St. Monica's Church Finances Get Another Airing

New York, 1895

To the Editor of the Long Island Farmer:

The attempt of your last week's newspaper to smooth over the financial muddle of St. Monica's church was very adroit, but it will not go down if you are man enough to give me another hearing on the subject. I never imputed dishonesty to either Mr. Higgins or Mr. Rudden. They are good men. I never questioned Father Dennison's honesty, and I don't do it now, but he is bound to render an intelligent report, and that he has not done except in one instance. I contribute to his church, and I have a right to know about where the money goes. He said on Sunday, week before last, that my call on him to account for the 1893 balance was contemptible. When he referred to the thing at all I expected he was going to give the congregation an explanation, and tell them what he had done with over $800 of a balance. But he didn't tell them a word about it. Has he the money in the bank, or out at interest, or has he spent it, or what? It is easy for him to answer, and there are some who will carry the case to the Bishop if he doesn't.

If you will let me I will go deeper into the business. Father Dennison's first report, year 1892, showed that he had a balance of $1,817.17. In 1893 he gave his flock no account of what he did with that balance. In 1893 he had a balance of $551.68. In 1894 he kept to himself what he did with that money. In 1894 he had a balance of $872.82. In 1895 he suppresses all knowledge about this. In 1895 he had a balance of $481.83. He should have on hand at the date of the 1895 report, January 1st, as follows:

Balance January 19th, 1891, to February 8th, 1892, $1,817.17
Balance February 8th, 1892, to February 1st, 1893, 551.68
Balance January 1st, 1893, to January 1st, 1894, 872.82
Balance January 1st, 1894, to January 1st, 1895, 481.83
[Total,] $3,723.50

Father Dennison must know what has become of this money, and the congregation wants to know, and if they are not told there will be a lessening of contributions, for I know several liberal givers who will shut their pockets.

I for one would like to know how it happened that the church debt increased while so much money is shown in the balances. According to the report from January 19th, to February 8th, 1892, the debt on the church property was $14,000. In the 1892 to 1893 report it was stated at $13,000. In the 1893 to 1894 report it was not set forth at all. In the 1894 to 1895 report, the debt on the church property rose to $14,500. Why should it be so if the money shown by the balances was on hand to meet expenses?

Now it comes right down to this: Is the money shown in the balances in bank, or invested, or spent? Father Dennison knows and must tell. Mr. Higgins and Mr. Rudden don't know a thing about it.

EXAMINER.

[Mr. Higgins showed the editor of THE FARMER the financial report for the fiscal year 1894. That report is right as far as it goes. It pretends to do no more than state the income and the expenditures. As to the yearly balances, any statement respecting them must issue from the treasurer, who is their custodian, and not from Messrs. Higgins and Rudden. If there is a desire on the part of the congregation for information as to the disposition of the balances, the Rev. Mr. Dennison should respond to that desire, for in that matter he is but the servant of the congregation. The suppression of such information but leads to gossip and begets suspicion. The sum of $3,723.50 is so important a matter that a congregation would naturally feel a deep interest in knowing what has been done with it. — ED.]

—The Long Island Farmer, Jamaica, NY, Jan. 25, 1895, p. 1.