Columbus, O., March 17, 1905.

The Rev. Mary Baker G. Eddy, Leader in Christian Science.

Dear Mrs. Eddy:—On the 28th day of February, the Supreme Court of Ohio handed down a decision in the so-called Marble case, of which decision the syllabus is as follows:—

1. The giving of Christian Science treatment, for a fee, for the cure of disease is practising medicine within the meaning of the statute regulating such practice in this state.

2. The statute making it a misdemeanor to give such treatment for a fee is not an interference with the rights of conscience and of worship, conserved by section 7 of the bill of rights, and is not, on that ground, unconstitutional.

3. Legislation prohibiting any one from treating a disease for a fee, excepting such persons as have qualifications, is a valid exercise of the police power of the state, and is constitutional.

4. The act regulating the practice of medicine in this state exacts reasonable qualifications and excludes no one possessing them, and is not void as discriminating against Christian Scientists in that it prescribes that any one possessing certain qualifications may practise osteopathy and does not make especial provision for those who wish to practise Christian Science.

The law under which this decision was reached is as follows: and was passed in its present form in 1902, the only one of three bills inimical to Christian Science which got through the general assembly:—

Section 4403f. "Any person shall be regarded as practising medicine or surgery or midwifery within the meaning of this act who shall . . . prescribe, or who shall recommend for a fee for like use any drug or medicine, appliance, application, operation, or treatment, of whatever nature, for the cure or relief of any wound, fracture or bodily injury, infirmity, or disease. . . ."

In the above act the words of the former law "or for a fee prescribe, direct, or recommend for the use of any person, any drug or medicine or other agency" were omitted and the stronger words "treatment of whatever nature" were inserted. Under the former law it had been held by one of the lower courts in Ohio that Christian Science practice was not an "agency;" under this law it is held that Christian Science practice is a "treatment," and Science and Health is quoted (p. 411), beginning with the words. "Always begin your treatment by allaying the fear of patients." The court evidently used the words from an old edition of Science and Health, closing with the words, "Then realize the presence of health and the corporeal senses will respond, 'so be it.' " The learned judge adds. "If its followers call it treatment they ought not to be heard to say it is not." He therefore concludes that the defendant gave a treatment for a fee and thereby violated the law of the State. I came into possession last evening of the first official copy of the opinion that has been given out, and have examined it with care, as it deserves. My first impression, that the only violation of law consisted in the giving of the treatment for a fee or for a fixed compensation, and that Christian Scientists are perfectly free in Ohio so far as the private and personal practice of Christian Science is concerned, is confirmed by reading the text of the opinion in full. In the course of the opinion the Judge says, "It is to be observed that the statute does not prohibit the prescribing or recommending the treatment except for a fee, and we are not advised that it is a part of defendant's religion to exact a fee as well as to pray."

And again he says, "But it is said the offering of prayer to God for the recovery of the sick is not against public health or public morals or public safety or public welfare. Admitted."

But, on the other hand, he also says, "If the defendant prayed for the recovery of Hehl that was the treatment he gave him for the cure of his rheumatism and for which Hehl paid him. He was practising healing or curing disease."

Also, referring to the police power of the State, he says, "The subject of legislation is not medicine or surgery. It is public health or the practice of healing. The State might make it an offence, as has been done in New York (People v. Pearson, 176 N. Y. 201), for any one to omit to furnish medical attendance to those dependent upon him. . . ."

My object in calling this matter to your personal attention, dear Leader, is because of the effect this decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio must inevitably have on the professional practitioners in Ohio at the present time. In the emergency, because of my personal relations with the department of Justice, and because of my official relations with the Columbus church, I am called upon to express whatever thought comes to me as the wisest course for Christian Scientists in Ohio to pursue. Mrs. Harriet W. Jones, C.S.D., formerly of Somerville, Mass., is the only teacher at present in the city, Mrs. Spaulding being in the West. Mrs. Jones called a meeting of students for last Sunday afternoon in the church edifice, and it was there resolved that in this Field, for the present, and until the way seemed clearer, practitioners would charge no fees, would not name any price on their efforts to heal, but in the fullest reliance upon divine Love, would go forth with stouter hearts than ever, doing whatever the hands should find to do in the vineyard, knowing full well that God will provide the increase. The labors of love shall be more abundant than ever before, and better healing will result because of this fruitless endeavor of the adversary to hinder and oppose the truth of God. I trust this decision of our little flock to abide by the law of man, so far as we can without infringing upon the law of God, awaiting in patience until we can see "what the Lord hath wrought," will meet your sincere approval. It is undertaken in love, and because it is in love, it is the exact opposite of what mortal mind would have us do.

The general assembly in Ohio does not meet until January, 1906, and until that time is it not well to be as loving as doves and as obedient as Jesus was when he said, "Render unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's, and unto God the things which are God's"? Cæsar says there shall be no fee exacted; Cæsar cannot say there shall be no healing. Cæsar is only lord of the material world for the present hour. God is omnipotent.

Immediately after this decision was announced. I saw an effort on the part of the newspaper men (with their usual enterprise in the matter of news) to ascertain how Christian Scientists felt about the decision, how the church would accept the dicta of the court, and what could be prophesied of the future. At the earliest possible moment I sent to Mr. Merritt (Publication Committee for Ohio), and to the editors of The Christian Science Publishing Society in Boston, copies of the syllabus in this case, and to the latter a copy of the salient points in the law covered by the decision. I have been urged to do this by a sincere appreciation of the need for silence and meditation, instead of for agitation and unwise criticism of court or legislature. Love rules.

After seven days of contemplation of this decision the thought is present with me that perhaps in thus abolishing the fixed and professional fee for Christian Science practice, a greater voice, a deeper power, than that of court or legislature may be speaking to us as a religious body worshiping God. It may be that after thirty years of heroic effort on your part, the world is ripe for such a demonstration of Love that receptive patients will willingly divide, without fee or price or persuasion, their substance with the church and its healing ministry, while unreceptive patients will be less in evidence than now, to take up precious time of which no worker in the cause of Christian Science has to spare.

I trust the "Ohio Decision" will not be a stumbling-block to any earnest student, to any earnest and loyal teacher, or to our Leader and her corps of true and unselfish workers in Concord and at Boston. Give us your approval and your wise counsel, and help each of us ever to remember that

Love is my shepherd; I shall not want.

Yours very respectfully and truly,
E. Howard Gilkey, First Reader and Clerk,
First Church of Christ, Scientist. 

Mrs. Eddy's Reply.

Pleasant View, Concord, N. H., March 25, 1905,
First Church of Christ, Scientist, Columbus, O.

Beloved Brethren:—I congratulate you tenderly on the decision you have made as to the present practice of Christian Science in your State, and thoroughly recommend it under the circumstances. I practised gratuitously when starting this great Cause that was then the scoff of the age.

The too long treatment of a disease,—the charging of the sick whom you have not healed, a full fee for treatment,—the suing for payment,—hypnotism, and resenting injuries are not the fruits of Christian Science, while returning good for evil, loving your enemies, and overcoming evil with good,—these are its fruits, and its therapeutics, as aforetime, based on this divine Principle, heals all disease.

We read in the Scriptures, "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free." "Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."

Wisdom is won through faith, prayer, experience,—and God is the giver.

Lovingly yours,
Mary Baker G. Eddy.

The above correspondence indicates the acceptance by Christian Scientists of what is declared to be the law of Ohio, by the highest judicial tribunal in the State, and it also expresses their intention to be governed by this law. The acceptance of the law as it is construed by the Supreme Court is the only course open to our people as good citizens, and as consistent followers of our Master, who said. "Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's; and unto God the things that are God's."

The question of fees has not cut a large figure in Christian Science practice, and this interpretation of the Ohio statutes will not interfere in any manner with the progress of our Cause in that State or elsewhere. Under present conditions Christian Science practitioners need—as do all others—to be clothed and fed, but they are learning with greater certainty, through experience, that He who clothes the lilies of the field and cares for the sparrow is not unmindful of the needs of those who do His will and minister to His little ones.

If it was the intention of those who framed this Ohio law to interdict the practice of Christian Science, they have signally failed, and the determination of Christian Scientists to proceed with their work regardless of fees will demonstrate to the world their disinterested desire to spread the complete gospel of Christianity. Incidentally, the persons who succeeded in having this law passed are left in the somewhat anomalous position of consenting to a practice which they maintain is dangerous to the community. Do they believe that the "danger" is eliminated when no fee is charged? If the trouble is with the fee, why not abolish fees for medical treatment? Certainly the "danger" to the patient was not in the fee received by Mr. Marble in the case just decided. Mr. Hehl, the patient, was healed at an expense of five dollars after he had suffered for fourteen years under medical treatment.

The membership of the Christian Science Church has been recruited from every walk of life, and it comprises all sorts and conditions of men, but all are inspired by one grand motive—the salvation of the race. Christian Scientists are sure that all who "seek first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness," shall have all other things added unto them. Although Mrs. Eddy was compelled in the early days of her work to labor gratuitously, the healing has never ceased and her work has continued to bear fruit. Jesus said, "Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest. And he that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal."

Archibald McLellan.