GROSS NEGLECT AND ILL TREATMENT OF SISTER MATTIE by Dudley Marvin Canright

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jan 20, 1876

GROSS NEGLECT AND ILL TREATMENT OF SISTER MATTIE.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

I know that, generally speaking, the Review is not the place in which to state private matters and personal grievances; still there are some aggravated cases of such a nature that it is necessary to make a public statement concerning them. Such a case has lately come under my observation. I exceedingly regret the necessity of saying anything about it, but it has become a matter of public talk, and hence I think it best to state the facts publicly. The case is this: Several years ago a royal personage took up a large tract of land. Being quite wealthy, he improved this land, built tenant houses, and hired poor men to work upon it. Being zealous for the truth, quite a number of these men embraced it under his influence.

A few years ago, wishing to leave this country, he rented his large farm to these families of Sabbath-keepers. As they were really his own children in the faith, he felt a special interest in them, and so gave them better terms than he would have given any other persons. In order that they might do well, and also improve his land, he simply required them to pay taxes and give him one-tenth of all they should raise. This they readily promised to do.

This one-tenth was to be paid to his daughter, sister Mattie, whom he left on the place. She has a large family of children to support—to clothe, feed, school, &c., and they are all dependent upon her. The King thought that the income of the farm would abundantly support sister Mattie and her children, and so it would. For the first year these brethren did very well, and were quite prompt in bringing to sister Mattie her share of the produce as fast as it was gathered, though it appears that some were rather slow about it, and perhaps did not bring the whole amount as they should have done. The second year, however, it grew still worse. They were very backward in doing their duty in this respect. Some of them only brought half what they ought to have brought, and even this, long after it was due; others paid her still less than that; and some, as was clearly proved, kept all they raised.

The third year matters grew still worse. Crops were not very good, and taxes were high. The brethren complained that it took all they could raise to simply provide for their own families and pay their taxes; hence, as was proved in the investigation, some of them actually never gave sister Mattie so much as a bushel of potatoes during the year, though they had all raised more or less wheat, corn, potatoes, stock, &c. Some of them did, late in the year, bring her a small part of what was due. The consequence was that sister Mattie’s income was exceedingly small, and she had hard work to keep her family comfortable. The children complained, and she complained. But the way it was left she had no real authority to do anything about it by law, as the King had so great confidence in these men that he left it simply to their word and honor to deal justly and truly with his daughter. But, as the result shows, his confidence was not well-grounded.

When I went there this fall, sister Mattie came to me with tears, and stated her grievances in the matter. At first I could hardly believe that it was so. However, we called the brethren together, and a careful investigation showed that it was even worse than I expected. The brethren all acknowledged the great favors which had been shown them, and confessed that all they had they really owed to their kind Benefactor. Many of them freely acknowledged that sister Mattie was a good sister, and had not asked of them anything unreasonable; but they said that times were so hard, and they were so poor, that they had seen no way by which to raise what was due her. Others thought that too much had been required of them, more than was their duty under the circumstances. They did not think it was duty to take bread out of their children’s mouths and give it to sister Mattie, nor to let their own children go unclothed in order to clothe her children.

I am sorry to say that some of them appeared a great deal irritated when we urged upon them the just claims of sister Mattie. They said that her Father was a wealthy man and could abundantly provide for his daughter without oppressing them. Others said that they owed debts and taxes which must be paid; and that if they did not pay them their creditors would sue them, and the government would not wait for its taxes. These must come any way. Sister Mattie could not sue them, and the King was away, and they thought he would be easy with them anyhow.

I was astonished and grieved at such conduct and such reasoning. I know that no candid person could justify the course these brethren have taken. All that was required of them was that they should give sister Mattie one-tenth of what they raised. If their crops were large, they could certainly afford to give her the tenth. If they were small, then they only had to give a little. They ought to have felt that sister Mattie had wants, feelings, and rights, as well as themselves. And so the matter closed.

And now, reader, do you see the point of my parable? It was suggested to me by the following circumstance: A certain woman was working among our brethren. She heard them speaking now and then about Systematic,—that they must lay aside something for Systematic; that they must pay up Systematic; and that there was so much for Systematic. The woman was naturally curious to know what all this meant, so one day she said to a brother, “Who is sister Mattie about whom I hear you all talk so much? Is she some poor sister in the church?” The brother told her that sister Mattie was a very worthy sister who was dependent upon the church, and one whom all the members of the church had promised to help support.

As I said, this circumstance suggested to my mind the above parable in which the wealthy King represents the Lord. His farm is this earth and the things upon it. The tenants who embraced the truth under his influence are the members of his church. Sister Mattie is none other than our Systematic (Benevolence). The one-tenth is the tithe which the Lord requires of his people. See Lev. 27: 30–32. The neglect to pay sister Mattie her dues represents the neglect of our brethren and sisters to pay Systematic Benevolence. The arguments used in this case are the very ones I often hear used by our brethren and sisters who are not paying the Lord his dues in the Systematic. We hope you will see the point and mend your ways.

D. M. Canright.