The Speeches of 
 
 Daniel Webster 
 
 SELECTED BY 
 
 REV. B. F. TEFFT, D.D..LL.D. 
 
 Embracing his acknowledged masterpieces m each depart- 
 ment of the great field of intellectual action 
 
 Lincoln Centenary Association 
 New York
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 IT has been my intention in this volume to give, not 
 only Mr. Webster's acknowledged master-pieces, but his 
 master-piece in each department of the great field of in- 
 tellectual action which he occupied in life ; and, though 
 there are other speeches, which would compare favorably 
 with some that have found a place here, there is none, it 
 is believed, which could be regarded as superior, in any of 
 the divisions, to the one selected. 
 
 In several of the great speeches not included in this 
 collection, there are single passages, which, perhaps, could 
 scarcely be surpassed, if some of them could be equaled, 
 by any passages found in the speeches included in this' 
 volume; but, in making a collection of his master- 
 pieces, the object of search is not single passages, but 
 entire performances; and, taking this as the standard, 
 there is no room for doubt that the volume here presented 
 to the reader contains the ablest and most eloquent pro- 
 ductions bequeathed to the world by the genius of Daniel 
 Webster. They are the productions, which, it is presumed, 
 every gentleman will feel it necessary to have about him ; 
 and it is equally presumable that no enlightened parent, 
 no true-hearted American citizen, will wish to have his 
 sons and daughters grow up without becoming more or 
 less familiar with those master efforts of the greatest 
 man, intellectually, which our common country has yet 
 given us. 
 
 I
 
 4 PREFACE. 
 
 We have heard much in days passed, and may hear 
 more in days to come, of a dissolution of our national con- 
 federacy. Rank doctrines are no doubt at work in dif- 
 ferent sections of the Union, and in the several strata of 
 society. While Mr. Webster lived, he was acknowledged 
 as the ablest supporter and defender of the constitution 
 as it is, and of the country as it is. From one end of the 
 country to the other, from the rocky shores of the Atlantic 
 to the peaceful waters of the Pacific, his name, his voice, 
 his authority, were everywhere known and recognized as 
 the great bulwark of our American nationality, of our 
 American independence, of the integrity and perpetuity of 
 our great and united American republic. At the north, 
 and at the south, from the east to the farthest west, he 
 was known and felt in this high capacity. But he was 
 thus known, not by virtue of any office he ever filled ; for 
 he never rose to an office which made him the representa- 
 tive of more than one state in the confederacy. He was 
 known as such, indeed, not so much as a senator from the 
 patriotic state of Massachusetts, as for his personal ability 
 and efforts, out of congress as well as in it, from the day 
 his name became connected with the history of the coun- 
 try. He was so known, in a word, for the speeches he 
 made, at different times, as the first of American orators 
 devoted to the defence of the institutions and of the exist- 
 ence of the nation ; and these speeches, which are destined 
 to last from generation to generation, constitute the body 
 of this volume. Since the living voice, then, is silent 
 forever in the grave, shall not the immortal utterances of 
 that voice be welcome throughout the whole country, east, 
 west, north, south, as the best creations of American ora- 
 torical genius, and as the most salutary instructions and 
 lessons to the entire American brotherhood? Though 
 born in one section of the country, and settled in after 
 life in another section, he belonged to all sections equally,
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 to the whole people of the republic ; and his name and 
 fame, and his immortal works, should be equally welcome, 
 and will be welcome, in every portion of the Union. 
 
 It will be a curious and instructive exercise for the 
 reader, in the perusal of the several speeches, to look at 
 the dates of their publication, and thus note the progress 
 of Mr. Webster's mind toward that wonderful develop- 
 ment which it finally attained ; and it will be particularly 
 noticed, that between the times of his Dartmouth College 
 argument and of his reply to Hayne, which mark the two 
 extremes of the most brilliant period of his life, there is a 
 space of only twelve years, which were the years interven- 
 ing between the thirty-sixth and the forty-eighth year of 
 his age. 
 
 It is. quite evident that Mr. Webster matured rather 
 slowly ; that his efforts made before the age of fifty were 
 his most popular because the most impassioned efforts ; 
 but that his productions dated beyond the age of fifty, 
 though less fiery, are generally more indicative of his 
 unsurpassed abilities as a man of deep, penetrating, far- 
 reaching, and comprehensive mind. His mind, indeed, 
 seemed to grow clearer as he advanced in years ; and the 
 very latest speeches, though not so striking to superficial 
 hearers, will be regarded hereafter, by close and compe- 
 tent readers, as the most finished of all the productions of 
 his tongue and pen. 
 
 One result, it is to be earnestly hoped, will not fail to 
 follow a general circulation of these master-pieces among 
 the generous youth of Mr. Webster's native land. It is 
 to be hoped that his style of elocution, calm, slow digni- 
 fied, natural, unambitious, and yet direct and powerful, 
 will take the place of that showy, flowery, flashy, fitful 
 and boisterous sort of speaking, which seems to be be- 
 coming too common, which so breaks down the health of 
 the speaker, and which is nevertheless most likely to
 
 6 PREFACE. 
 
 strike the feelings and corrupt the judgment of the young. 
 Let me here say plainly, that, having heard Mr. Webster 
 speak very frequently, on almost every variety of oc- 
 casion, I have never heard him, even when most excited, 
 raise his voice higher, or sink it lower, or utter his words 
 more rapidly than he could do consistently with the most 
 perfect ease, and with the utmost dignity of movement. 
 He never played the orator. He never seemed to be mak- 
 ing any effort. What he had to say he said as easily, as 
 naturally, and yet as forcibly as possible, with such a 
 voice as he used in common conversation, only elevated 
 and strengthened to meet the demands of his large audi- 
 ences. So intent did he seem to be, so intent he certainly 
 was, in making his hearers see and feel as he did, in rela- 
 tion to the subject of the hour, that no one thought of his 
 manner, or whether he had any manner, till the speech 
 was over. That is oratory, true oratory ; and it is to be 
 hoped that the more general distribution of these master- 
 pieces will have the ultimate effect of making it the Ameri- 
 can standard of oratory from this age to all future ages. 
 
 B. F. TEFFT.
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 The Dartmouth College Case 9 
 
 Plymouth Oration 81 
 
 The Greek Revolution 119 
 
 The Bunker Hill Monument 163 
 
 Eulogy on Adams and Jefferson 191 
 
 Boston Mechanics' Institution, Boston 239 
 
 The Character-ef Washington 259 
 
 Speech at New York 279 
 
 Letter on Impressment 331 
 
 The Reply to Hayne 345 
 
 Reply to Calhoun 445 
 
 The Constitution and the Union. . . 519
 
 THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE.
 
 DARTMOUTH COLLEGE VS. WOODWARD.* 
 
 Argument in the Case of the Trustees of Dartmouth College vs. 
 Woodward, before the Supreme Court of the United States, on 
 the 10th day of March, 1818. 
 
 THE general question is, whether the acts of the 27th 
 of June, and of the 18th and 26th of December, 1816, are 
 valid and binding on the rights of the plaintiffs, without 
 their acceptance or assent. 
 
 The charter of 1769 created and established a corpora- 
 tion, to consist of twelve persons, and no more ; to be 
 called the " Trustees of Dartmouth College." The pre- 
 amble to the charter recites, that it is granted on the 
 application and request of the Rev. Eleazer Wheelock : 
 That Doctor Wheelock, about the year 1754, established 
 a charity school, at his own expense, and on his own 
 estate and plantation : That for several years, through 
 the assistance of well-disposed persons in America, 
 granted at his solicitation, he had clothed, maintained, 
 and educated a number of native Indians, and employed 
 
 * Mr. Webster's argument in the Dartmouth College Case has 
 stood, from the day of its delivery, as his universally acknowl- 
 edged master-piece in this department of his public labors. The 
 circumstances attending the delivery of the speech, with the 
 origin and nature of the suit, have been given in the previous 
 volume of this work. As the master-pieces are arranged in 
 chronological order, that the growth of Mr. Webster's mind may 
 be noted, the reader will observe that this speech was delivered 
 in 1818, when the author of it was about thirty-six years of age. 
 It is perhaps scarcely necessary to add, that Mr. Webster gained 
 his case. 
 
 11
 
 12 SPEECHES OF DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 them afterwards as missionaries and schoolmasters among 
 the savage tribes : That, his design promising to be use- 
 ful, he had constituted the Rev. Mr. Whitaker to be his 
 attorney, with power to solicit contributions, in England, 
 for the further extension and carrying on of his undertak- 
 ing ; and that he had requested the Earl of Dartmouth, 
 Baron Smith, Mr. Thornton, and other gentlemen, to 
 receive such sums as might be contributed, in England, 
 towards supporting his school, and to be trustees thereof 
 for his charity ; which these persons had agreed to do : 
 And thereupon Doctor Wheelock had executed to them 
 a deed of trust, in pursuance to such agreement between 
 him and them, and, for divers good reasons, had referred 
 it to these persons to determine the place in which the 
 school should be finally established : And, to enable them 
 to form a proper decision on this subject, had laid before 
 them the several offers which had been made to him by 
 the several governments in America, in order to induce 
 him to settle and establish his school within the limits of 
 such governments for their own emolument, and the in- 
 crease of learning in their respective places, as well as 
 for the furtherance of his general original design : And 
 inasmuch as a number of the proprietors of lands in New 
 Hampshire, animated by the example of the governor 
 himself and others, and in consideration that, without 
 any impediment to its original design, the school might 
 be enlarged and improved, to promote learning among 
 the English, and to supply ministers to the people of that 
 province, had promised large tracts of land, provided the 
 school should be established in that province, the persons 
 before mentioned, having weighed the reasons in favor of 
 the several places proposed, had given the preference to 
 this province, and these offers : That Doctor Wheelock 
 therefore represented the necessity of a legal incorpora- 
 tion, and proposed that certain gentlemen in America,
 
 DARTMOUTH COLLEGE VS. WOODWARD. 13 
 
 whom he had already named and appointed hi his will to 
 be trustees of his charity after his decease, should com- 
 pose the corporation. Upon this recital, and hi considera- 
 tion of the laudable original design of Doctor Wheelock, 
 and willing that the best means of education be estab- 
 lished in New Hampshire, for the benefit of the province, 
 the king granted the charter, by the advice of his pro- 
 vincial council. 
 
 The substance of the facts thus recited is, that Doctor 
 Wheelock had founded a charity, on funds owned and 
 procured by himself ; that he was at that time the sole 
 dispenser and sole administrator, as well as the legal 
 owner, of these funds ; that he had made his will, devis- 
 ing this property in trust, to continue the existence and 
 uses of the school, and appointed trustees ; that in this 
 state of things, he had been invited to fix his school per- 
 manently in New Hampshire, and to extend the design 
 of it to the education of the youth of that province ; that 
 before he removed his school, or accepted this invitation, 
 which his friends in England had advised him to accept, 
 he applied for a charter, to be granted, not to whomso- 
 ever the king or government of the province should 
 please, but to such persons as he named and appointed, 
 namely, the persons whom he had already appointed to 
 be the future trustees of his charity by his will. 
 
 The charter, or letters patent, then proceed to create 
 such a corporation, and to appoint twelve persons to con- 
 stitute it, by the name of the " Trustees of Dartmouth Col- 
 lege ; " to have perpetual existence, as such corporation, 
 and with power to hold and dispose of lands and goods, 
 for the use of the college with all the ordinary powers of 
 corporations. They are in their discretion to apply the 
 funds and property of the college to the support of the 
 president, tutors, ministers, and other officers of the col- 
 lege, and such missionaries and schoolmasters as they
 
 14: SPEECHES OF DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 may see fit to employ among the Indians. There are to 
 be twelve trustees forever, and no more ; and they are to 
 have the right of filling vacancies occurring hi their own 
 body. The Rev. Mr. Wheelock is declared to be the 
 founder of the college, and is, by the charter, appointed 
 first president, with power to appoint a successor by his 
 last will. All proper powers of government, superinten- 
 dence, and visitation are vested hi the trustees. They are 
 to appoint and remove all officers at their discretion; to 
 fix their salaries, and assign their duties ; and to make all 
 ordinances, orders, and laws for the government of the 
 students. And to the end that the persons who had acted 
 as depositaries of the contributions in England, and who 
 had also been contributors themselves, might be satisfied 
 of the good use of their contributions, the president was 
 annually, or when required, to transmit to them an ac- 
 count of the progress of the institution and the disburse- 
 ments of its funds, so long as they should continue to act 
 in that trust. These letters patent are to be good and ef- 
 fectual, in law, against the king, his heirs and successors 
 forever, without further grant or confirmation ; and the 
 trustees are to hold all and singular these privileges, ad- 
 vantages, liberties, and immunities to them and to their 
 successors forever. 
 
 No funds are given to the college by this charter. A 
 corporate existence and capacity are given to the trustees, 
 with the privileges and immunities which have been men- 
 tioned, to enable the founder and his associates the better 
 to manage the funds which they themselves had contrib- 
 uted, and such others as they might afterwards obtain. 
 
 After the institution thus created and constituted had 
 existed, uninterruptedly and usefully, nearly fifty years, 
 the legislature of New Hampshire passed the acts in ques- 
 tion. 
 
 The first act makes the twelve trustees under the
 
 DARTMOUTH COLLEGE VS. WOODWARD. 15 
 
 charter, and nine other individuals, to be appointed by 
 the governor and council, a corporation, by a new name ; 
 and to this new corporation transfers all the property, 
 rights, powers, liberties, and privileges of the old corpora- 
 tion ; with further power to establish new colleges and 
 an institute, and to apply all or any part of the funds to 
 these purposes ; subject to the power and control of a 
 board of twenty-five overseers, to be appointed by the 
 governor and council. 
 
 The second act makes further provisions for executing 
 the objects of the first, and the last act authorizes the de- 
 fendant, the treasurer of the plaintiffs, to retain and hold 
 their property, against their will. 
 
 If these acts are valid, the old corporation is abolished, 
 and a new one created. The first act does, in fact, if it 
 can have any effect, create a new corporation, and trans- 
 fer to it all the property and franchises of the old. The 
 two corporations are not the same, in anything which es- 
 sentially belongs to the existence of a corporation. They 
 have different names, and different powers, rights, and 
 duties. Their organization is wholly different. The 
 powers of the corporation are not vested hi the same, or 
 similar hands. In one, the trustees are twelve, and no 
 more. In the other, they are twenty-one. In one, the 
 power is in a single board. In the other, it is divided be- 
 tween two boards. Although the act professes to include 
 the old trustees in the new corporation, yet that was with- 
 out their assent, and against their remonstrance ; and no 
 person can be compelled to be a member of such a corpora- 
 tion against his will. It was neither expected nor in- 
 tended that they should be members of the new corpora- 
 tion. The act itself treats the old corporation as at an 
 end, and going on the ground that all its functions have 
 ceased, it provides for the first meeting and organization 
 of the new corporation. It expressly provides, also, that
 
 16 SPEECHES OF DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 the new corporation shall have and hold all the property 
 of the old ; a provision which would be quite unnecessary 
 upon any other ground, than that the old corporation was 
 dissolved. But if it could be contended that the effect of 
 these acts was not entirely to abolish the old corporation, 
 yet it is manifest that they impair and invade the rights, 
 property, and powers of the trustees under the charter, 
 as a corporation, and the legal rights, privileges, and im- 
 munities which belong to them, as individual members of 
 the corporation. 
 
 The twelve trustees were the sole legal owners of all 
 the property acquired under the charter. By the acts, 
 others are admitted, against their will, to be joint owners. 
 The twelve individuals who are trustees were possessed 
 of all the franchises and immunities conferred by the 
 charter. By the acts, nine other trustees and twenty-five 
 overseers are admitted, against their will, to divide these 
 franchises and immunities with them. 
 
 If, either as a corporation or as individuals, they have 
 any legal rights, this forcible intrusion of others violates 
 those rights as manifestly as an entire and complete ouster 
 and dispossession. These acts alter the whole constitution 
 of the corporation. They affect the rights of the whole 
 body as a corporation, and the rights of the individuals 
 who compose it. They revoke corporate powers and fran- 
 chises. They alienate and transfer the property of the 
 college to others. By the charter, the trustees had a right 
 to fill vacancies in their own number. This is now taken 
 away. They were to consist of twelve, and, by express 
 provision, of no more. This is altered. They and their 
 successors, appointed by themselves, were forever to hold 
 the property. The legislature has found successors for 
 them, before their seats are vacant. The powers and 
 privileges which the twelve were to exercise exclusively, 
 are now to be exercised by others. By one of the acts,
 
 DARTMOUTH COLLEGE VS. WOODWARD. 17 
 
 they are subjected to heavy penalties if they exercise their 
 offices, or any of those powers and privileges granted them 
 by charter, and which they had exercised for fifty years. 
 They are to be punished for not accepting the new grant, 
 and taking its benefits. This, it must be confessed, is 
 rather a summary mode of settling a question of constitu- 
 tional right. Not only are new trustees forced into the 
 corporation, but new trusts and uses are created. The 
 college is turned into a university. Power is given to 
 create new colleges, and, to authorize any diversion of 
 the funds which may be agreeable to the new boards, 
 sufficient latitude is given by the undefined power of 
 establishing an institute. To these new colleges, and this 
 institute, the funds contributed by the founder, Doctor 
 Wheelock, and by the original donors, the Earl of Dart- 
 mouth and others, are to be applied, in plain and manifest 
 disregard of the uses to which they were given. 
 
 The president, one of the old trustees, had a right to his 
 office, salary, and emoluments, subject to the twelve 
 trustees alone. His title to these is now changed, and he 
 is made accountable to new masters. So also all the pro- 
 fessors and tutors. If the legislature can at pleasure 
 make these alterations and changes in the rights and 
 privileges of the plaintiffs, it may, with equal propriety, 
 abolish these rights and privileges altogether. The same 
 power which can do any part of this work can accomplish 
 the whole. And, indeed, the argument on which these 
 acts have been hitherto defended goes altogether on the 
 ground, that this is such a corporation as the legislature 
 may abolish at pleasure ; and that its members have no 
 rights, liberties, franchises, property, or privileges, which 
 the legislature may not revoke, annul, alienate, or transfer 
 to others, whenever it sees fit. 
 
 It will be contended by the plaintiffs, that these acts 
 are not valid and binding on them, without their assent,
 
 18 SPEECHES OF DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 1. Because they are against common right, and the 
 constitution of New Hampshire. 2. Because they are 
 repugnant to the constitution of the United States. 
 
 I am aware of the limits which bound the jurisdiction 
 of the court in this case, and that on this record nothing 
 can be decided but the single question, whether these acts 
 are repugnant to the constitution of the United States. 
 Yet it may assist in forming an opinion of their true 
 nature and character to compare them with those fun- 
 damental principles introduced into the state governments 
 for the purpose of limiting the exercise of the legislative 
 power, and which the constitution of New Hampshire 
 expresses with great fullness and accuracy. 
 
 It is not too much to assert that the legislature of New 
 Hampshire would not have been competent to pass the 
 acts in question, and to make them binding on the plain- 
 tiffs without their assent, even if there had been, in the 
 constitution of New Hampshire, or of the United States, 
 no special restriction on their power, because these acts 
 are not the exercise of a power properly legislative.* 
 Their object and effect are to take away, from one, rights, 
 property, and franchises, and to grant them to another. 
 This is not the exercise of a legislative power. To justify 
 the taking away of vested rights there must be a for- 
 feiture, to adjudge upon and declare which is the proper 
 province of the judiciary. Attainder and confiscation are 
 acts of sovereign power, not acts of legislation. The 
 British parliament, among other unlimited powers, claims 
 that of altering and vacating charters ; not as an act of 
 ordinary legislation, but of uncontrolled authority. It is 
 theoretically omnipotent. Yet, in modern times, it has 
 attempted the exercise of this power very rarely. In a 
 celebrated instance, those who asserted this power in 
 parliament vindicated its exercise only in a case in which 
 * Calder et ux. v. Bull, 3 Dallas, 386.
 
 DARTMOUTH COLLEGE VS. WOODWARD. 19 
 
 it could be shown, 1st. That the charter hi question 
 was a charter of political power; 2d. That there was 
 a great and overruling state necessity, justifying the 
 violation of the charter ; 3d. That the charter had been 
 abused and justly forfeited.* The bill affecting this 
 charter did not pass. Its history is well known. The 
 act which afterwards did pass, passed with the assent of the 
 corporation. Even hi the worst times, this power of 
 parliament to repeal and rescind charters has not often 
 been exercised. The illegal proceedings in the reign of 
 Charles the Second were under color of law. Judgments 
 of forfeiture were obtained in the courts. Such was the 
 case of the quo warranto against the city of London, and 
 the proceedings by which the charter of Massachusetts 
 was vacated. 
 
 The legislature of New Hampshire has no more power 
 over the rights of the plaintiffs than existed somewhere, 
 in some department of government, before the revolution. 
 The British parliament could not have annulled or revoked 
 this grant as an act of ordinary legislation. If it had 
 done it at all, it could only have been in virtue of that 
 sovereign power called omnipotent which does not belong 
 to any legislature in the United States. The legislature 
 of New Hampshire has the same power over this charter 
 which belonged to the king who granted it and no more. 
 By the law of England, the power to create corporations is 
 a part of the royal prerogative.! By the revolution, this 
 power may be considered as having devolved on the leg- 
 islature of the state, and it has accordingly been exercised 
 by the legislature. But the king cannot abolish a corpora- 
 tion, or new-model it, or alter its powers, without its 
 
 * Annual Reg. 1784, p. 160 ; Parlia. Reg. 1783 ; Mr. Burke's 
 Speech on Mr. Fox's E. I. Bill, Burke's Works, 2d Vol. pp. 414, 
 417, 467, 468, 486. 
 
 f 1 Black. 472, 473.
 
 20 SPEECHES OF DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 assent. This is the acknowledged and well-known doc- 
 trine of the common law. " Whatever might have been 
 the notion in former times," says Lord Mansfield, " it is 
 most certain now that the corporations of the universities 
 are lay corporations ; and that the crown cannot take 
 away from them any rights that have been formerly sub- 
 sisting in them under old charters or prescriptive usage." * 
 After forfeiture duly found, the king may regrant the 
 franchises ; but a grant of franchises already granted, and 
 of which no forfeiture has been found, is void. 
 
 Corporate franchises can only be forfeited by trial and 
 judgment.! In case of a new charter or grant to an 
 existing corporation, it may accept or reject it as it pleases, t 
 It may accept such part of the grant as it chooses, and 
 reject the rest. In the very nature of things a charter can- 
 not be forced upon anybody. No one can be compelled to 
 accept a grant ; and without acceptance the grant is neces- 
 sarily void. || It cannnot be pretended that the legislature, 
 as successor to the king in this part of his prerogative, 
 has any power to revoke, vacate, or alter this charter. 
 If, therefore, the legislature has not this power by any 
 specific grant contained in the constitution; nor as in- 
 cluded in its ordinary legislative powers ; nor by reason 
 of its succession to the prerogatives of the crown in this 
 particular, on what ground would the authority to pass 
 these acts rest, even if there were no prohibitory clauses 
 in the constitution and the bill of rights ? 
 
 But there are prohibitions in the constitution and bill 
 of rights of New Hampshire, introduced for the purpose 
 
 * 3 Burr. 1656. 
 
 f 3 T. R. 244. King v. Pasmore. 
 
 i King v. Vice Chancellor of Cambridge, 3 Burr. 1656, 3 T. R. 
 240 Lord Kenyon. 
 
 Idem, 1661, and King v. Pasmore, ubi supra. 
 
 1 Ellis v. Marshall, 2 Mass. Rep. 277 ; 1 Kyd on Corporations, 
 65-6.
 
 DARTMOUTH COLLEGE VS. WOODWARD. 21 
 
 of limiting the legislative power and protecting the rights 
 and property of the citizens. One prohibition is " that 
 no person shall be deprived of his property, immunities, 
 or privileges, put out of the protection of the law, or 
 deprived of his life, liberty, or estate, but by judgment 
 of his peers or the law of the land." 
 
 In the opinion, however, which was given in the court 
 below, it is denied that the trustees under the charter 
 had any property, immunity, liberty, or privilege in this 
 corporation, within the meaning of this prohibition in the 
 bill of rights. It is said that it is a public corporation 
 and public property ; that the trustees have no greater 
 interest in it than any other individuals ; that it is not 
 private property, which they can sell or transmit to their 
 heirs, and that therefore they have no interest in it ; that 
 their office is a public trust, like that of the governor or 
 a judge, and that they have no more concern in the prop- 
 erty of the college than the governor in the property of 
 the state, or than the judges in the fines which they im- 
 pose on the culprits at their bar ; that it is nothing to 
 them whether their powers shall be extended or lessened, 
 any more than it is to their honors whether their juris- 
 diction shall be enlarged or diminished. It is necessary, 
 therefore, to inquire into the true nature and character 
 of the corporation which was created by the charter of 
 1769. 
 
 There are divers sorts of corporations ; and it may be 
 safely admitted that the legislature has more power over 
 some than others.* Some corporations are for govern- 
 ment and political arrangement; such, for example, as 
 cities, counties, and towns in New England. These may 
 be changed and modified as public convenience may 
 require, due regard being always had to the rights of 
 property. Of such corporations, all who live within the 
 1 Wooddeson, 474 ; 1 Black. 467.
 
 22 SPEECHES OF DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 limits are of course obliged to be members, and to sub- 
 mit to the duties which the law imposes on them as such. 
 Other civil corporations are for the advancement of trade 
 and business, such as banks, insurance companies, and 
 the like. These are created, not by general law, but 
 usually by grant. Their constitution is special. It is 
 such as the legislature sees fit to give, and the grantees 
 to accept. 
 
 The corporation hi question is not a civil, although it 
 is a lay corporation. It is an eleemosynary corporation. 
 It is a private charity, originally founded and endowed by 
 an individual, with a charter obtained for it at his request, 
 for the better administration of his charity. "The 
 eleemosynary sort of corporations are such as are con- 
 stituted for the perpetual distributions of the free alms 
 or bounty of the founder of them, to such persons as he 
 has directed. Of this are all hospitals for the mainte- 
 nance of the poor, sick, and impotent ; and all colleges 
 both in our universities and out of them." * Eleemosy- 
 nary corporations are for the management of private 
 property, according to the will of the donors. They are 
 private corporations. A college is as much a private 
 corporation as a hospital; especially a college founded, 
 as this was, by private bounty. A college is a charity. 
 " The establishment of learning," says Lord Hardwicke, 
 " is a charity, and so considered in the statute of Elizabeth. 
 A devise to a college, for their benefit, is a laudable 
 charity, and deserves encouragement."! 
 
 The legal signification of a charity is derived chiefly 
 from the statute 43 Eliz. ch. 4. " Those purposes," says 
 Sir "William Grant, " are considered charitable which 
 that statute enumerates." t Colleges are enumerated as 
 charities in that statute. The government, in these cases, 
 lends its aid to perpetuate the beneficent intention of the 
 * 1 Black. 471. \ 1 Ves. 537. J: 9 Ves. Jun. 405.
 
 DARTMOUTH COLLEGE VS. WOODWARD. 23 
 
 donor, by granting a charter under which his private 
 charity shall continue to be dispensed after his death. 
 This is done either by incorporating the objects of the 
 charity, as, for instance, the scholars hi a college or the 
 poor in a hospital, or by incorporating those who are to 
 be governors or trustees of the charity.* In cases of the 
 first sort, the founder is, by the common law, visitor. In 
 early times it became a maxim, that he who gave the 
 property might regulate it in future. Cujus est dart, ejus 
 est disponere. This right of visitation descended from 
 the founder to his heir as a right of property, and pre- 
 cisely as his other property went to his heir ; and in de- 
 fault of heirs it went to the king, as all other property 
 goes to the king for the want of heirs. The right of 
 visitation arises from the property. It grows out of the 
 endowment. The founder may, if he please, part with it 
 at the time when he establishes the charity, and may 
 vest it in others. Therefore, if he chooses that gover- 
 nors, trustees, or overseers should be appointed in the 
 charter, he may cause it to be done, and his power of 
 visitation will be transferred to them, instead of descend- 
 ing to his heirs. The persons thus assigned or appointed 
 by the founder will be visitors, with all the powers of 
 the founder, in exclusion of his heir.f The right of 
 visitation, then, accrues to them, as a matter of property, 
 by the gift, transfer, or appointment of the founder. 
 This is a private right, which they can assert in all legal 
 modes, and in which they have the same protection of 
 the law as in all other rights. As visitors they may 
 make rules, ordinances, and statutes, and alter and repeal 
 them, as far as permitted so to do by the charter. \ 
 Although the charter proceeds from the crown or the 
 government^ it is considered as the will of the donor. 
 It is obtained at his request. He imposes it as the rule 
 * J Wood. 474, f 1 Black. 471, % 2 Term Rep. 350-1.
 
 24 SPEECHES OF DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 which is to prevail in the dispensation of his bounty in 
 all future times. The king or government which grants 
 the charter is not thereby the founder, but he who 
 furnishes the funds. The gift of the revenues is the 
 foundation.* The leading case on this subject is Phillips 
 y. Bury.f This was an ejectment brought to recover the 
 rectory-house, etc., of Exeter College in Oxford. The 
 question was, whether the plaintiff or defendant was 
 legal rector. Exeter College was founded by an in- 
 dividual, and incorporated by a charter granted by Queen 
 Elizabeth. The controversy turned upon the power of 
 the visitor, and in the discussion of the cause, the nature 
 of college charters and corporations was very fully con- 
 sidered. Lord Holt's judgment, copied from his own 
 manuscript, is in 2 Term Rep., 346. The following is an 
 extract : 
 
 " That we may the better apprehend the nature of a visitor, 
 we are to consider that there are in law two sorts of corporations 
 aggregate ; such as are for public government, and such as are 
 for private charity. Those that are for the public government 
 of a town, city, mystery, or the like, being for public advantage, 
 are to be governed according to the laws of the land. If they 
 make any particular private laws and constitutions, the validity 
 and justice of them is examinable in the king's court. Of 
 these there are no particular private founders, and consequently 
 no particular visitor ; there are no patrons of these ; therefore, 
 if no provision be in the charter how the succession shall con- 
 tinue, the law supplieth the defect of that constitution, and 
 saith it shall be by election ; as mayor, alderman, common coun- 
 cil, and the like. But private and particular corporations for 
 charity, founded and endowed by private persons, are subject to 
 the private government of those who erect them ; and therefore, 
 if there be no visitor appointed by the founder, the law appoints 
 the founder and his heirs to be visitors, who are to act and pro- 
 
 * 1 Black, 480. 
 
 f Reported in 1 Lord Raymond, 5 ; Comb. 265 ; Holt, 715 ; 1 
 Show. 360 ; 4 Mod. 106 ; Skinn. 447.
 
 DARTMOUTH COLLEGE VS. WOODWARD. 25 
 
 ceed according to the particular laws and constitutions assigned 
 them by the founder. It is now admitted on all hands that the 
 founder is patron, and, as founder, is visitor, if no particular 
 visitor be assigned ; so that patronage and visitation are neces- 
 sary consequents one upon another. For this visitatorial power 
 was not introduced by any canons or constitutions ecclesiastical 
 (as was said by a learned gentleman whom I have in my eye, in 
 his argument of this case) : it is an appointment of law. It 
 ariseth from the property which the founder had in the lands 
 assigned to support the charity ; and as he is the author of the 
 charity, the law gives him and his heirs a visitatorial power, that 
 is, an authority to inspect the actions and regulate the behavior 
 of the members that partake of the charity. For it is fit the 
 members that are endowed, and that have the charity bestowed 
 upon them, should not be left to themselves, but pursue the in- 
 tent and design of him that bestowed it upon them. Now indeed, 
 where the poor, or those that receive the charity, are not incor- 
 porated, but there are certain trustees who dispose of the charity, 
 there is no visitor, because the interest of the revenue is not vested 
 in the poor that have the benefit of the charity, but they are sub- 
 ject to the orders and directions of the trustees. But where they 
 who are to enjoy the benefit of the charity are incorporated, 
 there to prevent all perverting of the charity, or to compose 
 differences that may happen among them, there is by law a visita- 
 torial power ; and it being a creature of the founder's own, it is 
 reason that he and his heirs should have that power, unless by 
 the founder it is vested in some other. Now there is no manner 
 of difference between a college and a hospital, except only in 
 degree. A hospital is for those that are poor, and mean, and 
 low, and sickly ; a college is for another sore of indigent person ; 
 but it hath another intent, to study in and breed up persons in 
 the world that have no otherwise to live ; but still it is as much 
 within the reasons as hospitals. And if in a hospital the master 
 and poor are incorporated, it is a college having a common seal 
 to act by, although it hath not the name of a college (which 
 always supposeth a corporation,) because it is of an inferior de- 
 gree ; and in the one case and in the other there must be a 
 visitor, either the founder and his heirs or one appointed by him ; 
 and both are eleemosynary." 
 
 Lord Holt concludes his whole argument by again re- 
 peating, that that college was a private corporation, and
 
 26 SPEECHES OF DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 that the founder had a right to appoint a visitor, and to 
 give him such power as he saw fit.* 
 
 The learned Bishop Stillingfleet's argument in the same 
 cause, as a member of the house of lords, when it was 
 there heard, exhibits very clearly the nature of colleges 
 and similar corporations. It is to the following effect. 
 " That this absolute and conclusive power of visitors is 
 no more than the law hath appointed in other cases, upon 
 commissions of charitable uses: that the common law, 
 and not any ecclesiastical canons, do place the power of 
 visitation in the founder and his heirs, unless he settle it 
 upon others : that although corporations for public govern- 
 ment be subject to the courts of Westminster Hall, 
 which have no particular or special visitors, yet corpora- 
 tions for charity, founded and endowed by private per- 
 sons, are subject to the rule and government of those that 
 erect them ; but where the persons to whom the charity 
 is given are not incorporated, there is no such visitatorial 
 power, because the interest of the revenue is not invested 
 in them ; but where they are, the right of visitation aris- 
 eth from the foundation, and the founder may convey it 
 to whom and in what manner he pleases ; and the visitor 
 acts as founder, and by the same authority which he had, 
 and consequently is no more accountable than he had been : 
 that the king by his charter can make a society to be in- 
 corporated so as to have the rights belonging to persons, 
 as to legal capacities : that colleges, although founded by 
 private persons, are yet incorporated by the king's char- 
 ter ; but although the kings by their charter made the 
 colleges to be such in law, that is, to be legal corpora- 
 tions, yet they left to the particular founders authority 
 to appoint what statutes they thought fit for the regula- 
 tion of them. And not only the statutes, but the ap- 
 pointment of visitors, was left to them, and the manner 
 * 1 Lord Ray. 9.
 
 DARTMOUTH COLLEGE VS. WOODWARD. 27 
 
 of government, and the several conditions on which any 
 persons were to be made or continue partakers of their 
 bounty." * 
 
 These opinions received the sanction of the house of 
 lords, and they seem to be settled and undoubted law. 
 Where there is a charter, vesting proper powers in trus- 
 tees, or governors, they are visitors ; and there is no con- 
 trol in anybody else; except only that the courts of 
 equity or of law will interfere so far as to preserve the 
 revenues and prevent the perversion of the funds, and to 
 keep the visitors within their prescribed bounds. "If 
 there be a charter with proper powers, the charity must 
 be regulated in the manner prescribed by the charter. 
 There is no ground for the controlling interposition of 
 the courts of chancery. The interposition of the courts, 
 therefore, in those instances in which the charities were 
 founded on charters or by act of parliament, and a visitor 
 or governor and trustees appointed, must be referred to 
 the general jurisdiction of the courts in all cases in which 
 a trust conferred appears to have been abused, and not to 
 an original right to direct the management of the charity, 
 or the conduct of the governors or trustees." f " The 
 original of all visitatorial power is the property of the 
 donor, and the power every one has to dispose, direct, 
 and regulate his own property ; like the case of patron- 
 age ; cujus est dare, etc. Therefore, if either the crown 
 or the subject creates an eleemosynary foundation, and 
 vests the charity in the persons who are to receive the 
 benefit of it, since a contest might arise about the govern- 
 ment of it, the law allows the founder or his heirs, or the 
 person specially appointed by him to be visitor, to deter- 
 mine concerning his own creature. If the charity is not 
 vested in the persons who are to partake, but in trustees 
 
 * See Appendix, No. 31 Burn's Eccles. Law, 443. 
 f 2 Fonb. 305-8.
 
 28 SPEECHES OF DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 for their benefit, no visitor can arise by implication, but 
 the trustees have that power." * 
 
 " There is nothing better established," says Lord Com' 
 missioner Eyre, " than that this court does not entertain 
 a general jurisdiction, or regulate and control charities 
 established by charter. There the establishment is fixed 
 and determined and the court has no power to vary it. 
 If the governors established for the regulation of it are 
 not those who have the management of the revenue, this 
 court has no jurisdiction, and if it is ever so much abused, 
 as far as it respects the jurisdiction of this court it is 
 without remedy; but if those established as governors 
 have also the management of the revenues, this court 
 does assume a jurisdiction of necessity, so far as they are 
 to be considered as trustees of the revenue." f 
 
 "The foundations of colleges," says Lord Mansfield, 
 " are to be considered in two views ; namely, as they are 
 corporations and as they are eleemosynary. As eleemosy- 
 nary, they are the creatures of the founder ; he may dele- 
 gate his power, either generally or specially ; he may pre- 
 scribe particular modes and manners, as to the exer- 
 cise of part of it. If he makes a general visitor (as 
 by the general words visitator sit,) the person so con- 
 stituted has all incidental power ; but he may be re- 
 strained as to particular instances. The founder may ap- 
 point a special visitor for a particular purpose, and no 
 further. The founder may make a general visitor ; and 
 yet appoint an inferior particular power, to be executed 
 without going to the visitor in the first instance."t And 
 even if the king be founder, if he grant a charter, in- 
 
 * 1 Ves. 472, Green v. Rutherforth, per Lord Hardwicke. 
 
 f Attorney General v. Foundling Hospital, 2 Ves. Jun. 47. 
 Vide also 2 Kyd on Corporations, 195 ; Cooper's Equity Pleading, 
 292. 
 
 \ St. John's College, Cambridge, v. Todington, 1 Burr. 200.
 
 DARTMOUTH COLLEGE VS. WOODWARD. 99 
 
 corporating trustees and governors, they are visitors, and 
 the king cannot visit.* A subsequent donation, or in- 
 grafted fellowship, falls under the same general visitatorial 
 power, if not otherwise specially provided. f 
 
 In New England, and perhaps throughout the United 
 States, eleemosynary corporations have been generally 
 established in the latter mode ; that is, by incorporating 
 governors, or trustees, and vesting in them the right of 
 visitation. Small variations may have been in some in- 
 stances adopted ; as in the case of Harvard College, where 
 some power of inspection is given to the overseers, but 
 not, strictly speaking, a visitatorial power, which still be- 
 longs, it is apprehended, to the fellows or members of the 
 corporation. In general, there are many donors. A 
 charter is obtained, comprising them all, or some of them, 
 and such others as they choose to include, with the right 
 of appointing their successors. They are thus the visitors 
 of their own charity, and appoint others, such as they may 
 see fit, to exercise the same office in time to come. All 
 such corporations are private. The case before the court 
 is clearly that of an eleemosynary corporation. It is, in 
 the strictest legal sense, a private charity. In King v. St. 
 Catharine's Hall,t that college is called a private eleemosy- 
 nary lay corporation. It was endowed by a private 
 founder, and incorporated by letters patent. And in the 
 same manner was Dartmouth College founded and incor- 
 porated. Doctor Wheelock is declared by the charter to 
 be its founder. It was established by him, on funds con- 
 tributed and collected by himself. 
 
 As such founder, he had a right of visitation, which he 
 assigned to the trustees, and they received it by his con- 
 
 * Attorney General v. Middleton, 2 Ves. 328. 
 f Green v. Rutherforth, ubi supra ; St. John's College, v. Tod- 
 ing ton, ubi supra. 
 1 4 Term. Rep. 233.
 
 30 SPEECHES OF DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 sent and appointment, and held it under the charter.! 
 He appointed these trustees visitors, and in that respect 
 to take place of his heir ; as he might have appointed dev- 
 isees, to take his estate instead of his heir. Little, prob- 
 ably, did he think at that time, that the legislature would 
 ever take away this property and these privileges, and 
 give them to others. Little did he suppose that this 
 charter secured to him and his successors no legal rights. 
 Little did the other donors think so. If they had, the 
 college would have been, what the university is now, a 
 thing upon paper, existing only in name. 
 
 The numerous academies in New England have been 
 established substantially in the same manner. They hold 
 their property by the same tenure, and no other. Nor 
 has Harvard College any surer title than Dartmouth Col- 
 lege. It may to-day have more friends ; but to-morrow 
 it may have more enemies. Its legal rights are the same. 
 So also of Yale College ; and, indeed, of all the others. 
 When the legislature gives to these institutions, it may 
 and does accompany its grants with such conditions as it 
 pleases. The grant of lands by the legislature of New 
 Hampshire to Dartmouth College, in 1789, was accom- 
 panied with various conditions. When donations are 
 made, by the legislature or others, to a charity already 
 existing, without any condition, or the specification of any 
 new use, the donation follows the nature of the charity. 
 Hence the doctrine, that all eleemosynary corporations 
 are private bodies. They are founded by private persons, 
 and on private property. The public cannot be charitable 
 in these institutions. It is not the money of the public, 
 but of private persons, which is dispensed. It may be 
 public, that is general, in its uses and advantages ; and 
 the state may very laudably add contributions of its own 
 to the funds ; but it is still private in the tenure of 
 * Black, ubi supra.
 
 DARTMOUTH COLLEGE VS. WOODWARD. 31 
 
 the property, and in the right of administering the 
 funds. 
 
 If the doctrine laid down by Lord Holt, and the house 
 of lords, in Phillips v. Bury, and recognized and estab- 
 lished in all the other cases, be correct, the property of 
 this college was private property ; it was vested in the 
 trustees by the charter, and to be administered by them, 
 according to the will of the founder and donors, as ex- 
 pressed in the charter. They were also visitors of the 
 charity, in the most ample sense. They had, there- 
 fore, as they contend, privileges, property, and immu- 
 nities, within the true meaning of the bill of rights. 
 They had rights, and still have them, which they can as- 
 sert against the legislature, as well as against other wrong- 
 doers. It makes no difference, that the estate is holden 
 for certain trusts. The legal estate is still theirs. They 
 have a right in the property, and they have a right of 
 visiting and superintending the trust ; and this is an ob- 
 ject of legal protection, as much as any other right. The 
 charter declares that the powers conferred on the trus- 
 tees are " privileges, advantages, liberties, and immuni- 
 ties ; " and that they shall be forever holden by them and 
 their successors. The New Hampshire bill of rights de- 
 clares that no one shall be deprived of his " property, 
 privileges, or immunities," but by judgment of his peers, 
 or the law of the land. The argument on the other side 
 is, that, although these terms may mean something in the 
 bill of rights, they mean nothing in this charter. But 
 they are terms of legal signification, and very properly 
 used in the charter. They are equivalent with franchises. 
 Blackstone says that franchise and liberty are used as 
 synonymous terms. And after enumerating other liber- 
 ties and franchises, he says : " It is likewise a franchise 
 for a number of persons to be incorporated and subsist as 
 Q. body politic, with a power to maintain perpetual succes-
 
 32 SPEECHES OF DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 sion and do other corporate acts ; and each individual 
 member of such a corporation is also said to have a fran- 
 chise or freedom." * 
 
 Liberties is the term used in Magna Charta as including 
 franchises, privileges, immunities, and all the rights which 
 belong to that class. Professor Sullivan says, the term 
 signifies the "privileges that some of the subjects, whether 
 single persons or bodies corporate, have above others by 
 the lawful grant of the king ; as the chattels of felons or 
 outlaws, and the lands and privileges of corporations"^ 
 
 The privilege, then, of being a member of a corporation, 
 under a lawful grant, and of exercising the rights and 
 powers of such member, is such a privilege, liberty or fran- 
 chise, as has been the object of legal protection, and the 
 subject of a legal interest, from the time of Magna Charta 
 to the present moment. The plaintiffs have such an in- 
 terest in this corporation, individually, as they could as- 
 sert and maintain in a court of law, not as agents of the 
 public, but in their own right. Each trustee has a fran- 
 chise, and if he be disturbed in the enjoyment of it, he 
 would have redress, on appealing to the law, as promptly 
 as for any other injury. If the other trustees should con- 
 spire against any one of them to prevent his equal right 
 and voice in the appointment of a president or professor, 
 or in the passing of any statute or ordinance of the col- 
 lege, he would be entitled to his action, for depriving him 
 of his franchise. It makes no difference, that this prop- 
 erty is to be holden and administered, and these fran- 
 chises exercised, for the purpose of diffusing learning. 
 Xo principle and no case establishes any such distinction. 
 The public may be benefited by the use of this property. 
 But this does not change the nature of the property, or 
 the rights of the owners. The object of the charter may 
 be public good ; so it is in all other corporations ; and 
 * 2 Black. Com. 37. t Sull. 41st Lect.
 
 DARTMOUTH COLLEGE VS. WOODWARD. 33 
 
 this would as well justify the resumption or violation of 
 the grant in any other case as hi this. In the case of an 
 advowson, the use is public, and the right cannot be 
 turned to any private benefit or emolument. It is never- 
 theless a legal private right, and the property of the 
 owner, as emphatically as his freehold. The rights and 
 privileges of trustees, visitors, or governors of incorpo- 
 rated colleges, stand on the same foundation. They are so 
 considered, both by Lord Holt and Lord Hardwicke.* 
 
 To contend that the rights of the plaintiffs may be taken 
 away, because they derive from them no pecuniary benefit 
 or private emolument, or because they cannot be trans- 
 mitted to their heirs, or would not be assets to pay their 
 debts, is taking an extremely narrow view of the subject. 
 According to this notion, the case would be different, if, 
 in the charter, they had stipulated for a commission on 
 the disbursement of the funds ; and they have ceased to 
 have any interest in the property, because they have un- 
 dertaken to administer it gratuitously. 
 
 It cannot be necessary to say much in refutation of the 
 idea, that there cannot be a legal interest, or ownership, 
 in anything which does not yield a pecuniary profit ; as if 
 the law regarded no rights but the rights of money, and 
 of visible, tangible property. Of what nature are all rights 
 of suffrage ? No elector has a particular personal inter- 
 est ; but each has a legal right, to be exercised at his own 
 discretion, and it cannot be taken away from him. The 
 exercise of this right directly and very materially affects 
 the public ; much more so than the exercise of the priv- 
 ileges of a trustee of this college. Consequences of the 
 utmost magnitude may sometimes depend on the exercise 
 of the right of suffrage by one or a few electors. Nobody 
 was ever yet heard to contend, however, that on that ac- 
 
 * Phillips v. Bury. Green v. Rutherforth, tt&i supra. Vide 
 also 2 Black. 21.
 
 34 SPEECHES OF DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 count the public might take away the right, or impair it. 
 This notion appears to be borrowed from no better source 
 than the repudiated doctrine of the three judges in the 
 Aylesbury case.* That was an action against a returning 
 officer for refusing the plaintiff's vote, in the election of a 
 member of parliament. Three of the judges of the king's 
 bench held, -that the action could not be maintained, be- 
 cause, among other objections, " it was not any matter of 
 profit, either in presenti, or infuturo" It would not en- 
 rich the plaintiff inpresenti, nor would it infuturo go to 
 his heirs, or answer to pay his debts. But Lord Holt and 
 the house of lords were of another opinion. The judgment 
 of the three judges was reversed, and the doctrine they 
 held, having been exploded for a century, seems now for 
 the first time to be revived. 
 
 Individuals have a right to use their own property for 
 purposes of benevolence, either towards the public, or 
 towards other individuals. They have a right to exercise 
 this benevolence in such lawful manner as they may 
 choose; and when the government has induced and 
 excited it, by contracting to give perpetuity to the stipu- 
 lated manner of exercising it, to rescind this contract, 
 and seize on the property, is not law, but violence. 
 Whether the state will grant these franchises, and under 
 what conditions it will grant them, it decides for itself. 
 But when once granted, the constitution holds them to be 
 sacred, till forfeited for just cause. 
 
 That all property, of which the use may be beneficial 
 to the public, belongs therefore to the public, is quite a 
 new doctrine. It has no precedent, and is supported by 
 no known principle. Doctor Wheelock might have an- 
 swered his purposes, in this case, by executing a private 
 deed of trust. He might have conveyed his property to 
 trustees, for precisely such uses as are described in this 
 
 * Ashby v. White, 2 Lord Raym. 938.
 
 DARTMOUTH COLLEGE VS. WOODWARD. 35 
 
 charter. Indeed, it appears that he had contemplated the 
 establishing of his school in that manner, and had made 
 his will, and devised the property to the same persons 
 who were afterwards appointed trustees hi the charter. 
 Many literary and other charitable institutions are 
 founded in that manner, and the trust is renewed, and 
 conferred on other persons, from time to time, as occasion 
 may require. In such a case, no lawyer would or could 
 say, that the legislature might divest the trustees, con- 
 stituted by deed or will, seize upon the property, and give 
 it to other persons, for other purposes. And does the 
 granting of a charter, which is only done to perpetuate the 
 trust in a more convenient manner, make any difference ? 
 Does or can this change the nature of the charity, and turn 
 it into a public political corporation ? Happily, we are 
 not without authority on this point. It has been con- 
 sidered and adjudged. Lord Hardwicke says, hi so many 
 words, " The charter of the crown cannot make a charity 
 more or less public, but only more permanent than it 
 would otherwise be." * 
 
 The granting of the corporation is but making the trust 
 perpetual, and does not alter the nature of the charity. 
 The very object sought hi obtaining such charter, and in 
 giving property to such a corporation, is to make and keep 
 it private property and to clothe it with all the security 
 and inviolability of private property. The intent is, that 
 there shall be a legal private ownership, and that the 
 legal owners shall maintain, and protect the property, for 
 the benefit of those for whose use it was designed. Who 
 ever endowed the public ? Who ever appointed a legisla- 
 ture to administer his charity ? Or who ever heard, be- 
 fore, that a gift to a college, or hospital, or an asylum, was, 
 hi reality, nothing but a gift to the state ? 
 
 The state of Vermont is a principal donor to Dartmouth 
 * 2 Atk. 87, Attorney-General v. Pearce.
 
 36 SPEECHES OF DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 College. The lands given lie in that state. This appears 
 in the special verdict. Is Vermont to be considered as 
 having intended a gift to the state of New Hampshire in 
 this case, as, it has been said, is to be the reasonable con- 
 struction of all donations to the college ? The legislature 
 of New Hampshire affects to represent the public, and 
 therefore claims a right to control all property destined 
 to public use. What hinders Vermont from considering 
 herself equally the representative of the public, and from 
 resuming her grants, at her own pleasure? Her right 
 to do so is less doubtful than the power of New Hampshire 
 to pass the laws in question. 
 
 In University v. Foy,* the supreme court of North 
 Carolina pronounced unconstitutional and void a law re- 
 pealing a grant to the University of North Carolina, 
 although that university was originally erected and en- 
 dowed by a statute of the state. That case was a grant of 
 lands, and the court decided that it could not be resumed. 
 This is the grant of a power and capacity to hold lands. 
 Where is the difference of the cases, upon principle ? 
 
 In Terrett u. Taylor,f this court decided that a legisla- 
 tive grant or confirmation of lands, for the purposes 
 of moral and religious instruction, could no more be 
 rescinded than other grants. The nature of the use was 
 not holden to make any difference. A grant to a parish 
 or church, for the purposes which have been mentioned, 
 cannot be distinguished, in respect to the title it confers, 
 from a grant to a college for the promotion of piety and 
 learning. To the same purpose may be cited the case of 
 Pawlett v. Clark. The state of Vermont, by statute, in 
 1794, granted to the respective towns in that state certain 
 glebe lands lying within those towns for the sole use and 
 support of religious worship. In 1799, an act was passed 
 to repeal the act of 1794 ; but this court declared, that 
 * 2 Haywood's Rep. f 9 Cranch, 43.
 
 DARTMOUTH COLLEGE VS. WOODWARD. 37 
 
 the act of 1794, so far as it granted the glebes to the 
 towns, could not afterwards be repealed by the legisla- 
 ture, so as to divest the rights of the towns under the 
 grant." * 
 
 It will be for the other side to show that the nature of 
 the use decides the question whether the legislature has 
 power to resume its grants. It will be for those who 
 maintain such a doctrine to show the principles and cases 
 upon which it rests. It will be for them also to fix the 
 limits and boundaries of their doctrine, and to show what 
 are and what are not such uses as to give the legislature 
 this power of resumption and revocation. And to furnish 
 an answer to the cases cited, it will be for them further 
 to show that a grant for the use and support of religious 
 worship stands on other ground than a grant for the 
 promotion of piety and learning. 
 
 I hope enough has been said to show that the trustees 
 possessed vested liberties, privileges, and immunities, 
 under this charter ; and that such liberties, privileges, 
 and immunities, being once lawfully obtained and vested, 
 are as inviolable as any vested rights of property what- 
 ever. Rights to do certain acts, such, for instance, as the 
 visitation and superintendence of a college and the ap- 
 pointment of its officers, may surely be vested rights, to 
 all legal intents, as completely as the right to possess 
 property. A late learned judge of this court has said, 
 " When I say that a right is vested in a citizen, I mean 
 that he has the power to do certain actions, or to possess 
 certain things, according to the law of the land."t 
 
 If such be the true nature of the plaintiffs' interests 
 under this charter, what are the articles in the New 
 Hampshire bill of rights which these acts infringe ? 
 
 They infringe the second article ; which says, that the 
 citizens of the state have a right to hold and possess prop- 
 * 9 Cranch, 292. t 3 DaU. 394.
 
 38 SPEECHES OF DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 erty. The plaintiffs had a legal property in this charter ; 
 and they had acquired property under it. The acts de- 
 prive them of both. They impair and take away the 
 charter ; and they appropriate the property to new uses, 
 against their consent. The plaintiffs cannot now hold 
 the property acquired by themselves, and which this 
 article says they have a right to hold. 
 
 They infringe the twentieth article. By that article it 
 is declared that, in questions of property, there is a right 
 to trial. The plaintiffs are divested, without trial or 
 judgment. 
 
 They infringe the twenty-third article. It is therein 
 declared that no retrospective laws shall be passed. This 
 article bears directly on the case. These acts must be 
 deemed to be retrospective, within the settled construc- 
 tion of that term. What a retrospective law is, has been 
 decided, on the construction of this very article, in the 
 circuit court for the first circuit. The learned judge of 
 that circuit says : " Every statute which takes away or 
 impairs vested rights, acquired under existing laws, must 
 be deemed retrospective." * That all such laws are retro- 
 spective was decided also in the case of Dash v. Van 
 Kleek,f where a most learned judge quotes this article 
 from the constitution of New Hampshire, with manifest 
 approbation, as a plain and clear expression of those fun- 
 damental and unalterable principles of justice, which must 
 lie at the foundation of every free and just system of 
 laws. Can any man deny that the plaintiffs had rights, 
 under the charter, which were legally vested, and that by 
 these acts those rights are impaired ? 
 
 " It is a principle in the English law," says Chief Jus- 
 tice Kent, in the case last cited, " as ancient as the law 
 itself, that a statute, even of its omnipotent parliament, 
 
 * 2 Gal. 103, Society v. Wheeler, f 7 Johnson's Rep. 477.
 
 DARTMOUTH COLLEGE VS. WOODWARD. 39 
 
 is not to have a retrospective effect. Nova constitutio 
 futuris formam imponere debet, et non prceteritis.* 
 
 The maxim in Bracton was probably taken from the 
 civil law, for we find in that system the same principle, 
 that the lawgiver cannot alter his mind to the prejudice 
 of a vested right. Nemo potest mutare concilium suum in 
 alterius injuriam.-f This maxim of Papinian is general in 
 its terms, but Doctor Taylor^ applies it directly as a re- 
 striction upon the lawgiver, and a declaration in the code 
 leaves no doubt as to the sense of the civil law. Leges et 
 constitutiones futuris cerium est dare formam negotiis, non 
 adfacta prceterita revocari, nisi nominatim, et deprceterito 
 tempore^ et adhuc pendentibus negotiis cautum sit.% This 
 passage, according to the best interpretation of the civilians, 
 relates not merely to future suits, but to future, as contra- 
 distinguished from past, contracts and vested rights. || It 
 is indeed admitted that the prince may enact a retrospec- 
 tive law, provided it be done expressly ; for the will of the 
 prince under the despotism of the Roman emperors was 
 paramount to every obligation. Great latitude was an- 
 ciently allowed to legislative expositions of statutes ; for the 
 separation of the judicial from the legislative power was not 
 then distinctly known or prescribed. The prince was in 
 the habit of interpreting his own laws for particular occa- 
 sions. This was called the Interlocutio Principis ; and 
 this, according to Huber's definition, was quando prin- 
 cipes inter partes loquuntur et jus dicunt.^ No correct 
 civilian, and especially no proud admirer of the ancient 
 republic (if any such then existed,) could have reflected 
 on this interference with private rights and pending 
 suits without disgust and indignation ; and we are rather 
 surprised to find that, under the violent and absolute 
 
 * Bracton, Lib. 4, fol. 228. 2d Inst. 292. f Dig. 50. 17. 75. 
 
 \ Elements of the Civil Law, 168. Cod. 1. 14. 7. 
 
 | Perezii Prselect. h. t. H Praelect. Juris Civ., Vol. II, 545.
 
 40 SPEECHES OF DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 genius of the Roman government, the principle before us 
 should have been acknowledged and obeyed to the extent 
 in which we find it. The fact shows that it must be 
 founded in the clearest justice. Our case is happily very 
 different from that of the subjects of Justinian. With us 
 the power of the lawgiver is limited and defined ; the 
 judicial is regarded as a distinct, independent power; 
 private rights have been better understood and more ex- 
 alted in public estimation, as well as secured by provi- 
 sions dictated by the spirit of freedom, and unknown to 
 the civil law. Our constitutions do not admit the power 
 assumed by the Roman prince, and the principle we are 
 considering is now to be regarded as sacred." 
 
 These acts infringe also the thirty-seventh article of 
 the constitution of New Hampshire ; which says, that the 
 powers of government shall be kept separate. By these 
 acts, the legislature assumes to exercise a judicial power. 
 It declares a forfeiture, and resumes franchises, once 
 granted, without trial or hearing. 
 
 If the constitution be not altogether waste-paper, it has 
 restrained the power of the legislature in these particu- 
 lars. If it has any meaning, it is that the legislature 
 shall pass no act directly and manifestly impairing pri- 
 vate property and private privileges. It shall not judge 
 by act. It shall not decide by act. It shall not deprive 
 by act. But it shall leave all these things to be tried 
 and adjudged by the law of the land. 
 
 The fifteenth article has been referred to before. It 
 declares that no one shall be " deprived of his property, 
 immunities, or privileges, but by the judgment of his 
 peers or the law of the land." Notwithstanding the light 
 in which the learned judges in New Hampshire viewed 
 the rights of the plaintiffs under the charter, and which 
 has been before adverted to, it is found to be admitted in 
 their opinion, that those rights are privileges within the
 
 DARTMOUTH COLLEGE VS. WOODWARD. 41 
 
 meaning of this fifteenth article of the bill of rights. 
 Having quoted that article, they say : That the right to 
 manage the affairs of this college is a privilege, within the 
 meaning of this clause of the bill of rights, is not to be 
 doubted." In my humble opinion, this surrenders the 
 point. To resist the effect of this admission, however, 
 the learned judges add : " But how a privilege can be 
 protected from the operation of the law of the land by a 
 clause in the constitution, declaring that it shall not be 
 taken away but by the law of the land, is not very easily 
 understood." This answer goes on the ground, that the 
 acts in question are laws of the land, within the meaning 
 of the constitution. If they be so, the argument drawn 
 from this article is fully answered. If they be not so, it 
 being admitted that the plaintiffs' rights are " privileges," 
 within the meaning of the article, the argument is not 
 answered, and the article is infringed by the acts. Are, 
 then, these acts of the legislature, which affect only par- 
 ticular persons and their particular privileges, laws of the 
 land ? 
 
 Let this question be answered by the text of Black- 
 stone. " And first it (i. e. law) is a rule : not a transient, 
 sudden order from a superior to or concerning a partic- 
 ular person; but something permanent, uniform, and 
 universal. Therefore a particular act of the legislature 
 to confiscate the goods of Titius, or to attaint him of high 
 treason, does not enter into the idea of a municipal law ; 
 for the operation of this act is spent upon Titius only, 
 and has no relation to the community in general ; it is 
 rather a sentence than a law." * Lord Coke is equally 
 decisive and emphatic. Citing and commenting on the 
 celebrated twenty-ninth chapter of Magna Charta, he 
 says : " No man shall be disseized, etc., unless it be by 
 the lawful judgment, that is, verdict of equals, or by the 
 * 1 Black. Com. 44.
 
 42 SPEECHES OF DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 law of the land, that is (to speak it once for all,) by the 
 due course and process of law." * Have the plaintiffs 
 lost their franchises by " due course and process of law ? " 
 On the contrary, are not these acts "particular acts of 
 the legislature, which have no relation to the community 
 in general and which are rather sentences than laws ? " 
 
 By the law of the land is most clearly intended the 
 general law ; a law which hears before it condemns ; 
 which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only 
 after trial. The meaning is, that every citizen shall hold 
 his life, liberty, property, and immunities under the pro- 
 tection of the general rules which govern society. Every- 
 thing which may pass under the form of an enactment is 
 not therefore to be considered the law of the land. If 
 this were so, acts of attainder, bills of pains and penal- 
 ties, acts of confiscation, acts reversing judgments, and 
 acts directly transferring one man's estate to another, 
 legislative judgments, decrees, and forfeitures in all pos- 
 sible forms, would be the law of the land. 
 
 Such a strange construction would render constitutional 
 provisions of the highest importance completely inoper- 
 ative and void. It would tend directly to establish the 
 union of all powers hi the legislature. There would be 
 no general, permanent law for courts to administer or for 
 men to live under. The administration of justice would 
 be an empty form, an idle ceremony. Judges would sit 
 to execute legislative judgments and decrees ; not to de- 
 clare the law or to administer the justice of the country. 
 " Is that the law of the land," said Mr. Burke, " upon 
 which, if a man go to Westminster Hall, and ask counsel 
 by what title or tenure he holds his privilege or estate 
 according to the law of the land, he should be told, that 
 the law of the land is not yet known ; that no decision 
 or decree has been made in his case ; that when a decree 
 * Coke, 2 In. 46.
 
 DARTMOUTH COLLEGE VS. WOODWARD. 43 
 
 shall be passed, he will then know what the law of the 
 land is ? Will this be said to be the law of the land, by 
 any lawyer who has a rag of a gown left upon his back, 
 or a wig with one tie upon his head ? " 
 
 That the power of electing and appointing the officers 
 of this college is not only a right of the trustees as a cor- 
 poration, generally, and in the aggregate, but that each 
 individual trustee has also his own individual franchise 
 in such right of election and appointment, is according 
 to the language of all the authorities. Lord Holt says : 
 It is agreeable to reason and the rules of law, that a 
 franchise should be vested in the corporation aggregate, 
 and yet the benefit of it to redound to the particular 
 members, and to be enjoyed by them in their private 
 capacity. Where the privilege of election is used by 
 particular persons, it is a particular right, vested in every 
 particular man" * 
 
 It is also to be considered, that the president and pro- 
 fessors of this college have rights to be affected by these 
 acts. Their interest is similar to that of fellows in the 
 English colleges ; because they derive their living, wholly 
 or in part, from the founder's bounty. The president is 
 one of the trustees or corporators. The professors are 
 not necessarily members of the corporation ; but they are 
 appointed by the trustees, are removable only by them, 
 and have fixed salaries payable out of the general funds 
 of the college. Both president and professors have free- 
 holds in their offices ; subject only to be removed by the 
 trustees, as their legal visitors, for good cause. All the 
 authorities speak of fellowships in colleges as freeholds, 
 notwithstanding the fellows may be liable to be sus- 
 pended or removed, for misbehavior, by their constituted 
 visitors. 
 
 Nothing could have been less expected, hi this age, 
 * 2 Lord Ray, 952.
 
 44 SPEECHES OF DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 than that there should have been an attempt, by acts of 
 the legislature, to take away these college livings, the 
 inadequate but the only support of literary men who 
 have devoted their lives to the instruction of youth. 
 The president and professors were appointed by the 
 twelve trustees. They were accountable to nobody else, 
 and could be removed by nobody else. They accepted 
 their offices on this tenure. Yet the legislature has ap- 
 pointed other persons, with power to remove these officers 
 and to deprive them of their livings ; and those other 
 persons have exercised that power. No description of 
 private property has been regarded as more sacred than 
 college livings. They are the estates and freeholds of a 
 most deserving class of men ; of scholars who have con- 
 sented to forego the advantages of professional and public 
 employments, and to devote themselves to science and 
 literature and the instruction of youth in the quiet re- 
 treats of academic life. Whether to dispossess and oust 
 them ; to deprive them of their office, and to turn them 
 out of their livings ; to do this, not by the power of their 
 legal visitors or governors, but by acts of the legislature, 
 and to do it without forfeiture and without fault ; whether 
 all this be not in the highest degree an indefensible and 
 arbitrary proceeding, is a question of which there would 
 seem to be but one side fit for a lawyer or a scholar to 
 espouse. 
 
 Of all the attempts of James II. to overturn the law, 
 and the rights of his subjects, none was esteemed more 
 arbitrary or tyrannical than his attack on Magdalen Col- 
 lege, Oxford ; and yet that attempt was nothing but to 
 put out one president and put in another. The president 
 of that college, according to the charter and statutes, is 
 to be chosen by the fellows, who are the corporators. 
 There being a vacancy, the king chose to take the ap- 
 pointment out of the hands of the fellows, the legal
 
 DARTMOUTH COLLEGE VS. WOODWARD. 45 
 
 electors of a president, into his own hands. He there- 
 fore sent down his mandate, commanding the fellows to 
 admit for president a person of his nomination ; and, in- 
 asmuch as this was directly against the charter and con- 
 stitution of the college, he was pleased to add a non ob- 
 stante clause of sufficiently comprehensive import. The 
 fellows were commanded to admit the person mentioned 
 in the mandate, " any statute, custom, or constitution to 
 the contrary notwithstanding, wherewith we are gra- 
 ciously pleased to dispense in this behalf." The fellows 
 refused obedience to this mandate, and Doctor Hough, a 
 man of independence and character, was chosen president 
 by the fellows, according to the charter and statutes. 
 The king then assumed the power, in virtue of his pre- 
 rogative, to send down certain commissioners to turn him 
 out ; which was done accordingly ; and Parker, a crea- 
 ture suited to the times, put in his place. And because 
 the president, who was rightfully and legally elected, 
 would not deliver the keys, the doors were broken open, 
 " The nation as well as the university," says Bishop 
 Burnet,* "looked on all these proceedings with just 
 indignation. It was thought an open piece of robbery 
 and burglary when men, authorized by no legal commis- 
 sion, came and forcibly turned men out of their posses- 
 sion and freehold." Mr. Hume, although a man of differ- 
 ent temper, and of other sentiments, in some respects, 
 than Doctor Burnet, speaks of this arbitrary attempt of 
 prerogative in terms not less decisive. " The president, 
 and all the fellows," says he, "except two, who com- 
 plied, were expelled the college, and Parker was put in 
 possession of the office. This act of violence, of all those 
 which were committed during the reign of James, is per- 
 haps the most illegal and arbitrary. When the dispens- 
 ing power was the most strenuously insisted on by court 
 * Hist, of his own Times, Vol. 3, p. 119.
 
 46 SPEECHES OF DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 lawyers, it had still been allowed that the statutes which 
 regard private property could not legally be infringed by 
 that prerogative. Yet, hi this instance, it appeared that 
 even these were not now secure from invasion. The 
 privileges of a college are attacked; men are illegally 
 dispossessed of their property for adhering to their duty, 
 to their oaths, and to their religion." 
 
 This measure King James lived to repent, after repent- 
 ance was too late. When the charter of London was re- 
 stored, and other measures of violence retracted, to avert 
 the impending revolution, the expelled president and fel- 
 lows of Magdalen College were permitted to resume their 
 rights. It is evident that this was regarded as an arbitrary 
 interference with private property. Yet private property 
 was no otherwise attacked than as a person was appointed 
 to administer and enjoy the revenues of a college in a 
 manner and by persons not authorized by the constitution 
 of the college. A majority of the members of the corpo- 
 ration would not comply with the king's wishes. A minor- 
 ity would. The object was therefore to make this minor- 
 ity a majority. To this end the king's commissioners 
 were directed to interfere in the case, and they united 
 with the two complying fellows, and expelled the rest ; 
 and thus effected a change in the government of the 
 college. The language in which Mr. Hume and all other 
 writers speak of this abortive attempt of oppression, 
 shows that colleges were esteemed to be, as they truly 
 are, private corporations, and the property and privileges 
 which belong to them private property and private privi- 
 leges. Court lawyers were found to justify the king in 
 dispensing with the laws ; that is, in assuming and ex- 
 ercising a legislative authority. But no lawyer, not even 
 a court lawyer, in the reign of King James the Second, 
 as far as appears, was found to say that, even by his high 
 authority, he could infringe the franchises of the fellows
 
 DARTMOUTH COLLEGE VS. WOODWARD. 4.7 
 
 of a college, and take away their livings. Mr. Hume gives 
 the reason ; it is, that such franchises were regarded, in a 
 most emphatic sense, as private property* 
 
 If it could be made to appear that the trustees and the 
 president and professors held their offices and franchises 
 during the pleasure of the legislature, and that the property 
 holden belonged to the state, then indeed the legislature 
 have done no more than they have a right to do. But 
 this is not so. The charter is a charter of privileges and 
 immunities; and these are holden by the trustees ex- 
 pressly against the state forever. 
 
 It is admitted that the state, by its courts of law, can 
 enforce the will of the donor, and compel a faithful ex- 
 ecution of the trust. The plaintiffs claim no exemption 
 from legal responsibility. They hold themselves at all 
 times answerable to the law of the land, for their conduct 
 in the trust committed to them. They ask only to hold 
 the property of which they are owners, and the franchises 
 which belong to them, until they shall be found, by due 
 course and process of law, to have forfeited them. 
 
 It can make no difference whether the legislature ex- 
 ercise the power it has assumed by removing the trustees 
 and the president and professors, directly and by name, 
 or by appointing others to expel them. The principle is 
 the same, and in point of fact the result has been the 
 same. If the entire franchise cannot be taken away, 
 neither can it be essentially impaired. If the trustees are 
 legal owners of the property, they are sole owners. If 
 they are visitors, they are sole visitors. No one will be 
 found to say, that, if the legislature may do what it has 
 done, it may not do anything and everything which it 
 may choose to do, relative to the property of the corpo- 
 ration, and the privileges of its members and officers. 
 
 * Vide a full account of this case in State Trials, 4th edition, 
 Vol. 4, page 262.
 
 48 SPEECHES OF DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 If the view which has been taken of this question be at 
 all correct, this was an eleemosynary corporation, a private 
 charity. The property was private property. The 
 trustees were visitors, and the right to hold the charter, 
 administer the funds, and visit and govern the college, 
 was a franchise and privilege, solemnly granted to them. 
 The use being public in no way diminishes their legal es- 
 tate in the property, or their title to the franchise. There 
 is no principle, nor any case, which declares that a gift to 
 such a corporation is a gift to the public. The acts in ques- 
 tion violate property. They take away privileges, immu- 
 nities, and franchises. They deny to the trustees the pro- 
 tection of the law ; and they are retrospective in their 
 operation. In all which respects they are against the 
 constitution of New Hampshire. 
 
 The plaintiff s contend, in the second place, that the acts 
 in question are repugnant to the tenth section of the first 
 article of the constitution of the United States. The 
 material words of that section are : " No state shall pass 
 any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing 
 the obligation of contracts." 
 
 The object of these most important provisions in the 
 national constitution has often been discussed, both here 
 and elsewhere. It is exhibited with great clearness and 
 force by one of the distinguished persons who framed 
 that instrument: "Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, 
 and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are con- 
 trary to the first principles of the social compact, and to 
 every principle of sound legislation. The two former are 
 expressly prohibited by the declarations prefixed to some 
 of the state constitutions, and all of them are prohibited 
 by the spirit and scope of these fundamental charters. 
 Our own experience has taught us, nevertheless, that ad- 
 ditional fences against these dangers ought not to be 
 omitted. Very properly, therefore, have the convention
 
 DARTMOUTH COLLEGE VS. WOODWARD. 49 
 
 added this constitutional bulwark, in favor of personal 
 security and private rights ; and I am much deceived, if 
 they have not, in so doing, as faithfully consulted the 
 genuine sentiments as the undoubted interests of their 
 constituents, The sober people of America are weary of 
 the fluctuating policy which has directed the public 
 councils. They have seen with regret, and with indigna- 
 tion, that sudden changes, and legislative interferences in 
 cases affecting personal rights, become jobs hi the hands 
 of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to 
 the more industrious and less informed part of the com- 
 munity. They have seen, too, that one legislative inter- 
 ference is but the link of a long chain of repetitions ; 
 every subsequent interference being naturally produced 
 by the effects of the preceding." * 
 
 It has already been decided in this court, that a grant 
 is a contract, within the meaning of this provision ; and 
 that a grant by a state is also a contract, as much as the 
 grant of an individual. In Fletcher v. Peck,f this court 
 says: "A contract is a compact between two or more 
 parties, and is either executory or executed. An executory 
 contract is one in which a party binds himself to do, or 
 not to do, a particular thing ; such was the law under 
 which the conveyance was made by the government. A 
 contract executed is one in which the object of contract 
 is performed ; and this, says Blackstone, differs in noth- 
 ing from a grant. The contract between Georgia and the 
 purchasers was executed by the grant. A contract ex- 
 ecuted, as well as one which is executory, contains ob- 
 ligations binding on the parties. A grant, in its own 
 nature, amounts to an extinguishment of the right of the 
 grantor, and implies a contract not to reassert that right. 
 If, under a fair construction of the constitution, grants 
 are comprehended under the term contracts, is a grant 
 * 44th No. of the Federalist, by Mr. Madison. f 6 Cranch, 87. 
 4
 
 50 SPEECHES OF DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 from the state excluded from the operation of the pro- 
 vision ? Is the clause to be considered as inhibiting the 
 state from impairing the obligation of contracts between 
 two individuals, but as excluding from that inhibition 
 contracts made with itself ? The words themselves con- 
 tain no such distinction. They are general, and are ap- 
 plicable to contracts of every description. If contracts 
 made with the state are to be exempted from their opera- 
 tion, the exception must arise from the character of the 
 contracting party, not from the words which are em- 
 ployed. Whatever respect might have been felt for the 
 state sovereignties, it is not to be disguised that the 
 f ramers of the constitution viewed with some apprehension 
 the violent acts which might grow out of the feelings 
 of the moment; and that the people of the United 
 States, in adopting that instrument, have manifested 
 a determination to shield themselves and their property 
 from the effects of those sudden and strong pas- 
 sions to which men are exposed. The restrictions on 
 the legislative power of the states are obviously founded 
 in this sentiment; and the constitution of the United 
 States contains what may be deemed a bill of rights for 
 the people of each state." 
 
 It has also been decided that a grant by a state before the 
 revolution is as much to be protected as a grant since.* But 
 the case of Terrett v. Taylor, before cited, is of all others 
 most pertinent to the present argument. Indeed, the 
 judgment of the court in that case seems to leave little to 
 be argued or decided in this. " A private corporation," 
 say the court, " created by the legislature, may lose its 
 franchises by a misuser or a nonuser of them ; and they 
 may be resumed by the government under a judicial 
 judgment upon a quo warranto to ascertain and enforce 
 the forfeiture. This is the common law of the land, and 
 * New Jersey v. Wilson, 7 Cranch, 164.
 
 DARTMOUTH COLLEGE VS. WOODWARD. 51 
 
 is a tacit condition annexed to the creation of every such 
 corporation. Upon a change of government, too, it may 
 be admitted that such exclusive privileges attached to a 
 private corporation as are inconsistent with the new 
 government, may be abolished. In respect, also, to 
 public corporations which exist only for public purposes, 
 such as counties, towns, cities, and so forth, the legislature 
 may, under proper limitations, have a right to change, 
 modify, enlarge, or restrain them, securing, however, the 
 property for the uses of those for whom, and at whose ex- 
 pense it was originally purchased. But that the legislature 
 can repeal statutes creating private corporations, or con- 
 firming to them property already acquired under the 
 faith of previous laws, and by such repeal can vest the 
 property of such corporations exclusively in the state, or 
 dispose of the same to such purposes as they please, 
 without the consent or default of the corporators, we are 
 not prepared to admit ; and we think ourselves standing up- 
 on the principles of natural justice, upon the fundamental 
 laws of every free government, upon the spirit and letter 
 of the constitution of the United States, and upon the 
 decisions of most respectable judicial tribunals, in resisting 
 such a doctrine." 
 
 This court, then, does not admit the doctrine that a legis- 
 lature can repeal statutes creating private corporations. If 
 it cannot repeal them altogether, of course it cannot repeal 
 any part of them, or impair them, or essentially alter 
 them, without the consent of the corporators. If, there- 
 fore, it has been shown that this college is to be regarded as 
 a private charity, this case is embraced within the very 
 terms of that decision. A grant of corporate powers and 
 privileges is as much a contract as a grant of land. What 
 proves all charters of this sort to be contracts is, that 
 they must be accepted to give them force and effect. If 
 they are not accepted, they are void. And in the case of
 
 52 SPEECHES OF DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 an existing corporation, if a new charter is given it, it 
 may even accept part and reject the rest. In Rex v< 
 Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge,* Lord Mansfield says : 
 " There is a vast deal of difference between a new charter 
 granted to a new corporation, (who must take it as it is 
 given), and a new charter given to a corporation already in 
 being, and acting either under a former charter or under 
 prescriptive usage. The latter, a corporation already ex- 
 isting, are not obliged to accept the new charter in toto, 
 and to receive either all or none of it; they may act 
 partly under it, and partly under their old charter or 
 prescription. The validity of these new charters must 
 turn upon the acceptance of them." In the same case 
 Mr. Justice Wilmot says : " It is the concurrence and 
 acceptance of the university that gives the force to the 
 charter of the crown." In the King y. Pasmore,t Lord Ken- 
 yon observes : " Some things are clear : when a corporation 
 exists capable of discharging its functions, the crown can- 
 not obtrude another charter upon them ; they may either 
 accept or reject it." t 
 
 In all cases relative to charters, the acceptance of them 
 is uniformly alleged in the pleadings. This shows the 
 general understanding of the law, that they are grants or 
 contracts ; and that parties are necessary to give them 
 force and validity. In King v. Dr. Askew, it is said: 
 " The crown cannot oblige a man to be a corporator, with- 
 out his consent ; he shall not be subject to the incon- 
 veniences of it, without accepting it and assenting to it." 
 These terms, " acceptance " and " assent," are the very 
 language of contract. In Ellis y. Marshal, || it was ex- 
 pressly adjudged that the naming of the defendant among 
 others, in an act of incorporation, did not, of itself, make 
 
 * 3 Burr. 1656. t 3 Term. Rep. 240 
 
 t Vide also 1 Kyd on Cor. 65. 4 Burr. 2200. 
 
 2 Mass. Rep. 269.
 
 DARTMOUTH COLLEGE VS. WOODWARD. 53 
 
 him a corporator ; and that his assent was necessary to that 
 end. The court speak of the act of incorporation as a 
 grant, and observe : " That a man may refuse a grant, 
 whether from the government or an individual, seems to 
 be a principle too clear to require the support of 
 authorities." But Justice Buller, in King V. Pasmore, 
 furnishes, if possible, a still more direct and explicit 
 authority. Speaking of a corporation for government, he 
 says : " I do not know how to reason on this point, better 
 than in the manner urged by one of the relator's coun- 
 sel, who considered the grant of incorporation to be a 
 compact between the crown and a certain number of the 
 subjects, the latter of whom undertake, in consideration 
 of the privileges which are bestowed, to exert themselves 
 for the good government of the place." This language ap- 
 plies with peculiar propriety and force to the case before 
 the court. It was in consequence of the "privileges 
 bestowed," that Dr. Wheelock and his associates under- 
 took to exert themselves for the instruction and education 
 of youth in this college ; and it was on the same con- 
 sideration that the founder endowed it with his property. 
 And because charters of incorporation are of the nature 
 of contracts, they cannot be altered or varied but by con- 
 sent of the original parties. If a charter be granted by 
 the king, it may be altered by a new charter granted by 
 the king, and accepted by the corporators. But, if the 
 first charter be granted by parliament, the consent of 
 parliament must be obtained to any alteration. In King 
 V. Miller,* Lord Kenyon says, "Where a corporation 
 takes its rise from the king's charter, the king by granting, 
 and the corporation by accepting another charter, may 
 alter it, because it is done with the consent of all the 
 parties who are competent to consent to the alteration."! 
 
 * 6 Term Rep. 277. 
 
 'f Vide also 2 Brown's Ch. Rep. 662, Ex parte Bolton School.
 
 54 SPEECHES OF DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 There are, in this case, all the essential constituent 
 parts of a contract. There is something to be contracted 
 about, there are parties, and there are plain terms in which 
 the agreement of the parties on the subject of the contract 
 is expressed. There are mutual considerations and in- 
 ducements. The charter recites that the founder, on his 
 part, has agreed to establish his seminary in New Hamp- 
 shire, and to enlarge it beyond its original design, among 
 other things, for the benefit of that province ; and there- 
 upon a charter is given to him and his associates, designated 
 by himself, promising and assuring to them, under the 
 plighted faith of the state, the right of governing the col- 
 lege and administering its concerns in the manner pro- 
 vided hi the charter. There is a complete and perfect 
 grant to them of all the power of superintendence, visita- 
 tion and government. Is not this a contract ? If lands or 
 money had been granted to him and his associates, for the 
 same purposes, such grant could not be rescinded. And 
 is there any difference, in legal contemplation, between a 
 grant of corporate franchises and a grant of tangible 
 property ? No such difference is recognized in any de- 
 cided case, nor does it exist in the common apprehension 
 of mankind. 
 
 It is, therefore, contended that this case falls within 
 the true meaning of this provision of the constitution, as 
 expounded in the decisions of this court ; that the charter 
 of 1769 is a contract, a stipulation or agreement, mutual 
 in its considerations, express and formal in its terms, and 
 of a most binding and solemn nature. That the acts in 
 question impair this contract, has already been sufficiently 
 shown. They repeal and abrogate its most essential 
 parts. 
 
 A single observation may not be improper on the 
 opinion of the court of New Hampshire, which has been 
 published. The learned judges who delivered that
 
 DAETMOUTH COLLEGE VS. WOODWARD. 55 
 
 opinion have viewed this question in a very different 
 light from that hi which the plaintiffs have endeavored 
 to exhibit it. After some general remarks, they assume 
 that this college is a public corporation ; and on this basis 
 their judgment rests. Whether all colleges are not re- 
 garded as private and eleemosynary corporations, by all 
 law writers, and all judicial decisions ; whether this col- 
 lege was not founded by Dr. Wheelock; whether the 
 charter was not granted at his request, the better to ex- 
 ecute a trust, which he had already created ; whether he 
 and his associates did not become visitors, by the charter ; 
 and whether Dartmouth College be not, therefore, in the 
 strictest sense, a private charity, are questions which the 
 learned judges do not appear to have discussed. 
 
 It is admitted in that opinion, that, if it be a private 
 corporation, its rights stand on the same ground as those 
 of an individual. The great question, therefore, to be de- 
 cided is, To which class of corporations do colleges thus 
 founded belong ? And the plaintiffs have endeavored to 
 satisfy the court, that, according to the well-settled prin- 
 ciples and uniform decisions of law, they are private, 
 eleemosynary corporations. 
 
 Much has heretofore been said on the necessity of ad- 
 mitting such a power in the legislature as has been as- 
 sumed in this case. Many cases of possible evil have 
 been imagined, which might otherwise be without remedy. 
 Abuses, it is contended, might arise in the management 
 of such institutions, which the ordinary courts of law 
 would be unable to correct. But this is only another in- 
 stance of that habit of supposing extreme cases, and then 
 of reasoning from them, which is the constant refuge of 
 those who are obliged to defend a cause, which, upon its 
 merits, is indefensible. It would be sufficient to say hi 
 answer, that it is not pretended that there was here any 
 such case of necessity. But a still more satisfactory an-
 
 56 SPEECHES OF DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 swer is, that the apprehension of danger is groundless, and 
 therefore, the whole argument fails. Experience has not 
 taught us that there is danger of great evils or of great 
 inconvenience from this source. Hitherto, neither hi 
 our own country nor elsewhere have such cases of neces- 
 sity occurred. The judicial establishments of the state 
 are presumed to be competent to prevent abuses and vio- 
 lations of trust, in cases of this kind, as well as in all 
 others. If they be not, they are imperfect, and their 
 amendment would be a most proper subject for legislative 
 wisdom. Under the government and protection of the 
 general laws of the land, these institutions have always 
 been found safe, as well as useful. They go on, with the 
 progress of society, accommodating themselves easily, 
 without sudden change or violence, to the alterations 
 which take place in its condition, and in. the knowledge, the 
 habits, and pursuits of men. The English colleges were 
 founded in Catholic ages. Their religion was reformed 
 with the general reformation of the nation ; and they are 
 suited perfectly well to the purpose of educating the 
 Protestant youth of modern times. Dartmouth College 
 was established under a charter granted by the provincial 
 government ; but a better constitution for a college, or 
 one more adapted to the condition of things under the 
 present government, in all material respects, could not 
 now be framed. Nothing hi it was found to need altera- 
 tion at the revolution. The wise men of that day saw in it 
 one of the best hopes of future tunes, and commended it as 
 it was, with parental care, to the protection and guardian- 
 ship of the government of the state. A charter of more 
 liberal sentiments, of wiser provisions, drawn with more 
 care, or in a better spirit, could not be expected at any time 
 or from any source. The college needed no change in ite 
 organization or government. That which it did need was 
 the kindness, the patronage, the bounty of the legisla-
 
 DARTMOUTH COLLEGE VS. WOODWARD. 57 
 
 ture ; not a mock elevation to the character of a univer- 
 sity, without the solid benefit of a shilling's donation to 
 sustain the character ; not the swelling and empty 
 authority of establishing institutes and other colleges. 
 This unsubstantial pageantry would seem to have been 
 in derision of the scanty endowment and limited means 
 of an unobtrusive, but useful and growing seminary. 
 Least of all, was there a necessity, or pretense of necessity, 
 to infringe its legal rights, violate its franchises and privi- 
 leges, and pour upon it these overwhelming streams of 
 litigation. 
 
 But this argument, from necessity, would equally apply 
 in all other cases. If it be well founded, it would prove, 
 that, whenever any inconvenience or evil is experienced 
 from the restrictions imposed on the legislature by the 
 constitution, these restrictions ought to be disregarded. 
 It is enough to say that the people have thought otherwise. 
 They have most wisely chosen to take the risk of occasional 
 inconvenience from the want of power, in order that 
 there might be a settled limit to its exercise, and a per- 
 manent security against its abuse. They have imposed 
 prohibitions and restraints ; and they have not rendered 
 these altogether vain and nugatory by conferring the 
 power of dispensation. If inconvenience should arise 
 which the legislature cannot remedy under the power 
 conferred upon it, it is not answerable for such inconve- 
 nience. That which it cannot do within the limits pre- 
 scribed to it, it cannot do at all. No legislature in this 
 country is able, and may the time never come when it 
 shall be able, to apply to itself the memorable expression 
 of a Roman pontiff : " Licet hoc DE JURE non possumm, 
 volumus tamen DE PLEXITUDINE POTESTATIS." 
 
 The case before the court is not of ordinary importance, 
 nor of every-day occurrence. It affects not this college 
 only, but every college, and all the literary institutions of
 
 58 SPEECHES OF DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 the country. They have flourished hitherto, and have be- 
 come, in a high degree, respectable and useful to the com- 
 munity. They have all a common principle of existence, 
 the inviolability of their charters. It will be a dangerous, 
 a most dangerous experiment, to hold these institutions 
 subject to the rise and fall of popular parties, and the fluc- 
 tuations of political opinions. If the franchise may be at 
 any time taken away, or impaired, the property, also, may 
 be taken away, or its use perverted. Benefactors will have 
 no certainty of effecting the object of their bounty ; and 
 learned men will be deterred from devoting themselves 
 to the service of such institutions, from the precarious 
 title of their offices. Colleges and halls will be deserted 
 by all better spirits, and become a theater for the con- 
 tentions of politics. Party and faction will be cherished 
 in the places consecrated to piety and learning. These 
 consequences are neither remote nor possible only. They 
 are certain and immediate. 
 
 When the court in North Carolina declared the law of 
 the state, which repealed a grant to its university, uncon- 
 stitutional and void, the legislature had the candor and the 
 wisdom to repeal the law. This example, so honorable to 
 the state which exhibited it, is most fit to be followed on 
 this occasion. And there is good reason to hope that a 
 state which has hitherto been so much distinguished for 
 temperate counsels, cautious legislation, and regard to law, 
 will not fail to adopt a course which will accord with her 
 highest and best interests, and in no small degree elevate 
 her reputation. 
 
 It was, for many and obvious reasons, most anxiously 
 desired that the question of the power of the legislature 
 over this charter, should have been finally decided in the 
 state court. An earnest hope was entertained that the 
 judges of that court might have viewed the case in a light 
 favorable to the rights of the trustees. That hope hag
 
 DARTMOUTH COLLEGE VS. WOODWARD. 59 
 
 failed. It is here that those rights are now to be main- 
 tained, or they are prostrated forever. Omnia alia per- 
 fugia bonorum, sub sidia, consilia^ auxilia^jura ceciderunt. 
 Quern enim alium appellem? quern obtester? quern implor- 
 em f Nisi hoc loco, nisi apud vos, nisi per vos, judices, 
 salutem nostram^ quce spe exigua extremaque pendet, 
 tenuerimus ; nihil est prceterea quo confugere possimus.
 
 PLYMOUTH ORATION. 
 
 FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND.
 
 PLYMOUTH ORATION.* 
 
 Discourse in Commemoration of The First Settlement of New 
 England Delivered at Plymouth, on the 22d Day of De- 
 cember, 1820. 
 
 LET us rejoice that we behold this day. Let us be 
 thankful that we have lived to see the bright and happy 
 breaking of the auspicious morn, which commences the 
 third century of the history of New England. Auspici- 
 ous, indeed bringing a happiness beyond the common 
 allotment of Providence to men full of present joy, and 
 gilding with bright beams the prospect of futurity, is the 
 dawn that awakens us to the commemoration of the land- 
 ing of the Pilgrims. 
 
 Living at an epoch which naturally marks the progress 
 of the history of our native land, we have come hither to 
 celebrate the great event with which that history com- 
 menced. Forever honored be this, the place of our 
 fathers' refuge ! Forever remembered the day which 
 saw them, weary and distressed, broken in everything but 
 spirit, poor in all but faith and courage, at last secure 
 from the dangers of wintry seas, and impressing this shore 
 with the first footsteps of civilized man ! 
 
 * The master-piece next in the order of time is the following, 
 which was pronounced on the 22d of December, 1820, at the first 
 anniversary celebration of the Landing of the Pilgrims at Ply- 
 mouth Rock, two hundred years from the date of that event. 
 At the time of its delivery, it was universally regarded as the 
 most eloquent address ever uttered on this continent ; and cer- 
 tainly nothing equal to it has since appeared, excepting what Mr. 
 Webster has produced. On the day it was delivered the orator 
 
 was nearly thirty-eight years of age. 
 
 63
 
 64 SPEECHES OF DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 It is a noble faculty of our nature which enables us to 
 connect our thoughts, our sympathies, and our happiness 
 with what is distant in place or time ; and, looking before 
 and after, to hold communion at once with our ancestors 
 and our posterity. Human and mortal although we are, 
 we are nevertheless not mere insulated beings, without 
 relation to the past or the future. Neither the point of 
 time, nor the spot of earth, in which we physically live, 
 bounds our rational and intellectual enjoyments. We 
 live hi the past by a knowledge of its history ; and in the 
 future by hope and anticipation. By ascending to an 
 association with our ancestors ; by contemplating their 
 example and studying their character ; by partaking their 
 sentiments, and imbibing their spirit ; by accompanying 
 them in their toils, by sympathizing in their sufferings, 
 and rejoicing in their successes and their triumphs ; we 
 mingle our own existence with theirs and seem to belong 
 to their age. We become their co-temporaries, live the 
 lives which they lived, endure what they endured, and 
 partake in the rewards which they enjoyed. And in like 
 manner, by running along the line of future time, by 
 contemplating the probable fortunes of those who are 
 coming after us, by attempting something which may 
 promote their happiness, and leave some not dishonor- 
 able memorial of ourselves for their regard, when we 
 shall sleep with the fathers, we protract our own earthly 
 being, and seem to crowd whatever is future, as well as 
 all that is past, into the narrow compass of our earthly 
 existence. As it is not a vain and false, but an ex- 
 alted and religious imagination, which leads us to raise 
 our thoughts from the orb, which, amidst this universe of 
 worlds, the Creator has given us to inhabit, and to send 
 them with something of the feeling which nature prompts, 
 and teaches to be proper among children of the same 
 Eternal Parent, to the contemplation of the myriads of
 
 FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. $5 
 
 fellow-beings, with which his goodness has peopled the 
 infinite of space ; so neither is it false or vain to consider 
 ourselves as interested and connected with our whole 
 race, through all tune ; allied to our ancestors ; allied to 
 our posterity ; closely compacted on all sides with others ; 
 ourselves being but links in the great chain of being, 
 which begins with the origin of our race, runs onward 
 through its successive generations, binding together the 
 past, the present, and the future, and terminating at last, 
 with the consummation of all things earthly, at the 
 throne of God. 
 
 There may be, and there often is, indeed, a regard for 
 ancestry, which nourishes only a weak pride ; as there is 
 also a care for posterity, which only disguises an habitual 
 avarice, or hides the workings of a low and groveling 
 vanity. But there is also a moral and philosophical re- 
 spect for our ancestors, which elevates the character and 
 improves the heart. Next to the sense of religious duty 
 and moral feeling, I hardly know what should bear with 
 stronger obligation on a liberal and enlightened mind, 
 than a consciousness of alliance with excellence which is 
 departed ; and a consciousness, too, that in its acts and 
 conduct, and even in its sentiments and thoughts, it may 
 be actively operating on the happiness of those who come 
 after it. Poetry is found to have few stronger concep- 
 tions, by which it would affect or overwhelm the mind, 
 than those in which it presents the moving and speaking 
 image of the departed dead to the senses of the living. 
 This belongs to poetry, only because it is congenial to our 
 nature. Poetry is, in this respect, but the handmaid of 
 true philosophy and morality ; it deals with us as human 
 beings, naturally reverencing those whose visible connec- 
 tion with this state of existence is severed, and who may 
 yet exercise we know not what sympathy with ourselves ; 
 and when it carries us forward, also, and shows us the 
 5
 
 66 SPEECHES OF DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 long continued result of all the good we do, in the pros- 
 perity of those who follow us, till it bears us from our- 
 selves, and absorbs us hi an intense interest for what 
 shall happen to the generations after us, it speaks only hi 
 the language of our nature, and affects us with sentiments 
 which belong to us as human beings. 
 
 Standing in this relation to our ancestors and our pos- 
 terity, we are assembled on this memorable spot, to per- 
 form the duties which that relation and the present 
 occasion imposes upon us. We have come to this Rock, 
 to record here our homage for our Pilgrim Fathers ; our 
 sympathy in their sufferings ; our gratitude for their labors ; 
 our admiration of their virtues ; our veneration for their 
 piety ; and our attachment to those principles of civil and 
 religious liberty, which they encountered the dangers of 
 the ocean, the storms of heaven, the violence of savages, 
 disease, exile, and famine, to enjoy and establish. And we 
 would leave here, also, for the generations which are rising 
 up rapidly to fill our places, some proof that we have en- 
 deavored to transmit the great inheritance unimpaired ; 
 that in our estimate of public principles and private virtue, 
 in our veneration of religion and piety, in our devotion 
 to civil and religious liberty, hi our regard for whatever 
 advances human knowledge or improves human happi- 
 ness, we are not altogether unworthy of our origin. 
 
 There is a local feeling connected with this occasion, 
 too strong to be resisted ; a sort of genius of the place, 
 which inspires and awes us. We feel that we are on the 
 spot where the first scene of our history was laid ; where 
 the hearths and altars of New England were first placed j 
 where Christianity, and civilization, and letters made their 
 first lodgment, in a vast extent of country, covered with a 
 wilderness, and peopled by roving barbarians. We are here, 
 at the season of the year at which the event took place. 
 The imagination irresistibly and rapidly draws around us
 
 FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 57 
 
 the principal features and the leading characters in the 
 original scene. We cast our eyes abroad on the ocean, and 
 we see where the little bark, with the interesting group 
 upon its deck, made its slow progress to the shore. We 
 look around us, and behold the hills and promontories 
 where the anxious eyes of our fathers first saw the places 
 of habitation and of rest. We feel the cold which be- 
 numbed, and listen to the winds which pierced them. 
 Beneath us is the Rock, on which New England received 
 the feet of the Pilgrims. We seem even to behold them, 
 as they struggle with the elements, and, with toilsome 
 efforts, gain the shore. We listen to the chiefs in coun- 
 cil ; we see the unexampled exhibition of female fortitude 
 and resignation ; we hear the whisperings of youthful im- 
 patience, and we see, what a painter of our own has also 
 represented by his pencil, chilled and shivering childhood, 
 houseless, but for a mother's arms, couchless, but for a 
 mother's breast, till our own blood almost freezes. The 
 mild dignity of Carver and of Bradford ; the decisive and 
 soldier-like air and manner of Standish ; the devout 
 Brewster ; the enterprising Allerton ; the general firmness 
 and thoughtfulness of the whole band ; their conscious joy 
 for dangers escaped ; their deep solicitude about dangers 
 to come ; their trust in Heaven ; their high religious faith, 
 full of confidence and anticipation ; all these seem to be- 
 long to this place, and to be present upon this occasion, 
 to fill us with reverence and admiration. 
 
 The settlement of New England by the colony which 
 landed here on the twenty-second of December, sixteen 
 hundred and twenty, although not the first European es- 
 tablishment in what now constitutes the United States, 
 was yet so peculiar in its causes and character, and has 
 been followed and must stiU be followed by such conse- 
 quences, as to give it a high claim to lasting commemora- 
 tion. On these causes and consequences, more than on
 
 68 SPEECHES OF DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 its immediately attendant circumstances, its importance, 
 as an historical event, depends. Great actions and strik- 
 ing occurrences, having excited a temporary admiration, 
 often pass away and are forgotten, because they leave no 
 lasting results, affecting the prosperity and happiness of 
 communities. Such is frequently the fortune of the most 
 brilliant military achievements. Of the ten thousand 
 battles which have been fought, of all the fields fertilized 
 with carnage, of the banners which have been bathed in 
 blood, of the warriors who have hoped that they had risen 
 from the field of conquest to a glory as bright and as dur- 
 able as the stars, how few that continue long to interest 
 mankind ! The victory of yesterday is reversed by the 
 defeat of to-day ; the star of military glory, rising like a 
 meteor, like a meteor has fallen ; disgrace and disaster 
 hang on the heels of conquest and renown ; victor and 
 vanquished presently pass away to oblivion, and the 
 world goes on in its course, with the loss only of so many 
 lives and so much treasure. 
 
 But if this be frequently, or generally, the fortune of 
 military achievements, it is not always so. There are en- 
 terprises, military as well as civil, which sometimes check 
 the current of events, give a new turn to human affairs, 
 and transmit their consequences through ages. We see 
 their importance in their results, and call them great, be- 
 cause great things follow. There have been battles which 
 have fixed the fate of nations. These come down to us 
 in history with a solid and permanent interest, not created 
 by a display of glittering armor, the rush of adverse bat- 
 talions, the sinking and rising of pennons, the flight, the 
 pursuit, and the victory ; but by their effect in advancing 
 or retarding human knowledge, in overthrowing or estab- 
 lishing despotism, in extending or destroying human hap- 
 piness. When the traveler pauses on the plain of Mara- 
 thon, what are the emotions which most strongly agitate
 
 FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 59 
 
 his breast? What is that glorious recollection which 
 thrills through his frame and suffuses his eyes ? Not, I 
 imagine, that Grecian skill and Grecian valor were here 
 most signally displayed; but that Greece herself was 
 here saved. It is because to this spot, and to the event 
 which has rendered it immortal, he refers all the succeed- 
 ing glories of the republic. It is because, if that day had 
 gone otherwise, Greece had perished. It is because he 
 perceives that her philosophers and orators, her poets and 
 painters, her sculptors and architects, her governments 
 and free institutions, point backward to Marathon, and 
 that their future existence seems to have been suspended 
 on the contingency, whether the Persian or the Grecian 
 banner should wave victorious in the beams of that day's 
 setting sun. And, as his imagination kindles at the retro- 
 spect, he is transported back to the interesting moment ; 
 he counts the fearful odds of the contending hosts ; his 
 interest for the result overwhelms him ; he trembles, as if 
 it were still uncertain, and seems to doubt whether he 
 may consider Socrates and Plato, Demosthenes, Sophocles, 
 and Phidias, as secure, yet, to himself and to the world. 
 
 " If we conquer," said the Athenian commander, on 
 the morning of that decisive day, " if we conquer, we shall 
 make Athens the greatest city of Greece." A prophecy, 
 how well fulfilled ! " If God prosper us," might have been 
 the more appropriate language of our fathers, when they 
 landed upon this Rock, if God prosper us, we shall here 
 begin a work which shall last for ages ; we shall plant 
 here a new society, in the principles of the fullest liberty 
 and the purest religion ; we shall subdue this wilderness 
 which is before us ; we shall fill this region of the great 
 continent, which stretches almost from pole to pole with 
 civilization and Christianity ; the temples of the true God 
 shall rise, where now ascends the smoke of idolatrous 
 sacrifice ; fields and gardens, the flowers of summer, and
 
 70 SPEECHES OF DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 the waving and golden harvest of autumn, shall extend 
 over a thousand hills, and stretch along a thousand val- 
 leys, never yet, since the creation, reclaimed to the use of 
 civilized man. We shall whiten this coast with the can- 
 vas of a prosperous commerce ; we shall stud the long 
 and winding shore with a hundred cities. That which 
 we sow in weakness shall be raised in strength. From 
 our sincere, but houseless worship, there shall spring 
 splendid temples to record God's goodness ; from the 
 simplicity of our social union, there shall arise wise and 
 politic constitutions of government, full of the liberty 
 which we ourselves bring and breathe ; from our zeal for 
 learning, institutions shall spring which shall scatter the 
 light of knowledge throughout the land, and, in time, 
 paying back where they have borrowed, shall contribute 
 their part to the great aggregate of human knowledge ; 
 and our descendants, through all generations, shall look 
 back to this spot, and to this hour, with unabated affection 
 and regard." 
 
 A brief remembrance of the causes which led to the 
 settlement of this place ; some account of the peculiarities 
 and characteristic qualities of that settlement, as distin- 
 guished from other instances of colonization ; a short notice 
 of the progress of New England in the great interests of 
 society, during the century which is now elapsed ; with 
 a few observations on the principles upon which society 
 and government are established in this country ; comprise 
 all that can be attempted, and much more than can be 
 satisfactorily performed, on the present occasion. 
 
 Of the motives which influenced the first settlers to a 
 voluntary exile, induced them to relinquish their native 
 country, and to seek an asylum in this then unexplored 
 wilderness, the first and principal, no doubt, were con- 
 nected with religion. They sought to enjoy a higher 
 degree of religious freedom, and what they esteemed a
 
 FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 71 
 
 purer form of religious worship, than was allowed to 
 their choice, or presented to their imitation, hi the Old 
 World. The love of religious liberty is a stronger senti- 
 ment, when fully excited, than an attachment to civil or 
 political freedom. That freedom which the conscience 
 demands, and which men feel bound by their hopes of 
 salvation to contend for, can hardly fail to be attained. 
 Conscience, in the cause of religion and the worship of 
 the Deity, prepares the mind to act and to suffer beyond 
 almost all other causes. It sometimes gives an impulse 
 so irresistible, that no fetters of power or of opinion can 
 withstand it. History instructs us that this love of 
 religious liberty, a compound sentiment in the breast of 
 man, made up of the clearest sense of right and the 
 highest conviction of duty, is able to look the sternest 
 despotism in the face, and, with means apparently most 
 inadequate, to shake principalities and powers. There is 
 a boldness, a spirit of daring, in religious reformers, not 
 to be measured by the general rules which control men's 
 purposes and actions. If the hand of power be laid upon 
 it, this only seems to augment its force and its elasticity, 
 and to cause its action to be more formidable and violent. 
 Human invention has devised nothing, human power has 
 compassed nothing, that can forcibly restrain it, when it 
 breaks forth. Nothing can stop it, but to give way to it ; 
 nothing can check it, but indulgence. It loses its power 
 only when it has gained its object. The principle of 
 toleration to which the world has come so slowly, is at 
 once the most just and the most wise of all principles. 
 Even when religious feeling takes a character of extrava- 
 gance ano enthusiasm, and seems to threaten the order of 
 society and shake the columns of the social edifice, its 
 principal danger is in its restraint. If it be allowed in- 
 dulgence and expansion, like the elemental fires, it only 
 agitates, and perhaps purifies, the atmosphere ; while its
 
 72 SPEECHES OF DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 efforts to throw off restraint would burst the world 
 asunder. 
 
 It is certain, that, although many of them were republi- 
 cans in principle, we have no evidence that our New Eng- 
 land ancestors would have emigrated, as they did, from 
 their own native country, become wanderers in Europe, 
 and finally undertaken the establishment of a colony here, 
 merely from their dislike of the political systems of 
 Europe. They fled not so much from the civil govern- 
 ment, as from the hierarchy, and the laws which enforced 
 conformity to the church establishment. Mr. Robinson 
 had left England as early as sixteen hundred and eight, 
 on account of the persecutions for non-conformity, and 
 had retired to Holland. He left England, from no disap- 
 pointed ambition in affairs of state, from no regrets at 
 the want of preferment in the church, nor from any 
 motive of distinction or of gain. Uniformity in matters 
 of religion was pressed with such extreme rigor, that a 
 voluntary exile seemed the most eligible mode of escaping 
 from the penalties of non-compliance. The accession of 
 Elizabeth had, it is true, quenched the fires of Smithfield, 
 and put an end to the easy acquisition of the crown of 
 martyrdom. Her long reign had established the ref- 
 ormation, but toleration was a virtue beyond her con- 
 ception, and beyond the age. She left no example of it 
 to her successor ; and he was not of a character which 
 rendered it probable that a sentiment either so wise or so 
 liberal should originate with him. At the present period 
 it seems incredible, that the learned, accomplished, un- 
 assuming, and inoffensive Robinson should neither be 
 tolerated in his peaceable mode of worship in his own 
 country, nor suffered quietly to depart from it. Yet such 
 was the fact. He left his country by stealth, that he 
 might elsewhere enjoy those rights which ought to belong 
 to men in all countries. The embarkation of the Pilgrims
 
 FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 7-3 
 
 for Holland is deeply interesting, from its circumstances, 
 and also as it marks the character of the times, independ- 
 ently of its connection with names now incorporated 
 with the history of empire. The embarkation was in- 
 tended to be in the night, that it might escape the notice of 
 the officers of government. Great pains had been taken 
 to secure boats, which should come undiscovered to the 
 shore, and receive the fugitives ; and frequent disappoint- 
 ments had been experienced in this respect. At length 
 the appointed time came, bringing with it unusual 
 severity of cold and rain. An unfrequented and barren 
 heath, on the shores of Lincolnshire, was the selected 
 spot, where the feet of the Pilgrims were to tread, for 
 the last time, the land of their fathers. 
 
 The vessel which was to receive them did not come 
 until the next day, and in the mean time the little band 
 was collected, and men and women and children and 
 baggage were crowded together, in melancholy and dis- 
 tressed confusion. The sea was rough, and the women 
 and children already sick, from their passage down the 
 river to the place of embarkation. At length the wished - 
 for boat silently and fearfully approaches the shore, and 
 men and women and children, shaking with fear and 
 with cold, as many as the small vessel could bear, venture 
 off on a dangerous sea. Immediately the advance of 
 horses is heard from behind, armed men appear, and those 
 not yet embarked are seized, and taken into custody. In 
 the hurry of the moment, there had been no regard to 
 the keeping together of families, in the first embarkation, 
 and on account of the appearance of the horsemen, the 
 boat never returned for the residue. Those who had got 
 away, and those who had not, were in equal distress. 
 
 A storm of great violence, and long duration, arose at 
 sea, which not only protracted the voyage, rendered dis- 
 tressing by the want of all those accommodations which
 
 74: SPEECHES OF DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 the interruption of the embarkation had occasioned, but 
 also forced the vessel out of her course, and menaced im- 
 mediate shipwreck ; while those on shore, when they were 
 dismissed from the custody of the officers of justice, hav- 
 ing no longer homes or houses to retire to, and their 
 friends and protectors being already gone, became objects 
 of necessary charity, as well as of deep commiseration. 
 
 As this scene passes before us, we can hardly forbear 
 asking, whether this be a band of malefactors and felons 
 flying from justice. What are their crimes, that they hide 
 themselves in darkness ? To what punishment are they 
 exposed that, to avoid it, men, and women and children, 
 thus encounter the surf of the North Sea, and the ter- 
 rors of a night storm ? What induces this armed pursuit, 
 and this arrest of fugitives, of all ages and both sexes ? 
 Truth does not allow us to answer these inquiries hi a 
 manner that does credit to the wisdom or the justice 
 of the times. This was not the flight of guilt, but of 
 virtue. It was an humble and peaceable religion, flying 
 from causeless oppression. It was conscience, attempt- 
 ing to escape from the arbitrary rule of the Stuarts. It 
 was Robinson and Brewster, leading off their little 
 band from their native soil, at first to find shelter on the 
 shores of the neighboring continent, but ultimately to 
 come hither ; and having surmounted all difficulties and 
 braved a thousand dangers, to find here a place of refuge 
 and of rest. Thanks be to God, that this spot was honored 
 as the asylum of religious liberty ! May its standard, 
 reared here, remain forever ! May it rise up as high as 
 heaven till its banner shall fan the air of both continents, 
 and wave as a glorious ensign of peace and security to 
 the nations ! 
 
 The peculiar character, condition, and circumstances of 
 the colonies which introduced civilization and an English 
 race into New England, afford a most interesting and ex-
 
 FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 75 
 
 tensive topic of discussion. On these, much of our sub- 
 sequent character and fortune has depended. Their in- 
 fluence has essentially affected our whole history, through 
 the two centuries which have elapsed, and as they have 
 become intimately connected with government, laws, and 
 property, as well as with our opinions on the subject of 
 religion and civil liberty, that influence is likely to con- 
 tinue to be felt through the centuries which shall suc- 
 ceed. Emigration from one region to another, and the 
 emission of colonies to people countries more or less dis- 
 tant from the residence of the parent stock, are common 
 incidents in the history of mankind ; but it has not often, 
 perhaps never, happened, that the establishment of col- 
 onies should be attempted under circumstances, however 
 beset with present difficulties and dangers, yet so favor- 
 able to ultimate success, and so conducive to magnificent 
 results, as those which attended the first settlements on 
 this part of the continent. In other instances, emigration 
 has proceeded from a less exalted purpose, in a period of 
 less general intelligence, or more without plan and by 
 accident ; or under circumstances, physical and moral, less 
 favorable to the expectation of laying a foundation for 
 great public prosperity and future empire. 
 
 A great resemblance exists, obviously, between all the 
 English colonies established within the present limits of 
 the United States ; but the occasion attracts our attention 
 more immediately to those which took possession of New 
 England, and the peculiarities of these furnish a strong 
 contrast with most other instances of colonization. 
 
 Among the ancient nations, the Greeks, no doubt, sent 
 forth from their territories the greatest number of col- 
 onies. So numerous, indeed, were they, and so great the 
 extent of space over which they were spread, that the 
 parent country fondly and naturally persuaded herself, 
 that by means of them she had laid a sure foundation for
 
 76 SPEECHES OF DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 the universal civilization of the world. These establish- 
 ments, from obvious causes, were most numerous in places 
 most contiguous ; yet they were found on the coasts of 
 France, on the shores of the Euxine Sea in Africa, and 
 even, as is alleged, on the borders of India. These emi- 
 grations appear to have been sometimes voluntary and 
 sometimes compulsory ; arising from the spontaneous en- 
 terprise of individuals, or the order and regulation of gov- 
 ernment. It was a common opinion with ancient writers, 
 that they were undertaken in religious obedience to the 
 commands of oracles, and it is probable that impressions 
 of this sort might have had more or less influence ; but 
 it is probable, also, that on these occasions the oracle did 
 not speak a language dissonant from the views and pur- 
 poses of the state. 
 
 Political science among the Greeks seems never to have 
 extended to the comprehension of a system, which should 
 be adequate to the government of a great nation upon 
 principles of liberty. They were accustomed only to the 
 contemplation of small republics, and were led to consider 
 an augmented population as incompatible with free in- 
 stitutions. The desire of a remedy for this supposed 
 evil, and the wish to establish marts for trade, led the 
 governments often to undertake the establishment of 
 colonies as an affair of state expediency. Colonization 
 and commerce, indeed, would naturally become objects of 
 interest to an ingenious and enterprising people, inhabit- 
 ing a territory closely circumscribed in its limits, and in 
 no small part mountainous and sterile ; while the islands 
 of the adjacent seas, and the promontories and coasts of 
 the neighboring continents, by their mere proximity, 
 strongly solicited the excited spirit of emigration. Such 
 was this proximity, in many instances, that the new settle- 
 ments appeared rather to be the mere extension of popula- 
 tion over contiguous territory, than the establishment of
 
 FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 77 
 
 distant colonies. In proportion as they were near to the 
 parent state, they would be under its authority, and 
 partake of its fortunes. The colony at Marseilles might 
 perceive lightly, or not at all, the sway of Phocis ; while 
 the islands in the JSgean Sea could hardly attain to in- 
 dependence of their Athenian origin. Many of these 
 establishments took place at an early age ; and if there 
 were defects in the governments of the parent states, the 
 colonists did not possess philosophy or experience suffi- 
 cient to correct such evils in their own institutions, even 
 if they had not been, by other causes, deprived of the 
 power. An immediate necessity, connected with the 
 support of life, was the main and direct inducement to 
 these undertakings, and there could hardly exist more 
 than the hope of a successful imitation of institutions 
 with which they were already acquainted, and of holding 
 an equality with their neighbors in the course of improve- 
 ment. The laws and customs, both political and munici- 
 pal, as well as the religious worship of the parent city, 
 were transferred to the colony ; and the parent city her- 
 self, with all such of her colonies as were not too far 
 remote for frequent intercourse and common sentiments, 
 would appear like a family of cities, more or less de- 
 pendent, and more or less connected. We know how im- 
 perfect this system was, as a system of general politics, 
 and what scope it gave to those mutual dissensions and 
 conflicts which proved so fatal to Greece. 
 
 But it is more pertinent to our present purpose to 
 observe, that nothing existed in the character of Grecian 
 emigration, or in the spirit and intelligence of the emi- 
 grants, likely to give a new and important direction to 
 human affairs, or a new impulse to the human mind. 
 Their motives were not high enough, their views were 
 not sufficiently large and prospective. They went not 
 forth, like our ancestors, to erect systems of more perfect