(339) 
which was probably the dwelling shown in the cut near 5th 
Avenue, and that disappeared from the records in 1856. 
The green-houses were probably removed some time during 
Shaw’s lease, or at its close. 
In Spafford’s Gazeteer of New York for 1824 (p. 605) is 
the following notice of the garden — the last contemporaneous 
description of it I have found: 
‘© Tt embraces a great eta of indigenous, naturalized 
and exotic vegetables: ... in Grove has as many visi- 
tants as the Botanic Garden, ae pleasure or catching 
knowledge.’ 
Dr. Francis in 1829, says of it, * 
‘¢Flourishing under its founder, it perished under the 
neglect of the public. It is not for me to speak of the dis- 
grace that the state sustains by its failure in this enterprise.” 
THE GRANT OF THE GARDEN TO CoLuMBIA NOT MApDE 
AS COMPENSATION FOR HER Lanp CLams IN VERMONT. 
It has often been stated that the grant of the garden to 
Columbia College by the State in 1814, was made as com- 
pensation for her loss of lands in Vermont through the treaty 
with that State in 1790. Dr. Moore, President of the Col- 
leg, writing in 1846, eae 
‘« This treaty . . . surrendered a property belonging to the 
college, which ar at this day have been of immense value, 
and in doing so may be regarded as giving to the college @ 
claim of retribution, which all that the state has since done 
for it does not fully satisfy ;” 
thus intimating the existence of a claim against the State, 
and of grants in partial satisfaction of it. 
In the New International Encyclopedia, 5: 49. 1903, how- 
ever, it is directly stated that the legislature granted the Hosack 
Botanical Garden to Columbia College 
‘© as a reimbursement for lands in New Hampshire [ Vermont] 
belonging to the college, which were ceded by the state on 
the settlement of the New Hampshire grants.” 
* Address to N. Y. Hort. Soc. (N. Y. Hist. Soc. Tracts 
+ Moore’s Hist. Col. Col., 51. 1846; quoted in Hist. Col. Un. 1904: 36. 
