COUNTY SUPERINTENDENTS.
The SPEAKER announced the special order to be Mr. Stucker's bill [H. R. 186] to amend Section 33 of an act providing for the election of County Superintendents.
Mr. SHIVELY moved to amend the bill so as to limit the number of days to which any County Superintendent should be entitled to 180 in a year. Mr. S. was of the opinion that no public functionaries had so much abused the privileges H their office as had the County Superintendents, often as asking pay for more days than there are in the year.
Mr. SHOCKNEY was very sorry to be at variance with the gentleman from Wabash [Mr. Shively] He considered this one of the most important offices in the County. In his County he was satisfied that the County Superintendent could put in every working day of the year in a manner that would be valuable to the interest of their schools.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, and Mr. CAMPBELL were opposed to the amendment.
On motion by Mr. CAMPBELL the amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. SUTTON moved to amend by allowing the Superintendent in Counties of 15,000 inhabitants and under, $500 per annum; in Counties of more than 15,000 inhabitants and under 20,000, $600 per annum; in Counties of more than 20,000 and less than 30,000 inhabitants. $750 per annum: in all Counties of more than 30,000 Inhabitants, $750 per annum.
Mr. SUTTON thought this would be an equitable adjustment of the matter, and spoke in favor of its adoption.
Mr. STUCKER was opposed to the amendment. He desired the bill to come before the House that the members might vote upon it without any amendments.
The amendment was laid on the table.
Mr. WILLIAMS, of Knox, made an ineffectual motion to amend the bill so as to limit the number of days any County Superintendent to 180 days in which to visit schools.
On motion by Mr. Jewett the bill was laid on the table by yeas, 53; nays, 37.
Mr. WRIGHT, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported back Mr. Howland's bill [H. R 178] concerning the duties and power of County Commissioners, and requiring them to give bonds with no recommendation.
Mr. SMITH moved that the bill be indefinitely postponed. He considered this a radical change in the office of County Commissioner. Never in the history of the State had County Commissioners been compelled to give bonds. He thought that the members of the Legislature had just as well required to give bonds as to require County Commissioners to do so.
Mr. WILSON, of Marion, thought that every ministerial officer should be required to give bond. He believed that in the allowance of claims, end in the amounts allowed the County Attorneys, the Commissioners very frequently should be liable on a bond. He moved that the motion to indefinitely postpone be laid on the table.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. SHOCKNEY concurred in what the gentleman from Marion [Mr. Wilson] had said. He was in favor of the County Commissioners giving bond.
Mr. MELLETT opposed the proposition of requiring the County Commissioners to give bond. Bethought you had just as well require the Judges of the Circuit Court to give bond and thereby render them liable on every decision rendered. Under the provision of this bill, should it become a law, no sit man could be induced to accept the office of County Commissioner.
Mr. SUTTON said: This is unquestionably a good measure, and should become a law. It would prevent undue and hasty action on the part of Commissioners, and when they knowingly violate the law in allowing unjust and extortionate claims their action might be adjudicated upon and they be held responsible upon their bonds.
Mr. ADAMS moved to amend by requiring the action for damages to be brought in the name of the State on the relation of the Attorney General.
The amendment was accepted by the author of the bill [Mr. Howland].
On motion the bill was laid on the table.
