The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-04-09
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE.
An OfIicial Exposition Of Its LegIsla-
tive Wants.

tive Wants.
To THE EDITOR OF THE SrH-Sir with
the above caption the Committee or
Publication" OF the businessllke Chris.
tian Scientists replies to your fair ex-
position Of the injustice and sophistry
of the third amendment proposed by
them for the public health laws. fol-
the purpose OF enabling them to be a
privileged class
Your correspondent resorts to the
usual throwing sand into the eyes"
of your readers with these opening
lines:
The viewpoints of the SUN and Of the
Christian Scientists regarding the consti-
tutional right of the individual to employ
the practitioner of his choice differ so
widely. &c.
As a reader Of everything that has
appeared in your editorial columns on
this subject I can state positively that
you never denied this right. That you
give this correspondent valuable space
without retorting to his misrepresen-
tation of your fair position is evil
dence OF your confidence that your
readers will detect the fraud.
In his desperation your correspond
ent also twists the history of the
legislation when he writes that "in
1907 the medical interests got to-
gether and drew up bill that was so
sweepingly restrictive that II aroused
considerable opposition, particularly
among Christian Scientists"
The truth IL that the medical prac-
tice act had existed several years pre-
viously, when the Christian Scien-
lists were brought before the courts
for violating It, and the latter decided
that they could not by simply profess
ing "A faith take the bread out OF the
mouths" OF those who In obedience to
the law had spent years of laborious
study in preparing themselves for
their calling, they began to realize a
restriction" and applied their bust
ness skill and money ~ obtain this
useful privilege.
/. They first asked exemption from
the provisions Of the public health law
on the ground that they practise the
tenets OF a church" They again en-
countered the adverse but just deci-
sion Of the courts and found that
the saving Cchurch) clause would
not protect them. as your correspond
ent correctly states. one of the cases
having been in court since 1911.
9 They then proposed another
amendment IN 1914 removing the
clause exempt.ng 1.-The practice Of
religious tenets of any church and
substituting amy person who ministers
To or treats the sick or suffering by
mental or spiritual means without the
use OF drugs or material remedy"
These are the words of Gov. Glynn's
veto me-sageD A compliant Legis-
lature. overawed by the energy OF
these people and Obvious tn the fact
that as voters they are in the large
minority, actually passed this act
But Governor Glynn vetoed II, stating
In plain terms his reasons as follows:
This bill Is advocated by Christian Sci
-ntiSts. II opens the gates 20 all kinds OF
medical prrtender-. who. as n matter OF
fact. administer TO or treat the sick and
suffering without the use Of any drug or
material remedy. and who ~ this bill were
approved would swarm across our Dor
d-rs and pretend TO practise medicine
upon our citizens Under this phrasine OF
the law I am pr.cluded from passing
upon ,he claim OF the sincere believer.
In christian Science. and l am therefore
constrained TO disapprove the bill,
Now comes your correspondent and
tells your readers that "the bill was.
vetoed by the Governor for reasons
Rest known to him, but not made plain
in the veto message" Another I'M
christian violation Of the Command
ment Thou shalt not bear false wit
ness against thy neighbor," which
surely those good people whom he
represents will not sanction. The
second attack upon the public health
law was thus defeated
3. To meet the just veto the Christian
Scientists offer the present amendment.
The "tenets of "A church" clause Is
restored, the provision which Gov
ernor Glynn vetoed is also retained
and another pharlsaical clause Is
added, prov that no quarantine
or sanitary regulation il violated"
Every intelligent legislator must
see that the latter is impossible,
though very important for the pro-
lection of the community Your cor
sp,ndent himself writes. christian
nosticians."
This being the only real fact con-
tanned in the letter, how Will they, as
YOU ask. report disease. which they
do not recognize as an entity at all.
To the Health Board?
Evidently the Christian Scientists
are at their wits ends n, md an eN-
emption from the public health law
that would stand the test of the
courts and of common sense. Far
be IL from me 10 cast any reflection
upon the honest Christian Scientist
who In the spirit NJ Christ heals the
sick without filthy lucre. believe
there were and perhaps still are some
of this type to-day,
But the wealth beaueathed by the
founder OF that church" and the
magnificent temples they erect to her
service testify that. M your cor
respondent says, The laborcr Is
worthy OF his hire" IL their doc
trine. The healer II laborer IN the
vineyard OF the Lord, but. unlike
Christ and the Apostles, he wants pay
and will have It unless the courts pro-
tect the people against this mistaken
claim. My own deep interest in this
subject was recently intensified by
the death OF splendid woman rela-
tive who, after being "healed" by spir-
itual means and eschewing material
Ger, which could surely have been re-