The view-points of The Sun and of the Christian Scientists, regarding the constitutional right of the individual to employ the practitioner of his choice, differ so widely that I feel sure you will be glad to give space to a reply to the article entitled "The Christian Science Amendment to the Health Law," published recently, even though you may not be willing to admit the soundness of its claims.

In 1907 the medical interests of the state got together, drew up a bill to regulate the practice of medicine, and introduced it into the legislature. The bill was so sweepingly restrictive in its provisions that it aroused considerable opposition, particularly among the Christian Scientists. When it came up for a hearing, the opposition of the Scientists was so strong that all hope of passing it in its original form was abandoned. A conference was consequently arranged between the representatives of the medical interests and of the Christian Scientists. Although the latter asked for a specific exemption, the wording finally adopted was that nothing in the act should be construed to affect "the practice of the religious tenets of any church." It was understood by all, the legislators included, that the foregoing clause was inserted expressly as a saving clause for the practice of Christian Science.

As soon as the bill had been passed and signed, a representative of the medical interests is quoted as having said that one had been "put over on the Christian Scientists." In other words, he believed the medical interests had succeeded in having a clause inserted in the bill that would not stand the test of the courts. In order to prove it, several law abiding citizens, Christian Science practitioners, were arrested on the charge that they were practising medicine without a license. The saving clause, it was claimed, would not protect them. One of these cases has been in the courts continuously since 1911.

In 1914 a bill intended to give Christian Scientists the consideration which the legislature of 1907 intended they should have, was passed by both branches, but vetoed by the Governor for reasons best known to him, but not made plain in his veto message. Still believing that they were entitled to a saving clause, the Christian Scientists caused the Thorn bill to be introduced in the 1915 legislature. This bill provides that nothing in the medical practice act shall be construed to affect "the practice of Christian Science for the relief of the sick or suffering, provided that no drugs or other material remedies are employed, and provided further that no quarantine or sanitary regulations are violated."

Now, if Christian Science were the practice of medicine, Christian Scientists would be only too glad to submit to medical regulations and control; but The Sun, and many others none the less sincere, seem not to understand that Christian Science and materia medica are opposites. One is wholly spiritual, the other wholly material; one depends upon the power of God to heal the sick, the other upon drugs, surgery, and kindred treatment. Why contend that all who profess to relieve human suffering should be compelled by law to submit to medical regulation? Why contend that medicine offers the only way by which one can find relief, when history shows that the one who practised the only infallible system of healing known to mankind employed no medicine? Furthermore, Christ Jesus taught others to heal by the same method. Gibbon records that for three hundred years Christian healing continued, and that the art then seems to have been lost.

Christian healing was certainly based on a demonstrable Principle, and it was this divine Principle which Mrs. Eddy claims to have discovered and explained to the world in her book, "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures." Through the study of the Scriptures in the light which this book throws upon them, thousands are daily being healed of mental, moral, and physical deformities generally believed to be incurable.

Medicine does not enter into the practice of Christian Science, and if Christian Scientists were compelled to take a medical examination, they would forthwith have to unlearn what they had learned about medicine, in order to fit themselves to practice Christian Science. The absurdity of such a requirement would be immediately apparent, if an attempt were made to compel medical students to become Christian Scientists before they should be permitted to practice their profession. Many medical students who are members of other religious denominations would seriously object to such an arrangement, and justly.

If Jesus and his disciples received compensation for their services, why all this objection to the Christian Scientists receiving it? Is not the workman worthy of his hire? I doubt if those who are healed by Christian Science could be per suaded to withhold compensation, any more than the grateful patient of the conscientious physician could be persuaded to withhold a similar expression of his gratitude. However, Christian Scientists are ready to work "without remuneration" whenever the physicians are ready to work without it.

Much has been said of the great sanitary work that has been done in Panama. It should not be forgotten, however, that when Mr. Taft was President, he issued a special executive order recognizing the right of Christian Scientists to practice in the Canal Zone. Diagnosis may be an effective way to detect disease, but what the public is more interested in is how to get well. Christian Scientists do not pretend to be medical diagnosticians; nevertheless, there are no records in the Canal Zone or elsewhere which show that Christian Science treatment fails to cope as successfully with diseases of all kinds, at least as efficaciously, as other systems.

Christian Scientists are not at war with the medical profession. They have the deepest regard for the conscientious physician. They honor his unselfish labors for human betterment. Nevertheless, Christian Scientists fail to see where they lack consideration for the medical profession merely because they choose to turn to a system which in their personal experience they have found more efficacious than medicine. Sentiment should hardly be permitted to interfere with progress.