It has been stated by some over the years that Mrs. Eddy created the 1898 Deed of Trust for the Christian Science Publishing Society (CSPS) as some kind of check and balance against the authority of the Christian Science Board of Directors. Such a fallacious statement is based on a misunderstanding of the history of the creation of a separate Publishing Society—and it is at times part of an attempt to portray Mrs. Eddy as not just a Christian Scientist, but also a political scientist who was deeply involved in creating a complex superstructure of church rules and regulations and even parallel Boards, all designed to eventuate in what would ostensibly be a more “spiritual” organization.
The history of the Christian Science Publishing Society starts back in 1875, when Mrs. Eddy (then Mrs. Glover) had her first edition of Science and Health published by the “Christian Science Publishing Company” (and in an earlier post I showed Daniel Spofford’s business card for that company). This was an unincorporated, loose organization of a few individuals and was short-lived. For the next decade or so Mrs. Eddy controlled the publication of Christian Science material, but at the National Christian Scientist Association (NCSA) meeting in 1889 she turned over the ownership of the The Christian Science Journal to the NCSA.This was part of an overall attempt by Mrs. Eddy to place more responsibility on Christian Scientists. The NCSA set up a "Publishing Committee" to handle the publication of the Journal.
By the mid-1890s the sale of Christian Science literature had become an increasingly important business. The responsibility for publishing Christian Science literature, and the increasing financial revenue that was flowing in, meant that this was a business enterprise that could no longer be taken for granted. (Note: Mrs. Eddy in the great majority of cases published her works outside of the CSPS at that time, but that still left the church periodicals, pamphlets, etc.) On December 7, 1896, Mrs. Eddy recommended that the "Christian Science Publishing Society" be incorporated; however various delays pushed back the actual date of incorporation to April 3, 1897. It should be noted that Mrs. Eddy did not own the stock of the corporation.
By this time, it became apparent to Mrs. Eddy that certain risks existed if she did not have ultimate control of the publishing of Christian Science literature. While she was more than willing to leave the routine business aspect of publishing to others, she wanted to be able to make the ultimate decisions on content and related issues.
The easiest solution would have been to have The Mother Church own the Christian Science Publishing Society business. In that way she could have controlled the publishing activities in the same way that she effectively had control over other church activities. This was the solution that Mrs. Eddy wanted. However there were two significant roadblocks to the approach. The first was the concern that should the Publishing Society be swallowed up by the Church the name “Christian Science Publishing Society” could be taken by others, such as those who defected from the Church in 1888 and started their own short-lived Christian Science periodical. But the more important obstacle was a legal one.
When the Church was reorganized back in 1892, it was done under Chapter 39, Section 1 of the Public Statutes of Massachusetts. Section 7 of that chapter read in part:
“The income of the grants or donations made to or for the use of any one church shall not exceed $2,000 a year exclusive of the income to any parsonage lands granted to or for the use of the ministry.”
[Note: in 1902 this section was renumbered Chapter 37, Section 9, and evidently reworded slightly as follows:
“The income of the gifts, grants, bequests and devises made to or for the use of any one church shall not exceed $2,000 a year exclusive of the income of any parsonage land granted to or for the use of the ministry.”]
The statute did not prevent gifts of over $2,000, rather it prevented gifts of businesses or other interests if they produced income in excess of $2,000 annually, excluding gifts of land to the church or "ministry."
Since the Christian Science Publishing Society was producing income in excess of that, it was not possible to give it to the Church, although the land that it was on could be given to The Mother Church.
The answer came to Mrs. Eddy to have the Publishing Society corporation dissolved and the assets sold to her. Then she could create a trust with handpicked trustees who could be trusted to work under her direction. Since the law did not require the land to be kept from the Church, which was at that time next door to the edifice of The Mother Church, she could gift that to the Church. While this was simple in concept, it was actually a very complicated transaction, but it was all accomplished in January, 1898. Not only did Mrs. Eddy sign the specific deed of trust on January 25, 1898, but she also added by-laws to the Manual that affected how the CSPS should be governed. Based on available historical documents, at NO TIME did Mrs. Eddy ever view the CSPS as a check and balance against the directors.
This issue became critical some 21 years later when the Trustees under the CSPS trust and the Directors of the Church became embroiled in a lengthy and public law suit now commonly called the “Great Litigation.” The voluminous court proceedings were subsequently published in a large compendium entitled Proceedings in Equity 1919-1921 Concerning Deed of Trust of January 25, 1898 Constituting The Christian Science Publishing Society. (Boston: The Christian Science Publishing Society, [ca. 1921].) The rare compendium is filled with important historical information, especially relating to the history of the creation of the deed of trust in 1898.
William P. McKenzie was one of the original trustees, and he wrote a letter to Mrs. Eddy on September 6, 1898 [Proceedings in Equity, 564] that related to the issue of the trust deed versus the Manual. Mrs. Eddy wanted to appoint Thomas Hatten to the Trustees (to replace Edward Bates) but the Manual required all of the First Members to approve the decision, which was not possible in the time frame required. McKenzie wrote to Mrs. Eddy on this issue and added “We feel that all concerned are governed by the Manual.” This is an important point because in the later litigation the Trustees (none of which were original to the 1898 signing) promoted a point of view that the CSPS deed was a completely self-contained document and thus they were unaffected by the Manual or any other outside writings. This is highlighted by the fact that one main argument of the Trustees was that the 1898 Deed of Trust provided for the Board of Directors AND the First Members to remove a Trustee. Since Mrs. Eddy had—subsequent to the creation of the 1898 deed—in the Manual abolished the First Members, they argued that the Board alone could not remove a Trustee, even though the Manual provision was changed by Mrs. Eddy to allow just that. The final edition of the Manual on this point reads as follows (p. 80):
Vacancies in Trusteeship. Sect. 3. The
Christian Science Board of Directors shall have
the power to declare vacancies in said trusteeship,
for such reasons as to the Board may seem ex‐
pedient.
Whenever a vacancy shall occur, the Pastor
Emeritus reserves the right to fill the same by
appointment; but if she does not elect to exer‐
cise this right, the remaining trustees shall fill
the vacancy, subject to her approval.
Thus, the Trustees’ argument was that they were bound to a literal reading of the 1898 deed, irrespective of Mrs. Eddy’s stated later intentions.
Judge Septimus Hanna in his deposition [Proceedings in Equity, p. 538] said Mrs. Eddy repeatedly spoke of the pronounced problems between the earlier Trustees (ca. 1890-1892) of the fund to build the Boston edifice and Board of the Boston church at that time, and she wanted to avoid it. “She also repeatedly referred to the necessity for protecting the literature and to this end it must be kept within the jurisdiction of the directors and the First Members of The Mother Church as far as possible. She said that everything must be kept within the jurisdiction of the directors and First Members as far as possible under the Massachusetts law. She said that as an aid to protecting the literature in the way she wished, the directors of The Mother Church and the First Members must have the power to appoint editors of the Christian Science periodicals, and that she and said directors and First Members must have such power and control over the trustees of the Publishing Society that in case they did not properly and faithfully discharge their duty their offices might be declared vacant.”
James Neal, who as one of the original trustees was also quite involved in the 1898 creation of the trust deed, gave this testimony [Proceedings in Equity, p. 666] regarding a change to the trusteeship: “She then said that she was sorry about the change that was made in the trusteeship, and then she said, ‘I am sorry that I had to put the publishing business into a trust rather than giving it directly to my Church to handle, but I have been told by my attorney that that is the only thing that can be done, because of a law in Massachusetts which limits the holding by a church of property with an income in excess of’—a certain amount, I believe it was $2,000. She then said, ‘Dear, don’t think that what I am saying about this is for any lack of confidence in my trustees, in you and dear Mr. McKenzie. It is that I am thinking of the future.”
It is often said by the dissenters that Mrs. Eddy kept the creation of the 1898 deed a secret, even from the Directors. This is meant to suggest that she did not want them to know that she had created a “check” to their power until it was an accomplished fact. This is speculation only that has no support from the historical record. The apparent source for this assertion is the following letter which she wrote to her Church (i.e., the Directors) on January 15, 1898, first telling of her selection of Edward Bates, James Neal, and William P. McKenzie as the trustees of the new trust for the Publishing Society: [Proceedings in Equity, 45-46]
“I appreciate your uniform loyalty and courtesy to mother who desires to know no partiality for one or another of her children but to earnestly consider the welfare of all. I have asked for a small Board of Trustees (to keep peace in the family) and as I believe a strong board; one is a business men [man], another a doctor, and still another a scholar.
I now recommend that these trustees continue at present Mr. Joseph Armstrong as the business manager of the Publishing House for the benefit of the Mother Church in Boston, Mass.
Please to hand an attested copy of this letter and documents to the editors of The Christian Science Journal for publication in the March number of The Christian Science Journal.”
Mrs. Eddy created her own deed of trust, dated January 15, 1898, to which the above refers, but that was supplanted with a longer, more detailed trust signed on January 25, 1898. In both versions the same trustees were to be appointed: Edward Bates, James Neal, and William P. McKenzie. In that earlier trust the Board of Directors of The Mother Church were not mentioned, and thus they had no ability to declare a vacancy on the Board of Trustees. Mrs. Eddy maintained ownership of The Chritian Science Journal and its copyrights but the property went to the Church.
To Judge Hanna she wrote on the 18th [Proceedings in Equity, 372], “For special reasons and to prevent unhappy results this transaction had been rattled off that night in time for the meeting as called. I employed a lawyer called smart. His father was our Senator at Congress. I had scribbled it for a schedule but there was not time for the Lawyer to read and rewrite it and mail it in time, so I read it to him and he said it was ‘right’ and I signed and Mr. Ladd my 2nd cousin, treasurer of The Loan and Trust Savings Bank, Concord, put down his signature. The lawyer is of the firm Stevens & Leach, city. Names Fred N. Ladd, Henry W. Stevens. Do as you think best about adding the signatures. M.B. Eddy.”
The day before Mrs. Eddy was so busy that she could only write this to Hanna [also Proceedings in Equity, 372]:
“I will attend to that business. Have had so much on hand could not before. Confidential. . . .
please find the amendment to by-law for next edition of the Manual. I read and showed my woman document to Lawyer of Concord who is considered smart. And he said ‘there is nothing incorrect in it.’
Well had I been its author I scarcely could have believed it. But I was not more than the author of it than of S&H as I regard it.”
Recall the claim that the Directors were put off by this alleged slight to their power by Mrs. Eddy, compare that to this letter from the Directors and eight other Church officials on January 18 to Mrs. Eddy thanking her for the gift of the property to the Church [Proceedings in Equity, 718]:
“Without formality, but with hearts overflowing with gratitude inexpressible, we hereby tender you our deepest thanks for your munificent gift to our beloved church, The First Church of Christ, Scientist in Boston, Massachusetts, The Mother Church, thanking God for His infinitely greater gift to us in you, our Mother in Christ, our divinely appointed Teacher, Leader, Guide, who leadeth us indeed ‘beside still waters.’”
She wrote a letter to William B. Johnson, of the Board of Directors, on January 20 to cull from the list of First Members those that lived too far away. In my collection is Johnson’s note on that letter (he attached summary notes to her letters for record keeping purposes): “January 20, 1898. Concerning the distance limit in which First Members shall reside.” This seems to be part of her effort to tighten up control of the Church and make it more workable, especially if the Directors and First Members were to have a direct say over the Trustees.
Mrs. Eddy decided to make some changes to the January 15 deed, and on the 21st she purchased the assets of the CSPS; she wrote the Hannas the next day that she was giving the real estate of the CSPS to the Church and not to the Trustees.
On January 25, Mrs. Eddy signed a new deed of trust that was much longer and more formal. Regarding the historically significant issue of how Trustees might be removed or replaced, the new trust deed read: “Whenever a vacancy shall occur in said trusteeship for any cause, I reserve the right to fill the same by appointment, If I shall so desire, so long as I may live [words crossed out about her decease, replaced with her handwritten emendation:] but if I do not elect to exercise this right the remaining trustees shall fill such vacancy. The First Members together with the directors of said Church shall have the power to declare vacancies in said trusteeship for such reasons as to them may seem expedient.”
The following documents discuss this important historical question. John V. Dittemore wrote a letter to Judge Septimus Hanna in 1918 asking him to critique his history of how the CSPS came to be created as a separate entity. Hanna responded (the copy shown is his carbon copy) with a clear statement that he was absolutely convinced based on his first hand knowledge that Mrs. Eddy would not have created a separate trust without the prohibition from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts against her gifting the publishing business directly to the Church.
While some authors have promoted a specific theory of Mrs. Eddy having created a check and balance arrangement on purpose to have the CSPS deed of trust balance out the power of the Directors under the 1892 deed, others have simply been unaware of the history and have not taken the time to research it. See, for example, Charles Braden, Christian Science Today: Power, Policy, Practice (Dallas: Southern Methodist University, 1969 [second edition]), pp. 72-73: “. . . for some reason known only to herself Mrs. Eddy had chosen to put the publishing business into hands different from those to which she entrusted the church affairs proper. She could simply have designated her Directors to set up and run the publishing business, but she did not do this. Instead she created two relatively independent centers of power.”
It is surprising to me that so much has been written about this issue, with various theories put forth, without even an effort in most cases to actually research the creation of the deed and the true motivations behind it. This post I hope will help provide needed historical information on a controversial and important issue.
Recent Comments