I reminded Sir Arthur of the Davenport Brothers and called to his attention the fact that they were able to release themselves. Sir Arthur feels very strongly in the matter of the Davenport Brothers and although I have told him and proven to him that I was a pupil of Ira Erastus Davenport[86] and that Ira personally told me that they did not claim to be Spiritualists and their performances were not given in the name of Spiritualism, Sir Arthur insists that they _were_ Spiritualists and has strongly said that if they did their performances under any other name, then Ira was “not only a liar, but a blasphemer as he went around with Mr. Ferguson, a clergyman, and mixed it all up with religion.” I want to go on record that to the best of my knowledge and belief I never stated that Sir Arthur endorsed the mediumship of the New York Thompsons. I did say there were full page articles[87] where he was illustrated as accepting the genuineness of the materialization of his mother. I never claimed that Sir Arthur’s son or brother came through the Thomas mediums in Cardiff. I did state that Sir Arthur said they were genuine and that they, the mediums, were helpless to move because he had tied them and in his judgment if they were tied in my presence I would be convinced of their genuineness. I wish to call attention to the fact that in a letter written by the late Stuart Cumberland he agreed with me that there was not a vestige of truth in the mediumship of the Thomas Brothers, and regarding Sir Arthur’s endorsement of the “Masked Lady,” I did not say he endorsed her although I should judge from newspaper[88] accounts he seemed very much impressed. Sir Arthur has rarely given me an opportunity to deny or affirm any statement. In fact one of our sore points of discussion has been the matter of being quoted, or misquoted,[89] in newspapers or periodicals and it seems that Sir Arthur always believes everything I have been quoted as having said. When I was in Oakland, California, I was interviewed by a Mr. Henderson of the _Oakland Tribune_. I gave him some material to work on, enough for one article from which, to my surprise, he wrote a series of eight articles enlarging and misquoting to an “nth” degree. Sir Arthur took exception to a number of statements which I was supposed to have made and he replied to them caustically through the press and then sent me the following letter in explanation. “THE AMBASSADOR “Los Angeles “May 23, 1923. “My dear Houdini:--