Mr. Jenner. That is pages 13 through 17 and up to this point on page 18?
Mr. Oliver. Yes.
Mr. Jenner. You were using the term “evidence” in the general or loose sense?
Mr. Oliver. Yes, not in the sense of sworn testimony as a lawyer would use it.
Mr. Jenner. Yes, not in the sense of primary sources, is that correct?
Mr. Oliver. Yes. Of course, we run into a curious question, the definition of primary sources. There are many modern historians who would list the newspapers, for example, as primary sources.
Mr. Jenner. Depending on their use, yes.
Mr. Oliver. As distinct from, let us say, textbooks which would be secondary sources. I am here assuming primary sources means some direct positive evidence other than the printed reports, et cetera.
Mr. Jenner. I don’t wish to compromise you, of course. When I use the term “secondary” or “primary” sources I am using it in a sense that a lawyer uses it. Newspaper reports we would generally refer to as secondary sources. We would have to go to the primary source on which the reporter based his article in order to get something in evidence.
If we were trying to prove a general milieu, newspaper accounts as to an atmosphere at a particular time or something of that nature they would be admissible. But as to your sources here, I understand the term secondary sources means newspaper reports, articles or even books on which you retired, as distinguished from personal knowledge.