admitting such a power in the Legislature as has been assumed in this case. Many cases of possible evil have been imagined, which might otherwise be without remedy. Abuses, it is contended, might arise in the management of such institutions, which the ordinary courts of law would be unable to correct. But this is only another instance of that habit of supposing extreme cases, and then of reasoning from them, which is the constant refuge of those who are obliged to defend a cause which upon its merits is indefensible. It would be sufficient to say in answer that it is not pretended that there was here any such case of necessity. But a still more satisfactory answer is, that the apprehension of danger is groundless, and therefore the whole argument fails. Experience has not taught us that there is danger of great evils or of great inconvenience from this source. Hitherto, neither in our own country nor elsewhere have such cases of necessity occurred. The judicial establishments of the State are presumed to be competent to prevent abuses and violations of trust in cases of this kind, as well as in all others. If they be not, they are imperfect, and their amendment would be a most proper subject for legislative wisdom. Under the government and protection of the general laws of the land, these institutions have always been found safe, as well as useful. They go on with the progress of society, accommodating themselves easily, without sudden change or violence, to the alterations which take place in its condition, and in the knowledge, the habits and pursuits of men. The English colleges were founded in Catholic ages. Their religion was reformed with the general reformation of the nation, and they are suited perfectly well to the purpose of educating the Protestant youth of modern times. Dartmouth College was established under a charter granted by the provincial Government; but a better constitution for a

college, or one more adapted to the condition of things under the present Government, in all material respects, could not now be framed. Nothing in it was found to need alteration at the Revolution. The wise men of that day saw in it one of the best hopes of future times, and commended it as it was, with parental care, to the protection and guardianship of the Government of the State. A charter of more liberal sentiments, of wiser provisions, drawn with more care or in a better spirit, could not be expected at any time or from any source. The college. needed no change in its organization or government. That which it did need was the kindness, the patronage, the bounty, of the Legislature; not a mock elevation to the character of a university, without the solid benefit of a shilling's donation to sustain the character; not the swelling and empty authority of establishing institutes and other colleges. This unsubstantial pageantry would seem to have been in derision of the scanty endowment and limited means of an unobtrusive, but useful and growing, seminary. Least of all was there a necessity, or pretence of necessity, to infringe its legal rights, violate its franchises and privileges, and pour upon it these overwhelming streams of litigation.

"But this argument from necessity would equally apply in all other cases. If it be well founded, it would prove that, whenever any inconvenience or evil is experienced from the restrictions imposed on the Legislature by the Constitution, these restrictions ought to be disregarded. It is enough to say that the people have thought otherwise. They have most wisely chosen to take the risk of occasional inconvenience from the want of power, in order that there might be a settled limit to its exercise and a permanent security against its abuse. They have imposed prohibitions and restraints; and they have not rendered these

altogether vain and nugatory by conferring the power of dispensation. If inconvenience should arise which the Legislature cannot remedy under the power conferred upon it, it is not answerable for such inconvenience. That which it cannot do within the limits prescribed to it, it cannot do at all. No Legislature in this country is ableand may the time never come when it shall be able!-to apply to itself the memorable expression of a Roman pontiff: Licet hoc DE JURE non possumus, volumus

tamen DE PLENITUDINE POTESTATIS.'

"The case before the court is not of ordinary importance, nor of every-day occurrence. It affects not this college only, but every college, and all the literary institutions, of the country. They have flourished hitherto, and have become in a high degree respectable and useful to the community. They have all a common principle of existence, the inviolability of their charters. It will be a dangerous, a most dangerous experiment, to hold these institutions subject to the rise and fall of popular parties and the fluctuations of political opinions. If the franchise may be at any time taken away or impaired, the property also may be taken away, or its use perverted. Benefactors will have no certainty of effecting the object of their bounty; and learned men will be deterred from devoting themselves to the service of such institutions, from the precarious title of their offices. Colleges and halls will be deserted by all better spirits, and become a theatre for the contentions of politics. Party and faction will be cherished in the places consecrated to piety and learning. These consequences are neither remote nor possible only. They are certain and immediate.

"When the court in North Carolina declared the law of the State, which repealed a grant to its university, unconstitutional and void, the Legislature had the candor and the

wisdom to repeal the law. This example, so honorable t< the State which exhibited it, is most fit to be followed on this occasion. And there is good reason to hope that a State which has hitherto been so much distinguished for temperate counsels, cautious legislation, and regard to law, will not fail to adopt a course which will accord with her highest and best interests, and in no small degree elevate her reputation."

CHAPTER V.

Mr. Webster again elected to Congress-Debates in Congress respecting Greece-Mr. Webster's Speech on the Occasion-Extract from it-His Opposition to the Tariff-Mr. Webster's Speech on the Laying of Bunker Hill Monument-Chairman of the Judiciary Committee-Reform in the U. S. Supreme Court-Mr. Webster's Speech on the Death of John Adams-He is elected Senator from Massachusetts in the Twentieth Congress.

IN December, 1823, Mr. Webster again took his seat in the House of Representatives at Washington. He had been elected by a very large majority of the citizens of Boston, in consequence of the high fame which he had attained as a statesman, and the confidence which he had secured in their personal esteem. A committee composed of Thomas Perkins, William Sturgis, and other distinguished residents of Boston, called upon him to inform him. of his nomination; and to their solicitations that he should - run as a candidate, he yielded. His opponent in the canvass was Jesse Putnam. When Congress convened Henry Clay was again chosen Speaker; and many familiar faces welcomed Mr. Webster to the scene of his former brilliant displays of eloquence and statesmanship.

The first subject of general interest which engaged the attention of the House was the deadly conflict which was at that time raging in Greece between the heroic defenders of Grecian liberty and the fierce and savage myrmidons of the Turkish despot. The whole civilized world felt a deep interest in that memorable struggle. England, France, Germany and Poland had experienced the thrilling effect of a spectacle in which, on the one