Doctor KEITH. There are three things we are going to do. You have asked two questions.

Mr. FENN. Yes, several.

Doctor KEITH. First, how are you going to get this over to the people who need it?

Mr. FENN. In addition to what is being done now.

Doctor KEITH. There are three ways in which that can be done, as I know. The first is the evening school, in certain localities and for certain types of industry, particularly where you have only a few people employed in certain industries, working employees. I have seen it work very well in Racine and Kenosha, Wis. That is the first thing, the evening school for adults.

The second thing is the continuation school for those just over the compulsory school age.

Mr. FENN. There are not many of those.

Doctor KEITH. Yes; there are.

Mr. FENN. Not under the restrictive immigration bill; there are not many of them.

Doctor KEITH. Yes, of course.

Mr. FENN. Yes.

Doctor KEITH. But there you have that continuation-school proposition for the younger ones that are too old to be forced under the compulsory school act; and then you have the factory school or the mine school.

Mr. FENN. Is the Government going into that?

Doctor KEITH. No; the States are managing that.

Mr. FENN. Where do you get this amount of $7,500,000?

Doctor KEITH. I will come to that. Here are these three ways of getting at this problem upon the educational side. How do we propose to get at it? We propose that the Federal Government shall distribute this money according to the provision here, to the several States. This must be matched by the several States.

Mr. FENN. Yes.

Doctor KEITH. And then the several States must devise ways and means for spending this money. Their accounts are to be audited. You will know how they spend every dollar of this.

Mr. BLACK. Take a State that is already engaged in this work, as my State is.

Doctor KEITH. Then it is going to have some aid, if that is so, from the Federal Government.

Mr. BLACK. But it is going to cost them more for that aid than they are paying now?

Doctor KEITH. Yes; more for that aid.

Mr. BLACK. But they are not going to get any better returns. Doctor KEITH. Why is it going to cost more; because New York is going to do this job?

Mr. BLACK. Every State will be called upon to make large contributions.

Doctor KEITH. Many States are not taking care of it adequately. Mr. BLACK. We are speaking of the foreign born, now.

Doctor KEITH. Under the terms of this bill, I believe it will be taken care of more adequately than it is at the present time. Besides, we have a lot of industrial education in the State of Pennsylvania. If we could have the benefit of this bill the Federal Government

would insist on this thing, and then they could get this thing worked out in a way that we can not now.

Mr. FENN. I can see where this bill might be of value in States that are illiterate, as you refer to them; but why is it necessary to have so much money in States that are not illiterate and yet have this foreign-born population, simply in Americanization? Most of the illiterate States have very little foreign-born population. I do not want to refer to any section or territory. What are you going to do? Why do you need Americanization in a State that has practically no immigration, and yet has a great deal of illiteracy? For the illiteracy part, I can understand that; but why do you need so much for Americanization.

Doctor KEITH. If it is not an Americanization problem, they will not get any of this money.

Mr. BLACK. What does Americanization mean if it does not mean education?

Doctor KEITH. It is a particular type of education.
Mr. BLACK. It is some particular type of education?

Doctor KEITH. That work is done with these foreign-born children who want the ability to read and write; secondly, it should acquaint them with the ideals and the history of this country in simple, understandable terms; and, thirdly, it should acquaint them with their responsibilities and duties as citizens of this country and all of the things that go with that-the manner of voting, the technique of nominations, elections, and all that. That, to my mind, is what constitutes the Americanization of the foreign born. They must first get our language to make it possible for them to get the body of ideas that underlie our civilization, and then they must learn also the plans and schemes and devices by which our Government is carried on.

Mr. BLACK. Is there going to be any standard applicable all over? Doctor KEITH. I think so.

Mr. BLACK. Where are we going to get the ideals from?

Doctor KEITH. The secretary of education will set these standards. Mr. BLACK. He will tell us what Americanization is and what our ideals are?

Doctor KEITH. Yes.

Mr. HOLADAY. I want to ask you if, in your opinion, a man who has this opinion of America is a fit teacher to instill Americanization. I am reading now from page 149 of the latest book published by a man by the name of Papini, a man who, I understand, is to become a part of the faculty of Columbia University, or is to lecture there this coming summer. Here is his description of America [reading]:

America is the land of millionaire uncles, the country of trusts, of corporations, the country of the phonograph, of the electric car, of the law of lynching, of the unbearable Washington, of the tedious Emerson, of the degenerate Walt Whitman, of the nauseating Longfellow, of the angelic Wilson, of the philanthropic Morgan, of the undesirable Edison, and of other great men of the same stuff.

Now, do you consider a man who gives that definition of America a man that can assist in the Americanization of the aliens in this country, or instill in native-born Americans a love for American Government and American ideals?

Doctor KEITH. I would not be responsible for giving him a job as a teacher.

Mr. BLACK. He might be made secretary of education.
Doctor KEITH. He will not be secretary of education.

Mr. BLACK. Fall became Secretary of the Interior.

Mr. HOLADAY. I asked you this question because it appears from this hearing that Columbia University and her men have had quite a little to do with the drafting of this bill, and are here supporting the bill in person and by publication; and yet that is the university which has made arrangements for this man to deliver lectures in their university.

Doctor KEITH. In response to your statements, I can only say that so far as I understand the matter, the president of Columbia University has never declared himself in favor of this bill. Quite the contrary. He has expressed his disapproval of it. He, however, is a large-minded enough man to allow the men on his faculty to have some ideas of their own and to think for themselves, even though he does not agree with those men.

Mr. HOLADAY. I am glad to hear that the members of the faculty do not agree with the president of the university.

Doctor KEITH. Do not make any mistake; I am not connected with Columbia University.

Mr. HOLADAY. I understand you are not, but I understand one gentleman who is connected with it has appeared, and others probably will.

Doctor KEITH. Yes; but they are not entirely responsible for all the opinions of the university.

Mr. FILENE. Would you take one man who was wrong, and blame the whole university for him?

Mr. HOLADAY. If the university has the mistake called to their attention, and there is time to rectify it and they do not make any effort to, I might be inclined to blame the entire university to some

extent.

The CHAIRMAN. It is almost 12 o'clock, and I would like to ask Miss Williams how many more witnesses she has people from out of town?

Miss WILLIAMS. Nine more, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. These people come from out of town, and if the committee is agreeable, I wish that in some way we could hear them.

Mr. FENN. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me I would like to hear everybody who comes here, but there is a matter of great consequence before the House this morning, a matter of the highest importance. (At 12.05 o'clock p. m. the committee took a recess until 8 o'clock p. m.)

EVENING SESSION

The committee reconvened at 8 o'clock p. m., Hon. Frederick W. Dallinger (chairman) presiding.

Miss WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the first speaker to-night, representing the college people of the country, is Dr. John H. MacCracken, president of Lafayette College, Easton, Pa.

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN H. MacCRACKEN, PRESIDENT OF LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, EASTON, PA.

Doctor MACCRACKEN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I appear to-night for the American Council on Education, and more especially as chairman of their committee on Federal legislation. This committee is made up of the presidents of the State Universities of Michigan, Minnesota, and Texas, a representative of the Catholic University of America, the University of Chicago, of Oberlin College, and of the Institute of Government Research, and what I have to present in the matter of our attitude on the question of a department of education is the unanimous sentiment of this committee.

I know that your time is very brief, so that I shall try to present our position in a very few words, stating first our platform, second, answering two objections and, thirdly, advancing two arguments.

The platform I think can best be stated in the words of President Coolidge, "I consider education a fundamental requirement of national activity, which is worthy of a separate department and a place in the Cabinet." The President said "which, accompanied by allied subjects of welfare, is worthy of a separate deparmtent and a place in the Cabinet;" but we omit that aspect and confine ourselves to his statement, "I do consider it a fundamental rquirement of national activity, which is worthy of a separate department and a place in the Cabinet." That states our platform.

I was counting to-night and I find that it is just 25 years since I made my first public plea for a Federal department of education. That was just at the close of the Spanish-American War and I had just completed, with the State superintendent of education of the State of Missouri, a count of the rural schools of the county of Callaway, known in that part of the world as the "Kingdom of Callaway," because it is the only county that ever made a sovereign treaty with the United States of America. We plowed all through the yellow mud of that county visiting the rural schools. I had become very much interested in the whole problem of national education and I, went to Jefferson City and made a speech on behalf of a Federal department of education.

At that time I was inclined to stress what the Federal Government could do for education. My point of view has changed somewhat since that time and I am now more inclined to stress what education can do for the country if given an opportunity to express itself through the National Government.

There are two objections which we constantly meet in a contention for a department of education. One is the objection which we met, perhaps in its most decided form, with the late President Wilson, that his Cabinet table was only so big; that it had no extension leaves, and that he could not place another chair at the table. This argument that the Cabinet table is a Procrustean bed, to which the Nation must adapt itself, and is not an extension table which can adapt itself to the needs of the country, is an argument which we frequently meet. I have discussed the matter with the man who has brought the greatest success in reorganizing executive departments of administration in this country, Governor Lowden, of Illinois, and he confirmed the view which seemed to me to be the realizing one,

that there was nothing sacred in the present number of the Cabinet. In fact, as Governor Lowden put it, if the necessities of the country required, there was no practical reason why the Cabinet could not number 18, if necessary, and the whole contention that the Cabinet number is closed and does not admit of an addition, reminds me a good deal of a paragraph in President Elliott's book on University Administration. The president of Harvard writes, in his book on University Administration, that the right number of trustees for a university is seven. We have seven at Harvard. [Laughter.]

The second objection which we constantly meet is the argument that if we set up a Federal department of education we are sure to have a centralization of authority and, eventually, tyranny, so far as the school system of America is concerned. That is an argument which is emphasized considerably in the report recently put out by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America. But they advance no argument in that report to show that the farmers of this country have ever suffered from the tryanny from the Department of Agriculture, or that the labor unions of the country feel that they would be better off if there was no Department of Labor to tyrannize over them. Some of the business men of the country may squirm quite a little over their Department of Commerce, but they are not proposing to give up their Department of Commerce. So that there is no argument drawn from experience which bears out the contention in this report of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States that the creation of a department of education would lead to tyranny.

We all agree that what we are asking for and we all agree that what we want in a department of education is not an administrator in American education, but rather for a leader of American educational thought, for a mouthpiece of American education, for an opportunity for the educational world to have its voice heard in the councils of the United States.

There are almost a million voters to-day engaged in the business of teaching in the United States, and that is a very considerable industry, a very considerable profession, and they feel that they are entitled to a voice in the councils of the Nation.

These are the two objections which I feel it is important to answer at this time.

Now, for the two arguments which I would advance, which seem to me the strongest arguments for a department of education. is an argument which is not touched on at all in the report of the United States Chamber of Commerce; it is an aspect of the question which was entirely ignored in that report, and that is the argument as to the international relations in education. If the United States had no international relations, as some of our statesmen wish that it might not have, it would not be necessary for us to have any national agency of education for international concourse. At the present time, there is no one who can speak for American education nationally; who can meet the representatives of other foreign nations on a par and speak with a voice on American education with equal authority.

I recall when the arrangements were being made for the visit of the educational commission from Great Britain, which was headed by the former Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Arthur Balfour.