THIRTY-THIKD COKGRESS, 1853-1855. 591 



compromise in the way he proposed, he would shake the Institution 

 to its centre. It is evident that he was impatient of the restraints of 

 a subordinate position, and entertained feelings toward the Secretary 

 which made their harmonious cooperation impossible. In a paper 

 which he submitted to the special committee of the Regents he assailed 

 the motiv^es and honor of the Secretary and criticised harshly and 

 unnecessarilj^ the reports of that officer. 



So the special committee of seven Regents, with one exception, 

 reported to the Board, declaring that this paper disclosed feelings of 

 excessive hostility and insubordination. After this, it was manifest 

 that the common civilities of life could not be exchanged between 

 them, and the interests of the Institution required their separation. 

 The Board of Regents accordingly passed a resolution, in January 

 last, approving of Mr. Jewett's removal. 



Mr. IVIeacham also charged the Secretary with claiming and exer- 

 cising the right to open and read letters directed to his subordinates. 

 The evidence satisfied the committee that the Secretary had neither 

 claimed nor exercised any improper authority in this respect. He 

 expressly disclaimed any desire or authorit}'^ to inspect the private 

 letters of his subordinates. Their correspondence, in regard to the 

 business of the Institution, he properly claimed to be entitled to 

 examine and control. In the absence of the subordinates he did con- 

 sider himself at liberty to open letters addressed to them which were 

 evidently of an official character; but it does not appear that he actually 

 exercised this authorit}", the claim of which seems to have been mis- 

 understood b}" one of his assistants, and grossly perverted by another 

 person, under the influence of hostile and unjustly suspicious feelings. 



The charge of denjdng scientific right and refusing to take full 

 measures for adjusting the claim of Mr. Blodget was entirely refuted, 

 both b}^ documentary evidence and the testimony of a disinterested 

 party. 



These latter charges of maladministration seemed to jouv committee 

 not to come precisely within the scope of the instructions of the reso- 

 lution under Avhich the committee was appointed. The Board of 

 Regents might properly have investigated them, and undoubtedly 

 would have done so if asked by the parties concerned. But as testi- 

 mony was taken in relation to them, the committee feel bound to say 

 that they have not been sustained, and that they consider the Secretary 

 as entirelj^ relieved from the charge of maladministration in every 

 particular. They believe that the Regents and the Secretary have 

 managed the affairs of the Institution wisely, faithfuU}', and judi- 

 cioush'^; that there is no necessity for further legislation on the sub- 

 ject; that if the Institution be allowed to continue the plan which has 

 been adopted, and so far pursued with unquestionable success, it will 

 satisfy all the requirements of the law, and the purposes of Smithson's 

 will, by "increasing and diffusing knowledge among men.'" 



