WCP3451

[1]

Geanies: Rossshire N. B.

Aug. 21 / 90.

Dear Mr. Wallace,

I write once more to let you know that your you have virtually dismissed the sack trick. I did not get the man into my own house because, as soon as he showed how he did it, I saw that it in no way depended upon apparatus. As you surmise, what it really did depend upon was a peculiarity in the formation of his wrists, which enabled him to slip ^{off and on} the tightest handcuffs. When his hands were free, he inserted his fingers in the mouth of the sack while we were tying it — as you also surmise.

[2] But you will remember that I only mentioned this case by way of illustration. And it still remains good as an illustration of my incapacity to detect a trick, even though it may now serve ^also as an illustration of your superior powers. Perhaps if you had been present when the phenomena that Williams¹ manifested were going on, you would have ascertained his modus operandi — as Darwin² wrote me several years later had actually was done. But I am not sure how far the [illeg.] went — although I remember that it included "the bulky head and bust with removable features and eyes"— these, in fact, being W’s own head and bust. I was [3] only allowed to see it once, and then only for about 4 seconds; so I had not much opportunity for investigation. Darwin told me the fraud was detected by someone breaking faith and striking a light.

Our real point of difference, however, is unaffected by these questions of particular illustrations of jiggling power on the one hand and mediumistic performances on the other. For this real point of difference refers to general principles ^of evidence. Your canon is that any apparently conclusive case of preter-human power should ipso facto³ be held conclusive, without even once varying the conditions. My canon is that no matter how apparently conclusive, [4] the phenomena [illeg.] ^{be, they} present be repeated under at least one reasonable change of conditions. This, you will observe is not the same canon that Carpenter⁴ laid down at the B. A. meeting in 1879, and which you so completely upset by asking whether he accepted the ball of meteorites — the most effectual triumph of debate I ever witnessed. But I do not think you can disprove of my canon so easily. Whether or not it is "logical" or "scientific", is, I suppose, a matter of opinion. (There are no absolute standards in these things). But I am satisfied that if we were to poll the whole world both of letters and of science, there would be at least 99 to 100 in my favour.^*

Yours very truly, | Geo. J. Romanes⁵ [signature]

^*P.S. Do you doubt this? If not, do you hold that the lunatic may bexxx both logical and scientific who maintains that all the rest of the world is mad!