526 CONGRESSIONAL PROCEEDINGS. 



It may be that my mind is somewhat biased by the proceedings, dis- 

 cussion, and action in the House of Representatives when this Insti- 

 tution was established. I at that time participated to some extent, 

 although in a small degree, in the proceedings which took place in 

 regard to the creation of the Institution. I at no time allowed my 

 feelings to become enlisted, much less excited, on the subject. But 

 when all the various plans were presented there for the organization 

 of the Institution, and especially the library plan as a principal feature, 

 not an exclusive one, in antagonism to a plan that the library should 

 be a subordinate feature, or that there should be no library at all, it 

 is my firm conviction that Congress by its action did sanction the pol- 

 icy of a library as a principal, but not an exclusive, feature in the 

 Institution. In other words, the plan proposed by Mr. Marsh, of 

 Vermont, in opposition to that of Mr. Hough, of New York, did pre- 

 vail, and the main features of Mr. Marsh's plan tended to the estab- 

 lishment of a library. The library plan, as it was called, having pre- 

 vailed, there was a limitation on the amount of funds to be devoted to 

 that plan inserted in the law, which was that out of the $30,000 of 

 income of the Institution not exceeding $25,000 should be appropri- 

 ated to the library. 



I do not hold that the Regents are compelled to appropriate to a 

 library the sum of $25,000 each year, but I do hold that the law in its 

 terms, when carefully examined, contemplates the library as a promi- 

 nent object in the Institution, and that at least a majority of the funds 

 should be expended in the building up of the library. That is my 

 interpretation. 1 am aware that when the Institution was first organ- 

 ized these same diversities of opinion arose, and a compromise was 

 effected by which it was agreed that the funds should be equally 

 divided. When I came into the Institution, a few months ago, as one 

 of its Regents, I was willing to abide by that compromise. I could 

 not have agreed to it originally, because 1 think the fair interpreta- 

 tion of the law contemplated that the larger portion of the fund 

 should be applied to the establishment of a library; but as they made 

 an equal division, I was willing to acquiesce in it, in order to avoid 

 the appeal which is now made to Congress and to the country, and 

 thus perhaps endanger to some extent the reputation of the Institu- 

 tion. 



I expressed these opinions to my brother Regents freely, but, I 

 trust, with proper respect. I differed from their opinion. Such was, 

 such is, my conviction. I did not deem it my duty to resign because 

 I was overruled. I was willing to acquiesce in the decision, because I 

 had not the power, according to the law, to override it, and because 

 every other Regent had the same right which I had to express and 

 entertain his opinion. Yet, sir, when the question arises, no matter 

 how often it may arise, whether that interpretation of the law which 



