Jehovah’s Servants Defended (booklet) by Juan Díaz

JEHOVAH'S SERVANTS DEFrnDED dm, it has beema rtpirit upon %--th.fdd that Jehovah W ' a aelmmt be aef d d inthsarmrts ofld-Am&. B d would not ham been b e d of b the f o y d m of thi~ m t r y , who fled imm reI'iw p a w dming and after the C~tholioInqdtion h Euro a d w@y anchored and d the liberties of ple m the fundamental law of the nation, the

~titutioa

In every r h t e of the Udm, upward of thfee thoueand mwu.~taof the Lard annually are f d d y arreat& and m d i i promuted b m e of their w o d i p of W h t ; Qd, ~ Jehovah, and ior their detemhed exwow- oi their righ! of M o m of p w r ~Only and dl &am #w mstwted and tlrrwted are Jehovah witn-. For the wle garposa of +ding the p e m emw e d in that j-ce be done, md to vmt malieione pmw aqd d i m d i n g ths 8titution, this pmpblet la wnWho are Jehovah's wlheaaree? J&ovah's d me not a % a d t or a are true and obedtemt samauts of religion. Th Almighty Jahmah, folhinjg d in the footstqa of Chrjet Jerrus. Brligitm is the oing of anything contrary to the will of Jehovah W. A d t is e antam d d i g i o y belief p m - t i d cemmniw and bditiom of men m an o# body. A a& is a religiou orgmkation of persona who idlow a

-T

~ ~ ~ t U r e i n t b e L W . n d ~ 1 i men. d o digion baed on the hditionu 1

JBHOVAB* BE6tVAITT0 DEFEHDED

JEHOVAB'B EIEBVANTB DEFENDED

Jehoqnh'a w i w are made u of m n p who are e n h d ~d m t d to HH.~ipsdom and who am diligemt aad f a i W in out Hiu ordm arr mmmaded by the Maet H ~ g h - b preaching the gmpal of God'@kingdom by prcsentmg to the p p l e on the public -?a and at the homea

~ m& d

libratare explaining the Bible propheoiee, which me W'Bmded W o d This literatm plainly &om that r a m ie a mare employed by Satan thro 1el3sh men tO prevent the people from seeing f ftasth concernin Jehovah's toward mankind. It ahom L - o m t the time ia near rrt hand whrm Jehovah &d k abut to d flatnn'~ mtim o r e t i o n , iprryibb and pidmdnding the commeroIal, politleal and e c d d w t l e a l elememts of the p m t world and all persona who wdhqly mppork said orgauhtiom That auoh d&rn&ve work will be by 3ehovah'a hvhible forca at the battle of Armageddon and b to be fobwed by the compld attablkhent of a governmdnt to be ruled otrw by Jyrbt Jeame known as The Thmraoy, whioh will remain forever in the earth to bring p pmperiQ, hap hinu, ever* ~ i i ermbEil pen uonm who w!kmgly obey all the conman& of Jehovah

"9".

ha.

Thii 'work done by Jahotrau is a b d warning to the people to abandon religion and Sam's orgmhtion now and live, or remain and die. This #rk cannot be +wontinned by Jehovah's wib n e e a In any -mum , w r d l e a of threats or intertemm of any b- they mtusa to preach the wpal and podah the warning the liiw

tin2

ofth~notw8rnedwlllbl~~iromthemtnws who refwaea or fdh to out the c o d to ive tbs warning. ~ h e ~ e feyo muot x obey O O ~ mJer than men. Many pmma objeot to tho &tion of Jehovah'~ witnV e ought to obey C M rather than man." (Acts- 5 :29) They refnse to obey the unmutitutbnal

of pmm that they atop preaching the -el ; but tmoh ownman& we not lam. Lam wbieh cofltct with the hw of Almigh* God we m m b d

by B b h m a thua :

W o h m lam am of d d i Q if th1.[tbahvi~h~.r] tob.lda%uh= BmipNo human lam &odd w h d to mdradl& b" OM-, C W 8d sd, Pp. b7. The h n d a m law w-ritar, h l e y , mya: Iwomhmdauth bta-iteslfbehthe hit. ma r e whmtheformer~to render the that ia due, and in a mode wbiah ~ i ~ ~ ~ m ~ j

. . . ...

mitsbIeforhimtomdee,and~pkbbboitsobjeob. --Codey, C o ~ t i t d m m ZUmit&ut, 8th A, p. 888. Thus it in o h that the fundamental law sup porb Jehmah'a. witnmsxm in their Btand in to obey the w ? u m d d mmuda of men. the goapd, and S&OV&'I mtnare this wtivi* of praaohing, 4lth h not gra&Bed aar do relighiata, is-d u l y within% pmWm of tha Constitution. Xt Lt isgenerally and-d, by a l m d everyone, that all d a t i o n e of m n s or o m eations made up of God-fearin people who e n in im* 4 nMhlg an .r@mhWithin the meaning of the Constitution dl mob groups are cansidered d i g h u organiz~ti but t w d i n g to the Mnition t b ia~Billerence. h y formal wmhip of a anperlor or aapmne one by pemm who rely upon lxaditlonal M g of men, hgether with is a religim organization. A follower of J m Christ k one who atddy adhem to the Word of dlmighQ W, J e b vah, in spirit and in tm*,and dwe sn without in-

Awlu

dulghqiniarmalcmmma Chrh Jmun~arrnever *onist; aqd his fpllowsra, th*m am not religioniskr, w i t h the Brblioel rnsanlng ai that term.

JEEOVAE'B BEEGVA?WS DEFENDED

JEHOVAH% 8ERVANTS DEFENDED

Awodingly, they follow h the f m W p of Christ Jeeus in going from h a w to houae.-Matthew 10 :7, 1214; Luke 8 : l ; Acta 20:20; 1 Petm 2:9,21. But from the legal point of view all religiutu OF ganhtiona and &a worshipem of Almighty Qod are pat in the =me clam and hence Jehovah's witn m are entitled to the h e 0 t of the proteotion of the law. The lam do not contemplate and were never intended to interfere with any p e m d way or means of w o d i p , regardlese of what way or mema they employ. It ia the momibility of jndieiaI offlcem under their oaths ta uphold the [Jonatitntion and protect Jabwaht witnwm from wrondul a m h and p m emtiom by r n w d e d pmora To aid them in the dhehar e of this duty the information herein contained fa mbmitted. The fahe chargw which the j u w have h e n and am now ealld upon to prevent bem applied ta Jehonh'~witn.re 'hlliciting, Adling, aanvming, nelling, hawking, and d m g from hwse to house and on the streah without permit or lioenae'*, "tw &g," "amding and annoying people," "diaorderly cond,"et,"~'%f.ea$ of the peane:' 'kditionPu "yagcmcy, , #Mnbatuq ledand pamphleb wathout a permi4'' %mting riot," "violating the Sabbath lam," and many othenr.

Uneonatitutional. In every case the lawn applied to Jehovah'~wib

nwa through the above chargm have been held unooutitutional as -trued and appiisd, wulting in the charges being d-ed and Jehovah'g witnemea discharged from cwtody. Space d m not -it qu* htim from every cme -ing the matter. A d -

in&, parts of the onfatanding am here & forth and other aw wtad only. An examination of the repom will didoare the entire opinion in aapb

am.

As construed and applied. It ~ h o d dbe k e ~ tin mind that it is the wronpful application of a valid ordinance or law that r n h it unconstitutional and unenforceable as to Jehwah'e witnesaea, w h e w d ia lawfnl. In the case of G o w r d i o Pire I w a n a 00.v. I16 laoh

(1984), 292

U.8. 535, 545, the Supreme Court

of the Unitd States mid:

%thm a liwnte is valid or invalid mdar tbe e roteation slaw of the Foykmth Amendment o* Lpend. on how the statute u con~truedand applud It may Im valid when given a partiaular sppluat& mid invalid when given mother?

In other words, the validity of the ~ a t n t edepends on what set of facQ it is applied to. If applied to Jehovaht w i t n d activity, protected md guaranb& by the Constitution, the law beeomea unmmtitntional and void to the extent appIid

Lawa againat &Mbntion of pamphlets without a permit. In hsEE v. City of WM Il938), 803 U..S. one of Jehwall'a w i t n was ~ convicted of nolating an ordinance which prohibited distribution of literature, on the h h or from home to h o w , within oity of W n . She wm going from h o w ?hg%tributiog l i t e r a h printed by tho WATOEmwm BIBLEAND T ~ CS~JOCIETY T and receiving in 5ehnnge therefor mntributiona of money. The United States Supreme Court set aaids her conviction and said : 'We thmk that the ordinanae b invalid on ita h a . Whtevar the motive whiuh indwd its adoptiw ito d m mter is aaah that it s t d m at tbe v e q f w h m of

thefr+omoItbep~bymbje&ng~tto~~and emsoailup. The m h Ie for the M o m of the p m wsll prim* d k a - a g a i n s t the p o w of the wnmr, thsb p- that J O ~ Um h M a L y t Y k i e 'Appeal for the Ehty d Onli-d

JEHOVAH'S 8BBVANTB DEFXHDED 7 nation*l&fmwprqwl; (f) other*argmmb mndvanasd. W e h a v e ~ t b ~ d B o h e P l d L v . United St** 249 U.8.47, 89 Sap. Ct. 247, 68 L Ed. 470, a i i d by d

as3 u. 13. ~15-nl; T. ~ n ~ r i o aps l m COAI. -,rntl:8.238,M6,C~oethe*d tbe mdinmw in ue+on w d d the q a h m of

~ & & p r n i t s ~ a m t ~ o r m '~~he~oithe-is&&d'bn and p n o d d a It neDsssarily %mbraoss p m p x s hd&. They Indeetl have Imn b h r i a wapone in M e w of hbrty, a the pamphb of Thmrra Pame ma in om own b i abundantly atThe in its h i a e a o n n o b h ~m~~~pmhrnde every EX& of publication whkb a Y&& d ispormnh and apinim. W h t we ban had resent oooeslcril bo q with mpmt to the 9ibl imof p r h a h g h -tin1 k from ssery BDZt of &@mmt need mk b Nuas v. M h w o t ~ m , h a j m n v. dlprth~ COW, D# E g d V. &#$OH

[rnu.s. ass, rnJ,mpm"

S e e a h w & & e t d v . B ~ k o f B ~ s t d . (May Z,1941), F.Supp. .-;a h Xmntdy fit d. 9- C h of M o m et UL (&by 14,1+), F.Supp. -,whem the United Statee D d o t Judge for the D h i o t of Idaho mid:

holding that lige o d h m c w are unconstitutional and m o t be applied to Jebovd?~ w i t n are ~ SchWslt v. State (1939),308 IT.S. 147 Similar de-u

aote es 2; Wilma l b IIL V. E~8dZ1(1941), 1 %. ab 569, w h m it b 4:

'W~smastnot~hk~ttbewadwt~intbt

two whhd mnplsinC dew not a m w t C a

of t b p a a s e , o r ~ i n r ~ m p d o o n ~ t h e ~ a r ~ t h r o a i n g ~ ~ i n t b s ~ t a . O n h ~ i t i a n a f l o r t t o ~ n t e p a m p ~ wotherpriated~npwr~~oithsCityand not~whem;vhishk~inkhapresemtmmplaint, toperreaaderwJhgliste2lertovoI~~owtn~

bggiftforthelibmtamrshiohitmclaimedtokb t b n u t m e o f ~ u i s w s , t a ~ ~ t o ~ J ~ U d a n d H i p ~ c r r p ~ i n t h e B i h l a ~ '

JEHOVAH'S SERVANTS DEFENDED

L a m requiring germits or licenses before sellfng articlea or peddling on We streets or from houm to house. Many cities and towns have peddling ordinances requiring permits and licensm for S& of goods, warn and merchnndke upon tho atreetn and from house to h o w within the municipality. Such licenses and per. mits cannot be required of one engaged in distribution of printed matter, either for money contributiona or free of charge. While such ordinances can rightly be applicabie to poraona selling ordinary item of merehandhe or goods, they cannot be applied to ono who ia exercising his right of "free prrss". Pamphlets and newspapera are not considered 'ordinary merchandise or goods or wares' and cannot be brought within the terms of such ordinances. If the ordinance by its term prohibits peddling or selling of literature it is void on its face and u n m stitutionol. T h e streets and the homes of the people are the natural and proper p t a m for distribution

of literature, Peddling ordinancea were outlawed and held un-

constitutional as applied to Jehovah's witnwa in

the case of rS&wids~v. 81ule ( T o m uf Imington, New Jersey) (1939),308 U.S. 147. Clara Schneider, one of Jehova11's witnesses, was ping from h o w to house in Irvington calling a t the homea of the people, offering to them the Bible literature above described and received contributions therefor. She wm arreated and charged with violating the local peddling ordinance which prohibited canvassing, wliciting, peddling, or distribution of any matter from houae to house or on the streets in the town without a permit from the Chief of Police. The Supreme Court of the United States set aside her conviction and held the ordinance could not be constitutionally applied to her

work, and said:

JEHOVAH'B SERVANT8 DEFENDED

duo

"BIthou a municipality may cnaet r u h t i o o ~in tbe inlareat of%. pnbiic =lab, brnlth, m oonvenience, them may not abridge the individual libertia mcured by the Constitution to thorn who wish to ape&, write, print or airanlate information or opinion. "Muaioipal aathoritisa, a9 trustees for the publio, hare the duty to keep their oommunitiee' streets opcn and available fm rn-mt of p p l e and pro rty, the primary purpose to which the streets are degsted. "In e v e q c m , t h d m where legislative abridgmmt of the righte b d d , the some mh0~11dbe satnte to examine the effect of the chaltenged legislation. Mere legislative preferanma or beliefs respecting matters of public convenience may wet8 mpporl reguhtion dwected at othsr srnonul advitie8, but ba h a d s i e n t to justify wch as $minishes the exercise of right. so vital to the maintenance of demoerntie institutions. And so, as cases arise, the delicate nnd dimcult b k faUa upon the courds b weigh the circnmstaoaea and to. appraiae the subtantiality oof the masons advmoed in support of the rwAlation of the free enjoyment of the nghb. Any burden irnpmd upon the city authorities in deaning and caring for tho atreeta aa an indireot consequence of such diatribntion reaulb f m the conatihtional protection of the freedom of epee& and p m . . But, as w have wid, the elrests ar# natural and proper places for ths diaasminution o l i n / o r m p t i ~ npnd pinion; and one is not to h ~ v ethe e x e m i of him liom-ty of expreaaion in appropiah place. abridged on the plea that ~t may be e r e r e i d ia some other plaao. "As said in Lovsll v. G h of Gridpn, supra, amphl& haw proved most effeative instnrmsnta in the L m i n l r tim of opinion. And perhaps Ike moat afluclioa way of bringing them l o the nolitx of indiduals ia thuir dish+ buliori at the homes of the psoptu. On this method of oommunilration the ordinance impow cenaorahip, a b m of which engendered the st ie In England whiah eventnated in the establishrnaat~hedwtriDe o f the freedom of the rem embodied in our Constitution. To require a aensordip thrmgh license whiah makes irn oaaible ihe free and nnhampemd dktribution of pamplleta atrikea at the ve heart of the cwn~titutionaigumtees." [~hfia

. ..

" .. .

...

3~1

JEHOVAH'S SERVANTS DEFENDED

Not geddlera In Ssmawky v. S t w k {1940), 199 So. 129; 196 La. 307, involving one of Sehovah's witnssaes, the Louisiana Supreme Court set aside a jud ment and held that Jehovah's witncsscs nre not pedjlers, and said: "The piaintiff was distributing and rellin boob and pnm bleta, propagatin , end digrwmiating &e dwtrina of $e reli toaa sack of which he was a member and a minister. &om a rending of tbe above qaoted provision of the Act it would appear that it d m not contemplate transnctions of this nature. . . . In view of the nature of these trsnsactions we arc of the opinion that the bgislature did not intand to require thaae engaged in disseminating the doctrines and principlee of any religions sect, c~therby the distribution, or aalc, o f book or pnmphlcts pertaining t o aach, to pay n pcddlds lieensc, or to classify them as gcddIels." The foregoing Ss~nnlesky case also upholds definitely the right of Jehovah's witnesspa to carry on their noncommercial, benevolent work and to use automobilea and other vehiclea for that purpose without the necd to have or apply for comntsrciul vehicle Eicense. I n the Illinoia case of Village of South H o U M v. Stein (1940), 26 N.E. 2d 868: 373 Ill. 472. one of Jehovah's d i n w e s distributed 'the ~ a t c h t o ~ smags. azine and varioua books and booklets and received money in exchange therefor, and was charged with a

violation of an ordinance which required one solicib ing to obtain a solicitor's permit, nnd making it un. lawful to go to a private resi$ence for the purpoae of selling mcrehandise without obtaining a ~0licibr'S permit. The Illinois S u p ~ m eCourt held that the ordinance wns unconstitutional as applied to Jehovah's witnesses, and voided the conviction. That court

aaid :

"Thus the question is not the formal interpretation of tbe ordinance but the appliaation given to it. A atatute or ordinance may be invalid as applied to one atata

JEEIOVAWS SERVANTS DEFENDED

of and yet valid as applied to another. Whihey v. CaliJomia, 274 U. 8. 357, 71. L. Ed. 1091; DahnkeWalker iU31dng Co. v. Rondorwnl, 257 U. S. 282, 66 L. Ed. 239; E m d e n v. Lowry [301 U.S. 242, 82 L. Ed. 9491, supra. "If the eonviEbion wna baaed on soliciting the nubscription of a pnbliaation witboat a permit, it wan error Mdor the dcaiions OP this court. I f the uonviotion wm bwed on iving or furnishing a book or pam hleta as disclad fy the stipulation, it violated both %s Sbto

and Federal conutitntions. In either went the ordinanoe would be void."

In Cinchleati v . Mosisr (1939), 22 N.E.2d 418; 61 Ohio App. 81: the Ohio Court of Appeals held that nn ordinance requiring liceme f o r businem of peddlers could no more apply to Jehovah'~witnthan if attempted to apply i t to an act performed outside of the stnte, county or city. The ordinance in question provided that a license would be "granted by the superintexdent of the department of public welfare to peddlers adling goods carried by band, upon the paymen: to the city treasurer by each upplicant of a license fee of $25.00 per annum. '' There the court further aaid: "We ~pwifiaallghold the ordinanoe conatitational, jut aa we spedcally &Id that the prosecution in the instaot

...

was unwarranted in law. "The ordinance itsslf in the Lovetl csse aame into odlision with the protections and inhibitions o f the 0 0 ~ 8 f i tutional provisions. The ordinance in question here baa no anoh infirmity. On the other bnnd, it is npparont that it can have no mom npplieation to the defendant for thc acts charged in tho affldn~itthnn it aould if it mere attempted t o apply it for nn aet performed outside the Stah, sounty, or eity. "The court should hnve rendered judgment for the defendant and dismisrd him. The judgment ia reuemd and the defendant dismissed!' CAW

Thomms v. City of Atlanta (1939),1 S.E.2d 593; 69 On. App. 520, aleo involved one of Jehovah's wit-

JBHOVbIIW 8ERVLNT8 DEFENDED news, who wan o 0 n M of violating an ordinanoe uf the City d AtIan4 Qmr& pm+bg th$

~ O V D ' BB E B Q ~ D B E ~ ~ E Dra

parawnwhoeedutgit~beto~th~r~~andwho~llailand~todod'shallbe The defendant wam dwhile walking along the atmet and from h o w to hoaee with 4 phonogmph, and wm alleged 0 have mld and peddled literatum to r d b t s . He had not ragistered nor obtained +a Ueense, the same not being n m to o n b

w o r k o i p ~ t h e g a p L ~ h e ~ a o ~ ~ d A p p a b held: "We do not think it Iu the an of o~ ordained minmgiatta h i a L ritb tho eib. %&fit*im.**togo~hand l a y a p i a Q l o l a , o r t o p r e d h r e h w t o d o r ~ L t lis -g rith his %ititma. ~ h m

paeaq$ingand~qPr~...mnotwsh

abumn~a4maybreqarrsdto~andobhinand pay for w to do. Neither ia a anla mmh wi* Li.'Xaitb a of bl.m b* Vi0hkh Of 8 @

mVn

A h the Supreme Court of Bouth (3aroliaa held, that the %W' of books and booklets on July X, by Jehovah's w i t n m dow not constitute pddling. h the -C of #tds v. how M M L , 8.1. 2d --.-,the court said: #The liMw a d e d around

Bistedoftmhwbwkletaentitled m d aa ipe of tqe W n b a h W maganne, B ~ W(t ~ n a t md the WIMTQ tsstimony ahow# &at khe mnm and pnm

L Fa.

of the defmd.nt ?u to b a n from t&e B ible,In m e or h o were- M e r e d b

g e t b a r a n d w o a l d ~ t o h h a f i ~ m ~ ~ work, for w h i i he d v e d no mat+l wadamtian, ~towhiDbhedewtedkimlife.Th4~butionofthe booksaaa lets~htt811&methodor~ mhd%E-bedbeS*aad beliEdadJb&'ad*dn~dthem & m a tbat #he# corroakr norking offa* Co good m c d s

ths W of V n d e r tbe e o n d a d fa& of b i a *~boaLbythadeLsndantars~zh&mdtd* WhlahWmh d B PttrpOW in Wbbh be W M 0n.Anainwr plrohuld-tha-rbh* O p k i ~ n , i t ~ d ~ ~ h t ~ O &ma, nor,. th htnteI s minbht under tba h h e r e , t o d h ~ of the people &ant objbjeotion and M a part of hb ~ . tare . s irp ~laru tm o ~fo his~h t' h twhere o *no p n em t m l s l l ~ timiBinWBd.~hs&dbishrndpsm

722

BllhePBtOame~mt,l~ss~iMidmtal of the aahdm+whub w u the &prodahid

inpJhhmli&L... eJuagmat W''[Italias a] In &at# m reA H~trghv. W&f (May W ,19411, 1 80. Zd , , a e Florida Supreme Uourt iwnd and held that dehweh*~w i b d W3ng oontribntions for and distributing WdcAtuww and Umt#ohtio# mgazhw on the oitg atreeta of Tmupn dld not ecma n t e a viozaticm of an ordinam making it unlawful for lam and hawkre fo d l goods, ~ a r e emd without p-iq and npm tho

.s+

theeimvhhonwmmtmda.Themrr*tddthep plication of the ordinance made it ~ x n ~ i t u ~ adding :

YEHOVA3'B BERVA.UTB DEPENDED

ZMHIEIOVAH'B BEET-

4Mn

DBFXNDED 15 tbs &&&hw of tbe

Wakh Tower pabliopti~ua.~ t3se a h Rough et d.v. citg of Jwnmtt6 8f d. (May 8, M I ) , F. #u pg.-, by the UniM ~tatee~i h m t f i r %e W* m o t of Pmmylvuia depLarin a peddling and hawked or-

dinance- i n v ~ ~cisd&&a

notthink+e~applkatohbmtifitdid,it weutabeluPalidtothate&nt.Binsethis~thensw. BWo~rdW~v.&rswll,~Bpril8,lsrll {119aM6@&], d d ~ w m t o r a l e ~ i n * t a n t ~ ~

...

-g

I n the m e of Reid id dd. v. B o m g k of Brmk* the United (W, lW),-

ststear

-ct

(loort

for

%FP 9mrn mat&t ai emally re-

d granted an injunction

k %% ion. m n n s i p a i i ~med antoning winst % h o d w i t n a a (1) the-Bmotsills d i -

nanca prohibiting d of any memhandiw u p n the wlthmt a pennit; (2) the CnearfleId Imron& 0-QB prohibiting amnmirq horn houw to houw

andupwtheatreeasforgooda,wawdmmhandim\ (3) the MorWm city pxdinante prohibiting d b b u k o n by anyone of g.lznted matter u n b a germit be h t obbined, and requiring the applicant bo salute the M B r e q d t e to a li;and (4) the ~ s ~r e b Mt - p b i ~t i n ~ mwt p&ig with& a p e m t or p dlmg gnvatdy or on the publio dm?bwithout a permit or

without a lim.The mart held that all such ordinanw were uncamthtional when appIied to Jehovah'~witnww, and their d o m m m t could mt con-

tinue, an s ~ & wodd be +tin of the Fimt and Fowkmtb Amdmente to the T J a Stat= ConBtitntion. There the m& hid: u T h e ~ ~ s q o h w i ~ ~ * o r ~ m i n -

f~ Ldt o~ ~ ~o r t~ bh n . t ewt b. e w orTbmb - put B the M or by a hto-how mayam In aad advwaM by tribntion w o n aa

isedahdbwl*rin~uad-undas~;

to J b v s b I ~w

The fact that literature ia claimad to k mold mamot. In C A k (Borough of W d ) Y. Reid st lux (Jrme 80, lW), .- A. ?a,.th? P-Ivania Superior hurt eet mide a camchon of two d Jehwah'n witnwho ware mviated oi alleged d i n g and offering for d e literaturn upon the &eets in violation of the lmmvh ordimnee. The ordinartea was held invalid aa appl~ed,and the conrt mid: '!he M reftmma l 'patnphIetd in t h e [ X e d P. u * of Q*i*? mpra] o p h m and iu dher opinha 02 that mu& (8ahneih v. Bbats . . ; ThornhiU v. blabma, 310 U.8. 88, 07; . . .eta,) is mob limitsd to

JEHOVAH% SERVANTS DEFEDED

~ ~ O f ~ o i t h e p r e s a ' m C o l ~ b i . lhyUlo& TmphleV.=

In M u wnu&im.we note from the opinion of taa United 8t.W Plnt b r m t Coort of A p p a 4

~ a m 8 l r i g h t t o ~ ~ b h ~ o i t h ~ t 8 f b r t h a mpmn of MbuW likmhe i# not l i d & lo hd-

S r r w ! m e r u t I h t ~ ~ w a ~ ~ o ~~w~~for&eo&bdeffaytheoootd pubhati011 tae~tionofon&opinh~ orthe~ Q n € ? n f i & o n & n & & m d

tive d the well&-& C i . l a v a l l v . ~ ~ ~ r a g , 9 5 8 . h ~ ~ ~ . cOli!lWh4 310 5 8 Lbfe hhh W ~ - i n & tmdamto~a

.!.u

dMed~aan~tataonnl~onthsnghtt0 U t fu& for w o r n objwb. properly ~ p p I i ~ t o h a w k m a n d p e d d l a r a ~ ~ o r d l t l a r y ~ o fon~ tbs d m ukmb mght not b hppwenab to r q a b the ada d dhtiibtlomof~tareofthsnwt~far~~ thew*... [Xtahdd5d] Thtu it io dearly evldmt that to hold that freedom of the prees matm that only frss dhtributim or #giftDof l i b t a m la gmtmbd by the ~ t u ia to m d the death toII C d t n t i o n a l righb in thi~ oountry. Such a doctrine is foreign to Ameriw jpisprud?nm und mbry to tha fnndammtal prin-

olphobh~undjustimTothnmholdLtomalte

JEHOVAH'S BELVANTI DEFENDED 17 and prerogative that right the poor and 18BO fortunste.

the libem of the prerrr the prid of the rich d well-todo md

b3@,

1 8 Pa Bnperiol Ct. 88

Ordained midstem, as ordained m i n i nnd preaching the iclyandfmmhousatohousaiteaanotbe

m l y said that muh work by Jehwah'e- w i t n w not m d t n t e a proper ranhip or 6 oi Ahnigh@ Qod. The Ftimrmy of Jehmh'n witneeaes that they ant as d i n e d m U t m ia rmcantmdid and nnimpeeohed and h therefom oonoldve u p a31 mimed in fhb matter. F'urthermora, the Umhd Statas Snpmme bwt hae that the individual

that~any point, doctrine or prkice is too a b d to be baliev€d.I?lw B ~ l d v. d WrPittd 8tata, 98 98.8. 146, 16% quoting from J e f h m ' ~Virginia Staeh M o m ; also Unifdd 8Wm v. Afmti-

18 JEHOVAH'S SERVANTS DEFENDED "Green River" type o f ordinance prohibiting calls at e d e n c e s without prior invitation or consent of householder ia invalid ns tm work of Jehovah's witnesses. In some municipalities there are ordinances known as the "Green River" ordinance. This type of ordinanoe prohibits making calla at the homa of people by peddlers and itinerant merchants for the purpose of aelling goods, wares or merchandise witbout the prior invitation or consent of the householder. This type of ordinance has been repeatedly held to be uneomtitutional and void on its face.*

' City of Columbia (S.C.) v. Alezander (Ootober 2,1933), 119 6.E. 24l; Real Silk Ho&rp Milk v. Cdy of Rickmcnd (Calif.) {April 24, IW}, 298 F.126; Ex parts Yaylwrd (Texas) (October 7, 1P25), 276 8. W. 1071; Otangeburg (5. C.) v. Furmcr (July 16'1D38) 181 8. C. 143; 186 6. E. 783; Jewel Tea Co. v. Town aj Bsl Air (May 26, 1037), 192 A. 4 7 ; 172 Md.638; Prior v. White (Fla.) (April 0, 1938), 180 So.347; 116 ALP 1176; White v. Town of Culpeper (Va.) (Februaq 20, 1939), l 8.E. Zd 269; 173 Va. 630; Wow Jsraeg Good Humor, Imc. v. Board ol Comvn. (January 25, 1@40), 11 A, 2d 113, 114; Ciry of YcAlsater {Okla.) v. Brand Union Tno (70. 30, lM), 98 P. 26 824; Da Barn) 7. C i b of ir G$';?n). (March 12, l W ) , 8 8. E. 2d 147; Jewel Tea Co. r. City of (3swva (Kebr.) (Marah 29,1940), 291 N. W.664; H a g w v. C. I . 0. e l a!. {New Jmey) (18391,101 F. 2d 774; 307 U. 8. 496; Commonwsalth of Pennayhank (Borough of State ColIege) v. Msysr8 [one of Jehovah's wib-] (Janaarg ?4,1940), opinion Ccntre County C o u r t d Quark Seeaiona; Cit of Chiahdm (Mino.) v. Ghook [ p i e of Jehovah%witness-! (Jnouary 27, 1940), opinion by Mianesota 11th Jndiaial Dist. Court, St. LDuk County; mid16 one of Jehovah's wit.-a] v. Ciry of E a M o n (.i.k.) (5mnary g, lW), decree by United S t a h Dbtrid Court for Western Distriet of Arkasaae; Peopb v. Boknke and Brown [two o f JehoY&'S witnema], fn be deoidad by New Pork Court of Appeals, fall term 194L

JEHOVAH'S SERVANTS DEFENDED

Such "Ureen River" ordinance has also been held invalid and unconstitutional as construed and applied to Jehovah's aitneasea, by tho United States Dktrict Court for the Southern District of Ohio in its decision of April 25, 1941, in the case of Zimmsrntavz s t al. v. ViUQge of L m d o m st d., F. Supp. -..., where an injunction waa granted to Jehovah's witness-, and in which that court said : "It follows therefore, tbat the regtriction of the ordinance aa enforced against theee plaint& amoanta to a denial of freedom of the press and of the right of free a w o h , rightg yaraotced by Lhe Constitution and protected againat ~ t a t einfringement by the Fourteenth Amendment. Although the theory of the ordimnee ia purportedly trespass, tho theory can give no sanction to the denial of fundnmentd fights under the Constitution. "Democracy wsts upon the theory that all men are pomessed of aertain inalienable rights; these rights, if demoaraay is to survive, must be b m d upon mutual tolmnce and understanding. Thoy give to no u l w or group the right to diakte to anothar what his opinima or b lids shall be. "It is the wndusion of thk Coart that tha plainti& have a aonatitntbnal right b distribute their literature from door to door in an orderly manner, without inkrf m w by m r t e anthnritg. Thera heing: neither d e p a tion nor ahowing that meh litemture is against publi~ morals m in any way improper for ditribntim."

. ..

Ds Berry v. Cibu of La Grange, 8 5.E.2d 146,where the Georgia Court of Appeals in 1940 upheld the right of one of Jehovah's witnw who was rvrongfully prosecuted under the "Green Rivei' orSee also

dinance.

Violation of Sunday laws or desecration of Sabbath. Became Jehovah's witneaes are doing a work of charity and benevolence and are performing acts of worship by preaching the gmpel, they do not come

JEHOVAH'B B E R V M B DEFIWDED

6EHOVAH'# 8EBVWTB DEFBNDED

witbh the k m of atahtea probibitins work and ~ r m S ~ ~ ~ # ~ b e Sea Opinion of Attortley aaneral of S h C of New York, 45 New York State Deparhnent Re orh Pe la v. a , M Misa 569, 110 N.Y.!f 22, and I& r. M A (ono of Jehovah'~w i t n a a ) , 155 P. 296. Their work of and oharib perion+ svrm thowgh they &dm ~wttrlbatioll~ of -ny for the W8nb fm b&g d d a d f t d * Ungun* hm. Thor tbsy am anti ad ta t b m e protmtion amrded to w r e l i g i d ' or aahurch'' o r g u n k t i m a &a CmmonweaZth T, N ~ b (Pa.) t 84 Pa. Rap, 398 ;C-A T. B d o n (Mam.) ,186 dam, 884; &ate (Kan.) v. N d d h n , 184 U. 165. 4 P. U464.60 C 3 6 1056;Dab v. Krrepp 48 pa. St, 8 8 9 x B m s. I h (Ind) N.E. 666; la7 4; Ft. Mad, 1st M. E. C h d 7. D m wJJ, 81 N.W. 17l; 110 Iowa 5 . A h v. Darm, 4

=% st.

6. hd

N.W. 427; In re HPrU, 18 1ddo 176; B&t

Brooh, 91 h. 118.

Tmw a+vity" m& as d i i i b n t y W t s d m not w m within rohibitim of euch S S u n W lawsmtMthooghnotLuranaatoiw~p,~ra m.a 0 . V . M~NW b -~ers. (h (Mo.), 181 8. W.1.) However, the dietribntion of lib amturn by Jehovah%witnemes b their way or menmi of womhip or Serpioe of Ahigbty God by praaehing or dedaring His m g e mo~xpingThe . T Playbg of phonagraph reeords aud dietribatlng literature attnddng rdglon ma a o n a m ia protected by the United b3tatee Comdtuiion, and suchdoeanotamouuttotobrpeacepeacedk orderly conduct. Tbb qrm e q m d y held h the aam of C&& v. Comadwut (ISM), 810 U.S. Bgs, w h m Newton f+n,twelI and his sons Jam and B u d & o + i d mumtam, each me of Jehwnh'~wittlaw, w h h engagd in p e g #e gospel from h o w to botrse,

&wing literatum exphhhg the purpom of ALMIGHTY l ~ .GOD an mtIind In Hh Word, the Bible, d phying phomgagh rsolda 00ntahiig =bSe tab, w m a d ew Haven, Comeetiant, an8 charged with w r y and common hw o w . p3baw%m f o e F Q of violating a ' ~ beeawe~ t h y went n from door ta door and w b abed tbe

~ n ~ h t i o tnhs e limatrvetbe hw far; fnrther, Jsrrse was found g d t y of 'breaoh of the p a d becaw of the phying of a phonograph m r d atitled uEnemid', d d b i n g a W of the same name, and which m r d wm W h d by h a Caplie men been? it @ and attauked their "rdqmnR. The U d Eltaw SupConrt d d :

Ythe mmrd plnpd by Cantwell smbodies a g m d a t t a & o n a l t ~ d g i o ~ ~ ~ + ¶ i n ~ oIB&aaad~uriouutomm~itthen~mgl~~oOth ~~atholie~harahfm~trjstarea~ktarrtrs wbiuh nsturally would d a d not d y p m a o of &at pmmmh, but all othera who m s p t th h e lseld +ighm faith of tbeir ~

m The .heman wew in fa& dmded. One ot tbem said he felt lite hitting

Cantwdadtbothertb&h~tsmpbdtothrOlR

~oiltheskeet.monewI!mtestindhafdt

l I k a y w ~ i a m & t s t h e q &

'DidF angthing~~orhs~eaay~dc¶~' Uo, mr, h , a s e Be he w e d tste tha Beand be want? The other whess htddthat he told he had better gat ob the atmt before happenedtohimand that w a u ~ e n d o f t h e m r r W a aCap+ w e I I p W ~ ~ p h i ~ ~ a n d ~ ~ ~ p t h e s t r e e t . "In .&a realm digiow faith and in t h ~of t ~QW-

- +a

...

:Fz!*z eror to hm T O ~ A ~ m o m + t d r i a n , t b s ~ ansB.fnw**e

mweBnow,attimaa,dto~rath,Q~

haflasnwhohaveh,m~~tinBhamb

or~ts,d~ento~htameat.Bnttbepeoplaob

+ h i 8 ~ 0 1 1 ~ v e ~ m t k e ~ o f h i s t w g , h ~

m a p h o f ~ p ~ ~ ~ P r b ~ o f ~ ~ ~ d * b n

JEHOVAH'S BERVANTB DEFENDED

JEHOVAEtB BERVANTB DEFENDED liberties am, in the long yiew, mentin1 to enlightened opinion nnd right conduat on the part of the e i t h n ~ of n demwraoy. "Tho m t i n l aharaoteriatia of t h m liberties k, that under their shield many type8 of life, oharacter, opinion and belief can devolup u~molestedand unobstructed. Nowhere is this shield more nmssary than in our own country for n people eomposed o f many racer and of many creeds. There are limits to the exercise of theae librtiea. The dlrnger in thm times from tbe coerciro nctivitias of t h w who in the dehsion of racid or religious emeeit would incite violence and breaches of the 1wae.e iu ordcr to deprive others of their equal right to the cxoreise of thoir liberties, i s cmphnaized by evcnta PnniiIinr to nll. These and other transgression^ of t h m limits the states appropriately mny punish. " . the petitioner'n communioation, considered in the light of the constitutional g n n r a n m , raked no such clenr and resent meunce to pnblio peace and order as to render f i m linble to oonviction of the Dommon law offense in quastion."

In the Cantwell the C o u r t also held that n statute which required a permit as a condition precedent to mlioiting funds for "a religious o r charitable organization" was unconstitutional ns applied to Jeho-

vah% witnesscs. Tn t h m ~ of City of Rwwfwt v. Bic-ksnbakw (decided J u n e 28, 19411, S. E. 2d ........., one of Jehov a h ' ~witneasea was accused of "diirderly conduct". The South Carolina Supreme Court f o u n d and held in that case as follow: "Tbe A pellnnt was one of twelve mom, men and rvorncn, enbred the city of ~ e a u g * vmy early on Sunday morning, J u n a 30, 1840, and at about first daylight diitribated religious pampbleta on the poreha of tho residents. Some of the lnttor complained of the d i turbanca to a poliwmm on duty who arrested the appeSlmt and sho w u later tried in the Mayor's Court and mnvicted of the violation of the following quotad ordinnnw ; 'Every person, who shall by provoking or inadting

d o

epithets, wordrr, or gestares, attempt Co provoke another shall be deemed gaiIty of dmrderly oonduct, and upon conviction thereof be h a d in any sum not excdmg One Hundred Dollam or imprisonment, not exceeding Thirty &ye.' " . We haye carefully rend the testimony, all of which is printed in the rocord, and we i d none which wonld jnatify mviaticm of the ap ant of s violation of the WOWordmmm under was ru prabcuted, convicted and mtenmd, so the latter will b revemd.. "The judgmenl of the Circuit Court is revcrsed as is the cmv~ctionand senhnco of the appellant by the City Court of Bcanfort."

. .

"Vagrancy" sometimes is wrongfully laid as a "disorderly conduct'' charge againat Jehovah witness= when unlawfully interrupted in t h e doing of their g o d work. See Kathteldne Archer [one of Jehovah's w i t n w s v. firsf Cr. JudimhE D d t . Court of Bergan Counfg ( .J.) (November 7,1932),162 A. 914, dwision by New Jersey Supreme Court, setting aside her wrongful conviction. The fact that violence is threatened against

distributor is no ground for stopping Jehovah's witnetma, who rightIy resist actual violence. Ifi Whitmi# V. Califomid, 274 U.S.357,the United States Supreme Canrt said: "The fast that speech is likely to m a l t in causing a?me violence is not enough to jmtify ita supprw-

...

810ll."

In D m ~ b o mPublishing Go. v. Fitzgerdd (1921), 271 F. 479, where the mayor and other officials o f Cleveland, Ohio, were prohibiting the distribution of the D w b o r n Indlpedenf on the streets, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals said: "If it Be asswed that the artide might tend to excite othera to breof the p e w the reply b plnin. It is the duty of d!~ofecials charged with preserving order and p e w to r u p p m M y and promptly all

JEHOVAH'S SERVANTS DEFENDED

J$HOVAFl1S 8ERVANTB DEFENDED

p w n s guilty o f disturbing it, and not forbid inn-t ersons to exweim their lawfal nnd equal righte. . f defendants' actiona were an~htained,$he aonutitutional liberty of every aitizem freaty to speak, writa and pabl i d hia sentiments on dl subjwts, being responsible only for abuse of that right, would be plaaed at the m9My of every publio o i c i d who for the moment ww ~Iotbed with authority to preserve the publio e m and the right to a frea p m thua destroyed.

. .

.. .

Another case in point is that of Citv of Guffney Y. Pubnmr (decided June 2, 1941, by the South Camlina Supreme Court), ,..-. 9.E. 2d There one of Jehovah's w i t n m s was distributing literature which highly offended the religious aumeptibilitiea of one Fowler, who attacked htnam. Putnam resisted, standing his ground manfully and firmly defended the Kngdom interests in harmony with Bod-given instruction contained in the Bible. Putnam wns proaecutd for aasanlt upon his asmilant. On trial Putnam, one of Jehovah'a witnwse~,was convicted of violating an ordinance of the city, pertinent parts of which read as follow: "Any peraon or persona creating any diatarbing noises, or making, oreating or engaging in any brawl, riot, $fmy; fighting or indulging in profane, obume, abusive or vulgar Ian we, &dl if found guilty, bo subjmt to a h.F On hearing the case on nppeal, the Supreme Court of South Carolina held that "the defendant wae not guilty, in oar opinion, of any assault, and it is eloar that Powler, who provoked the difnculty and wna tho phyeical throughout, h d no reasonably well founded a z n of bodily harm or dnngar to his penon. So v a t the red q o d m preseated by the appeal is whether the worde coneemurg religion and Christianity, spoken under the oircnmstancas above narrated [Putnam had called out in a normal tone of voim: "Religion is ruining the nationa; C h b i a n i t y will save the people"], addrmsed to the publie at la constituted of them~elveaenffiaio~tlegal justi~catiw

. ..

the m u l t made by Fowlnr. It is plain that they do not. "In view of the fact that peace and good order forbid that individuals shall right thcir own wrongs, we have announced the d e in numerous caaee that in the a h n c e of ~ t a t n t e ,mere wortla, no mntbar how abaeive, ins& in vexatious or threshing theg may be, will not jub ti& an -ult w battery, u n l m ammpanied by an aotoal of physiaal violenca,4though they may miti b the punuhment. t3tats v. Cooler, 112 8. C. 95, 98 845; State v. Workman, 39 8. C I, 17 B.E. OM; state 7. Jacobl as 8.c. ao,a 6. E ' 3 9 ; Shic 7 . Jackmu, 32 S. C. 27, 10 S. E. 769. 'LNorem it b euaoessfully contended that in attempting to defend himself under tbe facts in thia 8+, Pnham wrra gnilty of as~utaltnpon Fowler. One aotl m nelfdefense to repel M mUIIawfuI attack ia not W%J of assault; be may repel form with force and aontioue his self-defense rw long EI the danger appnrently aontinuea." This Supreme Court holding upheld Putnam'a right to have defended the interests of the Kingdom and clearly deAned the religionist aa in the wrong in a t tacking Putnam. Though he disliked the mesaage Putnam was offerin$, he ahould have p a d on. For entire text of this remarkable opinion ace Co~olatiorn magazine for July 9, 3941, No. 569, p. 8. The work of Jehovah's witnesses, or their statement that "religion is a snare", doea not constitute a breach of the peace or disorderly conduct even when done in the preaence and hearing of those who are offended at the merulage. See People v. Qnthrie (1930), 26 N.Y.S.ad 289 People v. Ludo~ci(1930), 13 N.Y. 6. ad E-3

FE.

People v. Nortburn et d. (1B40), 41 C. & Bd 2M; 103 Cd. Bupp. 205 People v. C ~ r y ket al. (1941),......

N. Y. 8. 2d .,

24 JEEOVAE'8 8EBVANTB DEFEHDED United s h b Dletrlct hurt aeelarcar J&*

or aredltlonhta, In the of Beehr dt V. 8'nrith ef a& (Juna 4, IN) F STI where six f&hfd MITB~U of &hQ' d i e r e wma&Uy jYl<q and held without bowl andw f h of d m for dImttbilaamonMhM* d d on bail, the U n l t e d ~ ~ C w r t * t h e E ~ ~ of K%ntu& panted a pennanemt injanct* holding that ~e h r a h r ] e of J&ov+'B w-i e not sub d m mt aediaoq and &d not advopate the overthrow of tbe government by form; m d that such &oi& k rcstmkaed from inhrpdng

JJ5HOVAH'B I m V m B DEFEKDED

vah'ln witmw4xs not stl-

~~ w i t h the di&ibutlon

by Jahwsh'B w iof their Bible Iitemtm. The entire taxt of the deeirdon a ~ # e C ~ s ~ e I o r J u l y 0 , &

Km,.

~ t o e a l ~ t s a ~ i a r m t ~ d f o r i n -

hdedug with J d l d ' l r witmawa Jehovah's w i m rdw to date the flag of any nation, not h u m of bnt d* becansre they am in a covenant with Jehovah Chd to do His will and becaw H ~ E a~mmandmantwritten in the ~ibib e that H b iaiw s e m b m& not h h to or d u b emblem or q b o l of any mm a t or m& mve and e m Jehovah W. ( ~ x d t y 14) Thv mpt t h e e 4the thhlp for wh& f +& and a n d g 4 o w all the lam of the land whoh are not h d t with the lam of BZmighiy CM,or wq& do not reanire them to vdate their memant W% I J e h d aOa. The wmb have mognhd the right of Jehovah'~ w i ~ ~ r & w t o d u t e t h e & a andgrantthem g

pmtdion of the C!matitntapn in tb& belid. In %no& v. B bmn (A ril25, lW), 116 8. W.2d 888, tae-%&d&vila~atdrmrmssid: -9ngL " tidoftlwjetIse,greakand

wpmhudbb to w swh Mht mud bu held

of d p m b t h . Par, howc o n h a t mug be, tE&

e; w h u e w a , rdlgmm ~~ 11addad]

Tokmhauhildthaoomrnsndmeniad~ h not Uud whi& pmhibit the d u t h g of any d h b a a violation of the lam. In Paopts v. # a d &m (1889), a79 N.Y. 528 ; 18 N.1. %d 840, the New York hyt of Agp& ad& the mvi&ion of J~~Aov&'I mtnemm who had baa, atrar%#l with mtzibuthg to the truanoy and ddmqueueg of a minor. TIMYh& of the char was that the m t s bud~tthsdddto~J%ovahQadodb#aw thored ah d u d to d u b the at aahool. The ohm wm eapded from school. The wnrt held that

h ~ t a w e m ~ t ~ o f v i ~ a n y l i t w i n teaohina their ahild that W'I law forhub the sirluting d I U t l m ~ 0 Inr6Jmw f ( l W ) , % N . Y . B . 2d lo ;17s 4-51, the J ~ W (N~RR yak)

child~'llConrtmt~theow~on0foned JahDPA's wiwho h d besn -ted arr a -ant for not a w d h g rwhool bwaw h e wm expelledfor ~ t o ~ u ~ t Her h refarral e ~wa8. h e l d n o t t o b e a ~ o f t b e l a w r w , ~ ~ ~ t tbe~victhandtheWwaeheldnottobeadelh wmt under the m t e . & t h e u w e u f b r s ~ w d {1W),aBN.P. ~~

Division, Fonrth D-t,

JEHOVAH'S 8ERVANT8 DEFENDED held that it was not anlawful for one of Jehovah'e witnews to refuse to salute the flag, and that court aet aside a conviction of one of Jehovah'~witnmes under the delinquency law of New York. The boy had been a h expelled from school for hi refusal to mlub a &g. A like m e i!3 thet of 1%re R o h d Lefsbws and othrs (May 6, 19411, 20 A. 2d 185. There the New Hampahire Supreme Conrt held that Jehovah's witnesses were not acting contrary to the law when they refued to salute the flag. In this case the lower court had committed to the reform school three children of Jehovah's witneasss who had been expelled from public school for refusal to aalutc the flag. The Xupreme Court held thnt auah did not constitute delinquency or a violation of the law, and released the children. The court also said: ''Inving parents who do their best for their ohildmn in support, aurtnw and mdmonition are of more worth than eeuaiary mema. Bighteons and generous rnotivea may of more imporbaa &an notion8 that chime with majority opinion8 d what is form or what is the beet method of teaching patrrotim. But in view of the aaaredneas in whiab the State bas d w n p held freedom of religious mabnce, it is impwibIe for t~ to attribute td h e le ' A h r e an iatent to nnthork the breaking ap of famir life for no ohor reason than h n w aome of i t a membats have cons?ientious religious rcruplea not shared by the majority of the community, at least provided thoso romples are exerukd h~g o d faith, and their emrake in not tinged with i m m d @ or marked by d n w e to the rights of others. The purity of the action of the children in tbese regards ia admitbd"

...

In X e f i d g e t d,v. City of Yc~wtus t d. (Idaho) (May 14, 1941)' F. Supp. the United States Diatrict Court for Xdnho held that one could not be lawfully required to aalute the flag and retite the pledge of allegiance as a condition precedent to db tributing literature,

JEEOVAH'B SERVANT8 DEFENDED

The United Stat- District Conrt for the mistern Diatrict of Pennsylvania (Raid et al. v. BrookuiUd~s s t d. [May 2, 19411, F. Supp. -) a h held to the ante effect in enjoining the enforcement of a aimilm ordinance of the Pennsylvania city of Monassen. Wearing or carrylng d m cannot be re ulattd by reauirina a permit, or otherwh pro lbited. - ~ h a ' ~ u ~ r &Court e of the United Statea m held in the c a m of T h o d i l l v. Alabama (1940)' 310 U. 5 . 88,and Carhm v. Californda (19401, 310 U. 8. 106. FoUmng these Supreme Court opiniom are the holprnge of the Masmchusetta Supreme Judicial h u r t m Cmmmweolth v. Anderson (lMl), 32 N. 1.2d 684, and Gommonwsalth v. Paacorn (April 5, 1941), --

N. E. Zd Conclusion.

The above dfty mws involving Jehovah'~dn-, and the many other~berein referred to, are just a few of the hundreds of favorable decisions rendered

in behaIf of Jehovah's witnesses by fair-minded, liberty-loving judgea of the land of liberty. Such men are holding up the Constitution as a bulwark the Roman Catholic Bierarchy'a movement as a 'flfth cdum' tb wbot~ge,harnstrlng, sandbag and d ~ m y American constitutional righta and to s u p p w free dom of worahip of Almighty God. Hierarchy-idnenced judgeg would tolerate only those traditional religious practicw that are appmved by the Roman Catholic Hierarchy. They wonld allow only t h w human expmions that are perverted to conform to their devilish theuriea expounded, for example, in the Enoyclical Letter (1832) of a reigning pontifE of the Hierqhy, Pope Gregory XVI, who wrote, "That of all otbem mod to be dreaded h a atate,

...

nnbride8""4 liberty of opitpioa Hither tends that worst and never mfiicimtly to be execratad nnd d e h t s d L I E ERTY OF TEE PRESS,for tbe diffwion of all m m -

JEHOVAB'B SERVANTS DEFENDED

ner of writings, which some so loudly contend for, and so actively promote."

Many thousands of judges of the inferior murk of America have fallen under the evil influenoe ot wch totalitarian dictatorial movement and, either willingly or unwittingly, have yielded to demonhd leadership against liberty; have spinelesaly joined the hue and cry of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy to Lstop Jehovah's witnessed and, in violation of their oatha of office, hove wmnghlly and without jurisdiction or justifleation "'convic~''Jehovah's witneaaca, aa foretold in Psalm 94: 20. Let such public of8chls notice. Section 20 of the Federal Code (Title 18, Sectioag 51 and 52 of U.S.C. 8 . ) maka it n felony for anyone, under color o f nny law or ordinance, to deprive any citof owstitutional rights or privilegesl. And thia Btatnte appliea to officials who seek tu collwt liic e m feea from peraona wnstitationally exempt from PaYmenf. A pollee official or other offlcer, or pemons actively participating in causing or making an arrest under a uoid o r d i n a m , can be persrmallt, held for general and apecific damage, (8cott v, McDonald, 165 U,S,58,89) Violation of the above atatute is punishable by a-fine of several thourrand dollam or several years' imprmonmcnt, or both. Among the oldest c a w bn the pinis herein set forth ia the one recorded in the Bible book of The Acta of the Apoatlw, chapter 5, beginning at veme twenty&. DiscipIea of 3-na Christ were publicly informing the people, diwminating the truths of the Word of Almighty God in obdience to His command. Reliionisb were grieved and angered becauqe God's truth waa being proclaimed. The clerw and other religionists conspimd against the disciplw who were publishimg THE TRUTH. Those conapiratom inatigated the a r m of the disciples, who were haled into

JEHOVBIX'S BERVANTB DEFENDED

the judgment hall. A high Roman court then mtting in Palestine heard that caae. After hearing the widence, one of the members of th& court, Qamaliel, a

learned counselor, aroaa and, addressing h t fellow members of the court and a11 present, said: "RetCRln from t n a m man, and Mt thorn *Ion.: l o r n thlm counral or thls woHr bn of man, I t wllt come to nought: b?t I1 I t be ~f Ood, ys cannot overthrow If: lsrt hapty ym bn found o w n to # O M a n a l n r l God."

This temperate and salubrious principle all ~ightminded pemm always follow. Here it is well to remember,alao, the Creator's sure

word to His humble mrvanta: "They [haters of THE TRUTH] shall fight against thee, but they shall not prevail against thce ; for I am with thee, saith JEHOVAH, to deliver thee." (Jeremiah 1: 19, Am. Rev. Vsr.) Any who are willing to hear, the Creator &O wuascls: 'Be wlrs now theretors, 0 ye kinmr: be Inttructad, ya ludpaa of t h a earth. Strum JEHOVAH wlth tamr, and rslet00 wSth trarnbllnm. Kin# H l r Ban, THE KlNa, 1a.t h e be anmry, r n d yo perlrh from the wny. when h l r m a t h 1s k l n dlod but 3 Iltttr. BIoawd are all thoy t h a t put thalr b u n t In H l m . ~ P m t mP:1O.lSi

To aid all in insisting on the doing of jnstioe thii booklet iu

W A T ~ E T BIBLE ~ ~ P ~AND T u r n E J O m ,Iao. Brooklyn, New Yo&. August, 1941. Made in Lhe Unlted Btatea of Arne-

Cmrbmmtdcaeemto p p h m n ~ t o p - cp

h *

to pnblii

dempnds ot

not m d a for s a i o JehovabC h do not dome vitb'm #peddling md hawking' laws -, , , ,

.-.-.,,

10-16

p r o h W w ' s t h withotlt prior hrit.hburnatWatoJ*d'.ri1410

Jehwah'mknotsnhmhaO~md, %a % d u b d n d nc4 ground for mtopph work BgW