The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1897-01-07
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS.
Desired Legislation in lis Behalf.

Among the measures proposed in the
Twenty-third legislature in 1893 was n
proposition to divide the public domain
Of the state between the university ana
| the free public schools-not equally, but
allowing the former a liberal proportion
say one-third or onc-fourth of the land.
| The bill was important, not merely as a
naked proposition, but in the light of
| contrast with the provisions made for
other state universities, showing the ad-
vantagcs of n university state tax, par
| ticularly as in Michigan. whose univer-
| sity is the leading one of the great west,
and indeed the first real model of com
| petc state university in the United
| States.
That great institution is endowed with
| an educational state tax, known as the
| university tax" by which the income
| of the university grows proportionatly
| or in some measure correspondingly with
| the increasing wealth of the state, so
that its support is neither matter of
constant controversy, nor recurring legis-
!ation, further than the legislature de-
Sircs of its own motion to act in its be-
half Thus, as educational demands in
crease with the growth of the state, the
university is developed and enabled MAIN
ly from its separate resources, to keep
mp with the general development and edu-
cational progress of other states. In
this way the tax is not felt to be burden
some, as the increased income from it
simply corresponds with the growth of
the state in wealth to justify, as well as
in population to require improved edu-
cotional measures and means of every
character.
Not only has Michigan, but other
states, some of them purposely to profit
by her example, have adopted the plan
of state university tax as sure and
the readicst method likely to be ac-
ccptable for providing university fund
that would be at once available without
waiting for accumulations from interest
on bonds or other slow and irregular
process of land sales, and because, too. it
removes such institutions from uncertain
dependence upon special legislation for
their maintenance.
The university tax in Wisconsin is one
eight of n mill on the dollar In Ne
braska it is three~eighths; in California
one-tenth, and in Colorado three-tifths.
which permanent incomes are generally
supplemented by liberal appropriations
by the legislature for building and other
expenditures for the universities.
Taking Nebraska university as an
illustration OF the rapid increase by the
luN DltNIHloll, mainly w
rived from the tax, increased b-ennially
as follows:
For the years 1SS3-'S4 during which
period the Texas university went into
operation the income was for the two
years. S107, 1874: for 1856 S6, $40, S74;
for 1SS7-'sS, S17O5SS.
For 1SS9-'9O. when the above figures
were given. the income for the two years
was estimated at from S225,00O to $3.50
600. which for one year would be large
ly in excess of the present annual in
come of the University of Texas. And
so it occurs that with all the great land
ed provision made for the Texas univer-
sty. its income falls far short in avail
ability of the tax plan for producing the
early revenue which would probably
have put the university into operation
before the wGr, or at least long before
there was any practical attempt made for
it's organization.
\ university tax, even at the rate of
that of California, of onc-tenth of n mill
ON the assessed taxable values of Texas.
would produce some seventy or eighty
Thousand dollars, whereby supplemented
with the university revenue from other
sources would make an income of over
100000 for the university.
Why should we hesitate to adopt the
tax nlan which has so rapidly and salts
factorily promoted the early develop
mcut of state universities in younger and
smaller states than Texas?