THE ROSS LIBEL TRIAL - PREAMBLE

In the summer of 2023 I completed and published a small book entitled THE ROSS LIBEL TRIAL. It was a research project dating back 35 years, but recent discoveries meant I could resurrect it and complete it.The result was a 64 page book on the Lulu platform.

Those who like a printed copy of material can search Lulu to find it.

However, I appreciate that many who may be interested in the subject don’t want to buy a book. So the material is going to be presented here in the following 10 posts – featuring an introduction, seven chapters, and then two appendix chapters. They have all been posted in reverse order so that you can read them now in the right order on the blog. Readers are free to download or print out anything from this material that may be of interest.

What follows then is in this order.

INTRODUCTION

1.     THE BACKGROUND

2.      PICKING THE RIGHT PLATFORM

3.      THE LAW AND THE PERJURY CHARGE

4.      THE SIDERSKY EFFECT

5.      THE TRANSCRIPT THAT HAS SURVIVED

6.      SO WHAT HAPPENED TO IT?

7.      IN CONCLUSION

APPENDIX 1

APPENDIX 2

THE ROSS LIBEL TRIAL - TITLE AND INTRODUCTION

 

THE ROSS LIBEL TRIAL

The history of a 1913 legal case remembered

(badly) down through the years.

 

Print edition first published in 2013

Copyrighted. All rights reserved

 

INTRODUCTION

The Ross libel trial is one of those cases that hovered on the fringes of Watch Tower history for well over a hundred years. It raised comment at the time in the pages of The Watchtower magazine, and when resurrected by a critic in the early 1950s, prompted a Question from Readers in The Watchtower for May 15, 1953 to deal with it.

Charles Taze Russell sued a Baptist clergyman, John Jacob Ross, on the charge of criminal libel in early 1913. The resulting fall-out included the charge that Russell had committed perjury. The lack of a transcript of the relevant part of the case only added to the confusion.

This small book is to clear up the controversy with research and documentation discovered in recent years. I make no secret that to this author’s mind, the accusation that Charles Taze Russell was less than truthful is unfair and unfounded. If that is not to the reader’s liking, then of course you do not have to read on.

Some of the research was done with a fellow researcher about 35 years ago. My thanks to Roger and I will try not to leave it another 35 years… In more recent times, the discovery of part of the original transcript from a most unusual source helped the writer revisit the subject. The advent of research tools on the internet also helped considerably in unearthing material that would otherwise not have seen the light of day.

Images from pre-1923 are deemed to be in the public domain and under fair use are taken with acknowledgement from an active subscription to newspapers.com and other sources.

CHAPTER 1 - THE BACKGROUND

 For the first nearly 40 years of Watch Tower Society history, the organization was inextricably linked to the name Charles Taze Russell (hereafter referred to as CTR). CTR founded and edited Zion’s Watch Tower magazine (later The Watch Tower), was elected as Pastor by numerous Bible study groups, and wrote a theological framework for the Bible Students in his Millennial Dawn series of six textbooks (later named Studies in the Scriptures).

His work attracted the ire of orthodoxy as he promoted such concepts as no hell fire, no inherent immortal soul, no triune God, and a pre-millennial return of Christ, with a literal thousand year reign over a literal earth.

Instead of using scripture to question CTR’s position on belief and doctrine, increasingly the media - and especially the clergy of mainstream denominations - resorted to quite vicious ad hominem attacks. In the face of highly personal criticism, CTR had to make a choice – whether to just ignore it or to resort to litigation.

On several occasions he took to the latter course, suing both publications and individuals.

Sometimes he won a victory. Marley Cole’s book Jehovah’s Witnesses: The New World Society gave two examples. Both The Washington Post and The Chicago Mission Friend paid CTR damages and more importantly published an apology and retraction of specific attacks on him. Even J J Ross, the protagonist in the case we are going to consider, mentioned other church papers like The Megaphone and The Christian Armoury who likewise apologised and withdrew material in the face of legal proceedings.

But on other occasions CTR failed, and with hindsight, in some cases it might have been better to have just left matters alone. Today’s newsprint is often tomorrow’s recycling and the contents forgotten. Going to law draws media attention to an issue, and the results can be unpredictable. In the Watch Tower for October 1, 1915, when answering a question about why he, CTR, took someone to court, when Jesus didn't, he stated about the Ross case: "We are not certain that we did the wisest and best thing – the thing most pleasing to the Lord in the matter mentioned."

The biggest example of a case that went the distance but did not work out as hoped was the January 1913 case Charles T Russell vs The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, commonly known as the “Miracle Wheat” trial.

The Brooklyn Daily Eagle was a populist newspaper that rarely had a good word to say about CTR and his ministry.

Miracle Wheat was a strain of wheat discovered – it was claimed – by a farmer named Kenton Ballard Stoner. Years after the controversy it was discovered that Stoner had marketed the wheat under several names, and done very nicely out of it. One of the names coined was “miracle wheat” and back in 1908 The Watch Tower magazine picked up a secular newspaper paragraph on it, and suggested this might be one of many indications of the forthcoming blessings in the millennium. A Bible Student named John Adam Bohnet later obtained some seed and grew the wheat on farmland adjacent to a cemetery the Watch Tower Society owned in Pittsburgh. Bible Students who were farmers could purchase seed if they chose as a way of donating to the Watch Tower Society’s work. When the scheme was criticised, CTR’s magazine offered readers their donations back if any were unhappy. No-one took up the offer.

Perhaps the most objective conclusion on miracle wheat – under its various guises – came several years after the trial. In 1916 the U.S. Department of Agriculture published a 28-page report entitled Alaska and Stoner, or “Miracle” Wheats. (United States Department of Agriculture Bulletin No. 357, April 27, 1916). After extensive trials their considered judgment on page 27 was: “It is not as good as some and is somewhat better than others.”

In fairness to all concerned, comparing varieties of wheat was not always an exact science. So much depended on soil conditions, weather conditions and the time of year the seed was planted. The strain was later renamed Weber wheat, owned by the family of Henry Weber, who had been Watch Tower vice-president prior to his death in 1904. The New Era Enterprise for October 19, 1920, reported that it had won several prizes under that name.

Going back to The Brooklyn Eagle, the newspaper published a satirical cartoon in September 1911. The Brooklyn Union Bank had recently gone bankrupt, and The Brooklyn Daily Eagle had conducted a campaign against it accusing the directors of fraud. They published a cartoon, mocking the Union Bank as the Onion Bank, and making a reference to Pastor Russell and the offer of “miracle wheat” in the pages of The Watch Tower. The caption read: “If Pastor Russell can get a dollar a pound for ‘miracle wheat’ what could he have got for Miracle stocks and bonds as a director in the old Union Bank?”

CTR sued. The testimony is fascinating and the transcript of this trial from January 1913 has survived. But he failed to win the case. His comments on the verdict and his praise for the jury system (even though he believed it let him down this time) can be found in the February 15, 1913 issue of The Watch Tower.

The real issue was the suggestion that CTR was trying to defraud Watch Tower readers. However, the trial soon got bogged down into whether the wheat was any good or not. Numerous experts were called upon to say that the wheat was the best thing since sliced bread. But the case soon became a scattergun of attacks on all sorts of fronts. CTR’s estranged wife, Maria, turned up.  CTR was in court, although not called as a witness since he admitted he knew nothing about the properties of wheat. So there in court were CTR and Maria, apparently looking at each other across the room. Maria was called to testify for the Eagle, but her testimony was so inconsequential, one can only assume that her appearance on the newspaper’s behest was to try and cause CTR maximum discomfort.

CTR’s attorney, Joseph F Rutherford, gave his view of the result in a booklet published in 1915 – A Great Battle in the Ecclesiastical Heavens:

 

If CTR had won his case against the Eagle it would probably have ended any need to sue Ross or others like him. But that wasn’t to be.

John Jacob Ross (1870-1935) was the Pastor of the James Street Baptist Church, in Hamilton, Ontario. In 1912 he published a tract: Some Facts about the Self-Styled “Pastor” Charles T. Russell (of Millennial Dawn Fame).

Ross’s background can be found in his obituary from 1935 (The Province, Vancouver, September 19, 1935). He was born in Quebec, and educated at Woodstock Baptist College and McMaster University, Toronto. He worked in various places in Canada, and also included a spell in Chicago, USA, where he was reportedly president of the Chicago Baptist Minsters’ Union. He was married and had one son, John Graham Ross, of Winnipeg, although it has not been possible to trace any descendants. He was a writer who produced several booklets on doctrine from the Baptist perspective, peppered with scriptural references. They included The Prophecy on Olivet or The Sign of His Coming (1909) and The Under-World of the Dead or The Abode of Departed Spirits (2^nd edition 1914 from 1912 sermon). One may disagree with his conclusions, but at least there are Bible texts to reason on. Had Ross just attempted to use the Bible to try and refute CTR’s message there would have been no problem. Instead, he made a number of personal attacks with no scriptural references whatsoever, apart from one passing reference to “false prophets” (Matthew 7:15; 1 John 4:1) at the very end.

 

Ross’s academic credentials have been questioned by some writers, specifically Ditlieb Felderer, who we will come to later. However, if ad hominem attacks on CTR should be off limits, then the same should apply to Ross. All that is relevant here is that Ross admitted he had never met CTR prior to being sued by him. He also admitted that when, in June 1912, he published his anti-CTR tract there was very little original material in it. It was basically a copy and paste job from the Eagle newspaper. CTR had visited Canada and his speaking engagements included Hamilton, Ontario. Ross had rushed out his pamphlet (“50 cents per hundred, four dollars per thousand”) to warn his Baptist flock as he saw it.

So again, CTR sued. But this time there was one big difference. Rather than a civil charge of libel, as was the case with the concurrent Eagle situation, Ross was sued for criminal libel. What this meant and how it impacted on the outcome is covered in the next chapter.

CHAPTER 2 - PICKING THE RIGHT PLATFORM

Looking back now, it appears that – unknown to either party – the case CTR brought against J J Ross never had any real chance of succeeding, no matter what its merits or demerits were. To win, you had to pick the right platform.

The platform for the case against The Brooklyn Eagle had been a civil suit for libel. In that case, it had not worked. So for the suit against Ross, CTR received different advice.

This time it was go for criminal libel. CTR explained in a letter to E J Coward in The Watch Tower for September 15, 1914:

In Canada they have just two laws governing libel. Under the one the falsifier may be punished by the assessment of damages and money. Under the other, criminal libel, he is subject to imprisonment. I entered suit against Rev. Ross under the criminal act, at the advice of my attorneys, because, as he has no property, a suit for damages would not intimidate him nor stop him. The lower Court found him guilty of libel… I could still bring my action for financial damages, but it would be costly to me and impotent as respects Rev. Ross. 

The case came up shortly after the Eagle trial. CTR’s advisors may have thought there was more chance of success by making a criminal charge. The idea was not for Ross to be fined in a civil case or even put in jail in a criminal one, but rather to cause him (in legal terms) to “cease and desist.” Ross did not.

Ross may have had powerful backers. Although the reason given for pursuing criminal rather than civil proceedings was that Ross had no funds – so a civil case would be no deterrent – his local Baptist Church started a collection to help him. Somehow he (or his friends) managed to employ three different lawyers, the most famous of these being George Lynch-Staunton (1858-1940). Staunton would go on to become a powerful politician in Canada. He probably did not come cheap.

It meant that on the docket the litigant was not Charles Taze Russell, but technically “THE KING.”

If it had gone to full trial in the Supreme Court the case would have been most interesting, especially since Ross had no personal knowledge of the accusations he made. As we shall see shortly, in a repetition of strategy from the concurrent Eagle trial, he also planned to call CTR’s estranged wife as a witness.

From the start there were logistical problems of geography. CTR was based in America, but toured the world in his ministry, and Ross was based in Canada, which came under the laws of Great Britain, not America.

The first summons on J J Ross was on December 7, 1912, and at the first hearing on December 9. CTR was present in person to identify himself and dispute the contents of Ross’s tract. Going into the first week of January, 1913, Ross’s defence insisted that CTR had to be further cross-examined at the preliminary hearing. He initially declined because he was not there in Canada, and as a result the original summons was overturned. CTR promptly tried to have the papers served again on January 13, but this time Ross delayed matters by leaving town. According to The Ottawa Citizen for January 15, this was “presumably on the advice of his counsel.” Everything was postponed again for a number of weeks. Another new summons was issued against Ross on February 7. The magistrate had previously denied the defence permission to cross-examine all witnesses at this point, but the divisional court quashed that, so finally, on February 27, a judge stipulated that CTR should again give evidence in person. Unfortunately CTR was preaching in Central America at the time so for the moment the point was moot.

On March 17, CTR at last made it to Canada to give more evidence in person in a preliminary hearing in the Magistrate’s Court. Ross’s legal team were allowed to take him word by word through the offending tract to argue whether it was fair comment or, as CTR contended, libellous. After a two hour session in the morning and one of similar length in the afternoon, Magistrate George Jelfs committed Ross for trial on the charge of criminal libel. The case was now referred to the Supreme Court of Ontario.

The matter was extensively reported on in the press. One typical example was The Windsor Star newspaper for March 19, 1913:

The headline was:

COMMIT HAMILTON PASTOR TO TRIAL ON LIBEL CHARGE

 Defamatory libel charged against Rev. J. J. Ross by Pastor Russell.

Hamilton, March 19 - Police Magistrate Jelfs committed for trial Rev. J. J. Ross, pastor of James Street Baptist Church, formerly of Toronto, on a charge of defamatory libel laid by Pastor C. T. Russell. Defendant was committed several weeks ago, but now a preliminary hearing has been held, as ordered by a higher court, because defence had not been allowed to cross-examine plaintiff. Defence took full advantage of the privilege of cross-examining Pastor Russell...(He) was on the stand for over two hours this morning, and underwent a severe cross-examination at the hands of the counsel of Rev. J. J. Ross, George S. Lynch-Staunton, K.C., J. G. Farmer, K.C., and A. M. Lewis.

This particular newspaper report was dated March 19, but the events had in fact taken place two days earlier on Monday, March 17.

The newspaper outlined the various subjects CTR was grilled over. They followed closely the contents of the Ross tract. The paper made no judgment, and no-where was there any suggestion that CTR had been anything less than truthful in his responses. As noted above, after this lengthy interrogation, on the Monday afternoon the magistrate committed Ross for trial in the Higher Court.

So the case hadn’t been dismissed; it was now set to go ahead to the Supreme Court in Ontario. Nearly two weeks later The Winnipeg Tribute for March 29, 1913, published a photo of Ross with the caption: “Rev J J Ross – Baptist Ministry of Hamilton, who has been committed for trial on the charge of libelling Pastor Russell of Brooklyn.”

In the meantime, as reported in the Montreal Gazette for March 24, 1913, CTR offered to close down the case. The heading read ‘Pastor Russell would drop action on receipt of an apology.’ The paper reported an offer to discontinue the action forthwith if Ross would simply apologise for “assassinating his (CTR’s) character.” Attempts at scriptural refutation were one thing, personal attacks were not.

This is supported by what CTR would later recall in the pages of The Watch Tower for October 1, 1915:

My attorneys of course, were obliged to bring their action in harmony with the law of the land. While the case was still pending, I wrote Rev. Ross, assuring him that I had no unkind intention, and proposed that I would discontinue the suit if he would promise to discontinue his injurious, slanderous course.

He had no vindictive interest in Ross being fined or imprisoned; he simply wanted the personal attacks stopped.

Ross’s response was not encouraging. The Gazette’s report concluded:

Mr. Ross could not be reached by phone today, but it is understood he will insist upon the case going to trial.

Ross had probably increased in confidence after the result in the civil case against the Eagle just two months earlier. As already observed, he’d lined up the same stratagem as the newspaper. Fresh from her appearance in the Eagle trial, Ross claimed that CTR’s estranged wife, Maria, was now eager to appear for his defence.

Back in January The Victoria Daily Times for January 23, 1913, under the heading CHARGED WITH LIBEL, reported:

An interesting turn has been given the case of the Rev. J.J. Ross, pastor of St. James Baptist Church here, who is charged by Pastor Russell, of Brooklyn Tabernacle, with alleged libel.  Mrs. Russell, who lives near Pittsburgh, has written to Alexis Lewis, lawyer for Mr. Ross, offering to come here of her own free will and give evidence against her former husband. The defence has accepted her offer.

Although the paper described CTR as her former husband, they were still married, although legally separated. When he died she was rightly presented as his widow.

In Ross’s later booklet Some Facts and More Facts about the Self-Styled “Pastor” Charles T. Russell he described how “our witnesses were all present for the trial” including Maria. His description of her – hardly impartial – was that she was “a modest, intelligent, charming devoted Christian woman” with a “vastly superior intellect” to that of her husband.

As already noted, had it gone to full trial it would have been a fascinating case, particularly with Maria there. But of course that didn’t happen.

There was one final hurdle before the case could be tried in the High Court. Similar to the USA, Canada had a system where a Grand Jury had to render a verdict. Having heard a certain amount of evidence, along with the summation of counsel, they were tasked with deciding which cases from the police court went higher up the chain for a full trial.

As reported in the Canadian press on April 2, the Grand Jury finally brought in a verdict. It was “no bill.” Thus, after four long months, the action, THE KING vs. JOHN JACOB ROSS, came to an end.

Unsurprisingly, Ross claimed this as a great victory. In Facts and More Facts he wrote:

However, this version of events is patently false.

We only have to go to contemporary newspapers to see this. We noted above that the press reported on the case on April 2, 1913.  The Toronto Globe for April 2, 1913 noted that a “no bill” verdict was returned - but gave quite a different reason for it, which we will now explore.

 

It is worth emphasising what this newspaper says. The jury may have heard several hours of evidence two weeks before this, but ultimately they weren’t given any choice. They were told there was only one verdict they could bring in.

To reiterate: 

“Mr Justice Middleton in addressing the Grand Jurors on this case stated that there could be no criminal libel unless the peace of the community was disturbed, and that as the plaintiff did not reside in this country this could scarcely have been the case. It was upon this advice that no bill was returned.”

(Bold print mine)

This verdict and the reason behind it was a bombshell.

We have to ask, does this decision make any sense? When you examine the law on criminal libel, it makes perfect sense. The lack of sense is how the case ever got that far. All the legal proceedings up to that point had been a waste of time. The issue should have been established at the outset, but it obviously passed over the head of CTR’s Canadian counsel, S.F. Washington, and then carried on though the police court, and the cross-examination of CTR by George Lynch-Staunton and others. No matter how matters might have been resolved, it appears the whole case was likely to be doomed on this technicality. It also meant that a no doubt disappointed Maria Russell missed another day in court.

CTR’s advisors had simply picked the wrong platform.

To understand the precise legal position we have to examine British law, which Canada came under. This will be discussed in the next chapter.

CHAPTER 3 - THE LAW AND THE PERJURY CHARGE

 This chapter will examine exactly why a charge of criminal libel in the case of THE KING vs. JOHN JACOB ROSS was doomed to failure.

If the reader is not wildly enthusiastic about the minutiae of the law, then you can skip over the early part of this chapter, but I believe the details are worth considering.

CTR would later comment on this turn of events. In the September 15, 1914, Watch Tower, he explained what had happened and why his action had not succeeded. We have already extracted part of his letter where he explained why he went for criminal rather than civil libel in the first place. CTR’s letter goes on to explain how it went wrong:

(all emphasis in bold mine):

The lower court found him guilty of libel. But when the case went to the second judge he called up an English precedent in which it was held that criminal libel would only operate in a case where the jury felt sure that there was danger of rioting or violence. As there was no danger that myself or friends would resort to rioting, the case was thrown out. I could still bring my action for financial damages but it would be costly to me and impotent as respects Rev. Ross.'

He then went on to discuss at some length the issues raised on Biblical languages and ordination and presented his side of the case.

So CTR states he was advised to try for criminal libel, but because of an English precedent relating to resulting 'rioting' and 'violence', it was thrown out. The English law (obviously governing Canada at this time) is put simply in Reader's Digest Family Guide to the Law (1971 edition) page 675: (again emphasis mine):

'Libel is normally a civil wrong - what the law calls a 'tort' -·but it can be also a criminal offence if the prosecution shows that the libel caused, or was likely to cause a breach of the peace. Such prosecutions are rare because the person libelled normally prefers to seek damages in a civil action; for even if someone is found guilty of criminal libel the person defamed does not get any damages.'

In discussing how certain rare circumstances allow for criminal libel of the dead, it states:

'If the dead person is libelled in such a way that his relatives are understandably angered into a breach of the peace, the writer might be prosecuted for criminal libel.'

So the key point in law is, will the one libelled be likely to cause a breach of the peace, or will his relatives?

This is backed up by Stones Justice Manual, 1985 edition, Section 4-5671. After the definition of criminal libel, and various decisions on whether or not the dead could be so libelled, we have the British precedent to which CTR referred:

Lord COLERIDGE CJ, directed a grand jury at Berkshire Assizes, Reading, February 1889, that there ought to be some public interest concerned, something affecting the Crown or in guardians of public peace, to justify the recourse by a private person to criminal libel by way of indictment. If either by reason of the continued repetition or infamous character of the libel a breach of the peace was likely to ensue, then the libeller should be indicted: but in the absence of such conditions, a personal squabble between two individuals ought not to be permitted by grand juries, as indeed it was not permitted by sound law to the subject of criminal indictment, and he invited them to throw out the bill, which, in accordance with his suggestion, was done (33 Sol Jo 250).

In summary – if no breach of the peace was actually caused by, or threatened by, the one libelled, a private individual bringing a charge of criminal libel would have it thrown out – irrespective of the merits of the case. Readers of The Watch Tower were not going to riot or cause any civil unrest – the case had not even been mentioned in its pages at the time. Had CTR brought a civil action against Ross it may have been a different result. This is what he did with actions against the Washington Post and Chicago 'Mission Friend mentioned earlier, where both cases were decided in his favour. The issue of CTR’s 'divorce/separation' was a common theme in all cases.

The whole object of the exercise was to silence Ross, which is why CTR wrote to him while the case was pending offering to withdraw the suit if Ross would discontinue his (quote) "injurious slanderous course". (Watch Tower, October 1st, 1915). On this occasion the strategy backfired!

In hindsight it would appear that CTR received flawed legal advice to go for the rare charge of criminal libel, rather than civil libel as before.

We return to a quote made earlier on in this work. In The Watch Tower for October 1, 1915, CTR stated about the Ross case: "We are not certain that we did the wisest and best thing – the thing most pleasing to the Lord in the matter mentioned."

The initial fallout was small. Those who read The Watch Tower knew CTR and the various issues had been well explained in its pages. There was also an issue of the tract series, Bible Students Monthly that reviewed the main criticisms made in the case (Volume 6, issue 5).

Ross’s pamphlet would have just been one of many. Of course, Ross would go on to claim that he’d won and that CTR had lost the case. He quickly reprinted the offending tract in the first part of his longer booklet, Some Facts and More Facts about the Self-Styled “Pastor” Charles T. Russell. In reality, the case was never tried in the higher court for the reasons stated above.

However, the issue now went in a whole different direction. Leaving aside the details of the original tract, which had been well covered in different issues of The Watch Tower, Ross now focused on one particular event from March 17, 1913.

This is when CTR had been cross examined by several counsels, the most famous of whom was George Lynch-Staunton.

Ross made the claim that CTR had committed perjury. He claimed it was backed up by the official transcript of the hearing. This accusation is the one that has stuck, down through the years.

It came in quite an early exchange. According to the Ross version, CTR claimed he knew Biblical Greek, but when faced with a Greek text of the Bible was unable to read from it. From that have come claims and counterclaims involving missing transcripts, doctored transcripts and hidden away transcripts.

The surrounding material in Ross’s booklet questioned his schooling and how he understood ordination, and these matters were dealt by CTR in The Watch Tower shortly afterwards.  (See Appendix 1 for details)

But it was this claim to know Greek that was picked up and repeated by those unfriendly towards CTR and the Watch Tower message. We will look at some of those who have quoted Ross in a later chapter.

To solve the issue of what happened we would ideally need to see the original transcript and then be able to analyse exactly what was both said and really meant in a feisty exchange between CTR and a skilled lawyer who Ross freely acknowledged was charged with trying to trip him up.

Today we have a good idea of what was really said. Admittedly it is not from an original transcript but from a secondary source, but nonetheless, one that had no brief to defend CTR; in reality quite the opposite. For this, we have to introduce another of CTR’s foes from the era in the next chapter.

Welcome to Mr Philip Sidersky.

CHAPTER 4 - THE SIDERSKY EFFECT

The reason we can now establish a key part of what happened in the courtroom  on March 17, 1913, in the case of THE KING vs. J J ROSS is the activity of one of CTR’s foremost critics, Philip Sidersky.

Philip Siderksy was born in Russia, and some papers suggest he had once thought of training as a rabbi. Instead, he came to the United States and was reinvented as the “Reverend Philip Sidersky,” author, editor, and speaker to various denominations on converting Jews to Christianity. He also became an extremely active critic of Pastor Russell and the Bible Student movement. He was to become such a public face of opposition to CTR’s work that he even gets a mention in modern Watchtower literature (Yearbook 1979, page 95). CTR must have responded at some point, because the Sidersky then tried to sue him in a counter response. From The Washington Post, September 7, 1911:

The Evening Sun for September 6, 1911, gave a bit more detail:

 This came to nothing. But undaunted, Sidersky produced a whole magazine just to attack CTR and Watch Tower teaching. It was called Searchlight on Russellism and ran from late 1915 to at least the end of 1916. Three issues are known to have survived. The first, volume one number one, is in the Harvard Divinity School library. The second, volume one number six, is interesting because it contained a letter from Sidersky to the President of the United States, asking him to clamp down on CTR’s writings being sent to members of the National Guard. This, along with volume one number seven, was to end up in the files of what ultimately became the FBI, as part of the package of difficulties the Bible Students faced during World War 1.

 

So what is the connection with the J J Ross libel trial? Numbers 1 and 6 of Sidersky’s paper (page 2 and then continued on page 7) contain a transcript of the Ross hearing. In the absence of the original trial transcript this provides us with probably all that can now be obtained of the case.

We have to assume that the transcript is accurate, but there is no way to check. We also have to note that Sidersky selected what suited his purpose. None of the prosecution material aimed at Ross appears; rather, it is the defence counsel, Staunton, grilling CTR, which makes up the surviving selective extracts. However, they do give us a flavor of the proceedings.

The complete transcript that survives is in the next chapter, without any editorial comment. However, I strongly recommend reading the following background material first.

It starts off with Counsellor Staunton being somewhat insulting, and CTR being less than willing to volunteer information. It is a lively exchange. However, it soon settles down, and there is a little verbal sparring between the two individuals, with CTR even questioning Staunton at one point.

The section in Searchlight volume 1 number 1 covers the initial stages of the examination. This includes CRT's schooling and the key section on languages. We will come back to that shortly. The second section from Searchlight volume 1 number 6 covers financial matters. This includes the case of William Hope Hay, a pilgrim who made a financial donation to the Society, then some time later had a breakdown and had to be hospitalised. The Society paid the hospital fees. And then the investigation covers the different corporations used by the Society. Ross had accused CTR of running a money-making scheme and basically hiding affairs behind various corporations. It was explained quite clearly by CTR how the Society’s affairs worked, and how the different linked corporations were simply needed to legally operate in Pennsylvania, New York, and also the far-flung corners of the British Empire.

There was no smoking gun there.

But let’s return to the claim that CTR lied on the stand about his “qualifications” in Biblical languages, particularly Greek.

What actually was said? Here on the next page is a direct scan from the Sidersky transcript:

But when Ross wrote his second booklet, as shown in a previous chapter, his account of the exchange said this (direct scan again):

In Ross’s account, the question was do you know the Greek? However, the “quote” doesn’t actually make sense. “Do you know the Greek?” The Greek what? Would an educated man like Staunton speak like that?

We can see from the Searchlight on Russellism scans that Ross leaves out that crucial word “alphabet.” CTR had already stated clearly he had no schooling in Latin or Greek. So he did not “know” Greek. But yes, he knew the alphabet, but might make a mistake on some of them. (This writer can relate to that).

Losing the word “alphabet” is a very unfortunate typo in the circumstances. It is either that, or a deliberate attempt by Ross to mislead. Well, you, the reader, can decide.

So that is the background to the transcript we have. In the next chapter, we will just reproduce the surviving transcript without comment.

CHAPTER 5 - THE TRANSCRIPT THAT HAS SURVIVED

PART 1   Heading: ‘Pastor’ Russell Under Direct Court Examination

Subheading: Interesting Court Examination of ‘Pastor’ Russell, His Religious Propaganda As Well As His Business Enterprises.

From Spotlight on Russellism, Volume 1, number 1, pages 2 and 7. Punctuation and capitalization as per the Sidersky transcript.

Q =      Attorney Staunton

A =      Charles Taze Russell

March 17^th, 1913.

(continuation of Russell vs. Ross)

Mr. Washington:-

            The evidence for the Crown is closed, Your Worship.

Mr. Staunton:-

            I just want to submit that they have made no case. Of course I will call the prosecutor, Mr. Russell.

Charles T. Russell.

            Sworn.

 

Direct examination by Mr. Staunton.

Q.        Now your name is Charles T. Russell?                      

A.        It is.

Q.        You are prosecutor in this case?                    

A.        I didn’t understand so.

Q.        Well, are you prosecutor?                  

A.        I am with the Crown.

Q         Are you private prosecutor? Let’s not start –

A.        I didn’t know that I was, sir.

Q.        You didn’t lay this information or cause it to be laid?

            A. I understand that the Crown –

Q.        Will you answer my question. Did you lay an information or cause it to be laid?

A.        I will have to ask my Counsel how it is.

Mr. Washington:- 

The information is there, Mr. Russell, you can look at it and see if it is yours.

Information produced:

Witness:-

I remember, sir, yes, I made this, yes, sir.

Q.        Why did you hesitate to answer that?

A.        Because I thought it was the Crown that was prosecutor in this case, and I was a witness.

Q.        I asked you if you laid the information – You are an intelligent man – did you swear to it?

A.        Yes, to this paper.

Q.        Therefore you are the private prosecutor?

A.        Whatever you say.

Q.        Now were you at one time in the shirt business in Allegheny, Pennsylvania?

A.        I was in the Gent’s furnishing business.

Q.        Then you were selling shirts in Allegheny, Pennsylvania at one time?                      

A.        I had stores in Allegheny. I don’t know that I sold many shirts myself.

Q.        Do you understand the question, Mr. Russell?

A.        I have answered it.

Q.        Did you sell shirts in Allegheny!

A.        I can’t say that I sold shirts. I have plenty –

Q.        You swear you can’t tell me whether you sold any shirts or not?

A.        I don’t know whether I ever sold a shirt ever in my life

Q.        Had you any stores there?                 

A.        Yes

Q.        Did you keep shirts for sale? 

A.        Shirts for sale.

Q.        You don’t know whether you sold any or not?

A.        I couldn’t say whether I did.

Q.        How many years did you keep the business?

A.        Well, I had, I presume ten years.

Q.        How many stores did you have?

A.        I had different stores at different times.

Q.        How many did you have at one time?

A.        Five, I think at one time.

Q.        Did you sell them all out?

A.        I sold them all out.

Q.        Did you inherit your business from your father?                   

A.        No.

Q.        Did you build up the business for yourself?              

A.        Yes.

Q.        Your Father wasn’t in that business?

A.        My Father was partner in one of those stores.

Q.        Your father was partner in the business?

A.        One of the businesses.

Q.        Did you lecture on religious subjects at the time you were in the Gent’s Furnishing business?      

A.        I did.  

Q.        When did you quit the Gent’s Furnishing business?

A.        I have no matter to refresh my memory.

Q.        About what year?      

A.        Rough guess there.

Q.        Make it as rough as you like, but  give it to me.                    

A.        About 1885.

Q.        Wasn’t before ‘85?                

A.        I couldn’t say.

Q.        Did you establish the Watch Tower immediately after you quit that business?

A.        No, sir.

Q.        How many years after?

A.        No, sir, I established the Watch Tower just before I quit the business.

Q.        Now did anybody in those days ever call you the “Crank preacher”?

A.        They may have done so. I never heard.

Q.        You don’t know that you ever heard that, did you ever see it in print?

A.        I don’t remember that I ever did.

Q.        Did you ever hear that in those days you were called “The crank preacher”?

A.        I don’t remember it.

Q.        You swear you don’t remember it?

A.        Certainly swearing all the time.

Q.        You may have been for aught you know?

A.        Why, of course, Mr. Ross says he knows.

Q.        Never mind Mr. Ross. I’m asking you.

A.        Well, I have answered it. I wouldn’t change it any if you ask me this over again.

Q.        Did you ever give out that you were “Some Great One?”

A.        No Sir.

Q.        Never did it?

A.        No Sir.

Q.        You were never the servant, never prophesied no time that you were the servant mentioned in the 24^th St. Matthew?

A.        I never did, but some of my friends suggested that they believed that the Scripture in Matthew 24-26 was applicable to myself. I have never said it was, and I have never said it was not. I may have merely said I did not know whether it was or not.

Q.        Did you ever attend a High School of learning, or, perhaps, you might tell me what schools of learning you did attend?

A.        I attended various schools, none were termed High Schools of learning.

Q.        What schools did you attend?

A.        Well as far as theology is concerned –

Q.        I am not asking you about theology.

A.        I had a great deal of education from private tutors.

Q.        What schools did you attend?

A.        Not very many.

Q.        What school?

A.        Ordinary public school.

Q.        At what age did you leave school?

A.        That is more than I know.

Q.        Were you ten, fifteen, or twenty years old?

A.        If you know, you know more than I do.

Q.        You don’t know how long you were at school?

A.        No.

Q.        Were you ever at school?

A.        Yes.

Q.        Are you clear on that?

A.        Yes.

Q.        Can you tell me how many years you attended school?

A.        No.

Q.        Did you attend two years?

A.        I suppose so.

Q.        You don’t know?

A.        Yes, I’m sure more than that.

Q.        Did you attend three years?

A.        I suppose –

Q.        You don’t know, tho’?

A.        I suppose so.

Q.        Well, but you don’t know.

A.        I can’t say where those were.

Q.        You attend three years in total time at school?

A.        Yes more than three years.

Q.        Did you attend four years?

A.        I suppose five or six or seven years.

Q.        I asked you how many years you attended school?

A.        Probably seven years.

Q.        Now, where did you attend school?

A.        In Allegheny, Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia.

Q.        Now, do you know, or are you learned in Latin?

A.        Not as much as I would like to be.

Q.        Can you read anything in Latin?

A.        I can read a few sentences, I can’t read Latin –

Q.        You did not profess to read anything in Latin outside?

A.        No.

Q.        You don’t profess then to be schooled in the Latin language?

A.        No sir.

Q.        Or in Greek?

A.        No sir.

Q.        Do you know the Greek alphabet?

A.        Oh yes.

Q.        Can you tell me the correct letters if you see them?

A.        Some of them, I might make a mistake on some of them.

Q.        Could you tell me the names of those on top of the page, page 447 that I have got here?

A.        Well, I don’t know that I would be able to.

Q.        You can’t tell what those letters are, look at them, and see if you know?

A.        My way - ?

Q.        Are you familiar with the Greek language?

A.        No.

Q.        Did you ever take a course in theology?

A.        Taking courses in theology all the time.

Q.        Did you ever take a course in theology at a University, or at a school of any kind?

A.        No – glad I didn’t.

Q.        Did you ever take one in philosophy?

A.        No.

(To be continued)

Issues 2-5 are not extant. However, issue 6 is, and provides more of the transcript.

 

PART TWO   Heading: ‘Pastor’ Russell Under Direct Court Examination

Subheading: Interesting Court Examination of ‘Pastor’ Russell, His Religious Propaganda As Well As His Business Enterprises.

From Spotlight on Russellism, Volume 1, number 6, pages 2 and 7. Punctuation and capitalization as per the Sidersky transcript.

Q =      Attorney Staunton

A =      Charles Taze Russell

(continuation)

 

Q.        Same man?

A.        Yes.

Q         Is that an additional sum of money?

A         I don’t know but it is.

Q         Did you get the whole of this money from him at one time?

A.        No Sir, he sent it at different times.

Q.        Did he strip his family of all their possessions to do that?

A.        No, he came to me and said, “I’ve just received a legacy from an Uncle in Ireland” – I think it was his Uncle – “of Twenty Thousand Dollars, and I want to give that all to this work.” I said, “Brother Hay, my advice to you is before you tender it, because if you do tender it, as President of the Society, my advice to you in advance is not to do it. Don’t give more than half, keep one half for some other reason.” He said he would take my advice and gave Ten Thousand Dollars, and he never finished giving the Ten. Since that he developed, what they claim, was tumor on the brain.

Q.        Is he in the lunatic asylum now?

A.        Yes.

Q.        Who supports him?

A.        Well, I think we became.

Q.        Who pays the money?

A.        The Society.

Q.        Does the Society pay it?

A.        Yes.

Q.        Now I am told that it is his Uncle in the old country that does that.

A.        Not as I know, we done it right along.

Q.        How much have you been paying?

A.        I don’t know – several years.

Q.        You are paying it actually from time to time?

A.        I would not know, the Treasurer would know that. I know we did pay it – never declined to pay it, I suppose being paid for.

Q.        What is the International Bible Students Association?

A.        The International Bible Students Association is an Association which got its charter in Great Britain. It is international in its scope and work.

Q.        Who are members of the Association?

A.        Anybody who desires to be a member,

Q.        Well, how many are there?

A.        Well, we don’t come down to the matter in the way you have – judge from membership.

Q.        How many are there active members of the Association?

A.        Well, I can hardly say.

Q.        Are there two?

A.        I suppose there are one hundred thousand anyway.

Q.        That are living, where do they live, in America?

A.        All over the earth.

Q.        Are they, do they call them persons, who are members of this Society, who are your followers?

A.        No Sir, we told them not to follow me but the Lord.

Q.        Are they all your disciples then, if you call?

A.        I hope they are disciples of Christ.

Q.        Then people contribute to your work?

A.        Most of them never contribute a cent.

Q.        What do you call them, again?

A.        Bible Students.

Q.        International – what?

A.        Bible Students Association.

Q.        They are made of all creeds of society?

A.        All creeds of society.

Q.        Men who are not students in it?

A.        Oh yes, all students.

Q.        They study the Bible, that is what you mean?

A.        Yes.

Q.        Men who are not educated?

A.        Some educated, and some who are not educated, some of them ministers, some of them doctors and some of them lawyers.

Q.        Where did you get the charter from, the government of England?

A.        Yes.

Q.        Do you know under what law it is?

A.        No.

Q.        Is it under the Companys Act in England, do you know that?

A.        I am unable to say.

Q.        There is a charter issue?

A.        Yes.

Q.        Now you spoke this morning of the family, what is the family you spoke about?

A.        Well the family I spoke about was when Mrs. Russell was with me.

Q.        No, no, but now, what does it consist of?

A.        The family now then –

Q.        Have you a family now?

A.        Yes Sir, we call it a family.

Q.        What is the family?

A.        All those in the Brooklyn hall we call in a general way the family.

Q.        Do they all live in the one house?

A.        We have a house, I suppose, of about fifty rooms.

Q.        What do you call it?

A.        What do we call it – “Bethel,” house of God.

Q.        And do you all live there?

A.        They live there.

Q.        Are they married and unmarried?

A.        Married and unmarried.

Q.        Men and women?

A.        Yes.

Q.        Numbering, about how many?

A.        About one hundred.

Q.        Now, how are the expenses of that institution paid of the “Bethel”?

A.        The expenses are all paid by the People’s Pulpit Association.

Q.        Now, what is the People’s Pulpit Association?

A.        The People’s Pulpit Association.

Q.        There are so many of these associations that I get mixed up.

A.        Get mixed up?

Q.        Yes.

Q.        What is the People’s Pulpit Association?

A.        It is an Association charted in the state of New York, and the International Bible Students Association is charted by the –

Q.        No, no, no, describe the People’s Pulpit Association.

Q.        It is an Association charted by the state of New York, what for?

A.        Some religious – knowledge of God and the Scriptures to all –

Q.        How many belong to that?

A.        About forty.

Q.        Forty people?

A.        Forty ministers.

Q.        Now these are preachers and give all their time, are these the preachers?

A.        Those are the preachers.

Q.        Do they pay the expenses of the “Bethel”?

A.        The preachers do not.

Q.        Who does?

A.        The Association.

Q.        Forty in the Association?

A.        Backed by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.

Q.        Where do they get the money?

A.        The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society provides the money.

Q.        What is it now, the Peoples Pulpit Association now and has forty members in it?

A.        Approximately.

Q.        Do they all live in the “Bethel”?

A.        That’s their home.

Q.        What are the other sixty or seventy that live there?

A.        Well, they are assistants in various ways, stenographers, helpers in the office.

Q.        Wives and children?

A.        Some of them have wives and children of those preachers.

Q.        Are the preachers men and women?

A.        No, sir, no women preachers.

Q.        All men?

A.        Yes.

Q.        Now they get their money from the Watch Tower?

A.        They get their money from the Peoples Pulpit Association.

Q.        Yes because Peoples Pulpit Association get their money from the Watch Tower?

A.        Yes.

Q.        And the Watch Tower gets it from –

A.        Where you choose to get it.

Q.        From the public?

A.        Yes.

Q.        Now is there any other Association?

A.        International Bible Students Association.

Q.        That is part of the same order?

A.        Yes.

Q.        Do they get any money?

A.        They get all from the Watch Tower. The Watch Tower is the parent organization.

Q.        Could they get any money?

A.        There are a hundred thousand people, sometimes, for instance. If the Bible Students in a certain place feel that they want to do some work and have not sufficient money to carry it on themselves, the Society will back them up and furnish part of the money.

Q.        Now is there any other Society?

A.        That’s three.

Q.        We have got the Watch Tower, the Students and the Bible?

A.        And the Peoples Pulpit, one in Pennsylvania, one in Great Britain, one in New York. The reason for these three – there are certain limitations. By the state law the Watch Tower cannot operate in New York State, the same in New Jersey. We need, therefore, to have these others as holding Companies to carry on the work.

Q.        Well, isn’t there another called the London and Brooklyn Tabernacles?

A.        Brooklyn Tabernacle.

Q.        Is that an Association?

A.        No.

Q.        Or just a building?

A.        Just a building.

Q.        Now the jury rendered a verdict against you in the Brooklyn Eagle suit, didn’t they?

A.        Yes.

Q.        And you objected and commented on that in the Watch Tower, on the verdict?

A.        Yes.

Q.        In the February number of the Watch Tower?

A.        You had better read it in the Watch Tower.

Q.        I have not got it here, have you got it?

A.        No.

Q.        Will you care to put one in and produce it here?

A.        Yes, I am not ashamed of anything that is done.

Q.        But I will read this. Of course we will take it subject to correction. It will be corrected in evidence if it does not agree with what is in the Watch Tower.

A.        What paper are you reading from?

Q.        The Brooklyn Eagle.

Q.        I am going to ask some questions, subject to correction. I will put in a copy. I think it is allright.

(Mr Staunton here reads article from the February number of the Watch Tower.)

Q.        I understand from you that all you sued for was because they said you were mixed up in the sale of Miracle Wheat?

A.        That’s what the cartoon was.

Q.        What was the cartoon, what did it look like?

A.        It was a caricature representing me as selling Miracle Wheat.

            (To be continued)

But the next issue (Volume 7 number 7) has no more of the transcript. It reports on CTR’s death and may have been the last issue produced.

CHAPTER 6 - SO WHAT HAPPENED TO IT?

 Previous chapters have considered the missing transcript of the Ross libel trial. We have seen why the charge of criminal libel would not and could not stick in the specific legal situation. We have also seen how an opposer of CTR’s work published transcript extracts that have been discovered.

In this chapter we are going to look at the background to the original transcript’s disappearance.

First, let’s consider those most concerned with the case at the time. Extensive research showed that the archives of George Lynch-Staunton (CTR’s interrogator) do not have a copy. John Jacob Ross, CTR’s accuser, died in 1935 and no modern family can be traced. He obviously had access to the transcript, because his later flawed quotations come from it, but whether he had his own copy or simply used the court copy is unknown. He certainly claimed to have his own copy when writing his Facts and More Facts booklet, but since it’s been reported that he wasn’t even in court for CTR’s cross-examination by Staunton and had no input on these proceedings, he may have just taken material from the court file. The same would be true of Philip Sidersky. If they, or friends or relations, ever had a copy I think it would have surfaced by now.

That leaves just two remaining sources, the official court files and of course the copy CTR and the Watch Tower Society might have once had.  All sorts of rumours may have flown around on this, but we will try to keep strictly to facts that can be verified to a reasonable degree.

As far as official court files are concerned, some writers on the subject since the early 1950s present an air of authority by advising their readers they can always check the material (and accusations) in the court copy in the files of the Ontario High Court – Russell vs. Ross – “defamatory libel” – March 17, 1913.

One of the first, if not the first, to do this was Walter Ralston Martin. Martin spent some time and effort attacking the witnesses. In covering the Ross case, he made it appear that he had consulted the original transcript – “Jehovah’s witnesses cannot deny this documentary evidence” – but then went on to quote, not from the original transcript at all, but rather from J J Ross’s incorrect rendering… Had Martin followed his own advice and checked, he would not have found the transcript. We are going to establish that the court copy went AWOL many, many years before. And we will come back to Walter Martin again a little later.

As noted in the Introduction, back In the mid-1980s this writer spent some time cooperating with a researcher who has scoured various official sources in Canada in an attempting to find what actually happened to the transcript. To make sure the contacts were being above board, I followed up by sending my own questions as a separate researcher – and got the same outcome. Here is a general flavour of the results. From the Records Supervisor of the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police (October 1985):

The 1912 hearing obviously did not end up on microfilm. The “all that was available” was a thin file dating from 1968. Signed by a Justice of the Peace, it reads: “The enclosed includes every particle of information that I have been able to unearth in this matter during the past forty years.”

Taking “forty years” at face value, from 1968 would take you back to 1928. The actual file (as examined in 1985) contained just the original indictment and a photocopy of two pages from an opposition book from the 1950s, which someone – disagreeing with its negative comments – heavily annotated. This had obviously been donated by an earlier enquirer. As for the actual trial transcript – that was nowhere to be seen.

Next is a response from the Court Administrator for the Ministry of the Attorney General for Ontario (November 1985). This letter contained similar negative results:

The “past 40 years”from 1985 would take you back to 1945 – not quite as far as 1928 suggested in the previous enclosure, but far enough to suggest again that the trial transcript was long, long gone.

The “sorry – goodbye” message was rounded out by a letter from the Chief Supreme Court Reporter, from the same Ministry of the Attorney General – this from March 1986:

So any records and transcripts in the court files prior to 1960 were no more.

So what about the Watch Tower Society’s own copy?

First, we have to assume that they really did have a copy. There were no photocopiers back then, or documents on screens as pdf's. Unless there was a special need, would a court stenographer use carbon paper throughout to make several copies? Some trials – the Brooklyn Eagle (miracle wheat) trial and the first CTR separation hearing of 1906 were typeset and printed, but the Ross hearing was never published. While it cannot be verified first hand at this distance, it is reported by trusted old-timers that at one point CTR sent staff members to Canada to examine the court file and take some notes. This would not have been necessary if they’d had their own copy.

So we come back to Walter Martin again. After encouraging his readers to check an empty police file, in a subsequent work he confidently refers to: “a copy on file in the headquarters of the cult in Brooklyn.” He does not actually say he’s seen it personally, but that is the inference. Curiously in his later work he quietly restores the missing word “alphabet” but does not draw attention to it, and still claims the same negative conclusion about CTR’s truthfulness.

So Martin is our key witness that the Society had its own transcript. The reality is – do we believe him? We have to ask, if Bethel did have it why would they show it to him - of all people? It may be noted that Martin was subject to a whole book attacking his honesty (The Latter Day Saints’ 320 page volume They Lie in Wait to Deceive). While one hesitates to focus on character assassination, and be no better than Ross or Martin himself, the book is highly entertaining. And we return to his original review of the case, referred to above, which resurrected the controversy. In it, Martin did not quote from the transcript but from J J Ross’s “selective edit.” That covers Martin as far as this writer is concerned.

A contemporary of Martin in the first half of the 1950s was Marley Cole. Researching over 1953-1954 his work Jehovah’s Witnesses – The New World Society was published in 1955. Cole was a witness and was given cooperation and help by the Watchtower Society. In Cole’s autobiography The Harvest of Our Lives (1996) he explained: “Headquarters worked with me, page by page on every chapter throughout the book, furnishing some of the material.” That was good, because it meant the book had been fact checked. In covering the Ross trial, Cole does not say he saw the transcript but many years later in a personal letter he specifically stated that he did not. All he saw was a record about it from opposers – was that Ross or Martin? – you can take your pick!

Letter from Marley Cole dated February 15, 1989:

Using secondary sources like the works of Martin and Cole, numerous other publications thereafter touched on the case.

In 1972, Ditlieb Felderer wrote a whole 200 page “thesis” on the subject. Those who obtained a copy were disappointed. The work veers all over the place and spends much of its time attacking the character of J J Ross. Crucially, it is obvious that Felderer never saw the original transcript either.

Then the book Jehovah’s Witnesses in Canada (1976) covered the case briefly and reconstructed the key section from earlier accounts, but again there is no indication that the author ever saw the original transcript. Interestingly, when the Watchtower Society produced its 1979 Yearbook history of Canada and covered the case, they had the opportunity to use the transcript if they’d had it, but instead chose to quote from Jehovah’s Witnesses in Canada. Their subsequent paragraph on page 94 of the Yearbook: “We do not know how the case was presented to it (the grand jury)” is a good indication they had no transcript of the full proceedings to consult.

Anyone contacting the Society would have received a clear answer. Here is one example from 1985: “We do not have a full official transcript of the trial that took place in Hamilton, Ontario, involving Brother Russell, Some excepts were taken from the trial record shortly after the trial took place and you will find one excerpt on page 19 of the May 15, 1953, issue of The Watchtower.”

So how could it go missing? The answer is – very easily!

A few years after the hearing, CTR died in 1916. The new administration faced difficulties during World War 1, with key officials being put in jail, and the headquarters hurriedly being relocated from Brooklyn to Pittsburgh and then later back to Brooklyn again. No doubt some items were lost then. Materials from some branches may have been confiscated, and never returned. As evidence of this, when the plan was announced to reprint the first 40 years of the Watch Tower magazine in the early 1920s, they did not have a complete file of copies. The headquarters had to appeal to readers and collectors to lend them a few issues so the project could go ahead. If that is what happened to the archive of their key magazine, then a transcript of a hearing that didn’t really work out, and featuring a former president, now deceased, would hardly be a priority. Again, this all presupposes that they ever had a copy in the first place, and the testimony above says they didn’t.

It may of course still be there in the bottom of a drawer somewhere and could still be rediscovered, which is why unsubstantiated rumour can flourish. Or, as suggested above, for all the claims to the contrary, the original stenographer only ever made one copy for the court file. Everyone else involved had to consult that master copy and take notes from it – if they were sufficiently interested – until it disappeared.

About ten years ago, a trusted researcher was given three typewritten pages by Watchtower archives that covered some verbal sparring between CTR and George Lynch-Staunton.

However, when examined more recently these pages proved to be the whole of page 2 from Volume 1 number 1 of Sidersky’s Searchlight on Russellism as preserved in the Harvard Divinity School library and reproduced in Chapter 5. The opening query about who was the prosecutor is reflected in the reproduction in Chapter 2, where the plaintiff for criminal libel was officially “The King” (the Crown) rather than CTR.

But does it matter? While one might like to see a complete transcript, this writer believes it doesn’t.

Examining the newspaper accounts of the day, and what Ross actually wrote, nearly all the material seems to have been covered in that earlier trial from January 1912: Charles T Russell vs The Brooklyn Daily Eagle (the Miracle Wheat trial). This makes sense. Ross had no personal knowledge of CTR and nothing original to say. He simply rehashed criticisms that had gone before. However, the transcript of that earlier trial does still exist.

So, the only real issue the Ross trial makes “unique” is his claim that CTR committed perjury. And thanks to the work of a virulent opposer, Philip Sidersky, way back in 1916, we have that covered. Not that that was Sidersky’s intention of course. But anyhow, thank you Philip!