THE BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
TENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TUESDAY, February 16, 1869.The House met at half past nine o'clock a. m.
The SPEAKER directed the Clerk to read the journal of yesterday. But--
On motion of Mr. HAMILTON, it was dispensed with.
PETITIONS ETC.
Described as follows were presented and referred to appropriate committees:
Messrs. Underwood, Welborn, Hamilton and Admire presented memorials of Homoepathists representing that there are one hundred and twenty Homoepathic physicians in the State, and patrons to the number of many thousands, who pay their proper proportion of the taxes, and that any bill looking to the erection of a Medical College should in justice, provide for a Department of Homoepathy.
Messrs. Stewart of Rush, Admire, Furnas, Vater, McEadin and Millikan--for retrenchments in the public expenditures.
Mr. MONROE, on the gas question; and on the matter of show licenses; and a claim.
Messrs. Barritt, Stephenson and Sunman, severally presented petitions for relief against Railroad monopolies.
Messrs. Chittenden, Higbee, Bowen and the Speaker, on Temperance.
Mr. FAIRCHILD, on gravel road law.
Messrs. Hall and Barnett, for colored schools.
Mr. SHOEMAKER, for German in the schools.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. BOBO from the Committee on the Judiciary, returned Mr. Cave's abolition of Common Pleas Court bill, [H. R. 230] recommending its indefinite postponement.
It was concurred in.
Mr. BOBO, from the same Committee, returned his Common Pleas bill, [H. R. 3] with amendments.
Mr. OVERMYER, from the Committee on the Organizations of Courts, returned Mr. Welborn's Court bill, [H. R. 90] with amendments.
On motion of Mr. MONROE, Mr. Pierce of Vigo, was added to the Special Committee on Investigation of the Proceedings of the Terre Haute and Richmond Railroad Company.
VOID CONTRACTS.
On motion of Mr. OSBORN, the House took up his bill, [H. R. 103] declaring certain contracts to pay Attorney's fees void, with the majority and minority committee reports thereon--the question being on concurrence in the minority report, submitted last Friday, recommending the passage of the bill.
Mr. WELBORN supported the report of the majority: that the bill be indefinitely postponed. The Courts have decided that contracts to pay collection fees are legal and proper; and the bill was to interfere with contratcs, declaring that to be illegal which the courts have declared legal. Money lenders would charge higher rates of interest, if this usage were repressed; for a man who refuses to pay collection fees is supposed to expect to be sued. There was no hardship in the existing law, because men would always look out for their own interests. He reviewed the points made by Mr. Osborn in a former discussion. He said the argument of the gentleman proceeded upon the hypothesis that the poor man page: 373[View Page 373] is unable to take care of himself in matters of trade and that the Legislature is here to instruct and protect him. He thought contracts of the kind referred to, to pay attorney's fees in case a note is collected by suit, one that should depend solely upon the choice and judgment of the trader, and should not be meddled with by the Legislature. As to the legality of such contracts, he claimed that the Supreme Courts of this State and of Ohio, have time and time again pronounced them valid. He next reviewed the argument of Mr. Stewart of Rush, that the legalizing of each contracts leads to greater litigation, which he thought was compensated for in the fact that it tends to prompter payments.
Mr. WILSON was opposed to legislation restricting rights of parties to make contracts. The object of all legal remedies was compensation. The Legislature should not remove this element of damages.
Mr. NEFF was in favor of the passage of the bill as recommended by a majority of the Judiciary committee. The late legislation on the matter of interest and usury was in the wrong direction, it seemed to his mind. He did not complain of the court decisions, nor of the claim of the free right to contract, etc., but he recited instances of hardships towards the poor under the law authorizing contracts to pay attorney's fees. It need not to be plead that the passage of this bill would increase the demade for high rates of interest; for every Legislature lately have gone on increasing the rate of interest.
Mr. BOBO replied to the objection to the bill by Mr. Welborn and Mr. Wilson. These gentlemen had now for the first time come forward with a plea for the poor debtor. In reply to Mr. Welborn, he alleged that indebtedness was generally involuntary. Hence the reasonableness of usury law, to prevent oppressive exorbitance. Men generally do not give notes expecting to be sued on them, but to pay them at maturity. Money lenders generally get even more interest than the law allows. In these matters it was unwise to legislate exclusively for the money lenders, the creditor party. He submitted various illustrations. He desired the passage of the bill, and the repeal of the existing laws.
Mr. VATER demanded the previous question, and there was a second.
Mr. GORDON, having reported the bill, desired to be heard under the general parliamentary rule.
Mr. BUSKIRK made the point that debate is precluded by the force of the previous question, and read the rule.
Mr. COFFROTH stated the general parliamentary rule, and held that it is operative here--citing the usage of former sessions, the rules and usage in the Congress of the United States, etc.
The SPEAKER sustained the point made by Mr. Buskirk, and then--
The hour of half past ten o'clock having fully come--the hour for the order of yesterday, to attend the funeral of the late Brigadier Gen. Geo. D. Wagner--
The House then took a recess till two o'clock p. m.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The SPEAKER resumed the Chair at two o'clock p. m., and announced the consideration of the unfinished business of this morning, viz., the consideration of the majority and minority reports from the Judiciary Committee, on Mr. Osborn's void contracts bill, [H. R. 103] the formor recommending indefinite postponement, and the latter, the passage of the bill--the previous question having been seconded and the main question ordered by the House--the first question was on concurrence in the minority report.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 29, as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Addison, Admire, Barritt, Bates, Beeler, Bobo, Britton, Carnahan, Cave, Chittenden, Coffroth, Cotton, Cox, Davidson, Davis, Field of Lake, Field of Lagrange, Fuller, Gilham, Green, Hall, Hamilton, Hyatt, Jump, Kercheval, Lawler, Lamborn, Logan, McBride, McFadin, Millekan, Miller, Miles. Mock, Montgomery, Neff, Osborn, Overmyer, Ratliff, Sabin, Shoaff, Skidmore, Smith, Stephenson, Stewart of Rush, Sunman, Tabor, Underwood, Vardeman, Wile, Wildman, Williams of St. Joseph and Wiliams of Union--53.
NAYS--Messrs. Baker, Barnett, Beatty, Breckinridge, Buskirk, Calvert, Chapman, Dittemore, Dunn, Fairchild, Gordon, Higbee, Higgins, Hutchings, Johnson of Montgomery, Johnson of Parke, Mason, Mitchell, Monroe, Odell, Ruddell, Sleeth, Stewart of Ohio, Vater, Williams of Hamilton, Wilson, Zenor, Zollars and Mr. Speaker--29.
So the report of the minority of the Committee was concurred in.
It was ordered to be engrossed.
Mr. GORDON then moved that the bill be re-committed with instructions to amend, so that the amount of the fees may be expressed in the contract; but--
A question of order was raised by Mr. BUSKIRK and Mr. OSBORN overruled the motion.
NORMAL SCHOOL APPROPRIATION.
On motion of Mr. HAMILTON, Mr. Pierce of Vigo's Normal School (one hundred thousand dollar) appropriation bill, [H. R. 130] was taken up--it being the special order for this hour.
The bill was read the second time.
Mr. OSBORN, moved to recommit to the Committee on Education; alleging as his reason for the motion, other bills of a like character will be introduced, one from the Senate, and he desired to have all such bills passed page: 374[View Page 374] upon by that committee before the House takes action.
Mr. PIERCE of Vigo, said that as the bill contemplates simply an appropriation of so much money, and as every one in the House is fully aware of the object, and posted as to its merits, he thought it should be debated and passed upon at once. He was willing to abide by the decision of the House, but would much prefer to hear some expression on the merits of the bill. He would prefer postponement to a recommitment. It was but a single proposition. When it should come up for discussion he desired to be heard on its merits.
Mr. RATLIFF said the bill referred to is the only bill of the character that came before the Committee, and should it be recommitted he had no doubt, from the fact that the present bill remained in the hands of the committee between two and three weeks, that it would be returned within a day or two with the same recommendation.
Mr. McFADIN, thinking its friends were as strong now as they would be, preferred its consideration at once.
On motion of Mr. DITTEMORE, the motion to recommit was laid on the table.
Mr. BOBO made an ineffectual motion to refer the bill to the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. VATER moved for the engrossment of the bill.
Mr. JOHNSON of Parke, proposed to amend by striking out "one hundred thousand dollars" and inserting "fifty thousand dollars."
Mr. PIERCE of Porter, was hardly prepared for the vote, not having determined whether it might not be better to surrender the building to the city of Terre Haute.
Mr. VATER, also opposed it. He said that the propriety of the appropriation recommended itself so strongly to every one, and its necessity is so manifest, that he thought the House would rather vote the appropriation at once, than to vote by dribs the amount necessary to complete the work. He believed this course to be the only true course, consistent with economy. If it were proposed to go ahead with the school, one hundred thousand dollars were absolutely necessary.
Mr. JOHNSON of Parke, was friendly to the completion of the building; but he wanted the men of Terre Haute to come up here with itemized estimates. He said that the amount asked for is more than is really needed to complete the work, and he was not in favor of handling so loosely the hard earnings of the people, as to vote out of the Treasury, thousands of dollars that is not needed for the purpose for which it is voted.
Mr. DITTEMORE asked that Mr. Johnson give his authority for the statement.
[The demand was accompanied by cries of "name him!" "name him!"]
Mr. JOHNSON then stated that Mr. Olcott, one of the Trustees of the Normal School, had told him that one hundred thousand dollars is not needed to complete the building, but that this amount is asked for on the principle that it is always best to ask for enough. He knew that it was the original understanding that the fifty thousand dollars appropriated two years ago, would be sufficient.
Mr. RATLIFF took the floor, and proceeded to show from the various laws on the subject of the Normal School, that the State has committed itself to the enterprise in such a manner that it can not in justice, withdraw until the work upon which it set out has been accomplished. He showed that the project of establishing a Normal School for to which it is proposed to devote this building was approved of by the Legislature of 1865; that, pursuant to that action, the people of Terre Haute proposed to donate in aid of the enterprise the sum of fifty thousand dollars, and a lot upon which to build to cost twenty-five thousand dollars more, upon condition that the building should be erected at that place. This proposition was accepted by the Legislature of 1867, and the plans or drawings of three different styles of edifices were presented from which to select for the State Normal School building. The Legislature adopted without further promise from the citizens of Terre Haute, the design of a building, the estimated cost of which, accompanying the drawing of the same, was something over one hundred and eighty-two thousand dollars.
The trustees of the Normal school then asked an appropriation of one hundred thousand dollars, with which to push forward the work, but the Legislature appropriated only fifty thousand. It was never pretended that fifty thousand dollars would be sufficient. It was agreed by the General Assembly to erect and maintain a State Normal School, whenever there should be made a donation of fifty thousand dollars. That donation was made by the city of Terre Haute. Before work was commenced on the building, the city of Terre Haute was required to transfer the lot for which they were to pay and did pay, twenty-five thousand dollars, to the State, and this was done. The city of Terre Haute thus performed all she had promised to do, and the fifty thousand dollars was drawn from the Treasury and expended under the direction of State's own agents. He argued from these facts, that the State is fully committed to the project, and now, after adopting a plan which it was known at the time would cost one hundred and eighty-two thousand dollars and expending upon a building of that character but fifty thousand dollars, he thought the State page: 375[View Page 375] bound, by every principle of right and justice, to complete that building, that the fifty thousand dollars already expended thereon by the citizens of Terre Haute, may not be entirely lost to them. He claimed that it is due from every consideration of good faith toward the people of Terre Haute that this appropriation be made. He had only to say upon the subject of expense, that the tax necessary to raise this sum amounted to sixteen and two-third cents on every thousand dollars, and he believed that in the years to come, and before the present Legislature has passed off the stage of life, the benefits resulting from the expenditure will have been felt in the public schools throughout the State, which will, by that time, be taught by teachers far better fitted for the work, by having enjoyed a practical training in the Normal School.
Mr. STEWART of Rush, said that he disliked to even seem to stand in the way of the educational interests of the State, and though his opposition to the bill might, in the eyes of some, place him in that position, he could not give it his support. He claimed that the understanding was, when the Legislature determined upon the erection of the building at Terre Haute, that the amount appropriated in aid thereof--fifty thousand dollars--was all that was to be asked of the State, and that any additional sums required were to come from the people of Terre Haute. This, he said, is but one of the many appropriations that will be asked from time to time from the people of the State, if the work is pushed forward upon the unnecessarily expensive plan adopted; and as the Stat has already done its full share, discharged its duty in aid of the enterprise,he hoped no more money would be devoted to its furtherence. He said that it is not brick and mortar and stately edifices that give character to institutions of learning, and send forth educated men fitted for the work of extending the reign of knowledge. In the old world, where we find the grandest institutions of learning, we do not find that their grandeur consists in lofty edifices, in the building of which almost fabulous sums have been expended. Not two hundred thousand dollars have been expended in the erection of buildings, but we find congregated about plain, substantial, comfortable buildings the talent and learning of the country, teachers, whose lives have been spent in study, and who have devoted themselves to the work of communicating knowledge to other minds, and of fitting students for every walk of life. What the people of Indiana want, he thought, is plain, confortable structures, such as Miami University in Ohio, and Jefferson College at Cannonsburgh, Pennsylvania, where boys may be comfortably housed while their minds are being cultivated, that they may come out from their schools of learning to do their part in the plain, rough school houses throughout the State, in communicating knowledge to others.
Mr. PIERCE of Vigo, thought when the State had committed itself to an institution for the benefit of the people of the State--to a State institution, built under the supervision of the State's own agents, for the purpose of educating free of charge, the young men and young women of the State in the art of teaching, that may go out, and in their turn scatter the blessings of education among the children of the State, it could not honorably abandon that work, after enlisting in its aid, the money of the people of a section who contributed only upon the assurance made by the Legislature, that the work would be carried to completion. He hardly thought or expected, when the State had made a solemn contract, to see those who had been instruments in making that contract, ready here to leave the other contracting party "to hold the bag."
He recited the history of the institution of the State Normal School, the deliberate estimates and legislation thereon, to express his astonishment at the pretense that this was an appropriation to be made for the benefit of Terre Haute, in any exclusive sense. The donation of the site and fifty thousand dollars in money secured the obligation of the State to erect and maintain this Institution. The estimates of the cost of the plan of the building as adopted by the Legislature, were submitted and understood as amounting to one hundred and eighty-two thousand six hundred dollars in round numbers. He then recited the caution of the State Legislature in requiring the opinion of the Attorney General of the State as to the title of the site to be filed in the office of the State Auditor; and in requiring the city of Terre Haute to inclose the site and maintain the inclosure forever.
He also alluded to the fact that after the appropriation made by the State, viz: fifty thousand dollars, had been expended, and the work had ceased for want of further funds, the people of Terre Haute, relying upon the good faith of the State as pledged when the plan was adopted and the work ordered begun, borrowed and expended, in addition to the fifty-thousand dollars they had donated to the enterprise, the sum of thirty thousand dollars to carry forward the work to the roofing of the building, in order to protect it from the rains and storms of winter. He deemed it not just that the Legislature, forgetting the nature of its connection with the enterprise, should now refuse to appropriate money necessary to its completion, and the reimbursing of a people who have already acted liberally in the matter, and in good faith. The city of Terre Haute had carried out its part of the agreement to the letter--paid their fifty thousand page: 376[View Page 376] dollars, their twenty-five thousand dollars in land, filed their agreement, and erected and maintained the enclosure. He thereupon insisted that the State carry out her part of the contract, and that it is too late to cry out against the location.
Mr. STEWART took his position, that the State has fulfilled her part of the contract--under the statements of Terre Haute Representatives in the last House of Representatives--Messrs. McLean and Crain.
Mr. PIERCE had no other reply to that than to say that those statements could not absolve the State, because they were not authorized by the Board of Trustees of the State Normal School. He then spoke at length of the prospective benefits and advantages of this institution to the people of the State at large to the six hundred thousand school children, and the ten thousand teachers of the common schools of the State. No other branch of the beneficence of the State could compare but as a shadow to her educational interests. This was indicated plainly by the magnitude of the State School Fund--eight million dollars consecrated to the interests of education. As to to the location, it could be reach sooner and easier than the Indiana University at Bloomington, from every quarter of the State, except the section contiguous to the Louisville, New Albany and Chicago railroad.
He thought the project not of doubtful propriety but good and grand enough to enlist in its support, all who property appreciate the importance of the education of the youth of the State, as a means of adding to the happiness of the people thereof, to the greatness of the State and to its renown. Whatever credit may have justly accrued to the State from the beneficience displayed in the establishing and managing of her benevolent institutions, that to-day are a great part of her glory and renown, it is as nothing, when compared to that greater glory that will spring from a well organized and well sustained system of education, to the perfecting of which this Normal School will add so greatly, that in years to come, those who oppose the bill now before the House, will look back to their action of today with very great regret.
Mr. OSBORN had hoped that this consideration of the bill might have been passed over, to admit of maturer reflections. Duty demands that something be said in defence of those who cannot support the bill, regarding the contracts made between the State and the people of Terre Haute, as not fulfilled on the part of the State, as far as any promises thus far made are concerned; and although he was unprepared and too unwell to answer the points made in favor of the bill as he ought, he could not refrain from stating his objections. He then read the laws on the subject, and said that he could not find therein, any promise made or implied, that the State is to assist the erection of a Normal school building further than to the extent of the appropriation made of fifty thousand dollars.
Mr. RATLIFF asked that if the plan of building, adopted by the State was to cost more than the appropriation made when the plan was adopted, whether the State is not in duty bound to furnish the amount, over and above the appropriations by the city of Terre Haute and the Legislature?
Mr. OSBORN denied that the obligation existed--reading from the act of 1867. The appropriation of fifty thousand dollars was but for the erection of the building, and clearly showing that the State intended for the future to be liable only for one half of the repairs. It was plain that the State intended to appropriate but the fifty thousand dollars; and he said here to the friends of this application, as the State said through the last General Assembly: We give you the fifty thousand; obtain whatever more may be necessary by your donations. Nothing in the act implied an obligation to make further appropriations. As to the propriety of the bill, he did not oppose it as an enemy, but as a friend of schools and school culture. He confessed that he could not expect that the marvelous benefits would result from Normal Schools, which were alledged by the friends of the bill. He looked chiefly to the old system, to the common schools and the University in which our fathers were educated for these resulting benefits. These had done their work well under all the difficulties and adversities of the past. He regarded the Normal School as not in the exclusive interest of the common schools of the State. He knew of no better places for preparing and sending out competent teachers, than the existing colleges of the State. He spoke and should vote against this bill, under a sense of solemn duty to the State--in view of the State indebtedness, and the demands for retrenchment to maintain our financial credit.
Mr. PIERCE of Vigo, remarked that the people of Terre Haute had give seventy-five thousand dollars in the faith that the Senate would complete the building.
Mr. OSBORN replied that the State had given fifty thousand dollars on the promise as far as he could learn, that Terre Haute would complete the building.
Mr. ZOLLARS opposed the bill for two reasons: On account of its expensiveness, and because it would cost his county three thousand dollars; and secondly, because the whole thing of the Normal School erection was wrong. He regarded the whole thing from the inception as a mistake--the taxing of the people of the State for the erection of a build page: 377[View Page 377] ing which is worth to-day, incomplete, just as much as the building completed would ever be worth absolutely nothing at all. He then argued the question of State's obligation--coming to the conclusion from the terms of the statutes of 1865 and 1867, that the State has fulfilled the obligation by the appropriation of the fifty thousand dollars. The city of Terre Haute, or the trustees, by accepting the fifty thousand dollars, undertook to carry out and complete the scheme. His plan was, to pay up the impending debt, unjustly or unwisely incurred, of thirty-five thousand dollars and then sell out the building, and indemnify the investment in it by the city of Terre Haute. As to the State institutions of learning, he preferred to foster but one, and asserted that whenever these institutions were scattered,they were failures. The State of Ohio had divided their Congressional Agricultural School Fund, and virtually lost it. Michigan had acted more wisely; and he would follow her example and support but one leading State institution of learning, by which beneficent results could be most reasonably expected. If we are to have a Normal School at all, let us have it in connection with the Indiana University, for the efficiency and utility of that institution and the glory of the State.
Mr. VATER was too unwell to address the House at as great length on the subject as he had hoped to do. He stated his reasons for reporting in favor of the bill, and for supporting it by his vote, as long as voting will do any good. He also recited the history of the State Normal School, and considered the State's obligations incurred in the most deliberate manner. If it were admitted that the State did not expect to make any further appropriations, it would be just as evident that nothing further for the erection of this building was ever expected from the people of Terre Haute. The agents of the State of Indiana--not the people of Terre Haute, had carried the building to the present point in its erection, and it would be downright injustice to the people of Terre Haute, at this stage in the progress of the work, to render their investment valueless to them, and the project, commended by the experience of educationalists in Europe and America, a total failure. He was in favor of carrying it to its completion. True, it was a large appropriation; but it was a little more than the annual cost of the judiciary of the State; and the advantages to flow from it were far greater. The Normal School to the teacher was like the Medical to the physician. Teaching was a profession--an art to be taught and acquired; and some of the very best scholars were utter failures in the school room. And if this Normal School were to prove a failure, it would be the first case of the failure of such an institution, standing on its own merits and managed as a distinct public interest. He spoke at length, replying to objections and fortifying his own positions, that this is a just measure of State economy, etc. He said this building was for a Normal School--not for a College--not to be connected with any other institution. Its construction would not admit of additions, without destroying some of its essential parts. He closed with some references to the extensive public utility of the institution.
Mr. BARRITT spoke as a friend of schools. He would favor the common schools, and increase the length of their terms. He referred to the original doubtfulness of the policy of the creation of this institution by the State, and compromise and combination of the friends of the Normal School and the friends of the Indiana University appropriation, which carried the act of 1867 appropriating fifty thousand dollars. He deprecated such combinations, as well as the general state utility of Normal Schools. They might be advantageous to their immediate locality, but not to the State at large. He gave reasons for these conclusions. If Normal Schools were not failures, it was because they were supported out of the public treasury.
When he had concluded--
The House adjourned till to-morrow at half-past nine o'clock, a. m.
