After several years of fruitless and bitter conflict, the Wheelock party, in 1815, brought their grievances before the public in an elaborate pamphlet. This led to a rejoinder and a war of pamphlets ensued, which was soon transferred to the newspapers, and created a great sensation and a profound interest. Wheelock now contemplated legal proceedings. Mr. Plumer was in ill health, Judge Smith and Mr. Mason were allied with the trustees, and the president therefore went to Mr. Webster, consulted him professionally, paid him, and obtained a promise of his future services. About the time of this consultation, Wheelock sent a memorial to the Legislature, charging the trustees with misapplication of the funds, and various breaches of trust, religious intolerance, and a violation of the charter in their attacks upon the presidential office, and prayed for a committee of investigation. The trustees met him boldly and offered a sturdy resistance, denying all the charges, especially that of religious intolerance; but the committee was voted by a large majority. On August 5th, Wheelock, as soon as he learned that the committee was to have a hearing, wrote to Mr. Webster, reminding him of their consultation, inclosing a fee of twenty dollars, and asking him to appear before the committee. Mr. Webster did not come, and Wheelock had to go on as best he could without him. One of Wheelock's friends, Mr. Dunham, wrote a very indignant letter to Mr. Webster on his failure to appear; to which Mr. Webster replied that he had seen Wheelock and they had contemplated a suit in court, but that at the time of the hearing he was otherwise engaged, and moreover that he did not regard a summons to appear before a legislative committee as a professional call, adding that he was by no means sure that the president was wholly in the right. The truth was, that many of Mr. Webster's strongest personal and political friends, and most of the leaders with whom he was associated in the control of the Federalist party, were either trustees themselves or closely allied with the trustees. In the interval between the consultation with Wheelock and the committee hearing, these friends and leaders saw Mr. Webster, and pointed out to him that he must not desert them, and that this college controversy was fast developing into a party question. Mr. Webster was convinced, and abandoned Wheelock, making, as has been seen, a very unsatisfactory explanation of his conduct. In this way he finally parted company with Wheelock, and was thereafter irrevocably engaged on the side of the trustees.
Events now moved rapidly. The trustees, without heeding the advice of Mr. Mason to delay, removed Wheelock from the presidency, and appointed in his place the Rev. Francis Brown. This fanned the flame of popular excitement, and such a defiance of the legislative committee threw the whole question into politics. As Mr. Mason had foreseen when he warned the trustees against hasty action, all the Democrats, all members of sects other than the Congregational, and all freethinkers generally, were united against the trustees, and consequently against the Federalists. The election came on. Wheelock, who was a Federalist, went over to the enemy, carrying his friends with him, and Mr. Plumer, the Democratic candidate, was elected Governor, together with a Democratic Legislature. Mr. Webster perceived at once that the trustees were in a bad position. He advised that every effort should be made to soothe the Democrats, and that the purpose of founding a new college should be noised abroad, in order to create alarm. Strategy, however, was vain. Governor Plumer declared against the trustees in his message, and the Legislature in June, 1816, despite every sort of protest and remonstrance, passed an act to reorganize the college, and virtually to place it within the control of the State. The Governor and council at once proceeded to choose trustees and overseers under the new law, and among those thus selected was Joseph Story of Massachusetts.
Both boards of trustees assembled. The old board turned out Judge Woodward, their secretary, who was a friend to Wheelock and secretary also of the new board, and, receiving a thousand dollars from a friend of one of the professors, resolved to fight. President Brown refused to obey the summons of the new trustees, who expelled the old board by resolution. Thereupon the old board brought suit against Woodward for the college seal and other property, and the case came on for trial in May, 1817. Mr. Mason and Judge Smith appeared for the college, George Sullivan and Ichabod Bartlett for Woodward and the state board. The case was argued and then went over to the September term of the same year, at Exeter, when Mason and Smith were joined by Mr. Webster.
The cause was then argued again on both sides and with signal ability. In point of talent the counsel for the college were vastly superior to their opponents, but Sullivan and Bartlett were nevertheless strong men and thoroughly prepared. Sullivan was a good lawyer and a fluent and ready speaker, with great power of illustration. Bartlett was a shrewd, hard-headed man, very keen and incisive, and one whom it was impossible to outwit or deceive. He indulged, in his argument, in some severe reflections upon Mr. Webster's conduct toward Wheelock, which so much incensed Mr. Webster that he referred to Mr. Bartlett's argument in a most contemptuous way, and strenuously opposed the publication of the remarks "personal or injurious to counsel."
The weight of the argument for the college fell upon Mason and Smith, who spoke for two and four hours respectively. Sullivan and Bartlett occupied three hours, and the next day Mr. Webster closed for the plaintiffs in a speech of two hours. Mr. Webster spoke with great force, going evidently beyond the limits of legal argument, and winding up with a splendid sentimental appeal which drew tears from the crowd in the Exeter court-room, and which he afterwards used in an elaborated form and with similar effect before the Supreme Court at Washington.
It now becomes necessary to state briefly the points at issue in this case, which were all fully argued by the counsel on both sides. Mr. Mason's brief, which really covered the whole case, was that the acts of the Legislature were not obligatory, 1, because they were not within the general scope of legislative power; 2, because they violated certain provisions of the Constitution of New Hampshire restraining legislative power; 3, because they violated the Constitution of the United States. In Farrar's report of Mason's speech, twenty-three pages are devoted to the first point, eight to the second, and six to the third. In other words, the third point, involving the great constitutional doctrine on which the case was finally decided at Washington, the doctrine that the Legislature, by its acts, had impaired the obligation of a contract, was passed over lightly. In so doing Mr. Mason was not alone. Neither he nor Judge Smith nor Mr. Webster nor the court nor the counsel on the other side, attached much importance to this point. Curiously enough, the theory had been originated many years before, by Wheelock himself, at a time when he expected that the minority of the trustees would invoke the aid of the Legislature against him, and his idea had been remembered. It was revived at the time of the newspaper controversy, and was pressed upon the attention of the trustees and upon that of their counsel. But the lawyers attached little weight to the suggestion, although they introduced it and argued it briefly. Mason, Smith, and Webster all relied for success on the ground covered by the first point in Mason's brief. This is called by Mr. Shirley the "Parsons view," from the fact that it was largely drawn from an argument made by Chief Justice Parsons in regard to visitatorial powers at Harvard College. Briefly stated, the argument was that the college was an institution founded by private persons for particular uses; that the charter was given to perpetuate such uses; that misconduct of the trustees was a question for the courts, and that the Legislature, by its interference, transcended its powers. To these general principles, strengthened by particular clauses in the Constitution of New Hampshire, the counsel for the college trusted for victory. The theory of impairing the obligation of contracts they introduced, but they did not insist on it, or hope for much from it. On this point, however, and, of course, on this alone, the case went up to the Supreme Court. In December, 1817, Mr. Webster wrote to Mr. Mason, regretting that the case went up on "one point only." He occupied himself at this time in devising cases which should raise what he considered the really vital points, and which, coming within the jurisdiction of the United States, could be taken to the Circuit Court, and thence to the Supreme Court at Washington. These cases, in accordance with his suggestion, were begun, but before they came on in the Circuit Court, Mr. Webster made his great effort in Washington. Three quarters of his legal argument were there devoted to the points in the Circuit Court cases, which were not in any way before the Supreme Court in the College vs. Woodward. So little, indeed, did Mr. Webster think of the great constitutional question which has made the case famous, that he forced the other points in where he admitted that they had no proper standing, and argued them at length. They were touched upon by Marshall, who, however, decided wholly upon the constitutional question, and they were