We know that you share our great concern for the welfare and security of this country which depends so largely upon the development of our human resources and we sincerely hope you will support a program which will achieve the goals that we have set forth.

Respectfully yours,

Mrs. Anna Rose Hawkes, president, American Association of University Women, 1634 I Street NW., Washington, D. C.; Mr. Edward D. Hollander, national representative, Americans for Democratic Action, 1341 Connecticut Avenue NW., Washingington, D. C.; Mrs. Dorothy Johnson, legislative chairman, American Home Economics Association, 1600 20th Street NW., Washington, D. C.; Mrs. Ada Stough, executive director, American Parents Committee, 132 Third Street SE., Washington, D. C.; Mr. John Holden, Washington representative, American Veterans of World War II and Korea, 1710 Rhode Island Avenue, Washington, D. C.; Mr. Jerry Voorhis, executive director, Cooperative League of the USA, 1025 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, D. C.; Miss Cora Mowrey, legislative chairman, Delta Kappa Gamma, 1558 Quarrier Street, Charleston, W. Va.; Mr. James B. Carey, president, International Union of Electric, Radio, and Machine Workers, 1126 16th Street NW., Washington, D. C.; Mr. Bernard Weitzer, Jewish War Veterans of the United States, 1712 New Hampshire Avenue, Washington, D. C.; Miss Lilace Reid Barnes, president, Young Women's Christian Association, 600 Lexington Avenue, New York, N. Y.; Mr. Robert E. Howe, director, Labor's Non-Partisan League, 1435 K Street NW., Washington, D. C.; Mrs. Marquerite Caldwell, Washington representative, National Association of Colored Women's Clubs, Inc., 3746 Hayes Street NE., Washington, D. C.; Mr. Eli Cohen, executive director, National Child Labor Committee, 419 Fourth Avenue, New York, N. Y.; Miss Elizabeth Magee, National Consumers League, Engineers Building, Cleveland, Ohio; Mrs. Moise E. Cahn, president, National Council of Jewish Women, 1637 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, D. C.; Mr. Rudolph Danstedt, National Council of Social Workers, Dupont Circle Building, Suite 217, 1346 Connecticut Avenue NW., Washington, D. C.; Mr. James G. Patton, president, National Farmers Union, 1404 New York Avennue NW., Washington, D. C.; Mr. Phillip Schiff, National Jewish Welfare Board, 1637 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, D. C.; Mrs. Richard L. Neuberger, legislative chairman, Unitarian Fellowship for Social Justice, 408 A Street NE., Washington, D. C. Mr. ELLIOTT. Our next witness is Dr. Stanley Lowell, who represents Protestants United for the Separation of Church and State. Dr. Lowell, if you will come around, we shall be happy to hear you

at this time.

Dr. Lowell, let me say to you before we get started here that the House goes into session this morning at 11 o'clock, which is just about now. Ordinarily, we have until 12 o'clock, but because our time was cut this morning from 12 o'clock back to 11 o'clock, we have had to restrict the time of our witnesses, and we have heretofore imposed a time limitation of 15 minutes on witnesses this morning.

I will say this, to you: You may proceed in any way you see fit, but realizing now that we probably will have a quorum call within 15 minutes, and will have to leave.

So, you summarize or read your statement, as you see fit, in the face of this time situation.

STATEMENT OF DR. STANLEY LOWELL, PROTESTANTS UNITED FOR THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

Dr. LoWELL. I think I can finish my statement, Mr. Chairman, with in the time allotted., I would hope so.

My name is C. Stanley Lowell. I am a Methodist minister, managing editor of Church and State, a monthly review with a regular readership of more than 60,000, and associate director of Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State which publishes the review. This organization has members in all the States and chapters and cooperating committees in most. Its governing board, predominantly Protestant, though not exclusively so, includes the current or past top official in the Southern Baptist Convention, the Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church, U. Ŝ. A. Also included are a former president of the Federal Council of Churches which was the predecessor of the National Council of Churches, and a former president of the World Council of Churches. The board also numbers among its members the secretary of public affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals and leading officials of a number of the smaller Protestant denominations.

The national headquarters building of POAU is located at 1633 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington 6, D. C.

We are not concerned in the testimony we shall offer either to favor or oppose any particular program of Federal aid to education. We are concerned only, as our name suggests, that in any program of such aid which may be approved, the principle of the separation of church and State shall be meticulously respected. This principle is set forth in the first amendment to the Federal Constitution. We accept that enunciation of the principle given by Mr. Justice Black in the prevailing opinion in the Everson v. Board of Education (330 U. S. Ï. 1947).

The "establishment of religion" clause of the first amendment means at least this: Neither a State nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church gainst his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. * * * No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. *** In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

Not only is church-state separation contained in the Federal Constitution, Mr. Chairman, it also appears in the constitutions or statutes of at least 46 of our States. Here it has been carefully spelled out that no aid from tax sources is to go to the support of sectarian worship or sectarian educational enterprises. We believe that the first amendment and these State constitutions should be diligently respected in any program of Federal aid to education. Our testimony will bear directly upon this concern.

May I say, initially, that H. R. 10763, the Murray-Metcalf bill appears to be unexceptionable. It does not attempt to bypass State laws as others do. It would seem to be the bill which most nearly embodies the American tradition of public money for public education. It is significant, we think, that this bill is being actively supported by the men and women who know at first hand the problems of our

schools the educators themselves. We refer to the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Education Association.

In regard to the other bills we have certain apprehensions. Let us consider, first, the scholarship grants which are provided in both the administration bill and in the Hill-Elliott bill. We understand that these scholarships provided at public expense would be usable in sectarian colleges as well as in public and private, non-sectarian colleges. We do not oppose scholarships usable in sectarian colleges as such at the present time-provided that there is a fair and genuine system of examinations to determine recipients.

Our apprehension about these grants is prompted by the fact that they will assuredly be cited as precedent for similar scholarships in lower schools operated by sectarian groups. We believe that the scholarship grants should be safeguarded against such misuse by specific language inserted in any Federal aid bill.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could interrupt very briefly for a question at this point?

Mr. ELLIOTT. You may proceed.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Why is it that you are not opposed to grants to students in sectarian colleges and you would be opposed to them in education at a lower level?

Dr. LOWELL. For several reasons, Mr. Chairman. I suppose the better one being that the actual sectarian tie at the level of higher education is much more ethereal than at the lower level. There are many colleges which are nominally sectarian but, actually, when one examines their control, it is only a nominal relationship; whereas, the schools at the lower level dealing as they do with younger and more impressionable children have, as a rule, a tighter sectarian control, and we think there is quite a substantial difference in that respect.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. That is a very practical answer, and I certainly understand it, but I wonder if there is a specific principle involved, and that is separation of church and state, and whether you should not be opposing very vigorously scholarships which might be used in sectarian colleges if, only as you point out, it might well be a precedent for establishing assistance to education at a lower level?

Dr. LOWELL. Yes, sir; and if you noticed, sir, we said that we were not opposing scholarships that could be used in sectarian higher institutions at this time exclusively.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Our problem is that we are considering this at the present time. You may later oppose it as a matter of principle?

Dr. LOWELL. We are leaving that open. We are studying it, and we might oppose it later, but we do feel in practical terms there is a great difference.

In other words, at the lower levels there is a public system which universally serves all peoples of school age and, of course, there are no public institutions adequate at the higher level to do that.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you.

Dr. LOWELL. Strong demands for scholarship aid at the elementary and secondary level have already been voiced. John Francis Cardinal McIntyre, of Los Angeles, speaking at Dallas, Tex., December 9, 1956, urged a program of public grants to all pupils in sectarian schools, with the aid "to all children directly as it did to our returned heroes" under the GI bills. In the October 25, 1957, issue of U. S. News &

World Report, Father Virgil C. Blum, of Marquette University, set forth a program calling for scholarship certificates issued by the Federal Government that would be cashable for education in sectarian elementary and high schools. The plan of these two ranking churchmen has been widely publicized and inserted in the Congressional Record. Their plan repeatedly cites as "precedent" the scholarship grants in the GI bills. We cannot doubt that the scholarship grants contemplated in the legislation before us here would provide additional precedent and stimulus for sectarian demands at the elementary and secondary level.

We should like to delineate and underline our stand on this issue, since it represents the focal point of our concern. During the 10 years of its existence POAU has diligently sought to educate the American public as to the dangers of any program which would divert tax dollars to sectarian schools. The charge has been made that we are "discriminating" against such schools when we urge that they be denied tax funds. The fact is, however, that such discrimination is simply the historic public policy which, under our laws, denies tax funds for the support of church enterprise, and carefully relegates all churches to the status of free and voluntary societies. It is a far more serious discrimination against taxpayers to use their funds to support sectarian enterprises in which they do not believe. There is no difference, either in principle or in practice, between tax support of a school integrally related to a church and tax support of the church itself. The school exists to teach and propagate the doctrines of the church which operates it. The school exists by and for the church. The school is the church; the church is the school.

We have consistently opposed tax support of sectarian schools at the lower levels because of the inevitable proliferation of our educational system that is bound to result should Congress or the States commence such support. Dr. Rolfe Lanier Hunt, executive director of the Department of Religion and Public Education of the National Council of Churches, in an address in Omaha, Nebr., February 11, 1958, has, we believe, accurately forecast the kind of chaos that will obtain in education should we resort to tax support of sectarian schools. A former superintendent of schools in Mississippi, Dr. Hunt points out that in a nation of 250 religious denominations a small town with 2,000 population might be called upon to support a dozen sectarian school systems, while in a large city, like New York or Los Angeles, there could conceivably be a couple of hundred. "Ardent teachers would teach that only in their schools was the truth," Dr. Hunt said. "Would we wish out tax money to support these schools?" In his address, Dr. Hunt also warned the Nation that sectarian segregation of school children could do more damage to American unity than has been done by racial segregation in public schools.

We concur in these statements, Mr. Chairman, and we believe that the Congress concurs in them. We do not believe that it is the intent of the Congress to give the remotest encouragement to any course which might result in the weakening or eventual proliferation of our system of public education. We respectfully suggest, therefore, that a section of any Federal-aid bill providing for a scholarship program should be written to include an explicit denial that such legislation is intended in any sense as a precedent to scholarship aid for private or sectarian

schools of less than collegiate rank, and also reasserting our constitutional provisions on this issue.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I wonder on that point if we put in a specific denial that this was intended as a precedent whether it would mean that it was a precedent? As you point out, the danger of such a proposition would be that it would establish a precedent which later could be argued for justification for extending the system.

Dr. LOWELL. There is great danger, sir. We realize that, but we felt that often the courts in interpreting and applying the laws of Congress they are much concerned with the intent that the legislature had when it designed these laws.

So that if the intent could be put into the law specifically stating that no precedent was being set up here, we think that would be a substantial factor in obviating that ill.

We are apprehensive, also, about those sections of the Hill-Elliott bill and the administration bill which would make possible other forms of aid to sectarian institutions at the college level. For example, in section 552 of the Hill-Elliott bill we find that Federal funds for certain teaching, equipment, and materials would to be made available to sectarian, higher institutions of learning. Again, under section 1031 of this bill we find a provision of Federal funds for certain materials and equipment for sectarian institutions. The administration bill, while less objectionable at this point, also contains provision for such aid to sectarian institutions at the graduate level. Our feeling is that direct grants of the kind envisaged here would constitute far too dangerous a precedent for the complete public support of all sectarian schools.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Could we not get around that by just denying we were establishing a precedent in giving this assistance?

Dr. LOWELL. I do not think that the denial of a precedent would carry the whole way, but we think in anything with reference to grants of aid, material and equipment of this kind there are dangers that possibly do not exist in the scholarship type of program.

It is more direct and integral aid to the institution.

According to our information, no previous bill-and this includes the GI bills-has ever appropriated Federal funds for equipment for sectarian institutions in the direct manner contemplated in these bills. Both the Hill-Elliott and the administration bill go farther in the direction of sectarian grants than any previous legislation. In the past, all appropriations of this nature for equipment have been under specialized headings such as research in diseases, atomic energy and military work. They represented a specific grant for which there was to be a specific return. There is no such pledge or safeguard in these bills. For these reasons, we suggest elimination from Federal aid of expenditures for equipment, teachers' salaries, materials or buildings in sectarian institutions of higher learning.

The administration bill has one provision which we find particularly ominous so far as the maintenance of church-state separation is concerned. The bill provides in section 103, (1) that funds shall be provided for a testing of students in private elementary or secondary schools. There is, of course, always the danger that any such grant of public funds to sectarian schools will be made to serve as precedent for more substantive grants. But our especial concern here is the