GERMAN IN THE COMMON SCHOOLS.
On motion by Mr. BELLAMY, the bill [H. R. 62] to amend section 147 of the Common School Law of March 6, 1865, authorizing the German language to be taught in the common schools, when the parents or guardians of twenty-five pupils shall require it, was taken up.
On motion by Mr. CAVIN, the constitutional restriction was dispensed with, in order that the bill may be pressed to its final reading.
page: 113[View Page 113]Mr. FISHER moved to strike out the words "twenty-five," and insert a provision lieu that it shall require a majority to demand that the German language shall be taught in the public schools. He thought the bill was wrong in this particular. The majority should always govern.
Mr. BELLAMY resisted the amendment, and stated reasons why he thought it should be rejected.
Mr. HADLEY believed the amendment would defeat the whole object of the bill, and spoke in favor of the passage of the bill without the amendment.
Mr. FISHER regarded it as wrong to allow five or six parents to control several hundred in this matter. He was willing to vote for a provision allowing German schools to be established, but unwilling to allow this demand by so small a minority; and that, too, when it may effect the usefulness of an entire school by compelling the Trustee to hire a German teacher who is not as well qualified as he should be in other branches required to be taught.
Mr. MORGAN considered the German language a great acquisition, and was decidedly in favor of the bill. He thought a German teacher might be called in from time to time to teach this class.
Mr. CAVIN would regret to see this amendment adopted. The German population compose almost one-third of our population, and such a measure as this is due them. He urged the passage of the bill, referring repeatedly to the fact that numerous petitions had been presented here, from time to time, in favor of such a measure.
Mr. CARSON, while in favor of the pending amendment, proposed to still further amend by adding a provision including the French language.
Mr. CRAVENS fully sympathised with the object proposed by the bill, but objected to the mode prescribed. It proposes to change somewhat the character of our common school education, the greatest object of which is a national system of education. He would be willing to see the German and even the French language incorporated as a branch of study in the higher schools the State University for instance. He favored the general principle running through the whole frame work of our Government - that a majority should rule-and consequently hoped the amendment would be adopted.
Mr. CHURCH favored the bill because an acquisition of the German language was more important to our children than any other, excepting the English language only. He did not regard the bill as allowing any of a majority by five or six guardians or parents; because the others need not avail themselves of the German branch unless desirable. He regarded this as an important measure, and hoped the amendment would be voted down.
Mr. CARSON, as he understood it, did not think the amendment was the thing wanted by the German population of the State. They preferred to manage the German department themselves, as he had been informed.
Mr. CAVIN did not think they wanted either a separation of the fund, or a separation from the children in our common schools. He spoke again in favor of the passage of the bill, and against the amendment, arguing that you must adapt legislation to the character of your population.
Mr. TURNER opposed the amendment, and favored the passage of the bill, because of the benefits that would inure to the whole public. He regarded the knowledge of the German language as an accomplishment; and for these reasons alone was desirous to see the measure passed.
Mr. BEARDSLEY demanded the previous question.
The demand was seconded by the Senate, and under its operation-
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. CARSON made several ineffectual motions to get his amendment, including the French language, before the Senate.
The bill was then read the third time, and finally passed by yeas 37, nays 3.
Mr. CARSON explaining that he voted for it as the best thing he was able to do under the circumstances.
Mr. CRAVENS voted "no," and in explanation said he did so in the hope that he might yet be able to offer a proposition, embodying his views-distinctly stating, however, that he was favorable to the main object of the bill.
Mr. JOHNSON of Montgomery, voted "no," because this bill would nesessarily interfere with school matters all through the several counties in a way that would prove embarrassing and detrimental to the present system.
