munities where they go for work; the laws and regulations governing school attendance by nonresidents, and apportionment of State school funds in the communities where there are migrants; and the attitude of communities toward the children of migratory workers. It follows that no one system of schools for migrant children can be set up and operated. The problem must be met differently in different areas. But it must be met, and experience in a few States—such as California, New Jersey, and Michigan-indicates that it can be met. Because so many of these children cross State lines and are temporary residents of a number of States, it is an area of education where Federal financial help is most appropriate.

We believe, therefore, that it would be desirable to specifically mention in any bill for Federal aid, the children of migratory workers and would suggest that section 7, dealing with State acceptance provisions, be amended to provide that—

in States where children of migratory workers reside for certain parts of the school year, a just and equitable apportionment of such funds shall be provided for the benefit of public schools serving such children.

(The statement by the National Child Labor Committee on Federal Aid to Education referred to in the statement of the witness is as follows:)

STATEMENT BY THE NATIONAL CHILD LABOR COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION'

Believing that every child in the United States, regardless of where he lives, should have access to basic general education of a high standard and to additional educational opportunities in accordance with his interests, capacity, and special needs, the National Child Labor Committee:

1. Reaffirms its support of Federal aid to the States as a necessary step in equalizing educational opportunities for all children in all States.

2. Will approve measures providing Federal aid to the States for education only if they specifically set forth:

(a) That the basis on which Federal funds are administered shall respect the principle of State and local control of education and funds shall be expended through State departments of education.

(b) That Federal funds shall be so distributed within the States that children of all population groups share equitably in the funds, and that there be no reduction in State and local funds used for education, nor in the proportion of State and local funds expended for minority groups.

3. Supports the principle that Federal funds shall be used only for public schools but will not withhold support from a bill which permits the use of Federal funds for nonpublic schools in States which now expend State or local funds for nonpublic schools for purposes authorized in the Federal bill.

Mr. McCOWEN. Does that conclude your statement?

Mrs. ZIMAND. That concludes my statement.

Mr. McCOWEN. You have made a very excellent statement of the situation.

I notice that you refer to the schools largely having been almost strictly academic, with the idea of preparation only for college, when so few go to college. I am quite sure you are aware of the fact that in the last 20 or 25 years in particular, there has been a decided effort to overcome that situation by providing schools with better equipment, by changing the courses so that various types of children might receive the kind of instruction that would interest them, and from which they could profit. But even though that be true, to some ex

1 Adopted March 3, 1947.

tent, and to perhaps a fairly large extent, there is an enormous amount of room for much more to be done.

You would agree, I suspect from your statement and reference to H. R. 2953, that these States, so-called wealthy States, that contribute or would be contributing many millions of dollars toward this fund, if this bill should pass, should receive some of that money back in some way, as the $3 per child would do, because of the lack of equalization in those States.

You also are doubtless familiar with the fact that in most, if not all, of the so-called wealthier States there are considerable areas, in some States very large areas, where the wealth in those sections is not at all adequate to assume their own responsibility for schools and that while a good many of these wealthy States have undertaken to equalize considerably within the State, there still is not nearly enough done, and that this additional fund to the wealthier States would provide money so that there might be some additional help for such sections. You are familiar with all that?

Mrs. ZIMAND. Yes, I would favor funds to all States, because we do not predicate our belief in Federal aid merely on the present emergency, nor do we believe that funds for Federal aid should be restricted to use for increasing teachers' salaries, that a good education implies much more than well-paid teachers.

I would feel that the amount that should go to the wealthier States would be determined in part by the total amount of the appropriation available and that in the beginning, with as modest an appropriation as would probably be approved by this Congress, the greatest share should go to the poorest States, but the principle of aid to every State should be incorporated.

Mr. McCOWEN. I fully agree with you in that statement. If some additional help be given, even to the wealthier States for current expenses, it is going to make it so that these poorer districts can have a little larger leeway from their own taxes to provide better equipment, in many cases some equipment, where there is none, to make a good school.

Then, is it not also a fact that buildings are very poor in many areas over the United States, and in many instances, even in the wealthier States, that a good many of these so-called poorer districts just do not have the tax wealth to vote a bond issue large enough to build the right kind of school buildings, and there must be help to such communities either from the State or Federal sources or both. Mrs. ZIMAND. Yes.

Mr. McCOWEN. That, of course, is another question to some extent, as this bill would assist only indirectly by releasing some of the current expenditures for equipment purposes, but certainly not for building purposes.

On behalf of the committee, I thank you for your very excellent statement.

Mrs. ZIMAND. Thank you, sir.

Mr. McCOWEN. Up to this time in the hearings we have had pretty clear and forceful presentation of the different points of view pertaining to the question of Federal aid, and there will doubtless be a number of witnesses yet to appear who will discuss Federal aid from all angles.

The next witness is Mr. Charles J. Hendley, representing the teachers union, United Federal Workers, CIO.

For the purpose of the record you may state your name and connection, and then proceed as you desire.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES J. HENDLEY, REPRESENTING THE TEACHERS UNION, UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO

Mr. HENDLEY. I was sent here by the teachers union, which is a local of the United Public Workers of America.

Mr. McCOWEN. That is CIO?

Mr. HENDLEY. That is a CIO organization. Due to lack of time, I would like to devote my attention to just one phase of this question mainly, that is the relation between the church and state under our Constitution.

Mr. McCowEN. You have 15 minutes and you will not be interrupted. Mr. HENDLEY. Very well, thank you. I am sorry Mr. Schwabe and some of the other men are not here to participate in this discussion. Mr. McCOWEN. So am I.

Mr. HENDLEY. I would like to talk it over with them..

During the last decade many volumes of evidence have been presented to Congress on the needs of the schools, and on the uneven distribution of the resources of the Nation which causes a great disparity in the abilities of the various States to maintain schools, and some of the ablest people have come before committees of Congress and described the injustice to the children because of the inequalities in their educational opportunities. While we were improving industry, transportation, and communications, we left the schools back in the horse-and-buggy stage of development.

Recently the poverty of the schools and the low pay of teachers has become a national scandal that has been widely published, so I think it has become as plain as anything can be shown that there is a critical need for very great improvement in the schools of the Nation. It is necessary, not only for the prosperity of the Nation but for national defense itself, not to mention the birthright of every child in a democracy like ours.

Why is it we have this interminable delay? Why do we go from one decade to another letting this contradiction of American democracy continue? I think we would reach a better understanding and a better agreement on the issue before us if we would frankly admit that the political question growing out of the relation of church and state has been the main block in the way of Federal aid for public education. I think Reverend McManus was before this committee, and I think he admitted that in his statement.

Many of us know that this political issue, the relation between church and state, was settled in the founding of the Nation and in the adoption of the 48-State constitutions and their amendments since then, but many Americans of this generation do not seem to realize that, or if they do realize the question has been settled, they do not seem to realize the significance of it.

It is true that Americans of this generation do not realize what went before the adoption of this principle of separation of church and state. They do not know about the quarrels and contentions and actual religious persecutions right here in these American States.

They do not realize what went before the separation of church and state and all the rest of the Bill of Rights. This may be a serious danger to all our liberties. Fascism is not liquidated yet, even in this country.

It is a good thing that the Supreme Court recently undertook to clarify the relations between church and state. I refer to the case that came up from the New Jersey courts, known as the Eberson v. Board of Education. The Supreme Court delivered its opinion last February.

The Court explained the meaning and intent of the first clause in the first amendment to the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In order to explain the intent of that clause, all of the Justices that expressed any opinion in the case, Black, Jackson, Rutledge, all three of them went into the history of the separation of church and state, and went into it very thoroughly. The Court was unanimous in the fundamental decision that they made, that the first amendment erected a wall between church and state, and that that wall must be kept high and impregnable. They said, "We cannot approve the slightest breach." The whole Court agreed to that statement.

The Court went on to show very clearly, and especially Justices Jackson and Rutledge in their dissenting opinions, that this separation of church and state is infinitely more than a mere shibboleth, as some one of the ecclesiastics has declared recently. Bishop Cushing in Boston not so long ago made the remark that this idea of separation of church and state had been overplayed.

By the way, I saw just a day or two ago that Senator Aiken made the statement that this argument that separation of church and state no longer holds in view of the fact that the Federal Government even educates priests under the GI bill of rights. Senator Aiken thinks the matter is practically settled against this principle. But I predict that they are all in for a disillusionment, because the Supreme Court is very clear in this.

The Court made it clear that the founders of our Government were intent on making a complete separation between civil-authority and. religious activities, and they did this deliberately for the purpose of preventing any tyranny of civil authorities' imposing religious creeds and observances on the people and to prevent ecclesiastical authority from intermeddling with governmental policies. They knew very well what they were about.

Jefferson and Madison who initiated the separation of church and state regarded religious freedom as the crux of all our civil rights. They and the other founders of the Government did more than establish mere religious tolerance. They established religious freedom and equality for all the people. To them and to Americans generally religious freedom meant not only the freedom to worship as one's own conscience dictates and the freedom to propagate one's faith, but it also meant that the civil authority, or any other authority, cannot impose any creed, dogma, or religious observance on the people. Religious freedom has this two-phase aspect.

Evidence that the first amendment expressed the conviction and the will of the American people lies in the fact that all the States

gradually, over a period of years, incorporated the same principle into their respective constitutions, even though this meant depriving some sects of special privileges which they had enjoyed in certain States. Now all the States guarantee religious freedom and equality. and nearly all of them have explicit provisions forbidding the use of tax funds for the support of religious institutions. Moreover, the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the fourteenth amendment makes the first amendment binding on all the States.

Even more conclusive proof of the living force of the first amendment is the more than 150 years of our policies and traditions, both in the Federal and the State Governments, which have been based on its provisions. No other principle of our democracy is more firmly rooted in the lives of the people. So if any group has undertaken to reverse American policy on the relationship of church and state, it has undertaken the stupendous task of effecting a fundamental change in the constitutional law of the land.

But we hear loud and bitter complaints of the hardship and injustice of denying the appropriation of public funds to parochial schools. Undoubtedly a hardship is felt by some, but it is not inherent in the constitutional provision for religious freedom and equality. The hardship grows out of the diversity of interest of various elements in the population with respect to religious observances. It grows out of the impossible expectations of some sects. No sect can have it all its own way. Each has the necessity of adjusting itself to a community of many sects, a community in which a large percentage of the population does not profess to any particular faith. And it is not the American way to impose a faith upon anyone, or to force anyone to help propagate a creed or faith that he does not believe in. A tax to support religious schools would do just that. It would be the hated tithe by another name.

The best that the civil authority can do is to preserve a strict neutrality between the believers and the nonbelievers and among the various sects of believers, and to accord as nearly impartial treatment to all as is possible. Certainly the hardship of supporting their own religious schools is no greater for one sect than for another in proportion to their numbers. And as Justice Jackson pointed out in his opinion, the same law that denies the use of tax funds to support religious institutions also guarantees freedom and equality for all religions. Certainly the parochial schools of various denominations have flourished well in this country, and have been freer from interference by civil authority than religious schools in almost any other country that can be named. Even Catholic schools have been freer from interference in America than they have been even in countries where theirs was the state church. I have only to mention Italy, Spain, France, and Mexico.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court in the same case in which it was so clear on the relation between church and state, introduced confusion by a 5 to 4 decision upholding the payment of bus fares of parochial school children out of public funds. The Court ruled that the bus service was a welfare service rather than support of a religious school. But even Justice Black who delivered the majority opinion intimated that such use of public funds might be on the very verge of unconstitutionality. Justice Rutledge in his dissenting opinion, which is of historic import, said it was a definite breach in the wall of separation