Wednesday, 31 January 2024

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 17th, 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 24th 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!  

CHAPTER 7 - IN CONCLUSION

In the scheme of things the Ross libel trial was a very small footnote. But it is hoped that this work will clear up some of the questions raised by those events of 1913, even if in so doing, it might raise a few more.

Ross’s attack on CTR (Pastor Russell) was all personal. It wasn’t even based on personal observation or experience, but rather upon unfriendly sources that he accepted with a less than critical eye. He saw Russell as a theological enemy when he came to Hamilton to preach, and he used the lowest form of argument to try and warn his flock. Honest members of his congregation may well have been moved to quietly investigate the Bible Student message for themselves. Ross could have written a scriptural refutation of Watch Tower teachings as he saw it, but he chose not to do so. Supporters of Watch Tower belief at that time would read into this that he did not because he could not.

For reasonable people, people who want evidence based conclusions, ad hominem attacks are always an own goal.

Following this last chapter are two appendices detailing how CTR dealt with the main criticisms in the Ross tract, and how J F Rutherford summed up the case as he (a lawyer) saw it. 

ROSS: APPENDIX 1

 CTR’s response from The Watch Tower, September 15, 1914

Also reprinted in Bible Students Monthly, Volume 6, number 5

 

INTERESTING LETTERS

A REPLY BY THE EDITOR

DEAR BROTHER RUSSELL:--

I am pleased to acknowledge receipt of yours of 16th ultimo.

After making copies of your letter, I went to the Editor of the Gazette and submitted to him your original letter.

After reading it he said he would publish all except that portion relating to ordination. I hand you herewith the page of the Gazette containing the article, and I praise the Lord for rewarding your efforts in defending the Truth here.

Through the Lord's providence I had heretofore been able, apparently, to parry every blow directed against the Truth, but in this attack of Rev. Ross the javelin seemed to pass me and strike notwithstanding my best efforts to turn it aside; but now the darkness disappears and the light again shines on the cause of Present Truth through the good defence which you have offered; the Lord has shown us again how He can make the "Wrath of His enemies to praise Him." The Editor of the Mirror (Protestant), a contemporary of the Gazette, told me he would run your letter in full.

Dear Brother, would it not be well to let your letter come out in one of the BIBLE STUDENTS MONTHLY or in THE WATCH TOWER? It would give many of the dear friends some good ideas as to how to offer defence along this special line of the Adversary's attacks on you and the cause of Present Truth. I received a letter from a brother in Grenada, stating that some prominent Plymouth Brethren were circulating Rev. Ross' pamphlet. Of course, they will not circulate so very many, as the pamphlet costs 10 cents, and very few of the Plymouth Brethren or other denominations are willing to pay that much to defend their errors.

How grand it will be when the people are delivered from the bondage of error! I am glad for the ministers' sake also, for they will not have to fight any more, and I am sure that will be a great relief to their minds! One Catholic gentleman told me that Catholics and others could argue with us until we got to the Bible, and then they had to stop!

Assuring you of my continued love and fullest confidence, which you have always had and which have never wavered since I laid my life upon the altar of sacrifice in 1897, I am,

Yours in the Redeemer's service,

E. J. COWARD.

 

Below we reprint the portion of our letter as published in The Port-of-Spain Gazette, Trinidad, B.W.I.:

PASTOR RUSSELL REPLIES.

MR. E. J. COWARD,

Port-of-Spain, Trinidad, B.W.I.

Dear Brother in Christ:

Yours of October 3d is before me. Thanks for its clippings from the Gazette and the Evangelical Christian. I am quite familiar with the slanderous screed issued by

Rev. J. J. Ross. 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. 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, however, is having troubles of his own. Since he began to attack me, he has split two Baptist Congregations--one in Toronto, the other in Hamilton. The last heard of him, he was in London, Ont., and again in trouble with his congregation. A lying spirit is sure to be a boomerang.

As respects my education in Greek and Hebrew: Not only do I not claim very special knowledge of either language, but I claim that not one minister in a thousand is either a Hebrew or a Greek scholar. To be able to spell out a few Greek words is of no earthly value. Nor is it necessary longer to study these languages, in order to have knowledge of the Bible. Our Presbyterian friends have gotten out at great cost Young's Analytical Hebrew, Chaldaic, Greek and English Lexicon Concordance, which anyone may procure. And our Methodist friends have issued a similar work-- Strong's Analytical Concordance and Lexicon. And there is a still older one entitled Englishman's Hebrew, Chaldaic, Greek and English Lexicon and Concordance. Additionally, Liddell and Scott's Greek Lexicon is a standard authority.

The prices of these are not beyond the reach of the average man. By these works scholarly information respecting the original text of the Bible is obtainable. I have all four of these works and have used them faithfully. Very few college professors, even, would risk to give a critical translation of any text of Scripture without consulting these very works of reference, which are standard. To merely learn to read the Greek and Hebrew without a six years' course in their grammars is more likely to hinder than to help in Bible study; far better take the acknowledged scholarship to which I have referred.

Additionally I remind you of the many translations of the Bible now extant--all of them very good. I have all of these and find them useful in comparison in the study of any text--one sometimes giving a thought which another may not. The other day, for curiosity's sake, I counted Bibles in different translations, etc., in my study and found that I have thirty-two.

As respects my business dealings, Brother Coward, I need not remind you that American Courts are very strict and that if anybody feels that I have wronged him out of a dollar, he would have no difficulty in haling me into Court. You have my assurance, dear Brother, that I do not owe any man on earth a penny and that I have never taken a penny from anyone unjustly. On the contrary, as you know, I have spent several small fortunes in seeking to do good to my fellow-men  --in helping them to a better understanding of God and the Bible. Having once been an infidel myself, and having subsequently found that I had confused the teachings of the Bible with the teachings of the creeds, and that the Bible's teaching is a glorious, grand doctrine, it has since been my business and pleasure to do all in my power to help fellow-mortals out of darkness into the true light.

If you choose, you may make such extracts of this as are likely to reach intelligent people through any of the newspapers. But really I care little for what men may say or think about me. Of course, such things are painful; but they are only what the Bible tells us will be more or less the experience of all who would be loyal to God and His Word. So persecuted they the saints and prophets of the past -- even the Master Himself.

 And as for how I got my education --it seems to me of little consequence. I have enough to serve my own purposes, and, apparently, too much to please Rev. Ross and others of his type, who, not knowing how to meet my theological teachings, do not attempt to do so at all, but merely charge me with ignorance. As I read

his vile slanders I thought of what the New Testament says about St. Peter and St. John. They were so woefully ignorant that all the people perceived that they were

"ignorant and unlearned men." If they were living today, I suppose that the Rev. Ross and Co. would be after them to show them up as not having been ordained by the Baptists and not knowing anything anyway.

Very truly your servant in the Lord,

C. T. RUSSELL.

 

The portion of our communication omitted above, follows:

I need not tell you how absurdly untrue Rev. Ross' statements are in respect to my ordination; but really it seems strange how little people use their thinking faculties in such matters--how few who would read the Rev. Ross' statements would see their absurdity. For instance, he is a Baptist and was authorized or ordained by the Baptists--not by Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Catholics or Episcopalians.

Would an Episcopalian recognize Rev. Ross' ordination? Surely not! Would a Roman Catholic recognize his ordination? Of course not. Ordination merely means authorization. The Catholics will authorize, or ordain, those only who belong to their faith. The Baptists will ordain, or authorize, those only who are Baptists. How foolish, then, to talk about ordination from their standpoint!

But ordination from my standpoint, the Bible standpoint, the standpoint of an increasing number of Bible students all the world over, is different. It is a Divine ordination. But our Baptist friends and our Methodist friends would say that they, also, recognize Bible ordination, that they are not merely dependent upon each other. But we challenge them to prove that they ever had a Divine ordination or that they ever think of it. They merely think of a sectarian ordination, or authorization, each from his own sect or party.

True, Catholics and Episcopalians are different and do recognize a Divine ordination. They claim that Jesus ordained His Twelve Apostles and that these have successors in the Bishops, who are styled "apostolic bishops," and under the theory of "apostolic succession" have the same power as the original Twelve Apostles to ordain and to teach. Bible students believe that they err in this claim and that the doctrine of "apostolic succession" is unscriptural. The Bible recognizes only Twelve Apostles. More than that, the Bible denounces all apostolic bishops as being in error. Referring to them, Jesus said that they claimed to be apostles, and are not, but do lie. (Revelation 2:2.) In other words, to the superstitions of Catholics and Episcopalians, their bishops have no authority whatever to ordain anybody.

What, then, is the proper ordination of a minister of Christ, and how can it be obtained, according to the Bible?

We answer that God's ordination, or authorization, of any man to preach is by the impartation of the Holy Spirit to him. Whoever has received the Holy Spirit has received the power and authority to teach and to preach in the name of God. Whoever has not received the Holy Spirit has no  Divine authority or sanction to his preaching. In other words, he is unordained in the highest, truest sense of that word.

What is the secret of the opposition and slander that is being raised up against me and against all who, like me, are Bible students? It is malice, hatred, envy, strife, on the part of those who are still hugging the nonsense of the Dark Ages and neglecting true Bible study. They see that their influence is waning. But they have not yet awakened to the true situation. They think that I am responsible for their smaller congregations and small collections. But not so. The real difficulty with them is that the people are becoming more intelligent and can no longer be driven with the crack of a merely man-devised whip of fear. The colleges of the

world have been teaching that the Bible is a foolish old book, until few preachers and few of the educated of the world believe it to be of Divine inspiration. Losing faith in the Bible, in the preachers and in the creeds, the people are drifting toward atheism. That is the real difficulty.

While my work does not, indeed, help to build up any of the sects of Christendom, it is helping to establish Christian people in a true faith in God and in the Bible. It is giving them a firm foundation and an intelligent understanding such as they had prayed for and hoped for before, but never found. This is not because of great ability on my part, nor on the part of my associates, but because God's time has come for blessing Bible study in the light of present-day opportunities.

It is as Jesus promised--the Wise Virgin class of Christian people, who "trim their lamps"--study the Bible --find it to shine out brightly and to point them to the new Age of blessing under Messiah's Kingdom.

ROSS: APPENDIX 2

 Extracts taken from J F Rutherford’s booklet A Great Battle in Ecclesiastical Heavens. Originally copyrighted by Rutherford and privately printed in 1915, and later printed by the Watch Tower Society.


                                                                                                                             

THE ROSS LIBEL

Rev. J. J. Ross, of Hamilton, Ontario, published a libellous pamphlet against Pastor Russell. A warrant was issued for the arrest of Ross. He evaded the officer for some time and even failed to keep his appointment at his church to prevent the officer from taking him into custody. Finally, he was taken before George E. Jelfs, Police Magistrate, on the charge of criminal libel. Upon a hearing he was committed for trial. Upon motion, the Superior Court quashed the commitment because of a technical error the proceedings. Ross was again taken before the Magistrate.

When the case came on for hearing the second time Pastor Russell, who was a necessary witness, was away on an extended trip in Panama and other parts of the South, filling appointments previously made, and had no notice of the date of hearing. Ross and his counsel tried to make it appear that Pastor Russell was evading the trial. As soon as Pastor Russell returned to Brooklyn and heard that he was wanted he immediately notified the Magistrate that he was ready to come to Canada. He did go and gave his testimony.

Again the Magistrate committed Ross to appear before the high court to answer an indictment to be preferred by the Grand Jury. When the case came on in that court the Judge of the court in charging the Grand Jury relative to its duties, among other things, said to the jury: "Unless the jury finds that this alleged libel would cause a breach of the public peace in Canada then no indictment should be returned, but the parties should resort to civil suit for damages." The jury returned "no bill," and it is manifest that they could not have done otherwise under this charge of the Court, for the reason that Pastor Russell lived in Brooklyn, New York, and Rev. Ross lived in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, and it would be physically impossible for the libel to cause a breach of the public peace when the parties were so far apart.

Thus it will be seen that the issues were never tried and never determined. Pastor Russell did not resort to civil action for damages, for the reason that he was advised that such an action would be useless, since Ross is irresponsible financially and could not be compelled by such a proceeding to publish a retraction.


ROSS PAMPHLET FULL OF UNMITIGATED FALSEHOODS

Thereafter Rev. Ross published another pamphlet against Pastor Russell which for unmitigated falsehoods and misrepresentations of facts certainly has not an equal. Selecting here and there isolated paragraphs from the court records, he twisted them, added to, misrepresented and made them appear entirely different from their true meaning. This could not have been accidental on his part.

Ross charges Pastor Russell is unlearned because he is not a graduate of some theological school. I venture the assertion that I can name a hundred living men who never even saw the outside walls of a theological school who know more about the Bible and its teaching than is taught in any theological college in the land.

Pastor Russell is not a graduate of a theological college. The greatest lawyer this country has produced -- Benjamin Harrison -- never attended a law school. Theological colleges teach theology and not the Bible. Pastor Russell knows the Bible better than any other living man.

Upon this point we quote with hearty approval the words of Dr. G.W. Bull in his learned treatise of "The Gospel of John," as follows:

"AN IRREGULAR (John 7:15). That is what they all say. The crime of Christ was that He had not taken a course in their college. 'Whence hath He learning?' There are some professional policemen who must protect all learning; medicine, law, gospel, or what not. If you never went through their schools of learning you are a freak, and there is something suspicious about your good sense. These men thought there was only one way of learning -- they would ask a certificate of the sun!

There are many schools and schoolmasters in God's universe. Cease your criticism of any Christian scholar. Let him learn in his own way; the Kingdom of God is going to make great progress when some of these high brows are removed to Heaven. Sometimes a man's utterance of profound Truths is stated in poor grammatical form, and the philosophers are puzzled by his power. They wonder where he got it: I do not know -- probably his alma mater was his mother's knees -- then let him speak. Remember today: 'God hath chosen the weak things of this world to confound the mighty.'"

The other charges of Ross are equally untrue and have been heretofore answered herein, except, however, with reference to Pastor Russell's ordination, which he has clearly answered through the public press and in his sermons. 


END OF BOOK

Saturday, 20 January 2024

Speakers at the 1919 Cedar Point Ohio Convention

A photograph was taken of 46 Bible Students who were speakers at the 1919 Cedar Point Ohio convention. Some were directors of the Society and others were Pilgrims. This picture (below) was used in the Governing Body update number 8 for 2023 to show how many Bible Students were now choosing to be clean shaven. With grateful thanks to Bernhard, here is the photograph, then a key to the personnel in the photograph. Only a very few are unnamed.

You may need to click on the image in some devices to see the photograph in full.



Key to personnel


01                Salter, Walter Frederick

02                Robison, Frederick Homer

03                Van Amburgh, William Edwin

04                Rutherford, Joseph Franklin

05                Wise, Charles Augustus

06                Sexton, Ernest David

07                Fisher, George Herbert

08                Woodworth, Clayton James Sr.

09                DeCecca, Giovanni

10                Baker, William Arthur

11                Hersee, William Matson

12                Boyd, (unknown)

13                Bowin, Martin Otto

14                Thorn, Walter John

15                Barker, Thomas E.

16                Robie, Rodney Lyman

17                Herr, Maurice L.

18                Thornton, T. H.

19                Sullivan, Ora Lee

20                Boyd, Benjamin H.

21                (unknown).

22                Graham, Alexander M.

23                Adam, Donald

24                Spring, W. H.

25                (unknown)

26                Rice, Vincent C.

27                Gillespie, John A.

28                Toole, Daniel

29                Pottie, P. D.

30                Barber, Richard Harvey

31                Zink, Louie F.

32                (unknown)

33                (unknown)

34                (unknown)

35                Pickering, W. H.

36                Kendall, George Samuel

37                Howlett, Matthew Arnold

38                Bauerlein, John Adam

39                Morton, H. Sydney

40                Edwardes, James Campbell

41                Coward, Evander Joel

42                (unknwn)

43                Riemer, Hugo Henry

44                Whelpton, Ernest

45                (unknown)

46                Eshleman, Jacob A.

Wednesday, 10 January 2024

Uncle Daniel's Bible Class Book

The Edgars, brothers John and Morton, are well-known to collectors of Watch Tower history. They were responsible for the volumes of Great Pyramid Passages, as well as a series of small booklets that were widely circulated. One of them, Where are the Dead (not to be confused with the Watch Tower Society’s official publication of that name) was instrumental in Fred Franz becoming a Bible Student. He later served as a Watch Tower Society president.

One book bearing the Edgars’ names that is available for internet download is called Uncle Daniel's Bible Class Book, and dates from 1890.

The book was published by Bone and Hulley, a company that later handled the pyramid books. A close up of the title page clearly shows the Edgars as authors.


And yet, this is not actually true.

Research has shown that this book was originally published back in 1850. Then it was simply called The Bible Class Book. The author and compiler was Charles Baker.  Below is the title page of the second edition which dates from 1860.


The book covers the whole of the OT with articles, maps, and notes, using the Ussher chronology.

Charles Baker (1803-1874) was a prolific author. His Wikipedia entry lists around seventy-five works on a variety of subjects, including the Bible. Although he wrote on the NT as well, there does not appear to be a companion volume to The Bible Class Book, which concentrates on the OT. One of his nephews became the Archbishop of Canterbury. His main focus in life was producing school textbooks for the teaching of children who were deaf and dumb.

When he died The Sheffield and Rotherham Independent for May 30, 1874, gave a brief obituary:

Yet 20 years after the last publication of Baker’s work, the Edgar brothers claimed it as their own.

How could this happen? Modern sensibilities might question the ethics of giving no acknowledgement to Baker, but it was all perfectly legal. The British Copyright Act of 1842 granted copyright to an author for his lifetime and then for seven years after his death. As noted above, Baker conveniently died in 1874, so by 1890 his work was in the public domain and the Edgars – or anyone else for that matter - could do what they liked with it.

The British 1842 Copyright Act was eventually replaced by one of 1911, which extended copyright to a more realistic fifty years after an author’s death.

Since the Edgars weren’t going to give Baker any credit, they took out his introduction, which he had revised for the second edition. In its place they inserted a Watch Tower advertisement.

This Watch Tower material only took up one page whereas Baker’s introduction in both editions took up two, so the Edgar volume simply has an extra blank page following the Watch Tower advertisement. One assumes this is so that the remainder of the plates would not need their pagination adjusted.

We are on firmer ground with the Edgars’ pyramid volumes and the series of small booklets which were original and reflected the Bible Student theology of that time. But as far as “Uncle Daniel’s” work, all was not as it appeared. It may still be viewed as collectable, but perhaps not as much as might be hoped.

Monday, 1 January 2024

Paton as a Poet

Inside the cover of a copy of Moses and Christ by John H Paton was found the above dedication. The photograph is, alas, poor quality, but transcribed it reads:

     To Mary Miller

     From John H Paton

     A Birthday Token

     March 18th, 1901


     Mary, if you’ll love the Saviour,

     And obey him every day –

     Run the heavenly race with patience,

     You’ll be happy all the way.


All together now…

Although we have the birthday date, without a year of birth and a location it is difficult to trace the right Mary Miller. There have been an awful lot of them.