THE STATE AND IIIOHER EDUCATION. 699 



The court of appeals ultiiiiatoly decided in 185!) that such a le adjiistiiient 

 was a breach of contract, and that the coHege could (collect wliat was due 

 it fronx the State. There is perhaps some excuse for the economy of 

 Maryhmd in its treatment of St. John's CoHege, namely, "hard times." 

 A State that went through the financial crises of 1837 and 1857 without 

 repudiation deserves some historical credit. St. John's College was sus- 

 ]>ended during the civil war, but appropriations were renewed in ISGG, 

 and have been continued, with slight variations, down to the present 

 day. The amount granted iu 1888 was $3,000 for the institution itself 

 and $5,200 for boarding twenty-five students, one from each senatorial 

 district. 



The first University of Maryland ceased to exist by the act of 1805, 

 which withheld appropriations from St. John's College ; but in the year 

 1812, a new University of Maryland was instituted Uy authority of the 

 State, in the city of Baltimore. The proceeds of a State lottery w^ere 

 granted to the institution for a library, scientific api)aratns," botanical 

 garden, etc. The corporation was to have a full equipment of four 

 faculties, representing the arts, law, medicine, and theology. Two 

 faculties of law and medicine still perpetuate the spirit of the founders 

 of the University of Maryland, and are honorable and distinguished 

 l>romoters of professional education. It can not be said that they were 

 ever treated with adequate generosity, though they actually received 

 from State lotteries between $30,000 and $40,000, and were never taxed. 

 The present generation has not been so generous to the cause of higher 

 education as were the fathers of the State, but nevertheless Maryland, 

 iu her entire history, has appropriated something over $050,000 for what 

 may be strictly called college education, not counting $GO,000 given to 

 the State Agricultural College, nor $40,000 proceeding f;om State lot- 

 teries. While this collective bounty is small, it is money given by vol- 

 untary taxation and not taken from institutions of learning. Most of 

 the amount was raised in times when the State was poor or heavily in 

 debt, and when public money came with difficulty. Moreover this finan- 

 cial generosity of Maryland establishes the principle for which we are 

 contending, namely, that this State, like all other er.lightened States in 

 the world, has recognized the duty of support to higher and unsectarian 

 institutions of learning. She has at different tinu\s appropriated $050,- 

 000 to colleges and to the University of Maryland from her public treas- 

 ury. 



Let us now inquire what other States in the American Union have 

 done for highei' education, always recognizing of course great iiuMpialily 

 in State population and in the taxable basis. 



Virginia, whose earliest educational foundations Maryland helped to 

 lay by her toba(;co tax, has expended ui)on colleges and university over 

 $2,000,000, during her history as a State, not counting tlie colonial 

 bounty to William and Mary. Since the war, Virginia has given her 

 university $40,000 a year. Before the war, she gave $15,000 a year. 



