zcfru^ 
 
 University of California • Berkeley 
 
 The Peter and Rosell Harvey 
 Memorial Fund 
 
THE 
 
 NAVY BOARD" OF 1855 
 
 IN REVIEW BEFORE THE 
 
 NAVAL-COURT OF INQUIRY, 
 
 SITTING AT WASHINGTON, 1857; 
 
 COURT COMPOSED AS FOLLOWS*. 
 
 Commodore E. A. F. Lavallette ; President. 
 Cap. Wm. J. McCluney, ' 
 
 BY,) 
 S, J 
 
 i Members. 
 " Henry A. Adams, 
 
 Charles H. Winder, Esq., Judge Advocate. 
 
 P. Phillips, Wm. H. Eogers, and T. M. Blount, Esqrs., 
 
 COUNSEL FOR 
 
 WASHINGTON A. BARTLETT, 
 
 EX-LIEUT. U. S. NAVY, 
 
 (Midshipman, 1833; Passed Midshipman, 1839; Acting Lieut., 1842; 
 Lieutenant, 1844; Civil Magistrate of San Francisco, 1846, '47;* 
 Lieut. Commanding u Argo," 1847 ; Lieut. Commanding, and 
 Assistant Coast Survey, 1848-52 ; Special Agent Trea- 
 sury Department at Paris, France, 1852-54; First 
 Lieutenant Flag-Ship African Squadron, 1855), 
 
 APPELLANT. 
 
 BEING THE 
 
 DEFENCE, 
 
 AND ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS, READ BY 
 
 WM. H. ROGERS, ESQ. (OF COUNSEL), AND ADMITTED TO THE 
 RECORD, MAY 28TH, 1857. 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 
 w. ii. tinson, printer and stereotyper. 
 
 * Naval Occupancy of California. 
 
TO 
 
 COMMODORE OHAELES STEWART, IT. S. N. 
 
 Dear Sir: 
 
 To you I most respectfully dedicate this "Defence," in acknowledg- 
 ment of the great and enduring debt of gratitude which is due to you for 
 that act of civic heroism, wherein, by your individual firmness and determi- 
 nation, in 1846, you held in check, and for the time frustrated, the secret 
 combinations of a "clique" to seize upon the honors of the Navy by the 
 sacrifice of every ennobling impulse and the personal rights of comrades. 
 
 On that occasion you exhibited the same fearless spirit and exalted patriot- 
 ism, as when, in 1812, you demanded of the Government, in concert with the 
 lamented Bainbridge, that the little navy of that day should not be dismantled 
 until it had been given an opportunity to measure prowess with its haughty 
 and self-confident foe. 
 
 It was, no doubt, in remembrance of your unanswerable protest in 1846, 
 that tho "cabal" who so mercilessly persecuted the gallant Hull in the last 
 years of his life, ten years later sought to lay their hands upon the naval 
 wreath which has encircled your honored brow since 1815, when, without an 
 " act of Congress," or any robbing of the honors of others, you reached the 
 first place in the highest niche of our temple of naval fame, by causing two 
 ships of the enemy to lower the cross of St. George to the stars and stripes, 
 under which you then won your right to the title of a " flag officer." 
 
 Far better would it have been for the Navy and the country, if, in 1855, 
 when the service was passed in review by the late irresponsible "Naval 
 Board," it could have risen to a just view of its high duties and responsibili- 
 ties, and, instead of wishing to pluck the still green leaves from your 
 laurelled brow, or to declare that it had become seared and withered, it 
 could have sought, by its aid and counsel, to place you officially where the 
 
 iii 
 
IV DEDICATION. 
 
 people have ever considered, and still consider you to stand, viz., on the same 
 heroic platform as the gallant "Scott." Then we might have avoided wit- 
 nessing another proof of that painful saying which comes down to us from 
 the history of the past, that "republics are proverbially ungrateful." 
 
 Whether the representatives of the people in Congress shall or shall not 
 award to you the honors due to a lifetime of gallant and distinguished service, 
 and honor the country and the Navy, by awarding to you an admiral's com- 
 mission, the people (their masters) do and will continue to assign to you the 
 first place in the navy list, as you are in fact the oldest in service, and the 
 only living representative of those heroes of your rank who won for the 
 Navy all the brilliancy still reflected by the naval epaulette, even before 
 many of those who now aspire to your rank had smelled salt water or gun- 
 powder. 
 
 In those days of heroic devotion, you were content to place your chances 
 of promotion upon the seals of the commissions, and colors to be taken from 
 the enemy ; but that was before the announcement of the modern doctrine, 
 which has declared it honorable for naval officers to seize upon an occa- 
 sion to supplant a superior or brother officer senior in rank, or to take his 
 commission from him, for the benefit of members or abettors of a secret 
 inquisition — or to declare to the whole grade of post captains that if they 
 hesitated in taking part in it, there were juniors of—" sharper appetites, 
 whose interest would coincide with their duty " — ready to do it. 
 
 Whether you shall in the future be officially styled "Senior Captain," 
 " Commodore" " Flag- Officer" or "Admiral" you are to-day, as you have 
 been for years, at the head of the Navy — which, as a body, without regard to 
 "cliques" and "cabals," holds you in all honor and admiration, as their 
 long-honored and world-renowned chieftain. 
 
 Among whom, though one of the humblest of your' friends, I desire to 
 subscribo myself, in sincerity and devotion. 
 
 Truly yours, 
 
 The Author. 
 
NAVAL COURT OF INQUIRY, 
 
 SITTING AT WASHINGTON, MAY, 1857. 
 
 Commodore E. A. F. Lavallette, President. 
 
 Capt. Wm. J. McCluney, \ • 
 
 t-t A A f Members. 
 
 Henry A. Adams, ; 
 
 Charles H. Winder, Esq., Judge Advocate. 
 
 Lieut. W. A. Bartlett, U. S. N., 
 Appellant from the arbitrary decision of the " Navy Board?' 
 
 AND 
 
 Represented by P. Phillips, Wm. H. Rogers, and T. M. Blount, 
 Esqrs., Counsellors. 
 
 The Court having heard testimony for fifteen days, Mr. Rogers 
 in the name of Lieut. Bartlett read the following argument or 
 " defence" which was admitted to the "record." 
 
 Mr. President, and Gentlemen of the Court : — 
 
 The case which now approaches its termination has 
 been attended with greater publicity, and probably more com- 
 ment, than have connected themselves with any other of the 
 findings of the late Navy Board. 
 
 This prominence, and the public attention which has been 
 drawn towards me, have not been of my own seeking, but have, 
 in a measure, been thrust upon me. 
 
 The records of the Senate of the United States show, that I, 
 a petitioner for justice and redress to the Legislature of my 
 country, was selected from a large body of memorialists, to 
 endure the scrutiny of the Naval Committee of that honorable 
 body, as to my competency for the service from which I had been 
 unceremoniously " dropped." Whether I was intended to be 
 held up to public view as the example of a stern but necessary 
 vindication of the propriety of the proceedings of the Board ; 
 
 9 
 
10 NAVAL COURT OF INQUIRY — 
 
 or, whether the examination was instituted for any purpose of 
 redress, I leave to be determined by the character and spirit of 
 the investigation to which I was then subjected. 
 
 That my name should be sounded in the public ear, with 
 echoes yet prolonged, and blazoned in the sight of the nation 
 in connection with the vilest epithets and the most degrading 
 accusations, was to me more painful, and, to those nearest and 
 dearest to me, more agonizing than death. But notwithstand- 
 ing this anguish, I could not, and did not regret its cause, for 
 it was necessary to the salvation and rescue of that which is 
 more valuable to me than life. I knew that if I could but 
 expose the slanders which had been hissing their venom around 
 me to the light of truth, their fangs were hurtless, their 
 menaces contemptible. 
 
 In the extremity of persecution I found another and a 
 gracious compensation. If ever man had reason to be proud 
 of the sustaining aid of friends, not merely sympathizing, but 
 energetic in devotion ; not only consoling me by social counte- 
 nance, but supporting me by the dignity of high station, and 
 the power of intellectual supremacy ; I am that fortunate per- 
 son, who now, at the most solemn moment of a varied career, 
 pause to look back, and take fresh encouragement from the 
 kindness which has cheered me onward, and to record the 
 gratitude, full, earnest, and abiding, which urges this most fit 
 acknowledgment of deep obligation. 
 
 To you, also, gentlemen, are my thanks most justly due, for 
 the patient attention and kind courtesy which have accompa- 
 nied this investigation. 
 
 The publicity with which my case has been invested has been 
 productive of one considerable disadvantage. The partisan 
 efforts of many of the zealous and interested adherents of the 
 Navy Board have been directed against me ; and the enmity, 
 which for more than ten years had seemed to be extinguished, has 
 been raked from its ashes, and fanned into rekindled intensity. 
 
 Without regard to the lapse of time and its inevitable 
 effect upon human memory — without consideration of the injus- 
 
LIEUT. BARTLETT'S DEFENCE. 11 
 
 lice and iniquity of accumulating vague aspersions, unsubstan- 
 tial rumors, hostile opinions, and illogical inferences — everything 
 which rancorous enmity could gather, or unconcealed hatred 
 distort into the appearance of injurious imputation, has been 
 set in motion, and concentrated against me. % 
 
 It is true that this record, while it exhibits an increased 
 number of charges, shows a smaller amount of what has here- 
 tofore been received as testimony; but this I owe not to the 
 forbearance of my assailants, but to the power of that truth, 
 in which, more than ten years ago, I placed and declared my 
 trust, and on which alone I now rely for my final justification. 
 
 In approaching the concluding act of this investigation, I 
 cannot, if I would, dissemble or conceal the important and 
 pervading influence which its decision is to exercise upon my 
 reputation and my fate. Subject to that ultimate appeal, the 
 generous and unerring impulse of popular appreciation, which, 
 truly estimated and rightly formed, is indeed the voice of Deity, 
 you are the arbiters of my temporal welfare. 
 
 But not to me alone, with my petty interests and passing 
 cares, is the issue of this proceeding momentous. The cause of 
 Justice, the immutable principles of Truth, are involved in the 
 result. These, the highest interests and the sublimest ends of 
 humanity, are, with my humble character and feelings, to be 
 " crushed to earth," or rise triumphant from the efforts of a 
 combination which has seemed to be imbued and guided by a 
 fiendish and persistent malice, which, I trust, will find few 
 parallels in the history of the service. 
 
 I do not, for one moment, doubt that the members of this 
 Court are not only disposed, but anxious, to accomplish the 
 purpose for which its remedial jurisdiction was established — the 
 correction of the gross errors,, and manifest injustice of the 
 proceedings of the Navy Board. 
 
 The character of this Tribunal, and the mode in which its 
 power is to be exercised, are in striking contrast with the 
 arbitrary authority assumed under the " Act to promote the effi- 
 ciency of the Navy." The statute under which this Court is 
 
12 NAVAL COURT OF INQUIRY — 
 
 organized was intended to amend, not merely the provisions of 
 the original act, and their improper construction, but, more 
 particularly, the unfortunate results which were produced under 
 its pretended sanction. For securing these important ends, it 
 not only ordains a radically different mode of procedure, but 
 also supersedes the whole action of the late Board, even to the 
 extent of recognizing those who were doomed to be "dropped" 
 from the service, as still entitled to the designation of officers 
 of the Navy. The remedial act, it is true, speaks of restoration, 
 but, for the purpose of effecting this, it suspends the whole 
 operation and effect of the original finding, and not merely re- 
 appoints the successful applicant for relief, but rehabilitates 
 him to all his former rank and emolument. 
 
 It is, however, most especially in the mode of procedure that 
 we find the strongest contrast, and the most effective reform. 
 The action of the Navy Board was purely and absolutely 
 arbitrary. Its sole rule of conduct was its own uncurbed and 
 unregulated will. Without established form of proceeding, 
 without notice to the parties affected, investing the suggestion, 
 the whim, or the vengeance of a member, with the competency 
 of evidence, and making his unauthorized belief sufficient 
 ground of conviction, its course of inquiry and its conclusions 
 were alike despotic. Its jurisdiction was fantastically stretched 
 to whatever might be regarded as a pretext for proscription. 
 Its power was boldly extended beyond all those constitutional 
 and legal bounds which had previously confined every other 
 institution of the country ; and its indiscriminating sentence 
 affected with a common imputation all the widely varying 
 classes and persons comprised within its terrible decree. 
 
 The appellate, or revisory power — a full and complete portion 
 of which is vested in this Court — is, if not wisely and sufficiently 
 limited in extent, yet specific in its character, and regulated in 
 its exercise by distinct and inflexible rules of procedure. It is 
 to be exercised for a definite purpose, in a prescribed mode, 
 and for results pre-determined by the principles which are 
 declared to be imperative in their ascertainment. Nothing is 
 
 # 
 
LIEUT. BARTLETT'S DEFENCE. 13 
 
 left to the mere discretion of the judges ; but the judgment is to 
 be regulated by the same restraints, constitutional and legal, 
 and to be deduced in accordance with the same inductive 
 reasoning which determines the conclusions of ordinary civil 
 and criminal Tribunals. 
 
 This Court does not possess even the same latitude of pro- 
 ceeding and determination as a common Court of Inquiry. 
 The reason and the proof of this are to be found in the statutory 
 description of its jurisdiction. An ordinary Court of Inquiry is 
 invested with authority to collect facts, and, in particular cases, 
 to express opinions. But its report is merely of an interlocu- 
 tory and inconclusive character. It determines nothing. Its 
 action has no conclusive effect. Although there occurs in the 
 act of Congress creating these Courts of Inquiry a distinct 
 declaration as to the law and regulations by which they are to 
 be governed, yet it is manifest, not only from the statute itself, 
 but from the amendatory purpose of its creation, that the sole 
 object of this enunciation was to prevent laxity of action or of 
 principle in the conduct of the investigation. When we come 
 to consider the character and effect of its finding — vastly differ- 
 ent from that of ordinary Courts of Inquiry, which make no 
 decision — we derive an irresistible inference that the restrictions 
 upon its mode of proceeding are more strongly defined, and 
 necessarily assimilated to the strictest rules of evidence and 
 judgment which regulate civil and criminal proceedings. This 
 is evident from the distinct and specific character of the juris- 
 diction committed to this Tribunal. Unlike an ordinary Court 
 of Inquiry, which is empowered to report facts, and express 
 opinion, without any precise limitation except its own judg- 
 ment, this Court has, on the contrary, a defined, and precise, 
 subject matter, towards the ascertainment and conclusive deter- 
 mination of which all its powers and proceedings are to be 
 undeviatingly directed. 
 
 The practical question which is presented in the present 
 
 case, emphatically calls for the application of the strictest rules 
 
 of evidence. 
 
 1* 
 
14 NAVAL COURT OF INQUIRY — 
 
 If this Court were called upon, in the present instance, to 
 exercise the ordinary power of a Court of Inquiry, that is, to 
 collect facts, for the purpose of determining the propriety of 
 ulterior proceedings against me, no great injustice might be 
 done by some relaxation of the principles which properly apply 
 to the ascertainment of facts. 
 
 But when it is considered that, in truth, this Tribunal is a 
 Court of Inquiry only in name — that its office and duty are to 
 ascertain facts not as the mere inducement to a future proceed- 
 ing, but with a view to final and conclusive judgment, it is 
 obvious that justice demands that all the legal and constitu- 
 tional restraints which have been provided for the protection 
 of accused parties, should be maintained in full and unimpaired 
 vigor ; that no mere nominal resemblance should induce or 
 allow a departure from the rigid rules of legal investigation, 
 which are imperatively demanded both by the character of the 
 inquiry, and the result by which it must be terminated. 
 
 In the present instance, the propriety of adhering to the 
 strictest rules of evidence, is enforced by the nature of the 
 principal accusation. The charges against me, if having any 
 foundation in fact, or semblance of reality, are of a quasi 
 criminal character. If they were the subject of investigation 
 before a court-martial, it would at once be conceded that the 
 hearing and consideration must be regulated by the most rigid 
 principles of law, although an adverse finding might inflict a 
 comparatively trifling punishment. But here, where the issue 
 affects both character, and continued expulsion from the ser- 
 vice, it has been most strangely contended that the investiga- 
 tion may be loosely and illegally conducted, because the act of 
 Congress has imperfectly entitled this radically different Tribu- 
 nal, a Court of Inquiry. Those who do not, or will not, look 
 beneath the mere surface of words and names, may be deceived 
 by the false analogy, but the slightest insight of the interior 
 structure and vital purpose of the statute will convince any re- 
 flecting mind that it indicates a wholly different mode of action. 
 I have endeavored to show that the resemblance is merely 
 
LIEUT. BARTLETT's DEFENCE. 15 
 
 nominal ; that in truth the jurisdiction vested in this Court is 
 vastly greater and higher, directed to different ends, and pro- 
 ductive of widely dissimilar results. 
 
 Besides, it is a fatal error to suppose that there is in truth 
 any recognized laxity of application of the rules of evidence to 
 proceedings before the ordinary Courts of Inquiry organized, in 
 our service, under the act of 1800. 
 
 The principles applicable to military cognizance are precisely 
 identical with common law rules, whatever looseness of practice 
 may have prevailed in reference to the matter. 
 
 The Courts of Inquiry, so called, established under the act 
 of January 16th, 1851, unlike the English Tribunals of the 
 same name, are not mere Councils, or advisory bodies, but 
 invested with full judicial powers, conducting their investiga- 
 tion under the same solemn sanctions which prevail in the 
 administration of criminal justice, and endowed with full and 
 exclusive power to determine the matters properly falling within 
 their jurisdiction. Dissimilar, therefore, as they are in their 
 whole character, there can be no proper analogy in their mode 
 of proceeding, and it is beyond question that the laxity prevail- 
 ing in the English practice, where neither judges nor witnesses 
 are sworn, can find no proper footing in tribunals so radically 
 different as these in which my judges sit to administer final and 
 determinate judgment. 
 
 Let me, then, gentlemen, as my first aim, and your leading 
 duty, request you to look through this record with a calm 
 judicial scrutiny — guided by the only true and safe principles — 
 determined to separate the few grains of fact from the over- 
 running bushels of opinions, motives, imputations, and infer- 
 ences, which have been so abundantly heaped upon the case for 
 the obvious purpose of concealing its true character and 
 proportions. I trust it will be admitted that I am asking 
 simple justice, and conceded right, when I demand to be 
 judged bj facts, and not by opinions of facts ; to be tried on 
 my own acts, and not the inferences drawn from them by preju- 
 dice and enmity. 
 
16 COURT OF NAVAL INQUIRY 
 
 It is proper, then, at the outset, and throughout the discus- 
 sion of the testimony, to invite particular attention to the wide 
 difference between the facts alleged against me, and the glosses 
 and coverts which have invested them with an utterly false 
 appearance. The matters charged, divested of the epithets 
 attached to them by the witnesses, will claim a very different 
 consideration from the judicial mind. Their " native hue " is 
 one thing, but the tint with which they have been " sicklied 
 o'er " by suspicion and prejudice, is quite another. 
 
 There is a further preliminary consideration which it is my 
 duty to bring to the especial notice of the Court. It is the 
 glaring fact which attracts the most careless and casual glance 
 at the record now before you. Like the crimsoned letters of 
 an illuminated manuscript, it allures the eye whenever you look 
 at the testimony of the government. Not one fair, candid, 
 
 AND DISINTERESTED WITNESS HAS BEEN PRODUCED AS TO ANY MATE- 
 RIAL matter against me. They are nearly all parties holding 
 antagonistic relations towards me, as to the very matters to which 
 their testimony refers. It would perhaps be asking too much to 
 expect from human nature the simple naked truth under such 
 untoward circumstances. In the civil and criminal courts of 
 the country, without any special impeachment, the attitude the 
 principal witnesses hold, and have for eleven years held against 
 me, would, of itself, cast discredit upon their statements. I 
 know that upon the stand there has been a studied and con- 
 certed attempt to smooth the " wrinkled front " of that 
 hostility which yet shines apparent under all disguises. I know 
 that a show of unembittered feeling, and pure and unbiased 
 motive, has been ostentatiously paraded through the case; but 
 I find no evidence of charity or justice, either in word or act. 
 I should have hailed with even grateful satisfaction the least 
 appearance of a relaxation of the unrelenting spirit, which 
 through time, separation, and distance, in spite of good 
 works and established character, has not only been sternly 
 retentive of past grudges, but keenly alert to pick up any new 
 imputation which malice could invent, or hate discover. 
 
LIEUT. BARTLETT'S DEFENCE. 1? 
 
 I ask, then, for my enemies, as I have demanded for myself, 
 that they shall be judged by acts. They combined against me 
 at the time of the alleged occurrences of which they have testi- 
 fied. They have ever since, with a common feeling, and a 
 common purpose, clung together. Their spirit circulated, to 
 the exclusion of every other influence around the Board of that 
 Council, whose action has stamped its ineffaceable seal with 
 mournful blackness upon the Eegister of the Navy. Their 
 combination was sustained before the extraordinary but fruitless 
 investigation of the Committee of the Senate. They are now, 
 after the lapse of eleven years, arrayed in concert against 
 me, not in accordance of facts, but in unison of imputation 
 and suspicion. They constituted themselves not only my 
 accusers, but my judges; and the common feeling which has 
 animated their testimony will be abundantly exhibited by the 
 dissection to which I propose to subject it presently. In the mean 
 time let this fact be omnipresent in the consideration of their 
 statements, they were associated by written pledges, which in the 
 beginning exhibited them, and still shows them, in the extraor- 
 dinary combination of accusers, judges, and witnesses. They 
 imposed upon themselves a bond of union from which there 
 was no escape, which tied them down to the maintenance of 
 particular allegations, of the grounds of which some of them 
 admit utter and entire ignorance. 
 
 I proceed to inquire what have been and are the allegations 
 which have been made against me, and which are now relied 
 upon as evidence of my moral unfitness for the naval service. 
 Fortunately they are in such shape that their original character 
 and development can be easily and certainly ascertained. 
 
 In the letter of October 8th, 1846, whose sole object is 
 expressed to be a communication of the " feelings " of the 
 writers, and whose strange and inconsistent object is avowed to 
 be, the purpose of "placing me in Coventry," after I had "ceased 
 to be a member of the mess," when I had been for some time 
 detached from the ship, and engaged in the earnest and inces- 
 sant discharge of purely civil duties — it is charged specifically 
 
18 NAVAL COURT OF INQUIRY — 
 
 that they had become " convinced " that I had " betrayed the 
 trust reposed " in me " by the most culpable negligence f and 
 vaguely intimated something " far more serious," and " other 
 acts " equally indefinite. 
 
 When my " tone of defiance," and demand for an investiga- 
 tion had " drawn from them," as Commander Missroon testifies, 
 the replies of the 16th October, this charge is entirely aban- 
 doned by the executive officer. The serious moral imputation 
 is abandoned, and the official allegations against me, taking 
 the facts without the epithets, are sales of clothes and cigars ; 
 speculating upon a private library ; soliciting subscriptions of 
 money, selling an article of dress at Monterey, and afterwards 
 " withdrawing the article." 
 
 The mode in which these matters are characterized will form 
 an important subject of future consideration. 
 
 These allegations are grouped together under the head of 
 11 unofficer-like conduct." 
 
 There are other "instances" hinted at which were supposed 
 to place me in a " worse light," but until towards the conclu- 
 sion of this hearing, they had never been developed, and were 
 entirely beyond my conjecture. 
 
 In the rejoinder of the mess, Captain Montgomery is informed 
 of the opinion of the writers as to a "palpable mal-administra- 
 tion " of mess affairs ; — " suspicions of dishonesty," " strengthened 
 by delay, and evident reluctance in yielding up the mess ac- 
 counts to his successor" " confirmed by the course of examina- 
 tion." It was further stated, as matter of fact, that I had 
 " charged more than the actual daily expenses ;" had " altered 
 the items to suit the evidence," and had balanced the accounts 
 by a " convenient insertion of sundries." 
 
 The " other acts," they say, " scarcely require recapitulation," 
 but M to avoid a charge of vague generalities in a matter so 
 serious," they cite as an " instance of disreputable conduct," 
 which " had great weight," the " smuggling and disposing" of 
 the " article of dress " at Monterey. 
 
LIEUT. BARTLETT'S DEFENCE. 19 
 
 The epithets, glosses, and coverts contained in this letter 
 will be noticed in their proper connection. 
 
 Such are the allegations insinuated against me in 1846, and 
 they are substantially identical with the imputations spread 
 upon this record in 185?. 
 
 I re-appeal to the " power of truth," as far as it has been 
 elicited by this investigation. The witnesses against me all 
 survive. The testimony which would clear up a portion of the 
 imputation has been precluded by death. 
 
 The first charge, in order of time, relates to the library 
 taken on board the Portsmouth in 1844. 
 
 I meet it, with all the superadded suavity (?) which the fruit- 
 ful imagination of the executive officer lavished upon it. Did I 
 " speculate upon a private library," and " meanly solicit subscrip- 
 tions for its use ?" There are two witnesses who have testified 
 on the part of the government in relation to these books — 
 Commander Missroon and Purser Watmough. The former 
 entirely varies the charge when he comes to re-state it before 
 this Court. He now accuses me of disobedience of an order as 
 to issuing subscription lists to the crew. The proof is thus 
 stated : "I found a subscription list circulating on the berth- 
 deck for the signatures of the men by the signal quarter-mas- 
 ter. I called him to account, and he referred me to Mr. 
 Bartlett. I questioned Mr. Bartlett concerning this disobe- 
 dience to my order, when he at first denied that he had 
 authorized the circulation of it, and subsequently tacitly admit- 
 ted that the quarter-master might have misunderstood him. 77 Com- 
 mander Missroon has not vouchsafed to explain, metaphysically 
 or practically, how there can be such a thing as* a tacit admis- 
 sion of such misunderstanding, or how that affects or dimin- 
 ishes the force of the previous denial. It becomes, therefore, 
 necessary to analyze, and endeavor to comprehend this extra- 
 ordinary disobedience. A tacit admission is in itself easily 
 understood. It is the acquiescence implied from the silence of a 
 party when personally charged with any matter of accusation. 
 But the tacit admission by one person of a misconception upon 
 
20 NAVAL COURT OF INQUIRY 
 
 the part of another would seem to be beyond the reach of mere 
 human understanding. Now it was perfectly apparent that 
 the testimony of Commander Missroon was very carefully pre- 
 pared, and was collated, with matters subsequently promul- 
 gated from other sources, therefore we must consider his 
 phrases as important. If, then, I " tacitly admitted," as there 
 appears to have been no other person present, he must have 
 made some charge or assertion, and that charge or assertion 
 must have been precisely and identically what I "tacitly admit- 
 ted." He then charged that the signal quarter-master had 
 misunderstood me in regard to the subscription-lists. I tacitly 
 admitted that he had. The question now occurs, how did that 
 admission affect my previous denial as to authorizing the circu- 
 lation of subscription-lists among the crew ? Instead of impair- 
 ing its force, it effectually and completely confirms it ; and 
 upon Commander Missroon's own statement I stand exon- 
 erated from this charge of disobedience. I need, therefore, 
 scarcely refer to the testimony which almost in the same breath 
 had just before fallen from the same lips. " He never failed 
 to carry out the orders given to him to the satisfaction of the 
 executive and the captain." 
 
 But, again, I demand, where is the proof of the original 
 charge of speculation, and meanness in relation to this library ? 
 Purser Watmough says, that I solicited subscriptions from the 
 officers ; that he, himself, subscribed. He does not attempt, 
 however, to characterize it as in any respect improper. Com- 
 mander Missroon states that it was "reported" to him, that two 
 passengers had been solicited to subscribe — Dr. Chase and Mr. 
 Delazon Smith. In the cross-examination he said that Purser 
 Watmough had made the report. Admitting, for the moment, 
 the literal truth of these statements, I ask from what is derived 
 the imputation of meanness, or the proof of speculation 1 Purser 
 Watmough, however, is entirely silent as to his alleged report. 
 
 Further, it appears from the testimony that the library was 
 introduced with the express assent of the commanding officer 
 of the ship — that he approved both the object proposed and the 
 
LIEUT. BARTLETT'S DEFENCE. 21 
 
 result accomplished, and I think, upon his statement, without a 
 superadded word of mine, I may fairly leave this matter to the 
 consideration of the Court, and (if it so please him) to the con- 
 tinued strictures of Commander Missroon ; unless, indeed, in 
 this, as well as in other things, he is content to " abide by 
 what Captain Montgomery may say." 
 
 Well, Captain Montgomery does say, distinctly and emphati- 
 cally, not only that he authorized the introduction of the library, 
 but approved of the influence it contributed to the enjoyment 
 of the crew, and the promotion of good discipline ; and would 
 be glad to have another in the ship he now commands, upon the 
 same terms. 
 
 I will but add, in regard to this, as well as all the other im- 
 putations against me, that the approbation of one such man as 
 John B. Montgomery, outweighs, in my estimation, the censure 
 of a whole ship-load of some others. 
 
 The next item of charge, in chronological relation, refers to 
 the allegation which is thus set forth in the official communica- 
 tion of the executive officer of the Portsmouth : "in bringing 
 to sea a stock of clothing, cloths, cigars, etc., which were 
 vended to his brother officers and others, making his state-room 
 a kind of huckster's shop, and degrading, thereby, the respect- 
 ability of the ward-room." 
 
 The " Coventry " letter, and the subsequent rejoinder of the 
 associates of the mess, are entirely silent upon this subject. The 
 witnesses, whose signatures are affixed to those communications, 
 with the exception of Commander Missroon and Purser Wat- 
 mough, have not testified one syllable upon this point. The 
 allegation, as framed by the executive officer, and which he 
 pledged his " immediate readiness" to submit, with all the form 
 and circumstance of charge and specification, extends in terms 
 to the declaration, that I kept a retail shop in my state-room, 
 where I vended to " officers and others " " a stock of clothing 
 cloths, cigars, e£c," the et caetera including, I presume, the ordi- 
 nary supplies of a " huckster's shop," into which I converted 
 my state-room, and thereby " degraded" the ward-room. 
 
22 NAVAL COURT OF INQUIRY 
 
 If this charge be true, it was easily susceptible of complete 
 establishment, by positive proof. Here is a fact proclaimed, 
 which needed no opinions or inferences, but merely assertion. It 
 must have been within the knowledge of every inmate of the 
 ward-room, which was "degraded" by its contact with the 
 "shop." 
 
 Why, then, have we been left to infer the existence of so ex- 
 traordinary a spectacle occurring in the ward-room of a man-of- 
 war, from the solitary fact that I permitted Mr. Delazon Smith 
 to have a few shirts, as a matter of accommodation, and that I 
 received the fair value of the property so disposed of for his 
 convenience ? 
 
 What criticism, however prejudiced, can establish any dis- 
 tinction between that transaction, and the arrangement by 
 which, for Dr. Duval's convenience — and he says it was a great 
 relief to him — I took from him the box of china for the specific 
 value of twelve dollars ? 
 
 Commander Missroon has expended a vast deal of ingenuity 
 in endeavoring to make at least verbal distinctions between the 
 purchases and sales of other officers and those attributed to me. 
 When interrogated as to his own transactions of this character, 
 he, at first, made a peremptory denial of any such occurrence. 
 His subsequent admissions and elaborate explanations are fresh 
 in the memory of the Court, and are spread at great length, 
 and with extraordinary accompaniments upon the record. To 
 this I have no objection, except that I do not think such harm- 
 less trifles require a studied and prepared apology. What I 
 complain of is simply this : when I sold, what the nature of the 
 articles, as well as the testimony in the case show to have been 
 necessary for the accommodation of others, the act is stigma- 
 tised by the strongest epithets and the most sonorous adjectives ; 
 but when Commander Missroon does precisely the same thing, 
 the transaction is veiled by the daintiest covering, and delicately 
 entitled a " transfer /" 
 
 I have submitted to the Court the evidence of the real char- 
 acter of the transactions between Mr. Delazon Smith and myself, 
 
LIEUT. BARTLETT'S DEFENCE. 23 
 
 by which it distinctly appears that there was not a mere isolated 
 sale to him, but a series of interchanges of mutual accommo- 
 dation. 
 
 I little thought when, in accordance with my usual habit, I 
 placed away that little scrap of soiled paper, that it would ever 
 become an instrument of evidence, important to the defence of 
 my character, and be produced before a tribunal like this, in- 
 vested with the dignity of a certificate, attested by the national 
 arms and the signature of the venerable Secretary of State. 
 
 We know not what an influence the merest trifles may some- 
 times exercise over our future fate. 
 
 But I ask again, where is the proof of the charge as made ? 
 If it is too largely asserted, and no evidence exists to make it 
 good, it falls back, like living fire, upon the head of him who 
 unjustly preferred so outrageous and unjustifiable an accusation. 
 
 I proceed now to consider the few circumstances exhibited by 
 the record in reference to the " article of dress n alleged to have 
 been sold, " at an exorbitant advance upon its cost, to a lady 
 at Monterey." When the executive officer held himself in 
 " immediate readiness " to include this matter in his charges 
 and specifications, why was it necessary to affect an apparent 
 mystery in reference to the character of the " article ?" Was it 
 a more sonorous allegation to confuse it with the acknowledged 
 indescribables of a lady's toilette, and to connect with it the 
 ominous terms "private" and "secret?" In the subsequent 
 letter of the confederates of the mess, the same significant mys- 
 tery is observed. The charge is also associated with new 
 adjuncts and more impressive adjectives. It is alleged that I 
 " disgraced myself as an officer, and reflected discredit on my 
 ship." The imputation of " smuggling " is boldly attached to 
 the transaction ; the idea of " exorbitant advance " is repeated ; 
 my "sense of impropriety" is said to have been "evinced," 
 and the assertion of " shameful equivocation," is superadded. 
 The previously asserted circumstance, of withdrawal of the " arti- 
 cle," is omitted. The names of Messrs. Missroon, Watmough and 
 Harrison are, among others, affixed to these allegations. 
 
24 NAVAL COURT OF INQUIRY — 
 
 They have been confronted with me before the Court, and what 
 do they now assert ? Purser Watmough cannot declare that I 
 ever had such an article in my possession. Lieut. Harrison 
 does not allude to it. Commander Missroon asserts that I 
 confessed the fact, withdrew the article, and excused myself for 
 the sale, because I did not want the " shawl" for that appears 
 to have been the mysterious "article;" and it was difficult to 
 preserve. 
 
 I have but a single comment to make upon this statement. 
 It depends upon the memory of Commander Missroon, who 
 says that he is certain of the substance of the various conversa- 
 tions, but will not be understood as attempting to give precise 
 words. 
 
 And yet in a matter like this the most unintentional varia- 
 tion may give a wholly different color to the entire transaction. 
 I must therefore resort to the only test within my reach, for the 
 purpose of questioning the accuracy of Commander Missroon's 
 recollection. The experience of all who have been conversant 
 with the administration of justice, or have, in any way, been 
 under the necessity of scrutinizing human testimony, will assure 
 them of the strange facility with which men can persuade 
 themselves of the truth of something they have merely fancied 
 they have seen or heard. The popular paradox we sometimes 
 find applied to individuals, stigmatizing them as so given 
 to lying as to believe their own falsehoods, is founded upon 
 this experience. It is unquestionably, and frequently true, 
 that honest, but credulous or interested parties, sincerely per- 
 suade themselves of the truth and reality of matters which have 
 no actual existence. The process of self-delusion, to a greater 
 or less degree, is, perhaps, common to all men. 
 
 I believe that in the present instance, Commander Missroon 
 has heard the statement he makes from some other person,' and 
 has erroneously attributed it to me. I found this conjecture 
 upon the fact, that he admits his original information to be 
 derived from a report, and more particularly from the strongly 
 suggestive circumstance, that in his official letter of Oct. 16th, 
 
LIEUT. BARTLETT'S DEFENCE. 25 
 
 1846, he expressly states, " my information on the foregoing 
 points was mainly derived from the ward-room officers," and 
 does Dot insinuate a word about any confession, nor does the 
 letter of the confederate members of the mess, bearing the 
 same date, make any allusion to an admission, but, on the con- 
 trary, repels the inference by what it does actually charge, as 
 well as by the subsequent boast that what they do assert is 
 ''susceptible of the fullest proofs." They have probably at 
 length discovered the difference between allegation founded on 
 suspicion and surmise, and proof based upon substantial facts. 
 
 But, however this may be, I am now on trial in defence of 
 my honor, as well as my interests, and I therefore solemnly 
 repeat what I have uniformly asserted in reference to this 
 charge. I presented the shawl to the lady in question. She 
 desired to pay for it, which I declined. When her husband 
 came home, he, in return, presented me with a horse of about 
 equivalent value, which I rode as long as we remained at 
 Monterey, and left in his stables at my departure. 
 
 This last fact is positively established by the testimony of 
 Mr. Revere ; but of the main fact that the shawl was a present 
 and not a "transfer" I cannot offer to the Court the only 
 possible legal proof in consequence of the death of both the 
 parties. 
 
 But I ask, and the question is both suggestive and signifi- 
 cant, would Mr. Howard have been likely to present me a 
 horse except in return for something, or, if I had meanly sold 
 his wife a shawl at an exorbitant advance upon its cost ? 
 
 Before entering into the question of the mess-accounts on 
 board the Portsmouth in 1846, I propose to submit a few 
 remarks in reference to a point which, although relating to this 
 matter, was never made a part of the difficulty, and therefore 
 properly demands a separate examination. 
 
 Dr. Duval states that he paid to me the initiation fee — which 
 the Court will understand to be the value of the interest he 
 acquired on the mess-furniture and stores on hand — and $30 
 on account of mess-fund. That as to any further payments he 
 
26 NAVAL COURT OF INQUIRY — 
 
 desired me not to draw on his account from the purser, as he 
 had in his possession Mexican coin which he would prefer to 
 apply to that purpose. That he afterwards learned by a verbal 
 statement from the purser, at the time of signing his books, 
 that $30 more had been drawn by the caterer on his account. 
 That he never, at the time, nor on any subsequent occasion 
 during the intervening period of eleven years, had alluded to 
 this matter, except in conversation with the purser ; and that 
 he never, in any mode, apprised me of his suspicion or belief, 
 that he had overpaid me that, or any other account. 
 
 Admitting this alleged over-payment to have been actually 
 made, and unaccounted for, it is difficult to comprehend how 
 the most rabid animosity could attach to it any other inference 
 except that it was an involuntary error, and this seems to have 
 been the idea suggested originally, in the mind of Dr. Duval — 
 indeed, he so states expressly ; but I mean to demonstrate 
 that the error is all in the impressions of the witness, and that 
 the circumstance never could have had an actual existence. 
 
 The first question which occurs is simply this : has any such 
 payment been proved ? When Dr. Duval was about to state 
 the purely hearsay testimony upon which the matter rests, it 
 was objected that it was not competent evidence, and the pro- 
 per legal proof was distinctly designated. The very statement 
 of the witness discloses, without the exception noted on the 
 record, two distinct objections to its character and validity — 
 either of them sufficient to show the necessity of its absolute 
 rejection. He stated that it was mentioned to him by Purser 
 Watmough, when he signed his books. This declaration of itself 
 indicates two better sources of information, the evidence of 
 Purser Watmough, and the exhibition of his books. These 
 were indicated by the objection taken as the only competent 
 evidence, and it was understood that the books were sent for 
 from the Department. They were not produced ; " nor was 
 Purser Watmough, although subsequently recalled, interrogated 
 upon the subject. The conclusion is inevitable, no such facts 
 could be made to appear ! 
 
LIEUT. BARTLETT'S DEFENCE. 2T 
 
 But again, if any such sum had been received, it was 
 
 FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR. 
 
 If there be any fact distinctly proved in relation to the mess 
 accounts, by the concurrent testimony of all the witnesses — 
 including Dr. Duval — it is, that there was no question whatever 
 in relation to the debit side of the mess accounts. Dr. Duval 
 says, "There was no suggestion from any quarter that Mr. 
 Bartlett had not charged himself with all that he ought to 
 have been charged with." Let it be remembered that the 
 investigation of the mess accounts occurred immediately after I 
 had ceased to be caterer. Dr. Duval and Purser Watmough 
 were irritated parties to the controversy. The $30, if drawn 
 at all, had very recently been paid. It was fresh in the know- 
 ledge of the purser. The amount received from the purser was 
 the prominent item in the debit side of the account. If not 
 including the whole amount drawn, the fact was susceptible of 
 instant demonstration. If included, it was accounted for by 
 me ; and if there was any error as relates to Dr. Duval's proper 
 assessment, it rests with the purser's pro-rata distribution of 
 the whole amount drawn. If pure mathematical reasoning can 
 lead to any surer conclusion, I have not the ability to under- 
 stand the force and relation of admitted facts. 
 
 The evidence of guilt upon which the prosecuting witnesses 
 rely is to be found almost exclusively in the demeanor, which 
 by the easy coloring of imagination, they are pleased to impute 
 to me with so lavish an unanimity. 
 
 I might fairly say to this Court that the law books declare 
 such tests to be both unreliable and dangerous. I might 
 appeal to experience and common sense as to the absurdity of 
 drawing serious conclusions from such uncertain and variable 
 premises. I prefer, however, to rely upon what I trust will be 
 considered sufficient proof of the contrary of these assertions. 
 
 It will be remembered that the several witnesses adduce 
 neither words nor acts to support their assertions in regard to 
 the motives by which they chose to suppose I was actuated. 
 They inferred guilt from my looks and manner. 
 
28 NAVAL COURT OF INQUIRY 
 
 Commander Missroon says I " looked confused" upon one 
 occasion ; in another connection he states that I " looked very 
 much depressed." 
 
 Lieutenant Harrison declares that my manner was " agitated 
 and at times depressed." 
 
 Purser Watnough "thinks" I "did not meet the allegations 
 as an Ijonest man." 
 
 Dr. Duval testifies that I " exhibited a great deal of agita- 
 tion." 
 
 In these extracts I believe I have stated each and every of 
 the allegations of the witnesses, if I may be permitted to use 
 their favorite phrase. 
 
 Need I seriously ask this Court, whose members have from 
 " old experience," a large and varied knowledge of human 
 nature — whether confusion, agitation, and depression are not the 
 indications of wrongly suspected honesty, rather than of con- 
 scious guilt. Guilt generally assumes boldness and defiance ; 
 innocence very frequently exhibits confusion, and almost invari- 
 ably agitation and depression, and is sometimes utterly crushed 
 and confounded. 
 
 May I not fairly claim to weigh against this interested testi- 
 mony, concerted in 1846 even to the very terms of their accu- 
 sation, and necessarily adhered to since, the impartial and 
 reasonable statements of Captain Watson and Mr. Eevere. 
 
 Captain Watson distinctly and emphatically declares that 
 my " bearing was that of a man who had been seriously 
 injured," and Mr. Eevere uses the same term which had been 
 previously used by others of the witnesses, "agitated," to 
 express a totally different conception. 
 
 But in addition to this, I have fortunately the recorded 
 evidence of what my feelings really were in the words of my 
 communication to my messmates at the very time of the trans- 
 action. I say to them, " the state of my mind is too painful to 
 be borne." 
 
 I simply ask you, is not that statement the key and explana- 
 tion of the whole matter ? 
 
LIEUT. BARTLETT'S DEFENCE. 29 
 
 But is it not a novelty in the administration of justice to pro- 
 pose to convict a man because lie looks guilty } even if we are 
 quite sure we have his looks interpreted by an unjaundiced 
 vision. It would be a summary process to dispense with proof 
 of the offence charged, even upon the completest evidence of 
 confusion, agitation and depression. Such a course might accord 
 with the prompt injustice of the Navy Board, but it will not be 
 pursued by a Court who have placed upon this very record that 
 solemn pledge, " well and truly to examine and inquire, accord- 
 ing to the evidence, into the matter now before you, without 
 partiality or prejudice." 
 
 Under that sanction, I know that you will demand something 
 more than the suspicious inferences and opinions of witnesses to 
 convict me of the specific charges of dishonesty and peculation, 
 or embezzlement. 
 
 The charge necessarily involves this distinct specification, 
 that in some mode I converted to my own use the money placed 
 in my hands for the purposes of the mess. I am not to be tried 
 much less convicted of irregularity in my accounts, for " confu- 
 sion worse confounded " in that respect would have no tendency 
 to show that I am morally unfit for the service. But, to advert 
 for a moment more to the fancied indications of guilt, allow me 
 to ask why I should have exhibited in October, upon the repe- 
 tition and formal embodiment of the " allegations," a defiance 
 and denial which my accusers would have you believe I was 
 totally wanting in before ? The answer is easily found. As 
 long as these suspicious gentlemen muttered their imputations 
 in their own circle, I could only keep aloof, but the moment 
 their innuendoes were converted into something that looked like 
 a charge (although notwithstanding the high sense of duty which 
 induced them to be cold and distant, it was even then intended 
 only as a means of private annoyance), I promptly met them 
 " with the most positive denial." After my exposure of the 
 communication of October 8, and the stand I took in reference 
 to the matter, nothing more is heard of conscious guilt ; but 
 
 2 
 
30 NAVAL COURT OF INQUIRY — 
 
 another assumption is gradually built up — namely, that I failed 
 to insist upon an investigation. 
 
 By what time this charge became perfected it is impossible to 
 conjecture. It was first heard of in the Navy Board, to which 
 immaculate tribunal " it appeared" " sustained" by the " per- 
 sonal knowledge " of a " member," notwithstanding that same 
 member, in his testimony before this Court, admits that there 
 was no opportunity of trial until November, 1841, and it appears 
 by the testimony of Captain Montgomery, that the Court in 
 question broke up suddenly, and that really there was no oppor- 
 tunity even then. 
 
 But the question now to be considered is the amount and 
 character of the proof upon the record to substantiate the spe- 
 cific charge of dishonesty in the management of the mess funds. 
 
 Where do we find upon this record one tangible, well-ascer- 
 tained fact which, either alone or in combination, has even a 
 tendency to prove the charge, or even to raise a just imputation 
 from any portion of the transaction ? What witness has stated 
 a single circumstance which is entitled to the character of evi- 
 dence, much less proof ? 
 
 Purser Watmough was the first witness examined upon this 
 point. It is not very material to inquire whether the memory 
 of this witness is at all reliable, because he discloses no fact 
 save one, and that is the admitted fact that I was caterer. It 
 may, however, be mentioned incidentally, that he misplaced the 
 subsequent court-martial by a whole year, and prolonged my 
 absence from the ship to a much greater time than it actually 
 covered. 
 
 The principal matter connected with the testimony of Dr. 
 Duval I have separately discussed. 
 
 The only additional facts stated by him are, that in about 
 two months after leaving Mazatlan the provisions were found 
 nearly exhausted. 
 
 This is stated more strongly than most probably the witness 
 intended, as he said we found "no provisions" — "literally 
 nothing." 
 
LIEUT. BARTLETT'S DEFENCE. 31 
 
 He says further, that I produced accounts, which he (among 
 others) partially examined. He subsequently stated several 
 small matters going to show irregularities in the accounts — that 
 they were on different sheets — the prices opposite, but the sum 
 total carried to a different piece — that errors were found in one 
 or two instances, which, when pointed out, were corrected ; but 
 " that these mistakes involved no material amount." 
 
 The testimony of Lieutenant Harrison goes solely to the 
 points of my demeanor and the feelings of the mess. He stated 
 nothing in reference to the accounts or transactions connected 
 with them. 
 
 Commander Missroon states, first, that he informed me of the 
 necessity of procuring a six months supply of groceries, although 
 not at liberty to communicate where the ship was going that 
 evening — that I informed him in the afternoon that I had pro- 
 cured supplies for six months ; but that in a few weeks they 
 began to be exhausted, and this caused dissatisfaction. He 
 proceeds to state as follows : " A short time subsequent to this 
 the accounts were submitted to the mess, the sums originally 
 charged had been changed to suit the statements of the ward- 
 room steward, with sundries inserted to balance the account." 
 
 I believe these references and extracts include a fair recapitu- 
 lation of all the facts alleged by the several witnesses in regard 
 to the mess accounts. 
 
 It will be remembered, that in the joint letter of October 
 16th, 1846, I was charged with "dishonesty in the disposal of 
 funds," and " delay and evident reluctance in yielding up the 
 mess accounts." It is true it was alleged in the form of " sus- 
 picion," but as they have been assumed by the witnesses as 
 equivalent to proof, it is scarcely worth while to note the dis- 
 tinction. 
 
 It is worthy of remark, however, that not only are such 
 charges or " suspicions " not now sustained by proof, but as to 
 the latter, expressly disproved by the very parties who made the alle- 
 gation in 1846. They all concur in the statement that my ac- 
 counts, loose sheets and all, were submitted to them and examined by 
 
32 NAVAL COURT OF INQUIRY 
 
 all, within, at the furthest, two or three days after dissatisfaction 
 was exhibited ! 
 
 It will also be remembered that Captain Watson declares 
 that I submitted my accounts and vouchers for examination 
 promptly, without delay or reluctance. 
 
 Commander Missroon who, in 1846, stated, under his 
 hand, that I had exhibited " delay and evident reluctance in 
 yielding up the mess accounts," now, in the presence of this 
 Court, and upon its record has inscribed his own condemnation, 
 when he declares : " Mr. Bartlett came to my room and re- 
 quested me to look at some accounts, which I declined to do." 
 " He urged me to examine the accounts, and I yielded." 
 
 I have this further to say in reference to the testimony of 
 Commander Missroon : Either he did not advise the purchase 
 of six months' supply of groceries, or he did not know where 
 the ship was going, for we arrived in twenty-two days at a port, 
 (Monterey,) where there were equal facilities in procuring such 
 supplies as at Mazatlan. Again, it is simply impossible that I 
 could have informed him I had procured six months 7 supply, as 
 the vouchers show no such amount purchased. Further, it is 
 evident, when he speaks — in the language I have quoted — of 
 the " accounts submitted to the mess," he alludes to the identi- 
 cal accounts now before this Court. A mere inspection will 
 prove that they contain no such word or charge as "sundries," 
 but that the specific and most minute items are uniformly 
 entered. 
 
 The utter want of correct and precise recollection, has been 
 remarkably exhibited upon those pages of the record, which 
 show his conflicting statements and amendments in regard to 
 the simple matter of the presence of the Flag Ship at San 
 Francisco, between the 1st of July and the ensuing Octo- 
 ber. 
 
 The defective memory of this gentleman, and others of the 
 witnesses in reference to facts and things, would, in itself, be 
 nowise unnatural after the lapse of eleven years ; but when 
 brought into contrast with the distinct and positive recollection 
 
LIEUT. BARTLETT'S DEFENCE. 33 
 
 of looks, feelings, motives, opinions, and words, it is certainly mere 
 charity to pronounce it remarkable ! 
 
 The original cause of any slight confusion which may, in the 
 first place, have existed in the mess accounts (although I admit 
 none), grew out of the condition of the steward on the day of 
 sailing from Mazatlan. The ship's log shows that on that day 
 it was my watch from eight o'clock in the morning until 
 the same hour of the evening. Although relieved for a short 
 time and enabled to get on shore, I was obliged to employ the 
 steward and others to make purchases for me. The steward 
 came off intoxicated, and at first declared I had given him no 
 money. I afterwards found some of my vouchers in his pocket. 
 Commander Missroon, although admitting — not in direct terms, 
 but generally — that the steward was worthless, endeavors to 
 argue against the probability of his intoxication in this instance, 
 because, had he been so, he would have paid no attention 
 to what he said. I think the Court will scarcely entertain 
 a doubt about this matter, when they recall the distinct and 
 positive recollection of Captain Watson, who had charge of the 
 guard and prisoners, that the man u did come off intoxicated, and 
 was put in the ' brig. 1 " 
 
 But the only important question to be determined, as a mat- 
 ter of fact, in relation to the mess accounts, is, were they 
 examined and settled by the mess, or any persons on their 
 behalf ? 
 
 If any matter can be established beyond doubt by human 
 testimony, surely this has been fully and perfectly proved by 
 the whole concurring testimony on both sides. 
 
 Neither Purser Watmough nor Lieutenant Harrison states in 
 express terms whether they did or did not assist in the investi- 
 gation. Captain Watson and Mr. Eevere both state that Wat- 
 mough participated. Dr. Duval admits that he made examina- 
 tion up to the period of his joining the ship. Commander Miss- 
 roon informs you that when urged he inspected them. 
 Mr. Eevere states that he went through them to his entire 
 satisfaction. Captain Watson proves that there was a thorough 
 
34 NAVAL COURT OP INQUIRY — 
 
 and complete scrutiny, extending through nearly a whole day, 
 and that everything was found right ; and he and Mr. Kevere 
 coincide in the declaration, that the result of the examination 
 was satisfactory to the whole mess. All the facts, and all the 
 probabilities accord with the statements of these two gentle- 
 men, certainly not the least intelligent and candid of the wit- 
 nesses produced in this investigation. There is not on the 
 other side one fact, circumstance, or reasonable conjecture, to 
 counteract this conclusion, until the letter of October 8th, 
 nearly five months afterwards, I having during the interval 
 been detached from duty on board. 
 
 But one of the witnesses has expressed to this Court any 
 dissatisfaction. Dr. Duval, Purser Watmough, and Lieutenant 
 Harrison are silent, and Commander Missroon throughout his 
 testimony does not intimate that he was not convinced of the 
 entire propriety of the accounts and settlement. He says that 
 some of the members of the mess thought the transaction war- 
 ranted their placing me in Coventry, but it does not appear 
 that this happy project was concerted until nearly five months 
 afterwards. There are two small circumstances, in this con- 
 nection, exhibiting great significance. Commander Missroon at 
 first declined to sign the letter of October 8th, and in the com- 
 munication of October 16th, omitted all allusion to the mess 
 accounts. 
 
 I cannot know what mental reservations were made, but 
 upon the evidence in the case, I submit to the Court that there 
 was a final settlement, and that the investigation was altogether 
 satisfactory. 
 
 If it were otherwise, why was not the account kept open for 
 further explanation and adjustment ; why was the balance struck 
 and paid over to my successor ; and, above all } why was not the inti- 
 mation of the Sth October given when the affair was recent, and the 
 dissatisfaction, if any existed, strong ? Why was it reserved until 
 I had been some months detached, and performing the important 
 duties of a civil station on shore ? 
 
 Let me here, parenthetically, allude to a singular connection 
 
LIEUT. BARTLETT'S DEFENCE. 35 
 
 of minute, but suggestive circumstances, relating to this letter. 
 Captain Watson and Lieutenant Kevere were not invited 
 to sign that document, nor were its contents or transmission 
 made known to them except by me. Purser Watmough, 
 although absent from the ship, had his place reserved according 
 to his rank, and his handwriting decorates the missive in imme- 
 diate vicinity to the tardy signature of the executive officer. 
 
 It was dated the 8th of October, on which clay Dr. Duval 
 was detached, and it then awaited the names of the hesitating 
 first lieutenant and the absent purser. 
 
 Do not these little indications denote a foregone conclusion ? 
 
 But that there was, in truth, a final and complete settlement 
 
 can admit of no possible doubt; nor can it be questioned that 
 
 whether regarded as satisfactory or not, it ought to have been 
 
 so held. 
 
 - You have the very corpus of the fact, visibly and palpably 
 before you, with all its teeming evidence of items, explanations 
 vouchers, and arithmetic. It is not only before you, but it has 
 been open to all inspection for upwards of a year, and no mistake 
 of omission or inaccuracy has been attempted to be pointed out. 
 It stands unassailed and unassailable ; and we know that my 
 accusers have carefully scanned the publication which includes 
 its facts and figures. Need I consume the time of the Court 
 by attempting to restate its data, its computations and result. 
 
 My accounts, identified as to every sheet and every voucher, 
 not only by Captain Watson, who had them in his custody for 
 a long time, but also by Dr. Duval, who, upon examination, 
 admitted he had seen them on the mess table, are before the 
 Court. They defy scrutiny. They show every dollar received, 
 every cent accounted for, and the balance paid over to my 
 successor. 
 
 If the mess, or any member of it, were not content, it shows 
 their injustice, not my dishonesty. 
 
 But as I have heretofore and elsewhere declared, I am not 
 content with vindicating myself from the charge of dishonesty, 
 but I desire to say a few words in reference to the allegation 
 
36 NAVAL COURT OF INQUIRY 
 
 of " culpable neglect." My account shows that my catership 
 commenced on 18th March, and continued to 31st May, 1846, 
 a period of seventy-four days. The mess consisted of nine 
 officers, a steward, cook, and four or five servants. The 
 amount received by me was $458, of which was expended 
 $455.55. There was an amount passed to credit of the mess 
 for ward-room servants 7 rations, amounting to about $66.25 ; 
 making the actual outlay of the mess $389.30 ; being $11.53 
 per month for each officer during the entire period. While at 
 Mazatlan, fifteen days, the marketing was $64.06, with more 
 or less company every day. But as the ship had to prepare for 
 a forty days' voyage (it having been announced four days before 
 that the ship was in all probability going to Puget Sound, 
 under sealed orders), provision had to be made accordingly, and 
 hence the bills contracted amounting to $108.15, "John 
 Stapp n and " Brig Sirius," in addition to the " items " enume- 
 rated in the account. 
 
 We arrived at Monterey on 22d April. 
 
 Now the whole amount of money received by the caterer, as 
 
 shown by both statements, and never disputed, was, $458 00 
 
 Deduct amount returned unexpended 2 50 
 
 Leaves the sum of ... 455 50 
 
 Deduct amount expended as per acc't at Mazatlan 276 81 
 
 Leaves the balance of $178 69 
 
 expended at Monterey, and of which expenditure no complaint 
 has been made. That a proper economy was maintained in my 
 expenditures, may be seen by comparing them with the outlays 
 by Mr. Missroon, who had acted as caterer for five days during 
 my absence. 
 
 The acc't shows that he expended for marketing for five days $ 5 12-£ 
 
 By deducting the amount of the purveyor's bills 138 00 
 
 From the whole amount expended 178 69 
 
 Leaves for marketing thirty-nine days at Monterey 40 69 
 
 Missroon's expenditure was therefore per day 1 02-J 
 
 While mine averaged for thirty -nine days 1 02 
 
LIEUT. BARTLETT'S DEFENCE. 37 
 
 But the chief imputation which seems now to be relied upon, 
 in connection with the cruise of the " Portsmouth," as far as I 
 can discover from the course of examination, appears to be the 
 disputed question of duty and of honor in reference to my 
 mode of receiving the allegations made against me in 1846, 
 whether they be considered true or false. 
 
 The estimate of this matter must depend upon the true 
 bearing and proper relation of a very few admitted facts. 
 
 Whatever suspicions may have been entertained at the time 
 of the settlement of the mess accounts, it is very certain, both 
 from the distinct statement of Lieut. Harrison, and the equally 
 explicit admission of Commander Missroon, that until the letter 
 of Oct. 8th, 1846, there was nothing upon which I could base 
 a demand for investigation. The mess account had been fully 
 and satisfactorily adjusted, the balance paid over, and no 
 tangible difficulty remained open. Admitting, for the purpose 
 of the argument, the existence of coldness and reserve upon 
 the part of my messmates, it was not to be expected that I 
 would complain to the captain of that, or ask a judicial investi- 
 gation of what had just been satisfactorily adjusted by a 
 private settlement with the parties concerned. Further, how 
 was I to surmise that the precedent matters, which had never 
 been alluded to by the mess, to my knowledge, were rankling 
 in their bosoms to my disadvantage, until the manifesto of 
 October 8th. 
 
 Lieut. Harrison says that communication was expressly 
 intended, as far as he was concerned, to force me to vindicate, 
 or acquit myself of the charges. 
 
 The material question is, what is the intrinsic character of 
 this paper ? Whatever might be the motives from which it 
 emanated, what purpose did it intend to accomplish ? Com- 
 mander Missroon says it was to place me in " Coventry ," 
 although I had some time previously left the ship and the mess, 
 but still contributing my share of the expense, and notwith- 
 standing Commander Missroon says he did not expect that I 
 would ever return to the " Portsmouth." There seems an 
 
 2* 
 
38 NAVAL COURT OF INQUIRY 
 
 apparent inconsistency between the unquestionable facts and 
 the alleged motives and object. But the material point is this: 
 it was not intended to force me into a demand for an investi- 
 gation. 
 
 This is apparent upon the face of the letter. It was a 
 private communication, declaring a private object, namely, that 
 as we were no longer members of the same mess, or asso- 
 ciated in service, they desired to meet me, thenceforward, as a 
 stranger. If I had quietly pocketed that communication and 
 rested content with their desire "not to march through 
 Coventry " with me, I presume the matter might quietly have 
 subsided into utter oblivion. Their " feelings " would have been 
 satisfied, and the ship and the service might have continued 
 " disgraced." 
 
 Their communication had no view whatever to an investiga- 
 tion, nor was it contrived for the purpose of forcing me to such 
 a course. It had a personal bearing only ; and Commander 
 Missroon at first declined to sign it, upon the ground that it 
 was not likely I would return to the ship, and it would there- 
 fore be better to let the matter drop. When, however, I took 
 the unexpected course of submitting this communication to my 
 commander, the executive officer admits that his reply was 
 drawn from him ; that he was forced into the position of ten- 
 dering his " immediate readiness" to prefer charges. I had 
 demanded an investigation before the commander of the ship — 
 a Court of Inquiry or a Court Martial. My official accuser 
 designated the Tribunal before which he held himself ready to 
 appear — and that was a Court Martial. There was not, at any 
 time or from any quarter, a suggestion as to a Court of Inquiry, 
 except from myself. Can there be any doubt as to our relative 
 positions ? Accusations had become known to me unofficially ; 
 I had given them an official shape and direction ; I met them 
 with the " most positive denial of any foundation in fact," and 
 demanded that they " be proved or withdrawn." I asked in 
 most distinct terms for an investigation ; stated that I would 
 " await patiently the time " when I could meet the charges in 
 
LIEUT. BARTLETT'S DEFENCE. 39 
 
 either of the modes of trial indicated ; and in the subsequent 
 communication to Captain Montgomery I expressed the trust 
 that I would " be yet able to make good my defence." The 
 mode could not be mistaken, as I had in the preceding sentence 
 of the same letter positively declined any further explanation to 
 my accusers. 
 
 No candid and unprejudiced person can read my communica- 
 tions to Captain Montgomery, and come to the conclusion that 
 I omitted anything I could do, or ought to have done. Indeed, 
 
 I am at a loss to conjecture what more was possible, unless I 
 had drawn up the charges and specifications against myself, 
 and tendered it to the executive officer for his signature ; or 
 had drafted the order for convening a court-martial, and com- 
 manded the commodore to sign and issue it. 
 
 But the turn which is now given to this matter is that I 
 failed to insist upon an investigation. Commander Missroon 
 seems to admit that I promptly and properly met the imputa- 
 tion at the time. What, then, occurred to alter the relative 
 position of the parties ? How could I insist upon an investiga- 
 tion ? By repeating my request ? That would have been a 
 
 II ridiculous excess/ 7 for my demand was continuously in the 
 hands of my commander, and so remained until near the termi- 
 nation of the cruise. Every day, every hour that it remained 
 in his possession, it repeated my request for an investigation. 
 It was a constant and unceasing demand until it returned into 
 my own possession. 
 
 But there was a Court Martial competent to my trial con- 
 vened on board the Portsmouth in 184^. My letter was still 
 preferring its original request. 
 
 Was I an offender, and suspected of transgression against 
 the provisions of the Naval Code ? My sole duty was to submit 
 to trial — my position was passive. But upon my accusers the 
 law had imposed an active and an urgent obligation. They 
 were positively enjoined to use their " utmost exertions " to 
 bring me to punishment under a discretionary penalty for 
 neglect. 
 
40 NAVAL COURT OF INQUIRY 
 
 But had the executive officer redeemed his pledge of " imme- 
 diate readiness n to prefer charges, or had he ; at any time, per- 
 formed his duty of exhibiting them " in writing to the proper 
 officer," in order that an application for a court-martial might 
 be made ? " Immediate readiness" to prefer charges is altoge- 
 ther different both in its nature and its consequences from their 
 actual exhibition. 
 
 Whatever looseness of military practice may prevail in the 
 naval service, however incorrect may be the prevailing impres- 
 sions of relative duty, the question is, in legal estimation, 
 entirely free from doubt. The code of rules for the government 
 of the navy distinctly points out when and how charges are to 
 be exhibited, but there is no mode indicated, or to be inferred, 
 how the accused party is to insist upon an investigation. 
 
 The most extraordinary portion of this singular doctrine is 
 the consequence which inevitably flows from its application to 
 practice. Unless the offender, actual or supposed, insists upon 
 an investigation, he is not, under this theory, to be brought to 
 trial ; whence it follows that the sanction of the law is not 
 obligatory or effective, unless brought into action by the will 
 and option of the offender. The conclusion and the principle 
 are equally preposterous. 
 
 I will submit one further suggestion in relation to this mat- 
 ter. I know not that it is either an advantage or a boast in 
 an officer, or a man, to be " sudden and quick in quarrel." 
 This, as well as to be " bearded like a pard," may sometimes 
 assume the appearance of ferocious daring. But there have 
 been quiet spirits who have sought and won reputation, " even 
 at the cannon's mouth," without these outside manifestations. 
 
 Nor can I discover logic or reason iu meeting accusations of 
 a grave character with that fiery and explosive "resentment" 
 which my enemies think I ought to have exhibited. 
 
 It seemed to me in 1846, as it seems to me now, after ten 
 added years of thought, action, and experience, that the course 
 indicated by my judgment then, patiently to await the time and 
 opportunity of justification, has more of true propriety, than 
 
LIEUT. BARTLETT'S DEFENCE. 41 
 
 the mode apparently indicated by my accusers, of challenging 
 the executive officer, who placed himself in the prominent posi- 
 tion upon that occasion. Besides, the serious infraction of dis- 
 cipline — which would, perhaps, have accomplished the proposed 
 result — it is not easy to understand how the blood of my adver- 
 sary could have cleansed my reputation, or mine, however freely 
 shed, have purified me from imputed guilt. As to any per- 
 sonal deficiency of true courage, I might leave it even to my 
 enemies to say whether I was found wanting at the post of 
 honor, and in the hour of danger. 
 
 The testimony of Lieutenant Stanley as to the points con- 
 nected with this matter is highly suggestive, and may prompt 
 the Court to considerations, which I cannot discuss without 
 rendering myself obnoxious to the imputation of egotism. 
 
 The question in regard to the goods shipped in the " John 
 G. Costar," is a question of intention, not of fact. 
 
 If it were to be regarded as a mere matter of fact, I might 
 say, and rely on the assertion, that there was no proof made 
 by the government that any goods were shipped or landed by 
 the " Costar " at San Francisco. The same statement is true 
 as to the concomitant fact of intention. The government wit- 
 nesses have not stated a single circumstance from which an 
 inference as to the importation or the motive connected with it 
 could legally be drawn. I might, therefore, have referred you 
 to your record, and contented myself with the declaration that 
 there was no proof to sustain the allegation. The sole testi- 
 mony which relates to this matter — for Dr. Mitchell's state- 
 ment was shown by the cross-examination to be inadmissible— 
 is that of Lieutenant Simms. This consists entirely of my 
 admission, which must be taken as an entirety, and shows the 
 use intended as well as the fact of importation and entry. 
 Indeed, I might have taken still stronger grounds, and pointing 
 to the fact that the government having proved the intention 
 with the fact, had negatived the whole imputation. But, 
 earnestly desiring to endeavor to clear up a transaction which I 
 know to be not only blameless but praiseworthy, I have myself 
 
42 NAVAL COURT OF INQUIRY 
 
 brought to the notice of the Court all the substantial testimony- 
 relating to this point. I am grateful that after the long lapse 
 of time I am still able to establish facts which lead to direct 
 and inevitable conclusion. 
 
 Permit me to advert, for one moment, to the varying phases 
 of this imputation. At first, and for a long time, it was 
 charged that I had smuggled these goods. There was also 
 a variation of the slander, which charged that I had used the 
 " Ewing n to convey them. Next came the further addition 
 that I had employed the vessel in trading along the coast. 
 How aptly does this story illustrate the words we hear so 
 frequently, taken from the Classic Poet's description of 
 Rumour, " vires acquirit eundo." 
 
 The two-fold allegation of " smuggling," magnified into the 
 indefinite plurality of " some cases," and " trading along the 
 western coast," formed one of the admitted grounds of my dis- 
 missal from the service. 
 
 "When the matter had undergone some semblance of investi- 
 gation, it was transferred into the new shape of a misrepresen- 
 tation to the Collector at San Francisco, for the purpose of get- 
 ting through, free of duty, goods really intended for purposes 
 of private speculation. 
 
 This variable character of the imputation — like all the other 
 slanders let loose against me, whenever the cry of " mad dog " 
 has been raised — of itself demonstrates the unsubstantial 
 foundation upon which it, and all, rest. 
 
 Let me now, by the simple process of weaving the facts 
 proved in this investigation into a brief narration, show the 
 whole truth and intention of the purchase of this clothing. 
 
 When we arrived at Valparaiso, having previously been 
 unable, as the receipt of only linen articles at Eio shows, to pro- 
 cure supplies of clothing suitable for the service of surveying the 
 coast of California and Oregon, it was found that there was no 
 government " slops " at that port, and further, that there was no 
 storeship in the Pacific. 
 
 The clothing shipped at New York did not — as shown by 
 
LIEUT. BARTLETT'S DEFENCE. 43 
 
 the testimony of Mr. Bingham — include those articles which 
 were especially desirable for the exposure of surveying opera- 
 tions — namely, thick over-coats, and heavy double-soled shoes. 
 
 I therefore purchased from the naval store-keeper, who had 
 imported them as samples, the invoice of clothing shipped 
 in the " Costar," which was precisely of the right description. 
 The distinct and sole purpose of this investment was to enable 
 the crew of the " Ewing," and " Edith," or such other vessel 
 as might be detailed, to procure articles so necessary to their 
 comfort, and the prosecution of the contemplated work. 
 
 It appears to the Court, from the Testimony of Professor 
 Bache, that it was the well understood arrangement that I was 
 to have the command of the " Edith," or such other vessel as 
 might be associated with the Ewing in the intended survey. 
 Should this portion of the contemplated operations fail, I was 
 to be detached and return home ; and in no event was I to 
 serve in the merely subordinate capacity of executive officer of 
 the " Ewing." 
 
 The state of things which occurred in California has become 
 matter of History. The joint operations of the Topographic 
 and Hydrographic parties were entirely suspended through the 
 desertions induced by that extraordinary rage for gold, which, 
 like the old crusading spirit, pervaded, with uncontrolled mad- 
 ness, all ranks and conditions of men. 
 
 The further prosecution of the survey as arranged became 
 impossible, and was for the time abandoned. 
 
 It was then that the indomitable spirit of McArthur sug- 
 gested the effort, under every possible difficulty, to accomplish 
 the survey of the Columbia Kiver and reconnoissance of the 
 coast. For this work I was a volunteer. Its results are known 
 to the Department and the country. 
 
 I quote the remarks of Professor Bache, in his eulogy upon 
 McArthur, not for its allusion to my services, but for a purpose 
 which the Court will understand and appreciate. 
 
 "The work which he accomplished will live for ever ! Sur- 
 rounded by circumstances the most difficult perhaps which 
 
44 NAVAL COURT OF INQUIRY 
 
 ever tried the constancy, the judgment, the resources of any 
 hydrographer, he vanquished circumstances. His reconnoissance 
 of the western coast, from Monterey to Columbia River, and 
 his preliminary surveys there, were made in spite of desertion 
 and even mutiny — in despite of the inadequency of means to 
 meet the truly extraordinary circumstances of the country. 
 Happy that in his officers he had friends devoted to him and to 
 their duties — especially happy in the officer next to him in the 
 responsibilities of the work? 
 
 This, however, was the labor of the ensuing spring. In the 
 meantime, the original purpose had entirely failed. The 
 44 Edith n had been lost, and could not therefore be given over 
 to us, and the steamer "Jefferson" sent to supply her intended 
 place, subsequently shared the same fate. 
 
 Under these circumstances, all of which occurred, or were 
 developed, upon the arrival of the Ewing at San Francisco, and 
 before Lieutenant McArthur, about a month afterwards, re- 
 assumed the command, the object for which the clothing had 
 been purchased at Valparaiso necessarily fell through, with the 
 enforced abandonment of the original plan of operations. The 
 clothing (one suit per man only) was upon my hands at con- 
 tinual expense, and was ordered to be sold as rapidly as was 
 practicable. 
 
 I now desire the Court to note these significant facts. 
 
 First. I announced to Mr. Bingham, when the goods were 
 about to be received, that they had been purchased for the use 
 of the crew of the " Ewing." I need scarcely add that I had 
 also in view the vessel I was myself destined to command at 
 the time of the purchase. I also communicated the same 
 intention to Mr. Simms when I told him I had purchased and 
 shipped the goods. Whether this statement was made at Val- 
 paraiso or San Francisco, or on the voyage, does not appear. 
 Why I should have mentioned the matter at all, if I had any 
 sinister motive in the purchase, is beyond conjecture. 
 
 What is the legal effect of the announcement of the inten- 
 tion and the act thus coupled together. The declaration 
 
LIEUT. BARTLETT's DEFENCE. 45 
 
 cannot be severed, and part of it used against me, and the 
 residue discarded. It must stand as an entirety, and produce 
 a whole and not a divided result. This contemporaneous state- 
 ment of intention is not only competent legal evidence, but, in 
 the absence of all opposing testimony, is conclusive as to the 
 matter declared. 
 
 Whenever a particular act is preferred or announced with 
 which a declared intention is connected, the " declaration" — I 
 use the words of a distinguished writer upon the law of evi- 
 dence — "made at the time of the transaction, and expressive 
 of its character, motive, or object, are regarded as ' verbal acts 
 indicating a present purpose and intention/ and are therefore 
 admitted in proof, like any other material facts. They are parts 
 of the res gestce" — (Greenleaf.) 
 
 I claim, therefore, that my declared intention shall be 
 received as the expression of that truth, which is the very heart 
 of this matter. 
 
 Again, Mr. Bingham states that these goods were received as 
 from a stranger ; were accounted for in the same way ; that all 
 proper charges were made against them, including commis- 
 sions at the highest usual rate. Had they been intended 
 for speculation, I would have consigned them to the firm, 
 and placed them among the joint stock and to the joint 
 account. 
 
 Further, the fact that portions, no matter now inconsider- 
 able, of this clothing were disposed of to some of the crew of 
 the " Ewing," at invoice prices, or for less than the residue was 
 afterwards sold, is a fact of high significance. It is reconcilia- 
 ble with no other hypothesis than that these goods were truly 
 intended for the purpose I have uniformly declared them to 
 have been purchased for. 
 
 I submit that the circumstances of this case might well 
 justify the collector in not exacting the duty, and if there has 
 not been a very exact discharge of his duties under the revenue 
 law of the United States, it will be remembered that this trans- 
 action took place before California was admitted into the Union, 
 
46 NAVAL COURT OF INQUIRY 
 
 and before our revenue laws had been formally put in operation 
 in the country, and while the collector was discharging his 
 functions under a mere military appointment. It will also be 
 remembered that during this period, to wit, from the Conquest 
 of California to the 13th of November, 1849, when James Col- 
 lier, Esq., the first collector appointed under constitutional 
 provision, arrived at San Francisco, it was a matter of grave 
 doubt whether, under the mere military authority of the officers 
 of the army and navy, any duties were at all collectable. At 
 the December term, 1853, the Supreme Court of the United 
 States, after a very able discussion, decided this case in favor 
 of the duties. In the introductory part of the decision the 
 Court say : " It seems, from the institution of the suit until 
 now, to have been conducted with the wish on the part of the 
 United States to give to the plaintiffs every opportunity to 
 establish their claim judicially if that could be done, and with 
 a desire on its part to obtain from this Court a decision as to 
 what are the rights of the United States in respect to tonnage 
 and import duties in such a conjuncture as that was, when 
 California was ceded by treaty to the United States, before 
 Congress had authorized such duties to be collected there by a 
 special act." 
 
 I need scarcely refer to the testimony of Mr. Rhind, and the 
 letter of Lieutenant Simms, which effectually dispose of the 
 other branches of this imputation. 
 
 I now present this proposition to the Court, and I beg them 
 to ponder upon its deep significance. It is applicable to each 
 and every of the allegations which have been made to my dis- 
 paragement : Do not the exaggerated and unseasoned terms 
 in which the imputations against me have been uniformly 
 announced, intrinsically denote a slanderous and malicious 
 origin ? 
 
 If the "transfer" of five shirts to Mr. Delazon Smith — not 
 for the convenience of the " party of the first part," as was the 
 case with most of the other " transfers," but to " supply the 
 ripe wants of a friend," — was a matter, in its own nature and 
 
LIEUT. BARTLETT'S DEFENCE. 47 
 
 bearing, disgraceful to me and derogatory to the service, why 
 dress it up in such pomp of circumlocution, profuse as the ruf- 
 fles with which such " articles n were in former times richly 
 decorated, and magnify it into a " stock of clothing," brought 
 to sea for peddling purposes ; and, by mere force of imagina- 
 tion, convert my state-room into a "huckster's shop," fitted up 
 for the express purpose of retailing the et ceteras which are 
 made to appear quite as important as those so gravely and 
 wisely commented upon by that legal apostle my Lord Coke ? 
 
 Why stigmatize the simple and easily understood charge of 
 disobedience of an order, with the extravagant paraphrase of 
 " speculating upon a private library, and meanly soliciting sub- 
 scriptions of money," grandiloquently lugging in a "public 
 functionary ?" 
 
 Without further repetition, the Court will readily remember 
 the equally brilliant but changeable colors, with which each 
 and every of the other "allegations" has been bedaubed, until 
 their intrinsic character has been effectually concealed by the 
 false glare, and bewildering glitter of their outside covering. 
 
 If I refer to the little occurrence of seventeen years ago, 
 from which it was supposed some imputation might be derived, 
 it is only for the purpose of showing with what avidity and dili- 
 gence the minutest matters have been scrutinized and brought 
 together to pile up the pyramid of accusation. Commander 
 Stoddard has been called upon to detail the circumstances of a 
 mess affair in which I am supposed to have indulged in a little 
 " sharp trading," not on my own account but for the benefit of 
 the mess. The transaction was simply the payment of a mess 
 account to a tradesman, in the depreciated currency of the day, 
 the difference between it and specie value having been credited 
 to the mess. There is, however, pregnant significance in the 
 fact that, although unpopular at first on board the " Consort," 
 Commander Stoddard declares, " when we separated, Mr. Bart- 
 lett was much better liked than when he joined us." 
 
 Lieut. Stanley was also cross-examined as to the affair of the 
 " Consort," and as I feel satisfied that there is nothing in it to 
 
48 NAVAL COURT OF INQUIRY 
 
 create a " painful impression " upon the mind of the Court, I 
 leave it upon the testimony, without a word of further comment, 
 except to say that he proves that it was satisfactorily settled, 
 at the time, to my honor ! and that the complainant admitted 
 that I did for the mess what everybody else did who paid him 
 for his supplies. 
 
 Need I attempt any exposition, in addition to what is so 
 conclusively exhibited by the record, in relation to the clothing 
 sent from the " Ewing," in October or November, 1849 ? It 
 would have been enough for the perfect accomplishment of my 
 own vindication to have shown, as was done beyond doubt or 
 cavil, that I had nothing whatever to do with the transaction. 
 Butf the testimony of Lieut. Gibson, given under an erroneous 
 view, and very imperfect impressions of the true facts, seemed 
 to indicate something of complicity between Lieut. McArthur 
 and myself. When I produced before you, from the statement 
 of Mr. Bingham, the proof, corroborated by the testimony of 
 Lieut. Gibson, of the real parties, I had done enough for my 
 own justification — but I should not have been content with 
 mere self- exoneration. The memory of a dear and gallant 
 comrade was nearly involved, and I could not rest satisfied 
 without his vindication, which has been triumphantly accom- 
 plished. To those who knew the strict integrity, the elevated 
 tone, and chivalrous bearing of Wm. P. McArthur, no justifica- 
 tion was required. The old Greeks expressed a grand philoso- 
 phy in their beautiful apophthegm, "Let no one be called 
 happy till his death;" and McArthur was happy in the unsullied 
 termination of a life, passed like that of the type of knightly 
 honor, without fear and without reproach. 
 1 The only remaining matters of imputation which require 
 extended notice, are the allegations connected with the settle- 
 ment of my accounts of expenses, as special agent of the 
 Treasury Department in Paris. 
 
 I say the the allegations connected with these accounts^ because 
 there is no question open in reference to the accounts them- 
 selves. They have been finally settled with the accounting 
 
LIEUT. BARTLETT'S DEFENCE. 49 
 
 officers, and you have the statements of Mr. Anderson, the 
 Commissioner of Customs, and of Major Smith, the first Auditor, 
 as to the character and proper effect of the settlement. 
 
 Both these gentlemen unite in the view that there was 
 nothing in these accounts in any sense discreditable, nor, to use 
 the language of the latter, "anything that in the slightest 
 degree tended to impugn your (my) personal or official honor." 
 
 The baseless imputations and bold mis-statements connected 
 with this settlement do not arise from the items or aggregate 
 of the account, but from the extraordinary misconceptions 
 which have been engrafted upon them. These misconceptions 
 and mis-statements constituted the chief pretext for the action 
 of the Navy Board in my particular case. When, therefore, 
 they became the prominent subject of examination before the 
 Naval Committee of the Senate, it was necessary that I should 
 carefully and elaborately present the facts and documents 
 necessary to explain minutely the whole subject matter of these 
 accounts and their connected circumstances. That Committee 
 made a full and complete scrutiny of the whole matter upon all 
 the evidence connected with the transactions, and upon far 
 stronger allegations and more injurious imputations against me, 
 than are now before this Court ; and although the Committee 
 did not do me the simple justice of announcing my exculpation, 
 they made as close an approach to it as could have been 
 expected. The Report states as follows : " It is admitted that, 
 so far as intelligence, physical capacity, temperate habits, a fair 
 degree of professional acquirement and skill, and attention to 
 duty are concerned, Mr. Bartlett was, at the time of his being 
 stricken from the rolls of the Navy, an efficient officer, and, if 
 free from just imputations of moral delinquency, should have 
 been retainted on the active list." The Committee then pro- 
 ceed to set forth that, although these investigations "took a 
 somewhat wider range," they had " decided to confine themselves 
 to three distinct charges." 
 
 These three relate to the same matters now before this Court — 
 the shawl, the landing of goods at San Francisco, and the mess- 
 
50 NAVAL COURT OF INQUIRY 
 
 accounts ; but there is no allusion whatever to the Treasury- 
 accounts, which, by inspection of the minutes of the Committee, 
 will be found to constitute the subject of the " wider range " 
 of the investigation. 
 
 The Committee then proceed to report the evidence against 
 me relating to the three matters designated, but the report 
 merely submits the whole question to the consideration of the 
 Senate, without any expression of opinion whatever. This 
 is the only construction of which the report is susceptible, and 
 this view is enforced by the remarks of Mr. Bell, of Tennessee, 
 by whom the report was submitted, which will be found 
 reported in the Congressional Globe, part III., 1st Sess. 34th 
 Congress, 1855-6, at page 2232. 
 
 The entire absence in the report of all allusion to the matter 
 of the Treasury accounts, justifies my conclusion that the Com- 
 mittee found in that matter no ground whatever for "just 
 imputation of moral delinquency." 
 
 I had supposed that after the investigation before the Senate 
 Committee this subject was at rest, but as the matter is 
 now revived before this Court, I will submit a very few sugges- 
 tions in regard to it. 
 
 The evidence offered on the part of the government as the 
 elements of judgment, are the letter of instructions of the Trea- 
 sury Department, under date of June 16th, 1852, the order of 
 reference of the Secretary to the Light-House Board, of 
 30th September, 1854, and the consequent report of their pre- 
 liminary examination, dated November 15th, 1854, together 
 with the statements of accounts and accompanying vouchers 
 and explanations, and the testimony of Commander Thornton 
 A. Jenkins. 
 
 The decision of the Court upon the request preferred to the 
 Judge Advocate, for the production of the correspondence 
 between the Light-House Board and myself, leaves me no 
 choice as to the extent of the discussion upon this point. I am 
 obliged to rely upon the facts and documents which the 
 government has produced against me, as all my testimony 
 
LIEUT. BARTLETT'S DEFENCE. 51 
 
 is included in that which has been considered by the Court as 
 unnecessary ; although, to be intelligible, I will be obliged to 
 make some reference to documents remaining in the public 
 archives. 
 
 I will trust that, upon a fair consideration of this ex-parte 
 view of the question, / am risking little in regard to its deter- 
 mination. 
 
 The letter of instruction shows the character of the service 
 devolved upon me, but not its extent or duration. The period 
 of my residence in Paris may be inferred from the vouchers. 
 It appears, then, that I submitted a claim to the accounting- 
 officer of the Treasury for expenses amounting in the gross to 
 $4,011.70. This amount includes everything claimed for 
 expenses in the United States, previous to sailing, passage 
 to and from France through England, and delay in that coun- 
 try for purposes connected with my mission, and my personal 
 and office expenses in Paris, covering a period of twenty-seven 
 months. 
 
 It is proper distinctly to state the ground which I assumed 
 in reference to my allowance of expenses. This will appear, 
 consistently, from every communication I submitted to the 
 department. 
 
 I had confessedly expended more than, under the circum- 
 stances, I could ask to have reimbursed. My expenses had far 
 exceeded the maximum amount of commissions upon actual dis- 
 bursements. This resulted from the un-anticipated prolon- 
 gation of my residence in Paris, growing out of the tardiness 
 of action of the Treasury Department, as to certain orders, 
 as exhibited by the correspondence, the inevitable delay upon 
 the part of the contractors, and the large increase of apparatus 
 subsequently determined upon. 
 
 In looking at the clause of my instructions relating to my 
 expenses, I saw that its grammatical construction referred the 
 maximum per centage to the personal expenses as contra-distin- 
 guished from the specific payment of passage money and cost 
 of travel. I was advised that this was a fair construction of its 
 
52 NAVAL COURT OF INQUIRY 
 
 legal import, and that if an agreement with the government be 
 subject to two constructions, the courts have determined that 
 that construction should be adopted most favorable to the 
 officer. But whatever were my legal rights, I knew that 
 the equity of my claim required a liberal interpretation of the 
 contract. Its understood conditions had been varied by the 
 department. I had remained much longer abroad, and had 
 rendered far greater and more valuable services than had ori- 
 ginally been contemplated. Except for the change effected by 
 the act of Congress in the establishment of the Light-House 
 Board, and the mode in which the payments were made, 
 I should have been equally entitled to three per cent, upon the 
 expenditures for the fifty-five additional illuminators. I had 
 much more trouble as to those than as to the original eight. I 
 was under far greater responsibility, as I alone inspected, tested 
 and certified the work. The apparatus under the first contracts 
 was tested by the superintending engineer of the French 
 administration, as well as myself. But I never claimed any- 
 thing for these services. I referred to them as offering strong 
 equitable considerations for a fair reimbursement of my actual 
 expenses, and I based my claim upon this equitable view. I 
 had, in fact, disbursed the sum of $9,318.38, for the " sand 
 key apparatus," afterwards Hatteras light, for which I have 
 never been allowed any per centage, although the amount was 
 formally charged against me, under my bond, in the Treasury 
 department. 
 
 By my account heretofore presented, it will be seen that I 
 
 claimed for my personal disbursements $4,011 00 
 
 Upon the auditing of this account, with the vouchers to sus- 
 tain the several items of charge, there was allowed the sum 
 as properly charged and vouched 3,752 18 
 
 So that the whole amount disallowed or suspended by the depart- 
 ment as unnecessary expenses was but 258 80 
 
 A.s, however, it was decided that my maximum allowance 
 could not exceed 3 per cent, on the " expenditure " of 
 $90,41 3 90, I have been paid only the sum of 2,712 42 
 
LIEUT. BARTLETT'S DEFENCE. 53 
 
 The sum of $258.80 which was disallowed, consisted, princi- 
 pally, as shown by the evidence of Mr. Anderson, of an item 
 for " parlor, at Fenton's Hotel, not deemed necessary." Also 
 the item for " transportation of extra baggage, medical attend- 
 ance, and medicines." The charge for " extra baggage," is, as 
 every transatlantic traveller knows, necessarily incident even to 
 a single " American trunk," of ordinary size. The item for 
 M recovering lost baggage," also disallowed, was the actual 
 expense of recovering the trunk, accidentally lost, which con- 
 tained all my vouchers for disbursements. 
 
 I have stated the objectionable items, that it might be clearly 
 seen they were of such a character, whether admitted or not, 
 as to reflect no discredit in incurring them. 
 
 It will be perceived by the terms of my letter of instructions, 
 which has been referred to as the agreement by which my 
 compensation was determined, no specific number of apparatus 
 is mentioned. It was, however, understood at the time, that I 
 should be called on to superintend those only which were 
 necessary for the Pacific coast, and this, it was presumed, could 
 be accomplished in about twelve months. Having in view, 
 therefore, the time to be occupied, and the probable amount of 
 the expenditure, the amount of three per cent, on that amount 
 was regarded as a fair equivalent for my personal expenses for 
 one year. Had I remained abroad but the period contem- 
 plated, which period was the basis of the agreement for 
 compensation, this amount would have exceeded the expenses, 
 and could not have been claimed. But instead of superintend- 
 ing alone the lenses for the Pacific coast, I was subsequently 
 required to superintend the construction of fifty-five illuminators 
 for the Atlantic ; and instead of remaining one year in Paris, 
 as was contemplated by the agreement, I was detained there 
 upwards of twenty-six months. Now, it is evident that the 
 compensation was based, not on skill in the discharge of my 
 functions, but solely on the time to be applied. The compen- 
 sation was for expenses ; and these were in exact proportion to 
 the time employed. If the contract had, in express terms, 
 
 3 
 
54 NAVAL COURT OP INQUIRY 
 
 stated that I was to remain in Paris for twelve months, and for 
 the expenses of that period, I was to be allowed the sum of 
 $2,000, and subsequently I had been required to remain twelve 
 months longer, without any express stipulation as to the com- 
 pensation, is there any doubt that the law would have raised 
 an implied contract on the part of my employer, to pay me a 
 sum for the additional period equal to that for my original 
 employment ? Testing my case by this admitted principle of 
 law, my compensation would far exceed the whole amount 
 originally claimed by me. It is said, however, that the letter 
 of instructions limits the allowance to a per centage on the 
 "expenditures" made by me, and as the " expenditures " for 
 the fifty-five illuminators were not made by me, I have no right 
 to any remuneration for my extra time, and extra expenses. 
 Admitting the technical force of the word " expenditures " to 
 be as is contended for, the conclusion by no means follows: the 
 most that could be urged would be a deduction from my extra 
 remuneration of such sum as would be equitably regarded as 
 the equivalent for the trouble and responsibility in receiving 
 and paying out the money ; but the fact would still stand 
 boldly out, that, by orders of the Department, I had incurred 
 greater expenses than had been contemplated by the parties 
 when the agreement was entered into. This proposition seems 
 to me so plain, that anything but its mere statement would only 
 seem to confuse it. 
 
 But admitting that my remuneration was limited to the 
 technical rule of " expenditures," it will be remembered that I 
 have heretofore shown, that in addition to the " expenditures " 
 for the Pacific of $90,413.90, I also expended for Hatter as 
 light $9,318.38. By this technical rule, therefore, I am entitled 
 to a further allowance, equal to three per cent, on this sum 
 ($281.34), which has not been paid me, and which sum 
 exceeds the disallowances. 
 
 But the imputations now relied upon seem to be restricted 
 within extremely small compass. 
 
 Commander Thornton A. Jenkins was desired to designate 
 
LIEUT. BARTLETT'S DEFENCE. 55 
 
 the objectionable items ; that is, such as, in his opinion, were 
 to be so considered. He pointed out the accounts for rent of 
 apartments, and " menials engaged." (There was but one 
 employed as a messenger, and the occasional services of a 
 frotteur, a " menial" peculiar to France, whose special business 
 it was to wax the wooden, uncarpeted floor of the chamber 
 occupied as both office and dining-room.) 
 
 He also indicated the items for parlor, at Fenton's Hotel, 
 London, and the medical bill incurred at Paris. 
 
 When Commander Jenkins came to explain more particu- 
 larly his views, it appeared that his objection applied not to the 
 charges themselves — as to rent and servants, candles, fuel, etc. 
 — but to the manner in which the vouchers were taken. He 
 considered that a suspicion attached to the fact that they 
 seemed to have been permitted to run for two years without 
 settlement. That is because I found it convenient to take a 
 receipt at the end of a running account, which however had 
 been settled monthly, in order to have one voucher instead of 
 many, my account is, in the estimation of Commander Jenkins, 
 suspicious ! 
 
 It would waste the time of the Court, and exhaust my 
 patience to comment upon such trivial and puerile sugges- 
 tions. 
 
 I leave these, and the carping at "extra baggage," and 
 " expense of recovering lost baggage," with a single remark. 
 It is not pretended that these, and the " charge for parlor," 
 were not paid by me. I presume it will scarcely be denounced 
 as discreditable to have had a parlor v in which to receive my 
 guests instead of my bed-chamber. I venture to hope that it 
 was not disgraceful to go in search of my missing effects and 
 valuable vouchers ; and I feel quite confident that I incurred 
 no just odium in paying what the railroad companies undertook 
 to charge for baggage above the permitted weight. I could 
 scarcely be expected, either as special agent or officer of the 
 Navy, to travel with a carpet-bag. But if these items were 
 properly and necessarily incurred, what impropriety can suggest 
 
56 NAVAL COURT OF INQUIRY 
 
 itself to the most suspicious imagination, from the fact of 
 presenting them to the consideration of the accounting officers, 
 whether allowed or rejected. 
 
 I submit to the candid and reflecting, that all the disgrace 
 attaches to a system which places the government in the humi- 
 liating position of quibbling about such trifles ; and that the 
 odium ought to be cast on those, who, upon such a foundation, 
 attempt to build up unworthy imputations against one who has 
 faithfully and zealously performed important services, nearly 
 affecting the great commercial interests, and the honor of the 
 country. 
 
 But as my accounts have been assailed in these small parti- 
 culars by the Secretary of the Light House Board, I beg to 
 array upon the other side the very opposite views of the first 
 Auditor, the Commissioner of Customs (Comptroller), and the 
 Superintendent of the Coast Survey — member of Light House 
 Board — to whom I may, by fair inference, add the Naval 
 Committee of the Senate. 
 
 The introduction of the charges connected with these 
 Treasury accounts before the Navy Board, as well as every 
 other imputation against me, is to be traced, by his own 
 admission, as extracted from his testimony before the Senate 
 Committee, and placed upon this record, to John S. Miss- 
 roon ! 
 
 Bear with me, gentlemen, for a moment, while I advert to 
 our mutual position. You are the Judges — I am the accused. 
 The stake which I have involved in this investigation is large, 
 but your interest is yet greater. It consists in your responsi- 
 bility. My life — from the earliest period of my naval career, 
 down to that terrible moment when, beneath the burning sun 
 of Africa, gasping for news from home and country, I received 
 the fatal intelligence which wrested the trumpet from my 
 stricken hand — has been laid bare before you. The imputed 
 delinquencies of my heart, the alleged deficiencies of honor 
 and of honesty have been probed, and exposed to yqur 
 examination. 
 
LIEUT. BARTLETT'S DEFENCE. 51 
 
 You are invested with the highest and most solemn preroga- 
 tive ever conferred upon an earthly tribunal — the determination 
 of moral character, the scrutiny of the relation between man 
 and his Maker, a subject heretofore deemed beyond the scope 
 of human power. You are commissioned to determine not the 
 existence of a fact, but a spiritual condition — a state of moral 
 fitness. It is not, and cannot be, a thing to be determined like 
 ordinary matters connected with the external life and actions 
 of an individual. Yours is a higher and more sacred duty. 
 
 To pass upon the physical condition of a man requires but 
 the ordinary perceptions of mere animal life — to ascertain 
 adequacy of professional skill and information demands only 
 superiority of scientific knowledge and practical attainment — 
 to determine those qualities of mind which are necessary to 
 enable one to understand and master the details of duty, 
 requires mere appreciation of intellectual acuteness — but to 
 decide upon that vastly more recondite matter, the possession 
 and influence of principles of action, seems, at first sight, to be 
 almost an usurpation of the attributes of Deity. 
 
 The delicate relations between will and action are scarcely 
 of more difficult ascertainment, unless we have broad and strong 
 results to guide us. You would naturally demand, before exer- 
 cising so vast a prerogative, that acts of unequivocal relation 
 should be distinctly and unerringly established. You would 
 further require that these acts should be of such a character as 
 to require no subtle reasoning to trace their connection, but 
 such as would at once touch the common instincts of mankind. 
 
 Even great and startling crime could not always be relied on 
 as the indication of immorality, because it is the continuity, the 
 habit of offending, which vitiates the principles, and impairs 
 the moral sentiment. It is only by definite outward acts that 
 man can judge of the interior motives of his fellows ; and even 
 then his judgment is more than fallible. 
 
 But without strong external indications, we cannot ascertain 
 the qualities and characteristics of moral life and action. 
 
58 NAVAL COURT OF INQUIRY 
 
 Called upon, then, to determine my moral fitness, what proof 
 are you to require ? — what standard to establish ? 
 
 You have been told by a distinguished officer of long expe- 
 rience and great intellectual force, that he is utterly at a loss 
 how to determine this new ingredient of professional efficiency. 
 
 Ordinarily, every man's standard of morality is merely the 
 ideal of that conscience which has been infused into his bosom 
 to control and regulate his individual actions. But such a test 
 is utterly inapplicable here, because it cannot be converted into 
 a general and equal rule. 
 
 The idea of moral fitness in the respective breasts of this 
 Court may or may not accord ; but if it should so happen, they 
 cannot impose it as a rule of judgment upon the co-ordinate 
 tribunals established under the same statute. It will not answer 
 to have one law of morality in Court No. 1, another in Court 
 No. 2, and yet a different in Court No. 3. 
 
 Where, then, are we to seek the standard? Is it to be 
 found in the varying phases of general morality, in this or that 
 section of the country — in the notions and habits of the gene- 
 ration passing off, or that newly entering upon the stage — to 
 tone itself by the character of the " Trunnions n and " Hatch- 
 ways " of a by-gone age — to conform to the elevated purity of a 
 McDonough, or the laxer sentiments of a less rigid school — or 
 to be set in unison with some estimated average of the reformed 
 service of the present ? 
 
 It is easy to understand and determine what mental fitness is 
 necessary to enable an officer to acquire sufficient knowledge to 
 discharge the duties of his position. 
 
 It is not difficult to conclude what reasonable amount of 
 skill and experience may be included in professional fitness ; 
 nor are we much at a loss upon the narrower question of physi- 
 cal competency. But the moment we venture to speculate upon 
 the undefined ^quality newly engrafted upon the regulations of 
 the service, we are launched upon a sea of doubt and difficulty. 
 
 How, then, are we to arrive at any legal or correct standard 
 
LIEUT. BARTLETT'S DEFENCE. 59 
 
 by which we are to estimate this moral fitness, which the 
 statute requires, but omits to define. It was well said by a 
 distinguished Senator, in the debate upon this very matter, 
 " that questions of morals present no issue either in law or in 
 fact." 
 
 It is perfectly certain that no tribunal erected under the 
 Constitution can transcend the limits recognized as beyond the 
 sphere of human government, and trespass upon the delicate 
 relations which exist between conscience and life. Moral fitness, 
 or unfitness, must be developed in action, before it can become a 
 subject of cognizance, whatever theory, as to its nature and 
 requirements, we may please arbitrarily to adopt. 
 
 This view accords not only with manifest propriety, but also 
 with the spirit of that code to which alone we can resort for 
 analogy or illustration. The act for the better government of 
 the navy enjoins upon all commanders to show a good example ; 
 to be vigilant in inspecting the conduct of all under their com- 
 mand ; to guard against and suppress all immoral practices, and 
 to correct such as are guilty of them. It also prescribes the 
 punishment of various specified and defined offences in the same 
 general manner, and for similar purposes, as the ordinary crimi- 
 nal codes of the country. 
 
 These injunctions and provisions look exclusively to specific 
 acts ; to morality, not in the abstract, but in the concrete ; to 
 life and behavior, and not to opinions or speculative delin- 
 quencies. 
 
 It follows, therefore, that the question of moral fitness must 
 be determined by proof of specific facts, and not by opinion of 
 character. 
 
 The question still recurs : by what standard is moral fitness 
 for the naval service to be determined ? If there be any legal 
 idea which is naturally included in the phrase, or can be incor- 
 porated with its essence, it must necessarily be definite, pre- 
 cise, fixed, both in character and application. The ideal 
 criterion generated by the particular condition of society, or the 
 opinions of varying sects, cannot be resorted to as a legal mea- 
 
60 NAVAL COURT OF INQUIRY — 
 
 sure of nautical morality, because it does not possess the 
 fundamental requisite of a law, that is universality of applica- 
 tion as a rule of action. It is as fluctuating and uncertain 
 as the proverbial contrariety of individual opinions. It may 
 conform to the Spartan ideal, which sanctioned the concealed 
 crime, and visited with reprobation only the exposure ; or 
 it may assume the rigidity and solemn formality of Puritanism, 
 or the lax and easy virtue of the Cavalier. 
 
 Where then shall the officer look for his rule of conduct, 
 which is to be the uniform and equal law of his professional 
 career ? 
 
 There is nothing to which he can possibly resort, except the 
 code which legislative authority has provided for the govern- 
 ment of the service. If his actions come up to the require- 
 ment of its provisions, he stands perfect in professional 
 integrity, and there is no inquisitorial power which can look 
 beyond his outward conduct and established habits. 
 
 But the question of moral fitness includes a still closer limita- 
 tion under the Act of Congress establishing the jurisdiction of 
 this Court. 
 
 The subject matter of inquiry is the capacity for efficient 
 naval service, which is included in the phrase, " physical, men- 
 tal, professional, and moral fitness." 
 
 As physical fitness does not demand the extreme energy of 
 which the human system is capable — as mental fitness does not 
 require the highest order of intellectual power — as professional 
 fitness may be sufficient without the greatest degree of skill, or 
 the largest amount of experience — so moral fitness is not 
 expected to be perfect, either in kind or degree. *It must be, in 
 character and extent, exactly what is necessarily demanded for 
 the proper and efficient discharge of the duties of the service. 
 
 The reputed author of the phrase, " moral fitness," the 
 Chairman of the Naval Committee of the Senate, who might 
 naturally be supposed to understand its scope and meaning, 
 declared, in the course of the debate upon the motion to 
 strike out these words, that it was an error to suppose " that 
 
LIEUT. BARTLETT's DEFENCE. 61 
 
 this provision will institute any particular searching inquiry into 
 the morals of individuals." He added, " naval officers are not 
 stringent upon this point," and afterwards added, " they are 
 not very stringent construers of what morality should be." 
 There were others, who, with a wiser foresight, predicted 
 the evils which were to grow out of this anomalous addition to 
 the scope of the remedial investigation. 
 
 The sound, practical proposition, under the enactment, may 
 be inversely stated in this form : Admitting that the habits of 
 an officer, either constant or occasional, have not been strictly 
 conformable to what we may please to assume as the proper 
 standard of morality, yet the true question is, simply and 
 solely, whether such habits have in fact impaired his general 
 professional efficiency. 
 
 For isolated errors and official short-comings, certain specific 
 penalties have been provided. These may have been enforced, 
 or the delinquent may have escaped "unwhipped of justice ;" 
 but, in either case, this is foreign to the practical subject of 
 investigation. The jurisdiction of these Courts extends to parti- 
 cular facts only so far as they illustrate the specific inquiry which 
 has been submitted to their decision, which is the actual present 
 condition of the applicant in relation to the four-fold fitness 
 described in the Statute. Should they attempt to exercise a 
 power to examine into any matters except with the single view 
 of assisting their conclusion of the broad question submitted to 
 their decision, they would unquestionably exceed their authority, 
 and usurp a jurisdiction, which belongs exclusively to the 
 ordinary tribunals created for the regulation of the service. 
 Their extraordinary power, although comprehending an extent 
 of inquiry co-extensive as to particulars, with the usual scope 
 of military Courts, is yet directed towards a wholly different 
 end. It has no relation whatever to the punishment of offences, 
 but is directed wholly and exclusively to the single question of 
 the fitness of the individual for the naval service. 
 
 It is therefore submitted as an undeniable position — which 
 must form the basis of all reasoning upon the subject — that 
 
 3* 
 
62 NAVAL COURT OF INQUIRY — 
 
 particular delinquencies, specific offences, either of commission 
 or omission, have no bearing upon the office and duty of this 
 Court, except so far as their knowledge of human nature may 
 teach that such short-comings, by continuity of occurrence, or 
 necessary relation of cause and effect, produce, of necessity, a 
 palpable moral impediment, as conclusive in its character as 
 physical disability, to hinder or impede the efficient discharge 
 of duty. 
 
 I must beg, even at the risk of tediousness, to submit a 
 few remarks in regard to the character of the allegations 
 against me, and their bearing and effect upon the distinct 
 finding which is to terminate this investigation. ' That finding 
 must be precise and definite, not a mere report, or recommenda- 
 tion, but a judgment as to the question of fitness in each and 
 every of its four-fold components. 
 
 It is not pretended that there is any doubt or difficulty in 
 regard to my fitness for naval service under the first three 
 branches of inquiry ; and the contest is confined to what may 
 be justly included under the fourth head of investigation. 
 
 The Committee of the Senate concluded that "if free from 
 just imputations of moral delinquency," I " should have been 
 retained on the active list." 
 
 As that point was not determined against me, and so 
 reported, I might firmly infer that there was nothing brought 
 to their notice to bring them to an adverse opinion. 
 
 Broadly as the question is stated in that report, I should be 
 perfectly content to meet it now in all its latitude. But under 
 the jurisdiction conferred upon this Court, there must be 
 necessary limitation to any such vague consideration of the 
 question. 
 
 The matter for your determination is my present moral 
 fitness, and did the exigency of my case require it, I should 
 boldly claim that even with admitted delinquencies occurring 
 more than ten years ago, with an interim of a life passed in 
 the constant discharge of important duties and valuable 
 services, some of them performed under heavy responsibilities, 
 
LIEUT. BARTLETT'S DEFENCE. 63 
 
 and involving the expenditure of large sums of money, I am 
 entitled to call up the evidence of those services, the testimony 
 of ten years of unquestioned integrity, to rebut the presump- 
 tion arising from even proved moral deficiencies — that I am, 
 now, and here, as I stand before you, in that respect, unfit for 
 the service. 
 
 But however willing I might be to place my hopes and fate 
 upon the mere decision of the various matters arrayed against 
 me, the duty of this Court will not allow them to disregard so 
 important an element of this investigation. If there were any 
 doubt as to the sufficiency of my attempt, by positive proof, to 
 repel the imputations of former years, that doubt would vanish 
 before the clear evidence of ten years of devoted duty and 
 unassailed reputation. A fundamental principle of the law of 
 evidence, in criminal cases, allows character and good conduct 
 to be weighed against every imputation falling short of full 
 legal proof. 
 
 But I take a still higher stand, and I say, that without a 
 scintilla of the positive testimony which I have introduced 
 before this Court, my life, character, and services do, in them- 
 selves, disprove the unsustained allegations of my enemies. 
 Why I should have had those enemies, many of whom admit 
 the intermixture in me of many good and valuable qualities, I 
 am at a loss to conjecture. But there is a happy compensation 
 in one statement in which many, originally prejudiced against 
 me, concur, namely, that whenever I became better known, I 
 was better liked. 
 
 If Mr. Stanley's conjectures be correct, and that is the key 
 to my alleged unpopularity, all I have to say is, that my 
 course in that respect is still approved by my reason, and no 
 man can question that it is not only sanctioned, but enjoined 
 by the regulations of the service. 
 
 But while I am thus proudly alluding to the untarnished repu- 
 tation of my maturer life, I must not forget that even the recent 
 portion of my career has been subjected to a sort of posthumous 
 attack, by imputations attached to matters occurring since I 
 
64 NAVAL COURT OF INQUIRY 
 
 was killed out of the service. Lieutenant Charles Caroll Simms 
 has appeared before the Court, and declared that he considers 
 me morally unfit for the service for three special reasons. In 
 order that I may not encounter the chances of Lieut. Charles 
 Caroll Simms' repeated denunciation, I give him all the benefit 
 he can derive from his own mode of stating his charges against ' 
 me. It will be perceived that they relate to very recent 
 matters. 
 
 He alleges that I have " made willful misrepresentations of 
 facts." I quote his specifications of this charge from the 
 record, to forestall the possible incredulity which might connect 
 itself with an attempt to state the substance of his testimony. 
 1 'He stated, in a pamphlet he has published, that I had given 
 a confused statement before the Senate Committee. In the 
 same pamphlet he represents that he employed the schooner 
 1 Ewing ' for giving sailing directions to vessels off San Fran- 
 cisco, when he himself told me that he was to go to Bodega, 
 and that he had passengers on board to take up there. He 
 also says, in a letter to me, dated January 19th, 1856, ' that 
 the only articles I had was three large pictures, which hung in 
 the cabin/ when, in point of fact, he had, besides them, two gold 
 watches, to my knowledge." 
 
 I have taken the liberty to italicize the last sentence of the 
 testimony of Lieut. Charles Caroll Simms, in order that it may 
 have that prominence which its importance demands. 
 
 Now, the charge which this gentleman makes against me is 
 in terms a grave one, however an unprejudiced mind may 
 regard the extraordinary specifications upon which it rests. 
 
 It will be observed, in reference to the first specification, that 
 Lieut. Charles Caroll Simms does not venture to produce the 
 statement made by him before the Senate Committee, in order 
 to convince the Court that I have made a " willful misrepre- 
 sentation," but assumes that his indignant ipse dixit is plenary 
 evidence of the fact. I venture to differ with Lieut. Charles 
 Caroll Simms upon this point. I venture to suggest to the 
 Court, that inasmuch as the statement in question is legally 
 
LIEUT. BARTLETT'S DEFENCE. 65 
 
 before them, they may perhaps come to the same estimate of 
 its contents. I might further intimate to the Court, that the 
 alleged confusion of the statement referred to what Lieut. 
 Simms, in the joint letter signed by himself and Lieut. Gibson, 
 called my " anomalous " position in " living on shore "in the 
 " employment of the golden realities and speculations of Califor- 
 nia," "making morbid undisciplined imaginations," etc. 
 
 It seems to me now, in full view of the indignation of Lieut. 
 Simms, that if the Court will refer to a single passage which I 
 have had placed upon the record for that purpose, they will 
 possibly agree with me, or at all events relieve me from the 
 charge of willful misrepresentation as to this point. That pas- 
 sage is as follows : " Bartlett was in the Navy at this time, 
 apparently attached to schooner Ewing, but held no position 
 on board. Was executive officer, but did not perform the 
 duties nominally attached." How could I be " apparently 
 attached" but hold " no position ?" or, indeed, how could I be 
 " apparently attached" at all? And what are the " duties 
 nominally attached" to an " executive officer?" Perhaps 
 Lieut. Simms may better enlighten us after he shall have been 
 " apparently attached" to such a position ; but, in the mean- 
 time, I submit to the Court that the confusion does exist either 
 in Lieut. Simms' statement or my brain ; in which latter case I 
 will plead my stultification to disprove the willfulness of my 
 misrepresentation. 
 
 I might, perhaps, with some justice, apply this obnoxious 
 epithet, " confused," to the second specification of Lieut. 
 Simms. It is by no means clear that he intends to deny the 
 fact that I did give sailing directions to vessels off San Fran- 
 cisco. If he does, I have only to say that I have proved the 
 literal truth of my statement by Lieut. Gibson ; and also that 
 I did take one passenger at least, a member of the joint com- 
 mission, Lieut. Blunt, to Bodega, which I have established by 
 the testimony of Captain Van Brunt, and until Lieut. Simms 
 shall further enlighten me, I am unable to perceive any conflict 
 between the two facts. 
 
66 NAVAL COURT OF INQUIRY 
 
 As to the third specification, I presume that even the gravity 
 of the occasion will scarcely redeem the statement of the wit- 
 ness from the inevitable imputation of puerile absurdity. When 
 I used the expression he quotes from my letter, it is scarcely to 
 be supposed that I was giving an inventory of all my personal 
 effects ; for if so, Lieut. Simms might, with equal justice, have 
 convicted me of a still larger misrepresentation, for in addition 
 to the two watches, I had also a "stock" of clothes, including a 
 highly suspicious number of shirts ! 
 
 Immediately previous to the conclusion of the testimony, Lieu- 
 tenant Duer was introduced, and interrogated as to his impres- 
 sion of his own opinions, and the opinions of others entertained 
 fifteen years ago. The only evidence contained in his statement 
 is the evidence of unfairness on the part of the witness, and 
 gross injustice to me. At the close of this protracted inquiry, 
 new allegations, of which I could have no previous suspicion, 
 are suddenly sprung upon me, without, however, one solitary fact 
 proved, either to sustain them, or even to denote their origin. 
 Lieutenant Duer's first allegation is, that I failed to secure the 
 respect of either officers or crew. This is, in its very nature, 
 nothing more than the opinion of the witness, as he does not 
 pretend to state a single instance in which such a sentiment was 
 developed in action or expression. It is, therefore, merely his 
 opinion of their opinions. 
 
 The witness, however, proceeds to state what he seemed to 
 consider causes of such estimation, which he asserts to be repu- 
 tation, and facts occurring on board, and which latter, in the 
 opinion of the witness, were also sufficient proof of fear, false- 
 hood and hypocrisy. 
 
 And what are the facts, or rather what is the fact ? for but 
 one is alluded to. 
 
 A servant-boy was threatened to be flogged at my instance, 
 and while smarting under the infliction — for it was actually in- 
 flicted — made threats of vengeance and exposure against me. 
 The punishment was directed on account of his having smuggled 
 liquor. Lieutenant Duer proceeds to state, and it is the only 
 
LIEUT. BARTLETT'S DEFENCE. 61 
 
 fact he mentions, " that the boy, when called up, denied all that 
 he had said, and the matter dropped." 
 
 And yet the witness has come before this Court, and detailed 
 his unfounded impressions of the harshest character, based 
 entirely upon the vindictive charges of a drunken negro, re- 
 tracted by him when sober. 
 
 Whether the witness stands self-condemned, it is needless to 
 inquire, but I cannot believe that I am to suffer, even in estima- 
 tion, by such testimony, which I have no possible opportunity to 
 rebut, and which is connected with matters so remote in time. 
 
 I have a remark to make in regard to this and the other alle- 
 gations against me, which stand in the same category — that 
 matters alleged to have produced strongly unfavorable impres- 
 sions, but not officially reported, deserve no consideration what- 
 ever as elements even of an unfavorable impression, much less 
 a condemnatory finding. 
 
 If they were of a grave character, the failure to report was 
 a gross dereliction of duty, and he who, by culpable omission, 
 neglects his enjoined obligations, presents himself before a 
 Court with little claim to credit in regard to his present version 
 of events which his past inaction shows were then held in a very 
 different estimation. 
 
 It will be remembered that Lieutenant Duer is one of the 
 witnesses named in the famous cartel of October 16th, 1846, 
 and the ''instance' 7 with which his name is connected is stated 
 to have " occurred in the surveying service." 
 
 The matter itself is not described in such a way as will 
 enable us to decide upon its identity, except by inference, but it 
 is characterized as placing me "in a worse light than anything 
 charged against him in this letter." The writer in this " in- 
 stance " failed to avail himself of his usual parade of epithets, 
 for he might have described the transaction as a crime of blacker 
 dye, as it depended solely upon the declarations of a drunken 
 negro. It is true he afterwards denied the whole, but it seems 
 to have been considered that to have what they call " allega- 
 tions " made against me, was quite enough, in the estimation of 
 
68 NAVAL COURT OF INQUIRY 
 
 my accusers, to brand me with infamy. It made no kind of dif- 
 ference whether they were true or false. 
 
 It would be sufficient for my defence upon this point to bring 
 in contrast with the extraordinary testimony of Lieutenant 
 Duer, that of the immediate chief of the survey at the time of 
 the incident in question. Captain Powell's statement and esti- 
 mate of my character, relating to the same period, and derived 
 from the same service, are before you. I need but refer to them. 
 
 The Court could not fail to remark the still more extraordi- 
 nary contrast — heightened by the juxtaposition of evidence — 
 between the testimony of Lieutenant Duer, who served with me 
 some few months, fifteen years ago, and that of Professor Bache, 
 the distinguished head of the Coast Survey, whose esteem I 
 have the happiness and consolation now to enjoy. His tri- 
 bute to my character and services is fresh upon your record, 
 a fit conclusion to the labors of this examination. I will leave 
 it to speak in its own trumpet tones against the finding of the 
 Navy Board, and the unsubstantial imputations with which this 
 record is encumbered. 
 
 Much stress seems to be placed upon the adverse opinions and 
 inferences expressed by some of the witnesses upon the part of 
 the government. The most singular fact connected with the 
 parade of opinions in the case is the absence of that of the 
 leader of all the attacks upou my character. Commander 
 Missroon, although placing a high estimate upon my profes- 
 sional attainments and mental and physical capacity, has no- 
 where, throughout his voluminous testimony and explanations, 
 placed upon record, in express terms, his opinion of my moral 
 fitness. 
 
 Lieutenant Gibson expressed no adverse estimate, but, on the 
 contrary, the fair inference to be drawn from his evidence is in 
 my favor, as he expressly said he knew of no ground of impu- 
 tation except the sale of clothing by McArthur to Bingham ; 
 and I believe when he knows the simple truth of that transac- 
 tion, he will regret the unjust suspicions predicated upon imper- 
 fect knowledge. 
 
LIEUT. BARTLETT's DEFENCE. 69 
 
 I desire now to place in the even scales of Justice the oppo- 
 sing opinions of the witnesses without one word of comment. 
 On one side we place the sweeping denunciation of Purser 
 Watmough, the milder prejudice of Dr. Duval, the downright 
 depreciation of Lieut. Harrison, and the irate explosion of 
 Lieut. Simms, all told : on the other side, pile up, in rich pro- 
 fusion, the valuable esteem and kindly appreciation of Com- 
 modores Lavallette and Crabbe, Captains Montgomery, Powell 
 and Ellison, Watson and Revere, Dr. Chase, Lieutenants Stan- 
 ley and Forrest, Gov. Kodman M. Price, Alexander Dallas 
 Bache — and, I thank God ! I might have summoned hosts 
 of others, of the best and greatest in every quarter of this 
 broad Union ! — but with these, whose names grace my record, 
 need I inquire which side kicks the beam ? 
 
 One thing more I would ask the Court particularly to notice 
 — How is it that with avowed enmity and imputed unpopular- 
 ity always at work against me, / have never been brought to pun- 
 ishment, or subjected even to a reprimand ? Further, how have 
 I — as I believe I have — uniformly secured the approbation of 
 every superior officer with whom I have at any time served, 
 with a single exception ? — that exception is John S. Missroon ! 
 
 I have now scrutinized the testimony arrayed against me 
 upon this record. I have endeavored to suggest, and to com- 
 mend to the reason of the Court, the true legal principles, and 
 sound statutory constructions which should govern their inves- 
 tigation and estimate of the facts. 
 
 In the comments which have inevitably presented themselves 
 upon the character of the testimony, and the spirit exhibited 
 by the principal witnesses, I have been actuated by a forbear- 
 ance and charity which they have never accorded to me. 
 
 Their motives I have not assailed or exposed. Their bias and 
 their concert are so strongly and prominently exhibited, and so 
 blended with their testimony, as to infect the whole case with 
 the taint of persecution. At the same time, while feeling the 
 keenest sense of agony and wrong, I owe it to my sense of jus- 
 tice to say, that in my belief, the origin and cause of all the 
 
TO NAVAL COURT OF INQUIRY — 
 
 hostility which has been arrayed against me spring from the 
 master-malice of one man, whose malignity has pursued me with 
 unrelenting and vindictive fury. The stone which, eleven years 
 ago, was cast into the bitter waters of strife, has enlarged its 
 ever-widening circles, until it has swelled into the dreadful 
 vortex which has engulphed my reputation and my hopes. 
 
 But I trust that I am not deceived in the belief that I begin 
 to feel the influence of the returning surge which is to regurgi- 
 tate me from the horrors of that dismal and fathomless abyss. 
 
 It was one of the chief imputations of 1846, that I was not 
 sufficiently sensitive of the attack upon my character. At least 
 no man can now say, that during the last eighteen months I 
 have not stood behind my hurled gauntlet against all comers. 
 I have challenged the action of the Navy Board, and defied the 
 utmost malice of my enemies, open or unavowed. I have 
 devoted my life and my labors to the redemption of my charac- 
 ter from the imputations which have been heaped upon me. 
 
 In this final effort I trust that I have been successful. But 
 if, unhappily, I should find myself baffled in this sustaining 
 hope, I will appeal to the popular justice of my country, and 
 still believe that at the great bar of public opinion I shall yet 
 redeem the pledge of 1846, to " make good my defence." 
 
 Washington Allon Bartlett. 
 
ADDENDA 
 
 The following, from original letters, forming part of Lieu- 
 tenant Bartlett's defence, and annexed to the record, will speak 
 for the opinions of their authors : 
 
 U. S. Flag Ship Jamestown, 
 
 Porto Grande, Oct. 28<2, 1855. 
 
 Sib: 
 
 I have received your letter of this clay's date, containing a 
 copy of a letter from the Hon. Secretary of the Navy to Mrs. 
 Bartlett, in relation to your retirement from the Navy of the U. 
 States. Although I have not received anything official from the 
 Department upon the subject, yet the Hon. Secretary's letter to 
 Mrs. Bartlett, and the reasons set forth by yourself, will, no doubt, 
 justify me in relieving you from further duty on board this ship. 
 In doing so, however, I cannot avoid saying, that I deeply regret 
 the loss of your services. Tour gentlemanly and officer-like bear- 
 ing whilst under my command has uniformly met my warmest 
 approbation. 
 
 I am, with great respect, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 Thomas Ckabbe, 
 Commander -in- Chief of the V. 8. 
 
 Naval Forces, Coast of Africa. 
 To Lieut. W. A. Bartlett. 
 
 71 
 
12 LIEUT. BARTLETT'S DEFENCE. 
 
 U. S. Flag Ship Jamestown, 
 Porto Grande, (St. Vincent's) Oct 24^,1855. 
 
 Dear Sir : 
 
 We entertain too high an appreciation of your character as a 
 gentleman and an officer, and too warm a regard for you as a mess- 
 mate and a friend, to allow you to leave us without saying to you, 
 in the sincerity of our hearts, that we*deeply regret that you are 
 about to part from us, and, above all, the cause that takes you 
 away. In the difficult and responsible relation that you have sus- 
 tained to us as executive officer of the ship, you have ever, whilst 
 discharging your duties with fidelity, borne yourself towards us 
 with the utmost frankness, conciliation, and courtesy. And in the 
 more intimate and kindly relation as a member of the little society 
 that we form amongst ourselves, and which can subsist in harmony 
 only by mutual cultivation of friendly feelings and the practice of 
 friendly offices, you have endeared yourself to us by your uniform 
 amiability of disposition, and by the desire that you have ever 
 evinced to cherish the most cordial intercourse with us all. 
 
 We therefore beg to assure you that, in parting from us, you 
 are taking leave of those who will ever remember you with plea- 
 sure, and who, whatever fortunes may betide you, will always con- 
 tinue your well wishers and friends. 
 Ever, very truly, 
 Yours, 
 
 George Oltmer, Fleet Surgeon, ranking 
 
 with Commander. 
 
 T. H. Patterson, Lieutenant. 
 
 Edward A. Barnet, Lieutenant. 
 
 T. M. Taylor, Purser (rank of Commander). 
 
 Julian Myers, Lieutenant. 
 
 Samuel Richd. Swann, Ass't Surgeon. 
 
 John L. Heylln, Commodore's Secretary. 
 
 Jno. E. Hart, Acting Master and Lieut. 
 
 Jas. M. Bradford, Acting Lieutenant. 
 
 Chas. W. Thomas, Chaplain. 
 
 Lieut. Washington A. lUnTLKTT. 
 
TESTIMONIALS. 13 
 
 U. S. Flag Ship " Jamestown," Porto Grande, 
 
 St. Vincent, October 23d, 1855. 
 
 Deab Sir: 
 
 In forwarding you the enclosed letter from Commodore 
 Crabbe, relieving you from further duty in this ship, I beg leave to 
 assure you of my deepest regret for the cause that has produced it, 
 and for the interruption of an intercourse and association always 
 confidential, harmonious, and friendly. I shall ever esteem you, in 
 your character, as an officer, and gentleman, and in parting from 
 you, tender you my sincerest wishes, for your restoration to the 
 service, and for your future influence. 
 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 Jas. Francis Armstrong, 
 
 Lieutenant Commanding, 
 Lieut. Wash. A. Bartlett, U. & iS. "Jamestown." 
 
 U. S. S. Jamestown, Porto Grande, 
 
 St. Vincent, October 26th, 1855. 
 
 Sir: 
 
 It is with feelings of the most heartfelt sorrow that we 
 address these few lines to you. 
 
 You are about to return to your home, and we, as officers, who 
 have taken pleasure in being under your command, cannot think of 
 your leaving us without expressing our thanks for the gentlemanly 
 manner in which we have been treated by you. 
 
 Your name will ever live fresh in our memories. Hoping that 
 you may succeed in all your undertakings, we remain, 
 Yours truly, 
 
 Wm. Cope, Gunner, 
 John McKinley, Boatswain, 
 Joseph K. Smith, Carpenter, 
 Lieut. Washington A. Bartlett, U. S. Navy. 
 
74 LIEUT, bartlett's defence. 
 
 U. S. Flag Ship Jamestown, Porto Grande, 
 St. Vincent, Oct. 2Uh, 1855. 
 
 Sir: 
 
 You are about to return to your home. In so doing, the 
 members of the steerage feel it their duty to express to you their 
 deep regret, and their sincere gratitude for the extreme kindness 
 with which you have universally treated us, during the time we 
 have had the pleasure of being under your command. You may 
 be assured, that after your leaving us, you will ever be cherished 
 in our memory, with feelings of the highest regard and esteem, in 
 your character as an officer and gentleman. 
 
 Sir, we bid yon, with sorrow, a hearty farewell; with many 
 wishes for your future welfare and happiness, believe us, 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 Your obedient servants, 
 
 A. R. Conklix, M. Mate. 
 0. W. Lawrexce, M. Mate. 
 Yal. Hall Vooriiees, M. Mate. 
 O. A. Henckel, M. Mate. 
 II. B. Jonxsox, Oapt.'s Clerk. 
 
 To Lieut. W. A. Bartlett, U. S. Nowy. 
 
 U. S. Ship Jamestown, off Porto Grande, 
 29th October, 1855. 
 
 Sir: 
 
 In the discharge of my duties as sailmaker of this ship, I have 
 learned much of the disposition of the crew, and the feeling they 
 have toward you, particularly during the time you have served as 
 executive officer, and beg leave to state, that they, being aware of 
 your intended departure for the States, have expressed a wish to 
 me, and through me, to testify their regret that you have occasion 
 to leave them prior to the end of the cruise. 
 
 Since I have been attached to the Navy, I have seen other officers 
 who have gained the esteem of their ship's company, but never to 
 such a degree as you have, from the hardy sons of Neptune com- 
 
TESTIMONIALS. 15 
 
 prising this ship's crew. Your capabilities as a Lieutenant, and 
 your bearing as an officer and a gentleman, have won their admira- 
 tion, and they say they cannot let you depart without this token of 
 their gratitude and their esteem. 
 "Very respectfully, 
 
 Yours, &o., 
 
 Wm. 1ST. Haull, Sailmaker. 
 
 Approved. 
 
 W. Plummer, Captain of Forecastle. 
 James Young, " Fore-top. 
 
 Henry P. Grace, "" Main-top. 
 Chas. Stewart, " Mizzen-top. 
 Thos. W. Macready, m Afterguard. 
 Thomas Kitchen, " Hold. 
 David Esbeck, Signal Quartermaster. 
 George Potter, Boatswain's-mate. 
 William Thomas, Sailmaker's-mate. 
 John H. Loveless, Carpenter's-mate. 
 Daniel Hussey, Gunner's-mate. 
 John D. Gorman, Master at Arms. 
 Chas. Swanson, Yeoman. 
 James MoFarland, Cooper. 
 
 P. S. — They all wish to sign and approve my remarks, but as it 
 would occupy too large a space, and too much time, I could but 
 permit one from each part of the ship, who bears testimony as to 
 the sentiments of the gangs to which they are attached. 
 
 W. 1ST. M. 
 
 Hempstead, Long Island, January YWi, 1856. 
 
 Dear Sir : 
 
 In reply to your request, that I would state my opinion of 
 your efficiency as an officer, and your deportment as a gentleman, 
 during our recent association on board the " Jamestown," where 
 you served under my command. I, with great pleasure say, that 
 in every particular, as a zealous and capable officer, and a well-in- 
 
76 NAVAL COURT OF INQUIRY. 
 
 formed, intelligent gentleman, I regarded *you as most exemplary. 
 Commodore Orabbe frequently expressed himself to me in very 
 warm terms of you, as a highly accomplished officer, and like ex- 
 pressions were made from all your messmates in the ward-room, 
 showiDg a uniformity of opinion throughout the officers of the 
 ship. 
 
 Sincerely trusting that the error which seems to have been made 
 in your case may speedily be rectified, and that you may be 
 honorably restored to your position in the navy. 
 I am, very truly, 
 
 Your obedient servant and friend, 
 Fes. B. Ellison, 
 
 Commander U. 8. Na/oy. 
 
 Mr. W. A. Bartlett, Washington^ D. C. 
 
831