The Ely miner. [volume] (Ely, Minn.) 1895-1986, 1908-02-14

Philadelphia. - Within the past
nine months there has arisen a
new movement in the Protestant
churches of the United States and
Canada which is bound to arrest the
worlds attention by its significance
This is the organization of men by
men, for the purpose of putting the
missionary enterprise on a basis COM
mensurate with it's Importance; for
this foreign missionary business rep
resents an annual expenditure of $21.-
100000, which is equivalent to six per
cent on a capital of 100000. The
magnitude of this long despised mis-
sionary enterprise seems to have at
last penetrated the understanding Of
the men who are responsible for it.
The new organization is not engi-
neered by the preachers or by board
secretaries, or by young and visionary
enthusiasts. 1t had its origin with
successful business men, and it has
swung along to its conspicuous sue
cess, Independent of ecclesiastical
promotion. The officials of the de-
nominations are interested and ap-
prove, but they are not in the saddle;
and they are not by any means GER
tain of the lengths to which the move
ment will go. A complete revolution
In missionary finances is assured, and
doubtless also, many changes in
methods For the first time during
the whole Christian era, there seems
to be reasonable prospect that the
entire heather world will be made
acquainted with the Christian teach.
ing, within generation.
MilIionaires and Missions.
Before showing how these plans are
to be accomplished, the identity of the
men behind the movement should be
made known. The idea of the lay
mems missionary movement took
form in connection with the Hay
stack Centennial celebration in New
York last November. That meeting,
which was really the anniversary of
the American board of foreign mis-
sions was marked by prayer meet
ing, quite in contrast with the little
dents under a haystack 100 years be-
fore. For this gathering comprised
so business men, of whom score
were millionaires.
At this meeting, announcement was
made that the laymen were resolved
to take hold. Systematically, and en-
ergetically of this missionary bust
ness They made three definite prop
ositions, which are the basis of the
present movement, to the secretaries
of the missionary boards of all the
denominations in the United States
and Canada. These propositions were
as follows:
1. To project a campaign to secure
intelligent and generous interest in
missions among laymen to be con-
Quoted by groups of laymen under the
direction of the various boards.
2. To devise a comprehensive plan
Tin conjunction with said board Sec
retaries) looking towards the evan
gelization of the world in this genera
ton.
various boards, a centennial commits
sion of laymen, so or more in num-
Der, to visit as early as possible the
mission fields and report their find
ings to the church at home.
With respect to the last proposition,
by curious coincidence, l had my
self undertaken, six months previous
ly, such an Investigation, of which the
articles in these columns have been
the outcome. Already large num-
Der of business men have gone to the
foreign field, and some are now
there.
The men who constitute the central
organization of this laymen's mis-
sionary movement are the following,
some Of whom will be recognized as
national figures:
Samuel B. Capen. Boston; Harry
Wade Hicks, Boston; Edward H.
Haskell, Boston; w. N. Hartshorn,
Boston; William Shaw, Boston; John
l.. Bates, Boston; H. P. Andersen,
New York; Seymour NJ Ballard, New
-. w. bOnnC, ANC" 1olh, VIII
liam L. Brewer, New York; j. Cleye-
land Cady, New York; John S. Huy-
Ter, New York; Cleveland H. Dodge,
New York; j. Edgar Leaycraft, New
York; David McConaughy, New
York; Alfred E. Marling, New York;
C. C. Kitchener, New York; John R.
Mott, New York; William D. Murray,
New York; Eben E. Olcott, New York;
William ]. Schieffelin, New York;
Robert E. Speer. New York; James M.
Speers, New York; F. P Turner, New
York; DR.. Lucien c.. Warner, New
York; Mornay Williams, New York;
John w. Wood, New York; Admiral
A. T. Mahan, New York; Silas McBee,
New York; William Dulles, New
York; James G. Cannon, New York;
E. NJ Buckley, New York; Luther D.
Wishard, New York; Robert c. Ogden,
New York; ]. Campbell White, New
York; Chester A. Holcombe, Roches-
ter; D. w. McWilliams, Brooklyn;
DR.. w. w. Keen, Philadelphia; John
Wanamaker, Philadelphia; John H