icy of renting the lands instead of selling them, securing thus a certain income with- 

 out funding the capital. 



These illustrations show how difficult it is to state the capital derived from the na- 

 tional grant. So, also, it would be very instructive if we could ascertain to what ex- 

 tent the national bounty has stimulated appropriations from the local treasuries of the 

 State, from towns and counties benefited by the new university or college, and from 

 private individuals. 



But on this subject, also, it is not easy to command the complete statistics. In gen- 

 eral it may be stated that there is not a single instance where the national school has 

 not received generous help from some other source than the national, grant. This 

 outside help is first directed to securing (by gift, purchase, or construction) a suitable 

 building by law ; for no portion of the national money can be turned to bricks and 

 mortar. In many cases excellent sites have been provided for the new institutions. 

 In some, generous foundations for professorships are established. In all, there are con- 

 tributions, more or less generous, of books and instruments. The private benefactions 

 are, for the most part, much more liberal in the East than in the West ; on the contrary, 

 the appropriations from the public treasuries of the State, the county, or the town are 

 much freer in the West than in the East. Three institutions bear the names of indi- 

 viduals whose benefactions have been so considerable as to merit this distinction. 



ACTUAL ESTABLISHMENT OF COLLEGES IN THE SEVERAL STATES. 



Among the thirty-four States which have received the national grant twenty-eight 

 are known to the undersigned as having taken definite steps for the establishment of 

 such colleges as the act of Congress contemplates. These efforts have usually been 

 put forth in good faith ; but in some portions of the country the unsettled state of 

 public affairs has been such as to embarrass all progress. Elsewhere vague notions 

 have prevailed respecting the possibility of securing the end in view. In some cases 

 the national grant is so small, and the lack of public and private liberality in the 

 State is so great, that very little has been accomplished. In many States, at the East 

 as truly as at the West, great difficulties are experienced in securing the services of 

 accomplished and able men as professors in the departments of science to which these 

 institutions are devoted. This, as it appears to me, is one of the greatest obstacles 

 which impedes the success of the movement. 



In almost every State the national grant has been added to the funds of some exist- 

 ing institution, in order that, by the concentration of resources, greater power may be 

 acquired ; but almost invariably in such cases the congressional funds, with others ex- 

 pressly given for scientific purposes, have been separately invested and employed so 

 that they may not be diverted to classical or literary studies. 



Four of the New England States directed their national grant to one of the historic 

 colleges within their borders Yale, Brown, Dartmouth, and the University of Vermont 

 the conditions of connection varying in each State. Massachusetts, on the contrary, 

 established a new agricultural college, and endowed the new Institute of Technology 

 in Boston instead of building up Harvard, Amherst, Williams, or Tufts. 



Beyond New England, New York, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois have established new 

 institutions. In New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minne- 

 sota, Missouri, Kentucky, California, and elsewhere the national grant has contributed 

 to strengthen the State university, the State agricultural school, or some other pre- 

 existent college. 



The following table exhibits the location and name of the institutions to which tho 

 national grant has been directed. 



