has an eye for color, and prefers to have his picture a showy
and effective one even if some of the accessories are purely of the
imagination. We cannot consider the letters of the "Times" special
correspondent as a reliable history of the events immediately following
the battle of Gettysburg, although they are undoubtedly glowing
bulletins of the exploits of General Kilpatrick and his temporary
subordinate, General Custer. Nor can we accept the statement of the
Detroit "Evening News" for an entirely correct report of the grand
review at Washington, in 1865, when he hands down to posterity that
sober-sided old warrior, Provost Marshal General Patrick, as one who
"had ridden down the broad avenue bearing his reins in his teeth, and
his sabre in his only hand"; although the Mazeppa act in which Custer
immediately followed is not overdrawn by the "News," because that would
be "painting the lily." There are several other extracts from newspapers
of a similar nature, but we have not space to refer to them. Captain
Whittaker's book offers material for that "coming historian," but cannot
be looked upon as an entirely safe historical authority. Colonel Chesney
says, "Accept no one-sided statement from any national historian who
rejects what is distasteful in his authorities, and uses only what suits
his own theory.... Gather carefully from actual witnesses, high and low,
such original material as they offer for the construction of the
narrative. This once being safely proved, judge critically and calmly
what was the conduct of the chief actor; how far his insight, calmness,
personal control over others, and right use of his means were concerned
in the result." The great fault of this otherwise attractive biography
is the unwise partisanship which, as Captain Whittaker shows, was so
injurious to his hero in life and which even in death does not forsake
him. At page 282 Captain Whittaker says of alleged envy and jealousy of
Custer in certain quarters:

A great deal of this was due to the boasting and sarcastic
remarks of his injudicious friends, who could not be satisfied
with praising their own chief without depreciating others.

Thus the author, after warning his readers of the pit into which so many
others have fallen, proceeds in the most inconsistent manner to fall
into it himself.

Had we space, we could here make many extracts entirely free from the
foregoing objections. Many new descriptions of Indian li