The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1881-08-04
A Poorly TInkered job.

The act to establish the univer-
sity of Texas is said to have been
copied from the act incorporating
the university of Virginia, prepared
by Mr.. Jefferson. Its first section,
by providing that it should be DO
Gated at such place Gt does not say
places) and in such manner as may
be determined by law" shows that
to be a public and local, not a pub
lie and general, or a private act. Its
making the governor and the chief
Justice, with eight administrators
appointed by the governor and con-
firmed by the senate, the corpora
tors of the university, looks az
though il was intended TO be located
at Austin, where site had been Sc
lected and dedicated for its
use when the capital of Texas
was removed to that place. 1t
certainly was never intended to be
located at lei Paso, or Sabine Pass,
or Waco, or any other point that
would require Legislative commit
tees to travel, and the governor,
chief Justice and treasurer TO absent
themselves from the post of duty
and stray away at the public cost.
The seventeenth legislature must
have known that this act of incor-
poration was in force and was sufii-
cient; il certainly ought to have
known that Governor Roberts and
Chief Justice Moore were incor-
porators, and that the administra-
tors, with Ex-Governor Lubbock as
treasurer, appointed by Governor
Throckmorton, were continued ia
office until their successors should be
appointed. [Const., art. 16, sec. III
! In fact, the university was incorpo-
| rated and organized.
The seventeenth legislature, wish
ing to make the state university its
| thunder, or from some other motive,
| chose not to consult the existing or
| ganization, and not to directly or
even indirectly repeal the existing
very sufficient charter, but to, un-
necessarily, at the public cost, enact
a new act by the same title and for
the same object. Accordingly it en-
acted an act to establish the univer-
sity of Texas when such O universi-
ty was already incorporated and or
ganized. The last section of this
new charter provides "that all laws
and parts of laws in conflict with
this act be, and the same are hereby
repealed" but does it repeal the act
! of, February II, 1858? 1t has the
same object and title. 1t is reitera-
tive, not repeating in its nature. 1t
undertakes to re-elect Utth0W
~seadSng the title of the act of Feb
,. W " II, 1858, and to dpI 81
i, ..f-r-ur pIIrrtr rsIo--,, scc.g
ene ooas to it, and without in its IT,
reIerrIng hown that it was intend
tis haylng s. 'atOry thereof. While
ed to be amenu Srepents.u a more
it substitutes edni,,istrotnrs y y
pompous word for narhoi change %
it makes but trivial .ct;on 10 5n
IN section IL (Which is S, che treas
both acts), providing that"l. treas.
urer of the state shall be the fha
urer of the university funds"
word "funds" being dropped, which
does not in the slightest degree alter
the sense. AS the "sections amend
ed," excepting only section ~, are
not re-enacted and published at
length as such, Sopot this new char
ter unconstitutional, null and void2
If so, why are the people to vote
under it? 1t attempts by sections
% and % to provide for a very pref
ty job-an unlimited as to the num-
Der "board of visitors" who, with the
"board of regency, shall be paid
from the available university fund"
Governor Roberts did not approve
of this new charter, but was IL not
his plain duty, as ex-oflicio president
of the board of administrators of
the original university, to have
vetoed it?-Austin Correspondence
Houston Post.