The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-04-05
ACCEPTANCE FAVORED
CONGREGATIONAL PRUDENTIAL
 COMMITTEES DECISION.
Protestants Against Mir. ROckefelIer's $IOO,0O Gift Must HenecfOrth Do Their Fighting
 Unaided.

Boston, April 1.-The committee of Congregational clergymen who are protesting against the acceptance by the American Board of Commission for Foreign Missions of John D. Rockefel- ler's gift of $100.000 will have to con- duct their crusade unassisted by the prudential committee of the board.
 After protracted conference today between representatives of the pro- testing clergymen's committee and three members of the prudential com mitee the later refused absolutely to join the protestants in their movement to bring before the Congregational clergy of the country the reasons for or against the acceptance of the gift.
 Previous to this conference the rep resentatives of the protesting commit tee held meeting at which 1t was decided to ask the prudential commit tee to issue a joint statement concern ing the circumstances of the gift and the reasons for its rejection or accep- tanceh The protestants will continue their agitation Independently. It was announced that a statement would be prepared immediately setting forth the protesttants' side of the controversy and opposing unqualifiedly the accep- tance of Mir. Rockefeller's gift. This statement will be issued in circular form and sent to each member of the American Board and to every Congre- gational clergyman in the United States.
 At a late hour tonight the commit
 tee of protesting clergymen completed its statement. which will be printed and sent broadcast tomorrow. It is addressed ITO the corporate members
 of the American Board and the minis
 ters of our Congregational Churches" The statement says under the caption,
 '|The Main Issue"
 'The protest rests on the conviction that the church must not stand in compromising relation to man who in public thought represents methods that are oppressive, dangerous and wrong. We cannot disregard the ef-
 feet of the association which his name, in view of facts that are widespread and notorious, unfortunately carries with fl. The church cannot afford to enter into any relation that may weak
 en or discredit 1t in the fulillment of its task.
 'The main question is one of the
 moral prestige and power of the church.
 "All the confusion arising from the literal use of the figure tainted mon ! ev' may he brushed aside at once , Money is impersonal; it is not tainted ] and cannot taint morality. It Is by voluntary relation to the donors that moral responsibility is incurred. With the unimpeached giver.~ the church Is i brought into no such conscious and de- liberate relation. The refusal of a gift from such a source as this in question does not imply investigation of the record of every giver' and this whole practical difficulty. which has been allowed to obstruct our fulfill
 ment of the obvious duty of the mo-
 ment, falls to the ground as fictitious. 'aThe church owes 1t to itself and the public conscience to acknowledge re- sponsibility when 1t voluntarily enters into dealings with a donor who stands openly mpeached of serious offenses which it is our duty to condemn.
 Tt Is not required that the church form a tribunal to pass Judgment on personal character or probe into the business methods of all givers. Such examination is not necessary in re- fusing a gift. Public belief as ex- pressed, forming one extensive eyi- dence through a long series of years, furnishes sufficient basis for such ac- tion. This works no injustice to an