Rose and Charles Ball

A few years ago I wrote an article on How Old Was Rose Ball? Due to Maria Russell’s contradictory testimony in Russell vs Russell (1906) there were several possibilities on Rose’s age when she joined the Russell household in Pittsburgh. In fairness to Maria, she was trying to remember events from nearly twenty years before, and we can’t discount the stenographer having an off day. Equally, the information written by J F Rutherford in the Ecclesiastical Heavens booklet was written nearly thirty years after events, and was not based on first hand knowledge.

However, as a result of further research I am now happy to accept that my main premise in the above mentioned article has been proved wrong. I still think there are points of value in the article; hence it has not been deleted. But we can now establish that Rose Ball joined the Russell household in late 1888 or early 1889. She would have been 19 years old, but could have looked younger at the time.

The evidence comes from examining the life of her brother, Charles U Ball. Charles joined the Russell household and workforce before Rose did. Rose then wrote and asked if she could come and join him? We know when Charles died and now also know when he came to Pittsburgh. This is that story.

The basic story of Charles and Rose came out in Russell vs Russell (1906). Quoting from the Paper Book of Appellant, page 90, the exchange went like this.

CTR: “We had a young man in the office by the name of Charles Ball, who came to us from Buffalo, and was deeply interested.”

Counsel: “What has that got to do with the girl?”                               

CTR: “That was the brother. She wanted to come because her brother was here. After her brother died, she was lonely and Mrs Russell and I both thought a great deal of her. She was a very young looking girl…we treated her in every way as a daughter, and told her we considered her such, and she told us she considered us as parents.”

Some accounts describe Rose as an orphan, but this is not true. A check of genealogical records shows the family to be alive in Buffalo. In fact, if more people had only read the Russell vs. Russell (1906) transcript they would know this. Shortly after stating that CTR and Maria treated her as a daughter, CTR testified:

CTR: “(She) had no relatives there, and we told her she could call herself by our name. She said the only reason she didn’t do that she was afraid if her father heard of it, he would think she had lost her respect for him.”

It may be that there was some estrangement in the Ball family, and that could be suggested by the story of her brother Charles.

Charles came to work for CTR as a stenographer. This is before they moved into Bible House. He died on March 14, 1889. Notice of his death and the funeral from CTR’s home was given in the Pittsburgh Dispatch for Saturday, March 16, 1889.

The key records are not indexed online at this time of writing, but using the date and area, it was possible to find the burial register for Charles with some key information.

It runs across two pages in the register.

The first page gives his name: Charles Ball. His color: ditto, i.e. white. His sex: male. His age at death: 22 (This is actually an error; he was still 21 at the time). Married or single: single. Occupation: stenographer. Date of death: March 14. Cause of death: consumption.  Date of certificate: March 15.

The second page gives his birthplace: Buffalo, N(ew) Y(ork). His last residence and time of residence therein: on March 10 at Clifton Avenue (the Russells’ home) and nine months. His previous residence: Buffalo, N.Y.  Place and date of interment: Uniondale and March 17. And finally the name and residence of the physician signing the death certificate and the name and residence of the undertaker.

So we note that Charles had been living with the Russells at Clifton Avenue for the last nine months, and prior to that had been in Buffalo. So doing the math, Charles came to Pittsburgh around June-July of 1888. At some point after that, his sister wrote asking if she could come as well? So Rose came, Charles died, Rose stayed on.

The thought that there might have been some family estrangement is suggested by what happened with Charles. When he became ill he did not go back home to Buffalo. When he died, his body was not sent back to Buffalo. He did not leave a will, so his personal effects and affairs were sorted out by CTR who, rather than a family member, was granted letters of administration.

Charles Ball was buried in Pittsburgh, in the Union Dale cemetery. For an unknown young man his gravestone is really quite impressive. (Photograph reproduced with permission).

The motif at the top could well be a cross and crown before it was vandalised. And if so, why was it vandalised? And at the bottom of the marker is a familiar scriptural inscription, a partial quotation from Revelation 2 v.10: “Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.”

Charles’ stay in Pittsburgh and his substantial grave stone pose questions we cannot answer. What is known is that sixty years later, he was still remembered. Here is the notice of Rose’s death from an Australian newspaper, the Melbourne Argus, for November 24, 1950.

Transcript: HENNINGES – On November 22, Rose Ball, widow of the late Ernest Charles Henninges, beloved sister of Lilian, Daisy, Charles (deceased) and Richard (deceased), aged 81 years. – Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord.

(Reprinted from Jerome History blog)

How Old was Rose Ball?

Note: More recent research has confirmed Rose's age on entering the Russell household and shows this article's main premise to be incorrect. Please see the article Rose and Charles Ball published on June 4, 2020. However, there are some things of value in the article below so it has not been deleted.

by Jerome

(reprinted)

Rose Ball and Ernest Henninges pictured in the front row of a group photograph at a Bible Students convention in Chicago in August 1893. Rose was 24 and Ernest 22 at the time. They would marry a few years later.

When Maria Russell sued Charles Taze Russell (hereafter referred to as CTR) for a divorce from bed and board, and accused him of improprieties with other females in the household, it attracted front page headlines in Pittsburgh. It was just the sort of story about a religious figure that the papers loved. Maria’s accusations, although judged inadmissible by the judge, were still given maximum publicity in the popular press.

There were actually two accusations. One featured Rose Ball, a member of CTR’s household who had been viewed as an unofficial adopted daughter; and the other featured a servant girl, Emily Matthews. Rose had subsequently married, and at the time of the court case in 1906 was living with her husband Ernest Henninges on the other side of the world in Australia. Rose had been out of the country for several years at this time, and since Maria’s accusations were not publicised in advance, there was no way she could be called on to give evidence for either side. However, the other accusation, one far less known, involving a servant girl named Emily Matthews, was dealt with by the court. Emily still lived in Pittsburgh, and when called as a witness under her married name Emily Sheesly, testified clearly that no impropriety had ever occurred with CTR. Maria’s counsel did not even bother to cross-examine her.

One feature of the Rose Ball accusation that has continued to raise questions is her age. Maria presented her as a fully grown woman; CTR presented her as a much younger person towards whom he acted in a “fatherly” manner. There are several schools of thought on this divergence. One is that CTR stressed his fatherly concern for a young person in his household, because that was innocent; although in today’s popular climate would likely backfire. Another school of thought blames the discrepancy on Maria; that Rose’s age was inflated so that her accusations would carry more weight in the popular climate that existed then. Another interesting theory is that maybe Rose herself falsified her age – one way or the other – to get into the Russell household. Or – looking at the above photograph taken of Rose when she was 24 – maybe in her late teens she really did just look young and dress young.

This article presents another suggestion, where a simple misunderstanding over dates could possibly resolve the inconsistency. I admit this relies on conjecture, but I would ask that readers at least consider it.

Rose was born on 19 March 1869 and died in Australia on 22 November 1950 aged 81. Since 1909 she and her husband, Ernest Henninges, led a movement that broke away from ZWT over the issue of the New Covenant. They published a journal called The New Covenant Advocate, which ran from 1909-1953. Ernest was chief editor until his death in 1939. Rose then served as editor until 1944 when she handed over the reins due to advancing years. As the original adherents died out, so the paper slowly declined until it ceased publication in 1953. However, it ran for sufficient years to record Rose’s obituary in the issue for January 1, 1951. This is where her birth date comes from, allowing researchers to link up with the correct Rose Ball from genealogical records. Rose was buried with her late husband in Burwood cemetery, Victoria, but her name was never added to his memorial inscription.

So how old was Rose when she joined the Russell household? Most histories that comment on the issue state that she joined his household in 1888. This statement tallies with ZWT for February 15, 1900, which states that she had been a member of the Watch Tower family for 12 years. This was written at the time she and husband Ernest set sail abroad. I am speculating that, depending on how you define matters, this date may be misleading.

Page references below are from the original transcript of the April 1906 Russell vs Russell hearing. (For any readers who have the Paper Book of Appellant, the pagination is obviously different but the text is the same.)

Maria claimed that Rose was 19 or 20 when she came to live with them (page 67). Whereas CTR (page 135) states “she looked to be about 13 - I don’t know how old she was” and later says “she was a very young looking woman”. Some of the worst critics of CTR have chosen to accept Maria’s accusation, but then to ignore her description of Rose in favour of CTR’s - simply so they can put the worst possible spin on it and accuse him of child molestation.

However, it is interesting to see how Maria’s claim is challenged by her own testimony. On page 11 of the transcript there is a very strange exchange, which no-one ever seems to have taken issue with:

Q  How long had (Rose) been with you before this trouble arose?

A  She came to us in about 1884.

Q That would be just about the time you moved on to Clifton Avenue?

A  No, we moved on to Clifton Avenue in 1883. It was about 1889 when she came, just shortly after we moved to Clifton Avenue.

Q  Did she live with you?

A  Yes Sir.

The above exchange doesn’t make any sense; did the stenographer have an off-day? Maria moved to Clifton Avenue in 1883, Rose joined them about 1884, or rather – hasty correction - she joined them in 1889 just after they moved to Clifton Avenue…

Did Maria suddenly change her testimony mid-sentence? 1889 of course would make Rose 19 or 20, which would fit Maria’s later allegation. But if Maria changed her testimony, or just got muddled in her responses, it is a shame no-one appeared to notice it on the day to query it!

The matter is further confused by Maria stating (still on page 11) that “Rose lived with us for about twelve years.” Since Maria ceased to be part of “us” in 1897, that doesn’t fit the 1888 claim. Neither is any acknowledgement made of Rose’s marriage to Ernest Henninges. According to Rose’s death certificate she was married at the age of 25, which would be the mid 1890s. (However, one must be cautious about dates on death certificates, since the one person who could verify the information is no longer there to do so. Some internet sources give the year 1897, but I have yet to see a marriage certificate.) However, whatever year it was in the 1890s, the marriage would certainly have changed both Rose’s name and status in the household.

The possible truth of the matter is found in Maria’s earlier testimony on page 4. When recounting her various homes, she states that she moved into Clifton Avenue and lived there for ten years before moving to the Bible House in 1894.

So according to Maria’s testimony, they moved to Clifton Avenue in 1884 (or with her later statement on page 67 perhaps earlier in 1883), and shortly thereafter Rose joined them. If that was the case, Rose joined them in 1883-84. The date 1884 for her joining the household is also given in a comprehensive thesis in Spanish on Watch Tower hymnology, where Rose wrote the lyrics for several hymns used by Bible Students.

With an 1869 birth date that would make her aged about 14-15.  CTR’s claim - I don’t know how old she was – she was young looking – maybe about 13? – and with the styles of clothing worn by young women of that age group – that could be more feasible than Maria’s portrayal of a fully grown-up 19-20 year old.

But twenty years or more on, with all the more important things to remember and all that water under the bridge, it is quite possible for memory to play tricks on exact years - so could the 1888 date in the July 15, 1906 ZWT be technically incorrect? And could CTR have had more in mind her working at the new headquarters – Bible House – rather than just living at his home – when talking of her joining the “Watch Tower” family, rather than his personal family, in ZWT February 15, 1900? That might explain the apparent discrepancy.

When living in Bible House, Rose played an active part in the affairs of the WT Society. Both she, and her future husband, Ernest Henninges, were directors of the Society at one point. It is reported that Rose became a Watch Tower Society director in April 1892 and then Vice-President in January 1893 for a year, remaining as a director thereafter until going abroad in 1900. (In reality these were honorary positions needed to fulfil legal requirements). After she and Ernest married, they eventually left America to start branches of the Society in England and Germany before ending up in Australia. Rose would have known all about the court hearing and Maria’s accusations because CTR published his side of matters in ZWT in 1906, and she and Ernest still actively supported CTR’s ministry until the rift over the New Covenant issue. (See for example Henninges’ glowing Australian reports to his “dear brother” in the annual reports in ZWT for both 1906 and 1907.)

Even when, in late 1908, they chose to oppose CTR’s views on certain theological issues, and then from 1909 propounded their views in a monthly journal, mentioning CTR by name, they never used his personal conduct in their arguments. Rose could have been the star witness had there been any truth in Maria’s accusations. And what is overlooked – Emily, the other girl named, turned up in court voluntarily and supported CTR’s account.

This “explanation” of a discrepancy in the hearing is – I freely admit – just speculation on my part.

Perhaps I might be forgiven for throwing impartiality into the long grass to conclude this article.

I would like to describe another religious figure – one who is actually far better known today that CTR. See if you can guess who this is.

He was born in Britain, but after completing his education travelled to America. While there, he was arrested for slander and given bail, but immediately skipped the area and ultimately the country to escape the consequences. He also left behind a young lady, having decided after casting lots (pieces of paper taken out of a hat!) that he wouldn't stay around and marry her. Back in England after another failed relationship, he eventually married a rich widow. But one day she rummaged in his desk and found loads of affectionate letters to other women, and stormed out of the house. He put a note in his diary that basically said "Good riddance - I won't ask you back!" While separated from this wife, he then took a woman of very dubious history on as his "housekeeper". Unfortunately for him and his "housekeeper" at a special meal with other ministers and dignitaries, he had the indignity of his estranged wife bursting in and ranting about the "whore" he was currently with - in front of everyone. Their ill-feeling towards each other was so public, that when his estranged wife took sick no-body bothered to tell him until after she was dead and buried.

This makes CTR's and Maria’s misfortunes in matrimony appear quite paltry in comparison.

Who am I describing above? John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist Church.

The point to be stressed is that - even if Wesley was 100% at fault in the above account (and in fairness to him I have no way of knowing either way) would one be right to judge the Methodist church on that slice of history? Would Wesley's personal life ever be a good argument for or against the veracity of Methodism? If anyone went down that road, I am sure that any rational person would view them as prejudiced and unreasonable. And the fact that the above historical details are not widely circulated shows that media of today shares that view.

So whatever happened in the sad disintegration of the Russells’ marriage and the bombshell Maria dropped without warning into an open hearing – any standard of judgment should be based on the beliefs and teachings of the principals, and in the context of the times.

But over the issue of Rose’s age, the above is a possible explanation that may help harmonise the varying accounts.

Guest Post - Review of Charles Taze Russell – His Life and Times – The Man, the Millennium and the Message

A few weeks ago I sent you details of the new biography of Pastor Russell written by Fredrick Zydek, available on Amazon. Having finished reading it, I have written a critical review which I am sending to you to do with as you wish – which may well be to ignore it completely.

You may have felt, on learning that a full biography was out there, that this would devalue your current project. Since Zydek’s book is so full of inaccuracies, I don’t believe that is the case at all. A history needs to have the detail, backed up by references wherever possible – well illustrated by your Nelson Barbour book.

A correspondent in New York who I put onto your Barbour book has emailed me how much he enjoyed it, filling in many gaps. I look forward to your detailed analysis of how he and CTR came together and ultimately parted in your current project.

Sincerely

Jerome

Charles Taze Russell – His Life and Times – The Man, the Millennium and the Message
by Frederick Zydek
A Critical Review

Fredrick Zydek is a good writer who produces very readable prose. His book fills an important historical gap. Although of a different religious persuasion (Zydek is Catholic) this is a very sympathetic portrayal of Charles Taze Russell (hereinafter abbreviated to CTR), with a real respect for what he achieved. It is not hagiography, as one might expect from some sources, nor virulent criticism as one might expect from others. It puts Russell into the context of the times, showing contemporary events alongside his activities.

Unfortunately, there are a number of reservations over accuracy when it comes to the detail. Perhaps the best parts of the book and certainly most accurate, since contemporary data is more readily available, are the last few chapters. These paint a graphic picture of CTR’s last years, where he literally wore himself out with tours and lectures to proclaim what the author calls “his unique and controversial interpretations of the biblical narratives”.

However, for CTR’s earlier years, a big problem with the book is that the writer has relied heavily on anecdotal evidence to fill out the story. Had the book been proofread by more people who have an interest in the subject, a number of errors could have been avoided. For instance the book starts with a well-written account of the coffin ships that brought poor Irish immigrants to America. It is assumed that Charles Tays Russell (CTR’s uncle and the first to make the journey from Ireland to America) travelled this way and arrived in 1838 (page 3). The only problem with this is that when Charles Tays died, he was sufficiently well-known in Pittsburgh to have an obituary in the Pittsburgh Post on December 27th 1875 which reads (in part): He was a native of Ireland and came to New York in 1822. He took his early lessons in active business from A.T. Stewart in New York.

Zydek’s account of the family life of his younger brother Joseph Lytel (CTR’s father) suggests that they did well, whereas there is evidence from Joseph’s wife’s will that he had a serious business failure in 1855. Anna Eliza left the sale of some land in her will to help pay off Joseph’s debts. While it is true that CTR’s siblings, apart from Margaret, all died young, Zydek says they were buried in the Rosemont cemetery (p.7). That is incorrect. While CTR was buried in the Rosemont cemetery in 1916, the rest of his original family, siblings Thomas, Lucinda and Joseph Jr. were all buried in the Allegheny cemetery. (Perhaps the most famous internment here is the songwriter Stephen Foster). In the same Russell family plot were eventually buried mother Anna Eliza, the original Charles Tays, and finally father Joseph Lytel. Some of the gravestones have been rediscovered and raised in recent years. (Check out the Allegheny cemetery, Section 7, Lot 17, grave 1. On their cemetery website you will find eight Russells in total buried here).

The chronology for much of the 1870s is wrong. The book has Russell in touch with Nelson Barbour in 1873 (p. 41) – it was several years later they met. He suggests 1875 as the date for the booklet ‘Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return’ (p.46) - most now agree that should be 1877. It is assumed that Russell replaced Jonas Wendell in the small Bible study group in Allegheny (p.41), but Wendell moved on to Edenboro in 1870 and was replaced for a short while by George Stetson. Zydek only mentions Stetson as one of the editors of ‘Bible Examiner’ (p.36 footnote) – which he wasn’t – that was George Storrs alone. As reported in Advent Christian Church newspapers as well as ‘Zion’s Watch Tower’, CTR conducted Stetson’s funeral service in 1879. And there is no mention at all of William H Conley, the first president of the Watch Tower Society, in whose home the Russells celebrated the Memorial in the first two years of ‘Zion’s Watch Tower’, and who like Joseph Lytel Russell corresponded with George Storrs in the mid-1870s (see Storrs’ ‘Bible Examiner’ November and December 1875).

There are similar problems with chronology for the 1880s. Zydek has Russell producing ‘Old Theology Quarterly’ tracts in 1880 (p.73) before ‘The Divine Plan of the Ages’ was published in 1886. In fact, this tract series started in 1889. It is surmised that the Russell’s “adopted daughter” Rose Ball came to live with them when she was 15 in 1888 (p.101) – in fact Rose Ball Henninges’ death certificate shows she died on November 22nd 1950 aged 81. So either the age or the year is wrong – or both. (CTR gave one year, Maria in court gave another). She obviously was not born in 1875 as the book states on page 45.

Travelling into the 90s, there are further problems with chronology. We are told that Rose Ball marries Ernest Henninges in 1890 (p.101 footnote and p.114), and a cosy picture is painted of the married couples all sharing Christmas dinner together in 1892 (p.130). However, Rose Ball Henninges’ death certificate says she married when aged 25, so would still be single in 1892. CTR is described as taking the Chicago ‘Mission Friend’ to court over the “jellyfish” allegations while he and Maria were still together in the early 1890s (p.146). In fact, the jellyfish accusation did not get publicity until the court hearing of 1906, and the ‘Mission Friend’ caught a legal cold by repeating it after then.

Travelling into the 20th century there are further anomalies. On the Miracle Wheat episode we are told that a Mr Stoner contacted CTR about this cereal in 1904 (page 214). In fact, while Stoner, a farmer, discovered what he called “Miracle Wheat” in 1904 – he did not meet CTR or communicate with him until nearly a decade later. The author seems to assume that his readers know all about the episode with the briefest of references on page 338. For any who don’t know the story, Stoner dubbed his wheat “miracle” in 1904. CTR’s journal published a newspaper report on the wheat in 1908 when it was already an old story, with a short editorial comment. In 1911 two Bible students offered it for sale with proceeds going to the Watch Tower Society. The Brooklyn Eagle published a satirical cartoon about CTR and Miracle Wheat on the front page of its Saturday, September 23rd 1911 edition. CTR sued for libel. The case came to court in January 1913 and CTR lost.

Still in the early 20th century we are told that Maria Russell brought suit for legal separation on the grounds of CTR’s adultery (p.224) – in fact, her council S G Porter specifically stated that adultery was not claimed. Maria was asked the question point blank “You don’t mean that your husband was guilty of adultery?” Maria’s answer “No” (court record April 26, 1906, Maria F Russell vs. Charles T Russell p.10). The author has obviously not read the actual transcript.

The J N Patten whose passing was noted in CTR’s journal on September 15, 1906 (p.233) was not J H Paton, who wrote Day Dawn. The latter John H Paton (not George as Zydek sometimes calls him) was still publishing his “World’s Hope” journal at this time, and lived until 1922. And if Nelson Barbour could be said to have published “Washed in His Blood” in 1907 (p. 246) he did so posthumously. Barbour died in August 1905 and left money for his congregation to publish this final work. And while Frederick Franz (a later president of the Watchtower Society) was attracted to Russell’s message by the booklet “Where Are the Dead” (p.352) – this was not a booklet by CTR but one written by Dr John Edgar of Glasgow (see Franz’ life story in Watchtower May 1st 1987).

A lot of the Zydek’s material comes from secondary sources. So a quote from Nelson Barbour comes, not from Barbour’s journal but from A H McMillan’s paraphrase of it in his book ‘Faith on the March’ (pp.58-60). The author has obviously not consulted Barbour’s original journals, even though they are now generally accessible. As noted above, neither has he consulted the transcripts of the court hearings over Maria Russell’s “divorce from bed and board” – his limited quotes come from secondary sources like Barbara Harrison (p.267) or the Brooklyn Eagle (p.306). These selective quotes have an agenda, and consulting the complete transcript would have given a fuller picture. For example, did the author know that Maria did not just mention Rose Ball when accusing her husband? (Rose was in Australia at the time and therefore unavailable for comment – and even though she was later a major player in the New Covenant Schism never did comment unfavourably on CTR’s conduct). Maria’s testimony also suggested misconduct when CTR locked himself in a servant girl’s room (transcript p. 14). This time the girl in question, Emily Sheersly, was still living in Pittsburgh so was called to testify by CTR’s counsel (transcript p.178-79). Emily insisted she had no memory of any doors locked or any improper action on the part of CTR. Never. Maria’s counsel did not bother to cross-examine.

In the bigger picture, it is fair to say that most of Zydek’s questionable details affect only incidentals to the main story. However, once a few details are found inaccurate, it does create unease as to how much other anecdotal evidence used to flesh out the story may be unreliable. Perhaps one example that sticks in this writer’s mind - I was fascinated to learn that Rose Ball’s brother, Charlie, who according to court testimony died shortly after joining the Bible House family, rose to become Vice-President of the Society in 1893 (p.134). That might of course be correct. But proof anybody?

It is a shame because the book is well written and tells a story that deserves to be told. As noted at the start, its latter chapters are particularly good. It is certainly sympathetic towards its subject. But it really needs a second edition. Or perhaps we need another book to be both objective and thorough.

Three sisters

 by Jerome

Important note: Grateful thanks are due to correspondent Bernhard who supplied some of the information below. Regrettably I am not able to give references in support of some dates, but I have no reason whatsoever to doubt the accuracy of the information.

The title “Three Sisters” may bring to mind a famous play by Anton Chekhov, likely inspired by the three Brontë sisters, Charlotte, Emily and Anne.

However, this article is going to briefly consider three who were classed as sisters within the framework of the ZWT fellowship. They all had something remarkable in common – they all served as directors of Zion’s Watch Tower Tract Society (from 1894 the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society) during the time of CTR’s presidency.

If this concept is a surprise to modern readers, there are two facts about those early days that must be recognized. First, women had a much more public role in the Society’s affairs in those days. CTR’s wife, Maria, for example was an associate editor of the Watch Tower for a number of years. (See Proclaimers book footnote, page 645).

And second, it must be realized that the role of directors in those early days was mainly figurative. In A Conspiracy Exposed (pages 55-60) CTR explained that for legal reasons they needed directors, but it was always understood that matters were so arranged to allow him (along with Maria at that time) to retain control. There was no annual meeting, and elections, such as they were, took place on the first Saturday of each New Year. Hence J B Adamson in that same document complained that as a director he never made a decision. Later, Maria in the separation hearing testimony, made a similar comment about her role as secretary-treasurer. Directors would include some of CTR’s contacts in Pittsburgh and Allegheny, and in many cases, those who were on hand by living in or at least working in the Bible House. But they didn’t “direct” – they were just names on paper. As time went on, a number of members of the Pittsburgh Bible House family (and later Brooklyn Bethel family) simply stepped in and filled gaps as directors – often for quite brief times – under the administration of CTR.

So, our three “sisters” who were directors?

The first female director, was of course, Maria Russell herself. Maria Frances Ackley was born in 1850.

She married CTR in 1879 and later that year worked with him as the fledgling ZWT magazine was launched. Her sister Emma married CTR’s father, Joseph, the following year, 1880.

In 1881 Zion’s Watch Tower Tract Society was formed with William Conley as president, Joseph L Russell as vice president and CTR as secretary-treasurer. On Monday, December 15, 1884 this society was legally incorporated in Pittsburgh. Maria became a director and an officer of the new incorporated Society – as secretary-treasurer. On paper this meant that she replaced CTR who had previously held that position, but who now became president of the new official arrangement.

Maria remained as secretary-treasurer in name until the annual meeting on January 5, 1895. Although no longer an officer, she remained on the books as a director until February 12, 1900 when she resigned. She was replaced by either Albert E Williamson or Clara Taylor (two new directors were required at this election).

Her subsequent history is quite easy to trace. The contemporary newspaper St Paul Enterprise in its Memorial number when CTR died gives an account of her in the funeral cortege. She later moved to Florida with her sister, Emma, and died in St Petersburg, Florida, in 1938. There is some biographical material for her on the Find a Grave site, under Maria F Ackley Russell.

The second female director was also a Vice-President of the Society for a very short time. This was Rose Ball Henninges. Early census returns list her as Rosa (rather than Rose) J Ball - but no-one seems to know what the J stood for. She and her brother, Charles, came to Pittsburgh. Charles died in March 1889 and Rose became part of the Russell household and then Bible House family. She is included in many group photographs of the day, along with a young man named Ernest Charles Henninges, whom she would marry in 1897. (He too would be a director at one point).

 

A young Rose Ball sitting in a group photo with her future husband Ernest Henninges in 1893.

Rose became a director on April 11, 1892. Two directors were replaced on that date, William I Mann and Joseph F Smith, so she replaced one of them. On January 7, 1893, Rose became Vice-President for a year, until the next year’s elections on January 6, 1894. After that she remained as a director until she resigned on February 12, 1900 (the same official date as for Maria Russell). As noted above, she was then replaced by either Albert E Williamson or Clara Taylor. 

A few years after her marriage to Ernest Henninges, Rose and Ernest travelled abroad to further the cause. They spent some time in Britain (you can find them in the 1901 UK census) and then Germany, before eventually travelling to Australia. They spent the rest of their lives there. A split occurred between them and CTR over the understanding of “the New Covenant” and they founded their own journal in 1909, which ran until 1953. Charles died in 1939, and Rose in 1950. She was survived by two sisters still living in America, Miss Lilian Ball of Buffalo, NY, and Mrs Daisy Mabee of Paterson, NJ.

As already mentioned in passing, the third female director was Clara Taylor. Clara became a director on February 12, 1900. On this date both Maria F Russell and Rose J Ball (now Henninges) resigned, so Clara replaced one of them. As already noted, the other replacement director appointed that day was Albert E Williamson.

Clara served as a director for less than a year. At the next election on the first Saturday of the New Year, January 5, 1901, she resigned and was replaced by William E Van Amburgh. He would become one of the longest serving directors in the Society's history. (Only Milton Henschel, Lyman Swingle and Frederick Franz would serve for longer).

Clara is featured in some group photographs of the Bible House family in the first decade of the 20^th century. Below is a selection from a photograph showing the mailing room c. 1907.

Clara in the Bible House mailing room c. 1907

All we know at present about Clara Taylor comes from the separation hearing Russell v. Russell from 1906.  She was called as a witness to support the testimony of J A Bohnet, and was both examined and cross examined in the case.

Her testimony shows that she was working at Bible House in 1897 before Maria Russell left for Chicago to stay with her brother, Lemuel. CTR had been called away from home and telephoned Ernest Henninges (misspelled Hennings in the transcript) to ask if could arrange for someone to stay over at Bible House so that Maria would not be left on her own. (Most workers lodged outside the building). Clara was asked and agreed, but was then told by Henninges that she no longer needed to do this because Maria had told him via the internal speaking tube that she’d made her own arrangements.  That was the sum of her testimony. But it showed that Clara worked at Bible House in 1897 before Maria left. A passing comment indicated that she had not been there the previous year, 1896. She was also still working there in 1906. And crucially for subsequent attempts to trace her, she was addressed several times as Miss Clara Taylor. So she was single at the time.

When the headquarters moved to Brooklyn in 1909, Clara apparently didn’t go. Or at least, she is not in the census returns from 1910 onwards. Whether that was due to the New Covenant controversy, or just a matter of geography and family, is not known. She may well have married, in which case the surname Taylor would disappear, making tracing her subsequent movements somewhat problematic.

So Clara remains a bit of mystery, even though she spent around ten years working at the headquarters, and was one of the three sisters who became directors of the Society in the CTR era.

More details on the unsuccessful search can be found in the comment trail.

Charles Taze Russell's Private Secretaries

by Bernhard

(edited by Jerome)

RUSSELL, MARIA FRANCES

December 1884 – November 1897

When Charles T. Russell became president of Zion’s Watch Tower Tract Society, on December 15, 1884, his wife Maria Frances became secretary and treasurer. In general, she was his secretary, who proofread his manuscripts and did the usual work of an office assistant. On some chapters in the Millennial Dawn series she co-labored with Charles in arranging them in final form and especially so for volume IV, which consisted largely of quotations from newspaper clippings which they had selected for some years. In evaluating the true function of Maria, it appears that she acted in the capacity of special assistant to Charles as his loyal wife. She was studious, college trained, and capable in her own right. No doubt Charles utilized her talents to the fullest, not only in secretarial functions, but in acting as organizer and arranger of his manuscript notes.

When Maria separated from Charles in November 1897, he needed another secretary, and this was Ernest C. Henninges.

HENNINGES, ERNEST CHARLES

November 1897 – April 1900

Ernest was born on July 12, 1871 in Cuyahoga (Cleveland) Ohio and died on February 3, 1939 in Victoria, Australia. His father Emil Henninges (1828 – 1892) came from Germany. His mother Kate was born 1840 in Ohio. He had one brother George (born 1858). Ernest’s profession was teaching music in Cleveland at 44 Euclid Avenue.

After he joined the Bible Students he moved to Allegheny in 1891 to work and live in the Bible House. On January 4, 1896, he replaced James Augustus Weimar as a director of the Zion’s Watch Tower Tract Society and in May 13, 1898, 6 months after Maria left the Bible House, Ernest succeeded her as secretary-treasurer. Russell trusted him a lot.

In the Bible House also lived Rose Ball, the foster child of Charles T. and Maria Russell. On September 11, 1897, Ernest and Rose were married at Buffalo, Erie, New York, where her parents Richard J. Ball and Elizabeth Ball still lived. 

At the beginning of 1900, Russell planned to send Ernest and Rose Henninges to England to open an office for the Society. So it was clear that another brother needed to become secretary-treasurer, and this was Otto Albert Koetitz on February 12, 1900, and also another brother, Albert E. Williamson, became Russell’s private secretary. Ernest remained a director. 

In April 1900 Ernest and Rose travelled to Liverpool and then to London, where they opened on April 23, the first office outside the United States,  at 131 Gipsy Lane, Forest Gate. They stayed there until November 1, 1901, and then came back to Allegheny. Ernest again became treasurer of the Society on February 12, 1902 and remained such until March 24, 1903. On that date William Van Amburgh became treasurer. In March 1903 Ernest and Rose travelled to Elberfeld (Wuppertal), Germany, and again opened an office for the Society in June 1903. They stayed there until October and then went to Melbourne, Australia, arriving on January 10, 1904.

In 1908 some internal troubles surfaced. James Hezekiah Giesey, Watch Tower vice-president and well-known Pittsburgh architect, along with long time director Simon Osborne Blunden, resigned as Society directors in June. Albert Williamson followed in September. Henninges also resigned as a director in January 1909, and he and his wife left Russell and the Bible Students in the spring of 1909. Henninges founded a new group and journal called “New Covenant Advocate” in Australia and those in America like Giesey, Williamson, along with hymn writer M.L. Mc Phail, formed a similar breakaway group.

WILLIAMSON, ALBERT EDMUND

 April 1900 – September 1908

Albert Williamson was born on February 13, 1878 in Oneida Township, Haldimand, Balloville, Ontario, Canada. He was the son of James and Elizabeth Bayly (born 1839) and he had a twin brother Frederik William and also a sister Annie. Albert married Hattie (Harriet) Stark (born Allegheny, December 1879) a member of the Bible House family on December 5, 1905. She lived there with her mother Britee C. Stark.  Albert and Harriet had three daughters Dorothy Eleanor (September 9, 1911), Elizabeth K. (1916) and Edith Anna (1920).

He became a member of the Bible House staff in 1899, along with his mother, and later, in 1905, his brother Fred. On February 12, 1900 he became a Watch Tower Society director. He resigned on September 28, 1908. Interesting is that his twin brother Frederick William replaced him as a Society director for one year.

When Ernest C. Henninges travelled to England in April 1900, Albert Edmund Williamson replaced him as Russell‘s private secretary.

The "Crittenden Record, Kentucky“, for February 8, 1907, contained a report about a talk Williamson gave.  Under the heading: THE END OF THE WORLD IS NEAR AT HAND it explained: “October 1914 is the date set for the end to come. The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Alleghany, Penn., through Mr. A. Edmund Williamson, announce the above date to be the beginning of the millennium. Mr. Williamson, who is secretary to Charles T. Russell, head of the society, did not, however, announce that there would be a general conflagration of the earth and an incineration of all the wicked on that date, but rather a "great change.""

Williamson was a very eloquent speaker, but more important was his skill as a stenographer. Russell wrote about him (Souvenir Convention Report from 1908):  "In my publishing office we have ten stenoographers, but only one of them could serve in such an emergency—Mr. Williamson—and he consented to assist also. So far as I know none of these gentlemen expect or have received pay for the service, and only Mr. Williamson even has his expenses provided.“  Also in 1908 Russell wrote that he received about 500 letters every Monday and the rest of the week from 250 to 300 a day. So there was a lot of work for him and his secretary.

Sadly in late 1908 Williamson decided to leave the Bible House, but not only the house, he also split from Russell in early 1909. He died in March 1956, when he lived in Essex, West Orange, New Jersey.

ROBISON, FREDERI(C)K HOMER Prof.

 September 1908 – 1914 (?)

Much of Robison‘s history comes from Robison’s obituary in the Concordant Version magazine “Unsearchable Riches“ in 1932, because he was to leave association with the IBSA in 1922. He was born on February 3, 1885 in Greenwood, Indiana and died April 17, 1932 in Manhattan, New York. He was the only son of James A. Robison (1859-1949) and Eva J. Whitenack (1862-1955), of Oakland, California. He had two sisters named Bartha B. and May E. It was there that he spent his youth, graduating from high school at the age of fourteen. It was about this time that he affiliated with the Disciples of Christ. He entered Franklin College to continue his education and there further displayed an aptitude for languages in the study of New Testament Greek.

Later he went to Canada and took out a claim in the Rainy River district of Ontario. He resided there about one year, teaching part time and part time employed in the immigration service. He returned to Indiana in 1904 and entered Butler College in Indianapolis, remaining there until the opening of Winona Technical Institute, also in Indianapolis, and enrolled there as a student of lithography that he might be equipped not only for his present need, but to have the knowledge of a trade, for use in the missionary field. It was his purpose to carry the gospel to Japan independently.

With a year's instruction at the John Herrin Art Institute in Indianapolis and some knowledge of chemistry to his credit, he made splendid progress and in less than two years accepted a position as poster artist in one of the largest lithographing houses in the United States, located at Cleveland, Ohio. He became one of their foremen in charge of artists. It was while in this position that he pursued the reading of Pastor Russell's works, having become slightly interested during his sojourn in Canada. During all this time his linguistic talents were being exercised more or less in the attainment of a knowledge of Spanish, French and German, as well as New Testament Greek. After reading Pastor Russell's works, he employed a Japanese friend to translate some of the literature into Japanese, still thinking of the foreign mission field, but later abandoned this to become a home missionary, as a colporteur for Pastor Russell's works.

After about one year in this new field of endeavor, he prepared for secretarial service and was called to the Bible House in Allegheny, Pennsylvania. It was there that he met Miss Almeta Nation, whom he married on March 25, 1909. He became private secretary to Pastor Russell and held that position until after the Society's offices were transferred to Brooklyn, New York, in 1909. As private secretary to Pastor Russell he accompanied him on a trip around the world (December 1911 – March 1912) with a committee sent to investigate foreign missions. Japan was one of the places visited.

On his return, Robison became secretary of the foreign work and he had a good opportunity for pursuing the study of languages. His obituary stated that he could translate twenty-three in all, giving discourses in German, Greek, and English. He made week-end pilgrimages in and about New York City, addressing both public and private gatherings.

Robison was one of four men designated in Russell‘s will to be co-editors of the Watch Tower. Apart from when imprisoned with J F Rutherford and others in 1918-1919, he was one of the Watch Tower’s editorial committee until the spring of 1922 when he resigned and went to Washington, D. C., to accept secular work as a commercial artist in the art department of the Washington Post. He afterwards served the government and later became art director for the American Automobile Association, with headquarters in Washington, D. C. He returned to work in New York in 1931, and died on April 17, 1932.

When the first installment of the literal Bible translation “The Concordant Version” was issued it came to the attention of the Society’s headquarters. As the plates of the Emphatic Diaglott were worn out, they were looking for something to replace it, and Robison was delegated to call on the Concordant Publishing Concern in Los Angeles with a view to placing it on the Society's list of literature. A small booklet of the Concordant translation of Revelation was advertised in the Watch Tower for June 15, 1920, but then was dropped in early 1921.

The contact with the Concordant version group, who were Universalists, led to Robison leaving association with the IBSA, resigning from the Watch Tower editorial committee and as an elder of the New York congregation. He spent the rest of the 1920s supporting the Concordant cause and trying to attract his former IBSA associates to it. (For a fuller description of what happened and how the Watch Tower Society dealt with it, use the search facility to see an old article on this blog: The Watchtower and Universalism – the Almont Connection.)

STURGEON, MENTA

 1914 (?) – October 1916

Menta Sturgeon was born 1866/67 in Missouri and died on April 17, 1935. He married Florence A. (born 1871 in Massachusetts) in 1888 and they had one son Gordon (born 1899).

Sturgeon graduated from the Theological Seminary of the Southern Baptist Church and studied Greek and Hebrew. In the late 1880s, he worked for the Kansas & Texas Coal Company, and lived at 4001 N. B 'Way, St. Louis, Missouri. In March 1897 the members of his church unanimously appointed him a pastor, a position he assumed until his resignation in 1904. He was reverend of a Baptist Church in the city, the Tower Grove Baptist Church, located at 4320 avenue. However, he left the church after internal dissension.

He came into contact with Russell's teachings in 1894 through a small book handed to him by his physician, but it was only 14 years later that he attended his teaching when he attended readings Biblical records given by the pastor at Arch Street: first as a simple listener, then as the pastor's interlocutor. In the meantime, he preached independently, and then added his own disciples to Russell's group. Finally, he received a letter from the pastor asking him if he could become a lecturer for him, which Sturgeon accepted, and so in 1909 he left the society in which he worked; apparently it was the Blackmer & Post Pipe Company.

He was a member of the Saint Louis Ecclesia. As a pilgrim, from 1909-1914 he visited  central and eastern states of the United States, as well as various provinces of Canada. He was a capable speaker. He came to work at the Watch Tower headquarters around 1910, where he first worked on general supervision and then conducted Bible classes and religious services.

In addition to being Russell's secretary, Sturgeon was also responsible for helping the latter in his medical treatments. He was the last of the Bible Students to see Russell alive. On Russell’s last tour, he had to replace him at times in Los Angeles, and was with him when he died on the train on the return journey to Brooklyn. Sturgeon reported in detail the last days of his life in the Watch Tower publications.

In the split that followed Rutherford’s election as president, Sturgeon supported the four dismissed directors, and was put forward as an alternative choice as president. In the subseqent referendum comparatively few voted for him.

Sturgeon was to leave both the Watch Tower Society and the alternative Bible Student groups, to join Fredrik Robison in supporting the Concordant Publishing Concern. He died on August 17, 1935 and the group’s magazine published an obituary from which some of the above has been taken.