PSYCHOLOGICAL CURIOSITIES OF SKEPTICISM. 



235 



being the anonymous friend of the " one witness " 

 letter ! Unfortunately, this " friend " wrote a 

 letter to the papers in which he brought an ad- 

 ditional accusation, which I have proved, by the 

 testimony of an unimpeachable witness, to be 

 utterly unfounded. (See Quarterly Journal of 

 Science, July, 1877, page 411.) We may, there- 

 fore, dismiss the " exposure " as, to say the least, 

 not proven. 



Dr. Carpenter heads one of his sections, 

 u What Messrs. Wallace and Crookes regard as 

 ' Trustworthy Testimony ; ' " and, before I re- 

 mark on its contents, I wish to point out the 

 literary impropriety of which Dr. Carpenter is 

 guilty, in thus making Mr. Crookes responsible 

 for the whole contents of my article in the Quar- 

 terly Journal of Science because he happens to 

 be the editor of that periodical. I might with 

 equal justice charge upon the editor of Eraser 

 all the misstatements and injurious personal im- 

 putations which Dr. Carpenter has introduced 

 into an article, accepted, doubtless, without ques- 

 tion on the strength of his high scientific stand- 



in S- 



Under the above heading, Dr. Carpenter at- 

 tempts to show that Colonel Olcott (whose inves- 

 tigation into the character of Mrs. White and her 

 false declaration that she had, on certain occa- 

 sions, personated " Katie King," I quoted in my 

 review) is an untrustworthy witness ; and his sole 

 proof consists in a quotation from a published 

 letter of the colonel's about bringing an " Afri- 

 can sorcerer " to America. This letter may or 

 may not be injudicious or foolish — that is matter 

 of opinion. But how it in any way "blackens " 

 Colonel Olcott's character or proves him to be 

 "untrustworthy" as a witness to matters of 

 fact, it must puzzle every one but a Carpenter or 

 a Home to understand. 



The next example I shall give of Dr. Carpen- 

 ter's " unusual power of dealing with this sub- 

 ject " is, a most injurious misstatement referring 

 to my friend Mr. Crookes. Dr. Carpenter heads 

 a section of more than eight columns, " Mr. 

 Crookes and his Scientific Tests," and devotes it 

 to an account of Eva Fay's performances, of Mr. 

 Crookes's " inconsiderate indorsement of one of 

 the grossest impostures ever practised," and of 

 the alleged exposure of the fraud by Mr. W. Irvine 

 Bishop. The following quotation contains the 

 essence of the charge, and I invite particular at- 

 tention to its wording : 



" . . . . her London audiences diminishing 

 away, Eva Fay returned to the United States, car- 

 rying with her a letter from Mr. Crookes, which 



set forth that since doubts had been thrown on the 

 spiritualistic nature of her ' manifestations,' and 

 since he, in common with other Fellows of the 

 Koyal Society, had satisfied themselves of their 

 genuineness by ' scientific tests,' he willingly gave 

 her the benefit of his attestation. This letter was 

 published mfac-simile iu American newspapers." 



I can scarcely expect my readers at once to 

 credit what I now have to state ; that, notwith- 

 standing the above precise setting forth of its 

 contents, by a man who professes to write under 

 a sense of duty, and as one called upon to re- 

 habilitate the injured dignity of British science, 

 such a letter as that above minutely described 

 never existed at all ! A private letter from Mr. 

 Crookes has indeed, without his consent, been 

 published in facsimile in American newspapers ; 

 but this letter was never in the possession of Eva 

 Fay ; it was not written till months after she had 

 left England, and then not to her, but in answer 

 to inquiries by a perfect stranger ; moreover, it 

 contains not a word in any way resembling the 

 passages above given ! Sad to say, Dr. Carpen- 

 ter's kind Boston friends do not appear to have 

 sent him a copy of the paper containing the fac- 

 simile letter, or he would have seen that Mr. 

 Crookes says nothing of " the spiritualistic nature 

 of her manifestations ; " he does not mention 

 " other Fellows of the Royal Society ; " he does 

 not say he was " satisfied of the genuineness of 

 the scientific tests," but especially guards himself 

 by saying that the published account of the ex- 

 periments made at his own house are the best 

 evidence of his belief in her powers. He does 

 not " give her the benefit of his attestation," but 

 simply says that no one has any authority to use 

 his name to injure her. 



The number of the New York Daily Graphic 

 for April 12, 1876, containing the letter in fac- 

 simile, is now before me. An exact copy of it is 

 given below, and I ask my readers to peruse it 

 carefully, to compare it with Dr. Carpenter's pre- 

 cise summary given as if from actual inspection, 

 and then decide by whose instrumentality the 

 honored distinction of F. R. S. is being " trailed 

 through the dirt," and who best upholds his own 

 reputation and that of British science. Is it the 

 man who writes a straightforward letter in order 

 to prevent his name being used to injure another, 

 and who states only facts within his own personal 

 knowledge ; or is it he who, for the express pur- 

 pose of depreciating l the well-earned reputation 



1 " In the United States more especially .... the 

 names of the ' eminent British scientists,' Messrs. 

 Crookes and Wallace, are ' a tower of strength.' And 



