THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
FOURTEENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
The Common School Law.---Debate in Continuation.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WEDNESDAY, January 29, 1873.[CONTINUED FROM PAGE 95.]
[Afternoon Session.]
The House reassembled at 2 P. M. andMr. MELLETT'S bill [H. R. 55,] to amend the act to provide for a general system of common schools, &c., the special order for that hour was taken up and read the second time.
The amendments relate to the appointment of County Superintendents of Schools, to be appointed by the County Commissioners at the June session in 1874, and triennialiy thereafter, such Superintendents to have the general management of the schools in their respective counties. The compensaton is fixed at $5 a day when actually employed, but the County Commissioners may limit the number of days each year he shall be employed, provided such number shall not be less than 150. The bill prescribes in detail his duties, and those of other officers in relation to his office.
The Committee amendment reported at the morning session exempting city schools from the superintendence of such Superintendent at the request of the Board of Trustees of those schools&c., was also read.
Mr. MELLETT moved ineffectually that the House go into a committee of the whole to consider all the bills relating to the subject of education.
On motion of Mr. BRANHAM, the House proceeded to consider Bill No. 55, section by section, and the first section was read.
The SPEAKER suggested that this mode of procedure would encumber the record with useless and unnecessary matter.
Mr. RICHARDSON then moved that the House go into a committee of the whole on Bill No. 55 alone, which motion now prevailed, and the Speaker called Mr. Peed to the chair.
The first section was re-read. It provides for the appointment as above stated of a County superintendent of Schools, who shall be a resident of the county.
Mr. SHIRLEY moved to amend so as to require him to execute a bond with a freehold security in the penal sum of $4,000, for the faithful performance of his duty and to account for all money that may come into his hands.
Mr. MILLER thought there was no occasion for this as the bill did not authorize the Superintendent to receive or hold any pnblic money.
Mr. JOHNSON concurred in this view. The sixth and seventh sections of the bill require him to institue suit in the name of the State for the recovery of fines, forfeitures, unclaimed fees, liquor license, surplus dog tax &c., when the proper officers have failed to collect or pay over the same, but the money, when collected, should be paid over to the County Treasurer.
Mr. SHIRLEY dissented. As he page: 388[View Page 388] was required to institute the suits, and as the bill did not provide that by whom the money should be received, the Superintendent would undoubtedly be authorized to receipt for the judgement.
Mr. GIVAN said the law provided these fines, fees, &c., should belong to the school fund. He imagined that any suits instituted under this section would be commenced on the relation of the officer to whom the custody of that fund belongs, and not of the Superintendent.
Mr. SCHMUCK thought a bond should be required from the Superintendent whether he is made the custodian of public funds or not. His duties are sufficiently important to require that he should give a bond.
Mr. LENFESTY did not think that a bond was required under sections 6 and 7. But section 8 makes him a member of the Board of (School Trustees, and as these officers are now required to give bonds, he thought the Superintendent should be subject to the same requirement.
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. THAYER moved to further amend the first section so as to provide that the Superintendent shall be elected by the qualified voters instead of appointed by the County Commissioners and hold his office for four years instead of three. He said his observation had taught him that it was much easier to manipulate a small board than the whole people. Besides that, the County Commissioners might not be the best judges of the competency of the appointee. Ordinarily, a man who is able to manage an 80 acre farm is regarded as competent to discharge the duties of County Commissioner, and he may not be a man of education or qualified to decide on the competence cf the Superintendent.
Mr. COWGILL was opposed to the amendment. A position like this should seek the man, and not the man the office. He was opposed to throwing this important office out to be scrambled for at a popular election, for which probably not the best men would struggle. He thought it would be safer and they would be likely to secure better Superintendents by leaving the appointment in the hands of the County Commissioners.
Mr. HELLER, under a missapprehension of the question, took exceptions to the seventh section, and offered an amendment thereto, but subsequently withdrew it.
Mr. COBB spoke in favor of the pending amendment. If any thing of this kind is to be inflicted upon the people of the State, if we have got to provide a place in each county for some young attorney who has rendered his party distinguished service, but has not acquired a practice sufficient to support him, or else some played-out professor who can't make a living in his legitimate profession, let us allow the people of those counties to say who shall be placed in the position,-whom they will pension in this way.
Mr. KIMBALL said he believed it was the object of this Legislature to do as much good as possible. The educational interests of the State require attention at our hands, and what we do should result in the greatest good to the people. If we undertake to make offices for purpose of furnishing the means for electioneering schemes for politicians we fail in the object for which we were sent here. He was opposed even to the election of the State Superintendent. He thought he ought to be appointed. The appointing power would feel the responsibility resting on his shoulders and be careful to select a good and competent man. If we make the office elective it will be sought by men who want office for the sake of office, whether they are competent or not. Then questions of religion, of politics and various others will arise, aid the result will be the election of incompetent men. He would be in favor of the appointment of the Superintendent by the Circuit Court Judge, or even some higher power. Still the County Commissioners would feel the the responsibility of the appointment and be careful in their action. He hoped this idea of pandering to popular favor for buncombe would be done away with by this Legislature, and he would take the responsibility of saying that the people are trusted too much with these things, because the legislators want to be rid of the responsibility. He hoped the amendment would be voted down.
Mr. MELLETT said there was another objection to the amendment. Section five provides a standard of qualification in the Superintendent, bat if this is made an elective office, this important feature will be lost.
The vote being taken on the the amendment, it was rejected.
Mr. WILLSON, of Ripley, moved to amend the section so as to provide for the appointment of the Superintendent by the Trustees of the different townships in each county. This, he said, would bring the matter nearer to the people. The men appointed by the County Commissioners are generally bobtailed politicians who have done something for the Commissioners or their friends.
page: 389[View Page 389]Mr. COWGILL thought the same objections would obtain against an appointment by the Township Trustees as by the County Commissioners. It would be just as probable that they would make it a political matter.
Mr. WILLSON'S amendment was rejected.
Mr. RICHARDSON moved to amend the section so as to prohibit the Superintendent from acting as agent for the sale of any text or book or school furniture.
The motion was agreed to.
Section 1 was then adopted as amended, and Section 2 was read, which prohibits the Superintendent from issuing a certificate to any teacher except upon a public examination.
Mr. WILLSON, of Ripley, moved to strike out the second section.
Mr. WOOLLEN thought the bill was either all right or all wrong. It was dangerous to attempt to patch up the bill in this manner. If the section is struck out the bill will be shorn of much of its force.
Mr. WILLSON thought it would be productive of great inconvenience. Suppose a young lady wants to teach school, and has been chosen by the people, she must post off perhaps twenty or thirty miles, and undergo a public examination at the county sear, lie thought this sort of dress parnde unnecessary.
The motion was rejected.
Mr. DIAL moved to amend the section by striking out the words, "And in no case shall he grant a license upon a private examination."
Mr. GREGORY said the system of private examinations was not only harassing to the Examiner, but afforded an opportunity for favoritism and laxity. The examinations will be much more thorough where thoy are held before the eye of the public.
The amendment was lost and the section was adopted as a whole.
When section 3 was read a difficulty arose. The Clerk read from the original manuscript copy of the bill, while members had been furnished with printed copies in which some amendments recommended by the Committee on Education and accepted by the House had been inserted.
Mr. WILLSON, of Ripley, moved that the committee rise and report to the House, recommending the indefinite postponement of the bill. The motion was rejected.
The amendment reported from the Committee on Education at the morning session exempting city schools whose Board have employed a superintendent, from the general superintendence of the county superintendent was adopted.
The difficulty which arose when Section 3 was read again arose on the reading of Section 4, and after a little inharmonious dispute, the committee rose and reported progress, and the bill was recommited to the committee, to be made the special order for to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock.
Mr. MELLETT'S bill [H. R. 261,] was then taken up. It proposes to amend the existing law, so as to provide that there shall be annually assessed and collected as State and county revenues 20 cents on each hundred dollars of real and personal property, and 50 cents on each taxable poll, to be expended for tuition purposes alone. The bill was read the third time when -
Mr. BRANHAM said he hoped the bill would not pass. The Superintendent of Public Instruction in his report suggests three methods by which we can secure funds enough to keep the schools open at least six months in the year. First, a revision of the assessment laws, which has already been done. Second, an additional levy. Third, to compel the local townships to assess the local tax up to the limit now allowed by law. He submitted whether it was right now to make an additional levy of four cents on a hundred dollars, when, according to all reasonable calculations, the revision of the assessment laws will produce all the money required to keep the schools open that length of time. Some people suppose the common schools are the only thing in the State. He differed from them. He was willing to raise a sufficient amount of money to keep all the schools in the State open six months in a year. A large proportion of them are kept open ten months, and in rural districts six months is all that children can be taught with advantage. He would admit that the property of the State should bear its fair proportion of the burden, but with the assessments on the property of the State without reference to where it is collected, with the inequality with which it burdens certain counties and the benefits that it confers on others, he asked if it was not right that those localities that ask aid of the State at large should do their full share towards keeping up their own schools. If we do not compel these local districts to bear part of the burdens, on what principle do we pile it on the other counties? Money raised in these localities does not leave the neighborhood, being spent at home, while money that is taken from these counties and sent to other counties is lost to them forever. More than that, expenditures are pressing, TheState Normal School and universities page: 390[View Page 390] and colleges, and the benevolent institutions, are calling for money. We must have a new State House, which it is said must not cost less than three or four millions. The great want of this State is cheaper money to develop the material wealth, and just so long as we feel deposed to recklessly burden this property just so long we erect a barrier against its coming in. He knew, of his own knowledge, of several million dollars that are going to leave the State because of the unjust burdens heaped upon it. In accomplishing too much in one direction we lose in another. He hoped the bill would not pass.
Mr. SHIRLEY said compelling these townships to bear this expense, would load the poor with burdens which they are unable to bear, and relieve the rich from burdens which they ought to bear. If Indiana would not vote to increase the tax four cents and feed the School system so that it shall become what it ought to be, he was in favor of striking down the whole system. He thought the system ought to be made so strong and perfect that it will afford a good education to every child in the State.
Mr. WILLSON, of Ripley, moved to lay the bill on the table,
The motion was agreed to by yeas 44, nays 43.Mr. JONES' bill [H. R. 316,] a part of the special order, was next taken up, and the House went into a committee of the whole, Mr. Peed in the chair.
The bill authorizes the levy of additional taxes, not to exceed in all 25 cents on the hundred dollars in one year, to pay off debts incurred in the construction and repair of school houses, the levy to be made every year until the debts are liquidated.
Mr. RICHARDSON moved that the committee rise and report the bill back to the House, with a recommendation that it lie on tha table.
The motion was agreed to. The report was made accordingly and concurred in by the House.
Mr. WOOLLEN'S bill [H. R. 410] was then taken up and the House went into committee again, Mr. Woollen in the Chair. The bill provides that Trustees of townships, towns and cities shall levy a tax, not to exceed 25 cents on the hundred dollars, and 25 cents on each poll, until the amount collected, in additional to the revenue from other sources, shall be sufficient to mantain the schools for at least six months in the year &c.-,see page 96.
Mr. SHIRLEY said this bill came right down to compelling townships to do what he said the State ought to do, to compell them, without reference to their ability to tax themselves to do that which they are unable to do, and which is the duty of the State to do. It is the effort on the part of the rich to crush the poor.
Mr. KIMBALL denied that proposition. He said it was an effort to compel the poor to educate their children an effort of those who represent the interests of the people to compel those to pay a tax they will not pay unless compelled by law. There are many who will not pay any tax for school purposes unless compelled by this law. What good reason has the gentleman for putting additional burdens on the rich in order to educate the poorer classes. The speaker lived in a township where probably they have as many poor people as he has in Morgan county, and yet, as citizens of that township, they were perfectly willing that the trustees should levy a tax to educate their poor. He was tired of hearing so much said about the poor. He was as willing as any other gentleman on the floor to educate the poor, but let every township, as far as it can, take care of its own poor. We have been liberal as a State in levying 16 cents for the tuition of poor people and all the people of the State. We have been still more liberal by concentrating all the surplus funds into one fund for the education of the people of the State, Last year the levy for tuition was $2,100,000. Since this Legislature has been in session we have added to that school fund, and the last session of the Legislature distributed the Sinking Fund for the purpose of common school education. And it seems to me that when the gentleman from Morgan and Johnson gets on this floor and charges this Legislature or any part of it, with a desire to grind the poor man down with taxation in order to compel him to educate his children, he is stating that which he can not prove. If a man is poor how much tax does he pay? If he has nothing to be taxed he is not very heavily burdend with taxation. Under the old levy, Marion county paid nearly $25,000 into the common school fund of the State for the education of children of other counties, and under the new assessment law we will add probably a million more to the taxable list of the State. If you Increase the levy to twenty cents you increase the burden of these counties. Marion county can point to the monuments of her liberality for the education of the poor. Every child should bo educated, and not let him grow up to manhood unable to read his Bible or the laws that you pass to govern page: 391[View Page 391] him, and unable to do anything in business. Educate him, enable him to do something that will add to the revenue of the State and the improvement of society and the advancement of the arts and sciences. Whenever you take that step forward, then the State will take the certain step to prosperity, and every child in our glorious State will be enabled to read the Word of God and contribute intelligently his proportion to the commonwealth - its wealth and its honor.
Mr. RENO said that was the very reason he wanted the other bill to pass. This bill is putting a burden on the people where they are not able to hear it. It is just as hard for a man who is worth only $1,000 to pay his 16 per cent, as it is for a man worth $10,000.
Mr. BUTTS voted against the former bill because he knew this bill was coming up, and it suited him. He believed these counties did not improve the money given them by other counties. But when a man knows that he is paying money out of his own pocket for the education of his children he will send his children to school day after day when otherwise they would stay at home.
Mr. BILLINGSLEY said there was one more point. In many rural districts the districts are divided and subdivided and the schools rendered inefficient. If they had to provide the money out of their own pockets they would cast about them to see where they could consolidate and improve their schools.
Mr. KIMBALL now moved that the committee rise and report the bill back to the House and recommend its passage.
The motion was agreed to, the committee rose and reported accordingly, and the House concurred in the report. The bill was then read the third time and put on its passage.
Mr. RICHARDSON moved a call of the House, which was not sustained by a majority of members pressent.
He then moved to adjourn, which was rejected.
Mr. GIVAN moved to lay the bill on the table.
This motion was also rejected, yeas 34, nays 51.
Mr. BRANHAM said several years ago 25 cents on the $100 was fixed as the limit which townships might levy for the support ot schools; 12 cents was the amount that the State should afford outside of the interest on common school fund. Afterwards it was advanced to 16 cents on the levy for State purposes with the supposition that Township Trustees would levy up to the limit to maintain the schools, which they have failed to do. This bill simply provides that this additional levy shall only be made where it is necessary to provide the means to keep the schools open six months in a year. He was in favor of making them do their duty.
The question was then taken on the passage of the bill, and resulted as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Anderson, Baker, Barrett, Baxter, Billingsley, Branham, Butterworth, Butts, Clark, Cline, Cobb, Cole, Cowgill, Edward, Furnas, Goble, Goudie. Gronendyke, Hatch, Hedrick, Hollingsworth, Johnson, Jones, Kimball, King, Kirkpatrick, Lenfesty, Martin, Mellett, North, Odle, Offutt, Ogden, Pfrimmer, Prentiss, Reeves, Riggs, Ramsey, Satterwhite, Shutt, Spellman, Strange, Thayer, Thompson, of Elkhart, Walker, Wesner, Whitworth, Willard, Willson, of Ripley, Wood, Woodard, Woollen, Wynn, Mr. Speaker - 54.
NAYS - Messrs. Baker, Blocher, Brett, Broadus, Coffman, Crumpacker, Dial, Eaton, Ellsworth, Gifford, Givan, Glazebrook, Heller, Henderson, Hoyer, Isenhouer, M'Connell, M'Kinney, Miller, Peed, Reno, Richardson, Rudder, Schmuck, Scott, Shirley, Stanley, Teeter, Tingley, Troutman, Tulley, Wilson of Blackford, and Wood - 33.
So the bill was passed.
