The University of Georgia : a short history of its endowment and legal status, as a defense of its administration, together with a defense of the constitutions of the United States and of Georgia against the charge of hostility to the Christian religion / N. J. Hammond

OF GlRG!A./r//
A SHORT HISTORY OF ITS ENDOWMENT AND LEGAL STATUS,
AS'A DEFENSE OF ITS ADMINISTRATION,
TOGETHER WITH
A DEFENSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF GEORGIA AGAINST THE CHARGE OF HOSTILITY TO THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.
HON. N. J. HAMMOND,
OF ATLANTA, GA.
ATLANTA, GA.: Tbe Franklin Printing and Publishing Company.
It-93.

LD
PREFACE.
The following facts need to be known, that the public may understand what produced the matter of this book and why certain friends of education in Georgia cause to be republished what has already appeared in the press.
The State of Georgia is sole owner of the Western & At lantic Railroad, extending from Atlanta, Georgia, to Chat tanooga, Tennessee. In 1889, the General Assembly was about to make a new lease of the road. The minimum of rental was to be thirty thousand dollars per month. Out of that the .friends of education hoped to get aid both for the common schools and for the University. On the oth of July, 1889, Hou. Wni. H. Felton, of Bartow county, in troduced a bill to appropriate annually half of that rental to the common schools, 12,000 to the Experiment Station established under the act of Congress of 1887, and $35,000 to the University, to be devoted there to certain specified purposes. On the 17th of July, 1889, the following oc curred.
Mr. Veazey offered the following resolution, which was read and agreed to, to-wit:
"Unsolved, That Dr. Warren A. Candler, President of Emory College, and Dr. G. A. Nunnally, President of Mercer University, be invited to address the legislature in the hall of the House of Representatives on Tuesday, the 23d inst., at eight o'clock p. M., on the subject of ' Higher Education.'" Both spoke.
On the 24th of July, 1889, Mr. Veazey offered the fol lowing resolution, which was read and adopted, to-wit:
" Resolved, That the thanks of this House are extended to the Rev. Dr. Nunnally and Rev. Dr. Candler for their masterly addresses delivered before the House and Senate on last evening in behalf of the common schools."
Their speeches were not reported or published so far as we recall.

From the form of the invitation and of the resolution of thanks, it may be inferred that if they spoke at all of "Higher Education" they spoke adversely thereto.
On August 2d, 1889, Mr. Gordon, of Chatham, under instructions from the Committee on Appropriations, offered, the following resolution, which was read and adopted, towit:
"Resolved, by the House of Representatives, the Senate con curring, That Hon. N. J. Hammond be invited to address the legislature in the hall of the House of Representatives on Thursday next, the 8th inst., at eight o'clock p. M., on. the subject of " Education."
That invitation was also accepted, and on August 7th,. 1889, " Mr. Fleming, of Richmond, offered the followingresolution, which was read and agreed to, to-wit:
" Resolved by the House, the Senate concurring, That a. committee of three from the House and two from the Sen ate be appointed to arrange for the address of Hon. N. J.. Hammond before the General Assembly on Thursday nighf,. August 8th." Mr. Hammond's speech was stenographically reported and afterwards published.
On August 30th, 1889, the Farmers' Alliance of Putnam
county held an educational mass meeting and Dr. Candler addressed them. Thereupon they passed the following:
"WHEREAS, The views of President Candler, of Emory College, on education by the State, as expressed in his re cent address before the General Assembly, and in his re marks before this meeting to-day, seem to be in accord with the views of the Farmers' Alliance upon this subject,
Resolved, That we request him to enlarge upon these views in a letter, or series of letters, addressed to the people of Georgia, in which he is requested to state what amounts have, first and last, been expended by the State for com mon schools, and what for higher education ; what debt, if any, the State owves the University at Athens, and what in his judgment should be the educational policy of the State."
To that Dr. Candler made reply under date of 6th Sep tember, 1889, in which he assailed the University, and that reply was put into a pamphlet and distributed before the vote upon Dr. Felton's bill, which had been
made the special order for the llth of August, 1889.

In the debate many of the errors of that letter were pointed out, but it aided to defeat the bill.
On the 5th of December, 1890, Mr. Sears, of Webster, introduced "a bill to amend an act to make permanent the income of the University and for other purposes," being the funding act of 1881. The committee reported a substitute therefor. The substitute on the 8th of October, 1891, was lost, and then the bill was voted down. The vote on it was fourteen yeas to ninety-three nays.
Had the harsh criticisms on the University made in those debates ended then further notice of them would have been useless. But through newspapers and speeches they have been ever since retailed. Sp_far_ha<i _they gone that a law^ yer, a member of the House and aMethodlst, before a committee,. arguing for a bill~jjfee~Mr. Sears', said that~there Was no longer ..any use for the .University ; that plenty of denominational colleges in Georgia to educate all our young men, and they should be allowed to do that work. Though the aflyprw'VffT^TvTthp rommitteft promptly toltl_tbat_ he. .mistook the temper of that body^_ thejaet that such a remark was made arrested attention^ Mrt HanunondVwno had long been a member of the Board of
trustees of the University, and was now_ita .chairman. determined to notice those attacks.^ His pressing engage ments in court postponed and would not permit more than a short article weekly. They appeared in the Sun day Constitution, beginning 7th of May, 1893, and end ing with the review of Dr. Candler's recent letters on the 10th and 16th of July. Though when he began, his line of thought may have been fixed, the interrup tions of business and of disputants have given to the articles, in his estimation, a disjointed appearance but perhaps because of those interruptions they have been made more interesting, and the repetition of some thoughts have but enforced their meaning.
Because they contain matter not always accessible, and because the statement thereof supplies information which will be often needed, it has been determined to republish them, and thus to preserve what he has written or may find time to add concerning "higher education" in our State.

FOR HIGHER EDUCATION.
HON. X. J. HAMMOND, BY SPECIAL REQUEST OF SENATE AND HOUSE, ADDRESSED THE MEMBERS OF THE LEG ISLATURE UPON THE SUBJECT OF HIGHER EDUCA TION, ON AUGUST 8, 1889, IN THE HALL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Mr. DuBignon, President of the Senate, introduced Mr. Hanimond, as follows:
Members of the General Assembly, Ladles and Gentlemen:
If I have discerned aright any characterizing feature of this present General Assembly, it is that of an earnest and and honest desire to truthfully reflect upon all public ques tions the very highest and best sentiment of the State. Upon the absorbing theme of public education, fraught as it is with embarrassment and perplexities, I know of none better qualified for counsel than is this gentleman who has consented to address you, the Hon. X. J. Hammond.
Mr. Hammond spoke as follows:
Mr. President and Members of the General Assembly, Ladies and Gentlemen :
I have never before spoken in this hall. I know noth ing of its acoustic properties, and am somewhat afraid that I will not make myself heard.
I have no purpose to-night to amuse, or simply to please. I come expecting to present certain facts and propositions to the members of the General Assembly because they are facts, because here are lawmakers now considering the im portant questions which ought to be crystallized into statute form touching the educational interests of the State.

I feel, of course, greatly flattered by the kind words which have been spoken in introducing me, and much more flattered by the fact that the General Assembly thought proper to invite me to speak to them on a subject of such great importance to the whole commonwealth.
Even at the expense of being a little tedious, I have de termined to run somewhat through the history of legisla tion on the subject of education in this State, with a view to tell those who have not studied facts important for them to know, and to refresh those who are already informed.
You have had before you recently the Chancellor of the University, who came, by virtue of his authority and duty under the statute, to lay before you the educational wants of that institution. You have had before you, by invita tion, the heads of two other literary institutions in this State, of high character and great popularity. They spoke from the standpoint of men engaged in the work, and from the standpoint of ministers of the gospel. Perhaps a lay man may not occupy the same ground nor tread the same paths. Yet it is as important for you to know what laymen think on such propositions as it is to learn the mind of the ministry.
I was not fortunate enough to hear the Chancellor, being absent from the city at the time. I did hear the other gen tlemen, and I will be candid in saying that a part of my remarks will be made because theirs were made.
We have free education in Georgia. When did it begin,
and what was its history? In the Constitution of 1777 our people declared that "schools shall be erected in each county, and be supported at the general expense as the leg islature shall hereafter appoint." Were they established? No. The Constitution of 1789 and the Constitution of 1798 both left that out, and until 181 we had no general system of schools for education of any character. True,
in 1837, when Governor Schley urged that a portion of the money that had been loaned by the general govern ment out of the surplus fund in the United States treasury should be appropriated to school purposes, a portion of that money was set apart for the education of the poor children of the State. Various moneys were appropriated from' time to time for such purpose. That governor, and leading

9
men of all parties, governors of all parties, from time to time, urged the people to destroy that distinction between rich and poor, to wipe out from the statute book the declara tion that a boy should not get a free education in Georgia until on bended knee he begged as a pauper.
lu 1851 we appropriated several hundred thousand dol lars in railroad stocks and set them aside as an academic and poor school fund. In 1858 we added certain other funds, $100,000 of the net annual earnings of the Western and Atlantic Railroad, if any should be made, and whatever portion of the public debt should be redeemed by the sink ing fund. Six per cent, of that was to be annually used for a general poor school fund. Each county might add what it saw proper for its private fund. So matters stood up to 1866. In that year a committee was appointed, ten members of the House and six members of the Senate, to report a system of common schools. In the Constitution of 1868 there was a declaration that there shall be a thorough system of general education forever free to all the children of this State, which should be supported by taxation, or otherwise. It was to be a system of general education. The Constitutional school fund for that purpose was the poll tax, any educational fund that then existed, or that thereafter might be obtained in any way; the tax upon shows and exhibitions, the commutation tax for militia duty and the taxes on sales of spirituous and malt liquors. To that, in the Constitution of 1877, we added the dog tax. It is called a tax "on domestic animals which, from their nature, are injurious to property." One-half of the rental of the Western and Atlantic Railroad, having been set aside prior to the Constitution of 1877, that has been considered a Constitutional dedication of that much of that fund to the general education of the people.
But we made a broader change in 1877 in the common school system. We declared first that it should not be a system of general education, but that it should be confined to the elementary branches of an English education, what is vulgarly called the three R's; I suppose upon the prin ciple that the man who knows nothing but reading, writing and arithmetic begins each one with an R when he spells them.

10
Another feature, of that was that we struck out that that fund should have all acquisitions thereafter made for all time.
In 1868 they intended to have but one fund embracing the low and the high together. They put into that any fund thereafter acquired from any source, perhaps looking to the United States for help. That was left out in 1887. They made no provision in 1868 for teaching white and colored children in separate schools. In ] 877 we pro vided that children should be always taught separately. That is a Constitutional requirement and permanent. Thus you have the common school system of Georgia, a running his tory of its organization and a statement of its present con dition.
What else was there of free tuition ? In 1830 the leg islature declared that the poor school commissioners of each county should select the brightest boy in their schools and give him a free education at the University for four years; and $6,000 annually was appropriated for that poor school fund. It was repealed in 1841.* Then sons of ministers of the gospel, and young men intending to become ministers of the gospel, upon certificate that they were unable to pay the tuition in the University, were ad mitted free. In 1866 indigent Confederate soldiers were admitted free. That act was repealed in 1869. In May, 1872, Governor Smith turned over to the trustees the Agri cultural land scrip, in consideration that they would educate as many sons of farmers in the University as there were members of the General Assembly, and without tuition. In 1872, also, fifty free scholarships were given on condition that the recipients of them should teach school for as many years as they were in the University. In the speech of Chancellor Tucker, delivered before the General Assembly of 1875, he declared there were then 315 free scholarships in the University, of which 250 were chargeable to the Agricultural land scrip. They were not all occupied. That left the institution part free and part paying tuition. This kept up somewhat the old distinction between pay and poor students.
NOTE. The act was repealed in 1841. Only its fourth section dealt with educating the poor, and that not to the extent of an appropriation. That section was repealed in 1831 See post.

11
Finally, in 1881, the General 4ss>embly passed an act for the express purpose of abolishing that distinction in the University. The caption of the act is "An act to enable the trustees to make tuition free in the University."
What other free education have we in Georgia ? At the same time that we received the Agricultural fund at Athena the legislature declared that they would give $8,000 per annum to the Atlanta University for colored students on condition that that University would receive free one negro from each county upon the nomination of the mem ber of the House from that county.
Besides that, in May, 1877, there was chartered a colored university, called Clark University, and about the same time, or perhaps a little later, the theological school, which is there upon the hill. We therefore have had in Georgia, since 1881, absolutely free tuition from the mudsill to the top of the building. The argument which we heard the other night was that that was unwise; an argument ad dressed to the General Assembly, who were to vote upon this proposition. One gentleman said that the way to make a people great was to educate at the foundation only, lift them up to a certain height and let them alone to lift themselves. If that be true, your Constitution is a mis take. If that be true, you have sworn to support some thing that is wrong. That fight has been made, and made at a time when men were free to vote, and free to act, and the declaration is before you in unmistakable terms. There was a reason why the Convention of 1877 would not lay down the same rules and the same limits for education as were laid down by the Convention of 1868. We were largely different men ; we had different surroundings; we had different expectations in sx:iety; we had different hopes and aspirations. There were men there in 1877, good men, noble men, who still clung to the idea of edu cating only the poor at public expense; and one of the best of those men, in the very earliest of the' fight, when the clause for taxation came up, moved to put on it that no money should ever be appropriated for education except in the elementary branches of an English education. It was Judge Reese, of Madison. He made an argument declaring that the South should encourage manufactures

12
and the things leading to material wealth, rather than encourage the building of mind with the expectation of drawing wealth from educated brains. His argument was .such that a member said: "If we pass your amendment, will we not destroy the University of the State ?" and he frankly said: "We will, and that is my purpose." The gauntlet was thrown down. He advocated the common school as a poor school. There were those who were op posed even to that. Mr. Holcombe, of Milton, another leader there, declared that he would vote for the poor_ school fund, or for the common school fund, as it was called, only because he believed that without it the Constitution would.not be ratified by the people.
It is useless to go over the debate, but the proposition was made to postpone further discussion of that article until the Committee on Education should have its report acted upon. That committee was presided over by Judge Hansell. It had on it the lamented Tuggle; it had on it Judge Wellborn ; it had on it George F. Cooper, myself, Mr. Fitten, Colonel Scriven, O. S. Porter and I. G. Cain, men from all parts of our State. We had reported a scheme that we thought reflected the best sentiment of the State, a system which would be just to the whole country. The first proposition to limit the common schools to the three R's had not been reported by the committee but was adopted. They who opposed lost their fight when they undertook to prevent any other money being appropriated for the payment of any other "public schools" by counties and cities, and were completely routed in their opposition to the University. That left the Constitution with this declaration : There shall be a system of common schools, a thorough system for all children of the whole State. There shall be, also, a system of "public schools" in every county and city that sees proper to vote it, and a University for higher education. That trinity makes Georgia's system. Therefore, to argue what it ought to be, I repeat, is entirely too late. It is in the Constitution, which the General Assembly must support. But it is not always well to try to compel men to do that which is disagreeable to them, and, therefore, it to some may not be enough to say that such is the Constitution.

13
But let me go one step further in giving you a little history before we discuss the general topic. What is the Uni versity? What is its origin, and what is its purpose? In 1784 certain lands (40,000 acres) were set apart for the endowment of a college, a seminary of learning. In 1785 additional lots were put in for the purpose of making "one general and complete establishment." We made a charter in which certain trustees 'were appointed who were never to receive a dollar for their compensation; who could not hold their offices if they were absent twice in succession without proper excuse; who paid their own traveling ex penses, submitted to all the loss of time incurred in atten tion to this business, and were compelled to meet together for the purpose of transacting the business, and to meet the General Assemby once a year and report as a Senator Academicus upon the condition of learning in the State. It was right that men should be appointed who loved the work, and would do the work because of love. It was right that they should report to those who furnished the means. It was right that, if they failed to attend to their duties, they should be discharged. During the one hundred years of their existence they have bandied that public fund, and other funds that have been given to them, and not only has no dollar been lost, but nobody has ever charged that a dollar has been unlawfully or carelessly appropriated. What other corporation, without personal gain being at the bottom of it, can make such a record ?
In 1789 the Constitution declared that there should be one or more seminaries of learning which should be sup ported by such "donations" as the legislature should give, and that they should be made permanently secure in their "funds and endowments." That went along until 1865. The war had broken up the University. The great body of men who had shaped the thought of society had been swept away. We came to a new Constitution. The Con stitution made in 1861 had simply authorized the encour agement of learning without specific declaration about the endowment of the University. In 1865 we proposed to add to that, "and they shall provide for an early resump tion of the University by suitable endowment of the same." I shall never forget the scene when that was made

14
a part of the Constitution. The Convention seemed almost evenly divided upon the proposition. Colonel Doyal, of Spalding, a strong man, belonging to a strong church, the strongest church then, perhaps, in the State, opposed it. Others were speaking in reply to him. Every eye was fixed upon Southwestern Georgia, where there were about twenty-five votes which no man had been able to place. Hon. James Stewart, who had been a legislator, who had been Representative in the Congress of the United States, arose trembling, and stood silently for perhaps a half minute, with the tears rolling down his cheeks. The friends of the University knew his strength, and feared lest he should use it against them. The enemies of the University knew his strength, and were afraid he might not use it for them. He began to speak somewhat in this way: "Mr. Presi dent, I have a strong natural mind; I know it. I have been in public life here and elsewhere, and I have seen myself constantly distanced by men whom I knew to be my inferiors, because they were trained and I was not. I am astonished that gentlemen here, now that our fortunes are swept away, hesitate a moment about endowing the University. Be ashamed of yourselves. If you will not vote in the endowment clause, I will go among the chickenwomen of Southwest Georgia and beg of them for the education of the sons of Georgia." [Loud applause.] The twenty-five votes were ours, and the University was saved. [Renewed applause.] From that time forth there has been no trouble nor shadow of turning. The University is established iu the hearts of the people, and will remain dear to ihf>m. And yet they do not appreciate its wants, and therefore do not supply them. Every Constitution speaks of the "endowment of the University and the debt due to it." You all know the history of that debt, and I need not repeat it.
I wish to call youjr attention to a distinction in the Con stitution between the University at Athens and the Uni versity for negroes to which you are authorized to vote money. It is an important distinctiou, because the Con stitution, in another clause, declares that the General Assembly shall make no "donation." You read there that you shall make such "donations" to the University of

15
Georgia as the condition of the treasury will permit, and the General Assembly may also from time to time make such "appropriations of money as the condition of the treasury will authorize to any college or university, not exceeding one in number now established or hereafter to be established in this State for the education of persons of color."
That last was to be a thing legislators should consider every time they met, whether to give it anything, and how much. Why"? The experiment as to the negro was untried. Whether or not it would be profitable to make theirs a per manent institution was left open. But no question should exist as to the University for the whites. They should have their money paid them; they should receive such "donations" as you might make; you should make "dona tions" to them wheu the treasury justified the giving. That was the spirit of our legislation, and is further de clared by that act of 1881. Our bonds began to fall due; we could not invest them in anything else perfectly secure but United States bonds, which were not bringing as much per cent, as we needed to run our schools. Therefore Geogia, in 1881, enacted that whenever the trustees presented any due boud of the State, Georgia would fund it at 7 per cent, in a non-negotiable boud, payable only to the trustees for University educational purposes. Therefore and there by every dollar that fell due in the trustees' hands has been made a permanent and perpetual fund for the higher education of the people.
What appositeness is there in discussing these proposi tions at this time? It may be that these are mere inci dents of life; it may be that history repeats itself only in our conjectures and not in fact. And yet it is remarkable that during that very year, 1830, when we first made the additional endowment of $6,000 per year, to help poor students in the University, was the great congress concern ing the working of roads in the State. That year we appropriated $50,000 towards working the public roads. We had such a congress this year. I hope the omen \s good, and that as we have no need for $50,000 again to buy slaves to work on roads, we can put $50,000 to a better use this year and annually hereafter.

' i

16
I have called your-attention to a sfateof things in 1837. Let me remark to you that on the 13th of June, 1836, congress passed an act distributing the surplus money in the treasury among the several States. Where did that money come from ? Whose money is it, and where ought its proceeds to go ? In a letter from General Thomas R. R. Cobb, on file in the Executive Department, written in 1860, he declared that if a bill were filed against the State in behalf of the. trustees of the University, they could pay back all they ever received and recover a judgment of $50,000 against the State. I do not know that this is true; I do not believe that this is true. In a certain sense it is. I believe the State dealt with the trustees properly and not illiberally when they said: "You have $150,000 of notes for land; you are having lawsuits about these lands; you cannot collect all those notes; you are having a great deal of trouble. I will fund them perpetually at eight per cent, and give you sixty-six cents in the dollar for them." I do not think it was-a sharp bargain by the State; I think it was a fair trade for the State and fair for the University. But what had our State'then done towards education ? What was the 40,000 acres at that time ? Our population then extended only from Franklin county to the mouth of St. Mary's, scattered all the way; only 60,000 whites and 30,000 negroes by the census of 1790. It was a fund large enough at the time, but they contemplated giving much more. They had then that magnificent terri tory which now makes Alabama and Mississippi. Virginia had then that vast territory which makes the Northwestern States beyond the Ohio. The people were looking forward to education as the only means of building up a country. And when in 1781 the United States asked Virginia to give that territory to the general government, Virginia agreed to do so upon several conditions. Among them are that they mus{ declare that primogeniture shall be abol ished in that territory; that no longer shall the older son inherit all the property of the father to the exclusion of his brothers and sisters. Besides, they must declare that every sixteenth section of land in that territory shall be devoted to purposes of education. The great schools, the munificent educational endowments west of the Ohio stand

17
upon the solid foundation laid by Jeffersou in the resolu tions of 1787. Our .charters and Constitution gave us ab solute control over this territory now composing Alabama and Mississippi, and the United States asked Georgia to give that territory for States westward. Georgia agreed to do so upon conditions, among which were the same terms on which Virginia ceded hers. That was our "compact of 1802 "; and the splendid schools of Mississippi to-day rest upon those lands. Alabama, wise in her generation, went to Congress and got permission to exchange the sixteenth sections for such as she might select, and she has to-day the mineral lands around Birmingham and elsewhere ; and next to Texas is the wealthiest State, prospectively, in the Union for educational purposes. The people of Georgia laid the foundation for that education. But in 1794 we had that great swindle known as the "Yazoo fraud," and our legislators began to fear that the great bodies of land would not be well used; therefore, they adopted a different plan. I wish you to observe it, because I am making an argument which, as I understand it, makes it a simple duty upon the people of Georgia to respond when called upon for educational purposes. What was the arrange ment? We enacted first that certain soldiers, called "The Virginia Line," and some others, should have so many .acres apiece, and, hence, those who came down and settled in Wilkes and all that part of the State. General Toombs's .ancestors had three thousand acres of land for meritorious conduct. Georgia resolved to divide our lands, the poorest in 405 acre lots, the next in 202J acre lots, the next in 80 acre lots, avd the next in 40 acre lots. We had a lottery, and thus distributed the lots. We gave the land to the people unpaid for, put it with them to hold as trus tees, taxable for public good. Our fathers enjoyed the use until the State should need some return. What did we do with that surplus fund in 1836, and how did it come"? When the proposition was made in Congress to distribute the surplus, objection was made that under the Constitution of the United States there was no authority to put our hands in the treasury and draw out money for dis tribution among the States. The reply of Mr. Webster was: "This is money raised from the sale of public lands

18
under the Ordinance of 1787, which Ordinance declared! that it belonged to the people of the United States, and it is not like other money raised in the usual ways." Wegot our $1,060,000 appropriated, of which three-fourthswere paid before the repeal of the act. We gave one-third of it to the poor school fund, as I have told you, and put the other two-thirds of it, in December, 1866, just six months after the appropriation, into the building of the Western and Atlantic Railroad. The money that built that great road, over the lease of which you are here talking and contesting to-day, was obtained by the sale or the school lands that Virginia and Georgia had given away pro bono publico. [Applause.] And I say that in moral* any lawyer who can draw a bill to follow trust property through various hands, could, in a court of equity, wereGeorgia suable, recover that money for educational purposesto-day. [Applause.] "~ Some of the opponents of the University say, however, that a new departure has been made, that the college isnon-sectarian, and that in this day and generation nothingbut sectarian schools succeed, and some even say none but jectarian schools should succeed. Why was the University 'non-sectarian ? Let us look at a few facts in history.
For hundreds of years the world had stood in solemn' darkness, governed by the Church of State, the Catholie church of the world. The Reformation came. From Henry VIII. down to Elizabeth the struggle was carried on until the Protestants took control in England. Then catne the persecution of Catholics and Puritans. Then came the persecution of Dissenters by the Presbyterians in Scotland, so fierce that Milton wrote that "New Presbyter was but old priest writ large." Under "the five mile act" no Dissenter could go within five miles of an incorporated city.
Under the law of England, the Conventicle act, it was unlawful for more than five Dissenters to get together. Under the Corporation act men were appointed to office, to fill which they must take certain oaths and then fined for not taking those oaths, against their consciences. It was so until 1797, when Lord Mansfield declared the law had been repealed by the " Toleration act." Men could not

19
marry without the solemnization of the Church of the State. Men could hold no office if they were not members of the Church of the State and communed therein annually. That made poor sickly, miserable, but good Cowper write:
"They make the symbols of atoning grace An office-key, a pick-lock for a place."
It was under these circumstances, in 1776, that Blackstone's Commentaries were published, in which he justified the Church of the State as a necessity in government.
In 1758 Georgia had been divided into parishes, and a law had been passed that they should be taxed to build a church and support a minister in every parish within the State. It was natural, therefore, when we came to make our laws, that the pendulum should swing the other way. In 1777 we cast parishes aside, and made them counties. We abolished primogeniture. We went so far as to declare in that Constitution of 1777 that " no clergyman of any denomination shall be a member of the legislature," and it was repeated in the Constitution of 1789.
Hear the solemn protest of the Constitution of 1798: " No person within this State shall, upon any pretense, be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshipping God in a manner agreeable to his own conscience, nor be com pelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith and judgment, nor shall he be ever obliged to pay tithes, taxes or any other rate, for the building or repair ing any place of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry contrary to what he believes to be right or hath voluntarily engaged to do. No one religious society shall ever be established in this State in preference to another, nor shall any person be denied the enjoyment of any civil right on account of his religious principle."
It is but condensed and crystallized in the "bill of rights" of our present Constitution in these words :
" All men have the natural and inalienable right to wor ship God, each according to the dictates of his own con science, and no human authority should in any case control or interfere with such right of conscience."
In the light of history, what else could the State do in founding the University ? Having determined that there should be a divorce, a vinculo matrimonii, between the

20
Church aud the State, that the University should be non'_,/ sectarian, was an inevitable sequence. And who in the 7K. light of history would wish to go back, even a little way, to
the former conditions? What Georgian would wish a State Church or the sem
blance of one, or any church, or any number of churches, as such, dominating the State ?
The State as a State could not then, and could not now, have a University at all unless it was non-denominational, non-sectarian, free to men of all religious opinions alike. . Some may think that that Constitution of 1777 was a pro test against religion, because it would not allow a minister of the gospel to become a member of the legislature. Noth ing of the kind is true. The fathers who made that Con stitution, who had gone through all the revolutionary trials which gave us our liberties, Dr. Lymau Hall, signer of the Declaration of Independence and the author of the University charter, he and Milledge, who gave that great tract of .land upon which the University was built, legisla tor, congressman, .senator, attorney-general of the United States, governor of our State, and many more like them, were they religious men ? Let me repeat to you, because you may not have known it, the form of the great seal which they adopted, the first great seal of the State of Geor gia. This is the declaration in the Constitution of 1777: "The great seal of this State shall have on it the following device: On one side a scroll, whereon shall be engraved " The Constitution of Georgia," and the motto " Pro Bono Publico"; on the other side au elegant house and other buildings, fields of corn and meadows covered with sheep and cattle, a river running through the same, with a ship under full sail and the motto: "Deua noblt hcec otiu fecit," i. e., God made for us these pleasurable things.
There iiever was a deeper flow of piety in the minds of men than when j-hose words were penned. They are as grand and as beautiful as David's psalm when he said]:
" The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures ; he leadeth me beside the still waters."
It was not a protest against religion after our declara tion that the Church and the State should be forever sepa-

21
rate. The Church can be known to the State only in the broad sense in which Paul spoke to believers when he said, " He that cometh unto God must believe that He is, and that He is the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him." In no narrower limits cau the State deal with religion.
The Constitution of the United States, which in words, recognized " Sunday " as a day of rest, when it was finished, had for its capstone a Constitutional oath to support it. And it declared that a man might take the oath or make affirmation forty years earlier than a man on affirmation could become an officer in England. Our fathers were so careful on this subject that when they adopted the Fed eral Constitution it was with the understanding that certain amendments should be at once adopted, and the first was that Congress should make " no law respecting an establish ment, of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
In the same amendment they added that Congress shall make no law "abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or of the right of the people to peacefully assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Here we had all the rights of free men, won from un willing power, from magnet charta down, the best product of the centuries, these three freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of conscience. "These three, but the greatest of these" is the last in acquisition and last in this enumeration. So far from being a protest against re ligion the act of 1784 appropriating the 40,000 acres of land for the University, began with " Whereas, the encour agement of religion and learning is an object of great im portance to any community, and must tend to the pros perity, happiness and advantage of the same." ~ And the charter of the University, of 1785, declared " It should therefore be among the first objects of those who wish well to the national prosperity, to encourage and support the principles of religion and morality, and early to place the youth under the forming hand of society, that by instruction they may be moulded to the love of virtue and good order."
One of the gentlemen here boasted that we had in ^ tfie United States a college for every day in the year. He
might have added that we have more than that, a dozen

22

more to throw in for Christmas. And he boasted that all

but about one-fifth of them were denominational.

The other of them said the original universities of this

country were denominational when ours was established.

That is partly true. The Puritans established Harvard in

1742; the Presbyterians established Princeton in 1746;

the Congregationalists established Yale in 1699 and Dart

mouth was established in 1769. This last was by a charter

to Dr. Wheelock to educate missionaries to the Indians.

But before the missionaries were ripe the people killed the

Indians.

f

Of course, they all had to be established by church in

fluence. The church then was everything. Until 1665

none but members of the church could hold office in Massa

chusetts or Connecticut. But the University of New York

and the University of Pennsylvania were not sectarian and

none of those institutions are now regarded as sectarian.

Suppose they were. Is that a reason why there should be

none other? I would not deprecate the good they do.

Asa member of the Methodist church, I glory in the

s

good that Emory College does. But I would not have

it take the place of a State college to which all can go

upon an equality without regard to religious faith. There

should be no antagonism between the sectarian colleges and

the University. They should act together in duty with

out strife and without contention.

" When two such silver currents join They glorify the banks that bind them in.''

It was said that when you educate a man to do the ordi nary duties of life, you have given him all the State should allow. It was said that one of the ordinary duties was to vote; and if a fellow could read the ballot all was right. Another duty was to serve on juries. One gentleman said he had observed in murder trials that all the educated men would be stricken from the juries and the common men be left. Were the lawyers struggling to get intelligence on those juries, or doiug what an Englishman said when they proposed to strike a jury to try a case; " Come, boys, let's knock the brains out of the box." That is no fair test. The man who passes on property, reputation or life ought to be, as far as can be, an educated man. He may be a

23
tiller of the soil, he may be a mechanic, he may be a laborer, but in whatever capacity he is, the stronger he is intellectu ally, the better his intellect is trained, the better service he can give the State. [ Applause.]
Let me tell you it is because our jurymen have not the confidence of our country that mobs disgrace our history. [ Applause.] Every man who declines to educate the peo ple up to doing their duty is parliceps criminis in the mur.-ders which are committed by men who will not wait the slow process of the law. [Renewed applause.]
But suppose you were to look at it from the bare view of gain. Does it not pay to educate men ? What have the educated men of this world done ? I could fatigue you with names, but prominent ones only may be mentioned now.
Take Maury, educated free in the naval academy of the United States. He has made a physical geography and mapped out the bottom of the ocean, and found out the cur rents in the air, until men may navigate the waters and sail the ether like traveling on earth. All that agriculture and commerce enjoy from such sources to-day is, in a large meas ure, due to that freely educated man.
Morse, a graduate of Yale in 1810, once nothing but a portrait painter, fond of chemistry, fond of philosophy, listening to Dana lecture on electro-magnetism, was struck by a bright idea that has made the lightning the newsboy of the world.
Another educated man from Yale, graduated in 1792, wandered down into Georgia as a school-teacher, and was studying law in Savannah. He sat with Mrs. General Greenewatching a negro woman strip cotton from its seed at the rate of one pound per day. The lady said: "Mr. Whitney, can you not invent something that will improve upon that?" He put his trained mind to work and made the cotton gin, a thing which gives wealth to our State, and clothes the world. [Applause.]
Sir Humphry Davy was an educated man, but seem ingly fond of a lazy life. His father intended him for the ministry, but he declined. He studied medicine, but de serted it. He went fishing, and on the sides of the waters studied the properties of seaweeds and air and such like.

24
He studied all the plants of earth, and in 1813 he wrote that "Elements of Agricultural Chemistry," which has been translated into every language of Europe, and which gives all that the farmers know or that is useful for them to know on that subject. And will some man say, "what did he dowith his learning?" He took a poor' blacksmith's son, carried him into his laboratory, and trained the learned Faraday. On those two pillars all the learning of that science rests to-day.
In 1812 there came crowding upon the people thedeclaration that ninety-two men had been destroyed by tire damp in a mine in Cornwall. Many men before had died, but here was a great calamity. The miners got together and conferred about this most important matter, and went to the educated man Davy, and said: "Find out a remedy for this great evil." In two years of study and toil and experiment, he produced that little lamp which every minar wears on his cap-front down deep in the bowels of the earth, and absolutely thereby saved all that wealth of the earth which comes from mining. It only rests upon that discovery. When asked to take out a patent, he said: "My good friend, I never thought of such a thing. I have struggled only for the good of humanity, and if I have suc ceeded, the consciousness of having done good is my highest reward."
These affect the physical. Examine the moral. Go toLuther, the great author of the Reformation, himself beg ging for bread to get an education, taken up by a charita ble woman and sent to the university and then declaringagainst the dominant religion. He and Melanchthou, who himself had been educated at two universities by themunificence of an uncle: these two great men, educated to the highest pitch that their day would give them, made the great struggle which brushed the clouds away, 'and let the sun of free ^thought shine on earth. [Applause.] If in the world's history, universities only once in a hundred years made such men, it would justify all the expenditure that men could make for higher education and lower educa tion as its basis. [Applause.]
I am not going to consume time mentioning the dis tinguished men who graduated at our University. You

25
know them as well as I. From the beginning to the eud of" its career, it has been productive of large and profitable output. From the beginning to the end of its career it has adorned your State with men who have been useful, with some who have been brilliant, with men who have been grand, with a multitude who have done good service to the country. [Great cheering.] In the church, on thehustings, in the forum and on the field; in peace and in war,, they have made the history of our State grand and glorious. [Renewed cheering.] Their names could not be mentioned . in an hour. Should I attempt to call the roll and speak of their work I would break down like Paul in writing to the Hebrews of faith and its wonderful works. Commenc ing way back at Abel and Enoch and coming down through Xoah to Abraham and Jacob and Moses, he ended by say ing: "And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson,, and of Jephthah. of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets."
They were everywhere. "Wherever the land needed a judge, wherever the land needed a warrior, wherever the land needed a king, the men were on hand the men of" education. It has been so since the world was made. Moses was "learned in all the wisdom of Egypt" when he was chosen to lead the people away from bondage. Paul's "much learning," which made Felix tremble on his throne, spread Christianity abroad. Everywhere, in every age, God has selected grand men for grand purposes, and while an uneducated man may be colossal in his proportions, he never is finished until he is trained by some maturer minds.
I will not omit to say that I have a very great regard for those who have not attained to high learning; I have a great regard for the sturdy strength of those men who get along without it; but they will agree that they would bemuch better and stronger had they good educations, and they wish to give such to their children. While preparing for this -purpose we should enlarge the foundations which our fathers laid. Read the excellent preamble to our Uni versity charter where it declares "as it is the distinguished happiness of free governments that civil order should be theresultof choice and not of necessity, and the common.

26
wishes of the people become the laws of the land, then pub lic prosperity, and even existence, very much depends upon suitably forming the minds and morals of their citi zens."
An ignorant public opinion, or an educated Christian public opinion, as crystallized into law, which do you pre fer? If you would have the latter, you must prepare for it.
I know that certain politicians are in the habit of talk ing to the "horny handed sons of toil," and scouting Latin and Greek and all those things which exercise the mind and give it grappling hooks, enabling it to climb; but I have no respect for such speakers. The "world knows that educated people are the strongest people everywhere. It has been so from time immemorial. Take an ancient example, Sparta and Athens, under Lycurgus and Solon. The Spartan women were indifferent to dress; the ladies of Athens spent much time in their baths and at their toilet tables. The Spartans despised fine furniture. The homes of Athens were filled with luxurious furnishings, costly carpets, fine paintings, splendid sculpture. The Spartans ate simply to feed the physical body. The tables of Athens groaned beneath the loads of luxuries, conversa tion enlivened, and music softened their souls while they feasted. That was the result of training. Lycurgus had forced the Spartan mind between adamantine walls into one strong and deep channel of war. Solon allowed that of Athens to flow where it listed, and it roamed like some grand river through alluvial soil, and enriched and beauti fied all it touched. [Applause.]
Except when bent on conquest the boundary of Lacedemonia was the Spartans' prison walls. At Athens the genius of commerce sat like Briareus guarding Jove against the revolted gods, and while it rendered her people secure, poured the wealth of the world into her coffers. True Spartan women cut off their hair for bowstrings, and Spar tan warriors made Thermopylae immortal. But Marathon and Salamis emblazon the pages of Grecian history, and .Spartan warriors ran and Spartan women wailed when Epaminoudas was victor at Leuctra.
But suppose it was otherwise; grant that sturdy Sparta

27
was victorious. Who would see children whipped to death in the market places as examples of physical endurance?
Who can tolerate their ingrained treachery or contem plate without horror their practicing murder upon innocent Helots that they might become skilled in butchery?
What virtuous mind would prefer that society which furnished Homer with his unfaithful Helen to that in which the marital relation was held so sacred that even in time of war, when a bearer of dispatches to King Philip was arrested, those letters from his Queen Olympia were returned with their seals unbroken. [Applause.]
Let those who will speak against culture. We ueed it in men and women.* I would have her as frugal as Dorcas, as constant as Ruth, and as devoted as Mary. But I would educate her tip to Peter's directness, Daniel's decision of character, the zeal of Paul and the wisdom of Solomon. [Great appjause.] They who are to be the nurses and mothers of men who are to guide this old Commonwealth to glory cannot longer be struggling in the dark. [Applause.] They must be educated; highly educated. They must be kept abreast with the age.
" The woman's cause is man's; they rise or sink Together; dwarfed or Godlike, bond or free. If she be small, slight-natured, miserable, How shall men grow? but work no more alone: Let man be more of woman she of man. He gain in sweetness and in moral height. Nor lose the wrestling thews that throw the world. She mental breadth, nor lose in childward care, Nor lose the childlike in the larger mind, Till at the last she set herself to man Like perfect music unto noble words." [Applause.]
I cannot longer fatigue you. I cannot go into details. I regret that I do not address all the voters of Georgia to-night. I come by your invitation, and in the name of the people of Georgia file this bill for the trust estate for education that is laid up in the Western and Atlantic Rail road. I ask judgment and decree to-night that the fund shall be put where Milledge and the grand men who laid
NOTE. The bill to establish the female school at Milledgeville, known as Georgia Normal and Industrial College, as also that to admit females into all the Branch Colleges, now laws, were then pending hence these remarks as to female education.

28
the foundations of our State, wished it should be for the education of the people. [Applause.] Build your special schools as you will; lay broad your common school system and feed it freely. Let me beg you that you will not leave us trustees to come here year after year upon bended knee to ask renewals of your favors. We can build no house without knowledge of how broad to lay the foundation, or how high may be the structure. You can expect nothing of us until you tell us what plans we may make.
We love this Commonwealth; we love the rising genera tion which must take the place of those who are gone and are going; we love our race and we see on every hill around us more money being spent by churches brought to educate the old slaves south than you are spending to edu cate your sons. I am not opposed to the munificence tothem ; let us elevate that race as highly as we can. But,, for God's sake, do enable us to place your sons higher. [Prolonged cheering.] Think of it; one institution only, The Freedmen's Aid Society of the Methodist Church, a cor poration of Ohio, is doing more to-day to educate the negroesin higher education throughout the South than all the South put together, as States, is doing to educate the whites. How long, O Lord, how long will this people be so ignorant of what is their duty, so careless of what is their duty, so indifferent as to what is their duty?
I have no selfish interest in this question. The only son with whom God blessed me has been educated out of my own pocket. I have no more to educate. The only interest I have in the education of the people of Georgia is to stand and beg that for that noble purpose you tax me until I die, and my children after me. [Applause.]
Believe, fellow citizens, that there is something worthy in this cause. Come, now that you are about to lease this great road, now that you occupy this beautiful building, <-.)me up to the high standard of duty, and say as we have a uew Capitol which cost one million in which we meet bienuially, your sons shall have houses and teachers which will cost a few thousand dollars, where they can be trained into full rounded men, fit to worthily wear your robes when, you are gone. [Prolonged applause.]

29
CHAPTER II.
ADDRESS DELIVERED BEFORE THE ALUMXI SOCIETY AT
THE UNIVERSITY ON* JUNE 16, 1891, ASD PUB LISHED BY THE SOCIETY.
Mr. Hammond was inFrodiiced by Hon. P. \V. Meldrini, President of the Alumni Society of the University of Geor gia, as follows:
Gentlemen of the Alumni Society, Ladies and Gentlemen : I have the pleasure of introducing, as the orator of the
day, a gentleman whose ripe scholarship, blameless private life, eminent public service and unfaltering love for his Alma Muter, make him the ideal Alumnus.
Mr. Hammoud spoke as follows:
Mr. President and Brother Alumni Ladies and Gentlemen :
Guizot wrote that it was impossible to fitly appreciate, as a cause of civilization, the appearance of great men. The potent influence is that which makes and multiplies great men', viz.: great thoughts.
The Old World stood aghast when the Colonies in this New World pronounced a divorce between Church and State. But no less startling was the other new doctrine that " the distinguishing happiness of free governments is that civil order should be the result of choice and not necessity, and that the common wishes of the people should become the laws of the land."
Had we not had a surfeit of centennial discourse you might be entertained by examining how radical were these departures from the hoary-headed, but not venerable, dog mas that the State should dictate what the people should believe as to religion, and that certain classes only and not the whole people should be consulted in making laws. But that is foreign to our present purpose.

30
Because the common wishes of the people were to become the laws of this land, our ancestors declared that " the pub lic prosperity and even existence of free governments very much depend upon suitably forming the minds and morals of their citizens"; that such governments "can only be happy when the public principles and opinions are properly directed and their manners regulated," . . . and that " it should there/we be among the first objects of those who wish well to the national prosperity to encourage and sup port the principles of religion and morality, and early to place the youth under the forming hand of society that by instruction they may be moulded to the love of virtue and good order." These quotations from our legislation of 1785 show Georgia's reasons for founding this University.
Such sentiments were not peculiar to this State. The Congress of the Confederation declared in the celebrated Ordinance of 1787, that "Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be-encouraged." And after the Union had been perfected by the adoption of the Constitution of 1789, and after this unique form of government had been successfully estab lished, these sentiments of 1785 were almost literally quoted and applied to the whole country.
In Washington's farewell address he gave utterance to what he called "some sentiments the result of much reflec tion, of no inconsiderable observation and all important to the permanency of our felicity as a people." No sentiment in that admirable address is more important than where he begged his countrymen " to promote as an object of primary importance institutions for the general diffusion of knowl edge" because, " in proportion as the structure of a gov ernment gives force to public opinion it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened."
Therefore they do greatly err who complain because the State furnishes facilities for education as though she were only making a gift to the recipients. In that same pream ble of 1785 to the charter of the University, the legislature declared that, because, in the late " common danger and distress," the country had been so aided by the principles and abilities which wise regulations had before established

31
in the minds of our countrymen," they should " feel under the strongest obligation to form the youth, the rising hopeof our land, to render the like glorious and essential services to our country."
Those grand ideas have lost nothing by the lapse of years. They broke the clouds and let the sun rise upon this continent.
Every schoolhouse and college which has been built here in the past century, every law favoring education,, made by the States and the United States, has added evi dence of our faith in their soundness. The increased atten tion given to the subject in recent years shows that we are fully awake to the situation, that we believe that, if such forces in government were needed a century ago, when we occupied only a narrow strip of land on the Atlantic, they are far more needed now since our territory is so widely extended, our population so multiplied, our trade and com merce so increased, our values so great, and when all the complications of business and government call for such study and investigation as to tax the energies of the best minds of the country. Our Constitution of 1877 shows how Georgia meets the demand by her tripartite system of common schools, intermediary institutions and University. She affords to all who will devote themselves to the task, opportunity to become, to a certain extent, well rounded scholars.
We use " well rounded" advisedly. Ruskin said, "God tried himself when he made a tree." He had not in mind some slender piue which, growing with the multitude, stretched its attenuated stem upward to get the sunshine, but a tree which, because of its special excellence, had sur vived the destruction of the forest, aud with room for ex pansion had struck deep and wide its roots, stretched out ward and all about its strong arms around a sturdy trunk, and made itself both a delight and a beauty to all under its shade.
If creative energy might be thought to have put forth special effort on such an object, what powers were not called into play when a human being was made, that splen did animal knitted together by that subtle influence which every joint supplietb, and which the Romans, admiring his

32
muscles and sinews, called vir; that higher order of being having aspirations above the herd, turning his eyns upward, and, therefore, called by the Greek anthropos; that supreme excellence, made after all other things, the product of the joint thoughts and purposes of the plural Elohim, who said, " Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." Such is the creature made for dominion over everything on earth, in the deep and in the air, which the State would educate for its own uses.
It would be interesting to discuss how that fullness is to be best attained ; for instance, to defend the study of the ancient classics (so instructive, so enlarging, so strengthen ing to the mind) against the attacks of certain new lights at home aud abroad: to suggest what books should be studied and what avoided. We cannot enter that field.
But, since religion and education have been linked together in the quotations above, it will not be inappro priate to advise the constant study of the book of our faith. We will not invade the office of the pulpit, but drop cer tain suggestions about the Bible. Scholars will find it the best repository of pure English, and be improved by its impassioned poetry and splendid imagery, by its illustra tions so simple and so well adapted to the common under standing.
The Old Testament contains the only early history of the origin of all laws, arts and sciences, by later history traced from Egypt to Greece, from Greece to Rome, from Rome to the World.
In it we find -the foundation for all the laws of all the nations. Through it we percieve the strength of a faith which brought a nation out of slavery, kept it for centuries intact though opposed by all others, and after almost an other century of captivity enabled it to rebuild its temple .and reproclaim its laws at Jerusalem.
We see mighty Babylon built, Nineveh grow, and Tyre stretch forth its Briarean arms to grasp the commerce of the world. We see "the beauty of the excellency of the Chaldeans " perish and " that great city" and Tyre doomed to destruction; and Jearn the causes of their downfall.
We witness the gradual rise of woman from a state of ^servitude and degradation, the struggle between the true

33
and false religions, and hear even priests denounced by the holier prophets. We see the budding thought of the im mortality of the soul.
We wait four centuries from Malachi to Jesus for the gathering forces to usher in that glad day when the harem gave place to the permanent home of one wife, when bleed ing birds and beasts were pushed aside by the one Sacrifice, and the idols of earth were broken by one God Jehovah.
The wall of hatred between Jew and Samaritan was torn away. Paul preached the resurrection from the dead and the inspired vision of John, mentioning neither Jew nor Gentile, forgetting that any lines divided the nations, held forth promise of blessedness to all who will '-'come."
But the grandest lesson in both Testaments is that no longer is religion a thing for nations to quarrel about, in which none but states and kings and priests and prophets are concerned, but that the widow with her two mites is worthier than Dives with his millions, because of the differ ence of their characters; and that his personal duty is the supreme concern of each individual in society.
Assume now for the sake of argument, and for that only, that the State and society have done all that is needful to perfect men; that, here and elsewhere in our commonwealth, they are being sufficiently trained both in learning and in morals; we inquire what return shall such men make to the public, how they will exercise that "influence beyond the stretch of laws and punishments and . . . claimed only by religion and education."
Naturally as opportunity and inclination allow they will become husbands and heads of households. A Persian fable tells of one who in his,bath was handed a piece of scented clay. He said to it, "Art thou musk or ambergris"? for I am charmed by thy perfume." The clay replied, " I was but clay until T spent some time with the rose and the sweet quality of my companion became part of myself."
Love of wife and children will stimulate to exertion to furnish them with comforts and luxuries. Wealth will be craved, and there is danger that the means of its attain ment may not be always good. Some men have natural aptitude for accumulation, as others have for music or other things. Such men, if they will sink all else in the struggle

34
for moneys may become contemptibly rich and will be richly contemptible. Let no man desiring to be useful so seek wealth. Let every one profer to leave his children an ex ample to follow rather than a fortune to spend. Let every man fear lest when he shall be pointed out as worth a mil lion his neighbors will respond, "Yes, "but he is worth nothing but his million." Wealth is desirable, not to shine in clothing and equipage, not to gratify our vanity or ap petites, nor even our tastes, but for the opportunities it brings for great enterprises, for the control and management of large plans for the benefit of our country and humanity.
But neither to wed nor to get rich do men need urging. Their interests will control them. Selfishness is the safe guard of society. In other things, however, men do not so readily consent to duty.
Of course every man should have a purpose in life. His avocation or profession may be, and generally will be, the creature of circumstances. But he should ever keep before him some life task worthy of his struggle and toil. How piteous and yet how noble was the dying cry of Buckle, "My book, my book, I will never live to finish my book."
To that task must be brought not learning only, but muscle and nerve, industry, sobriety and energy of soul. These make unlettered men sometimes climb to enviable heights. How might such men fly with the eagle had they also education. The State demands more of those specially prepared for the work.
Three centuries ago Shakespeare put this thought into shape: When the guard was harrowed " with fear and wonder" at the ghost of Denmark's murdered king, and trembled in the presence of the unknown and mysterious, he cried out to Hamlet's friend, "Thou art a scholar. Speak to it, Horatio."
So in society, chaos to those who have not studied its laws; in government, a puzzle to fools, to wise men a noble science; in religion, a superstition to the multitude, a glo rious vision to the initiated; in the midnight of ignorance, folly and vice, there comes a cry to each such exalted man: Thou art a scholar. Speak to these demons and bid them depart.

35
How shall they speak ? The utterances must come from honest hearts. All ignoble fears must be banished. All mean desires must be buried. Fear of punishment and Tiope of reward are useful to a degree, but we seek now the influence beyond their stretch. He who adores only from the fear of hell is a coward; he who seeks heaven only for its golden walks, its fruits of the tree of life and its sweet music of angelic harps is a voluptuary.
Only he is pure who loves all things good because they Are good, and worships God because he is God. How glo rious would be our condition if those whose neighbors seek of them precept and example were so honest and brave as to speak no word from fear, no sentence from the hope of personal gain, no opinion except what was thought to be best for society!
What shall they speak ? What the subject and occasion need. They should be despised who, when sought for inibrmation, furnish only guesses, who, when asked for opin ions, furnish only notions. Any penny-a-liner may so write; any street babbler may so chatter.
That one may speak truly, he should accustom himself to think of things in their true relations and call them by their right names. These are never changed by the sizes of the transactions nor the position of those who are em ployed in their doing. He who cheats in the sale of a yard of ribbon is like him who cheats in the transfer of a rail road. Both are swindlers. There is no difference between the ignorant bullies who defy the police and the " best cit izens" who take the law into their own hands. Both crowds are mobs. Call not him who steals a dollar over the counter and him who, behind the counter,' by false figures and abused confidence, appropriates millions, by different names. They both are thieves. Let me warn you, young men, not to think of, nor call that which is de nounced, not only by the church but by the Constitution of your State, the Code of Honor.
This lesson is well understood in high circles in politics and in religion. Washington, in that farewell address to which allusion has been already made, sneaking of the Union, said, "It is of infinite moment that you should herish a cordial, habitual and immovable attachment to it,

36
accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as the pal ladium of your political safety and prosperity."
And the inspired son of Amoz, describing the wickedness of Jndah and Jerusalem, complained, at their climacteric, that " they call evil good and good evil, put darkness for light and light for darkness;" and said, "so their root shall be rottenness and their blossom shall go up as the dust."
Speaking from honest purposes and after an acquired habit of honest thought, the next thing in importance per haps is that their opinions shall be their own. This does not imply that others may not be consulted. He is an un safe adviser who fails to seek all known sources of aid, when opinions depend on facts. But if the question pro.pounded be one of moral duty and the circumstances are plain, it should then be immaterial what others would do with like surroundings.
We hear much talk about Rehoboara taking advice of the young men instead of the old men. Generally it is safe to consult those of experience. But not all gray hairs are honorable; that depends upon what heads they grow. The young princes who advised him to make the burdens of the people heavier were bad men doubtless; and it may be that the old men who advised him to be their servant that day that his subjects might be his servants forever after were not time-serving politicians. We know not. But he knew that, to pamper his pride and vanity, to feed his cor rupted tastes and sensual desires, Solomon had put grievous burdens on the shoulders of his people; and when called upon to lighten those burdens, Rehoboam, a king, had a kingly opportunity to right a wrong, and ought to have done it on the spot, without asking any time or any advice.
Graduates of colleges and universities should not make the mistake that they form a class or that their powers and culture are needed only in certain walks of life. On the farm and in merchandise as much as in the learned pro fessions, in every department of human toil and effort, their abilities will tell for good to their country.,
Nor should they shun the drudgery of every day public duty. For instance, he will not do his sh^re in the admin istration of justice because he regards jury, service irksome

37
or ignoble helps to bring the laws into disrepute and pos sible contempt.
Nor should they shirk their proper share in political affairs. That they will find there much that is low and de grading, much that is even filthy and loathsome, only the more demands their presence, that by the river of their in fluence they may cleanse the Augean stables. Let them not shrink back for fear of taking contamination to their homes. If themselves pure, they are in no danger. M What though the waters of the sullen fen seem to pollute the snow of the swan ? They fall off from her expanded wings, and pure as a spirit, she soars away and descends into her own silver lake, stainless as the water lilies floating around her breast."
Whether he wills it or not, every educated man will be in some sort a leader of public opinion, in business affairs, in Church and State. He will, perhaps insensibly to him self, either degrade or elevate those about him. As the plane of intelligence is continually rising, he who would lead upward must keep abreast of the times, know some thing of history past and current, study men in their rela tions to society and government, know something of the habits of life and thoughts of not only his own countrymen, but of nations afar off; in a word, have that broadness and clearness which comes from extensive observation and cor rect information.
Let him prefer bis own family, his own home, city, State or government, but without contempt or hatred for any other. Jonah was called to go a long distance to preach to a foreign nation, the enemy of his country, because he was fitted for the work. The effect of his labors in Nineveh, when he bent bis energies to the task, showed how great a man lie was. No wonder that, at first it took a whale to swallow him. But when he got into a pet and whined because " that great city," which he thought was to be de stroyed, was saved, he became so contemptibly little that he would not have made a mouthful for the worm which had gnawed down his vine.
It is a grand thing to have the courage of one's convic tions. Three examples stand out in sacred history to teach this noble courage. Joshua proclaiming that whatever

38
Israel may decide, " as for me and my house we will serve the Lord "; Daniel worshipping after the proclamation of" the king to the contrary, just as he did before; and Paul saying he would go to Jerusalem in spite of the warning of Agabus and the fears and entreaties of his friends. No less in business affairs and politics than in religion is such a quality admirable. He inspires confidence who hesitatesnot when duty calls, who would stake the Presidency upon a message.*
But some will say that such conduct will bring defeatThat depends upon what we mean by defeat. If mereephemeral success be all that is hoped for, if the best rgle is that of the trimmer, and the missing of the temporary rewards of such conduct be want of success, they arcright. But
" Not in the clamor of the crowded street, But in ourselves are triumph and defeat."
When Burke was taunted with that the Whig party had; beendisgracefiiHy beaten,he replied: "O, illustrious dis grace! O, victorious defeat! May your memorial be fresh and new to the latest generation. . . . Let no man hear of us who shall not hear that in a struggle against the intrigues of courts, and the perfidious levity ofthe multitude,. we fell 'in the cause of honor, in the cause of our country, in the cause of humanity itself. But if fortune should beas powerful over fame as she has beeu over virtue, at least our conscience is beyond her jurisdiction."
Perhaps this talk had seemed more erudite had the ex amples and names used for illustration been taken from. Grecian and Roman history. Perhaps it had been more entertaining to have drawn from the rich list of our alumni names of those who have illustrated high virtues in do mestic life and in the marts of trade, in the forum and on the field, in journalism, in medicine, in law and in thepulpit. Here, in the hearing of their descendants, .selec tion of some might have been thought unjust to othersequally worthy of praise.
Illustrations from the Scriptures have been preferred
NOTE. It bad been charged tbat Mr. Cleveland bad lost thePresidency by hia menage on the tariff.

39
because familiar to all. And having begun at the birth of our government, it seemed meet to close by reference to that great statesman who pleaded in parliament against the oppression of our colonies because it was wrong, as he de nounced the cruelties of his country's officials in India because they were wrong; who without family or wealth, by honesty and industry, won distinction above both ; who in his old age declined a peerage; and was not buried in Westminster Abbey only because of his solemn order that his body should rest in the little church in the village of Beaconsfield.
To-day's offering contains mere suggestions and few in number. But no matter. The commandments are but ten, and yet on them stand all the laws of Christianity and civilization. But seven colors mingle in the varied beauty of flowers and forest, of landscape and sky. The combi nations of but seven notes compass the whole range of music, from the vibrations of the child's harp to the swell of the grandest oratorios of Mendelssohn or Handel.
So if the educated youths of the country will heed these few admonitions; study the Word of God ; be true to their domestic duties; seek wealth only for the good they may accomplish; be industrious, honest, sober and earnest; love their country without narrowness, and serve it when called in common and exalted positions with like devotion; have high purposes and courageous maintenance of prin ciples, they will compass the whole circle of life's duties, they will" render the like glorious and essential services to our country." They will make our government as stable as the decalogue, and as glorious to the vision as the rain bow; and its movements will be music as grand as when the "morning stars sang together" at the birth of our world, and as sweet as when, at the birth of our Saviour, the multitude of the heavenly host sang: "On earth peace, good-will to men."

40
CHAPTER III.
WAS THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES MADE BY INFIDELS OR BY CHRISTIAN STATESMEN?
A REVIEW OF A SEBMOX OF REV. DR. .1. W. HISTOX.
When Wendell Phillips denounced the Constitution of the United States as "a covenant with the devil and a league with hell," only because it protected property in slaves, we passed it by as the outburst of an angry abolitionist. But when one of such learning, such piety and such deserved influence as the Rev. Dr. J. W. Hinton decries that Consti tution from the pulpit, and a carefully revised sketch of that sermon is published in The Wesleyan Christian Advo cate, the organ in this State of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, without criticism or a word of dissent, we may well be alarmed.
Lest, he be misrepresented the objectionable parts are here quoted from the sketch.
"The Constitution of these United States has a curious history. In reading it no one can tell whether we are a Christian or a pagan nation, for the name of God does not appear in that famous document in any form. When the Convention met in Philadelphia in May, 1787, the elements of a fierce infidelity were beginning to rage in France, and were boldly advocated by very able minds. Our success in the revolution of 1776 was attained by French money and men. There was naturally a close sympathy between the two nations. Our victory under Washington and LaFayette had inspired our allies with a daring for freedom which took the most radical form of revolution. These views reacted upon us as a new nation, and there was no small amount of infidelity in our land. Paine, now of infamous memory, was then the most noted political writer

41
of the day, excepting, pecliaps, Jefferson, Hamilton and Madison.
The "Confederation first formed lasted during the war, and for six years later, but it was falling to pieces and the States were rapidly drifting into the maelstrom of anarchy. A. Convention was called, after hesitation, to revise the Articles of Confederation. It met iu Independence Hall, and soon decided to make a new Constitution, as the old building was too rotten to repair.
"For weeks the discussions proceeded with no visible, tangible results. Discord reigned supreme in the councils of these very eminent men. Total wreck seemed inevita ble ; in their despair there was one man wise enough to find relief. He was the famous Dr. Franklin, the oldest man in the body (eighty-four years of age), and he arose to make a motion. Said he: 'Mr. President (George Washington), we have been here for weeks and have done nothing but quarrel we cannot agree on anything. We have had no prayer in this Convention, have not recognized our dependence on God. I move that the Rev. Mr. Dutch, of this city, be invited into this Convention to offer prayer in our behalf.'
"Of course such a motion would prevail. Mr. Dutch was invited; he accepted, and prayed them out of their troubles. They went forward and made our Constitution, but after making it they seemed to have no further use for Mr. Dutch or Jehovah if not dismissed from the assem bly ; at any rate they were not honored in their work. I know this is negative evidence, but it is weighty.
"We call this a Christian nation, and on many grounds found the claim, but not in our organic law. Our churches, our colleges, our literature show the dominance of Chris tian opinion. Daniel Webster invalidated by famous argu ment in the Girard will case that part of his will which was an aspersion on Christianity, the court ruling as Web ster contended, that this is a Christian nation, and this must be so recognized by our courts. I accept this gladly as an offset to the failing in our Constitution."
Later on is this declaration: "After God, our reliance for happiness and prosperity must be found in a rigid ad herence to the Constitution. Here is the charter of our

42
liberties and their bulwark. - I publicly avow my alle giance to this authority, and chiefly because there is so little government in it."
These statements, if all true, seem to be wholly illogical. If the Constitution be the work of infidels and wholly God less, in his opinion, how can he, a minister of the gospel, avow allegiance thereto and call it ''the charter of our lib erties and their bulwark?" Why did those infidels so readily agree to have prayers? They were not very well "prayed out of their troubles" if they proceeded to make an ungodly Constitution.
But are those statements true? Concede that the inci dent about prayer occurred as stated. Then the picture drawn is this: French infidelity was there dominant; the influence of "Paine, now of infamous memory," and of Girard, who in his will aspersed Christianity, brooded over the Convention, and was met by the motion of the Christian, Ben Franklin, for prayer. Of that infidelity in that body there is no evidence except that alleged "negative evidence."
Now for the facts. It seems safe to say that that inci dent never occurred. After an acrimonious debate Frank lin did propose to have prayers. Madison, a Christian, opposed for special reasons no way wrong, and none were had. Paine was not then in the United States, had been honored by his State and the whole country as a patriot, and had not written the works which made him offensive to Christians. Franklin had been more directly in con tact with French influence than any other member of the Convention.
Girard's will was not written until 1830. As to the 'college established thereunder,the will provided: "Secondly, I enjoin and require that no ecclesiastic, missionary or minister of any sect whatsoever, shall ever hold or exercise any station or duty in said college; nor shall any such person ever be admitted for any purpose, or as a visitor, within the premises appropriated to the purpose of said college." "Webster did attack that clause as antichristian, because of that exclusion of ecclesiastics, etc., and because, as he alleged, it limited instruction to pure morality and general benevolence, etc., love of truth, sobriety and indus try, "thereby excluding by implication all instruction in

43
the Christian religion." The Supreme Court said that the Christian religion was a part of the common law of Penn sylvania, but subject to its Constitutional right of freedom, of conscience, as had been held by the Supreme Court of that State. The United States Supreme Court said : "So that we are compelled to admit that although Christianity be a part of the common law of the State, yet it is so in a qualified sense, that its divine origin and truth are admitted, and, therefore, it is not to be maliciously and openly reviled and blasphemed, to the annoyance of believers or the injury of the public." But the conclusion unanimously announced was, " We are satisfied that there is nothing in the devise, establishing the college or the regulations and restrictions contained therein, which are inconsistent with the Christian religion, or are opposed to any known policy of the State of Pennsylvania." The will was not "invali dated," but sustained, and has been in full operation up to this day. There was no question as to whether this was a "Christian nation"; the question turned upon the laws of a single State.
Lastly, the members of the Convention were mature men of high position, born and bred here, and their char acters were formed free from French infidelity and before we owed anything to France..
Nor is it true that from the reading of the Constitution none "can tell whether we are a Christian or a pagan nation." In several places it requires oaths. Oaths are invocations of God's blessing or vengeance, according to the observance or violation of the assumed duty. Such invocation is demanded of every officer from a bailiff of a State militia district to the President, the <3ommander-inchief of the army and navy of the country. That require ment is the finishing touch, the capstone of the edifice.
More,' in fixing the time allowed "for the President to sign bills and thereby make them laws, " Sundays" are by name excepted. Sunday is "a sacred day in memory of Christ's resurrection and of the descent of the Holy Ghost." That Constitutional exception recognizes and keeps con stantly in thought the sanctity of the day which has rested upon it in all Christian minds since sixteen centuries ago

44
Constantine commanded cessation of work "on the vener able Sunday."
No reason is given by Dr. Hinton for his declaration that " none can tell whether this is a pagan or a Christian nation," except that "the name of God does not appear in that famous document in any form." The name of God does not appear in Washington's farewell address, though it is full of the spirit of Christ. God is not named nor any providence directly mentioned in that beautiful book of our Bible, so full of the high and holy courage of Mordecai and Esther. That name is absent from many of the grandest and purest productions of man.
The insertion of God's name therein would not have necessarily made it better. William Few and Abrahau Baldwin (who represented Georgia in the Convention of 1787), in 1784 and 1785, were among the charter members of our State University, in which it is specified that " the encouragement of religion" is among its chief objects, and that "all officers appointed to the instruction and govern ment of the University shall be of the Christian religion, . . . shall publicly take oath of allegiance and fidelity." Did all that make that institution more religious or better than the college of our church at Oxford, in whose charter God is not mentioned nor religion alluded to, save that the church conference shall elect the trustees, or better than our Wesleyan Female College, from whose charter truly none can tell whether it be pagan or Christian. The Uni versity charters were made when, according to Dr. Hintou, French infidelity was powerful on this continent; the others in 1836, after the terrible lessons of the French rev olution were known to all men.
The old Articles o.f Confederation of 1777 concluded with the pious words: "And whereas, it has pleased the Great Governor of the world to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress to approve of and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confed eration and perpetual union," etc., and yet Dr. Hinton says in ten years it was necessary to " make a new Constitution, as the old building was too rotten to repair."
The truth is the mention of God in a contract between men neither stamps it with piety nor does the failure to

45
mention God make it impious. The same is true of a con tract between States," such as our Constitution.
Our forefathers had seen so much evil come from govern mental interference with religion that they determined that our general government should have naught to do therewith but to protect every man in his freedom of conscience, which it did by the first amendment. Under it President Madison, in 1811, vetoed the bill chartering a Protestant Episcopal church in Alexandria, Va., and a bill giving a site for a Baptist church in Mississippi, because "it comprises a principal and precedent" at war with that amendment. Perhaps some force may be added to that example by recalling that the lands in Mississippi had been ceded by Georgia to the general government on the basis of the Ordinance of 1787, by which Virginia had ceded the northwestern territory. The thirteenth section of that Ordinance began: f And for extending the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty, which form the basis whereon these republics, their laws and constitutions are erected."
This long article has been written not in a spirit of criti cism or controversy, but to correct errors of history and wrong conclusions; because those errors tend to destroy respect and veneration for our Constitution, "the charter of our liberties and their bulwark." The diminution of that respect and veneration is a grave wrong.

46
CHAPTER IV.
DOES OUR STATE CONSTITUTION MAKE RELIGION A
"DESPICABLE AFFAIR?"
I.ET ITS HISTORY ANSWER.
Last week's criticism of Dr. Hinton's sermon stated that the Supreme Court of the United States held that Pennsyl vania was a Christian State, following a decision of the Supreme Court of that State to the same effect. It is well to consider the basis of that decision.
The grant of Charles II., styled "by the grace of God, king" and "defender of the faith," to William Penu, made because of "a commendable desire to enlarge our English empire, as also to reduce the savages by gentle and just measures to the love of civil society and the Christian religion," nevertheless proceeded to authorize Penn to wage war upon the many "barbarous nations" then in possession of this country, if they did not yield to Penn's government. Penn's contract of 1681 with a coming colony began, with "that so soon as it pleaseth God that the above said persons arrive there," and it provided laws against "slander, drunk enness, swearing, cursing, pride in apparel," etc.
Penn's frame of government of 1682 began with, "When a great and wise God had made the world, of all his crea tures, it pleased him to choose man his deputy to rule it," and it made divers quotations from Paul's Epistles. Though it made marriage only a civil contract and changed wit nesses' oaths to mere promises to tell the truth, yet it required all officers to " possess faith in Jesus Christ," and required "according to the good example of the primitive Christians" rest on "the first day of the week, called the Lord's day."
Substantially all that was repeated in the charter of 1701. Her Constitution of 1776, authorized by all the "worship of Almighty God, according to the dictates of their own con sciences and understanding," forbade any taxation for any

I
47
place of worship or ministry, and forbade depriving any who'acknowledge "the being of God" of any civil right as a citizen on account of "his religious sentiments or peculiar modes of worship," etc. Guarantees of religious freedom, were repeated in all subsequent Constitutions of the State, but with their details we are not now dealing.
In 1817 it was held by one of her courts that Mr. Greeue, a Methodist local preacher, could not be made to serve in a civil office (notwithstanding there was no statutory exemp tion) upon the ground that his "duty as a minister was higher" than to serve in the civil office to which he had been appointed. In that case the judge held that the law of Pennsylvania guaranteed "liberty to all, but preference to none; equal privileges to the mitred bishop and the una dorned friend."
In 1824 the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided the case of Updegraph, holding that Christianity was part of the common law of Pennsylvania, and that maliciously to revile the Christian religion was an indictable offence, and that 'her Constitution did not repeal an old act of 1770 against blasphemy. It was held that Pennsylvania had adopted the Jaws of England only to a certain extent, that she had no established church, but had "Christianity without the spiritual artillery of European countries."
Pennsylvania's Constitution of 1838 repeated the guar anty above stated, and declared that no religious qualifi cation for office should be required, except a belief in God, and in a future state of rewards and punishments.
It will be observed that, according to Dr. Hinton's test, her Christianity bad been constantly decreasing, hut that was the state of her law when the Supreme Court of the United States in 1844 said that Pennsylvania was a Chris tian State, and yet held that Girard had a right to make a will declaring that "no ecclesiastic, missionary or minister of any sect whatever," should ever put foot inside the premises of the college founded under that will.
So much of Pennsylvania's history has been recounted for comparison with that of our own State, for an attack has been made upon the religious character of our own Constitution. In an article giving reasons for liberal Christian support to Emory college, at Oxford, the college

48
of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, in Georgia, the following appears:
" Besides, the college is coming in contact with free edu cation furnished by the State. We will have to do some thing to meet this competition. We can only meet it by lessening tuition and making education cheaper at Emory college. We can't ask the State to aid, for religious insti tutions are under the ban of the State Constitution. We can only look to voluntary endowment. Religion is such a despicable affair, that none of its institutions can be assisted by the State, not in the least! We must endow Emory college so that we can meet this competition backed by a full and free treasury, or we Methodists in Georgia must give up the religious education for our young men.
"It is true, that this collection puts another burden upon our hard-worked preachers, but the harder the cross the brighter the crown. After a little education of the people in giving, this college collection will come easily and wil lingly. Year by year the missionary collection, the collec tion for worn-out preachers, that for the preachers, for the bishops and the rest, become easier and easier.
" Brethren, help the college in this matter, for much of its future usefulness depends upon this collection.
"J. K. H." "November 28,1892."
The whole paragraph just quoted contains much worthy of notice, but for the present attention is called to the folfowing excerpts only: "We cannot ask the State to aid, for religious institutions are under the ban of the State Constitution. . 1 . Religion is such a despicable affair that none of its institutions can be assisted by 'the State, not in the least!" This attack can have uo weight with the public because of the author, for his name is withheld and his identity js not disclosed. But it, too, was published in The Wesleyan Christian Advocate without comment or dissent. So sent forth it also challenges serious attention.
Can it be that our present State Constitution puts reli gious institutions under its "ban" and makes religion "despicable"?
That Constitution is also a growth. Nothing is now

49
said about Carolina's charter, though Georgia was once part of that territory. George II., with the same pious title of " king by the grace of God " and " defender of the faith," granted our charter of 1732 to Oglethorpe and others, and in 1752 substituted for it Georgia's provincial government. That charter of 1732 was granted in charity for the poor and to aid in fighting *' said savages," recog nized dependence on "the blessing of God," granted a modified liberty of conscience and prescribed an oath of office with the terminal invocation of " so help me God." Our Christianity had been vindicated by the names of our territorial divisions, viz.: the parishes of St. Paul, St. Matthew, St. Philip, St. John, St. David and St. Mary, and the less pious names of St. George and St. Patrick.
In obedience to the recommendation of the Continental Congress, in 1776, at Savannah, we proposed a new Consti tution, which was unanimously adopted in February, 1777. That Constitution had in it the name of God in that it pre scribed that the seal of State should bear the words, "Deus nobis hsec otia fecit," and the oaths prescribed ended with, "So help me God." But it declared that "no clergyman of any denomination shall be a member of the General Assembly," knocked out all the saints and called our terri torial divisions by the plain names of the counties of Rich mond, Burke, Chatham, etc., after statesmen who had be friended us in England, thus substituting in our nomencla ture politics for piety.
Our Constitution made at Augusta in 1789 left off the " So help me God" at the end of the oaths, retained the prohibition against ministers of any sect being in the legis lature, granted liberty of conscience and required that by legislature at its first session the .great seal should be "al tered by law." Meanwhile we made the new Constitution of 1798 at Louisville. In it God's name was not mentioned, and the only allusion to religion in it is in the guaranty of freedom of conscience. Pursuant to Constitutional require ment, by act of February 5, 1799, the great seal was changed by striking out the Latin motto prescribed by the Constitution of 1777, and the substitution of the three columns supporting the Constitution, with the words, "Wisdom, Justice and Moderation," indicative of the
4

50
three parts of government, the legislative, the judiciary and the executive, with "a man standing with a drawn sword representing the aid of the militiary in defence of the Constitution." Note the striking out of the Latin God (Deus) and substitution of the "Georgia colonel."
Though that Constitution was amended more than a dozen times, none of the amendments mentioned God save that of 1812, which required the managers of elections for justices of the peace to take an oath ending " So help me God." In passing it may be remarked that the two in stances above mentioned are the only Constitutional re quirements of that ending of oaths. Did that termination make the election of a justice of the peace more religious than without it ?
Under a Constitution of New York with a guaranty of religious freedom, in perhaps the exact language of our present Constitutional guaranty, with also prohibition against any minister being a member of her General As sembly, iu 1811 Chancellor Kent decided that it was a crime nt common law to revile religion in that State. His decision would have been equally applicable in Georgia upon the facts as they then existed here.
Our Constitution after that was changed in none of the particulars under discussion until in the Secession Constitu tion of 1861 it was declared that "God has ordained that man shall live under government, etc., and that Constitu tion restored the "Sundays excepted," which had been so long no part of our Constitutional requirement at the time for the Governor's signing bills to make them laws.
The next Constitution was adopted in 1865 under the Provisional governor, James Johnson. Less than eighteen thousand persons voted at the election held for its adop tion. Governor Herschel V. Johnson presided over that Convention, and a leading advocate of that Constitution in and out of the Convention was the Hon. Joshua Hill. That Constitution began with a preamble " invoking the guidance of Almighly God, the author of all good government."
That same invocation was copied in the preamble to the Constitution of 1868, adopted by a Convention called by Major General Meade and against which, out of 160,000' votes cast, more than seventy-five thousand f>f the best citi-

51
zens of Georgia voted. It forbade any " donation to any sectarian corporation or association."
When the white democrats got control of the State we made the present Constitution in 1877. That be gan with the declaration that the people " reiving upon the protection and guidance of Almighty God do ordain and establish this Constitution." ' It declared that " All men have the. natural and inalienable right to worship God, each according to the dictates of his own conscience." It requires oaths of all officers and excepts "Sundays" as days of rest. That Convention was daily led in prayers by its chaplain. Its presiding officer was that noble Christian gentleman, jurist aud statesman, Charles J. Jenkins, durum el venerabile nomen.
The mention of oaths in all of these Constitutions is so emphasized because of the importance attached thereto in the cases on this subject. Chancellor Kent said : "An oath in the common form on a discredited book would be an idle ceremony," meaning that by the very fact of swearing on the Bible we daily acknowledge its holy character.
Lord Erskiue in 1797, in prosecuting Williams for pub lishing Tom Paint's "Age of Reason," said " Under what obligations can I call upon you, the jury, representing your country, to administer justice? Surely no other than that you are sworn to administer it under the oaths that you have taken. . . . The whole judicial fabric, from the king's sovereign authority to the lowest magistrate, has no other foundation."
Surely the writer .'lid not think of the meaning of his words when he declared that religious institutions in Geor.gia were under the "ban" of our Constitution,and that re ligion was here a " despicable affair."
According to Webster "ban" means "interdiction, pro hibition, curse, excommunication, anathema." Shakespeare wrote, "With Hecate's ban thrice blasted, thrice infected." "Despicable" means "that may be or deserves to be despised, contemptible, mean, vile, worthless."
Our Constitutions, unlike those of Pennsylvania, by Dr. Hinton's test, improved in piety as we grew older. The pious Thomas R. R. Cobb, the author of the Constitution of 1861, ascribed all government to God. The military

52
governments of Governor Johnson and General Meade be gan with prayers. That of 1877 begins with reliance upon "the protection and guidance of Almighty God." It had in it all the other earmarks of Christianity which have been mentioned, and in it is no line or word against any denomination of religionists.
lu so dispassionate a criticism to harshly characterize thearticle under review would be unseemly, but its author can blame none but himself if the facts of history demonstratethat he has slandered the Commonwealth of Georgia, which General Toombs was wont to call " the grand old mother of us all."

53
CHAPTER V.
IJBERTY OF CONSCIENCE----ITS HISTORY IN THE UNITED
STATES.
In the two former chapters the remarks touching the sub ject of this chapter were cursory only. It is worthy a more detailed statement.
The struggle for liberty of concience was through centu ries, its path lighted by the fires which burnt the martyrs and red with the blood of thousands of victims. The book of time shows no more horrible picture than that made by the conduct of the Christians when they took Jerusalem at the end of the first Crusade. A part of the scene is painted l)y a historian in the following words: "Infants were seized by their feet and dashed against the walls or whirled over the battlements, while the Jews were all burnt alive in their synagogues."
To show how gradually the colors shaded down is un necessary and foreign to our purpose.
Religious toleration first began on this continent under the charter of 1646, granted to the Catholic Lord Balti more. Perhaps, however, it is safe to say, with a distin guished statesman, that its cradle was in Pennsylvania among the Quakers. Up to the date of our independence we were British colonies, and that government gave us laws. In the list of crimes defined in " Blackstone's Commenta ries on the Laws of England," first published in 1776, were many for religion's sake. For example, more than five dissenters might not be together. Apostasy, heresy, absenting one's self from the worship of the established church, the mistaken or perverse zeal in error, as shown by Papists and Protestant dissenters, were crimes. By that law a Catholic, for saying or hearing mass, was liable to be fined and imprisoned for a year, and should one apostatize from the Church of England to Catholicism he was guilty of high treason. Such crimes were wiped from our laws

54
after the Revolution. But, though that Revolution was thework of men whose fathers came here fleeing from persecu tion for religion's sake, it took them long.to "purge outthe old leaven"; long to learn .and enforce the difference between "toleration" and "liberty."
The main struggle was in Virginia, the home of those who did so much to shape our institutions. It was not done by wicked men, but by Presbyterians and by Episco palians of the established church. The first draft of Vir ginia's declaration of rights on this subject was by Patrick Henry, and declared, " That religion or the duty we owe toour Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be di rected only by reason and conviction, not by force or vio lence ; and, therefore, that all men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion, according to the dic tates of conscience, unpunished and unrestrained by the magistrate, unless, under the cover of religion, any man disturb the peace, happiness and safety of society. And that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian for bearance, love and charity towards each other." The sub stitute proposed in lieu of that language was, "That re ligion, or the duty we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, being under the direction of reason and religion only, not of violence or compulsion, all men are equally entitled to the full and free exercise of it, according to the dictates of conscience, and, therefore, that no man or class of men ought, on account of religion, to be invested with peculiar emoluments or privileges, nor subject to any penalties or disabilities, unless, under color of religion, the preservation of equal liberty and the existence of the State be manifestly endangered." It finally assumed the follow ing form : " That religion, or the duty we owje to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence, and, therefore, all men arex equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the the duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love and charity towards each other." Those who would learn how wide apart were the two propositions, and who would learn Madison's views on the subject under discussion, are referred to the famous " Memorial and Remonstrance " of

55
the author of the quoted substitute. The author was James Madison, Jr., whose tutor was the Rev. Thomas Martin, and who later was sent to Princeton for its Presbyterian in fluences and there sat at the feet of the Rev. Dr. Witherspoon, eminent both as a divine and statesman. When. Madison came to deal with the politics of Virginia he was so zealous against the established church, as such, that his opponents called him, in derision, a Methodist. He saw that to admit that the government could " tolerate" re ligion was to surrender jurisdiction over the subject matter to the State and to abandon the struggle for liberty of con science, which could exist only by a title in each, man to "full and free exercise of it according to the dictates of conscience." Madison was supported in that fight by Ed mund Randolph, who alone voted with Dr. Franklin in favor of opening the Convention of 1787 with prayers, whose family coat-of-arms had been " Fari quae sentiat" (Let every one speak what he feels); who was so careful that he feared that the declaration in the Constitution of the United States that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States" was dangerous, because it might imply that the Congress of the United States had power over religion." To these and such statesmen as these we owe the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, article 1, which is as follows:
" Congress shall make no law respecting an establish ment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Washington, with that Randolph as his Attorney-General and Jefferson as his Secretary of State, sent to the senate and the senate confirmed our treaty with Tripoli, the first with any foreign country. That treaty began with this declara tion : " As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, as it has in itself-no character of enmity against the laws, reli gion, or tranquillity of Mussulmans, and as the said States have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohammedan nation, it is declared by the parties that

56
no pretext arising from religious opinious shall ever pro duce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
Tripoli knew what it was to have a country founded on a particular religion; what cruel wars had been waged be cause of religion. Indeed, so common had that been that in our own Articles of Confederation each State had pledged to aid each other against " all attacks made on them or either of them on account of their religion," etc. Under the circumstances, that language was not only not wrong, but was called for by the occasion.
In the light of those facts, we readily understand why Jefferson, when President of the United States, declined to issue a proclamation for a day of religious thanksgiving, because he thought it outside of the jurisdiction of his office. In the light of those facts, we appreciate Madison's vetoes in 1811 of the bills with regard to the Episcopal church in Alexandria and the Baptist church site in Mississippi, here tofore mentioned.
The early advocates of religious liberty disclaimed all idea of hostility to Christianity, and claimed that by their conduct they were laying the broadest and strongest foun dation for its structure. Indeed, almost before the heat of the battle was over,, we find onr Supreme Court of the United States, in 1815, ruling that the legislature of Vir ginia could not deprive a church of its glebe lands, and using the following language: " It is conceded on all sides that, at the Revolution, the Episcopal church no longer retained its character as an exclusive religious establish ment. And there can be no doubt that it was competent to the people and to the legislature to deprive it of its supe riority over other religious sects, and to withhold from it any support by public taxation: But although it may be true that' religion can be directed only by reason and con viction, not by force or violence,' and that 'all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience,' as the bill of rights of Virginia declares, yet it is difficult to perceive how it follows as a consequence that the legislature may not enact laws more effectually to euable all sects to accomplish the great objects of religion by giving them corporate rights for the manage-

57
tnent of their property, and the regulation of their temporal as well as spiritual concerns."
We have seen that Georgia's charter of 1732allowed "a liberty of conscience in the worship of God," and that " all persons except the papists shall have a free exercise of reli gion," etc. The Constitution of 1777 declared that "all persons shall have free exercise of their religion, provided it be not repugnant to the peace and safety of the State, and shall not, unless by consent, support any teacher ex cept those of their own profession." Under that the papists were as free as others.
The ample provisions on the subject in the Constitution of 1789 were in these words: " No person within this State shall, upon any pretense, be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshiping God in a manner agreeable to his own conscience, nor be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith and judgment, nor shall he ever be obliged to pay tithes, taxes or any other rate, for the building or repairing of any place of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry contrary to what he believes to be right or hath voluntarily engaged to do. No one religious society shall ever be established in this State in preference to another, nor shall any person be denied the enjoyment of any civil right on account of his religious principle."
A shorter and better statement occurs in our later Consti tutions, which have been mentioned. That in the present Constitution is too familiar to be quoted.
The Constitution of the United States had left each State free to have its own established church if it wished. But the same spirit which made that Constitution pervaded the States. In spite of many Episcopalians and Presbyterians who were not then ready for the full and final divorce be tween Church and State, in 1779 Virginia passed the famous act of that year, so dear to Jefferson that he wished it mentioned in his epitaph that he was author of it as well as of the Declaration of Independence.
From that time forth the current has been steady and in but one direction. In every State whatever faith prevailed, in every State whatever political party was dominant, in every phase of our history, before the war, when secession

58
made us the independent republic of Georgia, in the Con federacy, through military rule and reconstruction, to our present condition, there has been no "variableness nor shadow of turning" in securing, in some form of Constitu tional guaranty, liberty of conscience.
When in 1887 the people met again in Philadelphia to celebrate the centennial of the ratification of the Constitu tion, men of all religions joined hands and hearts in thank ing God for the government under which all could enjoy the inestimable blessing of free speech, a free press, and a free conscience. Under them, religion has not perished but been gloriously fruitful. The extreme views on either side have given away. Our Presidents proclaim days of thanksgiving, our Congress proclaims to the world that it wishes that Sunday shall be kept as a day of rest at the great exposition. In Georgia some of the dead fruits of intolerance hung about our laws for years. For many years one could not testify here in court unless he believed in a future state of rewards and punishments. Yet Georgia has done much that extremists of the other side might oppose. She has had no common law crimes since her Penal Code of 1811. Since then Bob Ingersolls would have been free to spout Tom. Paine's infidelity as they pleased. We rely only on Christian decency to discourage such conduct. Xot until 1817 was it a crime here to keep open a tippling house on the Sabbath. To carry on one's busi ness on that day and to run freight trains on railroads were forbidden. In 1871 the law provided special police for churches, and to disturb religious worship or a Sundayschool, or to take liquor to either have long been crimes. It is especially noticeable that here fines for crimes, the gist of which is for violating the Sabbath, are by law pay able to our Ordinaries for "establishing and promoting Sunday-schools."
There is no more "striking argument for free conscience than the situation of our Methodist church then and now. Then it was but a feeble sect. The piety of Wesley and Harvey and Whitfield. of Webb and Asbury, their zeal and their eloquence could not then shield its communicants from derision. But sixty ministers were present at its first conference in 1784 in Catholic Baltimore. Now its com-

59 cfrmehelguutarncarihdcnaedtnsh.tresesasporeeucrtcceoeduoenvfteetdrhyiwbsyhgetlhroeer.iomuLislelitdoeunvs,enalnoevpdemrietfsnotringifenltueoanlrlcdetihsies

60
CHAPTER VI.
THE STATE UNIVERSITY, ITS FOUNDING AND ENDOWMENT.
Georgia's Constitution of 1777 declared that "schools shall be erected in each county and supported at the public xpence of the State as the legislature shall hereafter point out." In the address to the legislature on July 8, 1783, Governor Hall said: "Almost all the evils of govern ment originate from men of corrupt principles and abandoued manners. In addition, therefore, to wholesome laws restraining vice, every encouragement ought to be given to introduce religion, and learned clergy to perform divine worship in honor of God, and to cultivate principles of re ligion and virtu re among our citizens. For this purpose it will be your wisdom to lay an early foundation for en during seminaries of learning; nor can you, I conceive, lay it in a better way than by a grant of a sufficient tract of land that may, as in other governments, hereafter, by lease or otherwise, raise a revenue sufficient to support such valuable institutions."
Pursuant to that recommendation the legislature in 1784 ordered "the laying out of two or more counties to the westward," meaning west of Wilkes county. They were Franklin and Washington, much larger then than now. Out of them the act required forty thousand acres of land, in five thousand acre tracts," for the endowment of a college or seminary of learning," because "the encouragement of religion and learning is an object of great importance to any community, and must tend to the prosperity, happiness and advantage of the same."
In 1785, in order to exert "an influence beyond the strength of laws and punishments, . . . claimed only by religion and education," the legislature incorporated certain of the best men of the time as a Board of Visitors and a Board of Trustees, who should jointly compose "the xenatits aeademicus of the University of Georgia." They had authority to appoint all officers " to the instmction and

61
government of the University," who should "be of the Christain religion," but they could not exclude from the University any one "of any religious denomination from free and equal liberty and advantages of education, or from any of the liberties, privileges and immunities of the Uni versity in his education, on account of his, her or their speculative sentiments in religion or being of a different religious profession." They were charged "to obtain au acquaintance with the state and regulations of the schools and places of education in their respective counties, that they may be possessed of the whole" and to "recommend what kind of schools and academies shall be instituted, agreeably to the Constitution, in the several parts of the State and prescribe what branches of education shall be taught and inculcated." Indeed they were given general supervision over all education supported by funds or public moneys in this State.
(For seventy-five years that august body performed its work and then turned it over in 1860 to its successors, the Board of Trustees of the University.)
No foot of said lands or anything the trustees might ac quire by gift or otherwise could be sold without the sanc tion of both boards and an act of the legislature, " but the leasing, farming and managing of the property of the University for its constant support shall hie the business of the Board of Trustees" was the mandate of the charter.
Now forty-thousand acres of land so situated would be of great value. But recall that then "to the westward" meant the home of "said savages," and the Land Court was to be guarded from county to county, "the roads being at present infested by robbers," that Georgia embraced all of what afterwards became Alabama and Mississippi by Georgia's cession to the general government, and on it all has less population than Atlanta now has; recall that she was giving to each soldier, and especially to each member of the " Virginia Line" two-hundred and fifty acres of land to induce immigration and settlement; recall that it was then as inaccessible as was the present site of Chicago in 1833, when the United States bought from the Indians the immense tract of over a million acres embracing and surrounding what is now that city at ten cents per acre,

62
and we perceive that the trustees were not millionaires, but only "land poor."
The scheme was not to sell, but to have large farms, or .at least many tenants, and an increasing rent roll. The State meant not to be stingy; she gave with as noble a spirit as did Peter when he said, "Silver and gold have I none, but such as I have give I thee." Alas! The State could not then impart the energy to enable the University to "rise and walk." Those lands as laid off included the Richlaud tract in Greene county, the Fish and Falling Creek tract in Ogletiiorpe county, the Sandy creek tract in Clarke, and Shoal creek tract in Franklin county, as described in subsequent legislation.-
The trustees met in Augusta in February, 1786, and laid off a town in Greene county, reserving eight lots "fora church, academy, courthouse and jails" (only "jails" is plural), and favored the location of the University at Greensboro. In 1800 the legislature declared that the University must be located in one of the six named counties.
The contention as to where it should be located was de cided finally by a fortuitous gift.
Dark and dusty though they be, there are not more im portant pages in the history of Georgia than folios 131, 132 of Book HH, in the office of the Secretary of State, wherein is recorded the deed of gift. Though it was made in July, 1801, it was fitting that it was there recorded on the 25th of December, 1802. For it was a noble Christmas gift from a soldier and statesman, who had aided in capturing Governor Wright in 1775, "the first bold revolutionary act performed in Georgia," who had been
our congressman for a decade, and after his gift was our
governor and United States senator.
That deed conveyed to the trustees 633 acres of land (then in Jackson, now Clarke county), "together with the dwelling house, fences, orchards, waters and witer courses to the said tract of land belonging or in any wise apper taining." Note the quaint language, when all would have been covered by a simple deed to the land. The signature to the deed was quainter yet, with the seal in the middle, thus: "John (L. S.) Milledge." This free gift was "for .the purpose of fixing and establishing the University of

63
the State of Georgia on the tract hereinbefore recited, and for that purpose only." Thenceforth the University had a house and fruit and water by the generosity of one of her citizens. In 1854 Dr. Terrell gave the trustees $20,000 to establish a professorship of agriculture.
We may now understand why, in enumerating the prop erty of the State in our Code of 1862 (by three great lawyers, Thomas R. R. Cobb, Judge David Irwin, of blessed memory, and Judge'Richard Clark, still with us), it was declared that the State owns the State capitol, gov ernor's mansion, etc., while it '-has an interest in the Uni versity of Georgia at Athens, and the Asylum for the Blind at Macon." Though three Constitutional Conventions have met since that language was used, and several revi sions of the Code have been made, no change has occurred .as to that language. It was proper thus to recognize that by private donations new elements entered into the property worthy of notice and protected under the law.
After Governor Milledge's gift, in November, 1802, the legislature loaned the trustees $5,000 "for erecting the col legiate buildings," they giving bond and security to pay it back in five years "with lawful interest thereon."
In 1803 they were authorized to sell one tract of their laud and all of the Milledge gift, "reserving nevertheless the quantity of thirty-seven acres of land for the college yard." That is the present campus. Athens is situated mainly on the Milledge land so sold. In 1807 the Uni versity lost 5,'000 acres of land bv- the treatv* of Beaufort between Georgia and South Carolina.
In December, 1815, the General Assembly passed an act "to authorize the trustees of the University of Georgia to sell the lands belonging to said University and to system atize the funds belonging thereto." The preamble gave as the reason for the permitted sale of the lands, because "the proceeds therefrom are incompetent to the support of the institution, pursuant to the laudable design of the found ers and the wishes of the General Assembly, and a judi cious sale thereof, with proper management of the funds arising from the said sale being better calculated to promote the welfare of said institution."
The act declared that "the proceeds' of the sale of said

64
lands shall in no wise or manner be used by the said trustees to pay off debts or to make any purchases except as here inafter directed, but shall be by them reserved for the pur pose of being vested in some profitable stock for the use of the Universiiy."
It required that all credit sales should be secured by good personal security, together with a mortgage upon the land so purchased, and that all collections for lands so sold "shall be applied by the said trustees to the subscription for stock in any banks now in this State, in case further subscriptions should be by them opened, or in any bank which may hereafter be established by the State or the United States" ; and that if from such proceeds the trustees should have money when they could not so procure bank stock, they might deposit their land mortgages in the treas ury of the State and obtain therefor a warrant on the treasury for any sum not exceeding two-thirds of the amount of the bonds and mortgages so deposited; and that the governor shall collect the notes so deposited with the State as a reimbursement for said certificates issued by the State.
The fourth section of the act is as follows: "The said trustees shall never dispose of the stock by them subscribed for as aforesaid, unless by the consent of the legislature of Georgia, or make use of it in any manner whatsoever; but the proceeds or dividends therefrom shall be drawn by them and used in such manner as the various demands and necessities of the said University may require, and as will be most likely to insure the objects of its establishment."
The fifth section required that no trustee should receive any salary or compensation for any of his services to the University.
The fiual conclusion of that matter between the State and the University may be summed up as follows: For say $150,000 of land notes so secured the State furnished to the trustees stock in the bank of the State of Georgia and permanently guaranteed thereon $8,000 per annum, being 8 per cent, on $100,000, or a less per cent, if the laud notes should be counted at a larger value. It is usually treated in common parlance as an 8 per cent. $100,000

65
investment, aud makes what is known in the Constitution of the State "the debt due to the University."
The State has since 1815 made several appropriations to the University, but it would be more convenient for our purposes to notice them in another article, because they re quire some explanation.
Certain other private donations have been made to it. For instance, the city of Athens gave 25,000 in 1873, with which to erect a building for the use of the State College of Agriculture and the Mechanic Arts. In 1879 Charles F. McCay made it a donation of 15,000. In 1883 Governor Joseph E. Brown made it a donation of 50,000. In 188-4 it received from General Robert Toombs and others, trustees of the Gilmer fund, 15,000. It has re ceived from the United States the Agricultural fund of 243,000 in 1872 and another addition under the act of Congress of March 2, 1887 and 1888 and of 1890.
All these donations from individuals and from the United States will need explanation to have them under stood by the general public. But this article is already long enough and the pressure of business in court prevents elaboration at present. The object here is to give a state ment of the origin of the University and its endowment simply that what may be said hereafter will be the better understood.
It is not improper to add that though the administration of these funds has been by a set of men who were paid nothing for their care and attention to the same, not a dol lar has been lost or misappropriated. What corporation of such long life can boast in that way ?

66
II.
The first named county in Georgia was " Liberty," be cause on its soil was the first act of open rebellion against British rule in this province. One acquainted with the history could write a most entertaining chapter upon the reasons for the names of our counties. But it is foreign to the present purpose to say more on that line than that in 1804 Baldwin, the scholar from Yale, statesman and author of the University charter, and Governor Milledge, donor of the University site, gave their names respectively to Baldwin county and Milledgeville, its county site and the capital of the State. The compliments were as deserved as the memorials are lasting.
But this is a digression. For thirty years the English scheme of renting its lands had been fostered. But the counties containing, the University lands preferred perma nent settlers to transitory tenants, and the rental was too variable to make the basis for University support in a county so thinly populated. Therefore, the legislature readily allowed the trustees to sell the land, "to systematize the funds belonging thereto."
The legislative scheme then was to have the proceeds of the lands invested in bank stocks. The act for the sale was approved on the 15th of December, 1815, and on the next day the Governor signed the bill creating the Bank of the State of Georgia, in which the State reserved for itself six thousand shares of stock and provided that the trustees of the University should have until January, 1817, to sub scribe for one thousand shares out of the six thousand re served for the State..
The act of 1815 quoted above compelled the trustees to invest the proceeds of such lands in bank stocks only, aud to use only the dividends for the purposes of the Univer sity. The income from that depended upon the fluctuations in business, and by the failure of the bank or banks the whole investment might be lost. Therefore, when the lands had been sold, including the Milledge lands, and

67
the proceeds as fast as collected had been invested as directed in bank stock, the legislature in 1821 enacted that " the permanent endowment of the University shall consist of a sum not less than eight thousand dollars per annum," and that the eight thousand dollars should be paid, although the stock dividends should fall short of that sum. That endowment did not exhaust the laud notes, for the same act put aside twenty-five thousand other dollars (on land notes as security) to build a " new college."
In a pamphlet prepared by Charles Edgeworth Jones, entititled "Education in Georgia,"and published by the Bureau of Education of the United States in 1889, appeared the following:
'; In 1830 one of the main college buildings, including the library and a portion of the apparatus, was destroyed by fire, and to replace the loss thus incurred, and also to aid in the current expenses, an appropriation of 6,000 was made by the legislature, which was annually continued from 1830 to 1841. While this fund has been regarded by some in the light of a donation from the State, it would appear to have been really nothing more than an acknowl edgment by the State of a long outstanding debt. For, when the 35,000 acres of land were sold and brought $150,000, or more, only $100,000, as has been seeu, were invested in bank stock for the benefit of the University, leaving about $75,000, besides the 5,000 acres of land lost under the treaty of Beaufort, unaccounted for, in the hands of the State. This liability was met by au annual appropriation of the interest thereon, which was -estimated at $6,000."
Such an act was passed in 1830 for the purposes " and to provide for the education of certain poor children therein mentioned," and the appropriation (except that for poor children*) remained of force until 1841. But the data .-are not at hand to verify or deny Mr. Jones's statement that it was to pay "a long outstanding debt." Mr. Jones is not throughout that pamphlet accurate. For instance, he wrote that the act of 1881, to make tuition free in the Uni versity appropriated $2,000 annually for four years, when it was only $2,000 for one year. That mistake has been
" Nori--Here Is an error pointed out by Rev. Dr. Chandler, and corrected liter.

68
carelessly followed since. Agaiu, if that act of 1830 wasto pay a debt by funding the same, why should it, in 1841, have been repealed? In 1835 we chartered Oglethorpe college for the Presbyterians, and in 1836 Mercer for the Baptists and Emory for the Methodists. Since 1836 we had been spending much money to build the Western and Atlantic Railroad. We began our lunatic asylum, and that for the blind and for the deaf and dumb. Perhaps these things had to do with that repeal and the long gap until 1875 before the State gave other money to the Uni versity. But the generally accepted statement as to the debts is as in 1855. Governor Lumpkin wrote thus: "Finally, what was called the permanent endowment of the University was made by the act of 1821, by which theState took into its own keeping the one hundred thousand dollars of bank stock owned by the University, and secured to the University the payment of eight percent, per annum on one hundred thousand dollars, etc. Observe that the principal is never to be paid, but only the interest at a fixed rate.
We have now finished the history of the endowment of the University by the State, so far as direct action is con cerned. Its whole substance has been given, though some details may have been omitted. In such a discussion it would be almost as idle to mention that in 1806 the legis lature established a lottery* to get for the University a library (the one burnt in 1830), as to tell of the act of 1802 establishing a lottery "to enable J. Rice to sell his watches." Lotteries took nothing out of the treasury, and were not then such great things as now. Nor were they then considered so wicked; for in 1808 we established oneby law "to rebuild Christ church in Savannah."
For several years the war suspended operations of theUniversity. The Constitution of 1865 declared that theGeneral Assembly " shall provide for the early resumption of the regular exercise of the University of Georgia, by the adequate endowment of the same."
Even the Constitution made by the radical Reconstructionists in 1868, while it forbade taxation for education, except of a "general" character, while it tried to kill off"
That lottery wu mentioned by Rev. Dr. Candler in bit speech before the Pntnun County Alliance, In August. 1889, hereafter mentioned.

69
all debts created before June 1, 1865, by taxing them twenty-five per cent, unless " the debtor's cause of action be abandoned or settled without legal process, or if in judg ment be settled without levy and sale," yet held sacred, by Constitutional protection, "the endowment of and debt due to the State University." The same language: "the en dowment of and debt due to the University of Georgia," is repeated in the Constitution made by Georgia's chosen Convention in 1877. And in that Constitution of 1877 is this further declaration on the subject: "In addition to the payment of the annual interest on the debt due by the State to the University, the General Assembly may, from time to time, make such donations thereto as the condition of the treasury will authorize."
Some try to get rid of this as a debt in order to weaken the force of its obligation. With that purpose they contend that that which begins in a gift cannot ripen into a debt. But that is not true. Suppose a son should receive from his father as a gift a city lot and from his father-in-law money with which to build his home, and then sell out all on credit, deposit the notes with his father for safe keeping and collection, and when he called for their proceeds should be told by his father that he owed him nothing, because he gave him the land. What would he think of such a father ? The principle is the same as when the State gave to the trustees for certain public purposes and then allowed, nay invited, others to add of their private meaus to the public bounty for those purposes, upon the State's promise that her obligation should be permanent. The State grants franchises to railroads for public purposes; it is only on that ground she can take rights of way for them. Yet she may not justly retake or foil ro protect them when granted and acted upon as allowed by law.
But as argument in favor of a legal right would be out of time after the right had been adjudged by the Supreme Court, now contention on this question is unseemly, since so repeatedly in the statutes and Constitutions of the State the character of the State's obligation to the University has been permanently fixed. This is sometimes forcibly ad mitted, by the proposal of some to change the Constitution

70
so as to relieve the legislative conscience from the oath topay this debt.
Of the private endowments some remarks will be profit able. It has been already shown how all of the gift of Governor Milledge was absorbed in "the permanent en dowment" fund except the thirty-seven acres, the "college yard" or campus, whereupon all the public buildings are located.

71
CHAPTER VII.
WHY THE CONSTITUTION OF GEORGIA PROHIBITS DONA
TIONS TO SECTARIAN COLLEGES.
After my article for last Sunday was prepared the criti cism of Judge Hines on the one of the previous Sunday was published.
His sensibilities seem to have been wounded, and perhaps justly. On the 16th of May a friend wrote me : "That was a fine point of yours, in affecting not to know who 'J. K. H.' was." I assured him in all sincerity that I had no idea who "J. K. H." was, and asked him to name the writer. He replied that he thought it was " Judge J. K. Hines, president of the Board of Trustees of Emory Col lege." And so it turned out. Judge Hines and I are friends, members of the same bar and stewards of the same church. I would not wound him. I would not wound a stranger. Unkindness aids not in seeking for the truth, and I have in view nothing besides that.
Judge Hines charges that I misrepresented him in the review of his article published in the Wexleyan Christian Advocate of November 28, 1892, by not stating the pur pose of his words.
Every word of the paragraph reviewed was quoted, and its purpose was so plain that I thought none needed to have attention called thereto; and yet I said it was from "an article giving reasons for liberal Christian support to Emory College, the college of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, in Georgia." My complaint was that while moved by so high and good a purpose the author should so misrepresent the spirit of our Constitution as to declare that Emory College could get no State aid only because "religious institutions are under the ban of the State Con stitution" . . . and because " religion is such a despi-

72
cable affair" iu Georgia. Had he said "ban" only, one might have supposed it a careless use of a word, but I thought when he added "despicable affair" the meaning was plain.
In this article under review, speaking of the Constitu tional prohibition of State aid to sectarian institutions, be said, " now I submit to the candid judgment of the reader whether religion and religious denominational institutions have not reached a low ebb when great, dispassionate and venerable lawmakers deem it proper to put upon them such prohibition. The encouragement of religion and religious institutions must indeed be despised and become despicable when the State is prohibited from aiding them directly or indirectly. . . . Religious institutions seem to have been despised by the framers of the Constitution of 1877, if we can judge from their works."
He then proceeded to contrast the Constitutions of Geor gia prior to 1868 with the one of that year and that of 1877 to show that only in these last were the wicked pro hibitions against voting public money to sectarian institu tions. He admitted that so far as he was " at present ad vised no money had ever been taken, directly or indirectly, from the public treasury in aid of any church, sect or de nomination of religionists or sectarian institutions"; but he seemed to think it could have been Constitutionally done prior to the Constitution of 1868. He seems to suppose that, though all were by our Constitution of 1798 protected from being "obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or any other rate, for the building or repairing any place of wor ship, or for the maintenance of *ny minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes to be right, or hath volunta rily engaged to do," yet after taxes were collected they might have been voted to sectarian colleges. That is a view which, so far as I know, has not been presented by any other person. v
He quoted a guaranty of religious liberty in the Consti tution of 1861, and said, "That is admirably put." He failed to mention that in the Constitution of 1865 was a better statement of the guaranty. But he was not discuss ing liberty of conscience except as it concerned Constitu tional restrictions of donations to sectarian institutions.

73
They had been always forbidden by the spirit of our Con stitutions if not by their letter, but in 1865 they were for bidden in most explicit terms by restricting taxation to certain things "only," there enumerated, none of which, by any sort of construction, could embrace denominational colleges. It made his point appear stronger thus erroneously to postpone his alleged new era a few years later.
He said: "It remained for the framers of the Constitu tion of 1868 to strike the first blow at religious institutions. This instrument prohibited the grant of any donation or gratuity to a sectarian corporation or association. This document was not, however, regarded as the work of Geor gians, nor worthy of their best manhood.
"Thus stood the matter until the Constitution of 1877. 'All men,' this Constitution declares, 'have the natural and inalienable right to worship God, each according to the dictates of his own conscience, and no human authority .should, in any case, control or interfere with such right of conscience.' This had the ring of General Toombs.
"Besides this there is this provision on this subject in this Constitution: 'No money shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religionists, or any secta rian institution.'"
He then, satisfied with his position assumed, said: "Will Colonel Hammond, while he is engaged in writing the Constitutional history of the State, and is indulging in his Constitutional reminiscences, tell why it was thought im portant thus to aim a blow at the encouragement of religious institutions?"
It would have been more agreeable to go on with the course already mapped out, but a digression to answer such an antagonist may be better, and this answer, however im perfect, may not be unprofitable.
The uncomplimentary remark about the Convention of 1868, may pass with slight comment. Governor Brown had advised that, since we must live under the Constitution to be made in 1868, the people should select good men to frame it; but Mr. Hill advised that the Convention should be ignored. In very many counties Mr. Hill's advice pre vailed. Nevertheless, many men who had an interest in

74
the State and some reputation to sustain were among its members. There were Bullock and Conley, Saffold and Foster, McWhorter aud Madison Bell, N. L. Angier and John Flinn, Amos T. Akerman, afterwards Attorney Gen eral of the United States, Judge Bigby, James D. Waddell, friend and biographer of Alexander H. Stephens, A. W. Holcombe, so prominent afterwards in the Convention of 1877, L. N. Trammell, president of our board of railroad commissioners, H. K. McCay, Judge of our Supreme Court and of the United States Courts of this district aud Dr. H. V. M. Miller, the " Demosthenes^ of the mountains," and perhaps the most learned and best informed man of Atlanta. The report on the legislative department was made by Judge McCay, chairman of that committee, and the section about donations and gratuities was reported as it stood in the Constitution of 1861. Conley, Miller and McCay were all concerned in adding thereto the prohibi tion so distasteful to Judge Hines and quoted above, but Dr. Miller has been considered its author.
Dr. Miller could state his reasons far -better, but the work is mine. He had many precedents, in the Constitu tions quoted and cited below. In 1848 the great agricul tural State of Wisconsin declared: " Nor shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of religioussocieties or religious or theological seminaries." In 1850 Michigan declared: "No money shall be appropriated or drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious sect or sects, theological or religious seminary, nor shall prop erty belonging to the State be appropriated for any such purposes." In 1851 Indiana declared that "no money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any reli gious or theological institution." Also, in 1851 Ohio de clared " but no religious or other sect or sects shall ever have any exclusive right to or control of any part of the school fund." In 1857 Oregon declared: "No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any reli gious or theological institution, nor shall any money be appropriated for the payment of any religious service in either house of the legislative assembly." In 1859 Kansas declared that " no religious sect or sects shall ever control any part of the school or university funds of this State."'

75
lu 1864 Nevada declared that " No sectarian instruction: shall be imparted or tolerated in any school or university that may be established under this Constitution." Also, in 1864 Maryland forbade any gift, even by private persons,, without legislative sanction, by deed or will to any minis ter, public teacher or preacher of the gospel or to any reli gious sect, order or denomination as such, or to their sup port or benefit, except land, not more than five acres, for sites to be used only for such church or burial grounds. And that was repeated in Maryland's Constitution of 1867, though both required belief in God and a future state of rewards and punishments to make one competent as a wit ness or juror. In 1866, Nebraska repeated in her Consti tution and in January, 1868, Mississippi repeated in hers,, the above quoted provision in the Constitution of Ohio. Such was the state of the record when Georgia's Conven tion of 1868 acted.
Before that of 1877 acted the following Constitutional precedents were added: In 1870 Illinois declared, "Nor shall any grant or donation of land, money, or other per sonal property ever be made by the State, or any such cor poration, to any church, or for any sectarian purpose." In 1873 Pennsylvania declared, "No, money raised for the support of the public schools of the commonwealth shall be appropriated to or used for the support of any sectarian school." In 1875 Missouri declared, " Neither the general assembly, nor any county, city, town, township, school dis trict or other municipal corporation shall ever make an appropriation, or pay from any public fund whatever, any thing in aid of any religious creed, church or sectarian pur pose, or to help to support or sustain any private or-public school, academy, seminary, college, university or other in stitution of learning controlled by any religious creed, church or sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation of personal property or real estate ever be made by the State, or any county, city, town or other municipal corporation for any religious creed, church or sectarian purpose whatever." In 1876 Colorado declared that "No sectarian.tenets or doctrines shall ever be taught in the public schools, nor shall any distinction or classifica tion of pupils be made on account of race or color." And

76
in 1876 Texas declared, " Aud no law shall ever be en acted appropriating any part of the permanent or available school fund to any other purpose whatever; nor shall the same or any part thereof ever be appropriated to or used for the support of any sectarian school."
Going outside of State Constitutions for examples of such teachings, note the address made by General Grant in September, 1875, to the Army of Tennessee, as follows: "Encourage free schools and resolve that not one dollar of money appropriated to their support, no matter how raised, shall be appropriated to the support of auy sectarian school. Resolve that neither the State nor Nation, nor both com bined, shall support institutions of learning other than those sufficient to afford to every child growing up in the land the opportunity of a good common school education, uumixed with sectarian, pagan or atheistical tenets. Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private school supported entirely by private contribu tion. Keep the Church and State forever separate."
And in his first message to Congress as President he sug gested a Constitutional amendment requiring the States to have free public schools for the rudimentary branches, but adding, "forbidding the teaching in said schools of reli gious, atheistic or pagan tenets, and prohibiting the grant ing of auy school funds, or school taxes, or part thereof, either by legislative, municipal or any other authority, for the benefit or in aid, directly or indirectly, of any religious sect or denomination, or in aid or for the benefit of any other object, of any nature or kind whatsoever."
Following that lead of General Grant's speech, within a week Mr. Blaine, then in the House of Representatives, proposed the following as an amendment to the Constitu tion of the United States :
"No State shall make any law respecting any establish ment of religion, or v prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by school taxation in any State for .support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of auy religious sect; nor shall any money so raised, or lands so devoted, be divided between religious sects or denominations."

77
It was not voted upon until August 14, 1876, when it was passed by a vote of one hundred and eighty yeas to seven nays. In the Senate, after several proposed substi tutes, the yeas were twenty-eight and the nays sixteen, and there not being the two-thirds required the amendment was lost. In the senate it seems to have assumed a partisan aspect, but in the House, of the one hundred and eighty yea* one hundred and twelve were Democrats. Many of these are still in -active public life. Of those dead is Lainar, Emory's greatest Alumnus, so recently buried in Georgia.
In 1876 the Democratic party, struggling to bring back the government to its proper sphere, emphasized among it* articles of faith "the supremacy of the civil over the mili tary authority," and "the total separation of Church and State for the sake alike of civil and religious freedom." And while Mr. Tilden's letter of acceptance of the nomi nation for president dealt mainly with the financial prob lems, Governor Hendricks in his acceptance of the nomina tion as Vice-president said : "The man or party that would involve our schools in political or sectarian controversy is an enemy to the schools. The common schools are safer under the protecting care of the people than under the con trol of any party or sect. They must be neither sectarian nor partisan, and there must be neither division nor mis appropriation of the funds for their support."
The very air of this country was full of the matter. The situation in Georgia was peculiar, in that our atten tion had been specifically called thereto. Between the Conventions of 1868 and 1877 a distinguished minister of the Methodist church, still among us and in active useful ness, formulated a plan for appropriating a large sum from the State treasury to the University and Emory and Mercer and Oglethorpe, and providing for other churches which might establish colleges. It was first submitted to a selected number of representative men for comment. In present ing it he denounced the prohibition in the Constitution of 1868 somewhat after the fashion of Judge Hines. Governor Brown, the leading Baptist in our State, explained that its author was Dr. Miller, a leading Methodist, and how itsspirit was misunderstood by the author of that plan. Dr. Miller himself was there and justified his action. The re-

78
suit was that the plan was published with the denunciation of the sectarian clause left out. Nothing came of that plan. I report only what I have heard about this proposal.
Again, in 1870, while I was reporter of the Supreme Court, the case of Maxey va. Bell was decided. Brown, C. J., and Warner and McCay then composed the Court. Bell was a Universalist, and by another Universalist had been made testamentary guardian of his children, they to be "brought up in the habits of industry and (have) the principles of morality and a sense of moral obligation in stilled into their minds." (The testator seems to have had Girard's will in mind.) Maxey, the uncle of the children, alleged that he was "a Baptist of long and good standing," but that said guardian had long been "au infidel of the order denominated Universalists, who deny the gospel and profess to believe that all will finally be saved," and Maxey prayed for Bell's removal from and his substitution into the guardianship. The unanimous decision was pronounced by Judge McCay. He quoted from the Constitutions of 1861 and 1865 that no one should be "prohibited from hold ing any public office or trust on account of his religious opinions." We had copied those words from the Constitu tion of Virginia of 1850, which took "religious opinion" from Jefferson's famous statute of 1785 guaranteeing lib erty of conscience. Proceeding, Judge McCay said for the court: "By a play upon the word 'religion' some orthodox people did not admit that this protected one who had opin ions which they did not think were religious. . . . . But our present Constitution gives broader language. After using tht language of the Constitutions of 1861 and 1865, article 1, section 6, it adds another clause. Article 1, sec tion 12 is in these words: 'No person shall be molested for his opinions, or be subject to any civil or political advan tage in consequence of such opinions.' This cuts at the root of the whole matter leaves not a single link of the old chain by which, for so many centuries, men have tried to biud in fetters the human mind.
"In Georgia a man may think as he pleases upon auy sub ject, religious, philosophical or political, and he is not, for that, under any civil or political disability.

79
" The office of guardian is a public trust, and these clauses declare no man incapacitated for that trust by reason of his opinions.
" If men act badly, lead Jives rendering them unfit to have the rearing of children, we will not say that the courts may not interfere. But over men's opinions, by the laws of Georgia, we have no jurisdiction, and we think this a wise provision."
This opinion was cited and commented upon by Mr. Matthews, a leading Baptist, in the discussion in the Con vention of 1877, and I cited several of the Constitutions above quoted.
This article is long because I determined that it was better to quote history than to state what I thought it meant. I write for readers who form their own conclusions.
But long as it is, this review would be incomplete if it stopped here.
Judge Hines called this prohibition "a blow at the en couragement of religion and religious institutions," and said that it " places under the ban these denominational in stitutions of learning"; that it is "a narrow and contracted policy "; that "it smacks of the same bigotry which breeds religious persecution." If a man of his standing and rep utation can be so far wrong, it is not idle to give space to uncover the truth. I am not going into the argument as to the principle. That was settled here more than a century ago.
But what is the history? In short it is this. When, in 1848, Wisconsin began these Constitutional prohibitions,she had no State University, but she had a Catholic College and one at Detroit owned by the Presbyterian Church, and Lawrence University, owned by the Methodist Church. Those three were the most numerous branches of the church there. When the great State of Ohio acted in 1851 she had sixteen colleges, of which only six were noudenominational: four were Methodist, and the other six Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic, etc. These examples are fair specimens of all. They show that these Constitutions were made while mem bers of churches were in control, and show that, as when 'Virginia's memorable action was taken, it was supported

80
by a majority of vestrymen, members of her established church, so these Constitutions, one and all, were made by Christians who loved their country.
In the early history of the United States the Constitu tions were almost skeletons. Georgia never had a " bill of rights " until 1861. But of the twenty-three States which have made new Constitutions since 1861 sixteen have pro hibitions of State aid to sectarian institutions. Of the other seven, I think all forbid it, though not in express terms. The trend has been continuous from 1848 to the latest State Constitution, to declare absolute separation of Church and State. Most, if not all, of the new Constitutions guard against all large and influential corporations, such as rail roads, etc.,and have special care over the use of public funds. Good men might well think the treasury should not be open to churches, whose members are so numerous and whose combined influence is so great. They might misuse the treasury. It is well for churches to pray, " Lead us not into temptation," as well in temporal as in spiritual affairs.
But I put the legislation upon a higher plane. With roll ing years we have outlived the old notions prevalent where there is an established church. That legislation seems to be but the expression of the sentiment of a free people, who have gradually but surely thrown off the idea that the church needs to, or ought to, lean upon the State.
When Christians see how wonderfully church institutions of learning, while relying only on freewill offerings, have outstripped State institutions in number and wealth ; when they know that in self-reliance is their greatest strength, they can smile at what Judge Hines calls "a blow at re ligion and religious institutions," and will wonder that he should lament that sectarian institutions cannot be furnished with libraries by the public treasury, and thank God that our forefathers hijoke, and their children have kept asunder the bands which once in this fair land of liberty united Church and State.
One small matter remains. Twice Judge Hines men tioned that I was the author of the prohibition of'1877. What of it? It was so unimportant in my estimation that I had forgotten the fact until Judge Hines called attention

81
thereto. Many times have I been a candidate since then, and most of my faults, which had been found out, were published. But never until now was this imputed to me as wrong. I am glad, however, that he recalled the history and the scene. When I proposed it I was surrounded by Christiaus of all denominations and by graduates of all our colleges Georgia's chosen sons. And yet no one of them dissented. So far as the record shows, the vote for the pro hibition was unanimous. My explanation is finished.

82
CHAPTER VIII.
THE GEORGIA STATE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AXD
MECHANIC ARTS.
Though what is about to follow is familiar to many, its repetition will do no narm and to many others it will give valuable information.
Everybody knows why two of Georgia's counties were named Lee and Randolph, but some will not recall why, in 1856, a county carved out of them was named Terrell. It is not explained by the act creating the county. That Dr. "William Terrell, of Hancock county, Georgia, was a man of wealth and influence, that be had been elected to Con gress from the State at large, were not the reasons. But in July, 1854, he offered to the University "bonds of the State to theamont of $20,000, the annual interest of which shall be applied permanently as compensation for a profes sor, whose duty it shall be to deliver, in the college, a. course of lectures, during its terms, on ' Agriculture as a Science, the Practice and Improvement of Different People; on Chemistry and Geology, so far as they may be useful in agriculture; on Manures, Analysis of Soils and Domestic Economy, particularly referring to the Southern States,' the lectures to be free." In August. 1854, the trustees of the University accepted the gift on those terms.
Up to that time Georgia's statutes showed nothing as to her interest in agricultural education save the act of 1837 organizing the " Bodrd of Agriculture and Rural Economy of the State of Georgia," found in Cobb's New Digest. Its object was a "liberal diffusion of that knowledge which may be required by the most experienced and successful of our own, and the farmers of other countries." It was to have "an apartment in the Statehouse," and annual meet ings to which "each agricultural society or club in this

83
State, by whatever name called," might send a delegate. That institution was but a means of comparing experiences .and observations of farmers, and wholly inadequate to the demand for scientific education in the matters relating to agriculture.
At the date of Dr. Terrell's gift there was no agricultural cbHege in the United States. That of Michigan, established in 1857, was the first. Of course in many colleges those things were taught. They were taught in our University, but until then there had been no recognition of their im portance as demanding a special professor and special lec tures free to all comers. For the gift the trustees did " for themselves and in behalf of the whole people of Georgia, tender him the expression of their abiding gratitude," and the General Assembly perpetuated his name.
All Christendom read Solomon's observation that "the profit of the earth is for all, the king himself is served by the field" ; but it took the dense populations of Europe to discover that lands become exhausted and to learn that "the profit of the earth" comes neither to citizens nor to the government solely by the exercise of brawn, but mainly by the culture of the brains of tho.se engaged, in agriculture. We were not slow to learn the same lesson, but lacked means for its dissemination.
In 1862 the United States undertook to furnish such means. Thirty thousand acres of public lauds for each senator and representative of each State were set apart "to be sold by the State and the proceeds thereof to the uses and purposes prescribed in thi.s act, aud for no other uses or purposes whatsoever." The States were to pay all expenses of management, superintendence and taxes out of their own treasuries, "so that the entire proceeds of the sale of said lands shall be applied without any diminution whatever to the purposes hereinafter mentioned." The purposes were stated in section 4, in these words: "To the endowment, -support and maintenance of at least one college, where the leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and classical studies, and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts, in such a manner as the legislatures of the States may respectively prescribe, in order to promote

84
the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life." Section 5 provided certain conditions, one of which was the providing within five years of such a college and the acceptance by the State within two years (by July 2, 1864) of the terms of the act. Another and the most important condition was the first, to-wit: "First, If any portion of the fund in vested as provided by the foregoing section, or any portion of the interest thereon, shall by any action or contingency be diminished or lost, it shall be replaced by the State to which it belongs, so that the capital of the fund shall re main forever undiminished, and the annual interest thereon shall be regularly, without diminution, devoted to all pur poses mentioned in the fourth section of this act, except a sum, not exceeding 10 per centum upon the. amount re ceived by any State under the provisions of this act, -may be expended for the purchase of lands or sites or exper imental farms, whenever authorized by the legislatures of said States."
By an act of 14th of April, 1864, the time for accept ance was extended to the 14th of April, 1866, and on the 10th of March, 1866, the act of our legislature accepting the same was approved by the governor. By another act of December 12, 1866, "to provide for a college for the benefit of agriculture and the mechanic arts in the State of Georgia," we directed the governor "in such manner as he may deem best," to apply for and receive those proceeds, and "to invest, in like manner, as he may deem best, the proceeds of said sale or sales in bonds of this State, and disburse the interest of said investment for the support and maintenance of a college such as is contemplated by said act of Congress," etc.
On January 3, 1872, Governor Conley sold the scrip for $243,000, of which $50,000 was paid in cash and the balance was due in eighteen months. On January 15, 1872, the legislature appointed a joint committee to inquire into Governor Conley's sale of said land scrip and report during the session, so "that the State shall receive the full benefit of the donation in accordance with the letter and spirit of said act" of Congress. .On July 25, 1872, the governor was authorized to discount the said credit amount.

85
On the 30th of March, 1872, a contract was made be tween the Governor, James M. Smith, and the trustees of the University, by which the latter took charge of the fund. The executive order recited the foregoing legislation on that subject, and further recited: " And whereas, the time allowed the State accepting said donation to establish a college or colleges under the provisions of said act of Con gress, will expire on the 2d day of July, 1872, when, by the terms of said grant, if a college such as is therein de scribed shall not have been established, the grant shall <sease, and this State will be bound to repay to the United States the proceeds of the donation aforesaid. * * *
"And whereas, the University of Georgia is the only institution of learning in this State having power by law to organize and establish a college in all respects such as is described in said act of Congress, and the Board of Trustees of said University having established a college, distinct in its organization and specific in its objects, in conformity, in every respect with the acts of Congress above named, as follows, that is to say: 1. Title The name of this college shall be 'the Georgia State College of Agriculture and the Mechanic Arts.'"
Another provision of the executive contract there set forth named the professors of this new college as follows: 1, President; 2, a professor of agriculture and horticul ture; 3, one of analytic and agricultural chemistry; 4, one of mineralogy and economic geology; 5, one of natural history and physiology; 6, one of industrial mechanics and drawiug; 7, one of physical geography and meteorology; 8, one of English languages; and 9, one of military tactics.
There was a provision as to free tuition, to-wit: "Free tuition is hereby guaranteed in this college to as many stu dents, residents of this State, as there are members of the General Assembly of Georgia, and in addition to this free tuition in the college, all such students are likewise en titled to the advantages of the different departments of the University of Georgia without charge."
The final executive order thereupon was as follows: -"Ordered, that the $243,000 derived from the sale of the land scrip, as aforesaid, as the same is paid, shall be invested

86
in bonds of the State of Georgia, issued tinder the act of the legislature of this State, approved the 18th of January, 1872, bearing 7 per cent, interest, and that the money so invested shall constitute a perpetual fund, the capital of which shall remain forever undiminished (except as here inafter mentioned) and the interest of which shall be in violably appropriated to the endowment, support and maintenance of the college, organized by the Board of Trustees of the University of Georgia, as'hereinbefore set forth."
That order required further: "That the bonds in which said fund shall be invested, as aforesaid, shall be turned over to the board of trustees of the University of Georgia;, that upon receiving said bonds, or any of them, the said Board of Trustees shall cause each of the same to be im pressed with the seal of the University, and that upon no pretense whatever, shall said bonds or any part thereof, be disposed of by said board of trustees."
On the 21st of February, 1873, the legislature resolved that said fund "does not constitute a part of the general fund of the State, and is a fund subject to be invested and disbursed" only as provided bv said act of December 12,. 1866.
On February 6, 1873, the city of Athens passed an ordi nance donating $25,000 of her bonds, bearing 8 per cent., interest, to the University "to be used in the construction of a building for the use of the State College of Agricul tural and Mechanic Arts." In August, 1873, the trus tees accepted that donation. The legislature, by act of February 10, 1874, ratified the issue of said bonds, and provided that they or their proceeds "shall be used solely for the purpose contemplated in the donation." It lias been so used. The building is the best we have.
On the 3d of March, 1874, the legislature passed an act"to equitably adjust the claims of the colored race fora portion of the proceeds of the agricultural land scrip." It appropriated $8,000 annually to the Atlanta University on terms therein stated, among them being free education for colored persons, as was provided in Governor Smith's con tract, above quoted, as to whites in our University.
Though somewhat foreign to our present purpose, it may

87
be mentioned that in 1887 Congress appropriated other proceeds of public lands to the States to establish experi mental stations, such as we have near Griffin, Ga., and in 1890 made an additional grant of 15,000 per annum. This last fund is out of the proceeds of public lands, " for the more complete endowment and maintenance of colleges for the benefit of agriculture and mechanic arts now estab lished, or which may hereafter be established," pursuant to-said act of 1862. The fund so granted is "to be applied only to instruction in agriculture, the mechanic arts, the English language, and the various branches of mathemati cal, physical, natural and economic sciences, with special reference to their application to the industries of life, and to the facilities for such instruction."
This act guards said fund as the former act did, and pro vides for an equitable division of it between the white and colored races. Under this the colored college near Savannah was established. This fund is to be annually increased by $1,000 until it reaches $25,000 dollars, and there stand until otherwise ordered. Of that fund, the University gets two-thirds, and the college at Savannah for the colored race gets the remainder, under the present apportionment.
The purpose of the recital of this history is to show when, how and why the University acquired said United States funds, because there is much misapprehension on that subject, and consequently, on several points, much unjust criticism. The time and manner of acquiring the fund is already apparent. The quoted record also shows that, with the matter constantly before the people, the legislatures, knowing that an agricultural stock was already growing at the State University, for which the State had notably thanked him who planted the same, and knowing that the limitation of time in which the college must be estab lished or the money be refunded to the United States was almost run out, made no other provision, but purposely left its governor (Smith) to graft onto that old stock. It allowed Athens to pledge its treasury to the extent of $25,000 at eight per cent, to help this college there estab lished. It provided, in 1878, that the State Agricultural Society should elect four practical farmers as members of

88
the Board of Trustees of the University, and " without variableness or shadow of turning" in many ways recog nized and ratified that disposition of the fund.
Some have charged that the trustees have misused the funds because they have not devoted sufficient attention to practical agriculture, actual manual labor on a farm, and the like. Look back and read "the leading object" of the grant, and see that the requirement is the teaching of many things, including "scientific and classical studies," and not practical agriculture, but "such branches of learning as are related to agriculture." Read further and learn that sons of farmers and others were not thereby to be trained for sowers and reapers only, but "in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions of life." By what authority could the trustees so limit the use of any part of the funds as to tie down the recipients of its benefit to any special calling, had he ability and aspirations for something else? It is a matter for the exercise of judgment. If the trustee* began in error, why did not the agricultural trus tees complain and have the error corrected ? Read again. The act required the trustees "to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts, in such manner as the legislature of the States may respec tively prescribe." The trustees by law make regular reports to the legislature elected by the people. If the manner in use is not right, neither the legislature nor the people can blame the trustees when no other manner is prescribed. Their silence is the loudest approval of what is being done.

89
CHAPTER IX.
UNIVERSITY FREE TUITION AND THE FUNDING ACTS
OF 1881.
The history of free tuition in the University of Georgia is not long. Originally the State's plan was to thus help the indigent only. For instance, in 1830 the legislature allowed the poor-school commissioners of each county to select their brightest boy who might go to the University without charge for four years. The act appropriated 6,000 per annum to pay their tuition.* That legislation was .repealed in 1831. The trustees admitted free the sons of ministers of the gospel and young men preparing for the ministry upon certificates of their inability to pay tuition. Indigent maimed Confederate soldiers were by law admitted free from 1866 to 1869. They were in the University high school, no longer in existence. The Constitution of 1868 abolished the distinction between the rich and the jwor in the common schools, and the trustees authorized the faculty to admit as many as fifty young men to the University free, upon their merits, without regard to pecu niary condition. Free tuition was offered as a prize to certain pupils of high schools. In the scholastic years, 1869-70, twenty-seven beneficiaries of all classes were there, while other students paid #100 each.
The Georgia State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts (called shortly the Agricultural College), established under the contract with Governor Smith, was opened pro visionally in May, 1872. Though, according to the con tract, each senator was allowed to select one from his dis trict, and each representative from each county one from his county, making 219 in all, so many as that never came
*NOTE.--No appropriation for the poor was made. This error was pointed out by Dr. Gtndler, of Emory College.

90
(hiring any year. For that there were two reasons, and perhaps more. Every district and county did not furnish their quotas who could spare the time and expense of going, even without paying tuition; and often they could not furnish boys sufficiently advanced in learning to enter the college, even at the low grade at first establishad to meet the conditions of our people. To meet that sitution there were, from 1872 to 1874-5, instructors in four sec tions to bring up to tolerable standing students so deficient. In 1872-3 out of 196 students 151 were in the new college; of the 251 in 1873-4 132 were, and in 1874-5 of the 215 students 101 were. In 1874-5 the tuition in Franklin College was lowered to $75, and all but the free beneficia ries might for $40 enter this new Agricultural College. That was to enable more than those selected under the con tract, where there was a surplus of applicants or nonresi dents of this State, to enter that college cheaply. At those figures the rates of tuition stood until the whole course in both colleges was made free in 1881 by the leg islature.
Meanwhile, the experiment of receiving boys with so little education had been demonstrated to be bad, and a higher age and grade for admission were required. Accord ingly, from 1875-6 to 1880-1, both inclusive, the numbers for each year in the Agricultural College were only as fol lows : Ninety-three, sixty-one, forty, fifty-two sixty-two and fifty-six. The aggregate of students in the University, in cluding those mentioned, had fallen from 197 in 1875-6 to 149 in 1880-1.
There was a general desire for free education. The trus tees could not establish it for want of funds and legislative authority. But $2,000 were needed. Upon motion of this writer, the Committee on Legislation was requested to call the attention of the General Assembly to the situation and ask for the appropriation for that purpose, restricting all charges to $10.00 for matriculation and $5.00 library fees. It resulted in the act of September 26, 1881; "To enable the trustees of the University of Georgia to inaugurate a system of free tuition in that institution." (This act does not cover the law and medical colleges, nor the branch colleges. With their tuition the Trustees had no concern.)

91
From that time forth nothing but that $15.00 has been charged any student. Since then, under the new plan, the numbers of the students for each scholastic year from 1881-2 to 1892-3, both inclusive, have been as follows, respectively, 134, 181, 193, 170, 192, 195, 193, 147, 160,159,182 and 172, of which in the Agricultural College were respectively, 39, 52, 56, 52, 51, 56, 49, 36, 45, 32, 66 and 40.
At the same session of the Board of Trustees in 1881, Governor Brown called attention to the fact that some of the bonds belonging to the University were about to become due, and the Committee on Legislation was instructed to call attention of the General Assembly thereto and ask legisla tion which would keep the funds devoted to University education safe and yet have them furnish an income suffi ciently large to make them meet this purpose. The result? was an act passed as a "companion piece" to the free tuition act, and without which that act could not have been suc cessfully operated. On the 30th of September, 1881, was approved "an act to make permanent the income of the University of Georgia, and for other purposes." Besides repealing all conflicting legislation, the sole provisions of that act were that whenever the University presented any of its valid matured bonds of the State to the treasury, instead of paying the same and leaving the trustees to hunt other securities of uncertain solvency and varying rates of inter est for reinvestment, it should be "the duty of the Governor to issue to such trustees, in lieu of said matured bond so presented for payment, an obligation in writing in the nature of a bond, in an amount equal to the principal of such matured bond and falling due fifty years from the date of such issue, the same to bear interest at the rate of 7 per cent, per annum, and not subject to be called in for redemption by the State before that time, nor to be nego tiated or transferred by said trustees, * * * the interest thereon to be paid semi-annually on the first of January and July of each year, * * * the amount of money neces sary to pay the interest on such obligation being herein annually appropriated."
Such is the history. The comment is to be suggestive rather than exhaustive. First, it bas been charged tbat the contract of 1872 with Governor Smith for free tuition

92
and the free tuition afterwards provided for by the act of 1881 were par's of a "a policy designed to hinder the de nominational colleges from succeeding."
It is wrong to assail men's motives without strong evi dence. Suppose one should fix the date of Mr. Seney'a gifts to Emory and Wesleyan Female college and then show that soon afterwards he obtained from Georgia the charter of the East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia Rail road Company, so damaging to the Western and Atlantic Railroad, which it paralleled, and which the State owned, and then charge that the Methodists in the General Assem bly who voted for that charter were by Seney's gifts to their colleges bribed to do a wrong to the State? Would there not be just indignation? Would not the Methodists hold up in confutation of the charge Seney's character? If that reply would be good, Georgians will recognize the force of the list of trustees in 1872, when the contract was made. On the board were Mark A. Cooper, Governor Joseph E. Brown, Senator Beujamin H. Hill, Benjamin C. Yancey, David A. Vasou, Chief Justice James Jackson, James L. Seward, Laniar Cobb and the great bishop, George F. Pearce. Let Baptists and Methodists look at those names. Let all Georgians also recall that Governor Charles J. Jenkins, Joel A. Billups, Judge Sam Hall, Stevens Thomas, John J. Gresham, Judges Iverson L. Harris and Martin J. Crawford, Bishop John W. Beckwith, William Dougherly and Robert Toombs were also then on the board. And then let each Georgian answer for himself whether such men combined with Governor Smith, the son of a Methodist preacher, to make a contract with such purpose to destroy a Methodist or Baptist college, or whether, when the son of a poor blacksmith, Governor Smith, who had no collegiate education, and sympathized with all poor boys who desired such opportunity, tendered to the trustees of the University the Agricultural fund on condition that its advantages should be free to so many students to be selected by the people's Representatives, the trustees might not accept it with nobler motives than to hinder denominational col leges from succeeding.
In 1875 the great Baptist divine Dr. H. H. Tucker, then - Chancellor of the University, in his address before the

93
General Assembly, stated that there were then in the Uni versity three hundred and fifteen free scholarships, of which two hundred and fifty were chargeable to the land scrip fund. Though not near all of them were occupied, there were enough to get up class distinctions between the paying and nonpaying students, and beget strife which was injurious to the University and to the State. When the request for free tuition was made in 1881, the Board was equally strong with friends of both denominational colleges and had on it the four trustees, farmers, elected by the State Agricul tural Society. That bill was officially approved by that eminent Methodist, Senator Colquitt, then our governor. The paying students had become so few that but two thou sand dollars (not annual for four years, as has been stated by some writers, but for one year only) was required to make all free. Under those circumstances the attacks on the motives of the Board of Trustees for suggesting, of the legislature for passing, and of the governor for approving, that bill for free tuition are as unjust as unkind.
Speaking of such unjust and unkind charges, another pertinent instance comes to mind. The old requirement of the charter of the University of 1785 that "all officers elected or appointed for the University shall be of the Christian religion" had remained upon the statute book, though by our Constitutions it had long been annulled. It was the dead fruit of the past century. Xo one knew how void in law it was better than the author of the bill for its formal repeal, but he knew also that many, ignorant of our Constitution, might be misled by its presence in the stat ute, and felt that it put a cloud upon those of his faith without regard to their merits.
Its official history is simple: February 2, 1877 Introduced by Hon. R. J. Moses, of Muscogee county. Read first time in House, and referred to Judiciary Committee. February 14, 1877 Judiciary Committee, Hon. John D. Stewart, of Spalding county, a leading Baptist, and since elected to Congress from the Atlanta district, chair man, reported, recommending its passage. February 17, 1877 Read third time and passed. The House journal shows no objection or opposition.

94
February 21, 1877 The Senate took upas the report of the Committee of the Whole, a bill of the House of Rep resentatives to repeal so much of section 1203 o'f the Code as in violation of paragraph f>, article 1 of the Constitu tion of the State ot Georgia, prohibiting a portion of the people of the State from holding office on account of reli gious opinion. The Committee on Judiciary, Hon. .Evan P. Howell, chairman, recommended its passage. The re port was agreed to. The bill was read the third time and passed. Xo objection was made, so far as appears from the Senate, journal.
February 26, 1877 Approved by the governor, Alfred H. Colquitt.
An interesting picture comes up. There stood the old Israelite. The State was righting itself from the effects of the reconstruction and war. He perhaps recalled how many of his faith had died in our Southern army, how many had enlisted from Savannah and Macon, Augusta, Columbus, Atlanta and elsewhere. The author was him self a major in our army, and his son had been killed at the battle of Seven Pines. He perhaps recalled Judah Peter Benjamin, brought up in Savannah, Ga., the leading lawyer of Louisiana, twice United States Senator, the friend of Jefferson Davis, the attorney-general of our provisional government and Secretary of State of the Southern Coniederacy, and felt that if that old statute was law, Benjamin, had he applied for a professorship in the University in stead of going to London, where he became queen's coun sel, must have been rejected only because of his religion.
When he arose and introduced his bill he knew it would pass; opposition to it would have shocked the moral sense of thisage in this country.
And yet, see what was published in the Weideyan Chris tian Advocate of February 1, 189-'J, viz.:
"I would not deal captiously by our State University, but the attitude to church schools and to Christianity of late years has been very singular, to say the least of it. For example, by the act of January '27, 1785, establishing the University, it was required thai "all officers ap pointed to the instruction and government of the University shall be of the Christian religion."

95
"In 1887 this was repealed. Under this law the Uni versity saw its best days. Why was this ligature which bound the University to Christianity severed? Is it treason for one who pays taxes to sustain the University to ask this question?
"A GEORGIA METHODIST."
Other enemies of the University have from time to time indulged iu such stuff as that. Surely comment on it is unnecessary.
Tbis digression over, let us return to free tuition and the funding act. Some contend that the State is in duty bound . to educate its citizens but a little, so that they may be able to read their ballots, without understanding their force, but that to teach them enough to make them wise members of society is wrong. That seems to be fallacious, both in prin ciple and logic; but it is outside of the purview of these articles to discuss that. The same Constitution commits us to encouraging both the lowest and the highest education, and the extent of aid is a question for legislative decision.
Georgia is by no means alone in her policy. Without going into details it is safe to quote from Dr. White's annual report for 1891-92, that Georgia did but "conform the University to the general policy of American public institutions of learning to open their doors freely to the youth of the State without charge for tuition."
So far from working to injure the denominational colleges the Board of Trustees of the University has increased to sixteen the age at which students may enter, and raised the scholastic requirements for matriculation beyond that required by any institution in the State. That calculus is in the sophomore year shows how advanced is that curriculum. In that regard it is so advanced that the late Board of Visitors in their report complained thereat. This is not the place to explain why it is so. We mention it only to enforce the proposition stated. The effect of these requirements caused the rejection of forty applicants during the scholastic year, many of whom, we suppose, went elsewhere.
In conclusion suffer some remarks as to the policy of the funding act of 1881. It has been Georgia's policy since

96
the original-"systematizing" by funding in 1821 of the University notes down to this day to "systematize" at a fixed rate of interest her school funds. For a late example see the act of 1873 funding the common school appro priation at 7 per cent, for one hundred years, double the time fixed iu 1881 for the University bonds. Who has complained of that? Who forgets that by funding in bank and railroad stocks the State has lost much of her school funds? The reasons are obvious. Suppose we had been compelled iu 1881 to reinvest our funds in the interestbearing securities then on the market and considered the best here. How much might we be now interested in the litigation over bonds of the Central and Southwestern Railroad Companies, now pending in the Federal Courts ? . The State has not trusted nor ought to trust public funds devoted to public purposes needing fixed incomes, to the vicissitudes of markets nor to the honesty or prudence of any set of men, but only to the solvency and faith of herself.
It is wholly unlike the borrowing of money for current expenses. There the principal must be repaid ; here it is for the interest of all parties to keep the loan perpetual.
Some are urging the alumni to endow the University. What greater inducement can they have than the assurance that if they comply with the act of 1881 the State will see that nothing shall keep their bounty from certain income for the purposes of the donors. That brought Governor Brown's gift, and we hope for more such. It is only occa sionally that matured-bonds can be had, for they fall due only at stated periods far apart. The people need not fear such a flood. If one ever comes it will be like the over flow of the Nile, to the enrichment of the commonwealth. All the bonds of the University are already funded for fifty years, and no change in the law can reach those obligations. Would the enemies of the University cut off even hope of bounty from her sous ?
Finally, the trustees are but public servants. If the State wishes to abolish free tuition in the University, let it be so enacted. Though that course may seem to the trustees unwise, they will acquiesce in what the legislature shall decide.

97
CHAPTER X.
REPLY TO REV. W. A. CAXDLER, PRESIDEXT OP EMORY
COLLEGE, GEORGIA.
All last week I sat with the other counsel of the Central Railroad and Banking Company in the United States Court .at Savannah, witnessed the contention over the disjointed members of that great system of railroads aud thought what might have been the situation of our University had its Board of Trustees in 1881 gone into the market aud in vested its funds in the securities of those railroads instead of being allowed by the State, to fund them permanently under her act of that year. That absence from the city prevented the preparation of my article which was due on last Sunday. Xo matter; it left room on that day for Dr. Candler's long criticism, the reply to which keeps up the thread of my discourse.
He alleged that I had made two "minor errors" as to historical facts. The first is " the mixing of the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention in the matter of Rev. Mr. Duche's prayer." That charge is simply amusing. The Rev. Dr. Hinton, criticizing the Constitu tional Convention of 1787, said that a certain Mr. Dutch (as it was printed) made a prayer therein at the instance of Dr. Franklin. I denied that any such incident occurred in that Convention. In your issue of the 19th of June, 1893, Dr. Hinton published his rejoinder, in which he used this language: " Yes, history is with Mr. Hammond here.
The incident concerning Mr. Duche happened in the Continental Congress. He was invited to pray then .and there. ... I had so read (that he prayed in 1787), but my authority was in error." In 1774 Mr. Duche did pray, on the motion of old Samuel Adams. But what was done in that regard in the Continental Congress of 1774

98
.was utterly foreign to the debate between me and Dr. Hinton touching what was done in 1787 in a different body. It was Dr. Hintou, and not I, who mixed the Conventions, and yet Dr. Candler classes that as one of my "minor errors."
Dr. Candler then said that the 6,000 which I had said was appropriated by the act of 1830 and repealed by the act of 1831, to educate the poor boys at the University, was in point of fact never appropriated. He quoted from the acts of 1830 and 1831, and the journals of the House and Senate of those dates to sustain his view of it, and he seems to be right. I had my information from Cobb's Xew Digest, page 1094, where the act "to provide for the edu cation of certain poor children therein mentioned" is pub lished, leaving out the fourth section, and stating that it was repealed in 1831, and I had read elsewhere that the appro priation was actually made. Perhaps it was careless in me not to have hunted up the old acts and journals, though I do not know that they could have been found here. But it was not so careless as was Dr. Gaudier when in his speech to the Farmers' Alliance of Pntnam county he stated, and afterwards, in September, 1889, published, that 2,000 for the purposes of free tuition in the University was annually appropriated by the act of 1881 for four years, when that act was accessible to all, aud on its face was for one year instead of for four.
But what of my mistake? That act of 1830 was cited as the only ante helium legislation concerning free tuition in the University, and to that Dr. Candler agreed. What amount was thereby appropriated for that purpose, or whether any amount was, was wholly immaterial to the argument.
That one whose position at the head of Emory Collegekeeps him constantly on guard, that a critic so well posted, so lynx-eyed and ready to find fault, should write that he has read all my articles with both care and interest, and yet found only that I had "fallen into a few minor errors of historical incident," and that they in no way "materially impaired the value of his (my) papers," seems a high com pliment.
Now for the remainder of Dr. Candler's article. He

says my effort " to make Emory and Mercer appear to be schools of lower grade than Franklin College is in line with the effort to defeat them by an unfair competition." I wrote not of Franklin College only, but of the University, which embraces much more than Franklin College proper. I made no effort, nor said anything of the kind. Com bating the charge that the trustees of the University were trying to injure the denominational colleges by unfair com petition,! stated that both the age and scholarship necessary to enter the University had been raised. Had we been try ing only to get students, it would have been better to have lowered both instead of losing applicants for their want of age or preparation. Some of our professors claim supe riority over those colleges as to the course of study, and I may at some time have echoed their claim. But in these papers I made no such claim, and do not know whether it is true. I have never made a comparison. Surely I may think that had we a subfreshman clas?, as they have at Oxford, we might this year have added to our numbers as they added to theirs, the subfreshman class this year con taining sixty-seven students. I am not complaining that they have such a class. It would be proper, perhaps, for us to have one.
Dr. Candler admits that while calculus is taught at Emory in the senior class, it is at the University a sophomore study, but he says that that ought not to be so. He may be right about that, but that touches not our question. To make room for other studies we crowd the sophomore year per haps too much, but I submit that when it is considered how many other things the United States acts of 1862 and 1890 require us as holders of the land scrip fund to teach, we cannot arrange our curriculum with exact regard to a mere college course as freely or perhaps as scientifically right as we could do were there no such contract obligation.
The main charge which my last article was combating was the allegation that the contract of 1872, by which we got the land scrip fund, and the acts of 1881, making tuition free and funding the University bonds, were made and enacted for the express purpose of injuring the denomi national colleges. That charge I denied, and showed that the men who made and enacted that contract and those acts

100
had no special reasons to fight those colleges, that most of them were members of the very churches which established and supported them, that other reasons existed, that other better motives might have moved thereto, and that they were men of such high character that they should be cred ited with good and patriotic motives rather than with those which were bad. Dr. Candler denied even that I truly stated my own motive when 1 introduced the resolution as to free tuition. His first reason tor denying that I know my own or rightly stated those of the other actors in this important matter is that a Board of Visitors of 1881 made a report inconsistent with his idea of my intention. To prove my motives and the motives of others by the declara tions of some other persons who had no control over or official connection with us, as to their motives for urging such action, is surely a novel procedure. In court, on such an issue, no such evidence would be even admissible. Dr. Gaudier said: "A commencement session, with its hurry and confusion, is a time when men are readily con fused." The resolutions mentioned in my last article show no marks of hurry or confusion. It was not done in a a corner. The press discussed the matter. If any of the Board of Trustees dissented, they had all the months until ' the acts were passed to make it known. It was to the in terests of the opponents to speak, and Dr. Candler showed that the force of the organ of the Methodist church was brought to bear against the measure. Those opponents in the Board of Trustees of the University have had ever since 1881 to publish their dissents, if any they had. Dr. Candler's remarks that " Many of them are now dead and cannot define their position about the matter as it now stands," and that " cemetery silence is not good testimony," are idle talk, and no more. Without doubt they cannot give evi dence of what they thought in 1881 of things "as they now stand." Nobody but an inspired prophet could. Then was the time to speak, and their positions and silence whilst they lived fix their side of the issue.
Dr. Candler said: " May I inquire if Colonel Hammond designed to cast odium upon the cause of Emory College and the good name of her benefactor by suggesting inter-

101
rogatively a charge he was unwilling to make affirmatively when he penned the following?
"'Suppose one should fix the date of Mr. Seney's gifts to Emory and Wesleyan Female College and then show that soon afterwards he obtained from Georgia the charter of the East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia Railroad Com pany, so damaging to the Western and Atlantic Railroad, which it paralleled, and which the State owned, and then charge that the Methodists in the General Assembly who voted for that charter were by Seney's gifts to their colleges, bribed to do a wrong to the State. Would there not be just indignation?'
"I understand that some years ago certain lewd fellows of the baser sort tried to give currency to this unworthy charge against the man who gave more to higher educa tion in Georgia than any man ever gave; but I had not expected to see the vile slander introduced to public notice by a worthy gentleman and he a Methodist, even though he should do so by suggestion or illustration. It is a charge opprobrious to the Methodists of the State, as well as libelous upon Mr. Seney. It can have no standing among the respectable people of Georgia until they have become so degraded that ingratitude cannot disgrace them and the requital of generous help with scandalous abuse will bring no blush to their cheeks. Such a man as Colonel Hammond ought to abhor such a charge."
Had Dr. Candler asked some sensible candid friend pri vately whether he could so inquire with propriety, I think the question would not have been asked publicly. I think his friend would have told him that it was unfair to leave off my words, " It is wrong to assail a man's motives with out strong evidence," which words stood immediately in front of the remark which he has thus garbled as quoted above. I think his friend would have told him that to class me with "certain lewd fellows of the baser sort," making charges against the dead, that his remark that he " had not expected to see the vile slander introduced to public notice by a worthy gentleman aud he a Methodist, even though he should do so by sviggestion or illustration," and the capping of his climax with the words that " such

102
a man as Colonel Hammond ought to abhor such a charge," made his inquiry and his comments thereon uot only an absolute perversion of iny meaning, but also insulting. They did excite in me a just indignation, but I trust that even that has passed away. I know that Dr. Candler did not intend them as an insult. I attribute them to his naturally combative nature.
While they gave me some paiu, they afforded me pleasure as an offset. I was pleased to see that this giant of the church militant felt so pressed iu the fight that he needed such weapons in defence of his cause. I did not know that any fellows of the baser sort, or any other sort, had made such a charge against Mr. Seney. Dr. Candler has published that they have. I stated in the strongest form of expression that I knew that such a charge against Mr. Seney would be a grave wrong, which would ''excite just indignation." That was true. I expected that all would so feel. My argument was this: Mr. Seney had too good a character to be charged with bad motives when he was doing a good thing; the men who struggled for free edu cation in the University, at which Dr. Candler complains, had characters as good as Mr. Seney's, and these characters should insure to them, as to Mr. Seney, that their motives should not be unjustly assailed. To have ntimated that Mr. Seuey acted from any but the noblest motives would have destroyed my argument. Dr. Candlw said: "The character of these men, the members of the Board of Trustees at the time, is not in question, but the merits of the case." Of course none question their character, but that fact casts much light upon the merits of this case as to their motives.
He quoted from the Visitors' report this: "However wrong and unfounded, the fact cannot be disguised' that scores of sensitive farmers and men of moderate circum stances refuse to accept the free scholarship tendered by the trustees from the belief that their sons and wards will oc cupy inferior positions in the University, and be looked down upon as charity students." That but reiterated the unanimous report of the Board of Visitors in 1878, which was reaffirmed by that of Hon. Hoke Smith aud the others of the Board of Visitors of 1890.

103
If that was true, and if by contract they were com pelled to have free students, and knew no way to equalize the positions of all in the University except by making all free, may not the good characters of the actors suggest that they asked for free tuition in 1881 from patriotic motives, and not because they were fighting the churches?
Dr. Candler confined his criticism to the Board of Trus tees of the University. His silence practically admits that there was no reason to charge upon Governor Smith or Governor Colquitt or the legislature, all of whom were par ticipants in these measures, any hostility to the denomina tional colleges.
It was unfair to suggest that I "designed to cast odium upon the cause of Emory College." I am unconscious of having ever written or uttered a word orof having a thought which would have favored such a design. I know its many scholars sent forth to bless and help direct the State. Dr. Candler has read my speech before the General Assembly in 1889, which fully answered, in advance, his unfair ques tion. In that speech I said in all sincerity, and now in all sincerity repeat: " As a member of the Methodist church, I glory in the good that Emory College does. But I would not have it take the place of a State college to which all can go upon an equality without regard to religious faith. There should be no antagonism between the sectarian col leges and the University. They should act together in duty without strife and without contention."
" When two such silver currents join, They glorify the banks that biud them in."
There is not only room for all our colleges, but a demand for them. And I verily believe that the acts of 1881, so far from injuring the denominational colleges, have aided ' them by provokeng the zeal of the churches. That zeal will redound to the glory of the State, unless it turng to madness and makes her sons strike a blow at her venerable and noble institution of learning.
There is more in Dr. Candler's review requiring notice, but my allotted space is now full, and the remainder is postponed until rfext week.

104
II.
Since last week I have beeu reminded of a comparison! between the courses of study at Emory and at the Uni versity made by our Professor Charbonnier and published in the Constitution in 1889; but its reproduction here isnot necessary to the continuance of this criticism.
Somewhat out of its order, let me here speak of the State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts. By the act of Congress of 1862 it must be a college "where the leading object shall be, without excluding other scientificand classical studies, and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture audi the mechanic arts, in such manner as the legislatures of theStates may respectively prescribe, in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life." To that the Morrill act of 1890 added more which must be theretaught. For short it is called the Agricultural College,, but that name is misleading. Farmers especially are often appealed to as though nothing but agriculture was to be taught there, and that it should be taught only practically.. Plainly that is erroneous, as has been before explained.
The practical interpretation of those acts of Congressand the organizations made under them differed in the sev eral States. Commenting thereon, Mr. Blackmar, pro fessor in the University of Kansas in 1890, in his history of "Federal and State Aid to Higher Education in the United States," published by the Bureau of Education by the United States, wrote as follows: "From this proposition all sorts of schools sprang up, according to the local con ception of the law and local demands. It was thought by some that boys were to be taught agriculture by working on a farm, and purely agricultural schools were founded with the mechanical arts attached. In other States classical schools of the stereotyped order were established, with more or less science; and, again, the endowment in otherswas devoted to scientific departments. The instruction of" the farm and the teaching of pure agriculture have not suc ceeded in general, while the schools that have made promi nent those studies relating to agriculture and the mechanic arts, upon the whole, have succeeded best." From that it

105
appears that Georgia is in line with the most successful. Our legislature has prescribed no change in the basis fixed in 1872 by Governor Smith and the trustees.
Again, the public is misled by having attention called to how few students take the degree of Bachelor of Agri culture at the University. Here, as in much else, Dr. Candler restated his position taken in his Alliance letter of September, 1889. First, let it be remembered that all colleges educate many men who never take degrees of any sort. Our State is full of such matriculates, who in all callings are leading men. Out of the two hundred and ten students in the University .at the term just closed, ex cluding thirty-eight students of law, we had one hundred and four pursuing the studies required in the State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts. To give in detail what particular classes and studies they oover would be too tedi ous here, but before completing the course for which they have enteted all the State College students will have studied all the departments required, with the exception of a few elective students who do not take the full course. Persons who seek degrees at a university will not confine themselves to a course of lower grade where, while they are pursuing the course preferred by them, they may, at the same time, take other studies which will enable them to attain a higher degree and one considered more valuable in after life. The students or their parents make the choice. The important thing is not what degree they take, but what they learn.
I have been unable to find the paper which Dr. Candler s]K>ke of as a report on this .subject. His language was: "A report to the legislature some year or two ago, signed by Hon. I. H. Hand and Hon. A. C. Hill, said," etc. I have been told that it is a minority report of two leading Alliancemen. If it be a minority report the doctor ought to have so called it, lest he should mislead his readers, as would a lawyer mislead who would read a dissenting argu ment as the opinion of the court. I have heard of such conduct in "justice courts."
Dr. Candler in his letter to the Farmers' Alliance of Putnam county, and often since, has urged that the Univer sity be left alone to live on the generosity of Its alumni. That was why I suggested as one of the reasons why the

106
funding act of 1881 should stand as an inducement for them to give to the University. The suggestion perhaps contains but little wisdom, but it seems to me a proper mate for Dr. Candler's. He ridiculed the proposal of Judge Howard Van Epps to aid the University by a series of policies of insurance on the lives of the alumni. Perhaps that was not wise. But it was a suggestion which it was thought would enable alumni who were unable to give now, by means of annual installments, finally to aid in endowing the University.
Dr. Candler again perverted my meaning in this, viz.: He quoted from me the following: ''Some contend that the State is in duty bound to educate its citizens but a little, so that they may be able to read their ballots without under standing their force, but that to teach enough to make them wise members of society is wrong. That seems to be falla cious, both in principle and logic." On that he commented thus: "A common school fellow can read a ballot, but it takes a college man to understand the force of it. Is that your doctrine, colonel? It seems so. What a pitiable fix is Georgia then in! It may well be doubted if even the University can relieve the situation unless the few whom it educates to know the force of the ballot can somehow get control of the benighted multitudes who only know how to read a ballot;" and he later spoke of educated men as " ballot directors." That is what the Latins call "ad captandum vulgus," but what in Georgia is known as clap-trap. I did not mean what Dr. Candler's language suggests. But I did mean that the present common school system does not furnish education enough to make wise citizens. Does he believe that it does? I opposed in the Constitutional Con vention of 1877 the restricting of common school education to "the three Rs," because I did not believe that such schools would furnish education sufficient. The poet truly said, "A little learning is a dangerous thing." I meant, in that regard, by my above quoted remark, just what Dr. Candler meant in his speech and letter to the Farmers' Alliance, when arguing for the repeal of the funding act of 1881, he said: "But as against all this, some may say: 'It is necessary for a State's glory and power that she have learned men, as well as men educated in an elementary

107
degree.' This is admitted, but -does it follow that Georgia can only get them by appropriations to the University?" He thereby admitted all that I claimed in my quoted lan guage. I do not contend, and never did, that no such men can be produced except by the University. All oursehools, private and municipal, the University and branch colleges, and our denominational schools and colleges, are trying to make wise citizens. The State's field of action is in the common schools and in the University and its branches. What she cannot furnish in the former must be had in the latter, unless she abandons the field of higher education and turns it over to our denominational colleges and to colleges outside of Georgia. To that I am" opposed. That Dr. Candler seems to favor.
Continuing the matter above quoted from him, he said: "Most of the men living in the State who have received a college education did not get it at Athens. The church colleges have turned out more graduates than the University. Among their alumni are not a few learned men."
And in a Thanksgiving sermon at Oxford last November, Dr. Candler said: "Self-preservation gives the State the right to provide for the enlightment of her citizens to the extent of primary and fundamental knowledge. Higher education she can not successfully provide for. It is a work of such character that republican government cannot under take it without engendering more evils than it cures, and yet a work that must be done." If not done by the States it will be done by the dominant churches in each section or State. What dangers may not grow therefrom. It was a grave question whether States should at all interfere with parental control as to education and educational facilities, but that has been decided. The extent of interference is a question for each State to decide for itself.
In that Alliance letter he suggested that the repeal of the prohibition of any but Christians being officers of the University "by an act of 1887" was an act "hostile or in different to religion," because now "a Mussulman or an agnostic may be professor there, so far as the law is con cerned." In his last article, while he does not deny that that repeal had been already made by the Contitution, he reproachfully said, "But even the deference to Christianity

108
of this legal nullity was not to be endured." The similarity of thought and expression, the false dating of the repeal in 1887 instead of 1877 by both articles, shows that the doctor may be "a Georgia Methodist" already reviewed by "me, or that that writer is but his echo. The false dating is not im material. Just as after emancipation it was right to formally strike out the race distinction apparent in many statutes, so after the new Constitution of 1877 this statutory conformity was then in order. In both cases the law was the same before as after such conformity.
It is true that, so far as the law is concerned, a Mussul man or an agnostic may now be a professor at Athens. And so he may be at Oxford or Macon "so far as the law is concerned." In each college the sole protection is the character of the electing body and none other is needed.
In that Alliance letter Dr. Candlerasked: "Is religion so unfriendly to learning that the kind of men who come from religious schools are not desirable to the State? Was Dr. G. J. Orr, a graduate of Emory college, and the father of our free school system, unlearned or hostile to religion?" He knew that all men would answer those questions in the negative. But how will he answer this question, viz.: Would the Methodist and Baptist, if they could, furnish all the "vote directors" in Georgia? If that be his view he is radically wrong. Church monopoly is as dangerous as State monopoly. Co-operation is what is needed. Let his own example illustrate this point. Dr. Orr was a student in the University and stood par excellence at the head of his class when he rose senior. The first honor was surely his had he graduated, but he and the three classmates next to him in scholarship were then expelled for a piece of mis chief which left no stain on their character. It is said that Dr. Orr's sole fault was that he would not tell upon the others. No matter, he went to Emory, and there graduated. Which of the two is entitled to the glory of making that "vote director?" May not both claim "the increase" where one "planted" and the other "watered?"
Appealing to church prejudices, in his recent article Dr. Candler recalled that a newspaper had said that we elected a Baptist to the chair of English to gain the favor of that denomination. What if we did ? Should we not seek

109
favor with so large and respectable a body of citizens? In a State college, non-sectarian, may we not, ought we not to have regard to the opinions of all, though we cannot rightly turn that institution to the special views of any denomi nation ?
Then the doctor added: "In this connection it is but the statement of a fact to say that in the ninety-three years of the University's history it has had eight Calvinistic chancellors and one Arminian. The eight Calvinists have held the place for seventy-nine years, and the one Arminian fourteen years, during three of which the college was suspended. Be it also remembered that it appertains to the office of Chancellor to teach mental philosophy, and that when the question of the freedom of the will and divine sovereignty is under discussion in that science, a Calvinist gives quite a different answer from that of an Arminian. " An Episcopal Methodist was never Chancellor of the University, though that denomination is one of the largest in the State. If I be correctly informed there is now but one Methodist in the faculty of Franklin College." Why did he not tell bow we tried to make Dr. Hopkins, when he recently left the presidency of Eniory, the Chan cellor of the University, and were prevented only by the fact that he preferred to be at the head of the Technological College where he is now so ably serving the State? When the University began Methodist and Baptist influ ence was not so predominant in Georgia as now. There were not a handful of either here. It seems, therefore, a little unfair thus to count against the University all the years prior to 1836, when our first denominational college was chartered. I had never thought of this contrast before, and know not why the facts are so, nor what they import. Least of all, had I ever had presented to my mind before the astound ing danger to which the State has been so long exposed of having its "vote directors" taught incorrect views upon "the question of the freedom of the will and divine sov ereignty," while her University was presided over by Pres byterians and Baptists, rather than Methodists. Never be fore did I realize the danger passed by myself when a young

110
Methodist I was put under the influence of that grand old Presbyterian, Dr. Church. Reared in the little village of Cullodeu, where there was but one church, I had but little notion of the divergent opinions of mankind as to religion. A new world opened upon my vision, when on my seven teenth birthday, and his forty-third, on the 26th of Decem ber, 1850, my father gave me a "History of All the Reli gious Denonii nations in the United States," by fifty-three eminent authors belonging to the respective denominations. It was " the improved and portrait edition." There, among other worthies, were Roger Williams, with his mustache and curled hair; Pope Pius IX. in his robes of office and with shorn pate; the venerable William White in his sur plice; Martin Luther, with face and head like General Toombs ; Campbell, resembling John C. Calhoun ; John Calvin, lawyer and theologian," bearded like the pard," and John Wesley, with face as smooth as a woman's, and yet with the courage of a born leader of men. Such illustrated books were rare in those days, and I fully appreciated my gift. I fan^y that it has had much to do with forming my estimate of men and their religion. Examining creeds and forms of worship as shaped by their surroundings and the times in which they came forth, not as described by their enemies, who perhaps, understood them not, but by their friends, who knew and felt their beauty and force, I found much to which I could not agree, but little at which to carp. Through them all ran a golden chain of truth re markably uniform, and when stripped of the dust and cob webs of the ages in which its parts were wrought, plainly showing that it all came from the " Sermon on the Mount."
That book excited inquiry into theological questions, and it is not strange that it made me somewhat study free will, foreknowledge, predestination and the like.
I read some thousands of pages on these subjects, and concluded that all I read was " under the third head." Let me explain what that means: Governor Brown once told me of an old north Georgia minister, who preaching from, a text perhaps on one of the very subjects, began his ser mon, this way: "Brethren, I shall first tell you what the apostle did mean by those words; secondly, I shall tell yoi what he did not mean by them, and under the third head I

Ill
will indulge in some general remarks on a subject which I do not fully understand and I hardly think the apostle unstood."
It was long since I had thought of such contentions, but when the doctor suggested them I stepped into my library and found that Arminius, the founder of the sect called Arminians, died in 1609; that the "reformed in Holland were divided into Arminiaus and Gomarists, the doctrine of predestination being the prominent point raised between them." I read on as follows: ' : The Gomarists were supralapsariaus and demanded strict Calvinism in doc trine and independence of the Church in regard to the State; the Arminians held that the decree to save regarded the elect as believers, but they advocated biblical simplicitv in doctrine, a peaceful spirit in the Church, and a subjec tion of the Church to the State. After the death of Ar minius, Jan Uylenbogaert, preacher of The Hague, and Simon Episcopius, Gomar's sucressor as professor at Leyden in 1512, became the Arminian leaders." I laid aside the book, not seeing why 'i this hot weather I should suffer myself thrown back three centuries into the past and disturbed by Dutch names which I cannot pronounce, by words not in the dictionaries, and by questions too deep for present discussion. Surely Dr. Candler is hypercriti cal if he objects to what is taught about them in the Uni versity, where sectarian dogmas have no place.
The above anecdote is not a joke, but is told in great earnestness because it illustrates what I mean. It may argue me a bad theologian and a worse Methodist; but I do not appreciate the danger to the State which the doctor has pointed out so much to his own satisfaction.
Other points need to be noticed, but circumstances com pel the closing of these weekly articles. Some of the friends of the University will cause what I have written on these subjects to be reproduced in somewhat more perma nent form. In that form something more may be added.
After the foregoing was all in the printer's hands Dr. Candler's article appeared yesterday, and in its corrected form to-day. As this is my last newspaper article ou the subject, a little needs to be added.
All that he says about the State paying 7 per cent, in-

112
terest has been answered heretofore in these papers. He is a great friend of the common schools, whose bonds were funded in 1873 at 7 per cent, for 100 years, at which he has hot complained. The interest is the same as to both, the time doubled as to the common- schools. The Uni versity has no bonds to fall doe in 1896,and should anybody give her some, and the State, instead of paying them off, should accept them and agree to devote their interest only to educating her sons at Athens, no great harm can come. Dr. Candler suggests none, except that thereby there may be more students at Athens and fewer at Oxford than might be otherwise.
In his last annual report to the Georgia and Florida con ference, dated November 29, 1892, Dr. Candler said: "I repeat what I said a year ago in explanation of the increas ing patronage of the college, which continues in the face of the adverse financial condition of our section and a general decrease of the patronage of competing institutions. 'Much of the prosperity of the college the past year is due to the fact that it has been represented in every charge by the pastor. The general collection which was ordered has ablrsoou.g'"ht not only money to the endowment but patronage
What a difference there would be had the University .such an army of devoted pastors to represent it instead of Emory!
It is true that my error as to the actual appropriation of $6,000 for the poor in 1831 was repeated in these papers, but not because I had not noticed Dr. Candler's correction in his Alliance letter. I thought his letter in that regard a mistake, because of the act published as it was in Cobb's digest, and until Dr. Caudler's recent specific citation of the facts. So much for Dr. Candler's remark, "It is amazing how he missed his own error, but found mine."
He does not see how the change as to age and scholar ship requisite for admission to the University, made since, can show the motives of those who asked in 1881 for the funding act. Surely if since then our conduct has been wholly inconsistent with the motive charged by Dr. Candler, the public will be more ready to believe. our denial of the

113
motives charged by him as operating when that legislation -cas sought.
The defence was against charges made by friends of Emory. My illustrations were, therefore, properly drawn from Emory's history in part. And because I had very recently, this year, learned that Mr. Seney was one of the corporators of the East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia Railroad Company (if I knew it before it had been forgot1ten), his name was so mentioned. Dr. Caudler's construc tion of my question was not "the most natural interpreta tion on the face of the paragraph," and I believe would never have occurred to any except those who "remembered that this sneer at Mr. Seney was uttered in certain quarters some years ago."
With acceptance of my disavowal, he says: "Indeed, I may frankly confess it irritated me, and being irritated I was unwilling to print anything in reply without careful consideration. Hence, I read the paragraph before it was printed to three prominent gentlemen, the peers of Colonel Hammond in age, experience, culture and piety. Without -either of them knowing the opinion expressed by the other two they unanimously agreed that my interrogation was proper and my comment just. At the suggestion of one of them I changed the last sentence, which I had written thus: 'Such a charge Colonel Hammond canuot fail to abhor7 so that it read, 'such a man as Colonel Hammond ought to abhor such a charge.'
"I have desired to avoid any possible injustice to Colonel Hammond, and have not applied to him an epithet as -strong even as the word 'combative.' I complain of noth ing he has written. I never whine in controversy."
I wonder what the doctor meant by "whine in contro versy." Was that submitted to those friends also"? Will any one friend say be is not "combative ?" I meant that not for an "epithet," strong or weak. I did not mistake abuse for argument. He was "irritated" when he wrote. Whether his three friends when they advised him were cool or "irritated" also does not appear. It seems that their views were not "unanimous," however. He even under "irritation" had written this: "Such a charge Colonel

114
Hammond cannot fail to abhor." It was to that that two of his friends assented. That would have left me on his side, and not with the "lewd fellows of the baser sort." But after he had time to deliberate, and had read to two friends and then to the third, that was changed so as to make me a bad fellow, who "ought to abhor such a charge," but, as he asserted, had made the same. I have no further com ment to make, except that I think that had I had so much doubt as to the propriety of anything I had written in such a discussion as that it took the bolstering advice of three friends as to its propriety, before public utterance, it would not have been published.
Let me add the single line which was left out of his quotation of my remarks, and which he says he "omitted for the sake of economizing space," in an article two and a half columns long, to-wit: "It is wrong to assail a man's motives without strong evidence."

115
CHAPTER XI.
THE LAW AND MEDICAL DEPARTMENTS OP THE UNIVER
SITY--THE NORTH GEORGIA AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE.
No history of higher education in this State would be complete without a notice of other departments and the colleges not located at Athens. Some of them ante date the Constitution of 1877, and will be first noticed. The remarks about them are intended for a general, rather an accurate, detail of their history and status.
Schools of Law and Medicine are connected with our University. Their status is peculiar.
The Law department was established in 1843, and Joseph H. Lumpkin, afterwards Chief Justice of our Supreme Court, was elected professor of law; but it was at first practically only a department on paper. On December 19,1859, Judge Lumpkiu, William Hope Hull and Thomas R. R. Cobb, and their successors, were incorporated for the. purposes of a law school, " with power to grant diplomas to the graduates of said school, upon the production of which, the payment of the usual fees, and taking the oath prescribed by law, they shall be and are hereby authorized to plead and prac tice law in any of the courts of law and equity in this State." (The same rights were granted to graduates of the law school of Mercer University by an act of November 24, 1875, and by an act of December 12, 1888, to graduates of the law school of Emory College.) "The usual fees" above mentioned are those paid to the clerks of courts for issuing licenses on admission to the bar. The Lumpkin Law School took the place of the old provision for such students in the University. Its professors are called pro fessors of the University, and now are elected by the University Board of Trustees. It will be observed, how ever, that the act above quoted admits to practice its gradu ates, not as graduates of the University, but of the Lumpkin Law School.

116
By the act of December 20, 1833, the Medical Institute of Georgia had its name changed to the Medical College of Georgia. Ten thousand dollars and fifty lots in the town common of Augusta were appropriated therefor for build ing, library, apparatus, and museum and for the various purposes of a medical college. On the oth of July, 1873, by contract it became "the Medical Department of the University of Georgia." It reserved full control of its affair, of its income and expenditures, leaving the University without interest in or liability for any part thereof. The University has under the contract "the ulti mate power of control over its regulations and appoint ments, . . to be exercised when deemed necessary." The local board of this medical college and the faculty of the law college prescribe the courses of study in them respect ively. In neither is any grade of scholarship required by the University for admission. In both diplomas are signed by their respective officers and by the Chancellor of the University, and have its seal attached thereto. If there be any other law fixing the relations of those two departments to the University it is not now recalled.
The University never had any control over the tuition fees in either of them. One may therefore readily perceive the unfairness of argument of those who attack the motives of those who asked for and of those who passed the free tui tion act of 1881, as well as the unfairness of the attack itself, in such remarks as follows:
One writer put it thus: "In the medical and law de partments of the University tuition is charged ; in these departments the Church schools make no appreciable com petition. In the departments with which the Church schools compete tuition is free. The design of the thing is manifest," etc. That is the language of Dr. Candler in his Alliance letter. That "Georgia Methodist" in the Wesleyan Christian * Advocate of February 1, 1893, said: "The University, sustained by funds drawn from taxation of all the people, and from the land scrip which it holds by -a questionable title, seeks to break down denominational col leges by offers of partially free tuition in every department where the Church Schools compete, though exacting full fees in all departments where the Church Schools do not

117
compete," etc. Again in an article in the same paper or March 8, 1893, under the heading of "What the war is on, Why waged," and signed " West Georgia Methodist," it was put in this form; "They have called schools in differ ent parts of the State 'Agricultural colleges', 'branches of the State University', and with this ' bounty of the general government' they have made tuition free in every single department of college work where the denominational col lege work was anything like appreciable in the work of those departments. The ' law school,' the ' medical school,' ' branches of the University,' charged tuition. The agri cultural colleges, 'branches of the University,' with a cur riculum similar to the Church schools, have no tuition. The purpose is too manifest," etc.
, The language of those three friends of Emory is remark ably similar. Did they not know that the University had not a farthing's interest in the tuition fees of either the law or medical departments ? If they did not, they were not well enough informed to fairly discuss the questions. The petition for free tuition made no exception of those depart ments; the act of 1881 granting free tuition made none; for iu neither of them had the University, in that regard, any pecuniary interest. And yet such statements were made to voters who, being misled, might injure the Univer sity by retailing as a fact that the University reserved the right to charge tuition in them the better to help it fight the denominational colleges.
XORTH GEORGIA AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE.
Tau-lau-ne-ca (yellow money) was what the Cherokee Indians called the hill in the midst of the gold region of Georgia whereon is situated the town which, by corruption of its name, we call Dahlonega. In 1835, Congress pro vided for the establishment of a mint there. Then most of America gold was found in mines in the Southern At lantic States. The initials "C" and " D " stamped on old gold coins, indicating that they were minted at Charlotte, North Carolina, or Dahlonega, Georgia, were familiar to us before the war. But the discovery of the richer gold fields of California and the comparative greater cost of coinage here over that in Philadelphia and New York

118
would have soon closed our mint had not the late war brought about that result. The' mint at Dahlonega had done DO business after the year 1860.
On the 15th of April, 1871, the superior court of Lumpkin county incorporated the North Georgia Agricultural College, and on the 20th of the same month the Congress of the United States passed an act authorizing the Secre tary of the Treasury to convey the United States branch mint at Dahlonega, Georgia, to the trustees of the North Georgia Agricultural College for educational purposes. That act provided for the conveyance of the building and the ten acres of land therewith, as soon as the Secretary of the Treasury should be assured that said trustees had been properly incorporated under the laws of Georgia, and upon the express condition that said building should be used ex clusively for educational purposes, and in conformity with the provisions of an act entitled " An act donating public lands to the several States and territories which may pro vide colleges for the benefit of agricultural and mechanic arts," meaning the land grant of 1862, heretofore men tioned. The conveyance was made. As has been already stated, the land scrip provided by the act of 1862 was accepted by Georgia in 1866, received by Governor Conley in 1872, and by Governor Smith in that year turned over to the trustees of the University in this State. This Dahlonega college sought to get that scrip, but failed, for the reasons stated in the executive order already mentioned. On the 24th of October, 1872, a contract was made .between the University and this college, that the college should convey to the trustees of the University of Georgia for educa tional purposes the use and control of said property re ceived from the United States, for such length of time as the University of Georgia should continue to perform its part of the agreement.
The University agreed to " pay annually, two thousand dollars from the interest of the agricultural fund donated by Congress so long as the same remains intact in the hands of the trustees of the University of Georgia, to pay one or more teachers in the institution, the principal to be elected by the trustees of the University of Georgia.
"The control of details, and the management of the insti-

119
tution, and the appointment of subordinate teachers, shall be in the hands of the local board, subject at all times to the revision and control of the trustees of the University, in whom is the ultimate power of legislation.
"This arrangement is on condition that, after the year 1875, one hundred male students be kept at the institution in Dahlonega; a proportionate sum to be paid for a less number, but to cease when the average number, for one year, shall be reduced below fifty.
" The expenses for repairs of buildings, furnishing, warm ing, etc., and the pay of teachers, beyond the two thousand dollars, shall be raised by the local board, and the trustees of the University shall not be liable for any debt of said college, beyond the two. thousand dollars hereby pledged."
And it was agreed that "nothing herein contained shall prevent the North Georgia Agricultural College from de riving the full benefit irom any appropriation, hereafter made by Congress, for establishing a school of mines in con nection with said institution, or any other appropriation given by Congress for its benefit."
On the 28th of February, 1887, was approved by the Governor of Georgia, "an act to establish a formal De partment in the Xorth Georgia Agricultural College at Dahlonega, and to more efficiently provide for the Military Department of the same, and for other purposes." That act provided for "the free admission of such pupils, male and female, not less than one from each county, as may ex press the desire and intention of following the business of teaching." The act allowed the Board of Trustees of that college to send out their pupils "during the fall months to teach remote schools not otherwise provided for." Its Board of Trustees were thereby authorized to aid its students when so sent out "properly to subsist while so engaged." It authorized "room rent free to such pupils while attend ing the Xormal Department, and such other aid as will en able such pupils to subsist upon the most economical plan." Its certified students were by the act made licensed teachers, without undergoing an examination or procuring a license from any other State authority. Among other provisions, that act appropriated fifteen hundred dollars to carry out its purposes.

120
So stood the law when the Convention of 1877 metDuring that Convention, an eflbrt was made to have onethird of the interest on the land scrip fund thus held by the, University under the contract with Governor Smith ap propriated for the use of said college at Dahlonega, and still another effort was made to have that interest divided into three portions, one to be at Dahlonega, and another to be used by a school in Southwest Georgia, and the remain ing one-third at the University. But both those projects: failed. During the discussion of those provisions, it was stated that the sole tuition required was five dollars per an num, which was remitted in cases o'f persons unable to pay the same. Ever since 1877 the United States has detailed an officer to teach military tactics there, who has generally also taught other branches.
On the 20th of December, 1878, the building known asthe North Georgia Agricultural College at Dahlonega was destroyed by fire. By an act of September 15, 1881, the State of Georgia, by reason of its obligation therein speci fied in the preamble, appropriated ten thousand dollars for the purpose of rebuilding said college. Then ten thousand dollars was only one half of the estimated requirement for said building. Accordingly, by act of December 12,1883r ten thousand dollars more was appropriated for the com pletion of the same.- That did not fully meet the purpose, and by act of October 13, 1887, five thousand dollars morewas appropriated, to be used in completing the building,, supplying it with proper school furniture, and for the en closure of a portion of the ground around the same.
The original act of Congress of 1871 was passed by theeflbrts of Colonel Price, the then member of Congress from that district of Georgia, who has been ever since the Presi dent of its Board of Trustees and to whose personal aid it owes much of its success. Its peculiar location and sur roundings, and its curriculum, keep it from being in almost any sense a competitor with the Methodist and Baptist schools which are established in the adjoining counties. Each of the three has done and seems to be now doing very valuable work, which, without it, would not be done. The University of Georgia has no interest in the income at Dahlonega. The curriculum there is of such a character-

121
that the students who receive its diplomas are usually satis fied therewith. Perhaps not as many as one half dozen of them iu as many years have attended the University. Its graduates and matriculates are scattered all through Geor gia, and particularly in the northern counties. Their high standing and efficiency in every department of business show how well they have been trained.
BRANCH COLLEGES.
By an act approved December 16, 1878, it was declared: "That when there shall be legally incorporated such col leges at Cuthbert and Thomasville as aforesaid, or either of them, and the same shall be endowed with suitable real estate and the needful buildings for such purpose, to be judged by said Board of Trustees, the latter shall be author ized at their discretion, to accept such institution, or insti tutions, if tendered to them for such purposes, as a branch or branches of said State University; to be under the gen eral supervision of said board, and governed and adminis tered according to rules and regulations which said board shall approve; and that said board, if so accepting such in stitution or institutions, are authorized and directed to ap propriate annually for the payment of teachers tor such col lege or colleges, out of the land scrip fund aforesaid, now in the hands and management of said board, such sum as they may think fit, to each of such institutions so accepted; and such other sums from that or any fund, as said board may find it practicable and wise to spare from the support of the North Georgia Agricultural College and the State College of Agriculture and the Mechanic Arts, located at Athens, in this State." The school at Cuthbert has ceased to be a department of the University. On the 17th of October, 1879, was approved "An act to establish the Middle Georgia Military and Agricultural College, and to commit and lend the State House and square, the Executive Mansion and premises and the Peui-

122
tentiary square and appurtenances at Milledgeville, to the State University, for that purpose." That act made that school "a department of the University," provided that "tuition in said college shall be free to all white males and females, provided a matriculation and library fee, not exceeding ten dollars per annum, may be exacted and grades of scholarship may be prescribed by the faculty under the direction of the trustees, as conditions of ad mission," and further that "the course of instruction, in addition to military training, shall be especially directed (1) to preparation for the higher classes at Athens, (2) for the business of practical farm life and mining, and (3) ' for the profession of teaching." . A certificate of proficiency granted by the faculty, shall be sufficient license to teach in the State schools," i. e., common schools. The act further authorized Milledgeville to give it land or "an annual cash endowment." Another act approved the same day provided for organizing its local Board of Trustees, etc.
By an act of September, 1881, the Trustees of the Uni versity were authorized to accept the West Georgia Agricul tural and Mechanical College at Hamilton, Harris county. On the 13th of July, 1883, a committee from that college conferred with the Trustees of the University, and they agreed to accept it " whenever sufficient funds can be pro cured by legislative appropriation." As yet no such appro priation has been made.
TECHNOLOGICAL COLLEGE.
The "Technological School as a branch of the State University and forming one of the departments thereof," was established under an act approved October 13th, 1885. It was looted by a commission which was required "to give preference to such place as shall be of easy access to all the people of the State, having due regard to the appro priateness, eligibility^ and bealthfulness of the surround ings, as well as to any oflfer or donation of value that may be made to secure said school, and any inducements offered by any nonsectarian educational institution of this State. The selection once made shall be final."
It was located in Atlanta, which as a corporation donated therefor fifty thousand dollars and an annuity of twenty-

123
five hundred dollars per year for five years, to which her citizens added twenty thousand dollars more.
The State prescribed there "a course of practical train ing in the use and manufacture of tools and machinery, for wood and iron working," including as nearly as practicable, consistent with the appropriation, "the branches now taught by and followed in the Free Institute of Industrial Science at Worcester, Massachusetts." To that the Board of Trustees of the University might "add such features and open such other departments of training and instruction therein as they shall deem that the progress and advance ment of the times require." The Board of Trustees prescrib rules and by-laws for the school and the teaching, training and governing of the students, consistent with the powers and duties of the local board. The Board of Educa tion of each county of the State may select one beneficiary by competitive examination, as a beneficiary in the school, who shall be first entitled to a place there. Tuition is free to all residents of Georgia, and nonresidents shall not be charged more than one hundred and fifty dollars per annum. For its beginning the State appropriated sixty-five thousand dollars, but not to be paid until January, 1887. The title to all its property is in the Board of Trustees of the Uni versity, belongs to the State, and cannot be alienated nor encumbered.
GEORGIA NORMAL AND INDUSTRIAL COLLEGE.
By an act approved Xovember 8, 1889, the Georgia Normal and Industrial College was " established in con nection with the State University and forming one of the de partments thereof for the education of white girls." It was located in Milledgeville " and for that purpose the property of the State known as the 'Executive Mansion' and its grounds, containing two acres, and the land and buildings known as the ' Penitentiary Square,' containing twenty acres," was set apart and appropriated. The power and control of the University Board is substantially the same here as in the Technological School. The purpose of the act is "to establish and maintain a first class college for the education of white girls. Said college shall have an Indus trial Department, in which shall be taught telegraphy,

124
stenography, typewriting, photography, bookkeeping, do mestic economy, cutting and making dresses, printing, in dustrial and decorative art in its practical application, and such other practical industries as may tend to fit and pre pare girls for occupations which are consistent with femi nine refinement and modesty. There shall also be a Normal Department for the thorough training of teachers. No girl shall be allowed to take a course in said college who does not receive instruction in at least one industrial art." Each county has there one scholarship. Daughters of disabled or deceased Confederate soldiers who are other wise unable to secure a thorough education have preference. The act appropriated thirty-five thousand dollars to begin its operations.
FEMALE EDUCATION.
Four days later, to-wit, on November 12, 1889, it was enacted that all present and future "branch colleges of the State University of Georgia shall be open to all white female students of proper age and qualifications, with equal rights and privileges as those exercised and enjoyed by male students of such institutions, under such rules and regulations as may be prepared by the several boards of trustees of said institutions."
NORMAL SCHOOL.
By act of October 21, 1891, the legislature established as a branch college a normal school at Rock College at Athens. Students therein bind themselves to teach within five years after leaving it as long as they have been there in the common schools. Tuition is free to all Georgians, and non-residents may be charged $150 per annum.
STATE COLLEGE FOR COLORED PERSONS.
All the .above mentioned branch colleges are for white students. A word as to the provision made for the colored race in Georgia. By the Constitution of 1877 "there shall be a thorough system of common schools for the edu cation of children in the elementary branches of an Eng lish education only, as nearly uniform as practicable, the expenses of which shall be provided for by taxation or

125
otherwise. The schools shall be free to all children of the State, but separate schools shall he provided for the white and colored races. . . . And the General Assembly may also, from time to time, make such appropriations of money as the condition of the treasury will authorize to any college or university (not exceeding one in number) now established, or hereafter to be established, in this State for the education of persons of color."
The contentious at the South between the races over the land scrip fund produced some awkward results. The State University of South Carolina was for a time broken up because there was no separate provision made for the colored race there. To avoid like danger and the political troubles in Congress related thereto Georgia made provision for the higher education of that race separately.
On March 3, 1874, was approved our "act to equitably adjust the claims of the colored race for a portion of the proceeds of the Agricultural Land Scrip." It appropriated eight thousand dollars to the Atlanta University upon con dition that said institution "shall admit for instruction in the same as many colored pupils as there are or may be members of the House of Representatives of this State, free of charge of tuition." That act declared that that eight thousand dollars was "in lieu of any claim of the colored population of this State upon the proceeds of the Agricultural Land Scrip," etc., and required the course of instruction to be so far modified as to adapt the same to the objects of said grant of the land scrip. The State therein reserved the right to readjust between the races said fund or any additional grants for education. The Board of Visitors of the State University had like func tions and powers touching that institution as by law they had as to the State University. (The Board of Visitors consists of five experienced educators appointed annually by the governor to attend the University examinations and to examine personally into its condition and management and report thereon to the Governor, with such suggestions and recommendations therein as they deem proper. Their whole service must not exceed ten days. The governor must lay their report before the legislature.)
That arrangement with the Atlanta University was car-

126
ried on until 1891, when it ceased, -because that in stitution would not consent to confine its teaching to colored students .only, thereby defeating our declared policy to educate the races separately.
The Morrill act of August 30th, 1890, was entitled "An act to apply a portion of the proceeds of the public lauds to the more complete endowment and support of the col leges for the benefit of agriculture and the mechanic arts established under the provisions of an act of Congress ap proved July 2d, 1862." It appropriated fifteen thousand dollars for the year ending June 30th, 1890, and an annual increase of one thousand dollars for ten years, until the an nual amount shall be twenty-five thousand dollars, "to be applied only to instruction in agriculture, the mechanic arts, the English language, and the various branches of mathematical, physical, natural and economic science, with special reference to their application in the industries of life, and to the facilities for such instruction; provided, that no money shall be paid out under this act to any State or Territory for the support and maintenance of a college where a distinction of race or color is made in the admis sion of students, but the establishment and maintenance of such colleges separately for white and colored students shall be held to be a compliance with the provisions of this act if the funds received in such State or Territory be equitably divided as hereinafter set forth." It provided for legisla tive proposal to the Secretary of the Interior of fair terms of division between the races. It had substantially the same restrictions as to use and the same obligations of the State to make good any loss thereof as was in the original land scrip act. It reserved the right to amend, alter or re peal the law.
Before the State could get this appropriation, it had to es tablish a college of that kind for colored persons, and so it passed the act of Noyember 26th, 1890, "to establish a school for colored persons as a branch of the State Univer sity, to appropriate money for the same, and for other pur poses." That bill was substantially like the Technological School act. It provided for a commission to locate the school; required the course of study required by the acts of Congress of 1862 and 1890, making donations of land for

127
educational purposes; made the school a part of the Uni versity and under the control and management of its Board of Trustees; gave tuition free to all students residents of this State, and as to others limited it to fifty dollars per annum; appropriated eight thousand dollars per annum thereto in lieu of the claim on the land scrip fund, and proposed that that school should have one-third of the fund provided by the act of 1890, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior of the United States, as required by that act'of Congress. The State act of 1874 was re pealed, and it was enacted that no colored student should be admitted to the University, and no white students should be admitted to' the institution to be established under that act of Congress. The commission bought a beautiful sight near Savannah, Ga., whereon were some buildings, and others have been made, and the school is in successful oper ation.
The law makes the Presidents of the local Boards of the Technological College, of the Georgia Normal and In dustrial College and of the State College for Colored Persons ex ojficio members of the Board of Trustees of the State University.

128
II.
The legal status of the departments and branch colleges of the University having been given, a notice of Dr. Candler's attack upon them in 1889 is appropriate. In his Alliance letter, after reckoning everything which the State had appropriated to the University and its branch colleges, and all which it had appropriated to the poor schools and common schools, up to August, 1889, he concluded that the common school students had cost the State but eight dollars and a half per head, while the others had cost from one hundred and twenty-five to one hundred and eighty-five dollars per head, according to how the amount was made.
That seems to be a strange mode of estimating the value to the State of the income from the outlay, that counting of men by the head, and at an average price, like so many "dumb driven cattle." In making his average, of course such men as Bishop George F. Pierce, Dr. Curry, Dr. Palmer, and the hundreds of others who have distinguished themselves and served the country nobly were put down at the fixed rate of $125.00 or $185.00. They would be counted far above that had he counted them singly, and perhaps other alumni of the University would have been counted far below, some even below zero, not because of the University, but because of their failure to improve the advantages there offered.
A distinguished divine writing, on another subject, said: "what makes the difference between the geologist with his hammer and the man whj breaks stones on the road, between the work of caring for old bones in the British Museum, and that of the old-bone man in the streets? ' It is the mind and purpose they put into it, one working only with his hands, the other by the same work entering into the mind of the Creator and reading the history God wrote in the rocks ages ago." The difference is due wholly to education.
Dr. Candler, after stating his conclusion as to the com parative cost of the three months common school students and the better trained students in the University and higher schools, asked this question: "Is it strange that in 1880 Georgia returned a greater number of persons ten years old

129
and upward as unable to read, than any other State in the Union?"
Had the State of Georgia impoverished itself by aiding higher education, or starved out the common schools there by, his question would have been pertinent. But neither is true. The communities in which the most money was spent for higher education, as a rule, spent most for ele mentary education. Illiteracy in Georgia results more from sparseness of population, from the negro elements and other difficulties which no amount of money for the schools can surmount, than from the illiberality of the Legislature.
It does not follow, however, that Dr. Candler's advice, "For the present, at least, all its (the State's) appropriations should be made to the common schools," is a wise State policy. That education which stops with "the three R's" only, with a special emphasis on that Constitutional "only," is of all systems the most likely to keep people in ignorance. The State cannot have too many places where something besides "the three R's" shall be taught.
It seems that Dr. Cundler was mistaken when he said,i "New England has followed in the main this policy from the first, and to-day there are not only more and better com mon schools in New Englaud than in any other section of the Union, but more and better equipped colleges. Begin ning at the bottom, her educational work is firmly founded on a base broad enough to sustain it, whatever height it may attain to. Connecticut has never given Yale College as much as Georgia gave the University from 1830 to 1841. Massachusetts kept Harvard in the leading strings of the State until 1865, when its Alunmi demanded its disestab lishment, and since that time it has been enabled to in crease its board of instructors from 45 to 110, and it has received more gifts and bequests than in the two hundred years of its previous history. The writer of the article on Harvard University in the American Cyclopedia says: 'The University has no funded property from the public treasury, but has always depended upon the revenues from students and the gifts of individuals, which have far sur passed in number and magnitude those made to any other American institution of learning.'
"Brown University, in Rhode Island; Bowdoiu, in Maine,

130
and Dartmouth, in New Hampshire, have answered the uses of their respective States and have in the main lived upon similar financial bases."
Note that ibe policy which he was advocating was of appropriating nothing except to the "three R's," and further note that, so far as the State is concerned and so Jar as the question in dispute is concerned, it is utterly immaterial whether the tax shall be first raised from the people and afterwards paid out from the Treasury, or whether the State will direct a tax for educational purposes in each par ticular county or town and enforce its application there.
Our system is wholly unlike that of New England. Her schools are not limited to common schools wherein "the R's" only are taught. Her townships are all taxed for schools, common schools 6rst, and other schools also. Dr. Candler mentioned Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maine and New Hampshire. Let a slight notice of them as to their school history be the answer to his suggestion.
As early as 1642 Massachusetts fixed by Jaw the kind of public schools which it should have. Mr. JBlackmar, in the work already quoted from, says of them: "Many of the early grammar schools'were of very excellent grade, suffi cient to prepare students for Harvard College.' Mather says of them: 'When scholars had so far profited at the grammar schools that they could render any classical author into English and readily make and speak true Latin, and write it in verse as well as in prose, and perfectly decline the paradigms of nouns and verbs in the Greek tongue, they were judged capable of admission to Harvard College.' " And again: "By the law now in force every town of five hundred inhabitants is obliged to provide for a public high school supported by taxation. (Statutes of 1871.) Any town that neglects to comply with the law must forfeit a sum equal to twice the highest sum ever before voted for schools in that place." Dr. Candler said there were thir teen city schools and four county schools is Georgia which under our Constitution are aided by local taxation volun tarily imposed. In 1888 Massachusetts had two hundred and thirty high schools supported by taxation compelled by the State. The Agricultural College in Massachusetts, established on the land grant fund from 1864 to 1874,

131
.received from the State of Massachusetts $213,000.00. 'The total amount of State appropriations thereto up to 1888 was $569,575.00, besides $75,000.00 which had been .subscribed by the town of Amherst, where it was located. Partly on the land scrip fund, Massachusetts also estab lished her Institute of Technology. In 1888 she appro priated $200,000.00 in aid of that school, on condition that there should be therein twenty free scholarships. The State had also given to the college the land on which it was located, which would have been worth $120,000.00 if -sold in fee, though it was not perpetually dedicated to that school. The State then gave $50,000.00 to augment the - endowment of Worcester Institute, which had been funded through private beneficence, for training boys in the me chanic arts, civil engineering, chemistry, physics, modern languages, etc.
Connecticut, has appropriated to her Sheffield Scientific School, founded on the United States land grant of 1862, $135,000.00, besides other appropriations, and besides ap propriations to Storr's Agricultural School.
Maine invested the income of her land scrip fund in a permanent endowment at an interest of a little less than six . per cent, per annum, and her total subscriptions to the Agricultural and Mechanical College, up to 1890, was $247. 218.00. Bowdoin College, Maine, began on a land grant, being five townships of land, each six miles square, and by bank stock, which bank stock, Mr. Black mar reckons, paid it $3,000.00 per annum. In each of the above acts, onefourth of the grants was to be devoted to defraying the expenses of indigent, students in attendance at the college.
New Hampshire appropriated for the College of Agricul ture and Mechanic Arts, from 1869 to 1888, inclusive, $71,900.00. Dartmouth College, New Hampshire, was estab lished by the Church, and not by the State. In 1819 the United States Supreme Court held that the State had no con trol over it, could not even change the number of its trustees.
In Little Rhode Island, a system of public schools was established in 1841, and at the same time a public high .school was opened in Providence. The proceeds of the land grant of 1862 were given to Brown University. The fund is held in trust by the University, and the income goes .toward paying the tuition of a certain number of students

132

resident in the State, who are nominated by the Legislature, The charter of that institution exempts the property of itsprofessors to the extent of $10,000.00 each from taxation.
Dr. Candler said: "The Universities of Virginia and North Carolina charge tuition fees." No tuition is charged, but students pay certain matriculation fees in her Uni versity. For her University, Virginia appropriated in 1823$82,000.00. From 1818 to 1876, $15,000.00 per annum; except for two years, making $825,000.00. From 1876 to 1884, she appropriated $30,000.00 per annum, making$240,000.00. In 1884 she appropriated $40,000.00, and $40,000.00 more for five years (1884-1889), making $200,000.00. Mr. Blackmar's list of Virginia's appropriationsto that institution, exclusive of the glebe lands donated in 1816 to Albemarle College, aggregates $1,387,000.00.
She appropriated also to her Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges $136,412.00. In addition to these appropriations,. Virginia still pays interest on bonds of the State held by the several State educational institutions, and to other than State educational institutions. Be it said to her honor, as well as to her wise statesmanship, that in the midst of all her troubles and poverty, when scaling and adjusting her public debt, though she made the annual interest to all other creditors less, she refused to reduce the rate of inter est on any bond held by a school or its trustees.
Perhaps the best way to show the comparative situation in 1889 between the States mentioned by Dr. Candler, is the following table, compiled from United States Report on Education, 1886-7, pages 352 et xcq., of schools of cities containing 4,000 inhabitants and over, to-wit:

Public School Libraries.

Value of School
Property. *

Tuition Fees.

Income from all Sources.

Connecticut .... Massachusetts. . New Hampshire Rhode Island.... North Carolina.. Virginia. .......

Jn_ $2,221,959 00 $ 4,819 00 $1,715,45500-

1(5

917,090 00

564 00 305,227 00-

9(5 9,780,119 00 14,108 00 2,990,346 Oil

4

613,833 00 1.783 00 229,728 00

133

930,182 00 4,974 00 128,968 00

5

791,31400 $ 8,347 00 t 262,76400

1

53,30000

10,827 00

6

728,792 00 3.277 66 251.372 00-

"Property includes grounds and buildings, furniture and libraries and apparatus?0f Georgia's above total income Atlanta furnished J71.eS8.00, and Savannah. $65,500.00. tThe tuition at Atlanta was nothing; at Savannah, 15,000.00.

133

From the same book, the following table is also com piled :

Permanent Investment
Fund.

Income therefrom.

Tuition Last Tear.

State.

Yale (Conn.)-. ...... $2,284,589 00 f 146,825 00 $ 147,772 00

Boston Univ. (Mass) 390,575 00 15,231 00 23,146 00 1 10,000 00

Harvard (Mass) . . . : 6,172,691 00 363,12300 253.98500

Univ. of Virginia. . . 282,60000 17,23600

Brown Univ. (R.I.). 42,832 00

17,510 00

Univ. of N. Carolina 130,00000 7,80000 6,58200

Bowdoin Univ. (Me) 388,12500 17,819 00 14,58500

'Georgia. ...... .... 597,452 00 32,40900 6,38700 25,00000

Statistics often mislead and are inaccurate. These may be, but are here for suggestion and comparison. If the taxa tion raised for higher education in those States had been counted by Dr. Candler against them, as he counted it .against higher education in Georgia, the figures would have been far different. Again, some, if not all, of those States have very greatly aided education by compelling attendance for certain lengths of time in each year, by forbidding em ployment of children under certain ages without a certifi cate that they bad attended school for certain lengths of time for the year prior to their employment, and in various other ways, which make their policy altogether different from the policy of the State of Georgia, and from the policy as indicated by Dr. Candler's letter. It is granted that for the colleges named, the States have appropriated less money than Georgia has to its University, and perhaps because and only because of the large private donations which Dr. Candler says they have received. It would have 'been folly for the States to have voted money where it was not needed; and when, if ever, the University of Georgia shall receive so much money from private donations that she will need no other fund, Georgia may well afford to cease its support.
Before passing from that, it is allowable to say that this constant dinning into our ears that we should do like densely populated States and depend, among our poor people, upon the policy which has been inaugurated by

tGeorgU, Including University and tix colleges.

134
their millionaires, is a waste of time and breath. The sit uations are so different that we cannot adopt their policy.
Among the appropriations which Dr. Candler by that letter would for the present have wholly discontinued was that for the education of negroes. From the foregoing history, it is quite plain that in the matter of higher educa tion for the negroes, they are indebted to the United States, rather than to the State. The State's contributions thereto have been made, apparently, in order to receive and keepsecurely the appropriations made therefor by the general goverment.
The school at Dahlonega, which his policy attacked,, was also founded by the generosity of the United States, and the small contributions which the State has made there to have been a thousandfold repaid by its work. The sameis true as to the schools of Milledgeville and Thomasvilleand Cuthbert.
Dr. Candler said: "In 1888 the Legislature appropri ated $18,000 to the School of Technology in Atlanta, calling it a branch of the University, that the Constitu tional difficulty in the way of such an appropriation might be evaded." If the motive which thus he attributed to that Legislature was the true one, the same would doubtless be true of all the other branch colleges; and if true, they notonly have no honest support in law, but they are founded on corruption. That is a serious charge, for those Legis lators all were sworn to "support" not to "evade" the Constitution.
On the 28th of June I published this statement: "It has been Georgia's policy since the original 'systematizing' by funding in 1821 of the University notes down to this day to 'systematize' at a fixed rate of interest her school funds. For a late example see the act of 1873 funding the common school appropriation at seven per cent, for one hundred years, double the time fixed in 1881 for Uni versity bonds. Who has complained of that?" (Ante, 95-6.) A week later Dr. Candler replied that I had made no historical error which impaired the value of my papers. (Ante, 98.) He was then apparently "ignorant" of its alleged repeal by the act of 1887. That act of 1873 was again on July 16th mentioned thus: "He (Dr. Candler) is a

135
great friend of the common schools, whose bonds were funded in 1873 at seven per cent, for one hundred years, at which he has not complained. The interest is the same as to both, the time doubled as to the common schools," etc. (Ante, 112.)
In the Constitution of July 23d, Dr. Candler, nearly a month after my notice of the act of 1873, replied as follows:
"I answer: The funding bill for the common school fund, approved February 19, 1873, was essentially differ ent from the University's funding bill of 1881, as any one can see by comparing them. As far as I can ascertain the common schools have never received anything from this source, and it was repealed by section 43 of'an act to amend, revise and consolidate the common school laws/ approved October 27, 1887. This act specifically declares of the common school fund that it 'shall not be invested in bonds of this State, or in other stock except when investment is necessary to carry out the conditions of an endowment, devise, gift or bequest.' Why did Coloiiel Hammoud roll out a Quaker gun in the face of this law of 1887 "? Was he ignorant of it, or did he think the public ignorant *? Maybe he was again misled by 'Cobb's New Digest.'"
It will be perceived that my allusions to the act of 1873 were incidental, and not intended to be accurate in every particular. For instance, the common schools had no appro priations to fund, and had no bonds to fund and none were funded under that act. It is true also that the acts of 1873 and of 1881 were essentially different. The essential dif ference (which the doctor did not mention) is this: Under the act of 1881 no bond could be funded until it was past due and owned by the University and presented for ex change for a seven per cent, fifty-year obligation; whereas the common school act of 1873 provided that "whenever any of the legal bonds of this State shall be purchased by the State or its authority, and shall be returned into the treasury and cancelled or destroyed; and whenever any of the bonds of the State shall be paid off (except bonds which are paid off out of moneys raised by the sale of new bonds), it shall be the duty of the Governor to issue the bonds of this State in the same amount as shall be so paid off or purchased and cancelled, which said new bonds shall

136
be payable to the school fund of this State, and shall be added to and constitute a part of said school fund, and the bonds thus issued and made payable to the school fund shall bear seven per cent, interest, payable semiannually, and shall be due one hundred years after the date thereof."
My point was that, though in his Alliance letter he had just mentioned 1873 as to the eight thousand dollars for the negroes immediately above his comments on the fund ing act of 1881, he failed to notice that funding act of 1873, and the policy of the State with regard to funding. It would have greatly changed the force of his letter had he added at that point that the State prior to and lately in 1873 had so indorsed the policy of fixing school incomes for long time and at seven per cent, interest, even though he should have added that, as he understood it, that act of 1873 had been repealed in 1887 because it was not deemed wise in behalf of the common schools thus to re fund all the State debt as fast as paid off. Tf repealed that history and act would have still remained as an expression of the thought of the State as to the wisdom of such funding for such purposes, even had he then also suggested that such refunding would now be unconstitutional. It seems that this idea of the unconstitutionally of such funding never occurred to anybody until last year when it was asked that a certain kind of refunding should be done in order to pay the teachers of the State when their compensation was due. The suggestion in the latter case seemed to have no good foundation, but to Dr. Candler's suggestion I have never heard that any one attached any importance. It is utterly empty.
Suppose Dr. Candler had told the Alliance that the act of 1873 was repealed by the 43d section of the act of 1887, "except when investment is necessary to carry out the conditions of an endowment, devise, gift or bequest," and that the Georgia State Board of Education bears to the common schools the same relation which the Board of Trustees of the University does to that institution, and was authorized to accept "any grant or devise of lands, or any donation or bequest of money or other personal property made to it for educational purposes," etc. ? Suppose that some one had then asked him whether if Gov. Brown's

137
gift had been to the common schools instead of to the Uni versity and on condition of being funded at seven per cent, for fifty years as it is now, he (Dr. Candler) would have opposed its acceptance. Can anyone doubt, from tbe tenor of that letter, that he must then have said he would not have opposed such acceptance ? If he had so answered it would have been apparent that it was not the percentage but the recipient of the gift which caused his complaint.
That exception in section 43 of that act of 1887 stands to-day as a constant invitation to give, with an implied pledge that all reasonable "conditions of an endowment, gift or bequest" will be adopted. And it may be safely stated that no gift of Georgia's bonds for common school purposes on condition of funding, as by the act of 1881 is required in the case of the University, would be rejected. Would that we had men able to give and offering to give on those terms all the State needs for such purpose. We then would soon realize the doctor's wish to have every family able to send its children to "a schoolhouse on this side of the creek."
And this invitation was not made as the remnant of a repeal of the act of 1873, but as an independent expression of the State's wish for such patriotic benevolence, for the act of 1873 was not repealed by the act of 1887. That act of 1873 had become part of section 1272 of the Code of 1873, and was repealed by act of February 25, 1876 (see acts of 1876. p. 31), of which the doctor seems to have been "ignorant."
TAXATION.
Because it is too short for a distinct chapter, and yet should not be wholly omitted, a word more is said about the oft-repeated specious claim that it may be wrong to tax the memers of those Churches which have colleges, to pay, or help pay for collegiate instruction by the State. If each person who has entertained that complaint will reckon how little his quota for the support of the government is, meas ured by his share of taxation for the University, he will be surprised at how trifling is the amount. If he will think how in some sections of our country the like objection is made to supporting free common schools, perhaps he will no longer insist upon his objections.

138
But should he claim that notwithstanding the use of the same plea elsewhere in a direction disapproved by him, he thinks that, upon principle he should object, he will find that he is not supported by any sound principle of government.
Georgia may not fkvor any sect or Church in fixing its basis of taxation, or expenditures without violating one of the fundamental principles of our American government.
The State must determine what it needs for public pur poses anc! public institutions and levy a tax to meet the same. For instance a sum must be raised to pay the judges of our courts; but what would be thought of one who would object to paying his part of the tax because the judge was not a Christian and because Paul had denounced going "to law before the unjust and not before the saints." It would be as unsound as would it be for an old bachelor or old maid to object to being taxed to educate children because they had none.
Mr. Cooley, that eminent law author, says on the subject: "Religious Instruction.--This to individuals is an object of the very highest moment, and formerly it was thought to be the duty of government to provide for it. The more en lightened opinion of the present day refers it exclusively to the voluntary action of the people." After stating that church school property is often exempted from taxation and stating the grounds therefor and certain technical ob jections thereto, he adds this: "Secular Instruction.--It may be safely declared that to bring a sound education within the reach of all the inhabitants has been a prime object of American government from the very first. It wasdeclared by colonial legislation and has been reiterated in Constitutional provisions to the present day. It has been regarded as an imperative duty of thegovernment; and when question has been made concerning it, the question has re lated not to the existence of the duty but to its extent. But the question of extent is onb of public policy, and addresses itself to the legislature and the people, and not to the courts. And the tendency on the part of the people has been stead ily in the direction of taking upon themselves larger burdens in order to promote more spacious, elegant and convenient houses of instruction, and to place within the reach of all a more generous and useful education. And this is usually

139
done by the direct action of the public, the State or its municipalities constructing and owning the edifices and supporting the schools, academies, colleges and universi ties." Cooley on Taxation, pp. 83, 85.
In the light of sound principles of government the Statemay properly reply to one raising such an objection to tax ation, yon, as a citizen, owe to me your part of the taxes laid and assessed; to your church you owe many other duties, but with them the State has naught to do. "Render, therefore,, unto Cffisar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's," was a wise command. It may be questioned whether it is fulfilled in letter or spirit by those who would diminish their quota due to one in orderto help the other. The command is to render their duesunto both. The law fixes what is due to Caesar; the measurer of the other is voluntary and fixed by conscience only.

140
CHAPTER XII.
LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE AGAIN.
Pending the discussion with Dr. Candler, the Rev. Dr. Hinton published a rejoinder to my criticism of his Thanks giving sermon. It could not have been conveniently noticed then. It was questionable whether it needed further comment. But the importance of the subject has made me conclude to criticize that rejoinder also.
He admitted in the main his historical errors pointed out in Chapter 3, ante ; but strange to say, alleged that, though his history was faulty, his conclusion was right. He said: "The Constitution makers do not say 'the Lord's Day,' which would have been a small tribute to Christianity. They could not agree, perhaps, on its sacredness, but could agree to do so little a thing as to leave their motives open to grave suspicion as to the estimate to be placed on the Constitutional parenthesis, '(Sundays excepted)'." He said -that an Act of Congress would not be Constitutionally void because passed on Sunday, nor because on that day approved l>y the President, and that no judge of the Supreme Court put his late decision on the question whether the Colum bian Exposition or World's Fair at Chicago could be kept open on Sunday on the ground that it was forbidden by the United States Constitution ; that" the injunction would be universally upheld and enforced if there were explicit au thority in the Constitution to justify the decision. The plain fact is there is no such teaching in the Constitution. " He complained that "Deism is antichristian, though making some claim to a religion, but even this mildest of types of religion could find no place in our national charter." He said Dr. Franklin did have a prayer in the Continental Congress (which made, what he called, the worthless form of government), but tried in vain to get prayer in that of 1887, and seems to mean that "this is conclusive" of the pervading influence of French infidelity there.

141
He then concluded with these words: "Mr. Hammond helps me again in the Girard will case, argued by Webster and others before Mr. Justice Story. Of course I knew and said that Girard's will was in the main sustained by the court, but I had gotten the idea that the court invalidated in its decision the antichristian feature of the will. Mr. Hammond corrects me and says the will was sustained in its entirety. Yes, it was, as I find on examination of Howard's reports. The august Webster argued in vain before a United States court seek ing to overturn the will, and to do this he planted himself on the impolicy of sustaining a will subversive of Chris tianity so far as it bore on that question. He declared in that speech he would consider it the crowning triumph of his professional life to set aside this vicious and antichris tian will of Girard. "But Mr. Webster did not attain the object of his ambi-tiou. Justice Story and his associates decided against him, notwithstanding the patent autichristian character of said will. " And this was in a Federal Court, when opportunity was had to maintain the Christian character of the nation. Nothing can be done to uphold Christianity, but a blow struck against it may be legitimate and may be upheld by our highest courts. " Such is the true logic of the case ; it is a far worse situa tion than I presented in the sermon. There is no need to enlarge. If there had been the slightest vestige of Chris tianity in our organic law, Mr. Justice Story would have held that Girard's impious will must yield to the higher law of the Constitution. He had not an inch of ground on which to rest such a decision, and hence the one ren dered." He at last saw that the presence of the name of God in a paper could not decide whether its author was a Christian or whether its purpose was hostile to Christianity. He now says that its absence creates suspicion of that. The Declaration of Independence spoke of " Nature's God," of our " Creator," and solemnly ended with, " And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to

142
each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." Thomas Jefferson drafted that paper, and Benjamin Frank lin joined him and the fifty-three other patriots in signing the .same. Yet Dr. Hinton would perhaps charge Jefferson with French infidelity, while he would not so accuse Franklin. He would perhaps not give Jefferson any credit for putting these words into that paper, though when he, as President of the United States, renewed the treaty with Tripoli he left out those notable words put into it when it was first made by Washington, viz.: "As the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian reli gion." Jefferson was not one of our Constitution makers, was not in this country when it was made, but these citations show how little there is in Dr. Hinton'stest by " negative evidence."
He seems somewhat to withdraw from the position in his
.sermon in the following:
"As to the character of the Convention I cheerfully ad
mit it was made up of the foremost men of that day; and it was a day of great men. I held in my sermon that there
was a serious defect in the Constitution ; that there was no acknowledgment of God's existence or authority. I dared
to say that, judging by the light of the Constitution itself,
we could not tell whether it was of Christian or pagan origin.
"And I still affirm this. Mr. Hammond says this evi dence, which I admitted to be negative, deserves little con sideration, as if I had adduced it to prove the positive antichristian character of the Convention and their work. I appealed to the fact undenied by any that the omission of even God's name left it an open question as to th recogni tion of God's authority or man's dependence on and respon sibility to him.
" And I did not cousider this omission an inadvertence, but that it probably resulted from a spirit of free-thinking, which pervaded France and largely America, and its fullest development was reached in the awful French revolution, which began about this date, when an attempt was made to commit and decide by absolute deposition of God."
But after stating that the President of the United States .may either " swear or affirm " when inaugurated, he quoted

143

the Constitutional oath, and said : " Not another word

forms any part of that oath. Was it to be taken in the

name of Jehovah or Jupiter ? Does is own allegiance to

any divinity whomsoever. Fatal omission of this when

we are seeking for proofs of the religious character of the

makers of our Constitution.

" Let it be remembered that an oath and affirmation are

very different things.

"It is true that some very religious people will not take

an oath at all, and such are permitted to affirm. That is

all right the intendment being the same. But an atheist

may affirm, and he would hesitate publicly to declare his

recognition of a God whose very existence he denies. A

deist or infidel of any grade might refuse to take an oath,

when by so doing he would be acknowledging dogmas ac

cepted by Christians. The framers of 1787 were so flexi

ble in their religious views as to provide an oath for a

Christian and a mere affirmation for an atheist.

"Now will Mr. Hammond deny that an atheist like In-

gersoll, or a ribald blasphemer, like Paine are eligible to the

highest office by a simple affirmation of no more solemnity

than any other utterance, public or private? They are eligi

ble beyond doubt and nothing more is necessary to estab

lish my contention there is no God in the Constitution.

. "Our Constitution is organic law, and primary

and fundamental principles and laws should be inaerted"

and may not be innocently or appropriately left out as in

contracts and the like.

Holding up David for our imitation, he said:

"His kingdom was in disorder; discord and war had

blighted the land. His first administrative act showed him

to be an eminently wise ruler. Hear him exclaim: 'Let

us bring again the ark of our God to us, for we inquired

not at it in the days of Saul.' Keglect and decay of the

national religion, symbolized in the sacred ark, had brought

calamity. The remedy was, in David's judgment, a resto

ration of the abandoned religion to its appropriate place in

his realm. He at once proceeded to execute his design;

.and it was a gala day when the ark came up from the bouse

4)f Obededom.

'

"All this and more of like force was employed to im-

144

press the people who heard the sermon with the great

thought which inspired the speaker on that national occa

sion Thanksgiving Day."

The above quotations give the substance of his article.

Dr. Hinton is again wrong in his history. He said:

"When I referred to Paine I did not mean to draw at

tention to his "Age of Reason" as the only ground of his

fame and influence as a writer, but chiefly to his writings

called the "Rights of Man," which exerted a potent influ

ence in the struggle for independence. That deism was

widespread in England and atheism in France in the

eighteenth century are facts too well known to demand

proof. Deism is antichristian, though making, some claim

to be a religion, but even this mildest of types of religion

could find no place in our national charter."

The Constitutiou was made in 1787; the "Rights of

Man" was a reply to Burke's "Reflections ou the French

Revolution," published in 1790, and the first part of the

"Rights of Man" was published in 1791, and the second

part in 1793, long after the "struggle for independence."

I repeat that when our Constitution was made Paine was

not then in the United States, had been honored by his

State and the whole country as a patriot, and had not writ

ten the works which made him offensive to Christians.

(Ante, 42.) The "Age of Reason" was not published until

1793 or 1794, and so far as I am informed, it contained

the first publication of his religious opinions. The "Rights

of Man" was purely a political discussion of the principles

of the seventeen articles of the French Declaration made in

1790, and having no reference to religion save a guaranty of

liberty of conscience in almost the words of our present

State Constitution. It ended thus: " For these reasons the

National Assembly doth recognize and declare, in the

presence of the Supreme Being and with the hope of His

blessing and favor, the following Sacred Rights of Men

and Citizens."

v

Dr. Hinton failed utterly to see that the character of the

government of the United States was in no remote degree

in question in the Girard will case. Girard's will excluded

from his college all ministers. Neither a Gamaliel nor a

Paul might enter there. It excluded priests of Confucius,

145
of Buddha, and of Zoroaster, as well as of The Christ. The Supreme Court said the will was not antichristian. Dr. Hinton says the court was wrong and wicked, in one sen tence, and then excuses the court because of a Constitution which had naught to do _with the questions decided. As put by Jones and Webster, Girard's "plan of education proposed is antichristian, and therefore repugnant to the law of Pennsylvania;" 2 Howard's U. S- Rep. 143. State laws and policy, and not national laws or policy, were then before the court.
Again, Webster did not attack the clause in question and seek to set it aside. Mr. Binney, arguing for Philadel phia, to sustain the will, said: "But it is said that the use is not good because the proposed college is unchristian. The bill filed in the cause makes no such objection. If zeal for the promotion of religion were the motive of complain ants, it would have been better to have joined with us in asking the State to cut off the obnoxious clause than to use the plea in stealing away the bread of orphans." Ib. 153. The proposition of Philadelphia's counsel was, let the city keep the estate and build the college for orphans, and get the State to annul the obnoxious clause. Mr. Webster could not consent so to please Christians, but contended that the whole will was void, because of that obnoxious clause, and that therefore his clients should take the estate and the orphans should have no college. He made a great speech, a powerful appeal to the Christian prejudices of the Chris tian (not infidel) court. After holding that the will was not antichristian under the laws of Pennsylvania (not of the nation), the court added: "It is unnecessary for us, how ever, to consider what would be the legal effect of a devise in Pennsylvania for the establishment of a school or col lege for the propagation of Judaism, or Deism or any other form of infidelity. Such a case is not to be presumed to exist in a Christian country; and therefore must be made out by clear and indisputable proof," etc. Ib. 1 98. This obiter dictum shows how far the court regarded Christian influences and opinions. It is quoted not as a decision of any point before the court, but to show how far Dr. Hinton is wrong in his estimate of the court. Nor is Dr. Hinton

146
any nearer right in his comments on the petition for in junction against opening the World's Fair on Sunday.
Because of the tendency of the public mind to respect the opinion of a minister of the gospel rather than that of a layman on this point, especially.when that minister is Dr. Hinton, here is the opinion of another minister, of whom it may be said, without disparaging Dr. Hinton, that he has broader influence and better comprehension of such matters. It is an extract from an article published in the St. Louis Advocate, and copied into the Wexleyan Christian Advocate of July 19, 1893, with the name of its author, Bishop Haygood, of the Methodist Church South. It is as follows:
"Paul 'appealed to Caesar* in a case involving his rights as a Roman citizen; he did not appeal to Ctesar to settle by an imperial decree -any question of doctrine or morals.
"A great question has been pending for some weeks be fore high courts on the question of 'Sunday opening' of the World's Fair in Chicago. The first decision was, as it seemed, favorable to Sabbath observance. The telegrams of the week tell us that the Court of Appeals, Chief Jus tice Fuller presiding, 'has decided unanimously in favor of Sunday opening.' This sort of statement is misleading and framed in the interest of the Philistines. The asso ciated press is given to this kind of deviltry. The Court of Appeals did not say it favored Sunday opening; it really delivered no opinion whatever upon the Sabbath question. The court simply affirmed that, under the law, it had no authority to close the gates on the Sabbath day. The court interpreted the law; it decided no question concerning re ligion or morals.
"As it seems to this writer, to denounce Chief Justice Fuller or the United States court would be a silly thing. The court is under oath to interpret the law of the land, and not the Word of God. It would be very unfair to say that the court sets itself against the Christian Sabbath when it simply affirmed that it had no authority under the law to close the gates of the big show upon the Sabbath day. It is true, that the Philistines will take comfort from this decision, but it should be remembered that the court interpreted the law; it makes no contribution to the antiSabbath argument.

147
"It is not the business of a court to make law; its func tion is the interpretation of law. If the people do not like their laws they have this remedy, they can change them.
"But is well worth considering whether the Christian doctrine concerning the Lord's day can be set up and main tained by civil law or the secular courts. I offer no opin ion as to the right of government to pass laws concerning the Sabbath, and make no argument on that subject. In most of the States of the Union Caesar has decreed absten tion from ordinary labor on the Sabbath day.
"In some States the laws concerning the Sabbath day are stringent. But, at bottom, the State enters into the Sab bath questions for reasons other than those that control the consciences of Christian men, just as the State guarantees the right of worship, and punishes those who interfere with it, on civil, and not on religious grounds. The State has .nothing to do with religion except as it protects the citizen in his rights. The State can forbid a man who does not believe in the sanctity of the Sabbath from interfering with the rights of those who do believe in its sanctity, but it caunot force him to keep the Sabbath according to his neighbor's view of it any more than it can compel the acceptance of any theory of the atonement or of any other Christian doctrine."
Bishop Haygood's statement of the law as to Sunday, etc., could not have been better had he just risen from read ing the leading cases on the subject: Charleston t. Benja min, 3 Strobh So. Car. Rep. -508, approved and followed in 8 Pennsylvania State Reports, 312, or the opinion of Sena tor Thurman, of Ohio, when judge of the Supreme Court of that State, published in 2 Ohio State Reports, 387. Judge Thurman there said: "Under our Constitutional provisions neither Christianity nor any other system of re ligion is a part of the law of the State. We have no union of Church and State, nor has our State government been vested with authority to enforce any religious observance simply because it is religious. The statute prohibiting common labor on Sunday could not stand for a moment, if its sole foundation was the Christian duty of keeping that day holy and its sole motive to enforce the observance of

148
that duty. It is to be regarded as a mere police regulation, whose validity is neither strengthened nor weakened by the iact that the day of rest it enjoins is the Sabbath day. All agree that to the well-being of individuals and of society periods of rest are absolutely necessary, and the advantagesof having the day of rest fixed, and so fixed as to happen at regularly recurring intervals, are too obvious to be dwelt upon. And in a community where a very large majority of the people celebrate the first day of the week as their chosen period of rest, the Christian Sunday was very properly se lected by our various State legislatures. But this legislative selection of a day of rest is still essentially a civil regula tion," etc.
In the language of Dr. Haygood, "the State has nothing to do with religion except as it protects the citizen in his rights." It " guarantees the right of worship and punishes those who interfere with it, on civil, and not on religious grounds."
This very indifference to any particular religion or re ligions is indifference not in the sense of a want of care for or interest in them, but in the sense of a juryman stand ing " indifferent," i. e., impartial, between parties. And, as has been before remarked herein, that has enabled the Christian majority, while respecting the rights of all other persons, so far to fix its impress on our laws as to furnish Thanksgiving days regularly proclaimed, and to annul all contracts to do any " immoral thing," Christian judges and Christian juries fixing the standard of morality. Code of Georgia, 2749, etc., etc.
Dr. Hinton wholly misconstrued my position when he said that the burden was on me to prove that the Constitution of the United States was a Christian Constitution. I said no such thing, and meant no such thing. He said it was an ungodly concern made by French infidels. I replied that it was the work of Christians, who showed their regard for tta Christian day of rest by calling it "Sunday" and mak ing it a day when its President might rest from consider ing secular affairs, and by requiring oaths from all officers, State and Federal.
The truth is this country had a distinctive religious char acter before our own Revolution. In 1777 we named a-

149
county after Burke, because of his speech delivered in 1775 on "Reconciliation with America." In it he said: " I think it is nearly as little in our power to change their republican religion as their free descent, or to substitute the Roman Catholic, as a penalty, or the Church of Eng land, as an improvement. The mode of inquisition and dragooning is going out of fashion in the Old World; and I should not confide much in their efficiency in the new. The education of the Americans is on the same unalterable bottom as their religion." We had that same religion in 1787 when the Constitution was made.
It is idle when speaking of an official oath to be taken by such a people, for Dr. Hinton to ask: " Was it to be taken in the name of Jupiter or Jehovah? Does it owe al legiance to any divinity whomsoever?" Webster, "the great expounder," in that very speech which Dr. Hinton so applauds, of such oaths said: " I have said, your Honors, that our system of oaths in all our courts, by which we bold liberty and property and all our rights, is founded on, rests on, Christianity and a religious belief. In like man ner, the affirmation of Quakers rests on religious scruples drawn from the same source, the same feeling of religious responsibility."
Dr. Franklin himself is a witness against the charge that that Convention was dominated by the influence of French infidelity. In his concluding argument on his motion to have a chaplain, so fully put by Dr. Hinton (now as it oc curred), he said: "I believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel. We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will he confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and a byword down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing gov ernment by human wisdom, and leave it to chance, war and conquest." Such language was appropriate if addressed to Christians, but was utter nonsense if his audience was understood by him to be composed of French infidels.
And those who believe what Dr. Franklin said will believe we have had "His concurring aid in this po litical buildiug." We were not divided, but adjusted

150
all local differences ; oar projects were not confounded ; we have not become a reproach and a byword; instead or making men despair we are the political light of the world, without war and without conquest.
It is true that the Constitution "is a combination of compromises. It is more highly esteemed now than it was by its framers. They had only strong fears and feeble hopes of its success," as Dr. Hinton declared. . In the language of Judge Story it was "the first experiment of self-government," and they might well fear and doubt.. But we have evidence which they could not have, the evi dence of experience. When they had finished, the fair column stood based on States and having for its capital the reserved rights of the States and of the people. After our late war, we saw that the thunder of cannon did not shake it, fraternal blood did not stain its polish. There it ha stood for a century, and stands to-day in all respects thesame save that the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth amendments gave to the slave freedom and elective fran chise and to the world a pledge of fidelity to our publicdebt. We should not now undermine it in the confidence of the rising generation of Christians. We should rather repeat the prayer uttered by LaFayette in 1783 in his fare well address to our Congress: "May the great monument erected to Liberty serve as a lesson to the oppressor and an example to the oppressed."
Mark that Franklin's motion was not made when the Conventiou began, but on the 28th of June, when the Con vention had been in session more than a month. In that debate not an antichristian word was uttered, unless the debate be improperly reported in the Madison papers.
Dr. Hinton says: " Far be it from me to defame the em inent dead, and I desist from giving in detail facts, which may be found in books if wanted, to show the small claim to Christian character of that eminent array of great namesin the Convention of 1787. It is notorious to all well-in formed men that the Presidency has been once filled by a
veritable atheist, and this in our own generation." He does " defame the eminent dead " by insisting on the
truth of his charge. If any of them were French infidels, he should publish his facts as to them, that the characters-

151
of all be not besmirched. Why in that disavowal of pur pose to "defame the eminent dead" does he state that "the Presidency has been filled by a veritable atheist, and this in our own generation." He meant Abraham Lincoln; but how can his religious character throw any light upon the question as to whether our Constitution of 1787 was made by French infidels ? Surely Dr. Hinton was not appealing to Southern prejudice agaiust Lincoln to carry his point before Southern readers.
First, at the risk of being classed among those not "well informed," I deny that President Lincoln was "a veritable atheist."
The evidence in favor of Dr. Hiuton's side of the issue is grouped in Lamon's life of Lincoln, published in 1872, but no single witness there said he was an atheist. Matheny said: "Sometimes Lincoln bordered on atheism. Often, if not wholly, was an atheist; at least bordered on it." Herndon, so long Lincoln's partner, said he was "a theist ... in his moments of gloom he would doubt, if he did not sometimes deny God. ... I admit that Mr. Lincoln, in his moments of melancholy and terrible gloom, was living on the border land between theism and atheism sometimes quite wholly dwelling in atheism. In his happier moments he would swing back to theism and dwell lovingly there." But Herndon in his testimony also said: Mr. Lincoln was supposed by many persons in this city to be an atheist, and some still believe it: I can put that supposition to rest forever." He then produced Lincoln's letter in which he advised his sick father "to call upon and confide in our great and good and merciful Maker, who will not turn away from him in any extremity/' and then saying, but should death come he would have "a joyous meeting with many loved ones gone before, and where the rest of us, through the help of God, hope ere long to join them."
Lamon believed Lincoln's reported conversation with Bateman showing that Lincoln was a Christian in creed never occurred. Dr. Bledsoe, in the Methodist Southern Review, said that the conversation occurred, but that Lin coln was then acting deceitfully for political reasons. Dr. Bledsoe had practiced law in Springfield, Illinois, from

, 152
1840 to 1848, but after that bad seen Lincoln from the standpoints of Mississippi and Virginia, and then of a Con federate and orthodox Methodist editor. And in his review of Lamon's book even he said of Lincoln : "His fate is among the awful secrets of eternity."
It is said that in 1835 Lincoln wrote an infidel pamphlet. But he complained not when a friend took it from his hands and burnt it. It is not difficult to group against any public man prejudicial facts. Suppose we should recall that Thomas Paine "of infamous momory" came from Eng land here, and went from this country to France accredited to prominent men by letters of recommendation from Frank lin. Suppose we should describe that scene in the French Academy of Science in 1778, when at the first meeting of Franklin and Voltaire, "the two aged actors upon the great theatre of philosophy and frivolity there embraced each other by hugging one another in their arms, and kiss ing each other on the cheeks, to the amusement and joy of the crowd." What would orthodox people then say of Franklin ? If the question was what Lincoln believed when he was President, his inaugural address appealing to his " oath registered in heaven," his Gettysburg speech, his second inaugural expression " to ask a just God's assistance might be fully quoted."
But it is not needed to contend that Lincoln was a Chris tian. Neither he nor Franklin was orthodox. Neither be lieved in the divinity of Christ. Neither, perhaps, believed in the creed of any Church. But when it is needful for Dr. Hinton's argument, Franklin is held up as an example and Lincoln as a warning. Both were great men, and for the good which was in them deserved the honor of the people in spite of their faults.
But suppose the Constitution of the United States for bade an atheist being President, does Dr. Uinton suppose that would have excluded Lincoln ? Bledsoe thought Lin coln would have lied to get the office. Does Dr. Hinton think he would have cast away such a prize rather than tell a falsehood about his faith or want of faith ? If so, he compliments him most highly. Again, suppose Lincoln's word, his denial or acknowledgment, should not have been taken, what witness could tell his faith when he came to be

153
sworn ? Would we say Lincoln could not repent ? Who would be competent jurors to decide the issue? These ques tions show the folly of such a test oath for office.
But would Dr. Hinton have the United States Constitu tion so framed that no such man could be president unless he renounced that faith or want of faith ? It seems so. For besides the quotation from his last letter first made, note these also:
" If there had been the slightest vestige of Christianity in our organic law, Mr. Justice Story would have held that Girard's impious will must yield to the higher law of the Constitution." He objects that "Sunday" in the Constitu tion was not written the " Lord's day." He would have had the Presidential oath end with "So help me God," or like words. He would have compelled all officers to "swear" and allowed none to affirm. To cutoff all official careers for "an atheist like Ingersoll or a ribald blasphemer like Paine" he would have had "inserted "in our "Consti tution," which is "organic law," such "primary and fun damental principles" as would have excluded all such. We had in every State a " national religion," the estab lished Church of England, and he would have us imitate David by "a restoration of an abandoned religion to its appropriate place in his realm." "All this and more of like force was employed to impress the people who heard the sermon with the great thought which inspired the speaker on that national occasion Thanksgiving day."
To the extent that he was inculcating the lesson that Chris tianity will help any government whose rulers profess and observe the same, we join him, but that our Constitution would have been better if his suggestions had been therein "inserted" we deny. The United States was but the agent of the States, though a full panoplied nation within its sphere. It had naught to do with any man's religion, and ought not to have.
The Union never could have been formed on any reli gious basis "inserted' in its "organic law." !So two of the few States which yet require religious tests for office agree in verbiage. North Carolina's Constitution says none shall hold civil office there "who shall deny the being of Al mighty God." That of Arkansas says, "who denies the

154
being of a God." Pennsylvania's officers must "acknowl edge the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments. South Carolina puts it, "who denies the ex istence of a Supreme Being." Tennessee, which by or ganic law excludes ministers of the gospel from her legisla ture and protects Jews and all others from public service on any "day set apart by his religion as a day of rest," ex cludes from office any man " who denies the being of a God or a future state of rewards and punishments."
They would not meet Dr. Hinton's views; for according to him Jupiter is, as is Jehovah, "a God," "Almighty God," "a Supreme Being." A man may be an actual atheist and yet not deny the existence of a God; Dr. Hinton would have him at least acknowledge "God and a future state of rewards and punishments," as in Pennsylvania. He per haps would not be satisfied with that. He would perhaps prefer the Constitutional oath of office of 1780 in Massa chusetts: "I believe in the Christian religion and have a firm persuasion of its truth," etc.
North Carolina claims to have struck the first blow for our independence. In December, ] 776, she overthrew the established Church, in 1778 she allowed marriages to be cel ebrated by all ministers of any church, she provided an "affirmation" instead of an oath for Quakers, Moravians, Dunkards, etc. But she concluded to put into her Consti tution of that date that " no person who shall deny the be ing of God or the truth of the Protestant religion or the Divine authority of the Old or New Testament, or shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State," should hold any civil office. That was aimed at Roman Catholics, though it might have ex cluded others also. But it was a dead letter. Even while it lasted, Catholics filled offices throughout the State. Gaston was her State senator in 1780, Speaker of her House in 1808, her member of Congress in 1813-1817, and her Supreme Court judge in 1834. In 1835 she substituted "Christian" for "Protestant," in a Convention of which this distinguished Catholic lawyer was a member. In 1868 she sponged out all disqualifications save as to atheists and persons convicted of treason, perjury or of any other infa mous crimes, or of corruption or malpractice in office.

156
This making of an atheist unfit for office while one who had committed all such crimes, if pardoned, might hold any office is strange in a Constitution professing to maintain Liberty of Conscience.
We had not outgrown all that when our best men met in 1787 to frame our Constitution, but had so far advanced as to be ready to accept the decree of divorce of Church from State, to accept at least for the general government what Rev. J. L. M. Curry.lately has called "Soul liberty, America's contribution to the science of politics." The several States, with the few exceptions above mentioned, have conformed to the standard of liberty so set, and in those few these remnants of religious disqualifications are practically ignored.
In the first chapter is a short notice of the growth of such sentiments in our Mother Country. That recalls that in 1839 William Ewart Gladstone, then member of par liament, published his book on "The State in its relations with the Church," in which he advocated the closest union between them, and supported it by such arguments as were then, and by some still, considered sound. Macaulay criticized it in the Edinburgh Review in a clear and unan swerable paper. It is commended to all who would see this subject most ably handled, even in the light of half a century past. Mr. Gladstone still lives, noted no less for his practical Christianity than for his statesmanship. In 1883 Bradlaugh, " a veritable atheist," had been elected to parliament, the courts had decided that though under the Evidence Act he might testify as a witness in all cases, yet he could not legally be a member of Parliament. Since 1841 affirmations instead of Christian oaths had been al lowed to Jews and others, and now a bill was introduced to admit even "a veritable atheist" who avowed his want of all Christian faith and the like. How much in that country of an Established Church this sentiment of freedom of con science and opinions had grown even in the mind of that great author of a book against too much latitude in that regard! Mr. Gladstone's speech on that bill shows that growth^ and makes the best conclusion for this book. Ex tracts from it are reproduced as published, in 1883, at the time of its delivery.

156
Mr. Gladstone, recounted the contest of 1829, "the battle of freedom in the great Roman Catholic controversy, when the name of Protestantism was invoked with quite as great an effect and when the petitions poured in quite as freely as the name of theism now," and said, " then came on the battle of Christianity," Jews were finally ad mitted into Parliament, and he urged his party to walk "steadily onward in the path which it be lieves to be the path of equity and conscience, because," he said, " there is no greater honor to a man than to suffer for the sake of what be thinks to be righteous, and there is no greater honor to a party than to suffer in the endeavor to give effect to principles which they believe to be just."
He stated the position of the opposition thus: "As I read it the governing contention is this, that the main question for the State is not what religion a man professes, but whether he professes some religion or none j . . . . that this was not a question of difference of religion, but a question between religion aud irreligkm .... that we were'to tolerate (i. e., admit in the House of Commons) any belief, but that we were not to tolerate no belief; that one member had said "it is true you admit religions, some of which may go near the precipice, but now you ask us to go over the precipice." He then replied as follows:
"That is the main contention of the party opposite, and what I want to know is whether that proposition offers us a good, solid standing-ground for legislation. [Hear, hear.] When any test is applied, the test of the Constitution, the test of civil and political freedom, and, above all, the test of religion and the reverence for religion. I do not hesi tate to say that, confidently as I support this bill, there is no one ground on which I support it with so much confi dence as because of what I think the utter hollowness and falsity of the arguments expressed in the words I have just cited, and in the ida at the bottom of these words and the clanger of making them the basis of orir constitutional action. [Cheers.] Now, what does this contention do? In the first place, it evidently- violates civil freedom to this extent that whatever you hold, in the words of Lord Lynhurst, which are as wide as anything any gentleman on this side could desire, there is to be a total divorce between

157
the question of religious differences and the question of civil privilege and power; there was to be no test whatever applied to a man with respect to the exercise of civil func tions except the test of civil capacity and a fulfillment of civil conditions. Those were the words of Lord Lynhurst, but it is now proposed to depart from that, and to say that a certain class, because it has no religion, is to be excepted, and alone to be excepted, from the operation of that great and broad principle. In my opinion it is in the highest degree irrational to lay down a broad principle of that kind, and to stop short after granting 99-100ths of all it means, and to make an invidious exclusion of any persons whom it may possibly affect. Honorable gentlemen may, perhaps, be startled when I make my next objection to the conten tion of the opponents of the bill, but it is this, that that contention is highly disparaging to Christianity. [Cheers.] Honorable gentlemen opposite invite us to do that which, as a Legislature, we ought never to do namely, to travel over theological grounds; and now, having taken us upon those grounds, what is it they tell us? They say this, that you may go any length you please in the denial of religion, provided only you do not reject the name of the Deity. They tear religion into shreds, so to speak, and say that there is one particular shred with which, nothing will ever induce them to part.
"They divide religion into the dispensable and the indis pensable, and place Christianity in the category of things' that may be dispensed with. [Cheers.] There is some thing, however, that cannot be dispensed with. Suppose a commander has to dispatch a small body of men on an ex pedition, on which it is necessary for them to carry on their backs all that they take with them ; the men part with everything that is unnecessary, and take only that which is essential. That is the course which you ask us to take in drawing us on theological grounds ; you require us to dis tinguish between superfluities and necessaries, and tell us that Christianity is an excrescence, and has nothing to do with the vital substance, the name of the Deity, which is indispensable. [Cheers.] I say that the adoption of such a proposition as that which is in reality at the very root of your contention, is disparaging in the very highest degree

158
to Christianity itself. I pass to another point, and meet you more nearly on your own ground. My honorable friend, the member for Finsbury, made a reference to Mr. O'Oonnell, whom he knew personally. I will not say that I had so intimate a personal knowledge of him as my honorable friend, but when I was a very young man, in the second year of my sitting in Parliament, in the old House, about half a century ago, I heard a speech from Mr. O'Connell, which, though I was then bound by my party allegiance to receive with distrust anything he said, made a deep impression on me. It is to be found, not in "Han.sard," but in a record which, for a very few years, was more copious even than "Hansard," and went under the name of the "Mirror of Parliament." Mr. O'Connell used these words in a speech on the law of libel:
"When I see in this country the law allowing men to dispute the doctrine of the Trinity and the divinity of the Redeemer, I really think if I had no other reason I should be justified in conceiving that there is nothing beyond that which should be considered worth quarreling for, or which ought to be made a subject for penal restrictions. [Hear, hear.] I am convinced that on every religious grouud, as well as every political ground, the true and the wise course is not to deal out religious liberty by halves, quarters and fractions, but to deal it out entire, and make no distinctions between man and man on the ground of religious difference from one end of the land to the other. [Cheers.] But I go a little further in endeavoring to probe this contention which has been so well put forward by the honorable gen tleman opposite, and I want to know is your religious dis tinction a real distinction at all? I will, for the sake of argument, go with you on this dangerous ground of split ting theology into slices, and I ask you where you will draw the line. You draw your Hue at the point where the abstract denial of God is severed from the abstract admis sion of the Deity. My proposition is that your line thus drawn is worthless, and that much on this side of the line is as objectionable as the atheism on the other. If you call upon us to make distinctions let them at least be rational; I do not say let them be Christiau distinctions, but let them be rational. I can understand one rational distinction, that

159
you would frame the oath in such a way as to recognize and indicate uot only the existence of the Deity, but man's re sponsibility to the Deity ; but is that your present rule ? No; you know very well that from ancient times there have been sects and classes that have admitted in the ab stract as freely as Christians the existence of the Deity, but have held that of practical relations between him and men there can be none. Honorable members will recollect the majestic Hues:
'Omnis enim per se Divem natura necesse est Immortal! sevo sumraa cum pace fruatur, Sejuncta a noetris rebus, remptaque longe, Nara private dolore omni, privata periclis, Jpsa suis pollens opibus, nibil indiga noetri Nee bene promeritis capitur, nectangitur ira.' "The sects I have mentioned hold, as did the writer of these lines, the existence of the Deity, but in modes and in places where He can have no concern with mankind. I do not hesitate to say that the specific evil, the specific form of irreligion, with which in the educated world of the country you have to contend, is not blank atheism. That is a rare opinion very seldom met with, but what is fre quently met with is that varying form of opinion that would teach us that whatever may be beyond the visible things of this world you can know nothing of it, and that it is a bootless undertaking to attempt to establish relations with it. That is the mischief of the age, and that mischief you do not attempt to touch. [Cheers.] What is more, you glory in the state of the law that now prevails; you wish to tolerate all differences of religion, you wish to allow every one to enter into your chamber who admits the ex istence of a Deity. You would seek to admit Voltaire, [Hear.] That is a specimen of your toleration. Voltaire was not a taciturn foe of Christianity. He was the author of that painful phrase which goes to the heart of every Christian ecraxer I'infdme. [Hear, hear.] And that is the state of the law from which you are working up the coun try [cheers and counter cheers], to strengthen in the minds of the people the false notion that you have got a real test, -a real safeguard, that Christianity is still safe with certain unavoidable exceptions under a protecting aegis within the walls of this chamber, and for that you excite a great reli-
I

160
gious war. I hold that this contention of.our opponents is .disparaging to religion [cheers], it is idle, it is irrational. For if you are to have a religious test at all, a test of theism, it ought to be a test of a well-ascertained theism, not a mere abstract idea dwelling in the air and the clouds, but a practical recognition of Divine government and power, to which we are to account for every thought we conceive, for every word we utter.
" I fear I have detained the House too long. [Loud cheers.] But after all that has been said, and after all the ac cusations that have been made, I thought it right, at great length and very seriously, to show at all events that we do not decline the battle [cheers and counter cheers], and that we are not going to allow it to be said that the interests of religion are to find defenders only on the opposite side of the House. That sincere and conscientious defenders of the interests of religion are to be found there, I do not question at this moment; but I do contend with my whole heart and soul that the interests of religion as well as the inter ests of civil liberty are concerned in the passing of this bill. [Cheers.] My reason for saying that may be given in a very few words. If I were asked to put a construction upon this oath I should probably give it a higher meaning than most gentlemen opposite. It is my opinion that the oath has in it a very large flavor of Christianity. I am well aware that the doctrine of my honorable and learned friend, the Attorney-General, is, as I believe, that there are other forms of positive attestation, according to other cere monies of religion, that may enable the oath to be taken by the removal of the words " So help me God " and the substitution of other words, or some other symbolical act, involving the notion of the Deity and responsibility to the Deity. But remember the oath does not consist of spoken words alone. The spoken words are accompanied by a cor roborative act, which is kissing the Book, that, according to the intention of the legislature, ought to import the ac ceptance of the Divine revelation. There have been other forms in other countries. I do not know whether there is still in Scotland the form of holding up the hand. [Hear, hear.] In Spain, I believe, the form is that of kissing the cross; in Italy, that of laying the hand upon the Gospel.

161
But in this, acording to the original intention, there is something which involves the acceptance of Christianity. You do not mean that the law is, or can be applied in this sense. A law of this kind is like coin spick and span new from the mint, carrying with it those edges and character istics with which we are all familiar. But it wears down in passing from hand to hand, and though there is a re siduum, yet the distinguishing features disappear. So it is with the oath. As to the original intention of the oath r there is very little difference of opinion. But what has it become? It has become a theistic test. It does, as I think r involve a reference to Christianity in the consciences of some gentlemen in the other House of Parliament and in this also. But undoubtedly it is not good for any of us to force this test so flavored, or even not so flavored, upon men who cannot take it with a cordial acceptance. It is bad; it is demoralizing. [Cheers.]
" A seat in this House is to an ordinary Englishman in. early life, or, perhaps, in middle or mature life, when he has reached a position of distinction in his career, the highest prize of his ambition. If you place between him and that prize not only the necessity of conforming to cer tain secular conditions, but the adoption of certain religious words, and if these words are not justly measured to the conditions of his conscience and convictions, you give him an inducement nay, I do not go too far when I say you offer him a bribe to tamper with that condition, to do violence to his conscience in order that he may not be stig matized by being shut out from the noblest privilege of Englishmen. ["Hear, hear."] Therefore, it is most im portant that the House should consider the moral effect of this test which it allows to be applied to those who know as the honorable member for Portsmouth is neither more nor less than right in saying that it is purely a theistic test, and I think it will feel justified in saying that it is not a satisfactory process for impressing on the mind of the indi vidual, on his intellect or heart a sense of religion. I own, although I am now, perhaps, going to injure myself by bringing the name of Mr. Bradlangh into this controversy, I am strongly of the opinion that this Bradlaugh contro versy should come to a close. [Cheers.] I have no fear of
11

162
theism in this House. Religion is the expression of the Divine mind, and, however little our feeble vision may be able to discern the means by which God may provide for its preservation, we may leave the matter in His hands, and we may be sure that a firm and courageous application of every principle of justice is the best way for the preserva tion and maintenance of religion. [Cheers.] And I must painfully record my opinion that grave injury has been done to religion in many minds not in instructed minds, but in those which are ill-instructed or partially instructed in consequence of things which ought never to have oc curred. [Opposition cheers.] Great mischief has been done in many minds by a resistance offered to the man elected by the constituency of Northampton, which a por tion of the people believe to be unjust. When they see the profession of religion and the interests of religion osten sibly associated with what they are deeply convinced is injustice, it leads to questions about religion itself which commonly end in impairing those convictions and that belief the loss of which I believe to be the most inexpres sible calamity which can fall either upon a man or upon a nation." [JLoud cheers.]
CONCLUSION .
No apology is needed for these long extracts. Readers will admire the clearness and force of their argument, the tact of the great member of the Established Church enforc ing his thoughts by the quotation from the eminent Catho lic, and see how well the whole fits the issue under dis cussion.
This work is finished. Constant demands of business have made these chapters fragmentary and disjointed and therefore unsatisfactory, even as mere suggestions upon the important matters treated.
If they have, without diminishing any one's love of his own religion, increased his charity towards others holding different faiths and opinions; if they have, without lessen ing his respect for the college of his Church, given him a better understanding of our University, and therefore a higher regard therefor; and if they have removed false im pressions and opinions and tended to build up or strengthen

163
an honest, well formed faith in the purity, patriotism and \visdom of those who made our organic laws, the Constitu tions of our State aud of the United States, they will have repaid all the time and labor spent upon them. If in either of those particulars they have failed, .they fall short of the purpose of their author.

INDEX.
A
Acts of British Parliament-- ----------__ -- ----------18, 53 Acts of United States Congress, Mints, 1835_______ 117 Acts of United States Congress, Surplus Distributed,
1836 ------_--.-_.___.______...__.__.16, 17 Acts of United States Congress, Land Grant, 1862 _-_ - 104 Acts of United States Congress, Land Grant, 1887, 1888,
1890,- -- .._-_______-___-___.65,120, 126 Acts of United States Congress, Land Grant to Dahlonega,
1871---.__ ._____.. __-.__- --__.___ 117 Acts of Georgia Legislature, University Charter, 1784,
1785 _______ - ___ - ________13, 21, 60, 134 Acts of Georgia Legislature, Free Tuition, 1830, 1831,
1837, 1841, 1851 _ -- ._.__._.._ .___8, 9, 10, 82, 98 Acts of Georgia Legislature, Free Tuition Confederate
Soldiers, 1866- -- ----- ---- ___-___..__ 10 Acts of Georgia Legislature, Free Tuition, 1881 ___90, 103 Acts of Georgia Legislature, Middle Georgia Agricultural
College, 1879-_____-----_---_--._122, 132 Acts of Georgia Legislature, Funding, 1881--11, 15, 91, 106
111, 112 Acts of Georgia Legislature, Funding Common School,
1873, 1876 -_ -- _ ---- --.-.__-- --_134, 137 Acts of Georgia Legislature, Normal College, 1887,
1889 _- __ -___ -_ - ___________119, 123 Acts of Georgia Legislature, Branch Colleges. --121,125, 127 Acts of Georgia Legislature, Branch Colleges for Negroes-- 126 Affirmations (See Oaths). Age of Reason, Paine's- ----- . -- -- ----. --. -----. -- -51, 144 Agnostics, Pretended Danger from ____ -- _.___.. --.107, 108 Agricultural Land Scrip Fund.--.___- _10, 65, 82, 83 Agricultural Colleges--.83, 88, 89, 107, 104, 112, 117, 121
126, 130, 132 Alabama, Territory of_____ _______ - _ -16,17, 61 Alabama, School Fund --_ -- __- -- -- _ -- __ -- _ -- -- _ --. 17 Albemarle College______________________ 132 Alliance (See Farmers' Alliance). Ancient Languages, Value of Studying---- ------ __. -- 32 Arkansas, Constitution of------------------ -- -- _ ---- ---- 153

166
Atheists ___--_----______.143, 150, 152,153, 154Athens and Sparta Contrasted------ ------ ------._._._ 2& Athens,Ga.- -- ____----.--. ------ ------ __65, 86, 87 Atlanta University---- -- _ ---- --- -- ---- _ -- -- _____ 125-
B
Baptist Colleges (See Mercer University). Baptist Schools --__ ---------- -- ------------ - ---- ___ 120Baldwin, Governor--_ -- -- __ _ -- _ ---- -- -- ---- _-- 66Bible, Study of__.------------------___ - -- ____ 32 Binney,Mr. ----. -------------------- ___._----------.---- 145 Blackmar, Prof. As to Agricultural Colleges, etc.-___104, 130 Blaine's Proposed Amendment to Constitution United States 76 Bledsoe, Dr.._ -- -_- ----..------.__----.-------150, 152: Board of Visitors _ --- ------ - ----. ---------- .95,102, 125 Boston University__ ______ _______. _____ 133 Bowdoin University----_ -- -- __-- ------ __-____- -- _ 133Bradlaugh (See Gladstone). Branch Colleges. -------- ------------------------------._ 121 Brown, Gov. JOB. E., Advice as to Convention of 1868--__ 73 Brown, Gov. Jos. E., Donation to University ------ ..65, 96Brown, Gov. Jos. E., Funding Act of 1881 _____91, 110 Brown, Gov. Jos. E., As to Sectarian Prohibition in Con
stitution of 1868--------_ ------ _-- .------------- 77 Brown University___- ______ .______129, 131 Burke ________-____________.__._____ 38
C Candler, Rev. Dr. W. A.____34, 40, 68, 89, 97, 100, 105
108, 111, 112,129, 132,133, 134, 135, 136 Catholic Church, etc----_ -_______.18,149,154, 156 Chancellors of University, Their Religion---------------- 109 Charters (See University). Churches, Prosperity of Free----__.. ____58,79,80, 148 Church and State__21, 29, 40, 55, 59, 71, 80, 81, 146, 147
154, 155 Citizenship, Obligations of___________ __33, 39, 139 Christianity, Where Part of Common Law ------_----47, 50 Clark, Judge Richard H---------_.__.......__._._ 63 Clarke, Rev. J. O. A. -- -- ----- __ _ _____________ 77 Clarke's University__... ---- _______._- -- ------11, 125 Clergy (See Ministers of the Gospel). Cleveland, President, Courage of. -- __________________ 38 Cobb, Thos. R. R.-_-_-_-_ --.______.16, 51, 63, 113 Colleges, Denominational--..- -- __ __--__ ----____22, 107

167
Colleges, Yale---- -- .__ ------ ---- ------ ________ 1 Colleges, Georgia State of Agriculture, etc._____82, 104 Colleges, Branch----------------------_----_-_______ 121 Colored Students, Education of---11, 15, 28, 86, 124, 125
127, 134 Colquitt, Gov. A. H.--._ ---.____________94, 103 Compact, Georgia's of 1802________ ________ 17 Common Schools -- -------------------- -3, 9, 12, 106, 134, 135 Confederation------ -- -- _____ ------ -- ___ ---- _41, 44, 56 Confederate Soldiers--See University-.-________.-_ 10 Conley, Governor-___ -- --. -- __-._ -- ______ -- _-.74, 84 Connecticut _--.______._-______22,130, 134 Conscience, Liberty of---19, 21, 46, 50, 53, 54, 57, 78, 140 Constitution of Georgia, 1777 ____--_____8, 19, 59, 60 Constitution of Georgia, 1789 _______-_8, 13, 19, 57 Constitution of Georgia, 1798------______ ____ 19 Constitution of Georgia, 1861- ----__________13, 72 Constitution of Georgia, 1865--------____ ---- _------ _ 13 Constitution of Georgia, 1868__--________9, 10, 72 Constitution of Georgia, 1877..----------------------9,10, 72 Constitution of Georgia, Not Antichristian - -- _ ------45, 57 Constitution of United States ______21, 40, 79, 143, 150 Constitution of States against Aid to Sectarian Institu
tions .--._-_ -- ____--_---------- -- --74, 75, 80 Constitution, Daily -_ -- --- -- _______ -- ____ ---- -- -- 5 Contracts, As to Agricultural Fund, etc.---85, 89, 118, 125 Conventions, Constitutional of United States - 40, 41, 146, 155 Conventions, Constitutional of Georgia __ -- __- -- -11, 73, 74 Conventions, Constitutional of Georgia, Members of.--12, 74 Courage of Convictions----------- -- ---_________-37, 38 Cooly, Judge .---- ----- ---------- -.--. --------.------ 138 Crimes against Religion ---_-___-_--.-__------____ 53 Cuthbert, College at__-__-._____________----121, 122 Curriculum at University, etc--95, 99,104,120,123,124, 126
D
Dahlonega, College at-- -_-____-_-_._-_ ---- -- ----117, 134 Dartmouth College.-- -- --_.__ -- .__._ -- _. -22, 130, 131 Davy, Humphry --__-.--.--. -- ----.------------23, 24 Debt of State to University--------__ --16,63, 65,66, 70 Declaration of Independence--_ -- _-_ -- -. -- _-- --57, 141 Degrees at University-------- --_....__.__.-. -- -____ 105 Democratic Platform, 1876---..----. -- .------- ----- 77 Distribution of Surplus, U. S.- ------ -- __------. ----16, 17 Dissenters ------- -- -..--.- -- __.---------- -- -_.___-- 18

168
Donations (See Funds). DuBignon, Senator----- -- - -- --.-__--__.___--__-. _ 7 Duche's Praj-er ---- ..__-___ -------- _____ .__....._. 41, 97
Education, Negro __ -- _.__--_ -- _-___-_________3, 4, 8 Education (See Common School and University). Education (See Tuition Colored students). Education, Female.--- ------- ---- ---------- .27, 123, 124 Education, State's Duty as to __ __ . ________ 11, 22 Education, State, Value of to.-.. . ._.-- __ _ _ 25, 37 Education, Industrial ------ ____ . __ . _ .... _ 122, 123 Emory College-3, 22, 68, 71, 77, 99, 100, 103, 112, 113, 115 Endowment (See Funds). Episcopalians ------ -- __. ---- .-_-._.---. __._54, 56, 57 Experiment Stations -- ---_ -- ___-_--. -- -_--_.-____._ 87 Erskine, Lord, Prosecuting Williams.--- -- -.-__-. __ 57
F
Farmers' Alliance -- _-_-_ -- . -- __ .___.__ ____.__.__4, 98 Felton, Hon. \V. H. -- ----- .._._ -- .._..___ --..3, 4 Female Education (See Education). Fleming, Hon.------------ ___-___-_-____.._.-___.__. 4 Franklin County _ -_ -- _---_.-. _ ... --_..-.. 16, 60 Franklin, Benj. __ -.-- ___ 41, 42, 55, 140, 149, 150, 152 Freedman's Aid Society.--..--.-- -- --------- -- ______ 28 Freewill and Divine Sovereignty ___--. -- --.__-_______ 110 Fuller, C. J.. __ . __ ----- ___ .. __ ._. _ ------- 146 Funds, Common School-- _ . ___ ..---3, 96, 134, 135, 136 Funds, University--- -- - -- 3, 13, 91, 95, 96, 134, 135, 136 Funding Act, 1881--------- __ ___ --5,15,95,96, 112
G
Gaston, Judge -- __. - ------ ---- .._____ ---- _ _.-_ _ . 154 Georgia's Constitution ___. -- __--.__.._____._ -- ______ 49 Georgia's Compact of 1802.. _ __ _ ..__..._..._..__ 17 Georgia's State College of Agriculture, etc. (See Agricult
ural Colleges). Georgia's Normal and Industrial College -- ------ -- --123, 127 "Georgia Methodist" ____ __--...___. _ .94, 95,98, 114 Gilmer Fund------------------ -- _ .------___-__-__ 65 Girard Will Case.:. __ -- __ 41, 42, 43, 78, 141, 144. 145 Gladstone.- --.-____- ___ .--._-__-_----__ __ 155-162 Government by Choice of the People.- -- _.-__ _-_-__29, 30 Grant's, President, Speech- _________________ -_-_--__ 70

169
H
Hall, Lyman____--____...___.-_. ___20, 60 Hamraond, N. J.-____..._4, 5, 12/29, 73, 80, 90, 100
101, 103, 106, 109, 110, 162 Harvard College_______ -- _. ____ ___22, 129, 130 Haygopd, Bishop A. G. ---- ____.___ -- -_-_146, 148 Heudricks, Vice-President United States, Letter of_----_ 77 Henry, Patrick-- ---- -- -- ------ _.-__---------__ -- _._ 54 Hill.Benj. H. .___,,....__..___._..._._...._ 73 Hill, Joshua -_._---__..--.__-______.__ -- __________ 50 Hines, Judge J. K...____.__.___48, 71, 77, 79, 80 Hinton, Rev. Dr. J. W._____40, 46, 51, 97, 98, 140, 142
144, 145,146, 148, 149, 150,152, 153 Holcombeof Milton _____.__._________ 12 Hopkins, Rev. Dr. I...._________________ 109 Howell. Hon. E. P. ___..________ _________ 94 Hull, Wm. Hope-- ________._________,,. __________ 113
I
Infidelity, French-__.__._._. ____40, 42, 140, 142, 148 Illiteracy__.__-._._______.__-___-.128, 129 Ingersol), Roht.________ __ ___________ 144
J
Jefferson, Thomas----------- -__- -- _-__17, 55, 56, 57, 142 Jews .________ -____ _______33, 93, 94, 107, 155 Jones, Chas. Edgeworth---- ____._____-_- --_ -- -__._ 67 Johnson, Gov. Herschel V. -- -____ -- -- -- _._------- 51 Johnson, Gov. James.---. -- .._ ----.__ -- _-_ -- -__-_50, 52 Jones, Mr.. -- ____ -- __._ -- _._-_-_-- -- -_---__.---__. 145 Jurymeii---_ -- _-_ .___-- -- -__. ---- _-_-_-.---___-_ 53
K
Kent's, Chancellor, Decision as to Religion-- -- -- _____50, 53
L
Lafayette.- -- _ ____________ -- _____-___---_-------- 150 Lamar, Justice L. Q. C., Vote as to Sectarian School Appro
priation ---_-._____--_--_-____--.-__-___-_--_ 77 Lamon's Life of Lincoln-. -- _--- ------ - -- ---- -- ---- 151 Land, Cheapness of------____--__._- -- ~--.----17, 61 Land, Grants (See Acts of Congress). Law Department of University ------___--------115, 116, 117 Liberty County.-___-______-____-. ___._--___----__- 66

170
Liberty of Conscience (See Conscience). Lincoln, Abraham, bis Religious faith----__150, 151, 152, 153 Lotteries ------ -- - ---- -_ ------ ---- -- - ---- --------- 68 Lumpkin, Gov. .__..- --_____--_ -- ---- ____________ 68 Lumpkin, C. J._-- -- __-_____----_______ 113 Luther, Martin-------------- --.----... ---------------- __ 24
M
McCay"s, Chas. F., Donation to University----_ ------.__ 65 McCay, JudgeH. K. __ _____ -- ______74, 78 Madison, James-- -- ----- -- - -- - -- - ---- -.42, 45, 54, 56 Maine----------------- ------------ -- -- ------------ ---130, 134 Mansfield, Lord______.._- -- ___________ 18 Massachusetts-------------------- --------... ---- -- -- -.130, 134 Maury_______._. ---- -- ---- -- --.._ -- ___ -- __ 23 Maxey vs. Bell, Supreme Court of Georgia------__..___ 78 Medical College-------- -- --------__. ---- 115, 116, 117 Melancthon ---- -- - -- - -- -- -- -- - -- - -- ------ -- _____-- 24 Meldrim, Hon. P. W. _.__,,_.._.__._..._.-._.. 29 Mercer University---- -- _ --__ -- __._...3, 68, 77, 99, 115 Methodist Church.--_ _-28,47,55,58,71,77,100, 120 Methodist Southern Review------_ . ---- ------ -- -- ___ 151 Middle Georgia Military and Agricultural College.- -- --- 121 Milledge's, Gov. Jno., Gift to University________62, 66 Milledgeville_____-__________-__.____ 66 Miller, Dr. H. V. M. --------- -------- _-----------74, 77 Milton, John---- -------------------------- ,,_-._.__-- 18 Ministersof the Gospel-----_.-_-__. ___10, 19, 47, 60 Mints, United States ___ _________ _______ 117 Mississippi, Territory of--------_-----__.------16, 17, 61 Mixed Schools of Agriculture and Science-- -- -- -- _ -- ___ 88 Mobs________-_-___.-- ._ -- .._.___.23, 35 Morse__-_ -- -- -- -----___.__.____._ 23 Moses, Hon. B. J. ------------.__. -- ____....___ 93 Motives of Actors as to free Tuition, etc.---.91, 95, 99, 101
103, 107, 108, 112, 113, 114, 117, 162 Mussulmans.- -- --- -- ---- -- _____ -- __.___.--__ 107, 108
N
Names of Donors to University.------- -- - -- .65,82, 86 Names of Certain Members of Convention of 1868- -- -- 74 Names of Certain Members of Convention of 1877------ 12 Names of Trustees of University in 1881____._ --._ -- 92 National Assembly of France------ -- _ ---- -.-------------- 144 Negroes (See Colored Students).

171
New England's Educational Policy ___ . ______129, 133 New Hampshire____ --_____--____.__.----__130, 134 Normal Department North Georgia Agricultural Col
lege, etc.___. ____ __ ___ __--119, 123, 124 North Carolina_______._ ________152, 153, 154 North Georgia Agricultural College. -- -------- --------117, 121 Number of Students--- -- -_ -- -- - ---- ---------99, 105 Nunnally, Rev. Dr. G. A. ________.._____119, 124
O
Oaths ___.________.__ .49, 50, 143, 149, 152 162 O'ConneU___.___ ___. ___ .__________ 158
Oglethorpe College, Chartered---- -- -- -- ------------ -- - 68 Ordinance of 1787_________-- ------ -- ------18, 45 . Orr, Dr. J. G., State School Commissioner-- --------.. 108
P
Paine, Thos. ------..-._ -- _... --42, 51, 143, 144, 152 Pennsylvania's Constitution as to Religion--- -- - -- --46, 154 Pierce, Bishop Geo. F..._____-___----. ------ _ 92 Poor Schools_______..__.._.-._.___--.8, 10 Presbyterians---- -- _------___ 18, 22, 54, 57, 68 Price of Dahlonega. -- __.__ -- __ ----..._____ -- ___---- 120 Primogeniture- ---- -- -- _. -------__.._-- ---- -- -- _ 19 Princeton College--__ -- _. -____._-__-- --.- -- __ 22 Protestants_-_____ ____ _. _.------ -- -- - 18 Public Roads- -- ... ---- ____-_- -- -____. ---- ----.--_ 15 Public opinion_____-__..________26, 37, 106 Puritans_________._.._.________-____18, 22
R
Randolph, Edw.____ -______.-_-_-----__--. 55 Reese, Judge, of Madison--_._ --. _. -- ___- -- _.__-__ 11 Reformation, The--------- --__.---_ -- -._- -- _ -- -- -- 18 Religion, Encouragement of-------- ---- 21, 40, 44, 45, 60 Religion, Relation of United States to. -- -- -- - ------ 40, 45 Religion, Relation of Georgia to_ ------ -- - ----48, 71, 81 Reports of Boards of Visitors---- - -- _--- -- -- -- -- --__ 102 Report, Minority of Committee- --------------------- 105 Resolution of 1787-- -- _ -- -- -- _ -- - -- __ -- -- ----____-- 17 Rhode Island --------.-----------------ISO, 134 "Rights of Man"-.._.-_-___.___-_------_ 144

172
S
Scholarship ( See Tuition ). Seal of State______________---______.-- 20 Sears, Hon. __ ---------- -- __ ... ---- _ -- .__. ----._.- 5 Sectarian Schools_____-__--___._._18, 71, 81, 107 Sectarian Schools Affected by Free Tuition, etc.--------- 103 Senatus Academicus--------------------------13, 60, 61 Seney's Gift to Georgia Methodist Colleges-.92, 101,102, 113 Smith, Hon. Hoke______________.- -- ___ 102 Smith, Gov. Jas. M._______-- ____-.10, 84, 89, 103 South Carolina's Constitution---- _-----_-___--___-_-- 154 State's Interest in Educated Men 25, 26, 30, 31, 32, 35,107,138 Stewart, Hon. Jas.--- -------- ____--_-_._ -- -- --.---- 14 Stewart, Hon. Jno. D.-.-_... -_ ---- ____--___.------ ._ 93 Story, Judge.-- -- __. -- ------ -- .__ ------ -- _____ 141 Sunday___.__-__-_.-__.___43,50,58, 140, 146, 147
T
Taxation____-_________..___130, 132, 137 Technological College._-__-_____-____122, 127 Terrell Fund.-..-. _-_.-_.________.------___ 82 Terrell, Dr.__ _______ __._.__________ 82 Texas, School Funds---- -- --- -- - -- ___-_ -- _ -__-..__. 17 Thanksgiving days____________-___ _____-._5f>, 58 Tbomasville, College at.-______-_----__--- ___-_- 121 Toleration (See Conscience). Toombs, Gen. Robt.__-.-_..-_________ --17, 52, 65 Tripoli, Treaty with_._____________---55, 56; 142 Trustees of University_- _- ___--__13, 87, 92, 127 Tucker, Rev. Dr. H."H.-_- ----.__- ----...--,,.-- 92 Tuition Free--8, 10, 85, 89, 90, 98, 103, 115, 116, 122, 132
U
Unification, Scheme of__--__-----------_---- -- _-- 77 University, Mercer-____---_---_--_--_-____-----__-- 3 University, Ckrke.----- _-_----___ ---- .-_,--------_ . 11 University of Georgia___--3, 4, 5, 12, 14, 18, 19, 21, 60 University of Georgia,* Charter. _ ___25, 30, 44, 60, 6fi University of Georgia, Debt of State to__ .. -- --4, 62, 65 University of Georgia, Donations to____ _--__--------_ 65 University of Georgia, Grants from U. S. __ - -------82, 88 University of Georgia, Law Department of-_____---_--- 113 University of Georgia, Medical Department -__---_--.-- 114 University of New York____. _____. _____- 22

173
University of Pennsylvania-----------____---__---__ 22
UpdegrafFs Case--___-__ --___ -- _ -- _-_-___- -- ______ 47 U. S. Supreme Court_____________ __. -- _.43, 46
V
Van Epps, Judge Howard---- -_ -- ._._-_ ---- ------ -- 106 Veasy, Hon.- -- _.__.-_- -- ___ -- .-_ __.--_-_ -- ___ 3 Virginia, Liberty of Conscience in---- -- -- __--____.__ 54 "Virginia, Line" ____._.._______-_____17, 61 Virginia, Territory Ceded to United States -------- -------- 16 Virginia, University of-__--__----___------ --.___-_- 132 Voltaire____..__ __._____----151, 159 "Vote, Directors"___._.-____...______106, 108
W
Warner, Judge Hiram._-_ --_ -- _ -- _-_ -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- 78 Washington County.---_-__..-_..__-___-.---__---_ 60 Washington's Farewell Address ---------------- -- -30, 44 Washington's View of United States' Relation to Religion _ _ 55 Webster, Daniel----- __._--. -- 17,41,42,141, 145 Wesleyan Christian Advocate__ __ __40, 48, 71, 94, 114 West Georgia Methodist- ___ ____. __ ---- -- ----- 114 West Georgia Mechanical and Agricultural College ------ 122 Western & Atlantic Railroad ________- ---3, 9, 18, 101 Whitney .__,,..__..__,,_.__.___..___... -- _..._._ 23 Wilkes County._____._.'_.___.__- ---------- -- 60 Williams, Prosecution of _--___.__... -- _-___._ -- -_ 51 World's Fair--_- -------- -------- _ ---- ------ - ----- 140
Y
Yale College--.. . -- --.-- -- .__.-- -- --22, 23, 66, 129 Yazoo Fraud--- -- ------------ ------ ------ ----- --- 17