Solomon Spaulding was born at Ashford, Connecticut, in 1761; graduated from Dartmouth College in 1785, and completed his course in theology in 1787. After this he preached for a time, but finally became an infidel/ quit preaching and engaged in the mercantile business in Cherry Valley, New York, where he failed financially in 1807. In 1809, with a business partner, Henry Lake, he built a forge at Conneaut, or New Salem, Ohio, where he again failed in 1812. The same year he removed to Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, where he lived two years, removing, at the expiration of this time, to the town of Amity, in the same State, where he made his home up to the time of his death in 1816.

SPAULDING'S ROMAN STORY.

It was while living at Conneaut that Spaulding became interested in the aboriginal works of the country and began to write romances based upon them. The first of these, which is variously known as his "Manuscript No. I," "Manuscript Story — Conneaut Creek," "Honolulu Manuscript" and "Roman Story," he began in the year 1809. This manuscript gives an account of a party of Romans who, in the time of Constantine, in a voyage to Britain, were driven from their course by contrary winds and were thrown upon our Atlantic coast Making their way inland, they came in contact with two native tribes, the Sciotans and Kentucks, who are described as living, respectively, north and south of the Ohio River. This story is the purported history of these aboriginal tribes, giving an account of their customs, habits, manner of government and wars. Its author was a Roman by the name of Fabius, who is represented as writing it on twenty-eight rolls of parchment in the Latin language and afterward depositing it in an artificial cave near Conneaut, where Spaulding claims that he discovered it. It was never finished, for it ends abruptly. Spaulding gave as his reason for throwing it aside that he wished to go further back in his dates and write in the old Scriptural style, that his story might appear more ancient —a wish that was afterwards accomplished in his "Manuscript Found," from which, it is claimed, the Book of Mormon has been revamped.

After Spaulding's death, his widow removed to the home of her brother, W. H. Sabine, of Onondaga Valley, New York. Among the things that she carried with her was an old, "hair-covered trunk" which contained the sermons, essays and a "single manuscript" of her deceased husband. In 1820, Mrs. Spaulding married a Mr. Davison, of Hartwick, New York, and took the trunk to that place with her. Her daughter, Matilda Spaulding, was married to Dr. A. McKinstry in 1828, and removed to Monson, Hampden County, Massachusetts, where her mother followed her soon afterwards and where she spent the remainder of her life. When Mrs. Davison removed from Hartwick, the trunk spoken of was left in the care of her cousin, Mr. Jerome Clark, of that place. Leaving the Spauldings for the present, we return to Conneaut, Ohio. In 1832 or 1833, a "woman preacher" came to that place and read copious extracts from the Book of Mormon before a congregation composed, in part, of Spaulding's relatives and old acquaintances. The book was immediately recognized by Spaulding's brother and others as a plagiarism of the "Manuscript Found," and considerable indignation was manifested that it should have been put to so unholy a use as to be transformed into a new Bible. The excitement was so intense that a citizens' meeting was called, and Dr. Philastrus Hurlburt, who had been a Mormon, but who had been cut off from the church, Mormons say, for immorality, was deputed to visit Mrs. Davison and secure, if possible, the "Manuscript Found," that it might be compared with the Book of Mormon and the fraud be exposed.

Hurlburt went, first, to Onondaga Valley, New York, where he secured the recommendation of Mr. Sabine, Mrs. Davison's brother, and from there to Monson, Massachusetts, where he met Mrs. Davison herself. At first this lady declined to give her consent to let the writings of her former husband pass out of her possession, but upon receiving Hurlburt's solemn promise that the manuscript he was seeking would be returned, she reluctantly acceded, and Hurlburt went to Hartwick and obtained from the old trunk in Mr. Clark's possession the "single manuscript which it contained, and which at that time was supposed to be the "Manuscript Found."

Hurlburt then returned to Ohio and delivered the manuscript, with other matter which he had collected, to a Mr. E. D. Howe, editor of the Painesville Telegraph, who was then engaged in writing his book, "Mormonism Unveiled." But, when this gentleman examined the manuscript, he discovered that it was not the "Manuscript Found" at all, but Spaulding^s first story, entitled "Manuscript Story—Conneaut Creek." He also afterwards exhibited it to the old acquaintances of Spaulding, who immediately recognized it as his work, but who declared that it was not the "Manuscript Found," but another manuscript written earlier.

This romance was not returned to Mrs. Davison, as had been agreed upon, and was soon lost track of. Howe declared that it had been destroyed by fire, while the Spauldings accused Hurlburt of having sold it to the Mormons. But neither of these explanations of its disappearance proved true. In 1839-40, Howe sold his printing establishment to a Mr. L. L. Rice, who, with a partner, began publishing an antislavery newspaper. Rice subsequently sold out and removed to Honolulu, Sandwich Islands, where, in 1884, he accidentally discovered this manuscript in his possession, it having been inadvertently transferred to him by Howe, among other things, when he bought out his printing establishment.

Soon after its discovery, this manuscript was placed in the library of Oberlin College, Ohio, where it still remains. Both of the Mormon Churches have made copies of it, which they publish under the erroneous title, "Manuscript Found."

THE FAIRCHILD-RICE-SMITH CORRESPONDENCE.

With the finding of the Honolulu manuscript, interest in the question of the origin of the Book of Mormon was re-aroused, and papers and magazines throughout the country heralded the news of the new find and discussed its probable bearing upon the traditional theory, so long held, of the origin of the Book of Mormon in the Spaulding Romance. Pres. J. H. Fairchild, of Oberlin College, having been in Honolulu at the time of the discovery of this manuscript, wrote a brief note in regard to the same for the Bibliotheca Sacra, which was widely copied by papers and magazines throughout the country. This note, with three letters from the pen of Mr. L. L. Rice, the finder, appear in the preface to the Josephite edition of this manuscript The note is as follows :

The theory of the origin of the Book of Mormon in the traditional manuscript of Solomon Spaulding, will probably have to be relinquished. That manuscript is doubtless now in the possession of Mr. L. L. Rice, of Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands, formerly an anti-slavery editor in Ohio, and for many years State Printer at Columbus. During a recent visit to Honolulu, I suggested to Mr. Rice that he might have valuable anti-slavery documents in his possession, which he would be willing to contribute to the rich collection already in the Oberlin College Library. In pursuance of this suggestion, Mr. Rice began looking over his old pamphlets and papers, and at length came upon an old, worn and faded manuscript of about one hundred and seventy-five pages, small quarto, purporting to be a history of the migrations and conflicts of the ancient Indian Tribes, which occupied the territory now belonging to the States of New York, Ohio and Kentucky. On the last page of this manuscript is a certificate' and signature, giving the names of several persons known to the signer, who have assured him that to their personal knowledge the manuscript was the writing of Solomon Spaulding. Mr. Rice has no recollection how or when this manuscript came into his possession. It was enveloped in a coarse piece of wrapping paper, and endorsed in Mr. Rice's hand-writing, "A Manuscript Story."

There seems no reason to doubt that this is the long-lost story. Mr. Rice, myself and others compared it with the Book of Mormon; and could detect no resemblance between the two. in general or in detail. There seems to be no name or incident common to the two. The solemn style of the Book of Mormon in imitation of the English Scriptures, does not appear in the manuscript. The only resemblance is in the fact that both profess to set forth the history of lost tribes. Some other explanation of the origin of the Book of Mormon must be found, if any explanation is required.

(Signed) James H. Fairchild.

The three letters of Mr. Rice I now give, reserving my comments on the same, as I also shall on the note of President Fairchild, until their close :

Honolulu, Sandwich Islands, March 28, 1885.

Mr. Joseph Smith:- The Spaulding Manuscript in my possession came into my hands in this wise. In 1839-40 my partner and myself bought of E. D. Howe the Painesville Telegraph, published at Painesville, Ohio. The transfer of the printing department, types, press, &c., was accompanied with a large collection of books, manuscripts, &., this manuscript of Spaulding among the rest So, you see, it has been in my possession over forty years. But I never examined it, or knew the character of it, until some six or eight months since. The wrapper was marked, "Manuscript Story— Conneaut Creek." The wonder is, that in some of my movements, I did not destroy or bum it with a large amount of rubbish that had accumulated from time to time.

It happened that Pres't Fairchild was here on a visit, at the time I discovered the contents of it, and it was examined by him and others with much curiosity. Since Pres't Fairchild published the fact of its existence in my possession, I have had applications for it from half a dozen sources, each applicant seeming to think that he or she was entitled to it. Mr. Howe says when he was getting up a book to expose Mormonism as a fraud at an early day, when the Mormons had their head* quarters at Kirtland, he obtained it from some source, and it was inadvertently transferred with the other effects of his printing office. A. B. Deming, of Painesville, who is also getting up some kind of a book I believe on Mormonism, wants me to send it to him. Mrs. Dickinson, of Boston, claiming to be a relative of Spaulding, and who is getting up a book to show that he was the real author of the Book of Mormon, wants it. She thinks, at least, it should be sent to Spaulding's daughter, a Mrs Somebody— but she does not inform me where she lives. Deming says that Howe borrowed it when he was getting up his book, and did not return it, as he should have done, &c.

This Manuscript does not purport to be "a story of the Indians formerly occupying this continent;" but is a history of the wars between the Indians of Ohio and Kentucky, and their progress in civilization, &c. It is certain that this Manuscript is not the origin of the Mormon Bible, whatever some other manuscript may have been. The only similarity between them, is, in the manner in which each purports to have been found — one in a cave on Conneaut Creek — the other in a hill in Ontario County, New York. There is no identity of names, of persons, or places; and there is no similarity of style between them. As I told Mr. Deming, I should as soon think the Book of Revelation was written by the author of Don Quixote, as that the writer of this Manuscript was the author of the Book of Mormon. Deming says Spaulding made three copies of "Manuscript Found," one of which Sidney Rigdon stole from a printing office in Pittsburg. You can probably tell better than I can, what ground there is for such an allegation.

As to this Manuscript, I can not see that it can be of any use to any body, except the Mormons, to show that IT is not the original of the Mormon Bible. But that would not settle the claim that some other manuscript of Spaulding was the original of it. I propose to hold it in my own hands for a while, to see if it can not be put to some good use. Deming and Howe inform me that its existence is exciting great interest in that region. I am under a tacit, but not a positive pledge to President Fairchild, to deposit it eventually in the Library of Oberlin College. I shall be free from that pledge, when I see an opportunity to put it to a better use. Yours, &c., L. L. Rice.

P. S. — Upon reflection, since writing the foregoing, I am of the opinion that no one who reads this Manuscript will give credit to the story that Solomon Spaulding was in any wise the author of the Book of Mormon. It is unlikely that any one who wrote so elaborate a work as the Mormon Bible, would spend his time in getting up so shallow a story as this, which at best is but a feeble imitation of the other. Finally, I am more than half convinced that this is his only writing of the sort, and that any pretense that Spaulding was in any sense the author of the other, is a sheer fabrication. It was easy for any body who may have seen this, or heard anything of its contents, to get up the story that they were identical. L. L. R.

Honolulu, Sandwich Islands, May 14th, 1885. IIr. Joseph Smith:

Dear Sir — I am greatly obliged to you for the information concerning Mormonism, in your letters of April 30th and May 2d. As I am in no sense a Mormonite, of course it is a matter of curiosity, mainly, that I am interested in the history of Mormonism.

Two things are true concerning this manuscript in my possession: First, it is a genuine writing of Solomon Spaulding; and second, it is not the original of the Book of Mormon.

My opinion is, from all I have seen and learned, that this is the only writing of Spaulding, and there is no foundation for the statement of Deming and others, that Spaulding made another story, more elaborate, of which several copies were written, one of which Rigdon stole from a printing office in Pittsburgh, &c. Of course I can not be as certain of this, as of the other two points. One theory is, that Rigdon, or some one else, saw this manuscript, or heard it read, and from the hints it conveyed, got up the other and more elaborate writing on which the Book of Mormon was founded. Take that for what it is worth. It don't seem to me very likely.

You may be at rest as to my putting the manuscript into the possession of any one who will mutilate it, or use it for a bad purpose. I shall have it deposited in the Library of Oberlin College, in Ohio, to be at the disposal for reading of any one who may wish to peruse it; but not to be removed from that depository. My friend, President Fairchild, may be relied on as security for the safe keeping of it. It will be sent there in July, by a friend who is going there to "take to himself a wife." Meantime, I have made a literal copy of the entire document — errors of orthography, grammar, erasures, and all — which I shall keep in my possession, so that any attempt to mutilate it will be of easy detection and exposure. Oberlin is a central place, in the vicinity of Conneaut, where the manuscript was written.

I have had an idea, sometimes, that it is due to the Mormons to have a copy of it, if they took interest in it enough to publish it. As it is only of interest as showing that it is not the original of the Book of Mormon, no one else is likely to wish it for publication.

Miss Dickinson, whom you call a granddaughter of Solomon Spaulding, represents herself to me as his grandniece: ''My great uncle. Rev. Solomon Spaulding," she writes.

Rev. Dr. Hyde, President of the Institution, in this place, for training Native Missionaries for Micranesia, (a very prominent and successful institution,) has written an elaborate account of this manuscript, and of Mormonism, and sent it for publication in the Congregationalist, of Boston. I presume it will be published, and you will be interested in reading it

Very respectfully yours, L. L. Rice.

Honolulu, H. I., June 12, 1885. President J. H. Fairchild: — Herewith I send to you the Solomon Spalding Manuscript, to be deposited in the Library of Oberlin College, for reference by any one who may be desirous of seeing or examining it. As a great deal of inquiry has been made about it since it became known that it was in my possession I deem it proper that it be deposited for safe keeping, where any one interested it it, whether Mormon or Anti-Mormon, may examine it It has been in my possession forty-six years— from 1839 to i885--and for forty-four years of that time no one examined it, and I was not aware of the character of its contents. I send it to you enclosed in the same paper wrapper, and tied with the same string that must have enclosed it for near half a century— certainly during the forty-six years since it came into my possession. I have made and retain in my possession a correct literal copy of it, errors of orthography, of grammar, erasures and all. I may allow the Mormons of Utah to print it from this copy, which they are anxious to do; and a delegation is now in the Islands, awaiting my decision on this point They claim that they are entitled to whatever benefit they may derive from its publication; and it seems to me there is some justice in that claim. Whether it will relieve them in any measure, from the imputation that Solomon Spalding was the author of the Book of Mormon, I do not attempt to decide. It devolves upon their opponents to show that there are or were other writings of Spalding— since it is evident that this writing is not the original of the Mormon Bible.

Truly yours, &c., L. L. Rice.

P. S.— The words "Solomon Spaulding's Writings" in ink on the wrapper were written by me, after I became aware of the contents. The words "Manuscript Story— Conneaut Creek," in faint penciling, were as now when it came into my possession. Having put before the reader the foregoing correspondence, I now invite his attention to a brief, critical examination of the same.

First, the manuscript described is not the "Manuscript Found," from which it is claimed the Book of Mormon was revamped, but an entirely different romance, entitled on the wrapper, "Manuscript Story — Conneaut Creek." Professor Fairchild says that this title appeared on the wrapper in Mr. Rice's handwriting, but Rice, himself, declares that it was there, "in faint penciling," when it first came into his possession. For a reason that will appear in the next chapter, I believe that it was on the wrapper long before it fell into the hands of Dr. Hurlburt.

Secondly, Professor Fairchild seems not to have fully understood, at this time, the Spaulding-manuscript theory. He speaks of this manuscript as "the long-lost story," wholly unmindful of the fact that, fifty years before, Howe, in his "Mormonism Unveiled," had given a paragraph outline of it and had declared that he had submitted it to the acquaintances of Spaulding, who had admitted that the latter was its author, but who had expressly denied that it was the "Manuscript Found." It is, therefore, not "the long-lost story" at all, but a totally different story, written earlier and bearing no more relation to the "Manuscript Found" than Longfellow's "Evangeline" bears to his "Hiawatha." The difference in style between this manuscript and the Book of Mormon is explained by the statement of Spaulding, when he threw it aside, that he intended to change the style and go further back in his dates that his story might appear more ancient.

Thirdly, Mr. Rice, in denying that the "Manuscript Story" was in any sense the basis of the Book of Mormon, admits the contention of nearly all learned antiMormon polemics, both before and since his time, that another manuscript of Spaulding's might have formed such a basis. He says:

It is certain that this Manuscript is not the origin of the Mormon Bible, whatever some other manuscript may have been.

And:

But that would not settle the claim that some other manuscript of Spaulding was the original of it.

Fourthly, Professor Fairchild, in October, 1900, so far changed his sentiments expressed sixteen years before, that he admitted the same contention. In the month mentioned, and shortly before his death, he signed the following statement in the presence of Rev. J. D. Nutting:

Fairchild's last statement.

With regard to the manuscript of Mr. Spaulding now in the Library of Oberlin College, I have never stated, and know of no one who can state, that it is the only manuscript which Spaulding wrote, or that it is certainly the one which has been supposed to be the original of the Book of Mormon. The discovery of this Ms. does not prove that there may not have been another, which became the basis of the Book of Mormon. The use which has been made of statements emanating from me as implying the contrary of the above is entirely unwarranted.

James H. Fairchild.

With this last statement, Professor Fairchild nullifies the wrong inferences which have been drawn from his first declaration, and swings into line with the position generally assumed by intelligent anti-Mormon polemics, that there was another manuscript, different from the one found in Honolulu, which became the basis of the Book of Mormon.

A MORMON LIE NAILED.

In the preface to the copy of the Honolulu manuscript, as published by the Reorganized Mormon Church, I find the following false and misleading statement:

Herewith we present to the reader the notorious "Manuscript Story" ("Manuscript Found"*) of the late Rev. Solomon Spalding. What gives this document prominence is the fact that, for the past fifty years, it has been made to do duty by the opposers of the Book of Mormon and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, as the source, the root, and the inspiration, by and from which Joseph Smith and Sydney Rigdon wrote said Book of Mormon and organized said Church. . . .

This seeming huge hindrance and insurmountable obstacle which is always thrown in the way of the investigator with all the skill and power that craft and cunning and malice and fear and blind zeal can invent and command, vanishes from the presence of this original witness in the case; for when it speaks it reveals the flimsiness and falsity of the claim that it was in any way or in any sense the origin of the Book of Mormon, or that there is the least likeness between the two. This newly found "missing link" completes the chain of evidence which proves that the "Manuscript Found" never was and never could be made the occasion, cause or germ of the Book of Mormon.

It would be difficult to find, among all that has been written upon this subject, a more false, misleading and incorrect statement than the foregoing. How an intelligent and honest writer could have penned these words, in the face of what Howe, Hurlburt, Bennett and Braden had written prior to this time to the contrary, is inexplicable. The "Manuscript Story" was never "made to do duty by the opposers of the Book of Mormon and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, as the source, the root, and the inspiration, by and from which Joseph Smith and Sydney Rigdon wrote said Book of Mormon and organized said Church." From 1834 it was expressly denied that this manuscript had anything to do with the Book of Mormon or that it was the "Manuscript Found." ' A paragraph review of it was given in Howe's book in 1834, and the contents of it were well known and employed in public discussion* before the manuscript, itself, was found in 1884. The writer of the foregoing could not have been ignorant of these facts; they were to be found in the books widely known of and read among the members of his church.'

In 1834, Howe wrote as follows of the "Manuscript Story":

The trunk referred to by the widow was subsequently examined and found to contain only a single MS. book, in Spalding's handwriting, containing about one quire of paper. This is a romance, purporting to have been translated from the Latin, found on twenty-four rolls of parchment, in a cave, on the banks of Conneaut Creek, but written in modem style, and giving a fabulous account of a ship's being driven upon the American coast, while proceeding from Rome to Britain, a short time previous to the Christian era, this country then being inhabited by the Indians. This old MS. has been shown to several of the foregoing witnesses, who recognize it as Spalding's, he having told them that he had altered his first plan of writing, by going farther back with dates, and writing in the old Scripture style, in order that it might appear more ancient They say that it bears no resemblance to the ^'Manuscript Found."

This is the first description ever given in print of this "Manuscript Story" which was afterwards found in the possession of Mr. Rice, of Honolulu. And Howe here disclaims that it was the "Manuscript Found," hence that it was the basis of the Book of Mormon. Yet, in the face of this fact, we are coolly told that this manuscript has been made to do service "as the source, the root, and the inspiration, by and from which Joseph Smith and Sydney Rigdon wrote said Book of Mormon and organized said Church"!

This same statement appeared again in the second edition of Howe's book of 1840, and in Bennett's "Mormonism Exposed" of 1842.

Howe, again, in 1881, disclaimed any connection or resemblance, whatever, between the "Manuscript Story" and the "Manuscript Found." In a letter, addressed to Elder T. W. Smith, an apostle of the Reorganized Church, he says :

Painesville, Ohio, July 26th, 1881.

Sir: —Your note of 21st is before me,— and I will answer your queries seriatim.

1st— The manuscript you refer to was not marked on the outside or inside "Manuscript Found." It was a common-place story of some Indian wars along the borders of our Great Lakes, between the Chicagoes and Eries, as I now recollect*— not in Bible style — but purely modem.

2d. — It was not the original "Manuscript Found," and I do not believe Hurlburt ever had it.

3d. — I never saw or heard read the "Manuscript Found," but have seen five or six persons who had, and from their testimony, concluded it was very much like the Mormon Bible.

4th. — 'Never succeeded in finding out anything more than was detailed in my book of exposure published about fifty years ago.

5th. — The manuscript that came into my possession I suspect was destroyed by fire forty years ago.

I think there has been much mist thrown around the whole subject of the origin of the Mormon Bible and the "Manuscript Found," by the several statements that have been made by those who have been endeavoring to solve the problem after sleeping quietly for half a century. Every effort was made to unravel the mystery at the time, when nearly all the parties were on earth, and the result published at the time, and I think it all folly to try to dig out anything more. Yours, etc.,

E. D. Howe.

Dr. Hurlburt, also, bears testimony to the fact that the manuscript which he obtained from Mrs. Davison, and which is now in Oberlin College Library, is not the "Manuscript Found.'' In a statement issued at Gibsonburg, Ohio, January 10, 1881, he says:

To all whom it may concern:

In the year eighteen hundred and thirty-four (1834), I went from Geauga county, Ohio, to Monson, Hampden county, Mass., where I found Mrs. Davison, late widow of the Rev. Solomon Spaulding, late of Conneaut, Ashtabula county, Ohio. Of her I obtained a manuscript, supposing it to be the manuscript of the romance written by the said Solomon Spaulding, called the "Manuscript Found," which was reported to be the foundation of the "Book of Mormon." I did not examine the manuscript till I got home, when upon examination I found it to contain nothing of the kind, but being a manuscript upon an entirely different subject. This manuscript I left with £. D. Howe, of Painesville, Geauga county, Ohio, now Lake county, Ohio, with the understanding that when he had examined it he should return it to the widow. Said Howe says the manuscript was destroyed by fire, and further the deponent saith not.

(Signed) D. P. Hurlburt.

The manuscript, then, which Hurlburt obtained from Mrs. Davison, was not the "Manuscript Found," from which it is claimed the Book of Mormon was taken, but was "upon an entirely different subject. The same distinction between the manuscripts was also made by Clark Braden in the celebrated Braden-Kelley debate, held at Kirtland, Ohio, in 1884, a short time before the Honolulu manuscript came to light.

Reader, when the Mormon elder, who comes to your door with his literature, tells you that the "Manuscript Found," from which it is claimed the Book of Mormon was taken, was discovered in Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands, in 1884, and that they now have it in printed form for twenty-five cents per copy, don't you believe it. The manuscript from Honolulu is not the "Manuscript Found," but the "Manuscript Story;" the former may be found, revamped, as the Book of Mormon, at the publishing-houses of the Brighamite and Josephite Mormon Churches.