Much as he enjoyed these intellectual pursuits, as a congregational rabbi Browne did not have the luxury of hiding in an ivory tower. He soon became involved in one of the petty conflicts that Victorian codes of conduct frequently ignited within status-conscious, middle class society. Ostensibly it began shortly after the Brownes returned from their honeymoon. At that time David Heiman, an influential member of the Evansville congregation, complained that he and his wife had been insulted by the rabbi at the latter’s wedding dinner: when the Heimans attempted to sit at the table reserved for the bridal party, someone—presumably Browne—referred them to seats at the head of a different table. A local newspaper learned of the perceived affront and asked Browne about it. The rabbi remained silent until a persistent but seemingly friendly reporter from a rival paper persuaded him that he should tell his side of the story in order to defend himself.11
Acknowledging that the incident had occurred, Browne noted that Heiman did not appear to be offended until months later after returning from a business trip to Metropolis, Indiana. There Heiman claimed to have heard that Browne invoked the name of Jesus Christ in a lecture. While this apparently constituted a crime in Heiman’s view, several people who had attended the lecture testified that it was untrue, which put the rumor to rest. Then Heiman tried again, charging that Browne, after lecturing in Paducah, Kentucky, embezzled proceeds that were designated for charities, one of which was the B’nai B’rith Hebrew Orphan’s Home in Cleveland.
Again exonerated and supported by numerous congregants, Browne offered to forgive Heiman in return for an apology and a large contribution to the Hebrew Orphan’s Home. He received the apology and a small contribution for the home, but only after an unduly long wait. This incensed him to the point of returning the wedding gift that he and Sophie had received from the Heimans.12
The incident evidently struck a deep chord within Browne, for despite continued support from the congregation, in a subsequent interview he unleashed growing grievance over a related situation. The reporter first asked if he would sue for damages, to which Browne replied that he probably would not. If he did, he said, he would represent himself, assisted by Captain W. Frederick Smith, one of the “genial Southern gentlemen and scholars” who had recently come to practice law in Evansville. Then he noted that he thought it would help the clergy if the issue went to court because ministers—rabbis, especially—were being mistreated. They were “disfranchised in every way,” he said, and required to work around the clock for an average salary less than that of a street laborer. Browne noted that it was less onerous with Christians because their ministers could appeal to a conference or synod, whereas rabbis, left to the mercy of their congregants, suffered “all sorts of abuse patiently” because complaints were of no use. In his case, he claimed, if his accuser had succeeded in getting thirty votes against him he would “now be left homeless and under the bans of proscription without relief.”13
Browne did not stop there. In what he may have intended as an innocent plug for Wise’s projected Hebrew Union College, he told the reporter, “You know, sir, that we have no seminaries in this country, and every Tom and Dick who can read a little Hebrew may be accepted at the pleasure of the congregation as a minister. Those parasites spoil the ministry. They have no independence because [they have] no substance.”14
However true this may have been, it was not likely to have pleased members of Congregation B’nai Israel to see it in the city newspaper because it revealed an unseemly aspect of Jewish communal behavior. Nevertheless, no repercussions arose. Shortly after it appeared, a reconciliation took place between Browne and Heiman, who then hosted an elaborate “peace banquet” to celebrate. The Israelite’s Evansville correspondent, reluctant to blame either contender for the unseemly brouhaha, reported, “By some inexplicable way, one of our most respected members allowed himself to be influenced by a malignant party to avenge an imaginary insult....” Presumably the “malignant party” did not live in Evansville.15
Such was the temper of the times. It was not unusual, especially in small communities such as Evansville, for rabbis to be treated as mere employees. In many cases they were not allowed to sermonize without their president’s permission, and one minister was fired because he preached against playing poker.16
Meanwhile, Browne tendered his resignation. The congregation refused to accept it, notifying the Israelite, “we could not afford to part with the man, whom, all artifices of two or three parties notwithstanding, we reelected almost unanimously.” The report also mentioned that the New York-based, Jewish Times, edited by Moritz Ellinger about whom more will be seen subsequently, had published the story “in an aggravated form by a unanimous [sic.] correspondent,” but that it would probably be the last such libel “for our rabbi is not to be trifled with, being a lawyer himself, it is easy for him to file a complaint.... ”17
Nonetheless, the slander continued, although it is unclear whether the next attack–part of the continuing battle between rabbinic factions of the East and West—was intended as a personal thrust against Browne or a statement opposing Darwinism and biblical criticism. Wise’s Evansville correspondent had previously reported seeing Wise cited in the Jewish Times as author of a pamphlet entitled “Attila” that argued against the traditional view of creation as revealed in Genesis. More recently the paper carried a half-page statement identifying the author of the pamphlet as “a western rabbi, not residing in Cincinnati.” Then Browne read in the Jewish Times that “a Hungarian western rabbi whose initials are E.B.M.B.” had written “a scurrilous pamphlet” of the same description.18
Wise debunked the accusation, saying that he had seen the pamphlet three years before, read a favorable review of it in the esteemed London Saturday Review, and found nothing wrong with it. He believed that the letter was an attempt to keep Browne from getting the recently vacated post of English preacher at New York’s prestigious Temple Emanu-El. There was no indication that Browne was seeking any new position. He was still in Evansville and despite the incident with Heiman, ostensibly very happy there. Referencing the ongoing struggle between East and West, Wise observed, “There seems to be a secret purpose hidden in that attack on Dr. Browne.... ” Citing the vacancy at Temple Emanu-El, he argued that, since the press had praised Browne as an extemporaneous and successful English preacher, “somebody might have the idea this young orator could be engaged in the Emanuel Temple... and must therefore be abused in advance so that the hierarchical fraternity of the metropolis be not disturbed by an independent link in the chain forged on the New York reform congregations.”19
The strength of that chain would affect Browne in the not-so-distant future. At this time, however, Wise was actually addressing his own agenda, as he continued,
We know to a certainty that the Jewish Times has abused us beyond measure, by order of the New York hierarchs, because it was rumored one day [that] we might be a candidate for some New York pulpit and, we are told, it is abusing us now, and we suppose also Browne, because it fears, by order of course, he or we might have such an idea now. We can assure those terrified gentlemen that we are no candidate for any office, ecclesiastical or political, and in regard to Dr. Browne we can add that he is well situated in Evansville. It is not necessary on this ground that the Times should continue in unprincipled meanness to attack, especially as we never condescend to make a reply to a sheet enslaved by its taskmasters and conducted by a man without honor or integrity.20
The man was Wise’s rival, Rabbi David Einhorn, and it was not the last time that his newspaper libeled Browne. Within a few months Browne informed Wise of further abuse, but indicated that he would not sue because “the Times is not worth one cent, hence a suit would only incur to my loss.” 2211
Wise responded:
“while it is acceded that slander is contemptible, no matter who the parties concerned are, we believe the crime is greatly increased when it aims at the honor of a young man. We old ones can stand a great deal without being hurt, but as regards a young man some people will believe something, let it come from any source.”22
Still