(370) 
sary data for such an application was stated; but it was in 
inserted as a make-weight, showing a large additional loss of 
means which the college had formerly counted on —circum- 
stances which might naturally induce the Legislature to give 
Columbia a liberal share of the patronage expected to be dis- 
tributed through the new lottery (ante, pp. 26-27). 
The treatment of the subject in the select committee of the 
Senate was of precisely this import. Had compensation for 
lands lost through the treaty of 1790 been the purpose of the 
grant, an investigation and report must have been made by 
the committee as to the value of the lands at the time of the 
treaty; the nature and condition of the college title at that 
time, and her ability ever to gain possession. No such inves- 
tigation or report was made, or even suggested. But a most 
careful inquiry.and an itemized report were made as to all the 
government patronage the college had received from its very 
foundation. Only about $45,000 in money were found, of 
which only $6,500 remained as an active source of revenue. 
The committee reported that they could not 
‘*well conceive how the pud/ic patronage to so respectable 
and ancient an establishment should have been so limited, 
unless on the alae that Columbia was too richly en- 
dowed to need it” — which was a mistake ; that ‘‘no grants have 
been made, except a lottery. and a few small tracts of land, 
and 44,000 acres of land in Vermont, which was lost by the 
cession to Vermont,” Coeds as an immense sacrifice), 
and in closing say: ‘* Considering her hard case, # w/l 
comport with the dignity and magnanimity of this State to 
enter pose with the public “patronage for her effectual relief.” * 
Plainly there was no thought in the minds of this committee 
of making reimbursement or retribution for the loss of lands 
in Vermont; there is no suggestion of that idea, but only 
of a liberal grant of public patronage for Columbia’s relief. 
In the various subsequent petitions also for the repeal of 
the ‘“‘removal” condition, the grant of 1814 is nowhere re- 
ferred to as compensation, but as the ordinary bounty or 
* Senate Journal 1814, 37th Session, pp. 154 to 156. 
