SMITHSONIAN BEQUEST. 35 



seem.s in France, on the subject of his claims, which had been sent to 

 Mr. S. by Mr. Anderson, charge d'affaires of the United States at 

 Paris. The nature of these claims is sufficiently stated in my letter 

 of the 2-ith of last month, and I need not therefore repeat that, accord- 

 ing to the view I take of them, they are altogether unreasonable. In 

 writing to Mr. Anderson upon the subject, which I did yesterday, I 

 informed him that Monsieur de la Batut had been in London, urging 

 them upon those who are charged with conducting and superintending 

 the case of the United States before the court of chancery in the mat- 

 ter of the Smithsonian bequest, and that our Government had been 

 apprised of them through mj^ communications to you; that as they 

 were adverse to the interests of the United States, and had been pur- 

 sued in an adverse manner by M. de la Batut when here, it was not 

 for me to aid in transmitting his paper to the President; but that as 

 he might wish to have it again, to make his own use of it, I was at a 

 loss how to dispose of it otherwise than by returning it to him (Mr. 

 Anderson), which I therefore felt myself obliged to do, with the expla- 

 nation here given. Mr. Anderson was probably not before acquainted 

 with any of the circumstances I stated. 



1 have deemed it right to inform you of the step thus taken in 

 regard to this petition, and hope it will appear to have been proper. 

 I ought to mention, whilst on the subject, that on the first arrival of 

 M. de la Batut in London I caused him to be informed that, although 

 in no event was I authorized to promise him anything from the United 

 States, yet if he promptly afforded the facilities to their suit in chan- 

 cery, which he justl}' might, by stating facts within his immediate and 

 full knowledge respecting young Hungerford, he would naturally 

 stand well with our Government; and that, as far as the expression of 

 anj^ favorable opinion of mine towards him was concerned, he would 

 necessarily earn it. Far from listening to what was so unobjection- 

 able, he refused, as made known in one of the letters enclosed with 

 my last, to give any evidence whatever for the United States, except 

 on condition of a previous pledge from me to support all his claims, not 

 perceiving, though so informed that such a pledge, had I even made 

 it, could have availed him nothing. 



It maybe proper to mention here, also, that it never was my intention, 

 and so I instructed our professional advisers, to raise any captious 

 objections to Monsieur la Batut's claim in right of his wife, so long as 

 he kept it within the limit of the bequest made to her by the will of 

 Henrj^ Louis Dickinson, as explained in my No. 6. The bequest may 

 amount, as I now understand the case, to £240 sterling a year, at 

 the utmost, during the life of the wife. All I demanded was, that 

 this claim should be substantiated by fair proof, and be adjudged by 

 the court, as I had no authority to give an independent assent to any- 

 thing that might diminish the fund bequeathed to the United States 

 by Mr. Smithson. 



