S. ARMY CRISIS

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XIX, Issue 30, 22 January 1929, Page 7

S. ARMY CRISIS

APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION PROBABLE ADJOURNMENT TO FRIDAY. LEADERS SHOW NO DISPOSITION FOR A COMPROMISE. [United Proas Association—By CableCopyright.) [“Times” Cable.] London, Jan. 20. General Booth’s application for an injunction wall probably be adjourned until January 25 at the request of the High Council. The Salvation Army leaders do not show a disposition for a compromise. The adjournment enables the preparation of a reply by the Council, seven of whose conveners, in addition to Commissioner Higgins, received writs of consonance.

The injunction application allegely conflicts with assurances that, because they conflicted with both the spirit and the letter of the Salvation Army regulations, legal proceedings would not be taken. The Council is unlikely to sit officially this week, though the territori'ii commanders may confer. Commissioner Friedrich is ill at Suubury Court and cannot attend. COMMISSIONER HIGGINS IN MOTOR ACCIDENT. [British Official Wireless.! Rugby, Jan. 19. Commissioner Higgins, Chief of Staff, who has been appointed to control the Salvation Army during the transition period, narrowly escaped injury in a motor accident on Friday, his car coming into collision with a heavily laden lorry. “ARMY’S CHEST.” GENERAL BOOTH’S “FREE HAND.” Now that the crisis in the affairs of the Salvation Army has resulted in the deposition of the “General,” it is interesting to find that one of the eminent minds of the 19th century foresaw the danger of the autocratic power.

Writing nearly 40 years ago, Professor Thomas Henry Huxley said; “The fact remains that an unscrupulous 'Genera? will have a pretty free hand, notwithstanding ‘some hindrance.’ ” General Booth is now the sole trustee of property in England, France and Australia, valued at about £1,800,000, and there is some possibility that he will, refuse to divest himself voluntarily of this trust.

Huxley, in his book “Evolution and Ethics,” reproduces letters he wrote to “The Times” in 1890 and 1891, and comments in the introduction on the finding of a committee set up to report on the manner in which moneys subscribed in response to the appeal of the book, “In Darkest England, and the Way Out,” has been expended. The committee’s conclusion was;—

“That whilst the invested property, real and personal, resulting from the appeal, is so vested and controlled by the trust of the deed of January 30, 1891, than any application of it to purposes other than those declared in the deed by any ‘general’ would amount to a breach of trust, and would subject him to proceedings of a civil and criminal character, adequate legal safeguards do not at present exist to prevent the misapplication of such property.” “A better justification for what I have said about the want of adequate security for the proper administration of the funds entrusted to Mr. Booth could not be desired,” comments Huxley, “unless it be that which is found in the following passage from the report; ‘lt is possible that a general may be forgetful of hsi duty, and sell property and appropriate the proceeds to Ins own use or to meeting the general liabilities of the Salvation Army. As matters stand, he, and he alone, would have control over such a sale. Against such possibilities it appears to be reasonable that some check should bo imposed.’ ” Summing up, the professor says: “Even if their report had been far more favourable to tho ‘Darkest England’ scheme than it is; if it had really assured the contributors that the funds raised were fully secured against madversation; on social and political grounds to Mr. Booth’s despotic organisation, with its thousands of docile satellites pledged to blind obedience, would be in no degree weakened.” Later the professor gives the opinion of “an. eminent Chancery Quqen’s Counsel” on Mr. Booth’s declaration of trust deed. The opinion, briefly, was that “nothing can be done to control or s interfere with Booth in the disposition or application of the properties or moneys purported to be affected by the deed.” The properties invested in Booth himself were placed absolutely under his power and control as to the disposal and application thereof. The correspondence ends on this note: “Where is the presumably amended trust deed of 1888? I ask once more, will Mr. Booth submit to competent and impartial legal scrutiny the arrangements by which lie and his successors are prevented from dealing with the funds cf the so-called ‘Army Chest’ exactly as lie or they may please?” Evidently the General did not consider it necessary. — Christchurch “Sun.”