TELEPATHY—OR WHAT?

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 399, 6 July 1928, Page 7

TELEPATHY —OR WHAT?

ARGUS CONTROVERSY MR. COPELAND IN REPLY Yesterday a number of letter* were published in THE SUN under the heading "Telepathy or What?” each of them referring to the performance of Argus and the part played by Mr. Copeland. Today Mr. Copeland sends a reply in which he issues a new form of challenge, and has some interesting things to say about his financial position. Two other letters bearing on the controversy are also printed below.

BOOKINGS FOR YEARS AHEAD ■ Sir, — I am sorry again to have to crave j space in your paper over the Argus controversy, but I must agree with i your correspondent, “Hardfax.” He says: “Let Mr. Copeland accept the professor’s challenge or get on with the business.” Does he know I did accept Professor Segar’s challenge in the first place, and offered to back my opinion with £200? But then the professor's challenges twisted from time to time, and I refused to do anything which would be considered a one-man show. I also agree with his statement that the controversy has been splendid publicity for Argus, and it woifld be a relief to the public to see an end to it. It must be remembered that I have had very little say in the matter, and have been forced to answer the criticism. I. personally, think it is a waste of time, but, as I will explain, it has done us wonderful good. I also see that a correspondent quotes “the proof of the pudding’’ and I think this should apply to both my opponents as well as myself. AN OFFER Now Professor Segar claims to have discovered our secrets at a performance some years ago, when Argus was a little over six years of age, and I understand we have in our midst a professional conjurer. If these gentlemen find the Argus demonstration so simple and easy, I am sure the public would welcome a demonstration from them. I will undertake to engage the professor and the professional conjurer, and if they can successfully carry out a similar demonstration to the satisfaction of the public, as Argus does, I will give them a long contract, properly secured, at £IOO a week, or failing that, I will take the Auckland Town Hall, pay all expenses, and guarantee the two gentlemen £2O each for one half-hour's performance. I am sure, after the wonderful publicity the matter has received, there would be a packed first night, and the public would be more than anxious to see these gentlemen produce the "proof of the pudding.” A LITTLE INSIDE INFORMATION X am sorry, sir, to have to divulge any of my private affairs to the public, as I find I have done wonderfully well by minding my own business, but I must state a case in support of the above offer. Argus started his demonstrations when he was six years of age, and his first six years of contracts show a profit of close on £20,000. Unfortunately, we were under contract at £ls a week and had to pay our own expenses, but when we finished our contracts we did for ourselves, and Argus accumulated close on £15,000, for which he has mostly real estate in Melbourne. We have our "bills” up in Egypt that “Argus is coming,” and Africa has been billed for four years. England has made us an offer that will place us before Royalty; so you can see my sincerity when I make an offer of £IOO a week for another proposition like Argus's—that it is not bluff I might say that although this money has been made by Argus we have never at any time imposed on the public, as people who come to our shows pay nothing to see, or have a question answered by Argus. Unlike many other artists, we have never charged big prices. The prices for admission to tae theatre where we arc, are from 3d to Is 6d. These prices were in existence before we came, and will be the same when we leave, so I really think if there is any imposition it is the public which is imposing on Argus, because they are getting him for nothing. I cabled to Puller-Hay ward from Sydney about our engagement, and was prepared to accept a salary. I had to accept terms, but owinglo the newspaper publicity I received four-fold what I was willing to take, and instead of one week’s engagement we have done 36 performances in the one theatre, and are negotiating a twoyears’ tour of this country—so where are all these other Arguses? C. L. COPELAND. ARGUS THE PROPHET Sir. — A section of th© public is a.pt to condemn what it does not understand. The antagonism and unbelief of some people (even with college education) is It should never be forgotten that the mind, like a wireless set, receives messages. There are people whose mental receptivity in this direction is limited or undeveloped. They are the one-valve sets, lacking th© delicacy and sensitiveness They cannot feel, perceive or be impressed beyond a certain point. Being handicapped and not gifted with a measure of clairvoyant power they judge * the more highly-evoived souls from these heights, and the judgment must necessarily be wrong. We are like reserve batteries, continually receiving and discharging thought-cur-rents, attractive or repulsive. Sometimes w© do this consciously, sometimes unconsciously. Thoughts and even emotions are real things of subtle substance, having shape or outlir colour, and quality. These phenomena are indeed a world within a world; a reality for people so gifted. Let us not stone our prophets—and i we can stone them with mental missiles. The thought-atmosphere to which "Argus’s” mind is so sensitive was too often charged with unsympathetic thought-currents. Antagonism and unbelief poison the atmosphere even though no word be spoken. Even the Christ Himself under the.*e conditions “could do no power” (Mark VL, 4-6). Labouring under very difficult conditions the boy did wonder- : fully well. I am assured in my own I mind that had the entire audience j been sympathetic and still throughout II the performances he would have manifested greater power still. My wish is that it may be well with him during the expansion and further unfolding of | his wonderful mind, and that lie will j continue to b© a blessing and a help j to many. K- -