Q.--Was your name attached to that letter, which was sent to Mr. John Storrs, by your order? A.--No, I never meant that my name should be there. You see by the above questions and answers, that Mr. Austin, in his great zeal to destroy the Latter-day Saints, has asked Mrs. Davison a few questions, then wrote a letter to Mr. Storrs, in his own language. I do not say that the above questions and answers were given in the form that I have written them, but these questions were asked, and these answers given. Mrs. Davison is about seventy years of age, and somewhat broke." This may certify that I am personally acquainted with Mr. Haven, his son and daughter, and am satisfied they are persons of truth. I have also read Mr. Haven's letter to his daughter, which has induced me to copy it for publication, and I further say, the above is a correct copy of Mr. Haven's letter. (Signed) A. BADLAM. [14] The foregoing statement from the "Quincy Whig" is considerably strengthened by a work published by "Funk & Wagnalls" (1885), by Mrs. Ellen E. Dickinson, a grand daughter of Willian H. Sabine, a brother of Mrs. (Spaulding) Davison. Mrs. Dickenson, whose work is called "New Light on Mormonism," devotes a number of her chapters to the elaboration of the Spaulding theory, and in an appendix publishes twenty-seven documents bearing upon the subject of the Spaulding manuscript; but nowhere, either in the body of her work or in this appendix, publishes the alleged statement of Mrs. Davison, which is pretty clear evidence that the statement was never given by Mrs. Davison nor authorized by her. Mrs. Dickinson from the amount of research she devoted to the subject could not have been ignorant of its existence, and more especially as she was a relative of Mrs. Davison--grand-niece--and wrote her book as the representative of the Spaulding relatives to set forth the Spaulding theory in its proper light. [15] Of course had Mrs. Davison done her full duty in the premises as an author, she would have made reference to this forged statement credited to her grand-aunt and repudiated it in her name; but this she failed to do. However, her silence with reference to this statement and her failure to place it in her collection of documents on the subject, amounts to the same thing--a repudiation of it. But even if Mrs. Davison's repudiation of the article, to which her name was attached by others, did not exist, and if the repudiation of it by her grand-niece by refusing it admission into her collection of documents on the Spaulding theory did not exist, there is enough in the statement itself to establish its utter unreliability. These are: