Philip Sidersky and the Ross libel trial

One of the historical documents researchers have long wanted to see is the transcript of the Ross libel trial. The court copy disappeared decades ago, and descendants of the main participants do not have copies. The Watchtower Society’s copy went through a phase of: ”was, but is not, but is yet (maybe) to reappear…” Crucially, at the time that Marley Cole wrote up the case in Jehovah’s Witnesses – The New World Society, he never actually saw an original transcript in Bethel (letter from Marley Cole dated February 15, 1989).

For further information on this background see the article on this blog The Ross Libel Trial posted on May 20, 2013.

To recap just briefly on the main points, a Baptist clergyman in Canada, John Jacob Ross, published a booklet attacking CTR. CTR was advised to sue him for criminal libel. Legally, in retrospect, this proved to be a mistake as the cutting below from the Toronto Globe for April 2, 1913, shows:

Essentially, for a charge of criminal libel to success (as opposed to a civil case) there would need to be a clear threat of a breach of the peace. Bible Students were not likely to riot in the streets, let alone even read Ross’s words, so the jury was instructed to render a verdict of “no bill.” The merits or otherwise of the case did not come into it. In restrospect, it is a shame this point was not established by legal minds before proceedings ever started.

Anyhow, emboldened by the case being dismissed on a technicality, Ross claimed a “victory” and produced a second booklet where he basically accused CTR of making false claims on the stand about being a scholar of Biblcal languages. The charge has been repeated over the years by opposers of CTR - who have also never seen the transcript.

The hearing was written up in the local newspapers at the time, but none picked up on this point that Ross would later labor. However, it is now possible to establish with reasonable certainty what exactly did happen in this part of the hearing.

Enter stage left, a certain Philip Sidersky (1870-1938).

Photo from the Elizabethtown Chronicle for October 19, 1937.

Siderksy was born in Russia, and some papers suggest he had once thought of training as a rabbi. Instead, he came to the United States and was reinvented as the “Reverend Philip Sidersky,” author, editor, and speaker to various denominations on converting Jews to Christianity. He also became an extremely active critic of Pastor Russell and the Bible Student movement. He was to become such a public face of opposition to CTR’s work that he even gets a mention in modern Watchtower literature (Yearbook 1979, page 95). CTR must have responded at some point, because Sidersky then tried to sue him in a counter response. From The Washington Post, September 7, 1911:

This came to nothing. But undaunted, Sidersky produced a whole magazine just to attack CTR and Watch Tower teaching. It was called Searchlight on Russellism and ran from late 1915 to at least when CTR died at the very end of October in 1916. Two issues are known to have survived. The first, volume one, number one, is in the Harvard Divinity School library.The second, volume one, number six, is interesting because it contained a letter from Sidersky to the President of the United States, asking him to clamp down on CTR’s writings being sent to members of the National Guard. This was to end up in the files of what ultimately became the FBI, as part of the package of difficulties the Bible Students faced during World War 1.

So what is the connection with the J J Ross libel trial? Two pages of each issue of Sidersky’s paper (page 2 and then continued on page 7) contains a transcript of the Ross hearing. In the absense of the original trial transcript this provides us with probably all that can now be obtained of the case.

We have to assume that the transcript is accurate, but there is no way to check. We also have to note that Sidersky selected what suited his purpose. None of the prosecution material aimed at Ross appears; rather, it is the defense counsel, Staunton, grilling CTR, which makes up the surviving selective extracts. However, they do give us a flavor of the proceedings.

The complete transcript that survives is in the next article, without any editorial comment. However, I do recommend reading the following background material first.

It starts off with Counselor Staunton being somewhat insulting, and CTR being less than willing to volunteer information. However, it soon settles down, and there is some interesting verbal sparring between the two individuals, with CTR questioning Staunton at one point.

The section in Searchlight volume 1, number 1, covers the intitial stages of the examination. This includes CTR’s schooling and the key section on languages. We will come back to that shortly. The second section from Searchlight volume 1, number 6, covers financial matters. The case of William Hope Hay, a pilgrim who made a financial donation to the Society, then some time later had a breakdown and had to be hospitalised. The Society paid the hospital fees. And then the different corporations used by the Society. Ross had accused CTR of running a money-making scheme and basically hiding affairs behind various corporations. It was explained quite clearly by CTR how the Society’s affairs worked, and how the different linked corporations were simply needed to legally operate in Pennsylvania, New York, and also the far-flung corners of the British Empire.

No smoking gun there.

But let’s return to the claim that CTR lied on the stand about his “qualifications.”

What actually was said? From the Sidersky transcript:

But when Ross wrote his second booklet, his report said this:

In Ross’s account, the question was do you know the Greek? However, the “quote” doesn’t actually make sense. The Greek? The Greek what?

Ross leaves out that crucial word “alphabet.” CTR had already stated clearly he had no schooling in Latin or Greek. So he did not “know” Greek. But yes, he knew the alphabet, but might make a mistake on some of them. (This writer can relate to that).

Losing the word “alphabet” is a very unfortunate typo in the circumstances. It is either that, or a deliberate attempt by Ross to mislead. Well, you, the reader, can decide.

So that is the background. In the next article, we just have the straight transcript without comment.