WCP3451

[1]

Gearner[?]: Romshire[?] N.B.

Aug. 20 [18]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 power. Perhaps if you had been present when the phenomena that William manifested were going on, you would have ascertained his modus operandi — as Darwin wrote me several years later had actually was done. But I am not sure how far the ??? went — ??? I remember that it included "the bully[?] head and bust with removable features and eyes "— these, in fact, being Wms[?] 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 ??? of difference refer to general principles ^of evidence. Your canon[?] is that any apparently conclusive case of preter-human[?] power should ipso facto be held conclusive, without even once varying the conditions. My canon[?] is that no matter how apparently conclusive, [4] the phenomena ??? ^{be, they} ???? be repeated under at least one reasonable change of conditions. This, you will observe is not the same canon[?] that Carpenter¹ laid down at the B.A. meeting in 1879, and which you so completely upset by asking whether he accepted the [?]ull 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 44 to 100 in my favour.

Yours very truly, | Geo. J. Romanes [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!