(The document referred to is as follows:) DEFENDERS OF AMERICAN EDUCATION, April 29, 1959. Hon. ESTES KEFAUVER, Chairman, Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendment, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR KEFAUVER: I wish to protest any constitutional amendment which would give the Federal Government or State governments control of education. The projected plan as outlined in Senate Joint Resolution 32 is questionable. Inasmuch as education is a function reserved to the people and the States by the 10th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Senate Joint Resolution 32 is unnecessary. We do need a survey and correction of the educational problem confronting our Nation, but it certainly is not more legislation. I do not doubt but that much of the problem is due to unconstitutional legislation in the field of education. The philosophy of the curriculum used in most of the schools should be scrutinized. Under the influence of the National Education Association of the United States and its anti-American international (universal) program, our children are deprived of American education. Instead, they are trained for "democracy-a new social order" in most of the Nation's schools, public, private, and parochial. The United States of America was established on natural law, moral order. If we are to perpetuate American ideals and preserve the American system of government, we must educate our youth to the historical background of our Nation. In most of the public schools, textbooks carrying lies and misstatements and deleting true facts are the only texts available to students. The reference material available is that of well-known Socialists, "liberals" and pro-Communists. In a great many instances the student is not aware of the un-American and anti-American ideologies and backgrounds of the authors. Upon graduating from most of the high schools and colleges, students are not only woefully ignorant of the American system, but are indoctrinated with socialism and the ideology of "democracy-a new social order." State control of education via a Federal constitutional amendment is not the solution to the educational dilemma. A return to American education is the first essential step. American education is the responsibility of the parents and the taxpayers within the community. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is the word "education" as a function of Federal Government mentioned. Education is the sole responsibility of the parents and taxpayers. The jurisdiction of education is theirs and should be free of national and international control, dictation, or influence. Any infringement upon the rights of citizens in the matter of local control of education is a violation, not only of their constitutional rights, but their God-given rights. I would appreciate it if the foregoing statement is included in the record of the hearings of the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Very sincerely, EMMA M. MCLAUGHLIN Mrs. J. J. McLaughlin, Chairman, Defenders of American Education. Mr. FENSTERWALD. And last, we have a statement from Mr. J. D. Henderson of the American Association of Small Business, and he requests that his statement be published in the record. Senator KEFAUVER. Where is his office? Mr. FENSTERWALD. The national headquarters are in New Orleans, and I have a list of regional vice presidents. Senator KEFAUVER. Yes, I know Mr. Henderson. Mr. FENSTERWALD. I suggest that we publish the statement in the record. Senator KEFAUVER. Very well; let it be printed in the record. (The document referred to is as follows:) AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF SMALL BUSINESS, Senator ESTES KEFAUVER, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, DEAR SENATOR KEFAUVER: It is with sincere regret that I cannot be present to testify at the hearings before your committee, May 12, 1959, on the Talmadge amendment to the Constitution on school administration, as indicated by Senate Joint Resolution 32, but previous commitments prevent my doing so. I shall be greatly honored if you will afford me the privilege of having this letter, as well as the enclosure mentioned herein and attached hereto, incorporated in the records of these hearings. I want to go on record here and now as being in favor of Senate Joint Reso lution 32, as presented by Senator Herman E. Talmadge of Georgia. Senator Talmadge has the courage of his convictions and in introducing Senate Joint Resolution 32 he is doing a great service for the citizens of every sovereign State in the Union. The text of the proposed amendment, which is very short, is as follows: "Administrative control of any public school, public educational institution, or public educational system operated by any State or by any political or other subdivision thereof, shall be vested exclusively in such State and subdivision and nothing contained in this Constitution shall be construed to deny to the residents thereof the right to determine for themselves the manner in which any school, institution, or system is administered by such State and subdivision." By approval of Senate Joint Resolution 32 the Congress of the United States can correct one of the many disastrous decisions handed down by the Supreme Court. I will not impose on your time to recite the number of decisions which are proving detrimental to the very existence of our republican form of government as provided by the Constitution. I think the U.S. Senate and the Members of the House of Representatives should take very definite steps to return to the States all provisions of article 10 of the 10 original amendments to the Constitution, commonly called the Bill of Rights, which reads, "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.' Unfortunately, our Founding Fathers, when drawing up the Constitution of the United States, made little reference to the appointment of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Nothing was mentioned as to the qualifications of the Justices, for our Founding Fathers naturally presumed, as raentioned in section 2 or article 2, which specifies that Justices shall be appointed by the President, "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate," that the President of the United States and the Members of the U.S. Senate would be qualified to see that a man with judicial experience would be appointed to the bench. In those days, the thought of whether a judge would lean to the right or to the left never occurred to the framers of the Constitution. Unfortunately, today such an attitude is very vital to the continued well-being of our republican form of government. Another interesting thought which I suppose must have been running through the minds of the Founding Fathers, when they included section 1 of article 3 in the U.S. Constitution and provided Justices "shall hold offices during good behavior, and shall at stated times receive for their services a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." Evidently the Founding Fathers pictured in the future the appointment of able judges to the Supreme Court bench, and certainly not some people who are such poor lawyers that they never even made a living practicing law, and furthermore if these learned judges, whom we should have presiding on the Supreme Court, ever get too far to the left with their communistic thinking, it must be remembered that they are serving with the "advice and consent of the Senate." Incidentally, if the Senate cannot impeach the judges, it seems to me that they could be removed from office by taking advantage of section 1 of article 3, and diminish their compensation at some date when the Court is adjourned. Much has been said and written about the decision of the Supreme Court on Monday, May 17, 1954, commonly called black Monday. I believe the enactment of Senate Joint Resolution 32, by Senator Talmadge of Georgia, will place the control of the public schools back into the hands of the people of the respective States of the Union. The Supreme Court of the United States could reverse its decision of May 17, 1954, just as it reversed its decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, which decision stood the test of time for 60 years. The Supreme Court of the United States has reversed its thinking regarding integration or segregation, if you please, by recently handing down a decision prohibiting white women from enrolling in universities which had previously confined their educational facilities to men exclusively. Now, in my opinion, that is fooling with one of the first laws of nature when the Supreme Court attempts to segregate men and women and by the same token I believe the Court has no right to force on colored people and white people the freedom of choice. God made everything, and even the Supreme Court cannot prevent birds of a feather from flocking together. I would like to recommend that every citizen of the United States read "Nine Men Against America," by Rosalie M. Gordon. At this time I am taking the liberty of quoting from her pamphlet. "On May 17, 1954, the Warren Supreme Court issued its revolutionary decision-a unanimous one-in the school segregation cases. "What the Court did in that decision was not to settle the issue of segregation or integration of Negro and white pupils in the public schools. That is an issue that will plague us for many years to come-intensified almost beyond reason by the Court's decision. What the Court did do was to storm one of those last remaining bastions of a free people we have previously mentioned— the locally controlled and supported public school systems of the sovereign States. For by that decision the Supreme Court handed to the Central Government a power it had never before possessed-the power to put its grasping and omnipotent hand into a purely local function. If the Federal Government can tell the public school in your town-whether in a Northern, Southern, Western or Eastern State-who it shall or shall not admit, the next step is as logical as that winter follows fall. It will not be long before the socialist revolutionaries will have what they want-control by the Central Government of what to teach and what not to teach, how to teach it and how not to teach it in the public schools of America. "In order to bring about this revolution of totalitarian proportions, it was necessary for Justice Warren and his colleagues to ignore 165 years of Supreme Court history and a decision of the Court that had stood unchallenged for nearly 60 years. "In 1896 a case arose under the 14th amendment to the Constitution. This case (known as Plessy v. Ferguson) involved a State law providing for segregation of races on railroad trains. This was the case in which the Supreme Court, knowing that under the Constitution it had no right to interfere in the affairs of the sovereign States, but also cognizant of its duty to protect the rights of individual citizens, established the principle of 'separate but equal facilities.' In other words, the Court declared that so long as a State provided the same facilities, even though they be physically separated, for whites and Negroes (or impliedly for girls and boys or men and women) it was fulfilling its duty under the Constitution." Again quoting from the pamphlet, "Nine Men Against America" by Rosalie M. Gordon: "In any case, the 'authorities' to which the Chief Justice and his colleagues turned to justify their unlawful decision are almost beyond belief. One of them was a so-called social science expert employed by the NAACP-the principal plaintiff which brought the cases before the Court. Another was a leading exponent of progressive or 'modern' education who has been cited by a congressional committee as having been connected with at least 10 Communistfront organizations. Still another is a sociologist who has 18 Communist-front connections to his credit. First and foremost among the Court's 'authorities' was a book compiled and partly written by a Swedish Socialist. He had no knowledge whatever of race problems in America. He was brought over here and given a grant by the Carnegie Foundation to produce a book on the subject. Being a Socialist his contempt for the American Constitution is complete. He called it 'impractical and unsuited to modern conditions' and said its adoption was merely a plot against the common people.' This Swedish Socialist had 16 collaborators who contributed 272 articles and portions of his book. Every one of these 16 had Communist-front affiliations. He subsequently wound up in the United Nations, but even that body of outright and hooded leftists couldn't stomach his acceptance of Communist statistics and he had to resign. 43321-59--14 These, then were the 'authorities' used by the Supreme Court to overturn 165 years of American constitutional law." In order to give you and the members of your committee an opportunity to understand the thinking of some of our citizens who live in Northern States, I have taken the liberty of attaching hereto page 10 (the editorial page) of the Times-Picayune, New Orleans, La., Saturday, February 21, 1959, and call your particular attention to "The D.D.E.: Letter About Little Rock, New Englander, Carleton Putnam writes on Frankfurter opinion." I request that this letter from Carleton Putnam also be incorporated in the record of these hearings as a part of my letter to you, Senator Kefauver. In closing, I wish to express to you and other Senators composing your subcommittee my thanks for your cooperation in having this communication incorporated in the hearing as indicating my approval of Senate Joint Resolution 32. Some of the members of your committee, like yourself, I have known for a number of years and this also adds to my regret that I cannot be present to give my statement in person. I send you, the other Senators on your committee, and the members of the committee staff all good wishes, and I look forward to the pleasure of seeing you soon. Yours for keeping small business in business, and J. D. HENDERSON, National Managing Director. Mr. FENSTERWALD. We have now heard from every witness who has requested to be heard from and we have put in the record all statements which have been requested. I might suggest that we close the hearings at this point but leave the record open for a week for any additional statements which might be sent. Senator KEFAUVER. One or two Senators have indicated that they may want to appear and make a statement before the committee. I would like to afford them that opportunity if they wish. We will close the hearing except as to any Members of the Senate who wish to be heard early next week, and hold the record open after that time for 10 days for any additional statements. Mr. FENSTERWALD. Should we, say, close the record on May 25 or June 1 or whatever date? Senator KEFAUVER. Let's say on June 1. That is all at this time, and the committee will stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair. (Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.) CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RESERVING STATE CONTROL OVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS THURSDAY, MAY 21, 1959 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 2:30 p.m., in room 2300, New Senate Office Building, Hon. Estes Kefauver (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senator Kefauver. Also present: Bernard Fensterwald, counsel. Senator KEFAUVER. The committee will come to order. The committee is delighted to have the views of a very distinguished Member of the U.S. Senate, a former judge, a man in whom the chairman has a great deal of confidence, and for whom he has a great deal of respect. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN STENNIS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI Senator STENNIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairmar. It is certainly a great privilege for me to come here before you today and discuss this very, very grave problem. I want especially to express my appreciation to you for your meeting at this particular time for me to discuss the Talmadge resolution, Senate Joint Resolution 32, relating to the administration of public schools, which reads as follows: Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States: "ARTICLE "Administrative control of any public school, public educational institution, or public educational system operated by any State or by any political or other subdivision thereof, shall be vested exclusively in such State and subdivision and nothing contained in this Constitution shall be construed to deny to the residents thereof the right to determine for themselves the manner in which any such school, institution, or system is administered by such State and subdivision." Senator STENNIS. The purpose of this amendment is to preserve forever local control of our public school system. The issue being considered today is broader than the issue of segregation. It is broader than the legalistic discussions of the scope of the 14th amend |