Nebraska advertiser., 1870-03-24

/ B(AA0 OAAO " W WV hACAAC~Ao -
the Board, did not like the arrange
ment Of certain windows, and a few
other minor matters, and asked that
changes might be made, only IN that
respect. The architect, or representa-
tive Of the plan agreed upon, who
was still In the room, was asked if the
changes referred 10, would add to the
expense Of the building. He replied,
il would not, and thereupon the Gov
ernor, or Commissioners, were author
lied 90 make the changes. As further
evidence that the question of exceed
ing the appropriation authorized by
law, was considered at that meeting,
and decided upon, we state that a
majority, If not all the Board, prefer
red a plan known as the Chicago plan,
but which involved the expenditure
of $50, 900, and was therefore out of
the question. One or more Of the
Commissioners suggested and recon-
mended that $4,000 of the Regents
Fund, accruing from the levy of one
mill on the dollar taxable property Of
the State, be diverted, added to the
500, 900, and used-in the erection Of
the building, and-by which the Chi
cago plan might be adopted The
Board decided adverse to this propO-
sition for two easOns. "First. that
there q no authority for exceeding
the appropriation made 6y IaV, forthe
erection Of the University building.
Second, that the law provided for the
sacredness of the Regents fund, and
there 1Ods no authority for diUerting it.
We undertake to say that the Board
was very particular on this point. The
Regents did not, therefore, at that
meeting, "then and there, advise the
Commissioners to go on selling, and
to erect better superstruCtures than
could be let at 500, 600" The Regents
did not at that meeting "pass a resOlu-
ton advising this" but on the contra
~, were very particular to keep with
in the bounds of the appropriation,
and to do nothing inconsistent with
the express provisions Of the law in
the case. The point was fully discuss
ed, and no other conclusion was, or
could be arrived at. We could give
more as to details of what transpired
at that meeting Of the Board, but
deem this sufficient for the present.
Now, as to the legal gentlemen
whose names are mentioned as hav-
ing responded" to the "call" for ga
meeting of the prominent men of Ne
braska City" We knOw that some of
those whose names are mentioned,
neUeT GOere consulted, or ever kHeU that
such a meeting tUds held 4; and we VEN
ture the assertion that not one Of them
did, or will risk his legal reputation,
and advise any official to uiOLdte the
plain letter of both the constitution and
the lar, and say ''go on the people
will sustain you'll" We repeat, not
one Of them WiU ia so! Even if it was
true that the meetings referred to, was
held, and that prominent citizens" in
every part of the State recommended as
claimed, it was still no authority for
exceeding express provisions Of IdaO.
The only real pointinvOlved in this
whole matter is, has the constitution
and law been violated; or to use a
milder term, been erceededs The
Commissioners do not deny this fact
they admit it. Then why all this ado
to bolster it up? It is not even a po-
Iitical question. II is a question of
principle in law, in which the welfare
and interests of the whole State are
involved, and both individuals and
the press should be permitted to rise
above the promptings of prejudices or
even political affiliations in consider
ing and determining the matter.
We repeat, that however pure might
be the intention or motives of
the official thus offending, no "prom-
inent citizen" or Legislative assembly
will, have, or dare establish the prece-
dent sustaining such q course. The
report of the committee referred to
does not do it. The case is not with
out precedent in our own State, or
rather Territory. 1t will be remem-
bered that Gov. Saunders, while Gov
ernor of the Territory, offered a re-
ward for the apprehension of a MUIR
derer. When the legislature afterward
convened, he asked an allowance or
appropriation TO meet the case, and
while, if we remember correctly, the
allowance was granted, the Legisla-
ture-and it contained at that session
some of the finest legal ability Of the
State was very particular to say
there was no authority for the act,
and to do nothing that would leave
the semblance of establishing a
precedent for such a course.
The Advertiser repeats for the Jour
nap8 benefit, that the Legislature did
"feel" that such things sought not to
be permitted" and Ire, or they, who
does not knOW that it 20 felt. must be
dull of comprehension, to say the
least.
AS to the Journals tenaciousness
in regard to the amount of excess on
the part of the Commissioners, we
care but little, whether it was one
hundred, or one thousand dollars.
The offense is not mitigated even. If it
be true that the amount sOds $296, 600
instead of NEARLY 500, 600" One Of
the Commissioners himself informed
us that that the amount sold was
$3.50, 900.