The Jeffersonian. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1907-1917, 1910-05-05
PAGE ELEVEN
His Name, Only Is Meek

1t seems that good Christian woman felt
indignant at the tone in which Robert A.
Meek alluded to Yours Truly She wrote to
the Editor Of the New Orleans C1aIstion i'd
O0cdte, and received this answer:
March 81, 1910.
Mrs. j. B. Stone, Mansfield, La
Dear Sister:-I have your letter of the 9th
inst. should have answered sooner, but have
oeen out OF the city, and moreover have not been
we'll
assure you that would not Intentionally do
Mr. Watson or any one else the slightest injustice
think his position on the question of missionary
work is SO radically wrong that it admits of no de-
1enSe. Inc extent to which the people of foreign
lands are helped, he has greatly exaggerated
They are not fed and clothed except in Instances
where they are being trained for missionaries
among their own peoples. Free medicine and
medical treatment are not furnished except in
cases OF dire restitution. And vastly more of that
is done at home than abroad. Mr.. Watson has
never been great traveller Or student of mis-
slonary work who has personally observed the
work being done in foreign fields. To ask one to
take his unsupported statements in preference to
those Of men of high character and Widely-trayel-
ed, and in preference to the afrmations of all of
the mission boards of the Protestant EVANGELICAL
churches, is we think asking rather too much.
MI Watsons effort to make Elsie SiegeI mis-
slonary is purely a piece of special pleading.
Neither she nor her mother were in the employ
ment OF any church or society. Mrs. Siegel went
out OF her own accord to do Christian work among
the Chinese Of New York City, just as some of the
women in New Orleans who belong to our church
es do among the dagoes and factory people Elsie
was kind OF hanger-On to her mother Neither
OF them was missionary in any true and proper
sense. And the language quoted by Mr.. Watson
as having been uttered by her relatives, does not
SO state. Mr. Watsons late effort to belittle Mr..
Ellis is purely demagogic appeal. Mr.. Ellis
name may not be in who's Who,' but he is well
known throughout America in church circles as a
man OF the highest character and standing. I
have seen and heard him, and know whereof 1
speak.
But all this is to no purpose. I have no hope
yUh N SC fhnTn h1T nia1n nF Mot
son you seem to be, would listen with an open
mind to the other side of the question
What led me to write so strongly in arraign-
ment OF Mr. Watson, was what the press dispatch
es reported him to have said about the character
of our women missionaries. I see that he has de-
MED having said that, and shall take pleasure in
stating in my paper. I do not wish to wrong
him, though | think he is dealing with matters
about which he knows little in ad captandm way.
He certainly does not conduct the discussion upon
very high plane.
With best wishes,
am yours respectfully, R. A. MEEK.
You will notice that in my editorial I said "if
he has been correctly reported" etc. It is the
custom of all editors to assume the correctness of
the press dispatches if left unchallenged for
days
Observe the dogmatism of the statement,
that my position on Foreign Missions "a0no5ts
Of no DEFENDER. That was cool, wasn't it? [
wonder if Meek knows that the Christians
did not adopt these modern bribery methods
until about century ago! For eighteen hun
dred years after Christ, Foreign Missions
were conducted according to the example set
by Paul and the early Apostles. Yet, this
Editor Meek says, in effect, that PGatI's man.
mer Of doing the aO0rh ''adnoits of no defence'.
How we'll some of these latter-day editors
of religious papers think of themselves!
dear Doctor Lovett y
I'm awfully sorry to see that Meek v5rtaaz-
zy accuses the missionaries Of lying. He does