Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis

A. G. Daniells to G. I. Butler, Apr. 11, 1902

The General Conference
of
Seventh-day Adventists
267 West Main Street.
A. G. Daniells, President.
H. E. Osborne. Secretary.
H. M. Mitchell, Treasurer.
Cable Address, Adventist.
Battle Creek, Mich., U. S. A.
From A. G. Daniells
Des Moines, Iowa, April 11, 1902.
To: Elder Geo. I. Butler,
1025 Jefferson St.,
Nashville, Tenn.
My dear Brother in Christ:—

I have delayed replying to your letter written at Tampa, March 6, because I have hardly known how to reply. I feel sure that you do not fully understand some of the points with which your letter deals, and I take it that you will be glad of an explanation from me. MMM 313.1

I will mention, first of all, the thing that seemed so serious to you, namely, the treatment Brother Smith received from the General Conference Committee and the Review and Herald Board. I believe that when you know exactly what we did, and our reasons for doing it, you will not think that we have been cruel and unchristian toward Brother Smith. We had no thought of degrading him, nor “turning him down,” nor cutting him off from the editorial staff of the REVIEW. I do not believe that any one who was a witness of what was done will say that we treated the matter with a wrong spirit, nor did we speak a single unkind word to Brother Smith. It was all done with the greatest care and Christian kindness. MMM 313.2

Brother Smith has never been well and strong since his return from Europe. During the last year he has failed a great deal. It has been impossible for him to do the work on the REVIEW that he did in his younger days. He has been obliged to place a good deal of the work in the hands of his helpers. These, during the past year, were his son Leon and Brother Augustin Bourdeau. These young men are not in as close touch with our people and present work as men must be to make a great paper like the REVIEW the strong medium it should be to our people at this time. MMM 313.3

Although Brother Smith was nominally at the head of the paper, he did not really manage it, at least this is the view taken by those who were in a position to take the closest observations. He wrote his editorials, and examined some of the articles that went into the paper; but many of the articles, including editorials, were not read by him either before or after their publication. The young men put in what they chose. Some of the articles they published were not helpful to the people, and some were positively offensive. MMM 313.4

I will cite the articles that kept appearing on the color question. During the fall council a very offensive editorial was written and published. The Southern delegates who were at the council detected the article the day the REVIEW came from the press, and raised a strong protest in the Committee against allowing that article to go to the Southern field. The managers of the REVIEW AND HERALD were spoken to, and the editors were called into the council. We spent more than an hour discussing the color question, and the wisdom of touching this in the REVIEW. The Southern delegation made it very plain to the editors that these articles had done our people much harm in the South, and that if they continued, the REVIEW would be cut off from that part of the field. Although a large share of that number had already been printed, and quite a load had been taken to the station in the mail bags, the managers decided to stop the whole thing, take out the article, and put something in its place. They telephoned to the railway station, and ordered our mail bags returned to the office. I believe some papers were sent out, but not many. This cost the Review and Herald a lot of money, and you would think that it would have been a lesson to the editors; but inside of two months another article was put through the REVIEW in which offensive statements were made regarding any recognition whatever of the color line. Elder Smith himself never saw this last article. One of the young editors claimed he never saw it, and I think the other one claimed that he did not know anything about it. We never got at the root of the matter. But a paper like the REVIEW AND HERALD, that goes to thousands of our people, and stands as the leading organ of the denomination, should be most thoroughly and critically edited. We can not dump a lot of matter into a great hopper, and have a very good grist ground out. MMM 313.5

I will relate another incident that shows the lack of management and thorough editorial work on the REVIEW. Some one was not pleased with the singing in the Battle Creek Church, and wrote a severe criticism of the Battle Creek Choir, and sent it to the editorial office. This was published. It proved to be very offensive to the whole choir. They took the position that either the REVIEW must retract this, and publish an article in their defense, or they would resign in a body. They came to me about the matter, and I earnestly begged of them not to pay any attention to it, but to go on with their singing for the Lord and the benefit of the Sabbath services. Finally they decided that that would be the better course. But the editor-in-chief of the REVIEW took the matter up and wrote an article in defense of the choir, and gave the author of the article he had published a severe rebuke for writing as he did about the choir. I suppose you read both articles. MMM 314.1

Now I do not believe that the REVIEW should be managed in that way. In the first place, it is not a medium for the publication of a person’s likes and dislikes. Every article should be so carefully managed that articles of that character should never see daylight. To me, it is a pitiful piece of editorial management to deliberately publish articles from our brethren, and then turn around and castigate them for writing such articles. I believe the publisher stands equally guilty with the writer; and as the editors are responsible for what is published, they are the guilty parties on the publisher’s side. MMM 314.2

Just before the week of prayer a series of articles appeared from one Brother Brickey, on Galatians. They were openly and squarely against the message that came to this people at Minneapolis, and that has been embraced by thousands of our people and openly and repeatedly endorsed by the Spirit of Prophecy. These articles have caused a great deal of trouble and dissatisfaction among our brethren in different States. Many of our ministers were perfectly astonished that the REVIEW would publish them. They could not believe that they had been read by the editor, and so wrote him. Some of them gave due warning that if the REVIEW continued to publish such theology, it would be necessary for the State Conference Committees to take their stand against the REVIEW, and use their State papers and other local facilities to place the situation truly and fairly before their brethren. I stand in a position to know that serious injury has been wrought by those articles. And I know that the REVIEW could not stand with our brethren if it continued that course. MMM 314.3

I might cite other instances, but there are some perplexing features about it that I do not care to put on paper. MMM 314.4

This was the situation that confronted the members of the General Conference Committee, whose duty it was this spring to arrange the editorial staff for another year. Every man present, including the leading members of the Review and Herald Board, felt that a change should be made. We gave the matter the most careful and prayerful and deliberate consideration. Our decisions were not arrived at hastily. The matter was before us several times before our minds were clear as to what to do. Finally we met, and had a most earnest season of prayer, and most earnest petitions were offered to God for light and understanding. We were sorely perplexed. It seemed as though we would be unable to adjust the matter satisfactorily. The Lord came very near to us on this occasion. When we resumed our council after prayer, Brother Prescott was mentioned as a member of the editorial staff. Every one present, excepting Brother Prescott, heartily approved of this suggestion. Every one, as far as I know, felt perfectly clear that he ought to connect with the REVIEW. This was a surprise to him, and he begged off very hard. In fact he would not then consent to take the position. But this was the last meeting the Committee could hold. The next day we were to leave for our homes, and I was to start for the Pacific Coast. We had delayed until the last meeting. We all felt clear, and expressed ourselves by resolution. Brother Prescott took the matter under advisement. He finally decided to join the staff, but did not wish to have his name placed at the head of the editorial staff. I did not have time to counsel much with Brother Prescott. The next day his sister met with a severe accident through a runaway horse. After I left he and Brother Evans and Brother Spicer talked the matter over, and arranged that he should connect with the editorial staff as managing or office editor, and that Brother Smith’s name should be retained at the head of the paper. MMM 315.1

I do not think that any one who took part in this was, as you intimate, either ashamed or afraid of what they had done. With us it was not a question of paying honor to men. It was a great anxiety to strengthen the REVIEW, and so help the masses of our people, that burdened our hearts. I can not see how our action was unkind toward Brother Smith. We did not attempt to out him off from the REVIEW; we did not reduce his pay, nor limit his field of usefulness. We did not even desire to place his name second in the list of editors, though I think this feature of the question is one unworthy of the Christian’s motives. To me, it looks like a very empty sort of honor indeed to have one’s name appear first among men. But it is this hankering after honor that has cursed the church of God from time immemorial. It was this desire for honor that hindered the disciples while Christ was on the earth from doing the work he gave them to do. MMM 315.2

In our council meeting Brother Smith’s name was mentioned with true Christian courtesy. We meant to do what was right by him and the REVIEW. After our action was taken, Brother Evans, the president of the publishing hoard, had a talk with Brother Smith; and later the members of the Board, including Brother Smith, talked it all over together. Every one was as pleasant as I ever saw them in a board meeting. Not an unkind word was spoken. I did not know from his appearance nor from anything he said, that Brother Smith’s feelings were hurt because of our recommendation. MMM 315.3

I have not talked with Brother Smith about the matter since, for I had to leave for California immediately, and have been in Battle Creek but a few days since. I hear through others that he was offended because of our action. I am very sorry for this. At the same time, I believe that we did right in placing Brother Prescott on the editorial staff. I never took any step with much greater care, nor with better motives and clearer convictions. If our brethren will keep cool, and allow the arrangement to be worked out, I think they will see that the action was right. MMM 315.4

More might be said regarding this matter; but I have probably said enough. I think we shall all get along very well at the office if our brethren will give us time to work matters out properly. One of the greatest difficulties I find in endeavoring to effect reforms is Battle Creek street gossip. You can not do a thing in that place without being criticised. Everybody seems to know all about what you are doing, and a great many know of a great many things you do not do. I have heard senseless rumors enough during the last year in Battle Creek to make a book. The wildest king or rumors, without any foundation whatever, are circulated as well-grounded facts. Notwithstanding the fact that for years many things have proved to be false, yet everybody seems to believe everything that is reported. This makes it hard for one who is endeavoring to effect reforms. I would be very glad if the headquarters of the General Conference offices could be removed from that place. I have thought of it seriously many times during the year. If it were not for the Sanitarium and the Review and Herald office, I should certainly make a strong effort to move the General Conference offices to some other place. But for a time at least we must remain there. But I need not tell you anything about this. You have had experience enough to fully appreciate all that I may say regarding it. MMM 316.1

Trusting that this explanation will be accepted in the spirit in which it is written, and that it will help to set matters in the right light, I will close for the present. MMM 316.2

Yours in the Master’s service,
(Signed) A. G. Daniells