| OCR Text |
Show STATE DEBT AND UNIVERSITY. Wo arc 6orry to see that Attorney-General 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 a chance, however, how-ever, that the State Supreme Court may llild different. For it seems that an institution in-stitution with so largo an endowment should realize something upon that endowment en-dowment when it needs money so much. Tho finding is on the ground that tho State b3" allowing this borrowing, would in effect bo borrowing itself and thus pass the limit on debt which it mn3' incur, as fixed in tho constitution. The central or administration building build-ing of the Universits' is an urgent need of that institution at this time. Tho quarters arc cramped; tho work of tho TJnivcrsit3' is hampered, and much inconvenience in-convenience results through the lack of this administration building. It would cost some $250,000 lo construct it, but, an' institution with the saline lands, and with the large land grant that t ho Universit3 has, ought to raise this sum without trouble; and it will bo a misfortune mis-fortune if the legal obstacles in the wiy of this desire arc not insurmountable. insurmount-able. The mono3' needed to build this structure struc-ture is in the possession of the Stato Land Board. This Board is authorized to lend, under the law, in various directions. di-rections. It is siniph' a question of the construction of tho law, whether it can lend lo this purpose. We trust that the final determination will be affirmative, else it will bo not onl' a serious handicap handi-cap on the University to be restricted in this way. but' it will bo somolhiug of an anomaly to find an institution of such enormous wealth in endowments and of such eventual resources, barred from raising a small and needed sum upon its holdings. The view that such a loan would ovcrpnss the debt limit of the State and that tho State, itself, must como in on this proposition, is probably fortified 1)3" some law, or construction con-struction of law, that seems good to the Altornc3- General. Ami yet, as a proposition of business and administration, one would natural' hold that tho proposition is not sound; that tho State is not necessarily involved in-volved at all. and that in adding this wealth of building to its assets, tho Univcrsil3- is, in fact, not involving the Slate in debt. Tho contrary view would indicate that the State is to handle tho University endowment of salino and other lands as part of tho State assets. To take that viow, however, would be to deprive the University of the con- j trol of property granted to it. To be sure, the management of the Univcrsit.y properf3r is doubtless subject lo State control, but it docs not necessarily follow fol-low that tho Stato can tako possession and claim Iho Univcrsifi" and its assets, as-sets, as assets of its own. But in order to dcn.y this it would appear to follow that neither is Iho Stato obligated in case the University should borrow on its assets. And if the Stale should authorize au-thorize the University to make this loan, the State would exercise over tho affairs of the Universit3' tho control that would seem to be contemplatod lry law. - A guardian, in managing the estate of a ward, docs not necessarily implicate impli-cate his own property in that estate, cither in the way of assels or liabilities. And as the Stato would appear to be practically in the same relation lo the Univcrsit3' that tho guardian is to tho ward, it is quito possible that, tho Stale Supreme Court will find that the rule of tho guardianship and wardship would appl3' to this case, and that tho State is not-necessarib' involved at all, were tho UnivcrsiU- to borrow upon its own asspfs, tho Stato having previously consented con-sented to tho transaction. |
