THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME
TWENTY.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
SPECIAL SESSION.
IN SENATE.
THURSDAY, March 17, 1881, 10 a. m.FEES AND SALARIES
Mr. COMSTOCK offered the following:
Resolved, By the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring, That the Committee on Fees and Salaries of the two Houses are hereby instructed to draft and report at the earliest day practical a bill fixing the fees and salaries of public officers.
The resolution was adopted.
ORDER OF BUSINESS.
Mr. CHAPMAN offered a resolution--which was adopted--that so soon as the bill [H. R. 204] concerning taxation is passed to the third reading, the Senate will proceed to the regular order of transacting business, under rule 54, except that afternoon sittings shall be exclusively given to the consideration of bills reported from the Committee on Revision, in such order as between such bills as the Senate shall order.
ASSESSMENT FOR TAXATION.
The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill [H. R. 204]--a codification of existing laws concerning taxation, with the addition of twenty-five sections of new matter. The question pending at the adjournment yesterday being a motion [Mr. Rahm's] to reconsider the vote adopting a substitute for Section 206 which does away with future publication of delinquent tax lists in each County.
The motion to reconsider was agreed to by yeas, 23; nays, 20--
Mr. RAHM stating, when his name was called, that he voted for the substitute on yesterday because he was in favor of keeping down the County expenses. He made the motion at the request of another, and should vote against his own motion.
The question recurring on the substitute it was again adopted by yeas, 23; nays, 22--as follows:
Yeas--Briscoe, Chapman Compton, Comstock, Davidson, Davis, Garrigus, Grubbs, Hart, Henry, Kahlo, Kramer, Lockridge, Majors, Menzies, Owen, Poindexter, Rahm, Shaffer, Viehe, Voyles, Wilson and Yancy--23.
Nays--Bell, Berry, Bischowsky, Brown, Bundy, Foster, Heffron, Hostetter, Hutchinson, Keiser, Langdon, Leeper, Macartney, Marvin, Ristine, Sayre, Smith, Urmston, Van Vorhis, White, Wood, Woollen--22.
Mr. HEFRON moved to amend the bill so as to require the Assessor and Deputy to administer the proper oath to every person assessed, so that every one shall be on an equal footing--to do justice to all tax-payers, and to meet that class of persons who will not give a proper value to their property. The amendment prescribes a penalty for failing to administer the oath.
Mr. GARRIGUS thought there should be a proviso, in case some other person gives in the list.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. KRAMER offered a substitute for five sections, concerning lands returned delinquent for successive years. The Auditor shall bring suit in Court and have the lands sold as other lands are sold by the Sheriff. These sections, as in the bill, would fill the Courts with suits to force the collection of taxes, and will bring about an unnecessary amount of costs resulting therefrom. Under the present system, nearly all lands advertised for taxes have been brought up by speculators. This amendment practically re-enacts the law under which we have been acting for years.
Mr. MENZIES--The sections proposed to be stricken out were carefully considered by the Board of Revision. He hoped the substitute would fail and the bill remain as is.
Mr. KRAMER insisted the sections, if allowed to remain, would make the bill odious. The only reason for retaining them is to make enormous fees for the Prosecuting Attorneys in every County in the State.
The substitute was rejected--yeas, 12; nays, 25.
Mr. COMSTOCK moved that the Senate amendments to this bill be considered engrossed and read the third time now.
Mr. BROWN resisted the motion. The Senate has made a great many amendments to this bill page: 44[View Page 44] since it came from the House, and they ought to be engrossed in fact before the bill is read the third time, so that Senators can compare the amendments with the printed bill, and see that they are properly engrossed.
Mr. COMSTOCK withdrew his motion except as to ordering the bill engrossed.
Mr. HEFRON had an amendment he would like to submit to the Senate as a substitute providing for the compensation of the Assessor.
Mr. COMSTOCK withdrew his motion.
Mr. VAN VORHIS considered Fast Freight Companies should be taxed if Express Companies are taxed, and he offered an amendment for that purpose.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HEFRON moved to amend the bill by making the pay of Assessors ten cents for each person properly listed and assessed in cities, and fifteen cents in Townships, and $2 a day and no extra allowance in years when real estate is listed. Taking an average County in gross when real estate is not appraised, the cost of assessing personal property is about $2,700 in average Counties where the per diem of Assessors is $2.50 a day. The purpose of the amendment is to allow Assessors to work as they please. If paid by the day it makes but little difference to the Assessor whether he is diligent in business, or whether he stops to chat with every one he meets.
Mr. MENZIES favored the amendment, and would like to see it tried for two years, at least, and if it does not work well it can be repealed in two years. The amendment would be an inducement to hunt up tax-payers. In New Albany, the other day, in getting up a list of tax-payers on a petition, some 900 were found whose names were not on the Assessor's list.
Mr. CHAPMAN thought the amendment should prevail. It will be an inducement to bring in all the property subject to taxation, and it will enable the Assessor to earn over two dollars a day if he be diligent. For these two reasons the amendment should commend itself to the judgment of the Senate.
Mr. KRAMER thought 7 1/2 cents would be enough to allow the Assessors in towns per list, but double that amount should be allowed in Counties, and moved to so amend the substitute. The Assessor is necessarily compelled to travel a great distance in Townships to make assessments, while in cities and towns it is comparatively little labor. Where a man has to travel two or three miles, as is frequently the case in Townships, it is worth much more than in cities where the Assessor steps from door to door.
This amendment was rejected and the substitute adopted.
Mr. SHAFFER moved to reconsider the vote this morning by which the substitute adopted yesterday to Section 206 [to repeal the law requiring the publication of delinquent tax lists] was re-adopted.
Mr. VOYLES raised a question of order that this motion is not again admissable under the rules of the Senate. This substitute was adopted yesterday by a yea and nay vote of the Senate, and to-day it was re-adopted in a similar manner.
Mr. BELL insisted that rule refers to cases where the motion to reconsider was lost. These are two different votes we are now moving to reconsider.
Mr. CHAPMEN did not think it desirable to break down our rules for the purpose of taking a third vote on this question, which has twice been decided in the affirmative by a yea and nay vote. We might go on from now to the end of the session passing and reconsidering this substitute, ad infinitum, were it not for the rule that such a motion shall be entertained but once. The rule is laid down in Roberts that no question can be twice reconsidered.
Mr. SHAFFER would not insist on his motion, but would leave it to the decision of the Chair without argument.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR was in some doubt.
Mr. BROWN referred to his motion by which the substitute was amended, (with unanimous consent) and that lets the Senate out of the trouble so well put by the Senator from Marion (Mr. Chapman).
Mr. VOYLES contended the amendment referred to was made by consent. If allowed, this might follow one motion upon the heels of another, till it would take up the entire session.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR did not think the vote can be reconsidered a second time, judging from the authorities.
Mr. SHAFFER being satisfied that this motion is not in order, withdrew it.
Mr. BELL objected.
The LIEUTENANT GQVERNOR--The Senator has the right to withdraw his amendment.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
WORK FOR COMMITTEES.
The bill [H. R. 50] requiring hotels and lodging houses to provide means of escape in case of fire; [H. R. 112] amendatory of the act providing for the election and qualification of Justices; [H. R. 205] for the regulation of insanity inquests; [H. R. 194] to fix the ownership of property held for school purposes; [H. R. 191] to amend Section 120 of the Justice's act of June 9, 1852; [H. R. 122] to amend the act prescribing certain duties of Commissioners and other officers; [H. H. 192] to amend the Justice's act of June 9,1852; [H. R. 198] to amend Section 8 of the act of June 17, 1852, relating to trustees of voluntary associations; [H. R. 69] to provide for security and payment of laboring men, etc., and giving them liens; [H. R. 201] concerning County Prisons; [H. R. 271] relating to Clerks of the General Assembly; [H. R. 200] to amend the act of May 14, 1852, relating to decedents and the apportionment of estates; [H. R. 7] concerning quails and pheasants; [H. R. 65] legalizing the Christian College at Merom; [H. R. 141] regulating the sale of scrap metals; [H. R. 199] to amend Section 45 of the act of May 31, 1852, prescribing wo may make a will, etc.; [H. R. 48] to amend the act of June 16, 1852, concerning inclosures, etc.; [H. R. 17] to establish a Superior Court in Vigo County; [H. R. 435] to repeal an act providing for the payment of sundry bonds and stocks of Indiana issue prior to 1841; [H. R. 53] relating to the sounding of locomotive whistles; [H. R. 101] to amend Section 19 of the act establishing a Female Prison; [H. R. 102] to amend an act establishing a House of Refuge; [H. R. 81] to refund to Benton County extraordinary expenses incurred in a murder trial; [H. R. 88] to authorize execution sales of plank and other roads, and empowering purchasers to reorganize; [H. R. 340] to legalize ordinance 63, passed by the town of Edinburgh, etc.; [H. R. 126] requiring railroads to remove rubbish along their lines; [H. R. 134] concerning the employment of shorthand reporters; [H. R. 196] to abolish the office of Assessor in cities and towns; [H. R. 124] relating to sales of property by infants; [H. R. 202] to amend Section 126 of the Justices' act of June 9, 1852; [H. R. 46] to consolidate the Congressional Township fund for the purpose of loaning; [H. R. 197] to amend the act of June 9, 1852, concerning guardian and ward; [H. R. 172] requiring railroads to destroy Canada thistles and other noxious weeds on their right-of-way; [H. R. 193] to amend Section 10 of the decedent estates act of June 17, 1852, and repeal Section 70; [H. R. 195] to provide for the consolidation of two or more Agricultural Societies; [H. R. 227] to amend Sections 3, 8 and 11, and repeal 5, 6 and 7, of the Presidential Electors act; [H. R. 140] to authorize the election of women to school offices; [H. R. 237] concerning landlord and tenant; the House concurrent resolution requesting Congressmen to favor passage of an act making Treasury notes taxable; the House concurrent resolu page: 45[View Page 45] tion relating to the State's indebtedness to the Common School fund.
The above described bills and resolutions were read the first time and referred to appropriate Committees.
OFFICES AND OFFICERS.
On motion by Mr. FOSTER, the bill [S. 325], a compilation and revision of the existing laws concerning officers and offices, prepared by the Board of Revsion and the Joint Committee upon Revision of the Law, was taken up it having been heretofore read twice by title only.
Mr. VAN VORHIS thought this bill should not be proceeded with so slim a Senate--it s too important a measure. There are a number of other bills from the House that can be taken up.
Mr. KRAMER thought prncipals and sureties should have the benefit of a stay on execution. He moved to so amend Section 10 by striking out the last few words.
Mr. GARRIGUS favored the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FOSTER moved to amend Section 13 by requiring two or more freehold sureties on official bonds.
Mr. CHAPMAN thought this bill provides sufficiently for sureties on bonds. He opposed the amendment, not seeing any reason to multiply number when it does not follow that it multiplies security.
The amendment was rejected.
When the Clerk reached Section 59--
Mr. CHAPMAN thought the reading of the bill should be suspended, that members may have an opportunity to examine the printed copy.
Mr. VIEHE said the bill has just been distributed, and he thought the suggestion a good one.
NEW PROPOSITIONS.
Mr. KEISER introduced a bill [S. 337] to authorize and empower Railroad Companies to construct, acquire, maintain and operate telegraph lines for commercial, mercantile and other purposes, which was read the first time and referred to the Committee on Railroads.
Mr. VIEHE introduced a bill [S. 388] prescribing the duties of Coroners in certain cases [shall perform the duty of Sheriff where the latter is incapacitated] which was read the first time and referred to the Judiciary Committee.
And then the Senate, adjourned till to-morrow.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE8.
THURSDAY, March 17, 1881--9 a. m.NEW PROPOSTIONS.
Mr. WRIGHT introduced bill [H. R. 463] authorizing Boards of County Commissioners of the several Counties of the State to purchase toll, gravel, macadamized and paved roads in their respective Counties upon a petition of a majority of the resident land-owners along the road; to issue bonds to raise money for that purpose by taxing lands adjacent to the road, which was read for the first time.
Mr. EDWINS offered a joint resolution, proposing an amendment to the Constitution (Article 6, Section 1) so that State and County offices shall be held for a term of four years.
It was referred to the Judiciary Committee.
EXTRA PAY TO CLERKS.
Mr. FRAZER offered are resolution that Cyrus L. Nixon, Principle Clerk, and Clint C. Riley, Assistant Clerk of the House, be allowed each $300 for superintending the printing of the journal of the regular and special sessions, preparing calendar, etc.
Mr. FRAZER--This makes the amount for both sessions about one-half the sum usually allowed, and I hope the House will alllow it without reference.
On motion by Mr. FRAZER, a Special Committee of Three was appointed for the consideration of this claim. The SPEAKER made the Committee to consist of Messrs. Frazer, Wolfe and Cole.
FISH COMMISSIONER.
The Special Committee on Fisheries reported on the bill [S. 24] for the appointment of a Fish Commissioner, recommending its passage.
The report was concurred in and the bill was read the second time.
WITNESS FEES.
Mr. CARTER--The bill [H. R. 464] concerning fees and salaries. [Witnesses attending Common Pleas, Superior and Circuit Courts shall receive $1.25 per day, also mileage at the rate of five cent per mile; before a Justice of the Peace $1, and mileage five cents; before a Coroner, seventy-five cents and mileage five cents.]
Mr. Fuller's bill [H. R 138-see page 61 of these reports--vol. xix] concerning common carriers was read the third time. Mr. FULLER--There are, I am aware, many persons who oppose this measure, and I believe they do it honestly, from the fact that they think I am trying to bring something to bear that is in opposition to railroads, or that I am opposed to corporations. I would not do one thing that would impede the progress of railroads, for there is no one branch of industry in this country that has brought such wealth or done so much for the State. All I wish to reach in the bill is this:
The unjust discrimination between shippers. That is altogether wrong, especially so when it is presented in like quantities and in the same conditions as presented by any other shipper. When they haul a car from Evansville to Indianapolis for $10 and charge me $24 living at Worthington, about half way between here and Evansville, there is an unjust discrimination made which this bill seeks to correct. I do see the how this bill discriminates or works evil to the Railroad Companies. They have privileges in this country which we have given them. When we undertake to run a comon road through a man's farm we have to petition and work around a great deal to get it, but railroads can go through your farm as they please, and even if necessary tear away the grave of your mother in order to locate their road where they want it. I hope the bill will pass.
Mr. HUSTON--The object that it is desired to attain by this bill meets with my hearty approval. I would favor legislation that would insure to the citizens of Indiana from the onerous burden of discriminating freight rates; but, Mr. Speaker, I am fearful lest this measure will fall short of its object. This bill is of such character as to affect the railroad interest of the whole State, and I regard it of great importance that the proper consideration should be given to all questions that come before us, and especially to such as are involved in this measure in which the whole State is interested. I do not think, sir, that we should act upon this bill without minutely and carefully considering it in all its bearings. I am not speaking in the interest of railroad corporations, but, sir, I do not want that we should enact any law that would so cripple the railroads as not to enable them to do the businesso f the State. Railroads are managed as individuals manage their business. They do business for the money that is in it. And, sir, it is to the interest of the people that they should make money, and thereby be enabled to furnish for transportation of freight and passengers such facilities as the necessities require. I think we can best serve the people by enacting such laws as will give them exemption from any discrimination in freights, and passenger and freight rates, and that will not at some time militate agaist the Railroad Companies page: 46[View Page 46] because, if we want railroad facilities for the people, we must not, by legislation, render the railroads unable to furnish them. The principle that a railroad shall not charge more for the transportation of a passenger, a less distance that it does a greater, sounds all right but sir, may it not be greatly against the interest of railroads. I am not opposing this bill for any very especial reason other than that I do not think it wise to pass any bill affecting so nearly every inhabitant of the State, as this bill does with the little consideration this has had. We can not exercise too much care in this matter. We do not want to enact any law that will unneccessarily inflict loss, trouble or expense upon any Railroad Company. The people are interested in the success of railroads, and it is not to the interest of the people that they shall be arrayed against the railroad corporation. Their is a mutual interest that naturally should exist between the people and the railroads.
Railroads in fixing the "tariff" take into consideration all matters relating to the business from the various points. The cost of handling, loading and unloading freight, amount shipped, oompetition, etc., all are taken into consideration in making out tariff for freight.
Mr. Speaker let us not be too hasty and pass a law which is not what the demands of the people require. The section of this bill providing that, although rates may advance all through the country, as is the case when the lakes are closed, the railroad cannot charge any higher rate than is being charged when such freight is tendered (or shipment, although the railroad may have been doing its utmost to ship all that was offered. In other words, and to illustrate the principle, the bill provides that a man living along a line of railroad may, knowing that the lakes are about to be frozen up, tender to the Railroad Companies any amount of freight, and, although rates may advance, the mere fact of his having tendered the freight for shipment is sufficient to prevent the railroad from charging the rate greater than charged when such freight was tendered, although every pound of freight possible was being shipped by the Company, And also if any Company, in its own protection, has been compelled to carry freight at less than the cost of such transportation, that any freight offered during such reduction in rates shall be carried at the same reduced rate although six months elapse before the Company is able ship such freight. A Company might offer to ship freight at certain very low rates on account of scarcity of freight. Then, while they are carrying at such low rates and sustaining serious losses, it gives a man the privilege of tendering an amount of freight that will require the utmost efforts of the Companies a whole year to ship, and at only the same low rate, that had not profited the Company, but was a loss to them. Now, I object to this; it is too one-sided, and will not prevent the railroad from giving low rates during certain seasons of the year if they desire. Let us endeavor to enact a law that will be just, and that will certainly give the relief desired.
Mr. FRAZER--I want to say, in discussing this bill, there is not a word or syllable in it that is detrimental to any Railroad Company in this country that is disposed to be fair--not a word. The first section provides that no Railroad Company shall charge more a proportion for transporting freight and passengers a short distance than they charge for transporting a longer distance. We have had Freight Agents before our Committees as well as Auditors of Railroads, and we asked them why the charges were $10 from Evanville, and from Worthington, half the distance, the rate for a car was $24?--not one of them has been able to make a single satisfactory answer. The fact is from Evansville they have opposition, but along the way-stations there is no opposition and they charge what they please. If anybody can give a satisfactory reason why a Railroad Company should charge less for carrying freight 100 miles, than they same amount of freight fifty miles, that Section of the bill should be stricken out. What is the result of all this? At competing points cities have all thi advantages of railroads, while discrimination is made against the way-stations out in the country, where the people have to make up in the shipment of their produce what Railroad Companies lose at large points. Section 4 provides against the discimination between shippers. Everybody who has shipped knows that Companies set their own price and charge what they please. This section merely says you shall ship for A at the same rate you ship for B. This bill is eminently fair to both the shippers and carrier, and ought to pass.
Mr. GILMAN said there was no competition at his town, and the Railroad Company charged its own price; the consequence is that men who buy grain can not afford to pay anything near the market price for grain, because the know when their warehouses are full the Railroad Company advance the rate, thus incurring a high rate of transportation. It is fair and equal that every Railroad Company should be treated alike. He favored the passage of the bill.
The bill passed--yeas, 74; nays, 6.
SHEEP PROTECTION.
The Speaker announced the special order for this hour to be consideration of Mr. Cotton's bill [H R. 36] to protect sheep husbandry. Trustees to register and number all dogs in the State of Indiana. The bill makes it imperative that all owners of dogs should pay the tax, and have them registered by April 1 of the present year. The bill was read the third time.
Mr. COTTON--This bill aims principally at disposing of the dogs that belong to nobody. The record of our State shows that sheep have been decreasing in number in the State for the last five or six years. What is the cause? These curs howling around the country. The cause of this decrease is not in the decline of the price of wool, but it is the dogs killing them all the time. In the last year $5S,000 has been paid by Trustees for sheep killed by dogs. We have to-day not less than 200,000 dogs in the State and less than a million of sheep. I hope this bill will pass, to remedy this growing evil.
The bill passed--yeas, 61; nays, 24.
REORGANIZATION OF THE BENEVOLENT INSTITUTIONS.
Mr. McSHEEHY called up the special order, being the consideration of Mr. Berryman's bill [H. R. 255] for the government of Benevolent Institutions of the State.
A majority report of the Committee was submitted, recommending the passage of the bill.
A minority of the same Committee were opposed to the passage of this bill because its object is a political one only, and recommended its indefinite postponement.
Mr McCLURE said with all due respect to civil service reform, he objected to the reorganization of the Prisons by the appointment of three Trustees by the Governor. The people under the present management have accomplished great good, as it has saved the State annually $60,000. He thought the Republicans could wait two years longer before assuming control of these Institutions.
The minority report was rejected and the majority report was concurred in.
Mr. Meredith moved to amend by making the term of office of the Directors four instead of six years. It is considered unconstitutional to make the term six years, and this amendmend remedies that point.
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. KENNER moved to allow the Trustees a salary of $250. Section 10 provides that they shall receive their traveling expenses and ex- page: 47[View Page 47] penses incurred in and about their business; that it is a very indefinite provision. It may be anything. While the State does not ask these officers to serve for nothing, yet it is but right we should know what we are paying the money for.
Mr. NEFF said it should be an object to get men of experience in this matter, and it would be nothing more than right that they should be paid a fair salary.
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. MEREDITH moved to engross the bill.
Mr. EDWINS entered his protest against the engrossment of the bill, and moved to lay the motion on the table.
This motion was rejected--yeas, 32; nays, 51.
Mr. SCHWEITZER favored viewing these Institutions from a beneficial and benevolent standpoint, and not from a political one. He gave the statistics of the Institutions for the last ten years, showing a gain under Democratic supervision of about $60,000 a year. That is what he considered economy, and he wanted that kind of economy to continue.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
THE COMMON SCHOOL SYSTEM.
The House resumed the consideration of the bill [H. R. 322] concerning common schools.
Mr. RYAN moved to require an itemized account, under oath, of all the expenses of the County Superintendent. He said: The restriction of the County Superintendent to draw this visiting fund from the Treasury, is not guarded in this statute, and the privilege guaranteed to Superintendents by this section has been in many instances abused. The purpose of this amendment is not to restrict him from drawing this fund for a proper cause, but for the purpose of guarding the treasury in the expenditures of the money.
The amendment was adopted.
The question being on a motion to reconsider the vote by which the pay of County Superintendents was reduced from $4.00 to $3.00 per day--
Mr. MOODY said: I desire, before this question is voted upon, to present some facts for the consideration of the House, and especially for those gentlemen who have so persistently opposed the office of County Superintendent. In the first place, Mr. Speaker, I consider this amendment a stab in the dark--an attempt to accomplish, indirectly, that which could not and can not be accomplished directly. On yesterday the question the of abolishing the office of County Superintendent came squarely before this House and was defeated by a large vote, and the enemies of this office, not being satisfied with this, seek now to accomplish this result by cutting down the per diem of the County Superintendent of our schools until he shall receive less than the spittoon-cleaners of this House.
Gentleman, I regard this question of more importance than any question we have considered during the pendency of this bill, and for this reason alone do I ask your attention a short time. Should you refuse to reconsider this question, then the County Superintendents are to receive $3 per day for their services, and only $3. This bill expressly provides that they shall receive no perquistes whatever, no constructive fees--nothing. They must be, or should be--and, I do believe, generally are--men of ability, integrity and fidelity; in many cases men who have given their best days to the subject of education, and I desire to see the men on record who propose to continue this office, and say he shall receive only $3 per day, when Members of this House are drawing $6 per day. I am satisfied that the Superintendents of this State average in ability with the Members of this Assembly.
The gentleman from Knox (Mr. Cauthorne) says Professor Smart knew when he insisted on retaining the office of County Superintendent, two years ago, that not one-half of the people of the State were in favor of the office. It seems very strange, gentlemen, that a man who is the peer of any man in this State, and I might say with propriety, a man whose reputation is not confined to State or country, but who is regarded by foreign Nations as a man standing at the very front of the educational interests in this country, should prepare a bill recommending the continuation of this office, if he believed, after dedicating fifteen years of his life to the promotion of our Common Schools in this State, and by this labor raise the standard of Common Schools in Indiana, until every man who is an Indianian points with pride to the Commn Schools of the State. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, it seems strange that any man, in the face of all this, would insist upon the continuation of this office if he believed the opposition to this office existed that the gentleman from Knox says he knows of.
The only reason given by any member for doing away with this office is on account of the enormous expense to the people. Has the gentleman from Knox, or any other member, furnished anything reliable as to the amount paid these officers? If they have, I have not heard it. Nothing has been urged against the efficiency of these officers only the great expense. On the question of expense I submit some statistics for the benefit of the gentlemen opposing this reconsideration. I find, Mr. Speaker, that in eighty-three Counties in the State the County Superintendents, including the cost of County Institutes, cost the County on an average $640: that sixteen Counties pay them less than $1,500, forty-five Counties pay them less than $1,000, twenty-six Counties pay them less than $800, eleven Counties pay them less than $600, five Counties pay them less than $500, and only one County in the State paid in 1879 more than $1,700, and none more than $1800. In the face of these facts which can not be denied, I ask you, gentlemen, will you not reconsider this amendment, and either abolish this office or pay such a salary to its officers as will bring to the discharge of its duties competency, ability and fidelity to the cause of Common Schools.
Gentlemen have seen fit to call this office "fifth wheel to a wagon"--useless, and of no benefit to the schools. Professor Smart says on page sixty-nine of his last report: "It is claimed that County superintendency is expensive. This is true, but the work done is a necessity. The County Superintendent receives $4 per day for his services; out of this per diem he is obliged to pay his traveling expenses, and not infrequently his own office expenses, including janitor, stationery, postage etc. Many of the County Superintendents do not receive $2 per day for their services, and not one in ten of them is constantly employed. In most Counties they receive less than $600 net; in some Counties less than $300." In the proposed County Superintendency in the State of Ohio the lowest salary fixed at $800 and the highest at $2,000. He further adds: " I am satisfied after a careful investigation of the workings of the system, that if it be abolished or seriously impaired it result in irreparable loss to the schools in the State."
Our gentleman says he is a teacher and that he never derived any benefit from the visits of the County Superintendent. This may be, and yet it may not have been--and I dare say was not--the fault of the Superintendent; and, in my humble judgment, when a teacher says he can not receive any benefit from those visits I think he is no longer needed in the school-room, and should seek other and broader fields in which to cultivate his talent.
As the adverse tide of battle brings true soldiers to the front, so the manifold labors of teaching page: 48[View Page 48] disclose the live teacher resolutely holding the reins of authority and strenuously urging his pupils to do their duty. At any and at all times the visit of the Superintendent is to him a gladsome occasion. Hearty commendation infuses renewed vitality to the school, and a quiet approval cheers the teacher. While some receive official visits with dismay, the great majority find in them a genuine pleasure, a present help and a grateful recollection. Much of this depends upon the profession and character of the Superintendent. He should have been a prominent and successful teacher, irreproachable in character, educated in the branches, well informed as to the needs and condition of schools, and, withal, a man kindly, firm, energetic and influential. Observant, he should have fluent expression; practical, he should make the advancement of teachers, the improvement of schools, and the best interests of education, his principal employment and paramount endeavor. Should the relations between Superintendent and Teacher produce the good which they are intended to accomplish, the result must be a strong indorsement of the system of the County Superintendency.
Mr. FANCHER--I believe that all the members come here instructed by their constituents to reduce the expenses of the County Superintendent, and I believe the fault requested to be remedied by our constituents is to reduce the expense of County Superintendents in visiting schools. From 1871 the law has been that County Commissioners might limit visits by the Superintendent to schools. The same identical words are incorporated in this bill as in the law of 1871.
The bad features of this bill are this: The number of days allowed shall not be less than three-quarters, bear that in mind. In the bill we are working at it is three-quarters instead of one-half. The result of that provision is this: It is obligatory on the part of the Superintendent to put in as many days as there are schools in the County, and he can put in as many days as he likes; there is no limit whatever. Right there is where the objection comes in to the County Superintendent. I say that it is useless for the County Superintendent to put in the hot days in the summer, as many do, when there are only five or six children in the school house. Many of them put in a greater portion of the time under a shade tree.
Mr. MORGAN--I am opposed to this amendment. If we are to have County Superintendents we should pay wages that will command the talent of the best teachers of the country. Three dollars per day will not do this. To be a good County Superintendent requires more learning and ability and as much integrity as it does to be a County Clerk or Sheriff. While the latter make from $10 to $50 per day, you are not willing for the former to have $4. The City Superintendents of Schools receive from $5 to $10 per day every day of the year. The city schools are superior to the country schools. This is largely due to an efficient superintendency. I want to see the country boys have as good schools as their city cousins. To attain this end I want able County Superintendents, and they can not be had without paying them good wages. The members of this House receive $6 per day for their services to the State of Indiana. Twenty-four of every twenty-five of the County Superintendents are men of more learning and ability than the gentlemen who, in the name of the people, are clamoring to cut down the wages of the County Superintendents.
There is opposition to County Superintendents visiting schools. This opposition is not founded on good grounds. Every one knows that the person who passes the best examination often is not the best teacher. By visiting the schools the Superintendent may test the practical ability of one to teach, and the next time he applies for license take this into consideration.
They say the people are opposed to County Superintendents. I do not believe this. Only one man in my County has spoken to me unfavorable to Superintendents. And if my constituents were opposed to County Superintendents, and before I would vote to rob the country children of good teachers and well organized schools, I would prefer to give up the honors of office. Let us maintain our common school system--that, more than anything else, reflects honor upon the proud State of Indiana.
Mr. CARTER--It seems to me it would put us in a bad light when we pay a man who cleans spittoons $3 50 a day, to say we will only pay the Superintendent of our County Schools $3 per day. I am not one of those who propose to do any such thing.
Mr. MARSHALL--I think if the members comply with the wish of their constituents they will not uphold uch salaries as are perin tendents. We are paying the Trustees of our State to-day $2 per day, and these Trustees are putting in their time faithfully and honestly in the cause of education, trying to build up this Institution, and you are now preparing to pay $4 or $5 to the County Superintendent to shake hands with teachers, pupils and school-ma'ms. I have taught in Common Schools, and I am proud of it. I have not been visited ten times by a County Superintendent, and never received ten cents' worth of benefit.
Mr. COMPTON--For one farmer, I am here to represent the people of the State of Indiana. The County Superintendent is in the interest of the poor class of people whre this officer has been made efficient. The faults are not in the law; it is not in the office, but in the execution of that law. The gentleman who last spoke [Mr. Marshall] acknowledged that the County Superintendent has been a failure on account of the men who were put into office. I say, sir, let us have the County Superintendents, and if you can not find good men in your County, import men who will raise the educational interest of the State. Indiana, sir, has been paramount in her education, and I want to make her paramount in every respect; and I say we must not abolish the County Superintendency.
The amendment reducing County Superintendents per diem from $4 to $3 was reconsidered and rejected.
Mr. KENNER moved to amend the bill by adding "and he shall not be allowed for more than thirty days' office work." He said the favored giving Superintendents $4 per day for every honest day's work. Oftentimes they bring in charges for fifty or sixty days' work. Under this amendment they can not be allowed for more than thirty days' office work.
Mr. FANCHER thought every County Superintendent should be able to perform the office work in ten days, If an amendment is proposed, including the examination of vouchers and making out the licenses, he would support it.
Mr. RYAN offered a substitute. The County Board shall make no allowance to such Superintendent on account of the office work done by him until he shall have first filed, with his affidavit attached, the particular kind of service for which he claims pay and the amount of time which he devoted to each item of services. He thought the work of the County Superintendent ought to be restricted. He considered the amendment not conclusive enough, becauge the requirements in some Counties are greater than others.
Mr. KENNER was of the opinion that the substitute was offered simply to get rid of his amendment, as the law already in force was similar in its construction to the substitute.
The substitute and the amendment were both rejected.
Mr. GILMAN offered an amendment to prevent any limit being placed upon the time in which a change in the text books of schools should be page: 49[View Page 49] made. In case a book is introduced, under the present bill it remains for ten years, and the publisher can charge almost any price for the books whereas, if this amendment prevails, it does not place any limit upon the duration, and can be changed in case of such an emergency.
On motion by Mr. COMPTON, the amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. GILLUM offered an amendment providing that the furniture of any Township can not be changed without permission from the Board of Directors. They should have the privilege to do it, as they are the parties interested in the furniture of their schools.
The amendment was adopted.
Messrs. KENNER and McINTOSH protested against the refusal of the Speaker to order the yeas amd nays upon their demand, this forenoon, upon the vote on an amendment to Section 39. They asked that the protest be entered on the journal.
After debate, the protest was withdrawn.
Mr. KENNER--In my County a great many German as well as American citizens desire their children educated in German. Our Board of Trustees do not regard the laws binding. He moved an amendment allowing a half hour to be devoted to this branch.
The amendment was adopted.
FEES AND SALARIES.
On motion by Mr. WILSON, the Senate concurrent resolution that the Committees on Fees and Salaries of the two Houses be instructed to draft and report at the earliest day practicable a bill fixing the fees and salaries of public officers, and submit the same to the General Assembly for action thereon was adopted.
Then the House adjourned till to-morrow.
SHEEP PROTECTION.
Following is a full text of the remarks of Mr. COTTON on the passage of his bill H. R. 36--see page 46.
Mr. SPEAKER--The principles of this bill are new, so far as the rural districts of the State are concerned, that is, the principle of killing. But it is not new in some of our cities, even in this State, and in some of the Eastern cities it has long been in practice, and it works well. What, sir, is the dread of the farmer that is raising sheep? It is not the fear of the decline in the price of wool or of sheep, but the dread of having his flock destroyed by the everlasting cur.
This bill provides that the dog that is not registered and ornamented with the proper tag is an outlaw and may be killed whereever found. The dog is a peculiar animal. He is like the sneak that prowls around our houses at night and is gone when the light comes. He does his "mischief" in the still hours of night. He is unlike the intruding horse or cow that breaks into your premises. You find them there in the morning and may hold them until damage is paid. But the dog has destroyed your sheep and fled to his owner's shed, who is willing to swear that he had not been from his premises for two weeks at least. The only way to reach him is with cold lead. To-day we have 200,000 dogs in Indiana. What is the result? Less than 1,000,000 sheep, and we would double the number of sheep in a short time if it was not for the fear that the farmer has of losing his flock by the dogs.
Mr. Speaker, the statistics show that the Township Trustees of the several Townships of the State, for the fiscal year ending last June, paid for sheep killed by dogs over $56,000, and the funds ran short in many Townships, and the sheep were not paid for. A large per cent. of those paid for were paid at a reduced rate, and I think that I am justified from these figures is saying that the value of sheep killed last year was $100,000 at least.
The number of sheep in this State has decreased, while it should increase. It is not for the want of profit in raising sheep, for experience shows that they pay as large a per cent. as any stock raised on the farm.
I am asked what is the objection to the present law. I answer that the Assessor does not get over 50 per cent. of the dogs on his list, and that 25 per cent. of those belong to to persons that pay no tax.
This bill works no hardship to the man that pays his license on his dog. Why should not the owners of the dogs pay for the damage done by them? If my horse, cow or hog damages my neighbor's property, I must pay for it under the law. Now, gentlemen, the question for you to settle is whether we shall raise dogs or sheep.
The bill passed the House by yeas, 61; nays, 24.
