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.
