The Test of the Method. 57 
Professor Macfarlane is a competent physicist. He was trained 
in Edinburgh and has, I believe, no such appreciation of humor 
as to make him unconsciously color his report. His conelu- 
sions were adverse to the rain makers. 
Referring in general to the experiments in Texas,one fact has 
been generally overlooked. The rainfall in western Texas is 
always small, but it is subject to its maxima and minima, like 
other regions. Now, there is a rainfall season in July and August 
in Arizona and New Mexico, and this reaches western Texas. 
Thirty percent of the annual rainfall descends in these two 
months along the eastern border of New Mexico and in the 
western angle of Texas. At El Paso this percentage is forty. 
This maximum passes gradually eastward and is found in the 
southeastern part in September. The experiments in the western 
part of Texas in 1891 were in September, fairly in the time of 
thismaximum. ‘There is another maximum of rainfall in Texas 
in November. - This is in the northeastern part of the state. The 
second series of rainfall experiments in Texas was in November, 
1892,at San Antonio. The maximum here occurs in September, 
but there is in November an average (for 24 years) of 2.5 inches, 
or one-twelfth of the annual 30.6 inches. There is a high rela- 
tive probability of rain naturally in September in the region of 
the experiments in 1891, and there is an even chance of it in the 
region of 1892. To test the theory of rain-making in Texas the 
months might have been better chosen. Yet it is but fair to say 
that the rainfall in western Texas is very fluctuating, as it comes 
generally in local storms. 
Fifth Method.—There is another method of rain-making which 
is still a mystery, but which deserves mention because it has 
been submitted to actual test. I have not been given permis- 
sion to use names in this case, and will only guarantee that the 
letter which I quote came from a high official of a railway com- 
pany and is worthy of the credence which an official business 
letter of this sort should carry with it. This gentleman, under 
date of August 22, 1893, wrote to me as follows: 
Dear Sir: Your letter, August 10, * * * has been referred to me. 
In reply thereto, we have no published reports concerning rain-making 
experiments such as mentioned by you. While these experiments have 
been made by a couple of employés of this company, we can say but little 
about them ourselves. These parties claimed to be able to cause rainfall 
_by“artificial means, and we have furnished them with materials, together 
