| OCR Text |
Show 152. in question (if one were actually made) is of an entirely different nature. It was made in the transition of Utah from a territory to a state. The sum of money was transferred from the University to the State Board of Land Commissioners as the then permanent fund of the University, to be invested by the State Board of Land Commissioners for the benefit of the University as required by the constitution. If a portion of it was interest, it was not so reported, and the whole sum \ was treated, entered and invested as the permanent fund and ‘3 has been so treated for nearly twenty-five years. In my opinion, the State Board of Land Commissioners, the Auditor, or the State Board of Examiners would not have authority in this particular instance to direct theAuditor to take $18,829.52 from the permanent fund of the University and place it in the interest fund of the University without special legislative sanction. Yours very respectfully, Principal Fund Harvey H. Cluff, VSInterest Fund Attorney General. Dr. Widtsoe called attention to the decision of the Attorney General wherein he stated that, in order to correct the error and transfer items from the Land Grant Fund to the Interest Fund, legislative action would be necessary. It was pointed out that since statehood the University has drawn interest on the $18,829.52 improperly credited to the permanent fund and that if the permanent fund were reduced, the annual income to the University from interest would also be reduced. Moved by Regent Harkness, that the $18,829.52 remain in the University of Utah principal fund and not be transferred to its interest account, unless the necessity for such transfer shall appear either through some technicality in bookkeeping or record-keeping in the offices of the State Auditor or State Land Board. -Passed. President Widtsoe presented the following communication from Mr. A. B. Young. ' |
