New York City Mission and Tract Society. Answer by the New York City Mission and Tract Society to Certain Unfounded Charges Made Against It in the Matter of Hermann Warszawiak. [New York:] n.p., 1897?
ANSWER BY THE New York City Mission and Tract Society To Certain Unfounded Charges Made Against It IN THE MATTER OF HERMANN WARSZAWIAK.
[1]
UNITED CHARITIES BUILDING, TWENTY-SECOND ST. AND FOURTH AVE., NEW YORK CITY.
A Directors' Meeting of the New York City Mission and Tract Society was held on the morning of December 13, 1897, at which there were present the following gentlemen, namely:
Alexander Maitland, Vice-President, in the Chair;
Ambrose K. Ely, Secretary;
Stephen Baker, Treasurer;
J. Cleveland Cady, Rev. A. H. Evans, D.D., pastor of the West Presbyterian Church; Walter T. Miller, Andrew Mills, Constant A. Andrews, Rev. Howard Duffield, D.D., pastor of the First Presbyterian Church; Joel E. Fisher, Rev. H. T. McEwen, D.D., pastor of the 14th Street Presbyterian Church; John E. Parsons, Arthur H. Scribner and Henry S. Wilson.
The notices calling the meeting contained an especial note saying that a resolution would be presented about the matter of Mr. Warszawiak. The unusual number of fourteen members was present. Mr. M. K. Jesup, the President, was confined at home by illness.
Mr. John E. Parsons offered for adoption, by the Board, a resolution or minute of which the following is a copy:
In view of the misstatements that have been made about our former relations with and our action in reference to Hermann Warszawiak, the New York City Mission and Tract Society feels called upon to make the following statement:
Warszawiak's former employment by the Society and the confidence which might be put in him in consequence, required that we should ascertain the truth of charges involving his moral character, to the end that if we were satisfied that such charges were justified, we might relieve ourselves from responsibility by giving the necessary caution. We approve and commend the action of Dr. Schauffler in his investigation of these charges and in the efforts which he has made to determine their truth.
2
We avail ourselves of the occasion to express the thanks of the Society to Mr. Jesup, our President, for the investigation into Warszawiak's conduct which was made by him. That investigation was made entirely of his own volition and at his own expense. The assertion that has been made that the Society was at the expense either of telegraphic messages sent by Dr. Schauffler, or of the investigation made by Mr. Jesup, is untrue. The Society has been at no expense whatever in either of these matters.
We are convinced, by inquiry and investigation, that Warszawiak's statements cannot be relied upon and that his moral character is not such as to fit him for the missionary work in which he has been engaged.
This statement has no relation to his case before the Presbytery of New York. We, as a Society, have taken no part in that case, recognizing that it should be left to be dealt with by the appropriate authorities of the Church. Our object is to confirm the action of Mr. Jesup and of Dr. Schauffler, and to state formally our judgment about Warszawiak for the information of those who have the right to know the opinion which, after the most careful examination, we entertain about him and about his work.
Before offering the resolution, Mr. Parsons stated that it had been his hope that any relation of Warszawiak to City Missions, and any necessity for further consideration of his case, had long since been at an end. He spoke further substantially as follows:
“Recently, however, statements about the Society and its officers, by him and by others who have taken up his case have been made, which compel us either to acquiesce in their truth or to put upon record what the facts really are.
“In the number for September and October, 1897, of The Watchword and Truth, appeared a long letter from Mr. Henry Varley about the Warszawiak case. It is prefaced by an editorial statement the concluding sentence of which is:
“`It seems extraordinary to think a Christian would be imitating Christ when hiring detectives to shadow a minister of the Gospel. How shocking!'
“The reference is to Mr. Jesup.
“The summing up of Mr. Varley's letter is in its concluding sentence, which reads:
3
“`The Board of the New York City Mission is at last awaking to the fact that its money and strength should not be spent for cable messages, to the overshadowing of Christian workers by “hired detectives.” It is certainly time that this business was exposed and put an end to.'
“A semblance of support for this statement might be thought to be found in the fact that Mr. Varley, in a succeeding pamphlet published for distribution by him, refers as his informant to a gentleman whom he names, and whom he describes as `for many years one of the Board of Directors of the New York City Mission.'
“A word first about the use of detectives. Long before they were employed in this case, there was entertained by many persons the belief that Warszawiak visited improper houses. I appeal to any fair-minded person to say whether it was possible that this should be investigated except by the aid of persons employed for the purpose. Mr. Jesup could not go to a gambling house to learn whether it was visited by Warszawiak. He would not be admitted if he went. Dr. Schauffler could not go. The same is true of the other members of the Board. But one course is possible in such a case, and that is the employment of some one to ascertain what the fact is. Those who criticise the employment of detectives must be prepared to sustain the position, that, rather than that the truth shall be learned through their instrumentality, a person suspected of immoral conduct shall be permitted to pursue his evil course. I am not now considering the reliance that shall be placed upon the testimony of detectives. Whether a person shall be convicted upon their uncorroborated statements involves very different considerations.
“I think that it is due to Mr. Jesup, who has been assailed in the manner above stated, that we shall say whether we approve or condemn his action. I am confident that neither he nor Dr. Schauffler, who is also referred to in the summing up of Mr. Varley's indictment, would wish the Board to take the proposed action out of mere personal regard for them. If, upon full consideration, we are of the opinion that Warszawiak has been proven to be guilty of immoral conduct, and that the proof has come
4
from the action of Mr. Jesup and Dr. Schauffler, I think that this Society should commend them. I think that we should commend them for their effort to ascertain the truth without reference to the result. If their investigation had established the falsity of the charges against Warszawiak, neither he nor his friends would complain.
“To the specific charge made against the Society that `its money and strength have been spent for cable messages and to the overshadowing of Christian workers by hired detectives,' and that `we are awaking to the fact that this should not be,' our answer is that the charge, in whole and in part, is absolutely untrue. Not one penny of our money has been spent for any such purpose. The Society has taken no action of any kind in the matter.
“One object of the proposed resolution is to repudiate the assumption, on whosesoever authority made, that we disapprove the action of Mr. Jesup and Dr. Schauffler.
“To Mr. Varley's letter Mr. Jesup addressed an answer to him personally. After a considerable delay, a reply was received. This reply has now been published by Mr. Varley in pamphlet form, prefaced by a long statement, one purpose of which is to vindicate Warszawiak from the charge that he has visited a gambling house.
“Much of the defence of Warszawiak by his friends consists in an arraignment of his trial by the Session of Dr. Hall's church. With criticisms upon that trial we have nothing to do. The question which concerns us is whether the testimony elicited, coupled with other evidence, establishes that Warszawiak has been a visitor of a gambling place, and is the immoral person whom we have asserted him to be.
“Perhaps I should state, in a general way, what was the nature of the testimony before Dr. Hall's Session, as shown by the voluminous stenographic report. It consisted, first, of evidence furnished by the detectives that Warszawiak was in the habit of visiting a gambling resort at Weehawken, opposite the Forty-second Street ferry, for gambling. This was supplemented by the testimony of Mr. Anthony Comstock, that Warszawiak had
5
confessed to him that he was a gambler and that he did visit the Weehawken place.
“Upon the trial, Warszawiak offered his own testimony in refutation of the evidence for the prosecution. He then offered as a witness the Rev. Dr. Burrell, to prove that Dr. Burrell had seen a son of Leonard the gambler, and that Leonard the younger had assured him that Warszawiak was never in the place. Of course, such testimony is hearsay and inadmissable. It is difficult to repress a sense of amusement at the credulity which would believe that a gambler would admit that Warszawiak had been in the place. It may be assumed that, if the inquiry had been pushed, the gambler would have denied that the place was used for gambling at all. In an affidavit that was made by the younger Leonard, to which I shall presently refer, he was careful to speak of the place as a `club house.'
“Following the offer of Dr. Burrell's testimony was a proposal by Warszawiak to read this affidavit. It was verified before a notary public on May 27, 1897. Warszawiak stated upon the trial that it was written by his lawyer. It was rejected by the Session upon the obvious ground that he should have produced Leonard, Jr., himself, as a witness, so that he might be subjected to cross-examination. The affidavit, although not in evidence, was introduced by Warszawiak into his summing up. In it Leonard, Jr., says:
“`I know, of my own knowledge, that he (Warszawiak) was never in said club house during the months of February and March, 1897.' `That he could not get near enough to the entrance to look in and see what was going on without being admitted.'
“The object of this statement was to make it appear that not only had Warszawiak not visited the place, but that it was impossible for him to do so without being `admitted,' that is to say, without his being known and being permitted to enter. Unless a man is an habitué or is vouched for, the doors of such an establishment are closed to him. If this were not known it is established by the affidavit of Leonard.
“Leonard's denial is used by Mr. Varley in his pamphlet in
6
support of his statement that Warszawiak was never in the place. Mr. Varley says:
“`Then three gentlemen, including Dr. Burrell, went to Weehawken with Hermann 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.
“If Warszawiak were in the place; if he were where he could see what was going on, his denial was untrue and, in obtaining a sworn statement from Leonard, Jr., to the contrary, he was guilty of an offence similar to subornation of perjury. I do not mean the legal offence which is described by that term. Remember that the affidavit was prepared by a lawyer. He knew that Leonard, Jr., might swear to anything that he chose, true or false, and that it did not constitute legal perjury. The affidavit was not made in a judicial proceeding. Doubtless Leonard, Jr., knew this. If he did not, Warszawiak's lawyer was at hand to inform him. His affidavit could not be the subject of a criminal prosecution.
“You will see, therefore, that upon his trial there was squarely presented the inquiry whether Warszawiak had visited the gambling place; whether he had been near enough to the entrance to look in and see what was going on. If such was the fact his denial was untrue.
Mr. Comstock says that Warszawiak confessed to him that he had visited the place. I believe Mr. Comstock's testimony, but I put it on one side for the time being. Let it go. The witness by whose evidence I expect to prove that Warszawiak visited the place he himself will not discredit.
“The detectives testified that Warszawiak visited the place. I am willing to reject their testimony except in so far as it is corroborated. The corroboration is by a witness whose testimony Warszawiak cannot gainsay or deny.
“The witness is Warszawiak himself. He swore upon the trial before Dr. Hall's Session that on one occasion he had visited the place; that he had been where he could see what was going on, not only in the building, but in the gambling room. You may wonder why Warszawiak should give this testimony. The
7
reason is not difficult to find. He believed that it could be proved conclusively that on one occasion he had visited the place. As to every other visit it was a question of veracity between him on the one side and Mr. Comstock and the detectives on the other. But as to one occasion, and that an occasion happening in the month of February, he was satisfied that the proof against him was conclusive. He was forced, therefore, upon the trial, to make the admission. In reference to this he testified:
“(P. 478) `From curiosity I just opened the door and looked in, following with the people. I just peeked into that room for a minute.'
“He could not do this unless he was `admitted.'
“(P. 481) `Never was more there than that one time looking into the room.'
“(P. 558) `I really can't remember if I went in or put my head in.'
(P. 559) `I was curious to know what it was. I entered a little to see what it was.'
“Thus he confirmed, not contradicted, the testimony of Mr. Comstock. He corroborated the evidence of the detectives. He proved the case against himself.
“Perhaps you will wish to know what explanation Warszawiak gave for his visit. His explanation was that, shortly before his visit, a man had appeared at his meeting who stated that he was about to go to St. Louis; he was a stranger; Warszawiak thought that it would be a good idea to employ him as a spy upon the Rev. Mr. Lichtenstein, whom he had left in charge of his mission work at St. Louis; as the man was to leave by the West Shore Railroad, Warszawiak thought he would like to see him off; by mistake he got upon the wrong ferry; upon reaching Weehawken he learned of his mistake, but instead of returning or going to the station of the West Shore Railroad, which he was told was about a mile distant, he followed a crowd of people and, by a second mistake, found himself in the gambling place; being there his curiosity overcame him; and he made the third mistake of looking to see what was going on. Naturally he can give no account of the
8
man whom, he says, he went across the river to see. He has never seen him since. He denied that while he was at the gambling place he gambled.
“A celebrated English judge, many years ago, used an expression about this sort of explanation, the truth of which has been universally accepted. A man was proved to have been in an improper house. He claimed to be there innocently. The judge, in supporting his opinion that it was to be assumed that a person found in such a house was there because of its character, said: `A man does not go to a house of prostitution to say his prayers.'
“His visit to the place was bad enough. But the case against him is aggravated to the last degree by his procuring the false affidavit of Leonard and by the use that he made of it.
“Warszawiak showed in the trial a degree of ingenuity which was to be expected. It not unfrequently happens, however, that such persons overreach themselves. It is the affidavit which he himself produced, coupled with his own testimony, which shows that he was an `admitted' visitor to a gambling hell.
“I come now to a second point against Warszawiak. Remember that we are not concerned about the manner of Warszawiak's trial. That is a matter to be dealt with by the appropriate tribunals of the Church. The complaints about it which are made by Warszawiak and his supporters verify the old legal maxim that, when you have no case pitch into the attorney for the other side. Warszawiak's object is to divert attention from the charge against himself by an indictment of the mode in which his trial was conducted. What concerns us is the question whether he deserved condemnation.
“The second point is his refusal to give an account of the Scotch Christ's Synagogue money. It is well known that there was collected in Scotland a considerable sum—which came out to him to be used in the erection of what he called `Christ's Synagogue.' The prosecutor on the trial before Dr. Hall's Session endeavored to obtain from him an account of this money, and more particularly tried to have him show his bank deposit book and the account which it would give of the money.
9
Warszawiak refused upon the ground that an account of that money was not included in the charges against him. I do not concern myself with the question whether he was, or was not, called upon to give the account.
“He recognized that his refusal ought to prejudice his case. In his summing up (p. 1182) he said:
“`I admit now I cannot make it clear, as you all would want to make it clear. It is impossible. I would have to go to Europe to lay my hands on the funds.'
And so he did undertake to give an account.
“As part of his summing up he produced a receipt dated October 3, 1894, from the National Bank of Scotland for account of Miss Douglas, the Scottish treasurer of the Christ's Synagogue Fund. It showed that at that date the money was returned by him to her. He said further (p. 1180): `She (Miss Douglas) has always had it (the fund) under her control.'
“There is a mode of falsification which is thought to be more reprehensible, if anything, than the statement of an untruth. It is the wilful suppression of the truth. I read to you a notarial copy of a letter from Warszawiak to Miss Douglas. This letter Warszawiak suppressed.
“`New York, July 4, 1895.
“`Miss C. Y. Douglas, “`Edinburgh, Scotland.
“`Dear Friend: Herewith I acknowledge the receipt of the sum of two thousand one hundred and seventy-five pounds sterling (£2,175), the amount I have given you to take care of on the 3d of October, 1894, for the “Christ's Synagogue” Fund, and one hundred and twenty-five pounds sterling in addition for the same fund, making in all, two thousand and four hundred pounds sterling (£2,400).
Yours sincerely, (Signed) “`HERMANN WARSZAWIAK.'
“Do I need to say more?
“It is a source of sincere regret to me that Dr. Burrell and Dr. Hall have not attended this meeting. They, and perhaps Mr. Andrews, Warszawiak's former treasurer of the American Mission to the Jews, one of our members, have supported Warszawiak. It has never seemed to me that to a plain,
10
straightforward, dispassionate statement of the case against him there can be any answer. It was in the hope that they would attend the meeting that notice of the object was sent to them. If Dr. Burrell can say anything by way of explanation or answer, it is unfortunate that he was not willing to come and say it.” _________________________
Later in the meeting Mr. Andrews said that from the time that Warszawiak, while in the service of the American Mission to the Jews, had refused to recognize the authority of the Society, or to account to it, he had not supported Warszawiak; that, while he had felt a certain amount of sympathy for him, he had been ignorant of the facts as disclosed in Mr. Parsons' statement; and that, knowing the case now as it was, he voted for the resolution.
After some discussion in which Mr. Miller, the Rev. Dr. Duffield and other members of the Board took part, the resolution was unanimously adopted. _________________________
The following Directors, who were unable to be at the meeting in which the above resolutions were adopted, have sent to the office their personal approval of it:
Rev. Roderic Terry, D.D., Pastor of the South Reformed Church; C. M. Jesup, Frank A. Ferris, E. F. Browning, C. C. Cuyler. Two more of the Directors are not in the State at the present time. |