Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

Is there any other business to come before us at this business session? If not, we will have a recess until 3 o'clock.

GENERAL SESSION.

3:00 P. M. PRESIDENT MARSTON.—The topic this afternoon is “Legislation and Judicial Decisions Affecting the Status of Engineering in the Separate Land Grant Colleges.”

The first report we have is from Dean Potter, of Kansas.

THE STATUS OF ENGINEERING AT THE KANSAS STATE AGRI

CULTURAL COLLEGE.

DEAN A. A. POTTER, MANHATTAN, KANSAS.

A few historic facts regarding the establishment of engineering instruction at the Kansas State Agricultural College and at the University of Kansas may prove of interest.

A course in mechanic arts and civil engineering was announced at the Agricultural College for the school year 1866-1867. At the University, it was first announced six years later, or in 1873, when a course in civil and topographical engineering was announced. A building for shop work was erected at the Agricultural College in 1872. In 1873, the Agricultural College owned and had in use twentyfive sets of carpenter's tools and equipment for teaching blasksmithing. By an act of the Legislature of Kansas, which took effect March 11, 1875, there was appropriated to the Agricultural College the sum of $7,500 for the erection and equipment of an industrial work shop for mechanic arts.

The first provision for shop work at the University was made in the fall of 1889, when a machine shop was equipped in connection with the department of physics. No extended facilities for such training were provided at the University until the construction of the Fowler shops, in about 1898, and these shops were built without legislative authorization and through the public spirit of private citizens, after the destruction of the heat and power plant of the University by fire.

The work of the Division of Engineering at the Kansas State Agricultural College is now on a very satisfactory basis.

Last year the Board of Administration investigated the question of duplication in engineering at the College and at the State U versity. They were convinced that such duplication as exists is absolutely for the best interests of the institutions and also for the good of the state.

A slight reorganization of departments was made at both institutions. The teaching departments in the Division of Engineering at the Agricultural College include at present the following departments:

1. Applied Mechanics and Machine Design.
2. Architecture and Drawing.
3. Civil and Highway Engineering.
4. Electrical Engineering.
5. Shop Practice.

6. Steam and Gas Engineering. The work in farm machinery which has been given by the Division of Agriculture in the Department of Agronomy will now be transferred to the Division of Engineering and a new department of Farm Machinery will be organized.

[ocr errors]

The Division of Engineering received for the present year better appropriations for salaries, equipment and department expenses than ever before. Much was added this year to the equipment of the various laboratories and shops.

At the reorganization meeting last winter, at which the Deans of the Engineering Divisions of both institu ns were present, the Board of Administration ordered that:

1. The present fundamental courses in civil, electrical, and mechanical engineering be retained at both institutions.

2. That the Agricultural College retain its course in architecture which was established in 1904, and the University should offer a course in architectural engineering.

3. That a course in agricultural engineering with several options be added to the standard courses offered at the Agricultural College, and that the University stay out of this field entirely. The University is to retain its present courses in mining engineering and chemical engineering.

4. That the Agricultural College lay more stress on highway, irrigation and drainage engineering. The name of the civil engineering department was changed accordingly to that of civil and highway engineering. This department has now a professor of civil engineering who is head of the department, a professor of highway engineering an associate professor of irrigation and drainage, and an instructor in civil engineering. The Agricultural College now offers an option in highway engineering in the civil engineering course.

It is our understanding that the fundamental courses in electrical and mechanical engineering will be allowed to develop at both institutions unhindered and along the lines which will best prepare students to meet the demands of the engineering profession.

In the civil engineering field, the Agricultural ollege is expected to limit its research and advanced courses along the lines of highway engineering, irrigation and drainage engineering. The University is expected to limit its field of advanced study and research to sanitary engineering, structural engineering and railway engineering.

There is a slight increase in the enrollment of the Division of Engineering this year and there is every evidence at present that the various engineering departments and courses will be allowed to keep on growing stronger and better, unless the recent changes in the state politics should place the engineering at Kansas in the limelight.

PRESIDENT MARSTON.—We next have a report from Michigan by Dean Bissell.

ENGINEERING AT MICHIGAN AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE.

DEAN G. W. BISSELL, EAST LANSING, MICH.

Act of Legislature and judicial decision thereon affecting the status of engineering at the Michigan Agricultural College.

The Legislature of Michigan, in 1913, passed a law, Act No. 324 of the Public Acts of 1913, entitled “An act to amend Section 1 of Act No. 232 of the Public Acts of 1901, entitled 'An act to extend aid to the Michigan Agricultural College,' granting to the Michigan Agricultural College a very liberal increase, (66 2/3%) in the annual and continuing appropriation to the institution, but with the proviso that not more than $35,000 annually from any source whatever, should be expended by the college for the support of its engineering departments. Inasmuch as the current budget for the said departments was about $60,000, the law, if valid, would have put those departments out of business.

The governing board of the institution, known as the Board of Agriculture, and hereinafter designated as the Board, carefully considered the situation thus created, and on August 13, 1913, after securing legal advice, decided to ignore the discriminating provision, so notified the state officials and made the usual appropriations, including some increases in salaries to the departments concerned, fully realizing that the matter would be taken to the courts for settlement, but believing that the law would not be sustained.

On March 23, 1914, the expenditure by the college for the engineering having totaled the sum of $36,092.65, the auditor of state served notice that he would henceforth refuse to honor requisitions by the college for any purpose whatever upon the treasurer of state, because the college had not complied with the provisions of the law.

On March 27, 1914, the college filed a petition with the Supreme Court of Michigan for a writ of mandamus to compel the auditor of state to release to the college the funds withheld. The case was argued before the court on April 7, 1914, a decision was handed down on May 29, 1914, declaring the law unconstitutional. This decision automatically restored the previous law to full force and effect, which provided for a one-tenth mill levy, and released the college funds in amount equal to the one-tenth mill levy and also the Federal funds which the auditor had refused to release.

Although, owing to the reduced income, the college was $30,000 in debt at the end of the fiscal year, June 30, 1914, and although seriously inconvenienced for lack of funds for nearly two months, pending the decision of the court, the decision was accounted a distinct victory, as establishing the autonomy of the Board in directing the affairs of the college and particularly in its right and duty to expend the Federal funds in accordance with the intent of the Federal laws pertaining thereto, the terms of which had been accepted by the state and the benefits of which had by the state been conferred upon the Michi. gan Agricultural College.

The text of the decision of the court is appended hereto as Exhibit A.”

A summary of the arguments is here given.
The college contended:

1. That the discriminating clause of the law was invalid because it interfered with the constitutional provision that,

"The Board shall have the general supervision of the college

and the direction and control of all Agricultural College funds." 2. That the invalidity of the clause in question did not invalidate the rest of the law (appropriating one-sixth mill levy for the support of the college).

The auditor of state contended in substance, that the Legislature had a right to attach conditions to its grants of money.

The decision upheld contention (1) of the college and denied contention (2) and declared that the entire law is unconstitutional and that the college is entitled to the benefits of the previous law, appropriating one-tenth mill, and “that the fund derived from the Federal government is within the control of the Board.”

The contested law was, as stated above, an amendment to a previous law, containing the following provisions which were not modified by the amendment and which were contrary to its spirit:

(1) "The Michigan State Board of Agriculture shall maintain at all times a sufficient corps of instructors in all the courses of study of the Agricultural College as at present con_” and

stituted—the same being known as the agricultural department, the mechanical department and the women's department-and shall make a fair and equitable division of the funds provided by this act in accordance with the needs of said courses of study

(2) "Should the State Board of Agriculture fail at any time to maintain any of said departments as herein provided, the terms of this act shall be suspended until further action by the Legislature.”

EXHIBIT "A."

STATE OF MICHIGAN.

SUPREME COURT.
State Board of Agriculture,

Relator,
V.

Filed May 29, 1914. Oramel B. Fuller, Auditor General,

Respondent. Before McAlvay, C. J., Brooke, Kuhn, Stone, Ostrander, Bird, Moore,

Steere, JJ. Under the Constitution and laws of the State, money may be drawn from the state treasury only upon the warrant of the Auditor General. On the 23d of March last, the Auditor General declined to draw warrants for certain sums asked for by the State Board of Agriculture, basing his action on the legislative action found in Act 324 of the Public Acts of 1913, which appropriates and orders to be levied for the use of the Agricultural College, in the year of 1913 and thereafter, annually, one-sixth of a mill on each dollar of the taxable property in the state, and concludes as follows:

"Sec. 1 (a). No part of this or any other appropriation shall be available in case a sum in excess of thirty-five thousand dollars from any or all sources, shall be expended in any one fiscal year for the maintenance of the Mechanical and Engineering department."

When the warrants were refused, a sum in excess of the requisitions stood credited to the agricultural college fund. Requisitions previously honored advised the Auditor General that a sum in excess of $35,000 had been expended in maintaining the Mechanical and Engineering Department of the college since June 30, 1913.

The State Board of Agriculture filed its petition for an order requiring the Auditor General to draw the refused warrants and such others as it might be entitled to. The Auditor General made answer and upon the petition and answer, there being no disputed facts, the matter has proceeded to a hearing. It is asserted in concluding the petition, that if the Auditor General's construction of the Act of 1913 is the correct one it prevents relator's performing duties imposed by the Federal statutes and those imposed upon it by the Constitution of the State; that the appropriation in view of the condition is not one which it is free to accept or reject. It cannot reject the appropriation without disobeying constitutional mandates; it cannot accept it and perform the condition without denying itself the exercise of constitutional powers. The condition is not within the title of the act. The act may be construed to limit the expenditure of moneys raised by taxation and appropriated by the act, in which case it has been complied with. If it may not be so construed, the condition is altogether unconstitutional and relator is entitled to receive the appropriation.

In behalf of the respondent Auditor General the Attorney General contends that:

“An examination of the conditions found in section 1 (a) of the act under consideration demonstrates that the provisions are in no wise ambiguous and there can be no serious question as to the purpose of the Legislature in attaching this condition. Undoubtedly it was the same purpose that prompted the condition attached in the Regent's case involving the Homeopathy Department. It is not a question for this court, we respectfully submit, nor is it a question for the administrative officers of the state whether the Agricultural College shall continue as a competitor against another institution maintained at state expense of over two hundred thousand dollars per year; nor is it a question for this court or the administrative officers of the state whether the legislation is wise in policy or not; nor is it a question, we respectfully submit, for the relator board to determine. The money in the treasury of the state was the property of the state, none of it was the property of the Agricultural College until appropriated by the legislative branch of the state government. That branch of the state government has the exclusive control of appropriations to state institutions and may prescribe the amount and condition upon which any of the public institutions of the state can withdraw the same. If in the wisdom of the Legislature it is inadvisable to continue two appropriations to two institutions which are duplicating work in the state, neither the courts, the administrative officers, or administrative boards can set aside such action.

“Relator understood clearly the conditions under which this appropriation was made; it understood clearly that if the act was valid its engineering department must be curtailed, and while protesting against the power of the Legislature to attach such conditions it continued to make its requisitions on the Auditor General and to receive the money appropriated to it under this and other acts and to use such money contrary to the conditions found in the act. The people, by the Constitution of 1908, gave the relator powers never before possessed by the controlling board of the Agricultural College, the same powers exercised by the Regents of the University, but they still reserved to their representatives chosen each two years the right to determine the appropriations to be made, not only to the other state institutions, but also to the University and the Agricultural College. The respondent is but carrying out the conditions imposed under the act in question. Relator's present position, if unfortunate, arises from its failure to recognize that the Legislature and the Legislature alone holds the purse strings of the state."

To understand and to dispose of the contention presented it is necessary to refer to facts appearing in the pleadings or evidenced by the Constitution of the State and State and Federal statutes. By the Constitution of 1909 the State Board of Agriculture is made, what before it was not, a constitutional board and body corporate. It is given general supervision of the college and direction and control of "all agricultural college funds." Art. XI, Şec. 8.

Sections 10 and 11 of Article XI read, respectively, as follows:

“Section 10. The Legislature shall maintain the University, the College of Mines, the State Agricultural College, the State Normal College and such state normal schools and other educational institutions as may be established by law.

“Section 11. The proceeds from the sales of all lands that have been or hereafter may be granted by the United States to the State for educational purposes and the proceeds of all other lands or other property given by individuals or appropriated by the State for like purposes shall be and remain a perpetual fund, the interest and income of which, together with the rents of all such lands as may re

« AnteriorContinuar »