8 CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON. 



the popular mind. What obstacles could arise that would not be 

 speedily swept aside by the resistless tide of the Institution's 

 income, reinforced as then generally assumed, and still often 

 assumed, by its endowment? 



It is a fortunate circumstance, not only for the Institution but 

 for all similar organizations as well, that this exuberant optimism 

 was not wholly shared by those more immediately 

 responsible for the stability and the permanence 

 of the new enterprise. Among the Trustees who entertained a 

 more rational optimism and thus rendered invaluable aid to 

 the Institution during the critical period in question was Isaac 

 Wayne MacVeagh, who served the organization from the date 

 of its foundation in 1902 to 1907 and who died at his home in 

 Washington, January 11, 1917. 



Mr. MacVeagh was a native of Pennsylvania, having been 

 born at Phoenixville, Chester County, April 19, 1833, and he 

 was identified with that State during the greater part of his life. 

 He is too well known as a distinguished American who devoted 

 his time and talents in large degree to the public service to 

 need extended mention here. It msiy suffice to remark that he 

 brought into the councils of the Board of Trustees of the Insti- 

 tution the same fearless independence and the same high sense 

 of justice and proprietj^ which characterized him in public life. 

 Although he did not take a notably active part in the proceedings 

 of this Board or in those of the Executive Committee, he was 

 keenly alive to the essentials of these proceedings and especially 

 competent and ready to give advice concerning their legal and 

 moral aspects. He served the Institution best by means of 

 counsel given in the privacy of his home, where he spoke freely of 

 men and measures and of the dangers which the Institution must 

 encounter. He possessed extraordinary knowledge of men and 

 affairs and corrresponding capacit}^ to give enlightening advice 

 concerning both. His versatilitj^ and his varied experience, 

 supplemented by a reflective temperament, made him a national 

 authority in legal, judicial, and diplomatic questions. He was 

 a resolute advocate and antagonist in all such matters. But 

 throughout his career there is dominant an elevated type of 

 ideahsm never obscured either bj^ public clamor or by personal 

 triumphs in forensic fields. He accepted the fraj" of the work- 



