SOLDIERS' ORPHANS' HOME.
Mr. Teter's bill [H, R. 129], to appropriate certain moneys for the benefit and relief of the former employes of the Orphans' Home at Knightstown, Ind., [amount $3,953.00 to reimburse them for los sustained by the burning of the Institution] was read the third time.
He said his health would not permit him to make a detailed explanation of the facts, and thought it unnecessary, as every member was familiar with them. He considered the claim a just one.
Mr. THOMPSON said several years ago this Institution burned. The employes rescued these orphan children from the flames, and by so doing lost all their clothing and other valuables, and now they ask the Indiana Legislature to reimburse them partially for that loss. It was an act of charity on their part to save these children. It will be no more than an act of charity for the Legislature to reimburse them for saving the lives of those children at the peril of their own lives and property.
Mr. BUSKIRK considered this a meritorious claim, and one that should be allowed.
Mr. SMELZER was in favor of allowing the amount asked for.
Mr. CARTER said this bill was investigated by the Committee on Claims, and the facts are simply as they have been stated. The fire occurred there and all the teachers lost all they had. They succeeded in getting every one of those children out of the building without one being injured, and none of them were able to save any of their property. They performed a noble deed, and this act of reward goes no further than simply to remunerate them for a part of their actual loss occasioned by virtue of their self-sacrifice in saving those children. For that reason the Committee recommended the passage of the bill.
Mr. BARTLETT--The neglect of their own property for the purpose of saving the lives of those children was a heroic act, and one that should reflect credit to Indiana, and we should reimburse them for the heroism displayed on that occasion.
Mr. MARSHALL--These teachers thought nothing of their own interests and proceeded to rescue the children from the burning building. In addition to rescuing the inmates, they also saved all the valuable papers of the Institution. I think we would not be doing right in opposing this bill.
Mr. AKIN-I desire to say in explanation of the vote I am going to cast, that I was not present with the Committee on Claims when it was passed upon or I should have voted against it. So far as the women are concerned, I have no objection to reimbursing them; but you will notice a claim of one man for over $1,000 for a private library. I do not think the State of Indiana ought to establish an Insurance Company for private libraries for men to take them into public buildings. I think that gentlemen ought to stand the loss of that private library. While I am satisfied that these employes did nobly, it is nothing more than their bounden duty to save the life of those children: therefore I shall vote against the bill.
Mr. MOODY--It seems to me that self-preservation is the first law of nature. The gentleman says these officers did not do anything more than their duty required. I understand that these parties, instead of looking after their own personal effects, on the contrary, looked after the interest and lives of those children. By their exertion they saved to the State five or six times as much as they are asking for in the way of insurance. I believe this amount should be allowed.
Mr. CAUTHORNE--The gentleman says these employes saved the policies of insurance. I would like to know how that came to pass. These employes do not insure that property; the State does that, and if these employes had done the same with their private effects, they would not be in the Legislature asking for $3,000 or $4,000 of the people's money. I hope there are not enough members in this Legislature to give away between page: 90[View Page 90] $3,000 or $4,000 to persons who are not entitled to it.
Mr. MITCHELL said--When these employes accepted these positions they accepted them with all the surrounding circumstances. It was their duty to save the lives of these children, and they accepted the obligation when they accepted the position.
The bill failed to pass--yeas, 43; nays, 26--for the want of a majority.
