The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1884-03-28

depts of the University contracted
bv any warrant Or auth rlty o1 law,
and by Inference that no approprla-
ton f money should he MADE by
the Legislature for purposes not
previously anticipated or expressly
jueti1ed by law. Blu, - such a
warrant or Suthority az ne won d
have, in fact au essential Justitirs-
tiou in all appropriat ons made by
the Legislature?
Incorporated in the same bill con-
tanning the item Of appropriation to
the University. is anrher of
IS12,61O.l2 for deficiency in
Jurors and WITNESSES fees in
/ 1872. Is there any more gu
thority Of law TO justify the latter
than the former? he same apprO-
priatiou bill contains other items,
and all appropriation bills contain
the same or.similar items, thai are
not prescribed by Jaw, yeJ are just
and proper, as they a made in the
interest OF the State. There is no
question at all as to the authority
and pra cSice Of the LEGISLATURE 10
appropriate mon y for services done
the State, whether spch services e
rend cred be ore or after tie sppto-
pristiOn.
The facts as stated in the Chan
cellor'r report to the Legislature
show mos, clearly that the debts of
the Univefs ty, here referred to-,
were contracted in the interest Of
the State, to save the forfeit and
destruction of State property. aud
to enhance its value and utility.
In 1850 the LegisIa ure appropri-
ated $4,000 for purchasing grounds
and erecting thereon a suitable
building for University purposes.
Nest OF this money was immedi-
atsly expended towards erecting a
building on the finest public square
of Salt Lake City, the munircent
gift Of its Council.
The Chancellor and Regents. fully
confident that an appropriation suf-
ficient to complete the building
would be made at the session # the
Legislature in 1882, left the building
in an unfinished and ex oosed condi-
ton. They were disappointed, how.
ever, in their hopes of assistance by
reason Of the Executive veto. The
unfinished building was therefore
left exposed to waste and destruc-
ton, and by the terms Of the deed
of conveyance, the square and en-
tire property would have been sub
ject to forfeit and liable to revert to
the original conveyor.
1t was then, and under these cir
! cumstances, that the Chancellor
and Regents with the other friends
of education, came to the relief of
the Institution and subscribed lib
orally and In good faith, to continue
the work Of constructing the new
building. 1t was in this wsy the
so-called debt of the University was
contracted. The Chancellor and Re-
gents were the only guardians Of
this property, and they would have
been recreant to their duty to the
State had they not sought to devise
some plan to avert the waste, de-
structfon and forfeiture of such
property and lasting injury to the
! educational interests of the Terri>
tory, all of which were then immi
nent. Most certainly, if the Legis-
lature has not warrant or authority
to appropriate from the public
treasury for such and similar pur-
poses in the interest Of the Common
wealth, then multiplied proceed snts
are no warrant or authority.
1t is evident, therefore, that il the
Legislature has the right to appr0-
pirate for past benefactions &c the
State, then there is authority i'm
piled if not explicit. to justify the
payment of the debt of the Univer-
sity now in question. Moreover, by
the charter OF the institution, it is
enjoined upon the Chancellor and
Regents that they "do all things
that guardians and fathers ought TO
d." which is explicit legal author.
ity if the contracting OF this debt is
viewed az necessity Or duty on
the part OF the Chaucel.Lr and
Board.
Again, in the second and third
communications here q iOt.d, the
Governor intimates that dcctrinsl
sectarian tenets are taught In the
University. That such tenet5 are
not taught in the University the
Governor had ample evidence, b tn
official and incidental, when be
sent these communica ions 10 the
Leg slaturs. He bad in his possess
sion the report Of the Cha cellor to
the Legislature, in which il was
clearly stated that sertarian tenets
were not taught In the insti ution,
and The most emphatic proofs given
that this covert charge on the part
Of the Governor was false.
Besides, the Governor had q
direct statement to the same effect
from the president Of the institu len
and one of its leading profes .or.,
whom he invited to wait upon him
for the express purpose of receiving
information in relation to the
studies and the character of the in
struction given in the University.
That this objection to approving
the appropriation to the University
was not real or sincere, was Gle .rly
shown when the Legislature re-
turned the bill to him with a eau e
inserted, fOrbIddinp Instruction in