THIRTY-THIRD CONGRESS, 1853-1855. 525 



those who had the misfortune to differ from a majority on the deci- 

 sion of the various questions referred to in this paper. I do not read 

 the letter of Mr. Choate in the same sense with my colleagues who 

 represent the Senate in that Institution [Mr. Pearce and Mr. Mason] 

 in regard to its spirit. I am unable to perceive that there is anything 

 disrespectful or unkind, either in the terms of the letter or in the 

 mode in which he has expressed his ideas. I have listened to that 

 gentleman in the discussion before the Board of Regents with admi- 

 ration for his ability and his eloquence, and with equal admiration for 

 that high courtesy which characterized everything that he said and 

 did. Although there is a firmness and a directness in which he has 

 expressed his opinions in the letter of resignation, I am unable to per- 

 ceive that there is either an arrogance or anything else which ought to 

 be considered disrespectful. After expressing his opinions and stating 

 the construction of a majority of the board he says: 



In this interpretation 1 can not acquiesce; and with entire respect for the majority 

 of the board, and with much kindness and regard to all its members, I am sure that 

 my duty requires a respectful tender of my resignation. 



In other places in expressing his opinion he says: "The law, it 

 seems to me, is so and so." I think there is a respect and kindness 

 running through the whole letter which should characterize one gen- 

 tleman of high attainments and bearing toward another who is his 

 equal, accompanied, however, with the firm conviction on his part that 

 the law has not been interpreted in that sense in which it should have 

 been according to its terms. 



I confess, sir, that I concur fully in that firm conviction of his, and 

 I do not hesitate to express it boldly and plainly; and yet I am inca- 

 pable of entering an unkind feeling, or giving expression to an unkind 

 innuendo, or of entertaining for a moment a doubt but that each and 

 every Regent has acted conscientiously according to his sense of duty. 

 It is a case where there is a diversity of opinion; where each gentle- 

 man intrusted with the exercise of discretion, where discretion was 

 necessary, and interpretation where interpretation was necessary, has 

 performed his duty conscientiously as he read it in the law. Still, I 

 must say that my interpretation of that law is different from that of 

 the honorable Senator from Virginia and the honorable Senator from 

 Maryland and of a majority of the Regents. It is also true that the 

 gentleman whose great name and many public services and private 

 and public virtues have been so well portrayed by the Senator from 

 Maryland concurred with the majority, and to that extent the weight 

 of authority is cast in the scale against the side which 1 embraced. 

 I do not wish to detract one iota from the high eulogium which the 

 Senator has pronounced on those gentlemen. With all respect for 

 them and for their opinions, I must take the law itself as my rule of 

 guidance while performing a trust imposed on me. 



