THE SPIRITUALISTIC CONTROVERSY.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2264, 9 August 1870, Page 2

THE SPIRITUALISTIC CONTROVERSY.

To the Editor of the hvemny btvr. Sib, —Perhaps I should not interfere in the above controversy, but I cannot help remarking that as yet it has been extremely personal, and judging from Mr Stout’s lett r in Saturday’s paper, it is likely to b come more offensively bitter and personal, still. Mr Stout began the quarrel, by accusing Mr Scrimgeour of plagiarism from Professor Perrier’s works, and also of jumbling to- r getherhis own explanation (respecting the “ Spiritualism ” on which he lectured) along with Perrier’s denunciations of spirit rapping. To these, Mr Sciimgoour replies, and explains how it was that he came to quote from Perrier without acknowledgment, and flatly denies the other point of which he was accused by Mr Stout. ; As to Mr Scrimgeour’a explanation, I may be allowed to say that 1 for one am perfectly satisfied with it, and I think so would every reasonable and (unprejudiced person ; but in Mr Stout’s last letter in referring to it he says, “As for his apology, I accept the explanation, however improbable it may appear," the pla’n English of which i-, “I accept but I don’t believe it to be true.” As to the other point of ;<ccusation, I would have thought that after Mr Scrimgcour’s denial of it Mr Stout would have attempted to prove his sfc tement. But instead of that he contents himself with ‘ I have simply to reiterate wh?t I said before, that he has jumbled, &c., &c.” Now this may be very convincing to Mr Stout, but 1 don't think it will be to any one else. Por my own part I can safely say, that I have failed to discover wherein the “jumble” consists, nor have I seen any one who has discovered it. There are many things that I could point to, wherein Mr Stout has exceeded somewhat the limits of propriety, but I will only name two, and these are, accusing his opponent of being in “habit and repute a plagiarist,” when he can have no adequate proof, and in telling him (virtually at least) that he had given an explanation of a certain matter which was rob true, which is a mere assumption of Mr Stout’s. In these I think Mr Stout on reflection will agree with me that he has gone a little too far. There have been faults on both sides, perhaps ; but, at any rate, bandying personalities about as has been done, will not tend in any way to the proper state of mind with which every question should be discussed, and which Mt Stout lays down (with a sort of grim humour after having done what he could to cause the contrary) as one of the conditions on which he agrees to discuss “ spiritualism,” viz., a good temper. If wc arc to have a discussion on the subject, let it be carried on on its merits, without any reference as to the merits or demerits of the respective champions, at least so far as they may refer,to anything outside of the subject under discussion. Yours, &c., . S. Dickson.

Dunedin, August Bth, 1870.