To the Editor of the Medford Historical Register:Sir:—I have noted from time to time many inaccuracies in the Register from the commencement of its publication to the present time, and am forcibly reminded of the sayings of Mr. John Fiske, historian, that ‘The step from unconscious historical inaccuracy to conscious historical falsehood is not a long one.’ ‘The errors of our local historians have taken such a firm hold on the local thought and literature that no amount of evidence to the contrary will scarcely displace.’ I do not propose to review the first twenty volumes of the Register at the present time, but I wish to call your attention to some inaccuracies in the second and third numbers of the Register for the current year, which, in the interest of historical accuracy, should be corrected. In an article entitled ‘Medford on the Map,’ in Vol. XXI, No. 2, p. 32, reference is made to Walling's map of Medford, which was accompanied by eleven other maps or sections bound together in an atlas. The writer of the article failed to discover such atlas or any one that has memory of it. A foot-note says, ‘As both history (Brooks' history) and map were published at nearly the same time and by separate interest, it is probable that the reference to eleven sections was made from some prospectus rather than actual issue.’ These maps or sections cannot be classed among ‘Medford Myths’; they actually existed as a supplement to the map. The lots on each section were numbered, and a reference book or index accompanied the atlas in which was recorded the number of each lot and its area in acres or square feet. During my service as an assessor I had occasion to consult the atlas times without number. The last time I saw the atlas was about ten years ago, in the city engineer's office, where I made copies of several lots to assist my study of Medford history.