New-York tribune., 1873-01-04
TILE REHH LIRRdRY.

While we of New York are rejoicing in two
great Libraries, one cOnsummate, the other
initiate and fairly in progress, and both the
fruits of private munificence, our neighbors OF
Philadelphia have been sOrely tried by a wind
fall that, in the same form, has come to
them. The questions of morals md law to
which it lhas given birth, and their decision,
are so interesting that we crave leave, even
at distance, 20 refer TO them. DR.. James
Rush of Philadelphia we take to have been
crotchety, wrong-headed individual .whO, with
vague notions of what was right, did not
know exactly what to do with the large for
tune which had accidentally come to him.
He determined to endOw a Library, or,
rather, to bestOw his muniticence on
an institution of that kind already in
existence, the Library which, more than u cen
tury ago, Benjamin Franklin founded He
devised his whole estate-upwards of a mil
ion-to his brOther-in-law, in trust, to select
a site for the Library, and, that being done,
to convey the property to the existing COM
pany. There were in this devise all manner of
crotchety conditions and limitations, which
are however, of no importance now. He de-
fined with tolerable certainty the place where
codicil, authorized his trustee, Sin the
"exercise of broad and thoughtful
" foresight to locate the Library where
he pleased. A wider discretion never was
delegated. A short time before his death he
purchased lot which he thought most suita-
BILE for the new institution, and, sending for
his trustee, exacted from him promise that
this should be the site. There was no
time for new will. The promise was
thought sufficient and was given, and the rich
man, sureEthat his wishes would be complied
with, died in peace. 81 gave him the promise
"as fully and solemnly as language could ex-
"press it, He thanked me and said he could
"now die in peace" He did die-peacefully we
trust-and the Franklin Library Company" +"
succeeded to their rights
But, while they were especially anxious to
have the benefit of the legacy, they were as
clearly averse to the site which the testatOr
and his trustee had selected. 1t was out of
the way. 1t was in an questionable part of
the town. 1t was as far from Chestnut and
Walnut-sts. as Russell-square and the British
Museum are from Belgravia. The reading
public of London can afford to go to an un-
aristocratic part of the town, but not that of
Philadelphia. So, the Library Company, true to
"Poor Richard" morality, filed bill in the State
Supreme Court to compel this unhappy and
conscientious trustee to exercise his discretion
in particular way, and especially to disre-
gard his promise and the dying injunctions Of
his testator. And the Supreme Court-Or
rather one of its freshest Judges-on the au-
thority of q single case, adjudicated ages ago in
the British Chancery, has decided to defy the
testator and his trustee, and though the latter
has an absolute discretion, to compel him to
exercise it in particular way, and
that the way which the testator es-
pecially disapproved Of Now this may
be technical law, but it really strikes us
as very unsound ethics. This unhappy trustee
may have honest scruples on other points, and
it would seem from the language of the Judge
that the more honest the scruple, the greater
necessity for his intervention, and if he has,
the ungrateful and ungracious devisee will be
sure to ask for it. Upon the whole Philadelphia
is getting her new Library under difficulties.
- .-<s3E 4 EA-a.-..-.