JEHOVAH'S SERVANTS

DEFENDED
I N RECENT years, and especially since the fall of
totalitarian spirit upon the rulers, it has become
necessary that Jehovah God's servants be de-
fended in the courts of this land — America. Such
would not have been dreamed of by the founders of
this country, who fled from religious persecution dur-
ing and after the Catholic Inquisition in Europe and
wisely anchored and secured the liberties of the peo-
ple in the fundamental law of the nation, the Con-
stitution.
In every state of the Union, upward of three thou-
sand servants of the Lord annually are falsely ar-
rested and maliciously prosecuted because of their
worship of Almighty God, Jehovah, and for their
determined exercise of their right of freedom of
press. Only and all those thus mistreated and ar-
rested are Jehovah's witnesses.
For the sole purpose of aiding the persons con-
cerned in insisting that justice be done, and to pre-
vent malicious prosecutions and discarding the Con-
stitution, this pamphlet is written.
Who are Jehovah's witnesses?
Jehovah's witnesses are not a sect, a cult or a
religion. They are true and obedient servants of
Almighty God, Jehovah, following exclusively in the
footsteps of Christ Jesus. Religion is the doing of
anything contrary to the will of Jehovah God. A cult
is a system of religious belief practicing ceremonies
and traditions of men in an organized body. A sect
is a religious organization of persons who follow a
particular creature in their belief and practice a spe-
cific religion based on the traditions of men.
1
2 JEHOVAH'S SERVANTS DEFENDED
Jehovah's witnesses are made up of persons who
are entirely devoted to Jehovah God and His king-
dom and who are diligent and faithful in carrying
out His orders as commanded by the Most High by
preaching the gospel of God's kingdom by presenting
to the people on the public streets and at the homes
literature explaining the Bible prophecies, which are
God's revealed Word. This literature plainly shows
that religion is a snare employed by Satan through
selfish men to prevent the people from seeing the
truth concerning Jehovah's purposes toward man-
kind. It shows furthermore that the time is near at
hand when Jehovah God is about to destroy Satan's
entire organization, invisible and visible, including
the commercial, political and ecclesiastical elements
of the present world and all persons who willingly
support said organizations. That such destructive
work will be by Jehovah's invisible forces at the
battle of Armageddon and is to be followed by the
complete establishment of a government to be ruled
over by Christ Jesus known as The Theocracy, which
will remain forever in the earth to bring peace, pros-
perity, happiness, and everlasting life unto all per-
sons who willingly obey all the commands of Jehovah
God.
This work done by Jehovah's witnesses is a kind
warning to the people to abandon religion and Satan's
organization now and live, or remain and die.
This work cannot be discontinued by Jehovah's wit-
nesses in any community, regardless of threats or
interference of any kind, because if they refuse to
preach the gospel and proclaim the warning the lives
of those not warned will be required from the wit-
ness who refuses or fails to carry out the command
to give the warning. Therefore they must obey God
rather than men.
Many persons object to the position of Jehovah's
witnesses, "We ought to obey God rather than men."
(Acts 5:29) They refuse to obey the unconstitutional
 JEHOVAH'S SERVANTS DEFENDED 3
commands of persons that they stop preaching the
gospel; but such commands are not laws. Laws which
conflict with the law of Almighty God are mentioned
by Blackstone thus:
"No human laws are of any validity if contrary to
this [the Divine law] . . . to be found only in the Holy
Scriptures. . . . No human laws should be suffered to
contradict these."
-—Blackstone Commentaries, Chase 3d ed., pp. 5-7.
The American law writer, Cooley, says:
"No external authority is to place itself between the
finite being and the Infinite when the former is seeking
to render the homage that is due, and in a mode which
commends itself to his conscience and judgment as being
suitable for him to render, and acceptable to its object."
—Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, 8th ed., p. 968.
Thus it is obvious that the fundamental law sup-
ports Jehovah's witnesses in their stand in refusing
to obey the whimsical commands of men.
Jehovah's witnesses are preaching the gospel, and
this activity of preaching, although not practiced as
do religionists, is clearly within the protection of the
Constitution. It is generally understood, by almost
everyone, that all associations of persons or organi-
zations made up of God-fearing people who engage
in study and worship are religious organizations.
Within the meaning of the Constitution all such
groups are considered religious organizations, but
according to the Bible definition there is a differ-
ence. Any formal worship of a superior or supreme
one by persons who rely upon traditional teachings
of men, together with ceremonies, is a religious or-
ganization. A follower of Jesus Christ is one who
strictly adheres to the Word of Almighty God, Jeho-
vah, in spirit and in truth, and does so without in-
dulging in formal ceremonies. Christ Jesus was never
a religionist; and his followers, therefore, are not
religionists, within the Biblical meaning of that term.
4 JEHOVAH'S SERVANTS DEFENDED
Accordingly, they follow in the footsteps of Christ
Jesus in going from house to house.—Matthew 10: 7,
12-14; Luke 8:1; Acts 20:20; 1 Peter 2:9,21.
But from the legal point of view all religious or-
ganizations and also worshipers of Almighty God
are put in the same class, and hence Jehovah's wit-
nesses are entitled to the benefit of the protection of
the law. The laws do not contemplate and were never
intended to interfere with any persons' way or means
of worship, regardless of what way or means they
employ.
It is the responsibility of judicial officers under
their oaths to uphold the Constitution and protect
Jehovah's witnesses from wrongful arrests and pros-
ecutions by misguided persons. To aid them in the
discharge of this duty the information herein con-
tained is submitted.
The false charges which the judges have been and
are now called upon to prevent being applied to Je-
hovah's witnesses are "soliciting, peddling, canvass-
ing, selling, hawking, and selling from house to house
and on the streets without permit or license", "tres-
passing," "offending and annoying people," "disor-
derly conduct," "breach of the peace," "sedition,"
"vagrancy," "distributing leaflets and pamphlets
without a permit," "inciting riot," "violating the
Sabbath laws," and many others.
Unconstitutional.
In every case the laws applied to Jehovah's wit-
nesses through the above charges have been held un-
constitutional as construed and applied, resulting in
the charges being dismissed and Jehovah's witnesses
discharged from custody. Space does not permit quo-
tation from every ease discussing the matter. Accord-
ingly, parts of the outstanding cases are here set
forth and other cases cited only. An examination of
the reports will disclose the entire opinion in each
case.
 JEHOVAH'S SERVANTS DEFENDED 5
As construed and applied.
It should be kept in mind that it is the wrongful
application of a valid ordinance or law that makes
it unconstitutional and unenforceable as to Jehovah's
witnesses, whose work is lawful.
In the case of Concordia Fire Insurance Co. v. Illi-
nois (1934), 292 U . S . 535, 545, the Supreme Court
of the United States said:
"Whether a statute is valid or invalid under the equal
protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment often
depends on how the statute is construed and applied.
It may be valid when given a particular application
and invalid when given another."
In other words, the validity of the statute depends
on what set of facts it is applied to. If applied to
Jehovah's witnesses' activity, protected and guaran-
teed by the Constitution, the law becomes unconsti-
tutional and void to the extent applied.
Laws against distribution of pamphlets with-
out a permit.
In Lovell v. City of Griffin (1938), 303 U . S . 444,
one of Jehovah's witnesses was convicted of violating
an ordinance which prohibited distribution of litera-
ture, on the streets or from house to house, within
the Georgia city of Griffin. She was going from house
to house distributing literature printed by the WATCH-
TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY and receiving in ex-
change therefor contributions of money. The United
States Supreme Court set aside her conviction and
said:
"We think that the ordinance is invalid on its face.
Whatever the motive which induced its adoption, its char-
acter is such that it strikes at the very foundation of
the freedom of the press by subjecting it to license and
censorship. The struggle for the freedom of the press
was primarily directed against the power of the licensor.
It was against that power that John Milton directed his
assault by his 'Appeal for the Liberty of Unlicensed
6 JEHOVAH'S SERVANTS DEFENDED
Printing'. And the liberty of the press became initially
a right to publish 'without a license what formerly could
be published only with one.' [See Wickwar, "The Strug-
gle for the Freedom of the Press", p. 15.] While this
freedom from previous restraint upon publication cannot
be regarded as exhausting the guaranty of liberty, the
prevention of that restraint was a leading purpose in
the adoption of the constitutional provision. See Patter-
son v. Colorado, 205 U. S. 454, 462; Near v. Minnesota,
283 U. S. 697, 713-716; Grosjean v. American Press Com-
pany, 297 U. S. 233, 245, 246. Legislation of the type of
the ordinance in question would restore the system of
license and censorship in its baldest form.
"The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers
and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and
leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the
defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine
and others in our own history abundantly attest. The
press in its historic connotation comprehends every sort
of publication which affords a vehicle of information
and opinion. What we have had recent occasion to say
with respect to the vital importance of protecting this
essential liberty from every sort of infringement need
not be repeated. Near v. Minnesota, supra; Grosjean v.
American Press Company, supra; De Jonge v. Oregon
[299 U.S. 353, 364], supra."
Similar decisions holding that like ordinances are
unconstitutional and cannot be applied to Jehovah's
witnesses are Schneider v. State (1939), 308 U. S. 147;
State ex rel. Wilson et al. v. Russell (1941), 1 So. 2d
569, where it is said:
"Counsel for the City of Clearwater [Florida] in his
brief defends the ordinance on the theory: (a) that the
challenged ordinance is a war measure; (b) the chief
of police by the terms of the ordinance is without dis-
cretion in the issuance or withholding of permits; (c) the
ordinance is designed to prohibit the teaching of all doc-
trines of disobedience to all civil laws; (d) the ordinance
is designed to prohibit the teaching of anarchy and a
refusal to salute the flag; (e) the regulation of the dis-
tribution of the pamphlets and literature under the terms
of the ordinance is in harmony with and strengthens the
 JEHOVAH'S SERVANTS DEFENDED 7
national defense program; (f) other patriotic arguments
are advanced. We have examined the case of Schenck v.
United States, 249 U. S. 47, 39 Sup. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed.
470, cited by counsel.
"These several arguments offered in behalf of the chal-
lenged ordinance are weighty and if presented to a legis-
lative body could not only be influential but convincing,
or if made on the hustings, would be approved and ap-
plauded by the people, but a court in the discharge of
duty under our system is required to be oblivious to
public clamor, partisan demands, notoriety, or personal
popularity and to interpret the law fearlessly and im-
partially so as to promote justice, inspire confidence and
serve the public welfare. The liberty and freedom of the
press under our fundamental law is not confined to news-
papers and periodicals, but embraces pamphlets, leaflets
and comprehends every publication which affords a vehi-
cle of information and opinion. The perpetuity of democ-
racies has as a foundation an informed, educated and
intelligent citizenry. An unsubsidized press is essential
to and a potent factor in instructive information and
education of the people of a democracy, and a well in-
formed people will perpetuate our constitutional liber-
ties."
See also Reid et al. v. Borough of Brookville et al.
(May 2, 1941), F. Supp ; also Kennedy et al.
v. City of Moscow et al. (May 14, 1941), F. Supp.
, where the United States District Judge for the
District of Idaho said:
"We must not overlook that the conduct alleged in the
two criminal complaints does not amount to a breach of
the peace, or engaging in a parade or procession upon
the streets, or throwing literature broadcast in the streets.
On the contrary it is an effort to distribute pamphlets
or other printed matter upon the streets of the City and
not elsewhere; which is alleged in the present complaint,
to persuade a willing listener to voluntarily contribute
by gift for the literature which it is claimed to be in
the nature of religious views, to enable people to know
Jehovah God and His purposes expressed in the Bible."
8 JEHOVAH'S SERVANTS DEFENDED
Laws requiring permits or licenses before sell-
ing articles or peddling on the streets or from
house to house.
Many cities and towns have peddling ordinances
requiring permits and licenses for sale of goods, wares
and merchandise upon the streets and from house to
house within the municipality. Such licenses and per-
mits cannot be required of one engaged in distribu-
tion of printed matter, either for money contribu-
tions or free of charge. While such ordinances can
rightly be applicable to persons selling ordinary items
of merchandise or goods, they cannot be applied to
one who is exercising his right of "free press". Pam-
phlets and newspapers are not considered 'ordinary
merchandise or goods or wares' and cannot be brought
within the terms of such ordinances.
If the ordinance by its terms prohibits peddling or
selling of literature it is void on its face and uncon-
stitutional.
The streets and the homes of the people are
the natural and proper places for distribution
of literature.
Peddling ordinances were outlawed and held un-
constitutional as applied to Jehovah's witnesses in
the case of Schneider v. State (Town of Irvington,
New Jersey) (1939), 308 U.S. 147. Clara Schneider,
one of Jehovah's witnesses, was going from house to
house in Irvington calling at the homes of the peo-
ple, offering to them the Bible literature above de-
scribed and received contributions therefor. She was
arrested and charged with violating the local peddling
ordinance which prohibited canvassing, soliciting, ped-
dling, or distribution of any matter from house to
house or on the streets in the town without a permit
from the Chief of Police. The Supreme Court of the
United States set aside her conviction and held the
ordinance could not be constitutionally applied to her
work, and said:
 JEHOVAH'S SERVANTS DEFENDED 9
"Although a municipality may enact regulations in the
interest of the public safety, health, welfare or conven-
ience, these may not abridge the individual liberties se-
cured by the Constitution to those who wish to speak,
write, print or circulate information or opinion.
"Municipal authorities, as trustees for the public, have
the duty to keep their communities' streets open and
available for movement of people and property, the pri-
mary purpose to which the streets are dedicated. . . .
"In every case, therefore, where legislative abridgment
of the rights is asserted, the courts should be astute to
examine the effect of the challenged legislation. Mere
legislative preferences or beliefs respecting matters of
public convenience may well support regulation directed
at other personal activities, but be insufficient to justify
such as diminishes the exercise of rights so vital to the
maintenance of democratic institutions. And so, as cases
arise, the delicate and difficult task falls upon the courts
to weigh the circumstances and to appraise the substan-
tiality of the reasons advanced in support of the regu-
lation of the free enjoyment of the rights.
" . . . Any burden imposed upon the city authorities
in cleaning and caring for the streets as an indirect con-
sequence of such distribution results from the constitu-
tional protection of the freedom of speech and press....
" . . . But, as we have said, the streets are natural and
proper places for the dissemination of information and
opinion; and one is not to have the exercise of his lib-
erty of expression in appropriate places abridged on the
plea that it may be exercised in some other place. . . .
"As said in Lovell v. City of Griffin, supra, pamphlets
have proved most effective instruments in the dissemina-
tion of opinion. And perhaps the most effective way of
bringing them to the notice of individuals is their distri-
bution at the homes of the people. On this method of
communication the ordinance imposes censorship, abuse
of which engendered the struggle in England which even-
tuated in the establishment of the doctrine of the freedom
of the press embodied in our Constitution. To require a
censorship through license which makes impossible the
free and unhampered distribution of pamphlets strikes
at the very heart of the constitutional guarantees."
[Italics added]
10 JEHOVAH'S SERVANTS DEFENDED
Not peddlers.
In Semansky v. Stark (1940), 199 So. 129; 196 La.
307, involving one of Jehovah's witnesses, the Louis-
iana Supreme Court set aside a judgment and held
that Jehovah's witnesses are not peddlers, and said:
"The plaintiff was distributing and selling books and
pamphlets, propagating, and disseminating the doctrines
of the religious sect of which he was a member and a
minister. From a reading of the above quoted provision
of the Act it would appear that it does not contemplate
transactions of this nature. . . . In view of the nature
of these transactions we are of the opinion that the
Legislature did not intend to require those engaged in
disseminating the doctrines and principles of any reli-
gious sect, either by the distribution, or sale, of books
or pamphlets pertaining to such, to pay a peddler's li-
cense, or to classify them as peddlers."
The foregoing Semansky case also upholds defi-
nitely the right of Jehovah's witnesses to carry on
their noncommercial, benevolent work and to use auto-
mobiles and other vehicles for that purpose without
the need to have or apply for commercial vehicle li-
cense.
In the Illinois case of Village of South Holland v.
Stein (1940), 26 N. E. 2d 868; 373 Ill. 472, one of
Jehovah's witnesses distributed the Watchtower mag-
azine and various books and booklets and received
money in exchange therefor, and was charged with a
violation of an ordinance which required one solicit-
ing to obtain a solicitor's permit, and making it un-
lawful to go to a private residence for the purpose of
selling merchandise without obtaining a solicitor's
permit. The Illinois Supreme Court held that the
ordinance was unconstitutional as applied to Jeho-
vah's witnesses, and voided the conviction. That court
said:
"Thus the question is not the formal interpretation
of the ordinance but the application given to it. A stat-
ute or ordinance may be invalid as applied to one state
 JEHOVAH'S SERVANTS DEFENDED 11
of facts and yet valid as applied to another. Whitney
v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 71 L. Ed. 1091; Dahnke-
Walker Milling Co. v. Bondurant, 257 U. S. 282, 66 L.
Ed. 239; Herndon v. Lowry [301 U.S. 242, 82 L. Ed.
949], supra.
"If the conviction was based on soliciting the subscrip-
tion of a publication without a permit, it was error un-
der the decisions of this court. If the conviction was
based on giving or furnishing a book or pamphlets as
disclosed by the stipulation, it violated both the State
and Federal constitutions. In either event the ordinance
would be void."
In Cincinnati v. Hosier (1939), 22 N. E. 2d 418;
61 Ohio App. 81, the Ohio Court of Appeals held
that an ordinance requiring license for business of
peddlers could no more apply to Jehovah's witnesses
than if attempted to apply it to an act performed
outside of the state, county or city. The ordinance
in question provided that a license would be "granted
by the superintendent of the department of public
welfare to peddlers selling goods carried by hand,
upon the payment to the city treasurer by each ap-
plicant of a license fee of $25.00 per annum. . . . "
There the court further said:
"We specifically hold the ordinance constitutional, just
as we specifically find that the prosecution in the instant
case was unwarranted in law.
"The ordinance itself in the Lovell case came into col-
lision with the protections and inhibitions of the consti-
tutional provisions. The ordinance in question here has
no such infirmity. On the other hand, it is apparent that
it can have no more application to the defendant for the
acts charged in the affidavit than it could if it were at-
tempted to apply it for an act performed outside the
State, county, or city.
"The court should have rendered judgment for the
defendant and dismissed him. The judgment is reversed
and the defendant dismissed."
Thomas v. City of Atlanta (1939), 1 S. E. 2d 598;
59 Ga. App. 520, also involved one of Jehovah's wit-
12 JEHOVAH'S SERVANTS DEFENDED
nesses, who was convicted of violating an ordinance
of the City of Atlanta, Georgia, providing that "any
person whose duty it shall be to register their busi-
ness and who shall fail and refuse to do so" shall be
fined. The defendant was arrested while walking along
the street and from house to house with a phonograph,
and was alleged to have sold and peddled literature
to residents. He had not registered nor obtained a
license, the same not being necessary to carry on his
work of preaching the gospel. The Georgia Court of
Appeals held:
"We do not think it is the duty of an ordained min-
ister of the gospel to register his business with the city.
Neither is it peddling for such minister to go into homes
and play a victrola, or to preach therein or to sell or
distribute literature dealing with his faith. . . . The
preaching and teaching of a minister . . . is not such
a business as may be required to register and obtain and
pay for a license so to do. Neither is a sale by such
minister of tracts or books connected with his faith a
violation of a statute against peddling."
Also the Supreme Court of South Carolina held,
on July 1, 1941, that the "sale" of books and booklets
by Jehovah's witnesses does not constitute peddling.
In the case of State v. Thomas Meredith, S. E.
2d , the court said:
"The literature carried around by the defendant con-
sisted of books or booklets entitled 'Refugees', 'Salvation',
and copies of the 'Watchtower' magazine, all of which
are publications issued by the Watchtower Bible & Tract
Society. The testimony shows that the main and primary
purpose and occupation of the defendant was to preach
and teach principles drawn from the Bible, in accordance
with his faith, wherever one or two were gathered to-
gether and would listen to him. His was an evangelistic
work, for which he received no material consideration,
and to which he devoted his life. The distribution of the
books and pamphlets was but another method or channel
through which he disseminated the religious opinions and
beliefs of Jehovah's witnesses. An examination of them
shows that they contain nothing offensive to good morals
 JEHOVAH'S SERVANTS DEFENDED 13
or hurtful to the general welfare. And it is quite clear
that the sale and distribution of the literature were mere-
ly incidental to defendant's work of evangelism, and not
related to any commercial enterprise conducted for per-
sonal profit. The record shows that the money paid by
purchasers of the books and pamphlets was received as
a contribution to the cause, and was devoted to the pub-
lication of other religious literature. . . .
"This Section (7120) does not purport either to de-
fine the offense of hawking or peddling, or to enlarge its
definition as heretofore recognized, but simply declares
that 'no person shall, as hawker or peddler, expose for
sale or sell any goods, wares, and merchandise in any
county' without having first obtained a license from the
Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas. . . .
"Under the conceded facts of this case, the 'sale' of
the book by the defendant was merely collateral to the
main purpose in which he was engaged, which was to
preach and teach the tenets of his religion. And in our
opinion, it is not peddling, as that word is usually con-
strued, nor a violation of the statute, for a minister,
under the circumstances shown here, to visit the homes
of the people, absent objection, and as a part of his
preaching and teaching to offer to sell or sell religious
literature explanatory of his faith, where no profit mo-
tive is involved. The sale of his books and pamphlets,
as heretofore pointed out, was merely incidental to the
chief purpose of the defendant,—which was the spread-
ing of his religion. . . .
"Judgment reversed." [Italics added]
In State ex rel. Hough v. Woodruff (May 27,1941),
1 So. 2d , the Florida Supreme Court found and
held that Jehovah's witnesses' taking contributions
for and distributing Watchtower and Consolation
magazines on the city streets of Tampa did not con-
stitute a violation of an ordinance making it unlawful
for peddlers and hawkers to sell goods, wares and
merchandise upon the streets without a permit, and
the conviction was set aside. The court said the ap-
plication of the ordinance made it unconstitutional,
adding:
14 JEHOVAH'S SERVANTS DEFENDED
"The real question then is whether or not the ordi-
nance complained of and the petitioner are within the
exceptions to the general rule defined in the cases relied
on by him and cited herein. We have examined these
cases and while we recognize the exception contended
for, we have reached the conclusion that petitioner is
covered by the rule rather than the exception. We do
not think the ordinance applies to him but if it did, it
would be invalid to that extent. Since this is the case,
State ex rel. Wilson v. Russell, decided April 8, 1941
[1 So. 2d 569], . . . would seem to rule the instant case."
In the case of Reid et al. v. Borough of Brookville
et al. (May 2, 1941), F. Supp , the United
States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania granted an injunction perpetually re-
straining four muncipalities sued from enforcing
against Jehovah's witnesses (1) the Brookville ordi-
nance prohibiting sale of any merchandise upon the
streets without a permit; (2) the Clearfield borough
ordinance prohibiting canvassing from house to house
and upon the streets for goods, wares and merchan-
dise; (3) the Monessen city ordinance prohibiting
distribution by anyone of printed matter unless a
permit be first obtained, and requiring the applicant
to salute the flag as a requisite to a license; and (4)
the New Bethlehem borough ordinance prohibiting
street preaching without a permit or peddling pri-
vately or on the public streets without a permit or
without a license. The court held that all such ordi-
nances were unconstitutional when applied to Jeho-
vah's witnesses, and their enforcement could not con-
tinue, as such would be violative of the First and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Con-
stitution. There the court said:
"The function of each witness as such ordained min-
ister is to sell or distribute the periodicals or tracts put
forth by the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society upon
the street or by a house-to-house canvass. In this dis-
tribution religion as practiced and advocated by organ-
ized church bodies is denounced as a 'snare and a racket'
 JEHOVAH'S SERVANTS DEFENDED 15
—this being in accordance with the declarations of the
Watch Tower publications."
See also Douglas et al. v. City of Jeannette et al.
(May 2, 1941), F. Supp , by the United
States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, declaring a peddling and hawkers' or-
dinance invalid as applied to Jehovah's witnesses.
The fact that literature is claimed to be sold
matters not.
In Commonwealth (Borough of Clearfield) v. Reid
et ux. (June 30, 1941), A. 2d , the Pennsyl-
vania Superior Court set aside a conviction of two
of Jehovah's witnesses who were convicted of alleged
selling and offering for sale literature upon the streets
in violation of the borough ordinance. The ordinance
was held invalid as applied, and the court said:
"The historical reference to 'pamphlets' in that [Lovell
v. City of Griffin, supra] opinion and in other opinions
of that court (Schneider v. State . . . ; Thornhill v.
Alabama, 310 U. S. 88, 97; . . . etc.) is not limited to
'pamphlets' which are distributed without cost. Every
student of history knows that the 'pamphlets' referred
to by Chief Justice Hughes in his opinion, and by Mr.
Justice Sutherland in the Grosjean case, were not for
the most part circulated gratis, but were distributed to
subscribers or sold. They 'were the immediate predeces-
sors of weekly newspapers. . . . Under Queen Anne pam-
phlets arrived at a remarkable degree of importance.
Never before or since has this method of publication
been used by such masters of thought and language.
Political writing of any degree of authority was almost
entirely confined to pamphlets. If the "Whigs were able
to command the services of Addison and Steele, the
Tories fought with the terrible pen of Swift.' Encyclo-
paedia Britannica, Vol. 20, Pamphlets, pp. 659-660. 'The
pamphlet is popular as an instrument of religious or po-
litical controversy in times of stress. It is relatively in-
expensive to the purchaser, and to the author or the
publisher it can be more timely than a book bound in
cloth or leather, and it gives author and readers the
16 JEHOVAH'S SERVANTS DEFENDED
maximum benefit of freedom of the press.' The Columbia
Encyclopedia, 'Pamphlet'."
In this connection we quote from the opinion of
the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals,
Boston, the following clear statement of the American
principles (Hannan et al. v. City of Haverhill et al.
[May 29, 1941], F. 2d ):
"The streets are natural and proper places for pur-
poses of assembly, of interchange of thought and opin-
ion on religious, political and other matters, either by
word of mouth or by the distribution of literature. Such
use of the streets and public places, sanctioned by an-
cient usage, has become part of the liberties of the people
protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from state en-
croachment. Hague v. C. I. 0., 307 U. S. 496, 515; Schnei-
der v. State, 308 U. S. 147,163; Cantwell v. Connecticut,
310 U. S. 296, 303. We take it also that this constitu-
tional right to make reasonable use of the streets for the
purpose of distributing literature is not limited to hand-
ing it out free of charge, but includes also the right to
offer the literature for sale so as to defray the cost of
publication—otherwise, the circulation of one's opinions
or the propagation of one's faith on an extensive scale
would tend to become a prerogative of the well-to-do.
Cf. Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444, 452. In Cantwell v.
Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, a state statute was invali-
dated as an unconstitutional restriction on the right to
solicit funds for religious objects.
" . . . Restrictions properly applicable to hawkers and
peddlers selling ordinary articles of merchandise on the
streets might not be appropriate to regulate the sale and
distribution of literature of the sort offered for sale by
the plaintiffs. . . . " [Italics added]
Thus it is clearly evident that to hold that freedom
of the press means that only free distribution or
"gift" of literature is protected by the Constitution
is to sound the death toll to constitutional rights in
this country. Such a doctrine is foreign to American
jurisprudence and contrary to the fundamental prin-
ciples of liberty and justice. To thus hold is to make
 JEHOVAH'S SERVANTS DEFENDED 17
the liberty of the press the privilege and prerogative
of the rich and well-to-do and to deny that right to
the poor and less fortunate.
See also the United States Supreme Court case of Hague
v. C.I. O. et al. (1939), 307 U. S. 496; also Tucker v. Ran-
dall (New Jersey) (1940), 15 A. 2d 324; 18 N. J. Misc. 675;
McLean v. Mackay, 124 N. J. L. 91; Dallas et al. v. City of
Atlantic City (decree by United States District Court for
New Jersey, October 11, 1940); Mickey et al. v. Excelsior
Springs (decree by United States District Court for West-
ern District of Missouri, January 9, 1941); Widle v. City
of Harrison (decree by United States District Court for
Western District of Arkansas, January 9,1941); Hibshman
v. Kentucky (opinion by Pike Circuit Court, March 17,
1941); Portsmouth v. Stockwell (opinion of Court of Ap-
peals, Fourth District, Ohio, November 1940); People v.
Finkelstein, 2 N. Y. S. (2) 941; People v. Max Banks, 6
N. Y. S. 2d 41; Herder v. Shahadi et al. (New Jersey),
14 A. 2d 475; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (City of
Coatesville) v. H. C. Schuman [Sehieman], 189 A. 503;
125 Pa. Superior Ct. 62.
Ordained ministers.
In acting as ordained ministers and preaching the
gospel publicly and from house to house it cannot be
properly said that such work by Jehovah's witnesses
does not constitute a proper worship or service of
Almighty God. The testimony of Jehovah's witnesses
that they act as ordained ministers is uncontradicted
and unimpeached and is therefore conclusive upon
all concerned in this matter. Furthermore, the United
States Supreme Court has held that the individual
alone is privileged to determine what he shall or shall
not believe and how he shall worship or serve Al-
mighty God. The law does not permit judges to settle
differences of creed or confession and will not say
that any point, doctrine or practice is too absurd to
be believed. See Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S.
145, 162, quoting from Jefferson's Virginia Statute
for Religious Freedom; also United States v. Macin-
tosh, 283 U. S. 605, 634.
18 JEHOVAH'S SERVANTS DEFENDED
"Green River" type of ordinance prohibiting
calls at residences without prior invitation or
consent of householder is invalid as to work of
Jehovah's witnesses.
In some municipalities there are ordinances known
as the "Green River" ordinance. This type of ordi-
nance prohibits making calls at the homes of people
by peddlers and itinerant merchants for the purpose
of selling goods, wares or merchandise without the
prior invitation or consent of the householder. This
type of ordinance has been repeatedly held to be un-
constitutional and void on its face.*
* City of Columbia (S.C.) v. Alexander (October 2,1923),
119 S. E. 241; Real Silk Hosiery Mills v. City of Richmond
(Calif.) (April 24, 1924), 298 F. 126; Ex parte Maynard
(Texas) (October 7, 1925), 275 S. W. 1071; Orangeburg
(S. C.) v. Farmer (July 15, 1936), 181 S. C. 143; 186 S. E.
783; Jewel Tea Co. v. Town of Bel Air (May 25, 1937),
192 A. 417; 172 Md. 536; Prior v. White (Fla.) (April 6,
1938), 180 So. 347; 116 ALR 1176; White v. Town of Cul-
peper (Va.) (February 20, 1939), 1 S. E. 2d 269; 172 Va.
630; New Jersey Good Humor, Inc. v. Board of Comm.
(January 25, 1940), 11 A. 2d 113, 114; City of McAlester
(Okla.) v. Grand Union Tea Co. (January 30, 1940), 98
P. 2d 924; Be Berry v. City of La Grange (Ga.) (March 12,
1940), 8 S. E. 2d 147; Jewel Tea Co. v. City of Geneva
(Nebr.) (March 29,1940), 291 N. W. 664; Hague v. C. I. O.
et al. (New Jersey) (1939), 101 F. 2d 774; 307 U. S. 496;
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Borough of State College)
v. Meyers [one of Jehovah's witnesses] (January 24, 1940),
opinion by Centre County Court of Quarter Sessions; City
of Chisholm (Minn.) v. Shook [one of Jehovah's witnesses]
(January 27, 1940), opinion by Minnesota 11th Judicial
Dist. Court, St. Louis County; Widle [one of Jehovah's
witnesses] v. City of Harrison (Ark.) (January 9, 1941),
decree by United States District Court for Western District
of Arkansas; People v. Bohnke and Brown [two of Jeho-
vah's witnesses], to be decided by New York Court of
Appeals, fall term 1941.
 JEHOVAH'S SERVANTS DEFENDED 19
Such "Green River" ordinance has also been held
invalid and unconstitutional as construed and applied
to Jehovah's witnesses, by the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio in its deci-
sion of April 25, 1941, in the case of Zimmerman et
al. v. Village of London et al., F. Supp , where
an injunction was granted to Jehovah's witnesses, and
in which that court said:
"It follows therefore, that the restriction of the or-
dinance as enforced against these plaintiffs amounts to
a denial of freedom of the press and of the right of
free speech, rights guaranteed by the Constitution and
protected against state infringement by the Fourteenth
Amendment. Although the theory of the ordinance is
purportedly trespass, the theory can give no sanction
to the denial of fundamental rights under the Consti-
tution.
"Democracy rests upon the theory that all men are
possessed of certain inalienable rights; these rights, if
democracy is to survive, must be based upon mutual tol-
erance and understanding. They give to no class or group
the right to dictate to another what his opinions or be-
liefs shall be. . . .
"It is the conclusion of this Court that the plaintiffs
have a constitutional right to distribute their literature
from door to door in an orderly manner, without inter-
ference by state authority. There being neither allega-
tion nor showing that such literature is against public
morals or in any way improper for distribution."
See also De Berry v. City of La Grange, 8 S. E. 2d
146, where the Georgia Court of Appeals in 1940 up-
held the right of one of Jehovah's witnesses who was
wrongfully prosecuted under the "Green River" or-
dinance.
Violation of Sunday laws or desecration of
Sabbath.
Because Jehovah's witnesses are doing a work of
charity and benevolence and are performing acts of
worship by preaching the gospel, they do not come
20 JEHOVAH'S SERVANTS DEFENDED
within the terms of statutes prohibiting work and
business on Sunday and therefore cannot be guilty.
See Opinion of Attorney General of State of New
York, 45 New York State Department Reports 286,
People v. Finn, 57 Misc. 569, 110 N. Y. S. 22, and
Idaho v. Morris (one of Jehovah's witnesses), 155 P.
296. Their work of necessity and charity performed,
even though they take contributions of money for the
books, prevents them from being declared guilty un-
der such Sunday laws. Thus they are entitled to the
same protection accorded to "religious" or "church"
organizations. See Commonwealth v. Nesbit (Pa.), 34
Pa. St. Rep. 398; Cronan v. Boston (Mass.), 136 Mass.
384; State (Kan.) v. Needham, 134 Kan. 155; 4 P.
2d 464; 60 Corpus Juris 1056; Bale v. Knepp, 98 Pa.
St. Rep. 389, 392; Bryan v. Watson (Ind.) 62 N. E.
666; 127 Ind. 42; Ft. Mad. 1st M. E. Church v. Don-
nell, 81 N.W. 171; 110 Iowa 5; Allen v. Duffle, 4
N.W. 427; In re Hull, 18 Idaho 175; Bennett v.
Brooks, 91 Mass. 118.
"Press activity" such as distributing booklets does
not come within prohibition of such "Sunday" laws
even though not done as an act of worship, such as
by newspapers. (See Pulitzer Pub. Co. v. McNichols
(Mo.), 181 S. W. 1.) However, the distribution of lit-
erature by Jehovah's witnesses is their way or means
of worship or service of Almighty God by preaching
or declaring His message concerning The Theocracy.
Playing of phonograph records and distribut-
ing literature attacking religion as a snare is
protected by the United States Constitution, and
such does not amount to breach of peace or dis-
orderly conduct.
This was expressly held in the case of Cantwell v.
Connecticut (1940), 310 U.S. 296, where Newton
Cantwell and his sons Jesse and Russell, ordained
ministers, each one of Jehovah's witnesses, while en-
gaged in preaching the gospel from house to house,
 JEHOVAH'S SERVANTS DEFENDED 21
offering literature explaining the purposes of AL-
MIGHTY GOD as outlined in His Word, the Bible,
and playing phonograph records containing Bible
talks, were arrested in New Haven, Connecticut, and
charged with statutory and common law offenses.
Upon trial they were found guilty of violating a
statute regulating 'solicitation' because they went
from door to door and when persons obtained the
literature the Cantwells accepted contributions there-
for; further, Jesse was found guilty of 'breach of
the peace' because of the playing of a phonograph
record entitled "Enemies", describing a book of the
same name, and which record was disliked by two
Catholic men because it exposed and attacked their
"religion". The United States Supreme Court said:
"The record played by Cantwell embodies a general
attack on all organized religious systems as instruments
of Satan and injurious to man; it then singles out the
Roman Catholic Church for strictures couched in terms
which naturally would offend not only persons of that
persuasion, but all others who respect the honestly held
religious faith of their fellows. The hearers were in fact
highly offended. One of them said he felt like hitting
Cantwell and the other that he was tempted to throw
Cantwell off the street. The one who testified he felt
like hitting Cantwell said, in answer to the question
'Did you do anything else or have any other reaction?'
'No, sir, because he said he would take the victrola and
he went.' The other witness testified that he told Cantwell
he had better get off the street before something hap-
pened to him and that was the end of the matter as Cant-
well picked up his books and walked up the street. . . .
"In the realm of religious faith, and in that of politi-
cal belief, sharp differences arise. In both fields the tenets
of one man may seem the rankest error to his neighbor.
To persuade others to his own point of view, the pleader,
as we know, at times, resorts to exaggeration, to vilifica-
tion of men who have been, or are, prominent in church
or state, and even to false statement. But the people of
this nation have ordained in the light of history, that,
in spite of the probability of excesses and abuses, these
22 JEHOVAH'S SERVANTS DEFENDED
liberties are, in the long view, essential to enlightened
opinion and right conduct on the part of the citizens
of a democracy.
"The essential characteristic of these liberties is, that
under their shield many types of life, character, opinion
and belief can develop unmolested and unobstructed. No-
where is this shield more necessary than in our own
country for a people composed of many races and of
many creeds. There are limits to the exercise of these
liberties. The danger in these times from the coercive
activities of those who in the delusion of racial or reli-
gious conceit would incite violence and breaches of the
peace in order to deprive others of their equal right to
the exercise of their liberties, is emphasized by events
familiar to all. These and other transgressions of those
limits the states appropriately may punish.
" . . . the petitioner's communication, considered in
the light of the constitutional guarantees, raised no such
clear and present menace to public peace and order as
to render him liable to conviction of the common law
offense in question."
In the Cantwell case the Court also held that a stat-
ute which required a permit as a condition precedent
to soliciting funds for "a religious or charitable or-
ganization" was unconstitutional as applied to Jeho-
vah's witnesses.
In the case of City of Beaufort v. Rickenbaker (de-
cided June 28, 1941), S. E. 2d , one of Jeho-
vah's witnesses was accused of "disorderly conduct".
The South Carolina Supreme Court found and held
in that case as follows:
"The appellant was one of twelve persons, men and
women, who entered the city of Beaufort very early on
Sunday morning, June 30, 1940, and at about first day-
light distributed religious pamphlets on the porches of
the residents. Some of the latter complained of the dis-
turbance to a policeman on duty who arrested the ap-
pellant and she was later tried in the Mayor's Court and
convicted of the violation of the following quoted ordi-
nance :
'Every person, who shall by provoking or insulting
 JEHOVAH'S SERVANTS DEFENDED 23
epithets, words, or gestures, attempt to provoke an-
other shall be deemed guilty of disorderly conduct,
and upon conviction thereof be fined in any sum not
exceeding One Hundred Dollars or imprisonment, not
exceeding Thirty days.'
" . . . We have carefully read the testimony, all of
which is printed in the record, and we find none which
would justify conviction of the appellant of a violation
of the quoted ordinance under which she was prosecuted,
convicted and sentenced, so the latter will be reversed....
"The judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed as is
the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the City
Court of Beaufort."
"Vagrancy" sometimes is wrongfully laid as a "dis-
orderly conduct" charge against Jehovah's witnesses
when unlawfully interrupted in the doing of their
good work. See Katherine Archer [one of Jehovah's
witnesses] v. First Cr. Judicial Dist. Court of Bergen
County (N. J.) (November 7, 1932), 162 A. 914, deci-
sion by New Jersey Supreme Court, setting aside her
wrongful conviction.
The fact that violence is threatened against
distributor is no ground for stopping Jehovah's
witnesses, who rightly resist actual violence.
In Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, the United
States Supreme Court said:
"The fact that speech is likely to result in causing
some violence . . . is not enough to justify its suppres-
sion."
In Dearborn Publishing Co. v. Fitzgerald (1921),
271 F. 479, where the mayor and other officials of
Cleveland, Ohio, were prohibiting the distribution of
the Dearborn Independent on the streets, the United
States Circuit Court of Appeals said:
"If it be assumed that the article might tend to ex-
cite others to breaches of the peace the reply is plain.
It is the duty of all officials charged with preserving
order and peace to suppress firmly and promptly all
24 JEHOVAH'S SERVANTS DEFENDED
persons guilty of disturbing it, and not forbid innocent
persons to exercise their lawful and equal rights. . . .
If defendants' actions were sustained, the constitutional
liberty of every citizen freely to speak, write and pub-
lish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible only
for abuse of that right, would be placed at the mercy
of every public official who for the moment was clothed
with authority to preserve the public peace and the right
to a free press thus destroyed. . . . "
Another case in point is that of City of Gaffney v.
Putnam (decided June 2, 1941, by the South Caro-
lina Supreme Court), S. E. 2d There one of
Jehovah's witnesses was distributing literature which
highly offended the religious susceptibilities of one
Fowler, who attacked Putnam. Putnam resisted,
standing his ground manfully and firmly defended
the Kingdom interests in harmony with God-given
instruction contained in the Bible. Putnam was pros-
ecuted for assault upon his assailant. On trial Put-
nam, one of Jehovah's witnesses, was convicted of
violating an ordinance of the city, pertinent parts
of which read as follows:
"Any person or persons creating any disturbing noises,
or making, creating or engaging in any brawl, riot, af-
fray; fighting or indulging in profane, obscene, abusive
or vulgar language, . . . shall if found guilty, be sub-
ject to a fine."
On hearing the case on appeal, the Supreme Court
of South Carolina held that
"the defendant was not guilty, in our opinion, of any
assault, and it is clear that Fowler, who provoked the
difficulty and was the physical aggressor throughout, had
no reasonably well founded apprehension of bodily harm
or danger to his person. So that the real question pre-
sented by the appeal is whether the words concerning
religion and Christianity, spoken under the circumstances
above narrated [Putnam had called out in a normal tone
of voice: "Religion is ruining the nations; Christianity
will save the people"], addressed to the public at large,
constituted of themselves sufficient legal justification for
 JEHOVAH'S SERVANTS DEFENDED 25
the assault made by Fowler. It is plain that they do not.
"In view of the fact that peace and good order forbid
that individuals shall right their own wrongs, we have
announced the rule in numerous cases that in the absence
of statute, mere words, no matter how abusive, insult-
ing, vexatious or threatening they may be, will not jus-
tify an assault or battery, unless accompanied by an
actual offer of physical violence,—although they may
mitigate the punishment. State v. Cooler, 112 S. C. 95,
98 S. E. 845; State v. Workman, 39 S. C. 151, 17 S. E.
694; State v. Jacobs, 28 S. C. 29, 4 S. E. 799; State v.
Jackson, 32 S. C. 27, 10 S. E. 769.
"Nor can it be successfully contended that in attempt-
ing to defend himself under the facts in this case, Putnam
was guilty of assault upon Fowler. One acting in self-
defense to repel an unlawful attack is not guilty of as-
sault; he may repel force with force and continue his
self-defense as long as the danger apparently continues."
This Supreme Court holding upheld Putnam's right
to have defended the interests of the Kingdom and
clearly defined the religionist as in the wrong in at-
tacking Putnam. Though he disliked the message Put-
nam was offering, he should have passed on. For en-
tire text of this remarkable opinion see Consolation
magazine for July 9, 1941, No. 569, p. 8.
The work of Jehovah's witnesses, or their statement
that "religion is a snare", does not constitute a breach
of the peace or disorderly conduct even when done
in the presence and hearing of those who are offend-
ed at the message. See
People v. Guthrie (1939), 26 N. Y. S. 2d 289
People v. Ludovici (1939), 13 N. Y. S. 2d 88
People v. Kieran et al. (1940), 26 N. Y. S. 2d 291
People v. Northum et al. (1940),
41 C. A. 2d 284; 103 Cal. Supp. 295
People v. Caryk et al. (1941), N. Y. S. 2d
26 JEHOVAH'S SERVANTS DEFENDED
United States District Court declares Jeho-
vah's witnesses not subversive or seditionists.
In the case of Beeler et al. v. Smith et al. (June 4,
1941), F. Supp , where six faithful servants
of Almighty God were wrongfully jailed and held
without bond under false charges of sedition for al-
most three months, indicted and released on bail, the
United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Kentucky granted a permanent injunction holding
that the literature of Jehovah's witnesses is not sub-
versive, not seditious, and did not advocate the over-
throw of the government by force; and that such
prosecuting officials be restrained from interfering
with the distribution by Jehovah's witnesses of their
Bible literature. The entire text of the decision ap-
pears in the Consolation magazine for July 9, 1941
(No. 569).
Refusal to salute a flag is not ground for in-
terfering with Jehovah's witnesses.
Jehovah's witnesses refuse to salute the flag of any
nation, not because of disrespect, but solely because
they are in a covenant with Jehovah God to do His
will, and because His commandment written in the
Bible is that His faithful servants must not bow down
to or salute any emblem or symbol of any govern-
ment or anything save and except Jehovah God.
(Exodus 20:1-6) They respect the flag and the things
for which it stands, and willingly obey all the laws
of the land which are not in conflict with the laws
of Almighty God, or which do not require them to
violate their covenant with Jehovah God.
The courts have recognized the right of Jehovah's
witnesses to refuse to salute the flag, and grant them
protection of the Constitution in this belief. In Rey-
nolds v. Rayborn (April 25, 1938), 116 S. W. 2d 836,
the Texas Court of Civil Appeals at Amarillo said:
"The flag is emblematic of the justice, greatness and
 JEHOVAH'S SERVANTS DEFENDED 27
power of the United States—these, together, guarantee
the political liberty of the citizen, but the flag is no less
symbolic of the justice, greatness, and power of our
country when they guarantee to the citizen freedom of
conscience in religion—the right to worship his God ac-
cording to the dictates of his conscience. Beyond my
comprehension are the vagaries of people who claim and
accept the protection of their government in order to
worship God according to the dictates of their conscience,
but refuse to salute their country's flag in recognization
of such protection. Yet, however reprehensible to us such
conduct may be, their constitutional right must be held
sacred; when this ceases, religious freedom ceases."
[Italics added]
To teach a child the commandments of Almighty
God which prohibit the saluting of any flag does not
constitute a violation of the laws. In People v. Sand-
strorm (1939), 279 N. Y. 523; 18 N. E. 2d 840, the
New York Court of Appeals set aside the conviction
of Jehovah's witnesses who had been charged with
contributing to the truancy and delinquency of a
minor. The basis of the charge was that the parents
had taught the child to obey Jehovah God and because
thereof she refused to salute the flag at school. The
child was expelled from school. The court held that
the parents were not guilty of violating any law in
teaching their child that God's law forbade the sa-
luting of any flag.
In the case of In re Jones (1940), 24 N. Y. S. 2d
10; 175 Misc. 451, the Jefferson County (New York)
Children's Court set aside the conviction of one of
Jehovah's witnesses who had been prosecuted as a
truant for not attending school because she was ex-
pelled for refusal to salute the flag. Her refusal was
held not to be a violation of the law so as to warrant
the conviction and the child was held not to be a de-
linquent under the statute.
In the case of In re Reed (May 27, 1941), 28 N. Y.
S. 2d 92, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate
Division, Fourth Department, sitting at Rochester,
28 JEHOVAH'S SERVANTS DEFENDED
held that it was not unlawful for one of Jehovah's
witnesses to refuse to salute the flag, and that court
set aside a conviction of one of Jehovah's witnesses
under the delinquency law of New York. The boy-
had been also expelled from school for his refusal to
salute a flag.
A like case is that of In re Roland Lefebvre and
others (May 6, 1941), 20 A. 2d 185. There the New
Hampshire Supreme Court held that Jehovah's wit-
nesses were not acting contrary to the law when they
refused to salute the flag. In this case the lower court
had committed to the reform school three children
of Jehovah's witnesses who had been expelled from
public school for refusal to salute the flag. The Su-
preme Court held that such did not constitute delin-
quency or a violation of the law, and released the chil-
dren. The court also said:
"Loving parents who do their best for their children
in support, nurture and admonition are of more worth
than pecuniary means. Righteous and generous motives
may be of more importance than notions that chime
with majority opinions of what is good form or what
is the best method of teaching patriotism. . . . But in
view of the sacredness in which the State has always
held freedom of religious conscience, it is impossible for
us to attribute to the legislature an intent to authorize
the breaking up of family life for no other reason than
because some of its members have conscientious religious
scruples not shared by the majority of the community,
at least provided those scruples are exercised in good
faith, and their exercise is not tinged with immorality
or marked by damage to the rights of others. The purity
of the action of the children in these regards is admitted."
In Kennedy et al. v. City of Moscow et al. (Idaho)
(May 14, 1941), F. Supp , the United States
District Court for Idaho held that one could not be
lawfully required to salute the flag and recite the
pledge of allegiance as a condition precedent to dis-
tributing literature.
 JEHOVAH'S SERVANTS DEFENDED 29
The United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania (Reid et al. v. Brookville
et al. [May 2, 1941], F. Supp ) also held to
the same effect in enjoining the enforcement of a sim-
ilar ordinance of the Pennsylvania city of Monessen.
Wearing or carrying signs cannot be regulated
by requiring a permit, or otherwise prohibited.
The Supreme Court of the United States so held
in the cases of Thornhill v. Alabama (1940), 310 U. S.
88, and Carlson v. California (1940), 310 U.S. 106.
Following these Supreme Court opinions are the hold-
ings of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in
Commonwealth v. Anderson (1941), 32 N. E. 2d 684,
and Commonwealth v. Pascone (April 5, 1941), _
N. E. 2d
Conclusion.
The above fifty eases involving Jehovah's witnesses,
and the many others herein referred to, are just a
few of the hundreds of favorable decisions rendered
in behalf of Jehovah's witnesses by fair-minded, lib-
erty-loving judges of the land of liberty. Such men
are holding up the Constitution as a bulwark against
the Roman Catholic Hierarchy's movement as a 'fifth
column' to sabotage, hamstring, sandbag and destroy
American constitutional rights and to suppress free-
dom of worship of Almighty God. Hierarchy-influ-
enced judges would tolerate only those traditional re-
ligious practices that are approved by the Roman
Catholic Hierarchy. They would allow only those hu-
man expressions that are perverted to conform to
their devilish theories expounded, for example, in the
Encyclical Letter (1832) of a reigning pontiff of the
Hierarchy, Pope Gregory XVI, who wrote,
"That pest, of all others most to be dreaded in a state,
unbridled liberty of opinion . . . Hither tends that worst
and never sufficiently to be execrated and detested LIB-
ERTY OF THE PRESS, for the diffusion of all man-
30 JEHOVAH'S SERVANTS DEFENDED
ner of writings, which some so loudly contend for, and
so actively promote."
Many thousands of judges of the inferior courts
of America have fallen under the evil influence of
such totalitarian dictatorial movement and, either will-
ingly or unwittingly, have yielded to demonized lead-
ership against liberty; have spinelessly joined the hue
and cry of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy to 'stop
Jehovah's witnesses' and, in violation of their oaths
of office, have wrongfully and without jurisdiction or
justification "convicted" Jehovah's witnesses, as fore-
told in Psalm 94: 20.
Let such public officials notice.
Section 20 of the Federal Code (Title 18, Sections
51 and 52 of U. S. C. A.) makes it a felony for any-
one, under color of any law or ordinance, to deprive
any citizens of constitutional rights or privileges. And
this statute applies to officials who seek to collect li-
cense fees from persons constitutionally exempt from
payment.
A police official or other officer, or persons actively
participating in causing or making an arrest under a
void ordinance, can be personally held for general and
specific damage. (Scott v. McDonald, 165 U. S. 58, 89)
Violation of the above statute is punishable by a fine
of several thousand dollars or several years' imprison-
ment, or both.
Among the oldest cases on the points herein set
forth is the one recorded in the Bible book of The
Acts of the Apostles, chapter 5, beginning at verse
twenty-six. Disciples of Jesus Christ were publicly
informing the people, disseminating the truths of the
"Word of Almighty God in obedience to His command.
Religionists were grieved and angered because God's
truth was being proclaimed. The clergy and other
religionists conspired against the disciples who were
publishing THE TRUTH. Those conspirators insti-
gated the arrest of the disciples, who were haled into
 JEHOVAH'S SERVANTS DEFENDED 31
the judgment hall. A high Roman court then sitting
in Palestine heard that case. After hearing the evi-
dence, one of the members of that court, Gamaliel, a
learned counselor, arose and, addressing his fellow
members of the court and all present, said:
"Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for If this
counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: but
if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be
found even to fight against God."
This temperate and salubrious principle all right-
minded persons always follow.
Here it is well to remember, also, the Creator's sure
word to His humble servants: "They [haters of THE
TRUTH] shall fight against thee, but they shall not
prevail against thee; for I am with thee, saith JEHO-
VAH, to deliver thee." (Jeremiah 1: 19, Am. Rev.
Ver.) Any who are willing to hear, the Creator also
counsels:
'Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be Instructed, ye
judges of the earth. Serve JEHOVAH with fear, and re-
joice with trembling. Kiss His Son, THE KING, lest he be
angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kin-
dled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust
In Him.'—Psalm 2: 10-12.

To aid all in insisting on the doing of justice this

INDEX
PAGE
"We obey God rather than men"
secured by Constitution 2,3
Wrongful application makes law unconstitutional .... 5
Cannot require license or permit to distribute
books and pamphlets 6
Courts must close ears to partisan demands of
people so as to protect free worship 7
Upon the streets and from house to house proper
places for distribution of literature 8, 9
Convenience to public officers not grounds for
suppression 9
Jehovah's witnesses do not come within
"peddling and hawking" laws 10-15
Fact that money is received in exchange for literature
does not permit regulation or interference 15-17
Jehovah's witnesses are ordained ministers 17
Ordinances prohibiting calling at homes without prior
invitation are not applicable to Jehovah's witnesses 18,19
"Sunday" laws are not applicable to the work 19,20
Attacking religion as snare is upheld by courts 20-23
Threat of violence is not ground for stopping work;
self-defense by Jehovah's witnesses upheld 23-25
Jehovah's witnesses not subversive to government .... 26
Flag-salute refusal not ground for stopping work .... 26-29
Officers depriving one of freedom liable in damages 30, 31