[BOWMAN] DISCREPANCY IN TRUSTWORTHY RECORDS 173 
clusion of the introduction, does mere inability to suggest a harmoniza- 
tion which would bring the discrepancy within the categories fail to 
prove exclusion; but in all such attempts to exclude conceivable 
origins, it is apparent, from the degree of legitimate contradiction 
found in the 26 cases, how the most elemental certainties tend to become 
elusive.! 
ii. WHERE THE DISCREPANCY LIES BETWEEN RECORDS 
ESSENTIALLY TRUSTWORTHY AND THE ATTENDANT 
CIRCUMSTANCES ARE UNKNOWN, THE AGREEMENT OF 
TWO OR MORE RECORDS IN CONTRADICTION OF ANOTHER 
RECORD DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE CONCLUSION THAT THE 
CONFLICTING STATEMENT OF THE SINGLE RECORD IS 
ERRONEOUS. 
In Case 1 the auctioneer, the clerk of the sale, and many other 
trustworthy eye-witnesses of the auction, might separately make and 
record statements that the drover was the purchaser of the farm; and 
yet the statement of the farmer, made aad recorded, that he was the 
purchaser, would be also truthful and correct. 
In Case 6, D might separately make and record a statement in 
agreement with B’s statement, made and recorded, that B accompanied 
both C and D to the train; and yet the statement of C, made and 
recorded, that she went thither alone would be also truthful and correct. 
Or inversely, such a statement by D might agree with the statement 
of C; and yet the statement of B that he attended both C and D to the 
train would be also truthful and correct. 
Similar possibilities are inherent in Cases 7, 9, 11, 13, 18, 19, 21, 22, 
and 24; and by these facts the principle above enunciated is established 
as a necessary conclusion. 
iv. WHERE THE DISCREPANCY LIES BETWEEN RECORDS ESSEN- 
TIALLY TRUSTWORTHY AND THE ATTENDANT CIRCUM- 
STANCES ARE UNKNOWN, IF THE DISCREPANT STATE- 
MENTS COINCIDE IN PART, SILENCE IS REQUIRED OF THE 
HISTORIAN ONLY FROM THE POINT WHERE THE CONTRA- 
DICTION ACTUALLY BEGINS. 
In Case 20 one statement gives the number in attendance at the 
church and service in question as several hundred, while the other state- 
ment justifies the conclusion only that the number was three or four. 
MP: 159. 
