances, if I were sitting at the head of a State department of education, with the secretary of education at Washington at the head of the Federal department of education, stepping over beyond the functions of his office, coming within my territory, and undertaking to usurp any rights or prerogative which properly belong to the head of the State department, I think that the State school men generally are quite willing to accept that responsibility.

Mr. BLACK. If we were sure that all of the State school systems would have at their head men as strong as Doctor Finegan

Doctor FINEGAN (interposing). Thank you, but we have a great many strong and effective State school administrators, and their leadership would be strengthened in their own States with a Federal department equipped with a staff of able experts who could give these State leaders the assistance they seek. There would then be a leadership in every State of the country that would result in greater efficiency in the schools and in the advancement of all industrial and commercial interests of the States.

We are asked here why should the Federal Government be called upon to make appropriations for public education? Is it fair to take money from New York and Pennsylvania and give it, perhaps, to Connecticut, Virginia, Montana, etc.?

Mr. FENN. Connecticut does not want it.

Doctor FINEGAN. Undoubtedly; but she would not decline it.
Mr. FENN. She would, absolutely.

Doctor FINEGAN. Be that as it may; but we had an experience at the time of the recent war that measured the effectiveness of the school systems of the country. We heard from one end of the country to the other talk about the striking power of the Nation. What is the striking power of the Nation? When our people were talking about the striking power of the Nation, they were referring to the intelligence and the physical powers of the great masses. We recognize that the efficient citizen în industrial or civil life, as well as the efficient man in war, is the man of intellectual power as well as physical power. We recognize that those two elements in an effective person must be combined. Whether we appreciate it or not, there is being developed to-day from one end of the country to the other a national spirit which recognizes that the intellectual and the physical power of our citizens constitute the striking power or the effectiveness of the citizens of the country in times of peace as well as in times

Whatever our standards in morals, health, or intelligence may be for an effective citizenship in time of war, I ask you if there should not be an equally high standard in these elements in times of peace? The time to prepare for war is in time of peace, and the most effective weapons for winning a war are strong, intellectual men and women.

We are asked if it is possible by the passage of the Dallinger bill to reorganize the present Bureau of Education so that we could go on with that agency and accomplish the educational reforms that are so much desired. I think it is absolutely impossible to achieve such action by the passage of that measure. The best evidence of our inability to achieve that end by such process is the fact that for half a century the present bureau has not been able to attain the standard of efficiency which it should reach. Its failure is due absolutely to the type of organization which has prevailed. Doctoring it over now will not redeem it or make it effective. No matter who was at the head of that organization, it was not effective. Some of the Nation's great leaders in education have been at the head of that bureau. For instance, Doctor Barnard, of Connecticut, who was one of the great apostles of education in the early development of that subject in this country. Doctor Harris, of St. Louis, one of America's greatest administrators of public education served at the head of such bureau. While those men accomplished something, they did not begin to render anywhere near the service which they might have rendered had they been able to function at the head of a Federal department instead of an inferior officer in such department. Many of the States had bureaus of education in the office of the secretary of the Commonwealth or the secretary of state for many years. We had such a bureau in New York for several years, but New York never achieved leadership in public education while she had such a bureau. When New York had the old superintendent of common schools, and Gideon Hawley served in such office, she had effective leadership. When that office was abolished and a bureau established in the office of secretary of state, New York lost her leadership. Then, again, in 1856, when the bureau was abolished and a State education department created, she again assumed leadership in public education. The same thing was true in Pennsylvania. I am fairly familiar with public education in this country, or as familiar with it as most men. I have spoken to over 20 State meetings this year, I have come in contact with educational leaders everywhere, and I can say that a compromise of the kind suggested by the Dallinger bill would not end this controversy. We should be here before future Congresses still advocating the enactment of a measure comparable with the Sterling-Reed bill. It seems to me that the wise thing to do would be to enact one of these bills before the committee establishing a department of education either the Towner-Sterling or the Dallinger bill. The Dallinger bill should be modified if it is to be enacted. In my judgment there ought not to be included in that bill the provision relating to the social welfare bureau, whatever that may be. It is so nebulous that no one is able to define it or interpret it. No one knows what the limits of the powers conferred under this provision are. It is absolutely unnecessary. All of the substantial things that the people of the country are interested in and in which the Federal Government has a legitimate interest are

enumerated in the two divisions relating to education and health. Teaching children the fundamentals of health, how to take care of their bodies, how to exercise, what to eat, etc., are matters of education, and it seems to me that all essential subjects could be covered in this bill under the broad subject, education. Furthermore, if the Dallinger bill should be reported, in my judgment, you should eliminate the Veterans' Bureau. The main activities of that bureau are not educational. The educational features of that bureau could very well be provided for in the department of education. It could be administered upon a cooperative basis between the department charged with the function of providing for the needs of the veterans and the department of education.

On the other hand, if this bill, or the Towner-Sterling bill, is reported, then, in my judgment, you should incorporate in it a provision that would turn over to the education department at once the powers and functions of the Federal Board for Vocational Education. That board has direct administrative and regulatory powers, and that board has, during the years in which this measure has been in operation, been setting standards in all of the States of the country.

Mr. TUCKER. I thought that this bill embraced pretty much all of that.

Doctor FINEGAN. It gives Congress the power to transfer that board, but, in my judgment, it ought to be transferred at once and in the bill.

I thank you gentlemen for your attention.

Mr. TUCKER. Before you sit down, let me say that I have been very much interested in your statement, and I would like to ask you a few questions. You said that from your experience as a State officer you thought that education should be kept under the control of the State government.

Doctor FINEGAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. TUCKER. This bill prescribes, as one of the conditions under which a State can come in under it, that the State must make provision for a 24-week school term.

Doctor FINEGAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. TUCKER. That, you say, and I agree with you entirely, is a very proper term, and it certainly ought not to be any less than that, but all of the States do not have that provision.

Doctor FINEGAN. Do you mean that they do not have compulsory attendance laws?

Mr. TUCKER. No; all of them do not have a 24-week term for public schools. Now, you say that that is a reasonable condition, because everybody recognizes that a 24-week term is a very limited term, to say the least, but if we put that condition in the bill, do we not to that extent, or does not the Federal Government to that extent, control education in the States?

Doctor FINEGAN. Technically, Mr. Tucker, you are right. You are right to that extent, but it is perfectly obvious that the act does not control the State in this respect. The State would not receive funds unless it does maintain school for 24 weeks. To that extent your proposition is sound.

Mr. TUCKER. I mention that for this reason: This bill is predicated upon the right of the Federal Government in giving money to prescribe conditions with the gift. If this bill should be passed, it

would last for two years, and after two years another bill would come up, and the same power of the Federal Government to prescribe conditions would exist then. Of course, we do not know what the conditions then would be or what conditions would be then prescribed.

Doctor FINEGAN. That would be true whether you put such a provision in the bill or not There is nothing to bar citizens from coming in two years from now and asking for the enactment of a bill; but, of course, you Members of Congress would then have the right to exercise your judgment on such policy in voting upon the enactment of a law of that character.

Mr. TUCKER. But what I am after is this: If we start with this principle and certainly it is a correct one that when a man gives money he has the right to make the conditions on which it is givenif the Federal Government claims that right, could they not make any other conditions after this system starts, and in that way could they not practically control it? For instance, we have in our southern country a serious question about schools, because we can not have mixed schools in the South; but suppose the next bill that comes up says that any State that accepts these conditions for the sake of economy must have mixed schools.

Doctor FINEGAN. I think that in that event this is what you would find: That the educational leaders throughout the country would come here and ask that that bill be killed, because it would be such a direct interference with the State's prerogatives in education that the educational leaders in the States would not stand for it.

Mr. TUCKER. I wish I thought that; but with only 17 States in the Union with laws against mixed schools and 31 States allowing. mixed schools, I should greatly fear it.

Doctor FINEGAN. I should not. I should be willing to put my self on record as saying that I would be one man to come here and ask Congress not to enact legislation of that kind. That would be an interference with State prerogatives and should be left absolutely to the States.

Mr. LOWREY. I am frank to say that I find that there are expressions of fear that there will be a tendency and a very great tendency to interfere with church schools, or with the various denominations in their educational plans. I am not expressing my own feeling upon that, but I am expressing a suggestion that has come to me from several men in whom I have great confidence and for whom I have great respect, and who are deeply interested in denominational schools or the church schools of the different denominations.

Doctor FINEGAN. My thought upon that question is just this: The history of the development of the State departments of education in the several States shows that there has not been the effort in the States by the State authorities to reach out and interfere in any way whatever with church schools, and I think you will find among fair minded men everywhere that general feeling.

Mr. BLACK. You except Oregon from that statement, do you not? Doctor FINEGAN. No, sir; as I understand the situation in Oregon, the State department of education was not a party to that controversy. I am talking about the legal State authorities in charge of education, and the history of the country shows that they have never interfered with the rights of those parents who have a con

scientious belief that they want church schools and who want their children to attend them. I do not think there is any man of sense or experience in administration of schools who would attempt it. I think that is an anticipated fear that would never crystallize and that would never be raised.

Mr. BLACK. Do you not think that the crying need is adequate appropriations for the development of education, rather than this suggested department of bureau?

Doctor FINEGAN. My thought upon that is that if we can have but one thing to-day, it would be better to create the department. I think that is of more importance than the appropriations.

The CHAIRMAN. In your opinion, is there any State in the Union that is financially unable to give its children proper education, and, if so, please state to the committee what States are financially unable to do that.

Doctor FINEGAN. That is a rather difficult as well as a delicate question. It involves an analysis of several factors of each of the 48 States. I am quite willing to go on record as saying from the knowledge I have of public education over the country, that there is not a State in the Union which does not have a school system that is adequate to present demands or that is according to all of the children of such State their inherent right to an equal opportunity in education facilities.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that because the States are unable to do it? Doctor FINEGAN. I think that you will find that some of the States are not financially able to provide such schools. On that question there is another fact that you have got to bear in mind, and that is that Congress has been reaching out in the last 10 years and taxing the resources of the States. Congress has been taking from the States taxes which were never contemplated for Federal purposes except to meet emergencies, and these taxes run into the hundreds of millions of dollars. If the State of Pennsylvania could have all of the money which she has paid in taxes to the Federal Government in the last eight years, and could fund that amount at 4 per cent, she would have a sufficient income to maintain perpetually the school system of the State under present expenditures. The States had all of those sources to draw from in maintaining their school system previous to the time when Congress reached out and taxed such sources for Federal purposes.

Mr. BLACK. Is this proposition upon the theory of the State contributing funds to the Federal Government for these purposes, or is it upon the theory of the contribution of Federal funds to the States? In other words, is this bill another system of taxing the States for what would be a Federal function?

Doctor FINEGAN. No, sir; I think it is quite the reverse.

The CHAIRMAN. Your State would be contributing a greater amount than it would receive.

Doctor FINEGAN. Yes, sir; and that would apply to New York. Mr. TUCKER. You stated that there were 5,000,000 children last year who did not go to school.

Doctor FINEGAN. What I meant by that was that if you should take the school registers and ascertain the number who were out every day, the number would be 5,000,000. I did not mean that there were 5,000,000 children who were not enrolled.