Our Letter Box.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 7743, 20 February 1905, Page 2

Our Letter Box.

(We are not responsible for opinions expressed by correspondents.) I (To tho Editor.) Sir,—l notice your correspondent "Spiritualist'* is still unsatisfied. 1 asked Mm in my letter to inform '.your, readers where in anypart of his published account of his jnves- | tigations into spiritualism does l'ro- ' fessor Crookes declare or avow hini- " self a spiritualist? Your correspondent has not answered this qucs'|tion (which, by the way, was the '.purpose of my lefiter), for the very •good reason that the declaration >I is not found in the book. Any of ' your readers can procure Crookes' I woi'k on spiritualism, ana see for thems<Alves. Obtaining a copy of the I photographed "materialised form of Katie King" does not settle the question of the Professor's opinion .on the phenomena. Crookes gives

I facts, but docs not theoriso, n.nd jthis fact in itself is and shows that the professor is not satisfied with the evidence in support of "spirit return." So, under the circumstances, I don't see how 'Spiritualist" tun make the following extravagant statement that "the learned gentleman was convinced of the absolute truth of spirit return " ■"Spiritualist" takes it for granted shat there are no other forces to which the phenomena can co attributed. He evidently thinks we have ' mastered and solved all the forces of Nature. The reason whv \. H Wallace and other scientists adopt the spirit theory is simplv tx-caure they cannot discover any other force to which to attribute 'the phenomena, nut this is not proof positive of the question. Arc we to assume there aro no other forces, the nature 01 which we know nothing fo aei , t ? Pj, ° fc9s °r CrooKcs [evidently thinks theie are, hence his to commit himself in the .matter. The fact is there is no absolute proof of ■■•spirit return " There | is no absolute link proving- the connection of the phenomena to "foreign disembodied spirits." This (act L ' oadm K scientific investignshell the evidence of "spirits' re■«ni is not sufneient to llulW it a 5 1 , o '.*"™ 0 ' l: ' ntil is done •Wif n ..'" ox l that the ~nr Vr 000 wi " ffnin much support. However, the scientific as of the subject is profounS letters M*"" " ° ne or ' B » ics <" letteis. My only object in writing was to correct your correspondent in his statement that Crookes was a declared spiritualist. This, I think 1 have sonc to flthd satisfaction of your renders. Again thanking you in nnticiputjon, I am, efc, XKVBSTtOATQK,