motives, would never have been published.  Twenty years after the author’s death, one Hurlburt, an apostate “Mormon,” announced that he had recognized a resemblance between the “Manuscript Story” and the Book of Mormon, and expressed a belief that the work brought forward by Joseph Smith was nothing but the Spaulding romance revised and amplified.  The apparent credibility of the statement was increased by various signed declarations to the effect that the two were alike, though no extracts for comparison were presented.  But the “Manuscript Story” was lost for a time, and in the absence of proof to the contrary, reports of the parallelism between the two works multiplied.  By a fortunate circumstance, in 1884, President James H. Fairchild, of Oberlin College, and a literary friend of his—­a Mr. Rice—­while examining a heterogeneous collection of old papers which had been purchased by the gentleman last named, found the original manuscript of the “Story.”

After a careful perusal and comparison with the Book of Mormon, President Fairchild declared in an article published in the New York Observer, February 5, 1885: 

The theory of the origin of the Book of Mormon in the traditional manuscript of Solomon Spaulding will probably have to be relinquished. * * * Mr. Rice, myself, and others compared it [the Spaulding manuscript] with the Book of Mormon and could detect no resemblance between the two, in general or in detail.  There seems to be no name nor 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. * * * Some other explanation of the origin of the Book of Mormon must be found if any explanation is required.

The manuscript was deposited in the library of Oberlin College where it now reposes.  Still, the theory of the “Manuscript Found,” as Spaulding’s story has come to be known, is occasionally pressed into service in the cause of anti-"Mormon” zeal, by some whom we will charitably believe to be ignorant of the facts set forth by President Fairchild.  A letter of more recent date, written by that honorable gentleman in reply to an inquiring correspondent, was published in the Millennial Star, Liverpool, November 3, 1898, and is as follows: 

Oberlincollege, Ohio,
October 17, 1895.

J. R. Hindley, ESQ.,

Dear Sir:  We have in our college library an original
manuscript of Solomon Spaulding—­unquestionably
genuine.

I found it in 1884 in the hands of Hon. L. L. Rice, of Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands.  He was formerly state printer at Columbus, Ohio, and before that, publisher of a paper in Painesville, whose preceding publisher had visited Mrs. Spaulding and obtained the manuscript from her.  It had lain among his old papers forty years or more, and was brought out by my asking him to look up anti-slavery documents among his papers.