Will Stay With Us

The act of the legislatura of 1895, kuown as "The Homeopathie Rernoval Act," has received ite quietus at the hands of the supreme court aud the homeopathie departmeut will consequently rernain on the uuiversity campus iQuoh to the delight of the sincere friends of that institntion, who had a dicided objection to the introduction of the Detroit wedge to remove the university pieceiiieal to that city. On Tuesday the supreme court in a uuanimous opiuion written by Judge C. B. Grant, declared the act unconstitutional aud therefore nuil aud void. The whole matter was so well veutilated through the columus of the newspapers at the time the action of Dr. Charles F. Sterling, of Detroit, against the board of regents to compel them to remove the department to that city, was first commeoced, that ouly a brief mention of the facts is necessary. ü Ihe action was brought to compel the regents to comply with. the law. They refused, because it was uot, in their judgmeut, for the best interests of the university that the college be removed to Detroit, and secoud, that the legislature has no constitutioual right to interfere with or dictate the management of the university. The opinión of Justice Grant is soraewhat lengthy. He discusses all phases of the question, and reviews the bistory of the uuiversity from a oonstitutional and legislativo standpoint. The right of the state legislature to control the regeuts is the question discussed, the court sayiug that right was deuied in the case of Weinberg vs. Regents, in which it was held that the board of regeuts is a coustitutional body, charged by the constitution with eutire control of that iustitution, and that the state legislature "cannot add to or take away from its property without the consent of the regents." The court says it might properly rest its decisión on this case, and would do so, did not those who favor removal contend that tbis case does not apply. For this reason the opinión gives further reasous to show that the legislature has no control over tbe uiiiversity or regen ts. The first of these is that tbe regents and legislatnre derive their power froiu the same snpreme authority, the constitntion. ín so far as the powers of each are defined by that instrument limitations are irnposed, and a direct power conferred upon one necessarily precludes its esistence in the other, iu the absence of language showing the contrary intent. Neither the university nor regents is nientioned iu article 14, whieh defines the powers and duties of the legislature, nor in the article relating to the university and regents is there any language which can be oonstrued into oonferriug upon or reserving any control over that institution in the legislature. They are separate and distiuct constitutioual bodies, with the powers of tbe regents defined. By no rule or construction eau it be held that either can encroach upon or exercise the powers conferred upon the other. Justice Grant also shows that the board of regents is the only corporatiou provided for in the oonstitution whose powers are defined therein. In every other Corporation provided for therein it is expressly provided that its powers shall be such as the legislature shall give. The third test applied by the court is the rale of construction tbat where eral power over one subject is conlerred. upon one body in one clause of an instrument, without any restrioting or qualifying laugaage, and the like power over another subject is conferred upon another body in another clause of the same instrument, with restrioting or qualifying language, the restrictions and qualifications in the second clause, must be excluded. This is shown to be the case with reference to the regents. The court concludes that it was the clear intent of the framers of the constitution to place the university in the direct and exclusive control of the regents, a constitutional body elected by the people. Any other construction wonld place such control in the legislature, aud leave the regents to simply register the will of the legislatura. The mandamus aske.d for to compel the regents to remove the homeopathie departmeut to Detroit was, therefore, denied.