Do I think that Dr. Ament and certain of his fellow missionaries are as
bad as their conduct? No, I do not. They are the product of their
training; and now that I understand the whole case, and where they got
their ideals, and that they are merely subordinates and subject to
authority, I comprehend that they are rather accessories than
principals, and that their acts only show faulty heads curiously
trained, not bad hearts. Mainly, as it seems to me, it is the American
Board that is on trial. And again, it is a case of the head, not of the
heart. That it has a heart which has never harbored an evil intention,
no one will deny, no one will question; the Board’s history can silence
any challenge on that score. The Board’s heart is not in court: it is
its head that is on trial.
It is a sufficiently strange head. Its ways baffle comprehension; its
ideas are like no one else’s; its methods are novelties to the practical
world; its judgments are surprises. When one thinks it is going to speak
and must speak, it is silent; when one thinks it ought to be silent and
must be silent, it speaks. Put your finger where you think it ought to
be, it is not there; put it where you think it ought not to be, there
you find it.
When its servant in China seemed to be charging himself with amazing
things, in a reputable journal--in a dispatch which was copied into many
other papers--the Board was as silent about it as any dead man could
have been who was informed that his house was burning over his head. An
exchange of cablegrams could have enabled it, within two days, to prove
to the world--possibly--that the damaging dispatch had not proceeded
from the mouth of its servant; yet it sat silent and asked no questions
about the matter.
It was silent during thirty-eight days. Then the dispatch came into
prominence again. It chanced that I was the occasion of it. A break in
the stillness followed. In what form? An exchange of cablegrams,
resulting in proof that the damaging dispatch had not been authorized?
No, in the form of an Open Letter by the Corresponding Secretary of the
American Board, the Rev. Dr. Smith, in which it was _argued_ that Dr.
Ament could not have said and done the things set forth in the dispatch.
Surely, this was bad politics. A repudiating telegram would have been
worth more than a library of argument.
An extension of the silence would have been better than the Open Letter,
I think. I thought so at the time. It seemed to me that mistakes enough
had been made and harm enough done. I thought it questionable policy to
publish the Letter, for I “did not think it likely that Dr. Ament would
disown the dispatch,” and I telegraphed that to the Rev. Dr. Smith.
Personally, I had nothing against Dr. Ament, and that is my attitude
yet.
Once more it was a good time for an extension of the silence. But no;
the Board has its own ways, and one of them is to do the unwise thing,
when occasion offers. After having waited fifty-six days, it cabled to
Dr. Ament. No one can divine why it did so then, instead of fifty-six
days earlier.[16] It got a fatal reply--and was not aware of it. That
was that curious confession about the “one third extra”; its
application, not to the “propagation of the Gospel,” but only to “church
expenses,” support of widows and orphans; and, on top of this
confession, that other strange one revealing the dizzying fact that our
missionaries, who went to China to teach Christian morals and justice,
had adopted pagan morals and justice in their place. _That cablegram was
dynamite._
It seems odd that the Board did not see that that revelation made the
case far worse than it was before; for there was a saving doubt,
before--a doubt which was a Gibraltar for strength, and should have been
carefully left undisturbed. Why did the Board allow that revelation to
get into print? Why did the Board not suppress it and keep still? But
no; in the Board’s opinion, this was once more the time for speech.
Hence Dr. Smith’s latest letter to me, suggesting that I speak also--a
letter which is a good enough letter, barring its nine defects, but is
another evidence that the Board’s head is not as good as its heart.
A missionary is a man who is pretty nearly all heart, else he would not
be in a calling which requires of him such large sacrifices of one kind
and another. He is made up of faith, zeal, courage, sentiment, emotion,
enthusiasm; and so he is a mixture of poet, devotee, and knight errant.
He exiles himself from home and friends and the scenes and associations
that are dearest to him; patiently endures discomforts, privations,
discouragements; goes with good pluck into dangers which he knows may
cost him his life; and when he must suffer death, willingly makes that
supreme sacrifice for his cause.
Sometimes the headpiece of that kind of a man can be of an inferior
sort, and error of judgment can result--as we have seen. Then, for his
protection, as it seems to me, he ought to have at his back a Board able
to know a blunder when it sees one, and prompt to bring him back upon
his right course when he strays from it. That is to say, I think the
captain of a ship ought to understand navigation. Whether he does or
not, he will have to take a captain’s share of the blame, if the crew
bring the vessel to grief.
-----
Footnote 11:
Testimony of the manager of the _Sun_.
Footnote 12:
Cable error. For “thirteen times” read “one third.” This correction
was made by Dr. Ament in his brief cablegram published February
20th, previously referred to.
Footnote 13:
For “thirteen times” read “one third.”--M. T.
Footnote 14:
In civilized countries, if a mob destroy property in a town, the
damage is paid out of the town treasury, and no taxpayer suffers a
disproportionate share of the burden; the mayor is not privileged to
distribute the burden according to his private notions, sparing
himself and his friends, and fleecing persons he holds a spite
against--as in the Orient--and the citizen who is too poor to be a
taxpayer pays no part of the fine at all.
Footnote 15:
In his Open Letter, Dr. Smith cites Dr. Ament’s letter of November
13th, which contains an account of Dr. Ament’s collecting tour; then
Dr. Smith makes this comment: “Nothing is said of securing ‘thirteen
times’ the amount of the losses.” Farther down, Dr. Smith quotes
praises of Dr. Ament and his work (from a letter of the Rev. Dr.
Sheffield), and adds this comment: “Dr. Sheffield is not accustomed to
speak thus in praise of thieves, or extortioners, or braggarts.” The
reference is to the “thirteen-times” extra tax.
Footnote 16:
The cablegram went on the day (February 18th) that Mr. George Lynch’s
account of the looting was published. See “Exhibit B.” It seems a pity
it did not inquire about the looting and get it denied.