Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1869-12-15
RELIGIOUS swINDLING.u

The "Methodist Book Concern" is
huge commercial enterprise, run by the
''pIety" Of that sectaran body. IRE.
mendous swindles have been discov.
cred In It's management. This need
not be the fault of the sect of Method.
lists, rs the best of causes may be
betrayed But the public roguery
comes In in the endeavor to prove
that swindllng is all right when done
by Methodist parsons. Our clever
contemporary, the New York Ledger
says of this
RELIGIOUS wHITEwAsH.
The business of the Methodist Book
Concern, generally speaking, should
not concern anybody but the individ-
uals directly interested in its manage.
ment and the members OF the organi-
zation of which it is an adjunct. But
the recent discovery of"irreguarities,
whereby that persuasion is said TO have
lost extensively, and the report Of the
committee which was appointed to
investigate the matter, render the
affairs of the Book Concern amenable
to public Judgment and journalistic
criticism. This report imputes "great
mismanagement" TO one department,
and finds that "serious losses" have
occurred therein, but declares, never
theless, that the general management
Of the business of the Book Concern
in all matters involving its credit or
integrity is such as to command the
confidence of the public" In other
words, the committee tacitly acknowl-
edge that there is culprit, or culprits,
in the case, but they are willing TO
overlook his or their pecuations in
order TO shield the Book Concern
from the obloquy which full expo
sition Of the facts would inevitably
attach TO il.
This is the thinnest kind ofreligious
whitewash. This Book Concern as
il is called, is one Of the clements of a
great and powerful ecclesiastical or
ganization. Some Of its managers
were detected swindIing the concern,
whereupon a committee makes inves.
legations finds "gross mismanage-
ment," and "serious losses" but
shields the criminal instead of bring
ing bIm to justice There could not
be "serious losses" without some per.
son being responsible for them. Why
d;J ,ot Tho ,o,,, .,,tft 40 Gao rlaoai,, d,s
charge its duty, and bring the real
offender to justice! Is he shielded
because the denomination whose con-
fdence he has betrayed fears criticism
upon the offences of its individual
members ? What other motive can
exist for whitewasbing the unfaithful
servants who have betrayed their
trust and disgraced the church TO
which they belongedY The moral
principle involved in all this was ig.
nored by the committee. Here was
an opportunity for q powerful and
influential religious body TO inculcate
lesson in the public that would not
soon be forgotten. No denomination
would sooner decry similar trans
action in a secular corporation than
the Methodists, or call more loudly
through papers and from pulpits for
the punishment of the offender; but
the report of this committee prove
how much more that sect thinks Of
preserving the semblance of IFS own
purity intact, than it does of furnishing
It's own servants who joopardize not
only that party, but the great code
of morals itself
Out upon such hypocrisy The
Nav worms who used to bring the
guilty TO justice, deserve to have the
enduring finger of scorn pointed at
them while they live. Hereafter
Methodist whitewash and Nav worm
sympathy will be synonymous terms