Discerning Judges Protect Minority Rights

A FAMOUS judge of deep discernment once said: “The law knows no finer hour than when it cuts through formal concepts and transitory emotions to protect unpopular citizens against discrimination.”*

A fine example of this impartial justice occurred recently at the city of Tacoma in the state of Washington, U.S.A.

It was there that a minority religious group decided to erect a building for the worship of God. This was to be in Pierce County, eight miles (13 kilometers) from Tacoma. The structure would seat 1,800 people for combined religious meetings of several congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Nine acres (3.6 hectares) of land had been obtained in this sparsely settled area where zoning ordinances permitted a “church,” or place of worship, to be built.

Carefully prepared plans and documents, even surpassing technical requirements, were filed. Every cooperation was given the officials. The Health Department gave approval. With slight modifications, the Engineering Department gave approval. And, with the decision that the assembly hall would have “no significant adverse effect on the environment,’’ the Environmental Review Committee gave approval. Everything seemed favorable.

Unlawful Restriction Imposed

In January 1976 Chief Building Inspector Bill P. Horn was asked for a building permit. At this point the favorable atmosphere was shattered. The permit was refused! Mr. Horn agreed that a “church” had a right to build on the site, but Jehovah’s Witnesses could not erect an assembly hall there! Why not? His letter cited these two factors: “Your proposed assembly hall intends to attract persons from outside this county in addition to its very large capacity.” The County Planning Department also said that the assembly hall “is in no way a normal church,” which must be “a place of religious gathering for local residents to worship.”

But that was not what the County Zoning Code said. It simply stated: “‘Church’ means an establishment the principal purpose of which is religious worship.” Surely, freedom of worship cannot be confined to local people! Were the officials adding unlawful restrictions to block construction of this particular building? If so, how could a minority protect its lawful rights?

Attorneys advised that legal action was the only recourse. Proceedings were instituted on February 4, 1976, for a mandamus or court order commanding the permit to be issued. Extensive legal briefs and a study of the larger capacity of other churches in the area were presented.

On April 13, 1976, the case came up for argument before Judge Hardyn B. Soule of the Superior Court of Pierce County. Judge Soule, rapidly discerning minority rights, gave his decision:

“The Pierce County Zoning Code under Section 9.06.150 defines a church as follows:

“‘Church. “Church” means an establishment the principal purpose of which is religious worship . . .’

“The parties have stipulated that the services to be held at the proposed assembly hall are wholly for the worship of Almighty God; that the basic textbook for these meetings is the Holy Bible and that preaching, bible reading and instruction form the entire content of the program. . . .

“The building permit was refused on the ground that the proposed building is not a church in the normal sense because it has no resident congregation and because it intends to draw people from considerable distances. . . .

“Unfortunately for the defendants [i.e., Pierce County and its Building Inspector], we need look no further than the definition of the Code itself as above set forth. That definition does not require a local resident congregation. It has no restrictions as to size. . . . It places no restriction on the area from which the attenders may be drawn. The only requirement is that the principal purpose be for religious worship . . .

“It appears to me that under the stipulated facts the proposed building is clearly within the ordinance and there is no ambiguity. . . . Therefore, the Writ of Mandamus will issue.”

Thus Judge Soule faithfully upheld the law, and unlawful restriction was routed.

Persistent Refusal

Still the permit was refused​—in persistent defiance of the court order! The applicants’ respect for Judge Soule’s decision required them to pursue the only legal remedy.

The newspaper The Daily Olympian, May 14, 1976, reported the next move, saying:

“Contempt Charges Filed

“Jehovah’s Witnesses, who are proposing to build an Assembly Hall in Puyallup, have filed contempt of court charges against Pierce County and the Pierce County Building Department.”

On May 27, 1976, the contempt charge came before Judge Soule. Since the defendants obviously were in contempt, they tried to change position by filing an appeal to the state Court of Appeals. Then they asked Judge Soule for a “stay,” that is, permission to delay the building permit till after a ruling on their appeal. This would take at least a year.

Judge Soule, discerning the tactics of evasion, refused the stay. Instead, he protected the rights of this minority by giving the county and its inspector a limit of five business days to issue the permit, warning, “or they shall be punished for contempt of this court.”

This order was made at 10 a.m. Shortly after noon the county attorney, in cooperation with an attorney for some antagonistic neighbors, came before Judge James V. Ramsdell, another judge of the same court. Without notifying counsel for Jehovah’s Witnesses, and without disclosing Judge Soule’s morning order, the two attorneys obtained from Judge Ramsdell an order directing the county not to issue the permit for the assembly hall. In consequence, two directly contrary orders issued out of the same court, on the same subject, on the same day!

How did Judge Ramsdell learn of this astonishing situation? The Tacoma News Tribune carried these headings the next day, both in the very same issue. One read “County Must Give Witnesses Permit,” whereas the other read “Judge Bars Permit for Witnesses’ Hall.”

On June 1, his next day in court, Judge Ramsdell personally called the two attorneys before him and this time invited counsel for Jehovah’s Witnesses to be present. Then he took forthright corrective action and vacated the order he had been led to make.

Some days later, on June 11, 1976, the county, persisting in its obstruction, asked the Court of Appeals for the stay order denied it by Judge Soule. Opposing the request, Jehovah’s Witnesses contended that the county’s appeal was frivolous, without merit and solely for the purpose of unlawful delay. The discerning judges again protected minority rights by refusing to grant the stay.

Would the permit now be issued? It still took hours of argument and reminder of further immediate contempt proceedings to obtain the permit from the reluctant officials on June 14, 1976.

Building Under Clouds

With their long-delayed permit in hand, Jehovah’s Witnesses joyfully went onto the construction site and immediately began to lay the foundation of the hall. In full faith, they proceeded to build, notwithstanding the legal clouds still on the horizon, which could have prevented the building from ever being completed.

The county’s appeal from the mandamus still was pending. Additionally, the neighbors appealed from the favorable decision of the Environmental Review Committee to the Board of County Commissioners, hoping to stop the building of the hall pursuant to the Environmental Protection Act. The commissioners were asked to order Jehovah’s Witnesses to provide an Environmental Impact Statement. This could take a year and could cost $10,000. The proposal was another useless delaying tactic. Why useless? Because, obviously, a church, used only on weekends, would have no significant impact on the environment.

The appeal to the three-man Board of County Commissioners was heard on July 20 and 27, 1976. Opposers claimed that the building would cause problems of traffic, parking and drainage. Their arguments were personal opinions, without facts to support them. On behalf of the assembly hall, an engineer, Mr. Louis Cantor, showed it was a “low-profile project” that did not require an impact statement. Mr. Cantor added: “Using an analogy, we have observed an elephant walk across a plank and have measured the deflection of the beam: From this we have concluded that a pussycat may safely walk the same plank.” Environmentally speaking, the hall was the “pussycat.”

In spite of the very clear evidence against the necessity of an impact statement, a majority​—two of the three commissioners—​ordered it because this was what “the residents of that area wanted.” The dissenting commissioner, Mr. Clay Huntingdon, alone referred to the evidence and said: “I see no evidence that would require this Environmental Impact Statement.”

The adverse order of the commissioners was good for only one day. On July 29, at 9:15 a.m., attorneys for Jehovah’s Witnesses appeared before Judge Ramsdell, requesting a writ of review to challenge the commissioners’ decision. As he signed the documents, the judge said: “I read about their decision in the paper. I thought I’d be seeing you.” The writ directed the commissioners to bring before the court for review the entire record of the hearing that took place before them. In the meantime, they were prohibited from interfering with construction.

This legal delay meant another three months of construction time. With determination and enthusiasm, volunteer workers moved ahead with the building, in full faith that justice would be done and that they would be able to complete it.

On September 9, 1976, the county appeal to the Court of Appeals came before Judge Vernon R. Pearson of the Court of Appeals on a settlement conference. This discerning judge made it clear to the county that its appeal was frivolous, without merit, and that there was no hope of success. The county wisely withdrew its appeal, without its ever having been briefed or argued.

Only one legal proceeding remained: The writ of review of the commissioners’ decision.

Back to Court

When the date for argument of the writ arrived, October 29, the hall was 70 percent built. Its walls were up, the roof was on, the floor had been laid, and much of the landscaping had been done. That morning, reporters, television cameramen and interested spectators swarmed into the court section of the County-City Building at Tacoma. It was the last act in this protracted legal drama. On the bulletin board there appeared an announcement listing the case as “Jehovah vs. Pierce Co.”

Those words may have been more accurate than many individuals realized.

Rapidly, the courtroom filled with spectators, mostly Jehovah’s Witnesses deeply concerned about their hall. Then, the hour arrived. Judge Waldo F. Stone took his seat. Silence prevailed. The clerk called the case. Proceedings commenced. Tension grew. The issue was vital. Many individuals present knew that the building already was up. Questions raced through their minds: Was construction going to be stopped? Would the building be torn down? Might all their work and effort end in this courtroom? Eagerly, they hung on every word.

Argument to Judge Stone was opened by Glen How, Queen’s Counsel, of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. He urged the court to reverse the majority decision of the County Commissioners as being arbitrary, unfair and not supported by the evidence.

Attorneys for the county and the neighbors made short and ineffective opposing arguments. Finally, associate counsel for the assembly hall, Thomas Fishburne of Tacoma, spoke in rebuttal. Then came a hushed moment as Judge Stone prepared to deliver judgment. Anxious ears strained to catch every word.

Judge Stone first complimented counsel for “excellent briefing, excellent homework, excellent presentation of the case to the judge” making the decision “a little less difficult.” The judge then continued: “I would also like to compliment the many people in the back of the courtroom [mostly Jehovah’s Witnesses] for recognizing that this is a court of law and treating it as a court of law.”

At the key point of his decision, Judge Stone said:

“It is the conclusion of the Court in looking at the entire picture here that the County Commissioners misconceived their function under the particular law with which we are dealing here. I think that their decision was based on what they felt was desirable . . . The Court will find that the decision of the commissioners was not for an environmental purpose and that it was not a proper function or application of the particular environmental laws here to require the Environmental Impact statement.

“. . . this is a low-profile project, and the ordering of the Environmental Impact statement was a misconception of the proper function of this law . . . Obviously, the Court will decline to allow an injunction to stop the building.”

Judge Stone’s written conclusion described the decision of the Board of County Commissioners as “arbitrary and capricious action and therefore void.” Here again a discerning judge was protecting minority rights.

By this time the public had become very interested in this struggle for freedom of worship. Television news coverage enabled the people to see and hear Judge Stone delivering his important favorable decision making it unnecessary for the Witnesses to provide an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The headline in the Tacoma News Tribune said it all​—“Jehovah’s Witnesses Win Court Decision on EIS.”

Happy Completion!

With the conflict over, dedicated witnesses of Jehovah moved to complete their building with a grand feeling of happiness and unity. Reporters from the Tacoma News Tribune came to the hall to take pictures. They marveled at both the activity and the results, and were most impressed to find that every bit of labor was volunteered. One remarked that it was hard to believe that in this day and age there still were people who would devote their time to a project of this kind.

A neighbor who had been quite antagonistic came several times to visit and have coffee with the workers on the building. He apologized for having opposed the building of the hall. Especially did he appreciate being received in such a kindly manner, and he was pleased to note that no one bore any animosity. This former opposer was glad to obtain a Bible from a ninety-year-old worker on the site.

A naval man at Bremerton was anxious to see this building being erected by volunteers. With two friends, he came to visit one Saturday. After a tour of the site, the three visitors joined in and worked hard all afternoon. One remarked that he had never seen people work together with such cooperation. After his next tour at sea, he returned to the hall, to work two more days and enjoy the friendly atmosphere.

In all, more than 2,500 persons contributed time and labor in building the assembly hall. One holiday there were 500 workers on the job.

Reflections

This drawn-out legal battle with a result favorable to civil liberty and equal rights is an unusual example of the “finer hour” of the law as it acts “to protect unpopular citizens against discrimination.”

Seven different judges demonstrated their concern for justice by their nine different rulings protecting minority rights. In all, this was a sterling example of discernment and consistency in law enforcement.

Jehovah’s Witnesses very much appreciate men of integrity on the bench who devote their lives to the pursuit of justice. Especially, however, do the Witnesses appreciate this guarantee of their God Jehovah: “Any weapon whatever that will be formed against you will have no success.”​—Isa. 54:17.

Jehovah’s Witnesses in western Washington State are happy to invite all interested persons to their beautiful assembly hall in its quiet, wooded setting. At the dedication held on April 23, 1977, they were delighted to welcome 1,977 people from the Puget Sound area to share their joy. This center of true worship remains open to visitors as a place of loving cooperation and Christian fellowship.

[Footnotes]

[Blurb on page 7]

“Two directly contrary orders issued out of the same court, on the same subject, on the same day!”

[Blurb on page 8]

“Volunteer workers moved ahead with the building, in full faith that justice would be done and that they would be able to complete it.”

[Blurb on page 10]

“Seven different judges demonstrated their concern for justice by their nine different rulings protecting minority rights.”