The matters in the letter were elucidated further in the 1943 civil lawsuit:

#2 OLIN R. MOYLE

A. You mention in here, I believe, Mr. Woodworth and Mr. Van Sipma and Mr. Ness and others as having been what you termed trimmed publically, that Mr. Woodworth was called a jackass, and that MacAulay and McCormick and Knorr and Price and Van Sipma and others had been scolded and upbraided severely and publicly reprimanded, is that true? A. That is true....Q. Did they ever object to you concerning the correction that they received from Judge Rutherford as the head of the Family? A. One of them told me that he certainly did not like receiving that kind of treatment. Q. And who was it. A. Nathan Knorr....Q. You say here that they were labeled as 'sissies'. Is that what they were called? A. That is what Mr. Rutherford labeled them at the table.... Q. Do you recall some incident in July involving a chair with Mr. Rutherford? A. During the conferences over the Madison Square meetings we were called into the room, I think they call it the radio lobby or audition room, by Mr. Rutherford. There a number of us, Grant Suiter was one, myself and two or three others, were there and Mr. Rutherford, right after breakfast table. As we entered the room and were waiting for the others he sat down in a stenographer's chair, a small swivel chair. The chair tipped back and almost threw him onto the floor and he rose up from the chair and grabbed it with his hands and threw it the whole length of the room towards the center of the room....



Q. You state in here regarding discrimination on the part of the Judge to his own self against the other members of the Family. Just what are the facts upon which you base that?... A. His accommodations on the seventh floor, his air-cooled room, compared with the quarters under which the boys worked in the factor, compared to the quarters which the farm lads had out on the farm. I thought that was discrimination....The boys in the Bethel, especially those at the farm, had very small rooms and they were unheated....It was small enough so that with the bed and two trunks and I believe this small dresser, there was precious little room, not much room to spare to go around....The point of the objection was that the claim was made that all at Bethel were on a par, were equal, we were all alike, we were all Brethren, there was no boss, no one had rights any better than the others. The point I was making was of discrimination, that he had many places, not just a room; a whole house, and from what we heard, a very commodious one in California, whereas some of the boys, especially those on the farm, had dinky little rooms and without heat. That is the point of the discrimination....Q. What was there about holding an elevator open for Mr. Rutherford at times? Do you know anything about that? A. Very frequently, especially on Sunday evenings, the elevator would be held open for him. I might state that the elevator there is a self-operating one and used by the members there to go up to the different floors and when Mr. Rutherford and his group were returning from Staten Island or elsewhere this elevator would be held open for them and those who went up to the upper floors would have to walk up during that time. Q. Is that the only one in the place? A. That is the only one in the place. Q. Was that held open for long periods of time? A. Quite lengthy periods, sometimes....Q. You say that the Judge violated one of the rules in the case of Bonnie Boyd, is that correct? A. The point I made was that there was discrimination. Q. He discriminated? A. Yes. Q. What facts do you base the discrimination upon? A. On the information given, that the one person [Bonnie Boyd] married and was allowed to bring her partner into the organization, and the other person [Eddie Broad] married had to leave, and was not even permitted to do pioneer work in that locality....



Q. Now, tell us what facts you base these charges on in the first paragraph under the heading 'Liquor'? Q. First I mentioned the fact that I was a total abstainer was nobody's business but my own, but at Bethel it appeared not to be case. That was so. After I went there I made no claims or anything as to my own drinking. I told nobody that I was a drinker or not a drinker at all. But after we had been there a while there would be allusions to it as we would go up and down the elevator. The boys would remark there, make allusions, wish they had a barrel of beer around, how nice a barrel of beer would be, which I took to be aimed specifically at me as being a total abstainer. Other cases, another member, not of Bethel but on the outside, a man by the name of Nelson, one of the Jehovah's Witnesses in one of the units around there, told me one time I wasn't in harmony with the Society if I did not drink liquor. I had been offered liquor at his place and declined it. Q. What else? A. This policy of breaking in newcomers there, we heard that from several different persons...Beer was served some nights at the factory when they were working overtime and I heard of some of the boys bringing in stronger stuff....It was the attitude towards it. I have no objection to anyone drinking beer or wine, that is their own affair, as I state in the letter, and remarks were made at the table casually by the president, Rutherford, concerning that, and at one time he did label total abstainers as prudes, a term which I did not think was applicable....Q. What did he say? What is it particularly that gave rise to that statement? Q. I may have these mixed up a little bit, but if I remember right, that was in connection with the case which happened when the boys were working overtime at the factory were served some beer, and that night in the very late hours the alarm bell in the Bethel rang, and there was quite a search and disturbance over it and an investigation was made. The president of the organization inquired at the table several times as to who pushed that button and rang that bell during those late evening hours, and in the course of that discussion it came up that possibly someone of the boys did drink too much, and feeling the effects of it had pushed that button and rang the bell as a joke in those late hours. There was further discussion of it and in the course of that discussion the Judge did make the statement that those who didn't drink at all were prudes. Q. Did he approve of pushing the bell by the boy that had too much? Q. Most decidedly not....



Q. And you withdrew without seeing first that he had somebody else to take your place or trying to settle these matters with him? Did you ever go to the Judge and talk with him and try to settle these matters? ... A. Because in the time that I was there, when I had seen the cases where people having an idea in opposition to him were scolded severely. They were not given any chance to speak, and as I stated in the letter, were trimmed. Q. Trimmed? A. Yes, sir, scolding, in other words. Q. Who were they? A. George Hannan was one. Q. Who else? A. McCormick was another. Q. What were the facts in each one of those cases? A. George Hannan's case was in connection with this Madison Square Garden riot. George was one of the ushers and at one of the sessions concerning those ushers the claim was made against George that he had not performed his duties properly. George tried to explain. The Judge shut him off as quick as that. He said, 'You needn't say any more,' in a strong, brutal, rough tone of voice. Q. What else? A. And these other cases that I have mentioned in the letter. Q. What are the circumstances? A. They were similar. Q. What are the similarities? A. Take the case of C. J. Woodworth, which is mentioned. Woodworth sent a letter to the Judge as we were sitting at the table in which he made reference to a calendar. Woodworth had written an article on the calendar in which he had developed a new form of calendar, and in this private note to the Judge he stated that he felt as though he was using the devil's tools or using something of the devil in using the old calendar, and that day at noon the Judge jumped upon Woodworth without warning, calling him a jackass, and Woodworth said, 'Yes, Brother Rutherford, I presume I am a jackass.' 'Yes, you are a jackass,' he said, and Woodworth said, 'I am sorry.' 'Yes, you always say you are sorry. I am sick and tired of it,' and he put it much more forcibly than I could ever do....Q. What is there about the word jackass that you object to? A. I don't have any objection to the word jackass. I did have the objection to a man, the head of a Christian organization as it is claimed, using his brethren in that manner. That is one of the reasons why I sent that letter.....There were two scoldings given to MacAulay. One was shortly after we came there. The cause of it was prior to our coming there, but from the conversation at the time it appeared that MacAulay had asked some letter to be returned concerning some actions of C. J. Woodworth and Judge Rutherford scolded MacAulay very, very severely....He told MacAulay that he was butting in on things which were no concern of his, that if he continued to do such things, he had better pack up and get out. His voice was loud and strong....Q. You mentioned also in the letter an incident about Worsley? Yes. Tell us about that. A. Worsley was a young man who sat at my table. He had some position in the Brooklyn unit of the company, and the Judge spoke to him one day at the dinner table very roughly and in a loud voice, and accused him of going forward on his own hook preparing a paper or list of Scripture citations and giving it to the members of the Brooklyn unit without his authority. He scolded him. He made reference to the fact that he was English, and that the English always considered themselves altogether too smart and running ahead, and removed him from the official position which he had with the Brooklyn unit. And the thing which he did was giving this paper with Scripture citations on to help the members of the unit in their work on calling on the people. Q. Did you state when and where this took place? A. This took place at the dinner table while the family were eating dinner. Q. About when? A. That was about the third year I was there. Q. What was his tone of voice then? A. Angry and loud.

#3

PHOEBE MOYLE

Q. At these times that you mentioned at the meetings, and particularly the meeting at Bethel, was Mr. Rutherford's attitude at that time such as a father towards a son? A. I don't recollect of ever seeing an occasion like that in my lifetime. Q. What was his attitude? A. Well, the attitude was one of being autocratic, austere and officious....Q. Did you hear any smutty stories or talk at the table? A. I did. Q. Can you give us any details about that? A. Yes. One instance, I think it was after the Madison Square Garden meeting, a lad at the end of one of the tables told of his experience in meeting a woman.... and he was out selling the books that day, and she said that she believed that what he had was the truth and that she would tell her priest what kind of a son-of-a-bitch, I guess it was ... bastard was the word that was used. She spoke of telling her priest what a bastard he was and the Judge at the end of the table said, well, he didn't know about him being a bastard but he knew that he had a lot of little bastards running around. Q. Was that said in the open? A. Yes, sir, that was said at the table. Q. And they did indicate that they heard it by any commotion? A. They laughed. Q. And were there any other occasions when you heard any bad language? A. Well, going up and down the elevator at the office we used to hear plenty of it and I remember one time going back into the ladies' rest room, and I suppose my face was pretty well flushed, and one of the women [Helen Howlett] said — she laughed to think that I was blushing, and she said, 'You will get used to that. I used to blush when I first came here but we get used to that after a while' .... Q. Was there anything whereby Mr. Rutherford was referring to a Scandinavian accent? A. I don't recall a Scandinavian accent, but we had a man sat at the table, Dececca, his name was, and the Judge would seem to delight in calling on him, and when he had answered he would imitate him and mimic him and used to tell him to talk English so he could understand him. Q. Did the Judge say anything about his attitude towards women on any occasion? A. So often he did. Q. What did he say? A. I can't remember. We would go back to the office just heartsick with the stuff he said....Q. Were you present at any of the these occasions if they occurred of scoldings by Mr. Rutherford of Mr. Woodworth? And MacAulay, McCormick, Knorr, Prosser, Van Sipma, and Ness? A. I think I heard them all. Q. And also Worsley? A. I think so. Q. What was the attitude of Mr. Rutherford on those occasions? A. Well, he would yell at them. Worsley, he didn't give Worsley a chance to answer and just took away his job at the Brooklyn unit, and later he was put back in. Q. Was it an attitude such as a father towards his son? A. Hardly. Q. Do you remember anything about a matter affecting Elizabeth Galyas? A. I do...She worked in the Mailing Department. There were three other boys working there and she and I were friends, very good friends....Well, they had been telling smutty stories to her and this day, when I was filing, she stood right up to them and said, 'I don't know what you think I am, but I am not taking any more of that,' and she said, 'I am going to report you,' and they just laughed. Q. Did you see any liquor around there at any time? A. I was the empty bottles, many. Q. Where did you see them? A. The first year I worked on the third floor and I saw them in the rooms of the men and then I saw the empty bottles, the whiskey bottles; I had to take care of them and put them into the place where the houseman took them away....Q. Did you resent the action of any of your sisters or brethren towards you while at Bethel? A. Well, I did not like the inference that I was — well, that I couldn't take liquor. Q. What individual — was that a man or a woman? A. Usually the men going up in the elevator.