THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME
TWENTY.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
SPECIAL SESSION.
IN SENATE.
WEDNESDAY, March 16, 1881--10 a. m.The Senate resumed the consideration of the bi11 [H. R. 204] conerning taxation, commencing at Section 206, which was pending at the adjournment last evening--the question being on the substitute [Mr. Brown's] for the amendment, [Mr. Grubbs'] in relation to the publication of the delinquent tax list.
Mr. FOSTER--As between the substitute and the amendment the latter would not be quite clear. Under the substitute, no matter how much the printer would lead the headings or certificate, no charge could be made exceeding what it would be if set solid.
Mr. GRUBBS insisted his amendment should be adopted, so as to make it clear that printers shall receive no extra pay for the heading and Auditor's certificate. All agree that thirty-five cents a description is sufficient pay for this work, and if that be so, nothing additional should be charged either for the heading or Auditor's certificate.
Mr. BROWN had been spoken to by several printers on this subject. This substitute is a very careful one, and ought to be adopted. It is not justice, if it is economy, to ask one class to perform service gratuitously for another.
Mr. BRISCOE opposed the substitute. An increase has been made from fifteen to thirty-five cents a description. The certificate and heading must be printed, and at the price fixed it should be done without extra pay.
Mr. GARRIGUS remembered two years ago the Legislature carefully considered this subject and passed a bill making the price twenty cents a description, but when the fee and salary bill came up a clause was injected in it allowing thirty-five cents. His information is, this work can be done for less than thirty-five cents, and the printers are anxious to get this work, throwing in the heading and certificat without charge.
Mr. KEISER was of opinion that when a Senator says fifteen cents per description is enough, that Senator is talking about something he knows nothing of. In a large majority of Counties nine out of ten whose lands are advertised are non-residents. If these men who hold large bodies of land do not pay their tax till forced to, let them pay for this advertising of their lands. While not a stickler in regard to paying for the heading and certificate, yet it is but just they should be paid for.
Mr. BRISCOE was satisfied either of the papers in his County would publish the delinquent list for twenty cents each description, though he thought that not enough. Thirty five cents is an enormous price, and to pay an additional for the head and tail of the list is not right. He opposed the printing of delinquent tax lists anyhow. He opposed the substitute and favored the amendment.
Mr. WILSON is informed by a printer in his County that fifteen cents a description woud not pay, because it requires a large amount of type to be kept on hand which can be used for no other purpose, but that thirty-five cents would be a fair compensation. Then there should be a reasonable compensation paid for the heading and certificate.
Mr. VOYLES saw no necessity for publishing a long list in each County. If the Auditor prepares a list and advertises that it can be inspected, the delinquent can ascertain what his delinquency is, and those wishing to purchase at tax sales can also inform themselves. Printers are not so mercenary as to desire to do work of little benefit to the public in order to put money in their pockets. In some Counties the publication of the list costs from $2,000 to $3,000. Then these long lists spoil the reading matter in our papers. He offered a substitute for the section embracing this idea.
Mr. FOSTER could not think the Senator was serious in offering such a substitute.
Mr. CHAPMAN hoped the substitute would prevail. The publication of the delinquent tax list is as useless a piece of literature as is produced in the press of the country from one end of the year to the other. It is convenient for purchasers at tax sales to have a printed list to guide them. There is no question but that the General Assembly should strike it out. It is not right to burden the people with an expense that serves so little purpose. The records of the Treasury are open to page: 38[View Page 38] all, and all can find out what taxes are assessed against any piece of property. Any person compos mentis knows whether he or she is liable to be assessed for taxes or not, and if non compos mentis there is no use of printing a list for such. It is a work of supererogation, and the whole matter should be stricken down.
Mr. KEISER insisted publishers are not at the door of the General Assembly asking any royalty for their work, if you want this work done. If you think it is a useless piece of work, wipe it out--it may be better to do that. But if kept on the statute book, pay an honest price for the work. Every man who has land advertised is able to pay for the advertisement. As one who has made his living by picking type for twenty-five years, and speaking for printers he asked only that justice be done them. Publishers are just as friendly to the poor burdened tax-payer as any lawyer on this floor or elsewhere.
The substitute was adopted by yeas, 21; nays, 17.
On motion by Mr. MARVIN, the bill was amended so that where a tax deed proves to be invalid the holder can recover only lawful charges with 8 per cent. interest.
On motion by Mr. VIEHE, the bill was amended so as to require the Treasurer to give ten days notice of sale of personal property for delinquent taxes.
Mr. VIEHE offered an amendment to relieve the the Treasurer from liability for damage resulting from a double assessment for taxation.
Mr. MENZIES--Didn't think it would be just to adopt this amendment--it relieves the official from responsibility for direliction.
Mr. VIEHE--The fault is with the Auditor, for having assessed a tract to two different persons. The Treasurer is not to blame for this mistake, as the Auditor furnishes the duplicate.
Mr. COMSTOCK thought the section is right as it stands.
Mr. BELL moved to solve this difficulty by inserting words making the officer by whose fault the damage has been caused responsible.
Mr. MENZIES preferred to see the direliction fixed upon the Auditor.
Mr. BELL--It may not be the Auditor's fault--the Assessor may improperly assess it. His amendment will cover the whole matter.
Mr. KRAMER said such mistakes frequently occur.
Mr. WOOLLEN thought they were mostly caused by the Assessor.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. VIEHE said the owner of the land can not suffer, and the loss can not be very great anywhere. He withdrew his amendment.
Mr. BELL insisted the Treasurer will not be to blame for such mistakes, and the blame should fall on the proper person. The fault may be with the Auditor or it may be the Assessor. His substitute would fix the responsibility at the door of the officer where the fault lies, and that is right.
Mr. WILSON thought the officer causing the expense should pay the cost of the omission or direliction.
The amendment [Mr. Bell's] was agreed to.
[On motion by Mr. CHAPMAN, the House concurrent resolution for a reference of the claim of John Mirtin for $67,377.15, for brick work on the Insane Asylum, to the Judiciary Committees of the two Houses in joint session, was concurred in.]
Mr. KRAMER moved to amend Section 170 by striking out the interest now collected and, inserting a penalty for November delinquencies of 6 per cent. It is easy to make collections of a 10 per cent. penalty, but it is almost impossible to settle with Deputy Treasurers for interest that must be computed on every individual from which tax is collected during the summer. Under this amendment the Auditor and Treasurer can settle in the fall by adding the 10 per cent. penalty contemplated by the law and adding a 6 per cent. penalty on the gross sum, which will simplfy these accounts.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. KRAMER moved to strike out the clause allowing no extra fee for collecting delinquent taxes of previous years. To collect delinquent taxes is a hard matter. To hunt men down, follow them up, distrain and distress them, to get taxes, is not very pleasant. A reasonable fee should be allowed. There must be an incentive for them to do this kind of work.
Mr. BELL called attention to the fact that if the Treasurer lets delinquents run over a year, he only gets the same fee as for current taxes, while if he collects them before they run over, he will get 5 per cent., which will spur him up.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. CHAPMAN offered a substitute for Section 285 so as to make this bill apply to cities--Township assessments to serve for city purposes, etc.
Mr. BELL thought the section ought to stand as it is, leaving cities optional to act under this law or not, as they see fit. The basis of taxation in some cities differs from the County assessment. In his city--Fort Wayne--there is a difference of over $2,000,000 and in the matter of improvements nearly $500,000.
Mr. MENZIES belived the amendment would make a wholesome change if adopted. There should not be two laws for taxation--there should not be a 8tate King of tax and a City King of tax. Let there be but one law of State,County and city taxes.
The substitute was adopted by yeas 29, nays 9.
Mr. URMSTON moved to make the Boards of Equalization consist of the County Commissioners and four freeholders selected from different parts of the County by the Circuit Judge. He said if he could have his way he would favor a Board composed exclusively of freeholders. The Assessors should not be members of the Board because it would make the Board too large. These Assessors appraise property at what they think is a fair valuation, and when they sit on the Board and parties come to complain of the Assessor's work each Assessor has a pride in having his judgment sustained by the action of the Board. Then the expense of a Board of seven will be less than the expense of a Board of ten, fifteen or seventeen. The Auditor should not be a member because another section makes him Clerk of the Board.
The substitute was adopted.
On motion by Mr. BUNDY, these four freehold members of the Board were allowed a per diem of $2.50, not to exceed fifteen days in any one year.
Mr. KRAMER offered an amendment for the election of a County Assessor in 1884: Let a County Assessor take a view of all the real estate in the County and a fair valuation would be reached By having eight or twelve or fifeen appraisers who view only a part of the real estate with different views of value, it is almost impossible to get a valuation that is equal and just to all. This is probably the most important feature connected with this tax bill. He had known instances where property was appraised at double the value in different parts of one Township. There is a crying need that the present system of appraisement should be changed.
Mr. VIEHE, in submitting a Committee report adverse to this amendment, said he regarded the argument of the Senator as based on the theory that all property in the County should be appraised by one man. This plan was tried once in this State and abandoned. The County Assesor would have his Deputies, and so the judgment of many were relied on as now. If it were practicable to have but one Assessor in the County, he would favor it, but it is not practicable.
Mr. FOSTER opposed the amendments. He did not believe one man was better calculated to assess the whole County than men picked from different parts of the County. A man living in a city knows better the value of property in that page: 39[View Page 39] city than the County Assessor, who might be selected from the County.
Mr. KRAMER acknowledged that the County Assessor system was tried , but that the officer was required to do all the work in sixty days, while this amendment allows the County Commissioners to give the Assessor the necessary time to do the work. If one man can not do the work in Marion County in one year, let the Commissioners allow him deputies. But it will be far better to have but one man to do this work, in every case where it can be done in one year or less. Then there would be uniform assessments all over the County.
Mr. BROWN favored the report of the Commmittee and opposed the amendment, for he objected to centralization in all its hideous forms and monstrosities. He saw no wrong or injury arising out of the present system, and if it works reasonably well it is better to cling to it.
The report of the Committee was concurred in.
Mr. RAHM moved to reconsider the vote by which the Senate declared there should be no more publication of delinquent lists.
Mr. WOOD favored the motion. It is the policy of common law everywhere that you can not take a man's property without due process of law. Suppose there are 500 or 1,000 pieces of land to be sold, how can the purchasers examine the one list provided for in the substitute. The Courts nowhere sympathize with those who try to take away a man's property by buying it at tax sale. There should be no more exception made in this case than in the case of Sheriff's sales or other judicial sales.
Mr. BELL felt some interest in this matter. It is good policy that these advertisements should be made. The object of the notice is not in the interest of the printer but in the interest of the tax-payers also. It would be a hardship to require bidders to go to the Auditor's office to find out what parcels will be offered. While there should not be too much paid for printing such lists, still they should be published for the convenience of tax-payers as well as others. The planin vogue in this State so long ought not to be abandoned now.
Mr. VOYLES had heard nothing to justify a change of his views on this subject. It is certainly unnecessary to publish every year a delinquent list in every County. In many cases the Counties pay two-thirds of the printer's bill and is seldom reimbursed. There would be about $300 in the aggregate against each County; say $27,000 in the entire State, to pay for that interesting story that the Senator from Lake (Mr. Wood) himself has never yet read, though printed regularly once a year. He had as much respect for newspaper men as any one on the floor, but this expense was not justified.
Mr. BROWN believed that it was wise in the past, and will be wise in the future to continue these publications. He did not think it was proper to overthrow the land-marks set by so many past Legislatures, or offer for sale, the lands of the people of the State without due and proper notice. The purpose of the sale is that the State shall get her taxes by taking the smallest amount of the citizen's property to satisfy the State's demand. Penalties are only imposed when the State is unable to get her taxes otherwise. Men who stand before communities as solvent would not allow their land to run delinquent, knowing their names would be published, but if their names were looked up in the Auditor's vault it would probably be otherwise and the State would be the loser.
Mr. CHAPMAN thought one of the best pieces of work done on this bill was the adoption of this substitute of the Senator from Washington [Mr. Voyles]. Surely it can not work an injustice to any tax-payer. It is more than an equivalent to an advertisement provided for in another section in this same bill which is as important a fact to the tax-payer. The ad captandum assertion that these advertisements are for the benefit of the delinquents is easily made, but the assertion can not be proven. There is no kinship between a Sheriff's sale and a sale of property for delinquent taxes. The only question is: Is there any just reason for requiring this advertisement to be made in every County in the State?
Mr. FOSTER felt no more persona1 interest in this bill than one who has never written a line for a newspaper, but believed these advertisements should be made in order to give proper notice of such sales; and thousands would care but little for delinquencies were it not for these publications.
Mr. WOOLLEN said it happens occasionally that a man having a large tract of land, parts in different Townships pays for but a part, supposing the tax receipt covers all of the land, and if the tax sale be not published, the owner may not be aware of its sale until the time for redemption may have expired. And one such case should be sufficient to justify the publication of the delinquent list.
The Senate adjourned till to-morrow.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WEDNESDAY, March 16, 1881--9 a. m.Mr. CARTER offered a concurrent resolution that the memorial of John Martin, contractor, in which he claims the sum of $67,377.15, balance due him for work on the Indiana Hospital for the Insane (department for women), be referred to the Judiciary Committee of the Senate and Judiciary Committee of the House for examination.
It was adopted.
ELECTIONS AND ELECTION CONTESTS.
Mr. Ryan's bill [H. R. 225] concerning elections and contest thereof was read the third time.
Mr. RYAN--There is nothing in the bill but what is clearly manifested to the members, simply a compilation and revision of the law. There is nothing with reference to registration or anything of that kind. The only new feature is that the ballot boxes used shall be uniform. The box is arranged so that it is out of the control of the Board themselves, and no stuff the ballot-box. Another feature is a requirement for the preservation of the ballots cast for a given length of time in order to afford an opportunity for persons desiring to contest an election to have the ballots precisely as they were deposited. They are sealed up in the presence of the whole Board. The ballot cast has a number upon it and the number is registered by the clerk as the ballot is cast. I want to say to this House as a guarantee of good faith that there is no politics in this bill, because it was prepared by the Code Commission--two members well-known Democrats; the other member a Republican. This bill will absolutely prevent fraud in elections, and certainly no gentleman on this floor wishes anything else.
Mr. MOODY--I desire to enter my solemn protest against the passage of this bill at this time. It may be all that gentlemen claim for it, but I am satisfied it should not be passed until it is printed and each member of this House shall have an opportunity to examine the bill. I am satisfied that this bill is as imsportant as any bill that will come before us for our consideration during the present session, and few members have seen the bill or know anything about the radical changes sought by its enactment. This bill is a very complicated and expensive piece of machinery, and worse than all even before we vote upon the bill I understand there is a patent upon a part of the machinery. The gentleman from Delaware says this box is not to cost more than $25 for each box. How much do you page: 40[View Page 40] suppose this will cost the people of Indiana to enable them to exercise the privilege of free men?
The bill, I understand, provides that in cities of 10,000 voters the Precincts are limited to 300 voters each. This will multiply the number of Precincts very much in the State, and a patent must be paid for by the people for each Precinct. There are now about 1,200 Precincts in the State, and if this bill passes and becomes a law, they will number more than 2,000. The boxes alone will cost the people $50,000. I am opposed to voting for any bill making such radical changes in the existing law without an opportunity to carefully examine it, and I will therefore move that the bill do lie on the table, and 200 copies be printed for the use of the members of this House.
Mr. EDWINS said it was simply for the purpose of making the House conversant with the subject matter that he favored the printing of the bill.
Mr. KENNER said if the House would not put confidence in Committees it would take six months to finish the work before this Legislature. He hoped the motion to print would not prevail.
Mr. WRIGHT--The public expect us to have our work completed at the end of forty days, and to do so we have got to devote ourselves to the passage of these codifying bills, and pass them upon the recommendation of the Committees who have them in charge. I think we had better pass this bill without any further quibbling.
Mr. CAUTHORNE thought the House ought to pass this bill, it being reccommended by two Committees. He considered it the duty of the Committee to ferret out if there is anything wrong in a bill.
The motion to table and print was rejected, and the bill passed--yeas 52; nays, 34.
Mr. CAUTHORNE made a motion to reconsider the vote upon the passage of the bill, and to lay that motion on the table.
The latter motion was agreed to.
LANDLORD AND TENANT.
Mr. Gibson's bill [H. R. 237], concerning landlord and tenant [allowing a lien on the crops growing], was read the third time and passed--yeas, 82; nays, 0.
REORGANIZATION OF THE STATE PRISONS.
The SPEAKER announced the special order for this hour to be the consideration of the bill [H. R. 78], concerning the government and organization of Prisons of the State; a majority of the Prison Committee recommending that 200 copies be printed for the use of the House, and a minority recommending that the bill lie on the table.
The minority report was rejected and the majority report was concurred in.
Mr. KENNER was opposed to the engrossment of the bill because it was complicated, and further that the Board of Directors were compelled to have their office in the city of Indianapolis.
Mr. GIBSON opposed the bill for the reason that he considered separate Prisons beneficial on this account: when one Prison is badly conducted, it does not affect the other. If one Board of Directors controlled the whole affair, there would not exist the emulation now prevalent between the two Prisons to outdo one another. Under the provisions of this bill, if you contaminate one Prison you contaminate the other, for the same heads control both of them.
Mr. WILSON, of Morgan, said he was through the Southern Prison and saw evidences of punishments inflicted which are absolutely indecent and outrageous to the civilization of the State of Indiana. He hoped the bill would be engrossed.
Mr. COLE thought it would be inadvisable to engross the bill at the present time, as it would defeat the measure entirely. Therefore, he moved to recommit the bill to the Committee on Benevolent Institutions for further consideration and amendments.
Mr. MEREDITH--Democrats oppose this measure because it would remove the Democratic managers of the Southern Prison, not for the purpose of making reformation and doing good to all parties and to the people of the State. I have taken this position, and I intend to forward this bill just as much as I possibly can. It was drawn in the best interest of the State by a man who has given that subject more attention than any other man in the State. It was done in behalf of humanity and not for selfish motives.
Mr. EDWINS--I do not believe that this bill is a reform in any measure. We have already a Board of Directors who have the supervision of this business. What does this bill propose to do? It proposes to take this business out of the hands of three Directors and place both Prisons in the hands of three Directors. The existing Boards inspect the Prisons monthly. On the other hand that Board that this bill proposes to establish for both Prisons, as soon one of their number visits the Prisons once every three or four months, he reports to the rest of the members who are not there at all. So far as the humanitary part of the Prison is concerned, I do to not think it would be improved if you sent the best men of the State there. There are over 1,200 prisoners in both these Institutions who are the worst of the disreputables of Indiana. You congregate all these together, and you must have stringent supervision to keep those murderers and thieves in subjection. You can not bring the same power to bear upon them that you would in a female or juvenile department.
I do not think this bill is in the interest of reformation, therefore I favor its recommittal to some Committee.
Mr. SCHWEITZER said he had the honors of being on the Prison Committee, and in behalf of humanity he did not believe in using the cat as it was used there Although these persons are prisoners, they are still human. He favored reformation, but not that kind.
Mr. COLE said he did not make this motion from any partisan view at all, but for the purpose of defeating the bill in its present shape.
Mr. CARTER--This bill is a good one, carefully drawn and in the interest of reformation. I think it would not be possible for Committeemen to get up a perfect bill on this subject at once, but this measure is a step in the right direction, and for us to recommit this bill would be gratifying its opponents, for they are willing that is should go anywhere rather than be engrossed. The object is to defeat the bill, and not to make it better.
Mr. KENNER said if Section 82 be taken out of the bill, requiring the office of the Prison Board to be in Indianapolis, he would support the bill.
Mr. BUSKIRK said if the bill was in favor of reformation alone, he would vote for the bill. He thought the change to one Board, with insufficient pay and means for the management of these Prisons, would be a great deal worse than under existing laws. He favored the recommittal of the bill.
Mr. JOHNSON--I am in favor of recommitting this bill, and am opposed to conferring the management of these Institutions upon one Board, especially to men who have been unsuccessful in business.
The motion to recommit was agreed to--yeas, 49; nays, 40.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. LINSDAY introduced the bill [H. R 462] authorizing Railroad Companies to construct, acquire and maintain telegraph lines for commercial and other purposes, which was read the first time.
WOMEN ON SCHOOL BOARDS.
Mr. Kenner's bill [H. R. 140] authorizing the election of women to school offices, was read the third time. page: 41[View Page 41]Mr. KENNER--This bill is a copy of the Illinois law, and also similar to those in force in nine of the Northern States. In Vermont one-fourth of the School Boards are women, and the change works well. The House did not see fit to pass the bill giving the right of suffrage to women; this is not in that direction, as the bill does not give them a right to vote on any subject, but simply the right to hold school offices if City Councils, etc., deem them capable. There is nothing imperative about this bill; it simply makes women eligible to all the school offices they are capable of filling. In a great many respects women are more capable than men. They are more throughly acquainted with the ventilation of rooms, have more experience in taking care of children and enforcing the rules for their government. I think the bill ought to pass.
The bill passed--yeas, 66; nays, 11.
PRISON CONSOLIDATION.
Mr. JOHNSON offered a concurrent resolution--which was adopted--for the appointment of a Joint Committee of five, three from the House and two from the Senate, to consider the expediency of consolidating the State Prisons, thereby lessening the expense of maintaining the same. They are requested to investigate the financial condition of each Institution and ascertain the cost of such consolidation.
THE COMMON SCHOOL SYSTEM.
The SPEAKER announced the special order to be the consideration of the bill [H. R. 322] concerning common schools, commencing at Section 32.
Mr. BERRYMAN'S motion made several days ago, pending, that the bill be recommitted to the Committee, with the instruction to strike out all part relating to County Superintendents.
Mr. KENNER thought the principal of County Superintendents is a good one, although it is like anything else--subject to bad management. If they are not doing their duty, it is the fault of the County, and not the officer or his assistant. He appealed to this body not to abolish this office, thinking it a step backward.
Mr. O'NEAL--That is the voice of the people exactly.
Mr. FLOYD thought it would be a great calamity to abolish this office. To arrive at the value of this office in dollars and cents would be simply impossible. He thought to see the great benefits of the County Superintendents' office, it is only necessary to compare our present standard with that of ten years ago, under the old examining system.
Mr. COTTON thought the cost of the office of County Superintendent should be a secondary consideration compared to its usefulness. He favored having a Superintendent for every well-regulated affair, either mechanical or educational. He attributed the cause of complaint of this office more to the poor selection of Superintendents than the office itself.
Mr. FANCHER--I am satisfied the people of this State are not clamoring for what a few Representives claim: The abolition of this office. We must have a County Examiner. There is nothing in the name, but of the two I think that of County Superintendent is the most preferable. Now, we have experience before us upon which to build. We must have some law by which the teachers are examined. All the people of the State are asking for is that we cut down the expense that office. There is no use sending this bill back to the Committee.
Mr. WRIGHT--I am certain we do not want to abolish the office of County Superintendent. I believe that the educational interests of the various Counties of this State at the present time warrant us in employing some competent person to superintend the educational interests of the different Counties of the State, and just here I wish to remark that the trouble with school teachers and teaching is the fact that the pay of teachers is such that they generally devote themselvesto the business for, perhaps, one or two years, and then go into something more profitable. If you would attain the highest proficiency in the matter teaching, persons in this calling must be remunerated so as to enable them to devote themselves to that profession for a livelihood. I am honestly the opinion that County Superintendents ought not to be abolished. I speak for that office because I want this bill preserved in its present shape. I understand that this bill has the indorsement of Professor Smart and Professor Bloss, gentlemen who have given their lives to the study of this matter. I am not here as representative from Grant County, to set up my opinion against men who know much better what the educational interests need than I do. I regard the County Superintendent as the Colonel of the regiment of educators of the County, and the State Superintendent as the General of the army of great educators. If you strike the County Superintendent out of this bill it will destroy the symmetry of the bill, and it ought not to pass at all.
The motion was rejected--yeas, 14; nays, 76.
Mr. RYAN offered an amendment to so restrain the qualifications of the office that it will not only be a benefit to the school but also an honor to the man holding it, and a credit to all parties.
Mr. CARR hoped the amendment would not prevail from the fact that it would abolish half the Superintendents of the State. He moved to lay the amendment on the table.
This motion was rejected.
Mr. FANCHER offered to substitute the words: "A graduate of some good College of good standing." He said: I think this amendment ought to prevail in preference to the one of the the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Ryan), from the fact that a graduate from some good College, in my judgment, is far better qualified and would make a more efficient County Superintendent than a man who has taught five years in our District Schools.
Mr. MOODY I understand the amendment of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Ryan) provides that the County Superintendent, in order to be eligible to the office, shall hold a certificate from the State Board before acting as County Superintendent of Schools. That is entirely distinct from other qualifications necessary to entitle him to this position. I think the amendment of the gentleman from Delaware is preferable to the one offered by the gentleman from Lake (Mr. Fancher.)
Mr. NEFF was heartily in favor of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Delaware. He considered it a poor compliment to a College graduate to ask to be exempted from the same examination the boy is who has obtained his education in day and night schools as best he could.
The substitute was rejected.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. MARSHALL--I find that in line eleven it defines all the branches of education. If any patrons in the District want a branch taught that is not mentioned there, it does not say how many persons shall decide. I want it to say that a majority of persons, etc. I hope this amendment will pass.
Mr. RYAN offered a substitute to the amendment by striking out all regarding the extra branches taught in Common Schools. He said: I think that in Common Schools, outside of cities, towns and graded schools, there should be nothing taught but the eight fundamental branches prescribed by the statutes.
Mr. COTTON--I have seen boys and girls advanced, when they could not have made their board working, studying the higher branches. We have built our school-houses double, many of them employing two teachers together, and then the children could advance where they could not page: 42[View Page 42] have advanced any other way. We have advanced our children, some who are not able to pay for schooling outside of their Districts, and now will you come here and say we will not educate these children in the higher branches, but compel their parents to send them to a College or Academy? We have room to do it, and why not give them the benefit of it?
Mr. LINSDAY thought there were too many high branches taught in the Common Schools and the little ones do not get enough attenton. He was opposed to educating the advanced children at the sacrifice of the smaller ones.
Mr. FALL--I understand the object of our Common School system to be this: To do the greatest amount of good to the greatest number of persons. Where there is one or two persons in a school room that reqire all the attention of the teacher in hearing recitations in Greek and Latin, and the balance of the children sitting idle that is a perversion of the rule for doing the atest good to the greatest number. It is not the intent of the law.
Mr. MITCHELL was opposed to amendment of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Ryan.)
Mr. SCHWEITZER could not see the object of the amendment. He was opposed to any such restrictions for the reason that there are many useful things to be learned in the school room outside of the eight branches.
Mr. MARSHALL--It costs the teacher a great deal of trouble, and heretofore it has been the custom to neglect the smaller pupils they often going home without the necessary recitations.
Mr. HAMILTON favored the passage of the amendment. He said if the children were all small, and expected to remain so, it would be well to devote all the time to those branches, but there are a majority of larger pupils advanced oftentimes, who are not able to attend a College or Seminary, and it is nothing more than reasonable and fair that they should have the privilege of pursuing these studies in their distinct schools.
The substitute was rejected, and the amendment was adopted.
The House adjourned till to-morrow.
