The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1905-04-05
WILL NOT AID PROTESTANTS
RESULT OF LONG CONFERENCE
ON ROCKEFELLER GIFT,
Prudential Committee of American
Roard Refuses Absolutely to Join in
Movement to Bring Before Congrega-
tionaI Clergy the Reasons For or
. Against Acceptance Of the 100000.

Boston, April 4.-The committee of
Congregational clergymen who are pro-
testing against the acceptance by the
American Board of Commissioners for
Foreign Missions of John ID. Rockefel-
Ier's gift of 100000 will have to conduct
their crusade unassisted by the pruden-
tial committee of the American Board.
After a. protracted conference to-day
4 between representatives of the protest.
ing clergynnen's committee and three
members of the prudential committee
the latter refused absolutely 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.
| At late hour tonight the committee
of protesting clergymen completed its
statement, which will be printed and
sent broadcast tomorrow. 1t is ad-
dressed ITO the corporate members of
the American Board and the ministers
of our Congregational churches" After
reciting the history of the controversy
hthe statement says, under the caption
1.-THE Main Issue:"
THE protest rests on the conviction
that the church must not stand in COM
promising relation to man who in
public thought represents methods that
are oppressive, dangerous and wrong.
We cannot disregard the eject of the
association which his name, in view of
facts that are widespread and notori-
bus, unfortunately carries with 1t. The
church cannot afford to enter into any
relation that may weaken or discredit
/ it in the fulfllment Of it's task. The
main question is one of the moral pres
ttige and power of the church.
'All the confusion arising from the
literal use of the figure tainted money
may be brushed aside at once. Money
| is impersonal; it is not tainted and
cannot taint morally. It is by volrln'
tary relation to the donors that moral
responsibility is incurred. With the un-
known and unimpeached giver, the
church is brought into no such con-
scious and deliberate relation. The re-
| fusaI of gift from such a source as
| this in question does not imply 'inves-
tigation of the record Of every giver,'
and this whole practical difficulty,
which has been allowed to obstruct our
| fulfilment of the obvious duty Of the
moment falls to the ground as ficti-
| tious.
1.-THE church owes it to itself and the
public conscience to acknowledge re-
sponsibility when it voluntary enters
into dealings with a donor who stands
openly impeached of serious offences,
which it is our duty to condemn.
lit is not required that the church
form a tribunal to pass judgment on
personal character or probe into busi-
ness methods of all givers. Such ex-
animation is not necessary in refusing a
gift. Public belief and expression, form
ed on extensive evidence through long
series Of years, furnish sufficient basis
for such action. This works no injus-
! tice to an Individual by singing him
out among others suspected Of being
+ 'as bad as he.' 1t is by his own actions
which have already singled him out be-