Newark leader. ([Newark, Ohio]) 1917-1946, 1924-06-13

and men whom | hired were doing the
same kind of apologetic work.
In 1920 Anderson in public print
refused the offer of an advance in
salary beyond $4,000 in order to be
fair "to the little churches and sacri-
ficing mothers" who contributed, but
since his later acceptance of the $15,-
900 in 1921 was unpublished, and was
paid to him at first as salary, as the
books show, and later as additional
compensation so that it might not be
classified as salary (perhaps the Ma
tional Executive Committee would
not approve of the "salary") it was
only elemental fairness that l should
make clear my relation to what had
been put over. | protest against the
spread of false, statements about his
salary.
The duties in the league organiza-
tion were divided in such a wav that
it was by business to approve for pay
ment the expense accounts of the en-
ployes. | handled all those except
those of Anderson and Phillips, but
knew what work Phillips did, and
that $50 or $40 would be a reason
able expense.
Learning that about $4,000 had
been entered at one clip on the books
as expenses incurred by Phillips for
league work, | was prepared to de-
fend the league against any such ex-
travagance, both then and in the fu-
ture, although / was no longer an Of
ficial. The court and the books show
ed that | was on the right track. The
false entry had subjected the league
to the charge of extravaganza and
had to my mind deceived the revenue
department of the government. |
protest against religious bodies
whitewashing that conduct.
Anyone who worked with Anderson
ran the risk, subsequently,, of his
inuendo in matters of utmost conf
dence, except the payees of the pub
licity fund, whose letters he destroy
proceed to exalt him unrepentant he
would be merciless in an effort to
annihilate all those who do not think
him martyr and who dare to say SO.
Anderson has unusual power of
mind and exceptional ability to act
and keep things in motion in his di-
rection. This is derived from an un-
breakable will and a stubborn convic-
ton of right, and specially of his
right to lead; it is an ego. At times
it is repulsive; at other times it is SO
captivating that it is worshipped, and
there are little Andersons all over the
United States enlisted in the dry cru
sade and other reforms.
There are times when he impress
ed me as an earnest man of prayer,
and other times when he acted like
bully.
Because of such magnificent pow
ers some enthusiastic dry advocates
are kidding themselves along and
pampering him as the victim of wet
political manipulation. In the zeal
for a good cause the blindness that
may attack us is disregard for the
moral content of the means employ
ed
Anderson's wound is self-inflicted.
In all that counts for sweet revenge
of an enemy, whether his convictions
were procured by the dry or wet con-
tingent, Anderson is suffering some
what like martyr might suffer when
he notes the exultation of the enemy.
but apart from any satisfaction that
the vets are getting, he is no more
martyr than some one else who has
not done so much good but is guilty
of the same unethical deeds he did.
Once there was man who was
great and good, who fought real bat
ties and played the political game,
and wrote instructively. Yet he fail
ed at one point to measure up to the
ethical standard. David went wrong,
he was technically beyond the pale
of the law, but he was wrong. He
was challenged in the matter of his
i'll practise. Had he insisted that he
was clear of the grip of civil law, the
king can do no wrong, and blatantlv
maintained his innocense, we would
not be singing his psalms so Justify or
laud him as ga man after Gods own
heart" But he acknowledged he did
wrong and asked God to forgive him.