To the Editor of the "NonrH-CumA DANLY New:
Sm—I_ have only just had an opportunity of reading the Statement of the IMS. Board explanatory of its future attitude! [towards the "questions of the hour" in China, As a missionary I desire to repudiate the authority of the L.M.S Board, or any other Board, assume a right to dictate an attitude for tts mission wards the particular questions now so widely discussed at Home and abroad. As missionaries do not sell their souls or their consciences to any' Board, American or British; and, in' the present case, I feel pretty sure' that the L.M.S. Board has gone too far when it makes it known that the rectors "do not now desire that the legal rights of their Mission and missionaries in China should in future rest upon existing treaties between Great Britain and Chi and in particular upon the so-calle. toleration clauses in these treaties dealing specifically with mission: work; and they desire that their future legal rights and liberties should be those' freely accorded to them by China as a Sovereign Power, and mutually agreed upon in equal conference between China and other nations."
And again: "So far as the inter-rests of Missions and Missionaries ned, they would welcome sent articles and the policy for the future, one very vital consideration has been either consciously or unconsciously overlooked. Wihat the Board in London may be ready to. "welcome" is quite different thing from what mise naries on the field—many with ives and little children in the far interior—ntay be prepared to welcome," and as the latter may be presumed to understand the local situation as it really: exists quite as well, and in some eases a good: deal better,. than members of the Board in London, it surely wag incumbent bu. the authority before' com-frank way the opinions entertained
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.