TWENTY-NINTH CONGRESS, 1845-1847. 355 



end must necessarily be the result of compromise, for it is not to be 

 expected that any two minds, acting separately, would arrive at the 

 same conclusion upon this important subject. I understand this bill to 

 have been thus framed by the committee which reported it. As a 

 result of the conflicting opinions of wise and experienced men, har- 

 monized by comparison, discussion, and mutual concession, it is enti- 

 tled to very high respect. But I think its intrinsic merits will be found 

 to be its most imposing recommendation. 



Before attempting to notice the provisions of the bill I will refer 

 briefly to an objection which, if valid, would be paramount to all other 

 considerations. It was with surprise and regret that I heard the 

 objection of my colleague (Mr. Jones) to this bill on the ground of 

 unconstitutionally. I would have regretted opposition upon such 

 grounds from any quarter, but much more when it comes from my 

 own State. I would have preferred that Tennessee should have occu- 

 pied a different position. 



My honorable colleague insists that the Government ought not to 

 have accepted the trust and that the money ought now to be restored. 

 It is true the United States were not bound to accept the trust. They 

 might have rejected Mr. Smithson's magnificent donation and deprived 

 the American people of the rich blessings which may now be conferred 

 upon them by its wise and faithful use. But better counsels prevailed; 

 they did accept it by a law of Congress, and in so doing they assumed 

 a solemn obligation to apply the fund according to the will of the tes- 

 tator. The faith of the Government is pledged it is doubly pledged 

 first, by receiving the money and retaining it eight 3 T ears, with an 

 express agreement to apply it faithfully ; and secondly, by the very 

 nature of the sacred objects to which the trust is directed, so binding 

 and obligatory in their high demand upon the honor of the nation, 

 that it would be sacrilege and barbarism to repudiate the claim. 



1 do not propose to enter the field of constitutional discussion. That 

 is a hackneyed subject and I am sure the occasion does not require 

 that line of argument. Nothing, sir, more clearly demonstrates the 

 utter impracticability and absurdity of those extreme opinions upon 

 constitutional questions sometimes advocated here than the opposition 

 on such grounds to the measure now before us. The common and 

 general judgment of the people, the united and almost universal con- 

 currence of politicians of all classes, unhesitatingly discard and condemn 

 the narrow and illiberal sentiment. An institution of the greatest 

 importance, most beneficial to the people of this country, founded not 

 with funds exacted by taxation but built upon the liberality of a dis- 

 tinguished foreigner, who has so far sanctioned our political structure 

 as to confide to it the execution of a sacred trust for the benefit of the 

 human race this Institution, located within a territory over which 

 Congress has exclusive jurisdiction, surely can not involve the exercise 



