Numerous inaccuracies, suppressions, exaggerations, and discrepancies exist in most of the accounts of this renowned naval engagement. The first reports published in Europe were characterized by contradictions sufficient to confuse any reader. This variance was noted by the London _Daily News_ in the following manner: "The sceptic who called history a matter-of-fact romance, should have lived in our day, when a naval action is fought off Cherbourg on a Sunday, and reported to the London and Paris newspapers on the Monday morning, no two reports agreeing in any single fact, except in the result. In our enlightened epoch of incessant, instantaneous, and universal inter-communication, the difficulty of getting at the simple facts of any passing incident, in which conflicting sympathies are concerned, increases in proportion to the increasing celerity and certainty with which the materials of history are gathered. Some allowance, no doubt, may be made for eyewitnesses on shore of a naval engagement seven miles out at sea. Their 'powerful glasses' are liable to that peculiar inaccuracy of sight which distance, excitement, and smoke produce. A French gentleman, for instance, who from Cherbourg Breakwater looked on at the American duel on Sunday last, wrote a graphic letter to the _Debats_, with a postscript to the effect that he had just discovered that the account in his letter was entirely wrong." Here ends the present story of the Kearsarge and Alabama. It is the truth told honestly. * * * * * Transcriber's note A few obvious typographical errors have been corrected, and they are listed below. Page 20: "Hopital de la Marine" changed to "Hôpital de la Marine". Page 24: "which which broke a link" changed to "which broke a link". Page 27: "postcript to the effect" changed to "postscript to the effect".