It is interesting to inquire whether the family of Calbraith is still in existence. An examination of the directory of the city of Philadelphia during the years 1882, 1883, 1884 recalls no name of Calbraith, and but one of Calbreath, though fifty-two of Galbraith are down in the lists. The spelling of the name with a C is exceedingly rare, the name Galbraith, however, is common in North Ireland and in Scotland. Arthur, the father of our late president of the same name, in his “Derivation of Family Names,” says it is composed of two Gaelic words Gall and Bhreatan; that is “strange Breton,” or “Low Country Breton.” The Galbraiths in the Gaelic are called Breatannich, or Clanna Breatannich, that is “the Britons,” or “the children of Britons,” and were once reckoned a great clan in Scotland, according to the following lines:—

The Falla dhearg, or Red Tower was probably Dumbarton, that is the Dun Bhreatan, or stronghold of the Britons, whence it is said the Galbraiths came.

Of one of the unlucky bearers of the name Galbraith, a private of our army in Mexico, Longfellow has written in his poem of “Dennis Galbraith.” In his “History of Japan,” Mr. Francis Ottiwell Adams, an English author, naturally falls into the habit of writing Matthew G. Perry. The Rev. Calbraith B. Perry of Baltimore, nephew of Matthew C. Perry, suggests that the initial letter of the name is merely the softening of the Scotch G.

Of Matthew C. Perry, born in Newport, April 10, 1794, and Jane Slidell born in New York, February 29, 1797, who were married in New York, October 24, 1814, there were born four sons and six daughters:—

Matthew C. Perry died in New York, March 4, 1858; his wife, who was his devoted companion and helper, Jane Slidell Perry, survived him twenty years, and died in Newport, R. I., June 14, 1879, at the home of her daughter, Mrs. George Tiffany. A pension of fifty dollars per month was granted to her, by Act of Congress, from the date of her husband’s death.

Of the Commodore’s children, who grew to adult life, Sarah was married to Col. Robert S. Rodgers (brother of the late Rear-Admiral John Rodgers, U. S. N.), at the Commandant’s house, Navy Yard, Brooklyn, N. Y., December 15, 1841, and now lives near Havre de Grace, Maryland.

Jane Hazard was married to John Hone, Esq., of New York, at the Commandant’s house, Brooklyn Navy Yard, October 20, 1841.

Matthew Calbraith married Miss Harriet Taylor of Brooklyn, April 26, 1853. He entered the United States Navy as Midshipman, June 1, 1835, was appointed Lieutenant April 3, 1848, and later Captain. He was placed on the retired list April 4, 1867.

Oliver Hazard Perry, an officer in the United States Marine Corps, was appointed Lieutenant February 25, 1841; was in the Mexican war, and resigned July 23, 1849; was appointed United States Consul at Hong Kong. He died in London May 17, 1870. He was unmarried.

William Frederick Perry, died unmarried.

Caroline Slidell Perry was married, in New York, to the Hon. August Belmont, late Minister of the United States to the Netherlands, November 7, 1849.

Isabella Bolton Perry married Mr. George Tiffany in New York, August 17, 1864.

Matthew C. Perry was appointed a Midshipman in the United States Navy, January 16th, 1809; March 16th, 1809, ordered to the naval station, New York; May 11th, 1809, furloughed for the merchant service; October 12th, 1810, ordered to the President; February 22d, 1813, appointed Acting Lieutenant; July 24th, 1813, appointed Lieutenant; November 16th, 1813, ordered to New London; December 20th, 1815, granted six month’s furlough; September 22d, 1817, ordered to the navy yard, New York; June 8th, 1821, ordered to command the Shark; July 29th, 1823, ordered to the receiving ship at New York; July 26th, 1824, ordered to the North Carolina; March 21st, 1826, promoted to Master Commandant; August 17th, 1827, ordered to the naval rendezvous at Boston; September 2d, 1828, granted leave of absence; April 22d, 1830, ordered to command the Concord; December 10th, 1832, detached and granted three months’ leave; January 7th, 1833, ordered to the navy yard, New York; February 9th, 1837, promoted to Captain; March 15th, 1837, detached from the navy yard, New York; August 29th, 1837, ordered to command the Fulton; March the 2d, 1840, ordered to the steamer building at New York to give general superintendence over the gun-practice; June 12th, 1841, ordered to command the navy yard, New York; February 20th, 1843, ordered to hold himself in readiness for command of the African squadron; May 1st, 1845, detached and granted leave; December 27th, 1845, ordered to examine merchant steamers at New York; January 6th, 1846, ordered to examine docks at New York—examination finished February 4th, 1846; May 18th, 1846, ordered to examine steamers at New York; 21st July, 1846, ordered to report at Department; August 20th, 1846, ordered to command the Mississippi; March 4th, 1847, ordered to command the Home Squadron; November 20th, 1848, detached from command of Home Squadron, and ordered as General Superintendent of ocean mail-steamers; November 3d, 1849, ordered to report at the Department; January 22d, 1852, given preparatory orders to command the East India Squadron; 3d March, 1852, detached as Superintendent of ocean mail-steamers; March 24th, 1852, ordered to command the East India Squadron; January 12th, 1855, reported his arrival at New York; June 20th, 1855, ordered to Washington as a Member of Efficiency Board under Act of Congress, February 28th, 1855; September 13th, 1855, Board dissolved; December 30th, 1857, detached from special duty and wait orders.

He died at New York City, N. Y., on the 4th of March, 1858.

Matthew C. Perry may be called the founder of the apprenticeship system in the United States Navy, however much the present improved methods may differ from his own. He was the first officer to attempt a systematic improvement on the hap-hazard and costly method of recruiting formerly in vogue. Under the old plan, one-fourth the men and boys picked up at random became invalided or were discharged as unfit. It took four month’s work at five recruiting stations to get a crew for the “North Carolina.” The daily average of recruits at five stations, New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Norfolk and Baltimore, was but seven, at the utmost, and could not be increased without bounties. Perry’s experience at recruiting stations prompted him to a thorough study of the subject, and attempt at reform. He addressed the Department on this theme as early as 1823. In a letter of eleven pages, dated January 25, 1824, a model of clearness and strength, he elaborated his idea of providing crews for men-of-war by naval apprentices properly educated. He proposed that a thousand apprentices be engaged yearly, saving in expense of pay (from $792,000 to $462,000) the sum of $330,000. He suggested withholding the ration of spirits for the first two years of indenture, so that a further saving of $43,800, and total saving $373,800, would be secured.

In this paper he treats the problem of the great difficulty, delay and expense of obtaining men for our naval service, which becomes greater in time of hostilities. This was shown in the war of 1812 when large bounties were offered. The sea-faring population of the United States had not increased since 1810. Whereas there had been in 1810, 71,238 seamen, there were in 1821 only 64,948. In case of another war, the merchant ships should not be suffered to rot in port as in 1812, but ought to pursue their usual voyages. Hence merchant ships would want sailors, and when there was considered the number wanted for that popular branch of speculation—privateering, he feared that few would be left for the public service, unless exorbitant pay and bounties were given as inducements for enlisting. Owing to the decay of the New England carrying trade, and the fisheries, the sources for sea-faring men had dried up; and it was easier to get ships than men. Even in New York a sloop’s crew was unobtainable in less than twenty days. If this were so, how hard would it be to equip a fleet!

The remedy proposed was to receive boys as apprentices to serve until of age and to be educated and clothed by the government. Such a system would be a blessing to society. It would reform bad and idle boys, and create in a numerous class of men attachment to the naval service, besides raising up warrant and petty officers of native birth. These at present were mostly foreigners. Boys shipped only for two years; they then got discharged and perhaps went roaming on distant voyages all over the earth, losing the discipline they had acquired. There was no difficulty to get boys in New York. The city alone could supply five hundred annually, and the city corporations would assist the plan. “Experience proves that these lads do well. The very spirit which prompts them to youthful indiscretion gives them a zest for the daring and adventurous life to which they are called in our ships of war.”

With characteristic tenacity, he returned to the subject in a letter to the Department, January 10 1835, giving the results of further studies. One half of all the men enlisted for the navy came from the New York rendezvous. From April 2d, 1828 to October 14, 1834, there were enlisted 17 petty officers, 2,335 seamen, 1,174 ordinary seamen, 842 landsmen and 414 boys, a total of 4,782, or 19 a week. Nearly ten months were necessary to get 750 men, the crew of a line-of-battle ship, twenty weeks to furnish a frigate with 380 men, and eight weeks to enlist 150 men for a sloop of war.

Perry noticed another glaring defect in the system, and wrote September 25, 1841, concerning frauds on the government, by men enlisting in the navy getting advance pay and then deserting. Parents connived at enlistment, and often got off “minors” by habeas corpus writs, and the government thus lost both the recruit and the advance money. The same trouble had been found in the British navy. Native-born men enlisted, got advance pay, and then claimed alien birth. Perry consulted with the district attorney as to how to stop this practice.

While on the Fulton, Perry returned to his idea of perfecting the apprenticeship system first suggested by him. He asked permission to have his letters of 1823 and 1824 copied for him by Dr. Du Barry, that he have authority to increase the complement of the Fulton as vacancies should occur, and to employ as many as the vessel would accommodate. His requests were finally granted. The law of Congress passed in March or April 1847, authorizing the apprenticeship system, was the result of his persistent presentation of his own plan elaborated in 1824.

Seventeen indentured apprentices were received, and a daily school on board the Fulton was instituted, in which the lads who proved apt to learn were taught the English branches, seamanship, war exercises, and partially the operations of the steam engine. After one year’s experience, Perry wrote July 8th, 1839, reporting that the boys already performed all the duties of many men. They gave less trouble and were more to be depended upon. While the utmost vigilance of officers was required to prevent desertions of sailors on account of the near allurements of the great city, the boys with a greater attachment were more to be trusted.

As only one-fifth of the sailors in the navy were native Americans, Perry took intense pride in the enterprise of rearing up men for the national service, in whom patriotism would be natural, inherited and heartfelt. He cheerfully met all the difficulties in the way—such as parents claiming their boys on various pretexts, and the law-suits which followed. To the boys themselves, Perry was as kind as he was exacting. He believed in tempting boys in the sense of proving them with responsibility enough to make men of them. Sufficient shore liberty was given, and once in a while, even the joys of the circus were allowed them.

He proposed to man one of the new national vessels with a crew of his trained apprentices, and under picked officers to send them on a long cruise to demonstrate the success of his system. When the brig Somers was launched April 16, 1842, the time seemed ripe, and he obtained permission of the Department to carry out his plan. The vessel had been built, and the boys had been trained under his own eye. After a conference with Secretary Upshur in September, it was arranged she should make a trip to Sierra Leone and back, occupying ninety days, traversing seven thousand miles, and visiting the ports or colonies of four great nations. A few days afterwards the Somers sailed away, full of happy hearts beating with joyful anticipations, yet destined to make the most painful record of any vessel in the American navy.

On this sad subject, either to state facts or give an opinion, we have nothing to say. The real or imaginary mutiny and its consequences did much to injure and finally destroy the apprenticeship system as founded by Perry. Other reasons for failure lay in the fact that boys of good family expected by enlistment to become line and staff officers. Disappointed in their groundless hopes, they deserted or wanted to be discharged. Failing in this, they sought release by civil process.

By the system of 1863, the same failure resulted. In 1872 “training ships,” as we now understand the term, were put in use. On June 20, 1874, the Marine School Bill was passed which created the present admirable system, which has little or no organic connection with any other system previously in vogue. It is now possible, with the Annapolis Naval Academy and the School-ship system, to provide abundantly both officers and sailors for the military marine of the United States. In any history of the naval-apprenticeship system of the United States navy, despite the claims made by others, or the many names associated with its origin or development, the name of Matthew Perry must not be lost sight of as prime mover.

Matthew Perry never fought a duel, or acted as a second, though duelling was part of the established code of honor among naval men of his school and age, and provocation was not lacking. On his return from the cruise in the North Carolina, an unpleasant episode occurred, growing out of idle gossip and the malignant jealousy felt towards an officer of superior parts by inferiors unable to understand one so intensely earnest as Matthew Perry. The manner in which Perry dealt with the man and the matter strengthens the claim we have made for him as an educator of the United States Navy. The conversation at a dinner party in Philadelphia filtered into the ear of a certain lieutenant in Washington, who reported that Captain M—— had spoken of Matthew Perry as “a d——d rascal.” Perry at once took measures to ferret out the anonymous slanderer. He first learned from Captain M—— the total falsity of the report, and then demanded from the disseminator of the scandal the name of his informant, which was refused. Thereupon Perry wrote to the Secretary of the Navy, pleading the general injury to the service from calumnies and unfounded reports. The Secretary wrote to the offending lieutenant to tell the truth. The latter pleaded the “privacy of his room,” “sacred confidence among gentlemen,” and declined to give the name of the person “understood” to have made the offensive remark to him. The Secretary, Hon. Samuel L. Southard, in a letter which is a model of terse English, read the offender a lecture on the unmanly folly of dabbling in idle gossip, and laid down the principle of holding the disseminator of reports responsible for the truth of statements made on the authority of another. The triangular and voluminous correspondence from Boston, Washington and Norfolk, from November 15th 1827, to April 1828, may be read in the United States Navy Archives. Perry demanded a court-martial, if necessary, to clear himself from unjust suspicion. It was not needful. His tenacity and perseverance conquered. The gossipper begged permission to withdraw his remark, and then crawled into oblivion.

In this paper war, extending over several months, the officer whose victories both in peace and war were many, scored points in behalf of truth and good morals, of the discipline and order of the Navy, and of the advance of civilization. Heretofore, the custom of duelling had largely prevailed in the corps, and to this savage tribunal of arbitration a thousand petty questions of personal honor had been brought. Yet despite all arguments in favor of the bloody code, which believers in or admirers of its supposed benefits may fabricate in its favor, the fact remains that it served but an insignificant purpose. Its direct influence was slight in repressing those petty personal differences which, belonging to human nature, have such congenial soil in a crowded ship. Duelling was a cure but no preventative, the killing being as frequent as the curing.

Matthew Perry might have challenged the lieutenant, and, like scores of his brother officers, appealed to the savage code; but having long pondered upon and frequently witnessed the slight benefit accruing from the costly sacrifice of life and limb from duelling, he aimed to cut out from the life of the service the whole system, root and branch, and to substitute the more rigid test of personal responsibility. In choosing the slower and, in old naval eyes, more inglorious method of correspondence, and appeal to considerate judgment of his peers in court, he exhibited more moral courage, showed his true character and motive, and lifted higher the splendid standard of the American Navy. To the formation of that esprit of discipline which all now concede to be “the life of the service,” Perry, in this episode nobly contributed. He made the pen mightier than the sword.

Despite his clear record on this subject, made thus early, he came very near being made the victim of a political quarrel, and a reformer’s zeal. Readers of the works of John Quincy Adams may get an impression unjust to Captain Matthew Perry, because of the Resolution of Inquiry, December 3d, 1838, “into the conduct of Andrew Stevenson (United States Minister to Great Britain, and J. Q. Adams’s political enemy) in his controversy with Daniel O. Connell, as well as the participation of Captain Perry in that affair.”^[70] To make a long story short, Mr. Adams, in his political zeal to injure an enemy and moral purpose to abolish “the detestable custom of private war,” struck the wrong man. All the information on which Mr. Adams based his inquiry was contained, as he confessed, in “those published letters of James Hamilton of South Carolina;” whereas, Mr. Hamilton regretted and publicly apologized for writing the principal letter which gave rise to the other two.^[71] The whole controversy is not without interest, and humor of both the Irish and American sort. It is possible that Perry never knew till he found his name dragged into Congress, what use of his name had been made by Hamilton. So far as manifested in his official record,^[72] Matthew Perry’s example, influence and energetic action were totally opposed to duelling. In his African cruises, and at the Brooklyn Navy Yard, we find him earnestly laboring to root out of existence a practice at war with Christian civilization.

How well he and like-minded men succeeded, is now known to all—except an occasional hot head in which passion outruns information. It is perfectly safe for a person seeking either notoriety or satisfaction to challenge a naval officer of the United States to fight a duel. One familiar with the “Laws for the better government of the Navy” need have no fears of the result. Neither government nor individuals now consider “a single person entitled to a whole war.”

Portraits.

By William Sidney Mount in 1835, when M. C. Perry was forty years old, now in possession of one of the Commodore’s children.

One at the time of his marriage.

One painted from a photograph by Brady, about 1864.

One at the Brooklyn Naval Lyceum.

One at the Annapolis Naval Academy, by J. R. Irving.

A painting from a daguerreotype was made in Japan by a Japanese artist.

Photographs.

Of these, there are several taken from life, from one of which the frontispiece of this volume has been made.

Engravings.

In Harper’s Magazine for March, 1856, from a photograph by Brady of New York, in an illustrated article on “Commodore Perry’s Expedition to Japan,” by Robert Tomes, Esq., M.D.

In a London illustrated paper, about 1853.

In Gleason’s Pictorial, Boston, of August 5th, 1854.

In Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper of Saturday March 13, 1858.

Other prints in newspapers and lithographs of the face or bust of M. C. Perry were made during his lifetime.

Bust and Statue.

A bust in marble of M. C. Perry, in sailor garb by E. D. Palmer, of Albany N. Y., was made in 1859, and is now in possession of the Commodore’s daughter, Mrs. August Belmont of New York.

In Touro Park, Newport, R. I., the city of his birth, about fifty yards east of the “old round tower” is a bronze statue of M. C. Perry, on a pedestal of Quincy granite. The extreme height is sixteen feet, the statue being eight, and the pedestal eight feet in height. The face, modelled partly from photographs and partly from Palmer’s bust, is considered a good likeness. The effect of the figure is grand, and the position easy and natural. The model was designed by John Quincy Adams Ward of New York, and the pedestal by Richard M. Hunt. On the latter are four excellent bas-reliefs in bronze, representing prominent events in M. C. Perry’s life.

These are, “Africa, 1843,” Perry’s rescue of the man condemned to undergo the sassy ordeal, (p. 173); “Mexico, 1846,” transportation of the heavy ship’s guns through the sand and chapparal to the Naval Battery; “Treaty with Japan, 1854,” two scenes, representing the reception of the President’s letter at Kurihama (p. 359), and the negotiation of the treaty at Yokohama (p. 366). On the front of the plinth of the pedestal is cut an American ensign; on the north and south sides an anchor, and in the rear, “Erected in 1868, by August and Caroline S. Belmont.” The bronzes were cast at the Wood Brothers’ foundry in Philadelphia. Pa. The statue was unveiled October 2d, 1868, when the city of Newport was given up to public holiday in honor of the event. The military display consisted of marines, sailors, and apprentices from the U. S. S. Saratoga and cutter Crawford, under command of Captain, now Rear-Admiral, J. H. Upshur; and four militia companies. One thousand children from the public schools were ranged within the hollow square formed by the military, and sang chorals. Besides seven or eight thousand spectators, there were officers of the army and navy, clergy and the children and grand-children of Commodore M. C. Perry. After prayer by Rev. J. P. White, unveiling of the statue by Mrs. Belmont, salutes from guns in the park and on shipboard, music, a speech of presentation by Mr. Belmont, and responses by Mayor Atkinson, the orator of the day, the Rev. Francis Hamilton Vinton, D. D. delivered the oration and eulogy. The exercises were closed by a speech from Captain J. H. Upshur, U. S. N., who drew a glowing picture of M. C. Perry’s action at Vera Cruz, and of his success in Japan. See the Newport Mercury of October 3d, 1868, and the published oration of Dr. Vinton “The statue” says Pay Director J. Geo. Harris, U. S. N., in a letter to the writer May 19, 1887, “is in all respects a likeness.” “I was impressed with its remarkable fidelity in stature, pose and bearing, as in full dress he met the Japanese commissioners on the shore at Yokohama.”

Medals.

The gold medal struck in Boston had on its face the head of “Commodore M. C. Perry,” and on the reverse the following legend with a circle of laurel and oak leaves: “Presented to Com. M. C. Perry, Special Minister from the United States of America, By Merchants of Boston, In token of their appreciation of his services in negotiating the treaty with Japan signed at Yoku-hama, March 31, and with Lew Chew at Napa, July 11, 1854.” On the band at the base of the wreath is the word Mississippi, and over it the figures of two Japanese junks, between the sterns of American ships. Copies of this medal in silver and bronze were received by subscribers to the gold original. The die was cut by F. N. Mitchell.