30 SMITHSONIAN BEQUEST. 



from the fund since the testator's death should be allowed to Madame 

 de la Batut. 



We do not think it necessary to g*o further into these requisitions, 

 or into a detail of M. de la Batut's arguments in support of them. 

 We may, however, advert more particularly to the following point, 

 which may have some claim to consideration: M. de la Batut urges 

 that young Hungerford, who lived up to his income, left behind him 

 nothing to pay debts and funeral expenses; that had Mr. Smithson's 

 will come into operation now, instead of seven years back, he would, 

 in consequence of a modern alteration in the law, have been entitled 

 to a portion of the accruing half year's income up to his death; but 

 that, as the modern alteration does not apply to the case, he is deprived 

 even of that, and can not be said to have enjoyed the income of the 

 property during his whole life; and thus burdens are thrown upon his 

 relations, which their circumstances do not enable them to bear. We 

 may here observe that the law on this subject is clear; he was not 

 entitled to any portion of the half year's income. We answered him 

 by stating that neither you nor ourselves could give any opinion on 

 the subject, still less undertake that anything should be done for him 

 by the United States; and we informed him that if he considered he 

 had an}^ moral claims, he must himself apply to the proper authorities, 

 which he stated his intention to do. We further informed him that 

 we were in search of evidence which was completely within his knowl- 

 edge; and we offered, if he would furnish us with and depose to the 

 particulars relating to Hungerford known to him, we would so far 

 support any application he might make to the proper authorities as to 

 certify that in our inquiries and proofs we were under material obli- 

 gations to him; and he at length consented to make the necessary 

 depositions. These depositions we drew up in proper form, but upon 

 requesting him to make an appointment to swear to them, he refused 

 to do so unless he had a pledge from you that you would do all in 

 your power to support his claims, in addition to the recommendation 

 of Mr. Drummond to the consideration of the United States. The 

 recommendation of Mr. Drummond we might have promised him, but 

 the pledge required from you we knew to be out of the question; and 

 as in the meantime we have received from Italy documents which we 

 trust will obviate the necessitj^ of again applying to him for assistance, 

 we felt no hesitation in at once declining to make terms with an indi- 

 vidual whose style of conduct would hardly justify any strong recom- 

 mendation in his favor. He then positively refused to assist us any 

 further, and has left us in considerable anger; and he has expressed 

 his determination to make an application to the President through 

 another channel. It will, we conceive, be entitled to little favor. 

 We remain, etc., 



Clarke, Fynmore & Flaugate. 



Richard Rush, Esq. 



