Mr. FLETCHER. You have had abundant experience, living in an environment where this problem would be acute if it is acute anywhere, and do you not think that if the colored people are furnished an equitable share of the funds from State and local authorities from the Federal Government, that they will work out their own educational problems with the kind of intelligent leadership they have today?

Mr. RICHMOND. And they want to do it, Mr. Fletcher. They want | to do it. I know that. I work with them. Only last week in my college we had a conference of 75 or 100 educators in that small conference room with some 15 or 20 colored administrators. They were extended every courtesy; they took part in the discussions and no comment was made pro or con. It was taken as a matter of course. I have sat on a board of education with them in Kentucky, and when it comes to working out the problems that are the problems of the colored people, as well as those of the whites, there is the closest cooperation in Kentucky, and I think in all Southern States. But they want to be in their own State schools with their own teachers, with their own extra curricular activities. It is better for them and better for the white people.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask a question there, Doctor. In answer to Mr. Deen's question about separate schools you said you believe in equality of education.

Mr. RICHMOND. Equality of opportunity; yes.

The CHAIRMAN. I note this bill, if it was passed, would deny to well-established schools throughout the country the right to participate in this fund, and what I have in mind is the parochial schools where the Government contributes absolutely nothing, and millions and millions of dollars are spent, and the parents, at a sacrifice at times, pay weekly dues to have these children go to school. This bill would deny them any contribution at all.

Mr. RICHMOND. For the Federal Government to tag a certain portion of this contemplated money for any particular school system, public or private, immediately injects the element of Federal control, and second-and I am sure the chairman will not misunderstand me in making this observation-the responsibility of government for education and for any other fundamental responsibility is upon the whole people and cannot be divided or subdivided along any racial, clerical, or social lines.

Now, if a State has certain laws that provide for the distribution of this money or other moneys along any particular line, I have no objection to it. I am still a States' rights Democrat, Mr. Dondero.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask this question then. As I understand it, the superintendent of schools in large cities and the State superintendents are two separate persons?

Mr. RICHMOND. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Why not permit the superintendent-and by that I mean by the legislative body of the large municipalities, for instance, municipalities of over 500,000-why not let their legislative body regulate whatever proportion or share they may obtain of this money?

Mr. RICHMOND. Their legislative authority is derived from the legislature of the State. In practically every State in the Union education is recognized as a State responsibility. In the Constitu

tion of Kentucky and in specific decisions of our court of appeals, which is our supreme court, that is definitely settled. All authority granted my city of Louisville is granted that city by the Legislature of Kentucky. They cannot exceed that authority. The schools of Louisville receive their per-capita distribution of the State school money on exactly the same basis as the schools of the little town in which I now live.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, I do not believe you would propose for a moment that the State legislature would claim that it has the power to tell the Federal Government how it shall distribute money for school purposes.

Now, why not by amending this bill permit municipalities of over 500,000 that have an independent school system of their own to determine how this money shall be spent in reference to their schools.

Mr. RICHMOND. My answer to that would be-and first I will answer a certain observation that you made, in which you stated or I understood you to state, that the cities receive very little money from the State. I do not know what the situation is in your State, but in my State the city of Louisville receives more money than any other school district in the State. They receive exactly the same money in proportion to the population as the poorest county in the State receives, and the authority that the city of Louisville has for levying a supplemental school tax is granted by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and they cannot exceed the authority imposed upon them by the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The cities, the counties, the independent school districts, the subdistricts of Kentucky are creatures of the State, and I think it would be a dangerous thing to allow any city or any subdivision of the State Government to function independently in education any more than to function independently in courts or anything else. The CHAIRMAN. I uderstood you to say, in substance, that they do function independently, when you said that the superintendent of city schools is a different person from the superintendent of the State schools.

Mr. RICHMOND. They function independently within certain prescribed limits imposed upon them by the legislative authorities.

Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Richmond, have you a primary-school law in your State which provides certain State contribution equally throughout the entire State?

Mr. RICHMOND. Yes; we have.

Mr. DONDERO. That is granted to both races?

Mr. RICHMOND. We distribute our school money on a per-capita basis. If a certain district has 10,000 pupils of school age, multiply the per capita by 10,000, and that is the amount of money that that district gets.

Mr. BOYER. How do you take that census?

Mr. RICHMOND. That census is taken under the direction of the school board of each district.

Mr. BOYER. Parochial-school pupils are not counted in it?

Mr. RICHMOND. Yes; and the schools are ready for them if they want to attend.

Mr. BOYER. Do you have any idea what percentage of the educated people do not use the common schools in the United States?

Mr. RICHMOND. I have had the figures, but I cannot give them offhand. Possibly Dr. Dawson could. In my State I should say 85 or

90 percent of the students attend public schools, and, of the remaining 10 or 15 percent, a few attend independent private schools and the others attend parochial schools.

Mr. DONDERO. That was the purpose of my question this morning of Dr. Dawson as to how to arrive at something that was equal to all of the children of all of the States when we are confronted with the fact that in some States the parochial-school population is high, in others it is very low.

Mr. RICHMOND. Yes. It is just average in Kentucky.

Mr. DONDERO. If all the children under this bill from 5 to 20 shall draw Federal aid, then the States in which the parochial-school population is very high will get more per capita for the children in the public schools than they will in other States where it is low. How can we equalize that? Have you any suggestions to give to the committee?

Mr. RICHMOND. Offhand I could not make any suggestion that would be of any particular value to the committee. We have the same problem, Mr. Dondero, in distributing our public-school money in Kentucky. We distribute on the basis of the census, not on the basis of average daily attendance, and I thought Dr. Dawson made a very good point this morning in that particular, that you must provide the school so that they can attend, and then the next step is compulsory school laws. Now, you take the parochial schools in my State; we get along with them beautifully. They cooperate in making the census. They subscribe to our regulations as to certification of teachers and as to standards of instruction. They not only permit but they welcome the closest supervision and inspection of their schools.

Before I was State superintendent I served 4 years as high-school supervisor of the State of Kentucky, and some of the most delightful experiences I had, some of the warmest friendships I made, were made with the heads of these parochial schools, who, without exception, go out of their way to cooperate with us in our programs, our regulations, and in meeting our standards.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not think there is any question about that. That is the reason that makes it a hardship here, the fact that they are not recognized at all, because they are willing to cooperate and they get nothing in return.

Mr. FLANNERY. Is it the understanding of the committee, then, that in the preparation of this bill parochial schools are ineligible for the benefits of the bill?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; because it says "public schools." The word "public" is used.

Mr. MASON. But may I interject this: The bill leaves it entirely up to the State legislature to determine what a "public" school is. Mr. RICHMOND. Correct.

Mr. FLANNERY. Why can we not determine it in the first instance? The CHAIRMAN. Then you are dictating to the States. That is the same thing as my suggestion, why not let the municipality do the same thing, and Dr. Richmond says that that would be wrong.

Mr. RICHMOND. That, Mr. Chairman, may I say, not by way of apology but by way of clarification, is my personal view. I do not presume to speak for the school people of America on that particular point.

Mr. FLETCHER. In regard to allocating the funds on the basis of number of children between 5 and 20, to which you apparently object, Mr. Dondero, what do you suggest there?

Mr. DONDERO. I have this in mind, Mr. Fletcher: In view of the statement made that the schools were prepared to receive parochial children, in my home city there is no room in the public schools for parochial school children. We do not have any room. Our schools are now crowded. These parochial schools are maintained by the churches that build them, and what I am thinking about is this: That even though those children are in the parochial schools, nevertheless the children within the public schools will draw the money for those in the parochial schools.

While it may be high in Michigan, it may be low in another State; and, nevertheless, the dollar that would go to one State may only mean 50 cents in another State because of that high and low parochial-school population. That is one of the problems that is disturbing me, and I am sure that is something that is in the minds of others, and I think it requires the thought of all of us on how to equalize and bring that matter about on an equitable basis.

Mr. FLETCHER. Have you another plan than that in mind? Have you a personal plan to suggest?

Mr. DONDERO. I have not; but I have been thinking about it since this committee has been considering this bill.

Mr. FLANNERY. That condition prevails in my own region, that the public schools are taxed to capacity, and the parochial schools are carrying a great share of the load, without facilities in the public schools to assume that burden, and they are maintained without any expense to the taxpayers, with standards of education equivalent to those in the public schools.

Mr. DONDERO. If they are not recognized, we have apparently an inequality here that is a problem to be solved.

Mr. REES. Let me ask my colleague a question: If that inequality would exist under this measure, as you suggest, the inequality is there already?

Mr. DONDERO. They are already under State taxation.

Mr. REES. And we have just suggested that the public schools are supported by public taxes. That is what you are doing in your State. So we are only applying the same principle here that you would be applying under your State laws. Isn't that correct?

Mr. FLANNERY. I do not think that follows necessarily, inasmuch as the parochial schools that have come to my knowledge will take all pupils, regardless of race, creed, or color. They are all welcome and are received and trained and educated,

Mr. REES. But the point I am making is that in your own State, under your present system, you are doing the same thing that is being suggested here; that is, you are supporting your public schools, as we call them public schools, by taxation, aren't you?

Mr. FLANNERY. Correct.

Mr. REES. So we are going to continue and go one step further under this measure, according to the proponents of the bill, and support the public schools by public funds, except we are doing it now on a Federal basis in addition to doing it on a State basis, as you are doing in your own State.

Mr. FLANNERY. We are proposing to do it now on a national basis.

Mr. REES. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Richmond. Who is your next witness, Dr. Hall? I might say, Doctor, I suppose the committee is about as much at fault as the speakers themselves, because we ask them questions, but we would like to shorten the testimony as much as possible; otherwise we may be here until September. Mr. HALL. We would like to have you hear next Congressman John R. Murdock, of Arizona.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN R. MURDOCK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Mr. MURDOCK. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I had prepared a brief statement here, which I will hand to the secretary, but I have been so inspired by the address of Dr. Richmond that I may want to vary a little from that, but I will be equally short.

I want to say in passing that the teachers in Arizona are looking to me now to represent them before this committee in a special sense. I am their representative, of course, in the House of Representatives. It is very much like carrying coals to Newcastle or flowers to Pasadena for school teachers to ask me to speak a good word for an educational bill, because I have that in my heart. I am a school man.

I notice some reference was made to the divergence in wealth and educational possibilities of the States. I think it is rather appropriate for me, coming from the far Southwest, following a man from Kentucky, to say that I have noticed those differences throughout the country.

I feel that the States of this Union are sociological experiment stations, and we often may look to this or that State for a cue as to wise national policy. So, Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak on this principle of State aid, as I see it in my own State of Arizona.

I am aware of the fact, of course, that now that education is regarded as a function of the various States, we need to get larger and larger bases of support for education. If the principle works well in a State, we may assume that it will work equally well as applied to the entire Nation. Take my own State: For 20 years now we have had State aid. In our attempts to equalize educational opportunity we find a great divergence between the counties in Arizona, and even a greater divergence of wealth between the school districts in any given county.

So for the entire period during statehood we have had support for schools in Arizona divided into three parts. There has been a State distribution, and for the last 20 years it has been $25 per capita annually, and in addition to that a county fund, and then the third part being local support through local taxation. I have observed that since we have gotten State aid it has equalized educational opportunity throughout the State. I have observed that the teachers are better paid, our schools are better supplied with books and materials. State aid has not applied to housing.

Mr. DONDERO. You mean school buildings?

Mr. MURDOCK. School buildings. I have found, although I am rather proud of what we have in Arizona in the way of educational facilities, I have found out on the desert little one-room schools supplied with a University of Arizona graduate for teacher, free text