THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
FOURTEENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
Common Schools---Tuition Tax.---Debate in Continuation.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WEDNESDAY, January 22, 1873.CONTINUED FROM PAGE 67 - NEAR THE BOTTOM OF FIRST COLUMN.]
Mr. Mellett's bill [H. R. 261] for an act to amend section 1 of the Common School Law, March 6, 1865, was taken up in order - the question being on the second reading.(It purposes to raise the school tax from 16 to 20 cents on the $100, and provides that said sum shall be expended for tuition purposes alone.)
Mr. MELLETT. This is a bill in which the House should be interested. It has been revised and amended in the committee since the convening of the regular session of the Legislature. The only point in it is to raise the revenue from 16 to 20 cents on the $100 of taxables. It is a well known fact-recognized by every gentleman - that the present term of our common schools is not long enough; and the only question is, how to increase the length of the term; whether you will do it by levying an annual general tax, bill proposes, or by local taxation? For myself, I must say, that so far as this mere trifle tax is concerned, I am in favor of increasing this revenue by a general tax, and if that revenue will not give a sufficient increase of the term, let it be done by direct local taxation. I think we ought to have at least six months in every year for the term of the free common schools throughout the State. Now, on an average, we have a term of not more than four months; and in some counties not more than three. The statistics of the Superintendent show that something should be done, positively and speedily. It has been urged by some that the bill would be more acceptable if it provided this revenue by local taxation ; but I think not. It may be true, that by this bill the wealthier counties will have to suffer a heavier assessment than the poorer ones; that the wealthier districts will pay more for the support of the school than the poorer districts. Grant it. Marion county; for example, under this bill, would pay more into the school fund than she would draw out of it. She does that now, I believe. But I think this should not be considered an evil, when we consider the advantages which Marion county enjoys in other respects. Surely Marion county should not urge such an objection at this time, especially, while she enjoys the benefits resulting from the neighborhood of so many of the public Institutions of the State. And then, if we put the question on general principles, it is correct to say, that property should educate the people. Wherever there is a community too poor to educate its own children, it is the duty of the State to see that this is attended to. In many localities it would work hardships to require the support of a free school for six months of the year. It would require a tax which the people would not bear. Some townships are sparsely settled and would require a large per cent. of local tax; and some townships are poor in23 page: 354[View Page 354] soul; and these are the places where education is most needed; and it becomes the wealthier counties to extend a helping hand in these directions. Every member whose people are so fortunate as to be in such a position should be glad that he represents a wealthy county for the opportunity which this bill furnishes of bringing the people on a level in this matter of education. - It is absolutely necessary that this school levy should be increased. It is demanded from all parts of the State; and I hold that there is no way in which it can be done so acceptably as by increasing the general tax.
Mr. RENO spoke from manuscript in favor of the passage of the bill.
The House took a recess till two o'clock, P.M.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The Speaker resumed the unfinished business of the morning announcing the consideration on the second reading of Mr. Mellett's Common School twenty cents tuition tax bill [H. R. 261]
Mr. LENFESTEY referred to legislation just completed by this General Assembly, which he alleged would add to the revenues (including the common schools) a half million of dollars. Then in the second place we have passed a general law for the appraisement of real estate. By section thirteen of that act it is provided that appraisements of real estate shall be at cash value - three times what it has been and what it is at this present time. Then we have a law provid ing for a tax of sixteen cents on the $100 for school purposes. We have thus already provided a school fund to the extent of at least three times what it has been heretofore. This is very liberal legislation for common school purposes, by which we should secure at least one hundred and fifty days of free school in a year. I believe that we should not provide a fund unnecessarily large. But now, this proposition for raising the tax, from 16 to 20 cents on the $100 will make the school fund at least four times what it has been heretofore, and I believe we have legislated sufficiently in this direction; and so far as that fund is concerned I believe this bill should not pass.
Mr. BRANHAM. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we are not pursuing the proper course in regard to this matter. We have not yet received the report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, which is supposed to furnish the data upon which we can take action on this subject. We ought first, to be in possession of all the information that can be given before we vote on this question. We ought to scan the system closely, and see if we cannot get along without this additional levy - at least with less than is here proposed. My opinion is, that this matter is of so much importance that instead of canvassing one portion of it to-day, and another portion next week, it would be better to make the whole question the special order for some future day; and if it takes a week to come to some solid basis of conclusions for the purpose of carrying on the common schools it will be time well spent. I know what it is to take a course here that will be regarded as in opposition to the common schools; but I will not vote for any part of a system, until I can understand the whole. Until that time, I shall not vote for this bill. When we can get the report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, then I would like to take up all these bills. I would like to ask the Chairman of the Committee on Education how that would suit his views?
Mr. MELLETT. It would suit me for my part.
Mr. COBB. The report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction is already out. Gentlemen can find their copies in the Post Office.
Mr. BRANHAM. Then I will submit a few words more, in order that gentlemen may understand my view, - which I suppose will not control the vote of any man: but it will control my own. We have not schooling enough. In almost all incorporated cities they have as many days schooling as is needed. Is not that so? If that is so, then there must be some reason why the country schools are not kept long enough. And it is proper that we should know what these reasons are; and then, whether it is proper for us in the remedy it will be for the House to decide. But when we decide upon the length of time for the schooling, we ought to hold in our hands the power to regulate the schools and make the terms equal all over the State. In some fifteen or twenty counties perhaps, you will find schools in the country with not more than ten or fifteen scholars. Now it occurs to me that some of these schools might be consolidated with others; and I would like to ask the Chairman of the Committee what effect this would have on the schools? I move that this whole matter be postponed until next Wednesday at ten o'clock and made the special order for that time and that the special order be continued until the subject he disposed of.
Mr. WOOLLEN. I do not see why it should be so hard for to understand any subject connected with education. This bill is a proposition to increase the tax from 16 to 20 cents on the one hundred dollars, for the purpose of sustaining the common schools of the State. It seems to me that we can understand this subject as well to-day as at any other time; and I think we had better stop page: 355[View Page 355] building State houses and all other considerations until we can place our schools in a proper position. Why should we sit here and talk about taxation, and hesitate, and go home without increasing this levy of 16 cents? This bill proposes but 4 cents more, and it is for the benefit of the people - it is to give intellectual food to thousands of poor children of the State, and let them have that needful measure of education which is now kept from them by the non-action of their representatives. It is a measure in which the people of every township of the State are interested. But it is said that the Lesislature has increased the taxation to such an extent that the present levy will be sufficient. The gentleman from Grant [Mr. Lenfestey,] says the school fund has been increased three or four times. The difference which has been made in the basis of taxation I think will not increase the fund to that extent, for so far as it effects notes and bills receivable it does not increase the levy at all. But suppose it does increase the fund three times that would only give six months schooling. And if we had school six months in the year we would only stand in this matter along side of some of our sister States. But sir, we ought to regard our system of public schools as merely in its infancy ; and it devolves upon the Legislature as a duty to see that this system has a healthy and permanent basis. This is so plain that it does not require debate or explanation. It is a simple question whether or not this tax of twenty cents shall be levied. Now why should we put it off? Why make it a special order? If it were a bill to erect an Insane Asylum a penitentiary we would not talk about order of its consideration. This is a question which should command the consideration of statesmen. The point that I make is, that we cannot but fully understand the question of raising this levy four cents on the hundred dollars, to carry on the common schools, for the benefit of the children - the wards of the State - who are lifting up their hands in petition for it, and when they ask for bread I do not want to give them a stone.
Mr. COBB. I have a habit of regarding my vote here, as for the advancement of the common interests. It would be very difficult for me to vote otherwise. But then there is one thing that seems to have escaped the attention of the gentleman who has just now spoken so eloquently. We have at the last session of this body made a radical change in our system of taxation; and, to the best minds, it must be as yet but a matter of conjecture, as to exactly how that change will work. If we have doubled the levy, we have, in effect, doubled the amount that will he derived from the school tax; that is, it will be equivalent to raising the levy from 16to 32 cents. But I think if we will raise the levy but one half, we will do very well. If we do this, we will have what is equivalent to a 24 cent. levy. Now, if there had been no change in the basis, I would have been willing to have gone 5 cents higher than this proposition - willing to have raised it to 25 cents on the hundred dollars. But I think we have accomplished this object in another way. The Committee on Ways and Means have told us that they expected to get one hundred millions more from the present assessment than we got before. That will increase the tax about one third; and I think the sum will be at least duplicated in our county. I think that we may safely say that we will raise the amount of taxables to what would be equivalent to raising the school tax to about 24 cents on the hundred dollars. Now this is conceeded by gentlemen on all hands, and I do not think it needful for gentlemen to argue, as champions for common schools, to have any further increase of this fund. For it seems to me that we have provided for a sufficient increase in this direction. At all events, there is no doubt that there will be a very considerable increase. Then would it not be wiser for us, to let this matter rest until we may see the result? Then, if that should show that we have not provided a sufficient amount of revenue, the next Legislature can increase the present levy. My own opinion is, that that levy of 16 cents, will be equivalent to an increase on the old basis of assessment of from 4 to 6 cents. Gentlemen say that, in in our school system, we compare very favorably with other States. One reason for this is, not the want of being liberal in this regard, but because we have an unfortunate provision of law that there shall be no local taxation for school purposes. In other States they compel each district to have a certain number of days or months of tuition. For instance, in the State of Illinois they provide that the districts shall not receive their proportionate share of the school fund unless the people thereof make up a certain amount. But we cannot do this unless our Constitution were changed. And it seems to me that if there were no other reason, for a convention of the people to change our Constitution, that this alone would be sufficient - to so change our fundamental law that we may fix this matter, so as to compel those who control this fund to manage it economically. In Illinois they provide by law for seven months schooling - in Ohio for eight months in the year.I do not remember the amount of their levy. But until we can get our Constitution changed in this particular they will be in advance of us. It seems to me that we are about as well prepared to vote on the question of the passage of this bill as we can page: 356[View Page 356] be; and on account of what I have said I think it would be unwise to raise the tax.
Mr. RUMSEY. I desire to call the attention of the House to a few figures on this subject. This question suggests itself to my mind: Who are we legislating for? What number of persons are we legislating for? What is the number of children who are depending on the action to be taken here? The total number is nearly 700,000. - There are 640,000 of our school population. It is a notorious fact, in all the schools of the rural districts, that, from the commencement to the close of the cold weather, four-fifths of this large number of children are confined to that rugged season of the year for the time when they may get their education. Now what do we want in Indiana? What is demanded of gentlemen occupying these seats? We find that in this State, according to the Census, we have 127,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left hand, with respect to written words and figures, and how do we compare in this regard with other western States? We are perhaps only a little behind the State of Ohio, with a population 33 per cent. greater than ours. What is the average of our common school term? In 1868 it was 4 35-100 months, and this year 5 8-100 months, whereas in all the States around us, except Kentucky, the school term is from 7 to 8 months of the year. Now what is the cost of these schools according to the report of the Superintendent - the cost per capita? Three dollars and forty-six cents only, for each scholar for one year. Now we propose to raise this levy about twenty-five per cent, and yet gentlemen talk here of extravagance! Let gentlemen look back at their own early school days, who have not had these advantages of common schools, and then consider their duty to provide for these nearly 1,000,000 of their children and vote grudgingly, if they can, for 4 cents more of this levy, which will give twelve more tuition days per annum. Our Constitution has wisely prescribed that we shall provide for common school education; and therefore I hope that the House will not vote against this bill.
Mr. SHIRLEY. As I assisted the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Mellett,] in drawing this bill, I would like to occupy a few moments in discussing it.
Mr. BRANHAM. As I understand the question before the House, it is on the adoption of my motion to make this whole subject the special order for Wednesday; and because the report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, has been laid on our tables since noon we ask for time to look at it.
Mr. SHIRLEY. Those who have had care of our schools system tell us, that one cent, on the hundred dollars taxables, at the present valuation, adds only three days annually to the term of the common schools; and, if one cent gives three days, four cents will give twelve days - that is all. Gentlemen say that we will largely increase the tax duplicate by the assessment act of last session; and I hope we may; but I do not want to stop at a twelve days increase of the term. I had no such idea in the drafting of this bill. I stated, at the special session, that we wanted to give to each child in every school district six months schooling in each year; and by demanding four cents more for the levy, we will not reach more than that. And when, by my vote here, I shall have given these six months of schooling, I shall feel that I have done the best thing that I can do here. We say that this twenty cents levy shall be expended solely for tuition purposes. It is not to be thrown away. The sole purpose of this bill is, that this money shall be so expended as to wipe out the odium of the State in this regard. I will say this further, that while, by the assessment acts, you will increase the taxables more than one third, I have some fears that we will loose nearly as much as we will gain, for we have been in the habit of taxing property which we cannot now reach. But now we propose four cents increase which will give 12 more days of schooling; and I am satisfied, by the calculations I have made, that your new levy will fall short of six months schooling. Gentlemen say that it will work hardships on some individuals and localities; but I say, it is just as hard for a man who has one thousand dollars on the duplicate,It is just as hard work, and just as difficult for him to pay his tax, as it is for the man who has his hundred thousand dollars. And the poor man has to pay his fifty cents poll-tax, equally with the man of wealth, and whatever he has besides, he is taxed upon it the same ratio as is the man of wealth. I say, that those who are able to do it, should educate the poor. That is one of the secrets of the ignorance of letters - it is simply because the people are not able to pay for education ; but when you come to tax the rich to educate them, they are unwilling. I want to say here to the rich: Educate the poor; and if you do not that, then are you not discharging your duty to society. I want to give to each school district a six months school - and, in localities where they want more, let them levy a local tax for it. And when they have more than six months, as is the case in the cities, it is because they have the local tax. I venture to say that there are many poor in this city who would get the benefit of this four cents levy.
Mr. KIMBALL. I do not rise to make a speech, but merely to say that I am in favor of postponing this matter until next Wednesday. We should have more time to inquire into this matter. It seems to me that the page: 357[View Page 357] levying of taxes, and the raising of money merely, will not remove the ignorance complained of. You may have millions for the purposes of Educatiod, but without a law compelling all persons to send their children to School, they will remain ignorant. - I have children to educate, and, of course, so far as I am able, I am willing to pay the taxes on what I possess for that purpose; and the people of Marion couuty are all willing to be taxed for that purpose. But while I am the friend of the poor man, and while I manifest it by my votes here, I will also, manifest the same, by voting also, in connection with others who are supporting that measure here, for the bill compelling the man to send his children to school where there is a law provided for schooling them. Whose fault is it that there are so many who cannot read and write? Take the common school age from 6 to 21 years, and they could all learn to read and write even with the tax we have now. But I want also to see if we cannot devise the ways and means to equalize this thing. The gentleman from Morgan and Johnson [Mr. Shirley,] declaimed eloquently in favor of the principle, that the rich ought to educate the poor. Well, I am willing - I acquiese in the doctrine. And what is the fact in regard to Marion County? We collect here for the general common school distribution over $60,000 annually 66,244 dollars. And our portion of that is 44,239 dollars - that is the apportionment for Marion county. Hence she distributes about 24,500 dollars to other counties. It does seem to me, sir, that, to be consistent to do our duty here, we should postpone this matter, and consider it well, before we act - I care not what tax you levy; but when we are called upon to contribute to the education of the people - when we are called upon to do this in Marion County, let us have some say so as to the question that the people shall be educated. I am in favor of compelling every man - every father and every guardian to educate his children to the extent that the public funds will reach. (applause.) I repeat, sir, that we want time to examine this subject. Let us legislate not only to raise the money, but to compel the children to the schools, and not establish a system of taxation that will not secure the desired result.
The question was then taken on Mr. Branham's motion to postpone the subject until Wednesday 10 o'clock A. M. and make it the special order for that day - and it was decided in the affirmative - yeas 72 nays 19.
