206 
PROCEEDINGS OF 
dual, a foreigner too, and bearing his name, should stand in opposition to a noble 
establishment, bearing the name and supported by the patronage of the Govern¬ 
ment of a great nation; so much the more as the funds of the former are limited, 
and comparatively small in respect to what a national institution may expect to 
possess in the course of half a century, from the liberality of our citizens, the pa¬ 
tronage of the Government, and other sources. Even at present, the value of the 
objects confided by our Government to its custody, the fruits of our scientific expe¬ 
ditions, are thought by many to equal if not to exceed that of the Smithsonian 
legacy. It is essential, therefore, that the National Institution should preserve its 
honorable standing, situated as it is in the capital of the United States, and pro¬ 
mising to be a lasting monument of our scientific and literary glory. 
Without meaning in the least to detract from the merit of the liberal and benevo¬ 
lent testator, who I think is justly entitled to our liveliest gratitude for his munifi¬ 
cent legacy, I cannot help regretting that he made it a condition of his gift, that 
the institution which he contemplated should bear his name, considering the extent 
of its objects, and its location in our capital city. I do not know, at least I can¬ 
not remember to have read or heard of any similar instance. No such condition 
was made by the venerable John Harvard, when he bequeathed half his fortune to 
the then infant college, now University of Cambridge, in Massachusetts. The 
gratitude of the country effected that which the testator neither required nor even 
expected. That seminary of learning is now justly called Harvard University; 
and had Mr. Smithson contemplated such an institution, his name would undoubt¬ 
edly have been given to it without his requiring it. When Sir Hans Sloane made 
his munificent bequest to the Government of his country, he did not require that 
the British Museum, of which it was the foundation, should be called by his name. 
It received another denomination, but while it exists, memory shall never cease to 
connect with it the name of its benevolent founder. But the Museum, being a 
national institution, could not properly have received any other than a national 
denomination. When the late Stephen Girard bequeathed millions to the city of 
Philadelphia for the erection of a college, he made no condition like that indispens¬ 
ably required by Mr. Smithson. The college, however, bears his name, which 
gratitude has bestowed upon it. I might cite many other instances of gratitude 
perpetuating the name of a benefactor’, without its being made by him an express 
condition of his gift. 
It would be unjust, however, to blame Mr. Smithson for having inserted this 
condition in his liberal bequest—it is a natural feeling to wish to perpetuate one’s 
name. But if Mr. Smithson had sufficiently reflected upon it, he might have effected 
it, like Sir Hans Sloane, in a manner equally honorable, and the name of Smithson 
would have shone forever in the list of its principal founders. 
But it is useless to reason upon what might have been done; the legacy has been 
accepted with its condition annexed to it, and therefore the establishment to be 
founded by Congress, in consequence of this bequest, must bear the name of the 
Smithsonian Institution. No change or alteration can be made in it—the will of 
the testator must be literally obeyed. 
But it does not follow from any of the expressions in that instrument, that the 
Smithsonian Institution must be separate and independent, and that it cannot be 
connected with, and made a branch of a national establishment, as is the case with 
