Public exhibitions of hypnotism are, however, forbidden by law in Belgium. In other ways also the representatives of science have generally opposed such exhibitions. They ought to be prohibited on both moral and hygienic grounds. It is perfectly true that at one time such public exhibitions served to draw the attention of scientists to hypnotism, but nowadays they are more calculated to repel people from the scientific study of that question, since they degrade hypnosis into an object of vulgar curiosity, instead of elevating it to one of research. For this reason alone it is a good thing that the Prussian Government, acting on the advice of the members of the Scientific Committee on Medical Affairs, permanently suppressed public exhibitions of hypnosis in 1881. Unfortunately, hypnotizers know of many ways in which they could evade the law. Since it was only public exhibitions that were prohibited they removed their entertainments to the premises of private societies to which members and their guests have free access. Now, if such a society is only used to screen an evasion of the law, the authorities would have as much right to interfere with a prohibited exhibition on its premises as if the performance were publicly advertised.

It is difficult to understand why the authorities do not make requisite use of the power entrusted to them. How important this point is may best be judged by the fact that, in a case we have already mentioned, a "suggester" named Weltmann, who was charged with inflicting bodily injury on a subject, was acquitted by the court because the competent authorities had given him permission to perform his experiments. The prohibition as to public exhibitions also applies to the female "dream-dancers" and "sleep-dancers," so many of whom have appeared of recent years. It is obvious that the police authorities, and perhaps also the medical officials who work with them, are even now tricked by the actors who advertise their performances as experiments in suggestion in the waking state. The hypnotizer is nowadays called a "suggester." Under the pretext of only making suggestions in the waking state, the "suggesters," Weltmann, Viebig, Ignot, and Krause have cairied out ordinary hypnotic experiments in public, and the police authorities have apparently let them selves be deceived by the words "suggestion in the waking state." Forel also called attention to this on account of a statement made by Speyrs that in the case of the "suggester" Krause the experiments were entirely hypnotic, and similarly Neustatter has shown that this was the case and that the subjects were, in a manner, surprised into hypnosis which was not induced in the ordinary way.

If the authorities and their medical colleagues are not sufficiently acquainted with these questions they would do well to consult specialists, just as the courts often do. It is impossible for a man to know everything. Cramer proffers the advice that doctors who are without personal experience in the domain of hypnotism had best decline to report on such cases, and Ernst Schultze says the advice is excellent and should be followed implicitly. For instance, he declares he would never pass an opinion on the value of hypnotism in civil law, since he lacks the necessary experience. If he were asked to do so he would request to be excused from undertaking the duties of a specialist. I strongly advise all forensic physicians and psychiatrists to take these words to heart. It will hardly increase the authority of our police and medical officials if they let themselves be so deceived by sham waking suggestions that they fail to see the real hypnoses.

Public exhibitions have also been objected to in other countries. They were prohibited in Austria as early as 1880, chiefly on account of Hansen's appearance in public. A commission, of which Hofmann was a member, expressed a fear that such performances were not unattended with danger to health. The matter was again investigated by the Chief Sanitary Board, and Krafft-Ebing drew up a report. On this occasion it was pointed out that as far back as 1795 the Court Chancellor of Vienna had issued a decree placing essential limits to experiments in animal magnetism, and that in 1845 it was agreed, at the request of Professor Lippich, that the employment of animal magnetism should only be sanctioned in the case of qualified medical men. Another official note was published by the Austrian Sanitary Council in 1895 - Krafft-Ebing again acted as reporter - dealing with the use of hypnosis by spiritualist societies. This note was in favour of the suppression of spiritualistic societies on account of a report sent by Schlager in 1883, in condemnation of such bodies. In Italy public exhibitions were forbidden in consequence of Donato's performances. Notices of prohibition were also issued in Switzerland - at the request of the sanitary authorities of the Canton of Aargau, among others.

The first person to bring about the prohibition of public exhibitions in America was Prendergast, a sanitary officer in Cincinnati, etc.

Though I consider the public exhibitions of hypnotism that take place in the present day mischievous, I do not wish to depreciate the services of those who have drawn attention to hypnotism by public exhibitions. Just as I refuse to join in the general condemnation of Mesmer, I try, and recommend others to try, to judge such men as Hansen, Bollert, and Donato, fairly. Their motives may have been selfish, but they have certainly been of great service to science. Que les savants n'oublient jamais que si Pan supprimait de l'histoire de l'hypna-tisme Us quatre ou cinq vulgarisateurs Strangers a la medecine qui ont eu la force et le courage de prouver les faits aux quatre coins de l'Europe depuis cinquante ans, cette histoire s eicroulerait entierement. 1 To the honour of those mentioned, it should be expressly stated that all three of them were invariably ready to help the representatives of science in the most straightforward way. Heidenhain, Michael, Delboeuf, Wernicke, Morselli, and others have emphatically recognized this. None the less, such exhibitions are reprehensible in the present day, and Delbceuf's supposition that they are the best means of spreading a knowledge of hypnotism, and thus lessening its dangers, in nowise justifies them.