THIRTY -THIRD CONGRESS, 1853-] 855. 531 



not succeed exactly in vindicating that part of the letter — the sugges 

 tion which my friend from Maryland made, that there is a tone of 

 confidence, of unmistakable and unmistaken certainty, with which the 

 distinguished writer announces his opinions upon the interpretation 

 of this law, which I think my friend from Illinois will pardon me for 

 saying at least borders a little, yer}' little, upon the confines of arro- 

 gance, for I beg my friend to consider against what an array of 

 judgments the opinion of that distinguished writer is giyen. 



Mr. S. A. Douglas. Consider the names on the other side. 



Mr. G. E. Badger. The names on the other side haye not been j^et 

 giyen; but I am yer}^ certain that my friend before me [Mr. Douglas], 

 whose name is one of them — and it is a name of weight and authorit}^ 

 in this country and elsewhere, where it is known — is one of the last 

 persons who would announce his opinion without the expression of 

 some deferential conception that, after all, perhaps he might be mis- 

 taken. Now, I must say — I think it is due to truth and the occasion 

 to say, and I belieye the whole Senate will agree with me — that, 

 whether the distinguished writer be correct or not in his opinions, 

 that part of the letter is in very bad taste. 



Believing, Mr. President, that there is nothing for us to do but 

 accept the resignation of this gentleman, and to accept it with regret 

 because of his eminent talents and high position and undoubted 

 patriotism, and therefore his capacity and willingness to be useful, 1 

 should think that the subject might be allowed to drop; but, never- 

 theless, I yield to the suggestion of my friend from Maryland. He 

 has intimated that he desires that this should be the subject of inves- 

 tigation, and I am willing to move that it shall go to a committee, but 

 I am not prepared to say that it is proper on this occasion to select a 

 special committee. This is a question of judicial interpretation — of 

 legislation to be founded upon a judicial interpretation — if the com- 

 mittee in the Senate shall be of opinion that the Regents have mis- 

 taken the true construction of this law. We have a committee, a 

 standing committee of this body, composed of eminent lawyers, abun- 

 dantly able to reexamine this subject so far as it needs reexamination, 

 and so far as this House has any jurisdiction over it. I am not, there- 

 fore, for passing over that committee upon a judicial question to raise 

 any select committee. It is a question of law — the interpretation of a 

 statute. If we are not satisfied with the judgment given in the Board 

 of Regents; if such a board of men, aided in their opinions by the 

 illustrious Tane}", do not convey to us a conviction that a statute has 

 been rightly interpreted, let it go to that committee of this body. It 

 is a proper organ to examine and investigate and report upon strictly 

 legal inquiries. I therefore move the reference of this paper to the 

 Committee on the Judiciary. 



Mr. W. H. Seward. Mr. President, I should not speak at all on 



