In discussing this question the Protestant Voice of Fort Wayne, Ind., in its issue of November 22, 1946, stated:

'Any demand for state money in support of Roman Catholic parochial schools is a demand that Protestants help pay for teaching children that Protestants are infidels.

"To such a demand here is a test question: Are you willing that Protestants shall help supervise your schools, if they help pay for them?

"Will you eliminate from these parochial schools all teaching that Protestants, whose money you seek, are guilty of heresy?

"Will you eliminate all attacks on the public schools and all denunciation of religious liberty and democratic government, from whatever source they come, including the Pope of Rome?

"The question answers itself.

"This agitation is a demand that we be forced to pay to help blacken our own names, undermine our democratic government, and destroy that freedom of conscience on which America was built."

Further in this connection I wish to emphasize the fact that much matter is being sent to me from all over the country which shows conclusively that great effort is being made to break down the tax-supported free public school systems by certain ecclesiastical interests, and gain control through State and Federal aid. Permit me to cite one graphic bit of evidence of this activity. The Institute of Educational Research of the Fordham University, a Jesuit school of New York, disclosed in its Bulletin No. 1 of 1936 that direct appropriations of public money to the Roman Catholic schools would be legal in more than half of the States of the Union and a similar result might be obtained in most of the other States by a simple subterfuge.

The last phrase "by a simple subterfuge" reminds me of a famous expression of Edmund Burke concerning an infamous act when he said, "By a miserable subterfuge they hope to render this proposition safe by rendering it nugatory." I may add that Webster's Dictionary uses this remark to illustrate the meaning of "subterfuge."

Gentlemen of this committee, I have given much thought to the provisions of the various State constitutions against giving aid to sectarian schools and I am of the opinion that the bulletin above quoted is overconfident in getting its hands on public funds despite the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the now famous New Jersey school bus case.

An old phrase was applied to the effect of this celebrated case on State and Federal aid to sectarian schools by a commentator who said that "Liberty had lost a battle but had won a war against those forces which would destroy the first amendment." The interpretation by some is that the people will see in the decision reasons to become aroused as they did in the Dred Scott decision of 1857; and by others that the Supreme Court and those four justices dissenting so defined the first amendment that States may go no further than providing a safety program where parochial school pupils are concerned, i. e., that no appropriations may be made to sectarian schools in money or things nor to the pupils in the way of books as is being done in Louisiana.

Whether or not other Supreme Court decisions will sustain this view it is my judgment that if either S. 199 or S. 472 is favorably reported the one so reported should, in the spirit of the first amendment, specifically provide that the funds appropriated therein be allocated only to the use of tax-supported free public schools. To this end I respectfully suggest the following amendments to each of the bills, for the consideration of the committee. In S. 199 strike all matter

pertaining to "nonpublic tax-exempt schools."

In S. 472, under definitions, section 9, add another paragraph designated with a capital (G) in parenthesis which shall read: "The terms 'public school'; 'public schools'; 'public elementary school'; 'public elementary schools'; 'public secondary school' and 'public secondary schools' shall mean 'tax-supported free public school'; 'tax-supported free public schools'; 'tax-supported free public elementary school'; 'tax-supported free public elementary schools'; 'tax-supported free public secondary school' and 'tax-supported free secondary schools.""

Eliminate all of line 4, page 7, except "public control" and all of lines 5 to 19 inclusive except the words "for public elementary."

In line 1, page 7, section 6, insert the words "tax-supported free" between the words "of" and "public." In line 6, page 1, section 2, eliminate the words "United States" and substitute the words "Federal Government."

In line 13, page 8, section 7, insert the words "tax-supported free public" between the words "local" and "school." Insert the same words in the same line

between the words "State" and "public." Insert the words "tax-supported free public" between the word "local" in line 14 and the word "school" in line 15, page 8. In line 15 of page 8 insert the words "tax-supported free" between "other" and "public," so that lines 13, 14, and 15 will read "local tax-supported free public school jurisdictions, or other State tax-supported free public edu ational agencies, and for a system of reports from local tax-supported free public educational agencies.' În line 25, page 8, insert the words "tax-supported free" between the words "separate" and "public."

In line 2, page 9, insert the words "tax-supported free" between the words "of" and "public." Insert the words "tax-supported free public" between the words "local" and "school" in line 22, page 9. In line 18, page 9, insert the language "except as to provisions for nonpublic schools in lines 4 to 19, inclusive, page 7." In front of line 1, page 10, place the words "tax-supported free public.' line 2 of page 10 insert the words "tax-supported free public" between the words "local" and "school." In line 3, page 10, insert the same words between the words "separate" and "schools."

In

In line 1, page 11, insert the same words between "local" and "school." In line 9, page 11, insert the words "tax-supported free public" between the words "State" and "educational." In line 12, page 12, insert the words "tax-supported free public" between the words "separate" and “educational.”

Mr. Chairman, I close my remarks by presenting what the supreme council favors:

WHAT THE SUPREME COUNCIL FAVORS

1. The American public school, nonpartisan, nonsectarian, efficient, democratic, for all of the children of all the people.

2. The inculcation of patriotism, respect for law and order, and undying loyalty to the Constitution of the United States of America.

3. The compulsory use of English as the language of instruction in the grammar grades of our public schools.

4. Adequate provision in the American public schools for the education of the alien populations in the principles of American institutions and ideals of citizenship.

5. The entire separation of church and state, and opposition to every attempt to appropriate public moneys-Federal, State, or local-directly or indirectly, for the support of sectarian or private institutions.

(Mr. Rogers submitted the following brief:)

Mr. ROGERS. This concludes the statement of Colonel Cowles. Mine supplements his. In addition to calling further attention to the evil effects of Federal aid to nonpublic schools on our public-school systems and the progress of our Republic, I will touch upon the following subjects: The constant and insistent demands of the Roman Catholic Church for financial aid from our National, State, and municipal governments; the vicious attitude of the Roman Catholic Church toward our public schools as shown by the quoted expressions of its prelates and its press; the rise of our public schools out of the social confusion and turmoil caused by the demands of nonpublic schools for tax funds and to which condition the whole Nation will retrograde if S. 199 or like legislation were enacted; the accentuation of a destructive social cleavage, already felt in our social structure, caused by the more than 12,000 nonpublic schools; and the relative efficacy of Roman Catholic schools and public schools of elementary and secondary levels in inculcating morals and thus lessening crime.

Before proceeding with my general remarks I extend to Senator Aiken my compliments for the open, clear, and frank language used in S. 199 with respect to aid to nonpublic, tax-exempt schools. I wish I could say as much for the language in the many other bills containing provisions for such aid.

According to a survey made by the Office of Education in 1940-41, 12,727 nonpublic schools of elementary and secondary levels were reported for the United States. Of this number 1,102 were nonsectarian, 1,576 were Protestant, and 10,049 were Roman Catholic. The total enrollment was 2,611,047, of which 2,396,305 were Roman Catholic pupils and 214,742 Protestant. Nearly five-sixths of the schools were Roman Catholic and there were 11 times as many Roman Catholic pupils as there were non-Roman Catholic pupils.

Under title II of S. 199, provisions are made to reimburse nonpublic tax-exempt schools and school systems of secondary grade or less for not to exceed 60 percent of their actual expenses incurred under three items. These items are (a) necessary transportation of pupils; (b) school-health examinations and related school-health

services, and (c) purchase of nonreligious instructional supplies and equipment, including books.

There is authorized to be appropriated for nonpublic schools $60,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1948, and annually thereafter. The money is an outright gift with no requirements to increase the efficiency of the schools by adding other specific sums as required by the States under title I of S. 199. The money is to be disbursed by the States where permitted to do so by law. Where it is not so permitted, the Secretary of the Treasury makes the distribution direct to the schools upon certification of the United States Commissioner of Education. According to the number of nonpublic schools reported in 1940-41, over $48,000,000 would go annually to the Roman Catholic schools and about $12,000,000 to the nonsectarian and Protestant schools.

With respect to the provisions for "school health examinations and related school health services," there is no provision authorizing these services to be performed by the State public health authorities as a part of their like duties for the public school pupils. On the contrary the measure provides that the services be performed by "similar health service personnel employed by the school authorities" with the public footing the bill and having no responsibilities as to the health of the pupils in these schools. This, I submit, is going quite far in extending authority to the will and wishes of a foreign state-a sovereign ecclesiastical power operating within our boundaries—which so far is not required to comply with our Foreign Agent's Registration Act, and whose whole history and expressed political philosophy contains seeds of subversion, as I will presently show from declarations of Pope Leo XIII and other prelates of the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, aid of any kind to sectarian institutions would be in violation of the principles of the first amendment and provisions in nearly all the State constitutions of the several States. This was the opinion of the Supreme Court and that of the four Justices who dissented in the New Jersey School Bus case handed down February 10, 1947.

Space does not permit of my discussing at length the subversive doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church as applied to our form of government. I present here only a little undeniable evidence available on this subject. It is from the highest authority of this ancient temporal and ecclesiastical power which in the Vatican Council of 1870 declared itself infallible, and ipso jure above reproach even by its most powerful prelates, and perforce of circumstances must continue to declare itself predominant over every realm and activity of man. To yield its dogmatic position is to deny its alleged authority from God. Hence to mouth its adherence to democracy, as it has so frequently done of late, is as witless and as deceptive as the utterances of the Kremlin as to its democracy. The matter I quote is from (a) the famous encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, issued April 20, 1884. entitled "Humanum Genus"; (b) the work of John A. Ryan, D. D., and Morehouse F. X. Miller, S. J., entitled "The Church and State," which was republished in 1940 under the title of "Catholic Principles in Politics," and Dr. L. H. Lehmann, former Roman Catholic priest, who was for a time at the Vatican and who himself quotes Pope Leo XIII and is now the editor of the Converted Catholic magazine with several former priests in New York City assisting him.

In announcing his subversive position against our political institutions and the thinking of such outstanding fathers of our Government as Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, the Lees of Virginia, and Patrick Henry, Pope Leo declared in part:

66* * * Naturalists teach that men have all the same rights and are perfectly equal in condition; that every man is naturally independent; that no one has a right to command others; that it is tyranny to keep men subject to any other authority than that which eminates from themselves. Hence, the people are sovereign; those who rule have no authority but by the commission and concession of the people so that they can be deposed, willingly or unwillingly, according to the wishes of the people. The origin of all rights and civil duties is in the people or in the State, which is ruled according to the new principles of liberty. The state must be godless-no reason why one religion ought to be preferred to another; all to be held in the same esteem."

All of the above principles which are the basis of the Bill of Rights are opposed by the Roman Catholic Church, and by some Popes they have been anathematized. I now quote from the Converted Catholic magazine of June 1944, which is edited at 229 West Forty-eighth Street, New York 19, N. Y., by Dr. L. H. Lehmann. Dr. Lehmann says: "In his encyclicals, particularly Humanum Genus, Leo XIII declared war on the basic principles of democracy. He condemned the doctrines that are the foundation of our American Government: sovereignty of

the people; the right to overthrow unworthy rulers; separation of church and state; confinement of the church to its spiritual functions; freedom of religion; freedom of speech and the press; and the right of the state to regulate marriage."

Continuing, the former priest and frequenter of the Vatican in that role states: "The following quotation from Humanum Genus illustrates the way in which the sovereignty of the people is denied as well as their right to overthrow a tyrant or dictator:

"Whence it is understood that he who has power to rule, whoever he may be, is God's minister. * * * And it is absolutely false to say that the people have the right to withdraw obedience whenever they see fit.'"

In his encyclical, Libertas Humana, Leo XIII declared:

"It is absolutely unlawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, of writing, of worship.'

Dr. Lehmann concludes as follows:

"In his encyclical, Longinqua Oceani, Leo XIII decreed:

"It is necessary to destroy the error of those who might believe, perhaps, that the situation of the church in America is a desirable one, and also the error of those who might believe in initiation of that sort of thing the separation of church and state is legal and even convenient.'

The work of Dr. Ryan, one of the so-called great Roman Catholic liberals, is a textbook in Roman Catholic universities. It was reedited for the department of social action of the National Catholic Welfare Conference and bore the imprimatur of the late Cardinal Hayes and his board of censors. The following paragraph which quote offers much hope for "the faithful" who have less regard for the Bill of Rights and their citizenship of the United States of America than for the opinions of their churchman:

"But constitutions can be changed and non-Catholic sects may decline to such a point that political proscription of them may become feasible and expedient. What protection would they then have against a Catholic state? The latter could logically tolerate only such religious activity as were confined to the members of the dissenting group. It would not permit them to carry on general propaganda nor accord their organization certain privileges that had formally been extended to all religious corporations."

Let me add that this status obtains in all Roman Catholic countries-the most backward totalitarian countries in the world, where democracy and freedom are not allowed.

The sentiments of the above disclosures from the encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII are echoed by Dr. Ryan and the Jesuit, Morehouse F. X. Miller, with the approval of the late Cardinal Hayes and his board of censors. These men are citizens of the United States with a dual alliance to the Vatican sovereign state and as such are striking a deadly blow at the fundamental principles of our Government. Notwithstanding this glaring fact, Roman Catholics have the temerity to seek aid for their educational institutions from tax-raised funds from the pockets of all the people, to destroy our liberties. In light of the foregoing, I ask, Mr. Chairman, what full-fledged citizen of the United States, free from any alliance with the Vatican state as a member of the Roman Catholic Church, can support any legislation looking to such aid?

Fortunately there are a number of United States Supreme Court decisions which, notwithstanding the breach made in the first amendment by the decision of the Supreme Court in the New Jersey School Bus case, lend hope to citizens who are opposed to supporting sectarian institutions from tax-raised funds. These cases are as follows:

Davis v. Beason (133 U. S. 33, 1889), in which the Court held: "The first amendment to the Constitution * * * was intended to allow everyone under the jurisdiction of the United States to entertain such notions respecting his relations to his Maker and the duties they impose as may be approved by his judgment and conscience, and to exhibit his sentiments in such form of worship as he may think proper, not injurious to the equal rights of others, and to prohibit legislation for the support of any religious tenets or the modes of worship of any sect."

In delivering the opinion of the Court, Mr. Justice Fields also reminded the parties to the suit as to the causes which led to the creation of the first amendment. He added, in part:

"The oppressive measures adopted and the cruelties and punishments inflicted by the governments of Europe for many ages to compel parties to conform in their religious beliefs and modes of worship to the views of the most numerous sect, and the folly of attempting in that way to control the mental operation of

persons and enforce an outward conformity to a prescribed standard, led to the adoption of the amendment in question."

In Watson v. Jones (13 Wall. 679, 1871), the United States Supreme Court said: "In this country the full and free right to entertain any religious belief, to practice any religious principle, and to teach any religious doctrine which does not infringe personal rights is conceded to all. The law knows no heresy and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect."

In delivering the opinion of the Court, Mr. Justice Miller continued, in part: "One of the most careful and well-considered judgments on the subject is that of the Court of Appeals of South Carolina, delivered by Chancelor Johnson in the case of Harmon V. Dreher."

Chancelor Johnson said: "The structure of our Government has, for the preservation of civil liberty, rescued the temporal institutions from religious interference. On the other hand, it has rescued religious liberty from the invasion of civil authority.'

In Reynolds v. United States (98 U. S. 145, 1879), the first amendment was pleaded. Mr. Justice Waite, in delivering the opinion of the Court, discussed the history of that amendment. He said, in part:

"The word 'religion' is not defined in our Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted. The precise point of inquiry is, 'What is religious freedom which has been guaranteed?'"

Before the adoption of the Constitution attempts were made in some of the Colonies and States to legislate, not only in respect to the establishment of religion, but in respect to its doctrines and precepts as well. The people were taxed against their will for the support of religion, and sometimes for the support of a particular sect to which tenets they could not and did not subscribe. Punishments were prescribed for a failure to attend upon public worship and sometimes for entertaining heretical opinion. The controversy on this general subject was animated in many of the States, but seemed at least to accumulate in Virginia. In 1784, the house of delegates of that State, having under consideration a bill establishing provision for teachers of the Christian religion, postponed it until the next session, and directed that the bill should be published and distributed, and that the people be requested to signify their opinion respecting the adoption of such a bill at the next session of the assembly.

This brought out a determined opposition. Among others, Mr. Madison prepared a memorial and remonstrance which was widely circulated and signed, in which he demonstrated that "religion, or the duty we owe the Creator, was not within the cognizance of civil government" (Semple's Virginia Baptist, appendix). At the next session of the assembly the proposed bill was not only defeated, but another "for establishing freedom," drafted by Mr. Jefferson, was passed (1 Jefferson's Works, 95; 2 Howison; 1 History of Virginia, 298). In the preamble of the act (12 Henning's Statutes 89), religious freedom is defined.

As

"In a little more than a year after the passage of the statute, the Convention met which prepared the Constitution of the United States. Of the Convention Mr. Jefferson was not a member, he being absent as a Minister to France. soon as he saw the draft of the Constitution proposed for adoption, he, in a letter to a friend, expressed his disappointment at the absence of an expressed declaration insuring the freedom of religion (2 Jefferson's Works, 355) but was willing to accept as it was, trusting that the good sense and honest intentions of the people would bring about the necessary alterations (Jefferson's Works 79). Five of the States, while adopting the Constitution, proposed amendments. Three-New Hampshire, New York, and Virginia-included in one form or another a declaration of religious freedom in the changes they desired to have made, as did also North Carolina, where at first the Convention declined to ratify the Constitution until the proposed amendments were acted upon. Accordingly at the first session of the First Congress the amendments now under consideration were proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterward, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (u. i. d. 113) took occasion to say: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which is solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach acts only and not opinion, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act upon the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof' thus building a wall of separation between