Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922 | View Entire Issue (Feb. 27, 1916)
The Omaha Sunday Bee Magazine Page Wkafc WOULD araafciDnaHe Society Woman Do in Jail rsts,, i 2e United States Court Indictment of Mrs. Whitney Warren for Smuggling Five Trunks Full of Paris Gowns Raises the Recent Smutfullntf Cases in New York Question Whether a PHsOU and what the Punishments Were - . n- , . n l-VL B 11.. . ... .... -"" inawien Mflill SJ, 1 VI 1, lot smuggling Jewels for Mr. Helen Dweuo Jenkins fined by Judge Hough October 3, 1911 $200,000 Nathan Alien, indicted with Collin end fined by Judge Hough tame day Mr. Ada F. C. Adriance, wife of I. Reynold Adrianee, wealthy harr eater manufacturer of Poughkecpeie, tried in August, 1910, to smuggle $8,000 necklace in hetbendi indicted, pleaded gdUty October 7, and fined $5,000, which she paid, with $12,063, the home rain of and the duty on necklace 1 2,063 (la sentencing her Judge Hand (aid nest offender would go to jaiL) Mr. Lavender Byer Dunlap, wife of William A. Dunlap, on of millionaire hatter, brought In $61,194 in Jewel en November 12, 1913, and neglected to de clare themj following their aeixure Mr. Dunlap said ho wa a resident of England) Government sued) ho brought counter sultj compromised May 20, 1915, when ahe paid $26,143 end promised to stay $10,000 more on January 1, 1915 HERE 13 THE CONTRAST! f. Sebosta, poor musician, brought in a harp which ho did not de clare in 1911. Sentenced to even month. Survino do Billi smuggled in twelve pair of glove. Sentenced to ix month and fined $100. Mr. Roberta Mange Corwin Hill (Tearle) smuggled in a coat worth $6,000. Pined $2,000 and sentenced to three day. (She wa the first woman muggier Jailed in this country.) Mrs. Whitney Warren's Five Trunks TWELVE men of the United States Grand Jury in New York have de cided that Mrs. Whitney Warren, a wealthy woman ot excellent social po sitional probably guilty of smuggling five trunks full of fashionable dresses Into New York. After hearing an ex parte statement from the custom house officials, the Grand Jury Indicted Mrs. Whitney Warren, and accused her of four separate infractions ot the law. Whether the Grand Jury used good Judgment, and it turns out that Mrs. Whitney Warren la really a criminal, will not be known until the accused has been tried, and Judge and Jury have decided her guilt or Innocence. In fact, at the moment this is being written, it Is pos sible Mrs. Whitney Warren's lawyers may be arranging a compromise with the Government authorities, and that some settlement of the case may be made without Mrs. Whitney Warren being compelled to sit in the criminals' pen and endure the unpleasant experience of a criminal trial. , Whatever may be the final outcome ot the Indictment of Mrs. Whitney Warren, society leader and woman ot wealth and position, the interesting question arises aa to whether any Judge would probably . ever sentence a woman of wealth and social position to any considerable term In Jail. Nowhere throughout the United States, from Maine to California, is there any social leader of wealth sitting in a prison cell. - It is bard to recall any case where a woman of millions and social promi nence ever did go to Jail. Is it an im possible and preposterous idea? What would a society woman do in Jail? There is nothing in the prison life which she is at all fitted for. la her narrow little cell there la bo op portunity for holding receptions. Every woman of position of course has her "at home" some day each week. If a society butterfly goes to Jail, aha would be strictly confined to her temporary "home" every day in the week. But while she would always be "at home" every day during her term ot imprisonment, her home would be of such narrow propor tions that it would be impossible to wel come any considerable number of guests. Therefore, it would be Impracticable for a society woman to continue her cus tomary weekly "at homes" in Jail i Of course, a society woman in prison could sleep late in the morning, probably, as she does at home, unless she was sentenced to a term at "hard labor," which would be unlikely. She might sleep until noon every day, which would not upset her customary habit of life in that respect But what about her evenings? How she would miss the theatre, the opera, dances, receptions and dinner parties! It la cuBtomary in prisons to put the lights out at nine o'clock. This would be a great hardship, for a society woman. There Is no visiting between cells during the evening, so that the society woman serving her sentence could not look Tor ward to any callers In the evening. Very few society women ever read any thing, and the reason for this is that they are too busy to have any time for 'read ing. Therefore not having the habit of reading the long hours of the evening would drag tediously in her cell. ' Having no maid to give orders to, bo footman or butler to scold, no opportu nity to do shopping, no bridge parties, it would be a dreary prospect. Even If a aociety woman prisoner had a cellmate there would be no real oppor tunity for dancing, because the space la o limited In a prison cell that dancing is Impossible. What, then, would a society woman do to amuse herself during the long hours and days and, perhaps, weeks, of her sentence? It would seem as If there was nothing left for her to do but dress. By giving the whole morning to doing The ttae. . $4,000 200,000 12,000 17,063 61.194 26.143 up ber hair and arranging herself for luncheon, she might occupy ber .mind and fingers quite welL After luncheon she might put in the afternoon taking down her hair and doing It up again, and , preparing a very elaborate evening . toilette for dinner. She would then find herself in an elaborate evening dress sit ting on the edge of her narrow bunk eating her dinner from a table of rough boards, and reminiscing to herself as she stirred her coffee in the tin mug with an old tin spoon. But this picture of a woman ot social poaltton and wealth, who has been accus tomed to the soft comforts of a well servanted home would probably strike the Judge as a cruel and unusual punishment. Nowhere' in the United States is there sny such spectacle to be seen. Is It Impossible and preposterous to imagine such a thing as Mrs. Whitney Warren In Jail, even If she is convicted? There are four separate things which the Grand Jury accuses Mrs. Whitney Warren of having done. ' The first count accuses her of bringing certain merchandise into the United States by means ot a fraudulent and false by means of false and fraudulent prac tises and false statements, verbal and written, in that she stated, in her decla ration, that the value of the merchandise was 1,600. whereas she well knew it was actually worth much more, and there after she stated verbally to the customs examiner thai three of the gowns had been previously bought in France and imported Into the United States, and duty had then been paid on them, whereas she well knew that the gowns bad never be fore been Imported into the United tSatea nor the duty paid on them. The second count accuses her of at tempting to introduce the same merchan dise into the commerce of the United States by means of a fraudulent and false declaration in that the value of the mer chandise was largely in excesa of the $1,500 stated in the declaration and by means of the false verbal statement to the examiner. The third count accuses her of fraudu lently omitting from her declaration the value of three gowns, as a result of which omission the United States might be de prived ot the lawful duties thereon. The fourth count accuses her of at tempting to introduce into the commerce or the United States certain imported merchandise by means of a false and fraudulent declaration, In that her decla ration stated that the foreign cost price or actual foreign market value of the merchandise was 11,600, whereaa the actual cost or foreign market value was largely In excess of $1,600 as she well knew. These four counts are framed so as to 1 bring Mrs. Warren's conduct within one or more of the various Federal provisions against smuggling and evasion ot the customs. Stripped of their legal verbiage, they accuse Mrs. Warren of two definite violations of the customs law, namely, undervaluation of her declared merchan dise and a false verbal statement to the customs examiner. It is claimed by the government that the wearing apparel which Mrs. Warren said cost her only $1,500 was actually worth nearer $10,000. and that Mrs. Warren knew It. When she was con fronted with the valuation put upon ber apparel by the government appraisers, Mrs. Warren is accused of having Justi fied her own figures by explaining that three of the gowns in question bad previously been Imported and that she had paid duty on them, and that, there fore, she had not included their value in the $1,600. The government claims that these three gowns had never before been im ported, and that, therefore, Mrs. Warren not only made a false verbal statement to a customs examiner, which, in itself, is a violation ot the tariff act, but, by Anoaat 1sto1t4. aenience wouia tse a Cruel and Unusual' Punishment for a Woman of Wealth ' WoaopoooM - 7 ax w wacr . ... "It would seem aa if there wa nothing left for her to do but aire. By giving the whole morning to doing up her hair and arranging herself for luncheon, he might occupy her mind and finger quite well. After luncheon she might put in the afternoon taking down her hair and doing it up again, and preparing a very elaborate evening toilette for dinner. She would then find herself in on elaborate evening drea itting on the edge of her narrow bonk eating her dinner from a table of rough board, and rominiaciag to herself as the stirred her coffee in the tin mug with an old tin spoon." her own admission, she had omitted these gowns from her declaration, which, it the government is correct, Is a second vio lation of the act The three gowns, which will play such sa important part In this case, are meagerly described in the Indictment as "one black and metal thread evening costume trimmed with lace; one flame colored evening gown, beaded; one flame colored evening cootume." In addition, the wearing apparel which Mrs. Warren valued at $1,600. and which filled five large trunks. Is ald to bave included a quantity of gowns, suits, costumes, blouses, coats, hats, furs and other mer chandise. The three gowr. It is understood, were created by f'nllot, the famous Paris ian dressmaker. Just what they cost Mrs. Warren baa not been revealed. When Mr. Warrea returned from France on November 16 and presented her bsggsge tor inspection she waa unable tc pre sent Callot'e bills for the gowns la quea- Copyright. 1914. by the Star Compear. &-. "ill . zngrzziz: ill! Wfia aeSad rf tlon. She explained that she had bought a large number of gowns at the time be cause she had been informed In Paris that they were to be had at great bargains. According to the government, however, Mrs. Warren's Information regarding war-bargains obtainable in Parisian costume and miyinery is diametrically opposite to the V experience ot other private and commercial purchasers abroad. Professional buyers and private patrons of the great French modistes and milliners have uniformly complained that ever since the war prices have been steadily climbing. However, that may be, the government la at a loss to understand bow a woman of Mrs. Warren's experience could be honestly mistaken when she staUd that the thre gowns bad been previously Im ported. ' One explanation of Mrs. Warrea's omUalon of these three gowns from her declaration is that ahe considered her Great Britain Rights Reserved. ft I,-, - . , I "ENTRY Or ARTICLES OBTAINED ABROAD. Facsimile of Mr. Whitney Warren' Sworn Declaration Before the Custom House Inspector. self Justified In omitting them because she had secured them in exchange for three other gowns which she had previously Imported and paid duty on, but which she had taken back with her to Paris because they were unsatis factory. Whether that is the case or not, or whether such a state of facta would actually excuse Mrs. Warren's alleged violation of the tariff act remains to be seen. The case has attracted considerable attention, not only because ot the prom inence of the people Involved, but be cause it presents a somewhat unique situation. The usual charge against those who eek to ersde the customs Is "smug gling.'' Jt la based on an attempt to i. i: ' " ! 4ji etHffcwreea) Wfc.av-va. x-v. Mrs. VenderbBS, Mrs. laelin and Mrs. Whitney Warren at the Fashionable Piping Rock Hone Shew (Mrs. Warren at the Left. Seated). Phot (C) by Underwood aV Underwood. cheat the government by "clandestinely" Importing merchandise. . Mrs. Warren's case is different She concealed nothing. The charge is that ahe lied as to the cost price of certain gowns and again as to certain of the gowns having previously been imported. "Here are five trunks containing my wearing apparel and effects." the virtu ally declared. "I value It all at $1,600." The government, on the other hand, contends that she must have known that the merchandise was worth many times $1,600, and, th erf ore, her statement was false. In addition, of course, there is the alleged false statement regarding the previous Importation of the three gowns. When Mrs. Ada r. C. Adriance, wife of I. Reynolds Adriance, the millionaire harvester, pleaded guilty a few years ago to having smuggled an $8,000 necklace in a hatband, she was fined $5,000 plus the home value of and the duty on the neck lace, making a total penalty of $17,063. Some time later Mrs. Roberta Mengea Corwin Hill Tearle, who had smuggled in a aealskla Coat worth $6,000, was fined $2,000 and sentenced to three days In the Tombs, which she served. A Jail entenoe, to be sure, but not a Terr severe one. In view of all these facts, and the atti tude of Dudley Field Malone, Collector ot the Port, who declared, after an lu vestlgstion ot the case, that he believed "that there was in this case an attempt to defraud the government,' it is under stood that the court will be urged to Impose a prison sentence in the event that Mrs. Warren Is found guilty. The Whitney Warrens move in the most exclusive New York and . Boston society circles They were Includ ed In Mrs. Ogden Mills's list of "one .hundred and fifty exoluslves." Mr. Warren is one of New York's most famous architects. He designed the Rltz-Csrlton, the Vanderbllt. the Belmont and vari ous other fashion able hotals, the Grand Central Ter minal and other Imposing struo tures. The Warrens have two children, Miss Gabrielle and Whitney. Jr. The boy is at school in Groton, Mass. Mrs. Warren was Char lotte A. Tooker. It Mrs. Warren Is ever tried and xonvtcted, the Judge may order Foauen Cos en Vaivs in U. S. MowST. mVllMaitrreMavl I JPaianigtr. her to pay a fine, This will, ot course, be no bard ablp to a person ot her wealth. It will, in fact, be no real punishment. The law means that a convicted smug gler shall be punished. But it a money fine Is no real punishment then what? The law provldea tmprlaonment also, in the discretion ot the Judge. Two years on each of the two chief offenses four years in prison tor Mrs. Warren, it the very worst should happen But there is a provision la the Con stitution ot the United States, that so "cruel and unusual" punlnhmeut. must ever be inflicted. Would It be too cruel and too very unusual to sentence a woman of wealth and fashion to Jail? What on earth would a farhlonable woman find to do In pricon? It would be such a dull time.