jury, to call my witnesses, refer to the laws, both civil and natural, argue the case exactly as a lawyer would in a court of justice, and ask for a verdict, only when the jury believes from "preponderating testimony" that I am entitled to one. I have no more interest in the issue involved than has my reader; therefore I may reasonably expect a candid and just verdict. I am well aware that a zealous advocate often convinces himself of the justice of his cause, even when he fails to so convince his jury, and it may be so in my case; yet as I have nothing to lose if the verdict is against me, neither to gain if it is in my favor, I will endeavor to try the cause conscientiously and argue it fairly from the evidence produced, and the laws involved in the issue.

Of my experience at Cassadaga Lake, I can say in the exact language of an eminent scientist, Professor De Morgan: "I have both seen and heard, in a manner which would make unbelief impossible, things called spiritual, which cannot be taken by a rational being to be capable of explanation by imposture, coincidence, or mistake. So far I feel the ground firm under me; but when it comes to what is the cause of these phenomena, I find I cannot adopt any explanation which has yet been suggested. The physical explanations which I have seen are easy, but miserably insufficient; the spiritual hypothesis is sufficient, but ponderously difficult."

"It is," as Professor William Crookes says, very difficult to be sure of facts, then to ascertain conditions, next laws. The pseudo-scientific spiritualist professes to know everything: no calculations trouble his serenity, no hard experiments, no long, laborious readings; no weary attempts to make clear in words that which has rejoiced the heart and elevated the mind. He talks glibly of all sciences and arts, overwhelming the enquirer with terms like 'electro-biologize,' psychology,'' animal magnetism,' etc., —a mere play upon words, showing ignorance rather than understanding. Popular science such as this is little able to guide discovery rushing onwards to an unknown future; and the real workers of science must be extremely careful not to allow the reins to get into unfit and incompetent hands."

All this is true as to the explanation of facts; yet there are many things which can be seen and known by the man of average intelligence, as well. as by the learned scientist. Surely any persons of ordinary intelligence can testify from the evidence

of their senses from what they see, and feel, and hear, and smell as well as a savant. The most important causes in our courts are tried and decided upon human testimony. I have seen life and death oscillating in the judicial balance; neither seemed to preponderate, when the evidence of a little child ten years of age was thrown into the scale of life, and it prevailed. The man was saved from an ignominious death, and after-developed facts sustained the testimony of the little girl which had prevented a judicial murder.

Surely a man of average mind can tell with certainty whether he held two slates in such a position, and under such conditions that another person present could not write on them without his knowing it. If it is not so, then are all the ordinary methods by which we obtain knowledge fallacious, and the facts in life that we can be certain of are few indeed. Of course we are all liable to be deceived even in the most ordinary transactions, yet nature did not intend that our senses should be false witnesses, but truthful; and the instances where they testify falsely to us, compared with the millions of truths they tell us every day of our lives, are as a single grain of sand to the accumulation of an ocean's shore, or a single leaf to the foliage of a forest.

There are many skeptics in this world who seem to prefer to believe a probable lie, to an improbable truth," - La Rochefoucauld said that it was more politic to do so, - and there are also many savants whose obstinate incredulity will not permit them to see what is plainly visible to all others. "Oculos habent et non vident"; though gifted with vision, they are nevertheless blind. With either of the above classes in the jury box I should not expect a verdict. This review is not written to convince those who would not think if they could, or could not if they would. But I appeal to the average common sense of the public; to that great class of men who do not ignore the evidence of their senses, and who do not discredit, without cause, the testimony of their fellows. But with the man of whom Solomon speaks in his proverbs, who is "wiser in his own conceit than seven men that can render a reason," I have no controversy; this review is not written to convince him! I sent a copy of my letters, with a photograph of the H. Seybert Communication to the chairman of the Seybert Commission. I received a very polite letter from him notifying me that it had been received;

"Only this; nothing more."

It is evident the facts I related did not correspond with their theory; but, of course, "it is so much the worse for the facts." Every scientist knows that when a favorite theory is adopted by an investigator, and afterwards it is discovered that facts do not sustain it, the facts must give way. If it were not so, what would become of many of the pet creeds of the great and good of to-day? It must be obvious to all thinking minds that Thomas L. Harris, in his Lyric of the Golden Age, made a great mistake when he wrote,

"The simplest peasant who observes a truth,
And from a fact deduces principle,

Adds solid treasure to the public wealth.
The theorist who dreams a rainbow dream,
And calls hypothesis philosophy,

At best is but a paper financier,

Who palms his specious promises for gold.
Facts are the basis of philosophy;

Philosophy the harmony of facts

Seen in their right relation."

In an address delivered before the British Association in 1871, Sir William Thomson-one of the ablest scientists in Scotland -said, "Science is bound by the everlasting law of honour to face fearlessly every problem which can fairly be presented to it;"—and in presenting this review to the public, I desire to present to the scientific educator of public opinion, as well as to the ordinary reader, a few facts for what they are worth; and in the language of William Crookes, F.R.S., I desire to say:

"Remember I hazard no hypothesis or theory whatever; I merely vouch for certain facts, my only object being truth. It will not do merely to deny their existence, or try to sneer them down. Doubt, but do not deny; try the experiments; investigate with care and patience. If, having examined, you discover imposture or delusion, proclaim it, and say how it was done. But if you find a fact, avow it fearlessly, as, 'by the everlasting law of honour,' you are bound to do."

Reader, should you investigate even as superficially as I have done and discover facts you cannot explain, don't be afraid of that arrant demagogue, public opinion; should you detect fraud, do not act like the members of the Seybert Com

mission, who, when they had had divulged to them how certain so-called spirit manifestations were performed by accomplished jugglers, refused to tell the public how they were done, but, like the mother of Brian the wizard, of the Lady of the Lake, seemed determined

"To lock their secrets in their breast,

And die in travail unconfessed."

All newly discovered scientific facts belong to the world, and should be published, for thereby mankind is benefited and civilization advanced; all frauds discovered should be proclaimed, for thereby is mankind protected from delusion. And the investigator who discovers, and then conceals, either a fact or a fraud, is unworthy of public confidence.

66

In these days when men think for themselves, it will not do for the Seybert Commissioners to sneer and cry humbug," and expect the world to accept their "hue and cry" as conclusive evidence on the facts they were paid to investigate by the Seybert bequest. To say "We know how it is done, but won't tell" is both childish and dishonest, and naturally leads thinking men to doubt their capability or their honesty. Their report is now before the jury of the world, and on the evidence of its truth or falsity it will be judged — condemned or approved.

To assist in the trial of this cause these pages are written, "WITH MALICE TOWARDS NONE AND CHARITY FOR ALL."

WHAT I SAW AT CASSADAGA LAKE.

CHAPTER I.

"Oh! ... that mine adversary had written a book."

Job xxxi. 35.

THERE must have been newspaper reporters and critics in the days of the much afflicted Job; else why his unkind and somewhat ungracious wish?

After my visit to Cassadaga Lake the newspapers" took me up," and published a number of my experiences there. "One spake after this manner, and another spake after that manner some of them nearly right, a few of them nearly all wrong; therefore I was induced to write an open letter to the Seybert Commissioners, as it were in self-defence, to tell the public what I actually did see; and now for the same reason I am impelled to write this more lengthy review of their Report.

After my letter had been published, it was very amusing to observe the manner in which it was received by my friends and acquaintances, and the various explanations they gave me to account for the phenomena I had witnessed. Some of those who interviewed me seemed to be lineal descendants of Israel's wisest king, and evidently thought that they had inherited all of their ancestor's mentalestate. These "heirs of entail" all knew that I could not have seen what I knew I did see; and if I had, that it could all be explained by "unconscious cerebration," "odic force," "electricity," or magnetism"; that I was unconsciously "psychologized," or "mesmerized"; or that

66