from a document without stating expressly whether official or otherwise, and how obtained; whenever he cites a man's words or an official's speech, he always indicates the source of information. There results for the reader a feeling of security as to the veracity of such accurate statements, and as to their completeness; it forms a close network which leaves no room for any sterile argumentation about the facts, the interpretation of which is, of course, left to the careful student.
Such a line of treatment was all the more necessary in this case, since the complete and official account of the conduct of the trial, the "summary" as it is called, has not yet been given out and probably never will be, since it would establish certain responsibilities that the Spanish government would rather keep in the dark. The consequence of this is that the author has had to reconstruct the case from semi-official statements given out in the clerical press, and from the accounts of the reporters present at the trial. Besides, the whole thing being a political affair, it belongs to history, and like all historical questions, the facts are scattered over a large area; they are to be found mainly in the newspapers, the chief depositories of modern history. But as the majority of newspapers publish such a mass of useless stories, of vague reports, of incorrect, often purposely untruthful statements, it takes a man with a highly developed critical sense and discriminating judgment to sift the mass and bring out what is apparently the correct story. Such a man the author of the book in question has proved himself to be. As for impartiality, he announces in the preface that his aim was to place before the reader the materials out of which to form his own opinion and he adds: "The author hes exerted the greatest care in studying with sincerity
