the latter subject, and Mr. Bancroft's editing has made me seem to contradict myself. Had he been the real historian, he would not have overlooked that disagreement between statements.
An amusing incident bearing upon the claim of Mr. Bancroft that I never wrote any finished history, is quite too good to suppress. A certain historical review in the East returned to me an article sent them upon an Oregon subject, with quite a severe rebuke for filching my material from Mr. Bancroft's Oregon, and not only that but imitating his style! Frankly, he did not like Mr. Bancroft's style, so there was an end of it. This appeared very diverting at the time, and I replied at once that it was certainly quite natural that my style should seem to be an imitation of Mr. Bancroft's, as I happened to have written that part of his history too. That confession, of course, drew from the review editor an ample apology. I am inclined to join him in his opinion, because a habit of writing continually from notes for years is no doubt injurious to style. And, therefore, if Mr. Bancroft desires to claim all the honors attendant upon the "finishing" of my work, I make no great protest. That I furnished him "much valuable raw material" is at least admitted. It was material, too, that I had spent years in collecting, and for which I received no compensation. Perhaps that was my own fault. But I am not good at bargaining, and no compensation was ever offered. I can truthfully say that whatever knowledge of Oregon history Mr. Bancroft possesses, he obtained from me. I do not mention that fact as a conspicuous defect in his education, for there was not much known on the subject 25 years ago, and at best, not every one can be a historian, but because I am fond of my work and am grieved that through too much editing it has failed somewhat of my purpose in performing a long and serious labor.
FRANCES FULLER VICTOR.
Twenty-five writers in the sixth group, consisting both of older and contemporary historians, will now be
