retained in the bill. A majority of the members, however, wish to have the funds authorized and appropriated under title II limited in their use entirely for current expenditures of public schools. My own opinion, Mr. Chairman, is in accord with that of the majority of the Commission.

Senator HILL. A majority, then, does not wish to have any funds go to private or sectarian schools; is that correct?

Mr. REEVES. Not as schools; not for the instructional programs of those schools.

Senator HILL. Then you find yourself in disagreement with Mr. Woll on that matter?

Mr. REEVES. Yes, that is correct.

My interpretation of this provision as it now reads can be illustrated by a hypothetical case of aid to nonpublic schools.

Senator HILL. Let me ask you this question, Doctor.

Mr. REEVES. All right.

Senator HILL. Your council, or your committee-what do you call it?

Mr. REEVES. It is a Commission, Senator.

Senator HILL. Your Commission considered this thing pretty carefully before this bill was introduced, did it?

Mr. REEVES. The Commission considered this matter very carefully at a number of different stages before the bill was introduced and after the bill was introduced. There was a difference, a lack of common understanding among the members of the Commission concerning what the term "services to children" meant, and unfortunately so, because the different members were talking about different things. At one stage the Commission thought it was together, but they were interpreting those words in a different way. We thought it was very unfortunate, Senator, that that happened within our Commission, but the fact remains that our Commission is unanimous in thinking that this is the best bill ever introduced, and they are together on every provision of the bill with the one exception that I mentioned, and that recognize is an important exception.

Senator HILL. You are now divided on the question as to whether or not Federal funds should go to private or sectarian schools? Mr. REEVES. On title II we are divided; that is correct.

Senator DONNELL. Doctor, if the majority of the Commission favors the confining of those funds to public schools as distinguished from private or sectarian schools, how does it happen that the bill as introduced provides for the use of that fund for sectarian schools? What is the reason why the majority did not control in wording the bill? Mr. REEVES. The majority has controlled at all stages in the development of the bill, but there was a lack of understanding, a lack of a common understanding of the meaning of "services to children."

Senator DONNELL. I understood you to say that a majority of the Commission do not favor applying the funds under title II to sectarian or private schools.

Mr. REEVES. That is correct.

Senator DONNELL. Nevertheless, that is what it does provide in title II, does it not?

Mr. REEVES. That is right.

Senator DONNELL. My question is: How does it happen that with the majority of the Commission favoring the elimination of sectarian and private schools from title II, title II nevertheless does provide for their inclusion?

Mr. REEVES. All I can say is this: You heard Mr. Woll's testimony. This is the A. F. of L. bill, as he stated, and at this point I might state the American Federation of Labor, as represented by Mr. Woll, stated its point of view this morning, and the Commission on Educational Reconstruction of the American Federation of Teachers is not in accord, insofar as a majority of that Commission is concerned. Senator AIKEN. Mr. Chairman, I notice the last sentence in title II says:

And provided further, That none of the funds paid to a trustee from funds authorized to be appropriated under section 201 of this Act shall be used for the payment of salaries of teachers.

Mr. REEVES. That is correct.

Senator AIKEN. It specifies 75 percent of the amount shall be spent for teachers' salaries, and therefore $225,000,000 of the $300,000,000, assuming that is the amount, must be spent for salaries of teachers in public schools under the bill itself.

Mr. REEVES. That is correct. There is no difference in the opinions of the members of our Commission with reference to that.

Senator AIKEN. That $75,000,000, I understand, should be used for the salaries of other school officials, janitors, folks like that.

Mr. REEVES. That is correct. As to the need for $300,000,000, we had no differences of opinion.

Senator AIKEN. You really were not so very far apart.

Mr. REEVES. We are not so very far apart, and I point out again, the majority of our Commission does not represent the total Commission.

Senator HILL. You are very far apart on a very fundamental question, isn't that true?

Mr. REEVES. That, I think, is correct.

Senator HILL. It is a very fundamental question, isn't that true? Mr. REEVES. I think that is true.

Senator DONNELL. It is correct that the American Federation of Teachers, through its representative body, takes the view that the provisions of title II should not inure to the benefit of sectarian or private schools, but that the American Federation of Labor takes the contrary position, and the attitude of the American Federation of Labor is controlling as determining the wording of this bill, is that correct?

Mr. REEVES. There are other witnesses who will speak for the American Federation of Teachers on that matter. I am speaking only for the Commission on Educational Reconstruction that was appointed to study the problem.

Senator DONNELL. That was appointed by the American Federation of Teachers?

Mr. REEVES. That is right. The American Federation of Teachers will have other witnesses.

Senator DONNELL. The body appointed by the American Federa-tion of Teachers opposes the proposition that the funds under title II be applied to sectarian or private schools?

Mr. REEVES. This one Commission of the American Federation of Teachers does oppose that provision.

Senator SMITH. You have eliminated the provision with reference to trusteeship? That will go out entirely?

Mr. REEVES. As far as title II is concerned, that would not then be necessary. But I do wish a little later to discuss the problem of trusteeship.

Senator DONNELL. Dr. Reeves, you said this one Commission of the American Federation of Teachers opposes applying the proceeds of title II to sectarian or private schools. Is there any commission of the American Federation of Teachers that has favored the application of those funds to private or sectarian schools?

Mr. REEVES. That question will have to be asked of the officers of the Federation. They will be prepared to answer.

Senator DONNELL. You are not informed on that?

Mr. REEVES. I am not informed on that.

Senator DONNELL. You are not informed as to the Board, or as to the Commission of the American Federation of Teachers which favors the application of title II in part to the sectarian or private schools? Mr. REEVES. I am not informed on that. I would like to read into the record, Mr. Chairman, my interpretation of this provision of aid to nonpublic schools as it now reads by giving an illustration of a hypothetical case. I am doing this because some people have raised the question as to whether the language is now clear, and for that reason I wish to present my interpretation of it, and if the language is not clear and does not bear out this interpretation, then we hope that if this is retained in the bill it will be with this interpretation.

Assume that on the basis of educational load and financial ability a State were to receive $10,000,000 as its share of Federal aid under title II. Assume further that 10 percent of the children in that State are attending nonpublic schools. The first claim on this $10,000,000 would be 75 percent of the total, or $7,500,000, for the salaries of teachers in public schools.

Because the nonpublic schools carry 10 percent of the educational load in this hypothetical case, they would be eligible to receive 10 percent of the remaining $2,500,000 for educational expenditures other than teachers' salaries. The remainder of the $2,500,000, or 90 percent of the total, would go to needy public schools to be used for current educational expenditures of any type, including teachers' salaries. Under the conditions described in this hypothetical State, nonpublic schools would have available $250,000, or 2.5 percent, of the total of $10,000,000 that comes to the State under title II.

Reports that are available of comprehensive studies of educational needs within the several States, and of the ability of the States to meet such needs, provide evidence to show beyond any question that the equalization provision set forth in title II is essential, and that $300,000,000 is not too large an amount to meet the needs of the States for improving their schools.

In the earlier hearings of this committee on S. 181, Prof. .John Norton, of Teachers College, Columbia University, appearing as a witness, presented this committee with the results of his Nation-wide study of educational finance for the year 1939-40, the last year prior to the beginning of the war that may be considered as representing a normal situation.

Although the techniques of investigation employed by Dr. Norton differed in many respects from those used in the earlier studies with which I was associated, and in some respects represented an improvement upon these earlier techniques, the general findings of Dr. Norton's study and the earlier studies are similar.

In fact, every Nation-wide study of this problem that has been made during recent years by any committee or commission, whether composed of educators or laymen or both, has arrived at the same general conclusions as those reached by Dr. Norton and presented to this committee. In every case, the facts gathered have led the persons making the studies to conclude unanimously that the educational needs of American children and youth cannot be met without a substantial amount of aid from the Federal Government.

I have been informed that Dr. Norton's entire study, published in two large volumes, has been placed at the disposal of the committee. Because Dr. Norton has so ably presented the committee with the facts assembled in his most recent and very comprehensive study, I shall not burden you with a repetition of these facts.

It seems clear to me that the case for Federal aid to equalize educational opportunity among the States has already been made. Therefore, I shall turn to the second appropriation authorized in this bill.

Senator WALSH. I think the committee ought to suspend at this time in order that the members may go to the floor of the Senate, and, therefore, the committee will stand adjourned to 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(Statement of Roscoe C. Walker, Trenton, N. J., State council secretary of the State Council of New Jersey Junior Order of United American Mechanics, secretary of the State of New Jersey Federation of American Patriotic Societies, which includes in its membership the State council bodies of the Daughters of America, Patriotic Order of Americans, Sons and Daughters of Liberty, Patriotic Order Sons of America and the Junior Order of United American Mechanics, and legislative representative of the general executive board, which includes in its membership the State council bodies of the Junior Order of United American Mechanics, Inc., of Virginia, the Junior Order of United American Mechanics, Inc., of New York, the Junior Order of United American Mechanics of New Jersey and the Fraternal Patriotic Americans of Pennsylvania, is submitted by direction of the above-named patriotic fraternal societies:)

TRENTON, N. J., April 11, 1945.

Senate 717 would appropriate $550,000,000 each year to supplement educational costs in the various States and Territories of the Union, and although section 1 of title 1 of the bill would seem to assure continued State control of public education, it is a matter of history that parial control leads to complete control, by the body that has in the hands, the control of the funds when provided by the Federal Government.

Therefore, for this reason, if there were no others, we are opposed to the proposed legislation.

However, there are many other objections to the proposed legislation, which when given consideration by the proper committees of the Congress should result in its rejection.

The bill provides for an additional agency of the Federal Government, with an increase of personnel and expenditures, including salaries, travel and subsistence, thus adding to the great army of Federal appointments and employees and the continued increase of the cost of government.

The bill provides a new field for increased costs of education by including in its provisions Federal aid to nonpublic, private, and religious schools and is in violation of the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the principle of the separation of church and state.

The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and to provide transportation, textbooks, library facilities, and other educational projects to religious controlled nonpublic schools is surely in violation of that language.

In Davis v. Benson (133 U. S. 333, 33 L. Ed. 637, 640), the Court said: "The first amendment to the Constitution in declaring that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or forbidding the free exercise thereof 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."

The States of the Union have provided public educational opportunities for all children without cost to the children or their parents, and they do not deny the right of nonpublic schools to operate, however it would seem not only advisable but fair, that the expenses of the nonpublic schools be met by those responsible or those benefited thereby, because it is reasonable to assume that if the cost is provided in whole or in part by any other agency, be it State or Federal, control in whole or in part is bound to follow. We must not overlook the fact that if Congress may directly or indirectly aid or support private nonpublic sectarian or denominational schools with public funds, then it would be a short step forward at another session to increase such aid, and only another short step to some regulation and at least partial control of such schools by successive legislative enactment. From partial control to an effort at complete control might well be the expected development.

The proposed legislation would violate the cardinal principle of our country, the complete separation of church and state, because donations of public funds are provided for nonpublic religious controlled schools, and therefore such contributions would be in aid and of assistance to the teaching of sectarianism..

Our public schools do not teach religion and as a result all the children meet on an equal basis, in regard to race or creed, and are entitled to follow the dictates of their hearts and conscience, in respect to the religious beliefs.

We believe in religion, we believe it should not be taught in the public schools, we believe that the teaching of religion belongs to the home and the church and that no school teaching its particular brand of religion is entitled to Federal or State aid.

This proposed legislation will bring forward the religious difference of our people and place our Nation in the position of furnishing financial and other assistance in the teaching of religion.

All of the members of the above-mentioned patriotic organizations believe in the existence of a supreme being, are loyal to the Constitution of the United States, and favor the continuance of the nonsectarian free public school system, and urge in the best interest of our country and its cherished institutions that the proposed legislation be decisively defeated:

By keeping church and State separate and distinct, each performing its functions without aid or support from the other, we have avoided the religious prejudices, conflicts, and persecutions experienced in other countries. Any union of church and state whatever wou'd have emphasized our religious differences. The "fundamental conception of civil and religious liberty" would not have "brought together our forefathers of all religious persuasions upon common ground," and the "constitutional compact of our national life" would not have produced "our present harmonious and cherished design of national existence, the idealic conception of Webster 'an indestructible union of indestructible states'" (Knibb v. Knibb, 94 N. J. S. 747), if the principle of separation of church and state had not been a part of our forefathers' conception of civil and religious liberty. It has been very essential to the elimination of discord and strife over religious differences. Had the functions of Government been permitted by our State and Federal Constitutions to foster the religious beliefs of any group of our people we would never have acquired "our present harmonious and cherished design of national existence."