The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1888-05-03
TIE rNrYERsIrY CLAIMS.

.ure that the last land donated to tie
University was understood TO be in salts
faction of all its claims upon the state,
and consequently they are unTilling to
obligation to return the money which has
been diverted from the University fund
for general revenue purposes. So far
from this being the case, the history of
the institution shows that the University
hiss never received full benefit Of the
provisions made for it by the fathers of
the Republic of Texas and that the states
donations since have been only so many
resolutions in land and money as far
as they went, but falling vastly short of
full restoration even yet of what right
fully belongs to the University under the
original provisions made for its establish
mem.
The last donation of one million acre
of land did not, by over one-half, make
good the domain of which the University
had been deprived by the state, for, as
may be seen by reference to the original
grant and to subsequent legislation, it has
been deprived, as the facts and figures
demonstrate, of over one million
two hundred thousand acres of land.
All this has been done while the Univer-
sity was but an infant, unable to protest
against acts that violated the spirit and
intention of other acts and against spoil
alton of its rights by the constitution of
1876, as that constitution impaired the
act of 1858, which had donated to the
University 100000 United States bonds,
then in the state treasury, confirmed to it
the grant of fifty leagues of land, donated
by act of 1889, and set aside every tenth
section that might thereafter be surveyed
for school purposes under grants to rail-
roads. There were no !aches on the part
of the University all this time, because it
had not been established, to assert its
claims before the legislature or other
tribunal, and was like a minor without
parent or guardian, save as the state chose
to watch and protect Its interests. With
no vitality for action and no friend to
plead its cause against the imperious
action of the Legislature, the state used its
funds and diverted its lands at pleasure,
and even without protest, for the states
own purposes. And now at this late date
all that is asked is that the state, in a
spirit of justice and in the amplitude of
its power and resources, make reasonable
restitution.
Abiding to these facts in the history of
the University of Texas, Judge Terrell
in his speech in the senate April 10, 1882,
on the bill thsn pending to set aside land
for the University, said: "Had that law
TACT of 1859 not been disturbed by the
constitution of 1876 the University would
then (1682) have owned 100000 acres of
land, instead of having to apply to the
legislature of 1852 for a donation, which,
of its endowment. At the very time when
the effort was made to despoil it of its
endowment by a clause in the constitution
of 1876 (the effect of which those
who made that instrument could not fore
see) there was then due to the University
100000 acres of land. But, by the con-
stitution of 1876, all the alternate sections
reserved by the state out of grants to
railroads, including every tenth section
given to the University, we're appropri-
ated for public free schools, and 100000
of acres only were given for the endow-
ment of the University"
Thus it will be seen that the consti-
tuition of 1876 in effect deprived the Uni
versity of 100000 acres, which it then
owned under existing laws, and
deprived it also of every tenth section
surveyed since, amounting in 1882 to
100000 acres more. Senator Terrell
might have added subject to further in
crease, as the surveys, if extended instead
of being stopped, would have produced
So much for the spoliation to which the
land endowments of the University had
been subjected by the constitution of
1864 spoliation sggregating, as shown,
over 100000 acres till reduced by the
last donation of 100000 acres by the
Eighteenth legislature. This action of
the constitution of 1876 was clearly in
violation of that provision of the federal
constitution which declares that no state
shall deprive any person of property
without due process of law, for the Uni
versity had been made a legal entity or
person, and could no more Justly than
any other person or individual be de-
prived of the inheritance from its foun-
ders, the fathers of Texas either by state
constitution or legislative enactments.
Even under the common law, father can
not take back or impair donation to his
child. Yet here was parent, as it were,
depriving its child of vast domain with
out protest or legal action for its pro-
lection.
DRIFT OF REPUBLICAN SENTIMENT.
Wednesday republican conventions were