[BOWMAN] DISCREPANCY IN TRUSTWORTHY RECORDS 131 
say to an inquirer that he bought the property, while the auctioneer 
will say that the drover was the buyer; and the stand-points of 
both are equally good. The drover bought the property but dis- 
honestly kept it; the farmer also bought it but was cheated of the 
purchase. 
(2) A merchant bought an old store for $10,000, the site being 
worth $5,000 and the building $5,000, and he replaced the building 
by a new block costing $20,000. To an assessor inquiring for 
assessing purposes concerning the cost of the property after the 
new erection, the truthful answer is $25,000; if the merchant’s 
banker makes the same inquiry in order to know where the mer- 
chant’s money went, the answer is $30,000. The difference is 
dictated by the different stand-points of the inquirers, and the 
answers, therefore, are necessarily discrepant in order that each of 
them may be truthful. 
In both of these instances it should be noted further that the 
several stand-points are equally valid for use by a subsequent historian. 
With full knowledge of all details of the discrepancy, he might embody 
in an historical account either of the conflicting statements without 
mention of the other, if his theme did not involve the details of the 
discrepancy and if consequently, by giving such details, he would 
distract the reader’s attention from the object of real interest. 
The conclusion deduced from the above and similar facts concern- 
ing the origin of discrepancy is that discrepancy has a legitimate and 
necessary place in truthful intercourse, and therefore a legitimate and 
necessary place in truthful records. 
B. THE HARMONIZATION OF DISCREPANCY. 
The harmonization of conflicting statements in existing records 
where the circumstances of the discrepancy are unknown, is a mere 
groping in the dark. The author, by assuming that the discrepant 
statements in the 26 cases are recorded without mention of the cir- 
cumstances from which the discrepancies sprang, 1s enabled to observe 
the value of this practice by an unstinted light. In 12 of the 26 cases 
thus tested harmonization seemed impossible, while in the remaining 
14 the most reasonable harmonization (which, in all but one case, 
was also an exceedingly probable one) was in every instance contrary 
to the facts. 
