Chapter VI: Concluded (1)

It is also important to remember that the press appealed to a very much smaller percentage of the population in colonial times than it does to-day. “In Boston with a population of 8000, Campbell succeeded in selling but 3000 copies of his News Letters when it was the only newspaper printed in America.”[1] Later the circulation of all the papers increased, but it was still but a small proportion of the colonists who received first hand the opinions of the editor. And this body of subscribers was for the most part of the professional class or the wealthier part of those in trade, persons naturally of a conservative temper and apt to look with disfavor on any strong attack on or disregard of legalized and established authority.

In New York, owing to the peculiar way in which the press was introduced, it for the first forty years of its existence did nothing to put itself in antagonism to the government; in Massachusetts it at first was given a subvention by the General Court; in South Carolina a comparatively large sum was offered to any printer who would brave the dangers of the climate and establish a press. With these exceptions its early days were passed under governments which viewed with dislike or suspicion any attempts on the part of the printers to take an intelligent part in the questions that were interesting the people. For this reason the press in all the colonies early assumed a position of antagonism to the constituted authority and in return the government took every opportunity to hurt it by means of prosecutions in the courts or inquisitorial proceedings before the Governor and his Council. It is interesting to note however that these proceedings lost almost all their terrors as the period of the Revolution approached, for the press received more and more the support of the people, who had learned to appreciate the wide circulation which the newspapers gave to the new doctrines; thus we constantly find the grand juries refusing to find true bills against the printers, in this way reducing the Governor to the use of Informations which were looked on with suspicion by the people and seldom resulted in a verdict of Guilty.

But the greatest influence of the press was exerted through the flood of hand-bills and pamphlets which ever increased in volume as the period of the Revolution drew near. Printed in large numbers and circulating everywhere, we find Governors reporting to the home government that it was impossible to stop them, and that they were doing incalculable harm.

If now we attempt in a very brief way to review the whole matter of the struggle for the liberty of the press we shall find:

First: That the system in vogue in America, as in England, up to the close of the seventeenth century, was a system of administrative control by the Crown through appointed officers called Censors, to whom all writings had to be submitted before publication and who either gave or refused permission to print. That this Censorship was shared by Church and State in some instances only complicated the situation.

Second: With the failure to pass the Licensing Bill in 1695 the press became in all parts of the English dominion freed from this censorship; but a system of judicial control took its place, for all publications were now subject to the law of libel, and an attack on the dominant party was held by the courts to be a libel, and a censure of the Governor to be a personal reflection on the King. In Franklin’s case in England in 1731,[2] it was laid down by Lord Raymond that the court alone was to judge of the criminality of a libel, to the jury was given only the right to decide as to the fact of publication.

In England that doctrine continued in force until the passage of Mr. Fox’s Libel Bill in 1792. But fifty-eight years earlier the Zenger case (in 1734) had established in principle the freedom of the press in the colonies, by settling the right of juries to find a general verdict in libel cases. We have said “in principle,” for this right, which the colonists soon grew to consider as a part of their common law, was yet in practice more or less nullified in the different colonies according as the Governor was able to impose his will on the courts or was opposed by an intelligent public opinion.

In other words, liberty of the press did not and could not exist in the colonial period, but the people accepted the principle and when they obtained the opportunity incorporated it in Bills of Rights and State Constitutions. The Continental Congress in issuing, on Oct. 21st, 1774, an “Address to the people of Canada” proceeded to detail and enlarge upon the rights to which English subjects were entitled, and among them placed the freedom of the press.[3]

We see the same point made by State after State.

Maryland, 1776: “That the liberty of the press ought to be inviolably preserved.”

Virginia, 1776: “That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.”

Pennsylvania, 1776: “That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing, and of publishing their sentiments; therefore the freedom of the press ought not to be restrained.”

Georgia, 1777: “Freedom of the press and trial by jury to remain inviolable forever.”

Vermont, 1777: “That the public have the right to freedom of speech and of writing and publishing their sentiments; therefore the freedom of the press ought not to be restrained.”

South Carolina, 1778: “That the liberty of the press be inviolably preserved.”

Massachusetts, 1780: “The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state; and ought not, therefore, to be restrained in this commonwealth.”

New Hampshire, 1784: “The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state; and it ought, therefore, to be inviolably preserved.”

Pinckney’s Plan of 1787: “The Legislature of the United States shall pass no law touching or abridging the liberty of the press.”

Delaware, 1792: “The press shall be free to every citizen who undertakes to examine the official conduct of men acting in a public capacity, and any citizen may print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. In prosecutions for publications investigating the proceedings of officers, or where the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence; and in all indictments for libels, the jury may determine the facts and the law, as in other cases.”

After the Federal Convention came together in 1787 it was proposed to insert in the Constitution, “the liberty of the press shall be inviolably preserved.” This was defeated by six states against five.[4] But when the different States afterwards sent to the first Congress the proposals from which the first ten Amendments were selected we find in nearly all some reference to the liberty of the press. The article on the subject from Massachusetts was selected and now appears as a part of the First Amendment to the Constitution, “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.”[5] And since that time nearly every Constitution drawn up by the different States has contained an admission of the principle so long contended for by supporters of the rights of the press, that, as David Hume says, “its liberties, and the liberties of the people must stand or fall together.”

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andrews, Alexander--History of British Journalism; 2 vols. London, 1859.

Anson, Sir Wm. R.--Law and Custom of the Constitution; 2 vols. Oxford, 1886.

Barry, John Stetson--The History of Massachusetts; 3 vols. Boston, 1855.

Booth, Mary L.--The History of the City of New York. New York, 1880.

Bradford, Wm.--New England’s Spirit of Persecution Transmitted to Pennsylvania. New York, 1693.

Brodhead, John Romeyn--History of the State of New York; 2 vols. New York, v.d.

Brown, David Paul--The Forum; 2 vols. Philadelphia, 1856.

Brown, Henry B.--The Liberty of the Press; Am. Law Review, 34, 321.

Buckingham, Joseph T.--Specimens of Newspaper Literature, with Personal Memoirs, Anecdotes, and Reminiscences; 2 vols. Boston, 1852.

Burk, John D.--The History of Virginia from its first Settlement to the Present Day; 4 vols. Petersburg, Va., 1805.

Burn, John Southerden--The Star Chamber. London, 1870.

Chalmers, George--Political Annals of the Present United Colonies from the Settlement to the Peace of 1763. London, 1780.

Collier, Edward--Essay on the Law of Patents and the General History of Monopolies. London, 1803.

Cucheval-Clarigny, M.--Histoire de la Presse en Angleterre et aux Etats Unis. Paris, 1857.

De Peyster, Frederic--Early Political History of New York. New York, 1865.

Duane, Wm.--Canada and the Continental Congress, An Address delivered before the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, 1850.

Dunlap, Wm.--History of New York; 2 vols. New York, 1839.

Eastman, F. S.--History of New York. New York, 1831.

Fisher & Strahan--Law of the Press. London, 1895.

Force, Peter--American Archives; 9 vols. Washington, v.d.

Ford, Paul Leicester--Journal of Hugh Gaine. New York, 1901.

Fowle, Daniel--Total Eclipse of Liberty. Boston, 1755.

Franklin, Benjamin--Autobiography. New York, 1849.

Fraser, Hugh--Privileges of the Press in relation to Libel; Law Quarterly Review, 7, 158.

Gentz, F. von--Reflections on the Liberty of the Press in Great Britain, London, 1820 (trans.)

Gordon, Wm. D. D.--The History of the Rise, Progress and Establishment of the Independence of the United States of America; 4 vols. London, 1788.

Grant, James--History of the Newspaper Press. London, 1840.

Hall, Robert--An Apology for the Freedom of the Press and for General Liberty. London, 1793.

Harrison, W. L. S.--Proceedings at the Printers Banquet held at the N. Y. Typographical Society, on the Occasion of Franklin’s Birthday, 1850. New York, 1850.

Hening, Wm. Waller--Statutes at Large of Virginia; 16 vols. New York, 1823.

Howell, T. B.--State Trials; 30 vols. London, v.d.

Hildeburn, Charles--Sketches of Printers and Printing in Colonial New York. New York, 1895.

Hudson, Frederick--A History of Journalism. New York, 1873.

Hunt, F. Knight--The Fourth Estate; Contributions Towards a History of Newspapers and of the Liberty of the Press; 2 vols. London, 1850.

Hutchinson, Thomas--History of Massachusetts; 2 vols. Salem, 1795.

Jefferson, Thomas--Notes on the State of Virginia. London, 1787.

Jones, Horatio Gates--Andrew Bradford, Founder of the Newspaper Press in the Middle States of America; An Address delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, 1869.

Lechford, Thomas--Note-Book. Am. Antiquarian Society; Vol. VII, 1885.

Leake, Isaac Q.--Memoirs of the Life and Times of General John Lamb. Albany, 1850.

Lincoln, Wm.--History of Worcester, Mass. Worcester, 1862.

Massachusetts--MS. Records of the Colony.

McAdam, David--History of the Bench and Bar of New York; 2 vols. New York, 1897.

McMaster, John Bach--A Free Press in the Middle Colonies. Princeton Review; Vol. I (N. S.)

Munsell, Joel--Annals of Albany; 10 vols. Albany, v.d.

New York--The Colonial Laws of; 5 vols. Albany, 1894.

New York--Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Colony of. 1691-1765; 2 vols. New York, 1765.

New York--Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Colony of. 1766-1776. Albany, 1820 (reprint).

New York--Votes and Proceedings of the Legislative Council, Albany. New York, 1861.

North, S. N. D.--Constitutional Development of the Colony of New York. Mag. Am. Hist. III, 161.

O’Callaghan, E. B.--Documents relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York; 11 vols. Albany, v.d.

Odgers, W. Blake--The Law of Libel. Philadelphia, 1887.

Pennsylvania--Minutes of the Provincial Council of; 3 vols. Philadelphia, 1852.

Proud, Robert--History of Pennsylvania; 2 vols. Philadelphia, 1798.

Ross, Peter--A History of Long Island. New York, 1903.

Rutherfurd, Livingston--John Peter Zenger. His Press, His Trial, and a Bibliography of his Imprints and those issued by his Wife and Son. Also a reprint of the Trial. New York, 1904.

Satterlee, Herbert L.--Political History of the Province of New York. New York, 1885.

Taylor, Hannis--The Freedom of the Press. Argument ex parte John L. Rapier, before Supreme Court of U. S., n.p., n.d.

Taylor, Henry Osborn--Development of Constitutional Government in the American Colonies. Mag. Am. Hist. II, 705.

Thomas, Benjamin Franklin, Memoir of Isaiah Thomas. Boston, 1874.

Thomas, Isaiah--History of Printing; 2 vols. Albany, 1874.

The Tryal of John Peter Zenger. London, 1738.

Wallace, John William--Address on Wm. Bradford. Albany, 1863.

Wallace, John William--Col. Wm. Bradford. Philadelphia, 1884.

LIVINGSTON ROWE SCHUYLER.

NEW YORK CITY.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Hudson, History of Journalism, p. 57.

[2] Howell’s State Trials XVII, 1243.

[3] Wm. Duane, “Canada and the Continental Congress,” p. 20.

[4] Journal of Convention, p. 217.

[5] Elliot’s Debates, Vol. I, p. 183.

RELICS OF COMMODORE JOHN BARRY IN PHILADELPHIA

Apropos of the proposed erection here of a monument to the memory of Commodore John Barry, it is interesting to know that in addition to his tomb in St. Mary’s Churchyard, on Fourth street below Locust, where he was buried, there are many other relics of the great naval commander in this city, which was his home and where he maintained both a town and country residence. In Fairmount Park, too, is a monument not known to many people, where one of the five figures of the fountain erected by the Catholic Total Abstinence Society is a statue of Barry. It is of heroic size and the inscription, besides reciting some of his principal exploits on the sea, describes him as the first commodore of the United States navy.

Nearly all the other relics are in the possession of Mrs. W. Horace Hepburn of this city, who is a great-grandniece of Barry, and also a granddaughter of Commodore Bainbridge, and to whom they have been handed down. They are of many kinds and, taken altogether, would form quite a museum. Some of them are particularly valuable as records of history, among these being the logs of the _Alliance_ and other warships which Barry commanded. Another documentary relic is the commission as captain and commander of the frigate _United States_ issued to Barry to “take rank from the fourth day of June, 1804.” It is dated February 22, 1797, however, and is signed by Washington. On the margin it is numbered “one,” showing it to have been the first captain’s commission issued in the navy of the new constitutional government.

Of nearly equal importance as a record is the certificate of Barry’s membership in the Society of the Cincinnati. With this Mrs. Hepburn has also the handsome jewelled badge of the order presented to him by Lafayette. It is in the regular form of the organization’s emblem, but is very ornate. It was manufactured in France. Also in Mrs. Hepburn’s possession is Stuart’s original portrait, a copy of which, by Colin Campbell Cooper, was presented to the city by the Hibernian Society in 1895, and now hangs in Independence Hall. The Stuart portrait was painted in this city.

Among the relics is a set of china, much of which was used on the frigate _Alliance_. Among these is a punch bowl and pitcher in white china, with a good picture of the frigate under full sail on each. This china was probably made in France, but that point has not as yet been definitely determined. What were also probably used on the ship are a number of glass goblets and other glassware, which are not particularly fine as to design and manufacture, but are none the less cherished as relics. There is also a considerable quantity of French china, with the monogram S. B., for Sarah Barry, on it, and a number of dinner plates, which were probably used in his house. Pertaining more closely to the commander’s seafaring career are one of his swords, a gun, and a full-dress uniform, the latter consisting of yellow nankeen knee breeches and vest, with a blue frock coat with immense brass buttons. The size of these garments emphasizes the well-known fact that the commodore was a very large man. Originally among the relics were a pair of silver knee buckles, which, before the collection came into the hands of its present owner, were melted down and made into teaspoons. How big they were may be inferred from the fact that they made six spoons. Mrs. Hepburn has these spoons, but says she would much prefer to have the silver in its original form of buckles. Commodore Barry’s watch is also in the collection, as is a large solid silver ale tankard, which was probably used on land.

Barry’s tomb in St. Mary’s churchyard is one of the most impressive mementos of him because of the inscription which it bears. The original tomb was erected by the commodore’s widow, but this became dilapidated through the ravages of time and the inscription, written by Dr. Benjamin Rush, a copy of which has been preserved in the Ridgeway branch of the Philadelphia Library, was barely decipherable as early as 1865. In 1876 the tomb was repaired, and now bears the following inscription:

“Sacred to the memory of Commodore John Barry, father of the American navy. Let the Christian patriot and soldier who visits these mansions of the dead view this monument with respect and veneration. Beneath it rest the remains of John Barry, who was born in County Wexford, Ireland, in the year 1745. America was the object of his patriotism, and the aim of his usefulness and ambition. At the beginning of the Revolutionary War he held the commission of captain in the then limited navy of the colonies. His achievements in battle and his renowned naval tactics merited for him the position of commodore, and to be justly regarded as the father of the American navy. He fought often and bled in the cause of freedom, but his deeds of valor did not diminish in him the virtues which adorned his private life. He was eminently gentle, kind, just, and charitable, and no less beloved by his family and friends than by his grateful country. Firm in the faith and practices of the Roman Catholic Church, he departed this life on the 13th day of September, 1803, in the fifty-ninth year of his age. In grateful remembrance, a few of his countrymen, members of St. Mary’s Church and others, have contributed towards this second monument, erected July 1, 1876. _Requiescat in Pace._”

Commodore Barry’s deeds as a naval officer, the fact that he commanded the _Lexington_, the first armed cruiser; that he captured and brought to Philadelphia the first prize; that he fought the last naval battle, and many other such points in his brilliant record, are all embalmed in the nation’s history. In private life he was a loyal friend and a good citizen, social in his tastes, hearty in his manner, and genial to all. He was a sailor before joining our navy, having been placed in the merchant marine service by his father when a mere boy. He came to this country when probably about twenty-one years old, reaching Philadelphia from the island of Barbados, in command of the schooner _Barbados_. This was ten years before the Revolution, and from that time until the opening of the war he followed his career in these waters, and in command of vessels sailing between here and England. He was twice married, and both wives were buried in the same grave in St. Mary’s churchyard. His second wife, Sarah Austin, and her sister, Mary, are said to have made and presented to John Paul Jones the flag of the _Bon Homme Richard_. Commodore Barry died in 1803, at his country residence, “Strawberry Hill.” This was not the Strawberry Hill in Fairmount Park, but was located on Frankford Road, at Gunner’s Run. The body was brought to his city residence, on the south side of Chestnut Street, between Ninth and Tenth Streets, on a site about opposite the _Record_ building, where the funeral took place.--_Philadelphia Record._

BUSHNELL’S “TURTLE”

The successful use in the Russian-Japanese war (as is supposed, for no official statement has come from the Japanese officials) of submarine boats has obscured the historic fact that one hundred and thirty years ago the first attempt of the kind was made in the harbor of New York.

It is a fact that is not generally known, but which is of official record--that the first serious attempt in this line was the work of a Yale undergraduate. It was while a freshman at Yale, in the year 1771, that David Bushnell, an ingenious Connecticut boy, conceived the idea of a submarine vessel as a desirable means of defensive warfare. He kept at the problem throughout the four years of his college course, and by the time of his graduation, in 1775, had made several successful trial trips with his _American Turtle_, as his peculiar contrivance was called. The plans of this vessel were carefully examined a few years ago by Commander F. W. Barber, U. S. N., whose conclusion was that “it seems to have been the most perfect thing of its kind that has ever been constructed, either before or since the time of Bushnell.” Bushnell invented not only the first submarine boat of which there is any intelligent record, but the first torpedo as well. He discovered the principle of modern torpedo-mining--that is, the utilization of the pressure of the water to develop the desirable intensity of action in an explosion near the vessel to be destroyed. Furthermore, he was the first man to give the torpedo its modern name. All these triumphs he accomplished while an undergraduate student at Yale.

He gathered an assemblage of what he called “the first personages in Connecticut” to prove to them that this strange thing could be done. He first exploded two ounces of powder four feet under water, and later blew up a hogshead filled with stones, a wooden bottle, and a two-inch oak plank, greatly to the astonishment of his learned associates. After this preliminary display of what he could do, young Bushnell’s theories were held in greater respect throughout the rest of his college course. He had one great idea, however, and this was the possibility of constructing a boat that could sail under the enemy’s ship, attach to it a magazine with a sufficient charge of powder to destroy the vessel and all its men--the operator, meanwhile, getting safely away. He kept hard at work throughout his four undergraduate years, and by the time he was graduated had constructed such a machine and experimented with the most encouraging success.

He finished his vessel at an opportune time. He had its complicated mechanism complete and in fine running order when the Declaration of Independence was signed, and the war between England and America was under full way. He naturally had some difficulty in gaining a respectful hearing from the leading men on the colonial side. Although afterwards he was praised by Washington as “a man of great mechanical powers, fertile in inventions, and a master of execution,” his first real encouragement came from another Connecticut man, Israel Putnam. Bushnell explained his contrivance to Putnam, who after carefully examining the vessel, was much struck with its ingenuity and its possibilities of success. He gave the young inventor full permission to go ahead, and declared his intention of being present at the first trial.

The occasion for this preliminary experiment was soon at hand. The movements of General Washington about Long Island had been accompanied by the arrival of a large British fleet from Halifax under Admiral Lord Howe, brother of the commander of the British army. Putnam had been left with 4000 men in New York, and sent for Bushnell, inviting him to test his submarine boat against one of the enemy’s ships. Bushnell was himself physically incapacitated from managing his machine, for it required considerable strength. He had, however, taught his brother its fine points, and the latter in many trials had demonstrated his skill. At the critical time, however, the latter fell ill of a fever and a substitute had to be found. Ezra Lee of Lyme, Conn., was finally decided upon as the fittest man for the place. Lee had already volunteered to go in a fire-ship, and his bravery was unquestioned. Bushnell spent several days teaching Lee the management of the boat--altogether too short a time, as subsequent events showed. The British fleet lay a little above Staten Island, the flagship, against which it was determined to operate being the _Eagle_.

It was a queer craft, the like of which no man had ever seen, in which Ezra Lee embarked one dark night in August, 1776, with the firm intention of destroying the pick of the British fleet. Its shape suggested a turtle or rather two upper turtle shells, securely fastened together. A brass crown, resembling a hat, represented the head of the turtle; it was provided with glass windows, which supplied light while the boat was on the surface, and with several round doors, which were opened before submersion for the admission of air. The turtle rested in the water with its tail downwards, being held in position by a permanent lead ballast in the hold of 500 pounds. This was supplemented by 200 pounds of the same metal, which could be released at the will of the navigator, enabling him to rise suddenly to the surface. The turtle was made of oak, put together in the strongest manner; it was seven and one-half feet long and six feet high. It admitted only one person, who had room enough either to stand up or sit down. There were two air-tubes, one for letting the fresh air in and another for letting the foul air out. These were ingeniously arranged so that they operated whenever the boat was brought to the surface and closed immediately after it was submerged. There were no means of generating or supplying air while the contrivance was under water. Sufficient atmosphere to last the operator thirty minutes was supplied before the trial began, after the exhaustion of which he was obliged to rise to the surface.

The question of light presented a still greater difficulty. A candle exhausting the air too rapidly, Bushnell was obliged to find some less embarrassing substitute. He finally noted the points of the compass by two pieces of fox-fire wood--that is, wood that emitted a phosphoric light. The same method was used to determine the depth of the water. For this Bushnell constructed a peculiar contrivance, the secret of which is unknown, consisting of a glass tube, filled with water, in which a cork floated up and down. This cork was also covered with fox-fire, and by its rise and fall the operator could determine the depth to which his vessel was submerged. The boat was propelled back and forth by a paddle in front, shaped like the arm of a windmill. The operator turned this with a crank, and could go either forwards or backwards, as he desired. It was precisely the same principle as the modern screw, with the exception that it was placed in the bow instead of the stern of the boat. Another “oar,” identically the same, was arranged at right angles with the first, by means of which the vessel could be guided up or down. The progress of the boat was necessarily slow, but it is said that a strong man, with a favoring tide and current, could propel it three knots an hour. The rudder, also turned by a crank, could be used for sculling when desired. In the bottom of the vessel were two large water tanks, into which the water was let by a spring. It was by this means that the boat made its descent. There were two pumps, which the operator worked with his feet, for the expulsion of the water when he desired to rise. In case these failed to work, the two hundred pounds of lead on the bottom could be released, after which the rise was very sudden. The operator sat upright, with his head in the crown of the vessel, and by a dexterous use of his hands and feet, had little difficulty in completely mastering his boat. It required considerable practice, however, and unusual strength.

This was Bushnell’s submarine boat, but it was only one feature of his invention. His other discovery, the torpedo, was ingeniously combined with his vessel. On the stern of the boat, just above the rudder, on the outside, was a large cask, made of two pieces of oak, carefully caulked and tarred, and bound together with iron. The interior was dug out and contained a charge of powder. Within was a gun-lock, which was arranged to strike fire whenever a clock-work attachment ran down. The magazine was fastened to the boat by a screw, which could be unscrewed from within. It was contrived so that when the magazine should be disengaged from the vessel the clock-work should be set agoing. The clock-work ran down in about thirty minutes, when the gun-lock went off and ignited the charge. A short cable attached the magazine to another screw in the top of the vessel. From within the operator could fasten this screw into the bottom of a vessel and fill his own boat at the same time. He could, therefore, sail safely away, leaving the magazine attached to the bottom of the enemy’s man-of-war, and await developments.

There was no evident reason why the attempt upon the _Eagle_ should not have a satisfactory issue. Sergeant Lee was obliged to wait several nights for a favorable opportunity. Finally, at eleven o’clock one night in August, he embarked on his dangerous voyage. General Putnam was on the wharf when he pushed off, and kept a constant watch throughout the next few hours. Lee was towed by whale-boats as near the ships as the oarsmen dared to go, and was then cast off. He discovered that it was too early to make the attempt. The tide was running strong, and, in spite of all that he could do, it carried him far beyond the ships. He rowed aimlessly around until the tide slowed up, when he made directly for the man-of-war. He drew so near under the stern of the ships that he could see the British sailors and hear their voices. At a favorable moment he let the water into the reservoirs and sank. Everything up to this point worked splendidly. He had no difficulty in managing his boat under the water, and took up a favorable position directly under the keel of the man-of-war, near the stern. He at once proceeded to attach the screw to the bottom of the vessel, when he struck a formidable opposition. He had not figured on the copper with which the bottom of the ship was covered, and which resisted all his attempts to fasten the screw. At every attempt the boat rebounded from the vessel’s bottom. Lee finally moved to another part of the ship, and in so doing lost his hold completely, and rose with tremendous velocity to the surface. He came within two or three feet of the man-of-war, upon whose destruction he had been bent--a rather uncomfortable circumstance, especially as it was nearly daylight. He at once, therefore, filled the reservoirs and sank again. As it would soon be morning, however, and as he had four miles to row, he decided to abandon his attempt to blow up the man-of-war, and instead to look out for his own safety. Bushnell never blamed Lee for his failure to execute the plan, owing to the fact that he had had such slight preparation for the task.

There was naturally much disappointment over this initial failure, and especially when a British frigate came up and anchored off Bloomingdale, and Lee made another equally unsuccessful attempt. His intention this time was to go up to the stern of the vessel and, without sinking, screw in his magazine close to the edge. Discovered by the watch, he dove under the frigate, but went too deep and came up on the other side. In the year 1777, however, Bushnell sent one of his machines against the _Cerberus_, a British frigate, lying at anchor between New London and the mouth of the Connecticut River. The machine instead fell in with a schooner, anchored astern of the frigate, which had escaped Bushnell’s observation. It blew up the schooner, completely demolishing it, and killed three men. Bushnell was very much cast down by the failure of his contrivance, which he believed had never had a fair show. At the end of the war he went to France, and was present during the stirring scenes of the Revolution. His relatives lost all track of him, and supposed that he had died in a French prison or upon the guillotine, until, in 1826, they received information of his death in Georgia.

B. J. HENDRICK.

ANTHONY WALTON WHITE

[_Concluded from January Number._]

At the end of the “Western Insurrection,” in 1794, General White issued the following address to the troops:

BEDFORD (PA.), _December 5, 1794_.

The dismission and sudden departure of the Cavalry, by Troops, from Pittsburgh to their respective states and counties, prevented the General of Cavalry from conveying in Orders, at that place and period, the thanks and good wishes of the Commander-in-Chief, so handsomely and friendly expressed in the following extract from his Excellency’s last Orders, viz.: “To the Officers of every description he presents his warmest thanks, for the faithful and able support which he has derived from their exertion, in every stage of the execution of the objects intrusted to his direction; and he intrusts them to convey to his fellow-soldiers, in the most lively terms, his respectful attachment, and his best wishes for their safe return, and happy meeting with their friends.”

This praise, though flattering and justly due, cannot equal the self-approbation every good citizen must experience, who has taken so decided a part to check rebellion, restore order, and establish the best of Constitutions. The nature of Cavalry service directed the propriety of ordering a separation of the Brigade, after passing the mountains, and now affords the General an opportunity of congratulating those officers, who were favoured with separate commands, on the success attending the design of the separation; as it must be acknowledged, that the Brigade of Cavalry, with those three very respectable Troops from the city of Philadelphia, commanded by Captains Dunlap, Singer, and M’Connel, capturing in one day, and almost at the same hour, every Insurgent of the western counties of Pennsylvania, who had not previously fled from Justice, or signed a submission to the laws to which they had so basely encouraged an opposition. The complete execution of this enterprise expresses, in lively colours, the great address of the Cavalry Officers, and the military prowess of their respective Commands.

Deign, fellow-citizens and brother-soldiers, who have acted under the General’s Orders, to accept of his warmest thanks for the cheerfulness and promptitude you have shown in obeying and executing his Orders. The satisfaction he experienced in commanding you can never be erased from his mind. This became sometimes painful, by observing old military rank, gray hairs, wealth, and character, placed, by choice, in a subordinate situation, which unpleasant circumstance could only be removed by beholding, at the same time, such honourable evidence of this fact, that a true American will never embrace considerations of this kind, to shield him from dangers and hardships, when called to support the laws of his country, should they ever again be insulted or opposed by any men or set of men, wickedly combined for that purpose. Dictates of Justice direct the General of Cavalry to request Doctor Charles Smith, Brigade Surgeon; Major Carle, Inspector of the Brigade; Major Samuel Clarkson, Brigade-Quarter-Master, and Major John Striker, Brigade-Forage-Master, to accept his thanks, for the attention they have paid to their respective departments. Acknowledgements are also due from the General to Le Chevalier D’Auterroches, his Aid-de-Camp, and to Brigade-Major Dunham and Coejeman, for their faithful services. Colonels Hubley and Gibbons, who honoured the General with acting under his Orders as volunteer Brigade-Majors, will likewise please to accept his unfeigned thanks for the aid he received from them. Major James Dunham, who has the honour to bring up the rear of the Army, and is intrusted with the deposite of their victories, has fully merited that honour, by the great attention and humanity shown, by him, to those unfortunate prisoners under his immediate charge; which has been often noticed by the General, with the greatest satisfaction, during the march to this place; and speaks in strong language, the goodness of the Major’s heart. A continuation of the same attention, with every precaution for the safety of those unhappy instruments of designing men, is warmly recommended, till they shall be delivered up to the Marshal of the state of Pennsylvania. To every individual of the Cavalry, whom the General has had the honour to command, he now bids an affectionate farewell; and sincerely wishes them every domestic happiness.

ANTHONY W. WHITE,
_Brig. Gen. commanding the Cavalry
ordered on the western Expedition_.

(FROM CONTEMPORARY PRINTS)

NEW BRUNSWICK, _Feb. 3, 1795_.

On Monday, the 26th, seventy-five officers of the New Jersey cavalry, met in this city and dined together at the White Hall Tavern, His Excellency the Governor and suite honored them with their company at dinner, after which fifteen toasts were drank. The next day all the officers waited on General White, delivered the following address to him, and partook of a cold collation at his house.

SIR.

With unfeigned satisfaction, we embrace this occasion, the earliest we have been able to command, to make our warmest acknowledgements to you for the very polite and friendly sentiment conveyed to us in your last cavalry orders. This public testimony of your partiality to us and interest in our happiness, has been fully evinced in many trying circumstances. Raw and undisciplined as we were, to have met the approbation of one, so complete in military science, cannot but vastly enhance the pleasing sensations we derive, from having lent a willing aid in support of our happy constitution. If we have acted with a degree of reputation to ourselves; if we have rendered service to our country, to you sir, are we much indebted for both these advantages. Your activity, combined with an extensive knowledge of your important duties, have at all times been eminently conspicuous; your zeal for the public good, and an affectionate regard for the honor and happiness of the New Jersey cavalry, have been too well noticed and too sincerely approved, ever to be effaced from our remembrance. To see the man, who has spent years in a continued struggle for freedom, and bled in asserting our dearest rights, again at the call of his country, step forward with that ardent enthusiasm which true liberty ever inspires, did not fail to command our grateful admiration and render us emulous of such virtue. May that sacred flame of liberty which you have been so instrumental in lighting up and supporting, long burn bright in this new world and extend its genial influence from continent to continent, until tyranny shall disappear and the whole world would be emancipated.

Accept sir, our warmest approbation of your conduct and our sincere prayer that your life may be long continued, as useful to your country, an honor to the New Jersey Cavalry, and full of every comfort to yourself.

In behalf of the officers of the New Jersey Cavalry on the late expedition.

BENJ. WILLIAMSON, _Maj._
Com. 1st. Reg. Jersey Cavalry.

January 27, 1795.

To which the General replied: That the polite and affectionate address of his fellow citizens and brother soldiers, expressing their approbation of his conduct added to the heart felt satisfaction he had already experienced from his late honourable commands, claimed our warmest acknowledgements, and sincerely wish that they might enjoy every happiness and a tender of his friendship and services.

The officers spent several days together in that harmony and true friendship, to be expected only from men warmly interested in the good of their country, and the happiness of each other.

Judge Paterson, Major General Dayton and several gentlemen and officers of character and distinction, visited the social board of this patriotic band of citizen soldiers. We are told that they have appointed Major Williamson of Essex, Major Meeker of Bergen, Major Laddle of Morris, Major Baily of Sussex, Major Carle of Hunterdon, Major Quay of Monmouth, Major Dunham of Middlesex, Captain Vanderveer of Somerset, and Captains Wollcot and Shute of the Western counties, a committee to wait on the Legislature with a memorial, praying redress of certain grievances which the cavalry are subject to, from the present militia law, and that the same may be formed into regiments, we also hear that they have agreed to meet annually, at such time and place as their General may please to fix.

On Thursday last, Anthony Walton White, Esq., Adjutant-General of the Militia of New Jersey, accompanied by Generals Frelinghuysen and Bloomfield, and politely attended by the members of Congress from this State, waited upon the President of the United States, and, in behalf of the officers of the New Jersey Militia, presented the following address:

SIR.

The Commander-in-Chief, the General Officers, the General Staff and Field Officers of the Militia of the State of New Jersey, feel in common with their numerous fellow citizens who have addressed you in the present critical situation of our nation, and most cordially join them in expressing to you their high approbation of your conduct in the management of its foreign concerns, and their indignation for the insult offered to the honor and independence of the American people.

We come not, Sir, to dictate--whether peace can be preserved with the safety of our national dignity, or whether an appeal is to be made to arms, are questions intrusted to those in whose patriotism we confide, and according to their decision we shall always be prepared to act. But, Sir, at this eventful period, we deem it our duty, and feel it a pleasure, respectfully to approach our Commander-in-Chief, and to make him a solemn proffer of our lives and fortunes in the service of our country. It is not, Sir, for soldiers to boast; but we know the troops whom we have the honor to command; we have been eye witnesses to their zeal in the cause of freedom; we have been their companions in many toils and many sufferings, and if our beloved country calls, we shall again cast the eye of confidence along their embattled ranks.

Let our enemies flatter themselves that we are a divided people. In New Jersey, Sir, with the exception of a few degraded and a few deluded characters, to whose persons and to whose services the invading foe shall be welcome the moment of their arrival, and whom we engage to convey in safety to their lines--in New Jersey, Sir, there is but ONE VOICE, and that is the voice of confidence in the federal government: the voice of perfect satisfaction with your administration of it; and the voice of firmness and determination to support the laws and constitution, the honor and dignity of the United States; and, Sir, for the defence of these, we do this day, in the presence of the God of armies, and in firm reliance in his protection, solemnly pledge to you our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

COMMANDER IN CHIEF AND GENERAL STAFF OFFICERS

Richard Howell, _Commander-in-Chief_.
Anthony W. White, _Adjutant-General_.
D. Woodruff, _Sec’ry to Commander-in-Chief_.
R. Boggs, _Judge Advocate_.
Aaron Ogden, }
J. Rhea, }
Mark Thompson, } _Aids to Commander-in-Chief_.
Aaron Dunham, }
B. Loyd, }
John Lacey, }
Wm. Wykoff, }
James F. Armstrong, }
John Croes, } _Chaplains to Commander-in-Chief_.
John Neilson, _Paymaster General_.
James Schureman, _Quarter-Master Gen._
Thomas Lowry, _Commissary General_.
N. Belleville, _Physician General_.
Moses Scott, _Surgeon General_.
Charles Smith, _Surgeon of Cavalry_.

MAJOR GENERALS

Elias Dayton,
Wm. Helmes,
F. Frelinghuysen,
Joseph Bloomfield.

BRIGADIER GENERALS

John N. Cumming,
Richard Dey,
John Doughty,
James Giles,
Elisha Lawrence,
John F. Morris,
Clarkson Edgar,
John Hilt,
Joseph Brearly,
Franklin Davenport,
John Heard,
A. V. Middlesworth,
Wm. Todd,
Clement Wood,
John Hardenburgh,
Wm. M’Kussack,
John Frelinghuysen,
Gershom Dunn,
Samuel Morford,
John Baird,
J. Veghte,
Andrew Lyle.

LIEUT. COLONELS

James Heddin,
Wm. Crane,
Jedediah Swan,
C. Ford,
Jacob Arnold,
Wm. W. Bell,
Thomas Blanch,
Nehemiah Wade,
Prudden Alling,
Samuel Quay,
Wessel T. Stout,
Barnes Smock,
James Green,
Elias Conover,
P. J. Stryker,
Henry Vanderveer,
James Henry,
E. Beatty,
Robert Ross,
Wm. M’Cullough,
Chs. Pemberton,
David Bishop,
David Schamp,
John Vancleve,
Jona. Black,
P. Hunt,
Thomas Heston,
Joshua L. Howell,
Daniel Benszett,
Dayton Newcomb,
Aula M’Calta,
Eli Elmer,
Joshua Sihnn,
I. Beekman,
Andrew Sinnickson,
Phinehas Carman,
Joseph Marsh,
Andrew M’Dowell,
C. Shipmons,
Thomas Paul,
Wm. Kolberdieu,
Wm. Gasill,
John M’Peck,
Richard Edsall,
Elias Ogden,
Solomon Broderick,
John Stevens,
John Stevenson,
Charles Reading,
Jona. Smith,
Jona. Porter,
Wm. Dumont,
Samuel Becks,
Robert Lucas,
Joseph M’Ilvaine,
Wm. Pearson,
John Lawrence,
Samuel I. Keer,
Wm. Dick,
John Forman,
Albemarle Collins,
Joel Gibbs,
Thomas Wilkins,
Samuel Flaninggam,
E. L. Whitclock,
Nathaniel Beach,
Matt Williamson, Jun.
Wm. Dayton,
Wm. Shute,
David Clark,
Nathan Ford.

MAJOR COMMANDANTS

Peter Keenon,
Ralph P. Lott,
James Dunham.

MAJORS

Cornelius Hoagland,
Benjamin Jackson,
James Craig,
Thomas Little,
Isaac Kip,
Jon. Vanbueren,
Samuel Reading,
Hiram Smith,
E. Vangelden,
James Conover,
James Cox,
Samuel P. Forman,
Gared Stillwell,
John Stillwell,
John Budd,
Wm. Colfax,
Abraham Pust,
Marmaduke Stokes,
John Tice,
James Williams,
Enoch Leeds,
Ephraim Buck,
Almerain Brooks,
Morris Beasley,
Jacob Hussy,
Robert G. Johnson,
Richard Fisher,
Wm. Gordon Forman,
J. H. Imlay.

To which the President returned the following:

ANSWER:

_To the Commander-in-Chief, the General Officers, the General Staff
and Field Officers of the State of New Jersey._

GENTLEMEN:

Among all the numerous addresses which have been presented to me, in the present critical situation of our nation, there has been none which has done me more honor, none animated with a more glowing love of our country, or expressive of sentiments more determined and magnanimous. The submission you avow to the civil authority, an indispensable principle in the character of warriors in a free government, at the same moment when you make a solemn proffer of your Lives and Fortunes in the service of your country, is highly honorable to your dispositions as Citizens and Soldiers, and proves you perfectly qualified for the duties of both characters. Officers and Soldiers of New Jersey have as little occasion as they have disposition to boast. Their country has long boasted of their ardent zeal in the cause of freedom and their invincible intrepidity in the day of battle.

Your voice of confidence and satisfaction, of firmness and determination to support the laws and Constitution of the United States, has a charm in it irresistible to the feelings of every American bosom; but, when in the presence of the God of armies, and in firm reliance on his protection, you solemnly pledge your lives and fortunes and sacred honor, you have recorded words which ought to be indelibly imprinted in the memory of every American youth.--With these sentiments in the hearts, and this language in the mouths of Americans in general, the greatest nation may menace at its pleasure, and the degraded and deluded characters may tremble lest they should be condemned to the severest punishment an American can suffer--that of being conveyed in safety within the lines of an invading enemy.

JOHN ADAMS.
Philadelphia, May 31st, 1798.

A. S. GRAHAM.

NEW BRUNSWICK, N. J.

WHERE ARE EVANGELINE AND GABRIEL BURIED?

The priests and sextons of old St. Joseph’s, St. Mary’s and Holy Trinity Churches, of Philadelphia, are often called upon by visitors to the city, to point out the grave of Evangeline and her lover, Gabriel, the delightful creatures of Longfellow’s fancy, in relating the expulsion of the Acadians from their happy homes and their dispersion along the coast of the British provinces.

Of course, Gabriel and Evangeline are buried nowhere, as they never existed, save in the imagination of the poet. The poem he calls “A Tale of Acadie,” a “mournful tradition still sung by the pines of the forest.” Still, it is astonishing that so many who have read the poem have believed in the actuality of the tradition in its relation of chief characters, in its Evangeline and her lover, and have sought their graves at these three Catholic graveyards. St. Joseph’s now has no burial ground attached to the church. It had originally, but after 1759 the dead of the congregation were interred in the ground across the street, and, after 1763, called St. Mary’s Street.

Longfellow’s poem represents the time of the meeting, death and burial, as occurring during a pestilence. This was the yellow fever of 1793, as no general epidemic had occurred in the city from the time of the coming of the Acadians in November, 1755, until that awful pestilence of 1793 ravaged the city.

But St. Joseph’s, in that year, had no burial ground at the church. The latest interment I know of was that of Father Farmer, August, 1786. Perhaps a few persons holding lots might have been permitted to inter in that graveyard after the opening of St. Mary’s ground in 1759, but most unlikely that Gabriel, an inmate of the city almshouse, would have been brought there for burial, and later Evangeline laid in a grave “side by side” by his.

So, though Old St. Joseph’s--mainly because it is called Old, and because of the nearness of the Quakers’ Almshouse (torn down in 1874), which many have supposed to have been the almshouse Longfellow had in mind--is the most probable place of the burial of the lovers, in the belief of many, including usually well informed “Penn,” of the _Evening Bulletin_, who, on October 12, 1898, declared that as Evangeline had long been a Sister, who knew the city and its seamy side, she, like a good Catholic, could have saved his body from being buried in the potter’s field, and would have carried it to the ground of Old St. Joseph’s.

(It is to be remarked that Philadelphia had no Sisters of Mercy then, nor Sisters of any Order until 1814, when the Sisters of Charity came from Mrs. Seton’s to take charge of St. Joseph’s Orphan Asylum, on Sixth Street.)

St. Mary’s, on Fourth Street, almost directly opposite to St. Joseph’s, is not so often called at nor so frequently assigned as the supposed place of interment.

To the opinions of those, who have supposed that either of these “churchyards” was the one Longfellow had in mind when writing the poem, I, years ago suggested that Holy Trinity Churchyard, on Sixth Street, was the most likely place--the place most probable--the one which Longfellow saw and years after had in mind.

The City Almshouse, at the time of the fever in 1793, was on Spruce Street, south side, from Tenth to Eleventh Streets.

It was there when, in 1824, Longfellow visited the city.

On the same street from Eighth to Ninth, was then, and is now, the Pennsylvania Hospital. Longfellow doubtless saw both, and the recollection of either came to him when writing the poem, as the place where Gabriel, dying, was attended to by Evangeline, in the city poorhouse. Though there has been discussion as to which of these institutions Longfellow had in mind, it could not be settled, because the poet, in writing to Charles H. A. Esling, Esq., of Philadelphia, now a resident of Germany, could not himself tell what building he had in mind.

But the point with us is as to where the lovers were buried. They have so impressed countless thousands, that one may almost consider them as actual personages, who lived and moved and died, and were buried in our city--but where?

When it is remembered that the Pennsylvania Hospital and the City Almshouse were both on Spruce Street, and that either of these could have been the scene of the meeting of Evangeline and Gabriel, what is more probable, that, as Longfellow walked Spruce Street, in 1824, he could, at the western entrance of Holy Trinity church have glanced at the passageway to the entrance of the church and seen as you can to-day see, the little churchyard attached to it? Then passing eastward, to Sixth Street, and turning northward, he had to pass the church, when again he saw “the little Catholic churchyard”--the only such in the city in 1824, and the smallest even to-day.

Remember, Longfellow, in describing the burial place of the lovers, wrote:

“Side by side, in their nameless graves, the lovers are sleeping,
Under the humble walls of the little Catholic churchyard.
In the heart of the city, they lie, unknown and unnoticed;
Daily the tides of life go ebbing and flowing beside them.”

Mind, he says, “the little Catholic churchyard.” Many, I fear, have thought of Old St. Joseph’s, “the little Catholic church,” and so, have assigned to it the burial place, but it is “the little Catholic churchyard,” which Longfellow speaks of, and the smallest such which Philadelphia had in 1824, or could have had in 1793, the time of the pestilence, was Holy Trinity, which dates from 1789. It best fills the probabilities in the case: the almshouse at Tenth Street; the hospital at Eighth; the little Catholic churchyard at Sixth Street.