The Thomsons got into trouble in Chicago and New Orleans also.[84] As a matter of fact I was in Chicago when their trial took place. I had been present at two of their seances. The first was in New York at the Morosco Theatre and I had all I could do to keep J. F. Rinns from breaking up the performance. The second was in Chicago. It was a special seance given after my performance at the Palace Theatre. I was accompanied by H. H. Windsor, Publisher and Editor of _Popular Mechanics_; Oliver R. Barrett, a prominent member of the bar; Mr. Husband Manning, author; and Leonard Hicks, a well-known hotel proprietor. Among others present at the seance were Cyrus McCormick, Jr., Muriel McCormick, and Mrs. McCormick McClintock. We witnessed a number of unsatisfactory phenomena and afterwards adjourned to the home of Cyrus McCormick and discussed the seance, being unanimously of the opinion that it was a glaring fraud just as I had believed the one in New York to be. At the Morosco Theatre, New York City, the Thomsons made the broad statement that they had been tested by Stead and Sir Oliver Lodge and at a special seance he had come out and publicly endorsed Mrs. Thomson as being genuine. The following letter not only disproves this but explains the feeling of an active Spiritualist toward the Thomsons. “Normanton, “Lake, “Salisbury. “7th January 1921. “Dear Mr. Houdini:-- “It is a pleasure to hear from you, and I thank you for asking the question about the Thomsons. I have replied to one or two other queries of the same kind, but I would be grateful if you would make it known that any statement that I have vouched for their genuineness, is absolutely false. “I only saw them once, at a time when they called themselves Tomson. It was at Mr. Stead’s house, at his urgent request. I considered the performance fraudulent, but the proof was not absolutely complete because the concluding search was not allowed, and the gathering dispersed in disorder, or at least with some heat. “I felt sorry at this termination, and it is just possible that Thomson genuinely thought I was favourably impressed. That is the charitable view to take, but it is not the true view, and Mr. Stead was annoyed with me because of my skeptical attitude. (He has since admitted to me, from the other side, that he was wrong and I was right; bringing the subject up spontaneously. This latter statement, however, is not evidence.) “What I should like the public to be assured of, is that I was _not_ favourably impressed, and never vouched for them in any way.