privacy because they are going to be under public control and under supervision all along the line.

Now, I do not think the Catholic school or a Lutheran school or a Methodist school-and I happen to be a Methodist-I do not think that those institutions would want public authority to select their personnel, but I warn them that if they ever accept or secure too much public support they will increasingly have to come under the rules and regulations that govern the institutions which they wish to be separate from.

Senator DONNELL. May I interrupt you, Doctor? In that connection I think the language of the minority Justices in the Everson case has clearly emphasized the very point that you are making of the danger of the private school from coming under public control, and furthermore you refer to the importance of the preservation of our liberties. I call to you attention this one sentence in the minority opinion in this case which I trust is one on which you and I will agree, namely, "for Madsion, as also for Jefferson, religious freedom was the crux of the struggle for freedom in general.' You would agree to that

and to the further principle of the advisability of the separation of our church and state, would you not?

Dr. STUDEBAKER. I certainly would.

One further remark: I have understood from some of my friends interested in private schools that they would much prefer to deal with State educational agencies throughout the country in handling their affairs. They urge passage of legislation similar to the schoollunch act and to the provisions you have made in S. 199 to the effect that if a State by its constitution or statutes is not able to deal with private institutions, then the private institution should be helped directly by the Federal Government.

Certainly, I could not agree that in the long run that is a wise way to handle Federal matters in the field of education. I personally believe in a decentralized system of the control of education and I think there is plenty for the Federal Government and certainly for the Office of Education to do without controlling the administration of education in the States. But, obviously, an element of control always goes back to the first agency with which a local community or school deals and if the local school, private or otherwise, in a State, has to deal directly with the Federal Government then there will probably be a certain exercise of control by the Federal Government.

Now, I understand from the private-school people that they would much prefer to go right along with the public schools and deal with the State agencies, but it is because of the history of the whole development of our State Constitutions and our State statutes that they find that difficult to do, and in the meantime they are impatient for some kind of assistance, and if within the law and the Constitution of the United States that can be provided, they naturally want it.

Senator DONNELL. Doctor, emphasizing the point that you make as to the danger to the schools themselves, the nonpublic schools from the acquisition of public funds, I quote this language from this minority opinion:

for him

that is to say, Madison

religion was a wholly private matter beyond the scope of civil power either to restrain or support. Denial or abridgment of religious freedom was a violation of

rights both of conscience and of natural equality. State aid was not less obnoxious or destructive to freedom and to religion itself than other forms of State interference.

I think that has exactly the same point that you make.
Dr. STUDEBAKER. I think so.

Senator HILL. If we may get away from the Everson case for a minute, let me ask you this, Doctor. You heard the representative of the United States Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Boushall, testify, in which he said that the States could and should do this job of education.

I take it you do not agree with that?

Dr. STUDEBAKER. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.)

Senator HILL. On the record.

In other words, you do not think the States can do this job?
Dr. STUDEBAKER. I am sure many of them cannot.

Senator ELLENDER. Doctor, in answer to a question a minute ago by me you pointed out that certain Federal funds were being used to pay teachers' salaries in private colleges. Do you know of any Federal funds that are now being used in any manner to pay the salaries of teachers in private elementary and secondary schools and trade schools?

Dr. STUDEBAKER. I think what I mentioned was the GI bill of rights.

Senator ELLENDER. Yes; but you mentioned it only in connection with colleges.

Dr. STUDEBAKER. To some extent the same principle operates in schools of less than college grade under the GI bill of rights.

Senator ELLENDER. Is that the only case in connection with the GI bill of rights?

Dr. STUDEBAKER. Except that I think some Federal funds are flowing through Public Health Services and Welfare Services to employ nurses to work in private schools of elementary and secondary grades.

Senator ELLENDER. They do not teach? I am talking about the teachers who impart the knowledge to the children.

Dr. STUDEBAKER. I do not know of any other.

Senator HILL. Doctor, let me ask you this question: Under Senate 199, you do bring about an equalization, that is true; but what you really do there, you go much further than any questions on that position; you really impose upon the Federal Government to bear the major burden of responsibility in education in this country, do you

not?

Dr. STUDEBAKER. Isn't that done under S. 199?

Senator HILL. I say, that is exactly what is done there; is it not true?

Dr. STUDEBAKER. Under S. 199 more than under S. 472? Senator HILL. I would certainly think so, imposing a major responsibility on the Federal Government for education, for public education.

Dr. STUDEBAKER. Because it is more money you mean?

Senator HILL. Not because it is more money that you permit under that you work to a floor of $100—and you would require the State only to put up $40 or 40 percent, whereas the Federal Govern

ment would put up 60 percent. The Federal Government would be doing more under that bill so far as requirements are concerned than the States would be doing.

Dr. STUDEBAKER. As a matter of fact, in many States they are now spending so much more than that, that relatively the Federal Government would not be taking over that proportion of the total expenditure of education.

You do not believe, do you, that New York under this system would reduce its per pupil expenditure below $185?

Senator HILL. I do not know that it would reduce its expenditure, but what it could do is reduce the State contribution by $60.

Dr. STUDEBAKER. That is what has been done in the case of the land-grant colleges which you have long since supported. You do exactly the same thing with land-grant colleges; you relieve the States of that much expense universally throughout the country.

By the way, I would like to read into the record a resolution passed by the superintendents of schools representing cities of over 200,000 in this country. One was from New Orleans. This was a meeting which was held a week ago in Los Angeles. They considered Federal aid of all kinds and they are very much interested in it. Senator HILL. What organization did you say?

Dr. STUDEBAKER. These are the superintendents of schools in cities of over 200,000 in the United States, of which there are 44.

Now, there were about 30 men at this meeting representing those cities. Those cities comprise some 25 or 30 million people. Here is the resolution they passed:

The security of the Nation and its spiritual, cultural, and material well-being in this period of profound readjustment of both the national and the world economy, requires a greatly increased emphasis upon the support of public education.

To achieve these ends, Federal aid to public education has become a necessity. It is the considered opinion of the superintendents of the large cities that the distribution of Federal funds to the several States for the support of public education must be based upon this fundamental principle, namely, that to secure any satisfactory measure of adequacy of educational opportunity a uniform amount of financial support for the education of every school child in each State must be provided by the Federal Government."

And among the southern superintendents who were there was a man from Dallas, Tex., a man from New Orleans, one from St. Louis, and others. I do not remember all of them.

Senator HILL. Well, of course, on the whole the superintendents of cities over 200,000 where you have, on the whole, better educational opportunities, do not need this equalization as in your smaller cities, towns, and in rural communities.

Dr. STUDEBAKER. You could not get the superintendent of schools from Oklahoma City who was there to say that. Two years ago the minimum salary for a teacher in Oklahoma City was $1,000. Senator HILL. That might be true, but that is an exceptional case, is it not?

Dr. STUDEBAKER. Well, on the other hand

Senator HILL. That is exceptional as far as Oklahoma is concerned Dr. STUDEBAKER. They are strongly in favor of the principle I read. Senator HILL. Of course under S. 199 you disregard any basis of disparity in wealth between the States, do you not?

60144-47-pt. 1- -36

Senator AIKEN. May I interrupt to say that I have some tables here showing percentage of the Federal income tax paid by each State and the percentage of the allocation of school funds under S. 199 which each State would receive. It is very revealing and shows that the wealthy States pay for the cost of this in any case. For instance, Alabama pays 0.65 percent of the income tax of the country but would receive back 2.64 percent of the allocation for the schools; whereas New York pays 21.35 percent of the income tax and would receive back only 7.96 percent of the allocation for the schools. Going further, Mississippi pays only 0.25 percent or one-fourth of 1 percent of the Federal income tax and would receive back 2.23 percent of the allocation for secondary and primary schools. Missouri happens to be exactly almost on the line, so it does not make any difference to Missouri.

Senator DONNELL. Just about right.

Senator AIKEN. Missouri pays 2.75 percent of the Federal income tax and would draw 2.66 percent of the schools' tax.

In other words, you contribute about an equal amount to what you would receive.

(The tables referred to follow:)

Federal income taxes paid and allotment under S. 199 by States

Federal income taxes paid and allotment under S. 199 by States-Continued

States

(3) is of column (2)