both, which would seek to perpetuate or tolerate such gross injustice. The college has seen dark days, but the blot of injustice has never so far fouled its escutcheon. The body of the alumni will be slow to believe such a charge; woe to the reputations of the offenders if it is proved against them. The standard of their society will be trailed in the dust. The name "neutral" is no badge of disgrace; it stands for the great body of the alumni. Because they can be less easily organized than society men, because they are as a rule less acquainted with one another, is no reason why they should be deprived of one jot or tittle of their rights either in the classroom or in the management of the University. It is not too much to demand that the faculty and the corporation fulfill the letter and the spirit of Jefferson's plea for "equal and exact justice to all men"-of whatever society or non-society persuasion. In the natural order of events society questions will never intrude themselves into the meetings of these bodies, directly or indirectly. The truest society men should not hesitate to cooperate with neutrals toward the attainment of this end in the future. If extra painstaking will dispel any unpleasant impressions which exist on this score at present the effort is worth the cost. Properly conducted, we believe that, for the reasons we have given, the society system is of positive benefit both to its members and to the college. We cannot but look forward to the next epoch with especial interest. Whether the system can retain all of its usefulness now that the bottom has been knocked out of it, so to speak, by the abolition of the Freshman and Sophomore societies; whether there may not be and ought not to be more Junior societies, so as to cut down the membership of the present ones, now that the classes are so large; whether the new Senior society, begun so auspiciously, is not in itself the best antidote for quieting all the discontent against the old societies-are problems which time alone can solve. Expansion and improvement rather than abolition seem to be the real order of the day. The sincere hope of every loyal son of Yale, whether a society man or not, will be that the dawning era shall prove one of good feeling not less remarkable in its narrow sphere, than that publicly associated with the name of James Monroe.

ARTICLE VII.-THE CHARTER OF CONNECTICUT AND THE CHARTER OF YALE COLLEGE.

IN our Article, published in the New Englander in May, 1882, respecting The Charter of Yale College, the import and reach of its changes we did not think it necessary to consider, and do not now think it necessary very fully to discuss, whether the colony under its charter had the right in 1701 to pass the act, entitled "An act for Liberty to erect a Collegiate School," or the right in 1745 to pass the act entitled "An act for the more full and complete establishment of Yale College in New Haven, and for enlarging the powers and privileges thereof." But it may be proper to say something on the subject to complete our view.

If the legislature of the colony had the right under its charter in 1745 to found or establish a college and to incorporate it, it obviously had the same right under the same charter in 1701. If it had not this right at either period, it appears to follow, that the college had no valid charter prior to the American Revolution and perhaps still later.

We are not ready to accept this conclusion nor do we think that the jurists of the State of Connecticut or of the country are likely to accept it. The charter of the college has been held to be valid from the beginning, whatever fears may have been felt at first of interference or question, if the rights of the colonists were too ambitiously put forward. It has been recognized by repeated acts of legislation, both before and since our revolution, until at last, when in 1818, the charter of Charles II. was superseded by a State Constitution, it was confirmed and perpetuated by that instrument. The officers of the crown. never interfered with the charter of the college by proceedings against it. This is presumptive evidence, that they saw no sufficient reason for interference. We shall not argue the case for the crown in their behalf. We have received no retainer for that purpose and at this late period can hardly expect any, and we certainly shall not volunteer. Rector Clap, who some

years later showed his knowledge of the law, by his noted and able argument on the right of visitation and who drew the proposed act of 1745, "the skilled lawyer," as he is called, Governor Fitch, who revised the draught, the trustees who presented it, and the legislature who enacted it, could not have believed that the act would be invalid, nor could the trustees, who afterwards acted upon it, have been of that opinion.

But if "the colony, in strict law," (the epithet on what is in the nature of a constitutional question is of no consequence), "had no power to create a corporation,"* it will be difficult, we ought perhaps rather to say impossible to support its validity. The object of that act was to continue and modify a corporation, or as is alleged to create one and to bestow additional powers upon such corporation, that is, to do what it is supposed the colony had no power to do. If the college were not a corporation, it could not as such take and hold lands and a nonexisting corporation could not acquire title to lands by possession. A similar argument respecting the power to found a college leads to the same result. The right to found a college is said to belong to the king, and that a college can only be founded by his authority or license. Adams & Lambert, 4 Reports, 107. There are authorities for saying, that the former right is implied in the latter. Phillips vs. Bury, 2d Term Rep., 353, was a case, which turned upon the right of visitation and deprivation of the Rector of Exeter College, Oxford. Chief Justice Holt, in the course of his argument says, "the name of a college, which always supposeth a corporation." In Adams vs. Lambert, supra, which was founded upon the Statute of Edward VI. (1 Edw. VI., ch. xiv.) by which colleges, chantries, etc., were given to the king, the court resolved as to the second clause: "Secondly, this second branch explains, that they ought to be incorporations by law or in reputation as is aforesaid," that is as the court explains and distinguishes rightfully reputed as such, having a lawful source or

"It is indeed probably true that the Colony in strict law had no power to create a corporation." Prof. S. E. Baldwin, vol. iii. Transactions of New Haven Historical Society, p. 412. The founders of Yale College obtained in the act of 1701, a license for a College from those claiming to act by his [the king's] authority.”—Id. p. 429.

beginning, but with some defects in the manner of their creation, "or otherwise land could not belong to them." If the colony had no power to found a college or to incorporate one, we are thus led to the spectacle of one of our, oldest and most venerable colleges being for nearly a hundred years, and until the recognition of its charter by the State, without a valid charter. A growing feeling of independence would not save it, as long as the colony was subject and acknowledged its subjection to the English crown and acted under its charter. The voluntary requirement in the act of 1745, of oaths of allegiance and loyalty (the colonial charter required no oaths of allegiance), is not very pregnant proof of such feeling of independence. We cannot but suspect error in the positions or reasoning, which lead to such an extraordinary result.

Unquestionably by the law of England, a charter of incorporation or of a college must have proceeded from the crown or from parliament. The pope had no right or color of right to found the College of Greystocke and give its Rector and six priests presentable livings, as was the case in Dyer. But that does not touch the point of inquiry. The question is not as to the rights of the crown but as to the rights of the colonists. The charter of Charles II, bearing date April 20, 1662, proceeded from the crown and went into full operation on the union of the colonies of Connecticut and New Haven in 1665. It gave certain power and authority, derived from the crown, to the colony, and the question is as to the extent of such power and authority.

We shall consider first, the extent of the grant, and secondly the restriction upon it. As to the first of these points, and in support of our construction, we premise that so liberal were the provisions of this charter, that under it as a State Constitution the State of Connecticut until 1818, exercised all the powers of a sovereign State with the approbation and support of its courts. It chartered incorporations, as for example. incorporated cities and banks, and if it did not found a college. or give leave to found one, it was because Yale College was already founded, which it recognized, to which it made grants, and of whose corporation after 1792, its Governor and Lieutenant-Governor and six senior assistants, and afterwards six senior

senators became members. The amplitude of the grant contained in the royal charter for the purposes of government, it would seem, cannot well be questioned. This charter created a public corporation, with governmental and political powers over a vast territory, whose boundaries extend westward to the South sea. The crown granted all this territory to the colonists with the reservation only of a royalty on the precious metals. It established the government of a Governor, deputy Governor, and twelve assistants, and the deputies of the towns, all annually elected, the assistants and deputies being required to meet in General Assembly twice a year. It authorized the colony to have a common seal, to create judicial tribunals, make freemen and officers, impose fines, to array the citizens in military force for the common defence, to resist invasion, to exercise martial law in all cases where it might be necessary, and to carry on commerce.

Among other things, the charter gave to the Legislature power as follows: "From time to time to make, ordain and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes, ordinances, directions, and instructions, not contrary to the laws of the realm of England, as well for settling the forms and ceremonies of government and magistracy fit and necessary for said plantation. . . . As by the said Assembly or the major part of them shall be thought fit, and for the directing, ruling and disposing of all other matters and things whereby our said people inhabiting there may be so religiously, peaceably, and civilly governed as their good life and orderly conversation may win and invite the natives to the knowledge. and obedience of the true God and the Saviour of mankind and the Christian faith," etc.

It is to be considered, that the charter is for no definite period but is for the present and future government of a great territory in the Western World then in a great measure unknown. The colonists were then indeed few, but immigration was permitted and encouraged by the charter itself and was expected. It is to be noticed, that there is no limitation of the kind of laws which might be enacted, except that they were to be wholesome and reasonable. The expression is "all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws." "As by the said Assem