The Appeal. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. ;) 1889-19??, 1905-12-30
What member of the trustee


@Mr. Andrew Bell, who acted as
chairman OF the board, Mr. 4. II. Nor:
gan, the Secretary, andMr G.. 3. Lowe,
the Treasurer. A trustee board meet
ing had been called and these gentle
men had been empowered and order
ed to give the contractor the church's
note for the balance due which was.
$3.50 approximately
did they not do this o.
No, they did not. Mr.. Morgan
drew up the note, and he and Mr.. Bell
signed it. Mr.. Bell, as acting chair
man should have taken the note to
Mr.. Lowe, as Treasurer, and have had
him sign it, and then returned it, to
the contractor, but this Mr.. Bell did
not do. He left Mr. Morgan to attend,
to getting Mr.. Loves signature. This
Mr.. Morgan failed to do. When the
contractor came for the note Mr.. Nor
gan having failed to get Mr.. Loves
him to Mr. Lowe. The contractor
took the note to Mr.. Loyts. as Treas
urer of the church, involving none OF
his private interests whatever, for
neither of these gentlemen were re-
sponsible further than that they acted
las trustees of the church. Mr.. Lowe,
however, allowed his private affairs
and his church duties to run together,
so he informed the contracto that he
did not care to sign the note until the
banks had closed, as he had a private,
deal in the bank. At this the con-
tractor became alarmed, and put lien
on the property"
Well, Mr.. Seymour, that is bad
thing, for liens are costly. That lien
before you get rid of it will cost your
people $500, will it not?"
81 suppose it will"
There is, a lawsuit out there too,
is there not?'
No, there was suit of mandamus
brought against the trustees, by two
smart alexis who have, more zeal
than brain, Since they are so fond
of seeing themselves and iaeir people
in court, it is surprising they did not
swear out bench warrant, and bring
the whole church into court, instead
of mandamus against the trustees,
but those who live the longest may
see the most
why was the mandamus suit
brought?'
'On account of the fact that the
trustees did not know their duty. The
Conference met here in September,
and the expense was approximately
$500. These gentlemen who had been
handling all of the church's money.
did not know that the Conference
placed the whole responsibility of car
ing for the same in the hands of the
| pastor, and that he was held resTonsi-
bic for all arrangements and that he
was expected to see that all debts
were paid. This did and brought TO
the Conference an itemized bill show
Ing the expense and they appropTi-
, ated $217. The balance of the money
| was collected>sin our city and the bills
all paid and a report given to the con-
ference of the same. The failure on
the part of these gentlemen to handle
this money seems to be the source of
| this trouble"
Then, Mr.. Seymour, you do not
doubt the veracity of these gentlemen
SO much as their carelessness?"
That is it, and allowing their priv
ate accounts getting mixed up with
| the church affairs For instance. T
ai'.o NIL fsiVl6du d1u NIL. OCrOnS or
der me some wood and coal amount
| ing to S17.SS, for which paid them.
taking their receipt therefor. j Now
! the Jones & Adams Co. presents a
|-b1ll for s5475 to- the church to be paid
and the $17.SS is included in the
church's bill to be paid again, which is
a mark OF gross carelessness in book
keeping to say the least"
Audi alteram partem.'' (Hear the
| other side).