GERMAN LANGUAGE IN THE COMMON SCHOOLS.
The SPEAKER announced the special order, namely, the consideration of Mr. Coffroth's German school amendment bill, [H. R. 62.] The substitute amendment, proposed to amend the one hundred and forty-seventh section of the common school law, so that where the parents or guardians of twenty-five scholars of the district demand it, the trustees shall provide for the teaching of the German language therein, free of costs, etc.; the question being on the adoption of the substitute amendment, reported by Mr. Coffroth from the Education Committee last Friday.
Mr. COFFROTH explained the effect of the proposed change in the law. It proposes German, not as the language of the school, but simply as an additional branch of tuition in the school. It might, in some localities, of course, occasion some additional expense.
Mr. RATLIFF, asked whether the teaching of German would not entail a large and additional expense upon the people of the State.
Mr. COFFROTH said he thought it might entail some additional expense, but not enough to warrant the defeat of so desirable an object.
Mr. RATLIFF said he understood that it was the sense of the committee reporting, that there should be no additional expense iucurred on account of teaching German in the schools.
Mr. OSBORN might be in faver of the bill, if it could secure sound German teachers and teaching. There should be provision made in the bill for the examination of teachers proposing to teach German. There arose, too, he thought, other objections that might be urged to the bill as it now stands, and hence he moved to recommit it to the Committee on Education with instructions to have some provision inserted for the examination of teachers.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Knox said the regular examiners for the Districts might carry on an examination with the aid of an interpreter and saw no good to come of a recommitment.
Mr. COFFROTH supposed that the provision that the Trustee shall employ an experienced teacher, would be sufficient for the present, since the bill was but an experiment.
Mr. PIERCE of Vigo, spoke with pride of the success attending the introduction of German into the schools of his county, and as to the qualifications of teachers, he said no people on earth were so apt in discovering the imperfections of teachers as the Germans and, hence he thought the difficulty of which the gentleman from Putnam [Mr. Osborn] spoke was magnified. The justice of the proposition of the gentleman from Huntington [Mr. Coffroth] was illustrated in his town, where there has long been a desire for a division of the school fund for the purpose of teaching German. He hoped the bill would pass.
Mr. McFADIN also supported the bill, enforcing his position by reference to the utility of German above the French or any foreign language spoken in this country. He was strongly in favor of having the German taught page: 295[View Page 295] in the schools. He referred to the custom of teaching French, which he thought by no means as desirable an acquisition as German whether you consider the merits of the languages themselves or their worth for actual use. He thought the French and the dead languages now taught in the schools in many places almost a useless acquisition.
Mr. BUSKIRK opposed the amendment, thinking that it would work injustice to the common school interest. The bill was to provide a teacher of German for every twenty-five scholars. The objection was the expense involved. German children were not, because of nationality, entitled to exclusive privileges. Why should the German language have advantage in the common school above Algebra, the higher sciences, which would benefit but a few, or the teaching of French or Latin, or the Swedish or any other language or branch of education not necessary to a common school education.
Mr. BARNETT was in favor of the bill, not because it secured an advantage to the German child alone, but because the American children were to reap advantages also, and great advantages. The value of the knowledge of German to clerks and to business men generally is so well known and so generally acknowledged that the bill sufficiently recommended itself to the good judgment of the House without any lengthy argument in its favor. He wished his boy to learn the German, and he believed that most of the native born citizens of his district wanted their children to learn it also.
Mr. BUSKIRK asked him whether the parent of twenty-five children in a district, wishing their children to learn French, would not have the same right to ask that it be taught in the public schools?
Mr. BARNETT said: I will answer that by saying, that if the necessities for a knowledge of French were as imperitive as those for a knowledge of the German, it would be right to have the language taught in the common schools. It is certainly demanded now, with so large a German population in the State and country, and he would gladly have it increased. Boys should be taught a knowledge of the German language, that they may deal knowingly and understandingly with those by whom they are surrounded.
Mr. RATLIFF spoke in opposition to the amendment proposed by the committee. He was satisfied that it would impose a large additional expense upon the people, and besides the principle of giving to the parents of twenty-five children the power over a majority of the residents of a district was bad enough of itself to defeat the amendment. He read from the one hundred and forty-seventh section of the common school law to show that it is now sufficient to secure a German teacher in any school where that language is demanded.
Mr. COFFROTH. That requires a majority of the school voters. The bill is to make a special provision for the wishes of the parents or guardians of twenty-five scholars.
Mr. RATLIFF then showed that the bill would work hardships in even sparcely settled German districts.
Mr. COFFROTH showed again that in such cases (where there are not twenty five scholars of German children, though they might be in the majority,) they might institute German teaching under existing provisions of law.
Mr. DUNN advocated the bill on the plea that it would increase the German emigration, and the better class of emigrants. He gave examples, statistical, historical, and suppositions. The bill would be a wise provision of the law, as economical as it was just. Among the regrets of a former session in which he was here as a member, he remembered no one that was keener than that of the failure of a similar bill for the teaching of German in our common schools. He had always regarded the argument small against bills looking to this object, that it should be our aim to denaturalize the Germans who come to our shores, to the extent of inducing them to abandon the use of the mother tongue, as narrow and un-philosophical. To be sure, it is desirable that they learn as soon as possible the spirit of our institutions and acquaint themselves with the customs of our people, and in a measure with our way of thinking; but the language through which their knowledge had been conveyed to them, and in which they had been used from their infancy to think, they could no more be expected to abandon, than we would look to see an Englishman love to admire more his Shakspeare and his Milton in a foreign tongue than in the tongue in which the authors thought, and in which he had been accustomed through life to read and study them. The German will never become so naturalized, as the term is applied in this connection, as to how to read their Goethe and Schiller in any other than the tongue of the Fatherland; nor is it to be expected that they will consent to have their children lose the beauties of those authors, as seen through the language in which they write, by permitting them to abandon the use of the language.
He next alluded to the great value of the language as an acquisition, whether we look to its use in the study of literature and the sciencies. or to its employment in the lower walks of life as a means of furthering the interests of trade and commerce at home. He thought it an acquisition that native born children should have, and believe its spread would page: 296[View Page 296] be beneficial. He therefore favored the amendment.
Mr. VATER also spoke in favor of the bill, as proposed to be amended. The extra expense he thought would be too small an item to stand in the way of the success of the bill, which he believed would secure advantages to American born children that would more than counterbalance the expenditure. He thought that a better way to promote the Anglicizing of the Germans, which seemed to be so much desired by many opposed to the bill, could not be adopted. The bringing together of the children of the two nationalities in the schools where both languages may be taught, and both be in constant use, where the children would play together and grow intimate, would operate more favorably, perhaps, than any other agency toward assimilating the German to our manners and customs, whereas the mental culture accruing to our children would he of incalculable benefit.
Mr. STEWART of Rush, said that if he was going to emigrate to Germany, he should first make himself acquainted with the language, with the history, and the customs of the people, and should expect in going to that country to conform, as nearly as possible to the manners and customs of the people there. So, he thought, it should be with the Germans coming to this country. They should not expect to bring with them their language and cnstoms, and expect to conform us to them. He preferred to have but one national tongue for the purposes of education, commerce and legislation, and he wanted that tongue to be the English.
Mr. PIERCE of Porter favored the bill. The value of a knowledge of German is apparent enough, and all would be glad of such an acquisition. The success that has attended the introduction of German into schools in certain business localities he thought highly recommended the scheme, and he hoped the amendment would be sustained. A provision of law to encourage German teaching in the common schools, was very much needed, and very generally desired, so far as his observation extended.
Mr. BARRITT concurred with Mr. Buskirk and Mr. Stewart in the desire to Americanize the immigration as rapidty as possible, and the most effectual way of doing that was to encourage their children to come into the common schools. Therefore he supported the bill.
Mr. DAVIDSON suggested objections to the bill on the ground that in addition to the objections already urged, it proposed to clothe the parents or guardians of twenty-five children in a district with a power that should only belong to the majority. As the law now stands, a majority of the inhabitats of a school district may employ a competent teacher, but if the amendment proposed passes, the parents or guardians of twenty-five children may defeat the choice of the majority in case the teacher chosen does not understand German well enough to teach it, to compel the employment of another teacher, the former of which would be unfair and unjust and the latter altogether too expensive.
He did not believe that the people of the State are so anxious to have German taught in the schools, as to be willing to have so small a majority in each district clothed with the power to dictate teachers at all times, or stop the schools. He did not believe, either, that the interest in German extended so far as to entail upon the people of the District the expense of engaging an extra teacher to teach German to twenty-five out of probably seventy-five pupils, or even to pay an extra salary for some one educated in both languages, to supplant a good and faithful teacher, who had proven himself competent to teach the English language alone.
As a simple question of justice as to the minority controlling the action of a majority, the amendment should not carry, and upon the matter of expense he did not believe the people would regard the advantages accruing equal to the additional expense.
Mr. BOBO favor the amendment as a measure of justice to the tax payers, He thought the objections to the bill on the ground that it tends to prevent the naturalizing or Americanizing of the German population fallacious. If the bill contemplated the enacting of laws in German or the supplanting of the English by the German in the schools there might be be some validity in the objections, but as it contemplates the teaching of both languages in the schools, he thought, in view of the desirability of the German for every day use in the common business of life, the step sought to be taken was a good one.
Mr. CAVE also supported the bill. He knew the value of the German language, being one of the few on the floor of the House who speak it, and he favored the amendment from actual knowledge of the good to be accomplished by the introduction of the language into the common schools. As to the additional expense, he thought that would be smaller than most would believe. In his section they found it not at all difficult to get good teachers who understood both languages and who teach for the same salary paid those who teach the English only. And there are so many throughout the State who could teach both languages equally well that the additional expense would turn out to be a very small item. There were districts in his county where the school population were wholly German, and though in some cases advantage page: 297[View Page 297] might be taken of the law; yet as he did not see how it could be made better, he should vote for the bill.
Mr. BRECKINRIDGE considered that the State has not the means to teach the languages in the common schools. The time might come when this could be done. He objected to discrimination in favor of the German--diverting funds designed to teach English to all the children of the State. Besides, he did not believe it right. He remenbered that in his own district there were several boys who wanted to prepare themselves for college, and wanted some provision made for the teaching of Latin. The directors, however, were compelled to refuse believing it not proper to divert the funds for common school purposes for the teaching of branches not necessary to the securing of an English education such as contemplated by the act regarding the common schools. For the same reason he could not vote to add to the educational expenses of the State by authorizing teaching of German in the schools for the benefit of the few.
Mr. WILE saw in the opposition of this bill the outcroppings of political Knownothingism, which, in a free country could never do more than to give out local indications of that selfish principle. He thought he could see from the debate that the old Know Nothing prejudices were not dead, but merely in a state of quiescence, necessitated by the interests of the dominant party. He went on to say that the Germans pay their taxes and perform all their duties to the State as citizens of the State, and that in justice they should have a fair share of the benefits arising from the common school system.
Mr. OSBORN suggested the difficulties in the workings of the bill as to the duties of the school examiners. Under the law which it is now proposed to modify, applicants for the position of teacher in the common schools must be examined, and must be passed by a pointed for that purpose. There is no provision for examining German applicants and as he denied that examinations can be conducted with the aid of an interpreter, as suggested by the gentleman from Knox, [Mr. Williams] he thought that before the enacting of a law like this there should be some provision made for testing the qualifications of those who may apply for situations as teachers of German.
Another very serious objection to the law had been made by the gentleman from Fulton [Mr. Davidson] and that is that the parents of twenty-five children, although a very small minority of the people of the school district, may control the choice of the teacher, or, failing in that, may break up the school entirely. He said again, that as to the right of making provision for the teaching of German in the schools because the Germans pay school tax, by the same argument the Catholics may demand that we send a Catholic teacher in certain districts into the school. And certainly the Irish, who in many cases contitute a large class of the community, may demand an Irish teacher, and so on. If we open the doors in this way to one nationality, we will soon have all the others knocking for additional grants. He looked upon German as an accomplishment to be given to children when given in the best possible way, and not one the State is at all bound to furnish teachers for teaching in the common schools. It is no part of an English education, such as is contemplated by the common school law, and in view of these objections, and the additional expense, which would be no small item, he would oppose the bill. However, if the language would be taught as proposed, without adding largely to the expense, he would not object to it.
Mr. WILSON said he did not expect so extended a discussion. He had discerned, however, that the subject is susceptible of debate, and should be well considered. He thought the objections urged to the amendment by the gentleman from Fulton [Mr. Davidson] were of sufficient importance to cause any one to pause before he gave his support to the measure. He believed the principle of permiting a minority to overrule the choice of the majority in the matter of selecting a teacher, too pernicious not to operate to the defecting of the amendment not to take into consideration at all, the other fact, that the triumph of a minority in a matter of this kind cannot fail to so impair the efficiency of the school as to render it almost valueless, and the time of a whole session virtually thrown away. The construction of this bill in his region would be to say that where there are those "twenty-five," they arc the majority, so making no practical change in the school law. The passage of such an act was not demanded by the people of his district. It might be desirable in some districts, as in the cities, etc. He reviewed the other objections also and showed up in different lights the effect on the common schools of the passage of the amendment.
Mr. HIGBEE objected to the bill, because it might encourage the teaching of a language in school districts where the language is not spoken in its purity; producing not the knowledge of a language, but a jargon--like the Pennsylvania Dutch.
Mr. JOHNSON of Parke, said that, under the presont apportionment, many of the districts of the State got barely enough money to enable them to have sessions longer than three months in the year, and frequently not that long, and he should oppose any measure that authorizes the teaching of another language, thus adding to the expense, and unavoidably page: 298[View Page 298] shortening the school sessions. He wanted it amended in this respect and that those desiring German shall pay the extra expense involved. He desired to vote for the bill; but would much prefer it with the amendments he indicated.
Mr. SHOAFF said that in supporting the amendment, he was voting not more for the benefit of the German population than for the American. He could see plainly that had he enjoyed the advantages of a knowledge of German, which this amendment would secure to the children in the common schools, he would have commanded a much higher salary than he has ever yet been able to command. He contended that every man who pays taxes has a right to have his children educated in the common schools in such branches as will fit them best for the business of life, and with a view to adding to the value of a common school education. The common schools were to prepare men for the common business--the ordinary walks of like. It was not that the school should be taught in German, but that in certain cases German may be taught as a branch of learning. He hoped the amendment would pass.
Mr. BUSKIRK moved to recommit the amendment and bill to the Committe on Educa-cation, with instructions to report a bill for the teaching of German in the common schools, in case it can be done without additional expense to the State.
Mr. COFFROTH admitted that there might be defects in the bill, but it was the best perhaps, that could now be presented for trial in the school system. The proposition to amend so as to provide against expense, was hostile--was to kill the bill; for in some localities it wouid be impossible to avoid additional expense. In reply to Mr. Britton, he could see no additional expense incurred where a teacher is competent in the German language. It may be so done now, under the wish of a majority of the district. He hoped the motion would fail, as the effect of its passage will be to kill the bill, and moved the previous question.
Mr. CORY said that he hoped the gentleman would withdraw the motion for the previous question.
Mr. COFFROTH said he would do so if the gentleman from Franklin [Mr. Cory] would renew it when he closed.
Mr. CORY said that he believed in full and free debate, and it was too much the habit of certain members to take up all the time in discussing a subject themselves, and then cut off further debate by moving the previous question, and he refused to renew the motion.
The House refused to second the demand for the previous question.
Mr. CORY proceeded to say that he thought the request by the gentleman from Huntington [Mr. Coffroth] came with ill grace from one who had spoken some six or eight times on the subject, and he only refused to renew for the purpose of establishing a precedent, and he should hereafter oppose the monopolizing of the time of the House by a few. He opposed the recommitment of the bill and amendment. He said that the impression seemed to have been obtained that the amendment was submitted in the interest of the German popolation only, when, in fact, it will operate more to the benefit of the American than the German children. We all see that we have need of a knowledge of the German language in whatever business in life we may engage. He was not as well posted, perhaps, as to the relative merits of the German and French, as the gentleman from Cass [Mr. McFadin] and could not advise upon that point, but he could say to the House that he was satisfied man that the German is a language that Americans feel the need of, and that they would, he thought, as a rule, be glad to have their children taught it. If it were needful for the young to study the dead languages, why not more needy for them to study a living language extensively spoken amoung us? As to the suggested provision against expenses, it was illiberal, to say the least, and, if indorsed by the House, it would not be indorsed by the people of the State. He hoped the motion to recommit it would not prevail.
Mr. STEPHENSON said that subject presented itself to him in the form of a question, "Is it practicable to teach German in the Common Schools?" He thought not. As has been already said, the length of the terms now in most of the districts, is not to exceed three months. He contended that with the average for county districts at the highest figure, three months in the year, the idea of teaching the German successfully to American children is preposterous. Men whose minds are trained to the study of languages; who have already the foundation for easily acquiring the language in a knowledge of other languages, could scarcely succeed by devoting but three months in the year to the study under circumstances so unfavorable as those must be under which a child undertakes the study in a public school, and hence it is folly to believe that any permanent good will result from such teaching to the American child. Besides, the dividing of the time of a teacher between two languages for this short space of time renders the work of these short sessions almost valuless. If anything might have been done in communicating knowledge in the regular common school course, by devoting the whole of the term to the English studies, this diversion of time would not only defeat that, but would abso- page: 299[View Page 299] lutely fail to give any American child any idea whatever of the German. It is well known by gentlemen who favor this bill that the money claim by a school district being insufficient to defray the school expenses of the district for a session of three months the deficit, if supplied, must come from the pockets of the people of that district as an additional self imposed tax. If the present allowances with the present salaries will admit of sessions of only three months, what will be the length of the session when there is superadded to the salaries now paid an additional sum to secure a teacher qualified to teach both languages?--Teachers with such qualifications are not numerous and usually command good salaries. The majority of the people, who do not want German taught, will hardly be willing to impose on themselves an additional tax of twenty-five children in the district. The effect, it is plain to see, will be to shorten the sessions. Yield this to the German language, and shortly we shall have the Swedes, then the French, and it may be other nationalities, asking like privileges. All history shows that one or the other language must predominate in a nation, and he hoped this effort to teach two languages, from which nothing can come but a hybrid tongue, owning no fixed principles or grammar, he hoped would not obtain the sanction of the House. The language for America is the English language and no other. If we can teach that successfully, so as that it may be used in its purity, the State shall have done for its people, natives and foreign, all that it should do.
Mr. RUDDELL said that he should vote for the amendment. If it is the Americanizing of the German population that we want, what better way, he would ask the gentlemen from Hamilton, [Mr. Stephenson,] is there, than to put these children into the common schools with ours, and teaching our children their language, that those who come to use from Germany hereafter may come among a people who are able to speak their language?
Mr. STEPHENSON replied: by educating the Germans in the English language, so that they may converse with us in our own language.
Mr. RUDDELL proceeded to discuss some of the other objections urged, and closed with an appeal to the House to do justice to that large and intelligent portion of our community, by giving them admittance to the common schools in the manner prescribed by the amendment.
Mr. COFFROTH demanded the yeas and nays on the motion to recommit.
Mr. WILLIAMS moved to lay Mr. Buskirk's motion to recommit with instructions on the table--demanding the yeas and nays thereon.
The motion was agreed to--yeas 47, nays 25,--and the question recurred on the adoption of the substitute amendment.
The substitute was adopted, and then the bill was read the second time, as amended.
Mr. VATER proposed to amend by inserting after the "demand," these words "Provided such demand is made before the teacher of such district is employed."
Mr. COFFROTH proposed that the words come in at the end of the section.
Mr. VATER accepted, and so the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. OSBORN proposed to amend further, by striking out "twenty-five" and inserting "a majority" in lieu.
Mr. COFFROTH stating that that would be to leave the law without amendment, moved to lay it on the table.
Mr. OSBORN demanded the yeas and nays, and the amendment was tabled--yeas 49, nays 24.
On motion of the Mr. COFFROTH, the bill was ordered to the engrossment.
On motion the House adjourned till to-morrow morning nine o'clock a. m.
