From my first connexion with the Institution, I had proposed the formation of a set of by-laws and regulations defining the objects of the Institution and the spheres of the officers. This he had never favored. I cannot but think that by adopting it, much, if not all, the subsequent trouble would have been avoided.

I am not aware that there were any circumstances relative to my nomination that were not perfectly open and proper. Mr. Choate did not, so far I know, ever propose me as secretary. He certainly did not vote for me for that office. The record shows that I was the choice of a majority of the Board and not simply of Mr. Choate.

Professor Henry states that I entered fully upon my office about a year after my appointment, and at my earnest request to be admitted before the expiration of the expected time. This is disproved by the record. I was appointed on the 26th of January, 1847, and informed that I might expect to be called into full service and the receipt of my salary in about two years. It was on the 6th of January, 1849, two years less twenty-one days from my appointment that a resolution was passed calling for my full service, and allowing me full pay from the first of that month. Such is the record.

I am utterly surprised at the statement that I would render him no assistance unless as the head of an independent department and a co-equal. I set up no such pretensions. I rendered cheerfully all assistance in my power. I arranged the lists and books, and agencies for the exchanges, aided him in the correspondence, and never, so far I know, manifested reluctance to do for him anything but to be made his amanuensis. The claim of independence was never set up by me from first to last, in any instance or manner.

If it should be inferred from Professor Henry's statement that I had ever manifested or felt any reluctance to show to him any letters received or written by me on the business of the Institution, the inference would do me great injustice. I am utterly at a loss to account for the feelings which Professor Henry seems to have cherished on this subject.

I consider it a sacred right for every one to open for himself, or by persons authorized by himself, all letters directed to him. I have never, so far as I know, left town for a day without making arrangements to avoid delay with respect to my correspondence. Letters addressed to me and received at the Institution were directed to be opened there by a person authorized by me to that effect, and nothing of an official character was ever, to my knowledge, withheld from the secretary.

Professor Henry states that the money expended on the stereotyping was to be charged to the library account. I must state that when the experiments in stereotyping were commenced, there was a distinct and perfectly understood arrangement that the expenditures should be charged to the account of general expenses; because it was supposed that the art would be as useful to the "active operations" as to the library. The bills were so assigned till, on making up the accounts for the year 1852, Professor Henry finding the library side much less than that for active operations, transferred the whole item for stereotyping, without consulting me, from the account of general expenses to the library account.

The allusions of Professor Henry to a part of my report for the year 1852, at which he took offence, are, according to my recollections, correct in scarcely a single particular. I made no elaborate criticisms upon his report, nor did I, so far as I remember, allude to the parts of his report which he quotes. The remarks which I made related, I believe, to a single point which I had often heard Professor Henry discuss, but which I was not aware at the time he had referred to in any published report. They were argumentative and perfectly respectful, and had, as I supposed, no traceable reference to the secretary.

As soon as I had written the report, I read it to Professor Henry, as I was accustomed to read all my reports to him. He listened to it attentively, and said that he did not approve of all parts, but he would not object to my presenting it. He expressed no offence and appeared to take none. I heard nothing more of the matter till several weeks afterwards, just as I was about to read my report in the meeting of the Regents, Professor Henry came to me and requested me not to read that passage. I accordingly omitted it. I do not think that I saw the paper again for months. Just before it was to be printed Professor Henry told me that he considered the passage alluded to an insult to him. I disclaimed all such intention, and reminded him of what he said when I first read it to him. He then referred me to a passage in one of his reports to which my remarks might seem to be a direct reply. I withdrew the whole report and said he might publish whatever he pleased of it. The passage to which he objected was not printed. This is the real state of the case so far as I know it.

Professor Henry mentions in this connexion the circumstance of my taking offence, as he states it, at being sent for by a servant. I remember that on some occasion a message was saucily delivered to me by a servant. On the secretary's disclaiming sending such a message, the circumstance was overlooked and entirely forgotten by me, until it was recalled to mind by the statement of Professor Henry a few evenings since. I do not remember the replies which he states that he made to me on that occasion, and am positive in my recollection that this conversation, whether it occurred upon that or some other occasion, had on my part no connexion with or reference to any other subject of discus

sion.

As to the impression of Professor Henry, that I would shake the Institution to its centre if the compromise was disturbed, if I were foolish enough to make such a threat, I cannot see how anybody could consider it other than simply ridiculous. Professor Henry has been pleased to represent that I was the only person really interested in the library plan. I have considered myself as merely an officer to whom, under the Regents, were entrusted certain limited duties in connexion with this plan. I knew that the plan itself had numerous and powerful friends, who were watching its course with interest, not unmingled with anxiety, and who would be seriously affected by any attempt to dispossess it, and hence alone my remark that such an attempt as he proposed would shake the Institution to its centre.

I have nothing to alter in the testimony which I gave with reference to the interviews with Professor Henry. I have stated the tone of the interviews and the connexion of the conversations to the best of my

recollection. They had no reference to carrying out any plan of my own, but, as I have stated, to his propositions to change the whole plan of the Institution, and to secure my acquiescence in the attempt. Professor Henry, near the close of his article, attempts to make me responsible for scattered indications of dissatisfaction with the management of the Institution expressed in newspapers. He indulges in assertions and insinuations. This course is in accordance with that previously pursued towards Professor Baird. We are to be held responsible for the acts of all who are said to be our friends. We are to watch our subordinates and control their acts as citizens. Every one that is dissatisfied is, of course, our friend, and instigated by us. He seems to suppose that the affairs of the Institution had been kept so close that no one could know its concerns except through the other officers. He forgets his own reiterated declarations of hostility to library and museum-his own intimations that he would get rid of the assistants, and supply their places with clerks submissive to his wishes; and on the ground that the assistants were men of too much standing for him; intimations made repeatedly previous to the time he alludes to. His own public and unreserved assertions and declarations of his plans and purposes were quite sufficient to awaken the distrust of all interested in these departments of the Institution, and to lead them to express, as publicly, their disapproval of his schemes.

He, more than myself, is responsible for the public expression of such disapproval. In no way can I be made accountable for the representation said to have been made to Mr. Maury, (now, for the first time, heard of by me,) nor for newspaper articles wherever published, though the former should be proved as well as asserted to have been made by some of my personal friends, or some of the latter to have been communicated by persons employed under my directions.

It does not become me to suffer myself to be drawn into a discussion of these assertions and insinuations. I have only to say that the course of Professor Henry in this regard is as unjust as it is irrelevant to the present investigation, or to any matter of inquiry under it.

The statement or insinuation that I had neglected the duties of my office in opposing him, or for any cause whatever, is unjust and cruel. That Professor Henry, at any time, entertained such an impression, was never hinted to 'me until it has been brought forward apparently as part of a system of retaliatory charges.

There has never been perfunctoriness in my character or conduct. I have given myself to my official duties with assiduity and devotion, prompted by a deep interest in the objects upon which I was engaged. Prominent among these has been the development of the catalogue system. The accomplishment of this object was a task which demanded, on my part, untiring and laborious effort, and involved the arrangement and adjustment of many and various literary and mechanical details. While I was thus somewhat exclusively occupied, the gentleman who assisted me in the labors of the library fell ill, and I was under the necessity of employing the aid of others, for whose services I paid from my own funds. At times, several persons were so employed, and were paid wholly or in part by me, in order that I might devote myself to the task I had undertaken.

Professor Henry has been willing to jeopardize, if not effectually, to destroy this great interest, in order to get rid of me.

The tone and scope of Professor Henry's statement makes clear to my mind conduct which otherwise seemed inexplicable, and indicates most fully the grounds upon which the Board were induced to support

him.

He considered me, it seems, as the representative of the library plan, which it was his determination to supersede by his plan of "active operations." Every effort of well meant zeal for the interests of my particular charge was construed by him into opposition to his plans and to him. As he gradually brought the Institution more and more to his purposes, he became more and more suspicious of me. He favored the catalogue system, because he thought it would withdraw me from the idea of the great library. When he thought I was ready for the proposition, he made to me the overtures which I have stated in my testimony. When he found that I would not consent to effecting the overthrow of the library plan, without the full approval of the Board of Regents, he became incensed against me, and resolved to carry his point of annulling the compromise in his own way. The only opposition which I offered was in open representations to the Regents. I said nothing on this subject, so far as I remember, publicly or to individual Regents, that I had not previously said to him. My refusal to aid him in his mode of annulling the compromise, and insisting that it should be openly presented before the Board, was considered by him as insubordination, and he began to assert the most uncontrolled powers over assistants. This led inevitably to irritation among the subordinates, at different times and on different points. There was no combination. This state of things was represented to the Board by the secretary as occasioned by the ambitious or rebellious claims of the assistants. But this, in its extent, was at time unknown to me. I supposed that the regents would soon consider and adjust the question which caused all the difficulty, and declare that the compromise should or should not stand. But delay followed delay for months and almost years. Professor Henry made of it a personal matter, and told the Regents that if they did not approve his course he would resign; that they must choose between him and me. They saw the existence of difficulties. They relied upon his views of their character and bearing. His suspicions seem to have been regarded as facts, and consequently it is not surprising that the Regents sanctioned the course of Professor Henry towards me.

The whole difficulty might have been avoided. The painful personal attitude of Professor Henry and myself towards each other would never have been assumed, had he either kept the compromise, or having openly proposed to the Board its abrogation, allowed the matter to come to as prompt a decision as possible, under a full and fair discussion. I made no personal issues. My whole course was a protest against them. I looked to the public issue alone, the keeping or annulling of the compromise.

Professor Henry alludes to my absence in the autumn of 1852, in a manner not to have been expected. He knew the cause, of a domestic nature, leaving me no election. I was never absent but with his con

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION.

sent. Two previous vacations had been devoted almost entirely to work for the Institution, which I could not perform here. My only reason for wishing to return to the Institution at that time was my solicitude to carry into full operation the catalogue system, upon which so much time and money had been expended, and the success of which was watched with so much interest by the literary public.

I have now the mortification to feel that for want of the superintendence necessary in the early stages of such a work-of some one person acquainted with both all the mechanical and literary details, this important project, after having its entire practicability and utility demonstrated, is likely to be overthrown. It will, doubtless, at some future day, rise again under different auspices, but meantime the loss to the literary interests of the country will be very great.

FEBRUARY 28, 1855.

C. C. JEWETT.

COMMUNICATION FROM PROFESSOR JEWETT.

To the committee of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, to which were referred the resolutions of Mr. Fitch and Mr. Meacham : GENTLEMEN: I have had the honor to receive from the secretary of the Smithsonian Institution information that I am invited by the chairman of the committee of the Board of Regents, to which were referred the resolutions of Mr. Fitch and Mr. Meacham, to submit, in writing, through the secretary, any statements which I may wish to make on the subject of those resolutions.

I have not a copy of either of those resolutions, and know their purI suppose that the invitation with which port only in general terms. the committee have favored me, is intended to allow me to discuss the subject-matter of these resolutions; not exclusively in strict adherence to their precise words, but generally, and with reference to the remarks of the secretary, which led to the offering of the resolution of Mr. Fitch, and also with reference to the remarks of the same officer resolution of Mr. Meacham.

upon

the

It is most unpleasant to me that in the discussion of the subject of these resolutions much of my communication must, of necessity, wear the form of a reply to the arguments and statements of my superior officer. But, as all the arguments in favor of the charge have emanated from him, I have no alternative, but either to let them pass without examination, or to reply to them; considering myself, for the purposes of this discussion, maintaining the same relation to the secretary which, for the same purpose, I should hold towards any other gentleman who might present the same views. There is no other way for me to comply with the invitation of the committee; and I cannot feel that I should be doing my duty to the interests specially entrusted to me, did I not avail myself of the opportunity now offered to me to state my views on this important subject.

The secretary has proposed a substantial variation from the distribution of the annual income, established as the permanent policy of the Institution by the resolutions of the Board of Regents adopted on the