Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;  Titus 2:13


deceive Bro. Russell by putting before him such representation as would make him believe that all, or nearly all of the Elders, and a great part of the Congregation, wished to have such an arrangement as would do away with the Assistant Pastorate. The Elders have declared that they were deceived in this matter, and with the exception of two who have left us to set up a separate Ecclesia, they have all expressed their regret, and declared that, had Bro. Shearn told them that which he must have known, they would not have acted as they did. You will probably know how that Bro. Shearn had, by a breach of confidence as towards Bro. Russell and the Managers, taken a private letter and shown it to some of the Elders; but eleven of them persisted in their course, being deceived because the representations which these two, my Colleagues, had made to them partly in secret. Yesterday, the Church decided to defer the nominations [election] of Bros. Shearn and Crawford until a Church Meeting could be held, when further investigation might be made, and Bro. Johnson heard further."


The following occurs in a letter he sent the Executive Committee Jan. 22, 1917, less than two weeks before the dismissal: "Your sending Bro. Johnson at this time, I am sure, has been in the order of the Lord's providence. His coming is not only a comfort to the Brethren, but a help to the work at large [at that time he did not consider Bro. Johnson's work barren], and it will be more so as the days go past. Without my saying a word to him in the nature of a complaint, or of any detail of the letters [correspondence on the church] which you will surely have read, he began to make his own inquiry [after W.C. and H.J.S. brought the matter to his attention]. I thought as he put the questions how wise they were, and how well calculated they were to get to the root of the matter of difference, and in the general interest of the work. He showed no favor, but seemed earnestly to seek to know, and then do the Lord's will, and I have every confidence in that which he has done as being of the Lord."


The following is from a letter that he wrote me dated Feb 25, a day before the "absolutely-without-authority" cablegram arrived: "The arrangement of the Committee



by Bro. Rutherford [the investigation commission of five brothers] to which one agrees as one of the safeguards of our work in the future, of necessity gives a turn to events. I cannot see that there can be any undoing of that which has been done [the dismissals and new appointments] here in the office and the home; for the changes that have been made can be considered as nothing less than a cleansing of the sanctuary. We have a freer atmosphere, light seems as if it were breaking upon us; the feeling of an institution is being modified and merged into that of a home; and love is beginning to assert itself; for all of which I am very grateful to the Lord. … If the Inquisitorial Committee should by any chance make recommendation to Bro. Rutherford for reinstallment of our brethren it would be most awkward, if we had suggested to the Church that Bros. Kirkwood and Housden [the assistant Managers that I appointed after dismissing the two Managers] be appointed [with J.H. as the Society's representatives on the Church Executive Committee] and their election [as elders instead of H.J.S. and W.C.] had been concluded. I do not for a moment think that such a thing [the recommendation of reinstallment] could happen." Thus it will be seen that up to Feb. 26, Bro. Hemery heartily approved of my course and felt sure it would stand because of its merits.


Bro. Fred Lardent, whose letter on the symbolic uses of colors appeared in a recent "TOWER," wrote me in part as follows: "As one of the London Tabernacle Congregation I feel I would like to convey my appreciation of the way you have in the hands of the Good Shepherd protected the flock from dangers ahead. … I have reviewed the matter from Faith's standpoint; a crisis was approaching, and it seemed that the wrong would have become Victor; but the Lord sent His messenger exactly on time and averted the disaster; I see you are viewing the matter partly, and perhaps primarily, from the standpoint of consequences which would have gone ill with the Tabernacle arrangements as a whole; again we see you have no self-interest in the matter, but only the holy interest of the dear Lord and His Beloved Anointed."


Bro. and Sr. Morrison of Glasgow, under date of Feb. 15, wrote as follows: "We have followed your steps, dear



Bro., since coming to this country, with great interest, as we spent a few years in Bethel and can therefore fully appreciate the position there. We would like to express the heartiest approval of all you have done, and feel sure the Lord has used you as the instrument in cleansing His temple. … Some have returned from your Edinburgh meeting [Feb. 11] and are working amongst the brethren endeavoring to raise up a feeling of resentment against your actions. [This is especially true of Bro. Mackenzie, who later became one of the five Commissioners, an ardent friend of H.J.S. However, he, like the other four Commissioners, approved of the dismissals after he heard the evidence.] Now, dear brother, in the Lord's interest, would it not be wise to write a letter … to be read to the Church here, asking them not to form a preconceived judgment in the matter until your [second] Glasgow visit?"


Bro. H.E. Thackway, one of the leading Elders of the London Tabernacle, who was given by Bro. Russell the charge of the Photo-Drama work in whole Britain and Ireland outside of London, wrote me Feb. 10 in part as follows: "The weight of responsibility resting upon you is great, but the Lord's strength, which is yours, is very much greater. Thank you, dear Bro. Johnson, for your service. Surely the Lord sent you here to do that for which we were not strong enough! We praise and thank Him, and by His grace will press on with purified zeal and love by reason of your ministry."


The following from a letter signed by 38 brethren, not members of the Tabernacle congregation, after they had heard my addresses before the London Tabernacle, Jan. 28, and Feb. 18: "Your visit to us has thus caused the Brethren here to thank their Heavenly Father for every phase of His loving favor and to encourage one and all to a more loyal consecration to the will of Him who has called us out of darkness into His marvelous light. We feel sure you will be glad to know that your labors of love have not been in vain in the Lord; and that the brethren who have appended their signatures hereunder greatly appreciate your steadfastness, loyal devotion to the Lord, the Truth and the Brethren, and that they admire the manner in which you keep 'so faithful' to 'that



Servant' whom the Father has been pleased to take home to Himself."


Bro. John Radwell, a leading elder of the Tabernacle, who signed the resolution and whom, therefore, to his displeasement, I had publicly to oppose, wrote a letter to me April 2, after having heard Jesse Hemery denounce me the day before to the Tabernacle Congregation. Part of the letter is as follows: "I wanted to see you ere you returned to America to assure you that I believe you to be one of the Lord's true people … As my brother, I tell you of my love. My prayers are for you that God will guide, comfort, sustain and bless you. When all may misunderstand you, our loving Lord does not, and He will comfort."


Many other letters are at hand, but these will suffice. I had letters from eight among the most sober-minded British brethren, whom—recommended to me as such unanimously by the three London Managers—I selected as my advisers on British Church affairs. Some of these letters I destroyed, not thinking they would serve me later. The others were taken, along with other things, out of my portfolio, when it was rifled by Bro. Hemery during my absence. They would make interesting reading by way of contrast with several letters from the same writers, quoted in "Harvest Siftings"; whose identical dates, with one exception, which was dated a day later than the others, prove that they were "worked up" by characteristic methods of J.F.R. and J.H.


The general opinion in Britain, until it became known that J.F.R. and J.H. were in opposition to me as a fraud and a rebel, was that my work, both toward the brethren and the public was most richly blessed. The change of sentiment that J.F.R.'s "Harvest Siftings" sets forth, I believe, is almost wholly due to my being represented as an imposter and a rebel. My last pilgrim work was done Feb. 28, the day I received the recall cable. I never had a more successful pilgrim



trip than the British one up to its last day. Both the public and private meetings were richly blessed, as J.H. sets forth above. A few examples: The Glasgow Church was ready to split on the question of Berean Lessons vs. "Open Bible Study." I offered an acceptable compromise which healed the matter. The public meeting there Jan. 14, was so successful in point of numbers, interest and cards, 243 being left, that the Church requested a return visit, for another public meeting in Glasgow's largest auditorium, which was to have been given Mar. 11. This visit was not cancelled at the request of the Glasgow brethren, but, at my suggestion, by J.H., after I was recalled, and after all the advertising matter had been sent to Glasgow. The colporteurs (and they were among the best) who did my follow-up work in Britain told me that they had for years been thinking they did well, if they averaged one volume for a card. The cards gathered at the meetings where I was privileged to speak in Britain the colporteurs said averaged between two and three volumes each. The last public meeting of the visit was at Liverpool, Feb. 25. Over 1700 outsiders were present, leaving 258 cards. Nothing free was offered to induce them to leave these. The British people, especially the women, who constituted 5/6 of the audiences, the men being away in the war, do not leave cards so readily as the American people. Bro. Captain Smith of Liverpool told me, late in April at Brooklyn, that, as a result of this meeting, and its follow-up meetings, 50 strangers had been coming regularly to the Liverpool meetings. The brethren who have known my ministry for years will be slow to believe J.H.'s statement, that my pilgrim work in Britain was barren of results. Everywhere I went the brethren not only said, but showed that they were comforted, strengthened, encouraged and enlightened. At Manchester the Church, ready to divide on the Sin-offerings, was greatly helped by two lectures on that



subject Feb. 27, 28, my last pilgrim work in Britain. Let me repeat: J.F.R.'s and J.H.'s officially representing me as a fraud, and as a rebel against the Society, is almost wholly responsible for the seeming change of sentiment toward me and my work in Britain. Outright sympathizers of H.J.S. and W.C., a very small minority of the British brethren, of course, were opposed to me before. Some of these are largely responsible for J.F.R.'s first opposition to me.


As to the insanity charge: This thought did not originate in Britain. The first one to think this of me was J.F.R. in Los Angeles, 7000 miles away! He wrote me this in a letter dated Feb. 24. It did not come to him from my cable of Feb. 24, wherein I refer to the types and the Steward. That cable was sent to Brooklyn, not to California. Before Mar. 1, J.F.R. received no intimation of the contents of that cable, which arrived in Brooklyn, Saturday night, Feb. 24, therefore it could not have caused him to recall me on Feb. 26, nor to cable for the first time, Feb. 28, that I was insane. The cable and telegraph office records at Brooklyn show that on Feb. 28, a night letter was sent him from the Society containing the first reference to my cable of Feb. 24, and to the one I sent Feb. 27, which contains no reference to types and Steward. Doubtless A.H. McMillan's absence at Watertown, N. Y., occasioned the delay in J.F.R.'s learning of the contents of the Feb. 24 cable. J.F.R. and I have had these records carefully examined with the above results. The first intimation that in America I was considered insane came to me in J.F.R.'s letter of Feb. 24, which reached me Mar. 26 or 27. A little later the same day I found that cables from J.F.R. were introduced in the court testimony to prove me an insane usurper. Two of these will show this:



Brooklyn, N. Y., Mar. 14, 1917. Diaglott, London.


Johnson insane. Proof forthcoming. Spending money recklessly cabling. Do not temporize further. Deprive him of all money and authority. Arrest and incarcerate him. Cable action.





Brooklyn, N. Y., Mar. 27, 1917. Diaglott, London.


Greenup oppose injunction. Johnson does not represent Society in any capacity. Sealed revocation of his credentials mailed fifteenth. Insane usurper. Restrain him by law.




J.F.R. omits italicized parts of these cables in his "Harvest Siftings."


Thus the discovery that I was insane (?) was made in America, not in England. While I was not well and was almost completely exhausted from heavy loss of sleep since Sept. 29, and from the hardest labors and most exacting trials of my life, I thought logically. J.H. knows this from several arguments that we had, in which he was so completely refuted, that almost the whole Bethel Family forsook him, and sided with me, in what he is pleased to call "rebellion." Their taking my side was not due to "Types" only. Seemingly, some of the British friends accepted the insanity explanation to account charitably for my alleged fraudulency. Indeed, I mingled very little with the English friends outside of Bethel after my recall, in order not to make public the difference between J.F.R. and myself: and was thus at the mercy of those who grossly misrepresented me and whose tales were believed. I was neither then, nor ever before, insane, though, at my breakdown in brain-fag from overwork and loss of sleep in 1910, some few brethren in the West, who heard me describe a severe internal struggle that I had had, and say that I had irrevocably lost



my brain power, believed and reported it. But Bro. Russell, whom I saw at Bethel within 10 days and with whom for a week I spent much time discussing intricate subjects (a discussion of which I brought to him in writing, prepared in the climax of the breakdown, and parts of which he later published) did not think so, nor did any of the other brethren at Bethel. J.F.R., just a few days before my return to America, warning the Bethel family against me, reported me mentally deranged at the Bethel table. Mar. 7 I drew up a protest containing 10 reasons, against J.F.R.'s course, and sent it to Bros. Ritchie, Van Amburgh and Pierson for presentation to the Board. Its reasoning could not have come from an insane person. Bro. Pierson remarked of it, "That does not sound insane!" Let me repeat: It was not my cable of Feb. 24 alluding to types that made him think me insane; for his letter of Feb. 24 to me, and his cable of Feb. 28 to J.H., both setting forth that I was insane, preceded his knowledge of the Feb. 24 cable. On that cable I might say this: Having very frequently spoken to J.F.R., with whom I was on most confidential terms of brotherly friendship, of hidden types and prophecies in the Scriptures, I thought he would not think these typical allusions, made in confidence, unusual for me to make to him. To others, unaccustomed to such allusions from me, they of course seemed strange. J.F.R. now acknowledges that he was mistaken on the insanity charge. However, he has greatly injured me thereby, especially in not plainly correcting his mistake but giving it a new impetus in his "Harvest Siftings," though admitting before writing that paper that he had made a mistake therein.


J.F.R. selected five able and sober-minded brothers to investigate the trouble in the London Tabernacle and Bethel. This Commission reported in my favor, and that without getting my evidence, which was the most exhaustive that anyone had to give them. J.H.



and Sr. H., his typist and the two brothers who transcribed the minutes, the reports and the findings, all of whom saw these, told me, after they were sent away from London, that they favored me. On leaving London after the investigation, the Chairman of the Commission, Bro. McCloy, said the same; J.F.R. and W.E. Van Amburgh admitted it shortly after I returned, the former remarking that he did not agree with the Commission's findings, had told them so, and had reversed their Bethel findings, reinstalling the two brothers. The four members of the Board of Directors of the Society who, in June, as the Board's Committee, examined this matter, and who, as a second Commission, reported favorably to me; told me that only the findings of the Tabernacle matter were given them, while the reports of both Tabernacle and Bethel matters were given them. All four said that the findings of the Tabernacle and the reports of the Tabernacle and Bethel matters favored me. I do not know what became of the findings of the Bethel matter. Bro. Housden, one of the Commission, after the report reached America, told me that, among other things, the findings in the Bethel matter, as they left London for the signature of the other four Commissioners, stated that I had acted in harmony with my powers, and had performed in the Bethel matter a service distinctly in the interest of the British Church in dismissing the Managers. Three of the Commission, according to the findings on Tabernacle matters given the Board's Committee of four in June, were willing to recommend them as deacons. All five thought them unworthy to be elders. J.F.R. states on the testimony of two letters (which contain 14 misrepresentations) from W.C. that I tried to influence the Commission in my favor, for this purpose visiting each one of them before they came to London to meet; and failing in this, I repudiated the Commission. Almost nothing could be further from the truth



than this statement! The following are the facts of my relation to this Commission. J.F.R.'s cable appointing this Commission is dated Feb. 22. It arrived at Bro. McCloy's home while I was there on a pilgrim visit of three days, arranged for a month before. Bro. McCloy, before my arrival in Britain, had advised J.H. to write to Bro. Russell of the "disloyalty" of H.J.S. and W.C. on the Tabernacle situation; and at his advice, and in his home, J.H., Sept. 17, wrote Bro. Russell.


Bro. McCloy and I had advised together in Jan. over the situation. Having known for a long time of the irregularities of these two brothers, he needed no convincing from me. He was one of my eight counselors in British matters. Four of these counselors were on this Commission. At his advice I decided to call all eight together in London for consultation over the general situation on the same day as the Commission was to meet; because this would save the time and money of four of the eight, who were coming to London for the investigation; accordingly, I wrote Feb. 24 to all eight brothers. A few days later at my own initiative I cancelled this meeting, because I saw that it would have the appearance of my seeking to influence the Commission. This conference was, therefore, never held. Except with Bro. McCloy I had no conversation whatever on the subject with the members of this Commission before they convened; nor did I speak on the case privately with them, before the findings were reached. I am sure they will all witness to this. That some of them as my counselors had heard of some of the facts of the case from me, weeks before they had been appointed Commissioners, cannot be construed as my trying to influence the Commission. Nor can the fact that one of the Commission (more than a week after the Commission had finished its investigation and made its findings) took my view of the impropriety of J.F.R.'s recalling me, who was



sent by the Board, without consulting the Board (which action in J.F.R.'s view made him an accomplice of mine), be construed against the Commission's finding in my favor. Before the Commission met, Bro. McKenzie, one of the Commissioners, opposed the dismissals, especially that of J.H. S. The evidence brought out at the investigation convinced him of the justice of their dismissal. By my not giving testimony the case was not made nearly so strong against them. After reaching London Bro. McCloy, whom at his request I had at his home given some assistance, sought a long time in vain to induce me to help the Commission and testify. None of the reasons that "Harvest Siftings" assigns for my not helping or giving testimony is true, nor is it true that I ignored and refused to appear before the Commission. I appeared before and read to them a protest against the appointment of a Commission to investigate the acts of a Special Representative clothed with powers of attorney! Such a person's acts are sanctioned before they are performed, while J.F.R. appointed a Committee to investigate them before he dismissed me, and repudiated my acts Feb. 24, and recalled me Feb. 26, after the Commission was appointed, and before it met, Mar. 3. Its sessions were Mar. 3-5. Such a procedure being contrary to good order, Divine and human, I would not become a party to it; therefore I refused to testify or otherwise help. J.F.R.'s "absolutely-without-authority" cable and recall of me, known to them when they met, certainly were not calculated to put me and my work in a favorable light before the Commission. And his and J.H.'s setting me forth as a rebel and imposter has more than anything else finally turned not only three of the Commission against me, long after their work was ended, but seems to be largely responsible for turning the sentiment of many others in Britain against me, if "Harvest Siftings" truthfully reflects the British situation;



for the sentiment there was overwhelmingly in my favor, before these misrepresentations were spread abroad. Instead of my tampering with the Commission, J.F.R.'s "absolutely-without-authority" cable and recall of me did so; for he thereby threw the influence and prestige of his office against me. But the clear evidence of gross wrongdoing held the Commission to a just report. J.F.R. does not mention in his "Harvest Siftings" that his Commission found in my favor despite his opposition to me. Why not? J.F.R. overruled the Commission's findings, reinstating the two brothers, under J.H.'s priority. And what is the result? They would not work as Managers under J.H., but are dividing the British Church. They have left Bethel as members of the staff, coming there occasionally as Secretary and Treasurer of the I.B.S.A. Feeling themselves martyrs at the hands of Bro. Johnson, they are going around dividing the classes: Most of the brethren in the classes have learned of their wrong-doing; others think them wronged. The result is division. The reason they have this influence is that Bro. Johnson has been publicly smitten as a fraud and rebel, while they have been largely whitewashed by J.F.R. I warned him that they would sift the British Church, and they are now doing it, according to the testimony of reliable brethren. He blames me for breaking up the British Church. On the contrary, I was being enabled, by the Lord's grace, to solve in the interests of the Truth and the Society a very difficult situation. Success was within grasp. He then interfered, overturning everything, and produced the great confusion in the British Church. Had he supported me in my work, the condition there would be decidedly more favorable to the Truth and the Society than it now is.


When I arrived in Britain the work was almost at a standstill in nearly every way. There was almost no Volunteer and Colporteur work. There was no Pilgrim



nor Photo-Drama work. The Pastoral work had not been started. The military situation greatly hampered and persecuted the dear brethren, who almost everywhere seemed discouraged. I found the managers quarreling with one another, and two of them "disloyal" in many ways, seeking personal power instead of the good of the sheep. I threw myself with all my being into the breach; I held back nothing that was for their good. The Lord blessed the work. The brethren everywhere were quickened; the Colporteurs began again; the only Pilgrim there started out again; the Drama was again exhibited; the Pastoral work was introduced. In every way I was at their service. The brethren rallied with new life and zeal. The evils were being put aside. Divided Classes were being united, Berean Lessons were displacing open Bible Study. The troubles at London Bethel and Tabernacle were solved in the interest of the Truth and the Society, while the evil-doers were being made harmless. On all hands Zion was going forward, when suddenly, under the influence of a letter and cablegram campaign, engineered by the two dividers of the British Church, J.F.R. threw everything into confusion. If it is true that the British Church is broken up, he is responsible, not I. How to have been more faithful, or fruitful in the interest of the Truth, the Brethren and the Society I do not know. I was faithful to these almost to death by weariness, under the most difficult set of conditions that I have ever faced. The Lord is my judge. He knows! Nor do I believe that my beloved British brethren for the most part will forget.


When I left for Britain, it was the opinion of the responsible brethren at Brooklyn that Bro. Russell had not given the penny, which we had expected him to do, and which at Dallas, Tex., Oct. 21, ten days before his death, he defined as "special opportunities of service in smiting Jordan," for which he was arranging.



Accordingly, while we believed that he was "that Servant" (when in a 1909 "Tower," Bro. Russell modestly said that the "Tower" might be said to be "that Servant," he hid himself behind his paper as editors generally speak of their papers as themselves; he did not mean that he was not "that Servant" or "the channel"), we concluded that he was not the Steward referred to in that parable. I had believed him so until a short time after his death. Except on this point I interpreted that Parable in England, exactly as Bro. Russell did from 1909 to the time of his death, i.e., that its day was the Harvest period of 40 years from 1874 to 1914; each hour of such a working day 3 1/3 years; the early morning call from October, 1874, to June, 1881; the third hour call, June, 1881, to October, 1884; the sixth hour call, June, 1891, to October, 1894; the ninth hour call, June, 1901, to October, 1904; the eleventh hour call, February, 1908, to June, 1911; that since October, 1914, we are in the evening. What clinches this interpretation is not only the fact that much larger numbers were called, and that by specially used agencies, into the Truth at those times than at all other times of the Harvest; but also that the five siftings referred to in 1 Cor. 10: 4-13 occurred in these five call periods, the call of large numbers being necessitated by the casting off of large numbers who were later sifted out. Bro. Russell held that the fifth sifting was from 1908-1911. It seemed to me that my experiences in Britain were pictured by those of Nehemiah, Ezra and Mordecai (J.H. believed that he antityped Eliashib and Hanani in Nehemiah); that my credentials were referred to in Ezra 7: 11-26 and Neh. 2: 7. From what is said in Ezra 7: 11-26 and symbolized in Esther 8: 2, 15, I concluded that I was privileged to become the Steward and Brother Russell's successor. Though privately I spoke of this to two brothers at Manchester, and to others at the London Bethel, apart from these two



places I mentioned it nowhere else, except at Liverpool, and that under the following circumstances: H.J.S. was by letters seeking to throw the blame upon me for his not taking a final step which might have saved the Elders from conscription. One of these letters, sent to a Liverpool Elder and now in my possession, was creating feeling against me among the brethren as an injurer of the Elders. I refuted the charge, saying among other things, that if I were unfriendly to the Elders, the Lord would not have given me a great privilege that He seemed to have given me; for there seemed to be Scriptural evidence that He had given me the privilege to be the Steward of the Parable of the Penny. This was the night of Feb. 24. J.F.R. said I "announced" this at the table of the Brooklyn Bethel. One would think from this that I set out to convince the family of this proposition. The following is what actually occurred: Late in April J.F.R. himself said that he had arranged after much thought to bring it up at the table. He had a brother ask the question, "Who is the steward of the Parable of the Penny?" Immediately he asked me to give my thought. I replied, "I have nothing to give on that point at this time." Then he said, "Brother Johnson, Brother Smith from Liverpool is here. In his presence at Liverpool, who did you say was the Steward?" I answered, "Brother Johnson." That is the way I "announced" it to the Bethel Family! Yet he says to shield me he kept back my "mental delusion," the Stewardship matter, from the family. These are but two samples of multitudes of misrepresentations in "Harvest Siftings." He seems deliberately to have chosen the policy of disparaging me before others. Several days after this episode, Menta Sturgeon convinced me that Bro. Russell gave the penny by arranging for the Smiting of the Jordan, the Pastoral Work, the V. D. M. questions and the Angelophone, by approving of a project in line with what the



Mena Film Co. is now furthering, by rearranging the workers at Bethel, and in the field, and by his death making still further arrangements for other special opportunities of service. This seems correct; for these are the special arrangements of Bro. Russell for enabling the saints to have the "honor" of binding the "kings" and the "nobles," "the kingdom honor" that we expect this side the veil. [The immediately foregoing was written before the author saw that the first smiting of Jordan occurred from Sept. 20, 1914, to Nov. 3 (at least), 1916, and that the foregoing arrangements of Bro. Russell were the giving of the penny at its second distribution, i.e., to the Great Company who are not referred to in Ps. 149: 5-9.] I greatly prefer that our beloved Bro. Russell had the privilege of giving the penny, to my having it to give. Therefore, at my own initiative, I recalled before the family the thought that I was the Steward. J.F.R. literally raged at my setting forth that claim; he is now not only not making objections to others, but is encouraging their making that claim for him with Vol. 7 as the penny, which he shows by putting a penny cut on the dedicatory page. While the Truth in Vol. 7 will be [was] specially used in the second smiting of Jordan, Vol. 7 evidently is not the penny; for the penny was first to be given to those called in the eleventh hour, while Vol. 7 came to all in each class at the same time. Bro. Russell's interpretation is better. He was the Steward. God bless his memory! I never claimed nor expected to have all the power of Bro. Russell, nor did I ever claim to get the Truth without the "Studies," nor did I say that I heard "voices" in 1910. I greatly regret thinking and saying that I was the Steward and Bro. Russell's successor, and want the Brethren to know this.


When I read J.H.'s description of events from March 7 to April 1, all that I could say was, "Poor Brother Hemery! The Lord forgive and bless him!"



I will not attempt to deny in detail all his misrepresentations, but I will tell the story as I know it. From Feb. 28, when the recall cable reached me, to March 6, I was under the impression that J.F.R. had the right to recall me. Therefore I gave up all official activities. When J.H. asked me to take the head of the table, March 1, on my return to Bethel, I declined, saying I was no longer special representative. I meekly took my humiliation. But, alas, J.H. tried to make it worse. Without any necessity for it, he read the "absolutely-without-authority" cable to the family, before I returned to London, just as J.F.R., before my return to Brooklyn, warned the family against me as insane, etc. In various ways he snubbed me, sneered at me, and before others looked at me with contempt. He referred to me as "a discredited representative of the W.T.B.&T.S." I had for three and a half months thought him one of the finest characters I had ever met, refusing to believe reports of his insolence to inferiors, desire for power and wriggling out of responsibility for his acts. One who knows him well, and is friendly to him, said he never met one so anxious to exercise power; he might have added, nor with much better ability to hide this fact, when expedient. His strange conduct finally made me less trustful of him, and he, feeling me powerless, became careless, and acted in my presence as I had heard of him. It seems hardly believable that he would, before the majority of the Bethel family, with a face full of contempt, repeatedly snap his fingers, saying as repeatedly, "Brother Johnson, you are that!" And yet it is true. Though knowing that J.F.R. wanted H.J.S. and W.C. restored, he repeatedly asked me, from Mar. 5 to 7, while denying my powers, to send them away from the office. Later, on Mar. 7, he advised H.J.S. in the presence of Bros. Kirkwood, Housden and myself, not to act as Manager, and to leave. It was not loyalty to J.F.R. that moved him



to do this, nor to oppose me, when he felt sure that J.F.R. "threw me down." It would not at all surprise me, if my telling him that I intended to make an unfavorable report of him to the Board had much to do with his gross misrepresentation of me in "Harvest Siftings"; nor would it surprise me, if my discountenancing his ambition to become the pastor of the Tabernacle Congregation, and if his desire to have no supervision by the Society's special representative caused his first opposition to me.


Referring to my cable of Feb. 24, J.F.R. says, "This and subsequent cablegrams sent out by Brother Johnson cost the Society hundreds of dollars for their transmission." "This cablegram" did not cost the Society one cent, a Liverpool brother desiring and gaining the opportunity of paying for it. All my cables from Nov. 19, the day of my arrival, to Mar. 31, the day I left London, for America, cost the Society exactly $65.22. They were with three exceptions sent at deferred rate, i.e., at 8 cents a word, and not at quick rate, i.e., 24 cents a word. On account of the censorship, it took about 35 to 40 days to receive speedy answer by mail between London and New York. In the crisis at London I had to resort to cables. I cabled after Mar. 6 frequently, because I received no replies and needed information. J.F.R.'s statement on the cost of my cables is another of the many misrepresentations with which his "Harvest Siftings" abound. Why did he not first investigate this item before making his statement on the cost of my cables?


Some of the grossest misrepresentations of "Harvest Siftings" are found in J.H.'s description of what he is pleased to call "rebellion." Surely he should offer prayer for forgiveness for sins of omission and commission in his presentation of my acts from Mar. 7 to 31. The facts of the situation are these: On the same day, Feb. 3, of the dismissal of H.J.S. and



W.C., I appointed with J.H.'s hearty advice, Bro. E. Housden, Assistant Manager (whom three weeks later J.F.R. appointed as one of the Investigation Commission) to do W.C.'s work, except that of Treasurer of the I.B.S.A. This put all the monies into his hands, the books, the keys of the office and safe, as well as the mails and orders. A little later I appointed, with J.H.'s hearty advice, Brother A. Kirkwood Assistant Manager to do H.J.S.'s work, except that of Secretary of the I.B.S.A. J.H. had for over a month, i.e., until his suspension, Mar. 12, been acting in full cooperation with Brother Housden, in the latter's signing checks, depositing the monies in the bank, keeping the books, holding the keys of the office and safe, and handling the mails and orders. The night of Mar. 6 I came to the conclusion that since 1 was sent by the Society, acting through its Board (according to J.F.R.'s letter of Nov. 10, to the English Managers, par. 5, and according to his article in Dec. 15, 1916, "Tower," the Board being in control of the Society's affairs) he could not recall me, except at the Board's direction. Further, my credentials being sealed by the Society's seal, I concluded that he could not cancel my credentials without the Board's direction. These two things his "absolutely-without-authority" and his recall cables, both sent from Los Angeles, presumed to do, without the authorization of the Board. Therefore, I denied that he had the right to rescind my acts, cancel by credentials and recall me. That same evening I discussed this matter with J.H., who then made no objections to my reasoning. I, therefore, told him that I was going to resume my activity as Special Representative. I told the family then and maintained the same attitude throughout my subsequent stay, that if I were recalled by the Board, I would immediately cease my activity, just as I had done at J.F.R.'s recall, while believing he had the right to recall me. The Board knew nothing of the



situation, until Mar. 29, two days before I left London for America. No word ever came to me from the Board on the point while I was in England. What I did was not "rebellion"; it was a refusal to become a party to J.F.R.'s usurping authority over the Board, which he himself on two occasions in writing stated controlled the Society's affairs; but now denying and disregarding its control, he has caused the present trouble. People who know me know that I am thoroughly submissive to those who have the right to direct my work. Mar. 17 Justice Sargant, of the High Court, one of the ablest judges of Great Britain, ruled that my credentials could be cancelled by the Board alone, and that only over the Society's seal and its officers' signature; and, therefore, granted me a temporary injunction; for he ruled that my credentials could not be cancelled by cable, as J.F.R. sought to cancel them. Mar. 7, I dictated a protest to the Board, embodying my view of these matters. He never allowed that protest to come before the Board, nor the two petitions that I sent with the protest, asking the Board, first, to require that in "Towers" for the British friends, he recall repudiating my acts; and, second, to take exclusive executive and managerial power from him, and to vest it in an Executive Committee, of which I named him a member. When I found out, after my return, that this protest and these petitions, sent to Bros. Ritchie, Van Amburgh and Pierson, to be presented for me to the Board, were not permitted to come before that body, I gave them to the remaining members to read. While admitting that the thoughts of the protest and petitions may have had something to do with five members of the Board differing from him, I never admitted, rather in a meeting of the People's Pulpit Association, July 27, I denied admitting what he says I, on July 25, admitted, i.e., that the trouble between him and the Board was the result of his refusal to give me another hearing before the