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

47

Board with a view to sending me back to England. It was at least a week before I asked for a hearing before the Board that I respectfully asked to return to England and finish my work. I never attempted to force my return. I regret to have to say that there is not one conversation that he reports in "Harvest Siftings," as having occurred between us, that he does not so twist as to misrepresent the things said and done as well as my spirit.

 

To return to the "Rebellion." Office matters worked on as usual from Mar. 7 to Mar. 12, except as between J.H. and myself. I never once, much less many times, dismissed him. Because of his opposition to me before the family, I did Mar. 12, suspend him; and during a discussion, in which he complained frequently that I kept back work from him, I as frequently told him that it was because he was suspended. This I suppose he misrepresents into my dismissing him a half-dozen times or more in one day. What he is pleased to call my "mouthing" and "rampaging" refers to a debate that he and I had before a majority of the Bethel family over the question, whether J.F.R. had a right to recall me and cancel my credentials without the Board's authorization. J.H. held that he had; I denied the right. In this discussion he was so completely refuted that only four of the Bethelites held with himhis wife, his typist and two brothers. The others, some of whom heard the points of the debate later, about eleven in number, not merely three as he says, were with me. The way each one stood was decided by the place where he took his meals. For nearly a week only four ate with J.H. The break from me began only after I had been, at his instigation, denounced as a rebel against the Society, Mar. 18, before the Tabernacle Congregation, and among the individuals of that congregation, as insane and demonized; and after a number of "guards" had been put in Bethel to overawe my supporters and circumscribe

 

48

my liberty. J.H. knows that it was my loyalty to the Society as represented in the Board that moved me to refuse to submit to J.F.R.'s usurpatorially setting aside the Board's act in my case.

 

On account of much work and the long delay in the Jan. 15 "Tower" reaching me, I did not read it until some time between Mar. 7 and 11. On reading therein the report of the Pittsburgh Convention, held Jan. 6, 7, I noticed that the article stated that the Society's Officers were elected by the Convention. Understanding the word convention as all Truth people use it to mean gatherings of brethren such as were held at Pittsburgh, Jan. 6, 7, and not a meeting of voting shareholders of the W.T.B.&T.S. to elect its officers, I took the article to mean just what it said, and concluded that our officers this year were not elected by the proper body. This I stated at the Bethel table, Mar. 12, a week after the Commission finished its work, not as J.F.R. says within 24 hours after it convened, Mar. 3. Three times between Feb. 27 and Mar. 6 I cabled to him without answer. Nor did I at any time after his Feb. 26 recall cable receive word from him, except on Mar. 26 or 27, when his letter of Feb. 24 reached me. After waiting until Mar. 10, I sent a cable of inquiry to Bro. Ritchie, the first time I cabled to him alone. Not hearing from J.F.R., and concluding from the blundering statement of the Jan. 15 "Tower" that he was not legally elected, I henceforth cabled to Bro. Ritchie, as the Society's ranking officer last legally elected. J.F.R. knows that as soon as I found out that he was elected by a meeting of the voting shareholders, and not by a convention, I gladly acknowledged him as President. Why did he not say this in his "Harvest Siftings"? I never said that I "would" or "should have become President" of the W.T.B.&T.S., had I let my name go forward, but that I might have become the President, had I permitted it. The following is the story: The morning of

 

49

Bro. Russell's funeral, H. C. Rockwell, one of the members of the Board, told me that he and other responsible brethren wanted me to become President. Tears coming into my eyes, I said that I was unworthy of being Bro. Russell's successor; that I did not have the necessary business experience for the office, and that I was going to prefer a brother in honor, J.F.R. He sought to persuade me to his view. I earnestly opposed it. That day many others spoke of it. On the part of not a few it was desired and expected. A letter from H. C. Rockwell on this point follows:

 

"Sept. 4, 1917.

"MR. P.S.L. JOHNSON.

"My Well Beloved Brother in Christ:

 

"Christian greetings to you and to all the tried and true friends at Brooklyn. Since reading Bro. Rutherford's "Harvest Siftings" and noting its many errors and false statements relating to yourself and affairs in general, I feel impelled by a sense of duty to formulate a written statement, which you are at liberty to use as may seem best, in refuting some of the wild and weird remarks now filling the air.

 

"To all whom it may concern, therefore, I do solemnly state in the name and in the presence of our gracious heavenly Lord, that at the time of Pastor Russell's funeral, I, H. Clay Rockwell, of my own volition and without any undue influence, approached Brother Paul Johnson and proposed to him that I would resign from being a member of the Board of Directors of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society on condition that he would accept the position in my place, and thus be eligible to be chosen and elected as President of the Society. Know all that Brother Johnson, through his lack of personal ambition and through his desire to await the Lord's leading in the matter, refused to accept my proposition.

 

"May this sincere and genuine statement, my dear brother, be of assistance in repelling some of the darts and arrows thrown at the instigation of the great Adversary. Knowing you to have 'the spirit of a sound mind,' which is the disposition of meekness and love, I have not the slightest doubt as to your full and complete

 

50

vindication before all the Lord's people, and to the shame of those who have attacked you. God bless you, dear brother!

 

"Yours in the patient waiting for the Kingdom,

(Signed) "H. CLAY ROCKWELL."

 

I wanted it known that I favored J.F.R. for President; therefore, among other things, I went to W.E. Van Amburgh, before leaving for Europe, asking him to make out my proxy, and send it to Bro. Spill to cast for J.F.R. On the Ocean, remembering that I had failed to have it stated on the proxy that I wanted my voting shares cast for J.F.R., I wrote to Bro. Spill, asking him so to cast them. J.F.R. knows this explanation. Why did he not give it?

 

After J.H.'s suspension Mar. 12, the work went on just as before I was recalled, and by the same persons, except that J.H. and a suspended supporter of his were not given their accustomed work, and I was consulted more than before. Shortly after my arrival the office force understood that I had powers of attorney. The monies, the mail, the orders, the books and the keys continued in Bro. Housden's charge, the keys until Mar. 21, when at J.H.'s command they were taken by one of the "guards" out of his pockets. The reason for things going on just as before was that almost the whole office force took my view. Absolutely no force or violence was used by my supporters or myself, though force was used against Bro. Housden and me, for which J.H. is responsible. His statement in "Harvest Siftings" is the first intimation that I ever had that he was not allowed the use of the phone. I am certain that this statement is untrue. I recall to have switched during that time the wire into his office for him to receive a message! However, when he was seeking to arrange for my "arrest for lunacy" and to arrange for other things against me, he went out to phone! He knows that I did not forcibly seize the control. Why did he say so? Why

 

51

did he say that I gradually claimed more and more authority, well knowing that I claimed powers of attorney from the outstart? It is absolutely untrue that I planned to usurp control of the British work; and to realize this plan brought charges against the Managers and dismissed them. Never before publishing "Harvest Siftings," where he makes it the climax of my British activity, did J.F.R. mention such a plan to me. In making this charge both he and J.H. attempted to read my motives and misread them. Repeatedly they did this in "Harvest Siftings."

 

J.H. with J.F.R.'s cables had succeeded in persuading the bank no longer to honor Bro. Housden as one of the two signatories necessary for a valid check, as it had been doing for over a month with J.H. as the other signatory; on the contrary, the bank declared, Mar. 13, that it would honor the signatures of J. Hemery, H.J. Shearn and W. Crawford only. This made me apprehensive that a financial scheme, subversive of Bro. Russell's arrangements, and injurious to the W.T.B.&T.S., would be made operative by the three, who had jointly planned it. There was no other way open for me under the circumstances to thwart the "scheme" than to enjoin the bank from giving these three together control of the Society's funds. Some explanation will be helpful. Bro. Russell arranged that in the I.B.S.A. bank account there should be only that much deposited as the law required, i.e., as much as the cost of the shares of the I.B.S.A. stock issued. All other monies were regularly deposited in the W.T.B.&T.S. account, also all checks issued were drawn on this account alone. In other words, Bro. Russell wanted to have, and did have, all business at the bank transacted in the name of the W.T.B.&T.S. at London, just as at Brooklyn; because he used the I.B.S.A. simply as a "dummy" corporation of the W.T.B.&T.S. for certain advantages in England for our work, just as he used the People's Pulpit Association

 

52

as a "dummy" corporation to do the W.T.B.&T.S. work in New York.

 

About Jan. 27, J.H. came to me saying that the Society's auditors claimed that the English Companies Act required the affairs of the I.B.S.A. to be audited and reported to the Board of Trade; and to make such an audit and report the I.B.S.A. would have to keep a separate set of books; that our auditors had drawn up a plan for a separate business organization and separate books for both corporations, and would I not sanction the plan, as it was required by the law. He is the only one of the three that sought to obtain my sanction to this "scheme." To my inquiries he gave uninforming replies. I asked to see the plan, but it was not shown me. I had him ask the Society's solicitors as to its legal necessity. He brought back word that the law required corporations to keep books, and to give audited reports to the Board of Trade. Still I hesitated, because I allowed no changes from Bro. Russell's arrangements, unless absolutely necessary, and such only as I thought he would make. Upon the occasion of another visit at Bethel I was again asked by J.H. to sanction the "scheme," which again he failed to show me, though requested so to do. After the bank decided no longer to honor Bro. Housden's signature, the latter told me that he had found among some papers a plan outlining a complete reorganization of the business and work of the Society; that when he showed it to Jesse Hemery, the latter with great eagerness said, "let me have that," snatching it out of his hands, and had not returned it. He told me that I ought to see this plan. In Bro. Housden's presence I then asked J.H. to show it to me. He refused. I then dictated a letter to the auditors asking for a copy. The next morning's mail brought it. It follows in full:

 

53

"22d January, 1917.

"The International Bible Students' Association,

"34 Craven Terrace, Lancaster Gate, W.

 

"Dear Sirs: As requested we confirm our suggestion as to the method on which your accounts should be kept.

 

"The first point which arises is to draw a definite line between the transactions of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society and the International Bible Students' Association. We quite appreciate that these two Societies are in effect one, and the work of these two bodies is for one end, and for this reason it is a matter of impossibility to keep the two absolutely separate and distinct.

 

"From the explanations you have given it appears to us to be the best method to treat the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in England, as a purely commercial body for the purpose of importing and printing Bible studies, pamphlets, tracts, etc., and also for the selling or distributing them; the International Bible Students' Association being the body which fosters, promotes and enlarges your teachings in this country. It must be quite understood, however, that by the name, International Bible Students' Association, we refer to the company which is registered in England and not to that Association in its world-wide work.

 

"The Tabernacle is the property of your Association and must therefore appear in your accounts. With the exception of the basement this is used entirely by your Association, and all the expenses incurred there should be borne by you. The receipts are in connection with the services and meetings held by you and must be treated as your income.

 

"The lease of 34 Craven Terrace is in the name of your Association, and the outgoings directly connected with the occupation of the house, such as rent, rates, taxes, insurance, gas, water, etc., should be borne by your Association.

 

"All expenses in connection with Classes, such as Lecture Bureau, Pilgrim, etc., and also in furthering your movement, for instance Photo Drama, will be paid by you.

 

"These payments are now made by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, and when these are paid by your Association it will leave the former Society only

 

54

making payments on its own account in connection with importing, buying and printing books, etc., personal monthly office expenses, etc.

 

"The receipts are in connection with Sales of Books, etc., and donations; the first of these will belong to the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, the latter being donations to promote your doctrine, will belong to the International Bible Students' Association.

 

"The system we have explained to you is that all monies received from donations shall be paid into the International Bible Students' Association bank account in full, and that cheques shall be drawn on that account for the following:

 

"(a) All expenses in connection with the tenancy of 34 Craven Terrace.

"(b) All expenses in connection with the occupation of the Tabernacle.

"(c) All expenses in connection with Classes, Lecture Bureau, Pilgrim, Tabernacle Catering, etc.

"(d) Debenture interest.

"(e) All expenses in connection with Photo Drama; but taking previous years' figures as a guide, the receipts will not be sufficient to meet the outgoings. [When I arrived there were about $1,500 on hand, and when I left about $7,000 were on hand, without any coming from Brooklyn. Thus the receipts for that time greatly exceeded the expenses.—P.S.L.J.]

 

"When any cheques are to be drawn on this Account, which amount to more than the Donations paid in, a cheque must be obtained from the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society for the deficit; the International Bible Students' Association will then have a balance of £23 always standing to its credit after any such deficit has been made good.

 

"All payments are to be entered in the Cash Book as previously and analyzed.

 

"The last two columns should be used for the amounts paid into Bank, but it will be found a convenience to yourselves if the donations from outside sources and those from the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society are kept separate.

 

"When you wish to draw any cheques these should be

 

55

entered in the Cash Book before they are issued, and then if you deduct the total of your Payments the deficit thus shown will represent the donation you will have to receive from the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, before the cheque can be paid away.

 

"With regard to Petty Cash items, which will be paid out of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society's cash, a cheque should be drawn on your account for this amount, and paid back again into your account, so as to place the expenditures of these on record in your books. The payments in of this money to you will be treated as donation from the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.

 

"In the Watch Tower Society's Books all donations to the International Bible Students' Association will be analyzed in a column for that purpose and in entering the total of Petty Cash at the end of each month, these columns which relate to the work of your Society will be entered in one sum in the I.B.S.A. Column.

 

"The quarterly statement rendered by you to Brooklyn will be a summary of the transactions of the two bodies. The receipts will include monies received both by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society and the International Bible Students' Association. The payments will be a summary of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society's Cash Book with the one exception that the Donations to the International Bible Students' Association will not be shown as a payment, but in place of this the full expenditure of that Body will be shown.

 

"Should there be any point in the above which is not quite clear to you, we shall be pleased to give you any further information you may require.

 

"Yours faithfully,

 DAVIS & WINDER."

 

As soon as I read this scheme I saw its gross wrong to the W.T.B.&T.S. It totally changed Bro. Russell's arrangements; increased the I.B.S.A., and decreased the W.T.B.&T.S. power; threw all the advantages on the side of the I.B.S.A., and the disadvantage on the side of the W.T.B.&T.S.; made the I.B.S.A. in effect an independent corporation, and the W.T.B.&T.S. a buying, selling (at a loss) and

 

56

guaranteeing corporation; changed the I.B.S.A. from a profitless to a profit making corporation, a thing that would have required a new charter; it would have made it almost impossible to prove that the W.T.B.&T.S. controlled the I.B.S.A., and favored the contention of all three Managers, that the I.B.S.A., according to English law, was an Independent English Corporation (J.H. explained the relation of the I.B.S.A. to the W.T.B.&T.S. as a "fraternal" one in his injunction suit affidavit, in which he failed to state that it was a subsidiary of the W.T.B.&T.S.). My solicitor said under Bro. Russell's arrangement, the I.B.S.A. performed no financial transactions, and had no income, thus could keep no books; and therefore did not have to make an audited report to the Board of Trade. Knowing H.J.S.'s and W.C.'s ways, and now seeing that J.H. was confederate with them in this scheme and seeing no other way to prevent its adoption, I sued to enjoin the bank from giving them, and them from drawing money, apart from my order, giving as my reason that I feared that monies belonging to the W.T.B.&T.S. deposits would be placed in the I.B.S.A. deposits. J.H. says that he does not to this day know why I brought the suit! Did he not read my affidavit, and in my court testimony the scheme with an explanatory letter from the auditors, who therein state that they worked out the "scheme" after conferring fully with all three Managers? At no time during the suit, while I was in England, did the work of the London Branch cease, because of the suit; for I consented to their drawing on $1,250.00 for running expenses. I brought the suit not to injure, but to prevent the work from being injured. J.H.'s statement shows that they had an abundance for current expenses, beside the above $1,250.00. Thus the falsity of the statement that the suit shut down the work at the London Branch is proven. Permitting them to draw on $1,250.00 I tied up the balance, $2,750.00, so that

 

57

they could not transfer any of it, or make other deposits in the I.B.S.A. account. I intended the injunction to tie up the surplus monies only so long as would permit me to go to America and explain the situation in person. I felt sure that J.F.R. and the Board would approve the injunction, when they would understand the "scheme" and its circumstances, which required personal explanations.

 

J.F.R.'s opposition to me and support of the British Managers against me, made it necessary for me to bring the suit to protect the Society against the "scheme." What he said in a letter to me written before the dismissals satisfied me that, if he would see the "scheme," he would sanction what I did against it. Mar. 21 I sought to induce H.J.S., the Secretary of the I.B.S.A., to go with me to the Registrar's office and have the I.B.S.A. registered as a foreign-controlled corporation. Needing my authorization letters for this, I borrowed them from my solicitor. Being introduced as exhibits in the evidence they were now court property. He said if I should lose them, I would come into trouble with the High Court, as well as imperil the case. H.J.S. refused to have the I.B.S.A. registered as a foreign-controlled corporation. Had I succeeded in securing this, it would have been to the advantage of the W.T.B.&T.S. in many ways. Now it cannot be done without a heavy fine, $25.00 a day since Mar. 21.

 

The night of Mar. 21, I retired about 9: 30, the authorization papers being in my possession. The next morning, as I sought to open my door, it would not, even under pressure, yield. Noticing that it could be bent above the knob, I sought to force it open, applying such pressure that the door broke below the lower hinge. I succeeded in bending the door above the knob sufficiently first to put my hand, then my arm out, and remove a board about 6 feet by 6 inches by 7/8 inch, and about four other smaller pieces of wood, all of

 

58

which had been firmly wedged against the door. How innocently J.H. writes about a bit of wood and hides the facts of the case! He had his "guards" barricade me in my room! They had previously circumscribed my liberty of access to various parts of the house. Of course, I knew that something was "doing." I went up to Bro. Housden's room; he was locked in, unable to come out, and had been searched for the keys of the office and safe, as well as for that of his room, which officially and with J.H.'s full assent he was given Feb. 3, the day of his appointment to Assistant Managership, and which he had held ever since. What a misrepresentation that I and an "accomplice" had "seized the keys of the office and safe!" They had never left Bro. Housden's official possession from Feb. 3 until J.H. had one of his "guards" take them out of his pocket the night of Mar. 21. He committed an imprisonable offense in barricading me in mine, and locking Bro. Housden in his room! As I was talking through the locked door to Bro. Housden, several of the "guards" came hastily out of their rooms partly dressed. One of them, Bro. Cronk, a Tabernacle elder, told me that a constable had been there the night before; that I had been barricaded in my room for safe keeping; that the constable was going to return that morning; that I was not allowed to leave my room, except to go to the bathroom, and then only to make use of the halls and stairs between that and my room. Immediately, I thought of my papers, as court property, which I was sure they would take from me, and of the court hearing the next day. I decided to leave Bethel at once. Returning to my room I did a few necessary things, and was about to go down stairs and leave by the front door, when one of the "guards" himself went down. This prevented my exit by the door on the ground floor! My room was on the next floor above. There was a balcony whose floor was just outside of and below my window. Below this balcony

 

59

was an iron fence. Without any jump whatever, I let myself down, my hands holding onto the balcony, until my feet rested upon the fence, then again without a jump, I let myself down on the walk. J.F.R. represents me as letting myself down from the roof; the London Bethel is a four-story building; J.H., who did not see me, represents me ludicrously in a frock coat, and with galoshes (overshoes) only. My frock coat was entirely hidden under my overcoat, which reaches nearly to my ankles. My overshoes were without heels, and, of course, were over my shoes. J.H., who one day later packed my effects, not allowing me to come to do it, knows that my shoes were not among them. How did he know that I left with a coward's heart and uneasy conscience? Why does he not tell the matter as it was, if it were to be told at all, without imaginations, suppressions, additions, and misrepresentations? Believing him without hearing my side, no wonder some of the British brethren think my conduct "undignified." If J.H.'s "guard" (one had just told me that I was not allowed out of my room) had not gone down stairs, and thus prevented my leaving by the door, I would have left by the door. As it was, to prevent myself from being kept away from the hearing of the injunction case, and my authorization papers from falling into the hands of the other side, I had to leave by the only available exit, my window. That my fears that they would search me, and take my credentials from me were well grounded, appears not only from what he did to Bro. Housden, who was not freed until about 2 P.M.; but from the fact that J.H. rifled my portfolio, took from it many of my papers, some of which he sent to J.F.R., and read my private letters. His two long statements about me in "Harvest Siftings," not to mention others of his statements there, contain 71 misrepresentations. It is utterly untrue that I wandered about Bethel between two and four o'clock of mornings,

 

60

much less to see if my possessions were safe! They were all in my room! His rifling my portfolio shows that they were in need of guarding in my absence! It is utterly untrue that I secreted myself after I had left Bethel, until I left London. Several times J.H. sent Bro. Cronk to see me at my hotel; other brethren also called on me. Mails were sent from Bethel to me. Of course after the barricading episode I would not return to Bethel to stay.

 

"Brother Johnson stole $1,500." (?) The foregoing sentence is a quotation of language that J.F.R. used of me, in my presence before the majority of the Bethel family July 27. It is his and J.H.'s version of my having had Bro. Housden put the Society's cash on hand into a safety deposit box, after he was unable to deposit it in a bank. From Feb. 3 until and including that time, he had been officially handling all of the Society's monies, and had been doing all the Society's banking until the bank, Mar. 13, refused to deal with him any longer as the Society's representative. Until Mar. 12, J.H. had cooperated with him in this official work, and would have done so longer, had he not been suspended. It was unsafe to keep this, a daily increasing amount of money, in our safe. After Justice Sargant ruled that my credentials gave me the right to control the Society's money in Britain, and therefore gave me a temporary injunction, and after we had failed on account of certain legal technicalities governing banks in England, to open an account elsewhere; on my solicitor's advice, I asked Bro. Housden to put the money into a safety deposit box. This was done to protect the Society's money, and to prevent it from being put into the I.B.S.A. deposits. Every penny was returned except about $200.00 that had to be put into the hands of a solicitor as a guarantee for possible court costs. To call such a transaction theft, as J.F.R. did, and threaten me with arrest for theft, as J.H., who calls this "virtually stolen

 

61

money," did through his messenger, Bro. Cronk, are two samples of the slanderous misrepresentations and the mistreatment under which I suffer. March 23, the case seemed about to be settled out of court. It was agreed that the money be put into the keeping of a neutral brother until settlement. J.H. induced him, Bro. Gentle, to turn over the money to him without our knowledge! Why did J.F.R., who knows these facts, publicly accuse me of stealing $1,500.00? The donor of the £350 check, hearing that there was trouble in the London Bethel, requested that it be returned to him. This was done by Bro. Housden, hence it was not among the money that J.H. induced Bro. Gentle to turn over to him. Some think that 1 Cor. 6: 1-8 was violated in this suit. That passage applies to cases that can be adjusted by a church of which both sides are members. It could not be applied in this case, because the bank was the main party that was enjoined. Moreover there was no congregation that had jurisdiction over the Society's matters. Nor did I sue for past wrong-doing, nor for an offense against myself, but rather to prevent a contemplated wrong from being committed against the Society. Manifestly 1 Cor. 6 does not apply to such a case; nor does it to the case between the majority of the Board and J.F.R. and W.E. Van Amburgh.

 

My credentials had not been notarized, a fact that had been overlooked by my solicitors and Justice Sargant March 17. This made them quite probably not binding before an English Court. For this reason, and not because of J.H.'s affidavit, my solicitors were willing to settle the case before March 23, when it was to come up for argument. Both sides were later willing to delay matters. Accordingly, the case was postponed until March 30. At that time, doubtful about winning the case on the question of the credentials not being notarially attested, J.H.'s solicitor apprised by J.F.R.'s cable of March 21, quoted before, that

 

62

"sealed revocation of his [my] credentials were mailed fifteenth," decided to wait for this cancellation, until the next session of court, which on account of the Easter recess would be April 20. The court granted their motion to this effect. This suited me, because, in harmony with my intentions in bringing the suit, I thought it would give me time to explain matters at Brooklyn in person, where I felt sure that the "scheme" being understood, my course on the injunction would be sanctioned, and I would be able to return to London with unquestioned powers to settle the suit and finish my British work. I arrived at New York April 9, and failed in my effort. Three times I suggested a method to J.F.R. whereby I could both win the suit, and the Society be spared the costs. He was in no mood to listen to any suggestion from me.

 

March 13, I cabled that if the Board wanted to recall me, kindly to order it, and cancel my credentials over the Society's seal and the signature of its officers, so that I might be sure that it was the Board's work; for someone, March 9, cabled: "Both Rutherford and the Society have cancelled Johnson's letters of authority," the Board knowing nothing of it. The following was actually done March 15: Without the Board's knowledge my credentials were cancelled over the Society's seal and the signatures of two of its officers. To me it seems that a document having the Society's seal should never be cancelled without authorization of the Board, its controlling body. I do not know how the case was handled after I left London, March 31, nor what other points additional to insanity and the cancellation cables and papers were brought forth to convince another judge that I had no authority to bring the suit. He so decided May 7, and not as J.F.R., says, before I left London, and assessed the costs on my solicitor, who guaranteed me to the Court. Certainly the "scheme" which occasioned the suit was decidedly against the interest of

 

63

the W.T.B.&T.S., if it desired, as I believed, to continue in control of the British Branch. The suit was not brought in the interest of my solicitor, nor of myself personally, but of the Society. Therefore, neither my solicitor, nor myself ought to be responsible for the costs. I undoubtedly would have won the suit had J.F.R., not "thrown me down." This is only another case where plotters against the Society were supported by him, and I, who stood for the Society's interests and Bro. Russell's arrangements, was "smitten." Why did he take the side of those who worked against the W.T.B.&T.S.? He said that it made little difference whether the "scheme" were adopted or not, since the Managers could draw the money out of the W.T.B.&T.S. deposits anyway. Granted that they could; but that does not touch many points; for among other reasons, if the W.T.B.&T.S. wanted to be in a position to maintain its control, it could be best maintained by Bro. Russell's arrangements, which gave it charge of all the work and business. This would demonstrate its control. The "scheme" would have proven that it "fraternally assisted" the I.B.S.A., as J.H. puts it in his affidavit. With that "scheme" operating and disloyal men in charge, one could easily see the disadvantage to the W.T.B.&T.S. Certainly H.J.S. and W.C. were far from loyal. J.H.'s part in the "scheme" was not loyal. My loyalty to Bro. Russell, whom the two so greatly disregarded, had more to do with my treating them as I did than they perhaps realize. It shocked me through and through that they could have been so disloyal to him. Perhaps after all I won the object of this suitprevented the Managers from putting that "scheme" into operation. The exposure of it, perhaps, has deterred them therefrom. Why does J.F.R. not mention this "scheme" as the cause of the suit? He knows it was. Why does he instead represent the suit as an insane attempt to wreck the British work?

 

64

It was the only way under the circumstances of preventing the Society from losing control of the I.B.S.A. and keeping it as Bro. Russell arranged it to be kept.

 

As to J.H.'s charge that I was carrying out a "well laid scheme to gain control of the British work and publish our English Tower," I would say the following: My credentials, I believed, gave me power of attorney, in the work in every country to which I was sent. Ignoring this, which he understood from the outstart, as some of his statements show, J.H. says that after reflecting over the situation he concluded that I was planning to settle myself in charge of the British work and as a part of the plan, to publish another "Tower." J.F.R. adds, that to realize this scheme I brought charges against and dismissed the Managers. I would say that their conclusions are evil surmising and absolutely false. These conclusions have been imagined from the few following facts: Because of the sifting that I saw setting in, and which is now in full force there, and which before leaving America, several months before, I told the Executive Committee was coming, I told J.H. I would have to stay longer than I had expected, and that I was going to ask the Board for permission to publish temporarily an English Tower to meet the sifting. I suggested the temporary publishing of an English "Tower" after I returned to America to five members of the Board, J.F.R. among them. I still think this probably the best way to meet the sifting, if "Harvest Siftings" represents the situation aright. How different my thought from their surmise! J.H. knows that I was anxious to finish the British Work as soon as possible, and that I desired to be in America by June at the latest. The reason I held on in Britain is that faithfulness to my mission under my credentials in my judgment required it. I felt sure that if I would give up at an unauthorized recall and setting aside my credentials,

 

65

and in the face of that "scheme," I would be an unfaithful servant and would be blamed as such, not only by the Lord, but also by the Board, when apprised of the situation. Why did J.F.R., who knew the above explanation in April, publish the falsehood (yea, he makes it the main feature of my British activity in his "Harvest Siftings") about my having a well-formed plan for seizing the English field? Why did he not clearly explain the matter of publishing an English "Tower"? While charging me with other things, why did he never mention this "well-thought-out plan" to me before "Harvest Siftings" appeared? How could J.H. before the same congregation before which he acknowledged me as having been used of the Lord to deliver him from the greatest trouble of his life, denounce me as a rebel to the Society, and smile while making "points" against me that repeatedly convulsed many in the congregation with laughter? No wonder that even an opponent of mine like Bro. Radwell should, in revulsion at the act and in sympathy with me, write me the next day the letter a part of which is quoted above! J.H. in one place in "Harvest Siftings" assures J.F.R. that I was not insane, in several other places that I was an imposter, and in another place that my work and life were not those of a hypocrite! How harmonize these statements? The Lord forgive him and bless him! My official acts, apart from the Steward matter, are perfectly clear from the standpoint from which I most conscientiously acted, i.e., that my credentials were meant in good faith.

 

My dear brethren, will you, who for many years have known me and my ministry, believe the horrible caricature of me and my work in Britain drawn in "Harvest Siftings"? I cannot believe it of you! I leave it with the Lord; He knows.

 

Even granted that what "Harvest Siftings" says of my British activity were true, was it just, not to say the part of a brother, to publish it? What good can

 

66

it serve? It has only grieved, injured and thrown the brethren into the confusion against which I forewarned J.F.R. Though made the main subject of "Harvest Siftings," it is only remotely related to its object, which is to justify J.F.R.'s ousting four members of the Board. It hides the real question at issue, which is: Is he or the Board under the Lord the controller in the Society's affairs? The real question is not whether he is Executive and Manager in the Society's affairs, which on all hands is conceded. Before elected President, he himself set forth in the "Tower," Dec. 15, 1916, the proposition which is given in the letter of Nov. 10 to the British Managers: "It (the W.T.B.&T.S.) being a corporation is of course controlled by its Board of Directors." However, since he was elected President, and later was made Executive and Manager, without authority in law, in the Charter, in Bro. Russell's will, in an act of the Board, or in the Scriptures, he claims additionally to be controller in the Society's affairs, and acts in harmony with this claim. Indisputably his handling of the British and the Board affairs proves this to be his theory and practice. Five members of the Board dispute this. The places of four of these who resisted his efforts to control he declared vacant on the Board on a legal technicality (that they had not been elected annually) that would have equally made his place vacant on the Board, and thus disqualified his being a candidate for President; and appointed four others, and thus has a Board whose majority favors him! No matter what his motive was, these are facts. In one part of "Harvest Siftings" he claims that the four considered me insane, yet in other places he represents me as having led these four brothers in a conspiracy to wreck the Society and them as submitting to an insane leader! I deny unqualifiedly that I have any knowledge of the four ousted brothers as conspiring, much less conspiring to wreck