Actually, check out the article "Why Salter Lost His Job" by C. J. Woodworth in that issue (pp. 498-504). It is "impartial" in the sense that it is an official Watchtower publication, and it unintentionally drops two big bombs about Rutherford. First of all, he alleges that Walter Salter, the Canadian branch servant, was himself a womanizer with his stenographer -- echoing what is later alleged about Rutherford. He alluded at least five times to an improper relationship between Salter (a married man) and his "ladifren":
"....the purchase of a fur coat for his ladifren with a portion of those funds..."
"Sometimes he spent the afternoons dictating personal letters to his ladifren stenographer."
"At the hearing, the ladifren stenographer was so seated in the room that, as she read the letters, there was no way in which Salter could give her the wink."
"Before being dismissed he did not engage in the service work to any extent, except when out with his ladifren at week ends."
"His own good wife, not his ladifren, said that if she were to listen to him she would not be in the truth any time at all."
Note that while Woodworth here is sarcastically critical about Salter after the fact, it is clear that (as far as Woodworth was concerned) Salter had his relationship with his "ladifren" for quite some time and kept his lofty position....only after Salter "turned apostate" and wrote his letter did his inappropriate relationship suddenly become a matter for villification. Does that mean that there was a permissive attitude towards this sort of thing at the top, which was overlooked as long as the person was doing the Lord's work in the organization? If so, how does that reflect on Rutherford? It is worth recalling a striking series of articles in 1929 in which Rutherford took a rather lenient view towards adultery and other "weakensses of the flesh". In the 15 March 1929 Watchtower, he wrote that such sinners are "powerless to resist" their fleshly weaknesses and "have no desire to oppose or misrepresent God ... their hearts are not wicked. It often happens that such people are credited with being the best-hearted people in the community" and "God pities the sinners and makes allowances for their weakness" (pp. 93-95). Here he clearly distinguishes those who give in to fleshly weaknesses and those who oppose the Lord's work. Salter's weaknesses could be forgiven as long as he did not oppose the organization; once he did, he would be villified as having an evil heart. The 1 September 1929 Watchtower contains another article which says that "yielding to the inherited or acquired weaknesses of the flesh is not the sin unto death, and yet the Devil has led everybody to believe that lying, stealing, swearing, committing adultery, getting drunk or losing one's temper, or any other of the long list of fleshly weaknesses, constitutes sin unto death. But on the contrary, all these things are forgivable. This explains why David could be a man after God's own heart. His heart was loyal, but his flesh was weak" (p. 271). The similarity between this list of weaknesses and what is alleged of Rutherford is altogether striking.
Second, Woodworth in "Why Salter Lost His Job" tacitly admits one of the main allegations that Salter made in his letter -- that Rutherford had a serious drinking problem. He did not question the factualness of Salter's statements but rather justified Rutherford's liquor consumption:
"It is nothing new that Jesus and His followers are accused of being winebibbers. Did that charge affect in any way Jesus' standing with His heavenly Father? Not an iota. Why did Jesus use it? He was under great nervous strain. It provided a perfect nutrient, immediately assimilable. A chiropractor, once treating Judge Rutherford and the writer at the same time, said to the judge, as he saw his back suffering from ankylosis (six vertebrae fused together by pneumonia), 'You are a miracle of God's grace.' At the same time he said to the writer, 'He is bearing a burden that would utterly crush you.' Read that paragraph twice, and make the most of it, all you hypocrites that wish to remain hypocrites to the end. You will get your wish, and your reward."
This is a direct response to Salter's allegations about Rutherford's alcoholism (so it is best to read Salter's letter first to see what he is replying to). It is significant that the author (C. J. Woodworth), who is strident in his polemic and who would not hesitate to accuse Salter of lying, concedes Salter's claims but justifies Rutherford's use of alcohol by (1) comparing Rutherford to Jesus, and (2) giving a medical reason for the alcohol use. He calls Salter a hypocrite not for making up facts about Rutherford's drinking but for finding fault with it. Because Woodworth was a hostile witness, what he tacitly admits is quite credible. Woodworth indicates that Rutherford was self-medicating for pain (as he was suffering "under great nervous strain") and it appears that alcohol was prescribed by his chiropractor Alta Eckols to treat his condition. Woodworth's statements suggest that Rutherford believed that the amount of alcohol he drank was not immoderate given his serious physical condition. Perhaps it would be immoderate for the average person who did not suffer with the pain that Rutherford suffered, but Rutherford apparently felt that his condition justified the amount of alcohol he drank in order to treat it.
