Page:American Historical Review, Volume 12.djvu/420

 41 o Reviews of Books somewhat discursive essays dealing pleasantly and instructively with the subjects of which it treats, while still leaving open the field for a more scientific study of the subject. The Haycs-Tilden Disputed Presidential Election of 1876. By Paul Leland Haworth, Lecturer in History, Columbia University. (Cleveland: The Burrows Brothers Company. 1906. Pp. xi, 365.) Mr. Haworth's study of the disputed election of 1876 possesses nearly every virtue desirable in a historical work, with one exception. It is based upon an investigation of every possible printed or manuscript source, which, as the author says, may be deemed exhaustive; for, although other sources of information exist, there is little likelihood of their being divulged, since " those actors who could tell the truth . . . will never do so" (p. x). This mass of material has been subjected to an analysis whose minute caution and systematic verification of state- ments are visible on every page. The author uses foot-notes skilfully, so as to avoid cumbering the page with bulky references while substanti- ating every important assertion. The conviction is impressed upon the reader that Mr. Haworth, in the search for facts, has come as close to the truth of this exceedingly complicated affair as it is possible for one to attain by historical methods. Another merit lies in the compact handling of material. In spite of the enormous bulk of his evidence, Mr. Haworth manages to compress every essential fact into 343 pages, leaving out details, yet including many interesting, significant, and amusing brief quotations. The style, too, is admirably clear and graphic. There are few books devoted to a single line of complicated and rather sordid politics which read as en- tertainingly, largely because of the lucidity and ease of presentation. Mr. Haworth, in short, has produced what ought to be an authorita- tive account of the great contested election ; yet in view of one peculiar feature of the book it may be doubted whether it can be regarded as final. The monograph is pervaded from cover to cover with a strong bias in favor of the Republican party and against the Democratic. The facts are not concealed or altered, the errors or questionable proceedings of Republicans are not ignored, and every opinion of the author is pro- vided with soine recognition of a possible alternative conclusion ; but, from start to finish of the long, complicated, and malodorous story, it is perfectly obvious that in Mr. Haworth's eyes the Republican party was uniformly right and the Democratic party uniformly wrong. The interpretation of the case, according to Mr. Haworth, may be easily summed up ; the returning boards were partizan and shameless, but their decisions were within their legal powers and were equitably correct; the contentions of the Democrats against the validity of elec- toral votes were groundless; the Electoral Commission decided correctly both in law and in equity: the Republican contest to secure the count-