STATE SUBSIDY

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 12, 8 October 1921, Page 12

STATE SUBSIDY

AND “VOLUNTARY” CONTRIBUTIONS

OTAGO UNIVERSITY SEEKS A DECISION

A case intended to determine whether certain payments to a. university were "voluntary contributions” within the meaning of the Act, and therefore entitled to All for Ail subsidy, was heard on Thursday by the I’ull Court. The Otago University applied by way of originating summons for a decision on the point, the Minister of Education being the defendant. On the Bench were Their Honours Mr. Justice Sim, Mr. Justice Stringer, and Mr. Justice Salmond. Mr. A. Gray, K.C. (with him Mr. C. G. White), appeared for the plaintiff, and the Solicitor-General (Mr. W. C. MacGregor, K.C.) for the defendant.

The plaintiff asked for an order declaring whether the university was entitled under section 33 of the'New Zealand University Amendment Ait, lbl4, to be paid a subsidy out of the Consolidated Fund, on the amount of contributions* in money made by the Otago Presbyterian Church Board of Property to the university, at the rate of Al for every J!1 of the contributions. The main question to be decided was whether the annual payments by ihe Church Board of Property for the. maintenance of certain chairs in the Otago Jiniversiiy wore ‘'voluntary contributions” within the meaning of the Act. The Right to Subsidy.

Opening the ca=e, Mr. Gray read a lengthy affidavit from the Bev. Dr. Cameron, of Dunedin, chancellor of the university, setting out the history of t.ho Otago University and the endowment system. Ho stated that ihe appropriations of the Presbyterian Church Board of Property for salaries and other expenditures had been in accordance with the provisions of the law; and the present claim was made out of purely disi~terested motive, without any idea or hope of personal return. Discretion permitted the trustees of the board to allocate money to professors at any university or any college where they were engaged on the staff. He added:— "Even if Knox College was not an affiliated university, its right to subsidy would not be , prejudiced.” A question whether the 1914 Act gave the board a right to a permanent appropriation from the Consolidated Fund was asked by Mr. Justice Salmond, the answer was in the affirmative, Mr. Gray submitting that the Act stipulated for payment “without further appropriation.”' ' Mr. Justice Salmond: Does that differ from "annual appropriation” ? Mr. Gray: “It does not matter at all. . . . The Act refers to all voluntary contributions." Counsel dealt with the meaning of “voluntary contribution, which had, he said, the same application and incidence when applied to the administration of hospitals and charitable institutions. The Acts of ISGG and 19GG merely confirmed and continued (for the purpose of making voluntary contributions to colleges) trusts that were created and existed before 1866. The Presbyterian Church Board Act vyas merely legislative machinery by which contributions were to be administered. Applications of the trustees to carry out th© trust could not alter or determine the character of the contributions. The trustees, further, had discretion as to what college or university in Otago they might apply the moneys. “That shows," added Mn Gray, “that the payments to the university are not compulsory payments.” They might have been paid to Knox College, ho added, or to any other Otago institution which had ths title of college, or ht which a professorial chair existed. Mr. White addressed the Court briefly. “Contributions Not Voluntary.”

The Solicitor-General contended that the annual payments were not “voluntary contributions” within the meaning of .the section, and that consequently subsidies were not payable out of the Consolidated Fond in respect thereof. The expression “voluntary contribution occurred in numerous Acts of Parliament, but was not one to which a fixed, definite interpretation could be given application in all cases alike. "In each case where this or a similar expression is used in a statute,” he said, "the object and intention of the Legislature must as a rule bo considered.” The contributions in the case under review were contributions made compulsory by statute The test of a payment being voluntary or not was whether it was a payment which the payer might begin, continue, and withdraw, at his own will and pleasura. Tried by that test, it would be impossible to contend that the annual payments were “voluntary contributions.” The Solicitor-General added that by section 24 of the Otago Presbyterian Church Board of Property Act, 1906, the Church Board had to apply the payments 'n question in the erection or endowment of a literary chair or chairs in a college or university—now known as thq University of Otago. The broad,idea -nderlying section 33 of the Act to be that, by way of assisting the' <nances of university colleges, the Government should grant subsidies in respect- of all freewill offerings made by certain persons to the colleges. In that way, he eaid, it was apparently hoped to stimulate the generosity of individual donors, and thiis to augment the funds o' the college. When contributions received by the colleges were compulsory, and not voluntary, it would be obvious'- .out of the (jUestion to expect their tote amount to bo increased by any such process; and accordingly no subsidies were granted in aid of non-voluntary contributions. The amount, then, paid annually to the university by the Church Board of Property was not entitled to subsidies under section 33.

In conclusion, Mr. MacGregor said that a further question had been raised whether, even assuming the payments in question to have been ' “voluntary contributions” under section 33, they were not disentitled to a subsidy as being "directly or indirectly derived from public endowments or funds,” under the regulations. It was not necessary to decide that subsidiary question. After Mr. Gray had replied, and further argument had been heard from Mr. MacGregor the Court reserved its decision.