Daily Kennebec journal., 1919-04-30

Adam H. Dickey, Edward A. Merritt
and William r. Rathvon in voting,
as a majority Of the board Of direc-
tors of the First Church of Christ.
Scientist, to dismiss John v. Dit
temore from membership in the
board, acted in the hope Of making
a collusive and unrighteous settle
ment" with the trustees of the Chris
tian Science Publishing Society
concerning the evil conditions which
had grown up in the publishing So
ciety" are contained in a bill" in
equity filed by Mr.. Dittemore in the
supreme court today. He petitions
the court to declare the vote Of dis.
missal illegal and void.
James A. Neal, another member Of
the board. and Mrs. Annie NJ. Knott.
who was named to succeed Ditte-
more, also are made defendants in
the suit to have the board restrained
from interfering with the plaintiff
in the exercise of his functions and
rights as a member" Of the board.
The bill of complaint refers to the
vote on March II last by Dickey. Mer-
ritt and Rathvon as a majority Of
the board, to remove Lamont Row.
lands from the board Of trustees Of
the publishing society and to the
subsequent bill in equity filed in the
supreme court by Rowiands and the
other trustees. Herbert W. Eustace
and David B. Ogden. seeking to have
the directors restrained from inter-
fering with Rowlands in the dis
charge of his duties as trustee. 1t
says that Dittemore did not partici-
pate in the vote to remove Rowlands
because he considered such action
"a mere subterfuge and an utterly
inadequate remedy for the evils aris-
ing from. the mismanagement and
misconduct" of the trustees. and that
he had long taken the position that
said evils imperatively required the
removal of all three Of said trustees
and especially of the dominating
trustee. Herbert W. Eustace."
1t was at this same meeting Of
the directors that Dittemore was dis
missed after having. as he says in
the bill. refused to resign. The bill
declares that the charges made
against the plaintiff at the meeting.
without any previous notice to him.
cid not reflect upon his character.
but were based on the fact that he
did not agree with the majority of
the board as to the action necessary
for the board to take for the pro-
lection Of the interests of the men,
bers Of the church. 1t says that he
was given no opportunity to examine
the charges or prepare a formal re-
ply to them.
The bill alleges that Dickey. Neal.
Merritt and Rathvon stood in fear Of
the trustees of the publishing society
and OF Fred'k Dixon. editor Of the
Christian Science Monitor and that
they or some of them were largely
under the influence Of Herbert W. E.s-
tace. the dominating member OF sa i
trustees. and Dixon" 1t declares that
lin thus peremptorily attempting -
dismiss without notice or hearings. the
defendant acted largely at the instan &c
of Dixon and the publishing society
trustees and that Dickey. Merritt an.
ence on the board Of directors an lin.
surmountable obstacle to the carry
ing out of the alleged plan to make a
settlement with the trustees.
The bill says that for considerable
time prior to March II there had ex.
listed a wide difference OF opinion be.
tween Dittemore and the other direc.
tors as to what action they ought to
take with reard to the publishing so.
ciety. Dittemore, it continues. was con-
vinced. and maintained at meetings of
the directors. that the trustees were
not loyal Christian Scientists. but were
undertaking to subvert and undermine
in many respects the essential doc
trines Of the science as deserved and
promulgated by Mrs. Mary Baker G.
Eddy" that they were introducing di-
vision and dissension into the Chris
tian Science movement" and that they
were guilty Of gross waste and extrav-
agance in the administration of their
trust"
Dittemore also maintained. the bill!
sets forth. that the trustees ''were SELL
ing advertising space in the Christian
Science Monitor by suppression of facts
and virtual Misrepresentation as to the
extent Of their circulation; and they
were demoralizing their agents and
employees by persistent incivility. arro-
gance, undue partiality and abuse of
their power and that it was the duty
Of the directors to resist the claims Of
the trustees that the directors had no
supervision over them, and to demand
ar audit and accounting of the business
Of the publishing society and more
adequate" editorial management of all
Christian Science periodicals.
The other directors. the bill says.
uniformly opposed the taking Of any
effective action in the premises" They
also disagreed with the plaintiff as to
the right Of the members Of the church
to definite and accurate information in
relation to the finances Of the church.
The bill declares that against the pro-
test Of Dittemore. the directors failed
to provide adequate means for handling
the requirements of the church treas
urer's Office and permitted the affairs
Of that Office to fall into such chaotic
condition that tn. treasurer's accounts
have long been seriously in arrears"
and that they have made annual finan-
cial reports to the church members
vague. inadequate and secretive:''
The defendants also against Ditte-
more's protest, the bill says. have