The Washington herald., 1913-11-24
THE OPEN FORUM
LAST CHAPTER In CAPT.
BARRY CONTROVERSY
Correspondent Gives Proof that He
Never Was a Commodore.

Correspondent Jlves IIooi net AAe
Never Was a Commodore.
To the Editor: 20. H. L." in The
Open Forum, of The washington Herald,
writes:
| Mr. Green further says:y The official title OF
commodore had no existence In the United states
navy before the civil war Enaenty sI. Hietn;
the selfcoustftuted HISTORIC critic has not read
the data contained in the Journals Of the Con-
tpental Congress.
| I have read the Journals of Continental
congress. and also the Congressional Rec
ord, from I7Se, and nowhere therein is 1t
stated that Continental Congress. or Con-
gress to 1850. Iegislated the title OF COM
modore into the navy, and L repeat Cd
that Capt Barry never was a COM
modore of or In the navy, and CD that
lcommodore was not an official title in
the navy before the civil war. Mark you'll
I say official title-title by legislation of
Congress. And the resolution OF No
vember l.. 177s, often cited by wv. Il.
NJ" is not to the contrary, for that,
therein. the Continental Congress having
referred to the title OF commodore rela-
lively, without having first created the
| title, did not create that nue.
and it does not warrant assertion
of legal existence Of that title any more
than under like circumstances in refer
ence TO admiral or vice admiral in same
resolution IL created legal title of admiral
and vice admiral. That a delegate OF
Continental Congress, or a member of
Congress, from the floor. or elsewhere;
or any person, or persons, or paper,
periodical. or book. called, or calls. Barry
commodore did any does not make that
title official And in not drawing the
proper distinctions has been, is. and will
| be misleading. and those responsible for
Iinscribing Capt. Barry's statue with title
of commodore of the navy or even "in"
the navy, absurdly pervert history, pur-
posely mislead. and are false teachers.
10. II. l." in saying: Evidently Mr..
Green, the self-constituted historic critic
has not read the data contained in the
Journals of Continental Congress" not
only shows that he has not read those
journals in the light of intelligence. but
is in accord with the false propaganda.
20. H. l." asks:
Where and when did Mr. Green see the original
| Stuart portrait of Barry! Did he ever see the
copy from Stuart's portrait Of Barry hanging in
Independence Hall at Philadelphia, the which
Sculptor Boyle refers to in interview which ap-
peared in a Washington paper. issue of November
| . 1919?
No one has yet seen the statue Of Barry (which
only being cast in brunzeD the sculptor
model and that by Mr.. Boyle and a few others
1t is said CMeany's Life of Commodore
Barry'') that Mrs. W. II. Hepburn, Phil
adelphia, possesses Stuart's Barry por-
trait. l have not had the honor of in
specting that portrait. but / count II as
more than passing strange that Martin
l. J. Griffp. long a resident of Phila-
delphia. in all of his wonderful Barryonia.
and Sculptor Boyle, in his supreme ef
fort of Barry effigy in bronze, copied from
a copy in Independence Hall. instead of
| from the original in Mrs Hepburn's house
in the same city.
l saw pictures on its walls when visit
| ing Independence Hall. and among them
| Colon Campbell Cooper's Barry after
Stuart
BY the way. the article in "a Wash
ington paper" Post does not purpnrt
to be an interview with Sculptor Boyle,
as 20. II. l." asserts. but like one of
like matter in the New York Herald Of
October L, 1918, appears to be an adver-
tisement going the rounds OF the news
papers. l have both. and a few others,
almost identical. already in my scrap
book of BarrSonia, which scrapbook also
will contain 20. II. LIS" animadversions.
1t will show that 20. II. L." in the
bravery of his hidden identity, Iidicu-
lously asks: when and where did Mr..
Green see the original Stuart picture of
Barry?' As II Stuart made copy! My
word, it makes me laugh!
OF course. have not seen Boyle's Barry
recently on exhibition. And 20. H. l."
knew that everything said by me IN re-
lation TO Boyles imaginative likeness of
Barry was promised upon that presented
in the papers. including the picture of
Sculptor Boyle's intended statue, and
appearing. according to 20 II. L." on
Mr.. Boyle's authority.
20. II. L." says:
Mr.. Green writes: Mr.. Boyle wanted dash
ip1 Pa and had
and presents us with a mythical Likeness of Capt
Bany. who Was not a dAshing locking man. from
stuart's portrait; nor. in fact. man Of dAshinS
deeds, according to history"
Now what appears about the likeness
of Boyle's Barry in the said papers?
AS to Sculptor Boyle's model, the New
York Herald says:
- the sculptor had to depend in great part
his imagination TO obtain a Likeness Of his
subject. The Stuart portrait does not reveal
the dashing Barry which Mr.. Boyle desired to Put
in bronze . the sculptor used his i'm
aginaton to give dash and Ugur to the countenance.
The Washington paper PosO %. II.
L. cites as containing Boyle's interview,
sets forth.
stusrt's . portrait it is declared. does not
reveal the dashing naval hero which Mr.. Boyle
wished TO represent
or course, when I stated that M.
Boyle wanted A 'dashing Barry draws
hard on his imagination and presents
us with mythical likeness of Barry"
l also said ''as presented in the pictures
of the papers," and the said papers were
my authority and 20. II. L." asserts
that Sculptor Boyle was their spokes-
man.
My word, it is a pity that 20. H. l."
| characterizes as "diatribe" that which he
| asseverates to be upon Boyle's own in
terview.
ANDREW JORDAN GREEN