SMITHSONIAN BEQUEST. 23 



proceedings on the 1st instant were made up, that the title of the suit, 

 as originally advised by our counsel, was the proper title, viz: ' k The 

 President of the United States of America versus Drummond." It 

 therefore stands so without alteration. 



It will have been observed from my last that the court had not seen 

 the act of Congress in the proceedings of record up to the 1st instant. 

 The reason it did not then appear on the face of the bill will be found 

 in the nature of the counsel's opinion. I put a copy of the act into 

 their hands, as a necessary accompaniment to my statement of the case 

 drawn up for their consideration. On referring to their opinion, 

 transmitted with my No. 4, it will be seen that they recommend that 

 a bill be first filed, praying that the United States might " be declared 

 entitled to the fund, upon trust, for the purposes expressed in the 

 will; " and, next, that when a decree to that effect was obtained, a 

 petition should be presented, in the name of the President and the 

 agent, praying that the fund be transferred to the latter, as authorized 

 by the President under the act of Congress to receive it. The counsel 

 thought that the proper time for setting forth the act would have 

 arrived when the petition was presented, and not before; but the court, 

 under its first impression, inclining to think it ought to be added to 

 the bill, gave leave to make the addition forthwith, and it was done 

 accordingly. The case therefore now stands, on all points, as could 

 be desired, without any delay having intervened through matters of 

 form. Our professional advisers are disposed to regard this with 

 satisfaction, considering the case as one of the first impression here, 

 the United States having never before appeared as suitor in an English 

 court. 



Having selected counsel of distinguished character and abilities in 

 the court of chancery to conduct the proceedings on the part of the 

 United States, I feel that it is not my province to guide but to follow 

 their opinions in matters of English law and practice. Yet I feel it a 

 duty to understand theirs, and offer mine to their consideration when- 

 ever there may seem any likelihood of its being serviceable to the 

 claim of the United States, and will frankly own that I saw no objec- 

 tion to their withholding the act of Congress from the record until 

 actual payment of the fund was asked of the court, who have the pres- 

 ent custody of it. The United States, it is true, had never before sued 

 in an English court. But there were precedents of other nations hav- 

 ing done so by their executive head, as, for example, the King of 

 France, the King of Denmark, and, I believe, other sovereign and inde- 

 pendent States. It was not understood that any legislative act of those 

 countries had been considered necessary, and was therefore inferred 

 that the United States might in like manner enter the courts here, as 

 of common usage, to establish the validity of a testamentary bequest 

 made to them by a subject of Britain. The act of Congress may have 



