When the medium has resisted triumphantly all control, they will tell you that she has cheated somewhere else, at some time and under some other circumstances. This might be contested but it diverts the discussion, and we pass it by.

They forget that it is just in order to reply to such contentions that a system of control has been organized, confided to an arbiter whose verdict every one has agreed, in advance, to accept. It was under these conditions that William Crookes, who for many years had studied the whole series of phenomena, was made arbiter of the mediumship of Florence Cook.

You will hear it said, even to-day, that the phantom of Katie King was seized in the arms of a spectator, which is true: and that Florence Cook was thus unmasked, which is false.

An incident of this kind is always exploited by men who do not understand the question of medium-ship. William Crookes was appointed to arbitrate in this case. At this time it was held ridiculous to believe in phenomena: passions were roused: the hour was tense and Crookes was warned that his future as a scholar might be wrecked: we can well understand how necessary it was that he should be on guard.

The following is the history of the case: "A phantom had been seized by a spectator, and a true phantom thus embraced could only dematerialize. This was not the opinion of the skeptics, who in that day knew only the phantoms of Robert Houdini, which a sword might pierce: the phantom at the time being only an intangible thing. When, therefore, it was seized it could do nothing but dematerialize, which it did. There followed an indescribable confusion, under cover of which speculations were given free rein. There were shouts and cries, and, as nothing remained in the arms of the person who believed he had seized something, the critics spread the report that the medium had fled in the darkness. There was only one thing to do, to examine the state of the medium. The critics however, had none of these scruples: they proclaimed upon the housetops that the medium had escaped, which was a falsehood. We have the testimony of a high authority concerning this seance, the great naturalist Russel Wallace." We may refer to his narration, in which he certifies that the medium was found securely fastened in her bonds.1

The medium did what she should have done, she thought of the great scholar who was then studying spiristic facts, and promising to submit herself entirely to his control, asked his protection.

Sir Russel Wallace states that William Crookes, having received permission, did what the skeptical gentleman had done without authority, that is, he took the spirit in his arms and declared it was evidently that of a living woman.

However, this spirit form was not that of Miss Cook, nor of any human being, seeing that she appeared and disappeared in closed and carefully guarded rooms, in the private residence of William Crookes, as easily and completely as in the house of the medium herself.

In an early letter addressed to the spiritualistic journals the scholar wrote in substance:

"I am known to your readers, and they would believe, I trust, that I would not hurriedly adopt an opinion nor ask them to be of my mind after an insufficient proof. But what I will ask them is this: that those who are inclined to judge Miss Cook severely, may suspend judgment until I am able to produce definite proof, which I believe will be sufficient to solve the problem.

1 Russel Wallace, Miracles and Modern Spiritualism, p. 252.

"At the present time Miss Cook is devoting herself exclusively to a series of private sittings, witnessed only by one or two of my friends and myself. These seances will probably last for several months and I have the promise that every proof I may desire will be given to me. These seances have only continued for a few weeks, but there have been enough to convince me completely of the sincerity and entire honesty of Miss Cook, and to give me full reason for believing that the promise so freely made by Katie will be kept.

"All which I now ask, is that your readers will not hastily presume that whatever, at first sight, may seem doubtful, necessarily implies deception, and that they be willing to suspend judgment until I shall speak once more of these phenomena.

"I am, etc.

"William Crookes,

"Feb. 3, 1874."

After having experimented at length William Crookes finally wrote: "I am happy to say that I have at last obtained the absolute proof of which I spoke in the letter mentioned above."

In the following terms he explains the precautions taken by him in the course of his experiments.

"During these six months Miss Cook visited me frequently, often remaining an entire week. She brought with her only a small, unlocked satchel: during the day she was constantly in the company of Mrs. Crookes, myself, or some other member of the family, and since she did not sleep alone, there were no opportunities for her to prepare anything, even of a less complete character, which might have played the role of Katie King. I, myself, had prepared and arranged my library, as well as the dark cabinet, and customarily after Miss Cook had dined and chatted with us she went straight to the cabinet and, at her request, I locked the second door, keeping the key during the seance." 1

The reader should keep in mind that the man who gives guarantee of these facts is a physician of the highest order, a man as experienced as Pasteur and Berthelot, a member of the Royal Society since 1856, and the author of well-known works upon Physics, Chemistry, Astronomy and Photography of the Heavens. The ingenious inventor of the photometer and of the spectral microscope, he also discovered Thallium and enlarged the domain of science by discovering radiant states whose effects upon matter are so formidable as to make possible photography through opaque bodies. Who is there, remembering all this and the testimony I have just cited, who would dare to contest that these conditions impose certainty?