(341) 
The question requires an examination not only of the act of 
1814, but also of the origin of these land claims, their condi- 
tion in 1790, and the circumstances leading to the treaty. 
The Act. — Nothing in the title or preamble of the act of 
1814, to which we look for an explanation of its motive, indi- 
cates compensation for an injury to be its object, but quite the 
contrary. Its title is 
«An act ene a lottery for the promotion of literature 
and for other purpos 
Its preamble reads as follows: 
‘‘ Whereas well regulated seminaries of learning are of 
immense importance to every country, and tend especially by 
the diffusion of science and the preservation of morals, to 
defend a ge the liberties of a free state: It is 
enacted,” 
The ae i sections of the act provided for the lottery, 
and for the payment from its proceeds of the sum of $200,000 
to Union College ; $40,000 to Hamilton ; $30,000 to the Col- 
lege of Physicians and Surgeons of the City of New York; 
and $4,000 to the Ashbury Colored Church of New York. 
The sixth section granted to the trustees of Columbia Col- 
lege 
‘* All the right, title and interest of the People of the State 
in and to the parcel of land known as the Botanic Garden 
and lately conveyed to the people, etc., by David Hosack,” 
etc., ‘©on condition of the removal of the College to said 
tract, or to lands adjacent thereto, within twelve years.” + 
The reason and motive of the grant, as respects Columbia, 
as stated in the preamble, were the same as respects the other 
colleges named, viz., the public interest in the maintenance 
of seminaries of learning. No different purpose is intimated, 
and there is, therefore, a very strong presumption against any 
other. 
There were numerous persons in the same situation with 
Columbia, as respects losses of Vermont lands, none of whom 
ever received aaa except from the fund paid by 
* Laws, 1814, Ch. 1 
+ This condition was ere by Ch. 19 of the Laws of 1819. 
