SMITHSONIAN BEQUEST. 21 



nothing more than stakeholders, they will offer, in the 

 further progress of the case, as I have reason to believe, no 

 serious opposition. They said on this occasion that the bill, 

 in giving title to the suit, ought to have named General 

 Jackson as President; on which Mr. Pemberton remarked, 

 that in that case it must have been amended on the 4th of 

 March, by substituting the name of Mr. Van Buren. On 

 the other hand, the King's representative, Mr. Wray, ex- 

 pressed his concurrence with Mr. Pemberton, that the title 

 of the suit was good as it stood. 



Our professional advisers thought that the President 

 ought to be named, as in the title, with a view to a techni- 

 cal responsibility on the record for costs, although no such 

 question of fact would arise in this case ; and because he 

 was otherwise the organ of intercourse and business be- 

 tween the United States and foreign nations. I told them 

 that his name was not thus introduced in suits in the United 

 States; but they had before them the act of Congress of 

 July the 1st, 1836, directing that this suit might be brought 

 in the name of the United States, " or otherwise, as may 

 be advisable," and formed their opinion accordingly. 



The master of the rolls, not having then seen the act of 

 Congress, intimated his impression to be that the suit 

 should follow in this respect the forms in the United States; 

 adding, that he considered this part of the case as nothing 

 but matter of form, and would give leave to amend forth- 

 with, if necessary ; so that the point is of no consequence. 



I think I am justified in saying, from all that is known 

 at present, that the case is in a safe train in all respects, 

 with every promise of a successful issue. Reports of what 

 took place in court have appeared in the newspapers here, 

 but are not to be relied upon, as I am enabled to say, my 

 duty having made it proper that I should myself be present 

 in court all the while. 



In my letter of the 22d of November, it is intimated that 

 I might, perhaps, at a subsequent stage of the case, have 

 deemed some appeal to this Government advisable in rela- 

 tion to it. The contingency I had in view, was that of the 

 Attorney General interposing a claim for the Crown, under 

 the law of escheats. In that event I had contemplated 

 drawing up a counter representation on behalf of the United 

 .States, founded on the public objects of Mr. Smithson's 

 will, to be brought to the notice of this Government, 

 ' -through the channel of our minister. All necessity for 



