ought not to be disappointed. Congress have passed, and the prest. forwarded me, a second resolution pressing an immediate representation of the different States as a matter at this juncture of the utmost importance, and a representation of this State depends altogether upon your attendance. The sooner the better. It is as uncertain as ever when the British will leave New York, etc.'

It is refreshing to see the governor's solicitude about Hamilton and his lady in view of the bitter antagonism that developed later. This letter shows something of the esteem in which L'Hommedieu was held. An engraving at the State library, which has been printed in the documentary history of New York, shows L'Hommedieu to have had a head of classic shape, with clear-cut features, and vivacious, intelligent expression. He looks like an able and resolute man. L'Hommedieu families still live on Long Island. The pronunciation of their name has degenerated into "Lommidoo."

L'Hommedieu's bill on the next day, February 28, was sent to the committee of the whole. On March 1 Mr. Stoutenburgh reported progress and leave to sit again was granted. This performance was repeated on March 6, 7, and 8. Evidently there was a struggle in progress on the bill.

The regents meanwhile, after the failure of Hamilton's bill in the assembly, were quiet. There is no record of any meeting on February 22, the day to which an adjournment was taken. On the meeting of March 1 no action was taken upon the reorganization of the university. In the evening of March 8, the day on which leave to sit again was granted in the senate upon L'Hommedieu's bill, a meeting of the regents was held with a comparatively large attendance. Hamilton, Duane, and Jay were there. With a few exceptions all who attended were Columbia men. This meeting was the turning point in the history of that legislation. The Columbia men had seen the need of compromise. Their policy was shrewd and effective. They determined to capture the independent movement in the person of Mr. L'Hommedieu himself. They

Resolved, That a committee of six members of the regency be appointed to consider of the most proper means for procuring an act of the legislature for amending the charter of the university, either in conformity to the bill directed to be presented by the resolution of the board of the 15th of February last or with such alterations as may be found necessary, and that they report to the regency at the next meeting, and that the speaker of the assembly, the mayor of New York. Colonel Hamilton, Mr. Williams, Mr. L'Hommedieu, and Mr. Jay be a committee for that purpose.

Neither the speaker of the assembly (Richard Varick) nor L'Hommedieu were present at that meeting. The Columbia attempt at reorganization had failed in a committee of the whole in the assembly, in spite of the leadership of Hamilton. The attempt of the academy or State party to reconstruct the university, under the leadership of L'Hommedieu, was threatened with defeat in committee of the whole

1 Clinton Papers. No. 5119.

in the senate. It is probable that both parties were willing to compromise. It is certain that the keen political tact and quick energy of the Columbia men made compromise and consolidation a fact accomplished. L'Hommedieu attended the next meeting of the regents, held only four days afterwards, the first time that he had attended since April 10, 1786. The speaker of the assembly was also present. The committee reported progress and asked leave to sit again.

L'Hommedieu's bill and Hamilton's bill not the same.-It will be remembered that on February 15 the committee of the regents reported a draft of a bill, and that on February 16 Hamilton presented a bill to the assembly. L'Hommedieu's bill was not presented to the senate until February 27. The question naturally arises, Was L'Hommedieu's bill after all the same bill which the regents' committee had prepared and which Hamilton had laid before the assembly? It appears upon the clearest evidence that these bills were not the same.

1. The facts already detailed show an antagonism between the Columbia men in control of the board on the one hand, and the nonColumbia regents and nonregents on the other.

2. L'Hommedieu had not attended the meetings of the regents for nearly a year. He was a Yale man and would naturally have no special interest in Columbia. He was a countryman and would be inclined to attach more importance to the academies and the general needs of the State education than to the management of Columbia college.

3. The titles of the acts indicate a difference.

a. The original university bill proposed in 1784 was entitled, before it was captured by the King's College interest, "An act for establishing a university within this State."

b. After its capture and as passed May 1, 1784, this bill was entitled "An act for granting certain privileges to the college heretofore called King's College, for altering the name and charter thereof, and erecting a university within this State."

c. The amendatory act of November 26, 1784, simply amended by the above title.

d. The assembly journal, date of April 13, 1785, shows that John Lawrence (a regent) brought in a bill entitled "An act to amend and explain two certain acts therein mentioned relative to the university within this State." Nothing is known of this bill, which never went beyond its first reading, and it is introduced here only for the sake of completeness.

e. Hamilton's bill was introduced in the assembly February 16, 1787. The movement in the board of regents, with which Hamilton was concerned and which resulted in the presentation in the assembly of Hamilton's bill, confessedly had for its primary object the bettering of the condition of Columbia College. It was not until after L'Hommedieu's activity began, upon the petition of the East Hampton Acad

emy, that Hamilton's committee appeared to have considered the academies and schools. The title of Hamilton's bill as introduced into the assembly indicates well the spirit in which it was conceived. "An act to render more effectual an act entitled 'An act for granting certain privileges to the college heretofore called King's College, for altering the name and charter thereof, and erecting a university within this State.""1

f L'Hommedieu's bill was proposed in senate February 27, 1787. The title of this bill shows at once the reversion to the earlier antiColumbian idea of a truly state university, and the catholic scope of the system proposed. The title runs, "An act for erecting an university and for granting privileges to colleges and academies within this State, and for repealing the acts therein mentioned." L'Hommedieu was for repealing and building anew upon a broader foundation; Hamilton would render more effectual the existing acts.

4. The manuscript drafts of L'Hommedieu's bill show the plainest evidence of his independent action.

Among a collection of manuscripts in the State library, called "New York legislative papers," are several drafts of the bill which finally became the law of April 13, 1787, establishing the university. No. 382 in this collection is the draft of the bill introduced in the senate February 27. It is in two parts which fit together, but there are breaks in it. The first half is indorsed with the title, as given above, in the same handwriting as the body of the draft. Below the title it is indorsed, "In senate 27th Feb., 1787, read 1st time." This handwriting appears also in the indorsement of the subsequent drafts, and seems to be that of the clerk of the senate. The second part is indorsed with the title, and the following words, "In senate 27th Feb., 1787, read 1st time; 28th, read second time and committed." This whole indorsement is in the same handwriting. No. 383 of this collection is a complete draft of this bill, and is indorsed, still in the handwriting of the clerk of the senate, with the title and these words: "In senate 27th Feb., 1787, read 1st time; 28th, read second time and committed." These indorsements correspond with the entries in the senate journal for February 27 and 28. No. 388 is the engrossed draft of this bill referred to in the senate journal of the dates March 19 and 20, and need not be considered here.

The handwriting of the drafts Nos. 382 and 383 is the same throughout. A careful comparison of this handwriting with that of Mr. L'Hommedieu, as appearing in many letters from him to Governor Clinton in 1783, contained in the collection of Clinton papers above referred to, establishes beyond doubt that these drafts are in L'Hommedieu's handwriting. The bill, then introduced into the senate on February 27, and read the second time on February 28, was the work

'Assembly journal, 1787, p. 53.

? See Clinton papers 5157, 5165, 5166, 5193 5205, 5214, 5223.

of L'Hommedieu's committee, and was in the handwriting of L'Hommedieu. It is not necessary to go into great detail to show that this bill was not the bill of the regents' committee proposed eleven days earlier in the assembly by Hamilton. If the draft of the assembly bill could be found, the matter would be much easier, but this draft can not be unearthed. Not only are the senate drafts in L'Hommedieu's handwriting, but they are not fair copies, as they would be if taken from the Hamilton bill. They are filled with erasures, interlineations, verbal changes, transpositions, and marginal additions and suggestions. They show tentative and gradual construction. And then, to make the matter more certain, at one place in the margin appears this note, like everything else, in L'Hommedieu's handwriting, "Take this clause from the other bill." At one other place appears a similar note, "Take in the clause of the assembly bill." These facts are enough to show that while L'Hommedieu had the assembly bill in mind and used it in the recasting of his own bill, yet his work was independent and different. If further evidence is needed it is ready at hand in the character of L'Hommedieu's scheme.

The first draft does not seem complete, but coincides in the main with the second, which is, however, fuller. A complete state system is proposed, consisting of the university corporation over all; colleges, with which Columbia is coordinated, having each a separate charter; incorporated academies, and schools. With the exception of schools, which are only mentioned, provisions are made with considerable minuteness for the government of these different institutions, all of which are made parts of the university. The language of the law of May 1, 1784, is followed wherever practicable. It must be granted that upon this statement the bill resembles the scheme outlined in the report of the regents' committee. But even upon this showing it might be urged that it was quite as likely that the regents' committee took their ideas of furthering the academies from L'Hommedieu, who had been considering the matter a week before the report of the committee, as that L'Hommedieu took his bill from that of the regents' committee. And since reform had become necessary, it might well be that there was no difference of opinion as to the general character of the reform. But a few of the provisions of L'Hommedieu's proposed law show most positively that he was urging the reform from a standpoint entirely different from that of the Hamilton committee.

1. L'Hommedieu's bill provides, "And no president or professor of the said Columbia College, or any other college or academy recognized by this act, shall be a trustee or governor of such college or academy, nor shall any such governor or president or professor be a regent of the university." In the second draft (No. 383) "tutor" is added to this prescribed list. At the meeting of the regents on February 15, when the report of their committee was "approved and confirmed," and the

1N. Y. leg. papers, No. 382.

draft of the bill was directed to be laid before the legislature, there were present twenty-one members. Of these, seven at least were actual professors in Columbia at that time. Eight others were made trustees of Columbia under the new law, and among those eight were Mr. Duane himself, Robert Harpur, a former professor of Columbia, and Dr. Cochran, who had been proffered a professorship and declined. There were only five of the twenty-one-present who were not presumably friends of Columbia. Many of these fifteen had been made regents when the board was packed in the interest of Columbia by the amendment of November, 1784. It is not reasonable to suppose that at such a meeting a law would be recommended containing a provision so destructive of Columbia rule in the board of Columbia trustees. This influence of the faculty of Columbia in the board of regents seems to have excited the special hostility of the non-Columbia men.

2. L'Hommedieu's bill provides for an annual visitation of the academies by a committee of regents, "to inquire into the state and progress of literature therein, and to confer the degree of bachelor of arts on such students of such academies as they shall judge deserving of the same, or to direct that such degrees be conferred on such students by the president of any college subject to their visitation." It can not be supposed that the Columbia men would propose such compulsion upon their power to confer degrees.

3. The first draft of L'Hommedieu's bill proposes that the "said Columbia College shall be subject to the visitation of the regents of the university, or a committee from them, who may, as often as the regents shall judge necessary, examine into the funds of the said college, the mode of education, and the progress in literature made by the students, as well as of the learning, abilities, and conduct of the different professors and tutors."2

It

This is the clause which is marked in the margin, "Take this clause from the other bill." In the second draft, which was read the following day in the senate, this clause is somewhat toned down. reads: "It shall and may be lawful to and for such visitors to inspect and examine into the state of literature and the progress of the students in any of the said colleges, and into the discipline, government, management, laws, and statutes thereof, and the execution of the same, and into the university funds, securities, receipts, expenditures, books of accounts, and vouchers appertaining thereto, in order that a just report thereof may be made to the regents of the said university and by them be laid before the legislature when it shall be found necessary. 992 Again it can not be supposed that the Columbia men would have proposed such subordination on the part of their college to the regents. It looks as if L'Hommedieu had softened the rigor of his first proposal to better suit the temper of the assembly bill.

'N. Y. leg. papers, No. 382.

2N. Y. leg. papers, No. 383.