out a hope of redress to the injured parties. He says that Commodore Perry, in the conversation, stated this:
"I hope the day will soon come when the monstrous injustice which has been done to you and others will be corrected."
Those are the words—"monstrous injustice," and that he should have repeated them in connection with this letter is one of the most natural things in the world. He had not seen the letter for weeks; but recurring to his conversation with Commodore Perry in detail, in order to corroborate that, he adverts to the letter to Mr. Parker. Can any one believe for a moment that Mr. Bartlett intended to pervert the truth or to distort the facts? Did he not suppose that the letter to Mr. Parker was what he stated? But hurried, excited upon the subject, his mind recurring to the strong expressions of Commodore Perry, he merely stated them as if they had been used in the letter to Mr. Parker. Could he have any bad motive in misrepresenting the letter? Did he not know that if he had misrepresented it he was liable to detection and correction at any time?
The Senator from Louisiana indulged in very harsh, and, as I thought, unnecessary remarks in regard to Lieutenant Bartlett. The peroration of the venerable Senator from Delaware, who deprecated the application of epithets to individuals who could not he heard to vindicate themselves on this floor, would have applied very forcibly to the remarks of the Senator from Louisiana. Lieutenant Bartlett had been distinguished. He had been in France three years on special service, and he had discharged all his duties there in a most enlightened and able manner. He came home lauded by our minister in France, as having with ability and capacity discharged his trust. He arrived here and adjusted his accounts; and there is no record of one iota against him in the Department, but everything is smooth and clear. To be sure, they did not pay him what he was promised. They were to give him a certain percentage on the money expended, but they did not do it because he had drawn, and the money did not pass through his hands; but the responsibility on his part was the same. Instead of allowing him this percentage they withheld some thousand dollars. But what of that? Is there any officer in the army or navy who has had money to expend, that has not been called in question in his pecuniary adjustments? Accounts are checked with great particularity, and it is no reflection on an officer to have disputes with officials here in reference to his accounts.
But, sir. Lieutenant Bartlett was detailed on active service at the time when he was dropped. Why was he dropped? Because it was rumored that he had done something improper on the western coast of the United States, when he was in command of the cutter Ewing. It was rumored; but no fact was established, nor has it been to this hour, nor can it be; but that was the alleged ground on which he was dismissed. The true ground was, that he was an efficient officer; that he was in favor of real reform of the navy; that he was not a friend of flogging; and was an advocate of temperance. Some people have an appetite for seeing others whipped, so that they escape the lash themselves. Lieutenant Bartlett was at sea at the time when he was stricken down; and why? Another gentleman who has been here, I think, for three years, had been ordered to sea. He was inefficient, and unable to go to sea; he obtained leave of absence, and was withdrawn. Lieutenant Bartlett was detailed to sup-
