Page:History vs. the Whitman saved Oregon story.djvu/68

62 was held, but he said that it was 'last October.' This was scientific, but it was not the truth."

Our truth seeking author quotes nothing more of this, the first account ever printed as to the origin and purpose of Whitman's ride; from title page to finis of this "Reply," except this quibble over the petty mistake of the editor in writing "last October," when, as a fact, the meeting was held September 26 and 27. Mr. Eells' statement that this trivial error "was scientific" is nonsense. Scientific history, according to his own inaccurate definition of it (Reply, p. 37), is "The facts written at or near the time they occurred," and' "last October" was not "a fact," but a blunder of the editor of the Missionary Herald, doubtless due to the fact that both C Eells' letter and E. Walker's letter were dated October 3, 1842. But C. Eells was the "Scribe" of that meeting and his letter begins its official record as follows: "A Special Meeting of the Oregon Mission was called on the 26th of September, 1843." I* ^s plain, therefore, that the editor of the Missionary Herald did not refer to that official record for the date, but assumed that because the two letters were dated October 3, 1842, that the meeting was held "last October." Scientific history is history honestly, carefully and accurately written by candid and competent persons, from the very best authorities obtainable, which means, always from the original sources when they exist and are accessible,. As the official record of that meeting, stating. that it was called to order September 26, and closed September 27, 1842, was in the office of the Secretary of the American Board, it was not "scientific" for him, instead of referring to it and giving the correct date, to write "last October." ' On p. 42 we have another illustration of the muddled condition of Mr. Eells' mind on this question of scientific history. He states that a pamphlet about Mason County, Washington, was published in July, 1901, for distribution at the Buffalo Pan American exposition, "which hence would be believed to be authentic," and that it stated that Martin Koopman "conducted a restaurant at Hoodsport," and Mr. Eells continues, "Now this is scientific because its author went there before he wrote it, took four pictures of the place for his pamphlet, and was supposed to know. But the truth is that Mr. Koopman does not and never has kept a restaurant there, but a saloon." That is, according to Mr. Eells' ideas of scientific history, every man who dashes off an advertising pamphlet for gratuitous distribution, no matter how careless, or dishonest, or indifferent to truth he may be, is a writer of "scientific history," if, perchance, he has visited the locality of which he writes, and taken some pictures of it!