1/79] ^^^'- WILLIAM SMITH, D. D. 2^ 



justifiable at that period of the Revolution for reasons of State policy. 

 Before admitting such a plea as a safe criterion in this case, we must 

 remember that the College Charter was in existence, and the College 

 itself was in full operation at the time of the adoption of the Constitu- 

 tion, which was subsequent to the Declaration of Independence, and 

 that the Convention, with a full knowledge of its organization, solemnly- 

 guaranteed the protection of its property and franchises. Nor had any 

 change taken place since, either in the men who controlled it, or in the 

 system of instruction, which could, in any way, be construed as un- 

 favorable to the principles of the Revolution. The vacancies in the 

 Board of Trustees since the Declaration of Independence had been 

 filled by Robert Morris, Francis Hopkinson, Alexander Wilcocks, 

 Edward Biddle, John Cadwalader and James Wilson, and no Penn- 

 sylvanian need be told that these were among the most eminent patriots 

 of the Revolution. The system of instruction was also wholly un- 

 changed, and as if nothing should be wanting to prove that the act was 

 one of simple spoliation, that system, and every one of the Professors 

 of the old College, in both Faculties, except Dr. Smith and Dr. Alison 

 (who had died during the controversy), were transferred to the new 

 institution. 



We are, therefore, compelled to conclude that the conduct of the 

 Assembly rested upon no legal authority, nor upon the broader ground 

 of an overruling necessity; but that it is the most striking instance of 

 the baneful effects of an unscrupulous party-spirit recorded in our State 

 history. Its object was to strike down and disfranchise the purest and 

 best men in the community, associated in an undertaking which had 

 brought nothing but honor and advantage to the State. To conciliate 

 the unthinking masses, and as some apology for the spoliation, a pre- 

 tence was made of establishing a new Institution upon a broader basis 

 than the old, and the cheap device was resorted to of endowing it with 

 the proceeds of the confiscated estates. One of the complaints against 

 the old College had been, that it had never applied to the State author- 

 ities for money, and it was thought that the prosperity of the new was 

 certainly assured by the Legislative grant of ^1500 a year. But it 

 never prospered. The original taint of its birth seems to have poisoned 

 all its sources of growth, so that on the 22d of August, 1791, just before 

 its dissolution, when the College estates had been restored to their 

 rightful owners, its debts are stated in a minute of that date to be 

 ^^5187, nearly all due to the Professors for arrears of salary, while its 

 resources from its income were: "Debts recoverable by next March, say 

 ^2000; due from the State, ;!^375." 



But there were other sources of decay, inherent in the scheme itself, 

 and rapidly developed by the influences surrounding it, which must 

 have soon proved fatal to it. Of all human institutions, it may be most 

 truly said of Colleges and Universities, that they "are things that grow, 



