Los Angeles herald., 1910-02-04
OUR ETHICS THEY HAD FIRST;
OUR DoGMAS THEY DON'T NEED

LOS ANGELES, Feb. 2.-[Editor
Herald: / will not waste time in
demonstrating the absurdity of Mr..
Liscomb's apparent assumption that
only quotation in full can secure one
against charges of garbling. Such an
impossible condition would be the
death OF all discussion. But l challenge
anyone to show where l twisted or dis
torted anything or tore any sentence
from its context with intention to de-
ceive. 1t may easily be that Bishop
Lewis was not well reported by the
papers, but that is a secondary mat
ter as touching my criticism. My
concern is with the question as it
comes before the public through the
press. 1 am concerned with the
proposition itself-not with Bishop
Lewis, whom 1 do not know any more
than l know Mr.. Conger or Mr.. Lis
comb who now asks: "Why?" / said
he was rash in referring" to our late
representative in China. He says 1
dare not charge the latter, etc. Is
Mr.. L. trying to play us for China
men, or can it be that he is not post
ed on current events? 1 do not need
to make the charge; the press of his
own country has done that in unmis-
taxable terms; and papers like the
Lplluull LINUS lleth6 eCIlOeu IT. Will
out drawing forth any refutation.
AS to the attempted whitewashing
plea of "eXaggeration'-tha is negl-
gible-the story is either true or false.
Talking of ''eXaggeration" in such
case recalls that premature report of
Mark Twain's death, or that story of
the counterfeiter who pleaded that it
was not such Every" bad fiVe-dollar
piece, after all-"rather a good one"
in fact. That Mr.. Liscomb should
have the hardihood to back his case
for Christian propaganda in China by
an appeal to the name of Conger IS
rash and surprising in the circum-
stances, whatever he may think Mr.
Conger is no more; his name had bet
ter not have been mentioned in this
discussion, but since Mr.. l.. introduced
it, Il had no alternative but to insist
on. the facts. Mr.. LIS apparent con-
ception of me as some sort of a heath
en- wild man on the warpath with an
insidious weapon called a "garble"
for the treacherous and remorseless
massacre of Christian truth and mis-
sionary enterprise is a false one, en-
gendered by the perferVid heat of his
own partisanship. / am a missionary
myself and am not opposed to what
is good in Christianity-its ethics as
distinct from its theological dogma
but I do say-and this is no disparage-
ment-that said ethics are not exclu-
sive to Christianity, but have been
anticipated by others, Confucianism,
in particular. That is what makes
our arrogant pretensions to convert
the heather Chinee" so absurd, and
so worse than absurd when we offer
him our spiritual wares besmeared
with Standard oil
Mr.. Liscomb Notwithstanding, I have
shown where '1oot" does come in-and
stick; and as to his reckless assertion
that Rockefeller and Standard Oil
are foreign to the discussion, I have
only to remind him that it was the
bishop, not I, who introduced Rocke-
feller. That drew my fire.
Let us be honest; perhaps we can
teach the Chinese something in sci
ence; our business methods might help
them if they could be associated from
our business morality. But in ethics
it is extremely doubtful if we can
teach them much-not more anywhere
than they can teach us in return.
Wherefore, by all means, let us fra
ternize but not doglnatize.
FRANK It CTONE,