THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
FOURTEENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
Common Schools---Proceedings and Debates in Continuation.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THURSDAY, February 6, 1873.[CONTINUED FROM PAGE 136, BOTTOM OF FIRST COLUMN.
The SPEAKER announced the order, viz: The consideration of Mr. Mellett's bill [H. R. 55] to amend the Common School law of March 6, 1865, and adding supplemental sections, as returned with the recommendation of the special committee thereon - the question being on the final reading in the House of Representatives.
Mr. BRETT. This is another of the bills I that involve a considerable increase of taxation. Some of its provisions might be well enough, but one of the chief objectionable features is, that it creates the office of County Superintendent, which is to be a substitute for the office of County School Examiner. It also provides, I believe, for town Superintendents, if certain officials see fit to appoint them. Now the question is whether we ought to create this new office of County Superintendent? It is not sufficient to say that the office can be abolished, because we see but very few offices that are. Under this act the County Superintendent will manage to put in his time most of the year round. It is true there are restrictions which the County Commissioners may put upon these Superintendents; but the County Commissioners are generally good natured men and easily imposed upon. It would be a very easy matter for them to persnade the County Commissioners to authorize them to go round to the county offices and the justices' offices and see whether they may find anything belonging to the school fund. I am certainly in favor of getting all that belongs to the school fund, but I am not in favor of getting one dollar of it by expending five dollars. Gentlemen here around me are saying that every dollar obtained in this way would cost at least five.
Another objection to the bill is, that it allows none to act as county Superintendent unless he has been a successful teacher. That certainly ought not to be an objection to a man so acting ; but I insist that successful teachers are not the only persons who are qualified to make good Superintendents. I have known some successful teachers who could not successfully manage a hundred dollars. Now, while I would give the preference to a teacher, I certainly would not exclude a man well qualified for the position of County Superintendent, because he might not have been a teacher. We have a man in our county for examiner who is a college graduate and well qualified - he could instruct almost any man in the county; - yet that man would be excluded under this act, for he has never been a teacher. [He proceeded to read an extract from a letter he received yesterday from a Mr. Donahue, of whom he spoke as one of the most intelligent men in the State. The extract referred to this proposition to create County Superintendents in place of County Examiners - one page: 441[View Page 441] in each county - at high salaries, and alleged that if it be passed, it will entail a heavy burden upon the people ; and that the present system is satisfactory to the people where the writer resides ; and therefore (so the extract closes) why not let the present system remain so long as it costs comparatively nothing? - He also showed from the report of the Auditor of Marion County, the comparative nothingness of the cost of the school examinerin this county of a hundred thousand people, the cost of the examiner last year was three hundred and ninety-seven dollars and seventy-five cents.] He continued : The question is simply this: Whether we will take out of the pockets of the people two hundred thousand dollars a year, which it will take to pay these County Superintendents? - two thousand dollars to each of the counties. It will be much better, if it is desirable to do so, to increase the school tax directly, and have the examiners as they are.Have we any assurance, Mr. Speaker, that your County Superintendents will be better qualified than the Examiners are now? I hope gentlemen will consider this question properly ; and not as if they were voting for or against the common school system of the State. We all desire the success of the Common Schools: but, at the same time, it is our duty to see that no money is wasted even in that direction.
Mr. HELLER. I was living in Pennsylvania when a law of this kind was adopted there; and I lived there many years afterward. Men were appointed superintendents there as this bill proposes, and their pay was nearly the same. And I do know that in two of the counties - the one in which I lived and the one adjoining it - that one-third of the schools were not visited on any occasion during the year. Now then, if they could avoid the law there and get their pay, the same class of men may avoid the law in this State. We shall not advance the interests of schools by such a class of officers. The expense will run up to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
There is a special objection to the seventh section, which opens the books and accounts of the clerk of the Court, Auditor, Prosecuting Attorneys and Justices of the Peace and township or school trustees at all times to the inspection of the county Superintendent; and whenever he shall find that any of said officers have neglected or refused to collect, and pay over to the school fund fines, forfeitures, licenses or other claims due the school fund and revenues of the State or have misapplied the school funds or revenues in their possession, he shall be required to institute suit in the name of the State of Indiana for the recovery of the same.
Now, sir, have the people of the State of Indiana become so corrupt that we must send spys and commission men to go through the books of the county officers and find oot whether there is anything wrong in their records ? Has it become a necessity that we should send men to spy out what is done in the county offices? I think we should look this question square in the face, not only as to the direct expense which this bill will involve, but as to the expense of the law as it now is. I insist that it will be a very easy matter for these Superintendents to bring in their accounts, each of them, that they have been employed three hundred days of the year. I have not heard a word from my constituents on this subject; but I speak from my personal knowledge of the workings of this law. I do not pretend to say that this bill will not do some good but the good will be overbalanced by the harm that will be done by it.
Mr. REMSEY. In the vote on this bill a few days ago, we were agreed on two points, as to the Superintendents' offices furnished at the county seats; and, as to the high salaries These were modified. Now, I can't conceive how gentlemen can bring in an argument against the bill that it is wanting in economy, since we have agreed that the pay shall be but four dollars a day for the time actually employed. - Looking through the Report of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, we find that the school tax is seventy thousand dollars. This is a large sum; and the question is: Shall we husband these funds for the benefit of the children of the State? - The gentleman from Daviess [Mr. Brett] has urged one objection : That under this bill, these county superintendents will put in most all of their time. But, if their time can be put in profitably, is not that an argument in favor of the bill ? But really their time is limited to the number of schools in the county, with certain conditions. The gentleman contends also, that these superintendents will cost the State two hundred thousand dollars a year.
Now we have ninety-two counties in the State; and ninety-two superintendents at four dollars a day for the time that each of them will be employed will not probably run up to as much as forty-five thousand dollars a year; and to-day it costs us about twenty thousand dollars a year under our present Examiner system, which has done us no good, from the fact that the county Commissioners are not generally posted in matters connected with the common schools. As to the opinion of Mr. Dnahue, that gentleman does not seem to know what we want. We want; we demand, that each of these superintendents shall visil all the schools in his I county at least once or twice in every year: and it shall be a good service and cheaply page: 442[View Page 442] obtained in the long run, I do hope the bill will pass.
On the motion of Mr. GIFFORD, the House took a recess till two o'clock P. M.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The SPEAKER recurred again to the consideration of Mr. Mellett's bill [H.R. 55] for amendment of the Common School law of March 6th, 1865, and for supplemental sections, etc. - the question being on the third and last reading in the House of Representatives.
Mr. SHIRLEY. I cannot see why we may not even save money by this bill. I am in favor of the change it proposes in our school law ; yet this placing it in the hands of the Township Trustees does not suit me as well as to have it in the hands of the County Commissioners. I think also that these teachers should pay a license for examinations, as it would help to pay a part of these expenses. I would have to them pay a fee of one dollar for their certificate for one year and fifty cents for six months. I am obliged to say, sir, that this bill does not come op to the idea I had of it awhile ago ; and I hardly know what to do about it. I believe that for the present, if it is not modified, it will be defeated and, I do not want to see it defeated.
Mr. GIVAN. I admit of the difficulty of getting at a bill of the importance of the one now under consideration that will meet the views of all the members of the House. This bill has been before the General Assembly for some time. It was introduced and printed during the Special Session, and it has been several times specially considered during the present regular session. We have also considered it in Committee of the Whole House. It has been printed and laid on the table of each member, and the amendments which have heen applied to it might make it difficult at this time, to understand precisely the present provisions of it. And these modifications of it are of no small importance involving questions that necessarily claim the honest and careful consideration of each member. While we are, perhaps, all ready to admit that radical changes ought not always hastily to be made, yet we should all admit that changes are necessary sometimes - that they are made necessarily to suit the temper of the timesand that our system to-day should be in advance of what it was ten or fifteen years ago, and that we even might require a different system from that first adopted might not seem strange.
One of the objects of our school system is that it shall be uniform throughout the State - that the State shall furnish the system and the money by which free schools shall be carried on - and that its benefits shall be extended to every child within the State, And in order to make the system efficient, it is necessary that the schools should be so regulated as to be conducive to the greatest good of the people.
Since the adoption of our present system we have had the school officers known as county Examiners, whose duty has been to examine all applicants for authority to teach; and the duties of these officers have been increased from time to time until it seems to me that at the present time we have arrived at a period when we should make a more perfect and thorough organization of our schools. If this be so, then how are we to accomplish this reorganization? Are we to do it by leaving the system as it was fifteen years ago? Certainly not.
As our schools are becoming more numerous, we see plainly the increasing necessity for a more perfect organization. I apprehend that there is not an incorporated city in the State but employs a City School Superintendent to superintend the schools of the city, and at from fifteen hundred to three thousand dollars a year. Yet gentlemen here complain because we propose that the school superintendent of the county shall have fifteen hundred dollars a year - complain that it is an enormous expense.
A VOICE, Vincennes does not employ a superintendent.
Mr. GIVAN. Vincennes, then, is behind the times. I will not admit that Vincennes has better schools than Lawrenceburg. I have great respect for the opinion and the judgment of the gentleman from Daviess [Mr. Brett,] yet he has objections to this bill - too, I believe. The first with reference to the expense; and the second that the bill compels the superintendent to be an experienced teacher. Now it seems to me that the gentleman's objections are not good - that they do not apply to a question of ordinary business management, we should look at this question as a man regards any business interest. And I submit that it would be just as reasonable to refuse a just remuneration to the supervisor of the roads as to a school superintendent. The first question is, do we require a County School Superintendent ? If we do, why then, certainly we must expert to pay him a reasonable compensation. I am not in favor of an extravagant compensation, nor am I in favor of paying a compensation not commensurate with his duties; but I am in favor of paying a reasonable compensation for what he is required to do under the law. Now what is that compensation? Simply four dollars a day - only one half what a member here receives. I submit to the gentleman from Daviess whether he would like to wade through the mud in his county for less than four dollars a day? It page: 443[View Page 443]seems to me that the compensation is not too large.
But the gentleman has another objection to the bill - that the superintendent shall examine the dockets of the Justices of the Peace and the Clerks' and Auditors' offices in order to see that the funds collected there to go into the common school fund shall be paid over and applied, and report to the State Superintendent what is done with this school fund. You find, sir, that in many of the wealthy counties they do not pay over a single dollar of these collections. There are many fines and forfeitures that are never paid over, and there is nobody to see that they are lawfully applied. In very many of the counties these officers have in their posession large amounts of money which the law says shall be applied to the common school? Perhaps the reference to the justice dockets is unnecessary because our justices in the country generally pay over promptly. But in many instances justices in the cities are not so prompt, and large amounts of money collected in the cities which the law says should be applied to the schools go into the pockets of the officers. It seems to me that the superintendent would be able in this way to bring into the school fund a larger amount of money than their annual compensation. With reference to the other provision to which the gentleman objected - that the superintendent shall be an experienced teacher - we certainly would desire to have the services of competent men.
Mr. BRETT (interposing.) The gentleman in my county has never been a teacher, yet he is a good examiner.
Mr. GIVAN The gentleman is mistaken. I am certainly informed that his county Examiner has taught school six months. But there may be exceptions to all general rules, and it is said that exceptions prove the value of the general rule. But it seems to me that this is a wise provision; at least it commends itself strongly to my judgment. It seems to me that no one can be better qualified for this position than the individual who has been a practiced, experienced, and acceptable teacher. If the gentleman were going to build, I think he would not employ an attorney for the purpose, but he would go to some individual experienced in building. So when we go for a superintendent, we go for one who is qualified for the position by experience. I submit then that this is a wise provision to compel these superintendents to be selected from the practical teachers of the county; and this provision will commend itself to the people.
What has been the fact with reference to our County Examiners? It has too often been the case that individuals have been selected for this position without practical qualifications. Individuals having no experience as school masters have been appointed county examiners and consequently they have not commanded the respect which ought to be accorded to them by the teachers of the county. But still, as far as these objections are concerned, I have no doubt they have been raised here in all candor and honesty.
But now, Mr. Speaker, with reference to the other features of this bill: (and there are other features in it which commend themselves to my judgment most heartily:) If there is any one thing in which the people of this State have been imposed upon more than in any other thing perhaps it is by those agents who have been traveling over the State to sell worthless school furniture and indifferent school books. Next to our insurance agents and patent right agents I know of no class which have inflicted upon us a greater wrong than that which has been imposing upon our people their worthless school books and furniture. The various means which they resort to in order to carry out their devices it would be long and useless to tell - for if thwarted in one respect they would not be avoided in another.
And there is a provision in this bill which has been framed for the purpose of preventing this very thing. And by the operation of this provision (if this bill pass and I believe it will) there will be more money saved to the people of the State than the entire cost of these county superintendents. Where is there a township in the State that has not been imposed upon by some vendor of maps, school furniture, or school books which have been absolutely worthless? Now this bill provides that the school boards shall meet once a year upon a certain day and take this thing into consideration - so placing themselves as a barrier between these agents and the people. And the law provides that there shall not be a change of the school books oftener than once in three years. It seems to me that this is a provision demanded by the interests of the people.
As to the other provisions of this bill it seems to me that they are well understood by the members here, and it can not be necessary for me to go into a discussion of every section. There may be in it some provisions that could be made better; yet taking the bill as a whole it seems to me that it can not fail to commend itself to the House.
Mr. RENO. I believe our present school system is just as good a one as we can get. I am opposed to any system that will eat up the money of the people by official emoluments. The gentleman remarks upon the necessity of seeing what should be paid over to the school fund in the shape of fines, for- page: 444[View Page 444] feitures, etc., but now we have officers whose duties are to look into the matter: and what assurance have we that the county superintendents will discharge their duties better than those officers? This system of collections, if we conduct it right, it is promised will be self-sustaining. But now I am informed that, in the State of Illinois, they have county superintendents and that the law is unpopular there - that they are greatly dissatisfied with it. Therefore I think we ought to go a little slow in this matter. The present school examiners I think are blamed where they ought not to be; and I think our county examiners know about as well the needs of their schools as any county superintendent could know. In my county we are so hard run to get competent teachers, that we have to petition the county examiner to give license in cases where he would withhold it: and hence he is sometimes blamed.
Mr. HOLLINGSWORTH. With reference to the objection of the gentlemau from Morgan and Johnson [Mr. Shirley,] to the clause requiring township trustees to elect the superintendent - surely the trustees are better distributed locally, and therefore better qualified to act in this matter than the county Commissioners ; and they are more directly interested in all the schools of the county. So I think this objection is not well taken.
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. If this measure will not bear discussion, it ought not to pass. If the friends of the bill can not defend it, it ought not to become a law. I have objected to the bill till it was amended - and we can not all agree precisely on any one thing. The amendment as to that feature of the bill which required the county Commissioners to provide an office for the superintendent - that has been stricken out, and that has been a principal objection to the bill. But gentlemen talk against creating a new office. Had this bill come into the House with a title like this : A bill to change and to prescribe the duties of school examiners, no man would have fretted himself at all about it, for you have in this bill precisely the same number of officers as you now have examiners, and almost the same office.
As far as my county is concerned, the superintendent would discharge about the same duties as the examiner discharges now. In my opinion this bill ought to pass - and there are good reasons for it. Throughout the State our common school system is not working well: and I am in favor of the proposed change on this account. And I am in favor of it because gentlemen who have made teaching a specialty have recommended it.Our State Superintendent who stands as high as any man in his profession has recommended it; his predecessor recommended it, every teacher in the State with whom I am acquainted has recommended it, and the Superintendents of Public Instruction in other States has recommended it.
Now how do we form our opinions upon questions that we have not examined? Why it has been a rule amonst us here to take advice; and, when a bill comes in proposing to amend the practice act, we inquire if it is recommended by the lawyers, and we take their advice and vote with them upon it. And when my friend from Daviess [Mr. Brett] comes in here and make a speech to tell us what he thinks about the duties of the State officers or of the county officers, I would regard what he says, because he has ably discharged the duties of these offices himself. Therefore, when that gentleman gives me instruction how I should vote on a fee and salary bill, I feel that I am voting right when I vote as he advises me. And when my friend from Elkhart [Mr. Thompson,] who is an experienced county Commissioner, advises me in regard to any legislation concerning county and township business, I am disposed to take it and vote as he does. And just so now, when all these professional educators come up here with concurrent and unanimous voice asking for this thing shall we not heed their advice ?
The bill does not create new offices. It plants no new man in the court house; and it does not add to the public expense. We certainly have not much to boast of about our schools above those of other States around us. In the State of Michigan which is a good model they have these county superintendents?
Mr. BRETT (interposing.) I have recently seen a petition in the State of Michigan asking for the abolition of this office.
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. That may be so; but we have here another neighboring State also with county superintendents; and we are told that this law meets the endorsement and approval of the people of the State of Illinois. This superintendent is to overlook others, having in charge the schools and the school funds, and all cases of incompetency and fraud must come to him for correction and remedy; and he is to be the medium of communication between the State Superintendent and all his subordinates. He is to give to the school system a unity of idea and a harmonious action, looking constantly to the interests of the common schools; and he will most certainly defeat the schemes that are palming their worthless school furniture and books upon the people. There is special complaint that we have too many book sellers coming around for our common schools. I would say, let us have one set of books and adhere to it at least four or five years.
Now about the expense: I doubt very page: 445[View Page 445] much if this bill will add a dollar more to the public expense. In fact I believe it will be diminished by it, if we count the proceeds of the additional security which it gives for the collections of fines and forfeitures, for there is scarcely a large county in the State where all these fines and forfeitures are all paid into the school fund. I have a list of the amounts paid in from this source by all the counties for the last ten years. There is the great county of Allen - she has paid in but five dollars. How many hundreds of dollars must there be in the county of Allen due and unpaid that belongs to the children of the State! In Bartholomew they have paid in two hundred and seventy-three dollars in that time; in Benton two hundred and seventy dollars; in Dearborn eight hundred and eight dollars; in my own county they have paid in about two hundred dollars; in Vigo nothing; in Wabash nothing; in Warren nothing; and so on down the list of counties. My opinion is that if these claims of the school are faithfully paid in - and I think they might be under this bill - that the amounts gathered by the several superintendents would more than pay them. I think sir, that there is a good deal in this argument; for if Dearborn county has paid eight hundred and eight dollars in ten years, what should be reasonably due from the counties of Allen, and Marion, and Vigo, and from my own county, which have paid in little or nothing! It seems to me that something should be done in this matter. I am told that it is the duty of the Prosecuting Attorney to attend to this matter, but the Prosecuting Attorney does not do it. Make it the duty then of somebody to do it, and I believe we will have done something for the good of the common schools. The idea of a fee for a license to teach - I think that is contrary to public policy. The Examiner gets a fee if he gives a license, and nothing if he gives not the license. So many a worthless man has got the license because he paid the dollar. It is a bribe to the examiner. I see nothing wrong in this bill.
Mr. LENFESTY. Having been one of the committee appointed by the Chair to examine the bill and amend it, I desire to be heard for a few moments. I am at a loss to understand why we are so slow to act in the interest of common schools. There have been hundreds of speeches here prefaced by the remark, that the speaker would go as far for the support of common schools as any other member on this floor; and here we have a bill the sum of the labors of the entire Session in this matter, and I think now is the time that we should take advantage of the amendments of the school law which it proposes, as it is probably the last measure for the improvement of the schools that will come before us during the Session. We as a people of Grant county made the improvement of the common schools an issue in the last canvass. It was discussed on the stump, and it became evident that the people desired that something should be done.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, the school system is defective; and hence the labors of the Committee on Education and of gentlemen here proposing many changes. And gentlemen, in their opposition to the bill here, have not attacked the change of the system particularly. They have said that the County Superintendent would not work well; but their amendments have been for the purpose of killing the bill, because the County Superintendents may be, perhaps, a little more expensive than the system which employs the county Examiners - because we increase the pay one dollar per day, they will stand against the bill. I can hardly believe that this opposition is because gentlemen are not willing to meet any proposition for the improvement of the common school system. It has been objected that we are creating a new office; but, if this is true, then I do not understand the bill - we simply change the name of the officer - and I am obliged to say to the House that the compensation which gentlemen would propose is a niggardly compensation - to take a man's services for less than four dollars a day.
In order that the bill might meet the narrow views of gentlemen, the proposition for furnishing the office of the Superintendent has been cut off entirely; and the School Commissioners will be compelled to go around and hunt up the officer, because gentlemen rise up here and say we are paying too much. As far as this superintendency is concerned, one gentleman speaks of its operation in the State of Pennsylvania, and another gentleman speaks of its operation in the State of Michigan, but I have had on my table for several days a communication from the State Superinterdant informing us that the system of County Superintendency works well - that it is a step in advance.
The Examiner is paid three dollars a day now; and I say pay the superintendent four dollars a day, and let the teachers pay him what is right for their license. We can't pay the teachers yet a compensation sufficient to secure good talent. The question of expense then can not be urged as a good objection to this bill, and I believe it ought to pass. But I believe also that it does not go far enough. I believe that these superintendents are restricted too much. I believe that they should devote their entire time during the entire school term. Still we must do what we are able to for the passage of this bill.
It is claimed that this bill is in the inter- page: 446[View Page 446] est of the school furniture or school book men, but I would ask gentlemen if there could be a system devised more favorable for these furniture and school book men than that we have now? Their agents come in at discretion, representing concerns who know very little about the schools; and the consequence is that there is no county in the State that has entire uniformity in their school books. There should be a uniformity, and I say that this bill, being gotten up by the proper hand, and carefully drawn in the interest of the common schools, it should be favorably considered by the House; and I hope no further amendment will be offered for the sake of defeating it. I am afraid that this is the secret of the opposition to the bill; that gentlemen regard this county superintendent as one who will be too efficious about the matter of collecting the fines and forfeitures of the school fund. But we need just such a man in every county to attend to this very thing, for which we have no special officer; and the reason this matter is neglected is because, what is everybody's is nobody's business. I am sure that these superintendents will secure to the school fund from this source in every county more than five times what their compensation will amount to. I am informed by a gentleman of this city, that there are not only hundreds of dollars belonging to the school fund and: presumptously withheld in the hands of public officers, but there are thousands more resting in the hands of officers and ex-officers, simply because there is no officer whose special duty it is to look after this interest. There can be no possible harm in examining these dockets and books; and there is a reason for it in the real and numerously alleged official delinquencies in this matter.
Mr. HELLER. Does this bill abolish the office of county Examiner ?
Mr. LENFESTY (in his seat.) Yes sir.
Mr. HELLER. Well, a good many think differently. The next question is this: Will the good growing out of these superintendents be sufficient to reimburse the money they will cost ? Have you ever tried them, sir ? Do you know the expense they will make ? This bill will place these superintendents in a position where they will form rings, so that they may all be charged with the same elective fluid - all share in the plunder.
Mr. KIMBALL in his seat. Did you ever have the rheumatism and use electricity as a remedy ? What do you know about electricity?
Mr. HELLER. I do not know anything about it - only that it gives one curious feelings [Laughter.] - The gentleman from Grant [Mr.Lenfesty,] says he has strong evidence that the people of Pennsylvania, do notwant to adolish their offices of County Superintendent. The reason and the foundation of this is in the fact, that the Superintendents have formed such strong rings that the Legislature dare not interfere with them. I do know that this Superintendent business would have been abolished by the people of Pennsylvania in less than ten years, if they could have done it. I know whereof I speak: and I know that their superintendents license school teachers that can't spell the commonest words.
Mr. LENFETY in his seat. I under-astnd that the gentleman from Allen graduated at Stordsburg, Pennsylvania(having ref-ence to a phamphlet of biogriphical notes of a few members of the Legislature, by , - who was subsequently excluded from the hall as a black-mailer.)
Mr. HELLER. No sir, since you have misapprehended that thing as well as myself, I well tell you what it says: "He (Heller) attended school in Stordsburg about six months." Nothing said about graduating there. Its best always to tell the truth exactly. [Laughter.] But now, as I said this morning, you are placing a guard over your County officers, who is to go like a sneak-thief into those offices and poke his long nose and bony fingers into what is lawfully other peoples business. And if he should be a bad man, those officers who may be corrupt, knowing their man, might get round him, and the wrong would be made worse, and if he should not happen to be a bad man, in all such cases he would get up cases of litigation. I tell you, sir, this is a desperatly bad bill, and the people will find it out when it is too late : For you can't get a Legislature that will vote down such a law, for the simple fact that the cry will be raised, that all opposition to it comes of opposition to common schools. As I said before, when this thing gets to be four or five years old, and when all those school shysters and hangers-on get fastened in their places, you can't wipe it out; and the sooner you put your foot on it the better. I know these Superintendents in Pennsylvania, they would not visit half the schools in the county, and the people were powerless; they could not remedy it; and the same thing that stared them in the face will stare you in the face. If you put them offices into the hands of bad men they will use them for their selfish ends. I never will vote for a bill that strikes at the liberties of the people by enacting injustice, as this thing does. The salary has nothing to do with this objection. If a man does work he ought to be paid for it. But this bill allows the Superintendent to use up the whole year, and charge for services he has not rendered.I do not concieve that the bill is right, and I shall page: 447[View Page 447] vote against it; and I stand upon this without any instructions from my constituents as to the matter.
Mr. WILLARD demanded the previous questiou ; but withdrew it immediately for
Mr. WOOLLEN. Before the vote is taken I desire to ask the unanimous consent of the house to amend the bill so as to suit the mind of the gentleman from Ripley.
The SPEAKER. The Chair hears an objection.
Mr. WOOLLEN. I have regretted Mr. Speaker that whenever this amendment has been before the House there has been a quiet attempt to talk it down - to cast a gleam of ridicule over it, and sink the members down into indifference to the whole subject; and I think gentlemen need to be reminded that we were sent here to protect the common school interests by a revision of the school law - This was made a prominent thing in the canvas : and if this really proposes an improvement in the School law or in our common School System we ought to consider it as becomes legislators accountable to their people I do not know so well whether this is an improvement or not. But as the gentleman from St. Joseph [Mr. Butterworth] has well said this bill is the result of the labors of the man who is at the head of the common schools of the State: and if such a man comes in here, with an expression of his views on this subject and asks of us this bill for the purpose of enabling him to carry out the School System which we have placed in his hand, shall we not grant it? Why should we not grant him this if it be reasonable and right ? Is it expensive, as gentlemen say? I say sir, there is no economy in keeping up a system which is weighing down the Schools; and if it requires hundreds of thousand more to make our system more effective, we should at once go for it. But this is only to change the County Examiner for the County Superintendent. It is very little if any additional expense: and should we not yield our prejudices and our cruel notions to the larger experience and maturer judgement of the superintendent of Public Instructions? Should we go contrary to the well being of our own children and say we will put our experience against the experience of the State Superintendent ? We have already done all that this bill proposes for the cities and towns. I speak of this one principle, that is the principle of County Superintendency. This is the main feature of this bill, and I shall vote for it if you strike out every other principle in it. It has been adopted in almost every city and town in the State, and every teacher of experience tells us that the County Superintendency is absolutely necessary for their success of the schools : and it is certainly right that we should grant to this department of the government that which experience tells us they should have, The constitution has wisely provided that our system shall be uniform: and, I will ask again why is it when this honorable and fair and open-handed movement is thus considerately thrown into our legislation that we should desire to cut it down with considerations of economy. I insist that we should grant it when experienced men have said it is necessary. Where do we go to find our model schools. Do we go into the country ? No sir: the people of my county come up to the county seat, to see our schools and school buildings; and they see and admire and imitate them : and I believe that the people of the entire State are now here by their representitives, demanding this imitation of the city schools, and it is also because the experience of the city schools has inaugerated the demand for this relief in our system that I demand it as a representative of the people in this House : and I believe the House will accord it and give to the common schools the Superintendency which the times demand.
Mr. BRANHAM. I had not intended to say a word on this subject; but I wish to say now that if this matter was canvassed before the people I have not heard of it. If it was demanded by the people of the State I have not heard of it till now. If there are petitions for it I have not seen them. I feel that the opposition of members to this bill is misconstrued. There seems to be a disposition to heap upon this opposition the odium of opposition to the common schools. But be this as it may I propose to vote as my people want me to vote; and if that is to be construed into opposition to the common schools, let it be so. If there is any gentleman who has not heard it charged here that this bill is in the interest of rings and cliques he has not very good hearing. I do not myself say it is so, but I do say this, that the manner in which the friends of the bill have conducted this discussion should make a thinking man doubt its propriety. When you clothe these Superintendents with authority to go all over their counties and examine every book in them to hunt up those fines and forfeitures it puts an entirely different construction upon the thing. The reason why Dearborn County paid that eight hundred dollars forfeitures into the fund was simply because her people violated the laws more than others. But it is the duty of the County Commisioners to take care of this fund; and is also made the duty and business of the prosecutors. Do you suppose that by putting the title of County Superintendent upon any man that it will make him any bet- page: 448[View Page 448] ter? I want the friends of this bill to look upon it in the light of the experience of the past. I tell gentlemen that the obvious result of this measure will be to tax upon the common school fund for every Superintendent four dollars a day for every day in the year. It will be like the Missionary contributions to the heathen - giving ten cents to the heathen and ninety cents to get the missionary to him. I confess to you, sir, that I have not brains enough to comprehend this system; and if I had I should not want to use them in this way. One gentleman desires this amendment of the present law so as to secure uniformity in the school books; but does he not know that when you strike down competition in the manufacture of school books you necessarily raise the price. I would respectfully ask the House to pause before enacting such a provision - to say that your child, or your people shall be furnished with such books only, as are prescribed by law! You might as well say that we shall all wear the same cut of clothes.
A VOICE. That would be all well euough if the State would provide them.
Mr. BRANHAM. Just so; and then the bill goes on to provide that all the furniture in all the schools of the State shall be provided by one man. Of all the objections to the bill these certainly ought to be striken out; but I cannot think that in its present shape it ought to pass.
Mr. SHIRLEY desired unanimous consent to amend the bill by striking out the emergency clause; but there being an objection, he desired to indulge in a few words in answer to the gentleman from Jefferson [Mr. Branham.] He said: As to the gentleman's objection to changing the school books, my experience is that the teachers generally want to change them every term : and my sentiment is that we need a statute to prescribe at least what shall be the text books - that the changes should not be too frequent.
Mr. BRANHAM. The objection I made was that the bill prescribes that the books shall be of a particular character or kind. I object to all snch proscriptions because they will give jobs to particular houses.
Mr. LENFESTY. I do not wish to be misconstrued as to what I intended to say. What I intended to say was this: that under the present system we are frequently required to change our school books every school term; and under the present bill the educational men of the State will perhaps be required to get books, that may be continued for several years.
Mr. SHIRLEY. If I thought there was any job to come out of this bill I would certainly refrain from voting for it: but I believe the bill has merits - that the committee on education have exercised sound judgment - have acted singly for the great school interest. As to the objection against allowing the books to be prescribed, I think that the system should be controlled throughout by statute, that there should be uniformity about it; and we all know that these changes induce an enormous expense; and that uniformity in the text books will be economy. Of course we shall expect of these book men that they will not charge an exorbitant price. And then it is a matter of policy to have this uniformity - the school system is a State institution, and the Constitution requires uniformity. If I am in error as to my vote, the responsibility is with the Committee on Education. I confess that I do not know myself what is the best system, and I am obliged to leave this responsibility in the hands of the State Superintendent and the Committee on Education. I cast my vote freely upon their advice, and hope that good may result.
Mr. BRETT. In the few remarks that I submitted this morning I made no reference to the matter of uniformity, nor as to the character of the books. And now I wish to say another word: upon all these school books there are copy rights and the owner of the copy right of the books which are adopted, of course can charge as high as he pleases, or as high as he can induce the school officers to allow him to go. And I am not willing to turn over to him my interest and my children's interest, and give him absolute control of my purse, and this power of dictation to the State Board of Education. I am unwilling to give this control to the copy right man, or any number of men like him. In regard to the school furniture, there is the same danger in giving this discretion to the State Board; for these furniture men also have their patent rights upon all their improvements; and it can not but result in giving jobs to favorite men. I have known good scholars to come out of schools with indifferent furniture. I do not think we should make laws to enrich either the school furniture or the school book men.
Mr. KIMBALL. This uniformity in school furniture and school books is a question which the bill refers to the counties. One class of books may be uniform in one county and another in another county.
Mr. BRANHAM. Is that a provision of the bill, and an argument for it by the framer of the bill ?
Mr. KIMBALL. It is. And then it seems to me that we should adopt the clause to which gentlemen object, because they say it is an attempt to throw our school interest into the hands of patent right men. The bill provides that the County Superintendent shall sit with the school board and trustees, and shall be allowed to vote with them on all questions as one of themselves on all page: 449[View Page 449]matters relating to school furniture, school tooks maps charts and the town library, and the township's and districts shall conform to their action; but these shall be changed but once in three years. These county boards have supreme control of this matter : and if any direction as to books or furniture should not happen to suit Daviess County or Jefferson County, - there is no compulsion that any county shall adopt any special fashion of books or furniture. It seem to me impossible that under this bill any considerable ring can control this matter, because it is in the hands of the township trustees. Now it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it is good management that brings prosperity. The people are taxed for the purpose of raising the school fund to educate the children of the common-wealth : and the people themselves, en masse, cannot attend to this matter. Hence we have the representative forms. Here is an immense sum of money collected every year and thrown into the treasuries of the counties and townships for the purpose of education, and in their hands it requires care and good management. If my friend from Jefferson [Mr. Branham,] were in charge of a railroad, having in his hands millions of dollars for the construction of the road, he certainly would appoint competent and well qualified Superintendents, in all the branches of his business. He could not attend to all the business himself. He would look around for assistance, and when he found a competent man he would be willing to give him a good price. The gentleman from Jefferson [Mr. Branham,] has said, that we should be governed by the experience of the past. Well if we look back twenty-five years or even fifteen years we find that the common school system of Indiana has not amounted to much. But you say that the legislatures have directed the system: when the last constitutional convention was called, it was deemed proper and wise by that body to provide for a State Superintendent of Public Instructions : and I can say with pleasure that that provision of the constitution has brought great good to the State. But the State Superintendent cannot look after every interest of the Schools: like the man who builds a Railroad or who manages the affairs of a bank, he must have assistants to enable him to see that the money of the people is not wasted, We ought to look at ever question in a practical light: for, when I part with capital, I want it to be productive. So the people having capital in the schools they want it properly taken care of and wisely directed so as to produce the desired result. Hence it does seem to me that there is a lack of this just precaution when gentlemen determine that they will not have these County Superintendents. Then as to the objection to four dollars a day for the Superintendents in the ninety two counties of the State. If the superintendent is employed for three hundred days of the year it will cost one hundred and ten thousand four hundred dollars: if he is employed one hundred days of the year the cost will be twenty-six thousand eight hundred dollars. Now sir, what is this four dollars a day for the proper application of the school fund of the people?
These Superintendents we should remember must be competent men - we should remember that they must see that all the teachers do their duty, and that they are well qualified; and that the school money is all faithfully applied under the law. And we should remember that the Superintendent is to have nothing whatever to do with the school furniture nor with the books. Now, sir, where is that dangerous power entrusted to his hands ? Where that great injury that might result to the people ? I say to gentlemen that we take the responsibility of this bill. I care not what portion of my constituents may petition me to vote for a wrong measure - I would die before I would support a pernicious measure. This has been my rule here. I ask myself in the meditations of my own heart, is this thing right ? and when my judgment says it is right, the measure has my vote. And my judgment, and my sentiment is to give this great work into the charge of men that are competent. There are men here who can remember all the past history of our common schools, and I might ask them for the result of their meditations upon it. The pride of our system has been in our city schools. In all these we employ a city superintendent; and the price that we pay him is repaid to us four fold in the resulting benefits. Now why is it that the gentleman from Davies is in favor of retaining the examiners in preference to the superintendents ?
Mr. BRETT. Just, simply, because the examiners cost little or nothing, and because the superintendents will cost two thousand dollars a year to each county.
Mr. KIMBALL. Well, then as to the value received, how much of real value, educationally, do you get from the services of your county examiner for this little or nothing ? It sounds like the conclusions which I sometimes hear on the temperance question - the values are balanced evenly. But on the contrary I find millions of good from the superintendency. And while I could find no good to come from the liquor sales I was unable to vote for the bill that would encourage them. The gentleman has not pointed out the value received from his county examiner.
Now, gentlemen, I ask you to do your29 page: 450[View Page 450] duty in spite of all that may be said. You are preparing the way to educate all the people; you are building a superstructure the foundation of which was laid in the sacrifices of the founders of our government; and let us proceed upon the principle that all good government is founded upon the intelligence of the people.
Mr. THOMPSON of Elkhart. The sixth section prescribes the duties of these superintendents. It is this
SEC. 6. The County Superintendent shall carefully examine the dockets, records, and accounts of Justice of the Peace, Clerk of Court, county Auditor, Commissioners and Prosecuting Attorney, and see that all fines, forfeitures, unclaimed fees, liquor licenses and surplus dog tax, etc., are promptly collected, reported and paid over to the proper fund or revenue. He shall see that the full amount of interest on school funds is paid and apportioned, and when there is a deficit of interest on the school fund, or a loss of any school fund, or revenue by the county, that proper warrants are issued for the reimbursement of the same.
Now, there are duties enough to employ the time of the Superintendent one full year; examine the Auditor's books, the books of the county Commissioners, and the Prosecuting Attorneys, Clerks, Sheriffs, and Collectors, and the dockets of the Justices of the Peace. I tell you, sir, there is more service to be performed by him than can be done inside of any one year, and further; if I were a county officer, or any other of these officers, on my honor as a man, I would not ask any man to overlook my work ; your man might be hooted out of the office.
This bill, it seems to me is gotter up more than any thing else for the purpose of creating another office; and it will involve an expense which the people will not bear. So far as this matter has been managed in my county they have no cause to complain there. My people are not in favor of this bill. I might go on and point out other defects of the bill but the time of this discussion is exhausted; and I only wish to enter my protest against, its passage.
Mr. MELLETT. I do not wish to add any reasoning for the passage of the bill, but simply, if it is possible for me to do so, to give the House a clear understanding of what the bill is, and what are its purposes. The bill before the House is to provide for the amendment of certain sections of the present school law. It might be well for us to know what the present school law is; in the first place, in order to see what it needs and whether the proposed amendments are proper and prudent.
The first section to the thirty-third section of the common school law provides, that the county Commissioners shall elect a person called the county Examiner, requiring him to take an oath of office etc,, etc. This isproposed to be modified by changing the name of the officer to that of county Superintendent instead of county Examiner. In other respects the requirements of the Superintendent are identical with those of the county Examiner, excepting as the bill now is, that the Superintendent shall be elected by the township trustees. This is one radical change of the bill and I am willing to accept it as a more prudent and practical arrangement. The township trustees have charge of the common schools of the county and I should think would know more about the schools because the schools are under their charge. There is one thing yielded to the school government of the cities which are made elective. These are the only changes in the first sections of the law - changes in the name and in the mode of the election of the superintendent.
The next amendment is in section thirty-nine of the school law - in the second clause; they shall visit the schools of their respective counties as often as they shall deem it necessary. We come in here with an amendment and say that it is necessary for the Superintendents to visit every school in their respective counties at least once in every year. We restrict the Superintendents thus because the county Examiners have abused the law in this respect. Is once a year too often? surely no gentlemen can object to that; but my friend on the right, [Mr. Thompson of Elkhart,] has read the sixth section, and excepts to the creation of a new office - the office of county Superintendent. I would like to read that section again sir, and ask you whether there is anything in it on account of which your constituents will condemn you for voting for it. There is not a county in the State but has a large sum belonging to the school fund in the hands of its officers, collectors and justices, to be accounted for by somebody - large sums of money to be found in every county that has never been turned over to the common school fund. It is a notorious fact that the amounts forfeited in bonds by the non-appearance of criminals forms a long list of indebtedness to the school fund standing against every county in the State. The Prosecutor generally gets his bill, and nobody looks after the remainder. In my own county the remainder is five thousand dollars, which would be sufficient for the support of the office of county superintendent for several years. What is everybody's business is nobody's; and so this interest remains uncared for. But neither you nor I, nor any decent man is going into these offices without authority of law; for if he go without specific authority, he will be counted an intruder. But, make it his duty, as proposed in this bill, and he goes there as any other officer of the law.
page: 451[View Page 451]My friend on my right said he would hoot the intruder out of his office: - I know he gpeaks from good motives. But then any man that has a hundred thousand dollars dishonestly retained in his hands would tell you the same thing - would be as indignant as the gentleman from Elkhart.
Of course such a provision as this would not be necessary in the case of any private fund, because the party interested would look after it himself. But here in the matter of this public common school fund, you must employ somebody to look after it. And that very allegation of the gentleman from Elkhart was an argument in favor of the bill when he said, it would employ a man every day in the year to examine into these offices. So much for section six. It has been well said, that this superintendency will ten fold repay all the cost of it to the counties.
There is another thing -that in regard to the per diem. Gentlemen seem to think that the present county Examiners get nothing. The present school law provides for them three dollars per day for every day employed. The difference we make in this is four dollars per day instead of three; and we secure it so that the superintendent can't put his own construction upon his own services. Now, here is the provision according to which the Examiner is limited under the present law: " Provided said Board of Commissioners may determine the number of days he shall visit the schools." The Commissioners may cut his per diem down to nothing at all. But I have never heard of this cutting down by the Commissioners; on the other hand, the difficulty is well known to be this: that the Examiners refuse to visit the schools.
Mr. Speaker, the great fight over this bill is about the name of an office. We propose to substitute Superintendent for Examiner. Otherwise the language of our bill is almost identical with that of the present law - .There is great power in a name, sir. "Examiner:" does it not sound to you like a spy looking after defaults? But "Superintendent" is one looking over matters in general. The bill places the schools under the control of the Superintendent and makes him responsible for them. How is it now? We are outraged by placing incompetent teachers in the schools. And when there is complaint about the teacher, the examiner will tell you that he examined him, and that he found a creditable examination. The fact is, examinations make up all the business these examiners have in the schools. On the other hand, by the very name Superintendent, we show that it is his duty, whenever complaint is made, to go round and see if it is well founded, and to apply the needful corrections. The whole question then is about this: whether this County officer can better serve the schools by his examinations of the teachers, or by visiting the schools.I would like to put this one question to the gentleman from Jefferson [Mr. Branham.] I would like to ask him if he were employing a man to work in the building of a railroad, whether he would have him come into his office and examine him, and feel of his muscle ? No sir, he would not do that: but he would happen along some day as his man might be digging upon the embankment where the sun was burning down upon him, and see how he took hold of the thing: for he might find the most promising in appearance to be the most useless man in the lot.
Mr. BRANHAM. In the first place, I would have the man come to the office, and I would examine him ; then I would send him out with the squad to work, and let him try his hand. But I would never dream of sending a man there one day in the year to see how he got along. [Laughter.]
Mr. MELLETT. He claims then, that the Superintendent of his men is as the Superintendent of the schools: and that is just the case. The workmen are the teachers : they are the workingmen of the land, educationally speaking: and the Superintendent does not have to sit there all day or an hour every day: but a single hour of visitation would do more good than all the examinations in the State. This giving a license is not according to the way in which we do business for ourselves. The friends of this bill would be glad to have a Superintendent for every township, and pay him well for it, as they do in the State of Connecticut. But it seems that we are to be satisfied with but one for each county.I believe I have referred to all the changes of the law proposed in this bill except one: that is the one in regard to the school books and furniture. - As the law is now, book agents or the school furniture agents can start out for Indianapolis and go into every county: and whenever he can find a Trustee that can be bought or persuaded, he can make a contract with him for his books or his furniture: and there is no power that can say to him nay. It is all between the two men. Does that give to your book agents or your furniture agents any room to practice imposition? You see here it is then, The wiley agent meets the parent or the trustee again: and tells him: it won't cost you a cent. Give us your old books, and we will exchange and give you new books for them; and it turnes out that the school has got worthless books; and the worst of this feature of the law is, that the trustee can perpetrate this imposition as often as he pleases.
page: 452[View Page 452]But how do we do? We say in section eight, that the County Superintendent with the Township Trustees and the School Trustees of the cities and towns, shall constitute a Board, with authority to make these changes in books and furniture, and without the consent of the Board no change can be made. Here we have the judgement of perhaps twelve men or more to control in these matters, instead of the judgement of one man. Is that better for the book or furniture agent ? I trust no man can say that it does not throw a protection around the people. Again: this section proposes, that when text books have been introduced they shall not be changed for three years. Gentlemen have tried to insist upon the idea that this bill is to induce a change at once: but they should be informed that this is groundless. The bill provides that this County Board shall considered the wants of the schools in regard to furniture, books, maps, charts, etc.: and all changes shall be made according to the directions of the Board, as far as practicable : and their authority is confined to their single county. But, of course, if the school is supplied with a set of books, the compliance is not practicable. Then it is provided that no change shall be made for three years.Is there any thing wrong in that? It says to the book agents, after the books have been once introduced: you need not go there any more for three years ; they can't change their books in that time. Then follows this provision; Shall not be changed in three years without the unanimous consent of the Board. This is the very question that was introduced at the time the provision was adopted: certainly gentlemen will not say, the Board will be unanimously corrupt.
The bill was then finally passed the House of Representatives - yeas 52, nays 40 reported as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Anderson, Barrett, Billingsley, Butterworth, Butts, Cauthorn, Clark, Cline, Cole, Cowgill, Edwards of Lawrence, Furnas, Givan, Glasgow, Glazebrook, Goudie, Gregory, Hardesty, Hatch, Hedrick, Hollingsworth, Johnson, Jones, Kimball, King, Kirkpatrick, Lenfestey, Mellett, Miller, North, Peed, Prentiss, Reeves, Richardson, Riggs, Rudder, Rumsey, Satterwhite, Scott, Shirley, Shutt, Stanley, Thayer, Thompson of Spencer, Troutman, Tulley, Wilson of Blackford, Willson of Ripley, Wood, Woollen, Wynn and Mr. Speaker. - 52.
NAYS. - Messrs. Baker, Barker, Baxter, Blocher, Branham, Brett, Broaddus, Claypool, Cobb, Coffman, Crumpacker, Dial, Durham, Eaton, Ellsworth, Eward, Gifford, Gronendyke, Heller, Henderson, Hoyer, Isenhouer, Martin, McConnell, McKinney, Odle, Offutt, Ogden, Reno, Schmuck, Smith, Spellman, Teeter, Tingley, Thompson of Elkhart, Walker, Wesner, Whitworth, Willard and Woodard - 40.
