THIRTY-THIRD CONGRESS, 1853-1855. 593 



and most elevated, abuses may arise and require investigation, though 

 not the imputation of individual blame. I am not the first member of 

 the Board of Regents who has believed that the Institution had 

 departed from the course marked out for it by Congress. One who 

 had a large share in shaping its charter, within the first three years of 

 its history declared in his place in this House that he "believed the 

 Board of Regents would be and ought to have been long since made 

 acquainted with its direct responsibility to the power that had created 

 it/' And lately a very distinguished member of the Board resigned 

 his seat in consequence of his conviction that the administration of the 

 Institution was not in accordance with the law. 



In this country there is, perhaps, no precedent for an investigation 

 in all respects like this simply because, before the existence of the 

 Smithsonian Institution, there had not been, under the direction of 

 our Government, any establishment for the promotion of knowledge 

 in general. But we are not at a loss for precedents. The British 

 Museum served as a model with many of those actively engaged in 

 framing the charter of the Smithsonian Institution. It is under Gov- 

 ernment control. During the last twenty years its affairs have twice 

 been made the subject of investigations by select committees of the 

 House of Commons, and once by a special royal commission. The 

 committees and the commission were each clothed with power to send 

 for persons and papers. That institution was under the management 

 of the highest dignitaries and the first noblemen of the realm. 



In the debate in the House of Commons on the appointment of one 

 of these committees, Mr. Warburton quoted the complaints of Sir 

 Humphry Davy, that "there must be a general change in everything 

 belonging to the Institution before a proper system of radical improve- 

 ment could be affected;" and Mr. Hume declared " that it was impera- 

 tive on the gentlemen connected with that Institution to defend 

 themselves, and unless the} 7 make a good defense, it would be impos- 

 sible for Parliament to allow them to continue in their present con- 

 dition." 



Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to follow the gentleman from 

 Indiana through his remarks. I shall confine myself to a few of the 

 most important points. The gentleman maintains that the provisions 

 of the act of Congress have been observed. This is the main issue 

 between the two parties to this Smithsonian controversy, and is ably 

 discussed in the report of the select committee. 



The view which the committee have taken of the meaning of the 

 law was that of the first Regents, fresh from their labors in framing 

 the charter, and unbiased by influences subsequently brought to bear 

 upon them. 



On the second day of their first session a committee was appointed 

 upon the clause requiring the appropriation for a library, and in- 

 H. Doc. 732 38 



