The San Francisco call., 1905-04-01
STATEMENT OF BOARD.

1t Decame known To-Day tHdt prlOT
to the final action by the prudential
committee of the American Board of
Commissioners of Foreign Missions in
accepting the $ie0,e80 gift rendered by
John d. Rockefeller a number of prOnl-
inent members of the board, at meet
ing held In New York City, considered
the matter at length. AS result the
parties to the conference issued a
statement in which they declared they
did not feel that the acceptance of the
gift would compromise the board in
any way. Among those who signed
the statement were Rev. j. w. Cooper,
secretary of the American Missionary
Association Lucien Warner, chairman
of the International Y. NJ. c. A; Rev.
c. A. Richards secretary of the Inter
national Congregational Church-build-
ing Society; Rev. A II. Bradford,
formerly moderator of the National
Congregational Conference; Rev. Ed
ward P. Ingersoll, secretary of the
Anne lean Bible Society; William H.
Ward, editor of the New York Inde-
pendent; Rev. j. ]. Merrill, president
OF Fisk University, Nashville, Tenn;
Rev. Frank K. Sanders, dean OF Yale
University Divinity School; Rev. Ly-
man Abbott; Rev. Charles e. Jeffer-
son, pastor of the Broadway Taber-
nacle, and Rev. Henry w. Hubbell Of
Greenwich. Conn. The statement is
sued as result of the meeting was as
follows:
The prudential committee of the American
board has been requested TO refuse certain
gift for it's missionary work on the ground that
the giver is the president of corporation
whose business methods are extensively criti-
cized by the press and the public. Compliance
with this request would put upon the board,
which is a corporate trust created for the
definite purpose of maintaining missions in
foreign lands the very grave responsibility of
afr tyni oh ha
development of the work intrusted to its care
in aid OF particular objects for which it is
trustee.
II would also establish the precedent of
subjecting individual gifts to a scrutiny not
heretofore regarded as practicable for mis-
sion board to exercise. We do not therefore
consider that the acceptance of this gift COM
promises the board in any way and we cannot
recommend any departure from the long estab-
lished usage of the board receiving with
thankfulness the funds intrusted to its care
for the prosecution of its important work
REPLY OF DIR. GLADDEN..
COLUMBUS, Ohio, March 31.-Dr.
Washington GLADDEN., moderator of the
General Council of the Congregational
Churches of the United States. tonight
gave out the following reply to the
statement of H. H. Rogers, vice presi-
dent of the Standard Oil Company:
Mr.. Rogers alleges that the vast sums ex-
torted in rebates by the Standard oil Com
pany from it's competitors were legally
taken because no law explicitly forbade them
What l said that the money was '-fagi-
tiously'' acquired. To the railroads
into an arrangement by which 1t received a
large rebate on not only its own oil but on
all the oil sent by Its competitors, to force the
railways to rob its competitors for its en-
|. richment, was l submit hagitious policy. a
shameful policy. Ii there was no law at that
time by which this particular kind of robbery
could be punished. the robbery was less
fragrant and outrageous. 1t was by this means
that this enormous power was created.
l am not a lawyer but 1 should think it al
together possible that even under the COM
mon law such an niquity as this might have
been punished. Railways which are chartered
under public law, must be required to render
to all the pepoie equal service. If such
of them as was made by the Standard
Oil Company could not be punished. legal
machinery would be very defective.
The denial that rebates have been extorted
since the interstate commerce law was passed
is not credible know from statements made
to myself by parties implicated that such re-
bates have been exacted by other corporations.
I doubt IL the Standard Oil Company is more
virtuous than the rest But II is true that it
has now gained power in the classification
and control of rates which makes IL unneces-
sary to use the system of rebates.
Some of the apologists of the trusts now
asserting that the money now under discussion
has been legally acquired. Legally" says a
New York paper. there is no question that