Imagens das páginas

main unsold, shall be inviolably appropriated and annually applied to the specific objects of the original gift, grant or appropriation." Agricultural College funds, when the Constitution was adopted, consisted of sums paid for tuition, receipts from sales of products of the institution, a grant of money by the Federal government, the interest paid by the State for the money received from sales of land granted by the Federal government (the proceeds of the sales having been covered into the state treasury) and lastly, the proceeds of a tax of one-tenth of a mill levied annually upon the valuation or taxable property of the State pursuant to the provisions of Act 232 of the Public Acts of 1901. The condition attached to Federal grant lands was: "That all moneys derived from the sale of the lands aforesaid by the states to which the lands are apportioned, and from sales of land script herein before provided for, shall be invested in stocks in the United States, or of the states, or some other safe stocks, yielding not less than five per centum upon the par value of said stocks, and that the moneys so invested shall constitute a perpetual fund, the capital of which shall remain forever undiminished, except so far as may be provided in section fifth of this act, and the interest of which shall be inviolably appropriated, by each state which may take and claim the benefit of this act, to the endowment, support, and maintenance of, at least one college, where the leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and classical studies, and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and mechanic arts, in such manner as the legislatures of the states may respectively prescribe, in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions of life."

And the Federal grants of money were made to the State for the more complete endowment and maintenance of such agricultural colleges as had been or might be established in accordance with the original land grant act. Formal acceptances of the Federal bounty were made by the Legislature, Acts 46 and 140, Session of 1863, Act 80, Session of 1891, and it was formally devoted to the maintenance of the Agricultural College. Including the interest paid by the State, the proceeds of Federal bounty amount to more than $120,000 annually. Although, one purpose of the Federal grants was the teaching of mechanic arts, and instruction was in some degree afforded in mechanic arts, it was more than 20 years after the first grant was made before a mechanical department was established at the college. Act 42, Public Acts 1885. Since it was established the State Board of Agriculture has been repeatedly expressly charged with the maintenance of the department. Section 15 of 183, Public Acts of 1861, an act which reorganized the college, provides a course of instruction as follows:

"The course of instruction shall embrace the English language and literature, mathematics, civil engineering, agricultural chemistry, animal and vegetable anatomy and physiology, the veterinary art, entomology, geology, and such other natural sciences as may be prescribed, technology, political, rural and household economy, horticulture, moral philosophy, history, bookkeeping, and especially the application of science and the mechanic arts to practical agriculture in the field."

To refer to no other instances, in Act 232, Public Acts of 1901, is found the following condition:

"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 constituted, ** * * 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 accord with the wants and needs of said courses of study * * *."

And the concluding language of the section is:

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

The mechanical department has grown in importance until it now represents an investment of more than $227,000. To maintain it during the year ending June 30, 1913, there was expended $27,000 for supplies, machinery and maintenance of buildings, and about $34,000 for salaries of professors and instructors.

Following the enactment of the law in question here and before any money had been drawn under it, the State Board of Agriculture made a statement in writing, copies of which were sent to the State officers, in which statement, after reviewing the history of the mechanical department of the college and the Federal and State legislation pertaining thereto, the following conclusions were set forth:

"The Board is advised by reputable legal counsel, and it believes that under the Constitution of the State, the Legislature has no authority to enact the limiting provision hereinbefore referred to, and especially that it has no power to limit or determine the use of the Federal funds. However, without in any manner accepting the provisions of said limitations, and without waiving our right to insist upon its invalidity, we respectfully make the following declaration of our intention in reference to said mechanical and engineering department:

"(a) We shall continue that department as now conducted and as it may legitimately grow and develop.

"(b) We shall limit the annual expenditure of state funds in this department to $35,000.

"(c) For the remainder of the necessary expenditures we shall use a sufficient portion of the funds of the Federal government.

"(d) The secretary is instructed to mail certified copies of this statement, and the action of the Board in reference thereto, to the Governor, the Auditor General, the State Treasurer, the Attorney General, and to the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House." As a matter of bookkeeping the Auditor General credits the agricultural college fund with all moneys belonging to it. During the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1913, and until the month of March, 1914, requisitions upon the fund were honored until the sum in excess of $400,000 had been paid upon the requests of the State Board of Agriculture, there remaining in the fund in March, 1914, when further demands were refused, a sum in excess of $190,000. Ostrander, J. (after stating the facts).

In attempting to find the meaning given to section 1 (a), it will be assumed that the Legislature knew that independent of the immediate appropriation there was a fund already devoted to the needs of the college larger than any sum likely to be used to maintain the particular department. If the purpose was to limit the total sum which was to be expended to maintain that department, it could not be accomplished by limiting the amount which might be taken from the immediate appropriation. If there was no purpose to limit the total amount that might be expended, the provision is wholly insensible. In any event the words "from any and all sources" may not be disregarded.

Section 1 (a) cannot be held as intended merely to place a limita

tion upon the amount to be taken from the immediate appropriation to be used in maintaining the mechanical and engineering department.

While no reading and no analysis of the language employed leaves one entirely certain of the meaning of the provision, it seems most reasonable to say that the purpose was to limit expenditures for maintaining the particular department to $35,000 annually, and to make the entire appropriation unavailable for the use of the college in case the maximum thus fixed was exceeded. I do not overlook the language "no part of this or any other appropriation shall be available," nor the actual occurrence of a result which was inevitable, namely that unless the declaration of the relator board was to be accepted for the fact some part of the immediate and other appropriations would of necessity be available if the college was to continue to exist, since it could not be known before the fact whether the relator would or would not expend more than $35,000 in maintaining the particular department. Some question might be raised also about the meaning of the words "or any other appropriation." The reference might be an unexpended appropriation or the term appropriation used to designate and not improperly, the earlier legislation which devoted the Federal gifts to the maintenance of the college. But I think we must say that the legislative purpose expressed in this statute is the one to which the respondent has given effect and, assuming the law to be valid, respondent cannot be required to issue to relator further warrants for money. We must either say this or conclude that section 1 (a) was added to the act as an admonition and not a command, or a condition; that it expressed the opinion of the Legislature with respect to the manner in which the Agricultural College funds shall be employed. If it was an admonition merely, the act could, of course, stand without it. Because of the language employed in section 1 (a) I do not feel warranted in concluding that it is admonitory only. It is therefore necessary to determine whether the Legislature, has, as it is claimed, exceeded its constitutional powers, and, if it has, then the state of the applicable law.

If section 1 (a) be held valid, its effect would be legislative supervision of the college. To determine that a department of the college which has been maintained at a cost of $60,000 annually for instructors and supplies shall be from a given date maintained at a cost of $35,000 annually for instructors and supplies is to determine that it shall have fewer supplies or fewer or less capable instructors or both. It is something more than reducing a general appropriation so that the expenses in some or in all departments of the college must be reduced, leaving the proper supervisors to determine how efficiency can be best maintained under new conditions. The Constitution has given to the relator the general supervision of the college and the direction and control of all Agricultural College funds. So long as the relator employs them for the purpose provided for in the grant, it is beyond the power of the Legislature to control the relator's use of the funds received from the Federal government and long ago appropriated to the Agricultural College. Undoubtedly the grant of funds was to the State and the disposition of them wholly within the power of the State, acting through the Legislature, according to the conditions of the trust imposed. Haire v. Rice, 204 U. S. 291; Wyoming, ex rel. Wyoming Agricultural College v. Irvine, Treasurer, 206 U. S. 278. See also Massachusetts Agricultural College v. Marden, 156 Mass. 150. I am called upon to neither affirm nor deny the proposition that the Legislature may now appropriate the Federal

fund, in whole or in part, to some other institution, withdrawing it, or some of it, from the agricultural college, so long as it keeps faith with the Congress. The Legislature has not withdrawn it from the college nor appropriated it, or any part of it, to another institution. It remains an agricultural college fund, within the meaning of the Constitution, devoted, under the supervision and direction of the relator, to the college and to the purpose expressed in the grant, in the State legislation, and finally, in the Constitution of the State. It is required to be "annually applied to the specific objects of the original gift, grant, or appropriation." Necessarily it must be so applied under existing conditions, by the constitutional supervisors of the fund, and of the college, and not by the Legislature. It follows that the Legislature exceeded its powers in attempting to deprive the relator of its constitutional control of agricultural college funds derived from the Federal government. The constitutional powers of the State Board of Agriculture with respect to the college and its funds are the same as the Board of Regents of the University with respect to the University and its funds, and authority for conclusion stated may be found in Sterling v. Regents of the University, 110 Mich. 369; Board of Regents v. Auditor General, 167 Mich. 444, as well as Bauer v. State Board of Agriculture, 164 Mich. 415.

I assume that the Legislature in amending the original bill by adding section 1 (a) thereto acted in good faith with the highest motives. I am obliged to find that in doing so constitutional powers were exceeded. I am obliged to find, further, that the legislative intent was to deprive the college of its funds, however derived upon the contingency expressed in the act. This being so, the question is whether it can be said that the act would have passed without the condition.

In deciding this question we are not concerned with, do not inquire into, and cannot know the purpose and intent of legislators.

"If a statute attempts to accomplish two or more objects and is void as to one, it may still be in every respect complete and valid as to the other. But if its purpose is to accomplish a single object only, and some of its provisions are void, the whole must fail, unless sufficient remains to effect the object without the aid of the invalid portion. And if they are so mutually connected with and dependent upon each other, as conditions, consideration, or compensations for each other, as to warrant the belief that the legislature intended them as a whole, and, if all could not be carried into effect, the Legislature would not pass the residue independently, then, if some parts are unconstitutional, all the provisions which are thus dependent, conditional, or connected must fall with them." Cooley's Const. Lim., 6th ed. 211.

There are some facts which we may and do know which aid us in this inquiry. We know that in the year of 1901 and until the year 1913 the State appropriation for the Agricultural College was onetenth of a mill. In 1913 by the act in question here, this appropriation was increased, upon condition, to one-sixth of a mill. The appropriation made in 1901 does not fail if the act of 1913 is held invalid. The college will still receive the proceeds of a tax of onetenth of a mill upon the taxable property of the State, and it appears that upon this basis something remains in the treasury. It is contended that the decision of this court in Moreland v. Millen, 126 Mich. 381, supports the ruling that the act may stand notwithstanding the invalid condition, and that to hold otherwise is to overrule the decision in that case. I have read the opinions delivered in that case with care and with no disinclination to sustain the relator in this

controversy. The cases seem to me to be wholly unlike. For the purpose of the decision in that case it was assumed in the majority opinion that the Legislature, in the act there in question, sought to improve the method af administering public works in the city of Detroit. The act made radical changes in the existing law. It provided, finally, that the superintendent of public works should be appointed, for a designated or short period of time, by the Governor of the State and thereafter by the mayor of the city. It was held that the Legislature exceeded its powers in providing for the provisional appointment, but that the whole law was not thereby made invalid. It was held further that an office having been created by the act, the mayor might proceed at once to fill it by appointment. In that case the invalid portion of the act provided for a mere detail; in this case it is the condition upon which an increased appropriation is made. It is as though the Legislature in 1913, had for that year, and each succeeding year, provided a fund for the college and for a further sum to be given it upon conditions.

The whole act must fail, and this being so, the respondent should be advised, (it is unlikely that a writ will be necessary) that the act of 1913 is void, that the act of 1901 is in force, that the fund derived from the Federal government and the fund equal to the one created by that act are within the control of the relator.

PRESIDENT MARSTON.-Dean Richter will report for Montana.



In dealing with this subject, it will be necessary to briefly outline the conditions leading up to the present status of engineering educational work in Montana.

Montana formerly had two colleges of engineering, exclusive of the School of Mines at Butte. These colleges were located at the State University at Missoula and at the State College at Bozeman. Departments of engineering were started some fifteen or twenty years ago and in their infancy the work was necessarily of a character found in all young and struggling departments, with few professors and proportionately few students. Naturally, contentions arose as to the special advantages and work of each college. The State being young and having a comparatively small population, could not well afford to maintain these engineering colleges on a proper basis and, as a consequence, neither could prosper as it should.

In 1912, the State Legislature appropriated funds for the erection of an engineering building at each of the colleges, but these appropriations were withheld by the State Board of Examiners, due to lack of funds. This condition of affairs was intolerable and it became evident to every fair minded and informed citizen that something should be done in order to better the conditions. Suggestions that the rival engineering school should be combined with its own, were made by each of the institutions, without results.

Within the midst of the long agitation for and against the consolidation of all of the higher educational work of the State, which agitation has been particularly active during the past two years, the thirteenth Legislative Assembly of Montana passed an act which provides, among other things, that after the first of July, 1913, the State

« AnteriorContinuar »