ds the poles, as is the case on our earth.

This mode of progression can only be accounted for by the flow of water
from the poles, and such flow extending beyond the equator involves the
artificial propulsion of the water, as the flow is contrary to
gravitation.

Professor Lowell's statements as to this peculiar growth of the
vegetation do not depend upon the results of a few casual observations,
for he has given the matter most systematic and prolonged attention, and
noted upon hundreds of charts the dates when the vegetation has first
appeared in various places and latitudes after the passage of the water
down the canals.

This is such a hard nut for the opponents of the canal theory to crack,
that I am quite prepared to learn that all these careful observations
are merely illusions.

Professor Hale, of Mount Wilson Observatory, in California, has taken
some photographs of Mars which do not show any canal lines; and these
have been eagerly seized upon as another proof that the canals have no
existence.

Unfortunately, these photographs do not show many well authenticated
details which are seen with comparative ease, nor the new details seen
by M. Antoniadi. It is, therefore, no matter of wonder that they do not
show the much fainter canal lines. If the absence of the canal lines
from the photographs is proof that the canals do not exist, then the
photographs must still more emphatically prove that these much more
conspicuous details--which have been seen and drawn by M. Antoniadi and
scores of other observers--are also illusions and have no objective
existence. Those who seek the support of these photographs for their
views must be left to extricate themselves as best they can from the
dilemma in which they are now placed in regard to the observations and
drawings of those highly skilled observers.

The photographs were taken with a sixty-inch telescope, and possibly
this very large aperture was not stopped down sufficiently to secure on
the photographic plates such very fine detail as the canal lines; on the
other hand, the atmospheric conditions at the moments of exposure of the
plates may have been unfavourable for good definition. However good the
photographs may be, the deductions drawn from them are erroneous.

Against such purely negative evidence--which never affords good ground
for argument--we must set the positive evidence of Professor Lowell's
numerous photographs, which do show many of the canal