200 U. S. Argument for Appellants. view of this judgment, held that the clauses of the will were valid, except the bequest of "a sum not to exceed five thousand dollars," to be expended under the personal supervision of the trustees in the purchase and erection of a chime of bells, and the erection of an altar or memorial window, etc.; but the alternative bequest of the sum not to exceed five thousand dollars, to be equally divided between St. Vincent and St. Joseph's Orphan Asylums in the city of Washington, was good. It also held that the clause in the will, providing for the application of five thousand dollars to form a fund to be known as the E. Carroll Morgan fund or scholarship, to be applied as "I [the testator] may hereafter verbally indicate to my trustees or if I fail, as my trustees with the advice of proper persons may decide, to the maintenance of a scientific department, or the foundation and the application of the income to a scholarship in the classical department in the University of Georgetown in the District of Columbia," was void. No appeal has been taken from this last portion of the judgment of the Court of Appeals. Mr. Marion Erwin for appellant Speer; Mr. Joseph R. Lamar and Mr. Conway Robinson for appellants Mosher: The history of Georgetown University shows that it is a corporation of Roman Catholic clergymen. See Maryland laws, act Nov. 1792, ch. 55; 2 Kilby's Laws; act of 1797, ch. 40; act of 1805-6, ch. 118; act of 1808, ch. 37; act of Congress, March 1, 1815, ch. 70, 6 Stat. 152; March 2, 1833, 6 Stat. 538; Papal Decree, March 30, 1833. For definitions of University, see 27 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law, 682, and Black's Law Dict.; see also, act Congress, June 10, 1844, 6 Stat. 912, and the charter of 1886 in the District of Columbia of the Medical School. A gift to Georgetown University is a gift for a religious order and denomination within the meaning of the Bill of Rights. The acts of Congress simply conferred a new name on the existing corporation. 7 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law, 2d ed., 685; 1 Thompson, §512; Bosshor v. Dressel, 34 Maryland, 503; People v. Perrin, Argument for Appellants. 200 U. S. 56 California, 345; nor did they repeal the old charter. Snook v. Improvement Co., 83 Georgia, 66; Regents v. University, 9 G. & J. (Md.) 365. The testator by using the word college meant to refer to the old institution as known by that name. Even if the bequest was to the Medical Department it was a gift to a religious institution, if not to the University it was to a college without a charter and not empowered to receive it. People v. Gunn, 96 N. Y. 317. As to what is and is not a gift to a charity, see Stratton v. Institute, 148 Massachusetts, 505; Goodell v. Association, 29 N. J. Eq. 32; 2 Pomeroy Eq. Jur. 1019; Church v. Smith, 56 Maryland, 397; 2 Perry on Trusts, § 711; James v. Allen, 3 Mer. 17; Norris v. Thompson, 19 N. J. Eq. 311; Morice v. Bishop, 9 Ves. 399; S. C., 10 Ves. 522; Atty. Genl. v. Haberdashers, 1 Myl. & K. 428; Easterbrook v. Tillinghast, 5 Gray (Mass.), 17; People v. Powers, 147 N. Y. 104. As to the scope and effect of § 34 of the Bill of Rights, see Trustees v. Manning, 19 Atl. Rep. (Md.) 603; act of Congress of 1866, § 457, Rev. Stat. Dist. Col.; and as to the construction of similar statutes see Endlich, $111; Doe v. Waterton, 3 B. & A. 151; Price v. Maxwell, 28 Pa. St. 33. Courts will go behind the cloak of a charter and ascertain the actual facts as to whether the institution is or was a religious one. Stile v. Halleck, 6 Nevada, 373; Coats v. Campbell, 37 Minnesota, 501; Cook v. Industrial School, 125 Illinois, 541; Boyer v. Christian, 69 Missouri, 492. The stated use of the Bible as a text-book is sectarian instruction. State v. District Board, 7 L. R. A. (Wis.) 330. The bequest of $10,000 for endowing the James Ethelbert Morgan fund for prosecution and research in colonial history is void. It is not within the powers of the University to accept it-the object is not within the limits of "liberal arts and sciences." There is no beneficiary who can claim it or compel an account. Kelly v. Nichols, 19 L. R. A. 413; Craig v. Lill, 7 Cent. Rep. 659; Goodell v. Union Ass'n, 29 N. J. Eq. 52; Gloucester v. Woods, 3 Hare, 131, 136; Atty. Genl. v. Oxford, 1 Bro. ch. 444 note; Anonymous, 2 Freem. 261; Atty. Genl. v. Whitely, 200 U. S. Argument for Appellants. 11 Ves. Jr. 251; Cherry v. Mott, 1 Myl. & C. 123; Clark v. Taylor, 1 Drew, 642; Carter v. Balfour, 19 Alabama, 814; Russell v. Kellett, 2 Smale & G. 264; Sinnett v. Herbert, L. R. 7 Ch. 232; Re White's Trust, 55 L. J. Ch. N. S. 731; Lechmere v. Centler, 24 L. J. Ch. N. S. 647. Even though the money is directed to be paid over to Georgetown University, and if that be considered as a charitable institution (which it is not), still if the purpose to which it is to be applied is not charitable within the meaning of the rule, and that purpose fails for want of a designated beneficiary capable of applying to a court of equity to enforce the trust the bequest must fail. Cloyne v. Young, 2 Ves. Sr. 91; Robinson v. Waddelow, 8 Sim. 134; Knight v. Knight, 3 Beav. 148, 174; Williams v. Kershaw, 5 Clark & F. 111; Kendall v. Granger, 5 Beav. 300; Nichols v. Allen, 130 Massachusetts, 211, 218; M. E. Church Ex. v. Smith, 56 Maryland, 362; Grimes v. Harmon, 35 Maryland, 221, 226; Heiss v. Murphey, 40 Wisconsin, 276; Goddard v. Pomeroy, 36 Barb. 548, 555; Gumble v. Pfluger, 62 How. Pr. 118; Baptist Assn. v. Hart, 4 Wheat. 1. The rule has been modified only to the extent that gifts strictly to charitable uses are to a certain extent excepted from its operations. Ould v. Washington Hospital, 95 U. S. 303; Russell v. Allen, 107 U. S. 163; Jones v. Habersham, 107 U. S. 174; and see 2 Perry on Trusts, §§ 709, 713; Brown v. Yeal, 7 Ves. Jr. 50, note; Briggs v. Hartley, 19 L. J. Ch. N. S. 416. As to other bequests being void and having lapsed for uncertainty, see Bristol v. Bristol, 53 Connecticut, 242; Gambel v. Trippe, 75 Maryland, 252; Fountain v. Ravenal, 17 How. 382; Baker v. Fales, 16 Massachusetts, 495. Where the sum is uncertain or unnamed the bequest fails. 2 Perry on Trusts, § 714; Ewen v. Bannerman, 2 Dow & Ct. 74; Flint v. Warren, 15 Sim. 626; Society v. F. C. Society, 14 N. H. 315; Russell v. Jackson, 10 Hare, 204; Coxe v. Bassett, 3 Ves. 155; Hartshorn v. Nichols, 26 Beav. 58; Mills v. Newberry, 112 Illinois, 123; Grant v. Colman, 9 Ves. 323; 5 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law, 905; Pritchard v. Thompson, 95 N. Y. 76. The alternate bequest to the two asylums is also void. Whenever a power is of a kind that indicates a personal confidence it must prima facie be understood to be confined to the individual to whom it is given, and will not except by express words pass to others to whom by legal transmission the same character may belong. Cole v. Wade, 16 Ves. Jr. 27; Alexander v. Alexander, 2 Ves. Sr. 643; Powles v. Jordan, 62 Maryland, 503; Atty. General v. Berryman, 1 Dickens, 168; Fontain v. Ravenal, 17 How. 369, 382. The charters of these two asylums are in evidence and show that they organized as private charitable and educational institutions, hence the bequests are void under § 34 of the Bill of Rights. The legacy for scholarship is void because indefinite and the discretion reposed in the executors expired with the death of one and the resignation of the other. Cases supra. The death of trustees given by will power to select the beneficiary of a charitable bequest from several uncertain classes defeats the bequest if valid in the first instance. Cases supra. This is a lapsed legacy, and being of money falls into the residuary clause of the will. 1 Perry on Trusts, sec. (a); Dawson v. Clarke, 15 Ves. 417; Brown v. Higgs, 4 Ves. 708; S. C., 8 Ves. 570; Shanley v. Baker, 4 Ves. 732; O'Keys v. Heath, 1 Ves. 141; Cambridge v. Rous, 8 Ves. 25; Cooke v. Stationers Co., 3 M. & K. 264; Bland v. Bland, 2 Z. & W. 406; Jones v. Mitchell, 1 S. & S. 298; Leake v. Robinson, 2 Mer. 392. Mr. George E. Hamilton and Mr. M. J. Colbert for appellee. MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court. The opinion of the Court of Appeals, in this case, delivered by Chief Justice Alvey (24 App. D. C. 187), is entirely satisfactory to us, and leaves little to be said in addition. For the purpose, however, of simply stating the opinion of this court upon the various questions, without discussing them at length, we add what follows. The appellants insist that the gift of the property to the Georgetown University is void, as having been made to a sectarian institution less than one calendar month prior to the testator's death, and that such disposition was therefore in violation of section 457 of the Revised Statutes of the District of Columbia. That section makes valid and effectual all sales, gifts and devises prohibited by the thirty-fourth section of the Declaration of Rights of the State of Maryland, adopted in 1776, "provided, that in case of gifts and devises, the same shall be made at least one calendar month before the death of the donor or testator." 14 Stat. 232; passed July 25, 1866. The thirty-fourth section of the Maryland. Bill of Rights makes void: "Every gift, sale or devise of lands to any minister, public teacher or preacher of the gospel as such, or to any religious sect, order or denomination, or to or for the support, use or benefit of or in trust for any minister, public teacher or preacher of the gospel as such, or any religious sect, order or denomination; every gift or sale of goods or chattels to go in succession or take place after the death of the seller or donor, to or for such support, use or benefit, and also every devise of goods or chattels to or for support, use or benefit of any minister, public teacher or preacher of the gospel as such, or any religious sect, order or denomination, without leave of the legislature." It is also insisted that there is a misnomer of the corporation, now claiming the right to the bequest, inasmuch as such corporation was incorporated under the name of the "The President and Directors of Georgetown College," while the bequest is to "Georgetown University, in the District of Columbia." It is contended that Georgetown College is a corporation, incorporated on the tenth of June, 1844, under an act of Congress (6 Stat. 912, entitled "An act to incorporate George |