much need in time of peace to do what we are now doing in time of war, namely, operating under the scholarship plan.

I don't think there is anything further for me to say. I think the facts are too well known.

One thing I would like to leave with you is the copy of the Mississippi Educational Advance, which shows the distribution of public junior colleges throughout the entire State, for whites. The same thing ought to be done for colored people, and nobody knows it better than the people in Mississippi, but it just isn't in the cards. The money is not there. I think they are convinced that it ought to be done, just as well as the people in any other section of the country. The question is how.

I would like to leave also the Junior College Directory for 1947, which gives the membership of the association. I don't know whether you have this Education Investment in People or not. I would be glad to leave it for you if you care to have it.

Senator AIKEN. It will be available for the use of the committee, Dr. Bogue. Are there any questions? If not, we thank you for your testimony this morning.

(Mr. Bogue submitted the following brief:)

TESTIMONY OF JESSE P. BOGUE BEFORE SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE, WASHINGTON, D. C., APRIL 23, 1947

Name: Jesse P. Bogue.

Position: Executive secretary, American Association of Junior Colleges.
Address: Offices at 1201 Nineteenth Street NW., Washington 6, D. C.

Purpose of the organization: The declared purposes of the American Association of Junior Colleges are as follows: "To stimulate the professional development of its members and to promote the growth of the junior colleges.' The association is a voluntary, nonprofit educational organization incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia.

There are 650 junior colleges in the United States with an enrollment of nearly 400,000 students. The membership in the association is composed of 450 institutions with a combined enrollment of approximately 325,000 students. By formal resolution the executive secretary was authorized by the board of directors on February 18, 1947, to speak officially for the board on matters pertaining to legislation.

In regard to proposed legislation now being considered by your committee "to assist the States and Territories in financing a minimum foundation education program of public elementary and secondary schools, and in reducing the inequalities of educational opportunities through public elementary and secondary schools, for the general welfare and for other purposes," the American Association of Junior Colleges desires to be placed on record as in favor of such assistance. After long study by the legislative committee of the association, there was presented to the national convention of the association held in Chicago, Ill., on January 18, 1946, the following resolution which was passed unanimously:

"The American Association of Junior Colleges pledges complete support to a policy of education throughout the United States so organized and financed as to extend full and equal opportunities whereby each individual may develop his capacities for his own benefit and for the best interests of the Nation as a whole. "In this educational system we recommend that all unjustified forms of discrimination be eliminated and opportunities be equally available without regard to sex, race, color, or creed, and that it be the purpose of the schools and other educational institutions to teach the principles and practices of democracy, of respect for the dignity of the individual, and for such fundamental human rights as freedom of assembly, speech, the press, and religion, with unrestricted pursuit of objective truth and the free exchange of ideas and knowledge.

"Such an educational system is required in the interests of world peace and security, the common defense, democratic participation in government, the development of sciences and the arts, employment in a fruitful economy, the wise use of leisure, and the general welfare. These are the essential factors in our longcherished American way of life."

It is unnecessary to recall the facts in detail on which inequalities of educational opportunity are based. Your committee and the people of the Nation are aware of the situation regarding teacher shortage and teachers' salaries. It is clear to any fair-minded person that a family with three children, two of whom must be sent to one school and one to another in a rural area on a family income of $750, does not have the same chance as another family with two children who attend the same school in an urban area supported by a family income of $1,500. As a result of these well-known inequalities, the American association reasons as follows:

First and the main responsibility for. education belongs to parents and the citizens of each local school district or community. Every possible effort must be made to safeguard and develop this responsibility and to give assurance through just legislation that the means to carry it out will be left in the hands of parents and local citizens. To this end, the tax structure of the States and the Federal Government must be built so that funds needed by the local communities will not be drained off to State and Federal Treasuries. State aid must be given, in the second place, to encourage local school districts to reach proper standards of educational efficiency and to equalize educational opportunities throughout the State. The third line of educational defense must come from the Federal Government. The facts regarding standards of education cannot be successfully contradicted. Any fair-minded person who will take the trouble to study these facts will be convinced that the evidence is conclusive that Federal assistance is imperative for the equalization of educational opportunities on a national basis. But there is still fear on the part of some citizens who will grant the necessity for Federal assistance that it might be used to unduly interfere in the educational affairs of the several States by the Federal Government. The possibility of such interference must be admitted. The American people, however, who are the makers of their laws can and should so draft them to prohibit such interference, or to change the laws in case interference should be attempted. Moreover, if the tax structure is such as to insure that local and State revenues will be guaranteed, local and State educational systems can be made stronger and thereby more able to resist Federal interference. It is well known, for instance, that some States have very weak departments of education, if they can be called departments at all. These are the States which tend to give way easily to Federal influences. The same general principle holds true as it pertains to the relationships of local school districts to the State. If our basic philosophy can be accepted and maintained that the local, State, and Federal Governments constitute in order of strength and responsibility the first, second, and third lines of defense, each line in turn will do only what the line ahead cannot do.

A summary of Federal aid to education in the several States need not be reviewed. The record is well known. It reaches back for more than three-quarters of a century and comes up to the Seventy-ninth Congress which made a rather large appropriation for vocational education. Citizens who have fears of Federal interference with State programs of education, would do well to found them on the dangers of categorical legislation such as the Smith-Hughes Act rather than on general appropriations. General appropriations can and should be made to the States and the manner in which they would be spent for education within the States should be determined by the States. A formula could be worked out whereby each local community and the several States would be required to do more for education than they are doing now. Federal aid should be granted only as a last resort, and should be so safeguarded that local and State support, pride, and autonomy would be increased. As soon as Federal aid to any State was no longer needed, it should be discontinued.

If Federal assistance for education is not acceptable, then there is only one way by which certain States can raise the level for their school systems. The Federal Government must be prohibited from taking unduly large sums from the citizens of the States through taxation. An example may help at this point: The State of Vermont has a population of about 375,000. It has only one city with a population of as many as 80,000, and no other city with even a third of that number. Yet Vermont covers a territory second only to Maine in the New England States. Off hand, one would think that to request the people of Vermont to pay $10,000,000 for any cause or reason would work a hardship. The Federal Government, however, through income and excise taxes takes on the average of $1,000,000 from those people every week of the 52 in the year. Can it be wondered at that the 1945 legislature almost voted down, after a long fight, the act which required that a minimum salary of $1,000 be paid to school teachers. Let us suppose that Vermont could get even a 20 percent reduction in Federal taxes.

That difference in funds available for State use might make it possible for Vermont to take care of herself. Even so, there are still other States with low incom.es, with high percentages of school-age children in relation to the adult population, with dual systems of schools, and with predominantly rural distribution of the population which would need help. This point cannot be called in question, if we are going to raise the national educational level.

We could, of course, ignore the States whose educational burdens cannot be borne without Federal aid and thereby create a pool of human beings unfit by mental and physical standards to defend the Nation in time of crisis. That policy would be as short-sighted as it would be inhuman and unworthy of a United States. It would be, as it is now, a fallacious economic policy. The consuming power of any group of people depends on earning power. The power to earn depends on the level of education, cultural wants, and the skills of the people. Our national welfare at home and our security with the rest of the world depend on equality of educational opportunity. It is not inconceivable that a time might come when the safety of the Nation would depend on several millions of men who would have to be rejected by reason of physical and mental disabilities. A few millions spent by the Federal Government, year by year as might be needed, would be cheap national insurance as well as a source of satisfaction in the common welfare.

The American Association of Junior Colleges believes that it would be a sound policy for each State to finance its own educational program, if it were possible. We are aware of the fact that all States could do a great deal more than they are doing now. Even with added resources for education there are some States which could not reach satisfactory standards. Federal aid, therefore, should be granted on a basis that will insure the gradual upgrading of education at all levels in all States receiving such assistance.

The association further believes that some kind of national scholarships should become available for high-school graduates of unusual ability who lack the means for securing further training and education. It would be money well spent in the general welfare and for national defense. During national emergencies and following World War II, such scholarships have been provided to the lasting benefit of the Nation. In the light of national needs there are just as many reasons to provide these scholarships in times of peace as in times of war.

Senator AIKEN. The next witness is Mr. Cowles and Mr. Elmer Rogers, either one or both of them. Will you come forward, please? You have submitted a rather voluminous brief. I understand you have a summary to present.

STATEMENT OF ELMER E. ROGERS, AIDE TO THE GRAND COMMANDER, SUPREME COUNCIL, 33d DEGREE, ANCIENT AND ACCEPTED SCOTTISH RITE OF FREEMASONRY, U. S. A., S. J., WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. ROGERS. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have left the summary with the secretary of the committee. If it is the pleasure of the chairman I would be glad to read some of the statement of Colonel Cowles.

Senator AIKEN. We are crowded for time this morning, so why not tell us what you think are the high spots of your testimony, and we will insert the complete brief in the record of the hearing?

Mr. ROGERS. I have. given that in the brief which I have left with the secretary, and I prefer, if it is the chairman's pleasure, not to talk outside of the particular matters that I have stated, unless questions are asked of us.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I will not read all of this, if it is your pleasureI mean all of what the grand commander states.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Rogers, and give what you think we most ought to have.

Mr. ROGERS. This is the statement of Mr. Cowles, representing as Grand Commander the Supreme Council, Thirty-third Degree,

Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry of the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States of America: Ours is the Mother Supreme Council of the World. Its jurisdiction extends approximately south of the Mason and Dixon line and west of the Mississippi River and all the territorial possessions of the United States. Needless to say that the observations I here make are supported by the weight and opinion of the council-whose membership has always consisted of distinguished businessmen, publishers, generals of the Army, and lawyers, some of whom have served on the bench and in Congress and one in the Cabinet of the President-insofar as they bear upon what it favors and which is published at the end of my statement. What I otherwise state has not been passed upon by the council and though it may accord with the council's opinion, particularly my deductions from its formula, i. e., what it favors, I therefore assume personal responsibility. The same is true of what Mr. Rogers, my assistant, may have to say at this hearing.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am opposed to all Federal aid to education. My remarks are directed at all such pending bills in general and in particular those which contain provisions to aid sectarian schools.

Though I am impressed with the great importance of adequate support for tax-supported free public schools at all times and especially in their present crisis, it is my opinion that they should be maintained at the sole expense of the several States. I favor such for three

reasons:

First. There is no State in the Union which at this time is not more able, financially, to maintain its schools than the Federal Government is to contribute to such maintenance. This is to my mind indisputable when it is considered (1) that there are a few States which are free from debt and have a surplus, and (2) that the total bonded indebtedness of all the States and municipalities is around $14,000,000,000, the municipal debts being $11,886,000,000 in 1945, whereas the bonded obligations of the National Government is close to $262,000,000,000, and in view of the obligations we are about to take upon ourselves to aid a number of such countries as Greece and Turkey our indebtedness is very likely to increase, more especially if we reduce our taxes.

Second. The incomes of practically all the States have materially increased during the past several years, and such incomes have exceeded expenditures. A number of these States have recently increased their appropriations for their schools and others are considering doing so.

Third. Federal aid tends to place the control of the public schools under the Federal Government.

Many of the pending bills, including S. 199 and S. 472, contain provisions to aid nonpublic schools tax-exempt. I am especially opposed to appropriating tax-raised funds to private schools of any kind whether sectarian or nonsectarian. Two reasons occur to me for opposing such appropriations. They are closely related. The first is that such schools would become stronger and stronger competitors of our American tax-supported free public schools, a competition which would ultimately destroy their great function as the nursery of our democratic and republican principles of government. This function on their respective levels is to educate all the children of all the

people irrespective of race, religion, social status, or their personal financial conditions. This great and highly important homogenizing agency of some 50 races and nationalities would fade out of existence in proportion as the nonpublic schools would come into the ascendancy through their support from tax-raised funds.

Very bluntly and quite positively I assert as my second reason for opposing aid to sectarian schools, that the history of the world shows conclusively that such schools, supported from tax-raised funds, are administered at cross purposes to the principles of the first amendment and to that inherent urge of mankind in its evolutionary movement. I concede that, to many, this assertion is bold in meaning and in its implications but not essentially so to this able committee and to other students acquainted with the history of those countries and civilizations where ecclesiastical schools have been and are now predominant. My remarks are therefore for the record to provoke thought.

The proposals that Federal school funds may be allotted to sectarian and other nonpublic schools has raised a renewed chorus of specious argument and sophistry from the Roman Catholic press for a share in the tax money they pay for education."

The usual trend of such casuistry is an exaggerated estimate of the alleged sayings to taxpayers through parochial schools, and of the amount Catholic taxpayers are contributing to the support of schools which their religious scruples forbid them to patronize. It is not fair, they urge-it is double taxation-and the parochial schools are entitled to a share of what is thus being saved to the taxpayers.

This plausible but spurious argument has in a few States been sufficiently effective to divert some school funds to the sectarian schools, though usually this has required a subterfuge to circumvent constitutional bans against such diversion.

Friends of the public schools maintain that before yielding to such arguments and demands, voters and legislators should give careful consideration to their validity and soundness, and to the sad situation which might result from the acceptance of such a policy.

Taxpayers of the Roman Catholic faith who send their children to church schools are by no means the only ones who are paying school taxes without deriving any direct benefit from the schools. Bachelors and unmarried women, married couples without children, people whose children have passed school age, others who prefer to send their children to private schools--all these might voice the same complaint as do the Roman Catholics, and with as little reason.

The basis for support of the public schools by taxation is not the direct benefit the taxpayer receives from the schools. Rather it is the vital need for an educated citizenry which warrants such use of the taxing power. It is a basic American principle that such a tax is justified, and is fair and equitable, even though the individual taxpayer has no children to educate, or having children, does not choose to send them to the public schools. It is not inequitable to levy such a tax on the bachelor or the childless, nor is it double taxation when levied on the person who chooses to educate his children outside the public schools.

The savings to taxpayers through the parochial schools have been greatly exaggerated. In several communities, careful and accurate surveys have shown that the public school system could take over the education of the parochial school children with surprisingly little