THE BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME EIGHTEEN.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE.
THURSDAY, March 27,1879-- 9 o'clock a. m.The reading of the journal was omitted.
On motion by Mr. SARNIGHAUSEN the Senate resumed the consideration of the bill [H. R. 620] to provide for a general system of common schools. He said two years ago the Legislature authorized the superintendent of public instruction to arrange the laws on the subject of corn men schools in a convenient form, which has been submitted in the shape of this bill. Several amendments were made in the House of Representatives, and the Senate committee on education have also made some amendments. The House took the election of school superintendent from the township trustees and gave it to the county commissioners, but the Senate amendment has changed this again, which leaves it as the law now is.
Mr. GRUBBS moved to reconsider the vote of last night by which the report of the committee was concurred in, in order that the committee amendments may be perfected.
Mr. GARRIGUS thought in several particulars the bill should be improved. Last night the great haste in which this bill was put through precluded proper consideration.
The motion to reconsider was agreed to.
On motion by Mr. GRUBBS section 32 was amended by limiting the examine on fee to $1.
Mr. GARRIGUS moved, ineffectually, to strike out the proviso to section 32 allowing school boards in cities to license teachers.
Mr. LANGDON desired to see the proviso remain as placed by the committee.
Mr. MENZIES moved to amend by adding a proviso to section 45, that school furniture shall not be changed or removed, or shall any school building be refurnished with new furniture oftener than once in 10 years, nor shall text books (in cities as well) be changed oftener than once in 10 years, unless by unanimous consent of all the members of the school board. He knew of whole families made millionairs by profits derived from the sale of text books in the common schools, so often have they been changed in the last 20 or 25 years.
Mr. LANGDON said discoveries were rapidly being made that are and should be incorporated in school text books, and to cut that off by this amendment is an innovation that should not be allowed.
Mr. STREIGHT and Mr. HEFRON favored the amendment.
It was agreed to.
On motion of Mr. COMSTOCK, the forfeit of one day's wages for absence from institutes, was stricken out.
Mr. HART moved to strike out all relating to county superintendents visiting schools, which was rejected on motion by Mr. FOWLER.
Mr. URMSTON moved to amend so as to make the employment of teachers dependent upon a decision of the patrons of the school at a regular school meeting.
Mr. SARNIGHAUSEN reminded senators that this system has been tried and found to bring about great confusion and often litigation.
Mr. TRUSLER has had experience in this master and favored the amendment. Under the present system confusion and dissatisfaction is continually brought about by the trustees imposing upon the, districts teachers not satisfactory to the patrons of the school.
Mr. URMSTON objected to having trustees dictating what persons shall teach the common schools.
Mr. REEVE said this plan had been tried and found to be productive of neighborhood quarrels.
Mr. TRAYLOR referred to the provisions of the law which prevents the dismissal of teachers unless for sufficient cause; and regarded that as a difficult matter in many cases where the teacher is obnoxious to the patrons of the school.
Mr. HEFRON favored leaving in the hands of the people the government of their own affairs as far as it can be done. Teachers should not be employed in total disregard of the wishes of the patrons of the school.
Mr. FOWLER opposed the amendment while conceding the fact that the wishes of page: 76[View Page 76] the patrons should be consulted; But this government is one of delegated, power, and the power of selecting teachers should be delegated to the trustees because what is everybody's business is nobody's business, and the people can not act for themselves in all matters.
Mr. WOOD believed this amendment proposes the best kind of Democratic doctrine. There has more township trouble grown up out of this question than any other, and this is the best way to bring about harmony and peace.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. COFFEY made an ineffectual motion to reconsider the vote by which the committee amendments were concurred in so he might move to reduce the per diem of county superintendents from $4 to $3.
The amendments were ordered engrossed.
Mr. HARRIS moved that the Senate amendments be considered as engrossed, in order that the bill might be read the third time now, and put upon its passage.
Mr. FOSTER (replying to any inquiry from the chair) said this bill has not been read the second time as every Senator on the floor knows. It was pretended, to be read. It was read in about one or two minutes, and then that enormous bill was considered as read the second time; whereupon, at the time, he protested against such proceedings.
The motion [Mr. Harris'] was agreed to.
Mr. WINTERBOTHAM said as many members were dissatisfied with the reading given that bill yesterday; it is but fair it should now be read distinctly, that every senator may have an opportunity of understanding it.
The bill, H. R. 620, was then ordered read the third time, pending the reading on which--
Came the usual recess till 2 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The reading of the bill [H. R. 620] having been completed Mr. OLDS facetiously inquired whether the sections [there are over 160] were numbered correctly. He did not hear the sections read consecutively. It was passed by the Senate by yeas 38, nays 6.
Mr. MOORE from the select committee on the lost bill [H. R. 158] in relation to settlements of county commissioners with county, township and school officers, returned the same with a majority report, embracing amendments, and a minority report recommending indefinite postponement.
Mr. REEVE rose to a point of order: that the special committee appointed on yesterday to inquire if this bill was lost, has not reported; that there is no evidence that the bill is lost, and if lost, only a copy with all its attachments, as it was when lost, can be filed; that the bill having been passed by the House and amended in the Senate, and lost from the files if lost. If a copy of the bill is to be obtained from the House, it must come certified as a copy at the time it was lost; if introduced here as a new bill it is not a lost bill, and it can only be done by unanimous consent, and such consent has not been given nor asked; it cannot be introduced here as a new bill and also as a lost bill that has passed the House and been amended in the Senate. Objection was made to its introduction, unless in the condition when it passed from the files; no unanimous consent has been asked or granted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER [Mr. Urmston in the chair) overruled the point of order.
Mr. REEVE appealed from the decision of the chair--pending which--
Mr. KENT from the joint committee of conference on the disagreements between the two Houses on the fee and salary bill, [H. R. 344] submitted a report embracing a compromise. He said there was a fair reduction on all of the offices--on clerks and sheriffs about 20 per cent. from the fee bill of 1875. The county treasurers' salary is reduced from $1,000 to $800, but he gets 6 per cent. instead of five for collecting delinquent taxes. While not entirely satisfied with it, he thought this the best thing that could be done.
Mr. WOOLLEN did not believe this report would bring about any reduction, and he moved it lay on the table till to-morrow.
Mr. SHIRK favored this motion.
The motion was rejected by yeas 20, nays 26.
The report of the committee was concurred in by yeas 32, nays 14--as follows:
Those voting in the affirmative were Messrs., Briscoe, Cadwallader, Comstock, Davenport, Davis, Foster, Fowler, Grubbs, Harris, Hart, Hefron, Kahlo, Kent, Kramer, Langdon, Leeper, Major, Menzies, Moore, Olds, Peterson, Ragan, Reiley, Smith, Streight, Tarlton, Traylor, Trusler, Urmston, Viehe, Wood, Woollen.--32.
Those voting in the negative were Messrs. Benz, Burrell, Garrigus, Mercer, Poindexter, Reeves, Sarnighausen, Shaffer, Shirk, Taylor, Treat, Weir, Wilson, Winterbotham--14.
Pending the roll call--
Mr. FOSTER (in explanation) did not think this bill was a reduction--he was satisfied it was not, because county officials, who have been here as thick as flies, have their faces wreathed in smiles.
Mr. FOWLER, when his name was called, said he could not tell whether this measure proposes a reduction or an increase, and he apprehended no senator, aside from the two on the committee, knew any more about it than he; but acting solely on the report of the committee, he should vote "aye."
Mr. GARRIGUS, when his name was called, pointed out a few discrepancies he noticed during the reading of the report. He could not vote for concurrence.
Mr. KENT, in explanation, said he would like to have seen the report more fully discussed. He voted for concurrence, although believing the reduction to be too great, because the committee did the very best they could.
Mr. SHIRK, when his name was called, said he had been in favor of reduction from the highest to the lowest, and should vote against concurrence, believing this bill, instead of reducing, in many instances, increases the salaries. He thought it would be found that the only reduction was in the clerk's office.
Mr. STREIGHT, in explanation of his vote, said he believed the people demanded a reduction of fees and salaries. The committee promise it does reduce, and, believing this is the only bill that can be obtained this session, and whatever reduction we get will be so much of a relief to the people, he voted "aye."
Mr. WOOLLEN, when his name was called, said he had spent a great deal of hard labor on this bill, and, not wishing to vote against it, being assured it does make a reduction of fees and salaries, he voted "aye."
Mr. KRAMER, when the roll was finished understanding if the report is not concurred in the bill can not be amended, he changed his vote from "no" to "aye."
The vote was then announced as above recorded. So the report was concurred in.
Mr. COMSTOCK, from the committee of conference on the bill [H. R. 20] to establish a bureau of statistics, submitted a report thereon; the Senate to recede from its amendments relating to inspections, the salary of the chief to be reduced, etc.
Mr. HEFRON opposed concurrence in the report.
page: 77[View Page 77]The report was concurred in by yeas 30, nays 14.
On motion by Mr. WILSON, the pending appeal [Mr. Reeve's] was laid on the table by yeas 26, nays I1?.
Mr. REEVE spoke in favor of concurring in the report of the minority.
Mr. MOORE stated the only two points in this bill: That settlements of county boards With officers shall not be conclusive; and that where officers have paid over funds with which they are not justly chargeable, the county commissioners are authorized to remit such money. Where any injustice could be done to the State, county or township by this bill he could not conceive. In concluding, he demanded the previous question, winch being seconded, under its operations the minority report was rejected by yeas 8, nays 36, and the majority report was concurred in. On his further motion the bill H. R. 158 was read the second time.
On motion of Mr. TRUSLER, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of House bills on the second reading:
The bill [H. R. 589] to authorize the township trustee of Union township, Union county, to pay indebtedness incurred by a former trustee; the bill [H. R. 549] to amend section 5 of s the act to facilitate the transaction of business in courts, with reference to special judges; the bill [H. R. 608] for the relief of Aaron Combs et al., security of a defaulting trustee,were severally read the second time.
The bill [H. R. 467] to amend section 18 of the act regulating descents and the apportionment of estates, being read the second time.
Mr. MENZIES explained: Widows having inherited properly by first marriage after a subsequent marriage, if the children be of age, may alienate her interest by joining them in a deed. He made an ineffectual motion to have the bill read the third time and put on its passage.
The bill [H. R. 32] in relation to prosecution of felonies by affidavit or information was read the second time.
The bill [H. R. 477] to define and punish the crime of burglary and house breaking, was read the second time and referred to the committee on the Judiciary.
The bill [H. R. 310] to allow sheriffs and constables to it follow defendants into an adjoining county and make a legal arrest: the bill [H. R. 192] to legalize the incorporation and all official acts of each and every officer of Butler, DeKalb county; the bill [H. R. 286] to amend an amendatory act concerning the duties of coroners, the bill [H. R. 115] to amend sec. 1. of the act for the protection of the Sabbath; the bill [H. R. 290] to amend sec. 1 of the act concerning the running at large of animals; the bill [H. R. 560] for relief of John J. Justice et al., securities for a defaulting township trustee; the bill [H.R. 420] for the relief of Alex Ingalls and others, securities of a defaulting trustee; the bill [H. R. 621] to legalize the levy of taxes by the city of Kendallville, were severally read the second time.
On motion by Mr. REEVE the Senate agreed to proceed to the consideration of Senate bills on the second reading,
Mr. HARRIS, from the committee of conference, on the disagreement between the two Houses on the exemption and homestead bill, [H. R. 22] reported an agreement for an exemption of $500, and on the question of a homestead reporting it could not agree.
On motion by Mr. REEVE the report was laid on the table, the committee discharged, the chair authorized to appoint another committee of conference, and request the House to do the same.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR made the Senate committee to consist of Messrs. Grubbs and Fowler.
Mr. FOWLER moved to take up the bill, [S. 456] for the government of the State prisons.
Mr. MENZ1ES humorously called upon the senator from Laporte [Mr. Winterbotham] to father his child--and take again under his parental care the prison bill he so gallantly fought for but a few weeks ago.
Mr. WINTERBOTHAM replied that he could forego all the good in his prison bill, while knowing it would be used for a foul and base purpose. He had been misrepresented in this matter, and took occasion to say, among other things, that in no instance had he been actuated by impure or selfish motives.
Mr. WOOLLEN moved to substitute the board of health bill, [S. 179.]
And then the Senate adjourned.
