TWENTY-FIFTH CONGKESS, 1837-1839. 179 



donation, it must be used for a national institution, and not one for 

 the District alone. Banks, colleges, and other institutions are incor- 

 porated by us in the District of Columbia, not as national institutions, 

 but for the local benefit of the District. I, sir, voted for banks in the 

 District of Columbia, but in no case was it for a national bank; and 

 such is the precise distinction in the case now before us. The argu- 

 ment is that we may receive money as trustees to be used for purposes 

 entirely different from what the testator contemplated. To this I 

 object, and especially because it places the United States Government 

 in the aspect of a moneyed power. 



Mr. R. H. BAYARD. I was not a member of the Senate when the joint 

 resolution was passed by which we accepted this trust, and I am not 

 quite certain whether I should have been in favor of it or not. But it 

 is rather late, after having accepted the trust, to start this constitu- 

 tional difficulty. I do not altogether approve of the manner in which 

 the money was obtained through the English courts, and if it could be 

 properly returned I should be in favor of it, not for any consideration 

 of our want of constitutional power, but for the manner in which it 

 was obtained. But it is too late to return it. 



But it is argued that there is no power in this Government to accept 

 and administer this trust, and therefore the money is now to be 

 returned. This Government is one of mere trust power, but in one 

 capacity it acts as the Government of the whole United States, and in 

 another as the Government of this District. Its power over the United 

 States is limited, but over this District it is unlimited; and there can 

 therefore be no doubt of its full sovereignty over it, so far as relates 

 to general grounds. But it is a mistake that this donation is for the 

 benefit of the United States. The views of the testator were much 

 more extensive, and he expressly declared that his object was to diffuse 

 knowledge among men. The testator must have understood perfectly 

 well the nature of our institutions, and he knew not only that this 

 Government could act for the United States as such, with power to 

 operate in this District, but he knew, moreover, that this District was 

 eminently calculated for the more comprehensive purpose which he 

 had in view, because it is not trammeled by political or religious 

 restrictions. And the reason why the United States should be induced 

 to accept this bequest is not because it is for the District altogether, 

 but because it may be used for the benefit of the United States and of 

 the world, and the motive and the object which the testator had in view 

 were to select a place where there is perfect freedom of opinion in 

 politics and religion, and the motive of the United States in accepting 

 it is that the people of the District and of the United States may obtain 

 its general benefits. I therefore do not see any difficulty in this Gov- 

 ernment accepting it. 



And the question now is, what is to be done? There is an evident 



