500 



INDIANA. 



cute suits instituted at his instance, on behalf of the 

 State." That the said ninth section repeals. The 

 seventh section of the act of March 8, 1873, as to 

 county superintendents, provides that the county su- 

 perintendent may examine " the official dockets, rec- 

 ords, and books of account of the clerks of the courts, 

 county auditors, county commissioners, justices of the 

 peace, prosecuting attorneys, mayors of cities, and 

 township and school trustees. . . . shall be open at all 

 times to the Inspection of the county superintendent, 

 and whenever he shall find that any ot said officers 

 have neglected or refused to collect and pay over in- 

 terest, fines, forfeitures, license, or other claims due 

 the school funds or revenues in their possession, he 

 shall be required to institute suit in the name of the 

 State of Indiana for the recovery of the same, for the 

 benefit of the school fund or revenues, and make re- 

 port of the same to the board of county commission- 

 ers and to the State Superintendent." These two 

 sections cover all the funds that have been collected 

 by the Attorney-General, and the Supreme Court in 

 the case referred to holds that the ninth section of the 

 act of March 10, 1873, repealed the sections above 

 referred to, and took the place of said sections. 



Ex-Attorney-General Buskirk, after reading 

 the report, sent a letter to the chairman of the 

 committee, of which the following is an ex- 

 tract : 



So far as your report shows small discrepancies to 

 exist in certain counties, I hope to bo able to explain 

 them when I can personally examine the accounts ; 

 but your report, so far as it relates to me, seems de- 

 voted mainly to certain fees retained by my assistants 

 and myself. On that subject, the law being loosely 

 and awkwardly drawn, I took the opinion in writing 

 of one of our best lawyers in the State then Governor 

 and I think such fees were retained in accordance 

 with it. I desire that the courts may decide the ques- 

 tion. If they hold I am liable for what was retained 

 by my assistants and myself, it would probably 

 amount to more than my bond. My situation for 

 paying is just this : I have mortgaged all I have to 

 my surety, hardly sufficient to indemnify. I have 

 nothing else, having' come back here poorer by about 

 $4,000 than when I went to Indianapolis four years 

 ago. I then left a law practice worth over $5,000 a 

 year, and so far since my return have had an equally 

 good business, probably better. If the courts decide 

 I owe anything, I am willing to devote the balance of 

 my life to work to pay it off, to show that I did not 

 wish to steal anything from the State. It may bo 

 proper for me to add that while you will see I could nave 

 done so to large amounts, I actually had to borrow 

 money to pay in part the freight on my household fur- 

 niture to get back here. Do not understand me as 

 finding fault with the committee ; only I beg respect- 

 fully to dissent from its views of the law upon the 

 subject of the fees of the assistants and myself. Please 

 submit this to the House. 



Another case, involving the State Auditor 

 Henderson, came before the House of Bepre- 

 sentatives. The point in this case was a ques 

 tion of fees. A committee of investigation 

 was appointed, which made a majority and a 

 minority report. The gentlemen making the 

 minority report construed the law against the 

 Auditor, and recommended that suit be brought 

 against Mr. ^Henderson for the recovery of 

 $13,000 alleged to have been illegally collected 

 by him while Auditor and retained. The ma- 

 jority report construed the law differently. It 

 justifies the Auditor at every step; it finds 

 that he had a right to collect and hold fees 

 from the Land Department on private con- 

 tract ; it holds that the act of 1877 was amen- 



datory of and supplemental to the act of 1865, 

 and separate and distinct from the acts of 1873 

 and 1875; "that nothing whatever can be 

 found in the law of 1865, or in the act of 

 1877, compelling or authorizing any of the 

 money derived from such fees and charges to 

 be paid over into the Treasury"; and that 

 the Auditor was not bound to turn any of the 

 fees collected under these acts over into the 

 Treasury. It further said : " We recognize the 

 fact that the question as to whether Mr. Hen- 

 derson ought to account to the State for any 

 portion of the moneys received by him from 

 the additional fees and charges authorized by 

 the law af 1877 is one wholly of the proper 

 construction of the statute, which is by no 

 means plain or free from ambiguity, and about 

 which men and courts may, and very likely 

 honestly, differ in opinion." The minority 

 and majority agree that Mr. Henderson never, 

 at any time, disguised or attempted in any way 

 to conceal the fact that he charged and re 

 tained all of said fees, claiming that he was 

 entitled to do so by a fair construction of the 

 statute ; and that Mr. Henderson upon request 

 furnished the committee with all the facts de- 

 sired. The minority report was adopted yeas 

 58, nays 30. 



A bill providing for the codification of the 

 school laws of the State was also adopted. The 

 amendments made to these laws were, that the 

 levy for special school purposes be reduced 

 from 50 to 25 cents on the $100, with a provi- 

 sion that, in case the school officers in any dis- 

 trict have created a debt, they may make an 

 additional levy of 15 cents to pay such indebt- 

 edness ; that the levy for local tuition purposes 

 be reduced from 25 to 20 cents on the $100; 

 that county superintendents shall hereafter be 

 appointed by the board of county commission- 

 ers instead of by the township trustees, and 

 that their per diem shall be fixed by the 

 county commissioners, provided, however, that 

 it shall not be less than $3 per day; that 

 teachers shall pay a fee of $1 for examination, 

 such fee to be the only compensation of the 

 superintendent for holding examinations ; also, 

 that county superintendents shall be authorized 

 to hold township institutes or joint township 

 institutes, and that teachers shall be required 

 to attend such institutes not less than two nor 

 more than three days during each year ; that 

 but one six months' license shall be issued to 

 the same person in the same county, but that 

 persons who have received a six months' li- 

 cense shall not be again licensed unless they 

 have reached a grade sufficient to obtain a 

 twelve months' license ; and that the county 

 commissioners may fix the number of days on 

 which superintendents shall visit schools, pro- 

 vided that the number so fixed shall not be less 

 than three fourths as many days as there are 

 schools in the county over which the superin- 

 tendent presides. 



The number of persons in the State between 

 the ages of six and twenty-one years is 707,- 



