YOU DON'T SHUTTER the State Museum just because the state falls on hard times. But you also don't take money from other state programs in order to keep it operating.

That was the dilemma at the Governor's Mansion, which ran out of money to operate, with five months left to go in the fiscal year. None of the options facing Gov. Mark Sanford was a good one: He could have taken money from programs housed in the governor's office, as his predecessor did; he could have closed the mansion to the public; or he could have chosen to raise private donations to keep it open.

We're glad he rejected the first two options.

Even though we question the value of some of the programs housed in the governor's office (and believe those worth keeping should be moved to related agencies), the Legislature appropriated money to run them, and it's wrong for a governor to switch that money to other programs. Besides, some of the programs that would be raided actually perform valuable services.

While cutting expenses is to be encouraged and commended, the idea of laying off the staff, closing the mansion to the public and leaving the first family there to fend for itself also was a non-starter. The mansion is not just the place where the first family lives; if it were, the state wouldn't have spent $6 million to refurbish it. The mansion is also an important historic building, akin to our museums, and it is an essential place for governors to entertain industrial prospects and dignitaries.

Unfortunately, that left us only with the unsavory option of hitting up private donors.

The first problem with that is that if the government decides to do something, it should use public funds to do it. That's why we opposed using private salary supplements to pay the chief of staff at the Commerce Department, and it's why we questioned the use of a private slush fund by that same agency.

The second problem is that this particular type of private-sector subsidy puts the governor in a difficult position. While many people might donate to a mansion operation fund just because they believe it is important to keep such a significant public building open to the public, others would do so in hope of currying favor with the governor. After all, in addition to keeping the building open for public tours, the donors are, quite literally, putting food on the governor's table.

Fortunately, the problems can be mitigated.

First, all donations should be publicly disclosed, and the same people who are barred by law from giving campaign contributions and gifts to the governor should be barred from donating to this fund. (Mr. Sanford already limited donations to $5,000 each, a wise move.) And instead of allowing this to be operated in the ad hoc manner the governor has begun, the Legislature should pass a law spelling out these requirements.

Second, it must be completely clear that this will be a one-time private bail-out. The governor has already taken steps to reduce the mansion's annual budget, and he has said he might reinstitute the use of inmate labor, the absence of which is the main reason the budget has skyrocketed in recent years. We believe he should move forward with that plan, both to save money and to give inmates something useful to do with their time.

Then, starting next year, the mansion must operate on whatever budget the Legislature appropriates for it.