The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1922-08-12

what is an equipoise in this bill is
that the Secretary of Education, a DO
| ntlcal appolntee, is given control over
these matters. This makes him the
educational dictator for every state in
| the Union, giving him the power for
| the future determination of the poll
cles of the United States, for the flu,
| ture constitution of it's citizenship. for
the future confirmation of the govern
ment itself, SO tremendous it could not
pc safely entrusted to any one man.
Ii we are in this country to have free
| dom OF action, which within the limita-
tlons OF order means liberty, we must
have freedom OF education. and we
can nave that only under the educa-
tlonal methods that have so far gov
erned the culture of our country. To
attempt to dictate from WASHINGTON
the conduct of the schools of the ma
ton would be utterly inconsistent
with every American tradition. It
would be hostile to the very spirit of
our Constitution. That Constitution
makes no provision for the control of
the educational activities in the sew.
eral states by the national govern
ment. The only pretext upon which
such control could now be sustain
ed would be ''The Common Welfare
Clause but that clause is not ap-
pllcable to functions which were spe-
cifically denied to the federal govern
ment after they had been considered
by the constitutional convention. The
subject OF education was considered
by that convention and the debates
show that the delegates concluded
that in matter so intimately affect
ing the welfare of local communities,
the control should be with the respec-
tive states and not within the central
government.
The Measure is Un-American,
President Harding was strongly
urged by the committee promoting
this measure to include Secretary
OF Education in his plan for the cab
met reconstruction. He refused to do
so, realizing that the arguments in ia
yor of the measure were specious. Ev-
cry commentator on American institu-
tions has noted the fact that the
states were the proper agents for the
control of public education. Viscount
Brice, in his American Common
wealth." wrote:
There is no minister of education.
because that department of business
belongs to the several states"
In the 1912 Yale lectures. it was
pointed out by Prof. st. George Tuck
er OF Virginia, that education is a do
mestic duty and that the men who
framed our Constitution wisely left
this domestic duty in the hands of
the government which is closest to
those whom it Affects
John Fiske, the historian, noted the
fact that we have no projects from
Washington interfering with the free
development of our educational sys-
tenn. This being so, why should the
Masonic body be asked to endorse a
change which will create an autocrat
of thought close to the president. Ma
sons are good American citizens, and
they do not desire the violent changes
in the form of our government which
are being solely promoted by great
foundations which have recently as
sumed to direct the application of pub
lie resources. The great colleges of
our land have no desire to be reduced
to dependency upon the political
purposes that might actuate an edu-
cational slave-driver armed with the
powers of the United States govern
ment and directed by forces not of
popular origin. Already a protest
against the Sterling bill has
been uttered by such educators as DIR.
Eliot, president-emeritus of Harvard;
DR.. Hadley, president of Yale; DR..
Hibben, the great educational author
ity of Princeton; Dean Burris of the
Teachers College of Cincinnati; DR..
Edward B. Shallow, associate superin-
tendent of education at New York
City, and dozen other state and city
authorities on education.
1t is contended by the proponents of
IContin1Ied on mare 81