The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-07-14

ing the report Of Supreme Chancellor Og-
den H. Fethers and the board OF control
TO the special convention CT the Supreme
Lodge just held in this city. Mr.. Hinsey
says:
For the benefit of those OF my friends
who do not know the situation l want to
say that there is great deal OF animus on
the part OF Fethers and his followers back
Of all this proceeding. The cause for this
bitter feeling on his part consists of my
refusal 10 support him in 1896, and again
in 1895. for supreme vice chancellor He
succeeded in being elected in the 1898 con-
vention held al Indianapolis, and after the
contest was over, threatened 10 drive me
out of the order. L again refused to sup
port him for supreme chancellor at the
Supreme Lodge session held at Detroit in
1890. This action or mine seemingly added
to his emnity 10 me. Being supreme chan
cellor he was exofficio a member of the
board of control and l was .presi-
the Detroit convention. They claim
that l voluntarily resigned-that is
not true; they made IL impossible for me 10
continue as president having long previous
ly contended that the president of the
board ought TO devote his entire time 10
the business Of the rank. and be paid
Taking advantage of this expression of
mine. resolution was offered to that effect,
and TO be consistent. had TO vote for it
the resolution passed and or course L re-
signed, because the Endowment Rank could
not pay a salary which | could afford TO ac-
cept. These are, the exact circumstances
/ resigned as president / also desired to re-
sign as a member of the board. but my re-
quest was vigorously opposed by the whole
board and i concluded 10 continue as a
member of the board. l did not receive the
copy TO which | have alluded until 10
clock on the morning of the convention
and knew nothing of its contents. 1t is a
very vOluminous document and contains a
great many subjects. L desire 10 make
some statements regarding the items which
allude TO
LAS to that portion of their report re-
ferring to overdrafts amounting to SIS, 900:
This overdraft became necessary because of
the failure of the City National Bank at
Fort Worth, the depository of the rank
Lodge law. At the time of the failure OF
that bank. the rank had about $4,000 on
deposit with It. There was from $4,000
to $4,000 of warrants afioat that had been
sent out to benefciaries a day or two pre-
vious 10 the closing of the bank in payment
of death claims. To prevent protest of
these warrants on the part of the receiver
at the bank il was necessary that we at
once provide for that amount of money.
The arrangement was made with the First
National Bank of Chicago by depositing
with il cola ateraiS. At the next meeting
of the board of control il was determined
to treat the $4,000 of collaterals deposited
as cash and deduct them from our assets
in preference to advertising overdraft.
This action was confirmed by the then
board of control. The overdraft was re-
duced from time to time and the collateral
redeemed
"The method adopted by the board. of
having the secretary of the bOad debit all
warrants down. while the bank was not
permitted to debit our deposits except as
CONTINUED ON PAGE I. COL. p