Masonic, Occult and Esoteric Online Library
The Theosophical Movement 1875-1950
By
The Case Against William Q. Judge
COLONEL OLCOTT’S LETTER of February 7 reached Mr. Judge on March 10, 1894. He at once sent the following cable to the President of the Society. “Charges absolutely false. You can take what proceedings you see fit; going to London in July.” (The trip to London was for the purpose of attending the annual convention of the European Section.) On March 15, Mr. Judge issued a four-page 1 printed statement concerning the attack upon him. He begins, in this statement, by explaining that the accusations transmitted by Col. Olcott have previously existed for some time in the form of “vague and suppressed rumors,” and that the action of the President of the Society now compels him (Mr. Judge) to speak, “to the end that all members of the Society and friends of my own in all parts of the world shall be in possession of facts, so that surprise and perhaps confusion may be prevented.”
Mr. Judge goes on to say, “The assertion is made in India that I have been guilty of ‘misuse of the names and handwriting of the Mahatmas’,” and that this has been “officially communicated to the President.” He does not mention Mrs. Besant’s name at all in connection with the action of the President-Founder, but merely reports that “an investigation is demanded through an official inquiry,” and that Col. Olcott, “conceiving himself required and authorized to take action,” has repeated the charges in an official letter, offering Mr. Judge the “options” of resigning or inviting “trial.”
Mr. Judge next makes clear the reason for his cablegram of March 10, and the form of his reply:
The charge is made against me as Vice-President: I have replied as an individual and shall so continue, inasmuch as in my capacity of VicePresident my duties are nominal. . . The only charges that could be made against the Vice-President would be those of failing to perform his duties, or misusing the office when there were any duties attached to it. On the face of this very vague charge, then, it is evident that there is nothing in it relating to the official Vice-President.
He then considers the charge as related to himself, as one of the most active members of the Society:
Inasmuch as I was the first presiding officer of the Theosophical Society at its preliminary meeting in September, 1875, and its first Secretary at such meeting; that I was not only H. P. Blavatsky’s intimate friend and direct pupil but that I have been conspicuous as an upholder of Theosophical doctrine, as also an upholder, with many other friends in every part of the globe, of H. P. Blavatsky’s good name, high motive, and great powers against the ridicule of the world and much opposition from certain members of the Society she founded; that I have been elected to succeed Col. Olcott as President of the Society and have been officially declared his successor by him; it is important and imperative that I should make this matter public, and I now do so, and state my unqualified, explicit, exhaustive denial of the said charge, asserting most unreservedly that it has absolutely no foundation
Having explained why he felt compelled to face and publicly deny the charges, Mr. Judge discusses constitutional considerations and concludes this part of his circular by saying: “Perhaps when the Committee is convened I shall, for the first time, have particulars as to persons, dates, and the like of the charges made, none of whichuptothistime Ihavehad exceptinthe formof rumor.” Mr. Judge refers to the second of the two “options” placed before him by the President-Founder, and says that he refused to cable the word “second,” as requested by Col. Olcott’s letter, for the reason that thus to do would be to mean “I demand a Committee. ”He continues:
The reason is not that an investigation is avoided. Such an investigation will not be avoided. But on constitutional and executive principle I shall object from beginning to end to any Committee of the Theosophical Society considering any charge against any person which involves an inquiry and decision as to the existence, names, powers, functions, or methods of the “Mahatmas or Masters.” I shall do this for the protection of the Theosophical Society now and hereafter, regardless of the result to myself. The Society has no dogma as to the existence of such Masters; but the deliberations of an official committee of the Society on such a question, and that is the first inquiry and decision necessarily beginning such a deliberation, would mean that the Theosophical Society after over nineteen years of unsectarian work is determined to settle this dogma and affix it to the Constitution of the Society. To this I will never consent, but shall object, and shall charge the Committee itself with a violation of the Constitution if it decides the question of the existence of “Masters” or Mahatmas; if it should affirm the “Masters’ ” existence it will violate the law; if it should deny Their existence a like violation will result; both decisions would affirm a dogma, and the negative decision would in addition violate that provision of our law, in Art. XIII, Revised Rules, which makes it an offense to “wilfully offend the religious feelings of any Fellow” of the Society, inasmuch as the belief so negatived is religiously held by many hundreds of the Fellows of the Society. I intend to try once for all to definitely have settled this important question, and to procure an official decision affirming now and forever the freedom of our Society. Hence the President’s alternatives . . . are mistakes, and are the initial steps to the promulgation of the dogma of belief in the “Masters.” The first alternative is furthermore a judgment in advance, ridiculous in itself yet serious as emanating from our highest official. It precludes him from sitting on the Committee, and that point also I shall raise before the Committee. The whole proposal he makes brings up serious and complicated questions of occultism touching upon the matter of the existence, powers, functions, and methods of those “Masters” in whom many Theosophists believe but as to whom the Theosophical Society is perfectly agnostic and neutral as an organized body. For that reason no one in official position ever thought of making a public matter of the many assertions made here and there by members of the Society, that they individually communicated with beings whom they called “Masters, Mahatmas,” nor of the assertions publicly made by prominent members that certain philosophical statements recently published in our literature were directly from the very “Masters” referred to by Col. Olcott, although those statements contradicted others made by H. P. Blavatsky on the declared authority of the same “Masters.”
On all these grounds, then, I shall object to a Theosophical Society Committee, while of course there will never be any objection from me to a proper investigation by a body of persons who know enough of Occultism as well as of Theosophy to understandingly inquire into these matters
The closing paragraphs of the statement meet the remainder of the queries likely to arise from both the President-Founder’s letter and Mr. Judge’s reply. Forced by circumstances to speak directly concerning his own convictions, Mr. Judge says:
But some of you may wonder if all this leaves in doubt the question whether I believe in the “Masters.” I believe the Masters exist, that They actually help the T.S.Cause, that They energise and make fruitful the work of all sincere members; all this I can say to myself I know, but to prove objectively to another that such beings exist is impossible now so far as my intelligence can perceive. “Letters from Mahatmas” prove nothing at all except to the recipient, and then only when in his inner nature is the standard of proof and the power of judgment. Precipitation does not prove Mahatmas, for the reason that mere mediums and non-mahatmas can make precipitations. This I have always asserted. By one’s soul alone can this matter be judged, and only by his work and acts can one judge at first as to whether any other person is an agent of the Masters; by following the course prescribed in all ages the inner faculties may be awakened so as to furnish the true confirmatory evidence. I have not lost any of my belief in these beings, but more than ever believe in Their existence and in Their help and care to and over our Society’s work.
Finally I may say that my personal belief in Mahatmas is based on even stronger evidence than Theosophical arguments or the experience of others. As is known to some Theosophists, I have not been entirely without guidance and help from these exalted friends of the T. S. The form which the whole matter has taken now compels me to say what I have never before said publicly, namely, that not only have I received direct communications from Masters during and since the life of H. P. Blavatsky, but that I have on certain occasions repeated such to certain persons for their own guidance, and also that I have guided some of my own work under suggestions from the same sources, though without mentioning the fact.—WILLIAM Q. JUDGE.
This statement by Mr. Judge was mailed to as many members of the Society as possible. Copies reached London and were seen by Mr. Geo. R. S. Mead, then Editor of Lucifer under Mrs. Besant, and General Secretary of the European Section. Mr. Bertram Keightley, still General Secretary of the Indian Section, was at the time in London and he also read Mr. Judge’s circular. Both were wellmeaning men, and however they had previously regarded the hints and suspicions against Mr. Judge, their sense of fair play was outraged by the highhandedness and injustice of the President-Founder’s letter. Even if Mr. Judge were guilty, he was entitled to the preliminary assumption of his innocence until that guilt was conclusively established. Moreover, by what process of reasoning could Mrs. Besant and Col. Olcott take upon themselves the duty of holding star-chamber proceedings to condemn any member or tender him “options” to “resign” or be “tried” by a Committee, when the very proceedings already so unwarrantably taken were in fact a violation of the Rules of the Society? At all events, it is evident that both Mead and Keightley saw at once that Mrs. Besant and the PresidentFounder had grossly violated the principles all professed, as well as the plain provisions of the Constitution of the Society. Under the date of March 27, 1894, therefore, they issued over their joint official signatures as the General Secretaries of the two sections, the European and the Indian, a circular entitled: “For the information of the Members 2 of the European and Indian Sections of the Theosophical Society.”
The writers begin by reciting that they have read unofficial copies of the letter of Mrs. Besant of February 6 and of Col. Olcott's of February 7. Addressing themselves to Col. Olcott as President Founder of the T. S., they insist that any further proceedings must be “strictly constitutional and impartial,” and continue:
It is therefore our plain duty as the General Secretaries of two out of the three Sections of the T. S. and members of its General Council, to call your attention officially to the following points with a view to safeguarding (1) the Constitution, (2) the non-sectarian character, and (3) the impartiality of the Theosophical Society.
First: by Art. VI, Sections 2 and 3, of the “Constitution and Rules of the Theosophical Society” as officially ratified and promulgated by yourself on Dec. 31st,1893, it is enacted that, in the event of charges being preferred against the President, or Vice-President, (a) the said charges shall be in writing, and (b) copies thereof shall “at once” be forwarded to the accused and “to each member of the General Council.” We now desire to point out that you have not followed the procedure laid down in either of these respects, for:
1. Your official letter to Mr. W. Q. Judge above referred to, contains no copy in writing of any charges, does not give the names of the persons who bring such, and even contains no specific statement of what are the exact charges brought.
2. No official copy either of “charges in writing” or even of your above-mentioned letter to Mr. Judge has reached either of us; although sufficient time has elapsed since your letter reached Mr. Judge in America for an unofficial copy thereof to be received in England.
Therefore, as members of the General Council of the T. S. we emphatically protest against this departure from the rules of procedure laid down in the Constitution and also against this ignoring by yourself of your official duty as President toward your colleagues on the General Council of the Society.
Second: We recognize that, acting under the general discretionary power conferred upon the President by Art. VI, Sec. I, it was competent for you as President to take action in the matter. But we feel strongly that, in order to protect and maintain that very Constitution whose guardian you are, it was your duty in your official letter to Mr. Judge to have insisted upon and resolutely maintained the following points:
1. That the free platform of the Society precludes any official declaration by the T. S., or any Committee representing it, upon the question whether “Mahatmas” do or do not exist (see Art. XIII, Secs. 2 and 3, “Offenses”);
2. That, therefore, no enquiry into the conduct of any officer of the Society in his official capacity, which would involve as its basis a declaration of Yea or Nay upon the above question, can be carried out by any official committee of the T. S.;
3. That, accordingly, Sections 2, 3 and 4 of Art. VI are not applicable to the charges indicated by your letter to Mr. Judge;
Third: We desire further to point out that in officially giving Mr. Judge the alternatives of resigning all his offices in the T. S. or submitting to the enquiry proposed, you have again departed from the procedure laid down by the Constitution.
Moreover by so doing you place yourself officially in the position of having prejudged the case and virtually announce before any enquiry has taken place or even any specific charges have been formulated, that you believe Mr. Judge guilty.
It appears to us that such an attitude is inconsistent with that strict impartiality and justice which ought to characterize at least the official actions of the President of the T. S., and that it is calculated to bring discredit upon the Society by laying its chief executive officer open to the charge of condemning a colleague without even giving him a hearing.
In conclusion we hereby place on record our most emphatic protest against the above-cited departures from constitutional procedure; and we officially request a formal reply and declaration thereupon from yourself as President-Founderof theT. S. andofficial guardianof itsfreeConstitution.
This we call for as General Secretariesfor Europe and India respectively, and as members of that General Council of the Theosophical Society from which, as recited in Art. VI, Sec. I, you “derive your authority” as President of the T. S., and to which, as therein provided, you “are responsible for its exercise.”
Finally we beg to inform you that we shall forthwith notify our respective Sections of the present correspondence, and shall also communicate to them your reply when received, as the members are already unofficially informed of the matter.
We are, dear Sir and Brother,
Fraternally yours, BERTRAM KEIGHTLEY, Gen. Sec. Indian Sec. T. S.
G. R. S. MEAD,
Gen. Sec. European Sec. T. S.
Before Col. Olcott had opportunity to realize that the procedure he had followedwas exciting extreme disapproval, even from thosewhom he might regard as solid supporters, such as Bertram Keightley, secretary of the Indian Section, he received from Mr. Judge the cable declaring the charges false and ignoring the options extended to him. O 3 lcottthereupon senttwomore official lettersto Mr.Judge .The firstis formally addressed to him as General Secretary of the American Section,stating that the chargeswill be laid before a Judicial Committee of the Society, to meet in London on June 27. Mr. Judge was invited to request the Executive Committee of the American Section to appoint two members to serve on the Judicial Committee, “to sit as representatives of the American Section, and consider and dispose of the charges.”
The second letterwas directed to Mr.Judge as “Vice President,T. S.” This letter declared him suspended from the office of Vice-President and remarked, “As the accused party you will, of course, be debarred fromsitting and voting in theCommittee . . . but you are entitled to enjoy the fullopportunity todisprove the chargesbrought against you.”
The first of these letters would compel Mr. Judge as its General Secretary to himself place the charges and the correspondence before the forthcomingConvention of theAmerican Section due to be held at San Francisco in April, 1894, and thus put him on the defensive before his own Section against charges sanctioned by the President-Founder and Mrs. Besant, the two most important and influential members of the Society—the two who had posed hitherto as his dear friends and colleaguesinthe Society and theMovement.
The second of these letters would force Judge as VicePresident to inform the members that he had been suspended by the President-Founder and thus himself be made the medium of conveying to them the information that the President of the whole Society felt himself compelled by the gravity of the case to suspend the Vice-President in advance of the Judicial Committee.
The eighth annual convention of the American Section of the Theosophical Society met in San Francisco, April 23-24, 1894. The report of its proceedings shows that there was no hint of the dissensions within the Society in Mr. Judge’s address as General Secretary, which reported the progress of the Theosophical Movement in the United States, and referred to Mrs. Besant’s work on behalf of Theosophy with praise and appreciation. First mention of the charges formulated against Mr. Judge by Mrs. Besant occurred with presentation to the American delegates of a letter from G. R. S. Mead. In this letter, addressed to Mr. Judge as Secretary of the American Section, Mr. Mead requested that the correspondence between the members of the General Council of the Society be placed before the American Convention. He enclosed a copy of the official letter, by himself and Bertram Keightley, to the PresidentFounder, objecting to the procedure followed by Col. Olcott in bringing charges against Mr. Judge.
The members of the American Section were already familiar with the statement of the European and Indian General Secretaries, which had been generally distributed throughout the Society in the form of a printed circular, and it was referred to the Committee on Resolutions
Mr. Judge then read to the Convention a letter to him by Elliott Page, a fellow of the American Section, and his own reply, dealing with the same question. Mr. Page gave as his own opinion that the Society ought not to entertain any sort of investigation or inquiry to determine whether “the sending of messages purporting to come from a Master, or Masters, is untheosophical.” Such a course, he wrote, “would only tend to raise a dogma in the Society,” and he added that “it seems desirable that some official statement of a general character should be made defining the Society’s position on questions of this nature.”
Mr. Judge’s reply, which he presented to the delegates, was as follows:
Dear Sir and Brother: I have your letter of 12th inst. informing me that a member of the T. S. (whose name you have privately given me) has sent you at various times “letters and messages which purport to emanate from one of the Masters spoken of by H. P. Blavatsky and supposed to be interested in the welfare of the said Society, and that one of the letters is signed with the name in full of the Master whose message it purports to be, but that in the letters there is no attempt to imitate the supposed handwriting of the Masters, etc.” and asking me officially whether a committee could be properly appointed to consider the matter on the ground that such actions by said member are untheosophical. This could only be considered by the Society acting through a committee on the ground of being an offence under the Constitution of the T. S.; it is also a matter which should first be submitted to the Council and the President; it is competent in my opinion for you to raise the question as one of information, asking for a decision or opinion from the proper officers or Council. I shall therefore give you my opinion officially and then forward the same to the President and the Council. My opinion is:
First: The matter stated is not one which the Society or its officers can consider; it stands on the same ground as the affirmation of a member that he or she has seen or heard of or from a Mahatma. On this see the public utterances of the President, Colonel Olcott; also those of Mrs. Besant; and the late publication by Mr. Sinnett, President of the London Lodge, to the effect that what he (Mr. Sinnett) published was directly from said Mahatmas. These are not offences in the T. S. for the reason that cognizable offences are these: Slander of members; violation of the T. S. neutrality on questions of legislation, politics, religion, caste, and social rules; violation of the rule that we have no dogma by proclaiming a dogma or belief as that of the T. S.; wilfully hurting the religious feelings of members at a meeting of Branch or Section; conviction of crime under the law of the land, and the like. In no place are the Mahatmas, their powers, existence, or functions mentioned. It is solely and simply a personal matter whether one shall or shall not affirm he has messages from the Mahatmas; it is also a personal matter whether other members shall or shall not believe him.
Second: It would be a violation of the Constitution to decide either negatively or affirmatively under the official shield of a T. S. Committee whether a person had or had not a message from the Mahatmas, and to consider the facts cited by you would involve preliminarily that affirmative or negative. The Society would thus through its Committee fix a dogma one way or the other; either the dogma that Mahatmas exist and may be heard from, or the opposite dogmatic statement that such Mahatmas do not exist.
On this I beg to refer you to the official statement by the President in his Executive Notice of May 27, 1893, respecting the T. S. Congress at the Parliament of Religions. He said:
“Of course it is to be distinctly understood that nothing shall be said or done by any delegate or committee of the Society to identify it, as a body, with any special form of religion, creed, sect, or any religious or ethical teacher or leader; our duty being to affirm and defend its perfect corporate neutrality in these matters.”
This goes directly to the point, and was meant, as intimated to me by the President, to cover precisely the existence of the Mahatmas under the word “teacher” and to prevent any fixing of the T. S. to H. P. Blavatsky by means of the use of the word “leader.” Hence we have in advance the decision in general of the President, in which the other members of the Council will concur, as I now do in advance.
Fraternally yours,
WILLIAM Q. JUDGE,
General Secretary American Section and Member 4 of the T. S. Council.
Col. Olcott’s two letters, dated March 20,toMr.Judge, one of them suspendinghimfromoffice,were alsoread.
At this Convention of the American Section, there were present delegates and proxies from all of the sixty-one active Branches. The charges againstMr.Judge and the actionof Col.Olcottinbringing them were dealt with in a series of Resolutions. The members voted that the expense to which Mr. Judge had been put in printing and circulating his own statement should be borne by the American Section; that “this Convention, after careful deliberation, finds that such suspension of the Vice-President is without the slightest warrant in the Constitution and altogether transcends the discretionary power given the President by the Constitution, and is therefore null and void”; and that “this Section, in Convention assembled, hereby expresses its unqualified protest against the said illegal action by the President of the Society, and can see no necessity forsuch action, and that even did the Constitution contain any provision for a suspension such action would be wholly needless and un brotherly, inasmuch as, by the Constitution, the VicePresident has no duties or power save in case of death, resignation, or accusationof thePresident.”
The existing situation on the entire subject of Mahatmas and Messages from Mahatmas or Masters, and the actual status of the whole problem, under the Objects and Constitution of the Theosophical Society, were declared in two Resolutions introduced by Dr. Jerome A. Anderson. Both of these Resolutions were unanimously adopted. They are of such value and importance in giving a matter-of-fact formulation of the issues that we quote them at length:
WHEREAS, many members of the Theosophical Society, including the late Madame Blavatsky, Col. Olcott, W. Q. Judge, Mrs. Annie Besant, A. P. Sinnett, and others, have at various times and places expressed their belief in the existence of certain Mahatmas or Masters, and have claimed to be in communication with the same; and
WHEREAS, the President, Col. Olcott, at the request of one of the members, Mrs. Annie Besant, has recently demanded an official investigation by means of a Judicial Committee of the Theosophical Society, to decide whether or not Wm. Q. Judge is in communication with the said Mahatmas, and whether or not the said Wm. Q. Judge has “misused the names and handwriting of the said Mahatmas”; and
WHEREAS, under the Constitution and Rules of the Theosophical Society it is declared that the Society, as such, is not responsible for the personal opinions of its Fellows, nor for any expression thereof, and that no Fellow, Officer, or Council, of the Theosophical Society, or of any Section or Branch thereof, shall promulgate or maintain any doctrine, dogma, or belief as being that advanced or advocated by the Society (Art. XIII); and the President having officially and constitutionally in his executive order of May 27th, 1893, relative to the World's Religious Parliament, declared this neutrality, . . . Therefore,
RESOLVED: That, in the opinion of this Convention, the action of the President, Col. Olcott, in calling such Judicial Committee to consider said charge was uncalled for, unconstitutional, illegal, and improper.
RESOLVED: That this Convention hereby cordially endorses the interpretation of the Rules and Constitution of the T. S. recently expressed in a circular to members, signed by the General Secretaries of the European and Indian Sections, and in the private circular of March 15th, 1894, issued by William Q. Judge.
RESOLVED: That this Convention hereby reaffirms the entire freedom of the platform of the T. S. and the religious and other opinions of its members, which entitles all and any of them to claim to be in communication with, to receive letters from, or to act as agents for, those above referred to as Mahatmas or Masters; or, on the other hand, to express disbelief in the proper title of any member to make such claim or claims or disbelief in the existence of said Mahatmas.
RESOLVED: That this Convention declares its unswerving belief in the integrity and uprightness of the Vice-President of the T. S., Wm. Q. Judge, and expresses to him the most cordial thanks of the Section for his unrecompensed and self-sacrificing years of labor on behalf of the T. S. as a whole.
WHEREAS: This Section regards official investigation into the existence and methods of Mahatmas, and a dogmatic verdict rendered upon such investigation, as not only illegal under the Constitution but impossible in the absence of more profound knowledge of the science of Occultism, and, therefore, absurd in the present instance, although such inquiry and investigation are always proper privileges of individual members as such, therefore.
RESOLVED: That, if in the face of this protest and opinion of this Section, there is to be an investigation to decide whether or not William Q. Judge is or was in communication with said Mahatmas, and whether or not he has “misused the names and handwriting of said Mahatmas,” or whether or not pretended or real communications or orders from said alleged Mahatmas have been issued or given out by him, then, in the opinion of this Section, an investigation should also be had to decide whether or not Col. Olcott, A. P. Sinnett, Annie Besant, and others have had, given, or promulgated such or any communication from the Mahatmas, whether real or pretended; and that they be required to show evidence of the possession of a commission from said Mahatmas, and of the truthfulness of their claims as heretofore frequently made and announced by them in public.
RESOLVED: That, in the opinion of this Section, only a Body of Mahatmas appearing at the Sessions of the Committee could decide whether or not any communication was or is a genuine or fraudulent 5 Mahatmic message.
The Theosophist for May, 1894, contained Col. Olcott’s notice that the “Judicial Committee” to hear the charges against Mr. Judge would meet in London on June 27. This Committee, under the Rules as revised during 1893, was to be constituted of (1) the members of the General Council of the Society, (2) two additional members nominated by each Section of the Society, and (3) two members selected by the accused. (The General Council, as provided in the Constitution adopted in December, 1890, consisted of the President, Vice-President, and General Secretaries of the Sections of the Society.) In calling this meeting of the Judicial Committee, Col. Olcott expressed regret that the decision of the Committee could no longer be arrived at “privately,” due to the action of the General Secretaries of the European and Indian Sections, who published their criticism of the President's course. Col. Olcott also stated that his own action in placing the charges before the General Council had been in response to a “written demand” from Mrs. Besant—a fact which Mr. Judge had not mentioned in his four-page statement on March 15—and the President deplored that the accuser was unnamed, “if the public was to be taken into confidence at all at 6 this preliminary stage.”
This “Executive Notice” in the Theosophist was apparently an attempt by Col. Olcott to give the impression that high-minded impartiality and strict legality has characterized his course in arranging the meeting of the Judicial Committee to “try” Mr. Judge. It suggests, further, that Mr. Judge and Messrs. Mead and Keightley erred in making known the actual facts in relation to the procedure taken against Mr. Judge. Olcott’s emphasis on the fact that Mrs. Besant was the accuser tends to hide his own primary responsibility for the charges —a responsibility which he later admitted in a signed statement explaining that she had acted directly at his instigation and 7 request.
The President-Founder arrived promptly in London, but the Enquiry was not held on the date set, June 27. The time until July 7 was occupied in various abortive attempts to reach a compromise that would obviate official disposition, but Mr. Judge insisted that since the whole procedure up to date had been taken officially by the President-Founder, with himself as defendant against charges of dishonorable conduct, and with issues raised prejudicial to the Society as well as himself, it could only properly be disposed of by formal official action. Accordingly, Col. Olcott 8 summoned a meeting of the General Council on July 7, There were present Col. Olcott, who presided, Mr. Bertram Keightley, who was chosen as Secretary of the Council meeting, Mr. G. R. S. Mead; and Mr. Judge who took no part in the proceeding. Col. Olcott read to the meeting a formal letter by Mr. Judge, stating (1) that he had never been elected Vice-President of the Society, and was not, therefore, legally the Vice-President of the Society; (2) that even if adjudged de facto Vice-President of the Society, he was not thereby amenable to charges of “misuse of Mahatmas’ names and handwriting,” since, even if guilty, such offenses would be those of a private individual and not as an officer of the Society; hence not subject, under the Constitution, to a trial by a Judicial Committee of the Society as an official malfeasance. A legal opinion from a New York lawyer, Mr. M. H. Phelps, a member of the Society, was then read in support of Mr. Judge’s contentions.
The matter was then debated, Mr. Judge remaining silent. Colonel Olcott informed the meeting that at the Adyar Convention of 1888 he had himself “appointed” Mr. Judge Vice- President by virtue of his own “prerogative” to make such an appointment and had published such title in the official list of Officers of the Society, and that this appointment was unanimously “confirmed” by vote at the Indian General Convention of 1890, although the “official report” of that Convention “did not record the fact.” Hence, he declared, Mr. Judge “was and is Vice-President de facto and de jure.”
Having heard what Col. Olcott had to say as to the first point raised by Mr. Judge, the Council meeting made no decision, but passed to the second question. On this point renewed discussion took place, Mr. Judge remaining silent as before. The minutes read:
The matter was then debated. Bertram Keightley moved, and G. R. S. Mead seconded:
“That the Council, having heard the arguments on the point raised by William Q. Judge, declares that the point is well-taken; that the acts alleged concern him as an individual; and that consequently the Judicial Committee has no jurisdiction in the premises to try him as VicePresident upon the charges as alleged.
The President concurred. Mr. Judge did not vote. The motion was declared carried.
“On Mr. Mead's motion, it was then voted that the above record shall be laid before the Judicial Committee. Mr. Judge did not vote.”
Col. Olcott laid before the Council meeting a further point raised by Mr. Judge: that Mr. Judge’s election by the American, the British, and Indian Sections, as successor to the President in 1892 (at the time of Col. Olcott’s resignation), “became ipso facto annulled upon the President’s resumption of his office as President.” “On motion,” reads the official minutes, “the Council declared the point well taken, and ordered the decision to be entered upon the minutes. Mr. Judge did not vote.”
Colonel Olcott then called the meeting’s attention to the resolution of the American Section Convention which declared in effect that the suspension of Mr. Judge was without warrant in the Constitution and transcended the President’s discretionary powers. On this it was moved, seconded, and passed, Mr. Judge not voting, that “the President’s action was warranted under the then existing circumstances” and that the American Section’s “resolutions of protest are without force.”
Next, by motion (Mr. Judge not voting), “the council then requested the President to convene the Judicial Committee at the London Headquarters, on Tuesday, July 10, 1894, at 10 a.m. The Council then adjourned at call of the President.”
The Judicial Committee met on July 10, as required. There were present all the members of the Committee, as follows: Col. Olcott as President-Founder, in the chair; Messrs. G. R. S. Mead and Bertram Keightley as General Secretaries of the European and Indian Sections; Messrs. A. P. Sinnett and E. T. Sturdy as delegates of the Indian Section; Messrs. Herbert Burrows and Wm. Kingsland as delegates of the European Section; Dr. J. D. Buck and Dr. Archibald Keightley as delegates of the American Section; Messrs. Oliver Firth and E. T. Hargrove as special delegates representing the accused—all as provided for under the “revised Rules” adopted at the Adyar Convention in December preceding. Mr. Judge was present as the accused, but not voting as General Secretary of the American Section. Mrs. Besant was present as the accuser. It should be noted that of the eleven members of the Judicial Committee, the Chairman, Col. Olcott, and Messrs. E. T. Sturdy and A. P. Sinnett were already fully convinced in advance of the guilt of Mr. Judge; Messrs. Bertram Keightley and G. R. S. Mead convinced of Judge's guilt, but equally convinced that he could not be “tried” for his offenses; Messrs. Herbert Burrows, Wm. Kingsland, and Oliver Firth, strong friends of both Mrs. Besant and Col. Olcott, but still in doubt as to Mr. Judge’s guilt and the legality of the whole proceedings. Of the remaining members of the Judicial Committee, Dr. Buck and Dr. Archibald Keightley were fast friends of both the accused and the accuser, as well as of Col. Olcott; Mr. F. T. Hargrove was a young barrister of excellent family just then coming into prominence among the London members of the Society, friendly to all parties, but, as the after events showed, well assured in his own mind, like Dr. Buck and Dr. Archibald Keightley, both that Mr. Judge was innocent of any wrong-doing and that the whole affair was a colossal blunder as well as legally defective.
The meeting of the Judicial Committee being opened by the President-Founder. he read to the assembled Committee a formal letter from Mr. Judge as General Secretary of the American Section, stating that in the opinion of the Executive Committee of the American Section that Section was entitled to an extra vote in the Judicial Committee by reason of the fact that its General Secretary, being the accused, would not vote in the proceedings. On motion James M. Pryse, well known in both New York and London, was added to the Judicial Committee as a substitute for the General Secretary of the American Section.
Colonel Olcott. as Chairman, then declared the Judicial Committee to be duly constituted, and at once proceeded to read the following remarkable address as President-Founder of the Society. We give it in full, omitting only those parts already covered in the various documents quoted from:
Gentlemen and Brothers:
We have met together today as a Judicial Committee . . . to consider and dispose of certain charges of misconduct preferred by Mrs.Besant againstthe Vice-President of the Society, and dated 24th March, 1894 [itshould be noted that the two letters to Mr. Judge, purporting to give the “charges” as an enclosure, and “suspending” the Vice-President in consequence, were both datedMarch20th,1894,fourdaysbeforethisdate]. . . .
In compliancewith theRevisedRules, copies of the charges brought by the accuser have been duly supplied to the accused and the members of the GeneralCouncil. . . .
Upon the receipt of a preliminary letterfrom myself, of date February 7th, 1894,fromAgra,India,Mr.Judge,erroneouslytakingittobethefirststepinthe official enquiry into the charges, from my omission to mark the letter “Private,” naturally misconceived it to be a breach of the Constitution, and vehemently protested in a public circular addressed to “the members of the Theosophical Society,” and of which five-thousand copies were distributed to them, to all parts of the world. The name of the accuser not being mentioned, the wrong impression prevailed that I was the author of the charges, and at the same time intended to sit as chairman of the tribunal that was to investigate them. I regret this circumstance as having caused bad feeling throughout the Society against itsChief Executive,who has been the personal friend of the accused for many years, has ever appreciated as they deserved his eminent services and unflagging devotion to the whole movement, and whose constant motive has been to be brotherly and act justly toallhis colleagues,of every race,religion, andsex.
Having thus followed up the line adopted in the Notice of April 27 which we have given, Col. Olcott proceeds in his Address to the Judicial Committee to argue and give his own opinions and conclusions on the various questions raised by Mr. Judge at the meeting of the General Council three days preceding, as recited, and concludes this portion of his Address by stating:
From the above facts it is evident that W. Q. Judge is, and since December, 1888, has continuously been, de jure as well as de facto, VicePresident of the Theosophical Society. The facts having been laid before the General Council in its session of the 7th inst., my ruling has been ratified, and is now also concurred in by Mr. Judge. He is, therefore, triable by this tribunal for “cause shown.”
The President-Founder then passes to the second point raised by Mr. Judge. It is interesting to note that in this passage he enlarges the original charge as contained in his Letter of February 7. He says:
The second point raised by the accused is more important. If the acts alleged were done by him at all—which remains as yet sub judice—and he did them as a private person, he cannot be tried by any other tribunal than the Aryan Lodge, T. S., of which he is a Fellow and the President. Nothing can possibly be clearer than that. [Italics added.] Now, what are the alleged offenses?
That he practiced deception in sending false messages, orders, and letters as if sent and written by “Masters”; and in statements to me about a certain Rosicrucian jewel of H.P.B.’s.
That he was untruthful in various other instances enumerated. Are these solely acts done in his private capacity, or may they or either of them be laid against him as wrong-doing by the Vice-President? This is a grave question, both in its present bearings and as establishing a precedent for future contingencies. We must not make a mistake in coming to a decision.
In summoning Mr. Judge before this tribunal, I was moved by the thought that the alleged evil acts might be separated into (a) strictly private acts, viz., the alleged untruthfulness and deception, and (b) the alleged circulation of deceptive imitations of what are supposed to be Mahatmic writings, with intent to deceive; which communications, owing to his high official rank among us, carried a weight they would not have had if given out by a simple member. This seemed to me a far more heinous offense than simple falsehood or any other act of an individual, and to amount to a debasement of his office, if proven. . . . The issue is now open to your consideration, and you must decide as to your judicial competency.
Although the original charge was “misuse”—i.e., imitating —“the handwriting of the Mahatmas,” yet Col. Olcott proceeds to give it as his opinion that— the present issue is not at all whether Mahatmas exist or the contrary, or whether they have or have not recognizable handwritings, and have or have not authorized Mr. Judge to put forth documents in their name. I believed, when issuing the call, that the question might be discussed without entering into investigations that would compromise our corporate neutrality. The charges as formulated and laid before me by Mrs. Besant could in my opinion have been tried without doing this.
After this extraordinary admission and affirmation Col. Olcott proceeds to hasten to his own defense for having brought matters thus far and for what he now finds himself compelled to do—that is, to reverse himself completely:
. . . I must refer to my official record to prove that I would have been the last to help in violating a Constitution of which I am, it may be said, the father, and which I have continually defended at all times and in all circumstances. On now meeting Mr. Judge in London, however, and being made acquainted with hisintended line of defense,I find that by beginning the inquiry we should be placed in this dilemma, viz., we should either have to deny him the common justice of listening to his statements and examining his proofs(which would be monstrousin even a common court of law—much more in a Brotherhood like ours, based on lines of ideal justice), or be plunged into the very abyss we wish to escape from. Mr. Judge’s defense is that he is not guilty of the acts charged; that Mahatmas exist, are related to our Society and in personal contact with himself; and he avers his readiness to bring many witnesses and documentary proofs to support his statements.
Mrs. Besant, through this statement of the President-Founder, are forced to admit (1) that the constitutional questions raised by Mr. Judge were raised for the sake of the Society and not to evade “trial”; and (2) that his “line of defense”—which makes the real “dilemma” for his accusers —is simply that Mr. Judge “avers,” as Col. Olcott states, not only that he is not guilty, but that he is prepared to offer “proofs” in his own defense. And although these very constitutional questions and Mr. Judge’s very avowal of innocence and readiness to meet an investigation were stated in Mr. Judge’s circular of March 15,and although Col. Olcott six weeks later (in the Notice of April 27) declares that in the opinion of “eminent counsel” as well as himself the trial can properly take place as summoned, the President-Founder at London finds himself in a dilemma indeed. Not to listen to Mr. Judge’s defense would be so monstrous that not even the dullest or most prejudiced would fail to see its inequity, however they may have been blinded to the monstrous inequity of bringing these hearsay “charges” in the first place. How Col. Olcott evaded the real issue and at the same time did in fact what he had just characterized as “monstrous even in a common court of law, much more in a Brotherhood like” the Theosophical Society, may be seen in his next words:
The moment we entered into these questions we should violate the most vital spirit of our federal compact, its neutrality in matters of belief.—For the above reason, then, I declare as my opinion that this inquiry must go no farther; we may not break our own laws for any consideration whatsoever. It is furthermore my opinion that such an inquiry, begun by whatsoever body within our membership, cannot proceed if a similar line of defense be declared. If, perchance, a guilty person should at any time go scot-free in consequence of this ruling, we cannot help it; the Constitution is our palladium, and we must make it the symbol of justice or expect our Society to disintegrate
Thus, in this one paragraph, is the admission in Col. Olcott’s own words and decision, of the impropriety and illegality of the original bringing of the “charges”; the admission that every constitutional contention raised by Mr. Judge was correct; the admission that Mr. Judge was ready and willing to “stand trial”; the admission that such a “line of defense” upset the whole procedure, and that the Enquiry “must go no farther”—thus debarring Mr. Judge, charged with dishonorable conduct, from the promised “full opportunity to disprove the charges brought against you,” as Col. Olcott had written him March 20,when suspending him from the Vice-Presidency pending the meeting of the Judicial Committee.
The facts of the situation made it necessary for Olcott to continue:
Candor compels me to add that, despite what I thought some preliminary quibbling and unfair tactics, Mr. Judge has traveled hither from America to meet his accusers before this Committee, and announces his readiness to have the charges investigated and decided on their merits by any competent tribunal.
These statements by Col. Olcott should be carefully noted, for later on the reader will find both Col. Olcott and Mrs. Besant solemnly affirming over and over again that Mr. Judge was “guilty,” as if that “guilt” had been proved; that he evaded and escaped trial through pleading what the lawyers call a demurrer.
After the foregoing remarks, Col. Olcott argues in extenuation of himself against the resolutions adopted by the Convention of the American Section, then reverses his action complained of therein:
It having been made evident to me that Mr. Judge cannot be tried on the present accusations without breaking through the lines of our Constitution, I have no right to keep him further suspended, and so hereby cancel my notice of suspension, dated 7th February, 1894 [actually, the date of the letter of suspension, as officially forwarded, was March 20], and restore him to the rank of Vice-President.
The remainder of the President-Founder’s Address to the Judicial Committee is a half-apology for the “inconvenience” caused the members and others by the convocation of the Committee, and a plea for “brotherhood.”
Mr. Mead then submitted to the Judicial Committee the minutes of the General Council meeting of July 7, as given. The Judicial Committee then adopted the following resolutions:
Resolved: That the President be requested to lay before the Committee the charges against Mr. Judge referred to in his address.
The charges were laid before the Committee accordingly. After deliberation, it was
Resolved: That although it has ascertained that the member bringing the charges [Mrs. Besant] and Mr. Judge are both ready to go on with the inquiry, the Committee considers, nevertheless, that the charges are not such as relate to the conduct of the Vice-President in his official capacity, and therefore are not subject to its jurisdiction.
It will be observed from the foregoing that the report merely states that the resolutions were “adopted” by the Committee without giving the votes, pro and contra. The reader should understand that the delegates favorable to Mr. Judge left it to the others to decide whether to proceed or not.
Another resolution affirmed that a trial of the kind under enquiry would violate the neutrality of the Society in matters of religious opinion. On this “four members abstained from voting,” according to the report. Their names are not given. Another resolution adopted the President’s Address, and still another resolution was adopted asking the General Council to print and circulate a report of the proceedings. The question was then raised whether the charges against Mr. Judge should be included in the printed report. On this Mr. Burrows moved and Mr. Sturdy seconded a resolution that “if the Proceedings were printed at all the charges should be included.” However, when the assembled delegates came to see the full iniquity of officially spreading broadcast a series of charges after having denied the accused the opportunity of meeting and rebutting them, this motion was too much for even the most prejudiced to be responsible for. The report says: “On being put to the vote the resolution was not carried.” Once more, the report carefully abstains from mentioning who voted for and who voted against this infamous resolution. After this, the report states, “The Minutes having been read and confirmed the Committee dissolved.”
It will be noted that every resolution adopted by the General Council in its session of July 7, and all the proceedings of the session of the Judicial Committee on the 10th were in full accord with the remarks of the President-Founder in his Addresses to the two bodies. Of equal interest is the fact that, in the entire proceedings, both of the General Council meeting and those of the Judicial Committee, Mr. Judge and those representing him took an entirely passive part. Having in his formal letters addressed to the two bodies, raised the necessary legal questions, and avowed his readiness to meet directly any trial of the real issues at stake, Mr. Judge remained silent throughout, leaving it to his accusers to take what steps they would.
