16 
THE NATIONAL GALLERY OF ART 
Up to this period, the gallery of art had, in an abstract sense, 
been regarded as an independent branch of the Institution, but 
with a vague existence and disappointing prospects. Congress 
had placed upon the Institution the burden of building up a col- 
lection of art which was to be the property of the nation and to 
include all objects pertaining to this subject which the Govern- 
ment then or later might have in its possession. The Govern- 
ment, however, has never had much to contribute nor has it 
ever supplied means for procuring for the gallery either paintings 
or works of sculpture. Whatever expenditures were made 
must, therefore, come from the slender income of the Smith- 
sonian fund, already overcharged with the expenses of other 
branches. That these conditions should produce a feeling of 
discouragement, even of helplessness, was only natural. Since, 
then, the Institution was not in a position to provide directly 
for this feature, the gallery of art was made a department of 
the museum, to which it properly belonged from the very nature 
of its functions, being amenable to the same form of administra- 
tion. Its maintenance in conjunction with the other depart- 
ments of the museum also insured economy, the only distinction 
needed being the selection of a qualified expert to have charge. 
In his report for 1864 Joseph Henry, the first Secretary, pre- 
sented the situation as follows: “The impropriety of expending 
the income of the bequest in attempting to form a collection of 
articles in this line worthy of the country has had no prominent 
advocates even among artists; still, in connection with the mu- 
seum, a collection has been formed which principally consists of 
plaster casts of distinguished individuals, and a few pictures 
which have either been presented to the Institution or are the 
property of the Government. ” While the contention of Secre- 
tary Henry was entirely justified, it should be said that 
the conditions referred to in the last clause of the extract were 
not as bad as his remarks imply. The distinction between the 
Institution proper and the Museum was often explained by 
Secretary Henry, but nowhere more explicitly than in the 
following statement : 
“The functions of the Museum and of the Institution are 
entirely different. The object of the former is the establishment 
of a collection of specimens of nature and of art which shall 
