xt7sxk84nj8k_100 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7sxk84nj8k/data/mets.xml https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7sxk84nj8k/data/L2021ua019.dao.xml Kentucky University 18.26 Cubic Feet 32 document boxes, 5 flat boxes, 21 bound volumes archival material L2021ua019 English University of Kentucky Property rights reside with Transylvania University.  The University of Kentucky holds the copyright for materials created in the course of business by University of Kentucky employees. Copyright for all other materials has not been assigned to the University of Kentucky.  For information about permission to reproduce or publish, please contact the Special Collections Research Center.  Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Transylvania University Library. Record Group 5:  Collection on Kentucky University Speech of Hon. John A. Prall text Speech of Hon. John A. Prall 2024 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7sxk84nj8k/data/L2021ua019/Box_5_22/Folder_4/Multipage4722.pdf 1874 February 10 1874 1874 February 10 section false xt7sxk84nj8k_100 xt7sxk84nj8k KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY.

SPEECH OF HON.

JOHN A. PRALL,

Delivered in the House of Representatives of lien-
tuoky, February 10th, 1874:, in Opposition to
the Proposed Amendments of the Char-
ter of Kentucky University.

——————.o-.-——-————

I propose as briefly as the scope of
the subject will admit, to discuss the
questions presented in the bill now be-
fore the House, and the pending sub-
stitute and amendment. Whatever
may be the passions or prejudices
which the prolonged agitation of these
questions may have engendered. 1 am

not conscious of having partaken of

either. Towards the Christian Church,
in whose name and behalf these prop-
ositions have been urged, I can have
in my heart no feelings but thoSe of
kindness and respect. Among that
brotherhood, both of the living and
the dead, there are names that I shall
never cease to cherish and to venerate.
And I am gratified to know that
among them are those whose pure
lives and stainless Christian character
all men recognize and honor, and who
deprecate the efforts now being made
as heartily as I do.
There are some singular features in
the question before us. The proposi—
tion is organic, looking to a fundamen-
tal change in the constitution and
structure of the institution which is
the subject of the controversy, and yet
the grounds upon which that proposi-
tion is urged are personal, and relate
to a single individual. It is but an-
other of the instances with which his-
tory is replete, in which institutions in
their nature permanent and designed
to endure for all time, are attempted
o be revolutionized in the interest of
tchemes and purposes, which are per-
sonal and transitory. Strangely
enough, in the present case, the object

of this fierce and bitter war is the
founder of the noble institution from
which the leaders of this movement
would hurl him in disgrace, and has
with a self-abnegation and singleness
of purpose almost without a parallel
devoted his life to its upbuilding. Its
foundations are to be uprooted in or-
der that he may be destroyed. The
grand edifice is to be over-
turned, that he who erected
it may be crushed in its ruins.

There is another singular circum-
stance connected with the attitude of
those who support this measure. We
have been told again and again for the
last three months, almost every day
and every hour, in the discussions be—
fore the joint committee, in the peti-
tions that have been showered upon
us, in the lobbies and everywhere, and
in every form of utterance, until the
sentiment seemed to pervade the very
air we breathe, that Kentucky Uni—
versity was the property of the Chris-
tian Churches, and that this exclusive
and proprietary right of' theirs was so
manifest and so indefeasible that it
would be robbery to deny to them its
exercise. Whatever we may have
thought of the merits of this assump-
tion we had at least a right to suppose
that its advocates were in earnest.
And . yet, strangely enough, we find
these gentlemen, with undiminished
zeal, supporting the substitute which
deprives these churches of that owner-
ship and control and gives it over to
another class of persons designated as
the donors.

 

  

(2)-

I propose now _to consider the
grounds upon which this claim, on be—
half of the Christian Churches, has
been asserted, and to_ show that his
based upon a total misconception of
‘the character, the purposes and the
history. of the. institution. .Nothing
could be more fallacious than the effort

that has been made to treat it as but
' the outgrowth and expansion of Bacon
College, and thus, to determine its
character, ignoring all the other great
elements that have entered into its
composition. Bacon College is no
more Kentucky University as it now
exists than is-the little streamiet,
which gushes forth amid mountain
fastnesses and impenetrable forests,
the great Mississippi, to whose vast
and swelling volume of waters it con-
tributes. The Ohio is no more the
Allegheny than the Monongahela, by
whose confluent currents it is formed.
The Kentucky University which ex-
isted at Harrodsburg had its origin in
BaconCollege, but the Kentucky Eni-
versity which is now the subject of
discussion is the result of the union of
the former with other distinct and
important interests which were not
merged in it so as to destroy their
identity, but coniederated with it up-
:on terms which fully recognized their
separate individuality. ‘It is agreat
literary confederation, in which funds
derived from widely different sources
are brought together in a consolida-
tion which fully recognizes the dis—
tinctive character and origin of its
members and the special trusts and
interests which appertain to each.
The original Kentucky University,
which formed one of the parties in
this consolidation, I am free to con-
cede, had been built up through the
exertions of Mr. Bowman, in a large
measure by subscription, made by
members of Christian Churches; and
their preponderating influence in its
control so far as it was possible under
their congregational system of

church polity,..had been provided for
in the charter of 1858. No greater or
more controlling sectarian influence
could have ' been secured without
overthrowing their whole system of
church government; I do [not say
this to their ’disparagement, for such
is the' system’to which the church of
which I am an humble member has
always adhered. And when our Bap-
tist people conceived the purpose of
establishing an educationalinstitution
at Georgetown we saw at once that it
would be not only unwise, but abso—
lutely impracticable, to place it under
the controlof the Baptist churches.
A church organized under the con-
gregational system has no jurisdictiou
outside of itself and is subject to the
control of no earthly . power from
without. And while the Baptists have
“Associations,” 'and the Christians
“State Meetings,” these bodies come
together mainly to concentrate the in—
fluence and energies of these respect—
ive brotherhoods in benevolent and
missionary objects but can exercise no
ecclesiastical power whatever. Hence
we found it necessary in founding our
institution to have a body created
which should control it, and the “Bap-
tist Education Society” was incorpo-
rated. The founders of Kentucky
University saw the same necessity.
Indeed, so fully were the Christian
churches impressed with the inherent
impossibility of their entering as such
upon the direction of an educational
enterprise, that when Mr. Bowman, in
the fervor of his zeal in behalf of his
great work, asked to be permitted to
present the claims of the enterprise
before the State meeting of his broth—
hood, he was promptly refused. And
hence when the institution came to be
organized, they caused to be incorpo-
rated “for its ownership and control,”
and as custodians of this great trust, a
body of men who should be permanent
and should name their successors; and
these they designated as the "Curators

 

 (03‘)

of Kentucky University,” and provi-
ded that two-thirdsof this body should
always be members of the Christian
Church.

Thus stood the original Kentucky
University when it came here in 1865,
and sought and secured the consolida-
tion to which I have referred. And
then were united three independent
and ccequal interests, to-wit: lst, Ken-
tucky University, as then "existing
with an endowment of about $300,-
000; 21, the Agricultural College, With
a fund of about $165,000, and 31, Tran-
sylvania University, with an endow-
ment and property estimated at $165,-
000. To these were added, as a con-
dition, without which the consolida-
tion could not take effect, the sub-
scription of $100,000 for the purchase
of a farm and erection of the necessary
buildings and improvements to carry
on the operations of an Agricultural
and Mechanical College, and this sub-
scription, which was promptly made,
principally by citizens of Fayette
county, was supplemented by addi-
tional subscriptions to the endowment
fund of nearly $100,000 more, and all
made with reference to the consolida-
tion and in aid of the institution to be
formed by this union.

Of each of these interests thus
blended, and of their relations to the
institution formed by their union, I
propose new to speak. The Govern-
ment of the United States, having in
view the educational interests of the
whole people, had donated to each of
the States a fund in land scrip for the
endowment of Agricultural and Me-
chanical Colleges. It was incumbent
upon our Legislature to provide for
the appropriation ofour pro rata of this
fund. In my place as Senator from the
district of which Bourbon Was a part.
I presented and urged a proposition
from that county, offering a bonus
amounting to about $95,000, for the
location of athe institution in, Paris,
and insisted that the State should

there establish a college which should
be'suhject to its control and free from
every sectarian influence. *1 have be-
fore me the Senate journal setting
forth the proposition in detail. I was
met by the proposal of Mr. Bowman, .
in which he was supported by the
members of his church, and by which
a larger bonus was offered and accom-
panied with the most distinct and em-
phatic protestations, and in Which
those who supported him'all united,
that the institutlon thus to be taken
under their auspices should be equally
free from sectarian and denominational
influence. His proposition was ac;
cepted, and the act establishing the
Agricultural and Mechanical College
of Kentucky as one of the colleges of
Kentucky University was passed. It
is provided in section 4th that in the
appointment of professors and in.
structors, and in its general manage-
ment, “no partiality or preference
shall be shown to one sect or religious
denomination over another, nor shall
anything sectarian be taught therein.”
By section 8th it was provided that
the act should not take effect until
Transylvania University should be
consolidated with Kentucky Univer-
sity, nor “until the Curators of the
latter should assent to the provisions
of the act, and “accept it as part of
ifs charter.”

At the same sessiOn an act was
passed “to consolidate Kentucky Uni-
versity and Transylvania University,"
by which the Curators of the latter.
institution were upon the formal con-
sent of both parties being given, in—
vested with the rights and powers of
the Trustees of Transylvania, and to
“be bound by‘th'e trusts and conditions
to which the said Trustees were subject,”
and that “so far as related to the funds
and property of Transylvania Univer‘
city, the charter of Kentucky Univer-
sity, as herein changed, shall be the
charter of the consolidated University.”
The not also provided that in case the

 

  

(4)

consolidation should cease, the Trus-
tees of Transylvania might resume
their corporate powers and their con-
trol of their institution.

There are these notable features in
these acts to which I desire specially to
, call the attention of the House:

First—That a clear and unmistakable
distinction is drawn between Ken-
tucky University as it was before en-
tering in this alliance, and the “con-
solidated University,” which. was the
result of the alliance, and

Second—That it is recognized that
the charter of the former “became
changed,” In becorning the charter of
the latter.

Now, suppose for the sake of the
argument, we concede that Kentucky
University before the consolidation
was as intensely and narrowly secta—
rian as the most bigoted could de-
sire, let us enquire how far and in what
manner its constitution was “herein
changed.” Evidently if we assume
that such was its original character the
change must have been radical and
fundamental. This change was af-
fected, first, by accepting as part of
its charter the provisions of the act
incorporating the Agricultural Col-
lege which absolutely excluded every
sectarian influence in its control,
and secondly by assuming in respect to
the funds and property of Transyl-
vania all the trusts and conditions to
which its Trustees were subject.

What were those trusts and condi-
tions which attached to the funds and
prosperity of Transylvania which
were then formally assumed and thus
made to enter into and become part
of the charter of the consolidated
University? Time would not permit
that 1 should trace them in detall.
They extend through nearly a cen—
tury. They date back to a period co-
eval with the dawn of civilization
this side of the mountains. They
have their beginning in the act of

1780, which I have now before me by
which the old Commonwealth of
Virginia incorporated the Transyl-
vania Seminary in what was then
the county of Kentucky, and endow-
ed it with certain lands, the pur-
pose as therein broadly announced
being “the education 'of youth and
the encouragement and promotion
of every deslgn which may tend
to theimprovement of the mind and
the diffusion of useful knowledge.” It
was the maternal gift of Virginia to
her first—born daughter, the light of
science and literature which she kin~
dled amid the gloom of the Wilderness.
It existed before the brotherhood of
Christians, in whose behalf this claim
is asserted, were known, and before
their illustrious founder was born.
Built. up and fostered with resources
derived from the common treasury, it
was an institution for the whole peo-
ple. Upon foundations thus broad
and unsectarian the noble superstruc-
ture was erected. By successive acts.
and appropriations of the Legislatures
of Virginia and Kentucky, and by. do~
nations from the city of Lexington
and from individuals, including the
bequest of twenty thousand dollars
from the late Col. Morrison, the insti-
tution expanded into Transylvania
University. Historic and venerable,
her name is honored wherever science
has avotary. Successive generations
of her sons, in the triumphs and glo-
ries of the field and the forum, have
illustrated the fame of their alma ma-
ter. Passing successively under the
control of men of different religious
sects, the institution never subordina-
ted itself to either, nor subverted or
violated those great trusts which
marked its origin and under
which the narrowness of sec-
tarianism in its administration
was impossible. Such was the
institution which the consolidated
University adopted, and with its pur-

 

 i5)

poses, its spirit, and its trusts un-
changed and unimpaired, made part of
' itself.

I come now lastly to consider
the remaining element which entered
into and completed the consolidated
structure. I allude to the subscriptions
made subsequently to these consolida-
tions, and the larger portion of which
were necessary to meet the condition
upon which. by its terms, the compact
ct union was made to depend. And
I confidently invite the attention of
every lawyer who hears me to the
character and legal effect of the trust
thus created. A trust implies a donor
who creates it. a trustee who is to ad-
minister it and a cestuz' we trust or
benefimary for whose use it is given.
The donor had originally the absolute
dominion over and control of his
means. He might carve out of it
whatever interests in others he might
choose to create, Whether legal or
equitable, retaining the residuum of
interest in himself. He might, by a
declaration of trust, make another
person the beneficiary or give irrev-
ocably to a class 0t persons who might
bring themselves within its reach,
the benefits of the charity provided
and reserve to himself the administra-
tion of the fund in aid of the purpose
to whlch he might have dedicated it.
Or he might, by an act equally irrev-
ocable and complete, give over its ad-
ministration to another person or to a
body of men who, while they lived,
should be the custodians of the trust; or
looking to the limited duration of bu.
man lite, and desiring that his works
should live after him, he might create a
power of appointment by which the
body of trustees should be perpetua-
ted in all time to come. He would
thus, by his voluntary act, have part-
ed with all interest, legal and equita-
ble, and have thus parceled out all the
elements of which his original owner-
ship was composed. In giving away
these fractional parts of a complete

interest, he would have divested him-
self of it all, as entirely as if he had
made one single and absolute gift.

Such was the nature of the trust
created by these donors. Its character
and its purpose were unmistakeable.
The Curators of Kentucky Unlversity
were a body of men whose names were
known and announced and whose
character and fitness for the work to
be entrusted to them might be scruti-
mized and canvassed. The mode in
which the body should be perpetu-
ated was established in the charter and
known to the world. It was this body
01 men and such others as they should
from time to time select, to fill their
places, that these donors selected as
the trustees who should administer
the charity to which they were con-
tributing. It might have been wiser
for them to have selected some other
body of men and some other mode of
perpetuating the body, but it is suffi—
cient to know that they did not do it.
It might have been better for them to
have'referred the selection of trustees
to periodical elections by a convention
of delegates from the Christian
Churches, but in the exercise of their
unquestionable right in giving a‘way
thelr own money to direct the channel
in which it should go they did not so
determine. And we have no right to
determine it for them nor to change
the direction which they themselves
chose to give to the charity they them-
selves bestowed.

The charter of the University,
as modified by the compacts
of consolidation, entered into and
formed part of the donations, not
only as to the administrators but also
as to the purposes of the gifts. And
where in it do we find a shadow
of warrant or foundation for the as-
sumption that the Christian Churches
are the cestui que trusts—that “Ken-
tucky University is the property of
the Christian Churches?” Surely it
will not be sought for in the

 

   

('6)

act creating the Agricultural College,

or in the acceptance of the trusts by.

which the Trustees of Transylvania
were bound, to which I have adverted,
and all of which were then part of the
constitution of the institution to
which these donations were given.
Nor yet can it be gathered from the
3d section of the charter of the orig-
inal Kentucky University, in which
its purpose is declared to be “to pro«
mote the cause of education in all its
branches, and extend the sphere of
science and Christian morality.” And
it cannot be found, although it has
been sought, in the section which
provides that two-thirds of the Cura-
tors shall be, as two-thirds of them
-always have been, members of the
Christian Church. A section, which
is only descriptive of the persons
who are to administer the trust, can
not, without manifest violation of the
clear import of language, be tortured
so as to be made to define the objects
of the trust. A charity might be
created of which the administrators
might all be required to be Christians,
and the objects and beneficiaries might
all be heathen. The foundation of this
alleged ownership is nowhere to be
found in‘the charter. The Trustees
are the Curators, and the cestui que
trusts are the youth of the land, who
may avail themselves of the advan«
tages of the institution, and bring
themselves within reach of its noble
benefactions. Itis precisely as if each
donor had said in some formal instru-
ment:

“I give dollars to A, B, C, &c.,
now the Board of Curators of Ken-
tucky University, and to such other
persons as they may from time to
time select to fill vacancies in said
board, to have and hold the same
in trust, that, they shall forever
use the proceeds thereof in pro-
motlng the cause of education in all
its branches, and extending the sphere
of science and Christian morality

 

through the instrumentality of the ins
stitution formed by the censolidati )n
of Kentucky University as ittormally
existed with Transylvania University,
and the Agricultural College, and sub-
ject to all the trusts accepted in said
consolidation.” Such was the trust
created by these donations, and we
have no right to disturb it. A court
of equity may interpose to uphold
and enforce the trust, but no legisla-
tive body can rightly interfere to sub«
vert or destroy it.

Let us suppose that Mr. Bowman
had come in 1865 to the Kentucky
Legislature, and to the Trustees of
Transylvania, and to the individuals
from whom he asked donations, and
said: “We have an institution be-
longing to the Christian Churches,
with an endowment of $200,000, and
we purpose that you shall unite with
it you funds amounting to over half a
million of dollars; that your five hun-
dred thousand shallbe swallowed up by
our two hundred thousand,and that it
shall become the property of the Chris-
tian Churches, and be administered in
their interest, under the direction of a
convention of delegates they may se-
lect.” Does any man doubt that one
might have counted on his fingers all
the votes such a proposition would
have received? A proposition thus ar~

.rogant and monstrous would have been

repelled with the indignation it would
have deserved. And yet this whlch
no man would have dared then to
ask, is now imperiously demanded.
On the contrary Mr. Bowman and his
friends came saying to us, if not in
words, at least by the fair import of
his proposition: “We have an institu-
tion built up mainly by our Christian
brotherhood, and in the management
of which they have secured by char-
ter for members of our churches a
preponderating influence. We have
not succeeded in procuring such an en-
dowment as we had hoped, and w

now propose to unite our resource

 

 

 

 

  

4%

 

 

 

$7)

with yours and build up a great Uni—
versity for the whole people trom
whom your funds have been derived,
and which shall be controlled upon
broad and liberal principles and care-
iully preserve and carry out the great
and 'unsectarian trusts to which they
are subject.” Such was the spirit of
the proposition which eventuated in
the union that was formed. The Be-
gent and the Curators have observed
it faithfully to the letter. And their
fidelity in the execution of this great
trust is “the sum and substance of
their offending.”

I shall pass by untouched the ap-
peals to passion and prejudice which
have been thrown into this debate.
They do not btfit the gravity of the
great questions under discussiont Mr.
Bowman needs nodetense at my
hands. His character, which, amid
difficulties and trials such as have
fallen to the lot of but tew men, he
has established and maintained is an
impregnable defense against every
assault. The great work of his lite
is a vindication tar more elo-
quent than any words I can speak.
The name of Prof. Shakeltord has
been thrust conspicuously into this
(ontroversy, and it seems to be
thought a sufficient ground tor revo-
lutionizing a great institution in which
he is Professor that he has given
utterance to views which have been
construed to iavor the education of
colored candidates for the ministry in
the mixed schools alreadyi exist-
ing in other States rather than the
establishment of separate schools. It
is sufficient to say that the suggestions
in the letter referred to had no ref—
erence to the institution now under
discussion, and that Kentucky
University with its professor—
ships embracing men of every class of
opinions and of every faith, political
and religious, does not descend to this
narrow espionage over the private
sentiments and thoughts of these who

are unitedly engaged in the great,
broad and benificent work to which
its’energies are devoted. Prof. Shack-
elford is a Kentuckian and a gen-
tleman, and a man of pure and
spotless lite, and hisopinions what.-
ever they may be, are his own.
But, strange to say, while these
gentlemen are horrified at the thought
that somewhere in Ohio colored
young men should be taught theology
in the same schools with the whites
they are proposing to commit the
destinies of this University to the
control of a convention of delegates
from all the Christian Churches in
Kentucky, in which assemblage the
most potent members, because repre-
senting the largest constituencies,
would he 'the colored representatives
of the colored churches 01 Lexington,
Louisville and Covington. , ’

I come now, lastly, to speak of the
amendment offered by the gentleman
from Covington, (Mr. Scales) by which.
it is proposed to sever the Agricultural
College from the University, by the
withdrawal by the State of the endow-
ment given in aid of it by the General
Government. What is to be done with
it when set adrift does not anywhere
appear in the proposition. Whether
it shall be permitted to lapse or re-
vert or to be made to seek some
other resting place, must be left for
some future Legislature to determine.
But the significant feature of the prop-
ositiOn is, that while it withdraws the
endowment fund, it leaves behind, and
to be surrendered to sectarian control
and in the interest of a different insti-
tution from that for which it was de-
signed, the splendid estate at Ashland
and Woodlands, purchased by the sub-
scriptions of citizens of Fayette coun-
ty, of every sect and party, as an ex—
perimental farm for the Agricultural
College. No proposition can be plain-
er than that this property is an ap-
pendage of the Agricultural College
and inseparable from it. The condi-

 

 (8)

tion of its consolidation with Ken-
tucky University as set forth in the
act was that a hundred thousand dollars
should be raised for this purpose. The
”appeal made by Mr. Bowman was
promptly responded to, and the money
was given for the purpose distinctly
announced and understood by all of
carrying out and meeting this condi-
tion. The object to which the fund
should be directed thus declared in the
act under which the subscription was
made,entered into and controlledthe do-
nations made to carry it out. The fund
was wisely expended for the object for
which alone it was given. A noble
estate was purchased, embracing four
hundred and forty acres of the finest
land in America, running up almost
into the heart of the city otpLexing-
ton. No fairer or fitter spot could
have been chosen on the globe. Its

soil of inexhaustible fertility; its green
meadows and its grand old forests
combined to charm, with all the lag-
cinations of rural life, the young stu-

dent about to be inducted into the in-
telligent pursuit of the noblest of
avocations. Nature and art had vied
with each other in its embellishment.
It had been the home of the farmer
statesman and patriot sage-the im-
mortal Clay—and it was here, amid its
shady walks and roseate bowers that
he had found his favorite retreat and

sought tranquility and repose from the
stormy conflicts of the forum. It was
fit and wise that amid the inspiration '
of these hallowed scenes and associa-
tions the youth of the land, should be
led forward in imitation of his noble
character and in emulation of his im—
mortal fame.

And it is proposed new that this
noble estate shall be diverted from the
purpose to which the people of Fay-
ette devoted 1t, and turned over to the
proprietary ownership and control of
the Christian Church, in aid of a sec-
tarian institution.

Mr. Speaker, I will detain the House
no longer. We have nothing to do
with the question which has been so
persistently thrust upon us. If the
applicants here have the rights they
assert, this is not the forum for their
assertion. The law provides its reme-
dies. Let them appeal to the courts for
the vindication of the rights they claim.
If they have not these rights, it is not
our province to give them. We sure-
ly ought not to do it by overturning
trusts that are sacred and inviolable,
and dismembering and destroying‘a
great educational institution, in which
the whole people of Kentucky have a
substantial interest, and upon whose
past and to whose future they look
with a just and manly pride.