of Perry. But whether the conclusion be right or not at which
Cooper arrived, there was never the slightest justification for the
gross abuse to which he was subjected. He had everything to gain by
falling in with the popular tradition and attacking Elliott. Nothing but
lofty integrity and love of truth could have made him take the course he
did. If a mistake at all, it was a mistake of judgment. But the charges
brought against him were based in most instances upon deliberate
misrepresentation of what he had said. This was especially true of the
criticisms of Duer and Mackenzie. The perversion of meaning of one of
his foot-notes is a striking instance of the unscrupulous nature of
these attacks. In this Cooper had spoken of the vulgar opinion which
celebrated as an act of special gallantry Perry's passing in an open
boat from one ship to another as being the very least of his merits;
that the same thing was done in the same engagement by others, including
Elliott; that there was personal risk everywhere; and that Perry's real
merit was his indomitable resolution not to be conquered, and the manner
in which he sought new modes of victory when old ones failed. If this be
depreciatory, it is depreciatory to say that greater honor is due to him
who manifests the skill and fertility of resource of a commander than to
him who exhibits the mere valor of a soldier. But in Duer's review of
the "Naval History," and Mackenzie's "Life of Perry," the purport of the
note was entirely changed. The concluding portion was dishonestly (p. 223)
omitted, and a paragraph that gave to the victor of Lake Erie credit for
generalship rather than soldiership was converted into an assertion that
the risk he had run was of slight consequence.

This controversy brought in its train another libel suit. To the editor
of the "Commercial Advertiser" the result had caused deep mortification.
The reviewer also was naturally dissatisfied with a decision which left
upon him the stigma of a libeler. He offered, if the case could be
brought before a common jury for another trial, to pay double the amount
of damages awarded, provided the result was against him. With such an
arrangement Mr. Stone declined to have anything to do. He had had, he
said, annoyance enough already with the suit. But he was tempted in a
moment of vexation to indulge in remarks which implied that Cooper was
in a hurry to get the sum awarded, with the object of putting it into
Wall Stre