he smaller vessels up to close action
as contributing largely to our victory." Such was the situation at the
time. A few years later, however, a bitter quarrel sprang up between
Perry and Elliott, which apparently owed a good deal of its rancor to
the exertions of good-natured friends of both in communicating to each
remarks made, or supposed to be made, by the other. An envenomed
correspondence took place in 1818. It led to Elliott's challenging
Perry, and Perry preferring charges against Elliott for his conduct at
the battle of Lake Erie. In the letter accompanying the charges he gave
as his reason for changing his opinion as to the behavior of his second
in command, that he had been put into possession of fresh facts. The
government took no action in the matter, and in the following year Perry
died. In 1834 Elliott became the mark of hostility of the Whig press on
account of his putting the figure of Andrew Jackson at the (p. 210)
figure-head of the Constitution, the war-ship of which he was in
command. The old scandal about his conduct at Erie was revived. Elliott
did more than defend himself. A life of him was published in 1835,
written by another, but from materials evidently that he himself had
furnished. It claimed that the success of the battle of Lake Erie was
mainly due to his efforts. It naturally produced a feeling of intense
bitterness among Perry's friends and relatives. This was the way matters
stood at the time that the "Naval History" was brought out.

Cooper entered upon the account of the battle of Lake Erie with the
common prejudice against Elliott. Nor were efforts lacking to keep it
alive and strengthen it, when it was reported in naval circles that he
had begun to be uncertain about the justice of his original impressions.
Captain Matthew Perry, the brother of the Commodore, forwarded him all
the sworn documentary evidence that made against Elliott. He neglected
to send any that was given in his favor. Cooper was not the man to be
satisfied with this way of writing history. As he examined the subject
more and more, he was struck by the conflicting character of the
testimony, and the doubt that overhung the whole question. He came
finally to the conclusion that it was not a matter he could settle, or,
perhaps, any one. He accordingly contented himself with giving as
accurate an account of the battle of Lake Erie as he could without
entering at all into the details of the controversy. He mad