Mr. BARWISE of Bangor: Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the motion of the gentleman from Perham, Mr. Bragdon. This bill is purely and

simply an educational bill, and it seems to me that it is not necessary at this time for me to go into any extended analysis of the bill. Let me say briefly that this bill provides for a distribution of school money by the Federal government in somewhat the same way that we do here in the State of Maine. That is, we take from the rich towns and distribute to the poorer towns. This bill takes from the well-to-do states and distributes to the poorer states. Under the provisions of this bill, we in the State of Maine shall receive about $925,000 a year, one-half of which is to be expended in leveling up the educational opportunities in the rural districts, in the increasing of the salaries of teachers in the rural districts so that the best teachers will not be drained from the rural districts into the cities. The object of this bill is to raise the standard of education in the different states. We do not have to change our policy a hair's breadth; in order to come under the provisions of this bill, we do not have to raise an extra dollar, we do not have to change our educational machinery in the slightest deAnother feature of this bill is gree. that it teaches the illiterates above the age of 14 years, whether foreign or native born. We have in the State of Maine something like 26,000 illiterates. In every way this bill is an educational bill; there is nothing in it that departs from the traditional policy of the Federal government, except in the matter of aiding education in the different states.

There is no new policy involved, as seems to be intimated by the gentleman from Perham. The medi

cal question which he objected to, and which was in the bill formerly, I should have objected to, and that has been cut out by the educational committee of Congress, and this is reduced merely to what we already teach in all our public schools, under the ordinary courses in physiology,

matters of public health. The government from the earliest times has assumed the same careful attitude toward the states that it assumes in this bill; there is no new policy of departure.

When we were functioning under the articles of Confederation in 1785, the Federal government in the northwestern territory set apart a lot of land in each town for public school in the territories and states to be hereafter created; in 1826, when we were doing the same thing for the Jefferson and the Louisiana purchase, the same provision was applied. In 1848, when the Oregon purchase was being surveyed, two lots of land in each township were set aside. In 1863, under the first Morrill Act we set aside a very large tract of land for each of the State colleges, and they were known as Land Grant Colleges. Under the second Morrill Act in 1890, we set aside $25,000 a year for each of the Land Grant Colleges and under the Lever Act of 1914 and 1917 we still extended Federal aid to the states. This bill is new in principle, and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it should go to the committee on Education.

Mr. GARDINER of Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to oppose the motion as a made proposing joint reference of this measure. I do not mean to indicate that I think the Judiciary committee is not aware of the importance of this matter, but I have examined the provisions of the Smith-Towner bill and I do not find anything therein that I believe cannot be properly heard and considered by the committee on education alone. It is becoming late in the session, and all members of this House are familiar with the difficulties connected with arrangements for a joint session of two committees. This particular matter has been upon the table in this branch since March 9th, and I think it would be better to have the matter heard and determined by the committee on Education alone.

Mr. BRAGDON: Mr. Speaker, I understand the objections that have been raised by the gentleman from

Gardiner (Mr. Gardiner) to this reference, and if every member of the Judiciary Committee had examined this bill, as the gentleman from Gardiner appears to have done, I certainly would have no objection to taking their judgment at the present time. I do not claim to be able to speak whether this makes any changes in our educational system or not, but I would feel a great deal better about the matter if it were referred to the upper legal committee in this House, or in this Legislature, and I feel that if it were so referred, the members of this House would feel easier in allowing it to go along on its passage. For myself, I would like to have the judgment of that committee as to whether or not this makes any changes in the management of our educational system.

The SPEAKER: The pending question is on the motion made by the gentleman from Perham, Mr. Bragdon

Mr. BUZZELL of Belfast: Mr. Speaker, it does not seem to me as if this is a matter that should disturb us very much. As near as I can understand it, this is simply a memorial to Congress urging favorable consideration of the proposed Smith-Towner bill. This Legislature simply passes that memorial, or is called upon to pass this memorial, but at this time we are simply referring this memorial to a committee for their consideration, and it has been thought best by some that we refer this slight matter to a joint committee in the last days of this Legislature. The committee on education is a strong committee; unquestionably they will give this bill proper consideration and look it over carefully, and supposing we should pass the memorial, supposing the committee should act favorably and we should pass the memorial, it is my best judgment that Congress would do at the time they were called upon to act upon the measure pretty nearly what they thought best, regardless of what our attitude and action might be here in the Maine Legislature.

I am not going to argue the

merits of this bill; I am not going to tell you about what I understand the action has been in Congress in regard to this bill. At this time we are simply considering and trying to determine what committee this memorial should be sent to, and I oppose the motion to have this referred to a joint committee. I do not think it is necessary. It seems to me as if this matter has been here on the table a long time, and we have put off the consideration of it in my judgment too long. If it were such an important matter, why did we not get at it before? I hope the motion of the gentleman from Perham, Mr. Bragdon, will not prevail.

Mr. HOLLEY of North Anson: Mr. Speaker, this matter of referring measures to joint committees seems to be a new wrinkle, and it has cost this Legislature a great many dollars. I rise at this time to support the suggestion of the gentleman from Belfast, Mr. Buzzell. If we persist in referring matters to joint committees, we shall be here when potatoes are in blossom, and I sincerely hope that the motion of the gentleman from Perham, Mr. Bragdon, will not prevail.

The SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

Mr. MAHER: Mr. Speaker, if I might take a moment of the time of this House, I do not intend to address myself at all to the considerations of either policy or change or the wisdom involved in the SmithTowner bill. I do not intend to intimate, except indirectly perhaps or inferentially, what my opinion might be of that. I certainly could not occupy the position of being upon a committee and seeking to have this measure sent to the committee of which I was a member in contradiction to the suggestions of the committee upon reference of bills; but yet I cannot refrain from supporting the action of the gentleman from Perham, (Mr. Bragdon). The gentleman from Belfast, Mr. Buzzell, indicates that there is not any objection to the bill at all, and that what ever this Legislature may do will be of no avail; the gentleman

from Gardiner, Mr. Gardiner, also upon the Judiciary Committee, says that there is nothing in the bill upon close analysis or examination that the committee on education is not competent to pass upon. The gentleman from Bangor, Mr. Barwise, also an attorney, and I believe a member of the committee on education, says that there is no departure from policy. And the gentleman from North Anson, Mr. Holley, says that the departure from policy inaugurated by this Legislature in referring matters to joint committees is an expensive thing. Now, all the gentlemen may be right, and yet that may not have any particular bearing upon the motion of the gentleman from Perham.

This Legislature has been making numerous departures, and I presume that many of the changes are in the line of progress, and while we have been indulging in a considerable number of changes, some of them are progressive and some not. The practice of referring to joint committees may be an innovation, and may be expensive. We have had an innovation in the shape of a budget committee, and very recently from a suggestion made to this Legislature by the highest authority in this State we have seen an illustration of an expensive innovation along the line of change and progress in the shape of a budget committee, about the most expensive and extravagant investment the State of Maine could make, because at one fell swoop we heard lopped off a million and a half from the calm and sober judgment of that mature and thinking committee. So that I do not see much force in that suggestion. The argument of the gentleman from Belfast, our distinguished floor leader, eminent attorney, wise and sagacious member of the Judiciary Commitbelieve tee, leads me to that we could not discuss this measure at all this morning because he says whatever we do, Congress won't pay any attention to it, and this is simply a memorial. I submit, gentleman, that Maine has found memorials somewhat expensive in recent years. And now, when we are contemplating as

to what committee will pass upon this matter, when we hear that Congress will not pay any attention to our suggestions, would it not be well to consider that the bill is dead itself, and there is not any such bill, and Congress has failed to

pass it, and that distinguished shaper of progressive thought, the eminent and distinguished Democratic Senator from Georgia, Mr. Hoke Smith, in his far-seeing wisdom in attempting to benefit the poor State of Maine and the rest of the northern, partially tax-paying states, stood sponsor for this measure; and another little thing bearing upon this, and I do not know whether I am speaking to the point or not, but a delegation attended the Republican National Convention at Chicago and endeavored to write in-and this is no new matter, for he who runs may read-a delegation favoring this principle of the Smith-Towner bill, attended the Republican Convention at Chicago, and attempted to write into that platform endorsement thereof. A Senator whose independence and sterling Americanism will make him long remembered, Senator Borah, would have none of it, and the Republican National Convention would have none of it, and it was not written in, either directly or inferentially, into the Republican National platform. And that same delegation journeyed westward and reached San Francisco, and they endeavored there to have a memorial written into the Democratic platform, and the Democratic National convention-and it is a matter of record-refused to have anything to do with it; and there was a special committee appointed upon which, as we are informed by the newspaper accounts, was a very distinguished citizen of our own State who happened to be there as a delegate or as a member, and there was a very slight, a very modest, just a seeming endorsement of the principles of bureaucracy and Federal control and centralization, to take and control the educational impulses of the next generations in this country.

Now, I do not know what committee it is best to send this matter to. I do not know how the educational

committee feel. The only gentleman who has spoken here on the floor, and I may be mistaken, he may not be a member of this particular committee, but the gentleman from Bangor, Mr. Barwise, has indicated a very strong preference for the measure. The gentleman from Gardiner, Mr. Gardiner, a member of the judiciary committee has indicated inferentially a support of the measure. Certainly, the gentleman from Belfast, Mr. Buzzell, has indicated a support for the measure, and those two gentlemen, are members of the judiciary committee.

or

Now I say to you, Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House, that there will be no measure before this Legislature that will more vitally concern government as we know it and as we love it, than this measure, and your principles of representative government are not imperiled by outside ag-. gression but the difficulty with our form of government is that it is destroyed from within; it is the "borer" -not "Borah"-but the borer of the variety of the corn borer and the office borer and the educational borer, and the borer in the shape of labor organizations that are making for the I. W. W.'s and centralized Prussianism instead of Americanism; and the Smith-Towner bill deserves intelligent consideration. I do not tell you at this time whether I am for it against it, and if I were to amend or to suggest any proposition such as that emanating from the gentleman from Perham, Mr. Bragdon, it would be that this Legislature move along in its appointed course to consider the matters of the people of the State of Maine, and not to waste time in advertising or hearing in this way or take the time for consideration by any committee or committees; but for myself I feel that we should proceed to move along the lines of economy, the lines of progress, the lines of action; and I believe that the wise thing to do now that this matter has laid on the table a long time, from the ninth day of March to this the 15th day of March, with an intervening period of two days or three days, and I think it was about the last item tabled last week-I would say

the proper thing to do at this time would be to move for the indefinite postponement of this measure. I won't do it, lest it would be misinterpreted that I was opposed to the bill, but I certainly hope that the motion of the gentleman from Perham, Mr. Bragdon, will prevail, and that if we are going to have a hearing upon this measure, it should be a full, frank, free and regular hearing, and let the members all attend, and let every man become informed and then vote. (Applause.)

Mr. BUZZELL: Mr. Speaker, it is always very cheering to me to listen to the distinguished gentleman from Augusta, Mr. Maher. Lest there may be a mystery about how I stand upon this proposition, I wish to say from where I approach this measure at this time, I am in favor of it. That ought to be good enough. I realize what organizations in this State, such as the County Teachers' Association, the State Teachers' Association and various other organizations, women's clubs, business and professional clubs in this State that are in favor of this bill. Now, I will say that I have not followed its course in Congress minutely. I have not fully informed myself as to the positions of the gentlemen in Congress who have been for and against this bill; I have not worked by day and by night to discover some nigger in the wood pile, or anything of that sort; but as I understand it, this bill appropriates something like $1,000,000 for the State of Maine, and that that money shall be expended for certain purposes. That is as far as I went with the bill. I have assumed that the educational committee in this Legislature is amply competent to pass upon this proposition. That is my position. If they are allowed to pass upon it, and if we go to that hearing, I assume that the distinguished gentleman from Augusta, Mr. Maher, who knows this proposition from A to Z, will be there, and it will be a great pleasure for me to sit down and listen to him as long as he cares to talk upon the proposition for the purpose of enlightening us. I should then seriously let his words sink deep into my understanding, and probably I

should be governed thereby. It would be a hard proposition at this time for me to make a guess on just what his attitude is; he says at this time he is not going to tell us what it is. I wish to be shown, and I believe that the educational committee can make a report, and at that hearing we can get just as much information under all the conditions as we can to have it referred to a joint committee.

The SPEAKER: The pending question before the House is on the motion that this memorial to Congress now under discussion be referred to a joint committee made up of the committee on judiciary and the committee on education.

A viva voce vote being taken,
The motion was lost.

Mr. Maher of Augusta doubted the vote and called for the yeas and nays.

The SPEAKER: The vote having been taken on the motion of the gentleman from Perham, Mr. Bragdon, and that vote having failed, the gentleman from Augusta, Mr. Maher, now calls for the yeas and nays. Under the Constitutional privilege allowed to a member of this House, the rules require that one-fifth of the members present vote with the proponent in order that his motion be sustained. Those who are in favor of the yeas and nays being ordered will please rise in their places and stand until counted.

A sufficient number not having arisen,

The yeas and nays were not ordered.

Mr. Maher then asked for a division of the House.

The SPEAKER: The decision of the Chair on the motion of the gentleman from Perham, Mr. Bragdon, that the memorial to Congress be referred to a joint committee made up of the committee on judiciary and the committee on education, having been questioned, those who are in favor of referring to a joint committee, made up of the committee on judiciary and the committee on education, will please rise and stand in their places until counted.

A division was had, and the motion was lost.

Mr. Maher then moved that the memorial to Congress be assigned specially for consideration on Tuesday of next week in committee of the whole.

A viva voce vote being taken,
The motion was lost.

Mr. WARREN of Portland: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we have already wasted a good deal of time upon this matter, and I move that this memorial be indefinitely postponed.

Mr. BARWISE of Bangor: I rise to oppose that motion, and at the proper time I wish to make a motion that this be referred to the committee on education.

The motion to indefinitely postpone was seconded.

The question being on the motion to indefinitely postpone the memorial to Congress,

A viva voce vote being taken,
The motion was lost.