The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1913-11-06
THE FARMER: NOVEMBER 6, 1918

The consideration of the grant is the provision by this College for the higher education, thus relieving the state from the duty of supporting it, or of providing like education. l In effect, the state has entered into contract with the college and all of it's contributors, in present. and in fu- turo, that it goves the College the right to secure a site by condemnation in consideration of the benefit to the state through having such an institu- ton within her borders supported ;oy voluntary contributions.
 Whether it be wholly true or not, the dem admits that this institu- ton is to be maintained wholly by voluntary contributions and that it is to such an institution this grant is made And the demurrer further admits that upward of $1,15O,0OO, and land of great value have been donated to this College.
 With each contributor the state en- 1 tered into a contract that it had granted this charter with it's right of eminent domain in consideration of his contribution.
 The state has pledged it's faith to the corporation and to all contribu- tors that this grant of eminent do- main shall stand while the institu- tion exists.
 The state would not have entered into such a contract unless it had in tended the benefits of the charter to be enjoyed by all the Women of the state.
 i The contributors would not have ishowered their bounty upon the new institution had they understood that the blessings of their bounty would fall upon part only of the Women l of the state, and that it's trustees might, at will, shut it's doors upon any it chose, favoring some, excluding oth- CTS
 And whenever philanthropists come l to know that this College is private institution of this character, their 1 gifts will cease.
 The construction which my breth- ren accord the act violates the faith of the state, breaks it's contract with l the contributors, and may tend to check the growth of the College. l. Can it be believed that the Gener- al Assembly and Governor Baldwin intended to limit the privileges of the 1 College to such women of the state as the trustees decided could enjoy 1 its privileges, and thus cripple the new College, whose great promise led 1 the State in its pride to give it's own name?
 The act locates the College in New London.
 It is a part of the history of the State that New London sought the honor of this institution. She and her people have, with a se1f-sacrif1ce and generosity never excel1ed in modern times by any town in the State, given to this institution.
 As much town and it's people can, they have stamped it of great public concern to them and to the people of the State. l Did New London intend to give of i it's wealth to a College whose trustees could at will admit to it's privi1iges tcso7 1f fI1a ,4o4o rI,311 51 ing them to others? 1 Did New London intend to help rear a College of this character?
 Rather, did they not hope for a College like unto the great institutions for the higher education of men and are open to all alike, and whose inhu- l ence is nationwide?
 The history of this charter shows I the legislative intent.
 1 The history of Yale's charter. shows a similar intent. In terms it's priv I i1eges are not open to all, but none can dispute that such was the IegisIa- 1 tive intent.
 Yale University vs. New Haven, Fl Conn.,, 329.
 amendment providing method of condemnation similar to that for the 1 condemnation of land for the site of county buildings reveals the IegisIa- lative mind. The site of the College was put upon parity with the site of a county building. This indicates l it's public character. The General As 1 sembly did not intend to close the doors of the college to the public any more than it did the doors of a | county building.
 The General Assembly declares that a suitable site for this College is of great public concern. It could not speak thus of a purely private institution of learning whose doors were not open to the public on i equal terms. By the admission of the demurrer, the land to be taken is necessary for the purpose of the char ter.
 So that the case is that of a College 1 charged with the perpetual duty of furnishing the higher education to the Women of the State, and given the i right to take private land for a site and intent on taking land which it needs to carry out the purpose of its existence.
 The construction of the charter as made by the majority of the court is, it seems to me, 9 restricted and mar row one.
 It disregards the intent and pur- pose of the General Assembly, It ignores the fact that we are pass ling upon the validity of Act of a coordinate department of govern 1nent.
 It treats the question with a cir transcription not permitted in con- struing an ordinary legislative act
 It forgets that we are applying to I this act a rule of constitutional con- struction and not interpreting a pri- Evate contract nor even an ordinary Legislative act.
 And above all, itsignores that foun- 1 dation rule of constitutional construc- ton that a legislative act is to be up- held unless it's repugnancy to the con- l5stitutions is so clear as to be beyond a reasonable doubt. The public wei ! ware demands in this case that that rule be adhered to.
 In stripping this College of it's pow CT to condemn land for it's site the court was compelled to go even fur