網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

a. The churches lost the ex officio regents which, in the original draft, it was proposed to give them, following the analogy of the ex officio clerical representation in the board of governors of King's College. They gained a full equivalent for this loss, however, in the provision for an elective clerical representation. This was a liberal advance, inasmuch as any sect could now be represented.

b. In the provision against test oaths for professors a great blow was struck at clerical domination.

c. The full freedom to all denominations to establish professorships in divinity marks the triumph of liberal principles.

3. The party which might be called the State University party, or the popular party, secured some considerable gains.

a. They added the mayor of Albany to the ex officio regents and secured increased county representation on the board.

b. The succession of the county members was put indirectly in the hands of the people and was made a State matter.

c. They abolished religious tests.

d. They had given form, however imperfectly, to the new idea of State control in education. They had created an organization which in some measure was vitalized by the life of the State, and which brought the power of the people in their political capacity to bear upon the instruction of the young. Conservatism and the power of corporate interests were still too great to allow thoroughgoing change; but the change was radical so far as it went. Further change was inevitable and not long delayed.

LEGISLATION OF 1787.

Predominance of Columbia College.-Columbia had captured the board of regents and for three years controlled their action. In the amendment of November, 1784, it was provided that the next meeting of the regents should follow directly upon the rising of the legislature, without the necessity of a published notice. It resulted from this that four days after the passing of the bill there was a meeting at which only Columbia men were present. Before the amendment of November it was very hard to get a quorum for any purpose. There was only one regular meeting of the board from May to November, 1784. At this meeting officers were elected and committees appointed, and these carried on the work of the regents. The organization of work in the college was naturally the most urgent business of the board, and the friends of Columbia felt especially hampered. It was not surprising that they sought a reorganization of the board. It is chiefly the fact of their filling the board with Columbia men which

2

IN. Y. leg. papers (ms.). No. 274; Pratt's Annals (see Conv. proc. 1875, p. 204). ? Minutes of the regents from 1784 to 1787. These are kept among the records of Columbia College. They were printed in Pratt's Annals (see Conv. proc. 1875, pp. 209-262).

shows the positive animus of the change. In reading the minutes of the meetings of the regents and their committees, both before and after the amendatory law of November, 1784, one can not escape the conviction that the activity of the board was narrow and directed almost exclusively to the interests of the college. The only action taken before November looking toward a broader conception of their duty was the sending of one of the regents, Colonel Clarkson, of Kings County, to France and.the Netherlands "in order to solicit and receive benefactions for the use of the said university." And Colonel Clarkson was also engaged with the mission of purchasing "such a philosophical apparatus for Columbia College as Dr. Franklin, Mr. Adams, and Mr. Jefferson, ministers of the United States, will advise and his collections will admit." This last clause gives away the whole scheme. The money was to be raised "for the use of said university," but that use was to get a working plant for Columbia. They also attempted to get up a correspondence with certain gentlemen in Ireland with a view to raise subscriptions there "for the use of the university of this State." It is not recorded that any Irish money found its way to New York. Perhaps even at that time the current of subscriptions flowed the other way.

After the amendment of November, few of the non-Columbia men attended, and they but rarely. Until the next annual meeting no notice of meetings was necessary, and the outside members were evidently discouraged. Nearly half the board were Columbia men. They lived at New York, and it was almost impossible for enough State men to attend to show much strength against the college influence. The great State system of education which had been projected threatened to become only a revival of the metropolitan college. The work, narrow as it was, was vigorously pushed. The finances of the college were investigated, professors were elected, largely from among the new members of the board, and an elaborate plan of education was prepared by an able committee, two members of which were Mr. Duane and Alexander Hamilton.2 Everything possible was done to put the college upon a firm foundation and make it a strong and worthy institution. But for a long time nothing was done looking to the establishment of a broader system. The State was ignored, except as Columbia might furnish the higher education needed in the State. The aristocratic feeling was still dominant, as might have been expected in a body containing such men as Hamilton, Duane, and Jay, of avowed British sympathies, and many others interested chiefly in the maintenance of the prestige of the old corporation. With the meeting of the legislature, however, early in 1785, many country members of the board came in. Their presence was recognized at the meeting on February 15, 1785, by the appointment of Ezra L'Hom

1 Regents' minutes, June 4, 1784 (see Conv. proc. 1875, p. 214).

2 Regents' minutes, Dec. 9 and 14, 1784 (see Conv. proc. 1875, p. 225).

medieu upon a committee "directed to inquire for a fit person to fill the offices of president, professor of moral philosophy, and mathematics in Columbia College." Hamilton and Duane, together with four others besides L'Hommedieu, were members of this committee, who were also to devise means of raising a salary for the president.1 Mr. L'Hommedieu was a member of the original board of regents from Suffolk County, and was to all appearance the leader of the popular party. There has arisen a controversy as to whether Hamilton or L'Hommedieu was the author of the act of 1787. This matter will be discussed later on.

The board did not meet again until the 4th of April. The above committee reported. Neither Hamilton nor L'Hommedieu was present. The report recommended an address to the public, to solicit voluntary subscriptions to enable the college to carry out its plans, and "that proper persons in each county throughout the State be applied to and requested personally to solicit subscriptions for this purpose and that an application be made to the legislature to grant them an aid by a tax on marriage licenses or any other mode they may think proper. The thought of the Columbia men may have been right, that the revival of the college was the one thing needful at that time for the State, but there was a different feeling elsewhere.

[ocr errors]

Opposition to the Columbia monopoly.—We have already seen the opposition, from the country members of the legislature, to an advance of State funds to the college. There are other indications of dissatisfaction. On February 25, 1785, Aaron Burr in the assembly brought in a bill entitled "An act for the encouragement of literature."3 Although this bill never got beyond the second reading, it goes to show that the need of further effort for the advancement of learning was recognized. It was expressly admitted by a committee of the regents themselves, which we shall presently notice more fully, that the act of November, 1784, "placing the rights of every college in the hands of a few individuals," "excited jealousy and dissatisfaction when the interests of literature require that all should be united."4 At the next annual meeting,5 when several country members were present, an important step was taken. A committee was appointed "to consider of ways and means of promoting literature throughout the State." The members of the committee were Dr. Livingston, Dr. Rogers, Mr. Mason, General Schuyler," Mr. Peter W. Yates, Brockholst Livingston, General Morris, Mr. Wisner, Mr. Haring,

'Regents' minutes, Feb. 15, 1785 (see Conv. proc. 1875, p. 233).
'Regents' minutes, Apr. 4, 1785 (see Conv. proc. 1875, p. 236).
3 Assembly jour. 1785, p. 52.

*Regents' minutes, Feb. 16, 1787 (see Conv. proc. 1875, p. 253).

'Regents' minutes, Feb. 28, 1786 (see Conv. proc. 1875, p. 243).

"General Schuyler was not appointed regent until 1787. In what capacity he acted here is not known.

James Livingston, Mr. John, Mr. Dongan, Mr. Clarkson, Mr. Townsend, Mr. L'Hommedieu, and Mr. Williams.

The committee represented in its membership the different districts of the State. It was appointed upon motion of Dr. Livingston, himself a professor in Columbia. It can not be determined whether this move was made to quiet the popular party with a show of activity in the interest of the State at large, or whether it was a genuine endeavor to broaden the scope of the work done by the regents. Whatever the motive, nothing seems to have been done by the committee. The nonColumbia men were greatly in the majority in this committee, and their failure to see this opportunity, at least to propose some plan to make the university a reality, can not be well explained. Lack of unity among so large a committee would be a plausible suggestion. At any rate they accomplished nothing, and the board went on in its old way, regulating the affairs of the college.

Another matter merits notice before taking up the work accomplished in 1787. In the senate on March 15, 1786, "A memorial of Andrew Law, of the city of New York, praying for an exclusive right of printing sundry new tunes of psalmody, was read and committed to Mr. Stoutenburgh, Mr. Williams, and Mr. L'Hommedieu." They brought in a bill entitled "An act granting to authors of literary performances the exclusive right of printing and vending their works." This bill, after various amendments in senate and assembly,' was finally passed under the title "An act to promote literature."3

It is in effect a copyright law, but has a "rider" permitting the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church of Flatbush, King's County, to sell certain lands "for the express purpose of erecting an academy in the said county." This was the beginning of Erasmus Hall, the first academy incorporated by the regents. It is important as showing how, outside of the board of regents, independent efforts were being made to promote education. It also identifies Mr. L'Hommedieu with the academy movement. It was this activity for academies outside of New York City that first made head against the predominance of Columbia, and from the beginning Mr. L'Hommedieu was the foremost champion of these academies.

Struggle over the new law.-From April 24, 1786, until January 31, 1787, the regents did not meet. It is evident from the facts recited above that, outside of the circle of the friends of Columbia College, there was dissatisfaction with the neglect by the regents of the general educational interests of the State. The annual meeting, which was always held during the session of the legislature, was near, and at this meeting many of the country members of the regents might be expected to attend. Columbia men seem either to have become dis

1 Senate jour., 1786, Mar. 15.

2 Assembly Jour., 1786, pp. 132-167; Senate jour., 1786, p. 77.
3 Laws 1786, ch. 54.

satisfied with the present arrangements for the government of their college or to have feared a legislative attempt at reconstruction in the interests of the State at large which might work injury to the college. This meeting of January 31 was of Columbia men almost exclusively. A committee was appointed, which shows that they recognized that the objects of the university had not been attained, and that there was need of prompt action to guard the interests of the college in any change which might be made. The record runs:

Resolved, That a committee be appointed to take into consideration the present state of the university and to report as soon as possible the measures necessary to be adopted to carry into effect the views of the legislature with respect to the same, and particularly with respect to Columbia College, and that Mr. Mayor,' Mr. Jay, Dr. Rogers, Dr. Mason, Dr. Livingston, General Clarkson, Mr. Gros, and Mr. Hamilton be a committee for that purpose."

In the evening of February 8 there was another meeting, at which the only action taken was to hear the report of this committee. Dr. Rogers reported progress and asked leave to sit again. This was granted and they adjourned to meet on the evening of February 15. On this very day, February 8, another movement for the establishment of an academy was begun in the senate. It was a petition of Samuel Buell, who was a regent, Nathaniel Gardiner, and David Mulford "in behalf of themselves and others, founders of an academy at East Hampton, in Suffolk County." This was in L'Hommedieu's own county, and the matter was referred to him with three other senators from the southern district, Treadwell, Stoutenburgh, and Vanderbilt. Vanderbilt was also a regent. L'Hommedieu and Stoutenburgh had been instrumental in passing the "Act to promote literature" described above, which also provided for the establishment of an academy at Flatbush, in Kings County, likewise in the southern district. Mr. Williams, who was a regent, had also been associated with L'Hommedieu and Stoutenburgh in the matter of the Flatbush academy, and he becomes prominent afterwards in association with L'Hommedieu in the struggle over the reorganization of the university. The East Hampton academy spoken of in the above petition was the second academy incorporated by the regents after their reorganization, and was called Clinton Academy.

Attempt of Columbia to reorganize the university.-The lines of opposing parties in the struggle can now be indicated with some certainty. At the convening of the legislature in 1787 the friends of Columbia in the board of regents appointed a committee, upon which were James Duane, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton, to devise means to make effectual the intention of the legislature in the acts of

' Mr. Duane.

2 Regents' minutes, January 31, 1787 (see Conv. proc., 1875, pp. 250, 251, Pratt's Annals).

3 Senate Jour., February 8, 1787.

« 上一頁繼續 »