Part 5

I understand fully the method of calculating the depth of water beneath the surface. What you wish to know is, after the substance is shown to exist beneath a certain point, whether it be mineral, metal or water, and the kind, character and description of each. As you are aware of the fact, the simple "forked rod" will indicate the presence of either of these. Now, to tell which of these it is, and the character of the same; if it be water, the kind of water. This is my method of testing the same, whether it be water, mineral or metal: It is on the principle of _affinity_--the attraction that like substances have for each other. After the rod indicates the particular spot, I take a sponge and saturate it with ordinary drinking water, either from spring or well, and put it on the top of the rod, and test it with this. If the substance beneath be water, and the same kind of that in the sponge, it will turn much stronger, and the demonstration be more active and powerful. But, if the rod should not turn at all, it will be some other substance, either mineral or metal. To test the kind of water, after I am satisfied that it is water--to discover, for instance, whether it be sulphur water, I dip my sponge in that kind of water, and test as above. If the movement of the rod be active and strong when this is done, the water below will be that species of water. If salt water, dip the sponge in that kind of water, and the result will be similar; and so on through the whole catalogue of waters.

In regard to the metals. The tests are made in a similar manner. After I discover by proper tests that it is a metal, which are as follows: If it be metal or mineral, after the sponge is saturated with water, the rod will not act at all. I then put a piece of metal on the top of the rod; first, a small bit of iron. If there is no movement of the rod at the spot already indicated, it is safe to conclude that the substance is not of that nature; so I continue the experiment with different kinds of metal--lead, silver, copper, tin, gold, etc., until I find some one of these that will cause the rod to turn and operate in a manner sufficiently strong and satisfactory. The same method pertains to the minerals. Of course, a great deal of the practical operations of these various tests, will depend upon one's discretion and judgment at the time they are made, which it is impossible to put upon paper. This is but a general outline of the system.

If I can be of any further assistance to you in the investigation of this subject, do not fail to let me know of it. Would be pleased to hear from you at any and all times. Be sure and send me your pamphlet.

Yours, respectfully,

HARRY SANGSTER.

Immediately after receiving this letter, I made some experiments as follows: I took a green, forked twig, and found that over iron water-pipe, gas-pipe, and over a cistern of water, it turned down vigorously. I then took a wet rag and fastened it on top of the twig or rod. As Mr. Sangster testifies, I found it powerless over the iron water-pipe and over the gas-pipe, but it turned rapidly over the cistern. I put a key on the end of the rod over the wet rag; then the rod turned over both iron pipes promptly. Again, I took off the rag and put the key on the rod, and walking to the cistern, found that there was no movement. I took off the key and the rod turned instantly. I have no doubt but that he is correct as regards other metals.

CONCLUSION.

If any one, after the perusal of these pages, is disposed to doubt the efficacy of the divining rod, he will find it at least difficult to explain the coincidences between my experiences and those of the various persons presented in the foregoing pages--all confirming most fully conclusions reached by me, after many experiments made when quite alone. And, he must be even more eccentric than L'Homme à la Baguette, who does not find in the subject a treasure hidden, well worthy of his research.

It will be noticed that I can lay claim to no originality, or rather to no knowledge beyond that of the greater number of the parties mentioned, in regard to the fact of the discovery of minerals or waters; but, I find myself in advance in two essentials. First, I absolutely proved, by insulating myself on glass or India rubber sandals, that the electric emanations were cut off. Secondly, that these emanations universally radiate at an angle of forty-five degrees from the horizontal, and thus the calculation of the depth below the surface, is simply the solution of a mathematical problem.

In this theory of the invariable law of electric emanations, I have received the strongest confirmation in the perusal of Baron Von Reichenbach's _Dynamics of Magnetism_. By numerous and varied experiments, Reichenbach proved that from metals, and especially from magnets, there is a constant emanation of electric flame upward, at an angle of forty-five degrees with the horizon. For a more serious study of the subject, I refer the reader to the work itself, which is full of curious and well authenticated experiences.

Finally, I would paraphrase the words of my friend, the renowned Pedro Garcia: "To thee, whomsoever thou art, who mayst have the genius to investigate and the courage to face wise fools, I predict a valuable discovery, which will benefit the human race."

THE END.