THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME
NINETEEN.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE
TUESDAY, February 8, 1881--10 a. m.Prayers were offered by Rev. William H. Milnes, of St. Paul's Cathedral P. E. Church, of this city.
Mr. GRUBBS offered a concurrent resolution, which was adopted, for a joint Convention of the two Houses next Friday forenoon, the 11th inst., for the purpose of electing one Director for the State Prison North and three for the State Prison South.
Mr. MAJOR introduced a bill [S. 269] to relinquish the title of the State to the lands in the bed of Beaver Lake, Newton County, which was read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
RAILROAD WHISTLING.
Mr. Briscoe's bill [S. 2] to amend the. railroad whistling act approved March 29, 1879, being read the second time.
Mr. CHAPMAN--As near as he could gather from the reading the second section, was incomprehensible. He moved to strike out certain words. Common law makes what he proposes to strike out the law already, except a qualification which should be inserted. There is no occasion for adding the words referred to. With the words stricken out the law would stand just responsible and fair, and would make Railroad Companies responsible for injury, unless resulting from the negligence or carelessness of the person injured. it has been thoroughly well construed that Railroad Companies are liable for whatever injury is occasioned by neglect to whistle on approaching crossing of a public highway.
Mr. BROWN did not think the amendment either changes or modifies the bill. The law is: "Where one person receives injury from the negligence or carelessness of another, he is subject to damage." The amendment may remove doubt and uncertainty, and therefore it might be well to adopt it.
Mr. FOSTER stated that the bill supplies an amission in the act. Instead of saying the engineer shall sound the whistle before coming to a crossing, the act reads that he shall sound the whistle continuously. Now, the Senator from Marion (Mr. Chapman) proposes to amend the second section very properly.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. LANGDON moved to amend so as to have all pending suits determined according to the last named act.
Mr. CHAPMAN--Out of fair justice to itself, the Legislature can not afford to pass this amendment, as the statute supposed to be passed provided not for a continuous blast of the whistle. There is no special propriety in saving from suits for violation of a statute that never was intended to be enacted.
Mr. LANGDON doubted the propriety of amending the act except to make it speak as the General Assembly intended. But as now amended there is added a liability for injury attached. If the party injured contributed by his own negligence to such injury he could not be awarded damages. The tendency of the bill is to promote diligence. The original amendment ought not to pass, but if passed this reservation should be added, to procure remedies for any wrong committed.
Mr. BELL said the statute, instead of tending to preserve life and limb, destroyed the efficiency of sounding the whistle as a means of alarm. Then it was bringing on deafness of engineers. Better repeal the statute and leave the common law to govern, which furnishes a complete remedy. We say the first section is wrong, and yet propose to keep alive a penalty for its violation.
Mr. URMSTON thought the first section, as amended, was all right, but as to Section 2, the first suggestion made by the Senator from Marion (Mr, Chapman) was a good one. There is no clause to enforce the provision of one of the sections. There is one clause which runs counter to common law by providing that the Company as well as an engineer shall be liable for injury to an employe.
On motion by Mr. SPANN, the bill and amendments were referred to the Committee on Railroads.
SENATE BILLS READ THE SECOND TIME.
Mr. Bell's bill [S. 114] permitting amendment of bonds, when void for want of substance, upon request of all the obligors, or a new and perfect bond may be substituted therefor, was read the second time and ordered engrossed for the third reading.
Mr. Ristine's bill [S. 129] to authorize magistrates to imprison for non-payment of cost in State prosecutions, was laid on the table by concurrence in a Committee report so recommending.
Mr. Foster's bill [S. 38] to establish a State Public School for dependent children--
page: 146[View Page 146]Also, Mr. Shaffer's bill [S. 144] requiring railroads to fence their track in thirty days after notice, were laid on the table by concurrence in a Committee report so recommending.
JURISDICTION OF JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.
Mr. Yancey's bill [S. 133] to reduce the number of civil magistrates, was read the second time with a Committee report recommending that it lie on the table.
Mr. YANCEY hoped the Senate would not concur. The main object is to do away with an unnecessary number of Justices of the Peace. It also provides there shall be but one for each Township, and one additional for each incorporated town, and two additional for each incorporated city. Senators may object to having one Justice in a Township because it does not give a chance for change of venue, but where a change is taken it is usually sent to another Township.
And there may be some objection to the jurisdiction of $500 into it. Exclusive jurisdiction in sums of $25 is right. The common people would like to have some such law in regard to Justices Court. Were this bill to pass, men of character would be more apt to seek the office.
Mr. BELL said it would not do to enact this bill into a law. There is absolute need of more than one Justice in each Township. To give Justices jurisdiction in sums of $500 would take away business from higher Courts. This bill gives exclusive jurisdiction in civil cases where the fine does not exceed $25. In the larger Counties there is no necessity for such a provision as this. The inconvenience of changes of venue where there is but one Justice of the Peace in a Township would be very inconvenient. The bill is certainly very objectionable.
Mr. GRAHAM called attention to a statute provision in reference to Justices of the Peace where the number maybe regulated by Boards of County Commissioners. He opposed extending their jurisdiction because they do not take good car of their jurisdiction as a general thing. The Courts of the State are not so crowded with business as to grant additional jurisdiction to Justices of the Peace.
Mr. SPANN--There are not ten Justices of the Peace out of every 100 competent to make a record upon a judgment rendered by themselves. This bill would but encourage litigation. Many having small judgments rendered against them, knowing they could get a reversal from a higher Court, do not take an appeal because the amount in litigation is so small.
Mr. YANCEY desired to see the minds of Justices expanded by adding to their jurisdiction, and decreasing te number. He hoped the report of the Committee will not be concurred in.
The report was concurred in.
REDEMPTION FROM JUDICIAL SALES.
Mr. Majors' bill [S. 126], to provide that realty may be redeemed from executive sale by paying 6 per cent. interest, was read the second time with a Committee report recommending indefinite postponement.
Mr BROWN opposed the majority report and would recommend the passage of the bill, because it is right. The law allowing 10 per cent. was passed in 1861 when money was scarce, borrowers were numerous and lenders were few.
Mr. COMSTOCK insisted this indulgence to the debtor should not be extended at the cost of the creditor. It is not just, and the report of the Committee should be adopted.
Mr. MENZIES also thought the report should be concurred in, because it seeks to amend a repealed act, and its purposes would be to attempt an impossible thing. There is a bill now being prepared by the Committee on Revision of Laws on this subject. For himself he would favor an 8 per cent. penalty.
Mr. HEFRON had not listened carefully to the reading of the bill, but submitted that the principle is a good one. The law to-day, passed in 1879, allows no higher rate than is provided in this bill. Why should the judgment creditor have 10 per cent. after, when the law says he shall have but 6 per cent. before. The report should not be concurred in, but the bill allowed to pass to the third reading.
Mr. BROWN regarded the business of a Committee to be to cure defects in bills, and not report for indefinite postponement where the measure is susceptible of easy perfection. He didn't know that he would favor a redemption at all. It seems the hard creditor is the better for the debtor in the long run.
Mr. TRAYLOR--The 10 per cent. is a just penalty for not complying with contracts. Seven per cent. of all debts arise not from transfer of property, but from exchange of commodities, where hard-working men are deprived of the use of money they need. He hoped the report will be concurred in.
On motion by Mr. MENZIES, the report was concurred in, with an amendment that the bill lie on the table, to be considered with the bill prepared by the Board of Revision of the Laws.
And then came a recess till 2 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Senate bills on the second reading:
Mr. Voyle's bill [S. 111]: To authorize Town Trustees to take possession of uninclosed commons; and--
Also, Mr. Langdon's bill [S. 87]: To amend Section 782 of the general practice act; and--
Also, Mr. Coffey's bill [S. 137]: Recognizances to bind real estate, were severally laid on the table by concurrence in the Committee's reports so recommending.
Mr. Coffey's bill [S. 150]: Supplemental to the act requiring surviving partners to file inventories was indefinitely postponed by concurrence in a Committee report.
Mr. Voyle's bill [S. 163]: To amend the provoke law was laid on the table.
Mr. Henry's bill [S. 175]: For relief of estate of a deceased trustee was read the second time and ordered engrossed.
The Revision Committee's bill [S. 216]: Concerning Superior Courts was read the second time.
Mr. LANGDON contended that it would be a saving of time to send this bill to some Committee.
Mr. COMSTOCK and Mr. CHAPMAN thought the way to facilitate business was to let the bill go along in the regular course.
The bill was ordered engrossed.
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Mr. BROWN thought it apparent that neither of these bills can be passed today, there being a rather thin Senate. Inasmuch as so many Senator are absent, it seems to me it would be an occupation of time to no benefit to consider these bills this afternoon. I have consulted with the Senator from Morgan [Mr. Grubbs] on the subject, and we have come to the conclusion that it is better to postpone the special order for this hour until next Friday at 10:30 o'clock a.m., when we expect a full Senate, and make that motion.
The motion was agreed to.
BILLS ON THE SECOND READING.
The Revision Committee's bill [S. 212] to regulate ferries and ferrymen was read the second time.
Mr. MENZIES said it remodeled the main features of the laws of neighboring States, and is to prevent ferrymen on the Ohio and Wabash Rivers from avoiding the Indiana law, and to put them on the same footing with ferrymen acting under the laws of Kentucky and Illinois.
The bill was ordered engrossed.
The Revision Committee's bill [S. 213] in relation to incorporations of Public Libraries, was read the second time.
page: 147[View Page 147]Mr. MENZIES stated there is no law permitting such incorporations. This bill exempts Public libraries from taxation, and it permits individuals to associate themselves into an organization to maintain Public Libraries.
The bill was ordered engrossed.
The Revision Committee's bill [S. 216] concerning drainage was read the second time.
Mr. GARRIGUS moved to refer the bill to the Committee on Swamp Lands.
Mr. BELL thought this would prove a most admirable bill, and unless there be some objection, he hoped it would pass to the third reading.
Mr. FOSTER thought a bill of such importance Should be carefully considered.
Mr. HENRY said the bill was prepared by one of the Commissioners on the Revision of the laws (Judge Frazier). While having quite an interest in the bill he was willing it should be referred.
Mr. BUNDY submitted amendments he desired should go with the bill to the Committee-a civil engineer shall be appointed as one of the Swamp Land Commsssioners, etc.
Mr. Henry urged an early report from the Committee.
The motion to refer was agreed to.
The Revision Committee's bill [S. 215] for consolidation of the State Prisons under one management was read the second time, and referred to the Committee on Prisons.
Mr. Chapman's bill [S. 189] defining powers of attorney was read the second time, and ordered engrossed.
The joint resolution [H. R. 1] in relation to Congressional aid in the construction of the Wabash and Erie Canal was read the second time, and passed to the third reading.
ACCOUNTS OF COUNTY OFFICERS.
Mr. Yancey's bill [S. 22] to authorize expert examination of County officers every two years, was read the second time, with a Committee report recommending that it lie on the table.
Mr. YANCEY hoped the report of the Committee would not be concurred in. The bill is not for the benefit of the experts, but for the benefit of tax-payer of the State of Indiana. Its object is to unearth fraud. In a great number of the Counties one political party holds all the offices. The bill authorizes the Judge of the Circuit Court to appoint two experts--one from each of the two political parties--whose duty it shall be to examine the accounts of the County officers. It is desirable to have a power making it obligatory to investigate these matters. This bill was not forty-eight hours old till he had received a letter wanting to know the provisions of the bill, and he afterward learned in that locality they would oppose such a measure.
Mr. BROWN opposed Investigating Committees, and never knew of any good resulting from their labors. If a can be cited where any good has resulted from any investigation he would like to know of it. Oftentimes the party investigated seeks to get it in order to cover up blame. The party investigated seeks first to make friends with the experts, and generally succeeds. The people will lose more in the expense of investigations than they can make in trying to get dishonest officials to disgorge.
Mr. YANCEY insisted the bill was very generous, as it divides the experts between the Republicans and Democratic parties.
Mr. VOYLES reminded the Senate that the present law provides the same as this bill, with the exception that the bill is pre-emptory. The several Counties can take care of their own affairs. This bill indicates that every officer is in the wrong.
The report was concurred in.
BILLS PASSED TO THE THIRD READING.
Mr. MENZIES' bill [S 53]: To prevent certain domestic animals from running at large, and exempting Railroad Companies from the provisions' of this act, and
Also, Mr. COMPTON'S Bill [S, 40]: To amend Section 3 of the Township election act of March 3, 1877, were read the second time and severally passed to the third reading.
WEIGHT OF CORN.
Mr. BENZ'S bill [S. 73]: To amend Section 3 of the act regulating weights and measure, being read the third time,
Mr. GARRIGUS moved to amend by making the weight of a bushel of corn on the cob seventy pounds, instead of sixty-eight, as in the bill. In every direction the weight in surrounding States is seventy pounds.
Mr. KRAMER thought a change of weight would operate against the producer, and would be wholly in the interest of grain dealers. He opposed the change.
Mr. WOOLLEN also opposed the amendment.
Mr. SHAFFER favored the adoption of the amendment. It will equalize the weight of corn in Indiana as compared with other States There is a memorial before this body from a Board of Trade, asking for this change.
Mr. HART has had experience in raising and selling corn. After the 1st of January a bushel of corn will weigh sixty-eight pounds and pay for the shelling.
Mr. HEFRON--If we change the weight of corn in the ear it will destroy the rule that has governed the weight of corn for years in Indiana. On the general average the present law fixes it where it ought to be. Petitions for a change came from grain speculators. He was opposed to disturbing the standard that has been maintained for so many years.
Mr. DAVIDSON has tested this matter personally and could say the weight of corn on the cob varies with the condition of the ear as to the dryness and dampness. In the northern part of the State sixty-eight pounds is ample weight, on an average. He favored the bill as it stands, and opposed the amendment.
Mr. MENZIES, representing one of the largest corn producing regions in the State, has changed his mind since last session, and while opposing this change then he should favor it now. As a commercial proposition, Indiana should not stand out for sixty-eight pounds, while the States on all sides have seventy pounds Indiana should fall into line with the surrounding States. The weight in the Illinois side of the Wabash and on the Kentucky side of the Ohio, both being the same, should fix the weight in this State.
Mr. COMSTOCK two years ago introduced a bill embracing this amendment. He then thought it right, and his experience has confirmed his first judgment. He hoped the amendment would prevail.
The amendment was rejected by yeas, 18; nays, 24.
Mr. Hutchinson's bill [S. 166] for relief of sureties of a former Trustee of Coolspring Township, Laporte County, was laid on the table by concurrence in a Committee report.
FRANCHISE FOR WOMEN.
Mr. Yancey's bill [S. 186] to enable women to vote for Presidential Electors was read the second time.
On motion by Mr. WILSON, the bill was made the special order for Tuesday at 2 p. m,
BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS,
Mr. Woollen's bill [S. 95] to punish bribery in connection with primary elections and Conventions of the people, was read the second time with a majority report recommending the indefinite postponement of the bill, and a minority report recommending passage with amendments.
Mr. COMSTOCK moved to concur in the minority report.
Mr. BELL hoped the motion would not prevail. The law knows nothing of a primary election. He page: 148[View Page 148] believed in giving the independent scratcher a chance. If we can prevent fraud at real elections it will be well enough without trying our hand at the people's primaries. No good purpose can be served by this bill, Let us legislate as against greater evils.
Mr. WOOLLEN referred to the well-known fact that money is shamefully used at primary elections. In other States there are such laws as this bill proposes, and they are very proper enactments. It is of about as much importance to prohibit the use of money at primary elections as at general elections.
Mr. HEFRON heartily favored the minority report. It is the well-known history of political affairs in this country that there is a growing tendency with candidates to secure by corrupt influences, not only their election, but their nomination. A law of this kind will restrain the use of improper influences and tend to give nominations to men of a better class than those who succeed through chicanery and bribery.
Mr. COMSTOCK--There is no question but that money enters largely into the results of primary elections, and a candidate so nominated will use the same means to secure his election.
Mr. MENZIES questioned whether the public sentiment of Indiana would enforce such a law as this would be. Bribery and corruption stalked through this State last fall, when men were bought like sheep in the shambles. He objected to putting any such law on the statute book, to be hooted at by every Ward bummer in the land.
Mr. SPANN was of opinion the law-making power should enact laws right in themselves, without reference to public opinion. If this minority report be adopted it is a step in the right direction. Any law that looks to the purification of the ballot is surely in the right direction, and will tone up the morals of the people.
Mr. BROWN was of the number who believed his neighbors and associates are abouta s honest as himself. There is no necessity for bribery in his Counties, or in the Counties in Southern Indiana where he is acquainted. He opposed the bill because it is imperfect and incomplete.
The minority report was rejected by yeas, 22; nays, 23; the Lieutenant Governor giving the casting ballot.
And then the Senate adjourned.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Tuesday, February 8, 1881.--9 a. m.The SPEAKER announced prayer by Rev. Mr. Curtiss of Fletcher Place Church, this city.
The reading of the Clerk's Journal was dispensed with.
INVESTIGATING COMMITTEES.
Mr. Kenner offered a resolution that the scope of the Investigating Committees on the Benevolent Institution of the State be extended to investigate whether the law has been obeye by the Board of Trustees, in the selection of Superintendent and other officers and whether the appropriations, heretofore asked for were necessary; whether the discipline of these Institutions need reformation, or any other matter the Committee may develop or deem proper in the investigation to report to the Legislature.
The resolution was adopted.
NEW PROPOSITIONS.
The following described bills were read the first time and severally referred to appropriate Committees:
By Mr. ADRIAN [H. R. 314]: To authorize County Commissioners to construct free gravel roads, and to purchase toll-paying gravel roads and make them free, and protect and keep them in repair. [Authorized to assess not to exceed ten cents on the $100 taxes, to be kept by the Treasurer of the County as a separate fund, known as the "Gravel Road Fund," to be expended only in the purchase and construction of roads.]
By Mr. MITCHELL [H. R. 315]: To amend Section 4 of an act to provide a treasury system for The State of Indiana in the matter of receiving, holding and depositing public moneys by the State and the safe-keeping of public moneys, and adding a supplementary section to the foregoing act. [The Treasurer of State shall give a bond of $600,000, with fifteen or more good freehold assureties.]
COMPULSORY EDUCATION.
The SPEAKER announced the special order being the consideration of the bill [H.R. 8] for compulsory education. It favors the abolition of separate schools for white and colored children, and also provides that a parent, depending for support upon the earnings of a child, shall be paid a per diem while the child is at school.
The bill was read the second time with a majority report recommending the passage of the bill with certain amendments; and a report from the minority recommending that the bill do not pass.
Mr. RYAN spoke at length in favor of his bill closing with these words: Appealing to the humanity and sense of justice of this Assembly, while I know it is hard for the pride of cultivated philosophy to put its ear to the ground and listen reverently to the voice of lowly humanity, I plead with you to listen to the soft, sad murmuring and childish yearnings of the 300,000 children out of the schools, many of whom, without your intervention, are doomed to wander up and down the earth, homeless, helpless and despised. They call to us: Give us this day our daily bread, and lead us not into temptation; save us from our hard task-makers, and think what will be your answer when the awful question comes to be asked of you: Am I my brother's keeper? Rescue these children from the awful fate which waits upon ignorance, and you will have builded for posterity to reverence a monument to your memory more shapely than marble, more enduring than brass which will be the daily tribute which springs spontaneously from grateful and overflowing hearts.
Mr. GIBSON said: I believe that the minority report ought to prevail. I would suggest to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Ryan) that in the argument of this bill he should have given examples of compulsory laws in the different States of the Union, and not gone to Prussia and Switzerland for illustrations. Any person examining fully the laws of other States, and their experiments in this direction, will come to but one conclusion, namely: That this country is not a country for an official to step in and say, between a father and a child, between a mother and a daughter, "I have more interest in that child than you have." They can do this in France and in England, but they can not do it in this country.
In this country a man has the right to do with his own as he pleases, so he tramples not on the rights of others. The gentleman from Delaware based his argument upon the Mosaic Dispensation. Thank God, gentlemen, we are not now under the Mosaic Dispensation. We are in a new era, called the New Dispensation. We are living in a progressive age. I say if a State has a right in this country to come in and say to me, "You must educate that child in certain branches," it can come to me and say, "You must learn that child a trade." It is just as necessary that the child should have a trade as it is to understand arithmetic, geography and grammar. If it has a right to compel me to learn the child a trade, the State has the same right to say that men should perform certain Christian duties.
I do not believe this is a country in which the page: 149[View Page 149] Government or State can control family rights. I am against this bill generally and specifically--that is in certain specific sections of it. I am against it for its enormous expense to the State of Indiana. The idea of putting in the hands of a Township Trustee the power to come into my family as a Board of Examiner is simply preposterous. How is he going to tell whether the child has been taught at home or not? Suppose a child has been taught, there can be no law regulating the stupidity of children. Some children are blessed with a good share of brains, others are not, and how is the Board of Examiners going to tell whether the child has been taught at home or not? I am astonished at the argument the gentleman made. He says it is wrong for the people of this country to be taxed to educate 700,000 children, and only 300,000 reap the benefit. That is a queer thought.
The idea that an old father or mother has no right to call upon a child for support is another one of the inconsistencies of this bill. The idea that this old pioneer and his aged wife, who first gave the child life--that they have no right to call upon this child for support--I say they have a right, and I do not believe that there is a man on this floor that thinks otherwise.
Another thing, we know that the shackles of about 4,000,000 people were loosened but a few years ago, and we have a large per cent. of them in this country. I refer to the colored race. We must educate them. I believe that the colored race is an unprogressive one.
I am opposed to one section of this bill because it mixes the colored with the white race. Do not understand me as having anything against the colored race. I have as much affection for them as any one, but they are a race wholly devoid of progression. Trace the history of the race from Ham down, and you will not find one that has written a book.
Mr. FLOYD said the idea of compulsory education is repulsive upon general principles, and yet this bill embraces a progressive element. We need more culture and education, and he felt like supporting this bill.
Mr. BERRYMAN--I do not want the State to dictate me how to educate my children. While it is important that the rising generation should be educated, I am not in favor of a bill compelling me to go before the Township Trustee and make proof that I am educating my children in the branches taught in the Public Schools. I believe that that the "Democratic party" and "Moses in the Bulrushes," has much to do with this question, but I argue upon principle.
In our country a large per cent. of the children are taught at home. There are more children taught to-day in the Public Schools than ever, but I believe in a republican form of government, and I am not in favor of establishing by law or by legislation that which becomes a monarchy. This is a free government, where every man should have the privilege to act for himself.
It is true, in some countries of the world, compulsory educational laws extst. It has existed in some countries in Europe.
The people of those countries are not so well educated as the people of the United States. A law of this kind ought not to pass. The Public schools are open. There is no excuse for ignorance in this country. Education is free, as free as the air we breathe. Men have equal rights everywhere. A colored man has the same right as a white man, and I believe him to be a progressive man, and point with all due respect to the honorable member on this floor, a colored man (Mr. Hinton), who is the equal of any man in this House. [Applause.] While there are some good features to this bill, I would like to see it referred back to the Committee.
Mr. JOHNSON--I think, as a Republican, it is my duty to say something in regard to the slur passed upon the colored voters of this country. The colored people in my immediate neighbor hood, are a progressive people, and out of 400 voters in Jefferson County there is not a more respectable number of white voters than those. They are sober, diligent and law-abiding citizens. Will all due kindness to the Democratic party in this matter, I charge that the colored voters of this country stand up before the world in all dignity and humanity and show the world that they are American citizens, beneath the same sun, beneath the same free air, and responsible to the same God as the white man who has so shamefully and cruelly treated them, and as Republicans we will advocate their rights, and stand up for them in all matters pertaining to their interest and the interest of the people generally.
I trust that no more slurs will be cast upon them upon this floor, considering that we have on this floor a colored man [Mr. Hinton] who is the peer of any man here. Gentlemen, I am in favor of the passage of this bill. There is an old saying that "the youths of a Nation are the trustees of posterity." It is universally conceded that this is a fact. We must educate the mass of the people, because a man can not vote consistently or wisely in any matter, if he is not an educated man, or if he does not understand for what he is voting. I hope the bill will pass, because it is a good one.
Mr. KENNER--There is nothing in this bill to dictate to any man how to educate his children; but it says "he must educate his children." It is in the interest of the State, and society has a right to protect itself. One gentleman said it would cost from five to eight millions of dollars. How much does it cost to prosecute and send to the State Prisons the children who grow up without education? Who can tell the genius and greatness slumbering in the minds of those poor children--some 300,000--who are in the hovels and filth of this State, when if the spring of that genius is merely touched might leap forth like arrows from a bow The experience of this country is that the men who manage the affairs of the Nation come from the lower strata of society, and that the rich, those born in palaces and princely mansions, have not developed our country.
There is nothing so very vicious in this bill. Try it two years, and if it is depressing is in its influence repeal it. There is nothing in the bill compelling a man to send his children to Public Schools. He can send them to a school of his own choice, just so the child is in attendance twelve weeks in the year.
Mr. CAUTHORNE--I do not object to the bill, because it puts colored children on an equality with whites. [Applause.] I think as the gentleman from Delaware (Mr, Ryan) has said that one good feature of the bill is, it limits the branches taught in Public Schools. There is too much in this bill. I do not think it the duty of the Legislature to invade the family circle. That Government is the best which governs least, and if we only legislate on the things that are absolutely necessary the State would be far better off. We know what the Legislature did in the divorce matter. If you will refer to the message of Governer Conrad Baker in 1872, you can notice where he says we legislated entirely too much. What good has all the temperance legislation in this State done? I am opposed to the Legislature saying what a man shall eat, drink, or what trade he shall pursue. It is beyond the objects of legislation. If we can force this matter upon the people, it is to that extent tyranny. My friend says that the school system of Indiana has not advanced in the last twelve years. I am sorry to hear him make that assertion. In 1872, when it was proposed to elect a County Superintendent the argument was made that if we only done that the school system would be perfect. It was done, page: 150[View Page 150] and that official has been in existence ever since at the expense of at least $100,000 per year. Will the gentleman say there has been no advancement? The State of Indiana has done enough upon this subject. We know the dictates of human nature. We all know what are the advantages of education, and if we leave this thing to the parents themselves I undertake to say they will do all they can to benefit their progeny; therefore, I think it unnecessary to legislate upon this question. I can not vote for this bill while it is coupled with so many objectionable features.
Mr. MITCHELL--Some sections of this bill are already in operation in this State, and I can not see, gentlemen, how this inquisitorial system will work any hardships. There are three classes of parents, one of which always send the children to school, so the other two classes only are affected by this compulsory system. The second class are interested in their children to some extent, but not enough to compel their attendance under all circumstances; and the third are those very little interested in their children, and still less in the schools, and you will never find them in the school-room out of choice. It is this class of persons that the law would affect most. When we consider that there is $9,500,000 in the Treasury the interest of which is expended in carrying on the Common School system; when we see the amount of taxes levied for the education of the people, I say it behooves the people of Indiana to see that every child receives the benefit of this money. Education will make children better citizens and better members of society. I will most heartily support this bill, and, in so doing, think I am doing a just act to those who are staying out of the Common Schools and not reaping the benefits offered them by the tax-payers of the State of Indiana.
Mr. SPEAKER RIDPATH [Mr. ----- in the Chair]: I am not one of the gentlemen referred to by the gentleman from Knox [Mr Cauthorne], seeking the approval of my constituents. I come to this Legislature as a member of this body, determined to force every issue that might be presented to me as a member; and in the support of this bill, if my constituency should see fit to say that I have been prompted to act unworthy of their support, I would expect to go down with my act. I came here to legislate for the benefit of the whole people--not any particular class--and for the people at large in the State of Indiana, and the bill under consideration is one of those measures which look to the betterment of our race. It looks to the protection of the community, the neighborhood, and our own fireside. I say the this: we can not be too grave in considering a question of this kind. The gentleman from Knox thought the "steam" power necessary to carry this bill into effect inadequate. We are not looking to the Democratic party, but we are looking to the Republican party to furnish the steam. The money necessary to run this Institution we would derive from Police Courts and Institutions for the protection of criminals. We have a law in Indiana that gives to certain parties the necessary power to ferret out crime and bring criminals to justice. Then what objection can there be in charging Trustees and civil officers with powers inquisitory, with sufficient power to go to a family and make inquiry as to the best interest of the family? Is there a single man in this House that would hesitate to allow his Township Trustee to enter his premises for the purpose of inquiring into the condition of his family? As an act of charity it commends itself. I think gentlemen, after reading the bill, will think the provisions of this measure have been very carefully guarded. We know from the experience of the past and the history of the country that every important movement that comes before the people meets with opposition, and it is not to be expected that compulsory education in the State of Indiana would meet with the sanction, and with the approval of the entire people, and the very fact that it meets with resistance shows that it is a move in the right direction. The question is whether the law is one that can be enforced, and if placed on our statute books will be a benefit to the State of Indiana. It is not in violation of any principle of this Government.
Mr. NEFF spoke in opposition to the bill, but would not take up the time of the House in discussing it section by section. He was as much in favor of education as any man, but could not vote for such a bill as this.
Mr. WRIGHT saw nothing terrible in this bill Every parent having a child of school age does wrong unless giving it at least three months schooling in the year. No one has a right to raise up a child without giving it the benefit of a common school education. He favored the education of the voter, and then would place no restrictions on the ballot. The bill, if passed into a law, would result in great advantage to the people at large. When he had concluded--
The House adjourned till 9 a. m. to morrow.
