Judge Ira Harris and Robert Kelly, a wealthy New York merchant, both members of the University Trustees committee appointed in August to examine legal obstacles to removal, seem to have been convinced that there were no serious objections though the whole committee had not yet given an opinion. In October 1848, Harris had expressed his belief that the way was clear. When Kelly found himself unable to attend a meeting of the committee in Albany in January 1849, he recommended that the Board’s resolution for removal be filed with the Secretary of State even if there were legal obstacles. Deacon Burchard, the chairman, believed, however, that there should be a delay until expert legal opinion· might be obtained. Apparently his counsel went unheeded for the Secretary of State received the resolution on January 25. The next day, however, the Havens and Wiley injunction was served on the President of the Board and thus halted proceedings until the matter could be decided by the courts.
Hardly had the injunction been served when Professor Eaton and others tried to get the Act of April 3, 1848, which authorized removal, repealed. In his Memorial to the Legislature Eaton stressed that the Hamilton people, though certain that the courts would eventually decide in their favor, wished repeal so that they might avoid protracted litigation which would keep friends from contributing funds until the case might be settled.
To counteract this Anti-Removalist tactic, John N. Wilder, Smith Sheldon, and Ira Harris, aroused and indignant, made vigorous efforts to influence members of the 1849 Legislature to retain the Act. Professor Raymond came from Hamilton to join them. One of the most ardent advocates of removal from the inception of the idea and restless under the routine of the classroom, he enjoyed the excitement and the non-academic associations. He was assigned the task of drawing up a reply to Eaton’s Memorial, which he did in the form of a Remonstrance. Aside from reiterating already familiar arguments he pointed out that for the Legislature to repeal a law which had been enacted only the year before after mature’ deliberation would be inconsistent with that body’s proper dignity and good faith.
Most of the discussion on repeal took place in the Senate where Senator Thomas N. Bond, representing the district in which Hamilton was located, made a forceful and comprehensive speech against removal. When the final vote was taken on April 10th, the bill failed of