24 SMITHSONIAN BEQUEST. 



been necessary, quoad the United States themselves. The bequest, it 

 may be, could not have been accepted otherwise, or a suit been brought 

 on their behalf; but no act of Congress was required for such ends 

 before an English court. The will itself, showing a prima facie right 

 in the United States, was enough to open an English court to their 

 suit, and perhaps their dignity would best be consulted by not exhib- 

 iting the special act until indispensably necessary. The validity of 

 the bequest being established on general grounds by a decree of the 

 court, then, before payment could have been made to anyone demand- 

 ing possession of the fund for the United States, adequate authority 

 from the proper source there must be shown; and at this epoch the 

 act must have been filed, as well as the agent's power. This was the 

 reasoning of our counsel, as I understood it. It appeared to me good, 

 as did their reasons for bringing the suit by its present title. How 

 far the master of the rolls might have dispensed with the filing of the 

 act of Congress until the time indicated by our counsel as that alone 

 when it was necessary, had the latter pressed the point to an argument, 

 is not for me to say. They yielded to his lordship's first impression, 

 and filed it at once, as it caused no delay, and must have been done 

 under their own intentions at a future day, if a favorable decree be 

 obtained on the main question, now so reasonably to be anticipated. 



I have the honor to remain, with great respect, your obedient 

 servant, 



RICHARD RUSH. 



Hon. JOHN FORSYTH, 



Secretary of State. 



Ricfuird Rush to John Forsyth. 



LONDON, March 25, 1837. 



SIR: In mj 7 No. 7 1 had the honor to inform you that the court, after 

 the hearing on the 1st of February, decreed that the case be referred 

 to a master in chancery, to make the requisite inquiries as to the facts, 

 on the happening of which the United States became entitled to the 

 fund bequeathed by Mr. Smithson. 



The facts specially directed to be inquired into, and which must be 

 judicially and technically settled, are, first, whether Henry James 

 Hungerford, named in the pleadings, be living or dead; second, if 

 dead, when he died; third, whether he was married or unmarried at 

 the time of his death; fourth, if married, whether he left any and what 

 children and child, and the age or ages of them, if any. It is further 

 to be ascertained whether John Fitall, mentioned in the pleadings, be 

 living or dead, and, if dead, when he died; and the said master is finally 

 to inquire whether Madame de la Batut has any claim on the testator's 



