ssential facts, and if untrue, in what particulars.
The majority decided that it was true. Mr. Foot dissented on the same
point, to the same extent, and for the same reason, for which he had
dissented from the second.

The fourth point was whether the account of the battle was written in a
spirit of impartiality and justice. They all agreed that it was so
written.

The fifth point was whether the writer of the criticism, upon which the
suit was founded, had faithfully fulfilled the office of a reviewer. If
not they were to give the facts upon which their conclusion was based.
They unanimously agreed that the writer had not faithfully discharged
his obligations as a reviewer; that he had indulged in personal
imputations; that he was guilty of misquotations which materially
changed the meaning; that his statements were incorrect in several
particulars; and that his charge that Cooper had given to Elliott equal
credit with Perry in the conduct of the battle was untrue. This last
assertion, they add, was made after a careful examination by them of the
history itself.

The sixth point was whether the review was true or not in its essential
facts; and if untrue, in what particulars. They all agreed that (p. 220)
it was untrue, and gave the particulars.

The seventh point was whether the review was written in a spirit of
impartiality and justice. The majority decided that it was not so
written. Here again Mr. Foot made a partial dissent. He considered the
review to have been written under the influence of a wakeful
sensibility, inconsiderately and unnecessarily aroused in defense of the
reputation of a beloved and deceased friend.

The eighth point was to settle which of the two parties should be
required to publish the full text of the decision at his own expense in
newspapers published in New York, Washington, and Albany. The referees
agreed that this was to be done by the defendant.

Thus ended this suit. For Cooper the result was a great personal
triumph. He had had to contend with the prejudices of a nation. For
months and years he had been persistently assailed with all the weapons
that unscrupulous partisanship or unreasoning family affection could
wield. He had been compelled to identify his own cause with that of a
man who, in addition to unpopularity with members of his own profession,
had drawn upon himself the hostility of a political party. He had been
under the necessity of controverting, in some partic