ENDOWMENT FUND FOR THE STATE UNIVERSITY
On motion of Mr. DUNCAN the bill [H. R. 256] to provide a fund for the permanent endowment of the State University, under a setting aside of the Constitutional restriction, by a two-thirds vote was read the second time by title, the third time by sections.
Mr. DUNCAN explained: It authorizes a levy of one-half cent on each $100 valuation for twelve years. It passed the House by a vote of 70 to 21. The bill, as a matter of economy and good mannagement of the State's indebtedness, and put into a non-negotiable 5 per cent University endowment fund bond. We appropriate annually $23,000 for the management of the University, and at the end of twelve years this plan would amount to but $4,000 more than under the present plan. By the levy of this tax the annual appropriation would be done away with, thus, making a large saving. This would place the University on a firm foundation, so it will not hereafter be the creature of every Legislature. It would have an annual revenue derived from interest on this non-negotiable bond. Such an interest should be kept free from sectarian basis. We owe a duty to the people of the State to place that Institution on a permanent foundation. The bill provides the fund shall follow the Institution should it be consolidated with another or removed from the present location.
Mr. HENRY moved to amend so that the fund would be held for a consolidated institution should the University ever be consolidated with another. He was a friend of the Institution. The word "thereafter," an indefinite term, is probably wrongly used, and this amendment proposes to make that word "hereafter," thus making it definite. The time will come when the Educational Institutions of the State should be consolidated. This is a way to prevent the constant changes made by every Legislature.
Mr. BROWN said there was no better friend on the floor to this Institution than himself. He favored the amendment and hoped it would be adopted, with the assurance from the author of the amendment, if the House refuses to concur, he was willing to have the Senate recede therefrom.
The bill,as amended, passed by yeas, 37; nays, 4.
On motion by Mr. COMPTON the bill [H. R. 224] to legalize the incorporation of Carbon, Clay County was read twice by title, the third time by sections, under a setting aside of the Constitutional rule by a two-thirds vote, and passed by yeas, 40; nays, 0.
