(20) The Columbus Chamber of Commerce refrained from voting on the second proposition on the ground that the statement of the proposition was not sufficiently explicit.

(21) The Kent Chamber of Commerce supplemented its action on the ballot by the statement that while it endorsed the work of the school authorities and the adequate training and payment of teachers, it viewed with concern the increasing cost of Federal administration and the burden of Federal taxation.

(22) The Salem Chamber of Commerce indicated that it voted in favor of the second proposition provided a Federal department of education was not created. (23) The Muskogee Chamber of Commerce conditioned its negative votes on the second proposition upon the creation of a Federal department of education; otherwise, it would vote in favor of this proposition.

(24) The Memphis Chamber of Commerce, in voting as opposed to the second proposition, stated that it favored enlarging the present Federal bureau in the event that a department of education was not created.

(25) The Sherman Chamber of Commerce explained its failure to vote on the second proposition on the ground that the statement of this proposition was not sufficiently definite.

(26) The Spokane Chamber of Commerce, in casting its votes as opposed to the third proposition, stated that this action should not be considered as disapproving the present work of the Department of Agriculture in its cooperative efforts with state agricultural colleges.

ORGANIZATIONS NOT VOTING, BUT FILING OPINIONS

The Omaha Chamber of Commerce declined to vote in the belief that the subject of the referendum did not come within the scope of the purposes of the chamber of commerce of the United States.

The Passaic Chamber of Commerce indicated that, because of the complicated nature of the questions submitted, there was insufficient time within which to make the comprehensive study necessary as a basis for an intelligent expression of opinion.

The Lockport Board of Commerce refrained from voting because of the pendency of local questions making such action inadvisable.

The Mining and Metallurgical Society of America explained that the provisions of its constitution and by-laws, requiring the submission of all questions to the membership, made impossible any action on matters within the limitation of time provided by the referendum system of the chamber of commerce of the United States.

The National Jewelers Board of Trade stated through its governing board that it did not feel competent to express an opinion on the question involved in the referendum and that the board did not have the proper machinery for reference of questions of this sort to the entire membership.

The Cleveland Chamber of Commerce, affirming the position taken on April 5, 1922, declined to express an opinion on the Sterling-Towner bill pending the publication of the report of the Departmental Reorganization Commission, although not concurring in a Federal subsidy of State education.

The CHAIRMAN. Members of the committee, there are some parties. here who are anxious to leave town, so I will now call on Mrs. Thomas A. McGoldrick, representing the International Federation of Cath-. olic Alumni.

STATEMENT OF MRS. THOMAS A. McGOLDRICK, REPRESENTING THE INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF CATHOLIC ALUMNI, BROOKLYN, N. Y.

Mrs. MCGOLDRICK. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, in deference to the lateness of the hour and to your wish for adjournment, I shall make my remarks within a five-minute period. My name is Mrs. Thomas A. McGoldrick, and I represent, and am privileged to represent, the International Federation of Catholic Alumni, an organization made up of 500 federated Catholic high schools and colleges, with an alumnæ membership of more than 65,000 graduates. If we were hoping to impress you with figures alone, we might multiply this number several times to include the students in all of these institutions and their teaching staffs.

I present to you, gentlemen, the earnest protest of these educated women against the present Curtis-Reed bill, for they feel that this. measure is the opening of the door, by imperceptible degrees, to the authorization of the complete Federal control of the schools of America.

We feel that to pass this bill would be to add one more measure to an already overcentralized Government, taking away from the people of the States duties and privileges that are rightfully theirs. That the States are fulfilling their educational duties well is shown by the fact that every decade for half a century has shown marked decrease in illiteracy, and that every year sees thousands of new schools, and appropriations for education increased by hundreds of millions of dollars. The States have deep pride and personal responsibility for their own educational problems.

The present bill has been thoughtfully pared of some of the objec tionable elements that made the original Smith-Towner bill of 1918 so distasteful to thinking Americans. The present bill eliminates the complicated system of Federal subsidies, Federal agents, inspectors, and enforced reports from the State educational authorities. But surely the same forces that augmented the other unpopular measure are still alertly anxious for this new one, which is their wedge into a strategic position that would quickly become the full bureaucratic measure of its sister bills. We can not lose sight of the fact that it is a carefully camouflaged compromise.

The late Vice President Marshall has said in his time that he has seen "many a plain bureau grow into a complete parlor and bedroom set. This present bill to all appearances may seem an innocent enough piece of furniture, but its bureau drawers are packed with uncounted rolls of potential red tape. Once the Federal Government becomes the bureaucratic "advisor" of the schools, a position for which it has neither aptitude or constitutional authority, it can not, help becoming a controller of the schools, influenced by the shiftings and bickerings of party politics. A Federal educational department is the Mecca of those ambitious people to whom legislation of this kind opens up possibilities of higher office than State education offers to them. These will not allow power to lie idle near their hands. It would not be long before the States would find themselves harnessed with a supervision that would be a constant source of irritation. Federal officers representing education would find scope for petty politics and tyrannies in the territory where they would work. And to dictate radical change of policy to any State would require an amended national constitution. Surely it would be unwise to submit America's earnest and eager school system to such inevitable supervision.

The wisdom of our fathers who planned and drew up our Constitu tion surely foresaw that education, so vitally important to America's development, was something that rightfully belonged to the States. And there is a large and growing number of American people who believe that the Constitution should be retained in its integrity, and who feel that all subtle changes are weakening our fundamental government. Jefferson wrote: "I believe the States can best govern our home concerns, the General Government our foreign ones. I wish, therefore," he said, "to see maintained that wholesome distribution of power established by the Constitution for the limitation of both." (Letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823.) This CurtisReed bill opens the way to a force that would likely destroy "that wholesome distribution of power."

The Smith-Towner bill talked in terms of a $100,000,000 subsidy. This bill has carefully avoided that grave stumbling block. But

once the bill is passed, the appropriation and taxes for its development must follow. With the history of established bureaus in Washington, it is surprising, gentlemen of the committee, that so many people lose sight of this inevitable fact.

Consider the Children's Bureau for instance. It was created "to make a survey and gather statistics," with the assurance that its approximate needs would never exceed $25,000. The very next year the appropriation was $26,000; in 1926, $164,640; in 1918, $27,760. By 1923 the Children's Bureau had stretched the original $25,000 to $1,551,040, thereby registering a multiplication of more than 50 times its first appropriation in that brief 10 years. It would be interesting to work out a table of bureaus and the mounting costs. It would be a multiplication table.

Gentlemen, the lesson is obvious. The Curtis-Reed bill could not help becoming one more unwieldy and expensive story of the already top-heavy structure of centralization in Washington. We do not need federalized education any more than we need federalized religion, or art, or music-or where shall we stop?

And we must not lose sight of the fact that organizations like the National Education Association pressing for legislation of this kind, in presenting to you their figures of enormous membership are not telling you how many members of that great number do not want this bill at all. Personally I can speak of a group of 3,000 Catholic teachers, who are also teachers in the public schools of New York, who, while members of the National Educational Association, are absolutely opposed to the passing of this bill. This same fact is true of all of the large cities of this country where teachers, many of them, are members of the National Education Association, but not in accord with many of that association's political policies.

Gentlemen, the schools of America, particularly the 500 Catholic schools-high schools and colleges which I have the honor to represent ask you to protect our independence and local school rights. by killing this bill once and for all.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. May I ask you a question or two, Mrs. McGoldrick? You criticized the National Education Association a moment ago in your statement-that is, you called attention to the fact that perhaps many of its members were not in accord with those who are here proposing this legislation. How many of the 50,000 people in the organization that you are speaking for do you speak for to-day?

Mrs. McGOLDRICK. I think I can speak rather fully for them. There are 65,000 of them. We have national conventions biennially. At those national conventions we have a very large representation of delegates from the States. Those delegates come instructed. One of the chief subjects that has been discussed every time we have met has been the Smith-Towner bill, the Curtis-Reed bill, and it has been the unanimous voice of that convention always that we disapprove of this legislation.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. That is a convention of delegates?

Mrs. McGOLDRICK. A convention of delegates and people. A convention with perhaps 2,000 in attendance.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. That is much the same as the method employed by the National Education Association.

Mrs. McGOLDRICK. Our resolutions, however, have been unanimously adopted. The National Education Association has had much objection to the passing of their resolutions. We have never had a voice of protest; they have had many voices of protest. There are many teachers in the ranks of the N. E. A. who keenly resent a bill of this type.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. May I ask you this question, whether or not the statement that you have just made was prepared as a criticism of the Smith-Towner bill or as a criticism of the bill now before the committee?

Mrs. McGOLDRICK. It was intended as a criticism of the bill now before the committee.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. When was it prepared?

Mrs. McGOLDRICK. Yesterday.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I thought I saw some earmarks on it that indicated it was a little older than that.

Mrs. McGOLDRICK. That may be. I have been before this committee on two other occasions, and it may be possible that some of the things I said before have crept into this unintentionally.

Mr. ROBSION. You had the intention to put everything in there that you did put in, did you not?

Mrs. McGOLDRICK. Oh, much more.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I inferred that you were not in full accord with the Children's Bureau. Is that true?

Mrs. McGOLDRICK. No; not exactly. I am in accord with anything that is good for children, being the mother of five, but I think that that bureau is a fine example of what happens when a committee says that a bureau will be limited to certain things. Once we have the bureau, then we have leaps and jumps of expense that are not anticipated, and that is my objection to this bill. It is going to be a department that will need these tremendous appropriations.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Let us take the matter now an item at time. Are you for or against the Children's Bureau?

Mrs. McGOLDRICK. I am for the Children's Bureau.

Mr. ROBSION. You mean the method?

Mrs. McGOLDRICK. I am for the principle of a Children's Bureau; yes.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Are you for the Federal Children's Bureau as it now exists and operates?

Mrs. McGOLDRICK. No; I am not.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Then you, of course, are not in favor of the appropriations which the Federal Government makes for the support of it?

Mrs. McGOLDRICK. I think that the results from those appropria tions are not proportionate at all.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Do the organizations that you are speaking for at this time indorse the idea of a Federal Children's Bureau? Mrs. McGOLDRICK. Well, I am speaking as an individual in that. I am not here to represent the organization on that.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I beg pardon. I am interrogating you first as an individual, and, of course, if you are not in a position to answer that is all right.

Mrs. MCGOLDRICK. I should not like to answer for my organization on any other thing but the thing that I was instructed to come