THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
FOURTEENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
Stationery---Courts and County Offices.---Empiricism
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WEDNESDAY, January 22, 1873.[Morning Session.]
The House met pursuant to adjournment. Prayer was offered by the Rev. Charles H. Raymond.
A message was received from the Governor, transmitting the report of Honorable Patrick Shannon, Agent of State.
On motion of Mr. Hollingsworth the reading of the minutes was dispensed with.
The SPEAKER recurred to the unfinished business of yesterday, viz: Mr. Willson of Ripley's bill [H. R. 276] for an act prohibiting the courts and County Commissioners of the State, from making any allowances to county offices for stationery and providing that such offices shall furnish their own stationery - the question being on concurrence in the reports of the Committee on the Judiciary recommending that this bill be laid on the table.
Mr. WILLSON of Ripley. I desire to notice some of the objections to the bill which were offered yesterday. It will be remembered that I said yesterday that the several county officers consumed over $300,000 worth of stationery annually, which the law contemplates that they shall furnish for themselves ; and that certain members objected to that statement, because as they alleged, that the courts would not be furnished with stationery. That is a mistake, there is nothing in the law to prevent the courts from ordering stationery for their own use, if we prohibit stationery for the county offices. It is insisted also, that this bill will be a hardship on the county officers, because they have to answer many letters, etc., but I insist this would be a very small item of expense to them ; and I say now again, that any respectable Attorney, in his ordinary business, uses more stationery than any county officer. It has been the policy of our Legislature ever since we have had a Legislature to shut the door against all abuses in the public offices; therefore I insist that we ought to pass this bill. I am surprised to see gentlemen come up here overflowing with sympathy for the county officers, whom they have felt so free to censure on other occasions; and when they know that the General Assembly have so long tried to control and regulate the abuses in these offices; when they know that these officers have filed constructive fees, till it has become even hazardous for a man to go into the courts. Now sir, this bill presents an opportunity by which we can prevent these abuses, for it is notorious that where these offices use one dollars worth of stationery for themselves, they purchase ten dollars worth for their friends, at the public expense. Our statutes against fraud aud perjury proceed upon the same theory. There is no reason in equity or morals, why a man should be responsible for anything not in writing; and it is to prevent this, that the statutes against fraud and perjury are enacted. This question has been discussed ; and if there is any gentleman here afraid of the question, assuming that It page: 346[View Page 346] should not be discussed on account of the purity of the county officers, then I say he should contemplate himself, and the action of the House as to its own members. I say it is a little strange to see those who raised their voices against this bill yesterday, and remember that they were not afraid of the principle when they themselves were to be affected by it. I love my profession, and I love any man who loves his profession. The gentleman from Gibson [Mr. Buskirk,] wants to know what kind of people we have for county officers in Ripley county. I speak for our County Clerk and our Commissioners, that they would not take a pen nor a pencil that did not belong to them, any sooner than the virtuous officers of his county, of whom he says they would not do such things ; and he assumes that because they would not do such things we ought not to provide against their doing them. But now Mr. Speaker, it was one of the very first lessons of my life not to put too much confidence in a man who talks about his own honesty. [Laughter.] The people of his county may be very respectable people. From what I have learned of them, I respect them very highly : and certainly I am fortified in that sentiment by my contact and acquaintance with the honorable gentleman himself. My friend from Gibson inquires what we should do with those people in Ripley county? Well, I will venture to say that the people of Ripley county are a somewhat refined people. They have kept pace with the progress of the age; but as for Gibson, where they have not kept up with the times, they are in the dark yet, and they regard it as a joke, when we would take away a job from a Clerk ; but down in our county we use the pretty wedding cards with royal signets. It is stated by the gentleman from Gibson that I have moved this bill as a joke; but I am in earnest in this matter. I see these abuses in the county offices; and I see the load of taxes under which the people are groaning, and I see the opportunity to lift from them by this bill no less than $300,000 of their taxes. I insist that we should not be controlled in this niatter by our sympathies for our County Clerks, Recorders, Treasurers and Sheriffs. We should speak here for the whole people, and lift from their shoulders these burdens as we may be able. I am opposed to all perquisites in office. It is these that are eating out the heart's blood of our people; and we ought to put a stop to them. It is not the fees that we pay to our officers, but it is what they take as perquisites that I am aiming at. Now then, I am satisfied that the passage of this bill would not work injustice to any one. But my friend from Gibson says it will take away three-fourths of the emoluments of the office. Well now if they get three-fourths of their pay from their stationery in Gibson county what kind of men must they have down there? As for me I have but one expression from my people, and that is to pass this bill; and I am satisfied that our duty lies in that direction.
Mr. SHIRLEY alleged that in nearly every county the officers are acting under the old fee bill; and he said: if you pass this bill it will apply to the County Auditors and County Treasurers, who are governed by the salary bill. It should be so shaped as to apply to the Clerks and Sheriffs also. I am willing to go with the gentleman [Mr. Willson,] for any proposition to protect the people, but he must not put it in such a shape as this. He seeks to make a discrimination between the county officers, which I do not like. The Auditors and Treasurers of the counties are now provided with stationary under the Fee and Salary Bill; and as it is now with all the offices of my county, the passage of this bill would not affect us. But what we want is, that the Legislature shall declare by law, that the Clerks and Sheriffs shall be bound by the salary bill. What I would prefer would be to let the gentleman's bill lie over till we may be able to see what the General Assembly will do; and when we can agree on a basis of law by which all these offices shall be governed, then I would be willing to consider his bill.
Mr. WALKER. I would not like to get myself this morning in the way of suspecting men of dishonesty. I do not believe that mood suggests the best of arguments ; and I believe also, that it would not be the most likely to advance his cause for a man to draw upon his imagination for his facts - to set up a man of straw in opposition to his bill and then adroitly knock it over. I am too modest a man to permit myself to say to the House that I do not draw my stationery from the county offices ; I certainly made no such allusion. But now, running the risk of incurring the suspicion of Old Honesty himself, I will say to the House that I live too far from the county seat to draw my stationery from that source. It is hardly argument to say that opposition to the gentleman's bill cornea only from those who are interested in this way. Does he mean to say, that the gentleman from Gibson [Mr. Buskirk,] and myself are interested in this way? if so, I deny it on my part, and I would spurn the allusion. I would put myself by the side of the gentleman himself, (upon whose brow is written honesty) if he did not live in Ripley county. [ insist that this outcry against the dishon-ty of the county officials came alone from his county ; and I would like to inquire why it is that his people - such a people - should have the singular partiality toward him to send such an honest man to the Legislature?
page: 347[View Page 347]I would advise them rather to put him into their county offices, and send their count yoffices to the Legislature ; and we will reform, as we have already perhaps reformed him. [Laughter.] Now, the recommendation of the Committee is that this bill lie on the table; and we made this recommendation with the hope and expectation that some amendment will be made to the general law by which this matter may be regulated - not that this - bill should pass - but that the matter might be regulated by requiring the stationery to be procurred of the lowest responsible bidder; that the County Commissioners supervize the matter, and allow only such purchases as shall be necessary.
Mr. BUSKIRK, having been sometime ago by the gentleman from Ripley, dubbed as the poet of this end of the Capitol, returned the compliment by quoting two caustic sentiments from Butler, the poet, and applying them to Mr. Willson's method in debate, and his idea of the honesty and integrity of the office holders in Ripley county. The gentleman from Ripley, it will be remembered is the author of the per diem bill, by which he gives to himself eight dollars a day; and this fact should be taken in consideration with the local politics of Ripley county,where there has been considerable party warfare, which has not always resulted according to the gentleman's wishes,though it so happens that they send an honest man to the Legislature, whilst they will strangely persist in electing dishonest men to be their Clerk, and other local officers. And now he wishes, by this bill, to deprive his democratic office holders at home of part of their profits.I have said of three-fourths of their profits;which it would seem need not be abated when we consider the cork-screws; but say one-fourth. The gentleman alleged that this county stationery business costs the State $300,000 a year. I asked him where he got his statistics; and he did not answer that question this morning.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we ought to regard this matter in the light of common sense But by this bill, the County Commissioners would be stript of all discretionary power in regard to stationery in their counties. It will be remembered by the House, that, under our system of State Government, there is lodged with the County Commissioners what might be called quasi legislative and executive powers. This is a necessity - founded in the principle, that the people of the several counties can best determine for themselves what are the particular and varied wants of the several localities. This is a principle - fundamental in our form of government - that the States can better determine their own affairs, their own local institutions, than those local institutions can be determined by the General Government. We find that theory running through our whole governmental system. It is founded in experience justified by all the facts of our history within the range of political observation. The people of the counties can determine what they want far better than the State Legislature. So also, the people of the State of Indiana can legislate far wiser and better as to their own State affairs than can the General Government, at Washington. And this bill is an innovation upon what we have established in this country as a fundamental principle of government. And I say that the Board of County Commissioners of Ripley county or Gibson county know better what are the wants and requirements of the people of those counties, than can be known by any possible Legislature. Then it is better that the Commissioners should have this power lodged with them; and in that way it is, that they can be held responsible to the people who elect them, and who can wipe them out of office. This bill is an anomally. It does not propose to restrict the County Commissioners in any other respect. It proposes to invade their powers in one particular only - in the matter of stationery - and leave their powers unimpaired in every other particular. Now I ask, why should we restrict them in the matter of stationery and leave them unrestricted as to everything else? If they are competent to exercise legislative power in their county over every other matter appertaining to the Treasury and the people, then there is no reason why they should be robbed of their power as to the supply of stationery. As to the abuses which have been dilated upon here, they do not exist among my people. I have heard of them for the first time in this debate. They do not exist in the county I represent. And so far as the charge is concerned, that the members of the Bar are supplying themselves with stationery from the county offices, I will say here, that I have been practicing law for six years, and in that time I have not taken fifty cents worth of stationery in an unlawful way. The stationery is provided for the Court; and during the term the lawyers are in the habit of using it just as it is used by the judges and the Court. That is right and proper, and it does not amount to very much. And what does this stationery consist of? It consists of summonses, subpoenas, legal blanks, and the books of Record, pens, blank paper, etc. I do not think there has been made any great scare-crow out of the expense for all this in our county. Now it seems to me that there is simply an attempt to make capital out of this matter of stationery, when there is no necessity for it. If members will look to their own counties, (of course I am begging the question here,) they will find, that these page: 348[View Page 348] alleged abuses in the matter of stationery either have no existence at all, or furnish no occasion for a bill of this enormous character, which proposes to strip the county of its individual, discretionary power, and whereby it is strangely proposed to be declared that the countv officers are dishonest in the matter of stationery, while they they are honest in every other matter!
Mr. MILLER. In our county we have but little difficulty about this matter. I do not think it amounts to much if a man does come into a county office once in awhile and write a letter there. It's no very great evil, even if a lawyer does use a blank without paying for the printing, though it is probably without law. I do not think there is any authority to make for the Courts an appropriation of this kind. But still, I do not feel prepared to vote intelligently on this bill; because where the county officers are acting upon the present Fee and Salary bill, this bill won't apply. Its effect in all such cases will be to cut down their compensation. I am satisfied that part of the law ought to be repealed, and then we might be prepared to vote intelligently on this bill.As to the use of legal blanks,the law contemplates that the officer shall write the whole thing out. As to the present question, I think this bill ought to be laid on the table, till we may know what the Committee on Fees and Salaries will do - what they will recommend to the House, As matters stand now I think it would be unjust to pass the bill.
Mr. COBB, thinking we have carried this debate far enough, moved for the previous question, - but withheld the motion for -
Mr. WILLSON, of Ripley. I am afraid that the gentleman from Decatur (Mr. Miller,) and the gentleman from Morgan and Johnson (Mr. Shirley,) will kill this bill with excessive kindness. It is true, sir, that you will gain nothing by abolishing the abuses in regard to stationery and printing, without inquiring first what we are to do further? I say, that if this bill is right, it ought to be passed; and then, if there remains any defect we may pass a bill to correct it. - My friend from Gibson [Mr. Buskirk,] is mistaken about the politics of our county. We are a little mixed there - about half-and-half - half Republican and half Democrat. So there is no ground for alleging individual spite against me.
Mr. BUSKIRK. I will ask the gentleman if there has not been a fight there about stationery?
Mr. WILLSON. I never said a word about that. - I move to lay the report of the Committee on the table.
Mr. COBB now insisted on the demand for the previous question.
The SPEAKER. That is not necessary, if the motion be entertained to lay the report on the table.
Mr. COBB. I insist on the demand.
Mr. CAUTHORN. I rise to a point of order; It is this: That all this debate is out of order - the report of the Committee on the Judiciary being to lay the bill on the table.
The SPEAKER. That is so.
Mr. WILLSON, of Ripley. I rise to a order: Is it not in order to make a motion to lay the report on the table?
The SPEAKER. It would have been in order for the gentleman to make that motion if the gentleman had not obtained the floor by courtesy. But now the gentleman from Huntington insists on his demand for previous question.
Mr. WILLSON. Then I demand the yeas and nays on the main question.
The SPEAKER. The yeas and nays will be taken.
There was then a second to the demand for the previous question; the main question was ordered, and the same being taken, the result was reported - yeas 46, nays 45as follows: - see page 66.
So the report of tire Committee was concurred in, and the bill was laid on the table.
EMPIRICISM.
The Speaker recurred again to Mr. Hardesty's motion which was filed last Friday to reconsider the vote by which the House rejected Mr. Satterwhite's bill [H. R. 101] to protect the citizens of the State from empiricism, and elevate the medical profession.
Mr. THAYER. My object in desiring the reconsideration of this vote is because there were but seventy-five members present when the bill was rejected ; and I think it is entitled to consideration and discussion on its merits, and then if gentlemen should think it will not be for the benefit of the people, I shall be willing that it may be voted down. But, sir, the people of my region are very anxious for legislation on this subject. All the surrounding States have such a law as this bill purposes, and the result is that the State of Indiana is filled with quacksthose medical adventurers and vampires of the life of the more helpless classes. I have, myself, one objection to the bill, and that isit is not sufficiently strong and stringent in its provisions ; but I desire to see it placed on the statutes, so that we may have a beginning in this line of legislation.
Mr. BLOCHER. I think we have had this subject up about as often as there is any need for its consideration in the House. We have had it up twice, and twice it has been voted down ; and I think the grounds upon which it was voted down were well taken page: 349[View Page 349] Mr. Speaker, I say, woe be unto the people when such a law as this bill proposes shall be foisted upon them. I for one want to have my choice of the man who is to administer the dose of medicine that I must take. But, sir, the passage of this bill would drive this question right into politics. In my county we have a democratic party; and they would be likely to select my supplanter to dose me; and I say, sir, that every poor man ought to have the right which I have stated, if he is so poor that he can't own the stick to stir his mush. My county, sir, don't desire any such law; and I insist that my friend from Wayne [Mr. Walker,] who has plead so well for his personal rights in such cases, should have the right of natural selection as to the employment of his mid-wife.
Mr. THAYER. If the gentleman's argument is good, that Republican and Democratic medical examiners would certify physicians of their own politics only, then we are already in the same difficulty with regard to the power of our school examiners over the teachers of the common schools; in counties having a Republican Examiner, we must have Republican teachers, and in counties with a Democratic Examiner, we must have Democratic teachers. But, on the contrary, we find that every applicant who has the ability to teach, gets the certificates and enjoys the right to do without regard being had to his politics. We can only judge of the future by what we know of the past; and we may judge pretty well as to what this law will do in the State of Indiana, by what it has already done in the State of Ohio. I certainly can have no objection to the right assumed by the gentleman from Scott [Mr. Blocher,] and others, to employ their own midwives to administer medicine, or poison, as the case may be; but I deny the right of those mercenary quacks to prey upon the people. You know, sir, that it is often very difficult for a poor man to obtain a good Physician. - The poor are the class that are preyed upon by those quacks. I know a whole family poisoned by one of them. - But this bill of the gentleman from Morgon [Mr. Satterwhite,] is confessedly, not stringent enough; and, if the pending motion to reconsider shall prevail, and the bill shall come again before the House, and if the gentlemen who have urged this objection shall desire to apply their practical amendments, I here give notice of my willingness to assist them.
Mr. HATCH. I think the gentleman from Scott [Mr. Blocher,] is mistaken as to the provisions of this bill. The main features of the bill are these: It requires that the legal practictioner shall be either a graduate of some medical school or he shall have been in the practice of medicine for ten years, or he shall have a practitioner's certificate issued by some medical society. But now, these provisions are not sufficiently stringent - not so strong as I would make them. I would require three year's study and a diploma. Still, I think this bill might do some good ; and if it do nothing further, it will prevent those medical adventurers from traveling over the country, and taking large sums of money from the people without doing them any good. And we know that there are a large number of these in the State of Indiana. - I do not believe that this bill would cut off from practice a single resident physician in the State; for there is hardly a practitioner in the State, respectable and respected in the profession, who has not been in the practice at least ten years.
Mr. BARRETT. I am in favor of action on this bill. Now sir, you compel every school teacher in the country to bear an examination before he shall go into a school and teach vour children ; yet members here are unwilling to pass a law by which a man who tampers with your health and life, shall show himself to be possessed of any qualification whatever. I am certainly not unwilling that the gentleman from Scott [Mr. Blocher,] should select his own quack to doctor him, or to kill him ; but I am unwilling that such a quack shall be authorized by law to bring in his bill for killing him. Now sir, in other States they have such a law as this bill proposes, and it drives out the quacks from those States; and I think we ought to have such an act in this State, to put a stop to the trade of the quacks ; for if there is anything in the world that a man ought to be protected in, it is in the matter of his own life ; and the lives of his family and friends. If a man is going to practice medicine he should certainly qualify himself for it. But unfortunately in this matter of the practice of medicine generally there is more ignorance than in any thing else under the sun. You may take nine hundred and ninety-nine out of a thousand of the people and they are entirely ignorant in reference to the practice of medicine ; they know nothing about diseases and remedies. I cannot see why it is that gentlemen should be opposed to some just and legal qualifications for this business. A man cannot even practice law without some qualifications - he must have a good moral character - while you do not require that the physicians shall have even a good character. I can't see why gentlemen should be so sensitive on this question. As a vender of drugs myself I make it a rule that I will not fill the prescription that is written by a quack.
Mr. BUSKIRK [interposing.] Does the gentleman say that there is a provision in the bill which requires him to so refuse?
Mr. BARRETT. No, but I do say that page: 350[View Page 350] there are men today, writing prescriptions in the State of Indiana, who do not know what they are composed of; and there is not a day in the year but what some one is killed in this way. There are men here, perhaps, who know nothing about medicine, and this may be quite a new thing to them; but if gentlemen on this floor had studied medicine, I am certain that they would not have voted as they have been voting on this question. I venture to say that eventually, the General Assembly will be forced to do something in this matter. It is a fact even now, that in New York City a man cannot even till a prescription without undergoing an examination as to his qualifications as a pharmacist; yet here in Indiana it is claimed that every quack shall be admitted to the practice. I venture to say that there are not one-fourth of the nominal physicians in Indiana who know anything about the composition of drugs. Why sir, there are certain medicines that are harmless in themselves, but by their combination they would kill a man ; and yet strange to say it, the House does not want to require of physicians a legal qualification.
Mr. MELLETT. In ordinary cases I think the danger is that a man will spend too much mony for medicine ; and certainly if he has a physician, he should have a good one ; but when there arises a question like this, involving the health and life of the people, it is fair to consider whether this right to employ a physician should be circumscribed. It may be that a large portion of the practicing physicians of the State of Indiana are a curse to society - that they do more harm than good - and I wish some of these gentlemen had to live in the border counties on the eastern side of the State; for then they would know, that the law which this bill proposes, had no sooner been passed by the Legislature of the State of Ohio, than these Medical Vampires came over the line into the State of Indiana, and they are now having their run with us. It may be true it is true, that in ordinary cases a man should determine such a question as the employment of a physician for himself, but this often becomes a very difficult as well as a delicate question. - Men are often in a condition in which they are incompetent to decide this question intelligently. Their health is gone at once. They are on a rapid decline and their judgment and mental force declines as well; and thus many an impotent man is thrown upon the mercy of these quacks. I say that such a man needs protection ; and one reason for it is that the profession of medicine demands it. Assuredly every man who addicts himself to the medical profession, and makes himself an honorable and useful member of society - is entitled to the stern protection of the law; and this is a strong reason why we should consider this question soberly. I say, sir, that the medical profession are asking for this protection - they have been asking for it for years - and they should have it. Should we doubt that these honest men who adopt the profession to cure the ills the flesh is heir to, should have protection from quacks who go about trifling with the health and the lives of the people? I think we ought to pay that much respect to the profession whose interests are represented in this bill. I adopt the same theory in regard to education and educators; and pay the same deference to those engaged in that profession - admitting always that they know better what should be done in regard to the education of the people than we do. I hope therefore that the vote by which this bill failed will be reconsidered and that we may be able to act upon it intelligently.
Mr. BILLINGSLEY. When the vote was taken on this bill the other day, I voted against it, because I was not satisfied with its provisions. I ana well satisfied however that something should be done in this direction; and I hope therefore that that vote will be reconsidered, and that the bill may be amended, and be made acceptable to the House. I think the greatest necessity for the bill is in the fact that our towns and villages, are filled with pretenders in medicine - pretenders even to supernatural powers to heal diseases, and that their occupation of bleeding the pockets of the people may be stopped by it.
Mr. DIAL. I desire to say a few words. I hope the motion to reconsider will not carry. There has been a great deal said about quacks, and about licensing professional men - that all classes of men in the professions should be licensed. Now I am opposed to this ; and I speak from personal knowledge as to the medical profession. I know a physician, a man who has been a practicing physician for 45 years, one of the most successful in my county ; and he never knew anything about a sheepskin ; and such I venture to say is the case, with a large majority of the physicians of the State ; and I venture to say this further, that in most cases they are the impositors who display their sheepskins - that they often impose on the people with their sheepskins till they have worn all the skin out of them and skinned the people. I am at least able to say so much for the sheepskin men of my county. We all know that these sheepskins can be bought with money.
Mr. RICHARDSON. [interposing.] That is the class of men we would like to get at.
Mr. DIAL [continuing.] You go to the board of medical examiners for your certificates under the provisions of this bill, and how easy it would be for that board and their page: 351[View Page 351]\friends to get together and say: "Nobody shall be doctors but ourselves." I am free to say that it is a bad principle to determine by legislation, or by any arbitary power - as to whom I shall employ to administer medicine to me or my family. I say it is right that I should have my own choice in the matter; and I am opposed to the bill on the principle of inherent right. We have laws for punishing mal-practice in medicine - laws inflicting severe penalties - and I am in favor of them. Gentlemen say that all professional men must have their commission papers; but it is not so with the lawyers, only a good moral character is sufficient for them; then why should the quack be asked for his paper ?
Mr. WOODARD. I want to say a word in regard to this bill. There is not a man in this House that has more respect for the medical profession than myself, but I believe they have already sufficient protection. If they are not sufficiently qualified it won't take the people long to find that out. There is no demand coming up here from the people praying this Honorable Body to legislate against quacks. We have not received any petition of that kind. I think sir, that men of every profession - in every department of life - ought to stand on their own merits, and I do not believe we ought to discriminate between classes. And while we have men among us vending patent medicines we are not obliged to buy of them; still I am willing to say that some of the best is amongst the patent medicines. When the people demand such a law as this, then let it be granted. But why should physicians come up here and ask for it? I say it with due respect to the profession; they want protection because it is to their interest to be protected. But it seems to me that if I were practicing medicine, and some quack were to take away my business from me, I would not complain in this way. Still when the people demand such a bill, then I would be willing to regard it seriously.
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. It is not the medical profession who are demanding this bill, Mr. Speaker. I voted against it the other day on this very ground; that the physicians of Indianapolis do not require it. They have not asked for it and they do not endorse it. Those physicians who are recommending it here are led by quacks. The educated physician does not want the protection of law; he can take care of himself But still there is nothing horrible in this bill. It simply provides that a man shall be what he pretends to be. If he is an Alloephathist he shall be endorsed for what he pretends to be - if he is a Homoeopathist he shall be endorsed by those of his own school - if he is a Hydropathist the same - and so with all the pathies. The provision of the bill respect the rights of the people. In the profession of law the quack lawyer can be thrown out of the bar by legal provision; though the Constitution allows every man who is respectable as to character to take the oath of the Constitution and be admitted to the bar. But there is no legal provision which throws out the quack in medicine.
The vote was then taken on the motion to reconsider, and resulted - yeas 45, nays 47.
So the vote rejecting the bill was not reconsidered.
A recess was then taken by the House for the purpose of receiving General Tom. Bennett, Governor of Idaho, when most of the members came forward and tendered their respects.
On being again called to order - see bottom of page 66.
TUITION SCHOOL TAX.
[CONTINUED FROM BOTTOM FIRST COLUMN PAGE 67.]
Mr. MELLETT'S bill [H. R. 261,] amending the act to provide for a general system of common schools, etc., was read the third time. [It increases the levy from sixteen to twenty cents - with fifty cents poll to be used as tuition purposes alone.]
Mr. MELLETT spoke briefly in support of the bill, holding that it was the duty of the State to provide for the education of the children of poorer communities by an equitable tax upon the people of the State.
Mr. RENO favored the passage of the bill, speaking till the noon recess.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The House reassembled at 2 P. M.
The Speaker announced as the Committee on the part of the House to revise the Judicial Districts and Circuits of the State, Messrs. Woollen, Willson, Cowgill and Cauthorn.
Also as the Committee on the part of the House to examine the accounts of the Superintendents of the Soldier's Home, Messrs, Tingley, Whitworth and Clark.
The consideration of the tuition school tax bill H. R. 261 was resumed.
Mr. LENFESTY obtained the floor and spoke against the bill, arguing that, under the new tax law, the fund obtained by the 20 per cent. levy would be unnecessarily large.
Mr. BRANHAM thought the House should wait and examine fully the report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. He did not like peace-meal legislation on the subject of education, but thought it best to have the whole matter referred to the Committee on Education, that they might report a sound basis upon which to build. He moved to make the whole subject a special order for Wednesday next at ten o'clock.
page: 352[View Page 352]Mr. WOOLLEN thought the people were ready to dispose of the question without debate. Better stop building State Houses, asylums and penitentiaries entirely rather delay putting our schools upon the proper basis. He did not believe the statement that the present levy under the new tax bill would largely increase the revenue, was well grounded. This is a question interesting every township in the State. It is not only an act of charity but of humanity ; and the public are demanding greater facilities for the schooling of the children. He hoped the bill would pass.
Mr. COBB thought the new levy would raise as much as was needed. At least we could wait and see, and if the fund was found to be insufficient the next Legislature could increase the levy.
Mr. RUMSEY presented a few figures, showing that there were 640,000 children to be educated; that with the present means the children in many districts are only afforded school facilities during the winter months. The average period in which the schools are kept open is but a little over five months, while the States all around us have a minimum of eight months.
Mr. SHIRLEY spoke in favor of the bill and of the principle of uniform taxation for school purposes. He wanted a tax levied sufficient to afford schooling for every child in the State, at least six months in the year.
Mr. KIMBALL favored the postponement. All he had heard tended to convince him that this would be the better course. The mere raising of the fund would not be sufficient. We need a compulsory education law.
The motion to make this bill the special order for Wednesday was agreed to.
EMSLY WILSON.
Mr. REEVES' bill [H. R. 307] for the relief of Emsly Wilson of Monroe county granting him the State's title to lot No. 59, west of Indiana University, was taken up on the third reading and finally passed the House of Representatives - yeas 82, nays 0.
