Senator ELLENDER. May I make a correction? In Louisiana that was not the issue. It was not a question of money being given to the schools, but the State purchased the books and loaned them to the children of the State.

Mr. ASHE. Then I stand corrected on that. But the point was that the first amendment was definitely not considered in the decision or in the brief.

Senator AIKEN. Isn't it a question of determining whether a contribution of tax money is made to the children or to the school? And if the Court should hold that the State of Vermont could no longer pay $100-a-year tuition to enable the child to attend a private school in his own community, would not the State-and I think the State would get around that by simply paying $100 a year to the child or to the parents of that child, to assist them in securing an education for him? Then he could continue going to a private school just the same.

Mr. ASHE. Senator, it seems to me and I refer to the majority opinion in the Everson case-that if these payments were made to parents to reimburse them-in other words, a parent sends a child to a parochial school and then the State authorities receiving the Federal funds paid them to the parents, who in turn paid them to the school, the Everson case might be satisfied. You do not propose to do that. You propose to pay them to the school.

Senator AIKEN. The bills providing Federal aid for education make it possible for them to do so?

Mr. ASHE. Yes, your title II says that these moneys shall be used to reimburse these nonpublic, tax-exempt schools. That, I say, your Honor-Senator-we lawyers have that habit [laughter]

Senator THOMAS (interposing). May I ask a question right there? Do you think that the soldier education bill is in violation of the first amendment?

Mr. ASHE. I have not studied the soldier education bill, although I heard it discussed here this morning, but I do not know just what the provision therein is. If it is paid to the college, then I do believe that it may come within this ban.

Senator THOMAS. That is something we have indulged in for a long time. Our ROTC units, for instance, are maintained to a certain extent by the Federal Government. They go right into the private schools. They go into the higher parochial schools, and no one has ever questioned that as interfering with the first amendment. And haven't our schools, our private schools, even our strictest religious schools, grown up quite a bit in America, so that they have almost lost their original identity as a Baptist school, or a Methodist school or a Catholic school? What boy would not be taken into Notre Dame, if he wanted to go, if he had a good football standing?

Mr. ASHE. I am not arguing the merits or demerits of it, except as the Constitution may provide a ban which we cannot get around, no matter how we may feel about this thing, and I think you are, in both of these bills, putting in provisions which are unconstitutional. Now, may I answer some of the points you just raised? The theory that money given particularly for books and supplies is given to the child rather than to the school has been raised from time to time. It is met very squarely, and it seems to me very effectively, in the dissenting opinion in the Everson case. It is significant that

the majority of the court in the Everson case did not adopt this theory in justifying its decision, because they said very plainly that the money may not be given to the school, and in that particular case the money was not given to the school. It did not even get to the children through the school. It was given to the parents and the parents had already advanced the money for the bus transportation.

In New York State that question was raised, and one of the high courts of the State had this to say, where a local board of education was giving public funds for books and supplies and other instructional materials in parochial schools. I am quoting now:

Defendants say that books and supplies are furnished to the children attending the schools, and not to the schools. Even though we accept the statute as meaning that the books and supplies are to be furnished to the pupils and not to the schools, we think the act plainly comes within the prohibition of the Constitution; if not directly in aid of parochial schools, it certainly is indirect aid.

Now, I would like to refer to one other opinion, which does not have the standing of a court decision, certainly not of the United States Supreme Court, but it nevertheless is significant. During the war the New York State Legislature passed bills appropriating moneys to the State war council for the care of children of parents who were either in the armed forces or in the merchant marine or engaged in war work, so that the children could be taken care of during the day in day-care centers. The question arose as to whether any part of these funds could be used for a child-care project operated in a denominational school. In the opinion of the New York State attorney general, rendered in 1943, under the present State administration there, it was held:

It is my opinion that the maintenance of a child-care project in a parochial, talmud torah, or religious school building, even though outside school hours, would be in direct violation of section 4 of article XI of the New York State Constitution."

Which is similar to our first amendment.

This is true whether the program is conducted by religious school or parochial authorities, private social agencies or public authorities. No public money may be used in aid or maintenance, directly or indirectly, any religious instruction.

In the light of that opinion I could not answer your question as to whether the Federal aid program for soldiers is constitutional or not. I certainly think it is an open question. It has never been raised. But that solution would not determine the problem that we have here today.

Senator THOMAS. Isn't that decision based upon religious instruction rather than State instruction?

Mr. ASHE. That may be the answer, but you are proposing under title II of S. 199, and you gentlemen under 6B of S. 472, to provide these public funds for nonpublic schools, including parochial schools, where religious instruction is given.

Senator AIKEN. Let me add that any contribution for religous supplies or religious instruction is expressly prohibited.

Mr. ASHE. I realize that.

Senator AIKEN. It seems to the Chair very unfortunate that religion gets injected into this matter, when in some States at least the parochial schools-and the whole thing seems to be directed toward the Catholic Church-the parochial schools constitute only a minority of the private schools of those States. The Chair for one is very

sorry to see religion injected into this controversy. Let us talk about private schools.

Mr. ASHE. Gentlemen, the only reason why it is brought up is not that we have injected it. It is injected into these two bills. It is true you talk of "private" schools. We believe that public funds should be used for public schools.

Senator AIKEN. You would wipe out a large percentage of the high schools of the State of Vermont if you had your way. They were originally established as Methodist, Congregational, Baptist, and a few Catholic high schools. Some of the private schools are nondenominational, but they serve the purpose of high schools for that community. They may be the only schools which serve the purpose of a high school within 20 or 25 miles of children who would either have to be transported many miles to a public high school or be deprived of high school education except for the existence of these technically private schools. They are private in name only. They are public in every other respect.

Mr. ASHE. Senator, if we had adequate appropriations for public schools there would not be the need for all these private schools.

Senator AIKEN. I was a school director for 15 years, and I know case after case where isolated families or families that had crippled children, had to keep those children at home, and we, whether it was right or not, or constitutional or not, furnished those children and those parents with the supplies that they needed in order to give those children, little youngsters, a chance to get some kind of education, even though they were not able to go to a public high school. Mr. ASHE. May I say our association includes within its membership numerous private schools in the city of New York, and when this question was discussed as to what action should be taken by our association on your bills we were unanimous, private and public schools, on this issue.

Senator AIKEN. And the Chair for one is not satisfied to see a school bus loaded with children going to the public school, and some little 6-year old standing by the road in 2 feet of snow while the bus goes by have to walk 2 miles just because funds are not available to provide transportation for him to a technically private school.

Mr. ASHE. That is not the issue here, because, as I understand the Supreme Court majority decision in the Everson case, you can supply them with bus service. But you are going beyond that. You are going to give them books. You are going to give them supplies. You are going to give them a lot of other things which come within the constitutional ban. Now, I did not write the first amendment. Neither did you. Nor did we write that majority opinion, but there is the opinion of the Court.

In conclusion I want to say that arguing economy at this point on this subject would be penny-wise and pound-foolish. Federal expenditures now for education will pay dividends in the forms of decreased appropriations in the future for combating subversive activities, for penal institutions, for the curbing of juvenile delinquency, and for various other social services. Failure of our public educational system would undermine the very foundations upon which our American system of government rests, and that we simply cannot afford to have happen.

That is all I have, gentlemen.

(Mr. Ashe submitted the following brief:)

BRIEF OF THE UNITED PARENTS ASSOCIATIONS OF NEW YORK CITY ON SENATE BILLS FOR FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION

The United Parents Associations of New York City, Inc., which I represent, is a federation of parent associations and parent-teacher associations in public and private schools throughout the city of New York. It is a membership corporation chartered by the State of New York a quarter of a century ago. One of its purposes, as set forth in its certificate of incorporation and approved by the State commissioner of education, is "to arouse and mobilize the interest of the public in education in its wider aspects, including public and private school matters, the educational influence of the community, and adult education."

Let me make it clear at the very outset that the United Parents Associations is nonpartisan and nonpolitical. Among its members will be found persons of every religious faith and economic status, and of all political persuasions. It does not take any part in partisan politics of any nature whatsoever and concerns itself exclusively with questions affecting the welfare of children, the schools, and education.

As parents and as taxpayers, the members of our organization ask on behalf of the school children-the future citizens of our great Nation-that Congress provide for Federal aid to public education. If our children are to be prepared to cope with the growing complexities of life and the problems brought forth as an aftermath of the war, our public educational services throughout the Nation must be improved and expanded. There can be no more worthy purpose for which public funds should be expanded. Unless the grave situation in which our public schools find themselves today is remedied, and remedied quickly, they will be faced with a progressive deterioration which will seriously threaten their continued functioning as a bulwark of our American democratic way of life.

One has only to read the excellent series of articles written by Dr. Benjamin Fine, education editor of the New York Times, published by that newspaper 2 months ago, to realize the alarming state of our country's public schools. Having conducted a 6-month extensive survey, during which he visited urban and rural schools from coast to coast and interviewed thousands of persons connected with education, Dr. Fine found, among other things:

Six thousand schools will be closed this year because of lack of teachers, so that 75,000 children will have no schooling whatsoever.

Two million children will suffer a major impairment in their schooling because of poor teachers, while 5,000,000 children will receive an inferior education because of the inadequate number of available teachers.

Every State has a shortage of qualified teachers, with 350,000 teachers having left American public schools since 1940. Low salaries appear to be the most important reason for this situation.

One out of every seven teachers today is serving on an emergency, substandard certificate. Many teachers have had only a high school education or less.

There has been a sharp drop in the number of persons entering the teaching profession. Whereas in 1920, 22 percent of all college students attended teachers' colleges, today only 7 percent attend. Veterans are not interested in preparing to teach.

Teacher morale has dropped to a new low.

School buildings are in a deplorable state all over the country. About $5,000,000,000 are needed just to bring educational plants into good condition. Appaling inequalities exist throughout the Nation in the amounts spent for education. While some States or localities spend $6,000 per classroom unit, others spend as little as $100, with $1,600 as the national average.

While the United States spends 1.5 percent of its national income for its schools, Great Britain spends an estimated 3 percent and Russia spends 7.5 percent.

These facts speak eloquently of the need for Federal aid to public education. Even in New York City, which is located in a State which is among the highest in the amount of money spent per pupil in public schools, deplorable conditions exist. There has been a great and continuing exodus of competent teachers from the New York City schools without adequate replacements, resulting in overcrowded classes and in a daily average of some 500 or more uncovered classes which are without either a regular or substitute teacher. Buildings are still in use which were erected before the Civil War, some in the 1840's, which are not only dilapidated and unconducive to inspring children with a love for learning but which constitute definite health hazards for the children and

teachers. And the moneys spent for textbooks and supplies in the New York City schools are woefully inadequate.

With such conditions existing within the Empire State of the Union, which from State and local funds spent $185.12 per pupil in average daily attendance in 1944, one can imagine how appalling the situation must be in those States which spent as little as $42 per pupil that same year.

The Federal Government cannot afford to permit such conditions to continue. An intelligent, educated citizenry is an absolute essential if the United States is to retain its position as the leading democratic country in the world. An uneducated citizenry, ignorant of the meaning and benefits of our American way of life, can easily be misled by foreign totalitarian ideologies. Moreover, as the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers have pointed out, support of public education is a sound investment from an economic point of view. I refer your committee to the study made by the Chamber of Commerce, entitled "Education-an Investment in People, which shows that there is a definite correlation between the amount of money a State spends on its public schools and the social and economic level it reaches. This, the study showed, is reflected in increased business and general economic well-being.

In view of the serious teacher shortage, which Federal Education Commissioner John W. Studebaker has acknowledged amounts to a crisis (see his Annual Report, issued February 12, 1947), we favor the principle embodied in S. 81 (Green bill) and S. 170 (McCarran bill) of Federal assistance to the States for increasing the salaries of teachers in public elementary and secondary schools.

Increasing teachers' salaries is not enough, however. Federal aid for education generally is essential if our public schools are properly to perform their function of building our citizens of tomorrow. And because the need is so great, the United Parents Associations favors the appropriations provided under title I of S. 199 (Aiken bill), which would insure that by 1953 and thereafter no State would spend less than $100 per pupil per year in public elementary and secondary schools. A proviso should be written into any bill that your committee approves, however, prohibiting any State or local government which receives Federal aid from decreasing the amount of its present expenditures for public education. Federal aid should be provided in order to increase educational services or facilities, not to decrease them or to keep them static.

As to the amount of money that would have to be expended for such Federal aid, it is interesting to note that the moneys that would be appropriated for the entire fiscal year ending June 30, 1948, under title I of S. 199, would be less than twice the amount spent by our Government each day to carry on World War II after VE-day. And for the entire fiscal year ending June 30, 1952, and thereafter, the amount would be equal to the cost of carrying the war for 5 days after VE-day. (See World Almanac, 1946, p. 103.) This is certainly a small enough expenditure for insuring that the democratic ideals for which our Nation gave not only so much money but so many thousands of human lives are preserved.

While the United Parents Associations strongly urges Federal aid to public schools, it believes, that, as a matter of policy, such aid should be limited to schools of a completely public character.

Moreover, and aside from any issue of public policy, I submit that title II of S. 199 (Aiken bill), which provides for Federal aid to private schools, including parochial schools, is unconstitutional as violative of the first amendment. Section 6 (B) of S. 472 (Taft bill) suffers from the same infirmity insofar as it permits the use of Federal funds for parochial schools in those States which now render financial assistance to such schools.

In his able dissenting opinion in Everson v. Board of Education (New Jersey parochial school bus case), Mr. Justice Rutledge, speaking for himself, analyzed in detail and with great scholarship the history of the struggle for the separation of church and state in our country, beginning with Madison and Jefferson and continuing down to the present day. Mr. Justice Rutledge pointed out, without any contradiction from the Court's majority, that

The (first) amendment's purpose * * * was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion.

* * *

11* * * The prohibition broadly forbids State support, financial or other, of religion in any guise, form or degree. It outlaws all use of public funds for religious purposes.