Supreme Court which permits the use of public tax funds for the support of other than public schools thereby breaching the separation of church and state and violating the guaranteed principles of our Constitution.

We stand for the enactment of State and national legislation in language so clear that "it cannot fail of true interpretation," which will preclude the use of public funds for church purposes or which will contribute to the benefit of any religious group.

Now, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have appended two or three pages and more, of key sentences from the great national dailies and journals of our country which, without any reference whatever to the reasons of the justices in their decision, indicate a pronounced unfavorable reaction to the inclusion of any Federal aid or Government aid to nonpublic schools, and I make the point that these great newspapers and journals may be construed as fairly interpreting the opinions of their constituencies.

Senator AIKEN. Those may be inserted in the record in connection with your testimony.

(The excerpts referred to follow:)

EDITORIALS UNANIMOUSLY DISAPPROVE

Perhaps the full force of public opinion could in no way be better ascertained than through the voice of the press. I spent much of a day in the Library of Congress examining into the editorial reactions to the recent United States Supreme Court decision in the New Jersey parochial school case. It was quite impressive to discover that the great newspapers and journals of the country were outspoken in their condemnation of applying public tax money to non-public institutions. Except for some Catholic approval, the publications were shown to be all but unanimous in their attitude of disapproval. I must believe these publications are fairly representative of the people. In the face of this fact, it can hardly be argued that Congress should disregard the expressed will of the people. It is to be regretted that all these significant utterances cannot be offered here in full quotation, but perhaps the listing of a few with a key sentence or so from each of them will demonstrate what we are declaring to be the judgments and wishes of the people whom Congress represents.

Religious News Service, New York, Washington dispatch: "As Arthur Krock, the New York Times columnist pointed out, the Supreme Court on that day did not end a controversy by its decision, but really gave birth to a continuing conflict." The News and Observer, Raleigh, N. C.: "The use of public money for church schools is contrary to the principles and policies which are the cornerstone of our republic. If the money appropriated for public education can be employed to transport children to the Catholic schools in New Jersey, or to Lutheran schools in Illinois, or Methodist schools in Michigan, public-school money can be diverted not only to transport children attending all church schools, but it can be employed to pay teachers in church schools, erect buildings for church schools and go along toward undermining the whole public-school system in the interest of the first steps. of a return to the union of church and state."

* * *

St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "Amid the legal confusion, it is clear that many citizens are now taxed, however, indirectly, to support religious teaching in which they have no conviction But the astonishing thing is that after so many years of study and jealously guarded independence, religion is now considered so feeble as to need Government help.'

Chicago Daily Tribune: "The teaching of religion should be encouraged in every way so long as it is carried out by the citizen himself in his home or through his church. It is not a matter with which any public body can safely concern itself, however indirectly." Note: The Chicago Daily News also opposed Government aid to church schools.

Washington Evening Star: "The dissenters pointed out that Catholic schools are bound to benefit by transportation aid, no less than they would by any other form of State subsidy; that Catholic schools are the 'rock on which the whole (church) structure rests' and that tax aid to a Catholic church school is 'indistinguishable" from rendering the same aid to the church itself."

The Churchman (Episcopal) New York: "Because of their lethargy, due to their fear of being called 'bigots' and 'intolerant', Protestants got what they deserve in the Supreme Court bus bill decision."

60144-47-26

The Christian Century (nondenominational) Chicago: "A culture dominated by the Roman Church will be a different culture from one in which Protestantism is the ascendant faith. This incontestable fact should awaken all non-Roman citizens of the nation-regardless of their religious faith or lack of it-to see that no further advances are made toward the goal of a privileged relation of this church with the Government."

Word and Way, Kansas City, Mo.: "Non-Catholic groups, if at all observant, cannot fail to see that the lines are being drawn and that the traditional perpetrators of religious persecution are on the battle march in the courts, in legislative halls, through the myriad channels of education, through political maneuvering, and through pulpit and press. The niceties of apologetics are forgotten as in South America, the United States, and elsewhere they become openly hostile to all non-Catholics and alarmingly defiant to democracy.' NOTE. In connection with this opinion the Kansas City Star, in a strong editorial offers emphatic dissent with the Supreme Court majority opinion.

The Nation: "Nervously, haltingly, but surely, the Court majority has breached the wall of separation so carefully built up by Jefferson and Madison. We will hear more of this matter as other communities take their lead from the Ewing Township case. We can only hope then, that the Court will reverse itself, as it has on other occasions when its decisions have clearly misfired."

Max Lerner, editorial in The Newspaper PM, New York: "It will be a disaster if America yields any further to the drive for State support of religious establishments. That way lies chaos and bigotry and tyranny. For, as Madison pointed out long ago in his Remonstrance, the whole point about separating church and state is to take the question of religious education out of politics."

* * *

Bishop G. Bromley Oxnam, former President Federal Council of Churches: "If parents have the natural right to determine the education of their children, a privilege this Nation gladly gives, it follows that parents who refuse the benefits of these splendid public school educational opportunities should pay for such private education as they insist upon. Otherwise, the Communist father and mother who may demand a Marxian education for their children may also call for private schools and logically ask for public support. Public funds should be used for public education."

United Evangelical Action, Cincinnati: "If the Court's decision on the New Jersey 'bus law' stands, Catholicism will soon want the State to provide its school busses, its textbooks, its libraries, its school buildings, its teachers salariesand even that will not be the end. Pernicious church lobbies will move for an ultimate union of church and state; then will come civil war and the loss of our cherished religious and civil liberties. The time to halt this inevitable chain of evils is now while there is still time to preserve intact the American way of life." The Daily Oklahoman, Okahoma City: "The continual discussion and the introduction of education bills into Congress is injuring the public school system of the country, which has done so much in bringing into being this great country that we enjoy and could enjoy always if the public school system is not interfered with."

Dr. Louie D. Newton, president, Southern Baptist Convention: "I see in the decision a dark shadow, now no longer, it may appear, than a man's hand, but portending a great and terrible cloud that may be drifting out over every hamlet and dale from Plymouth Rock to the Golden Gate to darken the torch of religious liberty."

The Washington Post: "If citizens can be taxed to pay this expense, they can be taxed to pay the salaries of church school teachers and the cost of buildings for religious educational purposes. When and if this happens, the dominant group in any community will be in a position to dip into the public purse to propagate its own faith and the separation of church and state, as we have known it in the past, will be nothing but a myth. The majority opinion carries strong suggestions that the Court would not go that far. But the Court has destroyed the only basis on which a rational distinction can be made. Its resort to expediency in this instance will deprive it of an anchor to tie to when the larger issues are raised."

Time, New York: "The issue was not settled. In the past, the courts of six States had thrown out, as unconstitutional, laws similar to New Jersey's permitting transportation at public expense for parochial-school pupils. There was talk of drafting a constitutional amendment to bar the practice. The issue would be before the people for a long time to come.'

Scottish Rite News Bulletin, Washington, D. C.: "After reciting the law, fact, and our tradition for 160 years, which the Roman Catholic Church (a foreign temporal power) has tried in every way to strike down, bit by bit, one is amazed at the reasoning of the Court in its findings."

The Christian-Evangelist (Disciples) St. Louis: "Catholics themselves, though specifically favored by the Supreme Court decision, should see that it may accelerate and intensify a conflict already near to dangerous proportions."

The Commonweal, leading lay publication in the Roman Catholic field: "It is pointless and harmful for Catholics to oppose a bill which, despite its neglect to parochial schools, would save the national public schools from further debility. It just so happens that the majority of children in this country attend public schools. To deprive them and the people who teach them of the financial help they must have if our general education level is to be maintained at its present quite respectable level, merely because parochial schools are not to receive the same degree of help, is evidence of a discouraging social short-sightedness."

The Christian Science Monitor, Boston: "Separation of church and state is a bulwark of religious liberty. To remove a stone from that bulwark is to weaken the fortress of religious liberty. In our opinion the Supreme Court, by its decision permitting the use of public funds to pay for transportation to sectarian schools, has torn down a whole section of that bulwark."

The Baptist Advance, San Francisco: "America was shocked recently when the United States Supreme Court rendered a decision, 5 to 4, upholding a New Jersey school board in providing funds for a bus to serve Catholic pupils attending a parochial school. Surely this presumptuous un-American move, supported by the United States Supreme Court will still have to answer to the American people."

Bulletin of the Friends of the Public Schools: "These sob-sister appeals have found more sympathy among legislators than the appeal for free textbooks and welfare money, so that, even with the favorable decision for free textbooks for parochial schools in the Louisiana textbook case a few years ago, the Roman Catholics are emphasizing the danger of health and also the danger from accidents along heavily traveled roads and streets in their plea for free transportation for parochial school children. If the Roman Catholic Church can afford to build school buildings, and support the teachers that teach in them, furnish the equipment, the heat and light and other incidentals required in running schools, they certainly can afford transportation, free lunches, school books, and such other minor items."

Gulf Coast Baptist, Houston: "We wish for the Roman Catholic Church the same enjoyment of religious liberty that we claim for protestantism, if in the exercise of this liberty, catholicism can win America, it will deserve to win it. But we are bound to resist every attempt by the Roman Catholic Church or any other church, including any Protestant church, to secure a position of advantage in the forum of our free society."

The St. Louis Lutheran: "If these principles seem harsh in prohibiting aid to Catholic education, it must not be forgotten that it is the same Constitution that alone assures Catholics the right to maintain these schools at all when predominant local sentiment would forbid them."

Thus from the press of the Nation, stretching from the foremost newspapers of Boston to the Los Angeles Times, from the Atlanta Constitution to the best newspapers of Oregon, have come expressions which beyond question reveal the convictions of the people of the United States concerning the matter of rendering Government aid to church institutions. Mass meetings of citizens reaching from El Dorado, Ark., to Camden, N. J., lend emphatic testimony to this feeling. On considerations historical, constitutional, and socially essential, we therefore, beseech you to give the necessary public fund aid to the public schools without complicating it with nonpublic institutions.

Mr. DAWSON. They are representative of the Nation.

Senator DONNELL. Mr. Chairman, may I ask also if that includes an individual expression of opinion by Bishop Oxnam?

Mr. DAWSON. Yes, sir; and one by Dr. Louie D. Newton, and possibly one or two other individuals. Mainly, these are quotations from newspapers and journals throughout the Nation.

If I may conclude with this remark: Thus from the press of the Nation, stretching from the foremost newspapers of Boston to the Los Angeles Times; from the Atlanta Constitution to the best newspapers of Oregon have come expressions which beyond question reveal the convictions of the people of the United States concerning the matter of rendering Government aid to church institutions. Mass

meetings of citizens reaching from El Dorado, Ark., to Camden, N. J., lend emphatic testimony to this feeling. On considerations historical, constitutional, and socially essential, we therefore, beseech you to give the necessary public fund aid to the public schools without complicating it with nonpublic institutions.

Senator AIKEN. Thank you, Mr. Dawson.

The next witness is Mr. Rudisill, chairman of the Education Committee of Printing Industry of America, Inc.

STATEMENT OF JAMES J. RUDISILL, CHAIRMAN OF THE EDUCATION COMMITTEE OF PRINTING INDUSTRY OF AMERICA, INC.

Senator AIKEN. Please give your name and whom you represent for the record.

Mr. RUDISILL. My name is James J. Rudisill of Lancaster, Pa. I am a commercial printing employer and chairman of the Education Committee of Printing Industry of America, Inc., national trade association of the commercial printing industry.

Our association is, we believe, the largest organized group of small manufacturers in the country. I am here to testify on behalf of the Nation's commercial printers in favor of a proposal to provide Federal subventions to the States to raise educational levels.

The commercial printing industry is the Nation's fifth largest industry, but is composed of 37,000 individual manufacturing units. It is thus located in every community of any size in the United States and is definitely concerned with the cultural levels, growth and prosperity of all of its communities.

We

The interest of commercial printers in education and in the proposal for Federal subventions is by no means sudden. It does not arise solely out of the emergency situation which now confronts the educational system of this country. Our interest is an historic one. have, for many years, maintained statistical data and made correlations between educational expenditures and levels, per capita income and expenditures for printing and we have long known that there is a direct correlation between education and income levels and expenditures for printing.

A United States Chamber of Commerce study made in 1940 shows that persons with low educational attainments achieve relatively low economic levels. Only 11 percent of those with 8 years or less of schooling attain incomes of $5,000 or more, whereas 39 percent of those who reached high school or graduated, and 50 percent of those who attended college or graduated earn $5,000 a year or more.

We, as printers, have some even more startling correlations. 1 should like to cite some figures on per capita expenditures for printing related to per capita expenditures for education and to per capita income in States with contrasing provisions for public education.

In citing these figures on per capita expenditures for printing, I should like to emphasize that we have deliberately omitted the printing of newspapers, magazines, and books. If these figures had been included the correlations would be even more startling. But your committee may feel that newspapers are a special problem and that books and magazines are printed in major production areas for distribution throughout the country.

As income increases printing purchases increase at a much faster rate; for example, according to the 1940 census, per capita income in Ohio is three times that of Mississippi, but per capita purchases of commercial printing, excluding books, magazines and newspapers, are 15 times as great. The per capita income in Massachusetts is four times that of South Carolina, but Massachusetts expenditures for commercial printing, excluding books, magazines, and newspapers, are eight times as great.

I have a table here on printing expenditures and expenditures for education in relation to per capita income which I will make available for the record.

Senator AIKEN. This may be put in the record, Mr. Rudisill, after your testimony.

Senator ELLENDER. Mr. Rudisill, would you be able to tell me something with respect to the table you have just sent to the desk? I notice here that in Illinois, the per capita income is $726. The expenditure for education per pupil is $110; the expenditure for printing per capita is $12.32.

Mr. RUDISILL. Yes.

Senator ELLENDER. Whereas Massachusetts is just about the same as Illinois and its bill for printing is $4.83. Now why the difference? You have put Sears, Roebuck or Montgomery Ward in there, I presume?

Mr. RUDISILL. Probably.

Senator ELLENDER. Is that a fair test?

Mr. RUDISILL. I would not say that that makes the whole difference. It could make a great difference.

Senator ELLENDER. It would make a great difference in all States. Take Massachusetts, for instance. There are a lot of colleges there.

Mr. RUDISILL. However, as we are saying if education standards are raised, so will there be more of these centers of publication and so will they increase throughout the Nation wherever they may be. Senator AIKEN. It is a fact that Massachusetts prints a large percentage of the textbooks used in the schoolrooms of the country.

The same correlations could be made for most of the States where educational levels are substandard as compared to the States where education has been maintained on a fairly high level.

Although it is well known that the Southern States are at the low end of the scale in expenditures for education, the facts we are presenting are not intended as criticism of those States. State funds for education are simply not available. Mississippi, which spends the lowest amount for education of any State in the Union-an estimated $30 per pupil-nevertheless spends a higher percentage of its income---3.2 percent-than Delaware, which spends $108 per pupil, but only 1.7 percent of income. South Dakota and New Mexico with relatively low income per capita expend, each spend over 4 percent of their income on education.

Except for Illinois and New York, those two States, you will find that that is an accurate percentage of the expenditure for the remainder of the Nation.

Senator ELLENDER. What makes Ohio $6.52 and Massachusetts $4.83? The expenditure per pupil in Ohio is shown as $95 and the per capita expenditure for printing $6.52 in contrast to Massachusetts' $766 figure for income and $110 for education. Do you attribute the