Ja?ne$ Feniwore Cooper

to, and it was perhaps lucky that the lateness of the hour
prevented him. Even the friendly correspondent of the
Democratic Albany paper, the Argus, noted that when he
was through with his minute exciting account of the battle
and proceeded to a discussion of the libel "a feeling of regret
could easily be perceived in the countenance of every one,
that he should find himself compelled to turn from a subject
so interesting to them to one so unattractive if not odious."

The arbitrators' a\vard directed Stone to pay Cooper $300
(the sum that had been agreed on in advance if he won) and
to publish their decision in New York, Albany, and Wash-
ington. They agreed unanimously that the AYjcj/ History
was written in a spirit of impartiality and justice and that
Duer's review was guilty of personal imputations, misquota-
tions, misstatemenss, and untruths. One arbitrator, however,
irrationally refused to find the review partial and unjust,
because he felt that it had been written in defense of a dead
friend. More soundly, he suggested that Cooper's duty as a
historian necessitated his taking some notice of the contro-
versy over the battle and that it was an error of judgment to
write as if Elliott's conduct had been universally approved.
He dissented also from the majority finding that Cooper's
account of Lake Erie was true in its essential facts. Cooper's
triumph on this point is the more remarkable because most
later historians disagree with him. Henry Adams, Theodore
Roosevelt, Alfred T. Mahan, and George R. Clark are cer-
tain that Elliott was at fault in not coming to the aid of
Perry. Maclay in his History of the United States ATarv, like
Cooper, follows Perry's official report and makes both men
heroes.

During the years of his litigation the greater part of
• 161 *