But there was another act of interference upon the part of the legislature, to which I wish again to allude. That was, the attempt to force the charter upon the corporation, in 1672. The corporation refused to receive it. Now, I wish to say that if the interference by the legislature with the corporation of Harvard College upon this occasion, was an act of contemporaneous construction upon one side, the resistance of the corporation to the act of the government, was a contemporaneous construction upon the other. One may very well balance the other, and I let them pass for what they are worth. I have only to say, that these are the only acts of interference under the colonial government. One is so flagrant, that no one would think of quoting it as a precedent, and the other was resisted by the corporation. That is the whole amount of control which the colonial government exercised over the corporation of Harvard College.

Let me ask, what would be gained by the change contemplated by the introduction of the Report of the Committee on Harvard University, and the legislature should proceed to elect members of the board of the corporation of that university, instead of leaving them to perpetuate themselves by election, as now. Would any more able and devoted men be secured to the college, than now compose that corporation? The members that have always, and do now, compose that board, are some of the ablest men in the community, and their fitness to discharge the high trust reposed in them, has never been disputed. No set of men could be elected by the legislature, that would have more needed wisdom to discharge the high obligations which are imposed upon them, and their fidelity and devotion to the interests of the college also are just as freely acknowledged as is their ability. I believe there has been no complaint in this respect. I do not suppose that their places could be supplied by persons who would be more untiring in their exertions to discharge the high trusts which are reposed in them. Being possessed of such a character themselves, the board would be more likely to choose persons of similar ability and devotion, to serve under them, and thus we have as good security as the nature of human things and the allotment of humanity admits, that there would be perpetuated such a body of men to all future generations, as would satisfy all the reasonable wants and expectations of the community. I suppose if the legislature were to elect the corporation, it would be required that it should embody as good a representation as it could, of the various religious denominations of the Commonwealth. These, it is well known, are very numerous, much more numerous than

[July 15th.

could be exhibited in a corporation consisting of seven members at any one time. Let me mention some of them. There are the Unitarians, naturalists and supernaturalists; the Congregationalists, old and new school, and intermediate schools; the Baptists, Calvinistic and Free Will; the Methodists, Protestant, Episcopal, and Protestant NonEpiscopal; the Universalists, the Restorationists, and the ultra; the Roman Catholics, and Quakers, not to mention numerous other sects existing in the Commonwealth, composed of the odds and ends and scraps of all other denominations, going under the fanciful name and delectable appellation of Come-Outers. [Laughter.] All these, of course, would claim some sort of representation in the corporation of Harvard University, because, being a State institution, as contended for by gentlemen here, of course they must have their share in the representation. Suppose all should be arranged in this respect. What should be done in regard to filling up the departments of instruction. These are so numerous that they might exhibit a good specimen of the great variety of the religious sentiment of the State. What shall be done with the Hollis Professorship of Divinity, at Harvard ? How will you divide that? That is a professorship that acts more powerfully upon the theological opinions and character of the students, than all of the other professorships put together. What shall be done with that? Shall there be a coalition formed in regard to it? Political coalitions of two or more parties, for the purpose of dividing political offices among them, will answer very well in the State, but how are you to divide the Hollis Professorship of Harvard University? What is one fish, or one loaf, among so many? The only practicable method would be to select the professors annually, semi-annually, quarterly, or monthly, and let the students select their opinions according to the assortment which these various professorships would present them. I suppose, also, that gentlemen would require that political sentiments should be represented in the department of instruction, as well as the religious sentiments. Not long ago, a very distinguished candidate for a professorship at Harvard, was rejected by the board of overseers, because he had advanced some obnoxious opinions in regard to the Hungarian Revolution. The gentleman from Natick, (Mr. Wilson,) said the other day that he was not removed for his obnoxious political opinions, but for his ignorance and incompetency. I think, to charge such a body of men as the corporation of Harvard University, with choosing an ignorant and incompetent man to fill one of its departments of instruction, is a very strong assertion for the gentleman from Natick to make.

Friday,]

BRAMAN

The gentleman said that he was rejected. He told us in another form, rather, that he was rejected because he made a false statement of the truth. A fact is truth. Put it in another form, and it means an untrue statement of truth.

Mr. WILSON, of Natick. I wish to explain by saying that I did not mean what the gentleman says. I meant precisely and exactly what I said then, and now repeat, that Francis Bowen was rejected for the office to which he was nominated, for three reasons: in the first place, for his sentiments and opinions; in the second place, for his ignorance of history; and in the third place, for mis-stating and mis-quoting history; the truth of which, I am ready, here or elsewhere, to prove.

Mr. BRAMAN, of Danvers. The expression which the gentleman used, struck me so forcibly at the time, that I am pretty sure I recollect it. I am quite sure that he said he was rejected for ignorance and incompetency. He says now that he was rejected for ignorance. Then, I repeat again, that it is a strong assertion for the gentleman from Natick to make. Let me say farther, that the members comprising the corporation of Harvard University-I mean no disparagement to the gentleman from Natick, for whom I entertain the highest respect-are quite as competent as he is to judge whether a candidate for a professorship at Harvard is an ignorant or incompetent man. Was there ever any historian, or narrator of any portion of history whatsoever, who has not been detected in mistakes; and I have no doubt that if Hume and Gibbon were alive, and should advance opinions obnoxious to the ascendant party in the State, that they would be rejected by the board of overseers if they were nominated by the corporation of Harvard, on account of ignorance and incompetency. I have not the least doubt, if Macauley should be presented as a candidate for a professorship, if it was known that any of his opinions would not agree with those of the dominant party, that he would be rejected also for his ignorance and incompetency, for the reason that some individuals have criticized his history, and detected mistakes, which they consider as important. All historians commit mistakes, and it cannot be otherwise. They belong to the imperfections of humanity. But, however this may be, there is no doubt that a coincidence of opinion with the dominant party would be considered as an indispensable qualification for a candidate. Men would be chosen to fill departments of instruction, on account of their political opinions, in preference to those who are much more competent to fill the offices, because they were of a different persuasion. The numerous offices of instruction at Harvard, would present an invitation

[July 15th.

to patronage too inviting to be resisted, and violent partisans would be rewarded with places of instruction in the university, for whom there was no room in the political department. Stump speakers would teach stump rhetoric from the chair of oratory. There would be professors of logic, whose speeches would be of no other use than to make very excellent specimens of false reasoning. The fair sex, not always having a fair representation at the university, knock at the doors of the Convention for admission. I mean the male portion of the sex. [Laughter.] They have already knocked at the doors of the Convention, and they have knocked at the doors of the university also. I know that the Convention have treated the application of the fair sex in rather an ungallant manner, notwithstanding the earnest advocacy of Mr. Lucy Stone, and Miss Wendell Phillips, Esq. I should not wonder if, in some future time, and the progress of that political perfection about which we hear so much, that the women shall be admitted not only to the right of voting, but also to a share in the public offices of the other sex, and along the line of illustrious names of those who have presided over the university at Harvard, would be the names of Abby, Ann, Lucy; and then when we shall have a bloomer at the head of the university, it would indeed be entitled to the appellation of alma mater, in more senses than one. [Laughter.] Let me say, in conclusion, that I would caution gentlemen very earnestly against doing anything which would commit, or seem to commit, the State to a violation of public faith. The character of Massachusetts for integrity and adherence to justice, has always been high. She has now repaid her obligations, and her bonds are confided in now, as the most valued securities in the world. This reputation for integrity ought to be dear to all her sons, who, while they take pride in her industry and enterprise, in her literary and historical ability, hold dearer than all, her character for uprightness. Let there be no spot on the fair garment of her renown. Let there be nothing done, or attempted to be done, that shall give our posterity cause for emotions of regret and shame; and may her name go down to future generations adorned with every virtue which shall cause the heart to swell; and may the Constitution ever be held in grateful and honored remembrance.

Mr. BOUTWELL, for Berlin. I shall not detain the Convention so long as to prevent the question being taken before the usual hour for adjournment arrives. This question is within a small compass, and does not, to any considerable extent, involve the early history of the university. We propose, by this resolution, to declare that the

legislature shall have power to do all that may be done by the people, in reference to Harvard University, and we claim that the people may do everything within the limit of supreme and complete sovereignty, except so far as their power is controlled by the Constitution of the United❘ States. That instrument declares, that no State shall pass any "law impairing the obligation of contracts." We propose, by this resolution, embodied in the Constitution of the State, to authorize the legislature to march boldly up to that line, without, however, authorizing them to go one step farther.

Now, then, the propriety of the resolution is in this that there is at present some doubt on the question whether the Constitution of the State authorizes the legislature to go thus far, or not. Therefore, if the people, in their Constitution, have imposed any restriction upon the legislature, we intend hereby to remove it. We do not intend to harm the college in any manner; but propose to place in the legislature the authority which now resides in the people. This is a plain proposition. Therefore, it does not involve the consideration of the question, whether the college has rights under a contract, or not. I have an opinion on that point. It differs entirely from the opinion expressed by the gentleman from Danvers, (Mr. Braman,) and I think that in a word or two, I can state the elements on which an opinion may be formed by any individual. It is a plain principle, that that which a person produces or creates, is his own. The State created Harvard College; the Constitution declares that it was founded in 1636, two years before the bequest of John Harvard. The record is, that our ancestors created it; the fact that the general court, in 1636, appropriated four hundred pounds for a school or college at Newton, afterwards Cambridge, identifies our ancestors, constitutionally speaking. That is the declaration. general court created this institution and endowed it. Who shall control it? The general court and their successors, the people and government of Massachusetts, or the corporation of Harvard College? I take it that what our ancestors, as the government of this State, created, we, the governors of the State to-day, control and use, unless we have surrendered that control. I ask gentlemen to consider this plain proposition of law and of right. For there is no difference, whatever men may suppose who have devoted themselves to the consideration of particular topics, there is no difference between law, the perfection of human reason, and that attribute or rule of right and of justice which the Supreme Creator has implanted in the breasts of all. What is

The

[July 15th.

this rule? It is, that what we have created we may use, and that that which we have created we may use forever, unless we have surrendered its use into other hands.

Mr. BRAMAN, of Danvers. The gentleman says, that what a person has created, it is his to control entirely. I would like to ask him, if a person who has created a thing has not a right to part with it by giving it away.

Mr. BOUTWELL. I will come to that soon. Those who claim that the right of control has been surrendered, stand in the place of grantees, and it is for them to show explicitly, definitely, and accurately, when that surrender was made. I would ask the gentleman from Danvers, to point to the time when, and the manner in which, that surrender was made on the part of the Commonwealth. Throughout the whole period of its history, it has never surrendered its right to control the college at Cambridge. Trace the records all along through the Colony, the Province, the State, covering a period of more than two hundred years, and you will find nothing to show that we have surrendered our control. Therefore, if we have not surrendered it, it stands today. And it is not for us to show the negative, but for those who contend that it has been surrendered, to make that fact appear. They will find that a very difficult point.

I have a word to say to the gentleman in reference to the authorities upon this point, and especially in regard to the Dartmouth College case. That case I have not read for some time, yet I think I can state the principle upon which the decision of the supreme court of the United States rested. President Wheelock created an institution in 1769, afterwards known as Dartmouth College. In that case the supreme court judged, as we judge to-day, that that which an individual has created, he has a right to control, and inasmuch as President Wheelock had invested that college in his successors forever, there was a contract; and the State of New Hampshire could not come in and violate it.

Now, we stand upon the doctrine of a contract; and inasmuch as our colonial government established this institution, it is not in the power of any body to come in and say we shall not control it. I do not propose to take anything from Harvard College which they have. If the doctrine of a contract gives them exclusive control over that institution, they will have it if we pass this resolution and the people adopt it. But the point of difficulty which we wish to relieve, is this. There may be some doubt as to whether the people, by their Constitution, have conferred the authority upon the legislature to deal with

Harvard College, to the extent, and in the manner, that the people themselves may deal with it. We purpose to remove all difficulty upon that point, by giving to the legislature power to do what the people of the State have the right to do, and nothing more. That is safe, proper, wise, and just. Because, whatever may be said of the character of Harvard College,—and I am not here to denounce it, or make any imputation upon it,— I know, well enough, that there are men on this floor who have been acquainted with it, and who will not endorse the doctrine of the gentleman from Danvers, by any means, either in public or in private. They will not endorse it, Sir; and I believe there are those connected with the college to-day, who were as much alarmed two years ago, at the proposition to make the overseers elective by the State, as the gentleman from Danvers is in respect to the corporation, and those same gentlemen are now satisfied that that was a wise and proper measure. The cause of education has been promoted by it; and I look to this institution, notwithstanding the position which I occupy is somewhat hostile, perhaps, as the apex of the educational system of this Commonwealth. And in order that it may be free from sectarianism, and from the control of any party or sect, we put it on the basis on which our common schools rest. Nor will it happen that all the odds and ends of civilization and society will come in and control this college. Gentlemen know well enough the character of Massachusetts; the people will reg-| ulate this institution as they regulate other institutions in the State. Gentlemen need not be alarmed. Sir, there will be no coalition in reference to the university at Cambridge. And if there were, it would not be a very disastrous thing, by any means. It might happen, that by bringing together in that institution, men of different opinions in the government, in the discipline and education of the young men, that some broader and better ideas of humanity might be acquired. I am, therefore, in favor of the passage of the resolution, not because it interferes with any of the rights of the college,-for it does not,-but because it gives to the legislature that power which we now believe resides in the people; and we trust that it will be exercised for the good of the Commonwealth, and the advancement of learning in the university.

Mr. BRIGGS, of Pittsfield. I had the honor to be a member of the Committee which reported this resolution, and, though I was not present at the meeting when the resolution, was adopted, I was at a previous one, when, I believe, substantially the same proposition was agreed to. This is a matter environed with a good many difficul

[July 15th.

ties, if we choose to enter upon the ground where those difficulties exist. But, I believe, it was the opinion of the Committee, and I concur with the gentleman who last spoke, that this resolution would avoid difficulties which would open upon us if we advanced farther, and not do any violence or wrong to the corporation of the college, and, at the same time, assert all the rights of the people in respect to it. Sir, my wish with respect to the Cambridge College, was this: that just so far as the State was concerned, we should cut her adrift; just sever, in an amicable manner, all connection with her as a State, and let the college stand as the other colleges do, upon her own foundation, and be left to her own conduct and management. But it was found, and I think any gentleman who will look the matter in the face, will find, that it was somewhat difficult to do this; certainly the Committee could not see their way clear to do it. They, in their labors, which were repeated and earnest, came to the result which you find in the Report, and I concur with the gentleman who has just taken his seat, that that leaves the matter substantially where it is now, though, perhaps, under a more clear and distinct declaration; that is, the resolution declares that the legislature shall have the power over this institution, which, by the Constitution of the United States, it may have. Sir, it has that now, as I apprehend. But this is a clear, plain, distinct declaration to that effect. Now, Sir, what that power is, I do not think we should discuss, and, though the gentleman from Worcester, and the gentleman for Berlin, have stated, learnedly, intelligibly and ably, the subject, yet, let me say that this is not the place to discuss a great constitutional question of this kind, and the discussion is not needed. The gentleman for Berlin says, he is very clear in his opinions on this subject, as I understand, that the State has the power and control over this corporation. It may be so, and it may not be so. It may not be amiss to say, that our predecessors, something like a generation ago, had this same subject before them, and I think they came to a pretty general, if not a unanimous conclusion, that they had no such power as this. They were good men, wise men, learned men in the law, who spoke and acted on that occasion, and they left the matter as we find it. Now, I think we shall do wisely in doing the same thing; and I believe, if this resolution is adopted, it does not infringe upon the rights of the college; and if, hereafter, a legislature shall attempt to exercise the powers which the corporation think they cannot exercise, all that will remain to be done will be, to go into the proper judicial tribunal,