THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
VOLUME
TWENTY.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
SPECIAL SESSION.
IN SENATE.
FRIDAY, March 18, 1881--10 a. m.Prayers were said by Rev. Thomas H. Lynch.
THE WORLD'S FAIR.
Mr. LEEPER offered the following:
Resolved, That the Committee on Finance be instructed to inquire into the expediency of making an appropriation for the purpose of having the State properly represented as the World's Fair, to be held in New York in 1883, and to report to the Senate by bill or otherwise.
The resolution was adopted.
ENFRANCHISEMENT OF WOMEN.
Mr. YANCEY introduced a joint resolution requesting Indiana Congressmen to favor the passage of an amendment to the Federal Constitution prohibiting the disfranchisement of citizens of the United States on account of sex which was read the first time and referred to the Committee on Rights and Privileges of the inhabitants of the State.
ASSESSMENT FOR TAXATION.
On motion by Mr. MENZIES, the bill [H. R. 204] concerning taxation--being a codification of all existing laws on the assessment and collection of taxes, with an addition of 5 per cent. of new matter--a bulky bill, embracing nearly 300 sections, was ordered read the third time.
As soon as the Clerk commenced reading--
Mr. CHAPMAN suggested that no vote of any kind be taken on this bill this morning. If it is understood that no vote will be taken with reference to this bill until the afternoon, when every Senator can act understandingly, and give his time and attention to other business.
The PRESIDENT pro tem (Mr. Menzies in the Chair)--It will be taken by consent that there will be no vote on the final passage of this bill until this afternoon, if the bill should be read through this forenoon.
When the reading was announced as completed--
Mr. GARRIGUS moved to refer the bill to a Select Committee of Two to re-number the sections.
The motion was agreed to, and the President pro tem made the Committee to consist of Messrs. Garrigus and Owen.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. GARRIGUS, from the Special Committee thereon, returned the bill, H. R. 204, with a report recommending that the sections should not be re-numbered till after final action on the bill by the House of Representatives.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. BROWN moved that the vote on the passage of the bill be taken at 2:30 o'clock this afternoon. He demanded the previous question, which was seconded by the Senate, and the main question ordered.
The motion was agreed to.
Subsequently, when the time arrived--
Mr. BROWN demanded that the vote be taken on the passage of the bill.
The bill passed the Senate by--yeas, 33; nays, 12--as follows:
Yeas--Messrs. Benz, Briscoe, Chapman, Coffey, Compton, Comstock, Davis, Garrigus, Graham, Grubbs, Hart, Henry, Hostetter, Kahlo, Keiser, Kramer, Langdon, Lockridge, Major, Menzies, Owen, Poindexter, Ristine, Sayre, Shaffer, Urmston, Van Vorhis, Viehe, Voyles, White, Wilson, Wood and Yancey--33.
Nays--Messrs. Bell, Brown, Bundy, Foster, Hefron, Hutchinson, Leeper, McCartney, Marvin, Smith, 8pann and Woollen--12.
Mr. BELL, in explanation of his vote, says: "I am sorry I can not vote for this bill. Our tax law needs revision. It is crude and incongruous. So, in many respects, is this bill. I have done all I could to aid in perfecting it--at least getting it in the best shape possible. Still, in my opinion, many of its provisions are unwise, impolitic and of doubtful validity and constitutionality. I need not at this time point out more specifically these defects. My objections have been made from time to time during the consideration of the bill. I am constrained to vote 'No.'"
Mr. COFFEY, in explanation of his vote says: page: 51[View Page 51] There are provisions in the bill that I do not approve. I can not now take the time to point these out. I will, however, refer to one, that on dispensing with the publication of the delinquent tax list. Why Senators should upon this floor, thus stab the newspaper press of our State I can not understand. It is not only in the interest of newspapers that the lists should be published, but it is in the interest of the people. It is to be presumed that many of our citizens will pay their tax who otherwise would not, rather than have their names appear in the publication of the delinquent list. The publication of the list costs the public nothing, the expense thereof is borne by the delinquent tax-payer, and this is an additional inducement for him to pay his tax, and not become delinquent. But while these objections to the bill exist, it contains many provisions not contained in the present law. Under it property heretofore not taken will be subjected to taxation, and revenues derived from sources from which heretofore none were derived. It is is many respects a much better bill than the present law. The defects in the bill can be remedied in the House, and believing that they will I vote "aye."
Mr. HOSTETTER, in explanation of his vote, says: I do not like this bill in several respects, but believing it the best bill we can get and thinking it an improvement on the old law, I will vote "aye."
Mr. McCARTNEY, in explanation of his vote, says: The self-constituted guardians of the tax bill, after setting the seal of their own approval upon it, have repelled all efforts at amendment, and now sttempt to force its passage under the gag law. The bill has many good points, but has so many defects requiring amendment that it is unfit to become a law. I vote "no."
Mr. LEEPER, in explanation of his vote, says: I voted against the bill for the reason that the multiplicity of amendments adopted have rendered it decidedly crude and incongruous, so that, as a whole, it is perhaps no improvement on the present law, while some of the changes proposed, in my judgment, are palpably objectionable.
Mr. MARVIN, in explanation of his vote, says: When House bill No. 204 was put upon its passage I voted against it for the reason that amendments were made to it that I could not vote for, particularly the one that struck out Section 206 in regard to the publishing of the delinquent tax list by the County Auditor in a weekly newspaper of the County for three weeks before the sale of the delinquent lands. I believe it is unjust and wrong to sell a person'a land for any purpose without first giving due notice thereof, and I believe a great wrong may be done thereby.
Mr. SPANN, in explanation of his vote, says: In my judgment this bill has been driven through the Senate under whip and spur--in other words, under what may be termed the gag rule. This bill has been very hastily considered for one of so much importance, for I consider it to be the most important piece of legislative work done by this body during this session. In all that I have said on the merits of the bill while the same was under consideration, I have endeavored to deal fairly with all classes, but in some of my views as to what would be justice to individuals and corporations, I have been overruled, and I can not now vote for a bill which I do consider very unjust in some of its parts. Not deeming this the time to point out these objections, I vote "no."
Mr. WOOLLEN, in explanation of his vote, says: So far as this bill aims to tax foreign corporations doing business in this State I indorse it; but some of its provisions I conceive to be crude and conflicting, while others I belive to be positively vicious and impracticable. Especially is this the case with that section abolishing the long-established custom of advertising the delinquent list. That the State should proceed to sell the land of any citizen without giving him due notice of such sale to me a preposterous proposition, and I hesitate not in saying that under the operation of this section, if it becomes a law, more than one honest citizen will lose the title to his land, if tax titles are held to be legal when the land has been sold without due notice of such sale having been given. There are other sections, also, in the bill that I can not sanction, and hence am compelled to vote against the passage of the bill in its present form.
And so the tax bill passed under the operations of the previous qnestion.
THE GENERAL APPROPRIATION BILL.
Mr. BUNDY offered a resolution that at 2 o'clock Monday the Senate will proceed to the consideration of the general appropriation bill, and continue the same until it is disposed of.
Mr. OWEN said it was evident that not sufficient care and attention was given to the preparation of this bill. The Senate Committee on Finance have had it under consideration for some time, and have felt it necessary to summon the Superintndents of the different Benevolent Institutions to appear before it for examination as to the real wants of these Institutions. The Senate ought not to take up this bill until the Committee on Finance has had a fair opportunity to find out what the real wants of these Institutions are. The Committee will not be ready to report before Thursday, for the facts necessary for a proper base to the appropriation bill can not possibly be obtained before that time.
On motion by Mr. FOSTER, word "Thursday" was substituted for the word "Monday" in the resolution.
The resolution as amended was adopted.
OFFICES AND OFFICERS.
The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill [S. 325], being a compilation of all the laws concerning offices and officers, beginning as Section 59.
Mr. KRAMER insisted co-sureties on an old bond are interested in the release of sureties on said bond, and should of right be notified of such proceeding. He moved to amend Section 30 so as to provide for such notice.
Mr. BELL offered a similar amendment on yesterday to a different section, supposing the case was covered by subsequent section. If one surety seeks to be releived, his co-sureties ought to be notified.
Mr. V1EHE understood this section does not contemplate the release of any surety.
Mr. URMSTON insisted that in other sections this matter is covered. He moved to refer this Section 30 to Messrs. Viehe and Comstock.
Mr. COMSTOCK thought it unnecessary to refer this section. It is clear; it does not propose to release any security; it simply requires additional security. He should vote for the amendment though believing it unnecessary.
Mr. HENRY opposed both the amendment and the motion to refer. There are provisions for adding securities in other portions of the bill. There can be no good reason why the co-sureties should be notified. This section simply allows another to sign the surety bond. It is for the advantage of the old sureties, and they are in no way injured by the proceeding.
Mr. MENZIES, being so informed, opposed the amendment, fearing it may mar the symmetry of the bill.
Mr. URMSTON did not see this point as the two Senators who have last spoken. If a party can show good cause why he should be released from a bond, under a provision of law, he should be released. He insisted on his motion to refer the section.
Mr. FOSTER noticed a disagreement among lawyers on this question--something unusual here--and he desired to see a farmer on this Com- page: 52[View Page 52] mittee. He moved the Special Committee shall consist of three.
This motion was agreed to.
The motion to refer was rejected.
The amennment was lost.
Mr. MENZIES offered an amendment to Section 77 that all printing, under any existing statutes, shall be done on the same equality as County printing. He had nothing but the kindest feeling for the "two leading newspapers" in this city.
On motion by Mr. URMSTON, the Section 77 was stricken from the bill.
Mr. COMSTOCK said Section 78 is in the act of 1879, fixing prices for public printing.
Mr. CHAPMAN moved to strike out Section 78.
Mr. COMSTOCK thought it proper that a price should be fixed. It will avoid bargaining every time an advetisement is desired to be made.
Mr. BELL moved to refer Sections 78 and 79 to a Special Committee of five.
Mr. CHAPMAN--The value of an advertisement depends on the circulation of the paper, and no fixed price can be set that will work justly, if the object be to make public certain facts.
Mr. OWEN favored the motion to refer. No publisher can obtain any great advantage from publishing executions or small advertisements, but the Sheriff's and some other advertisements are sometimes enormously charged for, and he cited an instance in a paper before him.
Mr. KEISER did not believe there is a publisher in Indiana who will swear to a publication made by him which is not right and proper, and if Senators assumee that the publishers of Indiana are thieves the assumption is unfounded and can not be sustained by facts. One dollar a square for the first, and fifty cents for each subsequent insertion is not too much. These men are working every day of their lives of for the best interests of the State, and a great majority of them scarcely make a living. The great trouble is legislation is too often enacted without careful consideration. He counselled obtaining information from persons experienced in matters desired to be considered, and made no opposition to the motion to refer this section to a Select Committee.
Mr. VAN VORHIS said that in Indianapolis municipal advertisements are printed the year round for twelve cents per square.
Mr. WOOD asked why Senators are struck with such a streak of economy just at this point in the bill? He was willing the law shall stand as it has stood for a number of years.
The motion to refer Sections 78 and 79 to a Select Committee of five was agreed to, and the Chair appointed Messrs. Bell, Keiser, Comstock, Chapman and Foster said Committee.
Mr. KEISER declined to serve, being an interested party.
The Chair appointed Mr. Owen in place of Mr. Keiser.
Mr. CHAPMAN could see no reason of re-enacting laws set down in the Constitution of the State as is proposed in Sections 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86 and 87 of this bill. He moved to strike them out.
Mr. MENZIES, although the statement of the Senator is true, saw no objection to retaining these sections in the bill to preserve its symmetry, so any person can find all law appertaining to the Governor in one place. As a matter of convenience to people who are not lawyers, he saw no harm in leaving the sections in the bill.
Mr. BUNDY considered the object of this bill is to compile all statutes on this subject under one act.
Mr. BROWN at first was inclined to support the motion to strike out, but upon reflecting that one object here is to codify propositions under different heads in the Constitution and in the statute, infinite convenience and much good may result therefrom.
Mr. COMSTOCK saw force in the objection to retaining these sections in the bill, but not sufficient to overbear the advantge of having all points on one subject placed together.
The motion to strike out was rejected--yeas, 13; nays, 21.
Mr. GRUBBS said: "There is not one word in the five sections--95, 96, 97, 98 and 99--but may be found in the Constitution," and he moved to strike them out.
Mr. BROWN--If the object--codification--in view when this bill was prepared is to be carried out, then these sections should remain.
Mr. URMSTON could see no justification in voting for coupling provisions of the Constitution with subject matters of our statute laws.
Mr. CHAPMAN asked what right the General Assembly had to waste time and money for the purpose of putting in the statute book the organic law of the land? If the Legislature has no better business than re-enacting the Constitution of the State it had better adjourn and go home.
Mr. COMSTOCK thought the Board of Revision had not exceeded its duty in the preparation of this bill, This bill is to revise the laws on this subject, as a matter of convenience--to simply abridge and make them complete.
The motion to strike out was rejected by yeas, 14; nays, 23.
The Senate adjourned till to-morrow.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FRIDAY, March 18, 1881--9 a. m.CITY AND TOWN ELECTIONS.
Mr. WRIGHT offered a resolution that a Special Comnmittee of four--two from the House and two from the Senate--be appointed to consider the bills [H. R. 122 and S. 84] concerning elections of city and town officers, etc., and report thereon to the General Assembly. He said the Senate has passed a bill [S. 84] proposing to amend the law on the subject of town elections, and this House has passed a bill [H. R. 122] on the same subject. The two bills are widely different, therefore introduce this resolution in order that one or the other bill may become a law.
The resolution was adopted, and the SPEAKER made the Committee on part of the House to consist of Messrs. Wright and McIntosch.
COMMON SCHOOLS.
The House resumed the consideration of the bill [H. R. 322] concerning Common Schools.
Mr. MURRAY moved to amend Section 98 by striking out the word "eight" and inserting in lieu thereof the word "seven" per cent. interest.
Mr. MORGAN moved to amend the amendment, viz.: "Not less than 6 nor more than 8 per cent."
Mr. DAVIS offered a substitute by striking out the word "eight" where it occurs and inserting in lieu the word "six."
Mr. MURRAY said: "This amendment simply reduces the rate of interest on the school fund."
Mr. EDWINS--In view of the fact that our Government is loaning its funds at from 4 1/2 per cent. to as low as 3 1/2 per cent., and the legal rate of interest our own State is 6 per cent. I do not think that our school fund, which is loaned amongst ourselves and for the benefit of our smaller class of farmers, ought to be loaned for more than 6 per cent. interest. While I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from Union (Mr. Huston) I can not but be impressed with the fact that the business the gentleman is engaged in precludes the posibility of his supporting the measure under consideration. The business of banking is and always has been at variance with a low rate of interest, and while I concede the fact that a man should at all times look well to his own interest, I do not consider that a Member elected to represent a County on this floor ought to use that position to advance his own interests. Did you ever con- page: 53[View Page 53] sider the difference in the manner of borrowing money from the school fund on one hand and borrowing money from your neighbor and neighboring bank on the other? On the one hand you go to your neighbor, or neighborhood bank, with your personal security on a plain note of hand, and get your money at 6 or 8 per cent. On the other hand, in the first place you have to file with the Auditor the certificate of the Clerk and Recorder that there is no incumbrance on your land, and you pay for that; you must have your little plat of land appraised, and you pay for that; you have a mortage drawn by the Auditor, and you pay for that; you have your mortgage recorded and you pay for that; the Auditor demands his interest in advance, and you pay that. Count all this up, and see if this 8 per cent. don't amount up to 9 or 10 before the mortgage is finally released. Then Mr. Speaker, as money is floating all around us at from 4 to 6 per cent. interest, why should not we loan to our farmers our school fund at 6 per cent. rather than allow it to accumulate on our hands at 8 per cent. and not bring into our school fund any revenue at all?
Mr. STEWART said he was willing that the school money should be loaned at a less rate than money of individuals. He considered it an imperative necessity to loan this fund at a less rate because it requires more stringent security. He favored the substitute because the demand in some Counties is greater than in others, and money can be loaned out in some Counties at 7 per cent. where in others it would lie in the treasury for want of borrowers. It is better to have the money loaned out all the time at a little less rate of interest than to have part of the fund lying idle and another part drawing a high rate of interest.
Mr. WRIGHT was opposed to reducing the rate of interest on this fund, and thought the substitute offered by the gentleman from Vigo [Mr. Morgan], would not do at all, because County Auditors have particular friends to whom they would be very likely to loan this money at a low rate, and those on not so friendly relations with the County Auditor would have an opportunity to pay 8 per cent. He opposed reducing the rate for the other reason that nearly all the money could be loaned at the present rate.
Mr. COMPTON thought it a gain to have all the money loaned out at 6 per cent. than but a portion at a higher rate.
Mr. MORGAN understood that if the County does not succeed in loaning all the money they are responsible for the interest on the full amount anyway. Some thirty or forty Counties have a large amount of this fund on hand which they can not loan. He favored giving the County Auditor discretionary power to loan at 6 or 8 per cent., thus giving as much freedom as possible, which will prevent Counties from paying interest on money not loaned.
Mr. HUSTON did not object to fixing the rate of interest at 7 or 6 per cent., but he considered it a serious objection to allow County Auditors to fix the rate of interest on this fund. There would necessarily have to be some enactment requiring the Auditor to show that the money was loaned at a certain rate. He thought the only wise step to be taken in this matter would be to establish some rate of interest.
Mr. CABBAGE thought 8 per cent. interest was too high a rate for the farmer to pay. He said the House was called upon to say what is just in this matter, rather than what they can compel the farming community to do. He favored a 6 per cent. rate.
Mr. MOODY thought there ought to be a uniform law all over the State, and also a provision by which school funds not loaned in one County may be tranferred to another County where there is a demand for the money.
Mr. MORGAN withdrew his amendment.
Mr. RYAN said there is no difficulty in loaning the school fund at the present rate of interest. The difficulty seemed to be the clause in Section 97 compelling the payment of the interest by the County on the money, whether loaned out or not. There is a solution of that problem, a better one than to charge the rate of interest, which is to change the provision requiring Counties to pay interest on unloaned money.
Mr. RYAN moved to strike out of Section 112 the words "attorneys' fees," also the words "on failure to pay such principal and interest and 2 per centum of damages." He said there is no reason why the borrower of the State of Indiana should pay an attorney for collecting that money.
Mr. COLE hoped the amendment would not prevail, as a party who is to blame for the non-payment of a claim ought to be compelled to pay attorneys' fees. When a man employs an attorney he did not think the State of Indiana ought to pay his attorneys' iees. He believed the section was right as it is.
Mr. MOODY favored the amendment.
Mr. FRAZER--This is a question whether or not the State should be compelled to pay attorneys' fees where the borrower puts the State to costs.
Mr. RYAN thought it no more than right that the State should protect individuals against exorbitant attorneys' fees.
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. KAIN offered an amendment to Section 104, providing that the attorney should receive no compensation for examining titles of applicants to the real estate offered for mortgage to secure a loan of the school fund. He said: We have first the certificate of the County Clerk, and also that of the County Recorder to the effect that no incumbrance endangered the real estate offered as security to the State for the use of a small portion of the school fund, the State certainly should feel secure under the certificate of these officers taken directly from the records. And another very serious objection is that to obtain the opinion or approval of the County Attorney will doubtless entail an expense that will render the lending of the funds extremely diffcult, if not defeat it entirely. We regard it impolitic to thus incumber the school funds with such heavy expense as to compel their loan at a low rate of interest, and thus defeat the ends intended to be subserved.
Mr. AKIN-It occurs to me that Section 129 provides for that. There is no necessity for the amendment. It sets the price for each item to be charged. I believe that these fees should be charged. I, therefore, move to lay the amendment on the table.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. CAUTHORNE moved to amend Section 123 by striking out the words "by him." He said the object is simply to leave the debt to be prosecuted by the State of Indiana. If it is a foreclosure the Sheriff is there to do it.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. RYAN moved to amend Section 129 as follows: Change the figures in line two to twenty-five cents, recording mortgages in line three to fifty cents, drawing up mortgages, twenty-five cents, Clerk's certificate in line six, twenty-five 'cents, recording certificate, fifty cents. He could see no good reason why this reduction should not be made. He knew that men who have had experience in loaning money, it took them about fifteen minutes to perform this duty, and by being employed all day there is no telling how much he could make.
Mr. BUSKIRK sa4d there was more work on a school fund mortgage than a common deed, for which the law now allows $1.25. He ought to have at least as much for recording a school mortgage as an ordinary deed. He opposed the amendment.
Mr. FLOYD thought the amendment was about page: 54[View Page 54] right; since the Constitutional Amendments were adopted, we ought to begin to regulate fees and salaries.
Mr. MOODY thought it unwise to maek such a radical change. A good attorney would not give his opinion upon the validity of a paper, leave alone performing labor upon it for the small amount of fifty cents.
Mr. CARTER was opposed to this wholesale reduction. When an abstract of title costs $10, it is beyond all reason to require an attorney to draw up a deed for the small sum of fifty cents.
Mr. BAKER--There is no danger of the officers going to the Poor House by the operation of this amendment. I favor this amendment because it is radically right and ought to pass.
Mr. BUSKIRK moved to amend the amendment by inserting therein "$1.10" for recording mortgages, instead of fifty cents.
Mr. MURRAY--The fees as they stand in this bill are the same as they were twenty years ago. My experience and observation is that they are small enough. This includes the abstract and everything necessary to make it a record. I am opposed to the ameudments.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. RYAN moved to amend Section 142 by striking out the words, "five per cent. damages." He said: After the purchaser of the land has paid the interest and cost after the land has been taken from him, he did not see any reason why he should be further punished by the payment of 5 per cent. damages. The man has already suffered enough by losing his land without paying this penalty.
Mr. WALZ was opposed to striking out. He referred to a case in his own Township where a man purchased such school land on credit, cut off the timber, and made over $1,000 from the proceeds of the timber and gave the land back. He thought a 5 per cent. a small damage in case the owner surrenders the land to the school fund.
Mr. KENNER--I am afraid these many amendments are going to destroy the effect of this school bill. If a man buys land, and without paying for it removes the timber, if he does that there ought to be a penalty imposed.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. RYAN moved to amend Section 143 by inserting the words "together with 2 per cent. damages on the principal sum." He said: It occurs to me this matter of damages ought to be stricken out, and would be benefited by it. The principal, interest and cost is recovered; the State has recovered its own, and why is it incumbent upon the purchaser to pay this damage?
The amendment was adopted.
On motion by Mr. COTTON, the vote laying his amendment on the table yesterday was reconsidered. It seeks to amend by inserting in Line 1, after the word "Townships," the following: "The Presidents of the Board of School Trustees of incorporated towns."
Mr.FLOYD--County Superintendents are elected by the Trustees, and these City and Town Boards have no voice in the matter. He is forced upon them, and they have no voice in his election. It does seem to me that in the natural order of things it would make the relations of the Superintendent a great deal more congenial and pleasant in going into cities and towns, to hold examinations, if he were elected with their assistance, as well as the Township Trustees. Since the country schools are represented in his election through their Trustee it is but fair and right that the towns and cities should be represented in his selection by the Chairman of their Boards.
Mr. BUSKIRK moved to amend the amendment by inserting at the close thereof the words, "Having a separate school organization." He said: The original amendment ought not to prevail, because the people of the towns and cities are fully represented in the selection of the Trustee, and through him have a voice in selecting the County Superintendent. They often dictate who the Trustee shall be. Often he comes from the country, but most frequently from towns. If the amendment prevails, they will have a double representation in saying who shall be the Superintendent; but if the idea imbedded in my amendment prevails, then I want to exclude towns which have not a separate school organization, because in such a case the principal burden of maintaining the schools is on the Township, and the towns are mere beneficaries to a large extent to the Townships, and certainly ought not to have a double voice in the selection of the principal school officers of the County. My amendment to the amendment will prevent this effect.
Mr. COTTON--This amendment merely provides that cities and towns shall have one vote in the selection of the County Superintendents, that is all there is in it.
Mr. HAM--The School Board of incorporated towns have their Representative through the Township Trustee as they help to elect him. Cities and towns help to elect the Trustee the same as though they were not incorporated, and to give them the privilege proposed by this amendment, would be giving them a double representation.
The amendment to the amendment was adopted.
The amendment was also adopted--yeas, 48; nays, 34.
Mr. KENNER moved to reconsider the vote by which the amendment offered by the gentleman from Lake County [Mr. Fancher] relative to paying teachers for attending Township Institutes, was laid on the table yesterday.
The motion was agreed to-yeas, 46; nays, 30.
Mr. KENNER said: Township Institutes must be held. The poorest teachers in the Township who attend these Institutes in a short time are as good as the best instructors. Some say it educates teachers, therefore they should not be paid. That is rather a selfish motive. The children get the benefit of instruction. By bringing the teachers together in these Institutes they absorb ideas from one another, systems and modes of conducting class work, such as they could not accumulate otherwise, and in a few years they are the very best of teachers. That is what the school money is for--to educate the teacher as well as the children.
Mr. FLOYD--Public money is for the purpose of paying teachers for teaching, and not to educate teachers. If it is the object of the school fund to educate teachers, then we ought to pay them to go to College. It is certainly not the object of this public fund to pay teachers to prepare themselves, I claim that these men who are preparing themselves to teach ought to do so at their own expense.
Mr. ROBINSON--I think this amendment ought to be adopted. There is no similarity between the teacher's preparation and that of other professional men. These teachers have gone to the expense of preparing themselves to teach. If it is right to compel them to attend these Institutes or require them to forfeit a day's wages by not attending them, I say it is no more than right and just that that that they should be paid for the time they are compelled to lose. Teachers, as a general thing, are not overpaid for the work they do. This Legislature is not in the habit of compelling its members to do something without pay. We have no right to compel a teacher to spend a day without remunerating him for it.
The bill finally passed--yeas, 55; nays, 26.
Then the House adjourned.
