xt7sxk84nj8k_114 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7sxk84nj8k/data/mets.xml https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7sxk84nj8k/data/L2021ua019.dao.xml Kentucky University 18.26 Cubic Feet 32 document boxes, 5 flat boxes, 21 bound volumes archival material L2021ua019 English University of Kentucky Property rights reside with Transylvania University.  The University of Kentucky holds the copyright for materials created in the course of business by University of Kentucky employees. Copyright for all other materials has not been assigned to the University of Kentucky.  For information about permission to reproduce or publish, please contact the Special Collections Research Center.  Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Transylvania University Library. Record Group 5:  Collection on Kentucky University Kentucky University/ Its Legal Status (2 copies) text Kentucky University/ Its Legal Status (2 copies) 2024 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7sxk84nj8k/data/L2021ua019/Box_5_25/Folder_3/Multipage5617.pdf 1873 1873 1873 section false xt7sxk84nj8k_114 xt7sxk84nj8k  

ITS

LEGAL STATUS;

I ‘OUJ SV 1' I} I} H:
me: x x’I‘Axmiy, 105 FIFTH S’i‘Ri-Llil‘,

mm.

 

  

KENTUCKY UNEVERSETY,

ITS LEG-AL STATUS.

§

In consequence of great and general (:lissatisthction as to
the management of Kentucky Unirersity, nearly two hundred
Christian congregations in this State expressed their will
during the latter part of the summer and the early part 01" the
autumn past irelatire to certain changes deemed by" them
essential to a righteous administration of the Unirersity all
‘i‘airs, and forwarded the same to Lexington to he acted on by
the Board of Curators at their called ineetingin the month ot'
September. But a majority of the board, instead of recog—
nizing any obligation to take action as directed, appointed a
committee to draw up an answer to the expressed will of the
churchesl As a result we have two reports, the one from a
the
former denying and the latter affirming and dctending the

 

majority and the other from a minority of the committee

right of the Kentucky Christian Brotherhood to exercise an
imperatire voice in the government of lix’entucliy TL,,"iii\'ers'ity.
This claim on the part of the Christian Clnireh in l‘ientuelq'
is based on its ownership of the institution as a possession
which was terinerly universally acknowledged. We sneak
here of the Unirersity as ("listinct lil‘Olll the idglfltfllltlil'zll and
Mechanical College, to which we lay no claim whatever, and
from all connection with which we desire to he released. Alter

all that has been said most clearly demonstratire of our

 

 

 ownership of the institution, we hardly expected that any one
could be found bold enough to deny this right. But as the
authors of the report—which we propose here to criticise—are '
fully aware that the settlement of this great, fundamental
question is a settlement final and complete of all other ques-
tions touching the control and management of the University,
they have felt themselves constrained to controvert what under
different circumstances they would never think of denying.

On this vital and all—important point the authors of the
document before me are as inconsistent with themselves as
they are at variance with the character of the institution and
the facts connected with its history. In one place it is assert—
ed that “the ownership and control of the institution is vested
in. a Board of Curators,” who are represented as “the legally
constituted guardians and ‘owners’ of the institution,” while
in another it is said that “they regard themselves as trustees
of the donors,” holding the University “in trust for those who
gave their money to endow and maintain it.” W hat can be
more absurd than to represent a number of men as the “own—
ers” of anything they hold “in trust ‘3” One can. neither be
an owner in relation to what he holds in trust, nor a trustee
in relation to what he owns. Equally absurd is the supposi—
tion that one can be a trustee in relation to a donor. A gift
is not a trust; nor is he a donor wno simply intrusts his prop—
erty to the guardianship of another. Here, then, are three
things—donor, owner and trustee. Let us see how they stand
related to each other. A donor alienates from himself what
he wishes to give away, and puts it in possession of another
who now becomes its owner, and the owner, for the accom—
pllSllll’lellt of his purpose, finds it convenient, perhaps neces—
sary, to intrust it to the guardianship of a trustee. it will be
seen then, at once, that the ownership of Kentucky University
can neither be in the donors nor iii the curators, who are
trustees, but in a third party, to which they stand. related as
donors and trustees. That this is the Christian Church in
Kentucky, both the charter of the University and the facts
connected with its history abundantly testify.

'1

 

   

p

“ For the ownership and control of said University, at least
two-thirds 0'1" the Board of Curators shall always be members
of the Christian Church in Kentucky.” The authors of the
report before me contend that thisvprovision of the charter
“simply creates an element in the boar( ,” and vests the prop-
erty of the University in the board as “thus constituted,” and
not “in that congregational community of which the two—thirds
are required to be members,” adding that the Christian Church
in Kentucky, “being unincorporated, neither holds nor can hold
legally any property whatever.” N ow the truth is. that
legal enactments touching the ownership of property do not
and can not vest this attribute in anybody. Ownership must
first exist as inherent in some rightful possessor and it is the
province of law simply to recognize and protect this previously
existing right. Law is not the source of ownership in any—
thing, but only of that protection by which its uninterrupted
enjoyment is secured. Unincorporated bodies, as local con-
gregations for example, may and do own property, but that
they may be protected by law in the enjoyment of their own-
ership they appoint trustees as agents to represent them before
the law, and in these the legal management, but not the own—
ership, of their property is vested. Amd this is the import of
the bunglingly written provision of the charter above quoted,
It means this or it means nothing. It would be, as we have
seen, a solecism absurd in the highest degree to speak of trus—
tees as owning anything they hold in trust for others. The
charter o'f the University “creates an element in the Board”
of Curators by providing that two~tliirds “shall always be
members of the Christian Church in Kentuc (y,” in order that
the legal management of the institution should always be in
harmony with the rights and wishes of its real owner. For
this reason, and this only, was the board “thus constituted.”