Yeas-Anderson, Arnold, Ayers, Benavides, Brown, Burks, Cauthron, Davidson, Denman, Douglass, Faulk, Finlay, Foster, Frymier, Gaither, Granbury, Grant, Haidusek, Haynes, Hill, Johnston, Kendall, Kindred, Linn, Matthews, Nash, Oliver, Oxsheer, Parker, Patterson, Perrenot, Polley, Richarz, Riggs, Roach, Rodrigues, Scott, Smith of Hunt, Stewart of Hopkins, Stribbling, Templeton, Thompson, Upton, Woods, Wooldridge, Wurzbach--46.

Nays-Baker, Barry, Bennick, Beck, Bruce, Caven, Carleton, Chenault, Chenoweth, Daniel, Evans, Fly, Giegier, Gray, Hutcheson, Kerr, Labatt, Lewis, Mack, Matlock, McComb, Merritt, Moursund, Paddock, Peacock, Plumly, Ragsdale, Stewart of Kinney, Stringfellow, Story, Tarleton, Tompkins, Todd, Traylor, Truit—

35.

Absent, not voting, Linton. Absent, on committee duty, Gibson.

We vote aye because the bill discriminates against common schools, which are equally entitled to have refunded the amount due them.

My reasons for voting aye are that the bill embraces large sums of money heretofore reported and admitted to be of doubtful validity, and as such demands mature and careful consideration, which the House cannot give at the present for want of time, we now being within one day of the final adjournment of this extra session of the Legislature. W. T. SCOTT.

I vote to indefinitely postpone the bill because it proposes to discriminate in favor of the University fund and against the common school fund; because it proposes to pay a debt of $134,472.26 due the University fund, and the House has refused to permit an amendment to the bill to pay to the school fund a debt of the same and equal validity for the sum of $402,535.95. I will not consent to the payment of the one without the payment of the other, as I believe the interest of the public free schools of vastly more importance to the public. FINLAY.

RIGHT TO STATE APPROPRIATIONS.

Such is the status claimed for the University, as before stated, as an argument in connection with a provision of section 48 of the third article of the Constitution of 1876, to justify appropriations from the State's general revenue for support of the University. That section provides that among other things for which the Legislature may raise taxes is the "support of public free schools, in which shall be included colleges and universities established by the State;" adding, "and the maintenance and support of the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas," under which provisions, even taking the two clauses together, it would seem that the Legislature should not hesitate, as it does, to provide from the general revenue for support of the University as well as the college, the latter having been mentioned by name, no doubt, simply because it happened to be in operation, which was not the case with the University, and in order to intensify by constitutional sanction the State's acceptance of the federal donation to the College, as an earnest that the State would continue to foster it, to encourage its further support by the general government. The Twenty-first Legislature was the first in its appropriations for the University to attempt any variation of the construction of section 48, which had so rigidly, if not incorrectly, and possibly wilfully, prevailed to the prejudice of the University; but that body hesitated to make an appropriation of $25,000 to the University, to come out of general revenue, for University expenses, except indirectly, by requiring the University to substitute a like amount from the available University fund towards finishing the main University building at Austin.

This Legislature was fairly disposed to help the University with ready means to finish its main building at Austin, as advocated by Mr. Brown of Grayson; and Mr. Gresham of Galveston was anxious to have an appropriation to secure donations from Mr. Sealy and Galveston, which were conditioned that the State should contribute equally with them in the effort to put the

college into operation there at once. The object proposed seemed to justify the appropriation for the înedical college as the donations were large, and the State had done nothing towards its establishment, and had taken University funds for State expenditures, so that the University was unable to provide the means for establishing the medical branch. This being the case, the propriety of the appropriation for the college, as advocated by Mr. Gresham in the finance committee of which he was chairman, was conceded; and Mr. Brown took the further position, which was sustained by the action of the Legislature in adopting the report of the committee, that the State could appropriate the money proposed, $25,000, from the general fund, provided the University would use a like amount of its available fund for completing and furnishing the University building. Thus the Galveston donations were secured, and ready means were supplied for completing the central structure of the University.

A suggestion of Governor Roberts to the Seventeenth Legislature as to appropriations for the Normal schools amounts to an argument for supporting the University out of the general revenue, since the University is an "auxiliary" to the free schools quite as necessary for higher education and free instruction as are the normals. The argument seems to go further, or might well do so, and implies that the money may be taken indirectly from the school fund as well as from general revenue; and if indirectly, why not directly? He said:

"Upon the convening of the Seventeenth Legislature in January, 1881, my message presented my views in regard to the Prairie View School, stating in substance, that in view of its main benefits, it was simply a normal school, and therefore, it was doubtful whether it could be supported by appropriations out of the University fund; and expressed the same thing in regard to the support of the Sam Houston Normal School, out of the fund of the public free schools; and urged the propriety of supporting both of said schools by appropriations from the general revenue; and that, as they were necessary auxiliaries of our common schools, the amounts

appropriated to them be deducted from the amount of the general revenue that would otherwise be appropriated and distributed to the public free schools in the counties of the State. Notwithstanding this urgent recommendation, the Legislature persisted in retaining this school as an adjunct to the Agricultural and Mechanical College, and, consequently as a part of the University of Texas, by an appropriation act, approved April 1, 1881, in which the following is found, to wit: 'Support of Prairie View Normal Institute, for the years ending August 31, 1882, and August 31, 1883, out of the University fund, $6,000' (each year). To this was added an appropriation for two mules, a wagon and other things of $2,000 out of the University fund. "It is well known that the question as to what was the proper fund out of which this appropriation was to be taken, was duly considered and settled by the Legislature. This doubt about the constitutionality of the appropriation was produced by a consideration of the conflicting conclusions to be drawn from the different laws passed, indicating its object, its organization and its status in our school system, and the object of my recommendation was to relieve it from that attitude. When, however, the Seventeenth Legislature followed the example of the previous Legislature in appropriating money for its support out of the University fund, I considered that there was enough in the history of the Legislature and the facts pertaining to the school to justify its being regarded as part of or an addition to the Agricultural and Mechanical College, as it had evidently been by both the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Legislatures, and, therefore, I did not object, in the mode pointed out by the Constitution, to the appropriation thus made."

This was peculiar legislation, like much against the University, and demonstrated a stretch of power exercised in the interest of the colored people, though with a laudable desire to establish the school for them. But it led to strange conclusions. The school could not constitute the colored branch of the University which the law requires, but it could be made a branch of the Agricultural and Mechanical College, which was

a branch of the University, and through it claim succor from the University fund, though presenting the anomaly of being succored by the University as if it were a branch of the main institution instead of being a branch of the College dependency. The effort, however, was too strained, and the Comptroller (Colonel Brown), as a bonded officer sworn to observe the organic law, regarding the proceedings as unconstitutional, refused to issue the warrants to cover the appropriations, and the State, which had already made liberal provisions for the school in other ways, returned to its method of direct appropriations for it from general revenue, and continues to sustain it quite liberally from that or other sources, including appropriations from the school fund.

The right of the Legislature to make appropriations to the University from State revenue is ably discussed in an argument understood to have been prepared for the Regents by Ex-Chief Justice Gould, and presented in their biennial report to Governor Ross in 1888. Ex-United States Senator Maxey made a similar argument in his "University address" at the following June commencement. Other arguments in opposition simply embodied such as have been noticed in this article.

Professor Roberts, who was also at one time a Chief Justice of the State, thus condenses his views of this question in a recent faculty address:

"It is to be observed that there is no express provision requiring the Legislature to appropriate money collected as revenue to the available fund to be used annually, as it was provided for the support of the public free schools. From which, as well as from other considerations, it may be presumed that the University was intended to be supported mainly if not entirely from the accruing proceeds of its permanent fund. Upon that there has been some difference of opinion. There is no question, however, that the Legislature may appropriate any amount of money or bonds to the permanent fund. The Legislature has heretofore both loaned and appropriated money from the revenue for the support of the University as it has been needed,