488 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



Knave of hearts. Knave of hearts (Right). 



Two of clubs. Two of clubs (Right). 



King of spades. King of clubs (No). Knave of clubs (No). King 

 of diamonds (No). 



Knave of diamonds. King of diamonds (No). Knave of dia- 

 monds (Right). 



It will be noticed that often the number of the card is guessed 

 rightly, but not so the suit, and vice versa ; and these partial successes 

 are perhaps destined to be as important in drawing conclusions from 

 the phenomena as those in which the guess was completely successful. 

 In the above cases, the partial successes would seem to suggest a men- 

 tal eye, so to speak, whose vision was in these cases obscured and inac- 

 curate. Other cases, when the objects chosen were names, such as the 

 guessing of Jobson for Johnson, would in a similar way suggest a 

 mental ear. 



As the result of six days' investigation with this family, 382 trials 

 were made. In the cases of letters of the alphabet, of cards, and of 

 numbers of two figures, the chances against success in a first trial 

 were, of course, 25 to 1, 51 to 1, and 89 to 1 respectively ; in the case 

 of surnames they would be indefinitely greater. Cards were most 

 frequently employed, and the odds in their case may be taken as a fair 

 example. If this be done, then, in 382 trials, 7 would be about the 

 average number of successes on a first trial by an ordinary guesser. 

 In these tests of the committee, 127 trials were successful on a first 

 attempt, 56 on a second, and 19 on a third 202 in all. 



The most striking success was when five cards in succession were 

 named correctly on a first trial. The chances against this were con- 

 siderably over one million to one. By way of precaution, the com- 

 mittee says in its report : " The phenomena here described are so 

 unlike any which have been brought within the sphere of recognized 

 science as to subject the mind to two opposite dangers. The hypothe- 

 ses as to how they happen are confronted with equally wild asser- 

 tions that they can not happen at all. Of the two, perhaps the assump- 

 tion of an a priori impossibility is, in the present state of our knowl- 

 edge of nature, the most to be deprecated, though it can not be con- 

 sidered in any way surprising." 



"VVe have given the data of this Cpeery case at some length, be- 

 cause it illustrates so admirably the methods of the society and the 

 phenomena which it is investigating. In this and similar investiga- 

 tions, the question which the committee had before it was this : Is 

 there, or is there not, any existing or attainable evidence, that can stand 

 fair physiological criticism, to support a belief that a vivid impression 

 or a distant idea in one mind can be communicated to another mind 

 without the intervening help of the recognized means of sensation ? 

 And, if such evidence be found, is the impression derived from a rare 

 or partially developed and hitherto unrecognized sensory organ, or has 



