HISTORY and TIMES of THE KINGDOM
The following is a brief description of the Leander Bartlett story from Frank Murray's Sublimity of Faith. Below that is the recorded testimony of Nathan Harriman at the subsequent Sandford trial, Harriman having previously left the movement.
While I was growing up in the Kingdom, Nathan Harriman was painted as the supreme villain. That should be read as VILLAIN. Worse than that, he was an arrogant villain. Compared to Frank Sandford, Batman had it easy. We have included Nathan Harriman's testimony for two reasons. First, to help dispel the myth that the man had a forked tongue and hissed when he spoke, and second, to demonstrate that he did his best to tell the truth as best he saw it. For following his conscience the man was branded a pariah among the faithful, and was effectually prohibited from communicating with his son the rest of his days. Joseph, his seventeen year old son, had chosen to remain in the fold and close to Sandford's heart. Flora, his daughter, also remained 'loyal', but died of sickness in England before ever seeing her parents again. Throughout the remainder of Nathan Harriman's days he did what he could to expose the injustices he observed and experienced during his almost three years in the movement.
Reg Parker, Editor
"The case in question involved a teen-aged boy, whose widowed mother had not always been able to control him. When he took sick of diphtheria he got good care, as did all the patients in Bethesda; the controversy skillfully blown up by a determined antagonist, however, [ Harriman, Ed.] concerned the degree and kind of care.
Needless to say, the people at Shiloh (with the exception of the leader) had no idea that the boy would die; indeed it was almost taken for granted that prayer would prevail for the patient's recovery to a wiser young manhood. But Leander Bartlett did die, and the only conclusion faith could draw was that God had allowed it to be so. Such a conclusion, of course, draws angry protest from the world at large, for knowing well that they themselves deserve no better fate, they do not wish to face thc obvious implications. However, a few moments of calm reflection should convince the unprejudiced observer that Almighty God has terminated prematurely many lives for a good cause -- and done so regardless of human efforts to the contrary. The situation becomes perplexing when some man of God is so in tune with his Maker that he senses ahead of time what is going to happen and thus refuses to pray in opposition to his Lord's will. Then to the carnal mind such a case leaves the perplexing stage and becomes downright ugly.
This, in its very worst construction, was the charge brought against the prophet of God. That it was not a true charge, and not in any way supported by Mrs. Ilvira Bartlett herself, seemed to matter little to the tall courtly renegade from Shiloh who took the witness stand. Although he used every resource at his command to slander and blacken what once he had supported so glowingly, Mr. Harriman's efforts proved unsuccessful. The jury could not agree, owing largely to Mr. Daniel McGillicuddy, in after years one of Auburn's most respected and able lawyers, who steadfastly refused to join the others in pronouncing F. W. Sandford guilty, was heard to say, "I'll sit here until this chair rots before I'll vote to condemn an innocent man," he declared at the time (and afterwards revealed). And although at the re-trial held in Farmington a few weeks later a guilty verdict was brought in, it, too, was later overturned by a higher court.
The Sublimity of Faith , Frank S. Murray, Chapter 21, p335
NATHAN HARDlNG HARRIMAN, CALLED FOR THE STATE, SWORN.
EXAMINED BY MR. SKELTON.
Q. Mr. Harriman. what is your full name? A. Nathan Harding Harriman.
Q. Where do you reside now! A. Roxbury, Mass.
Q. Were you at one time associated with Mr. Sandford in the Shiloh movement? A. I was.
Q. For how long a time! A. Three years lacking exactly a month--perhaps a difference of one day. That is. I arrived at Shiloh the 22nd of June, 1900, and I left the party in Jerusalem the 2lst of May, 1903.
Q. Now during all that time were you connected with him in the management of the institution? A. Well, I wouldn't say management. I was connected with him all that time as a member of the institution with the exception of two brief times.
Q. And what were those two times? A. I was disfellowshipped by the school on one occasion for twenty-five hours, and some nearly a year later in Liverpool, England, Mr. Sandford disfellowshipped me from the school and the Church and the movement,
and the Jerusalem party. With the exception of being restored to the school and the Church some fourteen or fifteen days later, I remained disfellowshipped to the end. That is to say, I was restored to the Jerusalem party in September of 1902, but I was never restored to the ministry.
Q. What was the length you say of this second period that you were disfellowshipped? A. Well, I don't remember just what, but I think it was the first or second day of the period of fifteen days, most of which I fasted.
Q. What was the occasion of that? A. Rebellion.
MR.OAKES: I object to the details of this man's history.
THE COURT: What is the nature of the objection?
MR. OAKES: It is immaterial and irrelevant.
THE COURT: I don't quite understand. Why?
MR. OAKES: The history--this man's own personal history.
THE COURT: No, the history of Mr. Sandford's relation to the movement.
MR. OAKES: I don't understand that the whole history of this matter is to be gone into.
THE COURT: Are there any written creeds or written rules, by-laws, or anything of that sort relating to the movement or community, do you understand?
MR. OAKES: No. I don't know that there are.
THE COURT: Then how can it be shown what Mr. Sandford's relations were except by his conduct--what he said and did?
MR. OAKES: I understand the witnesses here have stated repeatedly what Mr. Sandford's relations were generally. As to the particular fact--the general fact-I have no objection. I object to introducing into this case other details which can only be a matter of inference, can only aid in the decision as matters of inference. If Mr. Skelton wishes to take the position that Mr. Sandford was the head of the institution, with general authority over the institution, we don't expect to controvert that at all. I have not objected to the questions asked, because I don't care to go into the matter.
THE COURT: I think it is competent to show the extent and character of the control, if any, which he exercised over the community by specific instances, if there are such. I don't know to what particular point the question objected to was directed. He stated he was disfellowshipped for fourteen or fifteen days.
MR. SKELTON: I propose to show the nature of the power which he assumed and exercised over the members of the community.
THE COURT: You may show it.
Q. Now. Mr. Harriman, what was the occasion of your being disfellowshipped?
MR. OAKES: I object.
THE COURT: Admitted, subjection to objection.
A. I was declared in rebellion.
Q. For what? A. For controversy that arose between Mr. Sandford and myself with reference to a passage of Scripture. He asked me a question, "was I contented." quoting a
passage of Scripture. I told him I was contented as I understood the Scripture to mean, and he refused to accept that reply, and asked me again if I was contented. I started to reply in the same way, and he spoke to me and asked me the third time, and again I started to reply and he refused to talk any more, and called to prayer. We had some strong words over my rebellious condition. then we went to our rooms, and he advised me to get it down into my soul the dangerous condition I was in, and came to me later--I should say three hours later--and renewed the conversation by telling me that it was the same old trouble of having a reasoning head, and that I would not accept authority, and he was tired of it, and went off to fast himself. I went to my meals determined that I was not going to have any quarrel if I could help it, for I had stated the last quarrel I had-
THE COURT: Simply tell what took place without giving reasons.
A. I went to my meals late in the day--to dinner-and in the evening went to bed, and at about two in the morning I should say he came to the room and woke me up, and I found that Mr. Whittaker, my bedfellow, hadn't been to bed with me, and learned afterwards that they were all fasting, and were ordered to the upper room--a very severe, serious state of affairs--and going to have it straightened out. And in the upper room I was asked what I had to say for myself.
THE COURT: By whom?
A. By Mr. Sandford. And I lost control of my patience and told him that it was no use to say anything for myself,
for my case was prejudged already. At that he ordered the company to leave me. and gave me a message as he left, indicating that God had cast me off.
Q. What was the message?
THE COURT: What did he say?
A. He said God had spoken the words "Laying all along the ground," that it meant the case of Saul just before he committed suicide. He was in rebellion against David. He was David and I was Saul, and left me in the upper room. And the next day, or the next but one-that is where my memory is not clear-I was called down and disfellowshipped along these grounds, and declared I was no longer a minister, and then I started to ask-
THE COURT: Never mind what you did.
Q. Did he give you any further orders or instructions?
A. Yes, to wait on God.
MR. OAKES: This all goes in subject to my objection, does it?
THE: COURT: Where an objection is made to one line, of course one objection is sufficient. When a new line is started it does not.
MR. OAKES: I cannot tell what lines-
THE COURT: So far it is all subject to your objection.
MR. OAKES: I object to this question, then.
THE COURT: He may answer, subject to objection.
A. Sent me back to the upper room to fast, and wait on God until I should thoroughly repent of my rebellion there. This was the seventh time I had rebelled.
Q. This is what he said.
A. Yes, and in his opinion God wouldn't stand it any longer; that I had either got to repent to the finger tips of my being and get through with that, or else God would strike me dead.
Q. How long did he keep you in the fast?
A. I didn't say he kept me in a fast only in a modified sense.
Q. Where did you first join Mr. Sandford?
A. He came to my home in Tacoma, Washington in May, 1900.
Q. How soon after you first met him did you go to Shiloh with him?
A. He came to my home on Monday the 21st or 2nd. He held a series of meetings with me, beginning the following Sunday-held that series of meetings through that week, upon Sunday, the 3rd of June, and on the 4th of June, near midnight, we took the train for the east.
Q. Did he make up a party at that time to come from there?
Q. How many?
A. I had my wife and five children and about thirty of my people-approximately thirty-I don't know-I think there were about thirty seven of us altogether. And then Mr. Barton's party was taken on at Kansas City, making about fifty and sixty.
Q. Did Mr. Sandford come with you?
A. Yes sir, we came together as far as Chicago and in Chicago we were stranded awhile,
and he took a party of four or five and went on to Shiloh before convention, then under way, closed, and left the party in my care, and I followed him two days after.
Q. During the period from the time you first associated yourself with him until you left the movement, who was at the head of it?
A. Mr. Sandford.
Q. Was there any appeal from his decision?
MR. OAKES: I object.
THE COURT: He may answer subject to objection.
A. None whatever.
Q. Where was the supply of food for the persons residing at Shiloh secured by individuals?
A. Individuals were only allowed to eat at the table as a rule.
Q. Whether or not there was one central supply of food for the institution?
A. Yes sir, there was-in the kitchen in the Extension.
Q. Whether or not this came within the general management of the community there at Shiloh under Mr. Sandford's direction?
A. Everything came from Mr. Sandford's direction, working out in detail.
Q. Who had charge of the funds at Shiloh for the purchase of food and supplies?
A. Mr. Sandford always had the oversight and control of finances, but in the working out of details, Mr. Holland was. He was in charge, and I suppose Mr. Gleason was when Mr. Holland was away. I know nothing about that.
Q. Covering the part of the time when you were there personally, under whose authority and direction were these subordinates like Mr. Holland and so on?
A. They always acted in conformity with what they were appointed for by Mr. Sandford.
Q. How was the food eaten there at Shiloh-that is, was there one-did you eat in common?
A. Yes sir. We had one large dining room. There was a smaller dining room in Shiloh proper, which was used sometimes by smaller companies of people, but generally the large hall was everything, except as food was sent to Mr. Sandford personally.
Q. What work were the people there at Shiloh engaged in?
A. Well, there are a great many things connected with the community. The care of the grounds and the laundry and the cooking and serving of food, and the care of the buildings, and different ones were detailed to different work at different times-sometimes one and sometimes another.
Q. Whether or not was this work done under the general management of the entire institution?
A. Oh, yes sir.
Q. Was there any way provided, or did any way exist there at Shiloh for individuals to secure the individual benefit of their own labor?
A. No sir, none whatever, if you mean pecuniary terms.
Q. Yes, or anything in any way to leave them in an independent position?
A. No sir, there was no connection between your labor and what you received.
Q- Did Mr. Sandford's authority reach to individual members of families?
A. Entirely so.
Q. Did he exercise authority and direction in the correction of individual members of families?
A. He saw to it that individual members of families were corrected and directed according to his wishes.
Q. Did he exercise this to the extent of reaching to the training and care of children?
A. Yes sir, his theories had to be carried out in every family.
Q. Did he exercise this authority with reference to relations of persons there with each other?
A. I don't think I get the force of your question, sir.
Q. Did he exercise authority limiting or in any way controlling the relations of individuals with one another at all?
A. Oh yes. There wasn't anything in the way of relationship that he didn't take cognizance of and direct if he felt like doing so.
MR. OAKES: I submit that the answer goes further than the question.
THE COURT: I did go further than the question, but I think the answer is competent--would be to a proper question.
Q. Did Mr. Sandford, during that time, exercise any authority or direction over choice of husbands and wives--that is, perhaps husbands and wives among the members of this community?
MR. OAKES: I object.
THE COURT: He may answer, subject to objection.
Q. That you can answer by yes or no.
A. Well. you asked "husbands and wives," if you had said "husband and wife," I could have said yes.
Q. You didn't understand my question.I think. Any authority in arranging for the choice of a wife for a person or husband for a woman there?
Q. And to what general extent did he exercise authority in this respect?
A. The particular case?
MR. OAKES: Wait a moment.
Q. Was this General? Did he make it a practice to direct in these affairs?
A. We didn't have very many marriages on the hilltop.
Q. So far as they went?
MR. OAKES: I submit this question can be answered by yes or no.
THE COURT: The question is now as to the general extent of the exercise of that kind of authority.
A. I know of one case only. That is what I was waiting for.
Q. Do you know of his having broken up engagements there?
A. Yes sir.
MR. OAKES: That go in under my objection?
THE COURT: That may be regarded as under objection.
Q. And do you know of that occurring more than once?
MR. OAKES: I object
THE COURT: He may answer. I think I may say generally that all his conduct there with reference to members, so far as it tends to show what authority he claimed to exercise as the head of the institution is competent. Matters of advice would not be of any importance, but where he was exercising authority or control, I think it would be competent.
MR. OAKES: Now, if it the Court please, I have not objected to the general statements, because practically we do not intend to oppose that matter here, but I wish my objections to particular details by this witness to be entered.
THE COURT: I understand what your position is, but I think that instances are admissible.
MR. OAKES: I will enter the objection to each one as it comes along, so as to indicate what I care to reserve.
THE COURT: You better.
Q. Now, Mr. Harriman, were you present at a time when the proposed marriage of Mr. R. E. Gleason was discussed by Mr. Sandford?
MR. OAKES: I object.
THE COURT: Admitted, subject to the objection. That will cover the whole subject matter of that marriage.
A. I was.
Q. Who was Mr. Gleason? What were his relations and what are they now, with the institution?
A. Mr. Gleason at the time was one of some perhaps six or seven ministers. There may have been five-may have been eight. I don't remember. He was one of the number and I was one.
Q. Is he still connected with the institution? A. I understand so, and he has been in a more prominent position since.
Q. Is he present here in court now? A. Yes sir.
Q. Now when did this occur, or about when? A. I cannot fix the time, but I should say that it was somewhere between July and November of the first year I was there. I should say so. It may have been between December and April. I am not sure. Sometime during the year. I suppose his marriage is a matter of record.
Q. Who were present when this matter was brought up? A. According to my memory, Mr. Higgins. Mr. Gleason, Mr. Perry. I am not sure about that, but I should say so. Mr. Holland and our wives. There may have been some other ministers. I do not recall.
Q. These were all ministers were they, at that time, connected to the work? A. Yes sir.
Q. Was Mr. Sandford there? A. Yes sir, and his wife.
Q. Where did this take place? A. It took place-the meeting place was called the Jerusalem turret-the prayer place.
Q. At Shiloh? A. At Shiloh.
Q. Now what was said and done by Mr. Sandford with reference to the proposed marriage of Mr. Gleason? A. The first thing settled on was that since the word of God says that "the bishop must be the husband of one wife," it was interpreted by him that probably that meant that the bishop ought to be married, and with more or less of pleasantry Mr. Gleason was informed that he thought (Mr. Sandford thought) that the time had come when he ought to have a wife. That was the first thing. Shall I go on?
Q. Yes, you may state then what further took place with reference to this same matter. A. There was, without going into detail, a general discussion of that subject, and a pretty general agreement, and then the subject of who his wife should be, or how she should be selected came up, and Mr. Gleason informed Mr. Sandford that he would accept any wife he chose for him, after which Mr. Gleason was called Isaac all through the night, as being entirely submissive to Mr. Sandford and his choice in letting him choose a wife for him-supposed resemblance to Isaac. That is what we understood.
Q. Now was there a discussion then as to who the particular person should be?
A. Yes sir, I should say that followed next--that the company were asked by Mr. Sandford if they had any idea as to who the young lady should be, and we were encouraged to give our feelings and our views and our preferences and judgments somewhat freely. I don't remember how many were proposed, but I have a general remembrance that there was a good deal of interest in it, and some considerable expression of opinion. I remember my own part in it. When I was asked who I thought was a proper person, I stated that I had noticed certain things which I could now relate with a good deal of clearness if necessary--certain things that made it evident to me that there might be something between Mr. Gleason and Miss Mary Guptill, who is now deceased. I remember very distinctly Mr. Sandford taking me along and asking me if I didn't think that Mary Guptill in a very special way was the bride of Christ, referring to the fact of her general interest in Jerusalem and some other things that were well known in the community, and expressed himself as believing that, and not long after that--I don't remember the details--not long after that he went down to Bethesda and back again. I think he went down two or three times, and at length, after much mystery, informed us that he thought that Miss Christine Millson--Christine Marple--Marple--was the proper person, and through the hours of the night from midnight on--I think perhaps three o'clock or half past three, the negotiations were being carried on by Mr. Sandford between the two, and at last they were brought together, and they were permitted to talk with one another alone over the matter, then came to the party and were recognized as formally engaged, and either then afterwards, I am not sure which, it came out that Mr. Sandford had known that Miss Marple was in love with Mr. Gleason for some considerable time through some things that he had been called upon to exercise over her.
Q. And was this marriage consummated?
THE COURT: That last part there, "it became known" isn't responsive.
A. Mr. Sandford stated it, is what I should say.
THE COURT: It may stand then.
Q. Was this marriage consummated? A. Yes.
Q. And how soon after this? A. I don't know that I have any way of fixing the interval.
Q. Within a short time or long time? A. Within a short time. Yes sir, I remember the marriage very distinctly.
Q. Now do you recollect an occasion on which anything transpired through Mr. Sandford's direction with reference to the child of the Reverend Mr. Holland? A. Yes sir.
Q. In its illness? A. Yes sir.
Q. Rev Charles E. Holland? A. Yes sir.
Q. And was he then one of the ministers there? A. Yes sir.
Q. Is he here in the court room? A. Yes sir.
Q. When did this affair take place?
MR. OAKES: I object to this whole matter.
THE COURT: Admitted, subject to the objection.
A. My memory of it isn't accurate, but I should say it was possibly in November of the first year.
Q. Was Mr. Holland's wife there, living there with him? A. Yes sir.
Q. And how old was the child, or about how old? A. The child was said to be under a year at that time.
Q, Was the child ill? A. The child was ill.
MR. OAKES: If the court please, I don't know how much this witness may mix in of his own and other people's knowledge.
THE COURT: Just testify what you know yourself.
A. I couldn't testify to the age of the child, because I never saw any record of it. I simply state it what the parents and the general hilltop said about the age of the child.
Q. Were you present at a meeting one evening while the child was ill? A. Yes sir. I am not sure about evening. I should say the latter part of the day.
Q. Who else was there at the meeting? A. From my general remembrance it would be the same party of ministers and their wives.
Q. Was Mr. Sandford there? A. Mr. Sandford, the ministers and their wives.
Q. Were Mr. and Mrs. Holland there? A. Yes.
Q. Was any word brought to the plaintiff with reference to this child while Mr. Sandford and Mrs. Holland were there? A. Yes.
Q. What was that? A. Word was brought that the woman who had charge of the child--I feel as if I ought to say something more. I don't know as I am permitted.
Q. Yes, follow this right along. A. The child was so ill the ladies in charge of him felt that the parents ought to come at once--that the child was probably dying.
Q. Did they go at once? A. No sir.
Q. What took place when this report was brought? A. They were advised not to go.
Q. By whom? A. Mr. Sandford.
Q. And did they act upon his advice? A. Yes sir.
Q. And remained in the room? A. Yes sir. they remained for a time. After a time Mr. Holland went. But Mrs. Holland did not.
Q. Was anything further said about going before Mr. Holland went by Mr. Sandford?
A. Mrs. Holland was separated from the child by Mr. Sandford at that time. I don't know how completely, but Mr. Sandford has stated that there was a natural bond between mother and child which prevented her from bringing the child up right, and so it had been taken away from her, and for that reason she was not permitted to go to him as I understood it.
Q. But who, if you know--had the child been placed in the care of these other women?
A. Well, I can't tell that from my own personal knowledge.
Q. Then don't say it at all.
A. I have heard.
Q. Do you know of an instance of two colored people coming there, Mr. Taylor and Miss Eaton, who were engaged to be married?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And what action, do you know, did Mr. Sandford take with reference to that engagement?
MR. OAKES: I object
THE COURT: Admitted, subject to objection.
A. They were told they couldn't be engaged to be married and remain in the institution, and it was supposed--
THE COURT: No, no.
Q. Simply tell what Mr. Sandford did.
A. He wanted them to give it up. It appeared afterwards they didn't. that is what I was trying to get at.
MR. OAKES: I suppose the witness will stop some time when he is spoken to.
THE COURT: Yes, stop when the answer is complete.
Q. Now was there a Rev. Mr. Whittaker, an inmate or a member of this institution?
A. Yes sir.
Q. What was his full name?
A. W. W. I think his initials were.
Q. Of what did his family consist?
A. At that time he had a wife and two--I think two--perhaps the third one wasn't born at that time. I am not sure-children.
Q. Do you know whether anything was done by Mr. Sandford to prevent Mr. and Mrs. Whittaker from seeing each other at any time during this period?
A. What period do you refer to?
Q. The period you were there connected with him?
A. Yes sir.
Q. You may state what it was--your own knowledge.
MR. OAKES: I object.
THE COURT: Admitted, subject to objection.
A. Mr. Whittaker had gone abroad with the so called Jerusalem party, of which I was a member. We stopped in England for some months--from June until January. The latter part of January the party all except myself went to Alexandria, opened headquarters, and then Mr. Sandford soon after that--perhaps it was March--may have been April--returned to Liverpool with Mr. Whittaker, intending to go to America. He discovered a state of things in America--
THE COURT: You must limit it.
Q. State what you saw, or what Mr. Sandford himself has told you.
THE COURT: Simply now with reference to the separation.
A. I was about to say--
THE COURT: I don't ask you what you were about to say. I can't open the whole question. If you know anything that Mr. Sandford did or said, get right down to that point.
A. Yes sir.
Q. You may proceed, subject to that caution. A. Mr. Whittaker was given permission to go to his family, and did not go, and afterwards Mr. Sandford told him that he was not to go until he could go a warrior and a conqueror, with no natural affection drawing him to them, but as one who had conquered all that, and was permitted to return.
Q. Now how long a period did this separation cover, to your knowledge? A. I can figure it up. I don't know whether he has returned or not now.
Q. How long to your knowledge did it continue? A. Fully two years and a half, but from my knowledge fully two years. I think it was admitted at the last trial.
Q. What did Mr. Sandford teach as to his authority over the people there, if you know of any teachings or statements that he has made with reference to it.
MR. OAKES: I think that is rather indefinite. When, I should like to know?
MR. SKELTON: Well, prior to the death of Leander Bartlett.
MR. OAKES: With reference to what?
MR. SKELTON: This authority and right to claim obedience from persons composing this institution.
THE COURT: Admitted
A. The subject of divine authority, so called, was propounded by Mr. Sandford within a year I should say - probably within three months after I was there - which-shall I state it?
Q. State what he propounded? A. It has been propounded a great many times - very familiar to us all - that all authority to Christians comes from God the Father to God the Son, from God the Son to the prophet whom God has chosen to straighten out the affairs of this age - this world - through him to those under him, who are ministers and elders - through them to the different grades of subordination, down through the remotest member of the Kingdom, and that, beginning with the remotest member, disobedience to the one immediately over him or her is disobedience to the one next above and next above and next above, clear up to God the Father, and obedience is the same.
Q. What position did he claim to hold in this ascension? A. He was the third in the order. God the Father, God the Son, and Mr. Sandford.
Q. What did he teach would be the result upon members of the association of any disobedience to his directions? A. Disobedience to Mr. Sandford was disobedience to Christ and to God, and therefore subject to all the penalties of disobedience to God.
Q. In what way or ways did he promulgate these teachings?
A. In sermons and in leading prayer services mornings, and in his disciplines in accordance with them.
Q. And did he also publish a paper? A. Yes sir. and his sermons were printed in a paper where they appear. Also these same doctrines appear in print.
Q. What did he teach as to the healing of the sick? A. He taught that the scriptural method of dealing with sickness is by the sick one's confessing his sins and calling for the elders of the Church and being prayed over and anointed with oil - hands laid on - "the prayer of faith shall save the sick."
Q. And what did he teach as to the effectiveness of this treatment in case of rebellion or disobedience? A. The prayer of faith can never be prayed, according to the teachings of Shiloh and Mr. Sandford - can never be prayed while the subject has anything between him and God that is wrong.
Q. Mr. Harriman, do you know of an instance of Mr. Sandford's taking the Stanmore child abroad? A. Yes sir.
Q. When did that occur? A. We arrived in Liverpool on the 7th or 8th of August 1902.
Q. How old was the child? A. Either a little under or a little over eight. i am not sure which. No, I think a little under seven or over seven.
Q. Do you know from Mr. Sandford himself, for what purpose the child was taken?
A. Yes sir.
MR.OAKES: I object now to the inquiries on the same ground.
THE COURT: I don't know the sources.
MR. SKELTON: From Mr. Sandford himself, I mean.
THE COURT: He may testify, subject to objection.
Q. What was the purpose? A. He was a member of a party of twelve on their way to Jerusalem.
Q. Why was he taken, if you know, by Mr. Sanford? A. Mr. Sandford informed us when we got to England that the party was made up with reference to different passages of scripture. The particular passage that this boy was to fulfill was to be one of the children that would play in the streets of Jerusalem, and he was to go there and play with John Sandford, who was already there - his own son.
Q. How old was John Sandford at this time? A. He was six, five and a half or six, or six and a half toward seven, I have forgotten which. Six and a half I think.
Q. Did the Stanmore child have any parents living? A. Yes sir.
Q. Where? A. They lived in Lisbon Falls at this time I think. I am not sure.
Q. And were they German? A. Yes sir, so reported.
Q. Were they taken to accompany the child, either of them?
A. No sir.
Q. Was any relative of the child taken along to accompany it? A. No sir.
Q. Was the child brought back? A. Not the last I knew.
Q. Was he brought back prior to the death of Leander Bartlett? A, No sir.
Q. Where was he left? A. Left in Liverpool.
Q. With any members of his family or relatives? A. No sir.
Q. Or were there any there? A. No sir.
Q. Was Sandford's own boy brought back without this one? A. Brought back from Jerusalem to Liverpool and from Liverpool to America.
Q. And the little Stanmore child you say was left in Liverpool? A. Yes sir.
BY MR. OAKES
Q. What is your home, Mr. Harriman? A. Roxbury, Mass.
Q. How long have you lived there? A. Since the latter part of last September
Q. What is your business? A. I am a preacher of the gospel
Q. And have you any church? A. Do you mean a pastor?
Q. Yes. A. No sir.
Q. And in what way do you preach the gospel? A. By supplying pulpits on Sunday, and holding evangelistic meetings one, two, and three weeks at a time.
Q. You been doing that ever since last September? A. Well, off and on, not all the time.
Q. What other business have you had?
A. I have had no definite business. I undertook to do some canvassing but didn't follow it along.
Q. When did you leave - sever your connection with Shiloh? A. I left the Jerusalem party in May in Jerusalem, on the 21st of May 1903, last year.
Q. Last year? A. Yes sir.
Q. Were you there as a member of the missionary band that was at Jerusalem at that time, the so called Jerusalem party? A. Yes sir.
Q. With Mr. Sandford and others? A. Yes sir.
Q. And was he there at the time you left? A. No sir.
Q. Did you leave secretly? A. Yes sir.
Q. Without giving the party any notice of your intentions to leave? A. Yes sir.
Q. Where was Mr. Sandford at the time? A. He was reported to be at Shiloh.
Q. He was not at Jerusalem? A. No sir.
Q. And since you left Shiloh have you made attacks upon Shiloh? A. No sir.
Q. You have never made any statements hostile to Shiloh? A. I have never stated anything that wasn't true.
Q. Have you ever made any statements attacking Mr. Sandford's truth and purposes and honesty? A. I should think so.
Q. Have you published such statements in the public press?A. I think so.
Q. Have you made such statements to different people? A. I don't think so.
Q. Have you made such statements to gatherings of people?A. I don't think so.
Q. Have you addressed gatherings of people making statements that were intended to injure the movement at Shiloh? A. No sir.
Q. Or to injure Mr. Sandford? A. No sir. You say intending?
Q. Yes sir. A. No sir.
Q. Calculated to do so? A. Very likely would
Q. Expected by you they would? A. Hoped they would.
Q. You hoped they would? A. Yes sir.
Q. And did you write a long letter to the Lewiston Journal? A. I wrote an article which the Lewiston Journal published over my name.
Q. Did you volunteer that article? A. Yes sir.
Q. Did you in October, 1903 address people in Auburn on the subject? A. Well, I should have said November. It might be the latter part of October.
Q. Did you address the people of the Congregational Church on that subject? A. Business men's meeting.
Q. Go there especially to do it? A. No. I went to the church to do it. I didn't go to Auburn to do it. I was invited by the pastor after I got there to do it.
Q. Did you go to Auburn to preach? A. No sir.
Q. That was your business to preach at the time, wasn't it? A. I went there to canvass.
Q. And before you were invited to the church had you stated your matters to different people? A. No sir, I didn't go there until Saturday night quite late, and went to see the Congregational minister.
Q. Were you there twice? A. I went there again on business I should say the latter part of November, the same business.
Q. Did you make the same kind of talk to people at meetings? A. I think not, sir.
Q. Have you stated to various public meetings or meetings of a number of people, practically that Mr. Sandford was dishonest? A. I would like to have you define "various."
Q. Well, several. A. I should say I had spoken to four meetings.
Q. And didn't you say that you had attacked Mr. Sandford and the people at Shiloh? A. All of those meetings but one I answered questions as they asked me.
Q. You were there for the purpose of giving your views were you not? A. For giving information.
Q. For the purpose of giving your views. Weren't they your own? A. No sir, Giving information.
Q. Didn't you plan to give your views about it?A. I had no plan about it at all. I was invited in each case.
Q. You went without any previous plan on your own part. A. Yes sir.
Q. And you went willingly? A. Oh yes sir.
Q. And your statements in regard to Mr. Sandford were entirely unfavorable, were they not? A. Unfavorable to what?
Q. To him? A. To his honesty.
Q. Yes. A. Well, I stated quite a number of things that seemed to me dishonest.
Q. And in regard to all the details at Shiloh you made statements that were unfavorable? A. No sir, I don't think so, many things about Shiloh.
Q. Don't you understand, Mr. Harriman, that the attack upon Mr. Sandford and Shiloh practically originated with you? A. What attack do you mean sir?
Q. These proceedings? A. Well, I should think they originated in that article.
Q. That article? A. I should say so.
Q. And practically you embodied in your statements to the people the matters contained in that article, did you? A. How do you mean? You mean the addresses?
Q. Yes. A, Well, they didn't cover all the ground by any means. The particular meeting you speak of they asked me more particularly about the conduct of Mr. Sandford and the hilltop with references to little children.
Q. But you did in general at those meetings - stated matters which were covered in the paper, did you? A. They didn't go as far as the article.
Q. Didn't go as far as the article? A. No.
Q. Now Mr. Harriman, when did you join Mr. Sandford? A. I left Tacoma with him on the 4th of June, 1900.
Q. And were you at that time in sympathy with his movement? A. Well, I was in sympathy in the same sense that I hoped I should become satisfied about some points that I was not fully satisfied then. I went to be with him three months and look into the matter.
Q. Were you practically in sympathy with this movement?
A. Well, if that answer would mean that, yes.
Q. You went intending to take part in his movement? A. For three months?
Q. You did intending to take part in his movement? A. For three months.
Q. You intended to join it? A. If I was satisfied.
Q. You did join with it? A. For three months.
Q. Did you continue longer than that? A. Yes sir.
Q. How long did you continue? A. I continued within one month and a day of three years.
Q. You went, you say, to Chicago before you went to Shiloh? A. We came through Kansas City and Chicago.
Q. And did you become dissatisfied with the movement before you reached Shiloh? A. Except that far. So far as the leader of the movement I was dissatisfied with. I had no further knowledge of Shiloh.
Q. Did you find that things weren't as you expected? A. Yes sir.
Q. Did you know that when you reached the hill? A. Well, except the quarrel I had in Chicago. I didn't learn anything else that dissatisfied me until a week after I got there.
Q. About a week after you got there? A. Yes.
Q. You found some things that dissatisfied you with the movement? A. Yes sir.
Q. Why didn't you leave at that time? A. It is not easy to leave and go back across the country when you haven't any money.
Q. That is the reason, was it? A. One of the reasons.
Q. Any other reasons? A. Well, I wasn't fully satisfied that I had the thing right, and I desired to investigate it to the bottom. I had a family with me. I had come as a leader of some thirty other people, and it was not a wise thing to think of deciding a thing of that magnitude immediately. I needed more time.
Q. But you were there at the time dissatisfied with the movement, were you? A. No sir.
Q. In some respects? A. I had a serious matter of dissatisfaction with Mr. Sandford.
Q. Well, about a week after you reached the hillside, I understand you were dissatisfied about something. A. Yes sir, Mr. Sandford, that is what I was referring to.
Q What were you dissatisfied about then? A. Something Mr. Sandford said to me that I didn't think was straight.
Q. Did you find the movement anything different from what you expected? A. I hadn't had a chance to investigate it much.
Q. Had you time a week after you got there? A. I had learned some things.
Q. What did you learn that you were dissatisfied with there? A. Nothing except this I spoke of.
Q. Certain things you mean simply? A. I was quite pleased when I first arrived there.
Q. What say? A. Quite pleased about the appearance of things.
Q. I mean about a week after you got there. A. The week after I got there he put me in a position that I thought was unbiblical, and I told him so.
Q. Was that the only thing you had to be dissatisfied with? A. At that time.
Q. How soon did you learn what the beliefs and teachings of the hilltop were? A. I knew a good deal about that before I left home.
Q. Did you know all about it after you got there? A. No sir.
Q. How soon did you know all about it? A. Well. I didn't know all about it until about the time that I left home.
Q. And how soon did you know the general system? A. Oh the first four or five months so I wrote about it.
Q. And you knew about the rules and regulations there, whatever they were? A. What do you mean by that?
Q. You knew about the general system of carrying on the place? A. Yes sir.
Q. You knew that immediately after you got there did you? A. Yes, anybody found that out very quickly.
Q. You knew about the belief of Mr. Sandford after you got there? A. I was getting acquainted with that gradually.
Q. Were you one of the leaders there? A. I had charge of the hilltop for a couple of weeks soon after I got there.
Q. Did you continue to be one of the leaders for a good while? A. No. Mr. Sandford told me that I wasn't fit.
Q. How soon was that? A. That was when he came back the latter part of August.
Q. Wasn't satisfied with your management? A. He said I was not fit to take charge. I was utterly unfit to take charge of so highly educated a body of people as were at Shiloh. I was working on a lower scale.
Q. Was that discussed in a council of ministers there? A. I don't think so except that he told me that before the whole school and ministers and various occasions.
Q. It was talked over among the ministers was it? A. I don't know.
Q. And did you discover at this time that he was arbitrary and unjust? A. Yes sir.
Q.You thought so at that time? A. I knew it.
Q. You knew it? A. Yes sir.
Q. And you knew it from that time onward, did you? A. Yes sir.
Q. Did you discover anything else unfavorable about him at that time? A. What time you mean?
Q. Well, at the time that he told you that you weren't fit for it? A. Well. I remember of saying to him I didn't think he ought to put it so strongly, "I was utterly unfit," and I think he backed down on that and withdrew the word "utterly."
Q. And you decided to continue, did you? A. Well, I decided that on other occasions.
Q. Now these matters that you have testified to this forenoon about Mr. Gleason, they occurred a few months after you were there? A. Well, to the best of my recollection.
Q. That is the way you understand it? A. I should say somewhere within the first eight months- may have been five.
Q. You thought it was before November, didn't you? A. Might have been November - might have been April. I don;t know which it was.
Q. Practically all those things occurred early during your stay there did they? A. All of what things?
Q. The things you testified to this forenoon. A. I left there just about a year after I went there. I was there only about three months after that.
Q. You did go back? A. Went back in September and stayed until December.
Q. Those things practically all occurred within six months did they not. A. I can't tell, it might have. It might have in those three months when I was back there, Mr. Oakes. I am not quite sure. I should say most of them, yes.
Q. You should say they did? A. I think I said so, yes I think they did. That is the best of my memory.
Q. Weren't you taking full part in the work of the hill at that time? A. Always except when I had quarreled with Mr. Sandford.
Q. And really the matters you complained about - they were personal between you and Mr. Sandford were they not? A. I am not complaining.
Q. The matters you told about then? A. No sir.
Q. You speak of quarrels between you and Mr. Sandford. You did quarrel with him did you? A. Seven times.
Q. Now you have at various times made public statements about Mr. Sandford and about the movement, have you not?
A If you will tell me what you mean by "public."
Q. Well, statements either made by word of mouth, to a number of people gathered together, or written by you and sent out? A. I published that one article I speak of, and I have spoken as nearly as I remember at four meetings.
Q. Before that, while you were at the hill, have you made statements about Shiloh and Mr. Sandford? A. Oh yes, I wrote a series of brilliant articles on Shiloh about November, I think, of the first year.
Q. At any time did you say about Mr. Sandford, "One of Mr. Sandford's most marked characteristics, and perhaps the most fundamental, is his intense loyalty to the truth?" A. I presume so. That is what I thought at the time.
Q. That is what you thought at the time that you wrote it? A. Yes sir. By "truth" we mean the Bible, Mr. Oakes.
Q. I mean just what I said. A. I say I mean the Bible. When I say "the truth" I mean the Bible.
Q. That is what you wrote, did you? A. Yes, I think so. I said that.
Q. That is your understanding? A. Yes.
Q. You have looked over your articles recently, haven't you? A. I read portions of them that came out recently in the Shiloh paper.
Q. And you have had your attention called to them. You know practically what statements you have made in those articles, don't you? A. I couldn't say that, Mr. Oakes, what I have made.
Q. Did you say in regard to Mr. Sandford at any time, "In a way never seen by me before, he lives a life shut in to truth. It characterizes everything he says and does. The whole movement is keyed to this. Everything grows and flows from this?" A. That sounds very near like what I did write.
Q. Did you intend people to believe that when you wrote it? A. When I said the "truth," I mean the truth, meaning the Bible.
Q. Did you mean people to believe that when you wrote it? A. Certainly.
Q. You expected a great many people would read it? A. I thought some would.
Q. Didn't you expect your old church at Tacoma would believe it? A. Well, I didn't know how extensive the circulation of the paper was. I don't know now.
Q. You expected it would go there? A. I knew some of them subscribed for it.
Q. Did you write this, or say this, - "So far from being arbitrary, save in the energetic conduct of his meetings and in dealing with some spiritual danger which may threaten the interests of the same, where sometimes he may seem arbitrary to an inexperienced person, he is the most careful of men?"
A. That sounds very like what I wrote.
Q. Is that what you intended people to understand? A. Yes.
Q. What you represented to people? A. Yes sir.
Q. And were not those articles - those words - sent out - written and sent out January, 1901? A. The best of my recollection is they began in October, soon after I had my fourth quarrel with Mr. Sandford, and spread over until January.
Q. Were they not sent out in The Everlasting Gospel in 1901, January? A. I don't recollect, Mr. Oakes, but I should say not. They may have been published there, but they were written as nearly as I can remember - I have been trying to refresh my memory about it - I wrote the last of those articles before I came to Lewiston here to take charge of what is called the state campaign in this county, which was somewhere in the early part of January.
Q. You knew about the paper being sent out with your articles in it? A. I knew at the time, yes sir.
Q. And when it was sent out it was sent out as your article? A. Yes sir.
Q. Signed by your initials? A. I am not sure about that. I think very likely.
Q. You understand it so, do you not? A. I don't know about the initials. They were my articles. Perhaps my name was at the head of them.
Q. Did you say at any time "Long seasons of fasting and prayer are had, as I have said, before important action is taken, and all have their share of the responsibility?" A. I should think so. That was my understanding of it.
Q. That was your understanding as late as January, 1901, was it? A. Yes sir.
Q. "So high is the standard, and so uncompromising the spirit of the school that only those of the best quality 'go through the deaths' required by the great teacher, the Holy Ghost. Those who fail usually go away to defend themselves by attacking the school. Those who go through and remain, come out shining for Christ." Did you write or say anything of that sort? A. Very much like that.
Q. And did you understand that to be a fact? A. Yes sir.
Q. You intend the people to understand that as your view of it? A. It was so reported to us.
Q. What did you say last? A. It was so reported to us by Mr. Sandford. People went away and either became demon possessed or else attacked the work, or both.
Q. "Sudden sickness - sudden and awful burdens - sudden judgments fall upon the school. Some one is made sick, or some student has a heavy and inexplicable burden, or some one receives a visitation. The school is called to prayer and fasting. The wrong thing comes to the surface and is put away, and the whole school realizes that God - the holy Ghost, is really the Director of the school. Thus God meets and destroys the lies that Satan attempts to put into the hearts of new students, seeking to keep them from him on the plea that it is a man rule." did you write that? A. I think that is about my article.
Q. Hadn't you had your quarrels with Mr. Sandford before that time? A. I had all four.
Q. You understand then all you know now about it, didn't you? A. No sir.
Q. You knew then the actual work of the school, did you not? A. I understood pretty much about the subjects that are in the article.
Q. You knew then the actual course of the management of the school. A. Yes sir.
Q. You wrote that as giving your opinions then, did you? A. Yes sir, certainly.
Q. After you had been there that time? A. Yes sir.
Q. And those were published with your knowledge? A. Yes sir.
Q. Now do you mean to say that you understood those to be true at the time that you wrote them? A. Yes sir,
Q. Did you testify at the last trial? A. Yes sir
Q And were you inquired of like this: "Did you say these things in these articles knowing them to be true?" And did you answer "They were according to my temper or mood at that time?" A. I couldn't say that I said that.
Q. Did you say that your temper or mood controls facts? A. I remember your trying to make me say that. I don't think I said that.
Q. You don't think you said that? A. No sir.
Q. Did you say you couldn't see things different at Shiloh, but away from Shiloh you could? A. That is generally true, I think. I very likely saw them different.
Q. Did you say that? A. I cannot tell you.
Q. Is that so? A. That is so, yes.
Q. Then you said one thing at one time and another thing at another, is that so? A. Why of course.
Q. Did you so give one statement about the condition of things at one time and another thing at another? A. I always wrote exactly as I understood it at the time.
Q. But did you understand it differently at different times? A, Yes sir.
Q. Before that time? A. Whenever I had a quarrel with Mr. Sandford every doubt I had ever had would come up, and then I would put down and go on and try to believe things were going on, and succeeded in believing that I believed them.
Q. You wrote these things to the people did you, in that paper? A. I wrote them for the paper.
Q. Now did you not intend people by your articles - to lead people to believe that? A. Yes sir.
Q. You wrote them repeatedly, did you not? A. I wrote a series.
Q. The series of articles? A. Yes sir.
Q. And that was after you had been there at Shiloh some time? A. Yes, four or five months.
Q. And that was after those circumstances that you have detailed here today had occurred was it not? A. I don't know about that, Mr. Oakes. What do you refer to?
Q. Well, after the circumstances with reference to Mr. Gleason had occurred? A. Well, I took part in that and agreed with it, and some others like it.
Q. And you wrote the articles after that, did you not? A. I don't know. I don't know the dates.
Q. The articles were published after that, were they? A. They may be. There are articles published this year, written three years ago.
Q. The articles were published in the paper, and you knew about it did you not? A. I thought you were trying to get my knowledge of the dates of the publication, which I don't know.
Q. Don't you know the articles were published in the month of January and later. A. No, I told you I didn't know.
Q. You don't know that? You have looked at it recently? A. I don't think I looked at the date of the paper at all. When I wrote recently, Mr. Oakes was in the new paper that came out a month ago. Those articles were reprinted.
Q. I show you an article in the paper entitled "The Everlasting Gospel" dated Jan. 8, 1901, entitled "Shiloh," by N. H. Harriman, and ask you if you wrote that article? A. Well, if I could say so without looking at it in detail, I should say yes.
Q. I show you an article in The Everlasting Gospel date Jan. 8th to 15th, 1901, entitled "Shiloh," by N.H. Harriman, and ask you if you wrote that? A. I see Mr. Whittaker's name is A. A. instead of W. W. as I gave it to you this forenoon. That looks all right. I don't presume there was anything in there, Mr. Oakes, that wasn't mine. The date of these papers don't tell anything about when they were published, Mr. Oakes. Sometimes they are deferred six months from the time when they are published.
Q. I show you an article in the Everlasting Gospel from March 17th to 30th, 1901, entitled "Shiloh" by N. H. Harriman, and ask you if that was an article written by you? A. I should say that was my article entirely.
Q. Now I ask you, Mr. Harriman, if you didn't know that those papers were sent out at about that date? A. I don't know about that date. I should think before July.
Q. Well, that paper's similar to that - some editions were sent out about those dates? A. Mr. Oakes, I can show you a paper dated last October, that didn't appear until March.
Q. I ask you that question about those papers. A. The date of the paper does not tell at all when the paper appeared.
Q. I am asking you now -
THE COURT: About these in particular.
A. I know nothing about that, sir.
Q. You look that over and see if you want to state that. Whether papers - not those papers, but papers of those editions - were not sent out to your knowledge while you were there, about that time. A. About that time do you mean, Mr. Oakes?
Q. About the time those papers? A. I don't know at all about that. I should think it might be so or very far from so. There is nothing about the dating of those papers that would give an idea at all, and I have no memory.
Q. At the best of your recollection, when were these papers published? A. I should say that first paper appeared in the spring , somewhere between perhaps February and May.
Q. Of 1901? A. 1900 wouldn't it? No, 1901. 1901, that is right.
Q. And that is what you understand about it? A. I should say so.
Q. You understand these papers were sent out after at least the dates which are given here? A. Yes sir, I think so.
Q. And these papers bearing these articles with your signature, or your name attached to them, were sent out with your knowledge? A. Oh, yes.
Q. And those articles were intended to be understood by people whom they might reach as being your statements? A. Oh yes. We planned to get them into a book, and partly succeeded.
from the court minutes, State of Maine Archives