REPORT FROM BRO. CANRIGHT by Dudley Marvin Canright

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jun 18, 1867

REPORT FROM BRO. CANRIGHT.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

May 30, we returned to Maine to resume our work here, after an absence of two months. June 1st, and 2nd, was our Monthly Meeting in Portland. Quite a number were present from Topsham and other places. We enjoyed several sweet seasons in prayer and social meetings, in which all took a part readily. We felt as though some progress had been made by the people in this section, for the past few months; but they are not yet where the Lord wishes them to be in spiritual things. They want more spirituality and zeal in the good cause. In the past, Satan has beguiled some of them into sin with that unruly member, the tongue. These wrongs have been seen and confessed, and we think that they are now trying to put them away. Probably the cause never looked better in Portland than now. Others are interested and convicted, and we expect to see some of them move out soon.

I enjoyed some freedom in talking to the brethren and sisters on the points of special interest to us at the present time. Again we laid the subject of the Health Reform before them as a Bible duty. We believe that God designs this as a part of the preparation to fit his people to stand during the seven last plagues. All kinds of animals are becoming greatly diseased, and we think this will rapidly increase till the end. Whoever eats of them is not only sure to fill his system with disease, but will soon peril his life by doing so. Spices and stimulating food irritate the system, stir up the passions, make a person fretful, impatient, irritable, &c. Hence those who are to have the “patience of the saints” cannot indulge in their use.

A famine is soon coming on the land which will devour everything. Then God’s people must be fed directly from the Lord. He has only promised them bread and water during that time. For this God is now preparing his people. Those who now neglect to reform will soon find it too late to do so. These are some of the reasons that were presented in favor of the Health Reform.

We had a special meeting at which all were present, to investigate the merits of the dress reform. The objections to the common style of dress are numerous, among which the following are a few: 1. The feet and limbs of the females are imperfectly clad, having generally only thin stockings and shoes to protect them. 2. The modern loop skirt throws the clothes far away from the limbs and then exposes them still more. 3. Hence the feet and limbs often become chilly and cold. This prevents a proper circulation of blood in those parts and throws it back upon the brain, heart or lungs, where it is not needed. This causes a rush of blood to the head, congestion of the brain, head-ache, lung fever, consumption, and other common maladies.

The short dress proposes to remedy all this by clothing the limbs and feet as warmly as those of men are clothed. To do this it is necessary to wear the pants and thick shoes or boots. This insures an equal circulation of blood through the limbs, and thus prevents colds and all the above-mentioned maladies. The common long dress is inconvenient, because, 1. It is right in the way of the feet in walking and thus cripples a woman’s motions. 2. It is in the mud, and dust, and dew, thus becoming both filthy and unhealthy. 3. The wearer can never go up stairs nor down with any thing in her hands without stepping on her dress.

The short dress is decidedly better than this dress, because, 1. It is never in the mud, dew, nor dust. 2. It is entirely out of the way of the limbs and feet, enabling a woman to walk freely and easily. 3. With the short dress a woman can readily run up stairs or down stairs, with both hands full, thus enabling her to do more work and that with less weariness. But to secure these advantages it is necessary to have the dress not less than eight or nine inches from the floor. Anything longer than this could hardly be entitled to the name of the short dress.

But the modesty of the short dress is not the smallest thing to be considered. Any one that has traveled as much as I have, can bear testimony with me to the immodesty of the hoop skirt. A lady with one on very seldom enters a carriage, omnibus, car, and such places without immodestly exposing herself. But with the reform dress on, all exposure is entirely avoided. After seeing it worn I think it is the most modest dress I have ever seen, and I am not alone in this opinion.

All these things were freely talked over here. Nearly all decided in favor of it, and others had but very slight objections to it. The extreme short dress had been worn here before by Sabbath-keepers; hence some prejudice existed against everything that bears the name of short dress. But the reform dress and the American costume are two very different things. All could readily see this. Most of the sisters resolved as soon as consistent to adopt it. My wife, who wears one, has assisted them in preparing their dresses. They have adopted the Health Reform quite thoroughly.

We stayed over the next Sabbath and held meetings. On the whole I feel quite encouraged by my visit to Portland. I pray God to bless them and help them to live out all the truth.

D. M. CANRIGHT.

Portland, Me., June 10, 1867.