(344) 
items of cost,* and these had been remitted to Columbia “ as 
a compliment to the college.” + 
It is hardly credible that a loss of such a character, even 
had it been presented as a clazm in 1814, would have been 
recognized by the legislature as a legitimate demand against 
the state, in the face of these three prior enactments and of 
Columbia’s failure to prove her demand before the commis- 
sioners; or that ‘‘ compensation” for her Vermont lands could 
have been intended by that act to be given to her without 
any reference being made to those statutes, or any reason 
assigned for departing from them.} But, in fact, the petition 
of 1814 did not present any such claim, nor ask compensation 
for anything. No such language is found in the petition. 
It presents forcibly and at length the urgent needs of the col- 
lege. It appeals, not to any duty or obligation of the legis- 
lature, but ‘‘ to its magnanimity, for such a@sséstance as to its 
wisdom shall seem meet,” which is the ordinary prayer for 
public support.§ At the close of the petition two circum- 
stances are mentioned as emphasizing the deserts of the col- 
lege; first, that for 30 years ‘‘the patronage extended to 
Columbia had been very limited — not one fifth of the benefac- 
tions . . . made to a kindred institution” [Union College] ; 
and second, the loss of her Vermont lands, as follows: 
72), and the second on August 16, 1774, Of 20,000 acres near Cambridge & 
Johnson (Vol. 16, p. 391 of Patents). A further grant on April 6, 1774, from 
‘bury, now 
tenance of Tryonian Professorships, is stated in Pine’s Charters of Columbia 
College, pp. 72, 84. These make in all but 54,000 acres, and of these only the 
first and third, it is said, are now known (Hist. Columbia Un., 35-36. 1904. 
See post, pp. 370). All three patents were covered — — King’s prohibi- 
tory order of July 24, 1767. See post, hie 364, 378, 2 
The regular fees were in all $90.25 per 1,000 acres, divided among six 
officials, 2 which the ee tee was $31.25 (H. Hall’s Vt., 71). 
¢ Trustees Min., 1: 
} Had peer aes the object of the grant to Columbia, it would 
have been wholly foreign to all the rest of the act, and properly the subject 
only of an independent statute : and that purpose not being indicated in the 
title or preamble of — Act of 1814, it would, under our present constitution, 
have been unconstitutional. 
3 See Petition in full, ‘Hist, Columbia Un., 1904, pp. 100, Ior. 
