SMITHSONIAN BEQUEST. 23 



vened through matters of form. Our professional advisers 

 are disposed to regard this with satisfaction, considering the 

 case as one of the first impression here, the United States 

 having never before appeared as suitor in an English court. 

 Having selected counsel of distinguished character and 

 abilities m the court of chancery to conduct the proceed- 

 ings on the part of the United States, I feel that it is not 

 my province to guide but follow their opinions in matters 

 of English law and practice. Yet I feel it a duty to under- 

 stand theirs, and offer mine to their consideration whenever 

 there may seem, any likelihood of its being serviceable to 

 the claim of the United States, and will frankly own that I 

 saw no objection to their withholding the act of Congress 

 from the record, until actual payment of the fund was asked 

 of the court who have the present custody of it. The 

 United States, it is true, had never before sued in an Eng- 

 lish court. But there were precedents of other nations 

 having done so by their executive head; as, for example, 

 the King of France, the King of Denmark, and I believe 

 other sovereign and independent States. It was not under- 

 stood that any legislative act of those countries had been 

 considered necessary, and was therefore inferred that the 

 United States might in like manner enter the courts here, 

 as of common usage, to establish the validity of a testa- 

 mentary bequest made to them by a subject of Britain. 

 The act of Congress may have been necessary, quoad the 

 United States themselves. The bequest, it may be, could 

 not have been accepted otherwise, or a suit been brought 

 en their behalf; but no act of Congress was required for 

 such ends before an English court. The will itself, showing 

 a prima facie right in the United States, was enough to 

 open an English court to their suit, and perhaps their dig- 

 nity would best be consulted by not exhibiting the special 

 act until indispensably necessary. The validity of the be- 

 quest being established on general grounds by a decree of 

 the court, then, before payment could have been made to 

 any one demanding possession of the fund for the United 

 States, adequate authority from the proper source there 

 must be shown; arid at this epoch the act must have been 

 filed, as well as the agent's power. This was the reasoning 

 of our counsel, as I understood it. It appeared to me good, 

 as did their reasons for bringing the suit by its present title. 

 How far the master of the rolls" might have dispensed with 

 the filing of the act of Congress until the time indicated by 



