Skip to Content
Indiana University

Search Options


View Options


Table of Contents



Brevier Legislative Reports, Volume XXI, 1883, 311 pp.
previous
next

COUNTY SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT.

Mr. Duncan'R bill [S. 66] to amend Section 4,424 of the Revised Statutes of 1881, concerning the election of County Superintendents.

Mr. DUNCAN explained the bill provides for a four years' term instead of a two years' term as now, which will obviate an objection to the present mode of selection because one-half of the Trustees will have nothing to do with electing a School Superintendent. The bill also provides that if the Trustees fail to make a selection on the day named in the law, they may meet en a succeeding day and ballot until they have selected a Superintendent. The first election to be in June next.

Mr. SPANN favored the bill, but thought the office of School Superintendent the most worthless office known, and it ought to be abolished.

page: 214[View Page 214]

Mr. GRAHAM concurred in the appreciation of the office just expressed. There is a great amount of fraud perpetuated by these officers, and there is no good reason apparent why the term of such an office should be extended. The Board of Trustees of incorporated towns should have a voice in the selection of County Superintendents. He moved to recommit the bill to a Special Committee, with instructions to amend.

Mr. BELL opposed the motion. The principle is viscous and would be giving towns more control than they ought to have. Two years ago this proposition was considered and rejected.

Mr. HILLIGASS would favor the motion in the interest of politics of his neighborhood, were politics to govern his vote. But he opposed it, believing the principle to be wrong. The County Superintendent has no control over town schools, and it would be unfair and unjust to give a representation to the town Trustees in the selection of a County Superintendent. He favored the bill as it is, and hoped it would pass in the interest of the glorious school system of Indiana.

Mr. MAGEE demanded the previous question.

It was seconded, and under its operations the motion to recommit was rejected by yeas, 15; nays, 29.

The bill failed to pass by yeas, 25; nays, 18, for want of a constitutional majority.

previous
next