vened through matters of form. Our professional advisers are disposed to regard this with satisfaction, considering the case as one of the first impression here, the United States having never before appeared as suitor in an English court. Having selected counsel of distinguished character and abilities in the court of chancery to conduct the proceedings on the part of the United States, I feel that it is not my province to guide but follow their opinions in matters of English law and practice. Yet I feel it a duty to understand theirs, and offer mine to their consideration whenever there may seem any likelihood of its being serviceable to the claim of the United States, and will frankly own that I saw no objection to their withholding the act of Congress from the record, until actual payment of the fund was asked of the court who have the present custody of it. The United States, it is true, had never before sued in an English court. But there were precedents of other nations having done so by their executive head; as, for example, the King of France, the King of Denmark, and I believe other sovereign and independent States. It was not understood that any legislative act of those countries had been considered necessary, and was therefore inferred that the United States might in like manner enter the courts here, as of common usage, to establish the validity of a testamentary bequest made to them by a subject of Britain. The act of Congress may have been necessary, quoad the United States themselves. The bequest, it may be, could not have been accepted otherwise, or a suit been brought on their behalf; but no act of Congress was required for such ends before an English court. The will itself, showing a prima facie right in the United States, was enough to open an English court to their suit, and perhaps their dignity would best be consulted by not exhibiting the special act until indispensably necessary. The validity of the bequest being established on general grounds by a decree of the court, then, before payment could have been made to any one demanding possession of the fund for the United States, adequate authority from the proper source there must be shown; and at this epoch the act must have been filed, as well as the agent's power. This was the reasoning of our counsel, as I understood it. It appeared to me good, as did their reasons for bringing the suit by its present title. How far the master of the rolls might have dispensed with the filing of the act of Congress until the time indicated by our counsel as that alone when it was necessary, had the latter pressed the point to an argument, is not for me to say. They yielded to his lordship's first impression, and filed it at once, as it caused no delay, and must have been done under their own intentions at a future day, if a favorable decree be obtained on the main question, now so reasonably to be anticipated. I have the honor to remain, with great respect, your obedient servant, RICHARD RUSH. The Hon. JouN FORSYTH, Secretary of State. Richard Rush to John Forsyth. LONDON, March 25, 1837. SIR: In my No. 7 I had the honor to inform you that the court, after the hearing on the 1st of February, decreed that the case be referred to a master in chancery, to make the requisite inquiries as to the facts, on the happening of which the United States become entitled to the fund bequeathed by Mr. Smithson. The facts specially directed to be inquired into, and which must be judicially and technically settled, are, first, whether Henry James Hungerford, named in the pleadings, be living or dead; second, if dead, when he died; third, whether he was married or unmarried at the time of his death; fourth, if married, whether he left any and what children and child, and the age or ages of them, if any. It is further to be ascertained whether John Fitall, mentioned in the pleadings, be living or dead, and, if dead, when he died; and the said master is finally to inquire whether Madame de la Batut has any claim on the testator's estate, and to make report on all the several matters so referred to him. These inquiries are now all duly and regularly in progress. Advertisements, of which I annex copies, designed as one means of obtaining information under the four heads first specified, and the last, have been inserted in three of the London newspapers of the present month, viz: the Times, Morning Herald, and Standard. Copies of them, translated into French and Italian, have also been inserted in newspapers at Paris and Port Louis, in France; the latter being the place where Madame de la Batut resides; and at Leghorn, in Italy, it being understood that there is no newspaper published at Pisa, where it is believed Hunger ford 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: 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 |