ADMINISTRATION OF PRESIDENT BROWN.--CONTEST BETWEEN THE COLLEGE AND
THE STATE.--TRIUMPH OF THE COLLEGE.
Rev. Francis Brown of North Yarmouth, Maine, was elected the successor
of President Wheelock. His character will be the subject of a later
chapter. He was inaugurated in September, 1815, and entered at once
with vigor and earnestness upon the performance of his official
duties.
The Committee of the New Hampshire Legislature of 1815, Rev. Ephraim
P. Bradford, Nathaniel A. Haven, and Daniel A. White, appointed to
investigate the affairs of the college, reported in substance, that
there was no ground for interference by the State.
The deep interest in the college question produced a political
revolution in the State. In his message to the Legislature at the
opening of the session in June, 1816, Governor Plumer says:
"Permit me to invite your consideration to the state and condition of
Dartmouth College, the head of our learned institutions. As the State
has contributed liberally to the establishment of its funds, and as
our constituents have a deep interest in its prosperity, it has a
strong claim to our attention. The charter of that college was granted
December 13th, 1769, by John Wentworth, who was then Governor of New
Hampshire, under the authority of the British king. As it emanated
from royalty, it contained, as was natural it should, principles
congenial to monarchy; among others, it established Trustees, made
seven a quorum, and authorized a majority of those present to remove
any of its members which they might consider unfit or incapable, and
the survivors to perpetuate the Board by themselves, electing others
to supply vacancies. This last principle is hostile to the spirit and
genius of a free government. Sound policy therefore requires that the
mode of election should be changed, and that Trusties, in future,
should be elected by some other body of men.
"The college was founded for the public good, not for the benefit or
emolument of its Trustees; and the right to amend and improve acts of
incorporation of this nature has been exercised by all governments,
both monarchical and republican. In the Charter of Dartmouth College
it is expressly provided that the president, trustees, professors,
tutors and other officers, shall take the oath of allegiance to the
British king; but if the laws of the United States, as well as those
of New Hampshire, abolished by implication that part of the Charter,
much more might they have done it directly and by express words. These
facts show the authority of the Legislature to interfere upon this
subject."
Governor Plumer communicated this message to Jefferson, who replied in
his letter of July 21, 1816: "It is replete with sound principles, and
truly republican. Some articles, too, are worthy of notice. The idea
that institutions established for the use of the nation cannot be
touched nor modified, even to make them answer their end, because of
rights gratuitously supposed in those employed to manage them in trust
for the public, may, perhaps, be a salutary provision against the
abuses of a monarch, but it is most absurd against the nation itself.
Yet our lawyers and priests generally inculcate this doctrine, and
suppose that preceding generations held the earth more freely than we
do; had a right to impose laws on us, unalterable by ourselves; and
that we, in like manner, can make laws and impose burdens on future
generations, which they will have no right to alter; in fine, that the
earth belongs to the dead, and not to the living."
The following action shows the result:
"The undersigned, three of the members of the Board of Trustees of
Dartmouth College, having this morning seen a printed copy of a bill
before the Honorable House [of the New Hampshire Legislature], the
provisions of which, should they go into effect would set aside the
Charter of the college, and wholly change the administration of its
concerns, beg leave respectfully to remonstrate against its passage.
The provisions of the bill referred to change the name of the
corporation; enlarge the number of Trustees; alter the number to
constitute a quorum; render persons living out of the State, who are
now eligible, hereafter ineligible; vacate the seats of those members
who are not inhabitants of the State; deprive the Trustees of the
right of electing members to supply vacancies; and give to the new
Board of Trustees an arbitrary power of annulling everything
heretofore transacted by the Trustees; and this last without the
concurrence of the proposed Board of Overseers. The consent of the
present Board of Trustees is in no instance contemplated as necessary
to give validity to the new act of incorporation.
"In the opinion of the undersigned, these changes, modifications, and
alterations effectually destroy the present Charter of the college and
constitute a new one.
"Should the bill become a law, it will be obvious to our fellow
citizens that the Trustees of Dartmouth College will have been
deprived of their Charter rights without having been summoned or
notified of any such proceeding against them. It will be equally
obvious to our fellow citizens that the facts reported by the
committee of investigation [of the last Legislature] did not form the
ground and basis of the new act of incorporation; and that no evidence
of facts of any sort, relating to the official conduct of the
Trustees, other than the report of the committee of investigation, was
submitted to your Honorable Bodies.
"To deprive a Board of Trustees of their Charter rights, after they
have been accused of gross misconduct in office, without requiring any
proof whatever of such misconduct, appears to your remonstrants
unjust, and not conformable to the spirit of the free and happy
government under which we live. If the property has been misapplied,
if there has been any abuse of power upon the part of the Trustees,
they are fully sensible of their high responsibility; but they have
always believed, and still believe, that a sound construction of the
powers granted to the Legislature, gives them, in this case, only the
right to order, for good cause, a prosecution in the judicial courts.
"A different course effectually blends judicial and legislative
powers, and constitutes the Legislature a judicial tribunal.
"The undersigned also beg leave to remonstrate against the passage of
the bill, on the ground of inexpediency. A corporation is a creature
of the law, to which certain powers, rights, and privileges are
granted; and amongst others that of holding property. Destroy this
creature, this body politic, and all its property immediately reverts
to its former owners. This doctrine has long been recognized and
established in all governments of law. Any material alteration of the
corporation, without its consent, and certainly such essential
alterations as the bill under consideration is intended to make, will
be followed with the same effect. The funds belonging to the college,
although not great, are highly important to the institution; and a
considerable proportion of them were granted by, and lie in, the State
of Vermont. The undersigned most earnestly entreat the Honorable
Legislature not to put the funds of the college in jeopardy; not to
put at hazard substantial income, under expectations which may or may
not be realized."
After alluding to lack of precedent for the proposed action, and the
necessary increase of expenditures which would result from its
consummation, they proceed to say: "If the provisions of this bill
should take effect, we greatly fear that the concerns of the college
will be drawn into the vortex of political controversy. We refer
particularly to that section of the bill which gives the appointment
of Trustees and Overseers to the Governor and Council. The whole
history of the United States for the last twenty years teaches us a
lesson which ought not to be kept out of view. Our literary
institutions hitherto have been preserved from the influence of party.
The tendency of this bill, unless we greatly mistake, is to convert
the peaceful retreat of our college into a field for party warfare.
"Whilst the undersigned deem it their indispensable duty to
remonstrate in the most respectful terms against the passage of the
bill referred to, they have no objection, and they have no reason to
believe their fellow Trustees have any objection, to the passage of a
law connecting the government of the State with that of the college,
and creating every salutary check and restraint upon the official
conduct of the Trustees and their successors that can be reasonably
required, and with respectful deference they would propose the
following outlines of a plan for that purpose.
"The Councillors and Senators of New Hampshire together with the
Speaker of the House of Representatives for the time being, shall
constitute a Board of Overseers of Dartmouth College, any ten of whom
shall be a quorum for transacting business. The Overseers shall meet
annually at the college, on the day preceding Commencement. They shall
have an independent right to organize their own body, and to form
their own rules; but as soon as they shall have organized themselves
they shall give information thereof to the Trustees. Whenever any vote
shall have been passed by the Trustees it shall be communicated to the
Overseers, and shall not have effect until it shall have the
concurrence of the Overseers. Provided, nevertheless, that if at any
meeting a quorum of the Overseers shall not be formed, the Trustees
shall have full power to confer degrees, in the same manner as though
there were no Overseers; and also to appoint Trustees or other
officers (not a president or professor), and to enact such laws as the
interests of the institution shall indispensably require; but no law
passed by the Trustees shall in such case have force longer than until
the next annual meeting of the Boards, unless it shall then be
approved by the Overseers. Neither of the Boards shall adjourn, except
from day to day, without the consent of the other. It shall be the
duty of the president of the college, whenever in his opinion the
interests of the institution shall require it, or whenever requested
thereto by three Trustees, or three Overseers, to call special
meetings of both Boards, causing notice to be given in writing to each
Trustee and Overseer, of the time and place; but no meeting of one
Board shall ever be called except at the same time and place with the
other. It shall be the duty of the president of the college annually,
in the month of May, to transmit to his Excellency, the Governor, a
full and particular account of the state of the funds, the number of
students and their progress, and generally the state and condition of
the college.
"If the plan above suggested should meet the approbation of the
Honorable Legislature, and good men of all parties give it their
sanction, we may all anticipate, with high satisfaction, the future
prosperity of the college, and its incalculable usefulness to the
State; but if a union of the friends of literature and science, of all
parties and sects, cannot be attained; if the triumph of one party
over the other be absolutely indispensable; fearful apprehensions must
fill the mind of every considerate man, every dispassionate friend of
Dartmouth College.
Thos. W. Thompson,
Elijah Paine,
Asa M'Farland.
"June 19, 1816."
* * * * *
The effect of this proposed compromise was a modification of the bill
in some of its important features. Against the amended bill, which was
passed a few days afterward, there was a farther protest, from which
we make brief extracts.
"The undersigned would not trouble the Honorable Legislature with any
remarks in addition to those contained in their remonstrance of the
19th inst. did they not believe it was a duty not to be omitted."
Referring to the amended bill, they continue:
"They have not been able to obtain a sight of it, but have heard it
contains provisions for an increase of the Board of Trustees to the
number of twenty-one, a majority of whom to constitute a quorum, and
that the additional number are to be appointed by His Excellency the
Governor and the Honorable the Council. To many of the topics of
argument, suggested in their former remonstrance (which are equally
applicable against the passage of the bill in its present shape) they
respectfully ask leave to add, that the bill in its present shape
destroys the identity of the corporation, known in the law by the name
of the Trustees of Dartmouth College, without the consent of the
corporation, and consequently the corporation to be created by the
present bill must and will be deemed by courts of law altogether
diverse and distinct from the corporation to which all the grants of
property have hitherto been made; and therefore the new corporation
cannot hold the property granted to the corporation created by the
charter of 1769.
"By the Charter of Dartmouth College a contract was made by the then
supreme power of the State with the twelve persons therein named, by
which, when accepted by the persons therein named, certain rights and
privileges were vested in them and their successors, for the guarantee
of which the faith of government was pledged by necessary implication.
In the same instrument the faith of government was pledged that the
corporation should consist of twelve persons and no more. The change
in the government of the State, since taken place, does not in the
least possible degree impair the validity of this contract,--otherwise
nearly all the titles to real estate, held by our fellow citizens,
must be deemed invalid.
"The passage of the bill now before the Honorable House will, in the
deliberate opinion of the undersigned, violate the plighted faith of
the government. If the undersigned are correct in considering the
Charter of 1769 in the nature of a contract, and if the bill, in its
present shape, becomes a law, we think it necessarily follows that it
will also violate an important clause in the 10th section of the 1st
article in the Constitution of the United States, which provides, that
no State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts.
"The Honorable Legislature will permit us to add, that as it is well
known that the Trustees have, as a Board, been divided on certain
important subjects, although the minority has been very small, should
the Legislature now provide for nine new Trustees, to be appointed by
His Excellency the Governor and the Honorable the Council, and that
without any facts being proved to the Legislature, or any Legislative
report having been made, showing that the state of things at the
college rendered the measure necessary, it must be seen by our fellow
citizens that the majority of the Trustees have been by the
Legislature, for some unacknowledged cause, condemned unheard.
Thomas W. Thompson,
Asa M'Farland.
"June 24, 1816."
* * * * *
The recommendations of the Governor in substance, became a law; the
name of the college was changed to "University;" the number of the
Trustees was increased to twenty-one; a Board of Overseers was
created, to be appointed by the Governor and Council; the president
and professors of the university were required to take an oath to
support the Constitution of the United States, and of the State of New
Hampshire; and the act provided that "perfect freedom of religious
opinion should be enjoyed by all the students and officers of the
university." The committee to whom the message, etc., relating to this
subject, were referred, it should be remarked, did not undertake to
decide in favor of either party to the controversy, but alleged that
the troubles arose from certain defects in the Charter, and that they
would recur again in some form, unless those defects were remedied.
The debates upon the historical and constitutional questions involved
were able. The minority were ably led, both inside and outside the
Legislature, but parliamentary tactics availed them nothing. Many of
them joined in a written protest against the passage of the bill, the
substance of which has already appeared in the action of the Trustees.
Directly after the passage of this bill Mr. Marsh prepared an
elaborate argument, never published, setting forth the essence of the
leading points of the case, as viewed by the majority of the old
Trustees.
The following letter, addressed to Mr. Timothy Bigelow, Boston, is
worthy of notice in this connection:
"Concord, July 27, 1816.
"Dear Sir: Dr. McFarland will do himself the pleasure to hand you
this. In him you will recognize an old acquaintance. We wish to get
the opinions of as many legal friends as we can upon the question of
legitimate power in the New Hampshire Legislature, to pass the act
relating to Dartmouth College, and with regard to the course the old
Trustees ought to pursue. It is an interest, we think, common to all
well wishers to New England.
"The old Trustees, I am confident, are willing to take just that
course that their wisest and best friends recommend.
"Very cordially yours,
Thomas W. Thompson."
August 28, 1816, a majority of the old Trustees formally refused to
accept the provisions of the act.
A meeting of the Trustees of the university, under the act of June 27,
1816, was called, but through the illness of a single member, failed
for want of a quorum. The judges of the Superior Court, on December 5,
1816, in answer to the Governor and Council, gave their opinion that
the executive department had no authority to fill the vacancies which
had occurred. To remedy this, the Legislature, on December 18, 1816,
passed an additional act providing for filling the vacancies, the
calling of meetings and fixing a quorum; and on December 26, 1816,
passed another act imposing the penalty of five hundred dollars upon
any person who should assume any office in the university except by
virtue of the preceding acts.
In view of this action President Brown writes to Mr. Timothy Farrar,
of Portsmouth, January 3, 1817:
"Now, what shall we do? One of these four courses must be taken. We
must either keep possession and go on to teach as usual, without any
regard to the law, or, withdrawing from the college edifice and all
the college property, continue to instruct as the officers of
Dartmouth College; or, relinquishing this name for the present,
collect as many students as will join us, and instruct them as private
but associated individuals; or else we must give all up and disperse.
Will you give us your opinion, what may be duty or what expedient, as
soon as convenient? Particularly, will you give us your opinion
whether, supposing this oppressive act to be judged constitutional, we
should be liable to the fine, if we instruct as the officers of
Dartmouth College, relinquishing, however, the college buildings, the
library, apparatus, etc."
The Faculty of the college issued the following:
"ADDRESS OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE TO THE PUBLIC.
"As the undersigned, after the most serious and mature consideration,
have determined to retain the offices which they received by the
appointment of the Trustees of Dartmouth College, and not voluntarily
to surrender, at present, any property committed to them, nor to
relinquish any privileges pertaining to their offices, they believe it
to be a duty, which they owe to the public no less than to themselves,
to make an explicit declaration of the principles by which they are
governed.
"They begin by stating the two following positions, as maxims of
political morality, which they deem incontrovertible:
"1. It is wrong, under any form of government, for a citizen or
subject to refuse compliance with the will of the sovereign power,
when that will is fully expressed, except in cases where the rights of
conscience are invaded, or where oppression is practiced to such an
extreme degree that the great ends of civil government are defeated or
highly endangered.
"2. Under a free government, where the sovereignty is exercised by
several distinct branches, whose respective powers are created and
defined by written constitutions, cases may arise in which it will be
the duty of the citizen to delay conforming to the ordinances of one
branch until the other branches shall have had opportunity to act. If,
for example, the legislative branch should transcend its legitimate
power, and assume to perform certain acts which the Constitution had
assigned to the province of the judicial branch, a citizen,
injuriously affected by those acts, might be bound, not indeed
forcibly to resist them, but, in the manner pointed out by law, to
make an appeal to the judiciary and to await its decision.
"The undersigned deem it unnecessary, in this place, to detail the
provisions of the acts of the Honorable Legislature, passed in June
and December, A. D. 1816, relating to this institution. Those acts are
before the public and are generally understood.
"The Board of Trustees, as constituted by the Charter of 1769, at
their annual meeting in August last, took into consideration the act
of June, and adopted a resolution, 'not to accept its provisions.' In
the preamble to this resolution, we find a paragraph in the words
following: 'They (the Trustees) find the law fully settled and
recognized in almost every case which has arisen, wherein a
corporation or any member or officer is a party, that no man or body
of men is bound to accept, or act under, any grant or gift of
corporate powers and privileges; and that no existing corporation is
bound to accept, but may decline or refuse to accept any act or grant
conferring additional powers or privileges, or making any restriction
or limitation of those they already possess; and in case a grant is
made to individuals or to a corporation without application, it is to
be regarded not as an act obligatory or binding upon them, but as an
offer or proposition to confer such powers and privileges, or the
expression of a desire to have them accept such restrictions, which
they are at liberty to accept or reject.'
"If the doctrine contained in this paragraph be correct, and of its
correctness the undersigned, after ascertaining the opinion of eminent
jurists in most of the New England States, entertain no doubt, the act
of June, and of course the acts of December, have become inoperative,
in consequence of the nonacceptance of them by the Charter Trustees,
and the provisions of these acts are not binding upon the corporation
or its officers. We take the liberty to add, that, in our opinion, the
reasons assigned by the Trustees in the preamble before mentioned for
not accepting the act of June, are very important and amply
sufficient. Indeed, it has ever appeared to us, that the changes
proposed to be introduced into the charter by the acts in question,
would have proved highly inauspicious to the welfare of this
institution, and ultimately injurious to the interests of literature
throughout our country.
"The Trustees appointed agreeably to the provisions of the act of June
have, however, thought proper to organize, without the concurrence of
the Charter Trustees, and to perform numerous decisive acts.
"At a meeting in Concord on the fourth instant, they brought several
specifications of charges against the undersigned; and at an adjourned
meeting, holden on the twenty-second instant, they proceeded to
displace, discharge, and remove them from their respective offices in
Dartmouth University. A similar procedure was adopted against four of
the Trustees acting under the Charter.
"Unless we greatly mistake, in the view already expressed of the act
of June, the votes of the university Trustees, removing us from
office, are wholly unauthorized and destitute of any legal effect; and
we are still, as we have uniformly claimed to be, officers of
Dartmouth College under the charter of 1769.
"The Charter Trustees having resolved to assert their corporate
rights, and having, for this purpose, recently commenced a suit
against their late Secretary and Treasurer, in the issue of which it
is expected the question between them and their competitors will be
finally settled, the undersigned, being united with them in opinion,
in principle, and in feeling, cannot consent to abandon them, or to
perform any act which may prejudice their claims, while this suit is
pending. They must therefore proceed, as officers of Dartmouth
College, to discharge their prescribed duties. They are sensible of
their obligation to render submission to the laws, and their first
inquiry, in the case before them, has been, What is law? The result is
a full conviction in their own minds, that the course they have
concluded to adopt is strictly legal, and that no other course would
be consistent with their duty. If they err, their error will shortly
be corrected by the decision of our highest judicial tribunals; and
with this decision they will readily comply. In the meantime, while
the appeal is made to the laws of their country, and to the
constitutions of this State and of the United States, which are the
supreme law, they trust that none of their fellow-citizens will have
the unkindness to charge them with a want of respect to the government
under which they live. As soon as the will of the government shall be
fairly expressed, they will render to it a prompt obedience.
"The undersigned are placed in a situation singularly difficult and
highly responsible. To them it seems to be allotted in Divine
Providence, to perform a part which, in its consequences, may deeply
affect the interests not only of this institution, but of all similar
institutions in this country. And although they are fully conscious of
their own inability to perform this part in a manner worthy of its
importance, yet they are firmly resolved, relying on divine
assistance, not to shrink from any duty, or any danger, which it may
involve.
"The penal act of December they cannot but regard as unnecessarily
severe; nor do they see what purpose it was calculated to answer,
except to influence them, by the prospect of embarrassing suits, to an
abandonment of their trust. They are aware that men may be found
disposed to multiply prosecutions against them, and to despoil them of
the little property they possess; but they believe themselves called
in Providence not to shun this hazard, as they cannot reconcile it
with their obligation to the institution under their care, to
relinquish the places they occupy, until it shall be ascertained that
they cannot rightfully retain them.
"As the university Trustees have expressed a great regard for the
laws, the undersigned have a right to expect that neither they, or any
agents appointed by them, will resort to illegal measures to seize on
the college buildings and property. Should such measures unhappily be
adopted, the undersigned will make no forcible resistance, it not
being a part of their policy to repel violence by violence. They will
quietly withdraw where they cannot peaceably retain possession, and,
with the best accommodations they can procure, will continue to
instruct the classes committed to them, until the prevalence of other
counsels shall procure a repeal of the injurious acts, or until the
decision of the law shall convince them of their error, or restore
them to their rights.
"Francis Brown,
"Ebenezer Adams,
"Roswell Shurtleff.
"February 28, 1817."
* * * * *
The above gentlemen constituted the permanent Faculty at this period.
In view of all the circumstances they determined to surrender the
college buildings and library to their opponents, and the Trustees
determined to test their rights before the courts, the action being
brought against the former Treasurer, who adhered to the "University"
party.
"The action: 'The Trustees of Dartmouth College _v._ William H.
Woodward,' was commenced in the Court of Common Pleas, Grafton County,
State of New Hampshire, February Term, 1817. The declaration was
trover for the books of record, original charter, common seal, and
other corporate property of the college. The conversion was alleged
to have been made on the 7th day of October, 1816. The proper pleas
were filed, and by consent the cause was carried directly to the
Superior Court of New Hampshire, by appeal, and entered at the May
Term, 1817. The general issue was pleaded by the defendant, and joined
by the plaintiffs. The facts in the case were then agreed upon by the
parties, and drawn up in the form of a special verdict, reciting the
Charter of the college and the acts of the Legislature of the State,
passed June and December, 1816, by which the said corporation of
Dartmouth College was enlarged and improved, and the said Charter
amended.
"The question made in the case was, whether those acts of the
Legislature were valid and binding upon the corporation, without their
acceptance or assent, and not repugnant to the Constitution of the
United States. If so, the verdict found for the defendants; otherwise
it found for the plaintiffs.
"The cause was continued to the September Term of the court in
Rockingham County, where it was argued; and at the November term of
the same year, in Grafton County, the opinion of the court was
delivered by Chief Justice Richardson, sustaining the validity and
constitutionality of the acts of the Legislature; and judgment was
accordingly entered for the defendant on the special verdict.
"Thereupon a writ of error was sued out by the original plaintiffs, to
remove the cause to the Supreme Court of the United States, where it
was entered at the term of the court holden at Washington on the first
Monday of February, 1818.
"The cause came on for argument on the 10th day of March 1818, before
all the judges. It was argued by Mr. Webster and Mr. Hopkinson, for
the plaintiffs in error, and by Mr. Holmes and the Attorney-general
(Wirt), for the defendant in error.
"At the term of the court holden in February, 1819, the opinion of the
judges was delivered by Chief Justice Marshall, declaring the acts of
the Legislature unconstitutional and invalid, and reversing the
judgment of the State court. The court, with the exception of Mr.
Justice Duvall, were unanimous."
The arguments in the New Hampshire court by Messrs. Mason, Smith, and
Webster for the college, and Messrs. Sullivan and Bartlett for Mr.
Woodward; the decision of that court, and the cause in the Supreme
Court of the United States, are an important part of our country's
judicial history. The result was logically based upon prior decisions
of the Supreme Court. We invite special attention to one point in Mr.
Webster's argument. If, in the lapse of time, under the strong light
of careful research or elaborate criticism, all the other brilliant
colors of this remarkable fabric shall fade or vanish, this central
figure will remain forever, to illustrate the relations of the college
to the State.
"The State of Vermont is a principal donor to Dartmouth College. The
lands given lie in that State. This appears in the special verdict. Is
Vermont to be considered as having intended a gift to the State of New
Hampshire in this case, as, it has been said, is to be the reasonable
construction of all donations to the college? The Legislature of New
Hampshire affects to represent the public, and therefore claims a
right to control all property destined to public use. What hinders
Vermont from considering herself equally the representative of the
public, and from resuming her grants, at her own pleasure? Her right
to do so is less doubtful than the power of New Hampshire to pass the
laws in question."
Thus closed one of the most important contests in the history of
American jurisprudence.
Law, politics, literature, and religion combined to make it a subject
of national concern. The decision gave to a large class of chartered
institutions a security never enjoyed before. The lapse of more than
half a century enables us to consider the question calmly and
candidly, uninfluenced by interest, prejudice, or passion.
The case was attended with serious embarrassments. Neither counsel nor
court had thorough knowledge of the history of the school and the
college, and the relations of each to the other. Had they possessed
this knowledge, the line of argument in some respects would have been
very different, although perhaps with the same general results. More
than this, there were no precedents. Indeed, at that early day
questions of constitutional law had occupied very little of the
attention of the American courts.
There would have been embarrassment had the British Parliament, before
our Revolution, assumed the right to alter materially the Charter of
the college. Changes in chartered institutions in America, especially,
by that body, although within the scope of its power, were usually met
with the sternest protests. After the Revolution, there were wide
differences of opinion as to who had power over charters granted
antecedent to that event. In the case of Dartmouth's Charter any one
of several opinions might have found plausible support. To determine
whether it was a fit matter for State or national legislation, or
judicial control, we must revert to the history of the Charter. There
we find that it was the unvarying purpose of the founder, adhered to
through a long period of severe and persistent effort, to obtain a
Charter which would enable him to locate his school or schools in any
of the American colonies. He was determined to be as free as possible
from local obligations and local control. There can be no doubt that
in securing the Charter of the college he believed that he had
accomplished a similar purpose. The Charter appointed as a majority of
the first Board of Trustees residents in Connecticut,--making it for
the time being, by design of the founder, for good and sufficient
reasons, in a sense, a Connecticut institution,--with a provision that
after the lapse of a brief period a majority of the Board should be
residents in New Hampshire. In writing upon this subject to a business
correspondent, in June, 1777, President Wheelock says, referring to a
third party: "Let him see how amply this incorporation is endowed, and
how independent it is made of this government or any other
incorporation," and adds that "a matter of controversy" relating to
the township granted by the king to the college nearly at the same
time with the Charter, "can be decided by no judicatory but supreme,
or one equal to that which incorporated it, _i. e._, the Continental
Congress."
The views of no one person will be received by all, as conclusive on
a subject of so much importance. But certainly, Eleazar Wheelock had a
right to construe the provisions of an instrument which in almost
every line bore his impress, never possessed by any other individual.
Had John Wheelock presented his grievances to the National
Legislature,--only in a limited sense, it is true, if at all, the
successor of that king, whose grant of Landaff, in addition to the
College Charter, made him, in a sense, according to Coke, the founder
of the college,--he might, in all probability, have obtained what he
desired in a peaceful manner, although an important judicial decision
might never have occupied its present place in American law.