Mr. Houston. With great pleasure.
Mr. Mallory. I know that the honorable Senator from Texas wishes the letters which he is now presenting to be understood by the Senate in a manner perfectly fair to all parties. I therefore call his attention to the fact that he read but one part of a paragraph of the letter of Mr. Du Pont, to which he referred. If he will read the closing paragraph of that letter, the Senator from Texas will see that Captain Du Pont expressly disclaimed any intention whatever of giving offense, and expressed thankfulness for the consideration which had been shown him.
Mr. Houston. That is true; but if a man spits in your face and then says he did not intend to insult you, would you believe him?' Or if a man knocks you down and then begs your pardon, and says he did not mean to do it, would you believe him? Words qualifying a matter of that kind can have no force.
Mr. Mallory. I only ask that the paragraph be read in connection.
Mr. Houston. I would have read it myself with great pleasure, but I objected, because Du Pont is so copious and diffuse in his writings, that if I were to attempt to read all that he says, my speech would be entirely too bulky, I will, however, read the paragraph to which the Senator from Florida has called my attention. Mr. Du Pont said, as I have already shown, in his letter to Captain Smith, that he would not occupy the quarters prepared for him, but would remain in those assigned to him by the Navy Department. He first grumbled about the accommodations provided by the Department; others were prepared for him, which he declined to occupy; and after insulting Captain Smith in the way I have detailed, he goes on in this letter to say:
"I trust, sir, however, that you will not for a moment suppose that I do not fully appreciate the consideration which induces you to do all that you conceive lies in your power to alleviate the present state of things."
I am very glad that I have read this paragraph, because it shows that he did not intend this indignity for Captain Smith so much as for Commodore Hull. It was there the arrow was directed, but he did not shoot it. He says that Captain Smith did all that he possiblv could, but yet that they were not accommodated. Why? Because Commodore Hull was in the way—that is it. I am glad that I read it, because it just suits me.
I think the inference which I drew from this correspondence is a fair one; and it is evident from it that I stated nothing untrue when I said that Captain Smith was insulted. I am perfectly aware of the source whence the distinguished Senator from Delaware [Mr. Bayard] derived his information on this point. I was not aware at the time of the existence of a document which, I presume, induced the contradiction that he so unceremoniously administered to me. I shall allude to it. Lieutenant Du Pont, after he returned from the Mediterranean, wrote a letter to the Department dated June 5, 1840. In that letter, rendering his apology to the Secretary of the Navy, he says that he was very much astonished to hear that Captain Smith was offended. I will read his own language:
"But Captain Smith, in speaking of it to Mr. Pendergrast, the executive officer of the ship, ofter remarking that, in his opinion, it involved me in an inconsistency with a previous communication to him, added: 'but it is a perfectly respectful letter, and, if it required an answer, I would reply to it in the same
