A Mr. Jacobs soon afterwards wrote a life of Cresap, in which he attempted both of the feats aimed at by Martin; it is quite an interesting production, but exceedingly weak in its arguments.  Neville B. Craig, in the February, 1847, number of The Olden Time, a historical magazine, followed on the same lines.  Finally, Brantz Mayer, in his very interesting little book, “Logan and Cresap,” went over the whole matter in a much fairer manner than his predecessors, but still distinctly as an advocate; for though he collected with great industry and gave impartially all the original facts (so that from what he gives alone it is quite possible to prove that the speech is certainly genuine), yet his own conclusions show great bias.  Thus he severely rules out any testimony against Cresap that is not absolutely unquestioned; but admits without hesitation any and every sort of evidence leaning against poor Logan’s character or the authenticity of his speech.  He even goes so far (pp. 122, 123) as to say it is not a “speech” at all,—­although it would puzzle a man to know what else to call it, as he also declares it is not a message,—­and shows the animus of his work by making the gratuitous suggestion that if Logan made it at all he was probably at the time excited “as well by the cruelties he had committed as by liquor.”

It is necessary, therefore, to give a brief summary of a portion of the evidence in its favor, as well as of all the evidence against it.  Jefferson’s Notes and Mr. Mayer’s book go fully into the matter.

The evidence in its favor is as follows: 

(1.) Gibson’s statement.  This is the keystone of the arch.  John Gibson was a man of note and of unblemished character; he was made a general by Washington, and held high appointive positions under Madison and Jefferson; he was also an Associate Judge of the Court of Common Pleas in Pennsylvania.  Throughout his life he bore a reputation for absolute truthfulness.  He was the messenger who went to Logan, heard the speech, took it down, and gave it to Lord Dunmore.  We have his deposition, delivered under oath, that “Logan delivered to him the speech nearly as related by Mr. Jefferson in his Notes,” when the two were alone together, and that he “on his return to camp delivered the speech to Lord Dunmore,” and that he also at the time told Logan he was mistaken about Cresap.  Brantz Mayer, who accepts his statement as substantially true, thinks that he probably only reported the substance of Logan’s speech, or so much of it as he could recollect; but in the State Department at Washington, among the Jefferson Papers (5-1-4), is a statement by John Anderson, a merchant in Fredericksburg, who was an Indian trader at Pittsburg in 1774; he says that he questioned Gibson as to whether he had not himself added something to the speech, to which Gibson replied that he had not changed it in any way, but had translated it literally, as well as he could, though he was unable to come up to the force of the expressions in the original.