called low, brutal, common, and vulgar, but such accusations are
incompatible with the position he occupied. He might have been
received, of course, but he never would have been not merely
tolerated, but admired and sought after, if the charges were correct.

In saying this, I do not wish to be understood as being oblivious of
his faults. As occasion has demanded, I have not hesitated to call
attention to them. He was irritable and impatient, captious and
quarrelsome, at times variable and inconsistent. We find him
addressing a superior at one time in terms that are almost too
respectful, and in his next communication writing with a blunt
frankness of a superior to an inferior. This frequently caused him
trouble, inasmuch as he usually had to deal with men who were his
superiors in birth and station, though not to be compared with him in
talents and education. The limitations of his humble origin account
for this variant attitude to the world's so-called great.

His great fault was his vanity. It was a weakness, like some of his
other qualities, colossal. It manifested itself in every way that
vanity can manifest itself. No defense can be uttered. We recognize
the fact and note it with pain, but in the presence of his great
qualities pass it by, after calling attention to the strange fact that
other and more famous sailors, including the greatest man who ever
fought a ship or squadron, Lord Nelson, were under the spell of the
same weakness--and other greater weaknesses. No character in history
is without weakness. There was but One who manifested no weakness, not
even on a cross.

His mind was a well-furnished one. From boyhood he had cultivated the
studious habit with which he was endowed in large degree, with the
assiduity and perseverance of a Scotsman. He was thoroughness itself;
whatever he attempted he did so well that he usually left nothing
further to be desired. His brain was alert and active. He was
quick-witted, and not devoid of humor, although there is always a
touch of sternness in his persiflage. His letters fall into two
classes. When he wrote under pressure of strong emotion or excitement,
he expressed his personality with his pen as adequately as he did in
his actions; his remarks were short, sharp, direct, logical, and in
good taste; his style was vigorous and perspicuous. On the other hand,
he frequently descended, especially when addressing women, into
verbosity, and verbosity of that most intolerable species known as
fine writing--witness his letter to Lady Selkirk. As a phrase maker
many of his sentences ring with his spirit. "I do not wish to have
command of any ship that does not sail fast, for I intend to go in
harm's way"; "I have not yet begun to fight"; "I have ever looked out
for the honor of the American flag"; "I can never renounce the
glorious title of a citizen of the United States," are some of his
sayings which have passed into history, and might appropriately serve
for inscriptions on the four sides of his monument, when a too tardy
people pay him the honor of erecting one.[57]

He spoke French well and wrote it better. He found no difficulty in
making himself understood in France, and that language was used
entirely in his Russian campaign. In an age when everybody scribbled
verse he wrote poetry which is creditable to him. It has been remarked
that it was much better verse than Nelson wrote. Like many other naval
officers of that day, he played the flute and had a taste for music.
He was undoubtedly a member of the Presbyterian Church by baptism in
infancy, and although, so far as is known, he was not actively in
communion with any religious organization during his life, he was in
no sense an irreligious man. "They that go down to the sea in ships
that do business in great waters," who see "the works of the Lord, and
his wonders in the deep," are rarely ultimately indifferent to
religion. They are superficially careless, perhaps, but they are
neither skeptics nor atheists.[58] Nothing could be sweeter and more
gentle than his letters to his sisters with their unequivocal
recognition of the Power above which shapes our ends.

In a day when seamen--and no less the naval officer than the
merchantman--considered a capacity for picturesque and plentiful
profanity a mark of professional aptitude, he was distinguished by
refraining from oaths and curses. Mark the words: "Do not swear, Mr.
Stacy--in another moment we may all be in eternity--but let us do our
duty." Uttered in the heat of action, and in a critical moment, the
sentence is as rare as it is beautiful, and it somehow reminds me of
the dying words of Nelson in the cockpit of the Victory. He was
clean-mouthed and clean-hearted. I do not wish to say that he was
immaculate, a saint, or anything of that sort, but there is no man of
similar upbringing, who lived in his day, and under such
circumstances, whose life appears to be cleaner. There is a total
absence of sensuality in his career. In over thirteen hundred letters
which have been examined, there is not a coarse or indelicate
allusion; no _double entendre_ ever sullies his pages, and the name of
no woman is mentioned save in terms of respect. It is probable that
his amour with Madame de Telison passed the bounds of Platonic
friendship or romantic admiration, and it is possible that they did
have a child; but even this is by no means certain, and the conclusion
may do him an injustice.

When one remembers that from a tender age he was deprived of those
gentle restraints imposed by pious and loving family ties, his
character is remarkable. I have observed in much experience with men
that when the check put upon humanity by the Church, by association
with good women, and by keeping in touch with law-abiding society is
removed, and men are assembled far from these things in camps or
ships, where the principal requirement is a stern obedience to law,
and the atmosphere strictly masculine, they are apt to think, say, and
do things to which they would never descend under ordinary
circumstances. Jones had been a sailor--an apprentice boy at that--at
twelve years of age; for sixteen years thereafter he had never been
off blue water for more than a few months. Five years of that time he
had been on a slaver, beginning as third mate at sixteen and quitting
as chief mate at twenty-one, and of all the degrading, brutal
influences to which humanity could be subjected there was nothing that
equaled the horrors of a ship in the slave trade. The tough moral
fiber of the Scotsman stood him in good stead here, for the thing
which with a boy's indifference he could countenance, he could not
endure as a man.

And this brings us to another of his qualities, which awakens our
interest--his intense love of liberty. Probably it began with the
slave trade; at any rate, it was always and everywhere present with
him. Practically his first military effort was an attempt to set free
American prisoners, and his last commission from the United States was
the appointment to effect the release of the unfortunate Americans
held by the Barbary States. Thus he fought not merely for the
establishment of civil liberty and national independence, but with an
eye single to the individual prisoner, and his spirit was sufficiently
catholic to make him kindly disposed even when the prisoners were
trophies of his prowess. His pleading at L'Orient, when he was left
with the dishonored draft, mutinous crew, and over one hundred
prisoners, was as much for those Englishmen whom the fortune of war
had thrown into his power as for his own people.

Like most men of fierce passions and quick temper, he did not long
cherish animosities. He was not a good hater, and this very quality
sometimes led him into mistaken kindness. He was a humane man, in no
sense the cruel and bloodthirsty warrior of popular imagination. He is
thankful, for instance, after the descent on Whitehaven, that there
was no loss of life on either side, and we have no reason to doubt the
genuineness of his outburst of gratitude when peace was declared,
although it left him without occupation.

He had a good head for business also. In spite of his roving life he
succeeded in amassing considerable property, and his success as a
trader before he entered the naval service had been better than the
average. In fact, his merchant services resulted in an unbroken line
of testimonials not only to his capacity but to his probity and
trustworthiness as well. As a negotiator or diplomatist he was open,
straightforward, persistent, and unusually successful. A solid
foundation of good qualities must have been laid by his homespun
mother in those twelve years in which she watched over and shaped the
future character of the boy.

While he was too much of a wanderer ever to form those deep and
abiding social ties which are the delight of old age and
reflection--though to youth matters of indifference--yet his various
duties brought him into intimate association with great men all over
the world, and there is a universal testimony from them as to his
worth. They were not blind to his faults, but they saw the worthiness
of the man beneath them. Franklin, the keen philosopher and diplomat,
who knew him best, esteemed him most; but Robert Morris, the
incorruptible financier; Thomas Jefferson, the great Democrat;
Gouverneur Morris, the accomplished man of the world; John Adams, the
shrewd statesman; and Washington, the first of them all, esteemed and
admired him, and considered themselves honored in his friendship.
Richard Dale, his great subordinate, who had been with him in times
that tried men's souls, entertained the most devoted feelings of
attachment toward him, and Cooper, who knew Dale personally, tells us
that to the day of his death he never lost his affectionate regard for
his old captain. The terms of their intimacy when not on duty
permitted Dale to address Jones by the friendly name of Paul, and
Cooper chronicles the peculiar tenderness with which he uttered the
word in his old age.

Among the French who respected and admired him, the gallant and
impetuous Lafayette is pre-eminent. That warm-hearted representative
of the haute noblesse of France sought opportunities for service with
the commodore, and never failed to express his affection for him in
the most unequivocal words. Among others were Rochambeau, the soldier;
Malesherbes, the great advocate, defender of his king; the Baron de
Viomenil, who led the French assaulting column at Yorktown; and
Admirals d'Orvilliers, de Vaudreuil, and d'Estaing. Among other
foreign friends were van der Capellen, the Dutch statesman and
diplomat and friend of America; of Russians, Krudner and Grimm; and
the immortal Kosciusko, of Poland. His acquaintance with these men was
no mere passing contact, but was intimate and personal; and his
relations in most instances were not temporary and casual, but lasting
and permanent. Laughton, the English authority in naval history, in
his famous sketch entitled "Paul Jones, 'the Pirate'"[59] says that
Jones' moral character may be summed up in one word--detestable! He
calls him a renegade and a calculating liar, incapable of friendship
or of love, and says that, "Whenever his private actions can be
examined, they must be pronounced to be discreditable; and as to many
others that appear to be so, there is no evidence in favor except his
own unsubstantial and worthless testimony." It is not an indictment
against Jones alone that Professor Laughton so lightly writes, but
against the great men who, with infinitely better opportunities for
observation than any of his biographers have enjoyed, have not been
slow to call him their friend. Is it to be conceived for a single
moment that Franklin, Jefferson, Lafayette, the Morrises, or any of
the others, would have associated with, corresponded with, and
publicly praised a vulgar blackguard? Would such a man, however
successful, have been admitted to any society whatsoever? Or, having
in the first flush of joy at the news of his tremendous victory been
so admitted, could such a man have retained his position for thirteen
years--until he died, in fact? Nonsense! He looked like a gentleman;
he wrote like a gentleman; whenever his words have been recorded we
find he spoke like a gentleman, and he certainly fought like one.

Never was a man so calumniated. His actions were so great that intense
interest was felt in his career from the day of his arrival in Europe,
and after his death quantities of sketches of him appeared, many of
which are still extant. They are of the chap-book order--the dime
novel of the day--and usually contain an awe-inspiring picture, and
relate a tale in which smuggling, gambling, falsehood, theft, rape,
murder, and everything else that is vile, are included. Laughton seems
to have arrived at his estimation of Jones by accepting these
scandalous tales as authentic, and building his biography of material
culled from these disgraceful and discredited sources. No man can
conceal his real character for any great length of time, especially a
man in official station, who lives in the white light of public
criticism. If Jones were the creature that Laughton describes him, it
would appear somewhere in some serious page of his own. He was a most
voluminous correspondent--Philip II was not a more indefatigable
letter writer than he--and he spoke of the subjects under discussion
with a sailor's frankness. Why is it that none of these things are
evident? He was foolish sometimes, but never base. It is too late to
write down in a few careless words the great men who entertained so
high an opinion of the commodore. But Professor Laughton is not alone
in his opinions. Indeed, his conclusions appear to represent a general
English sentiment. So great a novelist as the gentle Thackeray calls
Jones a traitor, and the popular opinion even in this day does not
seem to have changed. In the current number of the London Academy[60]
he is again called a "pirate." Let us settle this question at least.

What is a pirate? Says President Woolsey: "Piracy is robbery on the
sea, or by descent from the sea upon the coast, committed by persons
not holding a commission from, or at the time pertaining to, any
established state. It is the act (1) of persons forming an
organization for the purpose of plunder, or with malicious intent; but
who, inasmuch as such a body is not constituted for political
purposes, can not be said to be a body politic; (2) of persons who,
having in defiance of law seized possession of a chartered vessel, use
it for the purpose of robbery; (3) of persons taking a commission from
two belligerent adversaries. The reason for ranking these latter among
pirates is that the _animus furandi_ is shown by acting under two
repugnant authorities. It has been held by some that a vessel which
takes commissions even from two allies is guilty of piracy, but others
regard such an act only as illegal and irregular."[61]

Chancellor Kent calls piracy "robbery, forceful plunder, or murder by
marauders on the high seas _in the spirit and intent of universal
hostility_." The Century Dictionary defines it as follows:
"Specifically in the law of nations, the crime of depredations or
willful and aggressive destruction of life and property, committed on
the seas by persons having no commission or authority from any
established state. As commonly used, it implies something more than a
simple theft with violence at sea, and includes something of the idea
of general hostility to law."

By any of these definitions can Paul Jones be called a pirate? It will
be readily seen that the charge hangs upon the question as to whether
Jones held a commission from an established state. In fact, the
determination of that point settles the matter. He was regularly
commissioned a captain in the navy of the United States, as we have
seen.[62] Was the United States an established power, a sovereign
state? The United States began to be with the Declaration of
Independence. To quote Woolsey again: "The sovereignty of a state
dates from its _de facto_ existence, and does not depend upon its
recognition by foreign powers. Thus the sovereignty of the United
States was complete from July 4, 1776, not 1782, when the English
Government recognized, not granted, its independence." If the United
States had not a legal existence as a sovereign power competent to
wage war, and therefore to issue commissions to naval officers, until
the treaty of peace, England would have granted independence thereby,
instead of which she recognized a long-accomplished fact. Moreover,
the British Government, long before peace was declared, had conceded
belligerent rights to the revolted colonies, after much protestation.
But necessary privileges of belligerency are those of raising forces
and commissioning officers whose status as individual belligerents is
determined by the recognition. None of the American prisoners taken
from time to time were hanged as rebels or traitors, nor would such
action have been permitted by the British people, if it had been
seriously entertained by the king. Even if they had captured Paul
Jones, the English, in all their fury, would not have dared to treat
him as a pirate. Upon the point of law there is no justification for
the charge. Paul Jones' commission was as valid a document as any
under which a naval officer ever sailed. The sovereignty of the United
States had been recognized long before the termination of the war by
France, Spain, and Holland, and Frederick the Great, by opening the
port of Dantzic to American ships, had practically committed himself
to that side; although the failure of any or all of these to do so
would not have abrogated our _de facto_ existence as a nation.

But, turning from the subject of the commission as established, let us
examine the other phases involved in the charge. Piracy consists of
murder and robbery in a spirit of universal hostility toward humanity
(the _animus furandi_ of Woolsey's paragraph). Jones directed his
attacks at England alone. There was no killing unless in open combat;
no robbery except by taking ships and property in open warfare, and
surely Jones' conduct with regard to Selkirk's plate was not that of a
robber or a pirate! By the law of nations a pirate, whatever his
nationality, is subject to the jurisdiction of any country. Thus, an
English pirate caught by the French Government, or a French pirate
caught by the English Government, would be summarily dealt with
without the slightest reference to the country of his nationality. If
Jones had been a pirate France would either have made short work of
him, or else have incurred the odium of humanity as an abettor of
piracy.

His acts were not those of an irresponsible person or a body of people
who sent him forth with malicious intent, but were undertaken for
distinctly political purposes at the instance of an undoubted body
politic. These purposes were: (1) The protection of our coasts by
showing the vulnerability of the coasts of England. (2) The stoppage
of the ravages on our seaboard, by demonstrating some of their horrors
in the land of the ravagers. (3) The securing of prisoners by which
the principle of exchange should be established, and thus our citizens
released from a captivity in which they were treated with scant regard
to the laws of humanity. (4) The breaking up of the enemy's commerce
and the impairment of his material resources, so that the burden of
consequences would induce him to end the war and recognize our
independence. (5) The making of a diversion in the north which would
facilitate the proposed grand operations of the French and Spanish
fleets in the south. These are legitimate motives in the highest
sense. They are of the deepest importance, and they constitute a brief
catalogue of his accomplishments. Add to the list the shattering of
British prestige by his hard and successful fighting, and mention the
way he contrived to force the Netherlands finally to declare for the
United States, and we have a catalogue of achievements of which any
one might be proud.[63]

There was no thought in Jones' mind of private gain. Prize money had
accrued from captures from time immemorial, but Jones was ambitious of
distinction, and as anxious to worthily serve his country as Farragut
or Sampson, and the question of prize money was purely a minor one
with him. If gain had been his object, a privateering commission which
he was urged to accept in France--and which he could undoubtedly have
received in America--but which he rejected with disdain, would have
given him greater opportunity than he ever enjoyed of acquiring
wealth. His whole career, in fact, shows him to have been absolutely
indifferent to money. He never hoarded or amassed it, and, though he
received large sums from time to time, he usually spent it in generous
profusion as fast as it came in. Had professional advancement been his
sole desire, he would have accepted the rank of _Capitaine de
Vaisseau_--that is, a captain of a ship of the line--which
d'Orvilliers had offered to procure for him, from which he might have
progressed to the highest naval rank, instead of which he chose to
remain in command of the petty little Ranger. How Laughton can deny
his enthusiasm for America when, with but little hope of reward, he
periled his liberty and his life in her service, and absolutely
refused under any circumstances to withdraw from that service, I fail
to understand.[64]

He did not, in defiance of law, charter a vessel for the purpose of
waging private war. On the contrary, his ship was provided by the
French king, and commissions for those officers who had not been
commissioned directly by Congress, as had Jones himself, were issued
by Franklin, who possessed the unquestioned power to do this by the
specific action of Congress. Indeed, such was Franklin's power, that
when he displaced Landais from his command he did not hesitate to
overrule a commission issued by Congress under circumstances of
peculiar importance, and he was upheld by that body when his action
was called in question.

Nor did Jones take a commission from two belligerent adversaries--that
is, he had no commission from England which he threw up to accept that
of the United States. He had never served in the English navy in any
capacity. There were officers in the United States land service who
had held English commissions and yet accepted American commands, but
Jones was not one of them. He had never, until he entered the Russian
service, sailed under any commission save that of the United States,
and one of the noblest acts of his life was his indignant repudiation
of a French letter of marque when his acceptance of it was considered
the only way of saving his head. Nothing could induce him to declare
the Alliance a French ship in those hazardous moments in the Texel
when he was menaced by the Dutch fleet on one side and the English
fleet on the other, nor would he even temporarily hoist the French
flag on that ship. He did not even commit the so-called illegal and
irregular act of accepting a commission from two allies, for he
refused a French commission again and again. This certainly
constitutes a clear and overwhelming refutation of the charge of
piracy. Indeed, on the question of piracy, Jones' own ingenious
comment is not without interest. Laughton has called attention to it
in the following words:

"Paul Jones strongly objected to the word as applied to himself; he
had, he said, looked in the dictionary and found the definition of
pirate to be 'an enemy against mankind.' Now, he was not the enemy of
mankind, but only the enemy of England. With a _tu quoque_ argument,
not wanting in ingenuity, he urged that, as England was then at war
with the whole of America, the greater part of Europe, and much of
Asia, not to speak of a part of Africa, she, in point of fact, came as
near being the enemy of mankind as could well be conceived--that
England was therefore the pirate, not Paul Jones."

Why was it that the English called him a pirate, put a price on his
head, and attempted to compass his death or capture by private hands?
Why was it that he evoked such widespread animosity, and became the
object of a hatred which has not exhausted itself to this day? Surely
not because he had been a British subject! All who fought on the
American side had been British subjects. Jones had removed to America
and had determined to settle there before the war broke out. Why
should any one attempt to insinuate that the same feelings which
actuated Adams, Washington, and Patrick Henry did not operate to make
him espouse the colonial cause? He was as fond of freedom as they, and
as anxious to promote it.

Many of the most distinguished colonists were not only British
subjects, but they had worn the king's uniform, fought under the
king's flag, and eaten the king's bread; as, for instance, the great
Washington. Richard Montgomery, an Irishman, who laid down a life
valuable to his adopted country when he fell in the assault on Quebec,
had been a British officer; and there were many others, some of whom,
like the traitor Charles Lee and the worthless Gates, were actually
half-pay officers in the British army when they entered the American
service!

Among the naval officers, the heroic Biddle, who matched the little
Randolph, of thirty-two small guns, against the huge line of battle
ship Yarmouth, and fought until his ship was blown to pieces, and he
and all his crew were lost except four men, had been a midshipman in
the British navy with Nelson. Stout old John Barry, who commanded the
Alliance when he captured the Atlanta and the Trepassy, and fought the
last action of the war by beating the frigate Sibylle, of superior
force, was an Irishman.[65] The most bigoted Englishmen to-day speak
of those men with respect which they will not accord to Jones. Why is
this?

The reason for the strange exception lies in the brilliant success
with which he cruised and fought. The English claimed and exercised an
absolute and practically undisputed supremacy on the high seas. Their
arrogant navy for more than a hundred years had been invincible. In
single ship actions they had always conquered. No enemy had landed on
their shores for over a century. They could stand being beaten on
land--they were accustomed to it. With few notable exceptions England
does not produce great soldiers--Carlyle feelingly refers to the
average English commander as a "wooden hoop pole wearing a cocked
hat"[66]--but such a line of sailors as had sprung from their shores
has never been equaled in the history of the world. Such sea
leadership and such sea fighting has never been exceeded, or even
equaled, by any nation.[67]

The capture of the Serapis was a trifling circumstance; it did not
impair the naval efficiency or abridge the maritime supremacy of
England an appreciable degree; but it had a moral significance
that could not be misunderstood by the nations of the world. They saw
and approved.[68] English ships had been beaten in fair fight, in one
instance by a ship of equal, and in the other instance of inferior,
force. The English coasts, in spite of swarms of great ships of the
line, had been shown to be as vulnerable as any other.[69] The affront
had been to her pride, and never since the days that brave old
Tromp--gallant Dutchman, for whose character I have the greatest
admiration--swept the narrow seas with a broom at his masthead, and
actually entered the Thames under that same provoking emblem, had
England suffered such naval humiliation. The English cheek tingles
still from the blow dealt upon it by the hot-handed sailor. Naturally,
they did not love Paul Jones. The hatred, which after a hundred years
still rankles, is evidence of what they feel--and what he did! As for
us, we love the bold little captain for the enemies he has made.

It has been stated by unthinking people that the Bon Homme Richard was
a privateer or a letter of marque: in one case an armed vessel owned
by private individuals and authorized, under certain restrictions, to
cruise at private expense to prey upon the commerce of the enemy; in
the other case, an armed vessel engaged in trade, but possessing the
right to capture ships of the enemy should she happen to fall in with
them. There is nothing disgraceful about either of these commissions,
though, to be sure, their essence consists in making war for
individual gain. The Bon Homme Richard was purchased and converted
into a man-of-war by the French Government, and then loaned to the
American Government for the time being. De Chaumont acted only as the
representative of the king--that is, of the Government. There was no
question of individual gain in the matter. The money for the sale of
the prizes was received, and the share of Jones was paid, by the
French Government. Therefore it was a Government ship, not a private
vessel. France and the United States were allies in a war against
England when she was commissioned, and the transaction was customary
and legitimate. The Bon Homme Richard was as bona fide an American
man-of-war as the Constitution. Of course, there could be no exception
to the status of the Ranger or any of the earlier ships in which Paul
Jones sailed.

I have considered the personal character and professional status of
Paul Jones, now let me say a few words as to his qualities as an
officer. Here at last we reach a field in which there is practically
little disagreement. First of all, he was a thorough and accomplished
seaman. His experiences had been many and varied. His handling of the
Providence in the Gut of Canso, of the Alfred along the coast of Cape
Breton, his splendid seamanship in the Ariel in the terrific gale off
the Penmarques, his daring passage of the Baltic amid the winter gales
and ice, not to speak of the way he maneuvered the Richard in the
battle with the Serapis, all tell the same story of skill and address.
Not only did he understand the sailing of ships, but he acquired no
small familiarity with the principles of naval architecture. Witness
his remodeling of the Alliance, the improvements he introduced in the
America, and the skillful way he managed the launching of that ship.
Some of his suggestions were radical, and some of the principles he
laid down were embodied in shipbuilding by naval architects until the
advent of the ironclad age.

He was a stern disciplinarian, and usually managed to work his very
indifferent crews into something like fair shape. In none of his
commands did he have a first-class crew of American seamen, such as
the 1812 frigates exhibited. His sway on his ships was absolute. His
officers were generally creatures of his own making (Simpson being an
exception), and completely under his domination; with few exceptions,
like Dale, whom he loved and respected, they were poor enough. In his
passionate impatience with their stupidity or inefficiency, he
sometimes treated them with great indignity, even going to the length
of kicking them out of the cabin when they displeased him.[70] He was
a fierce commander, who brooked no interference, needed no
suggestions, and had no tolerance for ignorance and incapacity.
Notwithstanding all this, he was a merciful captain in an age in which
the gospel of force, punctuated by the cat-o'-nine-tails, was the only
one in vogue on ships of war. He resorted but rarely to the practice
of flogging, and in comparison with most commanders of the period his
rule was not intolerable. He did not, however, inspire affection in
his crews; they respected his talents, trusted to his skill, and
admired his courage, but nothing more. His men were drilled and
exercised incessantly, and target practice was had as frequently as
the poverty of his supplies permitted. His ships were all notably
clean and orderly.

As a commander we may consider his achievements from three points of
view: as a strategist, as a tactician, and as a fighter. Strategic
operations tend to bring you where sound policy dictates you should
be, while tactical maneuvers refer to the manipulation of your force
at the point of contact. A man may be a brilliant strategist and a
poor tactician, or the reverse; or he may be both, and yet not be a
hard, determined fighter. Jones was all three in large measure. His
strategic conceptions were excellent. His successful destruction of
the fishery industry at Canso, and his attempt upon the coal fleet in
the Alfred; the brilliant plan which would have resulted in the
capture of Lord Howe by d'Estaing if it had been carried out in time;
the project he conceived for taking the homeward-bound East Indiamen
by capturing St. Helena as a base of attack, and the other enterprises
he urged upon the French Government indicate these things; but the
conception which lifted him above the ordinary sea officer was his
acute realization of the great principle that should regulate commerce
destroying, which is one of the legitimate objects of warfare, and
merciful in that it tends to end the conflict, and is aimed at
property rather than life.

His idea was that, to be successfully accomplished, it could not be
committed to the cruiser or commerce destroyer, but that attacks on
centers of trade must be made by forces sufficiently mobile to enable
them to cover great distances rapidly, and sufficiently strong to
defeat any reasonable force, and then crush the enemy's commerce at
vital points. A single ship may catch a single ship upon the high
seas, or from a fleet in convoy perhaps cut out two or three; but a
descent upon a great body of shipping in a harbor--unprotected as were
the harbors of those days--would result in an infinitely greater loss
to the enemy. Mahan has demonstrated that the necessary preliminary to
the destruction of the enemy's commerce is to batter his navy to
pieces--then it is at one's mercy. So far as I know, Jones is the only
sailor of his day, or of many subsequent days in any navy, who had a
glimmer of an idea in this direction; and, without detracting from
Mahan's originality, in a limited sense Jones forestalled him. Mahan,
indeed, gives him full credit for his genius on this very point.

The beginning of strategy is to determine the vital point at which to
aim, and Jones began well. He tried to carry out his idea of commerce
destroying with the Ranger in the Irish Channel, and he came near
enough to success to demonstrate the absolute feasibility and value of
his conception, given adequate force to carry it out. He had a greater
force, of course, under his partial command in his famous cruise in
the Bon Homme Richard, but the peculiar constitution of that squadron,
which was an assemblage of co-operative ships rather than a compact
body responsive and obedient to one will, also prevented him from
carrying out his plans. Suppose, for instance, that the Alliance had
obeyed his orders, and that the Vengeance, the Cerf, and the
privateers had remained with the Pallas under his command, and that
all had been well officered and manned! He would have taken the
Serapis in half an hour or less, and the great Baltic fleet, worth
millions of dollars, would have been at his mercy. What he attempted
at Leith he could have carried out at Newcastle and Hull.

The largest force under his command was the Russian squadron in the
Liman. He chose his admirable position there with an eye to its
strategic possibilities, and it was due to him, and not to the trained
and veteran soldier Suvorof, that the fort was placed on Kinburn
Point, which practically determined the fate of Otchakoff, since it
prevented the Turks from re-enforcing their fleet, and kept them from
escaping after Jones had defeated them. Fortune never gave him an
opportunity, but it can not be doubted from what he did accomplish
with an inferior force that if he had been given a chance he would
have made a name for himself as a sea strategist not inferior to that
of Nelson or Sampson.

As a tactician he was even more able--perhaps because he enjoyed
better opportunities. It was seamanship and tactics which enabled him
to escape from the Solebay, and it was seamanship and tactics by which
he diverted the Milford from the pursuit of his prizes and insured
their safety. His tactics when he fought the Drake were admirable. In
his famous battle with the Serapis they were even more striking. One
never ceases to wonder how he succeeded in maneuvering his slow,
unwieldy ship so as to nullify the greater speed and gun power of the
Serapis. His action in laying the Bon Homme Richard aboard the English
frigate was the one chance that he had of success, and he made that
chance himself.

His tactics in the Liman were even higher than elsewhere. It was he
who so maneuvered the boats of the flotilla on June 17th as to
precipitate the flight of the Turks; it was he who again, on June 28th
and 29th, so placed his ships that he drove the Turks from their
stranded flagships. It was he who dispatched the flotilla to clear the
right flank, which would have enabled the Russians to take possession
of the two frigates if Nassau had not foolishly burned them. It was he
who, by his splendid disposition of his ships and the battery on the
point, forced the Turkish ships to take ground upon the shoals, in
their attempt to escape, where Nassau destroyed them. On the other
hand, he was never reckless. He coolly calculated chances and
judiciously chose the right course, and he was happy in that the right
course was usually the bold and daring one.

In the third capacity of an officer, there is no question as to his
willingness and ability to fight. No one ever called him a coward. He
certainly exhibited the very highest reach of physical bravery. It was
not the courage of the braggart, for he was not continually thrusting
it in the face of people on all occasions. Having established his
reputation, he was content to rest upon it, and did not seek
opportunity--which he did not need--for further demonstration. Nothing
could surpass the personal courage and determination with which he
fought his ships. Unlike most commanders, who confine their efforts to
direction, he labored and fought with his own hands.

We find him heading the boarders on the forecastle of the Richard,
and, pike in hand, repelling those from the Serapis; he assists in
lashing the two ships together; he takes personal command of the
quarter-deck guns, one of which, with the assistance of a few resolute
souls, he dragged across the deck from the unengaged side. When the
Ariel was drifting in deadly peril upon the Penmarques, with his own
hand he heaves the lead. At Kinburn, after repeated efforts to get the
galley fleet to move, he leads it forward himself. To ascertain the
depth of water, he goes in a small boat under the walls of Otchakoff,
within easy range of the cannon. He takes his barge on the Liman in
the midst of the hottest engagement, and rows about through the
contestants. When the assault is made on the flotilla under the walls
of that town, he leads in person, and captures two gunboats by
boarding. At Whitehaven, alone he confronts a mob and keeps them in
check until the fire which he started himself has gained sufficient
headway. The bullying of the Dutch admiral in the Texel can not move
him a single foot.

While he did not always exhibit the same amount of moral courage, yet
in some very interesting situations he showed that he possessed it in
large measure. His physical courage was, of course, natural. His moral
courage seems to have arisen in part from an absolute confidence in
his own ability and an habitual reliance upon the accuracy of his own
judgment. He showed this moral courage when, at the peril of his
commission, he assumed the responsibility of piloting the Alfred to
her anchorage in the Bahama expedition. He showed it particularly
when, after assuming the proper position demanded by good strategy in
the opening of the Liman campaign, he refused to be moved from it by
the representations of such fire eaters as Nassau and Alexiano. His
declining to hoist the French flag, or to sail under a French letter
of marque, were evidences of this quality, and he showed it again by
sending a present to Louis XVI in the dark days of the Revolution,
when respect to the king in his hours of humiliation marked a man
immediately.

On the other hand, he showed a sad lack of moral courage if de Ségur's
statement be true that he found him, pistol in hand, in his apartments
in St. Petersburg, apparently contemplating suicide. Moral courage is
perhaps a more universal requisite for true greatness of character
than any other virtue, and he did not rise in this sphere quite to the
height he attained in the others. In other words, he was greater as a
commander and as an officer than as a man.

As a commander he made mistakes. What commander did not? His quickness
to imagine or to resent a slight was marred by too great a willingness
to forgive. His treatment of the mutinous Simpson was entirely too
gentle and forgiving for the maintenance of that discipline necessary
to the welfare of the service. It was certainly a mistake to yield to
Landais' importunities and leave the advantageous situation off
Limerick, and, as I have stated, the excuse was worse than the action.
His failure to keep his promise to his men after leaving Corunna in
the Alliance was a more serious blunder. There are few professions in
which the word of an officer is so implicitly relied upon by his
inferiors as in the naval service. The lives of the crew are so
entirely in the hands of the officers that without confidence the
situation is impossible. His extravagant outfitting of the Alliance
was also a wrong to Franklin under the circumstances. His method of
dealing with the mutiny on the Alliance and with Landais' successful
attempt to get command of her was weak, and can only be explained by
the postulation that he did not really desire to get possession of
her; but even the explanation leaves him in a bad position. His
dawdling at L'Orient is also censurable. This, however, is a small
catalogue in view of what he attempted and accomplished. Otherwise in
his campaigns and in his military life he made no blunders.

He has been severely censured for choosing localities with which he
was familiar from childhood as the scene of his military operations.
The war of the Revolution was practically a civil war, with all the
rancorous passions attendant thereon superadded to those ordinarily
engendered in conflict. In America, friend met friend in deadly
hatred, and not one royalist or rebel hesitated to use his local
knowledge for the advancement of his cause. In accordance with his
duty, by his oath as an officer, Jones was bound to put all the
information as well as the ability he possessed at the services of the
country under whose flag he fought. He was not born at Whitehaven,
and, while he had sailed from the port many times, he had no special
attachment for the place and people which comes from long association
in society and business. When he made his famous descent upon the
place it was seven years since he had set foot in it. At any rate, he
was only doing in England what other people on both sides were doing
in America without censure, and he was doing it with so much more
respect to the laws of civilized warfare, and with so much more mercy,
that there is no comparison between his forays and those, let us say,
of Lord Dunmore, for instance, or Mowatt at Portland. The journal of
an officer of the Serapis, who was killed in the action, was found
after the battle was over. He had been under Dunmore's command in
Virginia at the outbreak of the Revolution, and such a tale of
maraudings, accompanied by destruction of property, murdering, and
outraging of women as the volume contained would have been incredible
had it not been confirmed by the statement of hundreds of witnesses in
America. None of this kind of warfare was waged where Jones commanded.

A century and a decade, lacking two years, have elapsed since the
lonely little commander entered upon his long, long rest; and the
country whose first banner was hoisted by his hands at the masthead of
the Alfred, whose permanent standard was flung to the breeze by the
same hands from the truck of the Ranger, whose ensign was first
saluted by one of the greatest powers of the world through his address
and determination, whose flag was made respectable in the eyes of the
world by the desperate gallantry with which he fought under it, which
alone among the powers that sailed the sea through him demonstrated
its ability to meet successfully the Mistress of the Ocean, has done
nothing to perpetuate the memory of this founder of the Republic and
rescue him from oblivion. The place of his grave is known, but squalid
tenements and cheap stores have been erected over his remains.
Commerce, trade, and traffic, restless life with its passions, noble
and ignoble, flows on above his head, and it is probable that so it
will be until the end of time. "So runs the world away!"

It is all so mournful in some strange way. In spite of his glory and
his heroism, in spite of his strenuous life and his strugglings, the
note that lingers in my mind as I write these concluding words is one
of sadness. I read of hopes that brought no fruition; of plans made
and abandoned; of opportunities that could not be embraced; of great
attempts frustrated by inadequate means; of triumphs forgotten. I see
a great life that might have been greater, a man of noble qualities
marred by petty faults, and yet I love him. I can not tell why
exactly, but the words of Solomon come into my mind as the vision of
the little captain appears before me, dying alone of a broken heart,
fretted away--_Vanitas vanitatem_.

And yet he did not live in vain, and his exploits shall live forever
in the minds of his countrymen. So long as we possess that masculine
virility which is the heritage of a great nation whose rugged coasts
are washed by thousands of leagues of beating seas; so long as the
beautiful flag we love waves above the mighty Republic, which, true to
the principles of its founders, stands in every quarter of the globe
for freedom of person, for liberty of conscience, for respect to law,
so long shall the story be told of the little captain from the far
land who loved these things, and who fought so heroically to establish
and to maintain them.

APPENDIX I.
CONCERNING JOHN PAUL'S ASSUMPTION OF THE NAME OF JONES.

A.

_Letter of Mr. W. M. Cumming, of Wilmington, N. C., May 21, 1899_.

"John Paul adopted the name of Jones in token of affectionate regard
for the Honorable Willie (pronounced Wylie) Jones, of North Carolina,
and his beautiful and charming wife, who had both been very kind to
him in his days of obscurity. He was particularly devoted to Mrs.
Jones, and called himself her son. It was through the influence of
Honorable Willie Jones (member of Congress, I think, from North
Carolina), that John Paul obtained his commission in the navy of the
young Republic, and it was about this time that he adopted the name of
his friend and patron."

B.

_Letter of Mr. Junius Davis, of Wilmington, N. C., February 23, 1900_.

"I first heard from my father, the late Hon. George Davis, who was a
devoted student of the history of North Carolina, and perhaps the
highest authority in the State upon such subjects, that _Paul_,
shortly after going to Virginia to take the estate left him by his
brother, met Willie Jones of this State; that Jones took a fancy to
him and invited him to pay him a visit in North Carolina; that Paul
did so and remained quite a long time with him and became so attached
to Jones and his wife that he adopted their name. _Willie_--pronounced
_Wylie_--Jones and his brother Allan were educated at Eton, and were
gentlemen of large means, high ability, and devoted Whigs. They were
prominent in every movement and assembly in this State prior to and
during the Revolution. Allan lived upon his plantation, 'Mount
Gallant,' in Halifax County, and Willie upon his, 'The Grove,' in the
adjoining county of North Hampton. They were warm friends and
associates of Joseph Hewes, of Edenton, one of the delegates from
North Carolina to the first and second Provincial Congresses. Wheeler,
the historian of North Carolina in his Reminiscences and Memoirs of
North Carolina and Eminent North Carolinians, says as follows:

"'The daring and celebrated John Paul Jones, whose real name was John
Paul, of Scotland, when quite young visited Mr. Willie Jones at
Halifax, and became so fascinated with him and his charming wife that
he adopted their family name. Under this name, John Paul Jones, he
offered his services to Congress and was made a lieutenant, December
22, 1775, on the recommendation of _Willie_ Jones.' ... Jones in the
very outset of his Autobiography says: 'I at the same time acquainted
Mr. Hewes, a member of Congress and my particular friend, with the
project for seizing the island of St. Helena,' etc. This is the Mr.
Hewes mentioned above. In the second Congress Hewes was at the head of
the committee in charge of naval affairs, and was virtually the first
Secretary of the Navy. Paul could only have known Hewes, whom he calls
his particular friend, through the Joneses, and it has always been one
of the traditions of this State that it was the Jones influence with
Hewes that got Paul his lieutenancy in the American navy. In a letter
received recently from my aged kinsman, Colonel Cadwallader Jones, of
Rock Hill, South Carolina, a lineal descendant of _Allan_ Jones, I
find that Colonel Jones' mother was a granddaughter of General Allan
Jones, was raised by him, married in 1810, and lived in Halifax until
1826. Up to this time she was a frequent visitor at 'The Grove,' the
residence of Willie Jones, as was also Colonel Cadwallader Jones. The
latter, who is now eighty-six years of age, has always heard that John
Paul assumed the name of Jones as a mark of respect and affection for
these brothers, Willie and Allan Jones, and for the wife of the
former, whose virtues might well win the admiration of any man.
Colonel Jones remembers his aunt, Mrs. Willie Jones, perfectly; she
survived her husband many years. The statement that John Paul was
invited by Willie Jones to visit 'The Grove' while he was looking
after his property in Virginia is corroborated by Colonel Jones.... I
quote the following from newspaper clippings:

"1. From the Charleston Observer of November, 1899:

"'Fredekicksburg, Va., _November_ 18_th_.

"'The announcement that the remains of that distinguished naval hero,
John Paul Jones, have been located in Paris, France, brings to light
that the deceased was once a resident of this city. According to the
records of the county court, he came here in 1773 to administer on the
records of his brother, William Paul, who lived here in 1772. William
Paul came here in 1760 and shortly afterward entered the mercantile
business, in which he was engaged up to the time of his death. The
store occupied by him is on the corner of Main and Market Streets, and
is the same building in which George Washington was made a Mason.
Tradition also says that one of the rooms in the building was used by
John Paul during his residence here, which was nearly two years, as
his lodging quarters. It was also during his citizenship here that he
received his appointment from the Colonial Congress as lieutenant in
the navy. It was here, too, that he added Jones to his patronymic,
which, it is said, was in token of the friendly act of Colonel Willie
Jones, of North Carolina, who became his bondsman for five hundred
pounds when he administered on his brother's estate.'

"2. The State, Columbia, S. C., Monday, November 6, 1899:

"'Saratoga, Buckingham County, Va., _February_ 22,1899.

"'... While no Revolutionary biography can boast more public events of
vivid and intense interest than that of Paul Jones, none is so bare
and meager in personal detail. Even the fact that he has immortalized
a name which was his only by selection and adoption is slurred over in
history with the calm statement that "he changed his name for unknown
reasons." As the reasons were not unknown, and, however difficult to
obtain later, were then easily accessible, it appears to have been
rather a lack of careful and intelligent investigation than of facts
which caused their suppression. They are now for the first time given
to the public.... In 1773, the death of his brother in Virginia, whose
heir he was, induced him to settle in America. It was then he added to
his name and thenceforth was known as "Paul Jones." This was done in
compliment to one of the most noted statesmen of that day, and in the
love and gratitude it shadows forth is a scathing reproach and a
touching example to a people who could neglect in life and forget in
death. It appears that before permanently settling in Virginia, moved
by the restlessness of his old seafaring life, he wandered about the
country, finally straying to North Carolina. There he became
acquainted with two brothers, Willie and Allan Jones. They were both
leaders in their day, and wise and honored in their generation. Allan
Jones was an orator and silver-tongued; Willie Jones, the foremost man
of his State, and one of the most remarkable of his time....

"'His home, "The Grove," near Halifax, was not only the resort of the
cultivated, the refined, but the home of the homeless, Mrs. Jones
having sometimes twenty orphan girls under her charge, and it was here
the young adventurer, John Paul Jones, was first touched by those
gentler and purer influences which changed not only his name but
himself, from the rough and reckless mariner into the polished man of
society, who was the companion of kings and the lion and pet of
Parisian salons. The almost worshiping love and reverence awakened in
his hitherto wild and untamed nature by the generous kindness of these
brothers found expression in his adoption of their name. The truth of
this account is ... attested by the descendants of Willie Jones.

"'In addition to the above, I would say that General Allan Jones of
the Revolution was my great-great-grandfather. My grandmother was
raised by him, and was often at "The Grove," the residence of her
great-uncle, Willie Jones. My father, Colonel Cadwallader Jones, now
eighty-six years of age, in his youth was also often an inmate of "The
Grove," and heard the facts spoken in both families.

"'A. I. Robertson,

"'Secretary Columbia Chapter, D. A. R.'"

C.

_Letter of Mrs. A. I. Robertson, of Columbia, S. C.,
April 14, 1900_.

"John Paul was thrown more with Mr. and Mrs. _Willie_ Jones, I think,
than _Allan_, as he was more at 'The Grove' (the residence of Willie
Jones) than at 'Mount Gallant' (the residence of Allan Jones), though
a great deal at both places. I have an exact facsimile of the
commission which these brothers got for him, which appeared in the
World, February 11, 1900.

"Mrs. Allan Jones was Mary Haynes, married 1762; their daughter Sarah
married General William R. Davis.

"Mrs. Willie Jones was Mary Mumford, daughter of Joseph Mumford, son
of Robert Mumford and wife Anne, daughter of Robert Bland. These two
Mrs. Jones are spoken of in Mrs. Elliot's Women of the Revolution,
Wheeler's History of North Carolina, and Appletons' Cyclopædia of
American Biography.

"I quote you the following from the family book of my father: 'When
the army of Cornwallis passed through Halifax to Virginia, his
officers quartered for some time in the town. Colonel Tarleton was at
"The Grove," the residence of Willie Jones. He had been wounded in the
_hand_ at Cowpens by a sabre cut by Colonel William Washington.
Speaking of Colonel Washington, Tarleton said he was a common,
illiterate fellow, hardly able to write his name. "Ah, colonel," said
Mrs. Jones, "you ought to know better, for you bear upon your person
proof that he knows _very well how to mark his mark_."' I inclose a
MS. of my father on the subject, which you are at liberty to copy."

_MS. of Colonel Cadwallader Jones inclosed in above Letter_.

"Paul Jones--Why he changed his name--Colonel Hubard's account.

"A recent sketch of the life of Paul Jones in the Century has revived
the memory of his gallant achievements, and rekindled public interest
in this famous hero. There is much inquiry as to his reason for
adopting the name of Jones. It is not a little remarkable that such an
incident in the life of one so renowned should be so soon forgotten.

"Let me tell you what I know about this man and how I know it; the
public mind needs to be refreshed. When John Paul came to Virginia,
some three years before the war of the Revolution, looking after an
estate left him by his brother, he visited Halifax, North Carolina, at
that time a place of considerable repute. Here he made the
acquaintance of those grand old patriots, Allen and Willie Jones; he
was a young man but an old tar, with a bold, frank sailor bearing that
attracted their attention; he became a frequent visitor at their
homes, where he was always welcome; he soon grew fond of them, and as
a mark of his esteem and admiration, he adopted their name. Why John
Paul became John Paul Jones--it was his fancy...."

D.

_Letter of General Edward McCrady, of Charleston, S. C., April 3,
1900_.

"Mrs. McCrady was the granddaughter of General William R. Davie, of
Revolutionary fame, who married the daughter of General Allan Jones,
of Mount Gallant, Northampton, North Carolina. Tradition in her branch
of the family has been that it was _Allan_ Jones who befriended John
Paul, and not his brother _Willie_--pronounced _Wylie_, not Willie. It
was in honor of Allan Jones that he adopted the name of Jones as
surname to that of Paul...."

E.

In a subsequent letter from Mr. Junius Davis, Wilmington, North
Carolina, dated April 24, 1900, he writes as follows:

"In respect to the name of Jones, I never heard the question raised in
the State as to whether Willie or Allan was the man, who, as it were,
picked up John Paul and was his closest friend. Beyond all question,
_Willie_ was the man, but above Willie in the affection of John Paul
was Mrs. Willie Jones. Undoubtedly it was his affection for her that
induced him to change his name. She was a Miss Montford, daughter of
Colonel Joseph Montford, and had a sister who married Colonel John
Baptiste Ashe, a distinguished soldier of this State, during the war
of the Revolution. In regard to the retort made by Mrs. Willie Jones
to Tarleton, you will find it mentioned in Mrs. Elliot's Women of the
Revolution. It is also mentioned by Wheeler in vol. ii, page 186, of
his History of North Carolina. It is a little singular that Mrs. Ashe,
sister of Mrs. Willie Jones, also retorted upon Tarleton. On one
occasion, when he said with a sneer that he would like to meet Colonel
Washington, she replied, 'If you had looked behind you at the battle
of Cowpens you would have had that pleasure.' These two ladies were
both very beautiful women, highly gifted in mind and character, and
highly educated."

F.

On this subject see also Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography,
vol. iii, under Jones.

APPENDIX II.
CONCORDAT MADE BETWEEN CAPTAIN JOHN PAUL JONES AND THE OFFICERS OF THE
SQUADRON.

"_Agreement_ between Messieurs John Paul Jones, captain of the Bon
Homme Richard; Pierre Landais, captain of the Alliance; Dennis
Nicholas Cottineau, captain of the Pallas; Joseph Varage, captain of
the Stag; and Philip Nicholas Ricot, captain of the Vengeance;
composing a squadron that shall be commanded by the oldest officer of
the highest grade, and so in succession in case of death or retreat.
None of the said commanders, while they are not separated from the
said squadron, by order of the minister shall act but by virtue of the
brevet, which they shall have obtained from the United States of
America, and it is agreed that the flag of the United States shall be
displayed.

"The division of the prizes to the superior officers and crews of said
squadron, shall be made agreeable to the American laws; but it is
agreed that the proportion of the whole coming to each vessel in the
squadron shall be regulated by the Minister of the Marine Department
of France, and the Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America.

"A copy of the American laws shall be annexed to the present
agreement, after having been certified by the commander of the Bon
Homme Richard; but, as the said laws can not foresee or determine as
to what may concern the vessels and subjects of other nations, it is
expressly agreed that whatever may be contrary to them should be
regulated by the Minister of the French Marine, and the Minister
Plenipotentiary of the United States of America.

"It is likewise agreed that the orders given by the Minister of the
French Marine, and the Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States
be executed.

"Considering the necessity there is of preserving the interests of
each individual, the prizes that shall be taken shall be remitted to
the orders of Monsieur le Ray de Chaumont, honorary intendant of the
Royal Hotel of Invalids, who has furnished the expenses of the
armament of the said squadron.

"It has been agreed that M. le Ray de Chaumont be requested not to
give up the part of the prizes coming to all crews, and to each
individual of the said squadron, but to their order, and to be
responsible for the same in his own and proper name.

"Whereas the said squadron has been formed for the purpose of injuring
the common enemies of France and America, it has been agreed that such
armed vessels, whether French or American, may be associated therewith
by common consent, as shall be found suitable for the purpose, and
that they shall have such proportion of the prizes which shall be
taken as the laws of their respective countries allow them.

"In case of the death of any of the before-mentioned commanders of
vessels, he shall be replaced agreeably to the order of the tariff,
with liberty, however, for the successor to choose whether he shall
remain on board his own vessel, and give up the next in order, the
command of the vacant ship.

"It has, moreover, been agreed, that the commander of the Stag shall
be excepted from the last article of this present agreement, because
in case of a disaster to M. de Varage he shall be replaced by his
second in command, and so on by the other officers of his cutter, the
Stag.

    "J. Paul Jones.

    "P. Landais.

    "De Cottineau.

    "De Varage.

    "Le Ray de Chaumont.

    "P. Ricot."

APPENDIX III.
ON THE FLAG OF THE BON HOMME RICHARD.

The statement is frequently made that the flag under which the Bon
Homme Richard fought the Serapis is still in existence, and the
following letter from the assistant secretary of the Smithsonian
Institution gives a history of the claim:

"I am authorized by the secretary to acknowledge the receipt of and
reply to your letter of the 27th instant, in which you ask whether the
identical flag used by John Paul Jones on the Bon Homme Richard is the
one now in the custody of the Smithsonian Institution.

"Your letter has been referred to Mr. A. H. Clark, Custodian of the
Section of American History in the National Museum, who has submitted
the following facts, which I submit to you as the opinion of this
institution in the case."

"'The evidence appears conclusive that the flag in the National Museum
is the identical one used by John Paul Jones on the Bon Homme Richard.
This flag was presented to James Bayard Stafford in 1784, by the
Marine Committee, with the following letter. The sword and musket are
exhibited with the flag together with the original letter:

"'"Philadelphia, _Monday, December_ 13, 1784.

"'"_James Bayard Stafford_.

"'"Sir: I am directed by the Marine Committee to inform you that on
last Thursday, the 9th, they decided to bestow upon you, for your
meritorious service thro' the late war, Paul Jones' Starry Flag of the
Bon Homme Richard--which was transferred to the Alliance--a boarding
sword of said ship, and a musquet captured from the Serapis.

"'"If you write to Captain John Brown, at the Yard, what ship you wish
them sent by to New York, they will be forwarded to you.

"'"Your humble servant,

   "'"James Meyler,

      "'"_Secretary, pro tem_."

"'In the United States Senate, May 1, 1872, the Committee on
Revolutionary Claims favorably reported a bill (S. 1060) for payment
to Sarah S. Stafford, for the services of her father, James Bayard
Stafford, an officer of the Revolution. In the committee's report,
Commodore Barry, of the Alliance, certified to the service of
Lieutenant Stafford, and the report further states that "it fully
appears from the testimony before the committee that James Bayard
Stafford entered the navy at the beginning of the War of Independence,
and was in constant and active service, and in frequent battles, and
remained in the service until the close of the war; that his ship was
captured by a British cruiser, and subsequently recaptured by John
Paul Jones, when he volunteered on the Bon Homme Richard, where he
received wounds, which, owing to unskillful treatment, broke out after
a time, disabling both his arms."

     (Signed.) "'A. H. Clark,
        "'Custodian, Section of American History,
            United States National Museum.'

            "Yours very respectfully,
     (Signed.) "Richard Rathbun,
                  "_Assistant Secretary_."

This is an opinion with which I must disagree. Stafford, it is
claimed, had been a sailor in the American armed ship Kitty, which had
been captured by a British cruiser, said cruiser and her prize being
subsequently taken by the Richard, whereupon Stafford volunteered for
service on the Richard, was warranted a midshipman, and is alleged to
have performed several heroic deeds in connection with the flag during
the action.[71] There is no authority whatever for any of these
statements in any existing contemporary account of the battle, yet the
occurrence was sufficiently important to be mentioned somewhere,
surely, if it had occurred. Stafford's name does not appear in any of
the lists of the officers and crew, and the Richard certainly did not
capture any British cruiser and her prize. But we have evidence which
is more than negative, for Jones explicitly states that when the
Richard went down, a flag--presumably that which had been shot from
the staff, or had fallen with it, during the action, and had been
recovered the next day--was left flying at the peak. In subsequent
letters, though, he takes occasion to refer specifically to the fact
that he sailed under American colors in the Alliance--he calls them
"my very best American colors," a phrase certainly inappropriate for
the battle-torn ensign of the Richard--he never makes the slightest
reference to their having been used in the famous battle. Again, the
Alliance sailed finally under the command of Landais, and no mention
of any particular flag appears thereafter. It may be possible,
however, though doubtful, that the flag which was given to Stafford
was the "best American colors" under which Jones sailed from the
Texel, and, if so, it is an interesting relic. The last circumstance
that militates against the claim is the size of the flag in question.
It is so small that it is highly improbable it was ever used for a
battle flag!

APPENDIX IV.
SONG AND MUSIC.

    "Here comes brave Paul Jones, Oho!
     He's a jolly good fellow.
     His ship has sunk 'neath the sea,
     On a bold English cape, O.

    "Here comes brave Paul Jones, Oho!
     He's a jolly good fellow.
     Born an American true,
     And English not a bit, O.

    "Here comes brave Paul Jones, Oho!
     He's a jolly good fellow.
     He does so many brave deeds
     For the good of his friends, O."

     Chorus.

    "Oh, had we him here,
     Or had they him there,
     He'd well know what to try for
     And luck he'd let go by, sir!"

HIER KOMT PAL JONES AAN.]

APPENDIX V.
"_Testament of Paul Jones, July 18, 1792_.

"Before the undersigned notaries, at Paris, appeared Mr. John Paul
Jones, citizen of the United States of America, resident at present in
Paris, lodged in the street of Tournon, No. 42, at the house of Mr.
Dorberque, _huissier audiancier_ of the tribunal of the third
_arrondissement_, found in a parlour in the first story above the
door, lighted by two windows opening on the said street of Tournon,
sitting in an armchair, sick of body, but sound of mind, memory, and
understanding, as it appeared to the undersigned notaries, by his
discourse and conversation,--

"Who, in view of death, has made, dictated, and worded, to the
undersigned notaries, his testament as follows:

"I give and bequeath all the goods, as well movable as heritable, and
all, generally, whatever may appertain to me at my decease, in
whatever country they may be situated, to my two sisters, Janette,
spouse to William Taylor, and Mary, wife to Mr. Loudon, and to the
children of my said sisters, to divide them into as many portions as
my said sisters and their children shall make up individuals, and to
be enjoyed by them in the following manner:

"My sisters, and those of their children who on the day of my death
shall have reached the age of twenty-one, will enjoy their share in
full property from the date of my decease. As for those of my nephews
and nieces who at that period of time may not reach the age of
twenty-one years, their mothers will enjoy their shares till such time
as they attain that said age, with charge to them to provide for their
food, maintenance, and education; and as soon as any of my nephews or
nieces will have reached the age of twenty-one years, the same will
enjoy his share in full property.

"If one or more of my nephews and nieces should happen to die without
children before having reached the age of twenty-one, the share of
those of them who may have deceased shall be divided betwixt my said
sisters and my other nephews and nieces by equal portions.

"I name the Honourable Robert Morris, Esq., of Philadelphia, my only
testamentary executor.

"I revoke all other testaments or codicils which I may have made
before the present, which alone I stand by as containing my last will.

"So made, dictated, and worded, by said testator, to the said notaries
undersigned, and afterward read, and read over again to him by one of
them, the others being present, which he well understood, and
persevered in, at Paris, the year 1792, the 18th July, about five
o'clock, afternoon, in the room heretofore described, and the said
testator signed the original of the present, unregistrated, at Paris,
the 25th of September, 1792, by Defrance, who received one livre,
provisionally, save to determine definitively the right after the
declaration of the revenue of the testator. The original remained with
Mr. Pettier, one of the notaries at Paris, undersigned, who delivered
these presents this day, 26th September, 1792, first of the French
Republic.

(Signed.) "Pottier.

          "L'Avernier."

(COPY.)

"_Schedule of the Property of Admiral John Paul Jones, as stated by him
to me, this 18th of July, 1792_.

"1. Bank stock in the Bank of North America, at Philadelphia, six
thousand dollars, with sundry dividends.

"2. Loan-Office certificate left with my friend Mr. Ross, of
Philadelphia, for two thousand dollars, at par, with great arrearages
of interest, being for ten or twelve years.

"3. Such balance as may be in the hands of my said friend John Ross,
belonging to me, and sundry effects left in his care.

"4. My lands in the State of Vermont.

"5. Shares in the Ohio Company.

"6. Shares in the Indiana Company.

"7. About eighteen thousand pounds sterling due to me from Edward
Bancroft, unless paid by him to Sir Robert Herries, and is then in his
hands.

"8. Upward of four years of my pension due from Denmark, to be asked
from the Count de Bernstorf.

"9. Arrearages of my pay from the Empress of Russia, and all my prize
money.

"10. The balance due to me by the United States of America, of sundry
claims in Europe, which will appear from my papers.

"This is taken from his mouth.

   "GOUVERNEUR MORRIS."

This property was estimated as being worth about thirty thousand
dollars at the date of Jones' death.

APPENDIX VI.

Ranger, Nantes 11_th Dec_. 1777.

"Honored Sir:--I think it my duty to give you some account of my
Passage from Portsmouth to this place, as this may perhaps find you at
home in the Bosom of domestic happiness. I had passed the Western
Islands before a Sail appeared within our Horizon from the Mast head;
but this Halcyon Season was then interrupted, and changed into
continued alarms Night and day till the Ranger cast Anchor here the 2d
Current, this afforded me excellent opportunities of exercising the
Officers and Men especially in the Night, and it is with much Pleasure
that I assure you their behaviour was to my entire Satisfaction. I
fell in with an Enemies Fleet of Ten Sail off Ushant, bound up
Channel, but notwithstanding my best endeavours, I was unable to
detach any of them from the strong Convoy under which they sailed. I
fell in with and brought too a number of other Ships and Vessels none
whereof proved to be British Property except two Brigantines with
fruit from Malaga for London which became Prizes, the one is arrived
here, the other I am told in Quiberon Bay. The Rangers sailing does
not answer the general expectation, oweing in a great measure to her
being too deep, very foul and over Masted, her Ballast laid too high,
on account of its improper quality, for a Ship of this construction,
this with the extraordinary weight of her lower Masts; occasioned her
being very Crank, I am paying my whole Attention to remedy these
inconveniences as much as Possible, I am shortening the lower Masts,
shifting the Main Mast further aft, and mean to ballast with Lead; as
that Article will store under the lower tier of Water the less
quantity will be sufficient, of course the Ship will be so much the
lighter, and Sail so much the faster, and we shall then, I hope, be
able to store the Cables under the Platform. Tho' I have yet received
no Letter from the Commissioners, I understand that they had some time
ago provided for me one of the Finest Frigates that can be imagined,
calculated for Thirty two, Twenty four Pounders, on One deck, and
longer than any Ship in the Enemies Fleet, but it seems they were
unfortunately under the necessity of giving her up on Account of some
difficulties which they met with at Court, however I esteem the
intention as much as tho' it had succeeded, as I shall always cherish
the grateful remembrance of the Honor which Congress hath conferred on
me by this and every other instance of their generous Approbation, I
shall be the happiest of Men if a Life of services devoted to the
Intrests of America can be rendered instrumental in securing its
Independance.

"My particular thanks are due to you Sir, as one of the four Members
of that Honorable Committee to whose generous intention, and
Approbation I more immediately owe this great and unsolicited
Obligation, but I hope for Opportunities of proving by my Conduct the
deep sense I entertain of that favor.

"The inclosed letter, and its consequences hath given me real concern.
Malice is a stranger to my Nature. I hate domestic broils, or
misunderstandings, and would do, or suffer much, as a private Person
to prevent them. But as an Officer, honored with the Approbation of
Congress, and conscious of having at no time exceeded even in Thought
the delicate lines of my duty, or express letter of my Orders; I am in
the highest degree tenacious of the respect due to my Signature; and I
bid the most contemptuous defiance to the insinuation of any Man out
of Congress.

"I have been informed in Portsmouth that the four Oared Boat which
attended the Ranger was built for the Portsmouth Privateer, and after
being rejected as misconstructed and unuseful for that Ship, was
assigned over to the Ranger, be this as it may, I will boldly affirm
that she was the worst constructed and most unservicable Boat that I
ever saw, belonging to a Ship of War, for tho' a Man stepping on her
Gunnel, would bring it down to the Waters edge, yet was her Weight
equal, or nearly so to that of the Cutter, which I planned, and had
built, capable of carrying 40 Armed Men, had I been able, which I was
not, to stow the two Boats, which I found provided for the Ranger, I
must have been reduced to the Alternatives of throwing them overboard,
or strikeing the Top Masts several times, on the Passage to prevent
oversetting the Ship. I mention this matter to you _in confidence_ as
a Friend, declaring on the Honor of a Gentleman that I wish on my part
to give it to Oblivion. I have the Pleasure to hear that Captains
Thompson and Hinman are well at Lorient of which please to inform Mrs.
Thompson. I shall endeavour to procure the Articles mentioned in Mrs.
Whipple's Memorandum, I hope to live in the remembrance of the few
acquaintances I have in Portsmouth, and I have the honor to be with
due Respect.

   "Sir

      "Your very Obliged

            "very Obedient

               "most humble Servant,

                       "Jno P Jones"[72]

The Hon'ble
   Gen'l Whipple

FOOTNOTES

[Footnote 1: Among the gross slanders by which envy strove to blacken
the fame of the great commodore in after years--the foulest, because
it attempted to rob a virtuous woman of her crown of honest motherhood
and question the legitimacy of Jones' birth--was one which ascribed
his paternity to the Earl of Selkirk. To the English snob of that day
it may probably have seemed impossible that so much greatness could
spring from so plain a stock, and in a left-handed descent from Lord
Selkirk was sought an explanation of Jones' fame. The calumny was
refuted not only by its antecedent incredibility, but by the testimony
of persons in position to affirm as to the high personal character of
Jean MacDuff Paul and by the loving and tender family relationship she
ever sustained to her husband and children. The family was well known
and highly respected. It may be noted, by the way, that the Earl of
Selkirk was not conspicuous for ability or anything else, and if it
had not been for a subsequent exploit of Jones' he would have been
forgotten long since.]

[Footnote 2: See Appendix I.]

[Footnote 3: The Marine Corps was established by the Congress November
10, 1775.]

[Footnote 4: A fictitious house, under the name of which the
commissioners sent out military stores.]

[Footnote 5: A coarse thin stuff, a very poor substitute for the
ordinary canvas.]

[Footnote 6: English accounts state their casualties at twenty-five.]

[Footnote 7: Italics mine.]

[Footnote 8: The ship of the line Thesée (74), commanded by the
celebrated de Kersaint, was lost in the night battle between Hawke and
Conflans at Quiberon Bay, because in the midst of a terrific gale,
with a very heavy sea on, the Frenchman unfortunately opened his lower
deck ports to make use of his heavy battery in the action.]

[Footnote 9: There is a discrepancy in the various accounts of the
armament of the Richard, some authorities asserting that all the guns
on the main deck were 12-pounders and that the small guns on the poop
and forecastle were 6-pounders. The probabilities are as I have
stated.]

[Footnote 10: See Appendix No. II.]

[Footnote 11: In case of disaster, that is.]

[Footnote 12: The English learned this in 1812, when with the long
eighteens of the Guerrière and the Java they tackled the long
twenty-fours of the Constitution's broadside.]

[Footnote 13: From the author's novel, The Grip of Honor.]

[Footnote 14: See remarks on page 226.]

[Footnote 15: Doubtful.]

[Footnote 16: Possibly he might be an ensign.]

[Footnote 17: Some authorities imply that the flag had been nailed to
the masthead, and that it was necessary for Pearson to go aloft in
default of any one else in order to strike his colors. Nailing a flag
to the masthead is a figure of speech, and I doubt the actuality of
the performance. On the other hand, it would be easy and natural for
Pearson to have nailed the ensign to a staff, which contemporary
prints show that ships sometimes carried for the purpose of flying the
colors. In the latter case it would be easy for Pearson to tear it
down; in that hypothesis his whole action then and subsequently is
understandable. If the flag had been nailed to the masthead it is
extremely unlikely that he would have taken the time, trouble, and
risk of going aloft to tear it down when by a simple word or two he
could have surrendered his ship.]

[Footnote 18: It has been incorrectly stated that many wounded and
prisoners were carried down with the ship. Jones, who was in a
position to know, asserts the contrary.]

[Footnote 19: See Appendix No. III.]

[Footnote 20: Thackeray told an American friend that the account of
the amazing capture of the Serapis by Paul Jones was one of the most
extraordinary stories in naval annals, and Mrs. Ritchie, writing of
her father's last days, says: "Sometimes we found him in great
spirits, as when he had been reading about the famous fight of the
Serapis, a stirring thing indeed."--Editor.]

[Footnote 21: Captain A. T. Mahan, U. S. N. (retired). The greatest
authority, living or dead, on warfare on the sea, especially from the
philosophical standpoint.]

[Footnote 22: She could only have engaged to starboard by crossing the
path of the Richard, in which event she would have raked her, of
course, with her port battery, and then have brought her starboard
battery in play when she got alongside again.]

[Footnote 23: Italics mine.]

[Footnote 24: By resolution of the Marine Committee, dated September
5, 1776, this was, for captains: "A coat of blue cloth with red
lapels, slashed cuffs, a stand-up collar, flat yellow buttons, blue
breeches, and a red waistcoat with yellow lace." In Jones' case the
"flat yellow buttons" were made of gold and the lace was woven of the
same precious tissue. Nothing was too good for him, for the rank he
supported, and the cause he upheld.]

[Footnote 25: See Appendix No. IV.]

[Footnote 26: Italics mine.]

[Footnote 27: Italics mine.]

[Footnote 28: Italics mine.]

[Footnote 29: As this is the last appearance of Pearson in our pages,
it may be interesting to note that when he returned to England he was
knighted for "his gallant defense of the Serapis against a greatly
superior force"; in addition to which the merchants of London
presented him, and Captain Piercy as well, with very valuable services
of plate for their efficient protection of their convoy. Pearson
afterward rose to high rank in the British service. He certainly had
protected his convoy, for all of them escaped, and the gratitude of
the merchants was natural. On the other hand, he had been beaten by an
inferior force, and merited no honors on that score. As a matter of
fact, the Serapis alone, to say nothing of the Countess of
Scarborough, was nearly a match for Jones' whole squadron. Suppose,
for instance, that Jones had been in command of the Serapis and
Pearson of the Richard. Does anybody doubt that Jones could have
beaten the Richard, the Alliance, and the Pallas with the Serapis
alone? But it is unprofitable to discuss this question further. When
Jones heard of these honors, he is reported to have made the following
remark:

"He has done well, and if he get another ship and I fall in with him
again, I will make a duke of him." There is a grim humor about his
comment which is highly pleasing, in spite of Jones' subsequent
repudiation of it.]

[Footnote 30: Italics mine.]

[Footnote 31: Italics mine.]

[Footnote 32: Italics mine.]

[Footnote 33: For another specimen of Jones' verse-writing, see page
277.]

[Footnote 34: "Louis XVI, the rewarder, to the mighty deliverer, for
the freedom of the sea."]

[Footnote 35: Italics mine.]

[Footnote 36: Evidently Truxtun learned the lesson well, for in the
war with France he became one of the sternest and most severe
disciplinarians in the naval service, in spite of which his crews
adored him. See my books, Reuben James, A Hero of the Forecastle; and
American Fights and Fighters.]

[Footnote 37: That was beyond his power. They never did and to this
day do not "esteem" him other than a pirate. His courage and ability
are, however, alike unquestioned by friends and foes.]

[Footnote 38: The remarks of John Adams as to the need of a great navy
are even more apposite now than they were then.]

[Footnote 39: Nearly $40,000, equivalent in that day to much more than
at present.]

[Footnote 40: Quite what might have been expected from a "canny Scot."
But it must not be forgotten that the chevalier had been a trader
before he became a fighter.]

[Footnote 41: Very unlike a "canny Scot" in this instance.]

[Footnote 42: After his dismissal Landais resided in Brooklyn, where
he lived in very straitened circumstances on a small annuity, the
income upon an advance of four thousand dollars from Congress on
account of arrears of prize money due him, which amount was to be
deducted from his share of whatever was recovered from Denmark. His
income was about two hundred dollars a year, but by strict economy it
sufficed him. He is reputed to have cherished a high feeling of
independence, and would never consent to receive a gift he was unable
to return. Toward the close of his life he was a constant petitioner
for five thousand dollars with interest, which he conceived to be
still due him on account of the Danish claim. Every other year he
contrived to visit the seat of government to plead his cause in
person. On one occasion, having heard that a member of Congress had
spoken slightingly of him, he put on his faded Continental uniform,
buckled on his small sword, repaired to the gallery of the House of
Representatives, and expressed his readiness to meet any gentleman who
wished for an honorable satisfaction. His quaint figure, so attired,
was often seen on the streets of New York. He used to carry his hat in
his hand for hours in the street, out of respect to his lawful
monarch, executed by the rebels of France! He never ceased to affirm
that he, and not Paul Jones, had captured the Serapis. He died in 1818
at the age of eighty-seven years, and was buried in St. Patrick's
Cathedral churchyard. He had probably returned to the Roman Catholic
Church, which he is said to have abjured on his entry into the
American service. One of his biographers tells us that he was a cadet
of the family of a younger son of the youngest branch of one of the
oldest, proudest, and poorest families in Normandy; that, owing to his
lack of court interest, which was due to his poverty, he was kept for
thirty years a midshipman in the French navy. The same ingenious
apologist makes the following quaint comment on the respective actions
and qualities of Landais and Jones:

"Paul Jones, by his impetuous and undisciplined gallantry, earned the
reputation of a hero, and poor Landais, by a too scrupulous attention
to the theory of naval science, incurred that of a coward. I believe
that naval authority is against me, but I venture to assert _meo
periculo_ and on the authority of one of my uncles, who was in that
action as a lieutenant to Paul Jones, that Landais erred not through
any defect of bravery, but merely from his desire to approach his
enemy scientifically, by bearing down upon the hypothenuse of the
precise right-angled triangle prescribed in the thirty-seventh
'man[oe]uvre' of his old text-book."

Surely the author of this extraordinary paragraph must have been more
than an unconscious humorist!

A stone erected over his remains, which has long since disappeared,
bore the following inscription:

   A la Mémoire
   de
   Pierre De Landais
   Ancien Contre-Amiral
   au service
   Des États Unis
   Qui Disparut
   Juin 1818
   Agé 87 ans.

There is something pathetic in the picture of the "Ancien
Contre-Amiral," in his faded Continental uniform and the proud
independence of his old age; and perhaps after all we may charitably
attribute his colossal blunders to insanity and incompetency rather
than to malice or treachery.]

[Footnote 43: Negotiations on this claim were protracted for over
sixty years. In June, 1847, the Danish Government formally and finally
denied the validity of the claim, and it has not been paid. Congress,
however, on March 21, 1848, provided for the payment of the prize
money involved, to the heirs of Paul Jones and other persons entitled
to share in the distribution of the fund.]

[Footnote 44: The rouble was then worth about one dollar, and, as has
been mentioned, a dollar was greater then than now.]

[Footnote 45: In after years Jones indorsed upon this letter a grim
comment: "Has he kept his word?"]

[Footnote 46: Some authorities say fourteen; the difference is
immaterial.]

[Footnote 47: All dates given, except in letters, are new style,
eleven days in advance of Russian dates.]

[Footnote 48: This is a mistake, he was never a vice admiral.]

[Footnote 49: Old style.]

[Footnote 50: Nassau was then in command of the Russian fleet in the
Baltic, and an encounter with him--had a Swedish command been tendered
Jones, and if he could have accepted it--would have been interesting.
There would have been a final demonstration, which probably would have
convinced even Nassau, as to the merits of the rival commanders in the
Liman. Nassau, by accepting the advice of the English and other
foreign officers associated with him, succeeded with a superior force
in beating the Swedes, whereupon honors were showered upon him--more
land, more peasants, more roubles, more rank. His favor was higher
than ever; but he was magnificently beaten a short time after by a
very inferior Swedish fleet, and his defeat was as decisive as it was
disgraceful. He lost fifty-three vessels, fourteen hundred guns, and
six thousand men. He had refused to take anybody's advice on this
occasion and had conducted the battle himself. His cowardice and
incapacity therefore were entirely apparent. He tried to attribute
this defeat, which compelled Catherine to make peace upon terms not
advantageous to her, to the cowardice of the Russians whom he
commanded. The Russians were not cowards. He fell from favor, left the
court, and passed the remainder of his life on his estate in Poland in
the society of his homely but devoted wife. It is to be hoped that she
made things interesting for him, but it is hardly likely. He died in
obscurity and poverty in 1809, unregretted and forgotten.]

[Footnote 51: A portion was subsequently paid to his heirs by the
French Government.]

[Footnote 52: See Appendix No. V.]

[Footnote 53: From my book, American Fights and Fighters.]

[Footnote 54: This sword was, of course, not that presented to him by
the King of France. After Jones' death his heirs gave this famous
sword to Robert Morris. Morris, in turn, presented it to Commodore
John Barry, at that time senior officer of the United States Navy. By
him it was bequeathed to his friend Commodore Richard Dale, once of
the Bon Homme Richard, and it now remains in the possession of his
great-grandson, Mr. Richard Dale, of Philadelphia.]

[Footnote 55: Why a monument has not been erected to Jones I can not
understand. It would be a noteworthy object for individual and
national effort, and in no better way could we commit ourselves to the
fame and achievements of the great captain, and forever stamp with
disapproval those calumnies with which envy seeks to sully the name of
our first great sailor.]

[Footnote 56: The frontispiece of this volume.]

[Footnote 57: Some of his phrases in his Russian letters remind me of
Shakespeare's Henry V.]

[Footnote 58: I have known hundreds of sailors more or less
intimately, and I have never met one who might be included in either
of those melancholy classes.]

[Footnote 59: Studies in Naval History, by John Knox Laughton, M. A.,
Professor of Modern History at King's College, London, and Lecturer on
Naval History at the Royal Naval College, Greenwich, etc., 1887.]

[Footnote 60: July 6, 1900.]

[Footnote 61: Woolsey, International Law, section 144, page 233.]

[Footnote 62: And not a captain of a special ship, as was sometimes
the case, but a captain in the service, and therefore eligible to
command any ship. See page 75.]

[Footnote 63: The following interesting document was found in his
papers; it enumerates a few of the things he did: "In 1775, J. Paul
Jones armed and embarked in the first American ship of war. In the
Revolution he had twenty-three battles and solemn rencontres by sea;
made seven descents in Britain and her colonies; took of her navy two
ships of equal, and two of superior force, many store ships, and
others; constrained her to fortify her ports; suffer the Irish
volunteers; desist from her cruel burnings in America, and exchange,
as prisoners of war, the American citizens taken on the ocean, and
cast into the prisons of England, as 'traitors, pirates, and
felons!'"]

[Footnote 64: Notwithstanding this, he was as ambitious of glory,
honor, and fame to himself in the service of his country as Nelson
was. They were both of them

    "Jealous in honor, sudden and quick in quarrel.
     Seeking the bubble reputation
     Even in the cannon's mouth."]

[Footnote 65: See my book, American Fights and Fighters.]

[Footnote 66:  The recent war in South Africa demonstrates the
accuracy of Carlyle's perspicuous observation.]

[Footnote 67: The United States has shown that it possesses in full
measure the sea adaptability and capacity of the Anglo-Saxon, but
opportunity for demonstrating that capacity, except upon a small
scale, has never been afforded us. The almost unbroken line of
victories on the sea, however, which we have won with anything like
equality of force from English, French, and Spaniards, enables us to
confidently await the issue of any future naval action under
conditions of equality; and the names of Jones, Dale, Biddle, Barry,
Preble, Hull, Decatur, Bainbridge, Lawrence, Stewart, MacDonough,
Perry, Farragut, Dewey, and Sampson will not be outshone by any
galaxy.]

[Footnote 68: So careful and accurate an historian as John Fiske makes
the mistake of saying that Russia bestowed the order of St. Anne on
Jones for this action.]

[Footnote 69: Paul Jones and his men were the last foreign foemen to
land on the shores of England.]

[Footnote 70: See Park Benjamin's History of the Naval Academy for
similar instances on the part of less famous captains. Personal abuse
was a custom of the service, apparently.]

[Footnote 71: See Preble's History of the American Flag, where the
story of Stafford is given _in extenso_.]

[Footnote 72: The above hitherto unpublished letter, with its unusual
signature, was addressed to William Whipple, one of the signers of the
Declaration of Independence from New Hampshire, who in 1777 was a
member of the Continental Congress, and one of the four Navy
Commissioners. The original of the Commodore's interesting
letter is in the collection of Mr. Ferdinand J. Dreer, of
Philadelphia.--Editor.]

End of Project Gutenberg's Commodore Paul Jones, by Cyrus Townsend Brady