San Marcos free press. [volume] (San Marcos, Tex.) 1877-1892, 1886-10-21
MIsapplIcatIon of Public school Funds.

TO he Lac and 10 The Testim0ny."
This passage OF Scripture remains
applicable to all questions where thore
is an acknowledged rule or standard
for their settlement. In accordance
Herewith, we refer TO the Report OF
tho Finance Committee and che law
adduced by them for the settlement
of tho question raised by Judge Kone
in last weeks Cresset, rs to the truth
Of the editorial paragraph in our last
entitled "Needs Looking After" A
careful porusal of said Report will
show that we gave tho substantial
facts" OF the matter, as we then
stated. We mean of course that por-
ton of the Report which speaks OF
the misrepresentation of the school
funds, or failure to invest according
to law said funds. What are the
facts as stated in said REPORT Why,
first, that the county owes to the per-
manent school fund the sum of ST.
AL. 70, which has been borrowed and
used by the countyfo the purpose OF
paying dect of the county, viz: the
interest accruing on county bonds; and,
second, that there is now in the hands
of the County Treasurer the further
sum of 81 ,2S2.07 in cash belonging
to said permanent school fund, which
has not been invested in bonds
as directed by law, making altogether
$2,72467, none of which has been
applied thus far as the law directs.
The only mistake we made was as to
the amount, and as we took no notes
of our brief and casual conversation
with Messrs. Green and Giesen, it
seems we misunderstood them on that
point. In all else the report sus'
tains us. 1t shows that this large
sum of S2,724.67 should have been
invested in Understanding State
or United States bonds, and of course
the loan TO the county of part OF it
and the retaining idle in the county
treasury of the remainder were plain
violations of the law. In proof we
quote from the law itself as referred
to by the committee, being n clause
of Section 6, Article 37O3, Revised
Statutes. After providing for the
disposal OF the school lands by the
several counties, it closes thus:
"Said lands and the proceeds there
of, when sold, shall be held by said
counties alone as O trust for the ben
eft of public schools therein; said
proceeds to be invested in bonds of
the State of Texas or of the United
States, and only the interest thereon
to be used and expended annually"
From the above it will be apparent
that the law has not been tracked in
several important respects. There is
constitutional provision that "no law
[evenJ shall ever be enacted appropri-
ating any part of the permanent or
available school fund to any other
purpose whatever And the clause
we have quoted above in full express
ly provides that the proceeds of the
sales of school lands "shaU be held By
said counties alone as a trust for the
benefit Of public schools therein; said
proceeds to be invested IN BONDS
OF THE STATE OF TEXAS OR
OF THE UNITED STATES, and
ONLY THE INTEREST THEREON TO BE USED
and expended annually"
1t is manifest from the above that |
81, ALTO of the permanent school
fund has been applied by our county
authorities having charge of the same
to law, and that S1,28297
have not been loaned out as the law
directs. It is clear the first named
sum will have to be paid back, and
raised by taxation.
Mark, we do not impugn the mo-
lives of Judge Kone. and our County
Commissioners; they no doubt meant
we'll. But we submit whether public
officials should not set the example
Of a strict compliance with the plain
etter of tho law.
Wewill only add that we do not think
Treasurer Patterson can be Justly
blamed for the above state of facts.
Il was not reasonably to have been
expected that he would act contrary
10 the directions of the County Judge
md Commissioners.
|