On November 27, while controlling directly, he said that the last thing he remembered eating was a bit of bread of which he ate but a taste or two, and then referred to uncooked eggs. My information in reply to inquiry was: "Not true as to the eggs, but he ate a part of a piece of bread the morning before his death."

 On December 8 Professor James remarked that he treated letters on the subject of psychic research with the same care and respect as if he had been engaged by the Society to answer them, which he was not, and that the whole community seemed to look on him as an adviser in these matters. He added also that Mrs. James tried to relieve him when they became too much for him. Inquiry showed that this was true, save that Mrs. James was not the only member of the family that aided him in such situations. It might have been guessed that he received many letters, but his manner of treating them, which was correctly stated, would not be so readily guessed. After a failure correctly to answer a question by me he lost control, and Dr. Hodgson, acting as amanuensis for him, mentioned a ring which was said to have been put away. Inquiry showed that he never had a ring. But the next incident was more successful. He referred to his father's watch and stated that he had used it for some time. Inquiry showed that he had worn his father's watch many years.

 Following this was a reference to an English cap which he was said to have worn; it was compared with Dr. Hodgson's, said to have been Scotch. Dr. Hodgson had had a Scotch cap and I learn from inquiry that Professor James had had several English hats and caps.

 I arrived at the Smeads on May 28, and learned that on February 6 Mrs. Smead had had a vision of the Greek letter Omega and a monogram of the letters F and P, the initials of Mr. Podmore. The meaning of these they did not understand until May 4, when Mr. Smead learned for the first time that Mr. Podmore was dead and Mrs. Smead was told the facts because the "Outlook," in which his death was mentioned, was likely to be read by her. But the Omega had no meaning to them. When told of it I recognized it, but said nothing, hoping to have it come in the writing. The letter, however, as readers will recall, was given through Mrs. Chenoweth as Professor Tames's sign and was also alluded to earlier through Mrs. Smead.

 In the first sitting the communicator purported to be Mr. Podmore and in the course of the writing the Greek letter Omega was drawn with a cross after it. Seeing that there might be confusion I asked who had made that sign and a little surprise was expressed at my not recognizing the sign. In a few moments I was told that it was Mr. Podmore's. I saw that this statement was wrong, but quietly accepted it as if it were correct and said nothing. On June 6, Professor James appeared for the first time in the series, and after mentioning his son William, evidently intending his son Henry, however, as I judge from the contents of the reference, he twice wrote the Greek Omega with the cross in it and explained that it was he that came with Mr. Podmore. This explained and corrected the erroneous statement that the Omega had been given by Mr. Podmore.

 Allusion was made to his heart trouble, which Mrs. Smead did not know about, and to his having said little about it to his family. A fairly clear reference was made to his difficulty in breathing, about which Mrs. Smead knew nothing. He had suffered from oedema of the lungs. Apparently in the message, however, reference is to earlier periods of difficulty in breathing, which gave rise to his retirement from college; the circumstances were explained in the communications with fair definiteness, Mrs. Smead knowing nothing about the facts.

 Then followed a reference to the Piper case, which I quote for its pertinence, omitting the confusion.

 "I have so many times thought of our mistaken views of the whole problem when we began in the early days before you joined in our experiments. It was more with some a case of amusement. Do you know that little Frenchman has not yet put in his appearance to me."

(No, that's good.)

"No, I think we will have some interesting talks."

(I hope so and you can report them.)

"I certainly will if it is possible. I will try to find out why he was so stubborn, yes, persistent, in having it as he wished. He may try to go back to the light now that we are not using it."

 It was correct that the earlier experiments with Mrs. Piper were attended by many people more out of amusement than for any serious scientific purpose, in the early days before I had even heard of the case, much less joined in the movement. All this Mrs. Smead knew absolutely nothing about. She may have known that the control claimed to be a Frenchman, but of the other incidents she was wholly ignorant. She was equally ignorant of the obstinacy of Phinuit and of all that is implied in the true and characteristic way in which the period and conduct of Phinuit are here described. He then terminated his communications with the sign Omega and the cross.

 On June 7 he communicated again, and referred to a mountain that looks like snow all over," and remarked that it is only a short distance from our house." He added that he "could do no mental work while there" and that "we were nearer that mountain than you" and that he "was glad to have you talk with me during my sojourn there."

 I recognized Chocorua in the reference to the mountain and his house near it. His summer home is at the base of that mountain, which is quite bare and white in appearance. I spent the summer in which he died nine miles from his place, and called to see him, though he was too ill to see me. Mrs. Smead knew that he had died at Chocorua and had herself lived not far from it many years before; she would therefore remember its appearance. She also knew that I had spent the summer not far away. But she did not know that he could do no work there nor that I had called.

 He then recurred to his son, apparently for the purpose of making a reference to his city home, which be mentioned as the place where his son was living. His son is living in the old home in the city, a fact not known to Mrs. Smead.

 I asked him whose picture was in the library, having in my mind the picture of Hodgson that he had mentioned through Mrs. Chenoweth. In reply he asked if I meant the picture in a frame on the wall, and I replied that I knew nothing about the frames. He then said he had several in the books, and in a moment he said, the telephone having rung in the hall and possibly producing some confusion in Mrs. Smead's mind, "I cannot remember just now, but I said I had one of each of us, Hodgson's and myself too."

 I had previously learned from Mr. Henry James, Jr., that he had a picture of Dr. Hodson on the wall; and after this sitting I learned that he also had a painting of himself. Mrs. Smead knew nothing of either picture.

On June 14 he indicated that he had been trying to make his presence felt to Mrs. James, and requested me to ask her whether she had not felt him. Inquiry proved that she had not had any impressions of his presence. A few minutes later he indicated that his son Will, whose name the Smeads did not know, had cared for his correspondence and helped him in his work at the college. It was apparent to me that he had his son Henry in mind; and it is curious to note that Mrs. Smead knew his name but not the name William. Inquiry showed that all the members of the family had at one time or another helped him in his correspondence, but none had helped him in the college.

 Professor James then referred to his daughter, of whose existence Mrs. Smead knew nothing, and implied that she was psychic and might write. No trace of psychic power in her is known.

 In the course of his allusions to the surprise which some people felt on their arrival in the other world, I made the remark that it is easy to believe in atoms, but not easy to believe in a soul. The reply was a confused but very characteristic discussion of the atomic and ether hypotheses, in which he said that they are mere hypotheses and aids to our thinking and memory, thus expressing scientific conceptions which are entirely foreign to the experience of Mrs. Smead. During the discussion he expressed the desire to discuss the ethereal body at length, I remarked that it would not be proof of identity, and then asked him if he remembered Pragmatism. The reply, very pertinent, was: "Yes, but not identity either. Only interesting to the philosophers." This was a correct appreciation of the case. Mrs. Smead does not know the word "pragmatism," nor that Professor James represented that school of thought.

 Thus terminated the experiments for Professor James. At the last sitting another communicator came. The messages from Professor James through Mrs. Smead were not any better than those through Mrs. Chenoweth. They are wholly different in style, owing to the different types of mediumship and despite the fact that the method of automatic writing is identical so far as we can see. There is less chaff in the work of Mrs. Smead than in the work of Mrs. Chenoweth, probably due to the method of development and the controls, together with the different habits and temperaments of the two ladies. However this may be, it is noticeable that through Mrs. Smead Professor James can get at the gist of a subject more clearly than through Mrs. Chenoweth, though his messages are so fragmentary that the evidence does not seem to be any better.

 There is one incident of peculiar interest and importance, which adds much to the value of Professor James's messages. It is a most interesting piece of cross-reference. On the twelfth of September, 1910, Professor James, purporting to communicate through Mrs. Smead, said that he had tried to communicate through Mrs. Verrall living in England, naming her and her locality, the latter simply as "across the water." Two months later through Mrs. Chenoweth he again mentioned having tried through Mrs. Verrall. Later inquiry in England of Miss Alice Johnson, secretary of the English Society, resulted in the following report. Mrs. Verrall had a dream on September 12, 1910, in which she felt that Professor James was trying to communicate. My sitting with Mrs. Smead was held at 10 A.M. of that date, several hours earlier than London time, so that her dream must have been that morning. A record of the dream had been made by Mrs. Verrall. The reference through Mrs. Chenoweth was made, as indicated, two months later, but coincides with the fact that Mrs. Verrall had been impressed with the effort of Professor James. That is to say, Mrs. Verrall had had the impression of the presence of Professor James and two mediums in America, or Professor James through them, soon afterwards stated in their trances that Professor James had tried to communicate through Mrs. Verrall. No other psychics were mentioned. Both psychics knew that Mrs. Verrall did similar work, but they had the same opportunities to know of others also doing the same work. The most natural person to mention was Mrs. Piper, as her reputation and supposed work at the time would most naturally provoke subconscious guessing. But not a hint of her appeared and during the whole series of experiments both psychics were either remarkably silent about Mrs. Piper where they had years before referred to her freely or they acted as if Mrs. Piper was not active in the work, which was the fact, unknown to myself as well as to the psychics. Hence the coincidence with respect to Mrs. Verrall is all the more striking.

 But there is one set of incidents which are perhaps as important as any that I know in connection with Professor James. I must go back a little to make them clear.

 Some years ago after the death of Dr. Hodgson and before that of Professor James, while the latter was lecturing in England, a reference was made to him through Mrs. Chenoweth in a somewhat pertinent way. At about the same time Dr. Hodgson, purporting to communicate through Miss Gaule, said that he had seen Professor James in pink pajamas and that he looked cute in them. I wrote to Professor James, and received the reply that he was wearing "pink pajamas" at the time. It is not possible for the psychic to have known the facts, whatever we may think about guessing. To test the reaction, when he was claiming to communicate through Mrs. Chenoweth, I once asked him if he remembered anything about "pink pajamas," and the reply was in no respect evidential, though apparently appreciative of the significance of the mention of them. Later I thought to try a cross-reference with Mrs. Smead and asked him to say "pink pajamas" there. In the series of sittings held with her there was an entire failure to allude to them.

 But recently a young boy in the family of a clergyman developed mediumistic powers; and, both in automatic writing and by crystal gazing, in messages appearing as visual writing, when I was not present at all, Professor James purported to communicate, and, mentioning me, referred to pink pajamas and to a black necktie. He said: "I want you to give Hyslop two pairs of pink pajamas and a black necktie for Christmas." The parents referred to the facts as amusing, without any knowledge of their significance. I had kept the incidents absolutely to myself. They were quite astonished to find how pertinent they were. The black necktie I used at sittings, and it had belonged to Professor James. The reference to "pink pajamas" explains itself as the cross-reference which should have come through Mrs. Smead. The association of his name and mine with them strengthens the reference.

 When we estimate the messages that thus purport to come from Professor James, we have to admit that they will disappoint the general public. While errors and false statements are not evidence against the claim that the effort originates from Professor James, the public is so ignorant of what the problem is that it will, as usual, commit worse errors in its judgment than spirits commonly do in facts. Of course, we cannot claim that errors are evidence, unless they are of a certain type, but they are not objections; they are problems. The actual errors, however, are not the primary weakness of the data purporting to come from Professor James. It is rather the paucity of the messages that lessens their value. The weakness, moreover, is much increased by the nature of the circumstances. Professor James was so well-known to the public generally that it is extremely difficult to obtain facts whose value might not be nullified by previous knowledge. A more obscure person would have far better chance of transmitting evidence of identity. But there are instances that cannot be discredited in any way. The Greek letter Omega and the cross cannot be impeached except by accusing me of collusion. The records were known to no living person but me, as I had made them myself and locked them up out of sight. The same assurance may be given of the "pink pajama" incident, my visit to Professor James and the package, the talk before his "seminar," his diet, his last meal from a crust of bread.

 There are many facts as evidential as these, which cannot be made clear to general readers. They can be appreciated only by those who knew the mind of Professor James intimately either from personal acquaintance or from his books. But any one who examines these obscure incidents illustrating characteristic ideas will find that, while one or two of them might be obtainable from reading his published writings, the large number could not easily be obtained except by a minute acquaintance with his writings, which neither psychic possesses.

 On the whole his evidence is not what was desired, at least for the satisfaction of the hungry public. Fortunately Professor James himself remained true to his ideas of the subject while he was living, namely, the need of small and trivial facts to prove personal identity. In the investigation of psychic phenomena no one ever insisted more rigidly than he that personal identity is the fundamental problem and that only the remotest trivial facts would prove that identity. The "pink pajama" incident cannot be surpassed for evidential value, especially in its cross-reference, to anyone who intelligently understands this problem. The only disappointing thing for those interested is the paucity of the evidence, not its omission of characteristic phrases.

 The present writer is not at all surprised at the outcome. His experience has been that intellectual minds have special difficulty in establishing personal identity. Their preoccupation is with themes, which do not lend themselves to sensory imagery. The pictorial or clairvoyant way of representing thoughts is adapted to sensory imagery, more particularly of the visual type. The abstractions of philosophic thought do not lend themselves to accurate representation by this method.