by philanthropy and aimed at permanent good: Pell v. Mercer, 14 I. I. 412, 443. A gift to trustees to form a county "benevolent" fund, for the relief of the poor and distressed, widows and orphans, etc., has been held good as a charity: Erskine v. Whitehead, 84 Ind. 357.

Bequests to charities in general, or at large, have, in some cases, been held good: Burr v. Smith, 7 Vt. 241; 29 Am. Dec. 154. Contra, Shields v. Jolly, 1 Rich. Eq. 99; 42 Am. Dec. 349; Webster v. Morris, 66 Wis. 366; 57 Am. Rep. 278.

Cemeteries. A cemetery corporation or association is a charity: Hullman v. Honcomp, 5 Ohio St. 238; and see Wolford v. Crystal Lake Cemetery Assn., 54 Minn. 440. So, property held in trust by a Roman Catholic archbishop for the purposes of a cemetery is held for a charitable use: Mannix v. Purcell, 46 Ohio St. 102; 15 Am. St. Rep. 562; but the mere fact that a cemetery corporation voluntarily uses its funds for objects akin to the purposes of its organization, or, in other words, applies them to a considerable extent in charity does not make the corporation a public charity: Donnelly v. Boston Catholic Cemetery, 146 Mass. 163, 167. A trust to keep a cemetery or churchyard in proper order is a good charity because of the public benefit thereby conferred: Webster v. Morris, 66 Wis. 366; 57 Am. Rep. 278; Sheldon v. Stockbridge, 67 Vt. 299; In re Vaughan, 33 Ch. Div. 187; Dexter v. Gardner, 7 Allen, 243.

In England, there has been a difference of opinion upon the question whether the maintenance and repair of the tomb or monument of the donor, and keeping his grave beautified and in good order, is a good charitable use. Down to the time of the American Revolution, as by the civil law, it appears to have been held that it was: Jones v. Habersham, 107 U. S. 174, 183, citing early English cases; but according to the later English cases it is not: In re Vaughan, 33 Ch. Div. 187; In re Birkett, 9 Ch. Div. 576; In re Williams, 5 Ch. Div. 735; Dawson v. Small, L. R. 18 Eq. 114; Fisk v. Attorney General, L. R. 4 Eq. 521; Hoare v. Osborne, L. R. 1 Eq. 585; Fowler v. Fowler, 33 Beav. 616; Rickard v. Robson, 31 Beav. 244; Lloyd v. Lloyd, 2 Sim., N. S., 255. In this country a gift for the perpetual preservation of a private burying ground, or for the perpetual maintenance and repair of the tomb or monument of the donor, or his relatives, or for perpetually keeping his grave beautified and in good order, is not a charitable use: Johnson v. Holifield, 79 Ala. 423; 58 Am. Rep. 596; Holifield v. Robinson, 79 Ala. 419; Coit v. Comstock, 51 Conn. 352; 50 Am. Rep. 29; Bates v. Bates, 134 Mass. 110; 45 Am. Rep. 305; Hornberger v. Hornberger, 12 Heisk. 635; Piper v. Moulton, 72 Me. 155, practically overruling Swasey v. American Bible Soc., 57 Me. 523, on this point; Kelly v. Nichols, 17 R. I. 306; 18 R. I. 62. Compare Gafney v. Kenison, 64 N. H. 354. In Connecticut, a bequest for the care of a burial lot is valid, but this is so by virtue of the statute which puts such bequests upon the same ground with public and charitable uses: Bronson v. Strouse, 57 Conn. 147. A devise for the erection of a monument over the graves of AM. ST. REP., VOL. LXIII.-17

the testator and his family is for a "humane purpose," within the meaning of a statute which declares that a devise for any "charitable or humane purpose" shall be valid: Ford v. Ford, 91 Ky. 572. But, while such purposes are not charitable, a devise or bequest in trust for the erection of a monument, or for the maintenance and repair of tombs, graves, and burial lots, etc., if not perpetual, and otherwise valid, may be sustained: Green v. Hogan, 153 Mass. 462. Compare note to Rhymer's Appeal, 39 Am. Rep. 738-741, on religious uses.

Education. The support and promotion of education is an extensive field of charitable uses and trusts. All gifts for the promotion of education are charitable, in a legal sense, and trusts for this purpose are highly favored. Donations for the establishment and maintenance of colleges, schools, and seminaries of learning, and especially such as are for the education of orphans and poor scholars, are charities in the sense of the common law: Vidal v. Girard, 2 How. 126; Earle v. Wood, 8 Cush. 445; Gerke v. Purcell, 25 Ohio St. 229; Chapin v. School Dist., 35 N. H. 445. A devise to "a public seminary" is a valid charity: Curling v. Curling, 8 Dana, 38; 33 Am. Dec. 475. A public seminary designated as a general object of charity, by a testator, must be understood to mean either a seminary, or the seminary of his county, or any seminary which his executors or a court of equity, in the exercise of a sound discretion, may select, as best adapted to effect the object of the charity: Curling v. Curling, 8 Dana, 38; 33 Am. Dec. 475. A devise or bequest for the maintenance of universities, colleges, academies, and common schools, and other lawful educational institutions, is a charitable use, irrespective of the wealth or poverty of those who may be benefited therefrom; and donations or gifts for such maintenance, if good in other respects, will be sustained by a court of equity: Franklin v. Armfield, 2 Sneed, 305, 347; Gerke v. Purcell, 25 Ohio St. 229. A bequest to trustees to invest the same and apply the interest "toward the education of young students in the ministry of the German Lutheran Congregation," has been upheld as valid: Witman v. Lex, 17 Serg. & R. 88; 17 Am. Dec. 644. So, with a bequest providing for the creation of a fund for the education of "two young men, for all coming time" for the Christian ministry: Field v. Drew Theological Seminary, 41 Fed. Rep. 371. A devise to "The Vestry of Saint Mary's Church," at a place designated, for the maintenance of the parish school connected therewith is valid: Hanson v. Little Sisters of the Poor, 79 Md. 434. So, with a bequest on condition that the beneficiary shall be educated in the Roman Catholic faith: Magee v. O'Neill, 19 S. C. 170; 45 Am. Rep. 765. A devise and bequest for an institution named is valid: Barnum v. Mayor, 62 Md. 275; 50 Am. Rep. 219. Gifts for educational purposes embrace all trusts for the founding and support of schools, and other similar institutions, which are not strictly private; for the establishment of professorships and maintenance of teachers; for the education of designated classes of persons: and for the promotion of science and scientific studies: Field v. Drew Theological Semin

ary, 41 Fed. Rep. 371, 373. Institutions of such a character, carried on for the benefit of the public, and not with a view to profit, are "institutions of purely public charity": Gerke v. Purcell, 25 Ohio St. 229; but a gift to an educational institution conducted for purposes of pecuniary profit would be void as a charity: Stratton v. PhysioMedical College, 149 Mass. 505; 14 Am. St. Rep. 442.

A trust for educational purposes is a good charitable trust, whether the benefits of the gift are confined to a particular locality or not: Sears v. Chapman, 158 Mass. 400; 35 Am. St. Rep. 502. That a trust for the education of children of a particular district or neighborhood is valid, see Williams v. Pearson, 38 Ala. 299; State v. Griffith, 2 Del. Ch. 392; Newson v. Starke, 46 Ga. 88; Common Council v. State, 5 Ind. 334; Ex parte Lindley, 32 Ind. 367; Craig v. Secrist, 54 Ind. 419; Swasey v. American Bible Soc., 57 Me. 23; Attorney General v. Briggs, 164 Mass. 561; Sappington v. Sappington, etc. Trustees, 123 Mo. 32; Stevens v. Shippen, 28 N. J. Eq. 487; McIntire v. Zanesville, 17 Ohio St. 352; State v. Smith, 16 Lea, 662; Hartshorne v. Nicholson, 26 Beav. 58; Dent v. Allcroft, 30 Beav. 335. A devise or bequest for the education of a specific class of children of a particular county or state is valid; Craig v. Secrist, 54 Ind. 419; and so is a bequest to be "expended in the education of the scholars of poor people" in a certain county: Clement v. Hyde, 50 Vt. 716; 28 Am. Rep. 522.

The support of public or free schools, including the site for a schoolhouse, the erection of buildings, and the payment of teachers, is a charitable use or trust, and courts of equity will go a great length in supporting it: Heuser v. Harris, 42 Ill. 425; Price v. School Directors, 58 Ill. 452; Andrews v. Andrews, 110 Ill. 223; Skinner v. Harrison Tp., 116 Ind. 139; White v. South Parish, 13 Met. 506; Boxford Religious Soc. v. Harriman, 125 Mass. 321; Davis v. Barnstable, 154 Mass. 224; Sears v. Chapman, 158 Mass. 400; 35 Am. St. Rep. 502; Bartlett, Petitioner, 163 Mass. 509; Attorney General v. Briggs, 164 Mass. 561; Hatheway v. Sackett, 32 Mich. 97; Adams Female Academy v. Adams, 65 N. H. 225; Taylor v. Bryn Mawr College, 34 N. J. Eq. 101; Board v. Ladd, 26 Ohio St. 210; Raley v. Umatilla County, 15 Or. 172; 3 Am. St. Rep. 142; Martin v. McCord, 5 Watts, 493; 30 Am. Dec. 342; Wright v. Linn, 9 Pa. St. 433; Pickering v. Shotwell, 10 Pa. St. 23; McKissick v. Pickle, 16 Pa. St. 140; Barr v. Weld, 24 Pa. St. 84; Price v. Maxwell, 28 Pa. St. 23; McLain v. School Directors, 51 Pa. St. 196; Meeting St. etc. Soc. v. Hail, 8 R. I. 234, 240; Webster v. Wiggin, 19 R. I. 73, 92; State v. Smith, 16 Lea, 662; Bell County v. Alexander, 22 Tex. 350; 73 Am. Dec. 268; McDonough v. Murdoch, 15 How. 367; Perin v. Carey, 24 How. 465; Ingleby v. Dobson, 4 Russ. 342; Johnston v. Swann, 3 Madd. 457; Dent v. Allcroft, 30 Beav. 335. A devise for the purpose of maintaining a school where no book of instruction is to be used, except spelling books and the Bible, is valid: Tainter v. Clark, 5 Allen, 66. A bequest to maintain a public school is not rendered invalid by the fact that the state has provided for the maintenance of public schools in all school districts within the state: In re John's

Will, 30 Or. 494. That a trust fund may be devoted to the payment of salaries of additional teachers in certain public schools, see Webster v. Wiggin, 19 R. I. 73, 92. A gift to a school does not cease to be for charitable uses, because religious instruction is combined in such school with that of a literary and scientific character, nor because its benefits are enjoyed alike by the rich and the poor: Price v. Maxwell, 28 Pa. St. 23. Hence, equity will uphold a donation for an educational purpose that is connected with a church: Andrews v. Andrews, 110 Ill. 223; Newcomb v. St. Peter's Church, 2 Sand. Ch. 636. A denominational school property, vested in trustees, for the purpose of affording encouragement to the education of youth, is a purely public charity, although the school is not open in the same way to the general public as to persons connected with the religious denomination, but who are admitted, as vacancies occur, upon the same terms with other pupils: Episcopal Academy v. Philadelphia, 150 Pa. St. 565. Property held by a Roman Catholic archbishop in trust for the purposes of public religious worship, schools, orphan asylums, and cemeteries, is for uses that will be upheld by the courts: Mannix v. Purcell, 46 Ohio St. 102; 15 Am. St. Rep. 562. It is the use to which property is to be applied, and not the particular persons to be benefited, that determines whether a gift constitutes a charitable use or trust: Raley v. Umatilla County, 15 Or. 172; 3 Am. St. Rep. 142.

The founding and support of private institutions of learning, and the endowment of professorships and scholarships, are also charfties, as gifts for this purpose are designed to promote the public good by the encouragement of learning, science, and the useful arts. Such donations, though made without any particular reference to the poor, are regarded as charities: Saint Clara Female Academy v. Sullivan, 116 Ill. 375; 56 Am. Rep. 776; Curling v. Curling, 8 Dana, 38; 33 Am. Dec. 475; Barnum v. Mayor, 62 Md. 275; 50 Am. Rep. 219; American Academy etc. v. Harvard College, 12 Gray, 582, 594; Taylor v. Bryn Mawr College, 34 N. J. Eq. 101; Trustees v. Kellogg, 16 N. Y. 83; Cresson's Appeal, 30 Pa. St. 437; Dickson v. Montgomery, 1 Swan, 348; Franklin v. Armfield, 2 Sneed, 305; Dodge v. Williams, 46 Wis. 70; Russell v. Allen, 5 Dill. 235; 107 U. S. 163; Perin v. Carey, 24 How. 465; Yates v. University College, L. R. 8 Ch. 454. Compare People v. Fitch, 154 N. Y. 14, 31, 33.

The general diffusion of knowledge and the advancement of education and learning are also charities: American Academy etc. v. Harvard College, 12 Gray, 582; Lowell's case, 22 Pick. 215; Weber v. Bryant, 161 Mass. 400; State v. Academy of Science, 13 Mo. App. 213; Chapin v. School Dist., 35 N. H. 445; Thompson v. Swoope, 24 Pa. St. 474. A bequest to the Royal, or to the Royal Geographical, or to the Royal Humane Society, is a charitable legacy: Beaumont v. Oliveira, L. R. 6 Eq. 534. A bequest "for the diffusion of useful knowledge and instruction amongst the institutes, libraries, clubs, or meetings of the working classes, or manual laborers who earn their bread by the sweat of their brow," etc., is a valid charity: Sweeney v. Sampson, 5 Ind. 465. So is a devise "for the distribu

tion of good books among poor people in the back part of Pennsyl vania": Pickering v. Shotwell, 10 Pa. St. 23. A gift "for the benefit, advancement, and propagation of education and learning, in every part of the world, as far as circumstances will permit," is a good charitable bequest: Whicker v. Hume, 14 Beav. 509. The Smithsonian Institution at Washington owes its existence to a bequest to found “an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men," which Lord Langdale held to be a val'd charity: President v. Drummond (M, S.), cited in Whicker v. Hume, 7 H. L. Cas. 155. A devise of property to be used in distributing over the land the publications of Henry George on the land question, and cognate subjects, will be sustained and enforced, though all such publications teach doctrines antagonistic to the law, in this -in teaching that the earth belongs to all mankind, and is an inalienable heritage, and that no private ownership can rightfully exist therein: George v. Braddock, 45 N. J. Eq. 757; 14 Am. St. Rep. 754.

The establishment and maintenance of institutions for the cultivation and promotion of art, or for education in the domestic and useful arts, is a charity: Almy v. Jones, 17 R. I. 205; Webster v. Morris, 66 Wis. 366; 57 Am. Rep. 278; Cresson's Appeal, 30 Pa. St. 437. A bequest to be used as premiums for medical essays is a good charitable bequest: Palmer v. Union Bank, 17 R. I. 627. So is one that provides medals for meritorious scholars in the High and Grammar Schools: Bartlett, Petitioner, 163 Mass. 509. A gift for the advancement of agricultural or horticultural knowledge is a valid charity: Rotch v. Emerson, 105 Mass. 431; and so is a donation for the education of deaf and dumb persons: American Asylum v. Phoenix Bank, 4 Conn. 172; 10 Am. Dec. 112. Equity will uphold, as a valid charity, a bequest for instruction in music and drawing, or a bequest for teaching young mariners the art or science of navigation: Bartlett, Petitioner, 163 Mass. 509. The education of the poor is a charity: Hinckley's Estate, 58 Cal. 457, 468; White v. McKeon, 92 Ga. 343; Williams v. Pearson, 38 Ala. 299; Clement v. Hyde, 50 Vt. 716; 28 Am. Rep. 522; Leeds v. Shaw, 82 Ky. 79.

The establishment and maintenance of a library for the benefit of the public is also a charity: Crerar v. Williams, 145 Ill. 625-643; Bartlett, Petitioner, 163 Mass. 509; St. Paul's Church v. Attorney General, 164 Mass. 188; Drury v. Inhabitants of Natick, 10 Allen. 169; Dascomb v. Marston, 80 Me. 223; Maynard v. Woodard, 36 Mich. 423; Brown v. Pancoast, 34 N. J. Eq. 321; Donohugh's Appeal, 86 Pa. St. 306; Pepper's Estate, 154 Pa. St. 331; Manners v. Phildelphia Library Co., 93 Pa. St. 165; 39 Am. Rep. 744; Attorney General v. Marchant, L. R. 3 Eq. 424. This principle applies to public school libraries: Maynard v. Woodard, 36 Mich. 423. A library open to the public is none the less a charity because a small fee is charged to those who take out books, and a deposit required for their return: Donohugh's Appeal, 86 Pa. St. 306. A bequest for a public library and for a protectory for boys is a charitable bequest: Duggan v. Slocum, 83 Fed. Rep. 244. A gi.t