at Leghorn, in Italy, it being understood that there is no newspaper published at Pisa, where it is believed Hungerford died. It was by my direction that the advertisements have been framed with all the brevity compatible with the essential object of the court's decree. I have caused to be carefully kept from them any mention of the amount of property bequeathed, and everything else respecting the nature of Mr. Smithson's will. This course seems best adapted to guard against the risk of raising up spurious claimants, or combinations, in France, Italy, or this country, to battle with the right of the United States, whereby, although their ultimate recovery of the fund might not be prevented, great delays might be interposed. Whether John Fitall be living or dead, the remaining branch of inquiry, is a fact to be ascertained without difficulty here in London. I have the honor to remain, with great respect, your obedient servant, RICHARD RUSH. The Hon. JOHN FORSYTH, Secretary of State. Advertisements. (1.) Whereas, by a decree of the high court of chancery in England, made in a cause wherein the President of the United States of America is plaintiff, and Charles Drummond and his Majesty's Attorney General are defendants, it was (amongst other things) referred to Nassau William, Sen., Esq., one of the masters of the said court, to inquire and state to the court whether Henry James Hungerford, who formerly resided at Paris, in the Kingdom of France, and is alleged to have died in Pisa, in the Kingdom of Naples, in the month of June, 1835, is living or dead, and, if dead, where he died, and whether he was married or unmarried at the time of his decease, and, if married, whether he left any children or child him surviving, and the ages of such children, if more than one. Therefore, any person who can give any information touching the said Henry James Hungerford, is requested, on or before the 1st day of June next, to furnish the same to Messrs. Clarke, Fynmore, and Fladgate, 43 Craven street, Strand, London. (2.) Whereas, by a decree of the high court of chancery in England, made in a certain cause wherein the President of the United States of America is plaintiff, and Charles Drummond and his Majesty's Attorney General are defendants, it is (amongst other things) referred to Nassau William, Sen., Esq., one of the masters of the said court, to inquire and state to the court whether Madame de la Batut, who lately resided at Port Louis, in the Kingdom of France, has any claim on the estate of James Smithson, who died at Genoa, in the year 1829, the testator in the pleadings of the said cause named. Therefore, the said Madame de la Batut is, on or before the 1st day of May next, to come in before the said master, at his chambers in Southampton buildings, Chancery lane, London, and make out her claim on the said estate of the said testator, James Smithson; or, in default thereof, she will be excluded the benefit of the said decree. : Richard Rush to John Forsyth. LONDON, April 28, 1837. SIR In enclosing a duplicate of my last letter, (sent with the original of this,) I have to supply an omission in not stating that the advertisements were inserted in the London Gazette, in addition to the other London newspapers mentioned. It is the more necessary I should state this, as when the bills for legal disbursements are all finally rendered, it will be seen that the item for advertising in this country forms no inconsiderable one. It was my wish to avoid these advertisements altogether, not simply on account of expense, which would have been a good reason of itself, but for the more important one hinted in my last, viz: their possible tendency to raise up fictitious claimants; but my wish could not prevail against the express order of the court of chancery under which they were inserted. In regard to the legal expenses, generally, of this agency, I will take this occasion of barely remarking, that whilst I have kept a constant watch over them all, endeavoring to confine them within limits as moderate as possible, they are proverbially heavy in English chancery proceedings. It seems that something is to be paid for every step taken, every line written, and almost every word spoken by counsel, senior and junior, solicitors, clerks, and everybody connected with the courts, and officers attached to them, under the extremely artificial and complicated judiciary systems that exist here. Perhaps I ought also to have mentioned in my last that there is no doubt whatever of the fact of John Fitall's death. It only remains for the court to know it through regular evidence, easily attainable, as before remarked, in London, where he died. I have the honor to remain, with great respect, your obedient servant, RICHARD RUSH. The Hon. JOHN FORSYTH, Secretary of State. Daniel Brent to Richard Rush. UNITED STATES CONSULATE, PARIS, May 3, 1837. SIR: On the 7th of August last I made known to the Secretary of the State the amount of expenses that had been incurred by me in this city in taking precautionary steps to secure to the United States, as legatee of James Smithson, of London, the possession of property then supposed to constitute a portion of his estate, and now have the honor of transmitting to you, in consequence of a letter recently received from the Department, receipts for the amount of these expenses, as follows, viz: Receipts of the M. Castaignet for his services. Do. avocat, M. Delagrange My own receipt for postages. Total... -fr. 226 25 40 00 6 00 --fr. 372 25 I would feel obliged to you if you would have the goodness to provide, at as early a day as may suit your convenience, for my reimbursement, by furnishing me with a bill on Paris for their amount; and, in the mean time, I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient humble servant, DANIEL BRent. RICHARD RUSH, &c., London. Richard Rush to Daniel Brent. LONDON, PORTLAND HOTEL, Great Portland Street, May 10, 1837. SIR: I received your letter of the 3d instant, transmitting receipts for sums expended by you in Paris, amounting to fr. 272 25, for precautionary steps taken on your part to secure possession of property then supposed to constitute a portion of the property bequeathed to the United States by Mr. Smithson. You state that you transmit these receipts to me in consequence of a letter recently received from the Department of State, and request I will provide for your reimbursement by a bill on Paris for the amount. I received from the Secretary of State, in December last, copies of the same account, with a request that I would examine it, and if I deemed it just, and the amount reasonable, transmit to you the sum necessary to discharge it; his letter remarking that the account, if correct, was properly chargeable on the Smithsonian fund in my hands, created by the act of Congress of July 1, 1836, for defraying expenses incidental to the prosecution of the claim of the United States to the bequest of Mr. Smithson. In reply, I had the honor to inform the Secretary, by letter, dated the 9th of January, that it was still a point unsettled whether the property which, with a commendable zeal, you had aimed at securing for the United States, now constituted any part of the Smithsonian fund in the English court of chancery, awaiting its decision; that nothing had yet been adjudged to the United States; that perhaps it might be doubtful, under these and other circumstances I stated, all of which could not have been known when the Secretary's letter to me was written, how far the act of July the 1st would sustain the charge in question; and that at all events I had come to the conclusion not to pay the account until the issue of the proceedings in chancery on the whole case here was known, unless I should receive the Secretary's instructions to pay it, after what I thus wrote. I have received none; and unless the letter from the Secretary, which you have received, were written after the receipt of mine of the 9th of January, and contains an express direction to me to pay, I should not feel at liberty to do so; the less, as everything remains undecided here, and a new fact is interposed. Congress at the late session omitted to make any further appropiation for the full prosecution and recovery of the Smithsonian bequest; and it is certain, in my belief, that the sum allotted by the act of July 1, 1836, will be exhausted by the unavoidable expenses in London before any new appropriation can come from the next Congress. I have the honor to remain, very faithfully, your obedient servant, RICHARD RUSH. DANIEL BRENT, Esq., Consul of the United States, Paris. Richard Rush to John Forsyth. LONDON, May 18, 1837. SIR: I have received a letter from Mr. Brent, consul at Paris, transmitting his account and the receipts for moneys expended by him in that city, with a view to obtain for the United States some property, then supposed to be a part of that which was bequeathed by Mr. Smithson. It is the same account that was forwarded to me with your instructions of the 17th of November last. To these I had the honor of replying in my No. 6, in which the nature of the account was explained, and reasons assigned for suspending payment; your instructions appearing to have left me a discretion over the subject. Itrausmit a copy of Mr. Brent's letter dated the 3d instant, with a copy of my answer dated the 10th. My reasons will be seen in the latter for still withholding payment; Mr. Brent's letter, as I read it, not conveying to me your direction to pay. If I have erred in this particular, I shall wait your further instructions, and obey them. My letter to Mr. Brent, besides bringing into view the former reasons, mentions a new one. Under one of the advertisements transmitted with my No. 9, viz: the one returnable on the 1st of this month, the husband of Madame la Batut has come over here from France, to make out the claim of his wife upon the estate of Mr. Smithson. He has written me notes, and called |