imposed in behalf of Massachusetts institutions.

The convention which framed our Constitution has as its president James
Bowdoin, a son of Harvard. He was a man of great strength of character
and cast an influence for good upon the deliberations of his day worthy
of a place in history more conspicuous than is generally accorded to
him. He had as his colleague on the floor no less a person than John
Adams. It is not necessary in this presence to designate his alma mater.
There were others of importance, but these represented the type of
thought that prevailed.

In that noble Declaration of Rights the principles of freedom and
equality were first declared. Following this is set forth the right of
religious liberty and the duty of citizens to support places of
religious worship and instruction; and in the Frame of Government, after
establishing the University, there is given to legislators and
magistrates a mandate forever to cherish and support the cause of
education and institutions of learning. These were the declaration of
broad and liberal policies. They are capable of being combined, for in
fact they declare that teaching, whether it be by clergy or laity, is of
an importance that requires it to be surrounded with the same safeguards
and guaranties as freedom and equality. In fact the Constitution
declares that "wisdom and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused
generally among the body of the people, are necessary for the
preservation of their rights and liberties." John Adams and James
Bowdoin knew that freedom was the fruit of knowledge. Their conclusions
were drawn from the directions of Holy Writ--"Come, know the truth, and
it shall make you free."

These principles there laid down with so much solemnity have now the
same binding force as in those revolutionary days when they were
recognized and proclaimed. I am not unaware that they are old. Whatever
is, is old. It is but our own poor apprehension of it that is new. It
would be well if they were re-apprehended. It is not well if the great
diversity of modern learning has made the truth so little of a novelty
that it lacks all reverence.

The days of the Revolution were days of reverence and of applied
reverence. Teaching was to a considerable extent in the hands of the
clergy. Institutions of learning were presided over by clergymen. The
teacher spoke with the voice of authority. He was treated with
deference. He held a place in the community that was not