Show tile tiie university OF DESERET ITS orfice oprice lis its kerly reply TO governor U MURRAYS inaccuracies A COMPLETE refutation to the chancellor and board of regents of the university sity of deseret GENTLEMEN your committee to whom was referred the consideration and ref refutation of some statements and insinuations made by the governor of utah ell eli 11 murray in relation to the university of deseret Deser ct contained in certain communications of ills his to the legislative assembly of hereinafter anaf ter quoted beg leave to make the sub the f following ol lowing communications from governor murray in which reference is made to the university of deseret appear in the proceedings of the legislative isla tive assembly of utah TERRITORY OF UTAH EXECUTIVE OFFICE salt lake city feb 25 1884 W TV cluff president of council in obedience to the requirements of the law of congress organizing the territory of f utah and aua in unison with the decast decision on of f the supreme court of the territory 0 r and with the ruling of the utah commission co assion and looking lookin to the promo promotion t to of education und under er a law of the Terri territory tor establishing the university of the state state of deseret which provides for a chancellor and twelve regents in whom I 1 the powers of the university shall be vested I 1 have the honor to nominate and do 0 hereby nominate to the council for the offices therein provided and for the term prescribed by law the following persons to be chancellor balnes jaine s sharp to be regents john R park I 1 ark john morgan B F cummings jr james T hammond william willia in IT W cluff ciu clu J it walker james T little john T c caine alne parley L williams james dunn le grande young and J E dooley for treasurer lewis S hills I 1 respectfully request the concurrence of your honorable body and by and with your consent I 1 shall be pleased 1 to appoint them 1 I am very respectfully ELI il 11 M MURRAY tl ty governor TERRITORY or OF UTAH EXECUTIVE or OFFICE fice salt lake march 13 1884 don hon ron jame mames sharp speaker of the mouse house SIR slit I 1 return herewith 11 II F no 85 I 1 entitled arl ail an ali act making appropriations for general purposes to be amended if it meets with your approval as follows item 8 should be corrected so as to read witness ess in criminal cases and jurors item 9 same correction item 10 1 I object to this appropriation because the organization bation is illegal in lii that the regents and chancellor are not named in accordance with section 1857 of the revised statutes of the united states and because over of said appropriation is set aside to pay debts of the university there are arc no debts of the university ibon by any warrant or authority of law all alf appropriations of public money received by taxes upon all classes of citizens for educational purposes should bo be made with an unqualified provision that no doctrinal sectarian tenets should be tau taught ht or any particular belief required of di any pupil in attendance or applying for tor admission with such amendments I 1 shall be pleased to approve this appropriation the improvement of our common schools is of primary importance the amounts ap appropriated in this section if the legislature legislature LegisSa ture Is not pia pleased e sed to appropriate appropriate to the university I 1 respectfully u ly suggest should be d divided id e d pro ruta rata to the school districts for coin coln common moly moli school purposes ull uli under der a like provision r that no sectarian teaching in should should be taught therein the appropriation proposed in item 64 1 disapprove the objects for which this is made may may not apply to past years such provision for the future in i n my lly opinion will be just and proper I 1 approve of all the other items in the bill but I 1 disapprove item ten making the appropriation to the deseret university I 1 am very respectfully ELI ell eu 11 MURRAY ray nay governor TERRI terni TERRITORY cony cory or OF UTAH EXECUTIVE OFFICE I 1 silt SALT LAKE CITY march 1 1 von don james shap ebarp speaker of the house sir I 1 return herewith 11 F no 85 1 entitled an act making appropriation for general purposes Ay while lille an attempt has apar apparently enily beeri been made to meet the suggestions contained contain edin in the latter portion of my former message refu returning i aning the bill as to item 10 the f former ormer portion which can alone give life and effect to the endeavor to release the university from sectarian control has been entirely is ig nored tile the university with w the ad added ded strength of this laig larg large e ifft appropriation rhe opria t ion lon would be continued for le the future as in the past subject to the same objections presented in my iny former message in order to assure the necess necessary appropriations under the law for age the ordinary expenses of the governments there apparently remains but two way by which we may be enabled to secure the necessary and unobjectionable items of the bill the one is to organize leethe the university in accordance with the requirements of sec see 1857 of the revised statutes and make it possible impossible to be nonsectarian non sectarian in fact the other is to strike the objectionable item from the bill I 1 am very respectfully respect ELI en II 11 Mui mul tray iRAY governor in the communication first quoted doted nominating the chancellor and regents agents of the university tile the governor says in so doing tha eliat theis he is acting in obedience to the le requirements of the law of artir cons cops ess organizing the Terri territory tor y of utah and in unison with the tile decision of th the supreme court of the territory and with the ruling of the utah commission your committee have made diligent search and can find no undisputed authority in the organic act of the territory requiring ne the governor to nominate these officers of the university nor could they find any decision of the tie supreme court of the territory nor even any decision or ruling of the utah commission that will support this assumption on his part by the law daiv of congress the governor evidently refers to the seventh section 0 of f the organic act of the territory on n which he bases his claim of ri right 91 gm to nominate the meers officers omm off of the universia university sit tile the legislature on the other han hand maintains its right to elect these officers in joint session as provided in the act creating the he institution it is denied by the tiie legislature that this seventh seve nth section in any way gives authority to the claim of the governor if the wording of the section would permit a question as to its import the precedent of over thirty yc years ars of sanction and virtual endorsement by congress and previous pre 1 governors of the territory of the exercise of this right which the legislature claims in electing in these officers of the university ought to decide the legality of such election corion at least until a special authoritative rita tive court decision in the matter is obtained for until then the habit has all the force of law by acknowledged precedent certainly no authority can be found that gives absolute power howerto to the governor in this matter with reference to the decision of the supreme court ot of the the terr tern llory aluch the governor claims supports his llis a assumption tion in nominating the officers of sult suir the university niver sity allusion no doubt is made to the decision in the case of duncan vs mcallister involving the territorial the supreme court of the territory not being a court of last resort its decisions ci to have authority must conform to or at least not be counter to decisions of the higher courts previously rendered in similar cases in this lust instance e relating to the right of the governor to nominate a certain territorial ot officer nicer ricer not only was confidence in the decision weakened by its havi having n been given by a divided bench but it was rendered contrary to the decisions of the court of the united states in two previous cases viz clinton vs engelbrecht and snow vs united states the decision therefore never had authority it was void vold from the beginning having been prean pre an by the highee higher court yet this is the authority governor murray cites to fortify himself in persecuting the university ver sity next nest the governor claims that in his nomination nomina tiou of the officers of the university oie die he e acts in unison with the ruling of t the e utah commission the commission have not ruled in reference to the university officers and had they done so their ruling would have been without authority tion of the commission is defined oy ny the edmunds act and this law gives them no judicial power to decide deci dein in cases of this kind so we believe none of these grounds taken by the governor in defense of his action against the Universia re tena oie nie that neither the organic act nor the supreme court of t the e territory nor the commission have legally justified him him in the course bleas taken but it is maintained on good legal authority that the university omm off meers officers are arc not territorial errit orial officers inasmuch as t they h ey form forin no 10 part of the legislative ju judicial d iclal or executive eth departments of of the government that they are merely overseers of an institution created by law just as in the case of those of the insane asylum As the governor claims or seems to claim no right g to nominate the officers of the latter iatter institution ution he cannot consistently claim the right to nominate those of the university iver sity in his second communication here quoted the governor states th at the organization meaning the university is legal illegal in that them andreg audrea and regents are not named in accordance with section seven of the organic act assuming that the fhe chancellor and reg ants are arc not officers de jure which we do not concede would that affect the legality of the institution A defect in a portion of the lawor 1901 its execution does not necessarily in n validate valida the whole law so in either event whether the omm off meers officers of the un diversity be elected by the legislature or nominated by the governor the organization is still a legal lega ll 11 one but there areno are no proofs that the present ofil officers cers of the university are not de dejure jure officers the evidence already cited on the contrary supports the conclusion that they are de jure officers atall at all ali events they are arc the officers of the institution defalto de facto and atheree there we no others in existence to dispute their claim the governor says there are no debts of the university contracted by any warrant or authority of law and by by inference that no ampro appropriation of 01 money should be made by tie tta the legislature for purposes not previously anticipated or expressly justified by law but Is such a warrant or authority ity a as 8 he would have in fact an essential I 1 justification in all appropriations made by DV the legislature incorporated in the same bill tat tai nini the item of to the university is another of at for deficiency in jurors and witnesses fees in 1882 1881 11 3 Is there any more au an dhority lof of law to justify the latter iatter than the former the same appropriation bill contains other items and all appropriation bills contain the same or similar items that are not prescribed by law yet are just and proper as they aremady are made in the interest of the state there is no question at all ali alias allas as to the authority and practice of the legislature to appropriate money for services done the state whether such services be rend rendered erect defore defone crafter or after the act of appropriation the facts a as stated in the C chancellors report keport to the legislature show most clearly that the debts of the university ver sity here referred to were contracted in the interest of the state to save the forfeit and destruction of state property and to enhance its value and utility in 1880 ane legislature appropriated appropriated for purchasing groan grounds s and erecting thereon a suitable building for university pur pun purposes most of this sum was immediately med lately expended towards erecting a building on the tiie finest public square of salt lake city the munificent gift of its council the chancellor and regents fully confident that an aa apar appropriation 0 privation pria tion surn clent to complete the b building would be made it at the session of the legislature in 1882 left the building in an unfinished and ana and exposed condition th they e were disappointed however I 1 in n th their thein 11 hopes of assistance by reason ot othe the executive veto the unfinished build ing ingras was therefore left lett exposed to waste and destruction Jest ruction aul and ani by the terms of the deed of conveyance the square and entire property would have been beell subject to forfeit and liable to revert rever to the or orinal original inal inai conveyor it was then tren then and under these circumstances that the chancellor and re ke gents with other friends of education ca came me to to the relief of the institution and subscribed liberally and in faith to continue the work of constructing the new building it was in this way that the so called debt of the university was contracted the chancellor and regents were the only guardians of this property and they would have been recreant to their duty euty to the state had they thoy not sought to devise some plan pian to avert the waste destruction and forfeiture of such prop property erty and a iol injury TY to the educational interests ot 0 the AC territory all of which were then imminent most certainly if the legislature has not warrant or authority to appropriate from the public treasury for lon such and si similar nillar purposes in the interest int of the commonwealth then multiples multi pled precedents ece dents are arc no warrant or author I 1 ity ty it is 13 evident therefore that thab if the legislature slature has the right to ampro appropriate p r ti for past benefactions bene factions to the st state a then there is authority implied if not explicit to justify the pa payment ment ot of the delt dett debt of the university Univ university ersty ersly now in question moreover by the charter of the institution it is en cn the Chancel chancellor and keg reg lents rents that they do fall things that fathers and guardians of the institution ought to do chichis explicit lee iee legal p author ty 4 the contract contracting lilg ilIg of tills tilis debt is viewed as a necessity or a duty on the part of the chancellor and board again in the second and third communications here quoted the governor intimates that doctrinal sectarian tenets are taught in lri the university that such tenets are not taught in the university the governor IM had ample evidence both official and incidental when he sent these communications to the legislature he had in his possession the report of the chancellor to the legislature in which whick etwas clearly stated that sectarian tenets were not taught in the institution and the most emphatic proofs edven that thiet this covert charge on the part of the governor was false besides the governor had a direct statement to the same effect from froin the pr president asid ent of the institution and one of its leading professors whom he invited to wait upon him for the express pur pose of receiving information in relation to the studies and the mar aar character caracter acter of the instruction given in the hit bit sity that this objection to approving the appropriation ta W not real or sincere was clearly shown when the legislature returned the bill to him with a g clause inserted forbidding instruction in ili any sectarian |