The next sin of the Davidson statement is one of commission. The success of Mr. Schroeder's case against the Book of Mormon depends upon establishing his contention that Sidney Rigdon stole the Spaulding manuscript from the printing office of Patterson and Lambdin; and that, after October, 1816, (the time of Spaulding's death), the Schroeder-assumed "rewritten" manuscript was never in the hands of "anybody but Sidney Rigdon." But if the re-affirmance of the Davidson statement is to be admitted at all, in evidence, then, according to Mrs. Davidson, before the family removed from Pittsburg to Amity, the Spaulding manuscript was "returned to its author, and soon after," says the Davidson statement, "we removed to Amity, Washington county, etc., where Mr. Spaulding deceased in 1816. The manuscript then fell into my hands, and was carefully preserved. It has frequently been examined by my daughter, Mrs. McKinstry, of Monson, Mass., with whom I now reside, and by other friends." [86] [Footnote 86: See Davidson statement in the text above.] This statement, let it be observed, would not fall within the items which even Mr. Schroeder would exclude from the Davidson statement if readmitted as evidence; for it is very clear that as to this item the lady was speaking of a thing about which she had "personal knowledge," the "shibboleth" which gives "evidentiary weight" to what the lady is supposed to have testified to in this "shady" document. But against this damaging affirmation of the Davidson document, about the return of the Spaulding manuscript to its author, and Mrs. (Spaulding) Davidson's subsequent possession and care of it, Mr. Schroeder says: "Upon the question as to whether or not Spaulding's re-written manuscript was in the possession of anybody but Rigdon at any time after October, 1816, Mrs. Davidson's statement as published cannot in any sense whatever be considered as evidence." [87] [Footnote 87: _American Historical Magazine,_ September, 1906, p. 394 _Ante_ p. 29. (Sic!)] The reader will now better understand Mr. Schroeder's attitude: what agrees with his theory in the Davidson statement shall be accepted; what contradicts it, must be discarded; and this may be applied to the gentleman's attitude to pretty much the whole mass of testimony upon the subject. The attitude of Mr. Schroeder, however, cannot be conceded as proper. Either he must admit the force of the Davidson statement against his contentions, as well as where it favors them, or else he must discredit the Davidson evidence altogether. One may not have his cake and at the same time eat it. We care not which he does in respect of this particular "piece of evidence." It will be equally advantageous to our argument, which he does.