to the writing and signature of articles outside of routine docu ments that must in future perplex the historian . It is to -day unfortunately impossible to trust the name attached to a news paper article, if it is that of a public officer, as indicating, beyond peradventure of a doubt, its true authorship . The name signed presumably means that the ostensible writer assumes the re
sponsibility for it, yet this can not always be true since articles are hurriedly read, or possibly not read at allby those purporting to write them . Confusion and perplexity must at every turn await the historian compelled to depend in any degree upon this class of material.32 Such material is authentic in the sense that it is not forged , much of it is undoubtedly authoritative, as re gards its content, but it is also true that the real authorship of much of it will never be known .
this is not, since Harvey was apparently not in Washington at the time. It does not, indeed , indicate Webster' s authorship of the inaugural address, but certainly a radical revision of it .
32 One illustration will suffice as representing many that could be given . An important document in 1918 came from Washington supporting a great
popular movement. It was signed with the name of a very prominentmem ber of the Administration and it was at once quoted in a textbook with the comment that if so very busy a man as the writer was known to be could take the time to write this article all persons ought to give the movement
their support . The article was in fact not written by the official in question ,
but by a distinguished scholar who had offered his services to the govern ment.
