Glimpses Of The Next State.Pdf - Spiritualists' National Union

APPENDIX C267MR. HEREWARD CARRINGTON AND FRAUDIN the body of this book I have alluded to the unworthy methods of anti-spiritists whoprofess to tell the public “how the thing is done,” and to account for all the happenings by normalmeans. I propose here to give a brief account of a concrete instance of the kind.After I had seen Dr. I. K. Funk in March, 1909, when we had a conversation about thephenomena that happen in the presence of the Bangs Sisters, he paid the expenses of a conjurer,Mr. Hereward Carrington, to visit Chicago, requesting him to see the Bangs Sisters and report tohim the phenomena that he obtained in their presence. Dr. Funk had investigated these mediumsseveral times himself; as will be seen below, he had formed a high opinion of their genuinemediumship. In writing to the mediums to make the appointment he gave no name, and hesupposed that Mr. Carrington would sit incognito.Mr. Carrington did go to Chicago and other places about his own business, and eventuallysent in a report to Dr. Funk of a negative character. It was put on one side as of no value.I believe that Mr. Carrington was unaware that I had investigated the Bangs Sisters inJanuary and March, 1909; and, until my report of 1911 was published in Light, he was ignorantthat I had paid a second series of visits in January of this year (see pages 331 to 346 ofthis book).I have never met Mr. Carrington, and have no animus against him. I am simply relatingfacts and commenting upon his obscure proceedings as related by himself in the Annals of PsychicalScience, July—September, 1910, an English journal for which he is the agent in America.After waiting one year and a quarter after his investigation, Mr. Carrington published along article in the above journal, accusing the Bangs Sisters of fraud. I do not know if this articlewas verbatim the same as his report to Dr. Funk, hut the latter did not see it till April, 1911, anddisapproved of its publication.As it was published in an English journal, the Bangs Sisters knew nothing of this scurrilousproduction; I was the first to inform them of it, in January, 1911. The plan of the room given in thearticle is wrong; the window and the doors are in the wrong place; the table is the wrong size, andput in a place where it has never stood; but, if placed elsewhere, it would not agree with the text ofthe article. One door is drawn on the plan where there is, in reality, a fixed washstand. There is nofurniture in the room, according to the plan; the fact is, it is full of furniture.In his article Mr. Carrington says he gave false names. This (if he was ever there) wouldensure either bad results or none at all. At first, I thought this might be the explanation; but I hadto drop this theory for one less flattering to the writer.The false plan suggests that he has never been inside the house at all; and this explanation issupported by the Bangs Sisters, and by the fact of his inability to correct his mistakes in thecorrespondence below.I am bound to say that I hesitate to state positively that a man, hitherto considered honest bythose who have associated with him, could be guilty of writing a report of a seance when he hadnever been inside the house; but we must not forget that be had to send a report of some sort to Dr.Funk, who had paid for his trip. The fact of his having published this libel, without giving hisvictims a chance of seeing it, is against him. A man who could play this trick upon two women, bethey duchesses, seamstresses, or mediums, is unworthy of the attention of fair-minded people.However I would fain believe that, owing to so long a time having elapsed (Mr. Carrington’sfault), the Bangs Sisters may possibly have forgotten what sitters they received on a certain date;their clients run up to quite one thousand a year. Let us try and credit that he did go into the seanceroom. Now, what is the alternative? If he sat with May Bangs, as he says, and yet cannot describethe room and accessories accurately, what confidence can we have that his report of the seanceitself is accurate? I say that any investigator who bring8 charges of so serious a nature against two