網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

c Vacancies are to be filled by the legislature in the manner in which delegates to Congress are appointed. It will be remembered that this was in the days of the Continental Congress. The regents therefore stood as the representatives of the State as a whole, and not of any particular section. The same idea is now maintained in their election in the same manner as Senators of the United States. This provision does not appear in L'Hommedieu's draft and may well have been a centralizing amendment of Hamilton.

d Various provisions are made as to the election of officers, calling and conduct of meetings, etc.

e The general powers of the corporation as to holding of property, etc., are substantially those under the former law.

ƒ The regents are "authorized and required to visit and inspect all the colleges, academies, and schools which are or may be established in this State," to make ordinances and by-laws, and to appoint presidents of colleges and principals of academies if the respective institutions fail to do this for an entire year.

g They are empowered to confer all degrees above bachelor or master of arts which are "usually granted by any university or college in Europe."

h They may apply their funds at their own discretion, except in case of grants made to them charged with an express use.

4. Colleges.

a The regents are authorized to incorporate colleges upon application by citizens or bodies corporate wishing to found colleges under such conditions as they approve; but such corporations are to have the same corporate rights as Columbia College.

b Columbia College.

(1) The original charter of 1754 is confirmed with certain changes— "No persons shall be trustees of the same in virtue of any offices, character, and descriptions whatsoever." L'Hommedieu had proposed the mayor and recorder of New York as ex officio trustees.

(2) The present trustees are James Duane, Samuel Provost, John H. Livingston, Richard Varick, Alexander Hamilton, John Mason, James Wilson, John Gano, Brock holst Livingston, Robert Harpur, John Daniel Gross, Johann Christoff Kunze, Walter Livingston, Lewis A. Scott, Joseph Delaplaine, Leonard Lispenard, Abraham Beach, John Lawrence, John Rutherford, Morgan Lewis, John Cochran, Gershom Seixas, Charles McKnight, Thomas Jones, Malachi Treat, Samuel Bard, Nicholas Romein, Benjamin Kissam, and Ebenezer Crossby. Thus all the faithful Columbia men who had come to her rescue in November, 1784, and had stood by her in the board of regents, attending faithfully the meetings, were rewarded. To make room for the new friends they had gained they appointed 29 on the first board. was to be reduced to 24, and kept at that figure.

(3) The property and other rights of King's College under the old charter are to be retained.

5. Academies.

a Upon application by founders or benefactors of academies in any cities or counties of the State the regents are empowered upon certain conditions to incorporate such academies. In fact, they are compelled to grant such charters if the conditions are complied with and "they conceive such academy calculated for the promotion of literature."

b Such incorporated academies are granted the usual corporate powers, their annual income, however, being restricted to the "value of 4,000 bushels of wheat."

c The trustees of the academies are empowered at lawful meetings, according to detailed regulations, to "appoint and remove officers, teachers, etc., fix their salaries, and make by-laws for the government of the academies.

d Vacancies in the boards of trustees are to be filled by cooptation. e The regents are to be visitors of such academies.

f Scholars of academies, upon due examination by the president and professors of any college under the visitation of the regents, who shall be found competent are to be admitted to such college. But this privilege is granted only upon condition that the plan of education in such academies is approved by the regents.

g Academies that are sufficiently advanced may be erected into colleges by the regents.

6. General provisions.

a. There shall be no religious tests for presidents or professors. b. No professor or tutor in any college or academy shall be a trustee of that institution, and no president or principal, being a trustee, shall have a vote as to his own salary.

c. No "trustee, president, principal, tutor, fellow, or other officer of any college or academy [shall] be a regent of the university." The regent of the New York University is thus seen to be absolutely different in character to the regent in English universities. As a corollary to this prohibition the law provides that if any college or academy trustee is elected a regent, or vice versa, such person shall make election which position he wishes to occupy.

7. The two former acts are repealed.

The result of this law was twofold. Theoretically, it lessened the rigor of State control of the system by emancipating the colleges from the actual government of the regents. Practically, it widened the scope of this State control by emancipating the regents from any tendency to monopoly of influence. The university immediately began a wide-reaching activity in the incorporation of academies and colleges.

L'Hommedieu's plan of having all the colleges directly dependent

upon the State by having their trustees appointed by the legislature was defeated. It was a bold plan and a grand one. But the love of self-government was too strong to allow so radical an innovation. And L'Hommedieu himself seems to have been vindictive rather than magnanimous in his proposal; for his same plan left to trustees of academies the right of filling vacancies in their boards. He was the champion of the academies. His proposals concerning these institutions were mainly enacted into law. He was apparently a champion in general of local interests. As first proposed, his scheme would have had a judge of the court of common pleas in every county and the mayor of every city in the list of regents ex officio. And in the matter of higher education he was the champion of direct political control. Colleges should have on their boards of trustees the mayors of the cities or the first judge of the counties where these colleges were situated, the rest of the board to be made up by governmental appointment. As the price of carrying through his measures in regard to the academies, he had to concede almost complete autonomy to Columbia, except in the matter of an official inspection by the regents.

The regulations in regard to Columbia must necessarily be the model for future colleges. The idea, then, of a system of colleges in direct organic connection with the political system of the State was lost through the narrow zeal of the Columbia men for their college on the one hand and the equally narrow zeal of the academy men on the other. But the compromise was a distinct gain, and after a century of quiet and, if desultory, still efficient activity, this great organization stands to-day stronger and more active than ever before, and seemingly upon the eve of wider and more splendid achievements.

The law of 1787 constituted the university upon substantially the same basis as that upon which it rests to-day. One effect of the change should be noticed. The idea of county representation upon the board of regents was entirely lost. The regents became the agent of the State-an organ of centralized administration. But this was in a measure offset by the change in the manner of appointment. Instead of appointment by the governor and his council of appointment, the regents were now appointed by the legislature, thus giving a far more popular character to their election. This was probably a concession to the assembly; for there existed in that body, as evinced by Mr. Lansing's opposition, a jealousy of a corporation endowed with such high prerogatives as the board of regents.

The personnel of the new board of regents should also be remarked. The old Columbia men, including Hamilton and Duane, were made trustees of Columbia, and ended their connection with this State establishment. When it is remembered that this scheme was arranged in the compromise committee of the regents, it will serve as strong evidence of the party preference of these men in this struggle. While Hamilton and Duane thus remained with the college, Jay and Rodgers,

of the Columbia appointees of November, 1784, went over to the new board of regents. There is no surprise at seeing L'Hommedieu still among the regents. The most notable accessions to the board of regents were Philip Schuyler, Hamilton's father-in-law, and De Steuben, the sturdy German baron of Revolutionary fame.

Hamilton or L'Hommedieu ?-For a century it has been assumed that Alexander Hamilton was the founder of the university. The shadow of his great name has lent a cherished dignity to the corporation. J. C. Hamilton calls it "a bold effort of his genius," in his life of Alexander Hamilton. The regents themselves have ever loved to give currency to the tradition. If not Hamilton, who? So great an institution must have had a great father, and hence this corporate filia nullius has claimed descent from the prolific brain of Hamilton. What is the source of this tradition? The published works of Hamilton give no clew. They contain nothing of importance touching the university or educational matters in general. Mr. Lodge, printing the title of this act in a list of writings attributed formerly to Hamilton, comments thus: "Mr. Proctor, the editor of the forthcoming edition of Hammond's Political History of New York, has, I think, shown conclusively that the act was the work of Ezra L'Hommedieu."1 It was the writer's good fortune to meet Mr. Proctor, the secretary of the New York State Bar Association, at Albany, whose courtesy and valuable suggestions are here gratefully acknowledged.

man.

Mr. Proctor stated his arguments to the writer, who also read what had been printed by Mr. Proctor upon the matter. From the work already done by the writer, he was inclined to be more skeptical than Mr. Lodge as to the conclusiveness of Mr. Proctor's proof. The matter seemed to demand a more extended and minute research than had been yet given to it. From the facts already detailed, but one conclusion can be reached. The university is not the work of any one Whether the whole course of legislation be considered, or only the act of 1787, still it can not be said that any one man has even conceived the whole idea. There is only one man whose activity from first to last was constant in the construction and reconstruction of the university, and that man is neither Hamilton nor L'Hommedieu, but James Duane, the mayor of New York. He introduced the original bill into the senate in 1784, which was afterwards altered in the interest of Columbia. He was an influential regent from the start, and unceasing in his activity. He introduced in the senate the amendatory bill of November, 1784. He was chairman of the committee which, on February 15, 1787, reported a plan of amendment, and he was a member of the final compromise committee of the regents of March 8, 1787. It is not, however, intended here to claim for Duane the whole honor of founding the university. These facts render it impossible, likewise, to attribute this honor chiefly either to Hamilton

1 Hamilton, Alexander. Works, ed. by H. C. Lodge, v. 9, p. 582.

or to L'Hommedieu, neither of whom had any connection with the earliest founding, and who have been shown to be merely coworkers with Duane and Jay, and others, in the final reconstruction. At the same time it seems only just to say that, upon the final reorganization, the man who stands out most conspicuously for the broader educational ideas which have become dominant in this century is not Alexander Hamilton, but Ezra L'Hommedieu. Hamilton has been half deified, but we are not bidden to render even unto God the things that are Cæsar's. The university of 1787 was a structure reared by many hands.1

CHAPTER 3.

AN ERA OF EDUCATIONAL REVOLUTION.

The University of the State of New York a revolution.—This survey of the period from the close of the war in 1783, until the definitive establishment of the system of education in New York by the act of 1787, has made very evident the presence of a new spirit and new ideas in the matter of education. The old college had been, in its form and in its activity, an English educational corporation, serving private interests, controlled by private parties, distinctly under ecclesiastical influence, looking to the State only as a means of obtaining occasional pecuniary aid, or extension of privilege, with no consciousness of identification with the political life of the State, or of duties toward the State. For the rest, private academies, elementary parish schools, or chance schools conducted by private masters, professional training acquired on the old plan of educational master and apprentice; such was the condition. New York in 1784 would well exemplify the ideal of Herbert Spencer and his laissez-faire disciples. Individual initiative has no rival as a principle of educational enterprise. The State did not venture to usurp private "rights."

Between 1783 and 1787 there was a revolution. An attempt on the part of King's College to capture a movement for the establishment of a university, and thus to revive the old corporation with greater immunities and franchises than before, was met by a popular opposition to corporate encroachment, which ended in leaving to Colur bia only its own charter, with its government thereunder subject to the inspection and partial control of the State. While the acts of 1784 were primarily in the interest of Columbia, and only secondarily in

'There is an interesting memoir of James Duane in the Documentary History of New York, vol. 4, p. 1061. It can not be supposed that a man of Duane's ability would have been a tool in the hands of others in all his activity regarding the university. There may, very probably, exist among the papers of Duane, if they have been preserved, evidence of the writer's conjecture that to him a large measure of credit is due for the establishment of the university.

« 上一頁繼續 »