I should say that I am happy to quote the fact that, in my recent Smithsonian annual report of 1969, I said as follows:

The Smithsonian has not been invaded by angry protesters or disrupted by dissidents, but it cannot escape the need, which is becoming so general in our time, to subject its activities to the most searching review and to reappraise its objectives in the light of the more rigorous expectations of the day. No institution is too venerable or too valuable to be exempted from such scrutiny. In government jargon the phrase is, "Let us get back to the base." An "open" university such as ours should thrive on self-examination.

In previous discussions of the scope of this set of hearings, you have suggested that I begin today with a résumé of the background, origins, and governance of the Institution, and that I should then proceed to some discussion of the present activities and my particular interest at present, and should conclude my testimony for today with a discussion about the future as we see it and, of course, the possibilities that we feel are embodied in our construct.

So I would like to proceed on this basis, if I may.

I have a statement, sir, which I would like to submit for the record, and I would like to highlight and outline that statement and then proceed with individual remarks.

Mr. THOMPSON. Without objection, the statement will be printed in full in the record at this point.

Dr. RIPLEY. Thank you, sir.

(Dr. Ripley's prepared statement follows:)

SECRETARY S. DILLON RIPLEY'S INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT ON THE ORIGINS, HISTORY, AND LEGISLATIVE RECORD OF THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, JULY 16, 1970

INTRODUCTION

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin by saying that we welcome this opportunity to appear before you and that the Smithsonian has, in fact, been giving increasing thought in recent years to the need and desirability of more Congressional review of its activities. We commented on this need, especially during this time of rapid social change, in my opening statement to the recently published Smithsonian Year 1969, or our annual report to the Congress; as follows:

"The Smithsonian has not been invaded by angry protesters or disrupted by dissidents but it cannot escape the need, which is becoming so general in our time, to subject its activities to the most searching review and to reappraise its objectives in the light of the more rigorous expectations of the day. No institution is too venerable or too valuable to be exempted from such scrutiny. In government jargon the phrase is, 'let us get back to the base.' An 'open' university such as ours should thrive on self-examination."

To do this, or "to get back to the base" in terms of these hearings, I think it would be useful to begin with a brief attempt at a definition of the Smithsonian. Indeed, it is my impression from our previous meetings, Mr. Chairman, that you would specifically welcome some basic information on what the various and seemingly diverse elements of the Institution are and what holds them all together.

Having said this, I am aware that it is not an easy task. The Smithsonian is a unique organization, and it does seem difficult at first look to find any unifying force or any common purpose in an institution whose interests range from the Anacostia Neighborhood Museum to the National Zoological Park.

I remember that a British critic writing in Punch magazine put the question this way a few years ago:

"What is the common factor linking an island in the Panama Canal, the trilithons of Stonehenge, and a Victorian Gothic building in blood red sandstone on the central axis of Washington, D.C.?"

Well, the critic agonized over this question for a page and a half and finally came to the conclusion that there was none-no common factor, really-other than the unusual last will and testament of James Smithson, the English sci

entist or natural philosopher and the illegitimate son of the first Duke of Northumberland, whose munificence created the Smithsonian.

We don't necessarily agree with our British writer friend, but, leaving aside for a moment the subject of Smithson's will, his remarks do perhaps offer a convenient starting point for a definition of the Smithsonian and something of its history.

Mr. Chairman, you probably recognize the reference to the Gothic building in blood red sandstone as our original Smithsonian building on the south side of the Mall, or the "castle" as we call it. This was for many years the Smithsonian's only building and the first home of the National Museum, about which I will have more to say later. Today it is the administrative heart of the Institution, so to speak, providing office space for many of us here with you today. You may not, however, recognize the reference to the trilithons of Stonehenge as an activity of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge, Mass. In addition to its better known tasks in radio astronomy, satellite geodesy and orbit predictions, the Observatory is also a great center for theoretical work and basic research in the broadest sense.

It happened that a few years ago one of SAO's leading astronomers, Dr. Gerald Hawkins, got extremely interested in the great stone slabs at Stonehenge, in England, previously thought to be religious monuments of some unknown people who dwelled there around 2,000 B.C. Using a computer and modern analytical techniques, Dr. Hawkins found that the positioning of the stones and the line of sight slots they made showed a distinct and remarkable correlation with the position of celestial bodies-the sun, moon, certain stars and planets-as they rose and set over a great span of years, especially during the times of equinoxes. He also discovered that the many white stone rings on the ground surrounding the dolmens could have been used for eclipse prediction. Dr. Hawkins thus confirmed what others had only vaguely suspected; namely, that Stonehenge was, in fact, a highly sophisticated astronomical center.

This is a good example of the kind of research activity, so much a part of the Smithsonian, that is difficult to put in PERT and PPB charts, or in terms of five or ten year goals, since it really depends on the individual interests of our scientists. It is true, of course, that we have many programmatic research efforts, complete with task forces and definable objectives, but we have also been and should continue to be a stronghold of basic research in the purest sense. By this I mean that the Smithsonian should continue to be a center where scholars and scientists can pursue their individual research interests in the freest possible circumstances.

We say this because such individual research efforts generally produce as many discoveries or significant contributions to knowledge as our more programmed or mission oriented efforts do. Dr. Hawkins is a case in point. His Stonehenge discoveries have helped to found a new science, generally referred to as astroarcheology, since a number of unusual archeological sites, such as the stone lines on the Nasca deserts of Peru, are now being restudied in the Stonehenge context, or in relation to their possible use as astronomical centers.

But to get back to the arcane references of our British critic, the island in Panama Canal is, of course, Barro Colorado island in Gatun Lake, which is the center or major study area of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. It was set aside as a tropical wildlife reserve in 1940, at first as an independent agency governed by various cabinet heads and later, through an executive reorganization plant in 1946, as a bureau of the Smithsonian, with the general charge that the island's "natural features be left in their natural state for scientific observation and investigation."

Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute or STRI, as we call it, illustrates another long standing principle of Smithsonian research activity; that is, to concentrate on what is relatively neglected, or to do the long term, demanding and often unglamorous basic research on which applied research, to be productive, must be firmly based.

To explain STRI, Mr. Chairman, it is necessary to bear in mind that ecologists have long concentrated on arctic, sub-arctic and temperate zones. This is because the ecology of these zones is easy to understand compared with the tropics. To be more charitable, instead of "easy," I should say that the principles of ecology-the delicate interrelationships of all living things can be more readily discerned in the Arctic, where there are very few species, but enormous populations within the species, than in the tropics, where the number of different species, if not their populations, may be enormous.

So the tropical ecosystems are very complex and difficult. We say, nonetheless,

that they must be better studied. They comprise, after all, two-thirds of the land surface of the globe, and every day we hear of new schemes, sometimes forwarded by our own foreign aid planners, for converting supposedly lush and fertile tropical rainforests to agriculture, or for turning the Amazon basin into a vast inland sea in the name of better communications, which action, incidentally, would have a drastic effect on hemispheric and world weather conditions.

The fact is that we do not yet know enough to assume automatically that agricultural productivity will be high in tropical forest systems. Experience to date suggests the contrary. What is needed, therefore, is more basic knowledge of tropical ecosystems. We have to take complete biological inventories of these systems, determine what they are now through what is called benchmark studies and then try to measure changes and determine what may happen in the future. This is the basic task of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. It has by now a reputation as the most convenient and most thoroughly studied piece of tropical rainforest in the world, and we hope that it will continue to play a major role in encouraging greater efforts in tropical biology.

With these two examples of Smithsonian research efforts in mind, let us go back quickly to the legislative basis of it all, or Smithson's will and the action which Congress took on it.

(1) James Smithson's Will

HISTORY

In the year 1826, James Smithson, the natural philosopher, man of science, and specialist in mineralogy, who had never set foot in the United States, nor maintained contacts with American scientists, wrote an unusual last will and testament.

Essentially, he bequeathed almost his entire fortune to a nephew, but with the stipulation that should his nephew die without leaving any children, he would then bequeath the whole of his estate:

... to the United States of America, to found at Washington, under the name of the Smithsonian Institution, an Establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men.”

These are the exact words and the only words James Smithson employed to give direction to the institution that today bears his name.

Smithson died in Genoa, Italy, some three years later, on June 26, 1829. Then, six years later his nephew, Henry James Hungerford, did in fact die without issue. An alert Secretary in the American Embassy in London noted this fact, and advised the United States Government that it was entitled to the Smithson bequest. Less than a year later, Richard Rush, the eminent diplomat, former Attorney General of the United States, and son of Benjamin Rush of Philadelphia, signer of the Declaration of Independence, was sent to England to prosecute the will. This he did successfully. By 1838 the British Court of Chancery had decided the suit in favor of the United States, and eleven boxes of gold sovereigns were deposited with the United States Mint in Philadelphia. These sovereigns were subsequently recoined into American money, with a resulting value of $508,319.46.

There then followed some eight years-eight extremely interesting years, if not entirely productive-in the history or, to be more accurate, the pre-history of the Smithsonian.

The phrase "increase and diffusion of knowledge among men" was succinct and it had a definitive ring. But, it must be admitted, it was also subject to a wide array of interpretations, so wide, in fact, that the Congress spent eight years of debate on the subject of its true intent.

Many proposals were forwarded. Some favored a university, the like of which neither the United States nor Europe had ever seen. Others argued for a national library, there being no Library of Congress at the time. Still others, notably Congressman Robert Dale Owen of Indiana, proposed a bill embracing a kind of national teachers college or normal school.

Through it all, John Quincy Adams, then serving as an ex-President and the Congressman from Braintree, Massachusetts, gave thoughtful advice and kept the question open, since there were many times when discouragement and weariness over the matter of the Smithson estate almost won the day.

(2) Organic Act of 1846

The debate ended and the Smithsonian was officially established by Act of Congress on August 10, 1846.

Some historians say Congress evaded any real interpretation by providing a Secretary and a Board of Regents and letting them best decide the intent of

Smithson's will. Another point of view is that Congress had the foresight to see the need for a center for basic research and public education with just such a broad charter as "the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men," witness the fact that Smithson's mandate was written into the bill, both in the preamble and in the first section on the establishment of the Institution. The principal provisions of the organic act of 1846:

(a) Provided that the President, the Vice President, the various cabinet heads, the Commissioner of the Patent Office and the Mayor of Washington constituted an "Establishment" by the name of the Smithsonian Institution.

(b) Authorized private funding of the Institution by having the principal of Smithson's gift deposited with the Treasury, with six percent annual interest to the Smithsonian.

(c) Provided that the business of the Institution be conducted by a Secretary and a board of Regents, the general composition of which has been maintained to the present day.

(d) Provided for an Executive Committee to be formed by members of the board of Regents.

(e) Instructed the Regents to choose a site and erect a building “of plain and durable materials and structure . . . and with suitable rooms and halls for the reception and arrangement, upon a liberal scale, of objects of natural history, including a geological and mineralogical cabinet; also a chemical laboratory, a library, a gallery of art and the necessary lecture rooms."

(f) Authorized the transfer to the Institution of "all objects of art and of foreign or curious research, and all objects of natural history-belonging, or hereafter to belong, to the United States," as well as the minerals, books, manuscripts and other properties of James Smithson.

(g) Provided for the gradual establishment of a Library.

(h) Authorized the managers of the Institution to spend income of the Smithson fund "as they shall deem best suited for the promotion of the purpose of the testator."

(3) The Henry Administration

Joseph Henry of Princeton University, the most eminent physical scientist of his day and the discoverer of the principles of electro-magnetism, along with Faraday of England, was appointed by the Regents as first Secretary of the Smithsonian.

When he arrived in Washington, he had already prepared at the suggestion of the Regents a plan for the general purposes and organization of the Smithsonian.

The objectives of the Institution, he maintained, were very clear: first, to increase, and, second, to diffuse knowledge among men. Increase meant original investigations or research in any field, inasmuch as Smithson's will did not define or restrict fields of knowledge. As Henry expressed it "Smithson was well aware that knowledge should not be viewed as existing in isolated parts, but as a whole, each portion of which throws light on all the other, and that the tendency of all is to improve the human mind, and to give it new sources of power and enjoyment."

To increase knowledge, Henry provided grants for men of talent to make original researches and, in effect, converted the original Smithsonian Building to a residential center for scholars. He himself engaged in meteorological observations, which later led to the formation of the Weather Bureau, and he encouraged studies in archeology, anthropology, and natural history.

Henry also gave equal weight to the diffusion of knowledge and therefore instituted:

(a) "Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge," with the first Smithsonian publication coming out within two years of the founding of the Institution.

(b) A Library, which was later to be transferred to the Library of Congress. (c) The international exchange of scholarly research and publications, with the foundations of the Smithsonian's International Exchange Service well established by 1852.

(d) "Smithsonian Lectures."

(4) Origins of Federal Appropriations

Secretary Henry did not at first give primary importance to creating a museum, since it was his view that the Smithsonian should concentrate its activities in matters of benefit to all mankind, in keeping with Smithson's will, rather than matters of local interest.

But, of course, the Museum role was ordained by the Congress in the 1846

organic act. Henry did not oppose it. By the late 1850's, the Smithsonian was housing in its new building a large amount of natural history specimens collected through government sponsored exploration of our western frontiers. By then, too, it had been proposed that the Smithsonian receive and take care of the collections of the Patent Office, which included models of inventions, a section known as the American Museum of Arts, and also some natural history collections, notably those from the expeditions of Captain Charles Wilkes to South America, Antarctica and the Pacific.

Faced with this proposal, the Board of Regents and Secretary Henry established a principle that is essential to the understanding of the Smithsonian and its subsequent growth.

They held that:

(a) Limited income from the Smithson fund should be reserved for increase and diffusion of knowledge "of a world-wide benefit" and not spent on caretaking or maintenance of museum property and collections.

(b) But if the Congress wished the Smithsonian to take on the public responsibility for a national collection and in effect, a national museum, in accord with the 1846 act, then the Smithsonian should do this for the people of the United States with appropriated funds. In this spirit, Patent Office collection was accepted in 1858 and the first federal appropriation was made to the Smithsonian, through the Department of Interior, in the amount of $4,000 annually so that, in Henry's own words, the Smithsonian could "become the curator of the national collections."

(5) Special Purpose Appropriations

Henry was among the first men of his time to realize scientific importance of our far West and held it as a firm principle that qualified scientists should form part of land or railroad surveys and general exploration parties. Because of this, Major John Wesley Powell received a Smithsonian grant to explore the Colorado region.

Powell thereafter proposed a major expedition on the Colorado River, to go through the Grand Canyon. In 1869, Congress approved this proposal and appropriated funds through the Department of Interior, to the Smithsonian, for direction of the project.

This in turn led to many more government-sponsored surveys, some competing or overlapping. In 1879, Congress, at Powell's suggestion, reorganized and consolidated all federal exploration, assigning geological investigation to Department of Interior, creating the U.S. Geological Survey. At the same time appropriations for anthropological investigations were made to the Smithsonian for its Bureau of Ethnology.

(6) Spencer Baird and the National Museum

The second Secretary of the Smithsonian, Spencer Baird, was a biologist, an avid collector and an enthusiastic proponent of the Smithsonian's early efforts towards museum exhibitions.

His work on the U.S. Fish Commission, further exploration parties, the work of the Bureau of Ethnology-all were adding much to the national collections. Then came the 1876 Philadelphia Centennial Exposition. The Smithsonian received a federal appropriation to participate in the Exposition, and Spencer Baird was made a member of the board appointed by President Grant to plan the Government's participation.

Both Henry, who died in 1878, and Secretary Baird long had it in mind that if the Congress by its action of 1858 in providing federal funds for the national collections did indeed want the Smithsonian to serve as the National Museum, then the Smithsonian was the logical recipient of the best materials from this great Exposition.

And, considering that the Philadelphia Exposition materials were enormous and the original Smithsonian building already crowded, a new building, to be the formal home of the U.S. National Museum, seemed essential.

A request was made to this effect in 1876.

In 1879 Congress appropriated $250,000 for construction of a new building for the National Museum. It was, in effect, a reaffirmation of the museum provision in the organic act of 1846, with the following language:

"All collections of rocks, minerals, soils, fossils, and objects of natural history, archeology, and ethnology made by the Coast and Interior Survey, the Geological Survey, or by any other parties for the Government of the United States, when no longer needed for investigations in progress, shall be deposited in the National Museum."