entered into combinations and cabals calculated to defeat every object for which she had been fitted out. They clamored against the arrangements that had been made by the navy commissioners for their accommodation, as if a ship of war were intended for that purpose alone. They lost sight of the respect and consideration due to that sex which every gentleman, and most especially every officer, should feel it his pride to cherish on all occasions; appealed to the public in communications disrespectful to their superiors, and violated the long established rules of the service by publishing an official correspondence without the consent of the Department."
The venerable Senator from Delaware put these gentlemen on their trial originally, and raised an issue about their infallibility. Here is corroborative testimony of what I said before, in the same dispatch of Secretary Paulding:
"The letter of Lieutenant Du Pont is not such a one as I had expected from an officer who had heretofore sustained so high a character in the navy."
That is the same construction which the Secretary put upon it; the same which Captain Smith put upon it, and the same construction which Commodore Hull put upon it. I give the same construction to the letter. And yet, Mr. Pendergrast told Lieutenant Du Pont that Captain Smith had said so and so, and that he did not put the same construction on it. But I will read further from the same dispatch:
"The letter of Lieutenant Du Pont is not such a one as I had expected from an officer who had heretofore sustained so high a character in the navy. It is not couched in language becoming an inferior addressing his commanding officer; and his refusal to accept the concession of which his brother officers availed themselves savors more of pettishness than dignity, or of manliness."
That is the opinion of the Secretary of the Navy, and it is what the Secretary pledges to Commodore Hull before he sent the revocation of the reprimand. Read it, and you will see where the defect is in the organization, and perpetuation, and improvement of our navy. You will see, when you come to contrast the reprimand, which was evoked by the conduct of the individuals, and the Secretary's retraction, that duty had been one time performed, but it was retracted under an influence—whether political, personal, or official, I care not. Such things are deleterious to the navy, to its discipline, and to the interests of the country at large. As I will show, from the remonstrance of Commodore Hull, the venerable Senator was mistaken when he said that that retraction concluded the subject forever. In the same letter of December 16, 1839, the Secretary says to Commodore Hull:
"For yourself. Commodore, I have only to say, you are commander-in-chief ot the Mediterranean squadron. The laws and regulations of the service give you ample power to protect yourself from disrespect, and to enforce subordination. Exert that power to the utmost; and so long as you do not go beyond your lawful authority you may rely on my co-operation and support."
This is what Mr. Paulding says. I think there was good sense in all that, and it is just what he ought to have said; but I wish now to refer to another letter. Commodore Hull, in writing to Mr. Paulding, on March 21, 1840, after the receipt of the retraxit of the reprimand, says:
