206 PROCEEDINGS OF 



dual, a foreigner too, and bearing his name, should stand in opposition to a noble 

 establishment, bearing the name and supported by the patronage of the Govern- 

 ment of a great nation ; so much the more as the funds of the former arc limited, 

 and comparatively small in respect to what a national institution may expect to 

 possess in the course of half a century, from the liberality of our citizens, the pa- 

 tronage of the Government, and other sources. Even at present, the value of the 

 objects confided by our Government to its custody, the fruits of our scientific expe- 

 ditions, are thought by many to equal if not to exceed that of the Smithsonian 

 legacy. It is essential, therefore, that the National Institution should preserve its 

 honorable standing, situated as it is in the capital of the United States, and pro- 

 mising to be a lasting monument of our scientific and literary glory. 



Without meaning in the least to detract from the merit of the liberal and benevo- 

 lent testator, who I think is justly entitled to our liveliest gratitude for his munifi- 

 cent legacy, I cannot help regretting that he made it a condition of his gift, that 

 the institution which he contemplated should bear his name, considering the extent 

 of its objects, and its location in our capital city. I do not know, at least I can- 

 not remember to have read or heard of any similar instance. No such condition 

 was made by the venerable John Harvard, when he bequeathed half his fortune to 

 the then infant college, now University of Cambridge, in Massachusetts. The 

 gratitude of the country effected that which the testator neither required nor even 

 expected. That seminary of learning is now justly called Harvard University; 

 and had Mr. Smithson contemplated sueh an institution, his name would undoubt- 

 edlv have been given to it without his requiring it. When Sir Hans Sloane made 

 Ills munificent bequest to the Government of his country, he did not require that 

 t-he British Museum, of which it was the foundation, should be called by his name. 

 It received another denomination, but while it exists, memory shall never cease to 

 connect with it the name of its benevolent founder. But the Museum, being a 

 national institution, could not properly have received any other than a national 

 denomination. When the late Stephen Girard bequeathed millions to the city of 

 Pliiladelphia for the erection of a college, he made no condition like that indispens- 

 ably required by Mr. Smithson. The college, however, bears liis name, which 

 gratitude has bestowed upon it. I might cite many other instances of gratitude 

 perpetuating the name of a benefactor, without ils being made by him an express 

 condition of his gift. 



It would bo imjust, however, to blame Mr. Smithson for having inserted this 

 condition in liis liberal bequest — it is a natural feeling to wish to perpetuate one's 

 name. But if Mr. Smithson had sufficiently reflected upon it, lie might have effected 

 it, like Sir Hans Sloane, in a manner equally honorable, and the name of Smithson 

 would have shone forever in the list of its principal founders. 



But it is useless to reason upon what might have been done; the legacy has been 

 accepted with its condition annexed to it, and therefore the establishment to be 

 founded by Congress, in consequence of tiiis bequest, must bear tlic name of the 

 Smithsonian Inatitutiou. No change or alteration can be made in it — Iho will of 

 the testator must be literally obeyed. 



But it docs not follow from any of the expressions in that instrument, that the 

 Smithsonian Institution must be separate and independent, and that it cannot be 

 cnimccled with, and made a blanch of a ualional cstablibhnieiU, aa is the case with 



