hence conclude that it has no existence. The surgeon cannot find it with his scalpel, and the chemist never sees it in his retort; ergo, there is no spirit. But Clairvoyance is none the less actual sight because the subject is able to dispense with the physical instruments of vision.

You express the confident opinion that Clairvoyance "furnishes an intelligible and sufficient explanation of the so-called phenomena of Spiritualism." Will you permit me to suggest that such a conclusion can only rest on careless or otherwise insufficient observation, since undoubtedly nine-tenths of the phenomena of Spiritualism are intrinsically of such a nature as to admit of no such explanation. A vast variety of sounds are produced by the invisible powers, and it must be admitted that sounds do not appeal to the sense of sight, whether exercised through the physical organs or otherwise. For this sufficient reason we cannot refer any of the mysterious sounds to Clairvoyance. Then very heavy bodies are often moved with great force. We have orthodox authority for saying that the family Bible was repeatedly thrown by invisible hands at the venerable head of the Rev. Eliakim Phelps, D.D., at Stratford, while the good Doctor was praying for deliverance from what he regarded as an infernal infestation. But as Clairvoyance (clear sight) is neither a subtile electro-chemical nor a mechanical force, it has no power to move a ponderable body; hence it follows that this passive faculty of vision, physical and spiritual, will not enable us to account for any one of the phenomena of this class. This course of reasoning could be further illustrated and enforced by the citation of a thousand examples, and by an array of witnesses from all the learned

professions, whose presence alone would silence skepticism, if they failed to convince the skeptics.

You are pleased to say that "nine-tenths of Spiritualism are trickery." On the contrary, permit me to remark that the trickery, whether much or little, is no part of Spiritualism. We might as well affirm that New York State annually produces 1,000,000 bushels of wheat, but that 900,000 bushels of the same are tares! As, therefore, the tricks of unprincipled jugglers form no part of the phenomena of Spiritualism, I respectfully suggest that they be left out of your estimate. If the assayer should be so fortunate as to find forty pounds of the precious metals in a ton of ore, he would never think of including the 2,200 pounds of dross in his statement. Leave out the bogus mediums and also the tricks of the jugglers. When the Secretary of the Treasury figures up the amount of the national currency he never includes the counterfeits.

In the following passage you still further dignify the name and exaggerate the services of Dr. Beard as much as you dishonor the claims of each of his predecessors, and all of his contemporaries who have made a careful study of the whole subject for a much longer period than he has been before the public:

"Dr. Beard's experiments certainly give us reason to believe that he has found the clew to the mystery which is the stock in trade of spiritual mediums, and if he has really done this, he has done an immense service in overthrowing what has proved to be a demoralizing and degrading superstition. It is hoped that Dr. Beard and other scientific men will continue to investigate the field which has hitherto been abandoned to charlatans."

I shall, perhaps, be pardoned for saying that "the clew to

the mystery" was discovered some time before Dr. Beard was born, and that his life and labors have done nothing to illuminate the subject. Nor has he discovered anything else of consequence except the fact that neither the Spirits nor the laws of Nature respect the haughty presumption of mere sciolists. In presence of the real facts as they are known to thousands, his eminent services (?) disappear like the dissolving views, without leaving to the doctor's disciples so much as a grateful memory of his imaginary achievements. Moreover, Spiritualism was never "a demoralizing and degrading superstition," unless the noblest philosophy and the most vital facts of all systems of religion are to be so classified. Nevertheless, Dr. Beard is not only recognized as a scientific psychological expert, but hailed as a public benefactor; at the same time such men as Dr. Robert Hare, inventor of the oxyhydrogen blowpipe, and Professor James J. Mapes, of this country; Crookes, of the London Journal of Science, Wallace, Varley, and Cox, of England, the wisest philosophers of Germany, and many others scarcely less distinguished, in every part of Continental Europe, are by implication, characterized as "charlatans !"

In conclusion, I observe that you have summoned a most important witness in this trial of Spiritualism versus Materialism. It is Clairvoyance that just now occupies the stand, and may it please the court we are ready to listen to the testimony. When a witness is summoned by the prosecution it is not the privilege of the counsel for the same to hustle him out and away from the tribunal without first giving the defense an opportunity for a proper cross-examination. Now, what has Clairvoyance to say about Spiritualism? Why, it is not at all

likely that a single man, woman or child can be found on earth, whose case affords the clearest evidence of the possession of this gift, that does not at the same time affirm-there is a Spirit-world and a corresponding life for man; that they see the Spirits and recognize their kindred; witness their coming and going, and discover what they are doing; and it is everywhere the unequivocal testimony of this witness that the clairvoyant can and does act as a familiar messenger between Spirits and mortals. There are occasional exceptions in which the vision is limited to mundane affairs; but the concurrent testimony of all natural seers and magnetic clairvoyants is that they see spiritual as well as material things. Now what will the "earnest haters of Spiritualism" do with this fact? Will the Times and Dr. Beard accept this testimony of Clairvoyance, or will they impeach the credibility of their own witness?

Yours respectfully,

S. B. BRITTAN.

NEW YORK, July, 1881.

Dr. Brittan's reply to the editorial position of the New York Times, concerning Dr. Beard and his assumptions in relation to Clairvoyance as a proved reality, will be found to be as keen and effective as it is logical and courteous. The Times, not liking the attitude in which it found itself left by Dr. Brittan, refused to publish his reply.

Hartford Daily Times.

DECLINING THE RESPONSIBILITY.

IMMUNITY FOR OLD FALSEHOODS.

FROM THE BANNER OF LIGHT.

Policy of the Newspaper Press-False Charge against Spiritualists-John A. Lansing's pious Speculation—“ Devouring Widows' Houses"-Religious Fanatics with an Eye to Business-How Mrs. Upham was made a Victim-Fraud under the Cloak of Religion-Drawing the Papers in the Lord-Lunacy or Hypocrisy— Asbury Park Journal's Testimony-A Fair Confederate-Mary at the Ocean Grove Meetings-Parties all Members of Orthodox Churches.

Lies have many legs, and error is seldom tongue-tied.

To the Editor of the Banner of Light:

L

ET us presume that, in respect to the reparation of injuries, "better late than never is a sound maxim in morals; but in the conduct of a public journal it seems to be obsolescent. When a lie is ten or fifteen days old, and has obtained certain currency, it is presumed to have a right of way which may not be disputed. The subjoined letter was respectfully declined for the reason that too much time had elapsed since this long-legged tarantula started on its journey. Thus, in the policy of the press, there comes a time when it is too late to right a wrong, because it is not accounted good journalism to revive old things. As defined by the present instance, that time is about two weeks, beyond which all lies that have contrived to run fast and escape detection must continue to have the freedom of the press. We acknowledge the right of the several professions to be governed by their