Arizona republican., 1920-12-09
Reply to Mir. WooIwine

Phoenix, AriZ., Dec. s. 1920. 1 The Editor of the Arizona Republican, Phoenix, Arizona:
 Dear Sir:-My attention has been called to an article in your paper sum marking a letter by T.NL. Woolwine, district attorney of Los Angeles county, threatening prosecution, if a case ends fatally, of Christian Science parents who have not called in medical aid and as the letter is an open attack upon the religious convictions of a very large number of our citizens. I am sure you will extend to me the courtesy of publishing a reply thereto
 Now, should such a case be pressed in California, no doubt despite the dis trict attorneys prejudice. the result would be what it has been in practically every enlightened community where similar prosecutions nave been at tempted. The evidence of the good faith of the parents that they were supplying the very best system of cure of which they knew for their child las been so conclusive, the testimony of the efficacy of Christian Science heal ing as compared to materia medica has been so favorable and convincing that the charge of negligence has been con sidered fully disproved and the parents discharged.
 The success of a system of persecu- tion, such as Mr. Woolwine would in augurate with the help of the County Medical society, would mean simply the local establishment of state medicine, a condition as utterly pernicious and foreign to American ideals as state re- ligion. It would mean the turning Of the locality into a vast experimental laboratory. where m edical opinion is law and where a parent is forced to see his child made tha subject, not of any scientific practice, bu. or the latest medical theory and experimentation. The most experienced medical men are the most ready to admit that their practice is theoretical, while the medi- cal bible of today is too frequently the medical Joe Miller of tomorrow to war rant one portion of community in forcing 1t upon another
 An honest investigation of the facts by Mir. Woolwine, instead of his relying on unfounded surmise, would have made his letter less spectacular, but nearer the truth. Many inves.igafions of Christian Science as a healing agency have been made and have re- suited either in an open acknowledge ment that it does heal the sick. or a silence that bespeaks such a conviction without the grace to admit it. Like wise he would. have learned that the Christian Science practitioner charges the most modest fees for his conse- crated work. and that the amount of charitable treatment for which he re- ceived nothing is to be compared favor ably. to say the least, with that Of the medical practitioner.
 Christian Scientists are good citizens and obey the laws. What the law re- garding medical attendance may be in California. do not know. but whatever it is. the opinion of Chief Judge Bart lett of New York. rendered in 1916. in a case affecting Christian Science, is pertinent. He says:
 "I concur with Judge Chase in the construction of the statute, but I go further. I deny the power of the leg islature to make it a crime to treat dis ease by prayer"
 Commenting on this decision, the Brooklyn Daily Eagle remarked:
 Tt has taken a man four years in our courts to learn that he may pray to God to heal his sick body while heal ing his sick soul. Our court Of appeals is unanimous in it's opinion in the Cole case that man cannot limit God"
 Thanking you in advance for your courtesy in this regard.
 Yours very truly,
 I. DeR. MILLER. Christian Science Committee on Pub
 lication for the State of Arizona