the Auditor authority to make examinations; to require minute statements of all insurance companies' and fraternal beneficiary associations; and to demand a deposit of bonds or money in the case of foreign insurance companies. Similar restrictions have recently been imposed upon foreign trust or investment companies.3 The centralization of the administration of the laws regulating insurance has given to the citizens protection against fraudulent and reckless companies.

In still another field the State has tried to protect the people against frauds by the creation of a special officer with powers of inspection. In 1881 the office of State Chemist was established and it was made the duty of this officer to analyze commercial fertilizers, print the result of such an analysis in the form of a label and to furnish a copy of it to agricultural papers for publication. It was made unlawful for any person, thereafter, to sell such fertilizers without having a label furnished by the State Chemist attached thereto. The protection secured by it was only nominal, since it did not contain any provision looking to the detection of frauds after the analysis had been made. This defect was in part corrected in 1899 and 1901.5

In 1899 a further protection was afforded to the property interests of the citizens by the creation of the office of State Entomologist. This officer is appointed by the Governor. It is his duty to inspect all nurseries at least once a year; to inform the proper authorities of the presence of insects or fungi injurious to trees or plants; and to notify the owner of

'Laws, 1883, pp. 203-8; 1885, Reg. Sess., pp. 54-8; 1899, pp. 64-7; 1891, pp. 413-4; 1893, pp. 174-180; 1897, pp. 319–327; 1899, pp. 31-4, 220-1; 1901, pp. 321-2, 408–9, 617.

Laws, 1899, pp. 177-187; 1901, pp. 315–317.

Ibid., 1901, pp. 487-8, 549, 550.

Laws, Spec. Sess., 1881, pp. 511-2.

"Laws, 1899, p. 49; 1901, pp. 413-5.

any such affected stock that he must take measures to destroy such pests.'

In 1901 there was established a State Forestry Board, the members of which are appointed by the Governor. One member, the secretary, is required to have "special knowledge of the theory and art of forest preservation." At present the chief function of the board is to collect, classify and disseminate information respecting forests, timber lands and forest preservation and to recommend plans for the establishment of State forest reserves. The powers and functions of this bureau will doubtless be extended.

IV. The Protection of Fish and Game. As soon as fish and game began to grow scarce in Indiana, the wanton or unrestricted killing of them was forbidden by law and made a misdemeanor.3 But none of the numerous laws made it the especial duty of any officer to see to their enforcement. In 1881 the office of Commissioner of Fisheries was created; but he had no supervision over the execution of the laws restraining the killing of fish. His duty was to promote the propagation of fish. Nevertheless, he caused the conviction of a large number of fish pirates, although he had no more power to do that than any other citizen.5

In 1889 it was made the duty of road supervisors to arrest or cause to be arrested and prosecuted any persons violating laws for the protection of fish. This law proved a failure, largely because the officers had a personal interest in, or friendship for, the violators of the laws. However, the sen

1 Laws, 1899, pp. 224-6.

Ibid., 1901, pp. 62-3.

3 Ibid., 1848-9, p. 94; Rev. Stat., 1852, ii, p. 447; Laws, 1857, pp. 39, 40; 1863, p. 20; 1867, pp. 128-9; 1871, p. 24; 1875 (Reg. Sess.), p. 111; 1877, pp. 69, 70; 1879, pp. 242-5; 1889, p. 102-3. 4 Laws, Spec. Sess., 1881, p. 516.

Rep't of Com'r of Fisheries, 1888, p. 6. 'Rep't of Com'r of Fisheries, 1896, pp. 10–12.

Laws, 1889, pp. 449-450.

timent in favor of the protection of fish by the enforcement of the laws steadily grew and spread.

In 1897 it was made the duty of the Commissioner of Fisheries to see that all laws for the protection of fish were enforced, and to institute proceedings against all violators. He also had power to appoint one or more deputies in each county. Within 18 months 244 convictions for violation of the fish laws were secured and the amount from fines which was turned over to the State more than doubled the whole appropriation for the administration of the laws.' This was accomplished without the possession of police powers by the deputies. Two years later such powers in respect to the fish or game laws were conferred upon the commissioner and his deputies; and their jurisdiction was extended over the laws designed to protect song-birds and game.3 The laws were made still more rigorous in 1901.4

It is interesting to note that in a number of the cases treated in this chapter, as soon as the need of protection or regulation was recognized, the first remedial measures were restrictive or prohibitive acts the enforcement of which was left to the initiative of individuals and the ordinary police officers and magistrates. As experience demonstrated the futility of this arrangement, special officers, having peculiar fitness for the work, were designated to see that the laws were obeyed. In some cases these have been put directly under the control or supervision of State officers clothed with considerable discretionary or administrative authority.

1 Laws, 1897, pp. 109, 110.

'Rep't of Com'r of Fisheries, 1897–8, pp. 14, 15.

▪ Laws, 1899, pp. 44–6, 195–198.

Ibid., 1901, pp. 77-80, 442-7.

CHAPTER VII

CONCLUSION

THIS detailed examination of administration in Indiana has shown that during the greater part of the territorial era -a period of tutelage-a closely centralized system existed. As soon as a State government was organized, the theory of local self-government was quickly applied to local matters and to many affairs properly belonging to the State administration. For twenty-five years there was little change in this respect. The steps leading to the present centralized system were, with few exceptions, taken in three distinct periods.

In the first period-from 1840 to 1852-the Treasurer of the State was made the Superintendent of Common Schools; the office of State Superintendent of Public Instruction was later created; laws authorizing general taxation for school purposes were enacted; the consolidation of school funds was effected; State institutions for the education of the blind and the deaf, and for the treatment of the insane were established; a State Board of Equalization was created, and the centralization of the assessment of transportation companies was begun.

During and immediately succeeding the Civil War-from 1861 to 1873-numerous advances toward centralization were again made. This is shown by the reorganization of the State Board of Education with broad general powers, the establishment of county boards of education and the creation of the office of county superintendent. The State assumed 327]

327

the care of disabled soldiers and their dependent children, and founded the Reform School for boys, the Women's Prison and Industrial School for Girls. The power of the State Board of Equalization was extended over the assessment of all corporations.

The last period of development began about 1889 and has continued to the present. It has witnessed the increase of the powers of the State Superintendent; the establishment of compulsory education; and the extension of the power of the State Board of Education so that it controls the adoption of books, directs the high school policy and regulates the examination of teachers. The Board of State Charities has been instituted and numerous reforms in the penal and charitable systems have been made. The authority of the State Board of Health has been greatly enlarged.' An efficient regulation of the practice of medicine, dentistry, pharmacy and embalming has been undertaken; and the prevention and suppression of the diseases of animals have been attempted. Authority over the equalization of the assessment of personal property has been conferred upon the State Board of Tax Commissioners. The metropolitan police system' has been applied to more cities. Another evidence of the drift towards centralization in this period is found in the legislation concentrating in the hands of the mayors of the five largest cities 3 the control over the administrative affairs of their respective municipalities.

The evidence already presented has been sufficient to demonstrate that this centralization has resulted in a more efficient administration, has secured a greater safety of funds,

1 It was first established in 1881.

First used in 1883.

'Indianapolis (Laws, 1891, pp. 137 ff.); Evansville (Laws, 1893, pp. 65 ff.); Fort Wayne (Laws, 1893, pp. 202 ff.; 1897, p. 197; 1901, pp. 197 ff.); Terre Haute (Laws, 1899, pp. 270 ff.; 1901, pp. 94 ff.); South Bend (Laws, 1901, pp. 108 ff.).