622 CONGRESSIONAL PROCEEDINGS. 



institution, and the name of the author, as far as practicable 

 concealed, unless a favorable decision be made. 



It will be perceived that there is nothing like a " star 

 chamber of science" in this part of the plan of the institu- 

 tion. The opinion of the commission is formed upon the 

 merits of the work or paper, and cannot be affected by par- 

 tiality for or prejudice against the author whose name is un- 

 known to them. 



If any author should feel himself aggrieved by the ap- 

 pointment of an incompetent or prejudiced commission, he 

 will have no difficulty in presenting a complaint to the 

 Board of Regents, by whom another commission may be 

 named. In fact, no well-founded complaint on this score 

 has yet been made so far as has been shown to this commit- 

 tee, and the danger complained of seems to them only 

 speculative and fanciful. The Board of Regents have full 

 power to remedy whatever may be wrong in the practical 

 working of this part of the plan, and it will be time enough 

 to ask the interference of Congress when the evils which 

 are now only conjectural shall be realized. 



2d. Mr. Meacham suggests, " that the institution should 

 be placed in such a position that legal redress may be 

 gained b}^ those who are improperly deprived of their 

 rights." 



It is true that the institution is not a corporation capable 

 of suing or being sued. But no practical evils have as yet 

 resulted from the refusal of Congress to make the estab- 

 ment an incorporation. It is a peculiar establishment. Its 

 operations are simple and few. Its contracts are such as 

 can seldom form the subject of controversy. If the institu- 

 tion should lind necessity for legal redress, there is nothing 

 to prevent the President, who is a member of the establish- 

 ment, from directing a suit in the name of the United 

 States. If it denies legal rights to any officer or other per- 

 son, the same remedy exists as in any other case of claim 

 against the United States. No instance of a denial of legal 

 right has been shown to the committee. An attempt to do 

 so was indeed made on the part of an employee of the insti- 

 tution, who claimed to be entitled to larger compensation 

 than had been paid to him. But the attempt was a signal 

 failure. His own receipts contradicted his claims, and sat- 

 isfied the committee that he had been paid all he could 

 legally demand; and the assertion of extraordinary merit in 

 his labors, alleged as an equitable ground of claim, failed 

 when a resort was had to testimony other than his own. 



