Golden Age, July 19, 1933
Download: PDF — Golden Age, July 19, 1933
££6I ‘61 AInf
I9£’°N'AIX *I°A
Sei uSwjlo^ $ vpvwrj V JD^Op 3U0 dcfoo r> W saif
AVQ S3XQ 3M
JSipo Al9A9
iiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiini
JLddAHSOOd SHSS319 3dOd
SSSdd GNV HDIlOd ‘AOHSdD (J3A03 ipcq pus 099 a3«d aag) sidv adoddanira aoaaf
NI91H IV • aiSHNIVld IV HVAOHHf DNLLIBSNI anssi sim ui
ii:iiiiiiiiii:iiiii!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiini
HOVHHCO GNV HdOH IDVd dO IVNHHOf V
0$V uop[c>9
CONTENTS
• • O-<G)• " . , ,,, .(D>O• •
Insulting Jehovah God
at Plainfield, N. J.....613
Evidence of Conspiracy ... . 3 ?! Elementary Principles
of Government......641
Even a Child Should Know . . 6-11-Fljnn Establishes Inquisition . 6'3 Judge De Meza’s Responsibility . 611 Sneering at Jehovah God . . . 64-6
Permit from Jehovah God . ,
De Meza as Prosecutor . . . .
Inquisitor in a Frenzy . . . ,
Is Perjury O.K. in Plainfield? . 6?' ’’'Forget All About Jehovah’’ . 648 De Meza Sentences a Witness . 649 Witnesses Not Present .... 650 Cruelty to the Deaf.....6.79
“Justice” by Telephone . . . 651 Judge or Prosecutor, Which? . 652 Condoning Perjury.....652
Bible Messages a Cent Each . . G.">3 Illegal (?) to Cross-Question . 641 Kindness to Polish-Americans . 655 The Inquisition (Picture) . 656, 657 Looking into De Meza’s Mind . 658 Unnamed, Absent
“Church” Accusers .... 658 Peioceution Spreads the Truth . 659
Judge Rutherford to Take a Hand 660
Insulting Jehovah God in Elgin, III.......661
Rights Will Be Insisted On . . 631
Brief of Difficulties at Elgin . . 632
Ordering Americans Out . . . C02
Press Is on Trial......652
(Elgin Courier-News “R'port")
Mayor of Elgin Tells How
Only He Will Permit Jehovah
to Be Worshiped .... 664
Mayor Should Take Something . 031
An Honest Officer......665
“It Is the Preachers” .... 656 Instructions Come from Clergy . 666
Quite Unnecessary Discourtesy . 666
Elgin Gets Another Opportunity 666
Roosevelt Gets Pope’s Blessing . 667 The Clergy, the Strong-Arm
Squad, and the Press . . . 669
Press Supports Infamies . . . 669 Efforts to Inflame People ... 6 ’9 Attempts to Cover Up Truth . 670 Same Principles at Elgin . . . G’.O
Badly Tangled on Who Is God . . 637 Why Grieve Because Italian
Popes Were Nicknamed? . . CCS Keeping Up with the Joneses . . 670
Published exery other Wednesday by GOLDEN AGE PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC. 117 Adams Street, Drookljn, N. ¥., I . S. A. Clayton J. Woodworth President Nathan II. Knorr Vice President Robert S. Emciy Secretary and Treasiuer
FIVE CENTS A COPY
$1 a year, United States; ^1.23 to Canada and all other countries.
Noiice to Subscribers
remittances : For your own safety, remit by postal or express money order. When coin or currency is lost in the ordinary mails, there is no redress. Remittances from countries other than those named below may be made to the Brooklyn office, but only by international postal money order.
receipt of a new or renewal subscription will be acknowledged only xxhen requested. notice or expiration is sent with the journal one month before subscription expires, please renew promptly to avoid loss of copies.
change of address: Subscribers will please notify this office of change of address at least two weeks in advance.
riBLisiiED also in Danish, Esperanto, Finnish, French, German, Japanese, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese. Slovak, Spanish, Swedish.
Offices for Other Countries
British...............34 Craven Terrace, London, W. 2, England
Canadian............40 Irwin Avenue. Toronto 5, Ontario, Canada
Australasian.......7 Beiesford Road, Strathfield, N. S. W., Australia
South African............Boston House, Cape Town, South Africa
Ent died as second-class matter at Brooklyn, N. Y., under the Act of March 3, 1S79.
■ —. - - — — - •
ake Golden Age
Volume XIV
Brooklyn, N. Y., Wednesday, July 19, 1933
Number 361
Insulting Jehovah God at Plainfield, New Jersey
THE urgent attention of the governor and attorney general of the State of New Jersey, and also of the taxpayers of the city of Plainfield, is invited to the extraordinary conduct of Judge William G. De Meza and of his accomplices, in Summit and Plainfield, as set forth herein.
In a previous issue, now out of print, we gave our readers full details of a remarkable conspiracy hatched and carried out at Summit, New Jersey. Observe that Plainfield, with C. A. Flynn chief of police, borders Summit, with J. P. Murphy, chief of police, on its northern boundary. Flynn and Murphy work together. Is it because they belong to the same church system'?
At the Summit outrage the magistrate Judge Williams gave nine men sentences of thirty days each for being witnesses of Jehovah God, but he withheld his hand when it came to locking up a tenth worker, the mother of three small children. No such mercy attended the rulings of Judge William G. De Meza at Plainfield.
INSULTING JEHOVAH GOD AT ELGIN, ILL.
The article which begins on page 6G1 is as important as this one. The same principles are involved: (a) These witnesses were exercising their God-given right to preach the gospel; (b) the town and city, state and nation are precluded from interfering by reason of the provisions of the constitution, (c) Every man may worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, (d) To ask permission to preach the gospel which Jehovah God has commanded shall be preached would be an insult to Jehovah God and contrary to the fundamental late of the land, (e) The people of Plainfield and Elgin should inform themselves as to whether the clergymen who are persecuting Jehovah’s witnesses and using the strong-arm squads and the magistrates to throttle religious liberty in America represent the Devil, as we are prepared to prove that they do, or represent Jehovah God. In any event, when the people have informed themselves, they must take their stand on one side or the other. Jesus was persecuted by the clergy in His day, and stated that His true followers would be persecuted in the same manner. Herein is one of many fulfilments of the prophecies which show that we arc living in the last days. Awake, all sleeping ones! Decide! Decide!
Men and women, indiscriminately, were deprived of their liberty without due process of law, were arrested without warrants and without cause, were compelled to bear witness against themselves, were convicted on the hear-sav testimony of witnesses who did not appear in court, and in some instances were denied the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against them.
' 643
They were given ten days in jail for walking on the street, or for sitting in an automobile, or for mending an automobile tire, when not a shred of evidence of
any kind was laid against them. What kind of judge is this? He is not fit to sit on a park bench, 1 e t alone the judicial bench.
S o certain was Chief Flynn that Judge De Meza would do his bidding even better than Judge Williams had done it for his friend and comrade J. P. Murphy, chief of the Summit police force, Patrick J. Kelly, clerk of the court, and others of the strongarm squad involved, that before any of the sixty-one persecuted ones at Plainfield had been tried, it had all been fixed up with the warden of the prison at Elizabeth to let out the witnesses of Jehovah that had then been twenty-four days in prison, to make room for those they intended to railroad into the place.
Prima Facie Evidence of Conspiracy
Here is clear evidence of a conspiracy. The rulers of Plainfield stand convicted of deliberately preparing in advance to imprison dozens of men and women before they had even appeared in court. They must have known in advance what kind of court they were coining into.
The fact is that other prisoners also were turned out of the county prison before their terms had expired, and for the same; reason. The warden can verify this, but even if he denied it, it is in the record of the prison and in the daily newspapers of the date when the release took place.
In the case of the Summit outrage, mentioned on page G43, the priest that instigated it clearly disclosed himself. The work of concealment was more cleverly done at Plainfield, but was still insufficient to accomplish its ends. For a full statement of the responsibilities of the clergy and the press, see the concluding article of this issue.
For their own safety in Armageddon, which lies just ahead, the people should inform themselves as to whether the clergymen who everywhere persecute Jehovah's witnesses represent the Devil, as Judge Rutherford insists that they do, or whether they represent Jehovah God, which as their fruits show could not be the case. In any event, the people must take their stand on the one side or the other.
Is it not a strange thing, by the way, that Judge Rutherford can plead for years with the religionists to appoint their best man, to discuss with him over the radio the question as to whether they represent the Devil or represent Jehovah God, and the only response he can get is from men like Kelly or Murphy or Flynn, who vent their spleen on his fellow witnesses of Jehovah God, the humble men and women who are convinced that it is he, and not the clergy, that has the straight of it ?
Elementary Principles of Government
The elementary principles of government are that the divine law comes first. Next (in America) comes the United States Constitution, no provision in which would be legal or binding if out of harmony with the expressed will of God. To hold otherwise would be a monstrous indignity to the One in whose hand is the breath of every creature.
Few people understand the purpose of the constitution. It is not a declaration of the rights of the people. Their rights come from Jehovah God, and from none other.
The purpose of the constitution is to state the limitation of their rights, to which the people have agreed through their representatives.
Article IX of the constitution of the United States makes this perfectly clear, when it says, ‘‘The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Those ‘’others retained by the people” are rights received from Jehovah God and have particularly to do with the relations of the people to Him.
It would be entirely illegal for any American state constitution to contain clauses antagonistic to the law of God or to the United States Const it at ion. This principle is established in Article X of the constitution, which states that ‘’the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”.
It would not have been necessary for the State of New Jersey to include any statement in its constitution that it is in harmony with the law of God and in harmony with the United States Constitution, and not out of harmony with either of them, and yet the founders of the state wore so jealous of their rights as worshipers of Jehovah God, and as citizens of the United States, that in their fundamental law they made the following unique provision:
No person shall be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshiping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; . . . nor shall any person be obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or other rates for . . . the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes to be right, or has deliberately and voluntarily engaged to perform.—Article I, Section 3.
Even a Child Should Know This
It goes without saying that when it comes to a municipal ordinance it must not, of course1, contain anything conflicting with either the divine law, the United States Constitution, or the constitution of the State of New Jersey.
Suppose, for instance, that in a mistaken idea of their duty the city fathers of Plainfield should pass an ordinance that all persons of other cities should keep out of Plainfield, on penalty of being shot. Such an ordinance would be void because it would be in violation of the divine law, “Thou shalt not kill,” “Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them,” and, at the very least, a thousand other statements of the divine law, every one of which appeals to the mind and heart of any person who has common sense.
But suppose that the city fathers went ahead and passed the ordinance anyway and attempted to enforce it, it would not be long before the city would be placed under martial law and its streets would be patrolled by the National Guard of the State of New Jersey, or, if necessary, by the federal troops of the United States Government. And what folly it would be for any magistrate to attempt to back up such an infamous ordinance I
That is exactly the situation which maintains in Plainfield today. The law of Jehovah God requires that the message of His kingdom as the only hope of the world must be proclaimed in Plainfield so that both the rulers and the ruled may know what to do in the great crisis which is upon them.
Recognizing that it must not interfere with the discharge of this duty, which means life or death to the persons upon whom the duty is laid as well as life or death to the rulers and the citizens of Plainfield, the United States Constitution has in its Article I (Original Amendments) not only provided that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, but in Article IN has expressly reserved such right to the people, and in Article X has prohibited the states from interfering in the exercise of those rights.
But even if the city fathers of Plainfield had intended that all persons of other cities must be arrested the moment they step foot in the city, and if we could assume that the strong-arm squad were so bigoted, so stupid and so steeped in crime that they would make the arrests without complaints, without warrants, without evidence, without witnesses and without reason, there would still be an opportunity, when the arrested persons came before the magistrate, foi' him to interpret the ordinance in harmony with the laws of God, the laws of the United States, the laws of the State of New Jersey and the laws of reason and common sense.
All of these laws were grossly violated by the magistrate, De Meza, at the trial of the 56 witnesses for truth and righteousness whose homes he broke up for ten days each in the infamous proceedings before his atrocious court.
Flynn Establishes the Inquisition—in America
On June 4, the day of the arrest of 31 men and 29 women, the men were herded in a runway adjoining three cells and were allowed access also to the dark and filthy basement of the city jail. The 29 women were crowded into three small cells, each of which contained one blanket. Twelve persons could sit on the beds on which these blankets were spread, but seventeen had to stand throughout the night, for there was no place for them to sit, much less to lie. The night was stifling hot. After compelling these women to stand all night, the next morning Flynn and his crowd had them all fingerprinted — rsr America.
The women whom Flynn compelled to stand all night could be plainly seen by all who passed on the public sidewalk, reminding one of the position of those confined in stocks during the Dark Ages. Many who passed by were heard to express indignation as they viewed their condition. So cruel and astounding was the treatment of these women by the police that townspeople and others waited outside the jail until two o’clock in the morning, momentarily expecting the release of the prisoners.
After midnight a business man, Charles R. Hessler, one of Jehovah’s witnesses, realizing that the inquisition had been reestablished in Plainfield, had a flashlight photograph taken of the outside of the prison, showing these women standing at the windows. We show this on pages 656-657. For taking this picture Hessler was given sixty days in jail. He was not allowed to say anything in his own defense, but after he was sentenced, and as he was being rushed out of the courtroom, he did say, loudly and emphatically, what will be very apparent to every person who shall read what follows, “This court has absolutely no regard for the rights of others, and a total disregard of the fundamental law of the state and the nation.”
Nothing could have been more contemptible than the stories of these outrages which appeared in the New York, Brooklyn and Plainfield papers. All of these papers carried prominent and extensive comment regarding the arrests, falsely describing the workers as peddlers and pamphleteers who failed and refused to take out licenses, and falsely stating that the police were “given much concern as to how to accommodate them in the limited quarters of the city jail”. No paper gave the slightest intimation of the actual condition of the prisoners, but the facts of this outrage have been broadcast all over New Jersey and large areas of adjacent states and will be broadcast all over the earth.
Judge De Meza's Responsibility
Judge De Meza knew that a list of the names and addresses of the 213 workers who preached the gospel in Plainfield on June 4 had been served upon the chief of police, and that this was done by them merely as an act of courtesy, not required by law. This was brought out in the trial of Minnie Barnikow, the first person whom he tried. Yet he studiously ignored this faci in the trial of every one of the 56 workers whom he sentenced to prison.
Judge De Meza, when installed in office, took a solemn oath that ‘'no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”. But in the case of Minnie Barnikow, although at the time she was arrested she was at a door where no one answered the hi ll, and the officer who arrested her did not see her hand out any printed matter, yet in the ab.--er.ee of any complaining witness he required her to testify against herself and sentenced her to ten days in prison, when as a lawyer he knew he had not the slightest right to do so.
Judge De Meza knows that Jehovah God has placed certain duties upon certain people, as was the case with the prophets and apostles and the Lord Jesus Christ, our Savior. As a professedly Christian magistrate, with the certain knowledge that Jehovah God would have at various times certain ones who would have a message from Him to the people, Judge De Meza knows full well why the rule was established that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.
By this first conviction there is good reason to fear that he cut himself off from the favor and mercy of Jehovah God and placed himself in line for the fate of those who commit the unpardonable sin: eternal destruction, or “the second death”.—Revelation 20:14,15; 21:8; Matthew 25:41-46.
Sneering at Jehovah God
In the case of the second person tried, namely, Mrs. F. Carmichael, Judge Newcorn, the counsel for the city of Plainfield, asked her concerning her movements on the fourth day of June. She replied, with dignity, that she was preaching the gospel of God’s kingdom. This should have been sufficient.
There were in Plainfield that very day numerous clergymen who claimed to be preaching the gospel of God’s kingdom, but who in fact are actually opposed to the establishment of God’s kingdom in the earth, which Kingdom will do away with the services of all clergymen for time and for eternity. But these clergymen were not harassed nor disturbed.
Judge Newcorn, corporation counsel, would have hesitated to ask any priest or other clergyman by v. hat method he preached on June 4, for he well knows that the law grants that privilege without stipulating any set method by which religion is to be exercised. Nevertheless, he asked Mrs. Carmichael “By what method?” and she replied:
“By word of mouth and in printed form, which I not only have the right to do, but which I am commanded to do by the Word of the Most High God. Besides, the fundamental law of this state and of the nation guarantees to everybody the liberty of serving Almighty God according to the dictates of his own conscience without—”
At this point she was interrupted, and after a few more words by Judge Newcorn, Judge De Meza sneeringly remarked, “Jehovah is not commanding you to do anything.” This gratuitous piece of misinformation on his part is a statement which a wise and just man would have hesitated to make. But in any event, his opinion in the premises is immaterial. It is the judgment of Jehovah God that counts.
The Permit from Jehovah God
Evidently taking his cue from Magistrate De Meza as to how to go about it to quickly obtain conviction, Judge Newcorn, after having been twice told by the fourth defendant, Louise La Grassa, that she was preaching the good news that Jehovah's kingdom is here, finally cornered her into saying, “Those who desired to have the message of God's kingdom, 1 presented it to them.”
Judge Newcorn then inquired, “Did you have a permit to make such distribution?” And then notice her splendid reply:
“According to Isaiah 43:10-12 and Isaiah 61: 1, 2 I am duly authorized by the Most High God to do this work.”
At this point Judge De Meza, whose disrespectful references to Jehovah prove that he fears not God and regards not His Word, became angry, and the following dialogue ensued, after which Louise La Grassa calmly took her sentence of ten days in prison.
De Meza: The law prohibits murder and provides a penalty therefor. Would you consider it right to violate that law?
La Grassa: I did not commit murder.
De Meza: I ask you whether you would consider it right to violate that law.
La Grassa: Most certainly not, because it is in harmony with God’s law. But does the court consider it right to violate Ilie fundamental law of the land in enforcing an ordinance that takes away my liberty of preaching the gospel?
De Meza: Our ordinance prohibits distribution of any kind of pi inted matter without obtaining a permit. Do you think that you were acting right in making a distribution without complying with the law of the city?
La Grassa: In the sight of Jehovah God, yes. I have made a covenant to do the will of God and to obey His laws. His word and law is the highest authority governing man, and superior to any law that man can make.
De Meza: (Angry) The answer is that you didn’t have a permit; you didn’t consider it necessary. Is that right?
La Grassa: “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.” This was the answer of the early disciples of Jesus when they were brought into court on a charge identical with the one before this court.
Could the Clergy Have Answered as Well?
As some of our readers may not have their Bibles immediately at hand, we quote from the Scriptures the citations which Mrs. La Grassa mentioned. We are certain that not a priest or other clergyman in Plainfield would have had the right to apply these scriptures to himself or would have had the knowledge of the Scriptures necessary to make such a prompt answer and such an all-sufficient answer under the circumstance. These scriptures are as follows, and apply exactly in the connections in which they were cited.
Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour. I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, that I am God.—Isaiah 43:10-12.
The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek: he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn. —Isaiah 61:1, 2.
Jailed for Sitting in an Automobile
In the case of Gladys Doughaen, the policeman who arrested her was honest enough to admit that he did not see her distributing anything. As a matter of fact, she was arrested while sitting in the front seat of her automobile. Magistrate De Meza knows perfectly well that it is not illegal to sit in an automobile, but when he was trying her for that "crime” the following dialogue ensued:
DE Meza: (In undertone) By necessity I’ll have to dismiss the complaint against her, if she promises to discontinue passing out tracts or other literature. (Louder) The law requires, madam, that before you can distribute or sell anything in Plainfield, whether it be religious books or not, you must first obtain a license.
Doughaen : I was not selling anything. It’s necessary for me—
De Meza: (Interrupts) It’s necessary that you are going to obey the laws of our city, madam. I’m giving you fair warning now. I’m not vindicative, but you’ie going to obey our law, while I am here anyway. Will you discontinue in the future if I give you another chance? Step down.
Doughaen: If we arc ordered to go into Plainfield—-
De Meza: By whom?
Doughaen: By Jehovah God.
De Meza: (Yelling) We don’t care about Jehovah or anyone else! We have our laws, and you’re going to obey them! I will set your case down for Thursday morning. (Angry) Lock her up! Such foolishness! I never saw the like of it. Let’s rush this through!
Has Jehovah God No Rights in Plainfield?
In the case of Beatrice Hanke, after she had patiently explained to Magistrate De Meza that she has a permit from Jehovah God, the highest authority, to do His work, and that ‘‘God’s law is superior to any law of man”, he interrupted her excitedly, inquiring, “Will you promise to leave this city at once and desist from passing literature and go back to your family, if I give you another chance?”
Airs. Hanke firmly replied, “Most certainly not. If I am commanded by Jehovah God—” At this point De Meza interrupted her with his usual interjection, “Ten dollars or ten days.” See the responsibility which the man has taken upon himself, of insulting Jehovah God by making it appear that anyone must ask permission to preach the gospel, which preaching He has commanded shall be done.
De Meza as Prosecutor
In the case of Rose Weber, the seventh defendant, Judge De Meza, who in all these cases did most of the talking, acted as prosecutor, judge and jury, as follows:
De Meza: Didn’t you know that the law requires that you must first get a permit from the city to make such distribution?
Weber: I am a member of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, which is a corporation created and organized according to law for the express purpose of carrying on tills benevolent work by preaching tlio message of the Bible in printed form. The constitution of the United States and the constitution of New Jersey guarantee the liberty of each one to serve God and preach the gospel in his own way, and for this reason no municipality—
De Meza : Have you ever been arrested before for passing circulars in other cities? I am asking you. You’re a Christian woman, you say, and you should not hesitate to tell the truth. Have you ever been arrested before?
Weber : Yes, for preaching the gospel.
De Meza: How many times?
Weber: Does that make any difference?
De Meza: It makes a whole lot of difference to me.
Weber: I do not see how it makes any difference.
De Muza: You do not see it, huh? (Bude) Step down! I see you're one of those who will not stop. If the court will give you another chance, will you go back to your home town and desist from distributing literature—
Weber: I cannot make that promise.
De Meza: (Stein) Ten dollars or ten days.
Inquisitor in a Frenzy
While the eighth defendant, Dora Wadams, was being ‘‘tried", she stated three times that she was not guilty of the charge made against her. De Meza became infuriated, and an innocent spectator in the courtroom who had previously witnessed injustices in New Jersey but who had never witnessed such infamous proceedings as took place at Plainfield, was suddenly ordered to stand up. The following dialogue then occurred:
De Meza: Are you interested in this case?
Morgan: Yes, sir, I certainly am.
De Meza: What’s your name?
Morgan: Daniel E. Morgan.
De Meza: Where do you live?
Morgan: 133 Main Street, Fort Lee.
De Meza: What's your official position?
Morgan: I am :i spectator, and not on trial.
De Meza: What did you mean by your conduct?
Morgan: Haven’t I a right to smile?
De Meza: (Fierce) I will order you from the court if I see any more of such actions! I’m looking around and my eyes are open.
The trial of Mrs. Wadams then continued. Notice now the steps which De Meza took to send this innocent Christian woman to prison. Note the dignity and intelligence of her responses and the way she was bullyragged by this man who numerous times went out of his way to say (and to pronounce it just that way) that he was “not vin-dic'a-tive'’.
De Meza: (Mocking) Take the stand, madam.
Wadams: I move the court to dismiss this complaint because it does not state facts that constitute an offense or violation of the law. All the evidence fails to show any guilt—
De Meza: I think we have sufficient evidence. Did you have a permit to place your literature in the city of Plainfield?
Wadams: I was preaching the gospel and did not need a pei niit.
De Meza: (Sneering) Y’ou were preaching the gospel! I'm asking you, did you go from house to house delivering these gospel tracts?
Wadams: This gospel of the kingdom—
De Meza: Just a moment! Did you deliver this literature?
Wadams: To those who were interested.
De Meza: Did you get a permit from the city of Plainfield?
Wadams: How could the city—
De Meza: Did you get a permit?
Wadams: The constitution estops any municipality from enacting or enforcing a law that would interfere or hinder the work of preaching the gospel.
De Meza: I ask you, Did you have a permit fiont the city authorities to go from house to house with this literature?
Wadams: The city has no authority to give me a peimit to preach the gospel. I have authority from Jehovah God!
De Meza: (Vexed) Step down. Where do you live?
Wadams: My name and address is on the list filed by us with the Police Department.
Is Perjury O.K. in Plainfield?
In the case of the ninth defendant, Jenny Cochran, De Meza made it clear that perjury on the part of an officer of the law is unobjectionable in his court if it aids in the conviction of Christian women whose only interests in life are to honor the name of Jehovah God and bestow blessings upon their fellow men. In the following dialogue Miss Cochran shows herself a good deal more of a lawyer than De Meza.
Cochran: May I ask the officer some questions?
De Meza: You may.
Cochran: Where was I when you saw me?
Officer Gray: On the porch of Mr. Kelly’s house. Cochran: Y’ou did not see me deliver a pamphlet? Officer Gray: Yes.
Cochran: Which side of the street was I on?
Officer Gray: The south side of West 5th St.
Cochran: Y’ou mean to say that I stopped at a house on that side of the street?
Officer Gray: Yes.
Cochran: Could you take an oath on that?
Officer Gray : I have already taken an oath.
Cochran: To say the truth, but you did not. I was working on the other side of the street. I couldn’t have been on that side when I had only the other side to work on. Could I bring Mrs. Wadams as a witness, please? (After brief pause) I should like to put in my defense.
De Meza: Judge Newcorn, I can postpone this case. I can put it over until Thursday.
Cochran: Don't I have the right to put in my defense?
De Meza: If you were not working on one side of the street, you were working on the other. Will you answer the question, madam: Were you distributing literature?
Cochran: That will come out in my defense.
De Meza: All right, your defense will be ten dollars or ten days.
Cochran: Then I don’t have even a chance to make any defense?
De Meza: (Brazen) Ten dollars or ten days. Officer, take charge.
“Forget All About Jehovah”
The tenth defendant, Eleanor Podgorski, is of foreign extraction, but loves Jehovah God and understands that in this land of freedom, light and liberty she may show her appreciation of what God has done for her, by going from door to door bearing a printed card which has upon it an excellent testimony regarding the necessity of God's kingdom and the importance of the literature explaining that Kingdom.
When she was placed on trial, she did not readily comprehend the questions by which Judge Newcorn and Judge De Meza sought her imprisonment. Nevertheless, she gave a splendid witness for Jehovah God in the dialogue that ensued as her tormentor on the bench revealed to her and to all what it is to be an enemy of America's best interests.
De Meza: Well, if the judge gives you another chance, will you go back and stay out of Plainfield and not give out any more papers?
Podgorski: I obey God’s law. It is higher than man’s law.
De Meza: Did you have a permit from the police to take those papers around?
Podgorski: Jesus Christ and His disciples asked never for permit to preach gospel from house to house.
De Meza: If the judge gives you another chance will you promise—
Podgorski: I obey Jehovah God.
De Meza: (Insolent) Let Jehovah go for a few minutes! Forget all about Him. If Judge De Meza gives you another chance and lets you go home, will you promise me not to come hack—■
Podgorski: I will obey Jehovah’s law. I come back if He commands, ‘ ‘ Go, and—
De Meza: Let me finish! You mean to say, if your Jehovah commands you to go ahead and distribute this literature you will do it in spite of all laws of Plainfield?
Podgorski : I must obey His command; bring His message to the people.
De Meza: All right, then the court cannot do anything else but impose a fine. I have given you and your sisters every chance and would let you all go, but you still insist that Jehovah is above you, above everyone and above the laws of the city. Ten dollars or ten days.
“Z Cannot Be Faithful Unless I Obey”
The eleventh case to go to trial was that of Mrs. J. Stokes. She was accused of violating the city ordinance. The following dialogue ensued prior to her sentence of imprisonment for ten days.
De Meza: Now, our city ordinance says that you, and I, and everybody else must first obtain a permit from the city before we can distribute any literatuie. That law is made to protect your and my family from impostors who go around and rob our homes. I think that’s a good law.
Stokes : It cannot apply to our w ork of preaching the gospel. I am endeavoung to do good to the people and I have not broken any law of the land.
Newcorn: If the court gives you another chance, will you promise not to distribute anv more liteiature in Plainfield without first obtaining a permit from the city authorities?
S: No worldly authority can properly prohibit the pleaching of the gospel; therefore no city could grant a permit for preaching the gospel. I have consecrated myself to do the will of God and to follow in the footsteps of Jesus who came to earth to bear witness to the truth. I am thus doing and am one of Jehovah's witnesses.
M. [Magistrate De Meza] : We know that. That has nothing to do with the issue befoie the court.
S.: Being specifically commanded by the Word of God to go and deliver to the people the message that His kingdom is here, I have no alternative. I cannot be faithful to Ged unless I obey.
M. [Magistrate—and so henceforth indicated] : (In undertone, scoffing) Cannot be faithful unless you obey!
Mrs. Stokes served her sentence of ten days in prison, and now note, tins combination of circumstances. Just as we are reviewing Her testimony this morning, in conies a letter from her showing that if you arc a Catholic you can distribute all the literature you please in Plainfield. All the police need to know is that you take your orders, not from Jehovah God or His Word, but from the little ‘'king'’ that rules at Vatican City, and it goes 100% with the department. Her letter follows:
A little incident occurred while I was lidin^ in a police car en route to headquaiters June 4 at Plainfield, N. J., which L am going to tell you about. The police car winch picked nie up contained one policeman in umtoim and two plain clod es men. After picking me up they circled around tiymg to find Jehovah’s witnesses. They pulled up to the curb quite a few times, but then drove on.
When they saw tvo ladies with circulais or punted matter over their arm, they pulled up to the cu’b, motioned to the ladies to come to the car and asked them if they were distributing printed matter. They answered, “Yes.” Then they asked them if they were connected with the Watch Tower work, and they answeied, “No.” They then asked the ladies who they were, and they replied, “We are Catholics”; when the police said, ‘‘That is all right. You can go on.”
This information may be of no \aluc, but again it muy, and 1 am submitting it that you may use it if you wish.
De Meza Sentences a Witness
Can you imagine a “judge” so far gone mentally and in such a hurry to railroad somebody to prison that he forgets himself and gives a sentence of ten days imprisonment to a person who at the time was merely a witness in another case. De Meza did this in the case of the husband of the second defendant, Mrs. Carmichael. He corrected the blunder after he had made it. One would think that he would.
As a matter of fact, however, he merely postponed the blunder until such time as he should have an opportunity to wreak his vengeance upon the men of the party. Carmichael, by the way. was arrested while he was talking to a man on the porch. You didn’t know it was against the “law" to talk to a man on the porch, did you ? If you try it in Plainfield, you are liable to ten days, and if they haven’t got any law against talking to people on the porch, why, they will make one.
After breaking up ten Christian homes by sentencing ten splendid women to prison for ten days to associate with the lowest elements of society, De Meza carried over the cases of sixteen others to the next day. We give the man credit for releasing these women for one day on their own recognizance, but their names and addresses were already on file at police headquarters, and had been for two days, and De Meza could not help but see that never before in his experience had such a fine type of women been before him. In response to his questioning, they said to him, and it should have touched his heart, if he has one:
We have no alternative. We have made a covenant with Jehovah God to do His will. We prefer to obey God rather than man.
To this De Meza replied:
You have made a covenant with God and you will go according to His will? All right, you may go according to His will, but we will have the deciding vote whether you will pass this literature in the future.
Witnesses Not Present in Court
Upon assuming office as a magistrate, Judge De Meza entered by oath into a solemn covenant with the citizens of this country that “no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause” and that “in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall be confronted with the witnesses against him”, yet in the case of Madeline Wagner we have the following dialogue between him and Officer King. If Officer King is a true officer of the law, why did he not have this unnamed lady present in court ?
And if Judge De Meza were a just judge, which he is not, how does it come that he would assume responsibility for what he knows perfectly well was an illegal arrest? To show his hypocrisy and the clear vision this woman had of her rights, we present a portion of the colloquy between them.
De Meza : Did you see this lady passing any literature or handbills on the fourth day of June?
Officer King: No, but we received a report from a lady that she was distributing circulars on Monroe Avenue. I had a description of her and saw her as she was walking on the street with another lady. She was carrying one of those grips. I asked her what she was doing. She said she was preaching the gospel. I asked what her name was. She said she was one of Jehovah’s witnesses and would not give her name. I asked her if she had a permit to distribute literature. She said she didn’t need one. Then I brought her in.
M.: Did you have a permit from the city of Plainfield to distribute or pass any tracts or pamphlets?
Wagner: I had no permit from the police, but I have a permit from Jehovah God.
M.: (Scoffing) A permit from Jehovah God! Where is your permit from Jehovah?
W.: It is noted in His Word. I am commanded in the Scriptures—•
M.: (Interrupts, ridiculing) Oh, you’re commanded in the Scriptures! Then you had no permit from the city?
W.: No, I do not need such a permit.
M.: (Nasty) So you do not need such a permit! Is that so?
W.: The Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of New Jersey guarantee me this freedom.
M.: That’s according to your idea. Our ideas don’t coincide.
W.: Those fundamental laws are your own laws.
M.: (Rude) Oh, step down!
Cruelty to the Deaf
Nellie Zahorie, the next Christian woman given ten days in prison, w7as very deaf, and she being unable to hear the charge against her, Magistrate De Meza asked George W. Bossier, Jr., to assist her to understand what it was all about, but when Rossier undertook to help the innocent woman to cross-examine her tormentor he ordered Rossier to take his seat right away, or he would have him locked up.
Mrs. Zahorie was walking down the street when she was arrested. You did not know that it was against the law to walk down the street, did you? This poor woman who was guilty of the offense of walking on a public street in Plainfield was so deaf that when, after she had bravely said to the judge, “Regardless of what man may or may not do, I must obey Jehovah God,” and the judge had immediately responded with his customary and savage, “Ten dollars or ten days,” she had to ask what it was that he said, and was led away to prison, in “the land of the free and the home of the brave”.
The Crime of Being on a Porch
Harriet Watson of Belleville was arrested on North Front Street, Plainfield. Officer Bray, who arrested her, testified that she had walked past him and after that he had waited for her to come down from the porch of a house. You did not know before what an illegal thing it is to pass a policeman on the street, did you? It must be a dreadful thing, in the eyes of somebody, else why would the police force have such sharp eyes for these terrible malefactors that are not Catholics.
And now, if any white man or black man or red man or brown man or yellow man ever heard of worse outrage in the form of a trial than was perpetrated in the following, will he please write in and give us the facts? Miss Watson showed herself a very good lawyer. De Meza showed himself no lawyer, no judge, and no man.
Watson: I move the court to dismiss this complaint because it does not state facts that constitute a violation of the law. All the evidence fails to show any guilt—
The Golden aqe
De Meza: I think we have sufficient evidence. Were you distributing circulars in Plainfield?
AV.: Have I not the privilege of asking the court to dismiss this case?
M.: (Excited) The complaint will not be dismissed. Were you distributing circulars in Plainfield?
AV.: (Deliberate) That will be answered in due time.
M.: (Angered) AVill you answer my question now? Were you distributing circulars?
AV.: Must 1 incriminate myself? I ask the court to permit me to put in my defense.
M.: (Enraged) AVeie you distributing circulars?
AV.: I ask the court—
M.: (Furious) Step down! I will not tolerate any insolence from you! This court is trying to be courteous to you, but you don’t know your place. Ten days or ten dollars! Now you will have a chance to think over what “courtesy” means. Officer, take charge.
“Justice” by Telephone
It seems that the farther he Avent Avith this “trial” the more unjust De Meza became. In the case of Margaret Dossier he alloAved Officer Er-ber to say that a complaint had come in over the telephone and that he had gone out and apprehended tAvo Avomen, of Avhom Mrs. Dossier Avas one. He accosted her as she came out of a house.
You didn’t know that somebody could have you arrested just by calling up on the telephone, did you? And it is so convenient if you live in Plainfield. You don’t have to come in and face the innocent person Avhom you Avish to have sleep on a hard board amid the lice and bedbugs. All you have to do is to reach for the telephone, and Avithout any further inconvenience on your part . . .
The dialogue between the inquisitor-like De Meza and Mrs. Dossier deserves publication:
De Meza : Were you passing out this literature or these Bible tracts on Sunday?
Rossiee: Must a defendant testify against herself?
M.: (Suave) Listen, Margaret, you are a Christian woman, you holier e in living up to the Bible, don’t you? Now, when you’re under oath, you’re supposed to tell the truth. Why can’t you answer the question the judge is asking you? AA’e’re not going to take any advantage of you; far from it.
R.: If we were just booksellers or distributors of commercial products and advertisements, we would be the first ones to come to you and ask for a permit. But as I am preaching the gospel and am not engaged in any commercial enterprise, it is not necessary for me to ask for a permit.
M.: It is necessary to protect the citizens from unscrupulous people coming into the city and robbing homes.
R.: That is just the reason we presented the list with our names and addresses to headquarters, informing the police that we weie here and that we came to do a Christian and benevolent work. AVe don’t work in the dark; we work in the open, and we—
M.: (Excited) Just a moment. The city ordinance does not allow anyone to discriminate. It applies to everybody.
R.: Wouldn’t that be an extreme contradiction of the constitution which guarantees everybody the freedom to serve God in any manner he chooses?
M.: (Heated) You can serve God in any way you wish, but what you were doing was passing tracts.
It.: In order that I may get this matter clearly before the court, I have written out my statement and ask permission now to read it in my own defense—
M.: Not nccessaiy, not necessary at all! Ten dollars or ten days.
R.: If you desire to punish me for doing good to the people—
M.: AA’e do not punish anybody for doing good. The judge does not want to punish you, but you violated the law. Now, if you will promise me that you will stay away from Plainfield and will not pass any more religious tracts without first obtaining a permit, I will give you another chance. AVill you promise me?
R.: I have pledged my life to the service of Jehovah God, and I cannot make a piomise not to—
M.: AVell, I have pledged my life to render decisions according to law, and must find you guilty. Ten dollars or ten days.
Insulting Jehovah God
Notice in the next case, that of Norine Bertram, hoAA’ Judge De Meza tried to Avheedle this Christian Avoman into testifying against herself and then when she desired to put in her defense he insulted not only her and all of his hearers and the Avhole people of the United States, but even Jehovah God himself.
De Meza : AVcre you distributing tracts in the city of Plainfield on June fourth?
Bertram: Must I testify against myself! Is that customary—
M.: It’s customary when you’re under oath to answer the judge’s questions. (Suave) You’re a Christian woman. Now, answer my question: AVere you distributing literature?
B.: I was wherever the people wanted it.
M.: Did you have a permit?
B.: I was fully authorized.
M.: By the city authorities!
B.: By the authority of God’s Word.
M.: If the judge gave you another chance, if I released you today, would you promise to desist from this work and not distribute any more in this city until you obtained a permit?
B.: May I ask a question before I answer that? I’m not fully acquainted with the law concerning a legal trial, but is there not time provided that the defendants can plead their case ?
M.: Yes, but—
B.: I would like to ask the court to hear a short statement that I have written out in my own defense—
M.: Just a moment. See if I am right; I may be wrong. Your statement is that you have an absolute right to do this work here, and that the law of Jehovah is higher than the law of the state. Am I right! I believe that, and I believe that anyone who will keep God's law will also keep the law of the state and the laws—
B.: (Interrupts, emphatic) Certainly; as long as the laws of men do not conflict with the law of God!
M.: The ordinance of the city is a good law and made for the protection of the people from impostors. The police department isn’t against you because you’re Christians. Get that out of your mind! It isn’t because of your belief that you were ariested. Get that out of your head! If the president of the United States came here and took those books and pamphlets from house to house and did not have a permit from the police department, the police of Plainfield would go and bring him in just as they did you. It is to protect your home and my home and everybody’s. Now, step down.
Now, listen to Judge De Meza. If the judge is fair and gives you another chance today, and gives everyone of you a chance, and lets you go back, will you on your honor promise Judge De Meza that you will desist?
B.: Well, if Jehovah God commands that we shall go in all the world and preach the gospel of His kingdom for a witness to all nations before the end shall come, and we exclude Plainfield, New Jersey—
M.: (Interrupts) Well, it’s a very unpleasant thing for tho judge to do what he is doing; it’s a very unpleasant task. I’m certainly going to the limit with you people to help you. I think your intentions are all right, and that you are good Christian people. I wish there were more like you. But the judge does not make the laws, nor the police department. Our duty is to enforce them, and we have to perform our duty. It would be easy for you to get a permit and you would avoid all this trouble and inconvenience. Now will you promise me—
B.: I cannot. I regard it as an insult to Jehovah God to demand that wc should ask any man for a permit to do the work that the Almighty has commanded to be done. I prefer to obey God rather than man.
Judge or Prosecutor, Which?
And now we invite the attention of lawyers and judges everywhere to something unique in the history of jurisprudence. Here in what follows we have what in some respects-we believe is one of the most remarkable trials that ever took place in this world. Judge De Meza is addressing Lieutenant Saffron of the Plainfield police, in the trial of Anna Behlau:
De Meza: Lieutenant Saffron, did you see this woman Sunday distributing literature?
Officer Saffron: I saw her on the porch of a house at— De Meza: (Interrupts) Did she have a permit?
S.: She had no permit.
Behlau: Just a moment. I would like to ask the officer a question. Just where did you approach me?
S.: On West 4th St. You were on a porch.
B.: You saw me on a porch on West 4th St.?
S.: (Uncertain) Yes.
B.: You did not.
S.: I may have this woman mixed up with another woman.
M.: Then you aren’t positive that this is the woman who was passing circulars?
S.: (Hesitant) lam—not. There were two of them picked up there.
M.: Swear the defendant.
B.: Just a moment. I would like to ask the officer a question. Wasn’t I sitting in a car when you saw me?
S.: She—was sitting in a—Hudson car.
B.: (Emphatic) Then you did not see me passing literature. M.: Do you know whether she was passing any literature? S.: She stated to me that she was.
B.: That’s not true!
M.: The city will make her bear witness. Mrs. Behlau, the city will make you its witness. Take the stand.
B.: I should like to present my statement.
M.: Swear her in! Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
B.: I do.
M.: For what purpose did you come to the city of Plainfield June fourth?
B.: To preach the gospel of God’s kingdom.
M.: Did you distribute any literature?
B.: The court has no right to ask such a question. I refuse to answer.
M.: You refuse to answer? Judge De Meza is asking you a question. Answer!
B.: May I ask if you are the judge or the prosecutor?
M.: (Infuriated) Step down! Step down! You’re very insolent. Your insolence doesn’t deserve any consideration. Ten dollars or ten days in the county jail. See how you like that!
B.: I wish to put in my defense.
M.: Take charge, officer, take charge.—You’re a very insolent person.
B.: Am I not entitled to a legal trial and to a defense? M.: Tako charge, officer. Such insolence!
B.: I appeal from the decision of this court to a higher court and ask that appeal papers be made out for me.
M.: Get a lawyer!
B.: I’m not able to hire a lawyer, but I am entitled to the protection of the law.
M.: Tell that to the higher court!
Condoning Perjury, as Did Pilate
In the case of Minnie Stewart Judge De Meza not only ignored the perjury of Officer Conlin and violated the provision that “no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”, but when a lover of justice protested against his atrocious rulings he had him locked up, too, and subsequently gave him several months in prison. In the abstract of the trial which follows Conlin is the name of the perjurer, Stewart the name of the woman being tried, and Bossier is the name of the protester against injustice.
De Meza: Do you know, of your own knowledge, that this defendant was going Sunday from house to house passing circulars without a permit?
Officer Conlin: I do.
M.: Where did you see her?
C.: On West 6th Street. She had come out of a house.
M.: Distributing?
C.: Yes.
Stewart: The officer is not telling the truth.
M.: All right, question him.
S.: Officer, you have sworn on the Bible to tell the truth. If you saw me coming out of a house, as you testified, will you please tell the number of that house?
C.: The number of the house? The number of the house where I saw you?
S.: Yes, that you saw me leaving.
C.: Well—er—I saw you at several houses.
S.: Well, tell me the number.
C.: I do not know the number.
S.: Isn’t it true that you have no evidence? When you saw me I was simply walking along on the sidewalk.
M.: Will you take the stand, madam? We are in a court of justice and I don’t want any argument. Swear the defendant. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
S.: I do.
M.: Were you handing out circulars on Sunday?
S.: I was preaching the gospel.
M.: And in doing this you were handing out Bible tracts. Is that right? Is that right?
8.: Has the officer got proof of that? There is no evidence.
M.: (Rough) Answer my question. Don’t be insolent! Please be aware that I’m taking the trouble to be courteous to you; and I expect the same courtesy from you. Were you going from house to house ringing doorbells, preaching the gospel of God’s kingdom in printed form? (After brief pause) (Vicious) I am asking you and want an answer!
8.: I was informing the people of God’s kingdom—
M.: (Interrupts) And in doing this you were passing out literature? (Mad) Answer! Did you —
Dossier: (Interiupts, walking up to bench) Say, will you lock me up! I can’t stand any more of this. (Flaming) The lady docs not have to answer that question, and you know it!
M.: Take him away! Lock him up! — Order in the court! —-Nuw, ZXIrs. Stewart, answer my question: Bid you pass out ciiculars or oilier literature?
S.: I am a true and sincere follower of Christ and have consecrated my life to do the will of God and to preach the gospel of—
M.: How did you preach it?
S.: By word of mouth, going from—
M.: (Interrupts) And by handing out literature?
S.: V/as I handing out literature?
yf.: (Angry) You’re trying to evade my questions.
S.: Is it lawful to compel me to incriminate niyscli ?
M.: Don’t argue with the judge! Did you have Bible tracts in your possession?
K: Yes.
M.: And what were you going to do with them?
S.: ((’alm and deliberate) I was preaching the gospel of Coil’s kingdom.
M.: (Furious) Stop down! I find you guilty. Ten dollars or ten days!
>S.: Is this a fair tr ial? Are we not entitled to a legal trial?
2d.: (DaMiig) If w?u add any more to it, I will add ten days more to it!—Cmirt is adjourned.
Hew is This for a Trial?
Having railroaded 25 refined Christian women to prison for ten days because they loved (fed and were obeying His commandments, Judge De Meza proceeded to do the same thing with 29 men. The first one tried was Ed Dunn. We give the colloquy which passed between this gentleman, Judge De Meza and Judge Newcorn. We commend this “trial” to the consideration of the legal fraternity in each of the 140 states and countries where The Golden Age circulates.
Dunn: Before being sworn in I wish to state that I have no quarrel with the ordinance: it’s the application of the ordmaiK.’; and before 1 can testify in all honesty in my behalf, I hate to enlighten myself—■
De Meza: The only question we want to enlighten you on is this: Our city ordinance piohibits the distribution of literature without a permit. Now, the only question this court has to deal with is the fact whether you did or did not violate this ordinance. If you did you are guilty. If you did not you’re not guilty.
Newcoc.n: Let him be swoin.
D.: 1 prefer not to be sworn in before—■
M.: (Interrupts, impassioned) The court adjudges you guilty of illegally distributing and eiiculaiizing literature, but I'd like to ask you something: If this court gives you another chance and lets you go sect-Lee, will you promise Judge Do JIeza not to come back to the city of Plainfield and distiibuto again without tiist obtaining a permit?
D.: No, sin
M.: Ten dollais or twenty days! (And then, correcting himself) Ten dollais or ten days.
Bible Messages for Less than a Cent Each
In the case of Louis Schaab, Jr., it was brought out that at a certain home he had left two booklets, one in English and one in Italian, and accepted a contribution of ten cents toward the work, which contribution under any circumstances could have been but a minute fraction of the expense to which he was subjected for that day and would have been subjected to even without the ten days’ interruption to his work, which Judge De Meza’s cruelty imposed upon him.
There are four good addresses on Bible themes in the Crisis booklet, and seven in the Italian booklet, less than a cent apiece for eleven of the grandest lectures ever given. Moreover, Schaab would have been pleased to give a Bible treatise to anyone who desired one, regardless of whether such contributed to the cause or not. At length he came before the judge, when the following dialogue took place:
De ivIeza: What were you doing in Plainfield last Sunday? Schaab: Pieaching the gospel.
M,: And how were you pieaching it?
S.: By going from house to house and telling the people the good news that God’s kingdom, which is 1 lie only hope for sufi’eung humanity, has come.
M.: And in dung this were you distributing literature in violation of the city ordinance?
S.: In violation of your oidinance? No.
M.: (Angjy) Did you or did you not hand out literature?
S.: I do not caie to answer that question, because it may tend to incnminute me.
M.: (Angiy) Step down, step down!
Nev. CORK: 1 nio\e sentence.
M.: Did you ha\e a pe.imit to distribute litciature?
S.: I don’t care to answer that, because your oidinance doos not apply to our work.
hl.: Does not ajfply to your work?
K: No, it does not cover the woik of pic-aching the gospel.
M.: (Sarcastic) It does not? Is that so? Ten dollars or ten days.
One for the Bar Association
In a case where a prisoner elects to conduct his own defense the magistrate on the bench is supposed, according to the ethics of the legal profession, and in the interest of the naked cause of justice itself, to take special care of the interests of those who are accused of crime, and especially would this be the duty of a magistrate if the defendant happens to be of foreign extraction.
We now invite the legal fraternity of the world to ponder the complete record of the case of Anthony Kwiatkowski as it was tried before Judge De Meza, who, when he is called to answer for this infamy at the bar of Almighty God, will have no answer to make and no place in which to hide his head.
…