Charles City Republican intelligencer. [volume] (Charles City, Iowa) 1861-1864, 1864-02-25

ment OF Superintendent OF Public
instruction by this General Assem-
bly, to serve until the LIST of January,
1866 for the election of such officer
at the general election in 1865, and
every two years thereafter and for
an annual appropriation of $50 for an
Institute in any county on the appli-
cation of 20 teachers.
The Select Committee on Railroads
have reported bill in favor of a COM
plete and immediate resumption of all
lands granted to railroads in the State.
A bill has been passed for the en-
enlargement of public libraries, and
donating to them copies of documents
in possession of the State. Also a
bill providing for recording Of United
States revenue stamps attached to
written instruments.
The bill to punish profanity was ia
ken up and elected considerable dis
cussion. 1t provides that all persons
over eighteen years of age who shall
be guilty of profanity shall be fined
ten dollars. !.
Mr.. Russell, of Washington, moved
to strike out the age altogether, for if
children are allowed to swear with
IMMUNITY up to the age of Is, it will
be difficult to overcome the habit az
forwards. .... s~
Mr.. Lindsay urged its passage
Mr. Littler thought the subject wor-
thy of consideration, and wished it to
receiver proper thought and sober, earn
est action.
Mr.. Stiles moved to amend by adj
ding after the word "swear" the fol-
lowing cor lie, or uncoscien.iously
deal with his fellow man or woman"
Mr.. Weare believed such law
would be imperative. 1t was useless
to pass such laws. This evil could
only be reached by moral suasion.
Mr.. Stiles urged the adoption of his
amendment. .+
Mr.. Paulk said every attempt to
legislate people into morality and re-
ligion had failed, and always would.
1t is impossible to make people moral
or religious by legislation. Any at
tempt to do this would be to repeat
the folly of the past. 1t never made
men better but it did make them bit
| ter.
Mr.. Russell, of Jones, in order to
test the strength Of the House on the
bill without consuming any more time,
moved to lay the whole subject on
the table. The yeas and nays were
called and the vote stood-yeas 30,
nays 54 And so the motion was lost.
Mr.. Hildreth wished the bill passed
as it came from the committee. He
believed the arguments used against
this bill would apply with as much
force to all laws for restraining vice
and crime. Profanity was SO preva.
lent that it was time to protect moral
and religious people from hearing it
in most public places.
Mr. Russell, of Washington, moved
to insert the following with intent
to provoke, injure or insult any other
person or to disturb the peace and
quiet of any public or private assem-
bly," . .........
Mr.. Littlcr opposed the amendment.
He believed the bill would prove ben
Efficient if it became law. 1t would
be dead letter only when public SEN
timent is not high enough to enforce
it. 1t would DO reinforced whenever
public opinion is up to the required
standard. He knew of some locali-
ties where it would be enforced. He
wished the bill passed without amend
ment.
Mr.. Hixson thought this was one
of the measures which should have
passed without discussion. He be-
lieved the arguments used against the
bill were fallacious. The very pas
sage of the law would have a restrain
ing effect upon profane people. Many
who now swear theaghtlessly will
know of the statute and will be more
careful in the matter.
Mr.. Hale did not like to oppose
bill that prohibited swearing, still he
believed the bill would be imperative
as law. ....
Mr.. Lindsay objected to the amend
ment. He feared it would make the
law imperative. The object of the
law was to restrain what is immoral
and what has a bad influence.
Mr.. Russells amendment was adopt
ed.
Mr.. Stiles said he offered his amend
mcnt to the bill. With the amend
ment just adopted, the bill was still
obnoxious. 1t licensed all thoughtless
swearing in drawing-rooms and par
lors and ordinary intercourse, when
there is no object in swearing, and
Furnishes him only when he is provok-
ed to wrath, and when it is most nat
ural to use profane language.
Mr.. Darby dislikcd the bill as it
now stands. 1t allowed man to be
profane when he had no provocation,
but punished him when he had most
provocation.
The bill was finally referred to a
special committee.
A large number of petitions have
been presented to both Houses, both
for and against the repeal Of the Lip
uor Law; also petitions asking for
an increase of the duties and compen-
sation of County Superintendents, all
of which were referred to the appro-