WCP6745

[[1] [p. 281]¹

1827, Jefferson-place, Washington.

February 22nd, 1888.

MY DEAR MR. WALLACE, — On the 18th inst. I received your letter of February 7th. I had just mailed to you a slip announcing the final result of the Ross persecution. A short time ago I met Dr. Flower, of Boston, who was on his way to Florida with his family. He told me that Ross's lawyer refused to jeopard his own social standing by offering evidence of the genuineness of the manifestations, and, therefore, had the indictment quashed on a purely technical ground. Dr. Flower told me also that, finding the Rosses to be in a destitute condition, stripped of all the money they had by the expenses of the legal proceedings, he promised that if he could be absolutely convinced of the genuineness of the manifestations through Mrs. Ross, by a séance at his own house, he would allow them 1,500dol. a year, in order to relieve them from dependence upon public circles for their support. They accordingly came to his house at a time appointed. Dr. Flower hung a curtain over a recess, and in the course of the séance 52 different materialised forms made their appearance, of both sexes and of all ages. One of them, a girl of about 10, talked for some time with the doctor's own daughter, of the same age, behaving and talking precisely as a bright, mortal child would have done. Afterwards Mrs. Ross came to see him in his office. He at once proposed a séance there and then, calling in his wife and his brother and brother's wife. In a short time about 36 different forms showed themselves, and the doctor informs me that he is now redeeming his pledge. [[2] [p. 282]

Before answering your queries, let me first assure you that no reliance can be placed on any statement in the Religio unfavourable to mediums for materialisation. That paper has always been the organ of those Spiritualists who deny the possibility of materialisation, and has been carrying on an unprincipled and indiscriminate warfare against all materialising mediums. I say "unprincipled" because, while never failing to copy at length all accounts of "exposures" appearing in the hostile secular papers (some of which I personally knew to be mere fiction), the editor has invariably refused to publish any contradiction or explanation whatever on behalf of the accused medium. In 1874, at the request of the Banner of Light, I repaired to Philadelphia to ascertain and report the real facts as to the alleged Katie King confession. After a two weeks' investigation, in conjunction with Colonel Olcott, I returned to Boston and wrote out my report. It was published in two parts in two successive numbers of the Banner. The Religio copied the first part entire, praising the intelligence and conscientiousness displayed in the investigation, and promising to give the other part to its readers in its next issue. But the results arrived at, and given in the second part, vindicated the Holmeses, and showed that the romantic "confession" was a pure fiction, which an illiterate woman of bad character, named Eliza White, had been bribed to sign and swear to as "Katie King." So, instead of publishing the second part, the Religio dismissed the subject in a few lines, stating that it was not worth publishing, and calling the writer, substantially, a silly idiot who had evidently been imposed upon.

Again, Mrs. Lita Barney Sayles, a lady of wealth and culture, told me that some years ago she was an acceptable contributor to the Religio. Having been completely convinced at a very remarkable séance of Mrs. Beste (held under the strictest test conditions) of the genuineness of her materialisations, she wrote an account of the séance for the Religio. But Colonel Bundy declined to publish it, and wrote to her, simply saying "he was sorry that she also had become one of the deluded."

As to Mrs. Ross, his persecution of her has been incessant. His paper last summer repeatedly called on the authorities at Onset to drive her from the encampment, on the ground of her being a notorious impostor and swindler.

As to Mrs. Sawyer, Mrs. Beste, Mrs. Fairchild, Mrs. Ross, and Mr. Keeler, I know not whether they have been at all times saints or sinners; but this I do know, that as to Mrs. Sawyer and Mrs. Fairchild, the manifestations were genuine, because there was no physical possibility of fraud; and that as to Mr. Keeler (whose séances I have attended for seven years) and Mrs. Beste (whose séances I have attended for six years), and Mrs. Ross (whose séances I have attended for three years), I know that their manifestations are genuine ; because, in the first place, their séances have been under such conditions as to render fraud physically impossible ; and, secondly, because I have had through them such proofs of spirit identity as to make the question whether the conditions were such as to exclude fraud a matter of no importance.

Latterly, in deference to a better-instructed public opinion, the Religio has begun to admit accounts of materialisation séances without comment.

As to Mrs. Beste's "seizure and confession," the wife of a newspaper [[3] [p. 283] editor in Hartford, Connecticut, had repeatedly written to her, inviting her to visit Hartford and be their guest, for the purpose of giving them and their friends séances on three successive evenings. Mrs. Beste knew nothing of the lady; but as her letters were kind and friendly in tone, and expressed great interest in the phenomena, she finally accepted the invitation. She was a stranger in Hartford, and knew no one of the circle (some 15 in number) they had assembled for her. At the first two séances the usual manifestations occurred (self-luminous forms and independent voices, masculine and feminine), and were pronounced satisfactory by them all. On the third evening her hostess had, concealed in the kitchen, which opened directly on the séance-room, two stalwart men, one a blacksmith, and the other (I think) a policeman.

Mrs. Beste is short (not over 5ft. 3in.) and stout, and has a remarkably short neck (and thus entirely different from many slender and graceful spirit forms I have often seen at her séances). One of her cabinet spirits is known as "Apollonius." He is very tall: 6ft. at the very least.

The first to come out of the cabinet was Apollonius, who, after speaking as usual in his powerful masculine voice, retired, undisturbed, the roughs in the kitchen not apparently caring to tackle him. The next form that appeared was that of a young girl in the usual delicate white drapery. Instantly the two athletes sprang into the room, and seized the form in the roughest manner. The drapery at once disappeared, and the form held by them was evidently that of Mrs. Beste.

These particulars, according to the best of my recollection, may be gathered from the two accounts of the "exposure" published at the time, both of which I read. What follows I know only from Mrs. Beste's personal statement to some twelve of us, habitués of her séances in Washington. The substance of this statement was afterwards published by her in the Banner of Light, verified, I believe, by her oath.

All she remembered of the séance was this: That she was entranced as usual; that on being suddenly roused by some violent shock she heard someone exclaim "Bring some brandy, or whisky, quick!" that some brandy was presently forced down her throat; that they then told her she must sign her name to a writing they showed her, or else immediately be taken to gaol. It was late at night, and she knew no one in Hartford; and being only half conscious, and terrified by the threat just made her, she signed the paper, and she may have sworn to it, though of this she had no remembrance. She dimly remembered asking at the railway station for a ticket for Philadelphia, but did not come to the full possession of her senses until the train conductor demanded her ticket for Philadelphia, where she arrived about midnight.

The confession thus extorted stated, as published, that all her spirit manifestations had been fraudulent, and that the manifestations of all the mediums in Boston were fraudulent also. It had evidently been drawn up beforehand, and the presence of the notary, who certified to her oath before him, like that of the two roughs concealed in the kitchen, was no doubt part of the programme.

One of the two accounts published of the affair was signed by the hostess (she and her husband are both Catholics), the other by one of her friends in the circle. My memory of them may not be absolutely accurate, but I re [[4] [p. 284] collect that, on one or two points, they were not consistent with each other. As to other details, I remember only that the cabinet was searched, and a bottle of phosphorised oil was stated to have been found in it, and also some of Mrs. Beste's clothing, of which she was found to be divested when seized.

My opinion on the whole matter is that it was a case of what is called transfiguration, where the medium is temporarily transfigured, while in unconscious trance, not only as to bodily form, face, and feature, but in dress. The effect of a sudden seizure on the medium's nervous system, rousing her more or less completely from her trance (a state on which the very existence of a materialisation seems to depend), would naturally suspend at once the invisible force causing and sustaining these changes ; thus leaving the medium and her dress in their normal condition, like Cinderella when the clock struck twelve. The same invisible power could have divested her of the garment unknown to herself, or have transformed it into the spirit drapery. I have repeatedly witnessed facts of this very nature, but to narrate them would make this letter too intolerably long.

As to the alleged bottle of phosphorised oil and the phosphorescent dresses:-

Mrs. Beste's séances are held in the dark, and the forms that appear are, as to their drapery, self-luminous. The luminosity is not phosphorescent. There is never any odour of phosphorus, nor are there ever any of those wavy and smoky appearances attendant on phosphorescent lights shining in darkness. Accordingly the sceptics now insist that the luminosity is produced by luminous paint. Here is an experiment showing that neither phosphorous nor luminous paint has anything to do with it. At one of Mrs. Beste's séances a spirit form came to Professor Coues (I sitting next to him), who gave him her name and was recognised by him. I held my white muslin handkerchief close to her white and luminous dress; in fact, touching it. The handkerchief was visible, but absolutely black. She said, "Give it to me, and I will make it white again." I gave it to her, and after rolling it about for a moment or two in her hands, which were not luminous, she returned it to me as white as her dress. "And now," she said, "I will make it black again." I handed it to her, and after rolling it about for a few seconds in her hands, she returned it to me as black as before. Dr. Coues repeated the experiment, and with the same results.

It is obvious that these changes from black to white, and then from white to black again, could not have been operated by the use of phosphorus or luminous paint.

If the bottle of phosphorised oil was found in the cabinet I cannot believe that the hostess was guilty of having it placed there, but I do believe that it was brought there from without by one of those hostile, but invisible agencies whose presence, as all will testify that have had much experience of séances, is generally perceived whenever the circle is antagonistic to the medium. Mrs. Beste was staying with the hostess as her guest, and it is highly improbable that a bottle of phosphorised oil could have been kept successfully concealed from her searching inspection. And as to the concealment of the luminous costumes of tall Apollonius and of the other cabinet spirits that had appeared on the two previous evenings, when Mrs. Beste had brought no other luggage than a hand bag, that is obviously impossible. [[5] [p. 285]

What became of these costumes, especially of the luminous dress worn by Mrs. Beste when she was seized? For unless my memory entirely deceives me, no mention was made in either of the two accounts of their having been found.

Reimer's article in Light of February 18th, p. 77, bears directly upon this subject. Please read it.

And now, as to your other queries.

1. I cannot state that in any instance where Nellie Morris manifested her presence, either in materialised form or in writing, it was my first séance with the medium. As to Mrs. Twing, at Onset, I had attended one of her séances as a trance-medium, but I was a stranger to all then present, as well as to herself. As to the Fairchild séance in Boston, I had attended one of her public séances one year before, when I was only one in a crowd of people, all strangers to me. At the séance in question, as well as at the previous one, I gave no name, and all present were strangers to me. But this I can state positively, that in no case, when Nellie Morris first announced herself, could the medium, or any person present, have known or heard of her.

2. The editor I mentioned to you as personally hostile to Keeler was Colby, of the Banner of Light. I am preparing a reply to the dishonest and untruthful account given by the Seybert Commission of their séance with Keeler, and shall send you a copy of it if I can get it published. Of course, both the Banner and the Religio would refuse it..

3. I have never had any test connected with Nellie Morris through a private medium. In fact, I do not remember having had an opportunity to sit with one for many years.

4. I have never published an account of any séance I have attended, excepting the one at Mrs. Ross's at Onset; which appeared in Facts for October, 1886; a copy of which I gave you.

5. I have never heard of either my daughter or Nellie Morris having manifested their presence at any séance where I was not present.

6. As to Mr. Myers' suggestion in respect to my daughter's statement about "keeping her mother's birthday."

I married my first wife (my daughter's mother) at San Francisco in December, 1852. Early in 1853 we went for a few months to Rhode Island, my native State; and from thence to Brussels and to Paris, returning to San Francisco in 1855, on my learning that my California agent had embezzled and squandered all but a small fragment of my property, thus compelling me to resume my legal practice. Our home was for some time a very humble one, some three miles from the city. My daughter was born there in 1857. In 1859 my wife died in New Jersey of Panama fever, contracted at the Isthmus while on her way to visit her mother, whom she had not seen for several years. During all the six years of our married life (in which we never once visited Washington) there never was any "keeping of her birthday" at all, beyond my giving her such little birthday present as I could afford. After the war I brought my daughter, then seven years old, to Providence, Rhode Island, and afterwards, in 1865, married my present wife, who never saw my daughter's mother, who has been very seldom alluded to in my present family. This much is certain, that neither my wife [[6] [p. 286]

nor her children, when the writing through Mrs. Sawyer was given, knew what was my first wife's birthday, nor any other living person beside myself, except her old mother, then living in her home in New Jersey, and who died there a year ago.

On reading the communication from my daughter through Mrs. Sawyer, I saw at once that it was not in her handwriting, and that it was evidently written by some other spirit to whom she had given the substance of what she wished to say.

I enclose herewith the original message from my first wife received at Keeler's séance of February 25th, 1887, begging that you will return it to me with the other original writings when no longer wanted. — Yours, with great regard,

FRANCIS J. LIPPITT.

1827, Jefferson-place, Washington, D.C.

Mr. Alfred Russel Wallace. December 15th, 1887.

MY DEAR MR. WALLACE, — In April, 1884, Mrs. Sawyer, a materialising medium, came to Washington to hold séances. I had never heard of her before, and I was an entire stranger to her. I attended a séance of hers, held April 11th, 1884. The cabinet was in one corner of the room; and during the entire séance there was sufficient light to distinguish every person present, and to make it impossible for any confederate to enter the cabinet without being seen by all. One of the forms that appeared at the opening of the curtain was that of a young girl, in white drapery, and whose face was veiled. In height and general appearance she resembled my departed daughter, Carrie, who had died in New Jersey in July, 1882. I approached her and asked her name. She made no answer, and after a few moments she retired behind the curtain. Presently she reappeared, stepped forward to a little table, took from it a sheet of paper and a pencil, and retired with them behind the curtain. In a few moments she reappeared again, handed a piece of paper to a Mr. Burke, who was conducting the séance, and by signs directed him to hand it to me. He did so. It is the paper marked (A) which accompanies this letter.

I have now to state that my first wife (whose name was Elizabeth) was born in the County of Durham, in the North of England, on the 25th of February, 1836, and died in New Jersey in 1859; that no one of my present family had any knowledge of her birthday; that, besides myself, there was only one living person that knew it; and this was her mother (now deceased), then living at a small country place behind the mountains in the State of New Jersey, where she had been residing over 30 years; and that afterwards I ascertained from herself that she had never seen or heard of Mrs. Sawyer.

The members of the circle were all strangers to me except Judge Cuppz, now deceased, and my stepson, Mr. Pickering Dodge, who will certify to the correctness of this statement. I know not where the other witnesses can be found. — Very sincerely yours,

FRANCIS J. LIPPITT.

Washington, D.C., December 15th, 1887.

I am not, and never have been, a believer in what are called "spirit manifestations"; but I have no objection to stating that I was present at