"Rs the Editor of the "iNorra-Cuina Datty. News."
<ASm—I_ see, from your issue of @atober 25, that Mr. Frank. Raw Jimeon of the American Board Mission "has written you to criticize Tather severely that portion of etent article that I contributed to fie "North-China" Daily News" which I devoted. to Dr, Hodgkin's pamphlet on policy in China, Mr. Rawlinson is certainly entitied to imgzee with me and to publish beg comment that he likes upon my éxprensod opinions, but I think that} has lightly misconstrued some of my text and has thereby been nisled into condemning me for sins hat T have not wittingly committed.
makes me say that such opiniene as Dr. Hodgkin holds are sup-' jyexted by. small. missionary groups Shanghai, Peking and Canton only, while all the missions have beer disassociating themselves from uch opinions and such a policy. I certainly did not mean to make any frach statements on my own autho-Hy, and I believe thet T made it daoply clear that this is what I was told. by, missionaries whom T et ili the course of recent travels. Dhese men may have been wrong, but if they were, it is their opinion 'Mat Mr. Rawlinson contradicts, not! mine, Until very recently I should Rave agreed off hand with Mr. eRawlingon when he said tha she action of the National Chris-'Han. Council represents in my opin jon the mind of the majority' of Ghristians in China." I should Dave thought that the Council's at-irade towards Chinese affairs was representative of missionary opin Jon, because Tt coincided with the majority of expressions of mission-'Sry opinion that had come to my fwtiention up to, let us say, the end wf the past. summer. It was f this very assumption that I was taken to task by almost every missionary whom I met in my travels. They ncokded_me—with some heat toveral instances—for_ implying onaty "pinion "ae ate. 8 rious writings that, mis-
opport of the policy which Dr. Hodgkin outlines and the National @bristian Council presumably. en-aries." T was told that this im-BNeation did the majority of missionaries a gross injustice.
From y Sources: <'ve: information came as. a. surprive to me and, hed fe come from Berne-one person or had it been the opinion of some one mission comaunity, I should not have taken Goo the attitude of at least a score Lid seriously. This, however, of persons whom I met on railway alps and in several cities on the sanetee, They were not of one nationality, but of at least four-"Amecause I remember talking to Ame-'Bean, British, Swedish and German missionaries on this subject. In Their criticisms of what they considered unrepresentative missionary opinion the majority contented emzeives with condemning Toquatous, ereups.in Peking, Shanghai land Canton. ° Others. lied. persons foa Institutions, which 1 need. not swention, here. The Point ie. that Bose midely separated, missionaries various nationalities, sects and societies, went out of their way t0 Zeeure me that the majority of mir. ~aiona'ries were trying to disassociate "Shemoelves from the weak, compre: basing policy of. the. trouty. port Sropagandisty: and: held. distin geuige against me for assuming Sine they were all ofthe. ake "ina an there highly articulate policy makers A.promised in each ease to make ~aiaends when an opportunity arose. "Be. Hodgkin's pamphlet, us review—ed.in the "China Express and Telesgzaph," gave me that opportunity ud now Tam in trouble with Mr. Rawlinaon for giving publicity dmicsionary opinion tha rans. coun der to his. "My informants may all "wrong in their appraisement "of the missionary attitude, Te may
"into contact with ce. many. personp 'Bape acer chance that brought am the mission field that would di "agree with ING. Rawlinson and enejthat would agree. Tu his Tet. Sor he makes it clear thet he and her' conciliatory leaders have a Petona obrisian Counet mae Pes "barge following and. that. the
wu gone to some pains to elicit imissionary opinion on policy in China. T have no such opportunities to sound opinion in mi the has, although I'm inclined to think fat when I do go after an opinion T am more likely to get an The Chinese Church Soviet The National Christian Coun: it and Kindred organizations are very warm in their adherence to their polly and the missionary or ris-sion board that radically disagrees with them is a rebel. Most of lions are much more profours!- interested in the concrete pre blems of their work than in international polities and, like the rank and file everywhere, are either ¢2"- tent to lot others shape their pel'cy for them or would rather conform ble with the treaty port propagand. ists about a matter which they do not consider vital. Those opposed to a policy founded upon faitl: in the efficacy. of propitiation, conciliation and soft-soap, cannot express their disapproval in China without running the risk of antagonizing their Chinese Christian communities and therefore, in dealing wita the National Christian Council, which one of my missionary friends recently described in a personal letter: asthe Chinese Church Soviet, bhundly endorse its policy while con dernning it in reports to their own boards, I am sure therefore that. the missionaries whom I met. this autumn on my travels and the dozen or more missionary friends with whom I am in correspondence, move been perfectly Honest with me in their expressions of opinion, because I can neither help nor harm them any. way unless I were to publish their names, which they know T would not do; while the same persons in contact with Mr. Raw-Hinson and his colleagues would el-most certainly evade argument if they could and might very possibly. endorse conciliation in broad and general terms to avoid dispute.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.