The daily morning journal and courier., 1905-05-17
REPLY TO CRITICISM
 OF LOCAL MINISTER'S
STATEMENTIssUED BYPRoTEsT-
 ANTS OF ROCKEFELLER GIFT.

New Haven Ciergymen In Their Letter
 Failed to Touch on Specific Indict-
 ments as Set Forth by pr. GIadden-
 Appear to be Somewhat Nettled ss
 Though a Reflection Was Cast on
 Their General Courage and Readiness
 to Attack Public Evils.
 Boston, May 16-Rev Daniel A. Evans of Cambridge, chairman of tho committee of Congregational clergy men. protesting against the acceptance of the Rockefeller gift by the Ameri- can board, to-day stated that his com- mittee had received a communication from the Congregational clergymen o6 New Haven, criticizing in some re- spects the attitude of the protestants. Dr. Evans declined to comment upon the New Haven letter. stating that it was a matter for action by the commits tee as whole, which he said would meet in Lowell during the day whsrt the members would be in attendance at the sessions of the state association of Congregational churches.
 Later reply to the New Haven let ter was given out by Secretary Gleason with the following explanation:
 The committee could not all be gathered together at such short notice. but the secretary gives out this gem eral response which has been approv- ed by such members of the committee as could be seen"
 The committees response follows: The New Haven statement is given out in reply to documents issued last week by the Boston protesting mirlig- | ters. Of these there were three: 1.-The reply of Dr. Washington Gladden., which was unique in giving summary of the moral indictments against the business methods of the Standard Oil company, with citations of evidence in support of the same. These specific indictments are not touched upon. much less answered, by this letter from New Haven. Indeed, this, which is the first business of any who approve of relations of courtesy with the donor in question, or who de- { fend his character, is never done. From no quarter come any attempts to light en the moral odium which these charges involve.
 1.-The second document was an elo- quent and powerful sermon of Rev. Ar temas Jean Haynes of New Haven, is- sued as the best utterance of the con- science of the church and people, out ragged by this new instance of ethical indifference in the church toward the wrongs and crimes connected with the making of the money received. What ever individual phrases may awaken dissent, the total impression and power of the sermon remain unanswered and unanswerable.
 "3-The third document was a state- ment O. the issue now before the churches growing out of the Rockefel- Ter gift, which was drawn up by a committee of the Boston protesting minister's This document is kindly in | its terms and avoids dealing with the l incident closed by the acceptance by the prudential committee of the gift and all controversy with the parties concerned in that specific incident. It. states the facts and principles brought into relief by this discussion, showing how these make clear the grounds of protest, justify them and furnish new evidence of their cogency. With one brief phrase only this letter from New Haven deals-that which calls attention to the fact that the defenders of the reception of the Rockefeller gift have themselves inclined, as the original protest suggested would be inevitable, 10 excuse and screen and belittIe the wrongs now under condemnation by the people. However it may seem to the writer of this letter, the taking of this gift, except for the protest in and out of the church awakened against it, has, in the words of pr. Parkhurst, tended to stiffen up the moral status of the donor. and the various forms of this defense seem generally to have the ef- feet to blur the moral issue and con- fuse the mind and conscience upon the facts and principles involved. The writers of the New Haven letter seem somewhat nettled as though re1ec- (Continued on Eighth Page)