observe that section 6A of S. 472 distinctly says that the moneys may be used, "for all types of current expenditures, excluding interest, debt service, and capital outlay, for public elementary-school and public secondary-school education"?

Six B extends the use of the funds to institutions not under public control.

Mrs. HEMING. Only States now using public funds in that way, because most States do not permit state funds to be so spent.

Senator DONNELL. The point I make is that the bill does not prevent private schools from using these funds, whenever they are allocated to them under the State laws, for any purpose. As I read this bill, the moneys can be used for any purpose and I certainly, most strongly disagree with you that that is a mere, slight deviation and I want to emphasize again that even if it were only a slight deviation, personally, I am opposed to it one hundred percent because I think that the matter of slight deviations lead inevitably, as has been pointed out here this morning at length, from the opinion and from the authorities cited, leads ultimately to a great departure. It is very easy, after the camel gets his nose under the tent for the whole side of the tent to be elevated and other animals to come in, and I am opposed to the slightest deviation on that theory or principle merely for the purposes of expediency.

Senator AIKEN. You may proceed.

Mrs. HEMING. I pointed out the principles embodied in the bill: equalization, the absence of Federal control, the use of public funds in general for public schools only, equal opportunity for children of minority groups and providing for at least minimum effort by the State, in state funds expended for schools, in order to qualify for Federal aid.

The total of $250,000,000 ultimately to be expended annually under the provisions of this bill is indeed small compared to the cost to the community of illiteracy, delinquency and crime. It is infinitesimal compared to what we spend for war. A minimum of $40 per child will not guarantee what should be our aim for public schools, namely the kind of education that wise parents want for their child. It is merely the first step, to make it possible for more communities to raise their standards all along the line, and attract qualified and inspiring teachers, without whom democracy cannot hope to compete with totalitarian ideologies.

Time is important. We are facing a crisis. Teachers and potential teachers by the thousands are turning from the profession to fields offering better pay and greater prestige. To lose a year may be unimportant in some Government enterprises. In the life of a child a year may be disastrous. If action on Federal aid is again postponed by the Congress, there will be no way to undo the damage to this generation now growing up. I therefore respectfully urge this subcommittee to report favorably S. 472, in order that tomorrow's citizens may be given more nearly equal opportunity for at least a minimum education.

Senator AIKEN. Thank you, Mrs. Heming.

The next witness is Prof. C. S. Longacre, associate secretary of the Religious Liberty Association, and associate editor of the Liberty magazine, Washington, D. C.

STATEMENT OF C. S. LONGACRE, ASSOCIATE SECRETARY OF THE RELIGIOUS LIBERTY ASSOCIATION, AND ASSOCIATE EDITOR OF THE LIBERTY MAGAZINE

Mr. LONGACRE. Mr. Chairman, my name is C. S. Longacre of Takoma Park, Md. I appear as a representative of the Religious Liberty Association, whose headquarters are in Takoma Park, Washington, D. C. For 30 years I was editor-in-chief of the Liberty Magazine and general secretary of the Religious Liberty Association, of which I am now the associate secretary. The Religious Liberty Association is affiliated with the Seventh-day Adventist denomination, and I am also appearing as a representative of that church organization.

I wish to state that we do not take any position for or against aiding the public schools. The particular point that we are opposing in S. 199 and S. 472 is the proposed appropriation to nonpublic schools, religious schools.

We are opposed to any kind of aid to religious schools.

Senator AIKEN. If the schools are not religious but are not public, you still oppose that?

Mr. LONGACRE. If they are private schools, we would oppose it on the same basis on principle. We believe that every school ought to furnish its own lunches for its own children. We believe they ought to look after the medical care of their children, of the transportation, and every kind of aid we are opposed to of that kind, whether salaries for teachers, putting up buildings, as is proposed now in some of the State legislatures, for private and religious schools.

I wish to State that the Religious Liberty Association, as well as the Seventh-Day Adventist denomination, has repeatedly gone on record, passing resolutions in opposition to the State or the Federal Government giving financial support to any institutions, whether they are churches or schools owned and controlled by religious organizations.

Our organization met in this month in Los Angeles between April 16 and 26 and passed a resolution recommending that none of our own church schools accept any favors from the State of any kind: like free lunches or transportation, or anything of the kind.

I do not suppose that anybody would benefit more from the passage of these education bills, if the clauses are sustained which offer support to nonpublic or religious schools, than the Catholics and the Seventhday Adventists, because the Catholics have a very large number of parochial schools, and the Seventh-day Adventists have a large number of church schools.

It is the aim of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination to have a church school in connection with every church that can afford to support such a school. If the Federal Government should offer financial aid to schools operated by Seventh-day Adventists, it would enable them to start more schools and to withdraw their children from the public schools, who cannot afford to pay their tuition in the church schools. Giving this financial aid from the Federal Government to our church schools would have the tendency to strengthen and build up our church schools and to weaken the public school system by depriving them of pupils. Great as are the financial benefits that would accrue from this appropriation of the general tax fund to

church schools, neither the Seventy-day Adventist nor the Catholics can afford to accept this patronage from the Government or from the State. There are consequences which flow from government patronage which bode ill to all who accept it. The evil consequences outweigh the financial benefits. Our Catholic friends at one time seemed to sense this danger.

I have been present at such hearings for more than 20 years, ever since these educational appropriation bills were first introduced into Congress. The leaders of the National Catholic Welfare Conference first interested me in these Federal appropriation bills for the benefit of the States in education. The National Catholic Welfare Conference called me on the telephone and solicited my cooperation and assistance in opposing the passage of Federal appropriations to the public schools in the States, because the National Catholic Welfare Conference took the position years ago, as the printed hearings will indicate, that Federal support would ultimately lead to Federal control and management of the public schools in the States. I agreed with them and helped to defeat the proposed appropriation.

But recently, since the nonpublic schools have been included in the Federal appropriation bills, the National Catholic Welfare Conference has come out in favor of the proposed legislation. This change of attitude has greatly perplexed me and I cannot understand just why they have changed their attitude. Every church organization needs to take alarm at a financial alliance between the government and the church. The most dangerous and the most vicious and detrimental alliance that has ever been formed in the past between the church and the state is not a mere political allliance, but a financial alliance, because it gives the government a most powerful leverage to control the affairs and the institutions which it supports, and has a tendency to corrupt the spiritual life and beneficence of the church.

In fact, I think it an unwise policy for the Government to appropriate large sums of money without supervising them. I do not want the Government to give away my tax money to every Tom, Dick, and Harry without supervising its use. The Government would be grossly remiss in its duty to every taxpayer if it did not administer and control the funds which it appropriates. The taxpayers see to it that their money is properly supervised and administered, and if the Government officials do not in the beginning administer and control the money and the institutions it supports, it ultimately will. All past history testifies to that fact. No church organization can afford to receive gratuities from the Government without running the risk of having to state eventually, if not in the beginning, manage and control its affairs. Sooner or later, a state-supported church loses its independence and freedom of action.

For a number of years I taught church history, ancient and medieval, and modern history, as well as the science of political government as related to alliances between the church and the state, and if there is one lesson that history teaches with unerring accuracy, it is that a church and state alliance is neither profitable to the state nor beneficial to the church. All past history teaches that church and state alliances are not born in a day, but are started with apparently innocent precedents and unsuspecting entering wedges. There is no power in the world that is as great as the power of money. It is the Government's trump card, and it has played that card most effectively

in the past. It is sheer folly to shut our eyes and our minds to past experiences along these lines.

There are many leading Catholics, as well as Protestant leaders, who lament present-day tendencies of Government gratuities and patronage in the field of religious activities. I want to present for the record a striking editorial from a leading Catholic magazine warning Catholic institutions and schools of the dangers in accepting Government patronage. It is from the Pittsburgh Catholic of March 17, 1938, the official organ of the diocese of Pittsburgh, Pa., counselling Catholic schools not to accept contributions from the State. The editorial aptly says:

There are many reasons why Catholics should not seek the State contributions for the education furnished by their schools, to which, in all justice, they are entitled. These reasons have been repeatedly set forth by leaders of the church in this country. They have dictated the position taken by Catholics thus far, and their importance is strongly confirmed by recent developments. When State

funds are accepted, some measure of State interference and control must also be accepted. State money for Catholic schools means close dealings with public officials; it means political connections; it means dictation regarding the manner in which the schools are to be conducted.

Under favorable conditions, assistance from the Public Treasury is a handicap and a difficulty; under unfavorable circumstances, it can become a catastrophe. The entire history of the church, emphasized by recent events, shows that public funds come at too dear a price. Mexico had State aid, and so had Spain, and Germany, and Italy and France. And it proved a weakening, demoralizing connection. Better the sacrifice and the limitations which independence requires than the unsound edifice built on the deceptive, treacherous basis of State aid. That is a fine statement, coming from a Catholic magazine, cautiontheir own church organization not to accept state contributions for fear it will lead in the future to embarrassment. The Catholic church in Louisiana did not accept this good advice, and asked the State to furnish the parochial schools with free textbooks. The State complied with the Catholic demand, and some of the taxpayers contested the right of the State to use their tax money to support these parochial schools and appealed the case to the Supreme Court of the United States, and the Supreme Court overruled the right of the taxpayers of Louisiana to protest against such use of their tax money they paid the state. The State not only overrode the right of the taxpayer to object to such use of his money, but is now overriding the objections of the Catholic church as to the contents of the textbooks. The State not only furnishes the textbooks, but selects them and decides what goes into them. Some of these textbooks teach the theory of evolution instead of creation as to the origin of all things, and the Catholic priests have protested, because the Catholic church does not believe the doctrine of evolution but the doctrine of creation as the beginning of things, but their protests have not availed anything. This is the price they had to pay for accepting free textbooks from the State.

Senator AIKEN. Just a second. The Chair would like to have the record show that Senator Ellender has been called out of the room while this testimony is being given, because persons reading the record might think it strange that Senator Ellender had nothing to say about this. We just want the record to show that.

You may proceed.

Mr. LONGACRE. Whatever the State finances it will ultimately control and administer, notwithstanding the fair promises made by

those who first enacted the legislation. Political promises often take
wings and fly away. As the editor of the Pittsburgh Catholic said,
Under favorable conditions, assistance from the public Treasury is a handicap
and a difficulty; but under unfavorable circumstances, it can become a catastrophe.
I wish to read at this place another statement into the record from
another Catholic.

Senator AIKEN. Is that in addition to what you have in the brief?
Mr. LONGACRE. Yes, sir.

Senator AIKEN. You may put that in the record without reading it, Professor Longacre, to save time. It is from a Religious News Service?

Mr. LONGACRE. Yes.

Senator AIKEN. It will be in the record for the benefit of the committee.

(The article referred to follows:)

RELIGIOUS NEWS SERVICE

Wednesday, April 16, 1947

SAYS MOST CATHOLICS OPPOSE PUBLIC AID FOR SCHOOLS

By Religious News Service (Apr. 16, 1947)

MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.-The majority of Roman Catholics "fear the consequences"
of any use of public funds to support parochial schools, according to the Reverend
R. J. Connole, superintendent of schools for the Roman Catholic archidocese of
St. Paul.

Public support of parochial schools can be justified, but most Catholics oppose public aid, Father Connole declared at the Minneapolis town meeting. Question discussed was "Shall public funds be used to support parochical schools?"

Catholics are willing to continue carrying a "double load" of supporting both public and parochial schools because public aid for parochial schools would be detrimental both to the parochial schools and to democracy, Father Connole said. "We also believe that the existence of parochial schools offers a safe counterbalance against possible totalitarian control of public schools by the state," Father Connole explained.

The Reverend Orva Lee Ice, pastor of Calvary Baptist Church, Minneapolis, and secretary of the legislative committee of the Minnesota Council of Churches, said use of public funds to support Catholic parochial schools would mean that the United States Government "would be in the business of propagating the Roman Catholic religion and would establish a precedent."

"Support of Jewish, Lutheran, Mohammedan, and Seventh-day Adventists schools would rightfully be sought," he said.

"This would lead to a direct union of church and state, increase the burden of taxation, and likely be opposed by the Catholics themselves."

The third speaker, Dr. Edgar Wesley, professor of education at the University of Minnesota, said:

"If we concede the principle of public support of parochial schools, we have reunited church and state. Let us not reverse a trend of history that has freed education from the control of minorities."

In reply to questions about the recent United States Supreme Court decision regarding the right of parochial school children to use public school buses, Father Connole and Dr. Wesley said they agreed with the majority decision that such aid does not constitute support of parochial education. Mr. Ice declared he opposes the Court decision.

Mr. LONGACRE. I have another one I would like to submit. This is from a Roman Catholic magazine which shows that the Catholic bishops back 40 years ago were opposed to State aid.

Senator AIKEN. That will also be included in the record.

4

1

1