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 its presentation to the court. The work of the genealogical compiler corresponds to this. As the lawyer's brief compels the favorable decision of the judge, or as the logical presentation of the case convinces the jury, so should the argument of the compiler of family lineage convince the court of public opinion. His should be an historical document which carries its evidence upon its face. But if his method has been careless either in research or presentation, the cross-examination of historical criticism is sure to tear the case to pieces. Although a temporary decision may be given in his favor, another investigator will eventually arise and question some of his unsupported statements. The whole case will thus be appealed, and a new investigation be called for. It is perfectly true that a strictly legal method cannot be carried out in the printed volume. Original documents can be readily presented to an ordinary judge and jury and by them be carefully inspected. But when we present our case from the printed page, the whole world is the court, our readers the jury, and the printed volume itself both witness and advocate. The original documents, though we may have them in our possession, cannot be placed in the hands of every reader of a book. Therefore in compiling for publication, the historical method takes the place of a strictly legal presentation of the case. This method, as we have already seen, simply leaves out the feature of affidavits and certified documents, and substitutes that of references to the original authorities. It is the legal method adjusted to the conditions of publication. The reward which flows from this method is easily seen. We cannot hope that our book will be flawless. Mistakes will occur, and it may transpire that some of our witnesses were misinformed. But what of this? If we have followed the historical method, the pointing out of an error in no wise invalidates our book. One witness out of the hundreds we have called may be impeached, but this only affects the single aspect of the case which rested on the testimony of that witness. The rest of the testimony stands unimpaired.