Publications of the University of T exu Publications Committee : · FREDERIC DUNCALF J. L. HENDERSON Kn.LIS CAMPBELL E. J. MATHEWS F. W. GRAFF H.J. MULLER C. G. HAINES F. A. C. PERRIN HAL C. WEAVER The University publishes bulletins• four times a month, so numbered that the first two digits of the number show the year of issue, the last two the position in the yearly series. (For example, No. 2201 is the first bulletin of the year 1922.) These comprise the official publications of the University, publications on humanistic and scientific sub­jects, bulletins prepared by the Bureau of Extension, by the Bureau of Economic Geology and Technology, and other bul­letins of general educational interest. With the exception of special numbers, any bulletin will be ·sent to a citizen of Texas free on request. All communications about Univer­sity publications should be addressed to University Publica­tions, University of Texas, Austin. University of Texas Bulletin No. 2236: September 22, 1922 A Mill Tax for the Support of Higher Educational Institutions in Texas The Interscholastic League Division Bureau of Extension .,UBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY FOUR TIMES A MONTH, AND ENTERED AS SECOND-CLASS MATTER AT THE POSTOFFICE AT AUSTIN. TEXAS, UNDER THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1912 The benefits of education and of useful knowledge, generally diffused through a community, are essential to the preservation of a free govern­ment. Sam Houston Cultivated mind is the guardian genius of democracy. . It is the only dicta~or that freemen acknowl­edge and the only security that free­men desire. Mirabeau B . Lamar PREFACE This bulletin has been prepared primarily for use in con­nection with the debates among the schools belonging to the University Interscholastic League. However, since it deals with a subject of vital interest and importance to the people of Texas at this time, it is hoped that it will be widely used by debating societies, civic organizations, and in di victual citizens. It should be noted that the question for debate is not the support of our higher institutions of learning. All good citizens who are informed on the subject favor the main­tenance of these units in our state educational system. The question for discussion is, the method and degree of such support. Arguments on both sides of this issue will be found throughout this bulletin, oftentimes in a single ar­ticle. It was therefore impracticable to separate into dis­tinct groups the arguments pro and con. The builetin was prepared by Edwin DuBois Shurter, Professor of Public Speaking, and R. C. Coffee, A.B., LL.B. Each school belonging to the Interscholastic League i~ entitled to two free copies of this bulletin, but these will be sent only upon application. For additional copies and to non-residents of Texas a charge of 15 cents a copy is made. Address Interscholastic League, University Station, Austin, Texas. In collating material for this bulletin grateful acknowl­edgment is made of the assistance rendered by Miss Octavia Rogan, State Legislative Librarian, who through question­naires obtained a large part of the m3:terial bearing upon the method of supporting higher educational institutions in other states. The editors also desire to acknowledge their indebtedness to Mr. H. J. L. Stark of Orange, Chair­man of the University Board of Regents, for his co-opera­tion in the work of assembling material. The University Interscholastic League. INTRODUCTION The subject for debate in the University Interscholastic League for 1922-23 is: "Resolved, that an arnendment to the Texas State Constitution should be adopted providing for a three-mill ta;c for the support of the State's highe'1' educational institutions; and that supplementary app ropri­ations by the Legislature should be prohibited." By a "mill tax" is meant a tax of three mills on every dollar of assessed property in the state, or thirty cents on every one hundred dollars. By "constitutional tax" is meant an amendment to the state constitution by a vote of the people fixing such a tax, as opposed to a statutory tax which might be adopted by legislative enactment. The term "state in­stitutions of higher education" includes the University of Texas comprising the Main University at Austin, the Med­ical School at Galveston and the School of Mines at El Paso, the Agricultural and Mechanical College, the College of In­dustrial Arts, the Grubbs Vocational College, the John B. Tarleton Agricultural College, the seven state normals for white teachers comprising the North Texas State Normal, the Southwest Texas Normal School, the West Texas Nor­mal School, the Sam Houston Normal School, the East Texas Normal College, the Sul Ross Normal College and the Stephen F. Austin Normal School, and the Prairie View Normal for Negroes. Under the present system of support each institution must submit to the State Board of Control, not later than the fifteenth day of September of each year preceding the reguiar biennial session of the Legislature, an itemized statement of all expenditures for the preceding two years, together with an estimate of the appropriations required for the succeeding biennium, itemized in such form as may be practicable and as said Board of Control may require. The Board, upon receipt of these estimates, is required care­fully to consider and investigate each item contained there­in, obtaining information from every available source, and after holding hearings thereon, must make up an appro­priation budget for the approaching Legislature. The Leg­islature then makes appropriations for the two years next succeeding. It may alter, change, or vary the propose If a mill-tax ought to be imposed for the support of the higher educational institutions the same method should log­ically be pursued as to each and every institution and de­partment. If such should be done and a separate mill-tax University of Texas Bulletin imposed for the maintenance of each institution and depart­ment, some scientific method must first be worked out by which each would have sufficient but not too much appro­priation for its maintenance. There could be no provision made in constitutional amendments providing for mill-tax for the increased or decreased amounts that might prove to be necessary for each department or institution as the same might demand larger or smaller appropriations ; for if such provision should be made, the power must then be vested in the Legislature or some other body to increase or decrease such appropriations and to provide appropriations for new institutions or departments as the same might be­come necessary, and such method would be subject to the same objections as are urged against the -present method. If the rate of taxation is absolutely fixed by the constitu­tion for each department or institution, the same could not be varied except by constitutional amendment, which is slow and uncertain. If the Legislature is still to be allowed the power to add appropriations out of the general funds to mill-taxes imposed, or to use any portion thereof for any other purpose, no real change has been made. If it is proposed to levy a lump mill-tax for all the higher educational institutions, the same method should be pursued as to all the departments and all the eleemosynary institu­tions. If this is the method proposed, power must still be vested in the Legislature or some other body to make distri­bution of the mill-tax levies to the different institutions and departments. This would result in no material change or improvement of the present method. It has been charged that our educational institutions are now in politics and that their heads must use political meth­ods to obtain the necessary appropriations. As stated in the foregoing paragraphs the mill-tax method offers no relief from this objection unless a fixed mill-tax is to be imposed for each institution and department, which could not be done in such a method as to insure proper but not exorbitant appropriations, as the amount of revenues and the demands for each institution and department might A Mill Tax for Higher Educational Institutions vary, and as the same might vary no relief could be aftord0cl except by the slow and uncertain method of again amendinv, our constitution. In fact under such a method, the instit1r tions would fare well and probably have exorbitant appro­priations during prosperous years when large taxes are collected, and would have inadequate support duriYig the hard years when large amounts of taxes remain unpaid. If the mill-tax method should be carried to its logical conclusion and the amount of taxes allowed by the co11stitu­tion should be apportioned by constitutional amendment among the different institutions and departments, there would be no way to provide for the additional institutions or departments that it might become necessary to establish except to increase the constitutional limit of taxation and thereby unduly burden the taxpayers. Such increased bur­dens are the logical result of the mill-tax method of taxa­tion. There has been considerable complaint to the effect that under the present method our different educational institu­tions may be allowed varying amounts by the Legislature, and that there is therefore no uniformity in appropriations allowed them. This criticism is largely unwarranted. Dur­ing the two terms of my experience in the Legislature there have been at least three increases in the salaries allowed in the budgets for the different educational institutions. The last increase was allowed upon the theory that larger sala­ries were temporarily necessary because of the abr ormal and unusual expenses of living. This temporary increase could not have been provided for under the mill-tax method, but was provided for under the present system. At the last session of the Legislature, many of the legislators be­lieved that these temporary increases had served their pur­pose and that living expenses had about returned to normal and that therefore the budget allowed for the ensuing two years should be upon the same basis as obtained prior to the temporary increases. The result was a long continued fight and a compromise under which the professors in the State University were allowed about $4,500 annual salariPs UniVel'sity of Tej:as Bulletin and the heads of the different normal institutions $4,300 annual salaries, the same being material increases over the amounts allowed prior to the emergency raises. This re­sulted in a slight decrease of certain salaries from that allowed under said emergency increases, but such decreases were warranted and necessary and proper to prevent the imposition of exorbitant taxation upon the people. The same session of the Legislature by the elimination of un­necessary positions and expenses cut the appropriations for the different state departments for the coming two years in the amount of about $750,000, which cut would have been impossible if the mill-tax method had been in force. As a result of these cuts the same tax rate was lev:ed for 1922 as that for 1921; whereas if such cuts had not been made it would have been necessary to levy a tax to the con­stitutional limit and an additional indirect tax on gasoline or some other commodity of general use in order to provid~ the necessary revenue. In view of the present financial distress of the vast ma­jority of the people I do not think such increases were war­ranted. If a mill-tax adequate for the period of unusually high prices had been levied no reduction thereof could have been made by the Legislature when normal prices returned. If a mill tax had been levied during the period of Dormal prices, no provision could have been made for the period of inflated prices. For years our federal government has endured the ills resulting from dictation from different bureaus as to the amount appropriated for their maintenance. As a result direct and indirect federal taxation has become more and more burdensome until at last there is an effort to enforce a budget system and for Congress to exercise its legal func­tions in the matter of control of appropriations. If we were to provide for mill taxes for our different institutions, the same would be expended under the direction of their governing boards and we have no assurance that such method would not result in the same extravagant and ex­cessive expenditures as have existed in the different federal departments and bureaus. The governing bodies of the dif­ferent state institutions are not elected by the people and are not directly responsible to the public. They are nat­urally and properly enthusiastic for their particular insti­tutions. They are likely if uncontrolled, to incur expenses which might not appear necessary to a disinterested body representing the public and charged with the duty of ap­portioning the available revenues. An an allustrahon of the truth of what I have just said, the bills presented to the last Legislature provided for appropriations for publicity for three of the educational institutions varying from $2500 to $10,000 per 'annum, when the heads of said insti­tutions were complaining that they did not have sufficient facilities to take care of all the students desiring to attend their institutions. This unnecessary appropriation was cut out by the Legislature. Under the mill tax system such cut would have been impossible. It has been widely charged that I am an enemy to <:duca­tion. This charge is untrue. I am a patron of the State University and was at one time a public school teacher. l realize that it is imperative that provision be made for our public schools and that it is fit and proper that liberal appro­priations be provided for our higher educational institution. However, our public schools are of primary imp.ortance and should be first provided for, and thereafter due provision should be made for the higher educational institutions. If we were to provide a mill tax for the higher educf::.tional institutions and give them the amounts they might demand, I am fearful that there would not be sufficient remaining available revenues to provide public school facilities for the children who might not be given such advantages by their local communities. Before we undertake a new and largely untried experi­ ment in the method of distribution of taxes and depart from the method which has been proven efficient by years of ex­ perience, we should be sure that the new method offers ma­ terial advantages. I do not believe that any such advan­ tages would be offered by the mill tax system, therefore I am satisfied to pursue the course laid down by our fathers and under which we have prospered for all these yea•.·s. THE FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF OUR INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING BY W. B. BIZZELL, PRESIDENT, A. AND M. COLLEGE OF TEXAS State supported institutions of higher learning in the United States are generally financed in one or more of the following ways : (1) By direct appropriation of the Legislature. (2) By a millage tax. (3) By a combination of these methods. These methods are supplemented in individual cases hy the income from land-grant endowments, private benefac­tions, and taxes on mineral resources. In the state of Louisiana the latter takes the form of a salvage tax and of natural resources, inc:luding timber as well as minerals. It is almost universally agreed that financial support of institutions of higher learning exclusively by legislative enactment is not satisfactory. The reasons are well known to those who have studied the defects of this plan. It has been found from experience that support exclusively by leg­islative action is uncertain and often irrational. The frp­quent changes in the personnel of legislative bodies prevent an adequate understanding on the part of the members of the Legislature of the actual needs of the state supported institutions of higher learning and an intelligent under­standing of the problems of financial administration. As a means of overcoming these difficulties a number of states have provided either by statute or by constitutional amendment for supplementing legislative appropr;ations through a millage tax. . This policy has greatly increased the administrative efficiency in the institutions of }iigher learning in every state where this policy has been adopted. The states supporting institutions by this method are pro­vided with dependable maintenance which enables the ad­ministrative authorities to plan for the development of the physical plants and expend the facilities of the institution5 in an intelligent and carefully considered way. Existing conditions in Texas seem to justify a radical change in the policy of financing our state supported insti­tutions of higher learning. The increasing cost of govern­ment has caused many educators and other public spirited citizens to feel a deep concern about the future support of our educational institutions. This concern is enhanced in view of the fact that the number of students who are seek­ing admission to our colleges and universities is increasing faster than present facilities for their education. This con­dition seems to justify a more comprehensive plan for finan­cing our institutions than has yet been provided in any of the several states. It is suggested, therefore, that a different pol;cy be adopted with reference to financing a development of the physical plants from the policy providing for maintenance and support. This plan contemplates a bond issue for per­manent improvements at the several institutions of higher learning and a millage tax to be supplemented, if necessary. by legislative appropriation for maintenance and support. We are reminded that the local political units htudies the subject will come to a like conclusion. There is some difference of opinion as to whether the mill tax should be fixed in the constitution or should be provided by statute. To fix it in the constitution would make it more certain, but on the other hand a constitutional limita­ tion would make it rather difficult to provide for new in­ stitutions or to make the adjustments among institutions as population increases and new educational needs appear. Therefore I incline to the view that the more expedient method is to make the mill tax statutory. Experience in other states shows that where a mill tax is set up by statute it is rarely, if ever, repealed. T. H. HARRIS, STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUC­TION OF LOUISIANA I am very strongly of the opinion that the constitution should require a minimum support for state educational institutions. The constitutional provisions here in Louis­iana are to the effect that the state university shall re sup­ported from July 1, 1922 until January 1, 1925 out of the proceeds of a two per cent severance tax on such natural products as oil, gas, sulphur, lumber, etc., up to a maximum of five million dollars for the period mentioned, and forther; that the Legislature shall have authority, at its discretion, to make any additions to this support. After Jannary 1, 1925, the University is guaranteed a minimum support of a half a mill tax on the state assessment. On present values this will amount to about one million dollars a year. The Legislature has authority to add to this tax should it see fit to do so. The other state educational institutions, that is, normal schools, etc., are guaranteed by the constitution a miri.imum support of $700,000 a year with the provision that th Leg­ islature may make such additions to this as it may see fit. My opinion is that these constitutional provisions are very wise. I have been around legislatures for a good many years, and I have observed that when a Legislature meets, all of the interests of the state are there, and that th~.y pre­ sent their claims for financial support very strongly; and unless guaranteed a reasonable support to the schools thes~ institutions frequently stand to suffer. Those in charge of state educational institutions mll'::t make plans that extend through several years, and this thPv can not do unless the support is certain and permanent. We find that this is also true of the public schools 'iroper. The constitution guarantees a minimum of both state and local support which is, it is perfectly safe to say, materially larger than would be realized by the public schools if such a provision were not in the constitution. METHODSOFSUPPORTFORTHESTATECOLLEGES OF TEXAS BY ANNIE WEBB BLANTON, STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION In my opm10n the best method of supporting the state colleges of Texas is by a mill tax provided for in the con­stitution of the state. Our constitution and statutes place the government of onr state colleges in the hands of the boards of regents of these institutions. Members of these boards serve for at least six years. They have the opportunity of becoming familiar with the plans of work and with the merits of members of the faculty. They are able, through their knowledge of the institutions, to use "the money appropriated for their sup­port, to the best advantage. With the multitudinou, has been that it made it unnecessary for the representatives of the state institution to go biennially to the Legislature for funds. It was assumed that the institutions were thus, to a certain extent, removed from the political arena. It gave them more independence and freedom. They could devote more time and energy to teaching and research anti to general service activities. But the claims are not wholly justified because the amount of revenue raised annually by a millage tax, after the first few years, is seldom .~nough Unfrersity of Te;ras Bulletin to maintain the institutibn; and a campaign to increase the rate must be carried on. Of course, campaigns to raise money are biennial affairs with those institutions that must rely on direct appropriations. Institutions that are forced to rely chiefly upon direct appropriations have, over a com­paratively long period of time, fared just as well as institu­tions that rely primarily upon a millage tax for their support. When state institutions were first established, it was as­sumed in most cases that they would be free. Gradually, however, this notion has been dispelled. A recent sbdy of some thirty-seven state institutions shows that they all charge fees of one kind or another, and that these fees are used to support teaching, research, to purchase equipment and for the actual operation and maintenance of the instj­tution. Furthermore, student fees are constantly i11creas­ing, both in number and amount. This is due directly to the increase in registration, the expensiveness of laboratory work and the establishment of professional schools. It is due, indirectly, to the fact that the states do not ~Jways provide as liberally as they should in light of the growing needs of their universities. Many persons are now asking themselves whether the students in professional schools should not be required to pay the total cost of their educa­tion. The truth is that education in state universities is fl) longer free. The fees in some cases are becoming almost prohibitive. It is becoming very difficult for students with limited funds to secure training in medicine or in dentistry. The purposes for which technical schools were first estab­lished are being diverted by the extent that state institn tions are compelled to rely upon fees and tuitions for their support. No state university can expect that the major part of its support will come from endowments or gifts although the number of endowments and gifts should increase in fr e near future. Theoretically the graduates of state institutions should be more liberal in providing gifts for the universities from which they have graduated. Actually, there is some A Mill Tax for Higher Educational Institutions psychological factor in the situation which does not work this way. The graduates of privately endowed universities, generally speaking, are more liberal in providing gifcs than are the graduates of state universities. It is obvious to every student of higher education "'.:hat ~11 state institutions will soon be facing a crisis, and that it wiil either be necessary for them to place a limit upon their registration or to find new sources of income. The diffi­culty is due not merely to the growth of these institutions, but to the fact that we are clinging in most states to an antiquated system of property taxation. Every one recog­nizes that much of the wealth of this country is sequestere1i or legitimately concealed in non-taxable securities. New sources of taxation must be uncovered, such, for example, as income taxes, inheritance taxes, corporation taxes, taxes on business or profits, severance taxes, or sales taxes, a fair share of the income from which would be used for the sup­port of education. P. P. CLAXTON, FORMER UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION 1. That the great State of Texas might, purely as a mat ter of business and because of the increase in material wealth which it would bring, give to all its institutions of learning, all the funds which they need for their support and for their largest possible development in the service of the state-this apart from all the higher values of good citizenship, individual culture and high idealism, which are, of course, more valuable than the more obvious results of material prosperity. Texas has unbounded resources, and a population strong, virile and aggressive. With proper ed ucation and training, there is no limit to the possibilities of its wealth, prosperity, and culture. 2. The elementary and secondary schools will, of rourse be supported in the future, as in the past, by the ir.terest on invested funds, by appropriations from the treas1Jry "f the state, and by county and local taxes. With proper law:". in regarc to taxation, funds may easily be raised thus for their generous support. The normal schools and pl•ssibly the College of Industrial Arts at Denton may also depend, I think, on annual or biennial appropriations from the treasury. It is not so clear, however, that the college of agricultural and mechanic arts and the state university may hope to re­ceive adequate support in this way. Legislatures are more likely to play politics in a small way with these institutions than with the elementary or high schools or with the normal schools. More than once in recent years the welfare and further development of these institutions have been jeop­ardized by the failure of the Legislature to make nec:essary appropriations. It would make the support very much 11°velop­ment of the university and the agricultural college if there were levied for their support a special tax sufficient to pro­vide for their up-keep and to enable the trustees to put aside money for buildings from time to time. In many states in which the income of the higher institutt@s of learning has thus been assured, they have been relieved of much anxiety and have proved the value of the plan by their steady and sure development and progress. Anoth~r rea­son for the adoption of this plan is that it ties up the for­tunes of these institutions with the fortunes of the state in a way so obvious that it serves as an incentive to them to render the greatest possible service to the state in its material development as well as in all its higher interests. TEXAS INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNI~G (Extract from an address before the Educational Survey Committee, April 21, 1922, by J. A. Hill, President of West Texas Normal.) Should provision for "adequate support and maintenance" be rn~de by a separate tax for higher educational institu­tions, or, should it continue under the system of appropria­tions made from time to time by legislatures? There is no doubt that we greatly need a more depf'ndable revenue upon which to project our building programs. To A Mill Tax for Higher Educational Institutions respond to the growing needs of a great state like Texas institutions must be given an opportunity to develop a policy and to administer it without interruption from trivial causes and temporary social or economic conditions. They should be able to plan in advance and with reasonaUe cer­tainty each year's improvements and these in termr,\ of ~ general program of development covering a long pe ·iod of years. The hit and miss policy which we are now pu.t'suins;r would soon bankrupt any respectable private business enter­prise. It would seem, therefore, that the mill tax might offer a reasonable escape from the evils of the present situa­tion. On the basis of present property values it would bring a revenue of some three and one-half millions of dollars which, if properly distributed, would guarantee a steady and fairly adequate income. In the absence of a better plan and conceding that an equitable division of the P'"uceed.~ can be agreed upon I favor a mill tax for the support of a general building program. I do not favor a mill tax for the payment of salaries am~ other current expenses. In the first place, it wou:d not produce sufficient revenue for both building and running: costs. A comparison of the appropriations the institutions of higher learning have received in any recent biennium with the amount a mill tax would today produce is all the argument that is needed on this point. If all of our Texas colleges had to depend on the three and one-half million dol­lars which a mill tax would produce, the future would hold slight promise for our system of higher education. In the second place, I am not absolutely sure that admin­istrators and college professors ought to feel entirely indE> pendent of public will as voiced in our legislative bodies. Official responsibility to the people's chosen representatives and a measure of financial dependence upon public approval help us to keep our feet on terra firma. There is nothing so purifying to one's ambition and so sobering to one's judg­ment as the knowledge of the watchfulness of the public eye. Moreover, contact with the Legislature and other of­ ficial departments of the state government is mutually edu­cative and facilitates business and administrative transac­tions. I would not have you believe, however, that I ap­prove the present system of making appropriations in which the Legislature undertakes to fix the salary of every em­ployee from president up to janitor. For example, it hap­pens that the annual and monthly salary of practically all of the members of the faculty at the normal colleges is writ­ten in odd cents-a fact which requires enough ink, energy, and time at the various schools to pay a pretty good salary. Legislatures are not competent to fix with just discrimina­t!on the respective salaries of all the state's employees and it is a ridiculous spectacle to see them undertake it. More­over, it violates the law which prescribes the duties of the board of regents and is likely to result in legislative med­dling with the administrative affairs of our colleges. In my judgment, the president of the institution, the board of regents, and perhaps the board of control should agree upon a salary schedule after the president and regents have de­termined the number of employees needed. This should be submitted to the Legislature which should have authority through the appropriation committee to call for detailed explanation. If this committee objects to any item and agreement can not be reached thereon, the total sum to be appropriated should be so modified as to suit the commit­tee's objections and then passed as a lump appropriation for salaries and the same method for equipment and upkeep. I do not consider it the function of the Legislature to de­termine whether Professor Jones should be paid $3,173.331/3 per year, or $3,360.19. If legislatures can not trust college presidents and boards of regents for an economic and honest administration of the state's affairs then I fear we are in poor way to get what we are paying for in the field of higher education. It seems to me the legislators could better in­vest their time and their talents in an effort to work out an equitable tax system that would give the people what they want in the matter of schools. This is not to be understood as a criticism of members of the Legislature, but of the system under which we are working. Every intelligent cit­izen who has studied the question of taxation knows full well that as it is now applied in this state it is wholly in­adequate to our needs, unjust and dishonest in its prin­ciples, and exceedingly wasteful in its administration. Furthermore, every one who has studied the question knows that we can never have a satisfactory school system in this state until the tax problem is settled in such a way that the laws of the state will be in accord with the laws of right. Fundamentally, our school problem, from whatever aspect viewed, is a problem in taxation and when. the people once comprehend this there will be some real constructive legis­lation in Texas that will vitalize our whole educational system. In the absence of such public understanding and demand I wish to submit for your consideration another means for the support and maintenance of our institutions of higher learning. I make no claim to originality in the matter and pass over the question as to how it could be worked out. Inasmuch as all the institutions are in dire need of large funds for building why could not the state issue bonds, based upon a tax levy, for a long period of time and enter at once upon a consistent program of physical expansion? Vve bond our school districts because it is not right fo·r the prese'nt year to bear all the building expense of the next twenty or thirty or fifty. We bond our cities for paving, our counties for roads, and nobody ever raises a question as to the matter of right involved. The nation, without a vote of the people, issues bonds for any purpose when emergency rises. In fact, such a procedure has become the established policy of the whole country. If it is right and expedient that inde­pendent school districts, cities, and counties shall bond themselves for their permanent improvements why is it not also right and expedient that the state should do so? A $40,000,000 five per cent bond issue covering a period of forty years would require a tax rate sufficient to produce $2,000,000 in interest the first year, and $1,000,000 as a sinking fund. This would be a very small rate on present property values and such a sum spent on a building program covering the next five years would certainly put Texas in­stitutions of higher learning on the map for at least a quar­ter of a century. CARL C. PLEHN, PROFESSOR OF FINANCE, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA The first requisite for a plan of support of a state univer­sity as of any otper university is stability of income. The second is steadiness of growth of income keeping pace with the growth of the institution. Scholars of distinction will not accept appointment unless assured of permanence of tenure and of salary with due allowance for promotion in rank and salary. Hence the need for certainty of funds. For a state university three plans seem possible, with, of course, combinations in a system involving parts of each: (1) a mill tax; (2) an appropriation as nearly un­repealable as may be; (3) student fees. The general favor accorded the mill tax arises from its assumed stability and probable regular growth. There is also the expec~ation that once granted it will be permanent. The dangers lie in: (1) the possibility of a change in the general tax system; (2) in a possible failure of assessed valuations to grow as fast as the needs of the institution grow; (3) the difficulty of meeting extra needs as for buildings. An appropriation for general maintenance can not very easily be given that degree of permanence which is essen­tial. Although for ten years past in California there has been rnch an appropriation increasing 7 per cent each year compounded annually, and covering a large part of the reg­ular maintenance. If, however, this had not been supple­mented by additional appropriations it would have been in­sufficient. Since there is no state ad valorem tax there can be no mill tax in this state, hence the above method was adopted. A Mill Tax for Higher Educational Institutions Student fees have a large following and no little equity. But in general the public objects. There is something to be said in favor of giving the in­heritance tax to the university. Argument runs that the education of the young is an appropriate use of the estate of a decedent. But the inheritance tax is not regular in yield and unless used to add to a mill tax or to a permanent ap­propriation and to be used for extras, i.e., buildings, etc., might be unsatisfactory. Sometimes when large estates fall in the inheritance tax is large, in other years it may be small. It would be quite possible, however, to provide some system of averaging the inheritance tax and arrang­ing to accumulate in fat years a fund to carry over the lean years. The difficulty would be to put such a plan into con­tract form. T!1ere is always much to be said in favor of budget or legislative control of university appropriations as a means of keeping the institution from dry rot. But as stated above this defeats its purpose if it results in a repute of instability, because scholars of distinction will not accept appointment when a state budget or legislative committee has the power to disturb the professor's tenure. Personally I advocate an eclectic scheme with: (1) a mill tax, or a permanent (growing) appropriation irrevocably allotted to instructors' salaries; (2) supplementary appro­priations for building and other special needs and for ad­ministration; (3) moderate student fees devoted to cover­ing library, infirmary, laboratory expenses and like costs which are occasioned directly by the student, or can be more directly allocated to the student than can instruction. . Such a scheme, if administered under non-political control af­fords at once the essential stability for healthy growth. SUPPORT OF STATE INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING BY HON. LEONARD TILLOTSON, FORMER MEMBER OF TEXAS LEGISLATURE Th;~ measure of support provided for education is a just Unirersity of Texas Bulletin criterion of the progress of organized society. The provi­sion made by a state for the support of its educational in­stitutions is to be acceptrd as a fair expression of the at­titud~ of the popular sentiment toward educational develop­ment in its varying aspects. Peculiar as it may seem, the popular attitude may be comparatively liberal toward the advancement of one branch of education, and indicative of more or less indifference to the advancement of other forms of educational endeavor. Not only in this state, but throughout the Union, it may be said that the sentiment of the masses is united in the most liberal provision for the support of the common schools. This is but a natural illus­tration of the fact that the popular sentiment favors neces­sary and adequate support for those institutions available to all classes and to the people of all communities alike. In many states the public schools are accorded liberal support, while the higher institutions receive indifferent considera­tion. In comparatively few of the states may it be as­serted, without qualification, that the popular sentiment has advanced to such a degree and crystallized in favor of equally liberal provision from public funds for the support and development of the higher educational institutions and the public schools. In fact, we are never likely to see the same measure of popular approval for the development of the higher educational institutions that is expressed in be­half uf the common schools of the country. There are two phases of provision for the support of the educational interests of a state. The first is the measure of the support; its adequacy to the reasonable requirements of norma~ growth and judicious development; and the second is the degree of permanency given to the provisions for sup­port, the establishment of a consistent policy in adequately maintaining each educational activity authorized by the state. In this state there is noticeable indifference to the meas­ure of support to be given our higher institutions of learn­ing. There is also noticeable difference in the attitude to­ward different higher educational institutions. Public sentiment on the subject of education in its en­tirety is always undergoing change. This is particularly true in Texas. Community participation in public school support is exerting a strong influence. We are likely to find that provision for education which popular sentiment would approve this year, would not be considered adequate provision a few years hence. As a consequence, the char­acter of provision that should now receive popular approval should be such as to prove readily adaptable to future re­quirements with the minimum of change in state policy. The policy of the state in providing for the support of the public schools and for the support of the higher educa­tional institutions, should be as nearly uniform and consist­ent as is practicable, in view of the scope and character of the work. No greater error could be made than that of es­tabliahing different policies in the support of the public schools and the higher institutions. If Texas is to advance. its educational standard, and develop institutions of higher learning of the first-class of their kind, it may only be ac­complished by and through the most intimate identification of the higher institutions with the common schools of the state. It is the common appeal of educators that such leg­islation be enacted as will remove the schools from politics. State schools, both the common schools, and the higher in­stituti .ns, will never be wholly removed from political con­trol. It is not to be expected that they will ever be placed in such an attitude, through statutory enactment or even constitutional provision, that they will not be responsive to the popular judgment. It would be unfortunate for the cause of state education, which must broaden greatly ·with the years, for it to be removed from the free and ready expression of the public sentiment. Provision for education in Texas should embrace a com­plete revision of existing policy, beginning with the re­writing of Article VII of the Constitution. Section 3 of Article VII should be amended by the removal of the limit which may be assessed for· the maintenance of the public schools, and the Legislature should be authorized at each regular session to provide by statute for the levy and col­lection of such ad valorem tax on the assessed property valuations of the state as may be found necessary to main­tain the schools for a minimum number of months, whicl public sentiment places at nine. This would provide a single state tax for maintenance purposes. It would cost the people less than the dual system of state and local tax­ation now in existence. It would eliminate the inequalities of opportunity for education among the public schools, by assuring the children of the common school district in the country the same chance as is accorded the children in the city schools. Nothing short of this uniformity of support for the public schools, and the upbuilding of the rural schools, will ever establish the broad foundation essential for the greater popularity of higher education in the state. It may be asserted without contradiction that until there is no longer a rural school problem in Texas, sentiment favorable to, and adequate provision for, higher education in the state will grow all too slowly and prove disappoint­ing. This fact demonstrates the intimate relationship ex­isting between the common schools and the higher institu­tions ; and the necessity for a consistent and similar policy in their support. In harmony with the suggested change in Section 3 of Article VII, giving to the Legislature authority to period­ically adjust the tax levy to the needs of the public schools. assuring to the school support the flexibility absolutely es­sential to respond to the growing scholastic enumerations, those sections of Article VII dealing with the University, the Agricultural and Mechanical College, and the Prairie View Normal School, should be amended to give to the Legislature the authority and direction to make provision for the support of the higher educational institutions of the state by tax levy as well as by appropriation. Such amendments to Article VII should include all state insti­tutions established since the adoption of the Constitution of 1876, and provision be made for their participation in any tax levy that might be provided. The Thirty-sixth Legislature passed House Joint Resolu­tion No. 29, which sets out in detail proposed amendments to Sections 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of Article VII, sug­gesting the support of the higher schools by tax levy and by sses? 11. A permanent tax would relieve the legislator from the responsibility of the present large total of appropria­tions, removing from his shoulders the burden of practically the entire educational budget of the state. It would also relieve him from the well-meant but sometimes over-zealous importunities of the advocates of the various institutions. It would save the time of legislators who are now compelled to study the intricacies of appropriation bills while occupied with scores of other legislative matters. To understand thoroughly the details of the university appropriation bill alone would require all the time that the ordinary legislator can devote to the duties of the legislative session. · 12. It would build up more creditable institutions. By eliminating competition it would make towards a better co­operation among the various schools, and a consequent in­crease of efficiency and value to the state. 13. It would result in a more economic administration of the educational institutions because systems based on a stable and calculable income always mean economy. 14. It would be to the advantage of the taxpayers be­cause it would insure their getting the greatest possible effi­ciency out of the state schools, .the greatest possible value for their money, since only with a fixed and permanent in­come can an educational institution do its best work. THETAXLEVYANDBUDGETSYSTEM Extract from 1920 Biennial Report of the Board of Regents of .the University of Texas We heartily approve the tax-rate levy, instead of specific appropriations, as a means for obtaining the necessary funds to finance the university, and the budget system as a method of applying these funds to the needs of ~he separate departments. The former enables us to know with reason­able certainty the financial resources for each biennial term, and the latter secures the application of the fund for the specific purposes needed and still leaves sufficient flexibility to meet the ordinary unforeseen contingencies. Since the budget was fixed, it was found imperative that compensa­tion of the faculty be increased if the university was to re­tain the services of those competent to maintain the stand­ard of efficiency in instruction which the institution deserves and the state desires. During the same period the ordinary expenses of administration have not escaped the increased burdens incident to every operating enterprise. Yet, not­withstanding these demands, which could not be fully antic­ipated, it is with pride and pleasure that we report to you that the university is within its budget and 1sks no de­ficiency appropriation. By reference to the budget and the Comptroller's system of accounting, which has received the most favorable commendation of both state and federal officials, we have at all times been able to ascertain the con­dition of the university fund as a whole and of each separate department. In our judgment, to depart from the tax-rate levy as a fund-producing system and the budget as a method of applying and expending it, would be unwise and injurious to every interest of both the state and university. THE LEGISLATURE AND LEGISLATION Extract from the final message of Dr. S. E. Mezes to the Board of Regents of the University of Texas in 1914 I have spoken of the Legislature as one of the governing boards of the university, and so it is. It governs the uni­versity by determining biennially what funds shall be avail­able for the carrying on of its activities; and, in performing this function, it from time to time at least prevents things from being done which its colleagues, the regents, believe to be desirable, or even all but necessary. Moreover, in meas­ures besides the money bills, the Legislature exercises con­trol over the university. If this function is exercised in a re­sponsible spirit, the Legislature can greatly he!p the insti­tution both negatively and positively. The corollary is that the Legislature can greatly injure and hamper the -..i.niversity. It seems plain that a body of men, many of whom are serving their first term, and none of whom have any continuous or intimate knowledge of the workings of the institution, can not, with profit to the state, attempt to direct its affairs in any detail. At the same time, the Legislature can not escape the duty of giving some directions to the university; and it is to be hoped that it will, in time, devise some method of perform­ing this duty that will enable it to deal with so important a matter in a manner less casual than it has heretofore adopt­ed. I believe it would be a good plan for the Legislature to employ, every few years, a small expert commission, made up of two leading educators, from without the state, of national prominence and competence, and of one first­class business expert, this commission being charged with a thorough detailed study of the institution and the formula­tion of a report, with criticisms and constructive sugges­tions. If the university is to serve Texas as it should, its income must be greatly increased-in f1J,ct, more than doubled. A modern state university can not operate efficiently on less than two millions a year ; and, in a huge state like Texas, it should, in the near future, be provided with three mil­lions annually. Three universities in states mt.ch smaller are expending nearly the latter sum today, to the great benefit of their constituencies. In addition, the following measures of legislation would, I believe, be very helpful to the university in the perform­ance of its duties of service, and correspondingly helpful to the state as a whole: (1) a statutory measure levying a special tax for the support of the institution; (2 ' an amend­ment repealing the portion of Section 14 of Article VII, of the constitution prohibiting appropriations ·;f tax levies for the erection of university buildings; and (3) a statutory measure, if the constitution permits that method, authoriz­ing the issuance of bonds, with interest and sinking fund payable out of the available university fund, for the con­struction or buildings and the purchase of additi•nal ground to enlarge the campus. The special tax has been so often and fully discussed that little need be said here. It costs no more to support the university ou~ of the proceeds of a special tax than out of biennial approp~·iations. The chief advantage~ of the tax are two: (1) the regents will know what they can depend upon in the matter of support, and can lay their plans ac­ cordingly in a far-sighted and business-like way; (2) the university will be withdrawn further from the disturbing and perilous contact with politics into which the method of biennial appropriations unavoidably draws it. The university is the only institution in Texas and the only university in existence which is prevented by state constitution from constructing buildings out of moneys ap­ propriated from the general revenue or proceedings from tax levies. The prohibition was the chance enactment of a busy convention; has not the shadow of reason for its ex­ istence; does no particle of good ; and should unquestionably be repealed at the earliest moment po~sible. The briefest study of the question makes it plain that those who object to authorizing the issuance of i.ionds under reasonable restrictions for the construction of buildings do so because they have· given the question no study. The ad­vantages of the plan are palpable, a~d there are no serious objections to it if the measure is properly drawn. It is a plan that has been adopted by every large priva~e enterprise that is intelligently managed; the plan that has been adopt­ed in constructing practically all the existing school build­ings in Texas and in other states, as well as by ffi'.)St counties and cities here and elsewhere. Its convenience arises from the fact that buildings are costly, and that it has been at no time possible in Texas to provide large enougn buildings, good enough buildings and a sufficient number of buildings to meet the needs, if their total cost is to be borne by the taxpayers of a single year. Its equity arises from the fun­damental maximum of taxation, that those who enjoy the benefits derived from the proceeds of tax levies should pay the taxes, and that it is unfair for only a portion of those enjoying such benefits to meet the entire tax. Properly c0nstructed buildings should last from thirty to a hundred years; their cost should be borne by the people enjoying and receiving the benefit from them at least during the thirty­year period. MILL TAX SYSTEM OF UNIVERSITY SUPPORT Extract from an address delivered by Edward G. Smith, President of the West Virginia University Ex-Students' Association in 1914 The paramount need of the university is adequate finan­cial support, as by a separate, continuing mill tax, legisla­tive and constitutional. It requires no great penetration to discover how univer­sity support could be liberalized, better secured and better utilized in a system of separate, continuing mill tax, than in the caprice of biennial legislative appropriations, often made grudgingly, sometimes reduced to sums tl•at are nig­gardly, sometimes transferred to other uses, alv·ays subject to political necessities and political uncertainties, never made according to any definite and continued system of far­sighted vision and therefore always wastful an3. inefficient. Bryce in his American Commonwealth, brieflv describing the appropriation system and the mill tax syskm and pre­ferring the latter, says: "Many of the state universities of the West re­ceive a grant from the state treasury, voted an­nually or biennially by the Legislature, but a preferable plan, which several states have recently adopted, is to enact a permanent statute giving an­nually to the university some fraction of a mill (1­1000 of a dollar) out of every dollar of the total valuation of the state. This acts automatically, increasing the grant as the resources of the state increase." Under the existing biennial appropriation system our uni­versity has never been able to be liberated from political embarrassments. Governor Jackson, believing after his namesake, "Old Hickory," that "to the victor belong the spoils," treated the university as among his political spoils. In this respect he differed neither from most of his predecessors nor from most of his successors. Dr. I. C. White, of the chair of geology, and Professor T. M. Jackson, of the school of engineering, assumming there was no reason why the Pennsylvania oil field should stop with Mason and Dixon's line at Mt. Morris, took their classes on the ground and ran levels and traced the oil field far into West Virginia and located the great Mannington pool. This is a kind of work students need. To this day the faces of those boys beam with joy at the remembrance of that experience. In a professional way on rhat survey from Mt. Morris to Mannington they saw a new light. That light is with them yet. And what an inestimable service to the state! In a few years after this, neither of these distinguished men was longer connected with the university. Dean Hogg but recently tried to connect his school of law with practical work on West Virginia textbooks and code and living cases including the already celebrated Virginia debt case. Hogg's practice books and Hogg's code are 0n the desk of every West Virginia practitioner. Hogg is stili connected with the debt case but is now entirely disconnected from the university. Itis a well known fact in legislative circles, that two years ago (as, since before the days of Governor Jackson, had been, for political reasons, the rule), the appropriation bill was first placed before the Legislature on the last day of the session, in the afternoon of that day. In the remaining fragment of the closing day of the session, what opportunity had the friends of the university on the floor of either house to take care of her needs? It is an equally well known fact that the last Legislature appropriated for buildings and lands, for normal schools and university, $300,000, and that by reason of other de­mands on the state treasury, deemed by a part of the execu­tive branch of the state government more urgent than edu­cation, the appropriations were not, for about -i year and a half after the close of the session, by the executive depart­ment, "released" for educational use. A few years ago after President Raymond had quickly but undiplomatically done so much more for the advance­ment of the university than many of his predecessors, com­bined, there arose, in certain quarters outside his faculty and board of regents, an envious wave of unpopularity, and the appropriations for the university were made available only upon his removal. Four years ago a professor of the university, employed to teach Greek, never supposing he had sold his political integ­rity for a professor's salary, criticized a certain political policy and thereupon his dismissal was demanded and the then pending appropriation bill for the university was not passed until his dismissal was accomplished-a circum­stance which, by way of a contrast to make every West Virginian blush, calls to mind the long continued and mag­nanimous indulgence of the absolute despotism of Russia towards the greatest opposition teacher among its subjects, Count Tolstoi, and calls to mind the recent incident of Harvard sustaining the political integrity of a r•rofessor at the definite cost of a $10,000,000 legacy. In these practices it is not to be supposed that one polit­ical party differs widely from another, nor is it to be sup­posed these practices are confined to a single state, nor to a few states of the Union. But, however regrettable that may be, it is gratifying to know that under a system such as the mill tax system suggested, financial support for the university would be as secure as it ought to be and profes­sional seats in the university would be as secure as they ought to be and the university would be set free from pol­itics. Under the existing system of biennial appropriations the university has no fixed or certain base for definite plans projected far into the future. Not only must there be freedom from political interfer­ence but there must be foresight. There must '!Je certainty. There must be plan. There must be perspective. The uni­versity authorities must know in advance, not two years, but many years what they will have to spend in order to know how to spend it to the best advantage, in systematically building up a greater institution. In no other way can they so plan and work by plan as to eliminate waste, to secure efficiency, to attain harmonious development, arid to obtain. generally maximum results. The point may be illustrated in university architecture by the noble harmony on the campus at Charlottesville, the result of Jefferson's plan, contrasted with the want of it elsewhere. How can the management evolve their schools or equip the university in accord with any high degree of excellence upon biennial contingencies? Uncertainty must be elim­inated and the university placed upon some financial foot­ing at least as certain, permanent and automatic as is the rest of our free school system. When the taxable values in the state are fixed and the Uni 1.:ersity of Te:eas Bulletin number of mills per dollar or per hundred dollars to be set apart to the university equipment and maintenance are de­termined, no element of uncertainty remains except what may be due to changing values from one valuation period to another which presumably would increase with the in­creased needs of the university. These give a definite base upon which to plan a university and all its departments and for apportionment among the respective departments. They form a base for plans designed to cover a long period of years such as may not be evolved in two-year periods or ten-year periods or a generation. These long time plans, based upon fixed assets available, and certainly to become available, make for proportion and harmony in development, make for economy in expenditure and make for efficiency. In fine, they make for maximum results and have nothing but contrast with the present hand-to-mouth system, or want of system, wasteful and inefficient. Another consideration of the system proposed is its at­tractiveness to the best teaching talent in the country. It would not only retain our best talent at home but would invite the best talent and genius from abroad. Men of talent and genius are willing to work for much smaller financial remuneration if they can only be assured of an op­portunity to do their best work, often requiring many years, often requiring a life-time, for its accomplishment and only possible in universities which can make permanent plans covering a long period of years and with reasonable cer­tainty of their due execution, in an atmosphere of freedom. The mill tax system of whole or partial university support has been adopted for many leading institutions in more than a dozen states in this country, including the universities of Wisconsin, of Michigan and of Illinois, and the annual and biennial appropriation system is already antiquated. Show me a state university now dependent entirely upon annual and biennial appropriations and I will show you a cripple. At the last June meeting of the Alumni Association it unanimously adopted a resolution introduced by President Gore of the Harrison Club, favoring an arrangement for permanently financing the university by means of a contin­uing mill tax. Under date of July 31, I had a letter from Mr. Shawkey, state superintendent of free schools and pres­ident of the board of regents, committing himself unre­servedly to that resolution. At a recent meeting of the board of regents at Wheeling it committed itself to the substance of that resolution and it now seems a very op­portune moment to present the proposition to the business men of the state through this state board of trade and I most earnestly hope for your very careful and your very favorable consideration of it. For we are convinced the answer to the second inquiry is: The required means for university support may be made certainly available by means of a continuing mill tax, legis­lative and constitutional, and this may be broug·ht about by the policy suggested respecting our distinguished men, our alumni organization and a loyal efficient, university service extended to the general public. ADVANTAGES OF THE MILLAGE-STATE INSTITUTIONS HAVING IT Extract from the Report of George E. McLean, President of the State University of Iowa, for 1911-1913 Experience proves that the millage method is the best one. Twelve of the most progressive states, supporting twenty-one of the most prosperous institutions, have the millage system as one of the means for support or build­ ings, or both. There can be no better illustration of the advantages of the millage system over the hit-or-miss special appropriation method for buildings than in the history of the University of Iowa. Excluding the Old Capitol, the first building at the university, originally a gift from the United States, from the beginning of the university up to the first install­ ment of the millage tax in 1896 there were erected ten build. University of Texas Bulletin ings, of cheap construction, without architectural merit, at an original expenditure of $234,375. These buildings were not fireproof, and three of them were destroyed by fire, with great accompanying loss of their equipment, apparatus, and valuable specimens, to say nothing of the interruption of the work of the university. Under the millage, including the buildings erected and contracted for, with the two build­ings for which a special appropriation was granted, there will have been erected 18 buildings since the beginning of the millage in 1896, or twice as many buildings as were put up from the beginning of the university during nearly a half century. The total cost of these buildings was $1,093,­050, as compared with the total original cost of the earlier nine buildings of $234,875. The buildings under the mill­age, with two exceptions, have been fireproof, of stone, built to last for all time, harmonious in architecture, chaste in their simplicity, and unsurpassed in their adaptation to. their uses. They have been erected with the future in view, combining artistic and economic effects. Olmsted Brothers of Boston, have been consulting landscape archi­tects. They and other experts and educators. who have visited the university declare that it has unique advantages for its buildings and campus. These advantages come from the university entering upon its building era later than sis­ter universities, enabled by the millage to adopt consistent and economic building policies, and having unusual phys­ical advantages in the location of the university on the slope in connection with the Iowa River. The greatest benefit from the millage to the university, much as the public is impressed by the buildings, is the de­velopment of the real work of the university. Some times the building era of a university is at the expense of its school work. Just the contrary has been the result at this university. The tide of migration of Iowa students outside the state has in part been turned by the sight of the build­ings and by knowledge of the state's consistent policy under the millage, of equipping the institutions. The positively unsanitary conditions for the professors and students in the form of overcrowded and unventilated buildings have been removed. The underpaid staff' of instruction in part has been held because of the facilities and equipment given them in these buildings. The quality of the instruction, so dependent in these days, even in the literatures as well as the sciences, upon the laboratory methods has been improved. Many lines of research (the very essence of a university) requir­ing proper housing have been strengthened and the graduate college made possible. The new buildings have made it possible for the university to serve the public welfare; for example, the state bacteriological laboratory in service of the public health, the psychological laboratory in service of the schools, etc. In short, one of the original chief factors contributing to the recognition of the university has been due to the millage tax. MILLAGE TAX Extract from the Report of the Iowa State Board of Education for 1911 Some months ago the board ordered a careful investiga­tion for the purpose of deciding whether or not the Legisla­ture should be asked to continue what is known as the mill­age tax, the proceeds of which have been used for the erec­tion of buildings at the several institutions. As a result of this investigation, the board has unanimously decided to ask for the continuance of this tax for an additional five­year period. We find that this method of providing for buildings is the one in vogue in California for the state university of that state, in Colorado for the state agricultural college and school of mines, in Indiana for the state university, in Ken­tucky for the University of Kentucky, in Michigan for both of its institutions of higher .learning, also in Minnesota. Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Wisconsin and Wyoming. It is a fact easily demonstrated that the institutions as they now exist have practically been created out of the proceeds of this levy. Buildings Erected at the State Teachers' College At the state teachers' college the tax has performed a like service. President Seerley has tersly summed up the situa­tion in general, as follows: "The creation of the first millage in 1902 opened the way for a satisfactory system of con­struction, enabled plans to be carefully made, and began a possibility for creditable educational institutions in the state of Iowa. Up to that time the cheapest form of construc­tion had been used, the poorest kind of architect:::re was ac­cepted, and the equipment was .beggarly and insufficient to permit the work that such institutions were supposed to undertake and to pretend to accomplish. Without this im­provement in the construction of buildings for higher edu­c~tion, the Iowa institutions would have been among the weakest and most unattractive in the whole Umted States. With the present policy continued the time is n'>t very dis­tant when Iowa will be on a par with any of the states." ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST A PROPOSED MILL TAX AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF CALIFORNIA WHICH WAS SUBMITTED TO THE ELECTORS OF TH,AT STATE ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1920 The state is suffering from a crisis at the university for :financial reasons. Its revenue must be placed upon a more sound and permanent basis. It is specifically urged: (1) The tax here sought is not new in principle. A similar legislative measure in force from 1893 to 1910 en­abled the university to be of the greatest service in its his­tory, and was emphatically favored by legislatures and the public alike. This tax was impliedly repealed in l 910 by Constitutional Amendment No. 1. (2) The university is . now :financed upon the basis of 1910. Yet from 1910 to 1920 the students at Berkeley alone increased in numbers from 3300 to 9800-an increase of 200 per cent-the recently inaugurated branch at Los Angeles has an additional 1300, the professional colleges and farm schools throughout the state are growing rapidly, and the 1919 registration for extension work alone was 16,000. (3) Classroom and housing facilities utterly fail to take care of the increased numbers. Classroom facilities have increased only 20 per cent. New buildings are essential for the general sciences and the new school of education. Stu­dents can not get housing accommodations, and dormito­ries must be built. At the opening of each college year these problems become acute. ( 4) Classes are much too large. A student can not re­ceive the necessary individual attention from his instructor in a class of hundreds. (5) Compensation of the teaching force must be in­creased. There has been an increase of but 25 per cent in salaries in the past ten years. In consequence, the problem of getting competent instructors grows increasingly diffi­cult. The best experts are either sought by other institu · tions which offer higher compensation, or go into private business. These men must have spent at least seven years of non-remunerative time in order to qualify for their posi­tions, and for some time past only loyalty to the university has kept many of the best men there. The threatened loss of our best experts in farming, irrigation, mining, engi­neering and the other arts and sciences must be avoided at all hazards. (6) Under the present system, the university must ask for aid each legislative session. Our legislatures have been generous, but even this experience in the past can not take away the constant uncertainty for the future. No compre­hensive plan for growth and expansion can now be made. The proposed plan will remove this uncertaint~r and avoid the necessity of a scramble for funds. (7) Other states, sixteen in number, have recognized this principle of the automatic tax as being the best method of supporting a state university. (8) By this measure every taxpayer who has property Unirersity of Te:cas Bulletin subject to assessment of the assessed value of $1,000 will pay $1.20 per year for the support of the university and all its branches. The university may remain a free institution, without tuition fees, and its services to our agricultural, mining and other interests can grow from year to year to meet the growing needs of the state. WARREN GREGORY, President Alumni Association of the University of California. Argument Against State University· Ad Valm·em Tax This measure to raise funds for the state university is fundamentally wrong. It is unjust from the standpoint ot taxation. It violates all the traditions and practices con­trolling and safeguarding the handling of public funds. In violation of the present provisions of the constitution it places a yearly burden of over four million dollars upon the home, the farm, the business and the industry and relieves public service corporations from paying any portion of the tax. This measure places this large sum, whieh increases yearly at the rate of about seven per cent, without reserva­tion in the hands of the board of regents of the university. The people will have no control of this money either through the Legislature or by initiative legislation, unless they again amend the constitution. Therefore, this ad valorem tax now proposed is not the same as the old ad valorem tax which was formerly levied for the university. The old tax was levied by the Legislature and subject to positive control by the Legislature and responsive to public desire and de­mand. For years California provided a mill tax for the university and at this time other states provide mill taxes for their universities, but the public funds so raised were and are properly safeguarded by provisions which are en­tirely lacking in the measure now before the people. This measure sets aside public funds not only beyond control of the people, but in excess of the present necessity of the uni. versity. At present there is annually appropriated to the A. Mill Tax fo'r Higher Educational Institutions university out of public funds slightly over two and one-half million dollars. This measure adds to that the sum of one and one-half million dollars, while the actual additional needs of the university have been stated by friends of the university to be not in excess of one million dollars a year. This measure places the university in a much hvored posi­tion ahead of the public schools, of the courts, of the state functions for public safety, and ahead of the surport of our dependents and the care of our widowed mothers and or­phaned children. It is preposterous that a mea<;ure of this kind should be presented for public approval. Surely the voters of this state will not approve a measure which levies upon the man unequal and unjust tax, which places public funds beyond proper control, and sets such funds aside re­gardless of other equally meritorious or more necessary needs. The measure should be defeated. CLYDE L. .LEA VEY. EXTRACT FROM AN ADDRESS DELIVERED BY GEO. SPENCER WRIGHT TO A MEETING OF THE EX-STUDENTS' ASSOCIATION, AUG., 1921 Seventy-six years ago the builders of this great common­wealth directed the Legislature, as soon as practicable, to establish and provide for the maintenance and support of a "university of the first class." At that time Texas was thinly settled and poor in resources. Since then it has reached the position of the fifth state in population and among the first in material resources, and yet this univer­sity trails behind the educational institutions of states with smaller population and resources. The universities of Iowa, Indiana, Michigan. Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Wisconsin and other smaller states have received for many years larger legislative appropria­tions than the Texas University. Michigan, MiLnesota, and Nebraska point with pride to their great universities built from generous appropriations and direct taxation encour­aged, if not demanded, by a people eager to build universi­ties of the first class. University of Texas Bulletin For almost three quarters of a century Texas has been so parsimonious with its university that many young meb and women have gone to other states for their education, and hundreds of our university students have bo~ne the heat of our torrid summers and the cold of our varying winters in wooden shacks that mar the beauty of the campus and which would reflect but little credit on an ordinary "wild cat" oil development camp. The total amount necessary for the support of all the state educational institutions, as estimated for each year of the next legislative biennium, is, in round figures, $9,500,000. The estimated taxable values in the state for the next two fiscal years amount to approximately $3,400,'lOO,OOO and $3,500,000,000 each year. If the amounts necessary for the support of all the educational institutions were placed roughly at $10,000,000 per annum a fixed tax of 3112 mills for each year would, on the basis of an increased valuation from year to year, provide the revenue desired by these institutions. If the constitution should be amended so as to provide for a tax of 31/2 mills per year, solely for the support of these educational institutions, and permit the Legislature to increase the millage basis every five years, the funds necessary for all these institutions and the build­ing of a university of the first class would be provided. Among the states that have provided this character of tax are the following: Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nehraska, Ne­vada, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, Washington, and Wisconsin. One-third of a cent on the taxable values of Texas each year for the support and maintenance of these institutions would not appear as too much to ask the people nf this state. If you and I shall do our full duty in a movement for this tax, if the subject shall be placed fairly and fully before the people, they shall be ashamed to vote against it. Permit me to suggest that we begin now a concerted movement for this constitutional amendment, and that each of us pledge our services in the movement until i~ shall become 'l part of the organic law of this state. If we, as the beneficiaries of the university, s•iall succeed in securing funds for the upbuilding and support of a uni­versity of the first class, we shall render distinct service to the university, the state and posterity; ~md when such amendment has been adopted, we shall return here to cele­brate a new day, the University of Texas Independence Day -her independence of sordid politics, independence of leg­islative appropriations, an independence that shall permit it to stand, not second, third or fourth, but as a "university of the first class." FACTS CONCERNING THE CRISIS AT THE STATE UNIVERSITY, AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE AND NORMAL SCHOOL, AS COPIED FROM THE OFFICIAL VOTERS' PAMPHLET OF THE STATE OF OREGON Submitted by R. S. Bean, President of the Board of Regents of the University of Oregon; J. K. Weatherford, Presi­dent of the Board of Regents of the Oregon Agricul­tural College, and Ben W. Olcott, President of the Board of Regents of the Oregon Normal School. 1. Higher Educational Institutions Forced to Appeal for Relief A financial crisis is upon the Oregon Agricultural College, the State University, and the Oregon Normal School. It is due to causes over which they have no control. Upon this crisis, the joint ways and means committee of the last Legislature held a hearing. The committee found the three institutions in desperate need. It found that i;hey should not wait even until next year. Accordingly it r2commended to the Legislature an additional levy of 1.26" mills for sup­port, beginning in 1921, and an appropriation of like amount for this year alone. The Legislature itself was barred by the six per cent tax limitation from making the levy and appropriation, so it referred the bill t~ the people, and di­rected that two pages be set aside in this pamphlet to explain the facts to the voters. The voters are to decide May 21, and as many of the facts as can be contained in two pages will now be set forth. 2. One Canse of Crisis Is the Remarkable Increase in Number of Students Since the original millage bill went into effect in 1913 the number of full-time residence students at the agricul­tural college and the state university has increased one hundred and fifty per cent. At the agricultural college in 1913 there were 1364 full-time students; there are now 3378. At the state university in 1913 there were 691 full­time students; there are now 1745. The institutions have tried hard to make income meet maintenance costs in the face of this remarkable growth, but have been unable to do so . .J. J1eanu:hile Their Income Is Further Reduced by Great Upheaval of Costs Not only has the number of students increased one hun­dred and fifty per cent, but in the same seven years the cost of supplies and equipment has doubled. (This is not true of faculty salaries, which have necessarily been in­t:reased very little.) The buying power of the dollar of 1913 is today about 45 cents. The experience of the three .institutions has been the same as the experience of every . Oregon family. It is as if a family of four in 1913, with an income of $2000, has been increased to a family of ten in 1920, with an income of $900. And with the attendance one and one-half times as great, and the buying power of the existing income cut squarely in two, the millage tax revenue has remained almost unchanged. 4. Millage Income Little Changed Because of Policy on .4sse.~sed Valuations The millage tax revenue has stood almost still because as­sessed valuations in Oregon remain about on the same basis as they were in 1913. It was the expectation of the Leg­islature, of the tax commission, and of all concerned, when the present millage support was pa~sed, that the annual rise in assessed valuations would equal increase in I!'.aintenance. How conspicuously it has failed to do so is shown by the following table : 1913 ......... ..........................$954,282,37 4 1914 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 932,413,080 1915 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 934,495,032 1916 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 878,763,944 1917 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 928,605,570 1918 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 987 ,533,896 1919 ... ... ... .. .. •,• . .. .. . .. , . ... .. , .... 990,435,472 That is, the increase in the state's assessed valuation since the millage bills were passed in 1913 has been three and eight-tenths per cent, while the increase in student enroll­ment has been one hundred and fifty per cent, and the in­crease in operating costs about one hundred per cent. · Further, the number of students described, totaling about 5400 at the three institutions, includes only fuB-time stu­dents, and does cnot include the many thousands who take winter short courses, summer schools, extension classes, or correspondence study. All of these also have to be financed, however, from the millage tax income, and their number, too, has increased tremendously. .J. When E-i:pressed in Terms of DolT,a;rs Crisis Becomes Apparent In actual dollars the state university is rece1vmg only $10,846 more than it would have received in 1913 from the millage tax income, but it has 1054 more full-time students. The agricultural college is receiving only $14.462 more, but it has 2014 more students. The normal is receiving only $1445 more. Had it not been for thrifty and far-sighted administra­ tion, the three institutions would long before now have been turning students away. A pre-war report of the Uniterl States Bureau of Education gave the average cost per stu­dent per year at $325 in the great number of American uni­versities and colleges that entered into the calculation. At the state university this year, however, in spite of the rise in prices, the cost per student is $203, and at the college $180. Even with the new millage bill in effect the cost in Oregon would still be below the average for institutions of similar grade. The annual student cost at the agricul­tural college, as an example, would still be $70 a year below the annual student cost at a typical group of five agricul­tural schools in the Middle West and the West-those of Michigan, Iowa, Kansas, Indiana, and Washington. (Note: In addition, the costs of the five colleges mentioned were taken from a four-year period preceding the war, when costs were about one-half what they are now.) 6. They Find Themselves Unable to "Make Ends Meet" Any Longer The state university, agricultural college, and normal have at last "come to the end of their rope." The war piled on burdens that made universities and colleges everywhere stagger. It not only raised prices to the breaking point for them, just as it did for every man's household, but it compelled them to add branches of study, to intensify their work, to whip up their speed; for few agencies rose to meet the call of the war as did the universities and colleges of the country. The war also showed hundreds of thousands of men the wonderful value of a college education. Nearly 1500 ex-service men have hurried to the state university and the agricultural college alone. Welcome as they were, they have nevertheless helped to create a problem that can not be met without more aid from the state. 7. Shortage of Classroom Space Is as Great as Shortage of Maintenance Funds Classroom conditions at the college ~nd university are almost impossil!lle. It is natural that they should be when A Mill Tax fo1· Highe1· Educational Institutions it is remembered that the buildings of 1913 were even then insufficient, and that the number of students has increased ten times faster than classroom space. Out of the dozens of possible illustrations there is room in these two pages for one or two only. At the university the sciences have the laboratory and classroom facilities sufficient for an institu­tion of about 700, instead of one of 17 45. The university library was built when the student body numbered 400, and has study facilities for 211 at one time. At the agri­cultural college students are shifted ail over the campus to find room at all, then are constantly crowded into wholly unsuitable quarters. · The teaching efficiency of the two in­stitutions is fast being broken down by lack of classrooms and laboratories. 8. Salary Conditions Result in Steady Loss of Best Faculty Men The cost of living has risen probably about 90 per cent in Oregon since 1915. Faculty salaries at the university, college and normal have advanced about 20 per cent since that time. The result has been a steady loss to the state from its best faculty material. Teachers can not be ex­pected to stay on indefinitely out of loyalty when they have to borrow from banks, or dip into previous savings to keep their families supported. At the agricultural college alone there have been forty-five faculty resignations since July, 1919. Some go to the branches of industry in which they are specialists, for one of the great lessons of the world war was the unrealized value of the technical training of the university and college professor. Others go to states that have already met the crisis in their higher edu.::ational in­stitutions by providing more adequate funds. Yet it is vitally important that many of these faculty members be kept in the state, and in particular the technical specialists. Professors of agriculture, horticulture, dairy­ing, animal husbandry, education and child sturiy, journal­ism, commerce, engineering, forestry, and such practical branches, come to their highest worth in a state only after years of service. New men can not learn Oregon in a sea­son or two. 9. Why Higher Education Pays in General and Why It Pays in Oregon Higher education puts dollars into the pock~ts of thou­sands of Oregon citizens. The feat of the agricultural col­lege in increasing the grain output per acre has alone added more to the wealth of Oregon for each year than the entire cost of higher education for the same year. So has the work of the college in reducing the fruit pests. So has its achievement in raising the egg-laying average and in im­proving the livestock. In a less visible but no less direct way the university and the normal are making their contri­butions to the wealth of the state. Higher education is a safeguard against anarchy on the one hand, and against aristocracy and reaction r:n the other. Nearly all the inventions that helped win the w::i.r were con­tributions of college professors or college-trained men. Educated men and women produce more and save more. The arrival in the business and industrial world in the last fifteen years of a great number of yourig men of broad uni­versity training has helped make America the b•1siness and industrial leader of the whole world. It has helped bring the worker and the employer closer together, and to improve the social and financial position of the former. Higher ed­ucation in Oregon has been one of the strongest factors in bringing in settlers to populate a vast region that at the present averages only nine persons to the square mile. 10. What the Effect on Taxes Would Be, if You Happen to Be a Taxpayer Assessed valuations in Oregon usually vary from one­third to two-thirds of the so-called "cash valuation," which in its turn is generally lower than the "asked price." A A Mill Tax for Higher Educational Institutions man paying on $1000 of assessed valuation would have $1.26 added to his annual statement. As the prevailing tax levies run, including the special levies for roads and towns and local schools, his increase would usually range from one-twenty-fifth to one-fortieth. That is, it would add from two and one-half to four per cent to his annual taxes to have the agricultural college, the university and the normal of his state placed on a footing that would let them remain the equals of the higher educa­tional institutions of neighboring and Middle West States, and make it possible for him to educate his boy and girl at home, without going to the far greater expense of sending them away from the state. 11. If You Were the Person Responsible for Highe1· Edu­cation, What Would You Do? Imagine yourself to be responsible for the carrying on of higher education in Oregon. The institutions for which you have this responsibility have been created by the people for the education of their boys and girls, for the spread of good citizenship, for educational extension to the state gen­ erally, and for the perpetuation of the Republic's free in­ stitutions. Suppose that you have been provided by the people with what they expected at the time would be an adequate mill­ age income. Unexpectedly to them and to you, however, the income fails to meet growth, fails to meet the unfor­ seen conditions created by a world war. In fact. the income stands almost still. Meanwhile your costs begin to go up, up, up. They double in seven years. Your dollars become worth 45 cents of their old buying power. Your buildings are depreciating Your equipment is wearing out. And, on top of it all, your student enrollment jumps one hundred and fifty per cent. 12. What Would You Do if These Things Happened to You? Would you close up your doors? Or would you let your whole educational system break down? Or would you go frankly before the people, make the facts known to them, and ask for the increase in income that has been necessary in every other activity? If you would do this last, it is then your conaistent duty to ;,.ote for the Higher Educational Tax Act. (Note : Just before this copy went to the Secretary of State, on March 1, the Higher Educational Tax Act was en­dorsed by the State Taxpayers' League at its annual meeting in Portland. The measure had previously been endorsed by the Oregon Newspaper Conference and by the Oregon Retail Merchants Association. Many other organizations were preparing to endorse it, and dozens will doubtless do so between this date, March 1, and May 21.) (Signed) R. s. BEAN, President, Board of Regents, University· of Oregon. J. K. WEATHERFORD, President, Board of Regents, 01·egon Agricultural College. BEN W. OLCOTT, President, Board of Regents, Oregon N orrnal School. THE CRISIS Extract from Worker's Handbook, published by the Montana Univer­sity Funds Campaign Committee in July, 1920 No longer can the university institutions of Montana, in­cluding the State University at Missoula, the State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts at Bozeman, the State Normal College at Dillon and the State School of Mines at Butte, perform efficiently the tasks which have been as­signed to them. Their present income is wholly insuffi­cient. They find ·themselves confronted by long accumu­lating needs for more buildings for instruction and supple­mentary student activities, for more books and scientific apparatus and technical equipment, for better libraries and laboratories, and for more and better living accommoda­tions for the students. They are confronted also by an acute situation resulting from: 1. A greatly increased number of students. 2. The need for higher salaries to attract and hold strong teachers and able investigators under present ~iving costs. 3. Rapidly rising costs of all supplies. 4. Demands for new types of service-extension work, correspondence classes, boys' and girls' club work, mining bureau service. None the less urgent are the needs of those institutions which have been established for the care and education of th defective, delinquent and dependent children )f the state: the Orphans' Home at Twin Bridges, the State School for the Deaf and Blind at Boulder, the State Industrial School at Miles City, and the State Vocational School for Girls at Helena. The demands upon these institutions greatly ex­ceed the facilities now provided. The educational system of Montana will be sadly lacking until all these wards of the state are given their rightful opporttmity to ;Je educated as far as possible for self-supporting citizenship. Most serious of all, in the face of the needs above indi­cated, the state institutions are threatened with a reduction in their present inadequate state income. This reduction is due to the constitutional provision that when the valuation of the real and personal property in the state amounts to six hundred million dollars ($600,000,000), a total already reached, the tax levy for state purposes, unless otherwise voted by the people, shall be reduced from 21;i~ mills to 2 mills. Out of the present tax levy of 2112 mills the state government, boards and bureaus, the penitentiary, .the in­sane asylum, and the welfare institutions require approx­imately 11/2 mills; the university institutions receive for maintenance approximately 1 mill. As the former group can be operated at this time only with increased cost, it is clear that the funds available from taxation for the state schools will be greatly reduced unless the people vote other­wise. The reduction in the state income for next year is estimated at $300,000. The Relief Relief in this crisis can come only from the people. It can not come from legislative action. For, under the con­stitution, any increase in the constitutional state tax levy or any bonded indebtedness must be voted by the people. Hence two laws have been initiated to be voted on in November. (A) No. 18 provides for a maintenance tax for the university institutions. (B) No. 19 provides for a bond issue to erect buildings at all the state educational institu­tions. Initiative Measure No. 18 Maintenance Tax Law This measure provides that each year for the next ten years the levy on all taxable property for state purposes shall be increased to 31/2 mills-that is one mill more than the present state tax. The proceeds from one and one-half mills of this levy shall be appropriated by the State Legis­lature for the maintenance of the university institutions­the State University at Missoula, the State College of Agri­culture and Mechanic Arts at Bozeman, the State Normal College at Dillon and the State School of Mines at Butte.. Initiative Measure No. 19 Bond Issue Law This measure provides for the issuance of ~tate bonds, under the authority of the State Board of Examiners, to the amount of five million dollars ($5,000,000) to draw interest at the rate of not more than 5112 per cent, to be sold at not less than par, to be payable in twenty years, and to be re­deemable at any time aften ten years. The proceeds of these bonds are to be used only for the construction, repair, and equipment of buildings ; three million seven hundred and fifty dollars ($3,750,000) at the four university institu­tions named above, and one million two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($1,250,000) at the four non-university in­stitutions, also under the direction of the State Board of Education-the State Industrial School at Miles City, the State Vocational School for Girls at Helena, the State Or­phans' Home at Twin Bridges, and the State School for the Deaf and Blind at Boulder. This measure carries a state tax of not to exceed 10/12 mill for interest and sinking fund. This tax has, been computed at a rate which Vl'ill pay the interest and principal of these bonds within ten to twenty years. The immediate result of the passage of Initiat:ve :Measure No. 18 will be to increase the state's maintenance funds by one-half mill and to increase the present one-mill appro­priation for the university maintenance to 1Y2 mills. This will afford with the income from the federal government, a conservative sum for the maintenance of the four univer­sity institutions and by taking off the pressure upon the state levy for general purposes, will indirectly provide for the growing maintenance needs of the four non-university institutions and of the other state activities. The immediate result of the passage of Initiative Measure No. 19 will be to supply a reasonable sum for the long post­poned and urgent building and equipment needs of all the state educational institutions, both for those in the univer­sity and for the four non-university institutions. No other measures have been proposed which would pro­vide a proper increase in the state revenues whereby the higher and special schools may be kept in effective operation. The Effect on Ta;i,:es Fully Explained The two proposed measures, No. 18 and No. 19, carry a total increase of the state tax levy of 211:1 miHs, 1 % mills in the university maintenance tax law (No. 18) and 10112 Uniuersity of Te:ws Bulletin of a mill in the educational bond law (No. 19). The con­stitution provides that when the property valuation of the state reaches six hundred million dollars ($600,000,000), the state tax levy shall be reduced from 21/2 mills to 2 mills. Since it is certain that this year the property valuation has exceeded six hundred million dollars ($600,000,000), the actual increase in the state tax, provided by Measure No. 18 and No. 19, will be 1 5/6 mills more than that now actually in force. Sorne Further Reasons Measures Are Financially Sound The plan of a millage tax for the support of the university institutions is now followed in fifteen of the most impor­tant states of the West and may be called a standard method in these states where the educational institutions are most successful.Among them are Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Ilinois. Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska, Colorado, Washington, and Oregon. The issuance of bonds for the construction of buildings has also been widely employed. The issue of bo11ds for this purpose is good business, and it is social justice. It is the height of absurdity to make the current reve~ues of the state pay for capital investments that will serve the people for generations to come. The dividends from faese invest­ments will be great, but they will accrue mainly to the fu­ture, for the simple reason that they are educational in. vestments. Our ·sons and daughters will thank us for mak­ing these investments, and will pay them glad.1y-and far more easily by virtue of the training they get in these schools. Montana Is Losing Money Montana loses a quarter of a million dollars a year, it is said, through the young people who seek a college education outside the state. The estimate has been made that 250 students a year spending on the average $1000 each are attending the educational institutions outside the state Some of these go outside for family reasons, but many of them would stay in the state if the institutions were better equipped and supported. Many of them, if not most of them, are attending state-supported schools. Take the University Institutions Out of Legislative Competition In order to secure funds the university institutions must now compete before the Legislature with the ot!,er interests and undertakings of the state. To most personn this seems unfair to the university institutions and tends t-J lower their dignity, and limit their efficiency. The common schools and the high schools do not have to go before the city councils and the county commissioners and compete for support against roads, poor houses, jails, health officers, county deputies, etc. They have their own fixed funcis raised for.them and not subject to political trad­ ing or to competition with other public purposes, which, however meritorious, are often less essential. These two measures will place the state institutions in the . same relation financially to their constituency, the people of the state, that the local schools are in to the people of the district, the town, or the county. Bring the University Up to the Standard of the Montana Public Schools The recent survey of the school systems of the United States placed those of Montana in the lead. This was due s~lely< to th~ excellence of the grade and high schools. The children coming from these schools in increasingly greater numbers should not experience a lowering in standards in passing to the institutions of higher learning. Yet this must result if the people of the state do not support the state schools as the public schools are supported by the commu­nities in which they are situated. University of Te:x:as Bulletin Since January 1, 1920, Custer County has voted more money for a new county high school building, and the Mis­soula city school district has voted more money for new grade school buildings than any of the univer.'.lity institu­tions has had for permanent buildings during the last ten years. These examples are not exceptions but are to be found at place after place throughout the state. If the people of the state desire that their children should go to college in Montana, the physical standards of the university must be brought up to the grade of the public schools. An Opinion Worth Reading The Efficiency Commission The Sixteenth Legislative Assembly (1919) created a state efficiency commission to investigate the financial and business policy of the state. The members of this commis­sion were Hon. Frank Elie! of Dillon (chairman), Hon. N. T. Lease of Great Falls and Hon. W. 0. Fisk of Hamilton. After visiting all the state·educational institutions the com­mission reported to the Governor: "The ambitious youth of Montana has a right to demand that the state provide the opportunities and facilities for obtaining higher education. Under present conditions the state is failing to perform, effectively, the duty which it owes to our young manhood and womanhood. Many of our most promising boys and girls belong to families of most limited financial resources. The state will not be fair to the youth of Montana if it fails to place the opportunities for higher education within their reach. "It is a matter of general observation that many of our young men and women leave this state in seeking their urii­ versity training. This entails an annual drain of a consid­ erable sum of money from the productive channels of the state. Many of the most competent of these young men and women are lost to the future of Montana, since they take up their life-work elsewhere. "This condition can not be corrected as long as our edu­cational institutions are dependent almost entirely upon appropriations for the money necessary, not only for main­tenance, but also for the erection of buildings. The rev­enues of the state are insufficient and can not readily be . increased. It will be necessary to go to the people them­selves for authority to supply the needed funds. "The needs (i.e., building and equipment) of the educa­tional institutions may be provided for either by a bond issue or by a special tax to be levied during a definite term of years. Either plan would require the approval of the people. Of the two the former commends itself to this commission as the more desirable. "This matter is of such a fundamental character, it is so intimately connected with the future welfare of the state that the members of this commission have no hesitancy in giving their full and unqualified endorsement to the propo­sition of asl<:ing the people to authorize the necessary bond issue." EXTRACT FROM AN ADDRESS BY EDWARD C. ELLIOT, CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA More than a quarter of a century ago when forward­looking men were engaged in laying the permanent founda­tions for this commonwealth of Montana, it was fore­ordained that a system of free public education was to be set up. As an integral part of this system, and in comple­tion of the guarantee of equality of opportunity for all the youth of the state there were created four higher institu­tions-The State University at Missoula, The State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts at Bozeman, The State School of Mines at Butte, and the State Normal College at Dillon. From simple and modest beginnings these institutions have in their growth and expansion reflected the generai progress of the state. In 1916 the four higher state schools were organized as component units of the University of Montana. The immediate results of the centralized organ­ization were coordination and harmony of educational effort, economy and effectiveness of financial operation, and the elimination of those partisan and provincial influences which for many years have led to disturbing and handicap­ping controversies. During the past year there were enrolled in the four University of Montana institutions approximately1 three thousand students, each seeking with that ambitious fore­sight, ever characteristic of our western youth, to become fit for service to self and state by liberal education and pro­fessional training in law, or forestry, or agriculture, or en­gineering, or journalism, or business administration, or pharmacy, or teaching. In this connection it is pertinent to call attention to the fact that during the past decade the resident student attendance at the several university insti­tutions has increased several times-at the State University more than four times, at the College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts nearly twice, and at the Normal College nearly four times. During this period there had been but little increase in buildings and equipment for instructional purposes. In addition to the teaching of students there has been maintained the Agricultural Experiment Station at Boze­man with its four branch stations at Havre, Moccasin, Hunt­ley, and Corvallis. Through the agricultural extension serv­ice no less than sixty thousand people, chiefly of the coun­try regions, have had carried to them through agricultural experts, home demonstration agents, and leadc•rs of boys' and girls' clubs, practical assistance and inspiration of in­calculable social and economic benefit to the ~ntire state. Through the State Bureau of Mines, the services of the expert mining engineers of the State School of Mines have been made available to hundreds of our people. The teach­ers' service division of the Normal College has .:ontinued to stimulate hundreds of teachers to undertake better prepara­tion for their work. It is more than a mere figu~e of speech to say that the campus of the university now includes the entire area of the State of Montana. Three forces, however, have recently operated to neutral­ize the gains from the improved administrative machinery for the university, and to create a crisis which today threat­ens the very existence of the university and its warks. This crisis may be easily and briefly described. Since the time of their establishment state funds provided for the support and the material expansion and equipment of the higher educational institutions have been wholly in­adequate. In making this statement I am not overlooking the outstanding fact that our people have had, during this period of our phenomenal development from pioneer begin­nings, to bear many large public burdens. Higher educa­tion was but one among many essential public enterprises demanding the attention of legislatures and the taxpayer. Nevertheless, the insufficiency of past Rupport can not be ignored. While the state, during the decade preceding the war enjoyed unprecedented growth in population and in the development of her great natural resources, it is fair to remember that during this same time the state made no provision whatever for buildings for educational purposes at any of the educational institutions. And what is more to the point during these years these institutions doubled and trebled in student attendance. The appropriations from state taxation for the mainte­nance of this comprehensive and manifold undertaking dur­ing the fiscal year amounted approximately to the revenue equivalent of one mill. The university expense can not now be met from the limited income. The'prime question before the people of Mont:ma today is whether or not the university enterprise shall be maintained in a manner that will enable it to serve as it should the in­terests of a progressive, productive state; or whether Mon­tana, which has recently been awarded first rank among all the states of the Union for its support of elementary and secondary schools, shall follow a narrow and destructive University of Texas Bulletin policy towards its university. Shall the state provide more revenue or be content with less university? Chief among the disastrous results of the Great War is the world-wide diminished purchasing power of money. Here at least is a case where familiarity had not bred con­tempt. Keeping in mind the insufficient pre-war resources, it is but natural that the post-war depreciated dollar has become a real menace to the life of our educational institutions. The appropriations made by the last Legislature were based upon estimates made during the summer months of 1918 when the tide of victory ebbed and flowed, and when there was a recognized necessity for economy in public as well as private affairs if we were to furnish the means for the victory for which we were struggling. Will there be any wonder or resentment on the part of rational men when I say that the university would have been unable to keep its doors open to students and to meet the demands for service from the citizens of the state this year on the funds appropriated? I estimate an operating deficit of about one hundred and fifty thousand dollars at the end of the current fiscal year. This deficit has been offset by withholding practically all of the appropriations for build­ings made by the Sixteenth Legislature. The germ of the financial crisis of the university is to be found in the fact that today the State of Montana is not raising sufficient revenue to meet its governmental and in­ stitutional needs. Our present state tax of two and one­ half mills is the lowest state tax of any of the neighboring northwestern states. The difficulty in which ¥Te find our­ selves is compounded by the fact that under the constitution the state tax will next year be automatically reduced from two and one-half mills to two mills. Instead of increased revenue we are faced by the prospect of increased poverty. It is the firm conviction of myself and those associated .with me in the administration of the university in its several institutions, divisions and departments that we were obli­ gated to the people of the state to inform them 0f the grave situation in which this important educational enterprise finds itself. The people, and the people alone, have it with­in their power to decide the issue at stake. Therefore we have proposed and have presented through the initiative procedure, two measures carefully designated to afford re­lief. The first of these, Initiative Measure No. J.8, provides for a state tax of three and one-half mills-one mill more than the present tax-proceeds of one and one-half mills of which shall be appropriated by the Legislature for the oper­ating support of the university institutions. The second measure, Initiative Measure No. 19, provides for the issu­ance of state bonds to the amount of five millions of dollars, the proceeds of three-fourths ( $3, 750,000) of which shall be utilized for buildings and equipment for the university institutions, and the remainder ($1,250,000) to be devoted to buildings at the several state institutions for defective (Twin Bridges) , dependent (Boulder) , and delinquent (Helena and Miles City) children. The passage of these measures will give the university n chance to do its work in an effective manner, and will secure to the unfortunate children, who have become the special wards of the state, an opportunity to which they are justly entitled. EXTRACT FROM FIFTEENTH BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS Need of Maintenance by Special Tax Levy The $655,000 recommended for the first fiscal year and the $720,000 for the second, may be provided either by ap­propriation from the general revenue, or from the proceeds of a special tax levy. We believe that the latter is the better method. It is generally agreed that the plan of relying on appro­priations from the general revenue, made biennially, is open to grave objections. A university, of all institutions, should be managed reasonably and prudently, on the basis of plans deliberately decided upon, providing for an orderly devel­ opment stretching over a series of years. Such conduct of affairs is impossible under the system of biennial appro­ priations. What will be done by legislatures and governors two, four and six years in the future can not possibly be foreseen. This situation compels the regents to pursue a "hand to mouth" policy, inconsistent with the interests of the university, and destructive either of prudent or eco­ nomical management. The entanglement of the university in factional politics constitutes, if possible, a graver objection to the system of biennial appropriations for its maintenance. The officers of the university should not be called upon to lobby, however important the end to be attained or unexecptionable the methods employed. Men engaged in educational service should be free to devote their best energies to their high functions. Above all, the university itself should be so sup­ ported as to be wholly independent of partisan caprice. The plan of supporting the university from the proceeds of a special statutory tax has been adopted by practically all the strongest state universities of the country, and we recommend that the present legislatlire employ this method of providing for the support of the University of Texas. In determining the rate of such a special tax, two factors are to be borne in mind, the assessed valuation, and the re­duction for cost of collection and unpaid taxes. For the current fiscal year the state's assessed valuation amounts to $2,532, 710,050. The estimates of the Comptroller, based upon the experience of many years, is that only 80 per cent of any tax levy reaches the state treasury. Be::i.ring these two facts in mind the rate that will produce the average of the amounts recommended for the two years is 3.4 cents on the $100 of assessed values. The gross yield of the tax would be $861,121.41. Deducting 20 per cent for cost of collection and unpaid taxes, the net yield would be $688,­ 897 .13. The assessed values could not be expected to in­crease sufficiently to provide the sum recommended for the second year; the values are lower this year than last. But the regents would have the advantage of knowing what to expect for that and subsequent years. The following table, taken by permission, from a bulletin of the Hogg Organization, will show that the rate mentioned is low in comparison with that of other state universities, below which the University of Texas should not stand. Additional Institution Rate Appropriations by Legislatures California. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 $ 301,78\3.00 Colorado. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 8 127.869.00 Illinois. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Michigan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.75 74,000.00 Minnesot :i. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.30 1,060,377.00 Nebraska. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 110,000.00 North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.33+ 222,817.00 Wisconsin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.85+ 444,135.00 Average. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.78 331',426.00 It will be noted that the rates shown in the tables have proved too low in the states enumerated, with the exception of Illinois. All the other universities mentioned have had to appeal biennially to the state legislatures for supplemen­tary appropriations, which they have received in the amounts shown in the table. Such a situation is unfort­unate, and should not be allowed to exist in Texas. The removal of the State University from the scramble for ap­propriations is one of the main purposes of a special tax, aud this purpose is in large measure defeated in the states mentioned. The mistake of these other states should not be repeated in Texas. It can be avoided by means of the moderate tax mentioned. With any rate lower than 3.3 cents, the number of students in attendance by 1915 will require an appeal to the Thirty-fourth Legislature for sup­plementary appropriations or for an increase in the tax rate. We believe that the rate recommended is a small price to pay for a permanent removal of the university from the domain of political contention. University of Texas Bulletin SIXTEENTH BIENNIAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS IN DETAIL FOR THE SESSIONS OF 1915-16 AND 1916-17 Running Expenses Provisions for a sure and adequate annual income for running expenses is the most serious problem that the au­thorities of a university must face. Scholarly teachers, books in sufficient numbers, and modern laboratory equip­ment for a large and growing educational institution cost money. And this money must be expended, particularly that which is paid out for salaries, without giving evidence of immediate tangible results. Governors and legislatures naturally like to leave evidence in brick and mortar of the public money they appropriate. The fact that appropria­tions are easier to secure for buildings than for running expenses is borne out by the testimony of governing boards of most state universities. The money that goes for salaries seems to disappear, while the buildings remain monuments to the generosity of those who allow the appropriations. Of the two, men to train the minds of Texas boys and girls or stately buildings in which to house them, it is ev­ident, on a moment's thought, that teachers are the first essentials. Classrooms, so long as they give adequate pro­tection from heat and rain and cold, may be located in pine shacks, without great detriment to the substantial progress of earnest students. For stately buildings worthy of Texas and its university, we can, if it is imperative, wait; highly trained instructors in sufficient numbers to care for the youths of this state who desire a university education, we cannot do without. We therefore request, first, that the legislature grant from the general revenue, or by a special tax levy, sufficient support to maintain properly a competent faculty, as well as to provide necessary books, laboratory supplies, and incidentals. We earnestly urge the legisla­ture to grant the sums asked for in the budget recommended, which was drawn up on a very economical basis. Four years have elapsed since the Main University has been permitted to use any of its income from lands or other sources for erecting permanent buildings. Since that time the attendance at the university has been increased by nearly one thousand students; and, for absolutely necessary class-rooms, we have been forced to erect temporary pine shacks on the campus. About one-fourth of the work of the University is now conducted in these cheap temporary structures, containing a floor space of 58, 77 4 square feet. These twelve buildings are designated and used for the fol­lowing purposes : A Hall, Agriculture and Botany; C Hall, Chemical Laboratory; D E Hall, School of Domestic Econ­ omy; F Hall, University Commons; G Hall, class-rooms; H Hall, Department of Education, School of Business Train­ ing; I Hall, Department of Extension ; J Hall, School of Journalism, School of Institutional History; K Hall, class­ rooms, including large lecture hall ; L Hall, laboratories for Schools of Zoology and Geology; M Hall, School of Manual Training; N Hall, Woman's Gymnasium. Need of Maintenance by Special Ta:-c Levy The amounts recommended for the biennium may be pro­ vided either by appropriation from the general revenue, or from the proceeds of a special tax levy. We believe that the latter is the better method. It is generally agreed that the plan of relying on appro­ priations from the general revenue, made biennially, is open to grave object,ions. A university, of all institutions, should be managed reasonably and prudently, on the basis of plans deliberately decided upon, providing for an orderly develop­ ment stretching over a series of year.s. Such conduct of affairs is impossible under the system of biennial appropria­ tions. What will be done by legislatures and governors, two, four, and six years in the future can not possibly be foreseen. This situation compels the regents to pursue a "hand-to-mouth" policy, inconsistent with the interests of the university, and destructive either of prudent or of eco­ nomical management. University of Texas Bulletin The entanglement of the university in factional politics constitutes, if possible, a graver objection to the system of biennial appropriations for its maintenance. The officers of the university should not be called upon to lobby, however important the end to be attained or unexceptionable the methods employed. lVIen engaged in educational service should be free to devote their best energies to their high functions. Above all, the university itself should be so supported as to be wholly independent of partisan caprice. The plan of supporting the university from the proceeds of a special statutory tax has been adopted by practically all the strongest state universities of the country, and we recommend that the present Legislature employ this method of providing for the support of the University of Texas. In determining the rate of such a special tax two factors are to be borne in mind : the assessed valuation and the re­duction for cost of collection and unpaid taxes. ~~or the cur­rent fiscal year, the state's assessed valuation amounts to $2,686,129,989. The estimates of the Comptroller, based upon the experience of many years, is that only 80 per cent of any tax levy reaches the state treasury. Thege two facts being borne in mind, the rates that will produce ~,he amounts recommended for the two years, respectively, are 3.33 cents and 3.95 cents on the $100 of assessed values. The gross yield of the tax would be $894,481.28 and $1.061,071.34. Twenty per cent for cost of collection and unpaid taxes being deducted, the net yield would be $715,585.03 and $848,857.02. Buildings Unless the work of the university is to be very seriously hampered, the whole income that can, under the constitution. be expended for buildings must be used for that purpose. Enlightened public opinion in Texas will not for many years allow the state's highest educational institutic.. ri, the cap­stone of its public school system, the University of Texas, to continue being housed in rough pine box houses. These temporary houses should be replaced, at the earliest possible time, by permanent fireproof buildings, and should be built of sufficient size to accommodate a growing student body for at least the next ten years. Probably the frr;;;t buildings that should be erected for the university are not accommoda­tions for education classrooms and laboratories, as urgent as the need of them appears to be. The most crying need is for the immediate erection of dormitories in which the ' young women of the university may be properly cared for. During the session of 1913-14, 740 young women attended the university. At least 500 of these should hav·~ been cared for by the institution, instead of being forced to hunt throughout Austin for private houses that would take them as roomers and boarders. A scarcely less urgent need is felt for suitable dormitories for young men. Such dormi­tories should be provided sufficient to accommodate not less than 1500 persons. The following fireprof buildings should be erected as soon as the Legislature can provide the neces­sary funds: Five dormitories for girls, $50,000 each , . ..... .. . . . ... . . $ 250,00lJ Education and practice School ...... ........... .. . ..... . 175,000 Chemistry Building . . ... ... . ............ .. .. .. ..... . .. . 150,000 Biological Sciences Building .. . . . ..... ..... .......... .. . . 150,000 Domestic Science Building.... ..... ... .. .............. . . 125,000 Dining Hall and Kitchen . . .. .. .......... . ............ . . . 100,00\il Fifteen dormitories for men, $50,000 each .. ..... .... . ... . 750,000 Total. . . . . .. . ... ... .... .... .... . . ..... .. ........ . .. $1,700,000 Such an expenditure would exhaust the available univer­sity fund for the next eight years. This fund, coming as it does from land leases, interest on land sales, interest on bonds, matriculation fees, etc., should be left by the Legisla­ture as a sacred trust for the purpose of caring for the build­ing needs of the institution. The amount necessary for these absolutely pressing building needs should be provided by bonds issued on the university's permanent in~ome. Such a provision is possible by a simple act of the Legislature, and the act could be so framed that the bonds would never become a charge on the people. The sale of bonds offers one of the fairest means of providing money for buildings, as it distributes the cost of the buildings more equita~ly over the period during which they are used. It is much fairer that all the people who enjoy the buildings for thirty years should share in their cost, rather than that their cost should be borne only by the people living during the one year pre­ceding their construction. Only by this means can the de­mand for permanent fireproof buildings in the State Demo­cratic platform be satisfied, so far as the university is con­cerned. Other buildings are necessary to have a "univ,~rsity of the first class," and should be provided as early as possible, namely: a medical laboratory building, physics building, gymnasium building, museum of Texas history and products. museum of natural sciences, administration building, engi­neering building, and a building for fine arts. The urgent need of these buildings must be apparent to anyc.ne who will visit our campus and consider thoughtfully th·~ difficulties under which we are laboring. On more than one occasion state Democratic platforms have recommended the removal of the inhibition existing against the university only, among all the state institutions, prohibiting making appropriations out of the ;'.eneral rev­enue for the erection of buildings. Under the present con­stitution, if the university is swept by a fire while without the protection of adequate insurance, the situation would be appalling. The men who framed the present constitution could not possibly foresee the necessities of a large and growing university; and it certainly was never the inten­tion of the founders so to limit the income of the university, originally most generously provided, or that there would ever bP. serious danger of its work being stopped. Under the present condition, such danger exists, and we should cease blinding ourselves to the situation. Either the state university of one of the largest commonwealths m the Union must continue its existence. housed in utterly unsuitable buildings, in imminent danger of being stopped altogether by fire, or the Legislature and the people must remove from the constitution the bar to our progress. If this were done and an adequate specia1 tax voted, then the university wonld be free from the situation that stifles its growth, impedes its progress, and absorbs the energy of the men who have been appointed to guide its destinies educationally n1ther than to be solicitors of funds for its daily existence. How inadequately the University of Texas is supplied with buildings, both in Austin and in Galveston, appears from the following table, which is based upon the same data as the preceding ones. The table gives the present invest­ment, by the states mentioned, in plants for :,heir higher educational institutions. TABLE V.-VALUE OF PLANT':' California ----------------$9,865,000 Minnesota 8,1>31,000 Iowa .. ..... .... .-----------7,355,000 Michigan .. .... ..---6,885,000 Ohio .......... . . . 6,714,000 Wisconsin .. .... . 6,444,000 Illinois ....... . . . 3,896,000 Colorado ...... ...----------i,560,000 Kansas . .........----------J,412,000 Missouri . ...... . . 2,880,000 Indiana ....... .. ,-------2,399,000 Nebraska . ... . .. . 2,289,000 North Dakota . . . . 1,626,000 Average . . .. . .... .--------5,066,000 Texas .. .. ........--­ 1,644,000 The amount credited to Texas represents the ;..miversity's investments in buildings. a disproportionately srr;all amount, considering the institution's relatively large stu.ient bod:v­according to the best estimates, more than 2400 for the current regular session, and from 4000 to 4500 if summer school and correspondence students are included The inadequacy of the university's buildings and campus may also be judged by the following table, which gives the vafoe of the plants of a number of universities. divided by the number of students in the regular session, L>r the yeai:-: 1913: TABLE Vl.-VALUE OF PLANT PER STUDENT IN LONG SESSION Minnesota .........---------------$2,305 California ..........--------------1,833 North Dakota ......--------------1,760 Wisconsin ..........-------------1,521 Ohio ...............-------------1,316 Iowa ..............------------1,279 Colorado ...........------------1,210 Missouri ...........------------1,132 Michigan ...........-----------1,069 Kansas ............-----------903 Illinois .............----------831 Nebraska ..........----------690 Indiana ............---------669 Average .............-------------1,257 TEXASt.............------695 •For University and A. and M. College combined. tFor University of Texas only. EIGHTEENTH BIENNIAL REPORT It is humanly impossible to forecast for two years, or even one, many hundred items of expenditure, especially when a majority of those items are concerned with the sal­aries of the members of a staff that is continually shifting and changing. Under the circumstances, substitutions and changes in the individual appropriations are absolutely nec­essary. Positions and salaries are fixed with reference to the attainments and abilities of the individuals, and must vary accordingly. Only in exceptional cases is the univer­sity able to fill a vacancy through the appointment of a man whose training and achievements warrant precisely the same rank and salary as those of his predecessor. Lack of elasticity in the appropriation for the current biennium has forced the Board to expend for operating ex­penses approximately $100,000.00 out of the available fund, that might otherwise have been saved for permanent im­provements. The difficulties of administration which have been experienced during this biennium have, of course, been somewhat abnormal ; yet, at the same· time, the probabilities are that, as soon as settled conditions once more obtain throughout the country, the stimulus to education which has been given by the policies of the War Department will great­ly increase the attendance at the University, and make the administrative problems of the next biennium more difficult than any we have yet experienced. The matter of conserving the available fund of the uni­versity for permanent improvemnts is one of prime im­portance at the present time. Definite steps must be taken in the near future looking toward the provision of an ade­quate physical plant for the institution. Fully one-fourth of the work of the University is now being conducted in temporary pine shacks. The Main Building, in which a majority of the classes are held, is daily occupied at a risk of life to the students that can not be exaggerated. The university auditorium has been condemned by the State Fire Marshal, and has been closed for the past two years. Unless the work of the University is to be seriously ham­pered, stately fireproof buildings worthy of Texas and of its university must soon be provided. The urgent need of such permanent buildings must be apparent to any one who visits the campus and thoughtfully considers the difficulties under which the institution is laboring. The board has carefully canvassed the needs of the uni­versity for additional buildings and grounds, and has reached the conclusion that, for the proper conduct of the institution, upon the basis of the present attendance in Aus­tin and in Galveston, the expenditure of at least $5,000,­ 000.00 is necessary to provide an adequate physical plant. There is perhaps no other institution in the United States that is undertaking to do the amount of work that is being done by the University with an equipment so far below its actual needs. The effect of this inadequate equipment is two-fold: (1) It seriously hampers both students and facul­ty in the spirit with which their work is done; (2) it re­tards the growth of the University in point of numbers. Annually the State of Texas sends to universities and col­leges of other states more than 3,000 young men and women, many of whom would be attracted to the University of Texas if an adequate plant were provided. Numbers of individual instances have been brought to the attention of the Board where parents, for reasons of sentiment, advantageous as­sociation, or state pride, have desired to send their sons and daughters to the University, but have hesitated to do so on account of the lack of proper facilities here, particularly in the way of adequate residential quarters. The Board be­lieves that with the expenditure before indicated, running over a brief course of years, the disadvantages under which the university now labors will be largely eliminated. The inserted table, based upon figures contained in the United States Bureau of Education Bulletin 1917, No. 55, Statistics of State Universities and State Colleges, and in the United States Bureau of the Census bulletins Estimates of Population of the United States, 1910-1916, and estimated Valuation of National Wealth, 1850-1912, will reveal the relative economy with which the University of Texas is be­ing conducted. In comparison with other states, Texas spends very little for higher education, either per inhabi­tant, per unit of wealth, or per long-session student. The table also shows that the number of students per teacher is too great for efficiency, and must be lowered if the boys and girls attending our state institutions of higher learning are to receive the advantages enjoyed by the no more worthy boys and girls of other states. How inadequately the Uni­versity of Texas is supplied with buildings in indicated by a comparison of the value of other state university plants with that of our own. EXTRACTS FROM THE REPORT OF THE CENTRAL INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE OF THE 'l'HIRTY­ FIFTH LEGISLATURE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS Physical Plant The physical plant of the University of Texas consists of forty acres of land in the city of Austin, valued at $500,000; and nine brick buildings from one to five stories in height and twelve temporary frame buildings, all of which are inventoried at $1,319,901.79, and to which inven­tory is to be added a balance of $77,908.85 on the new Edu­cation Building estimated to cost $250,000, practically all of which cost has been paid; and which inventory of build­ings includes an equity in the remodeling of the Old Blind Institute, now being used for the School of Military Aero­nautics. A udito1·ium The auditorium on the third floor in the Main Building has been condemned by the State Fire Marshal as unsafe fo:r use. It has a seating capacity of about 1750. For more than a year the room has been closed and is of no value to the university. The fire marshal questions the advisability of endeavoring to use the auritorium through the construc­tion of fire escapes leading from each of the windows to the ground. Shacks The so-called "shacks," of one-story frame construction for class work are really serviceable beyond expectation, and while it is regrettable. that the highest educational in­stitution in the state should find it necessary to employ such structures, it seems likely they will serve a valuable purpose, in addition to the accommodation provided, in making pos­sible practical studies in the better arrangement of perma­nent buildings, particularly with reference to laboratory work. Policy of Administration The views of institutional needs entertained by the ad­ministrative head and the governing body, naturally will differ from the views of the legislative body, resulting, as in the University of Texas, in there being a legislative budget setting out in detail the items of maintenance, and a budget of the board of regents covering like items as well as other items for expansion not provided for in the legislative appro­priations, and upon the policy of which the Legislature may or may not have expressed itself. The possession of inde­pendent or available funds, it will thus be seen, represents a constant opportunity and incentive to institutional ex­pansion, carrying the activities and expenditures of the in­stitution beyond the limit of legislative sanction, and not infrequently beyond popular needs and public approval. The freedom with which the university has exercised its ability to extend the scope of its efforts and increase its ex­penses has brought upon it more or less of criticism. The need would seem to be for a clearer conception by the university administration, and a clearer expression by the people of the state, of the scope of educational work legitimately to devolve upon this institution and the meas­ure of responsiveness of such work to the popular need, to the end that it may fulfill the purpose for which created, that of developing a university of the first class. Such ac­tivities and policy having once been clearly defined there would seem to be comparatively little reason or opportunity for criticizing the expenditures of the university, made in the carefully directed effort to effectuate this controlling purpose. In this connection, the committee feels justified in direct­ing attention to the fact that had the Legislature, recog­nizing the limitation on appropriations from the general revenues for university buildings, inaugurated the policy of appropriating the income from the permanent. university endowment, as the constitution permits, for the specific and only purpose of constituting a fund from which to con­struct permanent buildings, the university might now pos­sess a building equipment of considerable value. The con­stitution expressly provides that the income from the per­manent endowment shall be subject to appropriation by the Legislature for the purposes of establishing as well as sup­porting the university. The Legislature must bear its part of the responsibility for the lack of building equipment at the university, for which it was possible to provide. The university management, however, must likewise bear its share of the responsibility for failing to outline and ad­vance such a building program, and for not making it pos­sible to carry out such a program by the exercise of rigid economy in expenditures for maintenance purposes, instead of being led into the policy of supplementing legislative ap­propriations from the general revenue for mainbnance pur­poses by moneys taken from its available income. The committee finds that the policy permitted in some in­stitutions, and to some extent permitted heretofore in the University of Texas, of granting leave of absence to mem­bers of the faculty for varying periods of time on full pay, or part pay, has been discontinued, and no member of the faculty has been granted leave under such conditions since the beginning of the present school year. The practice, also, which caused some criticism of permitting members of the university faculty, when delivering lectures and ad­dresses to clubs, organizations, schools, or teachers' insti­tutes, accepting special compensation, has been discontin­ued, and no one is now supposed to accept such benefits. The· committee is confident from assurances of the univer­sity administration that such policies will not be resumed. Retirement on Reduced Sal,ary The committee in its study of conditions calculated to inure to the advantage of the university has been led to inquire into the advisability of some plan looking to the retirement of members of the faculty on reduced salaries afte~ they have given to the institution many years of faith­ful service and have reached that age at which the cr-tpacity to serve the institution has been appreciably diminished. It is unquestionable that the establishment of such policy would be calculated to increase loyalty, create '.l feeling of security, lessen the loss of the service of capable men, and University of Texas Bulletin tend materially to strengthen the interest in and perma­nency of faculty organization. Every great institution must solve this problem at some time, and the committee believes that the time has come in the history of the Univer­sity of Texas when the board of regents should seriously give consideration to such a policy. A discussion of the de­tails of plans calculated to accomplish the purpose would seem scarcely within the province of this inquiry, the com­mittee contenting itself with commending the question to the board of regents and to the Legislature. Building Requirements The administrative authorities of the Agricultural and Mechanical College have outlined their estimate of the needs of that institution for buildings covering the next ten years, and places such estimate for th'~t period at approximately $2,500,000, and this, too, in the expectancy of the State adopting the policy of junior agricultural schools teaching agriculture and animal husbandry, which will in some measure restrict the ratio of increased attendance at t~e College. To this sum must be added an estimate for the decennium of approximately $500,000 to $750,000, for per­manent improvements at the Prairie View Normal and In­dustrial College for colored youths. The committee does not believe this estimate at all ex­cessive; and further believes the general policy pursued heretofore of erecting buildings especially designed for de­partmental service, preferable to the construction of fewer and larger structures intended to accommodate unrelated qepartments is calculated to secure more advantageous re­sults. In the State Agricultural and Mechanical College, Texas may .i ustly claim possession of one of the most progressive colleges devoted to vocational instruction in the Union. It is neither as large, nor is its equipment as good, as a num­l)er of similar institutions in other states, but the ~pirit anrl policy, it may be confidently asserted, are second to no col­lege in the country covering the same field. (Signed) LEONARD TILLOTSON, Chairman. OSCAR DAVIS, House Subcommittee No. 9. I. E. CLARK, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee No. 9. COLLEGE OF INDUSTRIAL ARTS Inadequate Dormitory Facilities We found in course of construction two fine dormitories, but these will still fall short of caring for the student body by at least three hundred. At present, six hundred girls are cared for outside the dormitories, and while the school and city authorities co-operate in every way, and the splendid citizenship of Denton help all they can, this con­dition ought to be remedied as soon as the public purse will permit. The average cost per student to the State is lessening, having come from $1.16 per capita per day in 1913 to 97.76 cents per day in 1916-17. There was but one salary increase for teachers for the year 1917-18. A teacher who had been absent studying for a year at her own expense, was allowed a raise of $200 per year upon her return, her present salary being $1,600. The school had 186 pupils its first year, 1903-04. This year it has about 1,250. Then it had one small administra­tion building; now it has two splendid building for instruc­tion, and with the two now being built, four large dormi­tories, besides other buildings for laundry, dairy, poultry, photography, hospital, etc. Sala1·ies Too Low .. Your committee believes the salaries of the teachers too low. and states that we lost to other schools last year ten trained teachers we could ill afford to lose; but they were offered more pay than we gave them or could give them under our appropriation. Twelve teachers get less than $1,200 per year, and only one gets more than $2,000 per year. Your committee strenuously opposes extravagance, but affirms that the best teachers in the world in their special lines are not too good for Texas girls. It is worth while to pay a good salary to a teacher who can so teach a graduat­ing class that every girl can make her own graduating dress, beautiful dresses, too, and make it so that its total cost is less than $5.00. It is worth while to pay a teacher who can teach a girl to cook so that her husband goes to his work fit for it, and her. children can grow up fit physical citizens of Texas. A remarkable showing of a school, not one of whose graduates has been a party to a divorce suit, or has brought into the world a defective child. Respectfully submitted, (Signed) R. F. Spencer. Chafrman, Subcommittee No. 1. 0. S. LATTIMORE, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee No. 1. Educational Council Recommended In order that the work and development of each institution may be directed along the lines assigned by law and to avoid the possibility of needless duplication, and expenditure, and friction, the Committee would suggest the creation by statute of an educational council to be composed of one mem­ber of each of the governing boards and one member of each of the faculties, both to be appointed by the president of each board, of the University of Texas, the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas, the College of Industrial Arts, and the State Normal Schools, together with the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, nine in number. The specific duties of such a council to be: (a) To consider all questions relating to possible du­plication of educational work, both in extension work and the major lines of instruction of the institutions; and (b) To perform the general duties of a budget commit­tee in the consideration, adjustment and recommendation to the legislature of the needs of the several institutions. No system of state education, and no state policy for the advancement of education, either in the common schools or in the colleges and the university, is possible of the most useful development unless it :recognizes every institution as a necessary and integral part of the one indivisible whole, and provides for intelligent co-operation. The policy here­tofore permitted of leaving each institution to besiege suc­cessive legislatures with separate demands based upon in­dependent plans of expansion, and conceived in absolute ig­norance of the popular need, as expressed in the growth and demands upon the educational service of other institu­tions, is as wasteful in the useless expenditure of public funds and misdirected effort, certain to lead to the identifica­tion of the educational institutions of the state with political activities, as it is inexcusable in an intelligent and public spirited citizenship to tolerate such a system. With the adoption of the proposed constitutional amend­ment and the authorization by the legislature of a tax levy to be equitably allotted by statute among the institutions named; and with statutory authorization for the employ­ment of the permanent endowment of each institution as the basis for a fund with which to provide permanent buildings, such a central council would be relieved of much of the responsibility for consideration of the financial re­quirement of the institutions, inasmuch as the provisions in­dicated would allow for a building program and for a min­imum maintenance income for each class of institutions. The danger, however, would be that without some controll­ing agency which would co-ordinate the growing needs of the institutions, there might develop the same incentive as heretofore for the different institutions to appeal to the legislature for appropriations supplementing the allotted income from the tax levy. By submitting the needs of each institution, in excess of;the tax levy, to such a council, act­ing as a budget committee, would effectively prevent the re­currence of the condition which it is now sought to overcome University of Te:ras Bulletin through the adoption of this amendment and the authoriza­tion of a tax levy for maintenance purposes, and would har­monize the work of the different institutions in their respec­tive fields of educational activity. Without some such agency as will be provided through this council, there would be constant danger of each successive legislature readjust­ing the allotment under the tax levy and thus disturbing the harmonious relationship of the various institutions. It might be that a limitation on the time in which such change in the division of the amount of the tax levy should be made would best be incoporated in the constitution, but the com­mittee does not feel this to be the better policy, preferring the more elastic plan of leaving not only the authorization of the tax levy, but the division of its proceeds and the care of all additional needs to the legislature. The members of such a council might confidently be relied upon to make such an equitable recommendation for such funds as would be required to meet the needs of the different institutions from year to year in excess of the allotment under the tax levy. In this way a building program would be provided for the University and the Agricultural and Mechanical Col­lege, and maintenance would be provided for the university and branches, the Agricultural and Mechanical College and branches, the College of Industrial Arts, the Normal Schools, and the Prairie View Normal, and all these institutions will be kept constantly in harmonious relationship, each supple­menting in its sphere of activity the work of the others, preventing unnecessary duplication in educational work, and preventing the unnecessary expenditure of funds in the undue expansion of either of the institutions comprising a part of the system of higher education of the state. Future of the University and of its Constitutional Branches Under legislative interpretation and the policy hereto­fore adhered to, it is too apparent for discussion that the present constitutional provisions controlling the university and its branches are hampering the development of both the University and the Agricultural and Mechanical College in a degree that should not be permitted to continue longer than is necessary to amend the constitution. While legis­lative policy has construed the constitutional limitation on appropriations from the public revenues as r~stricted to the prohibition against provision for permanent buildings at the University in Austin, ii; can be considered little more than a legal fiction that permits appropriations for the Agricultural and Mechanical College, the P..airie View Normal, and other constitutional branches of the Univer­sity. Not alone adequate, but intelligently controlled and utilized, financial provision is essential to the development and maintenance of any educational institution. The per­manent university endowment must be construed as be­longing in part to those institutions constitutionally de­clared to be a part of that institution, and this fund will never, under conditions of public sentiment respecting the independent status and organization of the Un;versity and the Agricultural and Mechanical College, be utilized in ac­cordance with a commendable business policy, nor will it be possible for it to contribute in a material way to the advantage of the institutions considered until the equity of each has been made available for separate control and use and it is readily apparent that, until such action is taken, there must be a spirit of apprehensive solicitouc;ness among the partial friends of each institution interested concerning each act and policy of the main institution in the control and individual utilization of the benefits of the fund, cal­culated to create discord where co-operation !s demanded by every requirement of service to the public. In justice to itself and the position of popular esteem it mm~t establish and maintain to fulfill its mission of public usefulness, the University .should be freed from all suspicion that any in­flu~nce connected or identified with its direction is opposed to the early and satisfactory settlement of the question in­volved in the interest of its branches in the permanent university endowment. Admitting without discussion,. that the policy of the state in creating institutions independent University of Te;;;as Bulletin m administrative organization and charged with distinct educational activities, rendering them independent centers of popular favor, may not have been the wiser plan from the standpoint of an ideal system of higher education in which the university should be the one head and all other educa­tional provisions by the state parts of an intelligently ar­ticulated whole, the situation confronting us now is that the state has, through its establishment of different classes of institutions, such as the Agricultural and Mechanical Col­lege, the College of Industrial Arts, and the system of state normal schools, committed itself to the policy of separate identity and direction of the institutions created to perform these different educational functions. Our task, therefore, is plain. We must take these more or less looseiy organized institutions, free them from such limitations under the organic law as prevent development of an intelligent policy for educational progress, and correlate them in as harmo­nious a system as it may be possible to establish, capable of rendering the maximum of service to the people. This, in the judgment of the committee, can only be a':!complished through a change in the constitution, and in this view we recommend the submission to the people by the r.ext regular session of the Legislature of the accompanying proposed amendment to the constitution. In brief, this proposed constitutional amendment would contain the following specific provisions : ( 1) The constitutional identity and location of each of the following institutions, namely, the University, the Med­ical College, and the School of Mines as branchec:; of that in­stitution ; and the Agricultural and Mechanical College, the College of Industrial Arts, and the Prairie Vl~w Normal and Industrial College. (2) The general character of educational work of each institution. · (3) For the separation of the Agricultural ~nd Mechan­ical College and the Prairie View Normal as branches of the University of Texas; and for the sale of the university lands and division of the permanent university endowment, two-thirds to the University and one-third to the Agricul­tural and Mechanical College, from which one-',hird of the claims of the Prairie View Normal shall be cared for as may be provided by law. (4) That the respective parts of the permanent endow­ment allotted to each institution become the permanent fund of each, to be invested as authorized by law in bonds having the taxing power for their security and redemntion. The committee indulges the belief that the adoption of such an amendment to the constitution, supplemented by judicious statutory enactment, would give to Texas some­thing in the nature of a definite, as well as comprehensive, state educational policy, reasonably correlated and coordi­nated to meet the requirements of higher education and vo­cational training. Disadvantages in Handling Land Endoicment . The endowment of the University, splendid a<> it is in its possibilities for the development of the institu':ion and its branches, is yet, under the constitution, of comparatively small practical value as an asset in the proper equipment and development of the university. While it is probable that a policy rigidly adhered to by the board of regents, set­ting aside the available fund represented in the income from the permanent endowment would have resulted by this time in the construction of a considerable number of modern buildings answering the requirements of the institution, such policy has not been uniformly observed; and in view of the normal growth and general conditions which have prevailed and are likely to continue to prevail in the ad­vancement of the institution, this income may not be relied upon to provide even in reasonable part for the building needs of the Main University, to say nothing of the claims of its constitutional branches. This endowment. consisting mainly of 2,079,520 acres of land, now yields; under the control of the board of regents, through its state land agent, an annual income estimated, on the basis, of existing leases, Unfrersity of Te:cas Bulletin to be for the year 1918, $195,360.88. All of thL; revenue is used by the Main University, none of it going io the other constitutional branches of the institution. Proceeds frorn Sale of Lands Needed' for Building P.11 rposes The constitutional limitation strictly construed in the legislative policy of the state to prohibit appropriations for the construction of permanent buildings at the Main Uni­versity, while sanctioning more or less liberal provisions for appropriations for the constitutional branches of the Uni­versity, creates a condition which may not be much longer permitted, if the public expectation of the usefulness of the institution is to be met. The popular sentiment is, that, with an endowment of the proportions of that !)Ossessed by the University, some practicable policy sho1:Jd be established by ~hich this endowment may be utilized as the basis for securing the construction of necessary permane'1t buildings and permanent improvements not only of the Main Univer­sity but of its constitutional branches, relieving the state to some extent at least of the necessity of making provi­sions for such improvements by appropriations from the general revenues of the state. Salaries The salaries of the faculty of the Agricultural and :Me­chanical College are comparatively low, the average salary for the entire college faculty being approximately $2000; and where work is done in the summer school for short periods, no extra compensation is allowed. The last ap­propriation bill carried an item for salary re tdjustmentR for the college of $10,000, which was used to add to the pay of those receiving the smaller salaries, and being so dis­tributed that the increase was from $100 to $300, only one or two receiving the latter sum. It is prr,bably true that the college loses a larger percentage of its teaching force each year by resignation than any other institution in the state, due, it is claimed, to the active demand for capable instructors in vocational studies and t.he salaries paid being insufficient to hold them, the unsatisfactory hous­ing conditions being a contributing cause. Need of More Land The college has 3000 acres of land, but to carry on its work in agriculture in connection with the state experiment station, and to maintain the live stock essential to proper instruction in animal husbandry, it will need more territory. Building Requirements The administrative authorities of the Agricultural and Mechanical College have outlined their estimate of the needs of state institution for buildings covering the ne-.t ten years, and places such estimate for that period at approximately $2,500,000, and this, too, in the expectancy of the state adopting the policy of junior agricultural schools teaching agriculture and animal husbandry, which will in some meas­ure restrict the ratio of increased attendance at the college To this sum must be added an estimate for the decennium approximately $500,000 to $750,000, for permanent im­provements at the Prairie View Normal and Industrial Col­lege for colored youths. The committee· does not believe this estimate at all exces­ sive; and further believes the general policy pursued here­ tofore of erecting buildings especially designed for depart­ mental service, preferable to the construction of fewer and larger structures intended to accommodate unrelated de­ partments is calculated to secure more advantageous results In the State Agricultural and Mechanical College, Texas may justly claim possession of one of the most progressive colleges devoted to vocational instruction in the Union. It is neither as large, nor is its equipment as good, as a number of similar institutions in other states; but the spirit and University of Texas Bulletin policy, it may be confidently asserted, are second to no college in the country covering the same field. (Signed) L.EONARD TILOTSON, Chairman. OSCAR DAVIS, Chairman, House Subcommittee No. 9. I. E. CLARK, Chairman, Smnte Subcommittee No. 9. COPY OF THE COMMITTE REPORT IN REFERENCE TO A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PRO­ POSED BY THE LEGISLATURE IN 1913 Committee Room, Austin, Texas. February 8, 1913. Hon. Chester H. Terrell, Sveaker of the House of Repre­sentatives. Sir: Your Committee on Constitutional Amendments having appointed me to make a full report on House Joint Resolution No. 18, proposing and submitting to a vote of the people of Texas an amendment to Sections 49 and 52 of Article 3, of the Constitution of the State of Texas, authoriz­ing the issuance of bonds and levying of a tax to pay the interest and sinking fund on same for public improvements. Said resolution as introduced provided for amending two separate sections of the constitution, the committee decided to separate the amendments and report each favorably, and this report is on Section 49, Article 3, which the resolution seeks to amend so as to allow the issuance of bonds by the state for public improvements. On account of the present limitations in the constitution no bonds can be issued for this purpose and practically all of the state institutions have to depend on appropriations by the Legislature for permanent improvements. The legislature cannot make sufficient appropriations at any one time, without raising the tax rate to such an extent as to cause general dissatis­faction. If bonds are issued, much needed improvements can be made and the tax to pay the interest and create a sinking fund will not be felt. I earnestly hope this resolu­tion will receive the approval of the Legislature. CALVIN. REQUEST CONTINUANCE OF PRESENT UNIVER­SITY TAX-LEVY RATE Extract From the Report of Walter E. Clark, President of the University of ·Nevada, for 1920 Unless there be heavy unforeseen emergency expenditures and unless there be appreciable lowering of the total state valuation assessable for taxation within the coming bien­nium, the University will be able to cover its general run­ning expenses if it be granted the same tax rate which was granted by the legislature of 1919. It seems unlikely that the total assessable valuation of the state will be materially increased during either of the coming two years. If the same tax rate be granted to the university and if the assess­able valuation is not materially increased, the university affairs will have to be managed with the most rigid econ­omy in order that the university may report to the legisla­ture of 1923 without deficit. The retention of the tax-levy system as a means for rais­ing most of the university revenue from the state is clearly preferable as contrasted with direct appropriations to cover all state grants to the university. The tax-levy system en­ables the university to transact its biennial business with­out a wretched gap of two months when no state funds would be definitely available. The tax-levy system makes it less likely that the university affairs will become entangled in the play of legislative politics. One of the surest ways to keep a state's university out of politics is to grant to the university regularly a tax-levy rate ample to secure to the university a sum sufficient to cover its general running ex­penses so far as these are met from state funds. STATEMENTS BY VARIOUS STATE UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES Collated by Miss Octavia Rogan, Legislative Librarian The University of Nebraska. The University of Nebraska is financed by biennial ap­propriations. It was supported by endowment income, university cash, specific special appropriations and grants from congress, from its founding 1869 up to 1899. The legislature, 1899, enacted a one mill levy law for the ben­efit of the university. From time to time since then the state has made additional specific appropriations for lands and buildings and also for maintenance and for particular objects. The legislature of 1921 repealed all mill levy laws of every nature, except the levy for the erection of a new capitol, and threw all items in the budget, except the capitol, into the general fund. This plan is new and we do not know what advantage the university or the normal schools will find in it. The University of Minnesota. The University of Minnesota is financed by biennial ap­propriations and a mill tax. The mill tax is subject to variation with every change in assessments, due to changes in law or valuations. We are fortunate this year in not being dependent upon mill levy. Reduction in valuations, and removal of automobiles from general property tax would have been serious if we were on millage basis. We are and should be answerable to the representatives of the people at each session of the legislation. Any institution that is not willing and able to submit to an accounting to the people is not entitled to further appropriations. The University of Michigan. The University of Michigan is financed by biennial ap­propriations and mill tax. The rp.ill tax brings an annual revenue of three million dollars. We find this adequate, supplemented as it is at present by special appropriations for the Comprehensive Buildir).g Program. The last ses­sion of the legislature made $4,800,000 available for the ex­tension of the physical plant. The mill tax gives an income which can be readily estimated. The university is at no time uncertain as to how much the legislature will actually grant. Also the mill tax increases with the taxable value of the state, which of course is one of the indications of a growth in the state and consequent necessity for increase in the facilities of the Institution. The governing body of the University of Michigan is the Regents of the University of Michigan, a constitutional corporation. The people have direct control through their franchise in the election of the reg~nts. The courts have decided that it is the duty of the legislature to provide funds to maintain the university; however, under certain circumstances, the legislature may direct how specific funds are to be spent. In these cases the people would of course have a double check. The.University of Kansas. The University of Kansas is financed by biennial appro­priations. We believe that in normal times it is better to have the mill tax arrangement whereby a stated tax will be used to provide for the higher education in the state, and will continue from year to year unless changed by vote of the legislature. I have never yet known a state institution to admit that it had adequate revenue. My own theory is that the legislature is the proper judge in a democracy as to what constitutes adequacy of revenue. It is the business of the institutions so to make their work function as to con­vince the state that they need the revenue which they ask for. An institution whose appropriation comes from the legislature which is elected on a partisan ticket, and whose board of administration is appointed by the governor who is also elected on a partisan ticket, cannot be free from po­litical influence, but let it be clearly understood, however, that tax supported institutions cannot be free from political influence. The University of Indiana. The University of Indiana is financed by biennial appro­priations and a mill tax. The mill tax enables the presi­dent and board of trustees to know approximately what the income will be for a long series of years. In th1:1.t way they are able to make their plans with assurance that they can be carried out. We have found our system very satisfac­tory in practice in every way. There would be many dis­advantages in relying on specific appropriations. The University of KentuckJu. The University of Kentucky is financed by biennial. ap­propriations and a mill tax. The mill tax provides a steady income and avoids the necessity of calling on the Legislature at frequent intervals. It guarantees permanency of in­come; but it does not handle building programs when large sums are needed occasionally. In our case th2 income is small and we can not provide for a building prog-ram out of mill tax. The University of Oregon. The University of Oregon is financed by biennial appro­priations and a mill tax. This is reasonably satisfactory, because more permanent in nature than legislative appro­priation. But some method of providing for regular in­crease in income commensurate with increase·in students and costs would be suggested as an improvement to this method. Mill tax income is practically stationary. It is more advantageous than biennial appropriations because more permanent in character, obviating the necessity for frequent appeal to Legislature, and making possible more definite plans for the future. The tendency of Rssessors to keep down assessed valuations keeps tax income stationary, instead of increasing with the growth of the university and increase of actual wealth of the state, as was ex1_1ected when tax was instituted. The University of Colorado. The University of Colorado is financed by biennial ap­propriations and a mill tax. The great advanb~ge of a mill tax is a definite income to work to; but mill tax is hard to get, consequently income is likely to be too sm"'.ll. The University of North Dakota. The University of North Dakota is financed by biennial appropriations. It has its "ups and downs." Some legis­lative assemblies give us fair treatment, othets make ap­propriations that are inadequate. We have been trying to obtain a mill tax. The State University of Montana. The State University of Montana is finaced by biennial appropriations and by the mill tax. The mill t'lx would be satisfactory under normal conditions, but durirg the pres­ent biennial period the reduction of assessed valuation of the state brings us in an inadequate incorrie. Aiill tax has only been in operation during the present fiscal year, but certainly will afford us under normal and stable conditions a uniform and slightly increased income, to which may be added state approriations as necessary. The University of Wyoming. The University of Wyoming secures state supriort through a three-eighth mill tax for current expenses and a one­eighth mill tax for building purposes. We think we have a fairly good method. This relieves us from the necessity of going before each Legislature and asking for our appro­priations. University of Nevada. This year, 1922, the University of Nevada begins a new plan-being wholly1 financed by mill tax, so far as state ap­propriations are concerned. We believe this better than the mixed mill tax and direct appropriations plan in effect the past seven years. It gives as great revenue as this state can at present fairly grant to its university. Under the plan income will proportionately increase as as«essed prop­erty increases. We are just beginning the pLre mill tax plan. We believe, first, it will minimize danger of political difficulty during legislative sessions; second, it will permit growth of university's income pari passu with growth of state's assessable property; and third, it will enable the university to plan more definitely as to future developments. The seven years preceding we had partial mill tax-partial special appropriations. We preferred the milt tax and therefore asked for its adoption as the sole source of state revenue for the university. The only posf>ible clisadvantage we note for mill tax is, that, the state's total assessable val­uation might be suddenly and possibly arbitrarily lowered. We should expect in such event to secure a grant of an in­creased rate for the university. The University of South Carolina. The University of South Carolina is financec by annual appropriations. The appropriations are inadeciuate. The university has no endowment or funds of any i<.ind except annual appropriations and fees. We suggest :for the im­provement of our method of support: first, tax '"eform, and second, a mill tax supplemented by annual apprnpriations. Miami University of Ohio. · The Miami University of Ohio is supported ·chrough bi­ennial appropriation with a mill tax for building purposes. We have not had a mill tax levy for some time. The great trouble with mill tax is that it is nev·~.: adequate. The growth of the institution carries it beyond the funds provided by any tax levy. We do find the mill tax for a building fund exceedingly satisfactory. Under the old sys~ tern money was appropriated for a building, )ften an in­adequate amount, and we had to make a parti<::Jlar appeal tor the need of a particular building. Last year the Legis­lature set aside a mill tax for a building fund for state in­stitutions of higher learning each of which gets a certain per cent. This will give us $350,000 for the biennium for new buildings, and we are allowed to build sueh buildings as we seet fit, with the approval of the controiling board. The mill tax levy method of support unsupplemented by special appropriations unless exceedingly liber"'l, more lib­eral than one could reasonably expect to pass, will not in all probability keep up with the growth of the student body. State Normal and Industrial School of North Dakota. The State N ffrmal and Industrial School of North Dakota is financed by biennial appropriations. Our method is un­satisfactory. We have to run gauntlet of appropriations committees of the Legislature every two years. A fixed millage or standing appropriation over a period of years would be an improvement. It produces enough to survive without allowance for expansion or growth. Legislative appropriation is supplemented by institutional collections yielding some $5,000 to $10,000 a year. The 0ld mill tax in vogue up to 1915 yielded a fairly definite income, without the necessity of legislative action, but it is not as easy to get special appropriation for special needs when the mill tax plan is employed. The mill tax plan is quite in favor with the heads of educational institutions in this state, but the Legislature has not deemed it best to go back to that method, East Tennessee State Normal School. The East Tennessee State Normal School is financed by biennial •appropriations and by an appropriation of a fixed percentage of the total gross revenue of the state. Our operating appropriation comes from a fixed percentage of gross revenue. Our building program is cared for by legis­lative appropriation. A fixed percentage has advantages : 1. It gives a definite increasing budget. 2. It eliminates legislative lobbying. 3. It takes it out of politics. 4. It unites all institutions sharing in the percentages. State Normal School, Oneonta, N. Y. The State Normal School of Oneonta, N. Y., is financed by biennial appropriations. Our method is satisfactory. The Oklahoma College for Women. The Oklahoma College for Women is financed by biennial appropriations. We are forced to go to the state legisla­ture every two years and spend much time for two or three months pleading for enough money to run our school. But University of Texas Bulletin we never get enough. Over two hundred girls were turned away last fall because our institution did not have sufficient room. We asked for $145,000 annually for running ex­penses and got $118,750. There is no way to improve our method unless we can secure the method of the mill tax. The Indiana State Normal School. The Indiana State Normal School is financed by biennial appropriations. Our method is unsatisfactory. We never know, from biennium to biennium, where we are. We can make no plans until the legislature has adjourned. The objection to a mill tax is found in the fact that in times of economic depression, the mill tax returns may go down ; and the increase in the millage tax is seldom large enough to keep pace with the growing needs of the educational insti­tutions of a state. The State Normal School, Troy, Alabama. The Alabama State Normal School is financed by biennial appropriations. Our method is unsatisfactory. We are trying now to pursuade our people that a fixed percentage is the only correct way of supporting the higher institutions. (1) It operates automatically. (2) When the pro rata is acceptable to all units of a system, it avoids unseemly scrambles before the legislature by the different units, each trying to get more than the others or more than its share. Michigan State Normal College. The Michigan State Normal College is financed by biennial appropriations. Our system of biennial appropriations is not satisfactory, especially since we have the budget plan which makes appropriations for specific schedules. The reason is that some schedules get exhausted and others have favorable balances, but the funds cannot be transferred from one schedule to another without permission from the State Administrative Board. The normal schools of Michigan are trying to get a mill tax for all expenses except special appropriations for build­ings, etc. Our reasons for thinking the mill tax advisable are as follows : 1. It saves the biennial thrashing over of old straw, or new so far as that is concerned, with the legislature. 2. As the valuation of the state increases the income would increase proportionately. 3. We have every reason to believe that the mill tax would come into the hands of the State Board of Education, to be handled according to its discretion. Of course, if the mill tax should not be adequate we would be no better off; but if it should be of sufficient size, we should undoubtedly be better off. The University of Michi­gan and Michigan Agricultural College are on the mill tax basis, and their governing boards have full control of their funds. The Northern Arizona Normal School. The Northern Arizona Normal School is financed by bi­ennial appropriations. Under our new law, compelling the Governor to submit a budget to the Legislature, we are very well taken care of. The University of Arizona went to the mill tax basis, last winter; at that time, the normal schools had an offer to get in on the same plan, but we rejected it, and I think very wisely, because a special session of the Legislature is now necessary in order to enable the university to finish the year. At the end of the year, its income yielded under the mill tax will probably be sufficient to pay all expenses of the year, but due to the fact that it has no reserve fund, to the fact that the December taxes were ten per cent de­ linquent, and to the further fact that its building program concentrated its expenses in the first few months of the year, the university finds itself without money and without credit. The normal schools have been in better position, because while their funds have been exhausted. state war­ rants have been issued which our banks will accept. University of Texas Bulletin Centml Michigan Normal School. The Central Michigan Normal School is financed by bi­ennial appropriations. We do not have, and have not had the mill tax. Our institution is run by appropriations made every two years by the State Legislature. We do not find this a satisfactory method for many reasons. First: We have to convince the Legislature each year of our needs. Second : The budget system is not elastic enough to take care of increased attendance, etc. Third : We feel that politics is mixed up in the matter more than should be in educational institutions The Iowa State Teachers College. The Iowa State Teachers College is financed by biennial appropriations. We have had no experience with the mill tax, except for building purposes for ten years, but each amount appropriated needed to be acted upon by succeeding legislatures which approved plans of building purposes and amounts to be expended for each building. State Teaching College, San Diego, California. The California State Teaching College is financed by bi­ennial appropriations. Our revenue is adequate for 1921 to 1923, but appropriations alone are uncertain. We would prefer combination of mill tax and biennial appropriations. The Indiana State Normal School. The Indiana State Normal School is financed by a mill tax. Our method is satisfactory. It gives definite income which is known in advance. The mill tax is the only method we have ever had. The Arkansas State Normal School. The Arkansas State Normal School is financed by biennial appropriations and a mill tax. 1. Our normal school gets by legislative action one-fifth of one mill annually of state taxes for the support and main­tenance of the institution. This is definite and the govern­ing board can make its plans definitely. 2. Before this millage tax can be spent by the school, a biennial appropriation is made by the Legislature, as pre­pared and suggested by the governing board of the school. This gives the people who pay the taxes, through the Legis­lature, a chance to know for what purpose the money is being spent, and a chance to stop any misuse or diversion of funds. 3. Apparently the only improvement we could suggest would be an increase in millage so as to take care of grow­ing institution. 4. Under our former method, our appr?priations de­pended on the mood and will of the Legislature, and the amount appropriated depended largely on the activity of interested parties in getting the needs before the Legisla­ture, which resulted in undue political influence. State Normal School, Salem, Massachusetts. The State Normal School of Salem, Massachusetts is financed by annual appropriations. Our method is unsatis­factory. We are subject to the whims as well as other conditions which influence a supervisor of administration, a Governor and a Legislature, annually. The disposition to secure a low rat~ of state tax often prevents a legitimate and wise investment in education. The Colorado Agricultural College. The Colorado Agricultural College is financed by bien­nial appropriations, a mill tax, and tax for buildings. Our method is very satisfactory, for we always know within a few dollars how much money we will have to spend for years in advance. The mill tax prevents us from having to go to the Legislature every session for money, and it also enables us to make plans for years ahead. It assists in keeping the institution out of politics, but it is not flexible enough to meet every need. University of Texas Bulletin The Western Illinois State Teachers College. The Western Illinois State Teachers College is financed by biennial appropriations. Our method is unsatisfactory, because we must depend each two years on the General As­sembly for our support. Sometimes they are liberal and sometimes they are not. We never know what we are going to get. We ought to have some sort of millage tax because a permanent charge against the State ought to have a permanent support. We have had no experience with the millage tax in the normal schools in this state. The state university is so maintained and it is able to get a great deal better support than are the normal schools. The only disadvantage of the mill tax is that it fails to meet any emergency which may fall upon an institution unexpected­ly. If a sufficient amount, however, is provided through the millage for new buildings a school can usually meet all emergencies in that respect unless burned out completely. The Eastern South Dakota State Normal School. The South Dakota State Normal School is financed by biennial appropriations. We must depend upon whatever the Legislature decides to give. A mill tax, if adequately apportioned, would be more satisfactory. We should then know what funds were to be available and could plan ahead for enlargements as funds became available. We have never tried the Mill tax. We are dependent entirely upon the attitude of the state legislature which meets every two years. There is a budget board which makes recommenda­tions to the legislature as to the amount of appropriation in their judgment that should be made to each institution. The legislature is free to differ in this recommendation. The board of regents and the head of each institution rec­ommends to the budget committee the amount that is needed for each institution. The Spearfish Normal School. The Spearfish Normal School is financed by biennial ap­propriations. Our method is not entirely satisfactory. We are at the whim of any legislature which can cripple or destroy us if it chooses. We should like a mill tax for run­ning expenses at least. The Ellensburg (Washington) State Normal School. The Ellensburg State Normal Sch~ol is financed by bien­nial appropriations and a mill tax. Our method is satis­factory. The mill tax provides the funds annually and the biennial app1opriation makes the fund available and at the same time leaves the control in the legislature. It gives stability and enables plans to be made extending a few years ahead-at least four years each mill tax period. It tends to lessen "political jockeying" and in the end contri­butes much more consistent results to the state due to con­servative and constructive administration. The advantages greatly outweigh the disadvantages. With the interest fund to act as an equalizer to meet emergencies, the disad­vantages are at a minimum. The Montana State College. The Montana State College is financed by biennial appro­priations and a mill tax. The mill tax was passed in 1920 and is effective for the first time in 1921. We therefore are in no position to judge its permanent effectiveness. Our method provides for certain incomes from a mill tax but this is not large enough to provide suitable operating funds so we go to the Legislature for direct appropriations. As stated before, the mill tax plan is new and we therefore have no experience to record. DATA IN REGARD TO 28 STATE-SUPPORTED COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES By Department of the Interior, Bureau of Education (George A. Zook, Specialist in Higher Education) Comparative Enrollments 1921-1922 Estimated Name of Institution 1919-20* October Total for 15,1921 the Year U niversity of California .. .. . University of Colorado ..... · -Colorado Agricultural College 11,903 1,927 669 12,882 2,366 824 14,170 2.700 600 University of Texas Bulletin University of Illinois ....... . Indiana University ... ..... . State University of Iowa ... . University of Kansas . .. .... . Kansas State Agricultural College................ . University of Michigan ..... . Michigan Agricultural College University of Minnesota ..... Mississippi Agricultural and Mechanical College . .... . Mississippi State College for Women.. .... .. ..... ... . University of Nebraska .... . New Hampshire College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts....... .. ....... . . . University of North Carolina North Carolina College of Agriculture and Engineer­ ing. . ........ .. ..... . . Ohio State University...... . University of Oklahoma.... . Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College. . .... Oregon State Agricultural Col­ lege. . ..... ..... ..... . University of Oregon ....... . Pennsylvania State College .. University of Texas........ . Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas........ . State College of Washington. University of Washington... . University of Wisconsin .... . 7,935 8,984 9,400 3,783 2,808 3,700 4,361 5,749 4,714 3,477 3,661 4,102 2,560 2,391 2,600 8,652 9,082 9,682 1,425 1,619 1,650 10,369 7,637 9,900 1,169 1,350 1.450 965 865 900 5,248 4,740 5,000 817 865 920 1,437 1,600 1,700 796 785 900 7,151 7,600 8,000 2,608 2,963 5,000 1,314 1,063 1,500 3,442 3,140 3,500 1,889 2,006 2,200 3,294 3,130 3,200 4,418 4,462 4,700 1,549 1,400 1,500 2,184 1,718 1,900 5,520 4,442 5,200 7,146 7,418 7,800 INCOME OF 28 STATE-SUPPORTED COLLEGES AND UNI­ VERSITIES FOR RESIDENT TEACHING Institution State University of California $3,620,000 University of Colorado. 380,000 *The figures for this year were taken No. 48, 1920. They may not correspond columns of this circular. Federal Students All Other Government Fees Sources $ 50,000 $ 550,000 $1,205,408 .. .. .. .. 175,000 120,000 from the Bureau of Education Bulletin exactly with those in the other two Colorado Agricultural College. . ......... . 210,000 69,000 16,000 30,000 University of Illinois .. . 3,321,865 313,408 550,000 192,800 Indiana University .... . 816,316 7,351 196,903 131,508 State University of Iowa 1,901,647 University of Kansas .. 1,000,500 900 200,000 112,000 Kansas State Agricul­ tural College. . ..... 709,000 50,000 100,000 380,000 University of Michigan. 3,150,000 38,416 964,100 1,729,250 Michigan Agricultural College............. . 1,000,000 120,000 150,000 200,000 University of Minnesota 2,845,460 95,750 562,000 369,000 Mississippi Agricultural College.............. 259,000 22,200 23,000 Mississippi State College for Women. . ..... . 142,681 4,125 606,880 University of Nebraska. 1,620,300 55,500 200,000 450,000 New Hampshire College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts. . ... 282,401 663,625 60,000 73,017 University of North Car­ olina. . .. .... ..... . 900,000 131,204 North Carolina College of Agriculture and En­ gineering........... . 275,000 41,000 375,000 Ohio State University .. 1,809,224 50,000 350,000 1,000,000 University of Oklahoma 843,252 150,000 Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical Col­ lege. . . . ......... . 465,250 4-5,000 5,500 85.000 Oregon State Agricul­ tural College. . ..... . 980,053 71,500 45,000 University of Oregon . . . 847,340 54,000 17,700 Pennsylvania State Col­ lege. . .......... . . . 853,000 113,000 270,000 University of Texas ... . 1,297,000 8,000 115,000 210,000 Agricultural and Me­ chanical C o 11 e g e of Texas. . ........ . . . 730,134 37,500 71,500 264,000 State College of Wash­ ington. . .... . .... . 613,982 50,000 46,100 40,220 University of Wash­ ington. . ... . . . ... . . 973,504 77,916 35,000 University of Wisconsin 2,958,185 50,000 611 ,895 440,425 DATA IN REGARD TO SALARIES OF PROFESSORS AND ASSOCIATE PROFESSORS Professors Associate Professors Name of Institution Maximum Mimimum Average Maximum Minimum Average University of California . ........ ... . ... . $7,000.00 $3,000.00 $4,641.00 $4,400.00 $3,000.00 $3,405.00 University of Colorado .. . ....... . ....... . 3,800.00 2,500.00 3,150.00 2,950.00 2,400.00 2,675.00 Colorado Agricultural College ........... . 4,000.00 2,600.00 3,300.00 3,033.00 2,300.00 2,665.00 University of Illinois ................... . 7,000.00 3,000.00 4,918.00 4,500.00 3,000.00 3,761.00 Indiana University. . ................... . 4,400.00 2,800.00 3,600.00 4,000.00 2,600.00 3,300.00 State University of Iowa ........ ... ..... . 5,500.00 2,750.00 4,011.00 4,000.00 2,750.00 3,307.00 University of Kansas ................... . 6,500.00 2,160.00 3,400.00 2,800.00 2,040.00 2,600.00 Kansas State Agricultural College ....... . 5,000.00 2,500.00 3,443.39 3,650.00 2,000.00 2,550.00 University of Michigan ................. .• 7,500.00 2,000.00 5,025.00 3,900.00 3,500.00 3,700.00 Michigan Agricultural College ..... .... .. . 5,500.00 3,500.00 4,664.00 4,200.00 2,8<50.00 3,362.00 University of Minnesota ... . ............. . 4,000.00 4,456.00 3,300.00 3,394.00 Mississippi Agricultural and Mechanical Col. 3,300.00 2,400.00 Mississippi State College for Women ..... . 3,000.00 2,000.00 2,550.00 University of Nebraska ... ........ ...... . 5,000.00 2,200.00 3,786.00 3,600.00 2,000.00 2,842.00 New Hampshire College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts ...................... . 3,600.00 2,800.00 3,316.00 2,900.00 2,700.00 2,800.00 University of North Carolina........... . 4,500.00 3,750.00 4,250.00 3,600.00 3,000.00 3,400.00 North Carolina College of Agriculture and Engineering. . ....................... . 3,600.00 2,750.00 Ohia State University ................ .. . 5,0Q0.00 3,000.00 4,250.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 University of Oklahoma ................. . 4,400.00 3,600.00 4,000.00 3,400.00 2,800.00 3,100.00 Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical Col. 3,550.00 2,400.00 3,250.00 3,500.00 2,000.00 2,575.00 Oregon State Agricultural College .......• 5,000.00 2,800.00 3,524.00 3,800.00 2,200.00 2,920.00 University of Oregon .. ..... ...... ..... ·.. 4,000.00 2,400.00 3,170.00 3,400.00 3,000.00 3,133.33 Pennsylvania State College ......... .. . .. . 4,500.00 2,500.00 3,400.00 3,250.00 1,800.00 2,600.00 University of Texas.................... . 4,400.00 3,800.00 4,100.00 3,400.00 3,000.00 3,200.00 Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas............................... . 4,360.00 3,610.00 3,960.00 3,360.00 2,760.00 3,110.00 State College of Washington ............. . 4,500.00 2,700.00 3,373.00 3,300.00 2,400.00 2,876.00 University of Washington ... . ........... . 4,500.00 3,000.00 3,887.00 3,500.00 2,600.00 3,148.00 University of Wisconsin .......... ...... . 7,500.00 3,900.00 5,075.00 4,500.00 3,100.00 3,612.00 PROPERTY AND INCOME OF 29 STATE UNIVERSITIES By the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Education Value Total Mill Receipts Name of Institution of Working Tax from Buildings Income Rate Mill Tax University of California $11,506,932 $5,844,464 University of Colorado .. 1,110,000 647,225 2/5 $ 500,000 Colorado Agriculture! College. . ......... . 755,000 766,196 1/5 122,059 University of Illinois . . . 4,866,749 3,916,249 2/3 2,535,000 Indiana University ... . 1,392,481 927,205 28/100 638,127 State University of Iowa 3,179,223 2,378,839 University of Kansas .. 2,395,000 1,149,409 Kansas State Agricul­ tural College ...... . 1,078,684 1,604,646 Michigan Agricultural College. . ........ . . 1,300,000 1,443,426 1/5 593,578 University of Michigan 6,249,502 3,875,735 3/8 1,818,750 University of Minnesota 6,319,776 4,408,436 23/100 590,851 Mississippi Agricultural & Mechanical College 860,895 899,652 Mississippi State College for Women . . ...... . 530,500 175,461 University of Nebraska 2,653,139 2,395,856 1 848,095 New Hampshire College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts ..... . 950,000 461,709 University o f N o rt h Carolina. . ....... . 987,990 470,687 North Carolina College o f Agriculture a n d Engineering. . ..... 699,995 790,082 Ohio State University.. 3,177,293 2,622,924 University of Oklahoma 1,218,754 942,096 Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical Col­ lege. . ........... . 1,282,453 Oregon State Agricul­ tural College. . . ..... 1,227,712 1,130,320 4/ 10 198,087 University of Oregon . . 1,111,871 1,077,511 3/10 297,130 Pennsylvania State Col­ lege............... . 1,975,386 1,622,781 University of Texas .. . 1,582,810 1,436,809 University of Texas Bulletin Agricultural and Me­ chanical College of Texas. . . .. . ... . ... . 2,098,929 1,876,516 ........ College of Industrial Arts (Texas) . . . . . . 858,528 445,209 ......... State College of Wash­ington. ........... 1,455,294 1,227 ,973 (6) 450,332 University of Wash­ington. ........... 1,212,514 1,479,034 (7) 903,731 University of Wisconsin 5,102,637 3,483,640 3/ 8 1,525,600 THE TEACHING FORCE IN 29 STATE UNIVERSITIES AND STATE COLLEGES FOR THE YEAR 1919-20 By the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Education Professors and Instructors Names of Institutions Men Women Total University of California. . . . . . . . . . . . . 739 189 928 University of Colorado. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 29 234 Colorado Agricultural College. . . . . . . 56 21 77 University of Illinois. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822 126 948 Indiana University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 28 197 ··~ State University of Iowa...... .. .... 206 57 263 University of Kansas............... 247 64 311 Kansas State Agricultural College . . . . 151 69 220 University of Michigan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449 5 454 Michigan Agricultural College . . . . . . . 145 26 171 University of Minnesota............. 712 102 814 Mississippi Agricultural and Mechan­ ical College. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 9 112 Mississippi State College for Women.. 6 60 66 University of Nebraska............. 268 70 338 New Hampshire College of Agricul­ ture and Engineering. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 11 67 University of North Carolina........ 112 18 130 North Carolina College of Agriculture and Engineering. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 20 84 Ohio State University. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 27 73 University of Oklahoma ... .. ... ..... 160 20 180 Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 35 137 Oregon State Agricultural College. . . 163 49 212 University of Oregon............... 120 36 156 Pennsylvania State College......... . 185 26 211 University of Texas................ . 234 48 282 Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas..... . .................. . 132 132 College of Industrial Arts (Texas) .. . 20 84 104 State College of Washington ........ . 127 38 165 University of Washington ...... . ... . 188 37 225 University of Wisconsin ............ . 460 92 552 Rank of the states in which the universities and colleges shown in the previous tables are located, according to population, 1920 Census. Pennsylvania. . ..... . .......... ... ... .. . . . . 8,720,017 Illinois. . .. . ...... . .. .. . . ... .. ......... .. . . 6,485,280 Ohio. . ... . .. ... . .. ... .·..... . .. ............5,759,394 Texas. . ...... .. . . ... .. .. .. ........ . . .. . .. .4,663,228 Michigan. . ........................... .. ...3,668,412 California. . . . .. . ... .... ... . . ... ... ..... ...3,426,861 Indiana. . . . . . . . ........ . ... ... ... . .... . ... .2,930,390 Wisconsin. . .. . ........ .... ... . .. . .. . . . ....2,632,067 North Carolina. . . ...... .. .......... ... . ...2,559,123 Iowa. . ....... . ... . .. ........ .. ... ... . .....2,404,021 Minnesota. . .......... ...... ............... 2,387 ,125 Oklahoma. . .. ...... ........................2,028,283 Mississippi. . . .. .... .. ... . . . ....... .... .... l,790,61H Kansas. . . . . . ..... ................ . .. .. ....l,769,2ii7 Washington. . . .... .........................1,356,621 Nebraska. . . ....... ........................l,296,372 Colorado. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 939,629 Oregon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 783,389 New Hampshire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443,082 A MILL TAX FOR THE HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS PREPARED BY DR. E. T. MILLER Advantages Claimed for a Mill Tax. 1. Steadiness of income. Does away with uncertainty. 2. Will increase with the wealth of the state, and will thereby be a guarantee of minimum support. 3. Permits planning for the future, and will therefore result in more economical and efficient administration~ 4. Does away with the annual or biennial struggle with the Legislature and the Executive for support. 5. Institution will be less in politics. Disadvantages Claimed for a Mill Ta~r. 1. Inadequate by itself. 2. Possible failure of revenue to grow in proportion to the growth of the needs of the institutions. Assessed val­ues may decrease, as they did in Texas in 1922. 3. Possibility of a change in the tax system; for ex­ample, the substitution of an income tax for the tax on personal property, or the adoption of a classified property tax, or the adoption of separation of sources of state ·and local revenues. 4. Difficulty of meeting emergencies. 5. Necessity of going to the Legislature for extra needs, thus making necessary the annual or biennial struggle. 6. In case the proceeds of the tax are subject to appro­priation by the Legislature, there is the recurrent struggle. 7. In case there is one levy for all of the higher educa­tional institutions, there is the possibility of a scramble among the institutions and a struggle with the Legislature or with the board which makes the apportionment. 8. Without a state board of equalization of assessed tax values and without a modernized tax system a mill tax simply aggravates the existing inequalities and injustices THE MILL TAX IN OPERATION Proceeds Percent ta and Normal A. and M. of Tax !Proceeds of Rates 1919-1920 State Support ...............······· ................................ . Date of Adoption 1921 1917 1920 1911 1883 New prov. 1918 1921 1867 1920 University Rate State 1. Arizona .. . .....11 mill, 1922 1.3 mill, 1923 1 mill, sub. 2. Arkansas .......j4/ 9 mill (4.44 cents on the $100) 3. Colorado ..... . . J.1618 mill (1.618 cents on the $100) 4. Illinois.........12/ 3 mill (6% cents on $100) 5. Indiana ... ... .. 12 cents on the $100 6. Kentucky ..... ..Jl % cents on the $100 7. Louisiana ...... \1l: mill after January 1, 1925 8. Michigan .... . .. 3/ 8 mill (3% cents on the $100) !J. Minnes.ot.a ......_123/100 mill .:::..:.::..=.::==·..::_--_ ___ _ _ __(23 cents on $1000) 1/ 9 for tr.e three agri-I $230,000 University I 90 100 75 89 88 90 76 87 cultural schools 1/9 Normal 1/9 Medical 1/9 Negro .0813 normal .03035 Normal .0813 Agri. .0502 Mines ..................... $500,000 University (old rate 2/ 5) $311,982 Agriculture (old rate 1/ 5) $122,059 Mines (old rate 1/ 5) $2,535,000 $638,127 University* $564,523 Purdue* 2 cents Purdue 1 cent Normal % of 1 cent for normal each $371,000 University (old rate 1/ 20 mill) . ........... .. ........ . ......... . .................. . 1/ 5 mill for Agri. $1,818,750 University 77 $593,578 Agriculture 75 . . ...............•••• $590,851 20 . --. . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . ... . ,.. .... .... . l 0. Montana. . . . . . . 11h mills for all *Old rate. A. and M. I Proceeds State University and Normal of Tax Rate Rates 1919-1920 I-­ 11. Nebraska . .. .. ..i78 mill ....... . .. ...... . .... 1$848,095 (114 cent~ on the $100) 12. Nevada . ....... 12 cents, 1921 ..................••••$150,619 • 13 cents, 1922 (old rate 4/ 5 mill) 13. North Dakota .. See bibliography See bibliography 14. Ohio ........... 125/ 1000 mill 15. Oregon ... . .. ...I.8143 mill 1.0857 mill for Agri. I$297 ,130 University (old rate 3/10) .1 mill for Normal $198,087 Agri. (old rate 4/ 10) 16. Tennessee------lli2 mill (5 cents on the $100) !....... .. .... ......•• 1$273,000 17. Utah . . ..... ....; 28 per cent of general tax levy for all. Of proceeds $371,642 University 64.43 per cent to Universii )' 28.34 per cent to Agriculturt> $128,275 Agri. 7.23 per cent to Agriculture .67 mill Agri. 18. Washington .....ILl mill $903,731 University (11 cents on the $100) .20 mill Normal (old rate 47%/ 100) .159 mill Normal $450,822 Agri. .12 mill Normal (old rate 3211:!/100) 1/6 mills Normals 19. Wisconsin ...... I3/ 8 mill $1,525,600 (3% cents on the $100) 20. Wyoming-.......14/ 8 mill =====================·=··=·=·=··=·=.............,$190,858· Iowa abandoned the mill tax in 1906. Had it for buildings, 1896-1906. Ohio abandoned the mill tax in 1920, but adopted it h 1921 for four years for buildings. A mill tax for the University of California was defeated by popular vote in 1920. Percent tax Proceeds of State Support 55 60 30 23 100 44 43 78 65 79 93 Date of Adoption 1869 New 1920 1917 1911 c.1912 1876 1897 of the operation of the general property tax. All mill tax states have state boards of equalization. Texas has no such board. 9. If adequate and not specifically appropriated by the Legislature, the institutions may be less responsive to state needs and sentiment. 10. If inadequate by itself and subject to supplementary and specific appropriations, no advantage over the wholly­appropriation method. BIBLIOGRAPHY AND ADDITIONAL DATA Arizona. Session Laws, 1921, p. 159. Proceeds are available with­out further appropriation. Proceeds may be used for mainte­nance and construction. Normals were offered the mill tax method of support but refused it. Arkansas. Acts of 1917, Vol. 1, p. 631. Acts of 1919, p. 32. The total of one and one-ninth mills is deducted from the general revenue rate. Proceeds are subject to appropriation by the Leg­islature. Colorado. Constitutional amendment adopted November 2, 1920. Session Laws, 1921, pp. 179, 591, 647, 649, 694, 794, and 16. Its levy is within the discretion of the General Assembly. The General Assembly specifies the rate for each institution. Illinois. Rev. Stats. 1917, Ch. 120, Arts. 400 and 401. Laws of Illinois, 1921, p. 149. In 1911 the rate was fixed at one mill. It was reduced to two-thirds mill in 1919. Large additional ap­propriations. Indiana. Burns' Annotated Indiana Statutes. Revision of 1914, Vol. 3, p. 459. Acts, 1913, Ch. 182. In 1883 a rate of one-half of one cent was levied for thirteen years. In 1895 changed to one-sixth of one mill. In 1903 changed to two and three-fourths cents. A total of seven cents is levied for the state educational institu­tions. A Jaw of 1919 provides that if there is an increase in the valuation of property, the tax levy shall be proportionately reduced. This automatically lowered the educational levy from seven cents to two and eight-tenths cents. Emergency condi­tions in 1920 led to an addition of one/cent to the levy. In 1921 the tax was changed to five cents, Indiana University to receive two-fifths of the proceeds, Purdue, two-fifths, and Indiana State Normal, one-fifth. The Legislature apportions the levy. Pur­pose or use not restricted. Kentucky. Special tax for A. and M. g·oes back to 1880. Later the University and the A. and M. consolidated. Acts, 1918, p. 12. Available without further appropriation. Use not restricted. It is a segregated part of the general state rate. Louisiana. Constitution, 1921, p. 96. Michigan. Compiled Laws of Michigan, 1915, Vol. 1, p. 642. Prac­tice goes back to 1867. Tax was made one mill in 1893. Was changed to three-eights mill in 1907. Available without further appropriation. No restriction as to use. Large additional ap­propriations. Minnesota. General Statutes, 1913, Arts. 2915 and 3024, Sec. 2. Laws, 1919, Ch. 289, and Laws, 1921, p. 608, levy' a tax sufficient to provide $560,000 a year for the year 1921 and each succeeding seven years for a "University Building Fund." This is additional to the other mill tax. Available without further appropriation. •"'"r!ontana. Revised Code, 1921, Art. 2148 . .\'ebraska. Revised Stats., 1913, Art. 7102. Subject to appropriation. .Vernda. Statutes, 1920-21, p. 226. Beginning in 1921-22 the Uni­ versity is. to be wholly supported from the mill tax. Law specifies that not less than two cents shall be set aside for buildings. Constitution Art. 11, Sec. 6, provides for a tax not in excess of two mills for support and maintenance of university and com­mon schools. So;·th pakota. Compiled Laws, 1913, Vol. 2, p. 340. There is a tax of one mill levied for the univer sity, school of mines, the agricul­tural college, the normal schools, the school for the deaf and dumb, and two other institutions. Ohio. Laws of Ohio, 1921. For the years 1921-1922 and 1922-1923 there shall be levied a tax of 125/ 1000 of one mill for the purpose of providing a building fund for Ohio State University, Ohio University, and :'11iami University. Of the fund, 14 per cent goes to Ohio University, 14 per cent to }fiami University and the remainder (72 per cent) to Ohio State University. Q7·egoil. Laws, 1920, Arts. 5427, 5428, 5443, 5466. Available with­out further appropriation. Until 1920 University had three­tenths mill, the Agricultural College, four-tenths mill and the Normal, one-twP.nty-fifth mill. In an election in May, 1920, the people voted a 6 per cent increase in the amount of taxes levied each year over the preceding year. T em1essee. Public Acts, 1921, p. 48. Proceeds go first to meeting interest on the $1,000,000 bond issue for buildings. Any surplus beyond specifications in the act may be used for maintenance. Utah. Compiled Laws. 1917, Art. 5214. Wa shington. Laws, 1920-1921, p. 528. Changes in the rates to be reported on by the joint board of higher curricula in the report next preceding the convening of the Legislature in 1925. Wash­ington is the only state which makes orderly provision for possible periodical change. Wisconsin. Statutes, 1913, Secs. 390, 406a. Subject to specific ap­propriation by the Legislature. TVyoming. Compiled Statutes, 1920, Arts. 482, 2939. Available with­out further appropriation. The four-eighths mill is divided into one-eight for buildings and permanent improvements and three­eighths for maintenance. The rates given in the second and third columns of the tables are presumably the current rates. In column four certain rates are given in parenthesis, and these are the old rates and the ones in effect for the ·proceeds given in column four. The data in column four were obtained from Statistics of State Universities and State Colleges, for the year ending June 30, 1920, Bulletin, 1920, No. 48, Bureau of Education, Department of Interior. ADDENDUM The recent publication by the United States Bureau of Education of the statistics of state universities and state colleges for the year ended June 30, 1921, makes it possible to present. the latest statistical material bearing on the mill tax published by the federal government. Institution University of Arizona .. ............. . ........ . University of Colorado..................... __.. . Colorado Agricultural College................. . Colorado School of Mines .... _.............. . . . University of Illinois .................... . .... . fodiana University. . . ....... . ........ __ ... ... . University of Kentucky....................... . University of Michigan ....... . . . ...... ... .... . Michigan Agricultural College .. ......... -.... . l!niversity of Minnesota ......... . ...... .... ... . University of Nebraska ...................... . University of Nevada . _ ...................... . Oregon. State Agricultural College............. . University of Oregon .................__ ....... . Clemson Agricultural College (South Carolina) .. University of Tennessee.......... ............ . University of Utah ...................... ..... . State College of Washington ................ .. .. University of Washington .. . .. . .......... .. .. . University of Wisconsin ...................... . University of Wyoming . ........ _.. . ......... . . a. Includes $150,00 unexpended in 1920. b. See precding table. c. Less than 1h of one mill. d. Less than % of ona mill. Mill Rate 4/9 $ 37/ 100 22/ 000 8/ 100 2/ 3 28/ 100 1/ 20 3/ 8 1/ 5 23/ 100 1 4/ 5 4/ 10. 3/ 10 1/ 2 b d 3/ 8 1/2 Proceeds of Tax 296,500.00 560,500.00 325,807.00 115,862.00 2,515,253.00 637,196.00 365,987.00 2,193,750.00 1,085,000.00n 401,524.00 856,297.00 156,118.00 1,244,183.00 847,540.00 167,505.00 214,880.00 318,050.00 364,543.00 972,779.00 1,714,011.00 202,639.00 State State Appropriation Appropriation Current Expenses Buildings, etc. $ 79,223.00 ............ 108,673.00 . . . . . . . . . . .. 11,500.00 114,112.00 80,000.00 ............ . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,535,179.00 600,629.00 9,919.00 224,949.00 838,894.00 185,481.00 77,862.00 24,861.00 353,834.00 112,802.00 500,160.00 75,063.00 .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... $105,000.00 825,000.00 .......... 719,795.00 193,955.00 .......... ... .. ..... 113,269.00 .......... .......... .......... 174,179.00 538,644.00 327,374.00 150,058.00 Ot en c::: ;t_ <:: ~ ~ ~. <"1­ •-::: 0 ·--. >-3 ~ ~ Cl> O::l ~ ~ .,... ~· 1. Rural School Service. Lectures and rural school apecialiata are available for county school surveys, for lectures on school im­proTement, E.nd for general assistance in directing and organizing community meetings. 2. The DiYiaion of E:1:ten1ion Teachinc. Coune1 equivalent to those offered in residence at the University are taught by mail, bymembers of the University faculty. Extension classes are offered in those centers in the State where there is a demand for them. Group Study Courses are available for study clubs. 3. The DiYiaion of Home Economics. Conferences and clinics are held relative to the health and nutrition of children of pre-school age, as well as for children of school age. Budget makin~ and budgetary spending are taught to groups wher~ such service 18 de­sired. . 4. DiYi1ion of GoYernment Reaearch. Information relative to the problems of municipal, county, state, and national government may be had from this division. 5. The DiTi1ion of Packaae Loan Library. This division collects material on all important present-day subjects and loans it, free of charge, to schools, women's clubs, libraries, community and civic organizations, and i:J.dividuals. When demand for them arises, apecial libraries are often made up on subjects on which libraries are not already prepared. 6. The Pbotoeraphic Laboratory. .. This laboratory is prepared to make lantem slides, produce negatives, and do technical pho· tography. The laboratory ii! also prepared to make motion picture mm.. 7. The DiYi•ion of Tradea and lndu1trie1. Courses in trade, analysis, lesson planning, methods of teaching, practical teaching,related subject work, and history of industrial education are givenin industrial centers, by members of the division working in co­operation with the State Board for Vocational Education. 8. The DiYi1ion of Vi1ual ln1truction. Lantern slide sets are distributed for educational and recreational purposes. Motion pic­ture films are distributed through the division, and information rel­ative to Extension service has been prepared and will be mailed free upon application. 9. The Univeraity lnter1chola1tic League. Educational contests are promoted among the public schools of Texas in public speaking, essay-writing, and spelling. It is the purpose of the League also to assist in organizing, standardizing and controlling athletics. A bul­letin for use in the spelling contests is iseuPd, also one briefing the subject for debate and giving selected arguments, one giving sixty prose declamations, and one containing the Constitution and Rulu .including a thorough description of all the contests undertaken. "THE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION CAMPUS IS THE STATE OF TEXAS.'' Address general inquiries to T. H. SHELBY, Director, Bureau of Extension, University of Texas.