The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1909-06-10
FATE Of BUILDING
IN COURTS HANDS
University of Utah Asks Writ
of Mandate Against Land
Board.
DECISION MEANS MUCH
TO BIG INSTITUTION
Refusal of Loan by Commits
sioners Comprises Basis Of
the Action.

Inc tate OF the state university's pro-
posed S25o.000 administration building is
now In the hands of the supreme couri.
Following the state land Joartl's re-
fusal TO advance the first s125o0 OF fh.
f2"oopo OF the univcrsitys permanent
land fund, which the last legislature au-
thor>zed the land board TO turn over to
the university for central building.
which refusal was based upon Attorney
General \. r. Barnes opinion to thu. ef-
feet that the intended conversion Is NOT
conversion. nor 4 loan, but. in reality
Is an expenditure. and as such would
cause the state expenditures To pass the
t,eD,. aent INIT and is therefore nnconst!tu-
TO the supreme court for a writ OF man
date TO compel the land boa rd TO fmn
over the money.
Based on Affidavit.
Ine application. based upon tho sfG-
davit OF w w. Ritter. chairman OF the
university board os regents. was applied
Tor about closing time "Wednesday after
noon and an alternative writ was issued
directing the land commissioners To an
pear AT 10 O'Clock Monday morning june
2l. and show cause why the writ shall
not be made permanent. The appiira-
tion covers only the 500 first asked
for and refused but ii the university is
successful in this IT VIII mean The pay
rnept OF the whole SUM. the application
being To test the constitutionaiity OF the
law.
The application is based mainly upon
| the IolloWing section Of the session laws
! OF 1909: The state board or land COM
missioners is hereby authorized and di-
rccted To convert sufficient Investments
of the University OF Utah permanent land
| fund into cash and at once paw the same
as we'll as all cash on hand or that may
hereafter be received. belonging To such
| fund AS a loan to the University OF
Utah. until such payments shall equal
$3.50, 900; provided. that such loan shall
be debt OF the university and not OF
| the sta
Further Provision
Section ,. of the same chapter. pro
VideS that the loan or conversion OF the
| university permanent land fund shall
constitute an investment thereof and
| loan only and must be repaid. In re-
! turn for the advancement OF the money.
the university is required TO execute its
promissory note. bearing per cent in
| terest annually. payable January | End
/ July of each year. TO the land hoard.
Tire ilrSt loan was requested aboHt-uip@-
| weeks ago, the university at The same
| time. rendering It's promissory note To
secure payment. but the land board, af-
ter getting an adverse opinion from the
attorney general holding that The pro
posed loan would pass the state debt
limit and therefore Unconstitutional,
refused TO advance the money and
turned the note. All this Is set out In the
applcat tion for the writ. along with TIE
expressed belief that the refusal WAS
made solely for the reason that the land
board considers the law uncons titutional.
The alternative vrI, issued "Wednesday
is directed at w. d. Candand. president;
w II Farnsworth.' secretary. and Ar
mold G. Giauuuc, NJ. NJ steele and w.
II. Thain, members of the land board.