Mr. CHAPIN concluded by expressing the hope that the motion to print would be adopted by the House without a dissenting voice.

Mr. JAMES H. PARKER said the House had not entirely got out of a debate which had arisen upon a bill which was intended to provide for their own pay, in reference to the alleged excessive expenditures of the contingent fund of the House for the item of printing. A great deal of complaint was made on the occasion alluded to, because of the number of President's messages ordered to be printed by the House. He was so case-hardened that he would upon a like occasion do the same thing again. He was, however, not prepared to vote for the proposition before the House. The report was doubtless an able one, but he could see no reason why five times the number which were necessary for the information of the House should be printed. It would be recollected that a report had been made in the Senate on this subject which had been published in all the newspapers he had seen. They would not be called upon to make any disposition of these funds, because they had not yet received them, and if they ever did it would perhaps be fifteen or twenty years first. Upon the whole he did not consider it at all important that an extra number of this report should be published.

The motion to print 5,000 extra copies of the report was then agreed to.

February 5, 1836.-Senate.

The resolution to authorize and enable the President to assert and prosecute with effect the claim of the United States to the legacy bequeathed to them by James Smithson, was considered as in Committee of the Whole; and,

On motion by Mr. WILLIAM C. PRESTON,

Laid on the table.

April 30, 1836.-Senate.

On motion of Mr. WILLIAM C. PRESTON, the Senate took up the resolution authorizing the President of the United States to appoint an agent or agents to prosecute and receive from the British court of chancery the legacy bequeathed to the United States by the late James Smithson of London, for the purpose of establishing at Washington city an institution for the increase of knowledge among men, to be called the Smithsonian University.

Mr. PRESTON said that by this will it was intended that this Government should become the beneficiaries of this legacy, and contended that if they had not the competence to receive it by the Constitution, the act of no individual could confer the power on them to do so. He claimed that they had not the power to receive the money for national objects, and if so, the expending of it for another object was a still higher power. He controverted the position that if they could not receive it as the beneficiary legatce, they might receive it as the fiduciary agent.

If they had not the power to establish a university without the power conferred on them by a grant, they could not have it with the grant; or what they could not exercise directly, they could not exercise as trustee. He referred to a report made by Mr. Adams in the House of Representatives, in which the genealogy of Mr. Smithson was given and traced through the line of the illustrious Percys and Seymours of England. He thought this donation had been partly made with a view to immortalize the donor, and that it was too cheap a way of conferring immortality. There was danger of their imaginations being run away with by the associations of Chevy Chase ballads, etc., and he had no idea of this District being used as a fulcrum to raise foreigners to immortality by getting Congress as the parens patriæ of the District of Columbia to accept donations from them.

The committee had misconceived the facts; the bequest was to the United States of America to found a university in the District of Columbia, under the title of the "Smithsonian University," and the execution of the terms of the legacy was to redound to the purposes of the donation, which was for the benefit of all mankind. It was general in its terms, and not limited to the District of Columbia; it was for the benefit of the United States, and could not be received by Congress.

Mr. B. F. LEIGH said he would thank the gentleman to inform the Senate that the report he had referred to was made in the House of Representatives, and not by a committee of the Senate. The report of the Senate's committee was simply a statement of matters of fact. Mr. Leigh explained the provisions of the will, which were simply these: The testator, James Smithson, bequeathed to his nephew, James Henry Hungerford, a legacy of £100,000, providing that if Mr. Hungerford should die without children the legacy should inure to the United States, for the purpose of founding at the city of Washington an institution for the increase of knowledge among men, to be called the Smithsonian University; and the Government had received information from the American consul at London that Mr. Hungerford had lately died without ever having been married and without leaving any children. It now became necessary, Mr. Leigh said, for Congress to determine whether it was competent for the United States to receive this money, and, if they should receive it, to take measures for carrying the intentions of the testator into effect. The committee to whom this subject had been referred were all of opinion, with the exception of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Preston), that it was proper for the United States to receive this money. They had not considered the question at all, whether it was in the power of Congress to establish a national university, nor was it necessary they should do so. They looked upon this bequest as having been made. simply for the benefit of one of the cities of the District of Columbia,

of which Congress was the constitutional guardian, and could receive and apply the money in that form. Congress was the parens patriæ of the District of Columbia, in the sense laid down by Blackstone, a power which necessarily belonged to every government, and could therefore very properly receive this trust for a charitable purpose in the District of Columbia. Congress had, in fact, exercised this power of parens patriæ of the District in the establishment of an orphans' court, in the erection and support of a penitentiary, and could create an establishment to take care of lunatics; and indeed, if it did not possess this power, in what a deplorable condition would this District be. The States of Maryland and Virginia undoubtedly possessed this power, and of course Congress derived it as to the District from their deeds of cession. He did not look upon this legacy to be for the benefit of the United States, but for the benefit of one of the cities of the District, over which Congress was guardian, and he had therefore no difficulty in voting for the bill.

Mr. PRESTON was aware of the decision of the Supreme Court cited by the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Leigh), that the people of this District might be taxed without representation, and he had no doubt that these corporations could exercise a trust; but this was not a trust to the city of Washington. The United States was the cestui qui trust, and not the city of Washington. The corporation of the city of Washington could not enforce this claim in a court of chancery in England. If an institution of the kind was desired, he would prefer it to be established out of our own funds, and not have Congress pander to the paltry vanity of an individual. If they accepted this donation, every whippersnapper vagabond that had been traducing our country might think proper to have his name distinguished in the same way. It was not consistent with the dignity of the country to accept even the grant of a man of noble birth or lineage.

Mr. J. M. CLAYTON said the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Calhoun) had considered this as a donation to the United States. It was not so. The United States was merely named in the will as the trustee, and was to receive no benefit whatever. It was merely a charitable object to establish an university in the District of Columbia. They had established similar institutions within the District of Columbia by acts of Congress, and no one doubted the power to permit persons from other places to be educated in them.

Mr. J. C. CALHOUN said, if his memory served him, there was opposition made to the passage of those acts.

Mr. CLAYTON said he believed there was some objection made to the policy, but not to the power of making the donation. It was to be located in the city of Washington, and persons in the city would be more benefited by it than any others.

Mr. CALHOUN was of opinion that this donation was made expressly

to the United States. By reading the terms in which the bequest was made, it was impossible to conceive otherwise. The bequest was "to the United States of America, for the purpose of establishing, at the city of Washington, an institution for the increase of knowledge among men." Now, take out the words "the city of Washington,' and the donation was clearly to the United States. The words "the city of Washington" were only used to designate the place where the university was to be established, and not by any stretch of the meaning of language to be considered as making the donation to the city. He understood the Senators on all hands to agree that it was not in the power of Congress to establish a national university, and they all agreed that they could establish a university in the District of Columbia. Now, on this principle, they could not receive the bequest, for the District of Columbia was not even named in it, the city of Washington being only designated as the place where the university was to be established, and the bequest being expressly made to the United States. He thought that acting under this legacy would be as much the establishment of a national university as if they appropriated money for the purpose; and he would indeed much rather appropriate the money, for he thought it was beneath the dignity of the United States to receive presents of this kind from anyone. He could never pass through the Rotunda of the Capitol without having his feelings outraged by seeing that statue of Mr. Jefferson which had been placed there contrary to their consent.

This,

Mr. S. L. SOUTHARD said that the Senator from South Corolina was mistaken in saying that every Senator agreed that it was not in the power of Congress to establish a national university. He, for one, believed that Congress had the unquestionable right to do so. however, did not involve the constitutionality of the question before them, as, in his opinion, the most rigid construction of the Constitution would not be adverse to the bill. Congress had the same right to establish this university as they had to charter a college in Georgetown or Alexandria.

Mr. JAMES BUCHANAN believed that Congress had the power to receive and apply this money to the purposes intended by the testator, without involving the question whether they had the power to establish a national university or not. There was no question but that James Smithson, in his lifetime, had a right to establish a university at the city of Washington, and to call it the Smithsonian University; or a national university, if he pleased; and Congress, by receiving and applying this bequest, would only act as the trustee of the city of Washington, for whose benefit it was made.

Mr. R. J. WALKER would not discuss the question whether this was a national university, because he believed that question was not involved. But he should vote for the bill on the ground that Con

gress would be doing manifest injustice to the citizens of the city of Washington by refusing to accept the donation. It was true that it operated for the benefit of all mankind, but not more so than a university established at Princeton or any other place. The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Calhoun] had said they ought to read the will as if the words "at Washington" were left out. He [Mr. Walker] did not think so. They ought to read it just as it was in connection with the whole, and give it its true construction, which was that the United States was only designated as the trustee, and the people of the city of Washington had a right to call upon Congress, as the representatives of the United States, to execute the trust.

Mr. JOHN DAVIS said this man Smithson, it was said, had devised £100,000 for the establishment of a university in the city of Washington to diffuse knowledge among men. It seemed to be taken for granted that it was for the establishment of a university, although he believed the word university was not to be found in the will. He could not infer why it was so construed, as there were other means of diffusing knowledge among men besides doing it through the medium of universities, and he therefore thought the discussion as to the particular design of the gift premature. He did not regard it as a gift or bequest to the Government. If he did, he would have all the feelings evinced by the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Preston]. The testator had not specified what special purpose it was to be applied to, nor when the fund was to be used, and Congress might defer using it until it became large enough to be used advantageously to the purposes of diffusing knowledge among mankind. If they denied the right to establish a university, they denied the right to establish all institutions of charity. The same question involved in this was also involved in the incorporation of institutions which had been incorporated by them in this District. The only question now under consideration was whether they should receive this money. He would vote for it, and if they could not devise some appropriate disposition of it after it was received, he would be willing to send it back by the first return packet.

Mr. CALHOUN asked the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Davis] what construction he would put upon the will if the words "at Washington" had been left out of it?

Mr. DAVIS replied that he would put the same construction on it then as he did now. His first inquiry would be whether it was for a charitable purpose, and if there was no power to establish the institution in any of the States, he would establish it in the District of Columbia; and if the power to establish it there was doubted, he would establish it in one of the Territories. He deemed the establishment of institutions for the diffusion of knowledge a vital principle of a republican government. They might as well say that delivering lectures in any of the sciences was a national institution as to call this one.