THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION. 95 



The law is declaratory and positive in charging the Secretary with the 

 enumerated duties, and therefore invests him and him alone with the 

 corresponding powers. But as it must have been manifest that no 

 Secretary could be able of himself to perform personally every thing 

 required for the discharge of his enumerated duties, provision is made 

 for aid to him, in the clause which says that he " may, with the con" 

 sent of the board, employ assistants," &c. 



The positions of the persons so employed are detern]ined by the 

 word which designates them in the clause authorising iheir employ- 

 ment. They are called " assistajits.^^ To whom ? Not to the Regents, 

 but to the Secretar}^ Their position is necessarily subordinate ; and 

 as their duties are those of assistants to their principal, they can no 

 more be independent of him than they can be superior to him. This 

 construction is so manifestly proper, that it would seem to require no 

 argument to justify it. But if anything iiirther were wanted, it may 

 be found in the tact that the Secretary is to employ them in and about 

 that very business with which he is cliarged and lor which he alone is 

 responsible. The character of this part of the section is permissive. 

 He is not required to employ any one, but is permitted to employ per- 

 sons to assist him, provided he satisfy the Board that their services are 

 necessary as aids to him. 



In another part of the same section provision is made for the pay- 

 ment and, if need be, the removal of the Secretary and his assistants, 

 and in this connexion they are spoken of as officers, but by no ingenu- 

 ity of construction can that word, in this connexion, be held to assign 

 them special duties or confer any separate authority. 



Thus careful has Congress been to provide an efficient system of 

 operations which can only come from harmony of purpose and unity 

 of action. 



This view of the intention of Congress, so clearly expressed in the 

 law, would be directly contradicted by the plan which has been sug- 

 gested, of organizing the Institution definitely into several departments, 

 placing at the head of these departments different assistants, estabhsh- 

 ing their relative positions, prescribing distinct duties for them, assign- 

 ing certain shares of the income to be disbursed by them, and stating 

 their authority, privileges, and remedies for infringement of their official 

 rights, or of the interests entrusted to their care. All this would tend 

 not to se( ure a loyal and harmonious co-operation, to a common end, 

 of the assistants with the Secretary, but to encourage rivalry, to invite 

 colhsirn, to engender hostility, to destroy subordination, to distract the 

 operations of the Institution, to impair its efficienc3% and to destroy its 

 usefulness. 



The Committee are satisfied too, that the expenditures of the Insti- 

 tution would be unprofitably increased by oi-ganizing it into several de- 

 partments, with authority to the head of each department to expend the 

 rnoney appropriated to it. The tendency would be to more subdivi- 

 sions of duty, to an increase of assistants, by the introduction first of 

 temporary and then of permanent employees, until, as the collections 

 grew larger and the persons charged with their care became more 

 numerous, the greater portion of the income would be absorbed in sala- 

 ries. Thus the munificence intended to increase and chfTuse knowledge 



