conduct of Monsieur la Batut, in reference to the supposed claim of his wife upon the Smithsonian fund. My No. 6, of January 9th, will have made known who the wife is. Nothing is more clear than that she has no claim under the will of Mr. Smithson. Her claim, if any, can only be made out, as mentioned in my No. 6, under the will of Henry Louis Dickinson, and for its establishment the court of chancery has pointed out the proper means, and Monsieur la Batut has full liberty to adopt them, that justice may be done. I said in my No. 7, that the claim extended only to about one hundred pounds a year; but, on better information, I find that it would amount, if sustained, to two hundred and forty pounds a year, during the life of Madame la Batut. But Monsieur de la Batut is little satisfied with putting forward this claim, which, it may be, the court will allow if he can bring forward proof to substantiate it. He makes a sweeping moral claim, as he calls it, upon the United States, should the Smithsonian fund be adjudged to them. The letter from the solicitors of the 9th instant gives, in part, the ground of this moral claim. Ile thinks that, as the Smithsonian fund is to be applied to found an institution at Washington, for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men, his children in France have a claim to be educated out of it; and he even considers that his wife has a claim to the * * * * income of the fund since Mr. Smithson's death! This, at a rough estimate, might be perhaps set down at upwards of twenty thousand pounds. I cannot wonder that the solicitors deemed it unnecessary to detail to me the "arguments" by which Monsieur de la Batut sought to support these his "requisitions." His attempt at coercion, by withholding evidence within his power, unless on a previous pledge from me to support his requisitions, thereby showing a disposition to prevent the United States recovering anything, will probably gain him little favor in their eyes. Fortunately, there is now other evidence, as the solicitors state in their letter, and have since told me verbally, which, it is believed, will place the United States beyond his reach. The part of their letter that I read with regret was that in which they intimated to him that, as neither they nor I could engage that anything should be done for him by the United States, he must himself apply to the proper authorities. I called upon them immediately, to express my wish that no such encouragement be in future held out to him; but it seems that he had already taken his course; their letter of the 22d instant gives me to understand that he proposes to address a memorial to the President, through the auspices of Mr. Drummond, the defendant in the suit. That he would have done so on his own motion, in the end, without any hint from the solicitors, is probable enough; but I was sorry it had been given to him. For myself, I have invariably discountenanced all his pretensions, deeming it my duty to do so most unequivocally. I have refused to see him, unless in presence of the solicitors, lest he should misunderstand, or forget, or pervert, what I might say; and the latter told me they could perceive no advantage in my seeing him. If the United States recover the legacy bequeathed by Mr. Smithson, I should naturally regard the whole of it as a trust fund in their hands, not to be in anywise diminished or touched but by the same legislative power that accepted it, for the purposes specially set forth in the act of Congress of the 1st of July, 1836. Not only, therefore, do I disclaim all authority for yielding, in the slightest degree, to Monsieur la Batut's demands, or giving him the least hope that any of them are ultimately to be allowed by the United States, but I should have thought it not justifiable in me to refer him to the President. Not being sure that I rightly understood what the solicitors mean in their letter of the 9th, about an alteration in the law, I sought an explanation from them. It appears that, by an act of Parliament passed in 1834, whenever a person entitled to the annual proceeds of any fund or property for his life, under a will coming into operation after the passing of the act, dies between the points of time assigned for the periodical payments, his representatives become entitled to a proportionate part of the accruing proceeds up to the day of his death. Before this act, there was no such apportionment; and, as Mr. Smithson's will came into operation before it was passed, Hungerford's representatives have no claim to any of the dividend that accrued after the last dividend day that happened previously to his decease. I asked how this would stand with the case I drew up for the opinion of counsel, as transmitted with my No. 4; in which, among other things, I stated, under the sanction of the solicitors, that "Mr. Hungerford received the income arising from the testator's property up to the time of his death." They replied that this was nevertheless correct; he did receive all that had accrued up to that time; but there was a dividend in progress which, as it had not actually arisen, and could not have been claimed by Hungerford in his lifetime, his representative has no claim to it after his death. Such was their explanation. It is not for me to say how far this lends any equity to any fraction of Monsieur la Batut's claims or requisitions. It is a familiar maxim, that those who ask equity should do equity. The United States will succeed to all that the law of England gives them, as the Lord Chancellor may expound and apply that law to their special predicament under the will, having due reference, no doubt, to the rights of all other parties before the court; and whatever may be the amount adjudged in their favor, my uniform declaration is that Congress alone would have the power to reduce it. I add, as explicitly, that to no one can I give the remotest encouragement or hope that it would be reduced, and, least of all, to one so unreasonable, so exacting, and apparently so bent upon thwarting the rights of the United States, as Monsieur de la Batut. I have the honor to remain, with great respect, your obedient servant, RICHARD RUSH. The Hon. JOHN FORSYTH, Secretary of State. Richard Rush to Clarke, Fynmore & Fladgate. PORTLAND HOTEL, GREAT PORTLAND STREET, GENTLEMEN: Having at all times made known my wishes for a speedy decision of the case you have in hand for the United States, I need not here repeat them, but as the time approaches when the court of chancery will adjourn over to November, I must ask you to inform me what seem the prospects. Remaining your obedient servant, RICHARD RUSH. To Messrs. CLARKE, FYNMORE & FLADGATE. Clarke, Fynmore & Fladgate to Richard Rush. 43 CRAVEN STREET, STRAND, July 22, 1837. DEAR SIR: In answer to your letter of yesterday, on the subject of Mr. Smithson's bequest to the United States, we beg leave to inform you that we have used all the means in our power to bring the matter to a close, but we are still unable to state any definite period at which you might expect to receive the funds. Our inquiries in Italy have, we trust, put us in possession of such evidence as will fully establish the fact of Mr. Hungerford's death, without having been married; but, however important it may be to do this, still there is another point to be settled before the funds will be available to the United States. This point is the claim of Madame de la Batut, under the will of Colonel Dickinson, (whose executor Mr. Smithson was,) under which will she is entitled for her life to half the colonel's property. The outline of this claim is, that Mr. Smithson possessed himself of all Colonel Dickinson's estate, and never rendered to Madame de la Batut any account of it; and that, not having done so, she has now a right to call upon Mr. Smithson's executor to do that which he in his lifetime ought to have done. Mr. Drummond has no means of rendering this account; but, until the claim is set at rest, the court could not, of course, order the funds forming part of Smithson's estate to be paid over to the United States; as for anything that appears to the contrary, the greater portion of these funds might have arisen from the property of Colonel Dickinson. Our object now, therefore, is to induce Madame de la Batut to come in and establish some claim in the present suit, (the amount, however, of which we seek, as much as possible, consistently with justice to reduce,) so as to bind her by the present suit, and make it conclusive upon the subject. Her advisers have but little evidence to offer in support of her case, and have, in consequence, very much delayed the necessary proceedings. We pressed them as much as possible, and, indeed, threatened to bar them, by getting the master to report against them; but, in reply to this, they intimated that, if we did so, they should give notice to Mr. Drummond to hold the funds, and file a bill against him, as executor of Smithson, for an account. As this would be attended with more delay and expense than it is likely there will be in the present proceedings in the master's office, we are induced to afford every indulgence, urging only all possible despatch, which, as, fortunately, Madame de la Batut's solicitors are persons of the highest respectability, we are sure they will use. We are your very obedient servants, TO RICHARD RUSH, Esq. CLARKE, FYNMORE & FLADGATE. Richard Rush to John Forsyth. LONDON, July 28, 1837. SIR: I received on the 26th instant, from our minister, Mr. Stevenson, a petition addressed to the President by M. de la Batut, now it seems in France, on the subject of his claims, which had been sent to Mr. S. by Mr. Anderson, chargé d'affaires of the United States at Paris. The nature of these claims is sufficiently stated in my letter of the 24th of last month, and I need not therefore repeat that, according to the view I take of them, they are altogether unreasonable. In writing to Mr. Anderson upon the subject, which I did yesterday, I informed him that Monsieur de la Batut had been in London, urging them upon those who are charged with conducting and superintending the case of the United States before the court of chancery in the matter of the Smithsonian bequest, and that our Government had been apprized of them through my communications to you; that as they were adverse to the interests of the United States, and had been pursued in an adverse manner by M. de la Batut when here, it was not for me to aid in transmitting his paper to the President; but that, as he might wish to have it again, to make his own use of it, I was at a loss how to dispose of it, otherwise than by returning it to him, (Mr. Anderson,) which I therefore felt myself obliged to do, with the explanation here given. Mr. Anderson was probably not before acquainted with any of the circumstances I stated. I have deemed it right to inform you of the step thus taken in regard to this petition, and hope it will appear to have been proper. I ought to mention, whilst on the sub |