Dean MARTIN P. CATHERWOOD, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y. DEAR MR. CATHERWOOD: On Friday of last week it was my privilege to visit the School of Industrial and Labor Relations in Ithaca, and to meet with several groups of the student body. The school is indeed to be commended for the caliber of its students and the approach to their subject which all of them evidence. You may be interested to know that in connection with their work, I have advised Miss Ranck that this summer we can furnish employment along the lines required by the curriculum, to at least 15 of these students, and possibly more. This morning, I was talking to Senator Ives about the school and, of course, found myself evaluating it in terms of utilizing the services of students from the school on a permanent basis in the Office of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board. One thing that struck me forcibly while in Ithaca was the fact that the courses of study almost entirely omit the general subject of "the law." In our work the technicians are divided into two distinct classes: The field examiners, who are our investigators, and the attorneys, whose work lies in the legal field and also the general handling of the affairs of the Board that do not reach the point where litigation is necessary. Without a legal training, these students would be limited to the area occupied by field examiners which, in some instances, extends up to the point of the office of regional director. Those with legal training and degrees, however, are unlimited in our activities, and, in fact, have something of an edge on the nonlawyer group. I wonder if you have ever given consideration to the possibility of devising a combined course, possibly extending over an additional year, in which the students also acquire a law degree and come out equipped to handle the problems of industrial and labor relations from every angle. I feel that this school has great promise and will prove to be a substantial contribution to the industrial peace of the country by specially training its students to meet all of the problems that are constantly arising in this very fluid field of activity, and I venture this suggestion, not with the idea of being an interloper, but, because of my experience, I feel persons carrying this double equipment can be more valuable to themselves and to all whom they may serve. Very truly yours, ROBERT N. DENHAM, General Counsel. Mr. McCOWEN. We have one further witness, Mr. Miller. record. TESTIMONY OF SPENCER MILLER, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY Mr. MILLER. My name, Mr. Chairman, is Spencer Miller, Jr. I am at the present time the State highway commissioner from New Jersey. My address is State House Annex, Trenton, N. J. I am also the adjunct professor of industrial relations at New York University. I was formerly the director of the Workers' Education Bureau of America, and served in that capacity for 21 years. May I just make two or three opening reflections, then I should be glad to submit to interrogation on the part of members of the committee. The real case for the extension of educational opportunities for industrial workers through Federal grants-in-aid to the several States rests not upon any substantive rights of workers to these opportunities, nor even upon the argument by analogy that farmers are offered such opportunities through the Agricultural Extension Act, but rather upon the deeper foundation of our democratic faith. That faith can best be described as our belief in the spiritual dignity of all men and our conviction that government by consent depends ultimately upon the diffusion of knowledge among all people. Democracy, while it affirms the integrity of the individual, does not seek to atomize the individual citizen. The citizen does not live unto himself alone; he is a member of the community-conditioned by its influences and a contributor to its institutions. A man's dignity is thus inseparable from the dignity of the community of which he is a part; he partakes of the one as he shares in the other. Now as no man can come to his true fulfillment save as he does so through the community of which he is a part, his education derives in part from the educational opportunities which the community affords. Education is thus one of the chief functions of a democracy; it exists that men may not only be free, but responsible in the use of their freedom. The true democracy is thus an educated democracy. But beyond all, what our democratic way of life may become we shall not know until all men share the chance to know. The deeper purposes of H. R. 6249, is to widen the chance to know of many who in the past have been denied that democratic opportunity in our land. It would deserve our support on that ground alone. But there are other grounds for our advocacy. Labor today has achieved a vaster public power than ever before in our Nation's history. It is a power, which if not disciplined to serve the public interest, may be exercised to the hurt of the community. Education in community responsibility is thus the surpassing need of labor as it is the condition of the sound growth of our democracy. Now just two concluding paragraphs, sir. It is now proposed that wider educational opportunities be provided for workers so that they can in very truth participate more fully in our industrial economy. To achieve this end it is proposed to amend the Morrill Act to give it even larger application. It is a conception that has been urged for a quarter of a century by those concerned with broadening the foundations of educational opportunity in this land. Under the provisions of this act it is proposed that these grants-inaid be made by the United States Department of Labor. The idea, while novel, in nowise runs contrary to the American practice. Indeed the contrary of educational opportunity is congenial to our pattern of cultural development. However, this educational extension is destined to become occupational in character and partake of a service function, the reasons for its lodgment in the Department of Labor are logical. There need be no fear that such an extension service so large would become an instrument of partisan propaganda. The test of its educational soundness as well as its serviceability in widening the opportunities to know would be the ultimate test of future grants-in-aid. Congress could ask no more. The industrial workers could expect no less. That any system of education would include an understanding of the problems of management is self-evident. Labor and management both have a functional role in our industrial civilization. They rise or fall together. Education of either will react on the other. I believe in the extension of educational opportunities for workers because I believe it is one of the constructive ways to equalize educational opportunities for all. I believe in the extension of such educa tional opportunities for workers because workers have for more than a century been both the champions of and the guardians of educational opportunities for the children of all the people. I believe in the extension of educational opportunities for workers because I believe it is an embodiment of the promise of American life. That, sir, consists of two or three excerpts from my prepared statement which I should like to have the privilege of presenting in total. Mr. McCOWEN. That was taken care of a moment ago. All of the statements will be in the record. Mr. MILLER. Federal aid to educaiton, which is envisoned in this act and is required to achieve this objective, is not a new proposal; it dates back to the beginning of the Republic. While not spelled out in the Federal Constitution, education was contemplated among the major purposes of the general welfare clause of our fundamental charter. It was expressed in the early land grants for the common schools. Even as this Nation and its ideals were being tested during the Civil War, Congress enacted the Morrill Act in July 1862, providing for grants-in-aid to the land-grant colleges for those engaged in agriculture and the mechanic arts. This was 6 months before the Emancipation Proclamation was promulgated. It laid the foundation for our great system of State universities and gave further warrant to our belief in educational opportunities for all. Each step in the growth of Federal aid since then has derived its inspiration from this act which owed so much to Abraham Lincoln's support. One of the notable outcomes of this act has been the manner in which our farmers came to participate fully in the agricultural economy of that day. America is the better for such participation. It is now proposed that wider educational opportunities be provided for workers so that they can in very truth participate more fully in our industrial economy. To achieve this end it is proposed to amend the Morrell Act to give it even wider application. It is a conception that has been urged for a quarter of a century by those concerned with broadening the foundations of educational opportunity in our land. Under the provisions of this act it is proposed that these grants-inaid be made by the United States Department of Labor. The idea while novel in no wise runs contrary to American practice. Indeed, the principle of decentralization of education responsibility is congenial to our pattern of cultural development. Moreover, as this educational extension is destined to become both occupational in character and partake of a service function, the reasons for its lodgment in the Department of Labor are logical. There need be no fear that such an extension service so lodged would become an instrument of partisan propaganda. The test of its educational soundness as well as its serviceability in widening the opportunities to know would be the ultimate test of future grants-in-aid. Congress could ask no more, industrial workers could expect no less. That any sound scheme of education should include an understanding of the problems of management is self-evident. Labor and management both have a functional role in our industrial civilization; they rise or fall together. Education of either will react on the other. I believe in the extension of educational opportunities for workers because I believe it is one constructive way to equalize educational opportunities for all. I believe in the extension of such educational opportunities for workers because workers have for more than a century been both the champion and guardian of educational opportunities for the children of all the people. I believe in the extension of educational opportunities for workers because I believe it is an embodiment of the promise of American life. Mr. GWINN. Mr. Miller, I have been waiting for some witness_to come forward-and I was hoping you were going to be that one, be cause you are a politician, I can see-not to discuss the need for a bill such as this, or the general benefits of education, but to discuss this simple proposition-that our Constitution is absolutely silent on any responsibility whatsoever for education in the Federal Government. There is every indication that the responsibility for education was left with the States, and philosophically it seems to me we ought again to review the question of whether it should not stay there, and that every effort should be made to keep it there, for many sound reasons. Have you any ideas on that? Mr. MILLER. I have ideas, sir, and I would be very glad to summarize them in a very few minutes. Now, while the Federal Constitution is silent on the question of education, the general-welfare clause of the Federal Constitution has always been regarded as the clause under which grants-in-aid could be and should be made to the several States. I may remind you, sir, what is obvious to you and should be obvious to any other student of our American history, that grants-in-aid from the Federal Government for education have run parallel with the whole history of America. The whole technique of the Federal Union, which is the genius of our American system, contemplated not only grants-in-aid from the Federal Union to the several States that made it up, but that the very strength of a working federalism depends upon that kind of interrelationship between the Federal Government and the State governments that are a part of it. I may say, sir, that the original State constitution of New York was totally silent on the subject of education. The original constitution of the State of New Jersey also was silent on the subject of education. I have just served as a delegate to the constitutional convention in my own State of New Jersey, where we have been revising that document. Our document was silent. No person would write a constitution today, as you rewrote your constitution in New York, without including education. Today because education is one of the major responsibilities of a free people, not only is it inferred under the general-welfare clause, but in every constitution of every State in the Union today that has been modernized, specific reference is made to education as a State function. The manner in which we have, by tradition and interpretation, by custom, expanded the area of Federal function, education today is as much a Federal function in the sense of Federal concern, as it ever was. Indeed, it has grown by custom, as education in the States has grown extensively by custom and practice. Mr. GWINN. Now, on that interpretation of the general-welfare clause which is getting us all into trouble, the Congressman just said we have 4 minutes to discuss these things Mr. OWENS. If the gentleman will yield, remember Alexander Hamilton came from New York too. He put it in there. Mr. GWINN. That is right. Now, under your interpretation, then, anything for the general welfare is something we have to sit here and take testimony on and appropriate money for, if the people come forward to get it and we can find the money; is that right? Mr. MILLER. I take it the conception of the general-welfare clause is a broad term which with succeeding generations will make it possible to adopt a constitution, which was adopted in 1789, to the changing conditions which will develop, for the founding fathers of that era could not have attended the hearing being held today. One of the ways they did it was to draw up a fundamental document of basic fundamental principles and expect and rely upon the ingenuity of succeeding generations of legislators to interpret that document to serve the day and generation which they were called upon to serve. Mr. GWINN. I am just asking you now as a student. Mr. MILLER. My answer to your question is "Yes." Mr. GWINN. Anything that is for the general welfare is something we must consider in this country. Mr. MILLER. It is something you must consider; yes, sir. Mr. GWINN. Then what are the constitutional limitations, as you interpret them? Mr. MILLER. Of what? Mr. GWINN. On what this Government shall not do. Mr. MILLER. That is going to be a thing which from generation to generation that the people, through their general elections, are going to interpret and determine themselves. What was the general welfare of 1789 will not be the problems of general welfare of 1948; the problems of 1948 will not be the problems our descendants will be wrestling with in the year 2048. There will be different problems, and we will be interpreting this Constitution to serve the day and generation which it will bear upon. Mr. GWINN. Now, one other question. Aside from the Constitution, whether we have any constitutional limitations left at all or notlet us not argue about that; apparently we have not. At least Congress has not felt for a long time that we had any constitutional limitations on the power of this Government. It is very seldom mentioned any more. I do not think even you would go to the limit of indicating that we are not supposed to be a constitutionally limited government. But aside from that, in reading history, as you have, about the limitations the founders thought should be imposed on the functions of Government, to keep it small and properly contained, how can we so maintain it if all these factions that Jefferson so well described keep coming here and vote for us in return for favors only? Now just to summarize a bit : A million public-school teachers, janitors, and school personnel are going to look upon this Congress and its Members, in terms of whether or not they promise to raise salaries. A million public-housing tenants are going to look upon this Congress and the Members who come up in the elections, in terms of 74442-48- -13 |