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.
