The Spalding Research Project: Oberlin Spalding Manuscript

- THE SPALDING RESEARCH PROJECT -

Dale R. Broadhurst's ‘The Spalding Saga’

Chronology | Fairchild's Letters | L. L. Rice's Letters | Fairchild's Writings

The 1884 Discovery in Hawaii
Episode Eleven in the Spalding Saga

(this section is under construction)

THIS episode of the "Spalding Saga" xxxx xx xxx x x xxxxx x xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x xxxxxx xx xxx x x xxxxx x xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxx xx xxx x x xxxxxx x xxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxxxx x xxxxx xx xxx x x xxxxxxxxx xx xx xxx x xxxx xxxxx xx xxx x x xxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxxxx x xxxxxxxxxxx xx xx xxx x xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxxxx x xxxxxx xx xxx x x xxxxx x xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxx xx xxx x x xxxxxx x xxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxxxx x xxxxx xx xxx x x xxxxxxxxx xx xx xxx x xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xx xx xxxxx xx xxxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxx x xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x xxxxxx xx xxx x x xxxxx x xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxx xx xxx x x xxxxxx x xxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxxxx x xxxxx xx xxx x x xxxxxxxxx xx xx xxx x xxxx xxxxx xx xxx x x xxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxxxx x xxxxxxxxxxx xx xx xxx x xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxxxx x xxxxxx xx xxx x x xxxxx x xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx x xx xxxxxxxx xx xxx x x xxxxxx x xxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxxxx x xxxxx xx xxx x x xxxxxxxxx xx xx xxx x xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xx xx xxxxx xx xxxxxxx

John Whitney home, where the MS was found in 1884

xxxxxx x xxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxxxx x xxxxx xx xxx x x xxxxxxxxx xx xx xxx x xxxx xxxxx xx xxx x x xxxxxx xxx xxx xxxxxxxx x xxxxxxxxxxx xx xx xxx x xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxxxx x xxxxxx xx xxx x x xxxxx x xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxx xx xxx x x xxxxxx x xxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxxxx x xxxxx xx xxx x x xxx

Mary S. Rice Whitney
(photo taken in 1919)

Lewis L. Rice.

b. March, 1801; Otsego Co., N. Y
m. 5 Jan 1823; Portage, OH Chloe Pratt m. 26 Jul 1832; Ravenna, , OH Sarah Coleman (b: 16 May 1799)

1840 Census: Summit Twp: Northampton, OH (probably actually lived in Painesville)

1850 Census: Columbus, Franklin, OH 1860 Census: Columbus, Franklin, OH 1870 Census: Columbus, Franklin, OH

1879 -- came to Honolulu only son: Rev. Wm. Rice of New York, died: April 14, 1886
aged 85 years, 1 month

children:

Mary Sophronia Rice
b. 29 Nov 1837; Cleveland Cuyahoga, OH
m. 5 Aug 1869, Oberlin, Lorain, OH
John Morgan Whitney
d. 22 Feb 1825; Honolulu, Oahu, HI

letters to James H. Fairchild --

Feb. 16, 1887 July 30, 1887

The Descendants of John Whitney, Who Came from London, England, to Watertown, Massachusetts, in 1635. by Frederick Clifton Pierce (Chicago: 1895)

[pages 600-601]

DR. JOHN MORGAN WHITNEY (Moses A., Moses, Samuel, Samuel, Nathaniel, Nathaniel, John, John), b. 1 Oct 1835; Marlboro, VT m. 5 Aug 1869; Oberlin, Lorain, OH Mary Sophronia RICE, b. Nov. 29, 1837.

John Morgan WHITNEY was born in Marlboro, Vt., Oct. 1, 1835, in the home of his grandfather. At two years of age he was taken by his parents to Strongsville, O., but on the death of his mother soon after their arrival, he was brought back to his uncle, Stephen WHITNEY, in Marlboro, where he remained two or three years. He then went to live with his father in Strongsville, O. After his father's second marriage his older brother, Locke, was brought from his uncle, William WHITNEY'S, in Rowe, Mass., and for the first time they knew each other as brothers. A few years of school and the father took his family to the new state of Illinois. The home was not far from the river DuPage; upon its meadows deer were then more plentiful than cattle, so that scarcely an hour in the day during the summer there could not be seen several; often thirty or forty were counted at a time. In the waters were found the most enticing fish that ever inveigled a boy from work. The first school of the three months was taught by the father. The next three months the following year was taught by a young man who sat with his cap on with a rod by his side long enough to reach the head of the farthermost boy, and when any one disturbed him in his reading "PAINE'S Age of Reason" and similar works, he was given a cut across the head and shoulders, and the reading continued. The next year a school-house was built and an excellent teacher was engaged.

After the father's death, the two boys went back to Strongsville to their guardian's, Mr. Jubal Whitney. Here they enjoyed the privileges of excellent schools and were by them prepared to enter the preparatory department of Oberlin college. By teaching winters, with some assistance they easily carried forward their education. During the summer vacation of 1856, Locke being in Strongsville, the town was visited with dysentery as an epidemic. The scourge was so fatal that none dare venture to care for the sick outside of the family. One family could find no one to care for them, and he volunteered his help, and, being overworked by his studies, soon fell before the destroyer, in the twenty-first year of his age -- a young man of great promise. The complete failure of John's health compelled him to relinquish study for several years. During the war he obtained a clerkship in the quartermaster's department of Tennessee, and was there until the war closed.

He came home, studied dentistry under Dr. J. F. SIDDALL, of Oberlin, O., and graduated from the dental college of Pennsylvania. During the summer of 1869 he was married to Mary S. RICE, of Oberlin, and took for his wedding tour a trip to Honolulu, Hawaiian island. Here he commenced the practice of dentistry, the second dentist in the Islands after Dr. John Mott-Smith's arrival in 1851.

After four years he returned with his wife to Columbus, O., where he took a course and graduated from the Starling Medical college of that city. He opened an office for the practice of dentistry in Cleveland, where he had two children born to him. Finding the weather too severe for health, in the fall of 1876 he returned with his family to Honolulu, where he has been in the successful practice of his profession ever since; res. Honolulu, Hawaiian Is.

Note: 1910 Hawaii Census shows John living in Honolulu. John is listed in his wife's will, dated May 19, 1924 -- presumably still living then.

children:

Mary Louise b. Sept. 27, 1874; Cleveland, Cuyahoga, OH d. Dec. 13, 1879 -- prob. in Hawaii

William Locke b. Feb. 8, 1876; Cleveland, Cuyahoga, OH m. c. 1898; Saida Mae Sutton d. bet. 1910 -1924; Honolulu, Oaho, HI

Ada Rice b. July 25, 1877 (adopted -- prob. in Hawaii, c. 1880) m. c. 1897; Mr. Weinrich (he died before 1910) 1910 census shows her on Oaho d. aft. 1825

children:

Whitney W. Weinrich b. c. 1900 d. aft. 1925

Sidney J. Weinrich b. 18 Jun 1909 d. 25 Sep 1998

Ann (adopted) b. c. 1910 d. aft 1824

William Holden Rice
b. 4 Jan 1841; Painesville, Lake, OH
1862: Graduated B.A., Oberlin College
1865: Graduated from Oberlin Theological School
1869 ordained Presbyterian minister
1870s: Member of the Cong. Council in Genesee, Illinois. 1870s-80s Preached in Brooklyn, Ohio, Mt. Carroll, IL, 1880s: Washington DC, Vernon, NY, Addison, NY 1890s: Benton Harbor, MI.

m. 25 Apr 1867; Oberlin, Lorain, OH
Libbie P. Kinney

Children

Lewis George Rice
b: 6 Feb 1868; Oberlin, Lorain, OH
d. 29 Aug 1868; Oberlin, Lorain, OH

Harold Kinney Rice
b: 8 Dec 1869; Oberlin, Lorain, OH

Not to be confused with William Hyde Rice (1846-1924) the Governor of Kauai.

Addison, Steuben, NY -- 1885-87 , , OH -- 1890

1901 - Nov 8 letter written from Panchau St. Honolulu

1900 and 1910 census show William H. Rice: Lihue District, Island of Kauai d. between 1910 and 1924, prob. Hawaii

Lewis L. Rice edited The Lorain County News from March 1, 1864 until October, 1865. Mr. Rice was the only editor of The News during the Civil War that was never a student of Oberlin College (Williams Brothers, 65). He came to the paper with 42 years of experience in the business, managing and editing abolitionist newspapers (Williams Brothers, 66).

Rice's credits included editing The Ohio Star.

He was the publisher and editor of The Cleveland Whig from August 20, 1834 until 1837. In January of 1835 Rice was joined by another veteran of the news business, R. Penniman. In 1836 Penniman and Rice began publishing The Cleveland Gazette, which later became The Cleveland Daily Gazette. They sold both The Whig and The Gazette to Charles Whittlesey and A. H. Lewis on January 3, 1837 (Encyclopedia of Cleveland History, 2nd Edition, Ed. David D. VanTassel and John J. Grabowski [Bloomington and Indianapolis, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1996]).

In 1839 Rice became the editor of the Painesville Telegraph (Emilius O. Randall and Daniel J. Ryan, History of Ohio: The Rise and Progress of An American State, vol. 3 [New York: The Century History Company, 1912] 401).

L. L. Rice took over as the editor and publisher of The Ohio American which was an organ of the anti-slavery Liberty Party. He worked for The Ohio American from September 19, 1844 to August 28, 1845.

In August the paper moved from Ohio City, just outside Cleveland, to Cleveland proper and the name was changed to The Cleveland American. Rice stayed with this paper until May 28, 1847 (Encyclopedia of Cleveland History). Lewis L. Rice, who was an attorney, also served as the private secretary to Ohio Governor Chase. After Rice edited The Lorain County News he moved to Columbus, Ohio where he served as the Superintendent of Public Printing for the state of Ohio during the next twelve years. Rice finally retired to Oberlin (Williams Brother, 66).

Rice should be most remembered in connection with the Spaulding papers. When Lewis Rice took over as editor of The Painesville Telegraph in 1839 he acquired many papers including the manuscript of Solomon Spaulding. Spaulding was one of the early Mormons. Some Christians who opposed the founding of this denomination speculated that the Book of Mormon was a plagiarism of Spaulding's works. Spaulding's works had been missing for a number of years, therefore it was impossible to prove the plagiarism. Rice turned the papers over to James Fairchild, President of Oberlin College, when he realized their significance in 1884. Fairchild subsequently read the manuscript and discredited the charges of plagiarism leveled against the Book of Mormon in a speech in 1884. The Solomon Spaulding Manuscripts are now in the possession of Oberlin College. This work is considered by some to be part of the Book of Mormon (Randall and Ryan, 401-404).

A Chronology of the
Oberlin Spalding Manuscript

Part One: 1811-1878

1879-1883 1884 1885 1886 1887-1899 1900 on

A Chronology of the
Oberlin Spalding Manuscript

Part Two: 1879-1884

1811-1878 1884 1885 1886 1887-1899 1900 on

1879
Following the death of his wife, Lewis L. Rice moves from Ohio to Honolulu, Hawaii and lives with his daughter and her husband. When he moves he unknowingly takes along Spalding's "Roman" story in one of his steamer trunks.

1879: Aug. 19
Robert Patterson Jr. secures permission from Solomon Spalding's heir(s) and visits D. P. Hurlbut in Gibsonburg, Ohio. Rev. Patterson is unable to retrieve any Spalding holographs from Hurlbut, but he does obtain a statement from the man, regarding his 1833 procurement of the Spalding "Roman" story from Jerome Clark. Hurlbut says he did not read the manuscript materials he obtained from Clark, but took the writings to Painesville and immediately turned them over to E. D. Howe. The alibi and chronology here given by Hurlbut disagrees with practically all other known sources respecting his activities during the last weeks of 1833.

Hurlbut says that Howe took Spalding's writings, agreeing to the condition of their eventually being returned to Spalding's widow, Hurlbut almost certainly lied about not looking at the story and about giving it immediately to Howe, upon his arrival back in Ohio. Ample evidence exists, showing that Hurlbut exhibited some of Spalding's writings to several different persons, shortly after returning to Kirtland from the east, in late Dec. 1833. Hurlbut apparently did not take Spalding's "Roman" story to New Salem and show it to the witnesses there until the end of December, several days after his return to Ohio.

1880: Feb.
In a letter published in the Pittsburgh Leader, Rev. Robert Patterson, Jr. tells of his visit with Hurlbut at Gibsonburg and reproduces his written statement.

1880: Apr. 3
Matilda Spalding McKinstry provides a lengthy statement (on her foster father's writings, etc.) for her relative, Ellen E. Dickinson. Dickinson would later include this statement as part the article submitted by her to Scribner's Monthly.

1880: Aug.
Matilda Spalding McKinstry's statement (see above: Apr. 3, 1880) is published in the August issue of Scribner's Monthly. This article (compiled by Ellen E. Dickinson) publicizes the Spalding authorship claims to an extent which they have never previously been popularized.

1880: Aug. 3
Matilda Spalding McKinstry writes a letter to James T. Cobb of Salt Lake City, in which she says: "Hurlbut may have received in addition to "Manuscript Found" some fragment tied up with the bundle, which fragment he passed over to Mr. Howe, retaining the one [manuscript] of real importance for personal use.... I feel that any communication from my self to "Mr. H[urlbut]" -- would be of no avail. If he stole the papers, he would not criminate himself by owning it." This sentiment reflects the continuing view of the extended Spalding family in those days -- that D. P. Hurlbut had recovered the Manuscript Found" in 1833, along with Spalding's "Roman" story, and that he retained the former (for sale to the Mormon leaders), while palming off the latter work upon E. D. Howe in Feb. 1834.

1880: Aug. 7
Eber D. Howe writes to D. P. Hurlbut after having received a letter from him. Howe says that the "Roman" story manuscript given him by Hurlbut nearly 50 years before was not Spalding's "Manuscript Found," "but altogether a different manuscript on a very different subject." Strangely enough, Howe also says that he did not receive the "Roman" story into his possession until after he published his book (at the end of Nov. 1834).

1880: Nov. 13
Ellen E. Dickinson interviews D. P. Hurlbut in Gibsonburg and obtains a second statement he made for publication. [1881 Scribners?] In 1885 Dickinson would publish the essentials of her interview with Hurlbut. As is the case much of her anti-Mormon reporting, it cannot always be trusted in its details, but there is no reason to doubt that she did conduct the reported interview.

Hurlbut reportedly tells Dickinson that when he found that Spalding's "Roman" story was not identical to the Book of Mormon (and "amounted to nothing"), he gave it to E. D. Howe. If Dickinson's reporting can be trusted, Hurlbut then contradicted himself by saying he had recovered a Spalding manuscript that contained some Book of Mormon names.

1880: Nov.-Dec.
Mrs. Dickinson visits E. D. Howe at Painesville. She would later report (in her 1885 book) the details of her interview with him. The Spalding manuscript Howe admitted once having in his possession he says had "no connection with Mormonism." Howe recalls that Spalding's "Roman" story was left lying around the Telegraph office for many years. He says he did not know what happened to it -- he was not certain whether it was burned in a fire, or if he had simply lost track of it.

1881: Jan. 10
D. P. Hurlbut writes up a signed statement for Ellen E. Dickinson. In it he claims not to have examined the Spalding writings he obtained in New York until after he returned to Ohio (at the end of 1833). According to Hurlbut, when he finally looked at these writings, he discovered that what he had was not the basis for the Book of Mormon, but a story "upon an entirely different subject." He says, "this manuscript I left with E. D. Howe, of Painesville... 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..."

1881: July 26
In a letter written to RLDS Apostle Thomas W. Smith, E. D. Howe says that the Spalding manuscript given him was not marked "Manuscript Found," was not written in the old biblical style, and was only a story about old Indian wars. Howe says he thinks that particular manuscript was "destroyed by fire forty years ago."

1882: ??
Boyd Crumrine's History of Washington County is published in Philadelphia. Pages 425-438 are devoted to "Solomon Spalding and the Book of Mormon," a section written by Robert Patterson, Jr. On page 430 Patterson quotes from Howe's 1834 summary of the Spalding "Roman" story, making a weak comparison of it to the Book of Ether. Patterson says "That two plots so much alike should originate so nearly about the same time and place in two different minds seems incredible." This is arguably the first positive comparison of textual similarities in Spalding's known writings and the Book of Mormon story. Patterson sends an off-print of this article to Joseph Smith III, President of the RLDS Church.

1883: Jan. ??
RLDS President Joseph Smith III responds to Robert Patterson, Jr. by publishing his "The Spaulding Story Re-examined," first in the Church newspaper and then as a separate tract. On page 9 he quotes E. D. Howe on the contents of the manuscript brought to him (by D. P. Hurlbut in 1834) in Painesville. President Smith dismisses the possibility that the Book of Mormon was based upon any Spalding story. Smith bases his judgment upon the fact that the reported "Roman" story was the only Spalding manuscript ever discovered and that it bore little similarity to the contents of the Book of Mormon.

A Chronology of the
Oberlin Spalding Manuscript

Part Three: 1884

1811-1878 1879-1883 1885 1886 1887-1899 1900 on

1884: early Apr.
While attending the annual RLDS Spring Conference at Stewartsville, Missouri. President Joseph Smith III reportedly experienced a night-time vision or dream in which he saw "a manuscript... on which were clearly written the words, 'Manuscript Story.' While Smith would later refer obliquely to this experience in an 1885 letter (see ahead: Aug. 3, 1885), he did not record the particulars of this dream until many years later -- recording them during the second week of October, 1913, not long before his death.

1884: Summer
James H. Fairchild, the third president of Oberlin College (while on vacation in California) learns that his friends have arranged for him to take a brief sight-seeing trip to the Hawaiian Islands. He takes passage on a ship for the islands.

1884: Aug. 8
President Fairchild arrives in Honolulu and is provided accommodation in the home of Dr. and Mrs. John M. Whitney in the suburb of Punahou. He there meets his old friend (Mrs. Whitney's father), Lewis L. Rice, a former newspaper editor and printer from Ohio, who had once taken a prominent role in the campaign against slavery. Fairchild asks Rice to locate (and donate to Oberlin College) any old anti-slavery documents he might still possess. Rice promises Fairchild that he will make a search through the trunks he brought over from Ohio.

1884: Aug. 18-30
President Fairchild takes a side-trip to the island of Hawaii. During his absence Lewis L. Rice searches through his possessions to locate anti-slavery documents to give to Fairchild.

While conducting this search Rice discovers in one of his trunks an old package in brown wrappers which he had previously noticed but had never opened. In looking it over he finds that it is a long-forgotten manuscript story concerning the American mound-builders and certified as being the writing of Solomon Spalding. Rice, who had been well acquainted with the Mormons in Ohio, realizes the evident connection between this manuscript and the old anti-Mormon claims saying that the Book of Mormon was a modern, purely human production.

One morning (in late August 1884) Lewis L. Rice informs his daughter, "A wonderful thing has happened to me today. I have found the Spalding manuscript among my papers, all of which I supposed I had destroyed." For the next 19 months (until shortly before his death) Rice believes he has recovered the original "Manuscript Found" which anti-Mormons claimed was the basis for the Book of Mormon. Rice has no knowledge of Hurlbut's having taken this manuscript in 1833 and given it to E. D. Howe in 1834. Nor does Rice realize that the contents of Spalding's "Roman" story have already been reported and discussed to a considerable extent in books and articles. His lack of information in this respect gives Rice a somewhat incomplete and false impression of exactly what the document is that he now has in his possession. Not until several months later will Mr. Rice gain enough knowledge on this matter to understand that what he has discovered is not something new and totally unheard of. Rice at first simply assumes that the "Roman" story was brought to him to publish at some early point in his days as a newspaper editor and that he had forgotten all about it.

During Fairchild's absence Mr. Rice obtains a copy of the Book of Mormon (probably from the Mormon missionaries at Laie, on Oahu) and he superficially compares the LDS book with the "Roman" story. Rice sees no significant similarities between the two works and understandably concludes that they are in no way related. Only a few months later does Rice mention that he has read through the Book of Mormon more carefully and extensively.

In subsequent developments L. L. Rice would make several statements in letters relating his opinion of there being no relationship between Solomon Spalding's "Roman" story and the Book of Mormon. Rice's good reputation as a career newspaper editor and as the person who first inspected the "Roman" story gave his statements the appearance credibility in the eyes of a reading public, largely uninformed on this topic. Defenders of the historicity and divinity of the Book of Mormon, of course, found good support for their own views in these preliminary statements offered by Mr. Rice. His initial views on the nature of the "Roman" story and its probable identity with the infamous "Manuscript Found" were quickly copied and put into print by the Latter Day Saint leaders -- as offering solid proof that Solomon Spalding did not write the Book of Mormon. L. L. Rice's qualifications in making seemingly definitive statements about the "Roman" story, the "Manuscript Found" and the Book of Mormon were not especially trustworthy. From what he says in his first statements in this affair, it is clear that Lewis L. Rice had little literary or religious understanding of the Book of Mormon book and even less knowledge of what the Spalding authorship claims were all about. There is no indication in any of his early statements that Mr. Rice ever consulted any of the many books and articles detailing the "Spalding-Rigdon theory" and available to readers in 1884. Indeed, it is improbable that very much of this kind of literature was within his reach for consultation and study in the isolated and undeveloped Hawaiian Islands. In his brief comparison of the two texts Rice apparently did not even notice the fact that both the Spalding story and the Book of Mormon were purported histories of an ancient, light-skinned, pre-Columbian civilizations which were eradicated in tremendous and incredibly bloody wars with the American savages. Rice did not pick up on the fact that both works tell similar stories of a providential but threatening stormy ocean crossing that results in colonization of the New World by highly civilized Old World people. Rice obviously did not make a very careful comparison of the two texts.

1884: Aug.
At about the same time Rice was pondering over his discovery, a lengthy report was published that detailed the Braden-Kelley Debate held in Kirtland, Ohio earlier that same year. In this published report considerable attention is paid by the two debaters (Rev. Clark Braden and Elder E. L. Kelley) to the so-called "Spalding-Rigdon theory for book of Mormon authorship. Braden had taken note of E. D. Howe's report of the "Roman" story and expressed the view that it was, to some extent, a rough draft for Spalding's "Manuscript Found," a subsequent piece of fiction that closely resembled parts of the Book of Mormon. If L. L. Rice had been able to read the arguments provided by Braden in this newly published report, he would have realized that his supposedly unique find in Hawaii was an already well known Spalding story and that it was considered by some investigators to have an indirect relationship to the Book of Mormon narrative. Unfortunately, the obvious connection between Mr. Rice's remarkable discovery in Hawaii and Rev. Braden's arguments in reference to that same manuscript during the recent debates held in Ohio, did not become a matter of public knowledge for several more months.

In the meanwhile, a series of news releases and supposedly authoritative articles on Rice's discovery in Hawaii hit the public press. All of this publicity and some of its unwarranted effects came about mostly due to the actions of one individual, Mr. Rice's friend, James H. Fairchild. What particular knowledge President Fairchild had of Mormonism, the Book of Mormon and the Spalding-Rigdon theory prior to August of 1884 remains unknown. From a close inspection of Fairchild's known remarks upon these subjects, it appears that his knowledge in this respect was quite limited and that he himself went through a learning process as he attempted to account for what L. L. Rice had discovered at Honolulu. As President of Oberlin College Fairchild was in correspondence with persons throughout the world, including former Oberlin students living in Utah. His contact with and knowledge of the Mormons was likely limited to his personal correspondence and occasional reading in history and religion.

1884: late Aug.
At this time Lewis L. Rice first discloses his manuscript find to persons outside of his immediate family, At some point he shows the work to various Honolulu friends including the Rev, Serene Bishop, the Rev. C. M. Hyde, and Judge McCully of the Supreme Court, Bishop and Hyde were later to write articles on the discovery, Whatever their thoughts on the matter later, at this time they did not influence Rice to believe that his discovery was in any way connected with the Book of Mormon,

1884: Aug. 31
James H. Fairchild, having returned from his side-trip, has a Sunday dinner with the Whitney family, to say "good-bye" and check to see if L. L, Rice has located any anti-slavery documents for him. During a noon-time dinner with the family, Lewis L. Rice tells Fairchild of his manuscript discovery. Fairchild is quite surprised and somewhat elated. He and Rice look the document over and agree that it is a genuine Solomon Spalding production. This conclusion they base mostly upon the certificate D. P. Hurlbut had written in, on the manuscript's final page. Fairchild is scheduled to leave Hawaii the next day and he has only an hour to read through the work. In the short time available for study, Fairchild concludes that the "Roman" story found by L. L. Rice bears no resemblance to the Book of Mormon. Rice had by then procured a copy of the Mormon book and the two men were able to consult that text for some quick comparisons. Fairchild would later say of Spalding's "Roman" story, that he "compared it with the Book of Mormon and could find no trace of identity or even essential resemblance between them." Fairchild would not have an opportunity to continue his one hour's worth of textual inspection for several more months. Lewis L. Rice, on the other hand, continues to have both texts available in front of him for consultation -- he later admits to reading through the Book of Mormon more carefully than he and Fairchild could possibly have done together on Aug. 31, 1884.

Fairchild accepts Rice's notion that the manuscript is totally unrelated to the Book of Mormon. He states at the time: "I spent an hour in looking it through, It bears no resemblance to the book of Mormon, except that it is a rambling story of about the same literary merit, manifestly written by a man of limited education, but some thought, purporting to give the history of the Indians of New York, Kentucky & Ohio -- their wars &c, The book would be a gratification to the Mormons, as putting an end to the story that their book is a reprint of Solomon Spaulding's manuscript."

Neither man seemingly knows anything about the summary of this same Spalding story, given by E. D. Howe in his 1834 book and reproduced over the following 50 years in several other histories of the Mormons. Fairchild and may have been vaguely aware of the general testimony given in 1833 by the Conneaut witnesses, but the two men's awareness of such things obviously did not extend to their realizing that those same Conneaut witnesses had testified that there was a second Solomon Spalding tale of ancient Americans, written in the scriptural style, separate and different from his "Roman" story.

Instead of holding open the possibility of there being some kind of connection between Spalding and the Book of Mormon, Fairchild instead turns to speculating about what "gratification" the Rice discovery might hold for the Latter Day Saints. Probably President Fairchild was then already planning to make a timely public announcement of this unusual find -- an announcement that could be of considerable strategic value to both the embattled polygamist Mormons in Utah and to the less numerous RLDS, whom Fairchild knew from his college's proximity to Kirtland.

1884: Sept. 1
James H. Fairchild sails from Honolulu, leaving behind the anti-slavery documents given him by Rice, to be shipped to Oberlin at a later date. Fairchild probably also then suggested that Rice transfer the newly discovered Spalding manuscript to Oberlin College, along with those same anti-slavery materials. Fairchild returns to the States, having viewed the mound-builder romance for only one hour. It is doubtful he had access to any books or articles on Mormon history or the Spalding authorship claims while making his brief inspection of the "Roman" story the day before. Until he could consult reference sources in a major library (or be supplied with additional information from associates like L. L. Rice), President Fairchild had only his memory and his brief journal entry to rely upon in forming any opinions of what Rice's find really was and what (if any) relationship it might have to the Book of Mormon,

1884: Sept.-Dec.
Rice continues to keep the "Roman" story in his possession. His friends in Hawaii (like the Rev. Charles M. Hyde and the Rev. Sereno Bishop) continue to inspect the curious manuscript, but the discovery is not yet widely reported.

1884: Oct.-Nov.
During this time the Rev. Sereno Bishop writes a fairly objective report on the Spalding manuscript in Rice's possession. For some unknown reason this article is delayed in publication; it finally appears in print over a year later (see ahead: Sep. 10, 1885). Before the end of the year (probably in late Nov.) Lewis L. begins to make a handwritten transcript of the Spalding document. He did not complete this work until about the end of May, 1885. What eventually became of this document remains unknown.

1884: Nov. ?
Lewis L. Rice becomes curious about the D. P. Hurlbut certificate written on the last page of the manuscript. He writes a letter to his son, the Rev. William H. Rice of Addison, New York and asks him to contact someone in Ohio, to determine some facts about the "Roman" story. He tells William about Hurlbut's certificate and its mention of Aaron Wright, Oliver Smith, and John N. Miller. Rice asks his son to confirm these names as being those persons who actually knew Solomon Spalding. L. L. Rice also gives his son the impression that "the best scholars in Hawaii" express no doubt that the manuscript is a Spalding original, that it is written in the "scriptural narrative style," and that it was "similar in style to the 'Book of Mormon,' but is not identical with it in any part."

1884: Nov. ?
Fairchild, having returned from Hawaii to Ohio, announces the Rice discovery at a Congregationalist clergy meeting in Cleveland.

1884: early Dec.
William H. Rice carries out his father's request and writes a letter to the postmaster at Conneaut, Ohio -- the location name mentioned on the first page of the "Roman" story. William H. Rice asks for information on the three persons named in Hurlbut's certificate and provides a little information on the newly discovered Spalding manuscript. By a most opportune coincidence, the postmaster of Conneaut (Mr. Keyes, the son of the Elias Keyes who took over the abandoned Spalding-Lake iron forge at New Salem) is visited at this very time by an investigator of Mormon history, Arthur Buel Deming. Deming had recently served as the moderator in the Braden-Kelley debate on Mormonism, held in nearby Kirtland. At the opening of that debate Deming was retained by the Rev. Clark Braden to travel about the region and gather first-hand documentation on the Mormons. Deming's employment with Braden quickly evolved into a private crusade by the former, to uncover information and testimony which would render a "death-blow to Mormonism." On Dec. 9th, in the course of his continuing investigation, Deming asks Postmaster Keyes to inform him of any information relative to the Mormons which might come his way. Deming departs Conneaut for his temporary residence in Painesville, Ohio. By a strange coincidence, Postmaster Keyes receives the letter sent to him by William H. Rice at this same time. Or, perhaps he had received it a few days before but was only able to locate the letter after Deming left town. This letter Keyes forwards to Deming in Painesville, probably after he had written back to Rev. William H. Rice and told him that the men named in Hurlbut's certificate had once been actual residents of the area.

1884: Dec. 8
President Fairchild' writes his first letter from Oberlin to Lewis L. Rice in Honolulu. Fairchild asks Rice for permission to describe the Hawaii manuscript discovery in a public notice he intends to publish soon.

1884: Dec. 9
Arthur B. Deming, in Springfield, Erie Co., Pennsylvania, calls upon Rachel Miller Derby, the daughter of the late Conneaut witness John N. Miller. Rachel provides Deming with a short statement about her father and D. P. Hurlbut. In it she says: "I well remember D. P. Hurlbut coming to our house about fifty years ago and his telling father that he was taking evidence to expose Mormonism, and hearing him read from the "Book of Mormon." Frequently father would request Hurlbut to stop reading and he would state what followed and Hurlbut would say that it was so in the "Book of Mormon." He expressed great surprise that father remembered so much of it. Father told him that the "Manuscript Found" was not near all of Spaulding's writings..." Rachel's description of the interaction between her father and D. P. Hurlbut is unexplainable if John N. Miller was recalling passages from Spalding's "Roman" story, rather than from what he remembered of the "Manuscript Found."

1884: Dec. 10
Arthur B. Deming, having returned to Painesville from Springfield, receives the forwarded William H. Rice letter. Deming He immediately obtains information from local residents on the old Ohio newspaperman, L. L. Rice, and discovers that Rice had been the editor of the Painesville Telegraph in 1839-1840, only a few years after E. D. Howe had retired from editing the same newspaper. Deming had recently interviewed Howe extensively -- with special reference to the Spalding writings and Howe's brief encounter with D. P. Hurlbut. Deming is thus able to reconstruct the historical connections between Spalding's widow, D. P. Hurlbut, E. D. Howe and L. L. Rice. Deming also guesses correctly that Rice must have obtained the manuscript from Howe fifty years previous. At this point, however, Deming possesses so little information about the manuscript discovered by Rice in Honolulu that he remains uncertain whether the "Roman" story Howe had summarized in his 1834 book is the same thing Rice has uncovered.

1884: Dec. 10
A. B. Deming takes it upon himself to answer the William H. Rice letter to Postmaster Keyes. He informs Lewis L. Rice's son whom the "Hurlbut" mentioned in the 1833 certificate was; that the other names in that certificate were old times residents of the Conneaut area; and his [Deming's] reconstruction of how L. L. Rice must have obtained possession of Spalding "Roman" story. Deming suggests to William that he request his father to send the manuscript at once to the States where Deming can consult its contents. Deming also shares with Rev. Rice the little known fact that "D. P. Hurlbut was a Methodist preacher in Ontario County, N. Y."

Thus, by an amazing stroke of fate, one of the most active investigators of the Spalding authorship claims for the origin of Book of Mormon became among the very first persons outside of Hawaii to learn about Lewis L. Rice's remarkable discovery. The timing of this lucky incident helps explain Deming's subsequent unusually energetic researching of the Spalding claims. He was beginning to believe that he might actually gain access to previously hidden information on Mormon origins -- information potentially destructive to Mormonism itself.

1884: Dec. 13
A. B. Deming learns of James H. Fairchild's involvement in the Hawaii discovery from Rice's letter. Deming writes his first letter to President Fairchild, to informing him his reconstruction of how L. L. Rice originally obtained possession of the manuscript. Deming also makes a most significant assertion -- that D. P. Hurlbut had briefly exhibited a Spalding manuscript in the Kirtland area and that Hurlbut had read excerpts from that manuscript during some lectures he gave in and around Kirtland. Deming claims that Hurlbut compared in public the manuscript he was exhibiting with the text of the Book of Mormon and that the two works were very similar in places. Deming says he has information on this exhibited Spalding manuscript, in regard to its size, description, etc. He asks Fairchild for specifics on the manuscript found in Hawaii.

1884: mid Dec.
L. L. Rice receives a letter from either his son William or from A. B. Deming, informing him that the persons named in Hurlbut's certificate were actual Conneaut residents at the time Spalding lived there.

1884: mid Dec.
Arthur B. Deming informs Eber D. Howe at Painesville of the Honolulu discovery. Deming would later report this conversation thusly: "I told Mr. E. D. Howe that word had been received from the Sandwich Islands that Spaulding's manuscript from which the "Book of Mormon" was made... Mr. Howe trembled and became greatly excited... he could not have been much more so if the Sheriff had read his death warrant... I finally read to him W. H. Rice's letter and that relieved his fears, for he said Rice used to edit the Telegraph and he probably [had] Conneaut story, which proved to be correct."

1884: Dec. 29
L. L. Rice receives Fairchild's first letter and sends him a reply. In his first letter to Fairchild Rice gives his friend permission to describe the "Roman" story in the article Fairchild intends to publish. Rice also says he has obtained information from Ohio confirming the identities of the three certifiers of Spalding's handwriting, as named in Hurlbut's certificate.

Rice also says that the Rev. Sereno Bishop had, several weeks since, written an article on the "Roman story" and had submitted it for publication to the New York Independent, a national newspaper devoted to contemporary issues in religion. Bishop's article (the first one written describing the 1884 Honolulu discovery and detailing particulars on the Spalding manuscript) was delayed in publication for a considerable period of time and did not appear in print until Sept. 10, 1885. Bishop would take an active role in subsequent events concerning the manuscript while it was still with Rice in Hawaii. Bishop advised Rice not to turn the original over to the local Mormon elders. He probably also assisted Rice in transcribing a copy of the "Roman" story -- a copy which was later given these same Mormon elders in Hawaii.

Disregarding the perhaps exaggerated report of William H. Rice (that his father reported it to have a "scriptural narrative style," and that it was "similar in style to the 'Book of Mormon,' but is not identical with it in any part"), Rev. Bishop was the first investigator of the "Roman" story text to recognize a few significant similarities between it and the Book of Mormon. Since Bishop's report of these similarities was delayed in publication, he had little change to influence the growing consensus of opinion -- a consensus saying that the texts had no similarities. Bishop even tried to convince L. L. Rice of the presence of these similarities, (see ahead: April, 1885). Had Bishop's article been published earlier his observations may have had a serious impact upon popular opinion in this instance. As it turned out, however, other opinions were widely publicized before his own report (by then very much out-of-date) saw light in September, 1885.

A Chronology of the
Oberlin Spalding Manuscript

Part Four: 1885

1811-1878 1879-1883 1884 1886 1887-1899 1900 on

1885: Jan. 2
Researcher Arthur B. Deming interviews John C. Dowen in Willoughby, Ohio. Dowen was a Justice of the Peace in Kirtland in 1833 and early 1834. He was the one who, upon complaint of Joseph Smith, Jr., made out the warrant for the arrest of D. P. Hurlbut, in late Dec. 1833. In his interview with Deming, Down says: "I heard Dr. P. Hurlbut... [at the end of 1833] deliver his first lecture in the Methodist Church in Kirtland, Ohio, on the origin of the Book of Mormon. He said he had been in New York and Pennsylvania and had obtained a copy of Spaulding's Manuscript Found. He read selection[s] from it, then the same from the Book of Mormon. He said the historical part of it was the same as Spaulding's Manuscript Found.... I read all of his manuscript, including Spaulding's Manuscript Found, and compared it with the Book of Mormon, the historical part of which is the same as Spaulding's Manuscript Found..." Deming probably intended to publish this statement in the third issue of his Naked Truths About Mormonism. The publication ended with its second issue (see ahead: Apr. 1888) and Mr. Dowen's statement ended up in Deming's papers at the Chicago Historical Society.

1885: early Jan.
James H. Fairchild publicizes a notice entitled, "Solomon Spaulding and the Book of Mormon" in the Oberlin College journal, Bibliotheca Sacra for Jan., 1885. In a calculated piece of clever journalism Fairchild publishes the Rev. Delavan A. Leonard's "Mormonism," essay as a lead article in the same issue. He uses a portion of Leonard's article as a sort of straw-man, to be knocked-down in Fairchild's own "breaking news" report. Leonard repeated some of the typical anti-Mormon statements of the times, including the claim that a Solomon Spalding manuscript furnished the basis for the historical portions of the Book of Mormon. At the point in the text where Leonard repeats this assertion, the editor at Oberlin inserts a small note informing the Bibliotheca Sacra readers that President Fairchild has something important to disclose on this very subject on another page in the journal. It is no coincidence that President Fairchild prints his "breaking news" a few pages after those in which the Leonard's "Mormonism" piece appears. Fairchild uses Leonard to introduce the so-called "Spalding-Rigdon theory," and then presents his own pronouncement in a way calculated to produce a resolute impact upon the minds of the readers. The impression is conveyed that Fairchild is refuting the old Spalding claims in favor of the something like the traditional Mormon explanation for the origin of the Book of Mormon. While Fairchild does not credit the book as a divine production, he at least appears to use his "breaking news" of the 1884 discovery in Honolulu to discredit the most popular non-Mormon explanation of the book's origin. Thus Fairchild finally carries into effect the incipient machination he first disclosed in his Aug, 31st journal entry (where he stated that his publicizing the Honolulu discovery: "would be a gratification to the Mormons, as putting an end to the story that their book is a reprint of Solomon Spaulding's manuscript").

President Fairchild crafts his "breaking news" into a deceptively short (and seemingly objective) notice. The major point he wishes to make is that "the theory of the origin of the Book of Mormon in the traditional manuscript of Solomon Spaulding will probably have to be relinquished." In order to substantiate this extraordinary conclusion, Fairchild tells about his recent visit with Rice, the manuscript discovered during that visit, and the fact that the document is a genuine Solomon Spalding holograph. Without any reference whatever to the various published references to Spalding's "Roman" story, Fairchild identifies it with Spalding's "Manuscript Found," the never published story often alleged to have formed the basis for the Book of Mormon. In making this unwarranted connection, President Fairchild (perhaps inadvertently) neglects to consider and weigh the evidence concerning the "Roman" story, as published in the past by E. D. Howe, Benjamin Winchester, Josiah Spalding, and others. In his announcing this crucial and seemingly conclusive identification, President Fairchild appears to destroy the entire basis for the Spalding authorship claims -- conveying his verdict that the "Roman" story resembles the Book of Mormon only in "that both profess to set forth the history of lost tribes."

Fairchild bases his conclusion (that there is no significant resemblance between the "Roman" story and the Mormon book) upon his assertion that "Mr. Rice, myself, and others compared it with the Book of Mormon, and could detect no resemblance between the two, in general or detail. There seems to be no name or incident common to the two." Since Fairchild's 1884 inspection of the manuscript in Honolulu lasted for only one hour (without historical reference materials at hand for consultation), his Bibliotheca Sacra pronouncement can, at best, be taken only as his private opinion prior to any scholarly study. But, having constructed his opinion as a sort of footnote updating ideas expressed in the Rev. Delavan A. Leonard article, Fairchild conveys the strong impression of being a scholarly expert who has issued his summary of a definitive statement on the merits of the Spalding claims.

Having so worded and published this important announcement in his college's professional journal, President James H. Fairchild sets up some personal and professional obstacles in the way of his ever downplaying or significantly modifying his initial notice of this matter in the scholarly literature. Even so, Fairchild would subsequently modify his stand on the matter by writing several letters and articles providing additional insight into his evolving understanding of the Spalding authorship claims and the possible relevance of the "Roman" story to those claims. In this process of reevaluation Fairchild would eventually reach the point of his having to admit that some assertions of the Spalding claims advocates might well be valid ones. But even while undergoing this personal development of further understanding, Fairchild continued to defend the substance of his initial public notice. In the end, Fairchild hopelessly muddied the waters of Mormon history with speculation that sounded like scholarship and the attachment of his name to early reports which were never quite overshadowed by his later admissions. President Fairchild, in so muddying the waters of scholarly knowledge, did indeed give the Mormons the "gratification" had envisioned as early as his first encounter with the 1884 Honolulu discovery.

1885: Jan. ??
Joseph F. Smith, Second Counselor in the LDS Presidency departs Utah in secrecy for the Mormon mission in the Hawaiian Islands, traveling under the false name of "Mr. Speight." Later on (in April) he would to meet with L. L. Rice in Honolulu -- at that time Rice would say: "Mr. Speight came out here from Utah for the purpose of getting it [Spalding's "Roman" story].... Speight is a man of fine presence, evidently a man of talents and a man of consequence among his people." In all his dealings with Rice, Joseph F. Smith never informed the old gentleman of his true identity -- that he was the nephew of Joseph Smith, Jr. Although the facts of the matter are probably now unrecoverable, it is entirely possible that James H. Fairchild confidentially informed some Mormons (former Oberlin College students like members of the Snow family, perhaps) of the Honolulu discovery, during his 1884 return from Hawaii (overland through California and the West) to Oberlin, Ohio. If so, then perhaps Elder Smith knew of the recent manuscript discovery and L. L. Rice was correct in saying that the Mormon leader had come to Hawaii "for the purpose of getting it."

1885: Jan.-Feb.
Fairchild's Bibliotheca Sacra notice begins to get public exposure, both from the circulation of that well-known journal and in reprints of the notice carried by many different newspapers -- the most important of which was its reprinting in the New York Observer for Feb. 5, 1885. Although other, smaller circulation papers (such as the Grinnell, Iowa, Herald for Jan. 23, 1885) carried the notice earlier, its appearance in the Observer kept the news story alive for another month, while even more papers reprinted what the Observer had published.

1885: Jan. 30
Lewis L. Rice writes his second letter to James H. Fairchild. Rice tells of receiving a letter from Eber D. Howe of Painesville, who explained how Rice gained possession of Spalding's "Roman" story. Howe asks Rice to return the old manuscript to him, as he was the person from whom Rice inadvertently received the document. E. D. Howe had learned of the manuscript discovery from Arthur B. Deming in December of 1884. By this time Rice had also received the letter Deming had written to his son William and a second Deming letter addressed directly to him. It was in reading this second Deming letter that Mr. Rice first learned that Spalding's "Roman" story had long ago been identified as something other than Spalding's "Manuscript Found," the alleged foundation of the Book of Mormon. In his letter to Fairchild Rice tells him that he cannot understand the reason for so much popular interest in the 1884 Honolulu discovery. Even though both Deming and Howe realize at this point that the document Rice has is almost certainly not the infamous "Manuscript Found," both men desire to obtain the work for further inspection and study. Rice tells Fairchild that he has begun to look over the Book of Mormon. In reading through the book he still finds that he cannot believe Solomon Spalding could have written such a thing. What is especially interesting is, that at this point in his consideration of the subject, L. L. Rice credits the Book of Mormon authorship to Sidney Rigdon, a Mormon leader whom he had known personally, years before in Ohio. Rice would retain this conviction for the remainder of his life -- and would eventually expand his opinion to include Solomon Spalding's lost "Manuscript Found" as the major source for Rigdon's pseudo-scriptural composition.

1885: Feb. ?
Elder "Speight" (alias Joseph F. Smith) arrives in Honolulu on his secret mission. If he knows about Rice's manuscript discovery he does not betray that fact by attempting to contact the old gentlemen immediately.

1885: Feb. 18
Ellen E. Dickinson learns of 1884 Honolulu discovery (perhaps from reading reprints of the Fairchild notice in the newspapers, bit more likely from one of her contacts in Painesville or Conneaut, who heard of William H. Rice's letter of inquiry). Dickinson writes a letter to William H. Rice and asks him if the manuscript discovered in Hawaii was the one associated with D. P. Hurlbut's anti-Mormon activities. She also wishes to know for certain whether it is a genuine Spalding holograph.

1885: Feb. 19
Joseph Smith III receives a letter from R. J. Anthony in Salt Lake City containing a transcript of Fairchild's Bibliotheca Sacra notice. This is the first time that the RLDS leader learns that there is an old Spalding manuscript in Honolulu.

1885: Feb. 21
James H. Fairchild replies in a letter to Lewis L. Rice, offering to preserve the "Roman" story manuscript in the Oberlin College Library, if Rice will send it to him. In a concession which has now generally been forgotten, Fairchild says that he is perfectly willing to allow L. L. Rice to retain legal ownership of the Spalding document. Later, after Rice's death, Fairchild would refuse to live up to this agreement and blocked Rice's heirs from taking possession of the manuscript.

1885: Feb. 21
William H. Rice replies in a letter to Emily E. Dickinson, explaining how the "Roman" story presumably got to Hawaii. He says that his father still doesn't know exactly how he came to possess the document. William mistakenly says the story in Honolulu is written "in Scriptural narrative style." This oversight of the facts must have both confused and excited Dickinson -- until she read the document she could not be entirely certain that it was not the basis for the Book of Mormon. William H. Rice also relays information sent him by his father, saying that Rev. Dr. Hyde, Judge McCully and the best scholars in Honolulu have inspected the manuscript and agree that it is a genuine Spalding holograph. William says the manuscript is "similar in style to the Book of Mormon, but is not identical with it in any part." Although there is some truth in this statement, William does not say whether or not this was then his father's opinion, or perhaps that of one of "the best scholars in Honolulu," (such as the Rev. Sereno Bishop, perhaps). William further informs Dickinson that the manuscript in Honolulu has some Conneaut witnesses' names written in it, along with the name of D. P. Hurlbut's. William may have received some of his information regarding the manuscript directly from one of those "best scholars in Honolulu," since it is hard to believe that L. L. Rice himself would have told William that the "Roman" story resembled the Book of Mormon and was written in scriptural style.

1885: Feb. 24
Joseph Smith III writes a letter to James H, Fairchild, asking for facts on the 1884 Honolulu discovery and a copy of Fairchild's recently published notice. While the purpose of the RLDS leader in his writing a letter of inquiry to Fairchild is perfectly understandable, given the circumstances of the day, it is less understandable why LDS leaders were then not also pestering Fairchild with similar questioning letters. Perhaps the Utah leaders felt it was more important that they first attempt to gain possession of the "Roman" story for the Church, before they entered into any dealings with President Fairchild. If so, the question again arises as to whether Elder Joseph F. Smith knew of the 1884 Honolulu discovery before he ever departed for Hawaii.

1885: Feb. 27
James H. Fairchild replies in a letter to Joseph Smith III, telling Smith more about the 1884 Honolulu discovery. Fairchild says "I compared it with the Book of Mormon, and could find no trace of identity or even essential resemblance between them." Fairchild also says that he has since learned that another of Spalding's stories was the one credited as the basis for the Book of Mormon. This fact Fairchild must have first heard from Arthur B. Deming, though he could have also made the discovery by reading the old books on Mormonism held by the Oberlin College Library. President Fairchild makes an important modification of his earlier notice by saying to Smith: "the manuscript which I saw was not the source of the Book of Mormon. As to any other manuscript, I have no knowledge." Had Fairchild emphasized this point more strongly in presenting his Bibliotheca Sacra notice, he might have saved himself from considerable future vexation, both personally and professionally.

1885: Feb. ??
Ellen E. Dickinson writes to L. L. Rice in Honolulu and tells him she is Spalding's grand-niece; that she will soon be publishing a book on the origin of Mormonism; and that she desires to obtain the "Roman": story manuscript. If Rice will not send it to her she wants it sent to Spalding's daughter (that is, his adopted daughter, Matilda Spalding McKinstry) who is still living and with whom Dickinson maintains some contact.

1885: Feb. 24
Arthur B. Deming interviews Jacob Sherman in Willoughby, Ohio. Sherman says: "Myself and wife attended Hurlbut's le