Varley, Henry. the Case of Hermann Warszawiak. Boston : N.P., 1897

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.