Harvest Siftings Reviewed

—————

"In all things proving ourselves as ministers of God, in much patience, in affliction, in necessities, in distresses, ... by honor and dishonor, by evil report and good report, as deceivers and yet true."- 2Co 6:4, 8.

—————

SYNOPSIS

I. Additional to the letter given Nov. 3 for passports, and the letter to the British Managers, the Executive Committee on Nov. 10 gave Bro. Johnson credentials, empowering him with full authority in the Society’s work and business in certain foreign countries, the Committee telling him Nov. 10 that his authorization papers described the powers they wanted him to exercise.

II. Nov. 21 at his first meeting with the three London Managers he showed them his authorization papers as a statement of his powers ; and reported this fact to the Committee, which offered no objections in their letter of acknowledgment. From that time on he claimed and exercised full power and authority in the Society’s affairs in Britain.

III. For three months he performed many executive acts, and reported them first to the Committee, and later to Bro. Rutherford, from whom before Feb. 27 no objection came that these were unauthorized.

IV. He found two of the London Managers disregarding, changing and abrogating various of Bro. Russell’s arrangements, for which on the authority of his credentials he dismissed them.

V. His course toward these two Managers was generally approved by the British brethren, particularly by the Tabernacle Congregation, the Bethel Family, especially Brother Hemery, and Bro. Rutherford’s Investigation Commission, which Bro. Johnson neither sought unduly to influence nor ignored.

VI. When Bro. Rutherford, despite the fact that the Board sent Bro. Johnson as the Society’s, not as the President’s representative, attempted to recall him and rescind his Society-sealed credentials, the latter ceased all activities for a week; then, realizing that Bro.

Rutherford’s course was unauthorized by, and usurpatory of, the Board, he resumed his activities, exercising no other authority than formerly and appealed to the Board against Bro. Rutherford’s course. Later, without authorization from, or knowledge of, the Board, Bro. Rutherford, in the name of the Society , cancelled his credentials, using the Society seal.

VII. Because of his opposition to Bro. Johnson’s resumption of his activities, Bro. Hemery was suspended, but never dismissed, no force, nor violence, nor seizure of anything marking Bro. Johnson’s course.

VIII. Bro. Johnson secured an injunction, primarily against the bank, and secondarily against Bros. Hemery, Shearn and Crawford; because it was the only way to prevent the three making operative a financial scheme against the Society. Unable to deposit monies in the bank, by authority of the High Court and by his counsel’s advice, he had the proper official place this money in a safety deposit box to safeguard it, and prevent it from being improperly diverted by the three Managers through their scheme.

IX. As soon as he could safely leave the Society’s interests in Britain, he returned to America to report conditions to the Board. Bro.

Rutherford prevented his having a full and fair hearing, greatly misrepresenting his activities to the Board and others.

X. Thwarted by Bro. Rutherford from getting a fair hearing before the Board, he laid the case before five of its members individually, all of whom took his view of the British situation. He did not direct four of these in, and he knew nearly nothing in advance of, their moves in their controversy with the President. He knows nothing of their being in a conspiracy to wreck the Society, or depose the President; nor does he believe it true of them.

XI. He learned that Bros. Rutherford, Van Amburgh and MacMillan conspired to secure for the first named, Bro. Russell’s full authority, beginning this before the election. They prearranged every detail in the proceedings of the voting shareholders’ meeting by which he was elected. A week before the election Bro. Rutherford placed in the hands of the Press a detailed account of these proceedings .

XII. Bro. Rutherford’s opposition to Bro. Johnson is not so much due to the British matter, as to the latter’s advocating the Board’s controllership in the Society’s affairs, as against the President’s. The latter has systematically misrepresented him, especially in his "Harvest Siftings," whose setting as a whole and in many details is false.

—————

TO INTERNATIONAL BIBLE STUDENTS:

My Beloved Brethren: -Grace and peace. Your hearts have doubtless been deeply pained by Bro. Rutherford’s Harvest Siftings-pained whether you believe it true or untrue, in its general setting of the persons and things treated of therein. It is to ease this pain, and to point to a way out that moves me to answer. It is condemnable to plunge the Lord’s saints into a controversy over a matter that, as far as concerns me, should never have been published broadcast among them, much less among many outsiders. But by this uncalled for act, I have been placed before the Church, which for 14 years I have faithfully served, and before others in such a bad light as to destroy utterly my usefulness, unless truthfully my actions can be set before the Church in a favorable light. I deplore the necessity of answering Harvest Siftings, especially as the answer must be of a personal kind, and involve others. Yet this is in harmony with Bro. Russell’s article quoted in the Tower of September 15, 1917, page 283 second col. and first para. Much rather would I give my time to telling "the old, old story." But if I am ever again to tell the brethren "the old, old story" in a way fruitful to them, I must stand before them in the light of what I have been and am: a faithful servant of the Truth, as it has been expounded to us in the writings and saying of our beloved Bro. Russell. How to have been more faithful to the Lord, the Truth, the Brethren and Bro. Russell’s policies than I was in the work that I was privileged last winter to do in Britain, I do not know. I was faithful to these almost to death by exhaustion . It is because my service in Britain has been so grossly caricatured in Harvest Siftings, as to be unrecognizable and injurious to the Truth and the Brethren, that I will tell the main facts, as I know them, relying upon God’s grace to enable me to write with charity toward all, with malice toward none. That grace enables me to keep sweet the love of God toward all, especially towards Bros. Rutherford and Hemery, whom after Bro. Russell’s death I loved above all others. While conscious of the great wrong they have done me, from the bottom of my heart I pray for them: God bless them! May I not ask the reader not to judge my case, until after a prayerful, impartial reading of my statement?.

AUTHORIZATION PAPERS

The reader is requested to note particularly the dates in this review. They serve in many cases to clarify the situation.

Last summer Bro. Russell arranged for me to take the European trip; and after his death, in harmony with this the Board of the W. T. B. & T. S. November 2 decided to carry out his wishes, appointing a committee to confer with me on the trip. This was not the Executive Committee, which was not appointed until November 7, and with which my final understandings re the trip were reached. Having by correspondence, not by a visit, learned from the passports department at Washington, that if I were to be granted passports, especially for Germany and France, I would have to give strong reasons in writing to the department in Washington, I reported this fact to the committee appointed November 2, especially to Bro. Rutherford, and asked for a letter, not for credentials. Without my offering even a hint as to what the letter should contain, Bro. Rutherford entirely alone and unassisted by me, dictated a letter which may be called a letter of appointment; because it purported to offer me an appointment as a special representative of the Society with powers of attorney, or full power and authority in the work and business of the Society in certain foreign countries. It being necessary that the letter be sent immediately with my application for passports to the department, and not to make it appear that the letter was dictated the same morning that it was presented to the passport office in New York, it was dated November 1, though actually dictated the morning of November 3.

Its only purpose was to enable me to get passports; and it was understood on that day, that my work was to be that of a Pilgrim only. The letter follows: "Prof. Paul S. L. Johnson, New York City, N. Y.

"Dear Sir: The undersigned, The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, as you are advised, is a religious corporation, incorporated under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, and maintaining an office in the City of New York; and is now, and for several years has been engaged in religious and philanthropic work throughout America and in foreign countries; that its work and business is incorporated in Great Britain under the name of the International Bible Students’ Association. This corporation, or society, also maintains branches, and conducts its work in the following countries, to wit: Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Finland-Russia, Switzerland and France in its corporate name, to wit: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.

"The President of this Society having recently died, and the condition of the Society’s work and business in the above and foregoing foreign countries, due to the great war, is such that an imperative necessity has arisen that we at once send a special representative to those countries to carefully examine into the condition of the work and affairs of the Society and to make report thereof. Our Society, therefore, has this day appointed you as its special representative to perform such duties, and hopes you will accept the appointment.

"Your duties in the premises will be: to proceed without delay to Great Britain, and thereafter to the other countries named, to there carefully examine the books and other private papers of the Association kept and maintained in the countries herein above named; to investigate the financial condition of the work and affairs of the Society in said countries; and generally to do whatsoever is necessary, or may become immediately necessary, to protect our interests and work in said countries , full power and authority being hereby given and granted unto you to do and perform the same.

"In connection with your duties above outlined, you will be expected, at such time or times as may be convenient, to preach the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to all who may desire to hear; to hold public religious meetings for such purposes and to do whatsoever in your judgment may be necessary to further the interests of the Society in spreading the Gospel in said countries.

"In witness whereof, the Society has caused this instrument to be signed with the corporate name and by its Vice-President, and attested by the Secretary and the seal of the corporation this first day of November, A. D. 1916.

"Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. "Per A. I. Ritchie, Vice-President. "W. E. Van Amburgh, Secretary and Treasurer."

That morning, November 3, this letter and my application for passports were given to the proper officials at New York to forward to Washington. In due time the passports were granted. During that afternoon I remarked to Bro. Rutherford that I ought to have.2b credentials to facilitate my entry especially into France and Germany. I said not a word as to what they should contain. They were not dictated until November 10. At the time I asked for them it was understood that my powers were to be those of a Pilgrim only. Bro. Rutherford does not mention these credentials at all, which were addressed, not to the British Managers, but "to all whom these presents may come."

The letter to the British Managers, dictated November 10, was a third thing, and was quite different from the letter of appointment and the credentials; and was undoubtedly meant in good faith. So far there is substantial agreement between Bro.

Rutherford’s view and mine, as to the understanding of my powers November 3. The following are the credentials, which as before said, were dictated November 10: "Brooklyn, N. Y., U. S. A.

"To All to Whom These Presents May Come-Greetings! "This is to certify that Prof. Paul S. L. Johnson of New York City has been appointed by this Society-The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, an American corporation, as its special representative [I] with full power and authority to do and perform whatsoever things may be necessary in connection with the work and business of this corporation in any country to which he may be sent; [II] to have power and authority to examine the property and stock of the various branches of this corporation outside of the United States; [III] and to call for and receive financial reports and other reports as to the general condition of the work of this Society from the person or persons in charge of the office or headquarters of any branch of this Society.

[IV] He is also the fully accredited representative of the Society to lecture on and teach the Bible and to preach the Gospel in any country of the world.

"In witness whereof we have caused the corporate name of the Society to be signed to this instrument by its Vice-President, and to be duly attested by the signature of its Secretary and the seal of the corporation this 10th day of November A. D. 1916.

"Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.

"Per A. I. Ritchie, Vice-President.

"Attest: "W. E. Van Amburgh, Secretary."

It will be noticed that the credentials state four things as my powers. Bro. Rutherford alone dictated these unassisted by me, except that, he having difficulty in stating tersely my duties as a pilgrim, I suggested the following clause, which he accepted: "to lecture on and teach the Bible and to preach the Gospel." Between November 8 and 10, and not before, whatever their thoughts might previously have been, at various times all of the members of the Executive Committee-Bros. Ritchie, Van Amburgh and Rutherford-asked me to do things marked [II] and [III] in the credentials. For example, Bro. Van Amburgh remarked: "Bro. Johnson, keep your eyes and ears wide open and your mouth shut, and get for us information on every line that would help us better to understand the business and work of the Society wherever you go." It was during these days that the idea grew in the Executive Committee that I was to act as special representative of the Society. All three members of this committee agree that I was sent as a special representative, as well as a pilgrim. After the credentials were dictated on November 10, and after I noticed that of the four powers assigned me therein, the committee had asked me to exercise three, as well as spoke of me as the special representative of the Society, the title used of me in the authorization papers, and after I had connected some of Bro. Rutherford’s conversations with me the credentials, the question arose in my mind, "I wonder, if, after all, the Committee does not mean the letter of appointment and the credentials as genuine. I must find this out, so that I do not go beyond, nor fall short of, their desires in the matter." Accordingly, speaking of the letter of appointment and credentials, I asked them a question of the following import: Do these papers give a statement of the powers that you want me to exercise? Each member of the committee answered "Yes." After my return from England, Bro Ritchie was the only one of the three who remembered this question and answer.

Bro. Van Amburgh on my return told me that things were so hazy to his memory that he could not say whether this question was asked or not. A letter from Bro. Ritchie on this point Follows:."brooklyn, N. Y., Aug. 18, 1917.

"Dear Brother Johnson: "In reply to your inquiry, in the interests of justice I am pleased to say that I distinctly remember, and have always remembered, that before going to Great Britain last November you asked Bro. Rutherford, VanAmburgh and myself, if we wished you to exercise all the powers outlined in the letter and the credentials written for you by Bro. Rutherford and signed by Bro. VanAmburgh and myself; and that each of us answered ‘Yes.’ "From the time the first arrangements were made with you to go abroad, having in mind the disturbed condition of affairs in Europe, it was my desire that you not only preach and do regular pilgrim work; but that in a sense you also look into conditions there and advise us-and I understood this to be the thought of the other two members of the Executive Committee. I was surprised at the sweeping terms of the credentials, as drawn up by Bro. Rutherford; but thinking there might be some legal technicality requiring such phrasing, and thinking that you understood the credentials as we did I answered ‘Yes’ to your question.

"When, however, your letters showed that you considered that you had power to dismiss brethren from the office in London, I was very much surprised; and I must confess I had some misgivings. I did not, however, agree with Bro.

Rutherford’s handling the matter-considering that such an important affair should come before the Board of Directors. When I questioned him, he to my great surprise said it was something with which the Board had nothing whatever to do. It was then I began to see the trend of events here, "Your Brother in the interests of the Truth, [Signed] "A. I. Ritchie."

Brother Ritchie says that when he answered "Yes," he had in mind those things only of which the Committee expressly spoke, and all agree that no express mention was made of powers of attorney. As Brother Ritchie did not grasp the full import of my question, so the other two brothers might not; and therefore their "Yes" might not have meant to them what it did to me. However, I understood their "Yes" to answer the question that I asked. Deeply do I now regret that I did not discuss in detail the first power of which the credentials speak. However, I did not invent the thought that I had powers of attorney. I got this thought from the Committee’s answer to my question, which was plain and simple. If they misunderstood the import of my question, it was not my fault; they are responsible for giving me the thought; I did not invent it.

The following facts prove that from the beginning of my visit in England, I believed that my papers meant what they said, and on the basis of such belief acted as I did.

1. As soon as possible after my arrival, I called the three managers together, telling them that I had come, not simply as a pilgrim, but also as a special representative, whose powers were described in my letter of appointment and my credentials, which were then read.

Then the Executive Committee’s letter to the British managers was read. Notice, please, that in this letter paragraph 11 shows that I was to exercise the third power mentioned in the credentials, while paragraph 12 shows that I was charged especially to visit the headquarters of the society in the various countries, which was to perform, at least, the duties outlined in [II] and [III] in the credentials.

This letter, which Brother Rutherford dictated, stated in paragraph 5 that the Society is controlled by its Board of Directors, a thing which he has many times since strenuously denied. Parts from a carbon copy of this letter follow: "Brooklyn, N. Y., November 10, 1916.

"Messrs. Hemery, Shearn & Crawford, "Managers, Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, "London, England.

"Dear Brethren in Christ: -Our dear Brother Paul S. L. Johnson, will bear this message to you. He comes to render such assistance as is possible to the Church in Great Britain, and we are sure that each of you will be glad to cooperate with him. ...[ Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, which to save space will be omitted, treat of Bro. Russell’s last days, death, funeral and will.] [Para. 5.] "The affairs of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, and the other religious corporations organized in conjunction with it, will be managed exactly as they were in the life time of our dear Pastor. Being.3b a corporation, it is, of course, controlled by its Board of Directors . Brother A. N. Pierson was elected on the Board immediately after Brother Russell’s death, and the Board of Directors now is composed of the following seven persons, to wit: "Brother A. I. Ritchie, Brother A. N. Pierson, Brother J. D. Wright, Brother W. E. Van Amburgh, Brother H. C.

Rockwell, Brother I. F. Hoskins, Brother J. F. Rutherford."

[Paragraph 6 treats of the appointment of the Executive Committee; 7 of the coming election of the Society’s officers; 8 treats of the effects and lessons of Bro. Russell’s death; 9, 10 of British preparations for Brother Johnson’s pilgrim tour. To save space these will be omitted.] [Para 11.] "We would be pleased to have you submit to Bro. Johnson a report of the condition of the Society’s affairs in Great Britain, and of the work generally. It is not our thought that he should examine the books himself [The committee, fearing it would offend the managers, made an exception to the British books], but that you give to him such detailed information as may show the general condition of the Society’s work there.

[Para. 12.] "It is our hope that Brother Johnson may be able to visit the Branches of our Society on the Continent.

Please kindly tender him such aid as is possible in this behalf. Assuring you of our love and best wishes, we remain, "Your brethren and fellow-servants in Christ, "Executive Committee."

Thus it will be seen that at the first opportunity after my arrival in Britain, I showed the three Managers that I had full power and authority to act in the work and business of the Society. From that time on I acted from that standpoint. In my first batch of letters to Brooklyn, I reported the fact that I had shown the Managers my authorization letters as an evidence of my powers. No objection came from the Committee for this act in their letter of acknowledgment . Then and there they should have objected, if they thought that I was using the papers fraudulently.

2. Dec. 5 I sent the Executive Committee my first batch of letters. In one of these, among other things, I stated that I had temporarily put the Pastoral Work in charge of Bro. Hemery; had appointed the three Managers as a committee to examine the V. D. M. questions for the use of the churches at the coming annual elections; and, unlike the American procedure, was continuing Bro. Russell’s sermons in the papers. To these executive acts they made no remonstrance in their letter of acknowledgment.

3. I undertook to settle the Tabernacle difficulty, the difficulties between the Managers, and the revision of the convention program as soon as they brought these to my attention, all of which were done before Dec. 1, and I reported these things to the Executive Committee in my first letters. The Committee made no remonstrance in their letter of acknowledgment.

4. I asked, Dec. 5, the Executive Committee to send me a copy of every letter that they sent to the London Managers, that we might not "cross" one another in our dealings with them. From that time on not only copies of the Executive Committee’s, but later also of President Rutherford’s letters were sent to me. As pilgrim and investigator I did not need them, but I did as special representative with powers of attorney.

5. On Dec. 28 or 29 I wrote a letter to the Executive Committee, in which I asked them, as I was special representative , to deal with the managers through me alone, as long as I was in Britain. If I did not believe that I had full power and authority in the Society’s affairs, how could I have asked such a thing? No remonstrance was made to this request in the letter of acknowledgment. It was not answered.

This request should have been answered, and I should have been told that I misunderstood my official powers, if they thought I did.

6. Despite the fact that I so wrote, acted and reported these acts, which were based on the ground that I had full powers, I was never once told that I was going beyond my powers, until the "absolutely without authority cable" reached me Feb. 27, nearly four weeks after I had dismissed Bros. Shearn and Crawford, which occurred Feb. 3. In a cablegram that reached me Feb. 19, Bro. Rutherford showed that he was not pleased with the dismissal of these brothers, and asked for their reinstalment. I was recalled in a cablegram sent by him Feb. 26, and that reached me Feb. 28. Though performing and reporting executive acts, I was not during those three months even once told that my duties were only those of an investigator and pilgrim. i. e., the things covered by points [II], [III] and [IV] in the credentials, as should have been done, had they considered me going beyond my duties and powers. Not only did the Committee, Nov. 10, give me the thought, by their affirmative answer to my question, but by their not remonstrating against any of my executive acts, they continued me in the thought that I had powers of attorney. They, not I, are responsible for my having that thought.

The following quotation from a letter that I wrote Bro. Rutherford, Jan. 27, shows that I had from the outstart reported to the Society at Brooklyn that I was performing executive acts in Britain, which were, of course, based on the thought that I had powers of attorney.

"Just yesterday through The Labor Tribune did I find out that you were elected President of the W. T. B. & T. S. I rejoice with you in this privilege of service with which the Lord has honored you. You were my choice, and for that reason I requested Bro. Spill to cast my 416 voting shares in your favor. ... It [my support] will be given to you without stint, as you follow the Lord’s and our beloved Pastor Russell’s teachings and policies, as I am sure you will.

... Never did I learn to sympathize with our beloved Bro. Russell as I have learned to do since coming to England, and having administrative problems here, such as he had, to solve. ... Through other communications-to the Executive Committee-you will have found out something of what I have been having to unwrap. I know, my beloved brother, that you will have many, many problems of this kind to meet."

7. My authorization papers were by my co-operation publicly and privately read to and by many as genuine.

Bro. Rutherford knows all these facts and my understanding of the genuineness of my credentials. Why does he not mention them in his "Harvest Siftings"? Would their statement not have totally changed the impression that his "Harvest Siftings" gives?

TROUBLE WITH TWO MANAGERS

Before I sailed I was so filled with apprehensions respecting the European Truth situation, and so weighed down by a sense of responsibility, because of the duties given me by the credentials that, when I was called on at my last meal at Bethel to give the friends some farewell remarks, I could not make a connected speech. Only at long intervals was I able to utter a sentence. The reason was this: judging from what Brothers Russell, Pierson, Driscoll and the Executive Committee and others told me, as well as from certain Scriptures, I feared a sifting in every European country. Repeatedly I told this to the Committee, especially to Brother Rutherford.

Brother Russell, Oct. 21, at Dallas, remarked to me that there were conditions in England of which he would speak to me at Brooklyn before I sailed, and that his arrangements were being changed by responsible persons in England, who did not want to carry out his ideas, but were setting them aside for their own. At the time I did not understand his meaning, and he died before we were to talk things over at Brooklyn. After my arrival in England, and the Tabernacle trouble was laid before me, I understood. Brother Hemery, on Sept.

17, had written Brother Russell describing the "disloyalty" (Brother Hemery’s expression) of Brothers Crawford and Shearn in originating and engineering a movement to set aside Brother Russell’s controllership and arrangements in Tabernacle affairs, and lodge the controllership, not in the congregation, but in the Church Board. Brother Russell had received this letter, before he spoke to me of responsible brethren setting aside his arrangements.

While Brother Rutherford should have said that there was good and sufficient reason for my opposition to the dismissed managers, and while I believe the British churches ought to know of their offenses, to curb their present sifting activity, and although Brother Crawford’s misrepresentations, some of which are expressly endorsed in "Harvest Siftings," would justify me in self-defense in narrating the whole matter-I will, nevertheless, in charity refrain from exposing them to the whole church. I made most loving efforts, especially with Brother Shearn, to rescue them from their wrong course, and apart from mentioning for advice some of these matters to some of my counsellors, who were unanimously recommended to me as such by all three managers. I informed no one of their offenses, until they sought publicity to justify them. Then I spoke, not desiring the church to be deceived. They offended on twenty-five counts in matters pertaining to the London Tabernacle; on twenty-two counts in matters pertaining to their office in the London Bethel and on ten counts in matters pertaining to me in my official relation to them. Brother Rutherford knows of these offenses. At the voted request of the London Tabernacle congregation I appeared twice, i. e., Jan. 28 and Feb. 18, against them before the Church on Tabernacle matters only.

The first time I spoke against them some, a small minority, thought I treated them more severely than the facts warranted. This was because they knew hardly any of the facts of the case, which I misunderstandingly thought had been presented to them the previous Sunday. On this point Brother Hemery, in a letter to me, dated Feb. 5, tells of a conversation that he had with a deacon of the church, respecting my action before the church Jan. 28, and of his own view of it in the following quotation: "I told him the serious view that you took of this act of disloyalty to the Society’s interests on the part of those who ought to have served the interests; but I can see that there is something of the feeling that too heavy blows were struck, more than the occasion called for. I am not of that opinion; and though I share with you the feeling that a heavy hand was laid on these brethren, I do not believe that it was more than their misdoing called for.".4b Throughout the London Tabernacle and Bethel difficulty Brother Hemery worked in thorough accord with me against Brothers Shearn and Crawford, until Feb. 26, when the "absolutely without authority" cable from Brother Rutherford arrived, when Brother Hemery from a most ardent helper turned immediately into an opponent, who claimed not to be a partaker of the dispute, as his cable of Feb. 26 to Brother Rutherford shows: "Johnson claims full control everything; I resist as your representative. Dispute with co-managers, his not mine. Los Angeles cable (the "absolutely without authority" one, which reached London that morning) has attention. What are Johnson’s powers?" Brother Hemery gave me more evidence on their misdeeds than all others combined, and publicly and privately commended my course until Feb. 26. I took him as my confidential adviser, and did nothing of any importance without his advice and co-operation. I loved him most ardently, trusted him most fully, and treated him most kindly; but his conduct toward me after Feb. 26 is one of the greatest disappointments of my life. The whole London Tabernacle congregation and the Bethel family know that the dispute with Brothers Shearn and Crawford was his as well as mine; and that he supported me in everything before my recall. As for the other involved elders, I treated them leniently; and after their apology recommended them favorably to the church, though I later decided to recommend their dismissal. Brother Hemery misrepresented me when he told the congregation that I intended to dismiss their elected elders, and force my way into the pulpit.

After hearing me Feb. 18, the congregation unanimously voted me confidence, thanks and appreciation for what I had done in their defense against Brothers Shearn and Crawford . Every point that I brought forth on that day was proven by many witnesses in the congregation as I made it. It might be said that even after they had made their final answer, March 4, without reply from me, and Brothers Hemery and Rutherford had represented me as a fraud and a rebel, and the latter had put the influence of his presidential powers back of the two brothers, whitewashing them to the extent of placing them again into office as Managers; and had through Brother Hemery on April 1 assured the congregation of his disapproval of my speaking against them before the congregation (it was done both times at the voted request of the church); the congregation voted them down almost unanimously and would not even have them as deacons, much less as elders ! The facts that the congregation refused almost unanimously to elect them, unanimously voted me confidence, thanks and appreciation, and the reasons for my activity against them in the Tabernacle matter, Brother Rutherford well knows. Why did he not in his "Harvest Siftings" mention these things, which put a wholly different light on the matter?

For their offenses I concluded that the situation was unworkable and intolerable: and having in mind that Bro. Shearn had, Jan. 11, written me that he would on the following Monday forward his "formal resignation" to Brooklyn; that I had already, Jan. 21, informed the Executive Committee that their dismissal was in my judgment the sole solution of the situation, feeling sure it would be satisfactory to the Society, after advising over the matter with Bro. Hemery, and finding our minds one on the subject, I decided, Feb. 3, to dismiss them, dictating the letter of dismissal in his presence. After I had finished, I asked him what he thought of it; and after approval he suggested adding the following sentence which I accepted: "I desire that you leave the office at once, and the Bethel premises as soon as possible, turning over to me all the Society’s and Association’s monies, documents, papers." Bro. Crawford left Feb. 13, and Bro. Shearn not before Feb. 23. I immediately cabled the Society at Brooklyn my act, fully convinced not only that I had the power to dismiss them; but also that, on account of my detailed descriptions of their wrong-doings, my action would have the unqualified support of the Society.

Indeed, about Jan. 1, fearing that the Society would prematurely order their dismissal, I advised the Committee to wait awhile, until I could prepare the friends for such action. Imagine my astonishment at the "absolutely without authority" cablegram.

SUPPORT OF THE BRITISH BRETHREN

Apart from speaking of these troubles to some of my counsellors I did not mention them to anybody, until Bros. Shearn and Crawford began to agitate the subject among the British friends, and then apart from announcing the dismissals at Edinburgh, mentioned their activities to but four congregations. In my activity against them Bro. McCloy assured me that I had the solid support of nine of every ten of the British brethren. I was the recipient of many letters from all parts of the country, in some cases signed by many persons, assuring me of sympathy, support and co-operation. The work that I did was frequently referred to as a cleansing of the Lord’s house. Especially did Bro. Hemery express his unbounded approval of what I did, until his sudden change on Feb. 26. He and many others said that I was sent in answer to prayer to comfort and deliver the brethren, and that the Lord blessed my efforts with success. A few quotations from letters from various ones follow; first some from Bro. Hemery. Feb. 5, 1917, two days after the dismissal, in a letter reporting conditions to Bro. Rutherford, a carbon copy of which he furnished me, he said in part as follows: "It is a matter of deep regret to me that the conditions here have been such that Bro. Johnson has felt compelled to take the drastic steps, of which you have been advised by cable. To me, all this is an answer to prayer .... I can truly say that in this crisis which is now upon us, that I have neither precipitated it in any way, either in the cause or in the crisis itself, nor has Bro. Johnson. He came quite evidently wishing to help us all. My colleagues began to pour their wishes into his ears. He made some investigation; he saw for himself that which had been hidden within my mind. He spoke, then acted, and point by point has driven him to take these extreme measures, because they set themselves in opposition to him, instead of co-operating with him . I feel sure, dear Brother Rutherford, that the Lord will very soon indicate His way and that you will, while having some pain because of this matter, nevertheless soon get the assurance of heart that all is going well with the work in Britain. I believe that we shall enter upon a better work with a closer union with Headquarters, which will still more praise the Lord. ... The events of the Tabernacle are rather unusual just now. Through the introduction of this matter to Bro. Johnson he found it necessary to speak plainly to my Colleagues, Bro. Johnson made some inquiries as to how the recent letter, which was in the form of a petition to Bro. Russell, originated. He discovered for himself that it was originated in the office here. Bro. Johnson found it necessary to speak plainly to my Colleagues over this matter, and to ask them to take a certain course. They refused, practically flouting him and his authority. He gave them clear warning what he must do, but they persisted, and he found it necessary to speak very plainly to the Congregation of the action of these two Brothers, who, while professing allegiance to Bro. Russell, had nevertheless done something which was cutting at the very heart of the Church’s allegiance. There was an attempt to deceive the Elders by making them believe it was Bro. Russell’s wish to have a change in the Tabernacle arrangements, because he had asked them to take a share with me in the preaching services.

And there was an attempt to deceive Bro. Russell by putting before him such representation ag 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..5b 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 re the church] which you will surely have read, he began to make his own inquiry [after Bros. Crawford and Shearn 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 earestly 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 reinstalment 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 Managers] be appointed [with Bro. Hemery as the Society’s representatives on the Church Executive Committee] and their election [as elders instead of Brothers Shearn and Crawford] had been concluded. I do not for a moment think that such a thing [the recommendation of reinstalment] 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 Bro. Shearn.

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 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 Bro. 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 soberminded British brethren, whom- recommended to me as such unanimously by the three London Managers-I selected as my advisers re 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 quoted in "Harvest Siftings."

THE CHANGE OF SENTIMENT IN BRITAIN

The general opinion in Britain, until it became known that Bros. Rutherford and Hemery 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 Bro. Rutherford’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 Bro. Hemery 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 a larger hall, 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 Bro. Hemery, 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 Bro. Hemery’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: Bros.

Rutherford’s and Hemery’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 Bros. Shearn and Crawford, a very small minority of the British brethren, of course, were opposed to me before. Some of these are largely responsible for Bro. Rutherford’s first opposition to me.

THE INSANITY CHARGE

This thought did not originate in Britain. The first one to think this of me was Bro. Rutherford 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, Bro. Rutherford 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 Bro. McMillan’s absence at Watertown, N. Y., occasioned the delay in Bro. Rutherford’s learning of the contents of the Feb. 24 cable. Bro. Rutherford 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 Bro..6b Rutherford’s letter of Feb. 24, which reached me Mar. 26 or 27. A little later the same day I found that cables from Bro. Rutherford 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.

(Signed) Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.

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.

(Signed) Rutherford.

Bro. Rutherford omits italicized parts of this cable 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.

Bro. Hemery 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 Bro.

Rutherford 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 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. Bro. Rutherford, 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 Bro. Rutherford’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 Bro. Hemery, 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 Bro. Rutherford, with whom I was on most confidential terms of brotherly friendship, of hidden types and prophecies in the Scriptures, I thought he would not think these typical allusions, made in confidence, unusual for me to make to him . To others, unaccustomed to such allusions from me, they of course seemed strange. Bro.

Rutherford now acknowledges that he was mistaken on the insanity charge. However, he has greatly injured me thereby, especially in not plainly correcting his mistake in his "Harvest Siftings," though admitting it before writing that paper.

TWO INVESTIGATION COMMISSIONS REPORTED IN MY FAVOR

Bro. Rutherford selected five able and soberminded 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 .

Bro. and Sr. Hemery, 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; Bros. Rutherford and VanAmburgh 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 Bethet 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. Bro. Rutherford states on the testimony of two letters (which contain 14 misrepresentations) from Bro. Crawford 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. Bro. Rutherford’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 Bro. Hemery to write to Bro. Russell of the "disloyalty" of Bros. Shearn and Crawford, re the Tabernacle situation; and at his advice, and in his home, Bro. Hemery, Sept. 17, wrote Bro. Russell.

Bro. McCloy and I had advised together in Jan. over the situation. Having known for a tong 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 Bro. Rutherford’s recalling me, who was sent by the Board, without consulting the Board (which action in Bro. Rutherford’s view made him an accomplice of mine) be construed against the Commission finding in my favor. Before the Commission met, Bro. McKenzie, one of the Commissioners, opposed the dismissals, especially that of Bro. Shearn. The evidence 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 Bro. Rutherford appointed a Committee to investigate them.7b 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. Bro. Rutherford’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 Bro. Hemery’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, Bro. Rutherford’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 wrong-doing held the Commission to a just report. Bro. Rutherford does not mention in his "Harvest Siftings" that his Commission found in my favor, despite his opposition to me. Why not? Bro. Rutherford overruled the Commission’s findings, reinstating the two Brothers, under Bro. Hemery’s priority. And what is the result? They would not work as Managers under Bro. Hemery, but are dividing the British Church . They have left Bethel as members of the staff, coming there occasionally as Secretary and Treasurer of the I. B. S. A.

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 Bro. Rutherford. I warned Bro. Rutherford that they would sift the British Church, and they are now doing it, according to the testimony of reliable brethren. Bro. Rutherford 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. Bro. Rutherford then interfered, overturning everything, and produced the great confusion in the British Church. Had Bro. Rutherford 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 Photodrama 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, Brother Rutherford 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.

THE STEWARD

When I left for Britain, it was the opinion of the responsible brethren at Brooklyn that Brother 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," for which he was arranging. Accordingly, while we believed that he was "that Servant" (when in a 1909 "Tower," Brother 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 Brother 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 . Brother 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. (Brother Hemery 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 Es 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:Brother Shearn 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. Brother Rutherford 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 Brother Rutherford 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 Brother Rutherford 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 many misrepresentations in "Harvest Siftings." Brother Rutherford seems deliberately to have chosen the policy of disparaging me before others. Several days after this episode, Brother Sturgeon convinced me that Brother Russell gave the penny by arranging for the Smiting of the Jordan, the Pastoral Work, the V. D. M. questions and the Angelophone, bv 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 Brother 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. 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. Brother Rutherford literally.8b 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 the Vol. 7 as the penny. While the truth in Vol. 7 will be especially used in binding the "kings" and "nobles," 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. Brother Russell’s interpretation is better. He was the Steward. God bless his memory! I never claimed nor expected to have all the power of Brother 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 Brother Russell’s successor, and want the Brethren to know this.

HUMILIATIONS

When I read Brother Hemery’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 Brother Rutherford had the right to recall me. Therefore I gave up all official activities. When Brother Hemery asked me to take the head of the table, March 1, on my return to Bethel, I declined, saying I was no longer special representative. I meekly took my humiliation. But, alas, Brother Hemery tried to make it worse. Without any necessity for it, he read the "absolutely without authority" cable to the family, before I returned, just as Brother Rutherford, before my return to Brooklyn, warned the family against me. 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.9a HARVEST SIFTINGS REVIEWED 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 Brother Hemery 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 Brother Rutherford wanted Brothers Shearn and Crawford restored, he repeatedly asked me, from March 5 to 7, while denying my powers, to send them away from the office. Later, on March 7, he advised Brother Shearn in the presence of Bros. Kirkwood, Housden and myself not to act as Manager, and to leave. It was not loyalty to Brother Rutherford that moved him to do this, nor to oppose me, when he felt sure that Brother Rutherford "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 discontenancing 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.

CABLES

Referring to my cable of Feb. 24, Brother Rutherford 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 March 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 March 6 frequently, because I received no replies and needed information. Brother Rutherford’s statement on the cost of my cables is another of the many misrepresentations with which his own "Harvest Siftings" abound. Why did he not first investigate this item before making his statement on the cost of my cables?

RESISTING USURPATION

Some of the grossest misrepresentations of "Harvest Siftings" are found in Brother Hemery’s description of what he is pleased to call "rebellion." Surely he should offer the prayer of forgiveness for sins of omission and commission in his presentation of my acts from March 7 to 31. The facts of the situation are these: On the same day, Feb. 3, of the dismissal of Brothers Shearn and Crawford, I appointed with Brother Hemery’s hearty advice, Brother E. Housden, Assistant Manager (whom three weeks later Brother Rutherford appointed as one of the Investigation Commission) to do Brother Crawford’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 Brother Hemery’s hearty advice, Brother A. Kirkwood assistant manager to do Brother Shearn’s work, except that of Secretary of the I. B. S. A. Brother Hemery had for over a month, i. e., until his suspension, March 12, been acting in full co-operation 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 March 6 I came to the conclusion that since I was sent by the Society, acting through its Board (according to Brother Rutherford’s letter of Nov. 10 to the English Managers, Para. 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, attempted to do, without the authorization of the Board . Therefore, I denied that he had the right to rescind my acts, cancel my credentials and recall me. That same evening I discussed this matter with Brother Hemery, 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 Brother Rutherford’s recall, while believing he had the right to recall me. The Board knew nothing of the situation, until March 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 Brother Rutherford’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. March 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 Brother Rutherford sought to cancel them. March 7, I dictated a protest to the Board, embodying my view of these matters.

Brother Rutherford never allowed that protest to come before the Board, nor the two petitions that I sent with the protest, asking the Board, first, to require that in "Towers" for the British friends, he recall repudiating my acts; and, second, to take exclusive executive and managerial power from him, and.9b to vest it in an Executive Committee, of which I named Brother Rutherford a member. When I found out, after my return, that this protest and these petitions, sent to Brothers Ritchie, VanAmburgh 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 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.