THIETY-THIKD CONGRESS, 1853-1855. 553 



by purchase and through the medium of exchanges, collected 14,000 

 volumes and 11,000 parts of volumes, estimated to be worth $40,000; 

 and if any Regent or officer contemplates the abandonment of the 

 gradual formation of a library of valuable works, as prescribed in the 

 act of Congress, I am ignorant of the fact, and believe no such dispo- 

 sition is entertained. 



While I am opposed to making the library the principal and controll- 

 ing feature of the Institution, I regard it as one of the important 

 instruments to be used in accomplishing the desired end, and hold that 

 it ought neither to be abandoned nor neglected. This was my opinion 

 in the beginning. It is ni}' decided opinion now. 



But, sir, I do not understand that even the distinguished Secretary 

 of the Institution, Professor Henr}', who is generalh^ supposed to be 

 hostile to what is commonly called the library plan — especially favored 

 by ]Mr. Choate and Professor Jewett — to differ essentially, or even 

 materially, from my position upon this subject. 



Professor Henry, in a late communication, solemnly assures the 

 board that so long as the present law of Congress remains unchanged, 

 and until other means can be afforded for their support, he has no idea 

 of proposing to dispense with a librar^^ museum, or gallery of art. 

 He expressly says, "A library such as the Institution may collect b}" 

 its exchanges and judicious purchases, and a museum of special objects 

 of research, though not absolutely necessary to cany on the active 

 operations, would form one harmonious system, and could be properly 

 supported by the present income.'' 



I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that there is no disposition to destroy the 

 plan of a library such as the law contemplates, but there is a disposi- 

 tion to prevent a library from overtopping and destroying other meas- 

 ures of equal or greater importance to the success of the Institution, 

 and this is the whole issue. Sir, I am sure it is the sincere wish of 

 those charged with the management of this Institution to conduct its 

 affairs in such manner as will further the interests of science and be 

 productive of the greatest amount of good. It is their chief desire to 

 carry out in good faith the design of the noble and generous Smith- 

 sou and the act of Congress made in furtherance of his will. Where 

 that law is clear it is implicitly followed; where doubts exist, that 

 mode of action is adopted best calculated, in the judgment of the 

 Regents, "to carrj^ out the design of the liberal and enlightened 

 donor," which design, in the clearest language, is declared to be "the 

 increase and diffusion of knowledge among men.""' Is it at all likely 

 that such a high trust would be abused by a Board of Regents presided 

 over by the Chief Justice of the United States and composed of such 

 men as Mr. Rush, Mr. Berrien, Mr. Hawley, Mr. Pearce, Mr. Doug- 

 las, Mr. Mason, Professor Bache, General Totten, and others of much 

 less name but of equally good intentions ? 



