The chief problem which occurs to us in S. 170 and S. 81 has to do with the definition of the word "teachers." S. 170 does not define the term at all and S. 81 defines it in such a way that it appears probable that some of our employees would thus receive increases while principals and some others would not. We feel that this would be detrimental to the morale of those not favored. Your interest and efforts in behalf of our schools and school people are deeply and sincerely appreciated. Very truly yours, W. H. LOPER, Superintendent. HAWAII CONGRESS OF PARENTS AND TEACHERS, Hon. JOSEPH R. FARRINGTON, MCKINLEY HIGH SCHOOL, Honolulu 53, T. H., April 30, 1947. Delegate From Hawaii, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. SIR: Your letter of April 18 enclosing Senate bills 199, 81, 170, and 472 was of great interest to the executive board of the Hawaii Congress of Parents and Teachers. After considerable discussion the executive board voted to support S. 81, S. 170, and S. 472, provided that Hawaii receive a pro rata share of the funds so allotted. Hawaii did not enjoy the discrimination exercised against her in the case of the School Lunch Act. The failure of the Department of Commerce in having figures for the annual income payments for Hawaii for the years set forth in the legislation is just one more proof that it is time for the Congress of the United States to give statehood to Hawaii. Hawaii must not be discrininated against because of this technicality. S. 199 called forth a storm of protest. At no time must public money ever be spent for assistance to private schools. The Hawaii Congress also disagrees with the Supreme Court decision No. 52 of the October term, 1946, which approved of reimbursing parents of private school children in New Jersey for their transportation under certain circumstances, the majority of such schools being parochial and in rural areas. Let me remind you that the National Congress of Parents and Teachers also disagrees with the decision of the Supreme Court. In this current Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii a bill authorizing public funds to be used for purchasing certain textbooks for private schools has just been defeated. In my own mind the question of Federal aid to the individual States needs careful consideration. The responsibility of self-government must not be tampered with too far. Is there any committee in the National Congress working with an over-all picture of taxation? For instance some of the taxes collected by the Federal Government might be collected instead by the States and then turned back for education. We Thank you for your letter of April 18 and enclosed bills for Federal aid. urge that you support S. 472 and request that you endeavor to have the bill amended to provide for distribution of aid on the basis of average daily attendance instead of the 2 percent to offshore areas as provided in the original bill. Thank you for your vigilance in safeguarding the interest of education in Hawaii. JAMES R. MCDONOUGH, Hawaii Education Association. MARCH 17, 1947. Hon. BRIEN MCMAHON, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MCMAHON: I want to thank you for sending me reports at intervals. There is a most important matter now before the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare which deals with Federal aid to public education. I know that you are not a member of the committee, but since you'll eventually have to act upon it I am certain you'd like to hear my view relative to certain dangers. It has come to my attention that the Catholic Church is out to secure public support for parochial education. The issue is sharp. Federal aid to education is one. Public aid to nonpublic schools is another. Certainly one cannot be charged with religious prejudice in calling attention to the inherent dangers in the demand the Catholic Church is making upon the committee mentioned above. We do not want religous division in this country. We do not want privileges granted to special groups be they Catholic, Jewish, or Protestant. The American school system is based upon the democratic concept which always involves direct responsibility to the people as a whole. Parochial schools are not public schools in terms of this democratic concept, and therefore any effort to secure public funds for private religious schools is dangerous in every way, since it inevitably will divide people in various communities into factions, a thing we do not want here. I'd appreciate your kind reaction to my suggestion. If we are going to give Federal aid to education let us do it in such a way as to alleviate inequalities in educational opportunities, etc., but let us never in this great land seek privilege of one sector of society at the expense of another and without power to be represented. Cordially yours, John FRANZEN, Seymour Methodist Church, Seymour, Conn. JOHN T. D. FRANZEN, Minister. ALABAMA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Montgomery 4, Ala., April 14, 1947. Hon. GEORGE D. AIKEN, Chairman Senate Subcommittee on Education, DEAR SENATOR AIKEN: At a meeting March 26, 1947, the assembly of delegates adopted the following section of a legislative program to be presented to the governor and the 1947 legislature: "The Alabama Education Association recommends to Governor Folsom and the members of the 1947 legislature that they recognize the need of Federal financial aid in improving Alabama's public-school system and, through appropriate means, advocate such aid, without Federal control (1) for general education so that the educational opportunities in Alabama may be more nearly equalized with those throughout the Nation, and (2) for the acquisition of school sites and the construction of school buildings and facilities." At a meeting of the assembly on March 28, 1947, the assembly of delegates of the Alabama Education Association endorsed the following resolution: "In a democracy all the children of all the people should have relatively equal educational opportunities. Because of unequal social and economic factors existing in the several States this ideal is impossible of realization if left wholly to the States. Therefore, the Federal Government has an obligation to assist the less fortunately situated States in eradicating these inequalities. This should be done through Federal appropriations to the States to be expended by the duly constituted educational authorities of the respective States." Through the inclusion of the section in its legislative program the association called upon the 1947 legislature to reaffirm the position taken by a predecessor legislature, that of 1939, which on March 6, 1939, approved the following joint resolution: "Whereas the inadequacy of the financial support of public education in Alabama is generally recognized and admitted, and "Whereas such inadequacy is established by teachers' salaries, school terms, and classroom facilities that are far below the national averages, and "Whereas the ratio of children of school age to adult population in Alabama is among the highest in the country, while her per capita wealth and income are among the lowest, and "Whereas Alabama is now spending a high percentage of its available revenue for educational purposes, being recognized as a national leader in her effort to provide adequate educational opportunities for her youth: Be it therefore "Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Legislature of Alabama (the Senate concurring), That it hereby request the Alabama Representatives in the National Congress to support financial legislation that will provide educational opportunities for Alabama children more nearly equal to those provided children in wealthier States, maintain local-initiative and responsibility in the conduct of education, and to reserve explicitly to the States and the local subdivisions the administration of schools; be it further "Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to each Member of the Congress from Alabama." The position of the Alabama Legislature in seeking Federal aid for education is further indicated in title 52, section 61, Code of Alabama, 1940, wherein the State superintendent of education is specifically enjoined to "make special studies presenting the need of public education in Alabama for general Federal aid for the support of the public schools and to make the same available to appropriate Federal agencies." Alabama's school needs today are crucial. Inadequate salaries, insufficient number of teachers, overcrowded classes, overburdened transportation facilities, minimum building needs-all these conditions must be remedied. While the 1947 legislature, scheduled to convene in May, will undoubtedly increase appropriations to public education materially, such funds will be entirely inadequate to meet the educational needs of the State. Sincerely yours, FRANK L. GROVE, Executive Secretary. In the State of Oregon the principles of Federal aid to education have been widely discussed by representative groups including the American Association of University Women, the League of Women Voters, the Oregon Congress of Parents and Teachers, and the Oregon Education Association. All of these groups have endorsed the principles of Federal aid to education as contained in S. 472, although many have expressed doubt that the financial support provided for in this measure will be sufficient to give public education the support which it needs. The representative council of the Oregon Education Association adopted the following resolution on March 30, 1946: "We reaffirm our faith in the principle of Federal aid to public education without Federal control and urge that Congress enact legislation that will more nearly equalize educational opportunities for all youth." The Portland branch of the American Association of University Women has adopted the following resolution: "Since an adequate education for children in the United States must be the concern of all our citizens, and since no matter how great their effort, some States, because of their low per capita income, cannot supply their children with this education, therefore the Portland Chapter of the American Association of University Women strongly endorses the principle of Federal aid to education, so that the resources of all the people can be used to supply an adequate education for all our children. We urge the passage of appropriate Federal legislation to accomplish this purpose" (adopted April 2, 1947). In the discussions of Federal aid to education only two matters of concern have been expressed: First. Federal aid should be free from Federal control and must clearly recognize the established responsibility of the State in matters of public education. Second. Federal aid should be restricted to public schools except in States which have adopted the policy of contributing State funds to nonpublic schools. Respectfully submitted, JAMES T. HAMILTON, TEACHERS UNION, New York 3, N. Y., April 28, 1947. To the House and the Senate Committees on Education, United States Congress, Washington, D. C.: Kindly consider this brief on the subject of Federal aid for public school education. I speak for the Teachers Union of New York City, local 555 of the United Public Workers of America, CIO. During the last decade many volumes of evidence have been presented to Congress on the needs of the schools, on the great disparity of the abilities of the several States to maintain the schools, and on the great inequality in educational opportunities among the children of the Nation, and the vital importance of public education for the defense and the prosperity of the country and for the preservation of our democracy has been set forth most forcefully by leading educators and publicists. At this late date there can be no great doubt as to the urgent need for the Federal Government to exercise its authority and to use its vast resources to bring about a measure of equalization of educational facilities for the children. Even some of the strongest interests that formerly opposed Federal aid for education now agree that there is critical need for it. Moreover, it is the settled policy of the Federal Government to spend vast sums on many other vital services of national importance, such as on the conservation of the soil, forests, and other natural resources; on flood control, on navigation; on the promotion of agriculture, fisheries, and numerous other enterprises; and on public health. The wisdom of such expenditures is no longer questioned. No one would dare suggest that the nurture and education of the children as a means of conserving our human resources is of less importance. In our American system of democracy education is the birthright of every child. It is plain that a political bloc has stood in the way of Federal aid to the schools. And it is not the political principle of States' rights that has been the hindrance, for we are a practical people and have not let States' rights stand in the way of vital national interests. For example, the Federal Government spends vast sums on State highways, and we hear no alarm over the danger of Federal control. As a matter of fact we have made our Federal system work exceedingly well with a maximum degree of State and local control over policies that intimately concern the people. We can do that in the field of public education too, if we set our will to it. We would reach a better understanding and agreement on the issue before us if we would frankly admit that it is the political question growing out of the relation of church and state which has been the block in the way of Federal aid to the schools. Many of us know that this political issue was settled (and I speak for those who think it was wisely settled) in the founding of the Government and in the adoption and the amendments of the 48 State constitutions. But many Americans of this generation seem to be unaware of this, or do not appreciate its importance. Fortunately present-day Americans know little of the contentions, the religious quarrels, and the religious persecutions that preceded the adoption of the principle of separation of church and state. It is good that the United States Supreme Court has recently clarified this issue for us. In the case coming up from New Jersey courts, which involved the payment out of public funds the bus fares of children attending parochial schools (Everson v. Board of Education, Feb. 10, 1947), the Court explained thoroughly the meaning and the intent of the first amendment of the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof." To do this all three of the Justices that expressed an opinion in the case, Justices Black, Jackson, and Rutledge, went exhaustively into the history of the issues that led to the adoption of the amendment. It is incumbent on all who assay to express an opinion on the wisdom or the constitutionality of the separation of church and state to read the opinions of these three Justices. It is to be noted that even Justice Black, who delivered the majority opinion upholding the payment of bus fares of parochial school children, said that its payment out of public funds was on the verge of unconstitutionality. Four of the Justices thought it overstepped the bounds and was illegal. There was a divided opinion on this narrow point (5 to 4), but there was unity and clarity of the Court on the unconstitutionality of the use of public funds for the support of sectarian education. It was in agreement, too, that since the adoption of the Fourteenth amendment the first amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights are binding 60144-47-pt. 1—37 upon all the States. So if there are any who hope to change the American principle of separation of church and state they have a very fundamental change to make in the constitutional law of the land. The Court, both majority and minority, made it plain that the separation of church and state is infinitely more than a mere shibboleth of the American people, as some of the ecclesiastics have declared. The founders of the Government were intent on entirely separating civil authority from religious activities. They did this deliberately to prevent the tyranny of civil authority in forcing religious observances upon citizens against their will and to prevent ecclesiastical authority from interfering with governmental policies. Jefferson and Madison who initiated the separation of church and state regarded religious freedom as the very core of civil liberty in general. They and the other founders aimed to establish more than mere toleration for the various sects. They established religious equality for all of the people. To them and to Americans generally religious freedom meant not only 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, could not impose any dogma or creed or any religious ceremonies upon the people. Proof that the first amendment expressed the will of the American people lies in the fact that the States gradually over a period of years incorporated the same principle into their respective constitutions. This meant the depriving of some sects of special privileges which they had enjoyed in certain States. Now every one of the State constitutions guarantees religious freedom and nearly all of them forbid the use of tax funds for the support of religious institutions. Even greater proof of living force of the first amendment is the more than a hundred years of established policies and usages in conformity with its provisions. No other principle of our Government is more firmly established in the lives of the people. But we now hear loud and bitter complaints of the hardship and the injustice of denying the appropriation of public funds to parochial schools. Undoubtedly a hardship is felt, but it is not inherent in the constitutional provision for religious liberty and equality. The hardship grows out of the conflict of desires of the. various elements in our population in regard to religious observances. The best that the civil authority can do is to observe a strict neutrality in regard to these conflicting desires and to accord as nearly equal treatment to all as is possible. Certainly the burden of supporting parochial schools is no greater for one sect than for another in proportion to their respective numbers. And, as Justice Jackson pointed out in his opinion, the same law that denies the use of tax funds for religious establishments also guarantees equality and freedom to all religious sects. Certainly parochial schools of all sects have flourished well in this country, and have been freer from interference from civil authorities than in almost any other country that could be named. A present-day problem grows out of the fact that a modern school renders services to children that are not directly related to education, free lunches, health services, transportation, and so on. But there is an insuperable difficulty in drawing the line of demarkation between services that are educational and those that are not, and between services that are related to religious education and those related only to secular education. For example, in an attempt to · supply biology textbooks to children civil authorities may well find that a text that describes the theory of evolution is considered an antireligious book by some. This problem is further complicated by the fact that there is manifested a keen disposition to exploit "services" for children in order to obtain substantial sums of tax funds to help maintain parochial schools. Mr. Justice Rutledge in his opinion in the Everson case said that he regarded the Louisiana textbook case as possibly the first breach in the wall of separation of church and state, and that the bus fare case was definitely a breach in it; and he warned that there would undoubtedly be a third and other breaches in it attempted. Already there is in the Senate a bill, S. 199, which would appropriate $60,000,000, for services, a proportionate share of which is made available to nonpublic tax-exempt schools for transportation, health services, and nonreligious equipment and instructional supplies and books (title II, sections 201, 202, 203). The clause is flexible enough to include almost any supplies and equipment except catechisms and prayer books. If public funds can be used to buy all kinds of equipment except a modicum of religious articles, where does the support of. religious institutions begin? As a matter of fact some sects are exceedingly jealous of any services that contribute to the nurture of children and show a keen |