Varley, Henry

Varley, Henry. The Case of Hermann Warszawiak. [Boston]: n.p., 1897.

“THE CASE OF HERMANN WARSZAWIAK.”

FROM THE PEN OF HENRY VARLEY.

Under a deep sense of responsibility I write you the results, up to date, of my investigation and inquiries concerning this remarkable man. I say remarkable, because I believe that his strong personality has had much to do with a case that bids fair to become, for interest, one of the most extraordinary of modern days. Already it reads like a romance, and certainly it cannot stop where it is, nor be shelved at its present stage.

Hermann Warszawiak came to England, or rather Scotland, about eight years since, and then proceeded to New York. About his early history I know but little. There is no reason, however, to doubt that he was brought to Christ and delivered from Judaism shortly before the time mentioned. Some friends in Scotland introduced him to Dr. Schauffler, who lost no time in engaging and identifying him with mission work to the Jews in connection with the New York City Mission.

Unfortunately for himself, and still more so for those who are under him, Dr. Schauffler is a “born autocrat,” and though for a time Hermann Warszawiak worked well in the subordinate position of an ordinary city mission servant, his natural gifts and personal adaptation to be himself a leader of men soon became apparent. The work in his hands grew with amazing rapidity. It is not to be wondered at. Herman Warszawiak is personally qualified for his work as a born leader of men (Jews especially). His success soon gave birth to serious trouble. So long as the wine did not overflow the skins of the New York City Mission bottles, matters went on with smoothness and a measure of peace and prosperity, but directly there was an overflow of the vintage such as the city mission could not contain, the old bottles were first strained and then burst.

That Hermann Warszawiak needed ballast is doubtless true, but that he should remain as an ordinary city missionary, the paid servant of the New York City Mission, was absurd on the

face of it. Dr. Schauffler, I regret to say, appears to be unable to measure or deal fairly with Warszawiak. As reasonably might the London City Mission have engaged the young man from Dublin (our Dr. Barnardo) for its ranks thirty years since, as a paid city missionary at eighty pounds a year, and expect to retain him as their servant, as for Dr. Schauffler to expect to retain Hermann Warszawiak as a lowly satellite to revolve in the small autocratic orbit of which Dr. Schauffler is the central sun. The young Jewish missionary brought much éclat and grist to the varying fortunes of the New York City Mission. So long as this continued the friction was not intense, but it existed. The striking personality of Hermann Warszawiak again and again interfered with the prominence of Dr. Schauffler. As a brilliant appendage of the New York City Mission constellation, he could be borne with. When, however, the young Jewish missionary, fretting necessarily, as any leader must have done, against the petty tyranny of the “born autocrat,” hinted at separation and an independent mission, a change came over the existing conditions and a tension arrived which could not bear the strain; therefore, after nearly five years' service, come the breach, and the separation which inevitably followed.

It must not be forgotten that so remarkable was the interest which gathered about Hermann Warszawiak that Dr. Schauffler wrote that “not for one thousand years has God shown such blessing to any one preaching to Jews as he has to our missionary, Hermann Warszawiak.” He further said, “Nowhere in the whole world can such a work among Jews be found as that of Hermann Warszawiak in our DeWitt Memorial Church.” This was very remarkable testimony. But at that time, the young Jewish missionary was under the patronage of Dr. Schauffler. He had received and engaged the young Jew for the work of the New York City Mission. Warszawiak had become the brightest star, in a very short time, of the whole staff of the Mission. Dr. Schauffler knew it, and valued the work highly as belonging to the New York City Mission.

For a long time Dr. Schauffler opposed this separation, but, as the sequel has shown, it would have been far better for all concerned had it taken place at least three years before. The case has now become one of the greatest scandals of modern times.

I here touch a point that is very painful to refer to. Dr. Burrell, one of the most prominent ministers of New York, said to me but a few days since, that though Dr. Schauffler is his friend he must bear this witness, that directly Warszawiak left the New York City Mission, he (Dr. Schauffler) said to him, “I will crush Warszawiak yet, and drive him out of this city.”

Dr. Burrell has been for many years one of the Board of Directors of the New York City Mission, and has been and is pained beyond measure at Dr. Schauffler's unceasing persecution of “the little Jew.” He said to me, “For myself, after much examination of the facts, and knowing Hermann Warszawiak intimately for eight years, I maintain that it is one of the worst cases of persistent and studied persecution that this generation has seen.” All kinds of suspicions involving the integrity of Warszawiak have been industriously circulated by Dr. Schauffler. Commissions at his instigation have been formed to try Warszawiak, but he was acquitted again and again. When the final end of his connection with the New York City Mission came, Dr. Schauffler was compelled to write of Hermann Warszawiak these words: “He has triumphantly shown that every penny he has received for his work under this board (the New York City Mission) has been accounted for.” To be free, however, from the New York City Mission was one thing; to be clear of Dr. Schauffler's persecutions was quite another. The result of the impending trial will be carefully watched and waited for. The case has now been taken out of the hands of the session in Dr. John Hall's Church. 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.

All through this travesty of a Court of Justice Dr. Schauffler has been the hidden working hand. It was money paid by his wealthy friend, Mr. Jessop, that hired the Jewish detectives, themselves gamblers, and one a criminal, to overshadow Hermann Warszawiak for twenty-four days. Their instructions were, “to unearth that missionary fraud.” For twenty-four consecutive days, as Dr. Schauffler himself told me, the detectives watched Warszawiak incessantly. Their false statements, made on oath, have been proved to be utterly untrue. The reports of “Hermann Warszawiak gambling in a notorious Longshoremen's gaming

house,” his being photographed there (no such photograph exists), and also admitting that be had been there, all is either absolutely false or unproved! but behind it stands Dr. Schauffler. He told me all these details as facts, but Dr. John Hall, the moderator at the trial, said, and had it placed on record, “The charges were not sustained.”

Dr. Burrell informed me that so soon as Hermann Warszawiak left the Mission, Dr. Schauffler determined he would crush him and his work. In proof of this it is a fact that steps were taken to form a new committee or board for Hermann Warszawiak's Jewish Mission in New York. Dr. John Hall consented to be the chairman. Dr. Burrell and quite a number of well-known ministers and gentlemen of New York consented to act as members of the new board. When the first meeting was summoned, a number were absent. The reason was sought for and found, viz., that Dr. Schauffler had, to use Dr. Burrell's words, “gone to a number of the board and persuaded them to withdraw their names.”

To illustrate the extraordinary character of these persecutions: Shortly before Hermann Warszawiak left the New York City Mission he received about eleven thousand dollars from Miss Douglas and other friends in Scotland. It was a mortal insult and offence to Dr. Schauffler that the Jewish missionary declined to hand over to the Mission this money. Warszawiak said what I should have said, “This money is given towards the amount needed to erect the new building for the Jews in New York.” This, of course, to the autocrat, meant that Warszawiak was contemplating an independent mission. It was rank rebellion, and Dr. Schauffler at once began to spread damaging reports and tell of Hermann Warszawiak living in luxury, extravagance, and going so far as to charge him with gambling. To suggest that, however, was but a part of Dr. Schauffler's tactics. He wrote to Scotland stating the same thing, and warning Miss Douglas and other friends against Warszawiak. So did he influence Miss Douglas that she stopped any further supplies, and wrote demanding account from Hermann Warszawiak of the amount of monies sent by her to him.

It was not an easy thing for Hermann Warszawiak to leave his work. It is a personal work, and he is singularly gifted to influence the Jews. When I went to his Mission, about three weeks

since, in company with my friend, John Robertson, of Glasgow, we found the place crowded with about two hundred Jews, and had difficulty in obtaining a seat. This was an ordinary mid-week meeting. It was not known that we were going to be present. Our brother Warszawiak was not aware of our presence. He was discoursing upon the gospel of Christ from the book of Numbers. His subject was, “The brazen serpent, representing the Lord Jesus, lifted up,” and in fluent Yiddish, alternated with striking English and German, he gave an admirable, careful, and precious statement of Truth. His sentences, fervent appeals, and prayers were full of power. Dr. Schauffler had told me the day before that Warszawiak's work was “dead,” but as I looked on with bent head I could but say, “This work is not dead, but full of life and power.”

We had thus quickly proved Dr. Schauffler's statement to be destitute of truth, and his words misleading and false.

Warszawiak was thus made aware that Dr. Schauffler had written to Miss Douglas. He therefore took an early passage to England, but so successfully had Dr. Schauffler poisoned the mind of this lady that for several days she declined even to receive Warszawiak.

An interview was at length granted. It will be long before those who were present will forget it. Hermann Warszawiak advanced to the table and placed before Miss Douglas the £2100 which he had received, with the vouchers, and the interest which had accumulated at the bank since he had it sent to him. Miss Douglas became greatly excited and overcome to find that she had been deceived by Dr. Schauffler. Not content with thus writing to Miss Douglas, directly Dr. Schauffler heard that Hermann Warszawiak had left New York he actually cabled to “The Christian,” of London, and also to Scotland, “Warszawiak, an impostor, escaped, taking a quantity of money with him. Warn others.” I never heard of anything more abominable. Well might Dr. Burrell say of the recent article in the “New York City Mission Monthly,” from Dr. Schauffler's pen, that Hermann Warszawiak had been condemned in five successive judicatories.” “This statement,” said Dr. Burrell, “is malignantly false from beginning to end.”

In four of the cases referred to, Warszawiak has been acquitted

from Dr. Schauffler's charges. They arose with him. In the fifth case, viz., the recent mockery of a trial, the majority of seven went into the case simply as Dr. Schauffler's partisans and friends. The minority of four (five including the moderator, Dr. John Hall) strongly held that the charges were not sustained. In a civil court there would have been no verdict. In this ecclesiastical court of injustice and oppression, Dr. Schauffler was temporarily successful. The recoil is, however, at hand! I have not the pleasure of the knowledge of more than a few of the brethren who compose the Presbytery of New York, to whom the case of Hermann Warszawiak is now carried on appeal, but I venture to hope that they will determine that Hermann Warszawiak shall have a fair, just and honest trial. If he is the incarnation of “deceit and hypocrisy,” the “liar through and through,” as Dr. Schauffler described him to me, all the more reasonable and just it is that he should have a fair trial. The case cannot possibly stop where it is.

Dr. Schauffler informed me that so strained are the relations at the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church, in consequence of the recent trial, that though the thirtieth anniversary of Dr. John Hall's ministry is due, the officers are practically at a deadlock, because of Dr. John Hall's “inexplicable conduct”; that “people are leaving the church,” and that “the existing conditions are very serious.” They certainly appear so to me, but not for Dr. John Hall. Those who know the facts must greatly honor him for the stand he has taken. His noble words placed on record, that “the charges were not sustained,” will live long in defence of the fundamental principle that “a man is innocent until he is clearly proved to be guilty.” Old Scotia's words, “not proven,” bespeak the quality alike of mercy and justice. That I am in the United States for such a time as this, I believe to be of God. I have no desire to turn aside for a moment from my work as a teacher and preacher, but when in England, a few weeks since, I was pressed to get, if possible, evidence either as to Hermann Warszawiak's guilt or innocence, I felt that I must act. Hence many inquiries have been made by me, and the result is this letter for both sides of the Atlantic. I have not found it possible to refrain from expressing sympathy with Herman Warszawiak. He may be wanting in loyalty to truth. Charges against him of dishonesty,

hypocrisy, and immorality have all been made. Seeing this is so, let them either be sustained and proved, or withdrawn. To keep on with this detestable persecution is simply disgraceful, and must recoil with terrific force upon its authors.

Take the latest example. I arrived in New York from Toronto on Saturday, Oct. 9, to take part in the Missionary Conference. On the following Thursday, Oct. 14th, I called upon Dr. Schauffler “regarding the case of Hermann Warszawiak.” He was out, but on Friday, the 15th, I called and saw him. I found him very communicative. He had, to use his own expression, “piles of evidence” against Warszawiak. He had all the links of the chain which bound “the little Jew,” as Dr. Burrell, in sympathy, called him. After that interview there was no room for me to doubt what the attitude of Dr. Schauffler was, nor as to who had forged the chains which held Warszawiak in terrible and temporary bonds. Anything more heartless I have never come in contact with. Dr. Schauffler's determination to “crush Warszawiak and drive him out of this city” was clearly revealed, and was painful in the extreme. I also had come in contact with it.

Now, mark! I had seen Dr. Schauffler on the 15th. While I was in his office a Presbyterian minister came in and brought what was called by Dr. Schauffler “very important but private information” relating to Hermann Warszawiak. This, Dr. Schauffler asked me not to mention for a few days. Now what was this information? Dr. Schauffler's friends had met in session that morning, and the verdict was that “the Session was unanimously sustained by the Commission.” I did not feel any particular interest in this minister's arrival, for I had not grasped the situation, but judge my surprise to find that Dr. Schauffler actually cabled to London on Saturday the, 16th, this decision. “The Christian” of Oct. 21 (London) has an article stating the case briefly against Hermann Warszawiak, and ends with the following: “Cablegram from America on Saturday (16th) states, `Session unanimously sustained by Commission.'“ Here again is fresh proof of the cruel and persistent persecution of Dr. Schauffler. Now let it be known that this cablegram was false. The Session was illegally called. When they met the question was railroaded through the house and came out both an unjust and illegal issue. It was done at the instigation of Dr. Schauffler and the illegal

issue was immediately cabled to London to checkmate Dr. John Hall, who, having seen Miss Douglas, gave his own reasons for declining to find Hermann Warszawiak guilty of the wretched and unjust charges brought against him in the Presbytery. Miss Douglas, as Dr. Schauffler told me, had within three weeks withdrawn her painful and strong words against Warszawiak. Dr. Schauffler was greatly incensed against Dr. Hall, and made no secret of it to me, but what can we think of a gentlemen who from the darkness of an unlawful assembly obtains a false issue and has it sent by cable to the columns of the London “Christian” and other parties. This statement, it appears to me, he must have known to be unconstitutional, illegal, and therefore false. The meeting at which any lawful result could have been given should have been held on the 25th; but, mark it! the issue was cabled on the 16th, and cabled at the instance of Dr. Schauffler.

Once more, in confirmation of what is now my strong conviction as to the terrible persecution Hermann Warszawiak has suffered for years at the hands of Dr. Schauffler, I may add that when for a short time, recently, Hermann Warszawiak went, at Dr. Burrell's suggestion, to preach to the Jews in St. Louis, Dr. Schauffler heard of this, and at once wrote to all the Presbyterian ministers of that city, warning them against Warszawiak. When Dr. J. H. Brookes received his letter he replied, asking Dr. Schauffler for facts to sustain his statements. He not only declined to send them, but in his reply asked Mr. Brookes to withhold his name as having written to him. I have Dr. Brookes' letters in my possession. Dr. Brookes, having made many and careful inquiries, wrote to Hermann Warszawiak a touching letter. It is full of tender sympathy and expresses his entire confidence in him. He says, “I have prepared a statement in vindication of you. It was crowded out in last month's issue, but will appear in the May number of “The Truth.”

My position in regard to Hermann Warszawiak is this: if he is guilty, let it be proved that he is so. If he has been followed for years with a spirit of persistent and unparalleled persecution, let this also come out. If Hermann Warszawiak is the incarnation of hypocrisy and wickedness that Mr. Schauffler says he is, he should be held responsible to make good the charges which he has made. The worse any man's character is, the stronger the

reason he should have fair play when he is tried. In the name of every instinct of righteousness and truth, to say nothing of mercy, such cases ought to have all available assistance and defence, consistent with right and truth. The position of a seriously charged man is bad enough surely, in any case. I was very much struck with the expressions which fell from the lips of the estimable Dr. Robinson, of New York City, one of the most prominent Presbyterian ministers, who, commenting upon the illegal character of the “hole and corner” commission, to which I have referred, and which is now exposed, said, “The Commission has no right to make a decision until they try the case, and they cannot try it until they grant the accused a hearing. Never, since Jesus Christ was tried, has such a thing been thought of as trying a man without a hearing. Both divine and common law forbid such a course.” Yet this was the course the Presbytery's Commission chose to take.

It is with great regret that I have cited the foregoing extraordinary series of facts which cover an extended period and go far beyond the time in which the New York City Mission had any control over Hermann Warszawiak. Dr. Schauffler cannot affect surprise that he is now face to face with what may truly be described as the harvest of his own protracted sowing. It was not possible that he should maintain for years this unceasing pathway of unjust persecution without being confronted as to the reasons, why this unmanly and unchristian course of conduct has been pursued. It is not only that Hermann Warszawiak's character is seriously involved, Dr. Schauffler's is still more so. I do not recall anything more painful than Mr. Jessop and Dr. Schauffler's plot to ruin Warszawiak, by means of hired Jew detectives who secretly overshadowed the Jewish missionary for twenty-four successive days. Such action is as far removed from the spirit of Christ as anything could be. It is simply appalling. Why this degrading business? Happily, the false and prejured testimony has been proved untrue.

Dr. Schauffler told me he had “piles of evidence.” “Enough to damn any man in Christendom.” If such was the case, in the name of common sense, why hire these Jew detectives to the same end? Dr. Schauffler's words, spoken to Dr. Burrell, come back with tremendous force, “I'll crush Warszawiak yet, and

drive him out of this city.” Dr. Schauffler cannot be surprised that he is confronted with his words and actions.

In conclusion, I give a distinct and emphatic denial to Dr. Schauffler's words as to the work in New York being either dead or closed up. The statement is utterly untrue. It will be readily seen that the difficulties which beset our brother, Hermann Warszawiak, have been enormous. That he has been able to stand for so long against these persistent persecutions, backed as they have been with money and position, is wonderful. But he lives and his work prospers. Just before this scandalous report and mockery of a trial began, Dr. John Hall and some other ministers baptized nearly fifty Jews into the faith of Christ, in the mission of our brother in Grand Street. I cannot express my sense of gratitude to God for enabling me thus to stand for the defence of this remarkable man, and more so because of the character of God's work among the Jews in New York which our brother is so admirably fitted to carry on. I earnestly ask friends in England, Scotland, and elsewhere to send immediate aid for this work. Hundreds of the Jews are very poor and it is impossible to meet the need of this Mission without the offerings and gifts of God's people. I shall stay in the Eastern side of the United States for some months.

My headquarters will be at No. 7 Tremont Place, Boston, Mass. Moneys sent to me for Hermann Warszawiak's Mission will be gratefully received, acknowledged, and forwarded at once, or it may be sent direct to him at the Bible House, or No. 30 St. Mark's Place, New York City. I shall keep in constant touch with our brother and shall not fail to deal with Dr. Schauffler and his statements for time to come.

Yours sincerely

HENRY VARLEY.

__________________________

PROVIDENCE, R. I., Nov. 6, 1897.

Since the foregoing was written and after the article in Watchword and Truth for October appeared, Mr. Morris K. Jessup who hired the Jew detective agents, sent me a letter in which he asked me to read a document referring to the case of Herman Warszawiak. In that letter was enclosed for my perusal the sworn affidavit of Mr. Anthony Comstock. After carefully

reading both letter and affidavit, I replied to Mr. Jessop in the letter which I now append. I may add that Dr. Patterson has at last been appointed to be Herman Warszawiak's counsel. He writes me, that having very carefully gone through all the evidence given at the session at Dr. John Hall's, he has no doubt that his client will be completely vindicated. Dr. Patterson is a well-known Presbyterian minister at Harlem, N. Y. He would not stand an hour for Warszawiak had he in the twelve hundred and twenty pages of evidence in his possession, come in contact with really conclusive proofs of the truth of the charges brought against him. Dr. Patterson is shrewd and clear-headed and he distinctly states that no such proof exists. I need hardly say that we await the issue with deep interest. Meanwhile Warszawiak's work goes on as can well be supposed with a good deal of difficulty. I should be glad if friends in England, Scotland and the United States would write to and sympathize practically with Dr. Pattison. His address is 1770 Madison Avenue, New York City. I am profoundly thankful to God for bringing him to the front for Hermann Warszawiak's defence.

I may add that I possess certain letters which I am not desirous to publish at present. They go to show how many hearsay statements have been received and made, and then when the persons concerned were asked to confirm their words they would not do so, but went behind and took refuge in the statements of some other person. Of all whom I have asked, only one professed to be an eye witness, and he is a man whose testimony I could not accept, his personal character and conduct alike forbid the reception of the same.

__________________________

BOSTON, MASS., Nov. 25, 1897.

To MORRIS K. JESSUP, Esq.

My dear Sir,—The pressure of public work has prevented me answering your kind and courteous letter more promptly. I heartily reciprocate the friendly spirit contained therein, and, though I do not at this distance of time recall knowledge of yourself personally, your name has long been known to me.

My position in regard to Herman Warszawiak is this: If he be “the forger,” “gambler,” “immoral man,” and “liar through and

through,” that Dr. Schauffler affirmed him to me to be, then by all means let him have fair play when he is tried. It is painful enough, surely, to be charged with all this, but it is still worse that when he is tried he should be denied counsel, have evidence in his favour rejected, witnesses in his behalf denied a hearing, and many other unjust things done in a court which has assuredly earned for itself a most unenviable reputation.

Take one example: Dr. Burrell tells me that when the Weehauken gambling house case came up, Warszawiak asked that the Session would at once appoint a committee to go with him and see the proprietor of the house and any others who could be found there, in order to Warszawiak's indentification. This was instantly denied him. Then three gentlemen, including Dr. Burrell, went to Weehauken with Herman Warszawiak, and, as Dr. Burrell states, the most positive and conclusive statements were made to them that Warszawiak had never once been seen in the house.

Dr. Patterson says that no photograph of Warszawiak being taken in the act of gambling exists; that the picture of Weehauken longshore gambling den exists, that is all. There is no picture of Warszawiak. How comes it that Anthony Comstock said that he had Warszawiak's picture “right here in my pocket”? Mr. Comstock states also that he said to Warszawiak, “I came to ask if you will help our society to close up this Monte Carlo at Weehauken.” Warszawiak said, “I know nothing about gambling over there.” Now Mr. Comstock desires the readers of his statement, made on oath, to believe that which he affirms. But what about Mr. Comstock's statement that “he had come to get Herman Warszawiak's help to close the gambling den”? The truth is Anthony Comstock came to charge Warszawiak with gambling, at your instance! Mr. Comstock does not appear to have more regard for truth than he evidently wishes his readers to believe that Warszawiak has. Again, how could Anthony Comstock speak of the papers received by him as facts and as dependable evidence? The morals and ethics of the New York private detective system I do not understand. It would seem that the words of God are indeed fulfilled, “Truth is fallen in the street and equity cannot enter.” Isa. lix. 14. 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.

This whole business of “the hired Jew detectives” has been a most painful and disastrous one. I am at a loss to know how you could reconcile such action with the spirit of Christ. I am not defending any wrong which Warszawiak can be proved to have been guilty of. That is not my position. I was asked in England to inquire into this case. Had it been any other man (yes, any other man charged with similar crimes and wrongs) I would stand as strongly for defence in his case as in that of our brother Warszawiak's.

The cruel and persistent spirit of persecution revealed to me by Dr. Schauffler in my interview with him I can never forget. Before me, e.g., lies a letter signed by Dr. Schauffler in which he says of Warszawiak, in regard to the 2,200 for the Synagogue Fund, “I told him that if he insisted on carrying out his plans and would not account for that money, I would publish him from Dan to Beersheba.” (The italics are mine. H. V.)

How Dr. Schauffler has carried that out we know. Personal visits by himself as far as Warsaw and Amsterdam, “setting the detective police at work,” as he himself told me, adding “that any money costs involved would be met by the New York City Mission.” Then the cablegram to Scotland and London at Dr. Schauffler's instance, “Warszawiak an imposter, escaped, taking a quantity of money with him. Warn others.” Then his unpardonable silence in regard to this when I saw him. My conviction is that if this had happened in England an action for Criminal Libel would have been amply sustained.

In this same letter which lies before me, and bears Dr. Schauffler's signature, he refers to the formation of a responsible committee of “the American Mission to the Jews,” with Dr. Hall as president. But he adds, “matters went badly and Drs. Parkhurst, Stimson, Virgin, Davies, Elmwood and Founce resigned.” Now, Dr. Burrell states “that Dr. Schauffler went to these gentlemen and persuaded them to withdraw.” Things might well go badly, and Dr. Burrell might truly add, “directly Dr. Schauffler knew that Warszawiak intended a separate mission he told him `I'll crush him yet and drive him out of the city.'“

How could I have confidence in Dr. Schauffler? He told me

himself, “Warszawiak's work was dead.” This I proved to be absolutely untrue. Then he withheld from me the knowledge of the shameful cablegram sent at his instance to Scotland and England. The recent statement made in the New York “Mission Journal” as to five judicatories finding Warszawiak guilty, Dr. Burrell says is “malignantly false.” I am simply appalled at the whole case. I cannot understand how as a Christian man and a fellow member of Warszawiak in Dr. John Hall's church you could hire these detectives to overshadow “the little Jew” for twenty-four days. It looks like digging a pit for a brother, and now those who dug it are in it themselves and covered with mire. You cannot be surprised that God is rousing up many to protest against these unchristian tactics. Dr. Schauffler cannot shut his eyes to the enthusiastic statements which he wrote in regard to Warszawiak and his work before and when he left the Mission.

Take again, Anthony Comstock's testimony, he says to Warszawiak in regard to the Weehauken gambling den. These are his words: “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.” Now this list of charges 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.

Now had this gentleman desired to act justly by Hermann Warszawiak, he should have cautioned him as to the intention of his visit.

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. Anthony Comstock appears to he a law to himself, and did not hesitate to make these charges on 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.

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. These are his words to Warszawiak, “I came to ask if you will help our society to close up this Monte Carlo at Weehauken,” and again, “Will you help our society to close this den by giving the names of the parties who are running the place or the names of the dealers?” This may be described as smart but it was not the truth. The intention was very obvious. It was all done on purpose to incriminate Warszawiak. If such are the ethics which belong to New York detective agencies, then I for one decline to receive such statements without very serious misgivings as to their truth. I do not believe that a jury could be found in England who would listen to such statements, much less receive them as fact, or as proof of any man's guilt.

Dr. Burrell said to me, “The intention was when Warszawiak left the New York City Mission that both he and his work should fail.” The wonder to me is, as I look over the unjust and persistent series of persecuting attacks made upon Hermann Warszawiak, that he and his work have survived, and to my mind it is strong presumptive evidence that the God of Israel is with “the little persecuted Jew,” as Dr. Burrell described him. He shall not be left alone.

There are several things which I cannot at present understand and for which I am seeking the truth. This I cannot help adding, however, that the extraordinary difficulties through which Hermann Warszawiak has had to pass by reason of these incessant persecutions would have ruined the reputation and fairly crushed ninety-nine men out of a hundred. Had I found him a degraded outcast, a gambler, an immoral man, and a liar through and through, down in the lowest strata of New York's social life, I could not have been surprised. It certainly has not been the fault of persistent persecutors that he is not there. Thank God he has not been utterly crushed.

I was glad to notice that the recent meeting of the Presbytery of New York showed in some of its members signs of an awakening to a sense of justice in this matter. I am quite willing to correspond and hear what you have to say; but nothing, in my judgment, could justify the course of conduct which has been followed in this case. I would rejoice to be convinced that the Presbyterian Synod can deal justly in this matter. Party spirit and the tumultuous

condition of the Presbytery, as recently portrayed in the accounts given in the New York Tribune and other papers, argue improbability for justice, truth, and right, to have sway. I wish the case could be heard in some Civil Court where party passion and persecution should be effectually shut out. I very much regret that Anthony Comstock should have acted as he has done. His testimony has lost its value to me 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. The exemplary principle of English and, as I supposed until recently, American law, that “every man is to he regarded as innocent until he is clearly proved guilty” surely should not be trodden under foot.

Believe me always, yours sincerely,

HENRY VARLEY.

__________________________

SOME FINAL WORDS TO DATE.

The readers of the foregoing statements will not be surprised that I have found it absolutely necessary to bring into the light of day this extraordinary case. The recent unjust and illegal decision on the part of the commission yields abundant justification for my action, if such should be thought necessary. By conference and much correspondence with Dr. Pattison, I am confirmed in my conviction that in no other way could the platform be cleared in order to a righteous and just decision in this matter. I have in my possession copies of the appeal, just sent by Hermann Warszawiak to the Presbytery of New York, and to the higher court, the Synod. More than twenty citations are given showing serious violation of the constitutional laws of the Presbyterian Church, in relation to cases of discipline, permitted in the recent trial held at the Fifth Avenue Church.

To such lengths did the counsel for the prosecution go, that one minister who was present assured me that the overbearing and “browbeating” tactics adopted against the esteemed moderator, Dr. John Hall, were painful in the extreme to hear and be an eyewitness of.

If any apology be needed for the unusual course taken in publishing my reply to Mr. Jessop, it must be found in the extraordinary character of this case, and that many of my readers in England, Scotland, and elsewhere desire information. Without question, strong grounds exist for suspending judgment until the case of Hermann Warszawiak has been justly and fairly tried. Up to date this has not been done. The contention on our part is that it should be.

BOSTON, MASS., Dec. 7, 1897.