"scientific, unprejudiced investigators." There is no question that they greatly influenced opinion. No less a distinguished historian than John Fiske announced his change from belief to disbelief in the Whitman claims. Many readers East and West considered these books a final adverse settlement of the case. About a year ago Leslie Scott, in a review in the Oregon Historical Quarterly of Marshall's final work on the "Acquisition of Oregon," expressed the belief that this was the last word and that the Whitman "myth" might be considered exploded for good. But in spite of the considerable acceptance of this opinion, there is now a decided swinging of the pendulum the other way, and a disposition on the part of candid students to question the whole spirit and methods of Profs. Bourne and Marshall. This revival in the belief of the essential truth of the Whitman story is largely the fruit of the modest and unobtrusive yet convincing work of Myron Eells (convincing because of fairness, candor and honesty) in his "Reply to Professor Bourne," and his "History of Marcus Whitman," and although both Bourne and Marshall, the latter especially, have treated Eells with contempt (See page 45 of Marshall's "History vs. the Whitman Saved Oregon Story" for an example of his tone of petty spitefulness) I am ready to submit to any candid reader of both that Eells is as superior to Marshall in fairness, candor and dignity, as he is inferior to him in capacity of "scientific" abuse and misinterpretation.
As the limits of this article forbid long or numerous citations I will refer readers to the books concerned, Bourne's "Essay on Historical Criticism," and Marshall's "History vs. the Whitman saved Oregon Story," and "Acquisition of Oregon." Reference will also be given to Eells' "Reply to Professor Bourne," and "Marcus Whitman."
First, the spirit of these two writers. I shall refer mainly to Marshall. Professor Bourne was a "gentleman and a scholar," and his essay contains relatively few examples of abuse and vituperation, though not entirely free from them, as shown on page six of Eells' Reply. The chief feature in Professor Bourne's spirit to which I would call attention is that he is somewhat supercilious and academic. I would submit to close readers of this essay that it leaves the impression that he is more concerned in illustrating his theory of history than in ascertaining the real facts in the Whitman case. It has been asserted on supposedly good authority, although I do not claim it for I know nothing of it first hand, that some Yale student from this state presented Professor Bourne a class thesis on this subject which so much pleased him that he himself took up the theme, and that this
