HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WEDNESDAY, December 13, 1865.The CLERK called the House to order at 9 o'clock A. M.
On the motion of Mr. JAMES, Mr. Hamrick was requested to take the Chair, in the temporary absence of the Speaker.
On the motion of Mr. SPENCER, the reading of the journal of yesterday was dispensed with.
PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.
Mr. HOOVER presented the petition of sun-dry citizens of Pike Creek township, Miami county, asking for the repeal of that part of the 84th section of the School Law which requires the teaching of Physiology and the History of the United States.
It was referred to the Committee on Education.
Mr. FERRIS presented the memorial of the Commissioners of Ripley county, and -
Mr. LOPP and Mr. LEMON presented memorials page: 193[View Page 193] for the repeal of the Soldiers Relief Law.
These were referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. WELCH presented the memorial of the Commissioners of Martin county, remonstrating against the repeal of the soldiers' relief law.
On motion of Mr. NEWCOMB, it was referred to the Special Committee on Soldiers' Home.
Mr. SHUEY presented the petition of sundry citizens of Elkhart county, asking for a modification of the school law, so as to compel parents and guardians to send children to school at least three months of the year.
It was referred to the Committee on Education.
Mr. JAMES presented a temperance memorial, which was referred without reading.
Mr. CHURCH, Mr. NEWCOMB, Mr. ABBETT and Mr. VEACH presented claims.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. GROVES, from the Committee on the State Prison South, returned Mr. Howard's prison bill, No, 316, [allowing $25 instead of $15 to each discharged convict,] recommending that its further consideration be indefinitely postponed.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. GREGORY, of Montgomery, from the Committee on the Sinking Fund, returned Mr. Newcomnb's Sinking Fund bill, No. 222, with an amendment striking out the word "30," in the fifth section, and inserting "20" in lieu.
Mr. BURNES, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges, returned Mr. Stringer's bill. No. 150, prescribing the number of Senators and Representatives in the General Assembly, with an amendment striking out "25" Senators, and inserting "33" in lieu; and striking out "50" for the number of Representatives, and inserting "67" in lieu.
Mr. GRIFFITH, from the Committee on Scientific and Benevolent Institutions, returned the bill, S. No. 201, providing care for the incurable insane; recommending its passage.
Mr. SHUEY, from the Committee on Temperance, returned Mr. Henrick's temperance bill No.306 (introduced Dec. 6th,and described in these Reports) with an amendment adding to this effect: This act shall not be construed 10 as to revoke or annul any license issued to retailers in pursuance of laws now in force, but in all other respects said retailers shall be subject to the provisions thereof, &c. This act to take effect and be in force from and after the 15th day of January, 1866.
Mr. OSBORN, from the Select Committee on his resolution for a modifiication of the tax law, reported such legislation inexpedient at this time, and asked and obtained discharge.
Mr. NEMCOMB, from the Select Committee thereon, returned the bill, S. No. 198, repealing the act of March, 1865, for the relief of the families of soldiers and marines, etc., reporting an amendment by way of substitute. [The tax for 1865 goes into the county treasuries, less 15 per cent, thereof, which goes to the Stite Treasurer to form a permanent fund for the support of the disabled, etc.]
Mr. PATTERSON, from the Select Committee thereon, returned Mr. Stenger's Railroad Directors' bill, No. 284, with an amendment, adding a section to this effect: All Railroad Companies with road running through this State shall keep a principal office for the transaction of business within this State on the line of their road.
Mr. BURTON, from the Select Committee on the memorial of Nathan Brown, reported a joint resolution [H. R. No. 24] for providing a reward for Nathan Brown, and the condition upon which the same shall be paid. [On the decision of a commission that he has discovered the cause of milk-sick.]
Mr. COX, from the Committee on Ways and Means, returned Mr. Gregory of Warren's negro school bill, [H. R. 208] with an amendment by way of substitute.
On motion by Mr. GREGORY of Warren, it was made the special order for to-morrow night at 7 o'clock.
TEN MINUTES' RULE.
Mr. NEWCOMB submitted the following:
Resolved. That hereafter no member of the House shall speak more than ten minutes on any one subject.
Mr. SPENCER and Mr. BURTON opposed the order.
Mr. BUSKIRK proposed to add an exception: that by a vote of two-thirds of the House, the time may be extended not exceeding twenty-five minutes.
Mr. BURWELL. Were the majority opposed to a ventillation of the negro school bill?
Mr. NEWCOMB was willing the time should be extended to twenty-five minutes in the consideration of the negro school bill, No. 208.
Mr. GROVES moved ineffectually to lay the amendments on the table.
Mr. BROWN desired to modify the resolution so that none shall speak more than ten minutes at any one time.
After debate by Messrs. COWGILL, BUSKIRK and DUNHAM, the latter moved that the resolution take effect on and after to-morrow.
After further debate by Messrs. RICE, GRIFFITH and DUNHAM -
Mr. STEWART desired to modify the resolution so that none shall speak more than once a day on the same subject.
The SPEAKER (Mr. Hamrick in the Chair) held that such an amendment would be a change of rules and out of order.
Mr. BROWN moved ineffectually to lay the whole subject on the table - yeas 41, nays 48.
Mr. LANE demanded the previous question, and under its force Mr. Dunham's amendment was agreed to.
And so the resolution was adopted.
Mr. SIM submitted the following:
WHEREAS, The State Capitol Building contains valuable record and archives of the State, the loss of which would be irreparable; therefore -
Resolved, the Senate concurring, That the Joint Committee on Public Buildings be instructed to confer with the Governor, Adjunant General, Clerk of the Supreme Court and State Librarian, as to the recent plan of guarding the Capitol Building, and whether additional measures should be taken for the secudty of the public records and archives under their charge, and said Committee is directed to report by bill or otherwise.
It was adopted.
Mr. CALDWELL submitted the following:
WHEREAS, It is desirable that some definite expression should be made by the General Assembiy in relation to the Reconstruction Policy of President Johnson; therefore -
page: 194[View Page 194]Be it Resolved, the Senate concurring, That it is the sense of this General Assembly of the State, that in the Reconstruction of the Government of the state lately in rebellion against the Government and authority of the United States, each State shall be left free to choose for itself its own system of political franchises.
Under a rule of the House this resolution goes to the Committee on Federal Relations.
AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE.
The special order coming up, viz: the consideration of Mr Buskirk's Agricultural College bill. No. 6, and the substitute therefor, reported by the special committee on that subject - locating said College at Bloommgton, in connection with the Indiana University - the pending question being on Mr. Sim's motion to strike out "Bloomington," and insert "Richmond" in lieu.
Mr. GRIFFITH said he was neither for plaintiff nor defendant in this question of location - he was for the people. He submitted the question whether an institution of this kind can stand alone without the fostering care of some other institution? He did not know whether he was competent to decide. He doubted the practicability of a College to teach practical agriculture and the mechanic arts exclusively. But if he could be satisfied that this College could stand alone, he would be in favor of its location anywhere else than in connection with another institution; otherwise he should go the other way. The choice of locations in his mind wa's between the Battle Ground and Bloomington. The latter was most accessible, provided you wanted to make it central. So far,it had preference over Bloomington, leaving out the literary advantages of the latter place.
Mr. LANE had no great concern about location. He was opposed to attaching this to any other institution. He also considered that the choice was between Bloomington and the Battleground. The latter location had the advantage of historic memories, and of being near the greatest railroad center in the State except Indianapolis. He described its superior advantages as to soil. He considered that the endowment of this institution would prove sufficient for its independent establishment and support. It would yield a revenue of $15,000 a year, which would certainly sustain four teachers. He reasoned at length in favor of making it an independent Institution. Agriculture was the normal condition of man. It would be diverting this endowment from its original purpose to tack this college upon some other institution. He was unwilling to admit that the profession of agriculture was inferior to any other.
Mr. FERRIS could hardly express any preference as to location. He rather thought Indianapolis possessed superior advantages,though it had been but indifferently referred to as desirable by the people here. He thought it was the purpose of the donation to make this college an independent institution. He supposed its course of instruction would not be confined to agriculture and the mechanic arts. He supposed it would thorough in the natural sciencessuch as to make practical men. As for the Owen Cabinet, it could be obtained, he supposed, as well for any other location as for Bloomington. He preferred the Battleground.
Mr. GREGG said he had but very little confidence in the success of this institution. Early in the last session he had introduced a joint resolution for the dwersion of the proceeds of this. Congressional donation and its application to the erection of a Soldiers' Home. He had some knowledge of an effort to establish such an institution at College Hill, Ohio. Their object there was to make practical farmers at College. They failed. The reason was that the majority of students cared nothing about agriculture. They could not get students in agriculture. He submitted this fact to show that this institution could not stand alone. The model farm would fail, and the college would fail.
Mr. LANE. Was this Ohio college connected with a literary institution?
Mr. GREGG No sir; and that is why it failed; and he understood that a similar institution on a larger scale had failed in the State of New York for the same reason. He reasoned at length against the utility of a model farm. The grape and the fruit that might flourish in the soil about the Battle Ground, might die out in hills along the Ohio river. The elements of agriculture might be acquired at College, but the practice must be on the farm at home. It was so of practical life in every department. You could not teach stock farming by manipulations on the black board. Fertilizers of the soil in one locality would fail in another. He contended that this institution must be engrafted on another, or it would fail for want of students.
Mr. GLAZEBROOK took a position in favor of locating this institution at the Battle Ground, on account of accessibility, soil, scenery, and historical associations; and there was more go-a-head in the people north of the National Road. He dwelt on the advantages to the farmer of such an institution. Why, a man had need to go to school to learn how to make even a rail fence. Bloomington was a finished off old town; and there was not a professor in the Indiana University that knew anything about practical agriculture. He had seen there a dried alligator, and birds, snipes, snails and snakes, but these were not essential elements in the training of a practical farmer.
Mr. MILROY was in favor of locating the college at the most accessible point, and the nost favorable to the agricultural interests. He submitted considerations against the allegation that the institution could not stand alone. He favored the Battle Ground because of its historical associations, its accessibility, its soil, and because it was a new place, and devoid of the fogyisms of such places as Bloomington.
Mr. DUNHAM was an earnest advocate of educational interests - always voting for the largest educational facilities. He had experience of the heart-yearnings of the farmer boy for development, and that which gives inspiration and efficiency to genius. All must have development, in all that belongs to business life. It was not the profession that made the man, but it was education - culture. Agriculture was the true natural sphere of development in all that pertains to the dignity and utility of life. If you do not go to Bloomington with this College, attach it to some other literary institution. The culture in school was like an apprenticeship in the shop. It was development of the power to think. That was all there is of the schools. The intellect should page: 195[View Page 195]be developed with varied studies. He alleged the fact that an Agricultural College could not stand alone: because, as it had been alleged, that its students would be outranked by professional students; and this was to undervalue farmers as a class, - a thing which he was by no means prepared to admit or allow. He answered the objection to Bloomington, because the professors there were not practical farmers. He proposed to attach this College to the University, and make it a department of that institution. He lamented the dissemination, the division of the educational power of the State. He would have all the colleges in the State brought together into one University, so that our people need not send their sons to the schools of Europe to give them a finished education. He would not give a farthing for the model farm in connection with this college. No manual labor school ever did succeed - nor ever would; they were humbugs, invended to squander money. Bloomington was the only free, independent institution of learning we have, and he would turn all the educational patronage and power of the State in that direction, and build up a University there that would be in all respects creditable to the North-west.
Mr. BUSKIRK took the floor, but gave way for the recess till 2 o'clock P. M.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
On motion by Mr. BRANHAM, the consideration of the Senate amendment to his Rail-road valuation bill, No. 158, was taken up and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. SHOAFF, of Allen, obtained leave to introduce A bill [H. R. No. 320] for an act to regulate swinging bridges across the several rivers, feeder dams in this State, and prescribing penalty for impairing the same and matters properly connected therewith.
It was referred to a Select Committee of three.
AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE.
The House resumed the consideration of Mr. Buskirk's Agricultural College bill. No. 6, and the substitute amendment thereto reported by a majority of the Select Committee thereon - the pending question being on Mr. Sim's motion to strike out "Bloomington" and insert "Richmond."
Mr. HENRICKS was satisfied that this question could not be settled in its present shape, because it was a triangular fight. He proposed that the House go into Committee of the Whole and institute an informal vote so as either to agree on a location, or reduce the question to a decision between two points.
Mr. NEWCOMB indicated another plan, to refer the bill to a Commission, to receive propositions for donations for 90 days.
Mr. SIM objected to the latter plan, because the people of Marion county could offer the largest pecuniary considerations.
Mr. BOYD said it was not necessary to recommit, as Bloomington was the only place where we could locate this institution in the prescribed time, and put it into wrorking order.
Mr. FOULKE referred to the proposition for a donation of $100,000 from Wayne county. He complained that the Committee directed to inquire into this matter of a location at the regular session, did not visit Wayne county. He stated that this Wayne county donation was $100,000 in moneynot in property at exorbitant valuations. He summed up the donations from the Battle Ground and from Stockwell in Tippecanoe county - the first was $48,000, and the latter was $33,000, making a total of $81,000. The donation from Bloomington was $50,000, so neither Tippecanoe or Monroe had offered the substantial inducements that had come from Wayne county, which the Committee of Examination last session entirely ignored. The people of Wayne county did not claim pre-eminence in the State, but they did claim that they have offered inducements for this location outweighing all others.
Mr. McVEY considered the reasons urged for the Bloomington location, combatting the allegation that an Agricultural College could not stand disconnected from a literary and classical school. He said: locate this college anywhere else but in connection with the Indiana University, which never had been, and never could be made a success. To say that this institution could not stand alone was to pay a poor compliment to the great minds of the country that conceived these magnificent donations of land for an Agricultural College in every State in the Union.
Mr. WEIGHT stood ready to do what he judged best to advance the educational interests of the State. He was in favor of making the location at Bloomington. He answered objections to placing this college in connection with another institution, and gave considerations in favor of a liberal education to the agriculturalists of the State, defending the school and the teachers at Bloomington. The battle-ground, as regards its historical renown as a battle-field, was played out. There were hundreds of skirmish fields that were its superior in all that makes matter for history.
Mr. HUMPHREYS was never in favor of accepting this grant; but now it is accepted, the question was, what is best to be done with it. His first precaution in this matter was to avoid expense in connection with it, after the manner we have been called upon for appropriations for the Northern Prison. And he thought he could see that the Bloomington location promised the least expense. He gave reasons for his conclusion, that this college could never be a success. The only hope of its success was in its connection with the State University. These considerations decided his mind for Bloomington, - which had no claim but this above any other location that had been named.
Mr. RHOADS gave general views as to the character of the course of instruction that ought to be commended to the people of the State. He objected to limitations as to just how much a man shall know - just what course of instruction he shall taketo make him an accomplished citizen, farmer or mechanic. He would connect the Agricultural College with the State University, where the sons of the State could receive culture without stint, as becomes a free people.
Mr. PETTIT (Mr. Hamrick in the Chair) seing indications of a demand for the previous question, sent up an amendment as a substitute for the amendment of the Select Committee.
- The location, healthy, accessible, etc.
- There shall be donated for the purposes of the college a grant of land not less than one hundred acres, of undoubted title, with suitable buildings, or agreements with reference to buildings, thereon, which shall at the time, by a fair valuation, be worth $100.000.
Mr. PETTIT. Hardly a measure that had been presented to this General Assepbly deserved more consideration than this. The details of the bill were likely to be neglected, while we were considering merely the question of location. He was not prepared to decide on the question of location. This question could not be wisely decided without going actually upon the ground for the purpose. Therefore he had proposed that the Governor shall appoint a commission of competent persons to determine this question for us. Mr. Morrill, of Vermont, who prepared the bill for the act of Congress granting these munificent donations of land, purposed the establishment of great independent schools, disconnected entirely from all other istitutions. At the last session here we had acted wisely; we had accepted the grant and established an agricultural college, and he read the names of the trustees in tlie charter. The bill now before the House proposed to modify this charter so as to make this college a part of another institution, against the pledge of the good name of the State, in the act of last session that we would establish a separate institution. The allegations that an Agricultural College could not stand alone might furnish a good reason against receiving the Congressional grant; but now it was accepted, it was no good argument that we should divert this fund from the purpose for vvhich it has been ottered and accepted. He objected to the details of the bill in the matter of the assignment of the land script to the Trustees. The Trustees would have 390,000 acres of land worth, say, $390,000. The taxes upon this land would become a charge upon the State of an annual expense, not less than $7,000 or $8,000. Then there was the expense of locating these lands - the three Commissioners and the Trustees all receiving traveling expenses and $5 a day for the time employed. Then the management of land a land office of twenty years standing could not be got along with, for less than $3,000 a year. Then the lands were not to be sold for less than a dollar an acre - the purchaser to pay six per cent, on the purchase. Then if the purchasers do not pay promptly, these Commissioners are to declare forfeitures. A novelty in law. Did not the gentleman know that the matter of forfeitures would be regulated by the laws of Missouri, or of the State where the lands may be located? Then the bill provides for a College Report to be made annually to the Governor, which the Governor is to cause to be printed, at an expense of probable $3,000 or $4,000 more. Thus he showed up an annual expense involved in the passage of this bill of about $12,000, merely to set up this school and put it in operationmaking us by so much the poorer than we might have been had we never accepted this grant. Upon the question of location, manifestly the best way to get at that was by a commission as he had proposed.
Mr. KILGORE suggested that the power of of location be conferred upon the Trustees incorporated at the last session.
Mr. PETTIT said that would answer his mind about the matter.
Mr. BUSKIRK replied first to Mr. Pettit. The gentleman assumed that the scrip could not be assigned to the Trustees and by them laid upon the lands. He controverted this by reference to the donation Act of Congress, providing that no State shall locate this land with in the borders of another State, for the reason that one sovereignty should not own land within the borders of another sovereignty, but the Act provides that the State's agent may make this location for the State, provided that not more than one million of acres shall be located in any one State. He then read the Acting Governor's recommendation of such assignment, in one of his late special messages. The State of Rhode Island had already made the location of her Agricultural College land, by assignment of her scrip. He then referred to the gentleman's allegation that it was the purpose of the author of the bill (Mr. Morrill) to establish purely an Agricultural College.
Mr. PETTIT stated that it was the purpose Congress to make it distinctly ancl singly an Agricultural College.
Mr. BUSKIRK responded by reading the 4th section of the act. Mr. B. said he did not regard the bill as at all perfect in its details, and when the location shall be made, he would himself move that the bill be recommitted for general revision. But the gentlemen wanted to sell the land script. Mr. B. showed that by the report of the Trustees, this land could not be sold for more that fifty or sixty cents an acre. Now if the land can not be sold, what was the value of the script? Purely Agricultural Colleges were failures in Europe, as well as in this country - there had been failures in New York, Ohio, and Michigan, as he had before stated; and the reason for this had been well represented in the speeches of the gentleman from Floy'd, the gentleman from Dearborn, and the gentleman from Vermillion. Young men go to school for theory, and return to their farms for practical agriculture. With respect to the gentleman's amendment appointing a committee to make this location, he said, if the House was ready to yield themselves to the guardianship of this commission, it might just as well be written to-day as any day hereafter, that this college shall be at Indianapolis. That would be the result of a commission. For his part, he was not prepared to subordinate the judgment of the House in that way. He conconcluded with a defence of some friends of the location at Bloomington who had been seen in these lobbies and referred to by the gentleman from Tippecanoe (Mr. Miller;) and a tribute to the Indiana University at Bloomington page: 197[View Page 197] its people, soil, climate. &c. When he had concluded -
Mr. GREGORY, of Warren, demanded the previous question.
Mr. MILLER demanded a division of the question. He would have the first question on striking out "Bloomington."Mr. SIM asked and obtained leave to withdraw his amendment.
The SPEAKER (Mr. Henricks in the Chair) held that the previous question cuts off Mr. Pettit's amendment.
Mr. BUSKIRK stated that there was a minority report locating the College in Tippecanoe county.
The SPEAKER, The first question then was on adopting the report of the minority of the special Committee.
It was rejected - yeas 37, nays 47; and the question recurred on the adoption of the substitute for Mr. Buskirk's bill, No. 6, reported by the majority of the special Committee, and fixing the location at Bloomington.
Mr. GREGORY of Warren moved to reconsider the vote by which his demand for the previous question was seconded and the main question was ordered. He desired to give an opportunity for Mr. Pettit to offer his amendment.
On motion of Mr. BROWN, the motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The question again recurred on the adoption of the substitute - the yeas and nays thereon resulting - yeas 48, nays 43, as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Abbett, Bird, Boyd, Brown, Burnes, Burwell, Buskirk, Chambers, Coffroth, Crook, Dunham, Goodman, Gregg, Groves, Hargrove, Harrison, Hogate, Howard, Humphreys, Hunt, Lasselle, Lee, Lemon, Litson, Lopp, Newcomb, O'Brien, Osborn, Patterson, Ferigo, Pinney, Reese Rice, Richards, Richardson, Roach, Shoaff of Jay, Spencer ,Stenger, Stuckey, Sullivan ot Scott, Thacher, Veatch, Weikel, Welch, White, Woodruff and Wright - 48.
NAYS - Messrs. Atkinson, Bonner, Branham, Caldwell, Church, Cowgill, Cox, Croan, Davidson, Ferris, Foulke, Glazebrook, Gleason, Gregory of Montgomery, Gregory of Warren, Griffith, Hamrick, Henricks, Hershey, Higgins, Hoover, James, Kilgore, Lane, Lockhart, Major, Miller, Milroy, Montgomery, McVey, Prather, Rhoads, Riford, Sabin, Shoaff of Allen, Shuey, Sim, Stuart, Sullivan of P. & V., Upson, Woods, Zeigler and Mr. Speaker - 43.
So the substitute was adopted.
Mr. PETTIT then proposed his amendment by way of substitute for the first section of the bill.
On motion of Mr. KILGORE, the House (at 5:30 P. M.,) adjourned.
