TWENTY-FOURTH CONGRESS, 1835-37. 143 



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 represen- 

 tation, 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. 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. 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 dbj of 

 Washington, an institution for the increase of kno^^•ledge 



