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.
