, 1906-02-01

be reasonably said that the dissolution
IF an institution oyerthrows the expires
sed will of the people when there has
never been an expression of the popu'
lar will upon the subject? At the cleo
tion of 1892, by virtue Of the act OF
1891, the electors were given the choice
of TWO alternatives and W only; eth
er to vote for a place as a seat for the
agricultural college, or not to vote at
all. That there should be such a col
llege had been determined by the legis-
%lature beforehand; n the constitu-
ton does not require that any other
choice shall be exercised by the people
in the premises, except as to location.
The combined constitutional provis-
ions, as we think they must be read and
construed, confer upon the legislature
the sole power of establishing public
ton that they shall not be located ex-
cept under general laws and by vote of
the people. There is nothing in that
restraint which, in our opinion, can be
construed to require an institution once
established by the legislature to be per-
petuated. Having all the power that
exists anywhere to establish an insti-
tuition, it necessarily has the power to
dissolve it, unless the doing so involves
the violation of some constitutional
provision. And, for the reasons stat
ed, the conclusion seems to us newt
able that the dissolution by the legisla-
ture of an institution established by it,
though located by vote of the people, is
mot in ~contravention of the clause of
the constitution requiring the question
of location to be settled by the people
themselves"
one question raised in the case was
whether the devise of certain properly
by one Philip Weiser amounted to a
contract which the repeating act would
violate. The court holds that it does
not, though the court does not decide
what the effect of the repeating act
will be upon such donation. But the
opinion of the court goes on to show
that the fact that after the founding
and establishment of a public state in
stitution by legislative enactment
property may have been given. devised
or bequeathed to it, or in trust for its
benefit, has never been deemed suffic
lent to change the character of the in
stitution, o deprive the legislature OF
its ~plenary power of alteration, amend
ment or eve repeal of the act. In such
eases there is no contract relation be.
tween the state and the donor. Such
donations must be presumed to have
been made with knowledge of the pub,
lie character of the institution and the
power of the legislature to control it
1t would be strange, indeed, if the leg.
islature could be robbed of its control
over a state institution, or if such an
institution, without legislative consent.
could be made over into a private cor
poration, through the mere voluntary
act of a citizen or a number of citizens
in making a gift to the institution
The court, therefore, concludes upon
the whole case that a. There is nc
legislation which could authorize the
payment of the money by the state
treasurer to the treasurer of the agri
cultural college located at Lander, ev
en- though the repeating act of 1905 had
not been passed, and, (2) that the re
'pealing act operated and was ~effectua'
to discontinue the agricultural college
as a public institution, and therefore
to deprive it of any capacity to receive
the government funds. What effect il
any the repeating act may have upon
the property previously obtained bv the
college for its benefit is not decided OF
considered.