THIRTY-THIRD CONGRESS, 1853-55. 627 



public as the representative of that interest in the institu- 

 tion." He construed the law in one way ; the secretary 

 construed it differently. He thought and said that it would 

 be treachery in him to co-operate with the secretary accord- 

 ing to the latter's construction of the law. He told the sec- 

 retary, in Effect, that if he attempted to annul the compro- 

 mise in the way he proposed, he would shake the institution 

 to its centre. It is evident that he was impatient of the re- 

 straints of a subordinate position, and entertained feelings 

 towards the secretary which made their harmonious co-op- 

 eration impossible. In a paper which he submitted to the 

 special committee of the regents he assailed the motives 

 and honor of the secretary and criticised harshly and un- 

 necessarily the reports of that officer. 



So the special committee of seven regents, with one ex- 

 ception, reported to the board, declaring that this paper dis- 

 closed feelings of excessive hostility and insubordination. 

 After this, it w r as manifest that the common civilities of life 

 could not be exchanged between them, and the interests of 

 the institution required their separation. The Board of 

 Regents accordingly passed a resolution, in January last, 

 approving of Mr. Jewett's removal. 



Mr. Meacham also charged the secretary with claiming 

 and exercising the right to open and read letters directed to 

 his subordinates. The evidence satisfied the committee that 

 the secretary had neither claimed nor exercised any improper 

 authority in this respect. He expressly disclaimed any de- 

 sire or authority to inspect the private letters of his subordi- 

 nates. Their correspondence, in regard to the business of 

 the institution, he properly claimed to be entitled to examine 

 and control. In the absence of the subordinates he did con- 

 sider himself at liberty to open letters addressed to them 

 which were evidently of an official character; but it does 

 not appear that he actually exercised this authority, the 

 claim of which seems to have been misunderstood by one 

 of his assistants, and grossly perverted by another person, 

 under the influence of hostile and unjustly suspicious feelings. 



The charge of denying scientific right and refusing to take 

 full measures for adjusting the claim of Mr. Blodget was 

 entirety refuted, both by documentary evidence and the testi- 

 mony of a disinterested party. 



These latter charges of maladministration seemed to your 

 committee not to come precisely within the scope of the 

 instructions of the resolution under which the committee 

 was appointed. The Board of Regents might properly have 

 investigated them, and undoubtedly would have done so if 



