The Cause in the Eastern States.
By Editor
In the Review of Feb. 17, we remarked freely relative to the cause in the east. We will not repeat what we then said, but call attention to those remarks. Let those interested read them again. We returned from our tour east in 1861, greatly discouraged at the little progress made in the direction of organization. We resolved not to make another tour until there should be a united call for help on that subject. The response from Brn. Bourdeaus and Hutchins is full. We do not propose to go east because there is nothing to do in Michigan. There never was so much to do in this State as now, and there never has been a time when judicious labor would accomplish half as much for the building up of the cause in Michigan as since our State Conference in October. Michigan has room and means for four tents. And what time we can leave the office, we cannot fill one-fourth the calls in this State. In view of the existing state of things in the State, the Michigan Conference, whether assembled or through its Committee, will not think it advisable to bestow labor in a field where there is not enough of the element of order and organization to secure the future prosperity of the cause. As a people we have too long worked at the miserable disadvantage of having the injudicious, inexperienced, self-sufficient workers tear down what the more experienced and judicious labored to build up. One man can tear down more houses than ten men can build. Two men can tear up more rail-road track than fifty men can put down. In Michigan all are trying to help each other build, and we are loth to labor where the chances of having our work torn down are nine out of ten. Much labor has been expended in the east, and there is but little to show for it. If our friends in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut think themselves qualified to manage the cause, and choose to suffer inexperienced men, who are comparative strangers, to lead off, they probably will not be disturbed in their opinions. If the sad experience in the past, connected with men whose names we forbear to mention, is not enough to satisfy them of the folly of every man's running an independent train of his own, then let them have more of this kind of experience, but not at the expense of those who wish to labor where united brethren understandingly help each other to build up the cause. Calls come in from Rhode Island. These calls make a deep impression on the minds of those who have read them. But we do not see how anything can be done to fill them till general conference convenes. These very calls constitute one reason why the Conference should be held soon. If General Conference should appoint men to labor in those portions of the eastern States where there is no organization, to take the oversight of the work there, to encourage those who should preach, and discourage those who should not, then we could hope that something permanent would be accomplished. But should it be decided that every man should labor where he pleases, and as he pleases, without reference to the labors and views of others, and that the Review should be open to every man's appointments, opinion, and report, then hope of the prosperity of the cause dies, and we wish to make a timely retreat from the scene of confusion. At present we utterly refuse to publish appointments and reports of meetings and discussions of those who are not acknowledged as preachers by some organized body of Sabbath-keepers. As long as we have connection with it, we shall object to the Review's giving influence to self-called or untried ministers. Brethren in the east, shall we have order? or shall we have confusion? Shall we have a General Conference this spring to which you can appeal, and state your choice, and set forth your wants? Let us hear from preachers and people.