10 The Smithsonian Institution. 
tee would be a further illegality, unless accompanied by a resolve, 
that a compliance in good faith with the letter and the spirit of 
the charter requires that a large Peoppaon of the i income should | 
be a to the library. 
be noted, in passing, that the argument of Mr. Meach- 
am’s rt, and this resolve appended to it, do not present the very 
same issue, —unless we interpret the latter by the former, which, 
properly do. ‘The proposition, “ that a compliance in good faith 
‘with the letter and spirit of the charter of the Smithsonian Insti- 
tute requires that a large proportion of the income of the Institu- 
tion should be. appropriated for a gradual formation of a library,” 
is one thing; but is not identical with the proposition, so elabo-— 
rately argued in the body of the report, that the enactment in the 
8th section of the law, directing “an appropriation, not exceed- 
ing an average of $25,000 annually, for the gradual formation of — 
a library, composed of valuable works pertaining to all depart- 
ments of human— knowledge,” legally and morally enjoms the — 
shall amount to an average of $25,000 per annum, Dae ies con 
 vinced that this is the best use of the income, or no 4 
That an influential portion of the Board, jeatpasialiy during it 
earlier years, felt that the library was the safest, and ought. to be 
the most prominent, object of their fostering care, there is no kind 
of doubt. Some of these, on further experience, have changed 
their minds, One of them is Mr. Pearce, the author of the Spe- 
cial Committee’s report, who how so ably advocates the “ plan of 
active operations ;” although, as Mr. Meacham is careful to inform 
us, he strenuously supported ‘“ the library plan” in the otha 
upon the bill before the Senate ;—which clearly shows that he 
not understand the law to prescribe ‘ the library plan,’ but olga 
permit it. Another portion (of which Mr. Douglas may be taken — 
as a representative), looking to the history as well as to the words” 
of the act, hold that Congress “ did sanction the policy of a libra 
as a principal but not an exclusive feature in the Institution,”— 
“that the law contemplates the library as a prominent object in the 
Institution, and that at least a majority of the funds should be — 
expended in the building up of the library ;”—the intention of the — 
legislators, even when not prescribed in restricting terms, being 
held to limit, or at least to influence to a great degree, the discre- 
tion of the administrators. Such persons would properly adopt — 
the resolves spp to Mr. Meacham’s report, while they would — 
repudiate his argum 
The doctrine of ihe argument appears to be novel. Perhaps 
it pre-existed in a latent state, awaiting the heat of popular con- 
troversy to germinate it at a favorable moment: but we have al- — 
ee ee a ere Mee a ee 
