The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1916-1920, 1919-04-30
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE
EX-DIRECTOR SUES
John V. Dittemorc Asks Court
to Reinstate Him as Men,
Der of Board.
HE ACCUSES TRUSTEES
Says He Doubts Their Loyalty
to Eddy Doctrines and
Demands Audit.
HE ACCUSES TRUSTEES

BOSTON, April 90. - Allegations that
Adam II. Dickey, Edward A. Merritt and
william r. Rathvon In voting as a ma
jority OF the board of directors Of the
First Church Of Christ. Scientist. to dis
miss John v. Dittemore from member
ship In the board acted "in the hope Of
making n collusive and unrignteous set
Element" with the trustees OF the Chris
tian Science Publishing Society CON
corning the conditions which had grown
up in the publishing society" are con-
tained In a bill in equity filed by Mr..
Dittemore In the Supreme Court to-day.
He petitions the court to declare the vote
Of dismissal void.
board, and Mrs. Annie M. Knott. who
was named to succeed Dlttemore, also
are made defendants in the suit to have
the board restrained from interfering
with the plaintiff Sin the exercise of his
functions and rights as a member" Of
the board.
Says Eustace Dominated.
The bill alleges that Dickey, Neal
Merritt and Rathvon stood In fear OF
the trustees OF the publishing society and
y
ftdn Science Monitor" and that they or
some of them were largely under the in
nuence Of Herbert w. Eustace. the dom
mating member OF said trustees, and
Dixon"
The bill says that for a considerable
time prior to March II there had existed
wide difference Of opinion between
Dittemore and the other directors as to
that action they ought to take with re-
gard to the publishing society. Ditto
more, It continues. was convinced. and
maintained at meetings OF the dlrec-
tors, that the trustees were not loyal
Christian Scientists" but were under
taking to subvert and undermine in
many respects the essential doctrines OF
Christian Science as discovered and
promulgated by Mrs Mary Baker G
EDDY" that they were introducing d.
vision and dissenslon into the Christian
Science movement" and that they were
guilty Of gross waste and extravaganza.
Dittemore also maintained. the bill
sets forth. that the trustees were sell
ing advertising space in the Christian
Science Monitor by a suppression OF
facts and virtual Misrepresentation as
TO the extent Of their circulation" that
they were demoralixing their agents
end employees by persistent incivility,
arrogance. undue Partially and abuse
Of power" and that It was the duty of
the directors to resist the claims Of the
trustees that tho directors had no r;per-
vision over them. and to demand all au-
dit and accounting OF the business Of
the publishing society.
Finances in "Chaotic Condition"
The other directors. the bill says.
uniformly opposed the taking OF any
an IN he -.
also disagreed with the plaintiff as
to the risht of the members Of the
church 10 definite and accurate intor-
nation In relation to the finances of the
church. The bill declares that aeai nst
the protest OF Dittemore the directors
permitted the affairs OF the church
treasurer's office TO fall into such
chaotic condition that the treasurer's
accounts have long been seriously in
arrears"
The defendants also against Ditte-
rore's protest, the bill says. have re-
peatedly refused to correct false
statement in the Christian Science
Monitor for November 10. 1918. that
most OF certain expenditures aggregat-
ing N.a75.56o had been for Christian
Science war relief work overseas,
whereas only about 80 per cent thereof
was so expended"
"If a member Of the board Of d.
rectors." the bill says. can be sum-
| marily and unjustly dismissed for exer-
cis!ng his inherent right to liberty of
conscience, such autocratic ruthless and
irresponsible personal domination. "
permitted to pass unchallenged. will
strange fr Tom OF conscience In the
| Christian Science movement. and even
tualiy bring failure to the Christian
Science cause"