The Smithsonian Institution. 18 
So the question was decided against the claims of the library 
interest by the strong vote of 9to4;—the Board deliberately 
mr beehy (what no vote had ever called in question) that full 
er and: responsibility for the apportionment of the income 
aie the objects of the Institution is vested in itself, subject 
only to the terms of the law. This is a legal question, and an 
official decisidn on the construction of the law by the body re- 
sponsible for its administration, . A judicial ester: - hardly 
involve a higher responsibility. Of the nine Regents who af- | 
firmed this construction, all but two, we belies; are ceed of 
pry learned profession, whose business it is to construe law ; most 
them have borne the responsibilities of judicial functions; and 
a least three of them rank among the most eminent jurists of the 
country, viz, ~~ venerable Chief Justice of the United States— 
oard in virtue of his exalted judicial office,— 
and the two en kueeer Generals, Messrs. Rush and Berrien. 
Opposed to them are Judge Douglas, Mr. Stuart of Michigan 
(probably a lawyer), Mr. Meacham (late aclergyman), and Mr. 
Choate, whose forensic reputation is certainly unsurpassed. 
The ‘responsibility and the legal and moral weight of this de- 
cision satisfy our minds, and will doubtless satisly the public. 
Had its grounds been given (as they would have been in case o 
a like judicial decision), it would be great presumption in us to 
con — our critical analysis; and as it is, our remarks shall be 
brie 
1. As to the intentions of the founder of the trust, and of indi- 
vidual promoters of the Act of Congress creating the establish- 
ment to execute the trust: which of the two are to be regarded, 
or most regarded, in the Construction of the law? Of course, 
the former; because the declared purpose of the Act is to exe- 
cute the founder’s will: the latter are of no Spupe aie except. 
as ancillary to the former, and of no force except as t y be 
embodied in the law. ‘The law can ab no intentions — are 
not expressed i in its provisions or preamble : and. the 
intention of this law is, to provide for the faithful aspeuiiane of 
the will of Smithson. 
t is plain enough that the law does not in terms provide that 
the establishment it creates shall be mainly a library. Does it in- 
tend this, however, in virtue of any expressed or/implied inten- 
tion of the founder? Is it'even supposable that Smithson had a 
library in view? The bequest was made “to found at Washing- 
ton, under the name of the Smithsonian Institution, an establish- 
ment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men.” 
It has often been said, that any man who regarded a library as 
the obvious, or the most important means for the increase and 
diffusion of knowledge among men would have been sure, in 
such a case, to have written ‘library’ in place of ‘ institution, or 
