The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-02-09


| DIAL in connection with the sehoolbook con-
i tract and he ascribed this to the high char
| acter of the men on the board. He said that
| the men who dissipated the money of De
| PAW University are the same men who
| are now fighting for the nonstate schools,
| ana that they refused TO let those compe-
| tent to handle the affairs of the university
| take charge. He referred at some length to
| the troubles Of De Pauw University.
Mr.. Roots declared that the majority re-
port would grant all the contentious of the
| nonstate schools. though he was neither for
the state nor nonstate schools.
Mr. Manifold thought that by adding the
three men as provided for in the majority re-
port the objections of the nonstate men
Mr.. Kirkpatrick thought that the intense
interest In the bill which was manifested by
the superintendent of the Indianapolis
Vestigation of the bill. He was Of the opin-
ion that both state and nonstate schools
should be represented on the board.
Mr.. McCarty was opposed to any change
and favored the majority report as between
the two presented.
Mr.. Wise said assertions had been made
curing the debate that should never have
been made. He would insist on a report by
the state Institutions as to the disbursements
OF funds appropriated by the State and was
for the minority report. He raised the ques-
ton as to whether or not any connection ex-
diana School Book Company.
BOARD AND SCHOOL BOOK COMPANY.
Mr.. Louttft defended the board ard said
that Mr.. Wise should either substantiate his
charges concerning the school book COM
pany or not have made them. He stated
that the drift of students is towards the
state schools, and that the nonstate schools
cannot compete with the state schools. He
did not believe that the school book company
was behind either bill, for the members of
the present board above suspicion and in
the thirty-three years of the boards exist
ence there has been no charge of corruption.
Mr. HUFF thought the board should be re-
organized on the lines of the minority re-
port, because the law only gives to the mem
bers about $50 year, and if this is all they
get he could not see why they so tenaciously
hang on to the position. He said every man,
woman and child in the State ought to
know why they do. He said the members
of the board refuse to answer questions. He
stated that every one knew now who the
neads or the state institutions are but no
one can tell who will be next year, and if
the minority report should be adopted the
Governor could appoint these same men on
the board if he so saw fit. He stated that
the men at the head of the state institutions
are not always those who are wanted, and
Der a time when he blushed over the actions
or one member who was not only driven
from his position but from the State as the
Mr.. Cravens, of Washington, made the
specl1c charge that the board has wasted
the public money. He wants a practical
board, and one that will ask practical ques-
TORS instead of the Chinese puzzles that
many OF the former questions have been. He
based on the principles of common sense or
common branches. In his opinion questions
were put IN according to text books used in
Mr.. Cunningham spoke in favor of the ma
jority report.
Mr.. Eichhorn spoke at length in favor of
the state schools. The nonstate school bill
he declared to be for union of church and
state He declared that the school book
company will lose money by reason of the
loss Of contracts for certain books
Mr.: Blankenship thought the whole agi-
Artman, in a speech of some length, charged
that those attending the State Normal
School are advised to buy certain book and
study 1T, and from the book secure the an
swers TO nearly all the examination ques-
tions, asked. He said they would later find
the book on sale at teachers Institutes,
and that the State Normal controls the
questions to be asked at the examinations.
This was questioned by Mr.. Noel, but Mr..
Artman reiterated his statement.
Mr.. Canada favored the removal of the
presidents of the state schools He said
that all agree that the nonstate schools are
good, and the State should have a board
that will not discriminate against them. He
believed that nonstate schools should be
given equal opportunity. and said that this
trouble might be expected until the nom
state schools secured equal representation or
went under. Mr.. Williams was for the
opposed in his election by the state school
faction, and if to be nonstate man is to
be mossback, he accepted the name.
Mr.. Hocomb spoke in favor of the amend
ment proposed by the majority and Mr..
Downey said he preferred the eX officio re-
lation to the sectarian. Mr.. Scott of Mont
gomery. was in favor of the minority report,
and said that this same question will come
up up IN Two or four years unless settled now.
| turning out just as bright young people as
the state, but they cannot get licenses to
teach under the present system. Mr. Whit
comb, Of Vigo made his maiden speech in
favor of the state schools. and al SIC. o clock
Mr.. Shideler moved the previous question.
GOSS'S LOBBYING REFERRED TO.
Mr.. Brown closed the discussion. He
said that the minority report will satisfy
the people of Indiana, and he did not con-
slider it necessary to call men mossbacks,
or other names, because they do not agree
with him. II had supposed" said Mr..
Brown that D. K Goss was superintend-
ent OF the schools of the city of Indianap-
oils, and 1 am informed that he does draw
a salary under the presumption that he oc-
cupies that position. Ever since this ses-
sion opened Mr. Goss has spent every min
ute of his time the floor of this House,
in the Senate, in the hotels, on the streets,
lobbying for the passage of the state bill,
and yet neither bill anects him personally at
all. he draws his salary to look after the
schools of the city Of Indianapolis. but while
he draws that salary for that purpose he
The city of Indianapolis is paying a lobby
list on the state school bill This activity
of his, when he is not affected, gives rise to
a suspicion of ring. The state school peo-
pie are doing all in their power to drive
the students in their schools"
Mr.. Brown read some of the examination
questions and showed how utterly ridicu-
lous they are. He said that the nonstate
schools ask only what is fair, and if the
minority report should be adopted he would
offer an amendment to prevent the head
Of any institution serving on the board. He
denied that the proposed substitute is a
compromise, and said it was only so far as
the state schools are concerned. The
minority report was rejected by 81 ayes to
50 noes.
Tho vote uaS.
,Ayes-Aizin, Artman, Barlow Brown,
Geisel, Graham, Grsen, Hays, Huff, Hedge
cock: Herod Herrold, Kerwood, King, Kirk
patrick, LAIR, Lawrence, McGary, May,
Neal, Osborn, Powers, Roberts, Roose
Scott of Montgomery, Shideler, Somers, Sui
Ivan, Titus, Williams, Wise and Lttetcn.
Noes-Baker of Whitley, Baker of Martin,
Beardsley, Blankenship, Bonham, Burrier
comb, Clements. Cravens of Washington,
Cravens of Monroe, Cotner, Cunningham,
Dilley, Durham. Downey, Glossbrenner,
Hall, Hayes, Holcombe, Knots, Krick,
Lief, Louttit Marshall Messick, Miller,
Murphy of Marion, McCarty, Madden,
o Bannon, Reece, Reser, Rifenburg, Roots,
Schrader, Scott of Lawrence, Strong,
Schaal, Shirley, Whitcomb of Vigo, Whit
comb of Marion and Willoughby.
Paired-Eichhorn with Patterson; Mani
fold with Heuring.
The other motions TO table the minority
report and TO concur in the majority report
were quickly made and carried, and the
fight was over
The morning session was opened by
prayer by Rabbi S. N Denard of Terre
Haute. Mr.. Eichhorn presented a resolu-