The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1905-04-05
SEE ROCKEFELLER
ASEVIL ELEMENT
Clergy1nen Flail Oil King but
Prudential Committee Re-
tains Gift.

Boston, April 5.-The committee of
Congregational clergymen who are pro-
testing against the acceptance by the
American Board of Commissioners for
Foreign Missions of John d. Rockefel-
ler's gift of 100000 will have to con-
duct its crusade unassisted by the pru-
Dental committee of the American
Board.
After protracted conference be-
tween representatives of the protesting
clergymen s committee and three mem
bers of the prudential committee, the
latter refused absolutely to join the
professionals in their movement to bring
before the Congregational clergy of the
country the reasons advanced for or
against the acceptance OF the gift.
The committee Of protesting clergy
men has completed statement. 1t is
addressed to the corporate members
of the American Board and the minis
tiers of our church,
After reciting the history of the con-
troversy, the statement says under the
heading " The Main Issue':
Church's Power at Stake.
! The protest is on the conviction that
the church must not stand in compromis-
| ing relation to q man who in public
| thoughts represents methods that are re-
pressive, dangerous and wrong. We can
not disregard the effect Of the association
with his name, in view of facts that are
widespread and notorious, unfortunately
| carries with it. The church cannot afford
to enter into any relation that will weak
! en- or dscredit it in the fulillment of its
! task.
The main question is one Of the moral
prestige and power Of the church.
We cannot consider that the stigma
arising from tainted money can be easily
overcome Money is impersonal and can
not be tainted. 1t is the character Of
the giver that is to be considered. The
gift from such a source as this need:
| to be investigated, and this whole prac
teal difficulty which has been allowed tt
obstruct our fulfllment Of the obviou:
duty Of the moment falls to the GROUND
as fictitious.
Donor Openly Impeached.
The church owes it to itself and tn.
public conscience to acknowledge respon
sibility when it voluntarily enters int
dealings with a donor who stands openl!
impeached OF serious offenses which 1t i
our duty to condemn.
1t is not required that the church
form Il tribunal to pass on the persona
character or probe into the business
methods Of all givers. Such examination
is not necessary in refusing a gift. Pub
lie belief and expression, formed on ex
tensive evidence thru q long series o
years, furnish sufficient basis for suc]
action. This works no injustice to al
Individual by singing him out amon
others to be suspected as bad as he IS.
is by his own actions which have alread
singled him out before the world as
notorious and typical instance Of an evi
element in our national life.
However formidable may be the prac
teal difficulties in the way Of exercisin
this responsibility. they must not obscul'
the ethca demand. Balancing the none
tary considerations can but be the half
way consideration in any moral obliga
| ton. Where we must end is shown b
the answer Of the prudential committee
We must end in the declaration Of com
plete responsibility for the sources fro1
which we accept gifts.