Statement of Margaret Fox
“Do you know that there is something behind the shadowy mask of Spiritualism that the public can hardly guess at? I am stating now what I know, not because I actually participated in it, for I would never be a party to such promiscuous nastiness, but because I had plenty of opportunity, as you may imagine, of verifying it. Under the name of this dreadful, this horrible, hypocrisy—Spiritualism—everything that is improper, bad and immoral is practiced. They go even so far as to have what they call ‘Spiritual children.’ They pretend to something like the immaculate conception! Could anything be more blasphemous, more disgusting, more thinly deceptive than that? In London I went in disguise to a quiet seance at the house of a wealthy man, and I saw a so-called materialization. The effect was produced with the aid of luminous paper, the luster of which was reflected upon the operator. The figure thus displayed was that of a woman, virtually nude, being enveloped in transparent gauze, the face alone being concealed. This was one of those seances to which the privileged non-believing friends of believing Spiritualists could have access. But there are other seances where none but the most tried and trusted are admitted, and where there are shameless goings on that vie with the secret Saturnalia of the Romans. I could not describe these things to you, because I would not.”
From “The Death Blow to Spiritualism,” by Ruben Briggs Davenport. Page 50.
Irving’s Speech
Speech of Henry Irving preceding his imitation of the Davenports February 25, 1865, at the Manchester Athenæum, Manchester, England.
“Ladies and gentlemen:—In introducing to your notice the remarkable phenomena which have attended the gentlemen, who are not brothers, who are about to appear before you, I do not deem it necessary to offer my observations upon their extraordinary manifestations. I shall therefore at once commence a long rigmarole for the purpose of distracting your attention, and filling your intelligent heads with perplexity. I need not tell this enlightened audience that the manifestations they are about to witness are produced by occult power, the meaning of which I don’t clearly understand; but, we simply bring before your notice facts, and from these you must form your own conclusions. Concerning the early life of these gentlemen, columns of the most uninteresting description could be written; I will mention one or two interesting facts connected with these remarkable men, and for the truth of which I personally vouch. In early life, one of them to the perfect unconcern of everybody else, was constantly and most unconsciously floating about his peaceful dwelling in the arms of his amiable nurse, while, on other occasions, he was frequently tied with invisible hands to his mother’s apron strings. Peculiarities of a like nature were exhibited by his companion, whose acquaintance with various Spirits commenced many years ago, and has increased to the present moment with pleasure to himself and profit to others. These gentlemen have not been celebrated throughout the vast continent of America, they have not astonished the civilized world, but they have travelled in various parts of this glorious land—the land of Bacon—and are about to appear in a phase in your glorious city of Manchester. Many really sensible and intelligent individuals seem to think that the requirement of darkness seems to infer trickery. So it does. But I will strive to convince you that it does not. Is not a dark chamber essential to the process of photography? And what would we reply to him who would say ‘I believe photography is a humbug, do it all in the light and we will believe otherwise’? It is true that we know why darkness is essential to the production of a sun picture; and if scientific men will subject these phenomena to analysis, they will find why darkness is essential to our manifestations. But we don’t want them to find out, we want them to avoid a common-sense view of the mystery. We want them to be blinded by our puzzle, and to believe with implicit faith in the greatest humbug in the nineteenth century.”
Lord Adare’s Story.
That is the way Spiritualistic chroniclers tell this story, but Lord Dunraven, in a letter to the Editor of The Weekly Dispatch, London, Eng., March 21, 1920, gives quite a different version of the occurrence, and because of its intrinsic worth as refutation of the loud claim made by Spiritualists I am reproducing the entire article including head lines:
“MEDIUM’S ENTRY BY WINDOW
“WHAT I SAW AT ASHLEY HOUSE
“By Lord Dunraven.
“My attention has been drawn to accounts of a debate on ‘Spiritualism’ on March 11 between Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Mr. Joseph McCabe, in which the latter is reported to have described the alleged wafting of Mr. D. D. Home from window to window as one of the greatest pieces of trickery to be found in the whole Spiritualistic movement.
“Assuming the substantial accuracy of the report, I, as the sole survivor of those present on the occasion, think it my duty, in justice to the dead, to mention the facts as recorded by me at the time.
“They are extracted from a long letter descriptive of the evening to my father, who was much interested in the subject. Whether my letter was submitted to the others present I cannot now say for certain. I have no doubt that it was, for my custom was always to ask others present to test the accuracy of any record that I kept.
“The date was December 16, 1868. Those present were myself (then Lord Adare), the late Lord Crawford, (then Master of Lindsay), a cousin of mine, Mr. Wynne (Charlie) and Mr. D. D. Home.
“ON THE THIRD FLOOR
“The scene was Ashley House (in Ashley-place). Speaking from memory, it consisted of two rooms facing the front—that is, looking on Ashley-place—a passage at the back running the length of the two rooms, a door in each room connecting it with the passage. The locality is thus described in the letter to my father:
“‘Outside each window is a small balcony or ledge, 19 in. deep, bounded by stone balustrade, 18 in. high. The balustrades of the two windows are 7 ft. 4 in. apart, measuring from the nearest points. A string-course, 4 in. wide, runs between the windows at the level of the bottom of the balustrade, and another, 3 in. wide, at the level of the top. Between the window at which Home went out and that at which he came in the wall recedes 6 in. The rooms are on the third floor.’
“The following account of the incident is extracted from the letter to my father:
“He (Home) then said to us, ‘Do not be afraid, and on no account leave your places;’ and he went out into the passage.
“FROM ROOM TO ROOM
“Lindsay suddenly said, ‘Oh, good heavens! I know what he is going to do; it is too fearful.’ Adare: ‘What is it?’ Lindsay: ‘I cannot tell you; it is too horrible! Adah says that I must tell you; he is going out of the window in the other room, and coming in at this window.’
“We heard Home go into the next room, heard the window thrown up, and presently Home appeared standing upright outside our window. He opened the window and walked in quite cooly. ‘Ah,’ he said, ‘you were good this time,’ referring to our having sat still and not wished to prevent him. He sat down and laughed.
“Charlie: ‘What are you laughing at?’ Home: ‘We are thinking that if a policeman had been passing and had looked up and seen a man turning round and round along the wall in the air he would have been much astonished. Adare, shut the window in the next room.’
“I got up, shut the window, and in coming back remarked that the window was not raised a foot, and that I could not think how he had managed to squeeze through.
“OUT, HEAD FIRST
“He arose and said ‘Come and see.’ I went with him; he told me to open the window as it was before, I did so; he told me to stand a little distance off; he then went through the open space, head first, quite rapidly, his body being nearly horizontal and apparently rigid. He came in again, feet foremost, and we returned to the other room.
“It was so dark I could not see clearly how he was supported outside. He did not appear to grasp, or rest upon, the balustrade, but rather to be swung out and in.”
“Such are the facts as narrated at the time. I make no comment except this. Rigorously speaking, it is incorrect to say, as I think has been said, that we saw Mr. Home wafted from one window to the other.
“As to whether he was or was not, I am concerned only to state the facts as observed at the time, not to make deductions from them.”
In view of this publication, it is quite natural to infer that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was cognizant of it at the time of its appearance, because of his controversy with Mr. Joseph McCabe, on that subject; therefore, it is difficult to reconcile that thought with the fact of Sir Arthur’s unmitigated praise and endorsement of a man such as all adduced evidence has branded a charlatan.
Luther R. Marsh and the Huylers
In 1903, Luther R. Marsh again fell into the hands of charlatans as Mr. Isaac K. Funk tells in his book “The Widow’s Mite and Other Psychic Phenomena.” A court set aside the assignment of several insurance policies which Marsh had made to a medium known as Mrs. Huyler. Mr. Funk tells the story as follows:
“On the day Mr. Marsh transferred the policies he (Huyler) and his wife had gone to Mr. Marsh’s room, where Mrs. Huyler claimed to hold communication with the Spirits and told Mr. Marsh there was a terrible uproar in Spiritland because he declined to transfer the policies. She told him that his Spiritualistic wife, Adelaide Neilson, was tearing her hair and weeping, and heaping reproaches upon him. His wife, Mrs. Marsh, was acting in the same fashion, and his father-in-law, ‘Sunset,’ Alvin Stewart, was exceedingly wroth.
“Mr. Marsh was alarmed at this manifestation of Spiritualistic displeasure, and agreed to transfer the policies. At the last moment he hesitated and claimed that because his will was made out he thought it better to postpone the matter a little while; but Mrs. Huyler insisted that he go across the way to a lawyer’s office, and he did so.
“While he was gone Mrs. Huyler admitted that the trance was a ‘fake’ and said that she wanted to get all she could from the ‘old fool’ before he died.
“Mr. Marsh returned to the room presently and assured her that the transfer had been made as she desired. As soon as this evidence had been given by Huyler, Justice Marean ended the proceedings.
“‘This man is a thief and a fraud,’ he said turning to Huyler, ‘and he acted the part of a thief when he and his wife conspired to secure those policies by the means he has just related.’”
Police Record of Ann O’Delia Diss Debar.
Editha Loleta, Jackson, alias The Swami—5—3½—sallow.
Hair brown, turning gray. Blue eyes. Occupation, authoress.
Sentence:
6 mos., New York. 19.6.88. Swindling. Ann O’Delia Diss Debar.
2 years, Geneva. 25.3.93. Larceny. Vera P. Ava.
Expelled from New Orleans. 7.5.99. Swindling, Susp. Person. Edith Jackson.
30 days, New Orleans. 16.5.99. Susp. Person. Edith Jackson.
7 years penal servitude, Central Criminal Court, London. 16.12.01. Aiding and abetting the commission of rape. Editha Loleta Jackson.
Judge Edmonds
Judge Edmonds was born in Hudson, N. Y., in 1799, received a college education and studied law. In 1819 he entered the law office of President Van Buren. In 1828 he was appointed Recorder of Hudson and in 1831 was elected to the State Senate by an unprecedented majority. In 1843 he was appointed Inspector of the State Prison at Sing Sing holding the position until 1845 when he resigned to become a Circuit Judge of the First Judicial District. Later he was elected Judge of the State Supreme Court and finally in 1851 became a member of the Court of Appeals. These various offices gave him experience in the widest range of judicial duties; he had a greatly developed mentality and was known as the shrewdest judge of his time.
In 1850 he lost his wife with whom he had lived for over thirty years. He was very much affected by her death and his mind became occupied with inquiries concerning the nature and conditions of death, frequently spending the greater part of the night reading and reflecting on the subject. One midnight he seemed to hear the voice of his wife speaking a sentence to him. It was his doom. He started as though shot and from that time on devoted all his time, money and energy to Spiritualism. His faith did not waver to the end. On his death bed he claimed to be surrounded by Spirit forms and declared that by reason of entering their sphere in an advanced state of spiritual development he would be able to send back messages and proofs of Spiritualism at once. He died April 5th, 1874 (the very date of my birth). I doubt if the history of Spiritualism can point out a man of greater brilliancy who ruined his life following up this “will-o-the-wisp” to relieve his grief.
Doyle and the “Denver Express.”
This reminds me of a conversation which we had in Denver in May, 1923, when he admitted to me that he was frequently misquoted and made to say things which he never even thought of.
By some prank of fate, Sir Arthur was booked to lecture in Denver at the same time I was performing there.
Lady Doyle, Sir Arthur, Mrs. Houdini and myself went out motoring in the morning and when we returned to the hotel Sir Arthur excused himself. About two hours later on my way to the Orpheum Theatre, Sir Arthur came dashing through the lobby of the hotel excitedly looking around for someone. I walked up to him saying, “Anything I can do for you?” He put his arm around me and said, “Houdini, there is a challenge of $5,000 in this paper which I am purported to have issued. I want you to know that I would never dream of doing such a thing, to you above everyone else.”
I replied, “Sir Arthur, this is just another case, where you have been misquoted. No doubt you are thinking that I am going to believe it, for I know that if conditions were reversed you would have believed it; therefore, you see it is best to investigate before giving credence to anything as being a fact. I am not even upset about it—things happen that way. Will you please remember this incident the next time you read an interview supposedly issued by me?” Sir Arthur left for Salt Lake City the next morning.
I walked into the Editorial Department of the Denver Express, saw Mr. Sydney B. Whipple, the Managing Editor, and told him that I had met Sir Arthur the night before and that he was very indignant at the challenge which the paper reported he issued. I said, “You see, Mr. Whipple, Sir Arthur, Lady Doyle, Mrs. Houdini and myself were out motoring all yesterday afternoon, and when Sir Arthur returned he saw the “scare head-line” to the effect that he had challenged me for $5,000! Whipple asked, “You mean to say that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle denies having challenged you?” I replied, “Most emphatically,—he said that it was not true and he never made such a statement and added he had written to the Editor to let him know what he thought of him for misrepresenting and misquoting what he said.” Mr. Whipple asked me to wait a moment until he got to the bottom of the matter.
Whipple called over Mr. Sam Jackson and said, “Regarding this challenge of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, did he or did he not challenge Houdini during your interview?” Jackson answered, “Why he positively did. You do not think, Mr. Whipple, that I would come in with a story which is not true? Sir Arthur distinctly made his statement in terms positive, that he was willing to challenge Houdini for $5,000. Miss Jeanette Thornton was there at the time interviewing Lady Doyle, and she overheard the conversation. Will you please call her and have her confirm my statement.”
Miss Thornton came over and upon being questioned, answered, “Most assuredly I heard Sir Arthur’s challenge yesterday. I thought it was a very interesting incident so I paid particular attention. I am surprised that Sir Arthur now denies having made it.”
Whipple turned to me saying, “There you are—any further proof you want, is there anything we can do for you to contradict this? Do you wish us to make a statement?” To which I replied, “No, just let it go, we will let it pass.”
The following letters which I received from Mr. Whipple are self-explanatory:
“THE ‘DENVER EXPRESS’
“THE TRUTH—QUICK.
“May 11, 1923.
“Dear Mr. Houdini:—
“I am enclosing a letter from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle complaining that the report of his challenge regarding mediumistic appearances was garbled in this paper.
“I must also say that our reporter, who talked with Doyle insists that his report of the conversation was absolutely correct, and that Doyle said what we printed.
“Cordially yours,
(Signed) “Sydney B. Whipple.
“THE BROWN PALACE HOTEL
Denver, Colo.
“May 9, 1923.
“Sir:—
“The report in the Denver Express that I offered to bring back the spirit of my mother for five thousand dollars, in order to confute Mr. Houdini, is a monstrous fabrication, and I cannot imagine how you dare to print such a thing, which is on the face of it so blasphemous and absurd.
“What actually occurred was that your reporter said that my friend Mr. Houdini had wagered $5,000 that he could do anything any medium could do, to which I answered “To do that he would have to show me my mother.” This is surely very different.
“Yours faithfully,
(Signed) “A. Conan Doyle.”
Exposure of Mrs. Stewart
It is significant to note that on December 28, 1923, at St Louis, Mo., I was fortunate in forming acquaintance with Judge Daniel G. Taylor, who presided over Division No. 2 of the Circuit Court, to which division Josie K. Folsom-Stewart, as President, Charles W. Stewart, Secretary, and Phoebe S. Wolf, as Treasurer, made application for incorporation of the “Society of Scientific and Religious Truthseekers,” who claimed that they had associated themselves by articles of agreement in writing, as a “Society for religious and mutual improvement purposes.” “The articles of agreement and association are signed by some forty persons.” As was customary in such cases, Judge Taylor “appointed J. Lionberger Davis, then a practicing attorney, now President of Security National Bank, as amicus curiae to examine into the matter and report whether or not the charter should be granted.” The outcome of which was evidence of guilt of fraudulent manifestations of mediumship. In the course of investigation, Miss Martha Grossman, a member of Mrs. Folsom’s “Development Class,” testified that Mr. Stewart and Mrs. Folsom were conducting meetings which she had attended for six months, at which time she saw writing on cards which Mrs. Folsom said was done by Spirits.
Miss Grossman testified that what Mrs. Folsom claimed to be spirit photographs were mere transfers from prints in the Post-Dispatch, advertising “Syrup of Figs” and “Lydia Pinkham’s” concoction. It also developed that Miss Alice C. Preston confessed to having been a confederate and in that capacity “assisted Mrs. Folsom in producing, physically, and by natural means, the supposed supernatural demonstrations.” A reference to this testimony is contained in the memorandum document on the evidence which is signed by the attorney for the petitioners and which is in the court files.
As a conclusion, Judge Taylor denied the petition for incorporation, which in any event could have been granted for the purpose of holding real estate only, and not for promulgating teachings of a cult.
The Judge acknowledged that he himself was convinced that Mrs. Folsom was a fraud; and this is the same Mrs. Stewart, who appeared before the Scientific American Committee of Investigation in 1923, wherein she was detected in her card-trick.
Mrs. Folsom was forced to acknowledge to the court in 1905 that she was the author of a small book under title of “Non-Godism,” a copy of which together with documentary evidence bearing on the court proceedings referred to above are now in my possession.