USA > Indiana > A history of education in Indiana > Part 11
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37
SEC. 29. Whenever school-houses have been erected by private liberality, and schools established therein, it shall be lawful for the trustees of the township in which the same may be situated to recognize the same as a public school, and to make such allowance thereto as may in their judgment be just and equitable.
SEC. 30. [Repealing conflicting acts. ]
SEC. 31. This act to be in force from and after its publi- cation in the Indiana Journal and State Sentinel, with this exception, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent the distribution of the school funds in March, 1849, under the laws now in force ; provided, however, that the several counties of this State be and they are hereby
119
THE LAW OF 1849.
exempted from the provisions of this act, until said counties respectively assent thereto; and for the purpose of securing such assent, at the annual August elections, held in the several townships in said counties, the inspectors shall pro- pound to each person when he presents his ballot, the follow- ing question, to wit : " Are you in favor of the act of 1848-'49, to increase and extend the benefits of common schools ?" the answer to each of which interrogatories shall be noted down by the clerks of such elections, and the number voting in the affirmative and negative, certified by the inspectors of said elections to the county auditors of their respective counties, at the same time required by law to make returns of such elections ; and whenever a majority of those voting at such township August elections in any of said counties are in favor of this act, then the same shall take effect and be in force in such county; and until such assent is given in each of said counties, the vote for and against this act at each succeeding August election shall be taken, as above in this section provided, in each of said counties so refusing its assent thereto.
It shall be the duty of the sheriffs of said counties annu- ally. during the pending of the question as to the adoption of this act, to give notice thereof by posting up written notices at each precinct or place of voting in their several counties, and by publishing the same in a newspaper when one is published in the county, at least thirty days before such elections. All laws on the subjects of common schools now in force in said counties to continue in force therein until this act shall have been adopted by them severally, as herein provided, anything in this act to the contrary not- withstanding.
As may be seen, the law abolished the office of county school commissioner, which had been a part of the system for sixteen years ; retained the three school examiners in each county, authorized by the law of 1837 and reaffirmed in 1843, as also the three trustees of each township; but very wisely substituted one trustee in each district in place of the
120
UNDER THE FIRST CONSTITUITON.
three as the former law had provided. The treasurer of State was still held to perform the functions of the superin- tendent of common schools. Upon the whole, the system had been somewhat simplified. Fewer officers, by some hundreds, were required to administer it, and service was more direct. A minimum school term was prescribed, schools made of equal length throughout each township, and an elaborate system of records and reports devised, through teachers, district and township trustees, the county auditor and treasurer, the superintendent of common schools, and the Legislature, that left as inexcusable any ignorance of the system.
The really great forward step taken in the law, however, was in legalizing public taxation for the support of schools. It suggested an entirely new policy. It introduced new ele- ments into legislation, and immeasurably dignified educa- tion. Public taxation meant something of system, and hinted at permanency. This included a one-mill county tax, a twenty-five-cent poll tax, a three-cent tax on the busi- ness of foreign insurance companies, and a possible levy of one and one half mill to the dollar for district building tax. These were to supplement or be supplemented by the pro- ceeds of the Surplus Revenue Fund, the Saline Fund, and the Bank Tax Fund, besides the income of the Congressional Township Fund, reserved to the respective townships, all of which in the aggregate would, it was estimated by Prof. Mills, yield an annual income, from 1848 to 1850, of not less than $250,000.
The entire policy marked a radical change in school ad- ministration, and in many points for the better, but both contemporary discussion and subsequent observation and experience early discovered certain vital defects in the law.
First, no provision was made for schools or schooling in cities and towns. The rural districts only were regarded. The seminaries were supposed to serve the county seats, and outside of county seats the towns in the State were few; but many counties had no seminaries, and of those that had, the
121
THE LAW OF 1849.
majority enjoyed a limited patronage only. The first town and city schools were chiefly private.
Again, the State adoption of private schools, as provided in Section 29, made too frequently the State to be only a fol- lower, leaving the initiative to be taken by private and local enterprise. The public funds were farmed out ; schools were independent and unequal. In a so-called system, there was neither organization nor unity. At best, it was scarcely more than a district, the local trustee, with a few statutory limitations, being practically left to his own judgment or guided by that of the householders in all school matters. In the regulation of the school term and in the distribution of the funds the township was made the unit, and very wisely. This is a phase of the Indiana system, initiated early, but remodeled in 1852, and in which the State takes justly great pride even to-day.
Once more, all revenues, whether State or local taxes or the proceeds of invested funds, and excepting the tax upon the business of foreign insurance companies, were distrib- uted in the counties where collected. This perpetuated one of the most vicious policies to which State schools were ever subjected. As the more populous and wealthy centers were left free to maintain their own schools, so with the improvi- dent and needy. What was a privilege to one was a burden to the other. There was no State system. To each locality (county) was left the responsibility of educating the children of that locality. What one section did easily and liberally, another did feebly and badly, or not at all. The richer counties might have school systems; elsewhere, schools ap- peared to be only a luxury.
But, more than all other mistakes, the law was to be ac- cepted or rejected by counties at the polls in the summer of 1849. The field once contested must be gone over anew. Every good feature was subject to rejection by ballot. The period intervening between its passage in January and the election in August was a trying one for the friends of the law, and offered one more opportunity for its enemies. The
122
UNDER THE FIRST CONSTITUTION.
former had labored for years to secure a general levy, or legalized local taxes, for the support of schools, and when secured it was compromised by an offensive collateral that made the law at best little better than the old one. The lat- ter found in the postponement only another lease of life to antagonize and obstruct.
The campaign of 1849 was a memorable one even for In- diana. As in 1848, but far more generally, the State was canvassed by the friends of public education, who were every- where vigorously confronted by its enemies. "Free schools " was a not uncommon theme for politicians and preachers. Counties, townships, and precincts were " worked " both for and against the law. Constituencies were measured, candi- dates were pledged, and all the devices of early-day politics employed to direct the final vote. From its opponents came in general the same objections to the law that were urged in the canvass upon the abstract question of "free schools" during the summer of 1848. The objecting classes were not greatly changed. This was the rule. There were excep- tions.
First, it was claimed that education is a private responsi- bility. Each parent, because he is a parent, must be left to decide for himself the quality and extent of education al- lowed his children. If not the function of the family, then of the Church. It might perhaps be a religious but not a State duty. Of all the objections urged in Indiana or else- where this was the oldest. A Catholic, writing to the Free- man's Journal, a little later, but under the inspiration of the same campaign, refers to "the unlucky and un-American State free-school law," and said : "We were the first and have been the sternest and the deadliest enemy of the State free-school oppression. The whole State school system is foreign and antagonistic to the American political institu- tions and traditions. . . . Our opposition to the State school system will be seen to have been as truly for patriotism as for religion."
In places, also, the poor objected to paying taxes for the
123
THE LAW OF 1849.
support of any school whose management admitted alike the children of the rich. This could only mean unfair privi- leges to the affluent and the genteel at the expense of labor and indigence; or the schools rejected by the rich, because they could afford a more exclusive education, were also re- jected by the poor because they bore the pauper mark. Inexplicable as it appears, in the establishment of school systems poverty has ever been slow to see its own great ad- vantage. With little to pay and much to receive, it carped at one and doubted the other. Then and in our State, as often and elsewhere, the impecunious were the most critical.
But the property holder was not more wise. Men of means, among opponents, objected to the law as compelling them to pay for the support of schools out of all proportion to their patronage of them. Private schools and local semi- naries were frequent enough, and more to their liking. Why should they be asked to pay for the schooling of those who were better suited to their station without it ?
Again, it was objected that a State-directed and fund- or tax-supported system tied all up in a system, leaving parents and guardians no room for choice in directing the culture of their children. Admitting education to be a public respon- sibility, there must be the minimum of system and the maxi- mum of local and parental control. The law proposed, however, was held to be prescriptive and coercive, and so dangerous.
One of the two more common exceptions perhaps taken came in the form of the modern objection to compulsory education-it was not in harmony with the genius of our Government. The law, as proposed, set limits to individual rights, while our American institutions were meant to secure to the individual the largest immunity from external au- thority.
Still, further, it was urged-and this was the reserve ar- gument of the demagogue and the third-rate stump speaker -the public treasury of no people, whether of the country or the State, could bear the expense of a system of schools
124
UNDER THE FIRST CONSTITUTION.
that should offer to educate all. However desirable it might be to have a generation or a citizenship so educated, the tax- ation necessary to accomplish it would bankrupt the State. The industries of the people were but just recovering after a decade of financial depression incident to a system of inter- nal improvements and unfortunate speculation, and the pos- sibility of an expensive organization of State schools led a certain grade of men of all classes to shrink from the respon- sibility. The State, already greatly involved, should not sanction any system of general taxation for schools until the existing embarrassment was removed.
Veterans who had schooled their children in pay schools objected that it would be unfair to be taxed to support schools they could not use. This was answered in true Yankee style : "Why should those who do not travel be taxed for roads ? Why should honest, virtuous, peaceable citizens be taxed to support a government ? . .. Well, now, I guess the reason is because they are citizens, and have a common stock share in all the benefits of the community, and all its liber- ties too."
The campaign closed for the time being with the August election, whose results, by counties, are given in the follow- ing table : *
Vote by Counties.
COUNTIES.
Free- school vote, 1848.
Per cent for free schools.
School- law vote, 1849.
Per cent for school law.
1. St. Joseph.
1,612
93.8
1,593
80.4
2. Fulton
653
91.3
810
86.5
3. Pulaski.
246
91
369
94
4. Porter.
77
90.5
800
83.8
5. La Porte.
1,919
89.2
1,927
80. 9
6. Vanderburgh.
1,288
89
1,153
84.3
7. Lake
339
88.8
453
93 .1
8. Marshall
787
88.7
665
83
* Adapted from Prof. Mills's fourth message, January 7, 1850. The whole address is an admirable presentation of the conditions and signifi- cances of the vote.
125
THE LAW OF 1849.
COUNTIES.
Free- school vote, 1848.
Per cent for free schools.
School- law vote, 1849.
Per cent for school law.
9. Switzerland
2,431
88
2,157 In favor.
....
11. Noble.
1,112
86.3
In favor.
....
12. La Grange.
1,322
86
1,086
75.7
13. Warren
1,113
85.9
1,129
78
14. Dearborn.
3,039
85.5
2,662
74.7
15. Kosciusko
1,479
85
1,512
70.6
16. Huntington.
880
84 4
In favor.
....
17. White.
666
84.2
577
72.6
18. Tippecanoe
2,908
83.7
2,539
79.2
19. Steuben
674
82
835
77.5
20. Wabash
1,696
81.8
1,623
71.4
21. Allen
2,266
80 .6
1,613
70
22. Miami.
1,462
80.4
1,559
62.8
23. Cass
1,594
80.3
1,781
80
24. Wells
552
79.7
685
75
25. Jennings
1,651
79.5
1,624
70.5
26. Benton
143
78
171
72.8
27. Ohio
891
77.6
835
68
28. Jefferson
2,897
76.3
3,338
78 .1
29. Floyd
2,093
75.5
2,158
75
30. Tipton
366
74.6
390
51.5
31. Knox
1,728
74
1,500
68.4
32. Carroll.
1,819
74
1,518
66.7
33. Blackford
332
73.5
399
59
34. Jay
690
73
546
53 8
35. Adams
621
71.5
748
71.7
36. Clinton
1,571
70.7
1,647
53.5
37. Elkhart
1,761
70-7
2,036
58.9
38. Randolph
1,962
70-7
1,575
59.5
39. Scott.
965
69.4
1,013
50.3
40. Gibson 41. Grant.
1,606
68.5
1,756
59.7
1,304
67 .5
1,326
57.4
42. Fayette
1,853
66.2
1,857
50
43. Vermilion
1,506
66
1,529
75 .4
44. Jasper
347
65.4
440
62.7
45. De Kalb
938
65
815
55.2
46. Wayne
3,912
63.7
3,462
59.2
47. Clark
2,127
62.4
2,279
61
48. Perry
846
61.8
952
53.4
49. Shelby
2,506
60.2
2,293
59.5
50. Fountain
1,921
59
1,879
70.7
51. Posey.
1,802
58.4
2,125
71.5
52. Howard
706
55.5
918
47.4
53. Spencer
1,087
55.1
In favor.
..
54. Marion.
3.386
54 .5
3,652
52
55. Franklin
2,261
54
2,363
54.8
56. Bartholomew
2,170
52.4
In favor.
57. Ripley
2,110
52
1,844
52.7
58. Vigo
1,954
51.9
2,287
50. 2
84.3
10. Whitley
675
87.2
126
UNDER THE FIRST CONSTITUTION.
COUNTIES.
Free- school vote, 1848.
Per cent for free schools.
School- law vote, 1849.
Per cent for school law.
59. Daviess
1,346
50-7
1,505
40.7
60. Delaware.
1,523
47
1,600
41
61. Union.
1,318
44
1,223
58.5
62. Henry.
2,476
43.3
2,794
50.5
63. Jackson
1,423
41.5
In favor.
....
64. Hancock
1,489
41 .4
Against.
....
65. Martin
833
40.7
782
31.5
66. Warrick
1,252
39.7
1,281
60 5
67. Hamilton.
1,431
39
1,855
28
68. Rush.
2,695
34.6
2,990
44.7
69. Parke.
2,792
34.3
2,624
44.5
70. Crawford.
1,114
34 .2
997
27.5
71. Harrison
2,287
34
2,224
43
72. Boone.
1,640
32 .6
1,677
33.3
73. Sullivan.
1,639
32.5
In favor.
.
74. Montgomery.
2,817
30.7
2,960
37
75. Morgan
2,219
29.5
2,458
40.4
76. Madison.
1,670
29.2
Against.
·
.
77. Decatur
2,197
28.6
2,484
53
78. Brown
670
28
581
36.1
79. Owen.
1,682
26.4
1,756
44. 9
80. Washington
2,442
25.8
2,613
39.7
81. Hendricks
2,062
25.4
1,787
30.4
82. Greene.
1,844
25.2
1,952
40.8
83. Lawrence
1,927
24. 6
1,950
35.6
84. Pike .
1,017
24.4
986
21. 8
85. Putnam
2,955
22.2
2,940
33.3
86. Monroe
1,825
20. 6
1,757
31.8
87. Johnson.
1,516
19.4
1,794
33.6
88. Clay
1,150
18.8
1,203
42.6
89. Dubois
809
17
75
11
90. Orange.
1,706
8.8
1,808
19.3
Certain lessons of the vote are easily seen now, and were then.
Speaking accurately, the questions at issue in the two elections were not the same. In the former, citizens were asked to state their preferences, as between free, State-sup- ported schools on the one hand and private or denomina- tionally controlled schools on the other. Those were not unfrequently opposed by men greatly interested in educa- tion ; the latter favored as founded by the rightful authority of the family or the Church. In the second election, a spe- cific law was submitted to the public will. Here, of course,
127
THE LAW OF 1849.
was room for indefinite diversity of judgment. Sectional tendencies, party interests, local conditions, church move- ments, and familiarity with or ignorance of the law modified the vote upon it.
In general, those counties giving largest affirmative votes in 1848 show as a class the largest majorities also in 1849 ; and in the same sense the opposition to the law came chiefly from the opponents of "free schools." Nevertheless, a majority for "free schools" in 1848 did not necessarily mean assent to the particular system proposed in the law of 1849. By some of the best counties even the latter was thought to possess features so objectionable as to call forth / fierce opposition. Votes in places were greatly changed. Communities in sympathy with a closer organization of State education forces fought the proposed law, permissive and subject to rejection, as a step backward. Other neighbor- hoods encouraged or opposed it as public sentiment was or was not favorable to general education. Its local-option feature opened the way for a free expression of individual opinion, and revealed a great diversity in the various sec- tions of the State.
St. Joseph County, standing first in the State in 1849 for "free schools," had shifted to the ninth place on the accept- ance of the law the year following. Two counties-Howard and Daviess-that in 1848 gave 94 majority in favor of a State system, reported in 1849 127 against the act submitted. On the other hand, one county-Decatur-changed a ma- jority of 939 against a tax-supported system into a majority of 150 in favor of the law. Lake County changed from the seventh to the second place; Switzerland, from the ninth to the fourth; Cass, from the twenty-third to the tenth; Jef- ferson, from the twenty-eighth to the twelfth; Vermilion, from the forty-third to the sixteenth; Posey, from the fifty- first to the twenty-third ; Decatur, from the seventy-sev- enth to the forty-ninth ; and Warrick, from the sixty- sixth to the thirty-fifth. The change in these counties was obviously the result of a vigorous canvass of the ground,
128
UNDER THE FIRST CONSTITUTION.
and a mark of an improved public sentiment upon educa- tion.
Thirty-two counties, chiefly in southern Indiana, in- creased their favorable vote, while fifty-one counties (sixty- three per cent of them north) diminished theirs. Among the best counties, as St. Joseph, La Porte, Porter, La Grange, Wabash, Allen, and Miami, this cutting of the vote varied from six to twenty per cent.
The total vote upon the school question in 1848 was 140,410, with a majority in favor of "free schools" of 16,636, or an affirmative ballot of 86,841. The year follow- ing 142,391 votes were cast, giving a majority in favor of the law of 15,767, or a total affirmative ballot of 86,963. The affirmative vote, as compared with the total vote, had been diminished by a small fraction.
Moreover, of the ninety counties in the State, fifty-nine voted for the law (forty-six of them being northern coun- ties) and thirty-one against it. Of these, twenty are southern in location and settled from the South.
The closing section of the act had provided that the sev- eral counties should be exempted from its provisions until they had given their assent thereto. Those refusing its privileges in 1849 were to be given annually thereafter, in August, an opportunity to revise their vote. Several coun- ties of the State never assented to the act, the former laws remaining in force instead.
PART THIRD.
UNDER THE NEW CONSTITUTION, 1851-'91.
CHAPTER X.
THE SECOND CONVENTION AND ARTICLE VIII OF THE CONSTI- TUTION.
JANUARY 15, 1849, two days prior to the passage of the educational bill, the Legislature had voted to submit the question of a constitutional convention to the people. The movement was received with favor, and at the election in August of that year the privilege was asked by a large vote. In accordance with this expression, the Assembly at its next session, January, 1850, passed an act formally ordering an election of delegates.
The convention gathered October 7, 1850, and continued in session until February 10, 1851. It was composed of one hundred and fifty members, among whom, notably, were Horace P. Biddle, John P. Dunn, Robert Dale Owen, Thomas A. Hendricks, William H. English, Schuyler Colfax, Daniel Read, John I. Morrison, W. M. Dunn, J. M. Borden, John S. Newman, John Pettit, Douglass McGuire, James R. M. Bryant, William S. Holman, David Wallace, etc. It was a dignified body of capable men, met for a great purpose, and generally impressed with their responsibility.
It had been apparent to public men for years that the time was approaching when the political, commercial, and general interests of the State would make a new constitu- tion desirable. Various questions, some of them of large
130
UNDER THE NEW CONSTITUTION, 1851-'91.
and far-reaching import, were to come before the conven- tion. The slavery problem was and had been troublesome, and was daily becoming more so. On the border between the North and South, with more than half its territory, and that the earliest settled, peopled by immigrants from the slave-holding States, and allied by her industries with the same section, it is not strange that Indiana found the race * question clamorous for settlement.
Besides, the State's internal improvement system had led to factions. While the debt had been somewhat diminished, the interest regularly met, and so public confidence in a measure re-established, the taxes had been greatly increased, and the burden became heavy. Not only a large debt but a loose, unsatisfactory banking system made finance doubtful, and lent little encouragement to manufacturing enterprise or commercial investment. Trade was narrowed and indus- trial intercourse was reduced to a minimum. With a tax valuation in 1850 of nearly $140,000,000, less than $8,000,000 were invested in manufactures, with an annual product of about $19,000,000.
The laws of the State touching property and capital neither contributed to the freedom or security of investment nor invited public improvement. Besides, the illiteracy of the State was appalling. In a population of less than a million the total illiterate adults numbered 73,299, and illiterate voters 40,000. The State had eight institutions for higher learning, including Earlham College and Notre Dame University, opened during the decade, the former by the Friends and the latter by the Catholics ; and Vincennes University reorganized. Its seminaries, as provided for by the old constitution, were neither respectably supported nor likely to be.
A generation of State experiment had changed both the conditions of common schooling and the standards of effi-
* The negro population in Indiana, 1850, was 11,262, about 1·2 per cent of the total census.
131
THE SECOND CONVENTION.
ciency therein. So that the public began to demand, not only a better digested system, but larger and more generous provisions for its administration. Not less in education than in political and industrial affairs was felt the need of a revision of the Constitution. "Every step in legislation , seemed to involve the system in greater expense and diffi- culty, until inefficiency, confusion, and waste seemed to be the legitimate offspring of our legislation on the subject."
Simultaneous with the meeting of the convention was the publication of Prof. Mills's Fifth Annual Message. It was suggestive and opportune. It consisted of four letters, directed to the members of the convention, and published in the Indiana Statesman : No. I. Concerning the Congres- sional Land Grants; No. II. Concerning Educational Funds ; No. III. Concerning School Libraries and Teachers' Training Schools; No. IV. The University of Indiana. An extract or two from this address will fairly set before readers the prob- lem presented to the constitution-makers forty years ago.
" In the prosecution of your labors of Constitutional revis- ion," said Mr. Mills, " the subject of education will claim a share of your attention. There is no portion of constitu- tional revision more worthy of your careful consideration- none involving more vital interests-none more intimately connected with the highest welfare of the people in all their relations and pursuits, civil, social, and commercial-none which, wisely and liberally defined and incorporated in the fundamental law of the Commonwealth, will reflect greater honor on your body, or that you will recall in after years with higher satisfaction. None of the contemplated altera- tions and improvements of our present Constitution which may result from your deliberations will be received with more general or cordial satisfaction by the great masses of your fellow-citizens, than a constitutional guarantee that wise and efficient provision shall be made for the proper education of the present and future youth of Indiana.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.