Gambar halaman

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 annu. ally elected, the assistants and deputies being required to meet in General Assembly twice a year. It authorized the colony to bave a common seal, to create judicial tribunals, make free. men and officers, iinpose 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, stat. utes, 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 un. known. 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 Assembly or the major part of them shall be thought fit.” The Legislature was to judge of their fitness. That was left to their discretion. They were not intended to be laws for an ignorant and degraded people but for a religious, peaceable and civilized community of Englishmen and their descendants, of such a nature that the colonists by the conspicuous example of their good life and orderly conduct sbould win and attract the savage natives of the country to the Christian faith. Had the Legislature no power to provide for the education of such a community according to its wants ? Evidently it had and to determine the kind of education which should be provided and the institution, “fit" for that purpose. It is reasonable to conclude, that it was expected and intended that persons should be educated in such manner as to be qualified for the different offices of magistracy and representation provided for in the charter and as successors to supply the place of the ministers of the gospel in the colony, many of whom were college men, as teachers of the Christian faith and those who would give like instruction to future immigrants and to the descendants of the colonists. This is what the original charter of Yale College intends.

The colonial charter is not to be construed with the strictness of a penal statute but with the liberality of a remedial one or the fairness with which a constitution of government should be construed, so as neither to enlarge or contract its meaning and according to the familiar rule by which the words of a grant shall be taken most strongly against the grantor, because he chooses his own words and, if he intended to restrain their meaning, should bave so expressed himself. Whether that rule ordinarily applies to the crown or not is of no consequence. The charter itself provides that all the king's subjects in the colony shall enjoy all the privileges of free and natural subjects within the realm of England and that it "sball be construed” as shall be "most favorable on the beball and for the best interest” of the colony, “ although express men. tion . . of the certainty of the premises or any of them . not made.” The final provision is : “And lastly we do for us our heirs and successors grant to the said Governor and Company and their successors by these presents, That these our


letters patent shall be firm, good, and effectual in the law, to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatever, according to our true intent and meaning hereinbefore declared, as shall be construed, reputed, and adjudged most favorable on the behalf and for the best interest and behoof of the said Governor and Company and their successors, although express mention of the true yearly value or certainty of the premises or any them or any other gifts or grants by us or by any of our progenitors or predecessors . . . is not made, or any statute, act, ordinance, provision, proclamation or restriction heretofore had, made, enacted, ordained, or any other matter, cause or thing to the contrary whereof notwithstanding.”

This favorable and beneficial construction solves the doubt, if any could be justly entertained, that “all manner of whole. some and reasonable laws" include the right of the colony to provide for education both higher and lower, to charter a college for that purpose, if the General Assembly “thought fit,” and as a necessary means of its proper

and successful management, and to enable it to hold lands, to incorporate it, unless there is some legal restriction, which restrains in this respect the fullness of the grant.

Under the Massachusetts charter a charter had been granted to Harvard University by the legislature of the colony, as must have been well known in England, and to this time had remained undisturbed. No charter for a college in America had been granted directly by the crown. The charter of William and Mary in 1693 and that of Dartmouth in 1769 bear date, the one more than thirty years, the other more than a hundred years after the date of the Connecticut charter. The charter of King's (Columbia] College, founding and incorporating it, although in the name of George 2d, did not proceed directly from the king. It was granted in 1754, on a petition to the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of New York and his council, by the Lieutenant-Governor with the assent of the council under the seal of the province, and was directed to be recorded in the book of patents of the province, not of England. That charter was confirmed by a statute of the State of New York in 1787. So the charter of Queen's College in New Jersey, now Rutgers, although in the name of

George the Third, was granted in 1770, by letters patent, under the great seal of the province of New Jersey by the Governor and Commander-in-Chief of the province. This charter was confirmed by the State in 1781 and 1790 with few exceptions. The corporate name of trustees of Queen's College, New Jersey, given in the charter, was in 1828 changed to trustees of Rutgers College in New Jersey. It is not necessary to claim that the king could not afterwards have given a special charter for a college in Connecticut in consequence of his delegation of power. A power of attorney or an agency does not usually disable the principal, nor the creation of a corporation prevent the creation of another, as has been held even in the case of contiguous bridges. Mohawk Bridge Co. vs. Union & Schenectady R. R. Co.; 6 Paige, 554, Charles River Bridge Co. and Warren Bridge case, XI. Peters R., 420. The colonists, possibly for want of good advice, which often comes too late, did not think it necessary to apply to the king.

Ten years earlier, or in 1652, the General Assembly of the colony of New Haven had resolved to establish a college at New Haven, if Connecticut would join. In the years 1654 onward to 1660, measures had been taken in the same colony for the same purpose, donations made in New Haven and Milford and under Gov. Hopkins' will for that object and an act of the legislature passed to promote it (1 Trumbull, 291, 292). The colonial charter was procured by the agent of the colony of Connecticut. Governor Winthrop, a well known college graduate of Trinity, Dublin, and said to have been connected with the foundation of the Royal Society, though it appears that he was not one of the founders but the friend and correspondent of some of them, was the agent and the chief promoter. The interests of education could not have been forgotten. There is nothing in the circumstances to narrow the natural and beneficial construction of the charter but much to give force and direction to it.

The revisers of the revision made in 1821 of the Statutes of Connecticut on the adoption of the State Constitution, Ch. J. Swift, Lemuel Whitman, and Thomas Day, Esq., the wellknown reporter of the decisions of the highest Court of the State, under their signatures, say of the scope of the charter,

"they" (our ancestors) “obtained from Charles II. a charter bottomed on the constitution which they had formed by voluntary compact, which not only secured the most extensive rights and privileges, but rendered them almost independent of the British crown. It is inexplicable that such a monarch as Charles, who had little regard to the rights of his subjects at home, should have given to a distant colony such extensive powers. . . . They had unlimited authority to erect judicato. ries, to appoint officers, and to establish all necessary laws and regulations. A government more popular, in form and in principle, can hardly be imagined. So slight had been our connection with that government, and so little had they interfered in our internal concerns, that the transition from a dependent to a sovereign State, was almost imperceptible. No alteration was necessary but to erase the name of His Majesty,' from our legal proceedings, and insert the name and authority of the State ; and the administration of the government proceeded in the same manner as before the declaration of independence" (Preface to the revision). The diligent and accurate historian of New England, Mr. Palfrey, says: Gov. Winthrop " had obtained for his colony a royal charter conveying the most extraordinary privileges.” “The charter contained no reservations as to any of the powers appurtenant to a political community strictly independent, except that the local legislature could make no laws 'contrary to the laws and statutes of the realm of England ;' a provision wbich had little practical significance, inasmuch as no obligation was imposed as to annulling laws objectionable in this respect, or transmit. ting laws to England for examination. It was not even enjoined that the oaths of allegiance and supremacy should be taken in the colony, though two assistants were to be empow. ered to administer them [' to all and every person or persons, which shall at any time hereafter go or pass into the said colony of Connecticut].'” 2 Palfrey's History of New England, 540, 541.

Mr. Palfrey suggests as a reason why Lord Clarendon was “ brought to make a formal grant of what almost amounted to colonial independence," the desire to raise up a rival power to Massachusetts in the New England Confederacy. (Id. 542). We do not think that we mistake the scope of the grant in the charter.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »