CHAPTER XII

INVESTIGATIONS--WISE AND OTHERWISE

Spiritualism has been the cause of much discussion between men of science, men of magic, and believers in the “Spirit World.” Countless investigations, wise and otherwise, have been held in most of the countries of the globe. Many of them have been made by fair-minded, unbiased men; men who delved deep into the unknown with a clear conscience and whether successful or not were willing to give the world the result of their probings. Men who were not afraid to admit that their experience was not sufficient to cope with the medium’s skill and years of training and that they had been fooled. But there have been other so-called investigators who have attended seances wishing to be fooled and as “the wish is father of the thought” they have been misled.

What these investigators _see_ done and what they _think_ they see done are in reality two entirely different things and by the time they start to write their experiences there are usually complications. I rarely believe a full hundred per cent the explanations I hear or read. It is to be said to the credit of the investigators that they do not deliberately make misstatements but the nature of the brain is such that it is almost impossible to avoid mal-observation and these mal-observations are the curse of investigation.

Investigations under conditions favorable to the medium cannot be termed “investigations.” They are nothing more than a demonstration of the medium’s power to divert the attention, carrying it at will to any place they wish and numbing the subconscious mind. Under such conditions they are not only able to delude the innocent and simple-minded but also men whose accomplishments have proven their intellects to be above the average.

When a medium is subjected to conditions which are, to say the least, disconcerting, and the usual effects are not obtained, almost invariably the claim is made that there are antagonistic waves and that the “auras” are bad, and if, as often happens, the result is an unqualified exposé and the medium’s fall from power the followers of Spiritualism usually put forth a statement saying the medium overstepped the bounds in trying to give results and resorted to trickery, but that the majority of previous seances were genuine.

Perhaps my ideas on the subject of how to conduct an investigation are wrong; I am fully convinced, however, that the only way to conduct a successful one is to get the committee together previous to the seance, discuss the expected manifestations, formulate some plan for concerted action and if possible assign each member some specific part as was done in the case of Palladino’s fall. These parts should be rehearsed and then when the seance is held there is a much greater possibility of the committee being able to judge intelligently. But when scientists report some feat of legerdemain as being abnormal simply because they cannot detect the deception, I think it is time to add to each investigating committee a successful and reputable professional mystifier, and I might add that all mediums hate to have a magician attend a seance.

Of the many investigations, since the beginning of modern Spiritualism, I have selected a few of the most important and will try and show the reader the necessity of placing on investigating committees men who cannot be prejudiced or influenced by subdued lights or weird and mystifying sounds; men who use their God-given gift of reason to the best of their ability; men whose attention cannot be diverted by the medium; men whose brain cells are versatile and not overdeveloped in one particular direction; men who can pay strict attention to their commission and not be led astray by the glib-tongued medium’s misdirection. Then we will have real investigations and the world at large will benefit.

A short time before his death Henry Seybert, an enthusiastic Spiritualist with a conscientious desire that Spiritualism should be authentically established, gave the University of Pennsylvania sufficient money to establish a chair of Philosophy on condition that a commission should be appointed to investigate “all systems of morals, Religion or Philosophy which assume to represent the _truth_ and particularly modern Spiritualism.” Accordingly there were selected from among the doctors and professors of the University ten men to be known as the “Seybert Commission.” A fairer-minded and more impartial commission could not have been appointed. Each man had declared himself holding an open mind and ready to accept whatever there was evidence to prove, but realizing “that men eminent in intelligence and attainment yield to Spiritualism an entire credence,” they felt that one could not “fail to stand aside in tender reverence when crushed and bleeding hearts are seen to seek it for consolation and for hope.” In order to be amply prepared to do their work in an intelligent and understanding manner they provided themselves with the best literature of the day on the subject and such records of previous investigations as were available. After a careful digest of all this information the Commission was ready to begin its actual work in March, 1884. _The entire ten men_ of the Commission _were willing to believe_, and their adviser, Mr. Thomas R. Hazard, had been a personal friend of Mr. Seybert and was known throughout the land as an _uncompromising Spiritualist_.”

The first medium to which the Commission gave its attention was Mrs. S. E. Patterson, a slate writing mystifier and automatic writer. The result of this first case was _nil_. After waiting patiently an hour and a half for the spirits to move the meeting adjourned to the disappointment of all. Mr. Hazard was especially chagrined, for the medium was considered “one of the very best in the world.” She had given him a private sitting the evening before at which “messages from the Spirit of Henry Seybert came thick and fast,” but they declined to manifest for the Commission.

This seance proved to be typical of all that fell to the lot of the Seybert Commission to investigate. It continued its work for three years and investigated every case of importance which came before it. One of these was Margaret Fox, with whom the Commission had two sittings and became convinced that the raps came from her person. When she was told of its conclusion she admitted that the seances were not satisfactory but declined further sittings on the ground of ill health and because she doubted if more satisfactory results would follow and admitting that they might result in a “_confirmation_” of the Commission’s belief as to the cause of the raps.

Many of the most prominent mediums of the day appeared before the Commission during its three years of work. Some of them underwent a whole series of tests and the phenomena covered the whole gamut from simple rapping to spirit photography, automatic and slate writing, materialization, etc. In every case with but one exception the result was either a blank seance, a positive failure, or a deliberate cheat. The exception was when Mr. Harry Kellar was called in as a magician to demonstrate his power as a slate writer. The Commission was successfully baffled, not a single member being able to fathom his method until he explained it.

The Commission carefully weighed all the evidence placed before it and formed its conclusions with such deliberation and thoroughness that the most critical on either side found no cause for objecting or saying that it was swayed or biased by any undue influence whatever. It pursued its work on purely rational, scientific lines, strenuously avoiding all conditions which might be construed as conducive to doubtful conclusions. It was looking for facts in a matter-of-fact way and as there was no opportunity for screening artifices no occult or psychic phenomena were proven to have existed. As an evidence of the fairness with which the Commission was considered to have done its work, I quote the following letter to the Commission from Dr. Henry Slade.

“No. 11 E. 13th Street, N. Y., Feb. 4, 1885.

“Dear Mr. Furness:--I take this opportunity to express to you, and through you to the other members of the Seybert Commission, my hearty approval of the course pursued by them in their investigation of phenomena occurring in my presence. Fully realizing that I am only the instrument or channel through which these manifestations are produced, it would be presumption on my part to undertake to lay down a line to be followed by the unseen intelligence, whose servant I am. Hence I did say their conditions must be acceded to or I would return to New York. That they did so, is evident to my mind from the results obtained, which I regard as a necessary preliminary to a continuation, when other experiments may be introduced with better prospects of success. It may be well not to insist on following the exact course followed by Professor Zollner, but leave it open to original or impromptu suggestions that may be adopted without previous consideration, which, if successful, would be of equal value as evidence of its genuineness, at the same time give greater breadth to the experiments. In conclusion, allow me to say that in the event the Committee desires to continue these experiments through another series of sittings with me, it will give me pleasure to enter into arrangements for that purpose.

“Very truly yours, “Henry Slade.”

If all the investigators were to adopt the rational methods of the Seybert Commission they might easily discover the truth and no longer submit to imposition by charlatans nor aid and abet them by accepting as true the claims made by a class which they admit is of a low type, dishonest, and otherwise disreputable. If sincere, they would assist in all reasonable attempts to detect fraud and not accept the irrational pretext that light and touch are detrimental to the health or life of a medium.

Following in the footsteps of the Seybert Commission the Society for Psychical Research was organized in America and England for the purpose of investigating all so-called phenomena and freak occurrences not easily accountable for by natural law and in spite of the following message which it is claimed was sent by the spirit of the late William Walker, President of the Buxton Camera Club, to the Crewe Circle, I believe they are doing good work.

“Dear Friends of the Circle,[105]

“I would not spend a moment with the Psychical Research Society, because they are nothing more or less than fraud hunters and I want you to come to Buxton for a sitting with Mrs. Walker, 3, Palace Rd., about the 8th, 9th, of Aug. Then the spirit friends can further demonstrate the wondrous powers which to-day are needed more than ever. Peace be with you.

“Yours faithfully, “W. Walker.”

The membership of these societies is made up of men and women who have a certain degree of scientific training, all classes of scholarship and all professions being represented. As a consequence the investigations have been most exhaustive and carried out by persons especially qualified for the work, but the results have been most emphatically against a belief in the return of a soul after death in the guise of a spirit or the occurrence of anything supernatural at the bidding of a medium.

Naturally, we might not expect a general agreement among a group of scientific scholars who had entered the field of research from different points of view, but I believe I can say without fear of contradiction, that of all who have undertaken the task without prejudice the majority agree in the opinion that all phenomena ascribed to spirit power developed through, and presented by, a medium, are without foundation in fact, and that the result of their investigations has agreed perfectly with the findings of the Seybert Commission.

In January, 1869, the London Dialectical Society appointed a committee with thirty-three members to investigate the phenomena alleged to be Spiritual manifestations and to report on its findings. Professor Huxley, Professor John Tyndall, and Mr. George Henry Lewes, were invited to co-operate with the Committee. Professor Huxley refused to have anything to do with the investigation and in the following letter, written in answer to the Committee’s invitation, he terms Spiritualism a “gross imposture.”[106]

“Sir,--I regret that I am unable to accept the invitation of the Council of the Dialectical Society to co-operate with a Committee for the investigation of ‘Spiritualism’, and for two reasons. In the first place, I have no time for such an inquiry, which would involve much trouble and (unless it were unlike all inquiries of that kind I have known) much annoyance. In the second place, I take no interest in the subject. The only case of ‘Spiritualism’ I have had the opportunity of examining into for myself was as gross an imposture as ever came under my notice. But supposing the phenomena to be genuine--they do not interest me. If anybody would endow me with the faculty of listening to the chatter of old women and curates in the nearest cathedral town, I would decline the privilege, having better things to do.

“And if the folk in the Spiritual world do not talk more wisely and sensibly than their friends report them to do, I put them in the same category.

“The only good that I can see in a demonstration of the truth of ‘Spiritualism’ is to furnish an additional argument against suicide. Better live a crossing-sweeper than die and be made to talk twaddle by a ‘medium’ hired at a guinea a _seance_.

“I am, Sir, &c., “T. H. Huxley.”

“29th January, 1869.”

A few days later Mr. Lewes declined the Committee’s invitation as follows:

“Dear Sir,--I shall not be able to attend the investigation of ‘Spiritualism’; and in reference to your question about suggestions would only say that the one hint needful is that all present should distinguish between facts and inferences from facts. When any man says that phenomena are produced by _no_ known physical laws, he declares that he knows the laws by which they are produced.

“Yours, &c., “G. H. Lewes.

“Tuesday, 2nd February, 1869.”

Under date of December 22, 1869, Professor Tyndall wrote the following in response to his invitation to aid the Committee.

“Sir--You mention in your note to me three gentlemen, two of whom are personally known to me, and for both of whom I entertain a sincere esteem.

“The house of one of these, namely Mr. Wallace, I have already visited, and made there the acquaintance of the lady who was the reputed medium between Mr. Wallace and the supernatural.

“And if earnestly invited by Mr. Crookes, the editor of the ‘Chemical News,’ to witness phenomena which in his opinion ‘tend to demonstrate the existence of some power (magnetic or otherwise) which has not yet been recognized by men of science,’ I should pay due respect to his invitation.

“But understand my position: more than a year ago Mr. Cromwell Varley, who is, I believe, one of the greatest modern Spiritualists, did me the favor to pay me a visit, and he then employed a comparison which, though flattering to my spiritual strength, seems to mark me out as unfit for spiritual investigation. He said that my presence at a _seance_ resembled that of a great magnet among a number of small ones. I throw all into confusion. Still he expressed a hope that arrangements might be made to show me the phenomena, and I expressed my willingness to witness such things as Mr. Varley might think worth showing to me. I have not since been favored by a visit from Mr. Varley.

“I am now perfectly willing to accept the personal invitation of Mr. Crookes, should he consider that he can show me phenomena of the character you describe.

“I am, sir, your obedient servant, “John Tyndall.”

“G. W. Bennett, Esq.”

Unlike the Seybert Commission, which made a formal report to the University of Pennsylvania immediately on the completion of its work, the Committee of the Dialectical Society which was appointed in 1869 did not make any report until 1877 and then only what seems to be a garbled report of sub-committees. The _Spiritual Magazine_ in 1870 commented on this lack of a report as follows:

“Where is the report of the Dialectical Society? This is the question which many people are asking, but to which no one seems prepared to give a satisfactory reply. Has this Report, which was to settle the question of Spiritualism, only unsettled the Dialectical Society--causing, as we learn, some of its principal officers and members to secede from it on finding that the investigations of the Committee pointed in a different way to what they anticipated, and to which they had committed themselves? People ask--Have the Committee come to an opinion on the subject or have they too many opinions?”

The only information I have come in contact with referring to the Dialectical Committee and its work has been from Spiritualistic publications, most of them under authorship of Mr. James Burns, and I copy the following from “The Medium and Daybreak” of November 16, 1877:

“Objection has been taken in some quarters to the fact that the Society itself did not publish the Report, but left the matter of the publication as an open question to its Committee.” Again: on the 20th of July, 1870, the council passed a resolution--“that the request of the Committee, that the Report be printed under the authority of the Society, be not acceded to.”

The exact nature of the work done by the Dialectical Society’s Committee can be summed up by another extract from the same issue of “The Medium and Daybreak”:

“In due time the Committee presented to the Council the General and Sub-Reports, supplementing the same by a voluminous mass of evidence taken directly from the _lips of Spiritualists practically acquainted with the subject--persons of the highest respectability and representing nearly every grade of society_.” (The italics are mine.)

Another element of discord in the Dialectical investigation is shown by the following:

“Attempt has been made, of course, to undervalue these telling researches. The non-successful Committees have been brought gleefully into prominence, in hope that _positive_ results obtained by the successful Committees might thereby be discredited.”

It seems to be a published fact that this movement on the part of the Dialectical Society resulted in much discord amounting to a split in the Society. Mr. Burns in his editorial column of the “Medium and Daybreak” says:

“Our present issue affords an important and valuable addition to the cheap literature of Spiritualism. It is filled with useful matter for investigators, _judiciously extracted from the Report of the London Dialectical Society_.” (My italics.)

The supporters of Spiritualism lay great stress and importance on the fact that a few of their co-workers are men prominent in scientific and literary circles, but these are in such a minority, when compared with men of the same time who do not co-operate, that the Spiritualists in order to give force and dignity to their argument “ring the changes” on these few names and keep them prominently to the front, notwithstanding that it has been proven beyond question, time and again, that these sages themselves have frequently been the victims of fraudulent mediums, sometimes knowingly.

Doyle in his book “The New Revelation” says:

“The days are surely passing when the mature and considerate opinions of such men ... can be dismissed with the empty ‘all rot’ or ‘nauseating drivel’ formulæ.”

Perhaps the most prominent man in this respect and whose conclusions, especially in his later years, were pointed to by Spiritualists as being beyond dispute was the eminent chemist, Sir William Crookes. He became intensely interested in Spiritualistic research work as early as 1870 and for the first four years devoted most of his attention to D. D. Home, who seemed successful in baffling Crookes’ super-knowledge of scientific investigation. In 1874 he turned his attention to Florrie Cook, a fifteen year old medium who had been commanding attention for about three years. She seems to have captivated him within the first month to such an extent that he went to her defense in print after a “_disgraceful occurrence_” had given rise to a “_controversy_,” after which he entertained her at his house. The most convincing test, though, took place at her home in Hackney. In February, 1874, he wrote:

“These _seances_ have not been going on many weeks but enough has taken place to thoroughly convince me of the perfect truth and honesty of Miss Cook, and to give me every reason to expect that the promises so freely made to me by Katie will be kept. All I now ask is that your readers will not hastily assume that everything which is _prima facie_ suspicious necessarily implies deception, and that they will suspend their judgment until they hear from me again on this subject.”

It was not long, evidently, before the scientist awoke from his dream, for on August 1st, 1874, he wrote to a Russian lady that after four years of investigation, including months of experience with Home, Katie Fox, and Florence Cook, he found “no satisfactory proof that the dead can return and communicate.” A copy of this letter was sent by Aksakoff to _Light_, and was published in that journal on May 12, 1900. “Sir W. Crookes did not dissent.”[107] Sometime along about 1875 forty-four photographic negatives which he had made of Katie King and her medium, Florrie Cook, together with what prints he had, were, for some reason not given, accidentally destroyed and he forbade friends who had copies to reproduce them. He must have made some sort of a discovery for he “buried himself in a sulky silence which he would not break” for forty years. “No one knew whether he was a Spiritualist or not,” his only statement being that “in all his Spiritualistic research he had ‘come to a brick wall.’”[108] In 1914 when asked plainly if he were a Spiritualist “he evaded the question.” Perhaps the change in his opinions came over him when he learned that Florence Cook (who became Mrs. Corner) was exposed[109] on a continental tour and sent back disgraced. But in 1916, notwithstanding his statement in 1900 and other previous statements, he went on record in the December 9th issue of _Light_ as accepting Spiritualism.

All of this stands as proof that Professor Crookes, even after he was knighted, was of a vacillating mind and for some reason seemed to be deficient in rational methods of discovering the truth, or at least disinclined to put them in force outside of his particular line of science. Possibly, one of the convincing proofs to him may have been the “tricks” played on him by Annie Eva Fay, for if I am not in error his failure to detect her trickery was the turning point which brought him to a belief in Spiritualism. She told me that when Maskelyne, the magician, came out with an exposé of her work she was forced to resort to strategy. Going to the home of Professor Crookes she threw herself on his mercy and gave a series of special tests. With flashing eyes she told of taking advantage of him. It appears that she had but one chance in the world to get by the galvanometer[110] but by some stroke of luck for her and an evil chance for Professor Crookes, the electric light went out for a second at the theatre at which she was performing, and she availed herself of the opportunity to fool him. One of the tests was duplicated by Professor Harry Cooke, a magician.

There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that this brainy man was hoodwinked, and that his confidence was betrayed by the so-called mediums that he tested. His powers of observation were blinded and his reasoning faculties so blunted by his prejudice in favor of anything psychic or occult that he could not, or would not, resist the influence.[111] This seems more difficult to comprehend when one remembers that he did not accept Spiritualism in full until he was nearing the end of his earthly career. The weakness and unreliability of Sir William’s judgment as an investigator is further proved by the fact that he admitted that many of the tests he proposed were rejected by the mediums he was investigating. Such conditions made the test impossible and he did not seem to realize it, but notwithstanding all this he is one of the most quoted authorities in Spiritualistic realms, particularly by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

Another who was misled by the chicanery of mediums which he investigated during many years of research is Sir Oliver Lodge. He failed to find sufficient evidence to prompt him to spread the teachings of Spiritualism until 1904, after which he occasionally sent a “glow through the Spiritualistic world by some bold profession of belief.” In 1905 he was not quite ready to endorse but strongly commended mediums. But by 1916 he had become “the great scientist of the movement, the link between the popular belief and scientific theory.” It is extremely difficult, however, to understand how a leading scientist can permit his pen to lay before a thinking world such inconsistent impossibilities as the following:

“A table can exhibit hesitation, it can seek for information, it can welcome a newcomer, it can indicate joy or sorrow, fun or gravity, it can keep time with a song as if joining in the chorus and most notably of all it can exhibit affection in an unmistakable manner.”

_What has all this to do with the spirit of the departed?_ How is it possible to accept such silly nonsense? Think of it! A _table_ with intelligence, brains--a _table_ with consciousness--a _table_ with emotion. Yet that is the sort of reasoning used by Sir Oliver in his book “Raymond” and it is acceptable to all enthusiastic advocates of occult teaching. When we read of a mind of such high culture being overcome by such misfortune we are moved to compassion rather than censure and can only conjecture that the loss of his beloved son, Raymond, in an accursed war was the cause of it.

Margaret Deland wrote:

“As for the scientific value of the evidence submitted by Sir Oliver, one must not lose sight of the fact that by far the greater part of it is from the experience of others and accepted by him as established facts, in many cases with little or no investigation as applied to telepathy. By following his career, one familiar with the psychology of deception will see that he has been an exceptionally ‘easy mark.’”

In describing a private performance of what is known among magicians as “long-distance second-sight,” after detailing the tests in full, Sir Oliver writes:

“As regards collusion and trickery, no one who has witnessed the absolutely genuine and artless manner in which the impressions are described, but has been perfectly convinced of the transparent honesty of all concerned.

“This, however, is not evidence to those who have not been present, and to them I can only say that to the best of my scientific belief, no collusion or trickery was possible under the varied circumstances of the experiments.”

From the above, the reader may form his own opinion as to the value of Sir Oliver Lodge’s investigation, and at the same time should bear in mind that his so-called investigation is typical of all the investigations by scientists and sages who have accepted Spiritualism as a fact or a religion (?).

The remaining figure of this type most conspicuously in the spotlight on the Spiritualistic stage at the present time is my esteemed friend, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Very much like Sir Oliver, his opinion hung in the balance during many years of _investigation_, some thirty or thirty-five, and it is significant that he did not manifest his deep concern in the cult until he too, like Sir Oliver, had lost a son in the late war and his heartstrings had been wrung by a similar grief.

In “The New Revelation,” which was written after he had lost his son, he tells us that for thirty years he had studied the subject of Spiritualism “_carelessly_,” _then suddenly in a crisis of emotion_,[112] he sees a possible balm in it, but instead of realizing that this was, or should be, the time for real investigation, he threw up his hands with the cry:

_“The objective side of it ceased to interest, for having made up one’s mind that it was true there was an end of the matter._”[113]

It is evident from his own confession that he decided to accept Spiritualism regardless of any real revelation that might present itself at a future time and the fact that he did cease intelligent investigation is proved by his own published statements quoted below.

In a letter in the _New York Evening Mail_, Dec. 29, 1921, he says:

“_I don’t need scientific proof of what I hear with my own ears, see with my own eyes. Nobody does. This is one of the fine things about Spiritualism. Each person can prove it for himself. It proves immortality and the better you live here, the further you’ll go there, progressing finally to the perfect state._”

In the _New York World_, June 22, 1922, he says:

“_That mediums I have recommended have been convicted of fraud; any medium may be convicted, because the mere fact of being a medium is illegal by our benighted laws, but no medium I have ever recommended has been shown to be fraudulent in a sense which would be accepted by any real psychic student._[114] _This same applies I believe to mediums recommended by Sir Oliver Lodge._”[115]

In connection with his corroboration of Sir Oliver’s opinion about mediums Sir Arthur is reported to have said:

_“Sir Oliver is too damn scientific.”_

And the _New York World_ of June 3rd, 1922, quotes him as saying:

“_Most mediums take their responsibilities very seriously and view their work in a religious light. A temptation to which several great mediums have succumbed is that of drink. This comes about in a very natural way, for overworking leaves them in a state of physical prostration and the stimulus of alcohol affords a welcome relief and may tend at last to become a custom and finally a curse.[116] Alcoholism always weakens the moral sense, so that these degenerate mediums yield themselves more readily to fraud. Tippling and moral degeneration are by no means confined to psychics._

“_Far from being antagonistic to religion, this psychic movement is destined to revivify religion. We come upon what is sane, what is moderate, what is reasonable, what is consistent with gradual evolution and the benevolence of God. This new wave of inspiration has been sent into the world by God._”

I will not, at this time, dissect and analyze the above statements, preferring to let the reader decide for himself after reading them over carefully and digesting their literal meaning. It is sufficient to direct attention to the various contradictory statements and variance in the subjects of law, morality, and religion, and their application to the subject of Spiritualism.

Sir Arthur is reported as saying that mediumship is like an ear for music and might exist in “some vulgar person,” but that the medium is only a carrier of messages comparable to the boy who delivers telegrams. From the foregoing excerpts of Sir Arthur’s own statements it will be seen that he depends solely on his _senses_ of _seeing_ and _hearing_ (the two weakest and most easily deceived) for his evidence. When once a medium has his confidence he believes implicitly what the medium tells him, accepts their “hear-say evidence” as gospel truth, notwithstanding that he admits they are possibly of a vulgar, dishonest class, often addicted to alcoholism to a degree of debauchery. It is extremely difficult to harmonize these statements.

As to the sense of sight coupled to the sense of hearing: while at Washington, D. C., Sir Arthur had a “sitting” with the Zancigs and after witnessing phenomena at their expert hands and minds, he gave them a letter of which the following is a transcript:

“I have tested Professor and Mrs. Zancig to-day and am quite assured that their remarkable performance, as I saw it, was due to psychic causes (thought transference) and not to trickery.

(Signed) “Arthur Conan Doyle.”

Mr. Jules Zancig is a magician, a member of the Society of American Magicians of which I have been the President for the past seven years. I believe he is one of the greatest second-sight artists that magical history records. In my researches for the past quarter of a century I have failed to trace anyone his superior. His system seems to be supreme. He never at any time claimed telepathy and as he has not, to my knowledge, obtained money by pretending telepathy or spirit presentations, it would not be fair to disclose his methods despite the fact that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle put the stamp of genuineness on his work. Undoubtedly it _appeared_ unfathomable to Sir Arthur and he therefore concluded that it was psychic and that there could be no other solution.

Mal-observation is responsible for a lot of misunderstanding, consequently misrepresentation, and as a result much investigation is rendered valueless. Such misrepresentation is not intended to deceive but is an honest expression of a conviction based on supposed facts by persons unaware that they are victims of illusion. One of the most, if not the most, flagrant instances of mal-observation I have ever known of is told of in a book by J. Hewat McKenzie, President of the British College of Psychic Science, entitled “Spirit Intercourse.” On page 107 he says:

“Houdini, called the ‘Handcuff King,’ who has so ably demonstrated his powers upon public-hall platforms is enabled by psychic power (though this he does not advertise), to open lock, handcuff, or bolt that is submitted to him. He has been imprisoned within heavily barred cells, doubly and trebly locked, and from them all he escaped with ease. This ability to unbolt locked doors is undoubtedly due to his mediumistic powers, and not to any normal mechanical operation on the lock. The force necessary to shoot a bolt within a lock is drawn from Houdini the medium, but it must not be thought that this is the only means by which he can escape from his prison, for at times his body has been dematerialized and withdrawn, but this will be treated in another part of this chapter.”

As I am the one most deeply concerned in this charge I am also the best equipped to deny such erroneous statements. I do claim to free myself from the restraint of fetters and confinement, but positively state that I accomplish my purpose purely by physical, not psychical means. The force necessary to “shoot a bolt within a lock,” is drawn from Houdini the living human being and not a medium. My methods are perfectly natural, resting on natural laws of physics. I do not _dematerialize_ or _materialize_ anything; I simply control and manipulate material things in a manner perfectly well understood by myself, and thoroughly accountable for and equally understandable (if not duplicable) by any person to whom I may elect to divulge my secrets. But I hope to carry these secrets to the grave as they are of no material benefit to mankind, and if they should be used by dishonest persons they might become a serious detriment.

On page 112 of his book Mr. McKenzie again refers to me saying:

“Houdini of world wide fame, previously mentioned, has for years demonstrated dematerialization, and the passage of matter through matter upon the public platform, while Mrs. Thompson of America, has demonstrated materialization. Mrs. Zancig has, with her husband, publicly exhibited her psychic gift, called ‘thought transference,’ which is purely soul projection, in all the leading world centres. Miss Fay, and several well known Japanese mediums, for years demonstrated the passage of matter through matter, and also materialization. These are only a few of the many who might be mentioned, who demonstrate psychic gifts before the public. Such public mediums do not, of course, advertise themselves as performing their wonders by occult powers, or through the help of spirits, and the public are therefore left in ignorance of how they perform their marvelous tricks, as they are called. The author has tested each of those mentioned, by a personal experiment from the stage, and several also in private, and can testify that they are mediums, performing most, if not all of their great wonders by spirit agency. They are naturally reluctant to acknowledge the fact, for the music-hall public would instantly resent any claims they might make that they performed their wonders by spirit power. Their audiences would regard such claims as ‘bunkum,’ and probably subject them to insult, if not to ill treatment, for the general public are entirely ignorant of such possibilities in the manipulation of psychical matter as related in this book, which a medium can develop with the co-operation of spirit entities. It can be left to the reader’s imagination to picture the face of a music-hall manager if he were asked to allow upon the stage a demonstration of spirit powers. Horrors! The poor man would not be able to sleep for nights if he thought ghosts were working around his buildings or upon his stage. Thus, knowing the attitude of men toward such things these wonders of wonders are produced upon the music-hall stage as clever ‘mystery’ tricks. The author does not wish his readers to suppose that the mechanical sleight-of-hand tricks carried out by Maskelyne and Devant and similar operators, have anything to do with the mediumistic gift, for they are a mechanical copy of true magic. These tricks are performed with tons of machinery, whereas the genuine medium can produce his wonders, if necessary, naked and in an empty room.

“The last occasion on which the author, under strict test conditions saw Houdini demonstrate his powers of dematerialization, was before thousands, upon the public stage of the Grand Theatre, Islington, London. Here a small iron tank, filled with water, was deposited upon the stage, and in it Houdini was placed, the water completely covering his body. Over this was placed an iron lid with three hasps and staples, and these were securely locked. The body was then completely dematerialized within this tank within one and a half minutes, while the author stood immediately over it. Without disturbing any of the locks, Houdini was transferred from the tank direct to the back of the stage in a dematerialized state. He was there materialized, and returned to the stage front, dripping with water, and attired in the blue jersey suit in which he entered the tank. From the time that he entered it to his appearance on the stage only one and a half minutes had expired. While the author stood adjacent to the tank, during the dematerialization process, a great loss of physical energy was felt by him, such as is usually experienced by sitters in materializing seances, who have a good stock of vital energy, as in such phenomena, a large amount of energy is required. Dematerialization is performed by methods similar in operation to those in which the psycho-plastic essence is drawn from the medium. The body of the medium may be reduced to half its ordinary weight in the materializing room, but in the case of dematerialization the essence continues to be drawn until the whole physical body vanishes, and the substance composing it is held in suspension within the atmosphere, much in the same way as moisture is held by evaporation. While in this state, Houdini was transferred from the stage to the retiring room behind, and there almost instantaneously materialized. The speed with which this dematerialization was performed is much more rapid than is possible in the materializing seance room, where time is required for the essence to be crystallized into psycho-plastic matter. Not only was Houdini’s body dematerialized, but it was carried through the locked iron tank, thus demonstrating the passage of matter through matter. This startling manifestation of one of nature’s profoundest miracles was probably regarded by most of the audience as a very clever trick.”

With the indulgence of the reader, I may be pardoned perhaps, if I insist that it is just what I claim it to be--_simply a superior trick_. The effect is original with me and was invented in the course of my professional career as a public entertainer, for the sole purpose of _entertaining_ audiences by mystifying them. My success seems to be attested by Mr. McKenzie in his acknowledgment that he was deceived into the belief as to my mediumistic powers; that I dematerialized my body and material substance, and materialized these things, so restoring them to a normal condition.

In rebuttal of this misconception I can only say that it is a demonstration of mal-observation; there was nothing supernatural in my performance. If I really possessed such abnormal powers as Mr. McKenzie credits me with, I should be only too ready to prove it for the enlightenment of a waiting world. I disagree with Mr. McKenzie that such acknowledgment would displease the “music-hall” or theatrical managers; on the contrary I am sure they would gladly open their stages to the demonstration and regard it as good management and showmanship. As to the performance of Mrs. Thompson of America, and Miss Fay their work is no more psychic than mine. It is simply another phase of magical deception, and I stand ready to reproduce such performances in an emergency.

Regarding the personally conducted tests of my work, by Mr. McKenzie, he did no more or less than all my committees are privileged to do while on the stage during my acts. Just as all Spiritualist believers do, so Mr. McKenzie relied on what he _thought_ he saw, and therefore failed to affirm or negative his misguided and misdirected vision by rational application of his conscious intelligence. Had he brought his reasoning faculties to bear, as all sincere, unbiased investigators should, he would have discovered the utter inconsistency of his deductions and never have gone on record as the author of such folly, without a particle of real evidence with which to substantiate his claim.

Dr. Crawford, whose life was devoted to scientific pursuit and research, gave the last three years of his life to _investigating_ occult or psychic phenomena, and failed utterly. His mind became impaired and he ended his own life by suicide, acknowledging that his brain was overtaxed with abstruse problems. He was so completely nonplussed and befuddled by the tricks of the Goligher family, that he gave them publicity as being genuine mediums; and the unfortunate man died without discovering his own weakness and error. Had he retained his mental balance a year or two longer, he would have been disillusioned by his co-worker in science, my friend Mr. E. E. Fournier d’Albe, the result of whose investigation is to be found elsewhere in this volume.

The unsuccessful investigations of those I have referred to are typical of all I have come in contact with or have learned of, and the barrier to their success has been their perfect willingness to be deceived. They agree to and tolerate the most absurd propositions as to the conditions under which the so-called investigations are conducted; just as they are _fixed_ by the mediums themselves. They acquiesce in and assist the medium to produce results, and accept such results as conclusive evidence of the supernatural.

What does it all mean?

What importance can be attached to any one of these supposed phenomena as proof of the return of departed spirits?