I can safely appeal to the whole Sanitarium family to witness that since I came here two years ago last November, I have not at any time, in any meeting, or in any class, discussed or dwelt upon the controversy that has been carried on from General Conference sources.  My address in the tabernacle the night of January 2, is the first time that I have spoken on the subject.  All who are here now who were here when I came will remember that when I came I said to the whole family that we here should have nothing to do with that matter; that we have a work to do, and that we could not afford to abandon or neglect that work to engage in controversy of any kind; that we could spend our time far better in studying the Bible and sticking close to the work that God has given us to do, than we could in discussing differences or in defending ourselves against attack, or even in trying to correct false reports.

All of that is true yet: except that now the time has come when we can not be true to the truth and continue completely silent on these matters.  Tonight I wish to state the case as it is so far; and why it is that I must speak.  The greater part of what I shall say to you tonight has been already said to General Conference brethren; not to all of the General Conference brethren, but to Brother Daniells and some others.  Nowhere in it is there, or will there be, any purpose to attack anybody; nor any attempt to discredit any one; or to put any one in the wrong.  I have some facts of history to state, and some facts of experience.  I make no objection to any one's doing or having done any of the things to which I do not agree.  My sole purpose is to tell why I can not do so.  Also I should say that so far as I am concerned and as to anything that shall be said tonight, there is no question at all and no issue at all as to the Testimonies as such.

What I shall further say tonight will be introduced by a short statement that I read last Tuesday morning to such of the General Conference brethren as were then in town.  When I learned last Friday that Brother Daniells was to be in town over Sabbath, I sent to him a note asking to meet him and the other General Conference brethren who might be here.  When it came about, on Tuesday morning, there were only three present.  If there had been only one, it would have been all the same; or if there had been the whole General Conference Committee, it would have been all the same: as all that I wished to do was to state a few facts, and to tell them what we now find ourselves obliged to do.

What I had to say, I wrote down and read to them so as to avoid misunderstanding, and so misreport, of what I said.  I read it now to you; because that in it there is something that very vitally concerns this family, and especially a few who have been in the family.  Possibly there may be a few here yet to whom it especially applies.  The great majority of the family it does not touch particularly, I am glad to say.

I read: --

 

The Sanitarium management has not objected to anybody's going away.  Before this late campaign began in Battle Creek in December last, we told the whole family that every one of them was at perfect liberty to go whenever he should choose to go; that wherever the Lord wanted them, there they should be.  Indeed, does not everybody know that the whole purpose and work of the Sanitarium has always been to educate and train people for the express purpose of their going away?  The Sanitarium has had, therefore, no difficulty at all with respect to any of the workers going away.  The only difficulty that there has been is with the secret, underhanded, treacherous, and dishonorable course and conduct of those, who, while insisting that they "can not stay," that "the Lord has shown them that they should go," and that they "must go," yet do stay, and will not go, and we can not get them to go. They insist that they "must go," and send in their resignation to take effect a month or six weeks, or two months or more afterward: or to take effect when their contract expires anyhow.  We accept their resignation, to take effect earlier, or possibly immediately.  Then they insist that if they go earlier, they must be paid full wages clear up to the expiration of the time of their contract, or they ask to say "two weeks" more; and when we consent to their plea, then they spend their time just as far as they can, and make opportunity day and night, to create dissatisfaction in others of the family, and even in the patients; to attend secret meetings off the premises, or to hold secret meetings on the premises; to show disrespect to their teachers, to those in responsibility, and in fact to everybody who does not fall in with their own spirit; to despise the Bible, prayer, and meetings, whether for religious service, or for the benefit and improvement of the Sanitarium and its work; to be careless, if not reckless, of the property of the Sanitarium; to betray confidence; in short, to do any unchristian thing, and no Christian thing if they can help it.  And when at last their own set time expires, or because of their perverse course we are compelled to discharge them, then they claim and report that they are turned out because they believe the Testimonies, and still hang around the place, watching for chances to poison the minds of others, and to make great representations of how "the Testimonies tell everybody to get out of Battle Creek." In short and in perfect truth, the spirit manifested, and the course followed, is exactly such as that of the trades-unions in their arrogance, their boycott, their strike, and their picketing.  Through it all there has been no sign of James 3:17, 18 on the part of the ones most devoted to your cause.  On the contrary, the spirit manifested has been the open manifestation of James 3:14-16. And sorry as we all are that it is so, it is the plain, sober truth that you brethren have sanctioned it, you have promoted it, you have fired it and kept it alive.  You have set the example of holding the secret meetings. Now all this time we have kept silent on this subject.  We have made no opposition to what you have been doing.   We have let you and all these others go straight along, except only in accepting the resignations and refusing longer to endure the imposition of those who simply "could not stay" and just "must go," and yet simply would not go.   But now when this mischievous working is persistently carried on in the very rooms of our buildings, even so late as nine o'clock at night; and since this working has reached the point where it is a constant and open violation of the civil law; we are now compelled, in the interests of plain every-day civility, to say nothing of common morality, and that we be not guilty of countenancing, and becoming parties to, open lawlessness -- we are compelled to take an open stand against it, and to speak out plainly on it.  We shall be unfaithful to both human and divine trust, long to be silent and inactive with this thing going on. But please never to think for a moment that we are going to meet it by any such working as that by which it has been promoted -- secret meetings, or secrecy of any kind.  We are going to meet it openly only, with the plain statement of the truth as it is in the Bible, and with the quiet entreaty of Christians.  Since you are specially interested in the Testimonies, I quote from a Testimony an excellent statement of the principle upon which we shall work, in this sentence: "Whatsoever is not as open as the day, is of the methods of Satan." Upon this principle we have begun our course of action, by coming thus first of all to you personally, and telling you plainly of it.  We have not mentioned this to any others.  We have now told you, and now we are perfectly free to say to any or all of the others, what may be considered proper; and to pursue the only course that is open to us, and to do the things which we must do, to be faithful to men and to God. With our co-operation, as before stated, and your liberal offers of money, you have got some to leave the Sanitarium -- who might not otherwise have gone, I mean.  In this way you may get some more to go.   But, my dear brethren, in the spirit of those who insist that they "must go," and yet will not go if they can avoid it, we pity you and any others who may be so unfortunate as to fall into their hands.  We shall sincerely pray for them that they may be converted, and find and manifest the true spirit of James 3:17, 18 so that you shall not have to endure the like wrong-doing that you have helped these to inflict upon us. And now as we take an active and positive course, instead of any longer the passive and negative, please do not think that there will be any new or strange position taken, or any new or strange thing taught.   In this I have an advantage that can never be taken away from me.  I mean in my books, tracts, and articles, that are all published by the denomination and with the denominational imprint and endorsement, even up to date -- "The Two Republics," "The Empire Series," "Great Nations of Today," "Place of the Bible in Education," "The Consecrated Way," and the "Federation of Churches" articles in the Signs up to last week.  In these books and articles there is every main feature of the Third Angel's Message, just as I am, and shall be still, teaching it.  You may repudiate me, you may repudiate my books and articles; but there is one thing certain, and that is that as certainly as you and the denomination preach the Third Angel's Message, you will preach the things that are in those books and articles, just as in principles and in facts those books and articles stand today.  I do not mean that any one will have to use those books and articles, or even to quote from them, but that they will have to preach the truths that are in those books and articles.  There is where I stand, and where I shall continue to stand, as to that.  Therefore it is perfectly plain that there can never be any "division," or what some call a "split in the denomination," so far as I and the truth of the Third Angel's message are concerned.  And if a division is made over me, it will have to be solely because I am the friend of sinners.

The brethren demurred to the phrase "secret meetings," claiming that they had not held any secret meetings.  But it all turns upon the technical meaning of the word "secret."  Therefore I will state what I mean by the phrase:  When the General Conference brethren came to this town first, in December, I myself personally invited Brother Daniells to come into this chapel and spend the time of the midday meeting in whatever way he pleased, every day while he was here, as long as he might stay.  He came in one day, that was all.  He said that he had Testimonies to read, and he could not read a Testimony in fifteen minutes.  But I said, "There are twenty-five minutes that you could have ever day, and you could take possession, and dispense with the singing and the opening service; and twenty-five minutes every day for all the time you stayed would have given you ample time to read all the Testimonies that you had."  In addition to that we asked the brethren themselves -- I, and other brethren of the board and management -- asked the General Conference brethren to come into the Sanitarium and go through every department of it; to go into the medical classes and see what the doctors were teaching; to go into the nurses' classes and do the teaching themselves; and find out anything that they possibly could that is wrong and show it to us and help us to put it away.  But they did not, and would not, do anything of the kind.  Instead of that they held meetings with the medical students and with the helpers, outside of the Institution, without informing the faculty or the management, and with the understanding on one occasion at least that if I or Dr. Stewart came, the meeting could not be held; and at other times the presence of others was refused.  Now that is what I refer to as secret meetings, and a good many such were held.

Now when they refused to come into the chapel and do openly every day as long as they should choose, what they had to do, and say everything that they had to say; when they refused to come into the classes and teach; when they refused to go into the classes and hear what was taught; when they refused to come to the management and tell us what is wrong and try to help us to get rid of it -- when they refused all that, and then met by appointment members of the Medical School and members of the family, outside of the house, and not in public places, concerning things of vital interest to the Sanitarium and the Medical School, when the management were not informed, and where the management were not welcome and were not wanted; then in the plain and proper sense of the word, and certainly so far as the Sanitarium management is concerned, those were secret meetings.  And that is what I mean by the phrase "secret meetings."  The General Conference brethren have set the example of holding such secret meetings.  And when some of the helpers followed the example, even inside the house, they had a prominent example to follow.

I should say a word further with reference to that which has been done as being in violation of the civil law.  Both the State and the United States governments have found it necessary to enact laws for the protection of people and their institutions in their rights of property and liberty of action.  These laws are right and good, and are truly civil laws in every respect.   And that which has been done in the connection in which I am speaking, has been in open violation of these strictly civil laws.  It is the duty of every person to be respectful to the civil law, and every Christian is so.  Indeed, no Christian can ever in the performance of any Christian duty, violate any truly civil law.  For every Christian is commanded by Christ to "render to Caesar the things which are Caesar's," as well as "to God the things that are God's."  And Christ never contradicts Himself by leading any of His people to deny to Caesar that which is Caesar's, while rendering to God the things that are God's.  And whenever those who profess to be Christians allow their zeal for what they suppose to be the things of God to lead them to the point of violating the civil law and thus deny to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, they simply blunder; and do in fact deny to God that which is God's.   They put themselves outside of that which is God's; and in violating the civil law they put themselves on a level with other criminals and are responsible to the civil jurisdiction without any ground of appeal to God.  And to the point of open and constant violation of true and right civil law, this campaign against the Sanitarium and the Medical School has been carried.  And in this it has been carried to the point where we can not any longer keep silent and be true to our obligations as Christians.

To those who are unacquainted with the actual experiences, what I have said in describing the course and conduct of those to whom I have referred may seem rather strong.  But all who have been compelled to meet it in actual experience know that I have stated only the simple truth.  I am glad to say that not by any means the whole family, nor a majority, nor even a large minority of the family is involved in it.  But of the few who are parties to it, what I have said is only the sober truth.  Every item that I have cited as illustrative, is true.  Not every item is true of every one; but each item is true of some case as it has actually been met in daily experience.  And these do it as champions of the General Conference, and in a supposed loyalty to the Testimonies.

The foregoing are some of the reasons for my speaking on this subject tonight.  But there are other reasons also.   This will plainly appear in what I shall further read.  And this that I shall further read has also been said to the president of the General Conference.  In a letter to me he stated that my "general attitude had greatly perplexed many of our people," as well as himself.  I then wrote to him a letter for the express purpose of taking away all ground for his having any perplexity at all concerning my attitude.  And as he said that "many of our people" have also in this connection been "greatly perplexed," I desire to take away from everybody all ground for perplexity concerning me.  And since the letter is a simple recital of facts, many of which concern all our people, I believe that what is said in this letter will be the best means that I could employ to relieve all persons of any perplexity that they may have had, or otherwise might have, concerning me or my attitude.  Therefore, three-fourths of this letter I shall read to you tonight: the other fourth pertains to a matter that is not n issue, and is not necessarily in this issue, so far as I am concerned, or as the issue really is.  It may yet be made an issue, or a part of the present issue; for the campaign that is being made is a very wide-sweeping thing.  And if it shall be made an issue, or shall be made necessarily a part of the present issue, then, you shall be just as welcome to that part of the letter as you now are to the three-fourths of it that I shall read tonight.

The letter was begun January 26, but because of regular work it was not finished for about two weeks.  It runs as follows: --

 

Battle Creek, Mich., Jan. 26, 1906 A. G. Daniells, Takoma Park Station, Washington, D.C. Dear Brother: -- Your letter of the 17th in answer to mine of the 6th goes so far afield from anything expected or, as I think, called for by my letter, that I am disposed to follow you there, and do all that I can to take away all ground for your having any perplexity about me or my course.  Indeed, if you had remembered things that at the beginning I said to you, you need not to have been perplexed at all concerning me, if you expected me to be consistent at all. First, as to General Conference matters, and my relations to the Committee:  Before the General Conference of 1897, at College View, the conditions were such that in that Conference things came to a deadlock.  By the Committee and presidents in council, I, in my absence was appointed to read the Testimonies to find the way out.  God did lead us out gloriously.  A change was made:  Brother Irwin being elected president.  And I was made a member of the Committee. It was not very long, however, before the same influences that had produced the situation at College View, were again at work.  I saw it plainly enough to satisfy me, and by the time of the General Conference of 1899, at South Lancaster, things were in a bad shape again in some respects -- though not near so far along as at College View.  In the South Lancaster Conference one day, all unexpectedly, and unintentionally on the part of anybody in the Conference, the power of God came in in a special manner, bringing the whole Conference to its knees at once, and working a great deliverance again.  Brother Irwin stated openly in the Conference that he had "been a coward."  The whole matter can be read in the Bulletin of that Conference for that day.  On another day in that Conference, the power of God came in specially and carried the deliverance further. By action of that Conference, I was continued on the Committee.  It was not long before the same old influences were at work; and in about a year they had got such a hold again, that, rather than be compromised, I resigned from the Committee. Then came the General Conference of 1901, in Battle Creek.  According to the arrangements I was to report the proceedings of the Conference: and according to the arrangements, Brother Prescott and Brother Waggoner were not expecting, and evidently were not expected, to have even that much to do.  But before the Conference actually assembled in session there occurred that meeting in the Library Room of the College Building, in which Sister White spoke on General Conference matters and organization, declaring that there must be "an entire new organization, and to have a Committee that shall take in not merely half a dozen that is to be a ruling and controlling power, but it is to have representatives of those that are placed in responsibility in our educational interests, in our sanitariums, etc."; that "there should be a renovation without any delay.  To have this Conference pass on and close up as the Conferences have done with the same manipulating, with the very same tone, and the same order -- God forbid!  God forbid, brethren. . . .   And until this shall come we might just as well close up the Conference today as any other day. . . .  This thing has been continued and renewed for the last fifteen years or more, and God calls for a change." "God wants a change, and it is high time -- it is high time that there was ability that should connect with the Conference, with the General Conference right here in this city.  Now wait until it is done and over with, and then gather up the forces and see what can be done.  We want to know what can be done right now." "From the light that I have, as it was presented to me in figures:  There was a narrow compass here: there within that narrow compass, is a king-like, a kingly ruling power."  "God means what he says and He says, 'I want a change here.'  Will it be the same thing? going over and over the same ideas, the same committees -- and here is the little throne -- the king is in there, and these others are all secondary."  "God wants that those committees that have been handling things for so long should be relieved of their command have a chance for their life and see if they can not get out of this rut that they are in -- which I have no hope of their getting out of, because the Spirit of God has been working and working, and yet the king is in there still.  Now the Lord wants His Spirit to come in.  He wants the Holy Ghost king." "From the light that I have had for some time, and has been expressed over and over again, not to all there are here, but has been expressed to individuals -- the plans that God would have all to work from, that never should one mind or two minds or three minds, nor four minds, or a few minds I should say, be considered of sufficient wisdom and power to control and mark out plans and let it rest upon the minds of one or two or three in regard to this broad, broad field that we have." "And the work all over our field demands an entirely different course of action than we have had; that there needs the laying of a foundation that is different from what we have had. . . .  In all these countries, far and near, He wants to be an arousing, broadening, enlarging power.   And a management which is getting confused in itself -- not that any one is wrong or means to be wrong, but the principle is wrong; and the principles have become so mixed and so fallen from what God's principles are." "These things have been told, and this stand-still has got to come to an end.  But yet every Conference has woven after the same pattern, it is the very same loom that carries it, and finally, it will come to naught." She declared that, "God wants us to take hold of this work, every human agency."  "Each one is to act in their capacity in such a way that the confidence of the whole people will be established in them and that they will not be afraid, but see everything just as light as day until they are in connection with the work of God and the whole people. . . .  All the provision was made in heaven, all the facilities, all the riches of the grace of God was imparted to every worker that was connected with the cause, and every one of these are wholly dependent upon God.  And when we leave God out of the question, and allow hereditary and cultivated traits of character to come in, let me tell you, we are on very slippery ground." "God hath His servants -- His Church, established in the earth, composed of many members, but of one body; that in every part of the work one part must work as connected with another part, and that with another part, and with another part, and these are joined together by the golden links of heaven, and there is to be no kings here in the midst at all.  There is to be no man that has the right to put his hand out and say: No, you can not go there.  We won't support you if you go there.  Why, what have you to do with the supporting?  Did you create the means?  The means comes from the people.  And those who are in destitute fields -- the voice of God has told me to instruct them to go to the people and tell them their necessities; and to draw all the people to work just where they can find a place to work, to build up the work in every place they can." Upon that instruction and much more to the same effect in that talk, you and Brother Prescott and others took hold of the matters pertaining to the then pending General Coherence, set aside entirely the old order of things, and started in new.  At the opening of the General Conference, April 2, Sister White spoke briefly to the same effect as in the College Building the day before.  Irwin followed with a few words; and then you spoke a few words and introduced a motion "that the usual rules and precedents for arranging and transacting the business of the Conference be suspended, and a General Committee be hereby appointed ... to constitute a general or central committee, which shall do such work a necessarily must be done in providing the work of the Conference, and preparing the business to bring before the delegates."  Thus the new order of things was started. The night of that very first day of the Conference I was appointed to preach the sermon.  Since I had been appointed to report the proceedings, I expected to have no preaching or other work to do.  Therefore when I was called to preach, I supposed that it was designed to have me preach that one time during the conference, and have me do it at the beginning so that I could go on afterward unmolested with the reporting.  I spoke on Church Organization.   When that meeting was over, I supposed that my preaching during the Conference was done.  Therefore I was surprised when only two days afterward -- April 4 -- you came to me at the reporters' table and said, "We want you to preach tonight."  I said, "I supposed that my preaching was over with, since I have the reporting to do.  I can not do this and preach often."  You said to me, "You have light for the people: and we want them to have it."  I consented and preached again on the subject of Church Organization, developing the subject further, and on the same principles precisely as on the night of April 2. In that Conference the General Conference was started toward the called-for reorganization.  All understood that the call was away from a centralized order of things in which "one man or two men or three or four men or a few men" held the ruling and directing power, to an organization in which "all the people" as individuals should have a part, with God, in Christ, by the Holy Spirit as the unifying, guiding, and directing power.   Indeed, the day before my second sermon on organization, Sister White had said, April 3 -- "We want to understand that there are no gods in our Conference.   There are to be no kings here, and no kings in any conference that is formed.  'All ye are brethren.' " "The Lord wants to bind those at this Conference heart to heart.  No man is to say, 'I am a god, and you must do as I say.'  From the beginning to the end this is wrong.  There is to be an individual work.  God says, 'Let him take hold of my strength that he may make peace with me, and he shall make peace with me.' "Remember that God can give wisdom to those who handle his work.  It is not necessary to send thousands of miles to Battle Creek for advice, and then have to wait weeks before an answer can be received.   Those who are right on the ground are to decide what shall be done.  You know what you have to wrestle with, but those who are thousands of miles away do not know." -- Bulletin, 1901, pp. 69, 70. And on the very day of my second sermon, April 4, she said in a talk at 9:00 a.m.:  "This meeting will determine the character of our work in the future.  How important that every step shall be taken under the supervision of God.  This work must be carried in a very different manner to what it has been in the past years." -- Bulletin, p. 83. In this understanding a new Constitution entire was adopted: and that such was the understanding in adopting this Constitution is plainly shown in the discussions.  Under this constitution the General Conference Committee was composed of a large number of men, with "power to organize itself by choosing a chairman," etc.  No president of the General Conference was chosen; nor was any provided for.  The presidency of the General Conference was eliminated to escape a centralized power, a one-man power, a kingship, a monarchy.  The Constitution was framed and adopted to that end in accordance with the whole guiding thought in the Conference from the beginning in that room in the College Building, Shortly after the Conference ended, you suggested during the meeting at Indianapolis that my sermon on organization ought to be printed in a leaflet so that our people everywhere could have it -- for study in the work of re-organization.  Your suggestion was agreed to and I was directed to prepare it for printing.  I did so, and it was printed at General Conference direction, in "Words of Truth Series, No. 31, extra, May, 1901." Now after all this, it was not long before this whole spirit and principle of General Conference organization and affairs began to be reversed again.  This spirit of reaction became so rife and so rank that some time before the General Conference of 1903 at Oakland, Cal., "two men, or three men, or four men, or a few men, I should say," being together in Battle Creek or somewhere else, and without any kind of authority, but directly against the plain words of the Constitution, took it absolutely upon themselves to elect you president, and Brother Prescott vice-president of the General Conference.  And than that there never was in this universe a clearer piece of usurpation of position, power, and authority.  You two were then, of right, just as much president and vice-president of Timbuctoo as you were of the Seventh-day Adventist General Conference. But this spirit did not stop even there.  The thing done was directly against the Constitution.  This was too plain to be escaped.  And it was just as plain that with that Constitution still perpetuated in the coming General Conference, this usurpation of position, power, and authority could not be perpetuated.  What could be done to preserve the usurpation? -- Oh, that was just as easy as the other.  A new "Constitution" was framed to fit and to uphold the usurpation.  This "Constitution" was carried to the General Conference of 1903 at Oakland, Cal., and in every unconstitutional way was there jammed through.  I say in every unconstitutional way, because in every truly constitutional government the Constitution comes in some way from the people, not from the monarch.  Thus the people make and establish a Constitution.  The monarch "grants" a Constitution.  When the people make a Constitution the people govern.  When a monarch "grants" a Constitution, he seeks to please the people with a toy and keeps the government himself.  This difference is the sole difficulty in Russia today; and the difference is simply the difference between monarchy and government of the people; and between oppression and freedom.  The people want to make a Constitution.  The czar wants to "grant them a Constitution" and have them endorse anew his autocracy and bureaucracy by "adopting" the "Constitution" that he "grants." And this is just the difference between the General Conference and is Constitution of 1901, and the General Conference and its Constitution of 1903.  In 1901 the monarchy was swept aside completely, and the Conference itself as such and as a whole made a new Constitution.  In the General Conference of 1903, the usurpers of monarchical position and authority came with a "Constitution" that fitted and maintained their usurpation, and succeeded in getting it "adopted."  And how? -- None of the people had asked for any new Constitution.  The General Conference delegation had not asked for it.   Not even the Committee on Constitution asked for it.  In behalf of the usurpation it was brought before that committee and advocated there because, in very words, "The church must have a visible head."  It was not, even then, nor was it ever, favored by that committee.  It was put through the committee, and reported to the Conference, only by permanently dividing the committee -- a minority of the committee opposing it all the time, and -- a thing almost unheard of in Seventh-day Adventist Conference -- bringing into the Conference a minority report against it.  And when at last it was adopted by the final vote, it was by the slim majority of just five.  And it was only by the carelessness of some of the delegates that it got through even that way; for there were just then downstairs in the Oakland church enough delegates who were opposed to it, to have defeated it if they had been present.  They told this themselves afterward.  But they did not know that the vote was being taken, and by their not being in their places the usurpation was sanctioned; the reactionary spirit that had been so long working for absolute control had got it; the principles and intent of the General Conference of 1901 were reversed; and a czardom was enthroned which has since gone steadily onward in the same way and has with perfect consistency built up a thoroughly bureaucratic government, by which it reaches and meddles with, and manipulates, the affairs of all, not only of union and local conferences, but of local churches, and even of individual persons.  So that some of the oldest men in active service today, and who by their life experience are best qualified to know, have freely said that in the whole history of the denomination there has never been such a one-man power, such a centralized despotism, so much of papacy as there has been since the Oakland Conference.  And as a part of this bureaucracy there is, of all the incongruous things ever heard of, a "Religious Liberty Bureau," a contradiction in terms. Now when I was opposed to this thing before and in the General Conference of 1897, and before and in the General Conference of 1899, and before and in the General Conference of 1901, and before and in the General Conference of 1903, why should you be perplexed that I have not fallen in with it and helped to make it a success since 1903?  Why should I, in 1903, abandon all the principles and teaching by which I was right in opposing it until and including 1903?  When I was in the right all these years in opposing it, and in doing all that I could to keep it from succeeding, why and upon what principles should I have swung in and favored it just because at last in a most arbitrary, unconstitutional and usurping way it did at last succeed? Again, in the General Conference of 1901 you yourself said that in the principles of organization that I preached I had "light for the people."  Those principles were the ones that prevailed in that Conference; and at your own suggestion these principles as preached in my first sermon, were published for the help of the denomination in the work or reorganization.   But the principles and the form of organization of 1903 are directly the opposite of those that in 1901 you said were "light for the people."  If my second sermon in the General Conference of 1901 had been printed along with the first, the people would have been able to see more plainly how entirely the course of things in 1903 was the reverse of that of 1901.  And any one can see it now by reading General Conference Bulletin of 1901, pages 37-42 and 101-105. Now, brother, were those principles light in 1901?  If so, then what did you do when you espoused the opposite of them in 1902-1903?  Or, were those principles light in 1901, and darkness in 1903?  Or were those principles really darkness in 1901, when you said that they were light?  Or are they still light today as they were in 1901?  And if in the General Conference of 1901 you were not able to distinguish between light and darkness, what surety has anybody that you were any more able to do so in 1902-3?  Or is it possible that in 1902-3 you were not, and now are not, able to see that the principles and the course of action of 1902-3 are not the same as those of the General Conference of 1901?  In other words, is it possible that you can think that certain principles with their course of action, and the reverse of them are one and the same? I know that the principles that in 1901 you said were "light for the people" were then really light, and that they are now light, and forevermore will be light.  They are only plain principles of the word of God.  I hold these principles today exactly as I did in 1901 and long before, and shall hold them forever.  For this cause I was opposed to the usurpation and unconstitutional action of 1902-3 that were the opposite of these principles; and shall always be opposed to them. In view of all these facts, again I ask, Why should you think that I should abandon all, just because you and some others did?  I think that it was enough for me to keep still these three years.  It is true that I had had no disposition to do anything but to keep still about it.  For when the General Conference of 1903 made their choice that way, I have no objection their having what they have chosen.  I have no disposition to oppose it in any other way than by preaching the gospel.  Indeed, the strongest possible opposition that can be made to it is the plain, simple preaching of the plain gospel.  There is this about that, however, that now the plain simple preaching of the plain gospel will be considered "disloyal to the General Conference," "disloyal to the organization," etc.  Nevertheless, I am going to continue to preach the plain gospel, as that gospel is in the Word of God.  For when the General Conference and the "organized work" put themselves in such a position that the plain preaching of the gospel as in the Word of God is disloyalty to the General Conference and the "organized work," then the thing to do is to preach the gospel as it is in the Word of God. Second, as to the campaign against Dr. Kellogg:  I told you in the very beginning of it, that I would never take any part in it.  You can remember that in the month of November, 1902, in Battle Creek, in the same room where you and Brother Irwin met the Church Board and others of us when you were here last month -- as you and I and several others of the General Conference Committee were sitting around a table, I told you all, that, admitting all to be the truth that was then being said about Dr. Kellogg, I would take no part in pursuing him, nor in making any kind of war upon him -- not even with the Testimonies.  I told you of the experience of a previous General Conference Committee when I was a member of it -- that Testimonies had come reproving Brother A. R. Henry: that the Committee had used the Testimonies in a way, and had taken such a course toward him, that he was offended: that then Testimonies came reproving the Committee for treating him so, and telling the Committee to "go and confess to Brother Henry."  "Shall the soul of A. R. Henry be lost?" -- and, upon this I told you that I never would take any course toward Dr. Kellogg or any other man that would make it possible for any Testimony to tell me to go and confess to him the wrong way that I had treated him, even with the Testimonies; and, because of anything that I had done, appeal to me "shall the soul of" that man "be lost?"  I told you then that whatever Dr. Kellogg's wrong-doing might be, I never would treat him, nor take any part with others in treating him in any other way than the way that I would choose to be treated if I were in a like situation.  All that, I told you then, and I tell it to you now.  That is where I stood then, that is where I have stood ever since, and that is where I shall stand forever with respect to Dr. Kellogg and everybody else in the world. I was at that time ready to stand with you, and did stand with you, in working for him, to get him to see where mistakes had been made, and to correct them.  On the eighteenth day of that same month of November, 1902, in the General Conference Committee room in Battle Creek, with Dr. Kellogg and a number of other brethren present, I, on the part of the General Conference Committee, and at your request, read some Testimonies concerning kingship in the medical work and a "species" of bondage or slavery of minds in the matter of written contracts for the medical missionary workers.  And even while I was read it, Dr. Kellogg spoke out and said: "I see that.  I see it now:  I never saw it before.  I could not see how that was; but I see it now.  And I will stop it immediately.  We will abolish all those contracts."  In the same meeting he also made other changes and concessions; so that the only thing that I expected to see, was that you would reach out your hand to him and say:  All right, Brother, here is my hand.  Let us go on together, working to find out whatever else may be wrong, and to put it away. But lo! instead of that or anything of that nature, I was surprised and humiliated and hurt, at your standing up, and planting yourself on your heels, and, in a decisive tone, saying "I'm not satisfied.  Dr. Kellogg has an imperious will, that's got to be broken ------- with God." From that moment I have not had any sympathy with you, nor any support for you, in that campaign.  The thing there said, and tone and manner of saying it, all showed that there was such an element of personal domination, of personal triumph, of a man ruling man, that I would have no part in it.  I know that you have since explained that you meant only what is always meant when it is said that a man's will is to be surrendered to God, etc.  Whatever you meant, the words as given above are what you said.  And said in the tone and manner in which you said it, and said openly in a company of men, in a time of tension; the only possible effect of the words was certain to be just what the words said.  Surely the effect, or at least the danger of the effect, of such a statement would be bad enough if spoken only to a man in perfect privacy.   How much more when spoken about a man, openly to a company of other men, with the man himself present.  To this day I feel the impression that the words made upon me.  And I know that if in such circumstances such a thing were said about me, I have not the meekness to take it in any way near as quietly as Dr. Kellogg did at that moment.  Surely, Brother Daniells, if you had thought only as far as a b c,  you would have known that God never breaks any man's will; nor does he ask that any man's will shall be broken; and you would not have said what you did. That day when we went direct from that meeting into the full meeting of the General Conference Council in the north vestry of the Tabernacle, I wrote on the fiftieth leaf of my railroad permit book, the following: On this fiftieth leaf of this book, on this eighteenth day of November, 1902, after the meeting of General Conference Committee from 8:00 o'clock a.m. to 1:15 p.m., I am obliged to say that it is impossible for me to see any basis for harmonious co-operation between the General Conference and Medical Missionary Association so far as Brethren Daniells and Prescott are concerned.  And if the next General Conference finds no entanglement it will surely have to be because of Brethren Daniells and Prescott changing their attitude in mind and spirit in meeting Brother Kellogg's allowances and concessions. And when the next General Conference did come, even before the Conference was actually opened, the first great question was whether the first thing done in the Conference should not be to turn the whole Conference upon the issue with Dr. Kellogg, and get that out of the way, and then take up the regular business of the Conference?  Brother Prescott knows that I was called to the house where Sister White was staying, to meet with him and W. C. White and her, to counsel upon the this very question -- at any rate, I was called there, possibly he was took and that was the only matter considered.  And Brother Prescott knows that I advised that instead of beginning Conference with the issue about Dr. Kellogg, we leave it out entirely -- and if it must come in, let it be the very last thing, and then only because it could not fairly be avoided: that the Conference was not assembled for any such business, but only for the consideration of the work of the Third Angel's Message in the world; and the time should be spent in studying the leading features of this great work. Possibly Brother Prescott may remember that I was the only one present, who did thus advise.  And when the Conference was formally opened, the expectation of certain ones was that the issue with or about Dr. Kellogg would be the first matter of importance taken up.  For I was chairman of the general committee: and either shortly before or at our very first meeting Brother Prescott asked me to delay the appointment of the committees, because if we should proceed just then, a certain man -- Dr. Kellogg -- might be nominated on some committee, and he would have to object to it, which, without explanation might be considered only personal.  Whereas if there were delay of a day or two the whole matter would be exposed in the Conference, and then there would be no danger of anybody's nominating Dr. Kellogg on any committee.  I told him that the Committee itself would have to decide the question of delay, but that I would present his request.  I did so in a general way without any particulars.  The Committee conformed to the request, and did adjourn to the call of the chair.  But that expected thing did not get into the open Conference.  And after sufficient -- or rather too much -- delay, I called the Committee together and we went on with the business.  You may remember that one day in the Conference I referred to this fact: when Brother Knox, sitting by you, arose and objected to "the whole Committee being involved."  However, I had not knowingly involved the whole Committee: I had only stated a fact.  That was as far as I knew: and if the whole Committee was involved, it could only be by the whole Committee's knowing more of the matter than I did. Before I left for California -- or rather at the depot just as I was leaving -- to come to the Sanitarium to work, I told W. C. White that I was not coming here as a partisan of Dr. Kellogg's nor as an opponent of you and Brother Prescott.  But that I was coming solely to help the medical students and others here by teaching the Bible to them.  I told the same thing to you and the others in the Council at Washington before I came here in November, 1903.  And that is true, yet, so far as I am concerned.  But in this matter it seems that whoever does not make open and direct war on Dr. Kellogg, is held necessarily to be a partisan of his and an opponent of you: that there is no space between.  But I know that if today I were to leave the Sanitarium because of total disagreement with Dr. Kellogg, there would still be a space wider than the world for me to stand in, without standing with you in the campaign against him and without endorsing the course that you have pursued since 1902.  And this space would be simply because of the plain a b c principles of the gospel, that I can, and therefore will, never abandon. Thirdly, the Testimonies: -- a.  I know that you and others with you are making much of "loyalty to the Testimonies": and are not slow to convey the impression that any who do not openly endorse your course in the use of some of the Testimonies is not "loyal to the Testimonies," "does not believe the Testimonies," etc., etc., but all of that proves nothing at all as to anybody's loyalty or disloyalty to the Testimonies.  Besides, facts within my personal knowledge demonstrate that the "loyalty to the Testimonies" that is just now being made so conspicuous, is a very uncertain thing: it is merely "loyalty" to some of the Testimonies -- that can be used to special advantage for a purpose. For instance:  During the General Conference council in Washington in October, 1903, a Testimony came concerning the Battle Creek College debt, and the Acre Fund to pay that debt.  That Testimony said: How pleasing to God it would be for all our people -- led and encouraged by the General Conference Committee -- to share in lifting this obligation of the old Battle Creek College! "The creditors of Battle Creek College must all be paid.  The officers of the General Conference should lend a hand in this work. I was in a position to know full well that the General Conference Committee neither led nor encouraged the people in that thing at all.  Indeed, their leading and encouraging was against it rather than for it.  Also I personally know that "the officers of the General Conference" did not lend any hand in that work.  Indeed they were not at all ready even to print that Testimony  in the Review.  They did by special request, if not persuasion, promise in the Review of October 29 to publish it "next week": but in fact did not publish it till five weeks afterward, December 3: and then with changes, showing that it had either been sent to California for these changes and back again, or else another copy was received from California to be published in place of the one that they promised October 29 to publish "next week."  Any or all of which shows that loyalty to that Testimony was not at all conspicuous on the part of the General Conference officers. Again:  At Berrien springs in May, 1904, a written testimony was given to you personally addressed, "Dear Brethren Daniells and Prescott," in which were the following words: -- Last night I saw a hand stretched out to clasp his [Dr. Kellogg's] hand, and the words were spoken:  "Let him take hold of my strength, that he may make peace with Me, and he shall make peace with Me.  Satan is striving for the victory.  I will help Dr. Kellogg to stand on vantage ground, and every soul who loves Me must work with me.  As he sees Me do, so he must do." You received that Testimony on Friday.  Yet as late as Monday following, Dr. Kellogg knew nothing of it -- at least so far as you were concerned -- and he was there the most of the time.  And when on Monday morning I read the Testimony openly in the morning meeting, you said that you had received it on Friday, but "did not know what to do with it."  It would seem that loyalty to the Testimonies would have given you plainly to know what to do yourself, whether you knew what to do with it or not.  It would seem that loyalty to the Testimonies would have caused you to go straight to Dr. Kellogg and stretch out your hand to him, as the Testimony told you to do.   But you did not do it then: and when I asked you in Battle Creek last month whether you had ever done it, you were obliged to say "No."  Is that loyalty to the Testimonies, or is it merely "loyalty to the Testimonies!!!" Again:  Sister White says that in the time of the General Conference of 1905, at Takoma Park, Washington, she was shown in the night the needs of the South and that five thousand dollars must be given immediately to the brethren -- Butler and Haskell -- for it.  So plain was this and so urgent, that she said to Brother Haskell the next morning, "Have faith in God.  You will carry five thousand dollars from this meeting" for the work in the South.  Then the Testimony proceeds:  "But Willie said" that Brother Daniells was very much perplexed with the conditions in Battle Creek, and the money could to be sent just then:  and, "I said no more about it."  This Testimony you have there in Washington. Now, did she see, that night, as she says that she did, the needs of the South, and so urgent that five thousand dollars should be carried from that very meeting for it?  If she did, then how much loyalty to the Testimonies was there in "Willie's" setting it all aside so effectually that for full two months nothing at all was done in that direction and when after full two months something was done, it was only because Testimonies were sent to the South as well as to Washington, that would brook no more delay.  And one of these said: -- "This matter has been presented to me three times, and I was instructed that five thousand dollars ought to have been placed in Elder Haskell's hands before he left the Conference grounds." That is exactly the instruction that she says that she had on the Conference grounds, in the time of the Conference.   She gave the "instruction" at least to Brother Haskell and to "Willie."  But "Willie" simply and promptly set it aside.   Now was that instruction from the Lord, or was it not?  If it was, how much did "Willie" care for it?  Allowing what he said about conditions in Battle Creek, is it not possible that the Lord knew of this, and knew as much of it as "Willie" did?  Or is it true that "Willie" is the supreme source of knowledge and understanding in the work of the Lord -- even above and against the instruction of the Lord?  Or did "Willie" believe a particle in that instruction's having come from the Lord?  If it was from the Lord, then how much loyalty to the Testimonies had "Willie" when he set it aside?  If it was from the Lord, and yet he did not believe that it was from the Lord, then how much loyalty to the Testimonies was there in what he did?  Or shall it be said that it was not from the Lord, and was not Testimony, till it came out in writing on July 19, 20, full two months afterward?  But if it was from the Lord when it was written out two months afterward, then was it not equally from the Lord when it was spoken to "Willie" at the time?  And in any case where in "Willie's" course in that matter does there appear any faintest suggestion of any real loyalty to the Testimonies? By the way, Brother, why haven't you printed those two Testimonies of July 19, 20, 1905, in full, full names and all, in the Review and Herald or in some "Series A, B, or Z, No." something?  For all the people to have those Testimonies, just as they are, would do a lot of good to the work in the South: why not print them? Now please, Brother Daniells, I am not involving you in "Willie's" course in the foregoing matter.  I am perfectly willing to believe that he did not allow that word to get to you, as to the five thousand dollars going with Brother Haskell from that General Conference.  The point that I make upon it is this:  That is the course which "Willie" took on that.  The Testimony says so.  Now since he can do such things as that, and at the same time is heartily and companionably fellowshipped by you as "loyal to the Testimonies," how is it that you can not just as heartily fellowship men who have far more respect for the Testimonies than that; but who possibly can not near as loudly urge upon other people "loyalty to the Testimonies!!" Again:  At the time of your late visit to Battle Creek, after urging upon the Battle Creek church for about two weeks or more "loyalty to the Testimonies!!" there was brought about the annual election in the church, two weeks before the regular time.  In the proceedings there were read Testimonies that were strictly pertinent and applicable to the matter before the meeting: and were plainly against what was being put through.  Yet these Testimonies were deliberately explained away, with "a broad view" and other like things; and you yourself took part in explaining them away.  After what you had been for two weeks or more saying and doing as to loyalty to the Testimonies, this was rather a sweeping, but in truth, in view of the many facts of the matter, a very fitting, anticlimax. And in view of all these facts, and many others of the same sort, you seem actually to be perplexed that I have taken no part with you in your campaign with "the Testimonies," and of this kind of "loyalty to the Testimonies!"  Why, brother, I never did, I never can, and I never will, use the Testimonies that way; nor will I take part in it with those who use them that way. The long straightforward series of facts in the case make it so plain to me that this conspicuous "loyalty to the Testimonies" is for campaign purposes only, that I simply will not take part in it.  I can afford to be suspected of heresy, and of other things that are now so trippingly told; but I will not run a false issue, nor will I make a false pretense. You speak of a time when I "took a strong position regarding the Testimonies, and used them with great force to wheel men and policies into line."  Yes, that is so; but with it, every soul knows that I never was partial in them; that I never used some with pile-driver force, while utterly ignoring or explaining away others just as plain and definite.  The brethren, and the people, know well that whenever I was advocating a matter and some one produced a Testimony to the contrary, instead of explaining it away I stopped instantly and changed my course accordingly.  And that was because of my loyalty to the Testimonies.

In the original address in the chapel, additional remarks and illustrations were interspersed as the foregoing matter was read.  In printing it, it seems best to print the letter unbroken: and then insert here the additional remarks and illustration.

Bureaucracy:  Government by bureaus; specifically, excessive multiplication of, and concentration of power in, administrative bureaus.  The principle of bureaucracy tends to official interference in many of the properly private affairs of life, and to the inefficient and obtrusive performance of duty through minute subdivision of function, inflexible formality, and pride of place.  -- Century Dictionary.

C. L. Taylor:  Brother Jones, may I say just a word.  I received a letter from one of our leading editors stating that he had received orders not to publish anything from you and some others whose names were given.

Voice:  Louder.  We didn't hear that.

C. L. Taylor:  I say that I received a letter from one of our leading editors stating that he had received orders not to publish any articles received from Dr. Paulson, Dr. Kellogg, or A. T. Jones.

A. T. Jones:  Possibly these "orders" have now been given to all of the denominational papers.

Also now as in 1901 "the conferences are weaving after the same pattern."  Here is an instance that actually occurred not a great while ago:  A certain Seventh-day Adventist is only a private individual in every respect.  He has his private individual business, strictly legitimate and honorable, that he has built up wholly by his own efforts.  And yet the president of the conference in which he is, gave that brother to understand that if he does not quit that business in the place where he is and leave the place where he is, "the denomination will withdraw its support from him."  But not in any sense is the denomination supporting him.  Therefore, the kernel of this procedure is that that conference president proposes to dominate that private individual in his private business, or else work a denominational boycott against him.  And when denominational management has reached that point, it is time that somebody was speaking in behalf of the common liberty as well as the religious liberty of the people; and in behalf of the common liberty as well as the religious liberty of the individual.  And that is why I am speaking openly tonight.  I owe it to this brother, and to every other Seventh-day Adventist in the world to stand in behalf of his right to be himself, and to conduct his own private and honorable business in his own way wherever he pleases, without any reference to conference, General Conference, or any other thing under heaven.

The Sabbath-school lesson for March 17, 1906, present D'Aubigne's excellent statement of the vital principle of the protest of Spires as follows: --

This protest opposes two abuses of man in matters of faith: the first is the intrusion of the civil magistrate; and the second, the arbitrary authority of the church.  Instead of these abuses Protestantism sets the power of conscience above the magistrate; and the authority of the word of God above the visible church.

This denomination has most rightly and nobly spent a great deal of time the past fifteen or more years in opposing intrusion of the civil magistrate in the realm of religion.  It is high time that at least somebody in this denomination should be Protestant enough to oppose the arbitrary authority of the church.  For please, bear in mind that the arbitrary authority of the church has always been only the arbitrary authority of a few men in place of authority in the church.  And if some of the things that are today being done in the name of this denomination are not the exercise of arbitrary authority, then both the dictionary and history may well be revised.