New-York tribune., 1918-06-21
Convicted on All Fo
Counts of Opposing
Army Draft
"It's the Lords VIII.
Their Only Comnent
Will Be Sentenced at Nod'
To-day; Jury Out Five
and a Half Hours

Guilty on all four counts was j.
verdict rendered by the jury last nies,
against every one Of the eight G.
PENDANTS in the governments 81.
against followers Of the late Paxs.,
Charles Taze Russell for conspiracy i
obstruct the draft and create inxuS.
ordination in the military forces Il
the United States.
Twenty years Imprisonment 81
$4,000 fine is the maximum senseas,
for each count. Federal Judge Hm.
land B. Howe will impose sentence Is.
day at IL o'clock against the defens,
ants, who are Joseph F. Rutherfosd
president of the Watchtower Bible ard
Tract Society, the religious organiss
ton Of which ell the defendants an
either directo1s or members; Giovanr;
de Cecca, William E. Van Ambures
Robert j. Martin, Frederick Fl. Robisos.
George H. Fisher. Clayton J. Wood
worth and A. Hugh Mcmillan.
Out over Five Hours
The government won its case aftey
almost three weeks of trial. The jury
went out at o'clock and returned q
the courtroom at 1920 Matthev
Sauze, of 782 Hancock Street, Brook.
Iyn, foreman, reported the defendants
guilty on each count.
The defendants remained perfecfly
calm during the return Of the verdict
Two Of the wives-Mrs. de Cessa and
Mrs. Robison-were in the courtroom.
and after the adjournment of couss
their only comment was: st was the
Lords will, and acceptable to u.s."
Time and again during the five-hour
wait in the marshal's Office while The
jury was out the defendants made tie
same remark. They took maps, ak
candy, told jokes and stories and d.
ceived many callers, Russeliites. who
have packed the courtroom every dsy
since the trial commenced.
Summation Of the defence by Fred.
erick w. Sparks opened the last dsy
OF the trial yesterday morning. MI
Sparks attacked vigorously the cor.
tention of the government that ths
publication of the so-called "Jast
London article" represented the 81
titude of the defendants toward i
soldier. and pointed out that tM
London description of a soldier al 4
blind, soulless, murderous machine
was printed in the "Watchtowef1 Ii.
direct contrast to another ;nteypfe.
tation of soldier in no wise dcrox
atory to military man.
when heard that London artiek
read in court" Mr.. Sparks said, amy
blood ran cold. and my belief in M
clients dropped to the ground. Tha
they would publish and conione sued
rot. such filth, was blow that sent
one home feeling like whipped sps.
But when ] saw the magazine and
understood that that quotation vas
offered as a foil to their aV,n idea az
soldier whom they wish to emulate,
my blood boiled to think that tie
government would take such unfair
advantage. Every newspaper reprs-
sented here carried that London de-
scription.
But are they liable under tie
espionage act?"
No Effort 10 Assist
Sparks said further that in writing
letters to men of draft pge about
their military status the defendants
were acting only on the Presidents
proclamation to all citizens to assis;
local draft boards in making the proper
clasSiiicat!ons. He then dwelt on ths
letter that William Z. Yam Arnburst.
defendant, wrote to Private Charles
" Person, at Camp Upton, in which
Van Amburgh stated that his organl-
zation was making no attempt-to as
sist men to evade the draft Of the
United States" Mr. Sparks said that
this letter more than any other piecs
of evidence introduced into the cases
tended to show the good faith and ".
tent of the organization and its cfirl
GERS.
Following Mr.. Sparks's summation
Isaac Oeland. prosecuting attorney
summed up the case for the govern
ment. He declared that upon April s
the United States became divided int
two classes of people-those who
favor the government and those who
oppose it.
when the fac was unfurled on tbst
day it was the duty of every man so
uncover his head and offer his ell 70
his country said Mr.. Oeland, "yet We
find these men preparing book whicn
described patriotism as the spirit ciE
the very devil, and called the war
crime and its prosecution crime.
say that the man who published that
John Haynes Holmes article after the
declaration Of war was a traitor to hr
government, I don't care whether q
wore the robe of priest or prophet
Judge Howe reiterated in his chsrgs
to the jury yesterday the ruling th1s
he made in court during the trial. tDss.
religious belief is no defence g
crime"
eff you find that the defendants puf.
poseiy and Intentionally said whss
they did, wrote what they did, or pno''
lished what they did, in wilfui e.
tempt to cause insubordinatson. d'S
loyalty. or refusal of duty. this wouis s,s
constitute criminal intention. notwisas
standing you may also find that fss
defendants intended to serve Goo Y
doing what they did"
AS to the liability incurred by Y
publication of quoted material. Juess
Howe said that "the use of euotsssss
marks does not relieve defendants irosss
liability for such use and publicatisns