The question naturally arises as to how it is that Mr. Schroeder adopts this theory of Rigdon stealing the Spaulding manuscript when it involves him in the necessity of practically throwing overboard these two important witnesses of the Spaulding theory. We have already seen that Mr. Schroeder practically discredits the testimony of the Davidson statement; [93] and with no less emphasis he throws over Mrs. McKinstry's testimony on the ground of her incompetency to be a reliable witness because of her tender age--from four to eleven--when the things happened of which she testified; and her great age--seventy-four, ("seventy-seven," says Mrs. Dickinson, [94])-when she made her affidavit as to those distant happenings. [Footnote 93: _American Historical Magazine,_ September, 1906, pp. 392-4. _Ante._ p. 29.] [Footnote 94: "New Light on Mormonism," preface.] "That this woman, at seventy-four, should remember strange names, casually repeated in her presence, before her sixth year, and those names wholly unrelated to anything of direct consequence to her child life, is a feat of memory too extraordinary to give her uncorroborated statement any weight as against valid contradictory conclusions drawn from established facts." [95] [Footnote 95: _American Historical Magazine,_ September, 1906, p. 392, _ante_ p. 26.] In a casual re-statement of his theory that Rigdon stole the Spaulding manuscript, and pointing to the alleged related facts of that theory, Mr. Schroeder says: "These conclusions and much of the evidence upon which they are based will contradict Mrs. McKinstry's statement." [96] Then why adopt that theory? A direct answer is nowhere to be found on the face of Mr. Schroeder's articles; but one acquainted with all the variations of the Spaulding theory does not have far to go to understand the reasons. [Footnote 96: Ibid. 391.] First, there is the shady transactions of the Reverends Clark, Storrs, and Austin in the production of the Davidson statement that discredits it; and in Mr. Schroeder's view, the evidentiary value of this document is not very great. [97] [Footnote 97: Ibid. pp. 393-4, _ante_ pp. 26-29.] Second, Mr. Schroeder knows, for reasons that he himself states, that the McKinstry affidavit is incompetent and cannot be held to establish the alleged facts detailed in it. "That this woman at seventy-four, should remember strange names casually repeated in her presence, before her sixth year, * * * is a feat of memory too extraordinary," is his own characterization of the absurdity.