THIRTY-THIRD CONGRESS, 1853-1855. 595 



The first sense of the Regents respecting the library was soon con- 

 tested under a new reading of the law, one which made the section 

 authorizing the Regents to dispose of the possible surplus or residuum 

 the chief clause of the act overriding all the rest and overruling all 

 other details. Under this construction new purposes were to be 

 introduced; purposes dissimilar to those provided; purposes which 

 had been proposed to and discussed and rejected by Congress — namely, 

 the publication of books and the instituting of scientific researches. 



The early days of the Institution seemed likely to be embittered by 

 controversy resulting from this new movement, but in a magnanimous 

 spirit of conciliation the friends of the library agreed to a "com- 

 promise " dividing the income after the building should be completed 

 equall}^ between the library and museum on one side, and publications, 

 researches, and lectures on the other. 



The friends of the library reconciled their course with the law thus: 

 If $20,000 a year be expended for books during the four or five years 

 while the building is in progress we shall gather a considerable library, 

 and then we may be justified in believing that for the future the share 

 that will come to the library under the compromise may be considered 

 as meeting the requirements of the law, the friends of the scientific 

 scheme will be propitiated, and perpetual harmony secured. 



I think, sir, that they strained their discretion, but they acted in the 

 spirit of conciliation worthy of a fairer requital than it has met. 



Let this matter be distinctly understood. The friends of the library 

 did not begin this controversy. They held to the compromise, and 

 asked only that it should be faithfully administered. They demanded 

 no more for the library than it was entitled to under the compromise. 

 They did not ask that it should be made the paramount interest 

 (although some of us believe that such is its legal position). We were 

 content to abide by the compact; we so voted. It was the propo- 

 sition coming from the advocates of the publication system to annul 

 the compromise and reduce the library to the condition of a mere 

 appendage of the new purposes that led to discussion, and finally, 

 through much irritation, to our present position. 



We are not in an}^ wise responsible for these difficulties. We plant 

 ourselves on the law. For the sake of peace we have been willing to 

 adhere to the compromise. We have had reason to raise the contro- 

 versy on other grounds, for although the resolution of the board giv- 

 ing 120,000 of the income to the library was not repealed, the money 

 was withheld. As an offset the compromise was to be observed 

 before the finishing of the building. We think it was not fairly 

 administered. We did not, however, take issue on that point, but 

 only on the formal proposition to rescind. 



We may not inaptly retort insinuations of illiberality. We hold to 

 the law, and the law requires a universal library, one "composed of 



