Dr. Lehmann concludes as follows:

In his encyclical Longinqua Oceani, Leo the 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 I quote offers much hope for "the faithful" who have less regard for the Bill of Rights and their citizenship of the USA 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 was confined to the members of the dissenting group. It could 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 is 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 allegiance to the Vatican sovereign state and as such are striking a deadly blow at the fundamental principles of our Govern

ment.

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 and further expand their theocracy as a world government. In the light of the foregoing, I ask Mr. Chairman, what full-fledged citizen of the United States, free from any allegiance with the vatical 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. Some of 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 suits to the causes which lead 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, let 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 Hennings Stat. 89) religious freedom is defined.

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. As 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 church and state. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the Nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I see with sincere satisfaction the progress of these sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural rights in opposition to his social duties."

Mr. Chairman, is this Congress ready to reverse or modify in the slightest the profound wisdom of the founding fathers on a question of such great concern to those who love liberty and succumb to the will and political wiles of the Vatican state? Is it, too, willing to breach the first amendment even to the extent of paying the transportation of pupils of any sectarian schools, much less those schools of a foreign sovereign ecclesiastical power, a power which, by its own pronouncements, has only contempt for the Bill of Rights and seeks to destroy its effects on liberty?

Let us now examine the temper of another Congress which, seeing the error of other Congresses, acted in the spirit of the first amend

ment:

In the administration of Indian schools the question of Federal appropriation for sectarian education of the Indians came before the United States Supreme Court in the case of Reuben Quick Bear v. Leupp, Commissioner of Indian Affairs (210 U. S. 50, 1908).

Although the action was brought by Reuben Quick Bear and other Sioux Indians of the Rosebud Agency, S. Dak., the indirect plaintiff was the Indian Rights Association, which brought the action against Leupp, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and other Government officials.

However, the real defendant, it should be pointed out, was the Bureau of Roman Catholic Indian Missions, at Washington, D. C., which is an illustration of the active interest that church has in obtaining aid to spread its propaganda at the expense of the Government.

Briefly, the background of the case is as follows: A number of years. after the education of the Indians was undertaken by the Federal Government, certain church denominations, which had been invited to establish church schools among the Indians, began to request the Government to assist in financing their schools. The result was that. by 1896, the money paid out by the Government for the support of sectarian Indian education had reached a total of more than $500,000 annually in addition to an appropriation of $1,000,000 annually by Congress in 1885. When these facts became generally known, a determined sentiment arose against Congress making grants for sec

tarian education. Congress took steps to discontinue such appropriations, declaring it—

to be the settled policy of the Government to hereafter make no appropriations whatever for education in any sectarian school (act June 7, 1897, Stat. L. 97).

Two classes of Federal appropriations for the education of the Indians were considered by the Court in the above entitled cause. One related to a certain treaty with the Indians and trust funds under it which belonged to the Indians and which was administered for them by the Government. The other was gratuitous appropriations of public funds not belonging to the Indians themselves, but which were administered for them by the Government. Both funds went to sectarian schools for the education of the Indians.

In the first-named class of Federal appropriations, the Court ruled that the treaty or trust moneys are the only moneys that the Indians can lay claim to as a matter of right, adding that—

it was inconceivable that Congress should have intended to prohibit them from receiving religious education at their own cost, if they so desired it.

In the second class, here named, it upheld that part of the acts of Congress which forbade the payments of contracts for the sectarian education of Indians out of public money raised by general taxation from persons of all creeds and faiths, or of no faiths.

In tracing the course of the various decisions, it may be fairly deduced therefrom that religious doctrines have no status in either our State or Federal jurisprudence. And the support of sectarian schools in part or as a whole from funds derived from taxation is, so far as the taxpayer is concerned, an enforced support of religion.

Mr. Chairman, the struggle to attain religious liberty and its natural corollaries-political liberty, free speech, and a free press, was long and bloody.

A careful study of the State and Federal Constitutions, as well as the decisions of the State and Federal courts, will disclose that there is a very plainly expressed determination to maintain that liberty by guarding against the slightest approach toward uniting church and state. However, there is now and has been for many years a determined and organized effort to obtain funds from the national, State, and municipal treasuries for the support of sectarian schools. The predominant part of this effort is carried on by the schools of the Vatican State here in the United States.

The provisions of H. R. 3220 under title II is in line with this effort. This is true to some extent with the provisions of six other bills. All flaunt the social and political maxims that sectarian schools, supported from tax funds, retard the progress and liberties of man. All bills ignore the principles in the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Reuben Quick Bear v. Leupp, above cited, and "the settled policy of the Government" above referred to. Federal aid to nonpublic tax-exempt schools would greatly strengthen the growing systems of sectarian schools now operating in competition with public schools. Such competition increased by Federal aid would be a constant menace to the expansion and efficient administration of the latter. Religious leaders would then be able to force many more parents to send their children to the sectarian schools on the grounds of Federal approval of such schools.

H. R. 3220 and six others but the former to a greater extent than the latter in the quantity of money, create a permanent status wherein sectarian schools would become, among the nonpublic schools, the principal beneficiaries of Federal aid. Such a status would ultimately destroy not only the free independent character of our public schools but would establish in our national life an interdependence between state and church.

The radical proposal to aid sectarian schools would put in reverse an American tradition of over a century and a half of almost complete separation of church and state.

Such a dangerous and reactionary departure from our tradition disregards and sets at naught the principles recited in Madison's memorial of 1784 to the voters of Virginia, and the same principles which were affirmed later by Thomas Jefferson in his act of establishing religious freedom in that State.

These are the immortal words of Jefferson inscribed on a panel of the walls of the memorial room of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D. C.:

*

Almighty God hath created the mind free. All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion No man shall be compelled to frequent

or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief. But all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion. I know but one code of morality for men whether acting singly or collectively.

Now let us see what another Pope said in derogation of the Bill of Rights and Jefferson's philosophy: H. R. 3220 and the six other bills appear to accord with the demands of Pope Pius XI who, in subversion of the principles of the founders of our Government, declared in his encyclical of December 13, 1939–

That it is the duty of the state to help the church maintain its religious schools by aid from public funds, and equally the duty of all Catholics, as an act of religion, to demand that the state perform this duty.

How did the New York Times and New York Telegram react to this demand of the head of a sovereign ecclesiastical foreign power on its devoted citizens in this country? The Times stated in its issue of January 13, 1930:

The Pope's encyclical sounds a note that will startle Americans, for it assails and institution dearest to them-the public school-without which it is hardly conceivable that democracy could long exist. As was said only yesterday by a critical authority, despite its shortcomings and mistakes, the public school has already contributed to society more than all other agencies combined. Under its tuitions not only are the elemental lessons which the race has learned taught to children of diverse traditions, race qualities, and religious faiths but these children have been prepared to live together as citizens in a self-governing state. If the declaration of the encyclical were scrupulously obeyed by those to whom it was addressed, the public schools would be emptied of all its Catholic pupils except as the bishop in his discretion in special circumstances may permit them to remain.

The New York Telegram of January 14, 1930, said:

Religious freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and there can be no religious freedom where any church or group of churches dominates the entire educational system.

In the name of the same freedom we have the public school, supported by general taxation, and to which children of all denominations or no denominations are welcome. In those schools the teaching of religion is barred.

61040-47-vol. 1--23