This school, this scheme or system, in its tendencies and effects, is opposed to all religions, of every kind. I will not now enter into a controversy with my learned friend about the word 'tenets,' whether it signify opinions or dogmas, or whatever you please. Religious tenets, I take it, and I suppose it will be generally conceded, mean religious opinions; and if a youth has arrived at the age of eighteen, and has no religious tenets, it is very plain that he has no religion. I do not care whether you call them dogmas, tenets, or opinions. If the youth does not entertain dogmas, tenets, or opinions, or opinions, tenets, or dogmas, on religious subjects, then he has no religion at all. And this strikes at a broader principle than when you merely look at this school in its effect upon Christianity alone. We will suppose the case of a youth of eighteen, who has just left this school, and has gone through an education of philosophical morality, precisely in accordance with the views and expressed wishes of the donor. He comes then into the world to choose his religious tenets. The very next day, perhaps, after leaving school, he comes into a court of law to give testimony as a witness. Sir, I protest that by such a system he would be disfranchised. He is asked, 'What is your religion?' His reply is, 'O, I have not yet chosen any; I am going to look round, and see which suits me best.' He is asked, 'Are you a Christian?' He replies, 'That involves religious tenets, and as yet I have not been allowed to entertain any.' Again, 'Do you believe in a future state of rewards and punishments?' And he answers, 'That involves sectarian controversies, which have carefully been kept from me.' 'Do you believe in the existence of a God?' He answers, that there are clashing doctrines involved in these things, which he has been taught to have nothing to do with; that the belief in the existence of a God, being one of the first questions in religion, he is shortly about to think of that proposition. Why, Sir, it is vain to talk about the destructive tendency of such a system; to argue upon it is to insult the understanding of every man; it is mere, sheer, low, ribald, vulgar deism and infidelity. It opposes all that is in heaven, and all on earth that is worth being on earth. It destroys the connecting link between the creature and the Creator; it opposes that great system of universal benevolence and goodness that binds man to his Maker. No religion till he is eighteen! What would be the condition of all our families, of all our children, if religious fathers and religious mothers were to teach their sons and daughters no religious tenets till they were eighteen! What would become of their morals, their character, their purity of heart and life, their hope for time and eternity? What would become of all those thousand ties of sweetness, benevolence, love, and Christian feeling, that now render our young men and young maidens like comely plants growing up by a streamlet's side; the graces and the grace of opening manhood, of blossoming womanhood? What would become of all that now renders the social circle lovely and beloved? What would become of society itself? How could it exist? And is that to be considered a charity which strikes at the root of all this; which subverts all the excellence and the charms of social life; which tends to destroy the very foundation and framework of society, both in its practices and in its opinions; which subverts the whole decency, the whole morality, as well as the whole Christianity and gov ernment, of society? No, Sir! no, Sir!

OPINIONS OF THE U. S. SUPREME COURT-JAN. TERM, 1844.

Mr. Justice Story delivered the opinion of the Court.

That the Corporation of the City of Philadelphia is capable of taking the bequest of the real and personal estate, for the creation and support of a College, upon the trusts, and for the uses designed in the Will.

That these uses are charitable uses, valid in their nature and capable of being carried into effect, consistently with the laws of Pennsylvania.

In considering the objection, that the principles and exclusions presented by the Testator for the foundation of the College are derogatory and hostile to the Christian religion, and is so void, as being against the common law and public policy of Pennsylvania, the decision observes:

In considering this objection, the Court are not at liberty to travel out of the Record, in order to ascertain what were the private religious opinions of the Testator, or whether the scheme of education, by him prescribed, is such as we ourselves should approve, or as is best adapted to accomplish the great aims and ends of education.-Nor are we at liberty to look at general considerations of the supposed public interest and policy of Pennsylvania upon this subject, beyond what its Constitution and laws, and judicial decisions make known to us. It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania; but this proposition is to be received with its appropriate qualifications, and in connection with the Bill of Rights of that State, as found in its. Constitution of Government. The Constitution of 1790, (and the like provision will, in substance, be found in the Constitution of 1776, and in the existing Constitution of 1838,) expressly declares, 'That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; and no man can, of right, be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishments, or modes of worship.'

Now, in the present cases, there is no pretense to say, that any such positive or express provisions exist, or are even shadowed forth in the Will. The Testator does not say that Christianity shall not be taught in the College, but only that no ecclesiastic of any sect shall hold or exercise any station or duty in the College. Suppose, instead of this, he had said that no person but a layman shall be an instructor, or officer, or visitor in the College, what legal objection could have been made to such a restriction? And yet the actual prohibition is in effect the same in substance. But it is asked: why are ecclesiastics excluded, if it is not because they are the stated and appropriate preachers of Christianity? The answer may be given in the very words of the Testator:'In making this restriction, (says he,) I do not mean to cast any reflection upon any sect or person whatsoever; but as there is such a multitude of sects, and such a diversity of opinion amongst them, I desire to keep the tender minds of the orphans, who are to derive advantage from this bequest, free from the excitement which clashing doctrines and sectarian controversy are so apt to produce.' Here, then, we have the reason given; and the question is not, whether it is satisfactory to us, nor whether the history of Religion does or does not justify such a sweeping statement; but the question is, whether the exclusion be not such as the Testator had a right, consistently with the laws of Pennsylvania, to maintain, upon his own notions of religious instruction. Suppose the Testator had excluded all religious instructors but Catholics, or Quakers, or Swedenborgians; or to put a stronger case, he had excluded all religious instructors but Jews, would the bequest have been void on that account? Suppose he had excluded all lawyers, or all physicians, or all merchants from being instructors or visitors, would the prohibition have been fatal to the bequest? The truth is, that in cases of this sort, it is extremely difficult to draw any just and satisfactory line of distinction in a free country, as to the qualifications or disqualifications which may be insisted upon by the donor of a charity, as to those who shall administer or partake of his bounty.

But the objection, itself, assumes the proposition that Christianity is not to be

taught, because ecclesiastics are not to be instructors or officers. But this is by no means a necessary or legitimate inference from the premises. Why may not laymen instruct in the general principles of Christianity, as well as ecclesiastics? There is no restriction as to the religious opinions of the instructors and officers. They may be, and, doubtless under the auspices of the City government, they will always be men, not only distinguished for learning and talent, but for piety, and elevated virtue, and holy lives and character. And we can not overlook the blessings which such men, by their conduct as well as their instructions, may, nay must impart to their youthful pupils. Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament, without note or comment, be read and taught as a divine revelation, in the College-its general precepts expounded, its evidences explained, and its glorious principles of morality incul cated? What is there to prevent a work, not sectarian, upon the general evidences of Christianity, from being read and taught in the College by lay teachers? Certainly there is nothing in the Will that proscribes such studies. Above all, the Testator positively enjoins, "That all the instructors and teachers in the College shall take pains to instill into the minds of the scholars the purest principles of morality, so that on their entrance into active life they may, from inclination and habit, evince benevolence toward their fellow-creatures, and a love of truth, sobriety, and industry, adopting at the same time, such religious tenets as their matured reason may enable them to prefer.' Now it may well be asked, what is there in all this, which is positively enjoined, inconsistent with the spirit or truths of Christianity? Are not these truths all taught by Christianity, although it teaches much more? Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly, as from the New Testament? Where are benevolence, the love of truth, sobriety, and industry, so powerfully and irresistibly inculcated as in the sacred volume? The Testator has not said how these great principles are to be taught, or by whom, except it be by laymen, nor what books are to be used to explain or enforce them. All that we can gather from his language is, that he desired to exclude sectarians and secta. rianism from the College, leaving the instructors and officers free to teach the purest morality, the love of truth, sobriety, and industry by all appropriate means and of course, including the best, the surest, and the most impressive. The objection then, in this view, goes to this, either that the Testator has totally omitted to provide for religious instruction in his scheme of education, (which, from what has been already said, is an inadmissible interpretation) or that it includes but partial and imperfect instruction in those truths. In either view, can it be truly said that it contravenes the known law of Pennsylvania upon the subject of charities, or is not allowable under the article of the Bill of Rights, already cited? Is an omission to provide for instruction in Christianity, in any scheme of school or college education a fatal defect, which avoids it according to the law of Pennsylvania? If the instruction provided for is incomplete and imperfect, is it equally fatal? These questions are propounded because we are not aware that any thing exists in the Constitution or laws of Pennsylvania, or the judicial decisions of its tribunals, which would justify us in pronouncing that such defects would be so fatal. Let us take the case of a charitable donation to teach the poor orphans reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, and navigation, and excluding all other studies and instruction; would the donation be void, as a charity, in Pennsylvania, as being deemed derogatory to Christianity? Hitherto, it has been supposed that a charity for the instruction of the poor, might be good and valid in England, even if it did not go beyond the establishment of a grammar school. And in America, it has been thought, in the absence of any express legal prohibitions, that the donor might select the studies, as well as the class of persons who were to receive his bounty, without being compellable to make religious instruction a necessary part of those studies. It has hitherto been thought sufficient, if he does not require any thing to be taught inconsistent with Christianity.

Looking to the objection, therefore, in a mere judicial view, which is the only one in which we are at liberty to consider it, we are satisfied that there is nothing in the devise establishing the College, or in the regulations and restrictions contained therein, which are inconsistent with the Christian religion, or are op posed to any known policy of the State of Pennsylvania.

SMITH COLLEGE AND ITS FOUNDER,

AT NORTHAMPTON, MASS.

MISS SOPHIA SMITH.*

MISS SOPHIA SMITH, the founder of Smith College, was born in Hatfield, Massachusetts, August 27, 1796. She was a descendant,. in the sixth generation, of Lieut. Samuel Smith, who, with his wife, Elizabeth, and four children, sailed from England to Massachusetts Bay, Anno Domini, 1634. From Wethersfield, Conn., where he was a leading citizen, he emigrated to Hadley, probably in 1659, holding there important offices both in church and state. Her ancestor, John Smith, of the next generation, was slain by the Indians in the meadows of Hatfield, in 1676. Her grandfather was Samuel Smith, commissioned Lieutenant by Governor Phipps, September 10, 1755. Her father was a soldier in the Revolutionary war. Both of her brothers, Austin and Joseph, were members of the General Court of Massachusetts. Her great-grandmother, Canada Waite, was born in Canada, her mother having been carried into captivity there by the Indians. She was a niece of Oliver Smith, Esq., whose munificent charities have made a group of towns in this valley conspicuous throughout the nation, if not the world.

She was a little girl, playing under the magnificent elms of her native town, about the time that the wife of John Adams wrote to a friend in England, 'You need not be told how much, in this country, female education is neglected, nor how fashionable it is to ridicule female learning.' It was about the time, also, that the mother of George Washington carried on her correspondence, writing the pronoun 'I' a small letter. It was not till twenty-two years after her birth, that the first law was passed by any legislature with the direct object of improving female education.'

Miss Smith lamented deeply that she had such imperfect advantages for education in her youth. It was not till 1802, that girls were admitted to the boys' school in Northampton. For some years later, the most that was done, in many of our towns, for the education of girls, was to admit a select few who thirsted for knowledge,

By Rev. John M. Greene, in an Address at the opening of Smith College, July 14, 1875. Abridged.

to an occasional seat upon the door-step of the school-house, where they could listen to their brothers as they recited their lessons in reading and arithmetic.

The memory of those days, when a hungry soul was distressed for knowledge, made Miss Smith feel a strong desire to improve the condition of her sex, in respect to the advantages of schools. What she learned from books in childhood was little.-No schools to develop and discipline the youthful faculties, no public library to stimulate and feed the mind. But she had the training of a good New England home. Nature, too, in that beautiful town, was full of lessons for an appreciative soul. The prince of New England rivers with its crinkling, silver face, and its fantastic mountains of fog, the extensive meadows, golden with the luxuriant harvests of wheat and corn, the abounding flowers and trees, and the distant hills standing as sentinels to guard that paradise, all helped to mold her youthful spirit. When fourteen years of age, she attended school a term of twelve weeks in Hartford, Conn. When eighteen she was a pupil in the Hopkins Academy in Hadley, for a time. She often spoke of the profit and pleasure of those school-days. She improved to the utmost her opportunities.

But Miss Smith owed much of the cultivation of her mind, and the development of her heart, to the ministry of her native town. The people of Hatfield had always been blessed with able men to instruct them in the truth, and to guide them in the ways of God. The sermons of Dr. Joseph Lyman, strong and clear in expression, full of patriotism, missionary in spirit, abundant in doctrine, stirred her youthful mind and stamped her character after the pattern of the staunchest New England womanhood.

Other eminent preachers, also, she often heard in the Hatfield pulpit. Dr. Jared B. Waterbury was more than two years her pastor. Pres. Herman Humphrey often preached his sound, searching, gospel sermons there. Prof. Edwards A. Park, during one year, not unfrequently supplied the pulpit, and was urgently called to settle over that people. Prof. Samuel M. Worcester, Pres. Edward Hitchcock, and Prof. W. S. Tyler were well known there, and much admired for their sermons. Dr. Henry Neill was six years a faithful pastor of that flock. All these preachers were educators of the founder of this College.

A family infirmity, deafness, at the age of forty excluded her from ordinary conversation; but, by reading mostly, she kept herself familiar with the common events and occurrences of the day.