The Savannah morning news., 1901-05-12
DR.. AMENT,S DEFENSE.

DIR. AMENT'S DEFENSE.
It seems to be a most difficult matter
to find out whether or not the statements
sent by newspaper correspondents from
China, that the missionaries engaged in
footing at Pekin after the seige was
raised, We're true According to the CORE
spondents, one Of the greatest offenders
among the missionaries was the Rev DR..
Ament. 1t will be recalled that Mark
Twain criticised him severely, contending
that the conduct of the missionaries dur
ing the troubles in China had set back
mission work in that country a century.
On Thursday night DR.. Ament deliv-
! cred an address in the Dwight Place Con-
| gregational Church. New Haven, Conn,
in which he answered some of the criti-
cisms made on his conduct in Pekin. This
was not the first statement he had made
in defense of his administration of mis-
sionary affairs in China. he having sub
mitted to several newspaper interviews
between the time OF his leaving Pekin
! and his arrival in New Haven, but 1t was
the first official statepent, and it was
made in the Dwight Place Church be-
cause that church had stood by him in
the position he had taken in respect to
the charge that Christians had engaged
in looting.
DIR. Ament denied that money that he
had raised in China was either wrong
fully or illegally taken from the Chinese.
He admitted that he took possession of
the palace of a prince, and occupied
it, but he said that the prince had been
insisted also that the money that he had
secured for widows and orphans was OBJ
tanned In a manner that was approved
by Ii Hung Chang.
The statement was not nearly so full
as were statements he made to newspapers
in Honolulu and San Francisco. In the
latter city, If he was reported correctly
he admitted that articles of great value,
found in the Princes palace in which
he made his headquarters, were appro-
priated and sold for the benefit of the
native Christians who had been driven
from their homes and were in a destitute
and starving condition. In one of his
sta tements DR.. Ament declared that the
missionaries were justified in doing what
ever they did in the line of footing by
the conditions which prevailed. He said:
1T is but Justice to them to say that
If in their ardor to provide for their
people they did some things that attracted
criticism, they did them with the best of
intentions"
Minister Conger denies that the mis-
sionaries engaged in looting, and he is
so emphatic in the language in which he
makes the denial that it is probable that
the subject is one that irritates him. But
his denial does not settle the matter
There are many people, some of whom
are connected with churches and some
not, who would like to know the exact
truth about the matter. Since anything
like looting is so generally condemned in
this country there has been desire APP
parently by those concerned to say as
little about the doings of missionaries at
Pekin as possible. No doubt what Dr.
Ament said in New Haven was the truth,
but was it the whole truth?
What was done by the missionaries in
the line of looting was regarded probably
as entirely excusable by Minister Conger
and other members of the diplomatic
corps at the time it was done, There
We're circumstances and conditions which
seemed to justify it, 1t was not until
the trouble was practically over that
some of the things done by missionaries
were made the subject of comment.
Doubtless there was some feeling against
the missionaries, because the belief en-
tertained by some that they contributed
a great deal towards bringing about the
Boxer movement. Hence the desire to
bring them into disrepute.
In his New Haven talk DIR. Ament said
that the time was ripe in China for a
great Christian revival-that the Chinese
were ready for new ideas and a new re-
ligion. He may be right. but 1t is doubt
full If the missionary spirit, so far as
China is concerned, is as strong in this
country as 1t was before the Powers sent
their armies to Pekin.