JW Insider

Ah! I remember it. It wasn't necessarily about a sister at all. All this time I thought it was about a sister in a congregation who relied too much on her husband or something like that. *** w17 January p. 12 par. 1 Treasure Your Gift of Free Will *** WHEN faced with making a personal choice, one woman told a friend: “Do not make me think; just tell me what to do. That is easier.” The woman preferred being told what to do instead of using a precious gift from her Creator, the gift of free will. What about you? Do you like making your own decisions, or do you prefer that others decide for you? How do you view the matter of free will?

I don't remember that. How long ago do you think it was? Was it a study article for sure, or could it have been a person's experience in a Watchtower? We have had several experiences in the middle of Watchtower study articles, too, about young persons who had not yet "made the truth their own" and therefore were not ready for baptism until such time as they proved the truth to themselves. I see several examples of that, but they don't really fit your context: *** w07 5/1 p. 26 par. 11 Youths—Pursue Goals That Honor God *** Many young Christians say that regular personal Bible study has been fundamental to helping them to make the truth their own. Adele, for example, was brought up in a Christian home but had never set any spiritual goals. “My parents took me to the Kingdom Hall,” she relates, “but I did not do personal study or listen at the meetings.” After her sister was baptized, Adele began to take the truth more seriously. A similar one discusses how young persons need to learn WHY they believe something, not just what they believe, in case they are asked to defend: *** ws16 September p. 22 par. 7 Young Ones, Strengthen Your Faith *** 7 Is it wrong to ask questions such as, ‘Why do I believe what the Bible says?’ Not at all. Jehovah does not want you to believe something just because others do. He wants you to use your “power of reason” to get to know the Bible and find proof that it truly is from him. The more you know what it says, the stronger your faith in it will be. (Read Romans 12:1, 2; 1 Timothy 2:4.) One way to get to know the Bible is by studying specific subjects that you would like to know more about.

The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The first thing we can do is reword the phrase based on its meaning within the constitution. "[Because] a well regulated Militia is necessary for the security [protection] of a free State [Nation?], no laws will be made that would infringe the right of the people to own and carry guns [and other such weapons if appropriate to a well-regulated militia to protect a free State]." In that original context it appears to mean (at a minimum) that a nation needs an army of people who know how to use firearms in order to protect from potential invasion by outside enemies (or even internal tyranny). Rather than just conscripting a bunch of people at the last minute to then train them how to use weapons, wouldn't it be better to never constrict the use of firearms and allow their free ownership and use by people who will train themselves through hunting and/or target practice? That seems to be the general idea. This, of course, then turns to a discussion of the purpose and scope of such a militia. Is it a particular state's militia, or does the term "State" refer to a National militia? (as the word in used in the phrase "separation of Church and State") Then, of course, it will be necessary to determine whether the scope of such weapons ownership should also include anyone and everyone among "the people," whether or not they are willing and capable of supporting a State [National?] militia. Based on when the amendment was added, we are aware of the types of weapons that were considered appropriate at that time for supporting a militia. Whether or not additional types of weapons should be included is another matter for discussion. Tanks, cannons, machine guns, nerve gas, agent orange, grenades, rocket launchers, anti-aircraft missiles, smallpox-infected blankets, and nuclear warheads are all weapons that have become deemed appropriate for the security of the State, at one time or another. We can tell from the wording, that one of the basic meanings was probably that the United States would need an army that might need to be called in a hurry and made up, therefore, from the militias of various communities. Because of this need to keep an prepared national army, there would not be laws that restricted the ownership of weapons -- at least weapons like muskets, pistols, rifles, and cannons. One could easily extrapolate the idea from this that just because people sometimes purposely kill each other with such military weapons, and just because men, women and children are sometimes killed accidentally during the act of cleaning guns, hunting, target practice, etc., -- that these should not become reasons to change the current laws that allowed "the people" in general from owning and using such weapons. Technically, a lawyer even back when the 2nd Amendment was added, could make a case that "the people" were still being given the right to bear arms, even if the types of those arms were limited. A lawyer could also make the case that specific persons could be limited from bearing arms, as long as the people in general were not infringed. A lawyer could even make a case that it only referred to "the people" who were ready, capable and willing to join a standing militia, whenever called. But it doesn't matter what the original U.S. constitutional amendment meant. The constitution is not the Bible. It can be amended over and over again. Amendments can be clarified, expanded, constricted, or removed altogether.

Goes back half-a-year ago to an old conversation where you used the term "an Anti-Pauline" (which up until then had been a fairly rare term, used a few times by only one other person). tmbwipute

[on the OTHER topic of Yugoslavia/Serbia/etc] Srecko, It's about the same take that Edward Hermann has on the topic: https://monthlyreview.org/2007/10/01/the-dismantling-of-yugoslavia/ I can no longer locate the Parenti essay as it is down, but just got it from the "wayback machine." https://web.archive.org/web/20190331172008/http://www.michaelparenti.org/yugoslavia.html I reference Parenti, rather than Hermann, because Parenti is so much more succinct.

The 1975 Yearbook had mentioned that Howe was immediately ready to have the sentence commuted, not to exonerate them, which, as you say, was never the point: *** yb75 p. 116 Part 2—United States of America *** On March 2, 1919, the trial judge, Federal District Judge Harland B. Howe, sent a telegram to Attorney General Gregory in Washington, D.C., recommending “immediate commutation” of the sentences imposed on the eight imprisoned Bible Students. Had the Society's defense attorneys known this in advance, I wonder if they would have gone for the immediate appeal. It's quite possible that the Fed Dept of Justice figured they should ignore this immediate commutation request and just let Rutherford's attorneys have the appeal they wanted. The appeal might have been what kept them in prison for so long, although the way it worked out in making them "seem" exonerated was probably better for the Watch Tower Society in the long run.

Rutherford and his associates were not released in 1919 because they had been declared innocent. They were simply being released on bail, because the case was on appeal. A payment of $10,000 each gave them release until the case would be fully retried. Note that even up to January of 1920, they were still being told the case was going to be retried on April 7, 1920. (This is the Brooklyn Daily Eagle from January 20, 1920.) But by April it was looking less and less like they could ever get a conviction. The "Proclaimers" book presents the situation like this: *** jv chap. 29 p. 654 “Objects of Hatred by All the Nations” *** Nine months after Rutherford and his associates were sentenced—and with the war past—on March 21, 1919, the appeals court ordered bail for all eight defendants, and on March 26, they were released in Brooklyn on bail of $10,000 each. On May 14, 1919, the U.S. circuit court of appeals in New York ruled: “The defendants in this case did not have the temperate and impartial trial to which they were entitled, and for that reason the judgment is reversed.” The case was remanded for a new trial. However, on May 5, 1920, after the defendants had appeared in court, on call, five times, the government’s attorney, in open court in Brooklyn, announced withdrawal of the prosecution. Why? As revealed in correspondence preserved in the U.S. National Archives, the Department of Justice feared that if the issues were presented to an unbiased jury, with the war hysteria gone, the case would be lost. U.S. attorney L. W. Ross stated in a letter to the attorney general: “It would be better, I think, for our relations with the public, if we should on our own initiative” state that the case would be pressed no further. On the same day, May 5, 1920, the alternate indictment that had been filed in May 1918 against J. F. Rutherford and four of his associates was also dismissed. Obtaining an appeal does not mean that they would win on appeal, but it does (at least temporarily) "reverse the judgment" of the first trial. The next trial could have turned out even worse for them. But soon after the war was over on November 11, 1918, other appeals of 1918 Espionage/Sedition cases were losing their "teeth" and being overturned, and sometimes just being dropped altogether, so it was becoming more difficult to successfully try such cases in late 1919 and early 1920. (Eugene Debs was a glaring exception, and unrelated to religion.) Judge Howe, himself, makes it sound as if he knew all along that they would be released much sooner and Howe was in agreement that they should get bail, and even says he expected the President to commute their sentence after the war. (Howe had played up his support for President Wilson for years, and had communication and contact with him while running for Governor of Vermont, which is apparently why Wilson appointed him to a Federal judgeship as soon as Howe lost the election for Governor.) Those 5 calls to have the defendants come to Brooklyn was not such a hardship on most of the defendants, because they lived at Brooklyn Bethel -- except for Rutherford who lived in Southern California. He complained that he was dying. Only a couple of months after his release on bail, he got sick and developed pneumonia. This was more than 20 years before he actually died, but he really was seriously ill back in 1919. This could even have been tied to the conditions in the Atlanta penitentiary, or perhaps in the worse conditions of the local jail back in 1918 before they were transferred. Some newspapers reported that Rutherford said he was "dying" and the courts stopped forcing Rutherford to make the trip from California to Brooklyn. This is a bit out of order but the situation by October 1919 made it look like the Feds were not quite ready to give up on the case, but were already being pushed to declare it a non-case (abandonment of action, "nolle pros"). It doesn't mean they think you are innocent, but they are giving up trying to prove it, and it becomes as if the case never happened. BTW, when the Proclaimer's book says "As revealed in correspondence preserved in the U.S. National Archives" these are the same archives I am quoting from, although most of the newspaper quotes are coming from clippings from Newspapers.com. Also, archives of the "Brooklyn Daily Eagle" are available for free online.

Because sometimes a body at rest . . . falls asleep.

"Never at Rest" by Richard Westfall is a biography of Newton that covers his "Observations upon the Prophecies" and contains the idea expressed earlier that he was clearly not asserting these dates, but just trying to put a stop to the rash conjectures. The scrap is evidently from a time later in his life, and the FOUR big mistakes in the last 12 words showed how much he cared, in my opinion. I think he was falling asleep around the last two lines. ... One thing that Newton said that might be worth considering is his view on parts of Revelation, which rings true.

Just thought to point out that when most people see a sign on a building like "Ye Olde Tavern" or "Ye Olde Apple Store" they think of it as meaning "Your Old Tavern," etc. But the "Y" in this case is clearly a single letter representing the "TH" sound (like the Greek letter "Theta"). So, in the above, "ye Temple" means "the Temple" and "ye year" simply means "the year."

@Srecko Sostar: Completely different subject. Have you read or heard of a political author (American) named Michael Parenti? I have read a couple of his articles and have a book of his on the socio-politico-economic situation around Croatia and recent history there from Bill Clinton's time, and since. Wondered how much truth you thought his ideas had (if you know of them). They are not popular ideas in the US, so, even if credible, it's difficult to get a sense of validation/confirmation.

It seemed to me that some of the information that the ex-JWs had tried to prepare the prosecution with was unrelated to the case and was merely brought up to prejudice onlookers against Witnesses. Things can be done wrong, or said wrong, and still might have almost nothing to do with the case at hand. The place for the discussion of such things is in the context of how to improve our viewpoint and make it more in line with our own claims. It should not be used in order to stretch the truth about our lifestyle to make it seem like it could be matched up with extremists. If the State/Nation thinks it has a case against a person or group, let the State/Nation present it honestly so that the person or group knows what the real problem is, and can fairly defend themselves -- or even offer solutions and fixes.

Interesting question. In the Russian case I think there is a lot of evidence that it's the Russian Orthodox Church behind the curtain, because sometimes they come out from behind that curtain. In the case of the IBSA in 1918, I think that the earliest complaints about bias came from the fact that it was former members of the IBSA who helped the courts find evidence and make a case. In fact, the Watchtower itself complained that it was the former members who didn't like the way Rutherford took over for Russell. The WTS specifically blamed former directors who had been dismissed by Rutherford. So if a religion is to blame at all, it would be Russellites. I think history repeats itself here too, as there is evidence that ex-JWs helped the prosecution in Australia and Russia, for example.

I had the impression that this was Newton's whole point. It was not that he was serious about actually predicting a date for the end of the world. I think it was to show contemporaries that the same "data" that "prophecy hounds" always made use of in order to prove something will happen within their own generation, could just as easily be used to point to something hundreds of years in the future.

I still have a lot of loose ends to tie up. For example, there have been claims that some of the legal support to get Rutherford and his associates OUT of prison came from Catholic persons or associations. I haven't found evidence for that yet, but it could be just as possible that Catholics other than Judge Manton were involved in getting a decision on bail for Rutherford and/or their ultimate release and/or the decision not to retry the case. If anyone has heard of any evidence in this direction, it would be interesting, if only because all of the case-related evidence I have seen so far is in in the direction of Rutherford's speech against Catholics (and other religious clergy), not the other way around. Of course, Catholics were targeted by many groups at the time; Rutherford was just one of many anti-Catholic voices in this time period.

I suspect that it would be boring to most others if I continued posting items that happened to hold some interest to me. I tend to find something of interest in hundreds of these examples. It's interesting to see the perspective of the Watchtower Society and see how it compares to the perspective of the "FBI" and its agents. Naturally, I was curious to look for a "Catholic connection" or a backlash against the book motivated by religious leaders. In another recent comment not in this topic someone said that the judge was most likely Catholic: The Watchtower publications were quick to point out any religious affiliation of persons involved in the case and the courts, and they found that the bail hearing judge, Manton, was Catholic and later disgraced in the 1930's. Although the Watchtower pointed out Manton's disgrace, it could have just as easily pointed out the later disgrace of the Bible Student, William F. Hudgings, the most important witness for Rutherford that Howe had held in contempt for claiming he couldn't read the signatures of other members of the Watch Tower Society. But I suspected that if the original judge, Harland B. Howe, had been Catholic that this would definitely have already been noted. So I just did a quick search on him and members of his own family and wife's family and see no Catholic connection. In fact, members of the family I could find were married and buried as Methodists. So was H. B. Howe, according to this "obit." Edited to add that BTK's quote about Judge Howe comes from a book called "Millions Now Living Will Never Die: A study of Jehovah's Witnesses" by Alan Rogerson, and can be found here with the particular quote on page 42: https://archive.org/details/MillionsNowLivingWillNeverDieRogerson Howe did show prejudice and did make mistakes in the way he treated certain witnesses for the defense. His methods (even holding Hudgings in contempt) implied to the jury that he (the court) had already decided on the guilt of Rutherford. But it wasn't because he was Catholic or particularly religious. (He apparently was neither.) The original assignment of Howe appeared random, and the WTS lawyers had accepted him without much question even though he had already presided as judge over the conviction of a Baptist minister.

I just watched a recording of this and the previous debate at about 3am this morning. What a mess. LOL. I don't trust a one of them, but Tulsi Gabbard at least prepared with some material on Kamala Harris that was very easy to obtain, and should have been easy for others to find, too, if they wished to pile on. The articles about Harris hiding DNA evidence that would have freed an innocent man was in the NYTimes. (As was material about her hypocrisy on marijuana, harshness on drug offenses, etc.) I'm surprised that there is so much "opposition info" on everyone, but that these politicians only treat the data superficially when it really COULD "demolish" opponents if they really took time to understand the whole picture and press these issues. Perhaps they are still interested in being another's vice president in case those opponents win. Curiously, the number one set of related trends on Twitter yesterday included "Assad" "Tulsi" and "Kamala." Why was "Assad" there? It's evidently because Harris attacked back by claiming that Gabbard had been no more than a defender of Assad. Getting Assad so high in the trends probably implies some help from bots, either foreign or domestic. (This was based on the fact that Gabbard had done a fact finding mission in Syria and determined that things were not as the official US propaganda would have us believe. Being correct on this point will probably result in her downfall as a potential candidate.) The one thing I appreciated is that Gabbard, a former soldier, was concerned about overuse of war and US empirical policing around the world. But Gabbard herself has unfortunately shown inconsistency. I think she's one that voted for a recent hugely increased Pentagon budget last week.

On my hard drive, I have literally over a thousand of these FBI documents that were related to the case against Rutherford and his associates. All of them add a little something to the total picture. As I may have said before, some of them help us get a better picture of the behind-the-scenes workings of the Watch Tower Society and some help us get a better picture of the behind-the-scenes workings of the [Federal] Bureau of Investigation and other related agencies. I've read about 650 of these and skimmed almost all the others. I don't think anything very surprising will show up. But many do show that J F Rutherford and his associates were very much involved in private discussions with several civilians (IBSA) who wanted to avoid conscription, and Rutherford would give advice about whether it was better to take their chances based on the physical, and then try to request removal from actual combat if it came to that, or to make a petition prior to the conscription. Russell himself, who died near the end of 1916, had recommended accepting conscription and then shooting over the heads of the enemy. Russell was just a child during the US Civil War, but that recommendation would have been meaningless for the many face-to-face battles throughout the Civil War, and just as meaningless for many of the battles in the current "European War" that had started in 1914. I haven't read the transcripts and details of the prosecution yet, to know what was deemed most important to the charge of Sedition. But I think they were more concerned with the influence of the books, articles, and speeches in front of audiences that could reach hundreds of people at a time. IBSA members were allowed to keep their own personal (complete) copies of the Finished Mystery and Kingdom News for personal use, but were not allowed to distribute them to others. The persons all over the country who got in trouble were those who were obviously holding stocks of the books with the intention of distribution. I thought the example of Charles Fekel was informative here: Brother Fekel was a member of the GB from 1974 to 1977. He was somewhat frail during that time, and was rarely seen by others at Bethel. Here is part of the Watchtower's "obit." https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1977484 ON April 24, 1977, a ‘joyful perseverer in good work,’ Charles J. Fekel, completed his earthly course at the age of eighty years. He was born on March 7, 1897, in Bohemia, a part of Austria-Hungary. With other members of his family he emigrated to the United States in 1905. His religious training included both Roman Catholic and Lutheran teachings. However, when he heard Charles Taze Russell speak on the subject of “To Hell and Back” he knew that he had found the truth of the Bible. In 1916 he was baptized and the following year he entered the colporteur (pioneer) work, which was cut short due to his being arrested as a result of the war hysteria. After the war he had just begun full-time witnessing again when he was invited to serve at the Brooklyn Bethel, the Watch Tower Society’s headquarters printing plant, February 14, 1921. Here is an interesting discussion of Charles Fekel by the Bureau. He is thought of as an extreme religious fanatic. The first is a followup after an initial investigation of him a month earlier. He had 2,000 copies of Kingdom News 3, after a ruling that Kingdom News could only be distributed to fellow members. (see additional documents regarding Kingdom News at the very bottom of the this post.) The following pages show that, just as personal copies of the Finished Mystery could be kept by members but not distributed, Kingdom News could only be distributed to fellow IBSA members. This ruling prompted many additional letters to go out to leading persons among IBSA congregations from local Bureau Agents to let them know of the ruling.

The case of Frank D'Onofrio makes the point that once a person is in a military unit they are under the command of others. And those others have been given the power of life and death. They can "kill the body." In the United States, as in many countries, a person could make application for exemption on religious grounds, BEFORE conscription, but once they accepted an "oath" to the military, it was supposedly too late to make that request safely. If they made a request in such a way that could be interpreted as bringing down the morale of a military unit, or was interpreted as running away from a post due to cowardice, this might not end well for the person. If a person on the outside spoke out against war when the nation was not actively at war, this was never a problem. Woodrow Wilson himself had run for president on statements that were antiwar. But when a war is commenced, the religious leaders and pacifist philosophers were expected to shut up and talk about other things. The making of an actual law to that effect seems ludicrous, but laws made in the throes of nationalistic passion don't always make rational sense. Obviously, there would always be some flexibility or variability (inconsistency) of interpretation about how much could be said, and how it could be said, and what effect it was intended to have on potential troops. Some FBI Agents would find certain kinds of evidence useless, and another might think the same evidence was damning. And, the main point: something innocent or barely questionable outside of wartime, could be seen as treasonous and seditious during a war. Based on the definition of sedition given just before the war, and as expanded between 1917 and 1918, a lot of people were technically guilty of sedition. From a single individual with little influence on others, it could be forgiven (although often it wasn't). But it was considerably more serious to the War Department and FBI if a person had influence, and their words were intended to influence. One other thing I learned by reading literally thousands of documents on this case and other similar cases in these FBI files, is that the times were already filled with suspicion even before the war. The War Department and FBI was evidently filled with a lot of people who were passionate to fight against perceived internal enemies of United States. These enemies were sometimes just created out of fears propagandized by large commercial interests. The terrible fear of socialism was stoked by capitalists since many socialists had come from Europe to the United States in the mid-1800's. Many fought for the North in the US Civil War, seeing it as an important class conflict. But this brought suspicion on European immigrants from many different European countries, leading to fear of strikes, fear of labor organizing, and fear of those with financial power losing any profits to workers asking for rights. You'd think it completely unrelated to the case of the Bible Students and Rutherford, but I think that much of the thinking and suspicions of those days was at least partly depicted in a terribly long and slow-moving movie I once saw called "Heaven's Gate" with Chris Kristofferson. It was an adapted depiction of the culmination of the Johnson County Wars, where Wyoming officials (backing the cattle rancher associations) sanctioned the open assassinations of a large part of the new European immigrant population of this area of Wyoming from literal "death lists" of people that a hired posse was allowed to murder, and get paid $5 a day, and $50 for every European immigrant they successfully murdered. This was just over 2 decades prior to 1918. I read the Agent's reports that reek of suspicion for anyone who might have a socialist bent. If the assembly of IBSA was Polish, Greek, Italian, etc., the suspicions were high that there might be such "anarchists" among them. If the names were potentially German or of some other Eastern European sound that wasn't recognized, then they were all the more fearful of German enemies and socialist "enemies." Agents' reports on IBSA and others were quick to point out any tendencies toward socialism in these groups (which was called "anarchy" because, for example, a worker who wanted to work only 10 hours a day instead of 12 was causing "anarchy"). Russell, well before Rutherford, had already been teaching that Armageddon would involve a clashing of classes between labor and capital. Although religions like the IBSA (and some other groups and preachers) got caught up in the "Sedition Act" sweeps of 1917 and 1918, it was mostly folks like Eugene Debs (famous socialist) who got impacted. Debs had started and defended railroad unions since the 1890s and even ran for President in almost every presidential election (as a socialist) since 1900 until he died. The last time he ran from his prison cell, having been thrown in the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary just as Rutherford was leaving. Note Wikipedia: On June 16, 1918, Debs made a speech in Canton, Ohio urging resistance to the military draft of World War I. He was arrested on June 30 and charged with ten counts of sedition.[43] . . . Debs appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court. In its ruling on Debs v. United States, the court examined several statements Debs had made regarding World War I and socialism. While Debs had carefully worded his speeches in an attempt to comply with the Espionage Act, the Court found he had the intention and effect of obstructing the draft and military recruitment. Among other things, the Court cited Debs' praise for those imprisoned for obstructing the draft. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. stated in his opinion that little attention was needed since Debs' case was essentially the same as that of Schenck v. United States, in which the Court had upheld a similar conviction. . . . In March 1919, President Wilson asked Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer for his opinion on clemency, offering his own: "I doubt the wisdom and public effect of such an action". Palmer generally favored releasing people convicted under the wartime security acts, but when he consulted with Debs' prosecutors—even those with records as defenders of civil liberties—they assured him that Debs' conviction was correct and his sentence appropriate.[50] The President and his Attorney General both believed that public opinion opposed clemency and that releasing Debs could strengthen Wilson's opponents in the debate over the ratification of the peace treaty. Palmer proposed clemency in August and October 1920 without success.[51] At one point, Wilson wrote: While the flower of American youth was pouring out its blood to vindicate the cause of civilization, this man, Debs, stood behind the lines sniping, attacking, and denouncing them....This man was a traitor to his country and he will never be pardoned during my administration.[42] [Edited to add that some of the FBI documents use phrases like "The Finished Mystery and other examples of socialist propaganda." Also, to be fair, the Bureau during about the same period increased their efforts going after war profiteers who were conspiring to overcharge for coal, etc.]

Thanks. Some of these will be even more difficult.

Some of the following pieces of evidence will be harder to read, because a raid of various offices of the Watchtower only turned up the Carbon Copies of typewritten letters. Here is one where Rutherford finds a piece of information that he thinks might be favorable to certain 'conscientious objectors' who make known their objection (application for exemption) immediately after being drafted.

The "Chief" above is the same as "Mr. Bielaski" below. This was a few years before Hoover became the infamous chief of the Bureau. Also note that there may seem to be some confusion about whether they were collecting evidence to make a case with the "Sedition Act" or the "Espionage Act." The original 1917 Espionage Act was too limited in what it covered, since it focused on activities that could fall under the more limited idea of "Espionage." Some clauses were added to it in 1918 so that a wider range of activities could be prosecuted. This wider range of activities would fall under what is sometimes called the "Sedition Act of 1918." It wasn't really a new "Act," just a way to make it easier to prosecute a wider range of activities, including speech against the war, speech that kept soldiers from wanting to fight, and speech that encouraged civilians to avoid military conscription. Part of the reason for a confusion between the two terms might be because the full charges had not yet been defined while evidence was being gathered. But another reason is that even if the evidence was related to "sedition" the official name of the law was still the "Espionage Act" of 1917. Obviously, there was no Espionage in the sense of "spying" although spying itself is also associated with obstructing or sabotaging activities by persons who may have loyalties to another country, even if those persons are full citizens of the United States. (Persons with German last names were often looked at suspiciously, even if naturalized or US-born.) There may be a tacit admission in the following that some attorneys, although acting as if they are in full agreement with the FBI that this book represents the worse kind of treasonable offenses, that they are also admitting that they need more evidence to make a strong enough case.

Here's an early one from March 1918. Note that Rutherford's statements in all his speeches will be scrutinized by agents of the Bureau.