Page images

hended to the fellows, or members of the corporation. In general, there are many donors. A charter is obtained, comprising them all, or some of them, and such others as they choose to include, with the right of appointing their successors. They are thus the visitors of their own charity and appoint others, such as they may see fit, to exercise the same office in time to come. All such corporations are private. The case before the court is clearly that of an eleemosynary corporation. It is, in the strictest legal sense a private charity. In King vs. St. Catherine's Hall,* that college is called a private eleemosynary lay corporation. It was endowed by a private founder, and incorporated by letters patent. And in the same manner was Dartmouth College founded and incorporated. Dr. Wheelock is declared by the charter to be its founder. It was established

by him, on funds contributed and collected by himself.

As such founder, he had a right of visitation, which he assigned to the trustees, and they received it by his consent and appointment, and held it under the charter. He appointed these trustees visitors, and in that respect to take place of his heir; as he might have appointed devisees, to take his estate instead of his heir. Little, probably, did he think at that time, that the legislature would ever take away this property and these privileges, and give them to others. Little did he suppose, that this charter secured to him and his successors no legal rights. Little did the other donors think so. If they had, the college would have been, what the university is now, a thing upon paper, existing only in name.

The numerous academies in New England have been established substantially in the same manner. They hold their property by the same tenure, and no other. Nor has Harvard College any surer title than Dartmouth College. It may, to-day, have more friends; but to-morrow it may have more enemies. Its legal rights are the same. So also of Yale College; and indeed of all the others. When the legislature gives to these institutions, it may and does accompany its grants with such conditions as it pleases. The grant of lands by the legislature of New Hampshire to Dartmouth College, in 1789, was accompanied with various conditions. When donations are made, by the legislature, or others, to a charity already existing, without any condition, or the specification of any new use, the donation follows the nature of the charity. Hence the doctrine, that all eleemosynary corporations are private bodies. They are founded by private persons, and on private property. The public cannot be charitable in these institutions. It is not the money of the public, but of private persons, which is dispensed. It may be public, that is general, in its uses and advantages; and the state may very laudably add contributions of its own to the funds; but it is still private in the tenure of the property, and in the right of administering the funds.

If the doctrine laid down by lord Holt, and the house of lords in Phillips vs. Bury, and recognised and established in all the other cases, be correct, the property of this college was private property; it was vested in the trustees by the charter, and to be administered by them, according to the will of the founder and donors as ex+ Black. ubi supra.

* 4 Term Rep. 233.

pressed in the charter. They were also visitors of the charity, in the most ample sense. They had therefore, as they contend, privileges, property, and immunities, within the true meaning of the bill of rights. They had rights and still have them, which they can assert against the legislature, as well as against other wrongdoers. It makes no difference, that the estate is holden for certain trusts. The legal estate is still theirs. They have a right in the property, and they have a right of visiting and superintending the trust; and this is an object of legal protection, as much as any other right. The charter declares that the powers conferred on the trustees are "privileges, advantages, liberties, and immunities;" and that they shall be forever holden by them and their successors. The New Hampshire bill of rights declares that no one shall be deprived of his "property, privileges or immunities," but by judgment of his peers, or the law of the land. The argument on the other side is, that although these terms may mean something in the bill of rights, they mean nothing in this charter. But they are terms of legal signification, and very properly used in the charter. They are equivalent with franchises. Blackstone says that franchise and liberty are used as synonymous terms. And after enumerating other liberties and franchises, he says, "it is likewise a franchise for a number of persons to be incorporated and subsist as a body politic; with a power to maintain perpetual succession and do other corporate acts: and each individual member of such a corporation is also said to have a franchise or freedom."*

Liberties is the term used in magna charta as including franchises, privileges, immunities, and all the rights which belong to that class. Professor Sullivan says, the term signifies the "privileges that some of the subjects, whether single persons or bodies corporate, have above others by the lawful grant of the king; as the chattels of felons or outlaws, and the lands and privileges of corporations."†

The privilege, then, of being a member of a corporation, under a lawful grant, and of exercising the rights and powers of such member, is such a privilege, liberty or franchise, as has been the object of legal protection, and the subject of a legal interest, from the time of magna charta to the present moment. The plaintiffs have such an interest in this corporation, individually, as they could assert and maintain in a court of law, not as agents of the public, but in their own right. Each trustee has a franchise, and if he be disturbed in the enjoyment of it, he would have redress, on appealing to the law, as promptly as for any other injury. If the other trustees should conspire against any one of them to prevent his equal right and voice in the appointment of a president or professor, or in the passing of any statute or ordinance of the college, he would be entitled to his action, for depriving him of his franchise. It makes no difference, that this property is to be holden and administered, and these franchises exercised for the purpose of diffusing learning. No principle and no case establishes any such distinction. The public may be benefitted by the use of this property. But this does not change the nature of the property, or the rights of the owners. The object of the charter may be public good; so † Sull. 41st Lect.

* 2 Black. Com. 37.

it is in all other corporations; and this would as well justify the resumption or violation of the grant in any other case as in this. In the case of an advowson, the use is public, and the right cannot be turned to any private benefit or emolument. It is nevertheless a

legal private right, and the property of the owner, as emphatically as his freehold. The rights and privileges of trustees, visitors, or governors of incorporated colleges, stand on the same foundation. They are so considered, both by lord Holt and lord Hardwicke.*

To contend that the rights of the plaintiffs may be taken away, because they derive from them no pecuniary benefit, or private emolument, or because they cannot be transmitted to their heirs, or would not be assets to pay their debts, is taking an extremely narrow view of the subject. According to this notion, the case would be different, if, in the charter, they had stipulated for a commission on the disbursement of the funds; and they have ceased to have any interest in the property, because they have undertaken to administer it gratuitously.

It cannot be necessary to say much in refutation of the idea, that there cannot be a legal interest, or ownership, in anything which does not yield a pecuniary profit; as if the law regarded no rights but the rights of money, and of visible tangible property. Of what nature are all rights of suffrage? No elector has a particular personal interest; but each has a legal right, to be exercised at his own discretion, and it cannot be taken away from him. The exercise of this right directly and very materially affects the public; much more so than the exercise of the privileges of a trustee of this college. Consequences of the utmost magnitude may sometimes depend on the exercise of the right of suffrage by one or a few electors. Nobody was ever yet heard to contend, however, that on that account the public might take away the right or impair it. This notion appears to be borrowed from no better source than the repudiated doctrine of the three judges in the Aylesbury case.† That was an action against a returning officer for refusing the plaintiff's vote, in the election of a member of parliament.-Three of the judges of the king's bench held, that the action could not be maintained, because among other objections, "it was not any matter of profit, either in presenti, or in futuro." It would not enrich the plaintiff, in presen ti, nor would it, in futuro, go to his heirs, or answer to pay his debts. But lord Holt and the house of lords were of another opinion. The judgment of the three judges was reversed, and the doctrine they held, having been exploded for a century, seems now for the first time to be revived.

Individuals have a right to use their own property for purposes of benevolence, either towards the public, or towards other individuals. They have a right to exercise this benevolence in such lawful manner as they may choose; and when the government has induced and excited it, by contracting to give perpetuity to the stipulated manner of exercising it, to rescind this contract, and seize on the property, is not law, but violence. Whether the state will grant these franchises, and under what conditions it will grant them, it decides for itself. *Phillips vs. Bury.-Green vs. Rutherforth, ubi supra.-Vide also 2 Black. 21. Ashby vs. White, 2 Lord Ray. 938.

But when once granted, the constitution holds them to be sacred, till forfeited for just cause.

That all property, of which the use may be beneficial to the public, belongs therefore to the public, is quite a new doctrine. It has no precedent, and is supported by no known principle. Dr. Wheelock might have answered his purposes, in this case, by executing a private deed of trust.-He might have conveyed his property to trustees, for precisely such uses as are described in this charter. Indeed it appears, that he had contemplated the establishing of his school in that manner, and had made his will, and devised the property to the same persons who were afterwards appointed trustees in the charter. Many literary and other charitable institutions are founded in that manner, and the trust is renewed, and conferred on other persons, from time to time, as occasion may require. In such a case, no lawyer would or could say that the legislature might divest the trustees, constituted by deed or will, seize upon the property, and give it to other persons, for other purposes. And does the granting of a charter, which is only done to perpetuate the trust in a more convenient manner make any difference? Does or can this change the nature of the charity, and turn it into a public political corporation?-Happily we are not without authority on this point. It has been considered and adjudged. Lord Hardwicke says, in so many words, "the charter of the crown cannot make a charity more or less public, but only more permanent than it would otherwise be.*

The granting of the corporation is but making the trust perpetual, and does not alter the nature of the charity. The very object sought in obtaining such charter, and in giving property to such a corporation, is to make and keep it private property, and to clothe it with all the security and inviolability of private property. The intent is, that there shall be a legal private ownership, and that the legal owners shall maintain and protect the property, for the benefit of those for whose use it was designed. Who ever endowed the public? Who ever appointed a legislature to administer his charity? Or who ever heard, before, that a gift to a college, or hospital, or an asylum, was, in reality, nothing but a gift 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.

In University vs. Foy the supreme court of North Carolina pronounced unconstitutional and void, a law repealing a grant to the University of North Carolina; although that university was originally erected and endowed by a statute of the state. That case was a

* 2 Atk. 87. Attorney General vs. Pearce.

† 2 Haywood's Rep.

grant of lands, and the court decided that it could not be resumed. This is the grant of a power and capacity to hold lands. Where is the difference of the cases, upon principle?

In Terrett vs. Taylor* this court decided, that a legislative grant or confirmation of lands, for the purposes of moral and religious instruction, could no more be rescinded than other grants. The nature of the use was not holden to make any difference. A grant to a parish or church, for the purposes which have been mentioned, cannot be distinguished, in respect to the title it confers, from a grant to a college for the promotion of piety and learning. To the same purpose may be cited the case of Pawlett vs. Clark. The state of Vermont, by statute in 1794, granted to the respective towns in that state, certain glebe lands lying within those towns for the sole use and support of religious worship. In 1799, an act was passed to repeal the act of 1794; but this court declared, that the act of 1794, "so far as it granted the glebes to the towns, could not afterwards be repealed by the legislature, so as to divest the rights of the towns under the grant."†

It will be for the other side to show, that the nature of the use, decides the question, whether the legislature has power to resume its grants. It will be for those, who maintain such a doctrine, to show the principles and cases upon which it rests. It will be for them also to fix the limits and boundaries of their doctrine, and to show, what are and what are not, such uses as to give the legislature this power of resumption and revocation. And to furnish an answer to the cases cited, it will be for them further to show, that a grant for the use and support of religious worship, stands on other ground than a grant for the promotion of piety and learning.

I hope enough has been said to show, that the trustees possessed vested liberties, privileges, and immunities, under this charter; and that such liberties, privileges and immunities, being once lawfully obtained and vested, are as inviolable as any vested rights of property whatever.-Rights to do certain acts, such, for instance, as the visitation and superintendence of a college and the appointment of its officers, may surely be vested rights, to all legal intents, as completely as the right to possess property. A late learned judge of this court has said, when I say that a right is vested in a citizen, I mean that he has the power to do certain actions; or to possess certain things; according to the law of the land.

If such be the true nature of the plaintiffs' interests under this charter, what are the articles in the New Hampshire bill of rights which these acts infringe?

They infringe the second article; which says, that the citizens of the state have a right to hold and possess property. The plaintiffs had a legal property in this charter; and they had acquired property under it. The acts deprive them of both. They impair and take away the charter; and they appropriate the property to new uses, against their consent. The plaintiffs cannot now hold the property acquired by themselves, and which this article says they have a right to hold.

9 Cranch 43.

† 9 Cranch 292.

+3 Dal. 394

« PreviousContinue »