THE BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
TENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
TUESDAY, February 23, 1869.The Senate met at ten o'clock, a. m., pursuant to adjournment--the Liuetenant Governor in the Chair.
The Secretary's journal of yesterday's proceedings was read.
PETITIONS ETC.
Described as follows were presented and referred to appropriate committees:
Mr. RDYNOLDS presented a petition from Charles E. Drapier, and other citizens of St. Joseph county, setting forth that there are, at this time, more than one hundred and twenty Homoepathic physicians in this State, that their patrons number not less than two hundred thousand of the people of the State, but their rights in the medical school proposed to be established in connection with the State University can be secured by them in no other way than by incorporating in said school a sparate department for instruction in the Homoepathic Materia Medica, and Homoepathic Theory and Practice, for which these memorialists fervently pray, etc.
Mr. FISHER presented a petition of over one hundred names, all in one hand writing, on the same subject.
Mr. MORGAN presented the proceedings of a meeting of citizens of Evansville, memorializing the Legislature concerning the pay of county officials.
Mr. KINLEY presented nine petitions from Wayne county on the subject of temperance.
Mr. CAVEN presented the certified copy of the offer of one hundred thousand dollars by the Commissioners of Marion county, for the location of the Agricultural College within three miles of the city, and the donation for the same purpose of twenty-seven acres by the Fletcher heirs.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
By Mr. DENBO, from the Committee on Claims, favoring the allowance of a claim of the Columbus and Indiana Central Railway for sixteen dollars, thirteen cents.
By Mr. ARMSTRONG, from the Committee on Manufacturers, to whom was referred the memorial of employes in the cotton mill at Camden, and the remonstrance of C. H. Mason concerning a change in the law in relation to the employment of persons under sixteen years of age more than ten hours per day, recommending a modification of the present law, so as to permit the employment of hands eleven hours per day, but providing for those under sixteen years of age attending school three months in the year. They report Senate bill No. 277, regulating the employment of persons under sixteen years of age, and providing for their education.
Messrs. HENDERSON and LEE dissent from this report, and favor the present law.
By Mr. BRADLEY, from the Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the Claim of Martin Igoe, returning it, with a recommendation that it lie on the table.
By Mr. RICE, from the Committee on the Judiciary, returning the bill [S. 40] to repeal sections forty-four and eighty-four, and amending sections eighty-one and one hundred and thirty three of the criminal practice act, recommending its passage.
By Mr. HUGHES, from the Committee on Expenditures, returning the bill, [S. 97] making an appropriation of four hundred and thirteen thousand five hundred and ninety-nine page: 462[View Page 462] dollars forty-eight cents to pay the Morgan Raid claims, reporting them correct, but without any recommendation, the Committee expressing some doubt as to the liability of the State to pay a portion at least of the claims.
On motion by Mr. BELLAMY the Senate ordered the printing of two hundred copies of the report and bill.
By Mr. JOHNSTON of Montgomery, from the Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill of the Toledo, Logansport and Burlington Railway Company for twelve dollars sixty-one cents, recommending its allowance.
By Mr. BELLAMY, from the Committee on Education, returning the Notre Dame Du Lac University bill, [S. 241] with an amendment providing that not more than three hundred and twenty acres, with the improvements thereon, shall be exempt from taxation, etc.
By Mr. JAQUESS, from the Committee on Claims, returning a claim for ten dollars, for hack hire, by the Committee on the Governor's Residence, recommending that it be allowed.
By Mr. HENDERSON, from the Committee on the Organization of Courts, returning the bill, [S. 206] recommending that it lie on the table, as its provisions are incorporated in the bill H. R. 203.
Mr. GREEN, from the same committee, returning the bill, [H. R. 203] to fix the times for holding courts in the Sixth Judicial Circuit, recommending its passage.
By Mr. ROBINSON of Madison, from the Committee on the Judiciary, [S. 258] to allow parties to a partnership to bring suite in the firm name in certain cases, recommending its passage.
By Mr. CAVEN, from the same committee, returning the bill, [S. 262] providing for the verrification of certain facts concerning bills of exchange and promissory notes, recommending that it lie on the table.
By Mr. STEIN, from the Committee on the Organization of Courts, reporting a resolution ordering the return of the bill, [H. R. 248] to the House, it having been improperly enrolled.
By Mr. SCOTT, from the same committee, returning the bill, [S. 55] providing a Criminal Circuit Court for Vigo county, with the amendments ordered by the Senate incorporated.
The amendments were agreed to and the bill passed by ayes 28, nays 8.
By Mr. ROBINSON of Madison, from the Committee on the Judiciary, returning the bill [S. 254] declatory of the true meaning of section twenty-seven, of the act regulating descents, recommending its passage.
By Mr. CAVEN, from the same committee, returning the bill, [S. 263] to authorize notaries and other officers to administer oaths for pensioners free of charge, and providing penalty for violation, recommending that it lie on the table.
By Mr. SCOTT, from the same committee, returning the bill, [H. R. 38] declaring certain contracts with common carriers void, recommending its passage.
By Mr. CAVEN, from the same committee, returning the bill, [S. 266] to amend section sixty-eight of the civil practice act, recommending that it lie on the table.
By Mr. ROBINSON of Madison, from the on the Organization of Courts, returning the bill, [S. 186] to establish a Court of Common Pleas in each county of this State, recommending that it lie on the table.
By Mr. STEIN, from the Committee on the Judiciary, returning the bill, [S. 215] to authorize counties to aid in the construction of railroads, and providing for holding elections to ascertain the wishes of voters thereon, with an amendment, recommending its passage.
By Mr. HANNA, from the same committee, returning the bill, [S. 261] to allow incorporated cities and towns to erect buildings for fire and other purposes on the docks and wharfs of canals, recommending its passage.
By Mr. HANNA, from the Committee on Education, returning the bill, [S. 101] to authorise the Trustees of the State University to establish a Medical College, recommending that it lie on the table.
Mr. BRADLEY, from a select committee, returning the bill, [S. 267] for the relief of heirs of Patrick Donovan, recommending its passage.
These reports were severally concurred in.
RESOLUTIONS.
Mr. BRADLEY offered a resolution for the per diem and cost of counsel in the contest for the seat of Hon. W. H. Montgomery, Senator from Martin.
Mr. CHURCH made an ineffectual motion to refer it to the Committee on Public Expenditures.
The resolution was adopted.
TERRE HAUTE AND INDIANAPOLIS RAILROAD.
Mr. HUGHES offered a joint resolution [S. 13] authorizing the Governor to collect by suit all claims, dues etc., owing to the State by the Terre Haute and Indianapolis railroad company, etc.
Mr. HUGHES said: The report from the House Committee laid on the table to-day, fully justifies the statement I made the other day that there was a large amount due from page: 463[View Page 463] this railroad to the State. I introduced this resolution because the report from the House places the matter beyond the action of the Committee of the House and only the House can authorize a suit. This company have been watering their stock, making investments and resorting to other means to cover up their enormous earnings. The charter provides that the Legislature may, after the original capital invested at ten per cent. shall be paid--may so regulate the tolls and fares upon the railroad that all over fifteen per cent. shall go to the school fund; and because the Legislature has never exercised this legislative power it is contended that no right of action exists.
Mr. SCOTT offered an amendment, providing that said suit, if brought, should be brought to Vigo county. The books and accounts are all in that county, and he thought it proposed that suit should be broght there.
Mr. HANNA thought it might cost more than it would come to. This is an entering wedge to an important suit, provided the Senator from Monroe [Mr. Hughes] is correct. I propose not to commence action on the part of the State that will involve large expense without due consideration.
On motion by Mr. HUGHES, this amendment was laid on the table.
The joint resolution was passed by yeas 37, nays 2.
Mr. JOHNSTON of Montgomery, moved to reconsider the vote just taken, to enable him to offer an amendment, providing that no member of this General Assembly shall be appointed an Attorney in this suit.
Mr. HUGHES said the amendment was very proper, and would have been embodied in the resolution but for the great haste in drawing it up.
Mr. CHURCH made an ineffectual motion to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.
Mr. HUGHES stated that he had intended to tender his services in the case without charge, but had abandoned that idea because he expected to sit here next session as a judge in the case, and the former position might, to a certain extent, disqualify him from impartial action in the matter.
Mr. STEIN opposed the amendment. He thought Senators unusually tender upon this point. If a man in either end of the Capitol be the proper person to act as the attorney, why should he be prevented from doing so?
Mr. WOLCOTT opposed the amendment. He did not believe members of the Legislature would act with any impropriety in connection with the matter.
Mr. GRAY desired an additional amendment that no compromise of said suit or suits shall be made, without first submitting the same to the Legislature.
The motion to reconsider was agreed to, by yeas 22, nays 15.
Mr. JOHNSTON then offered his amendment.
Mr. GRAY offered an amendment to the amendment, which--
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR decided was embodied in the resolution.
Mr. JOHNSTON of Montgomery, demanded the previous question, and under its operation--
The amendment was agreed to upon a division.
The joint resolution, as amended, was again passed the Senate by yeas 36, nays 2.
Mr. SCOTT gave notice that he should at the proper time, move to reconsider this vote.
WABASH AND ERIE CANAL.
Mr. GREEN offered a joint resolution [S. 14] declaring it unconstitutional and impolitic to purhase the Wabash and Erie Canal, or acknowledged any liability for the debt incurred in connection therewith.
Mr. CRAVENS moved to refer it to the Judiciary Committee, with instructions to report whether or not the State is liable for this debt.
Mr. WOLCOTT called up his resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution, to the same intent.
Mr. CRAVENS said he proposed the other day to refer it, too, to the same committee, with the same instructions, and he now insisted upon this resolution taking the same course as the resolutions just now offered by the Senator from Tipton [Mr. Green.]
Mr. SCOTT also insisted upon his amendment to the motion made the other day, to change the reference to the Committee on Canal and Internal Improvements.
Mr. CRAVENS, if Senators preferred it, was willing to see this constitutional amendment adopted, with an amendment providing that nothing therein shall be so construed as to authorize or permit the repudiation of any existing debt or liability of this State. He voted several years ago for the resolution declaring that the State would never assume any liability for the redemption of these old bonds. He wanted an expression, however, from the Law Committee, whether there exists any liability. He proposed an amendment that nothing in this shall be construed into a repudiation of any existing debt or liability on the part of the State. If there is no liability, the Constitution prevents the assumption of it, and if the State is liable, he was not in favor of repudiating the debt.
Mr. WOLCOTT disclaimed any intention in this consitutional amendment to repudiate any existing obligation; and signified his willingness to acept the amendment thereto proposed by Mr. Cravens.
page: 464[View Page 464]Mr. CHURCH thought this amendment opened up the whole matter again, and was a bid to those interested te urge the assumption of the claims.
Mr. FISHER favored the resolution. If there is no liability now, it is proposed by two resolutions that no such liability should ever, be assumed. The State has the right to take back the canal, but this amendment to the constitution would prevent any such assumption in the future.
Mr. FISHER. If to-day the Legislature pass a law taking back that Canal, we take upon ourselves the liability for the principal and interest for which this Canal was turned over to the stockholders.
Mr. HANNA. Some three or four hundred thousand dollars of these debts the Governor has assumed, and now we propose a constitutional amendment that we shall not pay the balance.
Mr. WOLCOTT. This is a very important question and we should understand the exact facts.
Mr. HANNA. The whole transaction was this: I remember it well. There was an offer made by the bondholders to take this canal and about eight hundred thousand acres of land, &., when it was supposed the canal would be remunerative. I saw in the Hall of the other House a resolution offered authorizing the taking up of our bonds for thirty-seven cents on the dollar. At the same time they put a provision in the contract that the State should do no act to lessen or increase the value of this canal. It is within the knowledge of every Senator that there has been a railroad run along side of this canal.
Mr. FISHER. I would like to see that provision. I think the Senator is mistaken.
Mr. HANNA. I have a clear recollection of it and I can find it. I obtained the passage of a bill for the organization of a railroad company from Terre Haute to Evansvllle which took off a great amount of the traffic, and the canal went out of use. The Convention which framed out present Constitution appeared to have this matter as well as some others in view when they adopted this provision:
SEC. 24. Provision may be made by general law, for bringing suit against the State, as to all liabilities originating after the adoption of this Constitution; but no special act authorizing such suit to be brought, or making compensation to any person claiming damages against the State, shall ever be passed.
They shut out any opportunity for the passage of any law authorizing this canal company to bring suit;they stand there without any remedy. We have got constitutional provisions covering the thing all over now. The Senator now proposes to offer another amendment which amounts to repudiation. If gentlemen are in favor of repudiation let them so put themselves upon the record? I say I am in favor of it.
Mr. WOLCOTT. I am not in favor of repudiation and don't wish to be so represented.
Mr. HANNA. I am opposed to the amendment of the Senator from Jefferson [Mr. Cravens] because I am in favor of repudiation.
Mr. RICE. Does the gentleman regard this as as an obligation on the part of the State now?
Mr. HANNA. I can say they have no equitable right, but the State ought not to pay it. I am in favor of repudiating it. Now they say they are in favor of repudiating it, but deny that there is a debt. I come square out and say they have an equitable right but under this Constitutional provision they can never have a law passed to bring on a suit. Let them say as I do: We owe the debt, but won't pay it.
Mr. HUGHES. The Senator has made an argument against the Constitutional amendment. The word "repudiation" is not a pleasing word to American ears: and whatever may be the responsibility to be incurred by taking back the canal and resuming it, I venture the assertion, whatever the verdict may be, that it would be wiser and bitter to risk the indignation of the people from paying an honest debt, than to bring on them the dishonor of repudiation. The State of Indiana has got along so far and maintained her credit and responsibility, and has never yet repudiated any just debt and I hope she never will.
Mr. HANNA. I beg pardon, but would ask whether we did not pay our bonds in greenbacks instead of gold, when it was worth two and a half or two dollars premium?
Mr. HUGHES. I consider our currency about as good as gold. Nobody objects to taking it. Greenbacks is a favorite currency with the gentleman and his friends. That is not repudiation, sir, exactly.
Mr. HANNA. Pretty near it.
Mr. HUGHES. It was doing the best we could.
Mr. JOHNSTON of Montgomery. The Republican party say that to pay the government bonds in greenbacks is repudiation.
Mr. HUGHES. Wherever we have promised to pay gold we ought to pay it. I understand the position of the Republican party, but I understand that I am not a member of it. I have joined another party called the "Spartan Band." Perhaps I am more sound in the faith than some who attempt to read people out. Wherever gold is promised gold should be paid.
It seems to me a proposition to amend the Constitution so as to prohibit the Legislature from assuming any liability on behalf of the Canal is open to two objections. If we were entirely free, which we are not, and if it in- page: 465[View Page 465] sired no violation of contract, it looks very much as though we were afraid to trust our own integrity; and if we owe a just debt and make a Constitutional amendment not to pay it, it is a solemn form of repudiation. I am not in favor of repudiation in any form. There being no person here claiming anything, I can not see why we want an amendment to the Constitution saying we never will pay a debt of that kind. But we are not free from this question, for it is a matter of compact that the State should have the power to resume the canal. If we pass this constitutional amendment it would place us in the attitude stated by the Senator from Sullivan [Mr. Hanna.[ Those who refuse to come forward, and refuse to compromise with us, pay them in full; and those who did accept one half in payment we are called upon to violate the compact by virtue of which they did accept one half. It is repudiating something more than a debt;--our solemn plighted legislative faith.
I would inquire whether this whole thing is not carried over by the resolution adopted the other day, which says that portion of the Governor's message concerning the old internal improvement bonds shall be indefinitely postponed. If I am correct this matter is forclosed, and I apprehend the President of the Senate will so rule.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. The chair would not like to rule in the matter without reading the resolution.
Mr. GIFFORD. I am decidedly in favor of a proposition to amend the constitution on this subject, and if not ruled out of order I am disposed to make a few remarks.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR (reads the resolution referred to by Mr. Hughes.) It does occur to the chair that this is a different question from that. That part of the Governor's message referring to the payment of some internal improvement bonds by him was covered by the resolution; but this is proposing an amendment to the constitution relating to the assumption of a claim that may hereafter arise, and has no relation to the internal improvement bonds. The chair decides that the subject is properly before the Senate.
Mr. GIFFORD. Mr. President: This is a question that involves a great responsibility on the part of members of the General Assembly. If left open for the consideration of future Legislatures corrupt means may be used to influence the judgment of members of the General Assembly. We can readily conceive how it is possible to approach members upon this subject. We know that the bonds or certificates of stock now held by the bondholders are worthless;-- we know they are of no value at all but by a simple act of the General Assembly under the provisions of the Butler bill, the State may take back this canal, assume the payment of these certificates, and this old debt may be saddled upon the State. We can conceive it possible for a few hundred thousand dollars of this stock to be placed in the pockets of a sufficient number of members of the Legislature to enlighten their judgment upon this subject and increase their understanding--for I have discovered that the understanding is vastly improved by dollars and cents; and this leaves the door open for such information to reach the judgment of men. Why, we propose simply to close the door. Let the parties proceed if they have a legal claim, but let us not leave the door open to the bringing into a future legislature for corrupt purposes two or three hundred thousand dollars of stock, I have heard it intimated whether it is not a question. The Governor having paid a certain number of these bonds, he has not already by so doing pledged the faith of the State to paying the rest.
I understand there is one hundred and twenty-six thousand dollars more in the hands of private citizens. Parties that procured the passaged of the bill were assured that no General Assembly would ever make any provision for the payment of these bonds other than that proposed in the Butler bill: but before they fall due we proceed to make arrangements for their payment. Now we propose to pay one hundred and twenty-six thousand dollars with interest of bonds of the same character of those that have been settled, and members may readily go before the people and declare that this is "a precedent;that we have paid bonds of the same character when we assured the bondholders that no provision would ever be made to redeem these bonds. Now I say it is necessary for us to close the door; and this proposed amendment will effectually prevent persons holding these certificates from coming before this General Assembly and placing in the pockets of members hundreds of thousands of dollars of these certificates to enlighten their judgments on the subject of equity. And we can conceive it possible that the Governor can be enlightened by having a few of these bonds put in his pocket. If ever legislation was pressing it is now, when no parties are here claiming this, and when our pockets are not lined with this stock. When a man by his vote can turn them into greenbacks or gold and silver I am not disposed to trust even myself on this subject. [Laughter.]
Mr. CHURCH. The Senator thinks it best not to delay until they are here to present their claims. I would ask: Is he certain that some of them are not here now trying to prevent the passage of this resolution?
Mr. GIFFORD. I can say only that they have not offered to fill my pockets. I want to plece us beyond temptation, hence I favor the proposition I am ready to vote for it.
page: 466[View Page 466]Mr. GREEN expressed himself as in favor of the orginal resolution, and opposed to the proposed amendment.
Mr. BIRD moved to indefinitely postpone the joint resolution.
Pending which--
The Senate took a recess till two o'clock, p. m.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The Lieutenant Governor resumed the chair at two o'clock, p. m.
A call of the Senate having been demanded, ordered and taken, twenty-six members answered to their names.
When a quorum had appeared--
Further prceedings under the call were dispensed with.
The motion to indefinitely postpone the joint resolution was rejected by yeas 16, nays 18--as follows:
YEAS.--Messrs. Bellamy, Bird, Case, Cravens, Eliott, Gray, Hamilton, Henderson, Huey, Huffman, Hughes, Lasselle, Lee, Morgan, Scott and Smith--16.
NAYS.--Messrs. Andrews, Armstrong, Caven, Church, Fisher, Gifford, Green, Hadley, Hooper, Howk, Johnston of Spencer, Kinley, Rice, Reynolds, Robinson of Madison, Robinson of Decatur, Stein and Wolcott--18.
Mr. SCOTT withdrew his amendment to change the reference to the Committee on Canal and Internal Improvements.
The motion to refer to the Judiciary Committee was then agreed to by yeas 19, nays 15.
THE BAKER-CUMBACK CORRESPONDENCE.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. President: I move to reconsider the vote by which the resolutions affecting the Lieutenant Governor were passed on the 18th of January. I will not vote to reconsider these resolutions; if other Senators choose to do it, it is a matter they do upon their own responsibility. I am satisfied that matter is a disturbing element of legislation, and if it is the purpose of the Senate to reconsider these resolutions I desire to see it done. It is better to have them disposed of either way than to have them mixed up with other matters of importance.
Mr. HUEY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
Mr. GIFFORD. I appeal to the Senator from Jay, to withdraw that motion, as Senators may want to say something on the subject.
Mr. HUEY. I withdraw it.
Mr. GIFFORD. I have nothing further to say than that I am ready to vote for a reconsideration of these resolutions if they can be made satisfactory to the members of this Senate. The question of ethics, which seems to be the question we decided that time, was strictly in accordance with our code of morals. As a Senator upon this floor, representing a Democratic constituency, I am required to represent them fairly upon a question of ethics as well as upon a question of politics, and I think the resolutions expressed the position of the Democratic party upon that subject in as mild terms as we are capable of expressing them. I think we might change the phraseology so as to make them less offensive. It is not my intention to use language towards my political opponents that is offensive. We try to employ words to convey our ideas as little offensive to parties as is consistent with the code.
We think the letter, to say the least was indiscret, but compared with the corruptions that are stalking abroad at the present time among politicians, that letter I am prepared to say is a figure (9) with its tail cut off--it is a cypher.
I am not disposed to make a monster of as small a matter in comparison, while far more shameful transactions are stalking abroad. I have been taken to task for having intimated that corruption exists in our Southern State Prison; and it was insinuated that I had violated the code of ethics for having mentioned this fact after I visited the prison and assisted in the examination of witnessed under oath who developed a most outrageous and diabolical state of affairs there. And it was intimated that I had my name placed on the Committee on Prisons with a view of persecuting somebody. Now I will say that I am disposed to treat fairly my political opponents. In onr investigations we have found Democrats involved in this corruption as deep as we have found Republicans; and, as far as I am concerned, this whitewashing is not a part of the business I am called upon to perform.
But I will say as far as this resolution is concerned, I am prepared to modify it in any way that would give satisfaction to the friends of the party who is interested. As a citizen of the county I represent and socially I have the kindest feelings toward the party held in condemnation by this Senate, and I am ready at the proper time to vote for a reconsideration of these resolutions.
Mr. BlRD asked that the resolution be read for information.
They were read by the Secretary. [See page 115 of this volume.]
Mr. HUGHES. I would ask if the words "proposing a personal consideration for any appointment to fill a contemplated vacancy in the United States Senatorship" were stricken from the second resolution.
Mr. STEIN. They were subsequently stricken out. That particular clause was stricken out.
Mr. HUGHES. I do not wish to be misunderstood or misrepresented, or not reported page: 467[View Page 467] at all about this matter. I stand upon these resolutions just where I stood when the vote was taken upon them. I regret no part of my action or argument upon the subject, but having reasons to believe that the question of the reconsideration of these resolutions was entering into the legislation of the session here, and seriously interfering with it, and that it was to be sprung some time or other, I think it proper that they should be brought up at once and disposed of, and not longer be mixed up with measures of legislation here. I am opposed to reconsideration and shall now move to lay the motion to reconsider on the table because it is the finality of this matter, if carried. But, as I said before, if the resolutions are to be reconsidered it had better be done at once. I now move to lay the motion to reconsider on the table, and upon that I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President: In the six years, sir, that I have been in one branch or the other of this Legislature, that is the only vote I regret. I have been anxious to get a chance to reconsider that vote. It would take me a long time to explain that vote to my constituents to my satisfaction, and I regret much that I gave it--more than any other vote I ever gave--and nothing but a political caucus made me do it on that occasion. [Applause from the Republican benches.] The first resolution I was opposed to, and was more opposed to the second, because if there was anything corrupt connected with either of them, I think they were both guilty, and I don't consider either of them guilty in these times of political juggling. [Being quite deaf Mr. L. had not till now heard the calls to order that had been made several times by Senators.] Am I out of order? [Laughter.]
The PRESIDENT pro tem., (Mr. Cravens in the chair.) You are entirely out of order.
Mr. LEE. Well, then, I will take my seat. [Renewed laughter.]
The motion to lay the motion to reconsider on the table was rejected by-yeas 16, nays 23--as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Bird, Bradley, Cravens, Denbo, Fisher, Hanna, Henderson, Hooper, Howk, Huey, Hughes, Johnston of Montgomery, Kinley, Montgomery, Morgan and Stein--16.
NAYS--Messrs. Armstrong, Bellamy, Case, Caven, Church, Eliott, Gifford, Gray, Green, Hadley, Hamilton, Hess, Huffman, Jaquess, Johnson of Spencer, Lasselle, Lee, Rice, Reynolds, Robinson of Decatur, Scott, Smith and Wolcott--23.
Pending the roll call--
Mr. LASSELLE, in explanation of his vote said: I am not in favor of the reconsideration of these resolutions nor am I in favor of laying the motion to reconsider on the table. I desire to give the Lieutenant Governor the benefit of any contingency that might arise when it would be proper to reconsider the vote--I desire to do justice to him--to give him every chance, and therefore vote "no."So the motion was rejected.
Mr. HUGHES. I now ask to have this matter postponed until there is a full Senate, and let us consider it then.
VOICES--"No, no!"
Mr. HUGHES. Do gentlemen want to vote when the Senate is not full upon a question of personal character?
Mr. JAQUESS. Why did the Senator bring it up then?
Mr. HUGHES. That the Senate may dispose of it. I have already stated the reason why: but I will answer the Senator's question direct. It is because important measures in this Senate are embarrassed by it: and [he was understood to say,] when propositions are pressed here, a Senator interested is told that he must vote for a reconsideration of these resolutions, or else the measures can't pass.
Mr. CHURCH (interposing.) I would like to know the name of the Senator who made this statement.
Mr. HUGHES. If the Senator will call on me outside of this chamber he shall have it. The proposition was not made to me, nor did I get it from the Senator to whom it was made; but the Senator from Porter [Mr. Church] should know me well enough by this time to know that when I make an assertion as a matter of fact in a question of this kind, I know what I am saying. I move to postpone this matter until next Thursday at half past two o'clock.
Mr. GRAY. I do not propose to have anything much to say upon this question now, for I had my say out in the beginning of the session; but inasmuch as this thing has been brought in here again, as in the first instance, not by the friends of the Lieutenant Governor, and the Senate as it now stands has refused to lay the motion to reconsider on the table, does not justice demand that it shall be disposed of now?
Mr. RICE moved to lay the motion to postpone till Thursday on the table.
The motion was rejected by yeas 19, nays 21--as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Bellamy, Case, Caven,, Church, Eliott, Gifford, Gray, Green, Hadley, Hamilton, Jaquess, Johnson of Spencer, Lee, Rice, Robinson of Madison, Robinson of Decatur, Scott, Smith and Wolcott19.
NAYS--Messrs. Armstrong, Bird, Bradley, Cravens, Fisher, Hanna, Henderson, Hess, Hooper, Howk, Huey, Huffman, Hughes, Johnston of Montgomery, Morgan, Reynolds, Stein, and Turner--21.
Mr. ARMSTRONG said he would have to be absence next Thursday, and requested Mr. Hughes to change his motion from that day to Friday.
Mr. HUGHES consented.
page: 468[View Page 468]The motion to posotpone the further consideration of the motion to reconsider the vote of the 18th of January, adopting the resolutions concerning the Baker-Cumback correspondence till Friday, half-past two o'clock p. m., was then agreed to upon a division--affirmative 22, negative 16.
THE OMNIBUS UNIVERSITY BILL.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore, then announced the special order for this hour being the consideration of Mr. Hughes' State University bill, [S. 197] in Committee of the Whole, Mr. Robinson of Madison in the chair.
Mr. JOHNSTON of Montgomery. Mr. Chairman: I desire to say a few things, and I would not do it if any Senator had spoken upon the point I intend to refer to. It is assumed here that it is absolutely necessary to have a general system of education. Then the question arises, How are we to get a general system? This bill has a theory laid down that I say is not a general system of education and will not promote that object. I say it is a local system, and therefore I am opposed to it. I say this bill is a bare theory laid down on paper, the practical effect of which would be against the cause they propose to advance. Education obtained in one place is just as good as education obtained in another--all things being equal. Education in the common schools as far as it goes, is just as good and is worth as much as though obtained in the State University, notwithstanding the Senator from Monroe was educated there, as I understand.
This bill proposes an appropriation of twenty-five thousand dollars annually to carry on the State University at Bloomington. Heretofore the appropriation has been eight thousand dollars. I understand it already receives some five thousand dollars from another source which would run up the annual appropriation to thirty-eight thousand dollars. The Senator from Monroe tells us they have one hundred and forty-nine students. Puting the number at one hundred and fifty you give each one two hundred and fifty dollars a year out of the State Treasury. That will pay the tuition and almost the board of the students. When it is understood that under this bill tuition is to be free and without charge of any description, they don't propose to pay for fire wood, or to pay for sweeping the rooms they occupy;--it is to be free and without charge. How much advantage is that institution to those living one hundred, fifty or even ten miles from it? As far as tuition is concerned, that is a mere drop in the bucket. It is the expense of boarding young men away from home that is the great expense in sending them off to get an education. I say this is a proposition for the benefit of the immediate neighborhood where the institution is located. It is unjust and unfair to the balance of the country. The practical working of this bill would be to tax the people for the benefit of the locality where the institution is located.
I have a great many other objections, but I want to cut my remarks short. I stand upon the ground that a general system of education for the benefit of the masses is a good thing. The Senator from Vigo stated that we have about eight millions of dollars set apart for the purpose of education and it was a great hardship if we could not appropiate one hundred thousand dollars for two institutions of the State. Now we have eight million dollars. I suppose as an educational fund, and how many months of school do we have in each section of the State? about a three months school upon an average. Is that fair when men can come in here and get an appropriation to run a college the year round?
I object in the next place, to the appropriation proposed in the bill for this Normal School, not because I don't like Terre Haute, for I rather have a prejudice in favor of it, and likewise toward the Senator who comes from them. I don't blame the Senator from Monroe for asking twenty-five thousand dollars for the school at his home nor the Senator from Vigo for asking seventy-five thousand dollars for the school at his home. The State has already appropriated fifty thousand dollars to build the Normal School, and now they ask in the bill for seventy-five thousand dollars more be appropriated there.
In the county I have the honor to represent, there are some eight or ten of these high schools organized, each one for the benefit of its immediate locality. Would it not be just as fair, and have we not just as much right to ask for just as much appropriation for them as the Senator from Vigo has to ask for this appropriation for his county? In the town where I live--a little bit of a dog fennel town--with only probably one hundred inhabitants, maybe one hundred and fifty, where we are not worth enough to scarcely live, we have built a high school academy which cost about five thousand five hundred dollars, and fifty thousand dollars aint as much to Terre Haute as one thousand dollars is to the little town of Darlington. We put the building there ourselves, and we don't come here and ask an appropriation to run it, but Terre Haute asks for seventy-five thousand dollars in addition to the fifty thousand dollars already given.
Mr. HUGHES (interposing.) I would ask the Senator from Montgomery, if he don't think the State would benefit this school by opening a first rate high school to educate teachers?
Mr. JOHNSTON. We don't find and difficulty in getting teachers; and as the Senator has called my attention to it I will spend a page: 469[View Page 469] little time upon that subject. We propose to teach teachers in our school. My understanding is that whenever a boy or girl commences going to school they commence learning how to teach school: and if teachers don't understand teaching where do the men who teach high schools learn? And after you have taught men all the arts of teaching you can't make them teach. I say it would be more just and equitable and more for the benefit of the masses, to make an appropriation to every single high school in the State.
My policy is to make the school fund as large as we can and then divide it out among the several districts and let it go for the benefit of the masses, and not confine the large appropriations to the town of Bloomington or the town of Terre Haute. There may be some such thing as educating men in the brush townships of some far out county, and it may be possible that some thus educated may find their way into the Senate of Indiana. Such things have been and may be again. If a man can find learning in the the common schools enough to get into the Senate I think it is worth just as much as though he got it in a University.
I am opposed to a Law School being connected with this University. A common education is what we want, and we want that free and open to all, and then there is no injustice done to anybody.
As to the Agricultural College I want to say a word. I am not one of those who think that there is any great amount of good to be derived from this kind of a school. I believe the State would be better off if she never accepted that donation. It will be like the Indian's gun: it will cost more that it comes to. I recollect one case which came under my observation. A gentleman came into Putnam county, a good many years ago, who was going to farm upon scientific principles--according to the book, and after working his farm for two years he blowed out and could not pay his debts. He would not lay a worm fence without a book. And I recollect a saying of Tom. Benton, that there was but one book farmer in the State of Missouri and he had to buy corn every year.
I expect to open a little Agricultural College when I get home; and I for one, as a farmer, don't desire to send my boys away from home to learn how to plough, because I can hitch up a couple of horses and they can learn on my farm; and I have better land than the Senator from Tippecanoe speaks of, which is hardly rich enough to sprout a back-eyed pea.
As far as location is concerned I would be in favor of locating this College at Bloomington for two or three reasons. In short I am opposed to this bill as a whole and in part.
Mr. HUGHES. I move to take the bill up by sections. We will be making some progress in that way.
Mr. JOHNSTON of Montgomery. I withdraw my amendment. [Made the other day to strike out the word "thousand" in the first section--the pending amendment.]
The motion [Mr. Hughes'] was agreed to.
Mr. CHURCH. I move that the Committee rise, report progress and recommend that the bill be indefinitely postponed.
Mr. HUGHES. I am just as anxious to bring this to a test vote as I can be, but there is no yeas and nays in Committee to take a vote by yeas and nays. There has been a good deal said about combination, when there is not perhaps, half as much in favor of the bill as there is against it. If their combination is ready I want to meet it and see how strong it is.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. Chairman: I do not understand that there is any combination to defeat this bill. I am of the opinion it is the will of the people that this bill should be defeated; and I am here representing a portion of that people. I stated the other day and I now repeat that at the last canvass the expression was very decided in favor of economy in legislation, and from the time I left my home till I got here, I heard it said, whether by members of the Legislature or others, in the cars or at the depot, when talking, about the business of the Legislature, that it was expresly understood this Legislature must do something to make the taxes of the people less. Yet I hardly know of a proposition here touching any question from that of witness fees up to the salaries of Supreme Judges but what there has been a proposition to increase their fees.
We have got along so far without this appropriation of twenty-five thousand dollars to Bloomington. Our children have been educated at Greencastle, at Hanover, at the Northwestern Christian University and elsewhere; and I do say we can wait two years longer before making this big appropriation.
This Normal School is a necessity but when Senators tell us it is going to cost one hundred thousand dollars and more, it is a question whether we should not wait a year or two, our people are so burdened and weighed down with taxes. No State in the Union has grown like our State. Our educational interests are growing, and I am inclined to think they will continue to improve if we fail to appropriate this large amount of money. I understood last year when eight thousand dollars was voted to the State University it would be sufficient, but it has infused strength enough to bring them here this year asking for twenty-five thousand dollars more. They come up now and put on an exceedingly sorry face if we don't add twenty-five thousand dollars to it. page: 470[View Page 470] Will you go and visit your homes, notice the deserted streets and hear the people groaning and laboring to raise money with which they mast pay their taxes in a few weeks, and then tell me whether we must add to the appropriations of last year, or hold them where they are?
I think this bill is a good thing, the only question is whether we shall make these appropriations to-day, or whether we shall wait. Senators, except yon from Monroe, Tippecanoe and Vigo, when you go home you have got to meet this question. We have but very few youth in our county but can be educated in the male and female college at Valparaiso. We have got to commence economising somewhere because I understand the committee is about to recommend that the assessment for taxation shall be fifteen instead of twenty cents on the one hundred dollars as it was last year, and how can we decrease the amount of taxes on the one hundred dollars and increase the appropriations? Now I say vote carefully and vote as you can meet your constituency. I expect you know as much as I do about these things. We are living here in Hotels, getting good pay, wearing our Sunday clothes and forgetting that money is scarce at home. Shall we not wait until we have recovered from war times before making these increased appropriations?
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman: I supposed when the Senator from Porter [Mr. Church] made his motion, he wanted to take a test vote upon it, but it appears that he desired to give the bill a blow before the committee rises. If the argument of economy is to meet us at every step, I have to say that I am as willing as the Senator, or other Senators to enter into an intelligent system of economy. If you are going to retrench, retrench not only upon one but upon all. The institution at Bloomington is just as much a State institution as the Asylums here. With the appropriation of eight thousand dollars last year, which he speaks of, from one hundred and eighty the number of students have increased to two hundred and eighty-five. There are only about twenty of these students from Monroe county, the rest are from all over the State; and in point of fact the benefits of the institution is felt all over the State.
We can have a Soldiers' Home at Knightstown; we can have millions for the halt and lame and infirm, but not a dollar for the poor widow's son who has passed through the common school and is struggling to become an educator and an improver of his race. That is the gentleman's economy. I do not want to see the afflicted turned out to suffer, even if we are in a straight for money, which is not true, for we have an overflowing treasury. And I say the taxes can be reduced to fifteen cents, and even to ten cents in four years. At fifteen cents the debt can be almost entirely paid off in three years. We are prosperous;--we are rich.
I think every Senator here understands this bill, and I presume they have their minds made up. We have taken up time enough with this matter--I am fully aware of that.
Mr. RICE. Mr. Chairman: I am a friend to this measure in the main, but not as it now stands. I would like to see this bill trimed in a committee. I had a resolution drawn up some days ago which I believe I will offer as an amendment to the amendment if it is proper. He offered a resolution that the committee rise, and recommend that the bill re referred to a select committee of five to amend this bill or report a new one, providing for the sale of lot 25, in the city of Indianapolis, for the benefit of the State University of Bloomington, and establishing the Agricultural College there, in connection with the University.
Mr. CHURCH. As far as my motion to indefinitely postpone is concerned, if Senators desire to perfect this bill I have no objection. The Senator from Vigo [Mr. Scott] asks me t withdraw it, and I will. I move to amend the resolution so as to include all lands belonging to the institution, the proceeds to be divided between the University and the finishing of the Normal School building in Terre Haute.
Mr. KINLEY. Mr Chairman: I move to amend the resolution by striking out "Bloomington, "and inserting "at or near Indianapolis; provided that the donation for such location shall be equal to any other propositions already made to the General Assembly," in lieu. Agricultural science has been sneered at, and the teaching of Agriculture in the public schools has been treated with scorn. I would assent to the remarks of the Senator from Montgomery [Mr. Johnston] this far: that I believe the place to learn to work is where the work is to be done. The place to learn where to do manual labor is on the farm, but to farm requires practically more science than any other vocation in life. There is scarcely a principle in physical science but the farmer applies practically in his vocation and it is but reasonable that he can apply it better if he understands it. His understanding of these principles will the better enable him to apply them, and accomplish thereby the greater results.
It has been stated that Agricultural Colleges where standing alone have been failures, and it has been repeated that Agricultural Colleges are always a failure when they stand by themselves. I challenge any Senator upon this floor to point to one single instance where Agricultural Colleges have been a failure. They certainly have been talking about manual la page: 471[View Page 471]bor schools. I believe as a rule they have failed. On the contrary, wherever Agricultural Colleges have been established on great principles they have been a success:--there is not an exception to the rule. It is not proposed that Agricultural Colleges should be mere superficial institutions, where only a few branches should be taught. It is not proposed to limit them to anything short of the best Universities. It is intended to be an industrial University and there is no reason that can be urged against their success that would not apply against any college. Industrial colleges standing alone to educate the laboring men and women of this country are a desideratum, and it is the duty of the Legislature to provide them. Inasmuch as they have been a success located by themselves, we may take it for granted they will be a success in Indiana standing alone. Then the question is: Where is the best location? Where the whole people of the State are most interested in having it, it will result in the greatest good not only to the greatest number but to the whole number. Certainly in some central locality. Certainly, in a word at or near the city of Indianapolis.
Mr. HUGHES. If we can have the Agricultural College connected with the University we would not have much need of the appropriation of twenty-five thousand dollars and yet the very persons who seem desirous to defeat this bill propose to do more for the University than it friends are asking for it; but they propose to do it at a time and in a manner that will destroy the measures presented by the friends of the University. This is nothing new in legislation. It is very well calculated to mislead the friends of this bill: but when it is defeated and the proposition of the Senator from Parke [Mr. Rice] is attempted to be carried out, then the whole Legislature will divide up on the question of the location of the Agricultural College as it has for the last five years. The University has not friends enough here to overcome the friends of Lafayette, Greenfield and Indianapolis. This proposition is designed to defeat this bill and that is to be the end of the matter. I hope the friends of the University will stand by the bill and that the Committee will rise and take a test vote. If it is the pleasure of the Senate to destroy the bill I am willing to see it done; but if they don't wish to destroy it I hope they will take advise from the friends of the bill.
By proceeding in the usual way, taking up a section at a time, we can soon perfect the bill. The vote on the first section will materially change the bill. If that be striken out in everything in this bill, substantially that the State University desires is gone.
Mr. WOLCOTT. Mr. Chairman: While concurring most fully in the belief that the purpose of this bill is right, I differ as to the details. I do not think twenty-five thousand dollars too much for the University, and I believe we can appropriate that sum without resorting to direct taxation. The acceptance of the fifty thousand dollars offered by Monroe county would add that much. Then with the Agricultural College she would get two hundred and thirty or two hundred and forty thousand dollars more; and if we also add University square we give to that central system of education all the capitol necessary at this stage of Education in this State. To embrace in one bill a University, the branches of which shall be located in various parts of the State will defeat the advantages of combination for they should have a common labratory, a common philosophical apparatus, &c., &c. More than that, I think it cannot be asserted that there is a successful University to be found on earth, where this aggregation is not found. Bloomington has already three hundred and fifty thousand dollars as a nucleus to begin with. We may scatter and realize little or nothing, or we may consolidate and have a practical Univertity. The amendment proposed by Senator Rice is defective in this: he should have added an acceptance of the Monroe county offer of fifty thousand dollars.
The general opinion is that the Terre Haute building should be completed but the objection is to doing so by taxation. Eighty or one hundred acres of land belonging to the State, lying just east of the city can well be spared. Its valuation is greater than the amount required to complete the Normal School. By a sale of this property we could raise the means to complete the Normal School without resorting to taxation.
Mr. RICE. Mr. Chairman: There are provisions in this bill I do not like and I want to call it, I am opposed to putting this Agricultural College at any other point than Bloomington. In regard to taxing the people to raise twenty-five thousand dollars for the State University when we have got land here worth from one hundred and twenty-five to one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, which is about to be stolen from us--perhaps that is too strong a term;--but which is slipping from us every day; while we have got real estate here for the University and leave it for this city to encroach upon and after a while to claim; that is not the way to do. He offered as part of his resolution additional provisions accepting the offer of fifty thousand dollars by Monroe county for the location of the Agricultural College and for the sale of the State lands lying east of Indianapolis for the purpose of finishing the State Normal School.
Mr. STEIN. Mr. Chairman: Before the vote is taken on the proposition of the Senator page: 472[View Page 472] from Wayne [Mr. Kinley] I deiire to remind the Senate that I stated I would consent to a a provision in this bill requiring Tippecanoe county to make its offer as good as any other. I stand prepared to submit a proviso of that kind now. Although I hardly think it necessary, for in my humble opinion the offer from my county still stands the best. I am not ignorant of the offer made by this delectable city, and am certainly posted as to the offer from Greenfield, Bloomington and other localities. All I ask is that the honesty with which Tippecanoe county has continually come before this Legislature shall be remembered. Not till she had come here would the sleepy heads of other localities come up here. This would indicate that their zeal was evavescent. Two years have elapsed since the session of 1867. Indianapolis was ardent and then the chief obstacle in the way of a location. When this session opened, for the first time her people and press came out and tried to inaugurate a fresh movement by which the location would be made here. Tippecanoe county shows that this institution has sincere friends in that county.
Mr. KINLEY modified his amendment by adding the words "at or near Indianapolis provided that the donation for such location shall be equal to any other proposition already made to the General Assembly.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. WOLCOTT made an ineffectual motion to amend the resolution by provisions accepting the Bloomington offer, for the sale of University square in Indianapolis, and for the sale of so much of the land lying just east of the city as may properly be sold.
Mr. Rice's resolution was also rejected.
The first section having been read by the Secretary--
Mr. BRADLEY moved to strike out the word "twenty-five" and insert "fifteen."
Mr. GIFFORD moved to amend the amendment so it shall read "ten thousand dollars," as the appropriation to the State University.
Mr FISHER demanded a division of the question, so as the vote shall be taken first on striking out.
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman: I desire to give the reasons why I shall vote as I will. I have not occupied to exceed one minute on this bill since its introduction, and yet I brought down on me for the few words spoken at that time considerable vehemence from the friends of the bill. I am not an enemy of the State University, and I am not an enemy of the Normal School. I am willing to vote to make the University what it ought to be: an honor to itself and to the State; and I am willing to vote to keep the faith of the State pledged for the completion of the Normal School at Terre Haute. I do not want the location of the Agricultural College forced by the combination that exists in this bill. I know that the representatives from the county of Monroe and perhaps the surrounding counties would vote for this bill as and entirety because the proposition is to donate twenty-five thousand dollars to Bloomington; and I expect the representatives from Vigo and the surrounding counties will vote for it entire because of the seventy-five thousand dollar appropriation in it for the Normal School at Terre Haute, and I expect the representatives from Tippecanoe and the surrounding counties will vote for it entire because the location of the Agricultural College in Tippecanoe county. That is not the kind of legislation I am in favor of. I shall vote to give the Bloomington University twenty-five thousand dollars, and I am willing to give Terre Haute seventy-five thousand dollars; but I want the Agricultural College question to remain open and be located in that county that offers the most money for it. I do not believe that this is the of everything to be desired in the cause of education and am unwilling to vote for it as an entirety.
The Senate agreed to strike out twenty-five thousand dollars upon a division--affirmative 20, negative 14.
Mr. STEIN proposed to fill the blank with "twenty thousand dollars."
The motion was rejected upon a division--affirmative 17, negative 19.
Mr. CRAVENS proposed to fill the blank with "seventeen thousand dollars."
The motion was agreed to upon a division--affirmative 21, negative 17.
Mr. HOOPER moved to amend the first section by striking out from the enacting clause and inserting a provision that the trustees of State University may dispose of University Square, etc.
Mr. CAVEN. Mr. Chairman: The proposition to sell University square has for some time been pending before this Senate but always connected with others in such a manner as must evidently defeat the whole combination, and of course carry with it the defeat of the section to sell the square, and hence it seemed unnecessary to discuss the negative, for as we have much to do, and our time is brief, it is an imperative duty to occupy no single moment of time in a discussion which could properly be properly avoided.
As, however, the last amendment proposed brings before us the question directly and singly of selling the square it may now be necessary to inquire into the power of this Legislature over the square in question.
In the argument advocating the sale, it has been intimated that those who oppose the sale are the enemies of Education. Now, sir, there are no enemies of education upon this floor. page: 473[View Page 473] Senators differ in their views respecting what is best for the cause of education. Some who oppose this bill have voted for liberal appropriations for educational purposes, and among them liberaly for the Bloomington University. That is a State institution and our State pride is involved in making it successful, and it should either be abandoned as such or else endowed to the highest point of usefulness. It has been repeatedly asserted that the University has been wrongly located, and while this may or may not be correct, it cannot now be and remedied and as no proposition has been made to re-locate it, it should be sustained to the honor of the State and to the greatest benefit of education.
So too, of the Normal School. This has been established as a part of the Educational system of the State, and rightly too; and should be well sustained. Teaching is in part, at least, an art. It is not sufficient that the teacher should himself be learned in the knowledge of the books, but should also be qualified to import that learning to others. Great difference exists in the original qualifications of different teachers, yet much may be acquired. By some modes of teaching the pupil is not interested and study is a labor and a weariness. Great advances have been made in the last few years in the art of teaching. Compare the schools of the present day with those of the past, within the recollection of ourselves. Learning, instead of a task, is a pleasure. The pupils are entertained while being instructed. The simple fact that we are endowed with faculties for obtaining knowledge, and with a curiosity impelling us to seek it, demonstrates that by the laws of nature, the acquisition of knowledge should not only not be a painful drudgery, but the highest gratification of which the human intellect is capable. The world is daily advancing in knowledge. Each generation has more to learn than their fathers. We have every succeeding day more to learn than yesterday, and hence if we would learn more and individually keep pace with the world's enlarged knowledge, we must also discover new and speedier methods of learning, and hence in this view competent teachers become the primary essential.
The competent teacher will impart knowledged in the log-cabin while the incompetent will fail in a palace. Competent teachers therefore, are much more important than are fine school buildings, and while we should have both, if only one can be afforded let it be the teacher. The teacher should understand and be in sympathy with the youthful nature. Teaching embraces within its scope not merely to read and write and solve a problem in mathmatics, but also the training of the moral perceptions, discipline and restraint of the impulses--to encourage, stimulate and direct not only the intellectual and mental but also the moral and sentimental nature. It embraces accomplishments, refinement, moulding the manners and the development of the generous, noble, manly and moral qualities of patriotism--a sacred regard for truth and integrity--to fit the pupil for the actual and momentous duties of life, for the future citizens and rulers of this great land, and hence we see that a system of common school education involves a scheme as grand and broad as the future of the republic, and as important as human destiny, and the teacher is charged with a Godlike mission.
Being properly taught depends then much upon the teacher, and teachers should first be taught how to teach. An institution then should exist where each teacher can obtain the benefit of the combined experience of the teachers of the land--that teachers should be educated for teaching as a profession, the greatest and noblest profession in the world--the primary moulding, forming and educating those who are to mould, form, educate and fit for life's duties the future men and women of the world. Our Normal School, then, should not be regarded as the mere ornamental turret, the showy cap-stone of our Educational Temple, but as its broad, deeply-laid and sure foundation corner stone.
These remarks would be outside the real question had it not been intimated in the debate that the opponents of this bill were actuated by motives of hostility to the cause of education and it was only due to themselves now, as they have at all times heretofore, and will at all times hereafter, place themselves broadly upon the record as the earnest friends of the most advanced schemes of education.
But to the question. The proposition is to sell the square 25 and give the proceeds to the Bloomington University, it being maintained by the advocates of the bill that the University is the proprietor of the square, while the opposition will maintain that let who may be the owner, this Legislature has no power to sell it, it having been dedicated to public uses, and hence it will be necessary to first present the law governing such a dedication and defining how it may be made, and next the history of the square and Bloomington University which will establish: First, That it was the intention of the Legislature to dedicate the square for the actual site of a University, and Second, That it was not the intention to give the square or its proceeds to Bloomington University. In the decision in the suit of the city of Logansport vs. Dunn and wife reported in 8th Ind. p. 378 it is decided as follows:
It is settled law that the laying out and recording of a plat, and the selling of lots with reference to it operate as a dedication to the public of streets, alleys and other grounds, clearly designed to be appropriated to the public use. A designation on the page: 474[View Page 474] map of a lot or space for a church, seminary, market or common, will also have the effect of a dedication for the use indicated. In this State the words "public square" have acquired a legal meaning by use and are evidence, when used in a proper place on the map of a town designed for a county seat, that the ground is set apart as a place for the erection of a court house or other county building. * * * * * The publishing of a map by the owner of ground proposed to be made the site of a town does not conclude him to any extent. It is only when lots are sold with reference to such plat that other rights intervene. When that occurs the dedication becomes effectual, as to those grounds which are devoted to the public use."
In the suit of the city of Cincinnati vs. the Lessees of White, decided in the United States Supreme Court, and reported in 6th Peters p. 431, the court says:
These three persons Denman, Ludlow and Patterson, being the equitable owners of the land (no legal title having been granted) proceeded in January 1789, to lay out the town. A plan was made and approved of by all the proprietors; and, according to which the ground lying between Front street and the river, and so located as to include the premises in question, was set apart as a common for the use and benefit of the town forever. * * * * * *The right of the public to the use of the common in Cincinnati must rest on the same principles as the rights to the use of the streets; and no one will contend that the original owners, after having laid out streets; and sold building lots thereon, and improvements made could claim the easement thus dedicated to the public. All public dedications must be considered with reference to the use tor which they are made, and, streets in a town or city may require a more enlarged right over the use of the "land in order to carry into effect the purposes intended, than may be necessary in an appropriation for a high way in the country; but the principle, so far as respects the right of the original owner to disturb the use must rest on the same ground in both cases; and applies equally to dedication of the common as to the streets. It was for the public use, and the convenience and accommodation of the inhabitants of Cincinnati; and doubtless, greatly enhanced the value of the private property adjoining this common, and thereby compensated the owners for the land thus thrown out as public grounds, And after thus being set apart for public use, and enjoyed as such and private and individual rights acquired with reference to it, the law considers it in the nature of an estoppel in pais, which precludes the original owner from revoking such dedication. It is a violation of good faith to the public, and to those who have acquired private property with a view to the enjoyment of the use thus publicly granted."
This decision was re-examined and re-affirmed in the Supreme Court of the United Spates in a decision in the suit of the city of New Orleans vs. the United States reported in 10 Peters, p. 662.
In the case of Barclay, et. al., vs. Howell's Lessee decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, reported in 6 Peters, p. 498, it was decided that the verbal statements made forty-five years before by the surveyor who laid out the city of Pittsburgh, Pa., might be proven by the verbal testimony of witnesses to show a dedication of grounds to public uses, and that decision was also re-affirmed by the same Court in the case reported in 10, Peters p. 662.
From these decisions of the highest courts of our own State and of the United States, we find that when the proprietors of real estate lay off a town, or city, and upon the plat are written words which in themselves import a public use, that such platting and marking is a dedication of the particular grounds so marked to such public use and that after having sold lots in reference to it such dedication cannot be revoked and the dedication is held to have been an inducement to purchases of lots and that when they bought and paid the price which the owners accepted that they had given a valuable consideration for the dedication, for that was one of the incidents and inducements to the purchase and entered into the price.
If then it shall be found that this lot was dedicated to a public use and by the same original proprietor other lots were sold with reference to it, then this dedication cannot be revoked; and to determine this will involve an examination of its history.
An act of Congress entitled "an act to enable the people of the Indiana territory to form a constitution and State Government, and for the admission of such State into the Union, on an equal footing with the original States," approved April 19, 1816, contains the following provision in clause fifth of section 6:
That four sections of land be, and the same are hereby granted to the said State for the purpose of fixing their seat of government thereon, which four sections shall, under the direction of the Legislature of said State be located at any time in such township and range as the Leislature aforsaid may select on such lands as may hereafter be acquired by the United States, from the Indian tribes within said territory; provided, That such location shall be made prior to the public sale of the lands of the United States surrounding such location."
The original grant then of lands to locate the capital was made by the United States and placed the selection and control of such lands under the direction of the Legislature of the State.
The Legislature by an act approved January 11th, 1820, "appointed commissioners to select and locate a site for the permanent seat of government of the State of Indiana," and on the 7th of June 1820, said commissioners reported that they had selected the present site of the city of Indianapolis, and the Legislature, by an act approved January 6, 1821, in section one of said act, among other things enacted that certain lands (therein describing them,)
Being the site selected by the Commissioners appointed by an act of the General Assembly of the State, approved January the 11th, one thousand eight hundred and twenty, entitled "an act appointing Commissioners to select and locate a site for the permanent seat of government of Indiana," which appears by the report of the said Commissioners, bearing date the seventh day of June, eighteen hundred and twenty, be, and the above described land is hereby established as a permanent seat of government of the State of Indiana.
page: 475[View Page 475]Section second of the same act provided for the appointment of three Commissioners to "lay off a town on the site selected as a permanent seat of government."
Section three enacted as follows:
That said Commissioners or a majority of them shall meet, at the site above named, on the first Monday in April next, or as soon thereafter as they conveniently can, and shall proceed to lay out a town, established as the seat of government, as they may deem most proper, and on such plan as they may conceive will be advantageous to the State and to the prosperity of said town, having especially in view the health, utility and beauty of the place. Said Commissioners are hereby authorized to employ a skillful surveyor, chainman and such other assistants as may be necessary in order to survey and lay out said town agreeably to their directions who shall first be sworn faithfully to fulfil the several duties that may be assigned them by the provisions of this act which oath any one of said Commissioners is hereby authorized to administer.
SEC. 4 It shall be the duty of said surveyor, after laying out said town, to make out two complete copies of the plan of said town, on parchment or good and durable paper, with the proper references and explanatory notes annexed thereto, designating the contents of each lot in square feet, the length of each line binding the same, the width of each street and alley, the contents of each square that may be designated on the plan thereof as public ground, and for what intended, whether for civil or religious purposes, the courses and length of all streets and alleys with their names thereto annexed, noting particularly, on said map, the variations of the needle from the true meridian; which maps and explanatory notes and references, after being approved of by the said Commissioners and by them countersigned shall be by them disposed of as follows: one copy shall be by them transmitted to the office of the Secretary of State, together with the certificates of their oath as prescribed by the second section of this act thereto annexed, on or before the first Monday in December, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-one, which maps and accompanying documents he shall record in the office of State, and lay the original papers before the House of Representatives, within eight days after the commencement of the next session of the General Assembly; the other copy thereof shall, by said commissioners be delivered to the agent appointed under the provisions of this act; at least thirty days previous to the sale of any lots in said town.
The commissioners proceeded to lay off the town and reported to the Legislature, which body by an act approved November 28th, 1821, legalized and approved their proceedings in the premises.
The Legislature by an act approved January 26, 1827, authorized an additional sale of lots in Indianapolis, and section five is as follows:
That the square numbered twenty-two be, and the iame is hereby set apart for the use of a State hospital and lunatic asylum, and square number twenty-five for a State University, and the alleys, so far as they extend through the said blocks are hereby vacated.
It is contended by those who favor the sale that from the language of the last recited act, it was not the intention to dedicate the square for the site or actual location of an University but for the use, and that that meant, that it might be sold and the proceeds applied to the benefit of an University, to be located somewhere else, but if there is any such meaning in the word "use" it does not apply to the square twenty-five. The act recites: "That the square numbered twenty-two be and the same is hereby set apart for the use of a State Hospital and Lunatic Asylum, and square numbered twenty-five for a State University, and the alleys so far as they extend through the said blocks are hereby vacated." The word "use" is employed in connection with square twenty-two for an Asylum, and does not qualify the language in reference to square twenty-five, but even if it did apply to twenty-five, the language is "set-apart" for a State University. Why set apart a particular lot to be sold and apply the amount? Why not have appropriated the money directly, or why not have directed that the square should be sold and the money applied,, but the act makes no provision for locating or building elsewhere, does not prescribe when or how, or upon what terms it should be sold, or what should be done with the money; and the idea that the intention was to sell and apply the proceeds to building an University at some other location is simply absurd, for all it would have sold for at that time would hardly have been sufficient to erect a respectable log-cabin; and further, the act vacates the alleys running through said square, and why this if it were to be sold a other lots? It would sell better with streets and alleys through and about it. This language instead of sustaining the position that the square was to be sold--and that is the basis of the whole argument on that side of the question--unequivocally demonstrates that it was the intention that the square should actually be occupied by the University building, contemplating a large edifice occupying, with its necessary appurtenances the entire square. If to be used for the ordinary purpose of building lots then the alleys would have been let alone. There could have been no rational purpose in vacating the alleys for building lots, while for an University occupying the whole ground for a common purpose it would be exactly appropriate. The Commissioners and the Legislature believed that it would be for the interest of the State and the town in laying it off, to lay it off in squares and divide the squares into lots in order to sell and to realize to the best advantage. It was clearly then, not the intention to sell it as other lots were sold for the law did not vacate the alleys in other squares which were sold, but the whole letter and spirit of the very language relied upon to sustain the position that the square was to be sold, on the contrary goes irresistably to demonstrate the the very reverse, and that it was intended to dedicate the square for the actual site of an University.
page: 476[View Page 476]It will be observed that in all the decisions to which reference has been had, the words 'use,' and 'dedicated to use,' are repeatedly employed, and that it in all cases means that the grounds shall themselves be actually employed for the specific purpose indicated, and that the word "use" and "set apart for use" in a dedication is the precise term which forever prevents its being sold or converted to any other purpose.
In the decision in the suit of Williams vs. Wiley, 16 Ind. p. 362, the Court says:
A dedication is a solemn appropriation. It may be express or implied. An express dedication of property to public use is made by a direct appropriation of it to such use. A dedication of property to public use may be implied from the acts of the owner.
We find then, that a landed proprietor, laying off a city, may make a dedication of portions to public uses, and that to make such dedication irrevocable it is only necessary to do two things: First, to lay off a plan and on certain squares in the plot to write words which import a public use; and, Second, to sell lots with reference to it; and in this instance we find both of these conditions complied with. Nay, more; we find that the Legislature by express law "solemnly appropriated the square for an University."
The second proposition is: Was property sold with reference to it? That a large portion of the city was, is a matter of common history; but it may be well to particularize somewhat. The act setting the square apart was passed Jan. 26, 1827. Lying directly across the street on the north is square 16, on the east square 24, and on the west square No. 26. No lots had been sold in either of these squares until after the passage of this act. Directly south is square 36. Ten lots in this square had been sold prior to the passage of the law and two after, and one of these two fronted on the street directly opposite square 25. Four other squares viz: 15,17, 35 and 37 cornered diagonally from this square, and in none of these had a single lot been sold until after the passage of this act. These eight squares immediately over against square 25, contained ninety-six lots, ten of which had been sold prior to January 26, 1827, and thirty-eight more were sold after that date and before Feb. 9, 1831, and forty-eight after that date.
Again the Legislature by act of February 9th, 1831, (acts of 1831, p. 82,) enacted as follows:
SEC. 1. Be it enacted, &c. That the agent of State for the town of Indianapolis, be authorized and required to cause the lands around the said town, belonging to the State to be accurately surveyed and divided into lots according to the plan designated on the plot presented by the said agent to the House of Representatives, and cause the corners and boundaries thereof to be distinctly marked and numbered as marked on said plan; also place some permanent monument of each corner of said town as originally laid out, and at the outside corners of each Congressional section, which composes the donation.
SEC. 2. It shall be the further duty of the said agent, so soon as the survey is completed, to cause to be made out, two complete maps or plats of the town of Indianapolis designating the names and width of the several streets and alleys, the number and size of the several squares, designating those that are set apart for public purposes, the number and size of the several in lots, and the number and size of the several out lots as now established by law, and also the form, the courses and distances of their boundaries, the content and the number of the several lots and the width and courses of the several streets and alleys by this act authorized to be laid out; which maps or plats shall be securely folded varnished and bound, one of which shall be deposited in the office of the Recorder of Marion County, who shall enter thereon a certificate of the time of depositing the same, and the plat so deposited shall be considered a public record; and the other plat shall be deposited in the office of said agent.
It will be observed that this act makes it the duty of the agent as soon "as the survey is completed, to cause to be made out two complete maps or plats of the town of Indianapolis designating the name and width of the several streets and alleys, the number and size of the several squares, designating those that are set apart for public purposes the numbers and size of the several in lots, and the number and size of the several out lots as now established by law."
This law provided for the survey and laying off of additional lands around Indianapolis and provided for the making of the two new maps to embrace the whole town, with the former and new surveys and designating the number and size of the several in-lots and the number and size of the several out-lots as now established by law. It was also directed that this new map (one copy of it) should deposited in the office of the Recorder of Marion county, which was done, and it is now there and upon square twenty-five is written simply the words "University Square." And the law of 1831, also declared that such map should be a "public record," which makes it proof of what it contains and is the final testimony in all matters respecting real estate in this city and so repeatedly recognized by the courts, and the same law directed that the other map "or plat shall be deposited in the office of said agent," who was the person appointed by law to make sales of the lots and who in subsequent sections of the same act is directed to make sales of lots according to those maps, and after those maps were made and one of them deposited in the office of the Recorder of Marion county, with "University Square" marked on square 25, the agent of State, by the other fac simile map, sold a large number of lots in Indianapolis and among others, forty-eight lots in the square immediately surrounding square 25 and only across the street from it.
page: 477[View Page 477]The map had been by law deposited in the office of the Recorder of Marion county, and the people consulted and acted upon it, for it was by law solemnly declared to be a map of the city and to be a public record. From it the people sought information in order to make their purchases. The State had voluntarily made it and ordered it to be exposed for the information of the people at the very place where records of titles are kept. The people bought lots with reference to that map and they had the right to; and they had and have the right to claim, as evidence of their title, what it imports upon its face, as such face would be naturally and reasonably understood; and will it be contended that purchasers supposed or that there was anything to lead them to suppose, that a square marked "University Square" on the map of Indianapolis, and which the law had "set apart for a State University," and had at the same time vacated the alleys, was intended merely to be sold and the proceeds applied to a future institution to be located in Monroe county? Did not the people evidently understand and had they not a right to understand from the acts and representations of the State by her own chosen words and maps, that it was intended for the site of an University, and strong motives existed why this should have been the intention: First, to enhance the selling price of the lots, the proceeds of which went into the State Treasury. Second, to induce a rapid building up of the capitol, and Third, the erection at some future day of a great institution of learning, which would be an honor to the State. And what would be more natural than to locate such an institution--one of a great State character--at the State capitol;a central position and expected to be the leading city of the State? The Legislature then dedicated and set apart this square for a University, and sold lots in reference to it, and hence all the legal conditions of a dedication have been complied with and the dedication has become irrevocable.
It has been urged that this square is now only a park for citizens of Indianapolis, and that the objection to selling, comes from the rich people who have built fine residences, and fine churches around it, and this is spoken of as something to be severely condemned. The objection is urged on the part of the city authorities and also from those who have built fine houses and fine churches about it, and they have a right to object. The State voluntarily laid out and designated that square as dedicated to a public purpose, which made it a desirable vicinity, and the lot holders bought with reference to it. The very reason exists which the law assigns why such dedication should be irrevocable, viz: That purchasers bought with reference to the fact that it was dedicated to a public use which determined its desirable character forever, and expended large means in adorning and improving the neighborhood. Four fine, large churches have clustered around it because of its supposed determined character, and that one which made it desirable. The State invited them to buy and build there--offered inducements, and after having accomplsihed this--after the inducement has succeeded and large investments made which cannot be removed; to now divert it to another and less desirable purpose, would be a fraud upon adjoining property holders. The State in the sale of lots realized the full additional value of the grounds dedicated to public use.
The act of 1831, authorizing the Commissioners to lay off additional grounds around the town, also directed them to make two complete maps thereof, designating the names and width of the several streets and alleys designating those that are set apart for public purposes, and on those maps two half squares were marked "Market Square," and the city for a long time used them both as such, and still uses one of them, and would it be contended that so marking them was not in legal effect a dedication for an actual site for a "Market House," but that the city might sell, and with the proceeds buy grounds and build market houses some where else? The Commissioners under the act of 1831, dedicated square No. 40, in Indianapolis, for a "Market Square" simply by so designating it upon the map and afterward it became desirable to locate the market house upon other grounds, and the city exchanged with the State for another lot the city council haying first passed an ordinance and the Legislature a law authorizing the exchange, and the exchange was made. Yet no doubt any citizen could have enjoined the transfer and the Supreme Court in the suit of Ketchum vs. the City of Indianapolis, 12 Ind. p. 620, decided that the first lot having been originally a dedication, that the property exchanged for it, inherited the same dedicatory character and it must be devoted forever to the uses of the original grant, and that the "corporate authorities would have no right to dispose of it by sale or otherwise use it in a way different from the object for which it was granted;" and that upon a judgment against the city, for a debt it could not be sold upon execution, although the deed to the city for the last named lot did not show that it was a dedication or anything else than an ordinary purchase, and although the exchange had been made by the consent of all parties interested.
The State might with more propriety undertake to revoke the dedication of the mar page: 478[View Page 478] ket squares than of the University square for the dedication is less positive. This dedication was no gift, no favor. The State obtained the full value of all these public grounds by the enhanced value received from the sale of private lots. It is a common and deemed a profitable policy on the part of landed proprietors laying off cities. The parties who bought the adjoining lots bought with them the right to have these other grounds maintained for public uses forever. The citizens about this square hold that this square has been dedicated for the site of a University and that until a University is erected it should remain an open ground. They have expended large sums in caring for and improving it, but should the State or city commence the erection of an University upon it no word of objection will be heard, for they concede that it was dedicated for that purpose.
It is contended, too, that this valuable tract of ground is laying there and enjoyed solely by the citizens of Indianapolis; but it should be remembered that the enterprize of the citizens of Indianapolis made it valuable. When the lots around it were sold the square was worth but a trifle, and the progress of Indianapolis has made it worth what it is today.
It has been represented that the same section of the law that set apart square 25, also set apart square 22, "for the use of a State Hospital and Lunatic Asylum," and that by a subsequent act of the Legislature, square 22 was divided into lots and sold to private purchasers and that the Legislature has the same power over square 25, that it possessed over square 22. It is true that square 22 was so set apart and so sold, but this proves nothing, except that the city and citizens may have waived their rights. They may have been willing that a lot dedicated for a Pest House and Lunatic Asylum in their midst, should be diverted to some more agreeable purpose; but had objection been made, it could not have been sold. Having, however, stood by and permitted it to be sold and purchasers to make improvements, all parties would now be estopped from setting up a claim against such purchasers; and so if the Legislature were to order this square to be sold, and persons should buy and improve with the knowledge and without objection from the city or citizens they would waive their rights. They would be estopped and the title would be good in the purchasers, but the city is now protesting and will always protest, and while no objections may have been made to an act which prevented the location of a Pest House and Lunatic Asylum in the heart of the city, the people may feel differently respecting the location of an institution of learning. The two squares are entirely distinct and separate matters and permitting the sale of square 22, only proves that the citizens waived an undesirable right which does not in any way commit or preclude them from asserting one that is desirable.
The first proposition then: "That it was the intention of the Legislature to dedicate the square for the 'actual site of an University' has been clearly established.
The second proposition was to show that the Legislature did not at any time design to appropriate the square to the Bloomington University. The origin of the University was as follows. By an act of the Legislature entitled "An act to establish a State Seminary and for other purposes" (approved January 29, 1820,) a State Seminary was created, and naming certain persons as trustees, and directing said trustees.
To meet at Bloomington, in the county of Monroe, on the first Monday in June next, or so soon thereafter as may be convenient, and being first duly sworn to discharge the duties of their office, shall repair to the reserved township of land in said county, which was granted by Congress to this State for the use of a Seminary of Learning and proceed to select an eligible and convenient site for a State Seminary.
Other sections of the law authorize the trustees to lay off the township in lots and sell them, and erect a Seminary building and house for a Professor, on the site which they might select. The site selected was that of the present Bloomington University.
By a subsequent act of date January 26, 1826, additional trustees were appointed. It will be remembered that square 25, in Indianapolis was set apart for an University exactly seven years and six days after the passage of the act creating the State Seminary. What then, this square was set apart the State Seminary had long been in existence and it is clear that the Legislature did not in the first instance intend to appropriate this square to the State Seminary, or they would have employed different language. Instead of saying as they did, "set apart for a State University" they would have said, "that square 25 in Indianapolis, is ordered to be sold and the proceeds to be paid to the trustees of the State Seminary at Bloomington." This would have been as easily said as the language that was employed and would have left no confusion on the subject.
It is clear, then, that it was not the original intention of the Legislature to give this square or its proceeds to the Seminary, but to set it apart for an institution which they called by an entirely different name; and it is this original intention of the Legislature that will govern the construction of the law and, if that original intention was to dedicate it for the actual site of an University, and the entire page: 479[View Page 479] conduct the Legislature in reference to it was calculated to produce this impression on the minds of purchasers, and then with this impression parties bought with reference to it the character of the ground is fixed, and other parties than the State have vested rights and important interests therein, and the State cannot change their intentions and divert the property to a different purpose or to the benefit of an institution not originally contemplated. The Legislature by another act, approved January 24, 1828, just one year lacking two days after the dedication of the square for an University provided as follows:
AN Act to establish a College in the State of Indiana. [Approved January 24, 1828.]
SEC. 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, That there shall be and hereby is created and established a college adjacent to the town of Bloomington, in the county of Monroe for the education of youth in the American, learned and foreign languages, the useful arts, sciences and literature, to be known by the name and style of the Indiana College, and to be governed and regulated as hereinafter directed.
SEC. 12. That all monies arising from the sale of the Seminary townships in the counties of Monroe and Gibson, shall be and forever remain a permanent fun, for the support of said College and the interest arising from the amount of said sales, together with the three reserved sections in the Seminary townships situated in the county of Monroe, and all the buildings which have been erected adjacent to the town of Bloomington, in said county of Monore, for the use of the State Seminary with all the real and personal property of every description belonging to or connected with said State Seminary as the property of the State, and all gifts, grants and dedications which have been or hereafter may be made for the support of the College shall be, and hereby are forever vested in the aforesaid Trustees and their successors to be controlled, regulated and appropriated by them in such manner as they shall deem most condusive to the best interest and prosperity of the institution.
This sections changes the "State Seminary" into the "Indiana College," and transfers to the latter all the property of the former and enumerates certain lands, but does not allude to the University square. So that it is evident that the Legislature of 1828, did not design to appropriate the square to the Indiana College.
The Legislature of 1852, passed an act entitled:
AN Act providing for the government of the State University, the management of its funds and for the disposition of the lands thereof. [Approved June 17, 1852]
SEC. 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, That the institution established by act entitled, "An Act to establish a College in the State of Indiana," approved January 28, 1828, is hereby recognized at the University of the State.
SEC. 28. The University fund shall consist of the lands in Monroe and Gibson counties and proceeds of sales thereof, and all donations for the use of such University, where the same is expressly mentioned in the grant, or where in such grant the term University only is used the principal of which fund when paid into the State Treasury, shall be loaned and the annual interest thereon applied to the current expenses of the University.
Now this section is the first and only law upon which the University pretends to have a shadow of claim and while it specially refers to other lands it makes no allusion to square 25. If the Legislature had designed to appropriate that square a few words would have expressed that intention, but it is claimed that the general language "or where in such grant the term University only is used" would embrace it, but is it reasonable to suppose that the Legislature intended by this vague expression to dispose of this valuable square. But even if the language had been direct and explicit we have seen that it could not be done at that late day, it having been previously dedicated in such a manner that the Legislature had no such power; and, in addition, the general words do not apply to lands. The act first defines what lands shall belong to the University and then says "all donations for the use of such University, where the same is expressly mentioned in the grant, or where in such grant the term University only is used." It employs "donations" in a distinct and separate sense from "land."
If the Legislature of 1852, had intended to appropriate this valuable square to the University they would have said so in plain terms, and the Legislature of 1867, voted down a bill proposing to sell the square and give the proceeds to the Bloomington University.
This twenty-eighth section then, of the act of 1852, is the only law upon which the University pretends to have a claim, and the representatives of that institution evidently do not rely very confidently upon that act for it was passed seventeen years ago, and yet the Trustees have never attempted to exercise any acts of control over it. It might have been leased no doubt, for a considerable sum. They have taken no care of it. The city of Indianapolis and some citizens have fenced it, planted it with trees and paved around it, and two years ago the University made great efforts to procure the passage of a law to authorize the sale of this square, and give the proceeds to the University; and now another bill is pressed for the same purpose, but if the act of 1852, gave them a title already, why the necessity of this act? though it is due to say that this bill as it now is proposing to give the square to the University, was not presented by the Senator from Monroe, nor by any one representing the Trustees of the University but that in fact the bill as originally introduced by the Senator from Monroe, and who is recognized as the warm and faithful friend of the University provided that the square should be sold and the proceeds devoted to the erection of a Medical College in Indianapolis.
The act then, of 1852, did not purport to give the University any title, and would be page: 480[View Page 480] void if it had, and the friends of the University evidently do not rely upon it.
The two propositions then undertaken to be established at the outset of this argument, were First, That it was the intention of the Legislature to dedicate the square for the actual site of an University; and Second, That it was not the intention to give the square or its proceeds to the Bloomington University, either of which would alone be sufficient and both of which, it is believed, have been established.
On motion by Mr. HUGHES, the Committee rose, reported progress and asked leave to sit again.
And then--
The Senate adjourned till nine o'clock a. m. to-morrow.
