The Middlebury galaxy. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1848-1850, 1848-04-04

from the University. Where then, we ask,
was the necessity or propriety oil our making
that a sine qua non which we expected would
be earnestly sought for and eagerly embraced
by the opposite party?
During the discussion in The Conference,
neither President Wheeler nor Judge Col
iamer made The least objection 10 the plan Of
arbitration. They were, as we thought, high
ly gratiied with the arrangement, and accor-
dinghy they engaged with much interest and
apparent cordially in selecting the referees.
Out of fifteen or twenty persons nominated,
the Conference AT length unanimously a.
greed upon the following gentlemen. viz ::
Ex-Governor Ellsworth, and Chief Justice
Williams, of Connecticut, The Hon. Judge
Hubbard, and Rev. Doctors Humphrey and
Goldman, of Massachusetts. intelligence,
character, and practical wisdom OF these dis
lngushed gentlemen was sufficient surety
that no injustice would be dobe to either
party.
Admitting then. as we cheerfully do, that
President Wheeler sincerely believed that
the statement he made 10 his Corporation re-
speeding the sine qua n0n was correct, why
should the Corporation, on that account, SO
abruptly conclude the negotiation. The u
University Corporation well knew that we, as a
Committee, were not invested with iull pow
ers 10 consummate a union; and they also
knew thatour Corporation had proposed 10
them some alterations in the Bill agreed TO
by US; they thus had abundant evidence that
our decision was not final. Why then did
not that Corporation ascertain what were the
views of the Fellows OF Mddlebury College,
instead of declining further action because
they heard that the Midd!ebury Committee
had taken a certain POSITION?
Before closing our communication, we will
take the liberty OF asking few other ques
tons:
II she Mddlebury Committee had made
impartial arbitration n sine qua non, woulu
it not have been perfectly right, and would
they not have been justified before the world
for so doing?
Why was certain condition, involving
the forfeiture of The late subscription 10 the
University, in case the Institution was re-
moved from Burlington, introduced into the
Bill. and kept there against our earnest re-
monslrance. and the clearly expressed wishes
of our Corporation Was it because the u
University Corporation deemed that condition
a very essential one? Why then, we ask,
did they assign the existence Of that very es>
SCDtldl COHuItlOu III TIE Dill, DIS pIOIllluGut
reason for rejecting it p?
Again, we ask, how could The "heary la
bilities" of The University so suddenly become
an obstacle 10 union? That that Institution
was fCrty-eigM thousand dollars in debt was
no new discovery. 1t had been spoken OF
in the Conference, and the surprising fact
had been communicated 10 Middlebury Cor
poratiOnl 1.-THE latter BODY, on being inform
ed that the Institution which sought their al
lance, was SO deeply involved in debt, had
declined further correspondence on The sub
jet Of union, il would have been perfectly
natural, and perhaps perfectly right; but
why should the University hesitate on &C.
count OF their great Indebtedness? Because
it is replied, in lie event that the University
was emoved from Burlington. the late sub
scription would be forfeited, and iflhat was
forfeited. the University might not have the
means 'fo secure uniniured its creditors and
sureties.' Bui,h we are correctly informed. the
avais olthat subscription are 10 be applied 10
four specific purposes, and the liquidation OF
debts lie not among the number.
Ii should be known. also, that The bill re-
iected by the University Corporation, provi-
ded for the creation of new corporation,
and gave to it the property and made il re-
sponsible for the debts of the University and
of Middlebury College. This new Corpora
ton was 10 embrace all the members of the
Corporation The University, and an equal
number from the Corporation of MiddIebury
College. Would the addition of twelve men
from MiGdlebury impair The credit, or dimin-
sh the pecuniary responsibility OF the new
Corporation
Ii has been said that the friends of the u
University could not be expected 10 submit the
question oil location 10 arbitration. because
that Institution has large available proper
ty and Middlebury College has but very little.
II true, why is this an objection 10 arbiira-
ton? Would not an impartial Committee
give due weight 10 all such considerations ?
But il is not true. The University has in
deed the control of large amount Of Stale
lands, but by the new charter these were to
90 with the Institution wherever it should be
located. Setting aside these lands, ii is our
deliberate conviction land we profess to un-
derstand the pecunia-y condition Of both In
strulioRs) lha, Middlebury College would
not this day, exchange properties and liabili-
ties with the University.
We will ask one more question and close
our necessarily prolracted article. Does moi
The unwilIineness OF the University TO refer
the question oflocaton,-with "A fifty thous-
aud dollar subscription Oh lis side-io in,elli-
gent and unbiased judges, afford pretty
strong argument in favor of the superior
claims of Middlebury as the location for n
College?
- T. A. asasli+. Committee
l.. MATHEWS.
Middlebury, March l, 1s49.