and they sustain me in what I say. It is evident that Commodore Hull felt deeply mortified by the action of the Department in withdrawing the reprimand first administered to these officers. This is shown by the correspondence of Commodore Hull. I read from his letter to the Department of December 5, 1840:
"Having thus fully and strictly complied with all the directions embraced in your letter of 'June 24, 1840,' and having bowed with all due submission to your will and decision, I now claim the attention of the Department to the position its decision has left me in, viz, that of an officer in command of a foreign squadron, under the ban of his Government.
"In reversing my acts, which were based, as is admitted, on the promised 'co-operation and support ' of the head of the Navy Department, it must be evident that, without some exposition of the circumstances under which I acted, without some declaration of facts in the case by the Department, a large portion of reproach will be thrown upon me, and my command and authority may be ridiculed; but should this not be the case, the ground which will be assumed, both in and out of the navy, will be this: Commodore Hull had a difficulty with some of the lieutenants of the Ohio, a portion of whom he sent to the United States, with orders to report to the Secretary of the Navy, who disapproved of Commodore Hull's course, and sent the lieutenants back again; thus sustaining the lieutenants, and censuring Commodore Hull.
"I do not know that it is necessary for me to say anything more to the Department in justification of the course I pursued toward those officers; but it may not be improper in me to refer to certain extracts of your letters, and to ask an application, in my case, of that justice which has been so promptly yielded by the Department to others.
"In a letter written by the Department at the commencement of the present cruise of the Ohio, viz., so early as 'December 27, 1838,' the following sentiments, opinions, and views are expressed:
" 'The Department expects that, actuated as well by a due regard to your own honor as to the permanent interests of the navy, you will retain your command until, by a firm and steady assertion of authority, in which you may rely on it for support, you have suppressed that spirit of discontent which, if permitted to triumph, will, it is feared, be fatal to the future character and discipline of the service.' 'From the first, a spirit of discontent, approaching to insubordination, has prevailed among a portion of the officers, which manifested itself in disrespect to their commander, in appeals to the public, as void of foundation as they were destitute of all manly consideration.' . . . . 'And in violation of the regulations of the service by publishing an official correspondence without permission of the Department.' "
Now, Mr. President, can any one doubt that this is satisfactory evidence that Commodore Hull was not sustained by the Department, and was left in the awkward dilemma of being overruled, and having a triumph awarded to those who were generally designated in the navy as mutineers? And those four mutineers composed almost one-third of the naval retiring board. I will read further from the same letter of Commodore Hull:
