AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. Shuey obtained leave of absence till Tuesday on account of sickness.
Mr. McFADIN moved an order, ineffectually, that when the House adjourns to-day, it shall be till Monday 2 o'clock.
On the motion of Mr. MOORE, the House took up his bill [H. R. 272] to create the 22d District of Common Pleas out of the counties of Rush, Decatur and Ripley; and it was passed to the engrossment.
UNIVERSITY SQUARE.
The House returned to the consideration of the two reports from the Committee on Education with reference to "University square," &c., and the minority bill, No. 258, for the sale thereof by a commission consisting of the Auditor and Treasurer of State, the late State Agent and George A. Buskirk - the proceeds to be applied to the establishment of an agricultural department in the Indiana University - the question being on the adoption of Mr. Campbell's amendment.
Mr. HUGHES resumed his remarks, After what the State has done for the indemnity of the State University on account of the result of the land suit by the Vincennes University, it would come now with a bad grace from the State to allow the property which it holds in trust for that institution to pass unjustly to the city of Indianapolis. After an allusion to the State's munificence towards the city of Indianapolis, and particularly towards the Indianapolis Journal newspaper establishment, he returned to the question, which the Speaker decided to be on the bill, No. page: 249[View Page 249] 258, reported by the minority of the Committee on Education, and the amendment offered by Mr. Campbell. He proceeded: While the Common School Fund of the State has increased to be the largest of any Sate in the Union, the State University was still needing the fostering care of the people. He still believed, however, that Indiana would yet have a University equal to that of the State of Michigan. He then referred to the opposition to this bill, and the opposition to the location of the State Agricultural College at Bloomington, inaugurated here, especially outside of the House, as a blow that it was thought it would personally injure him. This was a mistake for his competitor [the Hon. S. H. Buskirk] was the special champion of the location of the Agricultural College there - he was not. He said, also, that in his striking at him, the blow fell equally upon his constituents - upon the Senator from that district, his friend from the Brown, [Mr. Taggart,] and also upon his late competitor and friend, [Mr. Buskirk,] who was here as a special agent in this matter, and he hoped that he would yet be sent home with flying colors. So far as the interests of education are concerned in the determination of this question, they were not represented before this Committee on Education. Whilst the interests of the property holders around that University Square, who had long been covetously regarding it, were so thoroughly represented by their attorneys before this Committee, that like some very good judges he knew of, a majority of the Committee decided in favor of the side represented, and they even adopted this majority report of eight pages prepared to their hands by those officious attorneys. This majority report was notoriously disingenuous; because they say it is expected sometime to locate a State University there; whereas the real object was to make it a public park. It was so stated at a public meeting here but a short time ago. But, why should not a great city buy its public park, instead of wresting it from the Indiana University - robbing the cause of public education to make a city pleasure ground! The language of the law was, that this square shall be for the use of the University. Does "use" mean site? Who will say that the word "use" requires that this piece of land shall be used as a site for a building? It was a subterfuge to bolster a bad cause. It was a principle in law that a dedication of property to a corporation before the corporation has being, vests in the corporation the moment it comes into existence. But Indianapolis never before set up a claim to this square. He expected himself to open an office here in a few days; he expected to come here and live amongst these gentlemen. But that would make no change in his views as to the bestowment of the State's munificence towards the State's institutions. He read an extract from a letter from the Hon. Daniel Read, President of the Missouri University, in regard to the Congressional Agricultural College Endowment, giving his opinion that it should be added the Indiana University Fund, and that would be hardly sufficient, and that the State University should be renovated, and conformed to the University model of the State of Michigan. It was unwise to give large sums to institutions for the deaf, dumb and blind, and give nothing to the State University. He would have the University made something to be proud of - the crowning glory of our common schools - instead of remaining a subject of scoffing and sneers in the General Assembly. When he had concluded -
Mr. WOLFE proposed to amend the amendment by inserting in the proper place these words: "Said bonds shall not be thrust into the market for at least two years."
Mr. HUGHES desired the gentleman to fix a limit of value under which the land shall not be sold.
Mr. WOLFE looked at this question not as these lawyers, but as a citizen of the State at large.
Mr. BELFORD moved that the bill and amendments be referred to the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. HOPKINS proposed these words: "University Square shall not be sold for less than $100,000."
Mr. CAMPBELL rose to reply to Mr. Hughes. That gentleman was first on this floor to appeal to local prejudices, attacking the city authorities in the matter of claims for improving the streets opposite the State's grounds. Allusions to his political aspirations were entirely gratuitous. He did not regard this as a political question. He regarded the word "use," in the phrase, "for the use of the University," to mean "site." As to the legal question of title, he referred that to the judicial tribunals.
Mr. McFADIN desired to regard only the question of title. He regarded the General Assembly as the proper tribunal to settle this question. No doubt this question would have come up here just as it now comes, if the gentleman from Monroe had not been sent up here as a Representative. There are the 16th sections donated by Congress for the use of Common Schools - does it follow that these grounds must be all converted into sites for school houses? The citizens of Logansport lost their claim to Spencer Square, because they left it without occupaiton and improvement; and so the courts would decide the claim of page: 250[View Page 250] Indianapolis to this University Square. He was in favor of the bill reported by the minority of the committee. He would not have the University fund divided out. He would make Indiana University the pride the State.
Mr. COREY referred to the charge made by Mr. McLean, that the majority report misstated facts. He defended the report. It was sustained by the record. But then that gentleman said himself, that in 1827 this square was designated as "University Square." He referred to the play upon words in the acts of the Legislature, There was a slight difference between the wording with regard to the square No. 22 and square No. 25. With reference to the latter, the word "use" is not employed. The square upon which this building stands was designated as "State House Square;" so "Market Square," "Court House Square," &c. If the State could take these grounds and sell them and apply the proceeds to other purposes, how can we now take hold of University Square, for such a purpose? The majority report, not that this square No. 25 belongs to Indianapolis or Bloomington, but to the State, which holds the right to occupy it by a university. He deprecated all attempts to lug these questions into party politics. He stated that attorneys were before the committee, but Bloomington was first represented by a paper prepared by Ex-Governor Dunning. But the committee stood for the rights of the State as against the claims of Indianapolis or the Indiana University. Either the very fact that the bill is here, went to show that gentlemen are not entirely sincere in the claim to this property which they set up as undoubted by the State University: About as sincere, probably, as was the State University when, not very long ago, she withdrew her action for possession of - this "University Square." And the fact that - the State has allowed Indiana University to languish was proof to his mind, that the State itself is not satisfied as to the University's title. We will build up our State University, but not in defiance of law. If this square was given for a certain interest, we will not give it an unjust diversion. The Bloomington Institution was merely a college - good as far as it goes - a university only in name. But he looked forward to the time when the State of Indiana would build up on University Square a university in fact as well as in name. He recited the language of the act of 1852 relied on by the minority for title to this square, It speaks of lands located in the counties of Monroe and Gibson, but nothing about lands in Marion county. That was proof to his mind that the act does not contemplate University Square, And as for the donations there mentioned, he supposed that it contemplated such only as might be made in the then future. There was an undue feeling caused here against the city of Indianapolis; and although he lived nearly as far from this city as any gentleman in this House, yet he would do nothing to detract from the interests and prosperity of our great central city.
Mr. NEWCOMB regarded this bill as a scheme to build up a rival institution to the State Agricultural College. The most of the discussion in favor of this bill has been but captious talk against the city of Indianapolis. What had this city done that no question of appropriation - even to pay for labor on the streets opposite the State's grounds - can come up, but the people here must be abused like a gang of pickpockets. He glanced at the taxes paid by the people of Indianapolis; for State purposes $75,000, for school purposes $61,000: for the State debt sinking fund $71,000, &c.-the city of Indianapolis paid between the sixteenth and the seventeenth part of the entire State revenue. He gave a further statement of figures showing the extent of business here. He passed the share of abuse received by the Indianapolis Journal with the remark that he was editor of that paper when he was at home, but not while he served in the Legislature. Talking about a lobby influence on this question from Indianapolis, he alleged as a fact that they were the very professors of lobbying in Monroe county, and could teach any other portion of the State - as the Speaker of this - House knew very well. He could tell the gentleman that this square was not desirable for a park. It was not large euough. When Indianapolis wanted a park, she would be able to command the means get it. He supposed this square would remain as it is - a walk for nurses and children - till it should be occupied for the purpose to which it was originally devoted. He spoke of the sum of the Congressional endowment of the Indiana University-72 sections of lands, $66,000 in bonds, ate another grant of 15,000 acres. He then quoted from the act of 1827 to show that the State can not sell this Square No. 25-taking the view given by Mr. Corey. The act vacates the alleys on this square of four acres, showing thus that it was intended for a University - not for the use of the University. He said that the Legislature made a mistake when it gave the Congressional township grant in Gibson county to the Indiana University, and the Supreme Court took it away and gave it to the Vincennes institution, involving a State debt ef $66,00. Gentlemen should be careful, therefore, how they make a greater mistake in regard to page: 251[View Page 251] property of greater value than the Gibson township.
Without concluding, Mr. N. gave way for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Martin obtained leave of absence till Monday.
On motion of Mr. HUGHES, Mr. Newland was added to the Committee on Railroads.
The House then adjourned.
