The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1909-05-30
STATE DEBT AND UNIVERSITY

We are sorry to see that Attorney
General Barnes found it his duty to hold
against the application Of the State
University to borrow funds upon its
resources There is still chance how
ever, that the State Supreme Court may
find different. For it seems that AN in,
sttuton with so large an endowment
should realize something upon that en-
dowment when 1t needs money SO much,
| The finding is on the ground that tho
State by allowing this borrowing, would
in effect bc borrowing itself and thus
pass the limit on debt which IT may
incur, as fixed in the constitution.
The central or administration build
ing of the University is an urgent need
of that institution at this time. The
quarters arc crampcd; the work of the
University is hampered, and much in
convenience results through the lack of
this administration building. IT would
cost some $250,000 TO construct 1t, but
an institution with the saline lands,
and with the large land grant that the
without trouble; and il will be mis-.
fortune If the legal obstacles in the
way Of this desire are not insurmount
able.
The money needed 10 build this struc-
ture is in the possession of the State
Land Board This Board is authorized
TO lend under the law, in various di-
rections. 1t is simply a question of the
construction of the law, whether 1t can
lend TO this purpose. We trust that the
final determination Will be Affirmative,
else it will be not only serious handi-
cap on the University TO be restricted
in this way. but il will be something of
an anomaly 10 find an institution of
such enormous wealth in cndowmcnts
and of such eventual resources, barred
from raising Il small and needed sum
upon its holdings. The view that such
loan would oyerpass the debt limit
of the State and that the State. itself,
must come In on this proposition, is
probably fortified by some law, or con-
struction of law, that seems good to
the Attorney General.
Aud yet, as a proposition of business
and administration one would naturally
hold that the proposition is not sound;
that the State is not necessarily IN
volved at all. and that IN adding this
wealth of building 10 It's assets, the
University is, in fact. not involving the
State in debt. The contrary view would
indicate that the State is 10 handle the
University endowment of saline and
other lands as part of the State assets.
To take that view, however. would be
to deprive the University Of the con
troll of property granted TO IT. 10 be
sure, the management of the University
property is doubtless subject to State
control, but it does not necessarily fol-
low that the State can take possession
and claim the University and its as
sets, as assets Of its own. But in order
to deny this it would appear TO follow
that neither is the State obligated IN
ease the University should borrow on
its assets And il the State should au-
thorize the University to mako this
loan. the State would exercise over the
affairs Of the University the control
that would seem to be contemplated by
law.
A guardian. in managing the estate
OF a ward, docs not necessarily impll-
cate his own property IN that estate,
either in the way Of assets or liabilities
And as the State would appear 10 he
practically in the same relation TO the
University that the guardian is to the
ward, it is quite possible that the Stale
Supreme Court will find that the rule
of the guardianship and wsrdship would
apply to this case, and that the State
is NOT necessarily involved at all, were
the University TO borrow upon its own
assets, the State having previously con
scuted to the transaction,