the same view is implicitly maintained by both parties. The ma- 
jority voted to rescind the compromise resolutions, because they 
had no doubt of the right, and thought it most expedient, to do 
so. On the other hand, Messrs. Choate and Meacham’s vote to 
continug them surely implies that they thought them lawful! — 
Nor wale they shut up to a choice between two evils, as will be 
_ Seen by the proposition which they proceeded to offer. At any 
rate, their vote for the continuance of a rule of action which de- 
voted only half the income to the library, museum, and gallery 
altogether, is a complete answer to their argument, or at least to 
the argument of Mr. Meacham’s report. We dismiss, therefore, 
without further words, a doctrine which even its originators and 
supporters will not stand to. a 
The nicer questions remain: Though the act, interpreted by 
itself, does not enjoin such a large average appropriation for the 
library, may it do so, however, in virtue either of the intention 
of the testator, whose will is incorporated into the law as its ins _ 
tent (as Mr. Upham justly states), or of the intentions of any of 
the supporters of the act in Congress, to be gathered from recol- 
lection or from the printed debates? Or, can such intentions, 
avowed by the proposers of a clause of the act on the floor of 
Congress, but not effectuated in its terms, be held,—if not exactly 
to modify the obvious meaning of those terms, or to necessitate a 
12 The Smithsonian Institution. ; 
| 
| 
| 
as a 
particular interpretation of them,—yet still to control somehow j 
exercise of the discretion which the clause confers on the Board _ 
of Regents; so as to make it the duty of this Board ‘to carry out 
such intentions in a general way, by expending on the library, 
not indeed the whole $25,000 said to be intended, but a large” 
though indefinite part of it? The affirmative of one or both of 
these propositions, 4 Ay we believe,.the whole case of ‘the 
have set forth the full strength of the case. Immediately, after 
the passage of Mr. Pearce’s resolves, which repealed former re- 
“ The question being taken on this resolution, it was lost, as follows: 
** Yeas—Messrs. Choate, Douglas, Meacham, Stuart—4, j 
_ “ Nays—The Chancellor, Chief Justice Taney, Messrs. Bache, Ber- 
rien, English, Hawley, Mason, Rush, Pearce, and Totten—9.” 
