St Ignatius College - Ignatian Yearbook (San Francisco, CA)

Page 21 text:

THE SMITH-TOWNER BILL 19 a Federal educational program, conceived and formulated, not by an angel, not even by an acknowledged genius, but by a very ordinary, fallible, uninspired, political appointee,- titled Secretary of Education. He shall be the dispenser of wisdom! He shall be the arbiter of our destiny, our life and our thought! Under other circumstances it would be prosaic, trite, unnecessary to state that our Federal government is a government of limited and delegated power. But the pro- found ignorance or the deliberate evasion of this funda- mental principle, manifested by proponents of the Smith- Tovvner Bill, provokes an argument in reply. The Federal government, being a government of dele- gated powers and holding of its own right no original jurisdiction, may legislate, may operate, may control, only in matters enumerated and granted by the people in the Constitution. But never have the people either by ex- press grant, by implied concession or by judicial interpre- tation, delegated to the Federal government an authority to control in the matter of popular education. VVas it by oversight that the framers of the Constitution refused to confer such power upon the Federal government? Ah, no! There in old Independence Hall matters of education engaged the attention, the talents, the superlative wisdom of those men. NVhat was the decision of Wlashington, of Madison, of Franklin, yes, even of Alexander Hamilton, the Federalist? Simply this: A matter so intimately affecting the welfare of local communities should be reserved entirely to the States and is not a proper subject for Federal control. Easily seen then is the logical conclusion from these premises. W'hatever legislation seeks to vest educational control in the Federal government and to deprive the States of their traditional prerogative is inconsistent with the theory of our policy and subversive of the American Constitution. - 7 -- Al...

Page 20 text:

ig THE IGNA TIAN central government. Men of the confederacy tore them- selves from the embrace of loved ones in their southern homes, marched off, and stumbled to their death ill the blood-stained ruts of honorable battlefields! Not so these modern extremists. Theirs is not the courage and the faith of the rebel, but the cunning and duplicity of the traitor. Not in masterful debate, not beneath the hot, scarlet sky of battle do they challenge the right of the States to govern themselves in matters which the States long ago reserved to themselves. But by means of deception and propaganda they wax strong. ln the vehicle of ambiguous and indirect legislation they advance their pernicious schemes, all the while lulling us into complacent optimism with their siren songs of Americanism, placating us with their evasive explanations, deceiving us with their protestations of regard for consti- tutional rights. Yet, when we decline to accept these assurances, when we wake ourselves from apathetic indifference, when we delve with inquiring mind for the truth, what do we find? lYe find a menace to the Constitution, an instrument of autocracy, a document capable of creating in America the most oppressive, the most odious of all monopolies-a monopoly over the human mind. Fraught with just such possibilities is the Smith- Towner Bill pending in the Congress of the United States today. The Smith-Towner Bill proposes to organize a new and powerful Bureau of Education at Tliashington. lt further provides that Congress shall grant to this educa- tional department an annual appropriation of a hundred million dollars. The Bureau of Education shall have power to dispose of this Federal gold to the States for educational projects--on one condition. The States must surrender the privilege of local education. The States must submit to Federal control. The States must accept

Page 22 text:

zo TH li IGN,-1 Tl.--IX Such Federalization may be accomplished directly-or it may be accomplished indirvcz'Iy. l do not assert that the Smith-Towner Bill in its present form is a positive usurpation of control by the Federal government or a direct denial of the right of the State control. Ustensibly the bill is a generous effort on the part of the Federal government to assist and encourage State education and, apparently, makes acceptance of the Federal educational programme optional with the States. liut I do assert that the Smith-Towner llill is an attempt to accomplish, indirectly, that which would be, it accomplished directly, tiagrantly violative of the Consti- tution. The bill makes it possible for the Federal govern- ment to arrogate and assume educational control by means of the potent compulsion of Federal linance. lt depends for the attainment of its purpose upon a truth constantly demonstrated in recent years-what the Federal govern- ment Hnances, the Federal goy ernment will ultimately control. A proper understanding ot the spirit of the Constitu- tion compels us to admit that the proponents of such legis- lation are seeking to undermine what they can not safely overthrow: they are ignoring that ancient maxim of juris- prudence which says: That which may not be done directly may not be done indirectly, Advocates of the Smith-Towner llill Haunt their banners of Americanisni through the nation. Yet they are supremely inconsiderate of every American institution and the spirit of the Constitu- tion itself, when it obstructs the scheme by which they hope to Federalize the education, which rightfully belongs to the people and to the States. They are encouraging, instead of discouraging, a modern, un-American tendency toward centralization of power. Do you not recognize in such legislation a typical ehfort of self-constituted, ambitious infatuated reformers to satiate their wilful passions for state paternalism?