HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Mr. McBRIDE obtained leave to introduce a joint resolution [H. R. No. 16] concerning the Southern Prison. [For the removal of Director F. M. Meredith.]
Mr. PIERCE, of Vigo, moved that it be laid on the table for the present, (to await the consideration of the report of the prison Committee) -affirmative, 32, negative 32-no quorum. Subsequently the motion was agreed to-yeas 44, nays 36.
The SPEAKER laid before the House, reports from the Columbus, Chicago and Indiana Central Railroad Company, with reference to the transportation of Soldiers, etc., which were referred to the special Railroad Committee.
Also a communication from the Governor, transmitting the proposal of Jesse Mehary to donate 320 acres of his farm (Shawnee Mound) for the use of the Agricultural College, conditioned that said college be located thereon, etc., which was referred to the special Committee on the Agricultural College.
On motion of Mr. FULLER, the railroad bill [S. 215] to authorize counties and towns to take stock in railroads was taken up, and passed the first reading.
Mr. FULLER moved that it be referred to the Judiciary Committee, but, on the request of Mr. WELBORN, it went to the files.
On motion of Mr. RUDDELL, the Senate amendments to Mr. Stewart of Rush's bill [H. R. 132], to enable cities to subscribe stock to aid in the construction of railroad and water power, subject to the restriction of the act of March 14, 1867, were taken up and concurred in.
THE MORGAN RAID BILL.
Mr. DAVIS of Floyd submitted a motion-to relieve the Committee on Ways and Means from the consideration of Hutchings' Morgan Raid Appropriation bill [H. R. 119] to enable him to make a motion to refer it to a select committee.
Mr. OSBORN and Mr. STEWART of Rush opposed the motion as discourteous toward the standing committee.
Mr. DAVIS. Not at all; and, answering objections, he still insisted on his motion. The same course had been taken with other bills.
Mr. STANTON objected not to the bill going to a Special Committee, though the Ways and Means Committee might be ready to report soon.
Mr. Davis' motion prevailed, and the bill was referred to a special committee of one from each Congressional District.
Mr. RATLIFF entered his motion to reconsider the action of the House for the location of the Agricultural College.
THE CALENDAR.
Mr. WILDMAN moved a suspension of the order of business, and to take up the consideration of bills of the House on the third reading.
Mr. DUNN (in order to hear the minority report from the Judiciary Committee promised yesterday) moved ineffectually to lay Mr. Wildman's motion on the table-yeas 16, nays 61; and then Mr. Wildman's motion was agreed to.
Mr. Pierce of Vigo's dog bill [H. R. 211] penalty for allowing dogs to run at large in the night time, $5 to $50was read the third time.
On motion of Mr. CORY it was indefinitely postponed-affirmative 42, negative 26.
Mr. PIERCE of Vigo, moved to reconsider this vote.
Mr. CORY moved to lay that motion on the table, which was ruled out of order, because it is not in order to consider the motion of Mr. Pierce without a suspension of the order just taken to consider bills in the calendar.
Mr. Gilham's Valuation Law Amendment bill [H. R. 158], adding to the 23d section of the act of June 21, 1852, these words. "Provided, that if any such person shall page: 139[View Page 139] converted moneys, credits or other personal property, in the year preceding the first of January of the current year, into bonds or other securities of the United States, and shall hold or control said bonds or other securities when he is required to list his property, he shall list the monthly average value of such moneys, credits or other property thus converted while such moneys, credits or other property were held or controlled by him; and provided further, that nay indebtedness of such person or persons, represented by him, created by investment in said bonds or other securities, shall not be deducted from the amount of credits in making up his list for taxation."
Mr. GILHAM explained the object and effect of the bill-a man to give in the average amount of moneys held by him during the year. It was copied from the Ohio law.
Mr. SHOAFF raised an objection, which was answered by Mr. GILHAM.
Mr. McFADIN spoke distinctly for the passage of the bill.
Mr. GORDON stated the objection, that it would require tax payers to keep books.
The bill finally passed the House of Representatives-yeas 69, nays 12.
Mr. Welborn's bill [H. R. 95] for the relief of John Ingle and John Ingle, Jr.-(to quiet their title to their 200 acre farm, defective on account of alienage)-was taken up.
Mr. WELBORN explained the provisons and the single object of the bill-an act of justice to the Ingles.
The bill finally passed the House; yeas 77, nays 0.
Mr. Palmer's bill (H. R. 104) to amend section 379 of the Practice act of 1852, was taken up and read the third time.
It proposes to substitute for the last clause of said section these words: "Or unless the plaintiff shall plead and prove a mortgage or other lein on real estate of the defendant by which the debt is secured, in which case the party recovering judgment shall recover costs,"
Mr. PALMER stated the effect of the bill: and it was finally passed the House-yeas 77, nays 0.
Mr. Coffroth's bill [H. R. 186] providing proceedings supplementary to executions in courts of Justices of the Peace, etc-, was read the third time.
It provides that when the execution is returned unsatisfied, the judgment creditor shall be entitled to an order requiring the the judgement debtor to appear before the Justice to answer under oath concerning his property within the county, &c., &c. Both parties to testify on trials in such cases, &c.
Mr. COFFROTH tated that the effect of the bill is to give the same power to Justices Courts that now exists in the courts of record, to enforce the collection of judgments. The jurisdictions of Justices of the Peace become of some importance, since in certain cases they may be extended to two or three hundred dollars.
The bill was finally passed the House of Representatives-yeas 77, nays 0.
STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE.
Mr. WILLIAMS, of Knox, obtained leave to introduce a bill [H. R. 388] for an act to authorize the President of the State Board of Agriculture to fill vacancies in the office of Secretary, in the office of Treasurer, and in the office of Superintendent of the State Board of Agriculture; which was read; and he then moved a suspension of the constitutional restriction to admit of its passage at once, referring to the emergency on account of the decease of the late Secretary of the Board, Hon., A. J. Holmes.
Mr. DUNN proposed and obtained leave to introduce a bill [H. R. 389] to authorize a committee to remodel the judicial system, which he moved to include in the proposed suspension of the constitutional restriction.
Mr. FIELD, of Lake, moved to include his Donovan relief bill [H. R. 294.]
Mr. COFFROTH moved to include the Senate Court bill No. 338.
Mr. WILLIAMS accepted these amendments to his motion; and the constitutional restriction being removed accordingly-his Agricultural Board bill [H. R. 388] was passed the second and final readings-yeas 76, nays 0.
THE COURT SYSTEM.
Mr. DUNN then introduced, his bill [H. R. 389], to authorize the Governor to appoint three Commissioners to revise, amend and remodel the system of courts of this State; fixing the time when this commission shall meet (120 days); giving them a certain compensation ($5 a day); giving them certain privileges, and declaring an emergency, and it was read the first and second time.
Mr. WILLSON moved ineffectually to make the commission five instead of three.
Mr. DAVIS, of Floyd, suggested, that we can't get commissioners, such as we ought to have, for $5 a day.
Mr. STANTON proposed $10.
Mr. DAVIS preferred that the House would make it $6, by general consent. He spoke to the propriety of increasing this compensation, submitting general considerations in favor of the bill.
The vote on Mr. Davis's amendment being-affirmative 35, negative 30discovered no quorum; and then-
page: 140[View Page 140]On motion of Mr. DUNN, the bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. PIERCE, of Porter (by leave) submitted a formal order, that when the House shall adjourn this (Friday) evening it shall be till Tuesday morning at 9 o'clock.
Mr. RUDDELL proposed till Monday, 2 o'clock.
Mr. LONG moved ineffectually to lay the matter on the table.
Mr. Ruddell's amendment was then agreed to, and the question recurred on the adoption of the order, as amended, which was also agreed to-yeas 51, nays 22.The House then took a recess till 2 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. HAMILTON asked and obtained leave to submit the following:
Resolved, That the adult employes of the State Librarian, during the regular session of 1869, be allowed $5 a day.
Mr. H. stated his belief that there were seven of them, who received but $3 a day-no more than the pages.
Mr. CORY. Disabled soldiers-some of them.
Mr. GORDON opposed the resolution, as an extravagance.
Mr. WELBORN demanded the previous question, and under its operation (Messrs. Davidson and Cory demanding the yeas and nays) the proposition was rejected.- Yeas, 6; nays, 61.
MORGAN RAID BILL.
The Speaker announced the following Special Committee on Mr. Hutchings' Morgan Raid Appropriation bill, [H. R. 119], viz: Messrs. Welborn, Davis of Floyd, Monroe, Bowen, Stanton, Johnston of Parke. Gordon, McFadin, Bobo7 Coffroth, and Pierce of Porter-one member from each Congressional District.
Mr. McDONALD submitted the following:
Resolved, That one Floor Page is all that is necessary to do the business required by the House; therefore, it is hereby declared that but one Page shall be employed for the balance of the session.
Objections being made, the resolution could not be entertained.
THE LIQUOR LAW BILLS.
On motion of Mr. COFFROTH, the consideration of the several bills set for the special order this afternoon, to-wit: the bills to amend and repeal the liquor law, was postponed till Wednesday.
HEIRS OF PATRICK DONOVAN, DECEASED.
Mr. Field of Lake's bill [H. R. 294] for relief of the heirs at law of Patrick Donovan, deceased, was taken up in the order of unfinished business, and read the third time.
It provides that said alien heirs may sell their 160 acres of land in the county Of Lake-the provisions being explained by Mr. Field-the bill passed the final reading in the House of Representatives-yeas 67 nays 2.
TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT.
The bill [S. 338] defining what counties (Huntington, Whitley, Wells, Adams and Alien) shall constitute the Tenth Judicial Circuit, and fixing the time of holding courts therein, was taken up as unfinished business of this morning, read twice by title and the third time by sections.
On explanation by Mr. COFFROTH, it was finally passed the House-yeas 69, nays 0.
Mr. RUDDELL moved ineffectually to take up the gravel road bill No. 52.
Mr. PIERCE, of Porter, moved that the House take up the consideration of the Senate bills No. 83 and 84; which-
On the motion of Mr. ZOLLARS, was amended so as to include the consideration of Senate bills generally; and so the order was adopted.
The bill [S. 83] to amend section 2 of the act declaring the registry of sales of Michigan road lands and certified copies thereof evidence, and declaring the effect thereof, approved March 9, 1859, was taken up, read the second and third times, and finally passed the House of Representatives-yeas 68, nays 0.
On the motion of Mr. STANTON (the Constitutional restriction having been removed for the purpose-yeas 67, nays 3)-it was ordered that the remainder of the bills from the Senate on the second reading, now in the calendar of the House, be considered on the second and third readings thereof.
The bill [S. 84] to repeal section 31 of the act concerning real property and the alienation thereof, approved May 6, 1862, was take up and read the second time.
After some conversation across the House, from which it appeared that there-peal of this 31st section complements the provisions of the bill [S. 84]-the bill was finally passed the House of Representativesyeas 66, nays 3.
The bill [S. 134] to authorize and encourage the construction of levees, dykes and drains, and the reclamation, of wet and overflowed lands by incorporated companies; and repealing all laws on the same subject, was taken up and read the first time by title and the second time by sections.
Mr. LONG moved that it be referred to the Committee on Swamp Lands.
Mr. COFFROTH proposed to amend by striking out the 17th (the repealing) sec page: 141[View Page 141]tion to avoid the repeal of the existing ditch law.
Mr. WILLIAMS, of Knox, proposed that it be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. Long accepted it as his motion; and the bill was referred accordingly.
The bill [S. 211] defining the counties-constituting the Eighth Judicial Circuit,etc., was taken up, read the second time,and passed over.
The bill [S. 110] with reference to the State University lands, etc., was read the second time.
AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE.
The SPEAKER laid before the House a communication from the Governor, transmitting a proposition from the Commissioners of Marion county, Indiana, to add $15,000 to the $100,000 heretofore offered by them for the use of the Agricultural College, provided said college be located in said county.
On motion of Mr. STANTON, the motion and proposition were referred to the special Committee on the Agricultural College.
On motion of Mr. ZOLLARS, the Savings Bank bill, No. 52, was made the special order for Tuesday morning.
Mr. GORDON moved to make the Court bill [S. 211]-to constitute the Eighth Judicial Circuit, the special order for Tuesday, 2 o'clock.
The SPEAKER (Mr. Stanton in the Chair) said this Senate bill, No. 211. affects the counties of Boone, Clinton, Parke, Montgomery, Fountain and Warren.
Mr. COFFROTH said the gentleman from Fountain (Mr. Cunningham), and the gentleman from Clinton (Mr. Palmer), and he believed the gentleman from Montgomery (Mr. Johnston), have expressed some opposition to this bill; and some of these gentlemen having leaves of absence beyond Tuesday, he preferred (and it was but justice to them,) to defer the consideration of the bill till Wednesday or Thursday.
Mr. GORDON said, the bill proposes to constitute the 8th Circuit as it stood two years ago.
After further conversation, Mr. Gordon's motion was adopted, by yeas 50, nays 17.
On motion of Mr. RUDDELL, Mr. Millions Gravel Road bill, [H. R. 52,] was made the special order for Tuesday.
On motion of Mr. COFFROTH, the Swamp Land bill, [S. 72,] was made the special order for Wednesday.
On motion of Mr. BOBO, the county railroad bill, [S. 215,] was made the special order for Wednesday morning, at l0 o'clock.
Mr. RUDDELL submitted the following:
Resolved, (The Senate concuring,) That the Section 7 of the Statute shall cause to be distributed to the several counties of the State 10,000 copies of the Road Laws in pamphlet form, for the use of supervisors.
But objections being made-
On motion of Mr. CHITTENDEN, the House adjourned till Monday at two o'clock P. M.
REMARKS OF
HON. M. A. OSBORN,
Representative for the
Counties of Hen
dricks and Putnam,
Delivered April 27, 1869, in the House of Representatives of the Forty-Sixth General Assembly of the State of Indiana, pending the consideration of Mr. Dunn's bill [H. R. 347] for "an act to establish an Indiana Agricultural College in connection with the State University, and providing for its organization and government.
Mr. OSBORN proposed to amend, by striking out the words "Bloomington," "Monroe county," and "State University," wherever they occur in the bill. He said:
Mr. Speaker: This question is one that I am hardly prepared to meet just now, as I am not here with a written speech nor with prepared notes to enable me to present my ideas about this institution and the proper distribution of its funds with as much accuracy as those who have preceded me. But I shall try to present a few facts and arguments, in my feeble way, arid endeavor to make members of the House understand my ideas concerning the location of this Institution.
There is one thing that is calculated to embarrass me as a member of this House in the discussion of the merits of this bill, and that is, that it is a proposition coming from one of our special committees. I dislike always to stand in the position of disagreeing with the report of a committee1", the members of which, I have no doubt, have discharged their duties in the best mariner they could. I say I dislike this. But, sir, there are some things connected with this matter which will afford me an excuse for the course which I shall take. And I shall mention them in a plain way. And I trust that no member of the Committee will take offense, because I have the utmost confidence in them as gentlemen. This Committee was raised but a few days ago-about the time this bill was referred to them. The Committee has met, and acted upon it, and made its report. And I for one, who having taken great interest in the location of this College, have to complain, because no member of this Committee has notified me at any time of its sittings or its action upon this bill. And I represent a county having a deep interest in the location of the Agricultural College, and which has been and is now competing for its location. Therefore I shall now address myself to the House, and try to set forth their claims in this matter as well as I may be able to do. The complaint I have to make is this, that this matter was considered in committee without any notice to me or any page: 142[View Page 142] other member representing and having an interest in this matter of the location of the Agricultural College in Putnam county. And I have been informed that the interests of Putnam county were not considered by the committee. It would have been but a matter of courtesy, since that county has offered $100,000 for the location-it would have been but proper that her members should have had notice of the sessions of the committee.
Mr. WELBORN (interposing). As a member of the committee, I did not know that Putnam county had proposed a donation.
Mr. OSRORN. That is precisely what I complain of: that the committee knew nothing about the proposition, notwithstanding my colleague, [Mr. Neff] made a very long speech for that locality. Therefore I am obliged to say that the committee have acted hastily in the matter.
Mr. SHOAFF, (interposing.) The proposition of Putnam county was not before the Committee. If it had been, of course, it would have given the Committee pleasure to have given its Representatives notice.
Mr. OSBORN. I had no notice of the action of the Committee until I heard the reading of their report here in the House.
Mr. RATLIFF, (interposing.) The Committee had but two bills referred to it; and they considered only these new propositions, because it is a new Committee raised this session-entirely different from the committee of last session-and they did not consider it their duty to go back. We considered it our duty simply to report these bills back to the House, expecting the House to do with them as they please.
Mr. OSBORN (resuming). I am very glad,sir, that the Chairman of the Committee has explained. He informs us that they considered that no other proposition was referred to them except the Purdue proposition and that from Monroe county. But, sir, Hancock county, Tippecanoe county and Marion county made liberal offers, and my own county of Putnam has made a liberal offer; and yet this committee goes out and considers none of these. Then, sir, the fact that they have rejected our county is my apology (if it were asked of me) for opposing this report. This is a matter that affects every member on this floor-every citizen of the State of Indiana. And when a member or a committee undertakes to consider a question of such magnitude as this, it should certainly entertain the propositions of all the parties competing, instead of making a report in such great haste. When I say to the committee the fact that you have not considered these propositions is my apology for opposing your report; and it shall be one of the reason that I shall urge why the report should not be concurred in.
Mr. BUSKIRK [Mr. Welborn in the Chair.] Was not the gentleman aware that the committee had been appointed?
Mr. OSBORN. I knew of the motion which was made for its appointment, but did not know who had been appointed. But I am not criticising the appointment nor the manner of the making up of the committee. The objection is, that they have reported hastily-for the purpose of hurrying business. And this is a matter which I conceive ought not to be hurried in this manner.
Now this bill proposes to locate this College with the State University. And here I wish to submit a few considerations. I believe it is not in the power of the Legislature to locate this Agricultural College in connection with any other institution. I believe that in the law of Congress which provides these donations of lands it is intended that they shall be for separate institutions in all the States; and that we have no right to claim them as a benefaction for an institution that we have riot been able to keep up for ourselves. If our interests as a people are directed to any one pursuit more than any other, they are directed to the pursuit of Agriculture. We have gone on in the interests of education, and have established and maintained institutions for the purpose of teaching those branches of science and art in which literature and sciences are taught, and in which our people have been principally concerned. And Congress, looking over the vast interests of agriculture that are opening up in our great Western country, saw the great necessity for some adequate provision for the purpose of teaching agriculture, and to supply the want in our legislation that has been occasioned by those that have been opposed to any special act in the interests of agriculture. It was not for the purpose of bolstering up and giving strength to failing institutions, but on the contrary, this act of Congress was taken in the interests of agriculture and of the farming community-a donation of lands to enable us to develop this great country, to educate our boys to operate in the boundless interests of agriculture.
Now I shall call the attention of the House to this act of Congress; and I see by its title that it is to provide for instruction "in agriculture and the mechanic arts," and not, as I have said, for the purpose of giving strength to other institutions of learning. I read from the copy in the acts of the General Assembly of 1865:
[He reads the first section-the grant of 30,000 acres to each Senator and Representative in Congress; the second section prescribing location and land scrip, "and the proceeds thereof to be applied to the uses and purposes prescribed in this act, and for no other use or purpose whatever ;" and the third section, all expenses to be paid by the States; and-]
"SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, that all money derived from the sale of the lands aforesaid, by the State to which the lands are apportioned, and from the sales of the land scrip hereinbefore provided for, shall be invested in stocks of the United States or some other said stocks, yielding no less than five per centum upon the par value of said stocks, and that the money so invested shall constitute a perpetual fund, the capital of which shall remain forever undiminished, except so far as may be provide in section 5th of this act, and the interest of which shall be inevitably appropriated by each State, which may take and claim the benefit fit of this act, to the endowment, support and maintenance of at least one college, where the leading object shall be, without excluding other page: 143[View Page 143] scientific and classical studies, and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanical arts," etc.
The law of Congress says, the great object hall be for the purpose of teaching a school where agriculture shall be the leading object;and now, by the bill before the House, it is proposed to engraft this institution upon the Indiana University, whose leading objects of instruction are everything else. The State University is a corporate body, with its Board of Trustees, and in its charter the law provides that such branches of learning shall be taught in that University as its Trustees shall prescribe. And if those Trustees do not see fit to prescribe the teaching of agriculture, then, if you engraft this college upon it, the law of Congress will not be complied with. Its object may be defeated by the five men you may have there for Trustees. Thus, the leading object of the State University is one thing, and the leading object of the donation of Congress for an Agricultural College is quite another thing. But, say gentlemen who propose to establish this College in connection with the State University, they do teach agriculture. and also military tactics in the State University. And I believe there is there a Professor of military tactics. But the agricultural chair, which is to be the leading object of this College, you can not find in the State University. Why, sir, the State University is made by the Constitution the head of the common school system of the Professors of the State University State Superintendent of Public Instruction shall deliver lectures annually in fifteen counties of the State in the interest of the State University. Hence its leading object can not be instructions in agriculture, which the law of Congress requires for this College.
Again the law of Congress provides :
"SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, that the pant of land and scrip hereby authorized shall be made on the following conditions to which, as well as to the provision hereinbefore contained, the previous assent of the several States shall be signified by legislative act.
"First. If any portion of the fund invested, provided by the foregoing section, or any portion of the interest thereon, shall, by any action or contingency, be diminished or lost, it shall be replaced by the State to which it belongs," etc.
If this fund is not used strictly as it is required to be used by this fourth section, the State becomes liable for it. Why, sir, if you engraft it upon the State Institution the State of Indiana, under this act, becomes liable for the amount of the donation. The law of Congress regards this Agricultural College as a distinct and separate institution. It provides for the Board that shall govern the course of its studies, and the whole machinery of its business. And you can not embarrass it by connecting it with any other institution. We can not, however much we might desire it, plant this Agricultural Institution in the bosom of any of our State Institutions, and make it part and parcel of this Institution. For the law says:
"Third - Any State which shall take and claim the benefit of the provision of this act, shall provide within five years, not less than one college, as prescribed in the fourth section of this act, or the grant to such State shall cease, and said State shall be bound to pay to the United States the amount received of any lands previously sold, and that the title to purchase under the State shall be valid." - Section 5. third clause.
Supposing now this Institution to be connected with a school or college different in character from that which the law says they shall be, does not the State of Indiana become liable for the whole amount of the money received as the proceeds of this donation? We ought to be careful, then, how we proceed in this matter. If this condition be not complied with; if we give up this endowment to the control of a college of a character which the law does not contemplate, the State of Indiana will have to refund to the United States all the money it has thus received. Sir, is the State University an Institution whose leading object is agriculture? The law of Congress says this endowment is intended for an institution whose leading object is agriculture; and, if the State does not furnish that kind of a college, the State must pay back the money. Then, I say, sir, found if you can with this endowment, an institution in the State of Indiana, whose leading object shall be agriculture; and when you shall have done that, you will have complied with the law of Congress.
But gentlemen answer me by saying, we will make that the leading object of the State University. Are you willing to abandon the course of instruction heretofore pursued in the Indiana University, and in which I understand there are now thirty-five young men nearly ready to take their diplomas ? Are you going to abandon all that the State University has been, and prescribe that henceforth its leading object shall be agriculture, for the sake of getting this donation from Congress? Then you are simply abandoning your State University. For we all know what it has been. We all know that it has not been an institution whose leading object has been agriculture. It is very evident that, by this bill, you must change either the one or the other of these institutions, for they are just as different as two institutions can be made.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the main question, as I conceive, in this business, is as to the location of this Institution. And, for this purpose, I think we ought to go outside of our preferences among colleges. This is given to us by the General Government, with the expectation that we will make some good use of it. If I were to look alone to my individual preferences, I might go back to the Old Wabash College-to that institution where I was brought into intellectual culture, and which, I believe, is the best institution of learning in the State. And next to that, I would look to the College in my own town; and perhaps I would not say next to Wabash College, if I were to speak the sentiments of my people. For Asbury University is the most prosperous school in the State; having graduated more students, as I would say good ones at that, than any other in the State. But I shall not say, therefore, locate page: 144[View Page 144] the Agricultural College with Asbury University. I want gentlemen on this floor to distinctly understand that Putnam county makes no proposition here for the connection of this Institution with Asbury University. Her representatives here have nothing to do with it. Her proposition is a free offering, gotten up by the Putnam county farming community, asking for the location of the Agricultural College for the purpose of advancing the great farming interests of the State.
Now, sir, when I shall have offered a few considerations in regard to this location, I believe I shall "have said all I have to say. At the last session of this body the gentleman from Monroe, now the honorable Speaker, made a speech on this subject of an Agricultural College, in which he urged that the State of Indiana should establish an Agricultural College some where in the State, and I concur with him in that. But he also said, that this Institution should be connected with the State University, because of the facilities for its establishment in that locality. Now, as the gentleman himself admitted some time during last winter, the town of Bloomington and the State University in Monroe county, are situated down there on a long, narrow, crooked railroad-one of the worst railroads in the State-so poor that, if the iron were taken off, the Company would not be able to replace it. But what says the gentleman in this speech? why, he insists that Monroe is one of the best counties, and has produced some of the best men, in the State. Well, sir, I am well acquainted with some good citizens down there. They have good men down theremen earnest in the cause of education-men who want this college there, not only for the sake of the State Institution, but because it might otherwise advance their own interests. But the gentleman wholly forgets and ignores the claims of the county of Putnam; and so far have they been ignored generally by the gentlemen here, that I had to announce but this morning to the gentleman from Marion (Mr. Stanton) that Putnam county is in the ring, competing for this location. Now, sir, I desire to institute a little comparison between the counties of Monroe and Putnam, as to their productiveness, which is the best index of the character of any locality. In the year 1860, in orchard products, Monroe county produced the value of $10,000; Putnam county, $36,553, and to-day (as my colleague [Mr. Neff] suggests) it might be set down to three times that amount. Of market and garden products, Monroe county produced $250. What a splendid set of gardeners down there! Putnam county produced $1,094. Of butter products - (we are all interested in the question of butter, as well as the students down in Monroe) Monroe county produced 195,470 lbs. Putnam, 356,180 lbs. I find these figures in the census statistics of 1860. I do not speak of these for prejudice against Monroe county, but merely to show the agricultural standing of the two counties. But, to proceed: Monroe county in its manufacturing interests has been traveling along at a pretty rapid rate; but Put Putnam excels her more than four fold; and in population, in 1860, she exceeded that of Monroe by over eight thousands. I am only showing the place that you are selecting for an Agricultural College; and I ask you if you will establish this college in a county which compares so unfavorably with other localities seeking for its location?
But gentlemen say: It is is a better offer then. Monroe county has been very liberal, I admit-as liberal as any in the State, according to its ability. Certainly they are entitled to credit for what they have done. But it is said by some, that they offer the State University buildings, its laboratory its library, and the beautiful grounds surrounding it! And it would be just as modest, and just as reasonable, to say that Monroe county will give "University Square in this city, or that she will give this Capitol and these grounds surrounding it, as that she will give the buildings and grounds at Bloomington! Sir, they have no more right and power to give that State University than had that famous individual of old the right to give the broad realms of this world and the glory of them to the Saviour, if he would fall down and worship him! They of Monroe do not possess those buildings for the State University. They belong to the State of Indiana. And it is the duty of the State to take care of them-not turn them into a garden school.
Now, sir, what has Putnam county offered? She has assured you that her bonds will be issued for one hundred thousand dollars, bearing seven per cent, interest; and that she will furnish forty acres of land, if yon will locate the Agricultural College within her borders. We do not say you shall locate it with the Asbury; with an institution into whose nostrils you will not have to breathe new life every few years, as is now the case with the State University. For we haves University there, self-sustaining, which is today a leading institution in the West; which is now laying its broad and deep foundations for a new building that will cost one hundred and twenty thousand dolars, towards which the State of Indiana is not to be asked to contribute a single dollar. The people who are standing by that Institution are able, and willing and determined to sustain it, and make in a school of instruction as good as any that may be found in the land. Through Putnam county, fortunately for us, is located the great thoroughfare of the nation, between the rising and the setting sun. Outside of this city, we have the best railroad connections in the State, and new corporation is about to construct for us another.
Mr. NEFF interposed. We are also on the road that runs through Bloomingtoon, but we don't count that. [Laughter.]
Mr. OSBORN continuing. Then I say that on this great thoroughfare to the Pacific, Putnam county is a point that invites the localion of an Institution of this kind. Our soil is surpassed by none in the State. Our page: 145[View Page 145] stock raising and our farming stock are surpassed by none. I think we have the best horses; we are but second class in the State as to cattle, and we have the best mules. [Laughter.] Then tell me sir, if it were to be expected of a committee here, looking to the interests of a great Agricultural College, that they would spurn such an offer as ours, and locate it down among the knobs of Monroe county!
As for the State University there, the history of that institution shows that it has required a great effort on the part of its friends and on the part of the Legislature to keep it alive. It has been like a tree planted in a strange climate - a shrub in a foreign, unfriendly soil. It is a sickly, puny institution, eternally at the Legislature asking for more help, and it is now receiving $8,000 a year to keep it up. Still I am in favor of sustaining that institution, and I am only insisting that it is not a good place whereon to engraft this Agricultural College, for which Congress has given us an endowment. To engraft it on a shrub of this kind, does it not look like engrafting a rose-bud into a last year's mullen-stock?
