Friday,] BRAMAN - KNOWLTON. [July 15th. many acts of wrong make a right? If the first | certainly not because it was considered a proper interference with the charter of Harvard College was wrong, then any subsequent act of interference was also wrong. It may be maintained, that the acquiescence of the corporation in the acts of interference upon the part of the government, were a tacit admission by that corporation, of the right of the legislature to interfere. But gentlemen must remember that Harvard might have acquiesced because it had no power to resist. It might have forborne opposition to the interference of the legislature, because its opposition would have been unavailing. It must also be borne in mind that Harvard College was the weaker power, and that it was dependent upon the beneficence of the State for its pecuniary means to carry on its operations. It might naturally be expected, that, although they would regard the interference upon the part of the legislature as improper, yet that they would succumb to an interference upon the part of the State, to a greater or less extent, because the two parties were united together in a contract-one strong and the other weak,--the latter having no power to restrain any exercise of power upon the latter. But to justify acts of this sort would lead to every possible enormity. But, to proceed. In 1657, additional powers were conferred upon these corporations. They were authorized to do certain things which they had not before been authorized to do. Among other things, a board of overseers was recognized. They accepted the act very cheerfully, although they well knew that they could not have prevented its formation if it had been unacceptable. I do not know of but one act of resistance upon their part, which was in 1676, when this charter was attempted to be enforced upon them, and they refused it. Subsequent to this period, another act was passed, empowering the president and fellows of Harvard College to impose upon delinquent students a fine, not to exceed ten shillings, and stripes, not exceeding ten in number. This act was considered as enlarging the privileges of the corporation most essentially, because it suited the stern and rigid temper of the men of those times. It conformed with the habits of those men who had lived under monarchical institutions. This privilege was made use of very frequently, and under circumstances of very great solemnity. It would even be inflicted in the chapel, after a sermon, and then the president would proceed to pray that the infliction might be sanctified to the offender. [Laughter.] There was also another interference which has been alluded to, and one which was submitted to, interference. When the overseers of the corporation, with the instructors and students, were called before the legislature to receive a reprimand. Now this was such an act of interference -so flagrant in its nature-that I suppose no one would claim it as a precedent for interference upon the part of the legislature. I suppose no one would claim it as a precedent, even if the act had been comparatively reasonable and moderate. Suppose that now, we should summons the president, professors, and students of Harvard College, to appear before us for any such purpose. We might call the spirits, but would the spirits come when they were called? When such a summons shall be given by our legislature, like Cowper, I should "like to be there to see." Mr. KNOWLTON, of Worcester, (interposing). I desire to ask the gentleman whether, when the corporation, officers, students, &c., of Harvard College were summoned by the general court to appear before them, they did not appear -thus acknowledging the right of the general court to make the demand? now. Mr. BRAMAN. They appeared, but it was not necessarily an act of acquiescence. It was rather an act of submission. It was a submission to a power which they could not resist. They submitted to a power they could not control, because they did not dare to do otherwise. But, Sir, I should like to see such an act enforced I should like to see the board of overseers, with its distinguished members of church and state, preceded by the president of Harvard College, with his academical gown, closely following in his footsteps the venerable chief justice of the Commonwealth, bearing in his presence the awful majesty of the law. Nay, I would follow the professors and tutors, fresh from their literary and scientific pursuits; and, bringing up the rear, the whole corps of students, wondering at that mysterious and awful power, before which they with their instructors, were to be brought. Well, Sir, all are marched in solemn procession into this hall, to receive, perhaps, the reprimand of the late speaker of the House of Representatives, or of the president of this Convention. Sir, I should like to see how our worthy president would compose himself to his situation. I would like to see him summon dignity adequate to the occasion. would like to see whether he would proceed to administer that reprimand with all the self-possession and grace with which he performs the ordinary duties of the Chair. I But I presume, as I have said, that with regard to the interference of the legislature in this instance, no one would quote it as a precedent. 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 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 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. 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 man- 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 a matter environed with a good many difficul [July 15th. ties, if we choose to enter upon the ground where It |