Senator DONNELL. Now, Doctor, notwithstanding these perhaps borderline cases that have been submitted here today, in this talk, these references to school lunches and things of that kind, health examinations, and so forth, the fact remains that S. 472 makes only these restrictions, does it not, of the use of money thereunder authorized to be appropriated, namely, that no interest can be paid, no debt service can be paid, and no capital outlay can be paid; and those are the only exceptions in S. 472.

Mr. FOREMAN. That is the way I read.

Senator DONNELL. In other words, under S. 472 there is no provision which undertakes to limit the use of these funds to health examinations, for lunches, or even to bus transportation, and so far as S. 472 is concerned, in a State which permits the use of public funds for nonpublic school use, the money that goes from the Federal Government's funds under S. 472 could be applied to the purchase of books, could be applied to the purchase of anything else and the salaries of teachers and to the conduct of the school, except in regard to interest, debt service, and capital outlay.

Mr. FOREMAN. That is right.

Senator DONNELL. You are opposed to that?

Mr. FOREMAN. Very much.

Senator DONNELL. And these isolated individual instances that have been mentioned here this morning did not in the slightest alter your unalterable opposition to the use of Federal funds for nonpublic schools?

Mr. FOREMAN. Or to section (B) as written.

Senator DONNELL. And I say you are opposed to the use of Federal funds for nonpublic schools?

Mr. FOREMAN. That is right.

Senator DONNELL. And your organization is opposed to it?
Mr. FOREMAN. That is right.

Senator DONNELL. And regarding these slight infringements or deviations, and so forth, are such that must be considered; namely, I will ask you, whether in the case of New Jersey that you referred to, whether you concur in this observation of Justices Rutledge, Frankfurter, Jackson, and Burton, the four minority members of the Court in saying:

And the princi le was as much to prevent "the interference of law in religion" as to restrain religious intervention in political matters. In this field the authors of our freedom would not tolerate "the first experiment on our liberties" or "wait until usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents."

Citing Remonstrance, paragraph 3, and then the four members of the Supreme Court conclude with the words, "Nor should we." Do you concur in that view?

Mr. FOREMAN. Certainly.

Senator DONNELL. In other words, you are not favorable to the idea of small, gradual encroachments on a great principle. You prefer that if there are some isolated instances of injustice, there should be remedy other than violation of great principles underlying our government?

Mr. FOREMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator DONNELL. Now, Doctor, would you tell us, please, just a word or two about the Southern Conference for Human Welfare so

that we may have it in the record. How large an organization it is; over what States does it function, and anything that may occur to you that would be of significance in determining the importance of this testimony given by yourself here this morning from the standpoint of representation.

Mr. FOREMAN. All right, sir.

The Southern Conference for Human Welfare was started 9 years ago in Birmingham, Ala., and has its membership open to all southerners, regardless of race, creed, or color. It is devoted entirely to building a more prosperous and more democratic South. Its membership is limited to the 13 Southern States and the District of Columbia, with associate members outside. It has State committees in Virginia, the District of Columbia, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, and Louisiana, with organizing committees in some other States.

It is entirely for the purpose, as I say, of promoting a more prosperous and democratic South.

Senator DONNELL. Frank P. Graham, of the University of North Carolina, is president?

Mr. FOREMAN. First president, now honorary president.

Senator DONNELL. Dr. Foreman, your organization is considered to be quite liberal, is it not? In fact, it has been criticized by some people because of the fact that it takes a liberal attitude; that is correct, is it not?

Mr. FOREMAN. To be democratic in the South is very definitely to invite

Senator DONNELL. For instance, in the Lilienthal matter, your organization was the one brought in there in testimony to the effect that Mr. Lilienthal was criticized because of either some personal attendance at a meeting or some connection of that kind.

Mr. FOREMAN. He sponsored our second conference in Chattanooga along with a long list of very distinguished people.

Senator DONNELL. The point I am getting at is that your organization is not one of the old extremely conservative organizations which might be expected to come here and oppose Federal aid to nonpublic schools, but your organization is even one that has been criticized as going decidedly in the further direction of cultural liberality. That is right, is it not?

Mr. FOREMAN. That is right.

Senator DONNELL. How long have you been connected with the Southern Conference for Human Welfare?

Mr. FOREMAN. I was among the original sponsors in 1938 and have been on the board ever since, and I am now president.

Senator DONNELL. And about how many members do you have, would you say?

Mr. FOREMAN. About 10,000 associates and members.

Senator AIKEN. Thank you for your testimony.

Your prepared statement may be inserted in the record at this point. (The statement referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT BY CLARK FOREMAN, PRESIDENT, SOUTHERN CONFERENCE FOR HUMAN WELFARE, RESPECTING S. 199 & S. 472, APRIL 28, 1947 Although the problem of education is Nation-wide, I am most concerned about its bearing on the 13 Southern States. As a representative of the Southern Conference for Human Welfare, I will therefore confine my testimony to the effect on

the South of Federal aid to education. The Southern Conference for Human Welfare, is concerned with the betterment of the South and recognizes that the most pressing problem in our southern States is that of education. Ignorance and illiteracy on one side of the balance, poverty and prejudice on the other, these have made the South the target of that pointing finger-national and international-which says in effect: "This is a poor sample of a great nation and a living democracy."

Selective service experience showed that 9 out of every 10 illiterates were from the South. More than six out of every hundred southern young men could not write their names. When we translate this into absolute figures, it is rather appalling. It means that thousands of our people are doomed to illiteracy and millions more to ignorance not far removed from illiteracy.

Statistics make dull conversation but they also show us rather clearly the shortcomings of southern education. The 1940 census figures reveal, for example, that among all the people of the South aged 25 or over, only 1 in 10 had finished high school. Almost 6 percent of the southern adult population had never been to school at all, as compared with 3 percent for the rest of the Nation. Eighteen percent of the southern population had never reached the fifth grade. In 1940, only 75 percent of all southern children of school age were enrolled in school. This compares with 86 percent for the rest of the Nation. No matter how we look at it, southerners have not been as well educated as people in other parts of the country. Worse than that, the young people of the present day are not being provided with as high a level of education as young people in the rest of the United States.

Our next question is why? Why should the South lag behind the rest of the Nation in educational opportunity? The answer is poverty. Education requires money and, although the South is spending a greater share of its wealth for education than other sections of the country, it simply does not have enough money to keep up with other parts of the country. We have, in the South, one-third of the Nation's children. We have only one-eighth of the Nation's taxable wealth. We have tried hard to do what we could with limited resources, but the relative insufficiency of taxable wealth confronts us with a formidable barrier.

In 1939 and 1940 the total outlay for public schools in the United States was $2,300,000,000. Of this amount, only $400,000,000 (about 17 percent) was expended by the South. Yet we have one-third of the school children. To educate them properly, we should be spending one-third of the national education bill.

I think we have tried hard to improve education, despite our limited resources. Some States have spent over 50 percent of their tax income for education. It does not seem likely that we can squeeze much more money for education out of our limited resources. Lack of industrial production (as compared with other sections) and its attendant lack of wealth, have given us a meager portion of taxable wealth. Without Federal aid, we cannot solve effectively this problem of inadequate education.

I think it would be pertinent here to present some more detailed comparative figures on financing of education in the South as compared with the rest of the country. The figures are truly startling. They are taken from such sources as census figures, the National Education Association, the American Council on Education, from the recently completed New York Times survey on public school education, etc.

First, let us see how the average student in the South compares with his fellow student outside of the South. In 1940 the average yearly cost of educating one pupil in the nonsouthern schools was $114.28. In the South, for the same period, the amount allotted for one pupil was less than half that amount-only $50.79. Now, take the so-called average classroom unit. In 1946 the over-all cost of operating a typical classroom in the 31 nonsouthern States was $2,199. In the 17 southern and border States, the average per white classroom unit was $1,166 and the average per Negro classroom unit was $477. If we study figures for the 13 Southern States alone, we find them to be even lower, since the border States like Delaware and Maryland raise that over-all average which I quoted earlier. The New York Times study revealed that at the top level, schools spend as much as $6,000 per classroom unit, while at the bottom level, which is to be found in the South, schools spend as little as $100 per classroom unit.

However, this comparison of expenditures per average child and per average classroom unit only reveals a part of the story. How about the quality of education? How do the teachers, the school buildings, the school equipment of the South compare with the rest of the Nation? Again, it is money which tells.

60144-47-pt. 1-31

Study reveals that the average training of southern teachers is below the national standard. Although there are exceptions, salary is a fairly basic index to training. Now in 1940 the national average public-school teacher's salary was $1,441 a year. In the South, the average teacher got less than $1,000 a year, with Mississippi for instance averaging less than $600. Breaking this down for rural and urban schools, the average southern urban teacher got $1,209, the nonsouthern got $2,124. The average southern rural teacher got $732 while the nonsouthern got $1,109.

As for school property, our Nation in 1941-42 valued its school property at $8,000,000,000. In the 13 Southern States, the total value was $1,250,000,000.. That means that the section of this country which has one-third of the school children of the Nation has only one-fifth of the national value of school property.. The final aspect of the quality of education lies in the size of the average classroom. Figures for 1941-42 show that the average American teacher handled a class of 24.5 pupils. The average for the 17 southern and border States was 28.6 pupils for white teachers and 36.1 pupils for Negro teachers.

Thus we have a picture of the southern school child, whose school equipment is meager, whose teacher is poorly qualified, poorly paid, and forced to handle more children than elsewhere in the country; we have a picture of the southern school child with lower average daily attendance, with less chance of finishing grade school or high school than elsewhere in the Nation. No wonder I feel impelled to unload these statistics upon your committee, since they may be changed so much for the better by your action on the Federal aid bills which you are considering here.

Since the Negro represents a special problem in these statistics for southern education, I would like to discuss this aspect briefly. The education of the Negro population of the South is, as you know, below the level that I have just described. The draft figures reveal that six out of nine illiterates in the South were Negro. Over one-third of Negro adults have not had a fifth-grade education. Little more than 2 out of every 100 have had a high-school education. The quality of education offered in Negro public schools is very poor. The educational background of many Negro teachers is inadequate. In seven Southern States, only about one out of three colored teachers has had a college education. The greater part of them have only 2 years or less of college education. In eight Southern States, the salaries of Negro teachers in 1939-40 ranged from $600 a year to $235 a year.. A larger share of the South's total income goes for education than in other regions of this country. In 1943-44 more than half of the Southern States exceeded the national average expenditure for education of 1.55 percent of total income; one Southern State devoted 2.47 percent to this purpose. The fact is simply that the South's burden of attempting to educate one-third of the Nation's children with one-fifth of the Nation's income is too great for it, unaided, to support.

For that reason the Southern Conference for Human Welfare heartily endorses: all bills that favor Federal aid for public education. We approve of S. 472, in its provisions for public education, but we do not think it goes far enough. We are much more in favor of S. 199 in its provisions for public schools. We oppose the provisions in all bills before you which would give public money to foster private education. We believe that the public schools are basic safeguards of democracy and that every effort should be made to strengthen them so that America can realize its democratic possibilities.

Senator AIKEN. The Chair wants to make it clear right now that it does not approve the use of public funds for teaching in nonpublic schools. The Chair is very much concerned over the health and general welfare of children in all schools, public and private, both.

Senator Fulbright, who is famed both as an educator and as a legislator, has come into the room and has been invited to give the committee the benefit of his opinion regarding Federal aid to edu

cation.

Senator Fulbright, will you favor the committee with your opinion on this subject?

STATEMENT BY HON. J. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

Senator FULBRIGHT. I want to thank the gentlemen of the committee for their courtesy.

Senator DONNELL. Will the Senator be kind enough to state his connection with educational work, particularly his connection with the University of Arkansas so we might have in the record what we generally know and understand?

Senator FULBRIGHT. I was afraid that might create the impression that I was prejudiced in that matter. I know one of the great handicaps I have in politics is the fact I used to be a professor. Every time the Chicago Tribune is critical of me, they start out by saying, "That professor.

Senator AIKEN. You do not think that education is considered a handicap to one engaged in politics?

Senator FULBRIGHT. In the process of becoming elected it is. [Laughter.]

I am J. W. Fulbright, Senator from Arkansas. I was formerly instructor in law at George Washington University and was president of the University of Arkansas.

Mr. Chairman, I was a member of Committee on Education and Labor, the predecessor of this committee, last year. I know that you have voluminous testimony about the statistics and the details of the situation that exists in education today and I do not propose to go over it.

I have before me a statement presented earlier by the Commissioner of Education, Mr. Ralph Jones, of Arkansas, in which he gives you in great detail the situation in my State which is one of the States which would benefit greatly by the Taft-Hill-Thomas bill, S. 472. I am more familiar with that bill and am here to support it for various reasons. I was here when the development of the bill in its initial stages took place. I think it is the most practical bill, the one most likely to be accepted by the Congress. For this reason, I believe that this is the bill that we should concentrate on. I do not mean that I would oppose S. 199 if I thought that it could be adopted, but I think that in view of the situation in the Congress, the great desire to cut governmental expenditures, that it would be probably too much to hope to obtain the funds which are contemplated by that bill.

I am particularly interested in getting the principle of Federal aid to education established so that we could start on the program of developing the administration of the Federal aid program and gain the acceptance by the people of the principle that the Federal government has an obligation in this field. Therefore, it leads me to support the bill which I think is most likely to be adopted. If the committee believes that the Aiken Bill can be adopted, I would of course support that. I might say I would support nearly any bill to get started the principle of Federal aid to education.

I thought that if I could give any ideas or persuasion here, really some observations that have come to me primarily since I have been in politics, I would. I often think of the emphasis that Thomas Jefferson put upon education. I am sure that he felt that in a system