Swoyersville Borough v. Wargo

16 Pa. D. & C. 362, 1931 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 52
CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Luzerne County
DecidedJune 27, 1931
DocketNo. 487
StatusPublished

This text of 16 Pa. D. & C. 362 (Swoyersville Borough v. Wargo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Luzerne County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Swoyersville Borough v. Wargo, 16 Pa. D. & C. 362, 1931 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 52 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1931).

Opinion

Valentine, J.,

— Defendants have appealed from a conviction and sentence for the violation of an ordinance of the Borough of Swoyersville, which provides: “That it shall not be lawful for any itinerant person or persons to hawk, peddle or offer for sale, either privately or by public outcry upon the public streets or places within the limits of the borough, any patent medicines, soaps, nostrums, salves, or any other article or articles, or peddlers’ wares, without a license issued by the burgess.”

The ordinance further provides: “Any person or persons found selling or offering for sale any article in violation of section 1 of this ordinance, shall forfeit and pay a fine of not less than five dollars or more than ten dollars with costs, for each and every offense.”

The testimony showed that the defendants had either sold or distributed “pamphlets or tracts” issued or published by the “International Bible Students Association” or the “Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.”

Defendants’ counsel has forcefully urged that the two associations interested in the distribution of the pamphlets are of a religious character, and that the distribution of the pamphlets was the work of charity. Doubtless the two organizations are engaged in what is regarded by their members as religious work, but the controlling question is not as to the general character of the work that the organizations are engaged in, nor the character of the [363]*363books or literature published or distributed by them other than the pamphlets distributed or sold by the defendants.

There is in evidence one pamphlet produced by a witness for the Commonwealth, which pamphlet was concededly sold or delivered by the defendant, Wargo. We express no opinion as to the character of this magazine or pamphlet; its nature is best shown by the following excerpts therefrom:

“The clergy.

“In the first place, the clergymen are not Christians. A Christian is one who believes that God through Christ has provided salvation for mankind. The clergymen as a general rule do not believe that. They pose before the people as preachers, and yet they are diligent in keeping the people away from the Bible. Daily they are becoming bolder in denying the Bible; and instead of referring the people to the remedy God has provided, they are telling the people that big business and the politicians and themselves are their guardians and saviors. The majority of these clergymen call themselves Modernists. That means that they deny the Bible account of creation, and the fall of man, and the redemption through Christ Jesus’ sacrifice. The scheme is to turn the minds of the people away from the Bible and away from God, and turn them to the worship of men or other creatures. . . .

“The wwr.

“The clergy as a class claim to be followers of Jesus Christ, and make the people believe that they are. The Scriptures designate Jesus Christ as ‘The Prince of Peace.’ When he was on earth he repeatedly declared the law which his followers must obey: ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ Any one who is a true follower of Jesus Christ must be obedient to this command. Any one claiming to be a follower of Christ and who at the same time urges men to kill each other is a hypocrite and party to the crime of the killing. There might be some excuse or extenuating circumstances for men who know nothing about the Bible to engage in war, but there is no excuse or extenuating circumstances in favor of a Christian voluntarily engaging in war or urging others to do so.

“During the World War of 1915 to 1918 the clergymen advocated war, urged young men to go to war to kill their fellow man, used their church buildings for recruiting stations, and denounced and persecuted every one who expressed conscientious scruples against killing. Everybody knows this statement to be true. They went even further than that. Many of the clergymen told young men that if they would go to war and die upon the battle-field their blood would be counted in with that of Jesus and their souls would immediately be winged off to glory. They should have known better; because war is murder and no murderer has eternal life. (1 John 3:15.) If these men, contrary to the Word of the Lord, advocate the killing of other fellow men and at the same time claim to be Christians, they are both hypocrites and unsafe advisers of the people. The evidence is too voluminous for me to cite all of it; but I give you here some, naming the clergymen who are guilty of duplicity.

“There never was any danger of Germany invading America. Every sensible man knew that that was impossible. And yet some of the most zealous advocates of America’s entering the war were the clergymen.

“The Reverend S. Parkes Cadman, an Englishman who resides in America and who is president of the organization called the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America, just before the war and while answering questions before the Bedford Branch of the Y. M. C. A. in Brooklyn, passion[364]*364ately exclaimed: ‘Prepare, Prepare, Prepare for war.’ When he was asked his opinion of students who refused to engage in military training he replied: ‘They are parasites, suckers, and rubbish. The teacher that teaches them they have no right to bear arms for the State should be fired out of his position.’ Dr. Cadman with others boasted of the fighting rector, Dr. Reiland.

“The Massachusetts Clerical Association was one of the first to vote for America to enter the war, and a delegation of the prominent clergy visited Washington to combat the ‘unchristian influence’ of pacifists. They made it their business to use their church buildings for the preaching of war sermons. When the government enacted the conscription law and inserted a section making it possible for a Christian to decline active military service, nearly every clergyman in the land opposed those who took advantage of this provision of the law. They spoke of'such men as ‘poor pussy-foot pacifists.’

“Dr. S. E. Young, of the Presbyterian Church, called them cowards and traitors because they expressed their belief in God and in Christ and insisted on obeying God rather than man.

“Bishop Kinsolving, of Texas, declared that ‘such men should be driven not only from the country, but from the earth.’

“The Reverend Howard Ganster, of Waukegan, 111., ‘advocated the organization of a society for the committing of murder of persons who do not stand up or who leave the building when the “Star Spangled Banner” is played.’

“Dr. Henry Van Dyke delivered a so-called sermon, and referring to a gentleman who was candidate for mayor in New York, and who was against America’s entering the war, said: ‘I would hang every one, whether or not he be a candidate for mayor, who lifts his voice against America entering the war.’

“Reverend Gillis, a Catholic, said: ‘Jesus Christ is the Prince of Peace, but Pontius Pilate was the Prince of Pacifists.’

“Bishop Cooke advocated that those who desire to take advantage of the law for non-combatant service should ‘be deprived ... of all political and social and civil rights.’

“Dr. Eaton was made chairman of the National Service Section of the Emergency Fleet Corporation, and performed the duty of delivering fight-talks in the shipyards. He said: ‘When a spy comes sneaking around with a bomb- don’t say, “Let us pray,” but take him out there on the marsh and tie him down and place the bomb on his chest. Light it and stand off and watch him blow to his Kaiser, to hell. Be regular he-men.’

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Burns v. Coyne Et Ux.
144 A. 687 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1928)
Renick v. Boyd
99 Pa. 555 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1882)
Pittsburg v. Pittsburg Railways Co.
47 Pa. Super. 476 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1911)
Golien v. Susquehanna Coal Co.
54 Pa. Super. 299 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 Pa. D. & C. 362, 1931 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 52, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/swoyersville-borough-v-wargo-pactcomplluzern-1931.