Now we can readily appreciate why the Dutch West India Company might have a distinct and deliberate object in not being too exact in their history of Manhattan Colony. They would naturally be very shy of giving occasion or encouragement to a rival nation on the alert to press a claim avowedly made, however unjust, to territories entrusted to the Company’s care and government. It would to say the least have been very impolitic to give countenance to it in one of their own official papers. About twelve years later the directors, writing to Stuyvesant, while commending him for the reduction of New Sweden, at the same time remonstrated with him for having made a written agreement with the Swedish Commander. And they then put into so many words the shrewd policy which we suggest they followed in the present instance, saying; “What is written is too long preserved and may be produced when not desired, whereas words not recorded are in the lapse of time forgotten, or may be explained away” (O’Callaghan’s “New Netherland,” vol. II. p. 327). If Argall on the spot, and only a few years after the settlement; if Heylin in a book written and published before 1664, could make so much of Hudson’s nationality in the matter of his discovery, so that more than a hundred years after that event, sober historians could still cooly repeat the story of England’s supreme right, and quite cast aside the claims of the Dutch, then it may well have been considered in 1644 that it would be a dangerous concession to have even made an allusion to Hudson in a committee report. Under these circumstances, finding at home a possibly prevalent and convenient rumor about the Greenland Company and its vessels in New York bay and river, without any intention to deliberately falsify, the chairman of the committee simply incorporated the statement under discussion in his report. For business purposes, on a paper prepared by business men and not by historians, this may have been good enough history; but being preserved in this documentary form, and read in an age eager for documentary evidence and too ready to give undue weight to unpublished and original matter, the assertion derived an importance which it does not really deserve, and was not intended to possess. And so entirely unsupported is it by other proofs, or by the facts of history, that even the documentary character of this evidence has not prevailed to deceive wise and judicious investigators. It is clear that it did not commend itself as quite trustworthy for historical purposes to Dr. O’Callaghan. In quoting it, though it own assertion is entirely positive, he introduces its language by the cautious phrase, “it is said.” Brodhead, whose researches brought the paper to light, also deals very gingerly with it, holding it off at arms length, so to speak, and saying: “it needs confirmation”—and indeed, it certainly does. DANIEL VAN PELT. FOOTNOTES