template any plan more likely to effect this measure than the establishment of a university in a central part of the United States, to which scholars from all parts of the Union may resort, and, by associating with each other and forming friendships in juvenile years, be enabled to free themselves in a proper degree from local prejudices and habitual jealousies, which, when carried to excess, are never-failing sources of disquietude to the public mind, and pregnant with mischievous consequences to this country."

On the 5th of December, 1810, JAMES MADISON, in his annual message, invites the attention of Congress to the advantages of superadding to the means of education provided by the several states, a seminary of learning instituted by the National Legislature within the limits of their exclusive jurisdiction.

Such an institution, he says, though local in its legal character, would be universal in its beneficial effects. The additional instruction emanating from it would contribute not less to strengthen the foundation than to adorn the structure of our free and happy system of government.

When we commenced the enterprise of establishing the National University at Washington, we were fully aware that the recommendations of WASHINGTON and MADISON and JOHN QUINCY ADAMS had been forgotten, and that public attention must again be turned to it by renewed agitation. The university had remained ideal, invisible and intangible. The first step to be taken was to render it material, visible and tangible by incorporation.

The Act of Congress providing for the creation of corporations in the District of Columbia by the general law was approved May 5, 1870. The Act provides the mode of establishing institutions of learning of the rank of a college or university. In accordance with these provisions, the National University, on the 19th day of September, 1870, became a body politic and corporate, entitled to perpetual succession, with power to sue and be sued; to acquire, hold and convey real and personal property; to have and use a common seal; to make by-laws necessary for the government of the university; and to confer upon such persons as may be considered worthy such academical or honorary degrees as are usually conferred by similar institutions. The university became competent, both in law and in equity, to take in their corporate name real and personal property by gift, grant, conveyance, will, devise or bequest of any person, and dispose of the same for the use and benefit of said institution.

This university, in the words of MADISON, is "local in its legal character, but universal in its beneficial effects." Following the advice of WASHINGTON "that the primary object of such a national institution should be to educate our young men in the science of government," its founders first established the Law College for the education of those young men who, as statesmen and jurists, are to be the future guardians of the liberties of our country, as in the past they have been its heroic defenders.

The charter of the National University makes the President of the United States (ex officio) chancellor of the university. Its first annual commencement was held at Lincoln Hall, on Tuesday evening, May 21, 1872. President GRANT, in the presence of one of the most intelligent audiences ever assembled in Washington, conferred the degree of Bachelor of Laws upon a class of thirty

one young men who had pursued their course of study for two years in the university. The signing of the diplomas and the conferring of the degrees by the President of the United States were honors never before conferred upon any class of law-students in this country. But they richly deserved the honor conferred upon them.

When the irrepressible conflict of opinion, springing from the antagonistic principles of liberty and slavery, culminated in the conflict of arms, these young men were pursuing their daily avocations in schools and colleges, in countingrooms and workshops, at the plow and at the anvil. When secession had dragged from the flag one-third of the stars that glittered on its azure folds, and the rebel flag floated in sight of the capital, a call was issued to the friends of liberty to rally in the defense of the old flag and the life of the republic.

These young men left the hammer on the anvil, the plow in the furrow, their tools upon the bench, their books upon their desks, and hastened to join the grand army of the republic. Such an army was never before marshaled and led to the deadly conflict. For four years the battle raged, till blood filled the valleys and flowed even to the horse's bridle. Thousands of prisoners of war died of starvation in gloomy prisons. The land was filled with widows and orphans, and there was mourning in every household.

On every battle-field for the suppression of the rebellion, in the spot where the balls flew thickest and steel met steel the fiercest, these young men were found rallying round the old flag, and offering their own lives at the altar of liberty to save the life of the republic.

As one young man sighted his rifle, the enemy's ball struck him in the right eye, and went crashing through his brain. As another advanced to the assault,

one of his lower limbs was shot away and he could advance no further. As another advanced at the head of his regiment, a ball struck him in the breast, passing through the left lung, near the heart. Another carries in his body a rifle-ball which causes constant pain, but it can not be removed without certain death. One was wounded in the shoulder and his right arm paralyzed. Another left his right arm, and another his left arm, on the battle-field. These are only a part of the sacrifices this class made to secure the proud position we this day hold among the nations.

The Hon. G. G. WRIGHT, United States Senator from Iowa, delivered the concluding address.

This department of the university has now been in active operation for three years, and the number of graduates has increased to sixty-one.

It was the design of the founders of the university that free instruction should be given to students in all its colleges, and that the students should be charged only for the necessary incidental expenses, which in no case should exceed one-half of the customary tuition. This plan has been and will be strictly adhered to. All the professors have contributed their services without fee or reward.

Thus we see the National University, so anxiously desired by our ancestors, rising steadily and surely among us, by private sacrifice and private enterprise, and assuming a position which challenges the confidence of every American citizen.

Thus far, when the question has been put to us, "Upon what is the National University founded?" we have been compelled to reply, "Upon brains only; we have no pecuniary foundation." How long we shall be required in good conscience to give this reply depends upon the justice of Congress or the liberality of private citizens.

We made application to Congress, during the session of 1870 and 1871, for an endowment. A bill for that purpose was introduced in the House and referred to the Committee on Education and Labor. A delegation from the incorporators appeared before the committee, and several able arguments were made, but no report was reached during that session.

During the session of the last Congress, a bill was introduced in the Senate by Senator Howe, which was broad in its scope and liberal in its endowment. No report was made on Senator Howe's bill, but another bill, a few weeks later in the session, was introduced in the House and referred to the Committee on Education and Labor. This bill, after careful consideration, was unanimously reported to the House and its passage recommended.

The committee, in their report, state that they have no hesitation in saying that, while the foreign is superior to the American universities, neither the one nor the other is a true university. They describe the leading objects of a true university, and say that as far as any institution falls short of these objects, so far does it fall short of a true university.

The committee say that the deficiencies they describe can not be supplied by any institution previously existing, for the following reasons:

(1) That none have the essential pecuniary resources.

(2) That none are entirely free from sectional and denominational objections.

(3) That the National University must be on neutral ground, and under the exclusive control of the general government.

The bill provides that the National University shall be permanently located at the national capital, where the representatives of every section of the country annually assemble, where the representatives of all the foreign powers reside, and where the government has unquestioned authority to establish and maintain such an institution.

The plan of endowment is for the government to issue certificates to the amount of twenty millions of dollars, bearing interest at 5 per cent. per annum, amounting to one million dollars, to be expended in establishing and maintaining the university.

In the manner I have described, the attention of Congress and of the people at large is turned to the accomplishment of this great object, which will prove to be the crowning glory of the first century of our national existence.

The City of Washington, in a few years, under the skillful management of the Board of Public Works, will become one of the most beautiful and attractive cities on this continent, and it is in the power of Congress, by the permanent establishment and liberal endowment of the National University, to make our national capital the intellectual centre of the nations.

President McCosh, of Princeton, liked the idea of a national university of a character so high that it would not be a competitor of any existing institution.

He did not favor any project yet proposed. He thought that one of the propositions enunciated by President ELIOT was antagonistic to the principle of free public education. He spoke of the absence, out of large cities and towns, of provision for public education in the South.

President Eliot disclaimed such an application of his proposition, and asserted that he is a friend to the common-school system.

Mr. Richards, of Washington, D.C., said: I do not propose to discuss this question at large; but there are some points in the remarkable paper before us which deserve a special notice. It must be evident to all, I think, that the spirit, as well as the language, of the paper exhibits more of a disposition to criticise and throw contempt upon the bills before Congress, and upon their alleged author, than to present the true character of said bills, and the real motives of their author.

The insinuations that Dr. HoYT, as chairman of an important committee on a national university, has been governed by ambitious motives, and by a purpose to act without regard to the opinions of his associates, are unworthy of the author of the paper, and I consider them undeserved and unjust. I speak as a member of the committee, having a thorough acquaintance with Dr. HoYT. No man could be actuated by higher and nobler motives than those which appear to have influenced Dr. HOYT. No man could be more unselfish, selfdenying, and ready to cooperate with all the members of the committee.

He may have been obliged to act alone, or not act at all, as is frequently done by chairmen of committees; and as the author of the paper before us has himself done to-day. Happy is he who condemns not another in the thing which he allows. If other members did not meet Dr. HoYT and consult with him, the fault is their own; as I am sure he invited their coöperation. If the grand plan for a national university had been designed for some other locality than Washington, I think we should not have noticed the same spirit of criticism.

Again, some unfavorable insinuations have been thrown out against the health and climate of Washington, which, I am bold to say, have no merit as an argument against locating the national university at Washington, for the facts will show that hardly a city in our country can show a better healthrecord. This surely is a weak point to make.

Again, the people of Washington are slurred, if not defamed, in reference to their moral character. They are accused of being corrupt, and under the influence of "rings." This we deny; but if it were true, where, I ask in the name of common sense, does the immorality and the corrupting influence of rings come from? Surely not from our regular resident citizens; but from interlopers, lobbyists and scoundrels from all parts of our country. We have bad men, but they were made so before going to Washington. The people outside of Washington make our rascals, and send them among us, to corrupt our citizens, and such members of Congress as were not corrupted before going there. We are trying to guard ourselves against their corrupting influence; and, besides, if we are so bad, so much the more do we need the purifying and enlightening influence of a grand national university.

But, finally, I fail to be convinced by the arguments of the paper that a

national university is not in accordance with the genius of our government, and that it is not a necessity-just such a university as is proposed in the bills which have been ridiculed. If the government can do any thing for education, it surely can give the best kind of education. Our schools must be supported either by the state, or by sects, or not at all. Schools we must have, but who wants purely sectarian schools?

Our venerable friend Dr. McCosн need 'have no apprehensions as to the real character of the university, if it should be established upon the general principles contained in the bills now before Congress, for they are specially drawn up and designed to provide for the class of students which, he says, need a higher culture than can now be received in our country. I am sorry to say that the doctor does not seem to have read or studied the bills referred to. There may be objectionable features in them, which, after careful deliberation, may be removed. A candid and careful examination will hardly fail to convince any unbiased mind that these bills provide for that higher culture, so much demanded, without interfering with our present colleges and so-called universities, except to improve and elevate them, and without affecting the religious views of any denomination or sect.

W. P. Atkinson, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, said he seldom agreed with President ELIOT, but on this occasion he must agree with him entirely. Universities are not built, they grow. He illustrated this point at length.

Dr. Daniel Reed explained the origin of the common-school system in its relation to the national government.

Prof. Edward S. Joynes, of Washington-and-Lee University, Lexington, Va., agreed with ELIOT and ATKINSON. He disclaimed the application of Dr. McCosi's remark as to education in the South, so far as it applied to Virginia.

John Hancock, Superintendent of the Schools in Cincinnati, criticised the utterance of President ELIOT as to the function of the government. He thought the government had a right to promote higher education. The functions of government change with its conditions.

Rev. Geo. P. Hays, President of Washington-and-Jefferson College, Pa., spoke as follows: I am much gratified at this discussion, for, whatever else it may do, it promotes the coming of an American University from some quarter. For that university, in some form and from some source, I am an earnest advocate. You will notice that, while we have but one and the same thing in view, we are only at variance as to the method by which it is to be secured. One method is by the national government, and the other is by the transformation of some of our present colleges into the true university.

Is it doubted that there is a demand for such a university? That question has its answer indicated by the large numbers of our best graduates who are looking to professorships and other scholarly positions; who go to Europe,-by Professor AGASSIZ's school on the island in New England and by the efforts of Harvard and Yale to establish a university course of lectures.

I am not here to defend the bills referred to. In the correspondence, I advo