port of nonpublic education, thereby saving other taxpayers at least $400,000,000 a year. Catholic taxpayers, as it is, are the most generous benefactors of public education. The Senate bill, S. 246, denies to those benefactors even that small amount of money which would be needed to furnish bus rides for parochial school pupils. Federal aid should be restricted to States which have a need. Proper restric tions would cut the cost of Federal aid from $300,000,000 to $150,000,000. Federal aid legislation should guarantee to all children those essential school services to which they have a constitutional right. Those services are: Nonreligious textbooks, bus rides, and health aids. Any bill which fails to guarantee such services for all children should be defeated. It is idle to talk of freedom of education while Catholics are fined because they take advantage of the parents' constitutional right to have their children educated as they see fit. I am sure that in considering any measures before the House you will keep before you these principles of elementary justice. HONORABLE AND DEAR SIR: As superintendent of schools in the Diocese of Trenton, N. J., responsible for the education of some 30,000 nonpublic school children, may I ask that you give the 2,607,819 Catholic school pupils in the United States due consideration in supporting any Federal aid to education bill. The Thomas bill S. 246 counts in these nonpublic school children in the allocation of its fund for them but counts them out as far as its distribution is concerned by dodging the issue, "letting the States decide for themselves" about its use. When we consider the fact that Catholic taxpayers save other taxpayers $400,000,000 annually by educating their children in nonpublic schools it would be adding insult to injury to tax them further for money that would be alloted to their children and then given over to public school children. I suggest, therefore, that any bill passed by your committee would include such aids as are the constitutional right of nonpublic school children, namely, nonreligious textbooks, school bus transportation and health aids; for example, the Fogarty bill H. R. 1570. Thanking you for your consideration of this matter and trusting that you will see to it that such a bill is reported out of your committee, I remain, Respectfully yours, Rev. JOHN J. ENDEBROCK, TOLEDO COUNCIL OF CATHOLIC MEN, Hon. GRAHAM A. BARDEN, Chairman, Subcommittee on Education, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. BARDEN: I write to request from you the privilege of a hearing on the vexing and very vital question of Federal aid to education which is now before your committee. It is a very vital question in my judgment. I am sure that the vitality of our national existence will be affected, for better or for worse, by the legislative determinations of the Congress on this propaganda-blurred question. I am sure that our Nation will enjoy greater, much greater, vigor and blessing if the law to be enacted on Federal aid be based squarely on the principle that all America's children, whether enrolled in the public or in the so-called private schools, are entitled to equal share in the money paid in by all taxpayers, those whose children attend the so-called private schools as well as those whose chil dren attend the public schools. Need-not creed or lack of it-should be the yardstick, if American fairness and common sense are to prevail. Let it be explicitly clear that I am not advocating that the Federal Government begin to subsidize the teaching of formalized religion. No one wants that; no one, to my knowledge, is seeking that. We are all talking and thinking about the same thing-the teaching of those subjects required by the educational authorities of the States, of the same subjects as presented in the public schools. I am asking to be heard as the president of the Toledo Diocesan Council of Catholic Men, organized body of the Catholic manhood in 19 northwestern Ohio counties. As a witness before your committee, let me testify as one who has had the personal experience of 16 student years in classrooms of Catholic schools. Since my graduation from a Catholic college, I have spent 20 years in the open stream of American life. As the Federal-aid controversy carries on, I have tried to review the instruction I received in Catholic schools and to discover what might be objectionable about it. I am at a loss to put my finger on anything within the content of my instruction that deserves censure or elimination as un-American or anti-American. It is quite easy for me to tell you the general attitude toward my country that was cultivated in me by my teachers in the Catholic schools I attendedelementary, secondary, and college. I am able to spell it out substantially in two words: "love" and "loyalty." My Catholic schools impressed those concepts on my mind in association with the land of my allegiance. I submit to the committee that the most retentive and valuable instruction I received on the State and my duties as a member of it came from my religion textbooks. I should like to support this assertion by giving chapter and verse from some of the religion textbooks used by myself, my wife and my brother, all of whom attended Catholic schools. You will find the following to be quotations from "Religion Outlines for Colleges," course III, by John M. Cooper, the Catholic Education Press, Washington, 1930, in which 31 of the 492 pages form a section devoted to church and state. * * * "The state is something founded in human nature, and authority in the state is ultimately derived from God who created human nature as it is" (p. 340). "That civil authority in the last analysis comes from God is an integral part of Catholic social teaching" (p. 341). "Our own American sympathies are naturally with the democratic form of government. But we recognize that a form of government that we consider the best for us may not be best suited to every people. In this as in other political matters, the church feels that she should not interfere, but should leave the decision to the respective peoples and nations. While, however, the church is not committted to any one particular form of government, it has been the dominant theory of most of her representative men for the last 7 centuries at least, that government should rest upon the consent of the governed" (p. 343). "There is considerable question as to the exact historic links connecting the traditional Catholic theory and the political theory that underlies our own Declaration of Independence, but that the latter is to no small extent an historical consequence of the former can hardly be called into doubt. One might even go further and maintain that the whole concept of modern political democracy harks ultimately back to the still more fundamental Catholic teaching regarding the supreme value of each human individual and the equality of rights among all men" (p. 345). * The state is not absolute law unto itself. Its policies and behavior must be in accordance with the divine law of love of God and neighbor" (p. 351). "The Catholic Church has ever inculcated obedience to civil law as a moral obligation. But it emphatically denies that obedience is a matter of conscience where the law is obviously unjust. So far as our non-Catholic fellow-citizens are concerned, it would seem that the vast majority of them hold about the same view. Neither the Catholic Church nor the American people has ever admitted the pagan principle of state absolutism, the principle that the king or the state is always in the right and is always to be obeyed. "Regarding then the matter of conceivable conflict between the Catholic conscience and the law of the land, we may sum up by saying that, first, such a conflict is so unlikely and so remote that as practical human beings we need not worry our heads about it, and secondly, that, so far as it is worth considering at all, both Catholics and their non-Catholic fellow-citizens who have consciences are in the same boat" (pp. 354-355). "Religion is deeply concerned that civic or political action shall promote the welfare of the whole citizenry and protect the rights and needs of each individual citizen" (p. 356). "The Catholic Church earnestly inculcates patriotism as part of the more general law of love of God and neighbor. The ordinary citizen best shows his patriotism-apart from the occasional emergencies of war-by obeying the law, by paying his taxes, and by living up to the ideals of justice and charity in all his relations to his fellowmen, and by taking an active, intelligent, and conscientious part in good civic movements" (p. 356). "Hatred of or injustice to another race or people or individual members thereof is just as immoral and sinful as hatred of or injustice to one's own race or people or individual members thereof. 'My country right or wrong' runs counter to one of the most basic doctrinal and moral teachings of Christianity" (p. 362). Turn your attention now to course IV of "Religion Outlines for Colleges" by the same author. Here, on pages 174 and 175, he summarizes the chief responsi bilities of citizenship under these captions: (a) Loyalty in peacetime and wartime; (b) Voting, and voting honestly and intelligently; (c) Paying taxes; (d) Obedience to law; (e) Respect for authority; (f) Intelligent and active interest in public affairs. I still keep and use the textbooks in ethics of my college days. It is titled "Readings in Ethics" compiled and edited by J. F. Leibell, Loyola University Press, Chicago, 1926. Section VII is devoted to "society" and section VIII to "state." Consult this text, if you will, and in particular pages 887 to 1070. Here and now, in this opportunity to add pertinent testimony for the consideration of your committee, let me extract but a few quotations. In an article on the rights of self-government by John A. Ryan, you will find this handy summation of his two articles: "The official teaching of the church is that political government is a natural necessity for society; that the authority of the legitimate ruler comes from God. and that each of the three forms of government-the monarchic, the aristocratic, and the democratic-or any of the usual combinations of these three forms, is in itself morally lawful. According to the doctrine of Bellarmine and Suarez, which has in its favor more Catholic writers of authority than any other theory, political authority is derived directly from God by the people, and is by them transmitted, either explicitly or implicitly, to the ruler. But we have given reasons to show that the political rights of the people can be fully safeguarded by the theory that, instead of conferring authority upon the ruler, they merely designate him, and that the person so designated receives his authority directly from God. This right to choose their own form of government and ruler is inherent in every people that has the capacity to provide for or maintain a fairly competent government" (p. 943). See the Sovereignty of the People, by Alfred O'Rahilly, in this same ethics text. reading on page 954 the following: "The scholastic theory may now be fairly summarized as follows: Sovereignty is an essential attribute of the people, as constituting a corporate entity; it is radically and fundamentally inalienable, but for convenience and efficiency it may be transferred, by and with the consent of the community, for such time and under such conditions as the people deem expedient for the public good. The ultimate test of the juridical validity of any system of government is the consent of the governed." I refer you now to the article The Best State, by Michael Cronin, wherein we students read: * * of all the standard forms of government, which is the form that seems to fulfill the functions of government best, so that, under average circumstances, and assuming that the character and history of the people favor all forms equally, it could be predicted of it that it will be most promising in good results? That a strong democratic element will be present in this best constitution is certain from what we have already said" (p. 972). This same text included the article Practical Patriotism, by William Turner. Suffice it to call your attention to a single sentence, to be found on page 981, where, as students, we read: "The love of our fellow citizens is a derivation from the law of charity itself." And we who came to a sentence like this in a textbook had already been well fortified to receive it, for repeatedly we have been instructed that "the greatest of these is charity." Excellent source to turn to is A Catechism of Christian Doctrine, the newly issued revised edition of the Baltimore catechism, St. Anthony Guild Press, Paterson, N. J. I refer you to No. 3, which is the text for secondary schools and colleges. Therein you will find that lesson 19 treats of the Fourth Commandment. Confer if you will, questions 245, 246, 247, 248, and 249. The first of these questions is stated thus: "What are the duties of a citizen toward his country?" Listen to the answer: "A citizens must love his country, be sincerely interested in its welfare, and respect and obey its lawful authority. (a) A person who plots against his country or rebels against its legitimate government commits a grave sin. Citizens, however, have a right to defend themselves against tryanny when there is no other way to secure the exercise of their fundamental human rights." Need taxpayers fear such schools? Need legislators hedge over adopting the principle of fairness applied to such schools? There questions would seem to push to the real heart of this whole controversy. I do want to testify that I am puzzled, after having enjoyed the benefits of a Catholic education, as to why anyone would want to make such an education a matter of double taxation. The only reason I can think of is that persons who are opposed to Federal aid for such private schools do not know what manner of instruction is given in these private schools or, what is worse, have been misled by innuendo or propaganda into believing what is not true. I wish finally to add a bit more testimony as one who has the duty and responsibility of a parent in the education of six, and perhaps more, children. I want these children of mine to receive all the instruction that the State authorities in education make compulsory. But that minimum will not satisfy me. Before and above that, I want my children to receive regular, systematic instruction in religion. I am going to be more concerned about my children's progress in that study than in any other. It would be an inversion of genuine values, according to my conviction, to take a different attitude. I want the whole of my children's education vivified and integrated by religion. Why should any clique of my fellow Americans strive to render as difficult as can be an objective of that kind which I, and thousands and thousands just like me, cherish? How can this opposition serve the best interests of America? As you honorable gentlemen observe the current scene of National and world affairs, please analyze the question here posed by a fellow American, anxious as you are for the welfare of our common Nation and concerned most particularly for the welfare, temporal and eternal, of my own flesh and blood. Accept my appreciation for your kind consideration of the above testimony. With all good wishes, FRANCIS I. NALLY, President. NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CATHOLIC MEN, Hon. GRAHAM A. BARDEN, Chairman, Subcommittee on Education, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN BARDEN: I have been instructed by the executive committee of the National Council of Catholic Men to convey to you and the members of your committee the official stand of this organization on proposed legislation to extend Federal aid to education. Inasmuch as I have been advised that it will be impossible to testify before your committee in person, I would request that this letter be made part of the official record covering the proceedings of the committee. We recognize the responsibility of society, within the framework of parental rights and duties, to provide to every child an adequate education. Likewise do we recognize that certain States of the Union find it economically unfeasible to offer all children an education that properly may be termed "adequate". Since the proper education of school children is an essential element in social welfare, and since the social welfare of the Nation is no better or no worse than the social welfare of the several States, we feel that it becomes a legitimate and necessary function of the Federal Government to provide funds which will enable the poorer States to raise the level of educational opportunity. Furthermore, we feel that legislation to this end should benefit all children whether they attend public or private schools. If the purpose of this legislation is to aid the States in maintaining better education for better citizenship, it must be borne in mind that the States, recognizing the right of parents to send their children to private schools of this conscientious choice, have declared such private schools, as well as public schools, as qualified to render the public service of education for citizenship. As a consequence, we feel that the pupils of private schools should be included as beneficiaries in any Federal aid-to-education legislation program adopted by the Congress. If it is true that certain constitutional limitations have been placed on Federal aid to private schools, it is also true that certain constitutional rights have been established by law which enable children attending private schools to participate in Federal aid. We feel, therefore, that all children regardless of their enrollment in publie or private school, should at the very least qualify to receive health services, textbooks, recreation services, and transportation. No child should be deprived of such services merely because he attends a school of his choice which meets all the educational standards as set by the State. I sincerely trust that in the consideration of this important problem you and the members of the committee will be guided by the principle of equal justice to all. Very truly yours, JAMES S. MITCHELL, STATEMENT OF RUTH CRAVEN, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CATHOLIC WOMEN The National Council of Catholic Women, a federation of organizations of Catholic women with a total membership of 6,000,000, appreciates the opportunity of presenting to the House Subcommittee on Education and Labor the following considerations relating to Federal aid to education and in particular its opposition to H. R. 4643, introduced by Congressman Barden. The position of the National Council of Catholic Women on Federal aid to education is succinctly stated in its resolution adopted at convention, September 1948: "We favor Federal aid to education in areas of proved need, provided that such aid includes the individual well-being of all school children and is administered without discrimination. "Such a program should include as minimum requirements social services that guarantee safe transportation, adequate instructional materials, and other basic needs for sound living habits in our American democratic society." The NCCW wishes to emphasize that its decision to favor Federal aid to education was a decision arrived at reluctantly and only because of the unquestionable proof that some States are too poor to pay their way in providing educational opportunities for the children of school age in the State. The policy of the NCCW is: No Federal aid except in cases of need and where the general welfare requires it. We believe that as a nation we are getting into the bad habit of dipping to often into that one big pocketbook held by the United States Treasury. Now, our economic strength, our moral independence, depends on a number of pocketbooks the individual's, the community's, the county's, and the State's. If we are always dipping into the one pocketbook we will soon come to the sorrowful realization that all the other pocketbooks are empty. That big pocketbook is kept filled only by what comes from all the other pocketbooks. Therefore, Federal aid to education should be given only to the needy States. Any other extension of Federal aid to education would be an unjustifiable and wasteful expenditure of Federal funds. In reaching the conclusion that Federal aid should be given to the needy States. it seemed quite clear to us that this aid would be given to all school children of the State. The reason for the aid at all is that certain States are poor. If the State is poor, it means that the people in the State are poor because a State cunnot be richer than the people living in it. Therefore, the child attending a parochial school in a needy State is as much in need as the child attending a public school in that same State, and should receive at least a minimum of Federal aid. |