New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1905-04-13

almoners of Mr. Roc Is r. beaevoence.
The Congregationalist.' of Boston. says edito-
rally in its issue of this week the subject Shall
Oongregationalists Have judicial Tribunal!
\, That the rrotestauts against the acceptance OF
Ar Roekefeer's gift to colleges under the care OF
caT G anteElSan board are moved by hlgh MOVIES ives
ThSy VIII gladly join with those who do not stand
70 conserve the influence of our denomination in
accordance with its historic spirit. To this END
Congregationasts have hitherto administered their
phrase of the protestants that in this no
3uolciaI tribunal is required appears 10 US con-
s which we beeve thep Reud he AMONG
n ic TO defend. Our denomination has never IA
popular clamor instead OF by deliberate judicial
Many Of tho corporate members of the board. as
Wen as the prudential committee are trustees o.
have received Mr. Rockefeilers gifts with their APP
tEoEa nc pTudentiel committee OF THIS oody mas pas
therefore these precedents of accepting funds for
our American Christian schools. On what ground
could they reject a portion of this same bounty
for training heather youth. when they have, ac-
ceEted other portions for our American youth?
ready, to unite in thoughtful consideration Of
application OF the principle Of Christian brother
hood in business Ne share in the profound dis
Of our time. but do not expect that they will be
GhaneSd by taking poll Of ministers on M
court-martial 70 pass final sentence on any one who
expect that churches will succeed in their high
purposes to establish the principle OF Christian
brotherhood by attempting to use the American
ROar1 any other charitable business enterprise
instrument to overcome the business enter
prises Of time which do not honor that prin-
cple.
In another editorial in 1.-THE Congresationalist."
entitled IN Case of Rejection-What?'' that news
paper says
We may begin with the effect of this judgment
upon Mr.. Rockefeller himself. That a body OF
fifteen men, agents of religious organlzatl0n
should pronounce him unfit to give any OF ms
money to Christian work as carried on oy them
would presumably, be a singing blow. But Wou4d
il be fair and just blow? II the money goes BACK
some reason must be given for its return LhaI
reason must be in substance MT Rockefeller,
some Of US the committee believe that you are
a bad man. A great portion of the public, incluG-
ing some OF our strong supporters, are pracucally
money we seem to extenuate your badness.
Might not Mr. Rockefeller properly reply SIentle-
men before arrogating to yourself the tudlcla! ana
punitive function in its bearing upon an individual
before putting forth what is practically the hrst
formal and official condemnation of my personal
character would it not have been fair and Chrstlan
to have heard either my frtendSE sought
no Vindicution at your hands l imposed no con-
ditions upon my gift did not ask you TO depart
from your time bOnored custom by which you nave
not sought the hand. either to guarantee
the responsibility of every donor or on the otheE
to Sesrnirch the character Of any donor. And yet
you throw back the gift in my face and by doing
so stigmatize And this you DO urged on by
ments Of my accusers and detractors.