go back to: page 77
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.
MR. KELLEY'S EIGHTH SPEECH.
GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I know you have been entertained with the story and the gossip that has been brought forward. The wonderful amount of testimony, too, that you have heard from those fourteen witnesses! Have you not been anxiously waiting here, and listening, and watching to have something read in the shape of evidence? Yet, you have not heart one single affidavit read, one single statement read, one single thing read that could with any show of truth be properly called evidence. It is the first time I ever heard a man get up and state what he had culled from statements, or purported affidavits, to an audience and ask them to take it as evidence, without hearing the entire statement of the party read, or if it is printed, giving the reader the privilege of reading the entire evidence for himself. I will pick it out and select just what I want the audience to hear, and thus in fact stand as judge for the audience. That is the position if my friend before you. I will say, however, with regard to his story, (and he has made out his case he says,) he is done now; just understand that: -- that it is, with one exception, the most singular thing that I ever saw or heard. There is one gotten up that is a fair parallel to it, however, -- one just like it. I have it in a book in my house, and intended to have brought it over to-night and exhibited to you, but forgot it. It was published by Alexander Smythe in Chicago in 1880. Instead, however, of being against the Latter Day Saints, it is against the early, or former day saints. The author sets out by making the apostle Paul the hero of the Christian religion. He plays him as the master mind of the whole scheme transacted in Palestine. He concocted the plan in order to establish a church and found a new religion in the time in which he lived. As a starting point for the purpose of awakening the people to the scheme, this man says, that Paul procured a poor crazy fanatic called John the Baptist, and sent him into the wilderness of Judea and had him preach a while to tell them that one who was then standing in their midst would soon come, and he would be the Messiah and restore all things to them. After a while that one that was to be the Messiah is brought out to play his part, according to the tale. He was a relative of John the Baptist, he says. It happens, too, that the party mixed in a grain of truth here in order to deceive, as Christ was a relative. Then the story proceeds to the effect, that after a while when the apostle Paul thought that he had used John the Baptist all he wanted to, he puts up a job on John and has Herod behead him. Then he has John play the Messiah until the time that he thinks things are about ripe for to spring some great
excitement in the world. All the time this author cunningly represents the apostle as playing behind the scenes, until Jesus has made himself well known, then he foists some horrid stories upon the ears of the populace in Jerusalem against the Messiah, and just at a time when he is approaching the city, (Jesus not knowing anything about Paul's perfidity,) and the excited people rise and put him to death. The Apostle Paul then steals the body and makes away with it; so the story goes. And after he had done that he starts down to Damascus, and all of a sudden the apostle gets converted to the new religion by a great miracle, and goes back in order to make a great sensation in the world, telling his wonderful experience; and from that time becomes the "ringleader." You take that book, my friends, and read it, published in the nineteenth century, in the year 1880, and observe the things that it takes from the Bible, excerpting here and there, in order to make a show of truth, and notice the ingenuity with which the false statements are thrown in between, and then compare with the Spaulding story, and you will find that it is a far more plausible story than he has presented to you in trying to account for the origin of the Book of Mormon. But he has chosen in this discussion to rely upon as a defense, as I was just saying before my time was called, the Spaulding story, and character; either as a counter proof sufficient or as a means of prejudicing the people against an investigation of the facts. But whatever the object it matters not to me, for I shall canvass the story itself, and see what truth if any there is in it. Properly it does not belong to this question; as foreign to it in fact as were the stories and false charges of "deciever," "gluttonous man," "wine bibber," &c., to ascertaining of the mission of Jesus. Notwithstanding this, some want it examined, and I assure you it is but an easy task to drag it to the bottom.
How bad indeed according to my opponent's arraignment was this Smith crows. The old man, the old lady, the boys
and the girls. One would gather from his talk that they had been under the general espionage of the secret service
department all along down the previous century. Yet, no crime was ever charged against one of them, except in the
old women's tales and gossip, spun by the pious (?) of the neighborhood. From before the time they left the State
of Vermont they were thought to be squeamish. Yet the old lady brought with her to New York State, a certificate of
good standing in the Presbyterian church. Were Presbyterians, and especially those of olf New England stock in
those times immoral, impious, and Sabbath breakers? In New York, their sons Hyrum and Samuel
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.
and their daughter Sophronia also joined the Presbyterian church and were in good standing in that church during
this time; yet they were awful bad folks. They quietly remained members of this body, which was considered
one of the straightest sects, up to the year 1827, when they deliberately withdrew from it themselves because of
their conversion, as they claimed, to the restored gospel. Joseph, an attentive listener at the Methodist church,
and he is just about to be taken in as a member, when he happens to think that he will go and pray; -- ask God what
he shall do; for he is in a confusion of mind over what to do. My friends, have any of you ever been in such a
state! and if so did you go to your heavenly Father to ask his advice?
Now this is the sum total of the crime of the fourteen-year-old boy at this time. He went and asked God for wisdom,
and said the Lord spoke to him and told him what to do. It would never have been of note in the world about his
asking, had he not stated that at the time he received an answer; and such an answer. What was it? "That the
churches were not right." This was before Mr. Campbell ever left the Baptist church, sir, and while Charles and
John Wesley were singing,
"Almighty God of love,
Set up the art active sign.
And summon whom thou dost approve
For messengers divine.
From Abram's favored seed,
The new apostles choose;
Go, spread throughout the earth around,
The dead reviving news."
Was it any worse for young Joseph Smith to say these churches were wrong, and did not meet in full the measure
of the Almighty than others? Ah! but he said God told him so, in answer to prayer. Well, did he never tell my
friend anything in answer to prayer.
Answer me that, and do not forget it as you did at Wilber!! If Jesus or his messengers dif not tell him this, where
did he get it? He was not the learned and scholarly man that you claim for Mr. Campbell; nor in a part of the world
where he could gain from the wisdom of the Wesleys. Yet, he is the first of the age to come out boldly and frankly
say, "none of them are right." Not that they were wrong in all things, for he recognized that there was some good
in each and all of them. But that none were all right -- acknowledged of God. Sixty-three years have passed away
and now who says it among the religious teachers? Mr. Campbell soon did; Walter Scott, Sidney Rigdon, Henry Ward
Beecher, Dr. Thomas, Dr. Cheeny, Prof. Swing, W. H. H. Murry, and a host of others. And this, too, notwithstanding
the great reformation wrought under Campbell. His might be termed the water reformation! Young Smith, as any young
boy would have done under such circumstances, with confidence in his heart and faith in the justice of his cause,
goes directly with his answer to his preacher, the pastor; states his case; and what would you have supposed
the reception under the circumstances, of a person of his age going to the pastor with the story, "The Lord showed
me in the vision that the churches were all wrong." Now take the opposite view. Suppose the answer to Smith had
been, You join the Methodist Church, (there was no Campbellite Church in the world to this time), as that is more
acceptable to me than the Baptist or Presbyterian. Do you think the Methodist preacher would have called the boy a
liar, and said he had no such vision? No, you all know, he would have put young Joseph at the head of the converts,
and had him testify every night. It makes a big difference whose ox is gored sometimes.
Why I remember well last winter reading an account of a lady in the Methodist church in Coldwater Michigan, who
claimed to be actually healed by the power of faith in that church, and the church accepted it. While the Saints
at the same place for the last twenty years had been affirming that God so wrought with them and that they had had
many instances of such blessings, yet they were looked upon as fanatical, unorthodox, superstitious, because of this
belief. It is because it did not happen in our church that we are to say: -- "Oh, it is all stuff; they are a set of
fanatics." But there is another thing that young Smith said the angel told him, that is more remarkable, if made up,
than the other; it was a prophecy: -- "That his name should be both good and evil spoken of among all nations,
kindreds, tongues and people." How did this young boy know that his name should be spoken of among all people, every
nation; -- by his friends as being a good man and by his enemies as being an evil man? The prophecy is clear and
distinct, the fulfillment is complete -- no one to gainsay it. The wonderful statement made by the then boy and
subsequent fulfillment should also cause the most incredulous to stop and think before he condemns. How did he know
this? Take the greatest villian on the earth or the most worthy man, are their names, even in this later times of
the easy transmission of news, known among all nations, kindreds, tongues and peoples. Strike the heart of Africa
and the Mohammetan country, and they have all heard of Smith, and they hold him in one relation or the other. But
go to the heart of these same countries and they have not even heard of the terrible character that struck down our
President, who it seems, in his iniquity, would have been known all over the world if any one possibly could by this
means. And yet this young boy stated early in 1823 that the angel said to him that his "Name should be both good
and evil spoken of among all nations, kindreds, tongues and people. Can you point me to a prophecy in the Bible
that has been more literally fulfilled?
Now I propose to esamine my opponent's alibi, as he has rested his whole case upon that, and you watch and see
if he is not driven from his "SPAULDING STORY" AND
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.
CHARACTER!! I referred to the fact that this old falsehood was met and
vanquished when it was first circulated in 1835 and 1836 and later in 1839 and 1840; but he replies that
I must meet it here and not tell about what has been done. Very well, my affirmative arguments being in no way
answered, I can well afford to meet it here; so now for the Spaulding story as a
theory. Will you reply to my arguments upon this. We will see.
The following are the claims made for that:
First, That one Solomon Spaulding, a Presbyterian clergyman, about the year 1811, lived at Conneaut, Ohio, and being in poor health, for diversion in his invalid state, wrote a story and left it in manuscript form, which was like the present Book of Mormon, except as to errors.
Second. That from Conneaut, Ohio, he removed to Pittsburg, Pa., in 1812, and while there handed the manuscript of this story to a publisher by the name of Robert Patterson for examination and publication.
Third. That the manuscript instead of being published was returned to Mr. Spaulding, and in the year 1814 he left Pittsburg and went to Amity, Pa., where he died in the year 1816, when his effects, including the manuscript, fell into the hands of his widow
Forth, That at the time the manuscript was in the office of publisher Patterson, one Sidney Rigdon was engaged at, or in some way connected with said printing office, and in some way got the manuscript and purloined the same.
That Sidney Rigdon at the time, knew of Joseph Smith and had opportunity to get this manuscript to him, and
Sixth, That Rigdon being a preacher at the time did this in order to start a new church and have a basis for his scheme.
Before, during this discussion, I showed by the illustration of "a chain of title" in property, if the chain was perfect in all its parts it would stand the test, but if faulty or disconnected by a single transfer it would not. In the examination of one's title, if you are able to show that one link in the chain is not a true one, forged, or obtained through fraud, the whole thing is void. But in this pretentious claim of the Spaulding Manuscript, which he has set up, I am not only able to prove that one link is at fault, but that the entire chain is bad, and every link at fault; from the inception by Philastus Hulburt, who had been twice, as I have before shown, excommunicated from the Latter Day Saints for immoralities, to the conclusion of it as published and completed by Howe of Painesville, who had the Spaulding manuscript destroyed while in his hands. I enter upon the investigation with the hope that I shall have your candid and unbiased judgment in the consideration of the evidence.
First, did Spaulding ever write such a manuscript? I claim that he did not; and for proof of this refer you first to their own witnesses.
1. The manuscript Spaulding is said to have written was too meager a thing to in any sense compare with a manuscript that would make a book the size of the Book of Mormon.
2. The character of the "Manuscript Found" which is the one all rely upon as the romance was entirely different from the Book of Mormon.
3. He was such an invalid at the time it is alleged he wrote his manuscript, that it would have been impossible for him, considering his circumstances in life, together with his broken constitution, to have written such a manuscript had it been possible for any man of his own knowledge to write such a one as the Book of Mormon, which I deny.
Taking up the first reason it will at once be clear to you that a manuscript written in the English language, as they concede Spaulding's was, to contain the amount of matter that is included in the strictly historical part of the Book of Mormon, would cover at least fifteen hundred pages of foolscap paper. Was the "Manuscript Found" such? The statements of those who claim they saw the "Manuscript Found," place it beyond doubt that it was no such. Mrs. McKinstry, the daughter of Solomon Spaulding in her evidence says, that she, "Read the manuscript frequently when she was about twelve years of age, and that it was about one inch in thickness." She read it frequently, so it could not have been very large. Then their other trumped up witnesses all, or nearly all, say that they heard it read. Henry Lake heard it read. John N. Miller heard it read from the beginning to end. Aaron Wright heard Spaulding read it, etc. Mrs. Matilda Spaulding, wife of Solomon Spaulding states in her testimony published in the Illinois Quincy Whig, that it was about a third as large as the Book of Mormon and that her daughter (Mrs. McKinstry) read it frequently. Hulburt who was commissioned by Henry Lake, John Miller, Aaron Wright, et al. (Braden's witnesses), to go and get the Spaulding writing, went and got it he says, and the only one in Spaulding's hand writing which the widow had. That he delivered it to E. D. Howe of Painesville, who was writing the book to break down the Mormons, and Howe says, page 288, of his book in describing it, that, "The trunk referred to by the widow was subsequently examined and found to contain only a single manuscript book in Spaulding's hand writing, containing about one quire of paper."
Then according to the description of the manuscript itself by those who actually saw it, it must have been a very
small affair indeed in comparison to the historical portion of the Book of Mormon. In fact there was no comparison
of the one, to the other, whatever.
But Howe goes further with his description and shows the style, subject matter, history, a[re] all different.
This brings us to notice that the second proposition in my statement is true. This agrees with Mrs.
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.
Spaulding's description of the "Manuscript Found." In the letter to the Boston Recorder, she says: "He (Mr. Spaulding) was enabld (while writing this manuscript) from his acquaintance with the classics and ancient history, to introduce many singular names which were particularly noticed by people and could readily be recognized by them." Page 43, Smucker against the Mormons.
Then in the same letter she says: "Mr. Spaulding had a brother John Spaulding, residing in the place at the time, who was perfectly familiar with the work and repeatedly heard the whole of it read." What an easy thing my audience for a man to read repeatedly, a manuscript of two thousand pages; besides it must have been the most exciting novel ever written. Just to think of repeatedly reading such a manuscript! Now I hope the friends won't be backward again about giving me their names for a copy of this enticing book, that can be had for only one dollar and a quarter. And thrown in this letter is Braden's theory that Mr. Smith did all this copying, working, digging for money, traveling, studying, planning, delving, -- what a lazy boy! In order to start a church. Ridiculous! Did you ever hear of such a theory? For men to work for years and years, and labor and hire men, and dig holes, and mine and sweat in order to get an excuse for starting a new church? Did not Mr. Campbell start a new church without any such excuse? Did not Mr. Smith and Mr. Rigdon have as good a right to start a new church without all this as Mr. Campbell or Mr. Wesley or Mr. Luther or near a thousand others who have started new churches since the time of Christ? It seems to me that starting new churches is not confined simply to a few individuals; we have too many to admit of such an idea. And look everywhere you may and you cannot tell which is right unless you accept the doctrine which is taught in the New Testament, and abide by the rule, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him." But my friend does not accept that doctrine.
Then again, "the old neighbors were enabled to identify it by reason of the names taken from the classical authors
and ancient history." Were enabled to identify it by reason of those historical and classical names! Here you have
set out by Mrs. Spaulding herself how they were enabled to identify the work. What name have they got? Why he found
one the other night, I believe it was "Mormon," It was a Greek word. Will you show me the word "Mormon" in Greek
as used in the Book of Mormon?
Mr. Braden: Yes sir.
Mr. Kelley: You say you will but you will never do it
Mr. Braden: That is to be seen.
Mr. Kelley: There is no such a term as Mormo that they think the Greeks used just the same as we use the word "Mormon."
But to any person who will think a moment it is evident there is not and never was the slightest conection. The word Mormo was used to denote a hobgoblin, bug-bear, object of fright, etc. Mormon was simply a man's name as used in the Book of Mormon, the name of a place of pleasure, etc., and in no sense as the Greek word Mormo was used. The similarity of sound between the two when they are written in English argues nothing. I can show that words of similar sound, so far as that is concerned in different languages have no relation whatever either in derivation or meaning, and are never used by people to indicate the same or similar things. That idea about the Greek wird Mormo being the root of the word Mormon as found in the book is simply ridiculous. A thing gotten up by certain persons and tried to apply to the word as used in the Book of Mormon to deceive the ignorant. But I will see when Mr. Braden brings it.
But again: "Spaulding's manuscript represented an idolatrous people," they say. The Book of Mormon does not. The Spaulding "Manuscript Found" was delivered into the hands of this Dr. P. Hulburt who had got up all these lying affidavits about Smith and the Book of Mormon and he takes it to Howe of Painesville, Ohio, the very place where they are trying to destroy the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Howe because he was mad about his wife and sister joining the church, and Hulburt because he had been cut off from the church, -- they take the manuscript under promise to Mrs. Davidson that they would publish and send her a copy and divide proceeds; and when she gets no returns she writes them about it and they answer her. "It did not read like we expected and we did not use it." How about the manuscript now? Traced right into the hands of the bitterest opposers of the Book of Mormon by your own witnesses, and long after the publication of the Book of Mormon. This is the manuscript story which they are claiming was in the hand-writing of Solomon Spaulding who died before the publication of the Book of Mormon and whose hand writing could be identified by his manuscript sermons, as Mrs. Spaulding and Mrs. McKinstry testified: -- and from such a manuscript as this ten words preserved in Mr. Solomon Spaulding's hand-writing would have been sufficient to have identified the two, if the Book of Mormon was the same, beyond all dispute whatever -- and these opposers with their statements and affidavits in their hands, deliberately destroy the "Manuscript Found," which they got from Mrs. Spaulding (Davidson) and maliciously publish their statements. Here is "old come to pass," right in their own hands on the year 1834. Now who is the impostor; the deceiver? But further, when it is first published that Mrs. Spaulding (Davidson) claimed the Book of Mormon was a copy of the manuscript, a gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Jesse Harper, [sic] visits at once Mrs. (Spaulding) Davidson, Mrs.
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.
McKinstry, and Dr. Ely, in Massachusetts, and interviews these persons, and writes his
account to the Quincy (Ill.) Whig, a bitter anti-Mormon journal, stating that in the interview he
asked and received answers to the following questions, to wit: --
Q. "Have you read the Book of Mormon?
A. I have read some in it.
Q. Does Mr. Spaulding's manuscript, and the Book of Mormon agree?
A. I think some of the names are alike.
Q. Does the manuscript describe an idolatrous or a religious people?
A. An Idolatrous people.
Q. Where is the manuscript.
A. Dr. P. Hurlburt came here and took it, said he would get it printed, and let me have one half the profits.
Q. Has Dr. Hurlburt got the manuscript printed?
A. I received a letter stating it did not read as they expected and they should not print it.
Q. How large was the manuscript?
A. about one-third as large as the Book of Mormon."
(To Mrs. McKinstry.)
Q. "How old were you when your father wrote the manuscript?
A. About five years of age.
Q. Did you ever read the manuscript?
A. When I was about twelve years of age I used to read it for diversion.
Q. Did the manuscript describe an idolatrous or a religious people.
A. An idolatrous people.
Q. Does the manuscript and the Book of Mormon agree?
A. I think some of the names agree.
Q. Are you certain that some of the names agree?
A. I am not.
Q. Have you ever read the Book of Mormon?
A. I have not."
Then the following interview with Mrs. McKinstry on April 4th, 1882, in Washington City: --
Q. Mrs. McKinstry, have you the Manuscript Found, Mr. Solomon Spaulding is said to have written, in your
A. I have not.
Q. What became of it?
A. My mother delivered it up for publication to a Mr. Hulburt who came to our house in Mass. for it, bearing
letters of introduction from my uncle, a Mr. Sabine, a lawyer in New York State.
Q. Why do you not get the manuscript again?
A. I have sent for it but Hulburt claims he did not get any.
Q. Does Hurlbut say he did not get any manuscript from your mother?
A. That is what he claims now.
Q. How do you account for the fact, Mrs. McKinstry, that your father, while being such a good man and a minister,
should write such a bad book as the Book or Mormon?
A. Well, we never could account for that.
Q. Could you identify the manuscript, was it now produced?|
A. I don't think I could.
Q. Have you any of the old writings and manuscripts of Mr. Spaulding?
A. Yes, I have some leaves of his sermons.
Q. And with these you think you could not identify the manuscript?
A. No, sir, I think not.
(Mrs. Col. Stanton, who is present at the interview):
Why yes, mother, if you have his writing you ought to identify it.
Mrs. McKinstry: Well, perhaps I could.
Q. Was it written on common foolscap paper or the clergymen note paper?
A. It must have been written on foolscap as they had no clergymen note paper in those days,
Q. How do you come to remember any of the names that were in that manuscript?
A. Well, I suppose I should not but Mr. Spaulding had a way of making a very fancy capital letter at the beginning
of a chapter and I remembered the name Lehi, I think it was, from its being written this way."
That is the way she identified it -- on account of the word Lehi beginning with a very fancy capital letter. Suppose
instead of being Lehi the word had been Levi. Would not the capital letter have been just the same and might there
not have been the same fancy about it? And still a different thing altogether. Instead of being Levi, suppose it
had been Lincoln. There would have been the same fancy capital letter. But perhaps I ought to read the evidence
without comment, and make my comment afterwards, so I return to that. The question is asked: --
Q. When did you first think about the names in the Book of Mormon and the manuscript agreeing?
A. My attention was first called to it by some parties who asked me if I did not remember it, and then I remembered
that they were."
These parties were the old neighbors; Aaron Wright, Miller, etc.
Did you ever have a case in court, my friends? If so, did you ever know the man on the other side to go to
certain parties and say, "Now, see here, you are a good friend of mine and I am in a little trouble and I guess
you know something to help me out. Don't you remember that a certain fellow upon a certain day said a certain
thing? -- And I will tell you what it was now, and see if you don't remember it?" Why! there is so much evidence
manufactured in this country in that way that corruption is beginning to rule insomuch that it is thought that
never in the history of the world before, did so much evil creep into courts of justice, by reason of the
manufactoring of testimony and suborning of witnesses.
I again call your attention to the thought: -- After her attention was called to it by three good, estimable,
best citizens, etc., then she thought she remembered it.
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.
Q. "Was you acquainted with Joseph Smith
A. No, I never heard tell of him till I heard of the Book of Mormon.
Q. Was Sidney Rigdon ever about your father's house?
A. No, I never saw him.
August, 1883, is another important interview.
I will give the evidence of Mr. Howe, but not claim it as evidence if my friend upon the other side of the question will put him on the stand here for cross-examination. It is as follows: --
Q. Mr. Howe, did Hulburt bring the manuscript to you he got of Mrs. (Spaulding) Davidson?
A. Yes, he brought one; but it was not the one we wanted; it only told about some tribes of Indians and their wars along the Lakes here and pretended to be the writings of some shipwrecked crew. It was the wars of the Winnebagoes, Chicagoes or Niagaries, I believe.
Q. Why did you not publish it?
A. Because it did not do us any good."
Now, who has got the stolen property that he has made such a parade over? These other parties who are seeking for
evidence in order to show that Mr. Smith has stolen property in his possession go and get the original manuscript --
the manuscript in the handwriting of Solomon Spaulding -- in the penmanship of Solomon Spaulding, and they bring it
here to Painsville, Ohio and it is traced into the hands of Mr. Howe and Mr. Hulburt, the ones that are determined
to crush out the faith of the church: -- And what do they do? Publish it? Keep it? Preserve it? Oh no! "They did not
use it." Why did they not use it? The reason is too evident to require naming. Ten words preserved in Mr. Spaulding's
handwriting would have been sufficient to have identified the two if the Book of Mormon was the same. And these
opposers, both sworn enemies of Mr. Smith and the Book of Mormon with their affidavits in their hands,
deliberately destroyed the "Manuscript Found," which they got from Mrs. (Spaulding) Davidson, and published their
statements and affidavits, instead of the manuscript they got. Mind you they got the "Manuscript Found," and the
only one ever so called in fact, and I will show that they did. I know that Mr. Howe tried to make a dodge afterwards
and say that Spaulding had another manuscript called the "Roman Manuscript," so my opponent says; but Mr. Howe last
summer did not give it as the Roman Manuscript, and I am prepared to prove that he said it treated of some Indian
wars along the lakes here, too. And prepared to prove it with such testimony as will impeach him, so that if he will
put himself under oath, I can send him to the penitentiary of Ohio for it. I have asked you (Mr. Braden) to put him
on the stand here for examination and you dare not. I make these statements fearlessly, because I want the truth of
this; one witness that heard him make such statement is upon the stand here now.
Now who is the impostor, the deceiver?
But now I will continue with Mr. Howe's statement of last summer: What do you
know personally about the Book of Mormon and the Spaulding story being the same?
A. I don't know anything.
Q. Why did you publish a work claiming that the Book of Mormon was the Spaulding Romance?
A. Because I could better believe that Spaulding wrote it than that Joe Smith saw an angel.
Q. Are those your grounds?
A. Yes, sir, they are; and I want you to understand that you can't cram the Book of Mormon down me."
No, sir! Not down him. He is on Mr. Braden's side.
Q. Do you swallow the Bible?
A. That is my business.
Q. Have you not published a pamphlet which does not endorse the Bible?
A. Yes, I have."