Page 2
States and sold to the Treasury for $35, the price of wheat in the United States would be $1 per bushel. Should the ounce of gold when sold to the Treasury have been worth $52 instead of $35, then the 35 bushels of wheat would have been worth $1.50 per bushel. I hasten to say that I am not at this moment advocating a 50 percent increase in the price of gold. I am merely trying to demonstrate that the market for basic farm products or those affected by foreign trade are largely influenced by the price of gold rather than by their true exchange value in the markets of the world. Therefore, this discussion is all too brief. Whole books have been written on this. However, it was on the basis of such study and personal experience with those who had done this type of research that a group of businessmen, farm representatives and bankers, including such men as Gen. R. E. Wood, Frank A. Vanderlip, James H. Rand, Jr., Louis J. Taber, Edward O'Neill, John Simpson, George F. Warren (of Cornell University), Ambrose W. Benkert and myself, advised the step which was taken in April 1933, which brought such spectacular results. Many, in fact most, of the elements which were in existence in our economy during the late twenties are here now. In our domestic economy: I. This too is a postwar period with growing postwar price disparities. II. Prices of products-mostly finished-are at an extremely high peak. Built-in costs in production are not likely to let them come down very much. III. Wage rates are at a much higher level than prewar, even after adjustment for productivity. Unions will make every effort to hold them high or drive them higher. Economic history shows that wage rates seldom fall much during postwar recession periods and almost not at all until a serious depression has hit. IV. Taxes now at extremely high levels, which pay for finished products, labor, civil servant wages, will decrease but little from present postwar level. V. Utility and public service rates driven high by fixed costs will decline little, if any. VI. Farm products-those affected by international trade, produced to meet war needs and now in surplus-wheat, corn, cotton, meat, milk products, tobacco, rice, etc.--except where Government-supported are tending to fall to world levels. Thus they are affected by exchange rates-hence by the price of gold. In the settlement of trade balances, the dollar price of gold as fixed by Government is a major determining factor in the domestic price of those products affected by international trade. I grant that all the above is an oversimplification of a complex problem in order to get it set forth for consideration-and that other factors also affect it. For instance, no one knows as of today just what the demand for gold is. It is, therefore, hard to judge its true value. The people of the United States have half the wealth of the world. They are forbidden the right to own gold at any price. You can imagine what would happen to the demand for any product if one-half of its present users were forbidden its use and no substitute was made available. It was Tugwell and other Government planners who suggested that in place of the program which we advocated in 1933, the production and price control be used. In the fall of 1933, this monetary program was jettisoned and Tugwell's program was given full sway. Now again the alternative for some such monetary program will probably be more production and price control. This time, unfortunately, control programs will be supported-in desperation and for lack of an understanding of a sound alternative-by many conservative elements in agriculture, business, and labor. The foregoing will indicate why the Secretary of Agriculture and all those who want to preserve free enterprise and constitutional liberty, in my opinion, should interest themselves in a matter the responsibility for which is in the Treasury and the Federal Reserve. The solution of our problem is, in a large part, in the hands of Congress under its constitutional mandate to coin money and regulate the value thereof, and of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve Board carrying out the decision of Congress. It is not enough to be against socialism. There must be a positive program which lets all segments of our economy-though perhaps not all individuals in Page 2
There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
I want to talk to you about education and the need for securing Federal aid for our schools. At a time when the present State administration in Wisconsin is preparing to cut nearly $2,000,000 out of our school budgets, I think it is absolutely necessary for us all to give the matter some very serious attention. The problem of maintaining fair and proper educational opportunities for our boys and girls in the next 2 years is going to demand some sort of outside assistance if the State government will not assume its rightful share of the responsibility. I am a firm believer in "economy" if by economy is meant making the most of what resources we have at our disposal and eliminating waste. But I fail to see any economy in a pinch-penny policy that is willing to sacrifice the rights of our young people to a full education simply for a few paltry pieces of silver. The greatest resource America has is its people, and we owe it to ourselves as a nation to see to it that the talents and abilities of the young are developed to the highest degree possible by means of adequate educational opportunities.
To hear some people talk, one might think that we have been extravagant in the support of our schools during the last few years, but actually in the country as a whole we are spending about $350,000,000 less for education than we were in 1930, in spite of the fact that high-school enrollment, where the expense is heaviest, has been increased by over 1,575,000 students. In Wisconsin we have been more fortunate, up until the present time, than the people in other States. In 1935 Wisconsin restored its State school aids to their former levels, and in the years that followed much was done to repair the damage suffered by our educational system as a result of depression retrenchment. Now, however, as a result of the action being taken by the new State administration, we are back face to face with the old problem
again. There is a bill before Congress at the present time which would provide, if enacted, a program of Federal aid to States for the support of their schools and the equalization of educational opportunity throughout the Nation. Under the estimated apportionment of the appropriation submitted with the bill, the enactment of this program could mean as much as $1,200,000 for Wisconsin next year and still more in succeeding years. Such a program is important to the whole Nation. One of the main foundation stones of democracy is equality of educational opportunity. That means public schools available to every man's son or daughter from kindergarten right on up through the university. If we allow a situation to develop where higher education is open only to those people of wealth who can afford to send their children to private schools, it will lead inevitably toward a class division in this country, with the educated, wealthy few on one side of the fence and a resentful, uneducated multitude on the other side. That sort of a situation is as dangerous as it is unnecessary.
Today there are between 800,000 and a million children of grade-school age who are not going to school. Most of them have no school to go to. There are approximately 3,000,000 people in the country who are totally illiterate, who can neither read nor write. And if you passed a newspaper around the Nation, you would find that as many as 15,000,000 adults couldn't read it. Those same people cannot write the simplest of letters. Believe it or not, there are more illiterates in America than there are college graduates.
An analysis of teachers' salaries shows another astounding condition. Considering the range by States, the State having the highest average salary for teachers has an average of only $2,414 per year, and on the other extreme is a State where teachers receive an average salary of only $504 per year. The average salary for teachers in rural communities is correspondingly still lower. For rural teachers the top average is only $1,337 and the bottom average is a bare $430.
When you realize how important is the teacher to whom parents entrust their children for education and guidance, it is surprising that the public has allowed such a condition to exist. If we are to secure the best kind of people to be the teachers of our children, we must be prepared to pay them enough so that they can afford to pass up opportunities in other fields and devote themselves to teaching.
The problem is worse in some States than in others. Some States are wealthy while others are poor, and unfortunately it appears that the States which are least able to maintain adequate schools have the greatest number of children in proportion to adult population. The President's Advisory Committee on Education has made a thorough study of this problem, and it reports a variation so large that the richest State in the Union has a per capita taxpaying ability to support schools which is 12 times the ability of the poorest State. This is not the fault of the individual States. It is a question of wealth. Our modern commercial life has outgrown even State boundaries. Much of our wealth has been drained away from the producing areas of the Nation into the financial centers of the country. As a result, the per capita wealth of some eastern States,
for instance, is all out of proportion to their actual physical contribution to the Nation's production. In order to recapture this wealth for the States from which it came in the first place, the Federal Government must reach it through Federal taxes and return it to the States by means of grants-in-aid. Senate bill 1305 now before the Congress proposes a 6-year program of Federal aids for education in the States. It authorizes an appropriation of approximately $75,000,000 for such purposes during the next fiscal year and increasing amounts for the succeeding years until an appropriation of $208,000,000 is reached for the fiscal year ending in 1945. This money would go toward the support of public elementary and secondary schools, improved teacher preparation, construction of school buildings, administration of State departments of education, adult education, rural-library service, and educational research.
It would not involve any sort of Federal control over the schools. The bill specifically provides that all matters of school administration, curriculum, methods of instruction, personnel, and the determination of the best uses for the funds granted shall be left to the control of the States and their local subdivisions. In order to qualify for the grants each State would simply have to establish a plan for distributing funds to the local school districts in such a way that the aim of the Federal program, the equalization of educational opportunity, would be carried out. In this way the Federal Government would be assured that the neediest communities of the State would get the greatest benefits from the funds granted.
The only other condition of importance to Wisconsin which would have to be met before the funds could be made available under the terms of this bill is the requirement that the State provide funds for these purposes in amounts at least equal to the sums provided in 1938.
The funds to be appropriated under this plan are to be divided among the States according to their respective educational loads and their respective financial abilities. The educational load of each State would be computed from estimates by the Bureau of the Census each year of the number of children of school age in the State. The financial ability of each State would be computed by the Secretary of the Treasury on the basis of certain standards prescribed in the bill. By balancing the State's school load against its financial ability, its financial need under the plan is determined, and the funds are allocated in accordance with this need.
The Senate Committee on Education and Labor has held hearings on the bill and has reported it favorably to the Senate for passage. At the hearings representatives of the leading educational organizations in this country, representing both parents and teachers, appeared and urged that the Federal Government undertake such a program. I feel that a program of this kind should receive the unselfish support of every public-spirited citizen. Education is one of those things which we cannot postpone to suit our convenience. Every year that goes by means a certain number of boys and girls who have either passed beyond school age or have been forced by circumstances to undertake responsibilities which will If their education was prevent their ever going back to school. neglected during the years when they could have gone to school, the chances are they will carry that handicap with them all through life. The rural areas are the hardest hit. It is an established fact that it costs more to provide proper educational facilities in the country than in the city. We know also that there are more children, in proportion to adult population, in the rural areas than in the cities. Yet in spite of that fact the best educational opportunities are being provided for children in the cities. "Equalization of educational opportunity" means not only establishing more uniformity of educational opportunities among the 48 States; it also means bringing financial aid to the rural schools so that the farmers and the people in the small communities can give their children as good an education as the children in the cities get.
If we are going to make democracy work in America, we must always have an intelligent, educated, informed citizenry. If we neglect the education of our young people now, even for a little while, we are going to pay dearly for it in the future. In Wisconsin we have a very definite problem. The budget of the university alone is being cut over a million dollars in the face of increased enrollment and long-delayed needs for expansion. A similar cut is being imposed upon the State teachers' colleges. Unless corrected, this will result in one of two things either fees will have to be raised and it will become that much harder for farmers and working people to send their children to school, or standards will have to be lowered and they will get just that much less for their money.
The program of Federal aid which I have outlined to you will not in any way make up for all the State's failures in this respect but it will help some. The Federal program is primarily concerned with elementary and secondary education, but, indirectly at least, it will aid by taking some of the budgetary pressure off our public institutions of higher education.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
Mr. HARRISON. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the RECORD a speech delivered by Miss Earlene White, at the biennial convention of the National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, Inc., at Kansas City, Mo., on July 9, 1939, on the subject of professional women. There being no objection, the speech was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
It was a bright, sunny morning in the 1830's. A distinguished looking woman, traveling alone, her full skirts discreetly sweeping the ground, her corkscrew curls hanging coyly beneath her bonnet, alighted from a packet boat, having made the trip from England to America in about 40 days.
The woman was Harriet Martineau, a friend of the Carlyles, a trained observer and commentator who came to America in search of new copy. Tired, for a time, of the life in London, she realized that comparatively little was known of the new land which had once been an English colony and was now attracting English and Scotch immigrants in great numbers. She set foot in little old New York, which was then a thriving community, without skyscrapers or bridges to connect the island of Manhattan with its neighborhood boroughs. True, the Astors had begun to make a fortune as fur traders, and Commodore Vanderbilt had found it profitable to pilot a ferry between Staten and Manhattan Islands; nevertheless, New York had little resemblance to the great present-day city of the North American Continent.
And what of the North American Continent upon which Harriet Martineau gazed? She came to America just after the Lewis and Clark expedition had blazed a trail to the Pacific and fur traders were following the Oregon Trail across the mountains.
American missionaries and farmers were quick to follow. The Northern States were clamoring for the annexation of Oregon to the Union and the South was clamoring for Texas. annexation were so vociferous that the slogan of "Fifty-four-Forty or Fight" was to be heard everywhere, as the citizens of the new The advocates of Nation, greedy for land, clamored for the extension of American territory to further latitudes. The clamor grew until it resulted in the election of James K. Polk in 1844 on that very issue.
The industrial revolution was beginning in America, and Harriet Martineau took full note of it. locm had been invented and were making it possible for cloth to The spinning jenny and the power be made in new ways. were new tools for farming, including the reaper. Women-and The cotton gin had been invented and there men, too-who had carried on small manufacturing plants with hand tools on their farms, making the family's clothing along with the family's food supply, found it necessary to change their way of life. The growth of mill towns was taken for granted, and young women who had been earning their livelihoods at just six occupations-keeping boarders, teaching young children, typesetting, bookbinding, domestic service, and needlework-found a new occupation as weavers in the mills.
The severe financial panic in 1837 threw thousands out of work, and when Harriet Martineau visited America unemployment stories were constantly printed in the daily press. The suffrage movement was being extended, and Robert Fulton's steamboat had set a new pace; the inland waterways of America were being invaded by steamboats plowing their way through the hitherto untroubled waters. The best opportunities for men lay in the fields and forests of the far West.
And as usual men and women were facing the future with uncertainty, dreading the changes but eager to get on with them. In 1836, a young girl, living and working in Lowell, Mass, penned these lines
"Oh, isn't it a pity that such a pretty girl as I, Should be sent to the factory to pine away and die?" Thus, the working girl lamented, as she was forced out of the home and into industry. All this and more the woman journalist from England noted and went home and reported in a lengthy volume reciting the sights she had seen and the observations she had made.
3579 It was Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt, our beloved leader of suffrage and world peace, who called our attention to Harriet Martineau and her writings and urged us to observe the one-hundredth anniversary of Miss Martineau's reportorial journey, and to see how many doors are still closed to women, 100 years later. We have accepted Mrs. Catt's suggestion and our biennial convention is devoted to the theme, "One Hundred Years of Women's Progress in the United States." Our compass is the 1930 Census, and that shows that of some 535 classifications of occupations listed, women are engaged in 501, the heavy tasks, such as mining, locomotive engineers, firemen, et cetera, being completely masculine territory. And so in 100 years, women have advanced from 7 fields to 501; doors of opportunity for women are opening wider and wider, but the end is not yet, and perhaps 100 more years will pass until the world will allow women to make their best contribution, and women will be willing to make it.
In 100 years American women have come a long way, just as our country has come a long way, but we still have a journey to make, both as women and as citizens. It is noteworthy that teachers' training schools were started 100 years ago this year. Here and now we are observing the one-hundredth anniversary of women's progress, and I think it is a suitable time to take stock of where we have come from, where we wish to go, and how we are to get there. To help us evaluate these three points we appointed a committee of distinguished women. lin D. Roosevelt is honorary chairman of the committee, and Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt is vice chairman. Mrs. Frankbers are Dr. Mary E. Wooley, president emeritus of Mount Holyoke College; Mrs. Ruth Finley, author and noted publicist for the The other memRepublican Party; Ruth Comfort Mitchell, novelist and one of California's best-known daughters; the Honorable Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor; those two outstanding women in radio, Margaret Cuthbert and Helen J. Souissat; Fannie Hurst, the novelist; Miss Emma P. Hirth, general secretary of the Y. W. C. A.; President Aurelia H. Reinhardt, of Mills College, Calif.; Dr. Martha Tracy, dean of the Women's Medical College of Pennsylvania; Mrs. Mary Dillon, president of the Brooklyn Borough Gas Co.; and Mrs. Ora Snyder, manufacturer, of Chicago.
These women have had broad experience in public service and private enterprise. They represent every range of political and economic thinking, and I believe that their answers to a questionnaire which I sent them will help chart our course for the 100 years ahead.
First, I asked, "What were the chief obstacles to employment in the path of American women 100 years ago?"
Tradition seems to have been the chief stumbling block, with several important contributing causes, such as social and economic custom, lack of education, lack of training, and lack of personal initiative. I have quoted these obstacles from the considered opinion of one of the committee members, Ruth Finley, the noted writer and biographer of women of the colonial period. Mrs. Finley was formerly the editor of Guide, published by the Women's National Republican Club.
Frances Perkins has some interesting observations on that question, and I quote her:
"The lack of employment opportunities outside the home for both men and women constituted the principal obstacle to employment in 1839. This was the period, early in the industrial revolution, when women's traditional occupations were just beginning to move out of the home into factories, mills, and shops. There were few schools and most of the teachers were men, with women substituting in the summer while the men took agricultural jobs. Clerical jobs were practically nonexistent. The largest number of openings were in textile mills, where labor was scarce and wages were high. In these mills, hours were very long, and the workers were housed in dormitories under unfavorable living conditions. In 1839 there were practically no opportunities for professional women or any vocational training for women.' On the other hand, Mme. Secretary wrote: "There were cer- in social prestige-there existed no class distinction on the basis Work in factory or mill entailed no loss of 'white collar' or manual labor. to the welfare of a new nation. Factory work offered educational All work meant a contribution opportunities which were not available for women in schools of higher learning. It offered wages higher than for teaching. Horace Mann reported that women in many occupations in mills and fac- tories earned six or seven times as much as women teachers.
"Early mill workers were militant in the protection of their rights. As the real daughters of the American Revolution, they were earnestly concerned with justice and liberty in dealing with the concrete problems of their daily work life." These are the views of Frances Perkins.
Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt said in response to this question. I quote: "I should say that in 1839 the chief obstacles in the path of employment for American women were, first, the attitude held by both men and women as to the proper kind of work which women should do. Secondly, the lack of educational facilities and of training which they could obtain, and thirdly the lack of opportunities even if they obtained the education and the training." And from Ora Snyder came this opinion. I quote: "Lack of confidence in their ability and the old-fashioned opinion that women should not leave household duties or the care of the family." Dr. Martha Tracy is of the opinion that tradition was women's main stumbling block, plus the economic necessity of doing the home chores personally, including cooking and preserving foodstuffs, cleaning, laundry work, making the husband's and children's clothes, and childbearing. Dr. Tracy says that all of these obstacles have been largely conquered, and I quote her, "largely but not entirely. Childbearing will always be a factor." Ruth Finley thinks the obstacles have mainly been overcome, and Mrs. Roosevelt believes that "there is still some prejudice against women in certain lines of work for which they are naturally better equipped than men. The training today is fairly universally open to them though there are restrictions which make it a little difficult. Many more lines of work are open to women, but they have to excell." Frances Perkins made the following statement in answer to this question:
"Significant progress has been made in removing the obstacles to women's wage-earning employment that existed 100 years ago, but the job is far from complete. Eleven million women are now gainfully employed and are found in practically all occupations. Prejudice against women in the professions is gradually breaking down, and they are securing an ever greater measure of vocational opportunity. Training facilities for almost every occupational field are open to women, though the resultant job opportunities still may be relatively scarce. In recent years there has been a notable increase in the number of women in important administrative jobs in both State and Federal Governments. "However," Miss Perkins goes on to say, "because an increasing number of women must earn their livelihood and also support dependents entirely or partially, and because jobs are also scarce for men, competition is a much greater factor for women to reckon with now than it was some years ago. "Moreover, the traditional sex discriminations are still a major obstacle women encounter in their efforts to find satisfying and profitable employment. Their ability is still far from being accepted on the same plane as that of men. "Immense improvement has come about in the raising of wages, the lowering of hours, and the betterment of plant equipment; but the situation in this respect is still far from Utopian. double wage standard still prevails in a number of fields." The And now we come to the third question, "What obstacle do you believe will beset women in the next 100 years?" To this question Mrs. Finley answers, "The physical obstacle of sex, which never can be changed, and an overcrowding of the so-called economic jobs." Dr. Tracy's answer is-and I quote: "Economic competition with men, particularly in times of unemployment. The individual women's own incompetence." She also notes: "The same applies to men, but women capitalize on the 'tradition' of sex obstruction. Child bearing cannot be outmoded." Mrs. Snyder feels that "jealousy from the male sex" will be the chief obstacle for women. Most of the committee declined to commit themselves on one question, which was, "In your opinion, what has been the outstanding contribution made by American women during the past 100 years?" Ruth Finley, however, answers by saying, "Dissemination of women's news,' and she names Sarah Josepha Hale as the woman who has made the outstanding contribution of the past 100 years. She gives her reason for this as follows-and again I quote: "Prior to the radio, the national woman's magazines were the only interstate link between women. Mrs. Hale, for 50 years editor of Godey's Lady's Book, the first woman's magazine approaching Nation-wide circulation, did more to correlate and unify women's thought in this country than any other person, man or woman, in the nineteenth century." Helen Sioussat, of Columbia Broadcasting Co., said unhesitatingly, "The discovery of radium," and nominated Mme. Curie. Margaret Cuthbert believes that the political recognition of American women has been the outstanding contribution, and she nominated Susan B. Anthony. Frances Perkins wrote: "Because there have been so many important contributions by women in so many fields, it is difficult to evaluate them in such a general way as to make it possible to name only one woman."
Ora Snyder said, "Jane Addams is the woman, and her splendid work at Hull House, Chicago, in the settlement field proves it." Dr. Tracy also has a candidate. She wrote, "Mary Lyon's demonstration that women can be educated, without danger to health or other damage to their nature, is of the utmost importance." And now for my next question, for this is an inventory of women's liabilities as well as women's assets, "What have been the greatest failures of women in the past 100 years?" And again Ruth Finley out of her great wealth of research on the lives of American women answers, "Over-eagerness, evidencing a real lack
of moral stamina in many cases, to throw off the frequently monotonous responsibilities of the home." And Ruth Finley finds these failures also, "unwillingness to serve adequate apprenticeship in the economic world; lack of understanding of and consequent impatience with the slowness of the natural evolution of the now machine-made social order, and failure to assimilate experience." Frances Perkins says, "One major failure of women in the past century relates to their neglect of the use of their hard-won right to vote. Women's failure to take a more active part in American politics, as voters and as candidates for office has been a major disappointment. Women have not participated as fully as they might in labor organization. They have a most important contribution to make in this field and should become increasingly active." And she continues, "Some women have fallen down in their responsibility as employers of other persons. For example, long hours, low wages, social isolation, and exclusion from legislative protection have been characteristic of the vocation using the services of the largest single group of women workers-household employment."
And here is one of the most important questions that I asked the women who form the committee for the commemoration of 100 years of women's progress in the United States. "What are the greatest prejudices concerning women now held by the general public?" Ruth Finley gave me two answers, "Overcrowding of the wage field and consequent usurpation of jobs needed by men as the natural heads of families, and falling birth rate in the middle, and especially the native-born classes." And the First Lady of the Land answered, "It was generally thought that physically and mentally women were not equal to doing the same type of work as men.' Frances Perkins wrote thoughtfully, "Perhaps the oustanding prejudice against women 100 years ago was the general one that they were inferior beings, inferior to men physically, mentally, and economically; that it was of no importance that they be educated and granted political privileges. Under the laws of the day women were severely discriminated against in relation to property rights, in the rights of custody of children and the like. The common law, which was so often detrimental to women's interest, was accepted as the legal authority. Women were not considered experienced enough to handle any of their personal affairs, nor to participate in public affairs. "Though important progress has been made, there are still distinct evidences of a carry-over of prejudice against women that existed a century ago. With a large segment of our people, the idea still prevails that women's place is 'in the home' and the prejudice against the employment of married women is yet very strong among some groups. "At times men make much ado about women's artistic inferiority and as a consequence women have heavy competitive sledding to make a valid contribution in the field of arts.
"Though women's legal status has strengthened throughout the century, they are still in a far weaker position in this respect than are men in many States. In some cases their wages yet belong to their husbands; in others they do not share equally with their husbands in their children's custody, etc. A number of States do not permit women to serve on juries."
Margaret Cuthbert, famous radio authority, says, bluntly, "Women, given the same opportunity as men, are making the same mistakes and doing the same things that men are doing. With the freedom they now have in view of the money they control, they have done little that is unique, little that is original, little that is different, and not much that shows that women as a group are using their natural gifts to make their own lives and the lives of others more civilized-outside of a few exceptional women."
Mrs. Snyder thinks that men's lack of confidence in women's ability will be the chief obstacle for women in the future. Dr. Tracy concurs in this, saying: "Men's age-old prejudice that women were physically and intellectually inferior still holds, though much diluted and localized."
And now I come to the heart of my questionnaire, for, having gathered the opinions of these women, I wanted to find out what we can do about it as business and professional women. So I asked all of them, "In your opinion, what is the best way for business and professional women to educate the general public as to the fact that these prejudices are not factually founded?" Here is what some of them answered:
Dr. Tracy: "By accepting opportunities for work and giving competent performance. Not by talking about it." Mrs. Snyder: "Instruct the public that we believe in equality, and we want a chance to demonstrate what we can do on an equal footing." Mrs. Roosevelt: "In my opinion, the best education is the education which makes people acquainted with the facts, and the facts can be furnished today through studies made by the various people interested in labor and in woman's position." Miss Perkins: "Probably the best educational method consists of clear demonstrations of women's ability in many fields." Mary Dillon: "To succeed as individuals in the jobs they hold." And Ruth Finley: "Probably the best way for the fit and capable business and professional woman to combat this general attitude (which is growing with appalling rapidity) is to recognize the inevitable weeding-out process of evolution now and back that recognition with the weight of opinion and influence. Always women have worked outside as well as in the home. In 1839 the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
proportion was overbalanced in favor of the home, with many resultant personal misfits and family or group hardships. "Now the pendulum has swung too far the other way, and in 1939 the opposite proportion of overbalance has created more personal misfits and family group hardships than ever before. History has proved that one of the primary social laws is the maintaining or restoration of balance. It seems to me that nothing could give women a more solid foundation for their future as free citizens than their voluntary and immediate recognition of this law."
"Example" is what counts most, Margaret Cuthbert feels. "Deeds more important than words," she writes, "giving proof that women are not personal and prejudiced in business; relating the complex fabric of civilization to the persons for whom, after all, it exists." She points out that "it is not through individual achievement that women are going to serve as they will serve, but in proportion as they emphasize and express cooperation. brave new world must be a man's and woman's world." This
And with these opinions behind us, I asked, "What type of education do you believe will be best suited to women in the next century?" And here are the answers: From Mrs. Snyder, "A practical education and training for a business or professional career.' Mary Dillon's answer is succinct. as men, a rounded cultural background, plus specific training in I quote her exactly: "Same the field of their vocation."
From Dr. Tracy: "Just such an education as will fit any adult to be an intelligent and tolerant citizen and a thorough performer in the lot to which circumstances and her own ability will call her."
Ruth Finley advocates: "A scholastic education to enable women to participate in and understand and enjoy modern civilization; domestic science and child care; professional or occupational training according to the talent of the individual." Frances Perkins says, "Because of our many new means of communication, nation with nation and locality with locality, people touch each other at many more points than they used to. For this reason education needs to be broader. needs to be realistic, too. Education national life to the full they must know science and economics If women are to participate in our as well as the so-called cultural subjects. Education should produce attitudes of liberalism and democracy as well as the absorption of factual data." And, "What tools for advancement do you think women need most during the next century?" I asked them. answers education, individual adequacy, a change in the ecoHere are some of the nomic condition of the country, health maintenance, the removal of legislative restriction against women. recommended and these are the tools we must acquire. These are the tools of all the tools, individual adequacy was stressed the most. When I asked, "Why are not more office after 2 decades of enfranchisement?" women holding public of the committee held decided opinions. Madame Secretary wrote I found that many as follows: "It cannot be said fairly that either men or women are to blame, rather a number of circumstances are involved. The old concept of women's inferiority in any role other than that of homemaker is doubtless responsible for the fact that very few women are elected or appointed to public office. "However, because of lingering prejudices in respect to women's holding public positions the woman who runs for and holds such office needs to be more outstanding and better qualified than the average man with whom she competes. must be competent, a Where a man women themselves have not in general enlarged their concept woman must be exceptional. Moreover, of what constitutes women's work to have it cover public service to any considerable degree.
"A second reason, I believe, that so few women run for office has to do with the rather low regard many people in this country hold for the mechanics of politics. Women have tended to shy away from practical politics and concentrate in their organizations on nonpartisan politics. In the third place, women as yet have achieved no solidarity as women toward the end of putting those of their sex into public office."
Dr. Tracy feels that there are not more women holding public office because of, and I quote her, "lack of qualifications and very often unwillingness or inability to accept responsibility and to sacrifice personal and home obligations to the requirements of public office."
Mrs. Snyder feels that the reason lies in the fact that "men do not want women in public office, and fight their election." Ruth Finley holds out some comfort for us. whole women are still unfitted and incapable with, of course, She says, "On the notable exceptions. Public prejudice and lack of confidence due to a long established custom have held women back. what is 20 years of enfranchisement as against the more than After all, 2,000 years of masculine training and practice in the art of governing?"
And echo answers, what indeed? And here is Margaret Cuthbert's opinion, I quote, "It is not important that they do hold more offices. that they use their influence and power for better government. It is more important If women choose to do this, men cannot stop them."
There were just two more questions on my list, first, "In what field do you believe women will make the greatest contribution during the next century?"
3581 The answers include, the preservation of the home as a national unit, public administration, social welfare, social sciences, human welfare, and the defense of democratic institutions.
And my final question, "What in your opinion can woman do to bring about the settlement of disputes between nations by peaceful methods?" The answers include, first, education; second, through participation in international organizations like the Y. W. C. A., the Associated Country Women of the World, which demonstrate the value of the conference method; through emphasizing the similarities of people rather than the differences; by encouraging tolerance and the settlement of every disagreement by arbitration; by demanding peace actively and aggressively. "War can be banished just as dueling was banished," Ruth Finley advises me. "Where women will there is always a way." And now, delegates to the convention, you have heard the opinions of some of the members of the committee. time this evening for all to be given you. There was not stood 100 years ago, where we stand today, and what we must do You know where we in the years ahead. whole subject further, and distinguished speakers will give us Throughout this week we will consider the further and more intensive interpretations. I noted that the names of just five women were suggested as having made the outstanding contributions of the past century— Sarah Josepha Hale, Mary Lyon, Susan B. Anthony, Jane Addams, and Mme. Curie, the latter, of course, not an American. list I would add two others-Dr. Anna Howard Shaw and Carrie To that Chapman Catt. That is the chief roll of honor of the past century as I see it.
Where we have come from we know. Where we are going is known only to Him who knows all. of American women is indissolubly united with the future of our We do know that the future country, just as the contributions of the women of the past have been entwined with the history of the progress of America. We have made great opportunities for women and we have had great opportunities made for us. we fail now, we can only echo Shakespeare's words, "The fault, Many doors are open to us. If dear Brutus, is in ourselves, not in our stars, if we are underlings."
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: EXCESS GOVERNMENT SPENDING COVERED BY PRINTING BONDS (By Wadsworth W. Mount, Assistant Director of Research, the
As long as the Government can spend all the money it wants to, over and above what it takes in from taxes, merely by printing Government bonds, selling these to the banks, and then drawing checks against them, how can we ever hope to stop extravagant Government spending?
And when the Government spends these billions in such ways that private citizens do not know which way to turn to make money, and therefore have comparatively little need to borrow from the banks on safe terms, where else can banks invest your money on deposit but in Government bonds?
A banker knows that when the United States Government prints a Government bond it says in effect that the Government will tax the people of the United States to make it good. fore, that Government bonds are the soundest security in the He knows, therecountry, just so long as we do not issue too many of them and have inflation. Before the Government started spending several billions more each year than it took in from taxes, the savings banks, for instance, could safely lend your money, largely to people who wanted to spend it for private or business uses, at a high enough rate of interest to cover their expenses and pay you 4 percent. ent conditions, however, one of the few remaining safe places to Under pres
invest bank funds is in Government bonds. Therefore, as the interest rate on long-term Treasury bonds has been lowered until their average yield is now approximately 2 percent, at present about all the savings banks can safely get for the use of your money is enough to provide for necessary expenses and reserves and pay you only 2 percent, or even less, on your deposits. The Treasury has just announced that to pay off some $426,000,000 of outstanding obligations which are due in September and now carry an interest rate of 1% percent it will offer in exchange new "notes" due in 5 years which will pay only three-fourths of 1 percent.
A New York investment firm recently showed that Treasury obligations maturing in a little more than 2 years now afford a yield of only one one-hundredth of 1 percent. At this rate of return, it was pointed out that "an investor would have to hold more than $144,000 par value to provide an income sufficient to buy his morning newspaper each day; he would have to hold $558,000 to provide enough funds to buy a daily package of cigarettes." As the average interest rate on all Federal obligations is lowered, those having money in savings accounts and insurance policies which represent their personally saved "social security" have their interest earnings also reduced, as a large part of such funds are invested in Government bonds.
This means, therefore, that it will take you longer to pay for your life insurance, as the annual dividends will be less or the premiums will be more. Some people think that only the taxpayers of future generations will have to pay for the present Government spending. However, if you own a savings-bank account you are paying right now for the increased national debt by getting one-half or less of the amount of interest you used to receive, and the trend is still downward.
This means then that if, for example, you were trying to put in the savings bank enough money to give you $2,000-a-year income, you will now have to save $100,000 or more, where when savings banks were able to invest your money safely and pay you 4 percent you would only have had to save $50,000 to get this same income. Everyone in the Nation has to pay one way or another for the money our Government officials are instructed to spend. Some pay taxes directly, but everyone pays indirectly for all Government services. The Government has nothing to give to the people except what it gets from the people.
The question is not whether these are desirable Government functions.
The question is whether the country wants expansion of Government, which must be paid for by increased taxes. Or wants expansion of business, which pays in jobs and wages. For the increased money that now goes into Government spending is the money that formerly went into new and improved products, new and enlarged factories, bigger pay rolls and dividends. There isn't enough in the earned dollar to go both ways. Business the production and distribution of goods-is the only thing that can create new wealth. Less taxes; more jobs.
THIRTY CENTS FOR "INDEPENDENCE," JULY 4, 1939 Here, then, in broad strokes is the state of the Nation today. Each of the 60 countries of the world requires around two-thirds of its productive work, its income, to pay for the necessities, food, shelter, clothing. This 65 percent is true of a country regardless of its living standards, India on the one extreme, the United States with the highest standards on the other. What of the 35 cents left after the sustenance of life? In that answer lie most of our troublesome problems today. Consider three pictures:
Until recently the people of the United States disposed of their 35 cents in this way. Five cents, at the turn of the century, was all that was required to pay for expenses of government-State, Federal, and local. Of the remaining 30 cents, about half went into the hands of managers of business enterprises which was about equally divided by them in expanding old industries and promoting and developing new ones such as radio, rayon, automobile. Much of this 15 cents remained in the hands of the people in the form of investment, productive wealth represented by stocks and bonds and life-insurance equities. The remaining 15 cents was used to buy the products of this increased industrial activity, thus driving upward standards of living and making one-time luxuries the conveniences and even necessities denied the rest of the world.
Second picture: What of the 35 cents which remained to the peoples of the other 59 countries? Since time immemorial around 30 cents was used for government expenses. A hazardous 5 cents was left as free capital. This gives point to the sentient statement of former President Hadley, of Yale, that the supremacy of the United States was due to the fact that it could afford to take chances upon development as no other country could afford to do. Five cents as against 30 cents as a backlog. Why did the Old World require 30 cents of the earnings of their people for government? For policing. External policing, the fear of land-grabbing, wealth-grabbing neighbor aggressors, whose people were in constant fear of being deprived of the bare necessities. Third picture: What is the situation in the United States today? Sixty-five cents for the necessities. Of the 35 remaining, 30 for governments (25 collected in taxes, 5 borrowed). Ten cents for investment and the lifting of living standards.
Why the great increase in government costs? Not to relieve distress and unemployment, as generally stated and believed. Only one dollar in six of Federal expenditures is for relief. The great increase in taxation and borrowing, which has brought overnight the allocation of the earned dollar to a level almost to that of other countries, is for policing. Against foreign aggressors? No. For protection against an alleged aggression and oppression on the part of business management. Internal "policing." Policing ourselves against ourselves.
Every act of those engaged in stimulating us to trade our labor, services, and products is now under surveillance, from the time a commission checks the project to the time another bureau passes upon the label to go on the package. Policing, in another form, such as protection against the private electric bulb by Government "yardstick" operation. Policing of banks, labor relations, aviation, oil, coal, lumber, telephones, retailers, stock and grain exchanges, insurance. Policing of States and communities as to the manner in which they handle their social problems. Policing in another form as exemplified in the published statistics that the Federal Government received 153,000,000 compulsory reports from business management last year. Policing as expressed in the $76,000,000-a sum equal to one-sixth of total passenger revenuesspent by Washington in travel expenses of its inspectors, regulators, investigators in 1 calendar year. These three pictures are true pictures. They point the trend to a static society, a "planned economy," to "frontiers gone forever." We, the people, perhaps planned it that way, a road to centralized authority over, and policing of, the individual. But perhaps we did not count the cost; unemployment still with us, management, which brings dreams into being, and men and jobs together, and more conveniences and luxuries for more people, now disheartened and bewildered, unable to see 30 days down the road because of the new policing machinery we have set up, whereby 137 boards, bureaus, commissions, Federal incorporations and authorities now pass laws daily in the form of rules and regulations. Little government, with little expense and little policing, brought the United States the highest standard of living the world has ever seen. Perhaps the founders were wrong in building that way, indignant and angry as they were against a ruler demanding more taxes and more power, who, as a famous declaration set forth, had "erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." Page 3Page 4
There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
I want to talk to you about education and the need for securing Federal aid for our schools. At a time when the present State administration in Wisconsin is preparing to cut nearly $2,000,000 out of our school budgets, I think it is absolutely necessary for us all to give the matter some very serious attention. The problem of maintaining fair and proper educational opportunities for our boys and girls in the next 2 years is going to demand some sort of outside assistance if the State government will not assume its rightful share of the responsibility. I am a firm believer in "economy" if by economy is meant making the most of what resources we have at our disposal and eliminating waste. But I fail to see any economy in a pinch-penny policy that is willing to sacrifice the rights of our young people to a full education simply for a few paltry pieces of silver. The greatest resource America has is its people, and we owe it to ourselves as a nation to see to it that the talents and abilities of the young are developed to the highest degree possible by means of adequate educational opportunities.
To hear some people talk, one might think that we have been extravagant in the support of our schools during the last few years, but actually in the country as a whole we are spending about $350,000,000 less for education than we were in 1930, in spite of the fact that high-school enrollment, where the expense is heaviest, has been increased by over 1,575,000 students. In Wisconsin we have been more fortunate, up until the present time, than the people in other States. In 1935 Wisconsin restored its State school aids to their former levels, and in the years that followed much was done to repair the damage suffered by our educational system as a result of depression retrenchment. Now, however, as a result of the action being taken by the new State administration, we are back face to face with the old problem
again. There is a bill before Congress at the present time which would provide, if enacted, a program of Federal aid to States for the support of their schools and the equalization of educational opportunity throughout the Nation. Under the estimated apportionment of the appropriation submitted with the bill, the enactment of this program could mean as much as $1,200,000 for Wisconsin next year and still more in succeeding years. Such a program is important to the whole Nation. One of the main foundation stones of democracy is equality of educational opportunity. That means public schools available to every man's son or daughter from kindergarten right on up through the university. If we allow a situation to develop where higher education is open only to those people of wealth who can afford to send their children to private schools, it will lead inevitably toward a class division in this country, with the educated, wealthy few on one side of the fence and a resentful, uneducated multitude on the other side. That sort of a situation is as dangerous as it is unnecessary.
Today there are between 800,000 and a million children of grade-school age who are not going to school. Most of them have no school to go to. There are approximately 3,000,000 people in the country who are totally illiterate, who can neither read nor write. And if you passed a newspaper around the Nation, you would find that as many as 15,000,000 adults couldn't read it. Those same people cannot write the simplest of letters. Believe it or not, there are more illiterates in America than there are college graduates.
An analysis of teachers' salaries shows another astounding condition. Considering the range by States, the State having the highest average salary for teachers has an average of only $2,414 per year, and on the other extreme is a State where teachers receive an average salary of only $504 per year. The average salary for teachers in rural communities is correspondingly still lower. For rural teachers the top average is only $1,337 and the bottom average is a bare $430.
When you realize how important is the teacher to whom parents entrust their children for education and guidance, it is surprising that the public has allowed such a condition to exist. If we are to secure the best kind of people to be the teachers of our children, we must be prepared to pay them enough so that they can afford to pass up opportunities in other fields and devote themselves to teaching.
The problem is worse in some States than in others. Some States are wealthy while others are poor, and unfortunately it appears that the States which are least able to maintain adequate schools have the greatest number of children in proportion to adult population. The President's Advisory Committee on Education has made a thorough study of this problem, and it reports a variation so large that the richest State in the Union has a per capita taxpaying ability to support schools which is 12 times the ability of the poorest State. This is not the fault of the individual States. It is a question of wealth. Our modern commercial life has outgrown even State boundaries. Much of our wealth has been drained away from the producing areas of the Nation into the financial centers of the country. As a result, the per capita wealth of some eastern States,
for instance, is all out of proportion to their actual physical contribution to the Nation's production. In order to recapture this wealth for the States from which it came in the first place, the Federal Government must reach it through Federal taxes and return it to the States by means of grants-in-aid. Senate bill 1305 now before the Congress proposes a 6-year program of Federal aids for education in the States. It authorizes an appropriation of approximately $75,000,000 for such purposes during the next fiscal year and increasing amounts for the succeeding years until an appropriation of $208,000,000 is reached for the fiscal year ending in 1945. This money would go toward the support of public elementary and secondary schools, improved teacher preparation, construction of school buildings, administration of State departments of education, adult education, rural-library service, and educational research.
It would not involve any sort of Federal control over the schools. The bill specifically provides that all matters of school administration, curriculum, methods of instruction, personnel, and the determination of the best uses for the funds granted shall be left to the control of the States and their local subdivisions. In order to qualify for the grants each State would simply have to establish a plan for distributing funds to the local school districts in such a way that the aim of the Federal program, the equalization of educational opportunity, would be carried out. In this way the Federal Government would be assured that the neediest communities of the State would get the greatest benefits from the funds granted.
The only other condition of importance to Wisconsin which would have to be met before the funds could be made available under the terms of this bill is the requirement that the State provide funds for these purposes in amounts at least equal to the sums provided in 1938.
The funds to be appropriated under this plan are to be divided among the States according to their respective educational loads and their respective financial abilities. The educational load of each State would be computed from estimates by the Bureau of the Census each year of the number of children of school age in the State. The financial ability of each State would be computed by the Secretary of the Treasury on the basis of certain standards prescribed in the bill. By balancing the State's school load against its financial ability, its financial need under the plan is determined, and the funds are allocated in accordance with this need.
The Senate Committee on Education and Labor has held hearings on the bill and has reported it favorably to the Senate for passage. At the hearings representatives of the leading educational organizations in this country, representing both parents and teachers, appeared and urged that the Federal Government undertake such a program. I feel that a program of this kind should receive the unselfish support of every public-spirited citizen. Education is one of those things which we cannot postpone to suit our convenience. Every year that goes by means a certain number of boys and girls who have either passed beyond school age or have been forced by circumstances to undertake responsibilities which will If their education was prevent their ever going back to school. neglected during the years when they could have gone to school, the chances are they will carry that handicap with them all through life. The rural areas are the hardest hit. It is an established fact that it costs more to provide proper educational facilities in the country than in the city. We know also that there are more children, in proportion to adult population, in the rural areas than in the cities. Yet in spite of that fact the best educational opportunities are being provided for children in the cities. "Equalization of educational opportunity" means not only establishing more uniformity of educational opportunities among the 48 States; it also means bringing financial aid to the rural schools so that the farmers and the people in the small communities can give their children as good an education as the children in the cities get.
If we are going to make democracy work in America, we must always have an intelligent, educated, informed citizenry. If we neglect the education of our young people now, even for a little while, we are going to pay dearly for it in the future. In Wisconsin we have a very definite problem. The budget of the university alone is being cut over a million dollars in the face of increased enrollment and long-delayed needs for expansion. A similar cut is being imposed upon the State teachers' colleges. Unless corrected, this will result in one of two things either fees will have to be raised and it will become that much harder for farmers and working people to send their children to school, or standards will have to be lowered and they will get just that much less for their money.
The program of Federal aid which I have outlined to you will not in any way make up for all the State's failures in this respect but it will help some. The Federal program is primarily concerned with elementary and secondary education, but, indirectly at least, it will aid by taking some of the budgetary pressure off our public institutions of higher education.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
Mr. HARRISON. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the RECORD a speech delivered by Miss Earlene White, at the biennial convention of the National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, Inc., at Kansas City, Mo., on July 9, 1939, on the subject of professional women. There being no objection, the speech was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
It was a bright, sunny morning in the 1830's. A distinguished looking woman, traveling alone, her full skirts discreetly sweeping the ground, her corkscrew curls hanging coyly beneath her bonnet, alighted from a packet boat, having made the trip from England to America in about 40 days.
The woman was Harriet Martineau, a friend of the Carlyles, a trained observer and commentator who came to America in search of new copy. Tired, for a time, of the life in London, she realized that comparatively little was known of the new land which had once been an English colony and was now attracting English and Scotch immigrants in great numbers. She set foot in little old New York, which was then a thriving community, without skyscrapers or bridges to connect the island of Manhattan with its neighborhood boroughs. True, the Astors had begun to make a fortune as fur traders, and Commodore Vanderbilt had found it profitable to pilot a ferry between Staten and Manhattan Islands; nevertheless, New York had little resemblance to the great present-day city of the North American Continent.
And what of the North American Continent upon which Harriet Martineau gazed? She came to America just after the Lewis and Clark expedition had blazed a trail to the Pacific and fur traders were following the Oregon Trail across the mountains.
American missionaries and farmers were quick to follow. The Northern States were clamoring for the annexation of Oregon to the Union and the South was clamoring for Texas. annexation were so vociferous that the slogan of "Fifty-four-Forty or Fight" was to be heard everywhere, as the citizens of the new The advocates of Nation, greedy for land, clamored for the extension of American territory to further latitudes. The clamor grew until it resulted in the election of James K. Polk in 1844 on that very issue.
The industrial revolution was beginning in America, and Harriet Martineau took full note of it. locm had been invented and were making it possible for cloth to The spinning jenny and the power be made in new ways. were new tools for farming, including the reaper. Women-and The cotton gin had been invented and there men, too-who had carried on small manufacturing plants with hand tools on their farms, making the family's clothing along with the family's food supply, found it necessary to change their way of life. The growth of mill towns was taken for granted, and young women who had been earning their livelihoods at just six occupations-keeping boarders, teaching young children, typesetting, bookbinding, domestic service, and needlework-found a new occupation as weavers in the mills.
The severe financial panic in 1837 threw thousands out of work, and when Harriet Martineau visited America unemployment stories were constantly printed in the daily press. The suffrage movement was being extended, and Robert Fulton's steamboat had set a new pace; the inland waterways of America were being invaded by steamboats plowing their way through the hitherto untroubled waters. The best opportunities for men lay in the fields and forests of the far West.
And as usual men and women were facing the future with uncertainty, dreading the changes but eager to get on with them. In 1836, a young girl, living and working in Lowell, Mass, penned these lines
"Oh, isn't it a pity that such a pretty girl as I, Should be sent to the factory to pine away and die?" Thus, the working girl lamented, as she was forced out of the home and into industry. All this and more the woman journalist from England noted and went home and reported in a lengthy volume reciting the sights she had seen and the observations she had made.
3579 It was Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt, our beloved leader of suffrage and world peace, who called our attention to Harriet Martineau and her writings and urged us to observe the one-hundredth anniversary of Miss Martineau's reportorial journey, and to see how many doors are still closed to women, 100 years later. We have accepted Mrs. Catt's suggestion and our biennial convention is devoted to the theme, "One Hundred Years of Women's Progress in the United States." Our compass is the 1930 Census, and that shows that of some 535 classifications of occupations listed, women are engaged in 501, the heavy tasks, such as mining, locomotive engineers, firemen, et cetera, being completely masculine territory. And so in 100 years, women have advanced from 7 fields to 501; doors of opportunity for women are opening wider and wider, but the end is not yet, and perhaps 100 more years will pass until the world will allow women to make their best contribution, and women will be willing to make it.
In 100 years American women have come a long way, just as our country has come a long way, but we still have a journey to make, both as women and as citizens. It is noteworthy that teachers' training schools were started 100 years ago this year. Here and now we are observing the one-hundredth anniversary of women's progress, and I think it is a suitable time to take stock of where we have come from, where we wish to go, and how we are to get there. To help us evaluate these three points we appointed a committee of distinguished women. lin D. Roosevelt is honorary chairman of the committee, and Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt is vice chairman. Mrs. Frankbers are Dr. Mary E. Wooley, president emeritus of Mount Holyoke College; Mrs. Ruth Finley, author and noted publicist for the The other memRepublican Party; Ruth Comfort Mitchell, novelist and one of California's best-known daughters; the Honorable Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor; those two outstanding women in radio, Margaret Cuthbert and Helen J. Souissat; Fannie Hurst, the novelist; Miss Emma P. Hirth, general secretary of the Y. W. C. A.; President Aurelia H. Reinhardt, of Mills College, Calif.; Dr. Martha Tracy, dean of the Women's Medical College of Pennsylvania; Mrs. Mary Dillon, president of the Brooklyn Borough Gas Co.; and Mrs. Ora Snyder, manufacturer, of Chicago.
These women have had broad experience in public service and private enterprise. They represent every range of political and economic thinking, and I believe that their answers to a questionnaire which I sent them will help chart our course for the 100 years ahead.
First, I asked, "What were the chief obstacles to employment in the path of American women 100 years ago?"
Tradition seems to have been the chief stumbling block, with several important contributing causes, such as social and economic custom, lack of education, lack of training, and lack of personal initiative. I have quoted these obstacles from the considered opinion of one of the committee members, Ruth Finley, the noted writer and biographer of women of the colonial period. Mrs. Finley was formerly the editor of Guide, published by the Women's National Republican Club.
Frances Perkins has some interesting observations on that question, and I quote her:
"The lack of employment opportunities outside the home for both men and women constituted the principal obstacle to employment in 1839. This was the period, early in the industrial revolution, when women's traditional occupations were just beginning to move out of the home into factories, mills, and shops. There were few schools and most of the teachers were men, with women substituting in the summer while the men took agricultural jobs. Clerical jobs were practically nonexistent. The largest number of openings were in textile mills, where labor was scarce and wages were high. In these mills, hours were very long, and the workers were housed in dormitories under unfavorable living conditions. In 1839 there were practically no opportunities for professional women or any vocational training for women.' On the other hand, Mme. Secretary wrote: "There were cer- in social prestige-there existed no class distinction on the basis Work in factory or mill entailed no loss of 'white collar' or manual labor. to the welfare of a new nation. Factory work offered educational All work meant a contribution opportunities which were not available for women in schools of higher learning. It offered wages higher than for teaching. Horace Mann reported that women in many occupations in mills and fac- tories earned six or seven times as much as women teachers.
"Early mill workers were militant in the protection of their rights. As the real daughters of the American Revolution, they were earnestly concerned with justice and liberty in dealing with the concrete problems of their daily work life." These are the views of Frances Perkins.
Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt said in response to this question. I quote: "I should say that in 1839 the chief obstacles in the path of employment for American women were, first, the attitude held by both men and women as to the proper kind of work which women should do. Secondly, the lack of educational facilities and of training which they could obtain, and thirdly the lack of opportunities even if they obtained the education and the training." And from Ora Snyder came this opinion. I quote: "Lack of confidence in their ability and the old-fashioned opinion that women should not leave household duties or the care of the family." Dr. Martha Tracy is of the opinion that tradition was women's main stumbling block, plus the economic necessity of doing the home chores personally, including cooking and preserving foodstuffs, cleaning, laundry work, making the husband's and children's clothes, and childbearing. Dr. Tracy says that all of these obstacles have been largely conquered, and I quote her, "largely but not entirely. Childbearing will always be a factor." Ruth Finley thinks the obstacles have mainly been overcome, and Mrs. Roosevelt believes that "there is still some prejudice against women in certain lines of work for which they are naturally better equipped than men. The training today is fairly universally open to them though there are restrictions which make it a little difficult. Many more lines of work are open to women, but they have to excell." Frances Perkins made the following statement in answer to this question:
"Significant progress has been made in removing the obstacles to women's wage-earning employment that existed 100 years ago, but the job is far from complete. Eleven million women are now gainfully employed and are found in practically all occupations. Prejudice against women in the professions is gradually breaking down, and they are securing an ever greater measure of vocational opportunity. Training facilities for almost every occupational field are open to women, though the resultant job opportunities still may be relatively scarce. In recent years there has been a notable increase in the number of women in important administrative jobs in both State and Federal Governments. "However," Miss Perkins goes on to say, "because an increasing number of women must earn their livelihood and also support dependents entirely or partially, and because jobs are also scarce for men, competition is a much greater factor for women to reckon with now than it was some years ago. "Moreover, the traditional sex discriminations are still a major obstacle women encounter in their efforts to find satisfying and profitable employment. Their ability is still far from being accepted on the same plane as that of men. "Immense improvement has come about in the raising of wages, the lowering of hours, and the betterment of plant equipment; but the situation in this respect is still far from Utopian. double wage standard still prevails in a number of fields." The And now we come to the third question, "What obstacle do you believe will beset women in the next 100 years?" To this question Mrs. Finley answers, "The physical obstacle of sex, which never can be changed, and an overcrowding of the so-called economic jobs." Dr. Tracy's answer is-and I quote: "Economic competition with men, particularly in times of unemployment. The individual women's own incompetence." She also notes: "The same applies to men, but women capitalize on the 'tradition' of sex obstruction. Child bearing cannot be outmoded." Mrs. Snyder feels that "jealousy from the male sex" will be the chief obstacle for women. Most of the committee declined to commit themselves on one question, which was, "In your opinion, what has been the outstanding contribution made by American women during the past 100 years?" Ruth Finley, however, answers by saying, "Dissemination of women's news,' and she names Sarah Josepha Hale as the woman who has made the outstanding contribution of the past 100 years. She gives her reason for this as follows-and again I quote: "Prior to the radio, the national woman's magazines were the only interstate link between women. Mrs. Hale, for 50 years editor of Godey's Lady's Book, the first woman's magazine approaching Nation-wide circulation, did more to correlate and unify women's thought in this country than any other person, man or woman, in the nineteenth century." Helen Sioussat, of Columbia Broadcasting Co., said unhesitatingly, "The discovery of radium," and nominated Mme. Curie. Margaret Cuthbert believes that the political recognition of American women has been the outstanding contribution, and she nominated Susan B. Anthony. Frances Perkins wrote: "Because there have been so many important contributions by women in so many fields, it is difficult to evaluate them in such a general way as to make it possible to name only one woman."
Ora Snyder said, "Jane Addams is the woman, and her splendid work at Hull House, Chicago, in the settlement field proves it." Dr. Tracy also has a candidate. She wrote, "Mary Lyon's demonstration that women can be educated, without danger to health or other damage to their nature, is of the utmost importance." And now for my next question, for this is an inventory of women's liabilities as well as women's assets, "What have been the greatest failures of women in the past 100 years?" And again Ruth Finley out of her great wealth of research on the lives of American women answers, "Over-eagerness, evidencing a real lack
of moral stamina in many cases, to throw off the frequently monotonous responsibilities of the home." And Ruth Finley finds these failures also, "unwillingness to serve adequate apprenticeship in the economic world; lack of understanding of and consequent impatience with the slowness of the natural evolution of the now machine-made social order, and failure to assimilate experience." Frances Perkins says, "One major failure of women in the past century relates to their neglect of the use of their hard-won right to vote. Women's failure to take a more active part in American politics, as voters and as candidates for office has been a major disappointment. Women have not participated as fully as they might in labor organization. They have a most important contribution to make in this field and should become increasingly active." And she continues, "Some women have fallen down in their responsibility as employers of other persons. For example, long hours, low wages, social isolation, and exclusion from legislative protection have been characteristic of the vocation using the services of the largest single group of women workers-household employment."
And here is one of the most important questions that I asked the women who form the committee for the commemoration of 100 years of women's progress in the United States. "What are the greatest prejudices concerning women now held by the general public?" Ruth Finley gave me two answers, "Overcrowding of the wage field and consequent usurpation of jobs needed by men as the natural heads of families, and falling birth rate in the middle, and especially the native-born classes." And the First Lady of the Land answered, "It was generally thought that physically and mentally women were not equal to doing the same type of work as men.' Frances Perkins wrote thoughtfully, "Perhaps the oustanding prejudice against women 100 years ago was the general one that they were inferior beings, inferior to men physically, mentally, and economically; that it was of no importance that they be educated and granted political privileges. Under the laws of the day women were severely discriminated against in relation to property rights, in the rights of custody of children and the like. The common law, which was so often detrimental to women's interest, was accepted as the legal authority. Women were not considered experienced enough to handle any of their personal affairs, nor to participate in public affairs. "Though important progress has been made, there are still distinct evidences of a carry-over of prejudice against women that existed a century ago. With a large segment of our people, the idea still prevails that women's place is 'in the home' and the prejudice against the employment of married women is yet very strong among some groups. "At times men make much ado about women's artistic inferiority and as a consequence women have heavy competitive sledding to make a valid contribution in the field of arts.
"Though women's legal status has strengthened throughout the century, they are still in a far weaker position in this respect than are men in many States. In some cases their wages yet belong to their husbands; in others they do not share equally with their husbands in their children's custody, etc. A number of States do not permit women to serve on juries."
Margaret Cuthbert, famous radio authority, says, bluntly, "Women, given the same opportunity as men, are making the same mistakes and doing the same things that men are doing. With the freedom they now have in view of the money they control, they have done little that is unique, little that is original, little that is different, and not much that shows that women as a group are using their natural gifts to make their own lives and the lives of others more civilized-outside of a few exceptional women."
Mrs. Snyder thinks that men's lack of confidence in women's ability will be the chief obstacle for women in the future. Dr. Tracy concurs in this, saying: "Men's age-old prejudice that women were physically and intellectually inferior still holds, though much diluted and localized."
And now I come to the heart of my questionnaire, for, having gathered the opinions of these women, I wanted to find out what we can do about it as business and professional women. So I asked all of them, "In your opinion, what is the best way for business and professional women to educate the general public as to the fact that these prejudices are not factually founded?" Here is what some of them answered:
Dr. Tracy: "By accepting opportunities for work and giving competent performance. Not by talking about it." Mrs. Snyder: "Instruct the public that we believe in equality, and we want a chance to demonstrate what we can do on an equal footing." Mrs. Roosevelt: "In my opinion, the best education is the education which makes people acquainted with the facts, and the facts can be furnished today through studies made by the various people interested in labor and in woman's position." Miss Perkins: "Probably the best educational method consists of clear demonstrations of women's ability in many fields." Mary Dillon: "To succeed as individuals in the jobs they hold." And Ruth Finley: "Probably the best way for the fit and capable business and professional woman to combat this general attitude (which is growing with appalling rapidity) is to recognize the inevitable weeding-out process of evolution now and back that recognition with the weight of opinion and influence. Always women have worked outside as well as in the home. In 1839 the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
proportion was overbalanced in favor of the home, with many resultant personal misfits and family or group hardships. "Now the pendulum has swung too far the other way, and in 1939 the opposite proportion of overbalance has created more personal misfits and family group hardships than ever before. History has proved that one of the primary social laws is the maintaining or restoration of balance. It seems to me that nothing could give women a more solid foundation for their future as free citizens than their voluntary and immediate recognition of this law."
"Example" is what counts most, Margaret Cuthbert feels. "Deeds more important than words," she writes, "giving proof that women are not personal and prejudiced in business; relating the complex fabric of civilization to the persons for whom, after all, it exists." She points out that "it is not through individual achievement that women are going to serve as they will serve, but in proportion as they emphasize and express cooperation. brave new world must be a man's and woman's world." This
And with these opinions behind us, I asked, "What type of education do you believe will be best suited to women in the next century?" And here are the answers: From Mrs. Snyder, "A practical education and training for a business or professional career.' Mary Dillon's answer is succinct. as men, a rounded cultural background, plus specific training in I quote her exactly: "Same the field of their vocation."
From Dr. Tracy: "Just such an education as will fit any adult to be an intelligent and tolerant citizen and a thorough performer in the lot to which circumstances and her own ability will call her."
Ruth Finley advocates: "A scholastic education to enable women to participate in and understand and enjoy modern civilization; domestic science and child care; professional or occupational training according to the talent of the individual." Frances Perkins says, "Because of our many new means of communication, nation with nation and locality with locality, people touch each other at many more points than they used to. For this reason education needs to be broader. needs to be realistic, too. Education national life to the full they must know science and economics If women are to participate in our as well as the so-called cultural subjects. Education should produce attitudes of liberalism and democracy as well as the absorption of factual data." And, "What tools for advancement do you think women need most during the next century?" I asked them. answers education, individual adequacy, a change in the ecoHere are some of the nomic condition of the country, health maintenance, the removal of legislative restriction against women. recommended and these are the tools we must acquire. These are the tools of all the tools, individual adequacy was stressed the most. When I asked, "Why are not more office after 2 decades of enfranchisement?" women holding public of the committee held decided opinions. Madame Secretary wrote I found that many as follows: "It cannot be said fairly that either men or women are to blame, rather a number of circumstances are involved. The old concept of women's inferiority in any role other than that of homemaker is doubtless responsible for the fact that very few women are elected or appointed to public office. "However, because of lingering prejudices in respect to women's holding public positions the woman who runs for and holds such office needs to be more outstanding and better qualified than the average man with whom she competes. must be competent, a Where a man women themselves have not in general enlarged their concept woman must be exceptional. Moreover, of what constitutes women's work to have it cover public service to any considerable degree.
"A second reason, I believe, that so few women run for office has to do with the rather low regard many people in this country hold for the mechanics of politics. Women have tended to shy away from practical politics and concentrate in their organizations on nonpartisan politics. In the third place, women as yet have achieved no solidarity as women toward the end of putting those of their sex into public office."
Dr. Tracy feels that there are not more women holding public office because of, and I quote her, "lack of qualifications and very often unwillingness or inability to accept responsibility and to sacrifice personal and home obligations to the requirements of public office."
Mrs. Snyder feels that the reason lies in the fact that "men do not want women in public office, and fight their election." Ruth Finley holds out some comfort for us. whole women are still unfitted and incapable with, of course, She says, "On the notable exceptions. Public prejudice and lack of confidence due to a long established custom have held women back. what is 20 years of enfranchisement as against the more than After all, 2,000 years of masculine training and practice in the art of governing?"
And echo answers, what indeed? And here is Margaret Cuthbert's opinion, I quote, "It is not important that they do hold more offices. that they use their influence and power for better government. It is more important If women choose to do this, men cannot stop them."
There were just two more questions on my list, first, "In what field do you believe women will make the greatest contribution during the next century?"
3581 The answers include, the preservation of the home as a national unit, public administration, social welfare, social sciences, human welfare, and the defense of democratic institutions.
And my final question, "What in your opinion can woman do to bring about the settlement of disputes between nations by peaceful methods?" The answers include, first, education; second, through participation in international organizations like the Y. W. C. A., the Associated Country Women of the World, which demonstrate the value of the conference method; through emphasizing the similarities of people rather than the differences; by encouraging tolerance and the settlement of every disagreement by arbitration; by demanding peace actively and aggressively. "War can be banished just as dueling was banished," Ruth Finley advises me. "Where women will there is always a way." And now, delegates to the convention, you have heard the opinions of some of the members of the committee. time this evening for all to be given you. There was not stood 100 years ago, where we stand today, and what we must do You know where we in the years ahead. whole subject further, and distinguished speakers will give us Throughout this week we will consider the further and more intensive interpretations. I noted that the names of just five women were suggested as having made the outstanding contributions of the past century— Sarah Josepha Hale, Mary Lyon, Susan B. Anthony, Jane Addams, and Mme. Curie, the latter, of course, not an American. list I would add two others-Dr. Anna Howard Shaw and Carrie To that Chapman Catt. That is the chief roll of honor of the past century as I see it.
Where we have come from we know. Where we are going is known only to Him who knows all. of American women is indissolubly united with the future of our We do know that the future country, just as the contributions of the women of the past have been entwined with the history of the progress of America. We have made great opportunities for women and we have had great opportunities made for us. we fail now, we can only echo Shakespeare's words, "The fault, Many doors are open to us. If dear Brutus, is in ourselves, not in our stars, if we are underlings."
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: EXCESS GOVERNMENT SPENDING COVERED BY PRINTING BONDS (By Wadsworth W. Mount, Assistant Director of Research, the
As long as the Government can spend all the money it wants to, over and above what it takes in from taxes, merely by printing Government bonds, selling these to the banks, and then drawing checks against them, how can we ever hope to stop extravagant Government spending?
And when the Government spends these billions in such ways that private citizens do not know which way to turn to make money, and therefore have comparatively little need to borrow from the banks on safe terms, where else can banks invest your money on deposit but in Government bonds?
A banker knows that when the United States Government prints a Government bond it says in effect that the Government will tax the people of the United States to make it good. fore, that Government bonds are the soundest security in the He knows, therecountry, just so long as we do not issue too many of them and have inflation. Before the Government started spending several billions more each year than it took in from taxes, the savings banks, for instance, could safely lend your money, largely to people who wanted to spend it for private or business uses, at a high enough rate of interest to cover their expenses and pay you 4 percent. ent conditions, however, one of the few remaining safe places to Under pres
invest bank funds is in Government bonds. Therefore, as the interest rate on long-term Treasury bonds has been lowered until their average yield is now approximately 2 percent, at present about all the savings banks can safely get for the use of your money is enough to provide for necessary expenses and reserves and pay you only 2 percent, or even less, on your deposits. The Treasury has just announced that to pay off some $426,000,000 of outstanding obligations which are due in September and now carry an interest rate of 1% percent it will offer in exchange new "notes" due in 5 years which will pay only three-fourths of 1 percent.
A New York investment firm recently showed that Treasury obligations maturing in a little more than 2 years now afford a yield of only one one-hundredth of 1 percent. At this rate of return, it was pointed out that "an investor would have to hold more than $144,000 par value to provide an income sufficient to buy his morning newspaper each day; he would have to hold $558,000 to provide enough funds to buy a daily package of cigarettes." As the average interest rate on all Federal obligations is lowered, those having money in savings accounts and insurance policies which represent their personally saved "social security" have their interest earnings also reduced, as a large part of such funds are invested in Government bonds.
This means, therefore, that it will take you longer to pay for your life insurance, as the annual dividends will be less or the premiums will be more. Some people think that only the taxpayers of future generations will have to pay for the present Government spending. However, if you own a savings-bank account you are paying right now for the increased national debt by getting one-half or less of the amount of interest you used to receive, and the trend is still downward.
This means then that if, for example, you were trying to put in the savings bank enough money to give you $2,000-a-year income, you will now have to save $100,000 or more, where when savings banks were able to invest your money safely and pay you 4 percent you would only have had to save $50,000 to get this same income. Everyone in the Nation has to pay one way or another for the money our Government officials are instructed to spend. Some pay taxes directly, but everyone pays indirectly for all Government services. The Government has nothing to give to the people except what it gets from the people.
The question is not whether these are desirable Government functions.
The question is whether the country wants expansion of Government, which must be paid for by increased taxes. Or wants expansion of business, which pays in jobs and wages. For the increased money that now goes into Government spending is the money that formerly went into new and improved products, new and enlarged factories, bigger pay rolls and dividends. There isn't enough in the earned dollar to go both ways. Business the production and distribution of goods-is the only thing that can create new wealth. Less taxes; more jobs.
THIRTY CENTS FOR "INDEPENDENCE," JULY 4, 1939 Here, then, in broad strokes is the state of the Nation today. Each of the 60 countries of the world requires around two-thirds of its productive work, its income, to pay for the necessities, food, shelter, clothing. This 65 percent is true of a country regardless of its living standards, India on the one extreme, the United States with the highest standards on the other. What of the 35 cents left after the sustenance of life? In that answer lie most of our troublesome problems today. Consider three pictures:
Until recently the people of the United States disposed of their 35 cents in this way. Five cents, at the turn of the century, was all that was required to pay for expenses of government-State, Federal, and local. Of the remaining 30 cents, about half went into the hands of managers of business enterprises which was about equally divided by them in expanding old industries and promoting and developing new ones such as radio, rayon, automobile. Much of this 15 cents remained in the hands of the people in the form of investment, productive wealth represented by stocks and bonds and life-insurance equities. The remaining 15 cents was used to buy the products of this increased industrial activity, thus driving upward standards of living and making one-time luxuries the conveniences and even necessities denied the rest of the world.
Second picture: What of the 35 cents which remained to the peoples of the other 59 countries? Since time immemorial around 30 cents was used for government expenses. A hazardous 5 cents was left as free capital. This gives point to the sentient statement of former President Hadley, of Yale, that the supremacy of the United States was due to the fact that it could afford to take chances upon development as no other country could afford to do. Five cents as against 30 cents as a backlog. Why did the Old World require 30 cents of the earnings of their people for government? For policing. External policing, the fear of land-grabbing, wealth-grabbing neighbor aggressors, whose people were in constant fear of being deprived of the bare necessities. Third picture: What is the situation in the United States today? Sixty-five cents for the necessities. Of the 35 remaining, 30 for governments (25 collected in taxes, 5 borrowed). Ten cents for investment and the lifting of living standards.
Why the great increase in government costs? Not to relieve distress and unemployment, as generally stated and believed. Only one dollar in six of Federal expenditures is for relief. The great increase in taxation and borrowing, which has brought overnight the allocation of the earned dollar to a level almost to that of other countries, is for policing. Against foreign aggressors? No. For protection against an alleged aggression and oppression on the part of business management. Internal "policing." Policing ourselves against ourselves.
Every act of those engaged in stimulating us to trade our labor, services, and products is now under surveillance, from the time a commission checks the project to the time another bureau passes upon the label to go on the package. Policing, in another form, such as protection against the private electric bulb by Government "yardstick" operation. Policing of banks, labor relations, aviation, oil, coal, lumber, telephones, retailers, stock and grain exchanges, insurance. Policing of States and communities as to the manner in which they handle their social problems. Policing in another form as exemplified in the published statistics that the Federal Government received 153,000,000 compulsory reports from business management last year. Policing as expressed in the $76,000,000-a sum equal to one-sixth of total passenger revenuesspent by Washington in travel expenses of its inspectors, regulators, investigators in 1 calendar year. These three pictures are true pictures. They point the trend to a static society, a "planned economy," to "frontiers gone forever." We, the people, perhaps planned it that way, a road to centralized authority over, and policing of, the individual. But perhaps we did not count the cost; unemployment still with us, management, which brings dreams into being, and men and jobs together, and more conveniences and luxuries for more people, now disheartened and bewildered, unable to see 30 days down the road because of the new policing machinery we have set up, whereby 137 boards, bureaus, commissions, Federal incorporations and authorities now pass laws daily in the form of rules and regulations. Little government, with little expense and little policing, brought the United States the highest standard of living the world has ever seen. Perhaps the founders were wrong in building that way, indignant and angry as they were against a ruler demanding more taxes and more power, who, as a famous declaration set forth, had "erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." Page 5Page 6
There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
I want to talk to you about education and the need for securing Federal aid for our schools. At a time when the present State administration in Wisconsin is preparing to cut nearly $2,000,000 out of our school budgets, I think it is absolutely necessary for us all to give the matter some very serious attention. The problem of maintaining fair and proper educational opportunities for our boys and girls in the next 2 years is going to demand some sort of outside assistance if the State government will not assume its rightful share of the responsibility. I am a firm believer in "economy" if by economy is meant making the most of what resources we have at our disposal and eliminating waste. But I fail to see any economy in a pinch-penny policy that is willing to sacrifice the rights of our young people to a full education simply for a few paltry pieces of silver. The greatest resource America has is its people, and we owe it to ourselves as a nation to see to it that the talents and abilities of the young are developed to the highest degree possible by means of adequate educational opportunities.
To hear some people talk, one might think that we have been extravagant in the support of our schools during the last few years, but actually in the country as a whole we are spending about $350,000,000 less for education than we were in 1930, in spite of the fact that high-school enrollment, where the expense is heaviest, has been increased by over 1,575,000 students. In Wisconsin we have been more fortunate, up until the present time, than the people in other States. In 1935 Wisconsin restored its State school aids to their former levels, and in the years that followed much was done to repair the damage suffered by our educational system as a result of depression retrenchment. Now, however, as a result of the action being taken by the new State administration, we are back face to face with the old problem
again. There is a bill before Congress at the present time which would provide, if enacted, a program of Federal aid to States for the support of their schools and the equalization of educational opportunity throughout the Nation. Under the estimated apportionment of the appropriation submitted with the bill, the enactment of this program could mean as much as $1,200,000 for Wisconsin next year and still more in succeeding years. Such a program is important to the whole Nation. One of the main foundation stones of democracy is equality of educational opportunity. That means public schools available to every man's son or daughter from kindergarten right on up through the university. If we allow a situation to develop where higher education is open only to those people of wealth who can afford to send their children to private schools, it will lead inevitably toward a class division in this country, with the educated, wealthy few on one side of the fence and a resentful, uneducated multitude on the other side. That sort of a situation is as dangerous as it is unnecessary.
Today there are between 800,000 and a million children of grade-school age who are not going to school. Most of them have no school to go to. There are approximately 3,000,000 people in the country who are totally illiterate, who can neither read nor write. And if you passed a newspaper around the Nation, you would find that as many as 15,000,000 adults couldn't read it. Those same people cannot write the simplest of letters. Believe it or not, there are more illiterates in America than there are college graduates.
An analysis of teachers' salaries shows another astounding condition. Considering the range by States, the State having the highest average salary for teachers has an average of only $2,414 per year, and on the other extreme is a State where teachers receive an average salary of only $504 per year. The average salary for teachers in rural communities is correspondingly still lower. For rural teachers the top average is only $1,337 and the bottom average is a bare $430.
When you realize how important is the teacher to whom parents entrust their children for education and guidance, it is surprising that the public has allowed such a condition to exist. If we are to secure the best kind of people to be the teachers of our children, we must be prepared to pay them enough so that they can afford to pass up opportunities in other fields and devote themselves to teaching.
The problem is worse in some States than in others. Some States are wealthy while others are poor, and unfortunately it appears that the States which are least able to maintain adequate schools have the greatest number of children in proportion to adult population. The President's Advisory Committee on Education has made a thorough study of this problem, and it reports a variation so large that the richest State in the Union has a per capita taxpaying ability to support schools which is 12 times the ability of the poorest State. This is not the fault of the individual States. It is a question of wealth. Our modern commercial life has outgrown even State boundaries. Much of our wealth has been drained away from the producing areas of the Nation into the financial centers of the country. As a result, the per capita wealth of some eastern States,
for instance, is all out of proportion to their actual physical contribution to the Nation's production. In order to recapture this wealth for the States from which it came in the first place, the Federal Government must reach it through Federal taxes and return it to the States by means of grants-in-aid. Senate bill 1305 now before the Congress proposes a 6-year program of Federal aids for education in the States. It authorizes an appropriation of approximately $75,000,000 for such purposes during the next fiscal year and increasing amounts for the succeeding years until an appropriation of $208,000,000 is reached for the fiscal year ending in 1945. This money would go toward the support of public elementary and secondary schools, improved teacher preparation, construction of school buildings, administration of State departments of education, adult education, rural-library service, and educational research.
It would not involve any sort of Federal control over the schools. The bill specifically provides that all matters of school administration, curriculum, methods of instruction, personnel, and the determination of the best uses for the funds granted shall be left to the control of the States and their local subdivisions. In order to qualify for the grants each State would simply have to establish a plan for distributing funds to the local school districts in such a way that the aim of the Federal program, the equalization of educational opportunity, would be carried out. In this way the Federal Government would be assured that the neediest communities of the State would get the greatest benefits from the funds granted.
The only other condition of importance to Wisconsin which would have to be met before the funds could be made available under the terms of this bill is the requirement that the State provide funds for these purposes in amounts at least equal to the sums provided in 1938.
The funds to be appropriated under this plan are to be divided among the States according to their respective educational loads and their respective financial abilities. The educational load of each State would be computed from estimates by the Bureau of the Census each year of the number of children of school age in the State. The financial ability of each State would be computed by the Secretary of the Treasury on the basis of certain standards prescribed in the bill. By balancing the State's school load against its financial ability, its financial need under the plan is determined, and the funds are allocated in accordance with this need.
The Senate Committee on Education and Labor has held hearings on the bill and has reported it favorably to the Senate for passage. At the hearings representatives of the leading educational organizations in this country, representing both parents and teachers, appeared and urged that the Federal Government undertake such a program. I feel that a program of this kind should receive the unselfish support of every public-spirited citizen. Education is one of those things which we cannot postpone to suit our convenience. Every year that goes by means a certain number of boys and girls who have either passed beyond school age or have been forced by circumstances to undertake responsibilities which will If their education was prevent their ever going back to school. neglected during the years when they could have gone to school, the chances are they will carry that handicap with them all through life. The rural areas are the hardest hit. It is an established fact that it costs more to provide proper educational facilities in the country than in the city. We know also that there are more children, in proportion to adult population, in the rural areas than in the cities. Yet in spite of that fact the best educational opportunities are being provided for children in the cities. "Equalization of educational opportunity" means not only establishing more uniformity of educational opportunities among the 48 States; it also means bringing financial aid to the rural schools so that the farmers and the people in the small communities can give their children as good an education as the children in the cities get.
If we are going to make democracy work in America, we must always have an intelligent, educated, informed citizenry. If we neglect the education of our young people now, even for a little while, we are going to pay dearly for it in the future. In Wisconsin we have a very definite problem. The budget of the university alone is being cut over a million dollars in the face of increased enrollment and long-delayed needs for expansion. A similar cut is being imposed upon the State teachers' colleges. Unless corrected, this will result in one of two things either fees will have to be raised and it will become that much harder for farmers and working people to send their children to school, or standards will have to be lowered and they will get just that much less for their money.
The program of Federal aid which I have outlined to you will not in any way make up for all the State's failures in this respect but it will help some. The Federal program is primarily concerned with elementary and secondary education, but, indirectly at least, it will aid by taking some of the budgetary pressure off our public institutions of higher education.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
Mr. HARRISON. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the RECORD a speech delivered by Miss Earlene White, at the biennial convention of the National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, Inc., at Kansas City, Mo., on July 9, 1939, on the subject of professional women. There being no objection, the speech was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
It was a bright, sunny morning in the 1830's. A distinguished looking woman, traveling alone, her full skirts discreetly sweeping the ground, her corkscrew curls hanging coyly beneath her bonnet, alighted from a packet boat, having made the trip from England to America in about 40 days.
The woman was Harriet Martineau, a friend of the Carlyles, a trained observer and commentator who came to America in search of new copy. Tired, for a time, of the life in London, she realized that comparatively little was known of the new land which had once been an English colony and was now attracting English and Scotch immigrants in great numbers. She set foot in little old New York, which was then a thriving community, without skyscrapers or bridges to connect the island of Manhattan with its neighborhood boroughs. True, the Astors had begun to make a fortune as fur traders, and Commodore Vanderbilt had found it profitable to pilot a ferry between Staten and Manhattan Islands; nevertheless, New York had little resemblance to the great present-day city of the North American Continent.
And what of the North American Continent upon which Harriet Martineau gazed? She came to America just after the Lewis and Clark expedition had blazed a trail to the Pacific and fur traders were following the Oregon Trail across the mountains.
American missionaries and farmers were quick to follow. The Northern States were clamoring for the annexation of Oregon to the Union and the South was clamoring for Texas. annexation were so vociferous that the slogan of "Fifty-four-Forty or Fight" was to be heard everywhere, as the citizens of the new The advocates of Nation, greedy for land, clamored for the extension of American territory to further latitudes. The clamor grew until it resulted in the election of James K. Polk in 1844 on that very issue.
The industrial revolution was beginning in America, and Harriet Martineau took full note of it. locm had been invented and were making it possible for cloth to The spinning jenny and the power be made in new ways. were new tools for farming, including the reaper. Women-and The cotton gin had been invented and there men, too-who had carried on small manufacturing plants with hand tools on their farms, making the family's clothing along with the family's food supply, found it necessary to change their way of life. The growth of mill towns was taken for granted, and young women who had been earning their livelihoods at just six occupations-keeping boarders, teaching young children, typesetting, bookbinding, domestic service, and needlework-found a new occupation as weavers in the mills.
The severe financial panic in 1837 threw thousands out of work, and when Harriet Martineau visited America unemployment stories were constantly printed in the daily press. The suffrage movement was being extended, and Robert Fulton's steamboat had set a new pace; the inland waterways of America were being invaded by steamboats plowing their way through the hitherto untroubled waters. The best opportunities for men lay in the fields and forests of the far West.
And as usual men and women were facing the future with uncertainty, dreading the changes but eager to get on with them. In 1836, a young girl, living and working in Lowell, Mass, penned these lines
"Oh, isn't it a pity that such a pretty girl as I, Should be sent to the factory to pine away and die?" Thus, the working girl lamented, as she was forced out of the home and into industry. All this and more the woman journalist from England noted and went home and reported in a lengthy volume reciting the sights she had seen and the observations she had made.
3579 It was Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt, our beloved leader of suffrage and world peace, who called our attention to Harriet Martineau and her writings and urged us to observe the one-hundredth anniversary of Miss Martineau's reportorial journey, and to see how many doors are still closed to women, 100 years later. We have accepted Mrs. Catt's suggestion and our biennial convention is devoted to the theme, "One Hundred Years of Women's Progress in the United States." Our compass is the 1930 Census, and that shows that of some 535 classifications of occupations listed, women are engaged in 501, the heavy tasks, such as mining, locomotive engineers, firemen, et cetera, being completely masculine territory. And so in 100 years, women have advanced from 7 fields to 501; doors of opportunity for women are opening wider and wider, but the end is not yet, and perhaps 100 more years will pass until the world will allow women to make their best contribution, and women will be willing to make it.
In 100 years American women have come a long way, just as our country has come a long way, but we still have a journey to make, both as women and as citizens. It is noteworthy that teachers' training schools were started 100 years ago this year. Here and now we are observing the one-hundredth anniversary of women's progress, and I think it is a suitable time to take stock of where we have come from, where we wish to go, and how we are to get there. To help us evaluate these three points we appointed a committee of distinguished women. lin D. Roosevelt is honorary chairman of the committee, and Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt is vice chairman. Mrs. Frankbers are Dr. Mary E. Wooley, president emeritus of Mount Holyoke College; Mrs. Ruth Finley, author and noted publicist for the The other memRepublican Party; Ruth Comfort Mitchell, novelist and one of California's best-known daughters; the Honorable Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor; those two outstanding women in radio, Margaret Cuthbert and Helen J. Souissat; Fannie Hurst, the novelist; Miss Emma P. Hirth, general secretary of the Y. W. C. A.; President Aurelia H. Reinhardt, of Mills College, Calif.; Dr. Martha Tracy, dean of the Women's Medical College of Pennsylvania; Mrs. Mary Dillon, president of the Brooklyn Borough Gas Co.; and Mrs. Ora Snyder, manufacturer, of Chicago.
These women have had broad experience in public service and private enterprise. They represent every range of political and economic thinking, and I believe that their answers to a questionnaire which I sent them will help chart our course for the 100 years ahead.
First, I asked, "What were the chief obstacles to employment in the path of American women 100 years ago?"
Tradition seems to have been the chief stumbling block, with several important contributing causes, such as social and economic custom, lack of education, lack of training, and lack of personal initiative. I have quoted these obstacles from the considered opinion of one of the committee members, Ruth Finley, the noted writer and biographer of women of the colonial period. Mrs. Finley was formerly the editor of Guide, published by the Women's National Republican Club.
Frances Perkins has some interesting observations on that question, and I quote her:
"The lack of employment opportunities outside the home for both men and women constituted the principal obstacle to employment in 1839. This was the period, early in the industrial revolution, when women's traditional occupations were just beginning to move out of the home into factories, mills, and shops. There were few schools and most of the teachers were men, with women substituting in the summer while the men took agricultural jobs. Clerical jobs were practically nonexistent. The largest number of openings were in textile mills, where labor was scarce and wages were high. In these mills, hours were very long, and the workers were housed in dormitories under unfavorable living conditions. In 1839 there were practically no opportunities for professional women or any vocational training for women.' On the other hand, Mme. Secretary wrote: "There were cer- in social prestige-there existed no class distinction on the basis Work in factory or mill entailed no loss of 'white collar' or manual labor. to the welfare of a new nation. Factory work offered educational All work meant a contribution opportunities which were not available for women in schools of higher learning. It offered wages higher than for teaching. Horace Mann reported that women in many occupations in mills and fac- tories earned six or seven times as much as women teachers.
"Early mill workers were militant in the protection of their rights. As the real daughters of the American Revolution, they were earnestly concerned with justice and liberty in dealing with the concrete problems of their daily work life." These are the views of Frances Perkins.
Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt said in response to this question. I quote: "I should say that in 1839 the chief obstacles in the path of employment for American women were, first, the attitude held by both men and women as to the proper kind of work which women should do. Secondly, the lack of educational facilities and of training which they could obtain, and thirdly the lack of opportunities even if they obtained the education and the training." And from Ora Snyder came this opinion. I quote: "Lack of confidence in their ability and the old-fashioned opinion that women should not leave household duties or the care of the family." Dr. Martha Tracy is of the opinion that tradition was women's main stumbling block, plus the economic necessity of doing the home chores personally, including cooking and preserving foodstuffs, cleaning, laundry work, making the husband's and children's clothes, and childbearing. Dr. Tracy says that all of these obstacles have been largely conquered, and I quote her, "largely but not entirely. Childbearing will always be a factor." Ruth Finley thinks the obstacles have mainly been overcome, and Mrs. Roosevelt believes that "there is still some prejudice against women in certain lines of work for which they are naturally better equipped than men. The training today is fairly universally open to them though there are restrictions which make it a little difficult. Many more lines of work are open to women, but they have to excell." Frances Perkins made the following statement in answer to this question:
"Significant progress has been made in removing the obstacles to women's wage-earning employment that existed 100 years ago, but the job is far from complete. Eleven million women are now gainfully employed and are found in practically all occupations. Prejudice against women in the professions is gradually breaking down, and they are securing an ever greater measure of vocational opportunity. Training facilities for almost every occupational field are open to women, though the resultant job opportunities still may be relatively scarce. In recent years there has been a notable increase in the number of women in important administrative jobs in both State and Federal Governments. "However," Miss Perkins goes on to say, "because an increasing number of women must earn their livelihood and also support dependents entirely or partially, and because jobs are also scarce for men, competition is a much greater factor for women to reckon with now than it was some years ago. "Moreover, the traditional sex discriminations are still a major obstacle women encounter in their efforts to find satisfying and profitable employment. Their ability is still far from being accepted on the same plane as that of men. "Immense improvement has come about in the raising of wages, the lowering of hours, and the betterment of plant equipment; but the situation in this respect is still far from Utopian. double wage standard still prevails in a number of fields." The And now we come to the third question, "What obstacle do you believe will beset women in the next 100 years?" To this question Mrs. Finley answers, "The physical obstacle of sex, which never can be changed, and an overcrowding of the so-called economic jobs." Dr. Tracy's answer is-and I quote: "Economic competition with men, particularly in times of unemployment. The individual women's own incompetence." She also notes: "The same applies to men, but women capitalize on the 'tradition' of sex obstruction. Child bearing cannot be outmoded." Mrs. Snyder feels that "jealousy from the male sex" will be the chief obstacle for women. Most of the committee declined to commit themselves on one question, which was, "In your opinion, what has been the outstanding contribution made by American women during the past 100 years?" Ruth Finley, however, answers by saying, "Dissemination of women's news,' and she names Sarah Josepha Hale as the woman who has made the outstanding contribution of the past 100 years. She gives her reason for this as follows-and again I quote: "Prior to the radio, the national woman's magazines were the only interstate link between women. Mrs. Hale, for 50 years editor of Godey's Lady's Book, the first woman's magazine approaching Nation-wide circulation, did more to correlate and unify women's thought in this country than any other person, man or woman, in the nineteenth century." Helen Sioussat, of Columbia Broadcasting Co., said unhesitatingly, "The discovery of radium," and nominated Mme. Curie. Margaret Cuthbert believes that the political recognition of American women has been the outstanding contribution, and she nominated Susan B. Anthony. Frances Perkins wrote: "Because there have been so many important contributions by women in so many fields, it is difficult to evaluate them in such a general way as to make it possible to name only one woman."
Ora Snyder said, "Jane Addams is the woman, and her splendid work at Hull House, Chicago, in the settlement field proves it." Dr. Tracy also has a candidate. She wrote, "Mary Lyon's demonstration that women can be educated, without danger to health or other damage to their nature, is of the utmost importance." And now for my next question, for this is an inventory of women's liabilities as well as women's assets, "What have been the greatest failures of women in the past 100 years?" And again Ruth Finley out of her great wealth of research on the lives of American women answers, "Over-eagerness, evidencing a real lack
of moral stamina in many cases, to throw off the frequently monotonous responsibilities of the home." And Ruth Finley finds these failures also, "unwillingness to serve adequate apprenticeship in the economic world; lack of understanding of and consequent impatience with the slowness of the natural evolution of the now machine-made social order, and failure to assimilate experience." Frances Perkins says, "One major failure of women in the past century relates to their neglect of the use of their hard-won right to vote. Women's failure to take a more active part in American politics, as voters and as candidates for office has been a major disappointment. Women have not participated as fully as they might in labor organization. They have a most important contribution to make in this field and should become increasingly active." And she continues, "Some women have fallen down in their responsibility as employers of other persons. For example, long hours, low wages, social isolation, and exclusion from legislative protection have been characteristic of the vocation using the services of the largest single group of women workers-household employment."
And here is one of the most important questions that I asked the women who form the committee for the commemoration of 100 years of women's progress in the United States. "What are the greatest prejudices concerning women now held by the general public?" Ruth Finley gave me two answers, "Overcrowding of the wage field and consequent usurpation of jobs needed by men as the natural heads of families, and falling birth rate in the middle, and especially the native-born classes." And the First Lady of the Land answered, "It was generally thought that physically and mentally women were not equal to doing the same type of work as men.' Frances Perkins wrote thoughtfully, "Perhaps the oustanding prejudice against women 100 years ago was the general one that they were inferior beings, inferior to men physically, mentally, and economically; that it was of no importance that they be educated and granted political privileges. Under the laws of the day women were severely discriminated against in relation to property rights, in the rights of custody of children and the like. The common law, which was so often detrimental to women's interest, was accepted as the legal authority. Women were not considered experienced enough to handle any of their personal affairs, nor to participate in public affairs. "Though important progress has been made, there are still distinct evidences of a carry-over of prejudice against women that existed a century ago. With a large segment of our people, the idea still prevails that women's place is 'in the home' and the prejudice against the employment of married women is yet very strong among some groups. "At times men make much ado about women's artistic inferiority and as a consequence women have heavy competitive sledding to make a valid contribution in the field of arts.
"Though women's legal status has strengthened throughout the century, they are still in a far weaker position in this respect than are men in many States. In some cases their wages yet belong to their husbands; in others they do not share equally with their husbands in their children's custody, etc. A number of States do not permit women to serve on juries."
Margaret Cuthbert, famous radio authority, says, bluntly, "Women, given the same opportunity as men, are making the same mistakes and doing the same things that men are doing. With the freedom they now have in view of the money they control, they have done little that is unique, little that is original, little that is different, and not much that shows that women as a group are using their natural gifts to make their own lives and the lives of others more civilized-outside of a few exceptional women."
Mrs. Snyder thinks that men's lack of confidence in women's ability will be the chief obstacle for women in the future. Dr. Tracy concurs in this, saying: "Men's age-old prejudice that women were physically and intellectually inferior still holds, though much diluted and localized."
And now I come to the heart of my questionnaire, for, having gathered the opinions of these women, I wanted to find out what we can do about it as business and professional women. So I asked all of them, "In your opinion, what is the best way for business and professional women to educate the general public as to the fact that these prejudices are not factually founded?" Here is what some of them answered:
Dr. Tracy: "By accepting opportunities for work and giving competent performance. Not by talking about it." Mrs. Snyder: "Instruct the public that we believe in equality, and we want a chance to demonstrate what we can do on an equal footing." Mrs. Roosevelt: "In my opinion, the best education is the education which makes people acquainted with the facts, and the facts can be furnished today through studies made by the various people interested in labor and in woman's position." Miss Perkins: "Probably the best educational method consists of clear demonstrations of women's ability in many fields." Mary Dillon: "To succeed as individuals in the jobs they hold." And Ruth Finley: "Probably the best way for the fit and capable business and professional woman to combat this general attitude (which is growing with appalling rapidity) is to recognize the inevitable weeding-out process of evolution now and back that recognition with the weight of opinion and influence. Always women have worked outside as well as in the home. In 1839 the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
proportion was overbalanced in favor of the home, with many resultant personal misfits and family or group hardships. "Now the pendulum has swung too far the other way, and in 1939 the opposite proportion of overbalance has created more personal misfits and family group hardships than ever before. History has proved that one of the primary social laws is the maintaining or restoration of balance. It seems to me that nothing could give women a more solid foundation for their future as free citizens than their voluntary and immediate recognition of this law."
"Example" is what counts most, Margaret Cuthbert feels. "Deeds more important than words," she writes, "giving proof that women are not personal and prejudiced in business; relating the complex fabric of civilization to the persons for whom, after all, it exists." She points out that "it is not through individual achievement that women are going to serve as they will serve, but in proportion as they emphasize and express cooperation. brave new world must be a man's and woman's world." This
And with these opinions behind us, I asked, "What type of education do you believe will be best suited to women in the next century?" And here are the answers: From Mrs. Snyder, "A practical education and training for a business or professional career.' Mary Dillon's answer is succinct. as men, a rounded cultural background, plus specific training in I quote her exactly: "Same the field of their vocation."
From Dr. Tracy: "Just such an education as will fit any adult to be an intelligent and tolerant citizen and a thorough performer in the lot to which circumstances and her own ability will call her."
Ruth Finley advocates: "A scholastic education to enable women to participate in and understand and enjoy modern civilization; domestic science and child care; professional or occupational training according to the talent of the individual." Frances Perkins says, "Because of our many new means of communication, nation with nation and locality with locality, people touch each other at many more points than they used to. For this reason education needs to be broader. needs to be realistic, too. Education national life to the full they must know science and economics If women are to participate in our as well as the so-called cultural subjects. Education should produce attitudes of liberalism and democracy as well as the absorption of factual data." And, "What tools for advancement do you think women need most during the next century?" I asked them. answers education, individual adequacy, a change in the ecoHere are some of the nomic condition of the country, health maintenance, the removal of legislative restriction against women. recommended and these are the tools we must acquire. These are the tools of all the tools, individual adequacy was stressed the most. When I asked, "Why are not more office after 2 decades of enfranchisement?" women holding public of the committee held decided opinions. Madame Secretary wrote I found that many as follows: "It cannot be said fairly that either men or women are to blame, rather a number of circumstances are involved. The old concept of women's inferiority in any role other than that of homemaker is doubtless responsible for the fact that very few women are elected or appointed to public office. "However, because of lingering prejudices in respect to women's holding public positions the woman who runs for and holds such office needs to be more outstanding and better qualified than the average man with whom she competes. must be competent, a Where a man women themselves have not in general enlarged their concept woman must be exceptional. Moreover, of what constitutes women's work to have it cover public service to any considerable degree.
"A second reason, I believe, that so few women run for office has to do with the rather low regard many people in this country hold for the mechanics of politics. Women have tended to shy away from practical politics and concentrate in their organizations on nonpartisan politics. In the third place, women as yet have achieved no solidarity as women toward the end of putting those of their sex into public office."
Dr. Tracy feels that there are not more women holding public office because of, and I quote her, "lack of qualifications and very often unwillingness or inability to accept responsibility and to sacrifice personal and home obligations to the requirements of public office."
Mrs. Snyder feels that the reason lies in the fact that "men do not want women in public office, and fight their election." Ruth Finley holds out some comfort for us. whole women are still unfitted and incapable with, of course, She says, "On the notable exceptions. Public prejudice and lack of confidence due to a long established custom have held women back. what is 20 years of enfranchisement as against the more than After all, 2,000 years of masculine training and practice in the art of governing?"
And echo answers, what indeed? And here is Margaret Cuthbert's opinion, I quote, "It is not important that they do hold more offices. that they use their influence and power for better government. It is more important If women choose to do this, men cannot stop them."
There were just two more questions on my list, first, "In what field do you believe women will make the greatest contribution during the next century?"
3581 The answers include, the preservation of the home as a national unit, public administration, social welfare, social sciences, human welfare, and the defense of democratic institutions.
And my final question, "What in your opinion can woman do to bring about the settlement of disputes between nations by peaceful methods?" The answers include, first, education; second, through participation in international organizations like the Y. W. C. A., the Associated Country Women of the World, which demonstrate the value of the conference method; through emphasizing the similarities of people rather than the differences; by encouraging tolerance and the settlement of every disagreement by arbitration; by demanding peace actively and aggressively. "War can be banished just as dueling was banished," Ruth Finley advises me. "Where women will there is always a way." And now, delegates to the convention, you have heard the opinions of some of the members of the committee. time this evening for all to be given you. There was not stood 100 years ago, where we stand today, and what we must do You know where we in the years ahead. whole subject further, and distinguished speakers will give us Throughout this week we will consider the further and more intensive interpretations. I noted that the names of just five women were suggested as having made the outstanding contributions of the past century— Sarah Josepha Hale, Mary Lyon, Susan B. Anthony, Jane Addams, and Mme. Curie, the latter, of course, not an American. list I would add two others-Dr. Anna Howard Shaw and Carrie To that Chapman Catt. That is the chief roll of honor of the past century as I see it.
Where we have come from we know. Where we are going is known only to Him who knows all. of American women is indissolubly united with the future of our We do know that the future country, just as the contributions of the women of the past have been entwined with the history of the progress of America. We have made great opportunities for women and we have had great opportunities made for us. we fail now, we can only echo Shakespeare's words, "The fault, Many doors are open to us. If dear Brutus, is in ourselves, not in our stars, if we are underlings."
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: EXCESS GOVERNMENT SPENDING COVERED BY PRINTING BONDS (By Wadsworth W. Mount, Assistant Director of Research, the
As long as the Government can spend all the money it wants to, over and above what it takes in from taxes, merely by printing Government bonds, selling these to the banks, and then drawing checks against them, how can we ever hope to stop extravagant Government spending?
And when the Government spends these billions in such ways that private citizens do not know which way to turn to make money, and therefore have comparatively little need to borrow from the banks on safe terms, where else can banks invest your money on deposit but in Government bonds?
A banker knows that when the United States Government prints a Government bond it says in effect that the Government will tax the people of the United States to make it good. fore, that Government bonds are the soundest security in the He knows, therecountry, just so long as we do not issue too many of them and have inflation. Before the Government started spending several billions more each year than it took in from taxes, the savings banks, for instance, could safely lend your money, largely to people who wanted to spend it for private or business uses, at a high enough rate of interest to cover their expenses and pay you 4 percent. ent conditions, however, one of the few remaining safe places to Under pres
invest bank funds is in Government bonds. Therefore, as the interest rate on long-term Treasury bonds has been lowered until their average yield is now approximately 2 percent, at present about all the savings banks can safely get for the use of your money is enough to provide for necessary expenses and reserves and pay you only 2 percent, or even less, on your deposits. The Treasury has just announced that to pay off some $426,000,000 of outstanding obligations which are due in September and now carry an interest rate of 1% percent it will offer in exchange new "notes" due in 5 years which will pay only three-fourths of 1 percent.
A New York investment firm recently showed that Treasury obligations maturing in a little more than 2 years now afford a yield of only one one-hundredth of 1 percent. At this rate of return, it was pointed out that "an investor would have to hold more than $144,000 par value to provide an income sufficient to buy his morning newspaper each day; he would have to hold $558,000 to provide enough funds to buy a daily package of cigarettes." As the average interest rate on all Federal obligations is lowered, those having money in savings accounts and insurance policies which represent their personally saved "social security" have their interest earnings also reduced, as a large part of such funds are invested in Government bonds.
This means, therefore, that it will take you longer to pay for your life insurance, as the annual dividends will be less or the premiums will be more. Some people think that only the taxpayers of future generations will have to pay for the present Government spending. However, if you own a savings-bank account you are paying right now for the increased national debt by getting one-half or less of the amount of interest you used to receive, and the trend is still downward.
This means then that if, for example, you were trying to put in the savings bank enough money to give you $2,000-a-year income, you will now have to save $100,000 or more, where when savings banks were able to invest your money safely and pay you 4 percent you would only have had to save $50,000 to get this same income. Everyone in the Nation has to pay one way or another for the money our Government officials are instructed to spend. Some pay taxes directly, but everyone pays indirectly for all Government services. The Government has nothing to give to the people except what it gets from the people.
The question is not whether these are desirable Government functions.
The question is whether the country wants expansion of Government, which must be paid for by increased taxes. Or wants expansion of business, which pays in jobs and wages. For the increased money that now goes into Government spending is the money that formerly went into new and improved products, new and enlarged factories, bigger pay rolls and dividends. There isn't enough in the earned dollar to go both ways. Business the production and distribution of goods-is the only thing that can create new wealth. Less taxes; more jobs.
THIRTY CENTS FOR "INDEPENDENCE," JULY 4, 1939 Here, then, in broad strokes is the state of the Nation today. Each of the 60 countries of the world requires around two-thirds of its productive work, its income, to pay for the necessities, food, shelter, clothing. This 65 percent is true of a country regardless of its living standards, India on the one extreme, the United States with the highest standards on the other. What of the 35 cents left after the sustenance of life? In that answer lie most of our troublesome problems today. Consider three pictures:
Until recently the people of the United States disposed of their 35 cents in this way. Five cents, at the turn of the century, was all that was required to pay for expenses of government-State, Federal, and local. Of the remaining 30 cents, about half went into the hands of managers of business enterprises which was about equally divided by them in expanding old industries and promoting and developing new ones such as radio, rayon, automobile. Much of this 15 cents remained in the hands of the people in the form of investment, productive wealth represented by stocks and bonds and life-insurance equities. The remaining 15 cents was used to buy the products of this increased industrial activity, thus driving upward standards of living and making one-time luxuries the conveniences and even necessities denied the rest of the world.
Second picture: What of the 35 cents which remained to the peoples of the other 59 countries? Since time immemorial around 30 cents was used for government expenses. A hazardous 5 cents was left as free capital. This gives point to the sentient statement of former President Hadley, of Yale, that the supremacy of the United States was due to the fact that it could afford to take chances upon development as no other country could afford to do. Five cents as against 30 cents as a backlog. Why did the Old World require 30 cents of the earnings of their people for government? For policing. External policing, the fear of land-grabbing, wealth-grabbing neighbor aggressors, whose people were in constant fear of being deprived of the bare necessities. Third picture: What is the situation in the United States today? Sixty-five cents for the necessities. Of the 35 remaining, 30 for governments (25 collected in taxes, 5 borrowed). Ten cents for investment and the lifting of living standards.
Why the great increase in government costs? Not to relieve distress and unemployment, as generally stated and believed. Only one dollar in six of Federal expenditures is for relief. The great increase in taxation and borrowing, which has brought overnight the allocation of the earned dollar to a level almost to that of other countries, is for policing. Against foreign aggressors? No. For protection against an alleged aggression and oppression on the part of business management. Internal "policing." Policing ourselves against ourselves.
Every act of those engaged in stimulating us to trade our labor, services, and products is now under surveillance, from the time a commission checks the project to the time another bureau passes upon the label to go on the package. Policing, in another form, such as protection against the private electric bulb by Government "yardstick" operation. Policing of banks, labor relations, aviation, oil, coal, lumber, telephones, retailers, stock and grain exchanges, insurance. Policing of States and communities as to the manner in which they handle their social problems. Policing in another form as exemplified in the published statistics that the Federal Government received 153,000,000 compulsory reports from business management last year. Policing as expressed in the $76,000,000-a sum equal to one-sixth of total passenger revenuesspent by Washington in travel expenses of its inspectors, regulators, investigators in 1 calendar year. These three pictures are true pictures. They point the trend to a static society, a "planned economy," to "frontiers gone forever." We, the people, perhaps planned it that way, a road to centralized authority over, and policing of, the individual. But perhaps we did not count the cost; unemployment still with us, management, which brings dreams into being, and men and jobs together, and more conveniences and luxuries for more people, now disheartened and bewildered, unable to see 30 days down the road because of the new policing machinery we have set up, whereby 137 boards, bureaus, commissions, Federal incorporations and authorities now pass laws daily in the form of rules and regulations. Little government, with little expense and little policing, brought the United States the highest standard of living the world has ever seen. Perhaps the founders were wrong in building that way, indignant and angry as they were against a ruler demanding more taxes and more power, who, as a famous declaration set forth, had "erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." Page 7Page 8
There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
I want to talk to you about education and the need for securing Federal aid for our schools. At a time when the present State administration in Wisconsin is preparing to cut nearly $2,000,000 out of our school budgets, I think it is absolutely necessary for us all to give the matter some very serious attention. The problem of maintaining fair and proper educational opportunities for our boys and girls in the next 2 years is going to demand some sort of outside assistance if the State government will not assume its rightful share of the responsibility. I am a firm believer in "economy" if by economy is meant making the most of what resources we have at our disposal and eliminating waste. But I fail to see any economy in a pinch-penny policy that is willing to sacrifice the rights of our young people to a full education simply for a few paltry pieces of silver. The greatest resource America has is its people, and we owe it to ourselves as a nation to see to it that the talents and abilities of the young are developed to the highest degree possible by means of adequate educational opportunities.
To hear some people talk, one might think that we have been extravagant in the support of our schools during the last few years, but actually in the country as a whole we are spending about $350,000,000 less for education than we were in 1930, in spite of the fact that high-school enrollment, where the expense is heaviest, has been increased by over 1,575,000 students. In Wisconsin we have been more fortunate, up until the present time, than the people in other States. In 1935 Wisconsin restored its State school aids to their former levels, and in the years that followed much was done to repair the damage suffered by our educational system as a result of depression retrenchment. Now, however, as a result of the action being taken by the new State administration, we are back face to face with the old problem
again. There is a bill before Congress at the present time which would provide, if enacted, a program of Federal aid to States for the support of their schools and the equalization of educational opportunity throughout the Nation. Under the estimated apportionment of the appropriation submitted with the bill, the enactment of this program could mean as much as $1,200,000 for Wisconsin next year and still more in succeeding years. Such a program is important to the whole Nation. One of the main foundation stones of democracy is equality of educational opportunity. That means public schools available to every man's son or daughter from kindergarten right on up through the university. If we allow a situation to develop where higher education is open only to those people of wealth who can afford to send their children to private schools, it will lead inevitably toward a class division in this country, with the educated, wealthy few on one side of the fence and a resentful, uneducated multitude on the other side. That sort of a situation is as dangerous as it is unnecessary.
Today there are between 800,000 and a million children of grade-school age who are not going to school. Most of them have no school to go to. There are approximately 3,000,000 people in the country who are totally illiterate, who can neither read nor write. And if you passed a newspaper around the Nation, you would find that as many as 15,000,000 adults couldn't read it. Those same people cannot write the simplest of letters. Believe it or not, there are more illiterates in America than there are college graduates.
An analysis of teachers' salaries shows another astounding condition. Considering the range by States, the State having the highest average salary for teachers has an average of only $2,414 per year, and on the other extreme is a State where teachers receive an average salary of only $504 per year. The average salary for teachers in rural communities is correspondingly still lower. For rural teachers the top average is only $1,337 and the bottom average is a bare $430.
When you realize how important is the teacher to whom parents entrust their children for education and guidance, it is surprising that the public has allowed such a condition to exist. If we are to secure the best kind of people to be the teachers of our children, we must be prepared to pay them enough so that they can afford to pass up opportunities in other fields and devote themselves to teaching.
The problem is worse in some States than in others. Some States are wealthy while others are poor, and unfortunately it appears that the States which are least able to maintain adequate schools have the greatest number of children in proportion to adult population. The President's Advisory Committee on Education has made a thorough study of this problem, and it reports a variation so large that the richest State in the Union has a per capita taxpaying ability to support schools which is 12 times the ability of the poorest State. This is not the fault of the individual States. It is a question of wealth. Our modern commercial life has outgrown even State boundaries. Much of our wealth has been drained away from the producing areas of the Nation into the financial centers of the country. As a result, the per capita wealth of some eastern States,
for instance, is all out of proportion to their actual physical contribution to the Nation's production. In order to recapture this wealth for the States from which it came in the first place, the Federal Government must reach it through Federal taxes and return it to the States by means of grants-in-aid. Senate bill 1305 now before the Congress proposes a 6-year program of Federal aids for education in the States. It authorizes an appropriation of approximately $75,000,000 for such purposes during the next fiscal year and increasing amounts for the succeeding years until an appropriation of $208,000,000 is reached for the fiscal year ending in 1945. This money would go toward the support of public elementary and secondary schools, improved teacher preparation, construction of school buildings, administration of State departments of education, adult education, rural-library service, and educational research.
It would not involve any sort of Federal control over the schools. The bill specifically provides that all matters of school administration, curriculum, methods of instruction, personnel, and the determination of the best uses for the funds granted shall be left to the control of the States and their local subdivisions. In order to qualify for the grants each State would simply have to establish a plan for distributing funds to the local school districts in such a way that the aim of the Federal program, the equalization of educational opportunity, would be carried out. In this way the Federal Government would be assured that the neediest communities of the State would get the greatest benefits from the funds granted.
The only other condition of importance to Wisconsin which would have to be met before the funds could be made available under the terms of this bill is the requirement that the State provide funds for these purposes in amounts at least equal to the sums provided in 1938.
The funds to be appropriated under this plan are to be divided among the States according to their respective educational loads and their respective financial abilities. The educational load of each State would be computed from estimates by the Bureau of the Census each year of the number of children of school age in the State. The financial ability of each State would be computed by the Secretary of the Treasury on the basis of certain standards prescribed in the bill. By balancing the State's school load against its financial ability, its financial need under the plan is determined, and the funds are allocated in accordance with this need.
The Senate Committee on Education and Labor has held hearings on the bill and has reported it favorably to the Senate for passage. At the hearings representatives of the leading educational organizations in this country, representing both parents and teachers, appeared and urged that the Federal Government undertake such a program. I feel that a program of this kind should receive the unselfish support of every public-spirited citizen. Education is one of those things which we cannot postpone to suit our convenience. Every year that goes by means a certain number of boys and girls who have either passed beyond school age or have been forced by circumstances to undertake responsibilities which will If their education was prevent their ever going back to school. neglected during the years when they could have gone to school, the chances are they will carry that handicap with them all through life. The rural areas are the hardest hit. It is an established fact that it costs more to provide proper educational facilities in the country than in the city. We know also that there are more children, in proportion to adult population, in the rural areas than in the cities. Yet in spite of that fact the best educational opportunities are being provided for children in the cities. "Equalization of educational opportunity" means not only establishing more uniformity of educational opportunities among the 48 States; it also means bringing financial aid to the rural schools so that the farmers and the people in the small communities can give their children as good an education as the children in the cities get.
If we are going to make democracy work in America, we must always have an intelligent, educated, informed citizenry. If we neglect the education of our young people now, even for a little while, we are going to pay dearly for it in the future. In Wisconsin we have a very definite problem. The budget of the university alone is being cut over a million dollars in the face of increased enrollment and long-delayed needs for expansion. A similar cut is being imposed upon the State teachers' colleges. Unless corrected, this will result in one of two things either fees will have to be raised and it will become that much harder for farmers and working people to send their children to school, or standards will have to be lowered and they will get just that much less for their money.
The program of Federal aid which I have outlined to you will not in any way make up for all the State's failures in this respect but it will help some. The Federal program is primarily concerned with elementary and secondary education, but, indirectly at least, it will aid by taking some of the budgetary pressure off our public institutions of higher education.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
Mr. HARRISON. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the RECORD a speech delivered by Miss Earlene White, at the biennial convention of the National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, Inc., at Kansas City, Mo., on July 9, 1939, on the subject of professional women. There being no objection, the speech was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
It was a bright, sunny morning in the 1830's. A distinguished looking woman, traveling alone, her full skirts discreetly sweeping the ground, her corkscrew curls hanging coyly beneath her bonnet, alighted from a packet boat, having made the trip from England to America in about 40 days.
The woman was Harriet Martineau, a friend of the Carlyles, a trained observer and commentator who came to America in search of new copy. Tired, for a time, of the life in London, she realized that comparatively little was known of the new land which had once been an English colony and was now attracting English and Scotch immigrants in great numbers. She set foot in little old New York, which was then a thriving community, without skyscrapers or bridges to connect the island of Manhattan with its neighborhood boroughs. True, the Astors had begun to make a fortune as fur traders, and Commodore Vanderbilt had found it profitable to pilot a ferry between Staten and Manhattan Islands; nevertheless, New York had little resemblance to the great present-day city of the North American Continent.
And what of the North American Continent upon which Harriet Martineau gazed? She came to America just after the Lewis and Clark expedition had blazed a trail to the Pacific and fur traders were following the Oregon Trail across the mountains.
American missionaries and farmers were quick to follow. The Northern States were clamoring for the annexation of Oregon to the Union and the South was clamoring for Texas. annexation were so vociferous that the slogan of "Fifty-four-Forty or Fight" was to be heard everywhere, as the citizens of the new The advocates of Nation, greedy for land, clamored for the extension of American territory to further latitudes. The clamor grew until it resulted in the election of James K. Polk in 1844 on that very issue.
The industrial revolution was beginning in America, and Harriet Martineau took full note of it. locm had been invented and were making it possible for cloth to The spinning jenny and the power be made in new ways. were new tools for farming, including the reaper. Women-and The cotton gin had been invented and there men, too-who had carried on small manufacturing plants with hand tools on their farms, making the family's clothing along with the family's food supply, found it necessary to change their way of life. The growth of mill towns was taken for granted, and young women who had been earning their livelihoods at just six occupations-keeping boarders, teaching young children, typesetting, bookbinding, domestic service, and needlework-found a new occupation as weavers in the mills.
The severe financial panic in 1837 threw thousands out of work, and when Harriet Martineau visited America unemployment stories were constantly printed in the daily press. The suffrage movement was being extended, and Robert Fulton's steamboat had set a new pace; the inland waterways of America were being invaded by steamboats plowing their way through the hitherto untroubled waters. The best opportunities for men lay in the fields and forests of the far West.
And as usual men and women were facing the future with uncertainty, dreading the changes but eager to get on with them. In 1836, a young girl, living and working in Lowell, Mass, penned these lines
"Oh, isn't it a pity that such a pretty girl as I, Should be sent to the factory to pine away and die?" Thus, the working girl lamented, as she was forced out of the home and into industry. All this and more the woman journalist from England noted and went home and reported in a lengthy volume reciting the sights she had seen and the observations she had made.
3579 It was Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt, our beloved leader of suffrage and world peace, who called our attention to Harriet Martineau and her writings and urged us to observe the one-hundredth anniversary of Miss Martineau's reportorial journey, and to see how many doors are still closed to women, 100 years later. We have accepted Mrs. Catt's suggestion and our biennial convention is devoted to the theme, "One Hundred Years of Women's Progress in the United States." Our compass is the 1930 Census, and that shows that of some 535 classifications of occupations listed, women are engaged in 501, the heavy tasks, such as mining, locomotive engineers, firemen, et cetera, being completely masculine territory. And so in 100 years, women have advanced from 7 fields to 501; doors of opportunity for women are opening wider and wider, but the end is not yet, and perhaps 100 more years will pass until the world will allow women to make their best contribution, and women will be willing to make it.
In 100 years American women have come a long way, just as our country has come a long way, but we still have a journey to make, both as women and as citizens. It is noteworthy that teachers' training schools were started 100 years ago this year. Here and now we are observing the one-hundredth anniversary of women's progress, and I think it is a suitable time to take stock of where we have come from, where we wish to go, and how we are to get there. To help us evaluate these three points we appointed a committee of distinguished women. lin D. Roosevelt is honorary chairman of the committee, and Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt is vice chairman. Mrs. Frankbers are Dr. Mary E. Wooley, president emeritus of Mount Holyoke College; Mrs. Ruth Finley, author and noted publicist for the The other memRepublican Party; Ruth Comfort Mitchell, novelist and one of California's best-known daughters; the Honorable Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor; those two outstanding women in radio, Margaret Cuthbert and Helen J. Souissat; Fannie Hurst, the novelist; Miss Emma P. Hirth, general secretary of the Y. W. C. A.; President Aurelia H. Reinhardt, of Mills College, Calif.; Dr. Martha Tracy, dean of the Women's Medical College of Pennsylvania; Mrs. Mary Dillon, president of the Brooklyn Borough Gas Co.; and Mrs. Ora Snyder, manufacturer, of Chicago.
These women have had broad experience in public service and private enterprise. They represent every range of political and economic thinking, and I believe that their answers to a questionnaire which I sent them will help chart our course for the 100 years ahead.
First, I asked, "What were the chief obstacles to employment in the path of American women 100 years ago?"
Tradition seems to have been the chief stumbling block, with several important contributing causes, such as social and economic custom, lack of education, lack of training, and lack of personal initiative. I have quoted these obstacles from the considered opinion of one of the committee members, Ruth Finley, the noted writer and biographer of women of the colonial period. Mrs. Finley was formerly the editor of Guide, published by the Women's National Republican Club.
Frances Perkins has some interesting observations on that question, and I quote her:
"The lack of employment opportunities outside the home for both men and women constituted the principal obstacle to employment in 1839. This was the period, early in the industrial revolution, when women's traditional occupations were just beginning to move out of the home into factories, mills, and shops. There were few schools and most of the teachers were men, with women substituting in the summer while the men took agricultural jobs. Clerical jobs were practically nonexistent. The largest number of openings were in textile mills, where labor was scarce and wages were high. In these mills, hours were very long, and the workers were housed in dormitories under unfavorable living conditions. In 1839 there were practically no opportunities for professional women or any vocational training for women.' On the other hand, Mme. Secretary wrote: "There were cer- in social prestige-there existed no class distinction on the basis Work in factory or mill entailed no loss of 'white collar' or manual labor. to the welfare of a new nation. Factory work offered educational All work meant a contribution opportunities which were not available for women in schools of higher learning. It offered wages higher than for teaching. Horace Mann reported that women in many occupations in mills and fac- tories earned six or seven times as much as women teachers.
"Early mill workers were militant in the protection of their rights. As the real daughters of the American Revolution, they were earnestly concerned with justice and liberty in dealing with the concrete problems of their daily work life." These are the views of Frances Perkins.
Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt said in response to this question. I quote: "I should say that in 1839 the chief obstacles in the path of employment for American women were, first, the attitude held by both men and women as to the proper kind of work which women should do. Secondly, the lack of educational facilities and of training which they could obtain, and thirdly the lack of opportunities even if they obtained the education and the training." And from Ora Snyder came this opinion. I quote: "Lack of confidence in their ability and the old-fashioned opinion that women should not leave household duties or the care of the family." Dr. Martha Tracy is of the opinion that tradition was women's main stumbling block, plus the economic necessity of doing the home chores personally, including cooking and preserving foodstuffs, cleaning, laundry work, making the husband's and children's clothes, and childbearing. Dr. Tracy says that all of these obstacles have been largely conquered, and I quote her, "largely but not entirely. Childbearing will always be a factor." Ruth Finley thinks the obstacles have mainly been overcome, and Mrs. Roosevelt believes that "there is still some prejudice against women in certain lines of work for which they are naturally better equipped than men. The training today is fairly universally open to them though there are restrictions which make it a little difficult. Many more lines of work are open to women, but they have to excell." Frances Perkins made the following statement in answer to this question:
"Significant progress has been made in removing the obstacles to women's wage-earning employment that existed 100 years ago, but the job is far from complete. Eleven million women are now gainfully employed and are found in practically all occupations. Prejudice against women in the professions is gradually breaking down, and they are securing an ever greater measure of vocational opportunity. Training facilities for almost every occupational field are open to women, though the resultant job opportunities still may be relatively scarce. In recent years there has been a notable increase in the number of women in important administrative jobs in both State and Federal Governments. "However," Miss Perkins goes on to say, "because an increasing number of women must earn their livelihood and also support dependents entirely or partially, and because jobs are also scarce for men, competition is a much greater factor for women to reckon with now than it was some years ago. "Moreover, the traditional sex discriminations are still a major obstacle women encounter in their efforts to find satisfying and profitable employment. Their ability is still far from being accepted on the same plane as that of men. "Immense improvement has come about in the raising of wages, the lowering of hours, and the betterment of plant equipment; but the situation in this respect is still far from Utopian. double wage standard still prevails in a number of fields." The And now we come to the third question, "What obstacle do you believe will beset women in the next 100 years?" To this question Mrs. Finley answers, "The physical obstacle of sex, which never can be changed, and an overcrowding of the so-called economic jobs." Dr. Tracy's answer is-and I quote: "Economic competition with men, particularly in times of unemployment. The individual women's own incompetence." She also notes: "The same applies to men, but women capitalize on the 'tradition' of sex obstruction. Child bearing cannot be outmoded." Mrs. Snyder feels that "jealousy from the male sex" will be the chief obstacle for women. Most of the committee declined to commit themselves on one question, which was, "In your opinion, what has been the outstanding contribution made by American women during the past 100 years?" Ruth Finley, however, answers by saying, "Dissemination of women's news,' and she names Sarah Josepha Hale as the woman who has made the outstanding contribution of the past 100 years. She gives her reason for this as follows-and again I quote: "Prior to the radio, the national woman's magazines were the only interstate link between women. Mrs. Hale, for 50 years editor of Godey's Lady's Book, the first woman's magazine approaching Nation-wide circulation, did more to correlate and unify women's thought in this country than any other person, man or woman, in the nineteenth century." Helen Sioussat, of Columbia Broadcasting Co., said unhesitatingly, "The discovery of radium," and nominated Mme. Curie. Margaret Cuthbert believes that the political recognition of American women has been the outstanding contribution, and she nominated Susan B. Anthony. Frances Perkins wrote: "Because there have been so many important contributions by women in so many fields, it is difficult to evaluate them in such a general way as to make it possible to name only one woman."
Ora Snyder said, "Jane Addams is the woman, and her splendid work at Hull House, Chicago, in the settlement field proves it." Dr. Tracy also has a candidate. She wrote, "Mary Lyon's demonstration that women can be educated, without danger to health or other damage to their nature, is of the utmost importance." And now for my next question, for this is an inventory of women's liabilities as well as women's assets, "What have been the greatest failures of women in the past 100 years?" And again Ruth Finley out of her great wealth of research on the lives of American women answers, "Over-eagerness, evidencing a real lack
of moral stamina in many cases, to throw off the frequently monotonous responsibilities of the home." And Ruth Finley finds these failures also, "unwillingness to serve adequate apprenticeship in the economic world; lack of understanding of and consequent impatience with the slowness of the natural evolution of the now machine-made social order, and failure to assimilate experience." Frances Perkins says, "One major failure of women in the past century relates to their neglect of the use of their hard-won right to vote. Women's failure to take a more active part in American politics, as voters and as candidates for office has been a major disappointment. Women have not participated as fully as they might in labor organization. They have a most important contribution to make in this field and should become increasingly active." And she continues, "Some women have fallen down in their responsibility as employers of other persons. For example, long hours, low wages, social isolation, and exclusion from legislative protection have been characteristic of the vocation using the services of the largest single group of women workers-household employment."
And here is one of the most important questions that I asked the women who form the committee for the commemoration of 100 years of women's progress in the United States. "What are the greatest prejudices concerning women now held by the general public?" Ruth Finley gave me two answers, "Overcrowding of the wage field and consequent usurpation of jobs needed by men as the natural heads of families, and falling birth rate in the middle, and especially the native-born classes." And the First Lady of the Land answered, "It was generally thought that physically and mentally women were not equal to doing the same type of work as men.' Frances Perkins wrote thoughtfully, "Perhaps the oustanding prejudice against women 100 years ago was the general one that they were inferior beings, inferior to men physically, mentally, and economically; that it was of no importance that they be educated and granted political privileges. Under the laws of the day women were severely discriminated against in relation to property rights, in the rights of custody of children and the like. The common law, which was so often detrimental to women's interest, was accepted as the legal authority. Women were not considered experienced enough to handle any of their personal affairs, nor to participate in public affairs. "Though important progress has been made, there are still distinct evidences of a carry-over of prejudice against women that existed a century ago. With a large segment of our people, the idea still prevails that women's place is 'in the home' and the prejudice against the employment of married women is yet very strong among some groups. "At times men make much ado about women's artistic inferiority and as a consequence women have heavy competitive sledding to make a valid contribution in the field of arts.
"Though women's legal status has strengthened throughout the century, they are still in a far weaker position in this respect than are men in many States. In some cases their wages yet belong to their husbands; in others they do not share equally with their husbands in their children's custody, etc. A number of States do not permit women to serve on juries."
Margaret Cuthbert, famous radio authority, says, bluntly, "Women, given the same opportunity as men, are making the same mistakes and doing the same things that men are doing. With the freedom they now have in view of the money they control, they have done little that is unique, little that is original, little that is different, and not much that shows that women as a group are using their natural gifts to make their own lives and the lives of others more civilized-outside of a few exceptional women."
Mrs. Snyder thinks that men's lack of confidence in women's ability will be the chief obstacle for women in the future. Dr. Tracy concurs in this, saying: "Men's age-old prejudice that women were physically and intellectually inferior still holds, though much diluted and localized."
And now I come to the heart of my questionnaire, for, having gathered the opinions of these women, I wanted to find out what we can do about it as business and professional women. So I asked all of them, "In your opinion, what is the best way for business and professional women to educate the general public as to the fact that these prejudices are not factually founded?" Here is what some of them answered:
Dr. Tracy: "By accepting opportunities for work and giving competent performance. Not by talking about it." Mrs. Snyder: "Instruct the public that we believe in equality, and we want a chance to demonstrate what we can do on an equal footing." Mrs. Roosevelt: "In my opinion, the best education is the education which makes people acquainted with the facts, and the facts can be furnished today through studies made by the various people interested in labor and in woman's position." Miss Perkins: "Probably the best educational method consists of clear demonstrations of women's ability in many fields." Mary Dillon: "To succeed as individuals in the jobs they hold." And Ruth Finley: "Probably the best way for the fit and capable business and professional woman to combat this general attitude (which is growing with appalling rapidity) is to recognize the inevitable weeding-out process of evolution now and back that recognition with the weight of opinion and influence. Always women have worked outside as well as in the home. In 1839 the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
proportion was overbalanced in favor of the home, with many resultant personal misfits and family or group hardships. "Now the pendulum has swung too far the other way, and in 1939 the opposite proportion of overbalance has created more personal misfits and family group hardships than ever before. History has proved that one of the primary social laws is the maintaining or restoration of balance. It seems to me that nothing could give women a more solid foundation for their future as free citizens than their voluntary and immediate recognition of this law."
"Example" is what counts most, Margaret Cuthbert feels. "Deeds more important than words," she writes, "giving proof that women are not personal and prejudiced in business; relating the complex fabric of civilization to the persons for whom, after all, it exists." She points out that "it is not through individual achievement that women are going to serve as they will serve, but in proportion as they emphasize and express cooperation. brave new world must be a man's and woman's world." This
And with these opinions behind us, I asked, "What type of education do you believe will be best suited to women in the next century?" And here are the answers: From Mrs. Snyder, "A practical education and training for a business or professional career.' Mary Dillon's answer is succinct. as men, a rounded cultural background, plus specific training in I quote her exactly: "Same the field of their vocation."
From Dr. Tracy: "Just such an education as will fit any adult to be an intelligent and tolerant citizen and a thorough performer in the lot to which circumstances and her own ability will call her."
Ruth Finley advocates: "A scholastic education to enable women to participate in and understand and enjoy modern civilization; domestic science and child care; professional or occupational training according to the talent of the individual." Frances Perkins says, "Because of our many new means of communication, nation with nation and locality with locality, people touch each other at many more points than they used to. For this reason education needs to be broader. needs to be realistic, too. Education national life to the full they must know science and economics If women are to participate in our as well as the so-called cultural subjects. Education should produce attitudes of liberalism and democracy as well as the absorption of factual data." And, "What tools for advancement do you think women need most during the next century?" I asked them. answers education, individual adequacy, a change in the ecoHere are some of the nomic condition of the country, health maintenance, the removal of legislative restriction against women. recommended and these are the tools we must acquire. These are the tools of all the tools, individual adequacy was stressed the most. When I asked, "Why are not more office after 2 decades of enfranchisement?" women holding public of the committee held decided opinions. Madame Secretary wrote I found that many as follows: "It cannot be said fairly that either men or women are to blame, rather a number of circumstances are involved. The old concept of women's inferiority in any role other than that of homemaker is doubtless responsible for the fact that very few women are elected or appointed to public office. "However, because of lingering prejudices in respect to women's holding public positions the woman who runs for and holds such office needs to be more outstanding and better qualified than the average man with whom she competes. must be competent, a Where a man women themselves have not in general enlarged their concept woman must be exceptional. Moreover, of what constitutes women's work to have it cover public service to any considerable degree.
"A second reason, I believe, that so few women run for office has to do with the rather low regard many people in this country hold for the mechanics of politics. Women have tended to shy away from practical politics and concentrate in their organizations on nonpartisan politics. In the third place, women as yet have achieved no solidarity as women toward the end of putting those of their sex into public office."
Dr. Tracy feels that there are not more women holding public office because of, and I quote her, "lack of qualifications and very often unwillingness or inability to accept responsibility and to sacrifice personal and home obligations to the requirements of public office."
Mrs. Snyder feels that the reason lies in the fact that "men do not want women in public office, and fight their election." Ruth Finley holds out some comfort for us. whole women are still unfitted and incapable with, of course, She says, "On the notable exceptions. Public prejudice and lack of confidence due to a long established custom have held women back. what is 20 years of enfranchisement as against the more than After all, 2,000 years of masculine training and practice in the art of governing?"
And echo answers, what indeed? And here is Margaret Cuthbert's opinion, I quote, "It is not important that they do hold more offices. that they use their influence and power for better government. It is more important If women choose to do this, men cannot stop them."
There were just two more questions on my list, first, "In what field do you believe women will make the greatest contribution during the next century?"
3581 The answers include, the preservation of the home as a national unit, public administration, social welfare, social sciences, human welfare, and the defense of democratic institutions.
And my final question, "What in your opinion can woman do to bring about the settlement of disputes between nations by peaceful methods?" The answers include, first, education; second, through participation in international organizations like the Y. W. C. A., the Associated Country Women of the World, which demonstrate the value of the conference method; through emphasizing the similarities of people rather than the differences; by encouraging tolerance and the settlement of every disagreement by arbitration; by demanding peace actively and aggressively. "War can be banished just as dueling was banished," Ruth Finley advises me. "Where women will there is always a way." And now, delegates to the convention, you have heard the opinions of some of the members of the committee. time this evening for all to be given you. There was not stood 100 years ago, where we stand today, and what we must do You know where we in the years ahead. whole subject further, and distinguished speakers will give us Throughout this week we will consider the further and more intensive interpretations. I noted that the names of just five women were suggested as having made the outstanding contributions of the past century— Sarah Josepha Hale, Mary Lyon, Susan B. Anthony, Jane Addams, and Mme. Curie, the latter, of course, not an American. list I would add two others-Dr. Anna Howard Shaw and Carrie To that Chapman Catt. That is the chief roll of honor of the past century as I see it.
Where we have come from we know. Where we are going is known only to Him who knows all. of American women is indissolubly united with the future of our We do know that the future country, just as the contributions of the women of the past have been entwined with the history of the progress of America. We have made great opportunities for women and we have had great opportunities made for us. we fail now, we can only echo Shakespeare's words, "The fault, Many doors are open to us. If dear Brutus, is in ourselves, not in our stars, if we are underlings."
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: EXCESS GOVERNMENT SPENDING COVERED BY PRINTING BONDS (By Wadsworth W. Mount, Assistant Director of Research, the
As long as the Government can spend all the money it wants to, over and above what it takes in from taxes, merely by printing Government bonds, selling these to the banks, and then drawing checks against them, how can we ever hope to stop extravagant Government spending?
And when the Government spends these billions in such ways that private citizens do not know which way to turn to make money, and therefore have comparatively little need to borrow from the banks on safe terms, where else can banks invest your money on deposit but in Government bonds?
A banker knows that when the United States Government prints a Government bond it says in effect that the Government will tax the people of the United States to make it good. fore, that Government bonds are the soundest security in the He knows, therecountry, just so long as we do not issue too many of them and have inflation. Before the Government started spending several billions more each year than it took in from taxes, the savings banks, for instance, could safely lend your money, largely to people who wanted to spend it for private or business uses, at a high enough rate of interest to cover their expenses and pay you 4 percent. ent conditions, however, one of the few remaining safe places to Under pres
invest bank funds is in Government bonds. Therefore, as the interest rate on long-term Treasury bonds has been lowered until their average yield is now approximately 2 percent, at present about all the savings banks can safely get for the use of your money is enough to provide for necessary expenses and reserves and pay you only 2 percent, or even less, on your deposits. The Treasury has just announced that to pay off some $426,000,000 of outstanding obligations which are due in September and now carry an interest rate of 1% percent it will offer in exchange new "notes" due in 5 years which will pay only three-fourths of 1 percent.
A New York investment firm recently showed that Treasury obligations maturing in a little more than 2 years now afford a yield of only one one-hundredth of 1 percent. At this rate of return, it was pointed out that "an investor would have to hold more than $144,000 par value to provide an income sufficient to buy his morning newspaper each day; he would have to hold $558,000 to provide enough funds to buy a daily package of cigarettes." As the average interest rate on all Federal obligations is lowered, those having money in savings accounts and insurance policies which represent their personally saved "social security" have their interest earnings also reduced, as a large part of such funds are invested in Government bonds.
This means, therefore, that it will take you longer to pay for your life insurance, as the annual dividends will be less or the premiums will be more. Some people think that only the taxpayers of future generations will have to pay for the present Government spending. However, if you own a savings-bank account you are paying right now for the increased national debt by getting one-half or less of the amount of interest you used to receive, and the trend is still downward.
This means then that if, for example, you were trying to put in the savings bank enough money to give you $2,000-a-year income, you will now have to save $100,000 or more, where when savings banks were able to invest your money safely and pay you 4 percent you would only have had to save $50,000 to get this same income. Everyone in the Nation has to pay one way or another for the money our Government officials are instructed to spend. Some pay taxes directly, but everyone pays indirectly for all Government services. The Government has nothing to give to the people except what it gets from the people.
The question is not whether these are desirable Government functions.
The question is whether the country wants expansion of Government, which must be paid for by increased taxes. Or wants expansion of business, which pays in jobs and wages. For the increased money that now goes into Government spending is the money that formerly went into new and improved products, new and enlarged factories, bigger pay rolls and dividends. There isn't enough in the earned dollar to go both ways. Business the production and distribution of goods-is the only thing that can create new wealth. Less taxes; more jobs.
THIRTY CENTS FOR "INDEPENDENCE," JULY 4, 1939 Here, then, in broad strokes is the state of the Nation today. Each of the 60 countries of the world requires around two-thirds of its productive work, its income, to pay for the necessities, food, shelter, clothing. This 65 percent is true of a country regardless of its living standards, India on the one extreme, the United States with the highest standards on the other. What of the 35 cents left after the sustenance of life? In that answer lie most of our troublesome problems today. Consider three pictures:
Until recently the people of the United States disposed of their 35 cents in this way. Five cents, at the turn of the century, was all that was required to pay for expenses of government-State, Federal, and local. Of the remaining 30 cents, about half went into the hands of managers of business enterprises which was about equally divided by them in expanding old industries and promoting and developing new ones such as radio, rayon, automobile. Much of this 15 cents remained in the hands of the people in the form of investment, productive wealth represented by stocks and bonds and life-insurance equities. The remaining 15 cents was used to buy the products of this increased industrial activity, thus driving upward standards of living and making one-time luxuries the conveniences and even necessities denied the rest of the world.
Second picture: What of the 35 cents which remained to the peoples of the other 59 countries? Since time immemorial around 30 cents was used for government expenses. A hazardous 5 cents was left as free capital. This gives point to the sentient statement of former President Hadley, of Yale, that the supremacy of the United States was due to the fact that it could afford to take chances upon development as no other country could afford to do. Five cents as against 30 cents as a backlog. Why did the Old World require 30 cents of the earnings of their people for government? For policing. External policing, the fear of land-grabbing, wealth-grabbing neighbor aggressors, whose people were in constant fear of being deprived of the bare necessities. Third picture: What is the situation in the United States today? Sixty-five cents for the necessities. Of the 35 remaining, 30 for governments (25 collected in taxes, 5 borrowed). Ten cents for investment and the lifting of living standards.
Why the great increase in government costs? Not to relieve distress and unemployment, as generally stated and believed. Only one dollar in six of Federal expenditures is for relief. The great increase in taxation and borrowing, which has brought overnight the allocation of the earned dollar to a level almost to that of other countries, is for policing. Against foreign aggressors? No. For protection against an alleged aggression and oppression on the part of business management. Internal "policing." Policing ourselves against ourselves.
Every act of those engaged in stimulating us to trade our labor, services, and products is now under surveillance, from the time a commission checks the project to the time another bureau passes upon the label to go on the package. Policing, in another form, such as protection against the private electric bulb by Government "yardstick" operation. Policing of banks, labor relations, aviation, oil, coal, lumber, telephones, retailers, stock and grain exchanges, insurance. Policing of States and communities as to the manner in which they handle their social problems. Policing in another form as exemplified in the published statistics that the Federal Government received 153,000,000 compulsory reports from business management last year. Policing as expressed in the $76,000,000-a sum equal to one-sixth of total passenger revenuesspent by Washington in travel expenses of its inspectors, regulators, investigators in 1 calendar year. These three pictures are true pictures. They point the trend to a static society, a "planned economy," to "frontiers gone forever." We, the people, perhaps planned it that way, a road to centralized authority over, and policing of, the individual. But perhaps we did not count the cost; unemployment still with us, management, which brings dreams into being, and men and jobs together, and more conveniences and luxuries for more people, now disheartened and bewildered, unable to see 30 days down the road because of the new policing machinery we have set up, whereby 137 boards, bureaus, commissions, Federal incorporations and authorities now pass laws daily in the form of rules and regulations. Little government, with little expense and little policing, brought the United States the highest standard of living the world has ever seen. Perhaps the founders were wrong in building that way, indignant and angry as they were against a ruler demanding more taxes and more power, who, as a famous declaration set forth, had "erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." Page 9Page 10
There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
I want to talk to you about education and the need for securing Federal aid for our schools. At a time when the present State administration in Wisconsin is preparing to cut nearly $2,000,000 out of our school budgets, I think it is absolutely necessary for us all to give the matter some very serious attention. The problem of maintaining fair and proper educational opportunities for our boys and girls in the next 2 years is going to demand some sort of outside assistance if the State government will not assume its rightful share of the responsibility. I am a firm believer in "economy" if by economy is meant making the most of what resources we have at our disposal and eliminating waste. But I fail to see any economy in a pinch-penny policy that is willing to sacrifice the rights of our young people to a full education simply for a few paltry pieces of silver. The greatest resource America has is its people, and we owe it to ourselves as a nation to see to it that the talents and abilities of the young are developed to the highest degree possible by means of adequate educational opportunities.
To hear some people talk, one might think that we have been extravagant in the support of our schools during the last few years, but actually in the country as a whole we are spending about $350,000,000 less for education than we were in 1930, in spite of the fact that high-school enrollment, where the expense is heaviest, has been increased by over 1,575,000 students. In Wisconsin we have been more fortunate, up until the present time, than the people in other States. In 1935 Wisconsin restored its State school aids to their former levels, and in the years that followed much was done to repair the damage suffered by our educational system as a result of depression retrenchment. Now, however, as a result of the action being taken by the new State administration, we are back face to face with the old problem
again. There is a bill before Congress at the present time which would provide, if enacted, a program of Federal aid to States for the support of their schools and the equalization of educational opportunity throughout the Nation. Under the estimated apportionment of the appropriation submitted with the bill, the enactment of this program could mean as much as $1,200,000 for Wisconsin next year and still more in succeeding years. Such a program is important to the whole Nation. One of the main foundation stones of democracy is equality of educational opportunity. That means public schools available to every man's son or daughter from kindergarten right on up through the university. If we allow a situation to develop where higher education is open only to those people of wealth who can afford to send their children to private schools, it will lead inevitably toward a class division in this country, with the educated, wealthy few on one side of the fence and a resentful, uneducated multitude on the other side. That sort of a situation is as dangerous as it is unnecessary.
Today there are between 800,000 and a million children of grade-school age who are not going to school. Most of them have no school to go to. There are approximately 3,000,000 people in the country who are totally illiterate, who can neither read nor write. And if you passed a newspaper around the Nation, you would find that as many as 15,000,000 adults couldn't read it. Those same people cannot write the simplest of letters. Believe it or not, there are more illiterates in America than there are college graduates.
An analysis of teachers' salaries shows another astounding condition. Considering the range by States, the State having the highest average salary for teachers has an average of only $2,414 per year, and on the other extreme is a State where teachers receive an average salary of only $504 per year. The average salary for teachers in rural communities is correspondingly still lower. For rural teachers the top average is only $1,337 and the bottom average is a bare $430.
When you realize how important is the teacher to whom parents entrust their children for education and guidance, it is surprising that the public has allowed such a condition to exist. If we are to secure the best kind of people to be the teachers of our children, we must be prepared to pay them enough so that they can afford to pass up opportunities in other fields and devote themselves to teaching.
The problem is worse in some States than in others. Some States are wealthy while others are poor, and unfortunately it appears that the States which are least able to maintain adequate schools have the greatest number of children in proportion to adult population. The President's Advisory Committee on Education has made a thorough study of this problem, and it reports a variation so large that the richest State in the Union has a per capita taxpaying ability to support schools which is 12 times the ability of the poorest State. This is not the fault of the individual States. It is a question of wealth. Our modern commercial life has outgrown even State boundaries. Much of our wealth has been drained away from the producing areas of the Nation into the financial centers of the country. As a result, the per capita wealth of some eastern States,
for instance, is all out of proportion to their actual physical contribution to the Nation's production. In order to recapture this wealth for the States from which it came in the first place, the Federal Government must reach it through Federal taxes and return it to the States by means of grants-in-aid. Senate bill 1305 now before the Congress proposes a 6-year program of Federal aids for education in the States. It authorizes an appropriation of approximately $75,000,000 for such purposes during the next fiscal year and increasing amounts for the succeeding years until an appropriation of $208,000,000 is reached for the fiscal year ending in 1945. This money would go toward the support of public elementary and secondary schools, improved teacher preparation, construction of school buildings, administration of State departments of education, adult education, rural-library service, and educational research.
It would not involve any sort of Federal control over the schools. The bill specifically provides that all matters of school administration, curriculum, methods of instruction, personnel, and the determination of the best uses for the funds granted shall be left to the control of the States and their local subdivisions. In order to qualify for the grants each State would simply have to establish a plan for distributing funds to the local school districts in such a way that the aim of the Federal program, the equalization of educational opportunity, would be carried out. In this way the Federal Government would be assured that the neediest communities of the State would get the greatest benefits from the funds granted.
The only other condition of importance to Wisconsin which would have to be met before the funds could be made available under the terms of this bill is the requirement that the State provide funds for these purposes in amounts at least equal to the sums provided in 1938.
The funds to be appropriated under this plan are to be divided among the States according to their respective educational loads and their respective financial abilities. The educational load of each State would be computed from estimates by the Bureau of the Census each year of the number of children of school age in the State. The financial ability of each State would be computed by the Secretary of the Treasury on the basis of certain standards prescribed in the bill. By balancing the State's school load against its financial ability, its financial need under the plan is determined, and the funds are allocated in accordance with this need.
The Senate Committee on Education and Labor has held hearings on the bill and has reported it favorably to the Senate for passage. At the hearings representatives of the leading educational organizations in this country, representing both parents and teachers, appeared and urged that the Federal Government undertake such a program. I feel that a program of this kind should receive the unselfish support of every public-spirited citizen. Education is one of those things which we cannot postpone to suit our convenience. Every year that goes by means a certain number of boys and girls who have either passed beyond school age or have been forced by circumstances to undertake responsibilities which will If their education was prevent their ever going back to school. neglected during the years when they could have gone to school, the chances are they will carry that handicap with them all through life. The rural areas are the hardest hit. It is an established fact that it costs more to provide proper educational facilities in the country than in the city. We know also that there are more children, in proportion to adult population, in the rural areas than in the cities. Yet in spite of that fact the best educational opportunities are being provided for children in the cities. "Equalization of educational opportunity" means not only establishing more uniformity of educational opportunities among the 48 States; it also means bringing financial aid to the rural schools so that the farmers and the people in the small communities can give their children as good an education as the children in the cities get.
If we are going to make democracy work in America, we must always have an intelligent, educated, informed citizenry. If we neglect the education of our young people now, even for a little while, we are going to pay dearly for it in the future. In Wisconsin we have a very definite problem. The budget of the university alone is being cut over a million dollars in the face of increased enrollment and long-delayed needs for expansion. A similar cut is being imposed upon the State teachers' colleges. Unless corrected, this will result in one of two things either fees will have to be raised and it will become that much harder for farmers and working people to send their children to school, or standards will have to be lowered and they will get just that much less for their money.
The program of Federal aid which I have outlined to you will not in any way make up for all the State's failures in this respect but it will help some. The Federal program is primarily concerned with elementary and secondary education, but, indirectly at least, it will aid by taking some of the budgetary pressure off our public institutions of higher education.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
Mr. HARRISON. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the RECORD a speech delivered by Miss Earlene White, at the biennial convention of the National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, Inc., at Kansas City, Mo., on July 9, 1939, on the subject of professional women. There being no objection, the speech was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
It was a bright, sunny morning in the 1830's. A distinguished looking woman, traveling alone, her full skirts discreetly sweeping the ground, her corkscrew curls hanging coyly beneath her bonnet, alighted from a packet boat, having made the trip from England to America in about 40 days.
The woman was Harriet Martineau, a friend of the Carlyles, a trained observer and commentator who came to America in search of new copy. Tired, for a time, of the life in London, she realized that comparatively little was known of the new land which had once been an English colony and was now attracting English and Scotch immigrants in great numbers. She set foot in little old New York, which was then a thriving community, without skyscrapers or bridges to connect the island of Manhattan with its neighborhood boroughs. True, the Astors had begun to make a fortune as fur traders, and Commodore Vanderbilt had found it profitable to pilot a ferry between Staten and Manhattan Islands; nevertheless, New York had little resemblance to the great present-day city of the North American Continent.
And what of the North American Continent upon which Harriet Martineau gazed? She came to America just after the Lewis and Clark expedition had blazed a trail to the Pacific and fur traders were following the Oregon Trail across the mountains.
American missionaries and farmers were quick to follow. The Northern States were clamoring for the annexation of Oregon to the Union and the South was clamoring for Texas. annexation were so vociferous that the slogan of "Fifty-four-Forty or Fight" was to be heard everywhere, as the citizens of the new The advocates of Nation, greedy for land, clamored for the extension of American territory to further latitudes. The clamor grew until it resulted in the election of James K. Polk in 1844 on that very issue.
The industrial revolution was beginning in America, and Harriet Martineau took full note of it. locm had been invented and were making it possible for cloth to The spinning jenny and the power be made in new ways. were new tools for farming, including the reaper. Women-and The cotton gin had been invented and there men, too-who had carried on small manufacturing plants with hand tools on their farms, making the family's clothing along with the family's food supply, found it necessary to change their way of life. The growth of mill towns was taken for granted, and young women who had been earning their livelihoods at just six occupations-keeping boarders, teaching young children, typesetting, bookbinding, domestic service, and needlework-found a new occupation as weavers in the mills.
The severe financial panic in 1837 threw thousands out of work, and when Harriet Martineau visited America unemployment stories were constantly printed in the daily press. The suffrage movement was being extended, and Robert Fulton's steamboat had set a new pace; the inland waterways of America were being invaded by steamboats plowing their way through the hitherto untroubled waters. The best opportunities for men lay in the fields and forests of the far West.
And as usual men and women were facing the future with uncertainty, dreading the changes but eager to get on with them. In 1836, a young girl, living and working in Lowell, Mass, penned these lines
"Oh, isn't it a pity that such a pretty girl as I, Should be sent to the factory to pine away and die?" Thus, the working girl lamented, as she was forced out of the home and into industry. All this and more the woman journalist from England noted and went home and reported in a lengthy volume reciting the sights she had seen and the observations she had made.
3579 It was Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt, our beloved leader of suffrage and world peace, who called our attention to Harriet Martineau and her writings and urged us to observe the one-hundredth anniversary of Miss Martineau's reportorial journey, and to see how many doors are still closed to women, 100 years later. We have accepted Mrs. Catt's suggestion and our biennial convention is devoted to the theme, "One Hundred Years of Women's Progress in the United States." Our compass is the 1930 Census, and that shows that of some 535 classifications of occupations listed, women are engaged in 501, the heavy tasks, such as mining, locomotive engineers, firemen, et cetera, being completely masculine territory. And so in 100 years, women have advanced from 7 fields to 501; doors of opportunity for women are opening wider and wider, but the end is not yet, and perhaps 100 more years will pass until the world will allow women to make their best contribution, and women will be willing to make it.
In 100 years American women have come a long way, just as our country has come a long way, but we still have a journey to make, both as women and as citizens. It is noteworthy that teachers' training schools were started 100 years ago this year. Here and now we are observing the one-hundredth anniversary of women's progress, and I think it is a suitable time to take stock of where we have come from, where we wish to go, and how we are to get there. To help us evaluate these three points we appointed a committee of distinguished women. lin D. Roosevelt is honorary chairman of the committee, and Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt is vice chairman. Mrs. Frankbers are Dr. Mary E. Wooley, president emeritus of Mount Holyoke College; Mrs. Ruth Finley, author and noted publicist for the The other memRepublican Party; Ruth Comfort Mitchell, novelist and one of California's best-known daughters; the Honorable Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor; those two outstanding women in radio, Margaret Cuthbert and Helen J. Souissat; Fannie Hurst, the novelist; Miss Emma P. Hirth, general secretary of the Y. W. C. A.; President Aurelia H. Reinhardt, of Mills College, Calif.; Dr. Martha Tracy, dean of the Women's Medical College of Pennsylvania; Mrs. Mary Dillon, president of the Brooklyn Borough Gas Co.; and Mrs. Ora Snyder, manufacturer, of Chicago.
These women have had broad experience in public service and private enterprise. They represent every range of political and economic thinking, and I believe that their answers to a questionnaire which I sent them will help chart our course for the 100 years ahead.
First, I asked, "What were the chief obstacles to employment in the path of American women 100 years ago?"
Tradition seems to have been the chief stumbling block, with several important contributing causes, such as social and economic custom, lack of education, lack of training, and lack of personal initiative. I have quoted these obstacles from the considered opinion of one of the committee members, Ruth Finley, the noted writer and biographer of women of the colonial period. Mrs. Finley was formerly the editor of Guide, published by the Women's National Republican Club.
Frances Perkins has some interesting observations on that question, and I quote her:
"The lack of employment opportunities outside the home for both men and women constituted the principal obstacle to employment in 1839. This was the period, early in the industrial revolution, when women's traditional occupations were just beginning to move out of the home into factories, mills, and shops. There were few schools and most of the teachers were men, with women substituting in the summer while the men took agricultural jobs. Clerical jobs were practically nonexistent. The largest number of openings were in textile mills, where labor was scarce and wages were high. In these mills, hours were very long, and the workers were housed in dormitories under unfavorable living conditions. In 1839 there were practically no opportunities for professional women or any vocational training for women.' On the other hand, Mme. Secretary wrote: "There were cer- in social prestige-there existed no class distinction on the basis Work in factory or mill entailed no loss of 'white collar' or manual labor. to the welfare of a new nation. Factory work offered educational All work meant a contribution opportunities which were not available for women in schools of higher learning. It offered wages higher than for teaching. Horace Mann reported that women in many occupations in mills and fac- tories earned six or seven times as much as women teachers.
"Early mill workers were militant in the protection of their rights. As the real daughters of the American Revolution, they were earnestly concerned with justice and liberty in dealing with the concrete problems of their daily work life." These are the views of Frances Perkins.
Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt said in response to this question. I quote: "I should say that in 1839 the chief obstacles in the path of employment for American women were, first, the attitude held by both men and women as to the proper kind of work which women should do. Secondly, the lack of educational facilities and of training which they could obtain, and thirdly the lack of opportunities even if they obtained the education and the training." And from Ora Snyder came this opinion. I quote: "Lack of confidence in their ability and the old-fashioned opinion that women should not leave household duties or the care of the family." Dr. Martha Tracy is of the opinion that tradition was women's main stumbling block, plus the economic necessity of doing the home chores personally, including cooking and preserving foodstuffs, cleaning, laundry work, making the husband's and children's clothes, and childbearing. Dr. Tracy says that all of these obstacles have been largely conquered, and I quote her, "largely but not entirely. Childbearing will always be a factor." Ruth Finley thinks the obstacles have mainly been overcome, and Mrs. Roosevelt believes that "there is still some prejudice against women in certain lines of work for which they are naturally better equipped than men. The training today is fairly universally open to them though there are restrictions which make it a little difficult. Many more lines of work are open to women, but they have to excell." Frances Perkins made the following statement in answer to this question:
"Significant progress has been made in removing the obstacles to women's wage-earning employment that existed 100 years ago, but the job is far from complete. Eleven million women are now gainfully employed and are found in practically all occupations. Prejudice against women in the professions is gradually breaking down, and they are securing an ever greater measure of vocational opportunity. Training facilities for almost every occupational field are open to women, though the resultant job opportunities still may be relatively scarce. In recent years there has been a notable increase in the number of women in important administrative jobs in both State and Federal Governments. "However," Miss Perkins goes on to say, "because an increasing number of women must earn their livelihood and also support dependents entirely or partially, and because jobs are also scarce for men, competition is a much greater factor for women to reckon with now than it was some years ago. "Moreover, the traditional sex discriminations are still a major obstacle women encounter in their efforts to find satisfying and profitable employment. Their ability is still far from being accepted on the same plane as that of men. "Immense improvement has come about in the raising of wages, the lowering of hours, and the betterment of plant equipment; but the situation in this respect is still far from Utopian. double wage standard still prevails in a number of fields." The And now we come to the third question, "What obstacle do you believe will beset women in the next 100 years?" To this question Mrs. Finley answers, "The physical obstacle of sex, which never can be changed, and an overcrowding of the so-called economic jobs." Dr. Tracy's answer is-and I quote: "Economic competition with men, particularly in times of unemployment. The individual women's own incompetence." She also notes: "The same applies to men, but women capitalize on the 'tradition' of sex obstruction. Child bearing cannot be outmoded." Mrs. Snyder feels that "jealousy from the male sex" will be the chief obstacle for women. Most of the committee declined to commit themselves on one question, which was, "In your opinion, what has been the outstanding contribution made by American women during the past 100 years?" Ruth Finley, however, answers by saying, "Dissemination of women's news,' and she names Sarah Josepha Hale as the woman who has made the outstanding contribution of the past 100 years. She gives her reason for this as follows-and again I quote: "Prior to the radio, the national woman's magazines were the only interstate link between women. Mrs. Hale, for 50 years editor of Godey's Lady's Book, the first woman's magazine approaching Nation-wide circulation, did more to correlate and unify women's thought in this country than any other person, man or woman, in the nineteenth century." Helen Sioussat, of Columbia Broadcasting Co., said unhesitatingly, "The discovery of radium," and nominated Mme. Curie. Margaret Cuthbert believes that the political recognition of American women has been the outstanding contribution, and she nominated Susan B. Anthony. Frances Perkins wrote: "Because there have been so many important contributions by women in so many fields, it is difficult to evaluate them in such a general way as to make it possible to name only one woman."
Ora Snyder said, "Jane Addams is the woman, and her splendid work at Hull House, Chicago, in the settlement field proves it." Dr. Tracy also has a candidate. She wrote, "Mary Lyon's demonstration that women can be educated, without danger to health or other damage to their nature, is of the utmost importance." And now for my next question, for this is an inventory of women's liabilities as well as women's assets, "What have been the greatest failures of women in the past 100 years?" And again Ruth Finley out of her great wealth of research on the lives of American women answers, "Over-eagerness, evidencing a real lack
of moral stamina in many cases, to throw off the frequently monotonous responsibilities of the home." And Ruth Finley finds these failures also, "unwillingness to serve adequate apprenticeship in the economic world; lack of understanding of and consequent impatience with the slowness of the natural evolution of the now machine-made social order, and failure to assimilate experience." Frances Perkins says, "One major failure of women in the past century relates to their neglect of the use of their hard-won right to vote. Women's failure to take a more active part in American politics, as voters and as candidates for office has been a major disappointment. Women have not participated as fully as they might in labor organization. They have a most important contribution to make in this field and should become increasingly active." And she continues, "Some women have fallen down in their responsibility as employers of other persons. For example, long hours, low wages, social isolation, and exclusion from legislative protection have been characteristic of the vocation using the services of the largest single group of women workers-household employment."
And here is one of the most important questions that I asked the women who form the committee for the commemoration of 100 years of women's progress in the United States. "What are the greatest prejudices concerning women now held by the general public?" Ruth Finley gave me two answers, "Overcrowding of the wage field and consequent usurpation of jobs needed by men as the natural heads of families, and falling birth rate in the middle, and especially the native-born classes." And the First Lady of the Land answered, "It was generally thought that physically and mentally women were not equal to doing the same type of work as men.' Frances Perkins wrote thoughtfully, "Perhaps the oustanding prejudice against women 100 years ago was the general one that they were inferior beings, inferior to men physically, mentally, and economically; that it was of no importance that they be educated and granted political privileges. Under the laws of the day women were severely discriminated against in relation to property rights, in the rights of custody of children and the like. The common law, which was so often detrimental to women's interest, was accepted as the legal authority. Women were not considered experienced enough to handle any of their personal affairs, nor to participate in public affairs. "Though important progress has been made, there are still distinct evidences of a carry-over of prejudice against women that existed a century ago. With a large segment of our people, the idea still prevails that women's place is 'in the home' and the prejudice against the employment of married women is yet very strong among some groups. "At times men make much ado about women's artistic inferiority and as a consequence women have heavy competitive sledding to make a valid contribution in the field of arts.
"Though women's legal status has strengthened throughout the century, they are still in a far weaker position in this respect than are men in many States. In some cases their wages yet belong to their husbands; in others they do not share equally with their husbands in their children's custody, etc. A number of States do not permit women to serve on juries."
Margaret Cuthbert, famous radio authority, says, bluntly, "Women, given the same opportunity as men, are making the same mistakes and doing the same things that men are doing. With the freedom they now have in view of the money they control, they have done little that is unique, little that is original, little that is different, and not much that shows that women as a group are using their natural gifts to make their own lives and the lives of others more civilized-outside of a few exceptional women."
Mrs. Snyder thinks that men's lack of confidence in women's ability will be the chief obstacle for women in the future. Dr. Tracy concurs in this, saying: "Men's age-old prejudice that women were physically and intellectually inferior still holds, though much diluted and localized."
And now I come to the heart of my questionnaire, for, having gathered the opinions of these women, I wanted to find out what we can do about it as business and professional women. So I asked all of them, "In your opinion, what is the best way for business and professional women to educate the general public as to the fact that these prejudices are not factually founded?" Here is what some of them answered:
Dr. Tracy: "By accepting opportunities for work and giving competent performance. Not by talking about it." Mrs. Snyder: "Instruct the public that we believe in equality, and we want a chance to demonstrate what we can do on an equal footing." Mrs. Roosevelt: "In my opinion, the best education is the education which makes people acquainted with the facts, and the facts can be furnished today through studies made by the various people interested in labor and in woman's position." Miss Perkins: "Probably the best educational method consists of clear demonstrations of women's ability in many fields." Mary Dillon: "To succeed as individuals in the jobs they hold." And Ruth Finley: "Probably the best way for the fit and capable business and professional woman to combat this general attitude (which is growing with appalling rapidity) is to recognize the inevitable weeding-out process of evolution now and back that recognition with the weight of opinion and influence. Always women have worked outside as well as in the home. In 1839 the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
proportion was overbalanced in favor of the home, with many resultant personal misfits and family or group hardships. "Now the pendulum has swung too far the other way, and in 1939 the opposite proportion of overbalance has created more personal misfits and family group hardships than ever before. History has proved that one of the primary social laws is the maintaining or restoration of balance. It seems to me that nothing could give women a more solid foundation for their future as free citizens than their voluntary and immediate recognition of this law."
"Example" is what counts most, Margaret Cuthbert feels. "Deeds more important than words," she writes, "giving proof that women are not personal and prejudiced in business; relating the complex fabric of civilization to the persons for whom, after all, it exists." She points out that "it is not through individual achievement that women are going to serve as they will serve, but in proportion as they emphasize and express cooperation. brave new world must be a man's and woman's world." This
And with these opinions behind us, I asked, "What type of education do you believe will be best suited to women in the next century?" And here are the answers: From Mrs. Snyder, "A practical education and training for a business or professional career.' Mary Dillon's answer is succinct. as men, a rounded cultural background, plus specific training in I quote her exactly: "Same the field of their vocation."
From Dr. Tracy: "Just such an education as will fit any adult to be an intelligent and tolerant citizen and a thorough performer in the lot to which circumstances and her own ability will call her."
Ruth Finley advocates: "A scholastic education to enable women to participate in and understand and enjoy modern civilization; domestic science and child care; professional or occupational training according to the talent of the individual." Frances Perkins says, "Because of our many new means of communication, nation with nation and locality with locality, people touch each other at many more points than they used to. For this reason education needs to be broader. needs to be realistic, too. Education national life to the full they must know science and economics If women are to participate in our as well as the so-called cultural subjects. Education should produce attitudes of liberalism and democracy as well as the absorption of factual data." And, "What tools for advancement do you think women need most during the next century?" I asked them. answers education, individual adequacy, a change in the ecoHere are some of the nomic condition of the country, health maintenance, the removal of legislative restriction against women. recommended and these are the tools we must acquire. These are the tools of all the tools, individual adequacy was stressed the most. When I asked, "Why are not more office after 2 decades of enfranchisement?" women holding public of the committee held decided opinions. Madame Secretary wrote I found that many as follows: "It cannot be said fairly that either men or women are to blame, rather a number of circumstances are involved. The old concept of women's inferiority in any role other than that of homemaker is doubtless responsible for the fact that very few women are elected or appointed to public office. "However, because of lingering prejudices in respect to women's holding public positions the woman who runs for and holds such office needs to be more outstanding and better qualified than the average man with whom she competes. must be competent, a Where a man women themselves have not in general enlarged their concept woman must be exceptional. Moreover, of what constitutes women's work to have it cover public service to any considerable degree.
"A second reason, I believe, that so few women run for office has to do with the rather low regard many people in this country hold for the mechanics of politics. Women have tended to shy away from practical politics and concentrate in their organizations on nonpartisan politics. In the third place, women as yet have achieved no solidarity as women toward the end of putting those of their sex into public office."
Dr. Tracy feels that there are not more women holding public office because of, and I quote her, "lack of qualifications and very often unwillingness or inability to accept responsibility and to sacrifice personal and home obligations to the requirements of public office."
Mrs. Snyder feels that the reason lies in the fact that "men do not want women in public office, and fight their election." Ruth Finley holds out some comfort for us. whole women are still unfitted and incapable with, of course, She says, "On the notable exceptions. Public prejudice and lack of confidence due to a long established custom have held women back. what is 20 years of enfranchisement as against the more than After all, 2,000 years of masculine training and practice in the art of governing?"
And echo answers, what indeed? And here is Margaret Cuthbert's opinion, I quote, "It is not important that they do hold more offices. that they use their influence and power for better government. It is more important If women choose to do this, men cannot stop them."
There were just two more questions on my list, first, "In what field do you believe women will make the greatest contribution during the next century?"
3581 The answers include, the preservation of the home as a national unit, public administration, social welfare, social sciences, human welfare, and the defense of democratic institutions.
And my final question, "What in your opinion can woman do to bring about the settlement of disputes between nations by peaceful methods?" The answers include, first, education; second, through participation in international organizations like the Y. W. C. A., the Associated Country Women of the World, which demonstrate the value of the conference method; through emphasizing the similarities of people rather than the differences; by encouraging tolerance and the settlement of every disagreement by arbitration; by demanding peace actively and aggressively. "War can be banished just as dueling was banished," Ruth Finley advises me. "Where women will there is always a way." And now, delegates to the convention, you have heard the opinions of some of the members of the committee. time this evening for all to be given you. There was not stood 100 years ago, where we stand today, and what we must do You know where we in the years ahead. whole subject further, and distinguished speakers will give us Throughout this week we will consider the further and more intensive interpretations. I noted that the names of just five women were suggested as having made the outstanding contributions of the past century— Sarah Josepha Hale, Mary Lyon, Susan B. Anthony, Jane Addams, and Mme. Curie, the latter, of course, not an American. list I would add two others-Dr. Anna Howard Shaw and Carrie To that Chapman Catt. That is the chief roll of honor of the past century as I see it.
Where we have come from we know. Where we are going is known only to Him who knows all. of American women is indissolubly united with the future of our We do know that the future country, just as the contributions of the women of the past have been entwined with the history of the progress of America. We have made great opportunities for women and we have had great opportunities made for us. we fail now, we can only echo Shakespeare's words, "The fault, Many doors are open to us. If dear Brutus, is in ourselves, not in our stars, if we are underlings."
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: EXCESS GOVERNMENT SPENDING COVERED BY PRINTING BONDS (By Wadsworth W. Mount, Assistant Director of Research, the
As long as the Government can spend all the money it wants to, over and above what it takes in from taxes, merely by printing Government bonds, selling these to the banks, and then drawing checks against them, how can we ever hope to stop extravagant Government spending?
And when the Government spends these billions in such ways that private citizens do not know which way to turn to make money, and therefore have comparatively little need to borrow from the banks on safe terms, where else can banks invest your money on deposit but in Government bonds?
A banker knows that when the United States Government prints a Government bond it says in effect that the Government will tax the people of the United States to make it good. fore, that Government bonds are the soundest security in the He knows, therecountry, just so long as we do not issue too many of them and have inflation. Before the Government started spending several billions more each year than it took in from taxes, the savings banks, for instance, could safely lend your money, largely to people who wanted to spend it for private or business uses, at a high enough rate of interest to cover their expenses and pay you 4 percent. ent conditions, however, one of the few remaining safe places to Under pres
invest bank funds is in Government bonds. Therefore, as the interest rate on long-term Treasury bonds has been lowered until their average yield is now approximately 2 percent, at present about all the savings banks can safely get for the use of your money is enough to provide for necessary expenses and reserves and pay you only 2 percent, or even less, on your deposits. The Treasury has just announced that to pay off some $426,000,000 of outstanding obligations which are due in September and now carry an interest rate of 1% percent it will offer in exchange new "notes" due in 5 years which will pay only three-fourths of 1 percent.
A New York investment firm recently showed that Treasury obligations maturing in a little more than 2 years now afford a yield of only one one-hundredth of 1 percent. At this rate of return, it was pointed out that "an investor would have to hold more than $144,000 par value to provide an income sufficient to buy his morning newspaper each day; he would have to hold $558,000 to provide enough funds to buy a daily package of cigarettes." As the average interest rate on all Federal obligations is lowered, those having money in savings accounts and insurance policies which represent their personally saved "social security" have their interest earnings also reduced, as a large part of such funds are invested in Government bonds.
This means, therefore, that it will take you longer to pay for your life insurance, as the annual dividends will be less or the premiums will be more. Some people think that only the taxpayers of future generations will have to pay for the present Government spending. However, if you own a savings-bank account you are paying right now for the increased national debt by getting one-half or less of the amount of interest you used to receive, and the trend is still downward.
This means then that if, for example, you were trying to put in the savings bank enough money to give you $2,000-a-year income, you will now have to save $100,000 or more, where when savings banks were able to invest your money safely and pay you 4 percent you would only have had to save $50,000 to get this same income. Everyone in the Nation has to pay one way or another for the money our Government officials are instructed to spend. Some pay taxes directly, but everyone pays indirectly for all Government services. The Government has nothing to give to the people except what it gets from the people.
The question is not whether these are desirable Government functions.
The question is whether the country wants expansion of Government, which must be paid for by increased taxes. Or wants expansion of business, which pays in jobs and wages. For the increased money that now goes into Government spending is the money that formerly went into new and improved products, new and enlarged factories, bigger pay rolls and dividends. There isn't enough in the earned dollar to go both ways. Business the production and distribution of goods-is the only thing that can create new wealth. Less taxes; more jobs.
THIRTY CENTS FOR "INDEPENDENCE," JULY 4, 1939 Here, then, in broad strokes is the state of the Nation today. Each of the 60 countries of the world requires around two-thirds of its productive work, its income, to pay for the necessities, food, shelter, clothing. This 65 percent is true of a country regardless of its living standards, India on the one extreme, the United States with the highest standards on the other. What of the 35 cents left after the sustenance of life? In that answer lie most of our troublesome problems today. Consider three pictures:
Until recently the people of the United States disposed of their 35 cents in this way. Five cents, at the turn of the century, was all that was required to pay for expenses of government-State, Federal, and local. Of the remaining 30 cents, about half went into the hands of managers of business enterprises which was about equally divided by them in expanding old industries and promoting and developing new ones such as radio, rayon, automobile. Much of this 15 cents remained in the hands of the people in the form of investment, productive wealth represented by stocks and bonds and life-insurance equities. The remaining 15 cents was used to buy the products of this increased industrial activity, thus driving upward standards of living and making one-time luxuries the conveniences and even necessities denied the rest of the world.
Second picture: What of the 35 cents which remained to the peoples of the other 59 countries? Since time immemorial around 30 cents was used for government expenses. A hazardous 5 cents was left as free capital. This gives point to the sentient statement of former President Hadley, of Yale, that the supremacy of the United States was due to the fact that it could afford to take chances upon development as no other country could afford to do. Five cents as against 30 cents as a backlog. Why did the Old World require 30 cents of the earnings of their people for government? For policing. External policing, the fear of land-grabbing, wealth-grabbing neighbor aggressors, whose people were in constant fear of being deprived of the bare necessities. Third picture: What is the situation in the United States today? Sixty-five cents for the necessities. Of the 35 remaining, 30 for governments (25 collected in taxes, 5 borrowed). Ten cents for investment and the lifting of living standards.
Why the great increase in government costs? Not to relieve distress and unemployment, as generally stated and believed. Only one dollar in six of Federal expenditures is for relief. The great increase in taxation and borrowing, which has brought overnight the allocation of the earned dollar to a level almost to that of other countries, is for policing. Against foreign aggressors? No. For protection against an alleged aggression and oppression on the part of business management. Internal "policing." Policing ourselves against ourselves.
Every act of those engaged in stimulating us to trade our labor, services, and products is now under surveillance, from the time a commission checks the project to the time another bureau passes upon the label to go on the package. Policing, in another form, such as protection against the private electric bulb by Government "yardstick" operation. Policing of banks, labor relations, aviation, oil, coal, lumber, telephones, retailers, stock and grain exchanges, insurance. Policing of States and communities as to the manner in which they handle their social problems. Policing in another form as exemplified in the published statistics that the Federal Government received 153,000,000 compulsory reports from business management last year. Policing as expressed in the $76,000,000-a sum equal to one-sixth of total passenger revenuesspent by Washington in travel expenses of its inspectors, regulators, investigators in 1 calendar year. These three pictures are true pictures. They point the trend to a static society, a "planned economy," to "frontiers gone forever." We, the people, perhaps planned it that way, a road to centralized authority over, and policing of, the individual. But perhaps we did not count the cost; unemployment still with us, management, which brings dreams into being, and men and jobs together, and more conveniences and luxuries for more people, now disheartened and bewildered, unable to see 30 days down the road because of the new policing machinery we have set up, whereby 137 boards, bureaus, commissions, Federal incorporations and authorities now pass laws daily in the form of rules and regulations. Little government, with little expense and little policing, brought the United States the highest standard of living the world has ever seen. Perhaps the founders were wrong in building that way, indignant and angry as they were against a ruler demanding more taxes and more power, who, as a famous declaration set forth, had "erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." Page 11Page 12
There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
I want to talk to you about education and the need for securing Federal aid for our schools. At a time when the present State administration in Wisconsin is preparing to cut nearly $2,000,000 out of our school budgets, I think it is absolutely necessary for us all to give the matter some very serious attention. The problem of maintaining fair and proper educational opportunities for our boys and girls in the next 2 years is going to demand some sort of outside assistance if the State government will not assume its rightful share of the responsibility. I am a firm believer in "economy" if by economy is meant making the most of what resources we have at our disposal and eliminating waste. But I fail to see any economy in a pinch-penny policy that is willing to sacrifice the rights of our young people to a full education simply for a few paltry pieces of silver. The greatest resource America has is its people, and we owe it to ourselves as a nation to see to it that the talents and abilities of the young are developed to the highest degree possible by means of adequate educational opportunities.
To hear some people talk, one might think that we have been extravagant in the support of our schools during the last few years, but actually in the country as a whole we are spending about $350,000,000 less for education than we were in 1930, in spite of the fact that high-school enrollment, where the expense is heaviest, has been increased by over 1,575,000 students. In Wisconsin we have been more fortunate, up until the present time, than the people in other States. In 1935 Wisconsin restored its State school aids to their former levels, and in the years that followed much was done to repair the damage suffered by our educational system as a result of depression retrenchment. Now, however, as a result of the action being taken by the new State administration, we are back face to face with the old problem
again. There is a bill before Congress at the present time which would provide, if enacted, a program of Federal aid to States for the support of their schools and the equalization of educational opportunity throughout the Nation. Under the estimated apportionment of the appropriation submitted with the bill, the enactment of this program could mean as much as $1,200,000 for Wisconsin next year and still more in succeeding years. Such a program is important to the whole Nation. One of the main foundation stones of democracy is equality of educational opportunity. That means public schools available to every man's son or daughter from kindergarten right on up through the university. If we allow a situation to develop where higher education is open only to those people of wealth who can afford to send their children to private schools, it will lead inevitably toward a class division in this country, with the educated, wealthy few on one side of the fence and a resentful, uneducated multitude on the other side. That sort of a situation is as dangerous as it is unnecessary.
Today there are between 800,000 and a million children of grade-school age who are not going to school. Most of them have no school to go to. There are approximately 3,000,000 people in the country who are totally illiterate, who can neither read nor write. And if you passed a newspaper around the Nation, you would find that as many as 15,000,000 adults couldn't read it. Those same people cannot write the simplest of letters. Believe it or not, there are more illiterates in America than there are college graduates.
An analysis of teachers' salaries shows another astounding condition. Considering the range by States, the State having the highest average salary for teachers has an average of only $2,414 per year, and on the other extreme is a State where teachers receive an average salary of only $504 per year. The average salary for teachers in rural communities is correspondingly still lower. For rural teachers the top average is only $1,337 and the bottom average is a bare $430.
When you realize how important is the teacher to whom parents entrust their children for education and guidance, it is surprising that the public has allowed such a condition to exist. If we are to secure the best kind of people to be the teachers of our children, we must be prepared to pay them enough so that they can afford to pass up opportunities in other fields and devote themselves to teaching.
The problem is worse in some States than in others. Some States are wealthy while others are poor, and unfortunately it appears that the States which are least able to maintain adequate schools have the greatest number of children in proportion to adult population. The President's Advisory Committee on Education has made a thorough study of this problem, and it reports a variation so large that the richest State in the Union has a per capita taxpaying ability to support schools which is 12 times the ability of the poorest State. This is not the fault of the individual States. It is a question of wealth. Our modern commercial life has outgrown even State boundaries. Much of our wealth has been drained away from the producing areas of the Nation into the financial centers of the country. As a result, the per capita wealth of some eastern States,
for instance, is all out of proportion to their actual physical contribution to the Nation's production. In order to recapture this wealth for the States from which it came in the first place, the Federal Government must reach it through Federal taxes and return it to the States by means of grants-in-aid. Senate bill 1305 now before the Congress proposes a 6-year program of Federal aids for education in the States. It authorizes an appropriation of approximately $75,000,000 for such purposes during the next fiscal year and increasing amounts for the succeeding years until an appropriation of $208,000,000 is reached for the fiscal year ending in 1945. This money would go toward the support of public elementary and secondary schools, improved teacher preparation, construction of school buildings, administration of State departments of education, adult education, rural-library service, and educational research.
It would not involve any sort of Federal control over the schools. The bill specifically provides that all matters of school administration, curriculum, methods of instruction, personnel, and the determination of the best uses for the funds granted shall be left to the control of the States and their local subdivisions. In order to qualify for the grants each State would simply have to establish a plan for distributing funds to the local school districts in such a way that the aim of the Federal program, the equalization of educational opportunity, would be carried out. In this way the Federal Government would be assured that the neediest communities of the State would get the greatest benefits from the funds granted.
The only other condition of importance to Wisconsin which would have to be met before the funds could be made available under the terms of this bill is the requirement that the State provide funds for these purposes in amounts at least equal to the sums provided in 1938.
The funds to be appropriated under this plan are to be divided among the States according to their respective educational loads and their respective financial abilities. The educational load of each State would be computed from estimates by the Bureau of the Census each year of the number of children of school age in the State. The financial ability of each State would be computed by the Secretary of the Treasury on the basis of certain standards prescribed in the bill. By balancing the State's school load against its financial ability, its financial need under the plan is determined, and the funds are allocated in accordance with this need.
The Senate Committee on Education and Labor has held hearings on the bill and has reported it favorably to the Senate for passage. At the hearings representatives of the leading educational organizations in this country, representing both parents and teachers, appeared and urged that the Federal Government undertake such a program. I feel that a program of this kind should receive the unselfish support of every public-spirited citizen. Education is one of those things which we cannot postpone to suit our convenience. Every year that goes by means a certain number of boys and girls who have either passed beyond school age or have been forced by circumstances to undertake responsibilities which will If their education was prevent their ever going back to school. neglected during the years when they could have gone to school, the chances are they will carry that handicap with them all through life. The rural areas are the hardest hit. It is an established fact that it costs more to provide proper educational facilities in the country than in the city. We know also that there are more children, in proportion to adult population, in the rural areas than in the cities. Yet in spite of that fact the best educational opportunities are being provided for children in the cities. "Equalization of educational opportunity" means not only establishing more uniformity of educational opportunities among the 48 States; it also means bringing financial aid to the rural schools so that the farmers and the people in the small communities can give their children as good an education as the children in the cities get.
If we are going to make democracy work in America, we must always have an intelligent, educated, informed citizenry. If we neglect the education of our young people now, even for a little while, we are going to pay dearly for it in the future. In Wisconsin we have a very definite problem. The budget of the university alone is being cut over a million dollars in the face of increased enrollment and long-delayed needs for expansion. A similar cut is being imposed upon the State teachers' colleges. Unless corrected, this will result in one of two things either fees will have to be raised and it will become that much harder for farmers and working people to send their children to school, or standards will have to be lowered and they will get just that much less for their money.
The program of Federal aid which I have outlined to you will not in any way make up for all the State's failures in this respect but it will help some. The Federal program is primarily concerned with elementary and secondary education, but, indirectly at least, it will aid by taking some of the budgetary pressure off our public institutions of higher education.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
Mr. HARRISON. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the RECORD a speech delivered by Miss Earlene White, at the biennial convention of the National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, Inc., at Kansas City, Mo., on July 9, 1939, on the subject of professional women. There being no objection, the speech was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
It was a bright, sunny morning in the 1830's. A distinguished looking woman, traveling alone, her full skirts discreetly sweeping the ground, her corkscrew curls hanging coyly beneath her bonnet, alighted from a packet boat, having made the trip from England to America in about 40 days.
The woman was Harriet Martineau, a friend of the Carlyles, a trained observer and commentator who came to America in search of new copy. Tired, for a time, of the life in London, she realized that comparatively little was known of the new land which had once been an English colony and was now attracting English and Scotch immigrants in great numbers. She set foot in little old New York, which was then a thriving community, without skyscrapers or bridges to connect the island of Manhattan with its neighborhood boroughs. True, the Astors had begun to make a fortune as fur traders, and Commodore Vanderbilt had found it profitable to pilot a ferry between Staten and Manhattan Islands; nevertheless, New York had little resemblance to the great present-day city of the North American Continent.
And what of the North American Continent upon which Harriet Martineau gazed? She came to America just after the Lewis and Clark expedition had blazed a trail to the Pacific and fur traders were following the Oregon Trail across the mountains.
American missionaries and farmers were quick to follow. The Northern States were clamoring for the annexation of Oregon to the Union and the South was clamoring for Texas. annexation were so vociferous that the slogan of "Fifty-four-Forty or Fight" was to be heard everywhere, as the citizens of the new The advocates of Nation, greedy for land, clamored for the extension of American territory to further latitudes. The clamor grew until it resulted in the election of James K. Polk in 1844 on that very issue.
The industrial revolution was beginning in America, and Harriet Martineau took full note of it. locm had been invented and were making it possible for cloth to The spinning jenny and the power be made in new ways. were new tools for farming, including the reaper. Women-and The cotton gin had been invented and there men, too-who had carried on small manufacturing plants with hand tools on their farms, making the family's clothing along with the family's food supply, found it necessary to change their way of life. The growth of mill towns was taken for granted, and young women who had been earning their livelihoods at just six occupations-keeping boarders, teaching young children, typesetting, bookbinding, domestic service, and needlework-found a new occupation as weavers in the mills.
The severe financial panic in 1837 threw thousands out of work, and when Harriet Martineau visited America unemployment stories were constantly printed in the daily press. The suffrage movement was being extended, and Robert Fulton's steamboat had set a new pace; the inland waterways of America were being invaded by steamboats plowing their way through the hitherto untroubled waters. The best opportunities for men lay in the fields and forests of the far West.
And as usual men and women were facing the future with uncertainty, dreading the changes but eager to get on with them. In 1836, a young girl, living and working in Lowell, Mass, penned these lines
"Oh, isn't it a pity that such a pretty girl as I, Should be sent to the factory to pine away and die?" Thus, the working girl lamented, as she was forced out of the home and into industry. All this and more the woman journalist from England noted and went home and reported in a lengthy volume reciting the sights she had seen and the observations she had made.
3579 It was Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt, our beloved leader of suffrage and world peace, who called our attention to Harriet Martineau and her writings and urged us to observe the one-hundredth anniversary of Miss Martineau's reportorial journey, and to see how many doors are still closed to women, 100 years later. We have accepted Mrs. Catt's suggestion and our biennial convention is devoted to the theme, "One Hundred Years of Women's Progress in the United States." Our compass is the 1930 Census, and that shows that of some 535 classifications of occupations listed, women are engaged in 501, the heavy tasks, such as mining, locomotive engineers, firemen, et cetera, being completely masculine territory. And so in 100 years, women have advanced from 7 fields to 501; doors of opportunity for women are opening wider and wider, but the end is not yet, and perhaps 100 more years will pass until the world will allow women to make their best contribution, and women will be willing to make it.
In 100 years American women have come a long way, just as our country has come a long way, but we still have a journey to make, both as women and as citizens. It is noteworthy that teachers' training schools were started 100 years ago this year. Here and now we are observing the one-hundredth anniversary of women's progress, and I think it is a suitable time to take stock of where we have come from, where we wish to go, and how we are to get there. To help us evaluate these three points we appointed a committee of distinguished women. lin D. Roosevelt is honorary chairman of the committee, and Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt is vice chairman. Mrs. Frankbers are Dr. Mary E. Wooley, president emeritus of Mount Holyoke College; Mrs. Ruth Finley, author and noted publicist for the The other memRepublican Party; Ruth Comfort Mitchell, novelist and one of California's best-known daughters; the Honorable Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor; those two outstanding women in radio, Margaret Cuthbert and Helen J. Souissat; Fannie Hurst, the novelist; Miss Emma P. Hirth, general secretary of the Y. W. C. A.; President Aurelia H. Reinhardt, of Mills College, Calif.; Dr. Martha Tracy, dean of the Women's Medical College of Pennsylvania; Mrs. Mary Dillon, president of the Brooklyn Borough Gas Co.; and Mrs. Ora Snyder, manufacturer, of Chicago.
These women have had broad experience in public service and private enterprise. They represent every range of political and economic thinking, and I believe that their answers to a questionnaire which I sent them will help chart our course for the 100 years ahead.
First, I asked, "What were the chief obstacles to employment in the path of American women 100 years ago?"
Tradition seems to have been the chief stumbling block, with several important contributing causes, such as social and economic custom, lack of education, lack of training, and lack of personal initiative. I have quoted these obstacles from the considered opinion of one of the committee members, Ruth Finley, the noted writer and biographer of women of the colonial period. Mrs. Finley was formerly the editor of Guide, published by the Women's National Republican Club.
Frances Perkins has some interesting observations on that question, and I quote her:
"The lack of employment opportunities outside the home for both men and women constituted the principal obstacle to employment in 1839. This was the period, early in the industrial revolution, when women's traditional occupations were just beginning to move out of the home into factories, mills, and shops. There were few schools and most of the teachers were men, with women substituting in the summer while the men took agricultural jobs. Clerical jobs were practically nonexistent. The largest number of openings were in textile mills, where labor was scarce and wages were high. In these mills, hours were very long, and the workers were housed in dormitories under unfavorable living conditions. In 1839 there were practically no opportunities for professional women or any vocational training for women.' On the other hand, Mme. Secretary wrote: "There were cer- in social prestige-there existed no class distinction on the basis Work in factory or mill entailed no loss of 'white collar' or manual labor. to the welfare of a new nation. Factory work offered educational All work meant a contribution opportunities which were not available for women in schools of higher learning. It offered wages higher than for teaching. Horace Mann reported that women in many occupations in mills and fac- tories earned six or seven times as much as women teachers.
"Early mill workers were militant in the protection of their rights. As the real daughters of the American Revolution, they were earnestly concerned with justice and liberty in dealing with the concrete problems of their daily work life." These are the views of Frances Perkins.
Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt said in response to this question. I quote: "I should say that in 1839 the chief obstacles in the path of employment for American women were, first, the attitude held by both men and women as to the proper kind of work which women should do. Secondly, the lack of educational facilities and of training which they could obtain, and thirdly the lack of opportunities even if they obtained the education and the training." And from Ora Snyder came this opinion. I quote: "Lack of confidence in their ability and the old-fashioned opinion that women should not leave household duties or the care of the family." Dr. Martha Tracy is of the opinion that tradition was women's main stumbling block, plus the economic necessity of doing the home chores personally, including cooking and preserving foodstuffs, cleaning, laundry work, making the husband's and children's clothes, and childbearing. Dr. Tracy says that all of these obstacles have been largely conquered, and I quote her, "largely but not entirely. Childbearing will always be a factor." Ruth Finley thinks the obstacles have mainly been overcome, and Mrs. Roosevelt believes that "there is still some prejudice against women in certain lines of work for which they are naturally better equipped than men. The training today is fairly universally open to them though there are restrictions which make it a little difficult. Many more lines of work are open to women, but they have to excell." Frances Perkins made the following statement in answer to this question:
"Significant progress has been made in removing the obstacles to women's wage-earning employment that existed 100 years ago, but the job is far from complete. Eleven million women are now gainfully employed and are found in practically all occupations. Prejudice against women in the professions is gradually breaking down, and they are securing an ever greater measure of vocational opportunity. Training facilities for almost every occupational field are open to women, though the resultant job opportunities still may be relatively scarce. In recent years there has been a notable increase in the number of women in important administrative jobs in both State and Federal Governments. "However," Miss Perkins goes on to say, "because an increasing number of women must earn their livelihood and also support dependents entirely or partially, and because jobs are also scarce for men, competition is a much greater factor for women to reckon with now than it was some years ago. "Moreover, the traditional sex discriminations are still a major obstacle women encounter in their efforts to find satisfying and profitable employment. Their ability is still far from being accepted on the same plane as that of men. "Immense improvement has come about in the raising of wages, the lowering of hours, and the betterment of plant equipment; but the situation in this respect is still far from Utopian. double wage standard still prevails in a number of fields." The And now we come to the third question, "What obstacle do you believe will beset women in the next 100 years?" To this question Mrs. Finley answers, "The physical obstacle of sex, which never can be changed, and an overcrowding of the so-called economic jobs." Dr. Tracy's answer is-and I quote: "Economic competition with men, particularly in times of unemployment. The individual women's own incompetence." She also notes: "The same applies to men, but women capitalize on the 'tradition' of sex obstruction. Child bearing cannot be outmoded." Mrs. Snyder feels that "jealousy from the male sex" will be the chief obstacle for women. Most of the committee declined to commit themselves on one question, which was, "In your opinion, what has been the outstanding contribution made by American women during the past 100 years?" Ruth Finley, however, answers by saying, "Dissemination of women's news,' and she names Sarah Josepha Hale as the woman who has made the outstanding contribution of the past 100 years. She gives her reason for this as follows-and again I quote: "Prior to the radio, the national woman's magazines were the only interstate link between women. Mrs. Hale, for 50 years editor of Godey's Lady's Book, the first woman's magazine approaching Nation-wide circulation, did more to correlate and unify women's thought in this country than any other person, man or woman, in the nineteenth century." Helen Sioussat, of Columbia Broadcasting Co., said unhesitatingly, "The discovery of radium," and nominated Mme. Curie. Margaret Cuthbert believes that the political recognition of American women has been the outstanding contribution, and she nominated Susan B. Anthony. Frances Perkins wrote: "Because there have been so many important contributions by women in so many fields, it is difficult to evaluate them in such a general way as to make it possible to name only one woman."
Ora Snyder said, "Jane Addams is the woman, and her splendid work at Hull House, Chicago, in the settlement field proves it." Dr. Tracy also has a candidate. She wrote, "Mary Lyon's demonstration that women can be educated, without danger to health or other damage to their nature, is of the utmost importance." And now for my next question, for this is an inventory of women's liabilities as well as women's assets, "What have been the greatest failures of women in the past 100 years?" And again Ruth Finley out of her great wealth of research on the lives of American women answers, "Over-eagerness, evidencing a real lack
of moral stamina in many cases, to throw off the frequently monotonous responsibilities of the home." And Ruth Finley finds these failures also, "unwillingness to serve adequate apprenticeship in the economic world; lack of understanding of and consequent impatience with the slowness of the natural evolution of the now machine-made social order, and failure to assimilate experience." Frances Perkins says, "One major failure of women in the past century relates to their neglect of the use of their hard-won right to vote. Women's failure to take a more active part in American politics, as voters and as candidates for office has been a major disappointment. Women have not participated as fully as they might in labor organization. They have a most important contribution to make in this field and should become increasingly active." And she continues, "Some women have fallen down in their responsibility as employers of other persons. For example, long hours, low wages, social isolation, and exclusion from legislative protection have been characteristic of the vocation using the services of the largest single group of women workers-household employment."
And here is one of the most important questions that I asked the women who form the committee for the commemoration of 100 years of women's progress in the United States. "What are the greatest prejudices concerning women now held by the general public?" Ruth Finley gave me two answers, "Overcrowding of the wage field and consequent usurpation of jobs needed by men as the natural heads of families, and falling birth rate in the middle, and especially the native-born classes." And the First Lady of the Land answered, "It was generally thought that physically and mentally women were not equal to doing the same type of work as men.' Frances Perkins wrote thoughtfully, "Perhaps the oustanding prejudice against women 100 years ago was the general one that they were inferior beings, inferior to men physically, mentally, and economically; that it was of no importance that they be educated and granted political privileges. Under the laws of the day women were severely discriminated against in relation to property rights, in the rights of custody of children and the like. The common law, which was so often detrimental to women's interest, was accepted as the legal authority. Women were not considered experienced enough to handle any of their personal affairs, nor to participate in public affairs. "Though important progress has been made, there are still distinct evidences of a carry-over of prejudice against women that existed a century ago. With a large segment of our people, the idea still prevails that women's place is 'in the home' and the prejudice against the employment of married women is yet very strong among some groups. "At times men make much ado about women's artistic inferiority and as a consequence women have heavy competitive sledding to make a valid contribution in the field of arts.
"Though women's legal status has strengthened throughout the century, they are still in a far weaker position in this respect than are men in many States. In some cases their wages yet belong to their husbands; in others they do not share equally with their husbands in their children's custody, etc. A number of States do not permit women to serve on juries."
Margaret Cuthbert, famous radio authority, says, bluntly, "Women, given the same opportunity as men, are making the same mistakes and doing the same things that men are doing. With the freedom they now have in view of the money they control, they have done little that is unique, little that is original, little that is different, and not much that shows that women as a group are using their natural gifts to make their own lives and the lives of others more civilized-outside of a few exceptional women."
Mrs. Snyder thinks that men's lack of confidence in women's ability will be the chief obstacle for women in the future. Dr. Tracy concurs in this, saying: "Men's age-old prejudice that women were physically and intellectually inferior still holds, though much diluted and localized."
And now I come to the heart of my questionnaire, for, having gathered the opinions of these women, I wanted to find out what we can do about it as business and professional women. So I asked all of them, "In your opinion, what is the best way for business and professional women to educate the general public as to the fact that these prejudices are not factually founded?" Here is what some of them answered:
Dr. Tracy: "By accepting opportunities for work and giving competent performance. Not by talking about it." Mrs. Snyder: "Instruct the public that we believe in equality, and we want a chance to demonstrate what we can do on an equal footing." Mrs. Roosevelt: "In my opinion, the best education is the education which makes people acquainted with the facts, and the facts can be furnished today through studies made by the various people interested in labor and in woman's position." Miss Perkins: "Probably the best educational method consists of clear demonstrations of women's ability in many fields." Mary Dillon: "To succeed as individuals in the jobs they hold." And Ruth Finley: "Probably the best way for the fit and capable business and professional woman to combat this general attitude (which is growing with appalling rapidity) is to recognize the inevitable weeding-out process of evolution now and back that recognition with the weight of opinion and influence. Always women have worked outside as well as in the home. In 1839 the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
proportion was overbalanced in favor of the home, with many resultant personal misfits and family or group hardships. "Now the pendulum has swung too far the other way, and in 1939 the opposite proportion of overbalance has created more personal misfits and family group hardships than ever before. History has proved that one of the primary social laws is the maintaining or restoration of balance. It seems to me that nothing could give women a more solid foundation for their future as free citizens than their voluntary and immediate recognition of this law."
"Example" is what counts most, Margaret Cuthbert feels. "Deeds more important than words," she writes, "giving proof that women are not personal and prejudiced in business; relating the complex fabric of civilization to the persons for whom, after all, it exists." She points out that "it is not through individual achievement that women are going to serve as they will serve, but in proportion as they emphasize and express cooperation. brave new world must be a man's and woman's world." This
And with these opinions behind us, I asked, "What type of education do you believe will be best suited to women in the next century?" And here are the answers: From Mrs. Snyder, "A practical education and training for a business or professional career.' Mary Dillon's answer is succinct. as men, a rounded cultural background, plus specific training in I quote her exactly: "Same the field of their vocation."
From Dr. Tracy: "Just such an education as will fit any adult to be an intelligent and tolerant citizen and a thorough performer in the lot to which circumstances and her own ability will call her."
Ruth Finley advocates: "A scholastic education to enable women to participate in and understand and enjoy modern civilization; domestic science and child care; professional or occupational training according to the talent of the individual." Frances Perkins says, "Because of our many new means of communication, nation with nation and locality with locality, people touch each other at many more points than they used to. For this reason education needs to be broader. needs to be realistic, too. Education national life to the full they must know science and economics If women are to participate in our as well as the so-called cultural subjects. Education should produce attitudes of liberalism and democracy as well as the absorption of factual data." And, "What tools for advancement do you think women need most during the next century?" I asked them. answers education, individual adequacy, a change in the ecoHere are some of the nomic condition of the country, health maintenance, the removal of legislative restriction against women. recommended and these are the tools we must acquire. These are the tools of all the tools, individual adequacy was stressed the most. When I asked, "Why are not more office after 2 decades of enfranchisement?" women holding public of the committee held decided opinions. Madame Secretary wrote I found that many as follows: "It cannot be said fairly that either men or women are to blame, rather a number of circumstances are involved. The old concept of women's inferiority in any role other than that of homemaker is doubtless responsible for the fact that very few women are elected or appointed to public office. "However, because of lingering prejudices in respect to women's holding public positions the woman who runs for and holds such office needs to be more outstanding and better qualified than the average man with whom she competes. must be competent, a Where a man women themselves have not in general enlarged their concept woman must be exceptional. Moreover, of what constitutes women's work to have it cover public service to any considerable degree.
"A second reason, I believe, that so few women run for office has to do with the rather low regard many people in this country hold for the mechanics of politics. Women have tended to shy away from practical politics and concentrate in their organizations on nonpartisan politics. In the third place, women as yet have achieved no solidarity as women toward the end of putting those of their sex into public office."
Dr. Tracy feels that there are not more women holding public office because of, and I quote her, "lack of qualifications and very often unwillingness or inability to accept responsibility and to sacrifice personal and home obligations to the requirements of public office."
Mrs. Snyder feels that the reason lies in the fact that "men do not want women in public office, and fight their election." Ruth Finley holds out some comfort for us. whole women are still unfitted and incapable with, of course, She says, "On the notable exceptions. Public prejudice and lack of confidence due to a long established custom have held women back. what is 20 years of enfranchisement as against the more than After all, 2,000 years of masculine training and practice in the art of governing?"
And echo answers, what indeed? And here is Margaret Cuthbert's opinion, I quote, "It is not important that they do hold more offices. that they use their influence and power for better government. It is more important If women choose to do this, men cannot stop them."
There were just two more questions on my list, first, "In what field do you believe women will make the greatest contribution during the next century?"
3581 The answers include, the preservation of the home as a national unit, public administration, social welfare, social sciences, human welfare, and the defense of democratic institutions.
And my final question, "What in your opinion can woman do to bring about the settlement of disputes between nations by peaceful methods?" The answers include, first, education; second, through participation in international organizations like the Y. W. C. A., the Associated Country Women of the World, which demonstrate the value of the conference method; through emphasizing the similarities of people rather than the differences; by encouraging tolerance and the settlement of every disagreement by arbitration; by demanding peace actively and aggressively. "War can be banished just as dueling was banished," Ruth Finley advises me. "Where women will there is always a way." And now, delegates to the convention, you have heard the opinions of some of the members of the committee. time this evening for all to be given you. There was not stood 100 years ago, where we stand today, and what we must do You know where we in the years ahead. whole subject further, and distinguished speakers will give us Throughout this week we will consider the further and more intensive interpretations. I noted that the names of just five women were suggested as having made the outstanding contributions of the past century— Sarah Josepha Hale, Mary Lyon, Susan B. Anthony, Jane Addams, and Mme. Curie, the latter, of course, not an American. list I would add two others-Dr. Anna Howard Shaw and Carrie To that Chapman Catt. That is the chief roll of honor of the past century as I see it.
Where we have come from we know. Where we are going is known only to Him who knows all. of American women is indissolubly united with the future of our We do know that the future country, just as the contributions of the women of the past have been entwined with the history of the progress of America. We have made great opportunities for women and we have had great opportunities made for us. we fail now, we can only echo Shakespeare's words, "The fault, Many doors are open to us. If dear Brutus, is in ourselves, not in our stars, if we are underlings."
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: EXCESS GOVERNMENT SPENDING COVERED BY PRINTING BONDS (By Wadsworth W. Mount, Assistant Director of Research, the
As long as the Government can spend all the money it wants to, over and above what it takes in from taxes, merely by printing Government bonds, selling these to the banks, and then drawing checks against them, how can we ever hope to stop extravagant Government spending?
And when the Government spends these billions in such ways that private citizens do not know which way to turn to make money, and therefore have comparatively little need to borrow from the banks on safe terms, where else can banks invest your money on deposit but in Government bonds?
A banker knows that when the United States Government prints a Government bond it says in effect that the Government will tax the people of the United States to make it good. fore, that Government bonds are the soundest security in the He knows, therecountry, just so long as we do not issue too many of them and have inflation. Before the Government started spending several billions more each year than it took in from taxes, the savings banks, for instance, could safely lend your money, largely to people who wanted to spend it for private or business uses, at a high enough rate of interest to cover their expenses and pay you 4 percent. ent conditions, however, one of the few remaining safe places to Under pres
invest bank funds is in Government bonds. Therefore, as the interest rate on long-term Treasury bonds has been lowered until their average yield is now approximately 2 percent, at present about all the savings banks can safely get for the use of your money is enough to provide for necessary expenses and reserves and pay you only 2 percent, or even less, on your deposits. The Treasury has just announced that to pay off some $426,000,000 of outstanding obligations which are due in September and now carry an interest rate of 1% percent it will offer in exchange new "notes" due in 5 years which will pay only three-fourths of 1 percent.
A New York investment firm recently showed that Treasury obligations maturing in a little more than 2 years now afford a yield of only one one-hundredth of 1 percent. At this rate of return, it was pointed out that "an investor would have to hold more than $144,000 par value to provide an income sufficient to buy his morning newspaper each day; he would have to hold $558,000 to provide enough funds to buy a daily package of cigarettes." As the average interest rate on all Federal obligations is lowered, those having money in savings accounts and insurance policies which represent their personally saved "social security" have their interest earnings also reduced, as a large part of such funds are invested in Government bonds.
This means, therefore, that it will take you longer to pay for your life insurance, as the annual dividends will be less or the premiums will be more. Some people think that only the taxpayers of future generations will have to pay for the present Government spending. However, if you own a savings-bank account you are paying right now for the increased national debt by getting one-half or less of the amount of interest you used to receive, and the trend is still downward.
This means then that if, for example, you were trying to put in the savings bank enough money to give you $2,000-a-year income, you will now have to save $100,000 or more, where when savings banks were able to invest your money safely and pay you 4 percent you would only have had to save $50,000 to get this same income. Everyone in the Nation has to pay one way or another for the money our Government officials are instructed to spend. Some pay taxes directly, but everyone pays indirectly for all Government services. The Government has nothing to give to the people except what it gets from the people.
The question is not whether these are desirable Government functions.
The question is whether the country wants expansion of Government, which must be paid for by increased taxes. Or wants expansion of business, which pays in jobs and wages. For the increased money that now goes into Government spending is the money that formerly went into new and improved products, new and enlarged factories, bigger pay rolls and dividends. There isn't enough in the earned dollar to go both ways. Business the production and distribution of goods-is the only thing that can create new wealth. Less taxes; more jobs.
THIRTY CENTS FOR "INDEPENDENCE," JULY 4, 1939 Here, then, in broad strokes is the state of the Nation today. Each of the 60 countries of the world requires around two-thirds of its productive work, its income, to pay for the necessities, food, shelter, clothing. This 65 percent is true of a country regardless of its living standards, India on the one extreme, the United States with the highest standards on the other. What of the 35 cents left after the sustenance of life? In that answer lie most of our troublesome problems today. Consider three pictures:
Until recently the people of the United States disposed of their 35 cents in this way. Five cents, at the turn of the century, was all that was required to pay for expenses of government-State, Federal, and local. Of the remaining 30 cents, about half went into the hands of managers of business enterprises which was about equally divided by them in expanding old industries and promoting and developing new ones such as radio, rayon, automobile. Much of this 15 cents remained in the hands of the people in the form of investment, productive wealth represented by stocks and bonds and life-insurance equities. The remaining 15 cents was used to buy the products of this increased industrial activity, thus driving upward standards of living and making one-time luxuries the conveniences and even necessities denied the rest of the world.
Second picture: What of the 35 cents which remained to the peoples of the other 59 countries? Since time immemorial around 30 cents was used for government expenses. A hazardous 5 cents was left as free capital. This gives point to the sentient statement of former President Hadley, of Yale, that the supremacy of the United States was due to the fact that it could afford to take chances upon development as no other country could afford to do. Five cents as against 30 cents as a backlog. Why did the Old World require 30 cents of the earnings of their people for government? For policing. External policing, the fear of land-grabbing, wealth-grabbing neighbor aggressors, whose people were in constant fear of being deprived of the bare necessities. Third picture: What is the situation in the United States today? Sixty-five cents for the necessities. Of the 35 remaining, 30 for governments (25 collected in taxes, 5 borrowed). Ten cents for investment and the lifting of living standards.
Why the great increase in government costs? Not to relieve distress and unemployment, as generally stated and believed. Only one dollar in six of Federal expenditures is for relief. The great increase in taxation and borrowing, which has brought overnight the allocation of the earned dollar to a level almost to that of other countries, is for policing. Against foreign aggressors? No. For protection against an alleged aggression and oppression on the part of business management. Internal "policing." Policing ourselves against ourselves.
Every act of those engaged in stimulating us to trade our labor, services, and products is now under surveillance, from the time a commission checks the project to the time another bureau passes upon the label to go on the package. Policing, in another form, such as protection against the private electric bulb by Government "yardstick" operation. Policing of banks, labor relations, aviation, oil, coal, lumber, telephones, retailers, stock and grain exchanges, insurance. Policing of States and communities as to the manner in which they handle their social problems. Policing in another form as exemplified in the published statistics that the Federal Government received 153,000,000 compulsory reports from business management last year. Policing as expressed in the $76,000,000-a sum equal to one-sixth of total passenger revenuesspent by Washington in travel expenses of its inspectors, regulators, investigators in 1 calendar year. These three pictures are true pictures. They point the trend to a static society, a "planned economy," to "frontiers gone forever." We, the people, perhaps planned it that way, a road to centralized authority over, and policing of, the individual. But perhaps we did not count the cost; unemployment still with us, management, which brings dreams into being, and men and jobs together, and more conveniences and luxuries for more people, now disheartened and bewildered, unable to see 30 days down the road because of the new policing machinery we have set up, whereby 137 boards, bureaus, commissions, Federal incorporations and authorities now pass laws daily in the form of rules and regulations. Little government, with little expense and little policing, brought the United States the highest standard of living the world has ever seen. Perhaps the founders were wrong in building that way, indignant and angry as they were against a ruler demanding more taxes and more power, who, as a famous declaration set forth, had "erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." Page 13Page 14
There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
I want to talk to you about education and the need for securing Federal aid for our schools. At a time when the present State administration in Wisconsin is preparing to cut nearly $2,000,000 out of our school budgets, I think it is absolutely necessary for us all to give the matter some very serious attention. The problem of maintaining fair and proper educational opportunities for our boys and girls in the next 2 years is going to demand some sort of outside assistance if the State government will not assume its rightful share of the responsibility. I am a firm believer in "economy" if by economy is meant making the most of what resources we have at our disposal and eliminating waste. But I fail to see any economy in a pinch-penny policy that is willing to sacrifice the rights of our young people to a full education simply for a few paltry pieces of silver. The greatest resource America has is its people, and we owe it to ourselves as a nation to see to it that the talents and abilities of the young are developed to the highest degree possible by means of adequate educational opportunities.
To hear some people talk, one might think that we have been extravagant in the support of our schools during the last few years, but actually in the country as a whole we are spending about $350,000,000 less for education than we were in 1930, in spite of the fact that high-school enrollment, where the expense is heaviest, has been increased by over 1,575,000 students. In Wisconsin we have been more fortunate, up until the present time, than the people in other States. In 1935 Wisconsin restored its State school aids to their former levels, and in the years that followed much was done to repair the damage suffered by our educational system as a result of depression retrenchment. Now, however, as a result of the action being taken by the new State administration, we are back face to face with the old problem
again. There is a bill before Congress at the present time which would provide, if enacted, a program of Federal aid to States for the support of their schools and the equalization of educational opportunity throughout the Nation. Under the estimated apportionment of the appropriation submitted with the bill, the enactment of this program could mean as much as $1,200,000 for Wisconsin next year and still more in succeeding years. Such a program is important to the whole Nation. One of the main foundation stones of democracy is equality of educational opportunity. That means public schools available to every man's son or daughter from kindergarten right on up through the university. If we allow a situation to develop where higher education is open only to those people of wealth who can afford to send their children to private schools, it will lead inevitably toward a class division in this country, with the educated, wealthy few on one side of the fence and a resentful, uneducated multitude on the other side. That sort of a situation is as dangerous as it is unnecessary.
Today there are between 800,000 and a million children of grade-school age who are not going to school. Most of them have no school to go to. There are approximately 3,000,000 people in the country who are totally illiterate, who can neither read nor write. And if you passed a newspaper around the Nation, you would find that as many as 15,000,000 adults couldn't read it. Those same people cannot write the simplest of letters. Believe it or not, there are more illiterates in America than there are college graduates.
An analysis of teachers' salaries shows another astounding condition. Considering the range by States, the State having the highest average salary for teachers has an average of only $2,414 per year, and on the other extreme is a State where teachers receive an average salary of only $504 per year. The average salary for teachers in rural communities is correspondingly still lower. For rural teachers the top average is only $1,337 and the bottom average is a bare $430.
When you realize how important is the teacher to whom parents entrust their children for education and guidance, it is surprising that the public has allowed such a condition to exist. If we are to secure the best kind of people to be the teachers of our children, we must be prepared to pay them enough so that they can afford to pass up opportunities in other fields and devote themselves to teaching.
The problem is worse in some States than in others. Some States are wealthy while others are poor, and unfortunately it appears that the States which are least able to maintain adequate schools have the greatest number of children in proportion to adult population. The President's Advisory Committee on Education has made a thorough study of this problem, and it reports a variation so large that the richest State in the Union has a per capita taxpaying ability to support schools which is 12 times the ability of the poorest State. This is not the fault of the individual States. It is a question of wealth. Our modern commercial life has outgrown even State boundaries. Much of our wealth has been drained away from the producing areas of the Nation into the financial centers of the country. As a result, the per capita wealth of some eastern States,
for instance, is all out of proportion to their actual physical contribution to the Nation's production. In order to recapture this wealth for the States from which it came in the first place, the Federal Government must reach it through Federal taxes and return it to the States by means of grants-in-aid. Senate bill 1305 now before the Congress proposes a 6-year program of Federal aids for education in the States. It authorizes an appropriation of approximately $75,000,000 for such purposes during the next fiscal year and increasing amounts for the succeeding years until an appropriation of $208,000,000 is reached for the fiscal year ending in 1945. This money would go toward the support of public elementary and secondary schools, improved teacher preparation, construction of school buildings, administration of State departments of education, adult education, rural-library service, and educational research.
It would not involve any sort of Federal control over the schools. The bill specifically provides that all matters of school administration, curriculum, methods of instruction, personnel, and the determination of the best uses for the funds granted shall be left to the control of the States and their local subdivisions. In order to qualify for the grants each State would simply have to establish a plan for distributing funds to the local school districts in such a way that the aim of the Federal program, the equalization of educational opportunity, would be carried out. In this way the Federal Government would be assured that the neediest communities of the State would get the greatest benefits from the funds granted.
The only other condition of importance to Wisconsin which would have to be met before the funds could be made available under the terms of this bill is the requirement that the State provide funds for these purposes in amounts at least equal to the sums provided in 1938.
The funds to be appropriated under this plan are to be divided among the States according to their respective educational loads and their respective financial abilities. The educational load of each State would be computed from estimates by the Bureau of the Census each year of the number of children of school age in the State. The financial ability of each State would be computed by the Secretary of the Treasury on the basis of certain standards prescribed in the bill. By balancing the State's school load against its financial ability, its financial need under the plan is determined, and the funds are allocated in accordance with this need.
The Senate Committee on Education and Labor has held hearings on the bill and has reported it favorably to the Senate for passage. At the hearings representatives of the leading educational organizations in this country, representing both parents and teachers, appeared and urged that the Federal Government undertake such a program. I feel that a program of this kind should receive the unselfish support of every public-spirited citizen. Education is one of those things which we cannot postpone to suit our convenience. Every year that goes by means a certain number of boys and girls who have either passed beyond school age or have been forced by circumstances to undertake responsibilities which will If their education was prevent their ever going back to school. neglected during the years when they could have gone to school, the chances are they will carry that handicap with them all through life. The rural areas are the hardest hit. It is an established fact that it costs more to provide proper educational facilities in the country than in the city. We know also that there are more children, in proportion to adult population, in the rural areas than in the cities. Yet in spite of that fact the best educational opportunities are being provided for children in the cities. "Equalization of educational opportunity" means not only establishing more uniformity of educational opportunities among the 48 States; it also means bringing financial aid to the rural schools so that the farmers and the people in the small communities can give their children as good an education as the children in the cities get.
If we are going to make democracy work in America, we must always have an intelligent, educated, informed citizenry. If we neglect the education of our young people now, even for a little while, we are going to pay dearly for it in the future. In Wisconsin we have a very definite problem. The budget of the university alone is being cut over a million dollars in the face of increased enrollment and long-delayed needs for expansion. A similar cut is being imposed upon the State teachers' colleges. Unless corrected, this will result in one of two things either fees will have to be raised and it will become that much harder for farmers and working people to send their children to school, or standards will have to be lowered and they will get just that much less for their money.
The program of Federal aid which I have outlined to you will not in any way make up for all the State's failures in this respect but it will help some. The Federal program is primarily concerned with elementary and secondary education, but, indirectly at least, it will aid by taking some of the budgetary pressure off our public institutions of higher education.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
Mr. HARRISON. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the RECORD a speech delivered by Miss Earlene White, at the biennial convention of the National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, Inc., at Kansas City, Mo., on July 9, 1939, on the subject of professional women. There being no objection, the speech was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
It was a bright, sunny morning in the 1830's. A distinguished looking woman, traveling alone, her full skirts discreetly sweeping the ground, her corkscrew curls hanging coyly beneath her bonnet, alighted from a packet boat, having made the trip from England to America in about 40 days.
The woman was Harriet Martineau, a friend of the Carlyles, a trained observer and commentator who came to America in search of new copy. Tired, for a time, of the life in London, she realized that comparatively little was known of the new land which had once been an English colony and was now attracting English and Scotch immigrants in great numbers. She set foot in little old New York, which was then a thriving community, without skyscrapers or bridges to connect the island of Manhattan with its neighborhood boroughs. True, the Astors had begun to make a fortune as fur traders, and Commodore Vanderbilt had found it profitable to pilot a ferry between Staten and Manhattan Islands; nevertheless, New York had little resemblance to the great present-day city of the North American Continent.
And what of the North American Continent upon which Harriet Martineau gazed? She came to America just after the Lewis and Clark expedition had blazed a trail to the Pacific and fur traders were following the Oregon Trail across the mountains.
American missionaries and farmers were quick to follow. The Northern States were clamoring for the annexation of Oregon to the Union and the South was clamoring for Texas. annexation were so vociferous that the slogan of "Fifty-four-Forty or Fight" was to be heard everywhere, as the citizens of the new The advocates of Nation, greedy for land, clamored for the extension of American territory to further latitudes. The clamor grew until it resulted in the election of James K. Polk in 1844 on that very issue.
The industrial revolution was beginning in America, and Harriet Martineau took full note of it. locm had been invented and were making it possible for cloth to The spinning jenny and the power be made in new ways. were new tools for farming, including the reaper. Women-and The cotton gin had been invented and there men, too-who had carried on small manufacturing plants with hand tools on their farms, making the family's clothing along with the family's food supply, found it necessary to change their way of life. The growth of mill towns was taken for granted, and young women who had been earning their livelihoods at just six occupations-keeping boarders, teaching young children, typesetting, bookbinding, domestic service, and needlework-found a new occupation as weavers in the mills.
The severe financial panic in 1837 threw thousands out of work, and when Harriet Martineau visited America unemployment stories were constantly printed in the daily press. The suffrage movement was being extended, and Robert Fulton's steamboat had set a new pace; the inland waterways of America were being invaded by steamboats plowing their way through the hitherto untroubled waters. The best opportunities for men lay in the fields and forests of the far West.
And as usual men and women were facing the future with uncertainty, dreading the changes but eager to get on with them. In 1836, a young girl, living and working in Lowell, Mass, penned these lines
"Oh, isn't it a pity that such a pretty girl as I, Should be sent to the factory to pine away and die?" Thus, the working girl lamented, as she was forced out of the home and into industry. All this and more the woman journalist from England noted and went home and reported in a lengthy volume reciting the sights she had seen and the observations she had made.
3579 It was Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt, our beloved leader of suffrage and world peace, who called our attention to Harriet Martineau and her writings and urged us to observe the one-hundredth anniversary of Miss Martineau's reportorial journey, and to see how many doors are still closed to women, 100 years later. We have accepted Mrs. Catt's suggestion and our biennial convention is devoted to the theme, "One Hundred Years of Women's Progress in the United States." Our compass is the 1930 Census, and that shows that of some 535 classifications of occupations listed, women are engaged in 501, the heavy tasks, such as mining, locomotive engineers, firemen, et cetera, being completely masculine territory. And so in 100 years, women have advanced from 7 fields to 501; doors of opportunity for women are opening wider and wider, but the end is not yet, and perhaps 100 more years will pass until the world will allow women to make their best contribution, and women will be willing to make it.
In 100 years American women have come a long way, just as our country has come a long way, but we still have a journey to make, both as women and as citizens. It is noteworthy that teachers' training schools were started 100 years ago this year. Here and now we are observing the one-hundredth anniversary of women's progress, and I think it is a suitable time to take stock of where we have come from, where we wish to go, and how we are to get there. To help us evaluate these three points we appointed a committee of distinguished women. lin D. Roosevelt is honorary chairman of the committee, and Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt is vice chairman. Mrs. Frankbers are Dr. Mary E. Wooley, president emeritus of Mount Holyoke College; Mrs. Ruth Finley, author and noted publicist for the The other memRepublican Party; Ruth Comfort Mitchell, novelist and one of California's best-known daughters; the Honorable Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor; those two outstanding women in radio, Margaret Cuthbert and Helen J. Souissat; Fannie Hurst, the novelist; Miss Emma P. Hirth, general secretary of the Y. W. C. A.; President Aurelia H. Reinhardt, of Mills College, Calif.; Dr. Martha Tracy, dean of the Women's Medical College of Pennsylvania; Mrs. Mary Dillon, president of the Brooklyn Borough Gas Co.; and Mrs. Ora Snyder, manufacturer, of Chicago.
These women have had broad experience in public service and private enterprise. They represent every range of political and economic thinking, and I believe that their answers to a questionnaire which I sent them will help chart our course for the 100 years ahead.
First, I asked, "What were the chief obstacles to employment in the path of American women 100 years ago?"
Tradition seems to have been the chief stumbling block, with several important contributing causes, such as social and economic custom, lack of education, lack of training, and lack of personal initiative. I have quoted these obstacles from the considered opinion of one of the committee members, Ruth Finley, the noted writer and biographer of women of the colonial period. Mrs. Finley was formerly the editor of Guide, published by the Women's National Republican Club.
Frances Perkins has some interesting observations on that question, and I quote her:
"The lack of employment opportunities outside the home for both men and women constituted the principal obstacle to employment in 1839. This was the period, early in the industrial revolution, when women's traditional occupations were just beginning to move out of the home into factories, mills, and shops. There were few schools and most of the teachers were men, with women substituting in the summer while the men took agricultural jobs. Clerical jobs were practically nonexistent. The largest number of openings were in textile mills, where labor was scarce and wages were high. In these mills, hours were very long, and the workers were housed in dormitories under unfavorable living conditions. In 1839 there were practically no opportunities for professional women or any vocational training for women.' On the other hand, Mme. Secretary wrote: "There were cer- in social prestige-there existed no class distinction on the basis Work in factory or mill entailed no loss of 'white collar' or manual labor. to the welfare of a new nation. Factory work offered educational All work meant a contribution opportunities which were not available for women in schools of higher learning. It offered wages higher than for teaching. Horace Mann reported that women in many occupations in mills and fac- tories earned six or seven times as much as women teachers.
"Early mill workers were militant in the protection of their rights. As the real daughters of the American Revolution, they were earnestly concerned with justice and liberty in dealing with the concrete problems of their daily work life." These are the views of Frances Perkins.
Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt said in response to this question. I quote: "I should say that in 1839 the chief obstacles in the path of employment for American women were, first, the attitude held by both men and women as to the proper kind of work which women should do. Secondly, the lack of educational facilities and of training which they could obtain, and thirdly the lack of opportunities even if they obtained the education and the training." And from Ora Snyder came this opinion. I quote: "Lack of confidence in their ability and the old-fashioned opinion that women should not leave household duties or the care of the family." Dr. Martha Tracy is of the opinion that tradition was women's main stumbling block, plus the economic necessity of doing the home chores personally, including cooking and preserving foodstuffs, cleaning, laundry work, making the husband's and children's clothes, and childbearing. Dr. Tracy says that all of these obstacles have been largely conquered, and I quote her, "largely but not entirely. Childbearing will always be a factor." Ruth Finley thinks the obstacles have mainly been overcome, and Mrs. Roosevelt believes that "there is still some prejudice against women in certain lines of work for which they are naturally better equipped than men. The training today is fairly universally open to them though there are restrictions which make it a little difficult. Many more lines of work are open to women, but they have to excell." Frances Perkins made the following statement in answer to this question:
"Significant progress has been made in removing the obstacles to women's wage-earning employment that existed 100 years ago, but the job is far from complete. Eleven million women are now gainfully employed and are found in practically all occupations. Prejudice against women in the professions is gradually breaking down, and they are securing an ever greater measure of vocational opportunity. Training facilities for almost every occupational field are open to women, though the resultant job opportunities still may be relatively scarce. In recent years there has been a notable increase in the number of women in important administrative jobs in both State and Federal Governments. "However," Miss Perkins goes on to say, "because an increasing number of women must earn their livelihood and also support dependents entirely or partially, and because jobs are also scarce for men, competition is a much greater factor for women to reckon with now than it was some years ago. "Moreover, the traditional sex discriminations are still a major obstacle women encounter in their efforts to find satisfying and profitable employment. Their ability is still far from being accepted on the same plane as that of men. "Immense improvement has come about in the raising of wages, the lowering of hours, and the betterment of plant equipment; but the situation in this respect is still far from Utopian. double wage standard still prevails in a number of fields." The And now we come to the third question, "What obstacle do you believe will beset women in the next 100 years?" To this question Mrs. Finley answers, "The physical obstacle of sex, which never can be changed, and an overcrowding of the so-called economic jobs." Dr. Tracy's answer is-and I quote: "Economic competition with men, particularly in times of unemployment. The individual women's own incompetence." She also notes: "The same applies to men, but women capitalize on the 'tradition' of sex obstruction. Child bearing cannot be outmoded." Mrs. Snyder feels that "jealousy from the male sex" will be the chief obstacle for women. Most of the committee declined to commit themselves on one question, which was, "In your opinion, what has been the outstanding contribution made by American women during the past 100 years?" Ruth Finley, however, answers by saying, "Dissemination of women's news,' and she names Sarah Josepha Hale as the woman who has made the outstanding contribution of the past 100 years. She gives her reason for this as follows-and again I quote: "Prior to the radio, the national woman's magazines were the only interstate link between women. Mrs. Hale, for 50 years editor of Godey's Lady's Book, the first woman's magazine approaching Nation-wide circulation, did more to correlate and unify women's thought in this country than any other person, man or woman, in the nineteenth century." Helen Sioussat, of Columbia Broadcasting Co., said unhesitatingly, "The discovery of radium," and nominated Mme. Curie. Margaret Cuthbert believes that the political recognition of American women has been the outstanding contribution, and she nominated Susan B. Anthony. Frances Perkins wrote: "Because there have been so many important contributions by women in so many fields, it is difficult to evaluate them in such a general way as to make it possible to name only one woman."
Ora Snyder said, "Jane Addams is the woman, and her splendid work at Hull House, Chicago, in the settlement field proves it." Dr. Tracy also has a candidate. She wrote, "Mary Lyon's demonstration that women can be educated, without danger to health or other damage to their nature, is of the utmost importance." And now for my next question, for this is an inventory of women's liabilities as well as women's assets, "What have been the greatest failures of women in the past 100 years?" And again Ruth Finley out of her great wealth of research on the lives of American women answers, "Over-eagerness, evidencing a real lack
of moral stamina in many cases, to throw off the frequently monotonous responsibilities of the home." And Ruth Finley finds these failures also, "unwillingness to serve adequate apprenticeship in the economic world; lack of understanding of and consequent impatience with the slowness of the natural evolution of the now machine-made social order, and failure to assimilate experience." Frances Perkins says, "One major failure of women in the past century relates to their neglect of the use of their hard-won right to vote. Women's failure to take a more active part in American politics, as voters and as candidates for office has been a major disappointment. Women have not participated as fully as they might in labor organization. They have a most important contribution to make in this field and should become increasingly active." And she continues, "Some women have fallen down in their responsibility as employers of other persons. For example, long hours, low wages, social isolation, and exclusion from legislative protection have been characteristic of the vocation using the services of the largest single group of women workers-household employment."
And here is one of the most important questions that I asked the women who form the committee for the commemoration of 100 years of women's progress in the United States. "What are the greatest prejudices concerning women now held by the general public?" Ruth Finley gave me two answers, "Overcrowding of the wage field and consequent usurpation of jobs needed by men as the natural heads of families, and falling birth rate in the middle, and especially the native-born classes." And the First Lady of the Land answered, "It was generally thought that physically and mentally women were not equal to doing the same type of work as men.' Frances Perkins wrote thoughtfully, "Perhaps the oustanding prejudice against women 100 years ago was the general one that they were inferior beings, inferior to men physically, mentally, and economically; that it was of no importance that they be educated and granted political privileges. Under the laws of the day women were severely discriminated against in relation to property rights, in the rights of custody of children and the like. The common law, which was so often detrimental to women's interest, was accepted as the legal authority. Women were not considered experienced enough to handle any of their personal affairs, nor to participate in public affairs. "Though important progress has been made, there are still distinct evidences of a carry-over of prejudice against women that existed a century ago. With a large segment of our people, the idea still prevails that women's place is 'in the home' and the prejudice against the employment of married women is yet very strong among some groups. "At times men make much ado about women's artistic inferiority and as a consequence women have heavy competitive sledding to make a valid contribution in the field of arts.
"Though women's legal status has strengthened throughout the century, they are still in a far weaker position in this respect than are men in many States. In some cases their wages yet belong to their husbands; in others they do not share equally with their husbands in their children's custody, etc. A number of States do not permit women to serve on juries."
Margaret Cuthbert, famous radio authority, says, bluntly, "Women, given the same opportunity as men, are making the same mistakes and doing the same things that men are doing. With the freedom they now have in view of the money they control, they have done little that is unique, little that is original, little that is different, and not much that shows that women as a group are using their natural gifts to make their own lives and the lives of others more civilized-outside of a few exceptional women."
Mrs. Snyder thinks that men's lack of confidence in women's ability will be the chief obstacle for women in the future. Dr. Tracy concurs in this, saying: "Men's age-old prejudice that women were physically and intellectually inferior still holds, though much diluted and localized."
And now I come to the heart of my questionnaire, for, having gathered the opinions of these women, I wanted to find out what we can do about it as business and professional women. So I asked all of them, "In your opinion, what is the best way for business and professional women to educate the general public as to the fact that these prejudices are not factually founded?" Here is what some of them answered:
Dr. Tracy: "By accepting opportunities for work and giving competent performance. Not by talking about it." Mrs. Snyder: "Instruct the public that we believe in equality, and we want a chance to demonstrate what we can do on an equal footing." Mrs. Roosevelt: "In my opinion, the best education is the education which makes people acquainted with the facts, and the facts can be furnished today through studies made by the various people interested in labor and in woman's position." Miss Perkins: "Probably the best educational method consists of clear demonstrations of women's ability in many fields." Mary Dillon: "To succeed as individuals in the jobs they hold." And Ruth Finley: "Probably the best way for the fit and capable business and professional woman to combat this general attitude (which is growing with appalling rapidity) is to recognize the inevitable weeding-out process of evolution now and back that recognition with the weight of opinion and influence. Always women have worked outside as well as in the home. In 1839 the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
proportion was overbalanced in favor of the home, with many resultant personal misfits and family or group hardships. "Now the pendulum has swung too far the other way, and in 1939 the opposite proportion of overbalance has created more personal misfits and family group hardships than ever before. History has proved that one of the primary social laws is the maintaining or restoration of balance. It seems to me that nothing could give women a more solid foundation for their future as free citizens than their voluntary and immediate recognition of this law."
"Example" is what counts most, Margaret Cuthbert feels. "Deeds more important than words," she writes, "giving proof that women are not personal and prejudiced in business; relating the complex fabric of civilization to the persons for whom, after all, it exists." She points out that "it is not through individual achievement that women are going to serve as they will serve, but in proportion as they emphasize and express cooperation. brave new world must be a man's and woman's world." This
And with these opinions behind us, I asked, "What type of education do you believe will be best suited to women in the next century?" And here are the answers: From Mrs. Snyder, "A practical education and training for a business or professional career.' Mary Dillon's answer is succinct. as men, a rounded cultural background, plus specific training in I quote her exactly: "Same the field of their vocation."
From Dr. Tracy: "Just such an education as will fit any adult to be an intelligent and tolerant citizen and a thorough performer in the lot to which circumstances and her own ability will call her."
Ruth Finley advocates: "A scholastic education to enable women to participate in and understand and enjoy modern civilization; domestic science and child care; professional or occupational training according to the talent of the individual." Frances Perkins says, "Because of our many new means of communication, nation with nation and locality with locality, people touch each other at many more points than they used to. For this reason education needs to be broader. needs to be realistic, too. Education national life to the full they must know science and economics If women are to participate in our as well as the so-called cultural subjects. Education should produce attitudes of liberalism and democracy as well as the absorption of factual data." And, "What tools for advancement do you think women need most during the next century?" I asked them. answers education, individual adequacy, a change in the ecoHere are some of the nomic condition of the country, health maintenance, the removal of legislative restriction against women. recommended and these are the tools we must acquire. These are the tools of all the tools, individual adequacy was stressed the most. When I asked, "Why are not more office after 2 decades of enfranchisement?" women holding public of the committee held decided opinions. Madame Secretary wrote I found that many as follows: "It cannot be said fairly that either men or women are to blame, rather a number of circumstances are involved. The old concept of women's inferiority in any role other than that of homemaker is doubtless responsible for the fact that very few women are elected or appointed to public office. "However, because of lingering prejudices in respect to women's holding public positions the woman who runs for and holds such office needs to be more outstanding and better qualified than the average man with whom she competes. must be competent, a Where a man women themselves have not in general enlarged their concept woman must be exceptional. Moreover, of what constitutes women's work to have it cover public service to any considerable degree.
"A second reason, I believe, that so few women run for office has to do with the rather low regard many people in this country hold for the mechanics of politics. Women have tended to shy away from practical politics and concentrate in their organizations on nonpartisan politics. In the third place, women as yet have achieved no solidarity as women toward the end of putting those of their sex into public office."
Dr. Tracy feels that there are not more women holding public office because of, and I quote her, "lack of qualifications and very often unwillingness or inability to accept responsibility and to sacrifice personal and home obligations to the requirements of public office."
Mrs. Snyder feels that the reason lies in the fact that "men do not want women in public office, and fight their election." Ruth Finley holds out some comfort for us. whole women are still unfitted and incapable with, of course, She says, "On the notable exceptions. Public prejudice and lack of confidence due to a long established custom have held women back. what is 20 years of enfranchisement as against the more than After all, 2,000 years of masculine training and practice in the art of governing?"
And echo answers, what indeed? And here is Margaret Cuthbert's opinion, I quote, "It is not important that they do hold more offices. that they use their influence and power for better government. It is more important If women choose to do this, men cannot stop them."
There were just two more questions on my list, first, "In what field do you believe women will make the greatest contribution during the next century?"
3581 The answers include, the preservation of the home as a national unit, public administration, social welfare, social sciences, human welfare, and the defense of democratic institutions.
And my final question, "What in your opinion can woman do to bring about the settlement of disputes between nations by peaceful methods?" The answers include, first, education; second, through participation in international organizations like the Y. W. C. A., the Associated Country Women of the World, which demonstrate the value of the conference method; through emphasizing the similarities of people rather than the differences; by encouraging tolerance and the settlement of every disagreement by arbitration; by demanding peace actively and aggressively. "War can be banished just as dueling was banished," Ruth Finley advises me. "Where women will there is always a way." And now, delegates to the convention, you have heard the opinions of some of the members of the committee. time this evening for all to be given you. There was not stood 100 years ago, where we stand today, and what we must do You know where we in the years ahead. whole subject further, and distinguished speakers will give us Throughout this week we will consider the further and more intensive interpretations. I noted that the names of just five women were suggested as having made the outstanding contributions of the past century— Sarah Josepha Hale, Mary Lyon, Susan B. Anthony, Jane Addams, and Mme. Curie, the latter, of course, not an American. list I would add two others-Dr. Anna Howard Shaw and Carrie To that Chapman Catt. That is the chief roll of honor of the past century as I see it.
Where we have come from we know. Where we are going is known only to Him who knows all. of American women is indissolubly united with the future of our We do know that the future country, just as the contributions of the women of the past have been entwined with the history of the progress of America. We have made great opportunities for women and we have had great opportunities made for us. we fail now, we can only echo Shakespeare's words, "The fault, Many doors are open to us. If dear Brutus, is in ourselves, not in our stars, if we are underlings."
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: EXCESS GOVERNMENT SPENDING COVERED BY PRINTING BONDS (By Wadsworth W. Mount, Assistant Director of Research, the
As long as the Government can spend all the money it wants to, over and above what it takes in from taxes, merely by printing Government bonds, selling these to the banks, and then drawing checks against them, how can we ever hope to stop extravagant Government spending?
And when the Government spends these billions in such ways that private citizens do not know which way to turn to make money, and therefore have comparatively little need to borrow from the banks on safe terms, where else can banks invest your money on deposit but in Government bonds?
A banker knows that when the United States Government prints a Government bond it says in effect that the Government will tax the people of the United States to make it good. fore, that Government bonds are the soundest security in the He knows, therecountry, just so long as we do not issue too many of them and have inflation. Before the Government started spending several billions more each year than it took in from taxes, the savings banks, for instance, could safely lend your money, largely to people who wanted to spend it for private or business uses, at a high enough rate of interest to cover their expenses and pay you 4 percent. ent conditions, however, one of the few remaining safe places to Under pres
invest bank funds is in Government bonds. Therefore, as the interest rate on long-term Treasury bonds has been lowered until their average yield is now approximately 2 percent, at present about all the savings banks can safely get for the use of your money is enough to provide for necessary expenses and reserves and pay you only 2 percent, or even less, on your deposits. The Treasury has just announced that to pay off some $426,000,000 of outstanding obligations which are due in September and now carry an interest rate of 1% percent it will offer in exchange new "notes" due in 5 years which will pay only three-fourths of 1 percent.
A New York investment firm recently showed that Treasury obligations maturing in a little more than 2 years now afford a yield of only one one-hundredth of 1 percent. At this rate of return, it was pointed out that "an investor would have to hold more than $144,000 par value to provide an income sufficient to buy his morning newspaper each day; he would have to hold $558,000 to provide enough funds to buy a daily package of cigarettes." As the average interest rate on all Federal obligations is lowered, those having money in savings accounts and insurance policies which represent their personally saved "social security" have their interest earnings also reduced, as a large part of such funds are invested in Government bonds.
This means, therefore, that it will take you longer to pay for your life insurance, as the annual dividends will be less or the premiums will be more. Some people think that only the taxpayers of future generations will have to pay for the present Government spending. However, if you own a savings-bank account you are paying right now for the increased national debt by getting one-half or less of the amount of interest you used to receive, and the trend is still downward.
This means then that if, for example, you were trying to put in the savings bank enough money to give you $2,000-a-year income, you will now have to save $100,000 or more, where when savings banks were able to invest your money safely and pay you 4 percent you would only have had to save $50,000 to get this same income. Everyone in the Nation has to pay one way or another for the money our Government officials are instructed to spend. Some pay taxes directly, but everyone pays indirectly for all Government services. The Government has nothing to give to the people except what it gets from the people.
The question is not whether these are desirable Government functions.
The question is whether the country wants expansion of Government, which must be paid for by increased taxes. Or wants expansion of business, which pays in jobs and wages. For the increased money that now goes into Government spending is the money that formerly went into new and improved products, new and enlarged factories, bigger pay rolls and dividends. There isn't enough in the earned dollar to go both ways. Business the production and distribution of goods-is the only thing that can create new wealth. Less taxes; more jobs.
THIRTY CENTS FOR "INDEPENDENCE," JULY 4, 1939 Here, then, in broad strokes is the state of the Nation today. Each of the 60 countries of the world requires around two-thirds of its productive work, its income, to pay for the necessities, food, shelter, clothing. This 65 percent is true of a country regardless of its living standards, India on the one extreme, the United States with the highest standards on the other. What of the 35 cents left after the sustenance of life? In that answer lie most of our troublesome problems today. Consider three pictures:
Until recently the people of the United States disposed of their 35 cents in this way. Five cents, at the turn of the century, was all that was required to pay for expenses of government-State, Federal, and local. Of the remaining 30 cents, about half went into the hands of managers of business enterprises which was about equally divided by them in expanding old industries and promoting and developing new ones such as radio, rayon, automobile. Much of this 15 cents remained in the hands of the people in the form of investment, productive wealth represented by stocks and bonds and life-insurance equities. The remaining 15 cents was used to buy the products of this increased industrial activity, thus driving upward standards of living and making one-time luxuries the conveniences and even necessities denied the rest of the world.
Second picture: What of the 35 cents which remained to the peoples of the other 59 countries? Since time immemorial around 30 cents was used for government expenses. A hazardous 5 cents was left as free capital. This gives point to the sentient statement of former President Hadley, of Yale, that the supremacy of the United States was due to the fact that it could afford to take chances upon development as no other country could afford to do. Five cents as against 30 cents as a backlog. Why did the Old World require 30 cents of the earnings of their people for government? For policing. External policing, the fear of land-grabbing, wealth-grabbing neighbor aggressors, whose people were in constant fear of being deprived of the bare necessities. Third picture: What is the situation in the United States today? Sixty-five cents for the necessities. Of the 35 remaining, 30 for governments (25 collected in taxes, 5 borrowed). Ten cents for investment and the lifting of living standards.
Why the great increase in government costs? Not to relieve distress and unemployment, as generally stated and believed. Only one dollar in six of Federal expenditures is for relief. The great increase in taxation and borrowing, which has brought overnight the allocation of the earned dollar to a level almost to that of other countries, is for policing. Against foreign aggressors? No. For protection against an alleged aggression and oppression on the part of business management. Internal "policing." Policing ourselves against ourselves.
Every act of those engaged in stimulating us to trade our labor, services, and products is now under surveillance, from the time a commission checks the project to the time another bureau passes upon the label to go on the package. Policing, in another form, such as protection against the private electric bulb by Government "yardstick" operation. Policing of banks, labor relations, aviation, oil, coal, lumber, telephones, retailers, stock and grain exchanges, insurance. Policing of States and communities as to the manner in which they handle their social problems. Policing in another form as exemplified in the published statistics that the Federal Government received 153,000,000 compulsory reports from business management last year. Policing as expressed in the $76,000,000-a sum equal to one-sixth of total passenger revenuesspent by Washington in travel expenses of its inspectors, regulators, investigators in 1 calendar year. These three pictures are true pictures. They point the trend to a static society, a "planned economy," to "frontiers gone forever." We, the people, perhaps planned it that way, a road to centralized authority over, and policing of, the individual. But perhaps we did not count the cost; unemployment still with us, management, which brings dreams into being, and men and jobs together, and more conveniences and luxuries for more people, now disheartened and bewildered, unable to see 30 days down the road because of the new policing machinery we have set up, whereby 137 boards, bureaus, commissions, Federal incorporations and authorities now pass laws daily in the form of rules and regulations. Little government, with little expense and little policing, brought the United States the highest standard of living the world has ever seen. Perhaps the founders were wrong in building that way, indignant and angry as they were against a ruler demanding more taxes and more power, who, as a famous declaration set forth, had "erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." Page 15Page 16
There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
I want to talk to you about education and the need for securing Federal aid for our schools. At a time when the present State administration in Wisconsin is preparing to cut nearly $2,000,000 out of our school budgets, I think it is absolutely necessary for us all to give the matter some very serious attention. The problem of maintaining fair and proper educational opportunities for our boys and girls in the next 2 years is going to demand some sort of outside assistance if the State government will not assume its rightful share of the responsibility. I am a firm believer in "economy" if by economy is meant making the most of what resources we have at our disposal and eliminating waste. But I fail to see any economy in a pinch-penny policy that is willing to sacrifice the rights of our young people to a full education simply for a few paltry pieces of silver. The greatest resource America has is its people, and we owe it to ourselves as a nation to see to it that the talents and abilities of the young are developed to the highest degree possible by means of adequate educational opportunities.
To hear some people talk, one might think that we have been extravagant in the support of our schools during the last few years, but actually in the country as a whole we are spending about $350,000,000 less for education than we were in 1930, in spite of the fact that high-school enrollment, where the expense is heaviest, has been increased by over 1,575,000 students. In Wisconsin we have been more fortunate, up until the present time, than the people in other States. In 1935 Wisconsin restored its State school aids to their former levels, and in the years that followed much was done to repair the damage suffered by our educational system as a result of depression retrenchment. Now, however, as a result of the action being taken by the new State administration, we are back face to face with the old problem
again. There is a bill before Congress at the present time which would provide, if enacted, a program of Federal aid to States for the support of their schools and the equalization of educational opportunity throughout the Nation. Under the estimated apportionment of the appropriation submitted with the bill, the enactment of this program could mean as much as $1,200,000 for Wisconsin next year and still more in succeeding years. Such a program is important to the whole Nation. One of the main foundation stones of democracy is equality of educational opportunity. That means public schools available to every man's son or daughter from kindergarten right on up through the university. If we allow a situation to develop where higher education is open only to those people of wealth who can afford to send their children to private schools, it will lead inevitably toward a class division in this country, with the educated, wealthy few on one side of the fence and a resentful, uneducated multitude on the other side. That sort of a situation is as dangerous as it is unnecessary.
Today there are between 800,000 and a million children of grade-school age who are not going to school. Most of them have no school to go to. There are approximately 3,000,000 people in the country who are totally illiterate, who can neither read nor write. And if you passed a newspaper around the Nation, you would find that as many as 15,000,000 adults couldn't read it. Those same people cannot write the simplest of letters. Believe it or not, there are more illiterates in America than there are college graduates.
An analysis of teachers' salaries shows another astounding condition. Considering the range by States, the State having the highest average salary for teachers has an average of only $2,414 per year, and on the other extreme is a State where teachers receive an average salary of only $504 per year. The average salary for teachers in rural communities is correspondingly still lower. For rural teachers the top average is only $1,337 and the bottom average is a bare $430.
When you realize how important is the teacher to whom parents entrust their children for education and guidance, it is surprising that the public has allowed such a condition to exist. If we are to secure the best kind of people to be the teachers of our children, we must be prepared to pay them enough so that they can afford to pass up opportunities in other fields and devote themselves to teaching.
The problem is worse in some States than in others. Some States are wealthy while others are poor, and unfortunately it appears that the States which are least able to maintain adequate schools have the greatest number of children in proportion to adult population. The President's Advisory Committee on Education has made a thorough study of this problem, and it reports a variation so large that the richest State in the Union has a per capita taxpaying ability to support schools which is 12 times the ability of the poorest State. This is not the fault of the individual States. It is a question of wealth. Our modern commercial life has outgrown even State boundaries. Much of our wealth has been drained away from the producing areas of the Nation into the financial centers of the country. As a result, the per capita wealth of some eastern States,
for instance, is all out of proportion to their actual physical contribution to the Nation's production. In order to recapture this wealth for the States from which it came in the first place, the Federal Government must reach it through Federal taxes and return it to the States by means of grants-in-aid. Senate bill 1305 now before the Congress proposes a 6-year program of Federal aids for education in the States. It authorizes an appropriation of approximately $75,000,000 for such purposes during the next fiscal year and increasing amounts for the succeeding years until an appropriation of $208,000,000 is reached for the fiscal year ending in 1945. This money would go toward the support of public elementary and secondary schools, improved teacher preparation, construction of school buildings, administration of State departments of education, adult education, rural-library service, and educational research.
It would not involve any sort of Federal control over the schools. The bill specifically provides that all matters of school administration, curriculum, methods of instruction, personnel, and the determination of the best uses for the funds granted shall be left to the control of the States and their local subdivisions. In order to qualify for the grants each State would simply have to establish a plan for distributing funds to the local school districts in such a way that the aim of the Federal program, the equalization of educational opportunity, would be carried out. In this way the Federal Government would be assured that the neediest communities of the State would get the greatest benefits from the funds granted.
The only other condition of importance to Wisconsin which would have to be met before the funds could be made available under the terms of this bill is the requirement that the State provide funds for these purposes in amounts at least equal to the sums provided in 1938.
The funds to be appropriated under this plan are to be divided among the States according to their respective educational loads and their respective financial abilities. The educational load of each State would be computed from estimates by the Bureau of the Census each year of the number of children of school age in the State. The financial ability of each State would be computed by the Secretary of the Treasury on the basis of certain standards prescribed in the bill. By balancing the State's school load against its financial ability, its financial need under the plan is determined, and the funds are allocated in accordance with this need.
The Senate Committee on Education and Labor has held hearings on the bill and has reported it favorably to the Senate for passage. At the hearings representatives of the leading educational organizations in this country, representing both parents and teachers, appeared and urged that the Federal Government undertake such a program. I feel that a program of this kind should receive the unselfish support of every public-spirited citizen. Education is one of those things which we cannot postpone to suit our convenience. Every year that goes by means a certain number of boys and girls who have either passed beyond school age or have been forced by circumstances to undertake responsibilities which will If their education was prevent their ever going back to school. neglected during the years when they could have gone to school, the chances are they will carry that handicap with them all through life. The rural areas are the hardest hit. It is an established fact that it costs more to provide proper educational facilities in the country than in the city. We know also that there are more children, in proportion to adult population, in the rural areas than in the cities. Yet in spite of that fact the best educational opportunities are being provided for children in the cities. "Equalization of educational opportunity" means not only establishing more uniformity of educational opportunities among the 48 States; it also means bringing financial aid to the rural schools so that the farmers and the people in the small communities can give their children as good an education as the children in the cities get.
If we are going to make democracy work in America, we must always have an intelligent, educated, informed citizenry. If we neglect the education of our young people now, even for a little while, we are going to pay dearly for it in the future. In Wisconsin we have a very definite problem. The budget of the university alone is being cut over a million dollars in the face of increased enrollment and long-delayed needs for expansion. A similar cut is being imposed upon the State teachers' colleges. Unless corrected, this will result in one of two things either fees will have to be raised and it will become that much harder for farmers and working people to send their children to school, or standards will have to be lowered and they will get just that much less for their money.
The program of Federal aid which I have outlined to you will not in any way make up for all the State's failures in this respect but it will help some. The Federal program is primarily concerned with elementary and secondary education, but, indirectly at least, it will aid by taking some of the budgetary pressure off our public institutions of higher education.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
Mr. HARRISON. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the RECORD a speech delivered by Miss Earlene White, at the biennial convention of the National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, Inc., at Kansas City, Mo., on July 9, 1939, on the subject of professional women. There being no objection, the speech was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
It was a bright, sunny morning in the 1830's. A distinguished looking woman, traveling alone, her full skirts discreetly sweeping the ground, her corkscrew curls hanging coyly beneath her bonnet, alighted from a packet boat, having made the trip from England to America in about 40 days.
The woman was Harriet Martineau, a friend of the Carlyles, a trained observer and commentator who came to America in search of new copy. Tired, for a time, of the life in London, she realized that comparatively little was known of the new land which had once been an English colony and was now attracting English and Scotch immigrants in great numbers. She set foot in little old New York, which was then a thriving community, without skyscrapers or bridges to connect the island of Manhattan with its neighborhood boroughs. True, the Astors had begun to make a fortune as fur traders, and Commodore Vanderbilt had found it profitable to pilot a ferry between Staten and Manhattan Islands; nevertheless, New York had little resemblance to the great present-day city of the North American Continent.
And what of the North American Continent upon which Harriet Martineau gazed? She came to America just after the Lewis and Clark expedition had blazed a trail to the Pacific and fur traders were following the Oregon Trail across the mountains.
American missionaries and farmers were quick to follow. The Northern States were clamoring for the annexation of Oregon to the Union and the South was clamoring for Texas. annexation were so vociferous that the slogan of "Fifty-four-Forty or Fight" was to be heard everywhere, as the citizens of the new The advocates of Nation, greedy for land, clamored for the extension of American territory to further latitudes. The clamor grew until it resulted in the election of James K. Polk in 1844 on that very issue.
The industrial revolution was beginning in America, and Harriet Martineau took full note of it. locm had been invented and were making it possible for cloth to The spinning jenny and the power be made in new ways. were new tools for farming, including the reaper. Women-and The cotton gin had been invented and there men, too-who had carried on small manufacturing plants with hand tools on their farms, making the family's clothing along with the family's food supply, found it necessary to change their way of life. The growth of mill towns was taken for granted, and young women who had been earning their livelihoods at just six occupations-keeping boarders, teaching young children, typesetting, bookbinding, domestic service, and needlework-found a new occupation as weavers in the mills.
The severe financial panic in 1837 threw thousands out of work, and when Harriet Martineau visited America unemployment stories were constantly printed in the daily press. The suffrage movement was being extended, and Robert Fulton's steamboat had set a new pace; the inland waterways of America were being invaded by steamboats plowing their way through the hitherto untroubled waters. The best opportunities for men lay in the fields and forests of the far West.
And as usual men and women were facing the future with uncertainty, dreading the changes but eager to get on with them. In 1836, a young girl, living and working in Lowell, Mass, penned these lines
"Oh, isn't it a pity that such a pretty girl as I, Should be sent to the factory to pine away and die?" Thus, the working girl lamented, as she was forced out of the home and into industry. All this and more the woman journalist from England noted and went home and reported in a lengthy volume reciting the sights she had seen and the observations she had made.
3579 It was Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt, our beloved leader of suffrage and world peace, who called our attention to Harriet Martineau and her writings and urged us to observe the one-hundredth anniversary of Miss Martineau's reportorial journey, and to see how many doors are still closed to women, 100 years later. We have accepted Mrs. Catt's suggestion and our biennial convention is devoted to the theme, "One Hundred Years of Women's Progress in the United States." Our compass is the 1930 Census, and that shows that of some 535 classifications of occupations listed, women are engaged in 501, the heavy tasks, such as mining, locomotive engineers, firemen, et cetera, being completely masculine territory. And so in 100 years, women have advanced from 7 fields to 501; doors of opportunity for women are opening wider and wider, but the end is not yet, and perhaps 100 more years will pass until the world will allow women to make their best contribution, and women will be willing to make it.
In 100 years American women have come a long way, just as our country has come a long way, but we still have a journey to make, both as women and as citizens. It is noteworthy that teachers' training schools were started 100 years ago this year. Here and now we are observing the one-hundredth anniversary of women's progress, and I think it is a suitable time to take stock of where we have come from, where we wish to go, and how we are to get there. To help us evaluate these three points we appointed a committee of distinguished women. lin D. Roosevelt is honorary chairman of the committee, and Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt is vice chairman. Mrs. Frankbers are Dr. Mary E. Wooley, president emeritus of Mount Holyoke College; Mrs. Ruth Finley, author and noted publicist for the The other memRepublican Party; Ruth Comfort Mitchell, novelist and one of California's best-known daughters; the Honorable Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor; those two outstanding women in radio, Margaret Cuthbert and Helen J. Souissat; Fannie Hurst, the novelist; Miss Emma P. Hirth, general secretary of the Y. W. C. A.; President Aurelia H. Reinhardt, of Mills College, Calif.; Dr. Martha Tracy, dean of the Women's Medical College of Pennsylvania; Mrs. Mary Dillon, president of the Brooklyn Borough Gas Co.; and Mrs. Ora Snyder, manufacturer, of Chicago.
These women have had broad experience in public service and private enterprise. They represent every range of political and economic thinking, and I believe that their answers to a questionnaire which I sent them will help chart our course for the 100 years ahead.
First, I asked, "What were the chief obstacles to employment in the path of American women 100 years ago?"
Tradition seems to have been the chief stumbling block, with several important contributing causes, such as social and economic custom, lack of education, lack of training, and lack of personal initiative. I have quoted these obstacles from the considered opinion of one of the committee members, Ruth Finley, the noted writer and biographer of women of the colonial period. Mrs. Finley was formerly the editor of Guide, published by the Women's National Republican Club.
Frances Perkins has some interesting observations on that question, and I quote her:
"The lack of employment opportunities outside the home for both men and women constituted the principal obstacle to employment in 1839. This was the period, early in the industrial revolution, when women's traditional occupations were just beginning to move out of the home into factories, mills, and shops. There were few schools and most of the teachers were men, with women substituting in the summer while the men took agricultural jobs. Clerical jobs were practically nonexistent. The largest number of openings were in textile mills, where labor was scarce and wages were high. In these mills, hours were very long, and the workers were housed in dormitories under unfavorable living conditions. In 1839 there were practically no opportunities for professional women or any vocational training for women.' On the other hand, Mme. Secretary wrote: "There were cer- in social prestige-there existed no class distinction on the basis Work in factory or mill entailed no loss of 'white collar' or manual labor. to the welfare of a new nation. Factory work offered educational All work meant a contribution opportunities which were not available for women in schools of higher learning. It offered wages higher than for teaching. Horace Mann reported that women in many occupations in mills and fac- tories earned six or seven times as much as women teachers.
"Early mill workers were militant in the protection of their rights. As the real daughters of the American Revolution, they were earnestly concerned with justice and liberty in dealing with the concrete problems of their daily work life." These are the views of Frances Perkins.
Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt said in response to this question. I quote: "I should say that in 1839 the chief obstacles in the path of employment for American women were, first, the attitude held by both men and women as to the proper kind of work which women should do. Secondly, the lack of educational facilities and of training which they could obtain, and thirdly the lack of opportunities even if they obtained the education and the training." And from Ora Snyder came this opinion. I quote: "Lack of confidence in their ability and the old-fashioned opinion that women should not leave household duties or the care of the family." Dr. Martha Tracy is of the opinion that tradition was women's main stumbling block, plus the economic necessity of doing the home chores personally, including cooking and preserving foodstuffs, cleaning, laundry work, making the husband's and children's clothes, and childbearing. Dr. Tracy says that all of these obstacles have been largely conquered, and I quote her, "largely but not entirely. Childbearing will always be a factor." Ruth Finley thinks the obstacles have mainly been overcome, and Mrs. Roosevelt believes that "there is still some prejudice against women in certain lines of work for which they are naturally better equipped than men. The training today is fairly universally open to them though there are restrictions which make it a little difficult. Many more lines of work are open to women, but they have to excell." Frances Perkins made the following statement in answer to this question:
"Significant progress has been made in removing the obstacles to women's wage-earning employment that existed 100 years ago, but the job is far from complete. Eleven million women are now gainfully employed and are found in practically all occupations. Prejudice against women in the professions is gradually breaking down, and they are securing an ever greater measure of vocational opportunity. Training facilities for almost every occupational field are open to women, though the resultant job opportunities still may be relatively scarce. In recent years there has been a notable increase in the number of women in important administrative jobs in both State and Federal Governments. "However," Miss Perkins goes on to say, "because an increasing number of women must earn their livelihood and also support dependents entirely or partially, and because jobs are also scarce for men, competition is a much greater factor for women to reckon with now than it was some years ago. "Moreover, the traditional sex discriminations are still a major obstacle women encounter in their efforts to find satisfying and profitable employment. Their ability is still far from being accepted on the same plane as that of men. "Immense improvement has come about in the raising of wages, the lowering of hours, and the betterment of plant equipment; but the situation in this respect is still far from Utopian. double wage standard still prevails in a number of fields." The And now we come to the third question, "What obstacle do you believe will beset women in the next 100 years?" To this question Mrs. Finley answers, "The physical obstacle of sex, which never can be changed, and an overcrowding of the so-called economic jobs." Dr. Tracy's answer is-and I quote: "Economic competition with men, particularly in times of unemployment. The individual women's own incompetence." She also notes: "The same applies to men, but women capitalize on the 'tradition' of sex obstruction. Child bearing cannot be outmoded." Mrs. Snyder feels that "jealousy from the male sex" will be the chief obstacle for women. Most of the committee declined to commit themselves on one question, which was, "In your opinion, what has been the outstanding contribution made by American women during the past 100 years?" Ruth Finley, however, answers by saying, "Dissemination of women's news,' and she names Sarah Josepha Hale as the woman who has made the outstanding contribution of the past 100 years. She gives her reason for this as follows-and again I quote: "Prior to the radio, the national woman's magazines were the only interstate link between women. Mrs. Hale, for 50 years editor of Godey's Lady's Book, the first woman's magazine approaching Nation-wide circulation, did more to correlate and unify women's thought in this country than any other person, man or woman, in the nineteenth century." Helen Sioussat, of Columbia Broadcasting Co., said unhesitatingly, "The discovery of radium," and nominated Mme. Curie. Margaret Cuthbert believes that the political recognition of American women has been the outstanding contribution, and she nominated Susan B. Anthony. Frances Perkins wrote: "Because there have been so many important contributions by women in so many fields, it is difficult to evaluate them in such a general way as to make it possible to name only one woman."
Ora Snyder said, "Jane Addams is the woman, and her splendid work at Hull House, Chicago, in the settlement field proves it." Dr. Tracy also has a candidate. She wrote, "Mary Lyon's demonstration that women can be educated, without danger to health or other damage to their nature, is of the utmost importance." And now for my next question, for this is an inventory of women's liabilities as well as women's assets, "What have been the greatest failures of women in the past 100 years?" And again Ruth Finley out of her great wealth of research on the lives of American women answers, "Over-eagerness, evidencing a real lack
of moral stamina in many cases, to throw off the frequently monotonous responsibilities of the home." And Ruth Finley finds these failures also, "unwillingness to serve adequate apprenticeship in the economic world; lack of understanding of and consequent impatience with the slowness of the natural evolution of the now machine-made social order, and failure to assimilate experience." Frances Perkins says, "One major failure of women in the past century relates to their neglect of the use of their hard-won right to vote. Women's failure to take a more active part in American politics, as voters and as candidates for office has been a major disappointment. Women have not participated as fully as they might in labor organization. They have a most important contribution to make in this field and should become increasingly active." And she continues, "Some women have fallen down in their responsibility as employers of other persons. For example, long hours, low wages, social isolation, and exclusion from legislative protection have been characteristic of the vocation using the services of the largest single group of women workers-household employment."
And here is one of the most important questions that I asked the women who form the committee for the commemoration of 100 years of women's progress in the United States. "What are the greatest prejudices concerning women now held by the general public?" Ruth Finley gave me two answers, "Overcrowding of the wage field and consequent usurpation of jobs needed by men as the natural heads of families, and falling birth rate in the middle, and especially the native-born classes." And the First Lady of the Land answered, "It was generally thought that physically and mentally women were not equal to doing the same type of work as men.' Frances Perkins wrote thoughtfully, "Perhaps the oustanding prejudice against women 100 years ago was the general one that they were inferior beings, inferior to men physically, mentally, and economically; that it was of no importance that they be educated and granted political privileges. Under the laws of the day women were severely discriminated against in relation to property rights, in the rights of custody of children and the like. The common law, which was so often detrimental to women's interest, was accepted as the legal authority. Women were not considered experienced enough to handle any of their personal affairs, nor to participate in public affairs. "Though important progress has been made, there are still distinct evidences of a carry-over of prejudice against women that existed a century ago. With a large segment of our people, the idea still prevails that women's place is 'in the home' and the prejudice against the employment of married women is yet very strong among some groups. "At times men make much ado about women's artistic inferiority and as a consequence women have heavy competitive sledding to make a valid contribution in the field of arts.
"Though women's legal status has strengthened throughout the century, they are still in a far weaker position in this respect than are men in many States. In some cases their wages yet belong to their husbands; in others they do not share equally with their husbands in their children's custody, etc. A number of States do not permit women to serve on juries."
Margaret Cuthbert, famous radio authority, says, bluntly, "Women, given the same opportunity as men, are making the same mistakes and doing the same things that men are doing. With the freedom they now have in view of the money they control, they have done little that is unique, little that is original, little that is different, and not much that shows that women as a group are using their natural gifts to make their own lives and the lives of others more civilized-outside of a few exceptional women."
Mrs. Snyder thinks that men's lack of confidence in women's ability will be the chief obstacle for women in the future. Dr. Tracy concurs in this, saying: "Men's age-old prejudice that women were physically and intellectually inferior still holds, though much diluted and localized."
And now I come to the heart of my questionnaire, for, having gathered the opinions of these women, I wanted to find out what we can do about it as business and professional women. So I asked all of them, "In your opinion, what is the best way for business and professional women to educate the general public as to the fact that these prejudices are not factually founded?" Here is what some of them answered:
Dr. Tracy: "By accepting opportunities for work and giving competent performance. Not by talking about it." Mrs. Snyder: "Instruct the public that we believe in equality, and we want a chance to demonstrate what we can do on an equal footing." Mrs. Roosevelt: "In my opinion, the best education is the education which makes people acquainted with the facts, and the facts can be furnished today through studies made by the various people interested in labor and in woman's position." Miss Perkins: "Probably the best educational method consists of clear demonstrations of women's ability in many fields." Mary Dillon: "To succeed as individuals in the jobs they hold." And Ruth Finley: "Probably the best way for the fit and capable business and professional woman to combat this general attitude (which is growing with appalling rapidity) is to recognize the inevitable weeding-out process of evolution now and back that recognition with the weight of opinion and influence. Always women have worked outside as well as in the home. In 1839 the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
proportion was overbalanced in favor of the home, with many resultant personal misfits and family or group hardships. "Now the pendulum has swung too far the other way, and in 1939 the opposite proportion of overbalance has created more personal misfits and family group hardships than ever before. History has proved that one of the primary social laws is the maintaining or restoration of balance. It seems to me that nothing could give women a more solid foundation for their future as free citizens than their voluntary and immediate recognition of this law."
"Example" is what counts most, Margaret Cuthbert feels. "Deeds more important than words," she writes, "giving proof that women are not personal and prejudiced in business; relating the complex fabric of civilization to the persons for whom, after all, it exists." She points out that "it is not through individual achievement that women are going to serve as they will serve, but in proportion as they emphasize and express cooperation. brave new world must be a man's and woman's world." This
And with these opinions behind us, I asked, "What type of education do you believe will be best suited to women in the next century?" And here are the answers: From Mrs. Snyder, "A practical education and training for a business or professional career.' Mary Dillon's answer is succinct. as men, a rounded cultural background, plus specific training in I quote her exactly: "Same the field of their vocation."
From Dr. Tracy: "Just such an education as will fit any adult to be an intelligent and tolerant citizen and a thorough performer in the lot to which circumstances and her own ability will call her."
Ruth Finley advocates: "A scholastic education to enable women to participate in and understand and enjoy modern civilization; domestic science and child care; professional or occupational training according to the talent of the individual." Frances Perkins says, "Because of our many new means of communication, nation with nation and locality with locality, people touch each other at many more points than they used to. For this reason education needs to be broader. needs to be realistic, too. Education national life to the full they must know science and economics If women are to participate in our as well as the so-called cultural subjects. Education should produce attitudes of liberalism and democracy as well as the absorption of factual data." And, "What tools for advancement do you think women need most during the next century?" I asked them. answers education, individual adequacy, a change in the ecoHere are some of the nomic condition of the country, health maintenance, the removal of legislative restriction against women. recommended and these are the tools we must acquire. These are the tools of all the tools, individual adequacy was stressed the most. When I asked, "Why are not more office after 2 decades of enfranchisement?" women holding public of the committee held decided opinions. Madame Secretary wrote I found that many as follows: "It cannot be said fairly that either men or women are to blame, rather a number of circumstances are involved. The old concept of women's inferiority in any role other than that of homemaker is doubtless responsible for the fact that very few women are elected or appointed to public office. "However, because of lingering prejudices in respect to women's holding public positions the woman who runs for and holds such office needs to be more outstanding and better qualified than the average man with whom she competes. must be competent, a Where a man women themselves have not in general enlarged their concept woman must be exceptional. Moreover, of what constitutes women's work to have it cover public service to any considerable degree.
"A second reason, I believe, that so few women run for office has to do with the rather low regard many people in this country hold for the mechanics of politics. Women have tended to shy away from practical politics and concentrate in their organizations on nonpartisan politics. In the third place, women as yet have achieved no solidarity as women toward the end of putting those of their sex into public office."
Dr. Tracy feels that there are not more women holding public office because of, and I quote her, "lack of qualifications and very often unwillingness or inability to accept responsibility and to sacrifice personal and home obligations to the requirements of public office."
Mrs. Snyder feels that the reason lies in the fact that "men do not want women in public office, and fight their election." Ruth Finley holds out some comfort for us. whole women are still unfitted and incapable with, of course, She says, "On the notable exceptions. Public prejudice and lack of confidence due to a long established custom have held women back. what is 20 years of enfranchisement as against the more than After all, 2,000 years of masculine training and practice in the art of governing?"
And echo answers, what indeed? And here is Margaret Cuthbert's opinion, I quote, "It is not important that they do hold more offices. that they use their influence and power for better government. It is more important If women choose to do this, men cannot stop them."
There were just two more questions on my list, first, "In what field do you believe women will make the greatest contribution during the next century?"
3581 The answers include, the preservation of the home as a national unit, public administration, social welfare, social sciences, human welfare, and the defense of democratic institutions.
And my final question, "What in your opinion can woman do to bring about the settlement of disputes between nations by peaceful methods?" The answers include, first, education; second, through participation in international organizations like the Y. W. C. A., the Associated Country Women of the World, which demonstrate the value of the conference method; through emphasizing the similarities of people rather than the differences; by encouraging tolerance and the settlement of every disagreement by arbitration; by demanding peace actively and aggressively. "War can be banished just as dueling was banished," Ruth Finley advises me. "Where women will there is always a way." And now, delegates to the convention, you have heard the opinions of some of the members of the committee. time this evening for all to be given you. There was not stood 100 years ago, where we stand today, and what we must do You know where we in the years ahead. whole subject further, and distinguished speakers will give us Throughout this week we will consider the further and more intensive interpretations. I noted that the names of just five women were suggested as having made the outstanding contributions of the past century— Sarah Josepha Hale, Mary Lyon, Susan B. Anthony, Jane Addams, and Mme. Curie, the latter, of course, not an American. list I would add two others-Dr. Anna Howard Shaw and Carrie To that Chapman Catt. That is the chief roll of honor of the past century as I see it.
Where we have come from we know. Where we are going is known only to Him who knows all. of American women is indissolubly united with the future of our We do know that the future country, just as the contributions of the women of the past have been entwined with the history of the progress of America. We have made great opportunities for women and we have had great opportunities made for us. we fail now, we can only echo Shakespeare's words, "The fault, Many doors are open to us. If dear Brutus, is in ourselves, not in our stars, if we are underlings."
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: EXCESS GOVERNMENT SPENDING COVERED BY PRINTING BONDS (By Wadsworth W. Mount, Assistant Director of Research, the
As long as the Government can spend all the money it wants to, over and above what it takes in from taxes, merely by printing Government bonds, selling these to the banks, and then drawing checks against them, how can we ever hope to stop extravagant Government spending?
And when the Government spends these billions in such ways that private citizens do not know which way to turn to make money, and therefore have comparatively little need to borrow from the banks on safe terms, where else can banks invest your money on deposit but in Government bonds?
A banker knows that when the United States Government prints a Government bond it says in effect that the Government will tax the people of the United States to make it good. fore, that Government bonds are the soundest security in the He knows, therecountry, just so long as we do not issue too many of them and have inflation. Before the Government started spending several billions more each year than it took in from taxes, the savings banks, for instance, could safely lend your money, largely to people who wanted to spend it for private or business uses, at a high enough rate of interest to cover their expenses and pay you 4 percent. ent conditions, however, one of the few remaining safe places to Under pres
invest bank funds is in Government bonds. Therefore, as the interest rate on long-term Treasury bonds has been lowered until their average yield is now approximately 2 percent, at present about all the savings banks can safely get for the use of your money is enough to provide for necessary expenses and reserves and pay you only 2 percent, or even less, on your deposits. The Treasury has just announced that to pay off some $426,000,000 of outstanding obligations which are due in September and now carry an interest rate of 1% percent it will offer in exchange new "notes" due in 5 years which will pay only three-fourths of 1 percent.
A New York investment firm recently showed that Treasury obligations maturing in a little more than 2 years now afford a yield of only one one-hundredth of 1 percent. At this rate of return, it was pointed out that "an investor would have to hold more than $144,000 par value to provide an income sufficient to buy his morning newspaper each day; he would have to hold $558,000 to provide enough funds to buy a daily package of cigarettes." As the average interest rate on all Federal obligations is lowered, those having money in savings accounts and insurance policies which represent their personally saved "social security" have their interest earnings also reduced, as a large part of such funds are invested in Government bonds.
This means, therefore, that it will take you longer to pay for your life insurance, as the annual dividends will be less or the premiums will be more. Some people think that only the taxpayers of future generations will have to pay for the present Government spending. However, if you own a savings-bank account you are paying right now for the increased national debt by getting one-half or less of the amount of interest you used to receive, and the trend is still downward.
This means then that if, for example, you were trying to put in the savings bank enough money to give you $2,000-a-year income, you will now have to save $100,000 or more, where when savings banks were able to invest your money safely and pay you 4 percent you would only have had to save $50,000 to get this same income. Everyone in the Nation has to pay one way or another for the money our Government officials are instructed to spend. Some pay taxes directly, but everyone pays indirectly for all Government services. The Government has nothing to give to the people except what it gets from the people.
The question is not whether these are desirable Government functions.
The question is whether the country wants expansion of Government, which must be paid for by increased taxes. Or wants expansion of business, which pays in jobs and wages. For the increased money that now goes into Government spending is the money that formerly went into new and improved products, new and enlarged factories, bigger pay rolls and dividends. There isn't enough in the earned dollar to go both ways. Business the production and distribution of goods-is the only thing that can create new wealth. Less taxes; more jobs.
THIRTY CENTS FOR "INDEPENDENCE," JULY 4, 1939 Here, then, in broad strokes is the state of the Nation today. Each of the 60 countries of the world requires around two-thirds of its productive work, its income, to pay for the necessities, food, shelter, clothing. This 65 percent is true of a country regardless of its living standards, India on the one extreme, the United States with the highest standards on the other. What of the 35 cents left after the sustenance of life? In that answer lie most of our troublesome problems today. Consider three pictures:
Until recently the people of the United States disposed of their 35 cents in this way. Five cents, at the turn of the century, was all that was required to pay for expenses of government-State, Federal, and local. Of the remaining 30 cents, about half went into the hands of managers of business enterprises which was about equally divided by them in expanding old industries and promoting and developing new ones such as radio, rayon, automobile. Much of this 15 cents remained in the hands of the people in the form of investment, productive wealth represented by stocks and bonds and life-insurance equities. The remaining 15 cents was used to buy the products of this increased industrial activity, thus driving upward standards of living and making one-time luxuries the conveniences and even necessities denied the rest of the world.
Second picture: What of the 35 cents which remained to the peoples of the other 59 countries? Since time immemorial around 30 cents was used for government expenses. A hazardous 5 cents was left as free capital. This gives point to the sentient statement of former President Hadley, of Yale, that the supremacy of the United States was due to the fact that it could afford to take chances upon development as no other country could afford to do. Five cents as against 30 cents as a backlog. Why did the Old World require 30 cents of the earnings of their people for government? For policing. External policing, the fear of land-grabbing, wealth-grabbing neighbor aggressors, whose people were in constant fear of being deprived of the bare necessities. Third picture: What is the situation in the United States today? Sixty-five cents for the necessities. Of the 35 remaining, 30 for governments (25 collected in taxes, 5 borrowed). Ten cents for investment and the lifting of living standards.
Why the great increase in government costs? Not to relieve distress and unemployment, as generally stated and believed. Only one dollar in six of Federal expenditures is for relief. The great increase in taxation and borrowing, which has brought overnight the allocation of the earned dollar to a level almost to that of other countries, is for policing. Against foreign aggressors? No. For protection against an alleged aggression and oppression on the part of business management. Internal "policing." Policing ourselves against ourselves.
Every act of those engaged in stimulating us to trade our labor, services, and products is now under surveillance, from the time a commission checks the project to the time another bureau passes upon the label to go on the package. Policing, in another form, such as protection against the private electric bulb by Government "yardstick" operation. Policing of banks, labor relations, aviation, oil, coal, lumber, telephones, retailers, stock and grain exchanges, insurance. Policing of States and communities as to the manner in which they handle their social problems. Policing in another form as exemplified in the published statistics that the Federal Government received 153,000,000 compulsory reports from business management last year. Policing as expressed in the $76,000,000-a sum equal to one-sixth of total passenger revenuesspent by Washington in travel expenses of its inspectors, regulators, investigators in 1 calendar year. These three pictures are true pictures. They point the trend to a static society, a "planned economy," to "frontiers gone forever." We, the people, perhaps planned it that way, a road to centralized authority over, and policing of, the individual. But perhaps we did not count the cost; unemployment still with us, management, which brings dreams into being, and men and jobs together, and more conveniences and luxuries for more people, now disheartened and bewildered, unable to see 30 days down the road because of the new policing machinery we have set up, whereby 137 boards, bureaus, commissions, Federal incorporations and authorities now pass laws daily in the form of rules and regulations. Little government, with little expense and little policing, brought the United States the highest standard of living the world has ever seen. Perhaps the founders were wrong in building that way, indignant and angry as they were against a ruler demanding more taxes and more power, who, as a famous declaration set forth, had "erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." Page 17Page 18
There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
I want to talk to you about education and the need for securing Federal aid for our schools. At a time when the present State administration in Wisconsin is preparing to cut nearly $2,000,000 out of our school budgets, I think it is absolutely necessary for us all to give the matter some very serious attention. The problem of maintaining fair and proper educational opportunities for our boys and girls in the next 2 years is going to demand some sort of outside assistance if the State government will not assume its rightful share of the responsibility. I am a firm believer in "economy" if by economy is meant making the most of what resources we have at our disposal and eliminating waste. But I fail to see any economy in a pinch-penny policy that is willing to sacrifice the rights of our young people to a full education simply for a few paltry pieces of silver. The greatest resource America has is its people, and we owe it to ourselves as a nation to see to it that the talents and abilities of the young are developed to the highest degree possible by means of adequate educational opportunities.
To hear some people talk, one might think that we have been extravagant in the support of our schools during the last few years, but actually in the country as a whole we are spending about $350,000,000 less for education than we were in 1930, in spite of the fact that high-school enrollment, where the expense is heaviest, has been increased by over 1,575,000 students. In Wisconsin we have been more fortunate, up until the present time, than the people in other States. In 1935 Wisconsin restored its State school aids to their former levels, and in the years that followed much was done to repair the damage suffered by our educational system as a result of depression retrenchment. Now, however, as a result of the action being taken by the new State administration, we are back face to face with the old problem
again. There is a bill before Congress at the present time which would provide, if enacted, a program of Federal aid to States for the support of their schools and the equalization of educational opportunity throughout the Nation. Under the estimated apportionment of the appropriation submitted with the bill, the enactment of this program could mean as much as $1,200,000 for Wisconsin next year and still more in succeeding years. Such a program is important to the whole Nation. One of the main foundation stones of democracy is equality of educational opportunity. That means public schools available to every man's son or daughter from kindergarten right on up through the university. If we allow a situation to develop where higher education is open only to those people of wealth who can afford to send their children to private schools, it will lead inevitably toward a class division in this country, with the educated, wealthy few on one side of the fence and a resentful, uneducated multitude on the other side. That sort of a situation is as dangerous as it is unnecessary.
Today there are between 800,000 and a million children of grade-school age who are not going to school. Most of them have no school to go to. There are approximately 3,000,000 people in the country who are totally illiterate, who can neither read nor write. And if you passed a newspaper around the Nation, you would find that as many as 15,000,000 adults couldn't read it. Those same people cannot write the simplest of letters. Believe it or not, there are more illiterates in America than there are college graduates.
An analysis of teachers' salaries shows another astounding condition. Considering the range by States, the State having the highest average salary for teachers has an average of only $2,414 per year, and on the other extreme is a State where teachers receive an average salary of only $504 per year. The average salary for teachers in rural communities is correspondingly still lower. For rural teachers the top average is only $1,337 and the bottom average is a bare $430.
When you realize how important is the teacher to whom parents entrust their children for education and guidance, it is surprising that the public has allowed such a condition to exist. If we are to secure the best kind of people to be the teachers of our children, we must be prepared to pay them enough so that they can afford to pass up opportunities in other fields and devote themselves to teaching.
The problem is worse in some States than in others. Some States are wealthy while others are poor, and unfortunately it appears that the States which are least able to maintain adequate schools have the greatest number of children in proportion to adult population. The President's Advisory Committee on Education has made a thorough study of this problem, and it reports a variation so large that the richest State in the Union has a per capita taxpaying ability to support schools which is 12 times the ability of the poorest State. This is not the fault of the individual States. It is a question of wealth. Our modern commercial life has outgrown even State boundaries. Much of our wealth has been drained away from the producing areas of the Nation into the financial centers of the country. As a result, the per capita wealth of some eastern States,
for instance, is all out of proportion to their actual physical contribution to the Nation's production. In order to recapture this wealth for the States from which it came in the first place, the Federal Government must reach it through Federal taxes and return it to the States by means of grants-in-aid. Senate bill 1305 now before the Congress proposes a 6-year program of Federal aids for education in the States. It authorizes an appropriation of approximately $75,000,000 for such purposes during the next fiscal year and increasing amounts for the succeeding years until an appropriation of $208,000,000 is reached for the fiscal year ending in 1945. This money would go toward the support of public elementary and secondary schools, improved teacher preparation, construction of school buildings, administration of State departments of education, adult education, rural-library service, and educational research.
It would not involve any sort of Federal control over the schools. The bill specifically provides that all matters of school administration, curriculum, methods of instruction, personnel, and the determination of the best uses for the funds granted shall be left to the control of the States and their local subdivisions. In order to qualify for the grants each State would simply have to establish a plan for distributing funds to the local school districts in such a way that the aim of the Federal program, the equalization of educational opportunity, would be carried out. In this way the Federal Government would be assured that the neediest communities of the State would get the greatest benefits from the funds granted.
The only other condition of importance to Wisconsin which would have to be met before the funds could be made available under the terms of this bill is the requirement that the State provide funds for these purposes in amounts at least equal to the sums provided in 1938.
The funds to be appropriated under this plan are to be divided among the States according to their respective educational loads and their respective financial abilities. The educational load of each State would be computed from estimates by the Bureau of the Census each year of the number of children of school age in the State. The financial ability of each State would be computed by the Secretary of the Treasury on the basis of certain standards prescribed in the bill. By balancing the State's school load against its financial ability, its financial need under the plan is determined, and the funds are allocated in accordance with this need.
The Senate Committee on Education and Labor has held hearings on the bill and has reported it favorably to the Senate for passage. At the hearings representatives of the leading educational organizations in this country, representing both parents and teachers, appeared and urged that the Federal Government undertake such a program. I feel that a program of this kind should receive the unselfish support of every public-spirited citizen. Education is one of those things which we cannot postpone to suit our convenience. Every year that goes by means a certain number of boys and girls who have either passed beyond school age or have been forced by circumstances to undertake responsibilities which will If their education was prevent their ever going back to school. neglected during the years when they could have gone to school, the chances are they will carry that handicap with them all through life. The rural areas are the hardest hit. It is an established fact that it costs more to provide proper educational facilities in the country than in the city. We know also that there are more children, in proportion to adult population, in the rural areas than in the cities. Yet in spite of that fact the best educational opportunities are being provided for children in the cities. "Equalization of educational opportunity" means not only establishing more uniformity of educational opportunities among the 48 States; it also means bringing financial aid to the rural schools so that the farmers and the people in the small communities can give their children as good an education as the children in the cities get.
If we are going to make democracy work in America, we must always have an intelligent, educated, informed citizenry. If we neglect the education of our young people now, even for a little while, we are going to pay dearly for it in the future. In Wisconsin we have a very definite problem. The budget of the university alone is being cut over a million dollars in the face of increased enrollment and long-delayed needs for expansion. A similar cut is being imposed upon the State teachers' colleges. Unless corrected, this will result in one of two things either fees will have to be raised and it will become that much harder for farmers and working people to send their children to school, or standards will have to be lowered and they will get just that much less for their money.
The program of Federal aid which I have outlined to you will not in any way make up for all the State's failures in this respect but it will help some. The Federal program is primarily concerned with elementary and secondary education, but, indirectly at least, it will aid by taking some of the budgetary pressure off our public institutions of higher education.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
Mr. HARRISON. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the RECORD a speech delivered by Miss Earlene White, at the biennial convention of the National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, Inc., at Kansas City, Mo., on July 9, 1939, on the subject of professional women. There being no objection, the speech was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
It was a bright, sunny morning in the 1830's. A distinguished looking woman, traveling alone, her full skirts discreetly sweeping the ground, her corkscrew curls hanging coyly beneath her bonnet, alighted from a packet boat, having made the trip from England to America in about 40 days.
The woman was Harriet Martineau, a friend of the Carlyles, a trained observer and commentator who came to America in search of new copy. Tired, for a time, of the life in London, she realized that comparatively little was known of the new land which had once been an English colony and was now attracting English and Scotch immigrants in great numbers. She set foot in little old New York, which was then a thriving community, without skyscrapers or bridges to connect the island of Manhattan with its neighborhood boroughs. True, the Astors had begun to make a fortune as fur traders, and Commodore Vanderbilt had found it profitable to pilot a ferry between Staten and Manhattan Islands; nevertheless, New York had little resemblance to the great present-day city of the North American Continent.
And what of the North American Continent upon which Harriet Martineau gazed? She came to America just after the Lewis and Clark expedition had blazed a trail to the Pacific and fur traders were following the Oregon Trail across the mountains.
American missionaries and farmers were quick to follow. The Northern States were clamoring for the annexation of Oregon to the Union and the South was clamoring for Texas. annexation were so vociferous that the slogan of "Fifty-four-Forty or Fight" was to be heard everywhere, as the citizens of the new The advocates of Nation, greedy for land, clamored for the extension of American territory to further latitudes. The clamor grew until it resulted in the election of James K. Polk in 1844 on that very issue.
The industrial revolution was beginning in America, and Harriet Martineau took full note of it. locm had been invented and were making it possible for cloth to The spinning jenny and the power be made in new ways. were new tools for farming, including the reaper. Women-and The cotton gin had been invented and there men, too-who had carried on small manufacturing plants with hand tools on their farms, making the family's clothing along with the family's food supply, found it necessary to change their way of life. The growth of mill towns was taken for granted, and young women who had been earning their livelihoods at just six occupations-keeping boarders, teaching young children, typesetting, bookbinding, domestic service, and needlework-found a new occupation as weavers in the mills.
The severe financial panic in 1837 threw thousands out of work, and when Harriet Martineau visited America unemployment stories were constantly printed in the daily press. The suffrage movement was being extended, and Robert Fulton's steamboat had set a new pace; the inland waterways of America were being invaded by steamboats plowing their way through the hitherto untroubled waters. The best opportunities for men lay in the fields and forests of the far West.
And as usual men and women were facing the future with uncertainty, dreading the changes but eager to get on with them. In 1836, a young girl, living and working in Lowell, Mass, penned these lines
"Oh, isn't it a pity that such a pretty girl as I, Should be sent to the factory to pine away and die?" Thus, the working girl lamented, as she was forced out of the home and into industry. All this and more the woman journalist from England noted and went home and reported in a lengthy volume reciting the sights she had seen and the observations she had made.
3579 It was Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt, our beloved leader of suffrage and world peace, who called our attention to Harriet Martineau and her writings and urged us to observe the one-hundredth anniversary of Miss Martineau's reportorial journey, and to see how many doors are still closed to women, 100 years later. We have accepted Mrs. Catt's suggestion and our biennial convention is devoted to the theme, "One Hundred Years of Women's Progress in the United States." Our compass is the 1930 Census, and that shows that of some 535 classifications of occupations listed, women are engaged in 501, the heavy tasks, such as mining, locomotive engineers, firemen, et cetera, being completely masculine territory. And so in 100 years, women have advanced from 7 fields to 501; doors of opportunity for women are opening wider and wider, but the end is not yet, and perhaps 100 more years will pass until the world will allow women to make their best contribution, and women will be willing to make it.
In 100 years American women have come a long way, just as our country has come a long way, but we still have a journey to make, both as women and as citizens. It is noteworthy that teachers' training schools were started 100 years ago this year. Here and now we are observing the one-hundredth anniversary of women's progress, and I think it is a suitable time to take stock of where we have come from, where we wish to go, and how we are to get there. To help us evaluate these three points we appointed a committee of distinguished women. lin D. Roosevelt is honorary chairman of the committee, and Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt is vice chairman. Mrs. Frankbers are Dr. Mary E. Wooley, president emeritus of Mount Holyoke College; Mrs. Ruth Finley, author and noted publicist for the The other memRepublican Party; Ruth Comfort Mitchell, novelist and one of California's best-known daughters; the Honorable Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor; those two outstanding women in radio, Margaret Cuthbert and Helen J. Souissat; Fannie Hurst, the novelist; Miss Emma P. Hirth, general secretary of the Y. W. C. A.; President Aurelia H. Reinhardt, of Mills College, Calif.; Dr. Martha Tracy, dean of the Women's Medical College of Pennsylvania; Mrs. Mary Dillon, president of the Brooklyn Borough Gas Co.; and Mrs. Ora Snyder, manufacturer, of Chicago.
These women have had broad experience in public service and private enterprise. They represent every range of political and economic thinking, and I believe that their answers to a questionnaire which I sent them will help chart our course for the 100 years ahead.
First, I asked, "What were the chief obstacles to employment in the path of American women 100 years ago?"
Tradition seems to have been the chief stumbling block, with several important contributing causes, such as social and economic custom, lack of education, lack of training, and lack of personal initiative. I have quoted these obstacles from the considered opinion of one of the committee members, Ruth Finley, the noted writer and biographer of women of the colonial period. Mrs. Finley was formerly the editor of Guide, published by the Women's National Republican Club.
Frances Perkins has some interesting observations on that question, and I quote her:
"The lack of employment opportunities outside the home for both men and women constituted the principal obstacle to employment in 1839. This was the period, early in the industrial revolution, when women's traditional occupations were just beginning to move out of the home into factories, mills, and shops. There were few schools and most of the teachers were men, with women substituting in the summer while the men took agricultural jobs. Clerical jobs were practically nonexistent. The largest number of openings were in textile mills, where labor was scarce and wages were high. In these mills, hours were very long, and the workers were housed in dormitories under unfavorable living conditions. In 1839 there were practically no opportunities for professional women or any vocational training for women.' On the other hand, Mme. Secretary wrote: "There were cer- in social prestige-there existed no class distinction on the basis Work in factory or mill entailed no loss of 'white collar' or manual labor. to the welfare of a new nation. Factory work offered educational All work meant a contribution opportunities which were not available for women in schools of higher learning. It offered wages higher than for teaching. Horace Mann reported that women in many occupations in mills and fac- tories earned six or seven times as much as women teachers.
"Early mill workers were militant in the protection of their rights. As the real daughters of the American Revolution, they were earnestly concerned with justice and liberty in dealing with the concrete problems of their daily work life." These are the views of Frances Perkins.
Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt said in response to this question. I quote: "I should say that in 1839 the chief obstacles in the path of employment for American women were, first, the attitude held by both men and women as to the proper kind of work which women should do. Secondly, the lack of educational facilities and of training which they could obtain, and thirdly the lack of opportunities even if they obtained the education and the training." And from Ora Snyder came this opinion. I quote: "Lack of confidence in their ability and the old-fashioned opinion that women should not leave household duties or the care of the family." Dr. Martha Tracy is of the opinion that tradition was women's main stumbling block, plus the economic necessity of doing the home chores personally, including cooking and preserving foodstuffs, cleaning, laundry work, making the husband's and children's clothes, and childbearing. Dr. Tracy says that all of these obstacles have been largely conquered, and I quote her, "largely but not entirely. Childbearing will always be a factor." Ruth Finley thinks the obstacles have mainly been overcome, and Mrs. Roosevelt believes that "there is still some prejudice against women in certain lines of work for which they are naturally better equipped than men. The training today is fairly universally open to them though there are restrictions which make it a little difficult. Many more lines of work are open to women, but they have to excell." Frances Perkins made the following statement in answer to this question:
"Significant progress has been made in removing the obstacles to women's wage-earning employment that existed 100 years ago, but the job is far from complete. Eleven million women are now gainfully employed and are found in practically all occupations. Prejudice against women in the professions is gradually breaking down, and they are securing an ever greater measure of vocational opportunity. Training facilities for almost every occupational field are open to women, though the resultant job opportunities still may be relatively scarce. In recent years there has been a notable increase in the number of women in important administrative jobs in both State and Federal Governments. "However," Miss Perkins goes on to say, "because an increasing number of women must earn their livelihood and also support dependents entirely or partially, and because jobs are also scarce for men, competition is a much greater factor for women to reckon with now than it was some years ago. "Moreover, the traditional sex discriminations are still a major obstacle women encounter in their efforts to find satisfying and profitable employment. Their ability is still far from being accepted on the same plane as that of men. "Immense improvement has come about in the raising of wages, the lowering of hours, and the betterment of plant equipment; but the situation in this respect is still far from Utopian. double wage standard still prevails in a number of fields." The And now we come to the third question, "What obstacle do you believe will beset women in the next 100 years?" To this question Mrs. Finley answers, "The physical obstacle of sex, which never can be changed, and an overcrowding of the so-called economic jobs." Dr. Tracy's answer is-and I quote: "Economic competition with men, particularly in times of unemployment. The individual women's own incompetence." She also notes: "The same applies to men, but women capitalize on the 'tradition' of sex obstruction. Child bearing cannot be outmoded." Mrs. Snyder feels that "jealousy from the male sex" will be the chief obstacle for women. Most of the committee declined to commit themselves on one question, which was, "In your opinion, what has been the outstanding contribution made by American women during the past 100 years?" Ruth Finley, however, answers by saying, "Dissemination of women's news,' and she names Sarah Josepha Hale as the woman who has made the outstanding contribution of the past 100 years. She gives her reason for this as follows-and again I quote: "Prior to the radio, the national woman's magazines were the only interstate link between women. Mrs. Hale, for 50 years editor of Godey's Lady's Book, the first woman's magazine approaching Nation-wide circulation, did more to correlate and unify women's thought in this country than any other person, man or woman, in the nineteenth century." Helen Sioussat, of Columbia Broadcasting Co., said unhesitatingly, "The discovery of radium," and nominated Mme. Curie. Margaret Cuthbert believes that the political recognition of American women has been the outstanding contribution, and she nominated Susan B. Anthony. Frances Perkins wrote: "Because there have been so many important contributions by women in so many fields, it is difficult to evaluate them in such a general way as to make it possible to name only one woman."
Ora Snyder said, "Jane Addams is the woman, and her splendid work at Hull House, Chicago, in the settlement field proves it." Dr. Tracy also has a candidate. She wrote, "Mary Lyon's demonstration that women can be educated, without danger to health or other damage to their nature, is of the utmost importance." And now for my next question, for this is an inventory of women's liabilities as well as women's assets, "What have been the greatest failures of women in the past 100 years?" And again Ruth Finley out of her great wealth of research on the lives of American women answers, "Over-eagerness, evidencing a real lack
of moral stamina in many cases, to throw off the frequently monotonous responsibilities of the home." And Ruth Finley finds these failures also, "unwillingness to serve adequate apprenticeship in the economic world; lack of understanding of and consequent impatience with the slowness of the natural evolution of the now machine-made social order, and failure to assimilate experience." Frances Perkins says, "One major failure of women in the past century relates to their neglect of the use of their hard-won right to vote. Women's failure to take a more active part in American politics, as voters and as candidates for office has been a major disappointment. Women have not participated as fully as they might in labor organization. They have a most important contribution to make in this field and should become increasingly active." And she continues, "Some women have fallen down in their responsibility as employers of other persons. For example, long hours, low wages, social isolation, and exclusion from legislative protection have been characteristic of the vocation using the services of the largest single group of women workers-household employment."
And here is one of the most important questions that I asked the women who form the committee for the commemoration of 100 years of women's progress in the United States. "What are the greatest prejudices concerning women now held by the general public?" Ruth Finley gave me two answers, "Overcrowding of the wage field and consequent usurpation of jobs needed by men as the natural heads of families, and falling birth rate in the middle, and especially the native-born classes." And the First Lady of the Land answered, "It was generally thought that physically and mentally women were not equal to doing the same type of work as men.' Frances Perkins wrote thoughtfully, "Perhaps the oustanding prejudice against women 100 years ago was the general one that they were inferior beings, inferior to men physically, mentally, and economically; that it was of no importance that they be educated and granted political privileges. Under the laws of the day women were severely discriminated against in relation to property rights, in the rights of custody of children and the like. The common law, which was so often detrimental to women's interest, was accepted as the legal authority. Women were not considered experienced enough to handle any of their personal affairs, nor to participate in public affairs. "Though important progress has been made, there are still distinct evidences of a carry-over of prejudice against women that existed a century ago. With a large segment of our people, the idea still prevails that women's place is 'in the home' and the prejudice against the employment of married women is yet very strong among some groups. "At times men make much ado about women's artistic inferiority and as a consequence women have heavy competitive sledding to make a valid contribution in the field of arts.
"Though women's legal status has strengthened throughout the century, they are still in a far weaker position in this respect than are men in many States. In some cases their wages yet belong to their husbands; in others they do not share equally with their husbands in their children's custody, etc. A number of States do not permit women to serve on juries."
Margaret Cuthbert, famous radio authority, says, bluntly, "Women, given the same opportunity as men, are making the same mistakes and doing the same things that men are doing. With the freedom they now have in view of the money they control, they have done little that is unique, little that is original, little that is different, and not much that shows that women as a group are using their natural gifts to make their own lives and the lives of others more civilized-outside of a few exceptional women."
Mrs. Snyder thinks that men's lack of confidence in women's ability will be the chief obstacle for women in the future. Dr. Tracy concurs in this, saying: "Men's age-old prejudice that women were physically and intellectually inferior still holds, though much diluted and localized."
And now I come to the heart of my questionnaire, for, having gathered the opinions of these women, I wanted to find out what we can do about it as business and professional women. So I asked all of them, "In your opinion, what is the best way for business and professional women to educate the general public as to the fact that these prejudices are not factually founded?" Here is what some of them answered:
Dr. Tracy: "By accepting opportunities for work and giving competent performance. Not by talking about it." Mrs. Snyder: "Instruct the public that we believe in equality, and we want a chance to demonstrate what we can do on an equal footing." Mrs. Roosevelt: "In my opinion, the best education is the education which makes people acquainted with the facts, and the facts can be furnished today through studies made by the various people interested in labor and in woman's position." Miss Perkins: "Probably the best educational method consists of clear demonstrations of women's ability in many fields." Mary Dillon: "To succeed as individuals in the jobs they hold." And Ruth Finley: "Probably the best way for the fit and capable business and professional woman to combat this general attitude (which is growing with appalling rapidity) is to recognize the inevitable weeding-out process of evolution now and back that recognition with the weight of opinion and influence. Always women have worked outside as well as in the home. In 1839 the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
proportion was overbalanced in favor of the home, with many resultant personal misfits and family or group hardships. "Now the pendulum has swung too far the other way, and in 1939 the opposite proportion of overbalance has created more personal misfits and family group hardships than ever before. History has proved that one of the primary social laws is the maintaining or restoration of balance. It seems to me that nothing could give women a more solid foundation for their future as free citizens than their voluntary and immediate recognition of this law."
"Example" is what counts most, Margaret Cuthbert feels. "Deeds more important than words," she writes, "giving proof that women are not personal and prejudiced in business; relating the complex fabric of civilization to the persons for whom, after all, it exists." She points out that "it is not through individual achievement that women are going to serve as they will serve, but in proportion as they emphasize and express cooperation. brave new world must be a man's and woman's world." This
And with these opinions behind us, I asked, "What type of education do you believe will be best suited to women in the next century?" And here are the answers: From Mrs. Snyder, "A practical education and training for a business or professional career.' Mary Dillon's answer is succinct. as men, a rounded cultural background, plus specific training in I quote her exactly: "Same the field of their vocation."
From Dr. Tracy: "Just such an education as will fit any adult to be an intelligent and tolerant citizen and a thorough performer in the lot to which circumstances and her own ability will call her."
Ruth Finley advocates: "A scholastic education to enable women to participate in and understand and enjoy modern civilization; domestic science and child care; professional or occupational training according to the talent of the individual." Frances Perkins says, "Because of our many new means of communication, nation with nation and locality with locality, people touch each other at many more points than they used to. For this reason education needs to be broader. needs to be realistic, too. Education national life to the full they must know science and economics If women are to participate in our as well as the so-called cultural subjects. Education should produce attitudes of liberalism and democracy as well as the absorption of factual data." And, "What tools for advancement do you think women need most during the next century?" I asked them. answers education, individual adequacy, a change in the ecoHere are some of the nomic condition of the country, health maintenance, the removal of legislative restriction against women. recommended and these are the tools we must acquire. These are the tools of all the tools, individual adequacy was stressed the most. When I asked, "Why are not more office after 2 decades of enfranchisement?" women holding public of the committee held decided opinions. Madame Secretary wrote I found that many as follows: "It cannot be said fairly that either men or women are to blame, rather a number of circumstances are involved. The old concept of women's inferiority in any role other than that of homemaker is doubtless responsible for the fact that very few women are elected or appointed to public office. "However, because of lingering prejudices in respect to women's holding public positions the woman who runs for and holds such office needs to be more outstanding and better qualified than the average man with whom she competes. must be competent, a Where a man women themselves have not in general enlarged their concept woman must be exceptional. Moreover, of what constitutes women's work to have it cover public service to any considerable degree.
"A second reason, I believe, that so few women run for office has to do with the rather low regard many people in this country hold for the mechanics of politics. Women have tended to shy away from practical politics and concentrate in their organizations on nonpartisan politics. In the third place, women as yet have achieved no solidarity as women toward the end of putting those of their sex into public office."
Dr. Tracy feels that there are not more women holding public office because of, and I quote her, "lack of qualifications and very often unwillingness or inability to accept responsibility and to sacrifice personal and home obligations to the requirements of public office."
Mrs. Snyder feels that the reason lies in the fact that "men do not want women in public office, and fight their election." Ruth Finley holds out some comfort for us. whole women are still unfitted and incapable with, of course, She says, "On the notable exceptions. Public prejudice and lack of confidence due to a long established custom have held women back. what is 20 years of enfranchisement as against the more than After all, 2,000 years of masculine training and practice in the art of governing?"
And echo answers, what indeed? And here is Margaret Cuthbert's opinion, I quote, "It is not important that they do hold more offices. that they use their influence and power for better government. It is more important If women choose to do this, men cannot stop them."
There were just two more questions on my list, first, "In what field do you believe women will make the greatest contribution during the next century?"
3581 The answers include, the preservation of the home as a national unit, public administration, social welfare, social sciences, human welfare, and the defense of democratic institutions.
And my final question, "What in your opinion can woman do to bring about the settlement of disputes between nations by peaceful methods?" The answers include, first, education; second, through participation in international organizations like the Y. W. C. A., the Associated Country Women of the World, which demonstrate the value of the conference method; through emphasizing the similarities of people rather than the differences; by encouraging tolerance and the settlement of every disagreement by arbitration; by demanding peace actively and aggressively. "War can be banished just as dueling was banished," Ruth Finley advises me. "Where women will there is always a way." And now, delegates to the convention, you have heard the opinions of some of the members of the committee. time this evening for all to be given you. There was not stood 100 years ago, where we stand today, and what we must do You know where we in the years ahead. whole subject further, and distinguished speakers will give us Throughout this week we will consider the further and more intensive interpretations. I noted that the names of just five women were suggested as having made the outstanding contributions of the past century— Sarah Josepha Hale, Mary Lyon, Susan B. Anthony, Jane Addams, and Mme. Curie, the latter, of course, not an American. list I would add two others-Dr. Anna Howard Shaw and Carrie To that Chapman Catt. That is the chief roll of honor of the past century as I see it.
Where we have come from we know. Where we are going is known only to Him who knows all. of American women is indissolubly united with the future of our We do know that the future country, just as the contributions of the women of the past have been entwined with the history of the progress of America. We have made great opportunities for women and we have had great opportunities made for us. we fail now, we can only echo Shakespeare's words, "The fault, Many doors are open to us. If dear Brutus, is in ourselves, not in our stars, if we are underlings."
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: EXCESS GOVERNMENT SPENDING COVERED BY PRINTING BONDS (By Wadsworth W. Mount, Assistant Director of Research, the
As long as the Government can spend all the money it wants to, over and above what it takes in from taxes, merely by printing Government bonds, selling these to the banks, and then drawing checks against them, how can we ever hope to stop extravagant Government spending?
And when the Government spends these billions in such ways that private citizens do not know which way to turn to make money, and therefore have comparatively little need to borrow from the banks on safe terms, where else can banks invest your money on deposit but in Government bonds?
A banker knows that when the United States Government prints a Government bond it says in effect that the Government will tax the people of the United States to make it good. fore, that Government bonds are the soundest security in the He knows, therecountry, just so long as we do not issue too many of them and have inflation. Before the Government started spending several billions more each year than it took in from taxes, the savings banks, for instance, could safely lend your money, largely to people who wanted to spend it for private or business uses, at a high enough rate of interest to cover their expenses and pay you 4 percent. ent conditions, however, one of the few remaining safe places to Under pres
invest bank funds is in Government bonds. Therefore, as the interest rate on long-term Treasury bonds has been lowered until their average yield is now approximately 2 percent, at present about all the savings banks can safely get for the use of your money is enough to provide for necessary expenses and reserves and pay you only 2 percent, or even less, on your deposits. The Treasury has just announced that to pay off some $426,000,000 of outstanding obligations which are due in September and now carry an interest rate of 1% percent it will offer in exchange new "notes" due in 5 years which will pay only three-fourths of 1 percent.
A New York investment firm recently showed that Treasury obligations maturing in a little more than 2 years now afford a yield of only one one-hundredth of 1 percent. At this rate of return, it was pointed out that "an investor would have to hold more than $144,000 par value to provide an income sufficient to buy his morning newspaper each day; he would have to hold $558,000 to provide enough funds to buy a daily package of cigarettes." As the average interest rate on all Federal obligations is lowered, those having money in savings accounts and insurance policies which represent their personally saved "social security" have their interest earnings also reduced, as a large part of such funds are invested in Government bonds.
This means, therefore, that it will take you longer to pay for your life insurance, as the annual dividends will be less or the premiums will be more. Some people think that only the taxpayers of future generations will have to pay for the present Government spending. However, if you own a savings-bank account you are paying right now for the increased national debt by getting one-half or less of the amount of interest you used to receive, and the trend is still downward.
This means then that if, for example, you were trying to put in the savings bank enough money to give you $2,000-a-year income, you will now have to save $100,000 or more, where when savings banks were able to invest your money safely and pay you 4 percent you would only have had to save $50,000 to get this same income. Everyone in the Nation has to pay one way or another for the money our Government officials are instructed to spend. Some pay taxes directly, but everyone pays indirectly for all Government services. The Government has nothing to give to the people except what it gets from the people.
The question is not whether these are desirable Government functions.
The question is whether the country wants expansion of Government, which must be paid for by increased taxes. Or wants expansion of business, which pays in jobs and wages. For the increased money that now goes into Government spending is the money that formerly went into new and improved products, new and enlarged factories, bigger pay rolls and dividends. There isn't enough in the earned dollar to go both ways. Business the production and distribution of goods-is the only thing that can create new wealth. Less taxes; more jobs.
THIRTY CENTS FOR "INDEPENDENCE," JULY 4, 1939 Here, then, in broad strokes is the state of the Nation today. Each of the 60 countries of the world requires around two-thirds of its productive work, its income, to pay for the necessities, food, shelter, clothing. This 65 percent is true of a country regardless of its living standards, India on the one extreme, the United States with the highest standards on the other. What of the 35 cents left after the sustenance of life? In that answer lie most of our troublesome problems today. Consider three pictures:
Until recently the people of the United States disposed of their 35 cents in this way. Five cents, at the turn of the century, was all that was required to pay for expenses of government-State, Federal, and local. Of the remaining 30 cents, about half went into the hands of managers of business enterprises which was about equally divided by them in expanding old industries and promoting and developing new ones such as radio, rayon, automobile. Much of this 15 cents remained in the hands of the people in the form of investment, productive wealth represented by stocks and bonds and life-insurance equities. The remaining 15 cents was used to buy the products of this increased industrial activity, thus driving upward standards of living and making one-time luxuries the conveniences and even necessities denied the rest of the world.
Second picture: What of the 35 cents which remained to the peoples of the other 59 countries? Since time immemorial around 30 cents was used for government expenses. A hazardous 5 cents was left as free capital. This gives point to the sentient statement of former President Hadley, of Yale, that the supremacy of the United States was due to the fact that it could afford to take chances upon development as no other country could afford to do. Five cents as against 30 cents as a backlog. Why did the Old World require 30 cents of the earnings of their people for government? For policing. External policing, the fear of land-grabbing, wealth-grabbing neighbor aggressors, whose people were in constant fear of being deprived of the bare necessities. Third picture: What is the situation in the United States today? Sixty-five cents for the necessities. Of the 35 remaining, 30 for governments (25 collected in taxes, 5 borrowed). Ten cents for investment and the lifting of living standards.
Why the great increase in government costs? Not to relieve distress and unemployment, as generally stated and believed. Only one dollar in six of Federal expenditures is for relief. The great increase in taxation and borrowing, which has brought overnight the allocation of the earned dollar to a level almost to that of other countries, is for policing. Against foreign aggressors? No. For protection against an alleged aggression and oppression on the part of business management. Internal "policing." Policing ourselves against ourselves.
Every act of those engaged in stimulating us to trade our labor, services, and products is now under surveillance, from the time a commission checks the project to the time another bureau passes upon the label to go on the package. Policing, in another form, such as protection against the private electric bulb by Government "yardstick" operation. Policing of banks, labor relations, aviation, oil, coal, lumber, telephones, retailers, stock and grain exchanges, insurance. Policing of States and communities as to the manner in which they handle their social problems. Policing in another form as exemplified in the published statistics that the Federal Government received 153,000,000 compulsory reports from business management last year. Policing as expressed in the $76,000,000-a sum equal to one-sixth of total passenger revenuesspent by Washington in travel expenses of its inspectors, regulators, investigators in 1 calendar year. These three pictures are true pictures. They point the trend to a static society, a "planned economy," to "frontiers gone forever." We, the people, perhaps planned it that way, a road to centralized authority over, and policing of, the individual. But perhaps we did not count the cost; unemployment still with us, management, which brings dreams into being, and men and jobs together, and more conveniences and luxuries for more people, now disheartened and bewildered, unable to see 30 days down the road because of the new policing machinery we have set up, whereby 137 boards, bureaus, commissions, Federal incorporations and authorities now pass laws daily in the form of rules and regulations. Little government, with little expense and little policing, brought the United States the highest standard of living the world has ever seen. Perhaps the founders were wrong in building that way, indignant and angry as they were against a ruler demanding more taxes and more power, who, as a famous declaration set forth, had "erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." Page 19Page 20
There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
I want to talk to you about education and the need for securing Federal aid for our schools. At a time when the present State administration in Wisconsin is preparing to cut nearly $2,000,000 out of our school budgets, I think it is absolutely necessary for us all to give the matter some very serious attention. The problem of maintaining fair and proper educational opportunities for our boys and girls in the next 2 years is going to demand some sort of outside assistance if the State government will not assume its rightful share of the responsibility. I am a firm believer in "economy" if by economy is meant making the most of what resources we have at our disposal and eliminating waste. But I fail to see any economy in a pinch-penny policy that is willing to sacrifice the rights of our young people to a full education simply for a few paltry pieces of silver. The greatest resource America has is its people, and we owe it to ourselves as a nation to see to it that the talents and abilities of the young are developed to the highest degree possible by means of adequate educational opportunities.
To hear some people talk, one might think that we have been extravagant in the support of our schools during the last few years, but actually in the country as a whole we are spending about $350,000,000 less for education than we were in 1930, in spite of the fact that high-school enrollment, where the expense is heaviest, has been increased by over 1,575,000 students. In Wisconsin we have been more fortunate, up until the present time, than the people in other States. In 1935 Wisconsin restored its State school aids to their former levels, and in the years that followed much was done to repair the damage suffered by our educational system as a result of depression retrenchment. Now, however, as a result of the action being taken by the new State administration, we are back face to face with the old problem
again. There is a bill before Congress at the present time which would provide, if enacted, a program of Federal aid to States for the support of their schools and the equalization of educational opportunity throughout the Nation. Under the estimated apportionment of the appropriation submitted with the bill, the enactment of this program could mean as much as $1,200,000 for Wisconsin next year and still more in succeeding years. Such a program is important to the whole Nation. One of the main foundation stones of democracy is equality of educational opportunity. That means public schools available to every man's son or daughter from kindergarten right on up through the university. If we allow a situation to develop where higher education is open only to those people of wealth who can afford to send their children to private schools, it will lead inevitably toward a class division in this country, with the educated, wealthy few on one side of the fence and a resentful, uneducated multitude on the other side. That sort of a situation is as dangerous as it is unnecessary.
Today there are between 800,000 and a million children of grade-school age who are not going to school. Most of them have no school to go to. There are approximately 3,000,000 people in the country who are totally illiterate, who can neither read nor write. And if you passed a newspaper around the Nation, you would find that as many as 15,000,000 adults couldn't read it. Those same people cannot write the simplest of letters. Believe it or not, there are more illiterates in America than there are college graduates.
An analysis of teachers' salaries shows another astounding condition. Considering the range by States, the State having the highest average salary for teachers has an average of only $2,414 per year, and on the other extreme is a State where teachers receive an average salary of only $504 per year. The average salary for teachers in rural communities is correspondingly still lower. For rural teachers the top average is only $1,337 and the bottom average is a bare $430.
When you realize how important is the teacher to whom parents entrust their children for education and guidance, it is surprising that the public has allowed such a condition to exist. If we are to secure the best kind of people to be the teachers of our children, we must be prepared to pay them enough so that they can afford to pass up opportunities in other fields and devote themselves to teaching.
The problem is worse in some States than in others. Some States are wealthy while others are poor, and unfortunately it appears that the States which are least able to maintain adequate schools have the greatest number of children in proportion to adult population. The President's Advisory Committee on Education has made a thorough study of this problem, and it reports a variation so large that the richest State in the Union has a per capita taxpaying ability to support schools which is 12 times the ability of the poorest State. This is not the fault of the individual States. It is a question of wealth. Our modern commercial life has outgrown even State boundaries. Much of our wealth has been drained away from the producing areas of the Nation into the financial centers of the country. As a result, the per capita wealth of some eastern States,
for instance, is all out of proportion to their actual physical contribution to the Nation's production. In order to recapture this wealth for the States from which it came in the first place, the Federal Government must reach it through Federal taxes and return it to the States by means of grants-in-aid. Senate bill 1305 now before the Congress proposes a 6-year program of Federal aids for education in the States. It authorizes an appropriation of approximately $75,000,000 for such purposes during the next fiscal year and increasing amounts for the succeeding years until an appropriation of $208,000,000 is reached for the fiscal year ending in 1945. This money would go toward the support of public elementary and secondary schools, improved teacher preparation, construction of school buildings, administration of State departments of education, adult education, rural-library service, and educational research.
It would not involve any sort of Federal control over the schools. The bill specifically provides that all matters of school administration, curriculum, methods of instruction, personnel, and the determination of the best uses for the funds granted shall be left to the control of the States and their local subdivisions. In order to qualify for the grants each State would simply have to establish a plan for distributing funds to the local school districts in such a way that the aim of the Federal program, the equalization of educational opportunity, would be carried out. In this way the Federal Government would be assured that the neediest communities of the State would get the greatest benefits from the funds granted.
The only other condition of importance to Wisconsin which would have to be met before the funds could be made available under the terms of this bill is the requirement that the State provide funds for these purposes in amounts at least equal to the sums provided in 1938.
The funds to be appropriated under this plan are to be divided among the States according to their respective educational loads and their respective financial abilities. The educational load of each State would be computed from estimates by the Bureau of the Census each year of the number of children of school age in the State. The financial ability of each State would be computed by the Secretary of the Treasury on the basis of certain standards prescribed in the bill. By balancing the State's school load against its financial ability, its financial need under the plan is determined, and the funds are allocated in accordance with this need.
The Senate Committee on Education and Labor has held hearings on the bill and has reported it favorably to the Senate for passage. At the hearings representatives of the leading educational organizations in this country, representing both parents and teachers, appeared and urged that the Federal Government undertake such a program. I feel that a program of this kind should receive the unselfish support of every public-spirited citizen. Education is one of those things which we cannot postpone to suit our convenience. Every year that goes by means a certain number of boys and girls who have either passed beyond school age or have been forced by circumstances to undertake responsibilities which will If their education was prevent their ever going back to school. neglected during the years when they could have gone to school, the chances are they will carry that handicap with them all through life. The rural areas are the hardest hit. It is an established fact that it costs more to provide proper educational facilities in the country than in the city. We know also that there are more children, in proportion to adult population, in the rural areas than in the cities. Yet in spite of that fact the best educational opportunities are being provided for children in the cities. "Equalization of educational opportunity" means not only establishing more uniformity of educational opportunities among the 48 States; it also means bringing financial aid to the rural schools so that the farmers and the people in the small communities can give their children as good an education as the children in the cities get.
If we are going to make democracy work in America, we must always have an intelligent, educated, informed citizenry. If we neglect the education of our young people now, even for a little while, we are going to pay dearly for it in the future. In Wisconsin we have a very definite problem. The budget of the university alone is being cut over a million dollars in the face of increased enrollment and long-delayed needs for expansion. A similar cut is being imposed upon the State teachers' colleges. Unless corrected, this will result in one of two things either fees will have to be raised and it will become that much harder for farmers and working people to send their children to school, or standards will have to be lowered and they will get just that much less for their money.
The program of Federal aid which I have outlined to you will not in any way make up for all the State's failures in this respect but it will help some. The Federal program is primarily concerned with elementary and secondary education, but, indirectly at least, it will aid by taking some of the budgetary pressure off our public institutions of higher education.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
Mr. HARRISON. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the RECORD a speech delivered by Miss Earlene White, at the biennial convention of the National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, Inc., at Kansas City, Mo., on July 9, 1939, on the subject of professional women. There being no objection, the speech was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
It was a bright, sunny morning in the 1830's. A distinguished looking woman, traveling alone, her full skirts discreetly sweeping the ground, her corkscrew curls hanging coyly beneath her bonnet, alighted from a packet boat, having made the trip from England to America in about 40 days.
The woman was Harriet Martineau, a friend of the Carlyles, a trained observer and commentator who came to America in search of new copy. Tired, for a time, of the life in London, she realized that comparatively little was known of the new land which had once been an English colony and was now attracting English and Scotch immigrants in great numbers. She set foot in little old New York, which was then a thriving community, without skyscrapers or bridges to connect the island of Manhattan with its neighborhood boroughs. True, the Astors had begun to make a fortune as fur traders, and Commodore Vanderbilt had found it profitable to pilot a ferry between Staten and Manhattan Islands; nevertheless, New York had little resemblance to the great present-day city of the North American Continent.
And what of the North American Continent upon which Harriet Martineau gazed? She came to America just after the Lewis and Clark expedition had blazed a trail to the Pacific and fur traders were following the Oregon Trail across the mountains.
American missionaries and farmers were quick to follow. The Northern States were clamoring for the annexation of Oregon to the Union and the South was clamoring for Texas. annexation were so vociferous that the slogan of "Fifty-four-Forty or Fight" was to be heard everywhere, as the citizens of the new The advocates of Nation, greedy for land, clamored for the extension of American territory to further latitudes. The clamor grew until it resulted in the election of James K. Polk in 1844 on that very issue.
The industrial revolution was beginning in America, and Harriet Martineau took full note of it. locm had been invented and were making it possible for cloth to The spinning jenny and the power be made in new ways. were new tools for farming, including the reaper. Women-and The cotton gin had been invented and there men, too-who had carried on small manufacturing plants with hand tools on their farms, making the family's clothing along with the family's food supply, found it necessary to change their way of life. The growth of mill towns was taken for granted, and young women who had been earning their livelihoods at just six occupations-keeping boarders, teaching young children, typesetting, bookbinding, domestic service, and needlework-found a new occupation as weavers in the mills.
The severe financial panic in 1837 threw thousands out of work, and when Harriet Martineau visited America unemployment stories were constantly printed in the daily press. The suffrage movement was being extended, and Robert Fulton's steamboat had set a new pace; the inland waterways of America were being invaded by steamboats plowing their way through the hitherto untroubled waters. The best opportunities for men lay in the fields and forests of the far West.
And as usual men and women were facing the future with uncertainty, dreading the changes but eager to get on with them. In 1836, a young girl, living and working in Lowell, Mass, penned these lines
"Oh, isn't it a pity that such a pretty girl as I, Should be sent to the factory to pine away and die?" Thus, the working girl lamented, as she was forced out of the home and into industry. All this and more the woman journalist from England noted and went home and reported in a lengthy volume reciting the sights she had seen and the observations she had made.
3579 It was Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt, our beloved leader of suffrage and world peace, who called our attention to Harriet Martineau and her writings and urged us to observe the one-hundredth anniversary of Miss Martineau's reportorial journey, and to see how many doors are still closed to women, 100 years later. We have accepted Mrs. Catt's suggestion and our biennial convention is devoted to the theme, "One Hundred Years of Women's Progress in the United States." Our compass is the 1930 Census, and that shows that of some 535 classifications of occupations listed, women are engaged in 501, the heavy tasks, such as mining, locomotive engineers, firemen, et cetera, being completely masculine territory. And so in 100 years, women have advanced from 7 fields to 501; doors of opportunity for women are opening wider and wider, but the end is not yet, and perhaps 100 more years will pass until the world will allow women to make their best contribution, and women will be willing to make it.
In 100 years American women have come a long way, just as our country has come a long way, but we still have a journey to make, both as women and as citizens. It is noteworthy that teachers' training schools were started 100 years ago this year. Here and now we are observing the one-hundredth anniversary of women's progress, and I think it is a suitable time to take stock of where we have come from, where we wish to go, and how we are to get there. To help us evaluate these three points we appointed a committee of distinguished women. lin D. Roosevelt is honorary chairman of the committee, and Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt is vice chairman. Mrs. Frankbers are Dr. Mary E. Wooley, president emeritus of Mount Holyoke College; Mrs. Ruth Finley, author and noted publicist for the The other memRepublican Party; Ruth Comfort Mitchell, novelist and one of California's best-known daughters; the Honorable Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor; those two outstanding women in radio, Margaret Cuthbert and Helen J. Souissat; Fannie Hurst, the novelist; Miss Emma P. Hirth, general secretary of the Y. W. C. A.; President Aurelia H. Reinhardt, of Mills College, Calif.; Dr. Martha Tracy, dean of the Women's Medical College of Pennsylvania; Mrs. Mary Dillon, president of the Brooklyn Borough Gas Co.; and Mrs. Ora Snyder, manufacturer, of Chicago.
These women have had broad experience in public service and private enterprise. They represent every range of political and economic thinking, and I believe that their answers to a questionnaire which I sent them will help chart our course for the 100 years ahead.
First, I asked, "What were the chief obstacles to employment in the path of American women 100 years ago?"
Tradition seems to have been the chief stumbling block, with several important contributing causes, such as social and economic custom, lack of education, lack of training, and lack of personal initiative. I have quoted these obstacles from the considered opinion of one of the committee members, Ruth Finley, the noted writer and biographer of women of the colonial period. Mrs. Finley was formerly the editor of Guide, published by the Women's National Republican Club.
Frances Perkins has some interesting observations on that question, and I quote her:
"The lack of employment opportunities outside the home for both men and women constituted the principal obstacle to employment in 1839. This was the period, early in the industrial revolution, when women's traditional occupations were just beginning to move out of the home into factories, mills, and shops. There were few schools and most of the teachers were men, with women substituting in the summer while the men took agricultural jobs. Clerical jobs were practically nonexistent. The largest number of openings were in textile mills, where labor was scarce and wages were high. In these mills, hours were very long, and the workers were housed in dormitories under unfavorable living conditions. In 1839 there were practically no opportunities for professional women or any vocational training for women.' On the other hand, Mme. Secretary wrote: "There were cer- in social prestige-there existed no class distinction on the basis Work in factory or mill entailed no loss of 'white collar' or manual labor. to the welfare of a new nation. Factory work offered educational All work meant a contribution opportunities which were not available for women in schools of higher learning. It offered wages higher than for teaching. Horace Mann reported that women in many occupations in mills and fac- tories earned six or seven times as much as women teachers.
"Early mill workers were militant in the protection of their rights. As the real daughters of the American Revolution, they were earnestly concerned with justice and liberty in dealing with the concrete problems of their daily work life." These are the views of Frances Perkins.
Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt said in response to this question. I quote: "I should say that in 1839 the chief obstacles in the path of employment for American women were, first, the attitude held by both men and women as to the proper kind of work which women should do. Secondly, the lack of educational facilities and of training which they could obtain, and thirdly the lack of opportunities even if they obtained the education and the training." And from Ora Snyder came this opinion. I quote: "Lack of confidence in their ability and the old-fashioned opinion that women should not leave household duties or the care of the family." Dr. Martha Tracy is of the opinion that tradition was women's main stumbling block, plus the economic necessity of doing the home chores personally, including cooking and preserving foodstuffs, cleaning, laundry work, making the husband's and children's clothes, and childbearing. Dr. Tracy says that all of these obstacles have been largely conquered, and I quote her, "largely but not entirely. Childbearing will always be a factor." Ruth Finley thinks the obstacles have mainly been overcome, and Mrs. Roosevelt believes that "there is still some prejudice against women in certain lines of work for which they are naturally better equipped than men. The training today is fairly universally open to them though there are restrictions which make it a little difficult. Many more lines of work are open to women, but they have to excell." Frances Perkins made the following statement in answer to this question:
"Significant progress has been made in removing the obstacles to women's wage-earning employment that existed 100 years ago, but the job is far from complete. Eleven million women are now gainfully employed and are found in practically all occupations. Prejudice against women in the professions is gradually breaking down, and they are securing an ever greater measure of vocational opportunity. Training facilities for almost every occupational field are open to women, though the resultant job opportunities still may be relatively scarce. In recent years there has been a notable increase in the number of women in important administrative jobs in both State and Federal Governments. "However," Miss Perkins goes on to say, "because an increasing number of women must earn their livelihood and also support dependents entirely or partially, and because jobs are also scarce for men, competition is a much greater factor for women to reckon with now than it was some years ago. "Moreover, the traditional sex discriminations are still a major obstacle women encounter in their efforts to find satisfying and profitable employment. Their ability is still far from being accepted on the same plane as that of men. "Immense improvement has come about in the raising of wages, the lowering of hours, and the betterment of plant equipment; but the situation in this respect is still far from Utopian. double wage standard still prevails in a number of fields." The And now we come to the third question, "What obstacle do you believe will beset women in the next 100 years?" To this question Mrs. Finley answers, "The physical obstacle of sex, which never can be changed, and an overcrowding of the so-called economic jobs." Dr. Tracy's answer is-and I quote: "Economic competition with men, particularly in times of unemployment. The individual women's own incompetence." She also notes: "The same applies to men, but women capitalize on the 'tradition' of sex obstruction. Child bearing cannot be outmoded." Mrs. Snyder feels that "jealousy from the male sex" will be the chief obstacle for women. Most of the committee declined to commit themselves on one question, which was, "In your opinion, what has been the outstanding contribution made by American women during the past 100 years?" Ruth Finley, however, answers by saying, "Dissemination of women's news,' and she names Sarah Josepha Hale as the woman who has made the outstanding contribution of the past 100 years. She gives her reason for this as follows-and again I quote: "Prior to the radio, the national woman's magazines were the only interstate link between women. Mrs. Hale, for 50 years editor of Godey's Lady's Book, the first woman's magazine approaching Nation-wide circulation, did more to correlate and unify women's thought in this country than any other person, man or woman, in the nineteenth century." Helen Sioussat, of Columbia Broadcasting Co., said unhesitatingly, "The discovery of radium," and nominated Mme. Curie. Margaret Cuthbert believes that the political recognition of American women has been the outstanding contribution, and she nominated Susan B. Anthony. Frances Perkins wrote: "Because there have been so many important contributions by women in so many fields, it is difficult to evaluate them in such a general way as to make it possible to name only one woman."
Ora Snyder said, "Jane Addams is the woman, and her splendid work at Hull House, Chicago, in the settlement field proves it." Dr. Tracy also has a candidate. She wrote, "Mary Lyon's demonstration that women can be educated, without danger to health or other damage to their nature, is of the utmost importance." And now for my next question, for this is an inventory of women's liabilities as well as women's assets, "What have been the greatest failures of women in the past 100 years?" And again Ruth Finley out of her great wealth of research on the lives of American women answers, "Over-eagerness, evidencing a real lack
of moral stamina in many cases, to throw off the frequently monotonous responsibilities of the home." And Ruth Finley finds these failures also, "unwillingness to serve adequate apprenticeship in the economic world; lack of understanding of and consequent impatience with the slowness of the natural evolution of the now machine-made social order, and failure to assimilate experience." Frances Perkins says, "One major failure of women in the past century relates to their neglect of the use of their hard-won right to vote. Women's failure to take a more active part in American politics, as voters and as candidates for office has been a major disappointment. Women have not participated as fully as they might in labor organization. They have a most important contribution to make in this field and should become increasingly active." And she continues, "Some women have fallen down in their responsibility as employers of other persons. For example, long hours, low wages, social isolation, and exclusion from legislative protection have been characteristic of the vocation using the services of the largest single group of women workers-household employment."
And here is one of the most important questions that I asked the women who form the committee for the commemoration of 100 years of women's progress in the United States. "What are the greatest prejudices concerning women now held by the general public?" Ruth Finley gave me two answers, "Overcrowding of the wage field and consequent usurpation of jobs needed by men as the natural heads of families, and falling birth rate in the middle, and especially the native-born classes." And the First Lady of the Land answered, "It was generally thought that physically and mentally women were not equal to doing the same type of work as men.' Frances Perkins wrote thoughtfully, "Perhaps the oustanding prejudice against women 100 years ago was the general one that they were inferior beings, inferior to men physically, mentally, and economically; that it was of no importance that they be educated and granted political privileges. Under the laws of the day women were severely discriminated against in relation to property rights, in the rights of custody of children and the like. The common law, which was so often detrimental to women's interest, was accepted as the legal authority. Women were not considered experienced enough to handle any of their personal affairs, nor to participate in public affairs. "Though important progress has been made, there are still distinct evidences of a carry-over of prejudice against women that existed a century ago. With a large segment of our people, the idea still prevails that women's place is 'in the home' and the prejudice against the employment of married women is yet very strong among some groups. "At times men make much ado about women's artistic inferiority and as a consequence women have heavy competitive sledding to make a valid contribution in the field of arts.
"Though women's legal status has strengthened throughout the century, they are still in a far weaker position in this respect than are men in many States. In some cases their wages yet belong to their husbands; in others they do not share equally with their husbands in their children's custody, etc. A number of States do not permit women to serve on juries."
Margaret Cuthbert, famous radio authority, says, bluntly, "Women, given the same opportunity as men, are making the same mistakes and doing the same things that men are doing. With the freedom they now have in view of the money they control, they have done little that is unique, little that is original, little that is different, and not much that shows that women as a group are using their natural gifts to make their own lives and the lives of others more civilized-outside of a few exceptional women."
Mrs. Snyder thinks that men's lack of confidence in women's ability will be the chief obstacle for women in the future. Dr. Tracy concurs in this, saying: "Men's age-old prejudice that women were physically and intellectually inferior still holds, though much diluted and localized."
And now I come to the heart of my questionnaire, for, having gathered the opinions of these women, I wanted to find out what we can do about it as business and professional women. So I asked all of them, "In your opinion, what is the best way for business and professional women to educate the general public as to the fact that these prejudices are not factually founded?" Here is what some of them answered:
Dr. Tracy: "By accepting opportunities for work and giving competent performance. Not by talking about it." Mrs. Snyder: "Instruct the public that we believe in equality, and we want a chance to demonstrate what we can do on an equal footing." Mrs. Roosevelt: "In my opinion, the best education is the education which makes people acquainted with the facts, and the facts can be furnished today through studies made by the various people interested in labor and in woman's position." Miss Perkins: "Probably the best educational method consists of clear demonstrations of women's ability in many fields." Mary Dillon: "To succeed as individuals in the jobs they hold." And Ruth Finley: "Probably the best way for the fit and capable business and professional woman to combat this general attitude (which is growing with appalling rapidity) is to recognize the inevitable weeding-out process of evolution now and back that recognition with the weight of opinion and influence. Always women have worked outside as well as in the home. In 1839 the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
proportion was overbalanced in favor of the home, with many resultant personal misfits and family or group hardships. "Now the pendulum has swung too far the other way, and in 1939 the opposite proportion of overbalance has created more personal misfits and family group hardships than ever before. History has proved that one of the primary social laws is the maintaining or restoration of balance. It seems to me that nothing could give women a more solid foundation for their future as free citizens than their voluntary and immediate recognition of this law."
"Example" is what counts most, Margaret Cuthbert feels. "Deeds more important than words," she writes, "giving proof that women are not personal and prejudiced in business; relating the complex fabric of civilization to the persons for whom, after all, it exists." She points out that "it is not through individual achievement that women are going to serve as they will serve, but in proportion as they emphasize and express cooperation. brave new world must be a man's and woman's world." This
And with these opinions behind us, I asked, "What type of education do you believe will be best suited to women in the next century?" And here are the answers: From Mrs. Snyder, "A practical education and training for a business or professional career.' Mary Dillon's answer is succinct. as men, a rounded cultural background, plus specific training in I quote her exactly: "Same the field of their vocation."
From Dr. Tracy: "Just such an education as will fit any adult to be an intelligent and tolerant citizen and a thorough performer in the lot to which circumstances and her own ability will call her."
Ruth Finley advocates: "A scholastic education to enable women to participate in and understand and enjoy modern civilization; domestic science and child care; professional or occupational training according to the talent of the individual." Frances Perkins says, "Because of our many new means of communication, nation with nation and locality with locality, people touch each other at many more points than they used to. For this reason education needs to be broader. needs to be realistic, too. Education national life to the full they must know science and economics If women are to participate in our as well as the so-called cultural subjects. Education should produce attitudes of liberalism and democracy as well as the absorption of factual data." And, "What tools for advancement do you think women need most during the next century?" I asked them. answers education, individual adequacy, a change in the ecoHere are some of the nomic condition of the country, health maintenance, the removal of legislative restriction against women. recommended and these are the tools we must acquire. These are the tools of all the tools, individual adequacy was stressed the most. When I asked, "Why are not more office after 2 decades of enfranchisement?" women holding public of the committee held decided opinions. Madame Secretary wrote I found that many as follows: "It cannot be said fairly that either men or women are to blame, rather a number of circumstances are involved. The old concept of women's inferiority in any role other than that of homemaker is doubtless responsible for the fact that very few women are elected or appointed to public office. "However, because of lingering prejudices in respect to women's holding public positions the woman who runs for and holds such office needs to be more outstanding and better qualified than the average man with whom she competes. must be competent, a Where a man women themselves have not in general enlarged their concept woman must be exceptional. Moreover, of what constitutes women's work to have it cover public service to any considerable degree.
"A second reason, I believe, that so few women run for office has to do with the rather low regard many people in this country hold for the mechanics of politics. Women have tended to shy away from practical politics and concentrate in their organizations on nonpartisan politics. In the third place, women as yet have achieved no solidarity as women toward the end of putting those of their sex into public office."
Dr. Tracy feels that there are not more women holding public office because of, and I quote her, "lack of qualifications and very often unwillingness or inability to accept responsibility and to sacrifice personal and home obligations to the requirements of public office."
Mrs. Snyder feels that the reason lies in the fact that "men do not want women in public office, and fight their election." Ruth Finley holds out some comfort for us. whole women are still unfitted and incapable with, of course, She says, "On the notable exceptions. Public prejudice and lack of confidence due to a long established custom have held women back. what is 20 years of enfranchisement as against the more than After all, 2,000 years of masculine training and practice in the art of governing?"
And echo answers, what indeed? And here is Margaret Cuthbert's opinion, I quote, "It is not important that they do hold more offices. that they use their influence and power for better government. It is more important If women choose to do this, men cannot stop them."
There were just two more questions on my list, first, "In what field do you believe women will make the greatest contribution during the next century?"
3581 The answers include, the preservation of the home as a national unit, public administration, social welfare, social sciences, human welfare, and the defense of democratic institutions.
And my final question, "What in your opinion can woman do to bring about the settlement of disputes between nations by peaceful methods?" The answers include, first, education; second, through participation in international organizations like the Y. W. C. A., the Associated Country Women of the World, which demonstrate the value of the conference method; through emphasizing the similarities of people rather than the differences; by encouraging tolerance and the settlement of every disagreement by arbitration; by demanding peace actively and aggressively. "War can be banished just as dueling was banished," Ruth Finley advises me. "Where women will there is always a way." And now, delegates to the convention, you have heard the opinions of some of the members of the committee. time this evening for all to be given you. There was not stood 100 years ago, where we stand today, and what we must do You know where we in the years ahead. whole subject further, and distinguished speakers will give us Throughout this week we will consider the further and more intensive interpretations. I noted that the names of just five women were suggested as having made the outstanding contributions of the past century— Sarah Josepha Hale, Mary Lyon, Susan B. Anthony, Jane Addams, and Mme. Curie, the latter, of course, not an American. list I would add two others-Dr. Anna Howard Shaw and Carrie To that Chapman Catt. That is the chief roll of honor of the past century as I see it.
Where we have come from we know. Where we are going is known only to Him who knows all. of American women is indissolubly united with the future of our We do know that the future country, just as the contributions of the women of the past have been entwined with the history of the progress of America. We have made great opportunities for women and we have had great opportunities made for us. we fail now, we can only echo Shakespeare's words, "The fault, Many doors are open to us. If dear Brutus, is in ourselves, not in our stars, if we are underlings."
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: EXCESS GOVERNMENT SPENDING COVERED BY PRINTING BONDS (By Wadsworth W. Mount, Assistant Director of Research, the
As long as the Government can spend all the money it wants to, over and above what it takes in from taxes, merely by printing Government bonds, selling these to the banks, and then drawing checks against them, how can we ever hope to stop extravagant Government spending?
And when the Government spends these billions in such ways that private citizens do not know which way to turn to make money, and therefore have comparatively little need to borrow from the banks on safe terms, where else can banks invest your money on deposit but in Government bonds?
A banker knows that when the United States Government prints a Government bond it says in effect that the Government will tax the people of the United States to make it good. fore, that Government bonds are the soundest security in the He knows, therecountry, just so long as we do not issue too many of them and have inflation. Before the Government started spending several billions more each year than it took in from taxes, the savings banks, for instance, could safely lend your money, largely to people who wanted to spend it for private or business uses, at a high enough rate of interest to cover their expenses and pay you 4 percent. ent conditions, however, one of the few remaining safe places to Under pres
invest bank funds is in Government bonds. Therefore, as the interest rate on long-term Treasury bonds has been lowered until their average yield is now approximately 2 percent, at present about all the savings banks can safely get for the use of your money is enough to provide for necessary expenses and reserves and pay you only 2 percent, or even less, on your deposits. The Treasury has just announced that to pay off some $426,000,000 of outstanding obligations which are due in September and now carry an interest rate of 1% percent it will offer in exchange new "notes" due in 5 years which will pay only three-fourths of 1 percent.
A New York investment firm recently showed that Treasury obligations maturing in a little more than 2 years now afford a yield of only one one-hundredth of 1 percent. At this rate of return, it was pointed out that "an investor would have to hold more than $144,000 par value to provide an income sufficient to buy his morning newspaper each day; he would have to hold $558,000 to provide enough funds to buy a daily package of cigarettes." As the average interest rate on all Federal obligations is lowered, those having money in savings accounts and insurance policies which represent their personally saved "social security" have their interest earnings also reduced, as a large part of such funds are invested in Government bonds.
This means, therefore, that it will take you longer to pay for your life insurance, as the annual dividends will be less or the premiums will be more. Some people think that only the taxpayers of future generations will have to pay for the present Government spending. However, if you own a savings-bank account you are paying right now for the increased national debt by getting one-half or less of the amount of interest you used to receive, and the trend is still downward.
This means then that if, for example, you were trying to put in the savings bank enough money to give you $2,000-a-year income, you will now have to save $100,000 or more, where when savings banks were able to invest your money safely and pay you 4 percent you would only have had to save $50,000 to get this same income. Everyone in the Nation has to pay one way or another for the money our Government officials are instructed to spend. Some pay taxes directly, but everyone pays indirectly for all Government services. The Government has nothing to give to the people except what it gets from the people.
The question is not whether these are desirable Government functions.
The question is whether the country wants expansion of Government, which must be paid for by increased taxes. Or wants expansion of business, which pays in jobs and wages. For the increased money that now goes into Government spending is the money that formerly went into new and improved products, new and enlarged factories, bigger pay rolls and dividends. There isn't enough in the earned dollar to go both ways. Business the production and distribution of goods-is the only thing that can create new wealth. Less taxes; more jobs.
THIRTY CENTS FOR "INDEPENDENCE," JULY 4, 1939 Here, then, in broad strokes is the state of the Nation today. Each of the 60 countries of the world requires around two-thirds of its productive work, its income, to pay for the necessities, food, shelter, clothing. This 65 percent is true of a country regardless of its living standards, India on the one extreme, the United States with the highest standards on the other. What of the 35 cents left after the sustenance of life? In that answer lie most of our troublesome problems today. Consider three pictures:
Until recently the people of the United States disposed of their 35 cents in this way. Five cents, at the turn of the century, was all that was required to pay for expenses of government-State, Federal, and local. Of the remaining 30 cents, about half went into the hands of managers of business enterprises which was about equally divided by them in expanding old industries and promoting and developing new ones such as radio, rayon, automobile. Much of this 15 cents remained in the hands of the people in the form of investment, productive wealth represented by stocks and bonds and life-insurance equities. The remaining 15 cents was used to buy the products of this increased industrial activity, thus driving upward standards of living and making one-time luxuries the conveniences and even necessities denied the rest of the world.
Second picture: What of the 35 cents which remained to the peoples of the other 59 countries? Since time immemorial around 30 cents was used for government expenses. A hazardous 5 cents was left as free capital. This gives point to the sentient statement of former President Hadley, of Yale, that the supremacy of the United States was due to the fact that it could afford to take chances upon development as no other country could afford to do. Five cents as against 30 cents as a backlog. Why did the Old World require 30 cents of the earnings of their people for government? For policing. External policing, the fear of land-grabbing, wealth-grabbing neighbor aggressors, whose people were in constant fear of being deprived of the bare necessities. Third picture: What is the situation in the United States today? Sixty-five cents for the necessities. Of the 35 remaining, 30 for governments (25 collected in taxes, 5 borrowed). Ten cents for investment and the lifting of living standards.
Why the great increase in government costs? Not to relieve distress and unemployment, as generally stated and believed. Only one dollar in six of Federal expenditures is for relief. The great increase in taxation and borrowing, which has brought overnight the allocation of the earned dollar to a level almost to that of other countries, is for policing. Against foreign aggressors? No. For protection against an alleged aggression and oppression on the part of business management. Internal "policing." Policing ourselves against ourselves.
Every act of those engaged in stimulating us to trade our labor, services, and products is now under surveillance, from the time a commission checks the project to the time another bureau passes upon the label to go on the package. Policing, in another form, such as protection against the private electric bulb by Government "yardstick" operation. Policing of banks, labor relations, aviation, oil, coal, lumber, telephones, retailers, stock and grain exchanges, insurance. Policing of States and communities as to the manner in which they handle their social problems. Policing in another form as exemplified in the published statistics that the Federal Government received 153,000,000 compulsory reports from business management last year. Policing as expressed in the $76,000,000-a sum equal to one-sixth of total passenger revenuesspent by Washington in travel expenses of its inspectors, regulators, investigators in 1 calendar year. These three pictures are true pictures. They point the trend to a static society, a "planned economy," to "frontiers gone forever." We, the people, perhaps planned it that way, a road to centralized authority over, and policing of, the individual. But perhaps we did not count the cost; unemployment still with us, management, which brings dreams into being, and men and jobs together, and more conveniences and luxuries for more people, now disheartened and bewildered, unable to see 30 days down the road because of the new policing machinery we have set up, whereby 137 boards, bureaus, commissions, Federal incorporations and authorities now pass laws daily in the form of rules and regulations. Little government, with little expense and little policing, brought the United States the highest standard of living the world has ever seen. Perhaps the founders were wrong in building that way, indignant and angry as they were against a ruler demanding more taxes and more power, who, as a famous declaration set forth, had "erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." Page 21Page 22
There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
I want to talk to you about education and the need for securing Federal aid for our schools. At a time when the present State administration in Wisconsin is preparing to cut nearly $2,000,000 out of our school budgets, I think it is absolutely necessary for us all to give the matter some very serious attention. The problem of maintaining fair and proper educational opportunities for our boys and girls in the next 2 years is going to demand some sort of outside assistance if the State government will not assume its rightful share of the responsibility. I am a firm believer in "economy" if by economy is meant making the most of what resources we have at our disposal and eliminating waste. But I fail to see any economy in a pinch-penny policy that is willing to sacrifice the rights of our young people to a full education simply for a few paltry pieces of silver. The greatest resource America has is its people, and we owe it to ourselves as a nation to see to it that the talents and abilities of the young are developed to the highest degree possible by means of adequate educational opportunities.
To hear some people talk, one might think that we have been extravagant in the support of our schools during the last few years, but actually in the country as a whole we are spending about $350,000,000 less for education than we were in 1930, in spite of the fact that high-school enrollment, where the expense is heaviest, has been increased by over 1,575,000 students. In Wisconsin we have been more fortunate, up until the present time, than the people in other States. In 1935 Wisconsin restored its State school aids to their former levels, and in the years that followed much was done to repair the damage suffered by our educational system as a result of depression retrenchment. Now, however, as a result of the action being taken by the new State administration, we are back face to face with the old problem
again. There is a bill before Congress at the present time which would provide, if enacted, a program of Federal aid to States for the support of their schools and the equalization of educational opportunity throughout the Nation. Under the estimated apportionment of the appropriation submitted with the bill, the enactment of this program could mean as much as $1,200,000 for Wisconsin next year and still more in succeeding years. Such a program is important to the whole Nation. One of the main foundation stones of democracy is equality of educational opportunity. That means public schools available to every man's son or daughter from kindergarten right on up through the university. If we allow a situation to develop where higher education is open only to those people of wealth who can afford to send their children to private schools, it will lead inevitably toward a class division in this country, with the educated, wealthy few on one side of the fence and a resentful, uneducated multitude on the other side. That sort of a situation is as dangerous as it is unnecessary.
Today there are between 800,000 and a million children of grade-school age who are not going to school. Most of them have no school to go to. There are approximately 3,000,000 people in the country who are totally illiterate, who can neither read nor write. And if you passed a newspaper around the Nation, you would find that as many as 15,000,000 adults couldn't read it. Those same people cannot write the simplest of letters. Believe it or not, there are more illiterates in America than there are college graduates.
An analysis of teachers' salaries shows another astounding condition. Considering the range by States, the State having the highest average salary for teachers has an average of only $2,414 per year, and on the other extreme is a State where teachers receive an average salary of only $504 per year. The average salary for teachers in rural communities is correspondingly still lower. For rural teachers the top average is only $1,337 and the bottom average is a bare $430.
When you realize how important is the teacher to whom parents entrust their children for education and guidance, it is surprising that the public has allowed such a condition to exist. If we are to secure the best kind of people to be the teachers of our children, we must be prepared to pay them enough so that they can afford to pass up opportunities in other fields and devote themselves to teaching.
The problem is worse in some States than in others. Some States are wealthy while others are poor, and unfortunately it appears that the States which are least able to maintain adequate schools have the greatest number of children in proportion to adult population. The President's Advisory Committee on Education has made a thorough study of this problem, and it reports a variation so large that the richest State in the Union has a per capita taxpaying ability to support schools which is 12 times the ability of the poorest State. This is not the fault of the individual States. It is a question of wealth. Our modern commercial life has outgrown even State boundaries. Much of our wealth has been drained away from the producing areas of the Nation into the financial centers of the country. As a result, the per capita wealth of some eastern States,
for instance, is all out of proportion to their actual physical contribution to the Nation's production. In order to recapture this wealth for the States from which it came in the first place, the Federal Government must reach it through Federal taxes and return it to the States by means of grants-in-aid. Senate bill 1305 now before the Congress proposes a 6-year program of Federal aids for education in the States. It authorizes an appropriation of approximately $75,000,000 for such purposes during the next fiscal year and increasing amounts for the succeeding years until an appropriation of $208,000,000 is reached for the fiscal year ending in 1945. This money would go toward the support of public elementary and secondary schools, improved teacher preparation, construction of school buildings, administration of State departments of education, adult education, rural-library service, and educational research.
It would not involve any sort of Federal control over the schools. The bill specifically provides that all matters of school administration, curriculum, methods of instruction, personnel, and the determination of the best uses for the funds granted shall be left to the control of the States and their local subdivisions. In order to qualify for the grants each State would simply have to establish a plan for distributing funds to the local school districts in such a way that the aim of the Federal program, the equalization of educational opportunity, would be carried out. In this way the Federal Government would be assured that the neediest communities of the State would get the greatest benefits from the funds granted.
The only other condition of importance to Wisconsin which would have to be met before the funds could be made available under the terms of this bill is the requirement that the State provide funds for these purposes in amounts at least equal to the sums provided in 1938.
The funds to be appropriated under this plan are to be divided among the States according to their respective educational loads and their respective financial abilities. The educational load of each State would be computed from estimates by the Bureau of the Census each year of the number of children of school age in the State. The financial ability of each State would be computed by the Secretary of the Treasury on the basis of certain standards prescribed in the bill. By balancing the State's school load against its financial ability, its financial need under the plan is determined, and the funds are allocated in accordance with this need.
The Senate Committee on Education and Labor has held hearings on the bill and has reported it favorably to the Senate for passage. At the hearings representatives of the leading educational organizations in this country, representing both parents and teachers, appeared and urged that the Federal Government undertake such a program. I feel that a program of this kind should receive the unselfish support of every public-spirited citizen. Education is one of those things which we cannot postpone to suit our convenience. Every year that goes by means a certain number of boys and girls who have either passed beyond school age or have been forced by circumstances to undertake responsibilities which will If their education was prevent their ever going back to school. neglected during the years when they could have gone to school, the chances are they will carry that handicap with them all through life. The rural areas are the hardest hit. It is an established fact that it costs more to provide proper educational facilities in the country than in the city. We know also that there are more children, in proportion to adult population, in the rural areas than in the cities. Yet in spite of that fact the best educational opportunities are being provided for children in the cities. "Equalization of educational opportunity" means not only establishing more uniformity of educational opportunities among the 48 States; it also means bringing financial aid to the rural schools so that the farmers and the people in the small communities can give their children as good an education as the children in the cities get.
If we are going to make democracy work in America, we must always have an intelligent, educated, informed citizenry. If we neglect the education of our young people now, even for a little while, we are going to pay dearly for it in the future. In Wisconsin we have a very definite problem. The budget of the university alone is being cut over a million dollars in the face of increased enrollment and long-delayed needs for expansion. A similar cut is being imposed upon the State teachers' colleges. Unless corrected, this will result in one of two things either fees will have to be raised and it will become that much harder for farmers and working people to send their children to school, or standards will have to be lowered and they will get just that much less for their money.
The program of Federal aid which I have outlined to you will not in any way make up for all the State's failures in this respect but it will help some. The Federal program is primarily concerned with elementary and secondary education, but, indirectly at least, it will aid by taking some of the budgetary pressure off our public institutions of higher education.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
Mr. HARRISON. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the RECORD a speech delivered by Miss Earlene White, at the biennial convention of the National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, Inc., at Kansas City, Mo., on July 9, 1939, on the subject of professional women. There being no objection, the speech was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
It was a bright, sunny morning in the 1830's. A distinguished looking woman, traveling alone, her full skirts discreetly sweeping the ground, her corkscrew curls hanging coyly beneath her bonnet, alighted from a packet boat, having made the trip from England to America in about 40 days.
The woman was Harriet Martineau, a friend of the Carlyles, a trained observer and commentator who came to America in search of new copy. Tired, for a time, of the life in London, she realized that comparatively little was known of the new land which had once been an English colony and was now attracting English and Scotch immigrants in great numbers. She set foot in little old New York, which was then a thriving community, without skyscrapers or bridges to connect the island of Manhattan with its neighborhood boroughs. True, the Astors had begun to make a fortune as fur traders, and Commodore Vanderbilt had found it profitable to pilot a ferry between Staten and Manhattan Islands; nevertheless, New York had little resemblance to the great present-day city of the North American Continent.
And what of the North American Continent upon which Harriet Martineau gazed? She came to America just after the Lewis and Clark expedition had blazed a trail to the Pacific and fur traders were following the Oregon Trail across the mountains.
American missionaries and farmers were quick to follow. The Northern States were clamoring for the annexation of Oregon to the Union and the South was clamoring for Texas. annexation were so vociferous that the slogan of "Fifty-four-Forty or Fight" was to be heard everywhere, as the citizens of the new The advocates of Nation, greedy for land, clamored for the extension of American territory to further latitudes. The clamor grew until it resulted in the election of James K. Polk in 1844 on that very issue.
The industrial revolution was beginning in America, and Harriet Martineau took full note of it. locm had been invented and were making it possible for cloth to The spinning jenny and the power be made in new ways. were new tools for farming, including the reaper. Women-and The cotton gin had been invented and there men, too-who had carried on small manufacturing plants with hand tools on their farms, making the family's clothing along with the family's food supply, found it necessary to change their way of life. The growth of mill towns was taken for granted, and young women who had been earning their livelihoods at just six occupations-keeping boarders, teaching young children, typesetting, bookbinding, domestic service, and needlework-found a new occupation as weavers in the mills.
The severe financial panic in 1837 threw thousands out of work, and when Harriet Martineau visited America unemployment stories were constantly printed in the daily press. The suffrage movement was being extended, and Robert Fulton's steamboat had set a new pace; the inland waterways of America were being invaded by steamboats plowing their way through the hitherto untroubled waters. The best opportunities for men lay in the fields and forests of the far West.
And as usual men and women were facing the future with uncertainty, dreading the changes but eager to get on with them. In 1836, a young girl, living and working in Lowell, Mass, penned these lines
"Oh, isn't it a pity that such a pretty girl as I, Should be sent to the factory to pine away and die?" Thus, the working girl lamented, as she was forced out of the home and into industry. All this and more the woman journalist from England noted and went home and reported in a lengthy volume reciting the sights she had seen and the observations she had made.
3579 It was Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt, our beloved leader of suffrage and world peace, who called our attention to Harriet Martineau and her writings and urged us to observe the one-hundredth anniversary of Miss Martineau's reportorial journey, and to see how many doors are still closed to women, 100 years later. We have accepted Mrs. Catt's suggestion and our biennial convention is devoted to the theme, "One Hundred Years of Women's Progress in the United States." Our compass is the 1930 Census, and that shows that of some 535 classifications of occupations listed, women are engaged in 501, the heavy tasks, such as mining, locomotive engineers, firemen, et cetera, being completely masculine territory. And so in 100 years, women have advanced from 7 fields to 501; doors of opportunity for women are opening wider and wider, but the end is not yet, and perhaps 100 more years will pass until the world will allow women to make their best contribution, and women will be willing to make it.
In 100 years American women have come a long way, just as our country has come a long way, but we still have a journey to make, both as women and as citizens. It is noteworthy that teachers' training schools were started 100 years ago this year. Here and now we are observing the one-hundredth anniversary of women's progress, and I think it is a suitable time to take stock of where we have come from, where we wish to go, and how we are to get there. To help us evaluate these three points we appointed a committee of distinguished women. lin D. Roosevelt is honorary chairman of the committee, and Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt is vice chairman. Mrs. Frankbers are Dr. Mary E. Wooley, president emeritus of Mount Holyoke College; Mrs. Ruth Finley, author and noted publicist for the The other memRepublican Party; Ruth Comfort Mitchell, novelist and one of California's best-known daughters; the Honorable Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor; those two outstanding women in radio, Margaret Cuthbert and Helen J. Souissat; Fannie Hurst, the novelist; Miss Emma P. Hirth, general secretary of the Y. W. C. A.; President Aurelia H. Reinhardt, of Mills College, Calif.; Dr. Martha Tracy, dean of the Women's Medical College of Pennsylvania; Mrs. Mary Dillon, president of the Brooklyn Borough Gas Co.; and Mrs. Ora Snyder, manufacturer, of Chicago.
These women have had broad experience in public service and private enterprise. They represent every range of political and economic thinking, and I believe that their answers to a questionnaire which I sent them will help chart our course for the 100 years ahead.
First, I asked, "What were the chief obstacles to employment in the path of American women 100 years ago?"
Tradition seems to have been the chief stumbling block, with several important contributing causes, such as social and economic custom, lack of education, lack of training, and lack of personal initiative. I have quoted these obstacles from the considered opinion of one of the committee members, Ruth Finley, the noted writer and biographer of women of the colonial period. Mrs. Finley was formerly the editor of Guide, published by the Women's National Republican Club.
Frances Perkins has some interesting observations on that question, and I quote her:
"The lack of employment opportunities outside the home for both men and women constituted the principal obstacle to employment in 1839. This was the period, early in the industrial revolution, when women's traditional occupations were just beginning to move out of the home into factories, mills, and shops. There were few schools and most of the teachers were men, with women substituting in the summer while the men took agricultural jobs. Clerical jobs were practically nonexistent. The largest number of openings were in textile mills, where labor was scarce and wages were high. In these mills, hours were very long, and the workers were housed in dormitories under unfavorable living conditions. In 1839 there were practically no opportunities for professional women or any vocational training for women.' On the other hand, Mme. Secretary wrote: "There were cer- in social prestige-there existed no class distinction on the basis Work in factory or mill entailed no loss of 'white collar' or manual labor. to the welfare of a new nation. Factory work offered educational All work meant a contribution opportunities which were not available for women in schools of higher learning. It offered wages higher than for teaching. Horace Mann reported that women in many occupations in mills and fac- tories earned six or seven times as much as women teachers.
"Early mill workers were militant in the protection of their rights. As the real daughters of the American Revolution, they were earnestly concerned with justice and liberty in dealing with the concrete problems of their daily work life." These are the views of Frances Perkins.
Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt said in response to this question. I quote: "I should say that in 1839 the chief obstacles in the path of employment for American women were, first, the attitude held by both men and women as to the proper kind of work which women should do. Secondly, the lack of educational facilities and of training which they could obtain, and thirdly the lack of opportunities even if they obtained the education and the training." And from Ora Snyder came this opinion. I quote: "Lack of confidence in their ability and the old-fashioned opinion that women should not leave household duties or the care of the family." Dr. Martha Tracy is of the opinion that tradition was women's main stumbling block, plus the economic necessity of doing the home chores personally, including cooking and preserving foodstuffs, cleaning, laundry work, making the husband's and children's clothes, and childbearing. Dr. Tracy says that all of these obstacles have been largely conquered, and I quote her, "largely but not entirely. Childbearing will always be a factor." Ruth Finley thinks the obstacles have mainly been overcome, and Mrs. Roosevelt believes that "there is still some prejudice against women in certain lines of work for which they are naturally better equipped than men. The training today is fairly universally open to them though there are restrictions which make it a little difficult. Many more lines of work are open to women, but they have to excell." Frances Perkins made the following statement in answer to this question:
"Significant progress has been made in removing the obstacles to women's wage-earning employment that existed 100 years ago, but the job is far from complete. Eleven million women are now gainfully employed and are found in practically all occupations. Prejudice against women in the professions is gradually breaking down, and they are securing an ever greater measure of vocational opportunity. Training facilities for almost every occupational field are open to women, though the resultant job opportunities still may be relatively scarce. In recent years there has been a notable increase in the number of women in important administrative jobs in both State and Federal Governments. "However," Miss Perkins goes on to say, "because an increasing number of women must earn their livelihood and also support dependents entirely or partially, and because jobs are also scarce for men, competition is a much greater factor for women to reckon with now than it was some years ago. "Moreover, the traditional sex discriminations are still a major obstacle women encounter in their efforts to find satisfying and profitable employment. Their ability is still far from being accepted on the same plane as that of men. "Immense improvement has come about in the raising of wages, the lowering of hours, and the betterment of plant equipment; but the situation in this respect is still far from Utopian. double wage standard still prevails in a number of fields." The And now we come to the third question, "What obstacle do you believe will beset women in the next 100 years?" To this question Mrs. Finley answers, "The physical obstacle of sex, which never can be changed, and an overcrowding of the so-called economic jobs." Dr. Tracy's answer is-and I quote: "Economic competition with men, particularly in times of unemployment. The individual women's own incompetence." She also notes: "The same applies to men, but women capitalize on the 'tradition' of sex obstruction. Child bearing cannot be outmoded." Mrs. Snyder feels that "jealousy from the male sex" will be the chief obstacle for women. Most of the committee declined to commit themselves on one question, which was, "In your opinion, what has been the outstanding contribution made by American women during the past 100 years?" Ruth Finley, however, answers by saying, "Dissemination of women's news,' and she names Sarah Josepha Hale as the woman who has made the outstanding contribution of the past 100 years. She gives her reason for this as follows-and again I quote: "Prior to the radio, the national woman's magazines were the only interstate link between women. Mrs. Hale, for 50 years editor of Godey's Lady's Book, the first woman's magazine approaching Nation-wide circulation, did more to correlate and unify women's thought in this country than any other person, man or woman, in the nineteenth century." Helen Sioussat, of Columbia Broadcasting Co., said unhesitatingly, "The discovery of radium," and nominated Mme. Curie. Margaret Cuthbert believes that the political recognition of American women has been the outstanding contribution, and she nominated Susan B. Anthony. Frances Perkins wrote: "Because there have been so many important contributions by women in so many fields, it is difficult to evaluate them in such a general way as to make it possible to name only one woman."
Ora Snyder said, "Jane Addams is the woman, and her splendid work at Hull House, Chicago, in the settlement field proves it." Dr. Tracy also has a candidate. She wrote, "Mary Lyon's demonstration that women can be educated, without danger to health or other damage to their nature, is of the utmost importance." And now for my next question, for this is an inventory of women's liabilities as well as women's assets, "What have been the greatest failures of women in the past 100 years?" And again Ruth Finley out of her great wealth of research on the lives of American women answers, "Over-eagerness, evidencing a real lack
of moral stamina in many cases, to throw off the frequently monotonous responsibilities of the home." And Ruth Finley finds these failures also, "unwillingness to serve adequate apprenticeship in the economic world; lack of understanding of and consequent impatience with the slowness of the natural evolution of the now machine-made social order, and failure to assimilate experience." Frances Perkins says, "One major failure of women in the past century relates to their neglect of the use of their hard-won right to vote. Women's failure to take a more active part in American politics, as voters and as candidates for office has been a major disappointment. Women have not participated as fully as they might in labor organization. They have a most important contribution to make in this field and should become increasingly active." And she continues, "Some women have fallen down in their responsibility as employers of other persons. For example, long hours, low wages, social isolation, and exclusion from legislative protection have been characteristic of the vocation using the services of the largest single group of women workers-household employment."
And here is one of the most important questions that I asked the women who form the committee for the commemoration of 100 years of women's progress in the United States. "What are the greatest prejudices concerning women now held by the general public?" Ruth Finley gave me two answers, "Overcrowding of the wage field and consequent usurpation of jobs needed by men as the natural heads of families, and falling birth rate in the middle, and especially the native-born classes." And the First Lady of the Land answered, "It was generally thought that physically and mentally women were not equal to doing the same type of work as men.' Frances Perkins wrote thoughtfully, "Perhaps the oustanding prejudice against women 100 years ago was the general one that they were inferior beings, inferior to men physically, mentally, and economically; that it was of no importance that they be educated and granted political privileges. Under the laws of the day women were severely discriminated against in relation to property rights, in the rights of custody of children and the like. The common law, which was so often detrimental to women's interest, was accepted as the legal authority. Women were not considered experienced enough to handle any of their personal affairs, nor to participate in public affairs. "Though important progress has been made, there are still distinct evidences of a carry-over of prejudice against women that existed a century ago. With a large segment of our people, the idea still prevails that women's place is 'in the home' and the prejudice against the employment of married women is yet very strong among some groups. "At times men make much ado about women's artistic inferiority and as a consequence women have heavy competitive sledding to make a valid contribution in the field of arts.
"Though women's legal status has strengthened throughout the century, they are still in a far weaker position in this respect than are men in many States. In some cases their wages yet belong to their husbands; in others they do not share equally with their husbands in their children's custody, etc. A number of States do not permit women to serve on juries."
Margaret Cuthbert, famous radio authority, says, bluntly, "Women, given the same opportunity as men, are making the same mistakes and doing the same things that men are doing. With the freedom they now have in view of the money they control, they have done little that is unique, little that is original, little that is different, and not much that shows that women as a group are using their natural gifts to make their own lives and the lives of others more civilized-outside of a few exceptional women."
Mrs. Snyder thinks that men's lack of confidence in women's ability will be the chief obstacle for women in the future. Dr. Tracy concurs in this, saying: "Men's age-old prejudice that women were physically and intellectually inferior still holds, though much diluted and localized."
And now I come to the heart of my questionnaire, for, having gathered the opinions of these women, I wanted to find out what we can do about it as business and professional women. So I asked all of them, "In your opinion, what is the best way for business and professional women to educate the general public as to the fact that these prejudices are not factually founded?" Here is what some of them answered:
Dr. Tracy: "By accepting opportunities for work and giving competent performance. Not by talking about it." Mrs. Snyder: "Instruct the public that we believe in equality, and we want a chance to demonstrate what we can do on an equal footing." Mrs. Roosevelt: "In my opinion, the best education is the education which makes people acquainted with the facts, and the facts can be furnished today through studies made by the various people interested in labor and in woman's position." Miss Perkins: "Probably the best educational method consists of clear demonstrations of women's ability in many fields." Mary Dillon: "To succeed as individuals in the jobs they hold." And Ruth Finley: "Probably the best way for the fit and capable business and professional woman to combat this general attitude (which is growing with appalling rapidity) is to recognize the inevitable weeding-out process of evolution now and back that recognition with the weight of opinion and influence. Always women have worked outside as well as in the home. In 1839 the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
proportion was overbalanced in favor of the home, with many resultant personal misfits and family or group hardships. "Now the pendulum has swung too far the other way, and in 1939 the opposite proportion of overbalance has created more personal misfits and family group hardships than ever before. History has proved that one of the primary social laws is the maintaining or restoration of balance. It seems to me that nothing could give women a more solid foundation for their future as free citizens than their voluntary and immediate recognition of this law."
"Example" is what counts most, Margaret Cuthbert feels. "Deeds more important than words," she writes, "giving proof that women are not personal and prejudiced in business; relating the complex fabric of civilization to the persons for whom, after all, it exists." She points out that "it is not through individual achievement that women are going to serve as they will serve, but in proportion as they emphasize and express cooperation. brave new world must be a man's and woman's world." This
And with these opinions behind us, I asked, "What type of education do you believe will be best suited to women in the next century?" And here are the answers: From Mrs. Snyder, "A practical education and training for a business or professional career.' Mary Dillon's answer is succinct. as men, a rounded cultural background, plus specific training in I quote her exactly: "Same the field of their vocation."
From Dr. Tracy: "Just such an education as will fit any adult to be an intelligent and tolerant citizen and a thorough performer in the lot to which circumstances and her own ability will call her."
Ruth Finley advocates: "A scholastic education to enable women to participate in and understand and enjoy modern civilization; domestic science and child care; professional or occupational training according to the talent of the individual." Frances Perkins says, "Because of our many new means of communication, nation with nation and locality with locality, people touch each other at many more points than they used to. For this reason education needs to be broader. needs to be realistic, too. Education national life to the full they must know science and economics If women are to participate in our as well as the so-called cultural subjects. Education should produce attitudes of liberalism and democracy as well as the absorption of factual data." And, "What tools for advancement do you think women need most during the next century?" I asked them. answers education, individual adequacy, a change in the ecoHere are some of the nomic condition of the country, health maintenance, the removal of legislative restriction against women. recommended and these are the tools we must acquire. These are the tools of all the tools, individual adequacy was stressed the most. When I asked, "Why are not more office after 2 decades of enfranchisement?" women holding public of the committee held decided opinions. Madame Secretary wrote I found that many as follows: "It cannot be said fairly that either men or women are to blame, rather a number of circumstances are involved. The old concept of women's inferiority in any role other than that of homemaker is doubtless responsible for the fact that very few women are elected or appointed to public office. "However, because of lingering prejudices in respect to women's holding public positions the woman who runs for and holds such office needs to be more outstanding and better qualified than the average man with whom she competes. must be competent, a Where a man women themselves have not in general enlarged their concept woman must be exceptional. Moreover, of what constitutes women's work to have it cover public service to any considerable degree.
"A second reason, I believe, that so few women run for office has to do with the rather low regard many people in this country hold for the mechanics of politics. Women have tended to shy away from practical politics and concentrate in their organizations on nonpartisan politics. In the third place, women as yet have achieved no solidarity as women toward the end of putting those of their sex into public office."
Dr. Tracy feels that there are not more women holding public office because of, and I quote her, "lack of qualifications and very often unwillingness or inability to accept responsibility and to sacrifice personal and home obligations to the requirements of public office."
Mrs. Snyder feels that the reason lies in the fact that "men do not want women in public office, and fight their election." Ruth Finley holds out some comfort for us. whole women are still unfitted and incapable with, of course, She says, "On the notable exceptions. Public prejudice and lack of confidence due to a long established custom have held women back. what is 20 years of enfranchisement as against the more than After all, 2,000 years of masculine training and practice in the art of governing?"
And echo answers, what indeed? And here is Margaret Cuthbert's opinion, I quote, "It is not important that they do hold more offices. that they use their influence and power for better government. It is more important If women choose to do this, men cannot stop them."
There were just two more questions on my list, first, "In what field do you believe women will make the greatest contribution during the next century?"
3581 The answers include, the preservation of the home as a national unit, public administration, social welfare, social sciences, human welfare, and the defense of democratic institutions.
And my final question, "What in your opinion can woman do to bring about the settlement of disputes between nations by peaceful methods?" The answers include, first, education; second, through participation in international organizations like the Y. W. C. A., the Associated Country Women of the World, which demonstrate the value of the conference method; through emphasizing the similarities of people rather than the differences; by encouraging tolerance and the settlement of every disagreement by arbitration; by demanding peace actively and aggressively. "War can be banished just as dueling was banished," Ruth Finley advises me. "Where women will there is always a way." And now, delegates to the convention, you have heard the opinions of some of the members of the committee. time this evening for all to be given you. There was not stood 100 years ago, where we stand today, and what we must do You know where we in the years ahead. whole subject further, and distinguished speakers will give us Throughout this week we will consider the further and more intensive interpretations. I noted that the names of just five women were suggested as having made the outstanding contributions of the past century— Sarah Josepha Hale, Mary Lyon, Susan B. Anthony, Jane Addams, and Mme. Curie, the latter, of course, not an American. list I would add two others-Dr. Anna Howard Shaw and Carrie To that Chapman Catt. That is the chief roll of honor of the past century as I see it.
Where we have come from we know. Where we are going is known only to Him who knows all. of American women is indissolubly united with the future of our We do know that the future country, just as the contributions of the women of the past have been entwined with the history of the progress of America. We have made great opportunities for women and we have had great opportunities made for us. we fail now, we can only echo Shakespeare's words, "The fault, Many doors are open to us. If dear Brutus, is in ourselves, not in our stars, if we are underlings."
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: EXCESS GOVERNMENT SPENDING COVERED BY PRINTING BONDS (By Wadsworth W. Mount, Assistant Director of Research, the
As long as the Government can spend all the money it wants to, over and above what it takes in from taxes, merely by printing Government bonds, selling these to the banks, and then drawing checks against them, how can we ever hope to stop extravagant Government spending?
And when the Government spends these billions in such ways that private citizens do not know which way to turn to make money, and therefore have comparatively little need to borrow from the banks on safe terms, where else can banks invest your money on deposit but in Government bonds?
A banker knows that when the United States Government prints a Government bond it says in effect that the Government will tax the people of the United States to make it good. fore, that Government bonds are the soundest security in the He knows, therecountry, just so long as we do not issue too many of them and have inflation. Before the Government started spending several billions more each year than it took in from taxes, the savings banks, for instance, could safely lend your money, largely to people who wanted to spend it for private or business uses, at a high enough rate of interest to cover their expenses and pay you 4 percent. ent conditions, however, one of the few remaining safe places to Under pres
invest bank funds is in Government bonds. Therefore, as the interest rate on long-term Treasury bonds has been lowered until their average yield is now approximately 2 percent, at present about all the savings banks can safely get for the use of your money is enough to provide for necessary expenses and reserves and pay you only 2 percent, or even less, on your deposits. The Treasury has just announced that to pay off some $426,000,000 of outstanding obligations which are due in September and now carry an interest rate of 1% percent it will offer in exchange new "notes" due in 5 years which will pay only three-fourths of 1 percent.
A New York investment firm recently showed that Treasury obligations maturing in a little more than 2 years now afford a yield of only one one-hundredth of 1 percent. At this rate of return, it was pointed out that "an investor would have to hold more than $144,000 par value to provide an income sufficient to buy his morning newspaper each day; he would have to hold $558,000 to provide enough funds to buy a daily package of cigarettes." As the average interest rate on all Federal obligations is lowered, those having money in savings accounts and insurance policies which represent their personally saved "social security" have their interest earnings also reduced, as a large part of such funds are invested in Government bonds.
This means, therefore, that it will take you longer to pay for your life insurance, as the annual dividends will be less or the premiums will be more. Some people think that only the taxpayers of future generations will have to pay for the present Government spending. However, if you own a savings-bank account you are paying right now for the increased national debt by getting one-half or less of the amount of interest you used to receive, and the trend is still downward.
This means then that if, for example, you were trying to put in the savings bank enough money to give you $2,000-a-year income, you will now have to save $100,000 or more, where when savings banks were able to invest your money safely and pay you 4 percent you would only have had to save $50,000 to get this same income. Everyone in the Nation has to pay one way or another for the money our Government officials are instructed to spend. Some pay taxes directly, but everyone pays indirectly for all Government services. The Government has nothing to give to the people except what it gets from the people.
The question is not whether these are desirable Government functions.
The question is whether the country wants expansion of Government, which must be paid for by increased taxes. Or wants expansion of business, which pays in jobs and wages. For the increased money that now goes into Government spending is the money that formerly went into new and improved products, new and enlarged factories, bigger pay rolls and dividends. There isn't enough in the earned dollar to go both ways. Business the production and distribution of goods-is the only thing that can create new wealth. Less taxes; more jobs.
THIRTY CENTS FOR "INDEPENDENCE," JULY 4, 1939 Here, then, in broad strokes is the state of the Nation today. Each of the 60 countries of the world requires around two-thirds of its productive work, its income, to pay for the necessities, food, shelter, clothing. This 65 percent is true of a country regardless of its living standards, India on the one extreme, the United States with the highest standards on the other. What of the 35 cents left after the sustenance of life? In that answer lie most of our troublesome problems today. Consider three pictures:
Until recently the people of the United States disposed of their 35 cents in this way. Five cents, at the turn of the century, was all that was required to pay for expenses of government-State, Federal, and local. Of the remaining 30 cents, about half went into the hands of managers of business enterprises which was about equally divided by them in expanding old industries and promoting and developing new ones such as radio, rayon, automobile. Much of this 15 cents remained in the hands of the people in the form of investment, productive wealth represented by stocks and bonds and life-insurance equities. The remaining 15 cents was used to buy the products of this increased industrial activity, thus driving upward standards of living and making one-time luxuries the conveniences and even necessities denied the rest of the world.
Second picture: What of the 35 cents which remained to the peoples of the other 59 countries? Since time immemorial around 30 cents was used for government expenses. A hazardous 5 cents was left as free capital. This gives point to the sentient statement of former President Hadley, of Yale, that the supremacy of the United States was due to the fact that it could afford to take chances upon development as no other country could afford to do. Five cents as against 30 cents as a backlog. Why did the Old World require 30 cents of the earnings of their people for government? For policing. External policing, the fear of land-grabbing, wealth-grabbing neighbor aggressors, whose people were in constant fear of being deprived of the bare necessities. Third picture: What is the situation in the United States today? Sixty-five cents for the necessities. Of the 35 remaining, 30 for governments (25 collected in taxes, 5 borrowed). Ten cents for investment and the lifting of living standards.
Why the great increase in government costs? Not to relieve distress and unemployment, as generally stated and believed. Only one dollar in six of Federal expenditures is for relief. The great increase in taxation and borrowing, which has brought overnight the allocation of the earned dollar to a level almost to that of other countries, is for policing. Against foreign aggressors? No. For protection against an alleged aggression and oppression on the part of business management. Internal "policing." Policing ourselves against ourselves.
Every act of those engaged in stimulating us to trade our labor, services, and products is now under surveillance, from the time a commission checks the project to the time another bureau passes upon the label to go on the package. Policing, in another form, such as protection against the private electric bulb by Government "yardstick" operation. Policing of banks, labor relations, aviation, oil, coal, lumber, telephones, retailers, stock and grain exchanges, insurance. Policing of States and communities as to the manner in which they handle their social problems. Policing in another form as exemplified in the published statistics that the Federal Government received 153,000,000 compulsory reports from business management last year. Policing as expressed in the $76,000,000-a sum equal to one-sixth of total passenger revenuesspent by Washington in travel expenses of its inspectors, regulators, investigators in 1 calendar year. These three pictures are true pictures. They point the trend to a static society, a "planned economy," to "frontiers gone forever." We, the people, perhaps planned it that way, a road to centralized authority over, and policing of, the individual. But perhaps we did not count the cost; unemployment still with us, management, which brings dreams into being, and men and jobs together, and more conveniences and luxuries for more people, now disheartened and bewildered, unable to see 30 days down the road because of the new policing machinery we have set up, whereby 137 boards, bureaus, commissions, Federal incorporations and authorities now pass laws daily in the form of rules and regulations. Little government, with little expense and little policing, brought the United States the highest standard of living the world has ever seen. Perhaps the founders were wrong in building that way, indignant and angry as they were against a ruler demanding more taxes and more power, who, as a famous declaration set forth, had "erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." Page 23Page 24
There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
I want to talk to you about education and the need for securing Federal aid for our schools. At a time when the present State administration in Wisconsin is preparing to cut nearly $2,000,000 out of our school budgets, I think it is absolutely necessary for us all to give the matter some very serious attention. The problem of maintaining fair and proper educational opportunities for our boys and girls in the next 2 years is going to demand some sort of outside assistance if the State government will not assume its rightful share of the responsibility. I am a firm believer in "economy" if by economy is meant making the most of what resources we have at our disposal and eliminating waste. But I fail to see any economy in a pinch-penny policy that is willing to sacrifice the rights of our young people to a full education simply for a few paltry pieces of silver. The greatest resource America has is its people, and we owe it to ourselves as a nation to see to it that the talents and abilities of the young are developed to the highest degree possible by means of adequate educational opportunities.
To hear some people talk, one might think that we have been extravagant in the support of our schools during the last few years, but actually in the country as a whole we are spending about $350,000,000 less for education than we were in 1930, in spite of the fact that high-school enrollment, where the expense is heaviest, has been increased by over 1,575,000 students. In Wisconsin we have been more fortunate, up until the present time, than the people in other States. In 1935 Wisconsin restored its State school aids to their former levels, and in the years that followed much was done to repair the damage suffered by our educational system as a result of depression retrenchment. Now, however, as a result of the action being taken by the new State administration, we are back face to face with the old problem
again. There is a bill before Congress at the present time which would provide, if enacted, a program of Federal aid to States for the support of their schools and the equalization of educational opportunity throughout the Nation. Under the estimated apportionment of the appropriation submitted with the bill, the enactment of this program could mean as much as $1,200,000 for Wisconsin next year and still more in succeeding years. Such a program is important to the whole Nation. One of the main foundation stones of democracy is equality of educational opportunity. That means public schools available to every man's son or daughter from kindergarten right on up through the university. If we allow a situation to develop where higher education is open only to those people of wealth who can afford to send their children to private schools, it will lead inevitably toward a class division in this country, with the educated, wealthy few on one side of the fence and a resentful, uneducated multitude on the other side. That sort of a situation is as dangerous as it is unnecessary.
Today there are between 800,000 and a million children of grade-school age who are not going to school. Most of them have no school to go to. There are approximately 3,000,000 people in the country who are totally illiterate, who can neither read nor write. And if you passed a newspaper around the Nation, you would find that as many as 15,000,000 adults couldn't read it. Those same people cannot write the simplest of letters. Believe it or not, there are more illiterates in America than there are college graduates.
An analysis of teachers' salaries shows another astounding condition. Considering the range by States, the State having the highest average salary for teachers has an average of only $2,414 per year, and on the other extreme is a State where teachers receive an average salary of only $504 per year. The average salary for teachers in rural communities is correspondingly still lower. For rural teachers the top average is only $1,337 and the bottom average is a bare $430.
When you realize how important is the teacher to whom parents entrust their children for education and guidance, it is surprising that the public has allowed such a condition to exist. If we are to secure the best kind of people to be the teachers of our children, we must be prepared to pay them enough so that they can afford to pass up opportunities in other fields and devote themselves to teaching.
The problem is worse in some States than in others. Some States are wealthy while others are poor, and unfortunately it appears that the States which are least able to maintain adequate schools have the greatest number of children in proportion to adult population. The President's Advisory Committee on Education has made a thorough study of this problem, and it reports a variation so large that the richest State in the Union has a per capita taxpaying ability to support schools which is 12 times the ability of the poorest State. This is not the fault of the individual States. It is a question of wealth. Our modern commercial life has outgrown even State boundaries. Much of our wealth has been drained away from the producing areas of the Nation into the financial centers of the country. As a result, the per capita wealth of some eastern States,
for instance, is all out of proportion to their actual physical contribution to the Nation's production. In order to recapture this wealth for the States from which it came in the first place, the Federal Government must reach it through Federal taxes and return it to the States by means of grants-in-aid. Senate bill 1305 now before the Congress proposes a 6-year program of Federal aids for education in the States. It authorizes an appropriation of approximately $75,000,000 for such purposes during the next fiscal year and increasing amounts for the succeeding years until an appropriation of $208,000,000 is reached for the fiscal year ending in 1945. This money would go toward the support of public elementary and secondary schools, improved teacher preparation, construction of school buildings, administration of State departments of education, adult education, rural-library service, and educational research.
It would not involve any sort of Federal control over the schools. The bill specifically provides that all matters of school administration, curriculum, methods of instruction, personnel, and the determination of the best uses for the funds granted shall be left to the control of the States and their local subdivisions. In order to qualify for the grants each State would simply have to establish a plan for distributing funds to the local school districts in such a way that the aim of the Federal program, the equalization of educational opportunity, would be carried out. In this way the Federal Government would be assured that the neediest communities of the State would get the greatest benefits from the funds granted.
The only other condition of importance to Wisconsin which would have to be met before the funds could be made available under the terms of this bill is the requirement that the State provide funds for these purposes in amounts at least equal to the sums provided in 1938.
The funds to be appropriated under this plan are to be divided among the States according to their respective educational loads and their respective financial abilities. The educational load of each State would be computed from estimates by the Bureau of the Census each year of the number of children of school age in the State. The financial ability of each State would be computed by the Secretary of the Treasury on the basis of certain standards prescribed in the bill. By balancing the State's school load against its financial ability, its financial need under the plan is determined, and the funds are allocated in accordance with this need.
The Senate Committee on Education and Labor has held hearings on the bill and has reported it favorably to the Senate for passage. At the hearings representatives of the leading educational organizations in this country, representing both parents and teachers, appeared and urged that the Federal Government undertake such a program. I feel that a program of this kind should receive the unselfish support of every public-spirited citizen. Education is one of those things which we cannot postpone to suit our convenience. Every year that goes by means a certain number of boys and girls who have either passed beyond school age or have been forced by circumstances to undertake responsibilities which will If their education was prevent their ever going back to school. neglected during the years when they could have gone to school, the chances are they will carry that handicap with them all through life. The rural areas are the hardest hit. It is an established fact that it costs more to provide proper educational facilities in the country than in the city. We know also that there are more children, in proportion to adult population, in the rural areas than in the cities. Yet in spite of that fact the best educational opportunities are being provided for children in the cities. "Equalization of educational opportunity" means not only establishing more uniformity of educational opportunities among the 48 States; it also means bringing financial aid to the rural schools so that the farmers and the people in the small communities can give their children as good an education as the children in the cities get.
If we are going to make democracy work in America, we must always have an intelligent, educated, informed citizenry. If we neglect the education of our young people now, even for a little while, we are going to pay dearly for it in the future. In Wisconsin we have a very definite problem. The budget of the university alone is being cut over a million dollars in the face of increased enrollment and long-delayed needs for expansion. A similar cut is being imposed upon the State teachers' colleges. Unless corrected, this will result in one of two things either fees will have to be raised and it will become that much harder for farmers and working people to send their children to school, or standards will have to be lowered and they will get just that much less for their money.
The program of Federal aid which I have outlined to you will not in any way make up for all the State's failures in this respect but it will help some. The Federal program is primarily concerned with elementary and secondary education, but, indirectly at least, it will aid by taking some of the budgetary pressure off our public institutions of higher education.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
Mr. HARRISON. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the RECORD a speech delivered by Miss Earlene White, at the biennial convention of the National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, Inc., at Kansas City, Mo., on July 9, 1939, on the subject of professional women. There being no objection, the speech was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
It was a bright, sunny morning in the 1830's. A distinguished looking woman, traveling alone, her full skirts discreetly sweeping the ground, her corkscrew curls hanging coyly beneath her bonnet, alighted from a packet boat, having made the trip from England to America in about 40 days.
The woman was Harriet Martineau, a friend of the Carlyles, a trained observer and commentator who came to America in search of new copy. Tired, for a time, of the life in London, she realized that comparatively little was known of the new land which had once been an English colony and was now attracting English and Scotch immigrants in great numbers. She set foot in little old New York, which was then a thriving community, without skyscrapers or bridges to connect the island of Manhattan with its neighborhood boroughs. True, the Astors had begun to make a fortune as fur traders, and Commodore Vanderbilt had found it profitable to pilot a ferry between Staten and Manhattan Islands; nevertheless, New York had little resemblance to the great present-day city of the North American Continent.
And what of the North American Continent upon which Harriet Martineau gazed? She came to America just after the Lewis and Clark expedition had blazed a trail to the Pacific and fur traders were following the Oregon Trail across the mountains.
American missionaries and farmers were quick to follow. The Northern States were clamoring for the annexation of Oregon to the Union and the South was clamoring for Texas. annexation were so vociferous that the slogan of "Fifty-four-Forty or Fight" was to be heard everywhere, as the citizens of the new The advocates of Nation, greedy for land, clamored for the extension of American territory to further latitudes. The clamor grew until it resulted in the election of James K. Polk in 1844 on that very issue.
The industrial revolution was beginning in America, and Harriet Martineau took full note of it. locm had been invented and were making it possible for cloth to The spinning jenny and the power be made in new ways. were new tools for farming, including the reaper. Women-and The cotton gin had been invented and there men, too-who had carried on small manufacturing plants with hand tools on their farms, making the family's clothing along with the family's food supply, found it necessary to change their way of life. The growth of mill towns was taken for granted, and young women who had been earning their livelihoods at just six occupations-keeping boarders, teaching young children, typesetting, bookbinding, domestic service, and needlework-found a new occupation as weavers in the mills.
The severe financial panic in 1837 threw thousands out of work, and when Harriet Martineau visited America unemployment stories were constantly printed in the daily press. The suffrage movement was being extended, and Robert Fulton's steamboat had set a new pace; the inland waterways of America were being invaded by steamboats plowing their way through the hitherto untroubled waters. The best opportunities for men lay in the fields and forests of the far West.
And as usual men and women were facing the future with uncertainty, dreading the changes but eager to get on with them. In 1836, a young girl, living and working in Lowell, Mass, penned these lines
"Oh, isn't it a pity that such a pretty girl as I, Should be sent to the factory to pine away and die?" Thus, the working girl lamented, as she was forced out of the home and into industry. All this and more the woman journalist from England noted and went home and reported in a lengthy volume reciting the sights she had seen and the observations she had made.
3579 It was Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt, our beloved leader of suffrage and world peace, who called our attention to Harriet Martineau and her writings and urged us to observe the one-hundredth anniversary of Miss Martineau's reportorial journey, and to see how many doors are still closed to women, 100 years later. We have accepted Mrs. Catt's suggestion and our biennial convention is devoted to the theme, "One Hundred Years of Women's Progress in the United States." Our compass is the 1930 Census, and that shows that of some 535 classifications of occupations listed, women are engaged in 501, the heavy tasks, such as mining, locomotive engineers, firemen, et cetera, being completely masculine territory. And so in 100 years, women have advanced from 7 fields to 501; doors of opportunity for women are opening wider and wider, but the end is not yet, and perhaps 100 more years will pass until the world will allow women to make their best contribution, and women will be willing to make it.
In 100 years American women have come a long way, just as our country has come a long way, but we still have a journey to make, both as women and as citizens. It is noteworthy that teachers' training schools were started 100 years ago this year. Here and now we are observing the one-hundredth anniversary of women's progress, and I think it is a suitable time to take stock of where we have come from, where we wish to go, and how we are to get there. To help us evaluate these three points we appointed a committee of distinguished women. lin D. Roosevelt is honorary chairman of the committee, and Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt is vice chairman. Mrs. Frankbers are Dr. Mary E. Wooley, president emeritus of Mount Holyoke College; Mrs. Ruth Finley, author and noted publicist for the The other memRepublican Party; Ruth Comfort Mitchell, novelist and one of California's best-known daughters; the Honorable Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor; those two outstanding women in radio, Margaret Cuthbert and Helen J. Souissat; Fannie Hurst, the novelist; Miss Emma P. Hirth, general secretary of the Y. W. C. A.; President Aurelia H. Reinhardt, of Mills College, Calif.; Dr. Martha Tracy, dean of the Women's Medical College of Pennsylvania; Mrs. Mary Dillon, president of the Brooklyn Borough Gas Co.; and Mrs. Ora Snyder, manufacturer, of Chicago.
These women have had broad experience in public service and private enterprise. They represent every range of political and economic thinking, and I believe that their answers to a questionnaire which I sent them will help chart our course for the 100 years ahead.
First, I asked, "What were the chief obstacles to employment in the path of American women 100 years ago?"
Tradition seems to have been the chief stumbling block, with several important contributing causes, such as social and economic custom, lack of education, lack of training, and lack of personal initiative. I have quoted these obstacles from the considered opinion of one of the committee members, Ruth Finley, the noted writer and biographer of women of the colonial period. Mrs. Finley was formerly the editor of Guide, published by the Women's National Republican Club.
Frances Perkins has some interesting observations on that question, and I quote her:
"The lack of employment opportunities outside the home for both men and women constituted the principal obstacle to employment in 1839. This was the period, early in the industrial revolution, when women's traditional occupations were just beginning to move out of the home into factories, mills, and shops. There were few schools and most of the teachers were men, with women substituting in the summer while the men took agricultural jobs. Clerical jobs were practically nonexistent. The largest number of openings were in textile mills, where labor was scarce and wages were high. In these mills, hours were very long, and the workers were housed in dormitories under unfavorable living conditions. In 1839 there were practically no opportunities for professional women or any vocational training for women.' On the other hand, Mme. Secretary wrote: "There were cer- in social prestige-there existed no class distinction on the basis Work in factory or mill entailed no loss of 'white collar' or manual labor. to the welfare of a new nation. Factory work offered educational All work meant a contribution opportunities which were not available for women in schools of higher learning. It offered wages higher than for teaching. Horace Mann reported that women in many occupations in mills and fac- tories earned six or seven times as much as women teachers.
"Early mill workers were militant in the protection of their rights. As the real daughters of the American Revolution, they were earnestly concerned with justice and liberty in dealing with the concrete problems of their daily work life." These are the views of Frances Perkins.
Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt said in response to this question. I quote: "I should say that in 1839 the chief obstacles in the path of employment for American women were, first, the attitude held by both men and women as to the proper kind of work which women should do. Secondly, the lack of educational facilities and of training which they could obtain, and thirdly the lack of opportunities even if they obtained the education and the training." And from Ora Snyder came this opinion. I quote: "Lack of confidence in their ability and the old-fashioned opinion that women should not leave household duties or the care of the family." Dr. Martha Tracy is of the opinion that tradition was women's main stumbling block, plus the economic necessity of doing the home chores personally, including cooking and preserving foodstuffs, cleaning, laundry work, making the husband's and children's clothes, and childbearing. Dr. Tracy says that all of these obstacles have been largely conquered, and I quote her, "largely but not entirely. Childbearing will always be a factor." Ruth Finley thinks the obstacles have mainly been overcome, and Mrs. Roosevelt believes that "there is still some prejudice against women in certain lines of work for which they are naturally better equipped than men. The training today is fairly universally open to them though there are restrictions which make it a little difficult. Many more lines of work are open to women, but they have to excell." Frances Perkins made the following statement in answer to this question:
"Significant progress has been made in removing the obstacles to women's wage-earning employment that existed 100 years ago, but the job is far from complete. Eleven million women are now gainfully employed and are found in practically all occupations. Prejudice against women in the professions is gradually breaking down, and they are securing an ever greater measure of vocational opportunity. Training facilities for almost every occupational field are open to women, though the resultant job opportunities still may be relatively scarce. In recent years there has been a notable increase in the number of women in important administrative jobs in both State and Federal Governments. "However," Miss Perkins goes on to say, "because an increasing number of women must earn their livelihood and also support dependents entirely or partially, and because jobs are also scarce for men, competition is a much greater factor for women to reckon with now than it was some years ago. "Moreover, the traditional sex discriminations are still a major obstacle women encounter in their efforts to find satisfying and profitable employment. Their ability is still far from being accepted on the same plane as that of men. "Immense improvement has come about in the raising of wages, the lowering of hours, and the betterment of plant equipment; but the situation in this respect is still far from Utopian. double wage standard still prevails in a number of fields." The And now we come to the third question, "What obstacle do you believe will beset women in the next 100 years?" To this question Mrs. Finley answers, "The physical obstacle of sex, which never can be changed, and an overcrowding of the so-called economic jobs." Dr. Tracy's answer is-and I quote: "Economic competition with men, particularly in times of unemployment. The individual women's own incompetence." She also notes: "The same applies to men, but women capitalize on the 'tradition' of sex obstruction. Child bearing cannot be outmoded." Mrs. Snyder feels that "jealousy from the male sex" will be the chief obstacle for women. Most of the committee declined to commit themselves on one question, which was, "In your opinion, what has been the outstanding contribution made by American women during the past 100 years?" Ruth Finley, however, answers by saying, "Dissemination of women's news,' and she names Sarah Josepha Hale as the woman who has made the outstanding contribution of the past 100 years. She gives her reason for this as follows-and again I quote: "Prior to the radio, the national woman's magazines were the only interstate link between women. Mrs. Hale, for 50 years editor of Godey's Lady's Book, the first woman's magazine approaching Nation-wide circulation, did more to correlate and unify women's thought in this country than any other person, man or woman, in the nineteenth century." Helen Sioussat, of Columbia Broadcasting Co., said unhesitatingly, "The discovery of radium," and nominated Mme. Curie. Margaret Cuthbert believes that the political recognition of American women has been the outstanding contribution, and she nominated Susan B. Anthony. Frances Perkins wrote: "Because there have been so many important contributions by women in so many fields, it is difficult to evaluate them in such a general way as to make it possible to name only one woman."
Ora Snyder said, "Jane Addams is the woman, and her splendid work at Hull House, Chicago, in the settlement field proves it." Dr. Tracy also has a candidate. She wrote, "Mary Lyon's demonstration that women can be educated, without danger to health or other damage to their nature, is of the utmost importance." And now for my next question, for this is an inventory of women's liabilities as well as women's assets, "What have been the greatest failures of women in the past 100 years?" And again Ruth Finley out of her great wealth of research on the lives of American women answers, "Over-eagerness, evidencing a real lack
of moral stamina in many cases, to throw off the frequently monotonous responsibilities of the home." And Ruth Finley finds these failures also, "unwillingness to serve adequate apprenticeship in the economic world; lack of understanding of and consequent impatience with the slowness of the natural evolution of the now machine-made social order, and failure to assimilate experience." Frances Perkins says, "One major failure of women in the past century relates to their neglect of the use of their hard-won right to vote. Women's failure to take a more active part in American politics, as voters and as candidates for office has been a major disappointment. Women have not participated as fully as they might in labor organization. They have a most important contribution to make in this field and should become increasingly active." And she continues, "Some women have fallen down in their responsibility as employers of other persons. For example, long hours, low wages, social isolation, and exclusion from legislative protection have been characteristic of the vocation using the services of the largest single group of women workers-household employment."
And here is one of the most important questions that I asked the women who form the committee for the commemoration of 100 years of women's progress in the United States. "What are the greatest prejudices concerning women now held by the general public?" Ruth Finley gave me two answers, "Overcrowding of the wage field and consequent usurpation of jobs needed by men as the natural heads of families, and falling birth rate in the middle, and especially the native-born classes." And the First Lady of the Land answered, "It was generally thought that physically and mentally women were not equal to doing the same type of work as men.' Frances Perkins wrote thoughtfully, "Perhaps the oustanding prejudice against women 100 years ago was the general one that they were inferior beings, inferior to men physically, mentally, and economically; that it was of no importance that they be educated and granted political privileges. Under the laws of the day women were severely discriminated against in relation to property rights, in the rights of custody of children and the like. The common law, which was so often detrimental to women's interest, was accepted as the legal authority. Women were not considered experienced enough to handle any of their personal affairs, nor to participate in public affairs. "Though important progress has been made, there are still distinct evidences of a carry-over of prejudice against women that existed a century ago. With a large segment of our people, the idea still prevails that women's place is 'in the home' and the prejudice against the employment of married women is yet very strong among some groups. "At times men make much ado about women's artistic inferiority and as a consequence women have heavy competitive sledding to make a valid contribution in the field of arts.
"Though women's legal status has strengthened throughout the century, they are still in a far weaker position in this respect than are men in many States. In some cases their wages yet belong to their husbands; in others they do not share equally with their husbands in their children's custody, etc. A number of States do not permit women to serve on juries."
Margaret Cuthbert, famous radio authority, says, bluntly, "Women, given the same opportunity as men, are making the same mistakes and doing the same things that men are doing. With the freedom they now have in view of the money they control, they have done little that is unique, little that is original, little that is different, and not much that shows that women as a group are using their natural gifts to make their own lives and the lives of others more civilized-outside of a few exceptional women."
Mrs. Snyder thinks that men's lack of confidence in women's ability will be the chief obstacle for women in the future. Dr. Tracy concurs in this, saying: "Men's age-old prejudice that women were physically and intellectually inferior still holds, though much diluted and localized."
And now I come to the heart of my questionnaire, for, having gathered the opinions of these women, I wanted to find out what we can do about it as business and professional women. So I asked all of them, "In your opinion, what is the best way for business and professional women to educate the general public as to the fact that these prejudices are not factually founded?" Here is what some of them answered:
Dr. Tracy: "By accepting opportunities for work and giving competent performance. Not by talking about it." Mrs. Snyder: "Instruct the public that we believe in equality, and we want a chance to demonstrate what we can do on an equal footing." Mrs. Roosevelt: "In my opinion, the best education is the education which makes people acquainted with the facts, and the facts can be furnished today through studies made by the various people interested in labor and in woman's position." Miss Perkins: "Probably the best educational method consists of clear demonstrations of women's ability in many fields." Mary Dillon: "To succeed as individuals in the jobs they hold." And Ruth Finley: "Probably the best way for the fit and capable business and professional woman to combat this general attitude (which is growing with appalling rapidity) is to recognize the inevitable weeding-out process of evolution now and back that recognition with the weight of opinion and influence. Always women have worked outside as well as in the home. In 1839 the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
proportion was overbalanced in favor of the home, with many resultant personal misfits and family or group hardships. "Now the pendulum has swung too far the other way, and in 1939 the opposite proportion of overbalance has created more personal misfits and family group hardships than ever before. History has proved that one of the primary social laws is the maintaining or restoration of balance. It seems to me that nothing could give women a more solid foundation for their future as free citizens than their voluntary and immediate recognition of this law."
"Example" is what counts most, Margaret Cuthbert feels. "Deeds more important than words," she writes, "giving proof that women are not personal and prejudiced in business; relating the complex fabric of civilization to the persons for whom, after all, it exists." She points out that "it is not through individual achievement that women are going to serve as they will serve, but in proportion as they emphasize and express cooperation. brave new world must be a man's and woman's world." This
And with these opinions behind us, I asked, "What type of education do you believe will be best suited to women in the next century?" And here are the answers: From Mrs. Snyder, "A practical education and training for a business or professional career.' Mary Dillon's answer is succinct. as men, a rounded cultural background, plus specific training in I quote her exactly: "Same the field of their vocation."
From Dr. Tracy: "Just such an education as will fit any adult to be an intelligent and tolerant citizen and a thorough performer in the lot to which circumstances and her own ability will call her."
Ruth Finley advocates: "A scholastic education to enable women to participate in and understand and enjoy modern civilization; domestic science and child care; professional or occupational training according to the talent of the individual." Frances Perkins says, "Because of our many new means of communication, nation with nation and locality with locality, people touch each other at many more points than they used to. For this reason education needs to be broader. needs to be realistic, too. Education national life to the full they must know science and economics If women are to participate in our as well as the so-called cultural subjects. Education should produce attitudes of liberalism and democracy as well as the absorption of factual data." And, "What tools for advancement do you think women need most during the next century?" I asked them. answers education, individual adequacy, a change in the ecoHere are some of the nomic condition of the country, health maintenance, the removal of legislative restriction against women. recommended and these are the tools we must acquire. These are the tools of all the tools, individual adequacy was stressed the most. When I asked, "Why are not more office after 2 decades of enfranchisement?" women holding public of the committee held decided opinions. Madame Secretary wrote I found that many as follows: "It cannot be said fairly that either men or women are to blame, rather a number of circumstances are involved. The old concept of women's inferiority in any role other than that of homemaker is doubtless responsible for the fact that very few women are elected or appointed to public office. "However, because of lingering prejudices in respect to women's holding public positions the woman who runs for and holds such office needs to be more outstanding and better qualified than the average man with whom she competes. must be competent, a Where a man women themselves have not in general enlarged their concept woman must be exceptional. Moreover, of what constitutes women's work to have it cover public service to any considerable degree.
"A second reason, I believe, that so few women run for office has to do with the rather low regard many people in this country hold for the mechanics of politics. Women have tended to shy away from practical politics and concentrate in their organizations on nonpartisan politics. In the third place, women as yet have achieved no solidarity as women toward the end of putting those of their sex into public office."
Dr. Tracy feels that there are not more women holding public office because of, and I quote her, "lack of qualifications and very often unwillingness or inability to accept responsibility and to sacrifice personal and home obligations to the requirements of public office."
Mrs. Snyder feels that the reason lies in the fact that "men do not want women in public office, and fight their election." Ruth Finley holds out some comfort for us. whole women are still unfitted and incapable with, of course, She says, "On the notable exceptions. Public prejudice and lack of confidence due to a long established custom have held women back. what is 20 years of enfranchisement as against the more than After all, 2,000 years of masculine training and practice in the art of governing?"
And echo answers, what indeed? And here is Margaret Cuthbert's opinion, I quote, "It is not important that they do hold more offices. that they use their influence and power for better government. It is more important If women choose to do this, men cannot stop them."
There were just two more questions on my list, first, "In what field do you believe women will make the greatest contribution during the next century?"
3581 The answers include, the preservation of the home as a national unit, public administration, social welfare, social sciences, human welfare, and the defense of democratic institutions.
And my final question, "What in your opinion can woman do to bring about the settlement of disputes between nations by peaceful methods?" The answers include, first, education; second, through participation in international organizations like the Y. W. C. A., the Associated Country Women of the World, which demonstrate the value of the conference method; through emphasizing the similarities of people rather than the differences; by encouraging tolerance and the settlement of every disagreement by arbitration; by demanding peace actively and aggressively. "War can be banished just as dueling was banished," Ruth Finley advises me. "Where women will there is always a way." And now, delegates to the convention, you have heard the opinions of some of the members of the committee. time this evening for all to be given you. There was not stood 100 years ago, where we stand today, and what we must do You know where we in the years ahead. whole subject further, and distinguished speakers will give us Throughout this week we will consider the further and more intensive interpretations. I noted that the names of just five women were suggested as having made the outstanding contributions of the past century— Sarah Josepha Hale, Mary Lyon, Susan B. Anthony, Jane Addams, and Mme. Curie, the latter, of course, not an American. list I would add two others-Dr. Anna Howard Shaw and Carrie To that Chapman Catt. That is the chief roll of honor of the past century as I see it.
Where we have come from we know. Where we are going is known only to Him who knows all. of American women is indissolubly united with the future of our We do know that the future country, just as the contributions of the women of the past have been entwined with the history of the progress of America. We have made great opportunities for women and we have had great opportunities made for us. we fail now, we can only echo Shakespeare's words, "The fault, Many doors are open to us. If dear Brutus, is in ourselves, not in our stars, if we are underlings."
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: EXCESS GOVERNMENT SPENDING COVERED BY PRINTING BONDS (By Wadsworth W. Mount, Assistant Director of Research, the
As long as the Government can spend all the money it wants to, over and above what it takes in from taxes, merely by printing Government bonds, selling these to the banks, and then drawing checks against them, how can we ever hope to stop extravagant Government spending?
And when the Government spends these billions in such ways that private citizens do not know which way to turn to make money, and therefore have comparatively little need to borrow from the banks on safe terms, where else can banks invest your money on deposit but in Government bonds?
A banker knows that when the United States Government prints a Government bond it says in effect that the Government will tax the people of the United States to make it good. fore, that Government bonds are the soundest security in the He knows, therecountry, just so long as we do not issue too many of them and have inflation. Before the Government started spending several billions more each year than it took in from taxes, the savings banks, for instance, could safely lend your money, largely to people who wanted to spend it for private or business uses, at a high enough rate of interest to cover their expenses and pay you 4 percent. ent conditions, however, one of the few remaining safe places to Under pres
invest bank funds is in Government bonds. Therefore, as the interest rate on long-term Treasury bonds has been lowered until their average yield is now approximately 2 percent, at present about all the savings banks can safely get for the use of your money is enough to provide for necessary expenses and reserves and pay you only 2 percent, or even less, on your deposits. The Treasury has just announced that to pay off some $426,000,000 of outstanding obligations which are due in September and now carry an interest rate of 1% percent it will offer in exchange new "notes" due in 5 years which will pay only three-fourths of 1 percent.
A New York investment firm recently showed that Treasury obligations maturing in a little more than 2 years now afford a yield of only one one-hundredth of 1 percent. At this rate of return, it was pointed out that "an investor would have to hold more than $144,000 par value to provide an income sufficient to buy his morning newspaper each day; he would have to hold $558,000 to provide enough funds to buy a daily package of cigarettes." As the average interest rate on all Federal obligations is lowered, those having money in savings accounts and insurance policies which represent their personally saved "social security" have their interest earnings also reduced, as a large part of such funds are invested in Government bonds.
This means, therefore, that it will take you longer to pay for your life insurance, as the annual dividends will be less or the premiums will be more. Some people think that only the taxpayers of future generations will have to pay for the present Government spending. However, if you own a savings-bank account you are paying right now for the increased national debt by getting one-half or less of the amount of interest you used to receive, and the trend is still downward.
This means then that if, for example, you were trying to put in the savings bank enough money to give you $2,000-a-year income, you will now have to save $100,000 or more, where when savings banks were able to invest your money safely and pay you 4 percent you would only have had to save $50,000 to get this same income. Everyone in the Nation has to pay one way or another for the money our Government officials are instructed to spend. Some pay taxes directly, but everyone pays indirectly for all Government services. The Government has nothing to give to the people except what it gets from the people.
The question is not whether these are desirable Government functions.
The question is whether the country wants expansion of Government, which must be paid for by increased taxes. Or wants expansion of business, which pays in jobs and wages. For the increased money that now goes into Government spending is the money that formerly went into new and improved products, new and enlarged factories, bigger pay rolls and dividends. There isn't enough in the earned dollar to go both ways. Business the production and distribution of goods-is the only thing that can create new wealth. Less taxes; more jobs.
THIRTY CENTS FOR "INDEPENDENCE," JULY 4, 1939 Here, then, in broad strokes is the state of the Nation today. Each of the 60 countries of the world requires around two-thirds of its productive work, its income, to pay for the necessities, food, shelter, clothing. This 65 percent is true of a country regardless of its living standards, India on the one extreme, the United States with the highest standards on the other. What of the 35 cents left after the sustenance of life? In that answer lie most of our troublesome problems today. Consider three pictures:
Until recently the people of the United States disposed of their 35 cents in this way. Five cents, at the turn of the century, was all that was required to pay for expenses of government-State, Federal, and local. Of the remaining 30 cents, about half went into the hands of managers of business enterprises which was about equally divided by them in expanding old industries and promoting and developing new ones such as radio, rayon, automobile. Much of this 15 cents remained in the hands of the people in the form of investment, productive wealth represented by stocks and bonds and life-insurance equities. The remaining 15 cents was used to buy the products of this increased industrial activity, thus driving upward standards of living and making one-time luxuries the conveniences and even necessities denied the rest of the world.
Second picture: What of the 35 cents which remained to the peoples of the other 59 countries? Since time immemorial around 30 cents was used for government expenses. A hazardous 5 cents was left as free capital. This gives point to the sentient statement of former President Hadley, of Yale, that the supremacy of the United States was due to the fact that it could afford to take chances upon development as no other country could afford to do. Five cents as against 30 cents as a backlog. Why did the Old World require 30 cents of the earnings of their people for government? For policing. External policing, the fear of land-grabbing, wealth-grabbing neighbor aggressors, whose people were in constant fear of being deprived of the bare necessities. Third picture: What is the situation in the United States today? Sixty-five cents for the necessities. Of the 35 remaining, 30 for governments (25 collected in taxes, 5 borrowed). Ten cents for investment and the lifting of living standards.
Why the great increase in government costs? Not to relieve distress and unemployment, as generally stated and believed. Only one dollar in six of Federal expenditures is for relief. The great increase in taxation and borrowing, which has brought overnight the allocation of the earned dollar to a level almost to that of other countries, is for policing. Against foreign aggressors? No. For protection against an alleged aggression and oppression on the part of business management. Internal "policing." Policing ourselves against ourselves.
Every act of those engaged in stimulating us to trade our labor, services, and products is now under surveillance, from the time a commission checks the project to the time another bureau passes upon the label to go on the package. Policing, in another form, such as protection against the private electric bulb by Government "yardstick" operation. Policing of banks, labor relations, aviation, oil, coal, lumber, telephones, retailers, stock and grain exchanges, insurance. Policing of States and communities as to the manner in which they handle their social problems. Policing in another form as exemplified in the published statistics that the Federal Government received 153,000,000 compulsory reports from business management last year. Policing as expressed in the $76,000,000-a sum equal to one-sixth of total passenger revenuesspent by Washington in travel expenses of its inspectors, regulators, investigators in 1 calendar year. These three pictures are true pictures. They point the trend to a static society, a "planned economy," to "frontiers gone forever." We, the people, perhaps planned it that way, a road to centralized authority over, and policing of, the individual. But perhaps we did not count the cost; unemployment still with us, management, which brings dreams into being, and men and jobs together, and more conveniences and luxuries for more people, now disheartened and bewildered, unable to see 30 days down the road because of the new policing machinery we have set up, whereby 137 boards, bureaus, commissions, Federal incorporations and authorities now pass laws daily in the form of rules and regulations. Little government, with little expense and little policing, brought the United States the highest standard of living the world has ever seen. Perhaps the founders were wrong in building that way, indignant and angry as they were against a ruler demanding more taxes and more power, who, as a famous declaration set forth, had "erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." Page 25Page 26
There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
I want to talk to you about education and the need for securing Federal aid for our schools. At a time when the present State administration in Wisconsin is preparing to cut nearly $2,000,000 out of our school budgets, I think it is absolutely necessary for us all to give the matter some very serious attention. The problem of maintaining fair and proper educational opportunities for our boys and girls in the next 2 years is going to demand some sort of outside assistance if the State government will not assume its rightful share of the responsibility. I am a firm believer in "economy" if by economy is meant making the most of what resources we have at our disposal and eliminating waste. But I fail to see any economy in a pinch-penny policy that is willing to sacrifice the rights of our young people to a full education simply for a few paltry pieces of silver. The greatest resource America has is its people, and we owe it to ourselves as a nation to see to it that the talents and abilities of the young are developed to the highest degree possible by means of adequate educational opportunities.
To hear some people talk, one might think that we have been extravagant in the support of our schools during the last few years, but actually in the country as a whole we are spending about $350,000,000 less for education than we were in 1930, in spite of the fact that high-school enrollment, where the expense is heaviest, has been increased by over 1,575,000 students. In Wisconsin we have been more fortunate, up until the present time, than the people in other States. In 1935 Wisconsin restored its State school aids to their former levels, and in the years that followed much was done to repair the damage suffered by our educational system as a result of depression retrenchment. Now, however, as a result of the action being taken by the new State administration, we are back face to face with the old problem
again. There is a bill before Congress at the present time which would provide, if enacted, a program of Federal aid to States for the support of their schools and the equalization of educational opportunity throughout the Nation. Under the estimated apportionment of the appropriation submitted with the bill, the enactment of this program could mean as much as $1,200,000 for Wisconsin next year and still more in succeeding years. Such a program is important to the whole Nation. One of the main foundation stones of democracy is equality of educational opportunity. That means public schools available to every man's son or daughter from kindergarten right on up through the university. If we allow a situation to develop where higher education is open only to those people of wealth who can afford to send their children to private schools, it will lead inevitably toward a class division in this country, with the educated, wealthy few on one side of the fence and a resentful, uneducated multitude on the other side. That sort of a situation is as dangerous as it is unnecessary.
Today there are between 800,000 and a million children of grade-school age who are not going to school. Most of them have no school to go to. There are approximately 3,000,000 people in the country who are totally illiterate, who can neither read nor write. And if you passed a newspaper around the Nation, you would find that as many as 15,000,000 adults couldn't read it. Those same people cannot write the simplest of letters. Believe it or not, there are more illiterates in America than there are college graduates.
An analysis of teachers' salaries shows another astounding condition. Considering the range by States, the State having the highest average salary for teachers has an average of only $2,414 per year, and on the other extreme is a State where teachers receive an average salary of only $504 per year. The average salary for teachers in rural communities is correspondingly still lower. For rural teachers the top average is only $1,337 and the bottom average is a bare $430.
When you realize how important is the teacher to whom parents entrust their children for education and guidance, it is surprising that the public has allowed such a condition to exist. If we are to secure the best kind of people to be the teachers of our children, we must be prepared to pay them enough so that they can afford to pass up opportunities in other fields and devote themselves to teaching.
The problem is worse in some States than in others. Some States are wealthy while others are poor, and unfortunately it appears that the States which are least able to maintain adequate schools have the greatest number of children in proportion to adult population. The President's Advisory Committee on Education has made a thorough study of this problem, and it reports a variation so large that the richest State in the Union has a per capita taxpaying ability to support schools which is 12 times the ability of the poorest State. This is not the fault of the individual States. It is a question of wealth. Our modern commercial life has outgrown even State boundaries. Much of our wealth has been drained away from the producing areas of the Nation into the financial centers of the country. As a result, the per capita wealth of some eastern States,
for instance, is all out of proportion to their actual physical contribution to the Nation's production. In order to recapture this wealth for the States from which it came in the first place, the Federal Government must reach it through Federal taxes and return it to the States by means of grants-in-aid. Senate bill 1305 now before the Congress proposes a 6-year program of Federal aids for education in the States. It authorizes an appropriation of approximately $75,000,000 for such purposes during the next fiscal year and increasing amounts for the succeeding years until an appropriation of $208,000,000 is reached for the fiscal year ending in 1945. This money would go toward the support of public elementary and secondary schools, improved teacher preparation, construction of school buildings, administration of State departments of education, adult education, rural-library service, and educational research.
It would not involve any sort of Federal control over the schools. The bill specifically provides that all matters of school administration, curriculum, methods of instruction, personnel, and the determination of the best uses for the funds granted shall be left to the control of the States and their local subdivisions. In order to qualify for the grants each State would simply have to establish a plan for distributing funds to the local school districts in such a way that the aim of the Federal program, the equalization of educational opportunity, would be carried out. In this way the Federal Government would be assured that the neediest communities of the State would get the greatest benefits from the funds granted.
The only other condition of importance to Wisconsin which would have to be met before the funds could be made available under the terms of this bill is the requirement that the State provide funds for these purposes in amounts at least equal to the sums provided in 1938.
The funds to be appropriated under this plan are to be divided among the States according to their respective educational loads and their respective financial abilities. The educational load of each State would be computed from estimates by the Bureau of the Census each year of the number of children of school age in the State. The financial ability of each State would be computed by the Secretary of the Treasury on the basis of certain standards prescribed in the bill. By balancing the State's school load against its financial ability, its financial need under the plan is determined, and the funds are allocated in accordance with this need.
The Senate Committee on Education and Labor has held hearings on the bill and has reported it favorably to the Senate for passage. At the hearings representatives of the leading educational organizations in this country, representing both parents and teachers, appeared and urged that the Federal Government undertake such a program. I feel that a program of this kind should receive the unselfish support of every public-spirited citizen. Education is one of those things which we cannot postpone to suit our convenience. Every year that goes by means a certain number of boys and girls who have either passed beyond school age or have been forced by circumstances to undertake responsibilities which will If their education was prevent their ever going back to school. neglected during the years when they could have gone to school, the chances are they will carry that handicap with them all through life. The rural areas are the hardest hit. It is an established fact that it costs more to provide proper educational facilities in the country than in the city. We know also that there are more children, in proportion to adult population, in the rural areas than in the cities. Yet in spite of that fact the best educational opportunities are being provided for children in the cities. "Equalization of educational opportunity" means not only establishing more uniformity of educational opportunities among the 48 States; it also means bringing financial aid to the rural schools so that the farmers and the people in the small communities can give their children as good an education as the children in the cities get.
If we are going to make democracy work in America, we must always have an intelligent, educated, informed citizenry. If we neglect the education of our young people now, even for a little while, we are going to pay dearly for it in the future. In Wisconsin we have a very definite problem. The budget of the university alone is being cut over a million dollars in the face of increased enrollment and long-delayed needs for expansion. A similar cut is being imposed upon the State teachers' colleges. Unless corrected, this will result in one of two things either fees will have to be raised and it will become that much harder for farmers and working people to send their children to school, or standards will have to be lowered and they will get just that much less for their money.
The program of Federal aid which I have outlined to you will not in any way make up for all the State's failures in this respect but it will help some. The Federal program is primarily concerned with elementary and secondary education, but, indirectly at least, it will aid by taking some of the budgetary pressure off our public institutions of higher education.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
Mr. HARRISON. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the RECORD a speech delivered by Miss Earlene White, at the biennial convention of the National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, Inc., at Kansas City, Mo., on July 9, 1939, on the subject of professional women. There being no objection, the speech was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
It was a bright, sunny morning in the 1830's. A distinguished looking woman, traveling alone, her full skirts discreetly sweeping the ground, her corkscrew curls hanging coyly beneath her bonnet, alighted from a packet boat, having made the trip from England to America in about 40 days.
The woman was Harriet Martineau, a friend of the Carlyles, a trained observer and commentator who came to America in search of new copy. Tired, for a time, of the life in London, she realized that comparatively little was known of the new land which had once been an English colony and was now attracting English and Scotch immigrants in great numbers. She set foot in little old New York, which was then a thriving community, without skyscrapers or bridges to connect the island of Manhattan with its neighborhood boroughs. True, the Astors had begun to make a fortune as fur traders, and Commodore Vanderbilt had found it profitable to pilot a ferry between Staten and Manhattan Islands; nevertheless, New York had little resemblance to the great present-day city of the North American Continent.
And what of the North American Continent upon which Harriet Martineau gazed? She came to America just after the Lewis and Clark expedition had blazed a trail to the Pacific and fur traders were following the Oregon Trail across the mountains.
American missionaries and farmers were quick to follow. The Northern States were clamoring for the annexation of Oregon to the Union and the South was clamoring for Texas. annexation were so vociferous that the slogan of "Fifty-four-Forty or Fight" was to be heard everywhere, as the citizens of the new The advocates of Nation, greedy for land, clamored for the extension of American territory to further latitudes. The clamor grew until it resulted in the election of James K. Polk in 1844 on that very issue.
The industrial revolution was beginning in America, and Harriet Martineau took full note of it. locm had been invented and were making it possible for cloth to The spinning jenny and the power be made in new ways. were new tools for farming, including the reaper. Women-and The cotton gin had been invented and there men, too-who had carried on small manufacturing plants with hand tools on their farms, making the family's clothing along with the family's food supply, found it necessary to change their way of life. The growth of mill towns was taken for granted, and young women who had been earning their livelihoods at just six occupations-keeping boarders, teaching young children, typesetting, bookbinding, domestic service, and needlework-found a new occupation as weavers in the mills.
The severe financial panic in 1837 threw thousands out of work, and when Harriet Martineau visited America unemployment stories were constantly printed in the daily press. The suffrage movement was being extended, and Robert Fulton's steamboat had set a new pace; the inland waterways of America were being invaded by steamboats plowing their way through the hitherto untroubled waters. The best opportunities for men lay in the fields and forests of the far West.
And as usual men and women were facing the future with uncertainty, dreading the changes but eager to get on with them. In 1836, a young girl, living and working in Lowell, Mass, penned these lines
"Oh, isn't it a pity that such a pretty girl as I, Should be sent to the factory to pine away and die?" Thus, the working girl lamented, as she was forced out of the home and into industry. All this and more the woman journalist from England noted and went home and reported in a lengthy volume reciting the sights she had seen and the observations she had made.
3579 It was Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt, our beloved leader of suffrage and world peace, who called our attention to Harriet Martineau and her writings and urged us to observe the one-hundredth anniversary of Miss Martineau's reportorial journey, and to see how many doors are still closed to women, 100 years later. We have accepted Mrs. Catt's suggestion and our biennial convention is devoted to the theme, "One Hundred Years of Women's Progress in the United States." Our compass is the 1930 Census, and that shows that of some 535 classifications of occupations listed, women are engaged in 501, the heavy tasks, such as mining, locomotive engineers, firemen, et cetera, being completely masculine territory. And so in 100 years, women have advanced from 7 fields to 501; doors of opportunity for women are opening wider and wider, but the end is not yet, and perhaps 100 more years will pass until the world will allow women to make their best contribution, and women will be willing to make it.
In 100 years American women have come a long way, just as our country has come a long way, but we still have a journey to make, both as women and as citizens. It is noteworthy that teachers' training schools were started 100 years ago this year. Here and now we are observing the one-hundredth anniversary of women's progress, and I think it is a suitable time to take stock of where we have come from, where we wish to go, and how we are to get there. To help us evaluate these three points we appointed a committee of distinguished women. lin D. Roosevelt is honorary chairman of the committee, and Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt is vice chairman. Mrs. Frankbers are Dr. Mary E. Wooley, president emeritus of Mount Holyoke College; Mrs. Ruth Finley, author and noted publicist for the The other memRepublican Party; Ruth Comfort Mitchell, novelist and one of California's best-known daughters; the Honorable Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor; those two outstanding women in radio, Margaret Cuthbert and Helen J. Souissat; Fannie Hurst, the novelist; Miss Emma P. Hirth, general secretary of the Y. W. C. A.; President Aurelia H. Reinhardt, of Mills College, Calif.; Dr. Martha Tracy, dean of the Women's Medical College of Pennsylvania; Mrs. Mary Dillon, president of the Brooklyn Borough Gas Co.; and Mrs. Ora Snyder, manufacturer, of Chicago.
These women have had broad experience in public service and private enterprise. They represent every range of political and economic thinking, and I believe that their answers to a questionnaire which I sent them will help chart our course for the 100 years ahead.
First, I asked, "What were the chief obstacles to employment in the path of American women 100 years ago?"
Tradition seems to have been the chief stumbling block, with several important contributing causes, such as social and economic custom, lack of education, lack of training, and lack of personal initiative. I have quoted these obstacles from the considered opinion of one of the committee members, Ruth Finley, the noted writer and biographer of women of the colonial period. Mrs. Finley was formerly the editor of Guide, published by the Women's National Republican Club.
Frances Perkins has some interesting observations on that question, and I quote her:
"The lack of employment opportunities outside the home for both men and women constituted the principal obstacle to employment in 1839. This was the period, early in the industrial revolution, when women's traditional occupations were just beginning to move out of the home into factories, mills, and shops. There were few schools and most of the teachers were men, with women substituting in the summer while the men took agricultural jobs. Clerical jobs were practically nonexistent. The largest number of openings were in textile mills, where labor was scarce and wages were high. In these mills, hours were very long, and the workers were housed in dormitories under unfavorable living conditions. In 1839 there were practically no opportunities for professional women or any vocational training for women.' On the other hand, Mme. Secretary wrote: "There were cer- in social prestige-there existed no class distinction on the basis Work in factory or mill entailed no loss of 'white collar' or manual labor. to the welfare of a new nation. Factory work offered educational All work meant a contribution opportunities which were not available for women in schools of higher learning. It offered wages higher than for teaching. Horace Mann reported that women in many occupations in mills and fac- tories earned six or seven times as much as women teachers.
"Early mill workers were militant in the protection of their rights. As the real daughters of the American Revolution, they were earnestly concerned with justice and liberty in dealing with the concrete problems of their daily work life." These are the views of Frances Perkins.
Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt said in response to this question. I quote: "I should say that in 1839 the chief obstacles in the path of employment for American women were, first, the attitude held by both men and women as to the proper kind of work which women should do. Secondly, the lack of educational facilities and of training which they could obtain, and thirdly the lack of opportunities even if they obtained the education and the training." And from Ora Snyder came this opinion. I quote: "Lack of confidence in their ability and the old-fashioned opinion that women should not leave household duties or the care of the family." Dr. Martha Tracy is of the opinion that tradition was women's main stumbling block, plus the economic necessity of doing the home chores personally, including cooking and preserving foodstuffs, cleaning, laundry work, making the husband's and children's clothes, and childbearing. Dr. Tracy says that all of these obstacles have been largely conquered, and I quote her, "largely but not entirely. Childbearing will always be a factor." Ruth Finley thinks the obstacles have mainly been overcome, and Mrs. Roosevelt believes that "there is still some prejudice against women in certain lines of work for which they are naturally better equipped than men. The training today is fairly universally open to them though there are restrictions which make it a little difficult. Many more lines of work are open to women, but they have to excell." Frances Perkins made the following statement in answer to this question:
"Significant progress has been made in removing the obstacles to women's wage-earning employment that existed 100 years ago, but the job is far from complete. Eleven million women are now gainfully employed and are found in practically all occupations. Prejudice against women in the professions is gradually breaking down, and they are securing an ever greater measure of vocational opportunity. Training facilities for almost every occupational field are open to women, though the resultant job opportunities still may be relatively scarce. In recent years there has been a notable increase in the number of women in important administrative jobs in both State and Federal Governments. "However," Miss Perkins goes on to say, "because an increasing number of women must earn their livelihood and also support dependents entirely or partially, and because jobs are also scarce for men, competition is a much greater factor for women to reckon with now than it was some years ago. "Moreover, the traditional sex discriminations are still a major obstacle women encounter in their efforts to find satisfying and profitable employment. Their ability is still far from being accepted on the same plane as that of men. "Immense improvement has come about in the raising of wages, the lowering of hours, and the betterment of plant equipment; but the situation in this respect is still far from Utopian. double wage standard still prevails in a number of fields." The And now we come to the third question, "What obstacle do you believe will beset women in the next 100 years?" To this question Mrs. Finley answers, "The physical obstacle of sex, which never can be changed, and an overcrowding of the so-called economic jobs." Dr. Tracy's answer is-and I quote: "Economic competition with men, particularly in times of unemployment. The individual women's own incompetence." She also notes: "The same applies to men, but women capitalize on the 'tradition' of sex obstruction. Child bearing cannot be outmoded." Mrs. Snyder feels that "jealousy from the male sex" will be the chief obstacle for women. Most of the committee declined to commit themselves on one question, which was, "In your opinion, what has been the outstanding contribution made by American women during the past 100 years?" Ruth Finley, however, answers by saying, "Dissemination of women's news,' and she names Sarah Josepha Hale as the woman who has made the outstanding contribution of the past 100 years. She gives her reason for this as follows-and again I quote: "Prior to the radio, the national woman's magazines were the only interstate link between women. Mrs. Hale, for 50 years editor of Godey's Lady's Book, the first woman's magazine approaching Nation-wide circulation, did more to correlate and unify women's thought in this country than any other person, man or woman, in the nineteenth century." Helen Sioussat, of Columbia Broadcasting Co., said unhesitatingly, "The discovery of radium," and nominated Mme. Curie. Margaret Cuthbert believes that the political recognition of American women has been the outstanding contribution, and she nominated Susan B. Anthony. Frances Perkins wrote: "Because there have been so many important contributions by women in so many fields, it is difficult to evaluate them in such a general way as to make it possible to name only one woman."
Ora Snyder said, "Jane Addams is the woman, and her splendid work at Hull House, Chicago, in the settlement field proves it." Dr. Tracy also has a candidate. She wrote, "Mary Lyon's demonstration that women can be educated, without danger to health or other damage to their nature, is of the utmost importance." And now for my next question, for this is an inventory of women's liabilities as well as women's assets, "What have been the greatest failures of women in the past 100 years?" And again Ruth Finley out of her great wealth of research on the lives of American women answers, "Over-eagerness, evidencing a real lack
of moral stamina in many cases, to throw off the frequently monotonous responsibilities of the home." And Ruth Finley finds these failures also, "unwillingness to serve adequate apprenticeship in the economic world; lack of understanding of and consequent impatience with the slowness of the natural evolution of the now machine-made social order, and failure to assimilate experience." Frances Perkins says, "One major failure of women in the past century relates to their neglect of the use of their hard-won right to vote. Women's failure to take a more active part in American politics, as voters and as candidates for office has been a major disappointment. Women have not participated as fully as they might in labor organization. They have a most important contribution to make in this field and should become increasingly active." And she continues, "Some women have fallen down in their responsibility as employers of other persons. For example, long hours, low wages, social isolation, and exclusion from legislative protection have been characteristic of the vocation using the services of the largest single group of women workers-household employment."
And here is one of the most important questions that I asked the women who form the committee for the commemoration of 100 years of women's progress in the United States. "What are the greatest prejudices concerning women now held by the general public?" Ruth Finley gave me two answers, "Overcrowding of the wage field and consequent usurpation of jobs needed by men as the natural heads of families, and falling birth rate in the middle, and especially the native-born classes." And the First Lady of the Land answered, "It was generally thought that physically and mentally women were not equal to doing the same type of work as men.' Frances Perkins wrote thoughtfully, "Perhaps the oustanding prejudice against women 100 years ago was the general one that they were inferior beings, inferior to men physically, mentally, and economically; that it was of no importance that they be educated and granted political privileges. Under the laws of the day women were severely discriminated against in relation to property rights, in the rights of custody of children and the like. The common law, which was so often detrimental to women's interest, was accepted as the legal authority. Women were not considered experienced enough to handle any of their personal affairs, nor to participate in public affairs. "Though important progress has been made, there are still distinct evidences of a carry-over of prejudice against women that existed a century ago. With a large segment of our people, the idea still prevails that women's place is 'in the home' and the prejudice against the employment of married women is yet very strong among some groups. "At times men make much ado about women's artistic inferiority and as a consequence women have heavy competitive sledding to make a valid contribution in the field of arts.
"Though women's legal status has strengthened throughout the century, they are still in a far weaker position in this respect than are men in many States. In some cases their wages yet belong to their husbands; in others they do not share equally with their husbands in their children's custody, etc. A number of States do not permit women to serve on juries."
Margaret Cuthbert, famous radio authority, says, bluntly, "Women, given the same opportunity as men, are making the same mistakes and doing the same things that men are doing. With the freedom they now have in view of the money they control, they have done little that is unique, little that is original, little that is different, and not much that shows that women as a group are using their natural gifts to make their own lives and the lives of others more civilized-outside of a few exceptional women."
Mrs. Snyder thinks that men's lack of confidence in women's ability will be the chief obstacle for women in the future. Dr. Tracy concurs in this, saying: "Men's age-old prejudice that women were physically and intellectually inferior still holds, though much diluted and localized."
And now I come to the heart of my questionnaire, for, having gathered the opinions of these women, I wanted to find out what we can do about it as business and professional women. So I asked all of them, "In your opinion, what is the best way for business and professional women to educate the general public as to the fact that these prejudices are not factually founded?" Here is what some of them answered:
Dr. Tracy: "By accepting opportunities for work and giving competent performance. Not by talking about it." Mrs. Snyder: "Instruct the public that we believe in equality, and we want a chance to demonstrate what we can do on an equal footing." Mrs. Roosevelt: "In my opinion, the best education is the education which makes people acquainted with the facts, and the facts can be furnished today through studies made by the various people interested in labor and in woman's position." Miss Perkins: "Probably the best educational method consists of clear demonstrations of women's ability in many fields." Mary Dillon: "To succeed as individuals in the jobs they hold." And Ruth Finley: "Probably the best way for the fit and capable business and professional woman to combat this general attitude (which is growing with appalling rapidity) is to recognize the inevitable weeding-out process of evolution now and back that recognition with the weight of opinion and influence. Always women have worked outside as well as in the home. In 1839 the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
proportion was overbalanced in favor of the home, with many resultant personal misfits and family or group hardships. "Now the pendulum has swung too far the other way, and in 1939 the opposite proportion of overbalance has created more personal misfits and family group hardships than ever before. History has proved that one of the primary social laws is the maintaining or restoration of balance. It seems to me that nothing could give women a more solid foundation for their future as free citizens than their voluntary and immediate recognition of this law."
"Example" is what counts most, Margaret Cuthbert feels. "Deeds more important than words," she writes, "giving proof that women are not personal and prejudiced in business; relating the complex fabric of civilization to the persons for whom, after all, it exists." She points out that "it is not through individual achievement that women are going to serve as they will serve, but in proportion as they emphasize and express cooperation. brave new world must be a man's and woman's world." This
And with these opinions behind us, I asked, "What type of education do you believe will be best suited to women in the next century?" And here are the answers: From Mrs. Snyder, "A practical education and training for a business or professional career.' Mary Dillon's answer is succinct. as men, a rounded cultural background, plus specific training in I quote her exactly: "Same the field of their vocation."
From Dr. Tracy: "Just such an education as will fit any adult to be an intelligent and tolerant citizen and a thorough performer in the lot to which circumstances and her own ability will call her."
Ruth Finley advocates: "A scholastic education to enable women to participate in and understand and enjoy modern civilization; domestic science and child care; professional or occupational training according to the talent of the individual." Frances Perkins says, "Because of our many new means of communication, nation with nation and locality with locality, people touch each other at many more points than they used to. For this reason education needs to be broader. needs to be realistic, too. Education national life to the full they must know science and economics If women are to participate in our as well as the so-called cultural subjects. Education should produce attitudes of liberalism and democracy as well as the absorption of factual data." And, "What tools for advancement do you think women need most during the next century?" I asked them. answers education, individual adequacy, a change in the ecoHere are some of the nomic condition of the country, health maintenance, the removal of legislative restriction against women. recommended and these are the tools we must acquire. These are the tools of all the tools, individual adequacy was stressed the most. When I asked, "Why are not more office after 2 decades of enfranchisement?" women holding public of the committee held decided opinions. Madame Secretary wrote I found that many as follows: "It cannot be said fairly that either men or women are to blame, rather a number of circumstances are involved. The old concept of women's inferiority in any role other than that of homemaker is doubtless responsible for the fact that very few women are elected or appointed to public office. "However, because of lingering prejudices in respect to women's holding public positions the woman who runs for and holds such office needs to be more outstanding and better qualified than the average man with whom she competes. must be competent, a Where a man women themselves have not in general enlarged their concept woman must be exceptional. Moreover, of what constitutes women's work to have it cover public service to any considerable degree.
"A second reason, I believe, that so few women run for office has to do with the rather low regard many people in this country hold for the mechanics of politics. Women have tended to shy away from practical politics and concentrate in their organizations on nonpartisan politics. In the third place, women as yet have achieved no solidarity as women toward the end of putting those of their sex into public office."
Dr. Tracy feels that there are not more women holding public office because of, and I quote her, "lack of qualifications and very often unwillingness or inability to accept responsibility and to sacrifice personal and home obligations to the requirements of public office."
Mrs. Snyder feels that the reason lies in the fact that "men do not want women in public office, and fight their election." Ruth Finley holds out some comfort for us. whole women are still unfitted and incapable with, of course, She says, "On the notable exceptions. Public prejudice and lack of confidence due to a long established custom have held women back. what is 20 years of enfranchisement as against the more than After all, 2,000 years of masculine training and practice in the art of governing?"
And echo answers, what indeed? And here is Margaret Cuthbert's opinion, I quote, "It is not important that they do hold more offices. that they use their influence and power for better government. It is more important If women choose to do this, men cannot stop them."
There were just two more questions on my list, first, "In what field do you believe women will make the greatest contribution during the next century?"
3581 The answers include, the preservation of the home as a national unit, public administration, social welfare, social sciences, human welfare, and the defense of democratic institutions.
And my final question, "What in your opinion can woman do to bring about the settlement of disputes between nations by peaceful methods?" The answers include, first, education; second, through participation in international organizations like the Y. W. C. A., the Associated Country Women of the World, which demonstrate the value of the conference method; through emphasizing the similarities of people rather than the differences; by encouraging tolerance and the settlement of every disagreement by arbitration; by demanding peace actively and aggressively. "War can be banished just as dueling was banished," Ruth Finley advises me. "Where women will there is always a way." And now, delegates to the convention, you have heard the opinions of some of the members of the committee. time this evening for all to be given you. There was not stood 100 years ago, where we stand today, and what we must do You know where we in the years ahead. whole subject further, and distinguished speakers will give us Throughout this week we will consider the further and more intensive interpretations. I noted that the names of just five women were suggested as having made the outstanding contributions of the past century— Sarah Josepha Hale, Mary Lyon, Susan B. Anthony, Jane Addams, and Mme. Curie, the latter, of course, not an American. list I would add two others-Dr. Anna Howard Shaw and Carrie To that Chapman Catt. That is the chief roll of honor of the past century as I see it.
Where we have come from we know. Where we are going is known only to Him who knows all. of American women is indissolubly united with the future of our We do know that the future country, just as the contributions of the women of the past have been entwined with the history of the progress of America. We have made great opportunities for women and we have had great opportunities made for us. we fail now, we can only echo Shakespeare's words, "The fault, Many doors are open to us. If dear Brutus, is in ourselves, not in our stars, if we are underlings."
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: EXCESS GOVERNMENT SPENDING COVERED BY PRINTING BONDS (By Wadsworth W. Mount, Assistant Director of Research, the
As long as the Government can spend all the money it wants to, over and above what it takes in from taxes, merely by printing Government bonds, selling these to the banks, and then drawing checks against them, how can we ever hope to stop extravagant Government spending?
And when the Government spends these billions in such ways that private citizens do not know which way to turn to make money, and therefore have comparatively little need to borrow from the banks on safe terms, where else can banks invest your money on deposit but in Government bonds?
A banker knows that when the United States Government prints a Government bond it says in effect that the Government will tax the people of the United States to make it good. fore, that Government bonds are the soundest security in the He knows, therecountry, just so long as we do not issue too many of them and have inflation. Before the Government started spending several billions more each year than it took in from taxes, the savings banks, for instance, could safely lend your money, largely to people who wanted to spend it for private or business uses, at a high enough rate of interest to cover their expenses and pay you 4 percent. ent conditions, however, one of the few remaining safe places to Under pres
invest bank funds is in Government bonds. Therefore, as the interest rate on long-term Treasury bonds has been lowered until their average yield is now approximately 2 percent, at present about all the savings banks can safely get for the use of your money is enough to provide for necessary expenses and reserves and pay you only 2 percent, or even less, on your deposits. The Treasury has just announced that to pay off some $426,000,000 of outstanding obligations which are due in September and now carry an interest rate of 1% percent it will offer in exchange new "notes" due in 5 years which will pay only three-fourths of 1 percent.
A New York investment firm recently showed that Treasury obligations maturing in a little more than 2 years now afford a yield of only one one-hundredth of 1 percent. At this rate of return, it was pointed out that "an investor would have to hold more than $144,000 par value to provide an income sufficient to buy his morning newspaper each day; he would have to hold $558,000 to provide enough funds to buy a daily package of cigarettes." As the average interest rate on all Federal obligations is lowered, those having money in savings accounts and insurance policies which represent their personally saved "social security" have their interest earnings also reduced, as a large part of such funds are invested in Government bonds.
This means, therefore, that it will take you longer to pay for your life insurance, as the annual dividends will be less or the premiums will be more. Some people think that only the taxpayers of future generations will have to pay for the present Government spending. However, if you own a savings-bank account you are paying right now for the increased national debt by getting one-half or less of the amount of interest you used to receive, and the trend is still downward.
This means then that if, for example, you were trying to put in the savings bank enough money to give you $2,000-a-year income, you will now have to save $100,000 or more, where when savings banks were able to invest your money safely and pay you 4 percent you would only have had to save $50,000 to get this same income. Everyone in the Nation has to pay one way or another for the money our Government officials are instructed to spend. Some pay taxes directly, but everyone pays indirectly for all Government services. The Government has nothing to give to the people except what it gets from the people.
The question is not whether these are desirable Government functions.
The question is whether the country wants expansion of Government, which must be paid for by increased taxes. Or wants expansion of business, which pays in jobs and wages. For the increased money that now goes into Government spending is the money that formerly went into new and improved products, new and enlarged factories, bigger pay rolls and dividends. There isn't enough in the earned dollar to go both ways. Business the production and distribution of goods-is the only thing that can create new wealth. Less taxes; more jobs.
THIRTY CENTS FOR "INDEPENDENCE," JULY 4, 1939 Here, then, in broad strokes is the state of the Nation today. Each of the 60 countries of the world requires around two-thirds of its productive work, its income, to pay for the necessities, food, shelter, clothing. This 65 percent is true of a country regardless of its living standards, India on the one extreme, the United States with the highest standards on the other. What of the 35 cents left after the sustenance of life? In that answer lie most of our troublesome problems today. Consider three pictures:
Until recently the people of the United States disposed of their 35 cents in this way. Five cents, at the turn of the century, was all that was required to pay for expenses of government-State, Federal, and local. Of the remaining 30 cents, about half went into the hands of managers of business enterprises which was about equally divided by them in expanding old industries and promoting and developing new ones such as radio, rayon, automobile. Much of this 15 cents remained in the hands of the people in the form of investment, productive wealth represented by stocks and bonds and life-insurance equities. The remaining 15 cents was used to buy the products of this increased industrial activity, thus driving upward standards of living and making one-time luxuries the conveniences and even necessities denied the rest of the world.
Second picture: What of the 35 cents which remained to the peoples of the other 59 countries? Since time immemorial around 30 cents was used for government expenses. A hazardous 5 cents was left as free capital. This gives point to the sentient statement of former President Hadley, of Yale, that the supremacy of the United States was due to the fact that it could afford to take chances upon development as no other country could afford to do. Five cents as against 30 cents as a backlog. Why did the Old World require 30 cents of the earnings of their people for government? For policing. External policing, the fear of land-grabbing, wealth-grabbing neighbor aggressors, whose people were in constant fear of being deprived of the bare necessities. Third picture: What is the situation in the United States today? Sixty-five cents for the necessities. Of the 35 remaining, 30 for governments (25 collected in taxes, 5 borrowed). Ten cents for investment and the lifting of living standards.
Why the great increase in government costs? Not to relieve distress and unemployment, as generally stated and believed. Only one dollar in six of Federal expenditures is for relief. The great increase in taxation and borrowing, which has brought overnight the allocation of the earned dollar to a level almost to that of other countries, is for policing. Against foreign aggressors? No. For protection against an alleged aggression and oppression on the part of business management. Internal "policing." Policing ourselves against ourselves.
Every act of those engaged in stimulating us to trade our labor, services, and products is now under surveillance, from the time a commission checks the project to the time another bureau passes upon the label to go on the package. Policing, in another form, such as protection against the private electric bulb by Government "yardstick" operation. Policing of banks, labor relations, aviation, oil, coal, lumber, telephones, retailers, stock and grain exchanges, insurance. Policing of States and communities as to the manner in which they handle their social problems. Policing in another form as exemplified in the published statistics that the Federal Government received 153,000,000 compulsory reports from business management last year. Policing as expressed in the $76,000,000-a sum equal to one-sixth of total passenger revenuesspent by Washington in travel expenses of its inspectors, regulators, investigators in 1 calendar year. These three pictures are true pictures. They point the trend to a static society, a "planned economy," to "frontiers gone forever." We, the people, perhaps planned it that way, a road to centralized authority over, and policing of, the individual. But perhaps we did not count the cost; unemployment still with us, management, which brings dreams into being, and men and jobs together, and more conveniences and luxuries for more people, now disheartened and bewildered, unable to see 30 days down the road because of the new policing machinery we have set up, whereby 137 boards, bureaus, commissions, Federal incorporations and authorities now pass laws daily in the form of rules and regulations. Little government, with little expense and little policing, brought the United States the highest standard of living the world has ever seen. Perhaps the founders were wrong in building that way, indignant and angry as they were against a ruler demanding more taxes and more power, who, as a famous declaration set forth, had "erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." |
Which of the following statements explain why the traditional model of circulation measurement has become increasingly inadequate?
Postagens relacionadas
direito autoral © 2024 estudarpara Inc.
