And then, regarding the fitness of the judges to appoint, Mr. Foster said:

Yes, they are busy men; but they are residents of the city. They come in close contact with the business and professsional men of the community, with the very best people in the community. And let me say further to the gentlemen from Indiana, Mr. Crumpacker, that the method has been tried in the great city of Philadelphia, and has proved remarkably successful. The distinguished gentlemen who has charge of this bill, Mr. Morrell, can tell the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Crumpacker, how well this method has succeeded in his city. There the members of the school board are appointed by the board of local judges, and I believe that the gentlemen from Pennsylvania, Mr. Morrell, who is in charge of the bill, would personally favor the proposition of having the school board here appointed by the supreme court judges of the District. The Philadelphia school system is one of the very best systems in this country, and there is no reason to suppose that the supreme court judges of this city would not do as well in the selection of the members of the school board as have the local judges in the city of Philadelphia. There is no reason to suppose that they would not endeavor to find, and would not succeed in finding, the best persons for those positions. All that I am seeking to secure is the very best possible board to administer the school affairs of the city.

Mr. Clark, the present Speaker, and then a Member of Congress, also favored the appointment of the board by the judges, as against the appointment by either the commissioners or the President, both suggestions being made at the time. This amendment was unanimously adopted by the House, and no question of the propriety of the change in the appointment of the board was made in the Senate. Now, then, if the committee feels, it appearing that this legislation was well advised, that it came about as an improvement upon conditions then existing which seemed to demand improvement; that it has been in force here for 10 years; that during those 10 years the progress of the schools has been a satisfactory progress, and that the conduct of the schools has been free from friction; that the people themselves whose children are in the schools have not raised one voice in opposition to the school board, or the way that it is conducting our affairs, then we come back to the proposition under which our committee labored, and that was to hold that the burden of proof was on the commissioners; that the burden of proving the necessity for and the wisdom of the proposed change in the methods of conducting the schools rests upon the proponents thereof; that they ought not to come in before this honorable body and advise legislation making such radical departures from plans which have been in successful operation here for so long a time without showing conclusively not only the necessity for those changes but the advantages that might reasonably be expected to accrue were those changes made, and we say thus far in the recommendation which the commissioners have made, in their public utterances in support of that measure, they have failed to show definitely wherein the present plan is not working to the success of the schools, and to the satisfaction of the people, and they have not shown wherein their plan is going to better conditions.

Mr. JOHNSON. What do you think of their argument as to the divided authority?

Mr. FENNING. As I understand it, Mr. Johnson, you refer to the suggestion that at present there is a division of authority; that the school board has some authority; that the commissioners have some authority, and that therefore there is a divided authority, and that it all ought to be under one head?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. FENNING. We call attention in this report-and I am coming to that at once, if you please—to the fact that some friction appears to have arisen in the past between the commissioners and the board as to the control of funds and the expenditures for the board of education; that this friction does not seem to us to be very serious, and that we see no reason, in the situation referred to, which justifies a radical change in the entire method of administering the affairs of the District. We submit, however, that if there be friction between the Board of Commissioners and the board of education, growing out of the control of the funds for the use of the schools, then the Congress in its wisdom should either amend the law or confirm the law as it now is, so as to make it clear that the board of education has exclusive authority over the expenditure of school funds, subject only to the control of the commissioners in the matter of accounting, and this would remove that cause of friction.

Mr. JOHNSON. You say "confirm the law as it now is" when they have no control over the expenditures, you insist.

Mr. FENNING. I did not quite catch your question.

Mr. JOHNSON. In your remarks there you spoke of confirming the law as it now is. The suggestion that you make is that the school board have control over the expenditures, when they say they have now?

Mr. FENNING. There is that seeming doubt in the law as to who has authority over the expenditures, the commissioners or the board of education, some taking the position that the commissioners have and some taking the position that the board of education have that authority, and there being some doubt in the minds of a good many people. Our subcommittee in preparing this report came to the conclusion that there was no room for doubt, and that the law as it now stands should be interpreted as giving all that power to the board of education.

Mr. VINSON. It has been exercised by both parties, though, has it not?

Mr. FENNING. It is exercised more largely by the board of education; by general consent, as I take it. Is that right, Mr. Blair? Mr. BLAIR. Right.

Mr. JOHNSON. Do they do the purchasing?

Mr. FENNING. No; the purchasing is done by the board of commissioners.

Mr. VINSON. Upon the recommendation of the board of education? Mr. FENNING. Yes. The members of the board of trade committee, as I suggested at the outset, have arranged to divide their time in presenting this matter to the committee. We greatly appreciate this opporturity which the committee has given us of appearing; and, by way of introduction, I will say that Mr. Harr, who will now speak, is the gentleman who prepared the report of the subcommittee of the committee on schools, which was adopted by the committee and later adopted by the board of trade.

Mr. LLOYD. You have occupied 30 minutes. If the committee does not object, we will count it 15 minutes, because we interrupted

you.

Mr. FENNING. I thank you very much. I present to you Mr. Harr

STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM R. HARR.

Mr. HARR. Gentlemen of the committee, it seems to me that undue emphasis has been placed in the discussion here upon the question of the appointing power. After an investigation of this subject, as thorough as was in our power to make, speaking for the subcommittee of the board of trade, we came to the conclusion that it was unwise to change the present system in any respect; but the fundamental objection, or the principal objection, to the plan proposed by the commissioners is not, to my mind, this question of the appointing power, although that is objectionable, but the fact that the entire scheme is changed and the absolute control and supervision over the educational system of the District, which the board of education now has, subject to certain limitations in the law, is sought to be transferred to the commissioners. Now, as to the appointing power, as to that particular feature giving the appointing power to the commissioners, we merely suggest in our report that that affords a possibility or an opportunity, rather, for the injection of political considerations into the management of the schools that does not seem to exist under the present plan.

Mr. JOHNSON. Will you please explain to me right there, if you will, just how it gets politics into it?

Mr. HARR. That is the question that is being debated here. I would say, in answer to that, simply this, because I do not wish my remarks extended unduly along that line; I think other features of more importance demand greater consideration than have been given them here; but I will say in answer to your question, this:/I understand that the Commissioners of the District of Columbia are at the present time maintaining a merit system in the District offices under their control against very strenuous pressure from outside, and particularly, I believe, from the halls of Congress

Mr. JOHNSON. Will you please state the source of your information for that statement?

Mr. HARR. I received it from a reliable source. I do not care to state the source, but from a source that I personally regard as reliable.

Mr. JOHNSON. We are entitled to have it.

Mr. HARR. Understand, I stated that as a matter of open declaration of public declaration on the part of the commissioners. If it is not true, the commissioners are here to refute it.

Mr. JOHNSON. Please state just what it was that the commissioners said in making that open declaration.

Mr. HARR. That they were maintaining a merit system in the District government-the offices under their control-against very strong pressure from the outside. Political pressure, as I understand it

Mr. JOHNSON. And that that "outside" meant Members of Congress?

Mr. HARR. And I infer that that meant Members of Congress; I do not know that they said that.

Mr. JOHNSON. You have left that impression here, without saying so in so many words.

Mr. NEWMAN. I do not wish to interrupt without Mr. Harr's permission.

Mr. HARR. Yes; I think you should answer, if it is not true. Mr. NEWMAN. Mr. Harr made the statement which he did a moment ago, and said that the commissioner was present, and if it were not true, he could refute it. Unless you had phrased it in that way, I should not have interrupted you.

Mr. HARR. I desire you to do so.

Mr. NEWMAN. You stated that was a public declaration. I should merely like to have you present to the committee that public declaration.

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; I will insist upon that myself.

Mr. HARR. I would like to know if it is true. It is hearsay.

Mr. JOHNSON. Who told you?

Mr. HARR. That was told me by a gentleman in whom I have absolute confidence.

Mr. JOHNSON. We would like to know the name of that gentleman. Mr. HARR. I do not feel at liberty to give his name.

Mr. JOHNSON. I do not think you should come here and make a statement prejudicial to the other side of this question without giving the name of the man who is responsible for it.

Mr. HARR. I would not make the statement if the commissioners were not here to refute it.

Mr. VINSON. You can not furnish the source from which that comes?

Mr. NEWMAN. I do not care what the source was. If any of the commissioners has made a public declaration such as stated by Mr. Harr, the specific declaration should be placed before this committee. Mr. JOHNSON. I think so, beyond question.

Mr. NEWMAN. I want to know what the declaration purports to be before I have anything to say about it.

Mr. HARR. I have stated what it was, but you have not denied it. Mr. JOHNSON. Do you mean that by his failure to deny it he is personally responsible for it?

Mr. HARR. There are three commissioners.

Mr. BLAIR. I have given Mr. Harr whatever information he has, and I am ready to assume the responsibility and to give you the basis for it.

Mr. JOHNSON. We will be very glad to hear it.

Mr. BLAIR. It is reported in the public press that the commissioners at one of their meetings-in talking at one of these meetings have stated that they were preserving the civil service at the District Building under tremendous pressure at the present time, and had so preserved it since they went into office and intended to continue to do so. That is the statement that has been printed in the public press and was not denied. My impression is that it was ascribed in the newspapers to Commissioner Newman, but of that I am not sure.

Mr. JOHNSON. Did the press say from what source that pressure

came?

Mr. BLAIR. I have no information as to that.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Harr has intimated that it came from Congress. Mr. HARR. That was my inference.

Mr. JOHNSON. I would like to know how you got that inference. Just go on, instead of making any insinuations, and make a direct statement.

Mr. HARR. That is the natural source to look for it.

Mr. JOHNSON. Why do you say that is the natural place for it to come from?

Mr. HARR. Because, from my experience and observation in governmental matters, Members of Congress very naturally and very properly importune those in authority in public office to appoint persons in whom they are interested to public office.

Mr. NEWMAN. May I make a very brief statement?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; I think you should.

Mr. NEWMAN. Entirely irrespective of what sort of a system we are maintaining at the District Building, as to whether it is merit or what it is; entirely aside from what we are actually doing, I desire to state in unqualified terms that I never made any such statement, never authorized any such statement as has been accredited to me by Mr. Harr and Mr. Blair. If any such thing was published in the newspapers, and accredited to me, or attributed to me, it was without my knowledge. I have never made any such statement.

Mr. MAPES. That is, as to the statement, but is it or is it not the fact, however, that you have been importuned by Congressmen or others?

Mr. NEWMAN. Does this committee want to go into that question? Mr. JOHNSON. I am willing.

Mr. NEWMAN. I am willing, so far as I am concerned.

Mr. LLOYD. If it is gone into good-naturedly, without any friction, it is all right. Everybody knows, who knows anything about the situation, that the Democrats in Congress are anxious to get appointments through the District Commissioners.

Mr. JOHNSON. Not all of them.

Mr. MAPES. Well, then, they are derelicts.

Mr. JOHNSON. I understand, Mr. Harr, you are arguing that because the commissioners have had great pressure for patronage and have resisted that pressure that they should not be intrusted with pull or patronage in respect to the schools?

Mr. HARR. Not at all. I am arguing that we should avoid an unnecessary danger, exposing our school system to possible influences of that kind, when it is not necessary to do so. Now, as I say, I think that is a negligible-in a large measure negligible in this discussion. I believe that every member of this committee and every Member of Congress is as much interested in the welfare of the educational system here in the District as the citizens of the District are—that is, theoretically-practically they are not so directly or vitally concerned; but I know and believe that this committee and Congress itself want to protect the educational system here and give us the best that can be obtained, and so I deplore all the attacks upon the motives not only of the commissioners themselves in making this recommendation, but upon the motives of any Member of Congress, and particularly of any member of this committee. I believe his motives are as high and pure as my own, and, as a resident of this District, having been educated in the schools of the District, having children now in the schools of the District, no one could be more vitally interested in the welfare and the development of the educational system here than I am.

Now, when this matter first came up, I was not one of those who, at the outset, felt called upon to voice his indignation, without any investigation of the subject, as to the recommendations of the Com