Page:Essays in Historical Criticism.djvu/58

38 stated by Mr. Eells in his pamphlet and in two articles by Rev. Dr. Thomas Laurie in the Missionary Herald. These articles make a show of candor by pointing out the errors of detail in the statements of Spalding and Gray, but there is no real criticism of the evidence, and Dr. Laurie's fundamental disingenuousness is proved by the fact that although he was in a way the official historian of the Board he did not even intimate that their records and letter books of 1842-43 contained any evidence to settle the controversy, nor did he choose to bring again to light the printed testimony of the Missionary Herald. Not only that, but he replies to Mrs. Victor and Mr. Evans by quoting statements of Gushing Eells that the contemporary records show to be errors. Again, when Mr. Evans asserted that Whitman would not have gone east in 1842-43 if it had not been for the order to discontinue the mission stations at Lapwai and Waiilatpu, Dr. Laurie replies: "The writer will not say how it was, but let Dr. Whitman speak for himself," and then quotes a letter of Whitman's four years later. Why Dr. Laurie refrained from saying "how it was "will appear later.

The position of Elwood Evans as summarized by Dr. Laurie was: (1) "Dr. Whitman's journey in 1842-43 had no political intent or significance whatever. (2) No desire or wish to defeat British claim to the territory or any part of it had any influence in actuating such a journey. (3) His exclusive purpose was to have the Board rescind its order to abandon Lapwai and Waiilatpu."