The biennial session of the Pacific Union Conference followed the ministerial institute. The reports of the union president and of the departmental secretaries showed that an excellent spirit of progress had attended the work during the last two years. The increase in membership amounted to 618. Over $134,000 has been given during the last biennial period to the cause of foreign missions. There has been an increase of over $75,000 tithe, making the total amount of tithe for the union conference during the last two years $296,000. In his report, the president recommended that $6,000 of surplus tithe be donated to the General Conference for use in mission fields. By action of the conference, this recommendation was adopted.
This union, particularly California, has been one of the storm-centers in the fight for religious legislation during the last few years. Thus far, through the good providence of the Lord and the campaign which our people have carried on against such measures, efforts of this character have proved unavailing. It is evident, however, that a strenuous effort will be made in behalf of Sunday legislation during the next few months. The adoption of the initiative and referendum on the part of California affords the Sunday-law advocates an opportunity to submit the question to popular vote. This will be done the coming year. Our people are awake to the situation, and see in it an excellent opportunity for an active campaign of education in bringing not only before legislators, but before the people generally, a knowledge of the real principle involved in the passage of Sunday laws.
Liberal provision was made for the further development of the Pacific Union College. Nearly four thousand dollars was subscribed for that enterprise by the delegates.
Elder G. A. Irwin, who has served the cause for many years in leading official positions, retired from the presidency of the union, feeling that in the active and earnest work which the future calls for, a younger and physically stronger man should take charge of the work. Elder E. E. Andross was chosen for the position. The union will still have the benefit of Brother Irwin’s counsels, as he was retained on the executive committee as vice-president of the union.
Several important questions of general interest were discussed at this meeting by leading workers. Inasmuch, however, as reports of the meeting will be published later, we shall not make further mention of the conference sessions here.
During the meeting at Los Angeles we were pleased to make our home at the Glendale Sanitarium. This institution is located in the city of Glendale, eight miles from Los Angeles, and is connected with that city by an excellent electric railway service. The sanitarium has been able in the past to afford accommodations for about sixty guests. Recently, however, the gymnasium building has been remodeled and enlarged and transformed into a hospital building, which nearly doubles the capacity of the institution. This hospital contains an excellent surgical ward, and one of the finest operating-rooms possessed by any of our medical institutions. The nurses’ dormitory and two cottages complete the buildings of the institution.
The working staff of this sanitarium consists of about eighty earnest men and women, forty-eight of whom are nurses. Here is conducted an excellent training-school for nurses. An effort has been made to provide the nurses with practical experience in field work, in addition to the regular instruction. Being in close proximity to Los Angeles, an excellent opportunity is afforded for gaining an experience in dealing with a large variety of cases, both acute and chronic.
Considerable has been done in visiting-nurses’ work. All nurses are expected to spend some time in labor of this kind, and arrangements with the Florence Crittenden Maternity Home afford the lady nurses an excellent experience in obstetrical nursing.
The faculty of this institution consists of Dr. D. D. Comstock, medical superintendent; Dr. Belle Wood-Comstock, lady physician; J. J. Wessels, manager; C. F. Marvin, chaplain; Mrs. Dora Basnett, matron; and Miss Lillian Santee, head nurse. We were pleased to meet here Dr. H. F. Rand, with whom we had been pleasantly associated in labor in the past. Dr. Rand, after rendering valuable assistance to the St. Helena Sanitarium for several years, has connected with the work in Glendale and Los Angeles.
Under the auspices of the Southern California Conference, bath-rooms are being operated in the city of Los Angeles. Dr. J. R. Leadsworth and Dr. H. J. Hoare, who are connected with these treatment-rooms, are rendering most excellent service.
We found in the Glendale Sanitarium an excellent spirit among the workers, and a spirit of contentment and interest on the part of the guests. The family is working unitedly and harmoniously for the building up of the work, and this spirit is bound to succeed in the end. We had the pleasure of speaking to the nurses four times during our stay.
A gain, above operating expenses, of more than three thousand dollars was made by the institution last year, and this probably will be doubled the present year.
With its beautiful surroundings, its excellent equipment, and its proximity to a city of three hundred thousand people, we believe that a successful future lies before this splendid institution.
Among the several educational institutions of the Pacific Coast which are doing much in the development of workers, both for the home field and for the world-wide work, stands the Fernando Academy. It was the writer’s privilege, in company with his brother, Elder M. C. Wilcox, to spend one day at this school, and to speak at chapel to the one hundred or more students enrolled. This school was opened in 1902. The buildings consist of the Academy Hall (a modern brick structure, seventy by ninety feet, three stories high), two homes (a young women’s dormitory, containing the culinary department of the school; an annex, or second home for the young women), and another building, in which is carried forward the normal-training work, and in which are treatment-rooms, and sleeping quarters for the young men. Ten acres of land are owned by the school, and used for garden purposes.
It was an inspiration here, as elsewhere, to look into the faces of the young men and women attending this institution, and realize that they are here not for the purpose of preparing themselves for worldly work, but that into the lives of the great majority there had entered a definite purpose to work for God, and that from this school in the future, as in the past, would go out many to swell the ranks of those engaged in carrying forward this great movement.
This school is affiliated with the College of Medical Evangelists at Loma Linda, and is doing considerable preparatory work in fitting young men and women to take the medical course. The work done in the school is accepted by the board of State medical examiners,8and its graduates are accepted without examination.
Prof. H. G. Lucas is the efficient principal of the academy. With him are associated Elder E. J. Hibbard, who has charge of the Bible work, S. Parker Smith, Dr. Lillis Wood-Starr, W. S. Boynton, B. B. Davis, Mrs. H. G. Lucas, Miss Emily A. Johnson, Miss Irma E. Lewis, G. A. Wheeler, Mrs. B. B. Davis, Mrs. W. S. Boynton, Mrs. E. C. Davey, and Miss Ava Hibbard, as teachers.
An earnest spirit exists in the school. The instructors are laboring faithfully to fulfil the responsible trust committed to them of molding the lives of the young men and women committed to their care. This institution is worthy of the hearty support of the brethren and sisters of the Southern California Conference, and we are glad it is receiving it in liberal measure. The school is larger this year than it has ever been, and its accommodations are taxed to the utmost capacity.
Fernando Academy in Southern California, Lodi Normal Institute in Central California, which we learn from many quarters is doing most excellent work, and the Pacific Union College at St. Helena, afford an excellent system of schools for the young men and women of the Pacific Coast. Many are awake to the opportunities that are afforded them. There are still many, however, in these large conferences who are either attending worldly schools or following worldly pursuits, who should seek a preparation in these institutions which have been provided. The excellent system of schools now in operation by Seventh-day Adventists should command the support of our young people everywhere. The call of God to-day is for workers, for strong, earnest, faithful young men and women. The fields are white to the harvest. Opportunities are opening and rapidly multiplying on every side. In this work to-day is afforded a place for the exercise of every talent and of every ability, an opportunity for the use of the brightest minds and the keenest intellects.
Do any wish to become heroes and heroines? to prove true and brave and noble in the great crises before the world? This work affords such opportunity; but the opportunity is not associated with worldly honor, with selfish glory, or with material riches. Greatness may be achieved, but it will be the greatness of self-abnegation, of surrender of selfish ambition, of unselfish labor for others. All may share in this lowly but truly great work for God. The doing of such work on the part of our young men and women may not place their names upon the world’s roll of honor, but they may have the honor of having their names written in the book of life. They may never be known in worldly courts, but like Daniel of old, they may be greatly beloved in the courts above, and most satisfactory of all, in the great day of the final harvest they may see souls saved to all eternity as a result of the sacrifice which they have made for the cause of God and humanity. Surely this is a heritage to be sought, a reward for which all should labor. F. M. W.
The Religious Garb Question
MR. SECRETARY: It is of the utmost importance that the real question at issue in this hearing should be clearly defined, and that all irrelevant questions should be eliminated. The desirability of maintaining schools for the benefit of the Indians, and the importance of imparting religious instruction to them, are matters of vital interest, and may be indirectly related to this discussion; but that should not be permitted to influence our minds in attempting to arrive at a just conclusion concerning the real point to be decided, which is indicated by what follows.
Under date of Jan. 27, 1912, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs issued Circular No. 601, relating to religious insignia, from which we take this paragraph:—
In accordance with that essential principle in our national life—the separation of church and state—as applied by me to the Indian Service, which as to ceremonies and exercises is now being enforced under the existing religious regulations, I find it necessary to issue this order supplementary to those regulations, to cover the use at those exercises and at other times, of insignia and garb as used by various denominations. At exercises of any particular denomination there is, of course, no restriction in this respect, but at the general assembly exercises and in the public schoolrooms, or on the grounds when on duty, insignia or garb has no justification.
It would appear from the statement made in this circular by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs that in his opinion the wearing of a religious garb or the display of religious insignia in the government schools was a violation of “that essential principle in our national life—the separation of church and state.” In a letter issued one or two days later, the President of the United States revoked the order of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and suggested that a hearing be given to all persons interested, stating at the same time: “I believe fully in the principle of the separation of church and state on which our government is based, but the questions presented by this order are of great importance and delicacy.”
It seems clear, therefore, that the real question is whether the wearing of a religious garb and the display of religious insignia in government schools by the representatives of a religious denomination constitute a violation of the principle of the separation of church and state. It is our contention that the Commissioner of Indian Affairs was justified in the interpretation which he placed upon this matter, and that his order was in the interest both of good government and of pure religion.
An examination of the recent acts of Congress relating to appropriations for the Indian Service shows clearly that in the opinion of that body it was desirable that the United States government should cease all connection with the teaching of religion in the schools for Indians. This is evident from the statement made in the act making appropriations for the Indian Service for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1900, which authorized the Secretary of the Interior to make contracts with contract schools to an amount not exceeding fifteen per cent of the amount used for the fiscal year 1895, adding this significant statement: “This being the final appropriation for sectarian schools.” We are not now raising the question whether it was justifiable to use for this same purpose trust and treaty funds, but refer to this action merely to show the intent of Congress that, so far as it was concerned, the government should have nothing further to do with religious schools.
This is by no means a new issue. In a letter dated March 19, 1823, written to Edward Everett, James Madison put himself on record as opposing any provision for teaching religion in an institution under the control of the government. From this letter we quote:—
The difficulty of reconciling the Christian mind to the absence of a religious tuition from a university established by law, and at the common expense, is probably less with us than with you. The settled opinion here is that religion is essentially distinct from civil government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurious to both.
In discussing the suggestion that such a policy might incur “the imputation of irreligious tendencies, if not designs,” Mr. Madison declared that this difficulty could be met more easily than those which would arise from any connection between government and religion.
Our claim is that the wearing of a religious garb and the display of religious insignia constitute a teaching of religion, and this view of the case is maintained by a judicial decision in the State of New York in the case of Nora O’Conner, appellant, v. Patrick Hendrick, as trustee of school district No. 9, town of Lima, Livingston Co., N. Y., et al. Found in 184 N. Y., 421. The court stated:—9We are thus brought to the question whether in this State a regulation is to be deemed unreasonable which prohibits teachers in common schools from wearing a distinctively religious garb while engaged in the work of teaching. In my opinion it can not justly be so regarded. . . . There can be little doubt that the effect of the costume worn by these Sisters of St. Joseph at all times in the presence of their pupils would be to inspire respect, if not sympathy, for the religious denomination to which they so manifestly belong. To this extent the influence was sectarian, even if it did not amount to the teaching of denominational doctrine.
To the same effect is the argument of Mr. Justice Williams in the case of Hysong v. School District (164 Pa. St., 629, 654), who held:—
The teachers come into the schools not as common-school teachers or as civilians, but as the representatives of a particular church whose lives have been dedicated to religious work under the direction of that church. Now the point of the objection is not that their religion disqualifies them. It does not. Nor is it thought that church-membership disqualifies them. It does not. It is not that holding an ecclesiastical office or position disqualifies them, for it does not. It is the introduction into the schools as teachers of persons who are by their striking and distinctive ecclesiastical robes necessarily and constantly asserting their membership in a particular church, and in a religious order within that church, and the subjection of their lives to the direction and control of its officers.
That the wearing of a distinctive religious garb is considered by the Roman Catholic Church as equivalent to a public profession of the religion of a particular order is shown by the following extract from the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XII, page 753:—
The church insists on the use of a habit, by which the religious are distinguished from secular persons. A distinctive habit is always required for nuns; the clerical habit is sufficient for men. Those approved institutes whose members may be taken for seculars out-of-doors, lack that public profession which characterizes the religious state, in the sight of the church, according to the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 11 August, 1889.
There can be no question that the wearing of the religious garb does emphasize the religious idea, and that when it is the distinctive garb of any religious denomination, it suggests more or less directly the doctrines of that denomination. The wearing of such a garb in the government schools makes the government a party to the teaching of denominational religion, and is a long step toward a union of church and state. This is the view advocated in an editorial in the New York Independent of Feb. 15, 1912, from which we make this quotation:—
Certainly, Commissioner Valentine was right in declaring that the essential principle of the separation of church and state forbids the teachers in these schools to impress their faith on the children by a peculiar sectarian dress and other insignia. Take the case of the Standing Rock Reservation. There are two Catholic government boarding-schools, and all are required to attend school. In the agency there are as many as four Protestant Indian churches. Their larger children must go to these schools, and crucifixes are at the heads of their beds, and pictures of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and other signs of Roman Catholic devotion are in constant evidence. They can not escape being taught Catholicism. To be sure, they may at specified times be allowed instruction from their own minister or chaplain, as the Catholic children are allowed, but this obtruding of one kind of religious faith is unjust in a country which knows no discrimination of faith.
We are in favor of maintaining the order issued by Commissioner Valentine, not because we are opposed to religion, or the teaching of religion at the proper time and place, but because we regard it of utmost importance to preserve inviolate the American and Christian principle of the entire separation of the church from the state and of religion from the government.
So jealous were some of the fathers of this country of any action which might in the least degree contravene this principle, that they strenuously opposed any governmental action that appeared to be in the interest even of the Christian religion. From Madison’s famous memorial, written in 1785, we take this paragraph, which is significant:—
It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?
The wearing of a religious garb in government schools for the Indians may be regarded by some as a very slight matter over which to make an issue, but the history of all religious establishments shows that they have begun by a very slight departure from the principles of religious liberty, and that when once the ground has been yielded that government may have the least thing to do with religion, the path is made much easier toward a complete establishment of religion. We hold that in the whole matter of the education of the Indians there is no more important question than the maintenance of a complete separation between the church and the state, and that it would be even better that the government should make no provision whatever for the education of the Indians, leaving this work to be done wholly by voluntary agencies, rather than that one iota of the principle which lies at the foundation of this free government should be sacrificed. We agree heartily with the statements made in an editorial in the Outlook of March 30, 1912:—
We can see nothing on the face of Commissioner Valentine’s order which is not wholly in harmony with the essential principle of complete separation of church and state in education. . . .
If it is impossible for the government of the United States to conduct Indian schools in which the principle of the separation of church and state is absolutely maintained,—not merely nominally but actually, not merely in letter but in spirit,—then we believe that the whole system of Indian government schools should be abandoned. For it will be better for the country, Catholic and Protestant, to abandon its Indian schools and to turn them over to denominational missions or to private philanthropy than to jeopardize in the least degree the principle of the separation of church and state, upon which rests, in the last analysis, the religious liberty of every denomination and of every individual.
The welfare of the Indian is important, but far more important is the right of every American citizen to form his own theological beliefs without the aid, the advice, the influence, or the compulsion of government.