The writer certainly deserves credit for this sage suggestion, and a patent for his machine; but whether he will succeed in making it operate satisfactorily without calling into requisition the "monomania," the "hashish," and the "opium," remains to be seen. He then goes on to describe Planchette, and afterward continues: "The mysterious little creature is called Planchette, and is no humbug. And it conforms to all the customs of the old-time tipping-tables. The operator magnetizes Planchette, and by a mysterious will-power causes it to answer questions. Before giving illustrations, we may as well state the laws that seem to govern it. _First._ It will always answer correctly, _if the operator knows the answer_. _Second._ While it will answer other questions, in all the experiments I have ever engaged in, it has never answered correctly. _Third._ If a person standing by, who has strong magnetic powers, asks a question, Planchette will answer. But _in all cases_, in our experiments, some ruling mind must have knowledge of what the answer should be, if a correct answer is returned." In reply to the above, we assert, _First_. That the "operator" does not "magnetize" the board at all, nor does he exercise any "will power" over it, causing it to answer questions; and if he did thus cause it to answer only those questions whose answers are already in his mind, what marvel is there in it, more than there is in my pen being caused by my will-power to trace these words and sentences? _Secondly._ If by his _second_ and _third_ specifications of the supposed "laws" which govern Planchette, he means to imply that it will not tell, _often_ tell, and tell with remarkable correctness, things that were never known or dreamed of by the operator, the questioner, or any one present in visible form, then he simply mistakes, as can be testified by thousands, in the most positive manner. But the great essential question is, not so much whether answers given under such and such circumstances can be _correct_, as whether answers and communications _can be given at all_, which have no origin in the minds of the persons engaged in the experiment, and which must hence be referred to some outside intelligence? The writer under review, after all, acknowledges his incompetency to unravel this subject, by saying: