332 REPORT OF NATIONAL MUSEUM, 1891. 



sissippi; Jaines A. Peaice, of Montana; James M. Masoii and William 

 Winston Seaton, of Virginia; John IMcPherson Berrien, of Georgia; 

 William V. Preston, of Hontli Carolina; William J. Hough, of New 

 York; Alexander J)allas Bache, SniJerintendent of the ('oast Survey, 

 and Gen. Joseph (t. Totten. 



The Regents soon realized that in order to ciirry out efficiently the 

 trust which had devolved ui)on them, it \\ould be necessary to decide 

 upon a definite course of policy, and to settle for themselves the inter- 

 pretation of certain of the provisions in the act of incorpoiation. 



A committee was appointed at once to digest a plan to carry out the 

 provisions of the "Act to establish the Smithsonian Institution," and 

 on January 25. 1847, this report was made, signed by Robert Dale 

 Owen, Henry W. Hilliard, Rufus ('lioate, and Alexander Dallas Bache, 

 after having made a ]»reliminary report Decend)er 1, which was recom- 

 mitted to the committee December 21. 



These dates are mentioned in or<ler to afford opportunity for the re- 

 mark that in the interval between December 1 and December 21 Prof. 

 Joseph Henry had been elected to and accepted the Secretaryship of 

 the institution, and that previous to his election he had submitted to 

 the Regents a sketch of a proposed ])laii of organization, which appears 

 to have been acceptable to the maiority of the Board, and that in this 

 sketch were j^rinted opinions which had from that time on a most pow- 

 erful, and in time a controlling, influence upon the policy of the Insti- 

 tution.* 



The election of Professor Henry was in accordance with the view 

 held by the Regents, and expressed in the repoit of the committee, and 

 even more forcibly in the resolutions of the Board, that the Secretary 

 must of necessity become the chief executive officer of the Institution, 

 and "that upon the choice of this single officer, more probably than 

 on any one other act of the Board, will depend the future good name 

 and success and usefulness of the Smithsonian Institution. t 



The choice of Prof. Henry was by no means the unanimous act of the 

 Regents, and since in resx)ect to personal qualiticatious he undoubtedly 

 fulfilled the requirements of the resolution passed by the Board previous 

 to the election of a Secretary, it is clear that some of the Regents did 

 not look with favor upon his plan of organization. 



* At a lueetiug of tlie Joint Committee on Public BuiUlinys and Giouuds in Febru- 

 ary, 1865, Prof. Henry said: "1 have been from the first, now eighteen years, the 

 Secretary or Executive Officer of the Smithaouiau Institution. * * * Before my 

 election I was requested by one of the Regents to give a sketch of what, in accord- 

 ance with the will of Smithson, I considered should be tlie plan of organization, and 

 after duo consideration of the subject there was not the least shadow of a doubt in 

 my mind that the intention of the donor was to found a cosmopolitan instUntion, the 

 effects of which should not he confined to one city, or even to one country, hut should he ex- 

 tended to the whole civilized world." — (Rep. Com., No. 129, Thirty-eighth Congress, 

 second session.) 



+ 1847. Smithsonian Institution. Report of the Organization Committee of the 

 Smithsonian Institution, etc. Washington, 1847, ](p. 18-19. 



