New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1905-04-05
TO ACT INDEPENDENTLY.
american Board Prudential Com
mittee Won't lid Protestants.

Boston April 4-The committee OF Congrega-
tional clergymeD who are protesting against the
acceptance by the American Board OF Commits
sioners for Foreign Missions Of John D. Rookie
fellers gift of 100000 will have TO conduct their
crusade unassised by the prudential committee of
the American Board. After protracted confer
ence to-day between representatives Of the pro-
testing clergymen's committee and three members
Of the prudential committee the latter refused a5-
soltely to join the protestants in their movement
to bring before the Congregational clergy OF the
country the reasons advanced for or against the
acceptance of the gift.
The conference to-day was held at Congrega-
donal House. the headquarters of the American
Board. Previous to the meeting the represent
atives Of the protesting committee held meeting
mittee to issue joint statement concerning the
circumstances Of the gift and the reasons for its
Representatives Of the two committees then
protesting committee the Rev Daniel Evans
OF Cambridge; the Rev. c. A. Carter. Of Lexington
prudential committee was represented by the Rev
this city and Professor Edward c. Moore. Of the
Harvard Divinity School. The conference lasted
nearly five hours. and at adjournment the con-
was learned however that the prudentiaif COM n
mittee had refused 10 issue any statement jointly
with the protesting committee. The protestants
announced that statement would be prepared i'm
mediately setting forth their side Of the cOntro-
Mr.. Rockefellers money This statement will be
issued in circular form and sent to each meaaber
clergyman in the United States.
At late hour tonight the committee Of protest.
ing clergymen completed its statement, which will
be printed and sent broadcast tomorrow. After
reciting the history of the controversy the state
ment says, under the caption THE Main Issue"
The protest rests on the conviction that the
Church must not stand in compromising relation to
a man who in public thought represents methods
cannot disregard the effect of the association which
notorious. unfortunately carries with it, The
that may weaken or discredit il in the fuhlment of
us task The main question is one of the moral
All the confusion arising from the literal use of
the IN neure tainted money may be brushed aside
ton to the donors that moral Pespo0shtI3fy 4, ina
CURED With the unknown or unimpeached giver
the Church IS brought into no such conscious and
deliberate relation The refusal Of a gift from
such source this in question does not imply
IlnVesIlgaton OF the record of every giver.'' and
lowed to obstruct fulfiment of the obvious
duty OF the moment falls to the ground ficti-
the Church owes it to itself and the PUBLIC con-
UNFAIRLY enters into dealings with donor who
stands openly impeaehed of serious offences which
the Church form a tribunal TO pass Judgment
methods Of aa svers neh 1hf Is S
necessary IN refusing gift Public belief has
long series of years. and furnishes sufficient basis
for such action. This works injustice to an
Suspected of being las bad as he. Il IS fn his
own actions which have already singled him
before the world as notorious and typical in
stance Of an new evil element in our national life,
ties in the way OF exercising this responsibility
they must not obscure the ethical demand The
halfway station in the consideration of any moral
gueS . Nhere shaI We begin II not with the
most conspicuous case that has Yet been reported
to Church
Where we must end is shown by the answer OF
declaration of complete responsibility for the
are The principle which this policy rests is the
oeEet that our responsibility begins with the re,
the responsibility is ours. but is that Of donors
IN Inelr own conscience.
We believe that the Church will never rest in
TINS principle 1t has not done so in the past, BY
The 6ri1c Sli sef % Iias "a aUIg 1ooTs
II is tmnosgib in nractre W. ant d ana
selves Of responsibility in receiving money for we
the board has done much in the past to give it a
over against this position we urge the positive
principle, in application to this specific case. This
bod 5 1y,sri, nsiSf ~ t5 Oh i Sh b
of gifts offered and especially TO the social effect
the proposed relation promises to bring embarrass-
ment refusal TO enter it is justified by the law Of
self respect. A Christian corporation has char
acter which it may not compromise by doubtful
The application of this principle was never so
much needed as now. The Church finds itself in
blind to the growing alienation between those who
have and those who have not It's message is to
the entire human family. and deepening sense OF
social obligation has touched its heart And not
are at stake in the problems OF trade
The battle is between forces that socially !
destructive and those that seek finer order OF |
Justice and human opportunity. There is ques- |
tion on which side OF this contest the Church |
should stand. II is necessary for 1t to be exceed
ingy jealous of anything that may swerve it from /
its task Every act must be avoided that \
seems to ally the Church with the wrong side, to /
impede it's action or TO render its efforts and utter
ances Intellectual
The motives which constrain US to this appeal are
a deep solicitude because of the corporate evils /
that threaten nation, our sense OF the solemn /
and imperative mission Of the Church a the moral /
educator of the people and jealous zeal lest its 1
energy and authority be impaired by any seeming 1
with the evil il is set TO condemn BY /
the conveyance of these motives upon this special
case now brought before Church, II is lifted 4
into commanding Importance and our decision is L
fraught with momentous and far reaching con-