Arizona republican., 1914-05-28
THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE

From all over the United states came q wall of anguish when in 1919 Chlef Justice of the United States John Marshall pronounced his opinion in the case of the trustees of Dartmouth Col lege ys. Woodward It was the estab- fishing of new law and the interier- ence in private affairs that at the tune seemed unjustifiable.
 Briefly the Dartmouth College case was as follows: The Legislature ot New Hampshire passed an act in 1Sl6 changing the name of the institution to "Dartmouth University" enlareing the board of trustees and assuming control of it's affairs. To this act the trustees were opposed, and with the design of testing it's constitutionalltY they brought an action before the Su- preme Court of the state. By this tri- bunal the Legislature was sustained. An appeal was thereupon taken to the Supreme Court of the United states. The case of the college was then ar gued by Daniel Webster and other able counsel, and fully sustained by the court. The university organization was dissolved and the old college board of trustees continued.
 The great battle was fought by them not for themselves only: the princi- ples concerned were vital to many oth- CT institutions. Dartmouth. in compar- ative poverty was thus instrumental in Vndicating the sacredness of private trusts Chief Justice Marshalrs deci- sion was that the Dartmouth charter was d contract within the meaning of the clause of the United States con | Stitution fOrbidding any state to pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts
 The trouble started when the presi- dent of the college had a disagreement ! with the trustees and was dismissed 1 from the office He determined tC fight rather to give up his position | submissively, and therefore took his l grievance to the Legislature of the state, and he was able to secure large enough following to get his acf passed.
 Seventy five out of one hundred an(
  ed against the first and principle ac and their protest was entered upon tn, journal of the House. The protest va! based upon the grounds that the trus tees would be despoiled of their head, without proper hearing. that the col lege was prospering and no legislative interference was required. and that tn effects of the act would be to endan ger the college funds-by destroying the trust-and that it's tendency wa to make the college subject to ever! 1 change of political party.
 l Dr. Wheelock the first president 0 the institution, had contended some tel years before that the charter was no within the power of the Legislature tt alter or repeal it. During the debat in the Legislature the eminent Webste had suggested q move to bring abou a compromise by getting q bill passe' to found new university, but tn
 move did not succeed.
 | The court that first decided the Dart
 mouth college case produced tremen dous excitement in many quarter
 for several years and the opinion o
 Chief Justice Marshall provoked muc
 criticism on the score of it's tendenc
 to fortify all corporations against con
 trol by the states that had create
 them.
 Daniel Webster in his masterly de
 fense of the institute, stated: "Ther
 are in this case all the essential con
 stituent parts of contract. The chart
 CT recites that the founder on his par
 had agreed to establish seminary i
 New Hampshire and to enlarge it be
 yond it's original design, among Othe
 things. for the benefit of that province : and thereupon a charter is given hir
 and his associates. designated by him . self, promising and assuring to then under the plighted faith of the stat the right of governing the college an administering it's concerns in the man ner provided in the charter. Is not this contract? If lands ( money had been granted to him or hi associates for the same purposes, sue grant could not be rescinded. And there any difference in legal contem plation between grant of corpora, franchises and a grant of tangib property? No such difference is rt cognized in any decided case, nor doc it exist in the common apprehension | mankind
 The Dartmouth college case wa of the most important cases in cor stitutional law ever decided in tt United States Supreme Court. I'll l consequences of this decision have bee very far-reaching. both in securing tf inviolability of private trusts and i rr limiting state sovereignty and extend
 ing through the federal courts the au
 thority of the federal constitution. Tn
 principles of the decision have bee
 applied frequently both by federal an 1 state courts
 Tomorrow-TriaI of Petrowitz Czar
 oWitz.