the people for the support of public schools, in which shall be included colleges and universities supported by the State, and the Agricultural and Mechanical College"-the college being particularized, as already stated, as an earnest of the cooperation of the State in the purposes of the Federal endowment of the institution. Although the clause clearly provides for special taxation for university education, and the system has worked so advantageously to State universities without objection from any source in other States, it is strange that the proposition of a university tax has never been presented for consideration by the Texas legislature. The university regents have occasionally discussed it, but seem to be waiting for an opportune occasion for submitting such a proposition to the legislature, instead of pressing the matter at every session, as might just as well be done, since, for all that can certainly be assumed as to probable legislation, one session may be as opportune as another for the presentation of such measures, while in the meantime it is wrong to let the university suffer for relief which possibly might already have been granted had the tax been strongly and persistently urged upon the legislature. In fact, experience in other States shows that strong, persistent effort is necessary to secure favorable legislation in such important matters, and that it is not wise to wait for special opportunities, which may be at any time adversely turned by inopportune circumstances, such as happened during the twenty-fifth legislature, which, in consequence of certain indiscreet publications, was less favorably disposed toward the university than at the first of the session. Such a measure as a university tax needs to be constantly presented and discussed in order to eventually persuade the legislature, by favorable preponderence in the discussion, to consider it, not only in the university's interest, but as really an economic measure for the State's direction of university affairs, since the tax would be but a more harmonious method of providing for the university than by irregular biennial appropriations, and would be so much more satisfactory for its management in affording a regular fund upon which its annual budgets of expenditures could be certainly predicated without being subjected to the delay and uncertainty of legislative appropriations. It was only after repeated presentation, at session after session, that the legislature conceded the control of the university lands to the regents, and action as to a university tax is not likely to be taken by the legislature without being openly discussed by the press and the public and repeatedly urged upon the lawmakers.

SUGGESTIONS FOR MORE ACTIVE ENDOWMENT.

With proper management of the resources and greater public concern in promoting its interests, particularly by the legislature and State officials, the University of Texas should long ago, even before the civil war, have enjoyed the advantages of a magnificent income.

As it is, various means have been suggested for making its endowment more active and immediately productive, the several means suggested being additional land grants, further issuance of bonds, granting State certificates, securing more liberal appropriations, establishing a university tax, and incidentally attracting private benefactions, some of which have been sufficiently noticed.

THE TAX PLAN CONSIDERED.

The provision which can most readily, and most satisfactorily to the public interests, be made for it as a State institution, mainly dependent upon State aid, like the free schools, which are already provided with a free-school tax, would be, as already suggested, by a university tax, such as so many States have successfully and satisfactorily adopted, and in the light of which it seems strange that Texas has so long neglected to profit by their examples. As Dr. Waggener, late president of the University of Texas, argued:

The advantages of this method of supporting a State university are obvious. The income is certain; the regents can calculate on a known definite amount for yearly expenses. They can make contracts with professors and provide for needed buildings and equipments with some assurance that when the time of payment arrives there will be sufficient funds in hand. It dispenses with the necessity of "lobbying," which is as distasteful to the members of the legislature as it is to the regents, and it removes the university permanently from the arena of politics. It adjusts itself to the needs of the State, increasing with its growing wealth and population. For these and other reasons it has met the approval and commendation of our best and most experienced educators.

State Superintendent of Instruction Carlisle in his report for 1896 also presents strong arguments in favor of a university tax. He says:

The university, like our other educational interests, is suffering from lack of adequate financial support. It evidently needs much in the way of additional buildings. But the constitution prohibits either taxation or appropriation from the general revenue to provide buildings, evidently intending that they should be supplied from the revenues arising from the university lands and permanent funds. But if adequate appropriations from the general funds to pay the running expenses are not made and the regents are forced to use the revenues arising from the permanent funds to defray running expenses, how can the necessary buildings ever be built? The ninth report of this department recommended the levy of a small tax on property to give the university a permanent source of revenue for current expenses. This recommendation is here repeated. The university ought not to be compelled to depend upon the appropriations to be made at each biennial session of the legislature for its support. The president and the regents should be able to plan for a longer period than two years. It is impossible for them to plan wisely and broadly without planning for a longer period.

The school of pedagogy has been suspended for the current year, much to the regret of many friends of the university. Whatever may have been the causes that led to this action, and it is assumed that they were most urgent, it was a step apparently backward, and has had a depressing influence upon the good name of the State in educational circles abroad and among some of its best friends at home. be a mere coincidence, but it seems rather significant that the university had its

It may

greatest increase in attendance the first year after the department of pedagogy was established, and that this year, when the department of pedagogy is suspended, the attendance is less than it was last year. However, there is every reason to believe that the department will be reopened next year. President Winston has unhesitatingly and publicly declared himself cordially in favor of reopening the department. Furthermore, it is interesting to know that he favors strengthening the department and broadening its work.

It is suggested that the legislature could do the university great service by making a special appropriation for the department of pedagogy, and authorizing the State board of education and the members of the legislature to appoint 200 students to the university, requiring them to take the courses in pedagogy and such other courses as they should choose, and requiring them also to teach in the public schools after leaving the university. This method of preparing teachers has some very decided advantages over sending them to a normal school. Our State Normal School does not claim to do college work. It is not the object of the institution. Its requirements for admission are very low. The satisfactory completion of its first year's work gives the pupil a second-grade certificate. The satisfactory completion of the second year's work gives him a first-grade certificate. The satisfactory completion of the third and last year's work gives him a diploma. Thus the course at Sam Houston only carries the student one year beyond the requirements for a first-grade certificate. It is unnecessary to say that it is impossible for this course to give deep or thorough scholarship in the great divisions of learning. But the university requirements for admission begin about where the Sam Houston Normal's third year course begins. The teacher, therefore, who takes his A. B. diploma and completes the course in pedagogy at the university has added at least three years of study to the graduation requirements at the State Normal. This is evidently the best preparation he can obtain, and our high schools are almost limited for their supply of really well qualified high-school teachers to those who have had such preparation. in this State or elsewhere. Unhappily, Texas does not supply the demand for teachers of these high qualifications, and many of our high-school teachers come from abroad, while many high schools employ teachers not well furnished for their work. There is no use to which the legislature could devote $15,000 or $20,000 in a way to produce better results than by adopting the suggestion of a special appropriation for the department of pedagogy, and providiug for State scholarships in that department. a

QUESTION OF CERTIFICATES.

Regarding the issuance of interest-bearing certificates, as was done in Alabama and proposed in Missouri, where the proposition as urged by both Governor Stone and Governor Stephens, of Missouri, was passed almost unanimously by the senate, and only defeated by the barest majority in the house, Texas would have the advantage over these States of her 2,000,000 acres of university lands upon which to predicate the certificates, and would thus avoid any constitutional objections to creating a debt without a basis for the certificates. In fact, instead of creating a debt, it would only be a hypothecation of existing university land resources to meet a moral obligation for old indebtedness of the State, on account of the State's diversion of university funds and lands, as was done in the case of the Alabama certificates. Such a

a The school of pedagogy in the university was suspended for lack of university funds for its support, but it has recently been revived.

certificate, besides, would simply be an obligation of the State payable, in effect, solely to itself, and, as argued by the Missouri executives in behalf of the Missouri University, could not pass from the State's possession so as to become a debt demandable against the State, as it would be merely a means provided by the State in lieu of other provision for one of its own institutions, which, if not supported in that way, must be provided for by the State in some other manner. Certainly it would not be creating a debt against the State, but would be a mere restitution by readjustment of university land resources, for the State to issue bonds or certificates while holding the university lands as security in her own hands. As has been urged, too, no provision would be necessary for paying the principal of the certificates, which neither the State nor the university would expect to be paid, as they would be granted with that view. They would, in fact, be non-payable, non-negotiable, and nontransferable instruments or exhibits of arrangements as between the State and the university alone, subject to no other purpose than retention in the State treasury to evidence the State's provision of the interest at such a percentage of the sum expressed by the certificates as the State may be willing to thus contribute, instead of equivalent amounts in annual appropriations to support the university as a State ward requiring to be maintained by it as an element in the administration of State government. Such a certificate is never paid, is revocable at will, and only calls for the payment of the annual interest; and, under the express ruling of the supreme court in the Lamar case (128 Mo., 222-223), can not be held to be an indebtedness.

While section 50 of Article III of the Texas constitution prohibits loaning the credit of the State to any person or corporation, the State can certainly use its credit in a certificate for purposes of administration, in which must be included its duty to support the university, or, indeed, any other State institution, as part of its governmental functions. Thus considered, the State clearly has the right to issue a certificate of indebtedness to the university as a factor of its administrative affairs, the case being very different from that of a corporation, operating upon its own behalf, to which the legislature is constitutionally prohibited from loaning its credit or funds. It has been suggested that the university being a part of the general educational system, and tuition being free in the academic department (and to meet any question might be made so in the professional branches), it can constitutionally be provided for from the general school fund by setting apart for it a stated per cent of the school tax, say one-twentieth of the existing 20-cent rate, to be known as a special university tax for the university's separate maintenance.

As to a university tax, many of the States, says Governor Stone, of Missouri, in his message to the legislature, now levy a special tax, or

set apart by law a certain per cent of their aggregate revenues for their universities, the tax varying in amount from one-fifth to onetwelfth of a mill on every dollar of assessments. This is done, he asserts, in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Kansas, Nebraska, California, and perhaps some other States. Why not, it may be added, in Texas? Why should this State not adopt the tax system, which has been the magical means of rapid and satisfactory university development in other States? Indeed, in some of them the tax has been increased without complaint, as in Michigan for one, where the legislature raised it from one-twentieth to one-sixth of a mill, as it now stands.

In the light of such facts and figures, whatever may be done for the free schools, and certainly everything should be done that the State can reasonably do for them, as well as for the university, it would seem but fair to the latter to grant it an equivalent in some way for the 1,200,000 acres taken from its original endowment. And why should Texas not do this now, without waiting and letting other States forge ahead of her in providing more active endowments for their State universities, as Alabama recently did in issuing $2,000,000 interest-bearing certificates to the University of Alabama, and as Missouri but recently proposed to do for the University of Missouri, after having the year previous appropriated to it some $648,000, which was every dollar of the direct-tax money returned to the State by the Federal Government? As to further Texas land grants, however, some of the State authorities are just now claiming that there is no public domain left for such appropriations.

THE UNIVERSITY AND STATE EXECUTIVES.

In all cases of doubtful legislation as to important propositions affecting the university, it would be but fair to give the university the benefit of the doubt by passing them where the objects are highly meritorious, as the legislature and the governor can safely leave to the courts any question which may be raised as to their constitutionality. This is the precedent usual with State executives disposed to give the benefit of doubt to such deserving measures as they may be willing to favor. It was hoped that in his retiring message to the legislature Governor Culberson would recommend the adoption by the State of a university tax, and that the incoming executive, Governor Sayers, would also favor the proposition. The only allusion to the university by Governor Culberson was in the following general but favorable terms:

The university is advancing toward its ultimate place as the educational glory of the State. Here the student population, including the medical branch, grew from 539 in 1894 to 800 in 1898. The east wing of the main edifice has been constructed at an