The Chair: Are there any corrections to offer on the minutes of the Conference, or any preliminary matters to attend to? If not, we will call for the first business that comes up this morning, the consideration of the report of the Committee on Institutions.GCB April 6, 1903, page 73.15

C. H. Parsons: The delegates will find the report of the Committee on Institutions on the first column of page 67 of the “Bulletin.” It would probably be well now, since this is in your hands, to have it read, that the points may be brought out by discussion. I think it will not be necessary for me to consume the time of the Conference by a long explanation. So, as these articles are read for consideration, if any one has any questions to ask, I will be pleased to try to offer the explanations. I think this will save time I call for the reading of the first section.GCB April 6, 1903, page 73.16

The secretary read the first section.GCB April 6, 1903, page 73.17

W. C. White: Does this mean to point out or to intimate the plan upon which new institutions are to be based, or does this mean that existing institutions are to change their form of organization and government?GCB April 6, 1903, page 73.18

C. H. Parsons: I would answer that question by saying, first, it is a plan for the organization of new institutions specifically; second, it is a general policy to be used, as far as possible, through the method of moral suasion, in the reorganization of any institutions that are not in touch and under the control of our people, but are supposed to be so.GCB April 6, 1903, page 73.19

W. C. White: Is it intended, or is it likely to occur, that the result of this proposal will be, or will lead to, an effort upon the part of Union Conference Committees, and in turn of State Conference Committees, to manage schools, sanitariums, publishing, book work, and other enterprises?GCB April 6, 1903, page 73.20

C. H. Parsons: My idea would be that the carrying out of this plan in detail would be subject to this idea: first, if you notice, it says “General Conference, Union Conference, State Conference,” etc. If a state conference creates a sanitarium, or runs a little publishing work, in the way of a bulletin or a record, that should be the controlling factor in the enterprise. If it is of a larger nature, and demands the action of the Union Conference, it would be handled by the Union Conference. If it is of such a missionary nature that the whole denomination is to unite in it, it would be under the auspices of the general work. To lay down any hard and fast laws. I do not think was in the mind of the committee, but that we should present a general plan for denominational ownership, distributed according to the point at which it is created, and to be managed by the creators.GCB April 6, 1903, page 73.21

C. McReynolds: The question that was asked by Brother White in regard to the management of these instructions is one of vital importance from this standpoint. If by the passage of this resolution it shall be understood that the ownership and control of the management of all such institutions shall be by the Conference, General, Union, or State, and no corporations or board shall have control of any of these institutions, other than the Conference, which is represented by the Conference Committee, then we are arranging things so that conference committees work will be officialism gone to seed. They will be tied up in offices, tied up with management of institutions, and cut away from the field at large. I feel as though there is a point in this. I do not rise to oppose the spirit of the recommendation. In a way it is right, to my mind, but there is a large question there that it seems to me demands careful consideration, unless I understand it wrongly.GCB April 6, 1903, page 73.22

C. H. Parsons: I think when we get down to section 7, it will clear that fog away. That distinctively carries in mind that we would not have conference committees managing these things. The thought is not to have conference committees doing these things. Still, if people wanted it somewhere, even though it might be wrong it would be better to let them have it that way, and find out that it was wrong, than to have some arbitrary power come in and say they should not do so. Section 7 distinctively implies that institutions should be managed by institutional boards; but the institutional board should be elected by the people. I think, as we come down to that, we will find that is made quite clear. I do not believe in conference committees managing anything, any more than anybody else.GCB April 6, 1903, page 73.23

W. T. Knox: I would like to say a word especially in reference to the recommendation before us, and that is that it deals only with ownership; that institutions be owned directly by the people. I am satisfied that every one of us is convinced that that would be the very best condition we could attain to; if, for instance, the Pacific Press ownership were recognized, in fact and deed, as being vested in the people, they responsible for its success, responsible for it in all its parts. This recommendation has nothing whatever to do with the question that has been raised as to its management, because, if the owners should indicate the board that would manage it, if the ownership should be vested in the people, they would indicate what class of persons, what men, should manage it. I think it would be very foolish to place the management of it in a committee such as a conference committee is usually composed of. The direct management of every institution would be vested in the hands of such as would best understand its needs, and would bring about the very best results for the institution. I am sure every one connected with any of our institutions recognizes that the ideal plan is for all the people to be interested in them, all the people to have an ownership in them. And the highest success can never be attained to by any institution till that condition is brought about.GCB April 6, 1903, page 73.24

The question was called for.GCB April 6, 1903, page 74.1

The Chair: Shall we take action on each section as read and called?GCB April 6, 1903, page 74.2

C. H. Parsons: My suggestion would be that we take action on the thing as a whole, because it is a logically-developed plan.GCB April 6, 1903, page 74.3

The Chair: We will pass to the second section then.GCB April 6, 1903, page 74.4

H. Shultz: I would like to ask how are the institutions that are now held by the different associations, as they now exist, and with the present stockholders,—how are they going to be put into the hands of the people, so that the people at large can hold them.GCB April 6, 1903, page 74.5

C. H. Parsons: I really think that no man is competent to answer that question to-day. We contemplate, in the last of this, a plan that may lead to light on this subject. We do not know how this can be done. In some instances it may not be possible to do it. If this results in these resolutions never reorganizing a single existing institution, and they correct evils in all future institutions, it will be a blessing to us as a people. We have got to go at this proposition, and get on a solid foundation with regard to these existing institutions with good business sense. We can not do it here by legislation this morning. All we can do with these things is simply to recommend things. This may never affect a single existing institution, but if it defines the policy of the future, that will be helpful and save irritation; it is not a failure.GCB April 6, 1903, page 74.6

Dr. Kellogg: I think I ought to say to these delegates a word or two. I do not speak as a delegate, but as the president of a board of the Battle Creek Sanitarium, not as a member of other boards of other institutions. I rise to put myself on record simply, as I do not know what I shall say will have any influence whatever on any action that may be taken.GCB April 6, 1903, page 74.7

Now, the first question I wish to ask is this: What is the purpose of this resolution? What is the purpose behind it? What use is intended to be made of this resolution? I would like to have that question answered.GCB April 6, 1903, page 74.8

C. H. Parsons: The idea of the resolution is, really, denominational ownership in all new institutions, and, as far as possible, to request, where we can, that existing institutions that are denominational be held in the same way. Nothing demanded at all, just persuasion.GCB April 6, 1903, page 74.9

Dr. Kellogg: I understand that this is a resolution the purpose of which is to put something into the hands of men that can be used to coerce by moral suasion or such other suasion as men may choose to bring to bear for their own purposes, to put this Conference on record as requiring what is called denominational ownership. It seems to me that there is a little deficiency in this resolution; that should go a little farther. There should be a clause added to it requesting not only that all institutions connected with this denomination which are doing work for the advancement of these denominational interests,—not only requesting that they should be brought under general denominational ownership, but also that all the property owned by Seventh-day Adventists should be put under denominational ownership and under denominational control. It is just as right to demand that the property of one man should be put under the control of the whole town, or the whole denomination, as to demand that the property of ten men should be put under the control and the ownership of the entire community. Now I wish to say, brethren, that there can be possibly no cause and no demand for any resolution of this sort, unless there is the purpose to accomplish that very thing, or some sort of influence, or some sort of coercion, or pressure, that can be brought to bear. There can be no possible demand for it. Why? The statement here is that the institutions shall be owned “by the people.” The sacred name of the people has been used in all generations as a means to conjure, as a name under which to make demands, sometimes of the most extraordinary character, under the name of the people,—the people must rule, the people must control, the people must have ownership, and the people must have power. And that is all true.GCB April 6, 1903, page 74.10

The statement is made that the people should own our denominational institutions. Nothing could be more correct than that. The people should own them, certainly they should. But what people? What people?—The people who have put their money in, and who have put themselves in,—the men who are interested in the enterprise.GCB April 6, 1903, page 74.11

Now I would like to ask another question: What institution is there in connection with the whole Seventh-day Adventist denomination which is not owned by the people to-day? What institution is there in all our ranks.—Pacific Press Association, Review and Herald Office Publishing Association, Battle Creek Sanitarium. St. Helena Sanitarium,—where is there a single institution that is not to-day owned and managed by the people? I want to ask that question. If there is a single one, then there is a demand for this resolution.GCB April 6, 1903, page 74.12

R. A. Underwood: The South Lancaster Academy is one.
J. H. Kellogg: Tell us about it.
W. C. White: Healdsburg College.
J. H. Kellogg: Tell us about it.
R. A. Underwood: It is owned by stockholders.
J. H. Kellogg: Are not the stockholders the people?
R. A. Underwood: Yes, they are people.
J. H. Kellogg: What people are they. Are they Seventh-day Adventists?
R. A. Underwood: Generally supposed to be.

J. H. Kellogg: Now, then, how do they differ from other Seventh-day Adventists, from the people of New England?—Simply in this thing, that they have put their own money into that institution. Now, then, why should other people who have never put their money in say, “Oh, we must own this thing”?GCB April 6, 1903, page 75.1

R. A. Underwood: There are thousands in the Union Conference that have put their money into it that have no voice in its legal control.GCB April 6, 1903, page 75.2

J. H. Kellogg: These people who have put their money in should have received certificates of membership, so they could have some part in it. If they are not regarded, they should be regarded. They are the ones in it, and their rights should certainly be recognized. If you have deprived them of that right, you should give it to them. But these people who have not put their money in, what right have they to rise up and say, “We want to own this thing, and control this thing”?GCB April 6, 1903, page 75.3

Now, if a resolution is passed by this Conference that every institution in this denomination which is doing anything for the advancement of this cause and this truth must be owned by the whole people, and that there can be no such thing as that ten men shall say, “We will do something for God in harmony with these principles.” you will simply establish a state of things that will discourage, utterly discourage, little groups of men from coming up here and there, and establish a principle that by and by will say that every man must turn over the deed of his farm to the whole people, that we must adopt the community principle, and that everything that the entire denomination, that everything that every Seventh-day Adventist has, must be turned over to the control of the entire people. This is the principle of communism that seems to be brought in here, and against the principle of individual right. A man who has a farm, a horse, or a cow, a means by which he can earn means and money, that man has a right to use those things for God and humanity as he sees fit; and if he wants to use the means for the advancement of the Seventh-day Adventist cause, he has a right to do that, and the church has not any right to rise up and say that you should use your money for the advancement of the Seventh-day Adventist cause; that you must turn all your property over to be controlled by the church, the whole people. If you have no right to make such a demand for one man, you have no right to make such a demand for two men; and so all men have a right to do the same thing.GCB April 6, 1903, page 75.4

Suppose two brethren in the church should say: “We have a little money. Now we will build a schoolhouse for a church-school. And, we will let the church use it: we will allow them to use it.” Suppose the church should rise up and say: “The General Conference has said that all denominational institutions should be under the control and the ownership of the church and the denomination, hence you can not use this schoolhouse for a church school unless the church owns the schoolhouse. And if you expect this thing to be done, the deed of this schoolhouse must be made to the church or to the Conference.”GCB April 6, 1903, page 75.5

What applies to the little schoolhouse applies to the sanitarium. You have heard this morning that you have no right to bind individuals; that every individual should stand in his own right, to do whatever God has given him the right to do. You have heard that sanitariums had no right to bind other sanitariums, or to bind nurses, or to bind doctors. I want to say to you that my eyes have been opened here at this Conference, and by the experience of the last few months, and I have seen that I have been working for a wrong principle. I have been working for it all my life, to bind everything, to bind every man that came in contact with me, and to bind myself, and to put around myself bands to bind me, to the whole people, and to the control of the whole people. I have put myself absolutely under the control of this entire people, and in such a way that I have felt that at almost every General Conference I came to, I came in the position that I did not know anything about what was going to happen to me. I came here to this Conference in the same way, and am here now waiting.GCB April 6, 1903, page 75.6

Now I believe I have been wrong I have endeavored to ask my nurses to do it, to do exactly what I did, to ask my colleagues, the doctors, to do, exactly what I did, and to bind themselves to the institution, to bind themselves to the complete control of the denomination. We refused to take a single nurse into the sanitarium unless that nurse would say, “I want to work for the Seventh-day Adventist denomination; I want to put myself under the control of this association, of you men, and the presidents of conferences, and of the General Conference Committee.” And we have bound every nurse to that thing, every medical student to the same thing; we have said, “We will not teach you, unless you bind yourselves that you will work with this people and for this denomination; that you make that as a declaration.”GCB April 6, 1903, page 75.7

I want to say this is the only bonds that we have to-day. We have no other bonds than that. We have had no other kind of bonds but that. I can find no other interpretation of what has been said than that we were wrong. I have been convinced that we were wrong. I have made up my mind for a more liberal policy. I have made up my mind that I am going to teach every man that wants to know the truth; I will teach him all I know, and he may make such use of that knowledge as he wants to make of it anywhere on the face of the earth.GCB April 6, 1903, page 75.8

I have been doing this thing for no special purpose; but I did it for you, because I believed in the principle of the denomination control of everything. But I see I have been wrong; and this principle which has been brought up in this resolution is right along that same line. It is to bind every man and every little group of men that want to do work for this cause, so that they can not do anything. They can not even own the property with which they want to serve God; they can not control that; but they must turn the whole thing over to be controlled by a large mass of men, who have not the impulses in their own hearts that they have. The Lord has not laid upon them the burden to do that thing.GCB April 6, 1903, page 75.9

Here are ten men that have a burden to operate a sanitarium. They have a right to do that thing, or to start a little city mission. But if this principle is true, it goes straight down to the smallest institution in the denomination just as well as the big institution. If it is a principle, it goes straight through. And if here are some men that want to have a little bit of a city mission, that want to start a little city mission, do a little work, want to start a restaurant, it may be, a cafe, or some treatment rooms, or want to do any other thing that they can do to help along the good work, it applies to them. On this principle, while their money is in their own pockets, they have a right to do what they like; but when they put their money together, it becomes an institution. Then the church must take control of it. Then here are ten men who have a plan in their hearts, but they can not carry it out unless they turn that thing over immediately to the whole state to control, or to the church to control,—men who have not got the burden on their souls. And perhaps the first thing those men would say would be: “It is not the proper time to do this thing. This is not the proper place to do it; this is not the proper way to do it.” Now here are men who are ready to do it with their own energies, who are ready to do it with their own money, and are ready to do it as they feel that God is directing them to do it. But here is a great monarch here, a great monarch, a tyranny which arises and says. “You shall not do it.”GCB April 6, 1903, page 75.10

Now, we talk much about the blessed principle of republicanism, and of the spirit of republicanism. There is not a greater tyranny on the earth than republicanism. What is it?—It is simply the tyranny of the majority over a minority. If there are one hundred men, and forty-nine of them want to do something, or if they do not want to do it, that forty-nine men can be compelled to stand right still, or can be made to do anything, by the fifty-one. It is simply a control of force, a power of tyranny,—the majority ruling over the minority. God’s government is this: every man can stand up and do what he has the power and ability to do, and what God expresses to him to do. That is the spirit of religious liberty. But here are men talking about religious liberty here, and yet they are laying foundations here for such tyranny as does not exist outside of a religious hierarchy anywhere.GCB April 6, 1903, page 76.1

I want to say to you that I raise my protest here, and I wish to be put on record, because you ?? and me stout and strong as I can possibly make myself in opposition to the principles laid down here in this resolution, on every possible occasion and in every possible place.GCB April 6, 1903, page 76.2

C. H. Parsons: I think that we can clear the atmosphere a little. The doctor and I agree on most points. The meaning of this resolution is not that the denomination should own your farm or my little home. That is not in it. It is not intended to carry it that far. I would have it mean, if it can be so amended, that, if a man wants to start a bath-room and do good; the arms of the denomination shall be thrown around him, so that he can do it without control from some place else. What this resolution means is not to discourage individual effort or associated effort.GCB April 6, 1903, page 76.3

If ten men desire to get together and start a sanitarium or something of that nature, for the purpose of advancing the third angel’s message,—leave out the third angel’s message,—the truth of God, as a general proposition,—there is nothing in this resolution to bind them in any way; and I would like to see the denomination encourage the investment of individual capital in these enterprises. We are right together on this thing. But when an institution is created by a state, and some people put a certain sum of money in it, and a general call is made, so that all the people put more or less in it. I feel that all the people are more or less interested in the institution. And it is nothing but this that is meant by these resolutions brought out here to-day. It means the control of institutions by the people that create the institutions.GCB April 6, 1903, page 76.4

If the resolutions under consideration have anything else in them than absolute liberty. I am right here to help weed it out. I hope that our brethren will realize this fact, that all that is meant by these resolutions is that, just as I say, if a state conference creates an institution by general collections and offerings from all over the state, by some giving a little, others giving more, the state should have the privilege of saying who shall have control of that institution. If there is anything wrong in that. I am satisfied and happy in being wrong.GCB April 6, 1903, page 76.5

W. C. White: I believe that the first benefit of the consideration of these resolutions will be the study of principles. Later on it may affect our institutions and their work. I believe it is a fundamental principle which should be understood in connection with all lines of work that where the burden of labor is, there rests the burden of control. Think that over, brethren: measure it; examine it from every standpoint: and the more you examine it, the better you will like it. Where the burden of labor is, there rests the burden of control,GCB April 6, 1903, page 76.6

Our institutions were first organized on the basis of stock companies. I remember my father saying: “What is more reasonable than that we ask our brethren of means to put their money into this proposition? What is more reasonable than that a man should have influence according to his investment?” It was organized on that basis, and for years it was undoubtedly the best basis that could have been adopted; but as our work grew, this was pointed out to me—it was pointed out to me clearly and emphatically first by Dr. Kellogg—that in institutional work of this character, where the employees were laboring for far less than an ordinary wage, that they became the principal investors in an institution, so that their investment far exceeded that of the stockholders; also that the people in the field who were working to build up the institution became investors in it, and in many cases their influence was of vastly more value than the money of any of those who bought stock. As I thought those things over, I came to see it and believe it, and therefore was in harmony with his plan of organizing the sanitarium and the medical institution so that it should be owned by membership rather than by stock. Of course, you will say to follow out the principle, “Why not issue stock to employees who labor year after year for less than an ordinary wage, and let their control develop with their investment?” There would be difficulties in doing that. Therefore the republican plan was adopted of giving one man one vote, and that was a great step in advance.GCB April 6, 1903, page 76.7

Take this proposition as it relates to Healdsburg College, to South Lancaster Academy, the Pacific Press, and the Southern Publishing Association, and other institutions on the stock basis. Take Healdsburg College first, and see what a bearing it had upon it. Healdsburg was built up a little over twenty years ago, and our brethren took stock in it, and it is controlled to-day according to the amount of stock held. There are teachers who have put in many years’ work there that have very little stock, yet they should have an equal influence in the control of that institution with those who invested stock years ago.GCB April 6, 1903, page 76.8

Again, during the last two years our brethren throughout the churches have been working with “Christ’s Object Lessons” to raise money. They have sent in, some $2.50, some $5.00, some $10, $15, $50, and $100. They are just as much the investors in that institution as those who put in so many dollars of stock years ago, and they ought to be recognized. Can we go through the country and take an inventory of what they have done? and issue stock in accordance with their investment? Can we issue stock to any of those teachers according to their investment? The estimate will be very difficult. What, then, shall we do?—Adopt this principle that has already been set before us,—one man, one vote. It seems to me, as far as this resolution aims at that line of change in our institutions, it will be beneficial; it will avoid evils. It not infrequently occurs that, when we meet together in stockholders’ meeting, we find that our good brethren have put a majority of their proxies in the hands of one man. Brother Butler was very much perplexed last year in his dealings with the Southern Publishing Association, because he absolutely held the controlling vote, and could fix up that matter just as he individually pleased, he having received the proxies; and he did not know how to free himself from the responsibility. I have seen Elder Smith in the same position at the Review and Herald, and other men in a similar position, where one or two men could plan together, and they had the whole control of the thing, in the stockholders’ meeting, because they held the proxies. I believe that this proposition as it is would be greatly beneficial in such cases as that.GCB April 6, 1903, page 76.9

To go back to the principle; where the burden of labor is, there rests the burden of control. I pray God that it may always be clear and just in our mind that where the Lord puts the burden upon a man or a group of men to go into mission fields, to go into pioneer work where they stand alone and bear the burden, and do the work, that work is not to be taken out of their hands; it is not to be wrested from them; it is not to be hindered. But when a group of men go into a place where there is a large body of people, and say to that body of people. “Now we want your influence: we want your help; we are going to organize an institution here among you, and we want all your influence and your help; but we will control it,” why, then you say: “No. If all the people are to help to make it a success, let all the people have a voice in saying how to make it a success.” It will be very perplexing to know just how to adjust responsibility in some cases. I do not believe we can devise any plan that is free from perplexities; but as far as this goes toward saying to our people that, if you give your energies to make this thing a success, you shall have a voice in its conduct, it seems to me it is good. I believe that there are great advantages that can be reached in some of our institutions, like the college and the publishing associations, that are now on the stock basis, that will be highly beneficial.GCB April 6, 1903, page 77.1

The Chair: Inasmuch as we are not voting upon this, and are to consider the separate sections, and then they will be open for reconsideration, would it not be well now to answer this call for the question, and pass to the second section? Of course, we can not spend all day on this section and get anywhere. I do not wish to shut off any proper discussion, but if you will take the matter in your hands, and pass as rapidly as you think best from one section to another, we may get along better.GCB April 6, 1903, page 77.2

J. H. Kellogg: The whole, thing hinges on the first proposition. In what the brethren say they want there is nothing to object to, but this resolution, as it reads, is objectionable. There is nothing objectionable in what Brother White says; that is the right thing. I have been for twenty-five years laboring and contending for a reorganization. I think I am the first man that objected to the other organization, because I am the first man who felt the pressure of it in connection with the sanitarium, and for twenty years I studied hard over the perplexing problems we got into by bad organization. I make no appeal here this morning for stock companies and for proxy voting. When the Review and Herald was organized. I made as hard a protest as I knew how against the thing that was being done. I protested against it most vigorously, because the thing that was done in the reorganization of the Review and Herald Office made the condition of things just five times worse than it was before. That is the thing that was done. There was a great clamor against me at the General Conference the same year, as some of you know; and I said I would like to rise and explain, and several hours of the Conference time was occupied; and they said to me: “Why did not you reorganize in the same way that the Review and Herald did? That was such a fair and righteous way, such a good way, why did not you do it that way?” I have explained again and again. I am not in favor of proxy voting. I am opposed to proxy voting. In our organization of the Battle Creek Sanitarium, we have no proxy voting. If a man has not interest enough in the institution to come to the meeting to see for himself what is being done, he has no right to have a vote. There is no possibility of all the power being accumulated in the hands of two or three men, so that they can railroad things through. The Review and Herald Office is so organized that a man has a proxy vote, and he not only has a proxy vote, but he has the power to multiply his vote by seven. If he wants other men to be elected, if he has some particular man he wants to go in on the board, he can put all his votes and all his proxy votes for that one man; and in that way two or three men can put their heads together, and can put a man in—put in whoever they want on the board, at any time. That is the situation of things. That is an absurd situation.GCB April 6, 1903, page 77.3

Now it is not necessary, in order to cure this evil, or other evils in connection with our organization,—those mentioned by Brother White,—to bring up here a communistic resolution, which requires that every institution shall be owned and controlled by all the people, by the denomination. In the first place comes the question. What is the denomination? and where is the denomination? and when is the denomination? Do you know that? You have not any creed: you have not any means of determining as to who composes the denomination.GCB April 6, 1903, page 77.4

Suppose there stands up in a town a church here that says. “We are Seventh-day Adventists,” and here is another church in the same town saying. “We are Seventh-day Adventists;” will you tell me which one of these shall be recognized? and how you are going to find out? Suppose it comes before the courts to decide. They would say. “We can not tell you, because you have no standard by which to decide.” The court could not possibly decide which one of those churches was a Seventh-day Adventist Church. You have got two institutions, each one claiming to be the denomination. How are you going to decide which one owns it? All the courts could do would be to do what Solomon proposed to,—to split the baby in two, don’t you see? It is the only possible way the court could ever settle such a question. So we should have to sell the whole thing out, and divide the proceeds. There is no other way to settle the quarrel. There is no creed to use, no way to tell which is really the true Seventh-day Adventist Church, and which is not. Both claim to be it, and the court would have to split the thing in two and divide it. That is the difficulty.GCB April 6, 1903, page 77.5

I am not finding fault with the failure or evil that is aimed at. The thing that is aimed at is right.—that the people should control, and should own,—but what people? Not the people who say, “We are Seventh-day Adventists.” Brother Jones showed you the other night that some people who say they are Seventh-day Adventists are not Seventh-day Adventists at all; some people whose names are on the church book are not members of the church at all. There is the difficulty, you see; you have no means of finding out who the denomination is, or where the denomination is, or when the denomination is; and to put the thing in such terms as that is too broad, and will not stand any sort of legal tests or investigation.GCB April 6, 1903, page 78.1

The difficulties can be cured in another way,—not that way. There is no such thing as laying down here a rule by which all these little different groups of men shall get together and do God’s work. There has got to be left an opportunity for adaptation to circumstances. Brother Parsons says, “Of course we mean to say that;” but the resolution does not say it. The resolution lays down a law that is applicable to every place, and all institutions. That is what I am speaking against. I expect you will pass it but I want you to know that I object to it, and do not expect to be bound by it in anything I have anything to do with. But the principles I stand for are the principles that are recognized in the organization of the Battle Creek Sanitarium, and with every institution I am connected with; and in those institutions are recognized the people who labor for those institutions, who put their time and their energies into the work of those institutions. Brother White says the teachers ought to have a part in their institutions. The teachers who have put in their lives for so many years have not been so recognized. Why not?GCB April 6, 1903, page 78.2

There are no difficulties except in your mind. The difficulties do not exist. When a teacher has worked a whole year for five hundred dollars, and his services are worth a thousand dollars, there is no reason why you should not at least give him one hundred dollars’ share in the institution there. There is no reason why you should not. That is what the Battle Creek Sanitarium has done. Every one of our old employees who have contributed time, labor, and energy, and have not been properly compensated—every single one has been made a member of our association.GCB April 6, 1903, page 78.3

So in our plans for the sale of “Living Temple,” of our health books, in helping to pay for the sanitarium, it has been so arranged that every man who sells a hundred books becomes a shareholder in the institution, becomes a member; not a stockholder, but, a member.GCB April 6, 1903, page 78.4

Now I want to consider another thing, and that is that the denomination can not in most places own institutions. You are not organized; but you can be organized. Let me show you what an unfortunate situation you would be in: Suppose the state of California is organized. Suppose it should own all the institutions in the state,—the Pacific Press Publishing Company, of this place, the St. Helena Sanitarium, and all these other institutions all over the state of California, in conformity to this resolution, and that all these institutions should be turned over to the state of California.GCB April 6, 1903, page 78.5

Now you have heard it intimated this morning, and you have talked of it for a number of years, that persecutions are coming; that the time is coming when we are going to be persecuted, when the property of Seventh-day Adventists is going to be confiscated. Just think, my friends, what a state of things would exist,—all the institutions owned by a church corporation,—when that time comes. Every last one of them would go at one sweep. Everything would be tied to one stake, held by one organization; everything would be balanced on one point; and when one would go, all would go. It is far better to have every institution tied to its own stake; far better for every institution to stand on its own legs, and recognized as a separate corporation by the statutes of the state. It is far better, when incorporating our institutions, to have them incorporated, not as church property, but incorporated under the acts of the state providing for the incorporation of charitable and philanthropic institutions,—the acts under which hospitals and other benevolent institutions are incorporated; so that when a law is repealed that authorizes church institutions,—when that law is blotted out, they can not touch your sanitariums and your other philanthropic institutions, into which your people have, perhaps, put large sums of money. In order to strike out these charitable institutions of Seventh-day Adventists, in that case, you see, they would have to strike out all the hospitals and all the other charitable institutions of the state. You see how much better it is to have every one of our institutions established with his own stake in the ground.GCB April 6, 1903, page 78.6

But suppose you have all the people own all these institutions. Suppose, at this present moment, this body of delegates owned all the institutions that have been established by the denomination. It would, perhaps, be a very comfortable feeling to feel that we are the proprietors of all these institutions in every land; that here we are, posing before the world as the owners of all these institutions in all parts of the earth, and that we have the control of them all; to think that we can touch a button, and every man in all these institutions would respond and obey; to think that there is some man, or two men, or three or four men, that can simply touch this button, and that button, and this man will go up, and that man will go down; and thus the whole world of institutions will simply be a puppet show. Now that might be a beautiful picture, but the plan is not practicable.GCB April 6, 1903, page 78.7

Some may think that this is an extreme view to take, but, my friends, it is not an extreme view to take. Denominational control is a very dangerous sort of thing to have; and why?—Because in your management of these institutions you would not know their needs. In all this body of delegates there would probably be no more than half a dozen men familiar with the workings and the needs of a certain institution; possibly only two or three would know what should be done for this particular institution; but the whole delegation would attempt to legislate in regard to the workings of this institution. Three or four other men might know something in regard to another institution, but the entire majority would be in ignorance in regard to it; and yet they would legislate with reference to its future work. In this case some of the legislation that would be passed might be most pernicious and destructive.GCB April 6, 1903, page 78.8

You may say, “That is all imaginary.” It is not imaginary, my friends. It has been done, and it is being done. And there are men who are awfully sorry, because they can not do some more of it. Now what we want is less of this sort of denominational control.GCB April 6, 1903, page 79.1

Men say, “I am a member of this denomination, and I am running the same,” whereas they are not in it at all. Now I have noticed this thing: There have been men in charge of sanitariums that have been put there because they were members of the Conference Committee, that had not one particle of sympathy with the institution, and with the principles of the institution,—men that were really working against the institution. I have known of such things,—men working against the best interests of the institution; men that were not at all in harmony with the principles; men who made light of the principles; and yet they were put there as members of the board of such and such an institution. I have known of such a thing as that; and I say that such a thing is wrong. But such a thing can come about when you have a large body of men controlling that institution that are not interested directly in it.GCB April 6, 1903, page 79.2

What Brother White says is right.—the burden of control is determined by the burden of labor. Men put into sanitariums money, but men and women put their lives into the upbuilding of the institution.GCB April 6, 1903, page 79.3

Now it is proposed again, when men have come forward and put in their money; when, for example, a conference has created a general demand for money, and money has been sent in, then, because the conference committee have called for that money, they are going to run the institution. Nothing can be farther removed from the principles of right and justice than is that thing. Not the men who called for the money, but the men who gave the money, are the men to control that institution. The men that called for the money were simply making known the thing that needed the money; they simply held before the people this need for means. But many a time I have heard men say, “I raised the money for this thing; I have raised the money to pay this debt and to establish this institution; and my voice must control.” Ah, my friends, nothing is farther from the principles of right and justice than that thing. It takes something besides money to make that institution. Some think that it simply takes a sum of money to make a sanitarium; but that is a mistake. It takes a great deal more than money to make a sanitarium.GCB April 6, 1903, page 79.4

When the sanitarium burned down in Battle Creek, there was Mr. Post, with the millions that he has earned out of sanitarium principles. The question of rebuilding was up, and I was in a public meeting that the citizens had called to consider what they could do to help us. When this meeting was in progress, Mr. Post walked right into the midst of us, and sat down. In the face of all that audience, with a great deal of pomposity, he said: “Gentlemen, never mind; don’t be worried; don’t be worried. If Dr. Kellogg and his colleagues do not build a sanitarium in this city, I will build a sanitarium here. Never mind: I will build a great sanitarium. I have got the money with which to do this.” And then he sat down. I arose in a very quiet way, and said, “Gentlemen, it takes something more than money to make a sanitarium;” and the whole audience burst out into vigorous cheers. So I felt that they appreciated the fact that that moneyed man, with his millions, could not build a sanitarium with money alone; and Mr. Post made up his mind that the citizens of Battle Creek knew that it took something more than money to build a sanitarium.GCB April 6, 1903, page 79.5

So the people who contribute the money for building a sanitarium, they are not the whole thing. You can not have a sanitarium without doctors and nurses and helpers; and it costs money to train these workers. It costs a great sum to educate all the doctors and the nurses required in the running of a sanitarium. Really it costs more to build up the corps of workers than it costs to build the buildings—a great deal more sometimes.GCB April 6, 1903, page 79.6

I have known of such a thing as this: Some conference decides to establish a sanitarium, and they say, “Now we are going to have this sanitarium under the conference control; the conference committee are going to run this sanitarium, and we are not going to have any doctors on our board.” I have known of this thing being carried so far, this principle of denominational control, that the people must control. “Now the people are the proper owners and the proprietors and controllers; and I am the people,”—that is where the thing comes. The people of the state conference will elect a committee; the committee will elect the chairman; now the chairman says. “The committee represent the whole people, and I am the chairman of the committee, and I am the representative of the committee; and so I am the people.”GCB April 6, 1903, page 79.7

Now, my friends, I have come against that proposition more than once, and that is why I am here to-day making this protest. I am needed very much in Battle Creek just now. We have had a great catastrophe there. We have been passing through a mighty struggle to hold up the institution established for the advancement of right principles of living; we have been struggling to preserve the honor and the dignity of God’s cause and truth. Now we have come to a point where our difficulties are solved. Our contracts are all arranged for, and we have passed over our financial crisis; we have passed over our greatest difficulties. We have not come here to ask you to do anything for us with reference to our affairs; for the Lord has helped us. We shall soon have the dedication of our building. We have now got two hundred and fifty people who are waiting to get into the main building the moment the doors are opened.GCB April 6, 1903, page 79.8

I have come away at this critical time simply to protest against this sort of thing. The existing difficulties do not require this kind of a resolution to cure them. What they require is that each institution be taken one by one, the evils cured, and that institution be put in harmony with God’s plan of government.GCB April 6, 1903, page 79.9

At the last General Conference council, Elder Jones presented extracts from the Testimonies in reference to the principles of organization; and it was presented just as clear and just as luminous as the sunshine. The entire council voted unanimously to adopt those principles of organization. We felt that God was speaking to us.GCB April 6, 1903, page 79.10

All that is necessary is to adopt those principles here, not to lay down a law, but to adopt a principle, and let that guide and control. When you have laid down the law, you see, right away there comes in confusion and uncertainty. What we need is to lay down principles, and then conform ourselves to the principles. What you want is to see that these institutions that are not properly organized, institutions in which the people who have really contributed money and energy and labor have no voice in the control of the institutions, should be reorganized, so that this evil may be remedied, and so that these people can control. This, it seems to me, is the proper way of meeting these difficulties, instead of saying that you will have here a plan by which every institution must be controlled by the denomination, which includes a whole lot of people that never have done a thing for the institution, never have taken an interest in it, and perhaps do not believe in it.GCB April 6, 1903, page 80.1

There was a time when Seventh-day Adventists, to a man, were health reformers, and believed in sanitarium principles, but that time is not to-day. That day passed long ago. To-day our people are one thing to-day and another the next day. There are men on our committees who believe that it is wrong, that it is a sin, a disgrace to them, to sit down and eat a corpse, and make a coffin of themselves: and there are men on boards and committees who say that it is as right to eat a chicken as bread. I feel that if a man wants to gnaw a bone, he has as much right to gnaw a bone as for a dog to gnaw a bone: but God calls us to higher living than that. Now this is not nice kind of talk, but I want to say that this I awful, loathsome, to me: and to have men who have not seen this truth, and who are continually doing despite to these principles, undertaking to rule our institutions which are standing for this light—I say I can not submit to that without a protest. There won’t be denominational control until we have denominational ownership. The only thing which shall bring in unity is a common belief in the same truth. You are not going to get at it by law, by force, by votes, but only by all men believing the same truth and taking hold and working for it.GCB April 6, 1903, page 80.2

The Chair: You will clearly observe that this resolution says nothing about control, so this point is not under discussion at the present time. The resolution says that institutions shall be owned directly by the people, either General Conference, Union Conference, State Conference, or organized Mission Board. Are you ready for the question?GCB April 6, 1903, page 80.3

J.H. Kellogg: The statement has been made strongly to-day that this has no reference whatever to control. It only has reference to ownership. My friends, I want to say to you that there is the pit in which many a doctor, many a nurse, and many other people have been caught. I want every doctor and every nurse to take notice of this. It is a snare, in which many have been caught, this contention that ownership does not mean control. My friends, this is a thing that might be ventilated a little. What is the use of ownership if it does not involve control?GCB April 6, 1903, page 80.4

The Chair: There is quite a difference between an institution being owned by the denomination and being managed or controlled in all its details by the Conference Committee. The denomination appoints and is in charge of the denominational work. The denomination can easily appoint a managing board of directors. It makes a vast difference, so that, according to the wording of the resolution, the spirit, the aim of it, as far as I understand it, from what the chairman of the committee has said. I see nothing in this but the ownership question.GCB April 6, 1903, page 80.5

J.H. Kellogg: Don’t be deceived; recognize the fact. Ownership always means control: and when you say that ownership doesn’t mean control, you don’t know what you are talking about. “Oh,” we say, “we don’t mean the Conference will control it in all its details.” Let me show you. Say here are a doctor and some nurses, and they come into an institution and are elected by the people who own the thing. Now this man and these nurses go to work, and they build up that thing; they build up a constituency. The doctor puts in his time, and works night and day for a very small consideration: the nurses work for very small consideration: and they build up a splendid institution. By and by the Conference take it into their heads that they don’t like that doctor or those managers, and they would like to have some one else. So, then, when the annual meeting comes round, they say to the brethren. “We had better have a change.” “Why?”—“Well, it is not best to make it public; that won’t do; but we think we had better have a change.” So the good brethren are led to vote to change the entire administration. “There is no control. It is only ownership.” That doctor and the nurses who built up that institution are turned out—simply turned right out, and another set put in, and yet “there is no control.” “It is nothing but ownership.” I could show you that the most pernicious thing is right there. That is tyranny of the very worst kind, and it is injustice of the very worst sort. Let me show you what that leads to. The doctor is turned out unreasonably, and is dealt with unreasonably. Why?—Perhaps there is personal feeling towards him, and a party spirit comes in. Have you ever heard of such a thing as party spirit coming into a Conference? Well, now, here is the thing that happens: The doctor is turned out. He says. “It is unjust.” He just crosses the road, and says to his patients. “Come on;” they know him, and so a new institution is set up. They do not know the new doctor. Whereas, if you had put in there a new organization, that would have gone right on working harmoniously and beautifully, and just as they should. But you have got a new institution, and perhaps another within a year, and so there are three. I could point to conspicuous examples of this thing going on, in spite of all that we can do. Now I want to show you another thing, and that is dishonesty, bad faith, and dishonor are in this thing. Why? You say ownership doesn’t mean control. You say to the public. “Here is an institution that is engaged in charitable work.” You go to the citizens, and say that you are going to establish a sanitarium. You say it is an institution that Seventh-day Adventists are going to conduct, but that it will be for the whole people. It will carry on a beneficent and philanthropic work, and will each mothers, and have visiting nurses, and all that sort of thing. And the people say. “That is a good thing: and we would like to contribute to that:” and gifts of money or land or buildings are made, and the work is built up. The Conference owns it. By and by a change comes; perhaps there is a Conference that is unfriendly to medical work. The time comes when the Conference thinks it would be better to have a change. The Conference Committee think that this thing should be sold out: and it can be sold, and every dollar can be invested in a meeting-house or something else: and the people who have put their money in it to have a sanitarium carried on, as they supposed, will see their money used to build a meeting-house. A man said to me, as the passed over to me seventeen thousand dollars, and gave me a deed to a fine farm. “Doctor, I want you to understand that this is not for your church: I am a Baptist; I don’t believe in your church: I want this money to be used for the Workingmen’s Home, and to give men a chance; so I give you this money for them.” I said, “Shall we not take it into our association?” “No,” he said, “you must not do it. I want this used for that purpose specifically.”GCB April 6, 1903, page 80.6

When Mrs. Haskell came to me with thirty thousand dollars to establish the Haskell Home, she said: “That is not for your church. I wish this used for this purpose only.” And so the General Conference itself has created an organization known as the International Medical Missionary and Benevolent Association, and has put into the articles of that association that it shall be undenominational: that it is organized for the purpose of doing this undenominational work, and carrying on these beneficent lines of work. The General Conference itself did that thing twelve years ago. There has been nearly $200,000 worth of money given to that association. Now here is a resolution that says that it is wrong for us to hold this property: that the institution must belong to the denomination. Here is an association that has been formed for the very express purpose of receiving such property. Then suppose you carry this out. Here is an institution owned by the Conference organization, and you elect a board to carry on the undenominational work in it: but the Conference must own its and so the Conference Committee can sell it out, and do anything they like with it. Sometimes men make up their minds that it is their duty to do things that worldly men will say are not strictly honest. “We must do it for the church.” A better way to guarantee that to the public, and the only way to get the public to help us, is by showing them the articles of incorporation, based upon the charitable laws of the state, and which show that these incorporations and institutions are established for the specific purpose and have all the legal safeguards along with them that that purpose shall be carried out. You never can receive any gifts, bequests, wills, or legacies for these charitable institutions on any other basis than that, and if you put this thing into the hands of the church, and the church is to own every sanitarium, and every other thing, you will destroy the confidence of the public, and you will put the interests in tremendous jeopardy.GCB April 6, 1903, page 81.1

C.H. Parsons: I do not want to say much; I sometimes think that more can be accomplished by a few condensed thoughts. I don’t want this Conference to think that the doctor has a “corner” on the honesty. What we want the doctors to do is to believe that some of the people are honest. If we could unite on a common platform of trust, we could get together a good deal quicker. Now there is another point or two I want to make in this. There is nothing in the article under consideration that says that the Conference Committee is to operate property. I am not deceiving you. I do want the managers of the property to own the property, and the ownership carries the control; but it does not carry the thought that the Conference Committee is to be the board that handles the property at all; in fact, the rest of the resolution indicates that. I have no objection to a sanitarium having a board composed entirely of doctors; men that are honestly giving their lives to a certain branch of this work should have power of representation and control, and there is nothing in these resolutions that means anything different from that. Again, I think we are losing time by this discussion.GCB April 6, 1903, page 81.2

We can legislate in this Conference all we want to, and it will not affect an existing sanitarium. The place of appeal on the sanitarium question specifically is at the conference of the Medical Missionary Association, called to meet in a few weeks or days from now. We are not affecting that by anything we do here. Consequently the discussions of that phase of the question is consuming the Conference’s time.GCB April 6, 1903, page 81.3

Again, if this resolution is wrong in defining denominational policy with regard to business affairs, this Conference might as well adjourn, and any resolution you bring in here is trying to bind men’s hands, to a certain extent, and is wrong. If you are ready for absolute doing away with all Conference organization, all united effort and control, that brings up another question. If that is what this Conference wants, we would better stop now, and bring in a resolution to that effect. But we do not believe in disintegration and absolute separation of the work; we are not considering that question here this morning. We are considering questions on the basis that this denomination has a right to define business policy. I do not believe that it has a right to define articles of faith, and neither do you. I believe it is a business organization, created for the purpose of doing the work of carrying the third angel’s message to the regions beyond. We are introducing a little of fog and cobweb into this discussion. We are making it so that men will become confused over the remarks of the last speaker, and not know what we are voting on. Let us confine ourselves to the principle in this thing, that we have a right to define who shall hold property that is built up by the denomination to this extent, as a recommendation to our people that they should have the power to control, that is, the power of ownership vested in them.GCB April 6, 1903, page 81.4

The question was called.GCB April 6, 1903, page 81.5

M. C. Wilcox: I would like to move the following amendment to the first specification of the resolution, as follows: “All institutions created directly by the people, through either General Conference. Union Conference, State Conference, or mission field organization, to be owned by the people through these organizations.”GCB April 6, 1903, page 81.6

A.G. Haughey: I second that amendment.GCB April 6, 1903, page 81.7

C.H. Parsons: Why limit it? If we offer an amendment that gives the right of the people creating the institution to say how it shall be done. I will heartily support it.GCB April 6, 1903, page 81.8

M.C. Wilcox: I have no contention upon that point whatever. It is simply that the people shall have control of institutions that are organized and created by the people: that these other organizations are existing under different laws, almost every one of them as a denominational organization. Whatever change is to take place in those organizations must be worked out in the future by detail, and by the consent of the constituents of those various organizations. If we are declaring a policy, let us declare it for the future. I am perfectly willing that the last part of that shall state, “owned by any organization created by the people.”GCB April 6, 1903, page 81.9

Watson Ziegler: I believe there are some institutions already in existence that need to come under the control of the people; but it does seem to me that, to-day, every one of us here is on trial for principle. We are in the presence of God here to transact His business, and every single thing that comes before our minds to-day has a purpose of selfishness in it, or it has a purpose of righteousness. I do not believe any one can call in question the right of the people to control the thing which they create.GCB April 6, 1903, page 82.1

Further, when it comes to discussing as to what is truth, and what are the principles of righteousness, and judging this person or that person whether he stands by principles, it is altogether to be determined by the standard of righteousness. And I am here to say to you to-day that the Word of God is the standard of righteousness, and any person that condemns any part of that Word that was manifested in our Master’s life is condemning Him and not the man who follows Him, no matter what line it may be.GCB April 6, 1903, page 82.2

I say, further, every person who will take the Word of God in its purity as it is, as God in His wisdom gave it, can stand before all and speak that Word in the gentleness and wisdom of God. That will be a testimony as to whom that person loves. What we are contending for here is this: When this people are called upon to build up and support a work, if they then sometimes see that the policy adopted by the persons handling any institution is not in harmony with what they believe to be the principles laid down in the Word of God, they have a perfect right to choose other parties to be the board of control of that institution or institutions. I say that the Lord will have a work carried on in the earth, and under the direction of the minds of all His people, that all His people may have a voice in the things they do, that they may be put on trial, as we are this morning, to stand for every principle that is righteous, or to be found pleasing themselves.GCB April 6, 1903, page 82.3

And so I am in favor of the recommendation just as it comes from the committee. I do not believe there is anything in this that savors of anything that is unjust or unfair. I believe that where the burden of labor is, there the control should be. But I do believe that the whole people have a right to know and say whom they shall choose for the board of control. I would rather see the power vested in the whole people than in one man or board of men.GCB April 6, 1903, page 82.4

Meeting adjourned.GCB April 6, 1903, page 82.5

A. G. DANIELLS, Chairman.

H. E. OSBORNE, Secretary.

DAILY PROGRAM

TALK BY DR. J. H. KELLOGG