kely to be very much stronger, more distinct,
more compelling.

The real crux of the whole problem is the disentanglement of these
possible lines of suggestion and the assignment of them to their true
sources. We may, the writer believes, eliminate as far as their
evidential value is concerned, all physical phenomena. In doing this we
need not necessarily deny the reality of some of the physical phenomena
but the larger part of the residue which might possibly be left after
the elimination of fraud on the part of the medium and unintentional
misrepresentation on the part of the witnesses is so utterly meaningless
as to have no value at all. The only physical phenomena which can have
any direct bearing on spirit communication are the tappings and table
tippings which can by a deal of ingenuity be made to spell out a message
or answer questions yes or no. The same question as to the source of the
suggestion enters here. Even if we admit the taps to spell out a
message, we have still to decide from whom the message comes and the
messages alleged to be contributed through the voice are so much more
full and intelligible as to leave the whole question standing or falling
with the credibility of voice trance mediumship.

_Controls_

The usual machinery of a seance creates suspicion. Most mediums have
controls. Nothing is more capricious than these controls. They may be
people who really never existed at all. The genesis of Mrs. Piper's
control, Dr. Phinuit, is suggestive. "It would appear that Mrs. Piper in
1884 had visited for advice a professional clairvoyant whose leading
control claimed to be a Frenchman named Finne, or Finnett."[79] When
Mrs. Piper was later seen by William James, a French doctor had
succeeded in obtaining almost exclusive control and his name was
reported to be Phinuit. Beyond debate, as far as name goes, here is a
kind of transmuted suggestion. The Finnett of the French clairvoyant,
who may or may not have really lived, becomes the Phinuit of Mrs. Piper,
for whose existence there is apparently no testimony at all.

[Footnote 79: Podmore's "Modern Spiritualism," Vol. II, p. 333.]

The controls have sometimes been Indians and indeed almost any one may
appear as a control--Longfellow, for example, or Mrs. Siddons, or Bach
or Vanderbilt. In a region where disproof and proof are equally
impossible this element of capricious control is suspicious. It is much
more likely to be some obscure casting up o