THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
FOURTEENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
Compulsory Education---Debate in Continuation.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THURSDAY, February 13, 1873.[CONTINUED FROM PAGE 159.]
The SPEAKER returned to the special order, viz: the consideration of Mr. Butterworth's bill [H. R. 340] for an act compelling Parents and Guardians to educate their children and wards - the question being on the second reading.
Mr. BUTTERWORTH of St. Joseph said: Mr. Speaker, I have no lengthy speech to make in arguing the merits of this bill, which I have had the honor (if any) of introducing. The idea of compulsory education in our State is rather a new one and has not been, until the introduction of this bill, discussed much in our papers though since the question has been brought before the Legislature for its consideration, there has been a general expression in the papers of all shades of political opinion endorsing the idea.
Mr. Speaker, our school laws have been founded on the idea that parents and guardians would always avail themselves of the school privileges when provided. School houses, teachers, and everything is provided, yet with all these means at hand, statistics dhow, that many thousands in our State do not attend any school. To-day, more than three thousand five hundred children in this city, that ought, and by right should be, are not in school, nor are they receiving any sort of useful intellectual training. The important problem is, how are these children to be educated,to be brought into school ? How are they to be secured in their educational rights? These children, sir, think not for themselves. Those who control them do that for them. Many of them are truants and vagrants. If they are willing, they are helpless.
Now, sir, I put the question, shall their parents and guardians be permitted to neglect the dearest interests of these thoughtless and helpless ones, - soon to become men and women - citizens. I say no. The State should interpose its authority in behalf of the helpless for their own interest. The State has a right to do it for its own sake,- the good of society. It must follow that the State must adopt the paternal idea and resort to the compulsory process where the parent neglects or refuses.
Our Superintendent of Public Instruction, in his last report, just laid upon our tables, has earnestly recommended that there shall be some legislative enactment to compel parents and guardians, having the care of children of the proper age to give them at least something approaching a common school education.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that all who have read his report thoughtfully, ought to be convinced of the necessity of this bill becoming the law of our State. Look, sir, at the statistical tables there given. See the illiteracy of our State,think of the importance of an education and answer me - is the page: 471[View Page 471] State doing right to permit its neglect? Every complicated interest, of the parent, of the child, of the State and society forbids it. The Superintendent's arguments, it seems to me are conclusive and irresistable, if we believe in the public school system at all, as I believe the catholic does not.
Compulsory education is not a new thing outside of Indiana; and wherever it has been tried, it has been acceptable and popular, and heardly felt or known to be coercive in fact, - only in isolated instances where the parents from criminal greed of gain or from poverty and inappreciation of the value of educatian has the oppression of the law been felt.
As unpleasant as the facts are, we are behind our sister States of the north in educational interests - with a common school fund I believe larger per capita, than any State in the Union, our people seem to lag behind in educational matters, and explain the cause as we may, we stand low in the roll of honor for our illiteracy. I will not take the time, Mr, Speaker, to examine the statistics, which are before us, but will state the humiliating fact that one hundred and twenty-seven thousand one hundred and twenty-four persons over ten years of age, or seven and one-half per cent of our entire population according to official statistics are illiterate - unable to read and write. Of these one hundred and three thousand three hundred and forty-one are adults with the responsible duties of citizenship and parentage upon them. I know some gentlemen are a little sensative on this subject, and are tired of hearing of the educators hobby of Indiana's illiteracy.
Mr. Speaker, there are a great many unpleasant facts in life, and in our State affairs, that are not to be sneered at but met with, if possible, corrections. Do the members of this House know, sir, that thirty-nine thousand five hundred and nine of these are voters, more conspicuously tax voters than tax payers. Such are the facts, and intelligent men have to go to the polls with them, as is right under our form of government and divide their sovereignty with them. They count with the wisest. Is this wise? Is it prudent? Is it safe? Ought the State to allow such a map of ignorance - incapable of intelligent thought - to exist, to be preyed upon by demagogues that sway and control our elections and form opinions for it for selfish ends when it can be avoided?
Mr. Speaker, it will be admitted that education is not the panacea for all evils of the day. The illiterate may, and often is, by observation, experience and good, hard common sense a wise man, while the education of books has only made a more competent thief - no doubt of it sir, at all; but still as a rule, the illiterate belongs to the dangerous class ; and the statistics from prisons and penal institutions everywhere prove this.
But sir, I will not longer dwell on these common place ideas and commonly accepted arguments for the necessity of education of our people, as the ground word of our free institutions - all concede it. All acknowledge it. We boast in our fourth of July proud eloquence, of our universal sufferage and universal education, with the stubborn ugly facts of statistics staring us in the face, that one-tenth! yes sir, one-tenth of Indiana's entire voting population are unable to read.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the intention of this bill is to make in fact, what we claim in the pride of a theory, universal education as of the highest interest of the State, and of the individual. Is it to the interest of the State to educate? You answer yes, its safety depends upon the intelligent actions of its citizens - the units of its component parts. Is it not to the highest interest of the child, the coming man or woman,that it be educated? You say yes, unquestionably yes as you must - then why not demand by legislative enactment as proposed in the bill under consideration that all shall be educated? Now, sir, what does the bill propose to do - nothing I think very arbitrary, but reasonable and just to the State and the child while in its helpless condition. It requires under moderate penalties for neglect that every person having control of children between the ages of eight and fourteen shall send them to school, some school either public or private, three months during the year if within one and a half miles of a school unless excused on account of mental or bodily infirmity, or that it is taught at home.
It further proposes that in case of such poverty that parents cannot procure books and clothing, that the township trustee, when application is made, may furnish such needs as he may deem necessary as he now furnishes temporary relief to the poor. There is it seems to me, nothing very frightful in this, nothing very arbitrary in compelling an occasional unthinking, unfeeling and sometimes an avaricious and brutal parent, or more frequently a guardian to give the helpless children under them the time and opportunity to attend school.
Mr. Speaker, this law will tyranize only where it ought to, to compel men to do right. The State steps in to prevent cruelty to animals and all good people say it is right to protect dumb brutes from brutal owners. I have seen instances, and you all have, where children, orphan children, are taken to raise like cattle and swine for the money and profit there is in them - they are driven with shameless cruelty to their work like cattle. This is done sir, in Indiana. I have known page: 472[View Page 472] parents that apparently reward their children for the money there is in them - treated them as property rather than children. It is from these classes, sir, that comes much of our illiteracy now, and it is for these children that I now plead and ask the State to throw around them its protecting shield, and save their over-worked and tired muscles, favor the most intolerable tyrany. I shudder as I recall instances comeing under my own observation and of which I have often read, of the cruelty of guardians and often parents over whome they have despotic controll. The averice and greed of capital - and the needs of poverty, are the upper and neithe mill-stones that are grinding the poor helpless children to powder and bruising society in all our large towns and cities.
Humane laws are being enacted now in some of the Eastern States, and I believe in England forbidding the employment of children until of certain age. This sort of legislative interference with the domestic affairs, with the relation of parent, and child may smack to some tyrany. In my estimation sir, its is a tyrany only in an abstract theory. Is it a tyrany to say that a parent, or more frequently a guardian, shall not neglect his child ? If so, it is a very healthful one, one that promotes every public, social, and individual interest. Whatever may be the natural capabilities of an individual, the odds are greatly against him, if he cannot read and keep his accounts. I care nothing for the opinion of men who will feel in their persons this sort of tyrany, if they ingnorantly or wilfully slight the opportunities to give some show of an education in letters to those under them, when the State provides the means. This bill under consideration does not compell attendence at any school, public or private.it simply compells those having children under their control to educate them in some manner, and the public schools are open to them free as air and water.
Mr. Speaker and gentlemen, our public school system, is peculiary an American idea, and should never be abandoned by her legislators. It is compulsory in its very idea. The State levies its tax sometime burdensome, upon the willing and unwilling alike for school purposes. Its constant care is to man-tain and keep up its school fund for what is deemed almost a sacred purposes and unusually conceded of pramount importance. We are compelled, if we object, to pay this tax; and now I submit, sir, if it is right to so interfere with the domestic relations of men as to go into their pockets and take their hard earned money to educate all children should any be allowed to refuse the gift to his children from sheer ignorance, greed or obstinacy, and start them out inthe world to often become paupers, vagabonds and criminals ? The State, the welfare of society, and above all, the welfare of the child soon to be a man or woman, forbid it as this bill proposes, that it shall be left wholly to the option of a parent, whether he will or nor neglect his child in so important a matter. I say sir, let us either abandon compulsory contributions to school support, or require compulsory attendance to a certain reasonable degree. At least let us have an act that may be enforced in some of the conspicuous instances of barbarous and criminal neglect. Say some, the act will not be enforced. Perhaps not, but it will be a Legislative expression of the public will, which will have its influenceit will be a Legislative brand of odium on those persons who neglect their duties in this respect When our country was new and sparsely settled, schools could not be mantained, there were then excuses for illiteracy. But now it is no longer a necessity to be plead.
Inability to read and write is now an evidence of slighted opportunities upon the part of parents for which there is no excuse or rational defence. A neglected education now with the opportunities afforded .in our public and private schools should be regarded, says our Superintendent of Public Instructions as "incipient crime against the State, and requires State remedies."
As has before been said, our form of government above all others depends in its welfare upon the intelligence of its citizens. The problem of our population is complicated by emigration, arid the turning loose as it were an ignorant map of the late slaves no other country is situated in this respect as we are. While in none is the obligation more imparitive ; we are, in my judgement erring if we do riot adopt an active determination to secure general inteligence.
Now, Mr. Speaker, If that common expression is true, that ignorance is the fruitful parent of vice, and statistics prove it. who can justly complain if the gentle hand of authority is laid on the candidates for crime, the prison, or probable pauperism. Says a writer, "the question is one of prisons or schools. I mantain that it is better for the State to force children to school that it may not force men to jail." Does it cost something to assist the very poor ? Yes it does. But it will be economy in the long run, schools are cheaper than prisons,prevention is preferable to cures. As before said sir, I am not expecting a mellennium by universal education - no sir, some of the worst and most dangerous criminals have been and are now technically educated, while many a man ignorant in letters is au honored citizen, But there is a remarkable co-incidence between the extension of educa- page: 473[View Page 473]tion and the deminution of crime,it is everywhere observable.
I suppose sir, the general propositions I have made here will be generously conceded, but still gentlemen will go slow in asserting the right of the State to invade what seems a private right of a parent. We love to think that we have individual rights, the State cannot touch; and when they are clearly and well denned we should guard them with a jealous hand. But I ask, is it a private right of a parent to over-work, maltreat and neglect while in its helpless condition his child's best interest ? He certainly has no private right to dwarf it, either physicall or mentally and bequeath to his country, instead of a good citizen, a poor one. No sir. These are not private rights, I am willing to concede, in my estimation the State has something more to do than provide ways and means, and look with indifference to results. The doctrine "of hands off," and the let alone policy is all well enough if we do right, but if not the higher interest must be consulted.
Now Mr. Speaker, I have said about all I desire to say now, and will conclude my speech on this question by stating, that I think that an act of this kind is now needed. It is in accord with the progressive spirit of the age. It is, where ever tried, meeting with popular approval and with good results. In Europe, especially in Prussia it is the fundamental idea; and I venture the assertion, that all the complaints of the old country among our foreign population in this, no one ever heard a germ an complain of the compulsory feature of their school system. Their public sense of its usefulness is now so strong, that they hardly know there is such a thing as coersion, and so in my judgement will it be with us if adopted here as I hope it soon will be gentlemen don't be afraid of the good hard common sense of the people. Remember you are saving the thoughtless avericious or cruel parent from a probable humilliation at his offsprings degradation by his neglect, you are protecting a child often bereft of parents, from over-work, by a hard hearted and greedy master ; you are giving the child the best possible armament for its defence in future life, by educating it, and giving it an equal start in the world in the race of life.
Mr. BRANHAM. Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to detain the House with a speech. I have heard the ignorance of the people of Indiana held up and bemoaned in this House about as long as I want to hear it; and if gentlemen will agree to shut their mouths on this subject I will vote for this bill. I think it has come to a pretty pass, when we can have nothing better to harp upon here than the ignorance of the people ; and I think so, because it hits me. My mother was too poor to send me to school, and I developed without much education. - While I am in favor of popular education I am tired of being told that we as a people are more ignorant and stupid in the State of Indiana than in any other State of the Union, when such is not the fact. Therefore being in favor of schools, as I said before, if gentlemen will quit slandering the people of the State I will vote for this bill. [Laughter.]
Mr. HELLER proposed to amend in section one line three, by striking out"between the ages of eight and fourteen," and inserting "ten and seventeen" in lieu.
On the motion of Mr. BAKER, the amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. McKINNEY proposed to strike out and insert a provision for the six weeks attendance during the fall term of the common schools in their respective districts, commencing on or after the first Monday in September, etc.
Mr. KIMBALL. Some of the terms begin in October.
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. BAXTER proposed to amend section four, by inserting between the words "trustee" and "shall" these words: "if he be satisfied that the application is reasonable and just, having reference to applications" by the poor for provisions, clothing and books.
Mr. KIMBALL. The bill has that clause.
Mr. LENFESTY moved to reconsider the vote on the adoption of the amendment of Mr. McKenney. He said it was adopted under a misunderstanding.-The amend-compels the parent or guardian to commence the sending of his child to school with the fall term, which might be sometimes very inconvenient. It makes the requisition much stronger than it would be if the amendment were left out.
Mr. KIMBALL. This commencement of the compulsory term is at a time which will favor those who are farmers. The motion to reconsider was agreed to, and the question recurred on the amendment.
Mr. WALKER proposed to strike out from the amendment, "commencing on the first Monday of September 1873."
Mr. CLARK understood that to be the date when the proposed law goes into effect.
Mr. COWGILL. That is evidently the meaning. I do not understand that the child is required ai that time to commence going to school.Mr. BRETT moved to amend the amendment by striking out the words, "commencing," and "after."
page: 474[View Page 474]It was adopted by a unnimous consent ; and then the amendment as amended was adopted.
Mr. BAKER purposed to amend section three in line four, by striking out "not less than five nor more than ten dollars for the first offense, nor less than ten nor more than twenty dollars for any subsequent ofiense," and inserting "one or more than twenty" in lieu.
Mr. BUTTS. I hope the bill will not be amended at all. It is a copy of the Michigan law, I therefore move to lay the amendment on the table.
The motion was rejected.
Mr. KIMBALL. It seems to me that the bill ought to remain just as it is.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. MILLER proposed an amendment to the first section after "Home," line thirteen, insert "or night school."In some of our cities we have what is called night schools, that teach all the branches taught in the day schools : and it seems to me that the children attending a night school might be excluded from this provision.
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. It seems to me that the amendment is unnecessary; and if no one wishes to make a speech on it I will move to lay it on the table!
Mr. WOOLLEN. But few children attend the night schools, while many grown up people attend them.
The amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. BAXTER, proposed to amend section two by striking out and inserting: "not less than one dollar or more than five for the first offense and not less than five or more than ten for any subsequent offense." I think these would be equally as affective as heavier fines.
Mr. KIMBALL. I am astonished at my friend from Wayne, he and I voted for the bill that inflicted fines upon other persons; as if a man is found drunk he would fine and imprison him. But now the object is to send the children to school; and if they are not sent, under his amendment the fine will not be inflicted, or it will be insufficient.
Mr. BAXTER. The two cases, I would say to the gentleman from Marion, are different. The imprisonment is inflicted if the individual fails to testify. The great difficulty about enforcing the law is to get the testimony. I want this law, and I hope the House will adopt the amendment.
Mr. HOLLINGSWORTH. This law will not have so much effect upon those classes of children which are kept from school as upon those who are idle; and I feel that it must be according to the observation of every gentleman that this is a crying evil greater than the other.
Mr. KIMBALL. In larger cities especially there is a large class of people who, instead of sending their children to school, send them around as beggars; but this fine will compel them to send their children to school. This unwillingness to testify, and the unwillingness to send to school stand up-the same footing.
Mr. BUSKIRK. It seems to me if the amendment should prevail it would rob the bill of its efficiency. To impose a fine from one to five dollars is not to inforce the law at all. It seems to me that the children of poor people ought to be educated as well as the children of the rich. Every law should be connected with a penalty sufficient to enforce it. There is no good sense in enacting a law, and then robbing it of all its executive force. If this bill is not to apply to the children of poor parents who are keeping them at home to work, then the proper remedy is not what the gentlemen proposes, because that would be but a provision exempting the children of parents under such circumstances.
Mr. HATCH. I am in favor of the amendment for the fines would generally fall on the poor. You know, sir, that poor men generally have the most children. [Laughter.]
Mr. COWGILL. In many instances parties have good reason for not sending their children to school: and if these reasons are not good, then the fine of five dollars with the attendant cost would be a pretty heavy penalty and answer every purpose.
Mr. RUMSEY. I am glad to see the friendliness that is manifested toward this bill. It proposes a revolution in education; and I think all its provisions should be made reasonable. If we reduce this penalty too low the law will be a dead letter. Perhaps forty per cent. of the children of the State, are the children of parents who do not clothe them in a manner fitting for them to attend the schools; hence the absurdity of passing a law inflcting penalties on such persons. My argument in favor of compulsory education is this: A great many scholars round the towns and cities are playing truant; and in some places they are planning for a more stringent supervision of them. This bill would help such cases. Another reason for supporting this bill is this: We have voted for a special tax for schools: and why ? because rich men having no children to educate would not submit to such a general tax. While at the same time these men, in many regions, are willing to increase this tax, if you will compel these children to go to school. Leaving all moral questions out of view this bill makes the law to tax for education more feasible. I hope the bill will pass in a mild form: for the very word compulsion is a hard word.
Mr, THOMPSON of Elkhart. Poor men page: 475[View Page 475]generally send their children to school, but we have another class of children who have lost their parents, and some of them go to the poor house, and others of them are bound out; and if you compel these men - who get their children for the benefit of their labor to educate them, I would be in favor of increasing rather than deminishing the penalty. The labor of a boy ten or twelve years of age for three months is worth more than five dollars: and if you adopt the amendment which the gentleman from Wayne proposes it would not be compulsory at all.
Mr. MILLER. The penalty in the bill is light enough as it is. The only way you can compel parents or guardians to send to the schools is to compel them by penalties. Gentlemen should remember that you have to wait till the end of the year before you can fine these delinquents ; and that there is but one punishment - one penalty in the year: and the effect of the amendment would be a fine of one dollar a year. As the gentleman from Tippecanoe might well say: the boy that would rather hunt than go to school might pay the fine with rabit-skins or red-fox scalps.
Mr. Baxter's amendment was rejected.
Mr. BLOCHER proposed to amend that clause in the fourth section of the bill which authorizes the Trustee to furnish clothing and books, so that the trustee be required to furnish such persons also at least one meal of victuals a day, if is only mush and milk.
It was rejected.
Mr. FULLER proposed to amend section four, by inserting, after words "town trustees," these words : "or school boards of incorporated towns or cities." - Section four compels the township trustee to make these provisions for the poor of the cities and towns. I think cities and towns ought to care for their own poor ; and that their school boards ought to make their provisions. Therefore I offer this amendment.
Mr. BUTTS. The town trustees are the only persons having the means to purchase their clothes and books.
Mr. TULLEY. Is it not right to compel the peopl outside to pay these expenses. I Relieve the people of the towns and cities ought to pay the charges of their own poor - that they are just as able to care for their own poor as the people outside.
Mr. SATTERWHITE. Do not the people of the cities and towns pay the township tax - just as the people do outside?
Mr. KIMBALL. Certainly.
Mr. BUSKIRK proposed to amend the second section by adding these words: "Justices of the Peace shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction in the trial of all prosecutions under this act, subject to appeal to the Circuit and Common Pleas Courts." He said: It seems to me that such an amendment as this ought to prevail; because, without such an amendment, it is doubtful whether any Court at all would have jurisdiction to try prosecutions under this act. But, even if it should be held that all the Courts have competent jurisdiction to try prosecutions under this act, then also it would seem to me that these prosecutions ought to be heard before a Justice of the Peace, because the cost would be less. Before the Circuit or Common Pleas the cost, would be out of proportion to the amount involved.
The amendment was adopted: and the question recurred on the engrossment.
On the motion of Mr. BUTTERWORTH it was ordered that the bill be considered as engrossed.
Mr. WOOLLEN. There are several discrepancies in the bill; amongst them is the amendment which has just been adopted. In the third section of the bill it is declared that prosecution under this third section may be withheld before any Court having competant jurisdiction.
Mr. RENO. I have my objections to this bill. Our people are not very well supplied with competant teachers; at least I know that is the case in my county: and many of them are not fit to govern a school according to the provisions of law: and according to the provisions of this bill parents have to send to the school whether they approve the teacher or not. This is an innovation - an invasion upon the rights of the family. And there is another thing in the way: we have a great many colored children scattered throughout the State; and you can't legislate to suppress the prejudice of all that is against them, though it may be wrong. And one of the consequences of the passage of this bill will be that the people will be required to send their chilldren to school with the colored children ; and it will be required as an attempt to force this social equality with them. I have known cases where schools have been broken up by the presence of colored children. Sir, such a law as this bill proposes would be an attempt to break down this prejudice which is an absurdity. Therefore 1 shall vote against the bill: I am in favor of education, but not in favor of this compulsory business. I believe the people can take care of themselves in this matter; better than we can care for them.
Mr. BRETT. I wish to give some of my reasons for not supporting this bill. I look upon it as an invasion of the spirit of our free institutions. Our people should do right from, choice - from a preference of motives - not from compulsion. Besides this I am opposed page: 476[View Page 476]to enacting compulsory laws when it is unnecessary to do so: and no argument has yet convinced me of the wisdom of taking the matter of the education of children out of the hands of their natural protectors - their parents. I know of no case of any person refusing to send to the schools. I believe the sentiment is universal with the people of the State, that they are decidedly in favor of educating their children : and I look upon this bill as a reflection upon them. I don't see the necessity in our State of running wildly after everything that is done elsewhere. While our institutions are working well enough, I am content to let well enough alone. Suppose, sir, that a designing, immoral school teacher should attempt to corrupt the females of his school, and suppose the authorities to sustain such a teacher under this bill they could compel you to send your child to him, no matter what your own opinion of him may be. Then again ; all prudential considerations concerning the child - its health, the time in which it should be educated, etc., are proposed by this bill to be transferred from its natural protectors to the hands of those who are supposed to be more interested in them. Then I see that this bill invites the drones and idlers to come in, and proposes that our people shall clothe and educate their children! I adopt the principle that property should educate children of the State ; but I can't for the life of me see the wisdom of running to this extreme. These fines and penalties smack too much of the tyrany of the earlier days in the old world. We are a free people, and should do right from higher motives. We should have the choice of motives. Therefore I shall feel compelled to vote against this bill. I think we would pay our fellow citizens a much higher compliment by leaving the statutes as they are, than by enacting this.
Mr. WOODARD. Mr. Speaker, I shall vote against this bill. I believe we have a pretty thorough system of education. I believe also that the individual should be punished for his crimes committed - not for his sins of omission. Under our law, sir, we have no right to compel people to send their children to school; but under this bill there would be compulsion; and no discriminations in favor of worthey parties. The plan of the great salvation, as I understand it, is this: the Deity throws every facility - every just opportunity - into the power of individuals; and they rest upon their own responsibility as to negligence. There is no man on this floor who would like to be compelled to do what an affirmative vote on this bill would require the people to do. This bill is saying to the people: you shall do this thing, no matter what may come up in your way ; you shall be compelled by law to take your children and send them to school for so long a term every year against every controvening necessity!I say to the friends of education in the State, that they would be doing their cause a great injury by such a complication of our school system. No people can establish a perfect school system at once. And because other States have enacted laws similer to that which this bill proposes it in no good reason that we should blindly follow their example. I say; let them try their own experiments, and we will profit by them ; and I will say only this further If gentlemen would serve the cause of education let them vote down this bill.
Mr. KIMBALL. It seems that on mature consideration it would strike the mind of every man that this bill is correct in principle. It is right for the State to compel the citizen to do right. My friend from Daviess [Mr. Brett,] advocated the argument, that every man should be left to chow for himself to do right; but it seems to me that it is necessary to pass laws compeling them to do right - that it is even necessary and wise to pass laws restraining men from doing what it might be perfectly right for them to do under certain circumstances. Now sir, I could not say anything here that would prevent my friend from Jefferson [Mr. Branham,] from voting for this bill, I make no allusion to the ignorance of our people, - I believe they are - as other people; but I am prepared to say and do anything in my power to compel all people to educate their children. But it should not be forgotten that this bill provides that children may be educated at their homes: and it is only when from an avaricious disposition from the greed of gain by their labor - the children are kept at home,then only is it that this bill proposes, (and I think rightfully,) that they should be compelled to school. - The Saviour of the world has enjoined the duty of culture in the family: and whenever this system has been adopted by the State good has resulted from it and the cause of Liberty has been advocated. The freedom of man has kept pace with the intelligence of the people all over the world.
Mr. BUSKIRK. There is a provision in the first section of this bill by which the child is excused who is too much afflicted for study during the required period, that induces me to vote for it: and it seems to me that this does away practically with the objections that have been brought forward by the gentleman from Owen [Mr. Reno,] and the gentleman from Daviess [Mr. Brett.] The objections are to this effect: that the hill compels parents and guardians to send their children to schools where the teachers may not be acceptable. The gentlemen from Daviess says it compels parents to send to page: 477[View Page 477] school where the teachers are immoral. I do not so understand the bill I understand that the bill provides that the children may be excused from the schools if they are educated at home. -
It seems to me sir, that the practical effect of this bill is not misunderstood. It is not a bill compelling parents and guardians to send to school; but it is a bill compelling education. If it were a bill compelling parents and guardians to lend to school, then I think the objection would be good. The gentleman says also, that it compels parents to send their children to mingle at school with colored children; but I do not so understand the bill. I understand that under this bill parents will have precisely the same right to keep their children at home that they have now; but parents shall not keep their children in idleness - in negligence of education. Then in Owen County, the people would still have the privilege of keeping their children at home. The only difference it would make is this: that we shall no longer (as now) have the right to keep our children at home in idleness and ignorance of education. - It seems to me sir, that the bill is not objectionable on this ground. - But it is objected that this bill is opposed to the republican spirit which underlies our government. I understand that this same objection was raised at the first against the principle of taxation for schools in this country. They said it was opposed to the spirit of free government. But that doctrine has been overturned by the general acknowledgment of the right to tax for the public good; and by the consession of the fact that ignorance leads to crime ; and that argument supports this bill for compulsory education. The gentleman from Jefferson [Mr. Branham,] will pardon me if I allude to a few facts and give a few figures in this connection. There are fifteen thousand six hundred and fifteen illiterate children in this State between the ages of twelve and twenty-one.
Mr. BRETT interposing. How many of them are children of colored parents?
Mr. BUSKIRK. I know not how that is: but I submit, in answer to that, that we are just as much interested in the education of the colored as the white children.
Mr. BRETT. But the want of education in colored children has not been so much their own fault.
Mr. BUSKIRK. That is true. [Mr. B. proceeded to read figures from the late Report of the Superintendent of Public Instructions, embracing also brief extracts from Kent, Blackstone. Reed and Reeves, of Conneticut.]
Mr. BRETT. That is where they make wooden nutmegs.
Mr. BUSKIRK. Whether they make wooden nutmegs or not, it is certain that they have a much greater proportion of reading and writing people than we; and I admire the fact that the number of their illiterates is so small, notwithstanding the nutmegs. - But I am not in a speechonly for the purpose of explaining my vote.
Mr. BRANHAM would recommit the bill with instructions to amend so as to compel parents and guardians to teach their children some useful employment. He said: If we are going to take the management of this thing we ought to be careful to make the harness useful.
Mr. HOLLINGSWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I want to say merely that this bill naturally follows the laws of taxation for educational purposes. In many of the rural districts I have found sometimes no school houses, and more frequently school houses not half built, or built with many inconveniences, and the children running at large. We are willing to be taxed for schools and school houses; but when that is done we are not willing to see the children restrained from the schools or running idly abroad. I insist, sir, that this bill results naturally, as flowing from the principle of taxation for school purposes; that the children should be required to attend the schools in better school houses, and that the pay of the teachers should be raised.
Mr. MILLER. I am friendly toward this bill. I do not want to see it lost. But we want a bill that will do what this proposes to do; that will compel the people to give their children an education. In the first section it is provided that any child may be excused from the schools "if it be shown to the satisfaction of such Board or Trustee that the bodily and mental condition of such child has been such as to prevent its attendance at school or that such child has been too much afflicted to study for the period required, or that such child is taught at home such branches as are usually taught in primary schools, or that such child has already acquired the ordinary branches of learning taught in the public schools; provided that in case no public school is taught for three months during the year within one and a half miles by the nearest traveled route of the residence of said parent or guardian, then they shall not be liable to tie provisions of this act."
These prosecutions, I suppose are to be brought before a justice of the peace. But then, is there always a justice of the peace living in the township? Are the parties too poor to be prosecuted ? What kind of evi dence will be necessary to make a successful defence? All they have got to do is to show that the child has been taught at home in the ordinary branches of learning taught in the public school, The question as to how much page: 478[View Page 478] the child has been sometime taught is not material. All they have got to do is to bring in some one about the house and prove that the child has been taught in spelling, reading and arithmetic. No question about much or little teaching. I undertake to say that there is a loop-hole here by which every parent or guardian in the State of Indiana can keep out of the way of the penalty.
I think, sir, that here is a just objection to the bill. I think that this provision should require that the child shall be taught to some definite extent - and that extent apportioned to the age of the child. It should be that the child of eight years shall have made a certain progress in study; that the child of twelve years shall have made greater proficiency; and that there should be something by which this proficiency could be determined - could be measured. I think the bill requires amendment here.
Then there is another objection as to the protection for punishment under this proposed law. I suppose that none but the township Trustee or the Board of Education have the right to prosecute: and these are to prosecute upon information of others, - for they cannot be required to make affidavit about that which they know nothing at all. And I undertake to say that to require men who may bo so unfortunate as to be elected to serve as township trustees or members of a board of education to go into court and institute criminal prosecutions against their neighbors under such a kind of vague information, must be very singular legislation. And there are other objections on account of which I think the bill ought not to pass in its present shape.
Mr. HATCH was satisfied that the bill would work hardships in some localities and would vote against it.
Mr. BUTTERWORTH demanded the previous question; - but
On motion of Mr. BLOCHER the House took a recess till two o'clock p. m.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The SPEAKER resumed the consideration of the special order - Mr. Butterworth's Compulsory education bill [H. R. 340]the question being on the engrossment.
Mr. HELLER. Mr. Speaker, this morning I thought perhaps I might vote for this bill, but during the discussion I have considered whether I should not vote against it. It involves a question of more importance than one might see at once: simply a question whether I shall control my own household, or whether I shall consent to give that control to the State or some one else. This is a serious question: one that conies right home to the heart of every man.
It seems to me that every father of a family should have the right to say when his children shall be educated. I have a family sir, and when you are legislating to authorize men to come into my family to see whether I am negligent about the education of my children, you are placing in the statute book a law which is contrary to the institutions of freedom the world over. It might be an absolute abuse of a child to compel him to march daily, one and a half miles to school during such weather as we have had this winter : and yet gentlemen are proposing to pass a law that might compel me to do so. I have no doubt that the friends of the bill mean well. I have nothing to say against its authors and supporters. But the spirit of the bill is wrong - it is wrong in principle. It is another clutch of the hand at the throat of freedom - to rob us of our rights, which we inherited from our fathers who fought and bled for the liberties of our country. The more I think on these things the more I feel impressed with objections to the bill: and while at the first I thought it would pass. I think now that it should not. I cannot forget that a large per cent of our people are emigrants from the old country. Then, the larger number of districts are sparsely settled - unlike the situation in old Connecticut and elsewhere. If the school house were at the door of every man it would remove this chief difficulty.
I have offered an amendment which was not entertained, to make the age of compulsory attendance from ten to seventeen years, where the bill says now from eight to fourteen: and I still think the bill is wrong there. We are here to act for the benefit of the people, and we ought not to outrage common sense. We should not act hastily. There is hasty legislation enough without this. But still, if there is a man on this floor who can change my mind as to the course of the argument which has directed me so far in this debate I would be glad for him to do so. It is right for a man to provide for his own family ; and it is his duty to; but you can't pass a law compelling him to do it. Yon cannot always compel by law that which common humanity requires without regard to law. So when you seek to place a law on the statute book to compel me to take my children and send them to a certain school for a certain time you are attempting to steal away from me what is my inalienable right. Only the other day you called upon the people to provide for the support of County Superintendents of the schools; but the time is coming, sir, when you must shorten the tail of your coat, and keep it within the bounds of reason.
I do not know, that this question has any connection whatever with the churches. Fortunately or unfortunately for me. I be- page: 479[View Page 479] long to no church; but I am admonished by them all. From one I learn devotion to the church: from another I learn to cut my coat according to my cloth: from another I learn to pray; and so I presume that no one like me would think to connect this question with reIigion. I think there is nothing of the kind in it.
The author of this bill has suggested that it is time to stop this discussion. I know gentlemen sometimes get tired of a dry debate; but the more debate the better the consideration: and we certainly have time to consider every matter here with all needful deliberation. Better to leave many things undone than to do anything wrong. Better not pass a measure than to pass it without due consideration. Doubtless I have myself cast some votes here unwisely; but in most of these cases I can justly plead that it was because I was forced to vote before I could be well ready.
I think I have now said enough to be understood as to my position on this question; it is not that I would do or say anything against the cause of education, but that I think, by opposing this bill, I shall be doing what will be ultimately for the benefit of the people. If I vote wrong on this question, all I can do is to pray that I may be forgiven.
Mr. WALKER. I have counselled with some of the friends of the bill, and with others who will vote against it unless it is changed; and I believe that if we strike out the third section it will strengthen it. The objectionable principle is that which would compel the trustee or other officer to make oath and prosecute the offender under criminal liability. And, as I have the consent of the leading friends of the bill I ask the unanimous consent of the House that that provision be now stricken ont.
Mr. WOOD objected.
Mr. WALKER. Then I will move to recommit the bill with instructions to strike out section three.
Mr. DIAL moved to amend the instructions so as to require the Committee to amend the bill by inserting a clause requiring all fines and penalties collected under this act to be equally divided between the informer and the school fund.
On the motion of Mr. BUTTERWORTH Mr. Dial's motion was laid on the table; and then, (Mr. Walker's motion having been adopted,) the bill was referred again to the Committee on Education.
