Rutherford's Coup: The Watchtower Succession Crisis of 1917 and Its Aftermath 9781778143021

Citation preview

Rutherford’s Coup The Watch Tower Succession Crisis of 1917 and Its Aftermath by Rud Persson E-book ISBN: 978-1-7781430-2-1 © Copyright 2022 Rud Persson. All rights reserved. All rights to the publication of Rutherford’s Coup remain with the author. In case of death, all rights shall be transferred to Hart Publishers, Inc. Supplemental information on Rutherford’s Coup, and errata, may be found on the Hart Publishers website at: www.hartpublishers.ca/rutherfords-coup Hart Publishers, Inc., Paris, Ontario, Canada. www.hartpublishers.ca

To my dear wife BIRGIT without whose patience and encouragement this book would never have been written.

Contents Foreword by M. James Penton Acknowledgements Introduction Part One: The Running Story (1916 - 1919) 1. Charles Taze Russell Was Dead 2. Preparing for the Next Election 3. The Annual Meeting of January 6, 1917 4. The Peoples Pulpit Association and Adoption of By-Laws 5. Brewing Dissatisfaction and the Case of Paul S.L. Johnson 6. Paul S.L. Johnson’s Visit to Britain 7. Headed for a Showdown 8. The Johnson Case Triggers a Clash 9. From June 21 to July 16, 1917 10. “A Strenuous Day” 11. Peace Efforts and More Confrontation 12. Rutherford’s Legal Arguments 13. “Then It Will Be War” 14. The Boston Convention and Its Immediate Aftermath 15. The Seventh Volume 16. On the Road to the 1918 Election 17. The 1918 Election and Its Immediate Consequences 18. Confrontation with the Authorities 19. The Watch Tower Society at Its Lowest Ebb 20. The Pastoral Bible Institute 21. The Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement 22. The Bible Students Committee in Britain 23. The Stand Fast Movement 24. Conclusion Part Two: Historical Biographies of Persons Prominently Involved Joseph Franklin Rutherford (1869-1942) John Adam Bohnet (1858-1932) George Herbert Fisher (1870-1926) Jesse Hemery (1864-1963) Robert Henry Hirsh (1868-1949)

Isaac Francis Hoskins (1878-1957) William Franklyn Hudgings (1889-1937) Paul Samuel Leo Johnson (1873-1950) Alexander Hugh Macmillan (1877-1966) Francis Harris McGee (1872-1926) William Egbert Page (1855-1927) Andrew Nils Pierson (1850-1925) Alfred Isaac Ritchie (1871-1946) Henry Clay Rockwell (1874-1950) Gertrude W. Seibert (1864-1928) Walter Edgar Spill (1869-1953) Menta Sturgeon (1866-1935) William Edwin Van Amburgh (1863-1947) Clayton James Woodworth (1870-1951) James Dennis Wright (1867-1946) Appendices 1. Will and Testament of Charles Taze Russell 2. Did Rutherford Tamper with Russell’s Will? 3. The Charter of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society 4. The Charter of the Peoples Pulpit Association 5. The Resolution and By-Laws of January 6, 1917 6. Letter to Class Secretaries, July 19, 1917 7. Resolution of Rutherford’s Board, July 17, 1917 8. General Corporation Law 1882 9. Davies, Auerbach & Cornell 10. Rutherford’s Letter of December 16, 1914 about his Wife’s Health 11. Macmillan’s Letter of August 6, 1915 about Uncertainty 12. A Protest against Misrepresentation 13. Henning Andersson’s Testimony about Rutherford & Bethel Glossary Bibliography Sources for Historical Biographies Figures 1. Brooklyn Bethel about 1911 2. The London Tabernacle

3. Brooklyn Tabernacle 4. The Finished Mystery, seventh volume, page 3 5. Harvest Siftings 6. Light after Darkness 7. Harvest Siftings, Part II 8. Harvest Siftings Reviewed 9. Facts for Shareholders 10. Vote results 11. The defendants 12. Stand Fast letter 13. Beth Sarim 14. Rosemont Mount Hope Cemetery and the Watch Tower farm 15. Pierson’s rose garden with his mansion in the background 16. Letter to Class Secretaries, July 19, 1917 17. Resolution of Rutherford’s Board, July 17, 1917 18-21. General Corporation Law 1882 22. Letter from Davies, Auerbach & Cornell 23. Rutherford’s Letter about his Wife’s Health 24. Macmillan’s Letter about Uncertainty

FOREWORD by M. James Penton Rud Persson and I have much in common. Both of us were raised as Jehovah’s Witnesses, and because of that fact have worked together on the history of that religion for nearly forty years. Naturally, I have the greatest respect for him. Despite the fact that Swedish is his native language, he has come to speak, read and write English as though he had used it from childhood, something that was not the case. Besides English, he also has a working knowledge of German. But what is most outstanding about him is that while he is a businessman rather than a professional academic historian, he has managed to gain an excellent knowledge of the principles of historical research and writing, something evident in Rutherford’s Coup: The Watch Tower Succession Crisis of 1917 and Its Aftermath. It should be stressed here that Persson is a former Jehovah’s Witness. But he did not leave that religion under a cloud. In fact, it was only after much research concerning the movement’s history and his close association with another outstanding Swedish ex-Witness, Carl Olof Jonsson, that he, his wife, son, and daughter felt that they could no longer remain members of the Witnesses religion. Because of his research, they held that many of that religion’s claims simply did not hold up to the facts of history. Consequently, there can be no basis for regarding Persson as a sore-headed apostate, something that both the Jehovah’s Witnesses hierarchy and certain academics may attempt to label him as. Actually, it is because he was a long-standing Witness and excellent researcher that he understands so well what was going on at Watch Tower headquarters in 1917. After all, both the name Jehovah’s Witnesses and the hierarchical governance system of that faith were Rutherford’s brain-children–something recognized by the present Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses. In fact, members of that Governing Body wrongly assert that their very organizational entity began its existence in 1919 under Rutherford. Of course, there have been others who have done basic studies of the 1917 Watch Tower succession crisis. These include Alan Rogerson, in his book Millions Now Living Will Never Die, and Joseph F. Zygmunt, William H. Cumberland, and Jan Haugland in individual university theses.1 While all of these studies are useful introductions to the subject at hand, none of them display either the depth or breadth presented by Persson in Rutherford’s Coup. Although there are a number of books that have been published by individual Jehovah’s Witnesses, they are a mixed bag. As examples, some are very solid works like those of Matthew Alfs2, while others like those of A. H. Macmillan and Marley Cole are simply apologists for the Witness religion. As well, there are many books that have been written by former Jehovah’s Witnesses, all of which should be evaluated individually as to their strength or weakness. But since there are so many, I cannot evaluate them here.

Unfortunately, a number of academics who rightly pushed back against the illegal practice of kidnaping and the forced deprogramming of members of various new religions have gone on to attack “apostates” from those religions that have been denominated “cults” by their critics and “New Religious Movements” or NRMs by their defenders. Concerning just how far this defence of NRMs has gone, note how New Religions professor James R. Lewis led a group of four Americans, including J. Gordon Melton, the author of the Encyclopedia of American Religions, human rights lawyer Barry Fisher, and chemical expert Thomas Banigan, to Japan to defend a dangerous religious movement called Aum Shinrikyo after some of its members had released poison gas in a Tokyo subway, thereby killing twelve commuters. Later, despite clear evidence to the contrary, Lewis went so far as to state that it was North Korean agents rather than members of Aum Shinrikyo who had been guilty of the atrocity.3 While few students of NRMs have gone as far as Lewis, others have been outspokenly negative about “apostates” from New Religions or what some have started to call “Old New Religions” as well. These Old New Religions include groups such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Latter-day Saints, and the Baha’i faith. The late Lonnie Kliever, then the chairman of the Department of Religion at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas, wrote at the behest of the Church of Scientology, and asserted: “Neither the quietly appreciative former member nor the vocally aggrieved apostate from a new religious movement can be taken as an objective and authoritative interpreter of the religious movement to which he or she belonged.”4 J. Gordon Melton has been equally outspoken about “apostates.” He has remarked: “To put it bluntly, hostile ex-members invariably shade the truth. They invariably blow out of proportion minor incidents and turn them into major incidents, and over a period of time their testimony almost always changes because each time they tell it they get the feedback of acceptance or rejection from those to whom they tell it, and hence it will be developed and merged into a new worldview that they are adopting.”5 Bryan Wilson, who was noted as an outstanding British sociologist, agreed with Kliever and Melton before his death in 2004. In a Whitepaper that appears on the Internet, he wrote: Neither the objective sociological researcher nor the court of law can readily regard the apostate as a creditable or reliable source of evidence. He must always be seen as one whose personal history predisposes him to bias with respect to both his previous religious commitment and affiliations, the suspicion must arise that he acts from a personal motivation to vindicate himself and to regain his selfesteem, by showing himself to have been first a victim but subsequently to have become a redeemed crusader. As various instances have indicated, he is likely to be suggestible and ready to enlarge or embellish his grievances to satisfy that species of journalist whose interest is more in sensational copy than in an objective statement of the truth. But isn’t what these three scholars have written equivalent to asserting that no one should believe any whistleblower? Isn’t it just possible that some “apostates” were actually stating the

truth about the religion they have left? I find it hard to believe that these three academics’ statements were or are reasonable. After all, they were referring to large groups of individuals, male and female, of many nationalities and races, with various levels of education, and with differing individual personalities, and, of course, from many different religious groups. So surely, men like Kliever, Melton, and Wilson must have had other reasons for what I feel were foolish remarks that have violated the academic rules of scholarship. In fact, it is well known that these men were working for money which they would have obtained by acting as academic spokesmen for certain NRMs such as the Church of Scientology. In other cases, some have enhanced the sales of their books to loyal members of various Old New Religions such as Jehovah’s Witnesses.6 Then too, there have been and are some, like James R. Lewis, who are true believers who will defend virtually any NRM or New Old Religion because they feel that they are enhancing social justice and religious freedom. But sadly, by eliminating “apostates” from their association, they have often neglected and misrepresented the works of authors who have left their former religions. This is particularly true of the Italian-based organization called CESNUR or Center for Studies on New Religions which has many members in the Englishspeaking world. So how will the attitudes of anti-apostate, self-appointed judges affect the evaluation and sale of Rud Persson’s Rutherford’s Coup? That remains to be seen, but my guess is that as it becomes known on the book market, it will be purchased by the many thousands of individuals who are at present leaving Jehovah’s Witnesses and by numerous fair-minded academics and students of modern religions who are willing to examine any works that deal with modern religious history and judge them on their own merits or lack thereof.

Footnotes 1 Zygmunt’s and Cumberland’s dissertations were written for doctoral degrees in sociology and history at the Universities of Chicago and Iowa respectively. Haugland’s Master’s thesis was produced for the University of Bergen, Norway. 2 Alf’s The Evocative Religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses presents some interesting insights. For example, he shows how close in outlook Jehovah’s Witnesses are to fundamentalist Evangelicalism despite the fact that they each have very negative feelings towards each other. See Chapter 6, “At War with a Rival.” 3 See the Wikipedia article on J. Gordon Melton and, in particular, the section called the “Aum Shinriko investigation.” 4 Quoted in my Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Third Reich on page 232 with reference to the Internet source of Kliever’s remarks. 5 Also given on page 232 of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Third Reich but with a different Internet source listed. 6 This seems, in particular, true of the German historian of the Nazi Concentration camps, Detlef Garbe, who has attacked my scholarship in the Preface to the English translation of his Between Resistance & Martyrdom. Without demonstrating that my criticisms of Watch Tower president J.F. Rutherford were wrong in my Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Third Reich, he simply says that my writings “lack scientific objectivity.” Interestingly, the translator of Garbe’s Zwischen Widerstand und Martyrium was a Jehovah’s Witness. Garbe was subsidized in part by the Arnold-Liebster Foundation, a Jehovah’s Witness organization, and he was assisted by the Watch Tower Society’s historian in the United States. So much for “historical objectivity.”

Acknowledgements I am indebted to a number of people whose help has been essential for publication of this book. Four persons stand out here. First, my thanks go to Professor M. James Penton in Canada who, more than anyone else, has helped me to see this study through. Without his constant aid and encouragement, it would probably not have been completed and published. Penton secured for me a photocopy of the original Charter of the Peoples Pulpit Association from the Department of State, New York, and copies of the later amendments as well. He also supplied me with the doctoral thesis of William H. Cumberland from 1958 as well as a number of important articles in The Brooklyn Daily Eagle from 1916. Through his efforts, significant data on Francis H. McGee were acquired, including newspaper articles. It was also because of his untiring labor that a good photo of McGee could be procured. And last, but not least, he has proofread all the chapters, historical biographies and appendices of my work. Second, I owe to Bible Student historian James B. Parkinson in California the credit for helping me to start my research, providing me with multiple early sources, including the circular of the ousted directors dated July 27, 1917, which offered a good photocopy of the legal opinion of a reputable New York law firm. He also sent me a photocopy of the handwritten charter of the Society from 1884. In recent years, he has forwarded valuable data on a number of persons involved in the conflict, including Alfred I. Ritchie and Isaac F. Hoskins. Quite recently he came across some hitherto unavailable papers related to the Stand Fast defection from the Society, and he graciously shared them with me. He has also critiqued my manuscript as it has become available to him, offering valuable suggestions, many of which have been adopted. Third, in recent years Mike Castro from Rhode Island has been very helpful with various requests. He has sent me a photocopy of the board resolution of July 17, 1917, and its covering letter dated July 19, 1917, sent to most Bible Student classes in America. He has also sent me the biography on Rutherford appearing in the now rare second edition of Russell’s memorial issue of The Watch Tower. His decision to send me the original Watch Tower volumes of 1917, 1918 and 1919 as a loan helped me immensely, as did his decision to lend me his copy of the extremely rare 1927 edition of The Finished Mystery. He has also provided me with a good photo of Andrew N. Pierson obtained from the Historical Society in Cromwell, Connecticut and graciously granted me permission to use an excellent photo of Gertrude W. Seibert, the only woman to play a significant part in the succession conflict. On top of that, Mike has also shared valuable information on M. Sturgeon, F.H. Fisher, W.F. Hudgings and, most importantly, Dr. Walter E. Spill, one of Rutherford’s replacement Directors in July 1917. Fourth, during the final phase of my writing, Jeff Mezera from the Watch Tower History YouTube channel was immensely helpful. He sent me information and documentation I did not have before. He increased my knowledge of J.A. Bohnet, one of Rutherford’s replacement

directors in 1917, and particularly of Rutherford himself. He also provided valuable scans and photos. My compatriot and friend, Carl Olof Jonsson, shared all the early issues of The Present Truth, published by Paul S.L. Johnson. Like Penton, he has over the years encouraged me, even pushed me, to make my research available. For these reasons he deserves mention here. Brian Kutscher from Michigan, unofficial curator of The Bible Students’ Archives, deserves credit for sharing pictures of a number of people involved in the conflict and for granting me the privilege of using them. Brian also sent me the important pilgrim schedules appearing in The Watch Tower 19111916 and useful information on Robert H. Hirsh and his wife, Rose L. Hirsh. David Penton, a lawyer in Canada, deserves special thanks here for supplying me with two law books specifically dealing with Pennsylvania corporate law bearing on the legal issues connected with the management crisis. These sources proved to be absolutely crucial for my understanding of the legal claims made by the contending parties during the conflict dealt with. Eric Wilson from Ontario, Canada, has done a lot of practical work on my manuscript in preparation for the printing, for which I am deeply grateful. Two ladies from North America who wish to be anonymous have done the final proofreading. I thank both of them, too. I would also like to thank the following persons who all provided me with vital documentation and information bearing on the subject: Barbara Anderson from Tennessee sent me a CD covering all the issues of The Golden Age from 1919-1937, a most helpful source of information. She has also made other source material available and put me in touch with other key persons able to help me further. Gerald Bergman sent me a good copy of the first edition of The Finished Mystery, published in 1917. He also sent me an excellent photocopy of the EXTRA EDITION Vol. XV., No. 8 Zion’s Watch Tower, dated April 25, 1894—a very important document directly bearing on the subject of my book. Rolando Rodriguez sent me the important historical article given in The Watchers in the Morning, January 1955, pp. 3-9. Charles Ryba sent me a good photocopy of the 6-page tract, The Parable of the Penny, published by C.J. Woodworth in August 1917. Freddy Holman from Quincy, California, shared the important newspaper article from Ventura County Star on September 16, 1957, about the tragic end of Isaac F. Hoskins, one of the directors ousted by Rutherford in 1917. He also shared the article from The Cincinnati Enquirer on Monday May 4, 1903, about Paul S.L. Johnson’s break from the Lutheran Church. Marvin Shilmer (pseud.) shared the letter from A.H. Macmillan dated August 6, 1915, and gave me permission to publish it. Alan Rogerson, then of Wolfson College, England, helped me to get hold of his doctoral dissertation from 1972. Richard Rawe from Washington State is now deceased, but I want to acknowledge that he helped me by sending a copy of the 1918 edition of The Finished Mystery as well as the doctoral thesis of Joseph F. Zygmunt from 1967. A lady who wishes to be anonymous helped me by supplying a lot of valuable information by skimming public records in America. She was able to considerably enhance my knowledge of Alfred I. Ritchie, J. Dennis Wright, A.H. Macmillan and their wives. She also found the baptismal record for Robert H. Hirsh and established that his second name was Henry. Skip

Higgins, a genealogist in America, generously shared his vast knowledge about Clayton J. Woodworth and his relatives. Finally, I owe credit to my cousin and compatriot Kurt Rubensson, who, as a genealogist, did most of the spadework in obtaining data for Andrew N. Pierson and his family from Swedish church records.

Introduction The internal upheaval in the Watch Tower Society in 1917 was one of the most serious crises ever in the history of what had become known as the Bible Student movement, and which became Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1931. That upheaval dealt with the management of the corporation immediately following the death of Charles Taze Russell, the Bible Students’ primary founder and elected Pastor, who had exercised complete control of the Society. The group that emerged as victors in the conflict soon placed theological significance on the events, declaring that they and their supporters had been chosen by Christ as the “faithful and wise servant”, while their opponents had been rejected as “that evil servant.” (Matthew 24:45-51, King James Version) This was said to be the outcome of Christ’s alleged coming to his temple in 1918 for cleansing and judgment.1 This view was maintained for many years thereafter,2 and even though the teaching has recently been changed somewhat, it is still taught that four board members or directors “rebelled” against the recently elected Watch Tower president, Joseph F. Rutherford,3 and that their expulsion from Watch Tower headquarters in Brooklyn, New York, commonly called Bethel (the House of God in Hebrew) in August 1917 was “a cleansing indeed.”4 So, the victorious faction is still painted in bright colors and the losing one, in black. According to the Watch Tower Society as it exists today, Rutherford and his supporters were completely justified in everything they did, whereas their opponents were just “ambitious and prideful men” whose attitudes and actions were totally unjustified and reprehensible. The Society’s position may be found in Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose (1959), the 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the more recent book, Jehovah’s Witnesses Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom (1993). A.H. Macmillan’s Faith on the March (1957) must be counted in this list as well as it was officially endorsed by the Society.5 How This Study Began It was when I, as a Jehovah’s Witness, was reading Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose that I noticed a discrepancy that cast some doubt on the official account. On page 70, it claimed that Rutherford and two other officers of the Society rightly ignored the board of directors when deciding that the seventh volume of Studies in the Scriptures should be published. But earlier in the book, on page 27, article two of the Watch Tower Society’s charter had been quoted, stating that “publication of tracts, pamphlets, papers and other religious documents” were indeed matters for the “board of directors, duly constituted” to decide. It seemed something was amiss here, and I wanted to find out the facts. Then, I found a statement on page 76 of Macmillan’s Faith on the March that Paul S.L. Johnson, one of Rutherford’s opponents, later claimed to be “the world’s high priest”—a bit difficult to believe. So again, I wanted to check the facts. Since Watch Tower writers placed so much emphasis on the events that took place in 1917, it became important for me to look into them. But I did not then know how to go about such an

investigation. That was in the latter part of the 1960s, and not until 1973 was I able to start my research. That year I read Alan Rogerson’s excellent study, Millions Now Living Will Never Die: A Study of Jehovah’s Witnesses, published in 1969. Rogerson presented quite a shocking history of the management crisis, and he also provided addresses to two Bible Student movements in America. I wrote to both and was soon able to collect the most important contemporary materials bearing on the schism. Raymond G. Jolly of the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement and James B. Parkinson of the Dawn Bible Student Association were particularly helpful in providing information. With the latter, I had a very fruitful communication lasting several years. One thing that immediately struck me as significant was the fact that a number of prominent Bible Students, who could not have been motivated by pride or ambition, supported Rutherford’s opponents. Francis H. McGee—the most illustrious lawyer the movement had—whom both Russell and Rutherford had consulted on difficult legal matters, certainly had nothing to gain from opposing Rutherford. But he did. The same was true of Andrew N. Pierson, the Society’s vice president, who had nominated Rutherford for president. When he took a stand against Rutherford’s course in the latter part of July 1917, he could not have had any ulterior motive. Then there was the case of Robert H. Hirsh. He had everything to lose from opposing Rutherford, yet he did. He was one of the five editors of The Watch Tower magazine, was a director of the Peoples Pulpit Association, the Watch Tower Society’s New York subsidiary, and had been elected to the board of directors of the Society on March 29, 1917 at Rutherford’s instigation. Rejecting The Published Version As more and more relevant material became available, it became evident that the Society—and Macmillan too—had promulgated a number of outright falsehoods about the 1917 internal conflict. For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose claims on page 71 that when Rutherford had ousted the directors, their attorney had “confirmed Brother Rutherford’s position that they had never legally been members of the board of directors” and that Rutherford therefore “was entirely within his rights” in “refusing to consider them as such.” The facts showed instead that that attorney, Francis H. McGee, had claimed in his own words that Rutherford “had taken the law into his own hand, an unlawful thing to do” and that “nothing but the judgment of a court could declare the offices vacant.”6 It also became obvious that Macmillan’s memory, as offered in Faith on the March, page 77, had faded significantly, and that his account was less than reliable. He confused the ordinary board meeting of the Watch Tower Society that took place on June 20, 1917, with the alleged “extended session of the 1917 annual meeting” of the Peoples Pulpit Association that occurred on July 31, 1917. But Macmillan should be censured for more than that forgetfulness. His bias is shown on page 76 of Faith on the March. He states there that Paul S.L. Johnson “came to the ridiculous conclusion that he was the ‘steward’ of Jesus’ parable of the penny” while he was in England. Yet he fails to state that Rutherford also undoubtedly considered that he, personally, was that “steward,” and was held to be such by his close Bible Student associates—an equally

“ridiculous conclusion.”7 Macmillan was quite right, however, when he claimed on page 81 that the crucial events are “a matter of actual record.” As I have discovered, the documentation is indeed very rich, but unfortunately Macmillan failed to make proper use of it. Writing Postponed My initial plan to write a treatise on the management crisis in the late 1970s was providentially halted because other matters demanded attention. This break turned out to be a blessing, for during the decades that followed I was able to obtain some truly significant source material, such as the court transcripts of Rutherford et al vs. the United States from 1918 and Moyle vs. Franz et al from 1943. The latter documented all the by-laws that had been presented to the shareholders in January 1917 and that were later accepted by the board. In time, I was also able to obtain copies of both Pennsylvania and New York corporate legislation for the time in question. Finally, current genealogical programs that appear on the Internet have made it possible for me to write short biographies of twenty individuals prominently involved in the 1917 controversy. That could not have been done back in the 1970s. A Full-Length Study Needed No adequate work about the 1917 Watch Tower schism has been published earlier, although a few books have dealt briefly with the subject in a commendable manner. In addition to Alan Rogerson’s work mentioned above, these include Tony Will’s, A People for His Name, second edition 2006, and especially M. James Penton’s work Apocalypse Delayed, third edition 2015. In addition to these published works, I have studied three doctoral dissertations that provide substantial coverage of the subject. These three are by William H. Cumberland (1958), Joseph F. Zygmunt (1967) and Alan Rogerson (1972). While the first two have supplied valuable insights, they also contain serious mistakes. And both have failed to deal with the legal issues involved. Rogerson’s thesis is unquestionably the best. It shows familiarity with more documents and does not shrink back from legal evaluations. None of these dissertations are, however, easily available to the public. Thus, the need for a full-length publication remains, and this work is an attempt to fill that need. Two recent attempts to cover the subject at hand in detail need to be discussed here as well. The first is Finishing the Mystery: The Watch Tower and “the 1917 Schism” by George D. Chryssides, who at the time was Head of Religious Studies at the University of Wolverhampton, England. The study is published as chapter five in the book, Sacred Schisms, edited by James R. Lewis and Sarah M. Lewis, Cambridge University Press, 2009. Unfortunately, Chryssides’ presentation is so full of errors as to be practically worthless. He shows that he has not studied the primary sources in depth. A few examples will demonstrate this. He stated on pages 116-117 that the book, The Finished Mystery, caused “heated controversy” on July 17, 1917, when its publication was announced, and that one reason for this was that it “was copiously illustrated with a series of cartoons, usually at the expense of mainstream Christendom and its clergy.” On the contrary, the contemporary sources show conclusively that the heated controversy dealt

entirely with Rutherford’s announcement that he had appointed four new directors to replace his opponents.8 The publication of The Finished Mystery, announced on the same occasion, was ignored in the turmoil caused by his ousting four board members. Chryssides has merely accepted the Society’s faulty story of the event without checking the contemporary documents.9 Besides, the book was certainly not copiously illustrated with objectionable cartoons. It is obvious that Chryssides has not examined the actual book issued in 1917. He seems to have seen only the later magazine edition of it dated March 1, 1918, which did contain a number of cartoons. Chryssides also claimed that The Pastoral Bible Institute that resulted from the schism “was founded in 1918 by the four ousted Watch Tower directors: I.F. Hoskins, A.N. Pierson, A.I. Ritchie, and J.D. Wright” (p. 120). He did not know that Pierson was not one of the ousted directors nor that he was still supporting the Society in 1918. And he failed to realize that Ritchie was not among the founders of The Pastoral Bible Institute. Only two of the ousted directors, Hoskins and Wright, were actually among the founders. The second work that calls for comment is Judgment Day Must Wait by the Danish author Poul Bregninge, published in 2013 by YBK Publishers, New York. While this book has many interesting and accurate things to say about the Watch Tower movement in general, as far as the 1917-1918 controversy is concerned, it, too, is full of errors. Single pages occasionally contain several mistakes. Although Bregninge had tried hard to come to grips with the subject, he, too, demonstrated that he had not examined the source material carefully. As an example of his ignorance, I refer to page 138 where he claimed that Rutherford and his supporters “were concerned that Menta Sturgeon and Paul S.L. Johnson might be nominated” for president of the Watch Tower Society at the annual meeting on January 1917. There was no such concern for the simple reason that Sturgeon and Johnson were not directors. Only members of the Society’s board were eligible according to the Watch Tower charter, and this was pointed out in The Watch Tower before the election.10 The many mistakes made in these two books clearly show that the original documentation—the contemporary, primary material—must be the basis for any serious study of the Watch Tower management crisis in 1917 and 1918 and the following schisms within the Bible Student movement. After my comprehensive criticism of Judgment Day Must Wait in 2020, Bregninge in early 2021 published a new edition that eliminated a number of the mistakes I had pointed out. This new edition represents a significant improvement of Bregninge’s coverage of the Watch Tower succession crisis. I will deal with it separately in the bibliography. While what can be established from the contemporary sources must take precedence over any and all later recollections, such recollections may occasionally be useful if they fit well into the picture of what took place. Thus, I have accepted a few such memories from people on both sides of the issues. Macmillan, for example, told an audience in the early 1950s that Rutherford tried to get rid of his opponents on the board by using resignations they had signed before they were elected. When these resignations could not be found, he had to resort to legal maneuvers.11

Significantly, Paul S.L. Johnson had given supporting evidence concerning this statement many years earlier. He had explained these resignations in detail in an early source.12 Directors elected after 1908 had to write out their resignations in full and Russell then could effect them by simply filling in the date. Since using these resignations would be the easiest way for Rutherford to eliminate some of his opponents, there is good reason to think that he would have tried to do so, and therefore I have accepted Macmillan’s claim as basically correct. It is of course true that even contemporary sources have to be used critically. I have therefore been guided by certain rules when evaluating them. An obvious rule is that where the contending parties agree, other factors cannot alter the picture. Another rule that I have adopted is that when opponents did not deny or amend unfavorable statements, it was usually safe to accept them as correct. For this reason, I accept the allegation that Macmillan threatened Hoskins at Russell’s funeral, stating that Hoskins and other directors would be “kicked out” if they did not resign. Johnson’s cable to Rutherford claiming that he was “the Steward” and his unflattering letter to Hemery in England to the same effect—both published by Rutherford—were not contested in Johnson’s own, later account. I have therefore accepted them as genuine. Old issues of The Watch Tower magazine have been referred to frequently in this book. The issues from July 1879 through to the issue of June 15, 1919, were reprinted in 1919 in seven large volumes, covering altogether 6,452 pages of text. This source has consistently been denominated The Watch Tower Reprints. Just as often, the voluminous writings of Paul S.L. Johnson have been cited. Hardly anyone has written as much on various persons and events in the movement than has he. And while he often had an axe to grind, and his statements have to be used critically, his works are a gold mine of information, almost on a par with the older issues of The Watch Tower. His books were based mainly on what he had written in his paper, The Present Truth, from 1918 onwards. Hence, they seldom represent just the memories of an old man. I therefore agree with Alan Rogerson who stated in his doctoral dissertation: “The works of P.S.L. Johnson in particular contain detailed and reliable accounts of events in the Witness history that no serious study can afford to ignore.”13 Most of the sources and documents relied on by this study are now difficult to obtain in printed form. However, quite a few of them have been made available online in recent years, so that anyone who wants to examine the sources I have used can, in many instances, do so quite easily. The Watch Tower Reprints and the later Watch Tower issues through 1949 can be checked at Watchtower Archive. Both court transcripts figuring in this work can be read on the Internet at Barbara Anderson’s Watchtower Documents. All the polemic pamphlets issued in 1917 can be found by a simple Google search. Much of the data on the persons involved can be found at FamilySearch.org free of charge. Rud Persson Ljungbyhed, Sweden 2022

Footnotes

1 The Watch Tower, February 15, 1927, pp. 54-56 2 The Watchtower, July 15, 1943, pp. 216-219; Qualified to be Ministers, 1955, pp. 313,314; 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 88. 3 The Watchtower, July 15, 2013, p. 12 4 Ibid 5 The Watchtower May 15, 1957, pp. 302-304; July 1, 1961, p. 410 6 LIGHT after DARKNESS a Message to the Watchers, Being a refutation of “Harvest Siftings”, September 1, 1917, p. 18. This source is henceforth referred to as Light after Darkness. 7 On August 4, 1917, at the convention in Boston, Massachusetts, Clayton J. Woodworth argued that Rutherford was the steward of the parable of the Penny and that it was his privilege to give out the penny, interpreted as The Seventh Volume of Scripture Studies. Rutherford, “after Bro. Woodworth at the Boston convention had preached Bro. Rutherford as the Steward of Matthew 20:8, forthwith sent Bro. Woodworth to the Aurora Convention, where he again preached Bro. Rutherford as the Steward—all this, too, after Bro. Rutherford had scorned at the mention of Bro. Johnson as being the Steward.” See A.I. Ritchie, J.D. Wright, I.F. Hoskins, R.H. Hirsh: Facts for Shareholders, November 15, 1917, page 8. 8 See chapter 10 below. 9 In a DVD from 2010 called Jehovah’s Witnesses Faith in Action Part 1: Out of Darkness, the Watch Tower Society still held to the claim that the controversy that took place on July 17, 1917, dealt with the publication of The Finished Mystery. 10 The Watch Tower, December 15, 1916, p. 391 11 The History of the Society from 1910 to 1920. For an evaluation of the manuscript documenting this talk, see the bibliography. 12 The Present Truth, December 24, 1918, p. 28 13 Alan Thomas Rogerson, A sociological Analysis of the Origin and Development of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and their Schismatic Groups (Oxford University: Thesis submitted for D. Phil., 1972). P. 6

PART ONE The Running Story (1916 - 1919)

Chapter 1 Charles Taze Russell Was Dead On Tuesday evening October 31, 1916, the workers at the Watch Tower Society’s headquarters in Brooklyn received news through Associated Press dispatches sent all over the country that Charles Taze Russell had died on a train in the southwestern United States. A letter from headquarters to co-laborers dated November 13, 1916, stated this and added: “However, no confirmation was received from Brother Sturgeon, who accompanied him as his Secretary, and we were not inclined to believe the report until we heard from him. A number of the family [workers at headquarters] remained up all night waiting until 6:30 in the morning, when Brother Sturgeon’s wire came announcing our dear Pastor’s death.” A. Hugh Macmillan read the shocking telegram to the workers at the breakfast table.1 This was a terrible message for the “family” of office workers to receive. Many of the associates had known that Russell’s health had been declining for some time, but few had thought that Russell would die before the special “harvest work” that he had preached was over and the faithful Bible Students had been taken to heaven. In the latter part of July, he had a serious sick spell and then had called for Macmillan. He had confessed to him that he needed relief. Macmillan had for many years been one of Russell’s special traveling representatives, called “pilgrims,” and Russell had now asked him to come to headquarters to help him.2 When Russell left for his southwestern tour on October 16, he had put Macmillan in charge of the headquarters in his absence.3

Figure 1. Brooklyn Bethel about 1911 So much had been anticipated for the near future, and now the man around whom everything had revolved was gone! Russell had made it clear that the antitypical “Jordan” would be “smitten” shortly and that the separation of the Elijah class from the Elisha class would take place in that context, meaning that the true church, the “Little Flock,” would be separated from the less faithful “Great Company,” a separation of the “Priests” from the “Levites.”4 Russell’s followers also thought that the “penny” of the parable at Matthew 20:1-16 was going to be given to the faithful Little Flock while they were still living on earth, and the long-awaited seventh volume of Studies in the Scriptures was due, also.5 It was believed that “a great work” lay ahead,6 but it is important to understand that the time frame for all this was to be very short —“perhaps a year or two or three” according to Russell’s foreword in his last edition of Volume 3 of Studies in the Scriptures, dated October 1, 1916.7 These things were all to play a major role in the movement during the next few years, becoming the ideological framework of all parties claiming to be Russell’s followers. Russell was viewed as the “faithful and wise servant” of Matthew 24:45 among his followers, and he himself shared that view. “His modesty and humility precluded him from openly claiming this title, but he admitted as much in private conversation.”8 In addition, “the man … clothed with linen, with a writer’s inkhorn by his side,” prophetically mentioned at Ezekiel 9:2, was

freely applied to Russell by practically all of the Bible Students.9 It is not surprising, therefore, that he had been elected pastor in many Bible Student congregations around the world. Prominent among such were the congregations in Pittsburgh, the Brooklyn Tabernacle, and the London Tabernacle.10 Along with six others, he had arranged for the incorporation of Zion’s Watch Tower Tract Society in 1884. The name of that corporation was changed legally to Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in 1896. The charter stipulated that a board of directors would be the ultimate authority. Its president was not to be like those in some of the nations or in some great corporations, but was merely to be the chairman of the board, with two minor additional duties.11 Since Russell was the major financial contributor to the Society, the board agreed to permit him total supervision of it as he saw fit during his lifetime. And even after his death, the board was to direct it according to the terms of his will, and, it was agreed, that it “would come to the front” only after his death.12 Russell held authority not because he was president, but because he was Russell. While he was present, the directors certainly voted regularly on the direction of the Society’s affairs, but “they voted on what and how he wanted them to vote.”13 So Macmillan was quite right when he wrote: “Russell was in fact the Society (in a most absolute sense), in that he directed the policy and course of the Society. He sometimes sought the advice of others connected with the Society, listened to their suggestions, and then decided according to his best judgment what he believed the Lord would have him do.”14 When Russell died, the remaining members of the Watch Tower board of directors consisted of the following persons: Alfred I. Ritchie (vice president), William E. Van Amburgh (secretary and treasurer), H. Clay Rockwell, J. Dennis Wright, Isaac F. Hoskins and Joseph F. Rutherford.15 All had been elected by the board at different times in accordance with the Society’s charter.16 Later claims made by the Watch Tower Society and Macmillan to the effect that some of the directors were “merely appointees of Russell’s” are therefore completely groundless.17 As Rutherford himself wrote in The Watch Tower, December 15, 1916, page 390, the board, according to the charter, was to be “self-perpetuating,” meaning that the directors were to elect new members of the board and that no further step was needed. Certainly, Russell had “appointed” or better stated “nominated” the directors, but in every case he had them elected legally by the board. Antagonism and Cliques There was little harmony within the leadership of the Society when Russell died. Vice president Ritchie is reported to have stated in 1916 that Russell invariably would be called upon to straighten out disputes at Bethel (the name given to the Watch Tower headquarters) both doctrinally and otherwise, often caused by Rutherford and Van Amburgh when he was away.18 H. Clay Rockwell had significant disagreements, first and foremost with Macmillan, but also with Rutherford. He had publicly announced his decision to leave Bethel, but Russell pleaded with him to stay.19 On October 16, 1916, the same day Russell left headquarters on his last trip,

the pastor spent several hours trying to reconcile Rockwell with Macmillan and Rutherford, but the effort failed.20 On November 1, 1916, the day that Macmillan read Sturgeon’s telegram to the Bethel workers, he summoned the board of directors to a meeting to be held that same day, although he was not a member of the board. Mrs. Cora Sundbom, a Bible Student who resided at Bethel until 1917, stated the following in an audio recording made in later years: “And so they had a Directors meeting, Br. Ritchie told us and he went to take the Chairman’s chair and Macmillan put his hand across that chair and said, ‘We’re saving that for the Judge’ and he wouldn’t let Br. Ritchie take charge of the meeting. So, Br. Ritchie said that he knew he’d have to go to court.”21 Paul S.L. Johnson, one of Russell’s most prominent pilgrims, later reported: “In this meeting A.H.M. [Macmillan], ignoring the fact that A.I. Ritchie, the Society’s vice president, should be given charge, very insistently urged that W.E.V. [Van Amburgh], the Society’s secretary and treasurer, be put in charge. The Board agreed to this.”22 Yet Macmillan later claimed that Van Amburgh was not well.23 Ritchie solved the matter for himself by asking God for a sign about what to do. The outcome was that he decided not to sue.24 At the time that these events were transpiring, J. F. Rutherford met with a close friend, Paul S.L. Johnson. He was a well-educated man with a knowledge of Hebrew and Greek. He was not a permanent resident at Bethel, but had a home in Columbus, Ohio. On page 345 in his Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures, vol. 10, published in Philadelphia, Penn. in 1941, Johnson stated that he had a pilgrim appointment in Oakland, Maryland, on October 30 and that Rutherford happened to have business nearby and that they met together for fellowship that day. They then separated and went to their respective appointments. Rutherford was in Cleveland, Ohio, when he received a telegram from headquarters urging him “to come to Brooklyn immediately.”25 Rutherford arrived at Bethel on November 2, and so did Johnson.26 In the November 1, 1916, issue of The Watch Tower, page 322, printed before his death, Russell had announced that arrangements had been made for Johnson to serve Bible Students in Britain. Now that Russell was dead, Johnson of course had to ascertain what would become of the British trip, and also, he naturally wanted to be present at Russell’s funeral. On the day of their arrival, Rutherford approached Johnson, who was known for his interest in Biblical types, with the question of whether there was some indication in Scripture showing that Russell was to have a successor. Johnson replied that he did not know, but that he would come back to answer the question if he found out.27 On this same day, there was another board meeting. “The Board met and elected Brother A.N. Pierson as a member of the Board to fill the vacancy caused by Brother Russell’s change.”28 The choice was remarkable in several respects. Pierson, of Swedish origin, was 66 years old at the time and was running a very successful floristry business in Cromwell, Connecticut. He had never lived at Bethel and never served as a pilgrim. He would have to travel from Connecticut to every meeting of the board. There were several competent people in Bethel who could have been elected instead of him,

first and foremost Menta Sturgeon, a learned and eloquent man who had accompanied Russell on his last trip. Pierson, though, was not only a man of considerable wealth, he was kind and generous and was loved by all. Furthermore, Sturgeon would have been an obvious candidate for president of the Society if he had been elected a director, and it may well have been that that was the reason why he was not elected. Macmillan wanted to see Rutherford as president, and apparently Rutherford himself agreed. In all likelihood, it was Macmillan’s influence that brought about Pierson’s election. Pierson was on good terms with Rutherford and had followed him twice on trips to Scandinavia. At the same board meeting on November 2, it was decided to carry out Russell’s plan to send Paul S.L. Johnson to England.29 Ritchie, Rutherford and Macmillan were appointed to make the arrangements.30 The “Steward” in the Parable of the Penny Early in the morning of November 3, Johnson felt he had an answer to Rutherford’s inquiry. Russell had died without giving the “penny,” he reasoned, and consequently he could not have been the “steward” of the parable. Therefore, Johnson concluded, Russell was to have a successor. Rutherford wanted to know who that would be, but Johnson said he did not know.31 We only have Johnson’s account of this, but his later dealing with the subject in a cablegram to Rutherford in February 1917 lends credence to the story. Within a few months both Johnson and Rutherford had each concluded that he, personally, was the “steward.” This eventually ended their friendship. Russell’s Will Made Public At noon, November 3, 1916, Russell’s will was read to all present in the Bethel dining room. Van Amburgh, the Society’s secretary, took it out of the safe and told everyone that Russell had sealed it in 1910 and never touched it since. He had left it in the care of the secretary. Van Amburgh handed it to Johnson, who opened it and read it aloud.32 There would soon be a heated discussion about the will, but the document as such and its wording were never questioned during the ensuing conflict. The will was published in The Watch Tower, December 1, 1916, pages 358, 359. Johnson later published an exact copy of it in his journal The Present Truth, November 1, 1925, pages 172-174. The will as published is reproduced in Appendix 1. The claim has been made in recent years among independent Bible Students that the published will was not identical with the real one. Such claims are dealt with in Appendix 2. The will confirmed that Russell did not plan for a new strong leader to direct the movement. The Watch Tower magazine was to be managed and edited by a committee “of five brethren,” and the will specifically warned against “any spirit of ambition or pride or headship” within the committee. Moreover, even such minor matters as covering “reasonable expenses” for the members of this editorial committee were to be decided “as the Society’s Board of Directors shall consider proper.”

The will stated that the committee would be “self-perpetuating”—remaining members were to fill vacancies. Russell named five persons whom he thought suitable for the task: William E. Page, William E. Van Amburgh, H. Clay Rockwell, E.W. Brenneisen and F.H. Robison. He also named five people on a reserve list: A.E. Burgess, Robert Hirsh, Isaac Hoskins, Geo. H. Fisher, J.F. Rutherford, and Dr. John Edgar. The reserve list actually included six names. Possibly the explanation for this discrepancy is that J.F. Rutherford was put on the list in 1910 when Dr. Edgar died. For reasons of respect, Edgar’s name may then have been retained, or it may simply have been overlooked. On the other hand, Rutherford could not have been mentioned when the will was written in 1907, having been baptized just one year before that time. And it must be admitted that it would have been remarkable, too, if his name had been added only three years later, with so many more solidly established Bible Students available. The will also revealed that Russell had already donated all his voting shares in the Society to it, while having placed the management of the shares in the hands of five trustees, all women, who were to serve “for life.” The trustees were “Sr. E. Louise Hamilton, Sr. Almeta M. Nation Robison, Sr. J.G. Herr, Sr. C. Tomlins, Sr. Alice G. James.”33 Both Page and Brenneisen announced immediately that they were unable to serve on the Editorial Committee. Their letters of resignation, published in The Watch Tower, December 1, 1916, page 379, seem to suggest that this was actually expected of them when they received their copies of the will. Robert H. Hirsh and J.F. Rutherford of the reserve list replaced them. The same issue, page 354, gave the full list of the actual editors: W.E. Van Amburgh, J.F. Rutherford, H.C. Rockwell, F.H. Robison and R.H. Hirsh. Russell’s Funeral Menta Sturgeon arrived in New York with Russell’s remains on the morning of Friday, November 3, 1916. The body came to Bethel and was viewed by the Bethel “family” and the local Bible Student congregation on Saturday, November 4. It was moved to the New York City Temple the following morning and lay in state until 10 o’clock in the evening. In the early hours of Monday, November 6, the body was taken to Pittsburgh. A funeral service was held in Carnegie Hall. At dusk, Russell’s casket was lowered into the grave at the Society’s burial plot in Rosemont Cemetery in Pittsburgh. At a ceremony held at the New York City Temple on November 5, talks were given in the morning, in the afternoon and in the evening. The Temple was overcrowded, and it was stated that the number of speakers would have to be reduced.34 It is noteworthy that some of those who later would oppose Rutherford did not give any talks on that occasion. The Watch Tower, December 1, 1916, described no less than 17 talks. Rockwell, Hoskins and Wright, all board members and pilgrims, were not among the speakers. Vice President Ritchie gave a short talk in the afternoon—at least the coverage in The Watch Tower was brief. On the other hand, both Macmillan and Rutherford were on the scene in a conspicuous way, speaking alone in the morning and the evening respectively.35 The Brooklyn Daily Eagle of July

31, 1917, claimed that there had actually been a dispute over who would be honored to speak at the funeral. Paul Johnson, who was still held in high esteem by all, gave a long talk in the afternoon about Russell’s relation to the pilgrims. At the end of his talk, he said that Russell was called “Eldad” in “prophetic type.” This was a hint of later claims he would make for himself, but probably nobody realized that at the time. Rockwell Wanted to Resign in Favor of Johnson In connection with the morning ceremony in the Temple, H. Clay Rockwell told Johnson that he and other responsible brothers wanted him to become the Society’s new president. He suggested that he, Rockwell, would resign as a director so that Johnson could be elected to the board in his place and thus be eligible in the upcoming annual election. Several other people talked about it. In a letter dated September 4, 1917, Rockwell wrote to Johnson: At the time of Pastor Russell’s funeral, I, H. Clay Rockwell, of my own volition and without any undue influence, approached Brother Paul Johnson and proposed to him that I would resign from being a member of the Board of Directors of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society on condition that he would accept the position in my place, and thus be eligible to be chosen and elected as President of the Society. Know all that Brother Johnson, through his lack of personal ambition and through his desire to await the Lord’s leading in the matter, refused to accept my proposition.36 Johnson, who was preparing for his foreign mission, replied that he preferred to see Rutherford as president. Before leaving for England, he arranged for his 416 voting shares to be cast for Rutherford in his absence.37 Intimidation “If you don’t resign you will, every one of you, get kicked out.” During the funeral ceremonies in Pittsburgh on November 6, Macmillan made an even more revealing statement to board member Isaac Hoskins. The statement was published by the directors who were ousted later in their pamphlet Light after Darkness, issued September 1, 1917, in reply to Rutherford’s charges in his Harvest Siftings: Only a few feet removed from the dead body of our Pastor, Brother Macmillan said: “Brother Hoskins, I have something to tell you that I know will hurt you very much, and I haven’t any idea that you have the strength of character sufficient to follow my advice; but I am going to tell you, anyway. I think that every one of you Directors except Brothers Rutherford and Van Amburgh ought to resign and give a chance for some decent men who know something to be put in your places. There is not one of you fit to manage anything, and you ought to resign; and if you don’t resign you will, every one of you, get kicked out.”38

Macmillan probably did not include the newly elected Pierson here. It is not clear if he thought of himself as a future member. Nor is it clear if he favored Johnson as one of the replacements. Anyway, this statement explains perfectly what was already going on and what was soon going to happen! In his reply to Light after Darkness, called Harvest Siftings Part II, dated October 1, 1917, Rutherford did not comment on what Macmillan allegedly had said, although he commented on many other matters his opponents had written. Therefore, the best evidence is that the account of Macmillan’s statement to Hoskins in Light after Darkness is true, and I accept it as such. Hence it was obvious already at Russell’s funeral that a major upheaval in the Society would soon take place.

Footnotes 1 A.H. Macmillan: Faith on the March, (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1957), p. 61 2 The Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence, December 1, 1916, p. 360. Henceforth this journal will be referred to as just The Watch Tower. Also see Macmillan, pp. 68-70. 3 J.F. Rutherford: Harvest Siftings (Brooklyn, N.Y: The Watch Tower: August 1, 1917), p. 11 4 The “little flock” was understood to be the remnant of the 144,000 mentioned in the book of Revelation 7:4-8, the faithful class destined for heaven. The “great multitude” mentioned at Revelation 7:9-17 was considered as a secondary class, also bound for heaven. 5 The Watch Tower, December 1, 1916, p. 365 6 The Watch Tower, November 1,1916. See The Watch Tower Reprints, 1919, p. 5987 7 Thus, Macmillan’s later claim that Russell had outlined to him the much later work of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the 1950s is an unhistorical rationalization. See Macmillan, p. 69 8 The Watch Tower, December 1, 1916, p. 357 9 The Watch Tower, April 1, 1920, p. 102 10 The Watch Tower, December 1, 1916, p. 374 11 The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 327 12 Zion’s Watch Tower, Extra Edition, April 25, 1894, p. 59; Paul S.L. Johnson: The Present Truth and Herald of Christ’s Epiphany, September 1, 1919, p. 160. Henceforth this latter journal will be referred to as The Present Truth. 13 The Present Truth, December 24, 1918, p. 28 14 Macmillan, pp. 126, 127 15 The Watch Tower, December 15, 1916, p. 391 16 Harvest Siftings, p. 15; The Present Truth, December 24, 1918, p. 28; Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, p. 662 17 See Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose, 1959, p. 71; 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 91; Jehovah’s Witnesses Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom, 1993, pp. 67,68; Macmillan, p. 80. 18 The Watch Tower, October 1, 1917, p. 303 19 Letter from Rose Hirsh to Rud Persson, August 29, 1974 20 The Present Truth, December 1, 1919, p. 204; Paul S.L. Johnson: Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 10, (Philadelphia, Penn.: Printed privately,1941) pp. 335, 340 21 Email from Jeff Mezera to Rud Persson, April 24, 2019, p. 4 22 Epiphany Studies, vol. 10, pp. 344,345 23 The History of the Society from 1910 to 1920, transcription of a tape recording located by Mike Castro, p. 20. For an evaluation of this source, see the bibliography.

24 Cora Sundbom 25 Second edition of The Watch Tower, December 1, 1916, p. 384. This second edition was published in the spring of 1917. 26 The Present Truth, May 1, 1934, p. 68 27 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, p. 346 28 The Watch Tower, December 15, 1916, p. 391 29 The Present Truth, March 1, 1930, p. 41 30 Ibid 31 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, pp. 346-348 32 The Present Truth, December 1, 1919, p. 210; J.F. Rutherford: Harvest Siftings Part II, October 1, 1917, p. 26; The Watch Tower, December 1, 1916, p. 379 33 The Watch Tower, December 1, 1916, p. 358 34 Ibid, p. 360 35 Ibid, pp. 360, 373-378 36 Paul S.L. Johnson: Harvest Siftings Reviewed, Brooklyn, N.Y., November 1, 1917, p. 10 37 Ibid, pp. 4,10 38 J.D. Wright, A.I. Ritchie, I.F. Hoskins, R.H. Hirsh: Light after Darkness A Message to the Watchers, Being a refutation of “Harvest Siftings”, Brooklyn, N.Y., September 1, 1917, p. 9. Henceforth this source will be referred to as just Light after Darkness.

Chapter 2 Preparing for the Next Election When Russell’s funeral was over, focus could be concentrated on the immediate future. First the precise governance of the Society had to be settled. Vice President Ritchie could not rightfully assume the leadership exercised by Russell. That would have been contrary to the Society’s charter, and Ritchie would be the first to stress the need to uphold the charter. The board of directors, not one man, was now to be in charge. Still, for seven men to consult together on every detail of the work was considered too cumbersome. Paul S.L. Johnson later claimed that this was actually tried “for about a week.”1 So, on November 7, 1916, the board formed an Executive Committee of three.2 The Brooklyn Daily Eagle published the following observations on page 10 in its issue of November 26, 1917: “There was no provision whereby the vice president became the executive head. The work of the Society is now being conducted by the board of directors. To facilitate the work, they have appointed an executive committee, answerable to the board. This committee consists of vice president Ritchie, chairman; W.E. Van Amburgh, secretary and treasurer, and J.F. Rutherford, director.” Macmillan’s later claim in The Watchtower, August 15, 1966, page 506, that Rutherford “was made chairman” is a rationalization of what actually took place within the Executive Committee. The board, in its November 7 meeting, gave Macmillan an important position as well. The minutes said: “Motion was made by Brother Van Amburgh, and seconded by Brother Wright, that Brother A.H. Macmillan be appointed to the position of Representative of the Executive Committee, to perform such duties as said Executive Committee shall direct, and to report to said committee from time to time upon request. Unanimously carried.”3 Johnson Sent to England Conditions in England needed immediate attention, and the war situation in Europe also called for special efforts in a number of countries such as “Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Finland-Russia, Switzerland and France.”4 Russell had told Johnson in Dallas on October 21, 1916, that leading Bible Students in London were disregarding his arrangements, and that he, Russell, would give Johnson instructions for his trip to England when he returned to Brooklyn after November 5.5 Russell did not live to do that, but a detailed communication from the London Tabernacle congregation arrived at Bethel on November 8, giving a report about two sides of a controversy there. In the evening, Vice President Ritchie handed this correspondence to Johnson, who studied it in depth and reported his assessment to the Executive Committee the following day. On November 10, Gertrude W. Seibert, a confidant of Russell’s, added more concerns to the already

alarming situation. She then showed Johnson a very detailed letter she had received from manager Jesse Hemery of the London office outlining his version of the controversy and asking her to speak with Russell over it.6 It was realized that the situation was a serious one demanding delicate, but firm measures. Johnson had already been given a letter of appointment November 3, though actually dated November 1, to facilitate his passport application, and his passports had been granted November 4.7 On November 8, however, a request was made to have the passports include entrance into Finland, and this delayed matters. Johnson did not get his travelling documents until November 11, just before he departed that day.8 Russell’s Voting Shares Discarded Almost at once Rutherford declared that Russell’s Will was not in proper legal form and therefore not binding.9 Decades later he even had the audacity to claim that it was not a will!10 As early as November, 1916, he had claimed that the provision in the will about Russell’s voting shares was actually illegal. With the consent of the board he obtained a long legal opinion from a local law firm to that effect. He had this read to the five trustees, and they agreed that it was not wise to vote the shares.11 The majority of the board, though not resisting Rutherford’s advice at the time, did not like the brushing aside of one of Russell’s arrangements. They would hold it against Rutherford later. They pointed out that the five “sisters” had been trustees of these voting shares for ten years prior to Russell’s death and that his death should therefore not have taken away their right to vote them.12 Besides, article 5 of the charter allowed for “assigns” to be given the “nonforfeitable” voting shares of contributors.13 In January 1907 Russell held 35,577 out of a total of 62,044 voting shares.14 In 1908 he no longer held the majority of the votes, and the proportions of his ownership continued to decline so that “by 1916 he held about one-fifth of the voting shares.”15 Still, Russell’s voting shares could have been a considerable factor in the next annual election of Watch Tower officers. Rutherford claimed that the five sisters would have voted for him as president, and that therefore it could not be said that he had acted out of any ulterior motive.16 This claim was not in harmony with the facts. Rutherford might have known that they would have voted for him when he wrote this in the summer of 1917, but he could not have counted on these trustees in early November, 1916. He offered a particular reason for the necessity of discarding Russell’s voting shares: “We would set a precedent, so that if someone also died whose relatives were against the Truth they might vote their shares to the disadvantage of the Society.”17 This was a far-fetched, strained reasoning that had little to do with reality. Of course, it meant that Rutherford ignored Russell’s judgment and wishes. He claimed that he had actually discussed the matter of the voting shares with Russell twice, but he had to admit that this did not have any effect on him.18 The whole thing smacked of expediency and corruption, for Russell would in all likelihood have been

sufficiently intelligent and informed enough to have written a correct will. This certainly would be supported by the fact that he never changed the will despite Rutherford’s alleged efforts. Quite evidently, Rutherford displayed both legal incompetence and self-serving reasoning during this whole period, as an account of his behavior will demonstrate later on. And regardless of the actual legal situation, it would have been an easy matter for Rutherford to purchase an opinion from a law firm that was willing to agree with his view about the voting shares. Of course, this matter was never taken to court. Therefore, it seems that Russell’s voting shares mentioned in his will should not properly have been discarded. Undoubtedly, Rutherford and his supporters had an axe to grind. That did not apply only to the election of the president but also to the election of the vice president. We have already seen that Macmillan wanted to get rid of Ritchie altogether, which would mean that he would not like to see Ritchie retained as vice president. That this was Rutherford’s attitude also will be shown later on. It is therefore very likely that he held an immediate desire to eliminate Russell’s votes in order to better control voting in the upcoming Watch Tower election in January 1917. Preparing for the Seventh Volume For a number of years, a seventh volume of Studies in the Scriptures, dealing with the Bible books of Revelation and Ezekiel had been expected. The latest addition to the series had appeared in 1904. But as late as in 1916 Russell felt that he still could not write it. In a question and answer meeting that year he stated: “There are certain things in Revelation which I do not understand, and for this reason I do not write the Seventh volume. Therein I do not wish to give any guesses. Whenever I write the Seventh volume on the book of Revelation, I will have a satisfactory understanding of the teachings of that book. Until then, I will not write it.”19 During his last trip in October, when his strength was ebbing away, Russell said to his companion, Menta Sturgeon, who inquired about the seventh volume: “Someone else can write that.”20 For about a month, the Executive Committee had no clue of how the seventh volume might be written. But then they received a letter from Gertrude W. Seibert dated December 6, 1916. She informed the Committee that she knew of two Bible Students, “Bro. Woodworth” and “Bro. Fisher,” who could write the book, the former dealing with Revelation and the latter with Ezekiel. She herself suggested that the book could be called “The Finished Mystery.”21 In their reply, dated December 7, the Executive Committee told Mrs. Seibert that if the friends mentioned “desire to prepare the copy mentioned and submit it to us for our consideration, we will consider it and give our opinion as to the advisability of publication.”22 Having been informed of this, Woodworth, on December 11, wrote to Seibert that the work would really be hers as it must first go to her and be fully approved by her before going to the Committee.23 The Committee announced a request for Russell’s earlier comments on the two Bible books other than those contained in The Watch Tower or Studies in the Scriptures. They stated: “Please address all such communications to Mrs. G.W. Seibert, Secretary, Hotel Margaret, Brooklyn, N.Y.”24 The collection of information and the writing of the book would take considerable time,

but Rutherford could say later: “I think sometime in December I received some manuscripts both on Revelation and Ezekiel.”25 Rutherford Asserts Himself The admission that Rutherford had already “received some manuscripts” in December, 1916, was more revealing than intended. Van Amburgh, who was also on the Executive Committee, said under oath on the same occasion that the first time he saw some manuscripts was in May, 1917.26 This indicates that the Executive Committee had become little more than a formality, and that Rutherford was ignoring the other two members of the Committee, despite the fact that they were officers of the Society, which he was not. He assumed in fact, though not in name, the duties of the president, taking possession of practically all the work of Vice President Ritchie, who was put aside.27 This is perhaps the reason why Macmillan wrote decades later that Rutherford was “chairman” of the Executive Committee.28 The majority of the board could hardly have been unaware of this development, and they did not like it. They felt the need to assert the legal authority of the board. The following took place in a board meeting December 13, 1916: “Minutes show that Brother Hoskins made the following motion and seconded by Brother Wright, which was duly carried, ‘that the Executive Board be directed to report to the Board of Directors at any meeting of the Board upon any matter which the Board might request the Committee to report.’”29 Rutherford, however, felt that “one mind” should run the Society in the way Russell had done, even though that was contrary to the provision in the charter and Russell’s intentions for the work after his death. In the summer of 1917, he declared: For more than thirty years the President of THE WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY managed its affairs exclusively, and the Board of Directors, so called, had little to do. This is not said in criticism, but for the reason that the work of the Society peculiarly requires the direction of one mind. There are so many small details that if several persons had to direct them, more than half the time would be used in consultation. This was clearly demonstrated by the Executive Committee, and it was found that it took three men two hours a day what one could do in a third of that time, because of the time consumed in consultation about details.30 He claimed that “there must be one head to every institution”31 and he strongly believed that he was that “one head” suited for the task. Paul S.L. Johnson’s later assessment was to the point: “J.F.R. [Rutherford] had in his pride concluded that he was the only one of the Truth people capable of managing and executing the work of the Society, and with this thought permeating him he did the self-pushing that made figureheads of the other two members of the Executive Committee.”32 Ritchie or Rutherford?

That Rutherford would take over was by no means obvious when Russell died, however. We have already seen how some wanted Paul Johnson to become the Society’s next president. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle was in close contact with sources at the Bethel headquarters, and in an article in the issue of Sunday, November 26, 1916, the paper gave an interesting picture of the situation. The article opened with the following headline and subtitle: ALL ‘PASTOR’ RUSSELL ACTIVITIES CONTINUE; REINS TO A.I. RITCHIE—Latter Will Probably Be Elected President of Watch Tower Bible Society. The article then stated: “That A.I. Ritchie, vice president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, will be the next president and directing force of the ‘Pastor’ Russell religious enterprise, is the belief expressed by certain persons high up in the councils of Russellism.” Russell’s personal assistant, Macmillan, was interviewed in the same article, and he stated “that he had no way of knowing who would be chosen” but “he agreed, when the question was put to him, that there was a decided feeling in favor of Mr. Ritchie.” About Rutherford the same article stated: “Mr. Macmillan said that he doubted whether Mr. Rutherford would care to take the position. He is a resident of Los Angeles, Cal., and the work of his office would necessitate his moving to Brooklyn, which Mr. Macmillan doubts he would care to do.” Two days later The Eagle stated: “A.I. Ritchie, vice president, is said to be in line for election at the annual meeting to be held in Pittsburgh in January.” Many years later, during the Moyle trial, Van Amburgh confirmed this: Q[uestion]. Was Mr. Macmillan and any other persons up for consideration as candidates for the presidency during 1917? A[nswer]. The only one I heard mentioned was A.I. Ritchie, who was vice president.33 As we have seen, however, Macmillan, who was a key figure at this time, actually looked down upon Ritchie and other board members, and he would go to great lengths to prevent, if possible, Ritchie’s election as president. Closer to the annual meeting he discussed the election with Van Amburgh and said to him: “There is only one man who is competent and qualified to take charge of this work now and that is Brother Rutherford.”34 This was a contradiction of his later statement, that “individuals are unimportant to God’s work.”35 But that referred to Russell. Macmillan considered him dispensable, but he claimed that Rutherford was not. Besides, Macmillan just presupposed that it must be one individual who should “take charge” of the work, while Russell had clearly expressed his wish that it would be the board of directors—seven men—that was to take charge of the Watch Tower Society after his death and direct it, not one. Clearly Macmillan shared Rutherford’s view that one strong man should be in charge. He paid no attention at all to Russell’s arrangements in the charter and in his Will. No wonder that The Brooklyn Daily Eagle in its issue of July 31, 1917, page 3, stated that Macmillan had been “secretly working in the interests of Judge Rutherford.”

Rutherford had left the active work of the Society in the summer of 1915 when he moved to California.36 He was then able to borrow $1,000 from the Society to set up a law office in Los Angeles.37 While he remained a member of the board and continued as legal adviser, his wife’s health was deteriorating, and he had to attend to her in a way he did not have to before. He certainly had his hands full and should not have looked for more. Nevertheless, from August 1916 onwards, Rutherford was again prominent in the Society, sometimes staying at Bethel.38 It is inconceivable that Russell would have shared Macmillan’s enthusiasm for Rutherford. In the summer of 1916, Macmillan had suggested a number of possible helpers from different parts of the country to the pastor, but Russell “did not seem to think any of them would be suitable, or in a position to come to Brooklyn.”39 This undoubtedly included Rutherford. On the other hand, Alfred I. Ritchie had been vice president for a number of years. The voting shareholders elected the officers of the Society at a session in September 1911 and the result was published in The Evening Telegraph, Philadelphia. The report announced that A.I. Ritchie had been elected vice president.40 He had been elected to the board earlier the same year.41 He was then elected vice president every year, including 1916. It is rather obvious that the election of Ritchie as vice president indicated Russell’s preference for president after him. Although Rutherford had been elected to the board in 1910,42 Russell preferred Ritchie, a more recent director, as vice president. The Rutherford-Macmillan faction has belittled Ritchie, but Russell himself held him in high regard. When he left on his last trip on October 16, 1916, he gave Ritchie, not Rutherford, the most responsible tasks at Bethel. The Society’s minutes of November 7, 1916, said: “Brother A.I. Ritchie to have oversight of the Library Office; the Parlor, and all visitors on important business at the Bethel Home, etc.: to handle such mail as may be addressed to Brother Russell; and to receive telegrams.”43 From Russell’s point of view, Ritchie would have made a good president; a low profile, knowledgeable administrator who had worked closely with him on an almost day-to-day basis and who would not exalt himself over his fellow directors. These qualities were not obvious to all the shareholders, however; and Rutherford decided to go for the presidency, despite his California law practice and his need to care for his wife. At the end of December 1916, he was sure that he would be elected. Robert H. Hirsh, later one of his most outspoken opponents, told him: “Brother Rutherford, every one knows you are going to be elected President.”44 Being dissatisfied with the restraints of the Executive Committee and behind it the larger board of directors, he now prepared certain measures to ensure that he would have much freer hands when elected. These measures will be dealt with in the next chapter. The decisive annual meeting of the shareholders was to take place in Pittsburgh, Saturday, January 6, 1917. A president, a vice president and a secretary-treasurer would then be elected from among the seven members of the board of directors.

Footnotes 1 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, p. 459

2 The Watch Tower, December 15, 1916, p. 391; Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 2 3 Harvest Siftings, p. 11 4 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 2 5 The Present Truth, April 1, 1920, p. 62 6 Paul S.L., Johnson: Epiphany Studies, Vol. 4 (Philadelphia Pa.: Printed privately,1938), pp. 185-187; Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, pp. 298-301 7 The Present Truth, March 1, 1930, p. 40 8 Ibid, p. 41 9 Light after Darkness, p. 11 10 The Watchtower, December 15, 1931, p. 376 11 Harvest Siftings, p. 19 12 Light after Darkness, pp. 11, 12 13 The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p.327 14 Russell Divorce Appeal Trial, 1907, p. 39 15 The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 328 16 Harvest Siftings, p. 19 17 Ibid 18 Ibid 19 L.W. Jones, M.D., What Pastor Russell Said (Chicago, Illinois: printed privately, 1917), p. 645 20 The Watch Tower, December 1, 1916, p. 365 21 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, pp. 1311-13 22 Ibid, p. 1313 23 Ibid, pp. 1303-1306 24 Ibid, p. 1302 25 Ibid, p. 973 26 Ibid, p. 682 27 A.I. Ritchie, J.D. Wright, I.F. Hoskins, R.H. Hirsh: Facts for Shareholders of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, Brooklyn, N.Y, November 15, 1917, p. 12. Henceforth this source will be referred to as just Facts for Shareholders. 28 A.H. Macmillan, Faith on the March (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.), p. 75 29 Harvest Siftings, p. 12 30 Ibid, p. 10 31 Harvest Siftings, Part II, October 1, 1917, p. 27 32 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, p. 349 33 Moyle vs. Franz et al, 1943, transcript of record, p. 1542 34 Macmillan, p. 71 35 Ibid, p. 68 36 Moyle vs. Franz et al, 1943, transcript of record p. 1567 37 Ibid 38 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, p. 36 39 Macmillan, p. 70 40 The Watch Tower Reprints, p. 4,949 41 Harvest Siftings, p. 15

42 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, p. 1054; Moyle vs. Fred Franz et al, 1943, transcript of record, p. 1513 43 Harvest Siftings, p. 11 44 Harvest Siftings, Part II, p. 29

Chapter 3 The Annual Meeting of January 6, 1917 The obstacles Rutherford faced demanded that he find some astute expedient to overcome them, and it had to be brought forward before the election of officers at the upcoming annual meeting of the shareholders. The Watch Tower Society’s charter, written by Russell himself,1 made it clear that the corporation was “to be managed by a Board of Directors consisting of seven members” and that this board was to be responsible for all publications, as well as “by-laws, rules and ordinances”—in short it was to “do any and everything useful for the good government and support” of the Society.2 As has already been shown, the authority of the board was meant specifically for the time following Russell’s death. No one man was to direct the Society following his passing. Readers familiar only with the Society’s latest claims that Rutherford and his supporters upheld the charter3 while his opponents did not, will be in for a shock if they should read the charter. The original charter has never been published in the Society’s official histories, but it was published at least twice in the Watch Tower.4 It is reproduced in full in Appendix 3. Rutherford did indeed find the means to neutralize the charter requirements so that he, as president, could direct the affairs of the Society. He did not do so by suggesting to the shareholders that the charter should be amended. That would have been an honest and straightforward move, but one that would be doomed to fail. It would necessitate court action, and the shareholders, viewing Russell as “that servant,” would not willingly accept changes to his arrangements. Rutherford’s measures had to be subtler than that. His idea was to have a seemingly neutral committee recommend resolutions and by-laws to the shareholders. Once these recommendations had been approved, he could put pressure on the board to accept them as by-laws not to be tampered with. Such by-laws were meant to be his license to manage the Society without the board’s interference. There was not, however, one word in the charter giving the shareholders any kind of say regarding by-laws. And actually, they were never to have any real, independent voice, even at the important meeting on January 6, 1917. All parties agree that Rutherford drew up the by-laws in question before the annual meeting in Pittsburgh where they were presented.5 Rutherford claimed that it was Ritchie who personally handed them to the resolutions committee,6 but Ritchie emphatically denied that, claiming that it was Van Amburgh who did it.7 Furthermore, the chairman of the resolutions committee, Ingram I. Margeson, confirmed Ritchie’s assertion.8 Ritchie merely appointed the resolutions committee, nothing more.9 By-Laws Recommendations

The annual meeting of the Society’s shareholders was held in Carnegie Hall, North Side, Pittsburgh, on Saturday, January 6, 1917. Vice president Ritchie called the meeting to order at 10:30 AM. He appointed I.I. Margeson of Boston, A.W. Ostrander of Cleveland, Ohio, and R.H. Bricker of Pittsburgh to be “a committee on by-laws and resolutions.” He then adjourned the meeting “until 4 o’clock in the afternoon” when the committee would make its report.10 However, it was “nearly five when the chairman called the meeting to order.”11 Board members Wright, Ritchie, Hoskins and Hirsh later explained: To this Committee Brother Rutherford’s by-laws were presented, and after deliberating upon them most of the afternoon, the Committee proceeded towards the platform to read them to the Convention. It was the hour set to reconvene the assemblage; but thinking that the Committee had probably made changes during their long deliberations (against his plan to gain control), Brother Rutherford held them up for an hour behind the platform while he endeavored to force them to change the by-laws back exactly as he had prepared them, threatening a fight before the Convention if this was not done. Little did the conventioners know of what was going on behind the curtain, and little did they realize why the Convention was delayed so long. There were several eye-witnesses of this controversy, besides the Committee, which was composed of Brother Margeson, of Boston, Chairman; Brother Bricker, of Pittsburgh, and Brother Ostrander, of Cleveland. …. The Committee held out courageously against Brother Rutherford, but fearing the threatened fight and consequent disturbance in the Convention, they finally reported the bylaws as originally prepared by him.12 Rutherford admitted that he had indeed interfered, claiming however that it was only on parts of the by-laws he had argued with the committee.13 This means, of course, that it was Rutherford’s stratagem as stated in his draft of the by-laws, not the shareholders’ approval of it, that was the heart of the matter. The shareholders would have accepted by-laws with a different content, too. What they actually thought was of little concern to Rutherford. They were just used as a rubber stamp in his quest for power. This is proven by the fact that Section I of the by-laws accepted by the shareholders was “slightly amended” later the same year without the shareholders having any say.14 The wording of the section of the revised by-laws as published differs quite noticeably from the original wording as put on record in 1943.15 Decades later Paul Johnson offered further insight: One of the members of the resolutions committee, its chairman, I.I. Margeson, corroborated to the writer A.I. Ritchie’s account to the following effect: After the resolutions committee, consisting of Bros. Bricker, Ostrander and Margeson, was appointed, they asked one another as to what was expected of them. As they were so engaged, W.E.V. [Van Amburgh], as if by accident, sauntered up to them, and they asked him as to what was expected of them. Taking from his pocket a copy of the resolutions that J.F.R. [Rutherford]

had drawn up, he handed them to the committee, remarking that they might recommend these to the voting shareholders. Retiring to a room to study these resolutions, they found that they were calculated to make a one-man affair of the Society, and proceeded to revise them in a way that the board should not be ignored. This took some time; and impatient at the delay, and suspecting that the committee desired to revise his resolutions, J.F.R. presumptuously stopped them as they were about to report to the meeting, and asked them, if they had revised them. They told him that they found that the resolutions would make a one-man affair of the Society, and that, opposed to this, they had revised them. Thereupon, J.F.R. held them up for an hour, insisting that they must report those resolutions just as drawn up, or he would fight them before the full meeting of the voters. Instead of telling him in a polite way not to busybody in their but to attend to his own business, and let them attend to theirs, they tamely submitted and recommended those power-grasping and lording resolutions as by-laws to the shareholders’ meeting.16 The by-laws as drafted by Rutherford were actually read to the shareholders and approved.17 Some of them were succinctly summarized in the official report of the shareholders’ meeting: A resolution was passed to the effect that while the president is the Executive Officer and General Manager of the Society’s work and affairs, both in America and all foreign countries where the Society has branches, he might appoint an Advisory Committee from time to time to advise and consult with him concerning the conduct of the affairs of the Society. It was understood that this resolution was passed at the suggestion of Brother Rutherford, to the extent that the president might have certain ones upon whom he might call at any time for aid and advice in the weightier matters pertaining to the affairs of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.18 This would mean that Rutherford, when elected, could rely on his supporters, chiefly Macmillan and Van Amburgh, and largely ignore the board of directors. According to the by-laws, the board was merely to get reports from the president “from time to time upon request.”19 Not surprisingly, the majority of the directors would soon realize that they were being sidestepped.20 The resolution and by-laws would therefore become a major bone of contention between Rutherford and the directors in just a few months. The ensuing conflict cannot be properly understood without a detailed knowledge of them. Much later, during the Moyle trial in 1943, these by-laws were put on record in their entirety. They are published in Appendix 5 in this book. The Election of the President The promotion of the by-laws was only the prelude to the election of the Society’s officers. Though delayed, the election proceedings took place the same afternoon, beginning at about 5 o’clock. Macmillan was chairman of the proceedings.21 There were approximately 150,000 voting shares held by persons present or held in proxy.22

Only the seven directors were eligible to be elected president of the Society. But in reality, the choices for that office were much narrower. Van Amburgh was hardly considered a candidate, having been the secretary-treasurer for many years and expected to continue in that capacity. Pierson was a novice on the board and was elderly. Hoskins was a director of both the Watch Tower Society and the New York corporation, the Peoples Pulpit Association, and was on Russell’s reserve list for editor of The Watch Tower. He was severely ill with pneumonia at that time, however.23 Rockwell was an actual member of the Watch Tower Editorial Committee and, like Hoskins, a director in both corporations. But he had been ready to resign in favor of Johnson and did not get on well with Macmillan or Rutherford. Wright, a former vice president, was a gentle man liked by most people, but he had such a low profile that he was an unlikely candidate. Therefore, in reality the choice lay between Vice President Ritchie and Rutherford, the Society’s legal counsel. At first, focus had been on Ritchie, but very soon Rutherford came to the fore, no doubt with the ongoing campaigning of Macmillan. He had, in effect, taken over the Society even before the annual meeting. On more than one occasion after Russell’s death, Rutherford had outlined a procedure where one might be nominated for office and that nominations might be closed after seconding speeches, thus preventing further nominations.24 Macmillan adopted this procedure.25 A report in The Watch Tower stated: Brother Pierson, with very appropriate remarks and expressions of appreciation and love for Brother Russell, stated that he had received word as proxy-holder from friends all over the land to the effect that he cast their votes for Brother J.F. Rutherford for president, and he further stated that he was in full sympathy with this and therefore would place his name in nomination. This was seconded by various brethren from Pittsburgh, Boston, Cleveland, Washington, Pa., New York, and other cities. There being no further nominations, a motion was made that the rule of balloting be suspended and that the secretary of the Convention be directed to cast the entire vote for Brother J.F. Rutherford. Thereupon the secretary cast the ballot as directed, and Brother Rutherford was declared the unanimous choice of the Convention as president of the Society for the ensuing year.26 There were two gross irregularities in what had taken place. The first was that there were “no further nominations.” As already noted, Ritchie had been considered a strong candidate. As vice president, he would have gotten many votes and would undoubtedly have been nominated for president in a fair election. The fact that he was not, smacks of foul play, especially since Macmillan had wanted to get rid of him and most other board members. The evidence is that votes intended for other candidates were disregarded and were actually cast for Rutherford!27 It is clear that Macmillan did not allow other candidates for president to be nominated. Afterwards he “exulted in the presence of witnesses at his own cleverness.”28 The manipulation at play was considerable: “Proxies which bore instructions to be voted for certain ones at the last election were wholly disregarded in some cases, and word was passed around that no one is lawfully bound to vote a proxy as instructed.”29

Comments made in The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, July 31, 1917, page 3 epitomized the situation quite well: The present disturbance dates back to the time of ‘Pastor’ Russell’s death last fall…. Beginning at that time the present dominant faction grew up in the society under the leadership of the Rev. Mr. Macmillan. It developed later that he was secretly working in the interests of Judge Rutherford and, where it had been generally accepted that A.I. Ritchie, vice president of the Watch Tower society, would succeed “Pastor” Russell as president of the society, at the annual meeting the judge was found to have been elected. His election was announced as unanimous, and there was surprise among certain members of the society when it was later determined that a number of people had voted against him. That “a number of people had voted against” Rutherford, naturally just meant that they had voted for other candidates for president. The second irregularity was that “a motion was made that the rule of balloting be suspended.” Yet that action was clearly in violation of a charter requirement. Paragraph VIII of the charter stated: “These officers shall be chosen from among the members of the board of Directors annually, on the first Saturday of each year, by an election by ballot, to be held at the principal office of the Corporation in Allegheny City, Pennsylvania.” Thus, putting this charter requirement aside necessarily meant that the procedure was illegal.30 Besides, there was not one word in the charter about nominations. At the annual meeting in 1918, when a full directorate was chosen, one of the directors was elected without being first nominated as such and then ended up as vice president.31 This will be dealt with in chapter 17. Raymond G. Jolly, a prominent Bible Student who eventually became leader of the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement, wrote: The voting shares of the proxy holders were never counted at all. I was present at that meeting. It was clearly evident that JFR [Rutherford] was bent on taking over controllership in the Society. Of course, many brethren were greatly disappointed, and it was from among these that the opposition to JFR developed.32 The Election of Other Officers The official election report continued: “Nominations for Vice-President were then called for, and Brother A.N. Pierson and Brother A.I. Ritchie were nominated, both nominations being seconded by various brethren. The counting of the ballots showed that Brother Pierson received the larger number of votes. A motion then made the election of Brother Pierson as VicePresident of the Society unanimous.”33 The outcome of this election indicates that some large proxy holders wanted to squeeze out Ritchie even from the vice presidency. Otherwise, the election of Pierson, a newcomer on the board, who did not even live at headquarters, would have been an enigma. We are told that Rutherford “used his personal influence on the floor at the Pittsburgh convention to defeat VicePresident Ritchie in favor of a Vice-President who lives in Connecticut.”34

Although Pierson was well respected and a friend of Rutherford’s, the fact that his residence was relatively distant from Brooklyn should have raised concerns. His successful floral business would often diminish his availability. Furthermore, it was inconceivable that Pierson as vice president would stand in for Rutherford when the latter was away. He obviously was elected to serve as a mere figurehead who would endorse rather than interfere with Rutherford’s actions. Later events would show, however, that Rutherford had underestimated him. Yet at the time, he did not realize that. The fact that Pierson was elected vice president was all the more remarkable as newspapers published the day after the election,35 relying on pre-election reports provided by headquarters about the event, stated that Ritchie had indeed been reelected vice president. With the election of Rutherford as Watch Tower president and Pierson as vice president, only the election of the secretary-treasurer remained. As for the other board members—Ritchie, Wright, Hoskins and Rockwell—they continued to hold their positions as the Society’s charter required. And since they had been active in the Society’s affairs for quite some time, Rutherford undoubtedly considered them less manageable than Pierson. Besides that, as noted already, Macmillan had clearly stated that they were not wanted. Finally, the office of secretary-treasurer was attended to. The official account stated: “There was but one nomination for secretary-treasurer, and the Chairman was requested to cast the vote of the Convention for Brother W.E. Van Amburgh, who was declared elected.”36 There is no evidence that the election of Van Amburgh was in any way controversial. Van Amburgh had held his position for many years with Russell’s approval. It is doubtful if anyone else would have received any votes. Reflections The by-laws that transferred authority from the board to the president were actually in conflict with the charter, which also specifically stipulated that by-laws “repugnant” to it were not allowable.37 Therefore, the by-laws prepared by Rutherford were simply illegal. This is proved also by the section of the by-laws stipulating that anyone having voting shares and afterwards became “an opponent” would “cease to be a voting member of this corporation.”38 This surely was “repugnant” to the charter, which stipulated that the voting shares were “non-forfeitable.”39 As Francis H. McGee, who was Assistant to the Attorney General in New Jersey pointed out: “The right to vote is a Charter right, and such right cannot lawfully be taken away by means of a by-law.”40 J. Fithian Tatem, a member of the Philadelphia Bar, elaborated: The Charter of the corporation having provided that those who had contributed a certain sum were entitled to vote, the officers or Directors or even the Shareholders … would have no right to adopt a by-law which sets up another and contradictory test as to the right to vote, namely, that one must be in full harmony with the Society…. The only way in which their rights would be taken away from them would be by a formal amendment of the Charter.41

These facts of course cut Rutherford down to size as a lawyer. Many of his legal claims were simply personal whims at best, as will be amply shown later in this study. The very election at hand is a good case in point. Since further nominations for president were prevented and the rule of balloting, a charter requirement, was put aside, there is good reason to conclude that the presidential election was illegal. All this reflected negatively on the emerging Watch Tower leadership, and naturally it was damaging to its theological claims that were to be developed later. Paul S.L. Johnson, upon returning from England, soon learned from others what had taken place. His words from the autumn of 1917 are therefore to the point: I learned that Bros. Rutherford, Van Amburgh and Macmillan conspired to gain for Bro. Rutherford Bro. Russell’s full power and authority in the work and business of the Society. They began this conspiracy before the election. They prearranged every detail of the voting shareholders’ meeting January 6. At Brooklyn Bro. Rutherford prepared and Bro. Van Amburgh approved the resolutions that among other things were to secure for the president executive and managerial authority. These Bro. Van Amburgh gave Bro. Margeson, (this I state on the latter’s authority), the chairman of the Resolutions Committee, for which they also arranged. A week before the election Bro. Rutherford furnished a brother with an account of the proceedings of the voting shareholders’ meeting for publication in the press of the country, telling of his election by the secretary casting the ballot of the convention and of the unanimity of his election, and giving some of his speech of acceptance. The Editor of the New York Herald commented on the prophetic gifts of “those Bethel people” in being able to foretell just what would happen at the election! In this account Bro. Rutherford failed to state that by his prearrangement the nominations were so closed, that there could be no other presidential candidates for whom thousands of voting shares were instructed, and that he prepared the resolution recommending that he be made Executive and Manager. No political convention was ever more completely or more smoothly “bossed” than the voting shareholders’ meeting Jan. 6. Certainly, the remark that Bro. Rutherford made to me in July, when he explained how he arranged for the election of Bro. Hirsh to the board, applies to the proceedings of the Jan. 6 meeting. “Of course, Bro. Johnson, you know all things of that character are arranged beforehand, just like matters connected with a political convention.”42 The individual who was furnished with an account of the voting proceedings in advance could only have been Robert H. Hirsh, the managing editor of The Watch Tower and one of Rutherford’s supporters at that time. He had run a newspaper before joining the Bible Students43 and was an able journalist. Rutherford arranged for his election to the Society’s board on March 29, 1917.44 Within a few weeks after that, Hirsh completely reevaluated Rutherford45 and became a spokesman for the growing opposition. Undoubtedly, it was he who was responsible for the following statement, published September 1, 1917: “This biography of Brother Rutherford first appeared in some of the newspapers of the country the day after his election. In order to have it

in the hands of distant newspapers for publication the day following Brother Rutherford’s election, it was necessary that it be prepared a week or more in advance. This was done at Brother Hirsh’s suggestion, but it was not composed by Brother Hirsh, who saw it for the first time when Brother Rutherford handed it to him.”46 There can be no escape from Johnson’s and Hirsh’s claims here. That the election was rigged stands out with noonday clearness when we take a look at the actual reports of the event published in the press. Several newspapers wrongly reported that A.I. Ritchie had been reelected vice president.47 The only reasonable explanation for this blunder is that the press had received an account of the proceedings in advance and that the Rutherford faction had managed, contrary to their expectation, to eliminate Ritchie altogether as an officer of the Society at the actual election. Therefore, when these same reports also stated that Rutherford had been “unanimously” elected president, it is crystal clear that it had been determined in advance that no other presidential candidate would be allowed! This is how The Syracuse Herald reported the matter: “Pittsburgh, Pa., Jan. 6.—Joseph F. Rutherford of New York was to-day unanimously chosen here to succeed the late Pastor Russell as president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract society. A. I. Ritchie of Ontario, Can., was re-elected vice president, and W.E. Van Amburgh of New York, secretary-treasurer.” The seed of discord had now been richly sown, and a big crop of trouble was inevitable. But first two other matters had to be attended to. Strong as it seemed to be, Rutherford’s position was not yet fully secure. The annual meeting of the Peoples Pulpit Association was scheduled for January 10. This was the corporation used by the Society since 1909 in the state of New York. In addition, in order to be useful, the by-laws passed in Pittsburgh would have to be accepted by that Society’s board of directors in a separate session.

Footnotes 1 The Watch Tower, December 1, 1916, p. 374 2 The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 327 3 See Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose, 1959, pp. 70,71; God’s Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached, 1973, p. 360; 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 91 4 EXTRA EDITION Zion’s Watch Tower, April 25, 1894, pp. 55-57; The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 327 5 Harvest Siftings, Part II, p. 26; Light after Darkness, p. 5; Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 16; Facts for Shareholders, November 15, 1917, p. 11 6 Harvest Siftings, Part II, pp. 26, 27 7 Facts for Shareholders, p. 11 8 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 18; Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, pp. 363, 364 9 The Watch Tower, January 15, 1917, p. 22 10 Moyle vs. Franz et al, 1943, transcript of record, p. 1525; cf. The Watch Tower, January 15, 1917, p. 22 11 The Watch Tower, January 15, 1917, p. 22 12 Light after Darkness, p. 5; cf. Facts for Shareholders, p. 12 13 Harvest Siftings, Part II, p. 27 14 The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 329; The Watch Tower, November 15, 1917, p. 338

15 The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 329; The Watch Tower, November 15, 1917, p. 338 16 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, pp. 363, 364 17 Moyle vs. Franz et al, 1943, transcript of record, p. 1526; Light after Darkness, p. 5; Facts for Shareholders, p. 4; The Watch Tower, January 15, 1917, p. 22 18 The Watch Tower, January 15, 1917, p. 22 19 Moyle vs. Franz et al, 1943, transcript of record, p. 1528. See Appendix 5 20 Light after Darkness, p. 6; Facts for Shareholders, p. 11 21 Ibid 22 The Watch Tower, January 15, 1917, p. 22 23 Moyle vs. Franz et al, 1943, transcript of record, pp. 1567, 1568 24 Facts for Shareholders, p. 11 25 Ibid 26 The Watch Tower, January 15, 1917, p. 22 27 Facts for Shareholders, p. 11 28 Ibid 29 Light after Darkness, p. 20 30 The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 327 31 The Watch Tower, January 15, 1918, pp. 23, 24 32 Letter from R.G. Jolly to Rud Persson, November 15, 1973 33 The Watch Tower, January 15, 1917, p. 22 34 Facts for Shareholders, p. 12. 35 See for example The Sun, January 7, 1917 and The New York Times, January 7, 1917, Section I, p. 9 36 The Watch Tower, January 15, 1917, p. 22 37 The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 327 38 See Appendix 5 39 Ibid 40 Facts for Shareholders, p. 2 41 Ibid, p. 14 42 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 18 43 Letter from Rose Hirsh, Robert Hirsh’s widow, to Rud Persson, June 4, 1974 44 Harvest Siftings, p. 16 45 Ibid, pp.12, 18 46 Light after Darkness, p. 12 47 The Cincinnati Weekly Inquirer, January 10, 1917; The Syracuse Herald, January 7, 1917; Buffalo Evening News, January 8, 1917; The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, January 7, 1917

Chapter 4 The Peoples Pulpit Association and Adoption of By-Laws At this point, it becomes necessary to digress in order to understand what the Peoples Pulpit Association was all about. The Association’s charter has never been published in Watch Tower publications, nor has an adequate description of the corporation ever been presented.1 The charter is given in its entirety in Appendix 4. The Characteristics of the Peoples Pulpit Association It was when Russell decided to move the headquarters of the Watch Tower Society from Pittsburgh to Brooklyn, New York, in 1909 that the Peoples Pulpit Association was created. Rutherford, at that time only the Society’s legal adviser, persuaded Russell that the Watch Tower Society of Pennsylvania could not own property in New York State and not do business there.2 “I advised him,” Rutherford later stated, “that it had no legal standing in New York.”3 Russell then had Rutherford draw up a charter for the Peoples Pulpit Association and arrange for its incorporation under the Membership Corporation Law of New York. This was done in the early spring of 1909.4 The Watch Tower Society was to remain the parent organization through which all money should be donated for all parts of the work.5 The Peoples Pulpit Association was only meant to be an auxiliary corporation, although an important one. Why Rutherford advised Russell that a separate New York corporation was needed is difficult to ascertain. In 1917 the reputable New York law firm Davies, Auerbach & Cornell, showed that the Watch Tower Society, a Pennsylvania corporation, could operate in New York without a problem: “All corporations may lawfully carry out within this State the purposes of their charters and may exercise such powers incidental thereto as may be fairly necessary unless otherwise forbidden by the laws of their State; and the requirement of the statutes of this State for registry apply only to foreign stock corporations.”6 Since the Watch Tower Society was not “a foreign stock corporation” with a capital stock divided into shares and authorized to distribute dividends, there was no need even for registration in the State of New York.7 The General Corporation Law of New York, section 17, actually stated: “Any foreign corporation created under the laws of the United States, or of any state or territory thereof, and doing business in this State, may acquire such real property in this State as may be necessary for its corporate purposes in the transaction of its business in this State, and convey the same by deed or otherwise in the same manner as a domestic corporation.”8 There was no real need, therefore, to form a new corporation when the Society moved its work to Brooklyn. Rutherford’s advice had hardly been professional. And this was not his only

blunder. When preparing the charter for the new corporation, he made paragraph 9 read that election of two of the officers and all the directors should take place in New York “on the first Saturday of each year.”9 The annual meeting of the Watch Tower Society was already chartered to take place “on the first Saturday of each year” in Pennsylvania.10 Thus the wording of the new charter clashed with the Watch Tower Society’s charter, for it would not have been possible to hold elections in Pennsylvania and New York on the same day! The charter of the Peoples Pulpit Association was remarkable in another respect. It was drawn up at a time when Russell’s leadership of the movement was seriously challenged. In order to prevent any attempt in the future to put Russell aside as leader, the new charter provided that the president of the Association should “hold his office for life,” which of course meant that no annual election of the president was to take place.11 According to paragraph 3 in the charter, members of the Association had to be approved and accepted by the directors after contributing “the sum of one thousand dollars to the funds” of the corporation. The aim was obviously to limit membership to people the leadership could trust. And no member would be entitled to more than one vote.12 In 1910, there were only 36 members of the Association. These members, mostly pilgrims, were all named in the Souvenir Convention Report 1910 by L.W. Jones. When the charter was amended in 1912 there were 41 members.13 In 1917, there were still “fewer than fifty votes.”14 In Rutherford et al vs. The United States, the 1918 sedition trial against Watch Tower leaders, W.E. Van Amburgh, the Association’s treasurer, testified that the thousand-dollar requirement for membership was not literally adhered to. He revealed that the Society simply credited the Peoples Pulpit Association $1,000 for each of the members.15 George H. Fisher, then a director in the Watch Tower Society, testified on the same occasion that in his own case the whole thing had been just “a book transfer” in order to give him “a membership in the association.”16 This indicated, of course, that the Watch Tower board could select the members as it pleased. According to the charter granted in 1909, the original board members were C.T. Russell, H. C. Rockwell, W.E. Van Amburgh, W.E. Page, F.W. Williamson, I. F. Hoskins and E.W. Brenneisen. When the charter was amended in 1912, Page and Williamson had been replaced by F.H. Robison and R.H. Hirsh. At the time of Russell’s death in 1916, Robison and probably Brenneisen, too, had left the board.17 According to the Association’s charter, the board of directors should elect a new director “within thirty days” after a vacancy occurred, and in case of the office of president becoming vacant, elect a new president “within three months.” The vice president would then serve as president “in the interim.”18 It has never been revealed who was vice president when Russell died, but as the Association was a subsidiary organization only, evidently election of a new president would depend on the outcome of the annual meeting of the Watch Tower Society on January 6, 1917. The Annual Meeting of the Peoples Pulpit Association Thanks to a copy of a proxy printed for the annual meeting of the Association in 1917 and published in Light after Darkness, September 1, 1917, page 10, we know that this meeting was

held “on the 10th day of January 1917” in Brooklyn. This was a Wednesday, falling four days after the prescribed time. No report from this meeting has been published. Evidently, Rutherford was elected president on this occasion, having been elected president of the Watch Tower Society a few days earlier. It is certain that Macmillan was elected vice president, W.F. Hudgings was elected secretary, and Van Amburgh was elected treasurer.19 After the annual meeting, the board of the Peoples Pulpit Association comprised of Rutherford, Macmillan, Hudgings, Van Amburgh, Rockwell, Hoskins and Hirsh. It is all but certain that Rockwell resigned shortly afterwards, as he resigned from both the Watch Tower Society’s board and the Watch Tower Editorial Committee.20 Menta Sturgeon was probably elected to replace Rockwell.21 Rutherford had now passed a significant hurdle in his ambition to gain control of the movement, and as we shall find out later, he would soon stress his position in the Peoples Pulpit Association to the utmost. Before he could relax, however, he had to pass another obstacle. The By-Laws Adopted by the Two Boards It was still necessary to anchor the by-laws earlier passed by the shareholders in a formal meeting of the board of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. That Society’s charter specifically stipulated that by-laws were a matter for the board, and the board alone, to create.22 Yet it was not until January 19, 1917 that a meeting for this purpose was held.23 Present were “Brothers Rutherford, Van Amburgh, Pierson, Ritchie and Wright. Brother Hoskins, being ill, was absent and Brother Rockwell had just been removed from Bethel.”24 Had Hoskins and Rockwell been present, they might have questioned the adoption of the by-laws. So, their absence played into Rutherford’s hands. In order to get the backing of supporters, Rutherford arranged the meeting as “a joint meeting of the Board of Directors of both THE WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY and the PEOPLES PULPIT ASSOCIATION.”25 This meant that his adherents, Macmillan and Hudgings, directors of the Association, were present and able to bring pressure on any Watch Tower board member who might oppose the by-laws. All went smoothly, however. Rutherford stated later: “The resolutions and by-laws passed at the annual meeting held at Pittsburgh were adopted and spread upon the record by the Board of Directors, and was [sic] unanimously carried.”26 Ritchie and Wright, who were not supporters of Rutherford, would not have been able to prevent the adoption even if they had wanted to. But it is possible that they would not have voted against the adoption of the by-laws even if Hoskins and Rockwell had been present. They explained later: “The Brethren present at this Board meeting, not being able to forecast the future, and not surmising that our brother would misuse his power, thought best at that time to take this action.”27 The Executive Committee Terminated with Rutherford’s Election Although Rutherford felt secure after the adoption of the by-laws, he put off announcing that the Executive Committee which had existed prior to his election had ceased to exist for more than a month. It was in The Watch Tower, March 15, 1917, page 82, that this was publicly reported:

“After the passing away of Brother Russell, who was executive officer of the Society by virtue of being President, the Board of Directors provided for an Executive Committee to look after the executive work of the Society. That committee ceased to exist upon the election of a President; hence there is now no Executive Committee. To avoid delay and confusion, please address no mail to the Executive Committee. The President of the Society is the executive officer of the Society and matters of that nature are in his hands.” This, however, was a very misleading statement. Russell had not been executive officer of the Society “by virtue of being President.” The Society’s charter did not contain a word about the president being executive. Russell had acted as executive, not because he was president but because he was Russell! If being president in itself had carried with it the privilege of being executive, there would have been no need to introduce and pass a by-law to that effect, as was done at Pittsburgh, January 6th and in Brooklyn January 19th.

Footnotes 1 A photocopy of the charter was published in the book Game Over by the Danish researcher Henrik Melvang, Minerva Press, London, 2nd impression 1999, pp. 311-322. See Bibliography. 2 The Watch Tower, Dec. 1, 1915; The Watch Tower Reprints, 1919, p. 5808; Harvest Siftings, August 1, 1917, p. 16 3 Harvest Siftings, p. 16 4 Harvest Siftings, p. 16; The Watch Tower, Nov. 15, 1917, p. 327 5 The Watch Tower, Jan. 1, 1913; The Watch Tower Reprints, p. 5156 6 Statement dated July 23, 1917. See Circular by J.D. Wright, A.I. Ritchie, I.F. Hoskins and R.H. Hirsh dated July 27, 1917. (Brooklyn, N.Y.: Printed privately) 7 Ibid 8 A Manual of New York Corporation Law by Richard Compton Harrison of the New York Bar, (N.Y.: New York: The Ronald Press, 1906), p. 330 9 See the charter of the Peoples Pulpit Association in Appendix 4 and Melvang, p. 313 10 The Watch Tower, Nov. 1, 1917, p. 327 11 Harvest Siftings, p. 16 12 Paragraph 3 in the charter and Melvang, p. 311 13 See Appendix 4 and Melvang, p. 318. 14 Light after Darkness, p. 11 15 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, p. 737 16 Ibid, p. 527 17 Rutherford et al, vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, pp. 752,753; The Watch Tower, December 1, 1916, p. 379 18 Paragraph 9. See Appendix 4 and Melvang, p. 313. 19 The Watch Tower, Nov. 1, 1917, p. 327 20 Harvest Siftings, p. 12; Facts for Shareholders, p. 13 21 Paul Johnson claimed that Sturgeon was “a member of the Association’s Board” in April, 1917. See Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, p. 460 22 The Watch Tower, Nov. 1, 1917, p. 327; 23 Harvest Siftings, p, 12; The Watch Tower, November 15, 1917, p. 338 24 Light after Darkness, p. 4

25 Harvest Siftings, p. 12 26 Ibid 27 Light after Darkness, p. 4

Chapter 5 Brewing Dissatisfaction and the Case of Paul S.L. Johnson From the very start of his presidency, Rutherford stressed the generally accepted Bible Student view that Russell personally had been “that servant,”1 a fact of utmost importance for understanding the events that were to take place shortly. He declined to be elected the new “pastor,” preferring instead to be designated “Counselor.”2 In effect, though, this title amounted to much the same thing. Not surprisingly, therefore, some Bible Students, even at Watch Tower headquarters, disapproved of it. Menta Sturgeon, Russell’s private secretary, questioned it, claiming that Rutherford “was creating an office in the Church in order to gain prestige and power.”3 The directors who became Rutherford’s opponents declared that the word “counselor” was “one of the titles of the Lord Jesus” and that it “was never previously recognized as an office in the Church.”4 Dissatisfaction was brewing among prominent Bible Students. Sturgeon explained to Rutherford “that it was generally understood in the Bethel Home” that he “had used political methods” to secure his election as president.5 The former vice president, A.I. Ritchie, was mentioned as one of those who had said so.6 This undoubtedly referred to the election procedure implemented on January 6, 1917, as described above. Rutherford tried to defuse the charge by having Pierson, Van Amburgh and Macmillan state at the Bethel table that he had not as much as spoken to them about the election beforehand.7 But that hardly negated the fact that before the election he more than once had outlined a procedure to have presidential nominations closed after one nomination, thereby cutting off further nominations. As pointed out earlier, that was the very procedure Macmillan, as chairman, had actually adopted at the election.8 As has also been pointed out, that is why Vice President Ritchie, a natural candidate, was never allowed to be nominated for president. That certainly involved crass “political methods,” if ever there were any. Several decades later, Macmillan wrote that “Rutherford had been a lawyer and a politician in his youth,” and that he “saw the corruption that was possible” in connection with elections.9 As an earlier politician, Rutherford undoubtedly had learned to pull strings in his own favor. At the time Rutherford also claimed, “Brother Ritchie had not felt kindly about the management of the Society since he failed election at Pittsburgh.”10 This may be viewed as a tacit admission that irregular methods had been used at the presidential election and that Rutherford had pulled strings to eliminate Ritchie even as vice president,11 preferring instead Pierson, a novice on the board.

In the fall of 1917, Rutherford asserted boldly in print that it was “admitted by the opposing brethren that everything about the SOCIETY at the office headquarters was working smoothly and without a hitch until about June, 1917,” and that it was “admitted by them that the consideration of Brother Johnson’s episodes in England was the beginning of the present trouble.”12 This claim certainly was not a truthful one. In fact, the directors had already contradicted Rutherford’s assertion before it was published. They stated, “Not many weeks had passed before there were misgivings” among them about the approval of the by-laws suggested at the January 6, 1917 annual meeting, and that “things had not been running smoothly.”13 They further stated: “Since self-exaltation began before there was any trouble about the English case, and since objections to the President’s course were made from January to March, it is manifest that Brother Johnson had nothing to do with our affair.”14 During the sedition trial in 1918 involving Rutherford and seven other prominent Bible Students, the Watch Tower president clearly admitted that their claim was true. Referring to Johnson, he testified under oath: “He was recalled, came back to the United States, and the four mentioned had been disgruntled about other matters.”15 (Emphasis added) Rutherford’s Trip to California and Alarming News On February 8, 1917 Rutherford left New York on a trip to California, planning to be back about March 15.16 The reason for the trip was mainly domestic. As outlined above, in 1915 Rutherford had left the public work of the Society and moved with his family to Los Angeles where he set up a law office.17 Obviously, his wife’s declining health was a major reason for this.18 Only in the fall of 1916 did he return to New York, despite the fact that he was still a Watch Tower board member. As Macmillan pointed out, he was then still a resident of Los Angeles.19 Mary Rutherford, his wife, was “spending the winter” in Los Angeles.20 A year and a half later, Rutherford testified in court that she was living at Bethel “only part of the time, on account of her health she is required to stay in California most of the time.”21 Earlier on the day in February when Rutherford left New York, there had been a Watch Tower Society board meeting with all directors present.22 On that occasion H. Clay Rockwell, who was critical of Rutherford,23 resigned from the board. His resignation was filed “and no action taken.”24 But what seemed more significant at the time was that before Rutherford left for California, alarming news from England had reached him. Paul S.L. Johnson had been sent there in November 1916 to sort out trouble. From the start, his visit had been fruitful. A letter from Frank E. Barnett in London stated: “We in London have received much comfort and blessing from the ministrations of our beloved Brother Paul Johnson. His coming has helped us at this time to realize that he who has guided us thus far will guide us still.”25 Yet then it was learned that Johnson, on February 3, 1917, had dismissed Henry Shearn and William Crawford as managers of the Society’s London office, leaving Jesse Hemery as the sole manager. He had cabled about the move the same day, asking Rutherford to await details.26 Since Shearn and Crawford were also secretary and treasurer respectively of the British International

Bible Student Association,27 this understandably caused concern. The situation in England grew increasingly more serious when Rutherford was away, and it was to concern him throughout his absence from New York. During Rutherford’s absence, A.H. Macmillan acted as his representative both at Bethel and in the oversight of the Society. His word was final despite the fact that he was not on the Society’s board.28 Thus, Vice President Pierson played no role whatsoever in the management of either Bethel or the Society. While Rutherford was in California, Johnson sent him a cable dated February 24, 1917, with the astounding claim that he, Johnson, was the “steward” mentioned at Matthew 20:8, with “powers like Russell’s.” In that cable he asked Rutherford if he would be his “right hand.”29 This was a tacit reference to the conversation these two, who were then close friends, had about the subject at Bethel on November 3, 1916, as described in chapter 1. Rutherford cabled Shearn, Crawford, Hemery and Johnson in London that the dismissal of the two managers was “absolutely without authority” and shortly thereafter cabled Johnson that his mission in England was finished and that he should return to America.30 Halting briefly in his course, Johnson, on March 6, concluded that only the board, and not the president alone, could recall him. Thereupon, he resumed his activities at the Society’s London office.31 Failing to get replies to his further cables to Rutherford, he tried to contact the board, but failed.32 As a result, on March 15, Johnson’s license for his work abroad was canceled with a missive under the Society’s seal and with the signatures of two of its officers.33 “Sealed revocation of his credentials mailed 15th,” Rutherford cabled on March 27.34 Johnson’s Mental Health Problems It was well known that Johnson had experienced a mental breakdown in 1910, resulting in his leaving the pilgrim service for a few months.35 Some Bible Students had even concluded that he was “demonized and insane.”36 However, three months of hard physical labor restored his health.37 Johnson worked so hard in England in 1916 and 1917 that he feared that he might suffer a repetition of his 1910 breakdown.38 He later wrote that he had been “almost completely exhausted from heavy loss of sleep” and from “the hardest labors” of his life.39 Indeed, not a few in England concluded “that the man was undergoing a severe mental breakdown.”40 In cables to Hemery in London, Rutherford did not hesitate to claim that Johnson was “demented” and “insane.”41 Hemery did not agree completely with that assessment,42 and eventually Rutherford admitted that he had been mistaken.43 Still, Johnson’s behavior may have had some connection to his breakdown in 1910. He later admitted that he had thought that he was the antitypical, biblical Medad of Numbers 11:26, 2744 since 1910. Accordingly, he had even contemplated speaking of it to Russell, but never managed to do so.45 He did speak to his wife about it, however, and in February 1917, he obviously confided the matter to Jesse Hemery in London.46 Hemery wrote: “The unusual situation in which Brother Johnson found himself, allowed his mind to develop very rapidly some things which had been there for six or seven years. From time to time he had told me of thoughts in his mind, and of some of the happenings during his nervous breakdown in 1910.”47

On March 7, 1917, Rutherford left California to return to New York. On March 11, he stopped at Columbus, Ohio, Johnson’s home town,48 and saw Johnson’s wife Emma Johnson. While there, he shared his concern about her husband’s health with her. Emma then asked him to keep him in Brooklyn when he returned, until he had recovered.49 Rutherford arrived back in Brooklyn on March 14.50 Rutherford’s Neglect and Manipulations The Society’s board had then consisted of only six members for 34 days. According to the charter, Rockwell’s successor was to be elected by the board “within twenty days” after his resignation. If the board would fail to elect a successor “within thirty days” a temporary appointment of a new director by the president was to take place.51 But because the president had been away on private business for so long, his successor had not yet been elected or appointed. Thus, the failure to meet the charter requirement was entirely due to Rutherford. A board meeting was actually held in his absence on February 16,52 but Rutherford had not given any instructions about electing a new director, except possibly that it had to wait until he was back. At long last, 49 days after Rockwell’s resignation, the board, under Rutherford’s chairmanship, convened on March 29 and elected Robert Henry Hirsh as a director.53 Hirsh had been a director of the Peoples Pulpit Association for years and was a prominent member of the Watch Tower editorial committee. He was one of Rutherford’s supporters at the time, but there is no evidence that his election was controversial. Rutherford himself arranged for it. He told Johnson in July that “all things of that character are arranged beforehand, just like matters connected with a political convention.”54 Only a few weeks following this election, Hirsh’s attitude toward Rutherford “underwent a change.”55 Already, “about the latter part of April” he stood up to him.56 In fact, he became Rutherford’s most vocal opponent on the board. Nevertheless, Rutherford was eventually able to rid himself of Hirsh. But how, after choosing Hirsh for the board, could Rutherford declare his election invalid? He simply used an external lawyer to assert that more than thirty days after Rockwell’s resignation had passed when the election took place, and therefore the right to appoint a new director rested with the president, not with the board! The external lawyer also stated that the act of the board in electing Hirsh “was a usurpation of the authority of the President.”57 In addition, he claimed that Hirsh was not elected in Allegheny, Pennsylvania, the alleged only proper place for a Watch Tower board election, but in the State of New York.58 Rutherford himself voiced agreement with this. He claimed: “The law as well as the Charter, requires that the Board of Directors and officers must be chosen at meetings held in the State of Pennsylvania and nowhere else.”59 This change of behavior on Rutherford’s part was without doubt illegal and shockingly immoral. It was nothing short of “an attempt to frame mischief by law.” As shown above, it was Rutherford’s fault, not the board’s, that more than thirty days had passed before Rockwell’s replacement was elected. Moreover, the election of Hirsh included Rutherford’s own vote. After returning from California, he did not tell his fellow directors that he personally, as president, had

to act since the board had failed to do so. Instead, Hirsh’s election by the board was instigated and fully supported by him. Hirsh was the president’s choice. Furthermore, at the time, Rutherford had made no objection to the fact that Hirsh’s election was taking place in New York. Regarding Rutherford’s removal of Hirsh on the grounds that he was not elected in Pennsylvania, the following assertion made by Rutherford in July, 1917, is significant: “In 1909 said Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society removed its activities from the State of Pennsylvania to the State of New York; and since that time it has transacted no business of consequence in the State of Pennsylvania, and never had a meeting of its Board of Directors in said State during that time.”60 As outlined in more detail in chapter 12, this would mean, if the claim regarding Hirsh’s supposedly illegal election in New York were valid, that Rutherford’s own election to the board in 191061 and Pierson’s election in November 191662 would have been illegal. Yet during all that time Rutherford was the Society’s legal adviser, approving all the business of the board. It is therefore crystal clear that something was rotten, and it was in Brooklyn rather than in the Kingdom of Denmark. Johnson’s Case Laid Before the Board On March 29, 1917, a full board was in place, and Rutherford trusted that he could rely on a majority. At the same board meeting, he finally “reported the condition of the work in England and the situation in reference to Brother Johnson and what he had done.”63 That was necessary as Johnson would soon be back at headquarters. The board knew nothing about the situation before this meeting.64 A.I. Ritchie “had some misgivings” when he learned that Johnson thought “he had powers to dismiss brethren from the office in London,” but he did not approve of Rutherford’s handling of the matter, “considering that such an important affair should come before the Board of Directors.”65 When he questioned it, Rutherford told him that “it was something with which the Board had nothing whatever to do.”66 Johnson in New York On April 9 Johnson arrived in New York and was met by Van Amburgh, who accompanied him to Bethel.67 His reception there was icy.68 He asked Rutherford if he might have a hearing before the board. Rutherford later reported: “I called the members of the Board to the Study, and several other brethren, and we listened to Brother Johnson for two hours.”69 All board members, except Ritchie and Pierson, were present. Macmillan and Sturgeon, who were not members of the Society’s board, were also present. “Thus it was not exactly a Board meeting,” Johnson later observed, “though five of its members were present.”70 Johnson wanted to present his case about his doings in England, but, as he reported later, Rutherford did not allow him to do so: “I was supposedly having a hearing. This is what occurred: Though knowing that I was quite unwell, for over an hour he acted like a pettifogging prosecutor browbeating an accused prisoner…. Repeatedly I remonstrated, asking for an opportunity to present my case. I was answered with sneers, sarcasm and ridicule…. Despite my

oft-repeated requests, he would not let me tell my story; but insisting on setting me forth to disparagement.”71 Nonetheless, Rutherford did agree to let Johnson have another open session. Concerning that, Johnson stated: “The next day I was supposed to have two hours to explain the British matters before the same brothers. This also was not an official Board meeting. He did not allow me to take up the British matter at all, claiming that it had been settled. I remarked, ‘I have not been heard.’ That seemed the last thing in the world to concern him…. The British situation was not discussed at all. He had settled that without the Board, despite my appeal to the Board from his decision.”72 During this second meeting Johnson was again on the defensive, but he managed to tell those who were present “how the Scriptures foreshadowed his experience in England, and his activities there.”73 He expounded on “the Eldad and Medad type and that of David’s nine mightiest men, particularly Eleazar, the second mightiest, as probability proofs” that he was “the Lord’s chosen messenger.”74 He thereby indicated that he was “the second mightiest” in the movement after Russell who had been the mightiest! He considered himself to be the antitypical Medad of the Old Testament, while Russell had been Eldad, as Johnson had already said at Russell’s funeral.75 Johnson also argued from texts in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles that he, Johnson, was the “second ranking Truth warrior of the Parousia” and that Rutherford was “the seventh.”76 Rutherford then “abruptly brought the meeting to a close” without letting Johnson elaborate on his claims.77 He, Rutherford, later commented on the event by stating that “all present agreed that Brother Johnson was laboring under some mental delusion.”78 Rutherford’s False Accusation Rutherford’s claim just quoted is important. Assuming that his statement was true, it is quite obvious that he was not acting honestly when he soon afterwards accused four directors who were to become his opponents of having Johnson as their “leader” who was “directing their course.”79 Three of these board members were present at the two meetings with Johnson, which took place on April 10 and 11, 1917.80 If they agreed that Johnson “was laboring under some mental delusion,” it would be ludicrous to conclude that they rallied around him as their leader. This was actually pointed out both by Johnson himself and Francis H. McGee, the lawyer who would later support them.81 The directors themselves emphasized: “It is absolutely untrue that Brother Johnson became in any sense a leader of the Directors.”82 Rutherford’s connecting his opponents on the board with Johnson was just a strategy to downgrade them in the eyes of the Bible Student community. They further stated: “We believe that all can see that the coupling of Brother Johnson’s affairs with the Board of Directors is an attempt to becloud the real issue and the real trouble, which existed before the return of Brother Johnson to America.”83 Tension Between Rutherford and Johnson Subsides Temporally After two encounters with Rutherford, Johnson “remained quiet in Bethel for about two months.”84 During that time, Menta Sturgeon convinced him that Russell had been “the

Steward.”85 “Therefore,” Johnson later explained, “at my own initiative, I recalled before the family the thought that I was the Steward.”86 According to F.G. Mason, one of the Bethel workers, “he openly apologized before the Bethel family for his erroneous thought that he was the ‘steward’ and was presumably forgiven by all present.”87 As a result of Johnson’s open confession, on April 25 Rutherford apologized to him “for thinking and saying that he was insane.”88 Johnson then gradually blended into the Bethel family. A few years later he explained: “Early in May, 1917, we thought our health sufficiently restored to permit our working a half a day, six days a week at the Tabernacle. Additionally, we did pilgrim work Sundays from May 20 to June 24, 1917.”89 Johnson was keeping a low profile to avoid trouble. Yet despite the fact that he had given up his claim to being “the steward,” in his heart he still held grandiose views of himself. Decades later, he explained that when he withdrew his claim of being “the Steward,” he did not “repudiate the thought that he was made the priestly executive and teacher in charge of the special work of the Lord after Bro. Russell’s death, but continued to consider himself as such.”90 He was biding his time.

Footnotes 1 The Watch Tower, January 15, 1917, p. 29 2 Ibid 3 Harvest Siftings, p. 10 4 Light after Darkness, p. 2 5 Harvest Siftings, p. 10 6 Ibid 7 Ibid 8 Facts for Shareholders, p. 11 9 See Faith on the March, 1957, p. 157. 10 Harvest Siftings, p. 22 11 Facts for Shareholders, p. 12 12 Harvest Siftings, Part II, p. 31 13 Light after Darkness, p. 4. This pamphlet was issued earlier than Harvest Siftings, II. 14 Ibid, p, 8 15 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, p. 1037. 16 The Watch Tower, March 1, 1917, p. 75 17 Moyle vs. Franz et al, 1943, transcript of record, p. 1567 18 Poul Bregninge’s claim that Russell had dismissed Rutherford is not based on solid facts. See Poul Bregninge, Judgment Must Wait (New York: YBK Publishers, 2013), pp. 131, 132. Compare biography number1, of Rutherford, in Part 2 of this publication 19 The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, November 26, 1916, p. 10. 20 St. Paul Enterprise, January 16, 1917, p. 1 21 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, p. 1064 22 Harvest Siftings, p. 12 23 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 10

24 Harvest Siftings, p. 12 25 The Watch Tower, February 15, 1917, p. 62 26 Harvest Siftings, p. 2; Harvest Siftings Reviewed, pp. 4,5 27 The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 328. It is probable that Macmillan received the cables but never passed them on to the Board. 28 Light after Darkness, p. 4 29 Harvest Siftings, p. 3 30 Ibid 31 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, pp. 8,9 32 Harvest Siftings, pp. 3,4; Harvest Siftings Reviewed, pp. 9,10,13 33 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 13 34 Ibid, p. 6 35 Harvest Siftings, pp. 5,7; Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 6; Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, pp. 125-139 36 Ibid, p. 131 37 R.G. Jolly in The Herald of the Epiphany, January 15, 1951, p. 5 38 Letter from Johnson to Jesse Hemery published in Harvest Siftings, p. 5 39 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 6 40 A.O. Hudson, BIBLE STUDENTS IN BRITAIN The Story of a Hundred years (Hounslow, England: Bible Fellowship Union, 1989), p. 86; Harvest Siftings, pp. 9,10 41 Harvest Siftings, p. 3; Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 6 42 Harvest Siftings, p. 7 43 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 7 44 In the Revised Standard Version these verses read: “Now two men remained in the camp, one named Eldad, and the other named Medad, and the spirit rested upon them; they were among those registered, but they had not gone out to the tent, and so they prophesied in the camp. And a young man ran and told Moses, ‘Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp.’” 45 The Present Truth, December 8, 1918, p. 21 46 Ibid 47 Harvest Siftings, p. 7 48 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, p. 974 49 Harvest Siftings, p. 8. Johnson never contested this account. 50 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 6 51 The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 327 52 Harvest Siftings, p. 12 53 Harvest Siftings, p. 15; Circular July 27, 1917, p. 1 54 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 18 55 Harvest Siftings, p. 18 56 Ibid, p. 12 57 Ibid, p. 15 58 Ibid 59 Ibid 60 Quotation made by the law firm Davies, Auerbach & Cornell, New York, July 23, 1917 from a statement written by Rutherford and handed to the ousted directors, published in Circular, July 27, 1917 by J.D. Wright, A.I. Ritchie, I.F. Hoskins and R.H. Hirsh, p. 3. (emphasis added) The law firm opened their written opinion in this way: “You have requested our opinion

concerning your present title to office as Directors of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, and concerning the views as to the law expressed by Mr. Rutherford in his ‘Statement of Facts and Points,’ a copy of which you have received.” 61 Rutherford et al vs. the United States,1918, transcript of record, p. 1033; Moyle vs. Franz et al, 1943, transcript of record, p. 1513 62 The Watch Tower, December 15,1916, pp. 390, 391 63 Harvest Siftings, p. 12 64 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 9 65 Letter from Ritchie to Johnson, August 18, 1917, published in Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 3 66 Ibid 67 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, p. 50 68 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 14 69 Harvest Siftings, p. 8 70 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, p. 398 71 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 14 72 Ibid 73 Harvest Siftings, p. 8 74 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, p. 396 75 The Watch Tower, December 1, 1916, p. 368 76 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, pp. 613,614 77 Ibid, pp. 396, 397 78 Harvest Siftings, p. 27 79 Harvest Siftings, pp. 16,23 80 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, pp. 396, 398 81 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 14; Light after Darkness, p. 19 82 Light after Darkness, p. 8 83 Ibid 84 Harvest Siftings, p. 22 85 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 8 86 Ibid 87 Light after Darkness, p. 15 88 The Present Truth, December 1, 1920, p.194 89 The Present Truth, May 1, 1920, p. 78 90 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, p. 251

Chapter 6 Paul S.L. Johnson’s Visit to Britain Paul Johnson’s stay in Britain from November 19, 1916, till March 31, 1917, was one of the most dramatic events in the history of the British Bible Students and a trigger, too, of the 1917 management crisis in the Watch Tower Society. C.T. Russell had been concerned about developments in the London office and in the London Tabernacle congregation. Jesse Hemery, one of the three managers at the London office, had written to Russell on September 16, 1916, “that there was a movement afoot here which to me marked a lack of loyalty.”1 Johnson, whom Russell had appointed to deal with the trouble, was one of his most trusted associates at the time. Indeed, in the summer of 1917, even Rutherford, who then was thoroughly angered at Johnson, nevertheless described him as “the ablest brother in all the land.”2 Preparations for the Trip “The purpose of his visit was to look into the difficulties involving the managers of the Society and the London Tabernacle.”3 Macmillan’s claim in 1957 that a major task was “to try to preach the good news to the troops wherever possible” and to “comfort them as they prepared for action,”4 is never mentioned in the contemporary sources. There are two significant modern accounts of Johnson’s stay in Britain. These are the Watchtower Society’s 1973 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Bible Students in Britain: The Story of a Hundred Years published in 1989 by Albert O. Hudson. While both offer useful information, they also contain a number of errors, and neither is documented. The contemporary writings bearing on the episode are Rutherford’s Harvest Siftings of August 1, 1917, Johnson’s reply Harvest Siftings Reviewed of November 1, 1917, and Jesse Hemery’s booklet P.S.L. JOHNSON’S Pamphlet, “Harvest Siftings” Reviewed, itself reviewed, dated December 7, 1917. In addition to these, three articles published by Johnson in The Present Truth, June 1, 1927, October 1, 1929, and March 1, 1930, present additional valuable information on the affair. The First World War was raging in Europe and on the Atlantic Ocean even the ships of neutral nations were in danger of being torpedoed. Therefore, to obtain a passport, Johnson had to submit in writing to the passport department in Washington, D.C. an important reason for wanting to sail to Britain.5 Consequently, on November 3 Rutherford dictated a “letter of appointment” meeting such a requirement. It was predated November 1. Johnson later published it verbatim.6 It was sent to Washington the same day.7 On November 4 the passports were granted, “according to the government stamp on the application.”8 On November 7, “a cable from Brooklyn” headquarters advised the London office that Brother Paul S.L. Johnson was about to leave for Britain.9

However, before Johnson left New York, alarming reports arrived from England. The managers in London, Jesse Hemery, Henry Shearn and William Crawford, were also elders in the London Tabernacle congregation. They were divided as to how the congregation should function. Shearn and Crawford, supported by 9 more of the 18 elders, wanted more freedom from the Brooklyn headquarters, but Jesse Hemery, supported by a minority, wanted to retain the status quo.10 On September 16, 1916, the elders had decided that “a majority and minority report be drawn up for submission to Brother Russell for the expression of his mind upon the matter.”11 The church treasurer, Theodore M. Seeck, who belonged to the minority, wrote an accompanying letter Saturday, October 21, but the correspondence was not mailed until the following week.12 Russell did not live to see the correspondence. It arrived in Brooklyn after his funeral.13 Vice president Ritchie had it by November 8, and, in the afternoon of that day, he handed the correspondence to Johnson who made a thorough study of it. Johnson later reported: “Before leaving for Britain we had read, November 9 and 10, 1916, the full correspondence from both sides of the controversy among the Managers and the Elders of the London Tabernacle, telling (1) of Bro. Shearn, supported by ten other elders, seeking to secure the annulment of our Pastor’s controllership and arrangements in Tabernacle matters; and (2) of Bro. Hemery, supported by six other Elders, seeking to prevent it.”14 But this was not all. Johnson added: “A certain sister Nov. 10 showed us a long letter from Bro. Hemery, in which he pled with her to present his view of the matter to our Pastor.”15 This sister was Gertrude W. Seibert, one of Russell’s confidants.16 As Russell left Brooklyn for the last time on October 16, Seibert was unable to discuss the letter with him. Hemery had “sent two 1916 Tabernacle schedules, one being without, and one with, various signs before the names of the 18 Elders, indicating their various stands on the issue.”17 Rutherford had Johnson fill in the signs on the clean copy, allowing both Johnson and the Executive Committee to have the information.18 The committee ordered Johnson not to let anyone in Britain know that he had seen the Tabernacle correspondence, a directive that he obeyed. Johnson’s Credentials Undoubtedly, because of the alarming evidence now at hand, Rutherford dictated a set of “credentials” for Johnson on November 10.19 Unlike the letter of appointment to the passport department, which started with “Dear Sir,”20 the credentials were addressed “to all whom these presents may come.” The document follows here verbatim: Brooklyn, N.Y., U.S.A. To All TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS MAY COME – GREETINGS! This is to certify that Prof. Paul S.L. Johnson of New York City has been appointed by this Society—The Watch Tower Bible and Tracts Society, an American corporation, as its

special representative with full power and authority to do and perform whatsoever things may be necessary in connection with the work and business of this corporation in any country to which he may be sent; to have power and authority to examine the property and stock of the various branches of this corporation outside of the United States; and to call for and receive financial reports and other reports as to the general condition of the work of this Society from the person or persons in charge of the office or headquarters of any branch of this Society. He is also the fully accredited representative of the Society to lecture on and teach the Bible and to preach the Gospel in any country of the world. IN WITNESS WHEREOF WE have caused the corporate name of the Society to be signed to this instrument by its Vice-President, and to be duly attested by the signature of its Secretary and the seal of the corporation this 10th day of November, A.D. 1916. WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY Per A.I. RITCHIE, Vice-President Attest: W.E. VAN AMBURGH, Secretary21 Johnson later claimed that he asked all three members of the Executive Committee if his papers gave a statement of the power they wanted him to exercise and that all three answered “yes.”22 In a letter dated August 18, 1917, Ritchie confirmed that Johnson had asked this question and that all three had answered “yes.”23 Rutherford later asserted that the “credentials” had been issued only “to procure [a] passport.”24 That was an outright lie. It was only the letter of appointment, dated November 1, that was written for the sole purpose of securing a passport, a thing Johnson admitted.25 That passport had already been granted by November 4. Moreover, since Johnson was to leave New York harbor on November 11,26 there would not have been enough time to secure a passport on the basis of a document written on November 10. After all, the credentials were not signed and sealed until the morning of November 11, just as Johnson was leaving.27 Although Johnson was clearly given extraordinary powers in the credentials he received for his trip to Britain, it will be shown later that he exercised more authority in that country than the Executive Committee had intended. Johnson Arrives in England During his voyage across the Atlantic, Johnson understandably thought much about the problems in England. He had already concluded that Shearn and Crawford were in the wrong, but by November 17, according to his own words, he was sure that he could convince them about their mistake. He therefore looked forward to being a peacemaker.28 He arrived in Liverpool Sunday on November 19, 1916, and was met at the wharf by Jesse Hemery and others. They arrived in London in the evening, where they were met by members of the Bethel staff, including Henry Shearn.29

The British Bible Students had a difficult time even apart from the situation in the London office and the Tabernacle congregation. Britain had been at war for more than two years. In January 1916, the first Military Service Act had been passed, imposing conscription on all single men between 18 and 41. A second Act had been passed in May, extending conscription to married men. The Watch Tower, August 15, 1916, stated that about 60 Bible Students in Britain were in prison for refusing military orders, and H. J. Shearn reported to Russell in the same issue from the British branch office: “We are by no means busy in the office apart from the military question.”30 Paul Johnson later observed: “The military situation greatly hampered and persecuted the dear brethren, who almost everywhere seemed discouraged.”31 Johnson set to work with great determination. During the few months he stayed in Britain, he was amazingly active. He went “from place to place in England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland” in pilgrim work.32 The sources expressly mention that he visited Oxford, Hull, Leeds, Sheffield, Croydon, South Shields, Darlington, Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester and Liverpool.33 He claimed that he delivered exactly 100 discourses in diverse congregations and 32 lectures to the public.34 He actually worked so hard that it affected his health. The trip started successfully. On November 21, he had his first meeting with the three managers in London. He then had his authorization papers read to them and discussed the condition of the work in Britain.35 He encouraged the three to join with him “in giving an impetus to the waning work, and the discouraged hearts of the British brethren.”36 Two days later Henry Shearn handed him the full correspondence of his side of the issue among the elders, and Hemery gave him the correspondence of his side.37 This meant that he did not need to break the confidence of the Executive Committee.38 On Sunday November 30, Johnson lectured in London on Russell’s last days, his death and his funeral.39 The Manchester Convention, December 30, 1916 to January 1, 1917 One of the first clashes Johnson had with the managers dealt with the program for the national convention in Manchester which was due to take place from December 30 to January 1. He noted that the printed program gave elders from the local congregations the overwhelming number of the discourses. Hemery was the only one from the London office on the program. Johnson insisted that all three of the managers plus Thomas Smedley, the only pilgrim outside Bethel, should be part of the program.40 Another objection he had was that “the Convention baptismal service was scheduled to take place the evening before the Convention began, depriving the candidates of the inspiration of the Convention uplift” prior to the baptism.41 The managers were not inclined, however, to change the program. So, on December 20 Johnson called a special managers’ meeting and insisted that the program be revised “exactly as he had asked for.” When H.J. Shearn said that the matter “would have to be discussed,” Johnson replied according to his own statement: “Not one word of discussion; do as I have asked, for I asked it as the Society’s special representative.”42 On December 22, he revised the program but it turned out

that the short time left made it impossible “to secure the baptismal place for the changed service.”43 More than 600 Bible Students attended the Manchester convention44 and all three managers, Hemery, Shearn and Crawford, did speak to the audience as did the pilgrim Smedley.45 Johnson personally “was given the most prominent places on the program.” In addition to the public lecture, he delivered three discourses and conducted a question-and-answer meeting.46 Charges Against Shearn and Crawford and the Elders Supporting Them On November 30, 1916, Johnson confronted the eleven elders on their position on the Tabernacle arrangements.47 In a letter to Rutherford dated January 20, 1917, William Crawford claimed that just “a few days” after he began to deal with the disagreement, Johnson displayed the correspondence sent to Russell and condemned “all the eleven elders.”48 On December 3, 1916, Johnson sent his first batch of letters to the Executive Committee, slightly disapproving of Shearn and Crawford.49 His disapproval increased, so less than a month later, on December 31 and January 1, he advised the two managers “not to stand for election to eldership” in the upcoming election to be held in the Tabernacle.50 The election was due to be held in January, 1917.51 It was not only their resolution that had been sent to Russell which Johnson held against them. Johnson asked Hemery to draw up a list of Bethel or office offenses committed by the two. Hemery did so and presented them in a managers’ meeting the evening of January 8, 1917. 52 He gave Johnson a copy of the charges in handwriting53 which enabled him to publish all of them later.54 Hemery’s charges demonstrate the considerable discord existing between him on the one hand and Shearn and Crawford on the other. The Watchtower Society has admitted this when it mentioned “the years of discord between the three managers” on page 104 in the 1973 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The annual election in the Tabernacle spanned more than one session. In 1917, nominations of elders and deacons were made on Sunday, January 14, and the actual election was set for Sunday, January 21.55 On both occasions Johnson was absent, having pilgrim appointments in Glasgow and South Shields.56 On January 21, however, Jesse Hemery, at Johnson’s behest, told the congregation that Johnson, as the Society’s commissioner, disapproved of the course that Shearn and Crawford had taken in their resolution sent to Russell.57 The two were “the principal advocates of the freedom proposal.”58 Johnson was then, by a resolution, requested to give his view of the matter the following Sunday, January 28.59 On January 21, Johnson, on his part, wrote a report to the Executive Committee, recommending that Shearn and Crawford be dismissed as office managers “as the sole solution of the situation.” He viewed them as “mismanagers.”60 The Tabernacle Meeting, January 28, 1917 On January 28, 1917 Johnson gave his view of the Tabernacle trouble “to almost every member of the London Tabernacle ecclesia,” which had “from 750 to 800 brethren,” and also to “hundreds of brethren from other ecclesias” who attended the meeting.61 In a letter Jesse Hemery

wrote to Rutherford on February 5, 1917, he outlined Johnson’s dealing with Shearn and Crawford at this meeting. Johnson quoted from the carbon copy supplied him by Hemery: He found it necessary to speak very plainly to the Congregation of the action of these two brothers, who, while professing allegiance to Bro. Russell, had nevertheless done something which was cutting at the very heart of the Church’s allegiance. There was an attempt to deceive the Elders by making them believe it was Bro. Russell’s wish to have a change in the Tabernacle arrangements, because he had asked them to take a share with me in the preaching services. And there was an attempt to deceive Bro. Russell by putting before him such representation as would make him believe that all, or nearly all the Elders, and a great part of the Congregation, wished to have such an arrangement as would do away with the Assistant Pastorate. The Elders have declared that they were deceived in this matter, and with the exception of two who have left us to set up a separate Ecclesia, they have all expressed their regret, and declared that, had Bro. Shearn told them that which he must have known, they would not have acted as they did.62 On page 4 in his booklet “Harvest Siftings Reviewed” itself reviewed, dated December 7, 1917, Hemery recognized that Johnson’s quotation from his letter was correct. Johnson blamed H.J. Shearn above all. He wrote later: “The knowledge of this deliberate deception of his fellow Elders … filled us with righteous indignation. And we administered to him before the Ecclesia the severest rebuke that we have ever given a human being.”63 W. Crawford did not fare much better. Johnson claimed that he announced “before the Tabernacle ecclesia, Jan. 28” that both of them were “forever cut off from the Little Flock.”64 Such public condemnation did not sit well with all the members: “About 30 to 40 were much dissatisfied at our rebuke of the two Managers. Some of these wrote and cabled Bro. Rutherford and aroused his opposition to us.”65 At Hemery’s suggestion, Johnson that evening had his letter of appointment as well as his “credentials” read to the ecclesia by the church secretary.66 This meeting on January 28, 1917, held in the Tabernacle, was of utmost importance to Johnson, even though some in the ecclesia were offended. He later wrote that the church’s support that day gave him “the proof of his having chief charge in the Lord’s work as our Lord’s special representative.”67 He said he “left the scene clothed in full execution authority as the Lord’s special representative.”68 Not surprisingly this conviction would soon completely undermine his position in Britain. On next Sunday, February 4, the Tabernacle congregation, according to Hemery, decided that Shearn and Crawford would not be voted on as Elders “until a Church Meeting could be held when further investigation might be made, and Bro. Johnson heard further.”69 It was voted then to invite Johnson “to give the facts to the Ecclesia February 18.”70 Johnson Dismisses Shearn and Crawford as Managers A few days after the spectacular meeting in the London Tabernacle, there was a remarkable sequel. Shearn and Crawford felt they had been severely injured by Johnson, and on February 3

they launched an offensive against him. They attempted to take the first and second steps of Jesus’s admonition regarding sin as outlined at Matthew 18:15-18. They both gave Johnson short notes about this. Having read these, Johnson was asked if he was “ready to apologize.” He replied “that he would answer in writing.”71 The two managers brought witnesses, and Johnson told these that “his course was that of the Society’s commissioner and an official act and, therefore, did not come under the scope of Matt. 18:15-18 … and that the only one who could review his pertinent acts was the Board.”72 Turning to his witnesses Shearn then said, “You see brethren, the spirit that he shows.” The witnesses, except one, then withdrew.73 Johnson “kept his promise of answering their notes in writing, which consisted of a notice of their dismissal as managers,” and as he stated later, this “occurred Feb. 3, 1917.”74 This measure was certainly a strange way of meeting a challenge that more appropriately could have been solved by a brotherly talk. But Johnson felt that the attempt to apply Matthew 18:15-18 to him for “his official acts against them” was just the culmination of their offenses.75 It was only in later publications, however, that Johnson revealed the actual acute reason for the dismissal. In his widely spread apologetic pamphlet Harvest Siftings Reviewed published November 1, 1917, he simply stated that “after advising over the matter with Bro. Hemery, and finding our minds one on the subject, I decided, Feb. 3, to dismiss them, dictating the letter of dismissal in his presence.”76 The letter also said: “I desire that you leave the office at once, and the Bethel premises as soon as possible, turning over to me all the Society’s and Association’s monies, documents, papers.77 According to Hemery, they “accepted their dismissal.”78 Crawford left the premises on February 13 and Shearn on February 23.79 Johnson immediately cabled the Society in Brooklyn of his act.80 He further explained: On the same day, Feb. 3, of the dismissal of Brothers Shearn and Crawford, I appointed with Brother Hemery’s hearty advice, Brother E. Housden, Assistant Manager … to do Brother Crawford’s work, except that of Treasurer of the I.B.S.A. This put all of the monies into his hands, plus the books, the keys of the office and safe, as well as the mails and orders. A little later I appointed, with Brother Hemery’s hearty advice, Brother A. Kirkwood assistant manager to do Brother Shearn’s work, except that of Secretary of the I.B.S.A.”81 Hemery was “the chief manager.”82 Housden and Hemery were now “the two signatories for a valid check.”83 That Hemery fully supported Johnson’s dismissal of Shearn and Crawford is shown in a letter he wrote to Rutherford February 5, 1917, with a carbon copy to Johnson. Johnson quoted Hemery as stating: “It is a matter of deep regret to me that the conditions here have been such that Bro. Johnson has felt compelled to take the drastic steps, of which you have been advised by cable. To me all this is an answer to prayer…. He made some investigation; he saw for himself that which had been hidden within my mind.”84 “On Sunday, February 4, 1917, the secretary of the London congregation read a letter from Paul Johnson that announced that Brothers Shearn and Crawford were no longer managers of the

Society.”85 About that time the two had cabled Rutherford: “Astonishing developments, office and Tabernacle. Please defer all judgment.”86 Rutherford’s immediate reaction to the cables that he received was cautious. He was “doubtful of the situation” and cabled Johnson: “Have contending sides sign agreed statement of facts and send for my decision.”87 He clearly had reason for concern. Shearn and Crawford were original members of the council of five in the British International Bible Students Association incorporated in London, June 30, 1914.88 Moreover, Shearn had been the main source of help at the London office for Bible Students facing military conscription.89 By having been dismissed from the London office, his expertise and assistance were no longer easily available. Former vice president Ritchie, one of the three on the Executive Committee that had arranged for Johnson’s trip to Britain, wrote in a letter to Johnson in August, 1917: “When … your letters showed that you considered that you had power to dismiss brethren from the office in London, I was very much surprised; and I must confess I had some misgivings.”90 It is safe to say that Rutherford could not have reacted differently. It is quite obvious, then, that the Executive Committee did not expect Johnson to dismiss managers in England on his own, in spite of his sweeping credentials. This was underlined by the fact that, as pointed out above, Johnson, on January 21, had recommended to the Executive Committee that Shearn and Crawford be dismissed. But after that Johnson had grown in personal self-importance to a point where he felt that he did not have to await directions from Watch Tower headquarters. His judgment was beclouded by his “success” in the Tabernacle January 28, when, as outlined above, he felt he had become the Lord’s special representative. It seems his hard work and failing health were beginning to take its toll. Johnson Begins to Lose Ground During the first two months or more of his sojourn in Britain, Johnson had been fairly popular. Gilbert Mackenzie, a prominent elder in Glasgow, wrote in a letter dated July 4, 1917: “He began his work well, and we were all impressed with his earnestness and zeal.”91 As time went on, however, quite a few Bible Students were alarmed. W.O. Warden, another Glasgow elder, wrote: “Previous to Brother Johnson’s dismissing Brother Shearn and Brother Crawford from the office in London, I received a letter from him which I read to the Elders of the Glasgow Class, who were all unanimous in the opinion that Brother Johnson’s mind had lost its balance, and we accordingly communicated with London and cancelled a meeting arranged for him in the St. Andrews Grand Hall, Glasgow.”92 “Bro. and Sr. Morrison” from the same city, who remained impressed by Johnson, wrote to him on February 15: “Some have returned from your Edinburgh meeting [Feb. 11] and are working amongst the brethren endeavoring to raise up a feeling of resentment against your action.”93

Figure 2. The London Tabernacle It had been hoped that elders in Bible Student congregations would be exempt from conscription, but on February 4, 1917, the British High Court ruled that elders were “subject to conscription in Britain.”94 Shearn immediately threw the blame on Johnson for not being able to take “a final step which might have saved the elders from conscription.” In letters he sent out, he claimed that Johnson had “interfered with his success in the Military matter.”95 In all likelihood, Rutherford learned about such letters, and they unquestionably added to the growing concern among many about Johnson’s conduct. The condition in Britain was not the only thing Johnson had to think about. In his letter of appointment, it was determined that after his visit to Great Britain, he should also visit “Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Finland-Russia, Switzerland and France” in order to “carefully examine into the condition of the work and affairs of the Society.”96 Planning

for this naturally added to his already heavy work load. It turned out that he could not visit Germany, but on February 15, 1917, he wrote to August Lundborg, manager of the Swedish branch: “I will give Scandinavia and the Finnish friends at least a month, God willing. I will visit the two places in Finland that you mentioned, and I also want you to arrange for my tours in Norway, Sweden and Denmark…. As it looks to me now, I will travel from here to Holland and from Holland to Denmark, and therefore it would be advantageous if the trip can begin with Denmark…. I am sure I cannot come before Easter…. As soon as I am able to fix the day for my departure, I will send you a cablegram about it.”97 These plans never materialized. The Tabernacle Meeting, February 18, 1917 Only three days after writing to Lundborg in Sweden, on February 18, Johnson appeared the second time before the Tabernacle congregation where he again attacked Shearn and Crawford “on Tabernacle matters only.”98 He spoke for three hours.99 That time he was much more thorough than he had been on January 28. He had a host of witnesses from the congregation testify to establish his accusations.100 Six of the elders who had signed the resolution sent to Russell were brought to an open confession before the congregation and asked forgiveness, but Shearn and Crawford did not do so.101 While Shearn was the main target at the meeting on January 28, it seems that Crawford received the major criticisms on February 18. After Johnson had finished, Crawford made “a short reply.”102 In his letter to Rutherford of April 3, 1917, he stated: “He has denounced me for hours in the Tabernacle, telling them that I was dead spiritually and no longer a brother, etc., etc.”103 Johnson later claimed: “H.J.S. and W. Crawford were nearly unanimously defeated as elder candidates.”104 They were in fact never again elected elders in the London Tabernacle congregation. Johnson also claimed that Jesse Hemery had told the congregation on this occasion that Johnson had “delivered him from the greatest trial of his life.”105 He further asserted: “After hearing me Feb. 18, the congregation unanimously voted me confidence, thanks and appreciation for what I had done in their defense against Brothers Shearn and Crawford.”106 Hemery partly corroborated this: “The congregation as a whole did accept the result of Bro. Johnson’s endeavours, while they disagreed with the extravagance of his manner and methods.”107 As could be expected, such a spectacular meeting was made known far and wide. Johnson stated: “The pertinent happenings at the London Tabernacle were reported to the ecclesias throughout Britain and Ireland by mail, as well as by verbal statements, mainly of brethren from other ecclesias who were present at the pertinent London Tabernacle business meetings.”108 Exchange of Cables Rutherford’s initial request that Johnson should have the “contending sides” send him an “agreed statement of facts” was obviously not carried out. As a result, on February 19 Rutherford sent Johnson a stern cable showing his displeasure with the dismissal of Shearn and Crawford, and he ordered him to reinstate them.109 Johnson claimed that both he and Hemery agreed that this

“should not be done,” and he then cabled Rutherford that he declined “to reinstate at his command the dismissed Managers.”110 Rutherford reacted swiftly. In a cable dated February 22 he informed Johnson that he was appointing five prominent British elders to “investigate the trouble in the London Tabernacle and Bethel.”111 On February 24 Johnson replied in the most insubordinate cablegram he is known to have sent. Rutherford published it verbatim on page 3 in his Harvest Siftings: Rutherford, Watch Tower Society, Brooklyn, N.Y. Surprised at cablegram. Have you not received my letters second, eleven, twenty-one, January? Shearn, Crawford, leading sixth sifting. Ezekiel Nine Beware. Cablegram campaign engineered Crawford, Shearn, Ezra Nehemiah Mordecai experience type mine here. Since January Twenty-eight am Steward Matthew, Twenty, eight. Shearn, Haman then hanged on gallows for me. Was then given Esther Eight, Two Fifteen powers like Russell’s. Crawford, Sanballat, Shearn, Tobiah, Guard Senior, Gishen. Will you be my right hand? Must keep my hands on. JOHNSON. As Johnson did not dispute a single sentence of this cablegram in his Harvest Siftings Reviewed, it must be accepted as correct. Johnson was surprised at Rutherford’s cablegram about an investigative committee. He claimed that his experiences in London were foreshadowed by the experiences of the saintly Old Testament characters Ezra, Nehemiah, and Mordecai, whereas his opponents were typed by evil Old Testament characters. Most importantly, he claimed that since January 28, he was the “Steward” mentioned at Matthew 20:8. He claimed to have “powers like Russell’s.” In all fairness, it is worth noting that Johnson had been quite accustomed to talk with Rutherford about types: “Having very frequently spoken to Bro. Rutherford, with whom I was on most confidential terms of brotherly friendship, of hidden types and prophecies in the Scriptures, I thought he would not think these typical allusions, made in confidence, unusual for me to make to him. To others, unaccustomed to such allusions from me, they of course seemed strange.”112 Later the same day he described this cable in a letter to Hemery, which Rutherford also published verbatim, and which Johnson again did not dispute. He stressed that the Lord was going to let Rutherford “mix things up quite thoroughly, until he shows him who has been His choice as Brother Russell’s successor.”113 On the same day, February 24, Rutherford sent another cable to the office in London, and it reached Johnson in Liverpool on February 26: “Shearn, Hemery, Crawford, Johnson, London: Shearn Crawford dismissed absolutely without authority., Restore them immediately. Must have fair trial before my commissioners. Show cable commissioners. Report awaited.”114 Jesse Hemery instantly switched his allegiance. On February 26 he cabled Rutherford: “Johnson claims full control everything. I resist as your representative. Dispute with co-managers his, not mine. Los Angeles cable has attention. What are Johnson’s powers?”115

This was a most dishonest statement. Hemery had not resisted Johnson’s moves one bit. On the contrary, the dispute with the co-managers was his as much as it was Johnson’s. In his letter to Johnson of February 25 he had written: “The changes that have been made can be considered as nothing less than a cleansing of the sanctuary. We have a freer atmosphere, light seems as it were breaking upon us; the feeling of an institution is being modified and merged into that of a home; and love is beginning to assert itself; for all of which I am very grateful to the Lord.”116 Hemery acknowledged this letter as genuine on page 4 in his pamphlet of December 7, 1917. Johnson observed: “Brother Hemery gave me more evidence on their misdeeds than all others combined, and publicly and privately commended my course until Feb. 26.”117 Hemery then clearly sensed where the true basis of authority lay in the Watch Tower organization. In answer to his question regarding Johnson’s authority, Rutherford cabled him: “Johnson demented. Has no powers. Credentials issued to procure passport. Return him America. Sympathy.”118 Then Rutherford moved quickly. In a cablegram sent on February 26, which Johnson received on February 28, Rutherford recalled him from England: “Your work finished London; return America, important.”119 Hemery stated: “He wired to us in the office that Brother Johnson’s work here was finished, and that he had no further authority to represent the Society in any way, and that we should ship him back to America immediately.”120 Johnson’s pilgrim trips to Liverpool and Manchester, on February 24-26, 1917, proved to be his last public engagements in Britain. At both places, he admitted, he spoke to brothers of being “the Steward and Brother Russell’s successor.”121 John J. Cochran of Manchester later wrote to Rutherford: “I … spent two days with him here in Manchester. These two days proved to be very saddening and just went to prove some of my earlier suspicions regarding his mental condition. You are of course conversant with the fact of his several claims which it is not necessary for me to further detail, but my purpose is to write and say that instead of his presence being a comfort to the brethren, it proved rather the reverse.”122 Johnson was quite taken aback when he received Rutherford’s recall cable on February 28. He came back to London on March 1123 and kept a low profile for almost a week. Hemery had changed from being a most ardent helper to being his opponent.124 Johnson Stays Calm Between February 28 and March 6, 1917 Hemery urged Johnson to return to America at once and “lodge his claim there.”125 But Johnson was sure that would not be needed. As Hemery noted, he viewed his recall as just a temporary setback “but believed it could not last long for Brother Rutherford could see his, Brother Johnson’s position.”126 He was perhaps counting on Rutherford’s earlier respect for him as a Bible scholar. During this period, he repeatedly cabled Rutherford but received no answer.127 At that time he did not challenge Rutherford’s authority: “From Feb. 28, when the recall cable reached me, to March 6 I was under the impression that Brother Rutherford had the right to recall

me. Therefore, I gave up all official activities. When Brother Hemery asked me to take the head of the table, March 1 on my return to Bethel, I declined, saying I was no longer special representative.”128 This did not mean, however, that Johnson gave up his personal claims. The investigative committee appointed by Rutherford finally met in the London Bethel March 3-5, 1917.129 A number of members of the congregation appeared before the commission and testified against H.J. Shearn and the other elders who had signed the resolution sent to Russell.130 Thomson McCloy, the chairman of the commission, tried long and hard, but in vain, to induce Johnson to help the commission and testify.131 Johnson stated: “I appeared before and read to them a protest against the appointment of a commission to investigate the acts of a Special Representative clothed with powers of attorney … and I would not become a party to it; therefore I refused to testify or otherwise help.”132 He added that his work was done “as the one whom the Lord had appointed in charge of the priestly work,” which he understood “to be that of the steward of the Penny Parable.”133 Hemery says that Johnson “came to the conclusion on Saturday night [March 3] that he could not attend the Commission because he said it had no authority, and he, being the ‘Steward,’ was superior to it, and he repudiated it and denied its authority.”134 While the above information was no doubt true, in this connection Rutherford lied slanderously about Johnson. He stated: “After the commissioners were appointed and Brother Johnson learned that they were to go to London to investigate the facts and report, he visited each of them personally and tried to influence them in his behalf. This fact is proven by the following letters from Brother Crawford.”135 The first of the two letters from Crawford he published was actually dated January 20, 1917, long before Rutherford appointed his commission, and consequently it does not contain a single word about influencing any commissioners! The second letter, dated April 1, 1917, does indeed say that all of the commissioners had “been interviewed by Johnson,” but it does not say that these interviews had taken place “after the commissioners were appointed.”136 Johnson had had eight counselors outside London for British matters,137 and it so happened that Rutherford chose four of them to be on his commission. To save time and money for four of them, Johnson wrote on February 24 to all the eight counselors that they should meet with him on March 3, the same day the commission was to meet.138 However, he soon had second thoughts: “I cancelled this meeting because I saw that it would have the appearance of my seeking to influence the commission. This conference was, therefore, never held.”139 It is reasonable then to accept Johnson’s conclusion: “That some of them as my counselors had heard some of the facts from me, weeks before they had been appointed Commissioners, cannot be construed as my trying to influence the Commission.”140 The committee consisted of “Bros. McCloy, Warden, McKenzie, Robinson and Housden.”141 McCloy lived in Birkenhead close to Liverpool. Warden and McKenzie were both from Glasgow, Scotland. Ebenezer Housden was Johnson’s appointee as assistant manager at the

London office. Rutherford had obviously hoped that his commission would exonerate Shearn and Crawford, but the facts indicate that Housden supported Johnson’s actions towards them. Johnson Resumes Full Authority and Suspends Hemery On March 6, 1917, Johnson “by a strong, mental struggle,”142 decided that Rutherford did not have the right to recall him and thereupon changed his mind completely: “The night of March 6 I came to the conclusion that since I was sent by the Society through its Board … he could not recall me, except at the Board’s direction. Further, my credentials being sealed by the Society’s seal, I concluded that he could not cancel my credentials without the Board’s direction.”143 The same evening he discussed the matter with Hemery and told him that he was going “to resume his activity as Special Representative.”144 He also informed him that he “would take his former place at the head of the table at meals as long as the Board did not recall him.”145 Hemery’s attitude was that while Johnson “stayed in the house awaiting his return to America, he could stay as an honoured guest for his works sake, but that he must keep his hands off the management.”146 Next morning Johnson informed the Bethel staff about his decision, stressing that if he were recalled by the board, he would immediately cease his activity.147 In spite of Hemery’s protests, he then and there obtained “the support of the chief ones at the London Bethel.”148 Hemery later wrote to Rutherford: “He asserted his right to sit at the head of the table in the Bethel family, and in order to make sure of his right, he went and sat in the Chair before the family assembled. I refused to acknowledge him as having the right to represent you, and said to the family that this was open rebellion…. To my surprise most of the brethren stayed with Johnson, and they continued to handle the work.”149 Johnson claimed that “office matters worked on as usual from March 7 to March 12.”150 Hemery continued to cooperate fully with Housden, Johnson’s appointee as assistant manager.151 Johnson did more than inform the London branch about his new endeavor. On March 7 he sent the following telegram to Ritchie and Van Amburgh in New York: Society’s interest demand I retain powers board, not executive committee, gave me. I appeal Board through you against Rutherford’s repudiating Board’s representative. He is subject Society. Society’s representative subject to it as against him. Letter follows. Continue letter appointment and credentials. Increased injury otherwise. Congregation unanimously voted me confidence appreciation against Shearn, Crawford. Rutherford’s committee approves me. Disapproves him. Bethelites approve dismissals. Acted harmonious with my powers. I protest in God’s name to Board through you.152 The letter Johnson promised in the telegram, he dictated that same day. It was “a protest containing 10 reasons against Bro. Rutherford’s course,” and was sent to “Bros. Ritchie, Van Amburgh and Pierson for presentation to the Board.”153 Johnson elaborated: “Brother Rutherford never allowed that protest to come before the Board, nor the two petitions that I sent with the protest, asking the Board, first, to require that in ‘Towers’ for the British friends, he recall

repudiating my acts; and second, to take exclusive executive and managerial power from him, and to rest it in an Executive Committee, of which I mentioned Brother Rutherford a member.”154 Here Johnson went beyond merely defending himself. He directly challenged Rutherford’s position as executive and manager. Furthermore, he was about to develop an even more radical attitude. He said that he did not read The Watch Tower, January 15 report of the election of the Society’s officers in January, 1917, until early March, and that he came to the following remarkable conclusion when he did read it: “On reading therein the report of the Pittsburgh Convention held Jan. 6, 7, I noticed that the article stated that the Society’s officers were elected by the Convention. Understanding the word convention as all Truth people use it to mean gatherings of brethren such as were held at Pittsburgh, Jan. 6, 7, and not a meeting of voting shareholders of the W.T.B. & T.S. to elect its officers, I took the article to mean just what it said, and concluded that our officers this year were not elected by the proper body.”155 He continued: “After waiting until March 10, I sent a cable of inquiry to Brother Ritchie, the first time I cabled to him alone. Not hearing from Brother Rutherford, and concluding from the blundering statement of the Jan. 15 ‘Tower’ that he was not legally elected, I henceforth cabled to Brother Ritchie, as the Society’s ranking officer last legally elected.”156 Rutherford later claimed that Johnson “repudiated the action of the Shareholders in electing the President of the Society,” 157 but Johnson actually asserted that there was no election by the shareholders! Johnson was now losing his grip. He allowed his lofty view of himself and his privileges to cloud his thinking. There were serious flaws in his reasoning. As was shown in an earlier chapter, Rutherford’s election January 6 was rigged and therefore legally questionable to say the least. But Johnson could not have known that at this point. And it would simply be impossible to introduce a new mode of election in 1917. The shareholders would not have accepted such a change. The Watch Tower, December 15, 1916, page 39 pointed out: “The Charter of the WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY provides that the officers shall be elected annually by those who have contributed to the funds of the Society…. The next annual meeting, as provided by the Charter, will be held Saturday, January 6th, at Pittsburgh.”158 This election was of course held just as it was announced. To ignore it and replace it with another voting process would have been to ignore Russell’s expressed arrangements as stipulated in the state granted charter. The published report actually shows that Johnson was in error. It says that “approximately 150,000 votes were represented in person or by proxy.”159 This certainly shows that it was the shareholders who performed the election. The way the vice president was elected confirms this. Both Ritchie and Pierson were nominated and “the counting of the ballots showed that Brother Pierson received the larger number of votes.”160 The use of the ballot was a charter requirement for election by the shareholders.161 At the time when Johnson challenged the election in January, Rutherford was on his way back to New York from a trip to Los Angeles. On March 10, he cabled Hemery and instructed him “to take full possession.”162 He later expressly stated that on March 11 he was in Columbus, Ohio, where Johnson and his wife resided.163

Monday March 12 was an especially turbulent day at the London office. Johnson announced at the Bethel table in the morning that the Society’s officers “were not elected by the proper body.”164 Hemery supplemented: “He came out in full rebellion against Brother Rutherford, declaring there was no President of THE WATCH TOWER, that his election was illegal, and that he intended to take full charge of the British work.”165 A harsh discussion, lasting “for a couple of hours,” followed,166 which Hemery claimed was “the most violent raging” he had “ever been subjected to.”167 Hemery maintained that Rutherford had the right to recall Johnson and cancel his credentials. Johnson denied that right.168 Johnson then and there dismissed Hemery from the office! “He dismissed me quite a dozen times, and when he found I would not go, he suspended me.”169 The reason, Johnson said, was Hemery’s “opposition” to him “before the family.”170 He drew up a document about the suspension, and had Ebenezer Housden, the assistant branch manager, formally witness it.171 He further claimed: “Bro. Hemery was so completely refuted that only four of the Bethelites held with him—his wife, his typist and two brothers. The others … about eleven in number ... were with me. The way each stood was decided by the place where he took his meals. For nearly a week only four ate with Brother Hemery.”172 Hemery explained: “His insistence, and his mouthing, made some of the brethren think he was the person in authority, and they had, unfortunately, listened to his claim of being the antitype of many Scripture characters.”173 One of the “two brothers” who held with Hemery might have been Alexander Kirkwood, whom Johnson had appointed in February to replace H.J. Shearn as manager. The reason for speculating this, is that at some later point Johnson did withdraw authority from him.174 Also, he mentioned “a suspended supporter” of Hemery, who could only have meant Kirkwood.175 It was probably too painful for Johnson to specifically point out that one of his appointees had let him down. But Hemery showed that Kirkwood had changed sides.176 The Injunction Suit About this time Hemery received a telegram “signed not only by Brother Rutherford, but by THE WATCH TOWER SOCIETY saying that all Brother Johnson’s activities of every kind in this country were cancelled.”177 This did not really affect what was going on at the London office, however. After Hemery’s suspension March 12 the work went on as before, “except that Bro. Hemery and a suspended supporter of his were not given their accustomed work…. The monies, the mail, the orders, the books and the keys continued in Bro. Housden’s charge.”178 There was one exception, however. The bank declared on March 13 that it would no longer honor Housden as one of the signatories necessary for a valid check. It now “would honor the signatures of Bros. Hemery, Shearn and Crawford only.”179 Johnson attributed this change to Hemery’s efforts and to Rutherford’s cables.180 As an act of caution on that same day Johnson cabled that if the board wanted to recall him “kindly order it” and cancel his credentials “over the Society’s seal and signatures of its officers” so that he “might be sure that it was the Board’s

work.”181 No such recall ever came from the board, which did not know about the situation until March 29.182 On March 15, however, a sealed cancellation of his credentials was sent to London, but signed by only two of the three officers, Rutherford and Van Amburgh.183 Because of the wartime censorship mail from America could be delayed up to a month or more. The revocation did not appear in time to play a role in the drama. And since it was not a move by the board or even by all the officers, it is unlikely that it would have affected Johnson. When Johnson learned on March 13 that Hemery, Shearn and Crawford were the only ones the bank accepted as signatories, he immediately suspected mischief. He thought that these three had jointly planned a financial “scheme” that was subversive to Russell’s arrangements.184 Housden then told him that he had seen a document in the office outlining significant changes in the business and work of the Society. Johnson asked Hemery to show it to him, but Hemery no longer recognized Johnson’s authority and refused. Johnson then dictated a letter to Davis and Winder, the auditors who had written the instrument, and asked for a copy. The next morning, he received it in the mail, which enabled him to publish it verbatim half a year later. It was dated January 22, 1917.185 Studying it, Johnson at once concluded that it totally changed Russell’s arrangements, increased the British I.B.S.A. and decreased The Watch Tower Society. In effect, he claimed, it made the I.B.S.A. an independent corporation.186 To prevent Hemery, Shearn and Crawford from drawing money apart from his order, he sued them as well as the bank in the High Court of Justice. He gave as his reason that he feared that money belonging to The Watch Tower Society deposits would be placed in the I.B.S.A. deposits.187 The suit was “authorized March 14.”188 The same day Rutherford, now back in New York, sent the following stern cablegram to Hemery: “Johnson insane. Proof forthcoming. Spending money recklessly cabling. Do not temporize further. Deprive him of all money and authority. Arrest and incarcerate him. Cable action.”189 This proved to be too heavy a task, however. Hemery observed: “We found it impossible to do anything in the way of arresting Johnson for lunacy…. I cannot say that Brother Johnson is insane, but there is a sort of madness of pride in his heart.”190 On March 16, Rutherford sent copies of new rules for the London branch and invited Hemery, Shearn and Crawford to go over them together and then, if agreeable, sign and return a copy to Brooklyn headquarters. The rules “vested due authority in Hemery as the president’s representative.”191 However, the discord between these three was too great to overcome. Shearn and Crawford “would not work as Managers under Bro. Hemery’s priority.”192 In an official, 4page printed letter from the British branch of the Society meant for concerned British Bible Students, Hemery wrote on page 3 early in 1921: “For more than a year they were given opportunity of acceptance, but still objecting, they were then asked to resign.”193 On Saturday March 17, Justice Sargant of the High Court ruled that Johnson’s credentials “could be cancelled by the Board alone, and that only over the Society’s seal and its officers’

signature.” Johnson therefore was granted “a temporary injunction.”194 The case was to come up in court on Friday, March 23.195 Hemery Overcomes Johnson On March 17, Hemery involved Tabernacle elders and deacons in the conflict: “Last Saturday [March 17] I called together in the city a few of the Elders and Deacons of the London Church and told them the situation. They immediately began to take steps to relieve the situation, and from Sunday night last, we had someone in the house all the time.”196 The definitive turning point came on Sunday, March 18. H.C. Thackway, one of the leading elders, who had earlier held Johnson in high esteem, then openly attacked Johnson in the Tabernacle. In a letter dated December 7, 1917, he wrote to Hemery: “On Sunday, March 18, I announced from the Pulpit that Bro. Johnson was in rebellion. I knew this from personal conversation with him. The announcement was made by me at the request of the Committee of Elders and Deacons called in to assist you, and not by your request, though your consent was, of course, obtained. The words used were my own and faithfully represented my mind.”197 The fact that Johnson opposed Rutherford was undoubtedly a crucial matter to the congregation, for Rutherford had been elected as the new pastor in succession to C.T. Russell on January 21. And on February 18 he had similarly been “appointed Chairman of the congregation and of the Board of Elders, with Jesse Hemery as vice-chairman.”198 Thackway’s announcement had consequences for the office staff. “The break from me,” Johnson explained, “began only after I had been … denounced as a rebel against the Society, March 18, before the Tabernacle congregation.”199 Hemery added another reason: “It is true that for nearly a week most of the members of the family took meals at the general table; but by the end of the week a request was made to me that another table for meals might be provided, for, said several, ‘we are sick and tired of listening to Bro. Johnson’s talk of himself, that we wish to be spared that pain.’ I agreed, and for nearly another week the majority ate their meals in the bookroom, leaving the usual dining table to Bro. Johnson and two or three others.”200 Hemery and his supporters had planned to seize the mail from Housden’s care on Monday morning, March 19, but the effort failed.201 Hemery continued: “We began on Tuesday morning, [March 20] and since then every letter delivered has come through my care. Johnson was furious. He and Brother Housden with him, spent much time meditating over the situation.”202 Hemery asked for the money in the safe but met with refusal. He then felt it was “necessary to take some more stringent measures.”203 This was done the night between March 21 and 22. Johnson Barricaded and Housden Locked Up The story of the dramatic happenings on the evening of March 21 and the morning of March 22 was given by both Hemery and Johnson and can be read in Rutherford’s pamphlet Harvest Siftings, page 6 and Johnson’s pamphlet Harvest Siftings Reviewed, page 12. Johnson’s story was reproduced in chapter 1 of his Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures, Volume 6, published in 1938.

There is no other source material. The 1973 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses based its presentation entirely on Hemery’s version, and it is just as skewed as the original. Both Johnson and Housden went to bed rather early; Johnson said he retired about 9:30. Hemery with a number of helpers, who Johnson called “guards,” then acted with great determination. The door to Johnson’s room on the second floor was blocked with a sizable chunk of wood! Hemery and Cronk, one of the Tabernacle elders, went up to Housden’s room on the third floor and demanded the keys. “Two helpers were nearby, and on Housden’s refusal to hand them over, they were taken out of his pocket, though without violence, for he made no resistance.”204 Coming down to the office with the keys, Hemery found that the safe was empty. Returning to Housden’s room he demanded to know where the money was, but Housden refused to tell. Hemery and his guards spoke to him about the possibility of the police coming in. Now a strange coincidence occurred. The window blind happened to be up and the stringent London lighting war regulations were violated. About 11.30 p.m. a policeman arrived insisting to see those responsible. Hemery took him upstairs to Housden’s bedroom. And this happened immediately after talking about a police officer visit! The lighting offense, however, was soon cleared up, and the constable went away. About 6 o’clock in the morning, Johnson noted that he could not open his bedroom door. With considerable force he succeeded in breaking the door “below the lower hinge”205 and was able to remove the blockage and get out. He went up to Housden’s room and found that “he was locked in, unable to come out and had been searched for the keys of the office and safe as well as for that of his room.”206 Johnson claimed: “Brother Hemery committed an imprisonable offence in barricading me in mine, and locking Bro. Housden in his room!”207 He added that Housden “was not freed until 2 P.M.”208 Neither Hemery nor the 1973 Yearbook saw fit to mention this. When Johnson was talking to Housden through the locked door, several of the “guards” came “hastily out of their rooms partly dressed.”209 One of them, Cronk, told him that a constable had been there the night before to see Housden and that he “was going to return that morning.”210 Hemery admitted: “Of course, this was a bit of bluff to help to keep Johnson within bounds.” 211 Johnson further reported: “Bro. Cronk told me … that I was not allowed to leave my room, except to go to the bathroom, and then only to make use of the halls and stairs between that and my room.”212 Johnson added: Immediately I thought of my papers, as court property, which I was sure they would take from me, and of the court hearing the next day. [March 23] I decided to leave Bethel at once. Returning to my room I did a few necessary things, and was about to go down stairs and leave by the front door, when one of the “guards” himself went down. This prevented my exit by the door on the ground floor! My room was on the next floor above. There was a balcony whose floor was just outside of and below my window. Below this balcony was an iron fence. Without any jump whatever, I let myself down, my hands holding unto the

balcony, until my feet rested upon the fence, then again without a jump, I let myself down on the walk.213 Hemery offered unkind and unworthy comments on Johnson’s departure, which he did not see himself. He stated that the milk deliverers that morning “saw a ludicrous sight of a man in a tall hat and frock coat and, as they said, galoshes only, letting himself down from the balcony into the street.”214 He also stated that “it was only the fear for his skin, impelled by an evil conscience, that made him do this foolish thing. The front door was loose, he could have walked down and walked out.” 215 Johnson responded forcefully: Bro. Hemery, who did not see me, represents me ludicrously in a frock coat, and with galoshes (overshoes) only. My frock coat was entirely hidden under my overcoat, which reaches nearly to my ankles. My overshoes were without heels, and, of course, over my shoes…. How did he know that I left with a coward’s heart and uneasy conscience? … If Bro. Hemery’s ‘guard’ … had not gone down stairs, and prevented my leaving by the door, I would have left by the door. As it was, to prevent myself from being kept away from the hearing of the injunction suit [March 23] and my authorization papers from falling into the hands of the other side, I had to leave by the only available exit, my window.216 That Hemery wrongly reported that the milk deliverers saw Johnson in a frock coat, makes one seriously suspect that this story was a mere invention on Hemery’s part. That Johnson’s worries were well founded was sustained by what Hemery did after Johnson’s exit. He rifled Johnson’s portfolio! He “took from it many papers, some of which he sent to Brother Rutherford, and read my private letters.”217 In fact, Hemery simply stole a good many of these letters!218 Although the situation was a most trying one for Hemery and his supporters, these events of March 21 and 22 reflect very badly on them. Johnson’s Final Days in Britain For the rest of his stay in London, Johnson lived at a hotel. Rutherford was not quite updated when he wrote later that Johnson was “concealing himself about London until he sailed for America.”219 Johnson corrected him: “It is utterly untrue that I secreted myself after I had left Bethel, until I left London. Several times Bro. Hemery sent Bro. Cronk to see me at my hotel; other brethren also called on me. Mails were sent from Bethel to me. Of course, after the barricading episode I would not return to Bethel to stay.”220 Hemery did not allow him to come to pack his effects, but on March 23, he, Hemery, did it for him.221 Just before the dramatic events of March 21 and 22 all of Johnson’s declared followers at Bethel, except Housden, abandoned him. W.H. Dingle, C. E. Guiver and H. Durrant Headland explained later: “Listening to him at the time, we did think that he must be in the right, and for a time our sympathy was with him; but when the true situation dawned on us—partly through Bro. Johnson’s strange conduct, we immediately broke from him.”222

Robert Cormack, who was also an elder in the Tabernacle congregation, claimed to be neutral. With his wife, he preferred to wait for the cancellation of Johnson’s credentials. In a letter to Rutherford of March 24, 1917, Hemery stated: “I do not feel it right that Brother Cormack should stay any longer in the home, and I am doubtful about his staying in the Pilgrim service.” 223 Hemery also said that Housden had “gone home” and that he had “returned the money.” 224 Since March 13, Housden had been unable to deposit the Society’s cash in a bank. Johnson explained: “It was unsafe to keep this, a daily increasing amount of money, in our safe … on my solicitor’s advice, I asked Brother Housden to put the money into a safety deposit box. This was done to protect the Society’s money, and to prevent it from being put into the I.B.S.A. deposits. Every penny was returned except about $200 that had to be put in the hands of a Solicitor as a guarantee for possible court costs.”225 When the case came up Friday March 23, Johnson and his solicitor already realized that they had a problem. Said Johnson: “My credentials had not been notarized, a fact that had been overlooked by my solicitors and Justice Sargant March 17. This made them quite probably not binding before an English Court.”226 Johnson’s counsel said that he did not “propose to proceed with his motion.”227 Both sides were willing to delay matters. The case was postponed until March 30. 228 “At that time, doubtful about winning the case on the question of the credentials not being notarially attested, Bro. Hemery’s solicitor” decided to wait for the actual cancellation of Johnson’s credentials, mailed March 15.229 That meant postponement until April 30. “The court granted their motion to this effect.” 230 Ultimately, a judge decided on May 7 that Johnson “had no authority to bring the suit.”231 Rutherford noted later: “This lawsuit was decided adversely to Brother Johnson, and his solicitor was required by the High Court to pay the cost.”232 A couple of things connected with this suit needs to be corrected. First, Rutherford claimed that the suit meant that Johnson “tied up the Society’s funds … stopping the work there until the suit could be finally determined.”233 This was simply not true. Johnson’s correction is to the point: “At no time during the suit, while I was in England, did the work of the London branch cease, because of the suit, for I consented to their drawing $1,250.00 for running expenses.”234 Hemery claimed that it was he rather than Johnson who influenced the court to grant them “this carrying-on money,” but he did not deny that the work kept going.235 Second, Johnson claimed that Hemery, Shearn and Crawford had “jointly planned” a “financial scheme” to change the relationship between The Watch Tower Society and the I.B.S.A., the British corporation. 236 He sued to prevent the adoption of this alleged “scheme.”237 But the fact that he claimed that Hemery “was confederate” with Shearn and Crawford in this endeavor at once makes the claim questionable.238 As Johnson himself many times noted, Hemery on the one hand and Shearn and Crawford on the other could not cooperate. In addition, Hemery’s explanation makes good sense. He wrote: This dangerous “scheme” or proposal, referred to at length, is simply this:- The auditors to the chartered I.B.S.A. required for Board of Trade purposes that books should be kept

showing certain transactions of the I.B.S.A.; and in order to comply with the law they had drafted out, not at our request, but for their own purposes, and because they are partly responsible, proposals showing the moneys [sic!] which should pass through the I.B.S.A. books. Bro. Johnson fancied that this was a scheme on the part of the British management to get some control which hitherto had not been possessed. The simple fact was that there was not a scrap of difference made. We here had full control over the money; there was no control over us, save that which is of love, the natural bond of co-operation with the Head Office in the Lord’s work. This was Bro. Russell’s own arrangement; it pleased him; it seems to be the Lord’s way. 239 The crucial document in question, the letter from the auditors Davis & Winder of January 22, 1917, substantiates Hemery’s reasoning. It shows that everything dealt with the suggestions, advice, admonitions and demands of the auditors to the management. Not a word in the document says anything about the wishes of the managers!240 So if the suit showed anything, it was that Johnson had lost his grip completely. Perhaps his judgment was obscured by his increasing hostility towards Hemery, whom he attempted to have suspended because of his opposition. Confirmation of the above is provided by the cable Housden sent to Van Amburgh on March 18, 1917, and his later apology to Rutherford. The cable dealt with the alleged scheme to defraud the Society of financial control: “Johnson unearthed colossal effort by Hemery Shearn Crawford defraud Watch Tower of financial control. Rutherford’s cablegrams encouraging them. Have Board silence him.”241 Van Amburgh immediately turned the cable over to Rutherford. Housden was later “pressed by a committee of three for evidence to support his charge of conspiracy.”242 He was unable to furnish any, and he wrote “a letter of apology to Rutherford withdrawing his unsupported charge.”243 Housden had simply been a victim of Johnson’s figments of imagination. On March 24, 1917, Hemery sent the following cable to Rutherford: “Johnson business frazzled. Situation normal. Most money received. Deposits safe. Johnson’s supporters repented. He left Bethel suddenly by upper room window.”244 The same day he also wrote a long letter to Rutherford.245 He especially praised Kirkwood, who had been one of Johnson’s handpicked men: “We are now quite capable of going on with our work as in normal times. Brother Kirkwood can do the general office work—the execution of orders, etc., and he is a very useful brother. We have good stenographic help, and indeed, have no difficulties in the work.”246 Remarkably, though, he did not mention Shearn and Crawford in this connection. They were apparently no part of the staff at this time, although Rutherford favored them! At this time Johnson considered withdrawing from his efforts in London. And “on the advice of his solicitor” he decided March 26 “to give up further attempts as to seeking control at the London Bethel” and decided “to return to America.”247

On March 29, there was a meeting of the board of directors in Brooklyn. “The records show that at this meeting Brother Rutherford reported the condition of the work in England and the situation in reference to Brother Johnson and what he had done.”248 As shown above Rutherford then knew that Johnson was about to come back to America. Only then did he inform the board of his doings in England. He therefore prevented the board from having any say on the events that had taken place there. As four members said in a report later, Rutherford’s handling the matter had been done “without authority from the Board or without their knowledge or consent.”249 It is quite certain that this arbitrariness prolonged the difficulties in England. Johnson made his final preparations to leave England on March 30. He left London on March 31 and sailed from Liverpool on the steamship St. Louis “about 7 A.M. April 1.”250 This meant, of course, that the visits planned for other countries were canceled. He wrote later: “After a restful journey I landed in New York April 9.”251 Aftermath Following the turmoil in connection with Johnson’s activities in London, Rutherford recommended that Hemery should arrange “a tour to explain matters to the congregations. The idea was for Brother Kirkwood to assist with this tour, Hemery himself visiting the larger congregations.”252 Rutherford wanted Shearn and Crawford restored as branch managers but that did not happen. Johnson noted in the autumn of 1917: “They have left Bethel as members of the staff, coming there occasionally as Secretary and Treasurer of the I.B.S.A.”253 At that time, they were “finding it necessary to settle into normal business life again. In the meantime, they became associated with the various re-organised Churches in the Metropolis, and in Forest Gate, East London, which had by now severed its connection with the Society and Rutherford, its President, and publicly announced its independence.”254 While the British report to Brooklyn for 1916 had been signed by “W. Crawford, H.J. Shearn, J. Hemery British Branch Managers,”255 not surprisingly the report for 1917 was signed just by “J. Hemery.”256 The British Episode and the Management Crisis Rutherford should have involved the board of directors in the British situation when alarm signals began to mount. If he had done so, some of the trouble at least might have been avoided. Also, it would in all likelihood have improved the strained relations between Rutherford and the majority of the directors. As shown above, Ritchie, the former vice president, had misgivings when he learned that Johnson thought he had power to dismiss people from the London office. There was no valid reason why Rutherford should not have informed the directors of the gravity of the situation and together with them try to find a solution. That would have resulted in a much more solid response than Rutherford’s unilateral approach. That could have been done as early as February 3, 1917, when Johnson cabled that he had just dismissed Shearn and Crawford as managers. Rutherford’s immediate response was rational enough, but an answer from the board would have been more powerful.

At the least, he should have alarmed the board when he received Johnson’s cable of February 24, announcing that he, Johnson, was the “Steward” mentioned at Matthew 20:8. There is every reason to believe that the board would have taken the same stance as Rutherford did. At that time, he was far away in Los Angeles, but according to the Watch Tower charter the board would not be impotent just because the president was absent. Paragraph VIII stipulated that the vice president was to “preside in the absence of the President.” 257 So Rutherford should have called a board meeting in New York to deal with the issue, or requested Vice President Pierson to do it. The board did actually convene in Rutherford’s absence on February 16, 1917258 but obviously not to discuss the British situation. After Johnson’s return to America, Rutherford claimed that he “scented a conspiracy” to send Johnson “back to England,”259 but the four directors who opposed him emphatically claimed that they had “no desire or intention” of doing so.260 In an attempt “to relieve the deadlock” existing between Johnson and Rutherford, four of the directors later suggested to the board that “Brother Pierson and Brother Johnson be appointed to make the best possible settlement of the costs of suit instituted by Brother Johnson while in pursuit of his duties as the Representative of the Society.”261 At this board meeting, taking place on June 20, 1917, the four, acting through Robert H. Hirsh, “recommended that the Society pay $500 to Brother Johnson’s solicitor.” 262 Rutherford simply ruled the motion “out of order.”263 It had the backing of the majority of the board—4 out of 7 members—and yet Rutherford did not allow a vote on it. That he was unduly small-minded on this occasion is shown by the fact that he had no problem accepting Pierson’s later suggestion to compensate the four ousted directors with “three hundred dollars” each, when they were forced to leave headquarters.264 It was only reasonable to pay Johnson’s solicitor in England. The four directors did not lend Johnson improper support. Linking the British situation with his own conflict with the board, as Rutherford did in his Harvest Siftings, was just a red herring, or as the directors put it, a “camouflage.”265 Johnson’s British Efforts in Perspective To some extent, both Rutherford and Hemery excused Johnson for his actions in England. Rutherford attributed his doings “not of a wrongful condition of heart, but to a disturbed mental condition.”266 Hemery was generous in much the same way: “In charity to him we will say it was owing to a weak state of mind because of a strain he had.”267 Gilbert Mackenzie, one of Rutherford’s commissioners, wrote also: “Of course we do not blame our dear Brother Johnson; he was not responsible.”268 Remarkably, several leading Bible Students in Britain who were critical of Johnson still thought that in some respects he had done some good. Hemery wrote in December 1917: “I still believe he was used by the Lord to do a cleansing work.”269 Hubert Thackway, who renounced Johnson in the Tabernacle on March 18, still wrote: “I believed then and still believe, that he was used to accomplish a cleansing work in the affairs of the London Tabernacle and British Office.”270 Mackenzie expressed himself similarly.271

But Johnson’s major problem was that he was completely governed by “types” based on Old Testament characters and events from which he developed “antitypes” that he applied to the Bible Student community and himself in particular. He had carried this belief system with him when he arrived in Britain. In February, 1917, he told Hemery to store wheat and “monkey nuts” because of impending famine. He argued: “The famine will be very sore shortly, and the prices very heavy. You will notice Elisha calls attention to the famine, and that is what I have in mind. You will remember that I told you when I came at first, that there will be this condition shortly, and now I know it is at the very doors.”272 He based his admonition on the severe famine the Old Testament prophet Elisha mentioned at 2 Kings 8:1, which took place several hundred years before Christ! The “prophecy” and advice, of course, were nonsense, for no severe famine hit Britain as Johnson foretold. His “antitype” simply did not work! Another example was his conclusion about the number of elders in the Tabernacle congregation: “According to Neh. there will be twelve Elders in that congregation, and not eighteen.”273 Of course, the Old Testament character Nehemiah did not speak about elders in London but on the situation current in Jerusalem in his days. Only by means of a far-fetched reasoning from “types” could Nehemiah be brought to bear on the situation in London in 1917. There were 18 elders when Johnson arrived there, so it is tempting to think that the “type” from Nehemiah played a role when Johnson set about thinning the number of elders in the Tabernacle. Hemery was not impressed by Johnson’s types: “He tried to get me to agree to his types. I told him that … it could not be expected that the British affair would be the antitype of the reconstruction of Jerusalem.”274 In later years Johnson realized that his doings in Britain had left much to be desired. In 1941 he admitted that he “ceased to exercise his accustomed mildness, and in word and act failed to be as longsuffering, forbearing and gracious in his proper opposition to them, and at times allowed too much anger and severity to mark his manner, speech and writing against them.”275 He also admitted that he “at times went too far in his efforts to vindicate himself and his office.”276 Of course he never did overcome his penchant for types and antitypes as is evident from his massive, multi-volume set of the Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures. But besides his interpretations of types, Johnson also manifested other strange actions. An example of his improper behavior in London was his attempt to separate William Crawford from his wife. Crawford wrote to Rutherford: “He has also gone to my wife when I was absent on more than one occasion, telling her the same ridiculous story and tried to separate us. Once he gave her such a talking to in this way that when I came in I found her almost in hysterics.”277 One must wonder then, if Rutherford and Hemery were not right about Johnson’s mental health.

Footnotes 1 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 4; J. Hemery, P.S.L. JOHNSON’S Pamphlet, “Harvest Siftings Reviewed,” itself reviewed (London, England: Self Published, December 7, 1917), p. 3. Hereafter this pamphlet will be listed as “Harvest Siftings Reviewed,” itself reviewed

2 Harvest Siftings, p. 22 3 1973 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 101 4 Faith on the March, p. 75 5 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 2 6 Ibid 7 The Present Truth, March 1, 1930, p. 40 8 Ibid 9 1973 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 101 10 Hudson, p. 81 11 Letter from Henry Shearn, dated January 11, 1917 and published in The Present Truth, October 1, 1929, p. 151 12 The Present Truth, June 1, 1927, p. 100 13 Ibid 14 The Present Truth, March 1, 1930, p. 40 15 The Present Truth, March 1, 1939, p. 41 16 Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 10, (Philadelphia, Pa.: Published privately,1941) p. 298 17 The Present Truth, March 1, 1930, p. 41 18 Ibid 19 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 2 20 Ibid 21 Ibid 22 Ibid 23 Ibid, p. 3 24 Harvest Siftings, pp. 3, 21 25 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 2 26 Epiphany Studies Vol. 10, pp. 42, 105, 299 27 Ibid, pp. 299, 303 28 The Present Truth, March 1, 1930, p. 41 29 The Present Truth, June 1, 1927, pp.97,98 30 pp. 245, 254; 31 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 8. For an excellent treatment of the military issue at that time see Gary Perkins, Bible Student Conscientious Objectors in World War 1—Britain, Hupomone Press, 2016. 32 Epiphany Studies Vol. 10, p, 183 33 Ibid, various pages; Harvest Siftings, p. 10 34 Epiphany Studies Vol. 10, p. 151 35 Ibid, p. 148; The Present Truth, June 1, 1927 p. 98 36 Ibid 37 The Present Truth, March 1, 1930, p. 41 38 Ibid 39 Epiphany Studies Vol. 10, p. 43 40 Ibid, p. 244 41 The Present Truth, October 1, 1929, p. 148 42 Epiphany Studies Vol. 10, p. 245

43 The Present Truth, October 1, 1929, p. 149 44 Epiphany Studies, Vol.10, p.180 45 Ibid, pp. 252, 253 46 Ibid, p. 180 47 Ibid, p. 44 48 Harvest Siftings, p. 3 49 Epiphany Studies Vol. 10, pp. 175, 176; Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 3 50 The Present Truth, October 1, 1927, p. 147 51 Hudson, p. 84 52 The Present Truth, October 1, 1929, p. 149 53 Ibid 54 Ibid, pp. 149,150 55 Epiphany Studies Vol. 10, p.314 56 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p.6; Epiphany Studies Vol. 10, p. 318 57 Ibid, pp, 314, 369 58 Hudson, p. 85 59 Epiphany Studies Vol. 10, pp. 314, 369 60 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 4; Epiphany Studies Vol. 10, p. 175 61 Ibid, pp. 169, 322 62 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 5 63 The Present Truth, October 1, 1929, p. 147 64 Epiphany Studies Vol. 10, p. 200. 65 The Present Truth, October 1, 1929, p. 147 66 Ibid; Epiphany Studies Vol. 10, p. 324 67 Ibid, p. 320 68 Ibid, p. 322 69 Letter written to Rutherford by Jesse Hemery on February 5, 1917. Johnson quoted from a carbon copy Hemery furnished him. See Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 5. 70 The Present Truth, October 1, 1929, p. 147 71 Epiphany Studies Vol. 10, pp. 376, 377 72 Ibid 73 Ibid 74 Ibid. p. 378 75 The Present Truth, October 1, 1929, p. 151 76 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, pp. 4, 5 77 Ibid 78 Harvest Siftings, p. 20 79 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 5 80 Ibid 81 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 9 82 Epiphany Studies Vol. 10, p.156 83 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 10

84 Ibid, p. 5; “Harvest Siftings Reviewed,” Itself Reviewed, p. 4 85 1973 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 101 86 Harvest Siftings, p. 2 87 Ibid, p. 3 88 Hudson, p. 43; The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 328 89 The Watch Tower, August 15, 1916, p. 254; 90 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 3 91 Harvest Siftings, p. 9 92 Ibid 93 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 5 94 Epiphany Studies 10, pp. 47, 48 95 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 8; Harvest Siftings, p. 4 96 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 2 97 VAKT-TORNET, April 15, 1917, p. 128, my retranslation from the Swedish Watch Tower magazine. 98 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 4 99 The Present Truth, October 1, 1929, p.147 100 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 4 101 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, pp. 169,170, 327 102 The Present Truth, March 1, 1929, p. 148 103 Harvest Siftings, pp. 3, 4 104 Epiphany Studies Vol. 10, p. 327 105 Ibid, p. 382 106 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 4 107 “Harvest Siftings Reviewed,” Itself Reviewed, p. 4 108 Epiphany Studies Vol. 10, p. 377 109 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 3; Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, p. 387 110 Ibid, p.387; The Present Truth, March 1, 1930, p. 42 111 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 7; Harvest Siftings, p. 4 112 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 7 113 Harvest Siftings, p. 5 114 Ibid, p. 3; Epiphany Studies Vol. 10, p. 385 115 Harvest Siftings, p. 3 116 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 5 117 Ibid, p. 4 118 Harvest Siftings, p. 3 119 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 3; Harvest Siftings, p. 3 120 Ibid, p. 21 121 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 8 122 Harvest Siftings, p. 10 123 Epiphany Studies Vol. 10, p. 374 124 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 4; “Harvest Siftings Reviewed,” itself reviewed, pp. 2, 3

125 Harvest Siftings, p. 20 126 Ibid, p. 21 127 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 10 128 Ibid, p. 7 129 Ibid 130 Epiphany Studies Vol. 10, p. 330 131 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 7 132 Ibid 133 Epiphany Studies Vol. 10, p. 330 134 Harvest Siftings, p. 21 135 Ibid, p. 3 136 Harvest Siftings, pp. 3, 4 137 Epiphany Studies Vol. 10, p. 253 138 Harvest Siftings, p. 4; Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 7 139 Ibid 140 Ibid 141 Epiphany Studies Vol. 10, p. 320. See also Harvest Siftings, pp. 4, 9 142 Epiphany Studies Vol. 10, p. 202 143 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 9 144 Ibid 145 Epiphany Studies Vol. 10, p. 379 146 Harvest Siftings, p. 21 147 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 9 148 Epiphany Studies Vol. 10, p. 49 149 Harvest Siftings, p. 6 150 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 9 151 Ibid 152 Harvest Siftings, p. 3 153 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 6 154 Ibid, p. 9 155 Ibid, p. 10 156 Ibid 157 Harvest Siftings, p. 2 158 Watch Tower Reprints, p. 6024 159 Watch Tower, January 15, 1917, p. 22 160 Ibid 161 Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 327 162 Harvest Siftings, p. 5 163 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, pp. 973, 974; Harvest Siftings, p. 23 164 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 10 165 Harvest Siftings, p. 21

166 Ibid, p. 6 167 “Harvest Siftings Reviewed,” Itself Reviewed, p. 8 168 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 9; “Harvest Siftings Reviewed,” itself reviewed, p. 8 169 Harvest Siftings, p. 21 170 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 9 171 1973 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 102 172 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 9 173 Harvest Siftings, p. 6 174 1973 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 102 175 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 10 176 Harvest Siftings, p. 8 177 Ibid, p. 21 178 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 10 179 Ibid 180 Ibid 181 Ibid, p. 13 182 Harvest Siftings, p. 12; Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 9 183 Ibid, pp. 6, 13; 1973 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 103 184 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 10 185 Ibid, pp. 10, 11 186 Ibid 187 Harvest Siftings, pp. 4, 7, 22; Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 11 188 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, p. 203 189 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 6 190 Harvest Siftings, pp. 6, 7 191 1973 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 105 192 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 7 193 This letter was issued from “34 Craven Terrace, London W 2, January, 26th, 1921.” On page 4 Hemery’s presentation was officially supported by five British Bible Students. 194 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 9 195 Harvest Siftings, pp. 5, 6 196 Ibid, p. 6 197 Harvest Siftings Reviewed,” itself reviewed, pp. 11, 12 198 Hudson, 1989, p. 93 199 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 9 200 Harvest Siftings Reviewed,” itself reviewed, p. 7 201 Harvest Siftings, p. 6 202 Ibid 203 Ibid 204 Ibid 205 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 12 206 Ibid

207 Ibid 208 Ibid 209 Ibid 210 Ibid 211 Harvest Siftings, p. 6 212 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 12 213 Ibid 214 Harvest Siftings, p. 6 215 Ibid 216 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 12 217 Ibid 218 Ibid, p. 6 219 Harvest Siftings, p. 22 220 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 12 221 Ibid 222 “Harvest Siftings Reviewed,” itself reviewed, p. 6 223 Harvest Siftings, pp. 7, 8 224 Ibid, p. 8 225 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 12 226 Ibid, p. 13 227 Harvest Siftings, p. 5 228 Ibid; Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 13 229 Ibid 230 Ibid 231 Ibid 232 Harvest Siftings, p. 2 233 Ibid, p. 22 234 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 11 235 “Harvest Siftings Reviewed,” itself reviewed, p. 9 236 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 10 237 Ibid, p. 11 238 Ibid 239 “Harvest Siftings Reviewed,” itself reviewed, p. 9 240 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 11 241 1973 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 105 242 Ibid, p. 106 243 Ibid 244 Harvest Siftings, p. 5 245 Ibid 246 Ibid, p. 8 247 Epiphany Studies Vol. 10, p. 50

248 Harvest Siftings, p. 12 249 The Present Truth, May 1920, p. 78 250 Epiphany Studies Vol. 10, p. 382; Harvest Siftings, p. 8 251 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 14 252 1973 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 105 253 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 7 254 Hudson, pp. 92, 93 255 The Watch Tower, April 1, 1917, p. 102 256 The Watch Tower, December 15, 1917, p. 377 257 The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917; p. 327 258 Harvest Siftings, p. 12 259 Ibid, p. 23 260 Light after Darkness, p. 4 261 Committee report chronicled in The Present Truth, May 1, 1920, p. 78 262 Harvest Siftings, p. 23 263 Harvest Siftings, Part II, p. 31 264 Ibid, p. 30 265 Facts for Shareholders, p. 8 266 Harvest Siftings, p. 22 267 Ibid, p. 21 268 Ibid, p. 9 269 “Harvest Siftings Reviewed,” itself reviewed, p. 11 270 Ibid 271 Harvest Siftings, p. 9 272 Ibid, p. 4, emphasis added 273 Ibid, p. 5 274 “Harvest Siftings Reviewed,” itself reviewed, p. 5 275 Epiphany Studies Vol. 10, p. 541 276 Ibid, 277 Harvest Siftings, p. 4

Chapter 7 Headed for a Showdown The majority of the directors became increasingly aware that they were not allowed to get the information they, as board members, were entitled to. They reported later that they “could get little or no information regarding the affairs of the Society, for which the laws of the land held them responsible.”1 Van Amburgh, the Society’s treasurer, had “repeatedly refused members of the Board the privilege of getting information from the Society’s records.”2 Even Pierson, the Society’s vice president, complained later that no “satisfactory report from the treasurer had been received” since he became a director.3 Following a failed effort to get information in early July, 1917, the directors told attorney Francis H. McGee, a fellow Bible Student, “that every time they attempted to discuss any matter of importance with the President, he was accustomed to inform them that they were not lawyers and therefore not competent to pass on such matters.”4 Dennis Wright, one of these directors, also said “that on one occasion shortly after Brother Russell’s death he had spoken to the new president about some matters and that Brother Rutherford had then said to him, ‘Brother, these are matters which we should take up and discuss at length,’ but that Brother Rutherford did not do so later and became less and less inclined to do so.”5 Preparations for the Seventh Volume Kept Secret One of the important matters that Rutherford hid from the board of directors was the publication of the long-awaited seventh volume of Studies in the Scriptures. The majority of the directors did not know “anything about the issuing of the seventh volume in advance of the time it was given out.”6 Its publication was announced on July 17, 1917.7 As noted in chapter 2, preparation for the seventh volume had been in progress since December, 1916. Rutherford later explained: Following Brother Russell’s “change,” an Executive Committee, composed of Brothers Ritchie, Van Amburgh and Rutherford, was appointed to manage the affairs of the SOCIETY until the annual election in January, 1917. Within a short time after the creation of this committee, it was brought to the attention of its members that Brothers Woodworth and Fisher had some understanding and interpretations of Revelation and Ezekiel that might be helpful; and since Brother Russell had stated that someone else would write the Seventh Volume, and since he had stated that the Seventh Volume would come to the church, and since the Scriptures clearly set forth that there must be seven volumes of STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES, the Committee carefully considered the matter and decided to have the two brethren named write manuscript and compile what had been written by Brother Russell upon the prophecies of Ezekiel and Revelation. No promise whatsoever was made by the committee to these brethren as to whether the manuscript would be used.8

It was Rutherford, and he alone, who was entrusted with the manuscript as it became available from the authors. He began reading it on his trip to California on February 8, 1917.9 “I finished the entire manuscript, with the exception of the last few chapters of Ezekiel on the 21st day of March, 1917,” he later testified in court.10 At the time he did not discuss it “with a single person in the society.”11 He was not inclined to let the directors in on the evaluation of the manuscript. In the latter part of July 1917 he stated: “I was about to submit the printer’s proofs to these and other brethren at the time this trouble arose, but seeing their violent opposition I knew that the publication would be long delayed if they insisted on reading the manuscript and giving the objections first. I consulted Brothers Van Amburgh, Macmillan, Martin and Hudgings, and it was concluded that in view of the fact that the best opportunity to publish it was now, because of the rush that comes to the printers in a short time, that the publication should proceed.”12 Of the persons mentioned, only Van Amburgh was a member of the Watch Tower Society’s board! Not even Vice President Pierson was consulted, according to Rutherford’s own statement, despite the fact that he was supportive of Rutherford. Only yes-men who were unlikely to bring objections were invited to present their views. Rutherford first approached Van Amburgh on the matter, doing so “in May, 1917.”13 Van Amburgh chose to read only parts of the manuscript, but he did not hesitate to advise publication.14 On June 6, Rutherford showed the manuscript to Macmillan and asked him if he would like to read it. Macmillan declined to do so but agreed to read the preface. Rutherford told him that he thought the manuscript was “first rate.” Without having read it, Macmillan then approved of publication!15 The same day, June 6, 1917, the contract for printing the manuscript was signed.16 Rutherford also claimed that he consulted “Martin and Hudgings” about the publication, but Martin denied, under oath, that he had been informed before July 11, 1917,17 which was more than a month after the contract was signed. So, his knowledge and approval could not have been a factor when publication was decided. In all likelihood, Hudgings, too, was informed about the publication only after it had been decided. He, of course, had to be informed in advance of publication as he “had charge of all the Society’s printing.”18 He was also the one who applied for the copyright of the book.19 It is obvious that Rutherford was wholly responsible for the publication of the seventh volume. He later admitted: “I felt it was my sacred duty and privilege from the Lord to see that the Seventh Volume was published.”20 The fact that he totally ignored the board in the matter was a glaring violation of the Watch Tower Society’s charter, the second paragraph of which specifically stipulated that “the publication of tracts, pamphlets, papers and other religious documents” was a matter for “its Board of Directors” to decide.21 Russell’s Will Ignored While the majority of the directors did not know that they were being ignored when the seventh volume was being prepared, they generally felt that Rutherford was changing Russell’s arrangements needlessly, and there were others at headquarters who felt the same. When Robert H. Hirsh, the latest director elected, became critical of Rutherford in April, 1917, four of the

directors, a majority of the board, were questioning the Watch Tower president’s behavior. The basis of their concern was the fact that he was showing disdain for Russell’s “Will and Charter.”22 As noted earlier, Rutherford had managed to negate the use of Russell’s voting shares that had been donated to the Society and were to have been cast independently by five trustees.23 Another example of Rutherford’s infringement of Russell’s will included the editorial committee that was to oversee what was to go into The Watch Tower. One of the editors specifically mentioned in the will, F. H. Robison, had not been permitted to serve for about a year after Russell’s death,24 even though his name appeared as editor in every issue of The Watch Tower during that time. Russell’s procedure for removing an editor was not followed. Accordingly, the four board members were later to hold that Robison was blocked from serving on the editorial committee “by some trumped-up charges eagerly seized upon by Bros. Rutherford and Van Amburgh.”25 H. C. Rockwell, also designated as an editor in Russell’s will, resigned very early, but his name also appeared in the Watch Tower for months after his resignation.26 Of the people on Russell’s reserve list, A. E. Burgess and I. F. Hoskins lived at Bethel at the time, and especially Hoskins, one of the directors of both the Watch Tower Society and the Peoples Pulpit Association, would have been an obvious candidate as a replacement for Rockwell if Russell’s will had been respected. But as noted in chapter 1, Macmillan was hostile towards him,27 and evidently for that reason he could not be accepted as Rockwell’s replacement on the editorial committee. After considerable time, while Rockwell’s name still featured as an editor of The Watch Tower, Rutherford voted for Menta Sturgeon, who was not on the reserve list, to serve as an editor. He admitted that in so doing he “disregarded Brother Russell’s will.”28 Sturgeon was eventually elected, but he was not listed as a member of the editorial committee until the April 15, 1917, issue of The Watch Tower. The slow handling of this matter was also clearly in conflict with the will, which stated that it was the duty of the remaining editors to elect a successor if one of the members should die or resign, “that the journal may never have an issue without a full Editorial Committee of five.”29 Although it was to be a future event not related to the four directors’ concerns in the spring and summer of 1917, Rutherford’s creation of The Golden Age magazine in 1919 shows clearly that he cared not a fig for Russell’s will and was quite willing to violate his earlier vow openly. The will had stipulated: “As the Society is already pledged to me that it will publish no other periodicals, it shall also be required that the Editorial Committee shall write for or be connected with no other publications in any manner or degree.”30 The Watch Tower, October 15, 1919, page 318 noted that there were “some” who objected to the new publication on the claim “that it violates Brother Russell’s will.” Paul Johnson observed: “Not a few of our readers, and also of ‘The Tower’ readers, are much exercised over the Society’s publishing a new periodical called ‘The Golden Age,’ as a violation of the fifth paragraph of our Pastor’s will. … for no honest person who is intelligent will be satisfied with the wrestling of this paragraph of the WILL by ‘The Tower Editors’ … in their attempt to justify

the Society’s publication of ‘The Golden Age’ in the face of this clear paragraph of Brother Russell’s WILL.”31 Dispute over the Angelophone In 1916, Russell had introduced a set of phonograph records, called the Angelophone, with hymns to be used as a new means of witnessing. “Angelophone records of 50 of our most beautiful hymns” was advertised in The Watch Tower, Nov. 1, 1916, page 322. When Russell died, the contracts for the Angelophone were considered a financial threat to the Society.32 On the morning after Russell’s death, Macmillan “assumed to direct that the Angelophone contracts be cancelled.”33 The directors were of the opinion “that the Angelophone had been poorly handled,” and that this had unnecessarily “caused the writing of hundreds of letters of complaint by the friends.”34 They claimed that Rutherford, Van Amburgh and Macmillan “hampered and ridiculed” the Angelophone, “always seeking to kill it.”35 Ritchie in particular was hurt by this attitude as he strongly favored the Angelophone. Following a board meeting on February 3, 1917, where the Angelophone was discussed,36 he contacted McGee, who was Assistant to the Attorney General of New Jersey. McGee later reported: Brother Ritchie said that there was a disposition at headquarters to do away with the Angelophone and that as Brother Russell had thought so much of it he wished to have that feature of the work continued, if he could properly arrange it. He brought no written data with him showing how the matter stood legally, but I gave him such assistance for his personal guidance as I could, and he went away. I doubt if he received much help from me and that is all I know about the matter. I marveled at Brother Ritchie’s self-control and successful effort not to talk about any brethren, as I recall it he made mention of no names in stating who opposed the continuance of the Angelophone. He did say that he was afraid that ultimately trouble would break out, because of the way affairs were being conducted at Brooklyn.37 Macmillan Seen as a Bone of Contention Rutherford had been acclaimed president in 1917 with considerable help from A. Hugh Macmillan. The latter had been Russell’s special assistant and representative during his last months and had, after Russell’s death in 1916, been appointed as representative of the newly established executive committee by unanimous vote of the Society’s full board on November 7, 1916.38 Rutherford chose to retain Macmillan in this position after becoming president and having his by-laws adopted.39 This arrangement proved to be troublesome for the majority of the board: One of the seriously objectionable results of this power in the hands of the president was that he appointed a special representative, Brother A. H. Macmillan, who for two months previous to this time, since Brother Russell’s death, had shown himself unfit to represent the Society and its affairs in such an important position, and that to this special representative

was delegated autocratic powers by the president, so that in the absence of the president, the word of his special representative was declared to be final on all matters, much to the sorrow and discomfort of many of the force…. Instead of properly representing the Society and assisting the president in preserving inviolate its charter and Brother Russell’s will, Brother Macmillan did the very reverse. He apparently viewed Brother Russell’s Will as a mere trifle, not worthy of consideration, and time after time as he visited various parts of the country, he held up the board of Directors to contempt and ridicule.40 These directors therefore concluded: Soon after Brother Russell’s death, under loose rein, Brother Macmillan demonstrated his utter unfitness for the position originally assigned him by Brother Russell. In the course of a few months, it became evident to the directors that it was their duty to make some changes with regard to Brother Macmillan’s position, even as Brother Russell had often made changes in the position of the brethren when he discovered that they did not properly fit in the places he had given them. That there was any malice or prejudice or jealousy in any of our hearts with regard to him or that any of us were seeking his place, we most positively deny. It was purely in the interest of the work and because there were so many complaints regarding Brother Macmillan that the change was desired.41 The ultimate confrontation between the directors and Macmillan took place on July 5, 1917, when the latter, in Rutherford’s absence, sent for a policeman to evict the directors from The Tabernacle, where the Society’s office was located.42 In view of all this friction, it is not surprising that the directors were determined to have Macmillan removed from his position.43 Rutherford, on the other hand, depended heavily on Macmillan’s support and was not inclined to comply with their request. Macmillan “has proven faithful and loyal,” he maintained.44 There is independent testimony in support of the directors’ complaints. McGee, the well-known Bible Student lawyer, had the following to say after being visited by one of them: “I personally expressed my own thought that my idea of Brother Macmillan was that he did not possess sufficient mental balance and sound intellectual equipoise—in other words, wisdom—to fit him for such a difficult and responsible position.”45 William L. Abbott, editor of the privately published Bible Student newspaper St. Paul Enterprise, reported the following from Russell’s funeral in November 1916: “Bro. MacMillan is so petulant, lacking in tact and egotistical that I have been tempted very sorely by him. I love Brother MacMillan, but I cannot do other than resist several little traits he is possessed with. I could tell a heart-breaking story of his persistent attempts to humiliate me, but I have striven as bravely as I can to permit none of it to disturb the serenity and even tenor of my way, but it seems to me deplorable that even in the death of our great leader and the solemn days at hand the spirit of enmity for me could not be buried…. Already I see opportunities for many to be divided in opinion as to how things

shall be…. And I see the time of trouble approaching, but I fully resolve to have nothing to do with it—absolutely nothing.”46 Abbott died on March 15, 191747 He was never in league with the directors. At Russell’s funeral, Macmillan had stated privately that all directors, except Rutherford and Van Amburgh, were unfit “to manage anything” and would be “kicked out” if they did not resign.48 The dissident directors on their part came to view Macmillan as “a Czar and scoundrel.”49 Naturally such antagonism could not go on indefinitely but had to be resolved one way or another. The Directors Take the Offensive There were, of course, efforts on the part of the directors to come to grips with Rutherford’s domination. The following statement was penned by Rutherford himself: Sometime about the latter part of April Brother Hirsh began to show a desire to exercise authority upon the board and to transact the duties of the Executive Officer. I gently called his attention to the fact that the matter mentioned was entirely within the province of the Executive and not a matter for the board to attend to. This displeased him. Later he brought to me a letter he had written to a brother, in which he stated in substance that the board of Directors were the managers and the president was subject to their control. I kindly remarked to Brother Hirsh that it was hardly in harmony with the facts and that I did not see the necessity of sending out such a letter. That displeased him. Similar objections were made by Brother Hoskins and on several occasions, he stated that ‘We, the Board, are the managers and we will give the orders’ … I tried to reason with them, but in vain.50 The directors claimed that Hoskins had made no such statement. They emphasized that he merely quoted paragraph VI of the charter saying, “The Corporation is to be managed by a Board of Directors consisting of seven members.”51 That Rutherford felt he was above, not subject to, the board’s control could hardly have been stated more plainly. In order to bolster his claim, he stated on page 10 in Harvest Siftings: “For more than thirty years the President of THE WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY managed its affairs exclusively, and the Board of Directors, so-called, had little to do. This is not said in criticism, but for the reason that the work of the Society peculiarly requires the direction of one mind.” Interestingly, the present Watch Tower Society has in effect rejected Rutherford’s claim here. The Watchtower, August 1, 1975, page 471, observed: “While group decisions may seem to take longer, they are more solidly based and, in the end, save time.” The way Rutherford “tried to reason” with the directors was elaborated on decades later by Macmillan: “He did everything that he could to help his opposers see their mistake, holding a number of meetings with them, trying to reason with them and show them how contrary their course was to the Society’s charter and the entire program Russell had followed since the organization was formed.”52

That such efforts to appease the directors were “in vain” was predictable. Ritchie, Wright, Hoskins and Hirsh all knew that the Society’s charter, far from upholding Rutherford’s claim, actually put the management of the Society in the hands of the board of directors. Macmillan’s claim to the contrary was fraudulent. Russell had indeed been the head of the Society “since the organization was formed,” but he had made it clear that the corporation after his death was to be managed by the board, in harmony with the charter.53 Rutherford, however, “repeatedly” told the directors that “certain portions of the charter were illegal,”54 and he claimed that the by-laws the shareholders at his instigation had accepted at the annual meeting in January were his legal basis for authority. He also stressed his role as president of The Peoples Pulpit Association, the Society’s New York subsidiary. “I tried to tell them something of the legal status of the two societies, but did not succeed,” he wrote later.55 The directors were not at all impressed by Rutherford’s claims. Not surprisingly, they contacted McGee,56 whom both Russell and Rutherford had consulted on difficult legal issues. They wrote later: “His advice, which proved to be sound, revealed to us that Brother Rutherford’s legal opinion was very unsound.”57 McGee told them that only the board of directors had the legal right to make by-laws and that the board could replace the existing by-laws with new by-laws.58 They concluded “that since the Charter of the Society gives the power to the Directors to make by-laws, therefore these by-laws which originated with Brother Rutherford, were not legal and binding merely because they were at his suggestion formally passed by the shareholders.”59 Besides, since these by-laws were in conflict with the charter, they were “repugnant” to it,60 and were therefore illegal. Paul Johnson learned about Rutherford’s claimed position when he returned from England: “He said that he was the controller in the affairs of the Society, and had all the authority therein that Brother Russell had, who was not only Executive and Manager, but also Controller. About the middle of April he had told me the same thing, claiming that Bro. Russell had so arranged matters (he did for himself; but for no one else), and that the Board had almost nothing (except where legal formalities existed) to say or do in the Society’s affairs.”61 Because the directors were totally convinced that Rutherford’s exalted position in the Society was in conflict with the charter and Russell’s wishes, it could be only a matter of time before some outburst would take place.

Footnotes 1 Light after Darkness, p. 4 2 Ibid 3 Facts for Shareholders, p. 5 4 Light after Darkness, p. 17 5 Ibid 6 Light after Darkness, p. 13 7 Harvest Siftings, pp. 19, 20 8 The Watch Tower, December 15, 1917, p. 372

9 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, p. 973 10 Ibid, p. 974 11 Ibid, p. 982 12 Ibid 13 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, p. 682 14 Ibid, pp 683,684 15 Ibid, pp. 843, 844 16 Ibid, pp. 860, 1200 17 Ibid, p. 889 18 Faith on the March, p. 97 19 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, p. 295 20 The Watch Tower, February 15, 1919, p. 58 21 The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 327 22 Light after Darkness, p. 8 23 See pages 15-16 24 Facts for Shareholders, p. 13 25 Ibid 26 Ibid 27 See pages 10-11 28 Harvest Siftings, p. 19 29 The Watch Tower, December 1, 1916, p. 358 30 Ibid 31 The Present Truth, December 1, 1919, pp. 208, 209 32 Harvest Siftings, Part II, p. 30 33 Facts for Shareholders, p. 8 34 Ibid 35 Ibid 36 Harvest Siftings, p. 12 37 Light after Darkness, p. 16 38 Harvest Siftings, p. 11 39 Ibid 40 Light after Darkness, p. 4 41 Ibid, p. 10 42 Harvest Siftings, p. 13; Light after Darkness, p. 6 43 Harvest Siftings, pp. 14,19,22; Facts for Shareholders, p. 4 44 Harvest Siftings, p. 11 45 Light after Darkness, p. 16 46 St. Paul Enterprise, November 14, 1916, p. 1 47 Ibid, March 20, 1917 48 Light after Darkness, p. 10 49 Harvest Siftings, p. 14

50 Harvest Siftings, p. 12 51 See Light after Darkness, p. 13. 52 Faith on the March, p. 77 53 Extra Edition, Zion’s Watch Tower, April 25, 1894, pp. 56, 59 54 Light after Darkness, p. 10 55 Harvest Siftings, p. 16 56 Ibid, p. 10; Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 15 57 Light after Darkness, p. 10 58 Ibid, p. 16 59 Ibid, p. 13 60 See The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 327 61 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 16

Chapter 8 The Johnson Case Triggers a Clash Paul Johnson had kept a low profile for some time after his meeting with Rutherford and most members of the board on April 10 and 11. But he still thought that Rutherford had not allowed him to present his case properly. He still wanted rehabilitation from the humiliation he felt he had experienced, and finally he mustered up courage to do something about it. This time he was going to appeal to “individual Board members.”1 He had found a good reason for trying that approach: “Before I had spoken to any of them on my affair I found that they were opposed to Brother Rutherford’s claim of, and acts in, controlling the Society’s affairs.”2 On March 7, 1917, he had sent a protest from London in response to Rutherford’s actions against him, accompanied by two petitions. He had sent these to Ritchie, Van Amburgh and Pierson to present to the board.3 But Rutherford had not allowed the messages to come before the board.4 Johnson now showed them to three directors—Wright, Hoskins and Hirsh5— who had not seen them.6 He added: “I also told the four enough about the British situation to convince them that I ought to have a fair hearing before the Board. Bro. Pierson also thought so.”7 Rutherford had implied that Johnson’s mission to Britain had been a complete failure, but the situation was not that simple. For example, letters from Britain later published by Rutherford himself pointed out that Johnson, in spite of his shortcomings, had been helpful. Gilbert MacKenzie of Glasgow, Scotland, wrote: “Brother P.S.L. Johnson was evidently used of the Lord in bringing to light much of the discord and lack of harmony that existed in the London Tabernacle and office.”8 W.O. Warden, also of Glasgow, stated: “I am of the opinion that he helped us over here in many ways.”9 Rutherford’s British Commission Favored Johnson MacKenzie, Warden and three other prominent British Bible Students had actually been appointed a commission by Rutherford to investigate Johnson’s dismissal of Shearn and Crawford as managers of the Society’s London office.10 The commission met for this purpose on March 3-5, 1917,11 and sent their findings to the Brooklyn headquarters.12 But although Rutherford mentioned this report several times in his pamphlet Harvest Siftings,13 he held back its actual findings. The reason for this was quite simple. As he told Johnson shortly after his return, “he did not agree with the Commission’s findings, had told them so, and had reversed their Bethel findings, reinstating the two brothers.”14 Johnson noted: “Bro. Rutherford does not mention in his ‘Harvest Siftings’ that his Commission found in my favor, despite his opposition to me. Why not? Bro. Rutherford overruled the Commission’s findings, reinstating the two

brothers under Bro. Hemery’s priority. And what is the result? They would not work as Managers under Bro. Hemery, but are dividing the British Church. They have left Bethel as members of the staff, coming there occasionally as Secretary and Treasurer of the I.B.S.A.”15 Johnson had correctly sensed that Shearn and Crawford favored more independence than headquarters was ready to allow, but Rutherford had not. Rutherford had attempted to reinstate them, but they “refused to be reinstated.”16 The Issue of Johnson’s Credentials In his dealings with individual board members, Johnson also brought up the issue of the nature of his “credentials” while he was in England. 17 Rutherford claimed that Johnson had not been given any documents providing sweeping authority. He asserted that the credentials had been given only to secure a passport.18 However, as shown in chapter 6, this could not have been the case. The passport was dated and stamped already on November 4, 191619 But after this, on November 10, two new documents were drawn up to enable Johnson to deal effectively with the trouble in London. One was a letter of introduction to the British managers, and the other, addressed “to all whom these presents may come.”20 The second of these two, now actually the third credential document, specified that the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society had furnished Johnson “with full power and authority to do and perform whatsoever things may be necessary in connection with the work and business of this corporation in any country to which he may be sent.”21 Watch Tower Vice President Ritchie and Secretary-Treasurer Van Amburgh signed it and sealed it on the morning of November 11, 1916, just before Johnson left on a steam ship for England.22 Johnson considered this third document specifically as containing the credentials that gave him plenary authority to act for the Society in England. Johnson later published all these three documents verbatim.23 He also published a letter from Ritchie dated August 18, 1917, showing that his credentials were bona fide. Ritchie wrote: “I am pleased to say that I distinctly remember, and have always remembered, that before going to Great Britain last November you asked Bros. Rutherford, Van Amburgh and myself, if we wished you to exercise all the powers outlined in the letter and the credentials written for you by Bro. Rutherford and signed by Bro. Van Amburgh and myself; and that each of us answered ‘Yes.’”24 It is therefore absolutely certain that Rutherford had promoted an outrageous falsehood concerning Johnson’s authority in England! When confronted with such matters as outlined above, the directors concluded, “that there had been complications that had not been brought out and adjusted” and therefore they “gave assurance to Brother Johnson that they were in favor of his having a full and fair hearing.”25 This meant, of course, that by no means they were siding with Johnson and wanted to further his cause. McGee, their legal adviser, explained later: “The … Directors were all doubtful about Brother Johnson after his return from Europe, not being sure concerning him, but they all were

agreed that he was entitled to have his proper hearing before the Directors of the Society, as such to reach a proper conclusion as to his activities in England.”26 Johnson Takes the Offensive On June 1, 1917, Johnson took another step.27 He came to Rutherford with a bold request: “I respectfully asked him for a return to Britain. For this he severely censured me, which I took meekly.”28 Rutherford stated: “He approached me in the dining room and said, ‘I feel able now to go back to England and take up my work there.’ I replied, ‘Brother Johnson, you are not going back to England; you have no work there.’ He insisted that he should go, but I told him he would not go.”29 Although flatly denying the request, Rutherford took it seriously and contacted prominent Bible Students in Britain to establish how such a visit would be viewed there. Later, he was able to publish five letters which clearly showed that another visit by Johnson was not desired.30 On June 13 Johnson, holding back this recent request, simply asked Rutherford for a “full hearing” of his past British activity “before the Board.”31 Rutherford reacted negatively this time, too: “He came back and insisted that I call a meeting of the Board of Directors, that he might appear before them. I declined to do so, saying that the matter was entirely closed, and the Society would not send him back to England and the best thing for him to do would be to remain quiet.”32 But Johnson would not take “no” for an answer; he acted the same day: “Learning that a majority of the Board could by petition secure a meeting, I asked and secured the signatures of four members to a petition that I drew up, asking for a Board meeting to hear my case.”33 The petition was dated “June 13, 1917” and was later published by Rutherford.34 The next morning, June 14, 1917, Johnson handed the petition to Rutherford35 who dismissed the request out of hand. He told Johnson that “he had neither the time nor the inclination” to hear him. Van Amburgh, who was present, concurred.36 Rutherford reported: “I immediately called Brothers Wright, Ritchie, Hirsh and Hoskins and Brother Van Amburgh to a conference in the drawing room. This was not a meeting of the Board. I asked these brethren why they had sent me this paper through Brother Johnson. I told them I would not call a meeting of the Board at this instance.”37 He continued: “The four brethren insisted that I should call a meeting of the Board of Directors to hear Brother Johnson. I finally told them that the matter had already been closed; that it was not a matter for the Board now to take up.”38 Being hard pressed, he instead asked the four directors to go over the matter with Johnson and then report to a board meeting a week later. He delivered to them the report sent by the British commission and his own conclusions about it and other relevant documents.39 A Turning Point for The Directors

This was a decisive moment for Wright, Ritchie, Hoskins and Hirsh, as they explained a few months later: When Brother Johnson requested time and again that the President call a meeting of the Board to give him a fair opportunity to state his case, the President became angered and told Brother Johnson and the Board it was none of their business, that the management was all in his hands, and that he had closed the matter of Brother Johnson’s affair and would not open it again…. When the members of the Board saw this attitude on the part of the President, which was but another exhibition of the same autocratic powers that he had exercised many times since his election, they concluded it would be wise to take counsel together and earnestly prayed over the matter.40 The outcome of this endeavor would show up less than a week later. Johnson was not entirely happy with the decision to let him appear before only parts of the board: “In denying the petition of the majority of the Board again he acted as the controller of the Board, whether their meeting was official or not. Instead he appointed four brothers a Board committee to investigate my case and report it to the full Board for their action. Though disappointed, I accepted this as the best arrangement obtainable.”41 On June 14, he stopped working at the Tabernacle as he “needed the time to prepare for the consideration of the committee the main data” regarding his British work.42 A few days later the committee and Johnson met: “Only on June 19 during two of its sessions did we appear before the Committee and during five hours laid before the Committee the main facts of the British case.”43 The Board Meeting of June 20, 1917 Next day the board committee reported its findings to the full board. Johnson noted: “June 20, at a Board meeting, this committee made on our British work a favorable report.”44 The committee implied that the two managers he dismissed in London “deserved dismissal.”45 Johnson observed: “Thus they agreed with the English Commission.”46 He was able later to publish the entire report verbatim. The report included the following: To the Board of Directors of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, Dear Brethren:- At the request of several members of the Board of Directors, the President appointed a Committee to hear Brother Johnson report his visit to Foreign Branches of the Society, and especially with reference to the British Branch, the Committee now wishes to report as follows: We held several meetings, going over such evidence as the President furnished us, including the report of the Commission appointed by the President to investigate conditions at the British Branch of the society, having the minutes of the Board of Directors, which we examined, yesterday having heard Brother Johnson at length, we now summarize as follows:

When on November 2 Brother Johnson’s visit was authorized by the Board of Directors, a special Committee was appointed to complete the arrangements therewith. This committee gave him Credentials which amongst other things empowered him to carefully examine the books and other private papers of the Association kept and maintained in the countries herein above named; to investigate the financial condition of the work and affairs of the Society in said countries, and generally, to do whatsoever is necessary, or may become immediately necessary to protect our interests and the work in said countries; full power and authority being hereby given and granted unto you to do and perform the same. … We are convinced that Brother Johnson acted in all good faith, and that his labors in general have resulted in good to the cause, which we are pleased to acknowledge, though, like all of us, he doubtless made mistakes. The sudden cancellation of Brother Johnson’s Credentials casts a reflection upon him; and we feel that some way can be found to relieve the deadlock which exists between him and our dear President, resulting in good, not only to them, but to the Lord’s work in general. … In view of the present strained condition, involving discredit upon Brother Johnson’s good name and his usefulness in the Lord’s work, because of his dismissal and recall by the President, and that without authority from the Board or without their knowledge or consent, therefore be it Resolved, That Brother Pierson and Brother Johnson be appointed to make the best possible settlement of the costs of suit instituted by Brother Johnson while in pursuit of his duties as the Representative of the Society.47 At this board meeting Rutherford rejected the report and especially the proposed resolution to settle the costs of the suit mentioned. Johnson later lamented: “Brother Rutherford’s strenuous and ill-tempered opposition weakened Brother Wright, and also Brother Ritchie, who wrote out the report, with the result that it was set aside, and instead a resolution of Brother Rutherford, casting a cloud over our letter of appointment, our credentials, and our British work, was passed.”48 Rutherford explained that the directors “by a resolution called upon the Board to appropriate $500 of the Society’s money to reimburse Brother Johnson’s solicitor.”49 He ruled “the resolution out of order,” claiming that the “Board of Directors had no right or authority to reverse such action and appropriate the money of the SOCIETY to pay a solicitor who had wrongfully instituted and carried on such a lawsuit at the instance of Brother Johnson.” He claimed that he had the right to declare “out of order the resolution with reference to Brother Johnson” as he acted “clearly within his authority under the Charter, under the law and the bylaws of the SOCIETY.”50 His reasoning was completely fallacious, as a reading of the charter reveals. It is nowhere stated there that the President had any such power. Instead paragraph VII states that the “Board of Directors, a majority of whom shall constitute forum for transaction of business … and do any and everything useful for the good government and support of the affairs of said Corporation.”51 No by-law could legally nullify a provision in the charter. And since the charter had been examined and approved by the authorities, it was a false diversion to make a general reference to “the law” here. So the board’s majority—those who forwarded the

resolution to settle costs—were completely within their rights to present it. On the other hand, Rutherford had no right to rule it “out of order.” The directors could have passed their resolution over Rutherford’s veto, but they chose not to.52 Instead, Rutherford was able to defuse the issue by offering and carrying through a different resolution, much less favorable to Johnson than the directors’ resolution had been. A few days later Rutherford supplied Johnson with a copy of the board’s minute documenting the verdict arrived at, no doubt hoping that Johnson would accept that the matter had been definitely settled. The receiving of the minute enabled Johnson to publish it verbatim.53 The minute shows that the board accepted Rutherford’s view that it “was not the purpose of the Society” to send Johnson “back to England.”54 The minute concluded: “This statement being made by the President to the members of the Board is received and accepted by them. …motion made by Brother Van Amburgh, and seconded by Brother Pierson, that the statement be accepted and spread upon the minutes of the Society. Carried unanimously.”55 Hirsh Throws the Gauntlet Down If Rutherford felt a relief at this point of the meeting, he was soon in for a shock. He wrote later: “On the 20th of June a meeting of the Board was called for the purpose of hearing the report of the Committee on Brother Johnson’s visit to England. After this business was disposed of satisfactorily to all persons, Brother Hirsh drew from his pocket a resolution which he had prepared in advance and offered the same, which resolution provided that the management of the corporation should be taken out of the hands of the President, and that the Board should take charge and give directions as to what should be done.”56 The directors gave a different interpretation to Hirsh’s motion. They stated: “One of our number offered a resolution to amend the by-laws which the board had unwisely adopted early in the year. …the purpose of the Directors in wishing to amend the by-laws was not that the four members of the Board might take over the control of the Society, but that the Board might be restored to its proper position, according to Brother Russell’s will and charter.”57 They also stated: “When the resolution came up, the President raised such a storm of opposition that the brethren yielded to his appeal to hold the resolution over until next meeting, which was announced for July 20th.”58 Concerning this agreement, Rutherford wrote later: “After considerable discussion it was agreed among all persons that the Board should adjourn for one month, at which time the question would be taken up and settled.”59 It was Wright, and particularly Ritchie who were inclined to submit to Rutherford’s appeal.60 Van Amburgh and Pierson were against the resolution.61 It is easy to envision the quandary Rutherford must have been in when he suddenly was faced with the resolution to deprive him of the management of the Society and to put the board in charge. Without the board knowing it, on June 6 he had already signed the contract for printing the seventh volume of Studies in the Scriptures.62 In a letter to the printer dated June 19, he had

asked for “at least 50,000 copies” and had indicated he wanted “the book on press by July 1st, and ready for delivery by July 15th.”63 He must have realized that the entire project was in jeopardy if he could not personally take it to completion. He had no intention of surrendering his position. So, at all costs he had to prevent the repealing of the by-laws. If the board meeting of June 20 had been dramatic, many more fateful events were to come. Paul Johnson was quite downcast when he received the board minute from Rutherford and learned that his case had not been adjusted to his satisfaction. A few months later, he explained how the report about his British activities had been dealt with: “This report was so violently opposed by Bro. Rutherford that they thought it wise not then to press it further; instead a compromise was accepted, they putting off for more favorable conditions a final settlement of the case, a thing with which Bro. Pierson later came into agreement. Bro Pierson had not yet heard my case from me.”64 Later on, Johnson revealed that the matter had a profound effect on him: “At the reading of the minute our heart was inexpressibly pained…. Only the Lord and ourself really know of the over five months’ Gethsemane into which we were plunged, during the latter part of which, despite a good conscience in all our work, we had fears that we were Divinely disapproved.”65 On June 21 he was told that there was no more work for him at the Tabernacle.66 On June 24 he acted as a pilgrim for the last time under the auspices of the Society, serving at Passaic, New Jersey in the afternoon and the evening.67 He stayed at Bethel for the time being, but the board never dealt with his case again. The Board meeting of June 20 is one of the milestones in the entire management crisis. It is therefore disappointing to note that Macmillan published such an inaccurate statement about it several decades later. To be true, he had not himself been present at the meeting, but his claim that it was “an extended session of the 1917 annual meeting”68 is nonetheless ridiculous. As shown above, it was an ordinary board meeting to deal with Johnson’s case. Obviously, Macmillan’s memory was so deficient that he confused this board meeting in June, 1917, with a meeting of the Peoples Pulpit Association that was held in July, which meeting he did attend, and which Rutherford termed an “adjourned annual meeting.”69 If Macmillan had checked Rutherford’s two editions of Harvest Siftings, he would not have made this blunder. Nor would he then have stated that Rutherford was forced to rule the motion about amending the by-laws “out of order.”70 It was the resolution about paying Johnson’s solicitor that Rutherford ruled out of order, not the later resolution regarding the by-laws! Macmillan’s faulty statement found its way into the Society’s history presentation in 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, page 90. But much more serious misrepresentations will need to be dealt with later on.

Footnotes 1 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, p. 461 2 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 15 3 Ibid, pp. 6, 9, 15

4 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 9; Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, p. 229 5 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, p. 229 6 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 15; 7 Ibid. 8 Harvest Siftings, p. 9 9 Ibid, p. 10 10 Ibid, pp. 3, 9 11 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 7 12 Harvest Siftings, p. 21 13 Harvest Siftings, pp. 2, 9, 22, 23 14 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 7 15 Ibid. 16 1973 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 101 17 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, p. 52 18 Harvest Siftings, pp. 2, 21 19 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 4, 1938, p. 185 20 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, pp. 2, 3 21 Ibid, p. 2 22 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, pp. 299, 301, 303. 23 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, pp. 2, 3 24 Ibid, p. 3 25 Light after Darkness, p. 6 26 Francis H. McGee: A Timely Letter of Importance to All the Brethren, September 10, 1918, p. 1 27 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, pp. 52, 53 28 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 15 29 Harvest Siftings, p. 8 30 Harvest Siftings, pp. 9, 10 31 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 15 32 Harvest Siftings, p. 8 33 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 15 34 Harvest Siftings, p. 8 35 Ibid, p. 8; Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, pp. 53, 230-231 36 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 15 37 Harvest Siftings, p. 23 38 Ibid, p. 8 39 Ibid, pp. 8, 23 40 Light after Darkness, p. 4 41 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 15 42 The Present Truth, May 1, 1920, p. 78 43 Ibid 44 Ibid

45 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 15 46 Ibid 47 The Present Truth, May 1, 1920, p. 78 48 Ibid 49 Harvest Siftings, Part II, p. 31 50 Ibid 51 The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 327; Light after Darkness, p. 21 52 Harvest Siftings, Part II, p. 31 53 Paul S.L. Johnson, Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 3 (Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately, 1938), pp. 423, 424 54 Ibid 55 Ibid 56 Harvest Siftings, p. 12 57 Light after Darkness, p. 4 58 Ibid, p. 6 59 Harvest Siftings, p. 12 60 The Present Truth, April 19, 1919, p. 70; Harvest Siftings, p. 13 61 Harvest Siftings, p. 12; Harvest Siftings, Part II, p. 31 62 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, pp. 860, 1200 63 Ibid, pp. 1300, 1301 64 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 15l 65 The Present Truth, May 1, 1920, p. 80 66 The Present Truth, December 9, 1918, p. 7; May 1, 1920, p. 79 67 Ibid, May 1, 1920, p. 79 68 Faith on the March, p. 77 69 Harvest Siftings, Part II, p. 28 70 Faith on the March, p. 78

Chapter 9 From June 21 to July 16, 1917 By June 21, “the news of the dispute in the Board was spreading among the Bethel family” and a division began among the workers.1 Already, on that day the dissident directors delivered the following request to Rutherford: Bethel, June 21, 1917. DEAR BROTHER RUTHERFORD:In view of matters which require early attention, we, the undersigned, request that you call a meeting of the Board of Directors of THE WATCH TOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOCIETY to convene not later than Wednesday, June 27th. This will allow ample time to notify all the members of the Board. A.I. RITCHIE, J.D. WRIGHT, R.H. HIRSH, I.F. HOSKINS.2 This must have come as a shock to Rutherford. He undoubtedly feared that his opponents were planning to rescind the by-laws no later than June 27. And even if they should have had something else in mind, he was not inclined to honor their request. He stated later: In reply to this letter I spoke to the brethren personally, saying it would not be convenient to have a meeting because Brother Pierson could not come. They came the next day and insisted that I should call a meeting anyhow. I told them I would write Brother Pierson and see if he could come. His reply was that he could not, because he had made arrangements with his son to remain at his place of work until the middle of July.3 By writing to Pierson and waiting for his reply, Rutherford was buying time. He apparently knew what the answer would be, for on June 20 the board meeting had been adjourned for one month because it would be inconvenient for Pierson to attend earlier. Rutherford obviously wanted to avoid another board meeting at all costs and therefore made a point of the fact that Pierson was tied to his work. That was an untenable excuse. As long as either the president or vice president was present with a quorum of four board members, a meeting could be held. The charter made it clear that even the president could be absent from a board meeting since it stipulated that the vice president should “preside in the absence of the President.”4 That meant, of course, that other directors could be absent also. In fact, at the important board meeting on

January 19, 1917, when the by-laws were accepted, only five board members were present: Rutherford, Van Amburgh, Pierson, Ritchie and Wright.5 Signed Resignations Looked For With two requests—on June 21 and 22—for another board meeting following the stormy session of June 20, it seems that Rutherford investigated a possible solution to the alarming situation he was facing. Beginning in 1908, Russell had all new directors sign a resignation when they were elected to the board. Only the date was left for Russell to fill in if he felt that a director had to be removed.6 Rutherford himself, being elected in 1910, was obviously one of the directors who had signed a resignation form. Of his opponents on the board, J. Dennis Wright, elected in 1904, and Robert H. Hirsh, elected in March 1917, had not supplied any signed resignation to Russell. But Hoskins, elected in 1908, and Ritchie, elected in 1911, had obviously done so. If Rutherford or one of his close associates could find these resignations, it might be possible to fill in the date and thus terminate their directorships. Getting rid of Hoskins and Ritchie would break up the majority in favor of repealing the by-laws, and the status quo could prevail. But filling in the dates of the resignations would, of course, be risky and might entangle Rutherford in difficult questions. Still, being desperate, he was probably ready for such a hazardous action. The reason why an attempt along these lines seems plausible is the fact that A.H. Macmillan mentioned it in a public talk he gave in the early 1950’s that was taped and later typed out. Macmillan stated: “Brother Russell appointed them as directors for life and he demanded their resignations before he appointed them. He told me that distinctly.”7 He also stated that the search for the resignations failed: “The stenographer destroyed or mislaid the records of these resignations because she sympathized with them and went over on their side.”8 The stenographer Macmillan mentioned could have been Edith Hoskins, Isaac Hoskins’ younger sister. In her spare time, she had been employed as a typist by Paul Johnson in the preparations for his hearing on June 19, something for which Rutherford rebuked her.9 She left the Society with her brother and others in 1918 and was in charge of the correspondence department in The Pastoral Bible Institute from 1918 to 1960.10 Since this effort to break the board’s majority did not work, Rutherford had to find another solution to his problem. As is shown in other places in this book, Macmillan’s recollection of the events in 1917 was so deficient that one can use what he stated only with great caution. Nevertheless, since it must have been tempting to make use of existing resignations, I accept his claim in this regard as basically correct. Was There a Conspiracy? In the morning of June 23, Johnson and Rutherford had a significant conversation about conditions in the Society. Johnson later claimed to have said the following then:

Expecting to be elected president (a thing that he conceded) he should not have prepared beforehand the by-laws (of which Bro. Ritchie assured me he was in total ignorance, until they were shown him) that among other things were to give him executive and managerial power, nor arranged for their unaltered recommendation by the resolution committee, nor sought to influence their passage by the shareholders, knowing that the Charter did not give the President such power, nor the shareholders the right to make by-laws. I told him that in my opinion humility would have led him to accept, and faithfully do such work as the Board would offer him, and not grasp for more.11 Rutherford, on his part, said to Johnson that the shareholders could indeed “legally make binding by-laws.”12 When Johnson contradicted him, referring to the opinion expressed by McGee, he, according to Johnson, “became angry, crying out loud enough to be heard at least 50 feet away: ‘You are in a conspiracy.’”13 This was the first time Rutherford charged his opponents with conspiring together. In his pamphlet, Harvest Siftings, published about a month later, this charge appeared prominently on pages 10, 12, 23, 24. It is hard to see how that the charge had any substance. In spite of his learning and his speaking abilities, Johnson was hardly in a position to forge a conspiracy about the management of the Society. As he explained: “Whatever the four board members were doing they kept to themselves as far as I was concerned. Never once did I attend any of their meetings where they were planning Board procedures. I knew of course their view of the Board’s powers, and later of their difference with Bro. Rutherford, that there had been a discussion between them and him on this matter, but I did not know their plans, nor, except that they were going to discuss their difference on controllership with the President, did I know what they were going to do in their various moves.”14 Conspiracy is a loaded word and can easily be misused. Rutherford later claimed: “A conspiracy is an agreement to accomplish a wrongful purpose…. Circumstantial evidence is often stronger than direct. It was to the advantage of all these brethren, as they reasoned, to deprive me of the management.”15 As an interesting aside, U.S. authorities used practically the same kind of reasoning in 1918 when Rutherford and other Watch Tower leaders were charged with conspiracy under the terms of the 1917 Espionage Act and the Selective Services or Military Draft Act, also passed in 1917.16 The charge is documented in the court transcript and reads: “The Law is that it is not necessary to prove by direct evidence that the defendants came together and agreed or combined to commit the crime. A conspiracy can be proved by the proof of the facts from which you can fairly and reasonably infer that the defendants had a common object.”17 In vain did Rutherford and the other accused Watch Tower leaders try to argue that they had not been in a conspiracy. So, when facing imprisonment, Rutherford had to swallow a dose of the same unsavory medicine that he tried to force upon his opponents in 1917. The authorities were determined to convict him and his fellow Watch Tower leaders, and the conspiracy charge was a powerful tool used to accomplish this. If it was an unfair charge, so was Rutherford’s charge in

the summer of 1917. Hence, there was no “wrongful purpose” connected with the four board members’ effort to rescind the by-laws. It was a move that was in complete harmony with the charter. Hence their effort did not even meet Rutherford’s own definition of a conspiracy. Yet over the years, the Watch Tower Society’s publications have supported Rutherford’s conspiracy charge against his opponents.18 Rutherford Calls on “a Philadelphia Lawyer” Later, on June 23, Rutherford went on a four-day trip, returning to Bethel in the evening of June 26.19 Since the resignations Hoskins and Ritchie had signed could not be found, Rutherford now had to resort to legal maneuvers, and he realized he had to involve external counsel. It was probably during this trip that he visited H.M. McCaughey, a corporation lawyer in Philadelphia to obtain a legal opinion to use against his opponents on the board.20 According to contemporary documentation, the only time that allowed for such a trip would have been June 23-26 or June 30-July 13, when he undertook a long trip to the West.21 The four directors indicated that Rutherford’s trip to Philadelphia took place before his Western trip.22 As shown earlier, Rutherford had repeatedly told the directors that the charter contained illegal clauses. He was fully aware, however, that his own legal claims would not impress his opponents. He later stated in print: “I thought it best to procure a legal opinion from some lawyer who had no interest in the matter, and consequently I called upon a well-known corporation lawyer in Philadelphia, who is thoroughly familiar with the laws of that State, and submitting to him a copy of the official records and the charter, he prepared a written opinion, and he held … that neither Wright, Ritchie, Hirsh nor Hoskins were legal members of the Board of Directors and that the President had the right to appoint four members.”23 Rutherford further stated: “I deemed it wise to procure the legal opinion of some disinterested lawyer and at the next meeting submit this to the brethren and show them wherein they were wrong…. When I procured the legal opinion from the Philadelphia counsel it was not my purpose to appoint others to fill the vacancies on the Board but to be able to convince the brethren of the true situation.”24 These claims are far from convincing. First, it would not do to say that the external lawyer was “disinterested” and “had no interest in the matter.” Rutherford obtained a written legal opinion and surely had to pay for it. It is fairly certain that he indicated what the opinion should say. As will be shown further on, the way the Society’s charter was treated in the opinion was so lopsided that only Rutherford’s expressed wish can account for it. Later the directors wanted to have their counsel study the opinion, but Rutherford refused to let that happen.25 Second, Rutherford’s claimed intention that he would use the legal opinion only to intimidate his opponents to compliance almost certainly was doomed to fail. As outlined above, Rutherford had earlier successfully managed by means of an external legal opinion to neutralize Russell’s voting shares as determined in his will. But the situation now would be different. A legal opinion claiming that the board was legally wanting would meet with immediate demands to rectify the

situation and that invariably would call for neutral counsel. Rutherford must have realized that there was a considerable risk that things would not go his way. Therefore, it is more reasonable to conclude that he did indeed mean to replace his opponents at an appropriate occasion when he obtained the legal opinion. This would also fit with the attempt to use the resignations that two of the directors had signed while Russell lived. A Third Request for A Board Meeting Rutherford had probably not yet received the legal opinion when he was faced with still another request for a board meeting. It was dated June 27 and asked him to call it the same day. Rutherford himself has documented it: Bethel, June 27, 1917. DEAR BROTHER RUTHERFORD:Whereas the former petition did not meet with the President’s approval, we, the undersigned, members of the Board of Directors of THE WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY, hereby repeat our request for a meeting of the Board, on the following grounds: That we, members of the Board of Directors, desire information regarding the “Temple,” also in respect of the financial condition of the Society, and other matters of importance - Conventions, etc.; and for the transaction of such other business of the Society as might properly come before the Board. It is not, however, our thought at this meeting to attempt to pass on the unfinished business of the previous meeting of the Board. While Brother Ritchie was in favor of leaving the unfinished business of the last meeting, until a later meeting of the Board, in July, still he insisted that according to our request, you should be respectful of our petition and call a meeting of the Board of Directors to-day. A.I. RITCHIE, J.D. WRIGHT, ISAAC F. HOSKINS, R.H. HIRSH.26 Although the directors now specifically stated that that they did not intend to pass on the unfinished business about the by-laws at the meeting they now wanted, Rutherford again dodged their request. He published his reply on the same page as well: MESSRS. A.I. RITCHIE, R.H. HIRSH, I.F. HOSKINS AND J.D. WRIGHT, Bethel. DEAR BRETHREN: -

Your note of this date, handed to me after the noon meal by Brother Hirsh, is before me, in which you request a meeting of the Board to-day on the ground stated therein. As to the financial condition of the Society, no one could give that information in detail except Brother Van Amburgh, and he is out of the city. I have no information of any consequence that I could give you. As to the Conventions, etc., all the information that I have I furnished to the Editorial Committee, and it is now in print, except the programs, which the Pilgrim Department, with Brother Macmillan, is now making up. I will request them to submit to you a copy of the Program, or anything in connection with the Conventions. I believe this covers everything that you have asked, and I have answered as fully as I can. Your brother and servant by His Grace. J.F. RUTHERFORD. The reader will note that Rutherford evaded the issues. He did not deal with the “Temple” (a building in New York used by the Society) at all, and he disregarded the unspecified requests. So, he did not state the truth when he said: “I believe this covers everything that you have asked and I have answered as fully as I can.” Rutherford cannot have been totally ignorant about “the financial condition of the Society” and it would have been becoming of him to share what he knew. But he did not want to do that anymore than he wanted to give information regarding the “Temple.” And he surely did not want to share information about the seventh volume, should the directors ask for such. He would not have been eager to reveal that he had already signed the contract for printing the volume and that on June 30 he would visit the printer “after the pages were all set up and arranged.”27 This unwillingness to provide information to the board was a blatant violation of the by-laws that Rutherford had personally engineered and driven through at the beginning of the year. Section III of these by-laws stipulated: “The President shall make report to the Board of Directors from time to time upon request, concerning any matter touching the Society’s work which the Board may desire to hear.”28 The Police Incident at the Tabernacle As noted above, Rutherford went away on June 30 for two weeks on a preaching trip to the Western United States. During his absence, Macmillan was in charge at headquarters. “On the fifth day of July”29 something remarkable happened at the Tabernacle on Hicks Street, where the Society’s office was situated. It has become one of the better-known events of the entire management crisis. The contemporary statements of both sides are in substantial agreement about what happened.30 From these sources the following picture emerges: A rumor reached the four directors to the effect that they would not be permitted to enter the Tabernacle office. A set of rules had been initiated by Rutherford earlier stipulating that only staff members

specifically employed at the Tabernacle would be permitted there during working hours.31 The workers had agreed to these rules. The Directors explained two months later: “Astonished, and doubtful that such a treatment would be accorded a majority of the Trustees of the Society whose duties would naturally call them to the Tabernacle, we desired information as to whether such an order had been issued and by whom.”32

Figure 3. Brooklyn Tabernacle They promptly walked to the Tabernacle to find out. They approached Robert J. Martin, the manager of the office, who showed them the rules. During the conversation Macmillan showed up and ordered them out of the place. They declined to leave, however, and Macmillan then sent Martin to call a policeman. The directors then approached Van Amburgh, the Society’s secretary and treasurer, who had an office in the Tabernacle, and asked him to join them in a meeting. He declined. They then retired to the Chapel upstairs, where nobody else was at the time, and stayed for five minutes. Suddenly

Macmillan appeared with a policeman! “Officer, put these men out!” said Macmillan. “Move on, Gentlemen!” demanded the officer. The directors then objected that he had no right to put them out, as they were employed by the Society and were not disturbing anyone. “Of course, I have no right to put you out,” replied the policeman. “It is I who should go out instead,” he continued. And away he went. Shortly afterwards the directors left the Tabernacle. Johnson was unaware of the entire event until he “was informed of it some days later.”33 Macmillan’s Later Story Several decades later Macmillan offered an embellished account of the incident that does not square with the contemporary presentations.34 He implied that the policeman had actually forced the directors out of the premises. Rutherford’s contemporary statement did not give such an account. More serious than Macmillan’s failure to adequately report on the police incident was his claim that the directors wanted Van Amburgh to participate in a board meeting to get a “quorum” to transact legal business in order to “railroad new bylaws.”35 This could not possibly have been the purpose of the desired meeting, and again Rutherford did not state anything to that effect. Actually, the directors did not need Van Amburgh’s presence to have a quorum. The Society’s charter specifically stipulated that “a majority” of the board would “constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.”36 The four directors surely were a majority of the seven members of the board. But they well knew that, according to the charter, either the president or the vice president must preside at board meetings,37 and neither of them was available on this occasion. Moreover, the directors were fully aware that all members of the board had to be notified in advance if there was to be a valid meeting of the board. This is shown by their note to Rutherford of June 21, quoted above, stating that their request for a meeting not later than June 27 would “allow ample time to notify all the members of the Board.”38 Too, they were no doubt aware of the corporation law in this respect: “If the board meeting be specially convened the general rule is that notice must be served upon every member entitled to be present.”39 So the four directors could not have attempted to force a regular board meeting on this occasion and they could have had no illusions of being able to railroad new by-laws then. But there was a legitimate reason for wanting a meeting with Van Amburgh. The latter had repeatedly refused the directors “the privilege of getting information from the Society’s records.”40 In their note to Rutherford dated June 27, 1917, the four desired information “in respect to the financial condition of the Society,” and in his reply Rutherford claimed that only Van Amburgh could give such information.41 So, while the directors visited the Tabernacle for another reason, they also took the opportunity of trying to get the financial information they had desired for some time. They had realized that Rutherford would not call a board meeting where Van Amburgh would share this information, and the latter had been frequently away on appointments lately.42 So when the opportunity arose it was natural to ask for an informal meeting with Van Amburgh, though it could not be a strict

board meeting. Rutherford reported that Van Amburgh “refused,” and that he “declined to have anything to do with any of their meetings.”43 Macmillan confirmed that Van Amburgh did not want to meet with them.44 It is quite obvious that he did not want to give them the information they sought. The Directors Meet McGee in Brooklyn It is Macmillan’s treatment of this episode that has made it well known among Jehovah’s Witnesses. But unfortunately, Macmillan did not tell the truth. What happened later that day verifies that fact. The directors immediately contacted Francis H. McGee, the most distinguished lawyer in the Bible Student movement at the time, and met with him in Brooklyn in the evening. McGee reported: “I found at this night conference that the Directors had no desire to deprive Brother Rutherford as President of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of any of his rightful prerogatives, but that they knew nothing about the affairs of the Society or about its funds and had no proper supervision of them. They considered that both Brothers Rutherford and Macmillan were running affairs with a high hand.”45 They were especially concerned about a large sum of money that Russell had left in cash “which was subject to return to the friends who had donated it on their call, should they be in need of it.”46 McGee went beyond confirming that the directors had every right to get information about these things. “I told them,” he later wrote, “that it was their duty to know about it, as they were personally responsible if negligent in the care of the funds of the Society, especially of this trust fund, which was subject to repayment.”47 He assured them that there might be “such a thing as criminal neglect of the Society’s funds.”48 Much later, during the sedition trial in 1918, Van Amburgh had to testify that no less than $96,000 in cash had been found in Russell’s personal safe in his office at Bethel and that the four directors had asked “for an audit of the books.”49 McGee called attention to a new claim the directors had mentioned: “At this meeting they informed me that they had been told that as all the work in New York was done by the Peoples Pulpit Association, they could do nothing anyway.”50 Rutherford claimed that the charter of the Peoples Pulpit Association gave “the President thereof the absolute power and control of everything in the State of New York, pertaining to the Society’s affairs.”51 Commenting on this claim the directors observed: “He would nullify and make void the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society and establish as the dominant factor in the work the Peoples Pulpit Association. As a matter of fact the very reverse is the case—that the Society is the controlling corporation.”52 Russell had made it clear that the Peoples Pulpit Association was only one of two “auxiliary organizations” and had concluded: “The Peoples Pulpit Association cannot transact business except through the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society has the management, and the Peoples Pulpit Association does the work—absolutely.”53 McGee offered some suggestions as to how the directors could cope with Rutherford’s claim that the Peoples Pulpit Association was in total control of the Society’s work in New York. He

stated: I told them that as the Peoples Pulpit Association received all its funds from the Society in carrying out the work, they could easily exercise control of the Association if the Association attempted to take the duly constituted authority of the Society, and consequently the Society itself by the throat, by stopping temporarily or limiting the supply of money flowing from the Society to the Peoples Pulpit Association. I then told them that they had legal authority, and the moral right as well, to pass a resolution directing the banks not to honor checks, either for withdrawal or deposit, without the signature of some additional Director with that of the Treasurer. In other words, that while they should not attempt to deprive Brother Van Amburgh of the control as Treasurer of the Society’s funds, they should limit his sole control by requiring an additional signature to his in financial transactions…. I told them that the banks would in all probability comply with their notification without much trouble.54 McGee Urges the Directors to Pass Detailed By-Laws Although the directors had decided in June to repeal the January 1917 by-laws, it seems they had not indicated what, if anything, should replace them. McGee addressed this situation in his meeting with them on July 5: “I advised them further that they ought to have proper by-laws to regulate the Society’s affairs and to regulate the activities of the executive officers and keep them within reasonable bounds. I further said that the statute of Pennsylvania required the Society to pass certain by-laws or ordinances and that they had apparently failed to do this.”55 He later added: “The very incomplete and meager by-laws drafted at Pittsburgh necessarily needed to be largely added to, not merely amended.”56 The directors would need legal assistance to accurately formulate new and better by-laws and McGee introduced them to Davies, Auerbach & Cornell, a reputable law firm in New York.57 The directors immediately went to work, and eventually they forwarded their draft to the law firm mentioned for possible legal adaptation. It was their purpose to have the by-laws ready for presentation at the board meeting announced for July 20.58 The turbulent events that were to take place on July 17 ultimately made the need for these by-laws less urgent. The directors obtained them in their original draft form from the Davies, Auerbach & Cornell rather late in order to include them in their pamphlet Light after Darkness. But on pages 4-6 in their later pamphlet Facts for Shareholders, issued November 15, 1917, they published the “BY-LAWS, RULES AND ORDINANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY” as they had prepared them. There were some striking characteristics in this detailed document: There was to be a “supervisory committee” of three, including the president, subordinate to the board, to act on the board’s behalf. The two other members were to be chosen from and by the board. The president was to “publicly represent the Society as authorized by the Board.” Checks “made out by the Treasury Department” would have to be signed by at least two members of the board, including

either the treasurer, the president or the vice president “but never by both President and Treasurer.” Perhaps the most remarkable feature concerned Russell’s will: Be it ordained by the Board of Directors assembled on July 20,1917, that the WILL of our late and beloved Pastor and Brother Russell be accepted, and is hereby adopted as the order, policy and spirit of this Society, especially touching the management and the editorship of THE WATCH TOWER, which is the property of the Society by his donation; and also in respect to Brother Russell’s voting shares, which are likewise the property of the Society by his donation for at least ten years prior to his death, and which were by him placed in the hands of a Board of five sisters, who are styled “Trustees.”59 Thus, the directors rejected the stance that Rutherford had taken about Russell’s voting shares before the election on January 6, 1917. They no longer believed that Russell had had no legal right to donate his voting shares as Rutherford had claimed. Rutherford Contacts McGee The Tabernacle incident created a dramatic escalation of the ongoing management crisis. Rutherford was in Duluth, Minnesota at the time, and it was probably Macmillan who contacted him about the event and also informed him that his opponents were consulting McGee about what had happened.60 Not surprisingly, Rutherford never mentioned McGee by name in his writings about the conflict as McGee was a well-respected brother and lawyer whom both Russell and Rutherford himself had earlier consulted on difficult legal matters. He simply referred to him as “a lawyer whom I knew,”61 also calling him “a lawyer who is not too friendly toward the Truth.”62 McGee responded that the latter statement was “untrue.”63 He added: The next day after this conference [which the four directors had with McGee] Brother Rutherford telegraphed me from Duluth, Minn., to the following effect: If you are advising Hirsh and others please, for the sake of the cause, advise them to await my return about July 18, when matters will be properly adjusted. Because of this telegram, in all fairness I suggested that they wait, and all agreed to await his return. And so no determinate action was taken in his absence. Incidentally it might be remarked that if Brother Rutherford had really thought I was “not too friendly to the Truth” he would not have asked me to advise them “for the sake of the cause.”64 Rutherford confirmed that he had “wired him, ‘Please let the matter stand until I return.’”65 This plea was quite deceptive, for Rutherford surely did not plan to adjust matters to the satisfaction of the directors. He deceived them and McGee as well, buying time while his opponents were waiting instead of acting. McGee also noted: “The Directors were advised that something startling was being devised in Brother Rutherford’s absence, which was termed a

bomb, which was to be exploded upon his return from the western states -- this in spite of his telegram that matters would be properly adjusted upon his return.”66 This worried the directors, but McGee told them “that they were the duly recognized authority entitled to control affairs” and that he did not see that Rutherford “could do anything very serious when they were acting lawfully.”67 He had “already advised them that only the shareholders could amend the Charter of the Society.”68 William M. Wisdom’s Alleged Alarm On Saturday July 7, 1917, William M. Wisdom, one of the Society’s pilgrims, was traveling on a train with Robert H. Hirsh, one of the directors. For about five hours they talked about the Society’s affairs.69 This event was significant as a few days later Wisdom made a trip to Chicago, where Rutherford then was, and on July 10 reported the conversation with Hirsh to him.70 Rutherford claimed that it was this report that made him decide to fill the alleged vacancies on the board.71 A few days after this initial report to Rutherford, Wisdom wrote a detailed letter to him about the conversation with Hirsh. Rutherford published that letter later.72 According to Wisdom, Hirsh had claimed that Rutherford had “over-ridden the Charter of the Society, set aside its by-laws and ignored the Will of the Founder.”73 Of this the only surprising charge was that Rutherford had “set aside the by-laws.” This must have referred to the fact that Rutherford did not want to give his opponents on the board the information they wanted about the Society’s work, as was stipulated in Section III of the by-laws. Wisdom also stated that the directors contemplated to “tie up” the Society’s money in the bank.74 To this the directors later replied: “We had no thought whatsoever of interrupting the affairs of the Society by tying up its funds, as Brother Rutherford charges us, but merely to make them subject to the Board’s direction.”75 (Emphasis added) This was in harmony with McGee’s suggestion to them as outlined above. One serious charge Wisdom brought was that Hirsh claimed that “the officers” were “not considered as members” of the board, that “THEY,” that is the four, were “THE Board of Directors.”76 This was in direct conflict with everything the directors had actually stated throughout the conflict, and Rutherford knew that very well. They only considered themselves to be “a majority of the Board of Directors,” as stated in a notice sent to Rutherford, Pierson and Van Amburgh later in July.77 Another claim that Wisdom made was that he “really tried to evade what came” to him.78 In giving Hirsh’s response to Wisdom’s letter, the directors stated: “Our conversation with him was so satisfactory to himself at the time as to cause him to say three times, ‘I cannot say that you are wrong.’ Instead of Brother Hirsh seeking the conversation on the train, the brother himself said, ‘When you get located in your sleeper ahead, come to me.’ It is observed in this brother’s letter that he … has things so jumbled as to make it practically impossible to treat the letter seriously. He has added rumor to rumor.”79

It is a remarkable fact, too, that although Wisdom did his best to curry favor with Rutherford on this occasion, he left him in 1918 and joined the splinter group known as “the Stand Fasts.” He then wanted to join Paul S.L. Johnson’s group, to which Robert Hirsh belonged at the time, and still later the Pastoral Bible Institute founded by some others who had been Rutherford’s opponents in 1917. He then went back to the Watch Tower Society but left it again and ended up in the Pastoral Bible Institute.80 In 1923, Wisdom published a book about Russell called The Laodicean Messenger. In it, he claimed that Russell’s will stipulated that a “Committee of Three” of the seven directors “should exercise general supervision or management of the work of the Society after his death.”81 He also claimed that it was this provision “that precipitated the trouble at the headquarters in 1917.”82 Both of these claims were completely out of harmony with the facts. With such poor knowledge of what had been happening at Watch Tower headquarters and why, it is evident that William M. Wisdom had no accurate understanding of the real issues in 1917, not even when he contacted Rutherford. From what he did at the time and afterwards, he seems to have been nothing but a rather ignorant, self-serving busybody. Thus, it is tempting to conclude that Rutherford, in spite of his claim to the contrary, had already decided to replace his opponents on the board when Wisdom visited him. So, were Wisdom’s visit and letter—which actually offered little that was new—used simply as a pretext for what Rutherford was about to do anyway? At this distance, it is impossible to know with certainty. Rutherford Appoints Four New Directors On July 11, Rutherford left Chicago and went straight to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where on July 12 he filled the “vacancies” he claimed existed on the Board.83 According to the legal opinion he had obtained, this could legally take place only in Pennsylvania. The legal opinion also held that such appointees were to hold office “only until the next annual election held by the members or shareholders.”84 The ones chosen were Dr. Walter E. Spill (1869-1953), an osteopath by profession who was chairman of the influential Pittsburgh congregation of Bible Students; John A. Bohnet (18581932), another prominent elder in that congregation; George H. Fisher (1870-1926), a resident of Scranton, Pennsylvania, who was one of the authors of The Finished Mystery, the book that was to be released a few days later; and A. Hugh Macmillan (1877-1966), who was Rutherford’s special representative at headquarters.85 The appointments were made in the presence of L.H. McCare, Notary Public.86 It is clear that Rutherford acted so secretly about these appointments that not even his closest associates knew what he was up to. Vice president Pierson did not learn about it until he heard the announcement at the board meeting held at Bethel in the forenoon of July 17.87 And Macmillan later testified in court that he had not heard that Rutherford thought his opponents did not hold office legally until the announcement made that day.88 Rutherford claimed, “all of” his replacement directors “signed a statement consenting to a meeting of the Board of Directors,

agreeing that meeting of the Board of Directors should be held July 17, 1917.”89 In view of Macmillan’s later testimony, this is more than questionable. Both Spill and Macmillan signed their acceptance of appointment only on July 17, and Fisher signed his acceptance on July 14.90 Only Bohnet signed his acceptance on July 12, and he was the only one of these four who specifically consented to a board meeting on July 17 according to the notes of acceptance.91 Rutherford had earlier agreed with his opponents on July 20 as the date for the next board meeting. Now he obviously wanted to speed up the process. One likely reason for this was that the book The Finished Mystery, the alleged seventh volume of Studies in the Scriptures, was now printed and ready for distribution, and it seems that Rutherford wanted to get rid of his opponents on the board before the publication was announced. He was determined to prevent them from interfering with the publication. After all, the Watch Tower charter stated that publications were to be decided by the board, and his opponents would demand that this provision was followed. As will be shown further on, he intended to drop the bomb about replacing his opponents at the board meeting in the forenoon of July 17 in the presence of these opponents, and then announce the publication of The Finished Mystery at the dinner table at Bethel the same day. That way he hoped to prevent a big commotion at headquarters. Things did not work out that way, however. Rutherford Back in Brooklyn On Friday July 13, Rutherford was back in Bethel.92 He suggested to Ritchie that the board should meet “on Tuesday, the 17th of July.” Ritchie voiced agreement, and Rutherford then notified Pierson and the other directors.93 However, the next day Hirsh, Wright, Ritchie and Hoskins addressed a letter to Pierson saying “that the meeting would not be held on the 17th.” Pierson then telegraphed Rutherford to know why. Rutherford replied that he had received no such message and that the meeting would be held as scheduled.94 But in the afternoon of Monday, July 16 Hirsh handed the following letter to Rutherford: J.F. RUTHERFORD, Bethel, DEAR BROTHER:Your note is received advising us that a meeting of the Board of the WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY is called for Tuesday morning, July 17. Thanks. In reply we would say that your course has been such in respect to the matter in question as to complicate it to such an extent that we will not now be ready to have a meeting of the Board before the 20th. We have recently handed you three of four requests for a meeting, at which we hoped that our affairs might have been settled amicably and in short order; but we were refused. Additionally, untrue and false talk has been spread abroad about us, and threats of violence have been issued by your “special representative”— violence being attempted, and that

against four of the legally constituted managers and officers of our Society. We have only to repeat what we say above: there will be no Board meeting before the 20th instant, if then. We will advise you when we shall be in a position for a Board meeting. Very truly, R.H. HIRSH, J.D. WRIGHT, A.I. RITCHIE, I.F. HOSKINS.95 The directors wanted to present the by-laws they had prepared at the board meeting earlier agreed to take place on July 20.96 The crux now was that these by-laws were still in the hands of their New York lawyers.97 So the directors were not ready for a meeting as early as July 17. Ritchie was probably unaware of this when he at first agreed to have the meeting on that earlier date. Both Parties Spread Word about the Conflict Up to a point, the disagreement within the board had been kept outside the Bible Student community at large. The dissident directors later stated: “These conditions were known to but a few until several weeks ago—the few preferring to keep silent and bear the burden, not even telling their wives.”98 But after the stormy board meeting of June 20, and especially after the police incident at the Tabernacle, the situation got out of hand. Both parties now shared their concern with other Bible Students, both at Bethel and in the congregations. As shown in the letter of July 16 presented above, the directors claimed that “untrue and false talk” had been “spread abroad” about them. A former elder in the Pittsburgh congregation later wrote in a letter: “The first intimation I had that there was trouble in Brooklyn was along in the middle of the summer in 1917. Brother Macmillan came to our city, and at the invitation of the congregation preached a discourse, in which he threw out a lot of hints and insinuations; that there was going to be a big blow-up in Brooklyn, and that we would have the greatest trial and sifting that the Church had known during the Harvest period, but nothing definite as to what the trial would be.”99 As already noted, the directors “were advised that something startling was devised” in Rutherford’s absence in July, “which was termed a bomb, which was to be exploded upon his return.”100 The discussion that Hirsh had with Wisdom on the train on July 7 shows that the directors, too, were unable to maintain silence. On Sunday night July 15, Hirsh and Hoskins appeared at a meeting of the Philadelphia congregation and made accusations against Rutherford and Van Amburgh.101 Rutherford claimed in response: “For the safety of the interests of the friends,” he had to “refrain from publishing some of the things” stated on that occasion.102

Hirsh and Hoskins actually focused on the Society’s finances that Rutherford and Van Amburgh had refused to inform them about. In a meeting with his new board on July 17, Rutherford was explicit: “I am now in receipt of a letter from Brother Work of Philadelphia, in which he states that Brothers Hirsh and Hoskins have appeared before the Philadelphia congregation and stated that money amounting to $200,000.00 has been kept in the office safe.”103 This was a delicate matter as it involved the trust fund that Russell had originated, the precise details of which were known to only a few people.104 As this fund involved the savings of a number of Bible Students, Rutherford felt he had to refrain “from publishing” the details that Hirsh and Hoskins had touched upon in Philadelphia. However, if he and Van Amburgh had complied with the directors’ right to know about, and have a say on, the Society’s finances, it may safely be assumed that Hirsh and Hoskins would not have aired the matter in Philadelphia, as unwise as that may have been. The Distribution of the Seventh Volume Starts In a message to W.B. Conkey Co., Hammond, Indiana, dated June 19, 1917, Rutherford had ordered “at least 50,000” copies of The Finished Mystery, the alleged seventh volume of Studies in the Scriptures, for delivery “by July 15th.”105 On Saturday June 23 William F. Hudgings had arrived from Watch Tower headquarters at Clayton J. Woodworth’s home in Scranton, Pennsylvania, and from there both of them went to Hammond to proofread the book. Woodworth, one of the two authors, claimed that this task took “six working days.”106 When Rutherford came to Hammond on June 30,107 Woodworth and Hudgings were still there.108 By July 12 the printing was obviously completed, for that day Rutherford sent Robert J. Martin to “superintend” the mailing of the book to Watch Tower subscribers “living furthest away,” so that all of them would receive it at the same time.109 Martin got help from some “forty or fifty” of the employees at the printing plant.110 The process included putting labels on the cartons used for the mailing. Nearly “thirty thousand” copies were sent out, and “it took us three days,” Martin later testified in court.111 One reason why Rutherford wanted the Watch Tower subscribers to receive the book at the same time was that he believed he was playing a prophetic role in providing the volume. This will be shown later. Originally the plan was to publish the book in the autumn, but for special reasons that will also be shown later, Rutherford hurried the publication. A load of the books arrived at headquarters in the evening of July 16.112 Rutherford managed to keep all the operations concerning The Finished Mystery so secret that the four critical directors of his management had no idea about the existence of it until noon, July 17, 1917. That date would prove to be one of the most dramatic and eventful days in the entire history of the Watch Tower Society. What was to happen?

Footnotes

1 The Present Truth, December 9, 1918, p. 11 2 Harvest Siftings, p. 12 3 Ibid, pp. 12, 13 4 For the charter, see The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 327. 5 Light After Darkness, p. 4 6 The Present Truth, December 24, 1918, p. 28 7 The History of the Society from 1910 to 1920, p. 23. See Bibliography for an evaluation of this source. 8 Ibid 9 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, p. 403 10 She died in 1965 and got a brief obituary in The Herald of Christ’s Kingdom, March-April, 1965. 11 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 16 12 Ibid, p. 15 13 Ibid 14 Ibid 15 Harvest Siftings, p. 23 16 Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose, p. 12; 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 105 17 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, p. 1129 18 Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose, p. 69; 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 82 19 The Present Truth, May 1, 1920, p. 79 20 Harvest Siftings, pp. 15, 16 21 Harvest Siftings, pp. 13, 14; Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, p. 977; Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, p. 404 22 Light After Darkness, pp. 6,7 23 Harvest Siftings, p. 16 24 Harvest Siftings, Part II, pp. 31, 32 25 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p.17 26 Harvest Siftings, p. 13 27 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, p. 977 28 Moyle vs. Franz et al, 1943, transcript of record, p. 1528. See also “THE RESOLUTION AND BY-LAWS OF JANUARY 6, 1917” in Appendix 5. 29 Harvest Siftings, p. 13 30 See Ibid and Light after Darkness, pp. 6, 17 31 These “OFFICE RULES AND REGULATIONS” are recorded in the court transcript of Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, pp. 1314-1320. 32 Light after Darkness, p. 6 33 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 15 34 Faith on the March, pp. 78-80 35 Ibid, p. 79 36 See The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 327; Light after Darkness, p. 21. 37 Ibid 38 Harvest Siftings, p. 12 39 Angelo T. Freedley, THE PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION ACT OF 1874 AND SUPPLEMENTARY ACTS, second edition (Philadelphia, Pa.: T.&J.W. JOHNSON & CO., 1890), p. 27

40 Light after Darkness, p. 4 41 Harvest Siftings, p. 13 42 According to the “pilgrim” schedules announced in The Watch Tower, June 15, 1917, page 192, Van Amburgh was to be absent on June 22, 23, 24, 27, 29; July 1, 2 and 3. 43 Harvest Siftings, p. 13 44 Faith on the March, p. 78 45 Light after Darkness, p. 17 46 Ibid 47 Ibid 48 Ibid 49 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, pp. 721,722 50 Light after Darkness, p. 17 51 Harvest Siftings, p. 16 52 Light after Darkness, p. 11 53 The Watch Tower, December 1, 1915, p. 359 54 Light after Darkness, p. 17 55 Ibid 56 Ibid, p.18 57 Ibid, pp. 15, 18; Facts for Shareholders, p. 4 58 Ibid, p. 6 59 Facts For Shareholders, p. 6 60 Harvest Siftings, p. 13 61 Ibid 62 Ibid, p. 1 63 Light after Darkness, p. 16 64 Ibid, p. 17 65 Harvest Siftings, p. 13 66 Light after Darkness, pp. 17, 18 67 Ibid, p. 18 68 Ibid 69 Harvest Siftings, pp.13, 14 70 Ibid 71 Harvest Siftings, Part II, p. 32 72 Harvest Siftings, p. 14 73 Ibid 74 Ibid 75 Light after Darkness, p. 4 76 Harvest Siftings, p. 14 77 Ibid, p. 24 78 Ibid, p. 14 79 Light after Darkness, p. 13

80 The Present Truth, September 1, 1920, p. 140 81 Memoirs of Pastor Russell: The Laodicean Messenger: His Life, Works and Character, Chicago: The Bible Students Book Store, 1923, p. 153. Printed privately. 82 Ibid 83 Harvest Siftings, p. 17; Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, pp. 1270,1271 84 Harvest Siftings, p. 15 85 Ibid, p. 17 86 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, p. 1271 87 Light after Darkness, p. 8 88 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, p. 862 89 Harvest Siftings, p. 17 90 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, pp. 1271, 1273 91 Ibid 92 Harvest Siftings, p. 14 93 Ibid 94 Ibid, pp. 14,15 95 Ibid, p. 15 96 Facts for Shareholders, p. 6 97 Ibid, p. 4 98 Light after Darkness, p. 12 99 The Present Truth, March 17, 1919, p. 64 100 Light after Darkness, pp. 17, 18 101 Harvest Siftings, pp. 17, 23; Light after Darkness, pp. 8, 13 102 Harvest Siftings, p. 23 103 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, p. 1278 104 Memoirs of Pastor Russell: The Laodicean Messenger: His Life, Works and Character (Chicago, Ill.: The Bible Student Book Store, 1923), pp. 155-157 105 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, pp. 1300, 1301 106 Ibid, pp. 604,605 107 Ibid, p. 997 108 Ibid, p. 605 109 Ibid, pp. 914, 982, 983 110 Ibid, p. 914 111 Ibid 112 Ibid, p. 1032

Chapter 10 “A Strenuous Day” There are three detailed, early accounts of what took place at Bethel, the Watch Tower headquarters, on the momentous day of July 17, 1917. One is a report written by Francis H. McGee, the Bible Student lawyer, on August 15 and published September 1, 1917.1 Another is a letter written by Andrew N. Pierson to Alfred I. Ritchie, dated July 26, 1917.2 Pierson recognized this letter in The Watch Tower, January 1, 1918, on page 15. The third is the Society’s minutes documented in Rutherford et al v. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, Volume 2, pages 1268-1281. This transcript was published in May, 1919. McGee wrote in part: I received, at Trenton on July 17, a telephone message from Brother Hoskins saying that the President, Brother Rutherford, had called a meeting of the Peoples Pulpit Association for 8 A.M. that morning and had notified the Directors of the Society—Pierson, Hirsh, Ritchie, Wright and Hoskins—that there would be a Directors’ meeting of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society at 9 A.M. … Brother Hoskins informed me over the telephone that Brother Rutherford had announced at the breakfast table at Bethel that he hoped all would be present at the noon meal, as he expected a “strenuous day.” The directors wished me to come over and be at the table. I complied with their request.3 Nothing is known about the meeting announced for the Peoples Pulpit Association. Hirsh and Hoskins were also directors in that association and they never reported anything from such a meeting, nor did Rutherford. However, the alleged seventh volume of Studies in the Scriptures had now arrived at headquarters, and it was copyrighted in the name of the Peoples Pulpit Association, not the Watch Tower Society.4 Rutherford may have thought it advisable to base his right to publication in a formal meeting of the Association’s board before announcing the release to the headquarters staff. The four had already made it clear that they were not ready for a meeting of the Society’s board on July 17. So, when Rutherford announced the meeting at the breakfast table, one of them told him: “I believe, Brother Rutherford, there will be no meeting of the Board this morning.”5 Rutherford had hoped to avoid making a public statement of his appointment of four new directors, wanting to confine the matter to a closed meeting, but that was not to be. In the autumn of the same year, he wrote: “I called a meeting on the 17th of July, inviting Brothers Wright, Ritchie, Hirsh and Hoskins to be present, with the purpose of reading to them the legal opinion, then to advise them of the situation; and was hoping that they would quietly acquiesce and that the work go on smoothly. They were all in the Bethel Home that day but refused to come to the meeting.”6

Rutherford was trying, falsely, to attempt to influence the wider Bible Student community, for he could not realistically believe that his opponents would accept his move without consulting McGee and other lawyers. The Board Meeting in the Forenoon The ones present at the board meeting in the forenoon were “J.F. Rutherford, A.N. Pierson, W.E. Van Amburgh, A. H. Macmillan and George H. Fisher, W.E. Spill and J.A. Bohnet.”7 Rutherford read the legal opinion he had obtained to the others. He then stated that only he himself, Pierson and Van Amburgh, who had been elected as officers at the annual meeting in January were legal members of the board “by virtue of said election and the terms of the Charter.”8 He claimed that Ritchie, Wright, Hoskins and Hirsh were “not in law nor in fact” members of the board and that he, “by virtue of the Charter” and the laws of Pennsylvania had appointed Spill, Bohnet, Fisher and Macmillan to fill the “vacancies” he claimed existed on the board.9 Pierson strongly objected: On entering the meeting room at the Bethel a week ago last Tuesday morning I was very much surprised to find that Brother Rutherford had appointed a new board, and so expressed myself to those present. Presently we heard the reading of a letter from a Philadelphia law firm, in which were set forth the facts mentioned in the resolution read before the Bethel family, viz., that the Board of Directors, as constituted, was not a legal one, therefore its members were not legally directors. Thereupon I expressed the thought that if these brethren were not legally members of the Board of Directors—which position some of them had held for many years in the eyes of the friends in general—then the fact remains that the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society has never had a legal Board. To this Brother Rutherford assented. I further stated that if it was true that the Society’s business had been carried on for so many years in a manner not entirely in harmony with the requirements of law, it surely could be continued in the same way for a few more months, until another annual meeting. This was not a motion, but merely a criticism or suggestion, upon which no action was taken. 10 A few hours later Rutherford was to face legal reproof in front of the whole Bethel staff, and two days later he would face a painful legal defeat in front of the big Philadelphia ecclesia. But before that, during this forenoon board meeting, he made a lengthy report about his activities since his election as president.11 What is remarkable about this report is that the achievements mentioned were mainly his legal efforts and success in behalf of the movement. A particularly time-consuming task had been his work caused by the Conscription Act recently passed by Congress. The fact of the matter is that he could have attended to all these things merely as the Society’s lawyer without being either president or a director, as he had done in the past. Acting as the Society’s sole manager on top of his legal tasks meant that he had to carry a workload that may have exceeded that of Russell, who let Rutherford and other lawyers deal with upcoming legal issues.

If he as president had accepted being just the chairman of the board, in harmony with the charter, Rutherford no doubt could have attended to his legal duties with more ease, and the management crisis caused by his personal ambition would then not have developed. In his report to his new board, he also explained how he had arranged for the seventh volume and announced that its publication had now been undertaken. He claimed that consulting with his opponents “would hinder the publishing of the volume” and that taking them into his confidence “would have been disastrous to the Society and its work.”12 This was obviously the first time Pierson learned about the book. Spill and Bohnet, too, probably learned about it only at this time. Fisher, one of the authors, already knew, of course. And Van Amburgh and Macmillan, as Rutherford’s confidants, were aware that the book was about to be published. Following the report, certain ones of those present, as a committee, prepared and presented a resolution favoring Rutherford and condemning his opponents.13 It is pretty clear that Van Amburgh and Macmillan were part of this committee, probably Rutherford himself as well. Spill, Bohnet and Fisher lived in Pennsylvania and had not been close enough to the events in Brooklyn to be useful here. Pierson again objected: “When the Committee which had drawn up the resolution presented it to me, I told them frankly that while I had nothing whatever against the brethren chosen, I did object to the appointment of a new Board …This resolution was drawn up by a Committee, whose original intention was to have it published, to which I objected.”14 Discussions following Pierson’s objection brought the meeting close to the noon meal. “Owing to the lateness of the hour, adjournment was then taken until 8:00 P.M.”15 The Noon Meal There was always a dinner break for the Bethel workers between noon and 1:15 p.m.16 The dinner room was situated in the basement of the Bethel building and it was large enough “to accommodate 200” persons.17 Because of the war and financial difficulties, the workforce at headquarters had been progressively reduced at the time of Russell’s death in 1916.18 At the sedition trial in 1918, Macmillan estimated that “perhaps 100 people” lived at headquarters in January, 1917. Rutherford, in his report to the board mentioned above, claimed that the office force had “decreased” following Russell’s death, and William F. Hudgings testified that “about seventy-five” resided at Bethel in June, 1918.19 The roughly 75 to 100 people living at headquarters were not the only ones who showed up in the dining room on July 17, 1917. A contemporary Watch Tower publication stated: “Frequently visitors drop in for a meal … and they are made very welcome.”20 Hence McGee and Pierson were present at that meal as were Rutherford’s newly appointed directors: Bohnet, Spill, Fisher, and Clayton J. Woodworth.21 Along with Fisher, Woodworth was an author of the new book, The Finished Mystery, the vaunted seventh volume. He had been given a special invitation to attend.22 Rutherford’s Announcements

The reason why Rutherford “had asked the family to be present at the noon meal” was that he was going to announce that the seventh volume was now available.23 He had hoped that his opponents, in spite of their declaration that they would not participate, would still appear at the announced board meeting in the forenoon. He claimed that he hoped to then successfully explain to them why he had appointed four new directors and that the controversy would be over. But when they failed to show up, he claimed, “they forced me to make a statement in the dining room with reference to the appointment of Brothers Spill, Bohnet, Fisher and Macmillan and the reason why I had taken this action.”24 He said that “at the conclusion of my statement of what led up to the condition, I stated that the Seventh Volume was there to be distributed to any who desired it.”25 So Rutherford first announced what he had done with regard to the board and then announced the publication of the seventh volume. His statement was not made as soon as “thanks to God” for the food had been given, as one of the Society’s modern accounts suggests,26 but “shortly after dinner, shortly after the meal,” as Van Amburgh testified during the Moyle trial.27 Clayton J. Woodworth claimed just a couple of weeks after the event that the book was announced at “1:00 p.m. on July 17, 1917.”28 I only mention these details to show just how careless later Watch Tower accounts are about what happened that day. All this fits with McGee’s information, who later wrote: Brother Rutherford said at the conclusion of the meal that he had some announcements to make which would, he trusted, make every one happy. I thought he had made it up with the Directors, and that all trouble was done away with. He had an opinion read from a Philadelphia lawyer, holding that the four brethren—Hirsh, Hoskins, Wright and Ritchie— were not on the board of Directors. In fact, the gist of the matter was that the only legal Directors were the president, vice president and treasurer, who had been elected as such at Allegheny … Brother Rutherford announced that he had appointed these other brethren to the so-called vacant posts of Directorship. He also announced that the seventh volume was ready for distribution. He said further that it had not been intended to distribute it so soon, but knowing of the trouble brewing they had hurried up the putting of it out…. He invited all hands there to receive the seventh volume.29 The above contemporary statements effectively dispose of the Watch Tower Society’s modern claim that Rutherford had arranged to put a copy of the volume at each place before the meal.30 “The first copies were in the Bethel Dining Room at the noon hour”31 but had been placed “on one of the dining room tables”32 and “had not yet been given to the Bethel family.”33 Massive Protests Rutherford remarked further: “It became necessary for me to make a statement publicly in the Dining Room, which was done Tuesday, the 17th of July, at the conclusion of which the attorney for Messrs. Hirsh, Hoskins and others made a lengthy statement, followed by impassioned speeches on the part of Brothers Hirsh and Hoskins.”34

McGee’s reaction to Rutherford’s announcement was severe: “He had taken the law into his own hands, an unlawful thing to do. Of course, protests were made against this surprisingly willful course. I advised the spurious members not to accept the places offered them.” He held that Rutherford had acted “illegally,” behaving “as if the opinion of a lawyer was the judgment of a Court” and that “nothing but the judgment of a Court could declare the offices vacant.”35 According to Van Amburgh’s testimony in 1943, McGee spoke “for three quarters of an hour” on this occasion.36 A heated discussion went on in the dining room for “about five hours,” from “1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.”37 Rutherford made it clear that quite a few took part in what amounted to a bitter debate: “We have heard a statement at length by Brothers Rutherford, Hirsh, Hoskins, Wright, Ritchie, Macmillan, Van Amburgh, Baeuerlein and others.”38 McGee and Johnson assisted the four ousted directors. Johnson reported: “That afternoon six brothers, myself among them, protested against his arbitrariness, in ousting these brethren.”39 Johnson also claimed that they were “supported by others in the Bethel family.”40 These efforts, however, were not “headed” by Johnson, as one of the Society’s accounts has claimed.41 Rutherford singled out “Hirsh and Hoskins” as making impassioned speeches and attacking him, doing so twice in his account.42 He did not even mention Johnson in this connection. Van Amburgh later pointed out that Hirsh “talked for over one hour” on this occasion.43 On this occasion, it was McGee who showed how untenable Rutherford’s legal position was. Rutherford claimed that as president he had the legal right to fill the vacancies he alleged existed on the board. McGee demonstrated from the Watch Tower charter that only directors could be elected as president, vice president and treasurer. And since Rutherford, Pierson and Van Amburgh as a consequence of Rutherford’s own argument had not been legal directors in January, 1917, they could not then be legally elected to office!44 In other words, if Wright, Hoskins, Ritchie and Hirsh were not legal directors, neither were Rutherford, Pierson and Van Amburgh. For that reason, these three could not then be legal officers of the Society. About a week later, Davies, Auerbach and Cornell, a reputable New York law firm, pointed out the same thing as had McGee.45 Consequently, if Rutherford himself was neither a legal director nor a legal president, he of course had no legal right to appoint other directors. According to the charter, Rutherford had played foul when he claimed that election to office was also election to be a director.46 As McGee pointed out later: “The charter provides that the President shall be elected from among the Directors, and not that those elected President, Vice President or Treasurer shall be considered as elected to the Board of Directors, and no such arrangement was made in the Charter authorizing any such construction.”47 Indeed, Russell understood the charter in that way. Immediately after incorporation he stated: The incorporators are the Directors, named below, from among whom the officers indicated have just been elected for the year 1885.48 (Emphasis added) It is clear, therefore, that H.M. McCaughey, Rutherford’s external lawyer, was completely wrong when he claimed that the shareholders had elected three officers, “who by virtue of their

election to office, and the terms of the charter naming the first Board of Directors, possess all the rights and privileges of Directors.”49 McCaughey completely disregarded the stipulation of paragraph 8 in the charter that “these officers shall be chosen from among the Board of Directors annually.”50 The only tangible explanation why McCaughey offered this erroneous claim is that Rutherford needed it and had asked for it. Pierson Realizes that Rutherford’s Position Was Untenable The arguments presented by the ousted directors, and especially by McGee, had a profound impact on Pierson: “After hearing the discussion by the different brethren, including Brother McGee’s summing up of the articles of the charter, I came to the conclusion that the statements concerning the legal standing of the members of the Board did not place the situation in its true light; for if four of the seven members of the Board were not legally Directors, then the other three, who had been elected as the Society’s officers by the shareholders, would have the same standing as far as membership in the Board of Directors is concerned.”51 To show why Pierson was influenced as he was, a full examination of Rutherford’s legal claims will be undertaken in chapter 12. If McGee’s legal reasoning impressed Pierson, it is no wonder that a number of the staff were similarly impressed and voiced their concern. As will be shown later on, those who did so would soon have to pay a price. At the extended afternoon debate, Rutherford, according to his own claim, offered to resign as president “if such resignation would bring peace.”52 But since he knew that his opponents did not wish to remove him as president at this stage, this offer was simply a political ploy. Wright, Hoskins, Ritchie and Hirsh just wanted him to accept the limited role the charter allotted to the president—no less and no more. Accepting their position would have brought peace, but Rutherford never offered to accept such a limited role. The Seventh Volume not the Issue Since 1955, the Society has claimed that it was the publication of the seventh volume that caused the intense controversy on July 17, 1917.53 The opponents “opposed the move,” they have claimed, “because they had not been consulted.”54 Their latest oral presentation asserts that “they used this occasion to bring accusation against Brother Rutherford for having gone ahead and published this without their permission and their knowledge.”55 This is absolute falsehood! The testimony of Clayton J. Woodworth in the 1918 sedition trial shows this clearly: Q[uestion]. You discussed the book fully that day? A[nswer]. No, sir, there was no opportunity to discuss the book that day. [Emphasis added] Q[uestion]. What was the celebration about?

A[nswer]. There was some considerable discussion about the new directors that went into effect that day. Q[uestion]. Did you learn that day that some of the old directors had opposed the publication of the book? A[nswer]. No, sir.56 Van Amburgh also showed that the book was no bone of contention the day it was presented in the Bethel dining room: Q[uestion]. Well now when did they make objection to the book? A[nswer]. After it was published. Q[uestion]. Prior to the 17th of July, 1917? A[nswer]. No, sir. Q[uestion]. About that time? A[nswer]. After that time.57 When asked if the book was part of the difficulty at that time, Rutherford himself admitted “It was not. Did not include ‘The finished Mystery’ in the slightest.”58 Because Rutherford attached prophetic significance to the circumstances connected with the seventh volume, it became an established view that the deposed directors were the “murmurers, complainers” in the parable of the penny of Matthew 20:9-12. They were seen as ungrateful when they attacked Rutherford after the seventh volume had been announced.59 For that reason many were led to believe that the directors had actually protested against the volume when it was announced. But Rutherford had never actually stated that, and both Woodworth and Van Amburgh flatly denied it. This explains how the directors and Paul Johnson reacted, and there is every reason to believe their statements regarding this. The directors explained: “The matter of the seventh volume was entirely outside of the issues under discussion on that occasion. None of the brethren accused of being ‘murmurers’ said anything about the Seventh Volume, nor did they entertain any feeling against the volume…. We repeat; Not once did we refer, either in thought or in word, to the Volume.”60 Johnson concurred: “Not the remotest hint was made in these protests to anything connected with Vol. 7, which had not yet been given to the Bethel family and whose sending to others was unknown to the protestants.”61 Macmillan, who was present in the dining room on July 17, 1917, undoubtedly witnessed what Woodworth, Van Amburgh, and Rutherford, as well as Johnson and the directors, did about the fact that The Finished Mystery played no part in the bitter debate that took place. But instead, he

falsely supported the Society’s long-standing myth that the directors “raised vehement objections” when the so-called seventh volume was published.62 Although I have already dealt to a brief extent with the views of at least some Watch Tower leaders—especially P.S.L. Johnson—regarding the prophetic significance of the “Parable of the Penny” found at Matthew 20:1-16, I will explain below in greater detail the prophetic interpretations touched on above concerning the “steward of the penny” as used by those leaders. When the full account is given and documented, many who will have read A.H. Macmillan’s Faith on the March, wherein he mocks Johnson for claiming to be that “steward,” will be taken aback. The Adjourned Board Meeting Resumed A couple of hours after the dining room turmoil, Rutherford’s new board met again: “8:00 P.M. —Continued adjourned meeting with all the members present. Further discussion of the resolution followed.”63 Everyone except Pierson was in favor of the suggested resolution and signed it. Pressure was brought to bear on Pierson to follow suit. After resisting for hours, he finally yielded and signed: “Before I signed, however, a number of statements to which I objected were stricken out. After being thus modified, it was further agreed that copies of this resolution should be sent only to Classes and brethren that had heard of the trouble and requested an explanation. I held out for some hours against a thing I did not believe in, but since the brethren had changed it, eliminating some objectionable paragraphs, and agreeing to send it only to inquiring friends, I finally signed, as a compromise.”64 McGee claimed it was Rutherford who “labored with Brother Pierson, the latter says, for several hours and finally induced him unwillingly to sign.”65 Paul Johnson gives us a glimpse of what may have gone on during this board meeting before Pierson finally surrendered. Although Johnson’s statement, made in 1938, is hearsay, it may well be true since Pierson later broke with Rutherford and the Watch Tower Society.66 Johnson wrote: “The night of July 17, Bro. Pierson, in a meeting of J.F.R’s Board, insisted on his restoring the ousted Directors; and his threat of resignation, if this was not done, somewhat halted J.F.R. in his course.”67 The reason why Pierson finally signed, he says, was that he felt “that there was a measure of wrong on both sides.” He mentioned that some of the directors “had made statements at Philadelphia and other places which called for an explanation.” Thus “a letter of some kind was due the friends who asked for such an explanation.”68 Two days later the resolution would be sent to most of the Bible Student congregations in America, contrary to the deal struck with Pierson. When Pierson learned this, he regretted having signed the resolution.69 The resolution was a remarkable document showing how desperate Rutherford was for support. One amazing paragraph shows that he actually was suffering from a serious case of hubris: “Be it further resolved, that we believe that our dear Brother Rutherford is the man the Lord has chosen to carry on the work that yet remains to be done in Pastor Russell’s name and in the name of the

Lord; and that no other in the Church is as well qualified as he is to do this work; or could have received at the Lord’s hand greater evidence of his love and favor.”70 (Emphasis added) Some might argue that this was the work of other members of the committee. However, Rutherford was present, and he therefore went along with the statement about himself. This hubris on Rutherford’s part would not diminish as the years of his leadership went by. One of the worst examples of his self-esteem was published in The Watchtower, July 15, 1939, page 223. There, he approvingly made public a letter from a Watch Tower pioneer evangelist praising him in the following idolatrous way: “By appointing you as the visible leader in his mighty theocratic arrangement Jehovah has conferred upon you an honor the like of which has never before been accorded to any man. I rejoice with you in the great honor thus conferred. Moreover, I am firmly convinced that Jehovah has thus honored you because of the fullness of your unselfish devotion to him in the performance of your commission.” Accordingly, the minutes the board meeting of July 17, 1917, ended in this way: “It was moved by Brother Spill and seconded by Brother Bohnet, that the Resolution be adopted and spread upon the minutes of the Society. Motion carried, and Resolution is signed by all members of the Board. Adjournment then taken until 8:00 A.M. July 18th.”71 Considering that some hours earlier McGee had advised Rutherford’s new directors not to accept the places offered them, it is remarkable that Spill and Bohnet acted so boldly. But Rutherford knew that he had appointed people he could rely on completely, and they may have been instructed in advance to act as they did. Appeal to Prophecy It remains to deal with the prophetic significance soon attached to the five-hour dispute on July 17, 1917. People on both sides of the controversy claimed that the turmoil in the Bethel dining room fulfilled Biblical prophecy. Menta Sturgeon, one of Russell’s most learned associates, sided with “the opposition” in the fall of 1917. Before the annual meeting on January 5, 1918, he advanced the view that the four ousted directors as well as Johnson and McGee, who had strongly protested against Rutherford on July 17, were “the six men with the Slaughter Weapons of Ezek. 9,” who then began the antitypical “first smiting of Jordan.”72 There is no evidence that any of the other prominent Rutherford opponents accepted this exposition. Johnson expressly rejected it.73 On the other hand, Rutherford claimed that “the Scriptures pointed out that there would be murmurers, complainers, etc.” when the seventh volume was published.74 This referred to the Parable of the Penny outlined in Matthew 20:1-16. The workers mentioned in the parable were to be given a “penny” each as reward. Rutherford claimed that the seventh volume was that penny, as can be seen on page 3, the dedicatorial page of the book, showing a “penny,” accompanied by a reference to Matthew 20:9. He claimed that the “murmurers” were those who attacked him “immediately” following his announcement of the book. He certainly did not claim that his opponents had objected to the publication, but nonetheless felt that their attacks on him were a remarkable “coincidence” that fulfilled the prophecy.75

Figure 4. The Finished Mystery, seventh volume, page 3 According to the parable, a “steward” was to give the “penny,”76 and if Rutherford felt that the “murmuring” and the “penny” of the parable were related to the seventh volume, he of course also had a view about the “steward” in this regard. Who that steward was in his mind, he

indicated when he wrote: “I have had the blessed privilege of a little part in placing before the Church Brother Russell’s last work, the Seventh Volume of STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES.”77 The fact that he had arranged “to send it forth by mail so that each one would receive it practically at the same time”78 underscores how seriously he took his self-imposed role as “the steward.” What Rutherford personally did not spell out clearly, out of caution, his close associates did with his approval. This will be dealt with later on. Johnson offered the following apt comment: “One reason why he, without the Board’s authorization, had Vol. VII prepared, printed and distributed was his belief that he was the steward.”79 The management crisis had not yet reached its climax. Before it would do so, both peace efforts and further confrontation would take place. An unexpected move was in store for the next day, July 18.

Footnotes 1 Light after Darkness, p. 18 2 Ibid, pp. 8, 9 3 Ibid, p. 18 4 Clayton J. Woodworth and George H. Fisher, STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES Series VII The Finished Mystery, 75,000 Edition (Brooklyn, N.Y.: International Bible Students Association, 1917), p. 2 5 Light after Darkness, p. 13 6 Harvest Siftings, Part II, p. 32 7 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, p. 1268 8 Ibid, p. 1269 9 Ibid, pp. 1269, 1270 10 Light after Darkness, p. 8 11 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, pp. 1274-1279 12 Ibid, pp. 1277, 1278 13 Ibid, p. 1279; Light after Darkness, p. 8 14 Ibid, p. 8 15 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, p. 1279 16 Ibid, p. 1317 17 The Bible Students Monthly, Vol. 3, nr. 13. 18 The Present Truth, December 9, 191 8, p. 3 19 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, pp. 841, 1277, 302 20 The Bible Students Monthly, Vol. 3, nr. 13 21 Light after Darkness, p. 7 22 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, p. 632 23 Harvest Siftings, Part II, p. 32 24 Ibid 25 Harvest Siftings, p. 20 26 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 91

27 Moyle vs. Franz et al, 1943, transcript of record, p. 1514 28 C.J. Woodworth: The Parable of the Penny. “Extract from an address at Boston Convention of I.B.S.A., August 4th, 1917,” p. 3. Undated but August,1917. Printed privately 29 Light after Darkness, p. 18 30 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 91. This mistake is repeated on a DVD produced in 2010 by the Watch Tower Society titled Jehovah’s Witnesses Faith in Action Part I: Out of Darkness. 31 Harvest Siftings, p. 19 32 Letter from Rose Hirsh to Rud Persson, February 25, 1974 33 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 16 34 Harvest Siftings, p. 17,18 35 Light after Darkness, p. 18 36 Moyle vs. Franz et al, 1943, transcript of record, p. 1514 37 Letter from Rose Hirsh to Rud Persson, February 25, 1974; C.J. Woodworth: The Parable of the Penny, p. 4 38 Harvest Siftings, p. 1 39 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 16 40 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 4, 1938, p. 202 41 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 91 42 Harvest Siftings, pp. 18, 20 43 Moyle vs. Franz et al, 1943, transcript of record, p. 1514 44 Light after Darkness, p. 8 45 Letter from Davies, Auerbach & Cornell to J.D. Wright, A.I. Ritchie, I.F. Hoskins, and R.H. Hirsh, New York, July 23, 1917, as published in a circular by Wright, Ritchie, Hoskins and Hirsh, Brooklyn July 27, 1917. 46 Harvest Siftings, Part II, p. 32; Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, p. 1269 47 Facts for Shareholders, p. 4 48 Zion’s Watch Tower, January 1885; The Watch Tower Reprints, 1919, p. 707 49 Harvest Siftings, p. 16 50 Light after Darkness, p. 21; The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 327 51 Light after Darkness, p. 8 52 Harvest Siftings, Part II, p. 32 53 The Watchtower, April 1, 1955, p. 205; Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose, 1959, pp. 70, 71, 78; DVD: Jehovah’s Witnesses Faith in Action Part One: Out of Darkness, 2010 54 Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose, p. 71 55 DVD: Jehovah’s Witnesses Faith in Action Part I: Out of Darkness 56 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, p. 632, 57 Ibid, p. 723 58 Ibid, p. 982 59 Harvest Siftings, pp. 19, 20 60 Light after Darkness, p. 13 61 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 16 62 See Faith on the March, pp. 80, 81 63 Rutherford et al vs. The United States,1918, transcript of record, p. 1279 64 Light after Darkness, p. 9 65 Ibid, p. 18

66 The Herald of Christ’s Kingdom, January 15 & February 1, 1925; December 1, 1925 67 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 4, p. 204 68 Light after Darkness, p. 8. 69 Ibid, p. 9 70 Harvest Siftings, p.1; Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, pp. 1280, 1281 71 Ibid, p. 1281 72 The Present Truth, April 19, 1919, p. 70 73 The Present Truth, December 9, 1918, p. 11 74 Harvest Siftings, p. 19 75 Ibid, pp, 19,20 76 See Matthew 20:8 77 Harvest Siftings p. 24 78 Ibid, p. 20 79 The Present Truth, May 1, 1934, p. 68

Chapter 11 Peace Efforts and More Confrontation After the five-hour debate, Rutherford realized that the controversy was far from over. Because of McGee’s firm stand against his radical measures, he must have feared that the ousted directors might take him to court in order to restore the original board, as they saw it. That a number of the staff had spoken in favor of his opponents1 was alarming, too. In addition, he must have been worried about Pierson’s less than whole-hearted support. He undoubtedly realized that Pierson at heart still favored the ousted directors. Since the new board was to meet again at 8 o’clock A.M. on July 18, Pierson as well as Spill, Bohnet and Fisher, stayed overnight and were present at the breakfast meal. Against this background Johnson’s comments regarding the morning meal on July 18 become quite interesting. He noted that on this occasion Rutherford “made a very humble prayer, confessing some of his weaknesses before the Bethel family.”2 This prompted Johnson “to express appreciation and to offer him help.”3 Just before this Hoskins had asked him for advice on the situation and Johnson then offered a proposition that Hoskins accepted, and which Johnson now offered to Rutherford. This resulted in a meeting between Johnson and most of Rutherford’s new board and to further conversations. The outcome was that Johnson would become a mediator.4 Pierson undoubtedly welcomed this. It is fairly certain that Johnson, when he suggested mediation between Rutherford and the ousted directors, also had his own case in view. He was hoping that in the end his earlier British mission could be settled in a way more favorable to him than the decision of the board meeting on June 20. This, however, does not lessen the significance of his endeavors as mediator. According to the minutes, the 8 o’clock board meeting did not deal with the controversy at all. A very generous contributor to the Tract Fund was facing financial problems and was asking for help. Macmillan moved and Pierson seconded that the man “be placed on the regular Pilgrim list” and given a monthly allowance for his family until further notice.5 It was further “decided to hold the next regular meeting on August 6th unless otherwise called by the President.”6 This took into account that there would be a general convention for Bible Students in Boston August 1-5, 1917. At the time of this announced board meeting, the management crisis would have passed its peak, with several dramatic events and maneuvers. Johnson’s Mediation Efforts Rutherford confirmed that Johnson acted as a mediator at this time: “He came to me in the capacity of a mediator or peace-maker, expressing a desire to establish peace. I let him pursue his course. He did not deceive me at all.”7 It is true, however, that Johnson did not deceive Rutherford, but Rutherford deceived Johnson! For the Watch Tower president had no intention

of yielding one inch; his sole object for agreeing to mediation was to buy time. Just a couple of months later Johnson explained: Both Bro. Rutherford and the four ousted directors accepted my offer of mediation on July 18 on the basis agreed to by both parties, that the legal questions involved should be referred to the decision of a court in a friendly suit…. My first difficulty as mediator was caused by Bro. Rutherford’s refusal to keep a promise given [to] me several times [on] July 18, i.e., to let the four brothers have the legal opinion which was read July 17 before the family as the legal ground for the ousting; and which they desired to have their counsel study. This refusal brought me into difficulty with the four. I tried in vain for an hour to persuade Bro. Rutherford to keep his promise. Then he refused to submit the case to a court in a friendly suit. I submitted another proposition, i.e., that each side select a lawyer and that these two select a third; and before these as an Arbitration Board, let the legal points be argued by counsel representing each side, both sides binding themselves beforehand in writing to accept the decision of this Board on the legal, points; and afterward to get together as brethren and settle matters scripturally. The four accepted this proposition, which all will agree is fair. Apparently succeeding at first to gain, later I sought in vain to maintain Bro. Rutherford’s adherence to this fair plan.8 If Rutherford had been sure that he had the law on his side, Johnson’s suggestions would have served to convince his opponents that he was right. In fact, he personally should have proposed those measures. Instead, he refused to let the directors have the legal opinion he had used, refused to submit the issue to a court in a friendly suit, and refused to submit the legal issues to a fairly composed arbitration board. He did this after first having agreed to these proposals. The only reasonable conclusion to draw from this is that Rutherford knew that he had acted illegally when he ousted his opponents and appointed four new directors. He also realized that McGee would detect flaws in McCaughey’s opinion, and that a friendly court or an arbitration board of lawyers would not uphold what he had done. But by playing along with Johnson’s suggestions temporarily, he found time to fortify his position, both at Bethel and among Bible Students at large. Petitions Signed Under Duress When Johnson’s mediation was accepted, petitions in Rutherford’s favor were already being circulated at Watch Tower headquarters. Rutherford used his trusted supporters to do the circulating. The dining room debate had revealed that a number of the staff were sympathetic towards the ousted directors, and that could not be tolerated. A loyalty test was now required of Bethel workers, and Rutherford used the results when he later published his account of the organizational dispute. Such publication in fact had already been decided. Most of the residents at Bethel had their place of work at the nearby Tabernacle, where the Society’s office was situated and where the stock of literature was kept. But some of the residents were assigned to work at the Bethel building. In addition to certain administrative

duties performed there, the large Bethel Home had to be maintained, and all the workers had their meals there. Thus, since the work was done in two different places, two petitions were circulated at headquarters, one for the Tabernacle workers and one for the Bethel workers. It is obvious that every worker was asked to sign one of these petitions. Both petitions were published on page 18 in Rutherford’s pamphlet Harvest Siftings and were dated “July 18, 1917.” The petitions as printed, with one brief comment by Rutherford, follow here: July 18, 1917. To WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: We the workers of the Tabernacle wish to express our appreciation of our President as the Manager of the work as directed in the office of which we are servants, to the effect that not once was an unkind word uttered to any of us during office hours, or at any other time. We have observed improvements and efficiency in the Office which has been gratifying. Never has the President (Brother Rutherford) ever showed any desire to domineer or boss the work. Very few times has he visited the Tabernacle, or in any way put himself forward. We wish to openly state that it is our desire to faithfully serve the Lord and His people under the direction of the present management, as we believe the Lord is blessing this arrangement. We have not one fault to find, but can truthfully say that it is a pleasure to work in the Office as it has been directed since the Election of Brother Rutherford. W.T. HOOPER N. GUZZETTA S. LEVINE HARRIET BARBER J.A. BAEUERLEIN FLORENCE PACK MARY U. WOODARD ABNER J. ESHLEMAN GERTRUDE E. PENNY HELEN MAY COHEN J.A. MEGGISON A.S. ESHLEMAN HERMANN H. BOERNER PEARCE R. ARNOLD GORDON STURGEON W.H. BAEUERLEIN LUIE T. VAN AMBURGH J.W. FERGUSON W.BELLA LUSK W.E. VAN AMBURGH MARY T. HARRIMAN M.L. ROBERTS IDA WILSON WM. F. HUDGINGS SISTER MILLER A.S. ZAKIAN PEARL ELLISSR. M.E. WOODLEY

M.E. WOODLEY F.G. MASON J. DE CECCA FRED L. MASON A.H. MACMILLAN THEO. BOERNER MABEL A. RUSSELL A. DONALD J.L. MAYER R.J. MARTIN G.S. MILLER A similar list was handed me by the workers in the Bethel: July 18, 1917. DEAR BROTHER RUTHERFORD: Realizing that you are under a great strain at the present time as a result of the false accusations that have been made against you, - we the undersigned desire to express our love and appreciation to you for your faithfulness in the Lord’s service, and by the Lord’s grace and help we will stand by you through thick and thin unto the end. BRO. MAYBERRY HILMA NYLIN SR. MAYBERRY SR. HUDGINGS LEWIS T. COHEN SR. J.DE CECCA GEORGE JONES MARY BARBER A.C. ANDERSON FLORENCE ROBERTS W.T. BAKER C. TOMLINS FRED. G. WHELPTON V. FRANGE C.E. FROST EUGENE KELLENBERGER. MRS. JENNIE M. BARBER The published petitions showed that 39 of the Tabernacle workers approved of “the present management” and that 17 of the Bethel workers would “stand by” Rutherford “through thick and thin unto the end.” But the 56 signatures attached to these petitions did not represent an overwhelming majority of the 75-100 people living on the premises. And it later turned out that some of the signatories had put their names on the petitions only reluctantly. The directors claimed that the petitions were presented with the understanding “that all who refused to sign would be dismissed from service.”9 One of the signatories, F.G. Mason, later reported: “I very much regret that I was so weak as to have signed these documents; others acknowledge being

similarly guilty. I signed the same under protest and so informed the person securing the names, as well as the Management.”10 Among those who refused to sign were Russell’s private secretary Menta Sturgeon and his wife Florence. However, their 19-year-old son Gordon did sign, and that lends credence to Mason’s claim. Menta and Florence left headquarters about November 1, 1917.11 Gordon apparently left at the same time. When he signed his Draft Registration Card in 1918, he was working as a telegraph manager. If allowance is made for workers signing the petitions under duress, it is quite possible that only a slight majority of those living at headquarters, or perhaps less, were decided supporters of Rutherford. If Rutherford’s position had been solid, why then would so many of the workers have had sympathy for the ousted directors? They had everything to lose from showing that sympathy, and they knew it. Paul Johnson reported that by early November 1917 “about 35 members of the Bethel family” had been forced to leave.12 A couple of weeks later the ousted directors reported that “some fifty efficient workers” had been removed from Bethel “since the present management took control.”13 When all this is taken into consideration, it is obvious that Macmillan’s claim that the office force “threatened to quit” if the four directors got control14 had little basis in fact. First, quite a few workers would be in no position to quit for the simple reason that they would then have had problems finding food and shelter as well as employment. This is underscored by the fact that some signed the petitions precisely because they feared to lose their position. And those who refused to sign would of course have stayed if the old board members were restored. Second, the four ousted directors had wanted the entire board, including Rutherford and Van Amburgh, to be in charge and not just four of them. If Rutherford and Van Amburgh had gone along with their wishes, there would have been no reason for anyone to quit. Rutherford’s Letter to The Ecclesias While Johnson was trying to mediate between the contending parties, Rutherford took another step to make sure that his move to replace his opponents on the board would meet with general acceptance. The resolution adopted at the evening session of his board on July 17 was sent out, not only to congregations having heard of the trouble, as agreed to by Pierson, but to most, perhaps all, congregations in the United States. It was accompanied by a covering letter dated July 19, 1917, which reads: To the Ecclesias, Dear Brethren:At the direction of the Board of Directors of the Society we are herewith sending you a copy of a resolution passed by the Board on the 17th day of July, 1917. We beg to advise that the Society’s President has prepared a statement, in obedience to the direction of the resolution, a copy of which will be furnished to any Class that may request it.

Praying the Lord’s continued blessing upon you all, and with much Christian love, we remain Yours in His service, Watch Tower B. & T. Society [stamp]15 This was the first printed material sent to the Bible Students at large about the management difficulties. In more recent times the Watch Tower Society has accused Rutherford’s opponents of publishing “letters and other material” about the troubles.16 But it has never pointed out that this publicity was largely in defense of charges printed and broadcast by Rutherford and his supporters. When sending out the resolution of July 17, Rutherford betrayed Pierson, who had signed it on the specific condition that it should only be given a very limited circulation. In his letter to Ritchie of July 26, Pierson voiced his disappointment: “When our Secretary showed me the resolution which had been sent to the Class, I could not help but think that it had been sent far and wide to all classes; and I felt that I had not taken the proper course in signing it even after it had been amended. Now that I have reason to believe a general circulation of this resolution has been made, I want to assure you that had I foreseen this I should never have signed the paper.”17 During the sedition trial in 1918 Van Amburgh admitted under oath that “quite a good many” copies of the resolution had been sent out.18 The covering letter stated that Rutherford had already “prepared a statement” that would be furnished “to any Class that may request it.” By this action he indicated clearly that he was unwilling to accept meaningful mediation between the parties. The statement referred to was probably only a preliminary one. The final one was called “Harvest Siftings” and bore the date August 1, 1917. It contained material dated July 23,19 something that could not have been available when the covering letter was written. Both the covering letter and the resolution contain amusing statements. That the board had “requested” Rutherford to “prepare a full statement” about the matter and that he had done so “in obedience to the direction of the resolution” gives the impression that the new board was in actual control and gave the order. In actual fact, it was Rutherford himself who was behind this “direction.” If the effort had not been initiated or pushed by Rutherford himself, it is all but certain that no resolution would have been prepared and sent to the congregations. At best, the new board sensed what Rutherford wanted and acted accordingly. So Rutherford hid behind his puppet board. Johnson realized this when he called the covering letter “Brother Rutherford’s circular letter of July 19, 1917.”20 The resolution stressed that the board had the “utmost confidence” in Rutherford and went on to say: “We believe that our dear Brother Rutherford is the man the Lord has chosen to carry on the work that yet remains to be done in Pastor Russell’s name and in the name of the Lord; and that no other in the Church is as well qualified as he to do this work; or could have received at the Lord’s hand greater evidence of His love and favor.” Such a statement clearly indicates that

Rutherford and his supporters were under considerable strain. They fully realized that the ousted directors were still to be reckoned with. McGee Brings Rutherford to Tears On July 19 there was also a long verbal confrontation between the two parties. As outlined earlier, Isaac Hoskins and Robert Hirsh had visited the Philadelphia congregation of Bible Students on July 15 and made certain charges against Rutherford and Van Amburgh. Not surprisingly, the Philadelphia Bible Students desired more information. The ousted directors later reported: “The friends at Philadelphia called both sides of this controversy to their city …, and for four hours had the subject discussed from both viewpoints. This is the only Ecclesia that has heard the matter fairly set forth.”21 The Philadelphia congregation was a large one, numbering “about 600 members” in 1916.22 And it established the time and venue for a meeting of the two bitterly divided parties that occurred on July 19, 1917.23 On that occasion Macmillan and Van Amburgh supported Rutherford.24 Johnson felt he could not participate, as he was then acting as a mediator. So he did not even attend the meeting.25 McGee supported the directors on the legal issues. Rutherford mentioned his confrontation with Hirsh on this occasion,26 but understandably did not mention his encounter with McGee. Commenting on one of the legal points discussed at that time, the ousted directors explained: “Although he listened to Brother McGee discuss this and other points for an hour before the Philadelphia Church, where both sides of the case were presented, Brother Rutherford, although he followed in rebuttal, never once referred to this fact, nor to any other legal point raised by Brother McGee, who is Assistant to the Attorney General of the state of New Jersey.”27 Rutherford proved helpless during the meeting, and the Philadelphia congregation never forgot his defeat. Commenting on another, later debate in the congregation, with different participants, the then independent Philadelphia Ecclesia stated in a resolution dated January 5, 1919, that this later debate resulted in a “collapse” of the points of one side that “seemed to be as complete as the collapse of Brother Rutherford’s and his supporters’ points” at a discussion “held before the Philadelphia Church July 19, 1917.”28 Although Johnson was not present on this occasion, he did get the reports of several attendants, including the four directors. He soon afterwards moved to Philadelphia and he became a leading elder in the then independent Bible Student church there. Thus, there is good reason to believe that he knew what he was talking about. I accept his detailed account of what happened: On July 19, in a quasi-pilgrim trip to the Philadelphia Ecclesia he [Rutherford], assisted especially by A.H.M., W.E.V. [Macmillan and Van Amburgh] and quite a number of that church, sought to defend himself against the charges I.F. Hoskins and R.H. Hirsh, made there the Sunday night before, and the charges that all four directors, supported by F.H. McGee, made against him then for ousting the four on July 17. … J.F.R. entered the fray with them before that church on the legal questions that he raised on the Society, and he was

thereon by F.H. McGee so badly worsted that he called on A.H.M., W.E.V. and other supporters to transfer the question from the Society to the Peoples Pulpit Association, through which he claimed absolute control of the Society. The transfer of the argument did him no good, for on this F.H. McGee as thoroughly refuted him. J.F.R. broke out in tears, weeping loudly at his complete defeat. … Wherever the report of this encounter penetrated the Societyites were pained.29 The Philadelphia congregation now realized that Rutherford’s legal position did not hold water. Just two weeks later, on August 5, 1917, they wrote to Rutherford and urged him to call “a special meeting of the stockholders of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society to be held at as early a date as possible.”30 They added: “Neglect to call such a meeting will probably lose for you the support of Philadelphia Church and many of the Lord’s people scattered abroad.”31 Rutherford declined to call such a special shareholder’s meeting, and, as could be expected, there was a significant exodus from the Philadelphia congregation as directed by the Watch Tower Society. Raymond Grant Jolly, who was an elder in that church at the time, later wrote that “more than half of the ecclesia” sided against the party line when the separation came.32 The Watch Tower, March 15, 1918, page 94 published a “resolution of loyalty” from the remainder of the original Philadelphia church, numbering “about 200.” If that figure can be trusted, that large congregation might have shrunk from “about 600 members” in 1916 to “about 200” in early 1918! Those who left considered themselves the true Philadelphia ecclesia. Those who remained tended to excuse Rutherford in spite of his clear defeat in the debate with McGee. This is obviously reflected in the loyalty resolution published in The Watch Tower referred to above where it is stated “that any mistakes that may have been made are of the head and not of the heart” and that the Lord would “overrule all to the advancement of the cause.”33 As there had now been two debates between McGee and Rutherford on the latter’s legal arguments for creating a new board, it is now appropriate to take a close look at these arguments. This analysis will be made in the next chapter. Though quite involved the legal chapter will contain shocking facts that simply cannot be left out of the story.

Footnotes 1 Jehovah’s Witness in the Divine Purpose, p. 71; 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 91 2 Epiphany Studies, Vol 4, p. 204 3 Ibid 4 Ibid 5 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, p. 1282 6 Ibid 7 Harvest Siftings, p. 23 8 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 17 9 Light after Darkness, p. 9 10 Ibid p. 15

11 The Present Truth, April 19, 1919, p. 70 12 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 18 13 Facts for Shareholders, p. 8 14 Faith on the March, p. 77 15 A photocopy of this covering letter and the resolution mentioned are published in Appendices 6 and 7. 16 The Watchtower, April 1, 1955, p. 205. See also Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose, p.71 and Jehovah’s Witnesses Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom, p. 68. 17 Light after Darkness, p. 9 18 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, p. 727 19 Harvest Siftings, p. 19 20 Paul S.L. Johnson, Another Harvest Siftings Reviewed, (Philadelphia, Pa: August 22, 1918. Printed privately), p. 5 21 Light after Darkness, p. 20 22 “An Autobiographical Sketch by Pastor Raymond Grant Jolly,” The BIBLE STANDARD AND HERALD OF CHRIST’S KINGDOM (Chester Springs, Pa.: The Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement), May, 1979, p. 29 23 Harvest Siftings Part II, pp. 29, 30 24 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, p. 406 25 Ibid 26 Harvest Siftings, p. 24; Harvest Siftings, Part II, pp. 29,30 27 Light after Darkness, p. 7 28 The Present Truth, March 17, 1919, p. 61 29 Epiphany Studies, Vol 10, p. 406 30 Light after Darkness, p. 20 31 Ibid 32 The Bible Standard, May 1979, p. 29 33 The Watch Tower, March 15, 1918, p. 94

Chapter 12 Rutherford’s Legal Arguments An examination of the arguments Rutherford used in the 1917 Watch Tower management controversy will help to explain why he refused to allow independent legal settlement and why he was helpless when he encountered F.H. McGee. Let us take a look at his arguments one by one. In addition to claims based on Pennsylvania corporate law, Rutherford also claimed support of the Watch Tower Society’s charter in a number of instances. Yet in another instance, he rejected a stipulation in that charter concerning the lifetime appointment of directors as illegal. He also appealed to the charter of The Peoples Pulpit Association. The Charter Provision of Tenure “for life” The facts about the appointment of directors or board members are little known today since the Watch Tower Society has seen fit to suppress them in its presentations of history, as did A.H. Macmillan in his Faith on the March. These presentations state emphatically that Russell alone had appointed Rutherford’s opponents and that they had never been legally elected to the board by the shareholders, as required by Pennsylvania law. But at the same time, the Society and Macmillan claimed that Rutherford, and also the vice president and the secretary-treasurer, were legal directors as they were elected officers by the shareholders in January 1917.1 That Rutherford rejected a portion of the charter is documented most clearly in The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, page 328: “Paragraph VIII of the Charter provides that the Board of Directors shall hold their respective offices for life unless removed by a two-thirds vote of the shareholders. This provision of the Charter, however, is directly contrary to the law of Pennsylvania under which the SOCIETY was incorporated and hence that provision is null and void. The law provides that the Board of Directors shall be elected annually by the Shareholders.”2 Beyond that rejection, the Watch Tower Society’s claims are largely bogus. The Society’s modern claim that the ousted directors “had been merely appointees of Russell’s” is demonstrably false. Macmillan put forth that assertion in 1957, as did a number of Watch Tower histories of Jehovah’s Witnesses that appeared later.3 Yet the board had elected every one of them, as was required by the charter, a fact that Rutherford himself acknowledged.4 At long last the 2017 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses (which was not paginated) admitted that they “had been elected to the board in the past.” But his claim that election “for life” was illegal enabled him to assert that three of his opponents were not legal members of the board.5 However, Robert Hirsh, the fourth opponent, had only been elected by the board on March 29, 1917, and therefore, it was not possible to apply a law requiring annual election to him. As will be shown later, Rutherford had to deal differently with him.

In 1959, the Watch Tower Society claimed that “even before Russell’s death, Rutherford, as a lawyer, had pointed out to Russell that these members had not been properly elected.”6 This was a remarkable assertion to say the least. First, the Society failed to mention that Rutherford himself had only been elected as a director once and “for life” in 1910, in the same manner as his opponents had been.7 The ousted directors pointed out in Light after Darkness, page 23, that he was “elected exactly as they were.” In fact, during the sedition trial in 1918 Rutherford claimed that he had not been “legally elected.”8 So, if Rutherford really had told Russell that those who later became his opponents “had not been properly elected,” he must also have told him that he, Rutherford, “had not been properly elected.” And even if he did alert Russell to the fact that none of the directors of the Society were properly elected—something highly questionable—why did he as a lawyer not advise Russell to have this matter corrected by having the charter made to conform to Pennsylvania law? Also, there is reason to believe that had Rutherford urged Russell to take that step, he would have done so. For in 1884, he and his associates had obtained a charter for the Society to give its work “a legal standing.”9 Second, Rutherford could certainly not have pointed out to Russell that Hirsh “had not been properly elected,” as Hirsh never was a director of the Society during Russell’s lifetime. For these reasons it is easy to feel that the Society’s 1959 claim is pure fiction. In the autumn of 1917, Rutherford stated that he had “no doubt that the Lord directed the organization of this Corporation.”10 Of course, that should have included the writing and granting of the charter. To say that the charter contained an illegal provision was therefore a strange claim to make, even if it were true. However, as Paul Johnson later pointed out, “the examination of corporation charters, especially of non-profit business corporations doing a religious work, is more or less superficial.”11 As an example, he claimed that “the alleged illegal clause in the Society’s charter on Directors holding office for life … passed the examiner uncorrected.”12 We now in fact know that the 1874 corporate law of Pennsylvania really did specifically stipulate that directors were to be “chosen annually by the stockholders, or members.”13 Furthermore, this legislation concerning corporations was in effect when the Watch Tower Society’s charter was granted in 1884. Actually, McGee referred to this section of the law when Hoskins visited him in the early part of 1917. He stated: “I also called attention at that time to the statutory requirement that the Directors should be chosen by the shareholders annually and that the provision in the charter that they should hold for life unless removed by a two-thirds vote of the shareholders seemed to me to be in excess of the power conferred by law. He called my attention to the fact that the Judge of the Court had twice passed on it as legal and I then or later told him that, at any rate, the Directors continue to hold over legally until their successors are chosen by the shareholders and qualified.”14 Surprisingly, a few years later Paul Johnson concluded that the Society’s charter was not faulty after all: “The law of Pennsylvania to which Bro. Rutherford appealed as requiring the annual election of Director … expressly states that it is not retroactive, and hence does not apply to such corporations as were previously granted with the privileges of electing Directors for longer

terms. Therefore, the Charter of the Society, having been granted before that law was enacted, did not in the point just referred to become illegal by the passage of that law.”15 Johnson repeated this claim several times,16 but he was wrong. The 1874 legislation, as referred to in footnote thirteen above, is crystal clear. Of course, it would not be unreasonable if the law had allowed for some leeway to already existing corporations, but if so, only corporations already existing in 1874 would be so affected, and the Watch Tower Society was chartered later, in 1884. Its charter certainly had not “been granted before that law was enacted.” Rutherford claimed that the law requiring annual election by the shareholders was a “wise one” in view of what the result could otherwise be: “If the Directors were permitted to hold office for life and to elect their successors then it would be possible for seven men to absolutely and perpetually control the affairs of the SOCIETY in utter disregard of the wishes of the Shareholders. This the law will not permit.”17 This, however, misrepresented the situation as far as the Society’s charter was concerned, for as Rutherford himself pointed out, paragraph VIII of the charter clearly stated that directors could be “removed by a two-thirds vote of the Shareholders.”18 In fact, this reservation clause may well have played a role when the articles of incorporation were granted, for it shows that the shareholders could have had a decisive say on the matter at any time. By not replacing directors, the shareholders in effect approved of them. Knowing that his own standing as a director in the Society was exactly the same as that of his opponents, Rutherford had to claim that it was only his election as president that constituted him a director and that only Pierson’s election as vice president and Van Amburgh’s election as secretary and treasurer constituted them directors: The point is raised that if the four members mentioned were not legal members of the Board how was it possible for Brother Van Amburgh, Brother Pierson and myself to become legal Directors elected at Pittsburgh? I answer, we were elected by vote of the shareholders as officers of the SOCIETY, and by virtue of such election we were legally members of the Board, both under the terms of the law and the Charter. … It was the intention of the author of the Charter and the court granting the same, that the President, Vice-President and Secretary-Treasurer, by virtue of their election to these respective offices, are members of the Board of Directors.19 During the sedition trial in 1918, Rutherford stated that his election as president in 1917 made him a director “under the Pennsylvania statutes.”20 This claim will be dealt with below. Rutherford’s view about annual election of directors was implemented at the annual shareholders’ meeting on January 5, 1918. Seven directors were then elected “for the ensuing year.”21 But when the majority of the directors elected at that time were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment in the summer of that year, not surprisingly Rutherford’s legal claim was tested. In the fall of 1918, the Society’s provisional leadership seriously considered postponing the election due to take place on January 4, 1919. But in the end, they decided to go ahead with it.

They adduced from the legal opinion that Rutherford had relied on in July 1917, as decisive evidence that required the annual election of directors.22 Astounding Hypocrisy and Fraud But only a year later, at the annual meeting on January 3, 1920, Rutherford, then back at the helm, set aside the requirement he had so strongly emphasized earlier. As will be shown, he acted through a number of supporters, none of whom would on his own have dared to challenge it. The report in The Watch Tower, January 15, 1920, pages 30-31 says: Several of the brothers present then addressed the shareholders’ meeting, directing attention to the fact that the election held each year requires a great amount of work and occupies fully two months of the time of secretary-treasurer and his assistants in preparing the books, proxies, voting lists etc., preparatory to such election, and which extra work and time seems to be needlessly expended. It was also stated that the election held on the first Saturday in January was an inopportune time and inconvenient to many. Other brethren made the point that too frequent elections always left the work in a state of uncertainty and that an election less frequent would be for the best interest of the work generally. The question was then put to the president as to whether or not the shareholders had the power and authority to change the time of the annual meeting and the tenure of office of the directors and officers. To this the president responded that since the question directly involved himself, because of his official position, it would be better for the shareholders to take counsel from someone else. This was not only a contradiction of the Watch Tower president’s earlier claim about annual elections of directors. It was also an assault on the Society’s charter and the wisdom of Charles T. Russell, who had penned it. It was now evident that Rutherford not only wanted longer terms for directors but also for the three officers, who according to the charter had to be elected every year. In addition, he wanted to change the date for the annual meeting, which likewise was fixed in the charter. If the corporate law about annual elections for directors had been changed, Rutherford would undoubtedly have said so. He did not, for the law was the same as it had been earlier. Pennsylvania Corporation Laws 1933 by E. Russell Shockley, (Harrisburg 1933), points out on page 221 that Corporation Acts bearing on the election of directors had been passed in 1874, 1891 and 1927 without change. Hence, this means that the law was the same in 1920 as it was in 1917. But Rutherford now wanted longer terms for directors, and voila, he found the means to accomplish that regardless of the law. Three of his supporters, as a committee, took the matter to the law firm Dunn & Moorhead of Pittsburgh, and not surprisingly that law firm’s dictum met all of Rutherford’s new desires: At four o’clock in the afternoon the committee returned and the report in substance was that the counsel consulted by them had advised that the statutes of the State of Pennsylvania, which control corporations similar to that of the Watch Tower Bible and

Tract Society, direct that the holding of meetings for the election of officers and the tenure of office shall be determined by the by-laws duly made and passed and that the by-laws could be changed to suit the wishes of the Board of Directors and shareholders; that the said counsel advised that the Board of Directors, during the intermission of the shareholders’ meeting, hold a meeting and amend the by-laws and subsequently submit the same to the shareholders for ratification.23 The board then met and “amended the by-laws,” and the shareholders ratified them that same day. The changes involved the following: (1) The annual meeting was to be held on “the 31st day of October each year, if not a legal holiday, then on the next business day succeeding.” Thus “the first Saturday of each year” stipulated in the charter was discarded. (2) Directors were to “be elected tri-annually and hold their office for three years, or until their successors are elected and qualified.” (3) The president, vice president and the secretary-treasurer - the officers - were to “be elected every third year by the shareholders,” and to hold office “for a period of three years or until their successors are elected and qualified.”24 It is obvious that the decision to accept triannual election of directors was a violation of the then current statute about annual election. In addition, the changes of the date for the annual meeting and the new, longer terms for officers were in clear conflict with the charter.25 At that time, a change of the charter regulated date for annual meetings could not legally be made the way it now was done: “In the past the time of an annual meeting was often included in the articles. To change the date of the meetings, it was necessary to amend the charter by petition to the court, until the passage of the Act of March 30, 1921. “26 The Society’s charter specifically stipulated that “by-laws, rules and ordinances, or any of them, shall not be repugnant to this charter.”27 Pennsylvania corporate law also ruled that by-laws had to be “subordinate to the charter” and “must conform to the provisions and spirit of the charter.”28 Of course, the charter could have been amended, but that would have required court approval. Sociologist James A. Beckford misunderstood what happened when he stated that Rutherford in 1920 “persuaded shareholders to accept a charter amendment allowing Directors three years in office instead of only one.”29 Yet no amendment whatsoever was made in the charter until three years after Rutherford’s death. So, paragraph VIII remained unchanged with its original 1884 wording until it was legally amended on February 27, 1945.30 It is easy to see why Rutherford would not have been inclined to apply to the legal authorities for a change in the charter’s terms for directors, as the changes he wanted were contrary to the corporate law then in force. Instead, his resort was again to follow a bought legal opinion. The advice he obtained to have by-laws meet his need was quite useful for him, for by-laws could be made and changed by the corporation itself. In 1920, all prominent Bible Students who had opposed Rutherford in 1917 had left the movement. Thus, there was little risk of objections to the contradictory position now taken regarding the tenure of directors and the Watch Tower president’s clear disdain for both the charter and Pennsylvania corporate law.

That the earlier opposition would have been merciless towards Rutherford’s move decided at the 1920 annual meeting is shown by Paul Johnson’s later comments on it. Of course, Johnson was not present at this annual meeting, but his observations on the published account were absolutely spot on. He published them in his journal The Present Truth, March 1, 1920, page 56: What was done also demonstrate the insincerity of the plea made during 1917 that there were vacancies on the Board, because Directors must be elected annually! … The passing of the By-laws changing the terms of the Society’s Officers, Directors and the time of Annual meetings is certainly illegal; and such By-laws are null and void for the simple reason that when the State grants a corporation a charter, it empowers the corporation to act along those lines alone which are laid down in the charter. A By-law that changes a provision of a charter is in reality an amendment of that charter; and only the State granting it can amend it. Hence the By-laws passed at the shareholders’ meeting, Jan. 3, 1920, are entirely null and void, even if the Directors, who alone have the right to make By-laws for the Society, later passed them…. An opinion of lawyers, who usually for filthy lucre say what their clients want, does not have the necessary authority to make such changes, which require a court decree. However, to the average member, who had little knowledge about the law, the new way of handling matters may well have looked proper. Many did not realize that Rutherford had bent the law to suit his own purposes. Knowing all this may help the reader to better evaluate Rutherford’s earlier arguments used in 1917. The Case of Robert H. Hirsh As already noted, Rutherford could not get rid of Hirsh in the same way he disposed of Wright, Hoskins and Ritchie. Instead, he capitalized on the fact that Hirsh had been elected more than thirty days after H.C. Rockwell, his predecessor, had resigned. At that time, Rutherford claimed, backed by his Philadelphia lawyer, it was the president, not the board, who had the authority to supply a new director, according to the charter.31 However, as shown in chapter 5, it was entirely Rutherford’s fault that Hirsh had not been elected within the thirty days stipulated in the charter, and the election following that time took place at Rutherford’s own instigation.32 Thus Hirsh was Rutherford’s choice. Hence Rutherford, as president, had actually been responsible for choosing him as a director. The fact that other members of the board had concurred, could hardly invalidate his choice. The New York law firm Davies, Auerbach and Cornell appropriately observed: “In the event of any such vacancy it would have been his duty … to call the Board together in special meeting, and he could not deprive the Board of such power and obtain it for himself merely by failing to call a special meeting for such purpose.”33 McGee was in full agreement: “We find that while the Charter authorizes the President to appoint when the Directors do not do so after thirty days, we know that this could not possibly mean that the President could act secretly and make such appointments when the alleged

vacancies were not apparent to the Directors, so that they could first act and thus fill the vacancies if they wished.”34 Another problem for Rutherford was that the Pennsylvania statute did not expressly grant a president the right to appoint board members—only the Watch Tower charter did. The statute only recognized the right of the remaining directors to fill vacancies: “In the case of the death, removal or resignation of the president or any of the directors, treasurer or other officer of any such company, the remaining directors may supply the vacancy thus created until the next election.”35 McGee concluded: “We find that the statute only permits the remaining Directors to fill vacancies.”36 Attorney J. Fithian Tatem of the Philadelphia Bar was even more specific: “Under the corporation act of Pennsylvania, the power to fill vacancies in a Board of Directors is vested in the remaining members of the Board. Where the statute provides a definite method for doing a thing it must be followed rather than the method prescribed in the Charter, which is contrary to the statute and without authority.”37 So, when Rutherford put aside the charter provision of life-long terms for directors by appealing to the Pennsylvania statute, he actually legally undercut his own position. For if the statute should have precedence in one case, it is clear that it should have precedence in other cases, also. And that would logically mean that Rutherford, on his own, could not appoint other directors. If there was no legitimate majority of the board to act, then, as McGee also pointed out, “a Shareholders’ meeting must be called to elect them, and the courts have so decided in other cases.”38 But delegating the process to the shareholders quite understandably did not appeal to Rutherford. But the selective use of the statute reflects badly both on him and McCaughey. Directors Did Not Have to Be Elected in Pennsylvania Rutherford maintained that the election of Hirsh was also illegal for another reason, namely that it had taken place in Brooklyn, New York. McCaughey had advised him: “An additional reason why that the election of Hirsh was wholly illegal is that the meeting was held in the State of New York.”39 Rutherford made the following sweeping assertion: “THE WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY is a Pennsylvania corporation, and the operations from a legal standpoint are confined to that State. The law, as well as its charter requires that the Board of Directors must be chosen at meetings held in the State of Pennsylvania, and no where else.”40 Again, it was entirely because of Rutherford himself that Hirsh’s election took place in Brooklyn and not in Pennsylvania. It was he as president who called the board meeting when Hirsh was elected in Brooklyn. Did Rutherford not know what he, a lawyer, was doing? While the charter specifically stipulated that the three officers must be elected annually “in the principal office of the Corporation in Allegheny City, Pennsylvania,”41 no such rule was laid down for election of board members. That the business of the corporation was to be “transacted in the City of Allegheny, in the county of Allegheny, and State of Pennsylvania”42 did not expressly state that directors had to be elected there. So, Rutherford did not tell the truth when he stated that the charter provided that directors “must be chosen at meetings held in the State of Pennsylvania, and no where else.”

As for the claim that “the law” required that election of directors had to take place “at meetings held in the State of Pennsylvania,” J. Fithian Tatem held that a Pennsylvania corporation could legally “do business everywhere,” including “the State of New York.” The only limitation, he emphasized, was “that the annual election of officers must be held in the State of Pennsylvania.”43 Francis H. McGee, Assistant to the Attorney General of New Jersey, agreed completely.44 After the Society’s move to New York, Russell continued to hold the annual meeting in Pennsylvania.45 That was the only meeting of the Watch Tower Society continuously held there. It is hard to imagine that Russell was so irresponsible that from then on, he called the board meetings in New York without being assured that the law allowed for this. Since Rutherford was his lawyer during all the years following the move to Brooklyn,46 failure to adhere to legal requirements would inevitably have reflected discredit on him. In the words of the ousted directors, Russell would then have transacted “illegal business” for many years.47 In a paper called “Statement of Facts and Points” that Rutherford wrote for the ousted directors and which they forwarded to their New York counsel for evaluation, Rutherford admitted: “In 1909 said Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society removed its activities to the State of New York; and since that time it has transacted no business of any consequence in the State of Pennsylvania, and never had a meeting of the Board of Directors in said State during that time.”48 (Emphasis added) Since, as previously pointed out, the board had elected Rutherford in 1910, his own admission above proves that he was elected in New York! According to his own legal argument that would mean that he had never been a legal director when he was elected president in 1917! Yet the charter explicitly stipulated that the president must be “chosen from among the members of the Board of Directors.”49 According to this argument Pierson, who was elected to the board in November, 1916, was not a legal director either when he was elected vice president in 1917. He, too, was elected to the board in Brooklyn, and Rutherford participated in that election! On the other hand, both Wright and Hoskins had been elected in Pennsylvania, in 1904 and 1908 respectively.50 In fact, Rutherford in effect admitted that his claim that the Society’s “operations from a legal standpoint” were limited to Pennsylvania was untrue. He wrote the following about the meeting his new board held in Brooklyn in the forenoon of July 17, 1917: “At the hour designated, the duly constituted Board of Directors of THE WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY met, as per notice and consent in writing and transacted business in proper form.”51 (Emphasis added) McGee noted this inconsistency: “He further called the meeting of the Board of Directors and also of his spurious board in Brooklyn, where he said it could not be held.”52 Election to Office Was Not Election to the Board It is not true, as Rutherford claimed, that Russell and the court granting the charter intended “that the President, Vice President and Secretary-Treasurer” were members of the board “by virtue of their election to their respective offices.”53 It was not true that according to the charter Russell’s

“annual election as President constituted him a member of the Board of Directors.”54 McGee correctly pointed out: “The Charter provides that the President shall be elected from among the Directors, and not that those elected President, Vice President or Treasurer shall be considered as elected to the Board of Directors, and no such arrangement was made in the Charter authorizing any such construction.”55 (Emphasis added) Paul Johnson also noted this: The reason Bro. Russell was not annually elected a Director is not that his annual election as President made him a Director; for he had first to be a Director before he could stand as a candidate for President; as the Charter expressly states that the officers shall be selected from among the Directors. The reason why Bro. Russell was never but once elected a Director is the same as that for which no other Director, including Bros. Rutherford and Van Amburgh, was ever elected but once, i.e. the Charter expressly states that the Directors shall hold office for life.56 Russell confirmed this when he reported about the incorporation of the Society: “The incorporators are the Directors, named below, from among whom the officers indicated have just been elected for the year 1885.”57 It should go without saying that according to the charter, directors, once elected, were to hold office “for life.” Thus, there was no need for any other arrangement for their election, such as counting the annual election of three officers as their election to be directors. That the annual election to office as president, vice president and secretary-treasurer would constitute such officers as directors according to the charter, as Rutherford claimed, is sheer fabrication. When arguing that the officers, as such, were legal directors according to the charter, Rutherford had made the point that the charter added the title of the three officers to three of the original directors.58 That was clearly a bogus argument, however. Hence, Johnson offered the correct explanation: “The reason why these titles were added [in the charter] is quite a different one, i.e.: to prove to the court that the Society was really organized; and therefore could ask for a legal existence by sanction of its charter.”59 Neither Rutherford nor his Philadelphia lawyer ever adduced any portion of the Pennsylvania corporate law in favor of Rutherford’s claim here. It is obvious that this claim was entirely without legal basis. It therefore seems quite certain that the following opinion of Davies, Auerbach and Cornell is valid. It reads: Finally, it is important to observe, that if the provision of the Pennsylvania statute that directors shall be chosen annually, had the effect which Mr. Rutherford claims, to-wit: as rendering vacant the office of every director at the end of one year, he himself would have no title to office as director or as President, for the charter requires that the President “shall be chosen from among the members of the Board annually.” Mr. Rutherford claims that because he was elected by the members of the corporation to be President, such election constituted him impliedly an election of him as a director, although he was not so elected. This claim has been overruled by our Court of Appeals in a similar case. (People ex rel

Nicholl vs. New York Infant Asylum, 122 N.Y.190.) If he were not in fact a director, the mistake of the members of the corporation in supposing that he was already a director and therefore eligible to be President, would not render him eligible in law to be president or constitute him a legally elected director. For this and other reasons, we are of the opinion that the propositions of law advanced by Mr. Rutherford, would, if sound and pushed to their logical conclusion, defeat his own title to office as director and president.60 The Charter on Filling Vacancies on the Board The procedure of filling vacancies on the board is outlined in paragraph VIII of the charter as created in 1884: Vacancies in the Board occasioned by death, resignation or removal, shall be filled by vote of the majority of the remaining members of the Board, who shall meet for that purpose within twenty days from the time when such vacancy, or vacancies, shall occur, and in the event of a failure to fill such vacancy or vacancies, in the manner aforesaid, within thirty days from the time when such vacancy, or vacancies, shall occur, the said vacancy, or vacancies, shall be filled by the appointment of the President, and the person, or persons, so appointed shall hold his, or their, office, until the next annual election of officers of the Corporation, when such vacancy, or vacancies, shall be filled by election, in the same manner as the President, Vice President, and Secretary and Treasurer are elected.61 As can be seen, there were two methods of selecting new members to the board, and one of them was an emergency measure. Both Rutherford and his Philadelphia lawyer claimed that a person selected “by either method” [sic!] could hold office only “until the next annual election” according to the charter.62 In The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 328 Rutherford elaborated: “The Charter expressly provides that those selected or appointed to fill such vacancies shall hold office only until the next annual election of officers of the Corporation, at which time a full and complete Board must be elected by the Shareholders. This provision of the Charter, however, was never complied with in the selection of the successors of any of the original seven Directors, except in the case of the three officers, who have been elected annually.” This was a perversion of what the charter actually stated. Paul Johnson observed: “In his comments on Section VIII of the Charter Bro. Rutherford misrepresents the section. This section provides for the election by the shareholders at the next annual meeting, not for the places on the Board held by those directors who were elected by the Board; but for the places on the Board held by those directors who, not elected by the Board, are appointed by the President.”63 The simple reason why the alleged provision of the charter “was never complied with” was that it did not exist! That Russell would not comply with a requirement of the charter he himself had written can be rejected out of hand. Rutherford’s claim here was a clear case of “the emperor’s new clothes.” Nobody knew that better than Rutherford himself, for in The Watch Tower, December 15, 1916, p. 390 he had written: “The Charter of the Corporation provides that the

Board of Directors shall be self-perpetuating; that is to say, when a vacancy occurs by death and resignation the surviving members are empowered to fill such vacancy.” If the board was to be “self-perpetuating” it is clear that no election by the shareholders was normally needed according to the charter. Understandably, the deposed directors did not fail to point out that these words were “written by Brother Rutherford himself.”64 That the charter differentiated between directors chosen by the board and directors named by the president is shown by the precise wording of paragraph VIII which states this conclusively. First, directors chosen by the board were to be “filled by vote” while directors created by the president were to be put in office by “appointment.” And it is clear that only persons “appointed” to be directors were to serve temporarily, just as Johnson pointed out. Second, only the shareholders could remove directors, and such “removal” mentioned in the paragraph could only take place at the annual meeting of the corporation or at a specially called shareholders’ meeting. Yet while the shareholders alone could remove directors, the charter stipulated that “the remaining members of the Board,” not the shareholders, were to elect new directors, even after a “removal.” The wording of the charter thus proves that Rutherford’s and McCaughey’s claim was false. This is underscored by the fact that it was a completely new view, totally unheard of in the entire history of the Watch Tower Society up to the time of the management crisis. Thus, as Rutherford himself admitted in 1916, the board was to be “self-perpetuating” according to the charter. Only in exceptional cases were the shareholders to elect directors. And all board members, except directors temporarily appointed by the president, were to “hold their respective offices for life, unless removed by a two-thirds vote of the shareholders.”65 The apparent reason why Rutherford falsified the charter requirement about filling vacancies on the board, was his need to justify his deposing of his opponents on the board. These, he argued, should have been elected by the shareholders, and the fact that they were not then became his excuse for replacing them. The Claim that Three Directors Had to Be Pennsylvania Residents But this was not all. According to Rutherford, his opponents were also disqualified to be directors for not being residents of Pennsylvania: “Neither of these brethren have resided in the State of Pennsylvania for more than five years…. The statute of Pennsylvania under which the WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY is organized expressly provides that at least three members of the Board shall be residents of the State of Pennsylvania.”66 McCaughey advised Rutherford that he could “appoint members to make up the full Board, provided that the minimum number of directors required are residents of Pennsylvania when so appointed.”67 So when Rutherford appointed his replacement directors, he kept McCaughey’s claim in mind: “Knowing that the law required three members of the Board to be residents of the State of Pennsylvania … I went to Pittsburgh, and on the 12th day of July, 1917, there appointed Dr. W.E. Spill and Brother J.A. Bohnet of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, and Brother George H.

Fisher, of Scranton, Pennsylvania; and Brother A.H. Macmillan of New York, as members of the Board of Directors.”68 The deposed directors pointed out how unfair Rutherford’s claim was: “He also undertakes to say that, in view of his assertion that the law of Pennsylvania requires three directors to be residents of that State, the penalties of non-compliance with such supposed requirements shall fall upon us, rather than upon him and the other Directors, although neither he nor Brother Pierson nor Brother Van Amburgh is a resident of the State of Pennsylvania. On the other hand, the undersigned, Brother Hirsh, has his home in the State of Pennsylvania.”69 Hirsh, in fact, had lived most of his life in Pennsylvania.70 The claim that he had not “resided in the State of Pennsylvania for more than five years” was a lie. J. Fithian Tatem disagreed with the assessment made by McCaughey and Rutherford: “In my opinion the proviso of the Pennsylvania corporation act, which stipulates that three of the incorporators must be citizens of Pennsylvania, does not require that there shall at all times be three members of the Board of Directors citizens of this Commonwealth. The requirement applies only to the organization of the corporation.”71 The New York law firm Davies, Auerbach and Cornell explained: “As to the claim that at least three Directors must be residents of the State of Pennsylvania, it would seem to be enough to reply that if this be so, the defect in title to office would apply to the entire Board of Directors and not merely to such individual members thereof as Mr. Rutherford (not himself a resident of Pennsylvania) might choose to consider affected by such disqualification. We are, however, unable to find any provision of Pennsylvania law enacted when this charter was adopted or which affects this charter which makes it mandatory that a certain number of Directors in a membership corporation (as is this one) shall be residents of the State of Pennsylvania.”72 After careful study McGee also concluded: “The Pennsylvania statute laws concerning corporations which require that three Directors of such corporations shall be residents of Pennsylvania, after a careful examination and study of the Pennsylvania decisions, do not apply to the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.”73 In fact, Rutherford totally failed to deal with McGee’s evidence in this regard at the debate held in Philadelphia on July 19, 1917.74 The President of the Peoples Pulpit Association Not Absolute When Rutherford in the spring and summer of 1917 realized that his autocratic headship in the Watch Tower Society was challenged, he took refuge in his presidency of the Peoples Pulpit Association, the Society’s New York subsidiary. He stated: “I wrote the Charter of the PEOPLES PULPIT ASSOCIATION, which charter gives the President thereof absolute power and control of everything in the State of New York pertaining to the Society’s affairs.”75 So, it becomes useful to examine his contention in the light of that association’s charter that is published in Appendix 4.

According to that charter, the president of the Association was to hold office “for life.”76 This clause was originally intended to secure Russell’s position as a dominant administrator, but it now became useful for Rutherford. It enabled him to claim undisputed managerial control as long as he remained president. The PPA charter stipulated that the president would “have the general supervision and control and management” of the business of the Association, something that Rutherford asserted openly.77 But there was one snag. Both Rutherford’s claim and the charter stipulation about the president’s power were illegal! Francis H. McGee observed: “The law of New York relating to Membership Corporations, such as the Peoples Pulpit Assn., places all the power in the board of Directors; but any such unusual power as claimed by Brother Rutherford under the Charter cannot be lawfully exercised by him. He claims to hold office for life under the Charter, but the Charter may be amended by the members when they get ready.”78 New York law was crystal clear: “The affairs of every corporation shall be managed by its board of directors.”79 The stipulation was repeated later in the same analytical legal source: “By section 29 of the general corporation law, the directors are given general management of the affairs of the corporation.”80 So, the board of the Peoples Pulpit Association, not the president alone, was to be in charge according to New York law. Just as the Society’s Pennsylvania charter contained a clause that was out of harmony with the law, so did the Association’s charter. Paul Johnson attributed the approval of partly faulty charters to the sloppy examination of charters “of non-profit business corporations, doing a religious work.”81 Referring to the clause in the charter granting controllership to the president, he concluded: “The Peoples Pulpit Association’s charter is in this clause illegal.”82 All things considered, Rutherford’s use of the Peoples Pulpit Association to bolster his position was untenable. According to Paul Johnson, Rutherford brought up the Association as an argument during the debate held in Philadelphia on July 19, 1917, but was “thoroughly refuted” by McGee.83 Moreover, his ambition to establish the Association as the dominant factor in the work was contrary to Russell’s clear instruction in The Watch Tower, December 1, 1915, p. 359: “The whole management is by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society and these auxiliary organizations [The Peoples Pulpit Association and The International Bible Students Association] merely help in carrying on its work. … In other words, the Peoples Pulpit Association cannot transact business except through the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society has the management, and the Peoples Pulpit Association does the work —absolutely.” Fortunately for Rutherford, the legal issues involving the Peoples Pulpit Association were never decisively addressed during the management crisis. All efforts centered around the annual meeting of the Watch Tower Society on January 5, 1918. After that, those who were opposed to Rutherford left the movement. Shyster Lawyers

The above analysis shows that Rutherford bent the law to bolster his own interests. He manifested the utmost disregard for the Society’s charter, which he also falsified in a number of instances. It is easy to see why he refused independent legal settlement and why he failed to argue successfully in his confrontations with McGee. H.M. McCaughey, his Philadelphia lawyer, was equally deceptive. His claim that “the fact that the full Board of Directors was not elected” in 1917, was “wholly immaterial,”84 shows that he ignored the charter provision that the president and the other officers were to be “chosen from among the members of the Board of Directors.” If the status of the board was legally deficient, as he maintained, Rutherford himself could not have been a director when he was elected president, and so could not have been legally elected. McCaughey was wrong, too, when he claimed that according to the charter those elected president, vice president and secretary-treasurer were simultaneously elected to the board. And he clearly intentionally misinterpreted the charter when he stated that vacancies on the board filled by the remaining directors “could hold office only until the next annual election.”85 But he gave Rutherford all the sort of legal advice that he wanted. It is not surprising to find that Rutherford had use for him even as late as in 1937.86 The fact that the corporate law requiring annual election was never observed in the Watch Tower Society before and during 1917 did not mean that there was no valid directorate during all that time. The seven incorporators, the charter directors, were unquestionable legal board members from the start, and when no election was held after that, they would simply “hold over”; that is, continue as legal directors. In the fall of 1917, J. Fithian Tatem of the Philadelphia Bar explained: The Directors of a corporation hold over not only until the time for the next annual election of Directors, but until their successors are actually elected. During the time within which they hold over by reason of the failure of the corporation to legally elect their successors, they are Directors in a full and complete sense, both de facto and de jure. During this time they may elect officers and can also be required to perform duties enjoined by law with the same fidelity as regularly elected officers, and are likewise subject to the same liability for any failure of duty occurring during the term for which they may be holding over.87 McGee offered the same information: “The Courts of Pennsylvania hold that Directors hold over until an actual election takes place, even though the time for the election for Directors may have passed by. It is general, also, in the various States that ‘hold-over’ Directors may hold meetings, fill vacancies in the Board and vote to sell property, the same as though regular elections had been held.”88 As to filling alleged vacancies, it is also clear that Rutherford was in no position to accomplish such a measure. McGee’s logic was impeccable: “It followed as a matter of sequence that in January last (if Brother Rutherford and his Philadelphia lawyer are correct) Brother Rutherford was not a Director at the time he was elected President and he was not qualified, therefore, to hold the office of President, so his present title to office would be invalid.”89

In fact, not even a valid president could, on his own, fill vacancies on the board, according to Pennsylvania corporate law, as shown above. McGee added another significant observation: “Even if it were true, which it is not, that there were any vacancies such as stated by Brother Rutherford, he himself after meeting with the Board and recognizing the individuals as members thereof, could himself be estopped from questioning their authority…. Bro. Rutherford participated in many Directors’ meetings in Brooklyn of the Society, and he participated in the election of Bro. Hirsh to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Bro. Rockwell this year, and Bro. Rutherford is not permitted to question it in law and we must all agree that such inconsistency on his part is not at all commendable!”90 These matters do not exhaust the list of legal irregularities that Rutherford displayed. He claimed to have learned in 1909 that the Society’s directors should have been annually elected at Pittsburgh,91 yet he made no mention of that even as late as in January, 1917, after Russell’s death. In defense of this he stated: “Had I so stated at Pittsburgh in January, I would have laid myself open to the criticism that I was at once beginning to upset the course taken by Brother Russell.”92 But this excuse will not do, for he did not hesitate immediately after Russell’s death to ignore the important part of Russell’s Will that dealt with his voting shares. In fact, he procured a legal opinion to the effect that these shares could not be bequeathed.93 It is remarkable, too, that after asserting that his opponents had no legal standing as directors, he had the audacity to write: “Had the four brethren continued in a quiet, orderly manner to perform their duties … there would never have been any attempt even to call in question the legality of their office.”94 Thus according to his own claims and statements, he was prepared to continue to transact illegal business through an illegal board. That was not the attitude of a conscientious, judicious lawyer. There Were No Vacancies on the Board In contradicting both Rutherford and McCaughey, F.H. McGee held that “according to the statute and Court decisions the Directors of the Board, as constituted on June 20, 1917, were valid officers of the Society duly qualified to act and there were no vacancies.”95 He emphasized that “nothing but the judgment of a Court could declare the offices vacant.”96 His opinions were “concurred in by 12 lawyers, all interested in the case, two of whom are Pennsylvania attorneys.”97 No wonder that Paul Johnson felt confident to print the following conclusion: “There was no vacancy on the Board; and Bro. Rutherford’s action was not ‘simply filling four vacancies’; it was an illegal and disorderly ousting of four legal directors and an illegal and disorderly appointing of four pseudo-directors.”98 The deposed directors, too, did not hesitate to reject Rutherford’s alleged legal expertise. In November, 1917, they wrote: “Bro. Rutherford, who has for years posed among the friends as being profound in knowledge of the law, is no doubt undergoing chastisement to reduce him to

his proper level, for it is now clearly seen that he has been wrong in his conclusion upon nearly every important question raised during his term as President.”99 The only option Rutherford had if he genuinely felt that the board was legally defective was to call a special meeting of the shareholders to investigate and decide upon the matter. But it is easy to see why such a solution would not appeal to him. To tell the shareholders that Russell and the charter had failed to follow necessary legal requirements could never be met with enthusiasm. And it would be impossible to demonstrate that Rutherford could be elected a legal president without being first a legal director. Surely McGee, who was a shareholder,100 would have seen to that. Actually, under the circumstances a shareholders’ meeting might easily have gone in a direction that Rutherford would not appreciate. His dislike for such a risky move became obvious when afterwards he turned down all requests for an extra shareholders’ meeting.101 Rutherford’s “Legal Arguments”—Summary and Conclusion A prerequisite for Rutherford to get rid of his opponents on the board was the fact that Pennsylvania corporate law stipulated that directors must be elected annually and that the Society’s charter, granting tenure “for life,” was legally deficient. But in reality, he had no legal right to use this law to replace his opponents with new board members. When he was elected president in January 1917, Rutherford’s own standing on the board was exactly the same as those who became his opponents. If their directorships were legally wanting, so was his. And according to the charter, only directors were eligible to be elected president. So if he was elected on the false assumption that he was a valid director, he could not be a legally elected president. Consequently, he could not legally appoint new board members, something that was in conflict with Pennsylvania corporate law. His election as president in itself did not constitute him a director despite his emphatic claims that it did. Neither the charter nor the law allowed for this. In 1920, he impudently put aside the law about the annual election of directors that he had so resolutely relied upon in 1917. On the basis of his own earlier assertion, he then illegally opted for the election of board members for a period of three years. As an additional argument to replace his opponents, Rutherford used the unfair claim that at least three board members had to be Pennsylvania residents. Yet neither he, Vice President Pierson, nor Secretary-Treasurer Van Amburgh were Pennsylvania residents, while Hirsh had his home in Pennsylvania. Actually, this law had only the original organization of corporations in view and did not apply to the Society in 1917. In order to expel Robert Hirsh from the board, Rutherford claimed that from a legal standpoint the Society’s business must be conducted in Pennsylvania and that directors had to be elected there. He did this despite the fact that he personally had been elected to the board in Brooklyn, New York, and had arranged for Hirsh’s election there. His later claim therefore does not stand up to scrutiny, and he in effect admitted this when he continued to call board meetings in Brooklyn.

Rutherford’s assertion that he had absolute power as president of the Peoples Pulpit Association, the Society’s New York subsidiary, was false. The clause in the Association’s charter, written by him and giving the president predominance, was illegal. New York law vested all the power in the board of directors. As “hold over” officers, all the directors of the Society in 1917 were legal members of the board, despite the fact that they had not been elected annually by the shareholders. In the words of Francis H. McGee, Rutherford actually “disregarded the law, acting as if the opinion of a lawyer was the judgment of a Court,” taking “the law into his own hands, an unlawful thing to do.”102 Despite the evidence brought forward here that shows that Rutherford’s arguments were untenable, in the long run he was able to continue to dominate the Watch Tower Society and its secondary organizations without significant opposition until his death in early 1942. While his opponents undoubtedly had a very strong case against him, they did not take it to a court of law.

Footnotes 1 Faith on the March, p. 80; Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose, p. 71; 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 91 2 See also Harvest Siftings, p. 15 3 See Faith on the March, p. 80; Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose, p. 71; 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, P. 91, and Jehovah’s Witnesses: Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom, 1993, p. 67. 4 Harvest Siftings, p. 15 5 Ibid 6 Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose, p. 71 7 Rutherford et al, vs. the United States, 1918, transcript of record, p. 1033; Moyle vs. Fred Franz et al, 1943, transcript of record, p. 1513 8 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, p. 1033 9 The Watch Tower, October 1884; The Watch Tower Reprints, p. 671 10 The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 327 11 The Present Truth, March 17, 1919, p. 55 12 Ibid 13 The General Corporation Law of Pennsylvania, Approved, 29 April, 1874, And Supplementary Acts by Angelo T. Freedley, Philadelphia, 1882, pp. 19, 20. The relevant pages are photographically reproduced in appendix 8. 14 Light after Darkness, p. 16 15 The Present Truth, October 1, 1922, pp. 152,153 16 Paul S.L. Johnson, Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 3 (Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately, 1938), p. 342; Epiphany Studies, Vol.10, pp. 463,464, 604,605 17 The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 328 18 The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 327 19 Harvest Siftings, Part II, p. 32. Also see Harvest Siftings, p. 16; The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 328 20 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, p. 1035 21 The Watch Tower, January 15, 1918, p. 23 22 The Watch Tower, December 1, 1918, p. 354 23 The Watch Tower, January 15, 1920, p. 31

24 Ibid 25 The charter is reproduced in Appendix 3 26 Pennsylvania Corporation Laws 1933, p. 229 27 The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 327; Light after Darkness, p. 21 28 The Pennsylvania Corporate Act of 1874 and Supplementary Acts by Angelo T. Freedley, second edition 1890, p. 24 29 James A. Beckford, The Trumpet of Prophecy (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1975) pp. 23, 24 30 Barbara Anderson, a former worker at Watch Tower headquarters, obtained a certified copy of the February 1945 amendment to the Society’s charter on March 6, 1996, which she has graciously shared with me. 31 Harvest Siftings, p. 15 32 Harvest Siftings Reviewed p. 18 33 Letter of July 23, 1917 to Ritchie, Wright, Hoskins and Hirsh. See also Circular of July 27, 1917 and Appendix 9 in this book. 34 Facts for Shareholders, p. 3 35 The Pennsylvania Corporation Act of 1874, and Supplementary Acts by Angelo T. Freedley, second edition 1890 (Philadelphia: T.&J.W. JOHNSON & CO), p. 28 36 Facts for Shareholders, p. 3 37 Ibid, p. 14 38 Ibid, p.3 39 Harvest Siftings, p. 15 40 Ibid 41 The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 327; Light after Darkness, p. 21 42 Ibid 43 Facts for Shareholders, p. 14 44 Ibid, pp. 2, 3 45 The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 328 46 Yearbook 1975, p. 83 47 Light after Darkness, p. 4 48 Letter from Davies, Auerbach and Cornell to Ritchie, Wright, Hoskins and Hirsh dated July 23, 1917. See also Circular by Wright, Ritchie, Hoskins and Hirsh of July 27, 1917. An exact replica of this opinion is given in Appendix 9. 49 The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 327; Light after Darkness, p. 21 50 Harvest Siftings, p. 15. Marley Cole’s claim that all four opponents “were elected in the state of New York” is false. See Jehovah’s Witnesses: The New World Society (New York, N.Y.: Vantage Press, Inc., 1955), p. 88. 51 Harvest Siftings, p. 17 52 Light after Darkness, p. 18 53 Harvest Siftings, Part II, p. 32 54 Ibid 55 Facts for Shareholders, p. 4 56 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 20 57 The Watch Tower, January 1885; The Watch Tower Reprints, p. 707 58 Harvest Siftings, Part II, p. 32 59 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 20 60 Letter to Ritchie, Wright, Hoskins and Hirsh, July 23, 1917 61 See The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 327; Light after Darkness, p. 21 62 Harvest Siftings, p. 15

63 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 20 64 Light after Darkness, p. 7 65 The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 327; Light after Darkness, p. 21 66 Harvest Siftings, pp. 15, 16 67 Ibid 68 Ibid 69 Circular, July 27, 1917, p. 2 70 See biography on Hirsh 71 Facts for Shareholders, p. 1 72 Letter to Ritchie, Wright, Hoskins and Hirsh dated July 23, 1917 and published in Circular of July 27, 1917 73 Facts for Shareholders, p. 1 74 Light after Darkness, p.7 75 Harvest Siftings, p. 16 76 Ibid. See also The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 328 77 Harvest Siftings, p. 16 78 Facts for Shareholders, p. 7 79 Membership and Religious Corporations of New York by Robert B. Cumming and Frank B. Gilbert (Albany, New York, N.Y.: BANKS & BROTHERS, 1896), p. 27 80 Ibid, p. 79 81 The Present Truth, March 15, 1919, p. 55 82 The Present Truth, October 1, 1922, p. 152 83 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, p. 406 84 Harvest Siftings, p. 16 85 Ibid, p. 15 86 The Golden Age, May 19, 1937, p. 526 87 Facts for Shareholders, p. 14 88 Ibid, p. 2. During the sedition trial in 1918, the Judge corrected the claims of the Society’s lawyers regarding the ousted directors. He said: “They were there as de facto officers.” See Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, p. 1039. 89 Light after Darkness, p. 18 90 Facts for Shareholders, p. 3 91 Harvest Siftings, pp.15, 16 92 Ibid 93 Ibid, p. 19; Light after Darkness, pp. 3, 11 94 Harvest Siftings Part II, p. 26 95 Facts for Shareholders, p. 3 96 Light after Darkness, p. 18 97 Facts for Shareholders, p. 15 98 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 20 99 Facts for Shareholders, p. 11 100 The Watch Tower, March 15, 1918, p. 95 101 Light after Darkness, pp. 20,23; Harvest Siftings Part II, p. 32; Another Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 8

102 Light after Darkness, p. 18

Chapter 13 “Then It Will Be War” Following McGee’s apparent victory over Rutherford in the Philadelphia debate on July 19, 1917, the ousted directors fully realized that they stood a good chance of winning if they took their case to court. And so obviously did Rutherford. To discourage them from taking such a step, he furnished them with a written opinion which he called “Statements of Facts and Points” in which he strongly emphasized that the matter could not be “redressed in the New York courts” even if his course of conduct in ousting them should have been “wrongful and in violation of law.” The document is known only from the quotations made from it in the legal opinion obtained by the directors from their New York law firm Davies, Auerbach & Cornell, dated July 23, 1917.1 In its opinion, the law firm denied Rutherford’s claim and stressed that “the courts of the State of New York have ample jurisdiction” to attend to their case. Moreover, they fully confirmed McGee’s conclusion that if Rutherford’s legal view relative to the ousted directors were sound, it would “defeat his own title to office as a director and president.”2 Meanwhile Ritchie wrote to Vice President Pierson and asked why he had signed the resolution sent out to the class secretaries on July 19. Paul Johnson also pursued his efforts to establish peace between the contending parties, although to no avail. He later reported that Rutherford “broke a number of his agreements.”3 On July 25, Johnson asserted, Rutherford “went back on his final agreement to submit the case to a Board of Arbitration of three lawyers.”4 On that day Johnson gave him a “kind but firm and unchangeable offer that he must surrender, both by accepting the ousted Directors as proper Board members, and by accepting two other brothers elected by the Board as forming with him an executive committee.”5 Rutherford refused to accept this proposition, Johnson claimed, and “countered it with a demand that the four harmoniously submit to his Board, coupled with the threat that, if they would not, he would publish the British and Board matters.”6 This “ended mediation,” Johnson noted.7 As we will find out later, Pierson continued to hope and strive for peace a few weeks more.

Figure 5. Harvest Siftings The Situation Deteriorates Pierson wrote his reply to Ritchie’s letter on July 26, 1917. Having received the legal opinion from Davies, Auerbach & Cornell, the deposed directors now prepared a circular letter aimed at the Bible Students at large. They felt they had to counter Rutherford’s resolution sent to class secretaries on July 19, which put them in a bad light. Not surprisingly Rutherford and his close supporters sought to prevent the publication.8 At this time, the ousted directors also called Rutherford, Pierson and Van Amburgh to a meeting on Saturday, July 28:

SIR:PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, That the undersigned, being a majority of the Board of Directors of THE WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY, hereby call a special meeting of the Board of Directors of the said Society, to be held at the St. George Hotel, Brooklyn, New York City, on Saturday, July 28, 1917, at 2 o’clock in the afternoon of said day, for the purpose of transacting the following business: To take such action as may be necessary to prevent, prohibit and restrain the persons now styling themselves a Board of Directors of this Society from undertaking to interfere in or control the management of its affairs as Directors. To prevent, prohibit and restrain the officers of this Society from paying out funds except by the consent and under the direction of this Board. To take such action as may be necessary to restrain any officer of this Society from acting in excess of the powers conferred upon him by the Charter and by-laws of this Society and by law. To take such action as may be necessary to prevent, prohibit and restrain any officer of this Society from disposing of its records, books and papers except with the consent and under the direction of this Board. To take such action as may be necessary to prevent, prohibit and restrain any officer of this Society from paying out funds of this Society to the Peoples Pulpit Association except upon the consent and under the direction of this Board. The reason why a special meeting of this Board is being called by the undersigned is that the President of the Society has undertaken, without any warrant, to consider that the affairs of the Society are under the exclusive control of himself and of certain other gentlemen who do not compose the Board of Directors. Yours, etc., J.D. WRIGHT I.F. HOSKINS A.I. RITCHIE R.H. HIRSH.9 As the ousted directors were thoroughly convinced that they were the rightful directors of the Society, their effort was quite understandable. In fact, if Rutherford had acted illegally, as they believed, it was their duty to act. The Meeting of The Peoples Pulpit Association July 27, 1917 For his part, Rutherford called a meeting of the Peoples Pulpit Association to be held in the forenoon of Friday, July 27.10 The Association had quite a limited membership, but the deposed

directors were all members, and so was Paul S.L. Johnson. All five attended. In addition to being members, Hoskins and Hirsh were also directors. Rutherford now wanted to eliminate them as such, and to accomplish this, he set about to remove them as members. According to a by-law passed in 1911, members could be removed only at the annual meeting of the association11 Therefore, he termed this meeting on July 27 an “adjourned” annual meeting.12 This enabled Rutherford to make use of proxies originally intended for the election at the annual meeting on January 10, 1917. This is how he explained and defended what he intended to do on this occasion: Of course it is understood that when the annual meeting is convened it can be legally adjourned from time to time until final adjournment, and each adjourned session is still the “annual meeting.” At the annual meeting, January last, several of the brethren who could not be present gave their proxies to others. The proxy, of course, carries the authority to the holder to vote on anything that comes before the annual meeting. The annual meeting adjourned until some time in March, to take up unfinished business. At the subsequent meeting the President was absent and adjournment was had to still a later date. The record shows that the annual meeting was regularly, legally and properly adjourned until the 27th day of July, 1917, and of course when it met at this adjourned session of the annual meeting its powers were identical to what they were at the first meeting. All proxies were still in force, unless revoked in writing.13 As it turned out, Rutherford was unable to carry out his plan on July 27. McGee later explained: “The meeting was adjourned to July 31, because of a question that the length of time of notice was legally insufficient.”14 In spite of this, the meeting on July 27 continued with heated discussions about the management. It dragged on until “near noon.”15 Rutherford insisted that Ritchie, Wright, Hoskins and Hirsh must accept the new board of the Society, but they refused to submit.16 They even refused to continue to discuss matters with Rutherford without legal counsel.17 Rutherford then jumped from his chair and shouted “Then it will be war.”18 He decreed: “My authority in this house has got to be obeyed and you will all get out of this house by Monday noon. Brother Johnson will get out today.”19 The Dining Room Scene, July 27, 1917 The directors later reported what took place at the dinner table shortly after the meeting: At the noonday meal, Brother Rutherford reported to the Bethel family that we would be compelled to leave the Bethel Home by Monday noon. The brethren then considered it their duty to make some statement to the Family. Brother Rutherford wished the Family to hear only his statement; but we persisted, and one of our number said that he wished to read a letter from Brother Pierson stating that he “would stand by the old Board.” Brother Rutherford refused to let the letter be read and shouted that Brother Johnson had been to see Brother Pierson and misrepresented the matter to him. Upon Brother Johnson’s firm denial of this, Brother Rutherford hastened to him and using physical force, which nearly pulled

Brother Johnson off his feet, said in a fit of passion. “You will leave this house before night; if you do not go out, you will be put out.” Before night this threat was carried into effect. Brother Johnson’s personal effects were literally set outside the Bethel Home and brethren, as watchmen, were placed at various doors to prevent him from entering the house again.20 F.G. Mason, one of the Tabernacle workers, shed further light on what took place in the dining room on this occasion in a letter dated August 20, 1917. Rutherford, he stated, warned his opponents that he “had not yet begun to fight, but if they were going to fight, he would fight ‘to the finish.’” He also stated that Rutherford called “on the family to take sides” in the controversy “by going to one side in the room and commanding those who would not side with him to go to the other side of the room.”21 In his reply to these charges, Rutherford did not dispute Mason’s assertions. Mason also disapprovingly mentioned that Rutherford had laid “hands on Brother Johnson in the presence of the family while other prominent Elders and officials supporting the President” stood aside and hissed “in a manner that would resemble bar-room rowdyism; and others offering to call the police.”22 In his reply to these charges, Rutherford did not dispute Mason’s earlier assertions. Rutherford felt he had to comment on the claims that he had laid hands on Johnson, and it is not surprising that he played down his part in what had happened: “It is needless to say that no force was used on Brother Johnson, the day he and some others started a disturbance in the Bethel dining room. They were asked to be quiet, and when he refused, he was taken by the sleeve and asked to go out. No force whatsoever was applied.”23 According to Rutherford, Johnson was just “asked to go out,” not ordered to do so! The Directors’ Circular Letter of July 27, 1917 It was likely following the forenoon and dinner table events on July 27 that the ousted directors dated their statement to the Bible Students at large “Brooklyn, July 27, 1917.” They were laying the facts as they saw them before them and asked for their “advice and guidance.” They stressed that they had the duty “of preserving whole and unbroken, the traditions of the Society and the provisions by which Brother Russell desired it to be governed during his life and after his death.” They expressed hope that the Society might be “repaired from within” and that thereby means could be found “to avert what otherwise” would be “the lamentable certainty of litigation in the courts.”24 They published Pierson’s letter to Ritchie of July 26, 1917, which allowed them “to make such use of the letter” as they deemed wise.25 The significance of the letter is that Pierson now regretted he had signed the resolution of July 17 and that he now felt that that the appointment of new directors was wrong. He had now decided to “stand by the old Board.”26 The directors published the letter again on pages 8 and 9 in their pamphlet Light after Darkness. Pierson acknowledged “the letter written July 26, afterwards published” in his statement published in The Watch Tower, January 1, 1918, page 15. In their circular, on pages 3 and 4, the directors also published the legal opinion from their New York lawyers. Both the Pierson letter and the legal opinion should have been powerful tools to

alarm Bible Students far and wide. It is doubtful, however, if the directors were able to reach all the “classes” or ecclesias that had received Rutherford’s letter to the class secretaries. No Board Meeting on July 28, 1917 The meeting of the board that the deposed directors had announced for July 28 does not seem to have taken place. No report about it is mentioned in contemporary publications. Rutherford and Van Amburgh would unquestionably have refused to attend, and Pierson would hardly have participated if those two had made it clear they would not come. It is likely, though, that the directors had hoped that at least Pierson, the vice president, would have cooperated. But following the stormy encounters with Rutherford on July 27, Hoskins and Hirsh might better have spent their time to prepare for the meeting of the Peoples Pulpit Association announced for July 31, when their status as members of that Association was to be decided. The general convention at Boston, August 1-15, 1917, was coming up,27 and Rutherford was determined to present a comprehensive statement on the management crisis and give his version of it to those attending that convention. That he managed to do. He called his pamphlet Harvest Siftings to link it up with an earlier statement about an internal schism published by Russell. The pamphlet was dated August 1, 1917, and was eventually sent to Watch Tower subscribers in many parts of the world. But already on July 29, 1917, Rutherford sent William F. Hudgings with a number of copies to Boston, where it was read to the Boston elders and deacons that evening.28 The pamphlet was issued with a public endorsement by W.E. Van Amburgh, A.H. Macmillan, both ardent Rutherford supporters, W.F. Hudgings and D.J. Cohen.29 This was a surprisingly meager support. Of the Watch Tower editorial committee, three members did not sign the endorsement. Robert Hirsh, one of the ousted directors, was still one of the editors. Of course, he would never have endorsed it. But neither Fredrik H. Robison nor Menta Sturgeon, who were both on the committee at the time, signed endorsement. H. Clay Rockwell, who had resigned as an editor earlier in 1917, wrote in a letter to Johnson dated September 4 about “its many errors and false statements.”30 Significantly, vice president Pierson’s support was conspicuous by its absence. According to Johnson, Pierson characterized Harvest Siftings “as a production of Satan.”31 The Resumed Meeting of The Peoples Pulpit Association, July 31, 1917 On July 27, Rutherford had ordered the deposed directors to leave Bethel on Monday, July 30, but it is clear that they did not heed his command. As we will find later, they did not leave until more than a week later. The resumed meeting of the Association on July 31 was specifically called “for the purpose of expelling from membership on the Board of Directors and from membership in the Association Brothers Hirsh and Hoskins.”32 Ritchie, Wright, Hoskins and Hirsh called attention to this event before Rutherford did. It took place so late that that Rutherford could not mention it in Harvest Siftings. The directors reported:

The hour arrived and the meeting was called to order with fourteen members present out of a total of some forty members. The charges were read against the two brethren, to the effect that they had withdrawn their moral support and were in opposition to the work of the Association. To support these charges several trumped-up accusations were read which the two accused brethren easily and clearly refuted. They denied that they had withdrawn their moral support or that they were working in opposition to the Peoples Pulpit Association, and showed to the contrary that their whole purpose was to sustain and uphold the work in both the Peoples Pulpit Association and the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, as Brother Russell intended it to be carried on. At the conclusion of the hearing and the answering of the charges the result was that the accusers found that of the members present there was not a sufficient number who would believe their false charges and accusations so as to favor the expulsion.33 It was here that the earlier mentioned proxies were of use to Rutherford and his supporters: These proxies, which were intended only for the election of the officers in January, were from brethren who were absent and heard nothing of the charges brought against Brothers Hoskins and Hirsh on July 31. These proxies were taken and used for the purpose of voting these two brethren out of office, and thus accomplished their expulsion from the Directorship and from the Association, when if the vote had been taken merely of those present who heard the charges and who only were capable of judging, the charges and the attempt of expulsion would have fallen to the ground. And though seven of those present earnestly protested against such highhanded methods, no heed was given to their protests.34 The directors claimed that it was “Brother Rutherford, assisted by Brothers Macmillan and Van Amburgh,” who engineered the whole operation.35 When Rutherford published a rebuttal a month after the directors’ public statement on the matter, he did not deny that it was he, Macmillan, and Van Amburgh who were the driving force behind the expulsion of Hirsh and Hoskins. He stated: On the 31st of July the adjourned annual meeting convened again, legally and in proper form. The charges were read and testimony was heard on both sides, and then votes were taken. Five votes were legally cast that the brethren named should not be removed, and one of these was a proxy—they claimed seven votes, but the two indicated brethren could not legally vote on a question involving their own removal from the ASSOCIATION. Twentythree votes were legally cast in favor of removing the brethren named, and hence they were removed, as provided by the by-law. Nearly all of those who voted by proxy have since addressed letters to the brethren who held their proxies, approving the action; and thus they were not only legally cast but subsequently had the approval of the members. These facts are shown by the official record of the PEOPLES PULPIT ASSOCIATION, which any one is at liberty to inspect.36

Rutherford misrepresented the directors here, for as their statement reveals, they claimed that “seven of those present earnestly protested” against the methods used, not that “seven votes” were actually cast in their favor. Those who protested included all the four persons who had earlier been ousted from directorship in the Society. They also included Paul S.L. Johnson, who, as a member of the Association, was present, although he had been evicted from Bethel on July 27.37 Among the proxies of the absent members held and used by Macmillan was that of Paul E. Thompson, who then lived in Detroit, Michigan. Macmillan wrote to Thompson “to secure his endorsement of the act” of using his proxy the way he did on this occasion. 38 But Thompson in his reply reprimanded Macmillan for what he had done. He sent a copy both of Macmillan’s letter and his own reply to Hoskins and Hirsh, who published the reply verbatim.39 A good question here is: why was it deemed necessary to ask those whose proxies were used for approval if the use of the proxies was legal and above board? McGee highlighted the problem in November, 1917, referring to Rutherford’s claim that the proxies “given for the January meeting were still in force” and usable at the alleged “adjourned annual meeting” on July 31: “The statement is very misleading and erroneous. It is true that Proxies for use at an annual meeting may be voted at an adjourned annual meeting, but such Proxies may be voted only on matters that would have come before the annual meeting, and not on a new matter of a different nature arising subsequent to the regular annual meeting. Not only so, but the form of Proxy did not permit any such use to be made of it, as it was merely a Proxy for use to elect Directors, and its use was entirely unlawful; and Bros. Hirsh and Hoskins are still lawful members and directors of the Peoples Pulpit Assn.” 40 Eliminating Hoskins and Hirsh as members and directors of the Peoples Pulpit Association certainly had not been on the agenda at the annual meeting on January 10. On the contrary, both had been reelected then as directors for a full year to come, as several others had been also. The charter of the Association stipulated that directors be elected every year at the annual meeting. This applied to all directors except the president.41 Hirsh was one of Rutherford’s supporters at the time. The need for Rutherford’s party to remove him and Hoskins arose much later. One is compelled, therefore, to agree with McGee’s verdict. The action undertaken on July 31 must have been “entirely unlawful.” This is underscored by what McGee further stated: “What we would like to know is who wrote up the record in the Peoples Pulpit Directors’ minutes, so that the record shows the annual meeting was adjourned to July 27, 1917? How did the Directors know that they would meet on July 27, 1917, to expel members? They did nothing else at that meeting.”42 Obviously, McGee was convinced that the record had been tampered with. Paul Johnson, who had been present at both the meeting of July 27 and at the one on July 31, openly claimed that Rutherford “doctored the minutes to suit himself.”43 Rutherford’s Claims Analyzed

Let us take a look at Rutherford’s own explanation: “The annual meeting adjourned until some time in March, to take up unfinished business. At the subsequent meeting the [Watch Tower] president was absent, and adjournment was had to still a later date. The record shows that the annual meeting was regularly, legally and properly adjourned until the 27th day of July, 1917, and, of course, when it met at this adjourned session of the annual meeting, its powers were identical to what they were at the first meeting. All proxies were still in force, unless revoked in writing.”44 That the annual meeting should have been adjourned about two months “until some time in March” is not credible. It is remarkable that the actual date in question is not mentioned. Rutherford was absent for a long time on a trip to California, beginning on February 8.45 He was scheduled to be back “about March 15.”46 But he was actually back on March 14.47 So there was plenty of time to call a meeting in March. Why should the annual meeting be further postponed to a date more than four months after that time? Such loose order would hardly be proper for the Peoples Pulpit Association. So, the conclusion seems irresistible that the adjournment of the annual meeting, first until a date in March, and then to a date at the end of July, was just a later invention of Rutherford to find a way to get rid of two of the Association’s directors. Ritchie, Wright, Hoskins and Hirsh did not mince words when evaluating what took place on July 31: “We are advised by good authority that such acts and conduct are subject to criminal indictment and that if carried to the courts would meet with swift and severe punishment.”48 Rutherford’s reaction to that comment was: “Now, if the brethren really believe this charge, they should at once cease to address either of us as ‘brothers.’ For this reason I feel sure that they do not believe the charge.”49 This was his only counter argument, and a feeble one at that. He himself charged his opponents of conspiring to “wreck” the Society,50 and yet he consistently referred to them as “brothers.”51 Calling the opposing party “brothers” was just a convenience used by both sides of the struggle. Rutherford’s objection was manifestly bogus. Of course, the directors really believed their charge, having been advised “by good authority” on the matter. As we have already seen, that authority included McGee who was one of the lawyers on the staff of the Attorney General of the State of New Jersey. The stormy sessions of July 27 and 31 were the peak of the Watch Tower management crisis. The positions were set and no peaceful settlement could realistically be hoped for, although further attempts were made by some. The parties began the process of disfellowshiping each other with Johnson reporting that “disfellowshipment was first of all exercised by Brother Van Amburgh July 31, 1917, at a meeting of the Peoples Pulpit Association, when that brother refused the writer’s proffered hand.”52 It was probably no coincidence that the action against Hoskins and Hirsh took place on July 31. The general convention at Boston would begin on August 1, and it is likely that Rutherford wanted to have the case settled before that. Both parties and hundreds of other Bible Students left

Brooklyn for Boston by steam boat on the night of July 31.53 The Boston convention was to deal to a considerable extent with the management crisis.

Footnotes 1 This opinion was published in replica in the circular letter issued by Ritchie, Wright, Hoskins and Hirsh dated “Brooklyn, July 27, 1917.” The opinion is photographically reproduced in Appendix 9. 2 Ibid 3 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 4, p. 205 4 Ibid 5 Ibid 6 Ibid 7 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 17 8 Another Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 5 9 Harvest Siftings, p. 24. This statement was not denied or contradicted by the four in their subsequent statements. I accept it as genuine. 10 Another Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 9; Light after Darkness, p. 8; Harvest Siftings, Part II, p. 28 11 Harvest Siftings, Part II, p. 27 12 Ibid, p. 28; Facts for Shareholders, p. 7 13 Harvest Siftings, Part II, pp. 27,28 14 Facts for Shareholders, p. 7 15 Light after Darkness, p. 8 16 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 17; Epiphany Studies, Vol. 4, pp. 205, 207, 208 17 Ibid 18 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 17 19 Light after Darkness, p. 8 20 Ibid. Johnson published a more elaborate statement about the event in Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 17. He noted that it was Hirsh who wanted to read the letter from Pierson. 21 Light after Darkness, p. 15. 22 Ibid 23 Harvest Siftings, Part II, p. 29 24 Circular, p. 2 25 Ibid, p. 3 26 Ibid 27 The Watch Tower, May 15, 1917, p. 146 28 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 17; Another Harvest Siftings Reviewed, pp. 9, 10; The Present Truth, March 1, 1930, p. 45 29 Harvest Siftings, p. 24 30 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 10 31 The Present Truth, March 1, 1930, p. 45 32 Light after Darkness, p. 10 33 Ibid 34 Ibid 35 Ibid

36 Harvest Siftings, Part II, p. 28 37 The Present Truth, Dec. 9, 1918, p. 10 38 Light after Darkness, p. 10 39 Ibid 40 Facts for Shareholders, p. 7 41 See chapter 4 and Appendix 4 42 Facts for Shareholders, p. 7 43 Another Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 7 44 Harvest Siftings, Part II, p. 28 45 The Watch Tower, March 1, 1917, p. 75; Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, p. 973 46 The Watch Tower, March 1, 1917, p. 75 47 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 6 48 Light after Darkness, p. 10 49 Harvest Siftings, Part II, p. 27 50 Harvest Siftings, pp. 1, 2, 14, 24; Harvest Siftings, Part II, pp. 26, 30 51 Harvest Siftings, pp. 1, 2, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 17, 23; Harvest Siftings, Part II, pp. 25, 28 52 The Present Truth, December 9, 1918, p. 10 53 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, p. 410; The Watch Tower, July 15, 1917, p. 210

Chapter 14 The Boston Convention and Its Immediate Aftermath The convention held in Boston, Massachusetts, August 1-5, 1917, was the first “general convention” held after Russell’s death. It was arranged for the eastern states. Attendance “averaged from 1000 to 1400” according to the report in The Watch Tower, August 15, 1917, page 254. The Society’s later official account claims that the “opposition group” thought that “they could take control” of the convention. In order to forestall this, it says, “Rutherford himself, as the Society’s president, served as permanent chairman of the convention,” with the result that “those in opposition were not permitted at any time to address the assembly.”1 This description appears to be a late rationalization that ignores the actual facts. The account in The Watch Tower, August 15, 1917, says on page 253 that after Rutherford had called attention to the privilege of attending, the convention “was then turned over to the chairman.” This hardly allows for the view that Rutherford was “permanent chairman of the convention.” As for the opposition thinking that they could take control, this was ruled out by the fact that the program was set well in advance by Macmillan and the Pilgrim Department, as Rutherford himself had stated in a note to the four dissident directors on June 27.2 Macmillan, certainly Rutherford’s chief ally, had undoubtedly seen to it that neither the four directors nor Paul S.L. Johnson were on the program. However, there were Praise and Testimony meetings every day of the convention. On the first, second and fourth day there were even two such meetings.3 Johnson claimed that he was barred twice from testifying “at W.E. Van Amburgh’s instigation.”4 It is quite possible that the deposed directors were treated similarly. All five of them would have had good cause to comment on the trouble in a testimony session, even though these meetings would not normally take up controversy. For at the beginning of the convention, Macmillan provided the assembled Bible Students with Rutherford’s Harvest Siftings.5 Thus, because of what was said about him in that publication, P.S.L. Johnson claimed that he “was the gazingstock and a reproach.”6 Vice president Pierson was distressed about Harvest Siftings and its distribution at the convention. He wrote later: “Out of sympathy for those who I believed had been made the object of undeserved publicity, I signed an open letter to the friends attending the Boston Convention.”7 Robert Hirsh, a trained journalist, wrote this Open Letter to the Boston Convention for the deposed directors on August 4.8 It was distributed on August 5, the last day of the convention. It was republished verbatim on page 23 in the directors’ full reply to Harvest Siftings, called Light

after Darkness, dated September 1, 1917. The pamphlet mentioned that the document was called “OPEN LETTER TO BOSTON CONVENTIONERS.” Woodworth Identifies Rutherford as “The Steward” On Saturday, August 4 “Brother Woodworth related some interesting incidents relative to the compilation of the Seventh Volume, and spoke on the parable of the Penny and some other things.”9 A few days later Woodworth published a tract called The Parable of the Penny, giving “extracts from address at Boston Convention of I.B.S.A., August 4th 1917.”10 The talk and the tract claimed that the recently published seventh volume of Scripture Studies was “the Penny” in Jesus’ parable given at Matthew 20:1-16.11 The “steward” mentioned in the parable was identified as “Brother J.F. Rutherford, President and Manager of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.”12 Other well-known Bible Students were also given a place in this exposition, albeit a considerably less flattering one: “Five or six of the most prominent brethren at the Bethel, the most highly esteemed, most loved, most appreciated, in some respects, of all the dear brethren in the Truth. All of these dear brethren are pilgrims, all fully conversant with the history of Korah, Dathan and Abiram, and all know the full Scripture Testimony that humility and submission to the Divine will is the only path to acceptability with God.”13 He claimed that “the Penny”—allegedly “the Seventh Volume”—was given at the dinner table at Bethel on July 17. But speaking of Rutherford’s opponents, he stated: “they made it plain that they wanted something besides the Penny; more honor, more recognition, more voice in the guiding of affairs.”14 The ones referred to were of course the ousted directors and Paul Johnson, and everyone in the audience clearly understood this. Indeed, Woodworth specifically referred to “the evidence presented in Harvest Siftings.”15 Those dissatisfied according to Woodworth “murmured” against the Lord, because “murmuring against his arrangements is murmuring against Him.”16 Woodworth pleaded with “these five brethren” (p. 5) to yield to Rutherford and let “all pride” die in their hearts: “Brethren, won’t you believe me? Won’t you? For Christ’s sake? … O! Brethren! For Christ’s sake won’t you let me help you to come out victorious in the judgment of the Angels now going on within the temples of your minds?” (p. 6) Woodworth stated that “two hours after” this talk was given Rutherford “declared that it could not go in the [Watch] Tower.” (p. 3) This did not mean that he disagreed with the exposition, for it originated with him! Woodworth had it directly from Harvest Siftings, pages 19, 20, 24: We are reminded of a coincidence that we here mention. This has indeed been a great trial upon the family and upon others of the dear friends throughout the country who have heard of it. Brother Russell once said that the Seventh Volume would be given to the Church in the hour of its direst need, to encourage and comfort them, and the Scriptures point out that there would be murmurers, complainers, etc. The Seventh Volume, as you know, is now published. The first copies were in the Bethel Dining Room at the noon hour on Tuesday,

June 17th [misprint for July 17th], and at the conclusion of my statement to the family of what led up to the conditions, I stated that the Seventh Volume was there to be distributed to any who desired it; and immediately thereafter the attacks began on me by Brothers Hirsh and Hoskins. … I have had the blessed privilege of a little part in placing before the Church Brother Russell’s last work, the Seventh Volume of STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES. The fact that Rutherford sent Woodworth to the next convention to give the same exposition supports the strong impression that Rutherford himself felt that he was “the steward.” A few months later the ousted directors wrote: “DO YOU KNOW that Brother Rutherford, after Bro. Woodworth at the Boston Convention had preached Bro. Rutherford as the Steward of Matthew 20:8, forthwith [Rutherford] sent Bro. Woodworth to the Aurora Convention, where he again preached Brother Rutherford as the Steward—all this, too, after Brother Rutherford had scorned at mention of Bro. Johnson as being the Steward?”17 Johnson noted about the same time: “Brother Rutherford literally raged at my setting forth that claim; he is not only not making objection to others but is encouraging their making that claim for him with the Vol. 7 as the penny.”18 Undoubtedly, that is why he had an outline image of a “penny” printed on the dedicatory page of The Finished Mystery, with a reference to “Matt. 20:9.” Moreover, the book referred to itself as “the penny” on page 64. Not surprisingly, then, three letters published in The Watch Tower of October 15, 1917, page 319, praised The Finished Mystery as “the penny.” It was only several years later that the Society under Rutherford clearly distanced itself from the view that Rutherford himself was “the steward.” That was done on page 69 in The Watch Tower, March 1, 1923. It was argued there that “the steward” of Matthew 20:1-6 was “an organized corporate body” and not “an Individual.” Conference Between Pierson and Van Amburgh, August 5 The fact that Vice President Pierson had signed the Open Letter to the Boston Convention along with the four deposed directors was of course alarming to Rutherford and his close supporters. By signing, Pierson had publicly claimed that the board during Rutherford’s presidency had never been given “a statement of the finances and other affairs of the Society.”19 On the last day of the convention, Rutherford commissioned Van Amburgh to talk with Pierson about these matters. Pierson asked McGee to be present at the meeting and handed him a statement for possible use at the conference. In this statement Pierson observed: Suppose some one that has placed money in trust with the Society should bring suit against the Society and we, as Directors, were called to give an account. We should be forced to say that we knew nothing about it. That would be a lame excuse for Directors. WE NEVER HAD A SATISFACTORY REPORT FROM THE TREASURER SINCE I HAVE BEEN A DIRECTOR. We do not know how the trust fund stands, nor how the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society stands. What are our financial relations between the Watch Tower B. &

T. Society and the Peoples Pulpit Association? How is the trust fund invested? What are the securities? What interest do they draw? WE WANT THE BOARD RECOGNIZED, AND TO BE PERMITTED TO GO ON DOING BUSINESS UNTIL THE END OF THE YEAR, OR UNTIL SUCH TIME AS WE CAN RESIGN, WHEN WE SHALL HAVE NO FURTHER FINANCIAL OR OTHER RESPONSIBILITY. What is the condition of the Society’s funds? Where was the amount of $100,000 borrowed for the Drama work? To whom was it returned? What interest was paid on this borrowed money? In the event of this matter coming before the courts, these features, of course, will be made public. Why not instead give us this information as members of the Board, to whom it is due? If the court should say, “What about this fund?” each member of the Board would necessarily answer that he knew nothing about it. If the money had been poorly invested, the Directors, as members of the corporation, would be held responsible.20 As it turned out, this statement was not actually used during the discussion, but Van Amburgh reportedly suggested to Pierson that one “Brother Thompson, of Washington, D.C., who was present at the convention” could be sent for to inform him “of the financial condition of the Society as the books stood” at the time of the Brooklyn Eagle case, several years earlier.21 Van Amburgh then suggested that after learning about this Pierson could resign, which, however Pierson declined to do.22 According to the directors’ report about this episode, Pierson did later receive some information about the Society’s finances. The deposed directors published Pierson’s note to McGee on page 5 in their final publication on the controversy, called Facts for Shareholders, published November 15, 1917. In his statement published in The Watch Tower, January 1, 1918, page 15, Pierson stressed that the use of his name “in any publication concerning the controversy issued since the Boston Convention” had been entirely without his previous “knowledge and consent.” This included both the publication of his note to McGee and Rutherford’s use of his name in his Harvest Sifting, Part II, published October 1, 1917. But although he had not authorized any use of his name in such publications, he did not deny or correct any of the information used. So, I accept his note given to McGee as bona fide. A Move on Rutherford’s Part Pierson’s marked stand at the Boston convention must have put considerable pressure on Rutherford. So, it is quite likely that the conference between Pierson and Van Amburgh had another element as well. Rutherford himself later stated that he made a remarkable proposition the same day to the representative of the deposed directors, in all likelihood Vice President Pierson. Van Amburgh may have forwarded it: “At the Boston Convention on August 5th last, I made the following proposition to their representative: that each side elect six prominent brethren; that the twelve select thirteen others and that the whole committee of twenty-five hear all the facts and decide who is right; both parties to sign an agreement in writing to the following

effect: that if the committee decided against me I would resign as President; if the committee decided against them, they would cease agitation and go to work. This proposition they declined.”23 As noted here, this statement was published in The Watch Tower in Rutherford’s letter in which it was contained. But it was not included in the later Watch Tower Reprints. This proposal was published after the directors had issued their final statement on the controversy before the 1918 annual meeting. But in statements made after that event, they did not attempt to deny its existence. So why did the directors not embrace Rutherford’s proposition? They probably did not take it seriously because they did not trust him. As we shall find out later, he had arranged for a convention tour in the west for two months following the Boston convention. That would hardly allow for any detailed investigation. And the directors undoubtedly felt that he had fooled them before. Moreover, up to this time their goal had not been to have him removed as president but to have him recognize that the board, not the president, was in charge of the Society’s affairs. Furthermore, if Rutherford actually did resign, Pierson would have to take his place, and the directors were pretty sure that he, as the vice president, would not be ready to do that. The offer implied that Rutherford was unwilling to yield to the board as president. In their leaflet distributed on this last day of the Boston convention, the directors noted that they “and hundreds of other friends” had “endeavored to find some legal means of calling a special meeting of the Shareholders to pass upon these matters, but so far without success.”24 Such a special shareholders’ meeting was what the directors and many others wanted. Rutherford’s offer may be seen as an effort to thwart that kind of meeting. Sometime afterwards he published an objection to “a special meeting of the Shareholders to settle the difference,” but stressed that he would nevertheless “do as a majority of the Shareholders request.”25 This of course was an easy commitment to make as he was confident that “a majority” of the shareholders could not be mustered for this purpose. He and his close supporters evidently would hold enough proxies to block any request of that nature. It is obvious that he was against impartial investigation by the shareholders. The very same day, August 5, 1917, that Rutherford made his offer, the Philadelphia ecclesia signed their “final appeal” to him to “take immediate steps toward the calling of a special meeting of the stockholders to be held at as early a date as possible.”26 They stressed that “neglect to call such a meeting will probably lose for you the support of the Philadelphia church and many of the Lord’s people scattered abroad.”27 In August, 1918, Paul Johnson reported: “Brother Rutherford wrote to the Philadelphia Church that he had too much to do to arrange for a special meeting of the shareholders; and that an extra meeting of the shareholders would be too inconvenient for them.”28 But if he had too much to do to arrange for an extra shareholders’ meeting, how would he have the time to submit to the examination of a large committee of twenty-five prominent Bible Students? It is little wonder that his opponents did not take his offer seriously.

Discord at the “Love-Feast” At the end of the sessions at the Boston convention there was a so-called “love-feast.” This was an occasion when the speakers would line up and the audience would pass by and shake hands, while the participants were singing a specific hymn.29 The Watch Tower reported: “The expressions of appreciation and the good bys [sic!] and the-Lord-be-with-you during the lovefeast were encouraging and uplifting. It is estimated that there were 1100 at the love-feast.”30 But with the painful controversy manifested during the convention, this display of friendship must have been seriously hampered. However, the only report of unpleasantness was made by Paul Johnson: “At the Boston convention Aug. 5th, Brother MacMillan and others refused the hand of some of the separated brethren at the love feast; a little later under the influence of a sermon by Brother Van Amburgh, Sister Seibert refused to accept the writer’s proffered hand. Brothers MacMillan and Woodworth treated him in the same way.”31 A Few Decisive Days Back in Brooklyn efforts to come to grips with the situation continued. A board meeting on August 6 had been decided on July 18.32 At this meeting Pierson must have realized that his support of Ritchie, Wright, Hoskins and Hirsh did not have the effect he had hoped for: “When I discerned, after Convention, that this action made me equally as incapable of restoring harmony as I had been after signing the resolution. I quietly withdrew, deeming it best to make no further statement at that time.”33 It appears that on this occasion he assured Rutherford that he was not in favor of court proceedings. Rutherford wrote about two months later: They were preparing to institute legal proceedings, and would have done so, doubtless, if Brother Pierson had not prevented it. I called them to a conference and asked them to tell me what they intended to do; that I was going away on my western trip, for two months, and wished to make arrangements for the work before going; that if they intended to institute an action in court I desired to make certain arrangements before I left. I said, “Brethren, do you intend to institute legal proceedings, or will you quit your disturbance and get to work?” They replied, “We will not talk with you unless our lawyer is present.” I replied, “Surely it is not necessary to have a lawyer present in order to talk over these matters.” They refused to give an answer.34 Rutherford probably overestimated Pierson’s influence here. Johnson later reported that Ritchie was “balking altogether at a suit.”35 But both McGee, the lawyer, and Johnson urged the directors to take Rutherford to court.36 It is possible that the directors had not decided the legal issue then one way or the other when Rutherford questioned them, which may account for their unwillingness to answer. Johnson claimed that it was “between August 6 and 8, 1917” that the directors “decided not to sue the present management.”37 Undoubtedly, the decisive factor

behind this decision was the large number of letters received from fellow Bible Students that discouraged any appeal to the secular courts: When in a previous circular which many of you received we intimated that the matter might be allowed to go into litigation for settlement, we were leaning in the direction of advice received from some prominent brethren who had placed their money in the Society with the understanding that it would be used in harmony with the Will of Brother Russell, and these brethren urged that St. Paul’s admonition about going to law (1 Corinthians 6) did not apply in this case; that as the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society was a business corporation based upon the rules and laws of earthly courts it would be entirely proper to allow this matter to go into court for settlement, even as St. Paul appealed to Caesar in defense of his stewardship; and especially as Brother Rutherford had emphatically stated that he would not be moved from his present position, no matter how many resolutions of protest should come from the Classes all over the country. However, since many of the friends have now written us of their wishes in the matter, advising against court proceedings, we are taking it as the Lord’s will that He does not at present, at least, wish it settled in that manner.38 Pierson continued his efforts in their behalf even after withdrawing active support. Rutherford later reported: Brother Pierson came to see me and spoke to me in behalf of the four brethren. Brother Pierson asked if there was not some way by which these brethren could be kept in the work. I replied, “Yes, I would be glad to have them stay in the work. Brother Ritchie is a Canadian citizen.39 Our American Pilgrims cannot well go into Canada. If Brother Ritchie will go to Canada, take up the Pilgrim work and stop this disturbance and preach the Truth, the SOCIETY will be glad to send him and provide for the support of his wife there also.” I further remarked, “The SOCIETY will make similar provision for Brother Hoskins and his wife in the United States if he will go into the Pilgrim service, preach the Truth and that alone. As to the other two brethren, we will make suitable provision for them to remain in the work also, upon condition that we have peace.” Brother Pierson expressed himself as much pleased at this suggestion and immediately went to the brethren with the proposition. Within an hour he returned to me saying that they had refused to accept such an arrangement. Then I said to Brother Pierson, “I am going away on a two months convention tour. I cannot leave this Home and the office in this state of turmoil; these brethren cannot stay here under present conditions.” Brother Pierson replied in substance, “I can see that you are right about that, brother.” Then I said, “Brother Pierson, I suggest that the four brethren go away for a vacation, at the expense of the SOCIETY, for a period of two months. Let then their rooms [remain] furnished as they are, go away and study and pray over this matter, and when I return at the end of the two months we will see if we cannot continue the work in peace.” This proposition he also submitted to them, and they refused to accept it saying that they did not want a vacation.40

In their next publication the directors did not dispute this statement. A few weeks later they responded: “DO YOU KNOW that the four Directors could not, without stultifying themselves, possibly accept the President’s offer to go into the Pilgrim work until after the President had righted the wrongs of which he had been guilty?”41 Considering the fact that Rutherford had publicly accused them of trying to “wreck” the Society42 how could he honestly contemplate using them as pilgrims? It may of course have been a calculated gesture to appease Pierson. He would undoubtedly go to some length to avoid the risk of pushing him back into active support of the four. Rutherford reported a conversation he had with Pierson: “‘They must go away; I have done all I can do.’ Then Brother Pierson asked, ‘Cannot some provision be made for their support for a while; they should not be turned out without some money.’ To this I agreed. When Brother Pierson asked how much should they have, I replied, ‘Brother Pierson, you fix the amount and I will agree to anything you say.’ Brother Pierson then suggested three hundred dollars for each. To this I agreed.”43 It was now August 7, 1917. Rutherford continued: “I said, ‘Now Brother Pierson, suggest to them that they take one hundred and fifty dollars of this and go away for two months on a vacation, or take the three hundred dollars and get out tomorrow without any conditions.’ Brother Pierson communicated this to them, and returned to me within a short time saying that they preferred to accept the three hundred dollars and get out the following day at noon. The next day at noon three of them went out, in a quiet and peaceful manner, each taking with him $300.”44 At this point the directors had realized that they would be forced to leave anyway: After repeated threats by the President to forcibly accomplish their ejection from the Home, the four Directors, though they considered the Bethel their home, and as having the same right there as Brother Rutherford and others, decided to submit to the injustice of Brother Rutherford’s orders, and have since gone forth from the Home. It was as a result of Brother Pierson’s negotiation and intercession that Brother Rutherford, after threatening to force our ejection, agreed with him to make an allowance to cover the expenses of the brethren leaving the Home. The sum was $300.00; but in no sense did it represent an adjustment of matters, but merely as making some provision for brethren who after long years of service, now without means, were about to be forced out into the world to start life anew.45 Thus, on August 8, 1917, three of the deposed directors, Ritchie, Wright and Hoskins, voluntarily left Bethel.46 The fourth, Robert H. Hirsh, was still the managing editor of The Watch Tower 47 and stayed on for a few days more. Pierson’s Puzzling Stand Before the directors left, Pierson, as a last resort, pleaded with them to swallow their sad experiences, accept Rutherford’s actions against them and stay on at Bethel: “I pleaded with them to follow the course of our Master and suffer gladly whatever bitter experiences the Heavenly Father permitted, not even desiring to retaliate or justify themselves; but to commit

their cause to Him that judgeth righteously. What an opportunity to exhibit the spirit which we all have been striving to cultivate—the spirit of forbearance with one another, the spirit of brotherly love! Preferring not to submit to what they called an injustice, the four brethren chose to leave the Home. Here I rested the case with the Lord.”48 Pierson’s wavering attitude is surprising, to say the least. As late as August 5 he was determined to “have the Board recognized.”49 This was the crux of the entire controversy. The four directors wanted the board to be in control, something that was clearly stated in the charter. Yet Rutherford felt that he, as president, should be in charge. Pierson had earlier also been influenced by McGee to reject Rutherford’s appointment of four new board members. Russell’s views of the management lay in the balance, but Pierson now appears to have put all that aside in order to have peace at all costs. Naturally the four directors could not follow him there. A couple of months later they wrote: “The Scriptures say: ‘The wisdom above is FIRST—Pure! THEN— Peaceable!’”50 Johnson stated in 1919 that Pierson “both by heredity and training, stood so strongly for peace that he eventually gave up ‘Opposition’ altogether.”51 There may have been more to it, however. Having been born in 1850, Pierson was the oldest player in the controversy, and in 1917 his health began to fail.52 In addition, his successful florist business in Cromwell was facing serious difficulties. Because of the war, in 1917 and 1918 it came close to bankruptcy.53 It would not be surprising if this affected Pierson’s judgment to some extent. The Contest Enters a New Phase The ousted directors, of course, had every reason to think that they were still legal members of the Society’s board and that Rutherford’s appointees were usurpers and that Rutherford himself had usurped a position of headship over the board. Having given up their desire to settle the issue in court, they now saw their task as informing the shareholders of their stance in order to have them unseat Rutherford and Van Amburgh from office and restore the old board. They stated: “Though we are assured that the courts would not sustain the action of the President in his efforts to subvert the Society’s Charter, but would decide in our favor, it is not our intention to institute a friendly suit or any other kind of a suit to determine the question at issue. We feel that we have discharged our obligation thus far in making known these conditions to the voting shareholders, having narrated events leading up to the present situation at headquarters.”54 They no doubt entertained a naïve belief that informing the shareholders would work in their favor. Isaac Hoskins said 12 years later: “I could not think that the friends throughout the country, accustomed as they were under Brother Russell’s ministry, to reason on principles of justice, truth and honesty, would allow this overwhelming apostasy to replace the holy things that we had been accustomed to, while Brother Russell was with us.”55 In all likelihood the other directors felt the same. Litigation, after all, would have been their best chance to undo Rutherford’s actions and save Russell’s arrangements as found in his will and the charter. Believing they could confine their

efforts to an information campaign had serious drawbacks. In the first place they could send their material “to only a limited number of the friends,” as Rutherford and his associates had “control of the list of names, shareholders and subscribers.”56 Johnson noted that the opposition “had only 17,000 of the more than 55,000 Tower addresses to which Harvest Siftings had been mailed.”57 Second, Rutherford had the tremendous advantage of being able to use the whole Watch Tower organizational machine, including Bible Student conventions and publishing letters favorable to him in The Watch Tower to the disadvantage of his opponents. Without impartial investigation and settlement before the 1918 annual election, the chance of the ousted directors to win their struggle against Rutherford was slim indeed, especially after losing Vice President Pierson’s support. But Rutherford took their challenge very seriously and fought “to the finish,” as he had said he would do. He did not count the directors out and was taking measures in his own behalf right up to the election in 1918.

Footnotes 1 Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose, p. 72; also see 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 92 2 Harvest Siftings, p. 13 3 The Watch Tower, August 15, 1917, pp. 253,254 4 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 3, pp. 420,421 5 Light after Darkness, p. 23; Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, p. 411 6 Ibid, pp. 410, 411 7 The Watch Tower, January 15, 1918, p. 15 8 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, p. 56 9 The Watch Tower, Aug. 15, 1917, p. 254 10 The Parable of the Penny, p. 1 11 Ibid 12 Ibid, p. 3 13 Ibid 14 Ibid 15 Ibid, p. 5 16 Ibid, pp. 3,4 17 Facts for Shareholders, p. 8 18 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 8 19 Light after Darkness, p. 23 20 Facts for Shareholders, p. 5 21 Ibid 22 Ibid 23 The Watch Tower, December 1, 1917, p. 367 24 Light after Darkness, p. 23 25 Harvest Siftings, Part II, p. 32 26 Light after Darkness, p. 20

27 Ibid 28 Another Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 8 29 Jehovah’s Witnesses Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom, 1993, p. 257 30 The Watch Tower, August 15, p. 254 31 The Present Truth, December 9, 1918, p. 10 32 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, p. 1282 33 The Watch Tower, January 1, 1918, p. 15 34 Harvest Siftings, Part II, p. 30 35 The Present Truth, April 19, 1919, p. 20 36 The Present Truth, December 9, 1918, p. 10 37 The Present Truth, May 1, 1920, p. 76 38 Light after Darkness, p. 20 39 Actually, Canadian citizenship did not exist at the time. As a Canadian, Ritchie was a British subject. 40 Harvest Sifting, Part II, p. 30 41 Facts for Shareholders, p. 11 42 Harvest Siftings, pp. 1, 2, 14, 16, 24; Facts for Shareholders, p. 11 43 Harvest Siftings, Part II, p. 30 44 Ibid 45 Light after Darkness, p. 9 46 The Present Truth, May 1, 1920, p. 76; Moyle vs. Franz et al, 1043, transcript of record, pp. 1536, 1537 47 The Present Truth, May 1, 1920, p. 76 48 The Watch Tower, January 1, 1918, p. 15 49 Facts for Shareholders, p. 5 50 Ibid, p. 13 51 The Present Truth, April 19, 1919, p. 70 52 Robert Owen Decker with Margaret Harris, Cromwell Connecticut 1650-1990 the history of a river port town (Published for the CROMWELL HISTORICAL SOCIETY, West Kennebunk, Maine: Phoenix Publishing, 1991), pp. 238,430 53 Ibid. p. 238 54 Light after Darkness, p. 11 55 L.W. Jones, Bible Student Reunion Convention Report 1929 (Chicago, Illinois: Printed privately, 1929), p. 87 56 Light after Darkness, p. 22 57 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, pp. 465,466

Chapter 15 The Seventh Volume At this point it is appropriate to pay detailed attention to the seventh volume of Studies in the Scriptures. The sixth volume had already been published in 1906, and the seventh had been looming in the background of the management controversy even before it was published. It had been anticipated for a long time.1 In the July, 1886, issue of Zion’s Watch Tower, Russell stated that there would be “several” volumes but stressed that he could not say “definitely how many.”2 However, in the preface to the first volume, dated November 1886, he proposed “to treat the subject in seven volumes, each measurably independent.”3 Russell had made it clear that the seventh volume would deal with the Bible books Revelation and Ezekiel.4 However, as late as 1916 he declared in answer to a question: “There are certain things in Revelation that I do not understand and for this reason I do not write the Seventh Volume. Therein I do not wish to give any guesses. Whenever I write the Seventh Volume on the Book of Revelation, I will have a satisfactory understanding of the teachings of that book. Until then I will not write it.”5 On his deathbed in October 1916, he reportedly told Menta Sturgeon that someone else could write it.6 The Remarkable Role Played by Gertrude W. Seibert During the first couple of weeks following Russell’s death, no effort was made to prepare the seventh volume. Rutherford later stated: “We did not know who might write it, who might be selected for that purpose.”7 However, in the “latter part of November, 1916,” there was a discussion of the matter in the home of George H. Fisher and his wife in Scranton, Pennsylvania. The Fishers had Gertrude W. Seibert as a guest, and one evening Clayton J. Woodworth, also of Scranton, paid a casual visit at the Fisher residence.8 Fisher, Woodworth and Seibert were all close friends, and at one point the issue of the seventh volume came up.9 Later Woodworth stated under oath: “I hazarded the suggestion that I thought I understood the ‘Book of Revelations’ (sic) pretty well … I made the remark as I left that I believed that Fisher could write the ‘Book of Ezekiel’ if anybody could.”10 According to Fisher, Woodworth on this occasion said, “it would be the greatest privilege that might come to him ever if he might be privileged to write at least part of that seventh volume.”11 “A few days later” Seibert asked Fisher “to explain the first chapter of Ezekiel.”12 Fisher further explained: “It was something I had never understood before, but by reference to something Pastor Russell had written, which I had not noticed before, I was able to explain that whole chapter substantially as written, and to something I understood had never been understood before since the Book of Ezekiel was written.”13

Seibert was evidently impressed and took immediate action. In a letter to the Society’s Executive Committee dated December 6, 1916, she suggested that Woodworth and Fisher were well qualified to write the seventh volume. During the sedition trial in 1918, this letter was used in evidence and was reproduced in full in the court transcript.14 Seibert had been one of Russell’s confidants, and she enjoyed considerable prestige at the Watch Tower headquarters and among the Bible Students in general. She had compiled the widely used “Manna Book” published by the Society with her name on it. She had also written many poems published in The Watch Tower. Woodworth had compiled the Berean Bible Teacher’s Manual from Russell’s writings which was published by the Society in 1909. Fisher had been named in Russell’s Will as one of the reserves for the Watch Tower Editorial Committee. The Executive Committee reacted swiftly. In their reply to Seibert dated December 7, 1916, they stated: “Referring to your letter of December 6th, addressed to the Executive Committee, we beg to say that if the friends therein mentioned desire to prepare the copy mentioned and submit it to us for our consideration, we will consider it and give our opinion as to the advisability of publication.”15 Thus, as The Watch Tower later pointed out, “no promise whatsoever was made by the committee to these dear brethren as to whether the manuscript would be used.”16 Seibert passed on the committee’s reply to Woodworth, who received her letter on December 11, 1916.17 In his reply to Seibert, written that same day, he stressed the unusual role she was to play in the undertaking: “Dear Sister … the work will really be yours, for it must go to you and be fully approved by you before it ever goes to the committee. On that I insist. If you can help me with the summary, which I shall put in as the Seven Plagues, do so, but if not they go in anyway, and come before you for review and edit.”18 Both Woodworth and Fisher started writing on this same day, December 11, 1916.19 Fisher wrote his manuscript in pencil and handed it over to Woodworth, who typed it out and then returned it to Fisher for checking.20 Fisher then again turned it over to Woodworth.21 In 1918 the latter testified: “As the manuscript was prepared, generally a chapter at a time, I enclosed it to Mrs. Seibert at the Hotel Margaret.”22 Still later, he stated that he wrote his part of the volume “in just one hundred days” after working eight hours a day at other work.23 That would mean that he had finished his part around April 22, 1917. Writing a commentary on Revelation in his evening spare time in such a short period surely must have been a daunting task, but his earlier work, The Berean Bible Teacher’s Manual, served as “the skeleton work” on which his part of the seventh volume was based.24 When Woodworth had finished his part of the manuscript, Fisher had a lot more to write. His last chapter, dealing with the future ideal temple foretold by Ezekiel, was not completed until June 25, 1917.25 Rutherford Unilaterally Decides Publication Rutherford, then only one of three members of the Executive Committee, received parts of the manuscript both on Revelation and Ezekiel “some time in December” 1916. But he claimed that

he started to read the manuscript only on February 8, 1917, on a trip to California when he read it “coming and going.” He took with him “nine chapters of Revelation” and “three or four chapters of Ezekiel.” During his stay in California, he received by mail “up to and including the 16th chapter of Revelation and two or three more chapters of Ezekiel.” He claimed to have finished reading on March 21, 1917.26 When he became president and also became “the executive” of the Watch Tower Society in January 1917, he believed he was given an important commission: “I felt it was my sacred duty and privilege from the Lord to see that the Seventh Volume was published. And when the Lord through two of his faithful servants … produced the manuscript, I felt he had laid upon me the privilege and duty of seeing that this message went to the people.”27 As already shown, Rutherford felt he was the “steward” of Jesus’ parable of the vineyard at Matthew chapter 20, and he viewed the upcoming seventh volume as the “penny” that he, as that steward, was to give the workers of the vineyard, the Bible Students. For that reason, he was not inclined to let the board of directors decide whether Woodworth’s and Fisher’s manuscript should or should not be published. He would not take the risk of having publication delayed or rejected altogether. He was the “steward.” He was the one to decide. It is not therefore surprising that Rutherford wrote the preface to the book, as Fisher, Woodworth and Macmillan all testified in court.28 During the trial in 1918, Macmillan, Rutherford’s right-hand man, claimed that the board members would not be consulted about the matter and that “they would not [have been] consulted by Pastor Russell.”29 Both claims were false. Paragraph two of the Watch Tower Society’s charter stipulated: “The purpose for which the Corporation is formed is, the dissemination of Bible Truths in various languages by means of the publication of tracts, pamphlets, papers and other religious documents, and by the use of all other lawful means which its Board of Directors, duly constituted, shall deem expedient for the furtherance of the purpose stated.”30 And while Russell had the ultimate say about publications during his presidency, he did get the support of the board in the process. They voted the way he wanted them to vote31 and therefore publications had their approval. Moreover, Russell had made it clear that their full authority would be recognized when he died: “Their usefulness, it was understood, would come to the front in the event of our death.”32 To ignore the charter and act contrary to it was very serious indeed. Did Rutherford really do that? Yes! Using the growing opposition to his management as a pretext, he wrote the following in the summer of 1917 about the publication of the seventh volume: “I was about to submit the printer’s proofs to these and other brethren at the time this trouble arose, but seeing their violent opposition I knew that the publication would be long delayed if they insisted on reading the manuscript and giving the objections first. I consulted Brothers Van Amburgh, Macmillan, Martin and Hudgings, and it was concluded that in view of the fact that the best opportunity to publish it was now, because the rush that comes to the printers in a short time, that publication should proceed.”33

In a secret meeting with his new board in the forenoon of July 17, 1917, he went as far as to assert: “It must be conceded by everyone who is acquainted with the operations of business that to have taken into my confidence the brothers Hirsh, Hoskins, Ritchie and Wright would have been disastrous to the Society and its work.”34 This clearly shows that Rutherford was an autocrat who would not let anyone, not even members of the board, interfere with what he singlehandedly had determined. If he had decided to “submit the printer’s proofs” to his opponents on the board that would only have shown that he had already ordered the printing without seeking their advice. He claimed to have consulted with “Brothers Van Amburgh, Macmillan, Martin and Hudgings” about the publication, but of these only Van Amburgh was a member of the Watch Tower board! Not even Pierson, the vice president, who was then certainly one of his supporters, was involved in the process, according to Rutherford’s own statement. This indicates that, contrary to his claim, it was not primarily the opposition from the four board members that moved Rutherford to ignore them. In addition, it was untrue that Rutherford consulted Martin about the publication. Martin himself testified in 1918 that he learned about it only on July 11, 1917.35 At that time the printing of the volume was already finished! As for Macmillan, he learned about the volume as late as June 6, 1917, according to his own testimony.36 This was the same day that Rutherford signed the final contract with the printers.37 But already, on May 26, he had placed the order with them.38 This he had done without consulting Macmillan. Rutherford unquestionably knew what Macmillan was made of: when he told him on June 6 that he thought the manuscript “was first rate,” he could hardly have been surprised when Macmillan turned down his offer to read it but approved of its publication anyway.39 Rutherford actually handed Van Amburgh some of the manuscript and asked his opinion of it fairly early.40 But Van Amburgh later testified that he had only “read parts of it” when he told Rutherford: “If you think it is a proper thing, you as president of the society, as the Lord’s representative, go ahead and print it.”41 Again, this would hardly have surprised Rutherford. This must have taken place before April 1, 1917, for Van Amburgh discussed two things in the manuscript with Woodworth on that date.42 Rutherford’s claim that everyone acquainted with business would agree that it would be “disastrous to the society and its work” to involve “Brothers Hirsh, Hoskins, Ritchie and Wright” was just an unfair slur. Deciding publication of a book for the Society was an entirely spiritual matter and should not have “business” as a motive. The directors had enjoyed Russell’s full confidence, and history would prove that they made a much better, more enlightened, evaluation of the seventh volume than Rutherford and his yes-men had done. Rutherford’s wish to ignore the board regarding the seventh volume was further highlighted in Van Amburgh’s testimony in court about the financing of the publication: “He said, ‘Do you think it would be right to take this out of the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society money and pay for it, unless the Board of Directors passed on it?’ I said, ‘I haven’t thought of that.’ He said, ‘I want to tell you something. A friend has handed me several thousand dollars, and I can use it in

this work.’ I said, ‘Then you don’t need to draw upon the “Watch Tower” money. Go ahead, that may be the Lord’s way of supplying the money without drawing it.’”43 Thus, Rutherford was so unwilling to let the board pass on the book that he was prepared to use outside money for the printing instead of relying on the normal procedure to draw on the Watch Tower Society’s money. Not surprisingly, Van Amburgh, the treasurer, encouraged him to do so. Rutherford undoubtedly had counted on that. How Rutherford Used $5,000 From George Butterfield Rutherford calculated that if he would draw on the Society’s money without the knowledge and approval of the board, his opponents would raise the question that he “had misappropriated funds for the publication of this volume.”44 To forestall this, he decided to rely on the money a wealthy Bible Student had promised to give for a good cause. Rutherford wrote to him and informed him that the seventh volume was about to be printed and reminded him of his offer. Next mail brought him a check for $5,000.45 The giver was George Butterfield, who at the time resided in Colorado but had lived most of his life in Iowa.46 Rutherford of course did not put this money into the Society’s treasury but used it separately to pay the printers at different times.47 Only some time afterwards, when the $5,000 was exhausted, did he draw on the Society’s money.48 When Rutherford stated publicly that he had used outside money to pay for the volume,49 the then ousted directors pointed out that the donor would not be entitled to the voting shares he would get if his donation had been made directly to the Society.50 Rutherford then decided to eliminate the risk of becoming accountable for this irregularity at the upcoming annual meeting on January 5, 1918. Van Amburgh later disclosed in court that Butterfield’s donation was carried in his books “in the fall when the account was turned over” to him “by Mr. Rutherford, and Mr. Butterfield was then given credit for a donation of $ 5,000, and was credited with 500 voting shares, as we credit all donations.”51 According to Rutherford, this might more precisely have taken place on October 13, 1917.52 The Seventh Volume Titled “The Finished Mystery” In her letter to the Executive Committee of December 6, 1916, Gertrude W. Seibert suggested the title The Finished Mystery for the seventh volume.53 She claimed that Russell himself had earlier “thought it very appropriate” when she suggested it to him.54 During most of the time of preparation those involved in the process also referred to it by that name.55 The title had not been finally decided on, however. William F. Hudgings was sent from Brooklyn to proofread the book with C. J. Woodworth in the latter part of June, 1917. Hudgings had the following to say: I recall the very last words of our dear Brother Rutherford as I left his study on that day were these, “Tell Brother Woodworth that of all the titles, which have been suggested, I have concluded that the most suitable one is ‘The Fall of Babylon’.” I arrived in Scranton and gave Brother Woodworth the message, and he responded: “Well, I have been praying over the matter and thinking very seriously and have considered every title that I have heard

suggested, and the most appropriate one to my mind is ‘The Winepress of God’s Wrath’.” We started to Hammond! Nobody knew what the book would ultimately be called! We arrived there and through a very peculiar circumstance, respecting which we will not go into details, they finally decided on a third title which neither of the brethren who had direct charge of the naming of the book favored. Thus they finally decided, by compromise, upon this other title…. So they agreed, at the last moment, to call it “The Finished Mystery,” and furthermore, as a compromise they concluded to use the two other titles suggested as subtitles…. A little later it was learned that Brother Russell, many years ago, in talking with one of the friends, disclosed the fact that when the seventh volume would be published its title would be “The Finished Mystery.”56 The fact that the title of the book was decided upon only “at the last moment” naturally suggests that the copyright had to wait also. The book was distributed at headquarters on July 17, 1917, but the date of publication was reported as July 21, 1917, and the Register of Copyrights did not receive the application for it until July 24, 1917.57 It was Hudgings, secretary of The Peoples Pulpit Association, who arranged for the copyright.58 Remarkably, the volume was “entered in the name of Peoples Pulpit Association,”59 not in the name of The Watch Tower Society, as the earlier volumes had been. This reflected the fact that Rutherford had not involved the Society’s board of directors in the decision and production of the volume and, also, the fact that his headship in the Society was disputed. But he felt he was in absolute control of The Peoples Pulpit Association.60 The Volume Was Rushed In March 1917, Woodworth reportedly told board member Alfred I. Ritchie that the seventh volume would be published in October that year.61 But then it was hurried to come off the press much earlier. In a message dated June 19, 1917, Rutherford urged the printer: “We would say it is our expectation to have need of nearly all of them within a few weeks’ time, or at least 50,000 copies. It will therefore be necessary to make your plans accordingly. We are arranging for a great campaign, with your cooperation and if we can have the book on press by July 1st, and ready for delivery by July 15th, in time for our general conventions to be held in July and August, they will be put in the hands of our friends and colporteurs for immediate action. But we must have the books at these conventions.”62 The Watch Tower, August 1, 1917, page 226, announced to the general public that the seventh volume was published and it was stressed that “it was rushed.” However, it did not present all the reasons why this was done. It did not mention what Rutherford told the Bethel workers when he announced to them that the book was available. Lawyer Francis H. McGee, who was present on this occasion, reported soon afterwards: “He also announced that the seventh volume was ready for distribution. He further said that it had not been intended to distribute it so soon, but knowing of the trouble brewing they had hurried up the putting of it out.”63 Particularly since June 20, 1917, Rutherford felt he had good reason to speed up the publication of the volume. For on that date, as has been shown earlier, the dissident directors had made

known their intention of repealing the by-laws he used as a basis for his autocratic administration. Getting the volume out was evidently his prime objective, and he would, under no circumstances, let the directors interfere. So, it became a struggle with time. It is not surprising that he announced his appointment of four new directors immediately before he announced that the seventh volume was available. Ritchie, Hoskins, Hirsh and Wright later wrote: “Does it not seem probable that Bro. Rutherford’s action in appointing new Directors … was because he feared that if the Directors discovered what he was doing with regard to the 7th Vol. that they would insist on having the Editorial Committee edit it and that the by-laws which they might pass on July 20th would enable them to take some control and to learn of his secret plans and purposes so as to hinder the distribution of this doctrinal matter?”64 “Almost day and night we labored to get the book out,” Rutherford later certified.65 Except for Fisher’s chapter on the temple, the entire manuscript was in the hands of the printer in Hammond, Indiana, on June 6, when the contract was signed.66 The chapter on the temple arrived with Rutherford on June 30, and by then all the pages were set and arranged.”67 On July 12 Rutherford sent Robert J. Martin to the printer in Indiana to superintend sending the book to Watch Tower subscribers. Nearly “thirty thousand” copies were sent out before he went back to Brooklyn on Tuesday, July 17, 1917.68 By then a load of books had arrived there69 and all workers at headquarters were offered a copy at noon that day.70 The Watch Tower Society Pushes the Seventh Volume For a number of years, the seventh volume was to be more conspicuous in the Society’s work than any of the preceding six volumes of Studies in the Scriptures. It was pushed to the utmost. The Watch Tower, December 15, 1917, pages 372-373, reported: When the book was first published, it was thought that less than 100,000 volumes would be required, and a contract was made by the WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY with the printers for the manufacture of less than 100,000 volumes. The number was soon exhausted, and more were ordered. Near the close of our fiscal year the demand became so great—colporteurs everywhere reporting so much interest manifested by the public, the orders coming in with such rapidity—that up to this time we have found it necessary to give orders for the 850,000 edition. … We are pleased to announce that the translation of the Seventh Volume into Swedish and French has already been accomplished, and both are to be off the press this month in Europe…. It is being translated and published by instalments in the German, Polish and Greek WATCH TOWERS. It is being translated into four other foreign languages and doubtless will be translated into many more soon. A paperback edition was published as a special issue of The Watch Tower under date March 1, 1918. It became known among the Society’s workers as “ZG”71 and can still be read on a couple of Internet sites. Unlike the hardbound editions, this paperback contained a number of cartoons ridiculing ministers of the churches. A modern Watchtower account gives the following recollection of one of Jehovah’s Witnesses active at the time: “There was a full-page picture

inside of a church with … two preachers, each going down an isle with a gun in one hand and a collection plate in the other. All we had to do to place this ‘ZG’ was to show this picture, and it was very common to place forty or fifty a day in the field.”72 These cartoons were offensive to some Bible Students. Former Swedish “pilgrim” J.O. Melinder, in an open letter to Rutherford, called attention to “the abominable cartoons from the worldly press” used in this edition and concluded that they displayed a spirit that appeared to him “far from Christian.”73 Despite a major setback when the seventh volume was banned in 1918 and 1919, several new editions of the hardbound book were issued, beginning in 1920. A remarkably comprehensive list of corrections was published in The Watch Tower, June 1, 1920, pages 169-173. A “revised” edition was announced in The Watch Tower, June 15, 1920. The “2,524,000 Edition” was issued in 1924 and the “2,604,000 Edition” was published in 1926. The last edition of the book was printed in 1927 as the “2,694,000 Edition.” This included more radical changes than any of the previous editions. It had a completely new and very brief preface, and only the “Revelation” part of the book was retained. The most dramatic change in comparison with earlier editions was the chapter on Revelation 12. In earlier editions it was called “THE BIRTH OF ANTICHRIST” but now it was called “Birth of the Nation.” It represented the radical reinterpretation of Revelation chapter 12 published in The Watch Tower, March 1, 1925, pages 67-74. Some Characteristics of the Seventh Volume The Finished Mystery came with a remarkable claim. Already, on the dedicatory page, the book was called the “POSTHUMOUS WORK OF PASTOR RUSSELL.” In the preface, Rutherford stated about Russell’s relation to it: “The fact is, he did write it. This book may properly be said to be a posthumous publication of Pastor Russell…. This book is chiefly a compilation of things which he wrote and which have been brought together in harmonious style by properly applying the symbols which he explained to the Church.”74 A little later he called the volume “Brother Russell’s last work.”75 The Watch Tower, November 15, 1917, page 343, stated: “Pastor Russell is the real author and the compilers give all the credit to him and to the great Lord of the Harvest.” In spite of these bold assertions, the book only referred to Russell in the third person. In fact, it was largely a tribute to Russell, putting him on an amazingly high pedestal. The pastor would certainly not have elevated himself to that extent. Yet The Watch Tower, October 1, 1917, page 293, unblushingly claimed: “Brother Russell himself is the key…. He is the prominent figure foreshadowed both in Revelation and Ezekiel.” Even his marital problems were said to be foretold. This was stated in a comment on Ezekiel 24:15-17.76 Commenting on Revelation 8:3, the book even went as far as to claim “that though Pastor Russell has passed beyond the veil, he is still managing every feature of the Harvest work.”77

But perhaps the most daring reference to Russell in the book was the comment made on the words “and blasphemed the name of God, which has the power over these plagues” at Revelation 16:9. The God mentioned there is practically universally understood as the Almighty, but instead, commenting on these words, the seventh volume stressed that the blasphemers “misrepresented the name and character of the mighty one, Pastor Russell, to whom the Lord committed the task of presenting to his church this meat in due season.”78 Thus the “name of God” here was seen as the name of Charles Taze Russell. Another remarkable feature shown throughout the volume is the significance put on the year 1918. The “glorification of the Little Flock” was proposed to occur “in the Spring of 1918 A.D.”79 Also “in the year 1918” God would destroy “the churches wholesale and the church members by millions.”80 The year 1925, which was later to become very prominent in the movement, was already highlighted in this book: “There is evidence that the establishment of the Kingdom in Palestine will probably be in 1925, ten years later than we once calculated.”81 A remarkable statement made about patriotism would later bring the authors and several leaders of the Society into conflict with the authorities: “Nowhere in the New Testament is Patriotism (a narrow-minded hatred of other peoples) encouraged.”82 Russell never had defined patriotism so narrowly. At Revelation 14:20, practically all English Bible translations mention the figure 1,600 stadia or furlongs. It refers to the terrible winepress of God’s wrath and the amount of blood coming out from the winepress. The figure 1,600 stadia shows the magnitude of the judgment. However, in order to show the divine origin of the seventh volume, C. J. Woodworth applied the figure to the traveling and postal distance between Scranton, Pennsylvania, where the book was written, and the headquarters in Brooklyn.83 But in order to do so, he changed the textually-established figure “a thousand and six hundred furlongs” (The King James Version) to “a thousand and two hundred furlongs,” which is a very poorly attested reading that is rejected by all scholars! Van Amburgh and Macmillan Criticize the Seventh Volume At least two of Rutherford’s closest supporters criticized parts of the book very early. Even before the printing, W.E. Van Amburgh made it clear to C.J. Woodworth that there were explanations he did not agree with. The latter testified in court: “He criticized … the passage … with regard to the distance from Scranton to Bethel, and with regard to the railway train and locomotive.”84 Van Amburgh himself confirmed this.85 A.H. Macmillan testified similarly: “There were things in there I did not agree with, not fundamental points, merely incidentals … I particularly noted in connection with the second chapter of Naom [Nahum], in connection with the locomotive, I thought that referred to the automobile.”86 On November 4, 1917, Macmillan publicly criticized the volume at the Bible Student convention in Washington, D.C. “He said,” reported Mrs. William L. Abbott, “the 7th volume had enough mistakes in it so that the brethren who wrote it would not get heady.”87

If supporters of Rutherford could voice such criticism of the seventh volume, it should come as no surprise that his opponents also became critical of it. As demonstrated above no discussion whatsoever about the book took place on the momentous day of July 17, 1917, when it was presented to the workers at headquarters. It naturally took some time to read and digest the volume—it contained 592 pages! Paul Johnson was undoubtedly right when he wrote: “The separating influence of volume seven was almost indiscernible before September.”88 Criticism Mounts The ousted directors commented on the book in their pamphlet Light after Darkness, published September 1, 1917, page 14: “Let us also be careful how we receive the so-called Seventh Volume. It may be the true Seventh Volume as Brother Russell intended it or it may not be. One thing we feel certain of, namely, there are some fanciful interpretations in that volume, and some things that we do not hesitate to say are errors in doctrine.” Rutherford was quite stung by this statement and threw out the accusation that it showed “that these brethren are against the Seventh Volume.”89 In their second pamphlet called Facts for Shareholders, dated November 15, 1917, the directors clearly revealed that they by then had rejected the book. On pages 9 and 10 they leveled a veritable broadside against it. The following two examples illustrate their attitude. They wrote: “DO YOU KNOW that the 7th Vol. is not the posthumous work of Pastor Russell, for it does not present anything that Brother Russell prepared beforehand which was published after his death for the first time?” In addition to dealing with Revelation and Ezekiel, The Finished Mystery also offered an exposition of the Old Testament book called “the Song of Solomon.” Ritchie, Hoskins, Hirsh and Wright let the following embarrassing cat out of the bag: “DO YOU KNOW that the interpretation of the Song of Solomon in Vol. 7 is not the posthumous work of Bro. Russell, but was written by Bro. Woodworth and sent to Bro. Russell several years ago, and that he laid it away and it was found and returned to Bro. Woodworth at his request after Bro. Russell’s death?” Many Bible Students not involved in the management crisis also rejected the claims of the seventh volume. David Kihlgren, of Swedish origin, living in Springfield, Massachusetts, wrote a long letter to the Swedish branch manager, August Lundborg, in 1918. Lundborg published this letter in 1926, and several decades ago I made an English translation of it which is now available on Barbara Anderson’s website. I quote from this translation: When the seventh volume was released I received it “with open arms,” without any prejudice or suspicion. When I held the book in my hand for the first time I felt like this: “Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, for now I have seen the seventh volume —the last meal on the pilgrimage.” I read it, studied it, in exactly the same manner as formerly the first six volumes, when they came out by turns, testing everything in order to discern and keep that which is good. While doing this, however, I gradually, though reluctantly, was brought to the conviction that Volume VII was not what it claimed to be,

namely 1) “The posthumous work of Pastor Russell,” 2) “The Penny,” 3) “The Winepress,” 4) “The Fiery Chariot,” 5) “The Seventh Vial,” 6) “The Mantle,” etc., etc.… The majority (about two thirds) of the class here in Springfield took a neutral stand to the Seventh Volume. At our latest annual meeting it was decided and emphasized that in the Pastoral Work (that is the general distribution of books done by the class) everyone could choose either to use and sell all the seven volumes, or just the six first, or only the seventh —all in harmony with each worker’s own desire. But when the reports from the meeting reached the headquarters in usual order, they were not satisfied with what had been decided, but, as the highest leadership realized it could not induce the majority to specially “push” the 7th Volume, a pilgrim was sent here, who from the platform openly declared that all who wanted to work in harmony with the Society should go to another hall and organize a new class there. The minority then followed him there and now they are receiving the pilgrim visits while the old congregation is “cut off” from and by the Society.… I am glad to be able to tell you that all the elders and all the deacons (except two) stayed in the old, from the Society expelled class in this town. … Several classes here in the eastern States have endured quite similar experiences, their majorities having remained faithful to Pastor Russell’s work while their minorities have followed the present management of the Society. Watch Tower readers in general came to know David Kihlgren with the publication of “C.T. Russell’s Memorial” issue, December 1, 1916. As reported in that issue, he was one of the speakers at Russell’s funeral.90 His letter to Lundborg indicated, that his congregation’s experience regarding the seventh volume was shared by a number of other Bible Student groups. Giving further evidence of this, three of the ousted directors, F.H. McGee, Paul Johnson and others, wrote the following in A Letter to International Bible Students, dated March 1, 1918: From many we learn that the gravity of the situation has been intensified many fold by having had placed before them a book called “The Finished Mystery,” and which purports to be the long-looked-for truthful exposition of Revelation and Ezekiel. Many faithful Bible Students tell us that as they have carefully and prayerfully investigated and examined this book, and as they fail to hear therein the voice of the Good Shepherd speaking to his faithful sheep, they refuse to follow its voice as being that of a stranger. These faithful brethren call our attention to the fact that this book is sailing under false colors; for they say, and we believe, that the word “posthumous” is entirely out of place as applied to this book, for the reason that it does not contain one sentence of Brother Russell’s writings which was not published before his death, and which, so far as is known, he expected to have incorporated in his proposed Seventh Volume; therefore it could not be Brother Russell’s Seventh Volume, either posthumous or otherwise.

Thus it is seen at once that on one hand, by the claim that it is his posthumous work, and on the other hand by his being praised therein, even beyond his great deserts, the responsibility of praising himself with exaggeration, has been fixed upon him. Additionally, the faithful watchers point out to us that, induced thereto by the claim that it is his posthumous work, thousands have accepted a mediocre book as his, which thereby speaks with an authority which it does not possess, and which thereby has secured for itself and its author and publishers an authority and a prestige with many, greatly above it and their deserts…. Suffice it here to say that many brethren are hoping that under the Lord’s Providence the many errors and misapplications of Scripture in this volume will yet be pointed out, so that the truth may be more clearly discerned. Commenting on this letter, Charles F. Main in South Australia addressed its publishers: A large section of the brethren here and indeed throughout Australia are in sympathy with your attitude toward “The Finished Mystery” and the Watch Tower articles on the same, which they are quite unable to accept as from the Lord, either as regards their spirit, or their interpretations of Ezekiel and Revelation. Nor can they regard the volume as in any sense of the word, Pastor Russell’s. In Adelaide a large section of the Ecclesia found it necessary to separate from it, as they felt they could not identify themselves with those who were engaged in teaching and spreading broadcast these erroneous interpretations as truth. … We understand that similar divisions have taken place throughout America and elsewhere, and our sympathies are with those who have seen the need for taking this course.91 More than a decade later Paul Johnson summed up his criticism of the seventh volume: “Think of it, beloved, only 100 days, after eight hours of each of them were devoted to other work, were used in the preparation of a commentary on Revelation! This was hothouse production with a vengeance! And the product, of course, smells of the sweating system that made it! In the past we charged that this unseemly driving on J.F. Rutherford’s part of these two brothers forced them to produce a half-kneaded and half-baked loaf, and was in part responsible for many of its mistakes and for its crude condition.”92 From “Divinely Provided” to “Unsatisfactory” The seventh volume itself asserted that it was “Divinely provided.”93 In his tract, The Parable of the Penny, issued in the summer of 1917, C.J. Woodworth, one of the book’s authors, claimed on page 5 that “the LORD’S wisdom, not man’s, provided the Seventh Volume of Scripture Studies. It is His word and history will prove it so.” The Watch Tower of December 15, 1917, page 373, claimed: “That the hand of the Lord has supervised its publication and distribution must be evident to all who have been watching the Lord’s direction of the Harvest.” The Watch Tower, April 1, 1919, pages 105 and 107, emphasized “that none other than the Lord himself has served us with the truth of Ezekiel and Revelation … who can doubt that it is indeed the Lord who has placed upon his table the exposition of these two prophetic books of the Bible…?”

Yet, in the end, the Watch Tower Society itself rejected the seventh volume. The last time The Finished Mystery was specifically advertised in The Watch Tower was in the issue of November 15, 1928, page 351. The Watch Tower, November 1, 1929, page 322, announced a temporary campaign for “the full set of seven volumes of Studies in the Scriptures” for just $1.25, but that seemed to be just a final effort to clear the stock. When Rutherford published his two-volume book LIGHT on Revelation in 1930 he stated in the preface: “Prior to 1930 there never was a satisfactory explanation published.”94 In 1931 he similarly rejected the Ezekiel part of the seventh volume. He stated: “Ezekiel was one of the prophets of God. Heretofore his prophecy has not been understood.”95 Referring to the Revelation part of the seventh volume, the Watch Tower Society stated in 1969: “Explanations given to these earnest Christian Bible students prior to the end of World War 1 in the year 1918 failed to satisfy them.” Also, “In the course of time The Finished Mystery proved to be unsatisfactory.”96 This viewpoint was repeated in the 1988 book Revelation Its Grand Climax At Hand, page 159. Still, later, The Watchtower, March 15, 2000, page 13, claimed that “in general, the explanation offered was hazy.” This was quite a different tune than the one sounded the first years following its publication! More than that, The Watch Tower Society’s book God’s Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached, published in 1973, admitted on page 347, that The Finished Mystery “tended to establish a religious sect centered around a man.” The Society’s Unwarranted Accusations What is particularly relevant here is the fact that the ousted directors, Paul S.L. Johnson and other early defectors realized these facts before Rutherford and succeeding Watch Tower leaders did. Moreover, they pointed this out in print at the time the Society’s leaders were still hailing the book as the height of divine wisdom! As shown above, a number of the ousted directors lamented the fact that the seventh volume praised Russell “even beyond his great deserts,” doing so in A LETTER TO INTERNATIONAL BIBLE STUDENTS, sent out in 1918. C.F. Mann in Australia observed that the leadership “practically deify Pastor Russell” in the book.97 A few years later Paul Johnson mentioned “the ultra-extravagance” with which C.J. Woodworth “wrote of Bro. Russell and his writings” in the book.98 At the time when these observations were made, the Watch Tower leadership stated that those who rejected the book “were enemies of truth and righteousness” and that they did not “love the law of God.”99 Even in the 1973 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Society stated on page 106 that those who attacked the book in the Letter to International Bible Students were “enemies of the truth.” Such accusations, of course, were totally self-serving. They showed the level of sectarianism the leadership was suffering from. With its several silly interpretations, its false predictions about 1918 and 1925, and its deification of Russell, The Finished Mystery may well have been the most flawed book that the Watch Tower Society has ever produced. Paul Johnson was certainly

correct when he wrote about the book in 1918: “It seems to be wholly unfit for the edification of the Little Flock.”100 It was to the credit of the ousted directors, Paul Johnson, McGee and others that they rejected the book. And it was to Rutherford’s discredit that he decided to force it upon the movement. If he had abided by the Watch Tower charter and let the directors have a proper and fair say about the publication, a great deal of trouble could have been avoided. More facts relating to the seventh volume will be presented in coming chapters.

Footnotes 1 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of records, pp. 578, 1304; A.H. Macmillan: Faith on the March, p. 98 2 The Watch Tower Reprints, p. 861 3 This preface was reprinted verbatim in St. Paul Enterprise, January 1, 1918, p. 1 4 The Watch Tower, July 15, 1906, p. 236 5 L.W. Jones: What Pastor Russell Said, p. 645 6 The Watch Tower, December 1, 1916, p. 365 7 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, p. 969 8 Ibid, p. 477 9 Ibid, pp. 585, 586, 477, 478 10 Ibid, p. 586 11 Ibid, p. 482 12 Ibid 13 Ibid, p. 487 14 Ibid, pp. 1311-1313 15 Ibid, p. 1313 16 The Watch Tower, December 15, 1917, p. 372 17 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, p. 587 18 Ibid, p. 1305 19 Ibid, pp. 520, 587 20 Ibid, p. 546 21 Ibid, p. 558 22 Ibid, p. 605 23 The Golden Age, March 6, 1929, p. 373 24 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, p. 574 25 Ibid, p. 520 26 Ibid, pp. 973, 974 27 The Watch Tower, February 15, 1919, p. 58 28 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, pp. 555, 608, 862 29 Ibid, p. 859 30 The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 327 31 The Present Truth, December 24, 1918, p. 28 32 “A Conspiracy Exposed”, Extra Edition of Zion’s Watch Tower, April 25, 1894, p. 59; Light after Darkness, p. 22

33 Harvest Siftings, p. 20 34 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, p. 1278 35 Ibid, p. 913 36 Ibid, p. 843 37 Ibid, pp. 860, 861 38 Ibid, pp. 860, 861 39 Ibid, pp. 843, 844, 848 40 Ibid, p. 863 41 Ibid, p. 864 42 Ibid, pp. 595, 596 43 Ibid, pp. 684, 685 44 Harvest Siftings, p. 20 45 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, pp. 1003, 1004, 1005, 1038, 1073 46 Ibid, p. 981 47 Ibid, pp. 1003, 1004 48 Ibid, pp. 1004, 1038 49 Harvest Siftings, p. 20 50 Light after Darkness, p. 11 51 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, p. 1073 52 Ibid, p. 1005 53 Ibid, p. 1312 54 Ibid; The Watch Tower, December 1, 1917, p. 366 55 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, pp. 1170, 1173, 1299, 1300 56 Geo. A. Glendon Jr. SOUVENIR Report of the Bible Students’ Convention, Pittsburgh Pa., January 2-5, 1919. New York city, N.Y.: Printed privately. Supplement, p. 42 57 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, pp. 1205-1207 58 Ibid 59 Ibid, pp. 295-297, 608, 1206 60 Harvest Siftings, p. 16 61 Facts for Shareholders, p. 9 62 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, pp. 1300, 1301 63 Light after Darkness, p. 18 64 Facts for Shareholders, p. 9 65 The Watch Tower, February 15, 1919, p. 58 66 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, p. 977 67 Ibid, pp. 604, 977 68 Ibid, pp. 913, 914 69 Ibid, p. 1032 70 Harvest Siftings, Part II, p. 32; Light after Darkness, p.18 71 Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose, p. 90 72 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, pp. 125,126 73 BEREA, tidskrift för bibelstudium, Augusti –September, 1920, printed privately, p. 75. (My English translation)

74 The Finished Mystery, 1917, pp. 5, 6 75 Harvest Siftings, p. 24 76 The Finished Mystery, p. 483 77 Ibid, p. 144 78 Ibid, p. 241 79 Ibid, p. 64 80 Ibid, p. 485 81 Ibid, p. 128 82 Ibid, p. 247 83 Ibid, p. 230 84 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, p. 596 85 Ibid, pp. 686, 787 86 Ibid, p. 869 87 St. Paul Enterprise, Tuesday, November 20, 1917, p. 3 88 The Present Truth, December 9, 1918, p. 7 89 Harvest Siftings, Part II, p. 30 90 The Watch Tower, December 1, 1916, p. 372 91 J.D. Wright, I.F. Hoskins, P.L. Greiner, F.F. Cook, I.I. Margeson, F.H. McGee, H.C. Rockwell. The Committee Bulletin No. 2, September,1918, p. 7. Printed privately. Place of publication not indicated. 92 The Present Truth, May 1, 1929, p. 76 93 P. 145 94 J.F. Rutherford. Light. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1930. Vol. 1, pp. 5,6 95 J.F. Rutherford. Vindication, Book 1, p. 13. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1931 96 Then is Finished the Mystery of God. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1969, pp. 26, 252 97 C.F. Mann. Notes and Comments on “The Finished Mystery.” Adelaide, Australia: Bible Students Tract Society, February 10th, 1919, p. 29. J.O. Melinder published a Swedish translation of this booklet in 1920. 98 The Present Truth, May 1, 1929, p. 76 99 The Watch Tower, April 1, 1919, p. 107; Ibid, October 1, 1926, p. 295 100 The Present Truth, December 9, 1918, p. 13

Chapter 16 On the Road to the 1918 Election As shown in chapter 14, Rutherford would leave Brooklyn on a two-month convention tour in the western states following the meeting of his new board on August 6, 1917.1 On August 8, three of the deposed directors moved out of the Bethel headquarters.2 The fourth, Hirsh, soon followed suit.3 Thus, they were hardly in a position to pay much attention to Bible Student conventions that year. In any case, they would not have been allowed to play any significant part in them. Having decided not to take Rutherford to court, they were preoccupied with preparing for the annual meeting of the Watch Tower Society that was to take place on January 5, 1918, when they hoped to unseat him. The preparations had to include a lengthy printed response to Rutherford’s widely circulated pamphlet Harvest Siftings, which had utterly defamed them. Rutherford, on his part, was determined to use the entire Watch Tower machinery, including the conventions and The Watch Tower magazine, to fortify his position and secure his reelection. This necessarily would have to involve further blackening of his opponents. The Numerous Conventions Held in the Second Half of 1917 At the annual meeting in January 1918, Rutherford reported that “more than 24 conventions” had been held during the past year, and he pointed out that he personally had attended “about 20.”4 The first one, held in Boston from August 1-15, was followed by 9 conventions that were honored with a separate report in The Watch Tower, October 15, 1917, pages 318, 319. That report put forth remarkable claims: “The friends refused to discuss past troubles or disturbances…. At every convention resolutions were adopted by almost unanimous vote approving the present management of the WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY and its officers, pledging unreserved loyalty to the Society.” That the attendants “refused to discuss past troubles” actually only meant that Rutherford’s opponents would have no opportunity to argue their case. But at the convention in Aurora, Illinois, on August 8-12, C.J. Woodworth was allowed to present the same slanderous exposition of the parable of the penny he had delivered at Boston.5 The resolutions adopted “at every convention” pledging “unreserved loyalty to the Society,” naturally implied that Rutherford could pull strings in his own favor. Besides, it shows the strong sectarian spirit prevailing. To pledge “unreserved” loyalty to a fallible human agency was something unheard of in the movement when C.T. Russell was at its helm. Rutherford’s western tour did not end with the convention in Los Angeles, the last one mentioned in the report. Conventions were also held in St. Joseph, Missouri, in Des Moines, Iowa, and in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, before Rutherford was back in Brooklyn.6 He was back by October 3 when the New York congregation of Bible Students held its annual meeting to elect

elders and deacons.7 His opponents were sufficiently strong in this congregation to be problematic to him. It is possible that the report from the western conventions was meant to synchronize with the election, which could be a matter drawn out over a week or two. Rutherford’s self-aggrandizement and his attacks on the “opposition” were witnessed at later conventions. At the Washington, D.C. convention on November 2, Van Amburgh “addressed the assembly in the afternoon, bringing out points of assistance to the friends in connection with the present difficulties.”8 At the thanksgiving convention held in St. Louis, November 29-December 2, those who were “in opposition” and those who opposed the Seventh Volume “were classed as murmurers.”9 In November, the ousted directors wrote about “the unprecedented succession of Conventions for some time past, largely to boom the President for reelection.”10 Much later Paul Johnson mentioned Rutherford’s “country-wide convention campaign of misrepresentation” of his opponents.11

Figure 6. Light after Darkness Light After Darkness

“Five brethren spent much time and labor” in the preparation of the directors’ reply to Rutherford’s Harvest Siftings.12 Its full title was LIGHT AFTER DARKNESS A Message to the Watchers, Being a refutation of “Harvest Siftings.” It was dated September 1, 1917, and contained 24 pages. The “darkness” referred to was of course Harvest Siftings. The “five brethren” were the deposed directors and lawyer Francis H. McGee. Vice President Pierson was not engaged in the production and did not sign it. After the Boston convention he “quietly withdrew” from the opposition to support Rutherford,13 but neither the directors nor McGee knew of that until later. Thus, McGee addressed his AN OPEN LETTER TO THE SHAREHOLDERS OF THE SOCIETY, appearing on pages 15-19 in Light after Darkness, to “Messrs. Pierson, Ritchie, Wright, Hoskins and Hirsh, Box 179, Brooklyn, N.Y.” This open letter was dated August 15, 1917. However, Rutherford later reported that Pierson “was asked for his signature, but refused to sign it.”14 In a later statement Pierson himself said that the use of his name “in any publications concerning the controversy” after the Boston convention had been entirely without his “previous knowledge and consent.”15 This undoubtedly included a reference to the directors’ republication on page 23 of Light after Darkness of the OPEN LETTER TO BOSTON CONVENTIONERS, which Pierson did sign. Rutherford claimed “that a letter formerly issued at Boston and containing the name of Brother Pierson was so adroitly arranged at the conclusion of ‘Opponents Paper’ as to lead the unsuspecting to believe that said document had been signed by Brother Pierson.”16 Significant, too, is the fact that Paul S.L. Johnson, who was the main target in Harvest Siftings, was not one of the authors, and that the pamphlet did not deal with his case in detail. This proves that Johnson was not the leader of the directors as Rutherford had claimed.17 As a professional journalist Robert H. Hirsh naturally played an important role when Light after Darkness was composed. But as pointed out above, the other deposed directors also took part in the production. A sign that different pens were involved is the fact that the name of Rutherford’s ally, Macmillan, was inconsistently spelled both as “Macmillan” and “MacMillan.” While the directors were still certain that they were legal officers of the Society, they now accepted the fact that unless they took the matter to court, the issue of their rights had to be settled by the shareholders. Under the subtitle AN APPEAL TO THE VOTING SHAREHOLDERS on page 7, they asked: “Is it safe to leave the management of the Society’s affairs in the hands of one who shows such disrespect and seeming contempt for Brother Russell’s wishes and the safeguards which he endeavored to throw around the management of the work after his death?” Of particular value in the pamphlet was McGee’s lengthy OPEN LETTER, as McGee was an outstanding lawyer who had nothing personally to gain by his involvement. He addressed the directors: “It is proper for you to notify the shareholders of the Society that you have been ousted from control of the Society and by illegal means.”18 The directors also published a verbatim copy of the Society’s charter containing all the important sections thereof that supported their case. This was apparently the first time that most

Bible Student readers saw that significant document. Light after Darkness also presented the startling news that Menta Sturgeon had “come under the wrath of our President, having been called such names as Judas and traitor.”19 This was an important piece of information as Sturgeon had endeared himself to the Bible Students generally because he had accompanied Pastor Russell on his last trip and was with him when he died. The directors undoubtedly used this information to alert the Bible Students of the trend at Watch Tower headquarters. The directors admitted, however, that they had one notable handicap: “Since the President and his associates have control of the list of names, shareholders and subscribers, we are able to send this statement to only a limited number of the friends.”20

Figure 7. Harvest Siftings, Part II Harvest Siftings, Part II The Watch Tower, September 15, 1917, pages 286-287, contained A LETTER FROM OUR PRESIDENT, written in California. It said: “The brethren who recently caused the disturbance at Brooklyn have issued another paper which they call ‘Light after Darkness’ a copy of which has

just reached me in California.”21 He stated he could not attempt to answer the statements right then, but he added: “If it is deemed necessary to do so, I will issue a complete answer in a short time.” In the letter he once again brought up his charge that his opponents had intended to “wreck” the Society: “When I issued HARVEST SIFTINGS I stated that by the Lord’s grace I would prevent the wrecking of the SOCIETY, at least until the January election, I feel confident that the Lord will permit me to keep this promise to the dear friends.” While he himself had completely maligned his opponents in Harvest Siftings and called their motives into question, he felt stung by Light after Darkness. He complained: “My motives are called in question and I am maligned.” It is not surprising that he soon had the following announcement made in The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, page 322: “HARVEST SIFTINGS, PART II, PUBLISHED AT THE REQUEST OF THE SOCIETY’S Board of Directors in reply to the paper called ‘Light after Darkness,’ free on request.” His reply contained 8 pages, and the pagination was just continued from Harvest Siftings, stretching from page 25 through 32. He started by saying that Light after Darkness “is a misnomer for a paper issued by Brothers Hirsh, Hoskins, Wright and Ritchie, and is not in fact a reply to HARVEST SIFTINGS. I shall refer to it herein as ‘Opponents’ Paper,’ having in mind the brothers who prepared and published it.” That Light after Darkness” was not a reply to Harvest Siftings was a strange statement, obviously made just to belittle it. But in spite of Rutherford’s prospect to issue a “complete” answer to his opponents, he actually did not do so. Above all, he completely ignored McGee’s long contribution with its legal arguments. In fact, he did not even mention McGee! Nor did he say a word about the serious claim that he had by now turned on Menta Sturgeon and called him a “Judas and traitor.” Perhaps the following statement made by Rutherford may be seen as his excuse for not presenting a detailed reply to Light after Darkness: “The real issue is, was the President justified in appointing four members of the Board of Directors, which he did on the 12th day of July, 1917, to fill vacancies then existing and to hold office until the next annual election on the 5th day of January, 1918? Anything aside from the facts bearing upon this question beclouds the issue. The paper published by our opposing brethren seeks to bring in a great many other things which have nothing to do with the real issue, but which have a tendency to confuse.”22 This was an evasive and unfair statement, however. That is clear from the fact that Rutherford personally had brought up a great amount of material in his Harvest Siftings that had no bearing on the issue of filling vacancies on the board. As the ousted directors pointed out in a later statement on the controversy: “Can you not see if such is the case that Brother Rutherford himself endeavored to confuse the real issue by stating what he did about Bro. Johnson in his ‘Harvest Siftings, No. 1,’ because Bro. Johnson’s conduct in England has nothing to do with the possible vacancies on the Board of Directors and the power of the President to fill any possible vacancies?”23 Thus, the four directors were asserting that Rutherford had put up a “straw man” that he could refute. So, they held that such an argument indicated that he had a very poor case. On page 26 of

HARVEST SIFTINGS PART II, he commented on the fact that his opponents had quoted Russell’s statement in 1894 that the usefulness of the directors “would come to the front” in the event of his death. However, Rutherford claimed: “When he wrote these words he had no thought of either Brothers Ritchie, Wright, Hoskins or Hirsh, because at that time none of them were connected with the SOCIETY. These words do not occur in Brother Russell’s Will nor in the Charter; then it is manifestly unfair that an attempt is made to incorporate these words in Brother Russell’s Will, or in the Charter.” The directors actually had made no such attempt. But they had shown that the board, not the president, was to “become his successors in the control of the Society’s affairs.”24 It was surely more than “manifestly unfair” of Rutherford to state that the directors attempted “to incorporate” Russell’s statement in the Will or in the charter! In his second pamphlet, Rutherford dwelt quite extensively on the by-laws placing the management of the Society in the hands of the president. These had been approved by the shareholders at the annual meeting in January and had been accepted by the board soon afterwards. The four directors had planned to revoke them in June. Rutherford now claimed that “while technically, the power to enact by-laws resides in the Board, yet everyone should desire to abide by the voice of the majority of the Shareholders.” His opponents, he emphasized, had aimed at “trampling underfoot the wishes of the Shareholders.”25 This viewpoint completely overlooked, indeed rejected, paragraph 7 in the Watch Tower charter, which stipulated that the board of directors “shall have full power to make and enact bylaws.”26 Not a word in the charter even hinted that by-laws were a matter for the shareholders to decide. That is why McGee had pointed out that the directors were legally empowered to alter the by-laws “by passing new by-laws and new ordinances, as they saw proper.”27 Moreover, the shareholders had not suggested the existing by-laws. A resolution committee recommended them, and Van Amburgh, Rutherford’s ally, had handed that committee those bylaws.28 The committee had edited and reworked them and was about to present them to the shareholders when Rutherford interfered. To his consternation he learned that the committee had changed the by-law providing that the president might appoint “an Advisory Committee of three” to advise him. The committee felt that the board of directors, and not the president, should appoint this committee.29 Rutherford, who anticipated his election as president, then insisted that the by-laws be changed back to their original form before being presented to the shareholders. “I argued with the Committee and they agreed with me,” he admitted.30 The directors stated that he threatened “a fight before the Convention” if the change was not made, and that he held the committee up “for an hour behind the platform.”31 Rutherford did not deny this. Of course, he realized that the shareholders would have approved the by-laws as changed by the committee, and he did not like that. Thus, it is clear that it was his views that had been prepared in advance that mattered, not the independent judgment of the shareholders. One of the by-laws approved at that time was actually “slightly amended” afterwards by Rutherford’s new board.32 Hence, so much for the feelings of the shareholders! Worse than the misrepresentation outlined above were the outright lies that Rutherford put

across about what the directors had conceded. On page 31 he claimed: “It is further admitted by the opposing brethren that everything about the SOCIETY at the office headquarters was working smoothly and without a hitch until about June, 1917…. It is admitted by them that the consideration of Brother Johnson’s episodes in England was the beginning of the present trouble.” This was 100% contrary to what the directors actually had stated in Light after Darkness: “From what we have said foregoing in these pages, we believe that all can see that the coupling of Brother Johnson’s affairs with the Board of Directors is an attempt to becloud the real issue and the real trouble, which existed before the return of Brother Johnson to America. Since selfexaltation began before there was any trouble about the English case, and since objections to the President’s course were made from January to March, it is manifest that Brother Johnson had nothing to do with our affair.”33 During the sedition trial in 1918, Rutherford in effect admitted that he had not stated the truth in Harvest Siftings, Part II. There he stated under oath that Johnson was recalled from England “and the four mentioned had been disgruntled about other matters.”34 Although Harvest Siftings, Part II was a shabby reply to Light after Darkness, Rutherford was able to use it in his own behalf in the Watch Tower section called “Interesting Letters.” One published letter stated: “HARVEST SIFTINGS, Part II, has just fallen into my hands, and I am now glad it was gotten out, though it was my thought that ‘Light after Darkness’ needed no reply. The spirit breathed by every line of the latter was its own condemnation.”35 Yet Rutherford obviously thought that Harvest Siftings, Part II did not quite succeed in defeating the deposed directors, for he had more to say about the management of the Society in the November 1, 1917, issue of The Watch Tower. “The History and Operations of Our Society” As Light after Darkness had published the Watch Tower Society’s charter, Rutherford then felt compelled to publish it also. He did this in the Watch Tower article mentioned above, called “The History and Operations of our Society.” There he also offered his analysis of the charter and wrongly asserted that there “seemingly has been some misunderstanding” about it.36 As shown in chapter 12, he seriously misrepresented the situation in this article by claiming that the president, vice president and secretary-treasurer were members of the board “by virtue of the terms of the Charter” irrespective of election to directorship. “At each annual election,” he claimed, “only the three officers were elected; hence they alone constituted the legal members of the Board of Directors.”37 In addition, he falsely asserted that according to the charter “those selected or appointed to fill vacancies,” should “hold office only until the next annual meeting … at which time a full and complete Board must be elected by the Shareholders.”38 The charter instead stipulated that vacancies filled by the directors would hold office “for life, unless removed by a two-thirds vote of the Shareholders.”39 Under the subtitle WHO ARE ENTITLED TO VOTE Rutherford outlined the by-law “now in force” to the effect that “the right to vote” would cease when a person “becomes opposed to the

work of this SOCIETY.”40 In a proxy form for the coming election sent out with the November 1, 1917, Watch Tower, shareholders were asked to answer the question if they were in harmony with the Society.41 In an answer to a direct question The Watch Tower, November 15, 1917, page 338, denied that the by-law related “to the present disagreement as to who constitutes the legal Board of Directors.” But while this point had been made already in the by-laws accepted in early 1917,42 it is impossible to avoid the impression that the reason why Rutherford now stressed it was that he was preparing to prevent his opponents from voting. McGee observed: “It looks like a studied effort to exclude any from voting who do not agree with the three principal brethren [Rutherford, Van Amburgh and Macmillan] who have subverted affairs by force and craft.”43 The charter expressly provided that the donation of every 10 dollars “shall entitle the contributor, or his assigns, to one non-forfeitable … share, and to one vote for every such share.”44 It also stipulated that by-laws “shall not be repugnant to this charter.”45 So the by-law meant to bar anyone from voting who “becomes opposed to the work and policy of the SOCIETY” was clearly illegal. The votes earned by the contributions mentioned were “nonforfeitable.” McGee correctly observed: “The right to vote is a Charter right and cannot be taken away by means of a by-law.”46 J. Fithian Tatem of the Philadelphia bar elaborated: The Charter of the corporation having provided that those who had contributed a certain sum were entitled to vote, the officers or Directors or even the Stockholders (so-called) would have no right to adopt a by-law which sets up another and contradictory test as to the right to vote, namely, that one must be in full harmony with the Society. Such a by-law could have no effect on the rights of those who had complied with the Charter provision and were therefore entitled to voting rights. The only way in which their rights could be taken away from them would be by a formal amendment of the Charter.”47 This attempt to limit voting rights was evidently another example of Rutherford’s deplorable maneuvers. Nevertheless, McGee advised the shareholders that they might answer “yes” to the question of loyalty to the Society, since “one man, such as Bro. Rutherford cannot be the Society.”48 As long as the shareholders had not decided to stand by Rutherford’s arguments and polices, there would be no pressing need to answer “no” to such a question. It seems that Rutherford’s attempt to bar certain shareholders from voting failed. But in the same Watch Tower article he made another attempt to manipulate the upcoming election in his own favor. He did this by trying to limit the actual impact of the proxies to be cast. As in earlier elections, the majority of shareholders would not personally attend the annual meeting and cast their votes. But they could authorize a deputy to vote their shares for them. They could write out a proxy to be used by their representatives, their proxy-holders. Rutherford now argued:

A proxy is a general power of attorney, wherein the Shareholder delegates to another the power and authority to vote in his name, place and stead. Hence it is not proper to write on the proxy the name of the person or persons for whom votes shall be cast. However, the one holding the proxy would desire to respect the wish of the Shareholder; and that he might know, it would be proper that the Shareholder attach to his proxy a letter of instruction, advising his proxy or substitute as to the person or persons for whom he may desire such votes cast—provided, of course, such person or persons are nominated. It would not be reasonable to expect that everyone who holds such instruction would be required to nominate any such person named—for this reason: Brother A holds proxies from a dozen different persons, each of whom instructs him to vote those proxies for as many different persons, and it would be inconsistent for him to nominate opposing candidates. The obligation of the one holding a proxy is to vote for those who are placed before the convention.49 The method proposed by Rutherford suggested that proxy holders should not vote for candidates not nominated, but, rather, should ignore the wishes of the shareholders who had asked them to act as their proxies and to vote for others. In fact, the Watch Tower president specifically claimed that “it would be inconsistent” for one holding a proxy “to nominate opposing candidates.” Rutherford suggested that “in addition to the officers and members of the Board of Directors of the SOCIETY who shall be personally present at the annual meeting,” five other appropriate persons could serve as proxy-holders.50 If this advice was followed Rutherford and his supporters could easily control the election regardless of what names the proxies actually contained. Again, McGee took Rutherford to task: “The Proxy sent out with the Nov. 1 TOWER is one which permits the person voting for another to disregard his wishes. It permits the one holding the Proxy to vote at the Annual Meeting or at any adjourned or subsequent session of the Annual Meeting for the election of Directors or Officers, as the person holding the Proxy may decide.”51 Thus, those votes meant for persons of the “opposition” could actually be cast for Rutherford and his supporters. McGee offered a different proxy, one that gave “the special and particular authority to vote for particular persons only.” This form of proxy was sent out with Facts For Shareholders. Contrary to the proxy sent out by Rutherford, it was designed specifically “for the following named persons for Directors” and also for the persons named for president, vice-president and secretarytreasurer. It adds: “And for no other person and persons than as named herein, as the power of attorney is limited to the purposes hereinabove set forth.”52 Johnson corrected Rutherford’s claim that it would be inconsistent for a proxy-holder “to nominate opposing candidates.” He pointed out: “If a person holds proxies from a number of persons, he is thereby empowered to make as many nominees as there are persons for which he is asked to cast proxies, and to vote the instructed shares for each designated nominee; for he acts as the representative of those whose proxies he holds.”53

Rutherford in this connection claimed that the wish of a shareholder should be respected “provided” that “such person or persons are nominated” and that the obligation of anyone holding a proxy was “to vote for those who are placed before the convention.” This was a Rutherford trick only. As will be shown in next chapter Rutherford himself disregarded “the obligation” when it suited his plans. A Referendum Vote Suggested The same Watch Tower article attempted to eliminate another hazard at the upcoming election. Although Pierson had now withdrawn his opposition, Rutherford realized that he could not count on his support to be reelected. Pierson was one of the major shareholders, and as a proxy-holder representing friends “all over the land,” he had played a major role when Rutherford was elected in January, 1917.54 Other prominent proxy-holders might also constitute a threat to Rutherford’s reelection. Having orchestrated a great number of conventions in the second half of 1917, where only his side of the controversy had a say, he was confident that a majority of the Bible Students would prefer him and his allies over his opponents. But, as one of the Society’s history books has said: “The majority would not have the opportunity to express themselves” at the election, “since it was a corporation matter involving only the voting shareholders.”55 So, at that point, Rutherford suggested a solution to this dilemma. He published a letter from A.B. Dadley which proposed that “some change should be made, throwing the election of officers in the hands of all the minds of all the members as it now prevails in our Ecclesias, giving each one an equal voice, and imposing equal responsibility upon all.”56 Dadley suggested that “all the classes throughout the land” should indicate their choice and “make a report to the annual meeting, thereby showing the sentiment of the friends throughout the land.”57 Rutherford welcomed the proposal and suggested that all the congregations should assemble “on Wednesday, November 21st, at 7:30 p.m.” and that every member “fully consecrated” should participate. He further proposed “that the vote be first taken as to who shall constitute the members of the Board of Directors for the ensuing year, and then that another vote be taken as to who should constitute the officers.” He concluded: “We believe that this would be the better way of ascertaining the Lord’s will; and since all the shareholders will desire to do the Lord’s will, they would doubtless desire to be governed by the expressed wish of a majority of the members of the Ecclesias.”58 This was in reality a denouncement of the voting procedure outlined in the charter, which had been written by C.T. Russell, whom both parties of the controversy viewed as “that servant.” Russell had insisted that it was those who had contributed money, and nobody else, who should have a say about how this money was used. He could easily have adopted the position advanced by A.D. Dabney and Rutherford, but he never did so. In fact, neither before nor after 1917 was such a straw vote suggested in the history of the Watch Tower Society. It is all but certain that Rutherford would not have promoted the move if he had not been sure that it would favor him. Harvest Siftings Reviewed

If Rutherford had maligned the four directors in Harvest Siftings, that was nothing compared with the character assassination he had bestowed upon Paul S.L. Johnson. But Johnson, too, was able to publicly defend himself, which he did in a 20-page pamphlet called Harvest Siftings Reviewed, dated November 1, 1917. The bulk of the material “was written in August,” but various considerations “prevented its earlier publication.”59 The entire pamphlet was reprinted on pages 7 through 96 in Johnson’s later work Epiphany Studies, Vol. 6, published in 1938. Johnson’s pamphlet is a major contribution to the source material for the management schism. Its value lies not least in a number of documents and letters Johnson published verbatim, which are not available elsewhere. But Johnson’s unwillingness to contest certain matters that Rutherford and others had held against him also makes his pamphlet significant. One example of this is his passing by information on the cablegram he sent to Rutherford from Liverpool on February 24, 1917, in which he declared: “Since January Twenty-eight am Steward Matthew, Twenty, eight … powers like Russell’s.”60 Another is his silence about a letter he wrote to Jesse Hemery in London, having the same date, which stated that the Lord would eventually show Rutherford “who has been His choice as Brother Russell’s successor.”61 But Johnson was able to demonstrate in his own favor that Rutherford had lied about the credentials he had served Johnson with when the latter was about to leave for England. Contrary to Rutherford’s claim that the credentials were “for procuring a passport,”62 Johnson could show that the application for a passport and the “letter of appointment” backing the application were written a week before the credentials, which were dated November 10, 1916.63 One of the most important pieces of information that Johnson offered in his pamphlet was his detailed report of his efforts as mediator between Rutherford and the ousted directors, July 1825, 1917.64 Rutherford had acknowledged this mediation and stated that he let Johnson “pursue his course,” but had not given any details.65 By recommending Johnson’s pamphlet as “another contribution to the truth,” the directors vouched for Johnson’s account of his mediation.66 Rutherford made no attempt to answer Harvest Siftings Reviewed, but he published a letter from William E. Page in The Watch Tower, December 1, 1917, page 366, that mentioned it. Johnson had suggested that Page, “a former vice-president,” would make “a much better President than Bro. Rutherford.”67 In response, Page stated that he “must emphatically veto the suggestion” and offered the following reasons: The President of the SOCIETY must needs be of tested, proven financial ability to handle its various important business transactions. He shall also be an able public speaker to properly present the object and work of the SOCIETY in its public meetings. I do not possess these essential qualifications and Brother Rutherford does; and in addition our dear Brother has a rounded, developed Christian character (the most essential factor); and understanding the work of the SOCIETY and having it well in hand, he is in my judgment the Lord’s best qualified agent to continue in charge of the interests and work of our SOCIETY.

Page had been mentioned in Russell’s will as one of the five members of the Watch Tower editorial committee as a renowned figure in the movement. He did not realize, however, that Russell had intended that the board of directors collectively were to be in charge of the Society’s affairs after his death. Nor did he reckon that the Watch Tower president was only to be the chairman of the board. But by publishing his flattering letter, Rutherford was able to turn Johnson’s pamphlet into his own use. The Society’s manager in Britain, Jesse Hemery, wrote a 12-page reply to Johnson’s pamphlet, called P.S.L. JOHNSON’S Pamphlet “Harvest Siftings Reviewed,” itself reviewed, dated December 7, 1917. In Rutherford’s Harvest Siftings Hemery had criticized Johnson severely, and in his reply, Johnson had not spared Hemery. The latter’s pamphlet is valuable as it sheds further light on Johnson’s operations in England. It also shows that some of Johnson’s doings had been less than positive. But Hemery made one important concession on page 4: “The letters from me which he quotes on page five I agree with, and I am glad for once to be able to say that I agree with his review.” Those letters, dated January 27, February 5 and February 25, 1917, clearly show that Rutherford’s presentation had not done justice to Johnson’s role in the British affair. Having Hemery’s positive recognition of the letters Johnson had published, it is now safe to conclude that Johnson had in fact made a more sensible appraisal of the British situation than Rutherford was willing to admit. Hemery concluded on pages 4 and 11: “The congregation as a whole did accept the result of Bro. Johnson’s endeavor, while they disagreed with the extravagance of his manner and methods. … I still believe he was used of the Lord to do a cleansing work.” The Election of the New York Congregation On October 3, 1917, the New York City congregation of Bible Students held its annual meeting to elect elders and deacons for the ensuing year. There are only two reports of this event available. The four ousted directors published the earliest one on November 15, 1917;68 P.S. L. Johnson published the second one 12 years later.69 In addition, Rutherford stated in passing that he had received 302 votes in the election.70 The New York congregation, connected with the Brooklyn Tabernacle, was probably the largest Bible Student congregation in the world. At the annual Memorial celebration in the spring of 1917, no fewer than 917 members partook of the Lord’s Supper.71 The congregation, or ecclesia as it was usually called, had a rule requiring a 75% vote to be elected an elder.72 Rutherford wished not only that he and his close supporters should be elected elders, but also that his opponents, many of whom belonged to the New York congregation, should fail to be elected. To forestall the possibility that he and his supporters would not be elected, “it was suggested by the President that those who are acting as Pilgrims are Elders of the Church at large anyway and would not need voting on at all.”73 But this was something never held to be the case before. So, no one should have been surprised that many in the congregation objected to Rutherford’s

suggestion by calling attention to a resolution already on record to the effect that “no one be considered an Elder of this congregation unless duly elected as such.”74 The meeting was then adjourned to a later date. When the meeting was resumed, Rutherford’s faction realized that the minority that was against it was “so large as would defeat their election on a 75% basis.”75 Even “with the aid of the Bethel family the President and others would not have been able to have been elected as Elders for the ensuing year.”76

Figure 8. Harvest Siftings Reviewed This was a real setback for Rutherford and his supporters, but they had a remedy in store for this situation. They had one of their supporters move that the election “be postponed until after the Society election of January 5, 1918!”77 Not surprisingly “the election was postponed until January.”78 In this way Rutherford was able to save face. As reported in The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, January 10, 1918, page 4, the annual meeting for election in the New York congregation did indeed take place on Wednesday January 9, 1918, four days after the Society’s election. The deposed directors and their supporters pointed out that if Rutherford’s suggestion that Pilgrims should be considered as local elders without election had actually been carried out “the president would create a hierarchy that would rival the hierarchy of the Catholic church.”79 But that far Rutherford and his supporters had been prepared to go in order to remain elders.

Figure 9. Facts for Shareholders

Facts For Shareholders The deposed directors felt they had to reply not only to Harvest Siftings, Part II but also to the Watch Tower article, “The History and Operations of our Society,” dealt with above. In that article, Rutherford had made known how he felt the upcoming election should be conducted, and McGee thought that these claims had to be critiqued and in some cases corrected. Therefore, the deposed directors produced another pamphlet called FACTS FOR SHAREHOLDERS of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, dated November 15, 1917. It contained 16 pages. On page 15 it stated: “The ‘DO YOU KNOW’ Questions, which occupy a considerable part of this paper were written by a large number of well-informed friends in the New York congregation, who, together with ourselves, vouch for the truthfulness of the statements made in their respective queries. The Prefatory was not written by us, nor with our knowledge.” A.I. Ritchie, J.D. Wright, I.F. Hoskins and R.H. Hirsh signed the pamphlet on page 16. The “Prefatory” or preface inserted on page 3 stated: If the Shareholders desire to defeat the present President and Treasurer and any of the pseudo Board of Directors in disapproval of the present temporary management, they should remember that scattered votes will never accomplish the purpose. As many will always vote for those in power, we therefore suggest that the Lord may have indicated to us at the time of our Pastor’s death by the association and presence with him of Brother Menta Sturgeon, that he would make a satisfactory President. We suggest, therefore, that Brother Sturgeon be voted into the office of Director, and then voted for by those wishing to select a new President. … The following are the names to be voted for Directors and officers: MENTA STURGEON, Director and President ALFRED I. RITCHIE, Director and Vice-President H. CLAY ROCKWELL, Director and Secretary-Treasurer J. DENNIS WRIGHT, Director ISAAC F. HOSKINS, Director ROBERT H. HIRSH, Director ANDREW N. PIERSON, Director Rockwell had resigned from the Watch Tower editorial committee and from the board of directors in early 1917. He was clearly critical of Rutherford and his supporters. Sturgeon had “finally been compelled not only to resign from the editorial staff, but also from membership in the Bethel family because of Bro. Rutherford’s violations of Bro. Russell’s arrangements.”80 McGee contributed more than six pages at the beginning of the pamphlet. He took Rutherford to task on a number of the legal issues. He also contradicted his claims in Harvest Siftings, Part II

on page 25 regarding the “real issue.” Rutherford maintained that it was whether he as president was justified in appointing four members of the board “to fill vacancies then existing.” McGee emphasized, contradicting Rutherford, that the real issue “was the question: Were there any vacancies to be filled at all?” He then concluded that the question could be answered “in the negative.”81 McGee also published the detailed by-laws that the dissident directors had intended to enact at the board meeting scheduled for July 20, 1917, which of course could not take place since Rutherford publicly ousted them on July 17.82 Based on these by-laws, he concluded that the directors “had no such absurd intention of wrecking the Society, as charged by the President.”83 On page 14 the directors published a legal opinion from J. Fithian Tatem “of the Philadelphia Bar.” In his answers to the questions put to him he contradicted Rutherford’s legal views on no less than 5 points that have been dealt with in previous chapters. Facts For Shareholders also argued that Rutherford misused language: “DO YOU KNOW that he juggles the meaning of the word ‘management’ to hide his usurpation? DO YOU KNOW that the issue between the Board’s majority and him was on controllership in the Society’s affairs, and not on management, as distinct from controllership?”84 The New York lawyers employed by the directors had pointed out that Rutherford’s arguments were based upon “the use of the word ‘Manager’ in a double sense.”85 In Harvest Siftings, Part II, page 31, we see that Rutherford misrepresented the directors when he stated that Light after Darkness “expressly admits (Page 6, column 2) that thus the real issue of the management (not control) of the SOCIETY came to the front and led to the introduction of the resolution to repeal the by-law.” The directors had admitted no such thing! Instead, they had stated that it was when Rutherford insisted that Johnson’s British case “was none of their business,” that they concluded that “the real issue, the management of the Society came to the front.”86 They definitely used the word “management” here in the sense of controllership. The devastating facts conveyed both in Harvest Siftings Reviewed and Facts for Shareholders would naturally be hard nuts to crack for Rutherford. So, although some of his supporters probably hoped that he would respond, he chose to just ignore the two pamphlets. He had earlier used considerable time, energy, and the Society’s money to produce and send out his two editions of Harvest Siftings. But now he apparently felt he was no longer able to engage his opponents. He made the following announcement in The Watch Tower, December 1, 1917, page 354: “We shall make no reply to any further papers sent out by the opposition. We realize it is only a desperate attempt on the part of the Adversary to hinder the Harvest work. … We have nothing to hide and nothing to fear, but a great and glorious work to do quickly.” This was a completely new attitude, which, if valid, actually undercut his earlier strong efforts to defeat his opponents. It seems obvious that he now had little or nothing with which to defend himself. Petition from 156 Members of the New York Congregation

Just before Facts for Shareholders went to press in November 1917, 156 members of the New York congregation of Bible Students sent both an “Open Letter” and “A Petition” to Rutherford and the deposed directors. These documents, three pages in all, were enclosed with Facts for Shareholders. The open letter introducing the petition lamented the ongoing management conflict: “We have seen this controversy grow until now it threatens the harmony of the New York City Ecclesia.” The upcoming election of the Society was of great concern. The signers were not in favor of the referendum vote announced to take place on November 21, 1917, since it would inevitably mean “to cast our votes for brethren as Directors and Officers of the Society … who are lying under serious charges.” The referendum vote, they claimed, “is not necessary; nor under the circumstances does it seem wise.” The signers suggested another way of settling the issues: We believe this could be accomplished by the appointment of a representative committee of brethren, Shareholders of the Society, to hear the evidence regarding the matter under controversy, including the activities of the Society and its Officers during the past year; that this committee (chosen as hereafter outlined) should be given full information as to the Society’s financial condition, organization, legal status, relation to the Peoples Pulpit Association, the foreign Branches—in fact, as to all the matters necessary to a thorough understanding of the Society’s work … and that this committee, after hearing all matters and ascertaining the truth as respects the contradictory statements which have been published, should make a full report to the assembled Shareholders at Pittsburgh on January 4, the day before the election of Directors and Officers is to take place. In harmony with this statement the signers requested that the contending parties arranged “for an Investigation Committee” composed in the following way: “Brother Rutherford to choose three (3) members. The four deposed Directors to choose three (3) members. These six (6) brethren to elect another. The seven (7) thus constituted to choose by election the remaining members of the committee, which we suggest number in all, 15.” The directors reported in Facts for Shareholders that the suggestion appealed “very favorably” to them, and they hoped that Rutherford would “take the same view.”87 But he did not. He bluntly replied in a letter published in The Watch Tower, December 1, 1917 on page 367: “I shall pay no attention to the petition.”88 He argued: “I have stated everything I have to say in print, in ‘Harvest Siftings No. 1 and 2.’ They have published several papers and the presumption is that they have stated all they have to say.” He continued: “Since all the facts are in print, what could a committee do but merely hear the facts and repeat them? The decision of fifteen would not aid it one way or another.” Of course, his reply misrepresented the purpose of the petition. What was specifically requested was that the committee should do its investigation “without prejudice” and report their decision “together with their recommendations” to the voting shareholders. P.S.L. Johnson later reported that “an investigation was the last thing J.F.R. desired, since he knew that he would under it have been proved to be the gross wrong-doer.”89

In his letter Rutherford went so far as to say that the petition was “calculated to deceive those who are not familiar with the facts.” But how could a completely impartial investigation be dismissed as deceptive? How could it be problematic? Only a person fearing such an investigation could reasonably object to it if he was in the wrong. Rutherford’s negative attitude was all the more deplorable as he ended his letter by claiming that he had suggested a similar investigation “at the Boston Convention on August 5th last.” He was able, however, to launch another attack on the suggested investigation just prior to the election. He did this by publishing a letter from A.E. Burgess, one of the 156 signers of the petition: “Inadvertently and without due thought and consideration I affixed my name to the circular letter which I understood was circulated quite widely amongst the friends and sent out with one of the publications of the opposition. I desire now to go on record as repudiating absolutely, and having no sympathy with the proposition contained in the circular letter referred to on page 367 of Dec. 1st WATCH TOWER. I am not in opposition to the Lord, the SOCIETY nor to Brother Rutherford, and do not wish to be.”90 Burgess had clearly changed his mind about the petition only because Rutherford condemned it. Obviously, anyone supporting a completely impartial and fair investigation was viewed as being “in opposition to the Lord,” the Society and “Brother Rutherford.” Burgess’ reversed stand was of particular value to Rutherford. Burgess was a director in the Peoples Pulpit Association.91 And as one of those few who had been mentioned in Russell’s Will on the reserve list for The Watch Tower editorial committee, his name would carry weight among the Bible Students. But although Rutherford rejected the petition for an investigation, yet both individuals and congregations were officially assured that the problems “should and would be discussed” at the actual shareholders’ meeting.92 The Referendum Vote, November 21, 1917 The official report about the referendum vote held in the congregations or classes on November 21, 1917, appeared in The Watch Tower, December 15, 1917, page 375, and also appears in the 1919 Watch Tower Reprints on pages 6184 and 6185. As published originally, it was conveniently available to play a role at the Society’s election of January 5, 1918. E.H. Thomson, General W.P. Hall, and J.T. D. Pyles had received and tabulated the vote and reported it. Eight hundred and thirteen congregations took part in the vote according to the report, but “fifty-five classes reported that they were unable or unwilling to vote.” The figures as published in The Watch Tower Reprints, page 6185 follow here:

Figure 10. Vote results As can be seen, the number of Bible Students who took part in the vote was less than 12,000. Based on the list of Watch Tower subscribers, The Watch Tower of December 1, 1917, page 354, calculated that there were “approximately 75,000 adherents” in the United States. While this figure may have been inflated because it included isolated Bible Students or interested persons

not connected with any ecclesia, it is unlikely that those who did vote represented “a majority of the members of the Ecclesias” as Rutherford had stated that it would.93 But it did serve him well. In all likelihood it was mainly his supporters who responded to his recommendation to vote in the referendum. If 55 congregations did not participate, it is also reasonable to conclude that there were some Bible Students in those congregations that did vote who felt they could not participate either. Concerning another matter, McGee had written just before the referendum vote: “It looks like a reasonable suggestion that the Classes vote on the matter. But the difficulty is that the Class voting does not in such cases operate at first satisfactorily, because the friends, knowing little of the true circumstances, and not being so well informed as the influential Shareholders, are unable to protect themselves, and are swayed by the Class influence in meeting assembled by those who are willing to influence them by spontaneous suggestions.”94 So that everyone should know who to vote for from Rutherford’s point of view, he had mentioned “the present members of the Board” in The Watch Tower of November 1, 1917 on page 329 as “J.F. Rutherford, A.N. Pierson, W.E. Van Amburgh, A.H. Macmillan, W.E. Spill, J.A. Bohnet and Geo. H. Fisher,” adding that A.I. Ritchie, R.H. Hirsh, I.F. Hoskins and J.D. wright “also claim to be members of the Board.” As could be expected, all “the present members of the Board” received by far the greatest number of votes in the referendum, including Pierson, despite his having wavered in his support for Rutherford. None outside of the acting directorate received any significant number of votes. C.J. Woodworth, a loyal Rutherford supporter, received only 1,776 votes as a director, compared to Pierson’s 8,888 votes. And Pierson received an overwhelming 5,722 votes as vice president, compared to Macmillan, who got only 1,856 votes, the second largest number. The All-Important Seventh Volume During the autumn of 1917, the seventh volume became the most important book used by the Watch Tower Society. The Watch Tower, September 1, 1917, page 258 urged its readers: “The SOCIETY especially recommends the presenting of the Seventh Volume to your neighbors—not to the ministers, because this would only arouse them to more bitter opposition—but to those who might have ears to hear.” The Watch Tower, October 1, 1917, page 294, showed that the earlier volumes of Studies in the Scriptures had to take a back seat in contrast to the seventh volume: “Our thought is that the canvassing by the colporteurs should be done for the entire seven volumes, but the colporteurs should specialize on the Seventh Volume.” The colporteurs were advised to tell people they visited: “No matter what church you belong to, you need these books, and particularly the Seventh Volume.” This immense distribution of the seventh volume meant that the leadership rejected Russell’s understanding that the book was not to be meant for the world. In 1910, he had answered a question about the seventh volume in this way: “I believe that it will be published in time to do some good this side of the vail to the Little Flock, for I understand it is to be especially for the

Little Flock and not for any others except the Little Flock and the Great Company. It is not for the world.”95 Consequently, Rutherford’s opponents observed: “DO YOU KNOW that Bro. Russell always set forth the fact that ‘the truths recorded in Revelation are not for the world, not for nominal, Christians, but for the Church, the body of Christ, the saintly ones—the Church of the Firstborns which are written in Heaven’? (See Foreword, page 3, top of page—‘Battle of Armageddon.’)”96 But Rutherford and his supporters relied on another statement made by Russell in a questionand-answer meeting, although not dealing with the seventh volume. In 1916, Russell had stated that the faithful would have “a two-edged sword in their hands,” meaning “the Word of God,” and would “execute the judgment written,” that is “to put the truth in such a way as to do the judging.”97 Referring to the Old Testament prophecy of Ezekiel 21:15 they claimed: “This book is designated ‘the point of the Sword,’ which is set against the Babylonish systems, and which, cutting away the mask, exposes the true nature and foretells the imminent fall of Babylon.”98 Russell had never stated that the judging to be done by the faithful would be by distributing the seventh volume. But Rutherford and his cohorts did just that. Thus, they ignored Russell’s views concerning the seventh volume! Rutherford and his followers also held that the time for the “judgment” was thought to be very limited. The Watch Tower, September 1, 1917, page 258, anticipated “to see a great deal accomplished during the coming six months.” Why only “during the coming six months?” The Watch Tower, October 1, 1917, page 293, explained that the “Harvest” would close “in the spring of A.D. 1918,” and concluded: “If this be true, and the evidence is very conclusive that it is true, then we have only a few months in which to labor.” It is therefore perfectly understandable why Bible Student congregations “throughout the country” started “Berean Studies” or topical “Bible Studies” in the seventh volume.99 And it is no wonder that the Society produced a four-page tract featuring “THE FALL OF BABYLON” with extracts from that volume. Mass distribution of 10,000,000 copies of this tract started on December 30, 1917.100 The seventh volume also had consequences for speakers at the conventions and for local elders. While Rutherford was in the west on his convention tour, there was a convention in Westfield, New York “in early September” 1917.101 One of the elders in the Pittsburgh congregation attended and later wrote the following to Paul Johnson: “On the programme of the convention our dear Brother Cook’s name had been placed for a discourse. After arriving in Westfield, we learned that the brother’s name had been taken off the programme; inquiring why, we were told that no pilgrim would be sent from Brooklyn if he spoke.”102 To get a clear understanding of just what this letter meant, it is necessary to understand the following information: Frank F. Cook was a former member of the Bethel staff. In response to a demand from Brooklyn, Charles R. Cox of Westfield had written a letter to Cook dated August 22 to ascertain his position on the seventh volume prior to his being listed on the convention program. Cook’s written answer was soon printed as a tract. He wrote: “I most earnestly do not believe that the so-called 7th volume should for a moment be classed with the six volumes of

Scripture Studies, which has [sic!] meant so much to us all.” He added: “It takes something more than branding by the printing of the name ‘International Bible Students Association’ or ‘Peoples Pulpit Association’ to make a book authentic.” He indicated that he would not attend the convention under the circumstances and ended his letter in this way, documented on page 2 of the tract: “I will, preserve a copy and you can make any use of this letter that you may see fit in the interest of truth and a right understanding of my position, as well as others who may hold a like opinion.” It is not clear as to whether Cook or Cox published this tract. The Pittsburgh elder quoted above had “been an Elder in the P. [Pittsburgh] congregation from the time that the Bible House moved from Allegheny to Brooklyn until January 1, 1918,” when he had to step down.103 He had the following to say about how the seventh volume altered his position: We took the volume to the steel works, and with the few minutes’ spell we would get during the day we managed to read it through against the 15th November, 1917. The very next Sunday a Brother told me in the D. class that the teaching of the Seventh volume was to be a test for Eldership in the congregation. I could hardly believe that, because I did not think that our Lord was unreasonable, and would expect me to prove that book when I had hardly time to read it. But, sure enough, I was notified by Brother S. over the telephone at 2 o’clock on the day of the election that that was to be the test at the election. I went to the meeting, and the question was put to all the nominees. One said he had read the book in a cursory way; and he was elected; others said that they had studied the book and rejoiced and were thankful to our dear Father in Heaven for the new light He had given them. Others said that they could not possibly teach it, because they found so many erroneous statements in it. They were defeated. When it came my turn, I was asked the question: did I believe it was the seventh volume sent by the Lord, and could I teach it to the different Bible Classes through the week. My answer was no; that while it might be the seventh volume, I did not know that because I had not proved it; and that I could not teach it for the same reason; and I could not teach it until I had proven it.104 He failed election. Only two months later it became the official position that anyone who did not accept the seventh volume “as from the Lord” should not be elected an elder: “It is a part of the work of the SOCIETY to give the volume a wide distribution, because it is believed the due time has come for a message to be given against Babylon. A teacher that is opposed to the Seventh Volume, therefore, would be opposed to the SOCIETY’s work, out of harmony with the SOCIETY; … Hence such an one should not stand for election to the position of elder.”105 Prominent Bible Students Side with Rutherford Gertrude W. Seibert had been one of Russell’s confidants. Many of her poems had been published in The Watch Tower. She had compiled the “Manna” book that was widely used among the Bible Students. She took a public stand with respect the controversy in a letter

published in The Watch Tower, December 1, 1917, on page 366. She wrote: “After considerable thought upon the matter, I am firmly convinced that the opposition to the present management is but a subtle effort of the Adversary to ‘throw dust’ into the eyes of the Lord’s people, and thus to thwart the further publication and circulation of the Seventh Volume, if possible. And why should there be any objection to the Seventh Volume on the part of anyone?” Of course, her stand was quite foreseeable, as she had been a driving force in the development of the seventh volume. Nevertheless, her position may not have been known generally, and therefore her statement certainly strengthened Rutherford’s position greatly. But even more important was a letter vice president Pierson wrote just before the election. During the Boston convention in early August, Pierson had clearly been engaged with the opposition to Rutherford. According to Paul Johnson, he had even characterized in Rutherford’s Harvest Siftings “as a production of Satan.”106 In October Johnson wrote that Pierson had assured him “lately” that he “stood for” Light after Darkness.107 Yet shortly before the 1918 yearly Watch Tower convention, he wrote: “According to all indications, the blessing of the Lord continues increasingly with those who are striving to ‘show forth His praises,’ including the brethren at Brooklyn who are endeavoring to direct the activities of the SOCIETY. Believing that they have been faithful to the Divine commission ‘to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God,’ I am glad to cooperate heartily with them.”108 This of course meant that he had accepted the seventh volume and was promoting it. Pierson now had turned around 180 degrees! Rutherford must have been very pleased to publish his letter at the last moment before the election. It would undoubtedly stand him in good stead. The Opposition on The Eve of the 1918 Election Both on account of their opposition to Rutherford’s autocratic leadership and their rejection of the seventh volume, the deposed directors were sidelined at the conventions arranged by the Watch Tower Society in the second half of 1917. All four of them had earlier been elected elders in the New York congregation but were now “denied general service as Elders,” a predicament that soon was shared by Menta Sturgeon.109 Rutherford’s position as permanent chairman of the congregation facilitated this.110 However, at the anniversary memorial service held in memory of C.T. Russell on October 31 in “the New York Temple”111 the deposed directors as well as Sturgeon were allowed to participate but Paul Johnson was not. He later lamented: “We were in the audience, and were ignored while standing and waiting an opportunity to testify.”112 Johnson soon arrived at a definite understanding of a prophetic topic highlighted by Pastor Russell in 1916. Russell was looking forward to “some very trying experience that will separate the Elijah class from the Elisha class.”113 He was referring to “a separation between the two classes of the Lord’s people,” which he understood were typed by the Old Testament prophets Elijah and Elisha.114 He never had any opportunity to pinpoint a clear fulfilment of his expectations, but on December 17, 1917, Paul Johnson announced to a small group of Bible Students in Philadelphia

that the “separation” in question actually was the painful division taking place among the Bible Students over the management issue in the Watch Tower Society.115 Several other explanations of the Elijah-Elisha separation would soon surface, even one by the Rutherford faction. But Johnson’s view would become known at the coming election and would affect Johnson’s conduct at that event. Menta Sturgeon had left Brooklyn for a trip to New England in the latter part of November.116 He returned to be present at the Society’s annual meeting on January 5, 1918, which was set in the context of a convention in Pittsburgh on January 3 through 6, 1918.117 On one of the first days of the convention—before the election—he surprised other Rutherford opponents by claiming that “the present management” and “all its ardent supporters were in the Second Death Class” and that the seventh volume was “entirely of the Devil.”118 These were more radical views than Johnson and the directors held. Yet because Sturgeon was one of the most learned men in the Bible Student movement and was considered “one of the most noted preachers” in the country119 the stage was then set for a decisive election and a major Bible Student division.

Footnotes 1 J.F. Rutherford: Harvest Siftings, Part II (Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, October 1, 1917), p. 30; Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, p. 1282 2 Moyle vs. Franz et al, 1943, Transcript of record, p. 1536 3 J.D. Wright, A.I. Ritchie, I.F. Hoskins, R.H. Hirsh. LIGHT AFTER DARKNESS A Message to the Watchers, Being a refutation of “Harvest Siftings,” (Brooklyn, N.Y.: Printed privately, September 1, 1917), p. 9 4 St. Paul Enterprise, January 15, 1918, p. 3 5 A.I. Ritchie, J.D. Wright, I.F. Hoskins, R.H. Hirsh: FACTS FOR SHAREHOLDERS of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society (Brooklyn, N.Y.: Printed privately, November 15, 1917), p. 8. 6 The Watch Tower, September 1, 1917, p. 272 7 The Present Truth, October 1, 1929, p. 156 8 St. Paul Enterprise, November 20, 1917, p. 1 9 Ibid, December 18, 1917, p. 1 10 Facts for Shareholders, p. 13 11 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, p. 464 12 Facts for Shareholders, p. 15 13 The Watch Tower, January 1, 1918, p. 15 14 Harvest Siftings, Part II, p. 25 15 The Watch Tower, January 1, 1918, p. 15 16 Harvest Siftings, Part II, p. 25. Even modern researchers who have not studied the contemporary material sufficiently have fallen prey to the misconception that Pierson signed Light After Darkness. See for example Charles F. Redeker: PASTOR RUSSELL: Messenger of Millennial Hope (Temple City, California: Printed privately, 2006) pp.288, 289 and Poul Bregninge: Judgment Day Must Wait (New York: YBK Publishers, 2013) p.557. 17 Harvest Siftings, pp. 16, 22, 23 18 Light after Darkness, p. 16 19 Ibid, p. 13 20 Ibid, p. 22

21 This letter was not reproduced in the Watch Tower Reprints. 22 Harvest Siftings, Part II, p. 25 23 Facts for Shareholders, p. 8 24 Light after Darkness, p. 5 25 Harvest Siftings, Part II, p. 27 26 Light after Darkness, p. 23; The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 327; emphasis added in text. 27 Light after Darkness, p.16 28 Facts for Shareholders, p. 11; Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, pp. 363, 364 29 Harvest Siftings, Part II, p. 27 30 Ibid 31 Light after Darkness, p. 5 32 The Watch Tower, November 15, 1917, p. 338 33 Light after Darkness, p. 8 34 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, Transcript of record, p. 1037 35 The Watch Tower, November 15, 1917, p. 350 36 The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 328 37 Ibid 38 Ibid 39 The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 327; Light after Darkness, p. 21 40 The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 329 41 Facts for Shareholders, p. 2 42 See Moyle vs. Franz et al, 1942, Transcript of record, pp. 1537,1538. Also see Appendix 5 43 Facts for Shareholders, p. 2 44 The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 327; Light after Darkness, p. 21 45 Ibid 46 Facts for Shareholders, p. 2 47 Ibid, p. 14 48 Facts for Shareholders, p. 2 49 The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 329 50 Ibid 51 Facts for Shareholders, p. 1 52 Ibid 53 Paul S.L. Johnson: Harvest Siftings Reviewed (Brooklyn, N.Y.: Printed privately, November 1, 1917), p. 20. 54 The Watch Tower, January 15, 1917, p. 22 55 Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose (Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, published anonymously in 1959), p. 72. 56 The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 330 57 Ibid 58 Ibid 59 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p.19 60 Harvest Siftings, p. 3 61 Ibid, p. 5

62 Ibid, p. 2 63 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 2 64 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 17 65 Harvest Siftings, p. 23 66 Facts for Shareholders, p. 8. See Chapter 10 above for more details. 67 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 19 68 Facts for Shareholders, p. 12 69 The Present Truth, October 1, 1929, p. 156 70 The Watch Tower, December 1, 1917, p. 367 71 The Watch Tower, May 15, 1917, p. 157 72 Facts for Shareholders, p. 17; The Present Truth, October 1, 1929, p. 156 73 Facts for Shareholders, p. 12 74 Ibid 75 The Present Truth, October 1, 1929, p. 156 76 Facts for Shareholders, p. 12 77 The Present Truth, October 1, 1929, p. 156 78 Facts for Shareholders, p. 12 79 Ibid 80 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 20 81 Facts for Shareholders, p. 3 82 Ibid, pp. 4-6 83 Ibid, p. 4 84 Ibid, p. 12 85 Davies, Auerbach and Cornell, letter of July 23, 1917. See Appendix 9 and “Legal Literature and Statements” in the Bibliography. 86 Light after Darkness, p. 6 87 Facts for Shareholders, p. 16 88 This letter was not reproduced in the Watch Tower Reprints published in 1919. 89 Epiphany Studies, Vol.10, p. 465 90 The Watch Tower, January 1, 1918, p. 15 91 The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 328 92 J.D. Wright, I.I. Margeson, F.H. McGee, R.G. Jolly, P.S.L. Johnson, I.F. Hoskins, R.H. Hirsh: A Letter to International Bible Students (Brooklyn, N.Y.: Printed privately, March 1, 1918), p. 2. 93 The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 330 94 Facts for Shareholders, p. 7 95 L.W. Jones: What Pastor Russell Said (Printed privately. Undated but published in 1917), p. 730. 96 Facts for Shareholders, p. 10 97 The Watch Tower, December 15, 1917, p. 372; What Pastor Russell Said, p. 387 98 The Watch Tower, December 15, 1917, p. 372 99 The Watch Tower, November 15, 1917, p. 349 100 The Watch Tower, December 1, 1917, p. 354; Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose, p. 74 101 St. Paul Enterprise, October 8, 1917, p. 1

102 The Present Truth, March 17, 1919, p. 64 103 Ibid 104 Ibid 105 The Watch Tower, Match 1, 1918, p. 70 106 The Present Truth, March 1, 1930, p. 45 107 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 19 108 The Watch Tower, January 1, 1918, p. 15. The italics were used in the letter as published. 109 Facts for Shareholders, p. 7 110 Ibid 111 The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 322 112 The Present Truth, May 1, 1920, p. 80 113 The Watch Tower, February 1, 1916, p.39 114 Ibid 115 The Present Truth, May 1, 1920, p. 77 116 Ibid, April 19, 1919, p. 70 117 The Watch Tower, December 15, 1917, p. 370 118 The Present Truth, April 19, 1919, p. 70 119 St. Paul Enterprise, July 11, 1913, p. 6

Chapter 17 The 1918 Election and Its Immediate Consequences The convention in Pittsburgh had been announced for January 3 to 5, 1918, but according to a later report, it actually started on January 2, which was a Wednesday.1 This earlier start was probably a measure of precaution on Rutherford’s part in order to more efficiently oil the machinery on his behalf before the annual meeting that was scheduled for Saturday morning January 5 at ten o’clock.2 Of course, the ousted directors had no say in the preparation of the convention program. As in the conventions held in the latter part of 1917, supporters of the Rutherford faction maligned “the opposition” in various ways.3 Not surprisingly, they used the changed opinion of A.N. Pierson, who did not attend the convention, to discredit the former directors.4 “From every quarter of the country came encouraging messages concerning the Seventh Volume.”5 This played into Rutherford’s hands at the expense of his opponents, for the seventh volume was destined to be a crucial factor in the coming election. Apart from that fact, Paul Johnson later reported that Rutherford had arranged for a thoroughly “bossed” convention.6 The Annual Meeting Without being elected, Rutherford simply assumed the chairmanship of the annual meeting and used that position throughout the meeting to rule in favor of his own plans to the disadvantage of the four ousted directors.7 The meeting started with Rutherford’s extensive report as president for the past year.8 According to his report, Rutherford made much of the fact that he had been able to save a great deal of the Society’s money during the year, all in all “approximately $56,000.” But in fact, from his critics’ view that should not have enhanced his presidency. After all, were he to have still been no more than the Society’s lawyer, he would undoubtedly have rendered the same service gratis. For that was something he had done when Pastor C.T. Russell was the president of the Watch Tower Society. But many in the convention audience were undoubtedly impressed by his claim to have saved money as president, and he knew it. Following the president’s report, a report from the treasurer, the substance of which had been published in The Watch Tower earlier, was delivered.9 A similar report had not been delivered in 1917 or earlier, but the peculiar conditions prevailing for some time seemed to call for it. The ousted directors, and even vice president Pierson, had been denied financial information that they were legally entitled to examine and evaluate, and they had made quite an issue of that fact. Thus, the Rutherford faction decided to defuse that issue which their opponents had used against them before the then presidential election. Secretary treasurer Van Amburgh’s report in The

Watch Tower, December 15, 1917, page 374 was not as detailed as the opponents had requested, but Rutherford had made a clever move that seemed to support it. He and his appointed board had decided that a select auditing committee should examine the Society’s books. That examination took place at the Society’s office in the Brooklyn Tabernacle on December 8, 1917.10 The committee consisted of Eliot H. Thomson, Harry J. Aldrich and Clayton J. Woodworth.11 Of the three, Woodworth was a dyed-in-the-wool Rutherford supporter, and it is likely that the other two were also. This could have substantially diminished the value of their report. After all, if Rutherford and Van Amburgh had nothing to hide, they would have selected a more clearly unbiased committee. But, in the long run, a majority of those present at the convention did not question the committee’s composition. Hence, to the satisfaction of Rutherford and his partisans, the committee reported the following: “The books were found in excellent condition, accurately kept, with the accounts stated fully and clearly. The SOCIETY’S cash was found to be properly deposited in Banks, Trust Companies and Safety Deposit vaults.”12 The committee also vouched for Van Amburgh’s report as of October 31, 1917.13 Of course, it is possible that the committee’s report was totally fair and accurate, but there is no way of telling at the present time. Request for Investigation Turned Down After the treasurer’s report, F.H. McGee proposed a motion “to delay matters for investigation.”14 But such was not to be. A later report in The Watch Tower stated: It was the thought of some present that the recent misunderstanding with reference to the management of the SOCIETY should be discussed in detail; but it was manifestly the belief of the overwhelming majority of the shareholders present that full and complete publication had heretofore been made concerning such misunderstanding, and that further discussion or agitation of the same would do no good. It was pointed out by those who expressed themselves that the friends were fully advised as to the facts, and that further discussion of it was wholly undesirable; that having received the published statements of both sides and carefully considering them, the brethren had come there with their hearts lifted in prayer to the Lord to manifest His will; and that now was the time, not for talking, but for action.”15 This was actually an echo of what Rutherford had written in his letter in the December 1, 1917, Watch Tower concerning the suggestion for an impartial investigation before the annual meeting.16 McGee was silenced by “a point of order,” and those who supported him were “accused of seeking to obstruct matters.”17 That “the friends were fully advised as to the facts” was an incorrect statement. While Rutherford had distributed his version of the trouble to all Watch Tower subscribers, the opposition could reach only 17,000 of the more than 55,000 subscribers.18 Rutherford evidently realized that an investigation would not favor him. He was in fact more willing to accept a division in the movement than to face an investigation. It was a ploy to claim that the Lord

“would manifest his will” under such circumstances. Without an impartial and fair investigation anyone who would be elected would still be suspected by many of being “evil-doers.” Rutherford’s opponents surely did not think that the Lord was responsible for what went on at the 1918 annual meeting. In A Letter to International Bible Students, published in Brooklyn, N.Y., March 1, 1918, page 2, three of the four ousted directors, McGee and Johnson pointed out: For some months previous to the recent annual election many faithful brethren had been hoping and earnestly trusting that at this annual meeting full and complete arrangements would be made whereby all the brethren concerned might have a full hearing in the presence of the shareholders, and thus an amicable adjustment be made possible; for many individuals and Classes had been officially advised that at the shareholders’ meeting, and not in the Classes, these things should and would be discussed. How unspeakably disappointed were these dear brethren, who, upon their attendance at the recent annual meeting, saw all efforts to explain the situation suppressed, and every opportunity denied in the direction of peace and harmony. Nominations Following the discussion about a requested investigation of the Society’s books, nominations for the election of seven directors were to take place. Richard H. Barber, a pilgrim, “arose and stated that the friends throughout the country” had by referendum vote expressed their choice for directors and officers and “that he would take it therefore as the Lord’s will that the brethren receiving the highest number of votes at the referendum should be nominated.”19 Then he nominated Rutherford, Van Amburgh, Pierson, Macmillan, Spill, Bohnet and Fisher.20 Since Pierson had now sided with Rutherford, the opposition naturally did not nominate him as they had planned to do. Instead, they picked Johnson. In consequence, McGee nominated Menta Sturgeon, A.I. Ritchie, H.C. Rockwell, Isaac F. Hoskins, R.H. Hirsh, J.D. Wright and P.S.L. Johnson for directors.21 “Before the ballot was taken, however, Brother Johnson withdrew his name.”22 Johnson had concluded that the old board of directors, including the ousted directors, was the legitimate one. He therefore claimed that there ought to be no election of directors at all. Besides, he felt that the recent split in the Watch Tower Society was the division between antitypical Elijah and Elisha expected by Pastor Russell. For these reasons he not only “refused the nomination for directorship.” He even refused “to vote in the election of the Society’s officers.”23 That meant that his votes - at least 41624 - would not be cast for the opposition. McGee seems to have nominated W.J. Hollister in place of Johnson, as suggested by the list of the election results.25 Candidates Had to Answer Three Questions Two years later, Rutherford stated what followed next: “Before the vote was taken three questions were asked each one thus nominated, and they were required to answer publicly before the shareholders voted. These questions were: (1) Are you in harmony with the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society and its work, as provided by its charter and Brother Russell’s will? (2)

Have you answered the V.D.M. questions? (3) Do you accept ‘The Finished Mystery’ as the seventh volume of STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES, as published by the Society?”26 Paul Johnson observed: “Brother Jolly made the motion re the first point, and there was a double-mindedness in certain ones who had grossly violated the Charter and Will, when they told that they were and had been in harmony with them!”27 As will be shown later, the Rutherford faction was to underline its disregard for Russell’s Will at the conclusion of the convention the following day. The question about the seventh volume was obviously introduced by the Rutherford faction. Johnson stated on the same page that he had no “recollection of the other two questions being asked the candidates at the 1918 election.” However, since the seventh volume was such a dividing issue, Rutherford’s assertion was very probably correct. Indeed, as will be shown below, only four days later all candidates for eldership in the election of the New York ecclesia had to publicly answer the same question about the seventh volume. After Rutherford’s massive propaganda for the book, that had lasted almost half a year, the majority of the shareholders probably favored it. And the opponents, who had clearly rejected the book in print, would bluntly deny that they accepted it. All must have realized that if the opposition were to win the election, they would either withdraw the volume or play it down. When they spoke their mind about it, they must have suspected that Rutherford and his supporters would win the contest. McGee had pointed out in November that “the law requires that the ballot be taken by Inspectors of Election.”28 This requirement had been ignored when the 1917 election was held. McGee also stressed that the inspectors “should be selected by the vote of the Shareholders present.”29 But instead, Rutherford appointed these inspectors himself, one of whom was his staunch supporter, C.J. Woodworth.30 This of course cast a shadow on the outcome of the election. It was still forenoon when the ballots were cast, but “the count was not completed until about 8:30 P.M.”31 The Opposition Leaves the Annual Meeting Rutherford’s opponents did not stay for the announcement of the result. “We withdrew from the meeting just before the election returns were announced.”32 Four former directors, Johnson, McGee and others then “assembled in the Fort Pitt Convention” parlor.33 A Letter to International Bible Students, dated March 1, 1918, page 3, reported: “Upon the occasion of the recent annual election a considerable number of representative brethren from various parts, after being disappointed in not seeing harmony and peace prevail among all, decided to meet together for fellowship, prayer and conference, in an informal way Saturday evening, January 5, 1918. Others of like mind, hearing of this, came also; and strange to say, undesignedly and spontaneously, this informal conference grew into a small Convention, held in one of the parlors of the Fort Pitt Hotel at Pittsburgh, Pa.” The Election Results and an Analysis

When the results were ready at half past eight in the evening, the following figures for the election of directors were reported to the shareholders: J.F. Rutherford 194,106 Menta Sturgeon 27,261 A.H. Macmillan 161,871 R.H. Hirsh 23,198 W.E. Van Amburgh 160,215 I.F. Hoskins 22,660 W.E. Spill 118,259 A.I. Ritchie 22,631 J.A. Bohnet 113,422 J.D. Wright 22,623 C. H. Anderson 107,175 H.C. Rockwell 18,178 G.H. Fisher 83,260 P.S.L. Johnson 6,469 A.N. Pierson 57,721 W.J. Hollister 3,93134 The seven receiving the largest number of votes were elected, and thus Pierson failed to make the board. The Watch Tower, March 1, 1918, page 79, claimed: “At the Pittsburgh annual meeting, amongst the shareholders represented, about 88 per cent was [sic] in favor of the present management, as against 12 per cent opposed.” What is particularly remarkable is that C.H. Anderson, who had not been nominated, was elected to the board instead of Pierson, who had been nominated. According to the figures published, Anderson received almost twice as many votes as Pierson. Since The Watch Tower had emphasized earlier that the referendum vote in November would show “the Lord’s will” that the shareholders “would doubtless desire to be governed by,”35 we may safely assume that only Rutherford himself and his trusted supporters could have dared to cast their votes for Anderson instead of Pierson, especially as Anderson was not nominated. This shows the gross hypocrisy of Rutherford’s referendum claims. Pierson had not supported Rutherford wholeheartedly, and though he had recently written a supportive letter, Rutherford would not trust him. If Pierson had been elected to the board, he might also be reelected vice president, and Rutherford did not want that. Regarding the election of Anderson to the board Rutherford argued: “Brother Anderson was not formally placed in nomination for the position of a member of the Board of Directors. Nevertheless, this did not preclude any one from properly voting for him, and his election was entirely in harmony with the laws of the land and the Charter of the SOCIETY.” While that claim was no doubt entirely correct, it was contrary to Rutherford’s earlier claim that it was crucial that votes be cast for persons who were “nominated” and “placed before the convention.”36 It underlines, too, that the election one year earlier was a sham, for, as shown earlier, the votes for anyone not nominated then were not even counted! There is something remarkable, too, about the number of votes published for the election of directors in 1918. As Bible Student historian James Parkinson has pointed out, there seem to

have been discrepancies in those figures. The number of shares voted can be closely estimated by adding up the number of all votes and dividing by seven the number of names each share could vote for. That means that there were almost 163,300 votes involved.37 This represented a 9% increase over the previous year. According to the published figures, Rutherford got 194,106 votes for director in 1918. How could he get almost 31,000 more votes than the number of shares voting? It must be taken into account, too, that those who voted for Sturgeon of the opposition— he reportedly received 27,261 votes—would hardly have voted for Rutherford. This makes the discrepancy even greater, by about 58,000 votes. Rutherford’s alleged 194,126 votes plus Sturgeon’s 17,261 votes would raise the total number of votes to about 221,000. Since there were “approximately 150,000 votes” cast during the previous election in 1917,38 this would mean that the number of votes had increased by 47% in just one year. But that seems preposterous, and therefore should be rejected out of hand. That Rutherford received a remarkably large number of votes is best explained by the use of cumulative voting. We know that such a method came into play at the election the following year. J.A. Bohnet who was elected to the board in 1918, argued at the annual meeting in 1919: “I would esteem it a pleasure and gratification on my part that if there were any votes intended for me, I would be very glad if they were thrown over to Brother Rutherford instead of my place.”39 This clearly was applying cumulative voting where votes that could be used for one candidate actually also could be transferred to another candidate and so increase the number of votes cast for that one. It was a perfectly legal procedure. Pennsylvania Corporate law of the day stipulated: Cumulative Voting.—In all elections for directors, managers or trustees of any corporation created under the provisions of this statute, or accepting its provisions, each member or stockholder or other person having a right to vote, may cast the whole number of his votes for one candidate, or distribute them upon two or more candidates as he may prefer, that is to say: If the said member or stockholder or other person having a right to vote, own one share of stock or has one vote, or is entitles to one vote for each of six directors, or six votes for any one thereof, or a less number of votes for any less number of directors, whatever may be the actual number to be elected, and in this manner may distribute or cumulate his votes as he may see fit; all elections for directors or trustees shall be by ballot, and every share of stock shall entitle the holder thereof to one vote, in person or by proxy, to be exercised as provided in this section.40 This means that proxies controlled by Rutherford and his allies could be multiplied in his own favor at the expense of other candidates to ensure his election. The method might also explain the large number of votes for Van Amburgh and Macmillan. Indeed, the large number of votes C.H. Anderson received at Pierson’s expense is easier to understand if the Rutherford faction used cumulative voting. But could cumulative voting by itself explain the increase of the available votes by 47% over the last year? James Parkinson thinks that Rutherford, as president, also used Russell’s votes as the Society’s property in the election.41 In January 1907, Russell held 35,557 voting shares.42

Those shares surely would have sufficed to account for the extra number of votes cast, but would Rutherford have dared to use them? After all, he had argued in The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, page 328: “This certificate of membership is purely a personal right to vote and cannot be transferred. When a person holding certificates dies, the value of such certificates likewise dies. No one else could vote such certificates of shares.” Using Russell’s votes, therefore, would have appeared to be illegal and would be hypocrisy of the worst sort, and could have put Rutherford in a very bad light. On the other hand, he himself had appointed the three election inspectors. They were unquestionably in his pocket and nobody else needed to know everything about the mechanics of the election. So, it cannot be ruled out completely that Rutherford indeed was able to manipulate the election. What is certain, however, is that his opponents never claimed that the election had been conducted fraudulently. The Election of the Officers and Rutherford’s Talk Following the election of the seven directors, three officers were to be elected from among these seven. W.E. Page nominated Rutherford for president; A.H. Macmillan nominated C.H. Anderson for vice president; and W.E. Spill nominated Van Amburgh for secretary-treasurer. All three were unanimously elected.43 Immediately upon the announcement about the election of the three officers, Rutherford spoke from the platform. He claimed “that the Lord had manifested His will and expressed it through His people.”44 However, only one year later, Macmillan argued, while in prison in Atlanta, Georgia, with Rutherford and some six other Bible Students, that the Watch Tower election of 1919 was the first time “that it can be clearly evident whom Jehovah God would like to have as president.” Although neither Rutherford nor Macmillan could manipulate the Watch Tower election, Rutherford obviously felt that Jehovah was then on his and his fellow prisoners’ side when he was reelected Watch Tower president.45 That the Lord had manifested his will in the 1918 election—or in the 1919 election46—was evidently just sectarian wishful thinking. Although he did not take back his earlier accusation that the directors he ousted had tried to “wreck the Society,” Rutherford invited them to “work in harmony with the Society.”47 He knew that they would never accept the seventh volume, so this was nothing but a ploy to indicate to the Bible Student community at large that he was prepared to be magnanimous. This was underlined by the fact that the opposition had already left the convention. It was little wonder, therefore, that “nearly all of the members present manifested their approval of the sentiments expressed by repeated and prolonged applause.”48 Rutherford and His Associates Disregard Russell’s Will The Society’s convention was finished on Sunday, January 6, 1918. The afternoon session “was followed by a love feast, participated in by approximately one thousand brethren.”49 In those days, the speakers lined up in front of the platform at the end of conventions and distributed diced bread and shook hands with the participants. Hymns were then sung and the event was called a “love feast.”50 The official convention report at this time noted: “Just preceding the Love

Feast a motion was made and duly seconded, requesting Brother R.H. Hirsh to resign as a member of the Editorial Committee of THE WATCH TOWER. This motion was unanimously carried by the Convention, not a dissenting vote being offered.”51 This was contrary to Russell’s Will that all the newly elected directors had claimed to be in harmony with just the day before. The Will did not say that convention participants or even shareholders had the right to request that an editor should resign. Instead, it stipulated that removal could only be accomplished in the following manner: “At least three of the Board [of editors] must unite in bringing the impeachment charges and the Board of judgment in the matter shall consist of the WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY’S trustees and the five trustees controlling my voting shares and the Editorial Committee, excepting the accused. Of these sixteen members at least thirteen must favor the impeachment and dismissal in order to affect the same.”52 Rutherford had obviously failed to have Hirsh dismissed as editor according to the stipulation in the Will, and now, disregarding it, he attempted to have Hirsh removed in another way. Hirsh had actually been cut off from functioning as an editor for months53 but The Watch Tower still carried his name as one of the five editors, even as late as in the January 15, 1918, issue. By requesting his resignation, Rutherford felt justified in eliminating his name from The Watch Tower. Many would think that Hirsh complied and actually did resign. But Rutherford and his followers were bound to remove him whether he did or did not. Hence G.H. Fisher’s name replaced Hirsh’s as a member of the editorial committee in The Watch Tower issue of February 1, 1918. However, Hirsh was a fighter and would not go along with Rutherford’s game;54 so, he evidently ignored the request for his resignation. Of course, this made no significant difference. The convention’s motion to ask him to resign was passed easily since Hirsh was absent and unable to defend himself. As for the group that had then openly broken with the Society, during the entire Sunday, January 6, 1918, portion of the official Watch Tower convention, they were engaged in the Fort Pitt convention that they had started the day before. The Convention at Hotel Fort Pitt The first session of the Fort Pitt convention was held Saturday evening, January 5, 1918.55 There were three sessions at hotel Fort Pitt the following Sunday, which was also the last day of the Society’s convention.56 In the afternoon session, Ingram I. Margeson of Boston proposed the election of a committee to seek to ascertain the needs of many Bible Students who no longer would feel at home with the Watch Tower Society.57 Margeson nominated seven persons for this committee and all were unanimously elected. The seven elected were Menta Sturgeon, A.I. Ritchie, R.H. Hirsh, I.F. Hoskins, J.D. Wright, F.H. McGee and Paul S.L. Johnson.58 Between the afternoon session and the evening session the committee met and elected officers. Menta Sturgeon was elected chairman, A.I. Ritchie elected secretary-treasurer and R.H. Hirsh elected vice chairman.59 In the evening session a resolution was unanimously passed instructing

the committee to prepare a letter to be sent to Bible Students throughout the world who stood for Russell’s arrangements.60 The Election in the New York Congregation, January 9, 1918 As shown in chapter 16, the annual election of elders in the New York congregation was postponed from October 1917 till after the Watch Tower Society election on January 5, 1918. There is only one source for the event available and that is an article in THE BROOKLYN DAILY EAGLE, Thursday, January 10, 1918, page 4. The Eagle was a secular newspaper hostile to the Bible Student movement, but the article “THE VOLUME” FOES CRUSHED AT RALLY OF “RUSSELLITES” was quite detailed and seems to be worth considering. The article said: A.I. Ritchie, one of the directors of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society ousted by Rutherford, opposed a motion that had been made to require the elders and deacons nominated to answer three questions affirmatively. The last and apparently most important of the three was whether the nominee would accept and teach the “Seventh Volume” … Mr. Ritchie protested that this was not in accordance with the rules laid down by the late “Pastor” Russell as one of the requirements for the servants of the church to carry on the harvest. Rutherford himself as chairman had dismissed the objection. The article also stated that the list of candidates for the position of elder numbered 73 men, “all of them selected by the old board of elders and deacons.” Every candidate answered “yes” to the first two questions put to them— likely the two first questions asked the candidates for directors in the Society a few days earlier. However, “a dozen or more insurgents, among them A.I. Ritchie and J.D. Wright” declared “that they could not accept the ‘Seventh Volume’ as genuine.” According to the article none of these opponents got even a “dozen” votes and thus all of them were defeated. But in a vote taken in the autumn “the highest number of votes that any of the opposition received was 85 votes” according to a letter from Rutherford published in The Watch Tower, December 1, 1917, page 367. There were at least two reasons why the vote for the opponents shrank to less than a dozen. First, after Rutherford’s reelection as president quite a few members withdrew from the original New York congregation. Second, as brought out in the Eagle article, Rutherford ruled the ecclesia election with such a high hand that some were undoubtedly afraid of voting for any of the opponents. The article noted that after the business meeting Rutherford “made a plea for harmony in the organization.” He remarked: “When the majority speaks in a decided manner we ought to take that as the Lord’s will.” But it seems that he felt that way only so far as he himself was favored. When the Society’s election was due in 1919, he and other prominent Bible Students were in prison in Atlanta and could not directly affect it. He was quite concerned about the outcome. A.H. Macmillan later stated that when Rutherford actually was elected he “was very happy to see this display of assurance that Jehovah was running the Society.”61 Separation an Accomplished Fact

The opposition to Rutherford did not in any way attempt to correct the election of the Society’s directors in 1918. Their commitment to the Society ended when they realized that the shareholders approved of Rutherford’s course. Immediately following the election in the New York ecclesia, the opposition organized an independent congregation in the metropolis,62 and it was a “large church.”63 In Philadelphia a viable independent ecclesia of “approximately two hundred members” withdrew from the Society.64 A significant independent ecclesia was also established in Boston.65 The Bible Student ecclesia in Chattanooga, Tennessee, reportedly included “nearly all the original attendants” of the original church, “but a few of the old Class withdrew to another place” and still adhered to the Watch Tower Society.66 Reports about other independent congregations also surfaced in the opposition journals of that time. In some places, it seems, those who favored the opposition stayed in the ecclesia loyal to Rutherford for a time. J.A. Bohnet reported that they were “still meeting regularly,” with the members of the Pittsburgh congregation for example.67 This would change later, however. It was reported in 1929 that between 75 and 150 Bible Students met regularly in Pittsburgh every Sunday in independent meetings and that the number was increasing.68 Francis H. McGee officially resigned as a shareholder of the Watch Tower Society. The Watch Tower, March 15, 1918, page 95, published his resignation letter: “I hereby withdraw as a shareholder of the WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY, relinquishing any right to vote or be a member in the SOCIETY. I am not in harmony with nor do I approve of the SOCIETY nor its subsidiary corporations as now conducted subsequent to the death of Pastor Russell.” Paul Johnson was one of the elders in the separated New York congregation,69 but he still occasionally visited congregations clinging to the Society for some time in order to present his doctrinal views. The Watch Tower, March 1, 1918, page 79, specifically warned the congregations about this. In spite of the trick played on him at the annual meeting in Pittsburgh, Andrew Pierson stayed with the Society for a few years. But eventually he left and supported one of the movements initiated by those who left in 1918.70 Two other prominent Rutherford supporters during the management crisis, George H. Fisher and William F. Hudgings, also broke with Rutherford later, as is shown in their biographies. Fisher especially became an outspoken opponent.71 Sturgeon and Ritchie resigned from the Fort Pitt Committee January 22, 1918. Both of them were concerned that Johnson might dominate the committee.72 On February 11, 1918, the committee elected R.G. Jolly and I.I. Margeson to replace them.73 One of the most significant things the Fort Pitt committee did was to send out its carefully prepared, four page A Letter to International Bible Students under date March 1, 1918. Out of the endeavors of the Fort Pitt Committee both the Pastoral Bible Institute and the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement developed in 1918 and 1919. During that time the Watch Tower Society faced still another schism: the Stand Fast movement broke away when Rutherford compromised over the war issue. These developments will be dealt with below.

Footnotes 1 The Watch Tower, January 15, 1918, p. 23 2 Ibid 3 Paul S. L. Johnson: Another Harvest Siftings Reviewed, (Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately), August 22, 1918, p. 6. 4 Ibid 5 The Watch Tower, January 15, 1918, p. 23 6 Another Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 6 7 Ibid, pp. 7, 8 8 The Watch Tower, January 15, 1918, p. 23. A rather lengthy documented analysis of the report was published on pp. 1 and 3 in St. Paul Enterprise, January 15, 1918. 9 The Watch Tower, January 15, 1918, p. 23 10 The Watch Tower, December 15, 1917, p. 374 11 Ibid 12 Ibid 13 Ibid 14 Another Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 7 15 The Watch Tower, January 15, 1918, p. 23 16 See chapter 16. 17 Another Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 7 18 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, p. 465 19 The Watch Tower, January 15, 1918, p. 23 20 Ibid 21 Ibid 22 Ibid 23 The Present Truth, May 1, 1920, p. 77 24 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 4 25 The Watch Tower, January 15, 1918, p. 23 26 The Watch Tower, April 1, 1920, p. 101 27 The Present Truth, May 1, 1920, p. 85 28 Facts for Shareholders, p. 2 29 Ibid 30 The Watch Tower, January 15, 1918, p. 23 31 Ibid 32 The Present Truth, May 1, 1920, p. 85 33 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, pp. 495, 496 34 The Watch Tower, January 15, 1918, p.23 35 The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 330 36 The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 329 37 An email to me from James B. Parkinson on May 2, 2013. I am grateful to him for this information and his analysis of the data in question. 38 The Watch Tower, January 15, 1917, p. 22

39 Geo. A. Glendon, Jr.: SOUVENIR REPORT of the Bible Students Convention, Pittsburg, Penn., January 2-5, 1919 (New York, N.Y.: Printed privately), p. 37. 40 The Pennsylvania Corporation Act of 1874, and Supplementary Acts, with notes, forms and index by Angelo T. Freedley (Philadelphia, Pa.: T.& J.W. Johnson & Co, second edition, 1890), p.31. In a note, this work pointed out: “A stockholder need not give notice of his intention to cumulate his votes.” Cumulative voting was still legally upheld in 1933. See Pennsylvania Corporate Laws, 1933 by E. Russell Shockley (Harrisburg, Pa.: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Property and Supplies), pp. 58, 59. 41 Emails from Parkinson to Persson of May 2, 2013 and January 19, 2018. 42 Russell vs. Russell Appeal Trial, May 31, 1907, p. 39 43 The Watch Tower, January 15, 1918, p. 24 44 Ibid 45 Faith on the March, pp.105, 106 46 In 1919 those Bible Students then loyal to the Society regarded Rutherford as a martyr. Thus, it was not strange that they should have elected him Watch Tower president again. More is dealt with this matter below. 47 The Watch Tower, January 15, 1918, p.24 48 Ibid 49 Ibid 50 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 58 51 The Watch Tower, January 15, 1918, p. 24 52 Ibid, December 1, 1916, p. 359 53 Facts for Shareholders, p. 12 54 Light after Darkness, p. 13 55 The Present Truth, April 19, 1919, p. 71 56 A Letter to International Bible Students, p. 3 57 Ibid; The Present Truth, April 19, 1919, p. 71 58 Ibid 59 Ibid 60 A Letter to International Bible Students, p. 3 61 Faith on the March, p. 106 62 Epiphany Studies, Vol.10, p. 262 63 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 7, p. 236 64 J.D. Wright, I.F. Hoskins, P.L. Greiner, F.F. Cook, I.I. Margeson, F.H. McGee, H.C. Rockwell: A Brief Review of Brother Johnson’s Charges (Place of publication not stated. Undated but sent out with The Committee Bulletin No 1, August 1918), p. 4. 65 J.D. Wright, I.F. Hoskins, P.L. Greiner, F.F. Cook, I.I. Margeson, F.H. McGee, H.C. Rockwell: The Committee Bulletin No. 1, August,1918), p. 4 66 The Present Truth, February 17, 1919, p. 47 67 The Watch Tower, March 1, 1918, p. 142 68 L.W. Jones: Bible Student Reunion Convention Report 1929 (Chicago, Illinois: Printed privately), p.17. 69 The Present Truth, April 19, 1919, p. 72 70 The Herald of Christ’s Kingdom, December 1, 1925. See also Pierson’s biography. 71 The Golden Age, March 25, 1925, pp. 408,409 72 The Present Truth, April 19, 1919, p. 71 73 Ibid, p. 72; Francis H. McGee: A Timely Letter of Importance to All the Brethren (Freehold, N.J.: Printed privately, September 10, 1918), p. 1

Chapter 18 Confrontation with the Authorities During the management crisis of 1917, Rutherford had repeatedly accused his opponents of trying to destroy the Watch Tower Society, or as he put it, to “wreck” it. The decisive election in January, 1918, did not put an end to such accusations. In fact, in the summer of 1918, he brought an even more serious charge against them. Before dealing with that, it is necessary to outline the Bible Students’ growing tension with the American civil authorities, which was the background behind this grave attack on his opponents. On January 16, 1918, Rutherford left Brooklyn for California where he had to take his wife for health reasons. He was not back in Brooklyn until the 5th of March.1 The Authorities Take Action While Rutherford stayed in California, real trouble broke out for the Watch Tower Society. Ever since the United States had declared war on Germany in April 1917, the Bible Students were facing various problems in the United States because of the strong pacifist position that had been held by the movement since 1915 and reinforced in 1917.2 The Watch Tower, January 15, 1918, page 24, stated: “Some of them [the Bible Students], because of their refusal to engage in military service, have been court-martialed and sentenced to long terms in prison, while others are held in detention camps in different parts of the country.” But then, in early 1918, a much more serious situation developed, threatening not only Bible Students called to the colors, but also the publications of the Watch Tower Society and eventually the movement’s leadership itself. On June 15, 1917, the United States Congress had passed the Espionage Act. It stipulated “fines of up to $10,000 and prison terms of up to 20 years for persons” who hindered “the war effort” or aided the enemy.3 Leading Bible Students had begun to advise young Bible Students against serving in the military, which the authorities were increasingly concerned about. And then some of the Society’s literature, especially the book The Finished Mystery, had clearly condemned participation in war. Its denunciation of patriotism on page 247 must have been extremely provoking: “Nowhere in the New Testament is Patriotism (a narrow-minded hatred of other peoples) encouraged. Everywhere and always murder in its every form is forbidden; and yet, under the guise of Patriotism the civil governments of earth demand of peace-loving men the sacrifice of themselves and their loved ones and the butchery of their fellows, and hail it as a duty demanded by the laws of heaven.” The book approvingly quoted C.E. Jefferson’s statements that “the most virulent and devastating disease of humanity now raging the earth is militarism” and “like many other diseases militarism is contagious.”4 It also approvingly quoted the clergyman John Hayes Holmes’ statement: “War is in open and utter violation of Christianity. If war is right, then

Christianity is wrong, false, a lie…. But we must go further—I will speak not only of war in general, but of this war in particular.”5 Also, the following statement from the same author: “The war itself is wrong. Its prosecution will be a crime. There is not a question raised, an issue involved, a cause at stake, which is worth the life of one blue-jacket on the sea or one khaki-coat in the trenches.”6 That such statements would upset the American authorities now fully engaged in war was to be expected. But serious action against the Bible Students started in Canada. Conscription had become law in that country on August 29, 1917.7 Historian M. James Penton explains the development there: “On January 30, 1918, a warrant was issued outlawing both The Finished Mystery and the Bible Students Monthly. Possession of either could lay one open to a maximum fine of five thousand dollars and a prison sentence not exceeding five years. On February 9 and again on February 16, notice of the ban was placed in the Canada Gazette; yet Bible Students and the general public became aware of the government’s action only on February 12 and 13 when printed notice of it appeared in the nation’s newspapers.”8 Perhaps the information received from Canada influenced the American authorities. At any rate, they soon thereafter struck at the Bible Student headquarters in Brooklyn and their literature depot in Los Angeles. Clarence L. Converse, an officer of the United States government, ransacked the Watch Tower Society’s office in Brooklyn on February 27, March 1 and again on March 6, 1918.9 His two first visits took place when Rutherford was still in California. In June, 1918, Converse gave under oath a detailed statement regarding the items he took with him on February 27. As the list shows, he was very thorough: List of articles received from the Watch Tower Publication CO. & International Bible Students Ass’n Feb. 27/18. 27 letter files (boxes] 1 wire basket of letters 2 Directors Minute Books 1 Annual Report Book 1 Peoples Pulpit Ass’n Book 1 Special Temporary Account Book 1 Trial Balance Book 4 Ledgers 3 Check Books 29 Copies of Different Pamphlets 2 bundles of Italian Files

1 Bundle of German Files 7 Books of Dr. Russell’s Works 7 Books of Various Authors.10 On March 6, Converse had “a wireless outfit” taken from “the Bethel Home, 122 Columbia Heights, Brooklyn, N.Y.”11 When visiting the place on that day the government agents were told about a dismantled wireless packed away in the Art Room, and they insisted on seeing it as well as the place on the roof where it had been situated. All wireless instruments had been required to be dismantled when the United States was about to enter the war. The Bible Students readily surrendered the set. Yet, the undramatic seizure of the apparatus was reported in the public press throughout the country, the suspicion being that the Watch Tower Society was communicating with the enemy in Germany!12 As M. James Penton points out, the agents “must have been suffering with an extreme case of war-time paranoia; radio had not yet become able to receive messages from long distances.”13 On Thursday February 28, 1918, the Society’s large hall and quarters of the Los Angeles congregation were raided by the government and the Society’s publications were confiscated.14 Then on March 4 several prominent Bible Students were arrested in Scranton, Pennsylvania, and put under bond for trial later.15 Among them was C.J. Woodworth, a resident in Scranton. He was one of the authors of the book The Finished Mystery, which was of main concern to the authorities. The Actions Not the Work of the Churches These rapid events indicated that the US government was out to get the Bible Students. Rutherford and his associates were convinced that it was their religious enemies, the churches, who were the real agents behind this.16 Of course, this was a tempting conclusion to draw, and it may have been remotely true, as sociologist Ray H. Abrams later claimed that the churches and the clergy were “originally” behind the movement to stamp out the Bible Students.17 But the sweeping accusations against the clergy entertained by Jehovah’s Witnesses to this day are at best based on bias and ignorance. Rutherford and his supporters obviously did not realize that other religious organizations, and even a number of clergymen, were also targeted by the authorities for similar reasons. Ray H. Abrams reported: “A total of fifty-five ministers of the gospel from various denominations and sects” were “arrested for alleged violation of one or more of the espionage and sedition laws.”18 No less than “1,200 individual cases of Lutheran clergymen were investigated. Some of these men were convicted under the Espionage Acts and sent to Atlanta.”19 Clarence H. Waldron, “pastor of the First Baptist Church of Windsor, Vermont,” was convicted “for causing insubordination and obstructing recruiting, and sentenced to fifteen years at Atlanta.”20 Many other cases could be referred to as well.

Should the Bible Students under Rutherford not have had their religious enemies, it is clear that they would still have been in the same predicament in the United States ridden by war hysteria. They had distributed large quantities of The Finished Mystery to the public, so it would have been a miracle if that book’s statement on patriotism, militarism and war would not sooner or later stir up the authorities. Preventive Measures When Rutherford realized that it was mainly “pages 247 to 253, inclusive” in The Finished Mystery that were seen as objectionable, he immediately took steps “to stop the sale” of the book.21 On March 5, he cabled the printer in Hammond, Indiana, to stop all work on it.22 On the same date, the Society sent a letter “TO THE COLPORTEURS AND DISTRIBUTORS OF THE FINISHED MYSTERY” which stated: “We advise that no attempt be made to sell or otherwise dispose of any copies of ‘The Finished Mystery’ … In the meantime proceed with the sale of the other volumes, particularly Pastor Russell’s Sermons.” A letter from the colporteur department to distributors, dated March 7, 1918, said: “A ruling has been received from Washington regarding the distribution of THE FINISHED MYSTERY. The telegram reads ‘No disposition on the part of the government to interfere providing pages two forty-seven to two fifty-three inclusive are eliminated.’ … Before placing any copies of Volume Seven, kindly cut from the book the pages already mentioned, leaving a stub of about a half inch, upon which can be pasted the new pages for replacement…. We will forward as soon as possible pages to be inserted.” However, “on the 14th day of March, the Department of Justice at Washington instructed the District Attorneys that a further distribution of ‘The Finished Mystery’ would be a violation of the Espionage Act.”23 It is possible that the authorities had now concluded that the book contained more objectionable statements. It was learned later that the preface and pages 406, 407 and 469 of the book were also seen as objectionable.24 The Society now printed a new tract called KINGDOM NEWS, dated March 15, 1918, which was given wide distribution. It is obvious that it was meant, at least to some extent, to ease the strained situation with the authorities. The tract stated: “There is not a disloyal one amongst the members of the International Bible Students. We are not against the government in any sense. We recognize the United States Government as the best on earth and Mr. Wilson as the greatest of earth’s rulers. We are not against the war…. We recognize that the United States Government, being a political and economic institution, has the power and authority, under its fundamental law, to declare war and to draft its citizens into military service. We have no disposition to interfere with the draft or the war in any manner.” It also claimed that as members “of a well-recognized religious organization, the principles of which preclude its members from engaging in war,” Bible Students should not, according to law, “be compelled to engage in combatant military service.”25 On April 15, 1918, Kingdom News no. 2 was released. The Society’s aim to appease the authorities therein is noticeable again. It said on page 1: “It is manifest that the teaching of the

International Bible Students Association, and particularly that of ‘The Finished Mystery’ has not in any manner influenced any person against the Government nor in any manner retarded the war.” Kingdom News no. 3 was dated ‘“May, 1918” but did not contain any reference to the war or military service.26 Under date of March 16, 1918, the Society wrote the following to “COLPORTEURS, CLASS SECRETARIES AND OTHER WORKERS IN THE HARVEST FIELD”: Information has reached us that the Department of Justice at Washington has reached us that “The Finished Mystery”—Volume VII of STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES—contains certain matter that is in violation of the Espionage Act recently passed by Congress … We are having the book thoroughly examined in the light of this new law and hope to be able to advise you within a short time. In the meantime, do not offer any copies for sale, or give any away. This will not interfere, however, with the friends meeting at regular class studies and using this as a text book. But even for this we advise that pages 247 to 253 be removed. … Please proceed with the sale of the other volumes, specializing on Volume Four and Creation scenario, also calling attention to “Pastor Russell’s Sermons” and canvassing for them.27 Liberty Bonds Military service was not the only issue facing the Bible Students at this time. War bonds or, as they were called, “Liberty Bonds,” had been introduced as a means of financing American war efforts. Ray H. Abrams later explained how these bonds affected the religious denominations: “In selling Liberty bonds the clergy was indispensable. Liberty Loan Sundays were announced by the government, extensive literature being sent out to all the ministers of the nation in advance. Sermons were to be preached and members urged to buy to the limit. When clergymen failed to preach these sermons or distribute literature sent by the authorities, their congregations suspected them of pro-German infection, the ministers received calls from Federal agents, mobs came with tar and feathers, and court machinery ground out sentences.”28 On Sunday April 28, 1918, the Society’s Tabernacle congregation in Brooklyn received this kind of attention and Rutherford felt obliged to give a public response in The Brooklyn Daily Eagle at that paper’s request. He explained: On my return to Brooklyn I learned of the unpleasant occurrence at the Brooklyn Tabernacle last Sunday, April 28th. Mr. W.T. Baker was in the pulpit and at the conclusion of his discourse a request was brought to the platform that the congregation hear a speech by some one on the Liberty Bonds. Mr. Baker put the matter to a vote and the majority voted in the negative. I am sure this action was not intended as any reflection on the Government, nor to be taken as against the Liberty Loan…. The Tabernacle auditorium is used exclusively for religious matters, especially on Sunday…. “The International Bible Students Association is not against the Liberty Loan. Many of its members have bought and hold Liberty Bonds. Some have not money with which to buy. … When the Government asks to borrow his money and gives its promise to pay in the nature of a bond, if he can do

so he should buy the bond….” Some members of the Brooklyn Tabernacle congregation had previously purchased Liberty Bonds. 29 Leading Bible Students Arrested Rutherford’s efforts to halt the distribution of The Finished Mystery and to favor Liberty Bonds had no effect on the authorities. Before the official publication date for The Watch Tower, May 15, 1918, the authorities struck hard. The Watch Tower, June 1, 1918, page 171, informed its readers: On the 7th day of May warrants were issued by the Federal court of the Eastern District of New York for the arrest of brethren connected with the management of the Society or with the Editorial Committee of THE WATCH TOWER, or identified with the preparation or circulation of “The Finished Mystery.” The brethren for whom warrants were issued were: Joseph F. Rutherford, William E. Van Amburgh, A.H. Macmillan, Robert J. Martin, Clayton J. Woodworth, George H. Fisher, Robert Hirsh, Giovanni de Cecca, Fred H. Robison. On the 8th day of May most of these warrants were served by United States Marshal Power. The charge given in the warrants was that these brethren were united in a conspiracy to obstruct or impede the war work of the United States. That only the above-mentioned men were arrested may have seemed arbitrary. The Society’s vice president, C.A. Anderson, and board members W.E. Spill and J.A. Bohnet were not indicted, nor was W.E. Page, one of the Watch Tower editors. The reason seems to be that these people did not live at the Bethel headquarters and were not very influential there. C.J. Woodworth and G.H. Fisher lived in Scranton, Pennsylvania, but as authors of The Finished Mystery they were obvious targets for a government action in any case. A.N. Pierson who was vice president until January 5, 1918, lived in Cromwell, Connecticut, and had had little say regarding The Finished Mystery or the Watch Tower’s management. Shortly after the arrest of Rutherford and other Watch Tower leaders The Watch Tower, June 1, 1918, page 168, again fawned on the authorities. It said: “A Christian unwilling to kill, may have been conscientiously unable to buy war bonds; later he considers which great blessings he has received under his government, and realizes that the nation is in trouble and facing dangers to its liberty, and he feels himself conscientiously able to lend some money to the country, just as he would lend to a friend in distress.” The same issue, on page 174, responded to a proclamation of the president of the United States to make May 30 a day of prayer and supplication: “Let there be praise and thanksgiving to God for the promised glorious outcome of the war, the breaking of the shackles of autocracy.” Statements like the above on war bonds and on victory on the battlefields created turmoil within the ranks of the Bible Students, who rightly concluded that the attitude displayed was a compromise of the lofty principles that had guided them since 1915. As a consequence, thousands left the Society under Rutherford. Half a year later The Stand Fast Bible Student Association was formed.30

The Case Against Hirsh Dismissed The six arrested ones who lived at Bethel were arraigned on May 8 and Fisher and Woodworth who lived in Pennsylvania were arraigned on May 9. All eight pleaded not guilty.31 “Bail was set at $2,500 each” and these eight “were released until the day set for the trial, June 3, 1918.”32 Robert Hirsh consulted with F.H. McGee, the Bible Student lawyer, and Paul Johnson “for pertinent arguments” and sought on May 10 at Washington “the quashing of his indictment.”33 On May 14, Hirsh “was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Bail fixed at $1000” and he was released.34 All nine defendants appeared in court on May 15 and were ordered to return on June 3.35 On that day, all defendants again appeared and were ordered “to return on bonds, June 4, 1918.” On that date the Attorney for the United States moved “to dismiss indictment as to Hirsh.” The motion was granted “and indictment dismissed as to Hirsh.”36 The attorneys for the other defendants objected to this. They suspected that Hirsh might then become a witness for the government.37 Several decades later, Hirsh’s widow wrote: “Bro. Hirsh was present at the trial and set free as not being a part of the charges brought against the others.”38 Indeed, he had been a prominent member of the Watch Tower Editorial Committee in 1917, but had been prevented from functioning in that capacity during the summer and had left headquarters in August. However, the fact that the prosecution dropped his indictment was afterwards used by Rutherford in a most vicious way, as will be demonstrated later. Judge J. Garvin was originally assigned to the case, but was replaced on June 3 by Judge J. Chatfield, who in turn was replaced by Judge B. Howe on June 4.39 The prosecution had subpoenaed numerous individuals to give information, and also to be present at the trial and be available as witnesses. On May 13, four members of the so-called “opposition”—Wm. Hollister, I.F. Hoskins, R.H. Hirsh and Paul Johnson—had to face a U.S. Attorney for questioning.40 Johnson later reported: “So strongly did we defend them that the prosecutor, knowing that we would be a witness unfavorable to him, did not subpoena us to be present at the trial, while he did subpoena the ousted Directors, several of the Society’s supporters and others.”41 Among the Watch Tower’s supporters subpoenaed to be available were several members of the Bethel staff. In addition, the Society’s printer, Walter A. Conkey, was subpoenaed and was to give a long testimony at the trial.42 Witnesses for the Defendants Seven of the defendants testified in their own behalf, but the eighth, de Cecca, never entered the witness stand. The first of the defendants to testify were George H. Fisher and Clayton J. Woodworth. Both made statements contradicting what they had said in The Finished Mystery. Fisher was asked: “Are you opposed to conscription?” He answered: “I never was opposed to it, your Honor. I always regarded it in the case of a large war—always favored it.”43

He also stated: “If one believes in fighting in the combatant branch I would wish him well in that branch. I could not take part myself.”44 He went as far as to say: “I have always recommended men who felt they could conscientiously go into the service to do so.”45 Woodworth evasively tried to play down his unmistakable statement on patriotism: Q[uestion]. Then you painted patriotism as a delusion, a narrow-minded hatred of other people? A[nswer]. That is taking an improper thought. I was speaking not of the person under that name. There is a higher, truer patriotism. Q[uestion]. Did you define the higher patriotism? A[nswer]. No, sir.46 A little later he said that his statement “is stated too strongly.” He had approvingly quoted Dr. Holmes’s statement “the war itself is wrong. Its prosecution will be a crime.”47 But now he would not recognize it: Q[uestion]. Did you believe that the prosecution of war was a crime? A(nswer]. Well, I can answer it as well as I can. I rather put the responsibility of that upon Dr. Holmes. … Well I didn’t believe that.48 He was asked: “You stated it was perfectly right for sinners to go to war, that is the substance of it?” He answered “Yes.”49 Van Amburgh made an equally pitiful impression when called to the stand. He said that he was opposed to war for himself “but not for the nation.”50 He was asked: “Then do you think it is perfectly right for them [the United States] to wage war?” He answered: “I do from their standpoint, yes, sir.”51 This certainly did not square with what he had stated in an affidavit for fellow Bible Students. He had written that those in the movement “are against war in any form … are opposed to war and are against war in any form.”52 F.H. Robison testified that he had bought one Liberty bond on May 1, 1918, a “fifty dollar bond.”53 R.J. Martin, head of the Watch Tower office on Hicks Street, said he directly supported the war: Q[uestion]. Are you in favor of the United States waging war? A[nswer]. Yes, sir. Q[uestion]. And what have you done to help her in her cause? A[nswer]. Well, I bought a Liberty bond.54 He also denied that The Finished Mystery had actually denounced patriotism:

Q[uestion]. Do you understand that patriotism is a narrow-minded hatred and its work of the devil? A[nswer]. The book does not say that.55 Rutherford was on the stand longer than any of the other defendants. His testimony covers pages 964-1072 in the court transcript. Like some of the other defendants, he did not object to participate in war, except for consecrated Christians: Q[uestion]. Were you in 1917-1918, according to your creed, opposed to all war? A[nswer]. Opposed to Christians engaging in war, yes. As to others who were not consecrated, no.56 He clearly distanced himself from the denunciation of war quoted from John Hayes Holmes in The Finished Mystery: “The words of John Hays (sic) I do not think are very appropriate for the book, and had I had them in mind at that time, I would not have put them in.”57 He stated further: “It does not express my sentiments” and “That is a an ill-advised expression.”58 When the question about the denunciation of patriotism in The Finished Mystery was brought up, he tried to limit its application to the situation in Europe, “English against Germans, and Germans against the French.” He rejected the book’s definition of patriotism by saying that the war between the European states represented “a narrow-minded hatred far from patriotism. Patriotism means love of country, a willingness to sacrifice one’s self. But I knew from expressions I heard people make, this was not patriotism.”59 Amazingly, he added: “I did not know it had reference to the United States, and I do not know that now.”60 He of course knew full well about the United States’ wars against Mexico (1846) and Spain (1898) but stated: “The United States have always been a government of peace.”61 The Case of A.H. Macmillan Macmillan’s part in the alleged conspiracy proved to be a tough nut for the government. On June 10, 1918, Judge Howe told Mr. Oeland, the United States prosecutor, that he was clear about Rutherford, Van Amburgh, Woodworth, Fisher, de Cecca, Martin and Robison but not about Macmillan.62 He told Oeland: “You have not shown any act or acts of MacMillan except his signing of the checks.” He added: “If there is no evidence tending to show he conspired, he will be discharged.” Macmillan later wrote in his book: “That night the eight of us gathered in our attorneys’ office…. Finally one of our attorneys turned to me saying, ‘Do you know that tomorrow morning we can have you released? Do you want to go to prison if you are convicted?’ I said: ‘Mr. Fuller, if these men, my friends, are going to the Atlanta prison or any other place for preaching the gospel, I want to go with them.’”63 Macmillan did not tell the whole story in his book. William F. Hudgings, the secretary of The Peoples Pulpit Association, who was a witness for the government, reported shortly afterwards:

The Court indicated he would probably dismiss Brother MacMillan from the indictment because of insufficient evidence offered. That night Brother MacMillan went to the attorney’s office and said, “I want you to withdraw your motion for the dismissal for my share in this indictment; if Brother Rutherford and Brother Van Amburgh and these other brethren are going to prison because of Volume Seven I want to go, too,” and he sat down and wrote out a statement taking his share of the responsibility, signed his name to it, and handed it to the attorneys, and the case went on; and he, as a voluntary sufferer, is there now in Atlanta penitentiary.64 The next day, June 11, prosecutor Oeland told the Judge: “If your honor please, I desire to introduce one piece of evidence that was overlooked.”65 He was referring to a paper “marked exhibit 31”66 which later appeared on pp. 1266-1268 in the court transcript. It was a resolution made on July 17, 1917, by six members of Rutherford’s new board of Directors that was mimeographed and sent out far and wide. William F. Hudgings was then brought to the stand and was cross-examined by Oeland. Oeland handed him “Exhibit 31” and asked him about “the signatures of Van Amburgh and MacMillan, two of the signatures.” Hudgings said: “It looks like the handwriting of Mr. Van Amburgh and Mr. MacMillan.” But he “would not say” that it was “a mimeographed copy of their signatures.” Oeland asked “Why not?” Hudgings answered: “I can only say it looks like their writing. That may be a forgery for all I know. I did not see them write it.” Oeland pressed him further: Q[uestion]. Looking at the mimeographed signature there what is your best opinion as to whether or not that is MacMillan’s signature? A[nswer]. It looks very much like Mr. MacMillan’s signature. Q[uestion]. What is your best opinion? A[nswer]. That would be my best opinion, but I might be mistaken.67 The Judge then told Hudgings that he was testifying falsely when he said he could not recall of “ever seeing Mr. MacMillan write.”68 He said: “It becomes the plain duty of the Court to commit you to jail, sir, for contempt.”69 He offered Hudgings a chance to reconsider, but he wouldn’t. The Judge then concluded: “Very well. You are adjudged to be in contempt of this court and you are ordered to be committed to jail forthwith. … You are in custody of the Marshal from now on.”70 The attempt to tie Macmillan to the charge of conspiracy on the basis of the July 17, 1917, resolution was an unfair and desperate move. The prosecutor completely ignored three of the names, namely A.N. Pierson, W.E. Spill and J.A Bohnet, that had also signed the resolution.71 If their signatures would not render them guilty of conspiracy—they were never charged with anything—neither would Macmillan’s. But the government then brought in Alfred I. Ritchie to testify, one of the ousted directors. He was also handed Exhibit 31 and asked:

Q[uestion]. Is that a facsimile, a mimeographed copy of Mr. Van Amburgh? A[nswer]. I think it is.72 Oeland continued: Q[uestion]. I hand you Exhibit 31 for identification, and ask you to look at the two signatures or purported signatures of MacMillan and Van Amburgh, and ask you first off as to Van Amburgh, if in your opinion that is a mimeograph copy of his signature? A[nswer]. I think it is. I recognize it as such. Q[uestion]. Mr. MacMillan’s? A[nswer]. Mr. MacMillan’s is not so recognizable, but I think it is his signature.73 The 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, page 106, quoted this part of the court record correctly. It is noteworthy that both George H. Fisher and W.E. Van Amburgh made the same identifications in their testimonies.74 For this reason, it is not surprising that Macmillan, who testified later, was not asked about the two signatures. The most remarkable thing he said during his own testimony was that he did not even read the controversial quotation of John Hayes Holmes. He explained: “I wasn’t interested in what Dr. Holmes had to say about these matters.”75 As this quotation was approvingly incorporated in The Finished Mystery Macmillan’s claim here is difficult to believe but possible.

Figure 11. The defendants The Indictment The defendants were able to show that most of the book was written before the United States declared war, but that did not affect the prosecution. Macmillan later gave a succinct description of the detailed charge against the accused ones: “The Government had admitted that the book was written before the United States entered the war and before the Selective Draft Age and Espionage Law had been passed, so no intent to interfere with these laws could be shown in the writing of the book. The effort was then made to show that after the laws had been passed by Congress continued sale of the seventh volume constituted intent and established conspiracy.”76 The Verdict On June 20, 1918, the jury delivered “a verdict of guilty on all counts to each defendant.”77 On June 21, Judge Howe pronounced sentence.78 When giving his account of the sentence in his book, Macmillan did not use the court record but quoted The New York Herald, June 22, 1918, instead. It stated: “The religious propaganda in which these men are engaged is more harmful than a division of German soldiers. They have not only called in question the law officers of the Government but have denounced all the ministers of all the churches. Their punishment should be severe.”79

This was out of harmony with the actual court record, which did not say that the defendants “have denounced all the ministers of all the churches.” Since Macmillan had earlier used quotations “exactly as they appeared in the court record,”80 his failure to do so in connection with the sentence shows clear bias. Seemingly, he was so eager to damn the clergy that he let objectivity go. This is what the court record actually says: In the opinion of this Court, the religious propaganda which these defendants have vigorously advocated and spread throughout the nation as well as among our allies, is a greater danger than a division of the German Army. If they had taken guns and swords and joined the German Army, the harm they could have done would have been insignificant compared with the results of their propaganda. A person preaching religion usually has more influence, and if he is sincere, he is all the more effective. This aggravates rather than mitigates the wrong they have done. Therefore, as the only prudent thing to do with such persons, the Court has concluded the punishment should be severe. The sentence is that the defendants, Joseph F. Rutherford, William E. Van Amburgh, Robert J. Martin, Fred H. Robison, George H. Fisher Clayton J. Woodworth and A. Hugh MacMillan, serve a term of twenty years in the federal Penitentiary at Atlanta, Georgia, on each of the four counts of indictment, but that the sentences commence and run concurrently; and that they stand committed until the sentence is complied with. The sentence of the defendant de Cecca is deferred for further consideration, as the Court desires to have his past career investigated.81 The Judge further said that the court “should not stay the execution of the sentence, nor admit these defendants to bail.”82 On July 10 the Judge pronounced sentence on Giovanni de Cecca. He argued that “this defendant was hardly a leader” and as “what he did was largely under the direction of the other defendants” his sentence “should not be so severe.” So, he sentenced de Cecca “to ten years on each of the counts, sentence to run concurrently on each count.”83 He confirmed that he denied “the motion to be admitted to bail.” He explained “that if these defendants were admitted to bail they might continue to do much harm.”84 Regarding the severe sentences he pronounced, Judge Howe declared about nine months later: “My principle purpose was to make an example to others, as a warning to others.”85 The rationale for this was that the stand of the Bible Students was better known in the country than that of most other groups negative to military service. The government was opposed to the statements about war made by the Bible Students in their literature. But the trial had been played up in the papers everywhere. When the press circulated the condemned excerpts from the forbidden book, it “did the very thing the Russellites had been sentenced to twenty years for doing, and gave it more publicity than the followers of Russell could possibly have given it.”86 Thus it is an open question to determine if the government’s move to curb the influence of the Bible Students really paid off.

According to the present Watch Tower Society, it was “the clergy of Christendom” that “railroaded” the eight Watch Tower officials into prison.87 But, as M. James Penton points out, “the evidence is pretty clear that it was the police, the secret service and the military that ultimately moved the U.S. Attorney General’s Department to take Rutherford and his associates to court.”88 Accusations of Betrayal The Fort Pitt Committee, consisting of seven of Rutherford’s opponents in 1917, was fully aware of the outcome of the trial. Most of them had been forced to attend the proceedings. Already on June 22, I.F. Hoskins and H.C. Rockwell introduced a plan to the other Committee members “to make overtures to affect a reunion with the Society.” They planned “securing legal action (through a firm of New York corporation lawyers) to recover control of the Society after the conviction of the Society leaders.”89 However, the majority of the Committee disapproved of the plan, and it was never attempted.90 It seems that Rutherford somehow learned of the plans and he was really concerned. On July 3, the night before he was sent to Atlanta, he wrote a letter to his supporters that was later sent to the congregations and eventually published in The Watch Tower. In order to prevent the move suggested by Hoskins and Rockwell he wrote: “We are advised that seven who opposed the Society and its work during the past year attended upon the trial and lent aid to our prosecutors. We warn you, Beloved, against the subtle efforts of some of them to fawn upon you now in an attempt to get hold of the Society. Take heed to St. Paul’s admonition in Romans 16:17, 18.”91 That the opponents “lent aid” to the prosecution was a more serious charge than anything he had charged them with earlier. The charge was later published in Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose, 1959, page 81, and in 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, page 107. Years later, Rutherford sharpened the charge: “The trial that came upon the church in the spring of 1918 was a very severe one. Some of the consecrated were arrested and cast into prison. Some who had been engaged in the service of the Lord, professing full consecration, conspired with the enemy and betrayed their brethren, even as Jesus had foretold would be done. (Matthew 24:10)”92 To the latter statement, Paul S.L. Johnson, one of the “seven” referred to above, immediately responded, asserting that it was “a gross and untruthful slander.”93 He continued: The reason the government prosecuted the Society leaders was partly because they witnessed against the war spirit, which was a proper thing to do … and partly because they interfered with the draft, which was proven against them by intercepted letters that they wrote into the camps, advising brethren not even to wash dishes, pare potatoes, clean barracks, wait on tables, etc. They, by such letters and witnessing, betrayed themselves. The so-called opposition knew nothing of what was brewing until the Society leaders were arrested on evidence that their own speeches, letters and articles gave the government.94

In spite of this blunt denial, made known far and wide, Rutherford published an even more severe attack ten years later. Describing himself and his supporters as “the Samson class” and his opponents as “the Delilah class,” he delivered the following broadside in The Watchtower, January 1, 1936, page 5, (emphasis added): The Samson class was seized by the modern Philistines in 1918 through the treacherousness of the Delilah class. At that time some who had been prominent in the activities of the Society prior to 1917 became bitter enemies of the Society and conspired with the enemy. For instance, because he rendered the enemy service against his brethren one of those indicted by the federal grand jury under the espionage law was never brought to trial. The Samson class showed their kindness toward those of the Delilah class even then, but that kindness was rejected, manifestly because the Delilah class was expecting immunity from the modern Philistines. Those of the Samson class offered this man to furnish him bail bond, and to furnish attorneys for his defense along with the others, and a special messenger was sent to him with such offer. This was done because they had been previously brethren in the Lord together. The offer was flatly denied, and the one thus arrested was required to furnish merely a straw bond and never was thereafter hauled into court, but he and his allies belonging to the Delilah class were seen engaged in conversation with representatives of the government while the prosecution of the Samson class was in process. Hirsh No Traitor This statement offers an excellent starting point to unwind the facts. The “one man” referred to here was Robert H. Hirsh, as already shown. After consulting with McGee, the Bible Student lawyer, and taking up his case in Washington, he was indeed released on bail until the trial, and on June 4, before the actual trial began, the indictment against him was dismissed. Rutherford’s claim that the reason he was never brought to trial was that “he rendered the enemy service against his brethren” was a glaring lie. As Paul Johnson explained, the prosecution realized that Hirsh was not guilty “because it was found that he had ceased to act as an Editor before the alleged offending ‘Tower’ article appeared. The prosecution therefore moved that the indictment against him be set aside.”95 As shown above, even Macmillan, one of the other defendants, came close to being discharged because of insufficient evidence. The fact that he produced a signed statement accepting his part of the alleged offense against the government may well be the reason why he was convicted. It is easy to see, then, that Hirsh did not need to buy his freedom by betraying others. Actually, Hirsh never took the stand in the trial. Johnson offered additional information: “We are reliably informed that Brother Hirsh not only told Pilgrim Brother Cole, who was present at the trial, that he both deeply sympathized with the accused brothers, and had taken advantage of the opportunity that his own arrest had afforded to defend the accused brothers, but also expressed himself similarly to brother de Cecca, one of the accused brothers, the day the trial began, the unapproachableness of the other accused brothers preventing a similar course toward them.”96

As shown earlier, the attorneys for the other defendants actually objected to the dismissal of the indictment against Hirsh. Their concern was that he might become available as a witness for the government if his case was dismissed. Poul Bregninge claims that Judge Howe accepted the objection “and made a compromise with Rutherford’s lawyers: Despite the dismissal of the Hirsh indictment, they would not bring him forth as a witness against the accused.”97 This is not stated in the court record, and a more likely reason why Hirsh was not used as a witness was that the prosecution already realized that he would not add anything to their cause. The fear the lawyers for the defendants had was unfounded. The fact that the defense objected to the dismissal of Hirsh’s indictment was not brought out in Macmillan’s book, nor has it ever been mentioned in any of the Society’s historical presentations. Johnson’s account is to the point: “At the trial they sought through their counsel, after failing to get their own indictment quashed, to prevent the indictment against Brother Hirsh from being quashed. … By seeking to prevent the quashing of his indictment the accused brothers sought through counsel to have brother Hirsh tried with them, and, if convicted, sent to prison with them, while he did everything he could to shield them and to discourage the prosecution in the things with which they charged the brothers.”98 Supporters And Opponents Alike Subpoenaed Rutherford well knew that the ousted directors had been subpoenaed to be available at the prosecution and that, therefore, it was not disgraceful for them to attend, as he repeatedly implied in his accusation. If they “were seen engaged in conversation with representatives of the government” that would only have been natural. In all likelihood, some of Rutherford’s subpoenaed friends might also have been seen in such conversation. The only one of the “opposition” forced to the witness stand was Alfred I. Ritchie, a former vice president. The only thing he did was to identify the signatures of Van Amburgh and Macmillan, and as pointed out above, even the defendants Fisher and Van Amburgh made the same identifications. In his book, Macmillan misrepresented Ritchie’s testimony. He claimed that Ritchie “couldn’t remember ever having seen me write anything” but still claimed “that is his signature.”99 On the contrary, the court record reveals that Ritchie did claim to have seen Macmillan “write,” though “not as frequently as Mr. Van Amburgh.” And instead of categorically claiming that what he saw was “his signature,” he said, “Mr. MacMillan’s is not so recognizable, but I think it is his signature.”100 Referring to what took place on June 10, 1918, in the court room, Macmillan wrote in his book: “Some of our people who were attending the trial later told me that one of the attorneys for the Government had gone out in the hallway, where he talked in low tones to some of those who had led the opposition within the Society. They said, ‘Don’t let that fellow [Macmillan] go; he is the worst of the bunch. He’ll keep things going if you don’t get him with the others.’”101 This was approvingly quoted in the 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses on page 107. This claim was based entirely on hearsay. Besides, if the opponents “talked in low tones” how could observers be sure of what was said? Moreover, at that time, the opponents were all dependent on the Watch Tower Society for getting copies of Russell’s books. They could not

have wanted its operations closed down. They undoubtedly would have preferred to have Macmillan “keep things going.” Macmillan’s failure to present Ritchie’s testimony correctly does not inspire confidence in his claim here. And since there are early claims that the opponents actually defended the accused ones, his assertion is best brushed aside. Even Rutherford’s claim was not based on his own observation. He was only “advised” about it and merely claimed that his opponents “were seen engaged in conversation” with the prosecutors. The presence of the “opposition” at the trial is brought into proper perspective when we realize that a number of the Society’s supporters testified on behalf of the prosecution. Hans Insberg, Mabel Campbell, Agnes and William Hudgings, Jerry de Cecca and Camel Nicole were not associated with the “opposition” but were all Bible Students loyal to Rutherford, and some of them resided at Bethel. Still, being subpoenaed, they were all forced to give information to the prosecution, and their testimonies were far more voluminous than the one testimony of the “opposition.” Surely, “they attended upon the trial and lent aid” to the prosecutors! But Rutherford never claimed that they “conspired with the enemy and betrayed their brethren.” And never has any such claim surfaced in the Society’s later works! Furthermore, not one of the many documents used by the prosecution was provided by the “opposition.” As already shown, the authorities ransacked the Society’s headquarters and obtained all the papers they could possibly need, including the minutes of both the Watch Tower Society and the Peoples Pulpit Association.102 The “opposition,” removed from headquarters, had no access to the Society’s files and would not have been able to come up with anything. They could not possibly have provided any information that could have helped the authorities to “get” the Society leaders! The Real Reason for the Allegation When the Society leaders were going to prison, Rutherford feared that his opponents might get the upper hand and regain influence in the Watch Tower Society. One way to prevent this was to portray them as evil. And nothing could be more useful in this regard than to suggest that they betrayed their brothers to the prosecution. The need for such an explanation actually grew with time as the movements connected with the “opposition” attracted increasing numbers of disillusioned Bible Students formerly associated with the Watch Tower Society. The repeated slurs against the “opposers” were connected with the Watch Tower’s attacks designed to counter the influence of rival Bible Student movements. This was especially true of the charges of betraying Rutherford and his associates to the enemy. Since, in general, these charges have prevailed, the time is overdue to set the record straight. For this reason, I refer the reader to Paul S.L. Johnson’s rebuttal called A PROTEST AGAINST MISREPRESENTATION published in The Present Truth, September 1, 1919, which is reproduced in Appendix 12.

Footnotes 1 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, Transcript of record, pp. 104, 778, 1008-1010

2 The Watch Tower, September 1, 1915, pp. 259-261; The Watch Tower, April 15, 1917, p. 124 3 A Diary of America, The American Almanac (Nashville, Tennessee, New York, New York), 1977, p. 293 4 The Finished Mystery, 75,000 Edition, 1917, pp. 248, 249 5 Ibid, p. 250 6 Ibid, p. 251 7 Amy J. Shaw: Crisis of Conscience: (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2009), p. 31 8 M. James Penton, Jehovah’s Witnesses in Canada: Champions of Freedom of Speech and Worship (Macmillan of Canada, 1976), pp. 54, 55 9 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, pp. 93-101 10 Ibid, pp. 100, 101 11 Ibid 12 The Watch tower, March 1, 1918, p. 77; Kingdom News, No. 2, April 15, 1918, p. 2 13 M. James Penton, “The Bible Students/Jehovah’s Witnesses in the United States during the First World War” in American Churches and the First World War, edited by Gordon L. Heath, 2016, p. 163 14 Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose: Brooklyn, N.Y.: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1959), p. 76 15 The Watch Tower, March 1, 1918, p. 77 16 Ibid; A.H. Macmillan, Faith on the March (Englewood, N.J., Prentice Hall, Inc.,1957), p. 91 17 Ray H. Abrams, Preachers Present Arms (New York, N.Y.: Round Table Press, Inc., 1933), p. 183 18 Ibid, p. 213 19 Ibid, 212, 213 20 Ibid, pp. 214-216 21 The Watch Tower, March 1, 1918; p. 78 22 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, p. 1039 23 The Watch Tower, March 1, 1918 p. 78 24 Macmillan, p. 93 25 Kingdom News Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 1 26 These 3 editions of the Kingdom News are available on the Internet. 27 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, pp. 1307, 1308 28 Abrams, p. 83 29 The Watch Tower, May 15, 1918, p. 152 30 See Chapter 23 below 31 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, pp. 64, 65 32 Macmillan, p. 90 33 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, p. 70 34 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, p. 65 35 Ibid 36 Ibid, p. 66 37 Ibid, pp. 66, 108, 109 38 Letter from Rose Hirsh to Rud Persson, February 25, 1974 39 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, pp. 65, 66; Macmillan, p. 92 40 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, pp. 70, 71 41 The Present Truth, September 1, 1919, p. 161

42 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, pp. 161-182 43 Ibid, p. 541 44 Ibid, p. 542 45 Ibid 46 Ibid, p. 635 47 The Finished Mystery, p. 251 48 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, p. 620 49 Ibid, p. 657 50 Ibid, p. 691 51 Ibid, p. 694 52 Ibid, pp. 1208, 1209 53 Ibid, pp. 836, 838 54 Ibid, p. 900 55 Ibid, p. 943 56 Ibid, p. 993 57 Ibid, p. 1052 58 Ibid, pp. 1022, 1051 59 Ibid, p. 1023 60 Ibid 61 Ibid, p. 1024 62 Ibid, p. 427; Macmillan, pp. 93, 94 63 Macmillan, pp. 95, 96 64 Geo. A. Glendon, Jr. Souvenir Report of the Bible Students Convention Pittsburgh, Pa. January 2-5, 1919, (New York city, N.Y.: Printed privately. Undated), pp. 49, 50 65 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, p. 439 66 Ibid, p. 442 67 Ibid, pp. 439, 447 68 Ibid, pp. 451, 452 69 Ibid 70 Ibid, p. 459 71 Ibid 72 Ibid, p. 460 73 Ibid, p. 462 74 Ibid, pp. 528, 726, 727 75 Ibid, p. 864 76 Macmillan, p. 95 77 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, p. 1156. 78 Ibid, pp. 1164, 1165; Macmillan, p. 99 79 Macmillan, pp. 92, 231. The italics were in the original account. 80 Ibid, pp. 93-95, 230 81 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, pp. 1164, 1165 82 Ibid, p. 1167

83 Ibid, 1169 84 Ibid 85 Macmillan, p. 107; 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 116 86 Abrams, p.183 87 The Watchtower, April 15, 1989, p. 7 88 Penton, p. 163 89 Paul S.L. Johnson, Another Harvest Siftings Reviewed (Philadelphia: Printed privately, August 22, 1918) p. 3 90 Ibid, p. 9 91 The Watch Tower, February 15, 1919, p. 58 92 The Watch Tower, August 1, 1926, p. 230 93 The Present Truth, September 1, 1926, p. 143 94 Ibid 95 The Present Truth, September 1, 1919, p. 162 96 Ibid 97 Poul Bregninge, Judgment Day must Wait (New York, N.Y.: YBK Publishers, 2013), p.169 98 The Present Truth, September 1, 1919, p. 162 99 Macmillan, p. 97 100 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, pp. 461, 462 101 Macmillan, p. 95 102 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, pp. 100, 101, 394

Chapter 19 The Watch Tower Society at Its Lowest Ebb The outcome of the sedition trial, June 21, 1918, meant that the Watch Tower Society’s board of directors, elected in January, could no longer function. Four of the seven directors were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. Only vice president Charles H. Anderson, Dr. Walter E. Spill, and John A. Bohnet would be available, which would mean that there could be no quorum. Moreover, none of these three lived at the Society’s headquarters in Brooklyn. Anderson lived in Baltimore, Maryland.1 Dr. Spill and Bohnet both lived in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.2 Resignations and New Board Members Rutherford and the other directors realized this problem for the Society, for in June 1918, when it seemed likely that a number of directors would go to prison, they somehow managed to have a board meeting at which two resigned and were replaced by “pilgrim” Richard H. Barber and Dr. L.C. Work, both living in Brooklyn.3 Macmillan was one of the two resigning directors;4 Fisher was the other one.5 Rutherford remained president and Van Amburgh remained secretarytreasurer, however.6 It was understood at the time that Macmillan and Fisher would regain their positions should they be able to return to the work of the Society.7 The board’s election of two new members meant that the board would still have a quorum, but later on there were consequences that were problematic. Problems for the Peoples Pulpit Association The situation was even more problematic for the Peoples Pulpit Association, the Watch Tower Society’s New York subsidiary. According to The Watch Tower of November 1, 1917, page 328, the seven directors of the Peoples Pulpit Association were J.F. Rutherford, A. H. Macmillan, W.E. Van Amburgh, W.F. Hudgings, A.E. Burgess, J.A. Baeuerlein and R.J. Martin. Assuming that no change in the personnel had taken place since then, only three of these directors would also be available after the trial, Burgess, Baeuerlein, and Hudgings. But Hudgings was held in prison for contempt of court for about half a year, so in actuality the existing Peoples Pulpit Association could muster only two members! And the Association’s vice president, Macmillan, could not call the board together from prison. In that respect the Association was in a more difficult predicament than the Watch Tower Society itself. Whether this situation meant that there were a number of actual vacancies on the board is not clear, but if that was the case, the procedure for rectifying the situation was outlined in the Association’s charter:

Vacancies in the Board of Directors, arising from any cause, shall be filled by a majority vote of the remaining members of the Board, who shall meet within thirty days after the vacancy occurs for that purpose, and in the event of a failure to so fill such vacancy or vacancies in the manner aforesaid within said time then the President shall fill such vacancy by appointment, and the person or persons so appointed shall hold office until the next annual election of Directors. Should a vacancy occur in the office of President the Board of Directors shall elect his successor within three months after such vacancy occurs, and in the interim the Vice-President shall serve as President of such Corporation. Vacancies occurring in any other office shall be filled by appointment by the President.8 Clearly then, the only legal way to have the Peoples Pulpit Association operable under the circumstances would be to have a number of the directors resign and Rutherford as president to appoint new directors and a new vice president. According to the charter, however, this could take place only after thirty days had passed during which the board had the initiative. Therefore, the legal situation concerning the Association seemed next to impossible to meet. Nevertheless, it seems that somehow some solution was found, for as will be shown below, in the autumn of 1918, the Association’s board was involved when the Watch Tower movement’s headquarters in Brooklyn was moved to Pittsburgh. An article in the New York Herald, August 25, page 12, stated that Dr. Walter E. Spill was vice-president of the Peoples Pulpit Association. Rutherford’s Final Instructions Before being moved to the Atlanta penitentiary, the Watch Tower leaders, though in jail, were able to retain control of the Society. In an article published in the National Labor Tribune, January 15, 1919, Rutherford claimed: On the 21st day of June, 1918, seven members of the W.T.B.S. … as a whole were sentenced to imprisonment. They were removed to Raymond Street jail and remained there seven days in dungeons. They were removed to the Long Island City jail and remained there seven days in light cells. While in these jails the officers … had daily communication with the members of the Society at the office, and were able to direct the work…. On the 4th of July, 1918,… these seven brethren … were removed from their cells and taken to Atlanta, Ga., prison, there to serve a term of twenty years, according to the sentence, thus definitely severing them and their official connection with the Society.9 Richard H. Barber who was elected to the Watch Tower Society’s board in June, 1918, offered some vital information several decades later on the conditions at the Society’s headquarters following the imprisonment of its leaders: I was present at that trial, at which the Society’s officials were railroaded to prison. One morning hereafter I received a call from Brother Rutherford requesting me to come over to the Pennsylvania Station, where the brothers were waiting for several hours for a through train for Atlanta. The prisoners were being transferred to Atlanta penitentiary. Brother Frank Horth, Sister Van Amburgh and Sister Fisher and Sister Agnes Hudgings, a

stenographer, and myself hastened over to the station. Brother Rutherford there gave me some instructions. If we were harassed too much by the police, we were to sell Bethel and the Brooklyn Tabernacle and move to either Philadelphia, Harrisburg or Pittsburgh, as our corporation was in Pennsylvania. When the train was ready, Brother Rutherford took Brother Horth and Sister Hudgings on the train with him. They rode for a distance while Brother Rutherford dictated a letter of instructions to Brother Horth, assigning him to sell Bethel and the Tabernacle. Arriving back in Bethel, Sister Hudgings made copies of this letter of instructions for us. … During the time the Society’s officials were in prison, a committee was named by Brother Rutherford to act in his stead. That committee included Brother W.E. Spill and Brother John Stephenson, a member of the Bethel family who had served in the treasurer’s office as assistant to Brother Van Amburgh; and I was the third member of that committee. The work was divided among us as follows: I was to be in the office handling correspondence and preparing The Watchtower [sic] for publication; Brother Stephenson was to serve as the treasurer and Brother Spill was to handle all outside matters.10 The “Executive Committee,” as a collective, signed a brief message published in The Watch Tower, August 15, 1918, page 255. It seems, however, that it was actually Dr. W.E. Spill, the only director of the three members of the Executive Committee, who was in charge during Rutherford’s absence. At the annual shareholders’ meeting on January 4, 1919, C.E. Stewart of St. Paul, Minnesota, stated that Spill was “the one who has taken the responsibility falling from Brother Rutherford’s shoulders.”11 Rose Hirsh, widow of Robert H. Hirsh, one of the four deposed directors in 1917, wrote years later that “Bro. Spill of Pittsburgh, Pa., one of the Judge’s directors, seemed to be in charge.”12 This means, of course, that Vice President Charles H. J. Anderson, who lived in Baltimore, had very little to do with the activities at Watch Tower headquarters. In all likelihood, he only acted when it was legally necessary for him to do so. The Interim Editorial Committee In The Watch Tower, August 1, 1918, page 226, The Watch Tower editorial committee was still given as J.F. Rutherford, W.E. Van Amburgh, G.H. Fisher, F.H. Robison and W.E. Page. When all members except Page went to prison in Atlanta, those no longer able to serve were replaced. The Watch Tower, August 15, 1918, announced on page 242 that the committee now serving comprised of W.E. Spill, W.E. Page, R.H. Riemer, J.F. Stephenson and E.T. Horth. But in The Watch Tower, February 1, 1919, page 34, the old committee was named again, but with this reservation: “During the absence of the four members first named, and at their request, the following are serving as substitute; namely C.A. Wise, W.F. Hudgings, J. Hutchinson and R.H. Riemer.” Thus Spill, Barber, Stephenson and Horth had been replaced. It is possible that Rutherford was able to pull strings from prison, resulting in an editorial committee more to his liking. Hudgings had been released from prison on December 12, 1918,13 and was a staunch supporter of Rutherford at the time. As will be shown later, there is evidence that Rutherford was

disappointed in Dr. Spill, and it is possible that he came to disapprove of the other replaced committee members, as well. Condition and Activities in Prison According to Macmillan, the eight imprisoned Watch Tower leaders were assigned to work in the prison’s tailor shop, where the clothes for the inmates were made. Eventually, however, Rutherford was transferred to the library.14 Rutherford and Van Amburgh shared one cell; Macmillan and Woodworth shared another.15 Conditions were strict. Only immediate relatives were allowed to visit the inmates and normally only once in two weeks.16 Rutherford’s wife visited him at least twice, the second time together with Mrs. Luie T. Van Amburgh, who visited her husband.17 At Christmas 1918, Mrs. Harriet B. Fisher visited her husband, George H. Fisher.18 Remarkably, just a few days before the shareholders’ 1919 annual Watch Tower Society general meeting, William F. Hudgings was allowed to visit Rutherford and in the presence of a guard to take down a lengthy dictation to present to the shareholders.19 In addition, since going to church on Sunday mornings was mandatory in the prison, the eight Bible Students came to have Sunday school classes in which they taught prisoners for an hour every Sunday.20 Rutherford was also able to have an article published in the National Labor Tribune, a newspaper favorable to the Bible Students. It appeared on January 15, 1919, and dealt with the Bible Student issue of Elijah and Elisha. It was probably Rutherford’s first doctrinal deviation from Russell’s views.21 Rutherford had argued: “Instead of Elisha representing the Great Company class, therefore, as has been suggested, it seems more reasonable to conclude that Elisha pictures that portion of the members of the Society or organization which has been working in harmony with the official Board of the Society to carry on the Harvest work. Hence, Elijah and Elisha picture the Little Flock, but two separate divisions of it.” P.S.L. Johnson expressed surprise that this article was not published in The Watch Tower. When decades later he republished the quotation, he claimed that he had later learned that the reason was that the temporary Watch Tower editors had declined to approve of it.22 Rutherford refined his new view on Elisha shortly after his release from prison. In The Watch Tower, August 15, 1919, page 256, he again stressed that it was not reasonable to conclude that Elisha “would typify the great company class.” After a lengthy argumentation, he concluded on pages 248-249: “We conclude, therefore, that the Prophets Elijah and Elisha both typify the same class, towit [sic], the little flock; that where the Elijah picture ended the Elisha picture began, and in the antitype two parts of the same character of work done by the same class of people are shown.” This definitely was a departure from Russell’s understanding, but Rutherford shrewdly did not openly say so! For Frederick Homer Robison (1885-1932) the stay in the Atlanta prison was a turning point. He studied church history there and became determined to know more carefully what he believed and why. He decided to learn from whatever source presenting reasonable concepts and also decided not to accept anything but the Bible as authority. This information and the following

references to Robison and his views are based on his own statements as published in The Divine Message, issued at Takoma Park, D.C. in 1922. His accounts have been available to me only in the literal Swedish translation that former Watch Tower Society manager August Lundborg published in his journal I Morgonväkten (In the Morning Watch), 1 and 15 November, 1926, pages 321-339. Robison’s quest led him to accept much of what Ethelbert W. Bullinger, an English clergyman, had written. In particular, he accepted the basic thesis of E.W. Bullinger’s commentary on the book of Revelation. In a letter to Rutherford and the Brooklyn congregation dated December 20, 1921, he explained that he wanted to be relieved from leading the study of The Finished Mystery in the Bethel dining room on Friday evenings. He offered 15 reasons which he outlined in an attached statement. On January 2, 1922, Rutherford demanded an almost immediate answer to 24 questions he had drawn up after reading Robison’s letter. But Robison felt that he had already provided a full explanation. So, on January 3 he handed over a letter with four resignations attached. He resigned from the Watch Tower Editorial Committee, from membership in the Peoples Pulpit Association, from the Bethel family and from eldership in the Brooklyn congregation. In spite of this, his name continued to appear on the editorial committee for months. Only in the May 1, 1922, issue of The Watch Tower was he replaced as an editor. By these resignations, he in effect also resigned from the Bible Student movement itself. He settled with his wife in the Washington, D.C. area and resumed secular work. He later embraced the universalist views of A.E. Knoch. He died on April 17, 1932, of pneumonia and pleurisy. A six-page obituary was published in Knoch’s paper Unsearchable Riches, Vol. 23, 1932, pages 292-297. Bible Student Activities During the Hard Times In 1918, the situation for the Bible Students in America was very difficult. Patriotism was running high and the Bible Students were often seen as traitors. They had to suffer persecution in many cases. There were even reports of Bible Students being tarred and feathered. The Golden Age, September 29, 1920, provided a detailed documentation of the persecution during this time. Activities of necessity had to be conducted on a smaller scale, but conventions were still held and the “pilgrim” service was maintained. An example of official harassment in those days took place at a Bible Student convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin: “At the Milwaukee, Wisconsin, convention from August 30 to September 2, 1918, about 850 attended, and there on the last day (‘Kingdom Day’) the Federal officers interrupted the 3 p.m. Bible talk by ‘pilgrim’ J.A. Bohnet, barred the doors and required all young men to show their draft registration cards. After that rude interruption, the Bible talk was resumed by the speaker.”23 The hostility in Brooklyn towards the Society was so great that the leaders decided to follow Rutherford’s advice to move the headquarters to Pennsylvania. The Watch Tower, October 1, 1918, page 290, reported: “After prayerful consideration, and counsel with brethren in other

places, it was decided by the Board of Directors of the WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY, the Executive Committee and the Board of Directors of the Peoples Pulpit Association, to move the offices of our Society from Brooklyn, N.Y., to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, North Side. Large and commodious quarters have been secured in the Martin Building, third floor, corner of Federal and Reliance streets.” The date mentioned for the removal was August 26, 1918. Much later, Richard H. Barber, one of the new Watch Tower directors, reported: “The Tabernacle was sold, if my memory serves me right, for only $16,000. Later Bethel was sold to the government and all arrangements made except the transfer of cash, when the armistice was signed; but providentially the sale of the Bethel was never accomplished.”24 The staff running the Pittsburgh office was heavily reduced. Hugo Riemer, one of those who moved from Brooklyn, later stated: “There were only about ten of us working there in Pittsburgh at the time.”25 Distribution of the book The Finished Mystery was most objectionable, not only to the authorities who had banned it, but also to large segments of the public. A report in the pamphlet called The Case of the International Bible Students, published by Bible Student Earnest D. Sexton in 1919, stated under the subtitle PERSECUTIONS on page five: “In the State of Washington one Bible Student was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for sending a copy of THE FINISHED MYSTERY through the mail. In Globe, Arizona, two men were chased out of the town, finally caught and thrown into jail because they had copies of THE FINISHED MYSTERY. At San Bernardino, California, three men and one lady (colporteurs of these religious books) were arrested and sentenced to three years in prison, because they were offering for sale THE FINISHED MYSTERY, a strictly Bible Commentary, and that after the pages in question had been removed.” Headquarters felt it necessary to insert a supplement in all copies mailed with The Watch Tower, September 1, 1918, addressed “to all Watch Tower subscribers and Bible Students,” reading: “The circulation of the following books and papers is completely suspended during the period of the war: THE FINISHED MYSTERY Special Edition, March 1st, WATCH TOWER (ZG) ALL BIBLE STUDENTS’ MONTHLIES ALL KINGDOM NEWS Any classes and individuals holding any of the above literature belonging to THE WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY are hereby instructed to hold the same, subject to our orders. This is a confirmation of notice sent out last March. WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY26

The same message was actually printed on the second page of the September 15 and October 1, 1918, issues of The Watch Tower. The Curious “ZG” Before the arrest of the Watch Tower leaders in May, 1918, the Watch Tower Society apparently had printed a huge quantity of The Finished Mystery in magazine form. It became known as the “ZG.” The “Z” stood for Zion’s Watch Tower, the original name of The Watch Tower, and “G,” the seventh letter of the English alphabet, designated the seventh volume of Studies in the Scriptures.27 It was printed as an issue of The Watch Tower under the date of March 1, 1918. But strangely, another issue under that date also appeared, containing material of a more regular kind. However, this other issue referred on page 77 to an event that had actually taken place as late as March 4, and also, on page 78, to instructions given on March 14 by the Department of Justice at Washington! Thus it would appear that this other issue of March 1, 1918, was printed later to somehow supplant the ZG issue under that date. It is possible that the ZG undertaking was an attempt to thwart any effort the authorities might make to get The Finished Mystery out of the way. As shown earlier, the Canadian authorities had outlawed the volume on January 30, 1918, and this became generally known in newspapers of February 12 and 13. Rutherford may have decided that another, less conspicuous edition was needed, one that would be less objectionable to the authorities than the regular hard-bound edition and one that could be distributed quickly in large quantities. The wish to appease the authorities is clearly seen in this magazine edition, which is readily available on the Internet. Those who later accused the leadership of compromise would surely get grist for their mill. The pamphlet offered a complete reworking of pages 247-253 in the hardbound edition of The Finished Mystery. Unlike that, it did not mention patriotism at all, and only Germany was seen as the war culprit! The quotations from the writings of Jefferson and Hayes, which had been considered offensive, were dropped completely, and so were the quotations from Pastor Russell’s statements on war in issues of The Watch Tower from 1915 and 1916. The portion on “The Song of Solomon” was removed and the vision of the kingdoms of the world in the book of Daniel was added. Attention was earlier called to a number of cartoons introduced in the pamphlet, most of which were considered quite offensive to many people. Remarkably, this magazine edition was never mentioned during the sedition trial in June, 1918. The distribution of this Watch Tower edition of The Finished Mystery was effectively stopped when the three consecutive Watch Tower issues of September 1, September 15 and October 1, 1918 appeared. It was not until the summer of 1920 that the Watch Tower Society decided, after receiving advice from a law firm, that the ban on The Finished Mystery was no longer binding. On June 21, 1920, they released the magazine edition for distribution. The edition actually stated that it was a free sample copy of The Watch Tower, but then 20 cents per copy was to be charged.28 Would There Be an Election in 1919?

The fact that both the Society’s president and its treasurer were in prison gave rise to the thought that the upcoming annual election due on January 4, 1919, might be postponed. “The question of an annual election has afforded discussions without end, and there is quite a diversity of opinion about the matter…. Recently a letter was sent out to all the class secretaries announcing that there would be no election.”29 But it turned out that the Society was now trapped in the legal arguments Rutherford had used when he replaced four opposing directors in the summer of 1917. He had argued, supported by the legal opinion he had obtained, that directors elected by the board could hold office only until the next regular annual election.30 “Since two of the present Board were elected by the Board of Directors, and not by the shareholders, they could not legally hold over; and hence there could be no quorum.”31 Thus, this would “automatically vacate two positions on the board—Brothers Work and Barber, who were both thus appointed—and leave the board without a quorum.”32 Work and Barber had been elected as an emergency measure in June 1918 to supplant Macmillan and Fisher who resigned when they seemed to face imprisonment. It was the board that elected Work and Barber then, in harmony with the charter. The shareholders would have their say on the matter only at the upcoming annual corporation meeting. If not elected then, Rutherford’s earlier claim implied, such board elected directors would lose their directorships. That there would be an annual meeting was therefore considered crucial for the legal constitution of the board of directors. So, Vice President Anderson, “the Acting President,” addressing board members Bohnet, Spill and Barber, concluded: “Convinced error was made postponing the election. Now decide definitely election must be held. Carry out first plans. Get proxies ready. State in December 1st TOWER that election will be held on January 4th. This action is final. C.H. ANDERSON.”33 J.F. Stephenson, the “Acting Secretary,” announced the annual meeting on the same page. This meant, of course, that there was a risk that Rutherford, Van Amburgh, Macmillan and Fisher would not be reelected. Rutherford realized this and was worried. On the day scheduled for the election he confided in Macmillan: “Don’t you know it’s the election of officers today? You might be ignored and dropped and we’ll stay here forever.”34 The Annual Meeting January 4, 1919 There is an unusually detailed report from the annual meeting and the election that took place in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on January 4, 1919. It was published on pages 20-37 in Souvenir Report of the Bible Students Convention, Pittsburgh, Pa., January 2-5, 1919. William F. Hudgings who had spent six months in prison since the sedition trial in June had managed to visit Rutherford in the Atlanta prison just a few days before the annual election. He brought a lengthy message that Rutherford had dictated to him, and he read it aloud to the shareholders.35 But before doing so, he made the following motion:

In view of the fact that our president and secretary-treasurer—both members of our Board of Directors, are now being held in federal prison at Atlanta, and that their appeal is now pending; and we believe them to be innocent; and that they will be vindicated and return to us within a few weeks or months, and that an election of other officers and directors at this time—under these peculiar circumstances—might and would undoubtedly be misconstrued by the Government as a repudiation of these brethren, and might therefore prove to be detrimental to their case. I therefore MOVE that we take a recess at the annual meeting, so far as an election of officers is concerned, for a period of six months, or until the first Saturday in July, in the interest of these brethren and in the interest of the Society as a whole.36 He made it clear that this was actually what Rutherford and the other imprisoned ones had asked for: “We know that the brethren themselves had requested and advised it.”37 This of course contradicted what The Watch Tower had announced in the December 1, 1918 issue. In several instances, Hudgings criticized the acting directors, and particularly Walter E. Spill, the most prominent of them. This made C.E. Stewart of St. Paul, Minnesota, defend them: “With respect to the remarks of our Brother Hudgings … three times our dear brother referred to those who carried the responsibility for the past three or four months as weaklings. I desire to say, on behalf of myself and Brother Spill (as his associate in years past), I know that he has borne responsibility…. Did it require courage of Brother Rutherford? Did it require courage of Brother Spill to step in at a time he did? Yes! Brother Rutherford was fearless! Indeed! Can we not equally say of the one who has taken the responsibility falling from Brother Rutherford’s shoulders that he was also fearless?”38 In Rutherford’s message through Hudgings, he tacitly criticized Spill and the other directors. He favored others who had never served as directors: “I humbly suggest, therefore, as the most available man for president of our Society, in the event election is held, the name of our dear Brother E.J. Coward, and for vice-president, Brother C.H. Anderson or Brother C.A. Wise; and for secretary-treasurer I would suggest Brother Hugo H. Riemer.”39 As he did not emphatically suggest Anderson as vice president, who had served in that capacity since January, 1918, one can sense a subtle criticism of him as well. And he obviously did no longer favor John F. Stephenson as treasurer and secretary, whom he had appointed in July. Earnest D. Sexton, a “pilgrim” from Los Angeles, made a passionate and significant contribution to the discussion before the election: I just arrived. My train was forty-eight hours late, having been snowbound…. I believe the greatest compliment we can pay our dear brother Rutherford would be to re-elect him as president of the W.T.B. & T. Society…. If our brethren in any way technically violated a law they did not understand, we know their motives are good. And before [the] Almighty, they have neither violated any law of God or of man. We could manifest the greatest confidence if we re-elected Brother Rutherford as president of the Association.40

His plea made quite an impression, and after a recess Hudgings withdrew his motion for a six months’ recess “in that it was clear that the vast majority favored an election and that there was not the slightest doubt as to the re-election of our dear Brother and president, J.F. Rutherford, in the minds of the shareholders.”41 The Election Sexton nominated the following for the board of directors: J.F. Rutherford, C.A. Wise, W.E. Van Amburgh, C.H. Anderson, W.F. Hudgings, E.J. Coward and R.H. Barber. Other nominations made included W.E. Spill, E.H. Thompson, J.F. Stephenson, G.F. Kendall, R.H. Riemer and E.F. Christ.42 During the process, J.A. Bohnet, one of the directors elected in January, 1918, made this noteworthy statement: “I want to suggest to the dear friends that I looked over the suggested list and heartily endorse the same. I would esteem it a pleasure and gratification on my part that if there were any votes intended for me I would be very glad if they were thrown over to Brother Rutherford instead of my place.”43 This clearly was applying cumulative voting where votes that could be used for one candidate actually also could be transferred to another candidate and so increase the number of votes cast for that one. “It required about four hours to check up all the proxies and certificates and to count the votes.”44 About 8:30 p.m. the result of the ballot was announced, and the number of votes for the seven elected were: J.F. Rutherford 112,000 C.A. Wise 111,712 R.H. Barber 97,828 W.E. Van Amburgh 88,307 W.E. Spill 84,148 W.F. Hudgings 75,942 C.H. Anderson 70,113 It is of course strange that Rutherford was the only one who received an exact number of thousands of votes, so it is tempting to speculate that some kind of trickery was involved, but it is unlikely that evidence for that will ever become known. Earnest D. Sexton, chairman of the nomination committee, then nominated Rutherford for president, Wise for vice president, and Van Amburgh as secretary-treasurer. Nominations were then closed and the three were elected. C.H. Anderson, the retiring vice president, said he was delighted and moved that the vote should be made unanimous, and it was.45 The Opposition Ignored the 1919 Election

Several decades after the 1919 election, the Watch Tower Society claimed that Rutherford’s earlier opponents were planning to use Rutherford’s imprisonment to their advantage at the 1919 election. The 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses stated on page 113: “J.F. Rutherford realized that at this corporation meeting opposers within the organization would try to have him and the other officers of the Society replaced by men of their own choice.” They quoted one Jehovah’s Witness as saying long afterwards. “We observed that some of the opposition were present, they hoping to get their man in office.”46 There is no substance behind this claim. At that time, Rutherford’s opponents were already engaged in a new movement. The Pastoral Bible Institute had been formed and Paul S.L. Johnson was highly active in Philadelphia, hoping to get a foothold into that Institute. As shown earlier, he had even declined to use his 416 voting shares in the 1918 election. Francis H. McGee had publicly resigned as a Watch Tower shareholder and would certainly not have paid any attention to the Watch Tower election in 1919. The opposition had failed decisively in the 1918 election. Realistically, they would have been able to obtain even fewer votes in 1919, and they certainly knew that. Who would “their man” be anyway? Both Sturgeon and Johnson had fallen out with the majority of the opposition. At most, a few of the “opposition” could have been present at the 1919 election and then obviously for other reasons, such as giving information about the Pastoral Bible Institute. Rutherford and Spill were the only viable candidates for the presidency in 1919, and neither of them would further the cause of the “opposition.” It is not true that Rutherford “realized” that the earlier opposition “would try to have him and the other officers replaced by men of their own choice.” At most this is what he feared. He unquestionably realized that his opponents had had a strong case, and that might have gnawed at his conscience. The Society’s history book Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose, published in 1959, correctly stated on page 856: “None who had opposed the Society in 1917 and 1918 had any voice in the proceedings.” None of them attempted to. Hudgings and Sexton Eventually Leave the Society The two prime supporters of Rutherford at the 1919 election had been Hudgings and Ernest Sexton. But their support did not last, for both later left the movement. In the 1928 Yearbook Hudgings was no longer listed as a “pilgrim.” He gave a talk at the 1931 reunion convention in Pittsburgh, outside the Society. This talk was published by the Pastoral Bible Institute in The Herald of Christ’s Kingdom, January 15, 1932. Hudgings must have left the Society at that time as well. In 1936, he published the book Zionism in Prophecy, which contradicted the Watch Tower Society’s new view published in 1932. He became associated with the Dawn Bible Students Association and became one of the editors of their journal The Dawn. Sexton resigned as an elder in the Society’s Los Angeles ecclesia.47 Very soon after that he resigned entirely from the Watch Tower Society. He sent a copy of his resignation letter for publication in The Herald of Christ’s Kingdom, February 15, 1931, page 64. That letter reads:

Mr. J.F. Rutherford 124 Columbia Heights, Brooklyn, N.Y. Dear Brother: Having in mind the letter I wrote you several months ago—and which letter was published in the Watch Tower—I feel it obligatory that I write you again; I shall be brief. At the time I wrote that letter I had a hope that I might still be able to engage in the work of the Society, in spite of the fact that I could not agree with all the Watch Tower articles; nor was I in full accord with the methods of conducting the work of the Society. However, I had determined to crush my own feelings and preferences with a view to being “Loyal.” The more recent articles in The Watch Tower, and the whole of the “Light” book are to my mind so distinctly misleading that I now have no hesitation in positively separating myself from the “Society” as it now exists. This letter is absolutely without personal feeling, and is informative only. Respectfully, Ernest D. Sexton. The Watch Tower Officials Released The armistice was signed on November 11, 1918. The fact that the war was over held positive consequences for the Bible Students in the United States and eventually led to the release of the imprisoned Watch Tower officials. A number of newspapers throughout the country started an agitation for release of all prisoners held under the Espionage Act and many were set free.48 Bible Students throughout the country circulated a petition, giving opportunity for others to sign, asking for the release of the imprisoned Watch Tower leaders. The response was overwhelming.49 Harland B. Howe, the very judge who had sentenced the Watch Tower officials to long terms of imprisonment, wrote the following in a letter to the Attorney General in Washington dated March 3, 1919: My principal purpose was to make an example, as a warning to others, and I believed that the President would relieve them after the war was over. As I said in my telegram, they did much damage, and it may well be claimed that they ought not to be set at liberty so soon, but as they cannot do any more now, I am in favor of being as lenient as I was severe in imposing sentence. I believe most of them were sincere, if not all, and I am not in favor of keeping such persons in confinement after their opportunity for making trouble is past. Their case has not yet been heard in the Circuit Court of Appeals.50

However, no hearing in that court took place, for on March 21, 1919, the Circuit Court of Appeal ordered that all of them should be admitted to bail in the sum of $10,000 each.51 The case was due to be heard on appeal on April 14, 1919.52 On March 25, 1919, the eight prisoners left Atlanta by train and obtained their bail in Brooklyn on March 26.53 The outcome was that on May 14, 1919, their convictions were reversed and the case was remanded for retrial.54 Judge Ward, writing the opinion, said: “The defendants in this case did not have the temperate and impartial trial to which they were entitled and for that reason the judgment is reversed.”55 The Government was not inclined to take them to court again. The war was over and so was the war hysteria. There was a substantial risk that the Government would lose a new case. “Hence in open court at Brooklyn on May 5, 1920, the Government’s lawyer announced the withdrawal of the prosecution.”56 There was a splendid reception for Rutherford and the other formerly imprisoned Bible Students with him at the Bethel Home, still in the Society’s possession.57 On April 1, 1919, there was a similar welcome at the Pittsburgh headquarters. A lavish banquet was held for them at Hotel Chatham.58 It is possible that Rutherford on this occasion showed his displeasure with Dr. Walter E. Spill, who had headed the activities at headquarters for several months while Rutherford was in prison. Paul S.L. Johnson had received reports to that effect: “When J.F.R., etc., were liberated and a welcome meeting was arranged for them at Pittsburgh before the Pittsburgh Society Church, J.F.R. so pointedly snubbed Bro. Spill as to arouse more distrust of him among the conservatives. We have been reliably informed that this snubbing included J.F.R.’s refusal to greet Bro. Spill with a handshake before that welcoming assembly.”59 Very close to these events there was evidently a board meeting at which R.H. Barber resigned as a director in favor of Macmillan, who was then elected in his place, to serve until next annual meeting of the shareholders.60 Barber had originally been elected to replace Macmillan when the latter resigned, when it seemed likely that he would go to prison. Barber had been elected in a regular way in January, 1919, but now felt that he would concentrate on the pilgrim service, and since Macmillan was again available, he resigned. As shown earlier, Rutherford and Van Amburgh viewed Macmillan as an ally, so there can hardly have been any objection to his election. Rutherford’s Illness For well over a year the Watch Tower Society had experienced its worst down period ever. The war had brought persecution all over the land and prominent officials, including the president, had spent nine months in jail. On top of that, serious splits had hit the movement. With the war over and the Watch Tower officials back at headquarters, prospects looked a bit brighter. But now an unexpected threat turned up. Rutherford’s health became a serious problem. During his imprisonment, Rutherford had contracted a dangerous lung condition caused by a non-functional fan in his cell. There was no circulation of air. In his weakened condition, he contracted pneumonia shortly after his release, and he went to California where his wife and his son were. He became so ill that his survival was in question.61

If he had died, vice president Wise would have had to step in and a new board member would have had to be elected. The Society would undoubtedly have considered this a serious setback. However, his health improved, although he never fully recovered. He was absent from headquarters in Pittsburgh for several months, but he was back by July, 1919.62 During Rutherford’s absence, George Butterfield, the Bible Student who had financially helped to publish The Finished Mystery in 1917, appeared at headquarters and delivered $10,000 to further the work.63 This, of course, was a substantial help under the circumstances. At this time Rutherford and the other members of the Watch Tower Editorial Committee were still under the spell of The Finished Mystery and its focus on the year 1918. This held remarkable consequences for the Society’s view of “the harvest” and “the kingdom class,” also known as the little flock. As explained elsewhere in this study the Bible Students thought that only a literal 144,000 Christians belonged to “the kingdom class” who were to obtain “crowns” and reign with Christ in heaven. But the “great multitude,” also destined for heaven, though on a lower plane, was thought to be unlimited in number. Reflecting this, The Watch Tower stated in early 1919: “We think it is quite possible that in the spring of 1918 all available crowns would be apportioned, and that no more crowns would be available except as some then standing may prove unfaithful.”64 Therefore, a new responsibility was stressed: “We think it proper … to always explain to those now coming to a knowledge of the truth, that there is no guarantee in the Scriptures that an immortal crown surely awaits them.”65 A month later the editors stated: “We believe it is now a true saying that the harvest of the kingdom class is an accomplished fact, that all such are duly sealed and that the door is closed.”66 As will be shown later on in this study, this view was strikingly similar to what the separated Stand Fast Bible Students had already made public in December 1918. But unlike the Stand Fast Bible Students, the Society did not maintain it for long. However, the Society’s general message to the public did not now concern itself with the intricacies of the “harvest.” Rather, it was a message about the blessings that would come to people in general as earthly subjects of the kingdom. Millions Now Living Will Never Die At the Bible Students convention in Brooklyn, May 29-June 1,1919, Macmillan, in Rutherford’s absence, gave the final speech.67 As the result of this speech, The New York Times reported on June 2, 1919: NEW DATE FOR MILLENNIUM Russellites Now See it coming on Earth in 1925. “If Moses was to descend upon the earth today he could very probably solve most of the distressing problems of the day, but I have not the slightest doubt but that Moses would be clapped into jail, just as we were,” said Alexander Hugh Macmillan, at the closing session of the convention of the International Bible Students Association, yesterday afternoon in the

Academy of Music, Brooklyn. The speaker said he wanted to warn all the sinners to prepare for the millennium, which is to arrive in 1925. “Moses and Abraham will be here then,” he declared, “and we shall be associated with the holy ancients when the Kingdom of God is upon the earth. These ancients will help to restore man to a proper civilized condition.” This was clearly a variant of the talk “Millions Now Living Will Never Die.” The Society had strongly recommended that all the congregations should arrange for the public to hear it in several issues of The Watch Tower prior to the sedition trial.68 That message had been introduced by Rutherford on February 24, 1918, in Los Angeles, California.69 Following the release of the Watch Tower leaders in 1919, the campaign was resumed on a larger scale than earlier: “It is a great comfort to the hearts of many people to hear the message, ‘Millions Now Living Will Never Die,’ which the Lord’s people can confidentially announce, knowing that many of the generation now upon the earth shall not pass away, but live on until the Lord’s Kingdom is fully established.”70 The Watch Tower, October 15, 1920, page 310, emphasized: “We urge the dear brethren everywhere, everyone who is qualified, according to the Lord’s arrangement, for speaking to the public, to use for the public addresses the subject: ‘Millions Now Living Will Never Die’—it is the message that we want to get to the people. It is the message of the hour. It is the message that must go to all Christendom as a witness before the final end of the present order.” In reality, Rutherford deplored the fact that those Bible Students who were now connected with other Bible Student movements refused to support the new message of the Watch Tower Society, “particularly that millions now living will never die.”71 That those who had left really rejected the “Millions” message and its focus on the year 1925 is confirmed by published statements. The Pastoral Bible Institute published the following in The Herald of Christ’s kingdom, January 1, 1922, pages 5 and 6: EARTH’S MILLIONS STILL ON THE ROAD TO DEATH Some of our brethren have asked what is the duty of the Saints?—What message do we have for suffering humanity? Our reply is that we are not authorized to say that the world has ended. We cannot announce that God’s Kingdom is established when such is not the case. We cannot truthfully tell our friends and neighbors of the world that they are not going to die, or that millions of the human race now living will not pass into the tomb; for this is a feature concerning which we have no scriptural knowledge. All around us the race is dying. Fresh graves are to be found in every cemetery…. As for the exact year when death will begin to cease in the earth, none can know, for that is one of things not yet revealed. Paul S.L. Johnson wrote in The Present Truth, October 1, 1922, page 156: “MILLIONS NOW LIVING, ETC. NOT BIBLICAL There is not a Scripture that teaches his Millions proposition. It is purely a guess … nowhere taught in the scriptures, either expressly or impliedly; and therefore, should not be taught in the public, much less as the message of the hour and the Gospel of the Kingdom.”

Karl Klein, a member of the governing body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, wrote this about Rutherford’s preaching about 1925: “Regarding his misguided statement as to what we could expect in 1925, he once confessed to us at Bethel, ‘I made an ass of myself.’”72 Yet even this statement certainly did not give the full picture of the facts. His statement about 1925 was not only “misguided.” It was a false message. And not just Rutherford was involved. All of Rutherford’s supporters spread this message, either as public speakers or as distributors of a “Millions” booklet. This message was anything but a good argument that Rutherford and his supporters were God’s chosen servants as they claimed to be. Concluding Remarks In winding up this story of an eventful period in the history of the Watch Tower Society, only a few additional things need to be mentioned. During Rutherford’s presidency, the overwhelming majority of the Bible Students from Russell’s time eventually left the movement.73 One reason was that Rutherford increasingly rejected Russell’s views and replaced them with his own. Perhaps his most remarkable change was his claim that “since the coming of the Lord Jesus to the temple of God [in 1918] the holy spirit as advocate and guide has ceased to function.”74 Not surprisingly, this was seen as blasphemy by many. Paul S.L. Johnson, Rutherford’s most persistent critic, called it “a monstrous, preposterous and transparent absurdity.”75 Only two years after Rutherford’s death in 1942, the Watch Tower Society discussed the spirit as advocate and guide in The Watchtower but this time felt obliged to reject Rutherford’s claim: “The holy spirit is not removed or taken away from the remnant whom the King Christ Jesus gathers to him at the temple.”76 Another reason for the leave-taking of many old Bible Students was Rutherford’s appetite for power. The four directors who Rutherford dismissed in 1917 were the first to be alarmed about his ambition. They planned to take measures to keep him in check, but Rutherford quickly replaced them with four yes-men. This act proved that the dissident directors were correct in their evaluation, and history has confirmed this several times over. In his will and testament, Pastor Russell had attempted to safeguard the Watch Tower editorial committee “from any spirit of ambition and headship,”77 but to no avail. In 1931, Rutherford set aside Russell’s will entirely, announcing that the editorial committee was disbanded, which in effect meant that he alone, and without interference, would be the sole editor.78 As shown earlier, in 1920 he felt that the charter requirement for annual election of the Society’s three officers was a strait jacket he no longer would bear, and he had the shareholders accept terms of three years, deliberately disregarding the State granted charter. Russell had emphasized that the Watch Tower Society was “only a business association”79 but this did not suit Rutherford, for he wanted to be president, not only of a business association, but of the church. So, he redefined the Society: “The word society as used herein is a generic term applied to the body of consecrated anointed Christians throughout the world engaged in the work of representing the King and the King’s interests on earth.”80

Thus, he felt that that the “Society” was not limited to the voting shareholders, its board of directors and officers, as was clearly Russell’s view and the view expressed in the Watch Tower charter. This would mean, of course, that when the shareholders elected him president, he was at the same time elected president of the faithful, the church! This is reflected in a statement signed by John H. Mitchell of Newark, New Jersey, published in The Present Truth, June 1, 1937, page 97: To Whom It May Concern: This certifies that on Sunday, November 16th, 1924, at the meeting hall of the I.B.S.A., on Broad Street, Newark, N.J., after the close of the 3 P.M. meeting, the following statements were made to me by Brother L.C. Work, of Brooklyn, N.Y., Vice-Chairman of the Executive Committee, Brother J.F. Rutherford being Chairman [of their New York Church]. 1. Speaking of the election of elders at the New York Church on October 8th, 1924, at Apelle Hall, Brooklyn, N.Y., where a brother in the church desired to vote against Bro. Rutherford and six others as elders of the church, Brother Work stated that no one has a right to vote against Bro. Rutherford as elder of the New York Church except at the proper and only place and time; 2. That the only place where Bro. Rutherford can be voted against as elder of the New York Church is at the annual or quadrennial elections of the W.T.B. & T. Society, on each October 31st, when the officers of the Society are elected; 3. That at said Society elections Bro. Rutherford is automatically elected elder of every I.B.S.A. congregation in the world; 4. That Bro. Rutherford and all other pilgrim brothers sent out by the Brooklyn Bethel, are all elders of every I.B.S.A. congregation in the world. 5. That they are of a higher order of elders and know more and are sent to all ecclesias to instruct the consecrated; 6. That Bro. Rutherford is over all the ecclesias everywhere; 7. That the Society controls all ecclesias everywhere; 8. That the president of said Society is the head of the visible Church of Christ on earth. Signed—JOHN H. MITCHELL, 121 Lyons Ave., Newark, N.J. The above shows clearly that Rutherford not only had a greater position among his adherents than C.T. Russell had ever had, but that he had an even loftier position in the movement than the pope had in the Roman Catholic Church. That this by no means is an exaggeration is proved by a

letter from W.B. Fowler, a “pioneer,” to Rutherford, whom the latter published with approval in The Watchtower, July 15, 1939, page 223: “By appointing you as the visible leader in his mighty theocratic arrangement Jehovah has conferred upon you an honor the like of which has never before been accorded to any man.”

Footnotes 1 The Watch Tower, January 15, 1918, p. 23; Oct. 1, 1918, p. 354 2 The Watch Tower, December 1, 1916, pp. 378,379; St. Paul Enterprise, November 14, 1916, p. 1 3 The Watch Tower, December 1, 1918, p. 354; WTBTS to class secretaries, December 12, 1918, p. 1 4 The Watch tower, September 14, 1919, p. 283 5 This was not directly stated, but it could not have been anybody else. 6 Souvenir Report of the Bible Students Convention, Pittsburgh, PA, January 2-5, 1919, pp. 31-34 7 The Watch Tower, September 15, 1919, p. 283 8 See the charter on the Peoples Pulpit Association in Appendix 4. 9 The Present Truth, May 1, 1919, p. 98 10 The Watchtower, July 15, 1965, p. 445 11 Souvenir Report, p. 34 12 Letter to Rud Persson, February 25, 1974 13 Macmillan, p. 97 14 Ibid, p. 101 15 Ibid, p. 112; 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 111 16 The Watch Tower, September 15, 1918, p. 287 17 The Watch Tower, August 15, 1918, p. 249; September 15, 1918, p. 287 18 The Watch Tower, February 15, 1919, p. 59 19 Souvenir Report, p. 31 20 Macmillan, p. 104 21 Paul S.L. Johnson quoted a long paragraph in The Present Truth, May 1, 1919, p. 98 22 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 3, 1938, p. 155. 23 “Then is Finished the Mystery of God” (Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1969) pp. 274, 275 24 The Watchtower, July 15, 1965, p. 445; The New York Herald, August 25, 1918, p. 12 stated that “the old Brooklyn Tabernacle” had been sold for $13,000. The New York Tribune, August 25, 1918, p. 16 stated that the sale had taken place on July 20. 25 The Watchtower, September 15, 1964, p. 572 26 Then is Finished the Mystery of God, p. 275 27 1975 Yearbook, p. 125 28 The Watch Tower, June 15, 1920, p. 187 29 The Watch Tower, December 1, 1918, p. 354 30 Ibid 31 Ibid 32 The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society to class secretaries, December 12, 1918, p. 1 33 The Watch Tower, December 1, 1918, p. 354

34 Macmillan, p. 105 35 Souvenir Report, pp. 31, 33, 34 36 Ibid 37 Ibid, p. 33 38 Ibid, p. 34 39 Ibid 40 Ibid, p. 37 41 Ibid 42 The Watch Tower, January 15, 1919, p. 24; Souvenir Report, p. 37 43 Souvenir Report, p. 37 44 The Watch Tower, January 15, 1919, p. 24 45 Souvenir Report, p. 37 46 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 113 47 The Watch Tower, May 15, 1930, p. 158 48 The Watch Tower, April 15, 1919, p. 117 49 Ibid 50 Macmillan, pp. 107,108 51 Ibid 52 1975 Yearbook, p. 118 53 The Watch Tower, April 15, 1919, p. 118; 1975 Yearbook, p. 117 54 Macmillan, p.108 55 Ibid 56 Ibid 57 The Watch Tower, April 15,1919, p.118; 1975 Yearbook, p. 117 58 Ibid 59 The Present Truth, March 1, 1937, p. 46 60 The Watch Tower, April 15, 1919, p. 123 61 Macmillan, pp. 112, 113 62 Ibid; The Watch Tower, September 15, 1919, p. 283 63 Macmillan, pp. 110, 111; 1975 Yearbook, p. 121 64 The Watch Tower, April 1, 1919, p. 108 65 Ibid 66 The Watch Tower, May 1, 1919, p. 133 67 Ibid, p. 130 68 The Watch Tower, March 1, 1918, pp. 66,78; April 1, 1918, p. 98; May 1, 1918, p. 136 and May 15, 1918, p. 146 69 JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES - Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom (Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract society, 1993), p. 632 70 The Watch Tower, December 15, 1919, p. 373 71 The Watch Tower, November 1, 1921, p. 330 72 The Watchtower, October 1, 1984, p. 24 73 The Watch Tower, December 1, 1927, p. 255; The Watchtower, February 1, 1939, p. 37

74 The Watchtower, September 1, 1932, p. 262. In his book Salvation (Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, 1939) Rutherford stated on page 217: “The holy spirit that had been the guide of God’s people, having performed its functions, was taken away.” 75 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 6, p. 496 76 The Watchtower, August 15, 1944, p. 252 77 The Watch Tower, December 1, 1916, p. 358 78 The Watch Tower, December 1, 1931, p. 360 79 Zion’s Watch Tower, August 1, 1895; The Watch Tower Reprints, p. 1847 80 The Watch Tower, March 1, 1923, pp. 68, 69

Chapter 20 The Pastoral Bible Institute Within a year and a half after the decisive election in the Watch Tower Society in January 1918, no less than four distinct Bible Student movements had developed in reaction to conditions in the Watch Tower Society. Three of them were more or less related to the 1917 management crisis and therefore deserve treatment here. The fourth, unrelated to these three, was the outcome of Rutherford’s compromising stand on war bonds in May and June, 1918. In order to complete the picture of that turbulent period, this movement will be covered as well. It is natural first to deal with the Pastoral Bible Institute as it was the first of those groups to be organized. As shown in chapter 17, the opposition members left the annual shareholders’ Watch Tower meeting as early as the afternoon of January 5, 1918, before the results of the election were announced. They assembled at the Hotel Fort Pitt in Pittsburgh. During the next day, they elected a committee of seven to ascertain the needs of those Bible Students who could no longer support the Watch Tower Society. The elected ones included the four ousted directors, Russell’s secretary Menta Surgeon, Francis H. McGee, and Paul S.L. Johnson. Officers were then chosen. Sturgeon was elected chairman, Ritchie was elected secretary, and Hirsh was elected vice chairman.1 Resignations and Replacements The Fort Pitt Committee held its first meeting on January 20, 1918. But remarkably, on January 24 Sturgeon and Ritchie resigned. Both were concerned that Johnson would attempt to dominate the committee.2 On February 11, the remainder of the committee elected Raymond G. Jolly (1886-1979) and Ingram I. Margeson (1871-1935) as their replacements.3 Both were well known in the Bible Student community. Jolly was an educated man and had been a pilgrim under Russell. Margeson had been chairman of the elders in the Boston ecclesia. Hoskins was elected to replace Ritchie as secretary,4 but the committee failed to agree on a chairman to replace Sturgeon. So, Hirsh acted as vice chairman as long as the committee existed. Johnson Wanted to Control the Committee Sturgeon’s and Ritchie’s worry about Johnson’s ambition was not based on a misconception. To be sure, Johnson denied at a meeting on February 11 that he thought he “was to act as the head of the Committee.”5 And in a business meeting on March 11 of the recently formed independent Brooklyn ecclesia, he denied that he believed himself to be Russell’s successor “either as special teacher or executive or in any other way.”6 But, as McGee pointed out, he did admit that he saw himself as typed by the Old Testament character Medad.7 Other committee members noted: “For some time Brother Johnson has seen himself foretold in the Bible in the form of various historical characters, notable among these is one of two men referred to in Numbers 11:26 as

Eldad and Medad upon whom the spirit rested and of whom it was said that they prophesied in the camp. Brother Johnson’s claim is that Eldad refers to Brother Russell and Medad to himself.”8 McGee further observed: “If Brother Johnson’s conception of the type is true he would apparently have as much a position in the Church as Brother Russell had.”9 It is not surprising, therefore, that McGee was increasingly worried: “I viewed the attitude of the brother as it became more and more apparent at the committee meetings, with growing concern.”10 Johnson’s denial that he considered himself as Russell’s successor was in fact quite deceptive. He later explained that when he withdrew his claim of being the “steward” of the gospel parable, he did not “repudiate the thought that he was made the priestly executive and teacher in charge of the special work of the Lord after Brother Russell’s death, but continued to consider himself such.”11 He stated that the control both of “the teaching and executive functions of the committee” were “implied” in his “powers as the Epiphany messenger,” but was a thing he “never expressed in words.”12 Actually, it was only “under the pressure of opposition” from Rutherford’s opponents that he “disclaimed such office during the Fall of 1917.”13 His denial that he was “Bother Russell’s successor”14 was therefore less than honest. Dispute About a New Corporation At the start of the convention at the Hotel Fort Pitt on January 5, 1918, Johnson strongly recommended forming a new corporation in conformity with the Watch Tower Society, but the proposal was voted down the following day.15 So, in A letter to International Bible Students dated March 1, 1918, the committee only probed the attitude towards pilgrim service and a periodical. Beginning at the meeting held on April 29, 1918, however, McGee, supported by Hoskins, Wright and Margeson, strongly argued for a business corporation.16 Now, however, Johnson had changed his mind and he, together with Hirsh and Jolly, strenuously objected.17 On March 31, Johnson had become convinced that the use of a corporation was contrary to the Bible.18 The dispute continued to dominate the following committee meetings and was still unsolved after the very last meeting on July 18, 1918.19 Types and New Interpretations The matter of a corporation was not the only issue facing the committee: “The committee found itself confronted with serious difficulties and problems which made it practically impossible to proceed satisfactorily with any kind of service. These difficulties and problems were occasioned by the fact that three of the brethren of the Committee had developed some new lines of thought from the types and symbolisms of the Bible … which were not accepted or endorsed by the majority of the Committee.”20 The new views all originated with Johnson and were accepted by Hirsh and Jolly. Prominent among the new views was Johnson’s understanding of Elijah and Elisha. The majority of the

committee rejected it: “We think that his interpretation of the types of Elijah and Elisha is not correct, and we will at the proper time point out briefly our reasons for so thinking.”21 Preparing for a Periodical At the meeting of April 13, 1918, the committee elected an editorial committee for the planned periodical. Johnson was not elected a member of that committee.22 The ambition to start the periodical—shared by all committee members—was halted when the government had the Society leaders arrested in May, 1918. Johnson later noted: “In the committee, especially after May 8, 1918, when the government arrested the Society leaders, there was, from fear of prosecution from the government, particularly by I.F. Hoskins, I.I. Margeson and J.D. Wright, effort after effort made to delay the publication of The Bible Standard and Herald of Christ’s Kingdom, the name chosen for the journal that the committee had decided to publish.”23 However, on June 22, one day after the sentence was passed on the Society leaders, Hirsh was elected managing editor of the paper.24 By that time, it had already been decided to hold a general convention.25 The Asbury Park Convention The committee called the very first convention outside of the Watch Tower Society at Asbury Park on the New Jersey Atlantic coast, July 26-29, 1918. Invitations were sent out by letter. About 300 Bible Students attended.26 At the end of the sessions of July 26, Hirsh announced to the audience that he had the very first issue of the long-desired magazine, The Bible Standard and Herald of Christ’s Kingdom, ready for distribution.27 The committee as a whole expected it to be published only after other arrangements had been made, but McGee agreed to its being circulated as a sample issue without a publisher’s name.28 Only a limited distribution was made, and no further issues were produced. The serious disagreement within the committee was voiced throughout the convention, which must have been one of the least edifying gatherings ever held among Bible Students. The majority of the committee—Hoskins, Wright, McGee and Margeson—were united in their views and suggestions, and the minority—Johnson, Hirsh, and Jolly—were also united in their contrary views and suggestions. At a business meeting in the afternoon of July 27, “the Committee reported that they could not agree and asked the convention to name a committee that could work harmoniously.”29 The majority of those who had appointed the Fort Pitt committee in January were present and they agreed “to turn over to the convention all their rights and privileges as far as the appointing of the Committee was concerned.”30 At this point all the seven members of the Fort Pitt committee offered their resignations, which were accepted.31 Johnson later wrote that he regretted that “he yielded to the pressure to surrender that committee to the symbolic rapists.”32 The basis for the new election was much greater than the basis had been for the election at Fort Pitt where only 32 people had been gathered.33 Consequently, on July 27, the following persons were elected to form a new committee: J.D. Wright, I.F. Hoskins, F.H. McGee, I.I. Margeson,

H.C. Rockwell, F.F. Cook and P.L. Greiner.34 Of the new members Rockwell had earlier been a member of the Watch Tower Society’s board until he had resigned on February 8, 1917.35 Johnson, Hirsh and Jolly failed to make the new committee. McGee noted: “Brothers Hirsh and also Brother Jolly declined to serve when nominated. I am informed that Brother Johnson was not nominated, although anyone at the Asbury Park Convention could have made such nomination.”36 Soon afterwards, Johnson claimed that the convention had been “bossed” by the other side.37 But this was not the case: “Brother Johnson was given more opportunity to speak than anyone else … the views of Brothers Johnson and Jolly were expounded voluminously.”38 On Sunday, July 28, 1918, the convention passed a motion that a simple publication would be published monthly free of charge until the planned periodical, which was to deal with doctrinal matters, could be produced.39 It was called The Committee Bulletin and appeared altogether three times, in August, September, and October, 1918. On the same day the convention also authorized the new committee to arrange for pilgrim service and call other general conventions. The Aftermath Frustrated at the development at the Asbury Park convention, Johnson published a 12-page pamphlet called Another Harvest Siftings Reviewed on August 22, 1918. It dealt entirely with the difficulties within the Fort Pitt committee and the antagonism displayed at the recent convention. As McGee pointed out, however, the title was actually a misnomer.40 Johnson’s original Harvest Siftings Reviewed dealt with Rutherford’s defamation of him in the pamphlet Harvest Siftings, distributed worldwide. His public defense was therefore in order. But no defamation of him had been published and distributed by his opponents before, at, or after the Asbury Park convention. And the critique they bestowed on him there had not been called a “Harvest Sifting.” Moreover, Johnson had indulged in criticism of his opponents at the convention. The new committee responded to Johnson’s accusations in a small pamphlet of their own called A Brief Review of Brother Johnson’s Charges, which was sent out with the August Bulletin. McGee issued A Timely Letter of Importance, dated September 10, 1918 on his own, and this was delivered with the September Bulletin. The Asbury Park convention was crucial for the Bible Students who had rallied around the Fort Pitt Committee. It now became obvious that the “opposition” to Rutherford in North America would split into two distinct Bible Student movements. Efforts were made on both sides to heal the breach during the fall of 1918, but neither side would yield and the separation remained a fact. The Forming of the Pastoral Bible Institute The new committee invited its supporters to a general convention at Providence, Rhode Island, for October 18-20, 1918.41 But because of the Spanish flu, the convention was postponed to November 8-10, 1918.42 About 300 Bible Students attended this convention, mainly from eastern states.43

On November 8, the convention authorized the committee to form a non-profit business corporation with the seven members of the committee as trustees.44 Following the Asbury Park convention, Frank F. Cook had resigned from the committee as he had moved to Detroit and felt that he was too far from other members of the committee.45 C.P. Pritchard from Andover, Massachusetts, had been elected in his place.46 The Providence convention also authorized the committee to appoint an editorial staff of five for the planned new journal, which was to be called The Herald of Christ’s Kingdom. The editorial committee that was appointed consisted of R.E. Streeter, who had been a pilgrim under Russell, H.C. Rockwell, I.F. Hoskins, I.I. Margeson and S.N. Wiley, a medical doctor. They were named on page 2 of the very first issue, dated December 1, 1918. The charter of the new association, Pastoral Bible Institute, was granted as a New York membership corporation on November 23, 1918 and was published in its entirety in The Herald, January 1, 1919, pages 11, 12. The charter named the seven directors, who were identical with the committee serving since the Asbury Park and Providence conventions: J.D. Wright, I.I. Margeson, P.L. Greiner, H.C. Rockwell, I.F. Hoskins, F.H. McGee, and E.J. Prichard. The address of the headquarters was to be 262 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, N.Y.47 The directors recommended the ecclesias to use the name “Associated Bible Students” for regular local assemblies. The charter of the Institute was similar to the charter of the Watch Tower Society, but there were a few significant changes: Contributions of five dollars or more would entitle the giver to membership and only one vote.48 The directors were to serve until the next annual meeting on the first Saturday in June each year, when the election of directors was to take place.49 On this occasion the newly elected directors were also to choose from among themselves “a Chairman who shall preside at all meetings of the Board of Directors, a Vice-Chairman who shall preside in the absence of the Chairman, a Secretary and a Treasurer.”50 Note that the terms “president” and “vice president” were avoided and that the secretary and the treasurer would not be the same person as it was in the Watch Tower Society. These measures were clearly meant to prevent any individual or any group from taking hold of the corporation. This of course reflected the experiences many of them had had in the Watch Tower Society. The first annual election took place on Saturday afternoon, June 6, 1919. All seven directors named in the charter were reelected. Then the board elected J.D. Wright as chairman, I.I. Margeson as vice chairman, I.F. Hoskins as secretary and P. L. Greiner as treasurer.51 It was reported that 15 pilgrims had been serving since August 1918.52 The Herald of Christ’s Kingdom At the time, it was also reported that the subscription list for the Herald numbered about 2,500, having started with about 800.53 The Herald distinguished itself in two respects. First, it took an outspoken stand against speculative interpretations, thereby deliberately distancing itself from some of Johnson’s teachings, but also from certain views emanating from the current Watch Tower Society: “It will be manifest to all that it is not our purpose to open the columns of this

journal to fanciful interpretation or wild speculation either of ourselves or of others. The lessons of the past should never be forgotten in this respect.”54 Second, the magazine would avoid controversy with opponents: “The pages of this journal shall not be used to engage in any controversy with those who may oppose us, nor shall we have either time or space to devote to evil speaking, misrepresentation, or for slandering our brethren who may differ from us. No not even to our enemies shall we render such treatment.”55 This attitude was adhered to throughout the years that followed, although at times the gradual deterioration in the Watch Tower Society—as perceived by the Institute—was aired. But on such occasions no individual was pointed out by name and no condemnation was pronounced. Major Publications Indeed, in 1930, when radical changes in the Watch Tower Society’s teachings caused increased unrest among its members, the Pastoral Bible Institute took the offensive. That year it published The Desolation of the Sanctuary, a book written by the German Bible Students, Emil and Otto Sadlack. This was a translation from a German original and contained 314 pages. It was a thoroughgoing criticism of the Watch Tower Society under Rutherford based on its publications.56 The same year the Institute issued an eight-page leaflet called A Message To The Watchers And To All who Mourn in Zion,57 which advertised the book. The bewildered Watch Tower adherents were told on page 3: The passing of our beloved Brother in 1916 as is well known, resulted in a general crisis in the work in which we were all engaged. The change in the management and controllership of the institution conducting the work, meant a complete change in the spirit, policy and method of administration. The plain, simple doctrines and truths so clearly set forth and defended by Brother Russell have been one after another set at naught and have been replaced with unusual teachings and uncertain theories. Arrogant and presumptuous claims were made by those in charge of the work, such as being a Divine “channel,” whose ministry and teachings must not for one instant be questioned. … As a result of this general and sad situation—departures, changes, and innovations—many problems, questions, and issues of the most vital importance, involving the Truth and the liberty of the people of God, have come before the brethren the world over. The Institute had published a reprint of Russell’s The Divine Plan of the Ages in 1922. In 1923 and in 1924, it published The Revelation of Jesus Christ in two volumes written by R.E. Streeter, one of the editors of the Herald. This commentary also appeared in a German translation. It might be seen as a reply to The Finished Mystery published by the Watch Tower Society in 1917, which was largely rejected by those who formed the Pastoral Bible Institute. The Revelation of Jesus Christ did not revolve around Pastor Russell as a prophetic figure as The Finished Mystery had done, and it was considerably less speculative. In 1928, the Institute published Daniel the Beloved of Jehovah, a commentary on the book of Daniel, written earlier by Streeter, who died in 1924. At this time the Institute had supporters all

over the world. It had close ties with the Bible Students Committee in Britain and the Berean Bible Institute in Australia, both of which had a similar background. A German edition of the Herald, Der Herald des Königsreiches Christi, had been available since 1925. In 1930, the number of subscribers to The Herald of Christ’s Kingdom had risen to “approximately 3,000.”58 A New Chronology With the article “Watchman What of the Night?” in the Herald, April 15, 1921, the Pastoral Bible Institute initiated one of the most controversial debates with all other Bible Student groups. The editors argued that “the full end of the Gentile Times” would take place, not in 1914, as had been generally believed, but in 1934.59 They argued that the 70-year period mentioned in the Old Testament dealt with a period of servitude under the Babylonians rather than a period of absolute desolation. This would mean that the crucial destruction of Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezzar— thought to begin the Gentile Times of 2,520 years—took place in 587 B.C. and not in 606 B.C. as C.T. Russell had believed.60 This article was followed with other articles on chronology in the May 15 and June 1 issues of the Herald. Significantly, the Herald’s new position was more in line with what virtually all secular historians held. Paul S.L. Johnson reacted strongly. In the June 1, 1921, issue of his paper, The Present Truth, he attacked the new chronology and defended the traditional Bible Student understanding. He continued to contradict the Herald in The Present Truth of July 1 and September 1, 1921, and again in the June 1, July 1, August 1 and November 1, 1922 issues. But the Herald editors did not yield to Johnson. In the issues of November 1, 1921, May 1, June 15, July 1 and 15, 1922, The Herald of Christ’s Kingdom continued to contend for their new chronology. The Watch Tower Society also felt compelled to enter the discussion. Without mentioning The Herald of Christ’s Kingdom or the Pastoral Bible Institute, The Watch Tower published no less than six articles on the subject, beginning with the issue of May 1, 1922, which stated on page 3: “About a year ago there began some agitation concerning chronology, the crux of the argument being that Brother Russell was wrong concerning chronology and particularly in error with reference to the gentile times…. This has resulted in some of the Lord’s dear sheep becoming disturbed in mind and causing them to inquire Why does not THE WATCH TOWER say something?” In the article “Chronology” in the May 15, 1922, issue, page 147 they lamented: “Some claim to have found new light in connection with the period of ‘seventy years of desolation’ and Israel’s captivity in Babylon, and are zealously seeking to make others believe that Brother Russell was in error.” This chronology dispute shows that the Pastoral Bible Institute could be quite influential even among Watch Tower adherents. The Watch Tower Society felt the pressure so much that it published two articles on the “Seventy Years Desolation” in the June 1 and June 15, 1922, issues of The Watch Tower and rounded up with an article on “Divinely-Given Chronological Parallelisms” in the November 15, 1922, issue and another on “A Clear Vision of Chronology”

in the July 1, 1923, issue. On no other teaching of The Pastoral Bible Institute did the Watch Tower Society ever respond so resolutely. The Watch Tower Society’s Hostility The Watch Tower Society, of course, viewed the Pastoral Bible Institute not only as a rival but indeed as an enemy. This is illustrated by two personal experiences that took place many decades ago. In 1928, W. Norman Woodworth, a distant relative of Clayton J. Woodworth, one of the authors of The Finished Mystery, was expelled from the Bethel headquarters of the Society for having visited some earlier friends at the Institute. At the 1930 Bible Student reunion convention in Pittsburgh, outside of the Watch Tower Society, he stated the following: I went to see some of my old friends—friends of years ago—friends who had ceased to walk along the “Channel.” I wanted to find out if they were still in the Truth. I had been told that every one who left the Society soon went out of the truth…. Well, to make a long story short, about six weeks after I had made my visit to the friends of the Pastoral Bible Institute (for this is where I made my investigation), the president of the Society received a letter from some one … saying that there were spies working right at the Bethel who were going to the camp of the enemy and giving out information, and that I was one of these spies…. When the president received this letter he immediately sent for me and asked me if I really did do such a detestable thing. I told him I had made such a call, but when he insisted as to the whys and wherefores of it I told him that what I did outside Bethel was my own business and not his…. Well, the president promptly told me that I could no longer remain at Bethel, and that he intended to expose me before the entire Bethel family…. In order to shift the responsibility and possibly with the thought that I might weaken, a meeting was called of the entire board of directors, although one or two were not able to be present…. For more than half an hour every possible effort was made to prove I had gone to the Institute as a spy—as if anyone in the “Lord’s Organization” would worry about spies! I was told that I wouldn’t be given the privilege of resigning…. One of the conditions upon which I could remain at Bethel was this: I must concede that all the friends outside of the Society were dishonest and hypocrites. In other words, I must be willing to judge my brother…. By my refusal to take such a stand I was myself classed as a traitor and a heretic. The Bethel family have been warned not to speak to me … very forcibly did the Judge remind me that I was not resigning but being put out.61 The other experience involved Mary Elizabeth Woodworth who was born to Clayton J. Woodworth and his first wife in 1893. Elizabeth married another Bible Student named George Filchett Herde in 1917. George had an article on vaccination published in The Golden Age, October 8, 1924, but not long afterwards both he and Elizabeth left the Watch Tower Society and supported the Pastoral Bible Institute. Both sent their greetings to the 1930 reunion convention, being unable to attend.62

Clayton J. Woodworth was one of those who testified during the Moyle trial in 1943. He said the following about his daughter: Q[uestion]. She was interested in the Pastoral Bible Institute, wasn’t she? A[nswer]. Yes. Q[uestion]. And still is? A[nswer]. So far as I know.63 Many years later The Herald of Christ’s Kingdom, January/February 1972, page 16, reported that “Elizabeth W[oodworth] Herde, Centerville, Md.” had “entered into rest.” She had five children, and one of them, Byron Herde, stated in a note “that Elizabeth was ‘disowned’ by her father.”64 So it is obvious that the Watch Tower’s hostility towards the Pastoral Bible Institute destroyed family relations. Difficulties in the Pastoral Bible Institute During the 1920s, the Pastoral Bible Institute became a haven for quite a few of the increasing number of Bible Students who forsook the Watch Tower Society when dramatic changes took place. The Institute held up a high standard of righteousness and were strong in faith, prayer and personal holiness.65 As time went by, however, a certain weakness can be noted as compared with the Bible Student movement as it existed in the time of C.T. Russell. The zeal for engaging in missionary work seemed to wane.66 When W. Norman Woodworth and a number of prominent Bible Students in Pittsburgh left the Watch Tower Society in the latter part of the 1920s, a desire for a greater witness work manifested itself. The Pastoral Bible Institute declined to support such endeavors, and this led to the formation of Dawn Publishers in 1932 and eventually to the Dawn Bible Students Association in 1934.67 The Pastoral Bible Institute as a whole was not opposed to the public witness. One of its directors, I.I. Margeson, one of the founders of the Institute in 1918, became one of the trustees of the Dawn Publishers, along with W. Norman Woodworth.68 In fact, the Bible Students Committee, the Institute’s partner in Britain, was very zealous in public witnessing.69 From the beginning, the Institute had taken a strong stand for Christian liberty, a natural reaction to the bondage to human opinion many had experienced in the Watch Tower Society. But this of course could be overemphasized at the expense of doctrines held dear among the Bible Students, such as the presence of Christ, the church’s share in the sin offering, and differentiating between the major covenants. This led to supporting pilgrims and ecclesias that did not measure up to the customary teaching in these areas.70 Isaac Hoskins, the senior director after Margeson’s death in 1935, reacted to this development and wanted to stem the tide. But his efforts to have the liberal directors removed and conservative directors elected in 1936 failed. He even failed reelection himself.71 He later wrote:

“Of the total vote Brother Hoskins’ list of nominees obtained forty-four per cent. The so-called ‘broader and more liberal policy’ had won by a slight majority.”72 Hoskins also failed to keep his place on the editorial committee.73 He later claimed that the new directors “took a different view of a number of things with regard to policy and ministry, and all, and were not true to what had been stated was the purpose of the institution in the commencement.”74 He and a number of his supporters immediately stopped supporting the Institute. Being encouraged by a number of like-minded Bible Students, he soon began publishing a monthly magazine called Watchers of the Morning, the first issue of which bore the date April, 1937. No institution or corporation was involved in this undertaking, as Hoskins himself stated during the Moyle trial.75 The last issue was dated June 1957. Hoskins died only a few months later, in September of that year. The Pastoral Bible Institute Today In 1946 and 1947, efforts were made towards merging the Pastoral Bible Institute and the Dawn Bible students Association, but these efforts failed.76 However, conditions for closer cooperation between the two Bible Student movements gradually improved, especially after 1992 when The Herald returned to a more “orthodox” Bible Student outlook. Under Peter J. Pazucha, the Herald’s editor, the magazine seemed too “liberal” from the standpoint of a majority of the board of directors of the Institute. Pazucha himself had been a director since 1980 and he had supervised The Herald since 1985, but the dissatisfied directors discussed whether to shut down the Herald or try to find a new managing editor.77 They finally asked Carl Hagensick of the Chicago Bible Students if he would be that new editor. He explained to them that he had spent his life supporting the Dawn, but was assured that this was no problem.78 The 1992 May-June issue of the Herald announced that “Brothers Jarmola and Pazucha have withdrawn their names from the ballot” for the upcoming annual election of directors. In the July-August issue Pazucha announced that he and three other members of the editorial committee would no longer edit The Herald. Checking the issues Pazucha supervised, it is difficult to pinpoint articles that might have been objectionable. The January-February 1991 issue did contain an article contradicting C.T. Russell’s view concerning the “Sin-Offering,” but perhaps it was that Pazucha had other, more controversial doctrinal views that alarmed the board of directors. When Pazucha was removed in 1992, he posted the Institute’s entire library to Tim Thomassen, the chairman of the board, and never after that had any association with the Institute.79 In fact, Pazucha seems to have left the Bible Students altogether. This is confirmed by Jeff Mezera from the Watch Tower History YouTube channel, who has investigated the matter.80 Unfortunately, Pazucha does not want to discuss his break with the Pastoral Bible Institute, so what happened in 1992 remains somewhat unclear.

The September-October 1992 issue of The Herald was Carl Hagensick’s first issue. That issue announced that an entirely new board of editors had been chosen. Their motto was “Continuity and Freshness.” After Hagensick’s death in 2008, according to James Parkinson the succeeding lead editors, Michael Nekora and Leonard Griehs, have kept The Herald in line with its early roots. Since the magazine is now printed on quality glaze paper, it is now considerably more attractive than it used to be. Each issue has a different theme subject. The subscription list “is about 1,800 in some 30 countries.” It is also available in Tamil and Polish and some issues are put out in Croatian.81 Actual membership in the Pastoral Bible Institute is now down to “about 180” but the Institute now cooperates closely with the Dawn Bible Students Association in America and the Berean Bible Institute in Australia. A considerable minority of the Dawn membership are now also members of the Institute, including James Parkinson, who is fairly well known for his publications on Bible Student history.82 The current address is Pastoral Bible Institute, P.O. Box 3274, Bremerton, WA 9830, U.S.A. Seven directors are elected every year, as stipulated in the 1918 charter. The Herald is managed and edited by a committee of five. The Institute has an informative website. In 1998 and again in 2015, the Institute republished its early Revelation commentary. It republished its Daniel commentary in 1998 and again in 2016. Both works are also available online. A major undertaking was made in 2016 when the Institute put an edition of the American Revised Version of the Bible from 1901, commonly known as the American Standard Version (ASV) online. It was called “RVIC,” which stands for “Revised Version Improved and Corrected.” It makes competent use of the many new Bible manuscripts that have come to light in the 20th century. The archaic form of English characterizing the ASV has been intentionally retained, but “factual changes” can be found throughout. At Luke 23:43 Jesus now says: “I say unto thee today, thou shalt be with me in Paradise.” John 1:1 says “the Word was a god,” and John 1:18 says that the Word was “an only begotten god.” Rev. 20:10 reads “they shall be put to the test day and night for ever and ever,” instead of “they shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever,” the rendering given in the ASV. A daring addition was made just before 1 Samuel 11:1 based on a Qumran manuscript and Josephus. Reflecting customary Bible Student understanding, Rev. 20:5 just reads: “This is the first resurrection.” C.T. Russell considered the words “the rest of the dead lived not until the thousand years should be ended” as spurious. See The Divine Plan of the Ages, 1914 edition, p. 288. Nonetheless, the words are given in a footnote along with the textual evidence for it. In the first part of 2020 the Pastoral Bible Institute published RVIC as an actual book with three Appendices each for the Old Testament and New Testament. Only a thousand copies were printed and the price is $30 plus postage.83

Footnotes 1 Paul S.L. Johnson, The Present Truth (Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately, April 19, 1919), p. 71 2 Ibid

3 Ibid, p. 72; F.H. McGee, A Timely Letter of Importance to All the Brethren, (Freehold, Freehold, New Jersey: Printed privately, September 10, 1918), p.1 4 The Present Truth, April 19, 1919, p. 73 5 Ibid, p. 72 6 The Present Truth, December 9, 1918, p. 21 7 McGee, p. 1 8 J.D. Wright, I.F. Hoskins, P.L. Greiner, F.F. Cook I.I. Margeson, F.H. McGee, H.C. Rockwell: A Brief Review of Brother Johnson’s Charges (Place of publication not stated : Printed privately. Not dated, but sent out with The Committee Bulletin, No. 1, mentioned below), p. 1 9 McGee, p. 1 10 Ibid 11 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, p. 251 12 Ibid, p. 497 13 Ibid, p. 510 14 The Present Truth, December 9, 1918, pp. 20, 21 15 Ibid, February 17, 1919, p. 40 16 Ibid; J.D. Wright, I.F. Hoskins, P.L. Greiner, F.F. Cook, I.I. Margeson, F.H. McGee, H.C. Rockwell: The Committee Bulletin, No. 1, August 1, 1918 (Place of publication not stated: Printed privately) p. 4 17 Ibid 18 The Present Truth, February 17, 1918, p. 40 19 Ibid; Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, p. 520 20 The Committee Bulletin, August 1918, pp. 3, 4 21 A Brief Review of Brother Johnson’s Charges, p. 1 22 McGee, p. 1 23 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, p. 498 24 The Present Truth, April 19, 1919, p. 78 25 Ibid, p. 77 26 The Committee Bulletin, August, 1918, p. 3 27 Paul S.L. Johnson, Another Harvest Siftings Reviewed (Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately, August 22, 1918), p. 2 28 McGee, p. 3 29 Ibid, p. 1 30 The Committee Bulletin, August, 1918, p. 4 31 Ibid 32 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, p. 522 33 The Committee Bulletin, August, 1918, p. 3 34 Ibid, p. 4 35 Harvest Siftings, August 1, 1917, p. 12 36 McGee, p. 3 37 Another Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 6 38 McGee, p. 3 39 The Committee Bulletin, August, 1918, pp. 2, 5 40 McGee, p. 3

41 J.D. Wright, I.F. Hoskins, P.L. Greiner, F.F. Cook, I.I. Margeson, F.H. McGee, H.C. Rockwell: The Committee Bulletin, No. 2, September,1918 (Place of publication not stated: Printed privately), p. 3 42 R.E. Streeter, H.C. Rockwell, I. F. Hoskins, I.I. Margeson, S.N. Wiley: The Herald of Christ’s Kingdom, December 1, 1918 (Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Pastoral Bible Institute), p. 10 43 Ibid, p. 10 44 Ibid, p. 11 45 Ibid, p. 16 46 Ibid, p. 11 47 Ibid, p. 2 48 Ibid, January 1, 1919, p. 11 49 Ibid 50 Ibid, pp. 11, 12 51 Ibid, July 1, 1919, p. 196 52 Ibid, p. 198 53 Ibid, p. 197 54 Ibid, December 1, 1918, p. 4 55 Ibid, p. 5 56 Ibid, May 1, 1930, pp. 140, 141 57 Ibid, December 1, 1930, p. 352 58 Ibid, June 15, 1930, p. 180 59 Ibid, April 15, 1921, p. 120 60 Ibid 61 L.W. Jones, The Souvenir Report 1930, Second General Re-Union Bible Students’ Convention, Pittsburgh 1930 (Chicago, Illinois: Printed privately), pp.115,116 62 Ibid, p. 42 63 Moyle vs. Franz et al, 1943, transcript of record, p. 1107 64 An email from genealogist Skip Higgins to Rud Persson, August 24, 2011 65 Charles F. Redeker: Pastor C.T. Russell: Messenger of Millennial Hope (Temple City, Ca.: Printed privately, 2006), p. 311 66 Ibid, p. 312 67 James B. Parkinson: Bible Student Fragments 1917-1967, unpublished, p. 6 68 Ibid, p. 22 69 A. O. Hudson: Bible Students in Britain: The Story of a Hundred Years (Hounslow, Middlesex, England: Bible Fellowship Union, 1989), pp. 115-120 70 Charles F. Redeker, p. 312 71 The Herald of Christ’s Kingdom, June 1, 1936, p. 7 72 I.F. Hoskins, “Watchers What of the Night? A Review of Events in the Truth ministry Since 1916” in Watchers of the Morning (Los Angeles, Ca.: Printed privately, January, 1955), p. 9 73 The Herald of Christ’s Kingdom, June 1, 1936, p. 88 74 Moyle vs. Franz et al, 1942, transcript of record, p. 1576 75 Ibid 76 Parkinson, p. 10 77 J.B. Parkinson, email to Rud Persson, September 26, 2019 78 Ibid

79 Parkinson to Persson as in note 77 above 80 Email from Mezera to Persson, October 3, 2019 81 Parkinson to Persson as in note 77 above 82 Ibid 83 J.B. Parkinson, email to Rud Persson, July 7, 2020

Chapter 21 The Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement Philadelphia was the birthplace of another movement that developed as a result of the 1917 Watch Tower management crisis. Following a four-hour debate in that city on July 19, 1917, the Philadelphia ecclesia threatened to abandon Rutherford if he would not call a special meeting of the Watch Tower shareholders to deal with the issues.1 Rutherford declined to do so, and not surprisingly very soon after the election on January 5, 1918, that entrenched Rutherford and his supporters, the large Philadelphia congregation split in two. Those who could no longer support Rutherford and the Watch Tower Society left and established an independent ecclesia.2 It was a viable congregation numbering about 200 persons.3 By the summer of 1918, Paul Johnson, Raymond Jolly, and Robert Hirsh—all members of the Fort Pitt Committee—were elders in this independent ecclesia.4 Two Conventions Attempted as a Remedy As shown earlier, these three elders were not satisfied with the outcome of the Asbury Park convention held July 26-29, 1918. On August 4 the Philadelphia ecclesia, undoubtedly at the behest of the three, requested the Fort Pitt Committee to arrange for a general convention in Philadelphia for September 8-10, 1918. But on August 13, Isaac Hoskins, the committee’s secretary, wrote them that the committee would not grant their request.5 So on August 18, by a vote of 42 for and 6 against, the independent Philadelphia church authorized Johnson to arrange the convention.6 It was stressed that the purpose of the convention was “to rectify” the difficulties resulting from the Asbury Park convention.7 The small number of votes involved in the decision suggests that a large part of the Philadelphia ecclesia were not wholeheartedly in favor of the move. This convention did not turn out to be a great success. The Fort Pitt Committee and most of its supporters failed to recognize that there was a valid reason for it and boycotted it.8 They pointed out later that it had largely been a local affair with very few participants outside members the Philadelphia ecclesia.9 Johnson admitted that “it was not largely attended.”10 But during the last session, the Philadelphia convention appointed a committee that included F.H. McGee from the Fort Pitt Committee to overcome the deadlock between the two dissenting Bible Student factions. However, to Johnson’s great disappointment, McGee “declined to serve.”11 This unresponsive attitude caused the Philadelphia church to sever its connection with the Fort Pitt Committee on September 17, 1918.12 However, the convention sponsored by the Fort Pitt Committee at Providence, Nov. 8-18, 1918, nevertheless decided “to secure the support of the Philadelphia Church.”13

Encouraged by this move, Johnson then prepared a resolution that the Philadelphia ecclesia passed on December 1, 1918. Johnson published this resolution on page 24 in the very first issue of his magazine called The Present Truth and Herald of Christ’s Epiphany, December 9, 1918. It stated that the Philadelphia church would be glad to enter discussion, but only on certain conditions. First, the Fort Pitt Committee would have to “clear itself of the seeming irregularities laid to its charge both in the old and new committee.” Second, this clearing would have to “take place in the presence” of the Philadelphia church. Third, the “examination of the entire situation” would be conducted by “the investigative and curative committee” appointed by the Philadelphia convention on September 10. According to the resolution, the ecclesia also authorized Paul Johnson to call for another convention where the “effort of clearing up matters” might be made. This call was actually announced right under the resolution. The convention was to take place in Philadelphia, December 20-22, 1918.14 The Fort Pitt Committee did not respond to this invitation either. It had just, on November 23, had the Pastoral Bible Institute chartered and had published its first issue of The Herald of Christ’s Kingdom on December 1, 1918. Moreover, Johnson himself had put out the first issue of The Present Truth and Herald of Christ’s Epiphany on December 9, 1918. It made the explicit claim on page 22 that the light now due was “in almost every case hidden in types, symbols, and prophecies.” This, of course, referred to Johnson’s peculiar explanations of Bible texts, which, as he correctly pointed out, were “practically taboo” to the Fort Pitt Committee.15 At that point, the members of that committee fully realized that their views and Johnson’s views were no more compatible than fire is compatible with water. Johnson rejected the use of a corporation and the committee could, of course, not undo the incorporation of the Pastoral Bible Institute. The price for harmony with Johnson and the Philadelphia ecclesia was simply too high. The committee, therefore, gave up all efforts to obtain support from the Philadelphia ecclesia. Its members boycotted this second Philadelphia convention as they had boycotted the first one.16 On December 28, 1918, the Fort Pitt Committee sent a long special delivery letter to the Philadelphia ecclesia, stating: “The Pastoral Bible Institute believes that nothing could be accomplished by a conference” with the Philadelphia church. Until that church repudiated its charges and grievances, it said, “there would be no ground for harmony,” and until then “further discussions” were deemed “unprofitable.”17 The Philadelphia church responded to this with a lengthy statement on January 5, 1919, and on January 10 the Pastoral Bible Institute acknowledged receiving it.18 That was the end of the communication between the Pastoral Bible Institute and those in the Philadelphia ecclesia challenging it. But that did not mean that the Pastoral Bible Institute lost all support from Philadelphia Bible Students; in fact, by then a distinct Pastoral Bible Institute ecclesia had separated from the Philadelphia ecclesia dominated by Johnson, Hirsh and Jolly.19 The separation between the Pastoral Bible Institute and Johnson’s faction dominated the issues of February 17, March 14, and April 19 of Johnson’s magazine, The Present Truth. The

Institute’s magazine, The Herald of Christ’s Kingdom, in harmony with its stated policy, did not say a word about the differences. Johnson Sole Leader in the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement The Present Truth became a regular monthly periodical with the issue of June 1, 1919. At the end of that year, there were “not quite 1000 subscribers.”20 By that time, Johnson’s movement was growing steadily. In July, 1919, it was firmly established with Johnson as undisputed leader. A later report stated: At a General Convention of the LAYMEN’S HOME MISSIONARY MOVEMENT, hereinafter designated L.H.M.M., held in Philadelphia on July 5, 1919, a resolution was unanimously adopted by all delegates in convention assembled, by which Bro. Paul S.L. Johnson, Pastor of the Church at Philadelphia, was designated, elected and accepted as the General Pastor and Teacher and Executive Trustee of said L.H.M.M. and authority was conferred upon said Paul S.L. Johnson as its Executive Trustee for, in the name and on behalf of said L.H.M.M. to manage its business and affairs, and to receive, hold in charge and expend, for the objects and purposes of said L.H.M.M., any and all monies thereof.21 The name chosen for the movement, the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement, had been used by C.T. Russell in certain situations.22 Regarding the monthly Journal, The Present Truth, Johnson stated: “We believe the Lord wished it to be under our exclusive stewardship.”23 He further emphasized that the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement was just a movement or activity and not an organization. It had no charter, no by-laws, no directors and no elections.24 The movement was run exclusively by Paul Johnson. While Hirsh and Jolly assisted him in various ways, Johnson supervised the movement as he saw fit. He strongly felt that he was the divinely appointed leader. All of Johnson’s earlier statements to the effect that he did not consider himself the leader, therefore, actually amounted to nothing. As late as in his Present Truth, December 9, 1918, he had stated on page 22: “The writer does not claim to be the special teacher of the body of Christ in the flesh.” Yet sociologist Herbert H. Stroup was not far off when he used the designation “the Paul Johnson Movement.”25 Johnson started another paper on July 16, 1920, calling it The Herald of the Epiphany. This was a lighter, eight-page publication designed for the public. In September 1920, the Laymen’s headquarters was moved from 1222 Morris Street to 1327 Snyder Avenue, Philadelphia.26This location was kept for as long as Johnson lived. The Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement attracted quite a few Bible Students over the years and it was to become an international movement. But not surprisingly, practically no other Bible Student movement wanted to cooperate with it.27 Distinctive Teachings Johnson held to a number of end-times teachings published by Russell during his later years. He thereupon developed a set of his own teachings that he felt were the logical fulfilment of

Russell’s expectations. Thus, according to Johnson, a new phase of the ministry had begun following Russell’s death. According to Russell, there would eventually be two distinct classes of Christians with a heavenly hope. First, there would be the “little flock,” limited in number to 144,000 according to Revelation 7:4 and referred to at Luke 12:32, who would be the royal priesthood and co-rulers with Christ during the millennium. Then there would be the “great company” referred to at Revelation 7:9, who he understood to have compromised with the world and therefore did not live up to their consecration. Yet, finally realizing what they had missed, they were saved through much tribulation. Russell claimed that they were antitypical “Levites” who would serve their brothers, the priesthood.28 Russell also held that these two groups of believers were foreshadowed by the Old Testament prophets Elijah and Elisha. He believed that the two groups had unknowingly lived alongside each other but would soon be separated in a dramatic way, as Elijah was separated from Elisha when he was taken up in a whirlwind. Russell was confident that this would take place within just a few years.29 Johnson claimed that Russell’s expectations were fulfilled during the stormy times following Russell’s death in 1916. His views were complex and were not lucidly presented. He first published them in the early issues of The Present Truth, December 9, 1918, December 24, 1918 and May 1, 1919. In brief they consisted of the following: The separation of the Elijah and Elisha classes had begun to take place during the summer of 1917 in the organizational difficulties then separating the Bible Students. The leaders of the Watch Tower Society and their ardent supporters then became members of the Elisha class and at the same time become members of the “great company.” As such they were no longer “priests” but only “Levites,” for they had lost their positions within the “little flock.” The “revolutionism” against the divine arrangements given by Russell in his will and his charter was the crucial factor. When such “revolutionism” became apparent—and Johnson thought he could discern when that happened—the individuals in question had “lost their crowns” and become “manifested Levites.” Johnson actually believed that not all the Bible Students associated with the Watch Tower Society had become Levites. But he would liberally name Bible Students whom he considered “Levites,” members of the “great company.” Also, the leaders of the Pastoral Bible Institute and other groups were put in that category. But in all fairness, it is worth pointing out that he still considered all such people as “brothers,” who had their own place in God’s arrangements, although on a lower plane. The Epiphany Johnson felt that there was a higher reason why he was enabled to understand all this that had not been clear to Russell: “Since about the time of ‘that servant’s’ death we have been living in the Epiphany period of the Second Advent,” he wrote on page 12 in The Present Truth, December 9, 1918. They had “passed out of the Parousia (presence) stage into the Epiphaneia (bright shining) stage,” and he used the English word epiphany for that Greek word found in the New Testament.30 In fact, the full name of his main publication was The Present Truth and Herald of

Christ’s Epiphany. He later wrote 17 books that he called Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures. (1938-1950). Thus the “epiphany” concept was central to Johnson. But, except for splinter groups from his movement, no other Bible Student movement paid much attention to it. The Youthful Worthies A consequence of Russell’s view about the “great company” was that it was not to be gathered from the world, for they had all been part of the “little flock” but had failed to be faithful. Johnson of course shared this view. In addition, he claimed that the “high calling” to the “little flock” had ended in the spring of 1916.31 This view was to become a major point of contention with other Bible Student fellowships who continued to believe that the high calling to heavenly life remained open.32 As Johnson considered the high calling closed and as members of the “great company” were not to be brought together from the world, he felt that all those who responded to the preaching after 1916 had to be of another class. He termed this class “the youthful worthies” in The Present Truth, February 17, 1919, pages 34-38. He based the term on the “young men” mentioned in the prophecy of Joel 2:28 in the King James Version. The “old men” — also mentioned in this text — he understood to be the “ancient worthies,” the Old Testament saints thought by all Bible Students to be prominent on earth during the millennium. He did not consider the “youthful worthies” to be a spirit begotten class.33 They would live on earth as important people during the millennium,34 and would be changed from human to spirit beings after the millennium, along with the “ancient worthies.”35 They were to symbolize their consecration by water immersion and could partake of the Lord’s Supper at the annual memorial.36 But they should marry only persons belonging to the same class: “Little Flock members should marry Little Flock members only; Great Company members should marry Great Company members only; Youthful Worthies should marry Youthful Worthies only.”37 “That Servant” Paul Johnson continued to hold Russell in highest esteem. While some Bible Students in the 1920s began to downplay Russell’s role as the “faithful and wise servant” of Matthew 24:45, Johnson stressed this teaching throughout his life. In the October 1, 1920, issue of The Present Truth, he published an article called “That Servant” in which he dismissed alternative views on the subject. On page 156 in that issue, he stated: “The facts of the Harvest history prove that an individual, our sainted Pastor, is meant by that expression. … He alone was ‘that servant.’” In the March 1, 1925, issue, pages 170-171, he published an article entitled “The Epiphany proves our Pastor ‘that servant.’” In the same issue, pages 172-174, he published Russell’s will that was originally published in The Watch Tower, December 1, 1916, on pages 358-359. In 1938, he published a large book on Russell called “The Parousia Messenger.” He followed this book with a second one in 1949 called “The Parousia Messenger, Vol. II.” Both were published in his series called Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures. Much of the material in both books dealt with how Johnson understood Russell to have fulfilled Biblical types.

When the Watch Tower Society stopped printing Russell’s works, Johnson felt it his duty to republish the six volumes of Studies in the Scriptures and Tabernacle Shadows of Better Sacrifices with only a few changes. He also republished Hymns of Millennial Dawn. The copyright date for all these edited works was 1937. They are still available from the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement. That Evil Servant While Johnson stood in awe of Russell, his view of Rutherford was very different, and that, too, became one of his tenets. The Watch Tower Society had recently identified Nelson H. Barbour, Russell’s early associate, as the “evil servant” mentioned at Matthew 24:48-51 and the “foolish shepherd” mentioned in the Old Testament book of Zechariah 11:15-17.38 Early on, Johnson found another candidate for these characters. On February 17, 1918, he delivered a lecture in Philadelphia identifying J.F. Rutherford as “the evil servant.”39 He published his view in the article “That Evil Servant” in The Present Truth, August 1, 1920, and reprinted it a couple of times. He published his article, “The Foolish Unprofitable Shepherd,” in the December 1, 1922, issue. He wrote on page 189: “Both Matt. 24:48-51 and Zech. 11:15-17 treat of Bro. Rutherford. Both of these passages cover some of the same and some of the different points of his activities. They both show that he is an evil man, an errorist, a cruel injurer and unscrupulous misrepresentor of the leaders of the Lord’s people.” In 1938, he again dealt specifically with Rutherford in the chapter, “A rejected Servant and Shepherd,” on pages 165-188 in volume 6 of his Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures. This view of the “evil servant” was held by a majority of Associated Bible Students also, and still is. The Epiphany Messenger The theology of the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement also included Johnson himself, as the alleged “Epiphany Messenger.” I have not found any article in The Present Truth specifically dealing with this, but the claim permeates Johnson’s autobiography published in 1941 called The Epiphany Messenger.40 As the autobiography was published as number 10 in the series Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures, the teaching about the “Epiphany Messenger” was clearly meant to be a tenet of the movement. “The Lord over 25 years ago appointed the author to the office of teacher and executive as to the Epiphany work toward the Little Flock, The Great Company and Youthful Worthies.”41 This of course placed Johnson on a par with Russell, although he disclaimed to have succeeded Russell as “that servant.”42 He claimed: “The Parousia and Epiphany Messengers are foretold in Deut. 32:30.”43 This text reads in the King James Version: “How shall one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their rock had sold them, and the LORD had shut them up?” Johnson clearly thought that he and Russell were the “two” mentioned here. This certainly was a far-fetched application, to put it mildly. As late as in 1938 he claimed to have the same unique association with Russell in his application of the Old Testament characters Eldad and Medad mentioned at Numbers 11:26 who “prophesied in the camp.” He claimed that Russell was

the modern “Eldad” who began to prophesy in the 1870’s and that he himself had been anointed to be the modern “Medad,” when he as a Lutheran minister began to “proclaim some of the truths” in 1903.44 Johnson also felt that he was, in certain respects, the “antitype” of such Biblical characters as Joseph, Job, Ezra and Nehemiah.45 This of course became tenets of the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement. But it is clear that all Bible Students outside of the Movement and its splinter groups have totally rejected all these claims. While Johnson held all these amazingly high views of himself, he never claimed to be “earth’s great high priest” as the Watch Tower Society stated on page 73 in its biased history, Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose that was published in 1959. The claim was repeated in the 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, which quoted A. H. Macmillan as its source on page 89. Macmillan stated that Johnson “later thought that he was the world’s high priest.”46 This was an outright lie. Not only is there no evidence whatever that Johnson held such a view. He actually included this claim among the “falsehoods” that scandalmongers were spreading about him.47 Johnson taught that “the world’s high priest” was a collective consisting of “Jesus and the Church, as Head and Body”48 and this understanding appears consistently throughout his writings. R.G. Jolly, Johnson’s successor as trustee of the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement, correctly took the Watch Tower Society to task for its lie about Johnson claiming to be the world’s high priest.49 In all, Johnson authored 17 volumes of Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures, the last two of which were published in 1953 and 1956, after his death. These volumes, with a few exceptions, do not appeal to Bible students in general. Volume VI, a 749-page tome called Merariism, was published in 1938 and is one of the most significant books examining Rutherford’s theology ever published. It surpasses even the book The Desolation of the Sanctuary, published by the Pastoral Bible Institute in 1930. A book he published in 1920 called Life-Death-Hereafter, reprinted several times, would undoubtedly also be relevant to other Bible Students. Johnson Downgrades Hirsh and Jolly Ever since the Fort Pitt convention in January, 1918, Robert Hirsh and Raymond Jolly had wholeheartedly supported Johnson, and they had been his main helpers. However, as time went by there were occasions when they disagreed significantly with him, and he was not inclined to take such opposition lightly. Hirsh was the first of the two to bear Johnson’s disapproval. According to Johnson, “his conduct plainly enough showed his desire for entire independence” from him.50 As a consequence, Johnson intimated to him that he was “a Levite.”51 And on Sunday, May 2, 1920, Johnson announced to the Philadelphia ecclesia that he had withdrawn “priestly fellowship” from Hirsh.52 He wrote that Hirsh knew “only too well that he was a Levite.”53 This meant according to Johnson that Hirsh had “forfeited” his “crown” and was no longer a member of the “Little Flock,” but only a member of “the Great Company.”54

Hirsh’s wife “protested” that Johnson “had no right to call anyone a Levite,” and therefore was wrong “in calling Br. Hirsh a Levite.”55In early July, 1920, the Hirshes moved to Jersey City.56 On July 11, 1920, “R.H. Hirsh at a meeting of the Jersey City convention publicly denounced and renounced J. [Johnson] as an evil-doer, in the presence of at least 50 brethren, including J.”57 That of course was the end of Hirsh’s relationship with the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement.58 Johnson claimed that R.G. Jolly and a couple of others in Philadelphia charged him with being impractical and that they frequently opposed his motions in the Philadelphia ecclesia. He felt that Jolly sometimes was his “main opponent.”59 But he did not condemn Jolly until November 11, 1923, when he and two others “severely criticized” Johnson and favored what Johnson called “a revolutionary method of conducting elections.”60 Johnson continued: “Then these crown-losers proceeded to read more lectures to J. [Johnson], who in silence let them go on, knowing all the while what they didn’t know—that they were crown-losers and that he was the Divine mouthpiece.”61 Thus, the outcome according to Johnson was that Jolly now was a “Levite” who belonged to the “Great Company.”62 Unlike Hirsh, however, he accepted his lot and continued to support Johnson. In fact, he later publicly confessed to belong to the “Great Company.”63 Johnson did not think that his declaring various Bible Students to have “lost their crowns” and become “Levites” and members of the “Great Company” was judging them, contrary to Bible teaching. Instead, he thought that it was God who had judged them and only thereafter revealed to him his judgment.64 However, many Bible Students personally affected, and others, too, thought that Johnson was deluded. That certainly was the case with Robert H. Hirsh and his wife, who earlier had been close associates of his. They felt that Johnson actually did “judge” those affected.65 Developments Until Johnson’s Death In the years that followed, Johnson continued to analyze and criticize all other Bible Student groups in his journal The Present Truth. These included the Watch Tower Society, the Pastoral Bible Institute and others. Neither did he spare various individuals and Bible Student leaders by naming and censuring them directly. He also examined and dismissed the universalism expounded by former Watch Tower editor F.H. Robison who had left the Watch Tower Society in 1922, calling it “Robisono” universalism. Beginning with the issue of May 1, 1927, “Robisono –Universalism Examined” was a major subject of The Present Truth throughout 1927 and 1928. Johnson naturally had a substantial staff to assist him in his ministry. He called the workers in the Bible House in Philadelphia “the Bible House family.” In 1934, they were “seven in number,” including Johnson’s wife, and they all gave their service “without a monetary recompense.”66 Johnson was very satisfied with this “faithful cooperation,” for that made it possible for him “to spend between six and seven months of the year in pilgrim work.”67 He also recognized the help he received from “the brethren of the Philadelphia ecclesia.”68 Thus, he was able to travel extensively and visit many parts of the world to promulgate his message.

The movement grew substantially after its inception. The Present Truth of November 1, 1933, page 175, reported that more than 6,000 “Polish brethren” were connected with The Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement. The December 1, 1934, issue reported on page 182 that the number of “Truths Subscribed” were “23,062” and the number of “Heralds Subscribed” were “12,636.” In 1936, a supporter bought the building housing the “Epiphany Bible House” and donated it to Johnson. As a result, he no longer had to pay rent for the building.69 But there were setbacks. For example, The Present Truth, January 1, 1938, page 61, reported that a number of the Polish adherents had left the movement. Some of them went to the Pastoral Bible Institute, something that must have hurt Johnson. His health started to deteriorate in 1946. On May 29, 1948, he had R.G. Jolly appointed his successor as General Pastor, Teacher and Executive Trustee in the event of his death.70 Johnson died on October 22, 1950, at the age of 77. Jolly immediately succeeded him as the leader of The Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement in harmony with his earlier appointment.71 When Johnson died, he was the General Pastor of over 300 churches throughout the world. He directed “a lecture bureau with over 100 speakers.”72 There were members of the movement in about 40 countries.73 The Movement Under Raymond G. Jolly Jolly was raised in the Presbyterian Church. In 1905, he graduated with high honors from the Bloomsburgh State College in Pennsylvania and in 1907 he entered Lafayette College at Easton, Pennsylvania, with a view of becoming a Presbyterian minister. However, after reading some volumes of Russell’s Studies in the Scriptures, he dropped out.74 On May 16, 1910, he married Ray Allen Browne, a fellow Bible Student.75 In 1912 he was invited to come to the Watch Towers headquarters in Brooklyn. After a while his wife and their little son joined him there, and Jolly soon served as a “pilgrim.”76 In 1916, the family moved to Philadelphia where Jolly served as an elder.77 He and others invited Paul S.L. Johnson to come to Philadelphia in 1918, and from then on Jolly’s life was closely intertwined with Johnson’s. One of the first things Jolly did after becoming Trustee of the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement in 1950 was to change the title of Herald of the Epiphany to The Bible Standard and Herald of Christ’s Kingdom. As shown earlier, this was the name the Fort Pitt Committee had planned for its paper in 1918, of which only a sample copy was published. The change took place in December, 1951.78 On October 15, 1967, he moved the headquarters from Philadelphia to the suburb Chester Springs.79 Looking back in 1979, Jolly wrote: “The years from 1950 onward have been very busy years in publication, correspondence and other work, with a considerable number of speaking engagements in the U.S. and other countries, including some in Eastern Europe. The work has spread to and increased greatly in Africa since 1954.”80 In the mid-1950s, he published a 36-page booklet called The Teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses examined in the Light of the Scriptures. This is an interesting publication as it shows some of the differences between the teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses and those of the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement and probably other Bible Students as well. Jolly rejected the negative

attitude to saluting the flag and the negative view of the cross, so characteristic of Jehovah’s Witnesses. He also denied that blood transfusions are outlawed by the Bible. He stressed that the Biblical prohibition against eating blood could have no bearing on blood transfusions as it applied only to eating blood of birds and lower animals. An updated and expanded version of this booklet is available on the movement’s website. In 1976, Jolly republished Russell’s The Photodrama of Creation, giving the text to the Watch Tower Society’s remarkable picture presentation in 1914 and some years afterwards. The new version was an attractive, modernized publication with some new pictures. It is commonly said by members of their movement that Johnson was the last member of the “little flock” and that Jolly was the last member of the “great company.” “The Consecrated Epiphany Campers” Perhaps the most significant development of the teaching of the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement under Jolly was the new view that no more “Youthful Worthies” could be gathered by October, 1954.81 Jolly claimed that people who “consecrated” after that time were to be called “The Consecrated Epiphany Campers.”82 A major difference between the “Youthful Worthies” and “The Consecrated Epiphany Campers” seems to be that the latter would be given “eternal life on earth,”83 while the “Youthful Worthies” would play a more important role during the millennium and would eventually be taken to heaven. Nonetheless, Jolly claimed that “The Consecrated Epiphany Campers” should properly undergo water baptism and also partake of the Lord’s Supper. On August 30, 1975, August Gohlke was officially chosen to succeed Jolly as Executive Trustee of the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement.84 Jolly’s health started to fail in the summer of 1978, and he died on February 14, 1979 in his ninety third year.85 During his tenure he was faced with a number of schisms within the movement. As James Parkinson has noted on page 5 of his Bible Student Fragments: “Cyril Shuttleworth, the British representative, left in 1951. John W. Krewson split with Jolly in 1954-1955 over whether Krewson (not eligible for the heavenly hope) should assume the teaching position; he published The Present Truth of the Apocalypsis journal through his Laodicean Home Missionary Movement in Philadelphia and later in Florida. About 1956 Feb. John F. Hoefle left and began issuing a monthly newsletter through his Epiphany Bible Students Assn. of Mount Dora, Fla.” The Movement After Jolly’s Death After Jolly died, August Gohlke became leader of the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement as planned, and editor of its two magazines. He was more likely to attend conventions of those who had left the Watch Tower organization or left other Bible Student groups than Jolly had been. When Gohlke died in 1985 Bernard W. Hedman succeeded him. He was remarkably open to other Bible Students. When Hedman died in 2004, Ralph M. Herzig succeeded him. During his tenure, in 2005, the movement assumed a new name – The Bible Standard Ministries – for publication purposes while still maintaining the old name The Laymen’s Home Missionary

Movement. Herzig made some changes in teaching and insisted that these teachings must be accepted. The movement experienced financial difficulties and substantial defections took place, beginning in the United States. Eventually the United Kingdom, Poland, Germany and Canada were also affected. According to a former member of the movement, the division dealt with both doctrine and arrangements. He estimates that around 40% separated from the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement in these five countries. The separated ones do not have a single leader and have not formed any organization, though some of them maintain websites. This division is perhaps the most significant development that has transpired since Jolly’s death. Because of illness and disability Herzig had to step down in 2014, two years before his death. Leon J. Snyder succeeded him as Executive and Editor, and is still in charge. The movement still publishes its two magazines and still offers Paul S.L. Johnson’s books and the six volumes of Russell’s Studies in the Scriptures. It now also offers The Bible Standard Cyclopedia, a disc containing in electronic form all issues of The Present Truth from December 9, 1918 until the last few years, as well as all the issues of The Herald of the Epiphany until recently. It also contains all 17 volumes of Johnson’s Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures and Russell’s six volumes of Studies in the Scriptures. It can be ordered for just a nominal cost. The address of the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement still is Chester Springs, Pa 19425, U.S.A.

Footnotes 1 Light after Darkness, p. 20 2 The Watch Tower, March 15, 1918, p. 94 3 The Committee Bulletin, September 1918, p. 4 4 The Present Truth, March 17, 1918, p. 60 5 Another Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p. 10 6 Ibid; The Present Truth, December 9, 1918, p. 17 7 Ibid 8 The Committee Bulletin, September 1918, p. 4 9 Ibid 10 The Present Truth, December 9, 1918, p. 22 11 Ibid 12 Ibid, pp. 23, 24 13 Ibid, p. 23 14 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, p. 269 15 The Present Truth, March 17, 1919, pp. 59, 60 16 Ibid pp. 60, 61 17 Ibid, pp. 59, 60. The Present Truth, March 17, 1919, pp. 59, 60 18 Ibid, pp. 60, 61 19 Ibid 20 The Present Truth, December 1, 1919, p. 201

21 The Present Truth and Herald of Christ’s Epiphany, November-December, 1975 (Chester Springs, Pa.: The Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement, Raymond G. Jolly, Editor), p. 86 22 The Watch Tower Reprints, p. 5365; The Present Truth, December 1, 1920, p. 197 23 Ibid, September 1, 1920, p. 145 24 Ibid 25 The Jehovah’s Witnesses (New York: Russell & Russell, 1967 reprint) p. 14 26 The Present Truth, September 1, 1920, p. 138; October 1, 1920, p.168 27 Charles T. Redeker: Pastor C.T. Russell: Messenger of Millennial Hope, 2006, p. 315 28 See The Watch Tower Reprints, pp. 4654, 5864, 5865 29 See The Watch Tower Reprints, pp. 5875, 5950 30 The Present Truth, May 1, 1919, p. 82 31 Ibid, November 1, 1919, p. 191 32 Redeker, pp. 314,315 33 The Present Truth, December 9, 1918, p. 1 34 Ibid, February 17, 1919, p. 35 35 Ibid, p. 36 36 Ibid, January 1, 1921, pp. 8, 9 37 Ibid, October 1, 1923, p. 157 38 The Finished Mystery, 75,000 Edition, 1917, p. 386 39 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, p. 496 40 Examples can be found on pp. 234, 497, 611, and 613. 41 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, p. VI 42 The Present Truth, October 1, 1923, p. 157 43 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, p. XXII 44 Paul S.L. Johnson, Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 9, (Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately, 1938), pp. 55,56 45 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, pp. 144,180, 207, 533-535, 607, 659 46 A.H. Macmillan: Faith on the March, (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1957), p. 76 47 The Present Truth, November 1, 1921, p. 179 48 Ibid, October 1, 1920, p. 168 49 Ibid, Sept.-Oct. 1975, p. 73 50 Ibid, September 1, 1920, p. 145 51 Ibid, November 1, 1920, p. 175 52 Ibid, November 1, 1920, p. 175; December 1, 1920, p. 195 53 Ibid, November 1, 1920, p. 177 54 Ibid, p. 175; Epiphany Studies, Vol.10, p. 622 55 The Present Truth, November 1, 1920, p. 180 56 Ibid, p. 181 57 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, p. 537 58 The Bible Standard and Herald of Christ’s Kingdom, May, 1979 (Chester Springs, Pa.: The Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement, August Gohlke, Editor), p. 29 59 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, pp.585, 586 60 Ibid

61 Ibid, p. 588 62 Ibid, p. 585 63 The Present Truth, November-Decembe.,1976, pp. 87, 90 64 Paul S.L. Johnson, Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 3 (Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately, 1938), pp. 125-127 65 Paul S.L. Johnson, Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 4 (Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately), pp. 137, 214 66 The Present Truth, October 1, 1934, p. 179 67 Ibid 68 Ibid 69 Ibid, December 1, 1936, p. 191 70 Ibid, November-December,1975, p. 86 71 Raymond G. Jolly, The Herald of the Epiphany, January 15, 1951 (Philadelphia, Pa.: Raymond G. Jolly Publisher), pp. 3, 8 72 Ibid 73 Ibid, p. 6 74 The Bible Standard, May,1979, pp. 26, 27 75 Ibid, p. 28 76 Ibid 77 Ibid, p. 29 78 Ibid, p. 26 79 James B. Parkinson: Bible Students Fragments 1917-1967, p. 5 80 The Bible Standard, May 1979, p. 29 81 The Present Truth, July-August, 1978, pp. 50, 62; Redeker, pp. 315, 316 82 The Present Truth, July-August, 1978, pp. 50, 51, 62 83 Ibid, p. 62 84 Ibid, November- December,1975, p. 86 85 The Bible Standard, May 1979, p. 30

Chapter 22 The Bible Students Committee in Britain At the time the Pastoral Bible Institute was chartered in America in November 1918, an independent Bible Student movement was well under way in Britain and for similar reasons. Actually, the embryo of this movement could already be discerned in the latter part of 1917. The Background Rutherford had restored Henry Shearn and William Crawford as managers of the London branch, thus undoing Paul Johnson’s brusque action of dismissing them in February 1917. However, on March 16, 1917, he sent new rules for the London branch vesting “due authority in Hemery as the president’s representative.”1 He should have known that this was unacceptable to Shearn and Crawford. “The fact is these two brethren would not agree to the office arrangement as made by Bro. Rutherford.”2 Paul Johnson, back in America, reported on November 1, 1917: “They would not work as managers under Bo. Hemery, but are dividing the British Church. They have left Bethel as members of the staff.”3 The following account relies to a great extent on Albert O. Hudson’s informative book Bible Students in Britain: The Story of a Hundred Years, published in 1989. Hudson was a member of the London Tabernacle congregation during Johnson’s visit in 1916 and 1917 and experienced the dramatic developments that followed. He noted: “He [Shearn], with William Crawford, had been dismissed or compelled to resign, as joint managers of the London office of the Society on account of their joint opposition to Jesse Hemery’s endeavors to assert control, and at this time were finding it necessary to settle into normal business life again. In the meantime, they became associated with the various reorganized churches in the Metropolis, and in Forest Gate, East London, which had by now severed its connection with the Society and Joseph F. Rutherford its President, and publicly announced its independence.”4 Frederick George Guard was the leading elder in the large Forest Gate ecclesia, established in the 1890s. He was William Crawford’s father-in-law,5 and not surprisingly sided with him against Jesse Hemery. In the fall of 1917, the turbulent situation at the American headquarters had undoubtedly become known in Britain also. William Robertson’s quarterly The Bible Student, published in Edinburgh, Scotland, described the content of both Rutherford’s Harvest Siftings and the four directors’ replies Light After Darkness and Facts for Shareholders in the December, 1917, issue, pages 135, 136. In all likelihood, the pamphlets had reached Britain even earlier. The former Swedish pilgrim Axel Sjö described both Harvest Siftings and Light After Darkness on page 4 in an extra issue of his Swedish paper Midnattsropet (The Midnight Cry) published in October 1917. Hence, it is

practically certain that many prominent Bible Students in Britain were also aware of the problems at Watch Tower headquarters in New York by October, 1917, and had become suspicious of Rutherford. At the end of 1917, Robert Cormack, one of the Tabernacle elders, “went back to his native Glasgow” and “joined up with the independent assembly recently broken away from the second largest British Church.”6 In London, the new ecclesia in Kensington abandoned fellowship with the Tabernacle congregation.7 On October 28, 1917, Jesse Hemery told the Tabernacle audience: “A few classes have broken away from us; they think they are in bondage in the I.B.S.A. Well, they may have their freedom if they call it thus.”8 By 1918, the Watch Tower Society had also to deal with issues regarding The Finished Mystery, the alleged seventh volume of Studies in the Scriptures, that were unacceptable to many Bible Students in Britain and elsewhere. The Watch Tower, January 1, 1918, page 6, claimed that everyone who failed or refused to accept and disseminate the book “could not be designated as of the Elijah class.” Indeed, The Watch Tower, March 1, 1918, page 70, made the blatant claim that a teacher who opposed the seventh volume would be “out of harmony with the SOCIETY” and “should not stand for election to the position of elder.” The Formation of the Bible Students’ Committee These statements unquestionably speeded up the secession process in Britain. “A more general move towards secession from the Society was now taking place, following the example of brethren from the major centres, Forest Gate, London Tabernacle, and Glasgow. Provincial cities such as Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol, Nottingham, Darlington, now had their independent meetings. Altogether something like sixty such centres, large and small, city or rural, were by now in existence.”9 By the beginning of 1919, demands for action were too loud to be ignored: “There were now more than a hundred independent ‘classes’, Churches, in the UK. Some were in localities where the entire existing IBSA community had seceded en bloc from the Society; most consisted of a proportion, sometimes a minority and sometimes a majority, who separated from the existing meeting and established themselves in a new meeting-place. Henry Shearn and William Crawford, and others with them,” realized that the time had come to form an organized union of independent Bible Students for concerted action.10 A conference was held at University Hall, London, on April 5, 1919, at which it was decided to set up a central committee to be known as the Bible Students Committee whose members were to be elected annually by independent British Bible Students generally, “and there would be no titular head or leader.”11 Those elected, “seven in number, were William Crawford (London); Frank Edgell (London); F.G. Guard Sr (Forest Gate); Alex Guy (Forest Gate); William Seager (Ipswich); Henry Shearn (London) and George Tharatt (Bishop Stortford) – all well-known and trusted.”12

A circular letter from the Committee dated May 1919, was distributed widely that announced a convention soon to be held in London. It was duly held at East Ham Town Hall on August 2-4, 1919. Some six hundred from all parts of the country attended.13 The convention unanimously ratified the inauguration of the Committee. The existing committee was elected for another twelve months. “Henry Shearn was appointed the Committee’s first Secretary … F.H. Guard Jr was appointed Assistant Secretary.”14 A Final Effort for Unity The Committee was to conduct those activities which so far had been provided by the Watch Tower Society, such as printing, publishing and providing lecture speakers and pilgrims. But before going ahead “full speed” the fellowship decided to try a last effort to bring about reconciliation with the Society. Many were hoping for “some form of unity which would still preserve the individual Churches’ rights of self-government without having to create this organization.”15 They felt that “apart from the extraordinary claims made by the Society of late, there are no outstanding doctrinal differences.” A special “Reconciliation Committee” of eight trusted Bible Students was elected to work on the project.16 Rutherford took this chance to make an inroad into the emerging independent movement in Britain. He published a major article in The Watch Tower, April 1, 1920, pages 99-104, called “Let Us Dwell Together in Peace.” It dealt entirely with the issues brought up by the Bible Students Committee. “Some time ago brethren in Great Britain, having a desire to bring about a greater spirit of unity and cooperation, constituted a committee to discuss points of difference and addressed a letter to the President of the Society asking what could be done to this end.”17 The tone he used was very civil. Remarkably he stated: “We would not refuse to treat one as a brother because he did not believe the Society is the Lord’s channel.”18 Yet he did not revoke the statements about the seventh volume published in 1918, and he dodged the crucial issue of self-government in individual ecclesias. But as a result of the article a few of those who had left came back to the Watch Tower fold. Frederick Lardent, an elder in the London Tabernacle congregation, reported in the New Era Enterprise, an American newspaper published in St. Paul, Minnesota and controlled by Bible Students loyal to Rutherford: “Many of those who are bewildered are returning. We rejoice to report that so many are finding out their mistake as is evidenced by such letters as the one I have before me.”19 The facts show, however, that this report was an exaggeration. In fact, Frederick Lardent himself eventually left the Society and joined up with the secession movement! As shown by a program for the independent London convention in the spring of 1931, he was acting as “Convention Secretary” then, and also gave a talk. The other speakers included such well-known independent Bible Students as William Crawford and Isaac Hoskins. During the Society’s London convention, September 10-13, 1920,20 Rutherford again attended to the points raised by the Bible Students Committee. He did so in an evening session lasting two hours in the Kingsway Hall.21 The detailed summary published by the British Branch reported

that Rutherford had made the point “that it is impossible … to consider the Society … as if it were just an ordinary business corporation.”22 And about the seventh volume he had said “that it could not be considered merely as a commentary by Brothers Woodworth and Fisher, for its publication by the Society gave it a standing which otherwise it could not have had.”23 The effort to achieve reconciliation on the premises formulated by the Bible Students Committee failed. As Hudson recognized: “Correspondence and interviews went on for many months but always the response was the same. The wanderers from the fold would be welcomed back, but they must accept the new concept now being insisted upon by Rutherford, to wit, that the Watch Tower Society with its President was the only channel of Divine Truth and direction of evangelical activity.”24 The Secession Movement Grows By 1921, the secession was definitely an accomplished fact. “The number of independent churches associated with the movement was now up to 135, aggregating some three thousand brethren, just about one half of those associated with the Society when the differences arose in 1916.”25 This implies that there were about 6,000 Bible Students in Britain when the separation began. This is a reasonable estimation. The Memorial attendance in 1914 “amounted to 4,100.”26 In 1922, Rutherford again visited Britain. Following the Watch Tower convention in London June 23-26, he made a trip to Scotland. The Watch Tower made this amazing report: “Glasgow seemed to be short of elders, not having a sufficient number to perform the duties of the church. Sixteen young men were added to the list of elders at the meeting above mentioned.”27 This meant that Rutherford had meddled directly into the affairs of the Glasgow congregation. That proved disastrous for him: The climax came when he initiated a kind of election of elders—it transpired that he had already been told who of the existing elders were likely to favour him and who oppose. He began to rule down any name he thought fit, and at that really flagrant usurpation of the Church’s own right and privilege there began to be audible dissent. Observing this, he shouted brusquely “Let the lame ducks get out”. He could not have anticipated the reaction. Of the thousand people present, almost five hundred stood up and streamed out of the building. The existing small independent meeting in Glasgow received an accession of membership that day which put it in the lead of the independent Churches of Britain.28 The drift away from the Society continued after that event. “By 1924 there were 181 local centres of fellowship, and the Committee was being kept increasingly busy printing and distributing literature, assisting local brethren with their public meetings with advertising notices and, where necessary, speakers for same. A regular service of ‘pilgrim’ visits was now in operation, in which Henry Shearn, William Crawford, Frank Edgell, Ebenezer Housden, and other well-known brethren were active in touring the country and encouraging the smaller communities in their activities.”29

Prominent Bible Students Who Seceded Frank Edgell was one of the many London Tabernacle elders, including Shearn and Crawford, who left the Society in 1917 and 1918. He served on the Committee from 1919 to 1923. Crawford served from 1919 to 1924 and Shearn, “architect of the secession,” was the Committee’s secretary from 1919 to 1935. Housden had been appointed assistant branch manager by Paul Johnson in 1917 but broke with him shortly afterwards and became a pillar in the emerging independent British movement. He was a member of the Bible Students Committee from 1921 to 1929.30 Alexander Kirkwood, Hubert Thackway and Morton Edgar were other prominent British Bible Students who seceded. Kirkwood, another assistant manager appointed by Johnson, continued for some time to support the Society, but eventually left it. Paul Johnson met him in one of the independent ecclesias in Glasgow in 1937.31 Hubert Thackway, a leading Tabernacle elder, had a difficult time trying to hold the differing parties together, but in the end, he left the Society.32 Morton Edgar from Glasgow, famous for his writings on Pyramidology, left the Society when Rutherford repudiated the pyramid as a “symbol of the Bible in stone” in 1928 and became connected with the independent movement.33 Those who left no longer concerned themselves greatly with the Watch Tower Society. “After the secession the independent brethren took little or no interest in their former association; all the emphasis was on continuing the work of evangelism largely as it had been carried out under Brother Russell and what the WT said or did was of no consequence.”34 Publications and Charity The need to produce books led in 1922 to the printing of a handsome edition of The Divine Plan of the Ages without the Watch Tower Society’s imprint. “Full library size, bound in dark blue cloth with gold blocked title, with frontispiece photograph of the author, this became the standard edition among the brethren for twenty years.”35 It was a joint publication with the Pastoral Bible Institute in Brooklyn and Berean Bible Institute in Melbourne.36 In 1922, Henry Shearn also produced a 100-page abbreviation of this volume under the title The Plan of God in Brief, which proved to be very popular. In 1932, a second edition was printed and a third in 1938. It was translated into Swedish in 1948 and into Hebrew in 1953.37 A fellowship periodical was started in 1924, edited by Ebenezer Housden. It was called BSC Monthly, but in 1927, the title was changed to Bible Students Monthly.38 It was very modest compared with what it became later. “The early issues of the Bible Students Monthly from 1924 to 1935 were in the form of a four-page leaflet.”39 A “Benevolent Fund” was created in 1919 to help Bible Students in need. It was administered by the Central Committee.40 There was no government social security system in those days. In 1930, not only money but also clothing, used and new, and sheets and pillowcases were being freely distributed. “A measure of the scale of this work is afforded by the fact that in 1933 there were no less than sixteen distributing centres in England and Scotland.”41 The need was particularly great in South Wales “where a considerable number of brethren in the mining valleys

were for a long time without work, without money, without food, and had it not been for their fervent faith, without hope.”42 The Movement in Its Heyday The Bible Students Committee’s activities seem to have peaked around 1930: “At this time there were something like 240 regular assemblies in the country, ranging from the big city churches like Glasgow and Forest Gate with about 400 members each, through places like Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol, Nottingham, where membership was in the order of 100 to 150, down to the country town or village groups of ten or twenty…. A conservative estimate of the really active membership based on such records as remain put it at about four thousand in 1930.”43 What was and is remarkable about the independent Bible Student movement in Britain is the degree of doctrinal tolerance shown. “Unlike the position in the United States, there was never any pronounced tendency to the formation of separate groups mutually exclusive to one another in this country. Despite the doctrinal differences which have arisen, which 50 years ago concerned the understanding of the Covenants and the Sin-Offering—both more or less dead issues to-day, and later on, about 35 years ago, the question of the Second Advent, whether a present condition (as per C T Russell) or an event yet to be realised, the brethren have remained in one fellowship tolerably well.”44 Even the small number of the Bible Students in Britain associated with the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement were accepted as brothers. These did indeed keep aloof from the main body and felt that Paul Johnson’s “direction in matters of faith and conduct must be obeyed implicitly.” This, of course, tended “to preclude any organic connection or mutual co-operative service.” Still, the main body was generous enough to conclude that “they must be regarded as part of the fellowship.”45 The Movement Starts to Decline The fellowship had decreased, mainly by death, “to about 3000 by 1940.”46 The Second World War in itself meant a setback for the movement. Travel became difficult and the central committee had problems that inhibited them from working properly together.47 Fewer felt they could stand for the annual election. “In 1945 by national vote the committee as such was disbanded. At this time the number of regular class meetings in the UK … were reduced to 47. A considerable proportion of adherents now lived in districts where no class meetings existed.”48 The dissolution of the Bible Students Committee was simply a practical matter. “The life of the movement continued without perceptible change…. The organisation for the production of literature and for keeping everyone in touch was still there and functioning, and the country as a whole continued to use it.”49 Before the Committee dissolved The Bible Fellowship Union had been formed,50 and it then took charge of the movement’s periodical. Its editor then, Albert O. Hudson, a former elder in the Tabernacle congregation, had left association with the Watch Tower in 1924 and had served as secretary of the Bible Students Committee from 1936 to 1945.51

The Independent Movement Today In 1951, the Bible Students Monthly was renamed Bible Study Monthly, and in 1956, big efforts were made to have it circulated outside the Bible Student community. In his book mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, Albert O. Hudson stated on page 182: “Within four years the circulation had doubled and before long it was four-fold.” Many ordained ministers and even heads of theological colleges as well as public libraries subscribed to it. In the 1990s, the movement bought the old Gainsborough House in Milborne, Somerset, and transformed it into a Christian retirement home. This became possible as the Benevolent Fund started in 1919 had been taken over by The Bible Fellowship Eventide Trust, a registered charity.52 As this is written six residents live in the establishment. The Bible Fellowship Union is now used in a similar way that the Bible Students Committee was used until 1945. A number of Bible Student groups have actually assumed the name “Bible Fellowship.”53 But the downward trend has continued. “The number of the faithful in 1970 was 60% of what it had been in 1930, and the number of regular meetings 50%.”54 Albert O. Hudson died in 2000 at the age of 101, but The Bible Fellowship Union continued. The Bible Study Monthly is still published regularly. It is available online as are also a number of other publications. In 1989, the fellowship published Hudson’s now well-known book on the history of the movement, Bible Students in Britain: The Story of a Hundred Years. This is in many ways an excellent book although here and there it is not always totally accurate. (See Bibliography) It was offered, like all of the Union’s literature, free of charge and is now available on the Internet. Were Jehovah’s Witnesses the Victors? A few years ago. Gary Perkins, a Jehovah’s Witness writer in Britain, claimed that modern day Jehovah’s Witnesses were “the victors” in the historical competition with the British Bible Students: “As someone familiar with precisely this area of London during the 1980s I experienced a large and thriving Congregation of joyful Witnesses from many diverse national origins. By comparison merely a few dying embers of the dissenting Bible Student movement survived in the territory. In this I am biased, of course, and would maintain that it is apparent who the victors were.”55 This was a predictable verdict from a Jehovah’s Witness, but it was in reality an unfair one for the following reasons: The Witnesses sometimes show admiration for minority groups that stood up to the Roman Catholic Church many hundreds of years ago, despite the fact that they failed to prosper, and in some cases, disappeared completely. The Watch Tower Society has mentioned the Paulicians, the Albigenses and the Waldenses with considerable respect.56 Devout Roman Catholics sometimes claim that they belong to “large” and “thriving” congregations of “joyful” Catholics and would dismiss their religious adversaries of the past as of no consequence. But it is inconceivable that Jehovah’s Witnesses would agree to that. They would not claim that Roman Catholics were “the victors” over those early movements or imply that these groups should not have rebelled against it but should have stayed in the Church. It therefore behooves Jehovah’s Witnesses to be more courteous when evaluating a movement of

defectors. One reason why the Witnesses have grown as much as they have is their use of bombastic messages and their constant threat of the imminent and everlasting annihilation at Armageddon of all humanity outside of their movement. The independent Bible Students have wisely avoided such methods. Other Breakaway Movements The British independent Bible Student movement was the third and last group to emerge from the 1917 Watch Tower crisis. The movement formed by Alexander Freytag in central Europe shortly after World War I became perhaps the most successful breakaway group from the Watch Tower Society. But there is no need to give a detailed treatment of it here. Rutherford discharged Freytag as manager of the Society’s branch in Geneva, Switzerland in 1919.57 Freytag’s first book in English, The Divine Revelation: The Seven Spirits of God was published in Geneva in 1922. What he stated in this book shows that his was not another Bible Student movement. Furthermore, the movement had no connection whatsoever to the issues engaging the Bible Students in North America, Britain, and Australia in 1917 and 1918. On the other hand, the Dawn Bible Students Association that emerged much later in America, wanted to hold to the Bible Student ideals laid down by C.T. Russell. But it was a reaction to later developments in the Watch Tower Society, and for that reason, it will not be dealt with here.58 But there was another Bible Student movement formed in America in 1918 that deserves treatment here, although it did not spring from the management crisis as such. Rather, it was a reaction to Rutherford’s compromise regarding the purchase of war bonds and other patriotic acts that will be dealt with in the following chapter. That movement became known as the “Stand Fasts” or “Standfasters.”

Footnotes 1 1973 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 105 2 The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, British Branch, January 26th, 1921, p. 3 3 Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p.7 4 Hudson, pp. 92, 93 5 Epiphany Studies, Vol. 10, pp. 149, 377; R. Robert Hollister: Meet our British Brethren, 1956-1957, p.18. 6 Hudson, p. 96 7 Ibid 8 Ibid, pp. 95, 96 9 Hudson, p. 97 10 Ibid 11 Ibid, p. 98 12 Ibid, p. 99 13 Ibid 14 Ibid 15 Ibid

16 Ibid, p. 100 17 The Watch Tower, April 1, 1920, p. 99 18 Ibid, p. 100 19 New Era Enterprise, May 18, 1920, p. 3, col. 5 20 The Watch Tower, November 15, 1920, p. 339 21 The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, British Branch, January 26th, 1921, pp. 1-4 22 Ibid, p. 2 23 Ibid 24 Hudson, p. 100 25 Ibid 26 1973 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 98 27 The Watch Tower, September 15, 1922, pp. 275, 76 28 Hudson, pp. 102, 03 29 Ibid, p. 104 30 Ibid, pp. 172, 174 31 The Present Truth, October 1, 1937, p. 160 32 Gary Perkins: Bible Student Conscientious Objectors in World War I—Britain, (Place of publication not indicated: Hupomone Press,2016), p. 178. 33 L.W. Jones: The Bible Student Reunion Convention Report 1929 (Chicago, Illinois: Printed privately,1929), pp. 43-58; Hudson, p. 172 34 Hudson to Persson, October 4, 1990 35 Hudson, p. 119 36 Ibid 37 Ibid, pp. 119, 169 38 Ibid, p. 121 39 Hudson to Persson, December 16, 1976 40 Hudson, pp. 128, 187 41 Ibid, p. 128 42 Ibid, p. 129 43 Ibid, p. 131 44 Hudson to Persson, December 16, 1976 45 Hudson, p. 122 46 Hudson to Persson, December 16, 1976 47 Hudson, pp. 165,166 48 Hudson to Persson, December 16, 1976 49 Hudson, pp. 172, 182 50 Hudson to Persson, December 16, 1976 51 Hudson to Persson, October 4, 1990; Hudson, p. 174 52 Ibid, pp. 190-193 53 Ibid, p. 172 54 Ibid, p. 180 55 Perkins, p. 178

56 The Watchtower, March 15, 1965, pp. 191,192; Mankind’s Search for God (Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society,1990), pp. 280-282 57 1974 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 85; 1987 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 127 58 For a description of this movement see Charles F. Redeker: Pastor C.T. Russell: Messenger of Millennial Hope, 2006, pp. 317-321

Chapter 23 The Stand Fast Movement As shown in chapter eighteen, since 1915 the Bible Students had championed an uncompromising stand against all support of war. When the United States joined the war in 1917, this meant that American Bible Students were exposed to increasing harassment. When the American authorities took a harder stand towards the Bible Students in 1918, the Watch Tower Society reacted by advocating a lenient attitude to buying war bonds, officially called “liberty bonds.” J. F. Rutherford then stated that a Christian should buy war bonds: “When the Government asks to borrow his money and gives its promise to pay in the form of a bond, if he can do so, he should buy the bond.”1 He went so far as to claim: “The International Bible Student Association is not against the Liberty Loan. Many of its members have bought and hold Liberty Bonds.”2 In The Watch Tower of June 1, 1918, on page 168, he commented that any Christian should feel “conscientiously able to lend some money to the country, just as he would lend a friend in distress.” Naturally, this change of attitude to support for the war caused unrest among the Bible Students in the United States and Canada. “It provoked resentment among not a few brethren the world over, especially in the American states of Oregon and Washington, and in the Canadian province of British Columbia.”3 Several of the Society’s traveling representatives, called “pilgrims,” reacted very strongly. Charles E. Heard in Vancouver, British Columbia, was able to muster a powerful resistance. He later stated that he “shuddered” when he read the Watch Tower articles mentioned above.4 As early as June 1918, he told the Vancouver ecclesia that the Watch Tower Society had “ceased to be God’s channel of present truth.”5 Everyone agreed. In the second week of June, the elders and deacons in that ecclesia unanimously passed a statement condemning the Watch Tower articles in question and “sent that letter all over the land.”6 In the United States, pilgrim W.M. Wisdom reacted similarly. He sent out an “open letter” to people connected with the Watch Tower Society and “urged all to get back to Brother Russell’s writings.”7 He became closely associated with Heard in the development of the emerging new movement.8 Both Heard and Wisdom had sided with Rutherford during the management crisis in 1917.9 Both fully accepted The Finished Mystery as the promised seventh volume of Studies in the Scriptures. It is therefore clear that the movement then developing did not relate in any way to the four breakaway directors or Paul S.L. Johnson. On December 1, 1918, some 200 Bible Students convened in Portland, Oregon and founded The Stand Fast Bible Students Association. A Committee of Seven was elected for the direction of the Association’s activities. The seven members of the Committee were I.C. Edwards from Victoria; British Columbia, C.E. Heard from Vancouver, British Columbia; Dr. E.F. Larkin from

Bellingham, Washington; Frank Rice from Seattle, Washington; John Jeffery from North Yakima, Washington; H.J. Brown from Tacoma, Washington; and F. McKercher from Portland, Oregon.10 The only officer chosen was McKercher, who was to be “Chairman-Treasurer.”11 This suggests that the Association did not opt for a state granted charter. The office was to be in Portland. The Committee announced that a modest paper to be called Old Corn Gems would “be mailed from time to time to all who desire to be thus cheered.” It would be made up mainly by a selection from Pastor Russell’s writings.12 The Committee stressed that since the Passover of 1918, the harvest had ended, the Gospel Age was closed, the wheat had been garnered, the Saints had been sealed and the door had been “shut.”13 In a one-page letter dated January 6, 1919, they emphasized that “no other work than a comforting work” was proposed. They offered the service of pilgrims, who they termed “comforters,” to the ecclesias.14 The Ship On January 12, 1919, C.E. Heard delivered an address called “The Ship” at a Stand Fast convention in Seattle. A stenographic report of it was printed and given considerable distribution. The message was not only that the Watch Tower Society had lost its standing as God’s mouthpiece, but also that “not a single saint” who stayed in the old fellowship would “ever have a crown.”15 Based on Acts 27:43, 44, he claimed that the Watch Tower Society was typed by the ship carrying Paul and others on the Mediterranean back in the first century. As all on that ship had to leave it to save their lives, so now all Bible Students had to leave the Watch Tower Society in order to be safe!16 “All” the people on board the ship who escaped, according to Acts 27:44, were given a contemporary meaning: “They are the loyal Stand Fast Bible Students who are willing to go through water—anything—to get to land.”17 Using the Old Testament book of Joshua at 5:9-13, he also claimed that the Israelites celebrated their 40th Passover in Gilgal in the promised land and that the manna they had received earlier for food ceased two days after this Passover. He argued that these 40 years represented “the forty years of the harvest period,” and that accordingly the “manna” or spiritual food from the Watch Tower had ceased at Passover in 1918!18 I am aware of only two detailed accounts of the Stand Fast movement. The most comprehensive is a TRUE HISTORY OF THE “STAND FAST” MOVEMENT by August Swanson, first published in 1936. It is now available on the Internet at Bible Student Archives. (There is no pagination in this edition, but when printed out on paper, it amounts to 22 pages. This has enabled me to give page numbers in my references.) Swanson was associated with the movement beginning in 1919. The second account was written by Paul S.L. Johnson in Volume 6 of his Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures, published in 1938. Johnson devoted pages 731-749 to the Stand Fast movement. These two accounts are in substantial agreement. The Stand Fasts had an immediate impact on the Bible Student community in North America. At the annual Memorial celebration on April 13, 1919, according to reports in Old Corn Gems, May 1 and June 1, 1919, some 1,200 Stand Fast Bible Students partook of the Lord’s Supper.

The biggest numbers were reported from the Northwest. Portland, Oregon, had 210 participants, Vancouver, B.C. had 182 and Victoria, B.C. had 153. But across the United States noticeable numbers of members assembled. In Minneapolis, Minnesota, for example, 64 people partook. Bible Student historian James B. Parkinson estimates that “perhaps 40% of the WT association in the Northwest left the WT in favor of the Standfasts.”19 Paul Johnson calculated that the movement numbered “between 2,000 and 3,000 brethren” before serious separations took place.20 Characteristics of the Stand Fast Movement The view that the harvest had “ended” and that the “door” to the High Calling had been “forever closed”21 held consequences for people interested in the faith of these Bible Students. The following comment made by the Stand Fasts themselves makes that clear: It is interesting to hear that recently the Victoria, B.C. Ecclesia witnessed an immersion service at which seven friends were immersed, symbolizing their consecration to the Lord, and their desire to have their sins washed away. These dear ones realize that they have not been accepted as members of the body of Christ, but rather as members of the family of Christ. They believe that the Lord will be faithful to His Promise: Zeph. 2:3 —seek righteousness, seek meekness: it may be ye shall be hid in the day of the Lord’s anger, and that they will be safely hidden away during the time of trouble, that they will be here to welcome the Ancient Worthies back and possibly be counted in with the Ancient Worthy class.22 The conclusion for the Stand Fast people was clear: “Let us then teach PRESENT TRUTH to inquiring friends, i.e., show them that the door of the High Calling is closed, but that there is the privilege of Consecration into life.”23 This was remarkably similar to what Paul S.L. Johnson and his associates were already teaching, but there was no cooperation whatever between his movement and the Stand Fasts. The latter were actually hostile to Johnson and his message.24 But in a later development a section of the Stand Fasts arrived at an even more radical view of the High Calling. In the early period at least, the Stand Fasts held numerous conventions to fortify their adherents. At such a convention in Victoria, British Columbia, on April 20, 1919, they passed a resolution emphasizing that “the need for public work” had “passed.” They therefore concluded: “The discourses given at our Sunday meetings should be adopted to the saints; the meek of the earth, should any be present, would receive greater benefit therefrom than from any so-called public talks.” Public advertisement “should be reduced to an announcement of place of meeting and time of same.” The name of the speaker and the subject were not to be mentioned.25 The Stand Fasts endorsed “everything that the Society did up to March 27, 1918, when they claimed that the Lord cast off the Society as His Channel.”26 This means that, unlike the other two recent splinter groups, they fully accepted the seventh volume. “Most of the Stand Fast

classes were diligently studying the ‘Seventh Volume,’ and almost, if not quite, neglecting the Six Volumes.” In fact, acceptance of the volume was made a “test of Christian fellowship.”27 As late as 1936, when Swanson wrote his account, he observed that the various Stand Fast classes “even today claim to hold to the sacredness of that volume.”28 This means that they clung to it long after the Watch Tower Society had abandoned it. Like other Bible Student bodies at the time, the Stand Fasts were engrossed in the subject of the separation of Elijah and Elisha and its significance for the Bible Students. “They believed that the separation from the Society was the separation of antitypical Elijah and Elisha.”29 This separation was understood to mean the separation of “the Little Flock from the Great Company.”30 The “Elijah” class was considered the faithful “Little Flock,” whereas the “Elisha” class was seen as the less faithful “Great Company.” The Stand Fasts of course claimed to be the “Elijah” class. As R.O. Hadley, a former Watch Tower pilgrim now serving as a “comforter,” put it: “I believe the Stand Fast Bible Students are the Elijah class. I believe that the others are the great company.”31 The “Westward Movement” August Swanson called attention to a “Mad Hatter” concept that very soon took hold of Stand Fast leaders: “A special feature of their message was the suggestion that the closing earthly activities of the church must be enacted in the West. They reasoned: Has not the Gospel message always spread westward throughout the age? Is not this Stand Fast movement confined principally to the West, where it also originated?”32 This was called the “Westward Movement” and meant that the leaders “influenced the friends to give up comfortable homes and positions to go West.”33 In effect, this held that all believing Stand Fasts were expected to move to Oregon, Washington, or British Columbia from other parts of the United States or Canada. Paul S.L. Johnson elaborated: A gross misapplication of the Scriptures was manifested in the so-called Westward Movement. On account of the fact that the bulk of the Standfasts live in the Pacific Northwest, and on account of the impracticability of sending pilgrims to the East, efforts were made to induce all Standfasts that could afford it to move to the West Coast. But matters did not rest there. Their leaders concluded that the Very elect—the Standfasts— were to be taken to glory last Passover [1920]; but to make it certain that one was of this select company, he had to go West, where as a group the Lord would take all of them in a company away at the Passover…. We can well imagine the distress of those believers in this delusion who did not have the means to make the trip, and of those believers in this delusion, e.g., sisters, whose families did not believe in Standfastism.34

Figure 12. Stand Fast letter The Watch Tower Society Attacks the Stand Fasts When the Stand Fast movement made its inroad into the Bible Student community, Rutherford and several other Watch Tower leaders were serving time in prison. The stand-in leadership, operating from Pittsburgh, was somewhat paralyzed, and that probably played into the hands of the Stand Fasts. But the imprisoned Watch Tower leaders were back in New York in April 1919, and set about dealing with the loss of Bible Student support for the Watch Tower Society. The Watch Tower of March 1, 1919, took up the fight. The leading article “Stand Fast—striving Together” on pages 67-69, was clearly meant as an attack against the Stand Fasts, although they were not named directly. But the article “Who will gain the victory?” in The Watch Tower, June 1, 1919, pages 163-169, specifically targeted “Standfast Bible Students” on page 167. Yet the Society’s defense on page 166 regarding their compromise on the war bonds issue was weak. It stated: “Probably it would be better to have said nothing in THE WATCH TOWER about Liberty Bonds, probably a mistake was made; but if so we are quite sure there was no intention of wrong-doing, and we believe the Lord would overrule under such circumstances any and all mistakes.” The leadership was more successful when dealing with C.E. Heard’s pamphlet The Ship. They put off the claim that the ship mentioned at Acts 27 represented the Watch Tower Society. They argued on page 166: “One proof of the wrongful interpretation is that the Society still exists.” On the same page they also made a point of the fact that “Paul, Luke and Aristarchus were the only ones on that ship who made any pretense of being Christians.” The same issue of The Watch Tower announced on page 169, a number of General Conventions in places where the Stand Fasts were particularly strong. The Stand Fasts had condemned “helping, through the Red Cross, to relieve war-suffering.”35 In the Watch Tower, June 15, 1919, page 191, the Society countered by commending “a prayerful rereading of Brother Russell’s advice on Red Cross Contributions” in The Watch Tower of November 15, 1915, page 351. Russell had written there: “The giving to the Red Cross Society would certainly not interfere with anybody’s conscientious scruples.” Since the Stand Fasts strongly upheld Russell as “the faithful and wise servant,” this must have been a bitter pill for them to swallow. The June 15, 1919 Watch Tower, page 191, also published a letter from a former Stand Fast adherent who had rejected primary Stand Fast views and returned to the Society. Dissension Among the Stand Fasts When August Swanson arrived in the West “in the autumn of 1919” murmuring and dissension had already begun among the Stand Fasts.36 F. McKercher, one of the original Committee of Seven, was a driving force behind a new radical view: “Early in the summer of 1919 (about June), a number of a large Stand Fast Ecclesia at Portland, Oregon, became possessed with the

idea that now … it was no longer proper or even permissible to baptize consecrated believers. The no baptist [sic] ideas were pressed forth until finally they caused a division in the class.”37 The leaders in the movement were ruling with a high hand, and W.M. Wisdom, one of the founders, had begun to speak out about the increasing difficulties. This resulted in a statement in Old Corn Gems to the effect that he had “disassociated himself from the Stand Fast Bible Students.”38 But as he had not actually done so, a reversal of the statement was published in Old Corn Gems, July 1, 1919, on page 2. On December 22, 1919, however, he strongly criticized the “Committee of Seven” and the “Comforters” in an open letter. He brought up “the two factions at ‘Headquarters’ (so-called) now wrangling for supremacy,” and he asserted that both were “grievously wrong.” Moreover, he condemned the “Westward Movement” promoted by the leaders.39 Not surprisingly he left the movement.40 Thereupon, after a short association with P.S.L. Johnson, he returned to the Watch Tower Society,41 and actually resumed his “pilgrim” work there for more than a year. Later, he left the Society again and sided with the Pastoral Bible Institute.42 R.O. Hadley who, like Wisdom, had been a Watch Tower “pilgrim” and who was one of the Stand Fast “Comforters”43 also left the movement.44 F.M. Campbell of Minneapolis, Minnesota, another “comforter,” was first dismissed and then disfellowshiped for sympathizing with the views of Paul S.L. Johnson.45 About 300 Stand Fast Bible Students met at a general convention at the end of 1919 and beginning of 1920.46 This convention brought the first major division in the movement.47 On the first day, business matters were to be considered, and the first thing to come up was whether the Committee of Seven should continue. Harmony did not prevail and finally many left their seats and left the hall in dismay, including August Swanson.48 The leaving group assembled in another hall and finished the business meeting by and for themselves. They abolished the Committee of Seven by a nearly unanimous vote.49 Paul Johnson noted that “they objected to the lording, squandering, sectarian and inefficient ways of the Standfasts’ Committee of Seven.” He termed the new group “the No-committeeite Standfasts.”50 “Both groups continued to hold the same ideological views: Both believed in and held to The Finished Mystery as the Seventh Volume. Both believed that the saints were all ‘sealed,’ that the door to the High Calling was closed, and that the Harvest ended in the spring of 1918.”51 Both groups were inactive as far as ministering in any way to the public. This led in 1923 to the forming of a new, more aggressive Stand Fast group. The Elijah Voice Society In the summer of 1922, some Stand Fast adherents from the southern United States who were tired of inactivity came up to the Northwest. They were trying to “do something.” One of them presented a plan of action but did not get much response. But August Swanson adopted the plan and helped to put it into operation. A little society named the Elijah Voice Society was organized for doing a “regathering” work and for “proclaiming the truth,” especially the message against Babylon emphasized in The Finished Mystery.52 John A. Hardeson was the driving force behind

this enterprise.53 It took away members from both the original Stand Fast Association, where C.E. Heard was a major influence, and the group that rejected “the Committee of Seven” and had separated.54 They started a monthly journal called the Elijah Voice Monthly. August Swanson shared in the publication “from 1923 to 1925.”55 The group also published twelve papers setting forth the essential doctrines of the movement and the duties of the “Elijah Class.” These papers were called “The Twelve Stones,” so named after the twelve stones that Joshua set up when the Israelites crossed the Jordan into the promised land.56 While the Elijah Voice Society undoubtedly was a schismatic movement of Stand Fast Bible Students, its leaders stressed that it was “an independent religious organization.” They claimed: “Though with a few exceptions, these brethren were once associated with the ‘Stand Fast Bible Student Association’ they are not connected with or in any sense a faction of that movement at present. The E.V.S. brethren are re-gathered from various divisions, and united for an active defense of the Truth.”57 The group provided membership cards for all who would join and also adopted by-laws.58 But the group never grew large. “They expected to get at least 300 antitypical Gideonites, whom they thought would number at least 300, if not more, but they failed to gain even 300.”59 Swanson noted: “At least a literal 300 were looked for to take active part…. But again sad disappointment was in store for us.”60 They used tracts, public lectures as well as private correspondence to fulfil their mission. The authorities, both civil and military, got their share of smiting material.61 Thus the Elijah Voice Society, though small, became the noisiest and most abrasive of all the Stand Fasts. The December 1923—January 1924 issue of the Elijah Voice Monthly referred to above “was expressly devoted to judging and condemning the various groups of Bible Students.”62 One copy was sent to Paul Johnson who noted that it contained a lengthy review of the views of the Pastoral Bible Institute and an attack on him. It specifically approved Rutherford’s pamphlet Harvest Siftings against both the four directors and Johnson, and Johnson was criticized for not accepting the seventh volume.63 The Stand Against the Flag Salute The Elijah Voice Society was not only opposed to contributing to the Red Cross like other Stand Fast Bible Students, but it also came to consider saluting the flag as sinful.64 This position was developed in 1925. August Swanson explained: “Several of the parents among us purposely withdrew their children from the public schools—in protest against the teaching of patriotism and saluting the flag, which had become compulsory in certain states. Some felt that this would be a test of true discipleship. The E.V.S. elders (of whom the writer was one) gave tacit or express approval.”65 It is therefore clear that the Jehovah’s Witnesses were not the first religious group to seriously object to flag saluting. M. James Penton has observed: “As far as religious opposition to the flag salute was concerned, the first to object to it were certain Mennonites, members of one or more

of the many Churches of God, and adherents of the Elijah Voice Society, a schismatic movement of Standfast Bible Students in Washington state. But it was not until Jehovah’s Witnesses became openly opposed to the flag salute in 1935 that the matter became one of public interest.”66 The fact that the Elijah Voice Bible Students, like the original Stand Fasts, based their beliefs so much on the seventh volume would prove disastrous for them. “All the predictions in the ‘Seventh Volume’ concerning events that were to occur in 1918, 1920, 1921, and 1925, had failed.”67 Paul Johnson noted: “The less than 300 Elijah Voiceists were by these things decreased by defection.” 68 In 1926 even August Swanson felt that he could no longer support the movement and consequently withdrew from it, rejecting the seventh volume too.69 The Original Stand Fasts Not Spirit Begotten While the Elijah Voice Society was engaged in aggressive campaigns, the “Committee of Seven” continued to head its adherents. By 1923, at least Charles E. Heard and Ian C. Edwards of the original committee were still at the helm. At that time a radical view affecting the hope of the high calling took hold of the community. A remarkable 2-page letter I found in Canada in April 2019, bears this out. It is dated “2526 Government Street, Victoria, B.C. August 28th, 1923” and is signed “p.p. Comforters & Committee.” It reads: Ever since the issue of Temple Notes the question of the Modern Worthies has been continually brought to the foreground. At first it was thought that a few of the Standfast Brethren belonged to this wonderful class but during the last few weeks, many have been taking their places as probationary Modern Worthies that it is now quite evident that most, in fact very near all of the Standfast Brethren are favored of the Lord in having the hope of the Worthies before them. The number who claim to be spirit-begotten is decreasing almost daily. An addition to the letter was dated “SEP 4 1923,” and it reads: P.S. At the Duncan Convention Sept. 1st & 2nd after a consideration of the foregoing letter as presented in a discourse given by Bro. Heard the following motion was accepted, only one voting nay:— “That we in Convention assembled indorse Bro. Heard’s talk and believe that the only spirit-begotten Little Flock class are the three Comforters Bros. Palmer, Heard and Edwards.” S.F.B.S. ICE/EJB. Duncan is a small town on Vancouver Island, about 50 kilometers from Victoria. William B. Palmer, the “comforter” who was counted as one of the only three spirit-begotten ones, had, like C.E. Heard, been a “pilgrim” in the Watch Tower Society.70 The Elijah Voice Society bemoaned this development:

Now we come to the saddest part of the whole affair. While visiting Vancouver recently, we heard from several brethren that almost all the Bible Students who were still with the original Stand Fast Association had cast away their confidence and hope, to the extent that they no longer claimed to be members of the true Church—they now claim to be members of a “Modern Worthy Class.” They hold that only three of their leaders are members of the Little Flock…. We believe that this doctrine, as held by the Stand Fast Bible Students Association, is another of Satan’s delusions.”71 An Experiment with Communal Life In Victoria, a new phase of the Stand Fast activity started in the fall of 1923. Heard and Edwards “organized the Stand Fast members into the Star Construction Company in Victoria,” although “Heard was persuaded by his wife to stay in Vancouver.”72 A former member of the enterprise wrote a letter about it to Paul Johnson who published parts of it. The letter confirms that the movement originated in the fall of 1923 and adds: “At that time it was working on a cooperative business basis, each receiving a varying wage, suitable to the needs of his family, even though two work on the same kind of a job. The majority lived in their own rented homes, while others lived in the ‘Scott Block,’ as their apartment building was called, renting rooms and eating their meals in the dining hall. The lower rooms were all used for business; and one was reserved for a meeting place.”73 The Sooke Affair Fearing the coming time of trouble understood to be foretold in the Bible, Edwards took the colony to another place on Vancouver Island.74 Johnson’s informant explained: When business began to slacken, they decided to move further out, on a tract of land where they could raise vegetables, etc. Here the move to Sooke, B.C., began early in the Fall of 1924…. This tract of land, located on Sooke Harbor, 22 miles from Victoria, was bought by a very wealthy sister. They rented a stock farm with cattle and a large vegetable farm, ran a fish fertilizer factory, built a temple, laundry, hospital, barber shop, dentist room — in fact everything that was needful for a colony to exist on. The land was laid out in lots, those who had means bought choice lots at $100 each, and put up their own tents. Another portion of the land was assigned to those without means, and tents were put up for them in rows, which were not so private. Dissension began immediately, for those who had money or incomes bought good foods to eat in their tents, while those without means had to exist on what they received in the dining hall. This brought the idea of communism, which was then preached; and all were supposed to turn in their money or incomes at the office, run by I.C. Edwards. When he learned that some were holding back he preached a powerful sermon about Achan hiding the silver in his tent, and frightened them so that they even brought the children’s banks and emptied them. Many got their eyes open and withdrew; others would have left, but were penniless. When I.C. Edwards realized this he decided to move farther, bought two boats from the government and moved to Renfrew, about another 22 miles farther away [from Victoria]. Here the remainder of them began to see through his scheme

and voted him out, accusing him of spiritual pride, etc. They were simply starved out in this place, having no funds and no way to earn them, so they disbanded and went to new homes.75 The business failed in 1927, and the colony was then closed down.76 It appears that those Stand Fasts who followed Edwards to Sooke and Renfrew were still associated with the original group and its committee and comforters. Like them, they reached the conclusion “that they were not in the high calling at all.”77 Later on, however, many of them reclaimed that hope,78 as did some of the other Stand Fasts.79 The Stand Fast Movement Now Extinct The Stand Fast movement was still around when Paul Johnson wrote about it in 1938. But he noted: “It is reduced to a few small classes and scattered individuals, the class of C.E. Heard, at Vancouver, being the largest of these.”80 Today the movement is history. Of those who left the Stand Fasts at various locations, most joined other Bible Student movements. Some aligned themselves with the New Covenant Bible Students who had left the Watch Tower Society about 1909.81 A small number were attracted to Paul Johnson and his views on “types,”82 and some returned to the Watch Tower Society.83 But it seems that most of them joined the Associated Bible Students connected with the Pastoral Bible Institute.84 The present Watch Tower Society has not seen fit to even mention the Stand Fasts in any of its major works on its history. Nor did A.H. Macmillan deal with them in Faith on the March 1957. But the 1979 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, dealing with Watch Tower history in Canada, did offer a brief description of them. Yet the evaluation on page 113 of that book displayed thoroughly sectarian wishful thinking when it said that “unworthy persons were being separated from faithful ones.” Similarly, in the life story of Lloyd Burtch in The Watchtower, July 15, 1964, pages 442, 443, in explaining the rise of the “Standfasters,” it was stated that it was “ambitious individuals” who “began selfishly to seek power for themselves.” Both accounts completely ignored, in a shocking, partisan manner, that it was actually the Watch Tower Society’s leadership, and its cowardly compromises, that caused the development of the Stand Fast movement. Without the Society’s compromise on war bonds, the Stand Fast movement would never have arisen. The Society’s arrogance toward the Stand Fasts is all the more unjustified as it is clear that the latter rejected saluting the flag several years before the Society did and that they in all likelihood influenced the Society to adopt its now well-known position on flag saluting.

Footnotes 1 The Watch Tower, May 15, 1918, p. 152 2 Ibid 3 The Present Truth, September 1, 1920, p. 140 4 C.E. Heard: The Ship, Stenographic Report of an Address delivered in Seattle, Washington, January 12, 1919, p. 3

5 Ibid, p. 6 6 Ibid 7 W.M. Wisdom: Another Open Letter, Minneapolis, Minnesota, December 22, 1919, p. 3 8 Ibid, p. 1 9 Harvest Siftings, p. 14; The Watch Tower, October 1, 1917, p. 303 10 Letter from the Stand Fast Bible Students Association, December 7, 1918, p. 3 11 Ibid, p. 1 12 Ibid 13 Ibid, p. 2 14 Stand Fast Bible Students Association, letter “TO THE SEALED SAINTS OF GOD EVERYWHERE,” signed by “F. McKercher, Chairman.” 15 Heard, p. 10 16 Ibid 17 Ibid, p. 11 18 Ibid 19 Email to Rud Persson, November 23, 2019 20 Johnson, p. 740 21 Old Corn Gems, March 15, 1919, p. 2 22 Ibid 23 Ibid 24 The Present Truth, September 1, 1920, p. 141 25 Old Corn Gems, May 15, 1919, p. 2 26 Johnson, p. 733 27 Swanson, pp. 5,21 28 Ibid 29 Johnson, p. 731 30 Swanson, pp. 3, 4 31 Separations of the Harvest, Stenographic Report of an address by Brother R.O. Hadley delivered at the Vancouver, B.C. STAND FAST BIBLE STUDENTS CONVENTION, December 30, 1918, p. 7 32 Swanson, p. 3 33 Wisdom, p. 8 34 Johnson, pp. 736, 737 35 Ibid, p. 737 36 Swanson, p. 4 37 The Elijah voice Monthly, December 1923—January 1924, p. 13 38 Old Corn Gems, May 1, 1919, p. 2 39 Wisdom, pp. 6, 8 40 Johnson, p. 731 41 The Watch Tower, August 1, 1920, pp. 238, 239 42 Johnson, p. 732 43 Old Corn Gems, July 1, 1919, p. 2 44 Johnson, p. 731

45 Ibid, p. 734 46 Swanson, p. 4 47 Swanson, p. 12; Johnson, p. 741 48 Swanson, p. 4 49 Ibid 50 Johnson, pp. 740, 741 51 Swanson, p. 4 52 Ibid, pp. 6,7; Johnson, p. 741 53 James B. Parkinson: Bible Students Fragments 1917-1967 (not published), p. 4; Johnson, p. 741. 54 Ibid 55 Ibid, p. 743; Swanson, p. 11 56 Swanson, p. 7 57 The Elijah Voice Monthly, December 1923—January 1924, section called “The Elijah Voice Monthly and its mission,” point 6 58 Swanson, p 7 59 Johnson, p. 742 60 Swanson, p. 7 61 Johnson, p. 742 62 Swanson, p. 11 63 Johnson, p. 743 64 Ibid 65 Swanson, p. 9 66 M. James Penton: Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Third Reich (Toronto, Buffalo, London: University of Toronto Press, 2004), p. 120 67 Swanson, p. 9 68 Johnson, p. 743 69 Swanson, pp. 9, 12 70 The Watch Tower, January 1, 1916, p. 16 71 The Elijah Voice Monthly, December 1923-January 1924, p. 12 72 Parkinson, p. 4 73 Johnson, p. 739 74 Parkinson, p. 4 75 Johnson, pp. 739, 740 76 Parkinson, p. 4 77 Swanson, p. 13 78 Swanson, p. 14 79 Parkinson, email to Rud Persson, November 29, 2019 80 Johnson, p. 740 81 Swanson, p. 14 82 Ibid 83 The Watch Tower, June 1, 1919, p. 166; Swanson, p. 15 84 Ibid; Parkinson email to Rud Persson, November 23, 2019

Chapter 24 Conclusion The facts outlined in this book may hold serious consequences for readers who are or have been Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Watchtower organization’s claim about “the faithful and discreet slave” mentioned in the New World Translation at Matthew 24:45 is in the balance. “The Faithful and Discreet Slave” The current view as outlined in The Watchtower, July 15, 2013, pages 11, 22 and 23, is that Jesus “began to inspect the spiritual temple in 1914” and that this inspection lasted “from 1914 to the early part of 1919” and that he was “pleased with a band of loyal Bible Students.” So, it is further claimed, “in 1919 Jesus selected capable anointed brothers to be his faithful and discreet slave.” They added that “the anointed brothers who make up the faithful slave have served together at headquarters.” This would mean that Rutherford and his allies were selected by Jesus in 1919 to be his “faithful and discreet slave.” However, there is no evidence that Jesus actually undertook an inspection of the spiritual temple from 1914 to 19191. Moreover, the Society’s claim about its leaders is simply inconceivable. These leaders had demonstrated utmost corruption in dealing with those who wanted to follow the instructions left by Russell. And Russell himself was considered to be the faithful and discreet slave by everyone involved in the difficulties, including Rutherford. There is no way that Jesus could have been “pleased with” Rutherford and his crew at that time. Why, they had constantly lied about their opponents, even going so far as to falsely claim that these had betrayed them to the authorities in 1918. They had also, in 1917, published and pushed what was perhaps the worst publication ever put out by the Society, a book laden with idolatrous worship of C.T. Russell and full of false predictions. And they had denounced those Bible Students who rightfully rejected that book. How could Jesus possibly be pleased with that? In addition, they had compromised over the war issue, among other things condoning buying war bonds. Some even claimed in court that they were not against the war. Did these leaders not rather display the characteristics of the “evil slave” that Jesus mentioned at Matthew 24:48, 49? Nor was their later course something to be proud of. Their worldwide preaching, that millions living in the early 1920s would never die because the kingdom would be operating on earth in 1925, was one of the falsest messages ever preached. Of course, it led to colossal disappointment and a big loss of supporters. Later leaders at headquarters have been guilty of similar uncalled for emphasis on a date. In 1966, the book Life Everlasting – In Freedom of the Sons of God served Jehovah’s Witnesses with more unsound speculation. Said The Watchtower, March 15, 1980, page 17: “In modern

times such eagerness, commendable in itself, has led to attempts at setting dates for the desired liberation from the suffering and troubles that are the lot of persons throughout the earth. With the appearance of the book Life Everlasting – In Freedom of the Sons of God, and its comments as to how appropriate it would be for the millennial reign of Christ to parallel the seventh millennium of man’s experience, considerable expectation was aroused regarding the year 1975.” Since nothing happened in 1975, of course, a good deal of disappointment resulted. The article just quoted stated on page 18 that disappointment also affected “persons having to do with the publication of the information that contributed to the buildup of hopes centered on that date.” Notice the subtle effort to shield the organization by pinpointing just “persons” having to do with the publication. Again, was this speculation and blaming only “persons” being faithful and discreet? Had not, on the contrary, the Watch Tower organization actually led people astray? The Superior Authorities The early Bible Students believed that the “higher powers” mentioned in Romans 13:1-7 were the worldly authorities. But they also realized that there was a limit for their subjection to those authorities. They clearly believed in relative subjection. The Watch Tower of January 15, 1915, carried the article “OBEYING GOD RATHER THAN MAN.” I quote it from The Watch Tower Reprints, page 5840: “The Bible directs the followers of Jesus to be subject to the powers that be. (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17) But while seeking to be thus law-abiding in every respect, Christians are to recognize that there is a still higher law and a still higher Ruler, and are to be subject to worldly powers only in the absence of a contrary admonition from the Higher Powers – from God.” Rutherford rejected this understanding. In The Watch Tower, June 1 and 15, 1929, he insisted that the “higher powers” of Romans 13 were Jehovah God and Jesus Christ. In Vindication Book One, published in 1931, he delivered the following broadside on page 81 against anyone who still stuck to the view that the worldly authorities were meant: “Those who profess to be consecrated to God and who hold that the ‘higher powers’ means the ruling powers of this world deceive themselves and deceive others. Many of the elders of the ecclesias or Bible classes insist that ‘the higher powers’ described by the apostle in Romans thirteen, means the ruling powers of this world. Being selfish, they have become blind to the revelation of God’s truth. ‘God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.’ (2 Thess. 2:11)” This implied that anyone who did not accept Rutherford’s new and different interpretation was headed for destruction, “that all may be condemned who did not believe in the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness,” according to 2 Thess. 2:12 in the King James version. However, several decades later the Society went back to its original understanding of the “higher powers.” They did so in two consecutive issues of The Watchtower, November 1 and 15, 1962. They thus rejected Rutherford’s much-hammered view from 1929. While this was commendable, the leadership later put out a smoke screen in order to hide that they had actually returned to the very understanding they had rejected in 1929.

In The Watchtower, December 1, 1981, page 27, they claimed: “At times, explanations given by Jehovah’s visible organization have shown adjustments seemingly to previous points of view. But this has not actually been the case.” (Emphasis added) They argued that their doctrinal changes were similar to the “tacking” of navigating sailing boats at sea. They claimed on the same page: “By maneuvering the sails the sailors can cause a ship to go from right to left, back and forth, but all the time making progress toward their destination.” On page 29, they claimed that the case of Romans 13 was such a case of navigating “toward the correct viewpoint.” They stated that the view both of the early Bible Students and the later one that “Jehovah God and Jesus Christ” were involved, while wanting, were still steps “toward the correct viewpoint.” Only in 1962, they claimed, did they arrive at “an understanding of the principle of relative subjection.” Thus, they were able to maintain that they had not rejected the actual truth about Romans 13 in 1929! But they had! For as shown above, the early Bible Students understood perfectly well the principle of relative subjection. Were the leaders faithful and discreet when they put up their smoke screen? Was Rutherford faithful and discreet when he denounced everyone who kept the right view in the early 1930s? Had he himself not actually “become blind to the revelation of God’s truth” and so believed “a lie?” Types and Antitypes The story of the management crisis of 1917 and 1918 demonstrated fully the danger and capriciousness of using biblical “types” and “antitypes.” Many of the participants in the conflict were totally engrossed in this. That meant in reality that their wishful thinking could be given an appearance of respectability. Rutherford of the largest faction, and Paul S.L. Johnson of one of the smaller factions, were prime exponents of this strange phenomenon. The Stand Fasts, unrelated to the major schism, were equally guilty. Both the Society and Johnson’s Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement were later to build up detailed doctrine based mainly on types and antitypes. However, in recent years the Watchtower Society has voiced concern about its past stress on types and antitypes and has actually modified its position. The Watchtower, March 15, 2015, page 18, stated: “Humans cannot know which Bible accounts are shadows of things to come and which are not. The clearest course is this: Where the Scriptures teach that an individual, an event, or an object is typical of something else, we accept it as such. Otherwise, we ought to be reluctant to assign an antitypical application to a certain person or account if there is no specific Scriptural basis for doing so.” The Alleged Type for the Gentile Times This leads us to a particular case of type that continues to be important to the Watchtower leadership. It is the case of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar and the “seven times” of madness that were to befall him, according to the prophet Daniel’s explanation of the king’s frightening dream. We find this in the book of Daniel chapter four. The text only says that the

“seven times” dealt with Nebuchadnezzar, and nowhere else in the Bible is it stated that these “seven times” have another, greater application. However, in the Society’s book, Let Your Kingdom Come, published in 1981, the claim was made on page 133 that the “seven times” concerning Nebuchadnezzar’s madness was only “the initial, typical application of Daniel’s prophecy.” The leadership claimed on page 134 that the “major fulfillment” deals with “the length of the Gentile Times,” when Jerusalem according to Luke 21:24 would be trampled on by the Gentiles. They claimed on pages 134-137, and still do, that the greater “seven times” started when Nebuchadnezzar removed the last king of David’s line in Jerusalem and ended 2,520 years later, in 1914, when God’s kingdom allegedly was set up. Insurmountable Problems This alleged “antitype” is not possible for several reasons. First, when Jesus spoke about the times of the Gentiles, he did not expressly refer to the prophecy in Daniel 4. Second, the “Jerusalem” that was to be trampled on must be the same “Jerusalem” mentioned just before that was to be “surrounded by armies.” Had that literal city been trampled on by Gentiles ever since it was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar? Absolutely not! During several decades before the city was captured by the Romans, Jerusalem was a completely free city under the Maccabean kings! 1 Maccabees 13:41 shows that during the time of Simon Maccabaeus “the yoke of the Gentiles was removed from Israel.” (New Revised Standard Version) In fact, there is nothing in Jesus’ prophecy to indicate that the trampling of Jerusalem would start before the Romans destroyed the city. It is not surprising, therefore, that the view that the “seven times” of Daniel 4 would be 2,520 years in a greater fulfillment was completely unknown to the apostles. It was in fact completely unheard of until the beginning of the 19th century! For a detailed exposé of the whole concept see The Gentile Times Reconsidered by Carl Olof Jonsson, 4th edition 2004, reprinted 2021 by Hart Publishers, Inc. The view that the time of setting up the kingdom was meant to be “figured out” beforehand is in direct conflict with the final words of Jesus before he was taken into heaven given at Acts 1:7: “It is not for you to know the time or periods that the Father has set by his own authority.” (New Revised Standard Version) That a biblical time prophecy specifically dealing with a mighty king does not demand a “greater” fulfillment is obvious from Pharaoh’s dreams that Joseph explained to him according to Genesis chapter 41. There was to come “seven years of great plenty” followed by “seven years of famine.” (Genesis 41: 29,30, Revised Standard Version) If the Society’s reasoning about the “seven times” of Daniel 4 is applied to the “seven years of great plenty” and the “seven years of famine,” there would be a greater fulfillment of 2,520 years “of great plenty” to be followed by 2,520 years of “famine.” I have never heard of such greater applications. But such would not be more off than the application of the “seven times” to 2,520 years.

In The Watchtower, February 1, 2004, page 19, the Society argued that according to Daniel 12:9, the prophecies of Daniel were “sealed up until the time of the end” and that therefore the full meaning of biblical time features could not be known until much later. However, Daniel 12:9 obviously refers only to prophecies expressly dealing with later times. It surely did not refer to the prophecy given to king Belshazzar in Daniel chapter 5. According to the text, Daniel himself explained what the fulfillment would be and the text states it took place on the same night. It is obvious that no greater fulfillment must be sought. Moreover, the Society arrived at its understanding of the alleged greater fulfillment of the “seven times” decades before the “time of the end” as understood by them. It was already published in 1889 in Russell’s book, The Time Is at Hand! Thus, it was published when, according to the present Society, the prophecies of Daniel were still “sealed!” Clearly, then, the interpretation of the “seven times” given by Daniel himself is the only one we need. The Watchtower Society should have realized that at least when, in 2015, they tightened up their attitude to types and antitypes. To “Wait on Jehovah” During the management crisis in 1917 and 1918 most Bible Students had some knowledge about the troubles, although most of them were intimately familiar only with Rutherford’s viewpoints. Comparably few took a clear stand for the ousted directors and withdrew from the Watch Tower Society at the time. The notion was widespread that the Society as Russell’s creation was a sacred institution and had to be adhered to no matter what. If Rutherford had made serious mistakes, many thought, God would likely override them. Typical was the attitude of a number of Bible Students in the Philadelphia congregation as reported in their letter published on page 94 in The Watch Tower, March 15, 1918. They had witnessed Rutherford’s complete defeat in the debate with lawyer F.H. McGee on July 19, 1917. Yet they argued: “We believe that any mistakes that may have been made are of the head and not of the heart and that the Lord will overrule all to the advancement of his cause.” Such an attitude was obviously mistaken, for in the long run the overwhelming majority of the Bible Students from Russell’s time felt obliged to leave Rutherford and the Society. Their initial reluctance and desire to wait on the Lord did not pay off. Andrew N. Pierson, vice president in 1917, is a good case in point. As shown above, he defended the ousted directors in the summer of 1917 but stood so strongly for peace that he soon gave up all opposition to Rutherford. A few years later, however, he had had enough, left the Society and joined some of those who had been opponents of Rutherford. In their pamphlet, Facts for Shareholders of November 15, 1917, page 13, the directors noted that the desire for peace hampered resolute action for many. The directors themselves emphasized the words in James 3:17: “The Scriptures say: ‘The wisdom from above is FIRST – Pure! THEN Peaceable!’” Throughout history, all too many have hidden their cowardice under a veil of piety, thereby helping to cement corruption and apostasy. If Charles T. Russell had nurtured such a timid

attitude there would not have been any Watchtower organization today. Although dissatisfied with his church he could easily have “waited on Jehovah” and settled to expect the changes he wanted to see. Nowhere Else to Go? Some who reevaluate the religion they have belonged to for a long time sometimes feel that it is difficult to leave. They ask themselves what will happen after they leave. Is there another organization or movement that can fill their needs? Jehovah’s Witnesses in this situation have repeatedly been told that there is no such solution. The Society stated in The Watchtower, November 15, 1992, page 21: “We will be impelled to serve Jehovah loyally with his organization if we remember that there is nowhere else to go for life eternal.” They based this claim on Peter’s words to Jesus in John 6:68, 69, quoted here from the same page: “Lord, whom shall we go away to? You have sayings of everlasting life, and we have believed and come to know that you are the Holy One of God.” The Society’s claim here amounts to nothing less than blasphemy. For Peter did not speak his words to the Watchtower Society or to the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, but to Jesus! It was Jesus, not the Watchtower organization, that had “sayings of everlasting life” and who they did not want to go away from. Nobody who leaves an apostate organization for Jesus’ sake leaves Jesus. Jesus promised to be with his disciples “always, to the close of the age.” (Matthew 28:20 Revised Standard Version) Anyone who leaves an apostate organization because of his or her Christian faith can find consolation in this promise, even if that for a time should mean serving God in relative seclusion. However, upbuilding Christian fellowship is not beyond reach.

Footnotes 1 In 2020 a former district overseer in Norway, who has written several books supporting the Society’s view on chronology, published a book criticizing the governing body of Jehovah’s Witnesses. He now felt obliged to write: “The conclusion is that there is no ‘faithful and discreet slave’ group or class and never has been.” See Furuli, Rolf J. MY BELOVED RELIGION - AND THE GOVERNING BODY, Larvik, Norway: Awatu Publications, 2020, p.82

PART TWO Historical Biographies of Persons Prominently Involved

Joseph Franklin Rutherford (1869-1942)

It was Joseph F. Rutherford who more than anyone else triggered the management crisis in the Watch Tower Society following Russell’s death. Claiming that he, as president, should be the head of the corporation, effectively nullified the arrangements for the future work that had been left by Russell. Since all parties freely recognized that Russell personally was “the faithful and wise servant” (Matthew 24:45, KJV) with far-reaching authority, Rutherford’s attitude was bound to create trouble. In a letter published in The Watch Tower of January 15, 1917, page 29, he stressed: “All of us realize the peculiar relationship that our dear Brother Russell bore to the church as ‘that servant.’” The following account will deal mainly with Rutherford’s life and family and some of his characteristics as a leader, but will not give a full picture of what he did as president, his travels as such, his many changes of doctrine or his many books. Yet this truncated biography will be considerably longer than any of the other biographies and unlike them, it will be meticulously documented. This is necessary because there are so many conflicting claims about Rutherford

floating around. But since the details of his role in the 1917 management crisis have been treated extensively elsewhere in this book, they will not be repeated here. There are several early sources for Rutherford’s early life. The most significant are the second edition of Pastor Russell’s memorial Watch Tower issue of December 1, 1916, published in the spring of 1917, and Rutherford’s own statements during the sedition trial in 1918, that covers a large part of the court transcript. Early Life In his prime, Rutherford was an imposing figure. The second edition of Russell’s memorial issue stated on page 384: “Mr. Rutherford is of commanding appearance, standing six feet two inches tall, and weighs 225 pounds.” He was born on November 8, 1869, a few miles north of Versailles, Morgan County, Missouri. His parents were James Calvin Rutherford (ca 1836-1912) and Lenora Strickland Rutherford (ca 1843-1926). There were ultimately eight children in the family, three boys and five girls. Joseph was number seven in the row. His older brother William became very hostile towards him in later years, something that will be dealt with later in this account. The Rutherford family lived on a farm where Joseph looked after his father’s livestock. The parents were strict Baptists, attending the nearby Freedom Baptist Church. Joseph was instructed in the Baptist faith by his mother. He personally joined the Church when he was 17 and became a zealous member.1 It has been claimed that he went to college when he was 16 and that he studied law, but strangely no records about that supposed fact have been found. Consequently, it may well be that he never did study law at college. But according to an 1891 issue of National Stenographer, Rutherford received an education in shorthand at the Normal Shorthand Institute in Carbondale, Illinois. Thus, the Second edition of Russell’s memorial issue of The Watch Tower stated on page 383: “At the age of twenty Mr. Rutherford was the official reporter of the Courts of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit of Missouri.”2 As noted by M. James Penton: “By dint of great personal effort, he studied law under the old apprentice system then quite common in the United States and passed his bar examinations in 1892.”3 On May 5 of that year, he was granted a license to practice law in the State of Missouri. He became a member of the law firm Draffen and Wright in Boonville, and worked as a lawyer for about fifteen years. According to the Bible Student newspaper St. Paul Enterprise of January 16, 1917, page 1, Rutherford married Mary Malcolm Fetzer of Boonville, Missouri on December 31, 1891. This same source also states that Mary “was the only daughter of Dr. John and Mrs. Fetzer” and that “Dr. Fetzer was a noted surgeon in his day.” Mary Rutherford was a bright woman, speaking both German and French fluently.4 The fact that she was a Presbyterian while her fiancé was a Baptist led to a crisis in Joseph’s spiritual life. Before the marriage his Baptist pastor told him that Mary would not go to heaven, since she, as a Presbyterian, had not been properly baptized. Joseph revolted and became an agnostic.5 He remained such until he became acquainted with Pastor Russell’s teachings. However, on

November 10, 1892, the Rutherfords had their only child, Malcolm Cameron Rutherford. At this time, Joseph was very active in Democratic Party politics. He participated in Grover Cleveland’s successful campaign for president. And twice he campaigned for William Jennings Bryan. In 1918 he claimed: “I had considerable money at that time in stocks and bonds, farms and city property.”6 Professionally, he faced some setbacks but was successful as well. He was twice fined for contempt of court, once on April 8, 1894, in the Civil Court of Morgan County at Versailles, and again on May 15, 1895, in the Circuit Court of Cooper County, at Boonville.7 Richard Felix, who was familiar with Cooper County, capitalized on the court records in question in his booklet Rutherford Uncovered, 1937, page 25. An article in The Golden Age, July 28, 1937, attacked Felix’s booklet fiercely but avoided commenting on this most serious piece of information. On the other hand, he “served for four years as public prosecutor at Boonville.”8 On four different occasions, each time for one day only, he was appointed to preside over the local court in Boonville as a substitute judge.9 He and his later supporters in the Watch Tower Society have made too much of this, however. Serving briefly a few times as a substitute judge in Missouri did not carry with it the right to assume the title “judge.” As Richard Felix pointed out, such designation would have meant that “practically every lawyer in the State of Missouri” could have claimed that title.10 It is obvious that Joseph was not known as “Judge Rutherford” in Boonville and that his later use of this title within the Bible Student community was a case of personal aggrandizement. Rutherford Becomes a Bible Student Early in 1894, Rutherford bought three volumes of Millennial Dawn from two ladies at his law office in Boonville. Both he and his wife were very excited and sent for more literature. Mary Rutherford fully accepted the Bible Student message before her husband did.11 Joseph took his time, testing and weighing not only the writings of Pastor Russell but also the pastor himself. He spent years at it, digging up and investigating every record he could find. During this time, he also met Russell a number of times. Eventually, though, he took a firm stand for his new faith. On Thursday, August 16, 1906, at a general convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, Rutherford was one of many who were baptized by A.H. Macmillan. He later stated: “I stood firmly by him [Pastor Russell], spent my money to fight for him.”12 During the vacation session of 1906, he began to prepare, at Russell’s suggestion, a book called “Man’s Salvation from a Lawyer’s Viewpoint.” He published this on his own and freely gave it to his clients, his lawyer friends and many others.13 The Society’s Lawyer In 1907, his everyday life changed considerably. Russell invited him to take charge of all legal matters for the Watch Tower Society as well as his own personal affairs.14 Accepting this invitation, it seems evident that Rutherford had to close his law practice in Missouri. In 1907, Russell also invited him to go on a lecture tour on behalf of the Society.15 On June 2, 1907, he

entered the “pilgrim” service.16 In the following years, he was very active as a speaker and also as a participant at Bible Student conventions, at which he not infrequently served as chairman. When, in 1909, Russell wanted to move the Society’s headquarters to Brooklyn, N.Y., Rutherford became a member of the New York State bar and arranged for the incorporation of The Peoples Pulpit Association. He personally wrote the new charter.17 At that time, he was one of 36 members of the Peoples Pulpit Association but did not belong to its directorate.18 According to the 1910 U.S. Census, Rutherford, his wife and their son Malcolm lived in Brooklyn, New York. Malcolm was 17 at that time and served as “mail clerk” for the Society. In 1910, undoubtedly at the behest of Russell, the Watch Tower Society’s board of directors elected Rutherford to be a member of that body.19 That year, Rutherford followed Russell and others on a tour to Europe, Asia Minor, and Egypt. Mary Rutherford followed the company only as far as to Paris.20 It was probably her poor health that accounted for her not going farther. In 1913, Rutherford again followed Russell on a tour to Europe. With his wife, he also visited Egypt, Palestine and Germany. With Andrew N. Pierson, a native of Sweden, he visited Sweden, Finland and Norway between August 13 and September 3, and he delivered a large number of discourses in those countries.21 When Russell visited Britain in 1914, Rutherford again followed him and he stayed on when Russell went back on June 20. On June 29, as the Society’s lawyer, he signed the charter of the new British corporation called The International Bible Student Association along with Jesse Hemery, Henry Shearn and William Crawford. Having gone back to America, Russell could not sign it, but all five were to constitute the board, called the “council” in the charter.22 They were all “shareholders” with three shares each, and of course Russell became president. Rutherford then went to Germany to give lectures. He was in Hamburg when the First World War began.23 He then went back to Britain where he stayed until September 19. According to the manifest of S.S. Mauretania, he left for America from Liverpool with his wife and son. This was the last time Mary Rutherford accompanied her husband overseas. Her health seemed no longer to have allowed for such undertakings. In a letter written in Brooklyn on December 16, 1914, Rutherford asked one of his friends in Florida about finding a place for her during the winter months, which she could no longer endure in New York.24 In all likelihood, her declining health was a major reason as to why Rutherford left New York for California in the late summer of 1915. Did Russell Dismiss Rutherford? There is a tradition among present-day Bible Students in America that Russell dismissed Rutherford and sent him away in 1914 or 1915. Kenneth Rawson in his book Bible Students: Pastor Russell founded the Bible Students not Jehovah’s Witnesses as published in 2010, argued in the preface to that book that such an event took place in 1915. Accepting such claims, Danish writer Poul Bregninge stated in 2013: “Source material suggests Russell apparently on the quiet, must have dismissed his legal counsel in 1914 or early in 1915.”25

But the fact is that there is no hard evidence for this. Rutherford’s prominent opponents in 1917, most of whom lived at headquarters, never said a word about such dismissal. They most certainly would have known if there had been such a dismissal better than others. And they most definitely would have capitalized on it in their defense against Rutherford’s public accusations. As we have seen, Russell had full confidence in Rutherford during the summer of 1914, and Rutherford’s letter of December 16, 1914, shows that he was still living in Brooklyn. When Rutherford debated with Baptist minister John H. Troy in Los Angeles, April 21-24, 1915, he still resided in Brooklyn. In his letter to Russell about the debate he mentioned his “room in this hotel.”26 Had he moved to Los Angeles at that time, he would not have stayed at a hotel. About that time, Rutherford published his defense of Russell called A Great Battle in the Ecclesiastical Heavens. Russell, in announcing the booklet, stated that it could be ordered from Rutherford at the address: “New York City, P.O. Box 51.”27 In early June, 1915, Rutherford still lived in Brooklyn. He participated in the convention at Oakland, California, which was held May 30-June 6, 1915. Paul S.L. Johnson, at that time a close friend of his, later reported: While he and we [Johnson] in 1915 were walking to our hotel after the last session of the Oakland, Calif., Convention, he, holding our arm, began to weep. We asked him the reason, which he declared was his dearth of spirituality, telling us that his spirituality was dried up. He then asked what we would recommend as a cure for his condition. Knowing that the Truth is the power of God, working in us to will and to do, we asked him whether he was daily studying the Volumes, as our Pastor recommended. He answered that there were so many diverting things at Bethel that he seldom got opportunity to study them.28 This report also indicates that Rutherford was not completely satisfied with his life at Bethel, and this, along with other reasons, might have contributed to his later removal to California. One of these other reasons unquestionably was the following. In the spring of 1915, the Watch Tower Society was in such dire financial trouble that Russell had to send away no less than 70 people from headquarters. They had to get other employment, for example enter business life.29 There was no assurance of improvement. In fact, Russell had to admit that the situation could grow worse and actually “effect a further reduction in the general expenses,” thus trigger a further reduction of the staff.30 In a letter dated August 6, 1915, A.H. Macmillan stated that the Society was “about broke” and that the future was “uncertain.” He was on his way to Brandonville in West Virginia where his family then was. He had not decided if he would “continue in the Pilgrim service.”31 Such facts must have pressed heavily on Rutherford’s mind in the spring and summer of 1915. His position and that of his wife at Bethel were in danger for evident financial reasons. Mary would not have been able to fulfill her responsibilities at Watch Tower headquarters during the winter season, and would have to settle in somewhere with a warmer climate. She must also have felt very awkward because of her inability to work when so many workers had to leave

headquarters. Any sane man would therefore have looked for another place to live under such circumstances. It seems rather clear then that Rutherford was planning to move to California, while also remaining the Society’s lawyer. Russell would undoubtedly have understood. That he should have dismissed Rutherford for some secret reason seems highly unlikely. Given the situation with Rutherford’s wife, such a dismissal would simply not have been necessary. At the Society’s convention in Portland, Maine, August 12-15, 1915, Rutherford was scheduled to serve as chairman.32 This in itself shows that Rutherford was in good standing. On August 12 Menta Sturgeon told the Portland convention delegates that Rutherford had told him he could not come. He had received a telegram about important business that needed immediate attention.33 In all likelihood this had to do with setting up a law office in Los Angeles. At the Moyle trial in 1943, Isaac Hoskins, who was a director in 1915, testified under oath: “In the summer of 1915 Mr. Rutherford had withdrawn from active work and wrote a letter to Pastor Russell asking if the Society would loan him a thousand dollars, that he was about to set up a law office in Los Angeles. Pastor Russell recommended to the Board that it would be loaned him, and so the motion was passed in his favor.”34 Sometime after Russell’s death the minutes of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society were copied by someone with access to them. Researcher Barbara Anderson knows about this, and I owe the following to her. The board meeting in question took place in Brooklyn, August 30, 1915, with all board members except Rutherford present. I quote: Brother Russell stated that the object of the meeting was to consider a letter received from Bro. Rutherford to the effect that he and Bro. W.R. Mitchell of Denver, Colorado, desired a loan of one thousand dollars for a period of six months, possibly less. In view of the fact that Bro. Rutherford was a member of the Board of Directors and our attorney and had contributed largely to the work of the Society, and that he and Bro. Mitchell would sign the note, it was moved by Brother Van Amburgh and seconded by Bro. Wright, that as we had some money in the Special fund known as special accounts, for which there was no immediate need, that we loan Bros. Rutherford and W.R. Mitchell the one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) on their personal note. Carried.35 So obviously, Rutherford and his wife moved to Los Angeles in the late summer of 1915. Their son Malcolm had moved there earlier. The St. Paul Enterprise, January 16, 1917, page 1, reported that he had been located at Los Angeles “for the past two years.” Leaving headquarters for private life was not considered blameworthy if there was an honorable reason. William E. Page, a former Watch Tower vice president, returned to the business world in the early 1890s owing to “needs of relatives” and a second time after having served at the Bible House in 1909 and onwards. Yet after his death he received honorable mention as a “loyal” and “faithful” Bible Student in The Golden Age, July 13, 1927, page 57. Rutherford’s frail wife in combination with the extremely serious financial situation of the Society in 1915 would also undoubtedly have been considered as an honorable reason for leaving Brooklyn.

Sources Relied On Something might be said about the sources allegedly claiming that Russell dismissed Rutherford. One of these sources was Laura Burgess, whose maiden name was Laura Whitehouse. She was the sister-in-law of Isaac Hoskins, who had married her sister, Estella Whitehouse. Laura had ended up in Hoskins’ home when she became a widow. If she had told others that Russell had dismissed Rutherford, she certainly would have told Hoskins as well. The fact that Isaac Hoskins, one of Rutherford’s most outspoken opponents, did not make known such an alleged “fact” argues strongly against it. Another alleged source is Cora Sundbom, whose maiden name was Cora Kuehn. She lived at Bethel in 1910, according to the US census of that year, and she was forced to leave in 1917. Much later she told her story on an audio tape. But she actually did not claim that Rutherford had been dismissed. She only noted that Rutherford was absent when Russell died, that he had been sent away. That, of course, need not be understood as a dismissal because many were sent away because of the Watch Tower’s financial difficulties. A third alleged source is W.A. Baker, a “pilgrim” who knew Pastor Russell personally. But The Watch Tower, November 1, 1919, page 330, published a letter from him supporting Rutherford. It is difficult to believe that he should have written such a letter, if he had felt that Russell had dismissed Rutherford. Furthermore, there is no actual documentation that shows that Baker believed such a thing. In addition, if Rutherford was dismissed in secret, how could anyone know about it? Conversely, if it were not done in secret, most people at Bethel would have known and would not have kept quiet about it. It seems that present-day Bible Students have misinterpreted statements made by a few early Bible Students. Undoubtedly, Jeff Mezera from the Watch Tower History YouTube channel, has provided the correct verdict: “If I were on [a] jury, my response would be that the evidence [that] he was sent away was hearsay. Unfortunately, there is no documented evidence which supports the idea.”36 Rutherford’s Personal Situation in 1916 At the sedition trial in 1918, Rutherford told the court that he “spent the greater part of 1916 on the Pacific coast, more particularly in California.”37 Even as late as in November 1916, A.H. Macmillan told reporters that Rutherford was still “a resident of Los Angeles.”38 Even so, Rutherford was still heavily involved in Bible Student activities and traveled all over the country. According to the St. Paul Enterprise, April 11, 1916, page 1, he had recently given the talk, “Why Do Nations War?” in Kalamazoo, Michigan. He gave the same discourse in Oklahoma City on April 16,39 and in Ogden, Utah, August 25.40 He was chairman at the Bible Student Convention in Los Angeles, September 2-10, 1916, that Russell also attended.41 Paul Johnson claimed that Rutherford accompanied him and Menta Sturgeon to the mine at Soda Lake in southern Nevada on September 12.42 At that time, Rutherford had one sister in Tipton and one in Versailles, Missouri, and a few letters he wrote to

them in September and October, 1916, have survived. One of these letters he wrote was from Los Angeles on September 21. It dealt with a family disagreement about the possible sale of the home farm in Versailles. One or two weeks later, he wrote another letter with this content: “I see no reason why I should spend what little money I have left in coming to Missouri to look after the farm…. I will be going East the first part of next month … I may stop at Tipton between trains to see you for a few hours, but I hardly think I shall go to Versailles. I will be at Joplin, Mo., on the 8th of October.”43 His business in Joplin on October 8 was giving a public lecture.44 Remarkably, these letters seem to show that Rutherford was close to being destitute at the time. Either his law practice was not flourishing or he attended to it only part time or sporadically. Interestingly Paul S.L. Johnson later claimed that Rutherford “was practically penniless” in 1916.45 This, of course, raises the question if Rutherford’s personal financial situation was a factor when he decided to go for president of the Society after Russell’s death. A letter Rutherford wrote to his sisters October 11, 1916, reveals serious antagonism between him and his older brother: “Should my [older] brother Will ever kill me, please see to it that my desire is that he be not prosecuted. Leave him entirely in the Lord’s hands. I write this because of threats he has made.”46 On October 16, Rutherford was at Bethel in Brooklyn. This was the day when Russell left headquarters, never to return alive.47 The last thing Russell did before leaving was an attempt to reconcile A.H. Macmillan and Rutherford on one hand with H.C. Rockwell, a Watch Tower board member, on the other.48 The effort obviously failed and Rockwell soon left headquarters and resigned from the board. Rutherford left Bethel on October 29 on a business trip to meet the Society’s printer at Akron, Ohio. On October 30 he met with his friend Paul S.L. Johnson in Oakland, Maryland, where the latter had a pilgrim appointment. On October 31, Rutherford continued to Akron and Johnson proceeded to Washington D.C. for another appointment.49 When the news about Russell’s death on October 31 reached Watch Tower headquarters, someone, perhaps Macmillan, cabled Rutherford, who then was in Cleveland, Ohio, to come to Brooklyn immediately.50 Both Rutherford and Johnson arrived at Bethel on November 2.51 On November 24, Rutherford was in Tampa, Florida, to deliver his talk “Why Do the Nations War?” on that day.52 The winter season was now approaching, so Mary Rutherford obviously stayed in Los Angeles during her husband’s journey to the east. She was not in New York during the hectic weeks following Russell’s death. She was not even at the shareholders’ meeting of January 6, 1917, when her husband was elected president. The St. Paul Enterprise, January 16, 1917, page 1, observed that Mrs. Rutherford was spending the winter in Los Angeles while Rutherford’s election as president of the Watch Tower Society “resulted in his already moving to Brooklyn.”53 Good Family Relations

After becoming president, Rutherford went back to Los Angeles to visit his wife on February 8, 1917. He started his journey back to the east on March 5 and was in Brooklyn by March 14, 1917.54 During his stay in Los Angeles he attended two conventions.55 He obviously had not closed down his law practice in California, for on that occasion he handled a lawsuit there on behalf of two local Bible Students and claimed a successful outcome.56 In the late summer of 1917, Rutherford again was in Los Angeles as shown in a letter published in The Watch Tower, September 15, 1917, page 286. However, he was present in the audience at a convention in Washington, D.C. in early November 1917.57 On January 16, 1918, Rutherford went to California with his wife.58 In June the same year, he stated in court: “On account of her health she is now required to live in California most of the time.”59 While in California, he took part in a convention in Los Angeles, where on February 24, he delivered his much talked about discourse “The World Has Ended—Millions Now Living May Never Die.”60 He was back in Brooklyn, obviously without his wife, on March 5, 1918.61 At this time Rutherford’s relation to his wife and son appears to have been quite good. Following the sedition trial in June 1918, when Rutherford was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment in Atlanta, Mary visited him at least twice. His son Malcolm wrote a long warm letter to him from Los Angeles, dated July 21, 1918. It was published verbatim in St. Paul Enterprise, December 10, 1918. It was signed “Your most devoted son, MALCOLM RUTHERFORD.” After Rutherford’s and his fellow prisoners’ release from prison on March 25, 1919, a welcome banquet was arranged in Pittsburgh on April 25, 1919.62 However, following his release Rutherford had contracted pneumonia. So, shortly afterwards, he went to be with his family in California.63 He was not reasonably well or able to work until July of that year.64 According to the 1920 US census, Rutherford was no longer living with his wife. His address is given as 124 Columbia Heights, Brooklyn, New York, while Mary Rutherford lived at 128 N. Eastlake Avenue, Los Angeles, California. She indicated she was still married and was not otherwise employed. Malcolm Rutherford lived close by, at 124 N. Eastlake Avenue. He lived with his wife Pauline whom he married on March 19, 1918. By 1923, Mary had moved to Monrovia, a suburb of Los Angeles. She was undoubtedly still on reasonably good terms with her husband, for he spent “a few weeks” of rest “at his country home at Monrovia,” according to The Lewiston Daily Sun, September 23, 1923, page 2. In 1925, Rutherford also spent time with his wife in Monrovia. A letter from him published in The Golden Age, March 25, 1925, page 408, was dated “Monrovia, California, February 9, 1925.” Deserting His Wife It was partly for health reasons that Rutherford stayed with his wife in Monrovia during winter months. But things apparently changed somewhat later. In The Golden Age, March 19, 1930, page 405, his friend Robert J. Martin stated: It is almost impossible for him to remain in Brooklyn in the winter season and get on with his arduous duties that he has to perform. Four years ago [in 1926] he went to San Diego,

California under the treatment of Dr. Eckols. The climate is so supreme to that of almost any other place that Doctor Eckols has repeatedly urged him to spend as much time as possible in San Diego…. For the past few years, I and other brethren close to Brother Rutherford have urged upon him the necessity of a house in San Diego where he can live and do the work that is so necessary to be done.” Finally, in 1929, this house was provided.65 This of course meant that Joseph and Mary Rutherford would continually live at different places. The US census of 1930 is illuminating. It shows that Joseph F. Rutherford lived both in Brooklyn and in San Diego. On the other hand, Mary Rutherford lived at 160 N. Primrose Avenue, Monrovia, Los Angeles County, California. She was still listed as married but as “head” of her household. It is rather clear that there was no longer any close marital relationship between Joseph and Mary. During the Moyle trial in 1943, William P. Heath, a member of the Society’s board of directors, testified the following about Mary: A[nswer]. She was an invalid for the years I knew the Judge. Q[uestion]. Was she maintained in California by the Judge? A[nswer]. She had a home there. He provided.”66 So poor were Rutherford’s relations with his wife and son that, at his death neither of them was listed as an “informant” on his death certificate. Bonnie Heath, his secretary, was listed instead. A photo reproduction of Rutherford’s death certificate was published on pages 181 and 263 in the book Jehovah’s Witnesses—Their Monuments to False Prophecy, published in 1997 by Edmond C. Gruss. A local newspaper tried to interview Mary Rutherford a few days after her husband’s death, but she declared that she “must continue her lifelong policy” of “no interviews.”67 She undoubtedly had reason for complaint, but she would of course not bite the hand that fed her. From the Society’s literature during Rutherford’s presidency it seems evident that Rutherford was hardly a gentleman. Perhaps his worst statement was made during the 1941 summer convention in St. Louis, Missouri. According to The Watchtower, September 15, 1941, page 287, he then referred to women as “a stack of bones and a hank of hair.” In all likelihood, the way Rutherford provided for her was to have the Watch Tower Society support her. He no longer could earn any money as a lawyer, for he spent all his time overseeing the Watch Tower Society and his followers. After Rutherford’s death, the Society unquestionably had reason to continue to support Mary. Though frail, she lived to be 93 years in the warm climate of California. She remained a Jehovah’s Witness throughout her life and died on December 12, 1962, in Monrovia. The Boonville Advertiser published her obituary on February 15, 1963, page 1, saying: “Paul L. Sergeants, minister of the Arcadia, Calif., Jehovah’s Witnesses, officiated at the funeral service. Burial was in the Live Oak Memorial Park in Monrovia.” The Case of George H. Fisher

A number of prominent Bible Students became servile Rutherford supporters as he gradually asserted himself. The ones who did not, got into difficulties with him, and in most cases left the movement. One of the more courageous ones was George H. Fisher, one of Rutherford’s replacement directors in 1917 and one of his comrades in prison 1918 and 1919. In 1926, he became a whistle blower regarding Rutherford’s conduct. He charged him “with a grave offense against the Church and against the Head of the Church, with an evil example for the Church, and with unfitness for the office of elder in any Church.” This, he wrote in a letter to W. Niemann in Germany, dated April 27, 1926. Niemann later printed a tract publishing the letter. I quote below from page 2 of the second edition of the 4page tract issued in 1953. The letter in question appeared in both German and English. Part of the English version reads: As Brother J.F. Rutherford, of Brooklyn, N.Y., is head of the I.B.S.A. work in Europe and ex officio elder of every ecclesia I desire to bring the following charge against him, and request that this charge be lodged in the proper manner, according to the manner of the true Church, at the headquarters of the work in the various countries, and before each ecclesia in Europe: On the Wednesday evening before Memorial, 1926, Brother J.F. Rutherford, accompanied by two elders and a sister attended the “Paris Edition” of the notorious show “Artists and Models”, in Al Jolson’s Winter Garden Theater on Broadway, New York City. The chief attraction of this burlesque show is the exhibition of nude women on the stage. It is generally known as notoriously offensive against decency and public morals. … The two witnesses required by the Scriptures are ready to testify before the New York Church, before which also this charge has been lodged. However, Fisher died of a heart attack on July 30, 1926,68 and the charge led to nothing. But the letter became fairly well known. In The Golden Age, May 4, 1927, pages 505 and 506, Clayton J. Woodworth, its editor, made an effort to defuse it. He published a letter from E.W. Brenneisen, who had been on the editorial committee for The Watch Tower, to Thomas Smedley, a wellknown Bible Student in England. Brenneisen claimed that Fisher’s letter made “scurrilous charges against Judge Rutherford and others” and that it was “grossly false and libelous.” He argued: “I have it from Judge Rutherford’s own lips that he never saw Al Jolson in his life and does not know what he looks like. But he is too busy in the Lord’s service to be drawn into a controversy such as this and I think he is right in ignoring such malicious charges.”69 Rutherford’s response was so evasive that one has to conclude that Fisher’s charge was right. This is underscored by the claim that he was too busy to deal with it. When it suited him, he could muster much time and effort to defend himself against charges. He did just that when, in the latter part of 1917, he published his Harvest Siftings, Part II to counter charges made by his opponents. And he spent considerable time in 1915, writing a booklet defending Pastor Russell against serious charges. But he realized that he could get off the hook by just ignoring Fisher’s accusations. And even if

Fisher had lived to bring about some kind of church trial, Rutherford might well have been able to pull strings so that he never actually would be held accountable. Indeed, even if a church trial would have found him guilty, the majority of the Bible Students were by then so servile that they most likely would have dismissed any fault on Rutherford’s part as an insignificant imperfection. The Case of Olin R. Moyle More than a decade later Olin R. Moyle (1887-1966), a Witness lawyer belonging to the Society’s legal department, also reacted strongly to Rutherford’s behavior. In a private letter to Rutherford dated July 21, 1939, placed at the lobby desk at Bethel, he informed him that he was resigning and would leave headquarters. This letter was included in the transcript of the later court case resulting from this event.70 In the letter, he gave several reasons for his decision. He first called attention to Rutherford’s habit of publicly “trimming” members of the staff. He specifically mentioned that Clayton J. Woodworth “was humiliated, called a jackass, and given a public lambasting.” He also claimed that Rutherford himself lived a much more comfortable life than a number of the Society’s workers who lived in small rooms “unheated thru [sic] the bitter cold winter weather,” living in “their trunks like campers.” A third charge Moyle brought dealt with alcohol consumption at Bethel. He argued that under Rutherford’s tutelage “there has grown up a glorification of alcohol and condemnation of total abstinence.” Instead of talking to Moyle privately, trying to sort out the matters between themselves, which he should have done, Rutherford reacted with anger and attacked Moyle. He informed the full board of both the Pennsylvania corporation and the New York corporation and eventually also had the letter read to the whole Bethel staff. He believed that his servile boards would condemn Moyle and that the staff would not dare to agree with Moyle’s assertions. The board meeting of August 8, 1939, which Moyle was allowed to attend, is very revealing. The minutes of this meeting were made public in their entirety in the court transcript already mentioned, covering pages 1975-1981. Rutherford’s remarks clearly show that he was a bully, and that he did not hold to the truth. He dismissed Moyle’s objection to his many good places to live in as “the very language of the evil servant class” and argued: “I do not own a foot of land under the sun.” This was evading the real charge, for he could, and did, live like a king even if he personally did not own anything. As far as the trimmings were concerned, he claimed that every rebuke he had administered “has been given, as I believe, in the interest of the Society.” He referred to 1 Tim. 5:20: “They that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.” This was false reasoning for whereas Paul wrote about actual sins, Rutherford’s tirades only dealt with alleged failure to measure up to his own bureaucratic standards. Quite a difference! And, of course, 1 Tim. 5:20 could not be properly relied on as a pretext for calling anyone “a jackass” before an audience! He stated an outright lie when at this board meeting, he told Moyle: “You denounce me as the ‘god of wine’, which is the meaning of Bacchus, which is the word you use. You had to go to mythology and not to the Scriptures, and find this name for me.”

Moyle did not denounce Rutherford as the god of wine! He only had stated that Rutherford had to take his “share of responsibility for the Bacchus like attitude exhibited by members of the family.”71 Again, quite a difference. There is an impartial, independent confirmation both of Rutherford’s “trimmings” and the alcohol culture at Bethel. It comes from Henning Andersson, a Swede who worked at headquarters 1927-1934.72 The board meeting of October 8, 1939, and informing the staff was only the beginning of Rutherford’s vendetta against Moyle. Already in The Watchtower of September 1, 1939, on page 258, he published the following statement: “By reason of his unfaithfulness to the kingdom interests, and to those who serve the kingdom, O.R. Moyle is no longer with the Society. The full board of directors of the Society on August 8 by Resolution, unanimously demanded that the president sever Moyle’s connection with the Society immediately. It was done.” But more was to come. The Watchtower, October 15, 1939, pages 325, 326, published a defamatory article about Moyle, signed by all the directors of the two Watchtower corporations, including Rutherford. Commenting on Moyle’s letter, the article stated: “Aside from the introductory paragraph announcing the writer’s purpose to leave Bethel at a fixed time, every paragraph of that letter is false, filled with lies, and is a wicked slander and libel not only against the president but against the entire family.” It compared Moyle with Judas, who betrayed Jesus. Obviously still fearing Moyle, Rutherford published the article “Snares” in The Watchtower, November 15, 1939, pages 339-348. While not mentioning Moyle by name, it nevertheless largely dealt with him. By that time, Moyle and his wife had settled in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. But Rutherford’s arm reached him even there. In a statement to the Milwaukee congregation dated September 25, 1940, Moyle noted: “On March 21st of this year I was excommunicated from the Milwaukee Company of Jehovah’s witnesses under orders from the Society’s president.”73 Moyle reacted to all this by suing Rutherford, the directors involved and also both Watchtower corporations for libel. Consolation, December 20, 1944, stated on page 21: “Alleging libel on the grounds of statements appearing in several issues of The Watchtower during 1939, suit was filed by Olin R. Moyle of Wauwatosa, Wis., against the two corporate societies…. and on the other cause of action, against J.F. Rutherford and eleven associates in the organization.” When Rutherford died in 1942 Moyle was forced to drop the charges against him, but against him only. The case came up on May 10-27, 1943. Moyle won, and after appeals, the final verdict was delivered on November 22, 1944, by New York’s highest court. The Society’s office again had to swallow a bitter pill. They commented on the verdict: “Their decision being unanimous, and the defendants being unable to move for a re-argument of the case, the $15,000 damages were duly paid over, with interest accrued, to plaintiff Moyle, thus terminating the matter.”74 Having lost all confidence in Rutherford personally, Olin Moyle soon reevaluated the Society’s doctrinal developments. In his statement to the Milwaukee congregation, he said: “The comforting doctrines of Restitution, Resurrection and the Kingdom have been set aside and are replaced with the wondrous delusion that the Jonadab babies will fill the earth.”75

This indicates that he was moving in the direction of those Bible Students who had left the Society earlier. Not surprisingly, the Pastoral Bible Institute announced that he was on their “pilgrim” staff, giving lectures in Wisconsin and Illinois.76 Apparently, however, he later left that fellowship. For a number of years, he was the editor of a paper called Bible Student Inquirer. He died on November 26, 1966. The Alcohol Culture at Bethel Another prominent coworker who fell out with Rutherford was Walter F. Salter, who for many years was the Society’s branch manager in Canada. He had been Rutherford’s close associate and friend but was dismissed as manager in 1936 after he had voiced concern about some of the Society’s teachings. He was disfellowshipped by the Toronto congregation in 1937.77 In the process he reevaluated Rutherford as a leader. He felt that Rutherford lived a luxurious life quite unlike the “pioneers” who went from door to door selling his books. Salter wrote a four-page open letter to Rutherford dated April 1,1937, and spread it far and wide. Rutherford reacted by having Salter blackened in several articles in The Watchtower and The Golden Age. Salter admitted that he had shared some of the luxury Rutherford enjoyed and had been an attendant helper of him. He stated in his open letter: I, at your orders, would purchase cases of whiskey at $60.00 a case, and cases of brandy and other liquors, to say nothing of untold cases of beer. A bottle or two of liquor would not do; it was for THE PRESIDENT and nothing was too good for THE PRESIDENT. He is heaven’s favorite, and why should he not have everything that would gratify his desires for comfort. True, I had a part therein for I partook of your hospitality, or shall we say the Society’s hospitality for it was the Society’s money, but I partook, as above stated, being blinded with the idea that THE PRESIDENT was in charge and therefore responsible and not I. Today I see that that thought was absolutely wrong and that the squandering of the Society’s money in that respect was a mis-appropriation of funds, and I should have taken no part therein whatsoever.78 Salter added that Rutherford sent the Witnesses out “from door to door to face the enemy” while he himself went “from drink to drink.”79 Editor Clayton J. Woodworth tried to undo Salter’s letter in a long article in The Golden Age. But rather than denying what Salter had stated about Rutherford’s use of alcohol, he actually defended it: “It is nothing new that Jesus and His followers are accused of being winebibbers. Did that charge affect in any way Jesus’ standing with his heavenly Father? Not an iota. Why did Jesus use it? He was under great nervous strain. It provided a perfect nutrient, immediately assimilable.”80 This was wrong in every way. That Jesus drank wine had nothing to do with being “under great nervous strain.” In fact, in the first century of our era, most people in the Roman world drank wine mixed with water. Wine was then used to kill the effects of polluted water.81 Furthermore, at his crucifixion, when Jesus was really under strain, he actually refused to drink wine.82

Moreover, Salter wrote specifically about liquors, not wine. It is certain that Jesus never drank anything as strong as modern-day whiskey or brandy,83 and we can rest assured that he did not consume expensive cases of such strong drink. Incidentally, Salter had not accused Rutherford of being a drunkard or a winebibber. His objection was that Rutherford squandered the Society’s money on expensive drinks. What Woodworth apparently wanted to convey was that Rutherford’s alcohol consumption was excusable because he was “under great nervous strain.” During the Moyle trial in 1943, Phoebe N. Moyle, Olin Moyle’s wife, shed further light on the alcohol culture at headquarters. This is what the court transcript says: Q[uestion]. Did you see any liquor around there at any time? A[nswer]. I saw the empty bottles, many. Q[uestion]. Where did you see them? A[nswer]. The first year I worked on the third floor and saw them in the rooms of the men and then I saw the empty bottles; I had to take care of them and put them into the place where the houseman took them away. Q[uestion]. Did you see them in other places around the building? A[nswer]. Yes, wherever I had occasion to go.”84 The Swedish worker Henning Andersson, who worked at Bethel in Brooklyn 1927-1934 and who stayed a Witness throughout his life, explained: “That alcohol was used is correct. Everyone drank wine, even Rutherford. But it was done in a decent manner…. Those who were drinking kept to their rooms. It happened that someone could also drink to intoxication, but it did not happen very often, and when it did, it happened in the room. Likely it was the hard-working pace that contributed to wine drinking. It helped to relax after a long day’s trying work.”85 Rutherford Did Not Go from Door to Door Early during his presidency, Rutherford stressed that all faithful Bible Students should go with the Watch Tower message from door to door, but there was resistance to that position within the ranks of the movement. In particular, a good many Bible Student congregational elders were negative to it. Rutherford responded to such elders in a talk at the Detroit convention August 2, 1928, later published in The Watch Tower: “If it is now the will of God that the witness be given to the people by going from door to door, how can an elder who fails or refuses to take part in that work as opportunity affords be a model for imitation?”86 It was not as simple as that, however. An elder had a strong point: “The president of the Society does not go from house to house selling books. Why should I?”87 Amazingly, Rutherford admitted to them that that he personally did not go from house to house! He wrote on the same page in The Watch Tower: “The Lord has graciously given me about as much as one man can do…. I have not had very much time to go from door to door. If all your

time is as fully occupied in some sort of the Lord’s service, then you have no time either to go from house to house.” It is true that Rutherford worked very hard in running the Society. But he also enjoyed a comfortable life, and he could relax in luxury when he needed to. Many of his supporters were people who had to perform hard work to earn a living, and they usually had to work longer hours than is the case today. How much time did Rutherford expect a hardworking breadwinner to spend going from house to house? The answer was 60 hours per month! At least that was the goal set during his last years as president.88 That was about 2 hours on average every day of the month. Imagine that a hardworking breadwinner had to spend that much time going from house to house on top of his work and other obligations! It surely would be reasonable for Rutherford to spend time at the doors when putting up such an exacting goal for others. His failure to do so was all the more remarkable as he seemingly had little understanding for Witnesses who had family obligations as a limiting factor on their time. An example of this was the case of Robert Whitney. Robert was a young man of 18 years who had the opportunity of joining the team on the Society’s missionary yacht, “Lightbearer.” But he felt he had obligations to his sick parents. His father had been shell-shocked during World War I, and his mother had leakage of the heart. Therefore, he was needed to help on his parents’ farm. Yet Rutherford advised him that preaching was more important: “One cannot excuse himself from rendering full service to the Lord on the ground that he is obligated to take care of some human creature.”89 Thus he totally disregarded the apostolic claim at 1 Tim. 5:8, ASV: “But if any provideth not for his own, and specially his own household, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever.” “Their Visible Leader” Rutherford made strong efforts to downplay the role of C.T. Russell in the movement. In doing so, it became important to deny that he personally had a lofty position. In his book Religion published in 1940, he stated on page 249: “The witnesses of Jehovah are not moved by the influence of any earthly person. They have no earthly leader or earthly king.” This statement was so far from the truth as it possibly could have been. Rutherford himself eventually assumed a position that was more elevated than Russell had ever had. In fact, he became a “pope” in the movement, but with more personal power than the popes of Rome. His close associates C.J. Woodworth, Robert Martin and Nathan Knorr were the ones who published the 1931 convention report The Messenger.90 So the following quotations from that report must be taken as representing what Rutherford himself approved. In the issue of July 25, 1931, page 3, he was called “their visible leader.” On page 1 he was called the “Generalissimo of the Convention.” In the issues of July 26, page 6, and July 28, page 7, he was called “the chief.” And page 1 of the July 30 issue called attention to “the tremendous applause that followed Brother Rutherford,” received “as a personal tribute to him as the visible leader of God’s remnant on earth.” This latter statement was surpassed, however, in a letter from a pioneer that Rutherford approved and published without comment in The Watchtower, July 15, 1939, page

223: “By appointing you as the visible leader in his mighty theocratic arrangement Jehovah has conferred upon you an honor the like of which has never before been accorded to any man.” Therefore, the following statement that Olin R. Moyle made in his letter to Rutherford of July 21, 1939, was no exaggeration: “You have stated many times that there are no bosses in the Lord’s organization but the undeniable fact cannot be evaded that your actions … are the actions of a boss.”91 “The Lord Himself Is Running His Organization” In harmony with Russell’s Will and Testament published in The Watch Tower, December 1, 1916, pages 358, 359, The Watch Tower had been controlled by an editorial committee of five Bible Students following Russell’s death. Rutherford had been one of these five editors from the start. But as time went by, he felt that such a committee was a drag on his personal ambition. He sometimes had difficulties in getting his personal articles published, and he was annoyed about that. He therefore did not respect the verdicts of the majority of the editorial committee. George H. Fisher, one of the authors of The Finished Mystery, was a member of that committee until the issue of March 15, 1924, when his name was dropped. In a personal letter published afterwards, he dealt with problems of the editorial committee. He had been summoned to a meeting with the directors of both the Society and the Peoples Pulpit Association and wrote later: “Brother Rutherford said that he would print anything he wanted to in the Tower regardless of all the other editors.”92 A year or so later, in 1925, Rutherford had a problem in having a major article he had written passed by the editorial committee. In The Watchtower, June 15, 1938, page 185, he explained: “An editorial committee, humanly provided for, then was supposed to control the publication of The Watchtower and the majority of that committee strenuously objected to the publication of the article ‘The Birth of the Nation,’ but, by the Lord’s grace, it was published, and that really marked the beginning of the end of the editorial committee, indicating that the Lord himself is running his organization.” In the issue of October 15, 1931, the names of the committee were dropped, and The Watchtower, December 1, 1931, stated on page 360: “The Board of Directors, seeing no scriptural or other reason why an Editorial Committee should exist or appear in The Watchtower, by resolution abolished the Editorial Committee.” Since it would not look good to state that he himself had abolished the committee, he hid behind his puppet board. In the issue of December 15, 1931, page 376, he made this startling announcement: “The work of God’s organization is not subject to the control of man or to be controlled by the will of any creature. It was therefore not possible to carry on the work of the Society to the Lord’s glory as outlined in that paper called a ‘will’.” By this statement he clearly meant Russell’s will. Watchtower historian Tony Wills commented aptly: “It was Rutherford’s fond belief that when he had the freedom to write what he wanted in the Tower that God became its editor.”93 He noted, too, that Rutherford “does not explain why the Lord could not run his organization just as

efficiently through an editorial committee as through one man,” and that he “did not explain in what particular the Will contradicted the Bible.”94

Figure 13. Beth Sarim Beth Sarim The house constructed in San Diego, referred to above, was built specifically “for Brother Rutherford’s use.”95 It is important to note this. Without his personal need for health reasons, it would never have been built. Rutherford sensed that it would not look good if the house was officially constructed for him personally, so he came up with a silly red herring argument. He later wrote: At San Diego, California, there is a small piece of land, on which, in the year 1929, there was built a house, which is called and known as Beth-Sarim. The Hebrew words Beth-Sarim mean “House of the Princes”; and the purpose of acquiring that property and building the house was that there might be some tangible proof that there are those on earth today who fully believe God and Christ Jesus and in His kingdom, and who believe that the faithful men of old will soon be resurrected by the Lord, be back on earth, and take charge of the visible affairs of earth. The title to Beth-Sarim is rested in the WATCH TOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOCIETY in trust, to be used by the president of the Society and his assistants for the present, and thereafter to be forever at the disposal of the aforementioned princes on the earth.96

That the house was to be known as the “house of the princes” was just a ploy, and this is shown by the fact that the building, although impressive, could certainly not have accommodated all the ancient holy individuals from Adam’s son Abel to John the Baptist that the Watch Tower Society envisioned. The San Diego Sun of January 12, 1942, claimed that the mansion was a “20-room, Spanish style residence.” Bible Student historian James Parkinson, who lives in Los Angeles, has checked the building and writes: “Beth Sarim was a 20-room mansion (five of which were bathrooms), including a 3rd story cupola with a wide view. The living room stretched across most of the north wing, with the master bedroom above it, and another bedroom or two. The southeast wing was a little shorter and would have lower priority for completion.”97 The fact that the Society decided to sell Beth-Sarim after Rutherford’s death in 1942 shows how hollow the claim was that the house was built for the ancient worthies. At the convention in Los Angeles in 1947, the audience received some startling news: “The audience … applauded when informed that the Society’s board of directors had voted unanimously to dispose of Beth-Sarim, either by outright sale or by rent, because it had fully served its purpose and was now only serving as a monument quite expensive to keep.” Nathan H. Knorr, the new president, who made the announcement, added: “Our faith in the return of the men of old time whom the king Christ Jesus will make princes in ALL the earth (not merely in California) is based, not upon that house Beth-Sarim, but upon God’s Word of promise.”98 As the house actually had not been built for the “ancient worthies,” as they were commonly called, but for Rutherford, it was correct that “it had fully served its purpose” when he died! There was no concern whatsoever for the faithful of old, and there apparently never had been. The house was sold in 1948 and San Diego Union of June 13, 1950, humorously observed: “Daniel et. al., when they arrive will have to arrange their own domicile.” However, the folly of treating Rutherford’s winter mansion as “the house of the princes” had brought with it a surprisingly tasteless consequence. August and Blanch Balko, who were caretakers at Beth-Sarim, had two children, Bonnie Balko and Joseph Barak Balko. In the summer of 1931, Bonnie was about 2 years old and her brother was about 6 months old. They were called “Princess Bonnie Balko” and “Prince Joseph Barak Balko.” The Messenger, July 30, 1931, page 2, stated: “It might be that this little prince and princess would be stenographers or office children or clerks about the place, or perform some other duty that will be necessary in the Kingdom.” When Rutherford died these children would have been 13 and 11 years old. When it was decided to sell Beth-Sarim, they must have been 18 and 16 years old. That they had been encouraged to pose as princess and prince could hardly have had a healthy effect on them. And when, in 1950, the Society abandoned the whole idea of the return of the princes before the end, the two, of course, would realize that they had been fooled. No report about their situation at the time has ever been published by the Society.

The case of the Balko children speaks volumes against Rutherford as leader of the Society or Jehovah’s Witnesses. When he could not live in New York during the winters, he should have resigned as president and joined his wife in California. It was not his Christian duty to be president in the Society. But it was his Christian duty to personally support his wife. Indeed, considering his wife’s condition, he should not have run for president back in 1917. In 1915, he had left headquarters because of his wife, and her situation had not improved. But it seems that he felt that he was indispensable to the Society. His death in 1942 disproved that. Rutherford moved into Beth-Sarim on January 13, 1930.99 There were several people around to attend to his needs. The mansion was located at 4440 Braeburn Road in fashionable Kensington Heights.100 One hundred acres of land belonged to the house.101 It had “a commanding view of Mount Helix and the mountains to the east and Mission valley.”102 Naturally, in a place like this, Rutherford could have lived very comfortably during the winter months, or “five or six months.”103 This was brought out graphically in an article about Beth-Sarim published in The Messenger, July 25, 1931, pages 6 and 8. Van Amburgh brought out the luxury Rutherford enjoyed in a letter dated April 19, 1937, and published in The Golden Age, May 5, 1937, page 499. There, he mentioned “the Cadillac cars used by Judge Rutherford at San Diego and Brooklyn,” claiming they “were gifts from friends.” Accepting such gifts, if gifts they were, showed an attitude that had been completely foreign to C.T. Russell. In a letter to pilgrim J.A. Bohnet, published in St. Paul Enterprise, October 22, 1915, page 1, Russell emphatically declined to accept “an automobile” as a gift. He would not have “some brother” manage one for him. Spokesmen of the Society claimed that everything was given by friends and that the Society did not pay anything of it.104 But Paul S.L. Johnson, who knew people who had recently become disillusioned with Rutherford and who apparently also had sources within the Society, claimed that the costs were covered by a “Comfort Fund” set up by the Society.105 That Rutherford himself actually had a hand in the matter is shown by the Deed Books of San Diego. Book 1683, pages 356 and 357, states that Albert Eckols and his wife Muriel granted Rutherford’s friend Robert J. Martin the two lots 110 and 111 of Kensington Heights for the sum of only 10 dollars, whereas the actual cost of the two lots was twelve thousand dollars. The document shows that this was recorded “at the request of J.F. Rutherford, Oct 8, 1929.” The Albert E. Eckols mentioned was the son and colleague of “Dr A.G. Eckols of San Diego” mentioned as Rutherford’s physician in The Messenger, July 25, 1931, page 6. In fact, he was in practice with his father in San Diego. Alta Graham Eckols, the father, had actually been a Bible Student for many years and was an elder in the Society’s San Diego ecclesia. The Golden Age, September 2, 1931, reported on page 798 that “Dr. A.G. Eckols, the able chiropractor of San Diego” had general charge of the hospital at the Society’s convention in Columbus, Ohio, in 1931. It would not be surprising, therefore, if Rutherford was able to pull strings and get the two lots in an underhanded way.

Paul S.L. Johnson claimed: “The mortgage was dated Oct. 7, 1929, and the deed to R.J. Martin was dated Oct. 8, 1929, which dates show that the mortgage matter was a mere camouflage to hide what was actually a purchase. Of course, R.J. Martin, who was practically penniless, could not have assumed a mortgage. The mortgage matter … was simply to hide J.F.R.’s hand.”106 Johnson stated further: “The deceitfulness of the mortgage transaction above described can be seen in this, that unimproved lots such as those in question were at the time the mortgage was put upon them are usually worth from three to four times the amount of a safe mortgage put upon them, while Mr. Eckols let the lots go a day afterwards for $10.00 plus the assumption of the mortgage. A bona fide mortgage transaction in a sober business deal would have required Mr. Eckols to ask for from $24,000.00 to $36,000.00 additional to the assumption of the mortgage.”107 There is another matter that does not square with the Society’s claim regarding Beth-Sarim. In a statement “to whom it may concern” dated April 19, 1937, the Society’s treasurer, W.E. Van Amburgh, claimed that he did “not know of the existence of the house” until he “read about it in The Golden Age.”108 Since Rutherford, as shown above, had already moved into the house on January 13, 1930, and the article in the Golden Age was published in the March 19, 1930, issue, Van Amburgh’s claim is simply not credible. By that time, he must have known about the house. Indeed, he must have known about it much earlier, for his friend R.J. Martin knew about it at least from the second half of 1929. Why did Van Amburgh not tell the truth? Did he attempt to cover up for something? As for the size of the costs involved Robert J. Martin allowed for an amount close to $25,000.109 According to San Diego Sun, March 15, 1930, Beth Sarim was worth $75,000. That was also the sum that Walter F. Salter claimed that Rutherford had been offered for the property.110 Illness, Death and Burial Rutherford had suffered from serious lung problems ever since leaving the Atlanta penitentiary in 1919. According to C.J. Woodworth, this led to “ankylosis” with the result that “six vertebrae fused together,” and for this Rutherford was treated by a chiropractor.111 One may speculate that this painful condition must have affected his moods and temper adversely. However, it was not these factors that finally ended his life. Shortly before the Detroit convention in July, 1940, “he was attacked by serious illness” but recovered to continue through that convention. And he gave five speeches at the St. Louis convention in August, 1941.112 But by November of that year he was compelled to have an operation, which took place in Elkhart, Indiana. He was subsequently brought to Beth Sarim.113 There he died on January 8, 1942, at the age of 72.114 According to his death certificate the immediate cause of death was “Uraemia” due to “Carcinoma of Rectum” and “Pelvis Metastasis.”

Rutherford had wanted to be buried at Beth-Sarim. A cemetery corporation called Beth-Sarim Rest had been formed by his close associates to ensure that his wish was complied with. But such was not to be. The authorities refused to allow burials in the area. There are claims to the effect that despite this Rutherford was secretly buried on the Beth-Sarim premises. Such claims are not credible. Consolation, May 27, 1942 specified: “The remains of J.F. Rutherford, accompanied by the mortician, Mr. Lewis, were then sent east, for interment at Watchtower radio station WBBR, Staten Island, New York. Adjoining the Society’s property there is a burial plot, and the remains of Judge Rutherford were interred alongside others of his brethren, with whom he had fought a good fight against the Devil’s organization for many years. Burial was made in the Society’s plot at sunrise, Saturday, April 25, 1942.” Malcolm Cameron Rutherford While Rutherford’s wife stayed in the Watch Tower movement, his son Malcolm did not. By 1924, at the latest, he had ceased being a Bible Student. The California Voter Registration Index for 1924 shows that Malcolm was registered as a Republican. Since all Bible Students disapproved of party politics, this clearly indicates that Malcolm had abandoned the faith of his youth. According to the 1944 Monrovia City Directory Malcolm and his wife lived at the same address as Mary Rutherford, at 159 Stedman Place, Monrovia. They had moved in with her.115 Pauline Rutherford died on August 29, 1948, at the age of 52, and Malcolm remarried about 1950. He died on June 22, 1989, 96 years old. After leaving the Bible Students he had kept entirely to himself. All efforts to have him speak or write about his father failed. One of Rutherford’s five sisters, Virginia Ross, born in 1860, embraced the faith of her brother and became a Jehovah’s Witness. She is referred to on page 81 in the 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses. She was still living when the United States Census 1940 was taken. She was then living with five other Witnesses in New York City, Richmond, New York.

John Adam Bohnet (1858-1932)

Few associates were more useful to Charles T. Russell and later to Joseph F. Rutherford than John Adam Bohnet. At least 17 letters of support and praise from him were published in Zion’s Watch Tower and The Watch Tower between 1893 and 1930. His parents, Johan Adam Bohnet (1830-1926) and Christina Dorothea Unkel (1829-1924) emigrated to the United States in the early 1850s from the then kingdom of Würthenberg in southern Germany. They married shortly afterwards and settled just south of Ann Arbor, in Pittsfield, Washtenaw County, Michigan. “Johan” naturally became “John” in America. John Adam earned his living as a blacksmith and later as a farmer, too. Christina raised flowers to sell, tulips and gladioli. They had five children in all, three boys and two girls. The eldest child, John Adams, was born in 1858 and was to become a prominent figure in the Bible Student movement. He became a prolific writer and composed his own story, published in the Bible Student newspaper St. Paul Enterprise, August 27, 1915, from which some of the following has been taken. The parents were devoted Lutherans, and John Adam was baptized as a child into the Lutheran Church. His mother taught him reverence for God, but he never went through the act of confirmation in the Lutheran church. At one point he almost became an agnostic, but he regained faith and became interested in Methodism without becoming a member. He was introduced to C.T. Russell’s first three volumes of Millennial Dawn by a leader of a Presbyterian Bible class in Salt Lake City. He claimed to have come “into the truth” in 1892. In 1893, he attended the convention of Bible Students in Chicago, where he met Pastor Russell. On that occasion he also was baptized by immersion in water.

In April 1895, he became a member of the Bible House family in Allegheny, Pennsylvania, where he served as Russell’s stenographer. At one point, he injured his left ankle and moved temporarily back to his parents in Ann Arbor. Within five weeks in 1896 he had convinced both his parents and three of his siblings of his Bible Student faith. After that, he soon returned to the Bible House. In 1896, he, together with Ernst C. Henninges and C.T. Russell, had the United States Investment Company incorporated in Pennsylvania. This was one of several corporations used by the Watch Tower Society and headed by Russell. In 1897, Bohnet learned that the Society needed to borrow money. In order to help out he went to Washington, D.C., where he was successful in earning money. He stayed there for eight years and then returned to the Bible House. He served occasionally as a “pilgrim” from 1905 and regularly from November 1917 onward. In 1905, he was one of five incorporators of Rosemont Mount Hope and Evergreen United Cemeteries Company in Pittsburgh. Bohnet became superintendent and was also in charge of the farm situated just across the road. The cemetery and the farm were controlled by Bible Students and ultimately by the Society. When the Bible House family moved to Brooklyn in 1909, Bohnet stayed on in Pittsburgh and continued to attend to the farm and the cemetery. In 1906 he was one of the elders in the Bible House congregation in Pittsburgh. From then on, he gave discourses at a number of Bible Student conventions. In 1908, he supported Russell’s advancement of “the vow” and took an even firmer stand in 1909. That year he publicly claimed that Russell was “that servant.” In The Watch Tower, February 1, 1910, he supported Russell in the New Covenant schism, dismissing the “open letter” spread by the defectors. During 1910 and 1911, Bohnet was prominently connected with the so-called “miracle wheat,” which proved to be very trying for C.T. Russell. Many years later, he had an article called “FACTS ABOUT MIRACLE WHEAT,” published in The Golden Age, April 9, 1924, pages 429-431. Bohnet took a remarkable initiative a couple of months before Christmas in 1915. According to St. Paul Enterprise, October 1, 1915, page 1, he asked his Bible Student friends to present Russell with “a Ford machine” as a Christmas gift. But Russell rejected the suggestion completely in a letter to Bohnet that was published in St. Paul Enterprise, October 22, 1915, page 1. He had no need of “an automobile,” he claimed. In harmony with Russell’s wishes, Bohnet designated a pyramid for the Society’s specific graveyard in the aforementioned cemetery a few years before Russell’s death. The structure did not come into place until years afterwards. A full statement on this is given in the Souvenir Report of the Bible Students’ Convention, Pittsburgh, Pa., January 2-5, 1919, page 7. St. Paul Enterprise of April 4, 1916, page 1, offered Bohnet’s interview with Benjamin Wilson, who had produced The Emphatic Diaglott, a version of The New Testament then owned by the Society. The article says that the interview took place in 1892. Wilson denied that that he belonged to the Christadelphians. But he did claim that the “Logos” of John chapter one was not a personage. At Russell’s funeral in Pittsburgh on November 6, 1916, Bohnet, as a prominent elder of the Pittsburgh congregation, was one of the honorary pallbearers. That night he entertained a good

number of prominent Bible Students on the farm.

Figure 14. Rosemont Mount Hope Cemetery and the Watch Tower farm When the management crisis hit the Society in the summer of 1917, Bohnet sided with Rutherford. He was one of the replacement directors appointed by Rutherford on July 12, 1917. That Bohnet was a resident of Pennsylvania was of particular importance, Rutherford claimed. Bohnet’s letter of acceptance was dated the same day. Bohnet was declared reelected to the board by the shareholders on January 5, 1918. A letter from him criticizing “the opposing faction” was published in The Watch Tower, May 1, 1918. He continued to subserviently support Rutherford against any and all opposition during the following years. He was not reelected to the Society’s board in 1919, but in 1920 he was the one who nominated the board that was elected on January 3. A matter reflecting negatively on Bohnet was made public in the New Era Enterprise, which replaced St. Paul Enterprise, in the issue of February 8, 1921, page 1. In the article “THE KU KLUX KLAN,” Bohnet had been asked about his opinion of the Klan. The article says: “Brother Bohnet replied that he did not know much about the Ku Klux but was watchfully waiting to see what the attitude of the Ku Klux is toward the I.B.S.A. [The International Bible Students Association] and that the Golden Age had recently published an article about the organization, which so pleased the officials of the Ku Klux at Atlanta, Ga., that they printed it in their official journal even in the editor’s foreword.”

According to the US census of 1920, J.A. Bohnet was now living in Pittsfield, close to Ann Arbor, Michigan. This means that his work at the cemetery and the farm in Pittsburgh had come to an end. His parents were also living there as was his brother Jacob. The parents were now about 90 years old. By 1926, they had passed away. In 1930, John Adam Bohnet lived alone. He had never married. In 1924, Bohnet was appointed to a committee to work on a book on Russell, a venture that obviously never materialized. Rutherford’s much talked about article, “Birth of the Nation,” in 1925 had met with resistance even within the editorial committee, but in a letter published in The Watch Tower, June 1, 1925, Bohnet wholeheartedly approved of it, stating that the article might become “a sifting medium.” In a thoroughly praising letter published in The Watch Tower, January 1, 1928, he stated that Rutherford’s recent book Creation was “sublime.” His last published letter, in The Watch Tower, July 1, 1930, contained similar praise, slurring “the slumbering” Russellites. J.A. Bohnet was a prolific contributor to the new magazine, The Golden Age. More than 40 articles signed by him were published from 1922 through 1931, mostly about nature, plants, trees and animal life. He was listed as a pilgrim with a heavy schedule as late as in The Watch Tower of January 1, 1927. John Adam Bohnet died on April 14, 1932, and was buried in Forest Hill Cemetery in Ann Arbor, Michigan in the same plot where his parents had been buried. He was survived by all his siblings. Grant Suiter, who was a member of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, remembered Bohnet well and stated in The Watchtower, September 1, 1983, page 9: “He was a man who had characteristics that endeared him to some people but had the reverse effect on others. He loved Jehovah and evidently was modest, but he kept this quality concealed under a gruff exterior.”

George Herbert Fisher (1870-1926)

On January 10, 1870, the Episcopalian clergyman George Fisher (born 1839) and his wife Ellen E. Wright (born 1842) had their second child, George Herbert Fisher. The family was then living in Albany, New York. Altogether there were eight children, born between 1868 and 1880. They were well provided for. Several of them became teachers. Naturally young George received a religious upbringing. He hoped to become a minister in the Episcopalian Church. He was a lay reader and an organist. He read the Bible through several times. Before moving to Scranton, Pennsylvania in 1895 he was principal of a high school outside of Philadelphia. During his first year in Scranton he taught mathematics and physics in a college preparatory school. On February 8, 1900, George married Harriet Brown King of Scranton. She was born in Pennsylvania in May, 1880. The couple never had any children. George H. Fisher met Pastor Russell for the first time in 1897. He joined the Bible Students and was baptized in 1899. He started to spread the Watch Tower message in the early 1900’s. He continued to live in Scranton up to 1919. He never traveled as a pilgrim up to that time, but he did serve briefly afterwards. He won the trust of Charles T. Russell who put him on a reserve list for the editorial committee in his will. In November 1916 Fisher became involved in the writing of the book The Finished Mystery, meant to be the long awaited Seventh Volume of “Studies in the Scriptures.” He was to write on Ezekiel while his friend Clayton J. Woodworth would write on Revelation. Fisher started writing in the latter part of December, 1916, and finished about June 25, 1917. He was plunged into the Watch Tower management crisis following Russell’s death when Rutherford wanted to appoint him to the board of directors on July 12, 1917. He accepted the appointment in a letter dated July 14, 1917. He was present at Bethel in Brooklyn on July 17, 1917, when the dramatic change of the board was announced. George supported Rutherford and

his faction against the ousted directors and their supporters. He and his friend Woodworth felt that Rutherford was the “steward” of the parable of the Penny mentioned in Matthew 20:8, their book The Finished Mystery itself being “the Penny.” The ousted directors and their sympathizers were considered to be the ungrateful “murmurers” of the parable. Fisher replaced Menta Sturgeon on the Watch Tower editorial committee in The Watch Tower, September 15, 1917. He was elected to be a member of the People’s Pulpit Association on October 2 the same year. In the advisory referendum vote taken in the congregations on November 21, 1917, he was approved for the board of the Watch Tower Society, and at the regular annual meeting January 5, 1918, he was, according to the report, formally reelected. Along with other Watch Tower officials he was arrested in May 1918 and was sentenced to a long term of imprisonment on June 21, 1918, for alleged sedition. At the annual meeting held in Pittsburgh January 4, 1919, Fisher, then in prison, was not reelected to the Society’s board. He was elected after his release at the annual meeting on January 3, 1920. He was then living with his wife at Bethel in Brooklyn. At the next election, which did not take place until 1923, he was not reelected. Already in the summer of 1922 he had started to voice criticism of Rutherford and his leading supporters. As a result he eventually was kicked out of Bethel. At the election of officers of the Brooklyn Church of Bible Students in October 1923, Fisher and a number of like-minded Bible Students sought to have Rutherford and four other officers removed as elders. The effort failed and instead George H. Fisher was set aside from eldership. He then broke openly with the Society, quite a few joining him and forming an independent ecclesia. Strangely, it was only in a letter dated February 27, 1924, published in The Watch Tower, April 1, 1924, that Fisher resigned from the editorial committee, referring to his “physical condition.” In 1926 Fisher claimed in a letter to a German friend later published that Rutherford had actually twisted his letter when publishing it. Rutherford had only mentioned Fisher’s health, but that was certainly not the only or even the main reason. His name had actually disappeared from the Committee already in the March 15 issue. He had refused to approve certain articles written by Rutherford and had started to criticize him and other Watch Tower leaders for deviation regarding doctrine. In a personal letter to Gordon Thorne of Philadelphia, dated July 14, 1924, he specifically pinpointed the new view about Jesus’ parable of the sheep and the goats published in The Watch Tower, October 15, 1923: “When the new second-death doctrine, in the sheep-and-goat article was published I objected to it as error, but the error has been intensified in further articles.” Another personal letter that afterwards came into the possession of Paul S.L. Johnson and published in The Present Truth, February 1, 1929, is quite revealing. During two conferences with the directorate of both the Society and the People’s Pulpit Association, Fisher was treated rather badly by Rutherford, Van Amburgh, Woodworth and Riemer about his attitude. His resignation as editor was demanded, but Fisher indicated he could not resign. Rutherford stated that he would print anything he wanted to in The Watch Tower regardless of all the other four editors. Fisher objected to “the new and vicious doctrines” and he felt he could not keep silence.

On November 1, 1925, Fisher conducted the funeral service for his long-time friend Andrew N. Pierson in Cromwell, Connecticut. Pierson was the Society’s vice president in 1917 but had quietly withdrawn from the Society before he died. On April 27, 1926, Fisher wrote a letter to a friend in Germany stating that he intended to bring serious charges against Rutherford, stressing that he had two witnesses ready to testify before the New York congregation to the effect that Rutherford, in the company of two elders and one sister, had visited a burlesque show exhibiting nude women on the stage in Al Jolson’s Winter Garden Theater. He also stressed that this had taken place on the very evening before the Memorial celebration. The letter was sent to other people as well, but W. Niemann in Magdeburg, Germany published a four-page tract, printing the letter in both English and German. A second edition was published by Niemann in 1953. A lame response was published in The Golden Age, May 4, 1927, pages 505-506. Fisher died on July 30, 1926, in New York and the matter came to nothing. His wife Harriet, often called Hattie, later associated with the Dawn Bible Students and stayed with them till her death in the 1940s.

Jesse Hemery (1864-1963)

In the autumn of 1916, Jesse Hemery was vice president of the International Bible Students Association in England, chartered in 1914. Trouble in the management of the London office and disagreement within the board of elders in the large London Tabernacle congregation of Bible Students had become so alarming at that time that Pastor Russell decided, on October 21, 1916, to send pilgrim Paul S.L. Johnson to sort out the problems. However, Russell died before giving Johnson his detailed instructions. Nevertheless, the board of directors decided to dispatch Johnson to England in harmony with Russell’s intentions. What transpired during Johnson’s visit there was to play a part in the growing management crisis of the Society in America. Rutherford’s broadside against his opponents, the pamphlet Harvest Siftings, dated August 1, 1917, was made up to a large extent of letters and statements from Jesse Hemery. Thus, some facts about Hemery’s life story are in order. Hemery’s father was also named Jesse Hemery and his mother’s maiden name was Nancy Walton. Both were born in Worsley, Lancashire, England in 1832 and 1833, and they married in 1861 in Eccles near Manchester. They first had a daughter, Alice, born in 1862, and then had their son Jesse, born on June 7, 1864. Jesse, the father, died before the census of 1871 and Alice died later in 1871 at the age of eight. Nancy Hemery then had to support herself and young Jesse as a silk weaver. In 1881, Jesse Hemery was working as a clerk and was still living with his mother. In 1886, he married Mary Ann Berry, born in 1863. No children blessed this union. In 1888, Jesse was convinced that The Plan of the Ages by C. T. Russell was the truth. He had his first letter to Russell published in Zion’s Watch Tower, December 1890. When Russell visited Britain for the first time in 1891, Jesse was one of the few who met him. At that time, Nancy Hemery lived with her son and daughter-in-law in Eccles. All three of them had embraced the

faith of the Bible Students. Jesse was working as a baker and confectioner. A few years, later he worked as a railway signalman. In 1895, Russell sent Hemery a small list of British names he had and asked him to visit some of the little companies of sympathizers. Jesse reported to Russell in a letter published in Zion’s Watch Tower, April 15, 1896, that the little Bible Student fellowship he was associated with, “thirteen in number,” joined with the rest of the body “in commemorating our Master’s death on our behalf.” In early 1899, the pastor asked him to visit London. Hemery then spent time with the Forest Gate church of Bible Students in east London, by then numbering about seventy-five people. He also visited various individuals in London known to be interested. In November 1901, he was appointed manager of the British office and also elected pastor of the Forest Gate church. With his wife and his mother, he moved to London. Russell listed him as a pilgrim for the first time in 1905. According to a report in The Present Truth, May 1, 1920, page 76, Jesse Hemery in 1908 and 1909 “disapproved publicly of ‘the vow,’ and publicly attacked some of ‘that servant’s views of the Mediator and of the New Covenant.” He had a hard time before he came around and accepted Russell’s views. But when Russell visited a convention in London in 1909, Jesse publicly stated that he now accepted “the vow” in its fullest sense. In 1910, he visited the United States for the first time. At the Chautauqua Lake convention in July and early August he gave the talk “The Church’s Sacrifice.” He preached at the Brooklyn Tabernacle on August 23. In 1911, Russell visited London to establish a big central London church out of several smaller ones. He wanted this big church to be a “window” in the world metropolis. The Society acquired a large church property, Craven Terrace 36, at Lancaster Gate in West End and renamed it the London Tabernacle. Eight of the London ecclesias were made into one, while the Forest Gate church in East End continued on its own with some three hundred members. The reason was the difficult transportation across London. A four-story building immediately adjoining to the Tabernacle, Craven Terrace 34, was leased to house the branch office and the office workers. Henry J. Shearn (1865-1946) and William Crawford (d. 1957) were appointed co-managers of the branch with Jesse Hemery. In the large Tabernacle congregation, Russell was unanimously elected pastor and Hemery was elected assistant pastor. On June 30, 1914, the International Bible Students Association was registered with the authorities in London as a British agency. Its officers were Charles T. Russell, president; Jesse Hemery, vice president; Henry Shearn, secretary; and William Crawford, treasurer. The three branch managers did not cooperate well. Shearn and Crawford worked nicely together but there was friction between Hemery and these two. Also, Russell wanted only really good speakers to enter the rostrum in the Tabernacle, and since Hemery was a brilliant speaker, the preaching services in the Tabernacle were increasingly monopolized by him to the exclusion of other elders. Hemery wanted to retain this arrangement, while Shearn and Crawford wanted a change. In 1915, Russell suggested to the three managers that Hemery should occupy the pulpit on alternate Sundays and the other two, along with other elders, on the remaining occasions. By that

time, an issue had also arisen regarding the ownership of the Tabernacle. An extensive exchange of letters followed, and it is obvious that Russell did not like the development. His deputy, Paul S.L. Johnson, arrived at Liverpool on November 19, 1916, almost three weeks after Russell’s death. Johnson favored Hemery’s view of the issues and gave Shearn and Crawford a hard time. He managed to block their reelection for eldership early in 1917 and on February 3, 1917, he dismissed them as Branch Managers, relying on his authorization papers received by the board before he left America. This made Crawford eligible for the military draft for the balance of the war. Hemery fully supported Johnson’s actions, but when he realized at the end of February that Johnson had set himself up in opposition to Rutherford, he turned against him and even denied that he had supported his actions. In the end, he publicly denounced Johnson in the Tabernacle. There were efforts to restore Shearn and Crawford to their positions, but a committee appointed by Rutherford concluded that they could not be elders. And not even after Johnson had left Britain on April 1, 1917, were they restored as managers, although they occasionally visited Craven Terrace 34 as secretary and treasurer of the International Bible Students Association. In 1918, they were removed from the board of the International Bible Students Association. Rutherford made Johnson his main target in his pamphlet Harvest Siftings, relying on Hemery’s claims and condemnations. In his written reply called Harvest Siftings Reviewed, dated November 1, 1917, Johnson in turn did not spare Hemery. This prompted Hemery to print a pamphlet of his own called P.S.L. JOHNSON’S Pamphlet “Harvest Siftings Reviewed” itself reviewed, dated December 7, 1917. Hemery was now sole manager of the Society’s work in Britain. He had problems in getting out a British edition of the book The Finished Mystery, released in America in July 1917. He deleted certain passages and was then granted permission to print and distribute it. But before long he was told that the book was an offense against Regulation 18 of the Defence of the Realm Act. He then stopped further printing. There were bigger problems ahead, however. Huge numbers of Bible Students were sick and tired of the authoritarian strain now increasingly permeating the movement. By 1921, some 3,000 Bible Students in Britain—about half of the membership in 1916—had left the Society and joined independent fellowships. The large Forest Gate church in east London had declared its independence already in 1917. An organized effort came into being in 1919 as the Bible Students Committee. Henry Shearn, the architect of the cessation, was its first secretary. William Crawford was also a member of the Committee. While many Bible Students in Britain were not fond of Hemery, he had the support of President Rutherford in America. When F.H. Robison resigned from The Watch Tower editorial committee, Hemery was elected to take his place in the Watch Tower issue of May 1, 1922. He served as one of the editors until the committee was abolished in 1931, though there is evidence that he did not always vote on the articles published. In 1922, Hemery visited the Society’s convention in Cedar Point, Ohio where he gave two talks.

He again visited America in 1924 and again gave a talk. In 1927, he visited the convention in Toronto, Canada, and in 1928, he again visited the United States. He spoke from the platform on both occasions. In The Watch Tower of October 1 and November 1, 1930, two letters from Hemery were published, praising Rutherford’s new two-volume work on Revelation, called “Light,” with unusual flattery. A few years later a turning point came for Jesse Hemery. “It was in the latter part of Brother Rutherford’s presidency that I began to be somewhat doubtful about the course the Society was being led,” he stated in a letter to Roy D. Goodrich in 1952, which Goodrich published in his journal BACK TO THE BIBLE, April, 1952, page 25. He also stated that when Rutherford announced in 1935 that “henceforth the WATCHTOWER would pay less attention to the church, and more to the new class called Jonadab brethren,” he began to think “that a misunderstanding of the Lord’s purpose had entered into the work under Brother Rutherford’s direction.” It is possible that Rutherford realized that Hemery was no longer the staunch supporter he had been in the past, for in 1937 he had him replaced as branch overseer in Britain by Albert Darger Schroeder (1911-2006), a young American with little experience. But Jesse continued as vice president of the International Bible Students Association and on July 28, 1939, he and Schroeder had LONDON COMPANY OF KINGDOM WITNESSES incorporated in London, both being described as “Minister of the Gospel.” Both were to have two shares each, and nobody else was involved in the venture. Together with Frank L. Brown, another prominent British Witness, Hemery started an independent study of the Bible books of Revelation, Daniel and Job in 1940. A few others became involved as time went by. During the 1947 convention in London, N.H. Knorr, the new president since 1942, confronted Hemery with rumors to the effect that he was disturbing the Witnesses. At that time, he was forced to resign as vice president of the International Bible Students Association, but he retained his status as a special servant mentioned in the Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses. In 1951, he was given notice to quit the London Bethel. He was expelled and branded as an “evil servant” the same year. The Yearbook of 1952 did not mention his name at all. His defection caused considerable unrest among Jehovah’s Witnesses. In December 1951, he published his study called Revelation unfolded: its message and its call to God’s Israel, issued by “the Hilltop Publishing Company” based in Willesden in North West London. It was a work of 211 pages. Soon The Book of Daniel Unfolded followed (214 pages), then Christ’s Great Prophecy (80 pages) and The Second Coming of Christ (119 pages). A number of other publications were also published. Hemery claimed that he retained the basic teachings of Russell’s book, The Plan of the Ages, while rejecting all chronological calculations. He denied that Jesus had returned in 1874 as the Bible Students taught, or in 1914 as Jehovah’s Witnesses now claimed. The parousia in his understanding was a future event that everyone will realize at once. He denied that the Times of the Gentiles had ended and that “Babylon the great” existed as yet. And he rejected Rutherford’s new view about the Jews. Hemery’s new venture was called “The Goshen Fellowship.” It addressed the various Bible

Students movements, including Jehovah’s Witnesses, but did not involve the public. The detailed account of the Bible Students in Britain, published by Albert Hudson in 1989, did not mention it. At that time “The Goshen Fellowship” had ceased to exist. Hemery spent his last years at 137 Bathurst Garden in Willesden. In a letter to me dated January 16, 1976, Frank L. Brown stated that Hemery “died age 99½ years in 1963.” Then Frank L. Brown published a journal called Zion’s Herald for a number of years. He claimed to be “that servant.” But after his demise all activities came to an end.

Robert Henry Hirsh (1868-1949)

Perhaps the most outspoken opponent of Rutherford during the spring and summer of 1917 was Robert H. Hirsh, a director both in the Watch Tower Society and in the Peoples Pulpit Association until July that year. He was born on May 6, 1868, in the town of Tamaqua, Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. His father was Peter Hirsh whose parents had emigrated from Lorraine, France, about 1830 and settled in Tamaqua. His mother was Elizabeth (Lizzie) Hirsh, whose parents had come from Ireland. Her maiden name was Mackay. Peter and Elizabeth had seven children, but three of them died fairly early. On September 6, 1868, little Robert was baptized in St. John’s Evangelical Lutheran Church in Tamaqua. His full name, Robert Henry Hirsh, is recorded in the baptismal listing of the church. Robert was educated in the public schools of Tamaqua, graduating in 1883. He then apprenticed to learn the trade of printing with the Tamaqua Courier, staying there four years. Then he went to Philadelphia where he was successively employed by the Philadelphia Times, the Philadelphia Record and the Philadelphia Ledger as a compositor. In 1891, he became a proofreader in the office of Mr. Dornan, a book publisher, until he returned to Tamaqua in May, 1892. At that time, he founded the Tamaqua Recorder, which was published until 1909. Robert was its owner as well as its editor. It started as a weekly, published every Friday. It was democratic in its political views. By 1900, it was published on Tuesdays as well as Fridays and had a larger circulation than the other two local papers. On November 24, 1897, Robert was married to Annie M. Levering in Reading, Berks County, Pennsylvania. She had been a school teacher at Manayunk, Philadelphia. The couple settled in Cedar Street, Tamaqua. In 1899, they had a son, Robert Levering Hirsh. But tragedy struck

suddenly on December 28 that year, when the little one died. Another tragedy occurred on July 18, 1900, when Robert’s wife died of “consumption” at the age of 26. From the 1900 census, it appears that Robert moved to his parents after these blows. Robert Hirsh had been a member of the First Presbyterian Church in Tamaqua, but a few years after becoming a widower, he took an interest in the faith of the Bible Students, taking his stand in 1905. In May 1906, he belonged to the body of elders and deacons in the Bible House congregation of Bible Students in Pittsburgh. He started out as a pilgrim in 1907, and in 1908 he went on record as having accepted “the vow.” His professional skills came in handy. Robert was put in charge of the Watch Tower literature as it went through the press. He corrected the galleys and made page proofs. Russell also made him editor of the Yiddish paper Der Stimme. By 1912, he had become a director in the movement’s New York corporation, The Peoples Pulpit Association. On the morning of December 25, 1915, Russell married him to Rosa Mary Leffler (1877-1984) in the Bethel dining room. Rose was then in charge of the Bible Student bookstore at the Tabernacle. In Russell’s will, Hirsh was put on a reserve list for the Watch Tower editorial committee. When Russell died in 1916, Brenneisen and Page, who had been mentioned in the list proper, resigned from the committee. Rutherford and Hirsh then replaced them. Hirsh was made managing editor and was assigned to keep Russell’s unpublished articles in his care. It also fell on him to deal with all letters to be published. At this time, Robert was fully supportive of Rutherford who became the new president on January 6, 1917. That is why Rutherford arranged for his election to the Society’s board on March 29, 1917, to replace Rockwell who had resigned. Within weeks, however, Hirsh completely reevaluated Rutherford, and among the opposing directors nobody became a more passionate opponent than he. In a board meeting June 20, 1917, it was Robert who, speaking for the three other opposing directors, suggested cancellation of the by-laws accepted on January 29 that same year. Rutherford managed to postpone the issue until next board meeting, which was scheduled for July 20, 1917. On July 17, he instead announced to the Bethel family that his four opponents on the board were not legal directors and that he had replaced them with four others. An official statement about this was sent to all the ecclesias on July 19. On July 31, Rutherford with the aid of Macmillan ousted Hirsh and Hoskins from the board of the Peoples Pulpit Association and also as members of that Association. During the Boston convention in early August, 1917, Hirsh wrote a brief statement for the ousted directors called Open Letter to Boston Conventioners. This was signed not only by the four ousted directors, but also by Andrew N. Pierson, the Society’s vice president. On August 8, three of the directors with their wives peacefully left the Bethel headquarters, and Robert and Rose left shortly afterwards. Not long after that, Robert was cut off from serving on the editorial committee, although his name appeared in The Watch Tower as late as in the January 15, 1918, issue. Hirsh was one of McGee’s seven nominees for directorship at the Society’s annual meeting on

January 5, 1918. Rutherford’s faction was declared the winner, however, and the meeting decided to ask Hirsh to resign from the editorial committee. In all likelihood, he did not honor the request. He was replaced anyway in the February 1, 1918, issue of The Watch Tower. With other disappointed ones, Hirsh withdrew on the evening of January 5 to Hotel Fort Pitt in Pittsburgh. On January 6, 1918, he was elected to the Fort Pitt Committee of seven and made vice chairman. In The Watch Tower of February 1, 1918, his name was replaced by that of W.E. Page in the editorial committee. Robert and Rose then engaged in colporteur work but they had to give up that when the arrest of Watch Tower leaders in May made it difficult to get books. Also, Robert was arrested along with these leaders for alleged treason in connection with the draft. He was advised by McGee and Johnson, and on May 14 he pleaded not guilty since he never had anything to do with the issue in the trial. He had been arrested simply because his name had been on the editorial committee when an objectionable article was published. He had no say on the matter, however, since he actually had ceased to function as an editor at that time. As is clear from the court transcript, the prosecution moved on June 4, 1918, to dismiss the indictment against Robert Hirsh. It is also clear from the transcript that Rutherford and the other accused ones tried, through their attorney, to prevent Hirsh from being set free. Nonetheless, the case against him was dismissed. Rutherford’s later claim in The Watchtower of January 1, 1936, page 5, that Hirsh “conspired with the enemy” and never was brought to trial “because he rendered the enemy service against his brethren” was completely without basis in fact. After his release, Robert went back to his old work as a journalist. At the convention at Asbury Park, on July 26-29, 1918, under the auspices of the Fort Pitt Committee, Hirsh, supported by Paul S.L. Johnson, edited and produced The Bible Standard and Herald of Christ’s Kingdom, dated August 15, 1918. The convention accepted it as a sample copy, but there was disagreement within the committee, and the journal was not continued. During the convention, the Fort Pitt committee resigned on July 27, and a new committee was elected. Hirsh was nominated to that committee, but withdrew in sympathy with Johnson, who was not nominated. From then on Johnson and Hirsh, supported by R.G. Jolly, went their own way, while the new Asbury Park committee moved to found The Pastoral Bible Institute, which was chartered November 23, 1918. On July 19, 1919, the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement was established in Philadelphia with Paul S.L. Johnson as general pastor, teacher and executive trustee. Hirsh and Jolly supported and cooperated with Johnson. However, just as Hirsh had reevaluated Rutherford, he now gradually reevaluated Johnson. In June 1920, he and his wife moved from Philadelphia to Jersey City. On the night of July 11, 1920, Robert publicly renounced Johnson at a convention in this town. The newspaper work came to an end and both Robert and Rose entered Universal Chiropractic College in Pittsburgh, graduating in March 1927. They then moved to a nice house at 512 Leverington Avenue, Philadelphia. Both worked as chiropractors for many years. They formed a Bible Student ecclesia in Philadelphia more or less isolated from other Bible Students.

Robert Hirsh died on May 31, 1949, at the age of 81. In a letter to the author dated October 4, 1974, his widow stated: “Am happy to say I believe Bro. Hirsh was faithful to the Lord and the Truth as we learned it through the Lord’s own chosen channel, our Beloved faithful Pastor, to his last breath.” Rose Hirsh continued to work as a chiropractor until 1970 when she was 92 years old. In September 1983, she was placed in a nursing home as she was no longer able to properly care for herself. She died on April 5, 1984, while a nurse was reading the 23rd Psalm to her. She was then 106 years old. Rose was born near Tiffin, Ohio on November 12, 1877. She belonged to a large well known Bible Student family, being number four of eight children. As her maiden name indicates, Rose had German roots. Her younger brother, Ralph Leffler, who stayed with Rutherford, had his life story published in The Watchtower, April 1, 1965.

Isaac Francis Hoskins (1878-1957)

In 1866, the farmer Henry Hoskins married Bridget Carney, an Irish immigrant, in Adams County, Illinois. Between 1867 and 1886 they had ten children, five boys and five girls. As number six in the row, Isaac Francis Hoskins was born on February 4, 1878, in Pittsfield, Pike County, Illinois. He had eight years of schooling. While his father and several of his siblings became well known Bible Students, Isaac would be distinguished as a director both in the Watch Tower Society and the later formed Pastoral Bible Institute. Isaac associated with the Bible Students in 1893, at the age of 15. He then resided in California. In 1906, he joined the staff at the Bible House in Allegheny, Pennsylvania. There, he also met his future wife, Estella Whitehouse, who had been working there since 1895. Estella was born on June 22, 1884, in Pittsburgh. Russell himself married the two in the Bible House on January 16, 1908. Hoskins started out as a pilgrim in 1907 and was one of those who embraced “the vow” at once in 1908. He must have made quite an impression on Russell, for in spite of his being only 30 years old, he was elected to the board of directors of the Society in the late summer of 1908. He was also put on the reserve list of five for the future editorship of The Watch Tower in Russell’s will dating from 1907 and revised in 1910. In 1909, he was one of the seven directors in the Peoples Pulpit Association, chartered that year to operate in the state of New York. At Russell’s funeral in Pittsburgh November 6, 1916, A.H. Macmillan expressly told Hoskins to resign as a director in the Society or be “kicked out,” and stated that the same step would be demanded of the other directors except Rutherford and Van Amburgh. Soon afterwards, Isaac became severely ill with pneumonia. He therefore missed the board meeting on January 6, 1917, as well as the annual meeting of the shareholders on January 6 and the important board meeting on January 19. Along with Robert Hirsh, a new director, Hoskins became the board’s most determined

opponent of Rutherford’s assuming headship in the Society. In the spring of 1917, he contacted Francis H. McGee, assistant to the Attorney General of New Jersey, and a fellow Bible Student, on the legal issues. On July 17, 1917, Rutherford announced that four directors in the Society, including Hoskins, were not legal members of the board, and that he had filled the alleged vacancies with men of his own choosing. The four ousted directors, aided by McGee, were convinced that this move was illegal and did not yield to Rutherford. Then, Rutherford had Hoskins and Hirsh ousted as directors and members of the Peoples Pulpit Association as well. This took place during sessions on July 27 and 31, 1917, and was later condemned by McGee as illegal. On August 8, Isaac and Estella left Bethel, receiving $300 as compensation, negotiated by Vice President Pierson. The other ousted directors and their wives also left with the same financial compensation. At the election in Pittsburgh January 5, 1918, Hoskins was one of McGee’s nominees for the board. However, Rutherford’s faction was declared winner of the election. McGee, his nominees and a number of others then assembled in the evening at Hotel Fort Pitt in Pittsburgh. A committee of seven was chosen to find out what course to take. Isaac F. Hoskins was one of the elected. Immediately following the arrest of the Watch Tower leaders in May, 1918, Hoskins and Rockwell presented a plan to the other members of the committee to reunite with the Society. The plan involved legal action through a New York law firm to recover control of the Society, but the committee rejected the plan. At the convention held by the group at Ashbury Park, July 26-29, 1918, the Fort Pitt committee was reconstituted. Hoskins retained his directorship and was elected as secretary. This led to the formation of the Pastoral Bible Institute, chartered in the state of New York on November 23, 1918. A new Journal, The Herald of Christ’s Kingdom, started publication with the issue of December 1, 1918, Hoskins being one of the editors. At the first annual election of the Pastoral Bible Institute, June 6, 1919, the founding directors were all reelected. Isaac was also chosen as secretary. His sister Edith Hoskins was put in charge of the Institute’s correspondence department. Hardly anyone was as prominent in the affairs of the Pastoral Bible Institute as Isaac F. Hoskins. He served on the board and on the editorial committee for The Herald every year until June 1936, when all the other original directors and editors had left the scene. He made several trips to Europe on behalf of the Institute. In 1926, he spent six months in England, being invited by the Bible Students Committee there. The same year he also visited France, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Finland. In 1931, he visited Egypt and Palestine as well as England, Denmark, Germany and Holland. He paid his fifth visit to England in 1934. Isaac participated prominently in the Pittsburgh Reunion Conventions beginning in 1929. His wife also attended and offered testimony. However, by 1928, new winds were blowing in the Pastoral Bible Institute. Some board members grew less rigid regarding doctrine. Russell’s views on the covenants, the sin-offering and the Lord’s presence were no longer viewed as mandatory. Hoskins firmly opposed this

development and tried to have more conservative Bible Students elected. But at the annual election on June 6,1936, he and his nominees were defeated, receiving only 44% of the vote. Isaac also lost his place on the editorial committee. He then stopped supporting the Institute. Edith Hoskins, his sister, stayed with the Institute, however, and continued to handle correspondence until her retirement in 1960. His older brother John Hoskins was serving as a pilgrim according to the Herald of August 1, 1941. After much consideration Isaac Hoskins, with the support of others, started a new journal, The Watchers of the Morning, the first issue of which was dated April,1937. It staunchly upheld historical Bible Student doctrine. In 1940 Isaac was self-employed. His wife’s health deteriorated. According to Isaac’s 1942 Draft Registration Card his sister-in-law Laura W. Burgess, who had been living with the Hoskins since she was widowed in 1930, was mentioned as the person who would always know his address. Estella Hoskins died on October 29, 1943. Isaac later remarried. In 1943, Hoskins testified in the Moyle trial against Rutherford, who had already died when the trial came up. He made it clear that he did not hate Rutherford and that the Pastoral Bible Institute was not organized to oppose the Society. He also claimed that he did not have a grievance against his former associates in the Institute, speaking of their differences only as “a disagreement.” At the time of the trial Isaac still resided in Brooklyn, New York. But later he moved to Pasadena, Los Angeles County. In 1955 he moved with his wife Clarissa to 308 Raymond Street in Ojai, Ventura County. He was 79 years old when he died in a most tragic way. On September 11, 1957, he wandered away from his home. Police and volunteers unsuccessfully searched for him since the evening of that day. He was accidentally found dead by two boys on Sunday September 15, and the boys notified the police. The officers reported that Hoskins had slid about 15 feet into a deep ravine and then crawled a short distance before being wedged between some rocks. He had been in bad health and was considered almost helpless. The fatal incident was reported in Ventura County Star, September 16, 1957, page 1. According to genealogical sites Hoskins died on September 15, 1957, but according to the above newspaper article he could have died one or more days earlier. His widow had the words “BELOVED HUSBAND” engraved on his headstone. The Watchers of the Morning was immediately discontinued. Isaac’s study group continued to meet for about twenty years after his death. His sister Edith died in her 83rd year on February 22, 1965, and got a brief obituary in The Herald of Christ’s Kingdom, March-April 1965.

William Franklyn Hudgings (1889-1937)

According to public records William F. Hudgings was born on October 24, 1889, in Ash Grove, Greene County, Missouri. His mother, Nancy Cordelia Hudgings (1857-1922), was introduced to the Watch Tower in 1894 and was, as a result, soon excommunicated from the Baptist church. She became very active as a Bible Student. William joined the Bible Student movement in 1908. He was called “the boy preacher” for public meetings because of his young age. He became a pilgrim in 1913 and was later made editor of the Bible Students’ Monthly. He was also put in charge of the Society’s printing. In 1916, he became secretary of the Peoples Pulpit Association. This meant that he was also a member of the Association’s board of directors. On February 8, 1917, he married Agnes Hassett, who was a stenographer at Bethel. A few months afterwards, she suffered a nervous breakdown. She continued to be of ill health and was sometimes unable to take dictation. Hudgings was a staunch supporter of Rutherford during the management crisis following Russell’s death. Following the dramatic events in July 1917, he was one of four people who publicly endorsed Rutherford’s pamphlet Harvest Siftings, dated August 1, 1917. The endorsement appeared on page 24. He actually brought a number of copies to Boston on July 29 and had it read to the Boston elders before the Bible Student convention there on August 1-5, 1917. He had been somewhat involved in the production of the book The Finished Mystery, published in July 1917. He had followed one of the authors, C.J. Woodworth, to the printer and helped to proofread the manuscript.

During the sedition trial in 1918 against leading Watch Tower officials, both William and Agnes were witnesses for the government. Because William failed to identify Macmillan’s signature, he was adjudged guilty of contempt of court and committed to jail. He was imprisoned from June 11, 1918, ten days before his prosecuted friends, to December 12, 1918, when he was released on bail. He spent three months in Raymond Street jail in Brooklyn and then three months in the Nassau county jail at Minola, New York. He was finally acquitted on April 14, 1919. Hudgings played a major role at the Society’s annual meeting in Pittsburgh on January 4, 1919. He had visited Rutherford in prison only a few days previously and now conveyed his wish to postpone the election. Hudgings motioned that it should be put off for six months. At the same time, he belittled those who had been running the Society in the absence of the imprisoned officers. He publicly called them “weaklings,” referring particularly to Dr. Spill. C.E. Stewart of St. Paul, Minnesota contradicted him, defending Spill and those connected with him at headquarters. Hudgings eventually withdrew his motion, realizing that there would be no postponement and that Rutherford would be elected. Dr. Spill was also reelected, and Hudgings himself was elected to the board for the first time. Hudgings’ role in this election is documented in Souvenir Report of the Bible Students Convention, Pittsburgh, Pa. January 2-5, 1919, pages 30-37, published by Geo. A. Glendon. Hudgings was elected again in 1920 but not in the election 1923 nor afterwards. When The Golden Age magazine started publication in October 1919, Hudgings was secretary and treasurer of the publication. He wrote a number of articles for it. In the issue of December 7, 1921, he advertised his first book called Einstein’s New and Revolutionary Theory of the Universe. However, his marriage did not work. In August 1924 Agnes left William and Bethel and moved to Reno, Nevada in 1925 to file for divorce. Reno was America’s “divorce capital” in those days. An article in The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, October 20, 1925, stated that she complained about William’s treatment of her, claiming, too, that he had said he regretted having married her. She asserted that the communal life at Bethel adversely affected her health. On August 29, 1925, William married Thyra Eleonore Lundberg, a Swedish immigrant. According to Thyra’s naturalization petition of 1929, she was working as a masseuse while William was working as a masseur. They lived at 101 Willow Street in Brooklyn at the time. In the US census of 1930, William was listed as a physician, but he was hardly a physician in the orthodox sense of the word. He had been involved with practices later denounced as quackery. In the small article “Waiting for the Great Physician” in The Golden Age November 17, 1926, William stated on page 113: “For the information of readers of THE GOLDEN AGE who frequently write me personally concerning the Abrams method of diagnosis and treatment, and about the electronic home treatment machine known as the RDK (‘Radio Disease Killer’), I wish to explain that I have severed my relationship with The RDK Corporation of America and also with the Brooklyn Electronic Institute, in order to be entirely unencumbered in my service for the Lord and King.”

William’s days in the Watch Tower Society were coming to an end. He had traveled as a pilgrim for many years and was still listed as such in the Yearbook of 1927, which dealt with the year 1926. However, in the 1928 Yearbook, his name had been dropped. He was still named as secretary and treasurer of The Golden Age in the issue of January 25, 1928, but had been replaced by N.H. Knorr in the issue of February 8, 1928. The exact time and reason for his break with the Society is unclear. But at the Pittsburgh Reunion Convention held October 30-November 1, 1931, by people who had left the Watch Tower Society, he gave a talk called “Bearing Witness to the Truth,” later published in synopsis form in The Herald of Christ’s Kingdom, January 15, 1932. He was one of nine directors of the Dawn Publishers in 1932. This venture later became the Dawn Bible Students Association. Hudgings was the main editor of their monthly magazine, The Dawn, from its beginning in 1932 up to his death. W. Norman Woodworth, the most energetic and prominent leader of the Dawn movement, claimed that he learned everything he knew about editing from Hudgings. Later, however, there reportedly was discord between them. The Dawn’s “Creation” booklet is thought to have been originally written by William F. Hudgings. In 1935, he wrote and published a book of 68 pages called What Everybody Should Know about the Laws of Marriage and divorce. Two editions were published. In 1936 he published the book Zionism in Prophecy. About this time, William also became one of the editors of the ProPalestine Herald which had started in 1932 as “The voice of Christian America in Behalf of the Jewish National Home.” As reported in The New York Times, October 18, 1937, William F. Hudgings died on October 17, 1937, in the Long Island College Hospital of a heart attack. He was then living at 10 Montague Terrace in Brooklyn. He was buried in John’s Chapel Cemetery in Ash Grove, Missouri. On his tombstone his full name, William Franklyn Hudgings, is shown. The cross and the crown, the typical Bible Student emblem, appears above his name. Thyra Hudgings still lived in Brooklyn in 1940. She died on December 29, 1969, in Westford, Massachusetts. Her death was reported in The Herald of Christ’s Kingdom, March-April 1970. Agnes Hudgings continued to live in Reno, Washoe County, Nevada, according to the Reno Evening Gazette, April 6, 1926. She was then one of three owners of the Mason Mining Company. As reported in the Nevada State Journal, Reno, Nevada, November 30, 1933, Agnes gave a much-appreciated talk on “The great Pyramid of Gizeh” at a meeting of “the Philadelphia Class of the Baptist church.” This suggests that she was still a Bible Student of some sort. But it is also evidence that she was not then associated with the Society, as Rutherford had renounced pyramid study in 1928. She still lived in Reno in 1935, but in 1940 she had moved to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. She was then an editorial assistant connected with publishing. She died on October 9, 1953, in Seattle, Washington at the age of 66.

Paul Samuel Leo Johnson (1873-1950)

On October 4, 1873, Henry Janowitz and his wife Essay Janowitz had their fifth son, Paul Samuel Leo Janowitz. They then lived in Titusville, Crawford County, Pennsylvania. Both were Jewish immigrants from Poland. Paul was the first of their children to be born in America. He is listed in the 1880 US census as “Samuel Janowitz.” A sixth boy was born in 1875. Henry Janowitz was a baker and was very prominent in Jewish circles. He became the president of the Synagogue in Titusville and later on in other Synagogues as well. He spoke 14 languages fluently. Paul learned Hebrew at an early age. He also became an ardent student of history. His mother died in January 1886 when the lad was just 12 years old, and he mourned her immensely. He strongly disapproved when his father remarried shortly afterwards and was then mistreated by his family. Nonetheless, he became Bar Mitzvah on October 15, 1886. In 1887, he ran away from home several times. While he was away, he became interested in the life of Jesus and actually became a believer on December 25, 1887, associating with the Methodist Church. When he returned home, his father tried in vain to force him to renounce Christ. Paul was declared incorrigible and was sent to Morganza Reformatory on February 8, 1889, where he suffered terribly. He gained the friendship of an official at the institution, however, and was released on July 1 the same year. Since the father had renounced his right as a guardian by sending the boy to a penal institution, the State appointed a guardian for young Paul. He was baptized on July 14, 1889, and immediately returned to his home. His father ridiculed him and disowned him as a son the following day. He even held a mock funeral service for him. Paul was sent to his guardian in Allegheny, Pennsylvania and worked in a shoe store there for some time. On September 8, 1890, he entered Capital University in Columbus, Ohio. There, he surpassed all other students. He graduated from the college on June 19, 1895, having won the valedictory and also the highest honor ever given in the history of that institution. The same year he entered

The Evangelical Lutheran Seminary in Columbus, which catered to the Ohio Synod of the Lutheran Church. In 1897, as a seminarian, he became pastor of the newly established St. John Lutheran Church in Mars, Pennsylvania. He received $25 per month for conducting services once a month both in German and English. He graduated from the Seminary on May 25, 1898. Not long afterwards he accepted a call to take charge of St. Matthew’s Lutheran Church in Columbus. It seems that Paul S. Janowitz about this time became Paul S.L. Johnson. Although the English name “Johnson” is not the exact equivalent of the Polish name Janowitz, it is actually the closest corresponding name possible. Early in 1903, Paul read R.A. Torrey’s booklet on the baptism of the Spirit and felt a need for a more fruitful ministry. Starting a strictly private study of the Bible, he was shaken in his Lutheran beliefs by reading the book The Last Times, written by the Lutheran clergyman J.A. Seiss. This work influenced him to accept a pre-millennial Advent of Christ to be followed by his millennial reign over the earth. Paul rapidly developed a set of new views that contradicted his former Lutheran views. He rejected the Trinity, the immortality of the soul and eternal torment as penalty for sin. He concluded that the judgment day was identical with the millennium and that there will be probation for the non-elect then. He also came to believe that the Papacy was the Beast of Revelation and that Protestantism was the image of the Beast. Finally, he also concluded that 1914 would be the end of the Age. These were all Bible Student tenets, but he claimed to have reached these conclusions entirely on his own. He started to present these new views in the pulpit of his church. This caused a great deal of opposition in his congregation and among the leaders of the Lutheran Church. He was expelled from his pulpit in the spring of 1903. He himself renounced the Lutheran Church on May 1, 1903. This was broadcast in newspapers all over the country. Five weeks later, he resumed preaching, which again caused much publicity. Paul was now in contact with the Columbus ecclesia of Bible Students and was reading and absorbing the available volumes of the Millennial Dawn series and The Watch Tower. He started unofficial pilgrim service in the vicinity and gave his first sermon on June 14, 1903. His activities were brought to Russell’s attention. He was invited to Allegheny and spent a month there in early spring 1904. Russell tested him thoroughly and appointed him a regular pilgrim on May 1, 1904. He must have been a man of some means, for except for one year he paid his own expenses for his Pilgrim service. Over the years he contributed several thousand dollars to the Watch Tower Society, also. On January 3, 1905, Johnson was married to Emma B. McCloud (1866-1951), daughter of James McCloud, a Columbus contractor. The service was conducted by Pastor Russell at the Bible House in Allegheny, Pennsylvania. No children blessed this union. Emma followed her husband for many years in the pilgrim work. It was also in 1905 that Johnson suggested to Russell that the New Covenant would operate exclusively after the Gospel Age. He referred him to an early article in Zion’s Watch Tower. Russell adopted and published this view a few years afterwards. In the doctrinal troubles that hit the Bible Students in 1908-1911 Paul Johnson was very active in defending Russell’s views on

the Sin-offering, Mediator, Covenants and Ransom. He had a debate with the popular pilgrim M.L. McPhail before the Chicago ecclesia on April 19, 1909, with the result that the overwhelming majority of the ecclesia continued to hold to Russell’s views on the covenants. His hard work during these troublesome years took its toll. He suffered from loss of sleep and exhaustion. On May 22, 1910, he collapsed during a public meeting. He later described his condition as “brain-fag.” He had to step down from his pilgrim activities. At the time, he and his wife resided in Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon. Rumors spread in the northwest that he was demonized and insane. However, three months of hard physical labor helped him to overcome his condition. He resumed his pilgrim work, traveling throughout the United States and Canada. But he admitted later that in 1910, he had begun to think of himself as the antitypical Bible character Medad while he believed that Pastor Russell was the antitypical Eldad. Since these two characters were mentioned together and apart from others (Numbers 11:26, 27), it is clear that Johnson had grandiose thoughts of himself. This was to become a major obstacle in the fellowship that developed outside the Society following Russell’s death. Types and antitypes became an obsession with Johnson. It is undeniable, however, that Paul S.L. Johnson was a brilliant man whose learning was useful to Russell. Having a thorough knowledge of Greek and Hebrew he was consulted by the Pastor from time to time about problems involving these languages. He also knew Yiddish and several other languages. During his debate with Elder White in 1908, Russell had him present at the platform. Rutherford stated in his pamphlet Harvest Siftings, page 22, that Johnson was “the ablest brother in all the land.” In 1916, he was one of the most prominent figures in the Bible Student community. In May, he was promoted to pilgrim service exclusively in larger ecclesias. He was now sent to more conventions than anyone else, except Russell himself. He acted as chairman at three of the summer conventions, giving eight talks at the Newport convention, including the baptismal talk, in spite of Russell being present. He also gave eight talks at the Norfolk convention. He was sent to heal divisions in six ecclesias. He had a fairly long letter to Russell published in The Watch Tower, May 15, 1916. And finally, Russell arranged for him to go to England to sort out problems at the London Office and the London Tabernacle congregation, planning to send him there in November 1916. At Russell’s funeral, Paul Johnson spoke extensively on Pastor Russell’s Relation to the Pilgrims. As stated in The Watch Tower, December 1, 1917, page 368, he then addressed the dead body: “In prophetic type God called thee Eldad,” hinting that there was to a prophetic “Medad,” too (i.e. himself). Some Bible Students wanted Johnson to become president of the Society at the next election. Board member H. Clay Rockwell became a spokesman for these when he approached Johnson with the proposition that he, Rockwell, would resign as a director on condition that Johnson would accept his place and thus become eligible for president. Johnson, however, had the coming British trip as his first priority and declined the offer. He

stated that he preferred Rutherford as president. He arranged for his 416 votes—representing 4,160 dollars in earlier contributions—to be cast in his absence for Rutherford. The executive committee established on November 7, 1916, carried out Russell’s intention to send Johnson to England. The plan was for him to visit other countries as well. Johnson left New York on November 11, 1916, having with him credentials to act on behalf of the Society. He arrived in Liverpool on November 19. He soon laid the blame for the trouble in London on William Crawford and Henry Shearn, two of the Society’s three managers and both elders in the Tabernacle Ecclesia. He gave them a hard time. On February 3 he dismissed them as managers of the London office and cabled Rutherford, now president, about it the same day. A few weeks later, he publicly claimed to be the “Steward” of Matthew 20:8, naively counting on Rutherford to back him in his claim. Having visited congregations all over England, Scotland and Wales—even Ireland was visited—Johnson again suffered from heavy loss of sleep and became quite weary. Many concluded that he was undergoing a mental breakdown. He had planned to visit Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland but was recalled to America by Rutherford and finally had to go back. He left Liverpool on April 1, 1917. Upon arriving in New York April 9, he unsuccessfully tried to convince Rutherford to send him back to England to complete his mission there. Later in April, Menta Sturgeon convinced him that Russell himself had been the “Steward.” On his own initiative, Johnson then recalled his claim to be the “Steward” before the Bethel family. Recovering from his health problems, he was given pilgrim appointments again, serving on Sundays from May 6 to June 24, 1917. In the brewing management crisis, which to some extent included his own case, he sided with the majority of the board against Rutherford and Van Amburgh. When Rutherford announced on July 17 that he had appointed four new directors to replace his opponents, Johnson, between July 18 and 25, tried to mediate between the president and the ousted directors. But on July 27, he was evicted from Bethel and his belongings were put outside the building. He was the main target in Rutherford’s pamphlet Harvest Siftings, dated August 1, 1917, sent to all Watch Tower subscribers. Johnson defended himself in a pamphlet of his own, called Harvest Siftings Reviewed, dated November 1, 1917. Jesse Hemery in London then countered with a statement called P.S.L. JOHNSON’S Pamphlet “Harvest Siftings Reviewed,” itself reviewed, dated November 7, 1917. At the shareholders’ meeting in Pittsburgh on, January 5, 1918, Johnson was one of McGee’s nominees for an alternative board of directors but withdrew his name before the actual election. Disappointed at the proceedings of this meeting, he and other Bible Students left and met the same evening at Hotel Fort Pitt in the same city. A “Committee of Seven,” including Johnson, was elected to continue work outside the Society. Almost at once, it was felt by the others that Johnson was trying to dominate the committee. It was mainly because of him that Menta Sturgeon, chairman, and Alfred Ritchie, secretary and treasurer, resigned from the Fort Pitt committee suddenly on January 24, 1918. Unlike the majority of the committee, Paul Johnson continued to visit congregations connected with the Society during this time. The Watch Tower, March 1, 1918, page 79, in “A Warning to

the Churches” advised its readers “that Paul S.L. Johnson and R.G. Jolly do not represent THE WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY in any way whatsoever.” Disagreement about what direction to take and certain views pushed by Johnson led to further polarization within the committee. At the convention held at Asbury Park, New Jersey July 2629, 1918, the committee was reconstituted. Johnson and his supporters Hirsh and Jolly failed to make the new committee. Johnson then published Another Harvest Siftings Reviewed, dated August 22, 1918, reflecting his view of the situation. The New Committee answered with A Brief Review of Brother Johnson’s Charges and a little later with A Timely Letter of Importance to All the Brethren. The committee went on to incorporate The Pastoral Bible Institute in November 1918 while Johnson, Hirsh and Jolly went their own way. Johnson started publication of the journal THE PRESENT TRUTH AND HERALD OF CHRIST’S EPIPHANY with the issue of December 9, 1918. Johnson and his wife settled in Philadelphia where Paul became pastor of the Epiphany Tabernacle and where his Bible House was set up. Publication of a paper called The Herald of the Epiphany began with the issue of July 16, 1920. While The Present Truth dealt with intricate Bible Student issues and conditions, the Herald was aimed at the public, resembling other Bible Student papers. The Bible Students at large were often repelled by Johnson’s condemnatory statements. He felt that he was given insight into heavenly judgment of prominent members of the fellowship. Thus, he proclaimed that various ones were “crown-losers” who had been reduced from Priests to Levites, no longer part of the Little Flock. This meant in most cases that they were considered part of the Great Company of less faithful Christians, heaven bound believers of a lower order. Leading Bible Students in the Society, the Pastoral Bible Institute and other groups were put in this category. The teachings of the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement revolved around classes. There was the Little Flock, which was seen as shrinking dramatically. The Great Company became a prominent class in the movement and then a third group called Youthful Worthies came into focus. In The Present Truth, October 1, 1923, page 157, Johnson stressed that there ought to be no intermarriage between these classes. Paul Johnson had his share of unfulfilled predictions. In The Present Truth, December 1, 1920, page 189, he claimed that Rutherford would be driven from all official relations in the Watch Tower Society. This never happened. In 1938, he asserted that there would not be another World War, and when the war actually started in 1939, he declared that it would not develop into a world war. His predictions regarding this can be found in The Present Truth, December 1, 1938, page 179, and October 1, 1939, page 164. Johnson’s health started to deteriorate in 1946. On May 29, 1948, Raymond G. Jolly (18861979) was chosen to succeed him as General Pastor, Teacher and Executive Trustee in the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement in the event of his demise. Johnson died on October 22, 1950, at the age of 77. He was buried in Whitemarsh Memorial Park in Philadelphia. His wife, several years older than he, died in February 1951.

When Johnson died, he was General Pastor of over 300 churches throughout the world. There were members of the movement in about 40 countries. Poland especially had been a receptive field. The Present Truth, November 1, 1933, page 175, reported that more than 6,000 “Polish brethren” were connected with the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement. Paul Johnson had been a tall, muscular man wearing a goatee. For all his learning and eloquence, he was an eccentric obsessed with his own importance. Not surprisingly, he frequently put people off. Albert Hudson, a Bible Student in England who met him in 1916 and 1917, recalled in a letter to me dated October 4, 1990: “As I remember him, he was affable, eloquent as a speaker, could be charming, then change in an instant into a severe condemnatory judge insisting upon dictatorial authority.”

Alexander Hugh Macmillan (1877-1966)

Hardly anyone played a more central role in the 1917 management crisis in the Society than Alexander Hugh Macmillan. Without him, the history of the movement might well have taken a different course. Also, by surviving all the other players involved in these difficulties, and through his book, Faith on the March, published in 1957, he, more than anyone else, shaped the view of Jehovah’s Witnesses about this affair. During Macmillan’s final years at Bethel in New York, he was still a tall man who carried himself well. He was known to be jolly and kind, having a warm smile and a friendly disposition. In his earlier years, though, Macmillan could be quite disagreeable. Although not shouldering any responsibility in the administration in his later years, he was still an appreciated speaker on occasion—who in his prime had been one of the best speakers in the movement. Born on July 2, 1877, in Mabou, Inverness County, Nova Scotia, Canada, he was of Highland Scottish stock. As may be inferred from his book, Alexander had at least two brothers, one of which was older, and a younger sister who died tragically in childhood. His parents were authoritarian Presbyterians. Consequently, Macmillan received a strict religious upbringing which influenced the boy to become a preacher at the age of 16, thereby choosing to attend a preparatory academy before going to a theological seminary. After a year, he suffered a nervous breakdown and had to drop out. After recovering, his father provided him with the money to move to Boston, Massachusetts, in May, 1895, where he worked at a commission house for a while and became a member of the Tremont Temple, a Baptist institution. In 1900, Macmillan came across a copy of The Plan of the Ages written by Charles Taze Russell. Attending a Bible Student convention in Philadelphia, he met Russell on June 17, 1900. Impressed by Russell and what he had read in Russell’s book, he scuttled his plan to study at the Moody School of Northfield, Massachusetts, to become a missionary. Returning to Boston, Macmillan began to regularly associate with the Bible Students and was baptized by total

immersion in September of that same year. Later, when visiting his dying father in Canada, he learned that he, too, had been influenced by Bible Student literature, and the old man died with a different outlook than his earlier Calvinistic theology had allowed for. In July 1901, Macmillan became a full-time colporteur for The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. In September that year, Russell invited him to live at the Bible House in Allegheny, Pennsylvania. Russell and other Bible Students often called him “Mac” or “Brother Mac.” He seems to have favored his second name Hugh rather than his longer name Alexander. On October 6, 1902, while attending a convention in Washington, D.C., Hugh married Mary Goodwin, a fellow Bible Student. Mary was born in 1873 and was the daughter of Harrison F. Goodwin (b. 1849) and Hannah Goodwin (b. 1846). Mary had at least one younger sister and a younger brother, Albert, who later became a minister. The family lived on a farm in Brandonville, Preston County, West Virginia. Hugh and Mary spent a year in California, then returned to Pennsylvania in 1904. In 1906, Mac followed Russell on a nationwide convention tour. At a general convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, on August 16, 1906, he personally baptized 118 people, including J.F. Rutherford, although he claimed in The Watchtower, August 15, 1966, page 507, that he baptized 144 persons on this occasion. However, Zion’s Watch Tower, September 15, 1906, stated that 118 people in all were baptized. This agrees with The 1906 Souvenir Convention Report, page 72. (See also the Watch Tower Reprints, p. 3856.) On December 11, 1907, in Pennsylvania, Hugh and Mary had their first child, Albert Edmund Macmillan. A year later, Russell appointed Macmillan a pilgrim, but there were a number of interruptions during his service as a pilgrim until August 1916. During one of these interruptions, he was working for a railway company in Texas as an auditor on trains handling the cash. In 1908, he declined to accept “the vow” that Russell began to urge that year. Former pilgrim Paul S.L. Johnson also stated in The Present Truth, October 1, 1919, page 173: “In 1908 Brother MacMillan for a time joined A.E. Williamson and others in a vicious attack on Brother Russell in an attempt to set him aside as controller of the Harvest work; and it was only after a very severe trial that he was able to recover himself.” On April 15, 1910, the Macmillan family was living at Bethel in Brooklyn. One month earlier, according to the 1910 US census, another son, Charles Goodwin Macmillan, had been added to the family. However, Goodwin died suddenly in 1912. Beginning with the April 1, 1914, issue of The Watch Tower and lasting through the October 15 issue the same year, Macmillan was not listed as a pilgrim. When Russell stated in the May 1, 1914, issue that it seemed unreasonable to expect the glorification of the Church by October, 1914, as he had taught previously, Macmillan waged a campaign against the new view on various occasions during spring through early autumn. At a convention in Saratoga Springs in upstate New York September 27-30, 1914, he preached quite sharply against Russell’s new view. In his book Faith on the March, page 47, he stated that he had said before the convention audience on September 30 that the church was going home in October and that his talk “probably” was “the last public address” he would ever deliver. He may have softened his words

here. According to Bible Student historian James B. Parkinson there were reports that Macmillan actually said: “This is positively the last public address I shall ever deliver because we shall be going home [to heaven].” The next day many of those attending the convention traveled with Russell to Brooklyn, and on Friday morning, October 2, Russell told the Bible Students assembled that there would be a change in the program for the coming Sunday, October 4. Macmillan was to give them a public address! This, of course, meant reproof, and he afterwards went to his family resort in Brandonville, West Virginia, quite downcast. During Rutherford’s debate with the Baptist clergyman John H. Troy in Los Angeles in April, 1915, Macmillan assisted Rutherford on the platform. Soon afterwards an unexpected and heavy strain on the Society’s economy forced Russell to send 70 co-workers away from Bethel, including pilgrims. He announced that the reduction would be accomplished by the middle of May, 1915, and not later than June 1. In a letter dated August 6, 1915, Hugh lamented: “As you know the Society is about broke, and the future is uncertain. Therefore I am in a straight betwix three. Have not decided yet if I will continue in the Pilgrim service. Several matters are pending. I am now on my way to Brandonville W. Va. where my wife and boy are with their folks. I expect to be there for four or five weeks.” This letter is reproduced in Appendix 11. Macmillan in fact spent most of the summer with his family on his father-in-law’s farm in Brandonville. Only in The Watch Tower, October 15, 1915, was he again listed as a pilgrim. Following the Newport, Rhode Island, convention July 9-16, 1916, Russell became so ill that he stayed in his study for three days. On the fourth day he sent for Macmillan and asked him if he would like to come to Bethel and be his assistant both in Bethel and the Tabernacle. In a letter dated August 2, 1916, Hugh answered in the affirmative. He left the farm in Brandonville where he and his family resided at the time and joined the staff in Brooklyn. When Russell left for a long tour on October 16, 1916, he put Macmillan in charge both of Bethel and the Tabernacle. It was meant to be a brief arrangement, for Russell planned to be back in early November. This trust in Macmillan seems surprising. Not only had he opposed Russell more than once, but he had serious difficulties in dealing with other prominent Bible Students. One of the last things Russell tried to do before he left on what proved to be his last tour, was to reconcile board member H. Clay Rockwell with Macmillan, who was supported by Rutherford. Rose Hirsh, who was at Bethel at the time, stated in a letter to me of August 29, 1974, that Rockwell announced to the staff that he would leave Bethel, and that Russell publicly asked him to reconsider, which he did. According to several of his fellow Bible Students, Macmillan could be blunt, petulant and quite dictatorial. McGee, the New Jersey lawyer, felt he was lacking in wisdom. Hugh had never been on the board of directors of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society and was not mentioned in Russell’s will. He had never had a letter to Russell published in The Watch Tower. While he was well known as a pilgrim and was an excellent speaker, he was not among the most prominent of Russell’s associates. Perhaps by putting Macmillan in charge, Russell wanted to make up for discharging him in 1915 and for earlier disagreements. Macmillan’s humor and outgoing personality, similar to Russell’s own, may have been a factor, too.

Contrary to some recent claims, Russell was not planning to make Macmillan his successor as leader of the movement. Because Macmillan was not a member of the Society’s board, he could not be elected president. Russell in fact did not want any single person to take his place as a leader. The board of directors, where the president was only chairman, and the editorial committee mentioned in his will, were meant to carry on. C.T. Russell died in a train on October 31, 1916. On the morning of November 1, Macmillan intercepted a telegram sent by Menta Sturgeon to his wife Florence Sturgeon and read the news to the Bethel family. From now on, he was to become really prominent in the affairs of the Society. On November 1, 1916, he called a meeting of the board also attended by others. Ignoring the fact that A.I. Ritchie, vice president, should be given charge, he insisted that W.E. Van Amburgh, secretary and treasurer, be put in charge. Rutherford was not present, as he did not arrive in Brooklyn until November 2. Macmillan ordered all contracts for the Angelophone to be canceled and the project closed down. At Russell’s funeral in Pittsburgh, November 6, 1916, Macmillan told Isaac F. Hoskins that he and all other board members except Rutherford and Van Amburgh should resign, and that if they did not, they would all of them be “kicked out.” This is one of the most vital pieces of information that the pamphlet Light after Darkness, dated September 1, 1917, brought out. Macmillan told the other board members similar things. On November 7, 1916, an executive committee consisting of board members Ritchie, Van Amburgh and Rutherford was formed. Macmillan was appointed representative and assistant of that committee. When the election in Pittsburgh, January 6, 1917, was approaching, Macmillan suggested to Van Amburgh that the only man capable of running the Society was Rutherford, ignoring that Russell had arranged for the board, not a single individual, to come to the fore. Both Macmillan and Van Amburgh agreed to promote Rutherford. All three worked out a scheme to secure not only that Rutherford would be elected president but that he would have the same powers that Russell had exercised, contrary to the Society’s charter and Russell’s wishes. At the election on January 6, Macmillan was chairman. He allowed only Rutherford to be nominated for president. Votes meant for others were actually cast for Rutherford. The votes were never counted, and according to The Watch Tower, January 15, 1917, page 22, Rutherford was declared to have been unanimously elected! Afterwards, Macmillan boasted of his clever maneuver. Earlier, at the January 6 election, resolutions prepared in advance by Rutherford had been urged upon the voters and accepted. The outcome was that Rutherford, Van Amburgh and Macmillan could run the Society irrespective of the board of directors. This naturally created reactions among the members of board, and these reactions were not softened when Macmillan held the directors up to ridicule when he visited different parts of the country. Moreover, because this arrangement was a complete departure from Russell’s stipulations in his will and the Watch Tower charter, trouble was inevitable. In Rutherford’s absence, Macmillan was the general manager everyone had to obey. There were so many complaints about his way of doing things that the majority of the board came to the conclusion

that he had to be removed from this position, although he had been vice president of the Peoples Pulpit Association for some time. On June 6, 1917, Rutherford consulted Macmillan about publishing the book The Finished Mystery, the alleged seventh volume of Studies in the Scriptures. He showed him the entire manuscript. Hugh declined to read the manuscript but nonetheless approved of its publication, reading only Rutherford’s preface. The book was released on July 17, 1917, and on November 3, 1917, during a convention in Washington D.C., Macmillan, according to The St. Paul Enterprise, November 20, 1917, page 1, stated that “the 7th Volume had enough mistakes in it so that the brethren who wrote it would not get heady.” During the trial in 1918, he admitted that he had not even then read the entire book through! On July 5, 1917, when Rutherford was absent on a journey to the West, Macmillan tried to evict the four dissident directors from the Brooklyn Tabernacle by having a policeman act against them. The effort failed because the policeman refused to evict them. Macmillan was appointed to the board by Rutherford on July 17, 1917 and signed his acceptance that day. He later stated that this occasion was the first time he heard the claim that the opposing directors had not held office legally. Immediately following a stormy session in the Bethel Dining Room on July 27, 1917, he threatened to have the police evict Paul S.L. Johnson from the Bethel premises if he did not leave voluntarily. When Johnson said he declined to leave unless the board told him to, Macmillan reportedly said, “You will either leave, or by night you will be bruised or be in jail.” He went even further in his support of the new president. When Rutherford issued his pamphlet, Harvest Siftings, about this time, condemning the four ousted directors and Paul S.L. Johnson, Macmillan was one of only four persons who unreservedly endorsed it, doing so on the last page. At the annual election on January 5, 1918, Macmillan was reelected to the board. He was not reelected in 1919, when he and other prominent Watch Tower leaders were in prison. But he was elected again in 1920. After that, the terms of election were changed from annual to tri-annual. Macmillan was elected in 1923, 1926 and 1929. Along with other Watch Tower officials, Macmillan was arrested in May 1918 and charged with conspiracy against the Espionage Law enacted on June 15, 1917. During the trial the charges against him were found to be weak; so, he had a good chance of having his indictment dismissed. He then told his lawyer that he would not accept being set free if his comrades were convicted. He wrote a signed statement, accepting his share of the responsibility, and handed it to the attorneys. Consequently, he was sentenced along with the others on June 21, 1918, to a long term of imprisonment. He was set free with the others on March 26, 1919, and all charges were eventually dropped. On June 1, 1919, he was back in the harness, publicly stressing a new prophetic date. This took place at a Bible Student convention in the Academy of Music, Brooklyn. According to The New York Times, June 2, 1919, he said that he “wanted to warn all the sinners to prepare for the millennium, which is to arrive in 1925.” He declared that “Moses and Abraham” would be on earth then.

The U.S. census of 1920 shows that Hugh, Mary and Albert Macmillan were all living at Bethel in Brooklyn. Albert was then 12 years old. On August 12, 1920, Macmillan went to Europe with Rutherford on board the S.S. Imperator. On June 7, 1923, he became a naturalized American citizen. The Bible Students associated with Rutherford were still following the developments in Palestine with keen interest. Rutherford sent Macmillan there on a special mission in 1925, and he arrived there by ship on March 31. He visited Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and many other places. He spent two days in Lebanon. That spring he also visited a convention in Italy and met with Bible Student classes in Poland before he visited conventions in Denmark and Sweden. Back in America he participated in the Bible Student convention in Indianapolis in August of the same year. It is clear that Macmillan was one of Rutherford’s most useful associates, deeply engaged in the movement. Apparently, he did not give the same attention to his family, however. According to the 1930 US census, Macmillan did not live with his family. In 1930, Mary was living in La Vale, Allegany County, Maryland, with her son and elderly mother, now widowed. While still listed as married, she was also listed as Head of the household. Her son, named Edmund, now 22 years old, was working as a salesman of fire equipment. At the convention in Columbus, Ohio in 1931, where the name “Jehovah’s Witnesses” was adopted, Macmillan not only participated in the program, he was also responsible for accommodations and transportation during the convention. When the 1940 US census was made, he was living with his wife again, now in Grant, Preston County, West Virginia. But when he signed his Draft Registration Card in 1942, his place of residence was 117 Adams Street in Brooklyn, and the person who would always know his address was stated to be Nathan Knorr, the new Watch Tower president. Apparently, Macmillan was now living by himself. During World War II, he was assigned to visit Witnesses who were imprisoned for their faith. He visited 21 prisons every six months to encourage these Witnesses. His visits were popular, not least because he was a gifted speaker. On one occasion he succeeded, with diplomatic skill, to free a number of Witnesses who had been sent to solitary confinement for refusing to be vaccinated. August 27, 1946, must have been a tragic day for Hugh. On that day, his son Albert Edmund Macmillan entered the military, which obviously meant that he had rejected the faith he had once been associated with. Eventually, he became a major in the US Air Force and served in Korea. Macmillan traveled as a District Overseer in 1947. In 1948 he again resided at Bethel. He participated prominently in the programs sent by WWBR, the Society’s radio station, until it was sold in 1957. He continued to appear on the platform during the big conventions, in 1950, 1953, 1958 and 1963. In the early fifties, he gave a public talk about the early years of the Society. It was taped and later typed. Although often inaccurate, it has some valuable information not given in his later book. The typed manuscript has 42 pages and is called The History of the Society from 1910 to 1920.

It was in 1957 that his 243-page book, Faith on the March, was published. It makes for interesting reading and is a must for anyone interested in the history of the Bible Students and Jehovah’s Witnesses. But it is the story of an old man whose long life in an ever-changing organization has colored his memory. The story cannot always be taken at face value. Macmillan claimed, for example, on page 50, that according to Russell “the times of the Gentiles” began in “the year 607 B.C.,” whereas Russell actually claimed that this period began in 606 B.C. Even more serious, on page 51 he claimed that “the time of Christs’s second presence” was “confidently expected in the fall of 1914.” He should have known that Christ’s second presence was understood by all Bible Students to have begun already in 1874. That the book can at times be less than reliable is also shown by the claim on page 99 that Judge Howe at the trial in 1918 held against the defendants that they had “denounced all the ministers of all the churches.” Macmillan based this claim on a newspaper article, but no such statement can be found in the actual court transcript. Like his typed talk, his book falls far short of giving a fair picture of the 1917 Watch Tower crisis. It amounts to a distortion. Macmillan correctly claimed on page 81 that the critical events are “a matter of actual record,” but did not give even one reference to the rich contemporary material bearing on the case. His neglecting these sources in combination with his fading memory is the reason why he, on page 77, could confuse an ordinary board meeting with an alleged extended session of the 1917 annual meeting of the Peoples Pulpit Association. The purpose of his book did not allow him to dwell on his less- than-commendable family situation. After telling on page 43 about his marriage in 1902 and a stay in California till 1904, he did not mention his wife again. And he never said one word about his son. This is all the more remarkable, as he did mention on page 199 a niece of his who graduated from the Watchtower Bible School of Gilead and went to Chile as a missionary. Because of his prison experience and his book, Macmillan has been viewed as an icon among Jehovah’s Witnesses. His story, “Doing God’s Will Has Been My Delight,” was published in The Watchtower, August 15, 1966, pages 504-510. He died on August 26, 1966, and was buried in the Society’s little burial plot in the Woodrow United Methodist Church & Cemetery on Staten Island, New York. This information was published originally in The Watchtower, October 1, 1966, page 608, under “Announcements,” but was dropped in the bound volume. Albert Edmund Macmillan was married to Dorothy Louise McClure, born in 1908. They had a daughter, Patricia Ann, born in Webb County, Texas on December 10, 1943. Eventually they had three daughters. In the fifties they lived in Bronx, New York. Albert was released from the military on September 28, 1956. His wife died in 1969, and he was remarried before he died on August 31, 1971. He was buried in Long Island National Cemetery, Farmingdale, Suffolk County, New York. His first wife, Dorothy, was buried next to him. As shown in “Find a Grave” for Albert E. Macmillan, an impressive headstone tells about Albert’s military achievements. In sum, Alexander Hugh Macmillan, or “Brother Mac,” was not a strong leader, but was an orator and motivator. He, more than anyone else, enabled the strong leader, J.F. Rutherford, to

gain control of The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, and ultimately of the movement associated with it.

Francis Harris McGee (1872-1926)

One of the most significant participants in the 1917 management crisis was Francis Harris McGee, an outstanding lawyer from New Jersey. He was more than Rutherford’s equal, and if the opposition had followed his advice, Watch Tower history in all likelihood would have taken a different course. F.H. McGee was born in Jersey City, N.J. on April 29, 1872. His parents were John Flavel McGee (1844-1901) and Frances Eureka Harris McGee (1847-1872). When Francis was 5 days old, his mother died. On May 18, 1875, his father married Julia Fitz Randolph (1851-1912) with whom he had nine children, all born in New Jersey. Flavel McGee was of Irish descent. He graduated from Princeton in 1865 and became a well-known public figure. He was admitted to the New Jersey bar in 1868 and became a prominent lawyer. He was part of the law firm McGee & Beedle (so named in 1899). Flavel was also an elder in the Presbyterian Church and then in the First Presbyterian Church of Jersey City. Francis, his firstborn, often called Frank, prepared for College at Pingry school, Elizabeth, N.J., and entered Princeton University with the class of 1895. It is not clear if he actually graduated. After leaving the university, he traveled extensively in the United States, France and England. On returning he studied law and became associated with his father’s law firm in Jersey City. He was admitted to the New Jersey bar in February 1903 and afterwards became an Assistant to the Attorney General of the State of New Jersey, with an office in Trenton, the State Capital. On April 30, 1903, Francis married Laura Frank Van Keuren (1884-1968) of Jersey City, the ceremony taking place in the First Presbyterian Church. The couple settled in Trenton. They had three children: Alan Van Keuren McGee (1904-1983), Frances Eureka McGee (1906-1995) and Charles Henry McGee (1908- 1913). Alan graduated with honor from Princeton in June 1926 in the field of English. In 1940, he had his doctoral dissertation approved at Yale. It dealt with the geographical distribution of Scandinavian loan words in Middle English.

F.H. McGee became convinced of the faith of the Bible Students in 1903. He was baptized during the Passover season in March 1905 in the presence of the Philadelphia ecclesia. He made “the vow” his own in 1908. For years, he was the senior elder of the Trenton Bible Student ecclesia. He used the press, too, and had signed articles about his faith published in the Trenton Evening Times. He was a witness in behalf of C.T. Russell in The Brooklyn Daily Eagle case in 1913, having been asked to appear by Rutherford. From time to time, Russell consulted him on difficult legal issues, and so did Rutherford up to the time of the management crisis. On one occasion in early 1917, Rutherford, Pierson, Ritchie and Woodworth spent a day with McGee in legal consultation about a particular project. When the trouble within the board broke out, not surprisingly the four dissident directors consulted McGee for guidance. His part in this affair was entirely unselfish. He acted as a friend and adviser but not as anyone’s paid counsel. He successfully debated with Rutherford on the legal issues in the Bethel dining room on July 17, 1917, when Rutherford announced that he had appointed four new directors. He argued that Rutherford had taken the law into his own hands and claimed that his appointees would be spurious board members. He advised them not to accept the positions assigned to them. Vice President Pierson was especially impressed by McGee’s explanations. McGee again successfully contradicted Rutherford in the Philadelphia ecclesia on July 19, 1917. On this occasion, Rutherford failed to respond to any of McGee’s legal points and broke out in tears at his defeat. McGee published two legal statements against Rutherford’s course in the autumn of 1917. Again, Rutherford did not answer his arguments. In his two editions of Harvest Siftings, he did not even dare to mention McGee by name. On page 1 of Harvest Siftings he referred to him as “a lawyer who is not too friendly toward the Truth”—a blatant lie. In a public talk in the early 1950’s, later typed out and distributed, A.H. Macmillan tried to belittle McGee by saying that he “had something to do with filing letters in the State House” and that “he felt he knew something.” McGee urged the directors to take Rutherford to court. They seriously considered this, but Ritchie especially objected. And such a step was severely criticized in many quarters, so in early August 1917 the directors decided to drop legal proceedings. At the shareholders meeting in Pittsburgh on January 5, 1918, McGee nominated an entire alternative board of directors, including the four directors ousted by Rutherford in July 1917. Rutherford’s faction was declared the decisive winner, however, and McGee and a number of others left and gathered at Hotel Fort Pitt in Pittsburgh the same evening. On January 6, 1918, McGee was elected to the Fort Pitt committee of seven prominent Bible Students. He was also elected to the Asbury Park committee replacing the Fort Pitt committee in July, 1918. He was one of the seven charter directors of the Pastoral Bible Institute registered November 23, 1918. McGee drew up the charter granted by the authorities. The Watch Tower, March 15, 1918, page 95, published McGee’s resignation as a shareholder in the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. “I am not in harmony with nor do I approve of the SOCIETY nor its subsidiary corporations as now conducted subsequent to the death of Pastor

Russell,” he added. When Watch Tower leaders were arrested in May 1918, Francis gave some legal advice to Robert H. Hirsh, who had also been arrested because he had earlier been on the Watch Tower editorial committee. The charges against Hirsh were dropped. McGee served as a director in the Pastoral Bible Institute from 1919 through June 7, 1924. However, he had been replaced by B. Boulder before the annual election in 1925. McGee had long suffered from poor health and had only reluctantly accepted election from the start. Following an operation for appendicitis in the State Hospital in the beginning of July 1926, peritonitis developed and he died on July 10, 1926, at the age of 54. He was buried at Belvidere, New Jersey, on July 14, 1926. Isaac Hoskins of the Pastoral Bible Institute conducted the service, and McGee’s former associates at the State House—the Attorney General and three Assistant Attorney Generals—carried the casket. He had had a most distinguished legal career. This is evident from the obituary issued in the Trenton Sunday Times Advertiser of July 11, 1926. It was published on the front page! He had taken the case of New Jersey vs. Lovell before the Supreme Court of the United States. It was filed January 6, 1911. The text of the Court transcript has recently been made available in print with McGee’s name attached to it. In 1920, McGee was Chief Legal Assistant to the Attorney General in New Jersey. In February that year, he was entrusted with the task of drafting the bill of equity filed in behalf of New Jersey with the Supreme Court of the United States, attacking the constitutionality of the Volstead Act. This case attracted national attention. Although McGee had left Trenton to live in Freehold for some years, he eventually returned with his family to the State Capital, residing at 64 Laurel Place. His wife lived until 1968. It is not known if any of Francis’ relatives shared his Bible Student beliefs.

William Egbert Page (1855-1927)

As a prominent long-time friend of Russell’s, William Egbert Page not surprisingly was drawn into the Watch Tower management conflict in 1917. He was born on February 23, 1855, in Carlinville, Illinois, the second child of Egbert S. Page and Caroline Morton. The father was a fire insurance adjuster, born and raised in Vermont. Eventually, there were four children in the family, two boys and two girls. Early on, the family moved to Des Moines, the State Capital of Iowa. William was carefully reared under Christian influence and was taught reverence for God and confidence in the Bible. Later, he drifted into agnosticism and floundered for some years. In 1880, he married May Helen Soule (1860-1943). The couple never had any children. About 1887, William accepted the message preached by C.T. Russell and then wrote letters published in Zion’s Watch Tower, beginning in 1889. He also had articles published in the journal in 1889 and 1890. In time, his wife also took her stand for the new faith. William went in his father’s footsteps and became a fire insurance adjuster. In the early 1890s, Page served at the Bible House in Allegheny, Pennsylvania, but owing to the needs of relatives, he re-entered business work. According to the 1900 US census, he supported his mother, one of his sisters, two nephews and one niece, all belonging to the same household. They were then living in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. When the question of “the vow” came up in 1908, Page not only accepted Russell’s suggestion but sent him a long letter of support, which was published in Zion’s Watch Tower, July 1, 1908. By 1909, his domestic situation seemed to have changed, allowing William and his wife to return to the Bible House. The same year they moved with the headquarters to Bethel in Brooklyn. William was also made one of the original seven directors of the Peoples Pulpit Association as well as a member of the Society’s board that year. He also started out as a pilgrim. He was elected vice president of the Society in 1910. However, these engagements were

of brief nature, and Page left headquarters again, going back to the insurance business, in which he was successful. He remained a trusted supporter of the Society in the background. When Russell’s will was made public in November 1916, W.E. Page was one of Russell’s five suggestions for the Watch Tower editorial committee. He yielded, however, to the view put forth at the time that the editors should be in close touch. Stressing that he could not take up residence in Brooklyn, he resigned from the editorial staff. During the critical time in 1917 and 1918, William wholeheartedly supported Rutherford. He arranged for a convention under the auspices of the Society in Des Moines, Iowa, September 2730, 1917. When Paul S.L. Johnson suggested about a month later that Page would make a much better president than Bro. Rutherford, he had a letter published in The Watch Tower, December 1, 1917, page 366, to the effect that he had to “completely veto the suggestion” because he did not have the “essential qualifications” that Rutherford had. In addition, he felt, the latter had “a rounded, developed Christian character.” About that time, Page was brought to reconsider membership of the Watch Tower editorial committee, and in the February 1, 1918, issue of The Watch Tower, he replaced R.H. Hirsh as editor. At the annual meeting on January 5, 1918, it was “Brother W.E. Page of Des Moines, Iowa” who placed Rutherford in nomination for president. Later, however, Page disagreed with the subtle doctrinal changes introduced by Rutherford, and in the fall of 1920, he resigned from the editorial committee. His name disappeared from the committee in The Watch Tower, December 1, 1920. It was replaced by E.W. Brenisen in the January 15, 1921 issue. Yet W.E. Page stayed with the Society. In The Golden Age, September 12, 1923, he had a short article about insurance published. And in The Watch Tower, January 1, 1924, it was announced that he had been appointed to a committee with the task of producing a book about C.T. Russell—a project that never materialized. On January 31, 1927, William E. Page died in Hinsdale Village, DuPage, Illinois. He was buried on February 2, 1927, in Rose Hill Cemetery, Chicago. Along with two others, he was honored with a brief obituary in The Golden Age, July 13, 1927. The obituary concluded with the words: “His wife, Sister Page, has the sympathy of us all.” May Helen Page died on October 20, 1943.

Andrew Nils Pierson (1850-1925)

It was odd in many ways that Andrew N. Pierson should become vice president of the Watch Tower Society in 1917, and as such play an important part in the ensuing management crisis. He had never lived at Bethel and never served as a pilgrim. He was not an outstanding speaker, nor was he connected with any prominent Bible Student ecclesia. He lived in the obscure little town of Cromwell, Connecticut. He was a very successful businessman, however, running one of the biggest flower plants in America. He was one of the wealthiest persons in the movement and was known to be very generous. He was also a man of peaceful disposition. Everyone loved and respected him. Andrew was an immigrant. He was born on September 1, 1850, in the little village of Håstad about ten kilometers north of Lund in the southernmost part of Sweden. He was the second child of Nils Persson (1822-1906) and his wife Hanna Andersdotter (1821-1900). His father was a school teacher and a cabinet maker. Eventually, there were eight children in the family. Andrew was named just “Anders” when he was baptized into the Swedish Lutheran State Church on September 6, 1850. His last name was Nilsson after his father’s first name. Anders attended the local school till the age of ten. After that he had to confine his school attendance to evening classes. Life was hard and the family was poor. Anders had to earn his bread as a shepherd boy. In October 1868, he moved to a settlement on the outskirts of Lund belonging to the country parish of that city. His parish church then was the famous Lund Cathedral. Anders worked as an apprentice for a local gardener.

Figure 15. Pierson’s rose garden with his mansion in the background As the very first of his family, Anders announced his intention of leaving Sweden for the United States to the local church authorities. He did so on April 20, 1869. His older brother, Nils Nilsson, reported his decision to emigrate on September 20 of the same year. His parents and four younger brothers did not report their decision until December 12, 1870. By then the youngest children, one brother and one sister, had died. Four cousins also emigrated between 1870 and 1878. The entire clan stuck together in America. On Whit Sunday, May 16, 1869, Anders Nilsson left from Copenhagen, Denmark, on the steamer Ocean Queen. More than 1,000 Swedish emigrants were on board. After a trying voyage, the ship anchored outside New York, and on June 2 at noon, Anders and his fellow passengers set foot on American soil at Castle Gardens at the tip of southern Manhattan. At his arrival, Anders Nilsson became Andrew Nils Pierson. He used his new name on June 13, 1870, when the 1870 US census was undertaken in Southington, Connecticut, where he was then living, working as a “farm laborer.” All relatives who came to America after Andrew assumed the surname Pierson. In 1871, Andrew moved to Cromwell, Connecticut. He began working for Benoni Barber, who had a nursery and a greenhouse. Eventually, he formed a partnership with him. On March 29, 1876, he married Margaret Stewart Allison Budde, a widow who was five years older than he was. She was of English, Scottish and Irish ancestry, the daughter of William P. Allison, a hammer manufacturer, and Emily Miller Allison. Much of the information about Andrew’s family and business has been taken from the excellent

book Cromwell Connecticut 1650-1990 by Robert Owen Decker and Margaret A. Harris, published for the Cromwell Historical Society in 1991. Another significant source is the chapter A.N. Pierson, The Rose King written by Miss Anne Abbott Pierson, the adopted daughter of Emily Pierson, Andrew’s daughter, published in the book, The Will to Succeed by “The Swedish American Line” in 1948. However, these sources are not reliable regarding the dates of Andrew’s and his family’s emigration to America. Pierson became a naturalized American citizen on October 25, 1876. About that time, the venture with Barber was driven into bankruptcy. Fortunately, his wife Margaret had bought her Cromwell family home in 1873. Andrew was able to strike out on his own, with a flower and vegetable business on the three acres in the south yard of Margaret’s estate. He built and filled two greenhouses from old sash barns and plants from the wrecked enterprise. Two years later, he had built two more greenhouses. By 1881, Pierson and his wife had paid all debt from the bankruptcy and were operating five greenhouses on 19 acres. By that time, they had three children: Frank Allison born in 1877, Wallace Rogers born in 1880, and Emily Miller born in 1881. A fourth child, Robert Dudley, was born in 1884 but died suddenly in 1885. Pierson’s Cromwell Garden Nursery prospered. In 1885, cultivation of vegetables was discontinued as flowers seemed to offer the better prospect. As the business grew, Andrew purchased the farms around the family home. In 1892, the family was wealthy enough to move their home to another street and build a much more elaborate three and one-half story QueenAnne-style building on the site—423 Main Street. Roses became Pierson’s specialty. With the help of an English grafting expert, Andrew developed the hardy and beautiful Killarney rose, which was awarded the gold medal at the New York Flower Show in 1895. Pierson became the Rose King and Cromwell became Rose Town. Andrew’s flowers were in demand by retail florists all over New England, New York and beyond. According to The Hartford Courant of September 6, 1906, Pierson had between 56 and 60 greenhouses and was continually rebuilding them to become bigger. He had an adjacent farm of more than 250 acres and 25 horses. Additionally, in order to get the best manure for his flowers, he kept a herd of about 100 cows, running a profitable dairy as an auxiliary business. He then had a workforce of about 200 people. Pierson held his Swedish countrymen in high esteem and preferred them as workers. He was a magnet to Swedish immigrants and was a benevolent patriarch to them. As a result, Swedes came to form a sizable portion of the population in Cromwell. In 1908, the enterprise was registered to become A.N. Pierson Incorporated. Andrew held the post as president and treasurer while his son Wallace served as secretary and assistant treasurer. Andrew Pierson had always been a man of deep Christian conviction. When he moved to Cromwell he joined the Congregational Church, which dominated the religious scene in the New England states. In time, he became a deacon in that church. His wife was also prominently involved in the church. The fact that they gave their fourth child the second name Dudley in recognition of Myron S. Dudley, the minister in their church, underscored their commitment.

Andrew contributed substantially to societies and churches occupied with missionary efforts. An example of this is his engagement in a new Swedish mission in Mongolia. He pledged to give 1,000 dollars annually to this. In 1897, four missionaries were sent to Mongolia supported by his money. However, in 1901 Pierson joined the Bible Students and his priorities changed. The Society’s vice president Henry Weber (1835-1904), who was also a pilgrim, wrote a letter to him and the two met in Baltimore. Weber ran a huge flower business in Oakland, Maryland and was as successful as Pierson in the trade. Obviously, Weber used this common ground to argue the Bible Student faith to his fellow florist. Andrew visited his first Bible Student convention at Weber’s place in Oakland, where he also met C.T. Russell. He was very impressed. In a letter to Weber later published in The Watch Tower Reprints, page 2897, he stated that he had asked his church to drop his name and that he would stop supporting the missionary efforts he had contributed to. Instead, he would, as he put it, “do more for this truth” he now stood for. However, while Andrew became a Bible Student, his family stayed in the Congregational Church. None of his close relatives accepted the Bible Student message. In 1905, tragedy struck the family. Frank Allison Pierson, the firstborn, died leaving wife and a two-year-old son behind. He had been an outstanding and successful young man. He was the youngest person elected to the Connecticut General Assembly. Wallace Rogers Pierson, the second son, assumed a greater role in the business when it was incorporated in 1908. This allowed Andrew to spend more time on Bible Student activities. In April and May 1910, he was among the party of twenty people who followed Pastor Russell on a tour to Europe, Egypt and Palestine. With J.F. Rutherford, he left the others in Berlin and visited Sweden and Norway where they associated with Scandinavian Bible Students. In 1911, he joined the company who followed Russell on his long tour across America. The International Bible Student Souvenir Convention Report 1911, page 35, reported that in Wichita, Kansas, he was invited to address the audience in a symposium on love. “I am not at all used to speaking,” he said and chose to speak of love “along the line of flowers.” Again, in 1913, Pierson followed Russell on a trip to England. From there he went with Rutherford to Sweden, where they participated in a number of conventions. They also visited Norway, Denmark and Finland. A photo from their visit to Finland was published in the 1990 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, page 150. Andrew is seen to the right of Rutherford and is shown to be a rather short man. According to his Passport Application in 1913, he was standing five feet and seven inches. Pierson was anxious to serve his Bible Student friends with his flowers and professional skills on important occasions. At the end of 1911, a Bible Student committee of seven headed by Russell, went on a world tour to study the missionary work in Christendom. When the committee returned to New York a welcome meeting was arranged in the New York Hippodrome on March 31, 1912. The entire platform, over a hundred feet wide, was covered with a magnificent, costly floral arrangement. In his book, The Laodicean Messenger, 3rd edition, 1923, page 124, pilgrim William M. Wisdom, who was present, wrote: “Brother A.N. Pierson of Cromwell, Connecticut,

was the ‘landscape gardener,’ the artistic designer, and the chief donor, though I was told at the time that some pieces had come from various parts of the United States and Canada.” When C.T. Russell died on October 31, 1916, Pierson was in charge of all the flower arrangements in connection with the funeral. He also superintended the interment and cementing of the grave. “He is a mild and unassuming man but one of great power and zeal in the cause we all love,” commented William Abbott, a fellow Bible Student, in St. Paul Enterprise, November 28, 1916. On November 2, 1916, Pierson was elected by the board to replace Russell as a director in the Society. At the annual meeting on January 6, 1917, he nominated Judge Rutherford for president. The Judge was elected and Pierson himself was elected vice president. Remarkably Rutherford kept his vice president out of the publication of the new book called The Finished Mystery while involving W.E. Van Amburgh, secretary and treasurer, A.H. Macmillan, R.J. Martin and W.F. Hudgings of the office force. Of these, Van Amburgh alone belonged to the Society’s board of directors when publication was decided. Pierson obviously learned about the publication only when it was released on July 17, 1917. On this occasion, Rutherford also announced that he had replaced four of the Society’s directors with appointees of his own. Reluctantly going along with the move at first, Pierson changed his mind when listening to lawyer McGee’s evaluation of it the same afternoon. He informed A.I. Ritchie, one of the ousted directors, about his change of mind in a letter of July 26, 1917. Andrew signed the Letter to Boston Conventioners issued August 4, 1917 by the ousted directors. He also objected to the lack of information given to the board on financial matters. A few days later, he negotiated financial compensation to the four ousted directors who now were forced to leave headquarters. Pierson wanted to be a peacemaker and then withdrew active support of their cause. He did not sign the pamphlet Light after Darkness, published September 1, 1917, although he stood for its content; nor did he sign Facts for Shareholders, published November 15, 1917. In VICE PRESIDENT’S STATEMENT, published in The Watch Tower, January 1, 1918, page 15, Pierson wrote: “The use of my name in any publications concerning the controversy issued since the Boston convention has been entirely without my previous knowledge and consent.” At this time, Pierson was facing serious personal problems. The war had led to labor shortage and coal rationing. Andrew’s business suffered immensely. On top of that, his health began to fail. To recover, he went down to his brothers in Florida. The transcript of the 1918 court case Rutherford et al vs. the United States, pages 526, 527, brings out that he was not present at the important board meeting on October 2, 1917, when a number of prominent Bible Students were accepted as members of the Peoples Pulpit Association. In their suggestions for the upcoming annual meeting of the Society on January 5, 1918, the ousted directors wished to retain Pierson on the board. And in the advisory referendum vote arranged by Rutherford on November 21, 1917, he received the seventh largest vote. According to the published view this was an indication from above that he ought to be chosen in the actual election as well.

However, in VICE PRESIDENT’S STATEMENT quoted above, Pierson himself said that he hesitated to place himself “as one eligible.” He also stated that he was “glad to cooperate heartily” with “the brethren at Brooklyn.” Yet, he did not even attend the annual meeting. In harmony with the referendum vote, Rutherford’s faction nonetheless nominated him for the board. But at the same time, they acted against it by giving a large vote to C.H. Anderson who had not been nominated and who was not even mentioned in the referendum vote. It was clear that Rutherford and his supporters wanted to get rid of Pierson, who had not supported Rutherford wholeheartedly. So, the larger vote was accepted and according to the published report, Pierson failed election. While Pierson was not entirely happy with how the Society was managed, he nevertheless stayed with it for some years. In 1921, August Lundborg, the Society’s Swedish branch manager, visited the Brooklyn headquarters. On the same occasion, he went up to Cromwell, Connecticut, to see Pierson. He reported afterwards in Vakt-Tornet, the Swedish edition of The Watch Tower, 1 & 15 October, 1921, page 294, that Andrew was “first elder” in the Cromwell ecclesia at the time and that he had been able to drum up close to 50 Bible Students for a Swedish meeting. By that time, A. N. Pierson Incorporated was recovering significantly. The war problems were over and the outbreak of the Spanish flu had increased the demand for flowers dramatically. In the 1920s, the company became the largest flower grower in America. However, in 1922, shocking news reached Andrew. His younger brother, John R. Pierson, committed suicide. John had been running a successful business as an undertaker in Chicago and had retired when he ended his life. Then, Andrew’s wife Margaret died on February 10, 1923. She had long been a leader in civic and social activities in Cromwell, sharing her husband’s benevolent attitude to the poor and needy. Pierson grew more disillusioned with the Watch Tower Society as time went by. He withdrew quietly and orientated himself toward the Pastoral Bible Institute, formed by some of the Bible Students who were in opposition to Rutherford in 1917. He subscribed to their journal, The Herald of Christ’s Kingdom, and supported it with his money. When R.E. Streeter, one of the editors of the journal, died in 1924, he drove in unfavorable weather some 100 miles in a truck full of flowers to his funeral on December 23. He supervised the flower arrangements and took part in the funeral service together with Isaac F. Hoskins, one of the ousted directors and an original director of the Pastoral Bible Institute. Pierson was a diabetic and had generally been of poor health since 1917. Still, he loved his flowers and continued to work in his business up to a few days before his death. He then experienced a slight shock and bronchial pneumonia developed. This grew beyond curing, and Andrew died in his home on October 29, 1925. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle reported the same day that his old friend, George H. Fisher from Brooklyn, N.Y., was to conduct the funeral service. Fisher had been one of the authors of the Society’s book The Finished Mystery in 1917, but he was now in open opposition to the current Watch Tower leaders. A rather long, appreciative obituary for Pierson was published in The Herald of Christ’s Kingdom, December 1, 1925.

Pierson had once had great wealth, but he gave most of it away before his death. He had in fact left pledges of $100,000 unpaid when the end came. His son, Wallace, paid the debt. When the “reunion” conventions outside the Society began in Pittsburgh in 1929, it was generally understood that Andrew would have participated if he had still been living. The Reunion Convention Report 1929, page 60, reported that one Bible Student commented on the flower display at the convention in this way: “When I look at these beautiful flowers, I am reminded of another beautiful flower which grew in the Garden of the Lord, and if he were still alive, would be with us, and that is brother Pierson, of Cromwell, Conn.” So great had Andrew’s contribution to his home town been that it was decided a few months before his death to name the West Green in Cromwell “Pierson Park,” a name retained to this day. At the end of his life, Pierson had his daughter Emily Pierson as his doctor. Emily was a remarkable woman. She graduated from Vassar College in 1907 and eventually became an activist in the Connecticut suffragette movement. She then studied to become a physician. At the age of forty-three, she received her M.D. from Yale in 1924, the only woman in her class. She set up a practice in Cromwell lasting more than forty years and served as Cromwell Director of Health and school physician for more than thirty years. She never married. She died in 1971. When Andrew died, his son Wallace Pierson became president, treasurer and general manager of A. N. Pierson Incorporated. He had graduated from the Massachusetts State College in 1901 and had been president of the American Rose Society between 1913 and 1915. He knew the family company in and out. As a republican, he was elected as State Senator four times between 1922 and 1928. He directed the firm through the difficult times of the Great Depression and World War II in excellent fashion. In 1929, he had 500 workers. Wallace died in 1946 and his son Andrew Allison Pierson took the helm. When he died in 1981 his son Douglas B. Pierson took over. During the time Douglas was in charge the business faced the combined problems of highly increased energy costs and cheap foreign competition, notably roses imported from Colombia. In April 1990 A.N.Pierson Incorporated was presented with the longevity award at the conference of Family-Owned Businesses. But already in May the same year the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Efforts to salvage it failed, and it ceased operation on January 14, 1991. Douglas B. Pierson died in 2018.

Alfred Isaac Ritchie (1871-1946)

When Charles T. Russell died on October 31, 1916, Alfred I. Ritchie was vice president of The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. He was born on October 8, 1871 in Monmouth, Ontario, Canada. His parents were Samuel Stanley Ritchie (1845-1914) and Isabella Robertson (Kidd) Ritchie (1845-1932). Alfred was their firstborn child. In time, they had seven more children, all sons. In 1884, the family lived in nearby Lindsay, Ontario, where Alfred’s father ran a dry goods store, “S.S. Ritchie.” When Samuel read and accepted Russell’s book, The Plan of the Ages, young Alfred had joined the Baptist church and was not inclined to go along with his father’s new faith. But eventually, in 1888, he read the book and was convinced of its message. In 1901, he was a farmer in Nipissing, Ontario, near his parents and brothers. Ritchie met C.T. Russell in 1905. On July 11, 1908, he married Nina Grace Maitland, a fellow Bible Student, in Vancouver, British Columbia. A Baptist minister performed the ceremony. Nina was born on April 3, 1875, in Minnigaff in southern Scotland. She came to America with her mother and three sisters, arriving in New York on April 14, 1888. She joined the Salvation Army, spent 16 years in the movement, and was an officer for 14 years. She was an Assistant Editor of The War Cry for six years. While serving in that capacity, she became a Bible Student and shortly thereafter left the Salvationists. At the time of her marriage, she resided in Fruitvale, California. Alfred then lived in New Liskeard, Ontario and his profession was “agent.” The couple never had children. Alfred and Nina Ritchie moved to Brooklyn, New York, in July, 1910, and entered the staff at Bethel. Alfred became one of Russell’s private secretaries and also the acting manager of the correspondence department. Nina served as a stenographer. Beginning in February 1911, Alfred

also became a regular pilgrim. Being a Canadian, he traveled widely in Canada and the northern areas of the United States. He was elected to the Society’s board of directors in 1911, and in September the same year, he was elected vice president. This was announced even in the secular newspaper, The Evening Telegraph, Philadelphia, September 9, 1911. Ritchie was chairman at a Bible Student convention in Toronto, Ontario, July 20-27, 1913. On May 19, 1914, Nina Ritchie was among the party who followed Pastor Russell to London, England, returning to New York on June 26. In his pamphlet, Harvest Siftings, August 1, 1917, pages 11 and 22, Rutherford capitalized on the fact that Russell had appointed Robert J. Martin to replace Ritchie as office manager at the Tabernacle shortly before his death, so implying that Ritchie had been demoted. Marley Cole, an active Jehovah’s Witness writing with the support of the Society, certainly understood Rutherford’s statement to this effect as can be seen in his book, JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES, THE NEW WORLD SOCIETY, 1955, page 86. However, in reality, the change was just one of several moves to render the various parts of the work more efficient. Ritchie was actually promoted. Rather than showing less confidence in him, Russell’s arrangements before he left Bethel on October 16, 1916, revealed the opposite. Rutherford’s own pamphlet, Harvest Siftings, page 11, brought out that Ritchie was assigned “to have the oversight of the Library Office; the Parlor, and all visitors on important business at the Bethel Home, etc.; to handle such mail as may be addressed to Brother Russell; and to receive telegrams.” Russell’s appointment of Martin confirmed this. As brought out on the same page, Martin was assigned to his new position specifically because Ritchie was to be absent from the Tabernacle, obviously because of a more responsible assignment. Being an unassuming, low-profile person, Ritchie was the best available future president from Russell’s standpoint—hence, his election as vice president 1911 through 1916. In almost daily conferences, he became thoroughly acquainted with Russell’s thinking and ways of doing things. While Ritchie was a man of short stature, standing just five feet and six inches, and was not a powerful speaker as were some other prominent Bible Students, such factors carried little weight with Russell. Alfred was a capable and knowledgeable administrator. He would make a suitable chairman of the board, which in Russell’s view would come to the fore once he had left the scene. It was also the general feeling shortly after Russell’s death that Ritchie would be elected president at the upcoming annual election. An article in The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Nov. 26, 1916, clearly reflected this. A.H. Macmillan, who had been in charge of Bethel during Russell’s last absence, admitted to the newspaper “that there was a decided feeling in favor of Mr. Ritchie.” Macmillan himself did not want Ritchie elected, however. He was working to get Joseph F. Rutherford, the Society’s lawyer, elected president. He obtained the cooperation of W.E. Van Amburgh, the Society’s secretary and treasurer, for this plan. On November 7, 1916, the board of directors formed an executive committee to function until the election on January 6, 1917. Ritchie, as vice president, was officially made chairman, but the

other two members, Van Amburgh and especially Rutherford, largely sidestepped him, encouraged by Macmillan who was not himself a member of the board. At the election in January, Macmillan was chairman. He allowed only Rutherford to be nominated for president. All votes for Ritchie and others were actually cast for Rutherford, who was declared unanimously elected. The proxies were never counted. Macmillan, Rutherford and Van Amburgh then used their influence to eliminate Ritchie as vice president, as well, and succeeded in having Andrew N. Pierson, the newest director, declared elected in his place. It became increasingly clear to the majority of the directors during the first half of 1917 that Rutherford, the new president, ignored the board, contrary to Russell’s intention and the Society’s charter. Their pamphlet, Light after Darkness, page 16, claimed that Ritchie was concerned that the Angelophone, Russell’s latest effort to further the work, was treated with indifference. When the directors took steps to address the management issue, Rutherford decided that they had to be removed. Ritchie was one of the four directors who were ousted by Rutherford on July 17, 1917. He and his wife left Bethel on August 8, 1917. When the annual election on January 5, 1918, was approaching, the “opposition” favored Ritchie both as director and as vice president. That he was not suggested for president was probably because Menta Sturgeon had now joined the opposition. Sturgeon was a strong speaker, and also had endeared himself to the Bible Students because he had attended to Russell during his final trip and had given a widely distributed report of Russell’s last days. In all likelihood, his name for president was calculated to appeal to the shareholders at large. At the election however, Rutherford and his supporters managed to be declared winners. Ritchie and other disappointed ones then gathered the same evening at Hotel Fort Pitt in Pittsburgh. Ritchie was chosen to their “Committee of Seven” on the next day. On Wednesday January 9, 1918, the annual election of the Brooklyn ecclesia was held in the Brooklyn Tabernacle. The only available report of this appeared in The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, January 10, 1918. Rutherford was chairman, and insisted that candidates for eldership must accept and teach The Finished Mystery in order to qualify. “I do not recognize the book as the one Pastor Russell told us to expect,” Ritchie said and he consequently failed election. On January 24, 1918, Ritchie resigned from the Fort Pitt committee. He apparently feared that Paul S.L. Johnson would dominate the committee. And he was not in harmony with Johnson’s plans, favoring only a general pilgrim service. Therefore, he was not among the seven directors of the Pastoral Bible Institute who registered on November 23, 1918. He never served on the editorial committee for the Institute’s paper, The Herald of Christ’s Kingdom. But according to Johnson’s paper, The Present Truth, December 24, 1918, page 31, he did briefly serve on the Institute’s pilgrim staff. During the trial in June 1918 against a number of Watch Tower leaders, a number of Bible Students were forced under subpoena to go to the Witness Stand. Of these, only Ritchie belonged to the so-called “opposition.” The only thing he did was to identify Van Amburgh’s and

Macmillan’s signatures, and these identifications were not contested. In fact, Van Amburgh also identified these signatures. When the 1920 U.S. census was made, Alfred and Nina had moved to Chicago. Alfred was then working as a salesman at an auto supply company. At the Memorial on March 28, 1926, Ritchie and Dr. Leslie Jones served a group of 57 Bible Students in Chicago, as reported in I Morgonväkten, a Swedish Bible Student paper, the issue of September 1 and 15, 1926, page 286. In 1929 and 1930, Alfred participated as a speaker in the Bible Students’ Reunion Convention in Pittsburgh, which was held outside the Society. According to the 1930 US census, he and Nina still lived in Chicago, and Alfred was working as a naturopath in an office. He submitted his Declaration for Naturalization on March 20, 1935. The Ritchies had then moved to Monterey Park, a Los Angeles suburb, and Alfred worked as a masseur. At the 1935 Reunion Convention, it was reported that the couple enjoyed happy association with the independent Los Angeles ecclesia and that Alfred was serving as an elder. This ecclesia had been formed at the beginning of 1930. In 1938, Alfred submitted his Petition for Naturalization to the Los Angeles District Court. He was then living with Nina in Alhambra, California, and worked as a masseur and was selling drugless supplies. Nina had her naturalization certificate issued on June 27, 1941. The Los Angeles ecclesia, where Alfred continued to serve as an elder, was first associated with The Dawn Publishers and later also with The Dawn Bible Student Association. Dawn Publishers was organized apart from the Brooklyn ecclesia of Associated Bible Students on June 7, 1932. The Dawn Bible Student Association was incorporated on May 27, 1944, and Dawn Publishers was merged into it in 1953. Alfred Isaac Ritchie died on January 19, 1946, and was buried in Forest Lawn Memorial Park in Glendale, California. At the time of his death, he was known as Dr Ritchie. A favorable obituary was published in The Herald of Christ’s Kingdom, March 1946. Among other things it said: “From one who in recent years beheld his life of full devotion to the Lord a letter has been received in which he says: ‘Brother Ritchie did much good in visiting the sick and isolated. He had real love for the brethren—not just for those who saw eye to eye with him on all doctrinal points of Scripture.’” Nina Maitland Ritchie died in Alhambra on September 23, 1947. An obituary was published in the Alhambra Post Advocate on September 25, 1947.

Henry Clay Rockwell (1874-1950)

Henry Clay Rockwell was one of more prominent Bible Students in C.T. Russell’s later ministry. He was born in Dowagiac, Cass, Michigan on May 22, 1874, to Irwin James Hatch and his wife Henrietta G. Pegan. His given names reflect the admiration of his parents for the popular American politician Henry Clay. When his mother later remarried he took on the surname Rockwell from his stepfather. He was married in Manhattan, New York on October 10, 1904, to Henrietta Frances Duke. She was born in May, 1854, as Henrietta Frances Breakey and was the daughter of Irish immigrants. She was married to one John Duke in 1870. In 1904 he also began to travel as a pilgrim for the Society. He was elected to its board of directors in 1908. That year he also accepted “the vow.” In 1909 he was one of the seven charter directors of People’s Pulpit Association, incorporated in New York. In 1910 Clay and Henrietta were living at Bethel in Brooklyn, New York. In the fall of 1916 there was big tension at Bethel between Rockwell on the one hand and Macmillan, supported by Rutherford, on the other. On October 16, the day Pastor Russell left Bethel for the last time, Rockwell announced to the family that he would leave Bethel. Russell publicly pleaded with him to reconsider. He spent hours trying to reconcile the parties before he left. At Russell’s funeral Nov. 5, 1916, Rockwell approached his fellow pilgrim Paul S.L. Johnson with the suggestion that he would resign as director of the Society on condition that Johnson would accept his place and thus be eligible for president at the election in January 1917. Johnson declined.

Clay had been a steady pilgrim for years, but beginning with the schedules published in The Watch Tower January 15, 1917, he no longer would serve in that capacity. All things considered it seems that Rockwell’s disappearance from the pilgrim service was a result of the antagonism between him and the Rutherford-Macmillan faction. Russell had so much confidence in Rockwell that he had named him in his will as one of five editors of The Watch Tower to serve when he died. In harmony with this Clay was announced as one of the five editors in The Watch Tower, December 1, 1916. His name appeared for the last time in the issue of April 1, 1917, but he had actually resigned no later than February. On February 8, 1917, he resigned from the Society’s board of directors and obviously also from the board of the Association. He left Bethel already in January. Not surprisingly Clay sided with the growing opposition to Rutherford’s administration in 1917. When the “opposition” suggested a new board to replace the one Rutherford favored, Rockwell was proposed both as director and secretary-treasurer. He was therefore one of McGee’s nominees for the board on January 5, 1918. The outcome of the election, however, was declared to be a decisive victory for Rutherford and his crew. A number of disappointed Bible Students then met in the parlor of Hotel Fort Pitt in Pittsburgh and elected a committee of seven to set out direction for the future. Following the arrest of Watch Tower leaders in May 1918, Rockwell together with Isaac F. Hoskins introduced a plan to the Fort Pitt committee for a reunion with the Society. The plan involved legal action through a New York law firm to recover control of the Watch Tower Society. The committee rejected the proposal. When the Fort Pitt committee resigned at Asbury Park on July 27, 1918, Rockwell was elected to the new committee that day. He was one of the seven charter directors of the Pastoral Bible Institute registered on November 23, 1918. He continued as a member of the Institute’s board through the annual election in 1925 but had disappeared from it when the 1926 election was due, and he was never elected again. He had been on the editorial committee for the Institute’s journal The Herald of Christ’s Kingdom from the first issue of December 1, 1918, up to the issue of April 1-15, 1926. After that his name was dropped and he never served as an editor of the Herald again. In 1926 his wife was about 72 years old, being twenty years older than her husband. That may have contributed to Clay’s leaving his assignments in the Institute. Clay thereafter seems to have disappeared from major Bible Student activities. But in all probability he retained his Bible Student faith. Henrietta died on April 21, 1929, and Clay remarried on January 24, 1930, to Pauline Hermonia Stutz, who was 45 years old and born in Switzerland. In 1940 he was single and was characterized as “roomer” in the US census of that year. He then lived at Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, Kings, New York. He died on February 24, 1950, in Islip, Suffolk, New York. The Herald of Christ’ s Kingdom in its May, 1950, issue stated that he for many years had “served faithfully and acceptably” and noted: “Quite recently Brother H. Clay Rockwell began to fail in health and ended his services here below on Friday, February 24. His service during Brother Russell’s time both as a pilgrim and as a member of the Bethel family endeared him to the hearts of many.”

Gertrude W. Seibert (1864-1928)

Few women have had as great an influence on the history of the Watch Tower movement as Gertrude W. Seibert. She played a remarkable part during the later years of C.T. Russell and during the critical time following his death in 1916. She was born on November 16, 1864, and was named Gertrude Antonette Woodcock. On September 18, 1890, she married Robert Samuel Seibert (1856-1913) and was known from then on as Gertrude W. Seibert. Her husband was president of the East Broad Top Railroad & Coal Co. The couple were wealthy. Gertrude was a graduate of the prestigious Wellesley College of liberal arts, one of the early women’s colleges. About 1894, she embraced the faith of the Bible Students but her husband never did. In later years, they lived in Orbisonia, Pennsylvania. Gertrude lost her husband in death on May 23, 1913. Clayton J. Woodworth conducted the funeral service. Gertrude often visited the Bethel home in Brooklyn. Russell published numerous poems written by her in his magazine, beginning in 1899. She obviously became one of his confidants. Her Daily Heavenly Manna book was publicly endorsed in Zion’s Watch Tower, February 1, 1905. Russell published both her letter approving his suggestions about “the vow” and her letter supporting “Berean Studies in Scriptures,” written from Los Angeles, where Seibert then lived. According to Women’s Who’s Who of America for 1914-1915 Seibert compiled Poems of Dawn in 1912. This was published by the Society without mentioning who was responsible for it. The same source stated that Gertrude was opposed to women’s suffrage “on Scriptural grounds.” Only G. Seibert herself could have written this, so obviously she contributed her own entry as was common with such works.

Gertrude had Russell’s ear to such an extent that Jesse Hemery, the British branch manager, sent her a letter concerning the brewing problems at the London Tabernacle, asking her to plead with Russell to act on the situation. This letter did not reach her until the pastor had left Brooklyn for the last time, and he did not live to see it. Seibert then showed it to Paul S.L. Johnson on November 10, 1916, just before he left for England. Shortly afterwards, Seibert became an intermediary between the newly created executive committee and the would-be writers of the long awaited seventh volume, C.J. Woodworth and G.H. Fisher. The correspondence between her and the executive committee, dated December 6 and 7, 1916, was given in evidence in the trial against Rutherford and other Watch Tower leaders in 1918. A letter from Woodworth to Seibert dated December 11, 1916 was also used. During the management crisis in 1917, Gertrude took a clear stand in favor of Rutherford and his arrangements, not surprisingly since the seventh volume eventually became part of the controversy. Her letter published in The Watch Tower; December 1, 1917, impressed many. Another letter, published in the October 1, 1918, issue, also supported Rutherford. Seibert was generous with financial support of the Society. In 1915, she sent a draft for 100 pounds to Hemery in London to meet costs for the “Drama.” She visited England in 1922 at the same time Rutherford officially toured the country. In 1926, she published a little book called The Sweet-Brier Rose and other Poems, giving her name as Gertrude Woodcock Seibert on the title page. About the same time, she offered the Society to revise and update the Manna book, but the offer was turned down. Nevertheless, she stayed with the Society. In later years, she had poor eyesight and was living in Florida. She died on June 12, 1928, in Miami, Florida, after an operation. The funeral service was conducted by A.H. Macmillan from the Brooklyn headquarters, and Gertrude was buried, like her husband, in Mount Union Cemetery, Mt. Union, Pennsylvania.

Walter Edgar Spill (1869-1953)

When C.T. Russell died in 1916, Walter E. Spill was chairman of the large and prestigious Bible Student ecclesia in Pittsburgh. During the next few years, he was very prominent in the Bible Student movement. He was born in Frostburg, Allegany County, Maryland on April 8, 1869. He was the second child of Walter B. Spill (1838-1913) and his wife Mary Meyrick (1841-1894), both of whom were born in Britain and later became naturalized American citizens. Seven children were born in this union, but two of them died in infancy. Those who grew up with Walter were Edith, Emily, Ethel and Elmer Spill. According to the 1880 US census, Walter B. Spill earned his living as a confectioner. In 1900, the entire family still lived in Maryland, and about that time, Walter married Elizabeth Pressman (1871-1947) who also was born in Maryland, the daughter of German immigrants. As shown in a passport application from 1912, Walter was of short stature, standing 5 feet and 5 inches. Walter spent four years in college and graduated in June, 1901, from the American school of Osteopathy in Kirksville, Missouri. Beginning soon afterwards, he practiced his profession for 51 years. He was an honorable member of the state Osteopath Association and a member of the National Osteopath Association. In 1905, Walter and Elizabeth had their only child, Walter Pressman Spill. By then they had moved to Pennsylvania. In 1910, they lived at 1002 Cedar Avenue in Pittsburgh. Walter’s father and one sister lived in the same house. This was actually next door to where Charles T. Russell and Maria Russell had lived earlier. This suggests that Spill had accepted the Bible Student faith already at that time.

When, in 1915, J.F. Rutherford published a defense of Pastor Russell, called A Great Battle in the Ecclesiastical Heavens, W. E. Spill was among the prominent Bible Students who testified that Russell’s character was above reproach. As reported on page 48 in that publication, Spill as chairman of the Pittsburgh congregation, along with the secretary R.H. Bricker, also provided a resolution to the same effect adopted by that large congregation in 1912. An individual photo of Spill was published among many others on page 33. At Pastor Russell’s funeral in Pittsburgh November 6, 1916, W.E. Spill directed the service and also delivered an address. He was one of the honorary pallbearers. When J.F. Rutherford as the new president wanted to get rid of four of the Society’s directors the following summer, Walter Edgar Spill was one of his replacements. He was appointed on July 12, 1917, and accepted the appointment in a letter dated July 17. He was present in the Bethel dining room when Rutherford made the bombshell announcement that day. On October 2, 1917, a board meeting of the Society was held at Spill’s residence 2509 Perrysville Avenue in Pittsburgh. On that occasion, W.E. Spill and several others were elected members of the Peoples Pulpit Association, the Society’s New York subsidiary. At the critical annual meeting of the Society on Jan. 5, 1918, Spill was reelected to the board. In that year, he was also sent out as a pilgrim for the first time. When several leaders of the Watch Tower Society were sentenced to prison in 1918, Walter Spill, J.F. Stephenson and Richard H. Barber were appointed as an emergency executive committee. Spill was to handle all outside matters. He was also appointed to the emergency editorial committee for The Watch Tower together with W.E. Page, R.H. Barber, F.F. Stephenson and F.T. Horth. This latter change was announced in The Watch Tower, August 15, 1918. The Society’s office was moved from Brooklyn to Pittsburgh in the summer of 1918. At this time, W.E. Spill proved to be a disappointment to Rutherford. The acting editorial committee, of which Spill was a member, refused to publish an article written in prison by Rutherford on “Elijah and Elisha.” It was instead published in the National Labor Tribune of January 16, 1919. Such independence did not endear Spill to Rutherford and his staunchest supporters. This became clearly evident at the annual meeting of the Society on Jan. 4, 1919, as reported in the Souvenir Report of the Bible Students Convention, Pittsburgh, Pa, January 2-5, 1919, page 34. Spill in particular was counted among the “weaklings” who had “carried the responsibility” for the “past three or four months.” Spill was not among the specifically preferred nominees for the board at this time, but as reported on page 37, he was nevertheless elected in the end. Not surprisingly, Spill was dropped from the editorial committee in the February 1, 1919 issue of The Watch Tower. Upon the liberation of the Watch Tower officials in the spring of 1919, there was a welcome meeting arranged in Pittsburgh. Paul S.L. Johnson reported in Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 3, page 333:

J.F.R. so pointedly snubbed Bro. Spill as to arouse more distrust of him among the conservatives. We have been reliably informed that this snubbing included J.F. R.’s refusal to greet Bro. Spill with a handshake before that welcoming assembly. Bro. Spill, we have also been informed, said that he had been so shabbily treated by J.F.R. and his radical fellow leaders and that he had witnessed so much of their wrongdoings, that he could have written a paper thereon that would truthfully have manifested worse conduct on J.F.R.’s etc., part than Light After Darkness, Harvest Siftings Reviewed and Facts for Shareholders manifested. He declined to do so, thinking that it was not the Lord’s will. Walter Spill was not reelected at the annual meeting of the Society on January 3, 1920, and was never elected again. However, Walter stayed with the Society. According to the Society’s Yearbook 1927, page 33, he was called upon to offer prayer at the annual meeting on November 1, 1926. In his will dated June 16, 1948, he stated: “I give and bequeath to the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Brooklyn, New York, the sum of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), the same to be free of inheritance tax.” This sum was actually transferred to the Society after his death as is shown by a statement signed by Watch Tower officials Grant Suiter and Frederick W. Franz. Spill’s wife Elizabeth died in Pittsburgh on June 11, 1947. Walter Edgar Spill himself died on March 3, 1953, in Grove City, Pennsylvania at the age of 83. He was buried in the United Cemetery, Pittsburgh. He was survived by his son Walter Pressman Spill and by his three sisters, Mrs. Emily Kennedy, Mrs. Edith Garlock, Mrs. Ethel Brown and by his brother Elmer Spill. Spill’s son was an osteopath in his own right, having graduated from the Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine in 1928. He was nicknamed “doc.” He was first married to a lady named Theresa and then with a lady named Virginia Arnold. He had a son named Paul D. Aloyi. Walter Pressman Spill died in Pittsburgh on March 30, 1985. His funeral service was held in St. Michael and Angels Lutheran Church. This indicates that he did not share his father’s religious views.

Menta Sturgeon (1866-1935)

One of the most prominent associates of Pastor Russell in later years was Menta Sturgeon. He was a learned man and one of the most celebrated speakers in the movement. He accompanied Russell on his last preaching tour in October 1916 and became known the world over for his detailed report of Russell’s last days. Menta was born on December 11, 1866, near the village Sturgeon in Boon County, Missouri, the second child of John W. Sturgeon (1844-1870) and Catherine Wilhite (born 1850). His older brother James was born in 1865. They had a sister in 1869 named Luella. Their village took its name from Isaac Sturgeon, a distant relative of note. In 1870, tragedy struck and the children became orphans. They were put under tutelage of their grandparents. In 1880, James and Menta lived with their maternal grandparents, James and Sarah Wilhite, who ran a hotel in St. Louis. From time to time, Menta visited his paternal grandfather, William K. Sturgeon (1815-1892) near Centralia, Boon County. From him, he learned about his great grandfather John Hume Sturgeon (1795-1834) who had been an ordained Baptist minister known for his piety. At fifteen, he attended high school in St. Louis, supporting himself by working early and late hours and even holidays. At eighteen, he was secretary for Kansas & Texas Coal Company. He worked for this company for a number of years. In 1889, he married Florence Augusta Dixon (1870-1949). She was born in Massachusetts. Sturgeon served as a public stenographer and Notary Public in St. Louis for some time. In 1891, he entered Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. At his commencement ceremony he gave a speech on “History—and its importance to the Preacher.” He was enrolled as a student from 1891 to 1895 when he graduated, having completed classes in Greek, Hebrew and Latin Theology. He was then living at 607 W. Broadway in Louisville.

He then became an ordained Baptist minister, and in March 1897, the Tower Grove Baptist Church in St. Louis unanimously called him as pastor, a position he held until he resigned in 1904. It was during this period that Menta and his wife Florence had their only child, their son Gordon, who was born on August 9, 1898. According to The Sun, January 17, 1917, page 11, he left the church in 1906 after prolonged correspondence with Pastor Russell, who had convinced him of his views, particularly that the traditional teaching about hell was false. In 1908, the family lived at 4219A, McRee Street in St. Louis, and Menta was working as a clerk for Blackmer & Post Pipe Company. He had now joined the Bible Students. The November 15, 1909, issue of The Watch Tower noted his first pilgrim assignments. He was then to serve at twelve places in his home State of Missouri and also at two places in Arkansas. Florence and Gordon also became Bible Students. According to the 1910 US census, all three members of the family were living at Bethel in Brooklyn, New York on April 15, 1910. At that time Menta was also one of the then 36 members of the Society’s New York subsidiary, the Peoples Pulpit Association. Menta’s reputation as a Bible Student preacher grew steadily as he traveled and gave speeches all over the continent. He was often referred to as Pastor Sturgeon. In Sheboygan Press, February 13, 1914, he was compared with the famous English preacher Spurgeon: “England Has Her Spurgeon; America Her Sturgeon.” In 1916, he was in charge of the Society’s pilgrim department. Following the election of J.F. Rutherford to the presidency of the Watch Tower Society in January 1917, Sturgeon was temporarily given oversight of the Pastoral work. When H.C. Rockwell resigned from the Watch Tower editorial committee shortly afterwards, Menta was elected to take his place with the support of Rutherford. His name as an editor appeared for the first time in the issue of April 15, 1917. According to Paul S.L. Johnson’s Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures, Volume 10, page 460 he was also a director in the Peoples Pulpit Association in the spring that year. Sturgeon was not happy with the development at headquarters, however. When Paul S.L. Johnson returned from England in April 1917, Menta informed him about Rutherford’s “power grasping acts” while he had been away. He also convinced him that Russell himself had been “the steward” of Matthew 20:8, causing Johnson to give up his claim in this regard. Sturgeon largely stayed out of the growing conflict between Rutherford and the majority of the board. He and his wife did not sign the petitions circulated at Bethel in support of Rutherford. Yet he was assigned to give a talk about baptism at the convention in Boston, August 4, 1917, when the internal conflict became evident to all. He was still announced as pilgrim in The Watch Tower, August 15, 1917. But he grew increasingly critical. He resigned from the V.D.M. board, the PPA board and from the editorial committee. As of The Watch Tower, September 15, 1917, G.H. Fisher had replaced him as an editor. At the Brooklyn ecclesia’s business meeting October 3, 1917, Sturgeon publicly called attention to Rutherford’s maneuvers to control the election of elders. This led to postponement of the election until after the annual meeting of the Society January 5, 1918. In the middle of October, he gave up all sympathetic cooperation with the Society. He left Bethel about

November 1. When the four ousted directors announced their program for the upcoming annual election of the Society in their pamphlet Facts for Shareholders, November 15, 1917, page 3, they suggested Sturgeon not only as a director, but as president as well. During a trip to New England before the election, Sturgeon grew even more critical of the Society’s management. When the opposition met a few days before the election, he had concluded that the leaders and ardent supporters of the administration were of the “second death class” and that the alleged seventh volume of Studies in the Scriptures published in July 1917 was entirely of the devil. After the election in Pittsburgh on January 5, 1918, Menta Sturgeon followed other disappointed ones to Hotel Fort Pitt that same evening. Disagreement between Sturgeon and Johnson about the prophetic understanding of Elijah and Elisha surfaced, but both were appointed to the Fort Pitt committee of seven the following day. Sturgeon was elected chairman of the committee at Johnson’s suggestion. However, he resigned from the committee soon thereafter on January 24, 1918, as Alfred I. Ritchie also did. In both cases, resentment against Johnson’s influence played a part. Not long afterwards, Sturgeon moved to Minneapolis, Minnesota, where he published The Last Message to the Church by That Faithful Servant, a brief statement giving his stenographic report of Russell’s last talk meant specifically for the Church. It was issued by “The Final Truth Message Society,” Minneapolis, Minnesota. By 1924, he was living at 3528 West Avenue X in Minneapolis and earned his living as a stenographer. By 1927, he had moved to the Pittsburgh area, living at 1675 Potomac Avenue, Dormont Borough. At that time, he had given up his Bible Student faith to the point where he publicly supported the universalist faith of A.E. Knoch (1874-1965) as published in the paper, Unsearchable Riches. In 1930, he was working as a clerk in a bank. His health was not the best. During his last years, he was practically a semi-invalid, but he supported his new faith until his death on August 17, 1935. He was buried in the South Side Cemetery in Pittsburgh. An obituary was published in Unsearchable Riches. His wife, Florence, died on April 26, 1949. She was then living in Bellevue, Allegheny, Pennsylvania. Menta’s and Florence’s son, Gordon Sturgeon, left Bethel with his parents in 1917 and lived in Brooklyn with them when he was registered for the Selective Draft, working as a telegraph manager. He was married twice and had a daughter, Florence, born in 1929. According to the 1930 census, he lived in Scott, Allegheny, Pennsylvania. He died on July 17, 1963.

William Edwin Van Amburgh (1863-1947)

Few people have had as long a career at the top of the Watch Tower movement as William Edwin Van Amburgh. His full name was given in the 1943-1947 yearbooks of Jehovah’s Witnesses. He proved to be one of Rutherford’s most important supporters during the critical time following Russell’s death. His parents, Daniel Stafford Van Amburgh (1836-1924) and Fanny Sophia Patterson Van Amburgh (1839-1925), married in August 1862 and settled in Leon, Goodhue County, Minnesota. In June 1863, Daniel entered the Second Minnesota Infantry Regiment, “I” Company, and served as a private for two years in the Civil War. William was born when his father was away, on August 28, 1863. After the war, a second child, George Curtis Van Amburgh (1867-1930) was born. The parents were living on a farm and were devout Methodists, especially the mother. William’s earliest memory was learning prayers at his mother’s knee. William attended public schools in the country, but in November 1873, when he was ten years old, the family moved to Northfield, Rice County, Minnesota. William was “converted” and joined the Methodist Church at that time. He was officially received into the Northfield Methodist Church in June 1875. He graduated from the Northfield high school in June 1880 and then attended Carlton College in the same town, studying there for two years. In 1882, he studied Latin and Greek. In 1884, he entered the railroad service at what was later to be known as the Great Northern Railroad and served for 16 years. He married Ada May Wood on September 28, 1877. The couple did not have any children. In 1891, they moved to Huron, Beadle County, South Dakota. William’s membership in the Northfield Methodist Church ended on December 23, 1891, and he was received into the Huron United Methodist Church on January 3, 1892. He was elected church

steward on October 10, 1892, and was very active in church work and also in Y.M.C.A. work. He held services nearly every Sunday in school houses. In February 1895, Van Amburgh borrowed a copy of Russell’s book, The Plan of the Ages, from a friend and soon concluded he had found the truth. He continued to study for about a year and withdrew from the Methodist Church in 1896. He discussed theology in Huron with a number of ministers and found their views and motives wanting. On March 25, 1897, tragedy struck when Ada, his wife, died of “consumption.” She was buried in a cemetery in Northfield. At that time, William was actively promoting the teachings of the Watch Tower Society though still working for the railroad. He was an assistant in the Bible House in Allegheny for a few months, but had to quit and attend to his father, who was ill. Van Amburgh left the railroad work in 1900 and settled definitively in the Bible House that year. There, he picked up his affectionate nickname “Brother Van.” He was one of the tallest men in the movement and was easily recognized by his goatee. About the time he joined the Bible House, he contributed more than $1,000 to the Society’s work. He was elected to the Society’s board of directors in 1901, and in March 1903, he was elected secretary-treasurer, a position he held continuously until 1947. He started out in the pilgrim service in 1901 and was one of the best-known pilgrims for a long time. In those early years, he gave talks at numerous conventions and frequently served as chairman. He made the so-called “vow” his own in 1908. In 1909, he was one of the seven charter directors of the Peoples Pulpit Association, incorporated in New York that year. He was also one of Russell’s suggested future editors for The Watch Tower, mentioned as such in his will. Van Amburgh also had his setbacks in his service at headquarters. Because he did not clearly defend Russell when the internal attacks by A.E. Williamson and others took place, he was set aside as office manager. In 1913, he played a major role in the “miracle wheat” trial, being forced to give testimony that caused Russell to lose the case. In June, 1914, he brought a number of criticisms and reproofs against Russell, who took up the issues in a long board meeting the evening before he left for Britain. Russell explained the matters in detail and Van Amburgh had to accept correction. On December 25, 1915, Russell married Van Amburgh to Luie T. Taft of the Bethel family. The wedding took place in the Bethel dining room. When Russell died on October 31, 1916, Van Amburgh spoke at his funeral on “One of God’s Noblemen.” At that time, different opposing factions had already developed at Bethel. Van Amburgh was closely connected to Macmillan and Rutherford. At the board meeting on November 1, 1916, Van Amburgh acted as chairman instead of Vice President Ritchie at Macmillan’s urging. On November 7, 1916, an executive committee of three, including Van Amburgh, was formed. Van Amburgh leaned on Macmillan and supported his wish to promote Rutherford for president at the upcoming annual election on January 6, 1917. He personally took a set of by-laws drawn by Rutherford to the election and suggested to a committee set up for the purpose to recommend them to the shareholders. These by-laws stated that the secretary-treasurer should always be a member of an advisory committee of three for the president.

In accordance with Russell’s will, Van Amburgh at once assumed his role on the editorial committee of The Watch Tower when Russell died. Except for nine months in 1918 and 1919, he acted in that capacity until the editorial committee was dissolved in 1931. During the management crisis in 1917, Van Amburgh, as treasurer, consistently refused to give information about the financial situation of the Society to five board members, including Vice President Andrew N. Pierson, although all of them, as directors, were entitled to such information. His wish to please Rutherford was obviously the reason for this refusal. Eventually, after the summit of the controversy, Van Amburgh gave Pierson at least some enlightenment on the financial situation. Van Amburgh was one of the few with whom Rutherford discussed the publication of the Seventh Volume in advance. Rutherford clearly counted on his cooperation, and Van Amburgh did not disappoint him. In May 1917, Rutherford showed him parts of the manuscript, and William did not hesitate to approve of its publication, although he had read only parts of it. He fully supported Rutherford’s replacing of four directors with his own appointees in July 1917, and he publicly endorsed Rutherford’s pamphlet, Harvest Siftings, dated August 1, 1917, on page 24. In May 1918, Van Amburgh was arrested with seven other prominent Bible Students, charged with violation of the Espionage Act. He was sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment but actually spent only nine months in prison. He left the penitentiary in Atlanta on March 25, 1919, and was set free by the federal authorities on bail, with the other Bible Students on March 26. When George H. Fisher (one of Van Amburgh’s comrades in prison) began to reevaluate the Society under Rutherford, Van Amburgh “spoke contemptuously” about Russell’s “so-called will.” His remarks concerning Fisher’s attitude were made in a board meeting held in the early 1920s. Fisher stated this in a letter published in Paul S.L. Johnson’s paper The Present Truth, February 1, 1929, page 31. His desire to please Rutherford had taken Van Amburgh to that extreme. Yet, The Watch Tower, January 1, 1924, announced that Van Amburgh and three others were to constitute a committee to gather information for a book on Charles T. Russell. But because of the Society’s increasing trend away from Russell, this venture never materialized. In 1924, a 254-page book by W.E. Van Amburgh was published by the International Bible Students Association in London, copyrighted by Peoples Pulpit Association in New York. It was called The Way to Paradise and was intended for children. It had an introduction written by Rutherford. However, it was soon discarded because the year 1925 as a prophetic date figured prominently in it. As shown in his book on pages 156-158 Van Amburgh was thoroughly convinced that the “great pyramid” in Egypt was of importance for Christians. In December 1924, he also had a lengthy article on the subject published in The Golden Age. It was called A Bible for the Scientist. He had received help from Morton Edgar in Glasgow, Scotland, who was the foremost authority on the subject among Bible Students at the time. When Rutherford publicly rejected the pyramid in front of the Bethel family in the early summer of 1928, Van Amburgh and other Bethelites assured Edgar that they continued to uphold it in spite of Rutherford’s rejection. But

when Rutherford denounced the pyramid at a convention in 1928 and in a subsequent Watch Tower article, Van Amburgh had to give it up, too, at least publicly. To have to yield to such an important change can hardly have pleased Van Amburgh. In fact, it has been reported by people who left Rutherford that Van Amburgh had expressed unhappiness with what was going on at Bethel to some of them. But according to such reports, he felt he was too old to get a job and implied that he was a captive. Still, he was very prominent at conventions during Rutherford’s presidency, especially in the earlier ones. He gave talks at Cedar Point, Ohio, in 1919 and 1922, in Toronto, Canada in 1927 and in Columbus, Ohio, in 1931. It was Van Amburgh who introduced the third president, Nathan H. Knorr, to the Bethel family on January 13, 1942. He appeared on the platform at the convention in Cleveland, Ohio, later that year and at the convention in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in 1943. In May 1943, Van Amburgh participated in his third trial when he testified during the libel suit brought by Olin R. Moyle against a number of top Watch Tower officials. His wife, Luie Taft Van Amburgh, died on November 21, 1943. In early 1944, Van Amburgh followed N.H. Knorr, F.W. Franz and M.G. Henschel on a mission to Cuba, spending 10 days on the island. Weak of age and sickness, William Edwin Van Amburgh, resigned as secretary and treasurer of the Society on February 5, 1947. He died in the Richmond Memorial Hospital, Staten Island, New York on February 7, 1947, and was buried in the Society’s burial place at Woodrow United Methodist Church and Cemetery on Staten Island, New York. An obituary was published in The Watchtower, March 1, 1947, page 66. Van Amburgh’s father, Daniel S. Van Amburgh, played the organ in the Methodist Church when the family lived in Northfield, Minnesota. He had a marvelous memory for Bible passages and poetry. He received a pension for his service in the Union army during the Civil War. He is not known to have embraced the faith of the Bible Students. He died in November, 1924, and was buried in the Old Soldier’s Cemetery in Retsil, Kitsap County, Washington. Fanny Van Amburgh, William’s mother, was active for more than 20 years in the Methodist Church in Northfield. When William sided with the Bible Students, she also became affiliated. She remained a Bible Student till her death on January 25, 1925. She was buried beside her husband in Retsil, Washington. An obituary was published in the New Era Enterprise, April 28, 1925. Van Amburgh’s younger brother, George Curtis Van Amburgh, lived in the far west and seems to have withdrawn quietly from the Watch Tower movement while remaining a Bible Student. He was permanently injured in a car crash in 1924 and died of pneumonia in Seattle in 1930. His daughter Rosa, born in 1896, continued as a Bible Student outside the Society. Relatives of hers are still active Bible Students.

Clayton James Woodworth (1870-1951)

Few people have been more influential in the early Watch Tower movement than Clayton James Woodworth. He was born in Pitcher, Chenango County, New York on May 9, 1870, the tenth child of Charles Roswell Woodworth (1831-1903) and Elizabeth Hannah Bennett Woodworth (18371886/1887). Altogether, the couple had 15 children, but five of them died in childhood. When Clayton arrived, he had three brothers and two sisters. The Woodworths descended from Walter Woodward who emigrated from Kent, England and had settled in Scituate, Massachusetts by 1633. One of his sons changed the family name from Woodward (“forest keeper”) to Woodworth, and his descendants have kept that form. Charles R. Woodworth came to Nunda, Livingston County, New York in 1849 to work as a blacksmith with his brother. In 1862, he joined the Union army to fight in the Civil War, serving in Co. K. 52nd N.Y. Volunteers. He was hit in his left hand by an enemy bullet in the Battle of the Wilderness in May, 1864. By the time he received treatment his entire forearm had to be removed. His family then lived with his wife’s parents in Pitcher, New York. In 1878, Charles returned to Nunda and began manufacturing knives with the help of Clayton’s older brother Frederick Ellsworth Woodworth (1861-1939), who eventually took over the business. Both Charles and Elizabeth were devout Methodists, and Clayton claimed to have received good religious instruction in his home and in the Methodist Church. He regularly attended Sunday school. Growing up in Nunda he attended District School till he was eight years old and then the Nunda Academy till he was sixteen. After that, he spent one year at the Genesco State Normal School in Livingston County.

Clayton married Mary Emma Arthur (1864-1899) in 1892. Living in Sparrows Point, Baltimore County, Maryland, they had a daughter, Mary Elizabeth Woodworth, on September 29, 1893. The family moved to Scranton, Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania in 1894, and there Clayton had his first contact with the Bible Students in the latter part of the year when Emma bought some of Russell’s literature at the door. A letter to Russell was published in Zion’s Watch Tower, June 15, 1895, signed “Clayton and Emma Woodworth.” In early April 1895, Clayton identified himself with “the Scranton class of Bible Students.” He was baptized in the summer of 1896. At that time, he already made a comfortable living as the chief clerk of the International Correspondence School. Emma had contracted Bright’s disease and died at home on April 19, 1899. Clayton then married her younger sister Sophronia Clara Arthur (1873-1943) in 1901. They had a son, Clayton James Woodworth, Jr., on August 21, 1906. Clayton James Woodworth Sr. became thoroughly engaged in the activities of the Bible Students and later in the activities of Jehovah’s Witnesses. In 1903 he began traveling as a pilgrim. During the years 1905-1907 he worked on the Berean Bible Teachers’ Manual, compiling it from the writings of Pastor Russell. It was copyrighted and published as a Watch Tower publication in 1909. During the two years between 1908 and 1910, Woodworth was in opposition to Russell over “the vow” pushed by the Pastor from 1908 onwards. He went so far in his resistance that he wrote and printed a pamphlet of 36 pages against “the vow.” He was ready to distribute it among Bible Student congregations but halted in the last minute when Russell visited him at his home and convinced him that the writing contained at least one error. Thereupon, he burned all the pamphlets and accepted “the vow.” His acceptance was announced in a letter published in the September 1, 1910, issue of The Watch Tower. Woodworth later stated that he had been under the influence of evil spirits until he gave up his opposition. Russell accepted him fully, and Clayton had about a dozen articles published in The Watch Tower before Russell died in 1916. He actually lived at headquarters from 1912 to the spring of 1915, when he and many others had to leave the Bethel family owing to an acute strain on the Society’s economy. He was chairman during all the sessions at the Bible Student convention in Asheville, North Carolina in 1913. It was there, too, that he publicly confessed all his problems in connection with “the vow.” During the Rutherford-Troy debates in April 1915, he assisted Rutherford on the platform. When Russell died in 1916, Clayton was one of those who were honored by “the Committee of Arrangements” to speak at his funeral. Soon afterwards, with the intermediacy of Gertrude W. Seibert, one of Russell’s confidants and a friend of Clayton’s, the executive committee of the Society approved of receiving for consideration a manuscript on Revelation and Ezekiel from Clayton J. Woodworth and George H. Fisher, also from Scranton. Woodworth was to write on Revelation and Fisher on Ezekiel. It was hoped that this might become the long-anticipated seventh volume of Studies in the Scriptures that Pastor Russell had not produced. The plan was to have the manuscript ready by October 1917, but because of the ongoing

management crisis in the Society, it was hurried up so that publication could take place earlier, on July 17. Woodworth had been working on his part of the manuscript in his spare time, still working fully eight hours a day at his secular job. It was to his advantage that he could use the references assembled in his 1909 Berean Teachers book for parts of his writing. Woodworth was invited to be present at the release of the published volume, called The Finished Mystery, at headquarters on July 17, 1917. It was presented immediately after the announcement that four of the Watch Tower directors had been ousted and replaced with directors appointed by Rutherford. The turmoil resulting that day from the announcement about the board pressed heavily on Clayton’s mind. Because of his high opinion of the new book, he came to think that prophecy was being fulfilled on this occasion! At the summer convention in Boston, on August 4, he gave a talk aimed particularly at the four ousted directors. It was called “The Parable of the Penny” and was based on Matthew 20:1-15. Woodworth claimed that Rutherford, the president since January 6, was “the Steward” in Jesus’ parable and that the replaced directors were the foretold “murmurers.” The book he and Fisher had authored was declared to be the “penny,” the reward in the parable that laborers had been waiting for. This was actually a development of Rutherford’s own claims in the pamphlet, Harvest Siftings, dated August 1, 1917, but available a few days earlier. Woodworth pleaded with the ousted directors to accept their fate and to recognize Rutherford as “the Steward,” comparing their situation to his own well-known period of trouble several years earlier. This meant tremendous support for Rutherford in the internal conflict, and at a crucial time. With Rutherford’s approval, Woodworth gave the same talk at the Aurora, Illinois convention on August 11, 1917. He also had his talk printed in a six-page tract which he distributed among the Bible Students. A measure of its success is shown by the fact that it was published translated into Swedish in Vakt-Tornet, the Swedish edition of The Watch Tower, in the issue of November 15, 1917. In the straw vote on November 21, 1917, instigated by Rutherford, Woodworth received the eighth largest vote for the board, eclipsing all the prominent members of the “opposition” except Vice President Pierson. However, he was not nominated by either side of the conflict at the actual election of the Watch Tower Society on January 5, 1918. Before America entered the world war, C.T. Russell had advocated a clear form of pacifism for Christians, and to this Woodworth added a radical personal twist in The Finished Mystery. Since the book was published after the United States had declared war on Germany, the message of the book became a thorn in the flesh to American patriots and eventually to the authorities. A number of Bible Students, including Woodworth, were arrested in Scranton on March 4, 1918, and charged with conspiracy. They were put under bond for appearance for trial in May. Clayton was arrested again in May, 1918, along with other prominent Bible Students. They were charged with activities against the Espionage Act passed on June 15, 1917, and Woodworth and six others were sentenced on June 21, 1918, to four terms of 20 years imprisonment, to run concurrently. However, having spent nine months in the national penitentiary in Atlanta, Georgia, they were all set free on March 26, 1919. Eventually all charges were dropped. After the arrest of her husband in May, 1918, Sophronia, Clayton’s wife, closed down the

Woodworth home in Scranton and moved with her son to live with her mother and three sisters. The Arthurs felt that Clayton had disgraced their name. When he was released from prison, he moved his family to a big stucco house in Scranton. Rutherford valued him, and later he became a member of the Bethel family in August 1919. Woodworth had been an editor and had written text books even before he became connected with the Watch Tower movement. Now, he was made the editor of a new magazine, The Golden Age, the first issue of which was dated October 1, 1919. He continued in that capacity when the name was changed to Consolation in 1937. It was arranged that he would spend two weeks at Bethel and then two weeks in Scranton. Woodworth also served for many years on the board of the Society’s New York subsidiary, The Peoples Pulpit Association, renamed Watchtower Bible and Tract Society Inc. in 1939. Early in 1924 it was announced in The Watch Tower that Woodworth had been selected to a committee for gathering data for a book about Pastor Russell, a project that never materialized. Because so many errors in The Finished Mystery had to be admitted as time went by and new interpretations of Revelation were forwarded by President Rutherford, Woodworth had to discredit the book. This, he did in an article in The Golden Age, dated March 6, 1929. However, the volume continued to be cherished by the Stand Fast Bible Students who had left the Society in 1918, but still insisted it was valid. Woodworth was a radical, even an extremist. In The Golden Age, he was fighting aluminum cookware and denied the germ theory of disease. Repeatedly, he wrote against small pox vaccination. He poured out vitriol on people he considered to be the Society’s enemies, especially on former associates. And he was just as anti-clergy as Rutherford himself. In 1935, he courageously published a new calendar researched almost entirely by himself. It appeared in 3 consecutive issues of The Golden Age. It represented a complete break with all previously known calendars, and he had to eat humble pie when Rutherford rejected it. On May 20 and 21, 1943, Woodworth defended Rutherford as a witness in the Moyle case. On September 11 of that same year, his wife Sophronia died. In August 1946, when Consolation was renamed Awake!, he stepped down as editor of the magazine, being 76 years old. During his last year of life, he lost his voice to cancer. He died on December 18, 1951, and was buried in the Society’s burial place at Woodrow United Methodist Church and Cemetery on Staten Island, New York. Both of Clayton’s wives shared his Bible Student faith, but his father and siblings never did. His daughter Elizabeth married George Fitchette Herde (1890-1933), a fellow Bible Student, in 1917. George had an article about vaccination published in The Golden Age, October 8, 1924. In time, however, both he and Elizabeth left the Watch Tower Society and sided with The Pastoral Bible Institute. As a result, Clayton disowned Elizabeth. Living in Washington, D.C., the Herdes sent a message to the 1930 Reunion Convention in Pittsburgh, regretting they could not attend. Elizabeth died on October 20, 1971, in Hemet, Riverside County, California, and was buried beside her husband in Oakwood Cemetery, Falls Church City, Virginia. Notice of her death was published in The Herald of Christ’s Kingdom, January-February 1972. Clayton J. Woodworth, Jr. was traumatized at the upheaval when his father was sentenced to

prison, and consequently he was slow to commit himself to his father’s faith. Eventually, though, he was baptized as a Bible Student. He married Catherine Howell six months later, in June 1931. He was an accomplished musician and conducted the orchestra at a number of conventions arranged by Jehovah’s Witnesses. He also served as a pioneer from time to time. He had a daughter, Carol, born in 1934. Her story, Blessed with A Special Heritage, was published in The Watchtower, October 1, 2000. Clayton J. Woodworth, Jr., died in 1987 in Cleveland, Ohio. W. Norman Woodworth (1891-1975), the most energetic leader of the Dawn Bible Students Association, was only a very distant relative of Clayton J. Woodworth and his family.

James Dennis Wright (1867-1946)

On August 20, 1867, John S. Wright and his wife Catherine Dennis Wright, then living in Mooretown, Jefferson County, Ohio, had their fourth child, James Dennis Wright. According to the 1870 US census, John Wright was employed as a farmer. The family then lived in Salineville, Columbiana County, Ohio. The family continued to grow, and by 1880 there were seven children, six boys and one girl. They then lived in Washington, Columbiana, Ohio, and John Wright worked as a coal miner. James Dennis Wright had six years of schooling. When he wrote a letter to C.T. Russell published in Zion’s Watch Tower, April 15, 1894, he had been a pastor for nine months before accepting the faith of the Bible Students. On March 10, 1896, he was married to Isabel Julia Pratt in Fulton County, Georgia, by Rev. James H. Eakes. Isabel was born in Georgia on April 4, 1846, and was the daughter of Nathaniel Pratt, an ordained Presbyterian minister, and his wife Catherine Pratt. As Isabel was 50 years at the time of marriage, not surprisingly the couple never had any children. J.D. Wright started to travel as a pilgrim in 1901. He was elected to the Society’s board of directors in 1904 and also served as vice president that year. Like so many other Bible Students of note, he accepted the “vow” in 1908. As The Watch Tower magazine of the time and the convention reports indicate, Wright became a prominent figure in the movement. At first he was known as James D. Wright, but eventually he stressed his middle name and was known as J. Dennis Wright. Records show that in 1915 Dennis and Isabel lived at 124 Columbia Heights, Brooklyn, New York. It is stated that Dennis worked as a minister of the gospel and that his wife

worked as a missionary. At headquarters Dennis was in charge of the “comfort department.” The “comfort work” consisted in sending letters and tracts to people who needed comfort. Along with three other Directors, Wright took a firm stand against Rutherford’s maneuvers in the spring of 1917, stressing Russell’s will and the charter of the corporation. Rutherford reacted by ousting Dennis and the other opponents on the board in July,1917. Dennis was a candidate for the board at the annual election on January 5, 1918. With a number of disappointed ones he withdrew after the election to Hotel Fort Pitt in Pittsburgh. There he was elected to the Fort Pitt committee of seven on January 6, 1918. When that committee resigned at Asbury Park July 28, 1918, Dennis was elected to the new committee of which he was made chairman. He later was one of the seven charter directors of the Pastoral Bible Institute, registered November 23, 1918. At its first annual election, June 6, 1919, he was elected both director and chairman of the board. However, between that election and the next, Dennis disappeared from the directorate. Hs wife might have had something to do with this, for Isabel was 21 years older than Dennis, being 74 years old in 1920, whereas Dennis was only 53. In 1920 they lived in Bayonne, Hudson County, New Jersey. At that time Dennis worked as a clerk in a glass manufacturing business. Eventually the couple moved to Georgia, where Isabel died in Roswell, Cobb County, on November 24, 1924. She was the great aunt of William P. Heath, Jr., who became a member of the Society’s board in the late 1930s. Dennis was never prominent again among the Bible Students. He is not known to have participated in any of the emerging Bible Student movements or visited any of the significant Bible Student conferences. In fact, no obituary was published after his death in any of the known Bible Student papers. It may well be that Dennis abandoned some of his Bible Student beliefs and kept aloof from all Bible Students. Amazingly, according to a brief obituary published in The Evening Review of East Liverpool, Ohio, March 26, 1946, page 9, Dennis was a member of the Methodist church! Were doctrinal differences involved when he disappeared from The Pastoral Bible Institute? Such would certainly account for the total silence among the Bible Students about his departure. That Wright developed views that were contrary to what the Bible Students generally believed was indicated by P.S.L. Johnson, who wrote in The Present Truth, April 1, 1932, page 53, that he was “a ransom and Church-sin-offering denier.” After becoming a widower J. Dennis Wright moved back to Ohio to be near his relatives. In 1930 he lived in Canton, Stark County, with his sister Mary W. Steely, who was widowed, and her three daughters. At that time he was unemployed. He still lived in Canton in 1940. In early 1946 he lived with Mrs. Alice Wright, his sister-in-law, in Salineville, Ohio. He had been in ill health for five years. He died on March 25, 1946. The funeral service was held by Rev. Paul Bailey, pastor of the Methodist church. Dennis was survived by two brothers, Charles Wright and George Wright and his sister Mary W. Steely, all living in Canton.

Footnotes 1 Rutherford vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, Vol. 2, p. 968

2 The Watch Tower, December 1, 1916 dealt entirely with Charles Taze Russell, who had died on October 31, 1916. It became known as “the Memorial Number.” (The Watch Tower, February 1, 1917, p. 34) When it became exhausted a second edition was produced and was referred to as “the Second edition of the memorial Number of THE WATCH TOWER.” (Harvest Siftings, p. 18) It carried the same date as the original memorial number although actually published in the spring of 1917. It was announced in The Watch Tower, April 1, 1917, page 98, where it was also said that it “contains a short biography of Brother Rutherford, which we thought wise to include.” 3 M. James Penton, Apocalypse Delayed: The Story of Jehovah’s Witnesses, 3rd edition (Toronto, Buffalo, London: University of Toronto Press, 2015), p. 69 4 St. Paul Enterprise, January 16, 1917, p. 1 5 Souvenir Notes Bible Students Conventions 1913, Cf. The Watchtower, October 1, 1997, p. 6. 6 THE WORLD HAS ENDED; MILLIONS NOW LIVING WILL NEVER DIE, a sermon given at the Brooklyn Academy of Music, March 24, 1918, transcribed by George A. Glendon. See also Barbara Anderson’s website on the Internet concerning this information. 7 Court Records, Morgan County, Missouri, Book 13, p. 251; Court Records, Cooper County, Missouri, Book 2, p. 376. 8 Second Russell memorial Edition of The Watch Tower, p. 383 9 Felix, p. 19 10 Ibid 11 St. Paul Enterprise, January 16, 1917, p. 1 12 THE WORLD HAS ENDED 13 Second Russell memorial Edition, p. 383 14 Ibid 15 Ibid 16 The Watch Tower, February 15, 1919, p. 58 17 Harvest Siftings, August 1, 1917, p. 16 18 In 1912, when the PPA charter was amended, he was still not one of its directors. 19 Moyle vs. Franz et al, 1943, transcript of record, p. 1523; Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, Vol. 2, p. 1033 20 The Watch Tower Reprints, p. 4621 21 Ibid, p. 5341 22 The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, p. 328 23 St. Paul Enterprise, December 31, 1915, p. 1 24 This letter is reproduced in Appendix 10 25 Poul Bregninge, Judgment Day Must Wait (New York, N.Y., YBK Publishers, 2013), p. 131. In the 2021 edition of his book Bregninge dropped that claim. 26 The Watch Tower Reprints, p. 5685 27 Ibid 28 Paul. S.L. Johnson, Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 6 (Philadelphia, Pa., privately published 1938), p. 416 29 The Watch Tower Reprints, pp. 5682, 5683 30 Ibid 31 This letter is reproduced in Appendix 11 32 Supplement to Fifteenth Souvenir Report, August 15, 1915 33 Ibid 34 Moyle vs. Franz et al, 1943, transcript of record, p. 1567 35 Signed by W.E. Van Amburgh, Secretary, A.I. Ritchie, Isaac Hoskins.

36 Email from Mezara to Persson, April 24, 2019 37 Rutherford vs. the United States, 1918, transcript of record, Vol. 2, p. 1979 38 The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, November 26, 1916 39 The Oklahoma City Times, April 15, 1916, p. 2 40 The Ogden Standard, August 24, 1916, p. 6 41 The Watch Tower Reprints, p. 5976 42 Paul S.L. Johnson, Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 10 (Philadelphia, Pa., privately published, 1941), p. 38 43 Email from Jeff Mezera to Rud Persson, April 25, 2019 44 The St. Paul Enterprise, October 3, 1916, p. 4 45 The Present Truth, May 1, 1934, p. 68 46 Jeff Mezera sent me a photocopy of this handwritten letter. The handwriting is unquestionably Rutherford’s. 47 The Watch Tower Reprints, p. 5988 48 Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 10, pp. 335, 340 49 Ibid, p. 345 50 Russell memorial issue of The Watch Tower, second edition, p. 384 51 Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 6, p. 614 52 The Tampa Tribune, November 24, 1916, p. 5 53 The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, January 7, 1917 54 Rutherford vs. the United States, 1918, transcript of record, Vol. 2, pp. 973,974; Harvest Siftings Reviewed, p.6 55 The Watch Tower, February 15, 1917, p. 64 56 Rutherford vs. the United States, 1918, transcript of record, Vol. 2, pp. 1275, 1276 57 The St. Paul Enterprise, November 20, 1917, page 1 noted: “Sister Rutherford was with him.” 58 Rutherford vs. the United States, 1918, transcript of record, Vol 2, pp. 1009, 1010 59 Ibid, p. 1064 60 A.H. Macmillan: Faith on the March, 1957, p. 85 61 Rutherford vs. the United States, 1918, transcript of record, Vol 2, pp. 778, 1010 62 The Watch Tower, April 15, 1919, pp. 118, 119 63 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 120 64 Macmillan, p. 113 65 The Messenger, July 25, 1931, p. 6 66 Moyle vs. Franz et al, 1943, transcript of record, p. 1325 67 The Los Angeles Times, January 13, 1942, p. 6 68 New Era Enterprise, August 1926; Niemann, p. 1 69 The Golden Age, May 4, 1927, pages 505 and 506 70 Moyle vs. Franz et al, 1943, transcript of record, pp. 1732-1739 71 Ibid, p. 1737 72 His testimony is given in Appendix 13 73 Moyle vs. Franz et al, 1943, transcript of record, p. 1840 74 Consolation, December 20, 1944, p. 21 75 Moyle vs. Franz et al, 1943, transcript of record, p. 1842 76 The Herald of Christ’s Kingdom, August and December,1941, pp. 114,178

77 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 127; The Watchtower, May 15, 1937, p. 159 78 Salter to Rutherford, April 1, 1937, p. 1 79 Ibid, p. 3 80 The Golden Age, May 5, 1937, p. 500 81 Note 1Timothy 5:23 RSV which reads: “No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.” 82 Mark 15:23 83 There is no certain proof that the distillation of wine occurred to produce liquors like brandy until the 13th century in Europe. The word alcohol seems to have Arabic roots, but even though Muslims may first have developed distillation—as some claim— they would not have developed liquors because alcoholic beverages were and are outlawed by Islam. 84 Moyle vs. Franz et al, 1943, transcript of record, p. 158 85 See Appendix 13 86 The Watch Tower, November 1, 1928, p. 333 87 Ibid, p. 334 88 The Watchtower, November 1, 1939, p. 336; Moyle vs. Franz et al, 1943, transcript of record, p. 1795 89 The Watchtower, August 15, 1938, p. 255 90 Convention Program, Columbus Ohio, 1931, p. 2 91 Moyle vs. Franz et al, 1943, transcript of record, pp. 1734, 1735 92 The Present Truth, February 1, 1929, p. 31 93 Tony Wills. A People for His Name: A History of Jehovah’s Witnesses and an Evaluation, second edition (Morrisville, N.C.: Lulu Enterprises, Inc., 2006), p. 121 94 Ibid, pp. 120, 121 95 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 194 96 J.F. Rutherford. Salvation. (Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1939), p. 311 97 Email from James Parkinson to Rud Persson, May 16, 2013 98 The Watchtower, December 15, 1947, p. 382 99 San Diego Union, January 11, 1942 100 San Diego Sun, March 15, 1930 101 Consolation, May 27, 1942, p. 3 102 San Diego Sun, March 15, 1930 103 The Watchtower, December 15, 1937, p. 370 104 The Golden Age, March 19, 1930, pp. 405,406; May 5, 1937, p. 499 105 The Present Truth, May 1, 1934, p. 68 106 Ibid, p. 69 107 Ibid 108 The Golden Age, May 5, 1937, p. 499 109 Ibid, March 19, 1930, p. 406. 110 Salter’s letter to Rutherford, April 1, 1937, p. 2 111 The Golden Age, May 5, 1937, p. 500 112 Consolation, May 27, 1942, p. 3 113 Ibid 114 Ibid 115 Jerome (pseud) in The Ultimate Malcolm Rutherford Experience, Sunday 12 January 2020. Published on the Internet

APPENDICES APPENDIX 1

Will and Testament of Charles Taze Russell [Reproduced from The Watch Tower, December 1, 1916, pages 358-359] Having at various times during past years donated to the WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY all of my personal possessions except a small personal bank account of approximately two hundred dollars, in the Exchange National Bank of Pittsburgh, which will properly be paid over to my wife if she survives me, I have merely love and Christian good wishes to leave to all of the dear members of the Bible House Family—and all other dear colaborers in the Harvest work—yea, for all of the household of faith in every place who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus as their Redeemer. However, in view of the fact that in donating the journal, ZION’S WATCH TOWER, the OLD THEOLOGY QUARTERLY and the copyrights of the MILLENNIAL DAWN SCRIPTURE STUDIES Books and various other booklets, hymn-books, etc., to the WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY, I did so with the explicit understanding that I should have full control of all the interests of these publications during my life time, and that after my decease they should be conducted according to my wishes. I now herewith set forth the said wishes—my will respecting the same—as follows: AN EDITORIAL COMMITTEE OF FIVE I direct that the entire editorial charge of ZION’S WATCH TOWER shall be in the hands of a committee of five brethren, whom I exhort to great carefulness and fidelity to the Truth. All articles appearing in the columns of ZION’s WATCH TOWER shall have the unqualified approval of at least three of the committee of five, and I urge that if any matter approved by three be known or supposed to be contrary to the views of one or both of the other members of the committee, such articles shall be held over for thought, prayer and discussion for three months before being published—that so far as possible the unity of the faith and the bonds of peace may be maintained in the Editorial management of the journal. The names of the Editorial Committee (with such changes as may from time to time occur) shall all be published in each number of the journal—but it shall not in any manner be indicated by whom the various articles appearing in the journal are written. It will be sufficient that the fact be recognized that the articles are approved by the majority of the committee. As the Society is already pledged to me that it will publish no other periodicals, it shall also be required that the Editorial Committee shall write for or be connected with no other publications in any manner of degree. My object in these requirements is to safeguard the committee and the journal from any spirit of ambition or pride or headship, and that the

Truth may be recognized and appreciated for its own worth, and that the Lord may more particularly be recognized as the Head of the Church and the Fountain of Truth. Copies of my Sunday discourses published in the daily newspapers covering a period of several years have been preserved and may be used as editorial matter for The WATCH TOWER or not, as the committee may think best, but my name shall not be attached nor any indication whatever given respecting the authorship. Those named below as members of the Editorial Committee (subject to their acceptance) are supposed by me to be thoroughly loyal to the doctrines of the Scriptures—especially so to the doctrine of the Ransom—that there is no acceptance with God and no salvation to eternal life except through faith in Christ and obedience to His Word and its spirit. If any of the designated ones shall at any time find themselves out of harmony with this provision they will be violating their consciences and hence committing sin if they knowing that so to do would be contrary to the spirit and intention of this provision. The Editorial Committee is self-perpetuating, in that should one of these members die or resign, it will be the duty of the reminder to elect his successor, that the journal may never have an issue without a full Editorial Committee of five. I enjoin upon the committee named great caution in respect to the election of others to their number—that purity of life, clearness in the Truth, zeal for God, love for the brethren and faithfulness to the Redeemer shall be prominent characteristics of the one elected. In addition to the five named for the committee I have named five others from whom I prefer that selection should be made for any vacancies in the Editorial Committee, before going outside for a general selection— unless in the interim, between the making of this Will and the time of my death, something should occur which would seem to indicate these as less desirable or others more desirable for filling the vacancies mentioned. The names of the Editorial Committee are as follows: WILLIAM E. PAGE, WILLIAM E. VAN AMBURGH, HENRY CLAY ROCKWELL, E. W. BRENNEISEN, F. H. ROBISON. The names of the five whom I suggest as possibly amongst the most suitable from which to fill vacancies in the Editorial Committee are as follows: A. E. Burgess, Robert Hirsh, Isaac Hoskins, Geo. H. Fisher (Scranton), J. F. Rutherford, Dr. John Edgar. The following announcement shall appear in each issue of THE WATCH TOWER, followed by the names of the Editorial Committee: ZION’S WATCH TOWER EDITORIAL COMMITTEE

This journal is published under the supervision of an Editorial Committee, at least three of whom must have read and have approved as TRUTH each and every article appearing in these columns. The names of the Committee now serving are: (names to follow.) As for compensation, I think it wise to maintain the Society’s course of the past in respect to salaries—that none be paid; that merely reasonable expenses be allowed to those who serve the Society and its work in any manner. In harmony with the course of the Society, I suggest that the provision for the Editorial Committee, and the three that shall be actively engaged, shall consist of not more than a provision for their food and shelter and ten dollars per month, with such a moderate allowance for wife or children or others dependent upon them for support as the Society’s Board of Directors shall consider proper, just, reasonable —that no provision be made for the laying up of money. I desire that the OLD THEOLOGY QUARTERLY continue to appear as at present, so far as the opportunities for distribution and the laws of the land will permit, and that its issues shall consist of reprints from the old issues of THE WATCH TOWER or extracts from my discourses, but that no name shall appear in connection with the matter unless the same is required by law. It is my wish that the same rules apply to the German, the French, the Italian, the Danish and the Swedish or any other foreign publications controlled or supported by the WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY. I will that a copy of this paper be sent to each one whose name has appeared above as of the Editorial Committee or the list from whom others of that committee may be chosen to fill vacancies and also to each member of the Board of Directors of the WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY. This shall be done immediately on my death being reported, so that within a week, if possible, the persons named as of the Editorial Committee may be heard from, their communication being addressed to the Vice-president of the WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY—whoever may be holding that office at that time. The answers of those appointed shall be to the point, indicating their acceptance or rejection of the provisions and terms specified. A reasonable time shall be allowed for any one mentioned who may be absent from the city of from the country. Meantime the remainder of the committee of at least three shall proceed to act in their capacity as editors. It shall be the duty of the officers of the Society to provide the necessary arrangements for these members of the Editorial Committee and to assist them in their duties in every possible manner, in compliance with the engagements made with me bearing on this matter. I have already donated to the WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY all my voting shares therein, putting the same in the hands of five Trustees, as follows: Sr. E. Louise Hamilton, Sr. Almeta M. Nation Robinson, Sr. J. G. Herr, Sr. C. Tomlins, Sr. Alice G. James.

These Trustees shall serve for life. In event of deaths or resignations successors shall be chosen by the WATCH TOWER SOCIETY Directors and Editorial Committee and the remaining Trustees after prayer for Divine guidance. I now provide for the impeachment and dismissal from the Editorial Committee of any member thereof found to be unworthy the position by reason of either doctrinal or moral laches, as follows: At least three of the Board must unite in bringing the impeachment charges, and the Board of Judgment in the matter shall consist of the WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY’S trustees and the five trustees controlling my voting shares and the Editorial Committee, excepting the accused. Of these sixteen members at least thirteen must favor the impeachment and dismissal in order to effect the same. DIRECTION FOR FUNERAL I desire to be buried in the plot of ground owned by our Society, in the Rosemount United Cemetery, and all the details of arrangements respecting the funeral service I leave in the care of my sister, Mrs. M. M. Land, and her daughters, Alice and May, or such of them as may survive me, with the assistance and advice and cooperation of the brethren, as they may request the same. Instead of an ordinary funeral discourse, I request that they arrange to have a number of the brethren, accustomed to public speaking, make a few remarks each, that the service be very simple and inexpensive and that it be conducted in the Bible House Chapel or any other place that may be considered equally appropriate or more so. MY LEGACY OF LOVE To the dear “Bethel” family collectively and individually I leave my best wishes, in hoping for them of the Lord His blessing, which maketh rich and addeth no sorrow. The same I extend in a still broader sweep to all the family of the Lord in every place—especially to those rejoicing in the Harvest Truth. I entreat you all that you continue to progress and to grow in grace, in knowledge, and above all in love, the great fruit of the Spirit in its various diversified forms. I exhort to meekness, not only with the world, but with one another; to patience with one another and with all men, to gentleness with all, to brotherly kindness, to godliness, to purity. I remind you that all these things are necessary for us, necessary that we may attain the promised Kingdom, and that the Apostle has assured us that if we do these things we shall never fail, but that “so an entrance shall be ministered unto us abundantly into the everlasting Kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ”. It is my wish that this my last Will and Testament be published in the issue of THE WATCH TOWER following my death. My hope for myself, as for all the dear Israel of God, is that soon we shall meet to part no more, in the First Resurrection, in the Master’s presence, where there is fulness of joy forevermore. We shall be satisfied when we awake in His likeness—

“Changed from glory unto glory.” (Signed) CHARLES TAZE RUSSELL. PUBLISHED AND DECLARED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE WITNESSES WHOSE NAMES ARE ATTACHED: MAE F. LAND, M. ALMETA NATION, LAURA M. WHITEHOUSE. DONE AT ALLEGHENY, PA. JUNE TWENTY-NINE, NINETEEN HUNDRED AND SEVEN.

APPENDIX 2

Did Rutherford Tamper with Russell’s Will? Throughout this study I have made references to the Will and Testament of Charles Taze Russell, published in The Watch Tower, December 1, 1916, pages 358-359. From the start of the management crisis in 1917, the majority of the then board of directors claimed that Rutherford disregarded the will. Not long afterwards, he clearly set it aside in his ambition for absolute power in the Watch Tower Society. As outlined earlier in this study, in 1931 he even managed to abolish the editorial committee provided for in the will and actually do away with the will itself. However, there is no hard evidence that during the years leading up to this, his opponents accused him of actually tampering with the will as a document. Everyone seems to have accepted the published will as bona fide. Only several decades afterwards were there open suggestions that Rutherford had changed the document itself. Poul Bregninge is leaning towards this view on pages 129-133 in his book, Judgment Day Must Wait, published in 2013. On page 77 in his book Jehovah’s Witnesses—Continuity and Change from 2016, George D. Chryssides referred to another recent writer who allegedly held the same view, which Chryssides rejected.1 The basis for such claim has been the discrepancy in the number of reserves for the Watch Tower editorial committee mentioned in the published will. Russell stated that he was naming “five” individuals, but actually enumerated six: “A.E. Burgess, Robert Hirsh, Isaac Hoskins, Geo. H. Fisher (Scranton), J.F. Rutherford, Dr. John Edgar.”2 The assumption has then been made that Rutherford could have added his own name as the sixth person. But the matter is not as simple as that. Bregninge claimed that Rutherford, as lawyer, “had drawn up the testament,” but that is far from certain. If Russell, as has been pointed out elsewhere in this book, could write the Society’s charter by his own hand, he could well have written his will. The published will was dated June 22, 1907.3 Dr. John Edgar died on June 9, 1910.4 Russell opened the will in 1910 in order to make some changes. Paul S.L. Johnson provided some significant observations in this respect: “In the Lord’s Providence it fell on our [Johnson’s] lot to open and read the WILL before the Bethel family Nov. 3, 1916; and then and there we read that he opened the WILL in 1910 …. and erased the names of certain ones from the Editors’ and Sister committees and replaced them with other names…. Immediately thereafter he put the sealed WILL into the care of the Society’s Secretary, and it was placed in the safe. It was never again touched by him according to the Secretary’s own testimony given before the Bethel family, just as it was handed to us to open and read.”5 Rutherford stated: “Brother Russell’s will was written in 1907…. It was sealed up in 1910 and never opened thereafter prior to his death.”6 Could the solution be that Russell added Rutherford’s name in 1910 but let Dr. Edgar’s name remain out of piety, since, unlike some other persons named for the editorial committee, Dr. Edgar had not fallen out with him? One of the “pilgrims,” W.A. Baker, stated in a letter published in The Watch Tower, November 1, 1919, page 330, that Russell had changed his will

when some persons named in it had turned against him and left the movement. He specifically mentioned “the Henninges and McPhail trouble.”7 It is of course out of the question that Rutherford’s name should appear among the reserves as early as in 1907, when Russell drew up his will, only one year after Rutherford’s baptism.8 Indeed, it would have been surprising also if Russell should have added his name in 1910, but it would not have been impossible. Moreover, if Rutherford would be able to manipulate the will before publication, why did he not drop Edgar’s name in order to have the will look harmonious? To me the fact that Edgar’s name was retained actually argues against manipulation. On top of that, Rutherford would have had very limited time to accomplish a falsification, for, like Paul Johnson he arrived in Brooklyn from a long trip on November 2, 1916.9 Nobody would have dared to tamper with the will before Russell died, for there would always be the risk that he would make further changes or write another will altogether. E.W. Brenneisen, who immediately resigned from the editorial committee, confirmed Johnson’s date for reading the will when he referred to getting a copy of the will together with Vice President Ritchie’s letter of November 3, 1916.10 That would give Rutherford at most one day to act if he were to tamper with the will. And of course, if Russell drew up the will himself, Rutherford might not have known its content in advance. Furthermore, on Sunday, November 5, 1916, at 8 o’clock p.m., Rutherford in the New York Temple read the very sermon Russell had been scheduled to preach then. “And then he read the will,” reported St. Paul Enterprise, November 14, 1916, page 3. If there had been any discrepancy between this reading of Russell’s will and Johnson’s reading of it two days earlier, it seems to me that at least some of those Bible Students who resided at Bethel would have taken notice. The will that had been read publicly at least twice would in all likelihood have been seen by Vice President Ritchie, who sent a copy to E.W. Brenneisen, named for the editorial committee. But above all, Robert H. Hirsh, later perhaps Rutherford’s most outspoken opponent on the board of directors, would have seen it. He was on the reserve list and became an actual member of the editorial committee. With his expertise in the printing business, he became the managing editor.11 Both Rutherford and Johnson stated that Russell’s remaining manuscripts were entrusted to him.12 It is remarkable that during the critical years 1917 and 1918 Rutherford’s opponents did not say a word about any tampering with the will. They certainly would not have spared Rutherford if they had come to know about such manipulation. And they were in a better position to know than any recent writer. The fact is that they had no problem at all with there being six names mentioned for the reserve list. They accepted the fact that John Edgar’s name was retained in the will in spite of his death in 1910. What troubled them instead was that Rutherford had used the published will to enhance his own position. They published the following significant statement on page 12 in their pamphlet Facts for Shareholders, issued November 15, 1917: “DO YOU KNOW that Bro. Russell in his Will named five other brethren as among the most suitable from

which to fill vacancies that might occur on the Editorial Committee, and that the last living one named among the second selection has been first on the acting committee since Bro. Russell’s death?” (Emphasis added) Despite this information, Poul Bregninge, relying on Bible Student historian James Parkinson, thinks that “it is possible the will was rewritten in 1911.”13 He refers to two American Bible Students, Kenneth and Carmelita Fernets, who had stated that they had seen a copy of “the 1911 testament” that did not have Rutherford’s name in it. I was able to communicate with Kenneth Fernets, and in an email to me dated February 9, 2016, he confirmed that he and his wife had seen parts of a copy of the will in question. However, he did not confirm that that these “parts” of the will were dated to 1911. To this it may be added that if Russell had made a later will, it would be strange if he did not then have the earlier one removed from the safe and replaced by the newer one. The will from 1907-1910 would hardly be available in Russell’s safe if it had been superseded by a new will. In addition to what Kenneth Fernets has reported, I know of two other claims that copies of the will owned by various ones did not match the published will. One was reported in the United Israel Bulletin, November 1971, page 4. The other is a letter to E.T. Lenfest, a Bible Student in Acton, Maine, from another Bible Student, whose father allegedly had a copy of the will.14 None of these sources clearly indicates that it was Rutherford’s name that was the difference. I am inclined to think that all of these sources, if genuine, refer to a pre-1910 version of Russell’s will and that they, therefore, have no bearing on the issue. When Paul S.L. Johnson published Russell’s will in The Present Truth, November 1, 1925, pages 173-174, it was in every respect identical with the one published in The Watch Tower in 1916. So, although I do not doubt that Rutherford was capable of manipulating the will to his own advantage if he had the chance to do so, I tentatively conclude that he did not get that chance and that consequently the will as published had not been tampered with. However, Bible Student historian James Parkinson, who has also delved deeply into this issue, wrote in an email to me dated January 20, 2020: “To me, the inclusion of JFR’s name in the 1907/1910 will, and existence of a not-acknowledged 1911 will, are open questions.”

APPENDIX 3

The Charter of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society The charter of Zion’s Watch Tower Tract Society was incorporated in 1884. In 1896, a change of the name to Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society was granted. The articles of incorporation were first published by C.T. Russell in Zion’s Watch Tower, Extra Edition, April 25, 1894, pages 55-57. The full charter document, including details about the 1896 change of name, was published in Light After Darkness, September 1, 1917, pages 21-22. The full document was also printed in the transcript of the court case Olin R. Moyle vs. Fred W. Franz et al from 1943, pages 1930-1940. The following reproduction of the articles of incorporation is taken verbatim from The Watch Tower, December 1, 1917, page 327: I. The name of the Corporation shall be ZION’S WATCH TOWER TRACT SOCIETY. II. The purpose for which the Corporation is formed is, the dissemination of Bible Truths in various languages by means of the publications of tracts, pamphlets, papers and other religious documents, and by the use of all other lawful means which its Board of Directors, duly constituted, shall deem expedient for the furtherance of the purpose stated. III. The place where the business of said Corporation is to be transacted, is the City of Allegheny, in the County of Allegheny, and the State of Pennsylvania. IV. The Corporation is to exist perpetually. V. The Corporation has no capital stock. Each donation of Ten Dollars to the funds of said Corporation shall entitle the contributor, or his assigns, to one non-forfeitable, nonassessable, and non-dividend-bearing share, and to one vote for every such share in said Corporation. Certificates of membership so acquired shall be issued by the Secretary, countersigned by the President, to the persons entitled thereto. VI. The Corporation is to be managed by a Board of Directors consisting of seven members, and the names of those already chosen Directors are as follows:President, Charles T. Russell, Wm. C. MacMillan, Vice President, Wm. I. Mann, Simon O. Blunden Secy. and Treas., Maria F. Russell, J.B. Adamson, Joseph F. Smith VII. The said Corporation by its Board of Directors, a majority of whom shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, shall have full power and authority to make and

enact by-laws, rules, and ordinances, which shall be deemed and taken to be the law of said Corporation, and do any and everything useful for the good government and support of the affairs of said Corporation; provided that the said by-laws, rules and ordinances, or any of them, shall not be repugnant to this Charter, to the constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the Constitution of the United States. VIII. The said Corporation shall have as officers a President who shall preside at the meetings of the Board of Directors; a Vice-President, who shall preside in the absence of the President; and a Secretary, who shall also be Treasurer; and these three officers shall be chosen from among the members of the Board of Directors annually, on the first Saturday of each year, by an election by ballot, to be held at the principal office in Allegheny City, Pennsylvania. IX. The members of the Board of Directors shall hold their respective offices for life, unless removed by a two-thirds vote of the Shareholders; and vacancies in the Board occasioned by death, resignation or removal, shall be filled by vote of a majority of the remaining members of the Board, who shall meet for the purpose within twenty days from the time when such vacancy or vacancies shall occur, and in the event of failure to fill such vacancy or vacancies in the manner aforesaid within thirty days from the time when such vacancy or vacancies shall, occur, then the said vacancy or vacancies shall be filled by the appointment of the President, and the person or persons so appointed shall hold his or their office until the next annual election of officers of the Corporation, when such vacancy or vacancies shall be filled by election, in the same manner as the President, Vice-President and Secretary and Treasurer are elected. The persons entitled to vote at annual elections of the Corporation shall be those who hold certificates of membership acquired in the manner aforesaid. X. The said Corporation, under the name, style and title aforesaid, shall have full, power and authority to make, have and use a common seal, with such device and inscription as they may deem proper, and the same to alter and renew at their pleasure; and by the name, style and title aforesaid, shall be able in law and equity to sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded in any Court or Courts, before any Judge or Justice of the Peace, in all manner of suits and complaints, pleas, causes, matters and demands whatsoever, and all and every matter or thing therein to do in as full and ample a manner, and as effectually, as any other person or persons, bodies politic or corporate, within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, may or can do. XI. The said Corporation, by the name, style and title aforesaid, shall have the right, power and authority to take, receive and hold in fee simple, or any less estate, all such message, lots, lands, buildings, tenements, rents, annuities, franchise and hereditaments

as may be necessary and proper for its purpose; and to sell, lease, mortgage, or otherwise dispose of the same or any part thereof; and it shall have the same right, power and authority to take, receive and hold, and to sell, lease or dispose of any and all kinds of personal property and money.

APPENDIX 4

The Charter of the Peoples Pulpit Association I have an actual photocopy of the charter of the Peoples Pulpit Association as recorded by the authorities on March 4, 1909. However, it does not make for easy reading and therefore I supply the following transcript. A transcript of “Certificate of Extension of Purposes” of November 19, 1912, and its approval by the authorities is also supplied. CHARTER OF PEOPLES PULPIT ASSOCIATION We, the undersigned, two-thirds of whom are citizens of the United States of America, and at least one of us being a resident of the State of New York, desiring to become a corporation pursuant to the provisions of The Membership Corporation Law, (of the laws of New York of 1895, chapter 559, as amended) do hereby make, acknowledge and file this certificate for that purpose, as follows, that is to say: FIRST: The name of the proposed corporation is PEOPLES PULPIT ASSOCIATION. SECOND: The purposes for which it is to be formed are, the moral and mental improvement of men and women, the dissemination of Bible Truths in various languages by means of the publication of tracts, pamphlets, papers and other religious documents, and by the use of all other lawful means which its board of directors, duly constituted, shall deem expedient for the purposes stated, and for religious missionary work. THIRD: The proposed corporation shall have no capital stock. Its members shall be those who subscribe this certificate, and those whom the Board of Directors, when duly constituted, shall admit at the first meeting of said Board of Directors, and such other person, persons or corporations, who shall thereafter contribute the sum of one thousand dollars to the funds of said corporation and who shall be admitted pursuant to law and the by-laws of this corporation. Certificates of membership shall be issued by the Secretary, and countersigned by the President, to the person or persons entitled thereto, which certificate shall entitle the holder thereof to a vote in said corporation. FOURTH: The operation of this corporation shall be principally in the state of New York, and the principal business office of this corporation is to be located at numbers thirteen to seventeen Hicks Street, city of Brooklyn, New York. FIFTH: The corporation is to exist perpetually. SIXTH: The names and residences of the subscribers to this certificate are as follows: Charles T. Russell, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

H. Clay Rockwell, New York, New York. William E. Van Amburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. William E. Page, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Frederick W. Williamson, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Isaac F. Hoskins, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Edward W. Brenneisen, Brooklyn, New York. SEVENTH: The corporation is to be managed by a Board of Directors consisting of seven members, and the names and residences of those already chosen as a Board of Directors, are as follows: Charles T. Russell, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. H. Clay Rockwell, New York, New York. William E. Van Amburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. William E. Page, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Frederick W. Williamson, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Isaac F. Hoskins, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Edward W. Brenneisen, Brooklyn, New York. EIGHTH: The said Board of Directors, a majority of whom, including the President, shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, shall have full power and authority to make and enact by-laws, rules and ordinances, which shall be deemed and taken to be the law of said corporation, and do any and everything useful for good government and support of the affairs of said corporation; provided, that the by-laws, rules and ordinances, or any of them, so made, shall not be repugnant to this charter, to the Constitution and Laws of the state of New York, and to the Constitution and the laws of the United States. NINTH: The said corporation shall have as officers the following; A President, who shall be elected by the Board of Directors at the first meeting thereof, and shall hold his office for life and whose duties shall be to preside at the meetings of the Corporation or of the Board of Directors, and have the general supervision and control and management of the business and affairs of said Corporation; a Vice-President, and a Secretary who shall also be Treasurer. Such officers, except the President, shall be chosen annually, from among the Board of Directors, on the first Saturday of each year, by an election by ballot, to be held at the principal office of the Corporation in the city of Brooklyn, New York. The members of the Board of Directors, except the President who shall, always be a member of said Board of Directors, shall be chosen by, and from among, the members of the corporation, by an election, by ballot, to be held annually on the first Saturday of each year, at the principal office of the Corporation in the city of Brooklyn, New York. They shall hold office until their successors are duly elected and installed. Vacancies in the Board of Directors, arising from any cause, shall be filled by a majority vote of the remaining members of the Board,

who shall meet within thirty days after the vacancy occurs for that purpose, and in the event of a failure to so fill such vacancy, or vacancies in the manner aforesaid within said time then the President shall fill that vacancy by appointment, and the person or persons so appointed shall hold office until the next annual election of Directors. Should a vacancy occur in the office of President, the Board of Directors shall elect his successor within three months after such vacancy occurs, and in the interim the Vice-President shall serve as President of such Corporation. Vacancies occurring in any other office shall be filled by appointment by the President. TENTH: The said Corporation, under the name, style, and title aforesaid, shall have full power and authority to make, have and use a common seal, with such device and inscription as it may deem proper, and the same to alter and renew at its pleasure; and by the name, style and title aforesaid, shall be able in law and in equity to sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded in any court or courts, before any Judge or Justice of the Peace, in all manner of suits and complaints, pleas, causes, matters and demands whatsoever, and all and every matter therein to do in as full and ample a manner, and as effectually, as any other person, or persons, bodies politic or corporate within the state of New York, may or can do. ELEVENTH: The said Corporation, by the name, style and title aforesaid, shall have the right, power and authority to take and receive and hold in fee simple, or any less estate, all messuages, lots, lands, buildings, tenements, rents, annuities, franchises and hereditaments as may be necessary and proper for its purposes, and not contrary to law governing such corporations; and to sell, lease, mortgage or otherwise dispose of any part thereof, subject to the laws of said State controlling such corporations; and shall have the same right to receive, hold, sell, lease to sell, lease or otherwise dispose of any and all kinds of personal property or money, subject, however, to the laws of the state of New York in such cases made and provided. WITNESS our hands and seals this 12th day of February, A.D. 1909. Witness as to Edward W. Brenneisen Edward W. Brenneisen [signature] SEAL Illegible name H. Clay Rockwell [signature] SEAL Illegible name Wm. E. Van Amburgh [signature] SEAL William E. Page [signature] SEAL Frederick W. Williamson [signature] SEAL Isaac F. Hoskins [signature] SEAL C.T. Russell [signature] SEAL

Certificate of Extension of Purposes We, the undersigned, a majority of the Board of Directors of the PEOPLES PULPIT ASSOCIATION, a corporation heretofore duly incorporated under the Membership Corporation Law of the State of New York, desiring to extend its corporate purposes, pursuant to Section Four (4) of the Membership Corporation Law, do hereby certify as follows: FIRST: The name of the corporation is, THE PEOPLES PULPIT ASSOCIATION. SECOND: The purposes for which it was incorporated are, the moral and mental improvement of men and women, the dissemination of Bible truths in various languages by means of the publication of tracts, pamphlets, papers and other religious documents, and by the use of all other, lawful means which its Board of Directors, duly constituted, shall deem expedient for the purpose stated, and for religious missionary work. THIRD: The purpose to which it is desired to extend its corporate purposes are, charitable, benevolent, scientific, historical, literary and religious purposes, and for the purpose of maintaining and conducting classes for the gratuitous instruction of men and women, on the premises or by mail, in the Bible literature and Bible history, and for the gratuitous teaching, training and preparing of men and women as teachers, and as lecturers on the Bible and preachers of the Gospels, and to provide and maintain a home, place, building or buildings for the gratuitous housing, sheltering and boarding of such students, lecturers, teachers and ministers suitable meals and lodging, and to prepare, support, maintain and send out to the various parts of the world religious missionaries, teachers and instructors in the Bible and Bible literature, and for public religious worship, and for the purpose of the publication and distribution of bibles and Bible and religious literature. FOURTH: Such extension has been duly authorized by a resolution adopted by the concurring vote of a majority of the members of the corporation, present at a special meeting of the corporation duly called for that purpose, as more fully appears by the certificate of the President and Secretary of the corporation, hereto annexed and filed herewith. In Witness thereof, we have made, signed, and executed this certificate in duplicate. Dated this 19th day of November 1912. I.F. Hoskins [signature] F.H. Robison [signature] Board of Directors H. Clay Rockwell [signature] Wm. E. Van Amburgh [signature]

E.W. Brenneisen [signature] Charles T. Russell [signature] Certificate of Justice of Supreme Court I hereby approve of the extension of the corporate purposes proposed by the foregoing certificate, and of the filing thereof, this Nov. 19, 1912 [Illegible signature]

APPENDIX 5

The Resolution and By-Laws of January 6, 1917 A major bone of contention during the management crisis in 1917 was the by-laws accepted by the shareholders on January 6, and approved by the board of directors on January 19, 1917. Only parts of these by-laws were published that year, and the Society has never published them in their entirety. However, they were made public in 1943 in the court case, Olin Moyle vs. Fred Franz et al, on pp. 1526-1528, 1537 and 1538. The resolution and by-laws as recorded there follow verbatim: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the WATCH TOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOCIETY was formed for the purpose of teaching the Bible by oral sermons and lectures and various publications, and is maintained by the voluntary contributions made by many persons; and WHEREAS, we recognize the necessity and importance of using our consecrated talents to the best advantage that we may render a proper account of our stewardship to the Lord: Now therefore, resolved by the voting members of said Society, in annual meeting assembled, that the recommendations be made to the Board of Directors and officers in charge of the work of our Society, and that such recommendations be carried out, if possible, in harmony with the spirit of the Lord, namely: First: That it is the sense of the voting members of this Society that its work should be kept on a basis of strict efficiency, and that no one be employed, kept or maintained at the Society headquarters who is unable or unwilling to render efficient service under the direction of the Board or officers having the management and responsibility of the Society’s work. Second: That those properly in charge of the affairs of the Society at its headquarters ascertain if there are any person or persons who are kept or maintained there and who are unable or unwilling to render efficient service, and that those only be invited to remain who are able and willing to render such efficient service; except however, the Society may with propriety keep, maintain and support the wife, children or other dependent ones who are unable to render efficient service, who are dependent upon a brother who is giving all of his time and efforts to the work of the Society under the direction of its proper officers or management. Third: That Pastor Russell’s expressed wish for the conducting of the Society’s affairs be carried out as far as deemed possible by the officers of the Society.

BY-LAWS Section I. Each person contributing to the funds of the WATCH TOWER BILBE & TRACT SOCIETY, and who is in full harmony with the work and teachings of said Society, shall be entitled to one vote for each ten dollars so contributed: provided that no credit on voting shares will be given for any sum less than ten dollars, unless at the time of such contribution the Secretary is informed that the contribution is part of the ‘Good Hopes’ of such contributor for the current year. At the time of such contribution the contributor shall have the right to have a voting share or shares, issued to himself or any one else who is also in full harmony with the teachings and work of said Society. Any person whose address is unknown to the Society for a continuous period of two years shall be considered as having ceased to be a voter, and such name shall be dropped from the list of voters. Any person who has contributed money to this corporation and who is therefore entitled to a voting share or shares therein, and who afterwards becomes an opponent to said Society, or out of harmony with its purposes and work, particularly with reference to the presence of the Lord and the establishment of his Kingdom of righteousness, as taught by the Bible and the publications of said Society, shall thereby cease to be a voting member of this corporation, and shall have no right to cast any vote or votes at any election or other meeting held by the Society. No person who is holder of voting shares in this Society shall have the right to transfer the same by assignment, or deed or will. The words contained in the charter, viz., “or to his assigns”, are construed to mean that the shareholder, at the time of making contribution or having the voting shares issued by the Secretary, shall have the right to have the same issued to himself or to any person to whom he may assign such right at the time, within the meaning of the preceding paragraph of this section. The right to cast a vote is a personal right which ceases with the death of the Person. Section II. An Advisory Committee, composed of three members of the Society shall be appointed by the President of this Society, which shall be subject to change by the President once every three months, their tenure of service being three months, or until the President appoints their successor or successors. The person holding the office of Secretary and Treasurer, should always be a member of said Advisory Committee. It shall be the duty of said Advisory Committee, from time to time whenever requested by the President, to consult and advise with the President concerning the work and affairs of the Society. Section III. The President of this Society shall always be the executive officer and general manager of this corporation, having in charge the management of its affairs and work, both in America and in the foreign countries; but he shall, from time to time, consult with the members of the Advisory Board concerning the work and affairs of the Society. The

President shall make report to the Board of Directors, from time to time upon request, concerning any matter touching the Society’s work which the Board may desire to hear.

APPENDIX 6

Letter to Class Secretaries, July 19, 1917 July 19, 1917. To the Ecclesia, Dear Brethren:At the direction of the Board of Directors of this Society we are herewith sending you a copy of resolution passed by that Board on the 17th day of July, 1917. We beg to advise that the Society’s President has prepared a statement, in obedience to the direction of the resolution, a copy of which will be furnished to any Class that may request it. Praying the Lord’s continued blessing upon you all, and with much Christian love, we remain Yours in His service, Watch Tower B&T Society

Figure 16. Letter to Class Secretaries, July 19, 1917

APPENDIX 7

Resolution of Rutherford’s Board, July 17, 1917 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY WHEREAS, the President of the WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY has this day made a statement in writing before the undersigned, who are now members of the Board of Directors, setting forth his acts done and performed since the death of Brother Russell, and his election as President; AND WHEREAS, it is the sense of this Board that the President should prepare and publish, for the benefit of the Church at large, a statement of facts concerning his said activities; AND WHEREAS, it is well known that opposition has arisen against the President; AND WHEREAS, we have heard a statement at length by Brothers Rutherford, Hirsh, Hoskins, Wright, Ritchie, Macmillan, Van Amburgh, Baeuerlein and others; AND WHEREAS, it appears from the facts brought before us that Brothers I. F. Hoskins, R. H. Hirsh, A. I. Ritchie and J. D. Wright have not been legally members of the Board of Directors of the WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY for more than six months prior thereto, and are not now members thereof; and the necessity having arisen for a full and complete Board of Directors; and the President, acting under the power and authority conferred upon him by the terms of the Charter and the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, has appointed four members to complete said Board; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we, the undersigned members of the Board of Directors, do hereby express our hearty approval of the acts and conduct of our President and General Manager and Executive Officer of the WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY, which duties we desire him to continue; and we take this occasion to express our utmost confidence in him as a brother and servant in the Lord, and to commend him, with loving prayers and assurance of our support, to all who love our dear Pastor Russell and who believe that he was sent to be the guide of the Church to the end of her way; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we believe that our dear Brother Rutherford is the man the Lord has chosen to carry on the work that yet remains to be done in Pastor Russell’s name and in the name of the Lord; and that no other in the Church is as well qualified as he to do this work; or could have received at the Lord’s hand greater evidences of His love and favor;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the President be, and he is hereby requested to prepare a full statement of the facts leading up to the condition now existing in the work at Brooklyn; and a full statement of the necessity arising for the appointment of members of the Board of Directors and why the same is done; and such other facts as may be necessary in this connection for the good and welfare of the Church at large; and that said statement be published if deemed necessary. In the name of the Master of the Harvest, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Amen! [Signed] A. N. Pierson W. E. Spill W. E. Van Amburgh J. A. Bohnet A. H. Macmillan Go. H. Fisher Brooklyn, New York, July 17th, 1917.

Figure 17. Resolution of Rutherford’s Board, July 17, 1917

APPENDIX 8

General Corporation Law 1882 THE GENERAL CORPORATION LAW OF PENNSYLVANIA, Approved 29 April, 1874, AND SUPPLEMENTARY ACTS, WITH NOTES, FORMS AND INDEX, BY ANGELO T. FREEDLEY, Of the Philadelphia Bar. PHILADELPHIA: T. & J. W. JOHNSON & CO., LAW BOOKSELLERS, 535 CHESTNUT STREET. 1882. Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1882. T. & J. W. JOHNSON & CO., In the Office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington, D.C. W. H. FILE & SONS, PRINTERS. [Page 19] …holders or members of the corporation, at a general meeting call for that purpose, unless the charter prescribes another body, or a different mode.[1] They shall prescribe the time and place of meeting of the corporation, the powers and duties of its officials, and such other matters as may be pertinent and necessary for the business to be transacted, and may contain penalties for the breach thereof, not exceeding twenty dollars.[2] 6. Officers and their Duties[3] – The business of every corporation created hereunder, or accepting the same, shall be managed and conducted by a president, a board of directors or trustees, a clerk, a treasurer, and such other officers, agents and factors as the corporation authorizes for that purpose.[4] Directors or Trustees[5] – The directors or trustees shall be chosen [Page 19 footnotes] [1] Unless authorized by the charter the board of directors have no power to make by-laws, nor to alter, amend or repeal the same; United Fire Association v. Benseman, 4 Weekly Notes Cas. 1; Morton Co. v. Wysong, 51 Ind. 4: but the affirmations and acquiescence of a member may stop him from questioning the mode in which the by-laws have been enacted ; Morrison v. Dorsey, 48 Md. 462. [2] By-Laws regulate rights between corporation and its members and their representatives; Waln v. Bank, 8 S. & R. 89; Martin v. Railroad Co., 30 La. An., 308; but the rights of third persons claiming under such by-laws depend upon the general principles applicable to ordinary cases; Flint v. Pierce, 99 Mass. 68. In St. Patrick’s Society v. McVey, 11 Norris, 510, it was held that by-laws of beneficial societies regulating the amounts payable by members do not constitute a contract with such members upon their admission to the society, but are subject to future alteration. [3] Act 29 April, 1874, § 5; P. L. 77. WHEN MARRIED WOMEN ELIGIBLE AS OFFICERS.—“In all cases, married women shall be deemed and held qualified or free from any disability on account of coverture, for appointment and acting as corporators or officers of all associations incorporated heretofore, or that may be hereafter incorporated, for purposes of learning, benevolence, charity or religion;” Act 19 April, 1879 ; P. L. 16.

[4] Officers entrusted with the management of the corporate business, are general agents, and private restrictions imposed by the corporation, are immaterial against third persons acting on the faith of the agency ; Gratins v. Land Co., 3 Phila. Rep. 447 ; and as such agents they incur no personal liability when avowedly contracting on behalf of the company ; Beeson v. Lang. 4 Norris, 198 ; but judgment cannot be confessed against the corporation by its officers without authority of the directors ; Freeman v. Plaindealer Co., 9 Luz. Leg. Reg. 37 ; Hardiman v. Phila. Ass., 2 Weekly Notes Cas. 440 ; and obviously an officer cannot transfer by estoppel that which he is incapable of doing by contract ; Junction R. R. Co. v. Penna. R. R. Co., 30 P. F. Smith, 265. Officers, moreover, occupy a quasi fiduciary relation to the corporation, and cannot profit by purchasing claims against it ; Hill v. Frazier, 10 Harris, 320. [5] Act 29 April, 1874, § 5; P. L. 77.

[Page 20] annually by the stockholders or members, at the time fixed by the by-laws,[1] and shall hold their office until others are chosen and qualified in their stead ; the manner of such choice and of the choice or appointment of all other agents and officers of the company, shall be prescribed by the by-laws.[2] The number of directors or trustees shall not be less than three ; one of them shall be chosen president by the directors, or by the members of the corporation, as the by-laws shall direct. The members of said corporation may, at a meeting to be called for that purpose, determine, fix or change the number of directors or trustees that shall thereafter govern its affairs ; and a majority of the whole number of such directors or trustees shall be necessary to constitute a quorum. Clerk–Secretary.[3]—The clerk shall be sworn and shall record all the votes of the corporation, and the minutes of its transactions, in a book to be kept for that purpose. Treasurer.[4] —The treasurer shall give bond in such sum and with such sureties as shall be required by the by-laws, for the faithful discharge of his duties, and he shall keep the moneys of the corporation in a separate book account, to his credit as treasurer, and if he shall neglect or refuse so to do, he shall be liable. To a penalty of fifty dollars for every day he shall fail to do so, to be recovered at the suit of any informer in an action of debt.[5] Vacancies.[6]—In case of the death, removal, or resignation of the president or any of the directors, treasurer or any other officer of any such company, the remaining directors may supply the vacancy thus created until the next election. [Page 20 footnotes] [1] Mandamus lies to compel such annual election ; Com. v. Keim, 38 Leg. Int. 32 ; The People v. Town of Fairbury, 51 Ill. 149 ; The People v. Albany Hospital, 61 Barbour, 307. [2] Knowledge of the rules, regulations and by-laws of the company will be imputed to its stockholders and its officers ; Bedford Railroad Co. v. Bowser, 12 Wright, 37 ; Hurter v. Sun Mutual Ins. Co., 26 La. An. 13, (aliter as to their sureties ; Atlantic R. R. Co. v. Cowles, 69 N. C. 59.) Hence, where no salary is attached to the office none can be recovered ; Kilpatrick v. Penrose Ferry Bridge Company, 13 Wright, 118; Field v. Union Box Co., 2 Weekly Notes Cas. 426. Nor when the salary is fixed will extra compensation be allowed for extra services ; Carr v. Chartiers Coal Co., 1 Casey, 337 ; and a resolution enumerating officers who had been elected to serve without compensation is merely voluntary and revocable ; Loan Assn. v. Stonemetz, 5 Casey, 534. [3] Act 29 April, 1874, § 5; P. L. 77. [4] Id. [5] Under a somewhat similar statute it has been held that as the treasurer is the recognized responsible custodian of the funds, the directors have no power to deposit them elsewhere ; Pearson v. Tower, 55 N. H. 215. [6] Act 29 April, 1874, § 9 ; P. L. 78.

Figures 18-21. General Corporation Law 1882

APPENDIX 9

Davies, Auerbach & Cornell DAVIES, AUERBACH & CORNELL MUTUAL LIFE BUILDING, 34 NASSAU STREET JULIEN T. DAVIES JOSEPH S. AUERBACH EDWARD CORNELL CHARLES E. HOTCHKISS BRAINARD TOLLES CHARLES H. TUTTLE NICHOLAS F. LENSSEN WARNER B. MATTESON New York, July 23, 1917. Gentlemen: You have requested our opinion concerning your present title to office as Directors of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, and concerning the views as to the law expressed by Mr. Rutherford in his “Statements of Facts and Points,” a copy of which you have received. As to the proposition which is so much emphasized in Mr. Rutherford’s “Statements” that even if his course in ousting, as he claims, you four gentlemen, a majority of the Board, from your Directorships, was wrongful and in violation of law, the matter cannot be redressed in the New York courts, it is enough to point out that he, in his own statement, says: “In 1909 said Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society removed its activities from the State of Pennsylvania to the State of New York; and since that time it has transacted no business of consequence in the State of Pennsylvania, and never had a meeting of its Board of Directors in said State during that time.” If this be so, it goes without saying that the courts of the State of New York have ample jurisdiction to see to it that the affairs of the corporation, which, according to Mr. Rutherford’s own admission, are being conducted almost entirely within the State of New York, are not taken out of the hands of a majority of its Board of Directors and turned over to other men whom the President chooses to appoint and regard as Directors. No lawyer familiar with the New York law would have any difficulty in finding legal methods of preventing the usurpers from exercising control over the affairs of the corporation in this State.

The second proposition in Mr. Rutherford’s “Statements,” to-wit, that the affairs of the corporation could not be brought before the courts of the State of New York, because it is not registered in this State, would involve, if true, very disastrous consequences for the corporation, in view of Mr. Rutherford’s own admission that all of its affairs are being substantially transacted in this State. If, in truth, it be an outlaw here – if, in truth, its affairs are not under the protection of the State of New York – it is easy to see that the corollary of the proposition that it is not competent to be sued in the courts of this State, is that for the same reason it is not competent to sue, and that in consequence its affairs, its property and its good name are at the mercy of any individual who seeks to disregard its rights or who undertakes to seize control of its affairs in disregard of the constituted Board of Directors, whose presence in office had expressed the will of Pastor Russell and of the membership of the corporation for years. As a matter of law, however, it is utterly fallacious to say that because the statutes of this State provide no means for registering a foreign membership corporation, that therefore such corporation in transacting affairs here is not subject to the courts of this State. All corporations may lawfully carry out within this State the purposes of their charters and may exercise such powers incidental thereto as may be fairly necessary, unless otherwise forbidden by the laws of this State; and the requirements of the statutes of this State for registry apply only to foreign stock corporations. (Demarest vs. Flack, 128 N.Y. 205.) That the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society is not a foreign stock corporation within the meaning of the statutes of this State is shown by the following definition in Section 3 of the General Corporation Law: “A stock corporation is a corporation having a capital stock divided into shares, and which is authorized by law to distribute to the holders thereof dividends or shares of the surplus profits of the corporation. A corporation is not a stock corporation because of having issued certificates called certificates of stock, but which are in fact merely certificates of membership, and which is not authorized by law to distribute to its members any dividends or share of profits arising from the operations of the corporation.” Pastor Russell, therefore, was not so ill advised as to the law, that in conducting the affairs of this corporation in this State since 1909 (as Mr. Rutherford himself says) he committed the mistake of placing those affairs outside of the protection of courts of justice. The third proposition made by Mr. Rutherford is that the provision in the charter of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, approved in 1884 and still incorporated in the said charter, that “the members of the Board of Directors shall hold their respective offices for life,” is invalid, since the statute of the State of Pennsylvania, providing that Directors shall be chosen annually by the stockholders or members, is said to be applicable to this corporation. It is a little surprising that one who for years was connected with the management of this corporation should not have discovered this alleged illegality until after

the death of Pastor Russell, and then for the first time should bring forward a claim which is well calculated to subvert the whole scheme of government as planned and desired by Pastor Russell, and should use that claim to justify the possession of power in himself alone to oust a majority of the Board of Directors and to fill their places, notwithstanding that a number of the persons whom he thus seeks to exclude held that office for years with the acquiescence and approval both of Pastor Russell and the membership of the corporation. In this connection it is significant that the charter of the Society is endorsed, as required by Pennsylvania law, with a certificate of an Associated Judge of the Common Pleas that such judge had examined the charter and found the same “to be lawful and not injurious to the community,” and that therefore the incorporators and their associates were entitled to have leave to be a corporation for the purposes and upon the terms therein stated. Even if, however, an election or appointment “for life” could not lawfully be made, your right to office would not be in any way affected, since no successors to you have been chosen by the members of the corporation. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that as Mr. Rutherford claims, the Pennsylvania statutory provision that “Directors shall be chosen annually by the stockholders or members,” has some application to this corporation, there would then come into play the very next clause in the statute, to-wit, that such Directors or Trustees “shall hold their office until others are chosen and qualified in their stead.” As the members of the corporation have never chosen anyone in your place, your terms of office would (if the statute cited by Mr. Rutherford were applicable) be extended beyond the expiration of one year until such time as successors chosen, not by Mr. Rutherford, but by the members of the corporation, should qualify. Even if the term for which you had been elected were longer than the law allowed, you would not thereby be disqualified from holding office during the lawful period. Furthermore, this provision of statute, that Directors do not lose office solely because of the failure of the members of the corporation to appoint their successors, but continue until such time as the successors have been appointed and qualify, is merely expressive of the common law rule on the subject, and hence would be applicable to your case, even though the statute which we have been discussing be not applicable to the corporation. As to the claim that at least three Directors must be residents of the State of Pennsylvania, it would seem to be enough to reply that if this be so, the defect in title to office would apply to the entire Board of Directors and not merely to such individual members thereof as Mr. Rutherford (not himself a resident of Pennsylvania) might choose to consider affected by such disqualification. We are, however, unable to find any provision of Pennsylvania law enacted when this charter was adopted or which affects this charter which makes it mandatory that a certain number of Directors in a membership corporation (as is this one) shall be residents of the State of Pennsylvania. As to the claim that Mr. Rutherford, as President, is “the executive officer and General Manager” of the corporation, and as such “has the legal right to manage the corporation,”

we cannot but feel that the conclusion which is sought to be reached from the development of this claim, to-wit, that as “Manager” he may fill the Board of Directors with his own appointees, is founded on the use of the word “Manager” in a double sense. The term “Manager” of a corporation is the title of an office thoroughly well known to the law and to the business community; and it has never been thought before that this office was in any way connected with the appointing of Directors. It has to do solely with the executive management, and the Manager is the representative and executive officer of the Directors and not their overlord or source of power. The argument that the incumbent of the office of Manager has the “legal right to manage the corporation” is of course unsound, if the word “manage” is meant to imply the exercise of all the powers of the corporation, including the right to appoint Directors. As to the filling of vacancies, it is enough to say that if Mr. Rutherford is right in his contention that certain portions of the charter are invalid because of the statute laws of Pennsylvania as to corporations, then he is wrong in his contention that that as President or Manager of the Society he has the right to fill vacancies, because this statute expressly provides that “in case of the death, removal or resignation of the President or any of the Directors, Treasurer or other officer of any such company, the remaining Directors may supply the vacancy thus created, until the next election.” Furthermore, even aside from this statute and taking the charter solely by itself, he has no right to fill your places, since “vacancies” have not occurred in your respective offices, and also because in the event of any such vacancy it would have been his duty, or the duty of any other president, to call the Board together in special meeting, and he could not deprive the Board of such power and obtain it for himself merely by failing to call a special meeting for such purpose. But, even if for any reason your original title to office might have legal defects, you, or at least three of you, have been in office so long and your title to office has been so long recognized by the entire membership of the corporation and by its late President, that you are now de facto Directors, even if not de jure Directors. Finally, it is important to observe that if the provision of the Pennsylvania statute that directors shall be chosen annually, had the effect which Mr. Rutherford claims, to-wit: as rendering vacant the office of every director at the end of one year, he himself would have no title to his office as director or as President, for the charter requires that the President “shall be chosen from among the members of the Board annually.” Mr. Rutherford claims that because he was elected by the members of the corporation to be President, such election constituted impliedly an election of him as a director, although he was not expressly so elected. This claim has been overruled by our Court of Appeals in a similar case. (People ex rel Nichol vs. New York Infant Asylum, 122 N.Y. 190.) If he were not in fact a director, the mistake of the members of the corporation in supposing that he was already a director and therefore eligible to be President, would not render him eligible in law to be president or constitute him a lawfully elected director. For this and other reasons, we are of the opinion

that the propositions of law advanced by Mr. Rutherford, would, if sound and pushed to their logical conclusion, defeat his own title to office as director and president. Very truly yours, DAVIES, AUERBACH AND CORNELL. To: MESSRS. A.I. RITCHIE, J.D. WRIGHT, I.F. HOSKINS, R.H. HIRSH

Figure 22. Letter from Davies, Auerbach & Cornell

APPENDIX 10

Rutherford’s Letter of December 16, 1914 about his Wife’s Health December 16th, 1914. Mr. J. T. Hoag, 141 West 10th St., Jacksonville, Florida. Dear Brother Hoag: As you are aware, the winter weather in this section of the country is quite severe for one who is not well. I am desirous of finding some comfortable place where my wife can spend the severe months of the winter, and be comfortable. Would you be so kind as to advise me if there are obtainable in desirable neighborhoods in Jacksonville, furnished rooms with meals at reasonable rates? Sister Rutherford has been in poor health for a number of years, and I would like to have her in a place that is either heated by steam or hot air with bath and toilet accommodations. We would be very glad to have our son, Malcolm C., spend the winter with her provided he can get something to do to occupy his time and earn something to help pay expenses. He is a good stenographer and would do office work, but prefers something out of doors. I wonder if you are doing any out of door work that he could assist you in, or know of someone who would give him employment that would be desirable, at a reasonable salary. Probably Brother King would know something that he could do in the way of soliciting for a fruit house, or something about the fruit orchards of the South. I do not wish to trouble you, but I would thank you very much if you would write me in this connection. With much love and best wishes to you and all the members or your family, I remain, Yours in the service of our Redeemer, [Signed] J F Rutherford

Figure 23. Rutherford’s Letter about his Wife’s Health

APPENDIX 11

Macmillan’s Letter of August 6, 1915 about Uncertainty Brandonville, West Va. August 6th, 1915 Dear Brother Ralph: Was pleased to receive your good letter, one I asare [sic] you all that I will do all in my power to be with you during your convention, but as you know the Society is about broke, and the future is uncertain. Therefore I am in a straight betwix [sic] three. Have not decided yet if I will continue in the Pilgrim service. Several matters are pending. I am now on my way to Brandonville, W. Va. where my wife and boy are with their folks. I expect to be there for four or five weeks, and if I can raise the funds you may see me at Crooksville, if not you will not see me. You see the spirit is willing, bu the flesh poor. My love to you all with prayers that you will have a grand time, which I am sure you will have. As ever, Yours in Him, [Signed] A. H. Macmillan.

Figure 24. Macmillan’s Letter about Uncertainty

APPENDIX 12

A Protest against Misrepresentation From Paul S.L. Johnson in The Present Truth, September 1, 1919, pages 161-162: “A Protest against Misrepresentation.” OUR READERS will recall that in the letter that he wrote the night before he was taken to Atlanta, and that has been published in “The Tower,” “St. Paul Enterprise” and the “Labor Tribune,” the latter being distributed widely as volunteer matter, Brother Rutherford intimates that the seven leaders of those who disapproved of his efforts to control the Society, as “that Servant” did, were present at the trial, and aided the prosecution against the eight accused brothers. This letter, backed by corresponding teaching, makes many of the supporters of the Society believe these seven brothers to be of the antitypical Judas. Recently we received a letter in which the following occurs: “Sunday evening Brother G.H. Fisher addressed our class, and among other things openly accused the brethren who were active in the Society of betraying the eight convicted brethren … and of scheming later to keep them in prison.” These charges move us to make the following statement: The news of their arrest greatly grieved us. Before the arrest we had never spoken or written to any one directly or indirectly connected with the prosecution respecting the accused brothers. Afterward in and out of meetings we counseled the brethren to take the side of and pray for the accused; because the issue was a battle between Israelites and Egyptians; and in such an event all of us should take the side of the former, however much evil they may have done us. All agree with this view. Before the trial the prosecutor subpoenaed us among others to gain information from ourself against the brothers. In every way we could we defended them, giving no information that could be used against them, telling everything that we reasonably could in their favor, and refuting every thing that he brought up against them, except four irrefutable lines of acts to which we will refer later, but for which we made excuse pleading their inexperience. So strongly did we defend them that the prosecutor, knowing that we would be a witness unfavorable to him, did not subpoena us to be present at the trial; while he did subpoena the ousted Directors, several of the Society supporters and others. Through Pilgrim Brother Herr we sent Brother Rutherford word revealing to him the prosecution’s lines of attack, and did this expressly to help him forearm himself. We designedly remained away from the trial, so as to secure ourself from being placed on the stand. Our stand, so favorable to them, was reported by Brother Herr and others to many of the Society brethren, some of whom then wrote us expressing their appreciation. Between the arrest and trial, and before we were subpoenaed to appear before the prosecutor, we met Brothers Cole and Van Amburgh on the street, and extended our hand to, and were about to express our sympathy with the latter; but he disdainfully refused our hand, and turned his face away. However, we did not allow such and worse treatment to interfere with our love and well doing toward the accused brothers.

It was not in any sense the disagreement in the Society that brought these brothers into trouble, as some mistakenly believe. We are reliably informed that among others the following acts, proven against them, effected their conviction, the judge doubtless arousing additional feeling against them: (1) Their denunciation of patriotism in Vol. VII [Had Brother Woodworth followed “that Servant’s” known interpretation of the frog coming out of the mouth of the dragon, given e.g., in the Armageddon Tract, as the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings, and then properly applied it against the Kaiser, and omitted his denunciation of patriotism, which, though often abused, is a good quality, instead of Vol. VII bringing them into, it would have helped them out of their trouble. It would not surprise us, if the Lord, in disapproval, allowed this trouble to come upon them as a direct consequence of their deviating from “that Servant’s” known interpretation of the frog coming out of the dragon’s mouth, etc.]; (2) their writing letters into the camps, which letters fell into the censor’s hands, advising the drafted brothers not to put on the uniform, nor to drill, nor to wash dishes, pare potatoes, clean the barracks, etc.; (3) their furnishing affidavits and other instruction to Truth people and others whereby to claim exemption on the ground of conscientious objection; (4) writing the brethren unpatriotic letters, which were intercepted by the censors, and delivering unpatriotic speeches. These are the main things that effected their sentences, we are reliably informed. We surely rejoice in their release; but their unbrotherly course in accusing us so falsely is regrettable. Of course, these accusations fit into their scheme that they are of the Little Flock, and that the seven brothers are of the antitypical Judas; but they do not fit into the facts of the case, nor into the Bible teaching with reference to the convicted brothers as undergoing Great Company experiences. To ourself it seems that their imprisonment is due to two things, one commendable, the other not: (1) the second smiting of Jordan and (2) wrongdoing against the Lord’s Saints and arrangements. In other words, as the Great Company suffers in part for righteousness and in part for unrighteousness, so these brothers seem to have undergone such sufferings. So far we have answered for ourself. As for the other six brothers we can say this much: We do not believe that they aided the prosecution, though one of them (Brother Ritchie) under subpoena was forced to go on the witness stand; but while there, we are reliably informed, did nothing else than identify Brother MacMillan’s handwriting, which Brother MacMillan himself also recognized and acknowledged. We do know of all of them that they endorsed our view as expressed above—i.e., standing by Israelites against Egyptians; and we are reliably informed that Brother Hirsh not only told Pilgrim Brother Cole, who was present at the trial, that he both deeply sympathized with the accused brothers, and had taken advantage of the opportunity that his own arrest had offered to defend the accused brothers, but also expressed himself similarly to Brother de Cecca, one of the accused brothers, the day the trial began, the unapproachableness of the other accused brothers preventing a similar course on his part toward them.

Furthermore we did nothing by motive, word or act that in any way was calculated to hinder their release, nor do we know of the others doing it, nor do we believe it of them. How inconsistent such charges coming from the Society’s leaders are appears from the following: At the trial they sought through their counsel, after failing to get their own indictment quashed, to prevent the indictment against Brother Hirsh from being quashed, who (charged as a codefendant, because his name appeared in “The Tower” as an Editor, contemporaneously with some of their alleged offenses against the espionage act) was recognized by the prosecution as not guilty; because it was found that he ceased to act as an Editor before the alleged offending “Tower” article appeared. The prosecution therefore moved that the indictment against him be set aside, a thing that was stoutly resisted by the counsel of the convicted brothers. By seeking to prevent the quashing of his indictment the accused brothers sought through their counsel to have Brother Hirsh tried with them, and, if convicted, sent to, prison with them, while he did everything he could to shield them and to discourage the prosecution in the things with which they charged the brothers. This shows who really have the spirit of delivering up their brethren, as they have also shown in many other ways. In view of this gross and widespread misrepresentation against ourself and others (which is but one among many), in the Name of Jesus Christ, our Head, we hereby make public protest before God and the whole Church, especially against Brother Rutherford’s conduct, who for two and one-half years has been smiting his fellow servants, and call upon him to make public amends for his grievous sin in this matter.

APPENDIX 13

Henning Andersson’s Testimony about Rutherford & Bethel In the 1970s, I discussed the history of the Watch Tower Society under Rutherford with my friend and compatriot Carl Olof Jonsson, particularly the claims made by Olin R. Moyle, a lawyer expelled from the Society by Rutherford in 1939. Jonsson decided to interview a friend of his, Henning Andersson, who had worked at headquarters in the 1920s. I urged him to take notes of the conversation immediately afterwards, and this he did. In a letter he wrote to me under date September 1, 1975, he shared his impressions with me. I translated the information into English, and in an email dated June 3, 2012, Carl allowed me to use my translation in the book I was working on. The place name “Åmål” in his letter refers to the town in the middle of Sweden where Carl was living at the time. Here follows my translation of Carl’s letter: Åmål, September 1, 1975 When I visited Göteborg I took the opportunity to interview the old brother I mentioned, who had been working in Brooklyn during the Rutherford era, in order to squeeze some details out of him. His name is Henning Andersson and he lives at Birgittagatan 13. He worked at the Bethel home in Brooklyn during the years 1927-1934, and his memories and impressions from this are still distinct. But he did not know of Moyle, so probably he arrived there after Henning had left. Henning knew the Bethel staff very well, including Rutherford, Knorr, Franz, Woodworth and others. That is of course rather natural, in view of the fact that the Bethel family at that time comprised about 100 members, who met each other every day, at least in the dining room. That Rutherford gave public reprimands and rebukes was confirmed by Henning. It occurred quite frequently and most of the staff were subjected to that—though never Henning himself, who apparently was a kind and adaptable worker. Most of the time he worked in the printing plant. He remembered particularly vividly how Brother Knorr at one time came crying and howling after such a rebuke. Knorr was not very old at the time, 2324 years according to Henning. He was “cheeky” at times, and that was not allowed. Rutherford ruled with a rod of iron, according to Henning, to see to it that the work would be carried out as efficiently and smoothly as possible. They were overburdened with work and there was great pressure on everyone. Rutherford himself worked very hard. In those days it was not all that important who was accepted for service at Bethel. There were strange characters among the workers there, even people who were not consecrated. The harsh discipline was necessary according to Henning, and the reprimands, which usually took place publicly in the dining room, were justified. Again and again Henning emphasized that Rutherford was very just towards everyone.

To my question if there were rude, vulgar jokes in the dining room, Henning replied very firmly that such things never occurred. He could not recall that anyone had ever told an indecent story or a vulgar joke. Of course, what should be classified as vulgar jokes is rather stretchable, and it is possible that Moyle was a bit oversensitive in that regard, as in the case of alcohol consumption. That alcohol was used is correct. Everyone drank wine, even Rutherford himself. But it was done in a decent manner, Henning emphasized, who himself still is fond of wine and strong drinks. Those who were drinking kept to their rooms. It happened that someone could also drink to intoxication, but it did not happen very often, and when it did it happened in the room. Likely it was the hard-working pace that contributed to wine drinking. It helped to relax after a long day’s trying work. Now and then brothers left the truth during that time, and they did not hesitate to present accusations, generally exaggerated or untruthful. Those opponents constantly attacked them in different ways. For example, they spread the rumor that Rutherford himself at one time was found intoxicated, lying out in the corridor and had to be helped into his room. Henning did not believe that it was true. He had never himself seen Rutherford tipsy, not once during the seven years he worked there. Did Rutherford, in sharp contrast to the rest, work in a comfortable, air-conditioned room? Henning could give no answer to that. Rutherford’s room was situated at the top of the building, and he never visited it. I have known Henning for several years, and I know that he does not lie. He honestly expressed his impressions from Bethel and also admitted the defects that existed. He endured Rutherford’s hard regimentation because he realized that it was necessary under the circumstances, if the work was to be done, and in a uniform, peaceful way. One can also understand that the hard pressure on everyone caused a certain irritation, not least on Rutherford’s part. It is admirable that so many yet kept together and went on fighting loyally under the existing pressure. Henning himself became almost a nervous wreck as a result. It was not for sensitive individuals.

Footnotes 1 In a footnote on the same page, he referred to the Norwegian writer Jan Haugland. On page 280, he specified the source as Haugland’s Master Thesis from 2006 called The Successor problem: A Focused Biography of Joseph Rutherford, 2nd Leader for Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1916-1942. This thesis is available on the Internet. Actually, Haugland only stated: “It is certainly possible, but this author has not found it possible to fully confirm or reject this theory, that one name was added to the list after Russell had written it.” 2 The Watch Tower, December 1, 1916, p. 358 3 Ibid, p. 359 4 The Watch Tower Reprints, p. 4652 5 The Present Truth, December 1, 1919, p. 210 6 Harvest Siftings, August 1, 1917, p. 19 7 E.C. Henninges had been branch manager for The Watch Tower Society in England, Germany and Australia consecutively. M.L. McPhail who lived in Chicago had been a prominent “pilgrim.” Both left the Society in 1908 because of divergent views

about the biblical covenants and the sin offering. 8 The Watchtower, August 14, 1966, pp. 566-567 9 The Present Truth, May 1, 1934, p. 68 10 The Watch Tower, December 1, 1916, p. 379 11 The Present Truth, May 1, 1920, p. 76 12 Harvest Siftings, p. 18; The Present Truth, January 1, 1920, p. 11 13 Bregninge, p. 133 14 Letter from E.T. Lenfest to Rud Persson February 10, 1977

Glossary To readers unfamiliar with the history of the Watch Tower movement a number of terms used in this book may pose a problem. The following explanations are meant to help such readers. ANCIENT WORTHIES, THE In the theology of the Bible Students there was a peculiar group which they called “the ancient worthies.” It was said to consist of the faithful people who lived before Christ and that they were described particularly in the book of Hebrews, chapter eleven. There Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Joseph and Moses, among others, are mentioned. They believed that these “ancient worthies” would be the earthly agents of the heavenly, invisible kingdom, serving as “princes” in all the earth during the millennium. As such they would be resurrected from the dead as perfect, fully restored human beings. They also believed that they would be changed from earthly to spiritual nature at the end of the millennium. BETHEL Bethel became the name of the Bible Student headquarters when it moved to Brooklyn in 1909. When situated earlier in Pittsburgh the headquarters was called “the Bible House.” The first branch office in England and later branch officers in other countries, too, were also called Bethel. BIBLE STUDENTS It is important to realize that the term Bible Students in this book does not refer to Bible students in general, of whom there were many in the various churches. Instead it refers specifically to the people making up the movement initiated by Charles Taze Russell. “We are Bible Students,” Russell wrote in 1910 and recommended that congregations sharing his theological beliefs should use the designation International Bible Students’ Association as a way of identification. In actual practice the apostrophe was dropped. International Bible Students Association was then added to the title pages of the Society’s publications for many years, while copyright was still given as Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. In 1914 the Society’s first foreign branch was set up in Britain, chartered as International Bible Students Association and in 1925 International Bible Students Association of Canada was organized. In 1931 Rutherford concluded that the designation Bible Students was not good enough for his faction of the Bible Students and had them accept the name Jehovah’s Witnesses instead. CHURCH’S SHARE IN THE SIN OFFERING, THE C.T. Russell early concluded that the church, the “little flock,” would participate with Christ in his sacrificial offering – the Sin-Offering – on behalf of humankind living on earth during the millennium. According to The Watch Tower Reprints, pages 5284-5285, this did not mean that

its members would provide the ransom price or redeem anybody else, but that they would be associates of the Redeemer, Christ, as members of his body, his bride. While presenting this view from time to time Russell did not consider it to be a fundamental teaching that everybody had to subscribe to in order to be accepted. If need be, he claimed, a Bible Student ecclesia might split up in two on this issue and still be in harmony. He admitted that there were quite a few “dear brethren” who did not embrace the view that the church was permitted to have a share in Christ’s sacrificing but he also made it clear that he himself continued to hold on to his well known view. This view played a role when in 1936 there was a split in the Pastoral Bible Institute, one of the movements resulting from the management crisis in 1917 and 1918. COLPORTEUR Beginning in 1881, colporteurs, going from door to door, became zealous distributors of Watch Tower literature. According to The Watch Tower Reprints, page 818, there were “about 300 colporteurs” in 1885. They were allowed to pay their own expenses with money received from the selling of literature and from Watch Tower subscriptions they obtained. Colporteur was not a unique Bible Student term but was used within the churches, too. According to MerriamWebster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, 2003, it dates from 1796 and means “a peddler of religious books.” COVENANTS In 1907 C.T. Russell concluded that the traditional understanding of the “new covenant” foretold in Jeremiah 31:31-34 was wrong. He argued that the church or “little flock” was not under that covenant. He claimed that this would come into effect only during the future millennium and concern the Jews first and also the rest of mankind then living on the earth. In consequence he claimed that the church had Jesus only as advocate but not as mediator. The “little flock,” Russell concluded, was developed only under the Abrahamic or oath-bound covenant mentioned in the book of Genesis. A number of prominent Bible Students rejected this reinterpretation, and considerable turmoil in the movement resulted. However, the overwhelming majority of the Bible Students accepted Russell’s view. But in his book Jehovah, published in 1934, Rutherford rejected Russell’s view and claimed that the church actually was under the new covenant. ECCLESIA During the time of C.T. Russell the Bible Students tended to call their congregations ecclesias, based on the word ekklesia used in the Greek text of the New Testament. The anglicized form ecclesia is derived from the Latin adaptation and means “congregation.” As an alternative to ecclesia they sometimes used the word “class” and “church” and even “congregation.” ELIJAH AND ELISHA

In his later ministry Charles T. Russell viewed the Old Testament prophets Elijah and Elisha as types foreshadowing two classes of Christians in the last days of the present world order. He believed that Elijah prefigured the faithful “little flock” and that Elisha foreshadowed the “great company” mentioned in Revelation 7:9. And just as Elijah was separated from Elisha in a dramatic way according to 2 Kings chapter two, so the “little flock,” the Elijah class, would be separated from the “great company,” the Elisha class, in a dramatic way. Following Russell’s death on October 31, 1916, the Bible Students were at a loss how this separation would take place. There were splits, and the various factions came up with conflicting views of this, as reflected in some places in this book. In 1918 the Society under Rutherford still held to Russell’s understanding of the two classes, but in 1919 Rutherford rejected it. He then claimed that Elijah and Elisha both prefigured the “little flock” and that the separation of the two just meant that a new phase of the public work would take place. He claimed that the decisive change between the Elijah work and the Elisha work took place in 1918. Much later, in 1961, the Society suggested that the change took place when Rutherford died in 1942. FAITHFUL AND WISE SERVANT, THE The Bible Students arrived at a peculiar conception of the terms “faithful and wise servant” and “that servant” mentioned at Matthew 24:45-47 in the King James version of the Bible. Theologians and Bible commentaries have generally applied these terms to spiritual overseers or teachers in the Christian churches, considered as individuals. C.T. Russell came to understand them in a much narrower way. On pages 613 and 614 in Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. IV, published in 1897, he argued that the “faithful and wise servant” would be a unique individual during Christ’s “presence” in the last days. He did not state that he himself was that unique servant, but it became the general understanding among the Bible Students that he was, and he clearly shared that view. After Russell’s death Rutherford at first endorsed the view. It was only in 1927 that he rejected it. He then claimed that the remaining members of the “little flock” on earth, called “the remnant,” was that servant as a collective body. The Society maintained Rutherford’s new view until 2013. They then identified “the faithful and discreet slave,” as their New World Translation puts it, with “the governing body” at their headquarters, a much smaller collective body. GENTILE TIMES, THE The concept of the “Gentile Times” was one of the most important features of Bible Student theology. It was outlined in detail in Vol. II of Studies in the Scriptures, called The Time is at Hand, originally published in 1889. The phrase “the times of the Gentiles” is found in the King James version of Luke 21:24. The Society claimed that this time started when the Davidic kingdom in Jerusalem was removed in 606 B.C. and would end when this kingdom would be restored under Christ 2,520 years later, in A.D. 1914. Russell originally claimed that this date would be “the farthest limit of the rule of imperfect men.” When 1914 approached Russell published certain reservations about what should be

expected. In 1921 one of the splinter groups revised the time period to span the period 587 B.C. – 1934 A.D. In 1943 the Society itself changed the starting point from 606 B.C. to 607 B.C. GOLDEN AGE MAGAZINE AND ITS SUCCESSORS, THE On Friday September 5, 1919, Rutherford announced to Bible Students assembled in Cedar Point, Ohio, that the Society would publish another magazine called The Golden Age. The first issue was dated October 1, 1919. Its editor was Clayton J. Woodworth, one of the authors of the book The Finished Mystery. The periodical was meant to cover a wide range of subjects calculated to interest the public, but its main emphasis always was on the Society’s current message to the world. It actually became controversial among some of the Bible Students because C.T. Russell had stated in his will that the Society was pledged to him to publish no other periodical than those initiated by him. Beginning with the issue of October 6, 1937, the title was changed to Consolation. Again, the title was changed to Awake! with the issue of August 27, 1946. With this latest change Woodworth stepped down as editor due to advanced age. During a good many years the magazine poured out vitriol on the Society’s religious enemies, not least on former associates. In later years less of this appeared in the magazine and in recent years such attacks have ceased completely. GREAT COMPANY, THE The Bible Students derived their concept of “the great company” from the phrase “a great multitude” mentioned in Revelation 7:9 in the King James version. They did not want to belong to that company, for it was considered to be a less faithful class of Christians, to which one could be downgraded to after failing to live up to the high standard set up for the “little flock.” Still, its members were thought to end up in heaven where they would serve the “little flock.” Russell expected that the separation between the “little flock” and the “great company” would take place very soon, before the millennium, and that it would seriously affect the Bible Students. HARVEST, THE Following C.T. Russell’s explanation, the Bible Students felt that the end of the present age, from 1874 until 1914 – a period of 40 years – would be “the harvest” foretold by Jesus in Matthew 13: 24-30, 36-43, when faithful Christians would eventually get their reward, and evil, merely confessing Christians, would be ultimately rejected. At that time, according to the King James version of the Bible, “the tares” would be gathered by the angels for destruction, while the “good seed” or “wheat” would be gathered into Christ’s barn. The Bible Students were confident that their message would be instrumental in this process. Consequently “the harvest” was a distinct feature of their belief system. In The Watch Tower, September 1, 1916, Russell changed his understanding somewhat, claiming that the harvest had not ended in 1914, as he had expected earlier. He hinted that it could continue at least until April, 1918. After Russell’s death there was controversy and division over the exact meaning of this.

LITTLE FLOCK, THE The Bible Students believed that the “little flock,” mentioned in Luke 12:32 in the King James version, was to be the “bride” and “body” of Christ, to rule with him from heaven over mankind living on earth during the millennium and beyond. They held that the “little flock” was limited to literally 144,000 Christians selected from the first century onwards. The Bible Students confessed to belong to that “little flock.” PILGRIM In 1894 the Watch Tower Society, headed by C.T. Russell, began to use traveling representatives to strengthen the growing number of congregations and to hold meetings for the public. They were soon named “pilgrims.” The intention was that the congregations should get at least two pilgrim visits every year. This ministration was in effect until 1928, when the term pilgrim was replaced by “regional service director” and the service was substantially altered. PRESENT TRUTH Russell and the early Bible Students believed that their particular understanding of the end time was “the present truth.” It included the view that Jesus had returned invisibly to the earth in 1874 and had been present ever since. It also involved the belief that the eschatological “harvest” mentioned in Matthew 13:39-41 was taking place and that the Bible Students played an important role in the process. SEVENTH VOLUME, THE During the time of C.T. Russell the major theological publications of the Bible Student movement were the six volumes of Studies in the Scriptures. These were written by Russell and published between 1886 and 1904. Russell had planned to write a seventh volume, dealing with the Bible books of Revelation and Ezekiel, but he died before he could do so. He did not leave any kind of manuscript intended for the seventh volume. However, beginning late in 1916, two Bible Students, C.J. Woodworth and G.H. Fisher, wrote the volume and incorporated some of Russell’s earlier comments on Revelation and Ezekiel. The Society published it on July 17, 1917, and the book was called The Finished Mystery. This seventh volume soon became a bone of contention among the Bible Students. While the Society pushed it to the utmost, quite a few rejected it because of its many mistakes, its speculative nature and its undue idolizing of C.T. Russell. SOCIETY, THE In this book “the Society” practically never refers to society in general but specifically to the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society as registered by the authorities in 1896. It was originally chartered in 1884 as Zion’s Watch Tower Tract Society. Today it is known as the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. It has frequently been called just “the Society” in its publications. For all practical purposes “the Society” has been synonymous with its leadership in America.

TYPES AND ANTITYPES According to the New Testament some matters in the Old Testament are types (Greek typos) of persons and events dealt with in the New Testament. The latter are viewed as antitypes (Greek antitypos) of the Old Testament types. One case in point is the Old Testament sacrifice of the Passover lamb which is said to prefigure or foreshadow the sacrifice of Jesus Christ in behalf of believers. (1 Cor. 5:7) However, the Bible Students went far beyond this inter-biblical typology. They viewed biblical persons and events as foreshadowing persons and events connected with their own movement. In this book attention has been called to the Old Testament prophets Elijah and Elisha. The Bible Students viewed them as types of the “little flock,” the true church, and the less faithful “great company,” which groups were expected to be separated shortly. In Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. II, published in 1889, pages 173 and 174, C.T. Russell himself actually warned against treating every Bible character and incident as being typical. But this warning was largely disregarded, especially after Russell’s death in 1916. The book The Finished Mystery, published in 1917, went as far as to claim that Pastor Russell was the antitype of the Old Testament prophet Ezekiel and that his wife was prefigured by Ezekiel’s wife! Much later Rutherford’s book Preservation from 1932 claimed that the principal value of the Old Testament books of Ruth and Esther was the types they contained, which he claimed could not be understood earlier. Rutherford asserted that the persons dealt with in these two books prefigured “the Esther class,” the “Mordecai class,” the “Naomi class” and the “Ruth class” which he alleged existed in his own faction of the Bible Students, then calling themselves Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Watch Tower Society rejected such reasoning about types and antitypes in 2015, although keeping the case of the “seven times” in the book of Daniel, chapter 4 which involved the date of A.D. 1914. VOW, THE Beginning in 1908 C.T. Russell urged pilgrims, co-workers at headquarters, colporteurs, church elders and deacons to take a “solemn oath to God” with the following content: To resist anything akin to spiritism and occultism and, more specifically, to avoid being alone in a room with any of the opposite sex unless the door was wide open. Exceptions were spouses, parents, siblings and children. Very soon all Bible Students were urged to take this vow. See The Watch Tower Reprints, pages 4190-4192 and 4383. Also see the 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, pages 51 and 52. WATCH TOWER MAGAZINE, THE I have referred to the Society’s major journal as Zion’s Watch Tower, The Watch Tower and The Watchtower, depending on publication date. The full titles of the magazine have been: 1. Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence from July, 1879, onwards

2. THE WATCH TOWER AND HERALD OF CHRIST’S PRESENCE from January 1, 1909, onwards 3. THE WATCHTOWER AND HERALD OF CHRIST’S PRESENCE from December 15, 1930, onwards 4. THE WATCHTOWER AND HERALD OF CHRIST’S KINGDOM from January 1, 1939, onwards 5. THE WATCHTOWER ANNOUNCING JEHOVAH’S KINGDOM from March 1, 1939, onwards In 1919 the Society reprinted all the issues of its journal from July, 1879, through June 15, 1919 in 7 bound volumes using continuous pagination. I have referred to this work as The Watch Tower Reprints.

Bibliography Only sources directly quoted or referred to in the book are listed. ACADEMIC DISSERTATIONS Cumberland, William H. A. History of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, 1958 Joseph F. Zygmunt. Jehovah’s Witnesses: A Study of Symbolic and Structural Elements in the Development and Institutionalization of a Sectarian Movement. Doctoral dissertation, Chicago, Illinois, 1967 Alan Thomas Rogerson. A Sociological Analysis of the Origin and Development of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and their Schismatic Groups. Oxford University: Thesis submitted for D. Phil., 1972 Jan S. Haugland. The Succession Problem: A Focused Biography of Joseph Rutherford, 2nd leader of Jehovah’s Witnesses 1916-1942. Master’s Thesis in History of Religions: University of Bergen, Norway

COURT CASES Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record O. Moyle vs. Fred Franz et al, 1943, transcript of record

LEGAL LITERATURE AND STATEMENTS The General Corporation Law of Pennsylvania, approved 29 April 1874, and Supplementary Acts by Angelo T. Freedley. Philadelphia: T & T.W. Johnson & Co, Law Book Selecters, 1882 The Pennsylvania Corporation Act of 1874 and Supplementary Acts by Angelo T. Freedley of the Philadelphia Bar, Second Edition. Philadelphia: T & J. W. Johnson & Co., 1890 Pennsylvania Corporation Law 1933. E. Russell Shockley. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Department of Property and Supplies, 1933 A Manual of New York Corporation Law by Robert B. Cumming and Frank B. Gilbert. Albany, New York: Banks & Brothers, 1896 A Manual of New York Corporation Law by Richard Compton Harrison of the New York Bar. New York: The Donald Press, 1906 DAVIES AUERBACH & CORNELL, Mutual Life Building, 34 Nassau Street, to Messrs. A.I. Ritchie, J. D. Wright, I.F. Hoskins, R.H. Hirsh, New York, July 23, 1917 LEGAL OPINION BY MEMBER OF PHILADELPHIA BAR. J. Fithiam Tatem. Stephen Girard Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Published on page 14 in Facts for Shareholders, November 15, 1917 Statement by Francis H. McGee, assistant to the Attorney General of New Jersey. Freehold, New Jersey. Published in Facts for Shareholders, November 15, 1917, pages 1-7 Parts of LEGAL OPINION by H.M. McCaughey, “a corporation lawyer of Philadelphia”, published in Rutherford’s pamphlet Harvest Siftings, August 1, 1917, pages 15, 16 THE HISTORY AND OPERATIONS OF OUR SOCIETY. Published in The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917, pages 327-330 Court Records. Cooper County, Missouri, Books 2 and 3

MODERN PUBLICATIONS ON THE 1917 MANAGEMENT CRISIS BY THE WATCH TOWER SOCIETY Qualified to Be Ministers. Brooklyn New York: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1955 Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose. Brooklyn, New York: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1959 Jehovah’s Witnesses: Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom. Brooklyn, New York: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1993 1973 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Brooklyn, New York: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1972 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Brooklyn, New York: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1974

1979 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Brooklyn, New York: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1978 God’s Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached. Brooklyn, New York: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1973 Jehovah’s Witnesses Faith in Action Part I: OUT OF DARKNESS. On DVD. English, copyright 2010. Made in Poland. Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society 2017 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. No pagination

OTHER MODERN BOOKS AND ARTICLES ON THE 1917 MANAGEMENT CRISIS Bregninge, Poul. Judgment Day Must Wait: Jehovah’s Witnesses – A Sect Between Idealism and Deceit. YBK Publishers, New York, 2013 This book is commented on in the Introduction. Bregninge, Poul. Judgment Day Must Wait: Jehovah’s Witnesses – A Sect Between Idealism and Deceit. Fourth Edition, New York, NY 10013, 2021 This book is dealt with under APPRAISAL OF SOME OF THE SOURCES USED IN THE BIBLIOGRAPHY below. Chryssides, George D. Finishing the Mystery: The Watch Tower and “the 1917 Schism.” In Sacred Schisms: How Religions Divide, eds. James R. Lewis and Sarah M. Lewis. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 2009 This book is commented on in the Introduction. Chryssides, George D. Jehovah’s Witnesses: Continuity and Change. FARNHAM, Surrey, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2016 This book is dealt with under APPRAISAL OF SOME OF THE SOURCES USED IN THE BIBLIOGRAPHY below. Cole, Marley. Jehovah’s Witnesses: The New World Society. New York: Vantage Press, 1955 This book is dealt with under APPRAISAL OF SOME OF THE SOURCES USED IN THE BIBLIOGRAPHY below. Hudson, A.O. Bible Students in Britain: The Story of a hundred years. Hounslow, Middlesex, England: Bible Fellowship Union, 1989 This book is dealt with under APPRAISAL OF SOME OF THE SOURCES USED IN THE BIBLIOGRAPHY below. Johnson, Paul S.L. Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures, Vols. 3, 4, 6, 7, 9. Philadelphia: Printed privately, 1938. Johnson, Paul S.L. Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 10. Philadelphia: Printed privately, 1941. Johnson Paul S.L. “A Protest Against Misrepresentation” in THE PRESENT TRUTH and Herald of the Epiphany, September 1, 1919, pp. 161, 162. Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately. This article is published in Appendix 11. Macmillan, A.H. Faith on the March. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Pretence-Hall, 1957. This book is commented on in the Introduction. Macmillan, A.H. The History of the Society from 1910 to 1920. Transcript of tape recording. This source is dealt with under APPRAISAL OF SOME OF THE SOURCES USED IN THE BIBLIOGRAPHY below. New Watchman in the Tower. Game Over (The Definitive Book About Jehovah’s Witnesses). London, England: Minerva Press, Second Impression, 1999 This book is dealt with under APPRAISAL OF SOME OF THE SOURCES USED IN THE BIBLIOGRAPHY. Memoirs of Pastor Russell: The Laodicean Messenger: His Life, Works and Character. Chicago: The Bible Students Book Store, 1923 The name of the author was not given in the book, but several facts show that his name was William M. Wisdom, a former “pilgrim,” in The Watch Tower Society. Parkinson, James B. Bible Students Fragments 1917-1967. Unpublished Penton, M. James. Apocalypse Delayed: The Story of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Toronto, Buffalo, London: University of Toronto Press, Third Edition, 2015 Together with Tony Will’s book (see below), this is the best work on the management crisis I have seen. Rawson, Kenneth. Pastor Russell founded the Bible Students not Jehovah’s Witnesses. Iselin, New Jersey: printed privately, 2010. This work is available at Bible Student Archives, on the Internet. Redeker, Charles. Pastor C.T. Russell: Messenger of Hope. Temple City, California: printed privately, 2006. This is a good source generally and one of the better ones on the management crisis. Rogerson, Alan. Millions Now Living Will Never Die. London, England: Constable, 1969 This book contains such valuable information that I was able to start my research that eventually resulted in the present book. Watchman: What of the Night? – A Review of Events in the Truth Ministry Since 1916. In Watchers of the Morning, Los Angeles, California, Vol. XIX, No. 1, January 1955, pp. 3-9. Editor: Isaac Hoskins Wills, Tony. A People for His Name: A History of Jehovah’s Witnesses and an Evaluation. Morrisville, N.C.: Lulu Enterprises, Inc., second edition, 2006.

The first edition of this book was published by Vantage Press in 1968. Tony Wills then used the pseudonym Timothy White. The second edition contains no changes in the content. Together with M. James Penton’s book (see above), this is the best book on the management crisis I have seen.

CONTEMPORARY PAMPHLETS AND OFFICIAL STATEMENTS REGARDING THE MANAGEMENT CRISIS Letter “To the Ecclesias” of July 19, 1917 by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society with Resolution of the Board of Directors of July 17, 1917. The resolution was later published on page 1 in Harvest Siftings below. J.D. Wright, A.I. Ritchie, I.F. Hoskins, R.H. Hirsh. Circular letter. Brooklyn, July 27, 1917: Printed privately Rutherford, J.F. Harvest Siftings. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, August 1, 1917 A.N. Pierson, J.D. Wright, A.I. Ritchie, I.F. Hoskins, R.H. Hirsh. Open Letter to Boston Conventioners. Boston. Mass., August 4, 1917: Printed privately Woodworth, C.J. The Parable of the Penny. “Extract from an address at Boston Convention of I.B.S.A., August 4th, 1917.” Undated. Printed privately. J.D. Wright, A.I. Ritchie, I.F. Hoskins, R.H. Hirsh. LIGHT after DARKNESS A message to the Watchers, Being a refutation of “Harvest Siftings.” Brooklyn, New York: Printed privately, September 1, 1917. Rutherford, J.F. Harvest Siftings, Part II. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, October 1, 1917 Johnson, Paul S.L. Harvest Siftings Reviewed. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Printed privately, November 1, 1917. Rutherford, J.F. THE HISTORY AND OPERATIONS OF OUR SOCIETY. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, November 1, 1917. Published in The Watch Tower, November 1, 1917 A.I. Ritchie, J.D. Wright, I.F. Hoskins, R.H. Hirsh. FACTS FOR SHAREHOLDERS of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. Brooklyn, New York: Printed privately, November 15, 1917. AN OPEN LETTER TO THE PEOPLE OF THE LORD THROUGHOUT THE WORLD and A PETITION TO BRO. RUTHERFORD AND THE FOUR DEPOSED DIRECTORS OF THE W.T.B & T. SOCIETY. Signed by 156 Bible Students. Printed privately. Undated but sent out with FACTS FOR SHAREHOLDERS above Hemery, J. P.S.L. JOHNSON’S Pamphlet, “Harvest Siftings Reviewed,” itself reviewed. London, England: Printed privately, December 7th, 1917. Pierson, Andrew N. VICE PRESIDENT’S STATEMENT. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower and Tract Society, January 1, 1918. Published in The Watch Tower, January 1, 1918 J.D. Wright, I.I. Margeson, F.H. McGee, R.G. Jolly, P.S.L. Johnson, I.F. Hoskins, R.H. Hirsh. A Letter to International Bible Students. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Printed privately, March 1, 1918.

THE SEVENTH VOLUME Preface in Millennial Dawn, Vol. 1, 1886. Quoted verbatim in St. Paul Enterprise, January 1, 1918. St. Paul, Minnesota. Jones, L.W., M.D. What Pastor Russell Said. Printed privately. Undated but published in 1917. Woodworth, C.J. BEREAN BIBLE TEACHERS’ MANUAL. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1909 Woodworth, Clayton J. and Fisher, George H. STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES Series VII The Finished Mystery. Brooklyn, N.Y.: International Bible Students Association, editions of 1917, 1918, 1920, 1924, 1926 Woodworth, Clayton J. STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES Series VII The Finished Mystery. Brooklyn, N.Y.: International Bible Students Association, 1927 The Finished Mystery. Special edition, The Watch Tower, March 1, 1918. Called ZG. Available on the Internet. Woodworth, C.J. The Parable of the Penny. “Extract from an address at Boston Convention of I.B.S.A., August 4th, 1917: Undated. Printed privately. A.I. Ritchie, J.D. Wright, I.F. Hoskins, R.H. Hirsh. FACTS FOR SHAREHOLDERS OF THE Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. Brooklyn, New York: Printed privately, November 15, 1917. J.D. Wright, I.I. Margeson, F.H. McGee, R.G. Jolly, P.S.L. Johnson, I.F. Hoskins, R.H. Hirsh. A Letter to International Bible Students. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Printed privately, March 1, 1918. Kihlgren, David. Letter to August Lundborg, 1918. Available at Barbara Anderson’s website Cook, Frank F. Letter to C.R. Cox. Westfield, N.Y. Privately printed tract. Undated but autumn, 1917 Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of records Glendon, Geo. A. Jr. SOUVENIR Report of the Bible Students’ Convention, Pittsburgh, Pa. January 2-5, 1919. New York City, N.Y.: Printed privately. Undated. SUPPLEMENT, pp. 42-47, 52-61

Main, C.F. Notes and Comments on “The Finished Mystery.” Adelaide, Australia: Bible Students Tract Society, February 10th, 1919 Seventh Volume Corrections. Published in The Watch Tower, June 1, 1920. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society THE FINISHED MYSTERY. Article published in The Watch Tower, June 15, 1920 BEREA, Tidskrift för Bibelstudium, Augusti-September 1920. Härnösand, Sweden: J.O. Melinder, 1920 Woodworth, C.J. “The Posthumous Work of Pastor Russell.” Published in The Golden Age, March 6, 1929. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society Johnson, P.S.L. “C.J. Woodworth on his work on Revelation.” Published in THE PRESENT TRUTH and Herald of Christ’s Epiphany, May 1, 1929. Philadelphia, Pa: Printed privately Rutherford, J.F. LIGHT Book One. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1930 Rutherford, J.F. VINDICATION Book One. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1931 Then is Finished the Mystery of God, Brooklyn, N.Y.: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1969 Revelation Its Grand Climax at Hand!, Brooklyn, N.Y.: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1988

WORKS AND STATEMENTS RELATED TO THE 1918 SEDITION TRIAL Woodworth, Clayton J. and Fisher, George H. STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES Series VII The Finished Mystery. Brooklyn, N.Y.: International Bible Students Association, 1917 The Bible Students Monthly. Brooklyn, N.Y.: I.B.S.A. Publisher, Vol. IX No. 9. Brooklyn, N.Y: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. Undated, but December 1917 The Finished Mystery. Special edition, The Watch Tower, March 1, 1918. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. Called ZG. Available on the Internet. KINGDOM NEWS. Brooklyn, N.Y.: I.B.S.A. Publisher, Vol. 1 No. 1, March 15, 1918 KINGDOM NEWS. Brooklyn, N.Y.: I.B.S.A. Publisher, Vol. 1 No. 2, April 15, 1918 KINGDOM NEWS. Brooklyn, N.Y.: I.B.S.A. Publisher, Vol. 1 No. 3, May, 1918 Sexton, Earnest D. The Case of the International Bible Students. Pittsburgh, Pa. Printed privately. Undated but spring 1918 Johnson, Paul S.L. A Protest Against Misrepresentation. In THE PRESENT TRUTH and Herald of Christ’s Epiphany, September 1, 1919, pp. 161,162. Philadelphia, Pa: Printed privately Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of records Macmillan, A.H. Faith on the March. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1957 “Then is Finished the Mystery of God.” Brooklyn, N.Y.: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1969 Linton, Calvin, D. Editor-in -Chief. THE AMERICAN ALMANAC. Nashville, Tennessee/New York, New York: 1977 Abrams, Ray H. PREACHERS PRESENT ARMS. New York: Round Table Press, Inc., 1933 Shaw, Amy J. Crisis of Conscience. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press, 2009 Penton, M. James. JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES IN CANADA Champions of Freedom of Speech and worship. Toronto: Macmillan of Canada, 1976 Penton, M. James. The Bible Students / Jehovah’s Witnesses in the United States during First World War. In American Churches and the First World War. Oregon: PICKWICK Publications. Edited by Gordon L. Heath, 2016

CONVENTION REPORTS Jones, L.W. The 1906 Souvenir Convention Report. Chicago, Illinois: Printed privately, 1906 Jones, L.W. International Bible Student Souvenir Convention Report 1911. Chicago, Illinois: Printed privately, 1911. Jones, L.W. Supplement to Fifteenth Souvenir Report, August 15, 1915. Chicago, Illinois: Printed privately, 1915. Glendon, Geo. A., Jr. SOUVENIR Report of the Bible Students’ Convention, Pittsburgh, Pa., January 2-5, 1919. New York city, N.Y.: Printed privately. Undated. The Messenger, July 25, 1931. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract society The Messenger, July 26, 1931. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society The Messenger, July 28, 1931. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society The Messenger, July 30, 1931. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society Jones, L.W. Bible Student Reunion Convention Report 1929. Chicago, Illinois: Printed privately, 1929.

Jones, L.W. The Souvenir Report 1930, Second General Re-Union Bible Students’ Convention, Pittsburgh, Pa. Chicago, Illinois: Printed privately, 1930.

THE FORT PITT COMMITTEE 1918 J.D. Wright, I.I. Margeson, F.H. McGee, R.G. Jolly, P.S.L. Johnson, I.F. Hoskins, R.H. Hirsh. A Letter to International Bible Students. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Printed privately, March 1, 1918. Johnson, Paul S.L. Another Harvest Siftings Reviewed. Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately, August 22, 1918. J.D. Wright, I.F. Hoskins, P.L. Greiner, F.F. Cook, I.I. Margeson, F.H. McGee, H. C. Rockwell. The Committee Bulletin No. 1. Printed privately, August, 1918. Place of publication not mentioned. J.D. Wright, I.F. Hoskins, P.L. Greiner, F.F. Cook, I.I. Margeson, F.H. McGee, H.C. Rockwell. A BRIEF REVIEW OF BROTHER JOHNSON’S CHARGES. Printed privately. Place of publication not mentioned. Undated but sent out with The Committee Bulletin No. 1 J.D. Wright, I.F. Hoskins, P.L. Greiner, F.F. Cook, I.I. Margeson, F.H. McGee, H.C. Rockwell. The Committee Bulletin No. 2. Printed privately, September 1918. Place of publication not mentioned. McGee, Francis H. A Timely Letter of Importance to All the Brethren. Freehold, New Jersey: Printed privately, September 10, 1918. Sent out with The Committee Bulletin No. 2 J.D. Wright, I.F. Hoskins, P.L. Greiner, F.F. Cook, I.I. Margeson, F.H. McGee, H.C. Rockwell. The Committee Bulleting No. 3. Printed privately, October 1918. Place of publication not mentioned. Johnson, Paul S.L. THE PRESENT TRUTH and Herald of Christ’s Epiphany. Vol. 1 No. 1, December 9, 1918. Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately Johnson, Paul S.L. THE PRESENT TRUTH and Herald of Christ’s Epiphany. Vol. 1 No. 2, December 24, 1918. Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately Johnson, Paul S.L. THE PRESENT TRUTH and Herald of Christ’s Epiphany. Vol. 1 No. 3, February 17, 1919. Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately Johnson, Paul S.L. THE PRESENT TRUTH and Herald of Christ’s Epiphany. Vol. 1 No. 4, March 17, 1919. Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately Johnson, Paul S.L. THE PRESENT TRUTH and Herald of Christ’s Epiphany. Vol. 1 No. 5, April 19, 1919. Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately

THE PASTORAL BIBLE INSTITUTE R.E. Streeter, H.C. Rockwell, I.F. Hoskins, I.I. Margeson, S.N. Wiley. The Herald of Christ’s Kingdom. Vol. 1 No. 1, December 1, 1918. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Pastoral Bible Institute R.E. Streeter, H.C. Rockwell, I.F. Hoskins, I.I. Margeson, S.N. Wiley. The Herald of Christ’s Kingdom. Vol. II No. 1, January 1, 1919. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Pastoral Bible Institute R.E. Streeter, H.C. Rockwell, I.F. Hoskins, I.I. Margeson, S.N. Wiley. The Herald of Christ’s Kingdom. Vol. II No. 13, July 1, 1919. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Pastoral Bible Institute Streeter, R.E. The Revelation of Jesus Christ. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Pastoral Bible Institute, Vols. 1 and 2, 1923, 1924 Streeter, R.E. Daniel the Beloved of Jehovah. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Pastoral Bible Institute, 1928 Sadlack, Emil and Otto. The Desolations of the Sanctuary. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Pastoral Bible Institute, 1930 A Message to The Watchers and to All Who Mourn in Zion. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Pastoral Bible Institute. Undated, but 1930. I.F. Hoskins, J.J. Blackburn, P.L. Read, P.E. Thomson, S.D. Bennett. The Herald of Christ’s Kingdom. Vol. XIX No. 5, May, 1936. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Pastoral Bible Institute Hoskins, I.F. Watchman, What of the Night? A Review of Events in the Truth Ministry Since 1916, in Watchers of the Morning, Vol. XIX, No. 1. Los Angeles, California, January 1955 Parkinson, James B. BIBLE STUDENT FRAGMENTS 1916-1967. Unpublished Redeker, Charles F. PASTOR C.T. RUSSELL: Messenger of Millennial Hope. Temple City, California: Printed privately, 2006. Revised Version Improved and Corrected. Bremerton, Washington: The Pastoral Bible Institute, 2020. This is also available online at the website of The Pastoral Bible Institute.

LAYMEN’S HOME MISSIONARY MOVEMENT

Johnson, Paul S.L. The Present Truth and Herald of Christ’s Epiphany. Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately, December 9, 1918. Johnson, Paul S.L. The Present Truth and Herald of Christ’s Epiphany. Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately, February 17, 1919. Johnson, Paul S.L. The Present Truth and Herald of Christ’s Epiphany. Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately, March 17, 1919. Johnson, Paul S.L. The Present Truth and Herald of Christ’s Epiphany. Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately, April 1919, 1919. Johnson, Paul S.L. The Present Truth and Herald of Christ’s Epiphany. Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately, September 1, 1920. Johnson, Paul S.L. The Present Truth and Herald of Christ’s Epiphany. Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately, October 1, 1923. Johnson, Paul S.L. Life-Death-Hereafter. Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately, 1920. Johnson, Paul S.L. The Present Truth and Herald of Christ’s Epiphany. Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately, December 1, 1936. Johnson, Paul S.L. Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures, Vols. 3, 4, 6, 7, 9. Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately, 1938. Johnson, Paul S.L. Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 10. Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately, 1941. Jolly, Raymond G. The Herald of the Epiphany. Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately, January 15, 1951. Jolly, Raymond G. The Teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses examined in the Light of the Scriptures. Chester Springs, Pa.: Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement. Undated but the mid 1950’s. Jolly, Raymond G. The Present Truth and Herald of Christ’s Epiphany. Chester Springs, Pa.: The Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement, Nov.-Dec. 1975 Gohlke, August. The Bible Standard. Chester Springs, Pa.: Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement, May 1979 Redeker, Charles F. PASTOR C.T. Russell: Messenger of Millennial Hope. Temple City, California: Printed privately, 2006.

THE BIBLE STUDENTS COMMITTEE THE BIBLE STUDENTS COMMITTEE. Circular. No Title. Ilford, Essex, England: Printed privately, May 1919. Signed by W. Crawford, F.B. Edgell, Alex. Guy, F.G. Guard, W.C. Seager, H.J. Shearn, G.B. Tharratt. New Era Enterprise. May 18, 1920, page 3. St. Paul, Minnesota. Name of publisher not known to this writer. It was earlier called St. Paul Enterprise and was published by Wm. L. Abbott, who died in 1917. J.F. Rutherford. Let us dwell in peace. Published in The Watch Tower, April 1, 1920. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, British Branch. Circular. No Title. London England: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, January 26th, 1921 The Watch Tower, September 15, 1922. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society Shearn, Henry. The Plan of God in Brief. Letchworth, England: The Bible Students Committee, 1922 Hollister, R. Robert. Meet our British Brethren. Weinsville, Ohio: Printed privately, 1957. 1973 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1972 Letter from Albert O. Hudson, Welling, Kent, England, to Rud Persson, 16 December 1976 Letter from Albert O. Hudson, Hounslow, Middlesex, England, to Rud Persson, 4 October, 1990 Hudson, A.O. BIBLE STUDENTS IN BRITAIN, The Story of a Hundred Years. Hounslow, Middlesex, England: Bible Fellowship Union, 1989 Perkins, Gary. Bible Student Conscientious Objectors in World War 1 – Britain. Hupomone Press, 2016. Place of publication not indicated.

THE STAND FASTS The Watch Tower, May 1, 1918. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tracts Society The Watch Tower, June 1, 1918. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society The Stand Fast Bible Students Association. Letter from Committee of Seven. Portland, Oregon: signed by F. McKercher, Chairman. Date not mentioned. Hardley, R.O. SEPARATION OF THE HARVEST. Stenographic Report of an address delivered at the Vancouver, B.C. STAND FAST BIBLE STUDENTS CONVENTION, December 30, 1918. Date and place of publication not mentioned.

STAND FAST BIBLE STUDENTS ASSOCIATION. TO THE SEALED SAINTS OF GOD EVERYWHERE. Signed by F. McKercher, Chairman, January 6, 1919. Date and place of publication not mentioned. Heard, C.E. The Ship. Stenographic Report of an address delivered in Seattle, Washington, January 12, 1919. Date and place of publication not mentioned. The Watch Tower, March 1, 1919. Pittsburgh, Pa.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tracts Society The Committee of Seven. Old Corn Gems Number Five, March 15, 1919. Place of publication not mentioned, but probably Portland. The Watch Tower, June 1, 1919. Pittsburgh, Pa.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society Wisdom, W.M. Another Open Letter. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Printed privately, December 22, 1919. The Elijah Voice Society. The Elijah Voice Monthly, Special Edition, December 1923-January 1924 Place of publication not mentioned. Johnson, Paul S.L. The Present Truth and Herald of Christ’s Epiphany. Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately, April 1, 1924. Swanson, August and Edith. TRUE HISTORY OF THE “STAND FAST” MOVEMENT. Originally published in Bible Student News, Vol. 2 No. 1, summer 1936. Now available at BIBLE STUDENTS ARCHIVES, on the Internet. Name of publisher and date of publication not mentioned. Johnson, Paul S.L. Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 6. Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately, 1938. Parkinson, James B. Bible Students Fragments 1917-1967. Unpublished The Watchtower, July 15, 1964. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. 1979 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1978 Penton, M. James. Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Third Reich. Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press, 2004

APPRAISAL OF SOME OF THE SOURCES USED IN THE BIBLIOGRAPHY Chryssides, George D. Jehovah’s Witnesses Continuity and Change. FARNHAM, Surrey, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2016 As to Chryssides’ earlier study, Finishing the Mystery: The Watch Tower and “the 1917 schism,” I pointed out already in the Introduction that it is so marred with error as to be practically worthless. His more recent work dealt with here is noticeably better. The worst mistakes from his earlier work have been removed. However, there are still some serious errors about the 1917 crisis in this later publication. For instance, Chryssides stated that Macmillan was elected vice president on January 5, 1918, and that Pierson was elected to the board of directors on that occasion. These are completely inexcusable mistakes. The contemporary documentation is crystal clear. Macmillan was not elected vice president, C.H. Anderson was. And Pierson actually failed to make the board! Chryssides had still not done his homework thoroughly. He also stated that Rutherford on this occasion was elected president on a more permanent basis. But he was not, for he was only elected for one year to come, and in 1919 he feared that he might not be re-elected. Further, Chryssides maintained the Watch Tower Society’s unhistorical claim that Rutherford had placed a copy of the freshly printed seventh volume at each person’s place at the table on July 17, 1917, and that Paul S.L. Johnson then vociferously objected to the published book. In reality, the heated debate taking place on this occasion did not deal with the new book at all but with Rutherford’s act of replacing four directors with appointees of his own, which he announced just before he announced the issuing of the new book. And on this occasion, Johnson was not the most vocal objector. Chryssides was also wrong when he stated that this event took place “at the breakfast table.” It took place at the dinner table!

Another example of carelessness is his claim that Johnson left England for America on April 4, 1917. Rutherford indicated that he had sailed from Liverpool on March 31 and Johnson himself stated that he left on April 1. Such mistakes do not inspire confidence in Chryssides’ most recent book. Cole, Marley. Jehovah’s Witnesses: The New World Society. New York: Vantage Press, 1955 This book was recommended as containing “authentic information” about Jehovah’s Witnesses in The Watchtower, August 15, 1955, page 511. It is now well known that Cole was a Jehovah’s Witness himself, though he did not inform his readers of that fact. This explains why the presentations are so slanted in favor of the various administrations of the Watch Tower Society, and nowhere is this more evident than in his treatment of the 1917 management crisis. It contains such gross errors that the book cannot be recommended for the study of this historical episode. The following examples will demonstrate Cole’s shortcomings: On page 86, he claimed that Russell had planned to set down the vice president and some other high officials and that they could not swallow their pride when Rutherford carried out these arrangements. The fact is, however, that Russell had not planned anything like that. Cole just parroted what Rutherford had stated in his pamphlet, Harvest Siftings. In his last instructions, Russell actually promoted vice president Ritchie to represent him in his absence from the Bethel Home, while he did not give Rutherford any specific role to perform. On page 87, Cole stated that Rutherford put his later opponents “in the position of advisers on legal corporate matters.” But this was precisely what he did not do! He had no respect whatsoever for their views on “legal corporate matters.” He felt he was the expert who needed no advice. Cole wrote on page 88 that Rutherford’s opponents on the board “were elected in the state of New York” and that this made them illegal directors. In actual fact, two of the four, Wright and Hoskins, had been elected in Pittsburgh, not in New York. Rutherford himself, on the other hand, had been elected to the board in New York. However, Cole missed entirely Rutherford’s major argument that his opponents had not been annually re-elected—which in fact he himself had not been either. Cole claimed on page 89 that the Watch Tower Society’s charter stated that “when the corporate members” failed to elect a new director within thirty days, then the president had the authority to appoint a new one. But not so! The charter instead stated that the president had that authority when the board of directors, not “the corporate members”, had failed to act. Cole stated on page 84 that Russell “had worked up some of the material” for the seventh volume and that it “now had to be completed.” As shown in chapter 15 of this book, this was not so. Russell had not written a single paragraph intended for the seventh volume when he died. The two writers of that volume just picked some statements Russell had earlier made on Revelation and Ezekiel—statements that had not been specifically intended for the seventh volume. Hudson, A.O. The Bible Students in Britain: The Story of a Hundred Years. Hounslow, Middlesex, England: Bible Fellowship Union, 1989

This book is a must for anyone interested in Bible Student history. It is full of accurate, useful information, but in a few places, it falls short of presenting the correct picture. Hudson stated that the first use Johnson made of his claimed authority was to dismiss Henry Shearn and William Crawford as managers of the Society in Britain, and that, before he set out touring the country. It was actually the other way round, and he did not dismiss Shearn and Crawford until February 3, 1917, two and a half months after his arrival in Britain. Johnson manifested his authority much earlier. Before the Manchester convention at the turn of the year, he broke up the convention program fixed by the British managers and replaced it with one of his own choosing. Remarkably, too, Hudson stated that Rutherford was hardly known in England. But Rutherford had visited England with Russell already in the summer of 1914. And he was one of the five members of the council of the International Bible Student Association chartered in London at that time. He visited England again that same summer and stayed until September 19. He was fairly well known in England. Here, however, it is good to keep in mind that Hudson was a mere boy in 1914 and was apparently unaware of Rutherford’s long visit that year. Macmillan, A.H. The History of the Society From 1910 to 1920. This is a 42-page typewritten history that researcher Michael Castro found among material from a deceased Jehovah’s Witness. It is a transcript of a taped talk allegedly given by A.H. Macmillan. It stated on page 25 that the prominent English Bible Student, Jesse Hemery, had left the Watch Tower Society “a few months ago.” This would place the talk in the early 1950s. Several facts indicate that this history represents a genuine talk given by Macmillan. Many of the statements made were also given in Macmillan’s later book Faith on the March from 1957. More importantly, a number of the statements made could only have come from a person who was close to the events taking place just before and soon after Russell’s death. The talk confirmed Paul S.L. Johnson’s much earlier claim that Russell had directors in the Society sign their resignations before being elected. This was not an uncommon practice in American government. The speaker also knew that it was lawyer McGee from Trenton, New Jersey, serving at the New Jersey State House, who advised Rutherford’s opponents. In the early 1950s, very few would be able to know these matters. He also gave the most detailed description so far available of Russell’s involvement with the Soda Lake venture in southern Nevada, a matter he dropped in his later book. Paul S.L. Johnson had mentioned this a few times in Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures, Volume 10, from 1941, but Russell himself had only mentioned that some Bible Students “believed that they were in a possession of a rich gold-bearing property” that up to then had not yielded anything. Russell’s statement can be found in The Watch Tower Reprints, page 5682. While the transcript of the taped talk undoubtedly was genuine, Macmillan showed that his memory did not always serve him correctly, which was also apparent in his later book. For example, he told his audience that Ritchie, who was vice president when Russell died, “didn’t know he was president for two months” and that “he wouldn’t do a thing.”

The truth is that Ritchie was fully aware that he should be in charge, but Macmillan did everything he could to thwart Ritchie’s efforts, as he wanted Rutherford to be in charge. So, this talk as well as Macmillan’s later book can be used only with utmost caution for the management crisis. New Watchman in the Tower. Game Over (The Definitive Book about Jehovah’s Witnesses). London, England: Minerva Press, Second Impression, 1999 The author of this book used the penname “New Watchman in the Tower.” It is evident from the book that the writer had been a Jehovah’s Witness. I found out that he was a Dane named Henrik Melvang. In an email dated August 17, 2012, he allowed me to use his real name in references to his book. The value of this book lies in the good photocopies published of the charters of both The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society and its subsidiary, The Peoples Pulpit Association, as filed by the authorities. I have not seen these charters thus reproduced in any other publication. However, the book is extremely hard to come by. Melvang claimed that only a small number of copies were ever printed. The author displayed only a dim understanding of the 1917 Watch Tower crisis. He was not familiar with the rich contemporary documentation. Instead, he referred to Marley Cole’s book, Jehovah’s Witnesses: The New World Society, from 1955—an unreliable source. Bregninge, Poul. Judgment Day Must Wait: Jehovah’s Witnesses – A Sect Between Idealism and Deceit. Fourth Edition, YBK Publishers, New York, NY 10013, 2021 This revised book is of particular interest because if offers one of the few truly comprehensive treatments of the 1917 management crisis in print. Chapters 11, 12 and 13 have been thoroughly revised and cover pages 125-157 in the book. Besides, detailed related notes are given on pages 564-569. A number of good points are made. For example, Bregninge now includes on page 566, note 143, a full presentation of the Watch Tower Society’s charter from 1884, which played such an important role in the management crisis. This is very commendable. He also correctly points out on page 139 that the annual meeting in 1917, when Rutherford was elected president, “apparently had been preplanned down to the smallest detail.” However, while I am happy to report that Bregninge has greatly improved his presentation in this fourth edition of his book, I have such misgivings that I cannot fully recommend it. The book still contains a number of mistakes, and some of them are serious. A few examples follow: Perhaps the biggest misunderstanding he presents is what he states on page 193: “Rutherford could not be fired or dismissed or otherwise removed. According to the new by-laws for the governance of the New York Society [the Peoples Pulpit Association] adopted on January 6, 1917, he had been elected for life.” Actually, no such by-law was included in the by-laws presented that day. These did not concern themselves with the New York Society in any way whatsoever. (See Appendix 5.)

And Rutherford could not only be removed as president of the Watch Tower Society, had the voting shareholders so desired—which was actually close to happening in 1919, when Rutherford was in prison. He could also have been removed as president of the New York corporation. True, the New York charter from 1909 granted its president office “for life,” but this clause was probably illegal. Moreover, the members of the New York corporation could have the authorities amend it, if need be. So, Rutherford could very definitely have been dismissed. Another matter where Bregninge displays a remarkable lack of knowledge is his view stated on page 144 that Russell “entrusted the future of the organization” to Macmillan. He argues that “Macmillan had been like a son to him, and vice versa.” But actually, their relationship had not been that good. There had been times when Macmillan had attacked Russell! Paul S.L. Johnson noted in The Present Truth, October 1, 1919, page 173: “In 1908 brother Macmillan for a time joined A.E. Williamson and others in a vicious attack on Brother Russell in an attempt to set him aside as controller of the Harvest work; and it was only after a very severe trial that he was able to recover himself.” It is also significant that Russell never published any letter from Macmillan in The Watch Tower, although he published a good many letters from other prominent Bible Students. Macmillan’s unwillingness to support Russell’s proposal to take “the vow” particularly stands out here. In 1908 Russell published the names of a large number of Bible Students who had accepted the vow. The names appear on pages 4192 and 4229 in The Watch Tower Reprints. Both Rutherford and Van Amburgh were mentioned, but not Macmillan! It is obvious that Russell and Macmillan were not as close as Bregninge supposes. This fits well with the fact that Russell did not mention Macmillan at all in his will. As for Macmillan’s qualifications for leadership, Francis H. McGee, the Bible Student lawyer, stated in Light after Darkness, page 16, that he lacked “sufficient mental balance” and “wisdom” to be a leader. Russell can hardly have been unaware of Macmillan’s shortcomings in this regard. While he certainly put him in charge at headquarters when he left Brooklyn for the last time in October 1916, this was clearly meant to be just a temporary arrangement. For Russell planned to be back in the beginning of November. Russell never indicated that Macmillan should be made a member of the board of directors, let alone to become his successor as president. His final instructions, documented in Harvest Siftings, page 11, confirmed that Alfred I. Ritchie, the vice president, was still in the highest possible favor: “Brother A.I. Ritchie to have the oversight of the Library Office; the Parlor, and all visitors on important business at the Bethel Home, etc; to handle such mail as may be addressed to Brother Russell; and to receive telegrams.” The best explanation for Russell’s temporary appointment of Macmillan is that he wanted to make up for earlier disagreements. Finally, Bregninge states on page 146 that Paul S.L. Johnson “was born of Jewish parents who later converted to the Methodist Church (Persson).” This reference to me is completely unjustified. The fact is, as I show in my biography on Johnson, that Paul’s mother died when he was only 12 years old. And when he was baptized as a

Christian at the age of 16, his Jewish father denounced him and even held a mock funeral service for him. Paul’s father never converted to the Methodist Church! But as I have shown, young Paul himself was briefly connected with that church. However, I don’t think that Poul Bregninge deliberately misrepresented my view here. At most, I think, his erroneous statement is a case of sloppy research. But I do not rule out that it may have been the result of poor communication with his publisher.

Sources for Historical Biographies Except for the sketch on J.F. Rutherford, the biographies have not been documented with footnotes. Much of the information has been drawn from public records and genealogical sources like FamilySearch.com and Ancestry.com. For most of the biographies, other sources have also been used, and the most important ones are listed below under each person. For H. Clay Rockwell and J. Dennis Wright no sources are listed. The scant information available for them has been picked in bits and pieces from early Bible Student publications and in a few instances from the public press. Public records and genealogical sources have yielded some information, too. Except for Rutherford, who is treated first, the list is presented in the alphabetical order of surnames. FOR JOSEPH F. RUTHERFORD Court Records, Morgan County, Missouri, Books 2 and 3 Jones, L.W. Souvenir Notes of Bible Students Conventions 1913. Chicago, Illinois: Printed privately, 1913. Jones, L.W. Supplement to Fifteenth Souvenir Report, August 1915. Chicago, Illinois: Printed privately, 1915. Second Edition of The Watch Tower, December 1, 1916. Brooklyn, N.Y: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1917. JUDGE RUTHERFORD SUCCEEDS PASTOR. St. Paul Enterprise, January 16, 1917, p. 1. St. Paul Minnesota: William L. Abbott editor, 1917, Printed privately. Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of Record The Messenger, July 25, 26, 28, 30, 1931. Brooklyn, N.Y: The Watch Tower Society. The Golden Age, May 15, 1937. Brooklyn: N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. J.F. Rutherford. Salvation. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. Consolation, May 27, 1942. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1942. Moyle vs. Franz et al, 1943, transcript of record. Gruss, Edmond C. with Chretien, Leonard. JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES – THEIR MONUMENTS TO FALSE PROPHECY. Clayton, California: Witness, Inc., 1997. This is a valuable source as it publishes actual photocopies of a number of documents, including quite a few newspaper articles.

FOR JOHN A. BOHNET Letter from J.A. Bohnet to C.T. Russell. The Watch Tower, February 1, 1910. See Watch Tower Reprints, 1919, p. 4562. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1919. Letter from J.A. Bohnet to C.T. Russell. The Watch Tower, March 15, 1910. See Watch Tower Reprints, 1919, pp. 4589, 4590. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1919. J.A. Bohnet. SIGNS OF RESTITUTION CONTINUE. The Watch Tower, October 1, 1910. See Watch Tower Reprints, 1919, pp. 4689, 4690. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1919. C.T. Russell. A DONATION OF MIRACLE WHEAT. The Watch Tower, June 15, 1911. See Watch Tower Reprints, 1919, p. 4844. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower bible and Tract Society, 1919. J.A. Bohnet. How Pilgrim Bohnet Got “Present Truth.” Published in St. Paul Enterprise, August 27, 1915. St. Paul, Minnesota, W.L. Abbot, Editor, Printed privately. Letter from William L. Abbott to his daughter, November 7, 1916. Published in St. Paul Enterprise, November 14, 1916. St. Paul, Minnesota: W.L. Abbott, Editor, Printed privately. Glendon, Geo. A., Jr. SOUVENIR Report of the Bible Students’ Convention Pittsburgh, Pa. January 2-5, 1919. New York City, N.Y.: Printed privately. Undated. THE KU KLUX KLAN. The New Era Enterprise, St. Paul, Minnesota, February 8, 1921, p. 1. Mrs. W.M.L Abbott, Publisher, C.E. Stewart, Editor.

J.A. Bohnet. FACTS ABOUT MIRACLE WHEAT. The Golden Age, April 9, 1924, pp. 429-431. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. J.A. Bohnet. Death Notices. The New Era Enterprise, St. Paul, Minnesota, March, 1927. J.A. Bohnet. IT IS THE LORD’S DOING. The Watch Tower, July 1, 1930, p. 207. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.

FOR GEORGE H. FISHER Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record. Woodworth, C.J., Editor. Eruptions Elsewhere. The Golden Age, March 25, 1925. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. Woodworth, C.J., Editor. Of General Interest to Bible Students. The Golden Age, May 4, 1927. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. New Era Enterprise, August, 1926, death notice by Henry W. Bruns, N.Y. and Frank Wuttge, Jr. N.Y. St. Paul, Minnesota: Publisher not known to this writer. Johnson, Paul S.L. A LETTER OF BRO. GEORGE H. FISHER. Published in The Present Truth and Herald of Christ’s Epiphany, February 1, 1929. Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately, 1929. Niemann, W. Bruder George H. Fisher. 4-page tract, 2nd edition, 1953. Königslutter- Braunschweig: Printed privately.

FOR JESSE HEMERY Letter from Jesse Hemery to C.T. Russell published in Zion’s Watch Tower, April 15, 1896. See Watch Tower Reprints, 1919, p. 1966. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1919. Rutherford, J.F. Harvest Siftings. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, August 1, 1917. Johnson, Paul S.L. Harvest Siftings Reviewed. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Printed privately, November 1, 1917. Johnson, Paul S.L. The Present Truth and Herald of Christ’s Epiphany, May 1, 1920, p. 76. Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately. Documents the claim of Paul S.L. Johnson and others that Hemery temporarily disapproved of “the vow” and publicly attacked Russell’s views of the Mediator and the New Covenant. Goodrich, Roy D. BROTHER HEMERY SEES FREEDOM’S LIGHT. Letter from Jesse Hemery to Roy D. Goodrich published in BACK TO THE BIBLE, Vol. 1, No. 4, April 1952, pp. 25, 26. Fort Lauderdale, Florida: Printed privately, 1952. 1973 YEARBOOK OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES. Brooklyn, N.Y.; The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1972. Letter from Frank Brown to Rud Persson January 16, 1976. Hudson, A.O. BIBLE STUDENTS IN BRITAIN: The Story of a Hundred Years. Hounslow, Middlesex, England: Bible Fellowship Union, 1989.

FOR ROBERT H. HIRSH Wiley, Samuel T. PORTRAIT CYCLOPEDIA OF SCHUYLKILL COUNTY. Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately, 1893. Available on the Internet. Rutherford, J.F. Harvest Siftings, August 1, 1917, pp. 15, 18. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. A.I. Ritchie, J.D. Wright, I.F. Hoskins, R.H. Hirsh. FACTS FOR SHAREHOLDERS of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Printed privately, November 15, 1917, pp. 12, 13. Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record. Johnson, Paul S.L. Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 10. Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately, 1941. Johnson, Paul S.L. Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 14, p. 288. Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately, 1949. Letters from Rose Hirsh to Rud Persson dated February 25, June 4, August 29, October 4, 1974. Kutcher, Brian. Rose Hirsh. Bible Students Archives. Bible Student Biographies. Brief sketches of 21 lives from a former generation. Place and date not indicated. Available on the Internet.

FOR ISAAC F. HOSKINS Jones, L.W. The 1929 Souvenir Convention Report. Chicago, Illinois: Printed privately, 1929. Moyle vs. Franz et al, 1943, transcript of record.

Hoskins, I.F. Watchman What of the Night? A Review of Events in the Truth Ministry Since 1916. In Watchers of the Morning, January 1955. Los Angeles, California: Privately printed. This source is reproduced at Bible Student Archives. Available on the Internet. Isaac Francis Hoskins (1878-1957). The Internet: WikiTree. Accessed March 22, 2021. Estelle Belle (Whitehouse) Hoskins (1884-1943). The Internet: WikiTree. Accessed March 22, 2021. Ventura County Star, Monday September 16, 1957, page 1

FOR WILLIAM F. HUDGINGS Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record. Glendon, Geo. A., Jr. SOUVENIR Report of the Bible Students Convention Pittsburgh, Pa. January 2-5, 1919. New York City, N.Y.: Printed privately. Undated. Hudgings, Wm. F. “Biblical Worker, Russellite, Anti-War Man Sued for Divorce in Reno.” Published in The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Tuesday, October 20, 1925. Hudgings, Wm. F. “Waiting on the Great Physician.” Published in The Golden Age, November 17, 1926, p. 113. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. WILLIAM F. HUDGINGS “An Editor of the Pro-Palestine Herald Succumbs Here.” Published in The New York Times, October 18, 1937.

FOR PAUL S. L. JOHNSON The Cincinnati Enquirer, Monday May 4, 1903, page 1 PASTOR RUSSELL’S RELATIONS TO THE PILGRIMS by Paul S.L. Johnson- Columbus. The Watch Tower, December 1, 1916, pp. 367, 368. Brooklyn, NY.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. BREF FRÅN “PILGRIM” – BRODER PAUL S. L. JOHNSON (LETTER FROM “PILGRIM”- BROTHER PAUL S.L. JOHNSON). To August Lundborg, Örebro, Sweden, February 15, 1917. Published in VAKT-TORNET, April 15, 1917, p. 128. Örebro, Sweden: Bibelsällskapet Vakttornet, 1917. Rutherford, J.F. Harvest Siftings. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, August 1, 1917. Johnson, Paul S.L. Harvest Siftings Reviewed. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Printed privately, November 1, 1917. Johnson, Paul S.L. The Present Truth and Herald of Christ’s Epiphany, December 9, 1918, pp. 20, 21. Deals with ELDAD AND MEDAD. Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately. Johnson, Paul S.L. “OUR FIRST ANNUAL REPORT.” Published in The Present Truth and Herald of Christ’s Epiphany, December 1, 1919. Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately. Johnson, Paul S.L. Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 10. Autobiography. Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately, 1941. Herald of the Epiphany, January 15, 1951, pp. 1-8. On Johnson’s funeral, biography and memoirs. Raymond G. Jolly, editor. Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately, 1951. Jolly R.G., editor. THE PHILADELPHIA AREA CONVENTION. The Present Truth and Herald of Christ’s Epiphany, November-December, 1975. On resolutions of July 5, 1919 and May 29, 1948 about Johnson’s authority in the movement. Chester Springs, Pa.: The Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement. Hudson, A.O. BIBLE STUDENTS IN BRITAIN: The Story of a Hundred Years. Hounslow, Middlesex, England: Bible Fellowship Union, 1989.

FOR A.H. MACMILLAN ADDRESS AT MORNING SERVICE by A.H. Macmillan – New York. The Watch Tower, December 1, 1916, p. 360. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1916. Rutherford, J.F. Harvest Siftings. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1917, p. 11. Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record. Glendon, Geo. A., Jr. SOUVENIR Report of the Bible Students’ Convention Pittsburgh, Pa. January 2-5, 1919. New York City, N.Y.: Printed privately. Undated. See pages 49, 50. NEW DATE FOR MILLENNIUM Russellites Now see it Coming on Earth in 1925. The New York Times, June 2, 1919. Johnson, Paul S.L. The Present Truth and Herald of Christ’s Epiphany, October 1, 1919, p. 173. Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately, 1919. Macmillan, A.H. Faith on the March. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1957.

Macmillan, A.H. Doing God’s Will Has been My Delight. In The Watchtower, August 15, 1966, pp. 504-510. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. “THE THINGS THEY DID GO RIGHT WITH THEM.” The Watchtower, October 1, 1966, p. 608. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1966. Mary (Goodwin) Macmillan (1873). The Internet: Wikitree. Accessed March 17, 2021. Albert Edmund Cole Macmillan (1907-1971). The Internet: WikiTree. Accessed March 17, 2021. This documents that A.H. Macmillan’s son served in the United States army in Korea .

FOR FRANCIS H. McGEE Francis H. McGee. AN OPEN LETTER TO THE SHAREHOLDERS OF THE SOCIETY. Freehold, New Jersey, August 15, 1917. Published in LIGHT AFTER DARKNESS, September 1, 1917, pp. 15-19. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Printed privately. J.D. Wright, A.I. Ritchie, I.F. Hoskins, R.H. Hirsh. Light after Darkness, p. 7. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Printed privately, September 1, 1917. Documents McGee’s encounter with Rutherford in Philadelphia, July 19, 1917. Johnson, Paul S.L. Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 10, p. 406. Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately. Provides details of McGee’s encounter with Rutherford on July 19, 1917 in Philadelphia. F.H. McGee. NOT IN HARMONY. Published in The Watch Tower, March 15, 1918, p. 95. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. “ILLNESS FATAL TO FRANCIS H. M’GEE.” TRENTON SUNDAY TIMES ADVERTISER, Sunday July 11, 1926, pp. 1, 3. “ASSOCIATES BEARERS FOR F.H. McGEE.” TRENTON EVENING NEWS, July 15, 1926, p. 2.

FOR WILLIAM E. PAGE Page, W.E. “Letter of resignation from the Editorial Committee.” Published in The Watch Tower, December 1, 1916, p. 379. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. Page, W.E. “30 YEARS OF ASSOCIATION WITH PASTOR RUSSELL.” Letter published in The Watch Tower, February 15, 1917, p. 61. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. Page, W.E. “VETOES THE SUGGESTION.” Letter published in The Watch Tower, December 1, 1917, p. 366. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. Page, W.E. “The Eighty Percent Co-Insurance Clause.” Article published in The Golden Age, September 12, 1923, p. 792. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. Johnson, Paul S.L. The Present Truth and Herald of Christ’s Epiphany April 1, 1927, p. 71. Letter from correspondent claiming that Page resigned from the Watch Tower Editorial Committee in the early 1920s because of doctrinal reservations. Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately. William Egbert Page (1855-1927). The Internet: WikiTree. Accessed March 22, 2021. May Helen (Soule) Page (1860-1943). The Internet: WikiTree. Accessed March 24, 2021. Woodworth, C.J., Editor. “Brothers Page, Robie and Thornton.” The Golden Age, July 13, 1927, p. 657. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society

FOR ANDREW N. PIERSON Frans Westerlunds dagbok – 1-4. This is a diary written by Frans Westerlund in Swedish giving a full coverage of the voyage of Ocean Queen that took Andrew N. Pierson to America in 1869. It gives the time and place of departure from Copenhagen and the time and place of arrival in New York and the conditions on board. The diary was accessed from the Internet on September 3, 2013. Letter from A.N. Pierson to Henry Weber published in The Watch Tower, October 15, 1901. See the Watch Tower Reprints, Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Society, 1919, p. 2897. “STATE DAIRY MEN MEET AT CROMWELL.” The Hartford Courant, September 16, 1906. Hartford, Connecticut. Andrew N. Pierson. “VICE PRESIDENT’S STATEMENT.” The Watch Tower, January 1, 1918. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1918. Vakt-Tornet, 1-5 oktober, 1921, p. 294. Örebro, Sweden: Vakttornets Bibel- och Traktatsällskap, 1921. “Andrew N. Pierson Dies; Famous Horticulturist.” The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Brooklyn, N.Y.: October 29, 1925. “ANOTHER OF THE BRETHREN CEASES EARTHLY LABOR.” Obituary of A.N. Pierson in The Herald of Christ’s Kingdom, December 1, 1925. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Pastoral Bible Institute.

The Swedish American Line. THE WILL TO SUCCEED Stories of Swedish Pioneers, the chapter “A.N. Pierson The Rose King” by Anne Abbott Pierson, pp. 245-254. Uddevalla, Sweden: Bonniers, 1948. Decker, Robert Owen with Harris, Margaret A. Cromwell Connecticut 1650-1990 The History of a River Port Town. Published for CROMWELL HISTORICAL SOCIETY. West Kennebunk, Maine: Phoenix Publishing, 1991. Email with attachments dated March 18, 2013, from Kurt Rubensson to Rud Persson. Details from Swedish church records.

FOR ALFRED. I. RITCHIE Letter from A.I. Ritchie to C.T. Russell. The Watch Tower, October 15, 1910. See The Watch Tower Reprints, pp. 4704, 4705. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1919. “ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR INSUING YEAR.” Published in The Watch Tower, October 1, 1911. See The Watch Tower Reprints, p. 4889. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch tower Bible and Tract Society. “A BAPTIST AND PRESENT TRUTH.” Published in The Watch Tower, July 15, 1914. See The Watch Tower Reprints, p. 5506. “MOULDED THOUGHT OF MILLIONS.” Published in The Watch Tower, December 1, 1916, p. 371. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. “ALL ‘PASTOR’ RUSSELL ACTIVITIES CONTINUE; REINS TO A.I. RITCHIE.” Published in The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, November 26, 1916. Rutherford, J.F. Harvest Siftings, August 1, 1917, p. 11. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1917. “7TH VOLUME FOES CRUSHED AT RALLY OF ‘RUSSELLITES’.” Published in The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, January 10, 1918. Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of records. August Lundborg. I Morgonväkten (“In the Morning Watch”). Örebro, Sweden, September 1-15, 1926. SEVENTH ANNUAL REUNION CONVENTION REPORT, 1935. Pittsburgh, Pa.: Associated Bible Students, 1935 . “A Much Loved Brother Passes to His Reward.” Obituary of A.I. Ritchie in The Herald of Christ’s Kingdom, March 1, 1946. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Pastoral Bible Institute, 1946.

FOR GERTRUDE W. SEIBERT RE BEREAN STUDIES IN SCRIPTURES. Letter from G.W. Seibert to C.T. Russell in The Watch Tower, March 15, 1910. See the Watch Tower Reprints, p. 4589. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1919. Woman’s Who’s Who of America for 1915 and 1916. The information on Seibert is photographically reproduced on BIBLE STUDENT ARCHIVES, available on the Internet. “SISTER SEIBERT TO HER FRIENDS.” Published in The Watch Tower, July 15, 1913. See the Watch Tower Reprints, pp. 5281,5282. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1919. Gertrude W. Seibert. “LOVE AND ZEAL NEVER MORE MANIFEST.” Letter published in The Watch Tower, December 1, 1917, p. 366. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1917. Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record. Sister G.W.S. “EXHORTATION TO ‘WALK IN THE LIGHT.’” Letter published in The Watch Tower, October 1, 1918, p. 303. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. Johnson, Paul S.L. Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 10, 1941, p. 298. Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately, 1941. “Then is Finished the Mystery of God,” pp. 145, 146. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1969.

FOR WALTER E. SPILL Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record, pp. 526, 527. Documents that an important board meeting was held at Spill’s residence on October 2, 1917. Glendon, Geo. A., Jr. SOUVENIR Report of the Bible Students’ Convention Pittsburgh, Pa. January 2-5, 1919. New York City, N.Y.: Printed privately. Undated. Johnson, Paul S.L. Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 3, p. 333. Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately, 1938. “Death takes North Side Osteopath, 83 Dr. Walter Spill Practiced 51 years.” Obituary in THE PITTSBURGH PRESS, March 5, 1953

FOR MENTA STURGEON Jones, L.W. THE 1910 SOUVENIR CONVENTION REPORT. Mentions all members of The Peoples Pulpit Association, including Menta Sturgeon. Chicago, Illinois: Printed privately. Abbott, William L., editor. “PASTOR STURGEON TO SPEAK.” Gives details on Sturgeon’s life. St. Paul Enterprise, July 11, 1913, p. 6. St. Paul, Minnesota: Printed privately. “ADDRESS AT AFTERNOON SERVICE Pastor Russell’s Last Days” by Menta Sturgeon – New York. Published in The Watch Tower, December 1. 1916. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1916. “ASSERTS RUSSELL WAS REAL PASTOR.” The Sun, January 17, 1917. Menta Sturgeon testified in tax fight. Provides details on Sturgeon. Johnson, Paul S.L. The Present Truth and Herald of Christ’s Epiphany, April 19, 1919, pp. 70-72. Gives details on Sturgeon. Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately. “A faithful Brother Reposes.” Obituary for Menta Sturgeon in Unsearchable Riches magazine, Vol. XXVI, September 1935, p. 2363. Santa Clarita, California: Concordant Publishing Concern, A.E. Knoch, editor. Florence Augusta (Dixon) Sturgeon (1870-1949). The Internet: WikiTree. Accessed March 22, 2021. Email from Trey Moss, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, to Rud Persson, November 7, 2013.

FOR WILLIAM E. VAN AMBURGH Rutherford et al vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record. Johnson, Paul S.L. Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 3, p. 178. Philadelphia, Pa.: Printed privately, 1938. Claims that Van Amburgh was set aside as office manager for not defending Russell when A.E. Williamson and others tried to displace Russell from his controlling position in the movement. W.E. Van Amburgh. The Way to Paradise. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Peoples Pulpit Association, 1924. Replica published with a Supplement called Who was W.E. Van Amburgh? Morrisville, N.C.: Lulu Enterprises, Inc. The replica reprint was not dated but was printed after 2002, as shown on page 45 in the Supplement. Moyle vs. Franz et al, 1943, transcript of record. RESIGNATION AND NEW APPOINTMENT. The Watchtower, March 1, 1947, p. 66. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.

FOR CLAYTON W. WOODWORTH OUT OF DARKNESS INTO HIS MARVELOUS LIGHT. Letter from “Clayton and Emma Woodworth.” Published in Zion’s Watch Tower, June 15, 1896. See the Watch Tower reprints, pp. 1830, 1831. Pittsburgh, Pa.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1919. Jones, L.W. International Bible Students Souvenir Convention Report 1913. “The Vow”, talk by C.J. Woodworth at the Ashville Convention, July 20-27, 1913. Chicago, Illinois. Printed privately, 1913. Rutherford et al. vs. The United States, 1918, transcript of record. C.J. Woodworth, editor. The Posthumous Work of Pastor Russell. Published in The Golden Age, Vol. X – No. 247, March 6, 1929, pp. 373, 374. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. In this article Woodworth excused his part in writing The Finished Mystery. O. Moyle vs. Fred Franz et al, 1943, transcript of records. “FAITHFUL TO DEATH.” Obituary of C.J. Woodworth in The Watchtower, February 15, 1952, p. 128. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. Alen, Carol. “BLESSED WITH A SPECIAL HERITAGE.” Published in The Watchtower, October 1, 2000, pp. 24-29. Brooklyn, N.Y.: The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 2000. Emails from Skip Higgins to Rud Persson of August 24 (with attachment), August 25, 26 and September 7, 8, 2011. Skip Higgins is a genealogist and a distant relative of Clayton J. Woodworth.