The Methodist Book Concern.
By John Nevins Andrews
DR. LANAHAN, the assistant agent of the Methodist Book Concern, believing that he had discovered fraud and mismanagement in the affairs of that establishment, made his discoveries public and called for some action on the part of the authorities of the church. A partial investigation was undertaken by a committee, which presented a report that satisfied nobody. Further inquiries were then proposed, and Dr. Lanahan undertook the collection of evidence to substantiate his charges. In the course of these proceedings the personal relations between the assistant agent and his immediate superior had naturally become unpleasant. Dr. Lanahan was opposed at every step of his researches. He was denied access to the books, and driven to apply to the courts for a mandamus to compel the exhibition of accounts which it is natural to suppose the concern ought to have been anxious to show in its own vindication. Hereupon the book committee, without ascertaining what foundation there was for Dr. Lanahan’s charges, put him on trial for making them. He has been found guilty and recommended to the bishops for removal from office. The result of their action is obvious. No employe of the book concern who discovers anything wrong hereafter will tell of it if he values his place. The cardinal rule of business in that establishment is to keep things quiet, and the worst offense that an agent or assistant agent can commit is to let any scandal get out. It seems to be the determination of the majority of the committee that there shall be no genuine examination of the real question at issue, lest the result prove “detrimental to the concern.” There is a large body of laymen interested in the welfare of this great Methodist institution, and to them it appears that the concern is suffering detriment not half so much from the charges of Dr. Lanahan as from the attempt of the committee to smother the charges, instead of looking into them.—N. Y. Tribune, June 21. REMARKS. No one can doubt that there is something in the “Book Concern” which will not bear the light. Instead of either proving that Dr. L.’s charges of wrongs in the business of that institution were unfounded, or if well-founded, proceeding to correct them, the book committee stifle the investigation and twice bring Dr. L. to trial for creating this scandal to the detriment of the church. Though Dr. L. was virtually acquitted on the first trial, some time since, by the withdrawal of the case by those who brought the charges, this time he has been condemned by the committee, and only saved from removal from office by the veto of Bishop Ames. We hope the facts will come out as they are. J. N. A.