Untitled

Comstock, Anthony. Letter to Henry Varley. New York: n.p., 1897. Editor's Note: on the bottom of page 12, brackets {} indicate portions obscured by tape and reconstructed. Page 2 and the top of page 12 also had obscured portions but they were readable although faintly.

[Letter to Henry Varley

by Anthony Comstock]

[1]

NEW YORK CITY, 41 Park Row,

December 28th, 1897.

HENRY VARLEY,

7 Tremont Place, Boston, Mass.

SIR: My attention having been called to a most unjust and unfair attack made upon me, in a pamphlet entitled "The Case of Herman Warszawiak, from the Pen of Henry Varley," I beg to reply in order to correct any false impression which your attack upon me may make.

For more than twenty-five years, I have had the honor of holding an office of great importance and responsibility as the Secretary and Chief Agent of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice. My duties, expressed in a word, have been to secure and enforce laws for the defense of public morality; particularly against evils which assail the integrity and purity of the young—Gambling, Lotteries, and Obscene matters. Among other things accomplished for good, we have made about twenty-two hundred arrests, and seized more than seventy tons of contraband matters. My good name and reputation, which stands sponsor for my fidelity to my trust, has been frequently assailed. Because I have been true in the place where I believe Almighty God has called me, often I have been made the subject of malicious and fierce attacks by both moral and physical assassins, and repeated attempts have been made in Courts of Justice to impeach my veracity, but without success.

The attacks of corrupt men I can endure without always replying to them; but when persons holding positions of responsibility, assail me, I have felt it due to the great interests which I have the honor to represent, to at least correct misrepresentations and falsehoods.

In order that the public may know, the circumstances under which you falsely assailed me, I beg to call attention to the following facts.

In October, last, The Watchword of Boston, published an article over your name, concerning one Herman Warszawiak, of New York City, who recently has been found guilty of certain serious offenses, which have caused the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church to take action against him.

In this article you, or the person writing over the name of Henry Varley, unjustly and falsely assailed the Board of the New York City Missions. Mr. Morris K. Jesup, the President of that Society, a Christian gentleman of highest reputation, in whose home you for weeks had once been most hospitably entertained,

wrote you a very kind, courteous, personal letter inviting an interview. Thinking that you had been deceived, he sent you for your personal information the sworn affidavits of two witnesses who had received from Warszawiak a confession that he had gambled at Weehawken.

You took advantage of this courteous private letter to you, written in the interest of truth and justice, to send a most insulting letter in reply to Mr. Jesup; and not only that, but you added to that affront upon Mr. Jesup, by publishing your reply to Mr. Jesup in pamphlet form. Your uncivil and insulting letter has gone to the public, while the very polite and courteous letter of Mr. Jesup to you, you withhold from the public, as well as the sworn statements which he sent you of two eye-witnesses to whom Warszawiak confessed his guilt.

In the letter to Mr. Jesup, you misrepresent my motive and falsely assail me, without ever having spoken one word with me upon the subject (I think I have never even seen you); you maliciously attempt to do, what my enemies for nearly twenty-six years have tried in vain to do, impeach my testimony.

In this pamphlet you say you are a "preacher and a teacher." This implies, that you have some influence before the public. You have chosen to throw the weight of what little influence you have, in your words and two titles, against a number of prominent persons, as well as against myself.

As a "preacher and teacher," you surely have knowledge of the commandment "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."

I observe, that you have laid down certain very rigid rules to govern the action of those whom you criticise. You particularly require that hearsay or as you call it "second-hand" evidence shall not be allowed, and bitterly complain against me, that I told Mr. Warszawiak, in the privacy of his office, certain facts which were contained in written reports made by eye-witnesses of his conduct while he was gambling at Weehawken. Nevertheless, you make most positive and explicit statements, relating to matters of which you have no personal knowledge. You declare things as positive facts that are not facts. In order to carry out your peculiar views, you have ignored the "charity which thinketh no evil," and have attributed motives to persons, whom you have assailed in true "Billingsgate" style, that are utterly untrue and which you cannot justify.

Instead of availing yourself of Mr. Jesup's kind invitation, which would have enabled you "to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good," you have failed to come to the light. Instead, you have insulted him, and by publishing your insult to him, you have violated polite ethics. Such conduct you may regard as proper. I beg to assure you for your personal benefit in the future, that it is not considered as polite, courteous or civil in

America. You may not have known of the practice in this country and so may be excused because of ignorance.

There are, however, certain inconsistencies in your letter which sadly reflect upon you as a "preacher and teacher." Of course what you preach as absolute duty and right for others, you practice, or should practice yourself. Laws and rules of evidence, which you lay down to govern others by, you surely can not be indifferent to. In this country, we regard deeds, not words; facts, not theories; truth, not speculations.

There are some things of far greater importance than Herman Warszawiak or Henry Varley, to wit, truth, justice, and fair dealing.

You try to make a point against those whom you assail by quoting "Truth has fallen in the streets and equity cannot enter." Isa. lix. 14.

Will you permit me to furnish a few illustrations for your text?

Who threw truth down and prevented equity from entering in this present case?

Herman Warszawiak threw truth down in the presence of Mr. George E. Oram and myself, in his office March 17, 1897, when after three or more times saying that "he knew nothing about gambling at Weehawken," afterwards confessed, that he had been over there and "speculated" at Roulette. When he or you deny the truth of my sworn statement, corroborated as it is by Mr. Oram's oath as an eye-witness, you both cause truth to fall in the dust.

You, Henry Varley, prevent equity from entering into the judgment of good men and women when you attempt to issue a proclamation to the public, reviewing the Warszawiak case as a Supreme or Appellate Court, and you suppress all the details and circumstances of two men of good repute and standing, whose statements have been placed in legal form under oath before you.

Again: Truth falls, and with it a reproach falls upon the cause of righteousness, when a "preacher and teacher" attempts to pass judgment upon a matter of which he has no personal knowledge, and in order to carry out his peculiar notions, is so biased that he will suppress the sworn testimony of men who, from personal knowledge, know what they are talking about. Equity is never one-sided. Truth never dreads the light. A martyr to the truth never requires falsehoods or misrepresentations as a defense. The criminal requires deceit, trickery, misrepresentations and lies. He has no use for charity or a truthful presentation of facts concerning himself. The truth must he suppressed. "Every one that doeth evil hateth light." "But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest."

Let me group together a few of your positive statements, and measure them by your own autocratic standard. You say: "One of the first things done in England by our police is to tell an accused person the nature of the charge or charges, and then to

state that they need not make any statement which would incriminate them. Mr. Anthony Comstock appears to be a law unto himself and did not hesitate to make charges upon mere second-hand testimony. By bold assertion, he assumes the guilt of the man whom he ought to have warned and protected to the extent that no injustice be done and fair play secured." Again you say that in England "every man is to be regarded as innocent until he is clearly proved guilty."

May I ask, if you have not added the word "clearly" to the general adage, that "a man is to be considered innocent until proved guilty" for effect?

Do you pretend to say, that any intelligent official in England, whose duty it is to discover evidence concerning criminals, ever goes to the person against whom he has probable cause to believe guilty of a crime that has been committed, and tells the criminal "I am after you, look out; run, or I will catch you." In America, we do not hunt for evidence against crimes with brass bands or tooting whistles. Have not you fallen into an error and misunderstood or misinterpreted the rule? The English and American Courts allow the confessions of a criminal to be put in evidence so long as that confession was not procured by threat or promise of reward. This rule also sanctions the procuring of the confession of the criminal by the officer. A very recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, has declared it the right and duty of an officer to apply to the criminal for information concerning his unlawful business where he has a probable cause to believe the law is being violated. It is the practice in this Country, after a person had been arrested to warn him of his rights, among which is that he need not make any statement, and that if he does, it may be used against him.

The rules of evidence in Court are much more strict, than that moral certainty which is the basis upon which the ordinary affairs of life are conducted.

As you have laid down your version of the English standard, however, as the proper one, and as you have been brought up and nourished upon it, will you allow me to apply your tests to yourself—"hoisted with your own petard." I group together a few of your positive statements and the unrighteous judgments which you have pronounced against others—your superiors. The presumption to be drawn, is, that you, Henry Varley, are speaking from personal knowledge only, nothing "second hand"; that you considered each one of the persons condemned by you as "innocent until clearly proved guilty," and that you have not used "second hand" testimony, and have warned each person of their rights, before you stabbed them in the back.

Have you personal knowledge, that Rev. Dr. Schauffler was born an "autocrat," and that he is actuated by any such motives as you attribute to him? May it not be possible, that knowing Warszawiak better and longer than you do or have, he is possessed

of facts which convince him that Warszawiak is an improper person to receive moneys contributed by Christian people and churches to advance the cause of Christ among the Jews in this city. Was the $100, which he was reported by two eye-witnesses to have lost one afternoon at Roulette any part of these contributions? Have you any personal knowledge of the "petty tyranny of the born autocrat" or of any "unceasing persecution of the little Jew," "or that "all kinds of suspicions involving the integrity of Warszawiak have been industriously circulated by Dr. Schauffler." Has he ever "industriously circulated" the suspicion that Mr. Warszawiak had ever plotted treason against this Government; or been guilty of murder or arson, or burglary, or that he was a pirate upon the high seas? You are supposed to be speaking from your personal knowledge when you say, "all kinds of suspicions involving the integrity of Warszawiak."

Mr. Varley, did not you cause truth to fall when you uttered that broad positive statement?

Were you present at the trial in Dr. Hall's church, where a Court composed of Rev. John Hall, D.D., moderator, and his Session of noble, educated, Christian men and philanthropists, lawyers and eminent business men heard the evidence and rendered their verdict accordingly, that you can say from your personal knowledge, "nothing more unjust, indeed no greater burlesque of a Court of Justice has been known in modern times, than that which has recently closed at the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church."

Did Dr. John Hall, as moderator, record, as the verdict of that tribunal, "The charges were not sustained," as you would have the public believe? Or was that an expression of his individual opinion only? The verdict of the Majority which bound the Court was, that Warszawiak was guilty, and a judgment was entered against him, and he was indefinitely suspended from the Church accordingly.

Of seven members of the Court which tried Mr. Warszawiak, you say in most positive language, "the majority of seven went into the case simply as Dr. Schauffler's partisans and friends." Is this true? Do you know all the members composing this Court so personally, that you can positively say of them, as you do, "this ecclesiastical court of injustice and oppression?" Did not Dr. Hall and his Session go into this trial, as they were duty bound to do, by virtue of their offices as Pastor and Session, under the long-established rules governing in the Presbyterian denomination, and not "simply as Dr. Schauffler's partisans and friends," as you positively declare? Was it not the verdict of a majority, such as is fixed by Presbyterian law, and as such legal? In the State Courts, a Grand Jury consists of twenty-four persons; sixteen compose a quorum, and twelve return a verdict. In other Courts a Jury may consist of twelve, or six, or three persons as designated by law.

In your article in The Watchword, of October, truth again gets a setback when you state positively, that "the Board of the New York City Missions are at least awake to the fact, that its money has been used for...'hired detectives,'" meaning thereby, that the detectives were paid out of the funds of the City Missions.

In your pamphlet, with equal positiveness you say, "it was money paid by his wealthy friend, Mr. Jesup, that hired the...detectives, themselves gamblers, and one a criminal, to overshadow Herman Warszawiak." "Their instructions were to unearth the missionary fraud." "Their false statements, made on oath, have been proved to be utterly untrue."

You then make another positive statement about my having a picture, and Warszawiak's confession, as follows: You say, "No such photograph exists." And "also" (Warszawiak) "admitting that he had been there, all is either absolutely false or unproved."

Again you say positively, "the evidence of the so-called witnesses was shown to be false at the time of the trial."

Again you say, "there is no picture of Warszawiak," intending this to impeach my sworn statement, that I had a picture of him in my pocket, taken as he was leaving the ferryboat, upon one of the days he was over at Weehawken gambling.

Have you personal knowledge to justify your uttering any of these positive statements? Which statement of yours are we to believe, concerning funds to pay detectives? Mr. John P. Haines, a gentleman of large experience in the prosecution of criminal cases in Court, and of high standing in the community, who, acting on behalf of Mr. Jesup, employed these men, informs me that there were never any such instructions as you positively state ever given by him or Mr. Jesup. Mr. Jesup never saw any of these men. Mr. Haines alone gave instructions to them to simply follow Warszawiak and report where he went after leaving home in the morning, and what he did until he returned at night. Not a suspicion then existed that Warszawiak was a patron of the Monte Carlo at Weehawken. That was one of the surprises of the investigation.

I can produce the picture which I had, and Mr. Haines' affidavit, if required, to support my statements. Have you personal knowledge to prove that either of the men employed were gamblers? Or have you borne false witness against these men?

The Count of Inquiry by a legal verdict flatly contradicts your positive statements about "charges not proven," and of the statements of witnesses being "false or unproved."

Having shown, where "truth has fallen in the streets " and why "equity cannot enter " by your falsehoods, misrepresentations and inconsistencies, in dealing with distinguished and eminent men, such as Mr. Morris K. Jesup, and those composing the Session of the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church, let me now show where you again "bear false witness against your neighbor."

I am a member in good and regular standing of the Central Presbyterian Church of Summit, New Jersey. I call upon you, if you have aught against me, that reflects upon my integrity or standing to place the same before my Pastor, and demand that I be placed upon trial; and then you be man enough to do as I did to Warszawiak, and as the Session in Dr. Hall's church did also with him, bring my accusers face to face with me, and allow me to be tried in due form of law before you condemn me before the christian people of America and England.

Have you proven me clearly guilty before you pronounced me a perjurer? Have you personal knowledge that any part of my affidavit, drawn in due form of law, so that it would be accepted in any Court of Justice, is not true? Do you proceed to warn me of my rights, or protect my rights, or deal charitably, or fairly with me according to any code of Christian, or moral, or civilized ethics, before you as a "preacher and teacher" assail me behind my back?

You withhold the manly letter which Mr. Jesup wrote you, and suppress the copy of my affidavit and the affidavit of Mr. Oram, who corroborates what I say. You begin your tirade against me by saying: "There is no picture of Warszawiak." How comes it, that Anthony Comstock said he had Warszawiak's picture "right here in my pocket?"

My answer has already been given, and is, because I had one. Then you say, Mr. Comstock states also that he said to Warszawiak, "I come to ask, if you will help our Society to close up this Monte Carlo at Weehawken." Warszawiak said, "I know nothing about gambling over there." Then you say, "now Mr. Comstock desires the readers of his statement, made on oath, to believe that which he affirms." Then you cause "truth to fall" again; and disclose as contemptible a specimen of sharp practice and trickery, as a sharp scheming mind can invent to convey a false impression, by asking the question "but what about Mr. Comstock's statement that 'he had come to get Herman Warszawiak's help to close the gambling den?'"

This is not my statement; and yet to serve your own base purposes, you coin a sentence of your own, with a different purport and changing the meaning; then you place the same in italics, and placing quotation marks about it charge it as my statement. There is a vast difference in "I come to ask" and "he had come to get."

Then you say to Mr. Jesup, "the truth is, Anthony Comstock came to charge Warszawiak with gambling at your instance."

This is not true. Mr. Jesup did not know what I was to say. He gave me no instructions, except to go man fashion to Warszawiak, and state to him what charges had been made against him, and hear what he had to say, and report the result of my interview.

Again you say: "How could Anthony Comstock speak of the

papers received by him as facts and as dependable evidence?"

.............

"The evidence of the so-called witnesses was shown to be false at the time of the trial, whilst their character which could hardly be unknown to Mr. Comstock, forbade that any confidence should be placed in their reports."

The papers contained the sworn statements of men whom I had no reason then or now, to doubt the truth of their sworn statements.

The reports of these men were clear, positive, written statements of eye witnesses of Mr. Warszawiak's conduct, giving days, dates and details. They were reports made by different persons, and would have been received by any Court of Justice; and having been sworn to, upon their face furnished ample legal evidence of guilt. They were the sworn testimony of eye witnesses. They certainly furnished the "moral certainty" upon which the ordinary business affairs of the world are carried on. I have no personal knowledge,—legal evidence—that there is such a City as London, England, as I have never been there. I am morally certain of it, from the testimony of persons who have been there.

You appear to belong to that class of persons, who reject everything which they do not care to believe. My duty is to prove all things, and hold fast to the truth. I went there to get at the truth, and I believe I got it. I certainly did, unless Warszawiak foolishly confessed to acts of which he was not guilty.

Again you complain, that I asked, "will you help our Society to close up this den by giving the name of the parties who are running the place, or the names of the dealers?" You then assert in positive words which can only be justified by your personal knowledge, "this may be described as smart, but it was not the truth." This is drawing so largely upon your imagination, that no truth falls from your lips in your statement.

Take the facts. Long before I ever heard of Warszawiak, there had been an earnest effort made by goods citizens in Hudson County, where this Monte Carlo existed, to close it up, by enforcing the law. I had been waited upon by different persons, and by a Committee of clergymen and others for advice and assistance. One principal had been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment, and was then out on bail pending an appeal to the higher Court, which has since affirmed the judgment of the lower Court.

I do not say my principal object in coming, was to ask these questions. My prime object was to present Warszawiak with the reports of his having gambled at Weehawken, and see what he had to say in answer to these charges. It certainly is not inconsistent with the truth, that I took advantage of this visit to ask these two questions? I had a right to ask him any question I chose to ask, and upon any subject. The names of those then instrumental in running the game was important information for

us to have. The presumption was, that the man who had been convicted, would not himself personally appear to run the game. Was it inconsistent with truth that I should avail myself of an interview with a reputed patron of this establishment to ask him for these names? Suppose I asked those two questions which you copy from my affidavit (not the one you manufacture and put in quotations, and say is my statement) as introductory to what I was to say about Warszawiak's gambling over there. Had I not a right to ask them in such a manner? Was not this last question which you quote a natural one for me to ask under the circumstances?

Do you judge righteous judgment? I chose to introduce my conversation by asking one of these two questions. I wanted the knowledge his answers would impart for a righteous purpose.

The presumption was, as is in your case until it is overthrown with facts, that being a preacher, he (and you) would tell the truth. He said, "I know nothing about gambling over there." You, Henry Varley, make a positive statement, that this question "was not the truth." You were not present and did not know the fact of our efforts to close this place entirely independent of Warszawiak. I was present and know the fact and know the question is true, and I also know that "truth has fallen in the streets and equity cannot enter" unless those who read your base assault upon me in your pamphlet know the facts as I now present them.

Suppose some person should assign you a motive, for the part you are taking in your heated and unreasonable defense of Mr. Warszawiak, upon the same principle that you assign motives to Mr. Jesup and the other distinguished gentlemen, members of the Session of the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church, Rev. Dr. Schauffler, and myself, like this, "Henry Varley sees that Warszawiak has been successful in raising large sums of money by appealing to the good people of America, England, and Scotland, and he has conspired with Warszawiak to make out that Warszawiak is unjustly persecuted by these men; he is to vouch for Warszawiak, so as to awaken sympathy, and then they are going to divide the spoils." Would not you denounce the harshness of such an assignment of a motive as cruel and unjust? I use this simply to bring home to you the cruel and unjust manner in which you have dealt with those whom you so freely condemn. I would not for one moment assign such a motive to you, but if I should, it would be upon a par with what you have done to myself and others.

Again you complain about "hearsay statements," and rail against me in your imaginative manner. You say, "take again Anthony Comstock's testimony; he says to Warszawiak in regard to the Weehawken gambling den: 'You have been seen over there frequently; I have not come on a fool's errand. You have been in the habit of going to this place quite often, especially

during the month of February; I have reports of men who saw you there, etc.'"

All of which is true. Warszawiak confirmed the truth of those statements; but you, Henry Varley, suppressed the truth from going to the public in your pamphlet.

After quoting as aforesaid, you deliver most positive statements concerning matters of which you have no personal knowledge. You say: "Now this list of changes was simply the result of hearsay statements, and that from hired detectives whose characters were proved at the trial to be bad. Men, also who had been paid a considerable sum of money to 'unearth' a missionary fraud. Not a word as to the truth of this did Anthony Comstock have from his own knowledge."

How do you know that I had no personal knowledge? If you do not know it of your own knowledge, how can you state it as a fact under Henry Varley's rules of evidence?

How do you know "a considerable sum had been paid to unearth a missionary fraud?" Take the fact. After my interview with Warszawiak I audited the bills and after that they were paid. Your statement is false and misleading.

Again you say: "There can be no question that Anthony Comstock assumed at the outset that Warszawiak was guilty, and planned the false and deceiving words which appear in his sworn affidavit." Then you quote the two questions which I asked and then you say, "this may be described as smart, but it was not the truth." But it was the truth. You were not present. I was. You did not know of our efforts to close up this infamous den. I did. You did not know the thoughts and motives of my heart and mind. I did.

I employed two men to get the evidence against this place other than those referred to herein, and I laid the facts before the local authorities afterward, with the names of the witnesses; since which, I learned this Monte Carlo has been closed.

Suppose I should say of Henry Varley, "he received a polite invitation to an interview with a gentleman most prominent for many years in Christian philanthropy, and in whose house, Henry Varley, had for weeks been most hospitably entertained, and yet in order to make a sensation for himself, and in order to insult this eminent citizen, said Varley in answer to the gentle reminder of past friendship should say, "I do not at this distance of time recall knowledge of yourself personally, your name has long been known to me;" and then I should say of you, "Oh! Henry Varley's knowledge of his own personal experiences is not nearly as good as it is concerning persons and things of which he has no personal knowledge."

You sum up your attack upon me by saying, "I do not believe a jury could be found in England, who would listen to such statements much less receive them as facts or as proof of any man's guilt."

Beside your last statement, let me record the fact, that out of eleven hundred and seventy-eight cases brought to trial, many of them before juries in America, and in nearly all of which I have been a witness, we secured a verdict of "guilty" in eleven hundred and fifty-eight instances.

Suppose I present your sentiment in a little different form, and should say, "I do not believe that any jury can be found in Christendom who would read over the harsh criticisms of Henry Varley, his positive statements of matters of which he has no personal knowledge, and in many cases not even 'second-hand' testimony, and believe a word that Henry Varley might utter concerning another person!" You would think me very severe. How about your similar statements of others?

Again you say of my testimony, "his testimony has lost its value by reason of his unjust action in assuming from hearsay the guilt of the man whom he assailed with charges which he could not prove." I assumed that the men, whose sworn reports I had, told the truth.

Acting upon that assumption, I went to Warszawiak and told him the charges, and the grounds of my belief, and the sources of my information before making any charge against him to any one else. His rights were not prejudiced. No unfair advantage was taken of him. He was not tabbed in the back by a public attack.

After Warszawiak had confessed his guilt to me and told me of his repentance, and sorrow, and his confession to God, and of his prayer for help not to go over there to gamble again, as given in the affidavits which you failed to publish with your attack, I believed him a penitent, struggling man, and offered to go with him to Rev. Dr. Hall, and intercede for him, and offered to stand by him, if he was truly penitent. He would not go with me to his best friend; but at the second interview, said in substance, "it would hurt Dr. Hall and his church more than it would hurt him, and they would not dare let it be made public." I went to Mr. Jesup and to Dr. Hall; and then I reported what I had said to them to Warszawiak, and he thanked me. When I urged him to go with me to see Dr. Hall, he said, "Why should I confess to man, I have confessed to God."

And what have you done to make your word honorable in this matter; or to lift truth up from the street; or to make it possible for equity to enter? You have suppressed the facts. You have attributed false and base motives to persons with whom you have never exchanged a word about this case. You have attempted to impeach the honest efforts of honest men to get at the truth; have played the part of a moral assassin and stabbed each one, who, with the facts before their minds, believe Warszawiak guilty; and without a hearing you have condemned them as actuated by base and criminal motives. You have violated every sense of decency and fair dealing; every principle of judicial reasoning; every sense of propriety in dealing with absent brethren;

[12]

and you have placed before the public your assaults upon men of highest reputation as gentlemen and Christians. You, Henry Varley, have emphatically stated, as positive facts, matters which are not facts; and these positive statements attack the motives and actions of members of churches entitled to be heard in their own defense, before you condemn them publicly; and, according to your standard are "to be clearly proved guilty" before being condemned by you.

As you have sent your libels to the public, will you kindly send me a list of those to whom you have sent them, that I may send the truth, in order that equity may enter the judgment of the readers of your pamphlet in this case.

If your pamphlet is an index of your methods and practices, I beg to say, that the morals and ethics of the citizens of this Country will not be improved by your example or precept. You have no right to assail me as you have. Your word as a "preacher and teacher" may have some weight, and is liable to unjustly prejudice good people against me; especially, when you falsely assail me, and then suppress and withhold the facts which justify my action.

I demand a full and complete retraction from you of the libels which you have published against me; and, this I do not only in the interests of the Cause I represent as an officer and agent of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice; but also in the interest of truth and justice and fair dealing, and as my imperative right.

If Mr. Warszawiak desires to have me prove my accusations against him, or either of you think anything in this letter is untrue, then you are invited to bring the matters before the Courts in this City, and I will admit service of summons if they are left at my office, and will admit the authorship of this letter as my individual act.

In order that there may be no mistake let me say, Herman Warszawiak admitted to me, that he had gambled, "speculated" he termed it, at Weehawken. If he denies that he so confessed to me in his office March 17, 1897, he speaks falsely, and if he makes oath to his denial, he swears falsely.

By your rash and hasty conduct, you remind me of one of whom the Psalmist wrote. "He made a pit, and digged it, and is fallen into the ditch which he made." "His mischief shall return upon his own head, and his violent dealings shall come down upon his own pate." {Psalm 7:} 15, 16.

Permit me to offer a single {word of?} advice. Before you again denounce eminent citizens, {do look?} before you leap." "Prove all things, hold fast to that {which is?} good."

ANTHONY COMSTOCK.