are completely ignored. But examine the map more 

 -closely. At first glance, you try to satisfy yourself that 

 the omissions are because it is a map of permanent settle- 

 •Dients merely ; but no. You will tind in conspicuous 

 type the names of even ordinary discoverers of lands and 

 islands, head-lands and straits. Then, if it was injustice 

 not to mention any of the early settlements in Maine, one 

 as early as 1607, and others before 1620, is it not a double 

 injustice that in a map including early discoveries also, 

 not the slightest attention is paid to the repeated and no- 

 table discoveries on the Maine coast? In history one ex- 

 pects fair play. It is not always obtained, however, with- 

 out trouble. 



On page 38th, in a foot-note of three lines, is a mere 

 mention of the "Popham Colony." It got in by squeezing. 

 It has also squeezed into the revised edition of Bancroft's 

 History of the United States. It has been a fact fighting 

 for its life for recognition. It has won. It is now an 

 acknowledged fact. You may soon expect to see 

 ■"Temaquid" in the histories. On page 41st no notice is 

 taken of Gosnold's visit to Maine ; but his trip to Cape 

 Cod our Massachusetts friends will find inserted. How 

 rejoicing to those favoring "the truth, the whole truth, 

 and nothing but the truth !" 



On page 42d you will detect an error: "Puritans set- 

 tled at Plymouth" should be "Pilgrims settled at Plym- 

 outh ;" and then a glaring mistake — "first English settle- 

 ment in New England, Dec. 21st, 1620" — the fact being 

 that the colony on the Kennebec antedated this by thir- 

 teen vears ! Permanent settlements are elsewhere spoken 

 of. 



Again, see page 53d, and read that Capt. John Smith 

 "examined the coast from Penobscot to Cape Cod, drew a 

 map of it (the famous 1614 map on which he put down 

 "Plimouth" six years before the Pilgrims landed there,) 



