Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1873-04-08


useless labor of examining the books In the
REGISTERS Office we cannot find out how
when and to whom the land was disposed
OF, but from the character of the trustee:
named 10 the act Of incorporation, Thomas
y. Craighead, James Winchester, Samuel
Y. Black, Mores Fisk, Robert q. Foster,
David McGavock, Robert Whyte, Joseph
Coleman, Robert Searcy, Joel Lewis, Abra-
ham Nancy, William P. Anderson and
Nicholas I. Perkins, we know that there
was integrity in the management of the
funds of the institution. / think l have, in
the examination Of titles to lots Ia Nash
vile, learned the fact that there were sew
eral public sales by auction Of the College
lots, and, if mistake not, a great portion
OF the ground was disposed OF before the
merger of the Academy into. the College.
The matter is of no consequence. The
land is gone and the trustees did
| am sure, what they thought
was best for the interests of the
institution. We look around and see these
two hundred and forty acres covered with
fine stores and residences, and the thought
comes up in cur minds that the Trustees
acted in making sales without any judgment
or foresight. But would we with the same
facts before us have acted more wisely?
There is tradition that six hundred and
forty acre tract of land situated within
three miles of Nashville was disposed Of
about that time for shot CUR and pony.
AS great want of sagacity, If such 1t may
be called, was doubtless displayed by each
Trustee in the management OF his private
business, and many of US to-day are prob
ably making mistakes in the sale or pur-
chase of property which can be criticised as
plumbers fifty years hence. Then, do not
condemn the Trustees too severely. They
had never seen steamboat, heard Of q
railway, and the most brilliant imagination
of that day could have fancied no such
thing as an electric telegraph. Throw your
self back into the age when bear, buffalo,
and Indians ranged the woods hereabout,
and conceive with the lights then before
you, what estimate you would put upon
two hundred and forty acres of land, large
portion of which was annually inundated.
Perhaps the trustees did as well or better
than any of us could have done. At all
events a school was maintained, with some
intermissions, and many men there edu-
Gated have filed stations of usefulness and
horor. In 1874 DR.. Philip Lindsey was
called to the Presidency, and the mention of
bis name calls up the most grateful recol-
lections. Tennessee owes to him deep
sense of obligation. at his instance, tract
Of one hundred acres of land was purchased
on credit. If the former sales were mis-
take, this purchase was certainly 8 great
specul ation, and in this trade there can be
no complaint about want of sagacity. The
old college building and laboratory were
likely erected by the proceeds of the sale of
the 240 acre tract, with, perhaps, the addi-
ton of some funds received on compro-
mise with the University Of North Caro-
lima concerning certain "eschest-
ed lands" A part of the 100 acre tract was
sold to pay the purchase money and ex-
penses connected with the University; but
there remains Of it the nineteen acres upon
which the stone building now stands.
You will inquire what became OF the
moiety of the proceeds Of the one hundred
thousand acres of land. wish l could
render more satisfactory account Of it.
Very little money imagine was received
FROM this source. The people south of
Holston and French Broad were occupants,
They claimed the right of presumption, but
they were not very solicitOus to pay for
their pre- emptioDs. Besides, they had
roteS. The politicians dealt very kindly
towards these old settlers who had occu-
pied the lands since prior to 1889, and in
favor of whom the ceSsion act stipulated
"that the people residing south Of French
Broad and Holsson and west of Pigeon
should have the privilege Of entering their
pre-emptions." The acts Of Assembly
from 1907 to 1929, show that the Legisla-
ture wished to do justice to the colleges and
yet that the pre-emptioners or occupants
must not be forced TO pay for their land.
The pre-emptioner doubtless thought thu
long use gave title without paying any
money for the land. The dispute CONT
nued long and hot, and the poor politician,
who was very much the same sort of being
then that he is now, had a very hard time of
it between the colleges and the presumption
ers. Finally, in 1929, an act was passed to
settle the controversy between the col
leges and the citizens south of French
Broad aud Holston and west of Big Pigeon
rivers" aud the provision of the settlement
the offer of grant of half a
township of land in the Cherokee Naiion,
to lrltich The Indian title had not been e.
tinguiSked. The colleges did not accept
this settlement and gave up all hopes of
an endowment from the French Broad and
Holston direction. The treaty with the
Cherokees in 1885 vested the title to said
Indian lands in the State of Tennessee.
The act of 1887, ca. 8, offered to the Uni
versity the proceeds of half q township of
land in the Ocoee District and that PROPOSE
ton was accepted by the trustees in salts
faction of their claim. These proceeds
amounted to about S35, 900, and tie Ten
nessee bonds now held Oy the University
to about $4,000, came from
this source. The property of the Univer-
sity consists of those bonds, the University
(near nineteen acres), and the
buildings and grounds occupied by the
Medical College. The late Montgomery
Bel bequeathed $4,000 to the Univer-
sity in trust 10 support school
for the education of poor children, aud the
accumulations of interest on this fund make
the aggregate amount to about $4,000.
This money does not belong to the UniVer-
sity, but is held by the University as trusts
under the will of said Montgomery Bell.
The preceding statement embraces the
main facts connected with the organization
and corporate life and property of the Uni
NtIcisNs 4 Lie dLnOuAIc VI AuANS1 SSS'1 &iO
given from memory without any reference
to the books of the Treasurer, and will
doubtless not vary much 10 amount from
the last report made by the Treasurer to
the State.
The trustees recognize The right OF the
public to make inquiry into any and every
thing done by them, and they only regret
that heretofore except when some special
exigeDcy or excitement arose too little in
terest was exhibited and felt by The public in
their work. The writer of this hasty arti-
Gle, who is one of the trustees, can only
speak for himself, and he regards the trust
as partdking alphabetically Of a public ma
ture. This is nO5the time or place to argue
the rights of the cOrpOratGrs as against the
State, if any question should ever arise, but
there eau seem to be no doubt, the property
being derived from the State or from sover-
eighties to whose rights the State succeeded,
that the General Assembly has complete
control over the property and effects of the
corporation. No contract was ever made
with individuals, as was the fact in the eel
ebrated Dartmouth College case, and such
was the intimation once given | believe by
the Supreme Court Of Tennessee. This
question need not, however, be discussed,
and is alluded to for the purpose of &C
knowledging amensbility TO any scrutiny Of
public inquiry OF legislative investigation.
Tine g. ata in a certain sense owns the Uni