174 CONGEESSIONAL PEOCEEDINGS. 



want of dig-nity wholly unworthy of thi.s Government. Some years 

 ago we accepted a .statue of Mr. Jefferson, which is no more like him 

 than I am, and we made a tacit admission, by its acceptance, that we 

 were too stingy to purchase one worthy of the man and of the nation. 

 And now what would we do by this ? We would accept a donation from 

 a foreigner to do with it what we have no right to do, and just as if 

 we were not rich enough ourselves to do what is proposed, or too 

 mean to do it if it were in our power. Sir, we are rich enough our- 

 selves; and if we are not, this bequest can not give us the power. 



Mr. T. H. Benton. My mind is not made up on a single point rela- 

 tive to this bill, and I would suggest the propriety of laying it on the 

 table. 



Mr. K. J. Walker. The same objections which lie equally against 

 this bill and the acceptance of the fund were urged upon the Senate 

 when the question of accepting it was before them, with the same 

 earnestness by Senators as now, and after a protracted debate the 

 question was decided against them, their whole number being only five 

 or six. A vast majority of the Senate did not think we were humili- 

 ated by accepting from an individual any amount of money Avhich he 

 might think propei' to bestow for the purpose of establishing in this 

 District an institution for the difi'usion of knowledge among men; 

 and no government has considered itself humiliated b}^ its accept- 

 ance of such donations; and if, instead of $500,000, it amounted to 

 $20,000000, for these great and noble purposes, I would glory in 

 receiving it, and in applying it to these great purposes alone. But 

 it is now too late to urge these objections. We have prosecuted the 

 suit, and have actually received the money; and now, when we have 

 received it, shall we refuse to perform the trust which we took upon 

 ourselves by its acceptance ? It would be a fraud on those from whom 

 we received it. On what ground did the court of chancery give over 

 the fund? Only on the ground that we would carr}^ into effect the 

 will of the testator; and it would be a violation of good faith for us 

 now to refuse to carry it into effect. 



And what are the constitutional objections? Sir, we find no diflS- 

 culty in building railroads and bridges in the District, or in incorpo- 

 rating colleges and other institutions, and it is but now that a ditiiculty 

 has arisen in establishing an institution for the diffusion of knowledge 

 among men. We incorporated the Columbian College of this city, 

 but is it only the District of Columbia that sends to that institution ? 

 No, sir; it is known to every member that its benefits are open to the 

 whole world, and are actually extended throughout the Union. Its 

 students come from every part of the United States. And that was 

 an infinitely stronger case than this, for there we gave money, while 

 here we give none; and all that is asked of us is that we honestly 

 comply with the obligations under which we have entered with the 

 Government through whom we received the money. 



