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

Is William H. Anderson, former
dry leader, a Martyr? No.
The convict appellant, former en-
ploye of the Anti-Saloon League,
thinks of himself as such.
A dry leader who was closely asso-
ciated with him eight and half years
and is now a pastor in Brooklyn
thinks the case CRATES harshly on the
sympathies of friends and prohibi-
tion, but is necessary challenge to
conduct even on behalf of a
good cause. Religious bodies should
consider.
So frequently have l been asked
what l think of the case of William
H. Anderson that l decided that one
who before his troubles began stood
side by side with him for over eight
and half years, for five and half
of them as Assistant State Superin-
tendent-far more years than anyone
except his official secretary-should
state his position. Neither my voice
nor my silence has ever been purchas-
ed by fear or favor.
1t is time now to say something
more than | have ever said, and, even
though the principal is in prison, to
say it nevertheless, in view Of the ac-
tivity of some enthusiastic dry advo-
Gates and religious bodies that are
following the lead of Anderson's proc
lamation from prison that he is a
martyr. They persist, and inject in
to the public mind a question to which
they professedly desire an answer, rs
Anderson a martyr"
Was it right for Anderson while al
ready engaged and paid by the league
for its work, to take part of the COM
mission or salary of O. B. Phillips, his
subordinate No.
Was it right for Anderson to
change the figures in the books of
the league so as to show that the
league paid Phillips about $4,000 for
expenses, when no such expenses ex-
listed and it was really money that
went to Anderson in the split? No.
Was it right Tor Anderson to swear
by affidavit presented to the league
directors on March 25, 1918, that he
had raised and advanced for the
league a publicity fund of $24,7OO by
loans on his property and insurance
and from some persons ("who, it they
had known what the money was for,
would not have let him have it') and
subsequently on January 25, 1924, to
swear before the court that he re-
ceived all that money as an uncondl-
tional gift from John T. King, un-
heard of before or since? No.
Was it right for him to receive in
1921 total withdrawal from the
leagues treasury of over $22, ,OOO
when the payment of the alleged pub
licity loan was contingent upon old
bills of the league being paid and fl
nances justifying it while at the time
of the withdrawals old bills remained
unpaid and the salaries of workers
were in arrears? No.
There is no court adjustment or re-
vision of judgment which can make
such transactions right. The actions
of Anderson were unethical and re-
main in the category of wrong con-
duct of business in which large
Christian constituency is interested.
When this case first came to public
attention I said all that l intended to
or that was necessary for me respect
ing the publicity given to the amount
of his salary, the commissions, the
alleged expenses of $4,000 and the
S24,7O0 bill that he was collecting.
While Anderson took fling at my
statement by his blanket assertion of
falsehood and irrelevancy, he indicat-
ed not single point in which it was
false, and could count it irrelevant
only as regards the definite indict-
ments which he himself anticipated.
1t was wholly relevant to the pub
licity circulated about the manage
ment of league affairs in several re-
spects.
For example, l said l was surprised
that he was receiving $4,000 salary.
1t had been my business, under in
structions, to defand before the pas
tors and churches of the State of New
York the good name and methods of
Anderson. Many times l had affirm
ed that he was not getting as large
a salary as was commonly reported,