termine the truth.

With reference to the period under consideration, the difference
between what I have written and what has been written by Mr. Rhodes
and some other historical writers is what the lawyers would call the
difference between primary and secondary evidence. The primary is
always considered the best evidence, the secondary to be used only
when the primary can not be obtained. And yet what I have written is
not based wholly upon memory. It is only so with reference to
distinguished persons and important events and tendencies, which are
not likely to be inaccurate through the treachery of memory. The
statistical information I have given is not from memory, but from the
files of the official records which are accessible to the public. But
it appears that Mr. Rhodes and some other historical writers used only
such parts of the official records as answered the purpose they seemed
to have in view, which evidently was to mislead and deceive the
public. This is virtually admitted by Mr. Rhodes's expert, in stating
that "the point Mr. Lynch makes about the defalcation of Hemingway is
an interesting one, and one that is evidently carefully kept in the
background by the local writers." Yes, they not only kept that point
in the background, but all other points that were not in harmony with
the purpose they seemed to have in mind, which was evidently one of
deception and misrepresentation.

The reader will not fail to see that Mr. Rhodes's nameless expert
passed over in silence a number of important points in my article.
Some of those alluded to by him he frankly admitted to be right, as in
the case of Treasurer Hemingway. In the case of Mr. Evans, the Negro
sheriff of De Soto County, he relies upon a statement written by a Mr.
Nichols of that county who was evidently a partisan, who makes an
effort to paint Mr. Evans in as unfavorable a light as possible, and
yet he fails to confirm the allegation that Mr. Evans could neither
read nor write, but concludes his communication with the declaration
"that nothing really was wrong." Judging from what is written by Mr.
Rhodes's expert I conclude that Garner is the one from whom Mr. Rhodes
obtained most of his misinformation. Yet in speaking of the Negro
sheriffs in a general way Mr. Rhodes's expert was frank enough to say:
"On the whole such first-hand material as I have been able to find
does not uphold Garner entirely in his estimate of this class of
officials, especially