Court Opinion

ID: 9417536
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 20:22:58.2072+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:45.213172
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Blatchford,
having stated the case as above . reported, delivered the opinion of the court.
The questions for consideration here fall within a narrow compass, for they can embrace only federal questions..
The Court of Appeals, in its opinion, discussed only two questions, (1) whether Cornell University had power to take and hold property of the value of'more than $3,000,000 ; and (2) if it had no such power, whether it held real and personal property in the aggregate up to such limit, at the time of the death of Mrs. Fiske,’ on the 30th of September, 1881..
The first question was examined most elaborately by that court; and it arrived at the conclusions that the university had no power to take or hold any more real and personal property, than $3,000,000 in the aggregate, at the time of the death of Mrs. • Fiske; and that, under the jurisprudence of the State of New .York, her husband and her heirs at law and next of kin had a right to avail themselves of the fact, if it existed, in the controversy before the court, that at the time of her death, on the 30th of September, 1881, the university already held real and personal property up to the prescribed limit. The propositions thus decided by the Court of Appeals do not -involve any federal question. They depend entirely upon the construction of the provisions of the charter of the university, and upon the municipal law of the State of New York. The decision upon those questions is binding'upon this *175court in the present case. Therefore, the only question subject to review by us is whether the property held by the university prior to and at the time of the death of Mrs. Fiske,' on the 30th of September, 1881, exceeded the amount which by law it could hold, if a .federal question is involved in that proposition. The Court of Appeals decided that the property.1 so held by the university exceeded $3,000,000.
It is contended by the defendants in error that in the proceedings in the state courts the university did not ‘‘ claim ” any “ title, right, privilege or immunity,” under any statute of the United States, or which was derived directly or indirectly from any such statute; that, even if the judgment of the Court of Appeals was binding as between the university and the State, the latter being a stranger to the proceeding, the title of the university to the lands and land contracts conveyed to it by Cornell, if held under the act of Congress involved in the controversy, has been affirmed, and not denied, by the state court; that, assuming that the decision of the Court of. Appeals was binding as between the university and . the State, and that the right of the university to the lands and contracts' conveyed to it by Cornell was involved in the proceeding, still the writ of error will not .lie, because the state court decided, not against the title oí the university, but against the title of the State; that the decision of the Coutt of Appeals did not affirm the validity of any statute of the State which the plaintiffs in error claimed to bé in contravention of any act of Congress, nor was the validity of any such statute “ drawn in question ” in that court; that the plaintiffs in error did not draw in question, in the state court, the' validity of any authority exercised by or under the State, nor was - there any decision in the state court in favor of an authority so exercised, and so questioned by the plaintiffs in error; and that, aside from any construction of the act of Congress of which the plaintiffs in error complain as that on which the Court of Appeals based any conclusion, there were other grounds which would have led to the same result, if the construction of - such act of Congress insisted upon by the plaintiffs in error had been adopted by the court.
*176On the other hand, it is insisted by the. plaintiffs in error, that this court has jurisdiction to review the judgment of the state court, under the second clause of section 709 of the- Revised Statutes, because there ivas drawn in question the validity of statutes' of the State of New York and of an authority exercised under those statutes, on the ground of their being repugnant, as they were finally construed by the state court, to the provisions of an act of Congress.
Without discussing this question of jurisdiction, it is sufficient to say, that a majority of the court are of opinion that this court has jurisdiction. As our conclusion is that the judgment of the state court must be affirmed, it is not important to discuss at any length the question of jurisdiction, because, whether the writ of error is dismissed, or whether- the judgment is affirmed, the result is the same, of allowing the judgment of the state court to stand in full force.
We proceed now to give our views as- to the case upon, its merits. The conclusion of the Court of Appeals, in its concurrence with the Supreme Court, that the property of the university exceeded $3,000,000, was based upon the modifications made by the Supreme Court, in its judgment, of the finding of the surrogate as to the value of the buildings and grounds. The Court of Appe'als, in its opinion (p, 131), states that it agrees with the Supreme Court in those modifications, although it was probably bound by the findings of that court, as there was contradictory evidence in regard to such value. This court certainly is bound by the findings of the Supreme Court and of the Court of Appeals on that subject. The remainder of the questions before us depends wholly upon documentary evidence, and upon the construction of statutes and of written papers.
The Court of Appeals, in ápproaching the question as to whether the property in controversy, if taken and held by the university; would exceed the amount which by law it could hold, says (p. 113): “ The decision of such question depends partly upon the view which should be taken of the character of the holding under which the university now possesses certain property, which is described in the finding- of the sur*177rogate as property derived from the nation, and State, and which he finds amounted to $2,088,012.78, and which was made up, as he also finds, of Western land contracts, $439,-. 834.22, and of Western lands’to the amount of $1,648,178.56; and. he states, as part of his finding, that this total of $2,088,-012.78 was due or payable by the university to the State, or, in other words, that the university owed the State that sum, and consequently it should not be regarded as any part of its property. This finding has not been concurred in by the. general term, which has modified it by holding that the same is to be taken into account as part of. the property of the university. The state of facts under which the question arises is undisputed, and it becomes a question of law as to what is the proper legal inference to be drawn from the undisputed facts, and the decision of that question is 'revie'wable in this court.”
On the 2d of July, 1862, Congress passed the following act (12 Stat. 503, c. 130):
“An act donating public lands to the several States and' Territories which- may provide colleges for the benefit of agriculture and the mechanic arts.
“ Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States'of America in Congress assembled, That there be granted to the several States, for-the purposes hereinafter-mentioned, an amount of public land, to be apportioned to each State a quantity equal to thirty thousand acres for each senator and representative in- Congress to which the States are respectively entitled by.the apportionment under the census of eighteen hundred and sixty : Provided, That no mineral lands shall be selected or purchased under the provisions of this act.
“ Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That, the land aforesaid, after being surveyed, shall be apportioned to the several' States in sections or subdivisions of sections, not'less than one-quarter of a section; and whenever there are public lands in a State subject to sale at private entry at one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre, the .quantity to which said State shall be entitled shall be selected from-such lands within the limits’ of such State, and the Secretary of the Interior is hereby directed, *178to issue to each of the States in which there is not the quantity of public lands subject to sale at private" entry at one dollar and twenty-five cents per; acre, to which said State may be entitled under the provisions, of this act, land ’ scrip to the amount in acres for the deficiency.of its distributive share; said scrip to be sold by said States, and the proceeds thereof applied to the usés and purposes prescribed in this act, and for no other use or purpose whatsoever: Provided, - That in no case shall any State to which land scrip may thus be issued be allowed to locate the same within the limits of any other ■'State, or of any Territory of the United States,* but their assignees may thus locate said land scrip upon any of the unappropriated lands of the United States subject to sale at private entry at one dollar and twenty-five cents, or less, per acre: -Andprovided, further, That not more than one million acres shall be located by such assignees' in any one of the States: And provided, fv/rther, That no such location shall be made before one year from the passage of this act.
“ Sec. 3. And he it further enacted, That all the expenses of management, superintendence, and taxes from date of selection of said lands, previous to their sales, and all expenses incurred- in the management and disbursement, of the moneys' which may be received therefrom, shall be paid by the States to which they may belong, out oh the treasury of said States, .so that the entire proceeds of the sale of said lands shall be applied without any diminution whatever to the purposes . hereinafter mentioned.
“ Seo. 4. And he it further enacted, That all moneys derived ■from the sale of the lands aforesaid by the States to. which the lands are apportioned, and from the sales of land scrip herein- ' before provided for, shall be invested in stocks of the United States, or of the States, or some other safe stocks, yielding not less than five per centum upon the par value of said stocks; and that the moneys so invested shall constitute a perpetual fund, the capital of which shall remain forever undiminished, (except so far as may be provided in section fifth of this act,) and the interest of which shall be inviolably appropriated, by each State which may take and claim the benefit of this act, *179to 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 aré related to agriculture and the mechanic arts, in such manner as the legislatures of the States may respectively prescribe,, in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life.
“ Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That the grant of land-- and land scrip hereby authorized shall be made on the following conditions, to which, as well as to the provisions herein-before contained, the previous assent of the several States shall be signified by legislative acts:
First. If any portion of the fund invested, 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 remain forever undiminished; and the annual interest shall be regularly applied without diminution to the purposes mentioned in the fourth section of this act, except that a sum, not exceeding ten per centum upon the amount received by any State under the provisions of this act, may be expended for the purchase of lands for sites or experimental farms, whenever authorized by the respective legislatures of said States.
“ Second. No portion of said fund, nor the interest thereon, shall' be applied, directly or indirectly, under any pretence whatever, to the purchase, erection, preservation, or repair of any building or buildings.
“ Third. Any State which may take and claim the benefit of the provisions of this act shall provide, within five years, afi least not less than one college, as described in the fourth section of this act, or the grant to such State shall cease; and said State shall be bo.u-nd to pay the United States the amount received of any lands previously sold, and that the title to purchasers under the State . shall be valid.
“ Fourth'. An annual report shall be made regarding the progress of each college,: recording any improvements and exper*180iments made, with their costs and results, and such other, matters, including state industrial and economical statistics, as may he supposed useful: one'copy of which shall be transmitted by mail free, by each, to. all the other colleges which may be endowed under the provisions qf this act, and also one copy to the Secretary of the Interior.
“.Fifth. When .lands shall be selected from those which, have been raised to double the minimum price, in consequence of railroad grants, they shall be computed to the' States at the maximum price, and the number of acres proportionally diminished.
“Sixth. No State while in a condition of rebellion or insurrection against the government of the United States shall be entitled to th.e benefit of this act.
“ Seventh. No State shall be entitled to the benefits of tnis act unless it shall express its acceptance thereof by its legislature within two years from the date of its approval by the President.
“ Sec. 6. And be it'further enacted, That land scrip issued under'the provisions of this act shall not be subject to location until after the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three.
“ Sec. 7. And be it further enacted, That the land officers shall receive the same fees for locating land scrip issued under the provisions- of this act as is now allowed for the location of military bounty land warrants under existing laws; Provided, Their maximum compensation shall not be thereby increased.
“ Sec. -8. And be- it further enacted, That the governors of -the. several States to which scrip shall be issued under this act shall be reqüiréd to report annually to Congress all sales made of such scrip until the whole shall be disposed of, the amount, received for the same, and what • appropriation has been made of the proceeds.”
On the' 5th of May, 1863, the legislature of the State of New York passed an act, (Laws of' New York of 1863, c. 460,) entitled “ An act relative to the lands granted to this State by the act of Congress entitled 'An act donating public ■ ..'■lands to'the several States and Territories which may provide *181colleges for' the benefit of agriculture and the mechánic arts/ approved second July, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, and authorizing the sale thereof, and the investment of the proceeds of such sales.” By this act, the State duly accepted Jhe. grant and gave its assent to the conditions thereof. The Comptroller was authorized to receive the land scrip, (as the State had no public lands of the United States, unappropriated, within its borders,) and to sell the same, and to make all necessary arrangements, employ agents, etc., as he, deemed expedient, for effecting a judicious sale of such scrip. .Land scrip representing 989,920 acres of land was then issued by the Secretary of the Interior to the Comptroller, and. -was embraced in 6187 pieces of scrip for 160 acres each. The Comptroller sold scrip for 68,000 acres at the rate of 85 cents an acre, and for 8000 at 83 cents an acre.
By an act passed May 14, 1863, (Laws of New York, of 1863, c. 511,) the legislature appropriated the income and ■revenue which might be received, from the investment of \he proceeds of the sale of any of the lands granted to the State by the act of Congress of July .2, 1862, to the People’s College, located at Havana, in Schuyler County, on certain conditions expressed in the act.
On the 27th of April, 1865, (Laws of New York, of 1865, c.-585,) the legislature passed an act creating Cornell University as a corporation, and appropriating to it the “income, revenue and avails which shall be received from the investment of the proceeds of the sale of the lands, or of the scrip therefor,” granted to the State by the act of Congress of July 2, 1862, to be paid over to the trustees of the university “ for its use and behoof; in the mode and for the purposes in said act of Congress defined.” This gift was expressed in the act to be upon the condition that Ezra Cornell should give $500,000 to the university and $25,000' to the trustees of Genesee College, located at Lima, New York, and the provisions of the act were to take effect only in case of. the noncompliance of the trustees of the People’s College -at Havana with the provisions of the act of May 14, 1863. ' Section 5 ,of the act of April 27, 1865, was in these wofds: “ § 5. The cor*182poration hereby created may hold real and personal property to an amount not exceeding three millions of dollars in the aggregate.” Both of the gifts above specified were made by Mr. Cornell.
In this state of things, as the Court of Appeals says in its opinion (p. 116), “the great question then arising was in regard to the best means of disposing of such scrip for the best price, so that the income for the university should be increased to the greatest extent therefrom. The result of throwing into market such an enormous amount of the public lands as had been donated by Congress to the several States was a fall in the market value of-the land, and, of course, of the scrip -which represented it. In the fall of 1865, Mr. Cornell'had purchased some scrip of the comptroller, representing 100,000 acres, for $50,000, and had given his bond for that sum upon condition that all the profits which should accrue from the sale of the land should be paid to the Cornell University.”
The legislature then passed, on the 10th of April, 1866, an act (Laws of New York, of 1866, c. 481) entitled “.An act 'to authorize and facilitate the early disposition by the Comptroller of the lands or land scrip donated to this State by the United States,” and which was in the following words:
“ Section 1. The Comptroller is hereby authorized to fix the price at which he will sell and dispose of any or of all the lands or land scrip donated to this State by the United States of America, by act of Congress approved July second, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, and entitled ‘An act donating public lands to the several States and Territories which may provide colleges for instruction in agriculture and the mechanic arts.’ Such price shall not be less than at the rate of thirty cents per acre for said lands. He may contract for the sale thereof and sell the same to the trustees of the Cornell University. If the said trustees shall not agree with the said Comptroller for the' purchase thereof, then the commissioners of the land office may receive from any person or persons an application for 'the purchase of the whole or any part thereof at the price so fixed by the said Comptroller, and may) if they are satisfied that the said person or persons will fully carry out and perform *183the agreement hereinafter mentioned, sell the same or any part thereof to the said person or persons.' But said trustees or such person or persons shall at the same time make an agreement and give security for the performance thereof to the satisfaction of the Comptroller, to the effect that the whole net avails and profits from the sale of scrip or the location and use by the said trustees, person or persons, of the said lands or of the lands located under said scrip, shall from time to time; as such net avails or profits are received, be paid over and devoted to the purposes of such institution or institutions as have been or shall be created by the act chapter five hundred and eighty-five of the laws of eighteen hundred and' sixty-five, of the State of New York, in accordance with the provisions of the act of Congress hereinbefore mentioned. And the said trustees, person or persons to whom the said lands or scrip shall be sold, shall' report to the Comptroller annually, under such oath and in such form as the Comptroller shall direct, the amount of land or scrip sold, the prices at which the same have been sold, and the amount of money received therefor, and the amount of expenses incurred in the location and sale thereof.
’ “ § 2. The Comptroller is authorized from time to time as he shall see fit, to make such examination into the actions' and doings of his vendees of said lands or scrip therewith as' he shall deem necessary to ascertain and determine what are the net avails of the said lands or scrip from the sale or from the location and use thereof by his said' vendees.
“ § 3. This act shall take effect immediately.”
Under this act, the Comptroller fixed the price of the land at fifty cents per acre, which, under all the circumstances, was considered a fair amount. The trustees of the university did not apply to purchase the scrip under the act of 1866, and on. the éth of August, 1866, the commissioners of the land office made an agreement with- Ezra Cornell for the sale to him of all the remaining scrip undisposed of, represented by 5087 certificates of 160 acres each. The agreement was entered into between the commissioners and Mr. Cornell, under the authority of the above act of 1866, and was in these words:
*184“ This agreement, made this fourth day of August, eighteen hundred and sixty-six, between the People of the State of New York, through their commissioners of the land office, acting under and by virtue of chapter 481 of the Laws of 1866, of the first part, and Ezra Cornell of Ithaca, N. Y., of the second part, witnesseth:
“ That the said party of the first part hereby agrees to sell and assign and deliver to the party of the second part all of the agricultural land scrip now in the possession or ownership of the State of New York, consisting of five thousand and eighty-seven certificates, each representing one hundred and sixty acres, on the following terms and conditions :
“ First. That said party of the second part shall receive said scrip, from time to time, as the same can be judiciously located, in parcels representing not less than twenty-five thousand acres, paying therefor into the treasury of the State, on its assignment and delivery to him by the Comptroller, at the rate of thirty cents per acre, in lawful money of the United States, or in the stocks of the United States, or of the State of New York, or in other good and safe stocks or bonds, to be approved by the Comptroller and drawing not less than five per cent interest per annum, and at the same time depositing with the Comptroller stocks or bonds to be approved by him, to an amount equal to an additional thirty cents per acre, as security for the fulfilment, by the party of the second part, of the conditions of this agreement, so far as they relate to the execution of a mortgage to the State on the land to be entered and located with said scrip, on the fulfilment of which said stock or bonds so deposited as security shall be returned to said party of the second part.
“ Second. That whenever any parcel of scrip, sold and delivered to the said party of the second part, under and by virtue of this agreement, shall have been located by him or Lis agents, the said party of the second part hereby agrees that he will, without delay, furnish to the Commissioners of the Land Office of this State, or to some member thereof, to be designated -by a resolution of the board, a full and complete list and description of the land so located. And said *185■Board of Commissioners shall, within at least sixty days ■ thereafter, and from time .to time subsequently as may be. found expedient, affix a minimum valuation by quarter sections,' at which the same may be sold by said party of the second part. And the said party of the second- part further agrees, that he will annually, and from time to- time, whenever required by the Commissioners of the Land Office, render, for their infonnation, to the Comptroller, a full, just and true account of all sales and leases made by him, said report to be made in such form and under such oath as the Comptroller shall direct, and will pay into the treasury of the State the whole of the net profits arising therefrom, which shall be ascertained by deducting from the gross receipts on sales the original cost of thirty cents per acre, the cost and expenses attending the location, management and sale of said lands, the taxes' assessed and paid on the same by the party of the second part, and the interest at the rate of seven per cent per annum on the several amounts actually expended and liabilities incurred for such purposes. But it is expressly agreed-by the party of the second part that he will not sell any portion of said lands. at a price below the minimum valuation thereon, which may from time to time be fixed by the Commissioners of the Land Office, without first obtaining their consent to do so in writing.
“ Third. That the stipulations and conditions of this agreement . shall apply to each and every parcel of scrip assigned and delivered to said party of the second part under this agreement, and the Comptroller shall defer or suspend further assignments and deliveries of scrip whenever the party of the second part fails to perform such stipulations and conditions in. respect to any scrip sold and delivered to him under this agreement, until they have.been complied with. Except,, nevertheless, that stocks or bonds as security for the return and mortgage of lands located under scrip issued to the- party of the second part, shall in no case be required when there shall remain in the hands of the Comptroller, by virtue of this agreement, mortgaged lands not released, equal in quantity to the scrip which may be issued to the party of the *186second part, and remain not located and mortgaged as provided by this agreement.
“ Fourth. That as often as and whenever the party of the second part shall furnish a description of any of the lands selected and located by him under and by virtue of said scrip, he shall immediately execute a mortgage thereon to the peo- ' pie of this State, to be approved by the Attorney General, conditioned that the said party of the .second ■ part will fully keep and perform each and every of the terms and conditions he is required to do, keep and perform. And this agreement is declared to be a continuing agreement, and a suit or suits at law or in equity may be from time to time instituted and maintained thereon, and upon any or all of said mortgages',. for any violation of such terms and conditions, whenever such violation may occur. Said mortgages shall be delivered to the Comptroller, or to the Commissioners of the Land Office.
“Fifth. Whenever the party of the second part shall sell or dispose of any section of the lands acquired by him under this agreement, and pay into the treasury of the State the net, profits resulting from such sale, after the deductions herein-before mentioned and provided for, the party of the first part shall execute and deliver to the party of the second part a full and sufficient release of the portion sold from the lien of the mortgage, so that a clear title can be vested in the purchaser or purchasers.
“Sixth. That of the moneys arising from sales or leases made by the party of the second part, and paid into the state treasury, as herein provided, a proportion, equal to thirty cents per acre shall be added to and form a part of the fund known and designated on the records of the Comptroller’s office as . the ‘ College Land Scrip Fund,’ and the remainder shall constitute a separate and distinct fund, which shall be the property of the Cornell University, to be known as the c Cornell Endowment Fund,’ the principal of which shall forever remain unimpaired, the income to be annually appropriated by the legislature, and paid over from time to time to the trustees of the Cornell Uniyersity, to be by them devoted to the . purposes a the institution.
*187“ 'Seventh. That the said party of the second part further agrees to purchase the whole of the aforesaid scrip and select and locate lands under and by virtue' thereof, and execute mortgages thereon as hereinbefore provided, within four years from the date hereof, and that he will sell the lands within twenty years from date, and pay the net profits arising from such sales into the treasiiry of this State, and until the same shall be so sold and the net profits so paid he will pay all taxes which may be assessed thereon, and preserve and maintain a title thereto unimpaired, to which the liens created by said mortgages shall attach. And if any event shall occur making it needful for the people of this State to incur any expense to preserve the lien of said mortgages, the same shall be paid out of the proceeds of the sales of said lands. And if, after the expiration of the period, of four years hereinbefore fixed, any of said scrip shall remain with this State, and not have been paid for by the party of the second part, the same • shall be released thereafter from ■ the conditions and stipulations of this agreement.”
The Court of Appeals says (p. 122): “ There was no sum provided in the act of Congress for the sale of the scrip. It was in the discretion of the State to sell it at any price it could obtain, either at public or private sale; and it could sell' the whole or any part of such scrip at any time, but the proceeds of such sale were to be invested under the act of Con-gress and the income applied as therein provided for. If there be any ambiguity in the ''meaning of the agreement as a whole,'it is not improper to see what meaning was attached to it by the persons who executed it, if possible, and also to look at the surrounding fa.cts, so that we may place ourselves in the same position as the contracting parties and thus learn what was in contemplation.
“ It is known that' at the time of the passage of the act of April 10, 1866, sales of the scrip had almost ceased.. It was thought that there .was a good chance that the land which might be located under this scrip would in the future greatly appreciate in value, and it.was the wish of those interested in its welfare that the university-should, in some way, reap the *188■benefit of' this increase. But it had no funds to purchase the scrip, and it needed ready money as an income to aid it in the discharge of its duties as an educational institution. Hence the problem was to find some one who would purchase the scrip and pay for it, and then locate and sell the lands at the higher prices which it was hoped they would attain and give the profits to the university. A glance at the correspondence .between Mr. Cornell and the Comptroller, and at the minutes of the proceedings of the Land Commissioners,’and the other evidence in the case, shows that there was no one else than Mr. Cornell who was ever thought of as a person who would , take upon himself such burdens, troubles, labors and responsibilities, for the purpose of giving away all the profits which might, in the future, arise from such sales. It is seen by reference to that correspondence that Mr. Cornell and the Comptroller differed in regard to the construction of the act, the Comptroller holding that the act really meant that the net avails of the scrip should be placed under the custody of the State, while it may be inferred that the idea of Mr. Cornell was that the profits, after paying the original thirty cents and the additional thirty cents (if realized) as the purchase price of the scrip, might be placed as he should choose, provided the university should receive the benefit of the whole income arising from such profits. Under date of June 9, 1866, Mr. Cornell, in his letter to the Comptroller, speaks of his differing with'the Comptroller in his construction of the law, but adds: * Appreciating, as I do most fully, your motives for desiring to give the utmost possible security and. permanency to the funds which are, in a great degree, to constitute the endowment of the Cornell University, I shall most cheerfully accept your views so far as to consent to. place the entire profits, to be derived from the sale of the lands to be located with the college land scrip, in the treasury of the State, if the State will ' receive. the money as a separate fund from that which map be derived from the sale of scrip, and will Jeeep it permanently ’ unvested and appropriate the proceeds from the income thereof manually. to the Cornell University, subject to the direction of the trustees thereof, for the general purposes of said institution, *189and 'not to hold it subject to the restrictions which the act of Congress places %ipon the fund derivable from the sale of the college la/nd scrip or as a donation from the government of the United States, but as a donation from Ezra Cornell to the Cornell University.’
“ Mr. Cornell thus plainly understood that the purchase price of the scrip, from the State was thirty cents án acre, with a possible thirty cents more if he should realize that sum on the sale of the land, and that any sum beyond.that came to him as profits on- his sale of the scrip or land to third parties, ■ and that sum, being his own profits, he was willing to donate' to the university, and for that purpose to pay the same into the treasury of the State, .the same to be invested and the . income therefrom to be paid by the State to the university for the general purposes of the institution, and not as part of the purchase price of the scrip to be invested under the act of Congress. It was ■ after the receipt of this letter that the agreement was made, the subdivision six containing, in substance, the provision asked for by Mr. Cornell.
“While in some portions of this agreement, if read alone and laying aside all knowledge of the. contemporary history of. the events surrounding it, there might arise some doubt as to the meaning of such portion, yet when read as a whole and in the light of those events, I think no real and grave doubt can exist as to .the meaning of this instrument. It seems clear to my mind that the State sold this land scrip at thirty cents per acre, with an additional thirty cents if so much should thereafter be realized upon, the sale by the vendee of the State,'and that this constitutes the purchase price of such scrip, which, when assigned to Mr. Cornell by the State, in'accordance with the terms of the contract, he became the. legal owner of. He, it is true, also agreed that his profits should- be paid into the treasury of the State, but they were to be paid therein as profits and not as any portion of the purchase price of .the-scrip, and they were to be paid, and- were in fact paid-, as-’ profits of Mr. Cornell, and they were received under that' agreement as the property of the Cornell University, the-income of which was to be paid to-it for its general purposes, *190and the principal was to constitute the Cornell endowment fund. I cannot see that in all this there was nothing but an agency .created in behalf of the State, and that Mr. Cornell was such agent, and that the whole profits realized were really nothing but j;he proceeds of the sale of the lands by the State. The State, on the contrary, by the very terms of "the agreement, sold the scrip, and the legal title, by patents from the government of the United States, was vested in Mr. Cornell •when he located the lands under the scrip which he had purchased, and took out his patents upon such location. Neither can I see that the purchaser of the scrip gave or intended to give, or was supposed to give, his profits as part of such purchase price. His agreement is plain, and in it he stated what such purchase price was, and what he would give for the scrip, and the fact that he agreed to pay his profits, if any were realized, into the treasury of the State, as the. property of the . university, which was to have the income thereof paid over to it for its general purposes, does not, to my mind, render such profits any portion of the purchase price of the scrip. They were profits which he hoped to' be able to realize in the future, but were entirely speculative in character and amount, dependent largely upon the judgment with which the lands were located, and the time and manner of their sale. All this Mr. Cornell was willing to do for this university, but the agreement shows that he was to do it as a gift of his own, and not as a mere agent of the State or of the United States; and that all the compensation he sought for his services, his trouble and his responsibilities, great and onerous as they were, was the fact that all this should go to the university as his gift, and the State become the custodian of the profits under a duty to appropriate the income tó the trustees for the general purposes of the university.
“The counsel for the institution may be entirely right in-•his statements as to the law regarding this branch of the question, if he is right in the fundamental proposition as to the profits being a part of the purchase price or the avails of the sale of the scrip by the State; but until he can maintain the correctness of that proposition, I do not think his argu*191ment reaches the trouble. I do not think the proposition is correct. The profits were the avails of the sale of the scrip by Mr. Cornell, not in any sense the avails of the sale of the scrip by the State. I think, also, that the agreement is fully authorized by the act of April 10, 1866. It gives the right to the Commissioners of the- Land Office to sell the scrip, or any part thereof, for the price which was' to be fixed by the Comptroller, and not less than thirty cents per acre. The •right'to sell the scrip at the price fixed by the Comptroller was based upon the condition that the persons who purchased at such price should also agree to pay over the net avails or profits from the sale by them of the scrip or lands located under it, as they should be received, and that they should be ‘ devoted to the purposes of such institution or institutions as have been or shall be created by the act, chapter 585 of the laws of 1865,’ (the charter of Cornell University,) in accordance with the provisions of the act of Congress before men- . tioned. This .does not mean that all these possible profits are to be deposited in the state treasury, subject to the same rules that would obtain in the case of the purchase price of the scrip, but only that they shall be devoted to the institution created. by the act of 1865, in accordance with the provisions of the act of Congress already mentioned. Of course the purchase price — that which was fixed by the Comptroller — was to-go into the treasury and be invested as provided for by the act of Congress.
“The reference in the above section of the act of 1866 to such institution or institutions as have been or shall be created by the act, chapter 585 of the laws of 1865, can, of course, be to none but the Cornell University, and hence the provision in the agreement that the profits shall all be devoted to that institution was proper. As that university had complied with all the conditions imposed upon it by the State as a condition to its right to receive all the income from this fund, the right to it could not be taken from it. ■ This the Commissioners' of the Land Office stated in their report to the constitutional convention in answer to a request from that body for information as to this land scrip. And in this report, under date of *192July 22, 1867, the Comptroller, as a member of the Board of Commissioners of the Land Office, and one of the officers who executed the contract with Mr. Cornell in August, 1866, stated as follows : ‘ In deciding what portion of the income of the money paid into the treasury under the agreement with Mr. Cornell would be subject to this limitation ’ (set forth in the act of Congress) ‘as to its use and application, the Commissioners of the Land Office assumed that the prohibition applied only to the purchase-money received by the- State on a sale of the scrip,, and that the ultimate profits to be derived from the location and sale of the lands by the purchaser formed no part of the purchase-money, and need not, therefore, be included. The nominal price, however, which was fixed on the scrip by the act of 1866, and for which it was sold, in consideration of the stipulation to pay over the net projits, being less than the market rates, it was stipulated in the sixth sectioif of the agreement that an additional thirty cents per acre from the net profits should, when such profits were paid into the treasury, be added to the purchase-money, thus increasing the price to .sixty cents per acre, the current rate for the scrip at the date of the transaction, and limiting the purposes to which it may be applied in conformity with the terms of the grant by Congress.’
“Here, then, in addition to the language as used .in the agreement itself, which when read as a whole seems to me quite plain, we find what Mr. Cornell was willing to do, as set forth in his letter to the Comptroller above quoted from, in which he claims the act permitted it, and he would donate the profits as a gift from himself to the university; and we find in an official report of one. of the officers executing the contract, ■ speaking ■ for himself and associates, what was their understanding of this agreement. From all sources, the agreement itself and the separate views of the parties to- it, it appears the construction should be, and was, that the profits formed no part of the purchase price or the avails of the sale of the scrip by the State, (over the thirty cents per acre if' realized,) and that such profits belonged to che university' by the gift of Mr: Cornell, the vendee of the scrip from the State, *193the income to -be paid to the trustees of the university'for the general purposes of the same.”
. By an act passed May 4, 1868, (Laws of New York, of 1868, c. 554,) the legislature- authorized the Comptroller to invest the moneys which might be received in excess of sixty cents per acre, under the contract of August-4, 1866, and which thereunder went into “ the Cornell Endowment Eund,” not only in stocks of the United States or of the State of New York, or in some other safe stocks yielding not less than five per cent per annum on the par value thereof, (according to the restriction in section 4 of the act of Congress of July 2, 1862,) but also “ on bonds secured by mortgage upon unincumbered real estate, situated within this State, worth at least double the amount secured by such mortgage.” The statute also provided as follows : “ The said fund and the interest and income thereof, subject to the expenses of the care and management of the same, shall be held for and devoted to the purposes of the said Cornell University, in pursuance of the contract before mentioned.”
As to this statute, the Court of Appeals says (p. 127): “ This must be taken as a legislative recognition of .the fact that the agreement of sale t.o Mr. Cornell was for thirty (possibly sixty) cents an acre, and that all profits belonged to Mr. Cornell, but that by an agreement he had agreed to give them to the university for the general purposes thereof. We cannot assume that the State would have run counter to the express provisions of the act of Congress, by enacting that the purchase price of the scrip might be invested in- a mannér forbidden by that act.”
In 1873, the legislature appointed a commission consisting of William A. Wheeler, John D. Yan Burén, and Horatio Seymour, to ascertain the condition of the land grant and to report whether the acts of Congress and of the legislature had been complied with in the sale and disposition of the lands. The first two-named of the commissioners reported, in April,' 1874, that the profits realized by Mr. Cornell from the sale of the-lands formed part of the purchase price of the scrip, while Governor Seymour reported that he was of a contrary opinion.
*194• The legislature ultimately, and by an act passed May 18, 1880, (Laws of New York, of 3880, o. 317,) directed the Comptroller, upon the request of Cornell ■ University, to. assign, transfer, pay and deliver to the latter “ all moneys, securities, .stocks, bonds and contracts, constituting a part of or relating to the fund known as the Cornell Endowment Fund, now held by the State for the úse of said university.” This was done because, under an agreement made between Ezra Cornell and his wife .and the university, on the’13th of October, 1874,; with the consent of the Comptroller and the Commissioners of the Land Office, Mr. Cornell and his wife had conveyed to the university all their rights under any agreement between him and the State relating to the land scrip or to any lands located or to be located under it, and the university had covenanted that it- would assume and perform all the agreements made between him and the State in reference to the land scrip or the land, and would discharge his obligations held by the State. The university had paid to the State a part of the additional thirty cents per acre which the State was to receive, if realized, as thé purchasé price of the scrip.
' On all these facts the Court of Appeals says, in its opinion (p. 128): “ The State has made and makes no claim that -any portion of these profits over the thirty cents an acre forms any portion of the purchase price of the sale of the scrip by it. The university^ by its agreement with Mr. Cornell and by taking exactly his position, and by receiving the moneys and securities of the Cornell endowment fund by virtue of the act' of 1880, clearly has taken the position that it was the owner of this fund, and was not indebted to the State therefor. Its reports show that they (the trustees of the university), claimed that it had no debts, and they acknowledged none to the State on account of this fund. If it existed, it would certainly be a somewLat onerous position for the State to be in., It must have-, all the proceeds of the sale of this scrip, including in such case all the profits of the past and what may hereafter arise;. it must pay all expenses, etc., after location, in the way of taxes, and .all incurred in the management, and disbursement of the moneys, and must invest in 'stocks of the kind *195■ described in the act of Congress, and' must forever guarantee the whole amount, so that if 'any of the principal is lost it must be supplied by the State, and it must pay over the five per cent interest on the whole of this fund to the university. This, of course, does-not weigh in case the decision were that the law is in that condition. For the reasons already given, I do not think it is.”
On the question whether the legislation of "New York,-or the agreement of August 4, 1866, was in violation of the act of' Congress, the Court of Appeals says (p. 129): “ Interpreted • as we have interpreted the agreement and the act of the legislature of New York, the remaining inquiry is, does the New York statute, or the agreement under it, run counter to the act of Congress creating this land scrip trust ? I think not. It'provides that all moneys derived from the sale of the land scrip by the State shall be invested,, etc., as therein prescribed. The scrip is to be sold by the State, which could not itself locate the land, and the avails of such sale are to be invested. The .avails of the sale of the scrip by the State were the purchase price thereof; and if I am right, that the profits formed no part of such purchase price, but were the property of the' vendee of the State, which he agreed to give to the university for general purposes, us his gift and to form the property of the university, then the act of Congress has no concern 'with it.
“ Another consideration may be adverted to.. It is exceed- • ingly doubtful, in my mind, whether the university can be' heard to claim the existence of this alleged debt under',the facts of this case. The State has made, and makes, no claim upon the university for the property or any portion of it.. It was placed in its possession by virtue of the consent of the State, evidenced by the passage of an act authorizing and directing it. The university has claimed to be the owner of it, and no one has drawn its rightful title in question. Can. it now, while enjoying, without hostile claim from any source, the full ■ control' of. the property, as its absolute owner, set up, as a. reason why it should be allowed to take other property, that. perhaps hereafter some one may make a claim that the. prop*196erty does not belong to tbe university, but that it is a trust fund originating in the act of Congress ? If the State or the United States were to commence some proceeding, based on the counsel’s argument, to reclaim possession of the property, there is nothing in the present attitude of the university which would necessarily estop or in any way conclude it from denying that any such trust exists, or that any case had been made for taking the possession ■ of the property out of its hands. So far as appears, it seems that this assumed indebtedness is entirely gratuitous on its part, and that there is no creditor who makes the claim, no one who questions its title. It is going a good ways, under such circumstances, to lay much weight on a liability which, up to this proceeding, was never admitted by the university, and is not now asserted by any one else. • It would seem as if property which was thus in the possession of the corporation, unclaimed by any one else, was held by it within the meaning of its charter, and that the question in regard to the character of its holding was merely an abstract one with which courts would not deal, at' least so far as this proceeding is concerned.
“In all these matters it must be borne in mind the parties have all been acting in the most entire and perfect good faith. This was no scheme to avoid or evade the provisions of the act of Congress. The price of sixty cents an acre which the State got for the land was all it was worth at that time. Its future value depended upon many coiitingencies. The State had the right to sell the scrip for such price as it might agree on on with a purchaser. This it did. The university wanted money to pay its expenses. It could not very well wait-for twenty or even five years for the purpose of seeing how the value of this scrip would appreciate, if at all. The legislature was equally in earnest in its desire for the prosperity of the institution; so were the state officers, and, above and beyond all,- so was Mr. Cornell, its generous founder, and already the donor of such a large amount of money. Taking all the circumstances' into consideration, the plan carried out was hit upon, and the amount of the Cornell endowment fund and the property arising therefrom must be regarded as a gift of the donor and' *197founder, and not as a violation of either the act of Congress, or of the act of our own legislature.”
The Court of Appeals then states (p. 131) the position of the university'with reference to the value of its property as follows’: Funds' from individuals, (including the value of the university buildings, farm, grounds, etc., at $69,683.33,) as fixed by the surrogate, $598,588.65 ; Western lands, $1,648,178.56; Western land contracts, $439,334.22; total, $2,686,101.43. It states that the Supreme Court advanced the $69,683.33 to “ $385,0.00,” being an advance of “ $315,316.67,” and that, adding this $315,316.67 to the $2,686,101.43 makes a total of $3,001,418.10, without counting as property the College Land Scrip Fund in the hands of the State.
The statement that the Supreme Court advanced the $69,683.33 to $385,000 would appear by the record to be a . clerical error, for, although Judge Merwin, in his opinion in the Supreme Court, states that the appellants there were entitled to a finding that the property represented by the item ,of $69,683.33 was, at the date of the death of Mrs. Fiske, of the value “at least ” of $385,000, the judgment of the Supreme Court expressly adjudges that the item of $69,683.33 is fixed by it at $400,000, and that it finds that the value of the property of the university held and owned by it at .the death of .Mrs. Fiske was $3,015,414.71. But-, in either case, the amount ■exceeded $3,000,000.
. We concur with the Court of Appeals in the conclusion that ■the sixty cents per acre was the purchase price of the land scrip ; that, under the agreement of August 4,1866, the profits to be made by Mr. Cornell, although to be paid into the treasury of the State, were not any portion of the purchase price of- the scrip, but were to be paid in, and were in fact paid in, ’as his profits, and were received by the State, as the sixth section of the agreement states, as, “ a separate and distinct .fund, which shall be the property of the Cornell University, to be known as the ‘ Cornell Endowment Fund,’ ” and that,the’ ■income of the money was to be paid to the university for its .general purposes, and the principal was to constitute the “ Cor-. ,npll Endowment Fund.”
*198The Court of Appeals states that it cannot see that in all this there was nothing but an agency created in behalf of the State, and that Mr. Cornell was such agent, and that the whole profits were really nothing but the proceeds of the land scrip sold by the State. In this connection, a reference may not be inappropriate to the clear and incisive statement of Governor Seymour, in his minority report before referred to. After stating that his associates were of opinion that the contract was an actual sale to Mr. Cornell, but that all profits •' made from the land were part of the purchase-money, and so subject to-the restrictions of the act of Congress, Governor Seymour says that he is forced to the conclusion that the construction which involves merging-the two funds into one is inconsistent with the pledges of the State to- Congress. He adds: “When New York accepted the grant’of the general government, it did so with the full knowledge of this clause in the act of Congress, viz.: ‘That the grant of land and of land scrip hereby authorized shall be made on the follovying conditions, to which, as well as to the provisions hereinbefore contained, the previous assent of the several States shall be signified by legislative acts.’ One of these conditions is, ‘ that in no case shall any State to which land scrip may thus be issued be allowed to locate the same within the limits of any other State.’ This State only had the right to sell its scrip. If it has no right to. locate land openly and directly, can it do the same thing under cover and indirectly ? If the State can claim all the proceeds of the lands entered by its scrip in the State of Wisconsin, after deducting the costs of taxes and expenses and the price of its scrip, does it not claim and get everything it would if the land had been taken up in the name of the State ?' Is there any. stronger or clearer way of saying that a man is entitled to all there is of value in any property, than to say he has a right to all the money it will bring after paying' taxes and expenses'? Does any citizen of our country hold a more ample interest in land, by virtue of deeds or patents, than vs held by him who has a right to all that it will bring by sales or leases, after paying taxes and expenses? All of our.citizens who have lands in Western States, or elsewhere, in fact own *199them upon these terms. Is the case in any way changed by using the term profit in place of the word proceeds, to express the amount the State can claim by their construction of the contract ? Any construction of the contract with Mr. Cornell, which makes the State the substantial owner of these lands and converts the transactions into any agency, is not merely a technical and immaterial violation of its pledges. It conflicts with the act of Congress and infringes in a serious way upon the rights of Wisconsin and other States where the lands held by Mr. Cornell are situated. The careful way with which the law of Congress distinguishes between the proceeds of land and of land scrip was designed to protect such States. But for the restraints of the act the old States could enter all their scrip at the land offices of the West. Their wealth would enable them to pay taxes and keep the lands from market for an advance of price. For this reason the restriction was put into the act. Ownership by this State under cover, no matter what terms are used to hide its interests, or what objects or pretexts are displayed as an excuse for its action, is a violation of .its pledges to Congress and of the rights and interests of other States. As a rule, individuals are unable, for any length of time, to hold large tracts of land. Nearly the whole amount of scrip given by Congress to the several States has been used by settlers to buy homes in the West, and has thus promoted their prosperity. Congress contemplated this when it forbade, one State to take up land within the bounds of another. The.agreement is a sale of the scrip to Mr. Cornell, and the profits made by him out of tlie lands taken up by him with the scrip, when given to the university, will be a gift for the general purposes of the institution, ‘ and not subject to the-restrictions of the act of Congress.’ These profits will be the result of his skill and labor. It is the intent of the act of 1862 that no State shall, under any pretence, in any manner, or in any degree, acquire title or right to lands in another State.” We are of opinion that, by the terms of the agreement, the State sold the scrip to Mr. Cornell, and that the legal title to the lands located by him under the scrip was vested in him when he took out patents upon such.locatiofl. The terms of *200the agreement show that'the profits which Mr. Cornell hoped .to realize from the sale of the lands, beyond the second thirty cents per acre, were intended by both parties to the agreement to be a gift from Mr. Cornell personally to the university, and not from him as- a mere agent of the State or of the United States ; and that the State became the custodian of such profits, not under the act of Congress, but under the duty which it assumed to take care of the fund as a fund belonging to the university, as the property of the university, and to appropriate the income to the trustees of the institution for its general purposes. The State has provided, as required by the act of Congress, for the investment in the manner prescribed by that act, of the moneys derived from the sale of the land scrip. It was under no obligation to treat as falling within the provisions of the act of Congress any other moneys than those derived from the sale of such scrip, or any moneys derived from the sale of the lands which the •purchaser of the scrip should locate and obtain patents for.
The State could not itself, or by an agent acting in its behalf, locate or obtain patents for any land which the scrip represented. Therefore, the claim of the university and of Mr. Boardman as executor, that the act of .Congress was violated in the transaction between the State and Mr. Cornell, and that the moneys and property derived from the sale of the- lánds by Mr. Cornell formed, on the actual facts, no part, of the $3,000,000 of property held by the university, is not warranted by law.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of New, York, entered December 12, 1888, establishing as - its judgment the judgment of the Court of Appeals of New York, rendered November 27, 1888, affirming the judgment of the Supreme Court herein, entered December 14, 1887, is

Affirmed.