Further comments from Rud Persson:
"Old
Goat stated: "Rutherford did indeed express reservations about
the Society´s management, expressing
them to Russell. This is in the
original documentation."
My response was to Chryssides´s claim
that Rutherford was concerned
about elections "for life" and
that he felt that the charter contained
illegal portions. Rutherford did not
voice any concern regarding this
until his position was challenged at
least four months after his
election. Nor does early documentation say that he expressed
his
later claim in this respect to Russell.
What Rutherford did claim in
Harvest Siftings, dated August 1, 1917,
was that he had told Russell
when the work was moved to New York that
board members and officers
had to be "chosen in the State of
Pennsylvania, and nowhere else."
(p. 15) But that was not the point
Chryssides was making and to which
I responded.
It
seems that Rutherford did not convince Russell about
the need for choosing directors in
Pennsylvania, for he
admitted that "the Society would be
maintained with all its original
powers provided the annual elections are
held in Pittsburgh." (p. 16)
His bringing up in 1917 his earlier
discussion with Russell was to
lend support to his replacing Robert
Hirsh, who was elected to the
board and by the board in New York, at
Rutherford´s own instigation on
March 29, 1917! He could have had Hirsh,
then a strong supporter of
his, elected in Pennsylvania if he had
felt this was the correct way
and if he had so insisted, but clearly he saw no need to do so. All
elections to and by the board after the
move to New York were taking
place in New York, and Russell was
convinced, and rightly so, that
such elections were legal and proper.
Even Rutherford was elected in
this way in 1910. If that had been an
illegal election, Rutherford
would not have been a legal director in
January 1917 and since the
charter clearly ruled that only
directors could be elected president,
vice president and secretary-treasurer,
his election to president in
1917 would then have been illegal even
though it took place in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. This was
pointed out by competent lawyers
during the conflict. J.D. Wright and
I.F. Hoskins had been elected to
the Board in Pennsylvania before the
removal to New York. Rutherford
would have to come up with something
else to get rid of them. It is
here his attack on the charter
regulation about election "for life"
became useful.
He claimed in the summer of 1917 that
this clause in the charter was
illegal and to no effect, holding that
directors had to be elected
annually according to law. This was
necessary in order to get rid of
three of his opponents on the board.
However, it is clear that Russell
wanted the Society put on a really legal
footing when he drew up the
charter in 1884. Consequently he had it
examined by competent legal
counsel and had it approved by the
authorities. It is not surprising,
therefore, that Rutherford never even
attempted to explain how such a
carefully established charter could
contain an illegal clause. The
Judge did not care much about the law
anyway. In 1917 he claimed that
directors had to be elected annually
according to the law. But just a
few years afterwards he felt that such
restraint was troublesome and
wanted longer terms. And hey presto! it
then became possible to
disregard the rule about annual
elections! So much for his concern.
The books by Schulz and de Vienne have
been mentioned here and I take
the opportunity to express my admiration
for their excellent works.
I also find the material being presented
at the site Watch Tower History
first rate. In the sketches I am
preparing on people involved in the
1917-1918 conflict, I have accepted and
used some of the research
presented at their website, so far on
Gertrude W. Seibert and William
F. Hudgings, giving full credit. "
Rud
