Delaware, in the Senate of the United States, March 11, 1856, in executive session. The injunction of secrecy had been removed."
Who could resist an. inclination to get possession of this rich morceau, when it was a secrecy worthy of the note and attention of Senators? It is a most imposing thing. After this introduction, on the first page of the body of the pamphlet, before addressing the distinguished officer of this body who presides over its deliberations, I find, in flaming capitals, the words "Captain S. F. Du Pont, U. S. N.," and then it begins:
"Mr. Clayton said," etc.
Now I think this is one of the rarest diplomatic moves that I have discovered. It is worthy of the negotiator; it is worthy of the diplomatist; but whether it really will have the effect which was designed, I know not. Yet, sir, I have been charged with introducing personalities and personal character into this body. What does the Senator say in this speech } He gives a most delicate, and at the same time—I should almost be tempted to say—a most equivocal, pledge; for he says:
"I owe it to common justice to bear my sincere testimony in his behalf, and to repel the efforts made to injure him, no matter when or by whom made."
He pledges his "sincere testimony " on this occasion. It never would have suggested itself to me to attempt to qualify the testimony of the honorable Senator, unless he had implied that he had two species of testimony—sincere, and equivocal, or jocose. [Laughter.] My opinion was, that there was but one species of testimony, and that it was always sincere, because it is presented under the solemnity of an obligation to tell the truth.
By examining this speech, we find that the Senator from Delaware goes on and introduces the name of Lieutenant Maury, and various others. He introduces the names of Messrs. Pendergrast, Du Pont, Missroon, and other officers who were on board the Ohio in 1839 and 1840, by reading a document exculpatory of them written by a former Secretary of the Navy. He thereby put their general characters in issue; and I believe it would be technically correct, in a court of law, under the indulgence of the judge, under such circumstances, to prove the facts in regard to them. I had called for certain documents from the Navy Department, but they were not presented to the Senate when this speech was made. The Senator was not apprised, from any assurance given to those who called for them, that they would ever be presented, or made a matter of consideration before this honorable body. Still, he chose to anticipate them. The result was, that he involved himself in the dilemma of having his friends brought before the Senate, not in the most enviable point of view. I am not so sure but that he was a little too diplomatic in that respect. Men may go too far, I find here something designed to cover up a nice little reflection. On page 6 of the pamphlet speech, I find the following:
"No man who has a proper respect for the honored memory of the Commodore will seek to recall these events for the purpose of casting unjust reflections upon the living; and I purposely forbear all comment upon any part of the proceedings except the triumphant final vindication of Du Pont and his associates contained in the letter of the Secretary, which justly closed the whole controversy forever."
