16 SMITHSONIAN IIEQUEST. 



shall be followed up with all the despatch aud care which 

 my superintendence can impart to it. 



Should the intervals between my letters be longer than 

 might at first seem compatible with my desire and duty to 

 keep you informed of wdiat is going on, I hope it will not 

 be inferred that there are relaxations in either ; since it is 

 very likely to happen, as has been the case since the date 

 of my last letter, that whilst I am doing all in my power 

 to expedite arrangements and results, nothing may transpire 

 to lay a basis for written communications in any degree 

 definite or satisfactory. Legal proceedings, in general, 

 imply these intervals of apparent inaction, and a suit in 

 ■chancery in England is not likely to form the exception. 

 When occasions of writing to you may arise, the diit}' shall 

 never be omitted. 



This letter w^ould have been wnntten immediately after I 

 received the opinion, but that I wished some explanations, 

 as it was not argumentative ; a form which counsel here do 

 not give to opinions. It being recommended that the bill 

 should be in the name of the President, I deemed it right 

 to mention that there was a possibility in law^ of a tempo- 

 rary vacuum occurring in the executive power under our 

 ■constitution, in order that they might judge how far that 

 consideration w^ould affect the name or style to be used in 

 bringing the suit. As they furtlier advise that the Attor- 

 ney General be made a party, I wished to ascertain, as far 

 as I might, what weight they attached to the point that 

 seemed the main inducement to that course, as well as the 

 reason for suggesting it in advance. I doubted not their 

 good reason for such a course, but thought it desirable to 

 learn it from themselves, that I might impart it from that 

 source for the President's information. 



They have informed me that the legal possibility to which 

 I drew their attention under our constitution does not alter 

 their opinion as to the name proper to be used in bringing 

 the suit, and they do not think it would answer to bring it 

 in the name of the United States alone, whatever the provi- 

 sions of our constitution under this head. I of course put 

 before them the act of Congress of the 1st of July, 1836, 

 which authorizes the suit. As to the point of law, whether 

 n bequest can be sustained after a limitation to illegitimate 

 children, they replied, that they do not at present attach 

 any decisive, perhaps any great weight to it, but think it 

 one that may be made ; and as to its suggestion in advance, 



