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 on. ward 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 grad uate 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 judicatories, 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 which had little practical significance, inasmuch as no obligation was imposed as to annulling laws objectionable in this respect, or transmitting 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.

The restriction contained in the language "not contrary to the laws of the realm of England," does not qualify the grant but defines it, as not authorizing any illegal acts or measures. The law would have implied that, if the words had been omitted "Illegality is not to be presumed " (1 B. and A. 461, Nelson vs. Eaton, 26 N. Y., 415). An authority lawful on its face will not be deemed to authorize an illegal act, unless it is otherwise shown that something illegal was intended. It should be so construed as to be valid rather than fail. They merely forbid a construction which might avoid the grant and remind those to whom the grant is made of the duty of obedience to the law. They are the usual and formal clause of restriction in acts of incorporation. Similar language is used in the orig. inal charter of the college and in the act of 1745. The former authorizes the trustees to make such rules and orders as "to them shall seem meet and most conducive to the aforesaid end thereof, so as such rules be not repugnant to the laws of the civil government." The act of 1745 authorizes the President and Fellows "to make, ordain and establish all such wholesome and reasonable laws, rules and ordinances, not repugnant to the laws of England, nor the laws of this colony, as they shall think fit or proper for the instruction and education of the students, and ordering, governing, ruling and managing the said college, etc., which shall be laid before this Assembly, as often as required, and may also be repealed or disallowed by this Assembly when they shall think proper." They are only to be laid before the Assembly when required. No approval or action upon them by the Legislature is necessary. It may repeal or disallow them, as Congress may repeal or annul the laws of the territories, or as the King or Queen in Privy Council could repeal colonial statutes. So held as to the colonial laws of New York (The People vs. the Rector of Trinity Church, 22 N. Y., 49 and 50), and that they were in full force until disallowed.

No right of visitation is conferred or reserved. No power of initiation is given. No right of interference with the administration of the college by its officers and faculty or with the decisions in particular cases. Nor is any right of removal vested in the Legislature, for that is regulated by the act and

is placed in the corporation together with the right of appointment of all officers, professors and tutors of the college. Only the rules, ordinances and regulations of the President and Fellows are to be so laid, when required. Thus the college, in which are interested its graduates and friends in all parts of the United States, we might almost say in all parts of the world, is placed in a good degree of safety from political and popular and local impulse, to pursue its high and peaceable vocation.

The restriction "not contrary to the laws of the realm of England" in the charter of Charles II. must also mean: 1. Such laws as are binding on the colony. Those statutes, in which the colonies were not named did not extend to the colonies or bind them. "Our American plantations are . . . not bound by any act of parliament unless particularly named." 1 Bl. Com., introduction, see 4. 2. Laws which were applicable to the condition of the colony. "Such colonies carry with them only so much of the English law, as is applicable to their own situation and the condition of an infant colony." 1st Bl. Com., ibidem. For example, laws relating to feudal tenures, to non-conformity, to the support of the established religion, to municipal government and local taxation, would not apply and the colony was not required to conform to them.

3. Laws which were inconsistent with the grant, which the king had made and might lawfully make, were not included. The king granted the territory to the colony in free and common socage. After that he could have no feudal rights. They were inconsistent with his grant. The law which secures the owner of land in his proprietorship, after his conveyance of the land in fee simple secures as owner not him but his grantee. If no college could be founded without the license or authority of the crown in the colony, yet if that license and authority were granted to the colony and he could lawfully make the grant, the objection disappears.

The statute of Edward VI. (1 Edw. 6, ch. xiv.) which gave colleges, etc., to the king, did not, as we understand it, restrain the king. It could not name or designate the American colonies for they did not then exist. It also would appear that the act is limited to colleges, which were in being before its passage. Its language is, "all manner of colleges, free chapels,

chauntries having been in esse within five years before the first day of the present parliament, which were not in the actual and real possession of the said late king [Henry VIII.] nor in the actual or real possession of the king, our sovereign lord that now is [Edward VI.] not excepted," etc. It is also provided that the act shall not extend to any college, etc., had or obtained by the assent, license, grant, etc., of the said Henry VIII. or Edward VI., who were Protestant princes. That act was intended to suppress superstitious uses. Adams & Lambert's case, 4 Rep. 107. See preamble. This was an action of ejectment for the recovery of the possession of real estate. The court say that the statute gives five branches to the king, which it enumerates, only the first two of which are applicable to colleges and touch the question. The court say, "Are given to the king. 1st. All manner of colleges, free chapels, chauntries, etc.; 2d. All manors, lands, tenements, etc., belonging to them or any of them." As to the 2d clause it was resolved: "1st. That those words were necessary to be added, for otherwise by the gift of the college, chauntry or free chapel nothing would be given to the king but the scite of the college, or chauntry or free chapel, as is agreed. 7 Eliz., Dyer 233, b, pl. 15 and 29. Ass. 53."

Without further examination of the statute, which we have not thought necessary, it appears to us that the statute does not apply to the English colonies in America.

The superstitious uses which it was intended to suppress did not exist there. Does any body suppose that the sites of William and Mary and Dartmouth Colleges and the lands belonging to them were transferred by the statute to the king? Or that the title to the site and real estate of Yale College would have been vested in the king, if it had been chartered directly by him? The charter of the king itself granted to the colony all the land within its bounds. But whether the statute by its silence, its terms, and the nature of its provisions shows, as we think it plainly does, that it was inapplicable to the colony or not, it does not restrain the fullness of the royal grant. The charter of Yale College was granted, not in opposition to the king but by virtue of his authority. No other law of England is suggested as having been contra