Ind.?L, 1844 Early Protestant-Catholic Relations in Southern Indiana and the 1842 Case ‘Of Roman Weinzaepfel

Home , Martin John Spalding

Evansville, [Ind.?l, 1844 Early Protestant-Catholic Relations in Southern Indiana and the 1842 Case ‘of Roman Weinzaepfel

C. Walker Gollar“

In the late 1830s rumors spread that two Catholic priests in Kentucky had sexually assaulted several young women. In May 1836 Presbyterian editor Nathan Lewis Rice claimed that David Alexan- der Deparcq, a chaplain of a Catholic girls’ school in Calvary, Ken- tucky, had seduced and then abducted a female penitent. A year later in nearby Lexington an anonymous Protestant writer charged another Catholic clergyman, Edward McMahon, with lewd behavior toward the schoolgirls under his care. Neither charge was brought before a court though both accusations enlivened public conversation for some time. In order to explain the anti-Catholic climate that may have advanced these kinds of allegations, historians of the Protestant crusade have chronicled widespread fear of European Catholic immi- gration, as well as more specific suspicion directed at the growing number of Catholic schools.’ Yet another, largely unexplored, incident suggests a different interpretation. On May 6, 1842, a priest in Evansville, Indiana, was formally charged with rape of a female penitent. The subsequent trial gained national attention. Most earlier com- mentators, as well as more recent accounts of the story, describe the priest as a victim of “a deep-set hatred of Catholics, existing all over the ~ountry.”~A reexamination of the circumstances surrounding the case, however, identifies more personal motives and qualifies the claim that anti-Catholic bigotry was widespread. Catholics were few in southwestern Indiana before the 1840s. In the summer of 1836 the Indiana state legislature had picked Evansville as the southern terminus of a four-hundred-mile canal

:T. Walker Gollar is assistant professor of theology, Xavier University, Cincin- nati, Ohio. 1 Ray Allen Billington, The Protestant Crusade, 1800-1860 (New York, 19381, 32-52; Agnes Geraldine McGann, “Nativism in Kentucky to 1860”(M.A. thesis, Catholic University of America, 19441, 1-28; and W. Darrell Overdyke, The Know-Nothing Party in the South (1950; reprint, Gloucester, Mass., 19681, 1-15; and C. Walker Gol- lar, “The Alleged Abduction of Milly McPherson and Catholic Recruitment of Pres- byterian Girls,” Church History, LXV (December 1996), 596-608. 2 Herman Alerding, History ofthe Catholic Church in the Diocese of Vincennes (Indianapolis, 1883), 505. This same explanation was offered in the Louisville Catholic Aduocate, November 21, 1895, and repeated by William F. Timmermeyer, William F. Timmermeyer, “The Rev. Fbmain Weinzaepfel [sic]: An Incident in American Nativism” (M.A. thesis, Catholic University of America, 1973).

INDIANA MAGAZINE OF HISTORY, XCV (September, 1999). 0 1999, Trustees of Indiana University 234 Indiana Magazine of History system planned to connect Lake Erie to the Ohio River. Immigrants flooded into southern Indiana, with the initial population of five hundred or so residents in Evansville increasing four times over within the next four years, and most of the newcomers were Protestants. But immediately after his consecration in 1834 the first Catholic bishop of Vincennes, Simon Brute, proposed to establish the Catholic faith in the area in part by converting nearly all of the unchurched to Catholicism. In the summer of 1837 he sent Anthony Deydier, a forty-one-year-old newly ordained priest, to Evansville, where he found only two Catholic families, both of German descent. The nation- wide financial crisis later that same year put a hold on plans for the canal and crippled most Evansville businesses, but it did not squelch Deydier’s fervor. Undoubtedly relying in part on money from Protes- tants, he began construction for the first Catholic edifice in Evansville, laying the cornerstone for the Church of the Assumption on August 5, 1840. Then he traveled to the east coast to raise funds to complete the pr~ject.~ Deydier left an inexperienced priest named Roman Weinzaepfel in charge. Weinzaepfel had been recruited from France by Celestin Rene Laurent Guynemer de la Hailandiere, the second bishop of Vin- cennes. Upon his arrival in Indiana on October 23, 1839, Weinza- epfel had asked that his ordination be postponed for two years so that he could learn English and seek a cure for his migraine headaches. But Hailandiere turned down this request, explaining that he des- perately needed Weinzaepfel’s service^.^ Weinzaepfel was ordained on April 5, 1840, a few days before his twenty-seventh birthday, at St. Francis Xavier Cathedral. The following evening one wall of the church collapsed moments after Weinzaepfel had left, and he thus cel- ebrated his first mass on April 7 before a side altar in the partially destroyed building. On April 9 he was sent to Evansville to assist Deydier. At first Weinzaepfel resided with Michael Bymes, a young Irish teacher who had been recruited from the East by Deydier, in a

3 Protestant churches in Evansville included Walnut Street Presbyterian (1821), Trinity Methodist Episcopal (1821), Liberty General Baptist (1824),and St. Paul’s Protestant Episcopal (1835). In his history of Evansville, James E. Morlock stated that the city’s population in 1832 numbered 314. The figure of 500 in 1836 is my own estimate based on the broader demographics cited by Morlock and by Joseph P. Elliott in his history of Evansville. The 1840 census shows a population of 2,100. James E. Morlock, The Evansville Story: A Cultural Interpretation, (1956; rev. ed., Evansville, Ind., 19811, 50; Joseph P. Elliott, A History of Evansville and Vanderburgh County, Indiana (Evansville, Ind., 1897), 237-79. Protestants certainly had helped to build many Catholic churches, including the Bardstown Cathedral across the river in Ken- tucky. For BrutB‘s intentions see Theodore Maynard, The Reed and the Rock: Por- trait of Simon Brut6 (New York, 1942), 205. 41n 1847 Hailandiere resigned his bishopric in large part because many priests of the diocese disliked his autocratic style. An example of this style was Hailandikre’s refusal to allow Weinzaepfel to acclimate himself to the United States before his ordination. Had this favor been granted, the subsequent troubles might have been avoided. Early Protestant-Catholic Relations 235

detached, dilapidated summer kitchen on property belonging to one of Deydier’s converts, a former Lutheran named William Heinrich. After the kitchen’s roof began to collapse, Weinzaepfel and Byrnes slept at the school. Weinzaepfel was not altogether popular among the small clus- ters of Catholics that he visited. His vast missionary district extend- ed from the Ohio River to Vincennes and across the Wabash River into Illinois. Especially in Evansville, according to Deydier, Weinzaepfel’s principles “were found too austere for some individuals of the congregation, who, perhaps, had not a very high sense of their religious duties.” At least twice while hearing confessions Weinzaepfel withheld abso- lution (that is, remission of guilt for sin), convinced that the peni- tents had not yet thoroughly examined their consciences. As was true of many of the other French exiles who had served as Kentucky’s first priests, Weinzaepfel’s European Catholic rigor did not suit the generally looser pioneer lifestyle of southern Indiana. In fact, his harsh standards provoked ill will from Catholics and Protestants alike, and some of them soon became Weinzaepfel’s enemie~.~ His greatest challenge arose out of encounters with a young penitent named Anna Maria Schmoll. Born Anna Maria Long in Ger- many in 1819, she had come with her family to Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1840. Late in 1841 she moved to Evansville, where she entered Wein- zaepfel’s confessional at the still-unfinished Church of the Assump- tion. According to her later testimony, while in the box he scolded her for being proud and for dressing better than she could afford, or at least better than her neighbors. Because of this admonition she con- fided to another individual that Weinzaepfel was “a good priest because he talked to her, and advised her as other priests had done.” But on New Year’s Eve 1841, without any priest’s consent, she eloped with another German immigrant named Martin Schmoll. He was a somewhat older Lutheran widower of some means, who seemed no more familiar with the Catholic faith than he was with Maria-they had met just a week before their marriage. During the previous two years he had appeared many times before an Evansville judge to face accusations of illegally retailing spirits, provoking a riot, inciting a

5 “Substance of a letter from Rev. A. Deydier to the publishers [of Drapier’s book],” n.d., reprinted in A. E. Drapier, Trial of Romain Weinzoepflen [sic], Catholic priest at Evansville, Vanderburgh County, Indiana, on a charge of rape prefered by Mrs. Anna Maria Schmoll; held at Princeton, State of Indiana, Gibson Circuit Court, March Term, 1844, on a change of VENUE from the Vanderburgh Circuit. Reported by A. E. Drapier, printer, stenographer, &c. (Louisville, Ky., 1844), li. Weinzaepfel was the son of Georg and Catharina Biehly Weinzaepfel. See “Genealogie,” in “Roman Weinzaepfel,” folder 1, box 53, DeceasedlFormer St. Meinrad Monks, Personal Records and Papers (hereafter St. Meinrad Monks Papers), 1842-1984, (St. Meinrad Arch- abbey Archives, St. Meinrad, Indiana). For the frontier Kentucky priests see Clyde F. Crews, An American Holy Land: A History of the Archdiocese of Louisville (Wilm- ington, Del., 1987),27-71. 236 Indiana Magazine of History fight, trespassing, theft, fraud, and rape. Schmoll probably had fnends in high places, since he was never convicted of any offense.G Maria’s father, Lewis Long, did not approve of the marriage and asked Weinzaepfel to investigate its validity. Since Weinzaepfel did not know secular or church law concerning this matter, he sought the advice of the bishop. Hailandiere admitted that the union was lawful, even though in his mind Maria had committed a grievous sin in marrying outside the church. Hailandiere also suggested that Long persuade Martin Schmoll to promise that he would not interfere with the religious duties of his wife. On Sunday, May 1, 1842, Schmoll signed a certificate before two witnesses in which he pledged to allow his wife to raise their children as Catholics and to “never . . . afflict through word or deed her Catholic conscience.” Though Weinzaepfel accepted the bond, he doubted its ~incerity.~ Maria had not been to church since her marriage and hoped to attend mass on May 5, Ascension Thursday. She had been taught that Catholics should take communion on that day more than any other, but first she felt compelled to confess her sins and asked her husband to find Weinzaepfel. Schmoll looked for the priest at the home of Heinrich, who told Schmoll that Weinzaepfel would return to church later that evening. Schmoll said he would send his wife, but he also told Heinrich that she should spend as little time as possible in church since he wanted her home to care for household duties and especially to prepare his dinner. About five or six o’clock that evening Heinrich escorted Maria to Weinzaepfel’s confessional. Hein- rich then left the building, and Maria’s confession was heard. Among other things Weinzaepfel chastised her for marrying a Protestant. Maria returned home just after dark. Two days later Schmoll stormed back to church and demanded that Weinzaepfel return the certificate Schmoll had signed several days before. The priest surrendered the document and inquired what had provoked this change of mind. Schmoll then accused Weinza- epfel of raping his wife after having heard her confession. “Had I done this,” the priest replied, “I would be the worst man in the world!”s Later that same day Weinzaepfel was formally charged with assault and battery and rape. Deputies John A. Curl and Z. B. Hyellott found

GDeposition of Edward Kenna, February 27, 1843, p. 61, Circuit Court Papers, 1843, box 206, file 1, Gibson County Clerk‘s Office, Princeton, Indiana. 7“Marriagecontract in reference to the religious obligations between Martin Schmoll and his Catholic wife” (translated from the German), in Report of the Trial and Con- viction of Roman Weinzoepflein, a Roman Catholic priest, for rape committed upon the person of Anna Maria Schmoll, while at confessional in the Catholic Church at Euansuille, Ind. ([Evansville, Ind.?] 18441, 3. Subsequent to Weinzaepfel’s inquiry, Hailandiere reminded his priests who gathered at the first diocesan synod that a mixed marriage without the presence of a priest was valid, though contrary to church law. Acta et Decreta Quinque Synodorum Dioecesseos Vincennopolitanae 1844-1891 (Indianapolis, 18911, 14-15. 8 Quoted in testimony of Martin Schmoll, Report ofthe Trial and Conuiction, 21. Early Protestant-Catholic Relations 237

Weinzaepfel six or seven miles outside of Evansville, where he had been called to baptize a child of “Mr. Fitzwilliams.” Both officers later claimed that when arrested, Weinzaepfel muttered something like, “Woman-Schmoll-Trait~r.”~ Weinzaepfel was locked in jail before sunset. While incarcerated he wrote to Deydier in New York, blam- ing himself for admitting Maria into the confessional even though he knew that no one else was in the church. But “[mly conscience does not reproach me with the horrible accusation which has been brought against me,” he proclaimed, “since I entertained not a thought, or spoke a single word, or acted otherwise, than duty before God obliged me to think, speak, and act.”’O The following morning, May 7, Weinzaepfel petitioned for a change of venue, on the grounds that he would not receive a fair trial before Judge Joseph Wheeler because of “the prejudice of the said Wheeler against Catholic Priests.” A series of postponements ensued. Wheeler, who was also a preacher for the Methodist Episcopal Church, moved the hearing to nearby Pigeon Township under Squire Nathan Rowley, a prominent local citizen and benefactor of St. Paul’s Protes- tant Episcopal Church.” Before Rowley on Monday, May 9, Maria began to describe the events surrounding the alleged rape but, Weinzaepfel later claimed, “contradicted her own statements so palpably, and made use of so many Protestant expressions, that everybody became convinced, that she only repeated in a bunglesome manner the instructions received from her husband. The lawyers themselves laughed.” Then she fell off her chair and fainted. Prosecuting attorneys James Davis and James E. Blythe announced that she was pregnant and simply too ill to continue. Weinzaepfel’s Protestant counsel, brothers William T. T. Jones and James G. Jones, demanded time for cross-examination, but Schmoll shouted that he would not allow his wife to be detained or abused any longer.”

9Testimony of Curl (confirmed by Hyellot), 1843, translated from the German by a court-appointed clerk, Gibson County Circuit Court Papers, box 206, file 1. 10 Weinzaepfel to Deydier, May 12,1842,Vincennes, translation from the French reprinted in Alerding, History ofthe Catholic Church, 513. One review of the case suggested that Schmoll demanded $500 as “hush money.” But the author found no evidence of such demands. “The Catholic Church of Princeton--Its Growth and Devel- opment,” 2, “Roman Weinzaepfel,” folder 4, box 53, St. Meinrad Monks Papers. 11 Petition of Roman Weinzaepfel to Judge Wheeler, May 7, 1842, Gibson Coun- ty Circuit Court Papers, 1843, box 206, file 1. 12 Weinzaepfel to Deydier, May 12,1842, Vincennes, in Alerding, History ofthe Catholic Church, 510. Only Martin and Maria Schmoll testified in this preliminary hearing. A transcript of the Evansville proceedings has not been found, but Chandler claimed that Maria’s testimony was substantially the same as presented later in the Princeton trial. Also see Evansville Journal, May 12, 1842. The grand jury included John Dennison, George Rockete, William Wills (foreman), Ebenezer Hutchinson, Lorin A. Kelsey, Henry Hornby, Michale Daub, William Wells [repeated?], Thomas Childs, Samuel Paul, Hiram Hopkins, Patrick Lyons, John A. Morgan, William Steward, and Albert Levinis. “Evansville Grand Jury,” Gibson County Circuit Court Papers, 1843, box 206, file 1. 238 Indiana Magazine of History

A group of Schmoll supporters, some of whom lived in his house, took over the courtroom and attempted to seize Weinzaepfel, and some Irish friends barely managed to rescue him. Order eventually was restored, but Maria apparently had not yet recovered. Her account of the event would be completed later. In the meantime the Schmoll supporters grew irate and began to consume alcohol. It was not uncommon for drunken groups to terrorize western cities during this period; in March 1843 over a thousand persons would loot several recently failed banks in Cincinnati, Ohio, and later on “Bloody Mon- day,” August 6,1855, more than twenty people lost their lives in riots in Louisville, Kentucky. Although the number of men who terrorized Pigeon Township after the 1842 Weinzaepfel hearing was much smaller than the size of the Cincinnati or Louisville mobs, the crowd was undoubtedly mena~ing.’~ The bail for Weinzaepfel was raised from $2,000 to $4,000, and it was instantly pledged by twelve courageous men. One supporter was severely beaten, and others were harassed by the now thoroughly drunken mob, which roamed the streets carrying torches throughout the night, forcibly entering a number of Catholic homes, including Heinrich’s. Their battle cry was “Whiskey on the death of the priest!” even though plenty of whiskey had already been consumed. A few “right minded Protestants” tried in vain to stop the vi01ence.’~ The mob finally located Weinzaepfel at the residence of a Mr. Stahlhoe- fer, a Catholic, and threatened to burn down the place if he did not deliver the priest. Weinzaepfel hid in a closet under the stairs while another Catholic, a Dr. McDonald, distracted the mob by freeing many of their horses from the public hitching post.I5 Two Catholic allies named O’Connell and Walsh quickly dis- guised Weinzaepfel in a dress and whisked him out of Evansville to the farm of another Catholic, Mr. Neuhaus, in Bornville (now Boonville). Neuhsus led the priest through the woods to the towpath of the canal. There Weinzaepfel set off on his own further east toward Newark in Warrick County and then turned north, resting for a brief time at the home of a Catholic in Princeton. A Protestant neighbor offered Weinzaepfel a ride, but he decided to continue to Vincennes by himself. Though wolves roamed the area, he was not afraid for, as he

13 For the Cincinnati and Louisville riots see newspaper clipping (source and date unknown, but internal evidence suggests April 5, 1879), C574H, Cincinnati History (Cincinnati Historical Society Archives, Cincinnati, Ohio); and Crews, An American Holy Land, 138-40. Mob violence was not unique to the West, as the 1834 burning of the Charleston, Massachusetts, convent and the 1844 Philadelphia riots proved. See James Hennesey, American Catholics: A History of the Roman Catholic Community in the United States (New York, 1981), 122-24. 14 Louisville Catholic Aduocate, November 21, 1895. 15 A note in the St. Meinrad Archabbey Archives purports to contain eyewit- ness information on the alleged rape and the escape from the angry mob. This piece seemed to run the two events together. See “A Friend of the Saintly Priest,” n.a., n.d., “Roman Weinzaepfel,” folder 1, box 53, St. Meinrad Monks Papers. Early Protestant-Catholic Relations 239

told Deydier, “God [already] had saved me from the [more dangerous] fury of a drunken mob.”16 At the following term of the Vanderburgh County circuit court, the grand jury authorized three indictments against Weinzaepfel: one for rape, another for assault, and the third for assault and battery with the intent to commit rape. The trial was scheduled for September 1842. The editor of the Evansville Journal, a Schmoll supporter named William H. Chandler, insinuated that “other, and serious complaints” could be brought against Weinzaepfel. An Iowa editor claimed that horrid crimes committed by priests were much more frequent than most people might know. But the Louisville Catholic Advocate interpreted any accusation against Weinzaepfel as the man- ifestation of bigotry on the part of a few German Lutherans in retal- iation for the recent defection of some of their ranks (including the Heinrich family) to the Catholic faith. The Indiana Sentinel in Indi- anapolis insinuated that the charges against Weinzaepfel had been fabricated, and the Louisville Public Advertiser suggested that “the unfortunate priest had been a victim of foul con~piracy.”~~ Bishop Hailandiere read the Kentucky papers while he hap- pened to be in Louisville and raced to Vincennes in order to investigate the affair. He generally did not get along with his clergy and in fact readily dismissed priests whom he judged unworthy of their posi- tions. But after interviewing Weinzaepfel, Hailandiere was convinced that the priest was innocent. The bishop showed his support by not relieving Weinzaepfel of his priestly duties but instead assigning him to the Illinois missions. In the meantime a pamphlet circulated by Chandler, and allegedly written by Schmoll, attacked that “hoary letcher” Hailandiere and his “polluted Priesthood . . . who hast through all time filled the land with . . . whoredoms and iniquities, whose lives have not only been a disgrace to religion, but to mankind.” With sworn allegiance to the foreign pope, the pamphlet concluded, all Catholic clergymen had supplanted civil duties with church inter- ests and thus donned an antirepublican spirit. In response to these charges the Catholic Advocate declared that the Evansville editor had “poured out a quantum sufficit of bile, and we hope that he now feels greatly relieved.” Amid these literary skirmishes some speculated incorrectly that Weinzaepfel would jump bail and never return

16 Weinzaepfel to Deydier, May 12, 1842, in Alerding, History of the Catholic Church, 511. 17 Evansville Journal, May 12,1842, reprinted in Louisville Catholic Advocate, May 21, 1842; unnamed Iowa editor cited in Louisville Catholic Advocate, June 11,1842; Indianapolis Indiana Sentinel, May 24, 1842; Louisville Public Advertiser, quoted in Louisville Catholic Advocate, May 28,1842. The German Lutheran Trinity Church in Evansville was organized on January 17, 1841. None of the characters described in the present story was listed among the early members of this congregation in Elliott, History of Evansville, 244-45. 240 Indiana Magazine of History to face the charges. In the meantime, Maria’s child was born on September 15, 1842.’” Later that month Weinzaepfel came back to Evansville where according to one report, “he was greeted on all hands, both by Protes- tants and Catholics, many of the former calling on him for the purpose of expressing their conviction of his innocence.” Although most favored the accused, a significant minority clearly did not. A few men intimidated the proprietor of the Sherwood Hotel, who consequently refused Weinzaepfel lodging. Others threatened to harm the priest, hoping that he might leave town. But Weinzaepfel courageously remained. On September 29, he pleaded not guilty before Elisha Embree, the presiding judge of the Vanderburgh County circuit court. Weinzaepfel then asked that the trial be postponed to the next term so that, as he argued, sufficient evidence could be gathered. In fact, however, he hoped that with time the anti-Catholic fever would sub- side. Embree postponed the proceedings to March 1843. fircontinued threats on his life Weinzaepfel returned to Vincennes. This time Hai- landi&redecided to keep a close eye on Weinzaepfel in order to pro- tect him. Weinzaepfel was assigned to serve the German Catholics in the city and also was appointed rector of St. Charles Seminary.lg Since Maria Schmoll only recently had moved to Evansville, the defense went to Cincinnati in February 1843 to see what they might dig up. There they lined up over thirty formal depositions on her past reputation, beginning with reports about her family and her childhood in Germany. George Speidel stated that she came from good Catholic parents, and David Westerich said her character in Germany was without stain. Joseph Jansen, however, claimed that she was a dishonest young girl. Her brother Lewis Long, Jr., and half-brother Jacob had immigrated to Cincinnati probably in early 1840. In August the rest of the family joined them. For eight days the family stayed with Jacob above Francis Hein’s grocery on the east side near the waterworks. Her father then moved the small children to a German settlement seven or eight miles outside of Evansville, while Maria remained in Cincinnati with her closest younger sibling, Wil- helmina or Mina, and her two brothers.20

1”“Fulland Circumstantial Account of the Outrage,&.,” quoted in Drapier, Trial of Romain Weinzoepflen, vi-vii, and Report of the Trial and Conviction, 3-5; Louisville Catholic Advocate, June 4, 1842. No original copy of Schmoll’s pamphlet has been found, though it also was referred to in ibid., August 17,1844. 19 Louisville Catholic Advocate, October 22, 1842; “Petition of W. T. T. Jones and James G. Jones on behalf of Weinzaepfel to the court,” October 3, 1842, Gibson County Circuit Court Papers, 1843, box 206, file 1. Embree was assisted by associate judges William Olmstead and Conrad Stacer. Embree was considered one of the most distinguished lawyers ever to serve in southern Indiana. He eventually was elected to the Kentucky legislature and once was nominated for governor, though he refused to run. Leander J. Monks, ed., Courts and Lawyers oflndiana (Indianapolis, 1916), 1404. 20Deposition of Francis Hein, February 9, 1843, Gibson County Circuit Court Papers, box 206, file 1. All the depositions were found in the same file, in two stacks, Early Protestant-Catholic Relations 24 1

In Cincinnati, Maria longed for a husband despite the insistence of her parents that she should not marry, not even to, as Hein put it, “the sickest man [that is, the individual most in need of a wife] in Cincinnati.”21Maria grudgingly took a job as a domestic with Charles H. and Elizabeth Ann Winter on Lower Market Street. Mr. Winter described Maria as “a large and powerful girl” who actively sought male companionship.22Within a few weeks he chastised her for repeated nighttime rendezvous with at least one unnamed man. After she violated a curfew, Mr. Winter locked her out. The following day she returned to pack up her things, and, furious with her employer, she hid in her suitcase a silk handkerchief belonging to Winter and some undergarments belonging to his wife. Maria then fled to Hein’s grocery where she got drunk with young male patrons, including her brother Jacob. Mrs. Winter later found Maria in the store and was able to recoup about five dollars’ worth of stolen property. Maria subsequently lived in a variety of places. For example, during the “Big Snow” of late 1840 she resided for a month with Isaac Adkins. In the middle of this stay she hurt her hand severely while washing. For a few weeks in January 1841 she lived with Mary and John J. Webb, who considered her a very good girl. She was the god- mother of a child of Earhart Geyer and also rented part of Cather- ine Rhinehart’s pew at the German St. Mary‘s Catholic Church, where she fell behind in paying church dues. In March she went with Mina to Evansville to attend to her dying mother. During this time, probably at the funeral, Maria must have met Weinzaepfel. That summer she returned alone to Cincin- nati dressed in mourning. For two weeks in June she boarded with Susan Gray at Captain Joseph Harrison’s home a few miles outside Cincinnati. Just before returning to the city she was accused of stealing a handkerchief. She then took a room on Broadway at a board- inghouse operated by Susan’s parents, Jane and Oliver Gray. After only a few weeks Mr. Gray accused her of stealing a brooch and wed- ding ring. She denied the accusation, but moments after the brooch was found Maria was seen in the vicinity. She consequently was put

one representing those of the prosecution, the other of the defense. Each side collected approximately thirty depositions. The depositions for the defense were more secure- ly bound, and thus when cited in the present text, the number of the sheet on which they were found is placed in parenthesis after the citation, even though the sheets are not numbered as such. Several deponents indicated that they may have heard of the Indiana proceedings against Weinzaepfel through local papers. However, there is no mention of the case in Cincinnati in the two prominent English-language news- papers (the Cincinnati Daily Times and the Cincinnati Daily Enquirer), the surviv- ing fragments of the German papers, or the Cincinnati Catholic Telegraph. 21 Deposition of Francis Hein, February 9, 1843. 22Deposition of Charles H. Winter, February 6,1843 (71, Gibson County Circuit Court Papers, box 206, file 1. James F. Willett employed Maria’s sisters Mina a block away from the Winters on Broadway. 242 Indiana Magazine of History out on the street. A few days later she was living at the Broadway Hotel with a Mrs. Adams. Sometime during all these moves Maria hurt her foot. Several persons, including Catherine Broksat and Rhinehart, periodically checked on her condition. On one occasion they watched her lift her dress as high as her knee in order to expose the wound to several men. Broksat and Rhinehart reproved her for what they considered to be unladylike behavior. Disregarding this reprimand, she later showed the sore to George Kehn by lifting her dress to her knee, this time in broad daylight on Fifth Street between Main and Walnut. Perhaps to ease her foot problem she ordered two pairs of shoes from Nicholas Meyer but refused to pay for the first pair after it was delivered. Mary Meyer held Jacob Long accountable for the debt, but he argued that it should be his father’s responsibility. Unbeknownst to Jacob, after his mother’s funeral Maria had been given forty dollars from her father to share with the family in Cincinnati. About the time of the shoe incident Jacob discovered that Maria had kept this money for herself. He then threw her out of his house. A few days later on December 11,1841, he found her with her brother Lewis at the home of John Groschevit. In a fit of anger, Jacob called Maria a “whore,” a “bad woman and every thing bad.’’23In the presence of Lewis, Mrs. Groschevit, and Kehn, Jacob then struck Maria several times. No one tried to stop him. Two or three days later Maria left Cincinnati for Evansville. One final Cincinnati witness, Mary Whitmore, concluded that Maria “seemed like a girl that came out of a bad house [whore house].7Q4 No deposition actually claimed that Maria was a prostitute, though a later, somewhat related document may shed some light on her sit- uation. In 1855 the Protestant Home for the Friendless and Female Guardian Society opened its doors to prostitutes and abused women in Cincinnati. The annual report of 1858 described typical clients who seemed like Maria: deprived of home and family by coming to the city as strangers, and having been unable to obtain situations, or being incompetent to fill them, [they] have been driv- en to the last resource, and, to drown the sense of their distress, have fled, alas! to the intoxicating cup; and from that sad hour, their course has tended downward with quick and sure strides, and ere a year has passed, they have been almost irrevocably ruined by men baser than themselves, and in the haunts of nightly revelry and daily obscenity, they alone could find shelter for their devoted headszs Against her will Maria had been forced into the workplace and there- after always seemed to struggle financially. She apparently lied and

23 Deposition of John Groschevit, February 4,1843 (11, ibid. 24Deposition of Mary Whitmore, February 24, 1843 (51-531, ibid. 25 Fourth Annual Report of the Cincinnati Home for the Friendless and Female Guardian Society, November 27, 1858 (Cincinnati, Ohio, 1859),3-4. Early Protestant-Catholic Relations 243

stole at least in part to make up for her economic and emotional misfortunes. Early in 1843 Maria went to Cincinnati in search of favorable testimony on her behalf, but her plan backfired when two women reported to the defense that during this visit Maria had told them that Weinzaepfel never acted improperly toward her. “he prosecutors also went to Cincinnati, yet after collecting nearly thirty more testimonies one of the prosecuting attorneys, Davis, mysteriously disappeared and was not heard from again. He may have been disturbed either by the unfavorable rumors he had heard about Maria or by the redeem- ing testimony he had discovered on behalf of the accused. Incomprehensibly, after all the collection of evidence about Maria the defense decided not to introduce their depositions, in the naive conviction that their case was airtight. A priest from western Kentucky, E. J. Durbin, was less optimistic. Anticipating another rioting mob, Durbin marched to Evansville with a group of Irishmen who pledged to defend the accused against possible violence. None broke out, but the first trial, held in late March 1843, demonstrated Schmoll’s influence when the jury nearly convicted the priest. Only one juror, Charles Harrington, had the courage to defy threats against his life by arguing for Weinzaepfel’s innocence. The jury was hung. Judge Embree ordered that the case be reconsidered the next Septem- ber. In the meantime a Presbyterian minister in Evansville, Jeremiah R. Barnes, speculated that Harrington refused to convict Weinzaepfel only because sometime earlier Harrington had made a vow never to trust the testimony of a woman. Harrington adamant- ly denied this interpretation.26 Barnes claimed that Maria Schmoll enjoyed “the sympathy of the whole Protestant community,” but other reports demonstrated that most observers, including her own husband, did not believe her.27 Shortly before the second trial began Maria fled from Martin. She then called Deydier to her father’s home in order to baptize her sick infant. A few days later the child died. Martin Schmoll supplied two coffins, one placed inside the other, and allowed the infant to be buried in the Catholic cemetery. But later that night he reopened the grave and reinterred the smaller coffin in the public burial grounds. Maria afterwards fell so ill that the trial again had to be delayed. A later report suggested that the “real cause [of the delay1 was that there was trouble in the Schmoll household.”28 Weinzaepfel’s counsel took advantage of this postponement to ask for another change of venue, arguing that it remained “impossi-

26 “Response of Charles Harrington,” January 2, 1844, New Harmony Indiana Statesman, January 6,1844. 27 Jeremiah R. Barnes to Rev. A. T. Rankin, November 25, 1843,Evansville, reprinted in ibid. 28 Louisville Catholic Aduocate, November 21, 1895. 244 Indiana Magazine of History ble to obtain [in Evansville] a jury that have not put forward or expounded an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant.’72g Embree decided to move the case twenty-five miles north of Evansville to his hometown of Princeton in the Gibson County circuit court. But there were few Catholics who lived in the town.30Knowing that he had no support in that town, Weinzaepfel’s spirits waned. He confessed to a friend, “my detestable trial preoccupies me and at times makes me . . . so melancholy that sometimes the idea come [sl to me of aban- doning everything if it doesn’t end Assuming that Maria Schmoll’s character would be discussed at Princeton, by late February 1844 the prosecutors informed the defense that 130 local persons had agreed to testify on her behalf. Few if any of these persons were acquainted with Maria Schmoll. All undoubtedly had been enlisted by her estranged husband. In response to this planned counterattack, the defense followed earlier prece- dents by conceding that Maria’s past would not be mentioned. Many observers later considered this decision to have been a crucial mis- take. Defense attorney Benjamin Thomas actually withdrew his ser- vices when the other lawyers on the team outvoted him on this strategy. The prosecution accentuated the fact that the defense had decided not to discuss character, arguing that Maria Schmoll’s reputation was not questioned because it was unimpeachable. The three-day trial began on March 4,1844,with the excited testimony of the alleged victim. Before a jury composed of three Methodists, two Baptists, two Cumberland Presbyterians, and five unchurched men, Maria testified that not only had Weinzaepfel questioned the validity of her marriage, but also that he had asked how often she had sexual relations with her husband. Weinzaepfel apparently later admitted that he had interrogated her along these lines. It was his duty to ask, he had said, and her obligation to tell. At first she refused to answer, but after his repeated inquest, she told him she had sex with her husband either once or twice a week. Weinzaepfel next suggested that she should try to live in peace with her husband even though, Weinzaepfel believed, it was very hard to do so with a Luther- an. He also instructed her not to reveal to Martin the topic of their conversation, because, as Weinzaepfel reportedly said, “it did not belong to the confessional.” He concluded the interview and assigned a penance. Intimate questions in the confessional may have been

29Petition of Weinzaepfel for a change of venue, September 28,1843, Gibson Coun- ty Circuit Court Papers, box 206, file 1. 30Henry S. Cauthorn, A History of the City of Vincennes, Indiana, from 1702 to 1901 (Terre Haute, Ind., 1902), 58. 31 Weinzaepfel to Augustine Martin, Vicar General of Vincennes, January 10, 1844, Scipio, Jennings County, quoted in Timmermeyer, “The Rev. Romain Weinza- epfel,” 69. Princeton became a mission of St. James in March 1855 and was served by R. W. Peppersack. See “The Catholic Church of Princeton-Its Growth and Develop- ment,” 7, “Roman Weinzaepfel,” folder 4, box 53, St. Meinrad Monks Papers. Early Protestant-Catholic Relations 245

permitted in Weinzaepfel’s morally rigid homeland, but he seemed to realize that they were not welcome on the American Maria then testified that afier her confession Weinzaepfel raped her. When she began to recite the prayer customarily said at that time, Weinzaepfel pulled me from the bench where I was kneeling [in the confessional] and threw me on the floor [of the church properl-and then committed a rape upon me-and I fainted, but not instantly-I fainted during the perpetration of the act-and after he was done he lifted me up and set me on a bench-after I sat on the bench he threw water on my face-I don’t know exactly whether he washed or sprinkled my face. After I came to myself on the bench I said to him, “0 God what have you done to me?”-and then he asked me whether I remembered my penance and I answered “no”-and he then gave me a new penance, after he gave me the second penance I left and went home . . . . She said she tried to avoid her husband the rest of the day, refusing to respond when he asked what was wrong.33 Schmoll testified that he did not know what to make of her demeanor, commenting to his wife, as he subsequently reported to the jury, that “I thought when Catholics had their sins forgiven they feel more contented and lively.” Early in the morning she told him “something of what the Pr[ielst said to [her],” but then went to church where she received communion from Weinzaepfel. Not until the following evening did she allegedly tell her husband that she had been raped. He vowed to “take a pistol and go and shoot the priest,” but Maria dissuaded him by reminding him he would be hanged ifca~ght.3~ In cross-examination Maria admitted that Martin Schmoll had coerced her into the marriage. After the alleged rape her husband treated her very badly, and after the child was born he first threatened to starve both of them, then drove them from his house. She blamed the infant’s death on her husband’s maltreatment. At the time of the trial she considered her husband, as she reported to the jury, “her greatest enemy.” In cross-examination he admitted that, at least at the time of the trial, he did not live on friendly terms with his wife. All the evidence had been presented by Thursday evening, March 5.35

32 Testimony of Anna Maria Schmoll, translated from the German by a court- appointed clerk, 1843, Gibson County Circuit Court Papers, box 206, file 1. 33Ibid. 34 Testimony of Martin Schmoll, translated from the German by a court-appointed clerk, ibid. The testimony of Maria Schmoll confirmed his on the points cited above. 35Testimony ofAnna Maria Schmoll. Unlike the first trial, at Princeton Maria refused to answer any questions not presented through the interpreters, who included Philip Decker for the prosecution and Daniel and Joseph Graff for the defense. On several occasions the interpreters disagreed over what Maria had said. Apparently some were more familiar than others with her particular dialect. The jury included Hud- son Brown, David Milburn, John Ayers, John R. Campbell, John Dougherty, Alexan- der Tribbett, Henry Ayers, John Hyndman (foreman), John King, Joseph P. McClure, George Kendall, and James W. Maxam. One report claimed that the jury “knew nothing of the real principles of Catholics.” Moreover Embree had denied the defense’s contention that no juror should be accepted if he already had formed an opinion on the 246 Indiana Magazine of History

The following day Jones of the defense began his closing remarks. He speculated that Maria’s behavior may have given Martin Schmoll reason to doubt her faithfulness; she seemed to have lingered at the church longer than expected, and also she avoided direct contact with her husband upon returning home. Jones speculated that Schmoll had wrongly concluded that she had had sexual relations with the priest. Martin had admitted that he was madly jealous of his wife. In fact, he testified that upon seeing her after the alleged rape, he examined her genital region but found no evidence of recent sexual penetra- tion. Jones theorized about the source of Schmoll’s jealousy: Mrs. Schmoll went to confession to the defendant a week before she was married; and counting from that time you will find that the term of nine months had just about elapsed at the birth of her child, and as the priest and Schmoll are both Dutch, and both have black hair, it was impossible to tell whether the child was “begotten by its own daddy” or not. While Jones clearly stated that he believed Weinzaepfel had not had sexual relations with Maria, he speculated that Schmoll might have believed that if Maria became pregnant right away he might be cheat- ed and have to accept Weinzaepfel’s child as his own. Yet these spec- ulations concerning paternity were proposed as possible ruminations of Martin Schmoll. Jones went on to offer a motive for Maria to lie about the “rape”: upon returning home after confession she may have seen accusations of infidelity on the impatient face of her spouse. Thus when pressed upon exactly what had transpired in the church, she may have fabricated the questions of Weinzaepfel about the marriage and later conjured up the accusations of rape. But the priest clearly was innocent, Jones concluded.36 The jury was not convinced; after forty minutes of deliberation on Saturday, March 9, the foreman read the verdict, “guilty as he stands charged” in the first count of rape.37The prosecution agreed not to prosecute the two remaining charges. Weinzaepfel did not blame the jury but rather implicated, as he wrote to a friend, “the malice and sworn hatred previously manifested by my enemies.” He remained calm but added, “Who can reflect without indignation on the malicious slander and wicked persecution so wantonly heaped on a person, that as the persecutors themselves best know, is not even guilty of the shadow of the pretended crimes?))”*Weinzaepfel

case. Several jurors were seated who admitted to holding an opinion that they claimed could he changed. Louisville Catholic Aduocate, August 17, 1844. The Louisville League of six anti-Catholic editors of the Louisville True Catholic repeated the position of the prosecution, namely, that the defense had withheld the character depositions pre- cisely because they confirmed Maria’s good reputation. No issues of the True Catholic have been found, though this paper was mentioned many times in the Catholic Aduo- cute, including on September 21, 1844. 36Report of the Trial and Conuiction, 59. 37Alerding, History of the Catholic Church, 532. 38 Copy of Weinzaepfel to Augustus Martin of Vincennes, October 27,1844, Jef- fersonville (original letter in Archives of Province Convent, St. Mary-of-the-Woods, Early Protestant-Catholic Relations 247

received the minimum sentence of five years of hard labor in the state prison. First thing the next morning, a Sunday, Sheriff Kirkman and twenty-four armed men escorted Weinzaepfel to a blacksmith shop where he was chained to a Methodist who had stolen five dollars. The sheriff then transported his ward to the Ohio River, stopping the stage, at least according to Weinzaepfel’s recollection, “on every occasion to show the wild beast he had chained up.” On the steam- boat to the state prison at Jeffersonville Kirkman was ordered by several passengers to stop mistreating his prisoner. His instant acces- sion to this request illustrated the first signs of popular opinion sym- pathetic to Weinzaepfel, in contrast to what Weinzaepfel described as the “deep prejudice that . . . bad spread across] the whole county of Princeton.”39The passengers devised a plot to set the sheriff on the shore and land the priest wherever he wished. The pilot was ready to implement the plot, but Weinzaepfel refused to cooperate. He explained, “I now suffer unjustly under the law, but I trust that the higher courts will rectify the wrong which had been done me. I prefer to be imprisoned in Jeffersonville of my own free will, patient- ly await the result, than to become by flight guilty of a transgres- sion of the law.”40At the end of the journey, Sheriff Kirkman recommended that the warden, James R. Pratt, treat the priest with kindness. ‘You should have brought the jury,” remarked Pratt, “and not the priest!”41 In prison Weinzaepfel was treated well and admitted that he was far happier than he had expected to be. The guards asked little of him, while Irish Catholics from Louisville attended to his needs. John Larkin, S.J., of St. Ignatius Literary Institution (and the future president of St. John’s, now known as Fordham University, in New York) every week crossed the river for a visit, and Bishop Benedict Flaget of Louisville and coadjutor Martin John Spalding called upon Wein- zaepfel several times. While traveling down the Ohio River Arch- bishop Anthony Blanc of New Orleans gave Weinzaepfel a gold cross and chain to be sold to defray legal expenses. The trial had cost $1,597.92, of which Weinzaepfel paid $184.92 out of his own funds. The Catholic Church assumed responsibility for the remaining bal- ance. As late as the summer of 1847, Bishop Hailandi6re had collected only $135.00 and thus remained $1,244.37 in debt. At this time he ran two notices in the Catholic Advocate asking for donations.42

Indiana) translated by Sister Mary Borromeo, September 1941, “Roman Weinzaepfel,” folder 4, box 53, St. Meinrad Monks Papers. 39Zbid. 40Louisville Catholic Aduocate, November 21, 1895. 4lZbid., August 24, 1844. 42Zbid., June 12, 19, 1847. 248 Indiana Magazine of History

Three days after the trial Durbin visited Weinzaepfel in jail and then delivered to the Catholic Advocate his account of what he had seen at the “one-sided and unfair” trial. “From an impartial hearing of the testimony, and consideration of the circumstances,” he wrote, “I am convinced of the innocence of the present victim of judi- cial prosecution, and, though no prophet, I hesitate not to say, that there will yet be proof of this.” Within a short while priests from both Indiana and Kentucky, along with (reportedly) the Catholic hierar- chy from the entire nation, concurred with Durbin’s estimation and acclaimed Weinzaepfel’s past piety, regular deportment, and edify- ing example. To have garnered such seemingly unanimous support despite his relatively short time in the country either Weinzaepfel must have seemed saintly to many or, more likely, this case provid- ed the opportunity for his brethren to rally against this expression of anti-Catholicism. Even Durbin admitted that he had been unac- quainted with Weinzaepfel before the accusation^.^^ The fervor both for and against Weinzaepfel was slow to dissi- pate. A few months after the trial Chandler circulated an eighty- page Report of the Trial and Conviction of Romain Weinzoepflein [sic], a Roman Catholic priest, for rape, committed upon the person of Mrs. Anna Maria Schmoll, while at confessional, in the Catholic Church at Evansville, Ind. The work included accurate summaries, briefs, and some verbatim testimony and closing arguments, as were commonly published for controversial trials. The Catholic Advocate described Chandler’s tract as “exparte and garbled,” “gross and obscene in the extreme,”and certainly not appropriate for a respectable woman to read. To further illustrate the so-called “catch-penny” nature of this piece, the Catholic Advocate referred to two portraits presented inside the cover: “no modest person can view these two faces,” the paper surmised, “without at once deciding which is stamped with virtue, and which disgraced with vice.” Whereas Weinzaepfel appeared calm, resigned, humble, and with “purity of heart and purpose,”Maria looked bold and impudent: “A big, gross, German woman, weighing 150 pounds, with a broad face, coarse features, and eye which seems never to have batted, with a cool unfaltering purpose, denoted in the expression of the eye and lips and forehead;-the whole features bespeaking rather the bold and reckless and practiced profligate, than the meek, and humble, and virtuous Christian female.” Anyone familiar with phrenology, the paper concluded, had an advantage in this case. Underlying this analysis was the contemporary expectation that women should be submissive to men. Maria Schmoll challenged these cultural norms and thus for this alone might have been den~unced.~~

43 E. J. Durbin to editor, March 12, 1844, diocese of Vincennes, published in ibid., March 16,1844. Deydier and Father August Bessonies also had attended the trial. 44Report of the Trial and Conviction; Louisville Catholic Advocate, August 17, 1844. A Protestant printer, Louisville stenographer, and witness to the Princeton Early Protestant-Catholic Relations 249

Within a few months the Schmolls’s story began to unravel. Maria, at least according to one account, “at the conclusion of the final trial, went on at such a rate at a public tavern in Evansville, as to excite the disgust, and to raise a blush on the hard cheeks of a crowd of men On July 4,1844, she filed for divorce. Schmoll spent that summer with friends who had immigrated with him from Germany and who were at that time living outside of St. Louis near St. Charles, Missouri, only returning to Evansville late in Septem- ber. In a written statement to the court he denied all the charges that Maria had levied against him, then rebuked his wife as an alco- holic, a thief, and a liar. When the child was born, he explained that for various reasons [he] did not feel satisfied about its paternity and was so troubled about it that he took a little too much liquor and said various sundry foolish and imprudent things but offered her no violence and after getting sober . . . asked her pardon and she forgave him. During the divorce hearing Schmoll claimed that his wife had been “raped twice while last in Cincinnati. What he actually meant in using the word “rape”was that Maria on two occasions had consented to sexual relations with two different men. Before the judge Maria admitted that these accusations were true. In September the court granted a divorce and ordered Schmoll to pay $600 as alimony in lieu of dower and court Schmoll left town and soon allegedly disclosed to several fellow immigrants in Augusta, Missouri, his motivations in accusing Wein- zaepfel. According to sworn testimonies given by these families to former defense attorney Thomas and to a Father Kindeck of Jasper, Indiana, Schmoll admitted that he always had suspected that his wife had entertained an affair with the priest. But Schmoll added that he had fabricated the accusation of rape in order to punish the priest and embarrass his wife. Thomas published these new revela- tions in September 1845 in the Catholic Advocate. In the Evansville Journal a few weeks later Schmoll called the statements a mass of lies and in February 1846 published through Chandler’s press The Exposure Exposed or the Popish Plot to Purify Their Sanctuary and

proceedings, A. E. Drapier, also wrote his account of the Trial ofRomain Weinzoepflen. Put out in part by Benedid J. Webb, publisher of the Louisville CatholicAdvocate, Drapier‘s two-hundred-and-ten page book had received the same endorsements from the prosecution and defense that Chandler’s pamphlet had displayed. Drapier also included virtually the same court evidence as presented by Chandler, but he also added details concerning the jury selection, summaries of the Cincinnati depositions, a supplement defending the Catholic doctrine of private confession, and a treatise expounding on one- time defense attorney Thomas’s view of the trial. The author has benefitted from Jenny Franchot’s analysis of such anti-Catholic works as Rebecca Theresa Reed, Six Months in a Convent (Boston, 1835) and Maria Monk, Awful Disclosures of the Hotel Dieu Nunnery of Montreal (New York, 1836); Franchot, Roads to Rome: The Ante- bellum Protestant Encounter with Catholicism (Berkeley, Cal., 1994), 135-61. 45 Louisville Catholic Advocate, August 24, 1844. 46 Circuit Court Papers, Schmoll v. Schmoll, Defendant’s answer, September 25, 1844, Vanderburgh County, Evansville, Indiana. 250 Indiana Magazine of History

ROMANWEINZAEPFEL

Reproduced from Report on the Trial and Conviction of Roman Weinzoepflein, a Roman Catholic Priest, for Rape, Committed upon the Person ofAnna Maria Schmll, while at Confessional, in the Catholic Church at Evansville, Ind. ([Evansville, Ind.?], 1844)

Prostrate Me Blown Up. In this work Schmoll attacked the Catholic Church, particularly denouncing priestly celibacy. Coadjutor Bishop Spalding threatened to respond, but a number of his friends advised him against such action, fearing it would provoke more controversy. Nothing else was heard from Schmoll, but his former wife Maria was said to have kept a house of prostitution in New Orlea1-15.~~

47 The depositions concerning Schmoll’s confession given to Illinois residents Charles Spankern, Charles Nadler, Conrad Mallinckrodt, and Henry Schweitzer were reprinted in Louisville Catholic Aduocate, September 20, 1845, and the New Harmo- ny Indiana Statesman, October 25, 1845. No copy of Schmoll’s pamphlet was found, though Timmermeyer cited the work and the Evansville Journal referred to it. Tim- mermeyer, “Rev. Romain Weinzaepfel,” 144; Evansville Journal, October 9,1845. On the New Orleans rumors see Louisville Catholic Aduocate, March 8, 1845. Early Protestant-Catholic Relations 25 1

ANNAMARIA SCHMOLL

Reproduced fromReport on the Trial and Conviction of Roman Weinzoepflein, a Roman Catholic Priest, for Rape, Committed upon the Person ofAnna Mane Schmoll, while at Confesawnul, in the Catholic Church at Euansuzlle, Znd ([Evansville, Ind 71, 1844) From Jeffersonville Warden Pratt and clerk W. F. Collum wrote to Governor James Whitcomb on behalf of the priest: “His deportment since his confinement, his amiable and gentle manners, and above all, the evidence produced before us recently of the bad character of the accuser, . . . have satisfied us that injustice has been done him.”48At least twenty-seven other petitions with 3,478 signatures, all pro- moting belief in Weinzaepfel’s innocence, were delivered to the governor. These petitions had been gathered from over a dozen southern

48Pratt and Collum to Governor Whitcomb, November 7, 1844,Jeffersonville, Petitions, 1842-1844,box 18,folder 2, L1564, Secretary of the State Papers (Indiana State Archives, Indianapolis), emphasis theirs. 252 Indiana Magazine of History counties of Indiana and from Union County, Kentucky. Most signers were Catholic Democrats, but some were Protestants and a few were Whigs. Five hundred women from Evansville signed a petition. Male signers came from diverse backgrounds, including “farmers, merchants, lawyers, and mechanics of good standing and character.”49Even prosecuting attorney Lockhart suggested executive clemen- cy based on Weinzaepfel’s previously unblemished reputation, along with what Lockhart referred to as “all of the circumstances connected with his trial.”5o The case attracted national attention, and the New York Sun proposed that “The Governor of Indiana should demand the surren- der of the perjured conspirators, and have them punished as they merit.”51But Whitcomb, a Democrat, hesitated either to reopen the case or to respond to the petitions, fearing that such a potentially controversial move might prompt many Protestant Democrats to switch to the Whig party. Whitcomb apparently visited Weinzaepfel in jail and told him, according to several early reports, “that he was convinced of the injustice done to him but that politics prevented him from using his power at the time.”52 Later when Democratic President-elect James K. Polk passed through Jeffersonville on his way to Washington, his wife, Sarah Childress Polk, asked Whitcomb, “Is that not the prison in which the Catholic priest is?“ She added that most believed him to be innocent, and Whitcomb assured her that he would release the priest as soon as possible. After nearly a year in prison Weinzaepfel was set free on February 20, 1845. Though some agreed with the correspondent to the Madison Daily Whig Examiner who called this “an outrageous abuse of pardoning power,” most apparently concurred with the Catholic Aduocate, which labeled the release a “simple act of tardy ju~tice.”~~

49New Harmony Indiana Statesman, April 12,1845. Petitions for Weinzaepfel came from the following counties: Vanderburgh, Posey, Gibson, Knox, Ripley, Franklin, Shelby, Vigo, Martin, Jefferson, Jennings, Bartholomew, and Marion. 50 James Lockhart, Conrad Staser, James J. Walker, Richard Jenkins, and Joseph Lane to Governor Whitcomb, (n.d.1, Vanderburgh County, Petitions, 1842-1844, box 18, folder 2, L1564, Secretary of the State Papers. Other letters were written on Weinzaepfel’s behalf by Lieutenant Governor of Kentucky James Dixon, Indiana State Senator Joseph Lane, Vanderburgh County Representative James T. Walker, and three southern Indiana judges, W. Brown Butler, Samuel Hall, and Conrad Staser. Alerd- ing reported that Lockhart had published a circular claiming that in prosecuting the priest he had been led astray by prejudice. But Embree made no such retraction and, at least according to Alerding, lost the next election partly because he had presided over what most eventually described as an unjust trial. Alerding, History ofthe Catholic Church, 535-36. The Brookville American and the Indianapolis Zndiana Sentinel had debated the possible intervention by the governor. Brookville American, March 29, 1844; Indianapolis Indiana Sentinel, April 11, 1844. ”Quoted in New Harmony Zndiana Statesman, October 25, 1845. 52 “The Catholic Church of Princeton-Its Growth and Development,” 5. See also Louisville Catholic Aduocate, November 21, 1895. 53 Sarah Childress Polk quoted in Louisville Catholic Advocate, November 21, 1895; Madison Daily Whig Examiner, February 27,1845;Louisville Catholic Aduocate, Early Protestant-Catholic Relations 253

Supporters proposed a grand homecoming in Evansville, but Weinzaepfel had other plans. Escorted from jail by a priest named Bac- quelin from across the river, Weinzaepfel spent the next year quiet- ly resting at St. Mary’s College in Marion County, Kentucky. He wanted to retire to the Holy Cross Community at Notre Dame, but Bishop Hailandiere refused to release him from active ministry. Wein- zaepfel returned to Evansville in April 1846 to serve first at St. Wen- del’s, six miles north of the town, and later at St. Philip, St. James, and St. Joseph In September 1845 a committee of Catholic young men from Baltimore sent a chalice for Weinzaepfel to Spalding, asking him to deliver this testimonial of their respect. Weinzaepfel expressed his gratitude on December 9: “I . . . viewed the whole [affair of my trial, conviction, and reprieve] ,” he proclaimed, “as a special disposition of . . . [God’s] Providence for glorifying in the end his church against her revilers.’’ On August 17, 1858, he was appointed pastor at New Alsace, and in 1866 became the first resident pastor of St. Anthony at Morris in Ripley County. Throughout his long career he main- tained rigid standards and frequently upset his parishioners. “With grave concern,” one report added, “he fought [all his life] against the growth of progressive religious thought in our When he was sixty years old, partially blind, and quite infirm, Weinzaepfel finally was allowed to retire from active ministry. In 1874 he professed vows with the Benedictine monks at St. Meinrad’s Archabbey in Spencer County. He returned to Evansville in 1881 to lay the cornerstone for St. Boniface Church “in the presence of,” according to one witness, “a vast assemblage of the people, who were present as much to give testimony of their faith in the good priest as to assist at the sacred ceremonies.” Two years later historian and future Fort Wayne bishop Herman Alerding devoted thirty-nine pages of his History of the Catholic Church in the Diocese of Vincennes to

March 1, 1845. For additional denunciations of the pardon see Logansport Chief, March 8, 1845, and Brookville Indiana American, March 7, 1845. Further support came from Indianapolis Indiana State Journal, cited in Indianapolis Indiana State Sentinel, March 13, 1845, and Greenfield Reveille and Wabash Express, both cited in Indianapolis Indiana State Sentinel, March 20, 1845. Weinzaepfel’s lawyers had appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court with the hope that on various technicalities the court would set aside the Princeton verdict, declare a mistrial, and convene a new trial. But in the summer of 1844 the court refused to disturb the verdict; Weinzorpflin [sic] v. The State, 7 Indiana Reports 186 (1847). 54 “Synopsis historica originis hujus Congregationis ad Saint Wendelinum, et illarum ad Saint Josephum, Saint Jacobum et Phillipum” (ten-page document written August 15,1858, probably by Weinzaepfel, copied by Sebastian Thiebes, July 21, 18791, “Roman Weinzaepfel,” folder 2, box 53, St. Meinrad Monks Papers; From 1841-1991, Saint Joseph’s Catholic Church, Vanderburgh County, History of our Jour- ney (St. Meinrad, Ind., 19911, 5-6,41. 55Roman Weinzaepfel to Mr. O’Brien and the gentlemen of the Committee appointed by the Catholic young men of Baltimore, &c., December 9, 1845, Notre Dame-du-Lac, reprinted in Louisville Catholic Advocate, March 7, 1846. 254 Indiana Magazine of History the Schmoll accusations, concluding that Weinzaepfel was an innocent man. Weinzaepfel lived to celebrate his Golden Jubilee as a priest. The obituary published upon his death on November 11,1895, at St. Meinrad again exonerated him. This report also described him as a rather austere man.56 The Weinzaepfel incident was clearly more complicated than simply another example of religious tension in early nineteenth century America. The evidence supports the contention that the accusations arose initially from the personal animosity of Martin Schmoll and probably his wife toward the priest. Subsequently the smoldering divisions between Protestants and Catholics did become part of the story, but even then the religious cleavage remained far from clear. As early as the Pigeon Township hearing some Protestants tried to stop the mob. Immediately after the trial Sheriff Kirkman was forced to stop mistreating the prisoner, and on the way to Jeffersonville Weinzaepfel's fellow passengers tried to set him free. A sizeable number of people from various backgrounds across southern Indiana not only expressed their belief in Weinzaepfel's innocence but were will- ing to fight for justice in this case. Ultimately the priest was released, to the satisfaction of most observers. The overwhelming support for Weinzaepfel by both Catholics and non-Catholics who knew him not only points to his innocence but also demonstrates that many, pos- sibly a majority of persons in southern Indiana, did not harbor strong anti-Catholic sentiments. Nevertheless, a small group of drunks led by an influential and contentious man not only assured the guilty verdict but also affected the future of religion in the area. Perhaps because of the scandal surrounding the case, Catholicism in Evansville barely grew over the next quarter of a century.

56Charles Blanchard, ed.,History of the Catholic Church in Indiana (2 vols., Logans- port, Ind., 18981, I, 68; Alerding, History of the Catholic Church, 505-44. Weinzaepfel had shown great interest in the Benedictine Abbey since its beginnings. See Albert Kle- ber, History of St. Meinrad Archabbey, 1854-1954 (St. Meinrad, Ind., 1954),48. The Golden Jubilee was reported on fully in Saint Meinrad's Ruben, 111, no. 5 (May 18901, 17-19. Weinzaepfel's obituary was found in Paradiesesfriichte (St. Meinrad, Ind., n.d.), 257.