We will suppose that at last the task of investigation has come to an end. We have run our family lines back as far as our plan contemplated, or as far as we were able to do with a reasonable amount of research. Perhaps most of them go back to the original emigrants, but it may be that in a case or two we have had the good fortune to make connection with an old family stem in Europe. In any case, the work is now done. We have made our discoveries, and scored triumphs not a few. But though the excitement of the chase is over, its pleasures are by no means spent. Is there no story to tell, no tale of our difficulties and exploits? Next to the exhilaration of the hunt itself, what can compare with the mellow joy of going over it with a comrade! Least of all can the "inevitable narrative" be spared in a case of ancestry-hunting. It is the logical issue of the search, and failure to weave our facts into a readable story, after having collected them, is almost unthinkable.

Having piloted the reader safely hitherto, we must now faithfully warn against pernicious ways, even though it should involve criticism of many of the genealogical books which have appeared in print. The truth is that in the great majority of such works we look in vain for the proofs of the statements made.[Pg 30] Authorities are not given and we do not find systematic footnotes, nor even ordinary citations of authorities in the text. We have nothing better than our own guess to enable us to decide whether the compiler is giving us the fruit of original research, an extract from another compilation, unsupported tradition, or a mere conjecture.

This is most unfortunate, for a genealogical chain is no stronger than its weakest link. Suppose that we have tested one of the statements in such a book by our own original investigations and find it to be erroneous. How can we feel sure that the next statement may not be equally unreliable? The whole book therefore becomes discredited in our eyes. With genealogists everywhere at work, the errors in such volumes are bound to be discovered, and made public.

Any degree of confidence which we can allow ourselves in such cases depends upon the reputation of the compiler. But no man is infallible, and how can we know that the author's methods were such as to reduce his errors to a minimum? It may be that our own family line has been treated in such a book, that we have personal knowledge of the compiler, and are well satisfied as to his carefulness and accuracy. But can we expect others to have this same faith? How are they to be convinced that our family history is correctly given in a book of mere assertions, backed up by no display of authority?

Can a genealogist claim to be exempt from conditions which the greatest historians impose upon[Pg 31] themselves? Does a Gibbons, Macaulay, Guizot, Motley, Prescott or Bancroft expect to withhold the sources of his information and ask to be taken on faith? By giving the authorities for his statements, he proves instead that he has made proper researches, that his work is faithful, and that he can be trusted to draw judicious conclusions. We appreciate the great labor involved in compiling an authoritative work and understand the temptation to compile a book of mere assertions. But we see no honest escape from the obligation to give authorities, nor is escape desirable. For it is a sad fact that some, who support themselves by means of genealogical investigation, manifest no great anxiety to do honest work. They are careless in gathering their facts, and their pretence of having surveyed a field is no assurance that desirable data have not been overlooked or wilfully neglected. In compiling, they are equally slipshod. Their work is always set forth in the unauthoritative manner here condemned, and it is most desirable that others should protect themselves from the outward appearance of a like carelessness by giving their authorities.

The extra work which the giving of authorities is supposed to entail is more fanciful than real. The failure to jot down the authority with each note made in our notebook, to remind us of the actual value of each item and to direct us where to go for its context or for reinspection, is probably a much more substantial cause of extra work. And there is no difficulty in[Pg 32] giving our authorities in the manuscript prepared for the press if this work of previous investigation has been properly done. We can appreciate the terror of the situation for one who has failed to note his authorities as he transcribed his extracts. After compiling his manuscript from his notes, must he go over the whole territory covered by his research in order to gather up the missing authorities? Unless he is of heroic mould, he will probably refuse to do so in despair!

Thus the reader can perceive the full importance of doing the work of investigation properly, as insisted upon in the preceding chapter. If he has done so, there is no difficulty in compiling an authoritative work. His note and the authority for it stand side by side, and as he uses the one he can instantly set down the other.

We have spoken of the legal method of investigation, and said that the genealogical investigator is like the lawyer who is getting his evidence together. But this having been done, there remains the preparation of the case for............