An engineer, formerly employed on railway construction in China and who is now in Australia, deals with the question of spiritualism in a letter re. ceived recently in Shanghai. His at. tention has been attracted to the subject by the presence in Australia of Bir Arthur Conan Doyle, who in the words of the writer, is lecturing on "spooks." The letter says I think spiritualistic controversy most awfully quaint. Both sides waste such lots of time and breath and ink and paper on points which are not (at present) at issue and which at best are side issues. The spiritualist has to prove, or at Yeast show reasonable grounds for believing, that discarnate spirits do manifest themselves at scanices. This means that the evidence needs examination and discussion in a manner and spirit not so far accorded it. No avenue of natural explanation should be left unexplored, no_ possibility of fraud neglected. Further they must set themselves to find a working theory to explain the "communications" which are nearly all very silly, and the behaviour of the "spirits" which is often silly too. The courts of criminal jurisdiction rightly lay Breat stress on "motive," i.e. when "A" suddenly murders "B" in cold blood they require #n explanation. Surely then we are entitled to demand a reasonable theory to account for (say) Plate appearing less wise as a spirit than did as a mortal, also for his total ignorance of ancient Greek.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.