1861, the State received interest on the same, amounting to $1,625,441.17, making total principal and interest $6,625,441.17." [Internal Commerce of the United States 1889.]

In the Seventh legislature in November, 1887, Mr. Kittrell, chairman of the house committee on education to whom was refered a resolution instructing them to enquire into the expediency of establishing one or more State Universities, reported recommending "the establishment of a State University as soon as practicable." Mr Kittrell spoke at length in favor of the report and stated that he had just learned that the senate committee had decided to recommend a liberal appropriation in land and money for this object. He stated there was still in the State treasury $500,000 unexpended balance of the United States bonds not needed for any other purpose.

Mr. Jennings favored the report and took occasion to argue that the medical department should be located at Galveston or Houston, and that the literary department should not be at Austin. "I have three sons" he said, "and I say it in the presence of God and my country that I would let them be uneducated stock raisers or mule drivers, before, in the effort to become well educated, they should learn the accomplishments of Congress avenue." He wanted the literary department fixed on some "virgin league of land."

Mr. Chilton preferred two universities, but would go with the majority if they voted that proposition down and would vote for a single university, and advocate its location at Austin. Mr. Murrah (subsequently Governor Murrah) wanted a single university, provided it should be favorably located in the eastern portion of the State, where the country was more healthy than in the prairie portions. Mr. Everett said: "It seems there are gentlemen here who are disposed to go beyond the example of every other State in the Union, and force upon the people of the State of Texas the establishment of two universities. We are able to build but one university. Let us have that and its great benefits." Mr. Norton protested against taking the land and money of the people $400,000 and 442,800 acres of land, as

proposed, to establish one mammoth university for the benefit of a privileged class, that the children of the rich may be educated and those of the poor neglected. He would favor appropriating the entire fund contemplated for the university to the common schools of the State.

Messrs. Aycock and Buckley spoke in favor of a single University.

Mr. Locke, speaker of the House, did not believe the people were ready for a University and opposed its establishment. Mr. Price and others favored having but one and deprecated the proposition of two Universities, as rival institutions that would foster sectional feeling and discord among the people. Mr. Brown favored the proposition for but one University, but not so large an appropriation for it as was proposed.

Mr. Dennis advocated the establishment of but one University, arguing that "with a population of over 600,000 people and $700,000 in the treasury and a revenue of $255,000 and the State free from debt we may safely appropriate from $200,000 to $400,000 for the purpose of erecting the necessary buildings that will stand as just monuments of State pride and be of incalculable benefit to thousands."

Mr. Whaley argued that the institution was antidemocratic, not for the greatest good to the greatest number; that it would be "a magnificent failure," an "intolerable burden upon the people," and that its establishment would be legislating for a special class, and that class the favorites of fortune, who were the only ones that could and would take advantage of such an institution, and who were able to take care of themselves.

Mr. Ward, for political reasons, in case there should ever be a division of the State, advocated two Universities. Would it be right, then, he argued, that one section alone should possess this mammoth enterprise, reared up and maintained by the common blood and treasury of the whole State?

Mr. Burnet said that he would vote against the bill, as we were acting too hastily. "The question," he argued "should be thoroughly canvassed before the

people and their voices should be heard, as they are the ones to furnish the money to build this University." He wanted the common school system placed upon a firm basis before 'vesting the people's money and domain in any enterprise of doubtful expediency.'

Mr. Hicks discussed the sectional question as likely to be affected by having two Universities.

February 8, 1858, the bill relating to a State University came up in the House, the pending question being its final passage; and the ayes and noes being demanded, several members asked to be excused from voting. The House refusing to excuse them, some of them declined to vote. A discussion ensued as to points of order and modes of enforcing the rules, in which Mr. Speaker Locke, Messrs. Bee, Kittrill, Walling, Reeves, Evans, Lee, Latham and others participated. The clerk finally proceeding with the call, Mr. Poag, when his name was called, after giving his views in regard to the history of the previous action of the House on the subject, and the present position of the question, concluded as follows:

I

"Now there is in our constitution a regulation which declares, that when any proposition has been once distinctively put to a legislature and rejected, that legislature is forbidden to act upon that particular proposition again. And it makes no difference to me how it may be changed, if it embraces the substance of the proposition which has been rejected. I feel it to be my bounden duty to obey this provision of the constitution. have no conscientious scruples to prevent me from voting upon this question. I feel as much bound to vote against the passage of a law which I regard as unconstitutional, in consequence of previous action of the legislature, as I would feel myself bound to vote for a law which I regard as constitutional, and for the benefit of my constituents and the State at large. For these reasons I vote against the whole matter.

Mr. Rainey said: "On account of the constitutional objections urged by the gentleman from Panola (Mr. Poag)-because a resolution upon the same subject, and embracing the same substance, has been rejected heretofore by this body, and the constitution prohibiting

the passage of a law, bill, or resolution that has been once rejected, by either branch of the legislature-I do not believe we now have a right to act upon it; and because, although I have been very anxious to vote for a bill of this character in some shape, the bill now before the House does not meet my approbation, without any further excuse or attempt at paliation or mitigation, or anything else, I vote No."

Mr. Reeves: "I ask to be excused from voting, not upon the grounds which have been stated by any other gentleman, but under the 60th rule, which says that no member shall vote upon any question, in the event of which he is immediately, or particularly interested. I fell that I am particularly interested in this matter and I wish to be excused under the rule." The House refusing to excuse him, he proceeded: "I always submit cheerfully to whatever the House says. But I do say that I believe this body has once acted upon the same question, and that if we were to pass it now, under the constitution it could not become a law, I therefore vote no."

Mr. Waterhouse made some remarks inaudible to the reporter. He said he believed this bill would have been as unconstitutional, if presented for the first time, as it is under present circumstances. He would therefore vote no.

After the roll call had been called through, Mr. Speaker Locke said; "The chair is informed that we lack one of a quorum. 1 do hope that gentlemen will not assume the responsibility of defeating this measure by refusing to vote, It is a fearful responsibility to take."

Mr. Latham: "I call for the announcement of those who have refused to vote."

Mr. Chilton: "I am about to do a thing which I am not satisfied that I am right in doing. But I believe we were sent here to live for each other; and my friends are directly interested in the passage of the bill at this time. I have fought it as long as I could in accordance with my convictions of duty. But as it is evident there is a large and respectable majority of this House in favor of this legislation, and by recording my

vote No, I put myself right upon the record, I will do So. I vote No."

The bill passed by a vote of 48 yeas to 13 nays.

Mr. Chilton at once introduced a bill entitied "An act setting apart fifty leagues of land for the establishment of a Literary College in Eastern Texas." The bill was read, but the House refused to suspend the rules for its consideration.

The proceedings are interesting to show the sentiment in the minds of the representatives of the people at that period in the history of Texas.

UNIVERSITY ACT OF 1858.

"An

Following is the full text of the act of 1858: act to establish the University of Texas." Whereas, From the earliest times it has been the cherished design of the people of the Republic, and of the State of Texas that there shall be established within her limits an institution of learning for the instruction of the youths in the land in the highest branches of learning, and in the liberal arts and sciences, and to be so endowed, supported and maintained as to place within the reach of our people, whether rich or poor, the opportunity of conferring upon the sons of the State a thorough education, and as a means whereby the attachment of the young men of the State to the interest, the institution, the rights of the State and the liberties of the people, might be encouraged and increased, and to this end hitherto liberal appropriations of the public domain have been made; and, whereas, the increasing population and wealth of the State and the tendency of events indicate the fitness of now putting that cherished design into effect; therefore,

Section 1. Be it enacted by the legislature of the State of Texas, That there is hereby established within the state an institution of learning to be styled "The University of Texas," to be located at such place and in such manner as may be determined by law.

Sec. 2. The sum of one hundred thousand dollars of the United States bonds in the treasury not otherwise appropriated is hereby set apart and appropriated to the establishment and maintenance of the same.