United States, and changed the public law of the Union. At the June session, 1815, the time of his consultation with Webster, Dr. Wheelock followed up his charges with the oftthreatened memorial to the legislature, in which he set forth that the trustees, "had forsaken the original principles, and left the path of their predecessors;" that they had by improper "means and practices," "increased their number to a majority controlling the measures of the board;" "that they have applied property to purposes wholly alien to the intention of the donors;" that they have "transformed the moral and religious order of the institution by depriving many of their innocent enjoyment of rights and privileges for which they had confided their faith; that they have broken down the barriers and violated, by prostrating the rights with which it [the charter] expressly invests, the presidential office.”

He then charges misapplication of funds and various breaches of trust, and concludes with the prayer, "that you would please, by a committee invested with competent powers, or otherwise, to look into the affairs and management of the institution, internal and external, already referred to; and, if such is expedient, in your wisdom, make such organic improvements and model reforms in its systems and movements, as, under Divine Providence, will guard against the disorders and apprehended consequences." The house, by a vote of 123 to 50, granted the prayer of Wheelock. Governor Gilman appointed D. A. White, Nathaniel A. Haven and Ephraim P. Bradford, a committee of investigation, who made their report on April 23, 1816, stating the facts found,. but making no recommendations. The hearing was had before this committee, commencing August 16, 1815.

Webster failed to appear for Wheelock. His reasons we have already seen. On August 26, 1815, without waiting for the report of this committee, on the motion of Judge Paine, without a hearing, the majority of the trustees removed Wheelock from his office as president and trustee, disapproved of his appointment under his father's will, and two days later put Professor Brown in his place. Gov. Gilman and Judge Jacob, two of the trustees, entered their protest in writing. against the removal of Wheelock.

In 1815, Benoni Dewey, James Wheelock and Benjamin J. Gilbert, a committee of the Congregational church at Hanover, replied to the "Sketches" in a pamphet of 68 pp., entitled, “A True and Concise Narrative of the Origin and Progress of the Church Difficulties in the Vicinity of Dartmouth College in Hanover," etc. In August, 1815, the trustees published in a phamphlet of 104 pp., "A Vindication of the Official Conduct of the Trustees of Dartmouth College," etc. In 1816,. Peyton R. Freeman published, in reply, a pamphlet of 32 pp., entitled, "A Refutation of Sundry Aspersions in the 'Vindication' of the Present Trustees of Dartmouth College on the Memory of their Predecessors." In 1816, Col. Josiah Dunham also replied in a pamphlet of 95 pp., entitled, “An Answer to the 'Vindication of the Official Conduct of the Trustees of Dartmouth College' in Confirmation of the Sketches," with Remarks on the Removal of President Wheelock." These documents contained charges and counter-charges, criminations and recriminations, in abundance.

So far this had been a controversy among Calvinists and Federalists. It had originated among those professing the same religious faith-between the Federalist trustees of a Federalist college. A Federalist governor had appointed an investigating committee, under the vote of a Federalist legislature, upon a memorial of the Federalist Wheelock. But other forces were soon to make themselves felt. Ever since the Revolution, and indeed before, the Congregationalists, the "standing order," as it was often termed, had been the dominant religious sect. It had become a species of "state religion." Its ministers were nearly all Federalists, and its laymen largely so. They were exempted from the capitation tax. All other denominations had to support, not only their own church organizations, but through the "contract" system and the tax power, were also compelled to contribute to the support of this denomination as if they were members of it. The constitutions of 1784 and 1792, with the exception of the disgraceful provisions (always a dead letter), which prohibited Catholics from holding a few political offices, put all religious denominations upon the same level. But the dom

inant order made and enforced such laws as they saw fit. Some of the judges were far from unbiased, while the juries were not likely to agree against a church, of which, in general, a majority of them were members; and so the people were compelled to pay "tithes" to the dominant sect, or to be ruined by litigation.

When the college quarrel opened the breach, the other denominations took courage and massed together to wring the legislation which followed-the college acts, the laws equalizing taxation, and "the religious toleration acts,"-from the "standing order," which they succeeded in doing in less than seven years. The college was located on the border; the district was the birth-place of secession; prior to the Federal Constitution the confederacy had denied and defied the jurisdiction of New Hampshire; the liberals in politics and religion had long regarded the institution as exclusive, aristocratic, and the stronghold of Federalism and the "standing order," and the leading Federalists and their organs had given Wheelock the cold shoulder. The politicians were not slow to see the drift, and took the rising tide.

The Anti-Federalists again put Governor Plumer in the field. He was a strong man and an eminent lawyer. When a mere child he was a Baptist preacher whose powers of reasoning astonished even the veterans of his day. Afterwards he relapsed into the liberalism of Jefferson and took to the law. The constitution of 1792, which, with a single amendment, remains unchanged to this day, was popularly termed "Plumer's Constitution." He had been long in political life, a senator in Congress, and for many years had been one of the pillars in the great Federal triumvirate, Smith, Mason and Plumer, which controlled the state. But the troubles with Great Britain which preceded the war of 1812, carried him over to the side of Jefferson. He lacked the affluent learning of Smith and Mason; he had little of their aptitude with the pen; he was no orator; but his thoroughness of preparation, his great knowledge of men, and his vigor of understanding, enabled him to compete suc

cessfully with Smith, Mason and Webster. His private life was stainless. He possessed great moral courage and independence, and yet he was the Nestor of the politicians of his day. His sympathies were naturally, as they were openly, with Wheelock. A heated political contest came on. Under the ban in their own party, Wheelock's friends, by the hundred, voted steadily for Plumer. The strong man carried the party on his back and was elected by a handsome majority. Brown, Thompson and Webster saw what was coming and made ready, as best they could, to avert the storm. In his message to the legislature, in June, 1816, Governor Plumer said:

"Permit me, therefore, to invite your consideration to the state and condition of Dartmouth College, the head of our learned institutions. As the state has contributed liberally to the establishment of its funds, and as our constituents have a deep interest in its prosperity, it has a strong claim to our attention. The charter of that college was granted December 13th, 1769, by John Wentworth, who was then governor of New Hampshire, under the authority of the British king. As it emanated from royalty, it contained, as was natural it should, principles congenial to monarchy; among - others, it established trustees, made seven a quorum, and authorized a majority of those present to remove any of its members which they might consider unfit or incapable, and the survivors to perpetuate the board by themselves, electing others to supply vacancies. This last principle is hostile to the spirit and genius of a free government. Sound policy therefore requires that the mode of election should be changed, and that trustees, in future, should be elected by some other body of men.

*

*

*

*

"The college was founded for the public good, not for the benefit or emolument of its trustees; and the right to amend and improve acts of incorporation of this nature has been exercised by all governments, both monarchical and republican. Sir Thomas Gresham established a fund to support lecturers in Gresham College, in London, upon the express condition that the lecturers should be unmarried men, and,

upon their being married, their interest in the fund should absolutely cease; but the British Parliament, in the year 1768, passed a law removing the college to another place, and explicitly enacted that if the lecturers were married, or should marry, they should receive their fees and stipend out of the fund, any restriction or limitation in the will of the said Gresham to the contrary notwithstanding. In this country a number of the states have passed laws that made material changes in the charters of their colleges. And in this state acts of incorporation of a similar nature have frequently been amended and changed by the legislature. In the charter of Dartmouth College it is expressly provided that the president, trustees, professors, tutors and other officers, shall take the oath of allegiance to the British king; but if the laws of the United States, as well as those of New Hampshire, abolished by implication that part of the charter, much more might they have done it directly and by express words. These facts show the authority of the legislature to interfere upon this subject; and I trust you will make such further provisions as will render this important institution more useful to mankind."

*

*

*

Governor Plumer communicated this message to Jefferson, who replied in his letter of July 21, 1816: "It is replete with sound principles, and truly republican. Some articles, too, are worthy of notice. The idea that institutions established for the use of the nation cannot be touched nor modified, even to make them answer their end, because of rights gratuitously supposed in those employed to manage them in trust for the public, may perhaps be a salutary provision against the abuses of a monarch, but it is most absurd against the nation itself. Yet our lawyers and priests generally inculcate this doctrine, and suppose that preceding generations held the earth more freely than we do; had a right to impose laws on us, unalterable by ourselves; and that we, in like manner, can make laws and impose burdens on future generations, which they will have no right to alter; in fine, that the earth belongs to the dead, and not to the living."